The Baltimore Orioles Thread (merged)

[JDPNYY]

::::Wondering why this is allowed to continue infinitely::::

[Saxmania]

Seems to me that you have a selective memory about things I was wrong about and things I was right about.

Seems to me you have a selective memory about the things I have a selective memory about! I'm thinking here of:

'The Orioles aren't whipping boys of the AL East anymore' - well, they sure are!

'The new bullpen will make a big difference to the Orioles this year' - technically true, it made them worse than ever

'When that new MASN money comes in, Baltimore will be able to compete' - it certainly helped them compete for worst MLB season in the last 50 years!

'Tampa Bay have a minimal chance of winning the AL East ever' - they did it less than two seasons later, and made the World Series to boot

'Greater payroll disparity has made it impossible for small-market teams to complete' - as proven above, they're competing better than ever

'The new CBA (in 2007) will bring a salary cap; most owners want it' - the new CBA made no changes to bring in a salary cap at all

And let's not forget Daniel Cabrera as the new Sandy Koufax! Or was it Randy Johnson?

Bobby, you're wrong a heck of a lot. And often it's because the facts are available to prevent you looking foolish, but you ignore them, because they contradict your opinions.

Knowingly telling falsehoods when the facts are available to avoid doing so is called lying, bobby.

Free agency and team payroll were not as important in determining who won in the late '70's as it is today. Fat chance of seeing a 1979 Pittsburgh-Baltimore WS these days.

You're saying that we are unlikely to have bad teams in the World Series? I agree. But there's every chance of us having low-payroll teams in the World Series, because we just had two in three years!

2007: Colorado Rockies, 26th in payroll
2008: Tampa Bay Devil Rays, 29th in payroll

So the chances of seeing the Pirates or Orioles in the Series are, indeed, slender. But the chances of seeing the Rays (21st), the Rangers (27th), the Padres (29th), are relatively strong. Because they're actually quite good teams, with intelligent ownership and the ability to put together strong rosters. Arguing that the Orioles and the Pirates should be there is like complaining that Jay Gibbons should win the HR title instead of Albert Pujols.

I know, I know. Reviewing the whole of MLB is 'cherrypicking', while going on and on about how the Orioles deserve a World Series despite being bad, and the Yankees don't deserve one despite being good, is insightful analysis.

I'm just continually impressed by the way you can ignore facts if they contradict your opinion, meanwhile pretending that your opinions should be treated like facts. It's like a skill, in the same way that Peter Angelos' ability to run a once-proud franchise into the ground is a skill.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Mark19]

Seems to me you have a selective memory about the things I have a selective memory about! I'm thinking here of:

'The Orioles aren't whipping boys of the AL East anymore' - well, they sure are!

'The new bullpen will make a big difference to the Orioles this year' - technically true, it made them worse than ever

'When that new MASN money comes in, Baltimore will be able to compete' - it certainly helped them compete for worst MLB season in the last 50 years!

'Tampa Bay have a minimal chance of winning the AL East ever' - they did it less than two seasons later, and made the World Series to boot

'Greater payroll disparity has made it impossible for small-market teams to complete' - as proven above, they're competing better than ever

'The new CBA (in 2007) will bring a salary cap; most owners want it' - the new CBA made no changes to bring in a salary cap at all

And let's not forget Daniel Cabrera as the new Sandy Koufax! Or was it Randy Johnson?

Bobby, you're wrong a heck of a lot. And often it's because the facts are available to prevent you looking foolish, but you ignore them, because they contradict your opinions.

Knowingly telling falsehoods when the facts are available to avoid doing so is called lying, bobby.



You're saying that we are unlikely to have bad teams in the World Series? I agree. But there's every chance of us having low-payroll teams in the World Series, because we just had two in three years!

2007: Colorado Rockies, 26th in payroll
2008: Tampa Bay Devil Rays, 29th in payroll

So the chances of seeing the Pirates or Orioles in the Series are, indeed, slender. But the chances of seeing the Rays (21st), the Rangers (27th), the Padres (29th), are relatively strong. Because they're actually quite good teams, with intelligent ownership and the ability to put together strong rosters.

I know, I know. Reviewing the whole of MLB is 'cherrypicking', while going on and on about how the Orioles deserve a World Series despite being bad, and the Yankees don't deserve one despite being good, is insightful analysis.

I'm just continually impressed by the way you can ignore facts if they contradict your opinion, meanwhile pretending that your opinions should be treated like facts. It's like a skill, in the same way that Peter Angelos' ability to run a once-proud franchise into the ground is a skill.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

Thorough, compelling and 100% true -- the bobby jr-bot will respond with "but the current system is fundamentally unfair because low payroll teams can't compete" in 5....4....3....2...

[YankeePride1967]

Bobby has been right? When was that? I must have missed it.

[Saxmania]

Fun fact: Last year was the first time since 2004 that two MLB teams in the top 10 of payroll met in the World Series. It happened each year from 1999 to 2001, however.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[bobby jr]

As I predicted, once again in 2010 team payroll has a strong correlation to whether a team is successful.

I just looked at the USA today team salary database and compared it to the standings. While the results are not as striking as some previous years, the pattern is a clear one. High payroll teams have a greater chance of being successful. Therefore large market teams have an advantage in MLB, as they have higher revenues and can afford a high payroll.

*Out of the top 12 payroll teams in MLB, 11 have a winning record. Repeat: 11 out of 12. Only the Cubs have a losing record out of the top payroll teams. (was that Lou Pinella retiring , or him getting pushed out the door?)

*Out of the bottom 13 payroll teams in MLB, only 4 have a winning record. The Padres, Toronto, the Reds, and the Rays.

The pattern is again a clear one. As it is every year. I can look at the payroll figures on USA today and pretty much tell which teams will be successful, with a few exceptions of course.

As for the Orioles, another disappointment today. I think it is time for the new manager to step in, within the next couple of weeks. We can't afford to wait until the end of the year.

[R.V.47]

As I predicted, once again in 2010 team payroll has a strong correlation to whether a team is successful.

I just looked at the USA today team salary database and compared it to the standings. While the results are not as striking as some previous years, the pattern is a clear one. High payroll teams have a greater chance of being successful. Therefore large market teams have an advantage in MLB, as they have higher revenues and can afford a high payroll.

*Out of the top 12 payroll teams in MLB, 11 have a winning record. Repeat: 11 out of 12. Only the Cubs have a losing record out of the top payroll teams. (was that Lou Pinella retiring , or him getting pushed out the door?)

*Out of the bottom 13 payroll teams in MLB, only 4 have a winning record. The Padres, Toronto, the Reds, and the Rays.

The pattern is again a clear one. As it is every year. I can look at the payroll figures on USA today and pretty much tell which teams will be successful, with a few exceptions of course.

As for the Orioles, another disappointment today. I think it is time for the new manager to step in, within the next couple of weeks. We can't afford to wait until the end of the year.

But as an Orioles fan this argument doesnt work. Your team has the market size and the resources to spend just as much as other teams. Theyve even tried it in the past. There problem is ownership and bad decision making, not the MLB salary system.

[hellonewman]

O's vs. Original Mets:

1964 Mets 53-109, .327
2010 O's, 31-67, .316
1963 Mets 51-111, .314
1965 Mets 50-112, .308
1962 Mets 40-120, .250

[Saxmania]

The pattern is again a clear one. As it is every year.

Another lie, as was demonstrated above.

For a start, you missed out the Rangers, who are 27th in payroll, but have a .582 winning percentage. So 5 of the bottom 13 teams in payroll have a .500 winning percentage or higher. Three of those are the Pirates, the Royals, and the Orioles, who frankly don't seem to be trying to win. That leaves 5 out of 10. Which is half. Hmm.

In fact, the Rangers lead their division. Which means that if the playoffs started tomorrow, three of the eight teams would be from the lowest third of payroll teams. That's . . . more than 33%. Wow!

Second, the Mariners are ninth in payroll, but are well under .500. That's another you've missed. Did you read http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrum...ampayrolls.htm carefully?

Third, you claim this trend is clear, and is so every year. Which, as demonstrated above, is untrue. Low payroll teams have almost as much chance to reach the playoffs as high ones, and that includes no-hopers/no-triers like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore.

Fourth, how come you claim to be able to predict which teams would succeed, yet your previous predictions (see above) are so disastrously wrong?

Fifth, 'top 12' and 'bottom 13' are the very definition of selective endpoints. And you still haven't explained why you think low payroll teams should be able to win as often as high payroll teams!

You were right about something - the Orioles are woeful. Even here, however, you missed the point - a new manager won't be much except papering over the cracks.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[bobby jr]

Another lie, as was demonstrated above.

For a start, you missed out the Rangers, who are 27th in payroll, but have a .582 winning percentage. So 5 of the bottom 13 teams in payroll have a .500 winning percentage or higher. Three of those are the Pirates, the Royals, and the Orioles, who frankly don't seem to be trying to win. That leaves 5 out of 10. Which is half. Hmm.

In fact, the Rangers lead their division. Which means that if the playoffs started tomorrow, three of the eight teams would be from the lowest third of payroll teams. That's . . . more than 33%. Wow!

Second, the Mariners are ninth in payroll, but are well under .500. That's another you've missed. Did you read http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrum...ampayrolls.htm carefully?

Third, you claim this trend is clear, and is so every year. Which, as demonstrated above, is untrue. Low payroll teams have almost as much chance to reach the playoffs as high ones, and that includes no-hopers/no-triers like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore.

Fourth, how come you claim to be able to predict which teams would succeed, yet your previous predictions (see above) are so disastrously wrong?

Fifth, 'top 12' and 'bottom 13' are the very definition of selective endpoints. And you still haven't explained why you think low payroll teams should be able to win as often as high payroll teams!

You were right about something - the Orioles are woeful. Even here, however, you missed the point - a new manager won't be much except papering over the cracks.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

I did miss Texas on the bottom 13. However:

I said I was using the USA today database . Here is the link.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/b...aspx?year=2010

According to this listing the Seattle Mariners are 14th in payroll. Therefore they would not be in the "top 12" which I cited. Remember I said I was using the USA today salary database, not the link you cited. So the fact remains that 11 out of the top 12 payroll teams on the USA today site have winning records.
If that isn't a pattern of positive correlation between winning percentage and team payroll then I don't know what is.



Now as for digging up old quotations to show I was "wrong", sorry but I don't have the time to play that game and dig up old quotations of when I was right. Don't see the point of it. The thread isn't about me, it's about the Orioles and Major League Baseball.

Also I won't say you "lied" for saying I left Seattle out when I didn't. I know the difference between a mistake and a lie. You made a mistake. It would serve you better if you left out the pejorative statements in the future. They do not reflect well upon you, or what you post. Also they make me less likely to respond (although I made an exception this time).

[YankeePride1967]

As I predicted, once again in 2010 team payroll has a strong correlation to whether a team is successful.

I just looked at the USA today team salary database and compared it to the standings. While the results are not as striking as some previous years, the pattern is a clear one. High payroll teams have a greater chance of being successful. Therefore large market teams have an advantage in MLB, as they have higher revenues and can afford a high payroll.

*Out of the top 12 payroll teams in MLB, 11 have a winning record. Repeat: 11 out of 12. Only the Cubs have a losing record out of the top payroll teams. (was that Lou Pinella retiring , or him getting pushed out the door?)

*Out of the bottom 13 payroll teams in MLB, only 4 have a winning record. The Padres, Toronto, the Reds, and the Rays.

The pattern is again a clear one. As it is every year. I can look at the payroll figures on USA today and pretty much tell which teams will be successful, with a few exceptions of course.

As for the Orioles, another disappointment today. I think it is time for the new manager to step in, within the next couple of weeks. We can't afford to wait until the end of the year.

Typical Bobby playing loose with "facts" again. Bobby you never fail to amuse here. A few weeks ago when people brought up TB, Texas and San Diego all teams either in first or in the playoffs that are small market teams, your response? "What have they won yet? A lot can happen between now and the end of the season". Fair enough, not a bad way to look at it.

But now when you bring up some half-truths that fit your baseless opinions now the rest of the year is meaningless? Come on Bobby give us a break! LOL

[YankeePride1967]

I did miss Texas on the bottom 13. However:

I said I was using the USA today database . Here is the link.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/b...aspx?year=2010

According to this listing the Seattle Mariners are 14th in payroll. Therefore they would not be in the "top 12" which I cited. Remember I said I was using the USA today salary database, not the link you cited. So the fact remains that 11 out of the top 12 payroll teams on the USA today site have winning records.
If that isn't a pattern of positive correlation between winning percentage and team payroll then I don't know what is.



Now as for digging up old quotations to show I was "wrong", sorry but I don't have the time to play that game and dig up old quotations of when I was right. Don't see the point of it.

Also I won't say you "lied" for saying I left Seattle out when I didn't. I know the difference between a mistake and a lie. You made a mistake. It would serve you better if you left out the pejorative statements in the future. They do not reflect well upon you, or what you post. Also they make me less likely to respond.

No Bobby I wouldn't say lie, but you conveniently omit facts when they don't match your agenda.

[bobby jr]

Typical Bobby playing loose with "facts" again. Bobby you never fail to amuse here. A few weeks ago when people brought up TB, Texas and San Diego all teams either in first or in the playoffs that are small market teams, your response? "What have they won yet? A lot can happen between now and the end of the season". Fair enough, not a bad way to look at it.

But now when you bring up some half-truths that fit your baseless opinions now the rest of the year is meaningless? Come on Bobby give us a break! LOL

When did I say the rest of the year is meaningless?

There has posted here in the last few weeks about how this year's standings supposedly proved the small market teams could win. So I looked for myself today at the team payroll figures, and the top payroll teams were still winning. I expect this general pattern will continue for the rest of the year and I could post a similar observation on October 2. Time will tell.

[bobby jr]

No Bobby I wouldn't say lie, but you conveniently omit facts when they don't match your agenda.

Don't all politicians do that?

Also it seems to me that other posters on this forum could be accused of the same thing.

[roblyo33]

Is there any way that this thread can be blown up or locked??? It is such a waste of bandwidth.

[YankeePride1967]

The easiest way to avoid threads you have no interest in is to not click on them.

[C4v]

This thread should never be locked. Even though this debate is futile and going absolutely nowhere, I cant help but feel entertained. Its like watching some little kid get his ass kicked by a bigger kid and keeps coming back for more. Its kinda courageous in a way but truly sad.

[Saxmania]

I did miss Texas on the bottom 13. However:

I said I was using the USA today database . Here is the link.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/b...aspx?year=2010

According to this listing the Seattle Mariners are 14th in payroll. Therefore they would not be in the "top 12" which I cited.

Strange. Okay, you can have Seattle, even though the #1 Google page for 'MLB 2010 payroll', says they're 9th: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams. And the #2 page: http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrum...ampayrolls.htm.


Now explain to me how three of the eight playoff slots right now are being occupied by teams in the bottom third of payroll.

Remember I said I was using the USA today salary database, not the link you cited. So the fact remains that 11 out of the top 12 payroll teams on the USA today site have winning records.
If that isn't a pattern of positive correlation between winning percentage and team payroll then I don't know what is.

And remember when I said that three of the eight playoff slots right now are being occupied by teams in the bottom third of payroll, and two of the last six World Series attendees were in the bottom 25% of payroll. If that isn't competitive balance then I don't know what is.

Now as for digging up old quotations to show I was "wrong", sorry but I don't have the time to play that game and dig up old quotations of when I was right. Don't see the point of it. The thread isn't about me, it's about the Orioles and Major League Baseball.

The point is that you are making future predictions about MLB that have been proven wrong - when you claim that 'small-market' teams can't compete (they can) and that they can't win a World Series (they can). Your ability to understand how the business of baseball works has been demonstrated to be near non-existent.

Given that, when you make foolish statements about how competitive balance has been damaged by free agency, and how small-market teams can never again compete, we only have to look at your appalling record of inaccuracy to be confident that the reverse is probably the case.

Also I won't say you "lied" for saying I left Seattle out when I didn't. I know the difference between a mistake and a lie. You made a mistake. It would serve you better if you left out the pejorative statements in the future. They do not reflect well upon you, or what you post. Also they make me less likely to respond (although I made an exception this time).

An exception? But they don't count?

I won't say you "lied" for missing out the Rangers either. But I will say that you lie because you continue to post that competitive balance is worse now than it used to be, because you continue to post that free agency has prevented small-market teams from competing, and because you continue to post that the Yankees are bad for baseball. All these statements have been demonstrated to be false, several times over, and not just by me.

I'll stop calling you a liar when you stop lying, in short. You can choose not to respond to posts that point out when you lie, but by doing so you prove yourself unable to accept facts in place of your own unproven prejudices.

I'm more than happy to have conversations about how Baltimore can get better, and how they can deal with the definite disadvantage of competing against two high-payroll teams and one smart teams in the same division. It's a challenge. I've never denied that.

If you're going to whine, and blame others for the misfortunes of your team, and mis-represent facts, and ignore statements to the contrary of your position when they are backed by those facts, and cast aspersions on others, then I'm going to call that what it is - lying.

This isn't a difference of opinions. This is one person refusing to admit that the facts contradict their precious opinion, and trying to deflect from it. The Orioles deserve a better advocate, and this forum deserves better conversation.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[aeromac76]

It depends on what is being sold here..

If there is a thought process that having a higher payroll enhances the chance of a given team going to the playoffs, that I will buy.

But if you are selling more absolutes (that having a higher payroll guarantees anything, or that a lack of cap is ruining competitive balance) then nope, it's not true..

[bobby jr]

It depends on what is being sold here..

If there is a thought process that having a higher payroll enhances the chance of a given team going to the playoffs, that I will buy.

But if you are selling more absolutes (that having a higher payroll guarantees anything, or that a lack of cap is ruining competitive balance) then nope, it's not true..

Well of course nothing is guaranteed.

But let's look at the Yankees for example. The Yankees have made the playoffs 14 out of 15 years, and they have by far the largest payroll in MLB. Their success is in large part to their ability to retain home grown talent by paying salaries high enough not to lose any players to free agency, to signing free agents themselves, and being able to afford expensive contracts other teams can not afford.

Is this competitive balance, having one team which has a record far above .500 each year? A team which is never out of running for the playoffs and usually makes the playoffs, and never has down cycles (at least since the early 90's?) I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the lack of a cap is causing competitive imbalances, at least in the AL East.

The Rays are of course the exception but it is quite unlikely they will have a run like the Yankees of being a winning team for 20 years.

[Rice14]

Well of course nothing is guaranteed.

But let's look at the Yankees for example. The Yankees have made the playoffs 14 out of 15 years, and they have by far the largest payroll in MLB. Their success is in large part to their ability to retain home grown talent by paying salaries high enough not to lose any players to free agency, to signing free agents themselves, and being able to afford expensive contracts other teams can not afford.

Is this competitive balance, having one team which has a record far above .500 each year? A team which is never out of running for the playoffs and usually makes the playoffs, and never has down cycles (at least since the early 90's?) I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the lack of a cap is causing competitive imbalances, at least in the AL East.

The Rays are of course the exception but it is quite unlikely they will have a run like the Yankees of being a winning team for 20 years.

The Braves also had a run of 14 out of 15 years in the playoffs....

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

There has posted here in the last few weeks about how this year's standings supposedly proved the small market teams could win. So I looked for myself today at the team payroll figures, and the top payroll teams were still winning.

If the question is whether or not small market teams can win, why are you looking at payroll? If market size is the isue, probably makes sense to look at market size. I wouldn't say a snapshot at a given point in time proves anything, but I would say that it provides useful evidence. Using this site, the smallest markets in mlb, in order from the smallest, are:

Tampa - winning record, currently in playoffs
Cincy - winning record, currently 0.5 games out of division and 1.5 out of WC
Pitt - losing record, completely uncompetitive
St. Louis - winning record, currently in the playoffs
Miami - .500 record, alive but not on the doorstep of playoffs
Minneapolis - winning record, currently 1 game out of playoffs
Oakland - winning record, alive but not on the doorstep of playoffs
Atlanta - winning record, currently in playoffs
KC - losing record, uncompetitive
Cleveland - losing record, uncompetitive

So, with the caveat that this a mid-season look at a single season, the evidence certainly suggests that small market teams can win and compete for playoff spots.

[aeromac76]

Well of course nothing is guaranteed.

But let's look at the Yankees for example. The Yankees have made the playoffs 14 out of 15 years, and they have by far the largest payroll in MLB. Their success is in large part to their ability to retain home grown talent by paying salaries high enough not to lose any players to free agency, to signing free agents themselves, and being able to afford expensive contracts other teams can not afford.

Is this competitive balance, having one team which has a record far above .500 each year? A team which is never out of running for the playoffs and usually makes the playoffs, and never has down cycles (at least since the early 90's?) I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the lack of a cap is causing competitive imbalances, at least in the AL East.

The Rays are of course the exception but it is quite unlikely they will have a run like the Yankees of being a winning team for 20 years.

What you have said is true, but you cannot latch onto one team for competitive balance.
Competitive balance is a landscape based argument. If new trees are born and grow every year, you cannot simply point to the one that always stands above all else and say it's not worth it to keep planting seeds.

The fact is, the NFL and NBA both have salary caps in varying forms. And yet still, they have had fewer teams with their titles in the past 20 years. Baseball has fewer playoff spots than any other sport, and if you look at it commensurately, comparing spots available to teams in the game, it does not speak to competitive imbalance.
In the AL East, a division most look to to state their case for a salary cap, 60% of the teams there have appeared in the playoffs in the past 5 years. If things continue as they seem this year, 60% of AL East teams will be able to say they have claimed MULTIPLE playoff berths in the past 5 years.
AL Central, Indians, White Sox, Tigers and Twins. All teams with recent playoff spots. Only KC left out, that's 80%.
AL West, The Angels seem to be the one team that is dominant here. It's funny, the Angels hold the one AL monopoly of recent years and are never cited for the imbalance argument.

In this case, perception seems to be clouding reality.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Is this competitive balance, having one team which has a record far above .500 each year? A team which is never out of running for the playoffs and usually makes the playoffs, and never has down cycles (at least since the early 90's?)

No, it's not competitive balance. Given that teams have had similar success without payroll disparity, both in mlb and in the salary capped nfl, nba and nhl, the evidence suggests that competitive imbalance exists absent of any payroll disparity.

[bobby jr]

If the question is whether or not small market teams can win, why are you looking at payroll? If market size is the isue, probably makes sense to look at market size. I wouldn't say a snapshot at a given point in time proves anything, but I would say that it provides useful evidence. Using this site, the smallest markets in mlb, in order from the smallest, are:

Tampa - winning record, currently in playoffs
Cincy - winning record, currently 0.5 games out of division and 1.5 out of WC
Pitt - losing record, completely uncompetitive
St. Louis - winning record, currently in the playoffs
Miami - .500 record, alive but not on the doorstep of playoffs
Minneapolis - winning record, currently 1 game out of playoffs
Oakland - winning record, alive but not on the doorstep of playoffs
Atlanta - winning record, currently in playoffs
KC - losing record, uncompetitive
Cleveland - losing record, uncompetitive

So, with the caveat that this a mid-season look at a single season, the evidence certainly suggests that small market teams can win and compete for playoff spots.

Interesting. I should have specified "small payroll" instead of "small market size", as they are not equivalent. There are other factors besides market size which would affect a team's ability to have a high payroll.

But the competitive problem still exists for the smaller payroll teams, in comparison to the high payroll teams, as a general rule. There is still a positive correlation between regular season winning percentage, and team payroll, in MLB.

[NelsonMuntz]

Is there any way that this thread can be blown up or locked??? It is such a waste of badwidth.

I agree. I used to find bubby's routine amusing but its run its course. He's been exposed as a liar and a troll. Time to move on.

[Yankees Empire]

Meanwhile the eloquent argument of Saxmania posted above goes predictably unanswered.

Cowardice on parade.

[Rice14]

I love how the argument has shifted from small market teams are at a disadvantage to small payroll teams are at a disadvantage.

If you own a big market team and get outspent by a small market team, maybe you need to figure out what you're doing wrong.

[bobby jr]

I agree. I used to find bubby's routine amusing but its run its course. He's been exposed as a liar and a troll. Time to move on.

Grow up. I've not lied one time on the forum. In point of fact I pride myself on honesty. Also I post what I believe. Perhaps you are ignorant of what a "troll" is.

If you have something to say that's on the Orioles that's worth worth posting , then say it. Otherwise, I'd suggest that you stay off the forum. Name calling and pejorative accusations have no place in a forum, but perhaps that is all you have to offer.

[bobby jr]

Meanwhile the eloquent argument of Saxmania posted above goes predictably unanswered.

Cowardice on parade.

Big man, sitting at your keyboard and anonymously calling others cowards over the internet. I've already answered his "eloquent" argument..

This forum used to be a place for reasoned polite, and rational discussion. This seems to no longer be the case. I have better things to do than waste my time with these kind of posts. Nor will I respond in kind. I'm out of here.

[cupcollector99]

Say it ain't so..

[YankeePride1967]

Don't hold your breathe, he'll be back in a day or two with a post declaring baseball needs a salary cap. You know, something different.

[Yankees Empire]

Big man, sitting at your keyboard and anonymously calling others cowards over the internet. I've already answered his "eloquent" argument..

This forum used to be a place for reasoned polite, and rational discussion. This seems to no longer be the case. I have better things to do than waste my time with these kind of posts. Nor will I respond in kind. I'm out of here.

First of all, why would you assume I was referring to you?

Secondly, if you are such a stalwart of rational and mannered integrity, why is it that you have consistently for years ignored the best and most reasoned arguments to your points of view? How could that be? You say you have "answered" Sax's most recent post yet, I don't see it quoted in any of your responses following his post. Please tell me, from the height of your moral soapbox, how this isn't dishonest? Hard to believe you'd let Sax's questioning of your integrity go unanswered- especially in the light of your daunting intellect and soaring grasp of debate and argumentation.

You bemoan people rehasing the whole salary cap/ MLB financial stucture argument time and time again yet are quick to repeat the same categorically disproven rhetoric.

This forum has long been and will continue to be "a place for reasoned polite, and rational discussion." Your tolerated participation over the years proves this point.

You're "out of here?" How predictable. A slew of arguments rise up to disprove your nonsense and you vanish. You'll be missed. Still, we both know you'll be back.

[hardrain]

bobby gets like this when he's over-tired. He'll be back.

[hellonewman]

I'm out of here.

Not a chance.

[hellonewman]

Hey Bobby, look who's Number 3!!

O's vs. Original Mets:

1964 Mets 53-109, .327
1963 Mets 51-111, .314
2010 O's, 31-68, .313
1965 Mets 50-112, .308
1962 Mets 40-120, .250

[Ram Man]

Hey Bobby, look who's Number 3!!

O's vs. Original Mets:

1964 Mets 53-109, .327
1963 Mets 51-111, .314
2010 O's, 31-68, .313
1965 Mets 50-112, .308
1962 Mets 40-120, .250

What did I tell you?

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.p...postcount=5594

[BroadwayBomber55]

Well of course nothing is guaranteed.

But let's look at the Yankees for example. The Yankees have made the playoffs 14 out of 15 years, and they have by far the largest payroll in MLB. Their success is in large part to their ability to retain home grown talent by paying salaries high enough not to lose any players to free agency, to signing free agents themselves, and being able to afford expensive contracts other teams can not afford.

Is this competitive balance, having one team which has a record far above .500 each year? A team which is never out of running for the playoffs and usually makes the playoffs, and never has down cycles (at least since the early 90's?) I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the lack of a cap is causing competitive imbalances, at least in the AL East.

The Rays are of course the exception but it is quite unlikely they will have a run like the Yankees of being a winning team for 20 years.

And yet, MLB despite not having a salary cap like the NFL, NBA and NHL do, had the most teams winning at least one world title in the last 30 years with 19.

And also, 20 out of 30 teams since 2003 had at least one playoff appearance.

So, where's your beef? The problem with the Orioles is the front office and the coaching staff.

[hellonewman]

What did I tell you?

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.p...postcount=5594

That 1-2 pitching punch of Al Jackson and Carl Willey seems to be too much for the Orioles to contend with.

[JDPNYY]

It would be cool if when people declared they were out of here, the Moderators would oblige.

[Ram Man]

That 1-2 pitching punch of Al Jackson and Carl Willey seems to be too much for the Orioles to contend with.

Not to mention Duke Snider raking all over the park.

[Mr Coffee]

This forum used to be a place for reasoned polite, and rational discussion. This seems to no longer be the case. I have better things to do than waste my time with these kind of posts. Nor will I respond in kind. I'm out of here.

[roblyo33]

Hallelulah

[hardrain]

Does the O's loss tonight hurt their pennant chances much?

[hellonewman]

As much as the first 67 and the next 45 or so.

[NyQuil]

If bobby leave how will I ever find out how he rationalizes that Bal/DC corridor being a small market that can't compete with the Yankees.

[Yankees13]

Saxmania= Harlem Globetrotters. Bobbyjr= Washington Generals.

(Awaits comment about how the small-market Generals couldn't fairly compete with the big, bad Globetrotters from New York)

[#1PaFan]

Fear Not! junior shan't be gone for long. He does this every time that Sax beats the crap out of him.

Yet again junior, the O's have a fantastic stadium in a fantastic part of Baltimore.
Unless you ARE Peter Angelos (which wouldn't surprise me at this point), you should, as one of the fifteen or sixteen Orioles fans left, be really mad at what happened to this once proud franchise.

I feel really bad for Brooks. I met him when I was just a youngster, and he was a very proud member of the Oriole Family.
Unfortunately for Brooks, that Family is now just a disjointed, dysfunctional heaping mound of angelo................. So sad.

[4bronxbombers]

Aww Bobby

[Saxmania]

Would it really have been that bad to post:

"Okay, look. I've probably over-stated the case for a salary cap in the past, and I've definitely been one of the (many) Orioles fans who have given Angelos too much trust and too much time. The state of this franchise pisses me off, and it's frustrating to watch other teams improve while Baltimore goes backwards. And sometimes that's probably led me to be very selective in using facts.

I do think that the current MLB economic model has some flaws, although I accept that they're probably not as serious as I've made them sound, and that alternative models like a salary cap have some flaws too. And being on a Yankee forum, I maybe target the Yankees too often as an example of a team doing well and having greater resources than mine.

But I do think there are arguments to be made for a different way of running MLB which would be good for everyone, not just the Orioles."

Oh. Apparently it would have been that bad. Never mind, then.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania