BRob's contract...in hindsight

[Sports Guy]

Do you still like/dislike the contract given to BRob?

[jtschrei]

I never liked it. It was always one or two years too long. But... the O's had to keep the face of the franchise, especially when they were as low as they were. I can live with the contract if he plays at a high level for the next 2 years. We'll see...

[TiredofLosing20]

I don't know. I thought it was a fair contract at the time. The length seemed a little long. Ask me again when its over.

[clapdiddy]

I was mildly against the contract, and I'm still against it. It's just way too much money tied up on him.

I wish a productive trade could have been worked out for him.

I am very worried about his health, because the backup options here are pretty horrible.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Was for it now against. Mostly because I don't trust him being able to stay healthy.

[TiredofLosing20]

I was mildly against the contract, and I'm still against it. It's just way too much money tied up on him.

I wish a productive trade could have been worked out for him.

I am very worried about his health, because the backup options here are pretty horrible.

Yeah, his health is the key here. But isn't that usually the case. If (big if) he is healthy the next two years I think you can argue that it wasn't a bad contract.

[Craig...No Dots]

We always talk about how crucial he is to our line-up and how hard it is to get top tier players to come her via FA. I saw it as a good signing then, and although injuries can make ANY signing look foolish, I still think it is worth it now. 10 million dollars (if healthy) for player who will lock down the lead-off spot, plus cause serious trouble on the bases for pitchers, plus give you above average defense and hes a really positive guy for the clubhouse and the community.

To get a player of his caliber to come here via FA, we would have to spend more than the 10MM per anum we give him now.

[Stotle]

Was against the deal and still am. Just too much risk for too much money, in my opinion. Would have been nice to have another 1st round and a supplemental 1st pick last draft.

[Birds08]

Look it wasn't a great contract, but he is the heart and soul of the team and is still in the top half of ML second basemen. It's not like the money would've been used anywhere else.

[lint06]

He was worth the money at the time, is one of the few homegrown folks that have panned out, seems like a great guy for the community, and the contract showed the fans we were willing to pay for the quality we brought up. Injuries don't mitigate any of those factors. If Roberts falls off a cliff (stats-wise) while staying healthy, then yes, it was a bad contract. But if injuries keep him down, then that has nothing to do with the quality of the contract.

Was Albert belle a bad contract? Nope. Injuries took him out, not Albert. A contract is a good contract unless the stats don't bare giving a contract of "X" years and cash.

If you are talking about it being too long, then you might have a point, but again, I think as a fan, I want the Os to keep their homegrown goodness.

[Frobby]

Brian played in 59 games last year and his performance was still valued by fangraphs at $6.1 mm. Over 140 games that would still be a $14 mm player. So, I think there is still a decent chance that when the 4 years are over, he will come close to earning his $40 mm.

You know what, I don't regret it at all. If it turns out we overpaid him by a bit from a fangraphs point of view, I will live with it. He's been a very good player for us for a long time, a great community citizen, and a fan favorite. If you're going to overpay a guy, that's the guy.

[Crazysilver03]

Was against the deal and still am. Just too much risk for too much money, in my opinion. Would have been nice to have another 1st round and a supplemental 1st pick last draft.

Do you really think Angelos would have let Roberts leave via FA after nixing the deal to send him to Atlanta?

I was for resigning him because I like him at the top of the line-up. I don't think any one could foresee him suffer a back injury last season but he did come back fairly strong.

[NCRaven]

Brian played in 59 games last year and his performance was still valued by fangraphs at $6.1 mm. Over 140 games that would still be a $14 mm player. So, I think there is still a decent chance that when the 4 years are over, he will come close to earning his $40 mm.

You know what, I don't regret it at all. If it turns out we overpaid him by a bit from a fangraphs point of view, I will live with it. He's been a very good player for us for a long time, a great community citizen, and a fan favorite. If you're going to overpay a guy, that's the guy.

My feelings exactly. For it then, for it now. People point to how well the team performed when Buck took over. Amazing how that coincided with the return of Brian Roberts to our lineup. He has every bit as much chance of earning his contract as Markakis does. Both were good decisions, IMO.

[SilentJames]

He will earn his contract with his play. I really think people are digging Roberts injury grave a little too quickly. Yes the back thing was bad, but for all we know he is back to 100% right now.

Since becoming the starting second baseman he only has one season where he played fewer than 140 games.

I understand he is older and we are all worried about his back but until he is actually missing games lets give him a chance. Just saying.

he Roberts contract was a good one to give out at the time, maybe a little long but sometimes you overpay in years instead of money.

[Frobby]

Since becoming the starting second baseman he only has one season where he played fewer than 140 games.


Two seasons -- 2006 (138) and 2010 (59). Not trying to undercut the rest of the post, which I agree with.

[SilentJames]

Two seasons -- 2006 (138) and 2010 (59). Not trying to undercut the rest of the post, which I agree with.

Sorry I should have said "before last year" but yeah I hope that was implied.

[Stotle]

Do you really think Angelos would have let Roberts leave via FA after nixing the deal to send him to Atlanta?

I was for resigning him because I like him at the top of the line-up. I don't think any one could foresee him suffer a back injury last season but he did come back fairly strong.

I'm not sure what the first question has to do with whether or not the contract was good, or something BAL should have pursued.

Anyone could foresee SOME sort of injury issues, as it simply is not uncommon for an undersized player at a highly physical position to break down around BRobs age. History tells us second basemen do not age well after around 32. I'm not sure a serious injury should have caught anyone by surprise.

[Crazysilver03]

I'm not sure what the first question has to do with whether or not the contract was good, or something BAL should have pursued.
.

You said you would have rather had two extra picks in the draft, but knowing how the Orioles front office operates, do you really think there was ever a real possibility of that situation.

[Sports Guy]

Brian played in 59 games last year and his performance was still valued by fangraphs at $6.1 mm. Over 140 games that would still be a $14 mm player. So, I think there is still a decent chance that when the 4 years are over, he will come close to earning his $40 mm.

You know what, I don't regret it at all. If it turns out we overpaid him by a bit from a fangraphs point of view, I will live with it. He's been a very good player for us for a long time, a great community citizen, and a fan favorite. If you're going to overpay a guy, that's the guy.

Is it enough that he is likely to be worth the contract?

I felt he would be worth the contract but still felt it was a bad contract to give out.

[Stotle]

You said you would have rather had two extra picks in the draft, but knowing how the Orioles front office operates, do you really think there was ever a real possibility of that situation.

I don't understand your question. Should we close down the thread because the likelihood is that ownership would not let Roberts go? I thought the question was "what do you think about his contract now"?

[Crazysilver03]

I don't understand your question. Should we close down the thread because the likelihood is that ownership would not let Roberts go? I thought the question was "what do you think about his contract now"?

And I don't understand how you are being this dense.

You made a comment about rather having two draft picks over Roberts. I simply asked/stated that that probably never was an option because I doubt Angelos wouldn't let him leave.

That doesn't really have a baring on the thread question itself. But heaven forbid the discussion delves into something else.

[DrungoHazewood]

My feelings exactly. For it then, for it now. People point to how well the team performed when Buck took over. Amazing how that coincided with the return of Brian Roberts to our lineup. He has every bit as much chance of earning his contract as Markakis does. Both were good decisions, IMO.

Yep, for it then, for it now. $44M is not a giant sum at all, even in today's climate. If you're ever going to overpay, it's for a solid homegrown player at a key position who's willing to stick it out through the bad times.

[Stotle]

And I don't understand how you are being this dense.

You made a comment about rather having two draft picks over Roberts. I simply asked/stated that that probably never was an option because I doubt Angelos wouldn't let him leave.

That doesn't really have a baring on the thread question itself. But heaven forbid the discussion delves into something else.

I'm not trying to be dense -- really. But how on earth would anyone have an answer for your question unless they were part of the decision making in the FO?

I'll give it a shot. Yes, I think if AM has control over baseball decisions he absolutely could have let Roberts walk. They discussed trading him, so I think we can assume that having Roberts leave the organization was at least a possible outcome. There is no reason for me to believe that BAL had no choice but to give Roberts an extension.

[DrungoHazewood]

Is it enough that he is likely to be worth the contract?

I felt he would be worth the contract but still felt it was a bad contract to give out.

I'm not sure I understand. Why would you be against a contract the guy was worth?

[TiredofLosing20]

Is it enough that he is likely to be worth the contract?

I felt he would be worth the contract but still felt it was a bad contract to give out.

Because of timing in relation to competing?

[olehippi]

If Roberts hadn't been injured, the OP question would never have been asked. If Roberts stays healthy and productive for the remainder of his contract, no one will care about the year missed by injury. Besides, even hindsight isn't always 20/20.

[Sports Guy]

I'm not sure I understand. Why would you be against a contract the guy was worth?

1) His likely better years come in years where we realistically will not contend(and haven't).

2) His production will decline and we could get someone else to give us similar production for less money...see Orlando Hudson for example.

3) In the last year of his deal, he is barely a replacement level second baseman and we figure to be contending then...his presence in the lineup could hurt us more than help us.

4) On the open market, BRob isn't getting that deal. We could have likely signed him for less in FA.

We could sign Vlad to a 1/6 deal right now and there is a good chance he will be worth that...does that mean its a smart decision to sign him to that deal? No of course now.

[Sports Guy]

If Roberts hadn't been injured, the OP question would never have been asked. If Roberts stays healthy and productive for the remainder of his contract, no one will care about the year missed by injury. Besides, even hindsight isn't always 20/20.

1) That's not true.

2) The injury is obviously a huge factor.

[nerdlinger]

I think it was an important contract to give for other reasons too. Keeping Roberts and Markakis long term showed that we were serious about keeping our home grown talent. I'd hate to be like other teams that grow great young players and then when FA time comes have to let them go. We have the $$ to keep our players and this shows our willingness to do so.

[JDubs]

I wasn't enthusiastic about the contract at the time, but I was for it over the alternative of not extending BRob at all. Obviously, this was because of the risk associated with the contract's length. Despite the first half of last season, I think we have gotten the better side of that risk so far. So I voted for it then (mildly), for it now (slightly more than mildly).

[maudibjr]

I was originally against it, but I have come to appreciate the value of Roberts and think the contract will be good.

[Florida_Osfan]

Was against the deal and still am. Just too much risk for too much money, in my opinion. Would have been nice to have another 1st round and a supplemental 1st pick last draft.

Not to derail the entire thread, but would it really have been better? I'm not the biggest fan of JJ's drafting philosophy (aside from Matusz), so would the loss of BRob and the net of a supplemental pick really be worth the loss of our 2B and only leadoff hitter?

Even if he spends time on the DL for each year left on his contract, provided it's not half or all of a season, he'll likely be worth more than any draft pick we'd choose.

I know that's speculative, but do you really think the extra pick would have landed us a replacement by now? I'm not saying your point is bad, by the way, just curious if you have enough confidence in our player development/drafting.

[Stotle]

Not to derail the entire thread, but would it really have been better? I'm not the biggest fan of JJ's drafting philosophy (aside from Matusz), so would the loss of BRob and the net of a supplemental pick really be worth the loss of our 2B and only leadoff hitter?

Even if he spends time on the DL for each year left on his contract, provided it's not half or all of a season, he'll likely be worth more than any draft pick we'd choose.

I know that's speculative, but do you really think the extra pick would have landed us a replacement by now? I'm not saying your point is bad, by the way, just curious if you have enough confidence in our player development/drafting.

I think you could have signed a replacement like Hudson and gone on without too much issue. In fact, Hudson is exactly who I would have signed. If Roberts was willing to sign a contract that ended after 2011, I would be all over it. Otherwise, Hudson for two years would have been my preference.

Regarding the draft, the opportunity to draft two top 50 prospects is worth it, to me, independent of how you feel about Jordan's drafts.

[VThokie7]

When he signed it I would've been for trading him if the haul was worthwhile. But since we opted to keep him, I am for the contract. There is no question what he means to the team, the town, and the offense when on the field. As long as the back injury doesn't linger for the entire length, still a good contract.

If the back injury lingers, then how can you be for it? But hindsight is 20/20

[Sports Guy]

I think you could have signed a replacement like Hudson and gone on without too much issue. In fact, Hudson is exactly who I would have signed. If Roberts was willing to sign a contract that ended after 2011, I would be all over it. Otherwise, Hudson for two years would have been my preference.

Regarding the draft, the opportunity to draft two top 50 prospects is worth it, to me, independent of how you feel about Jordan's drafts.

Plus, after signing Hudson and the 2 picks, you probably have what, 25-30 million extra? That could have been better used for something else IMO.

[Florida_Osfan]

I think you could have signed a replacement like Hudson and gone on without too much issue. In fact, Hudson is exactly who I would have signed. If Roberts was willing to sign a contract that ended after 2011, I would be all over it. Otherwise, Hudson for two years would have been my preference.

Regarding the draft, the opportunity to draft two top 50 prospects is worth it, to me, independent of how you feel about Jordan's drafts.

I agree with you on the last point. Two first round picks would excite me if we had TB's drafting team or someone with a better track record. But we don't.

But let's look at our 2nd and 3rd picks over the past couple years: Avery, Hoes, Klein, and Givens. Some talent. Provided we got a 2 year deal on Hudson, that contract would be ending with not one of our picks ready to fill 2B. Perhaps JJ would have drafted differently, but it's debatable.

So, with those picks, and Hudson nearing the end of his contract, would you still feel good about our MI depth?

[srock]

Year Age Team Salary Sources Notes
2004 26 Baltimore Orioles $345,000 4/7/04 AP
2005 27 Baltimore Orioles $390,000
2006 28 Baltimore Orioles $3,075,000
2007 29 Baltimore Orioles $4,200,000
2008 30 Baltimore Orioles $6,300,000
2009 31 Baltimore Orioles $8,000,000
2010 32 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000
2011 33 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000
2012 34 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000
2013 35 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000

According to BBRef this is his salary thus far and through 2013. Note, salary is not listed for 2003, his first full year, when he collected 1.6 WAR at an inconsequential price.

I'm not sure it is best to judge the contract on wether he is worth the money at the end of the contract. Maybe we need to look at the entire career of the player. This is after all, how the game is played due to the CBA. Players are underpaid when young but overpaid when old.

For 10 years of service to the Baltimore Orioles Brain Roberts will be paid About $63 million. That is $6.3 million a year. He has collected 22 WAR thus far in his career. Assuming his next 3 years follow a historically accurate decline answer this:

Is $6.3 million a year for 10 years a good deal for the Baltimore Orioles for Brian Roberts? Could the team have done better to fill 2B?

[Stotle]

I agree with you on the last point. Two first round picks would excite me if we had TB's drafting team or someone with a better track record. But we don't.

But let's look at our 2nd and 3rd picks over the past couple years: Avery, Hoes, Klein, and Givens. Some talent. Provided we got a 2 year deal on Hudson, that contract would be ending with not one of our picks ready to fill 2B. Perhaps JJ would have drafted differently, but it's debatable.

So, with those picks, and Hudson nearing the end of his contract, would you still feel good about our MI depth?

This isn't a fair way to compare. You are looking at 2nd and 3rd round picks. Jordan would have likely had a pick between 16-32 and another between 33-60 (most likely near the front of that since Roberts would have graded as one of the better FAs). We haven't seen what Jordan would do with picks in this range because BAL never gets him picks in this range.

Not only would it be nice to add those two talents, but it would have made the rest of the draft much stronger. Klein is a steal as your fourth pick in a draft -- less so as your second. Added depth to the farm system means BAL may have also been able to more readily move players in deals to fill needs or improve at various positions.

It's a ripple effect -- tough to really judge what exactly would have or could have happened. But I still prefer the options that the $ and extra picks provide. BAL would potentially be looking next offseason to replace Hudson. Maybe he agrees to another one year deal if healthy? I don't know. But it is much cheaper and less restrictive than Roberts's deal, for sure.

[Stotle]

Year Age Team Salary Sources Notes
2004 26 Baltimore Orioles $345,000 4/7/04 AP
2005 27 Baltimore Orioles $390,000
2006 28 Baltimore Orioles $3,075,000
2007 29 Baltimore Orioles $4,200,000
2008 30 Baltimore Orioles $6,300,000
2009 31 Baltimore Orioles $8,000,000
2010 32 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000
2011 33 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000
2012 34 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000
2013 35 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000

According to BBRef this is his salary thus far and through 2013. Note, salary is not listed for 2003, his first full year, when he collected 1.6 WAR at an inconsequential price.

I'm not sure it is best to judge the contract on wether he is worth the money at the end of the contract. Maybe we need to look at the entire career of the player. This is after all, how the game is played due to the CBA. Players are underpaid when young but overpaid when old.

For 10 years of service to the Baltimore Orioles Brain Roberts will be paid About $63 million. That is $6.3 million a year. He has collected 22 WAR thus far in his career. Assuming his next 3 years follow a historically accurate decline answer this:

Is $6.3 million a year for 10 years a good deal for the Baltimore Orioles for Brian Roberts? Could the team have done better to fill 2B?

How is this relevant? Every single ML player operates under these rules. Getting a bargain on players under control shouldn't make teams feel like they can drastically overspend later on and still be "ahead by the numbers".

To be clear, I don't think BAL drastically overspent on Roberts. I just think it was an unnecessary spend in years and money on a depreciating asset. Poor fit with BAL's competitive time frame.

[Stotle]

Plus, after signing Hudson and the 2 picks, you probably have what, 25-30 million extra? That could have been better used for something else IMO.

Exactly.


Hudson + two draft picks in 2010 + around $25-30 million


puts BAL in a better position than


Brian Roberts for four years during a likely downturn in production.

[Sports Guy]

Year Age Team Salary Sources Notes
2004 26 Baltimore Orioles $345,000 4/7/04 AP
2005 27 Baltimore Orioles $390,000
2006 28 Baltimore Orioles $3,075,000
2007 29 Baltimore Orioles $4,200,000
2008 30 Baltimore Orioles $6,300,000
2009 31 Baltimore Orioles $8,000,000
2010 32 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000
2011 33 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000
2012 34 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000
2013 35 Baltimore Orioles $10,000,000

According to BBRef this is his salary thus far and through 2013. Note, salary is not listed for 2003, his first full year, when he collected 1.6 WAR at an inconsequential price.

I'm not sure it is best to judge the contract on wether he is worth the money at the end of the contract. Maybe we need to look at the entire career of the player. This is after all, how the game is played due to the CBA. Players are underpaid when young but overpaid when old.

For 10 years of service to the Baltimore Orioles Brain Roberts will be paid About $63 million. That is $6.3 million a year. He has collected 22 WAR thus far in his career. Assuming his next 3 years follow a historically accurate decline answer this:

Is $6.3 million a year for 10 years a good deal for the Baltimore Orioles for Brian Roberts? Could the team have done better to fill 2B?

I disagree...Just because he was worth a lot in 2005 doesn't mean he should be drastically overpaid in 2013.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not to derail the entire thread, but would it really have been better? I'm not the biggest fan of JJ's drafting philosophy (aside from Matusz), so would the loss of BRob and the net of a supplemental pick really be worth the loss of our 2B and only leadoff hitter?

Even if he spends time on the DL for each year left on his contract, provided it's not half or all of a season, he'll likely be worth more than any draft pick we'd choose.

I know that's speculative, but do you really think the extra pick would have landed us a replacement by now? I'm not saying your point is bad, by the way, just curious if you have enough confidence in our player development/drafting.

I think the best estimates I've found are that the surplus value of a supplemental pick is in the neighborhood of $2M. Two picks might be worth $4M or so.

You could look at the value of Roberts' contract as $40M, plus the loss of the two picks, so maybe $44M or so. That's paying for 10 wins over four years, a bit less with inflation. Let's say 8 or 9. He was worth one in 2010. So, for the total value of the contract including picks to be worthwhile he has to be worth 2.5 or 3 wins a year over his age 33-35 seasons.

[JDubs]

OK, so count me as a convert. In a vacuum, I like the BRob contract; however, when taking into account the high comp pick and other options at the time...consider me convinced. Perhaps, if Stotle's plans above worked as detailed, the O's would have been better off letting BRob walk.

I still don't think the contract is a monstrosity, but it might not have been the best move.

[PeteCanes]

The contract didn't bother me much at the time, and I still think he can be valuable over the next 3 seasons. If he gets hurt again, egg in my face.

[srock]

I disagree...Just because he was worth a lot in 2005 doesn't mean he should be drastically overpaid in 2013.

I'm putting out there this is one way to look at it. And considering how the CBA works, I think this is how the Players Union looks at it.

This is certainly not the only way to look at it, and when evaluation a single contract, probably far from the best. But I do think this is relevant to evaluation how much an organization gets from its players over the long term.

[BRob411]

I don't know why you guys feel the need to discuss my contract it's not like I play for the Orioles or anything, I thought you guys knew that oh wait you were talking about the other guy, oops lol.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm putting out there this is one way to look at it. And considering how the CBA works, I think this is how the Players Union looks at it.

This is certainly not the only way to look at it, and when evaluation a single contract, probably far from the best. But I do think this is relevant to evaluation how much an organization gets from its players over the long term.

Every team gets a huge discount on pre-arb, and pre-free agency players. You can't have a baseline that assumes free agency prices across the board. You have to treat everyone the same.

If Brian Roberts is a relative bargain because he was giving the O's many wins for half a million or a $million dollars a year when he was young, then what kind of bargain was Albert Pujols or Joe Mauer who were annual MVP candidates building strong HOF resumes for the same $400k salary as Roberts?

[srock]

Every team gets a huge discount on pre-arb, and pre-free agency players. You can't have a baseline that assumes free agency prices across the board. You have to treat everyone the same.

If Brian Roberts is a relative bargain because he was giving the O's many wins for half a million or a $million dollars a year when he was young, then what kind of bargain was Albert Pujols or Joe Mauer who were annual MVP candidates building strong HOF resumes for the same $400k salary as Roberts?

Did the Orioles have the opportunity to replace Roberts with Pujols or Mauer? Won't they get (and have gotten already) far more money then Roberts?

I'm just sayin' you can make cogent arguments that Roberts extension was to much and he won't be worth it. But 20 years from now I'm pretty confident we can look back and say Brian Roberts was a great Oriole and a pretty solid value. Even if the organization left a few bucks on the table at the end of his career.

This is one way to look a it. A macro economic perspective if you will.

[SrMeowMeow]

Did the Orioles have the opportunity to replace Roberts with Pujols or Mauer? Won't they get (and have gotten already) far more money then Roberts?

I'm just sayin' you can make cogent arguments that Roberts extension was to much and he won't be worth it. But 20 years from now I'm pretty confident we can look back and say Brian Roberts was a great Oriole and a pretty solid value. Even if the organization left a few bucks on the table at the end of his career.

This is one way to look a it. A macro economic perspective if you will.

I don't think that's a macroeconomic perspective. It's just flawed. I mean, one perspective is that Brian Roberts's career could end now and he would have been a superlative value to get out of the prospect he was when drafted. But that's true of pretty much any major league regular. And "savings" from pre-arb years aren't real savings, because they're common to every player.

I thought the extension was neutral when it was signed and is neutral now. We maybe overpaid a tiny bit, but nothing that would kill us, and a fair price for a career Oriole and our best homegrown player in a long time.

[maybenxtyr]

I don't think that's a macroeconomic perspective. It's just flawed. I mean, one perspective is that Brian Roberts's career could end now and he would have been a superlative value to get out of the prospect he was when drafted. But that's true of pretty much any major league regular. And "savings" from pre-arb years aren't real savings, because they're common to every player.

I thought the extension was neutral when it was signed and is neutral now. We maybe overpaid a tiny bit, but nothing that would kill us, and a fair price for a career Oriole and our best homegrown player in a long time.

I think he is the first position player to have any kind of career since Cal Jr.

I look at all of the things that went wrong last year, and Roberts going down was probably the worst. He generally stays healthy, and when he is healthy he puts up some pretty good stats. I liked the signing then, and like it still.

[SrMeowMeow]

I mean, the alternative of losing him to FA was pretty unpalatable, so I was happy it got done. But it wasn't some exciting move or anything. Ditto for Markakis - we definitely didn't get a discount in either deal.

[orayole]

A player that comes up through our system, produces when he wasn't paid much, and then sticks with the team through the worst times in franchise history and an all around good person and face of the franchise. I think it's worth paying a bit extra for.

[srock]

A player that comes up through our system, produces when he wasn't paid much, and then sticks with the team through the worst times in franchise history and an all around good person and face of the franchise. I think it's worth paying a bit extra for.

This is what I getting at with the above posts about his total career.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think he is the first position player to have any kind of career since Cal Jr.

Steve Finley.


I mean, the alternative of losing him to FA was pretty unpalatable, so I was happy it got done. But it wasn't some exciting move or anything. Ditto for Markakis - we definitely didn't get a discount in either deal.

We'll see about Markakis. From '12-'14 he's guaranteed $42M, plus a $17.5M club option/$2M buyout for '15. He's probably not too overpaid right now based on what he'd get in arbitration, and it's plausible, maybe likely, he would have gotten at least a 3/44 deal after '11. So far in his career he's been worth nearly $15M a year in equivalent free agent value.

[DrungoHazewood]

A player that comes up through our system, produces when he wasn't paid much, and then sticks with the team through the worst times in franchise history and an all around good person and face of the franchise. I think it's worth paying a bit extra for.


This is what I getting at with the above posts about his total career.

Sure, and I said as much.

But that doesn't mean you take the year he was "worth" $23M but got paid $400k as a huge discount that it's ok if you pay back later on. Everyone who's any good is playing for pennies on the dollar for their first three years, and still for a fraction of market value for years 4-6. The Orioles are competing with teams with double or triple their resources. The only way to compete is to maximize the number of high-value pre-arb, pre-free agency players and minimize the inefficient older guys.

[mweb]

Exactly.


Hudson + two draft picks in 2010 + around $25-30 million


puts BAL in a better position than


Brian Roberts for four years during a likely downturn in production.


That's some interesting math considering the same 4 years of what Hudson actually costs is 22.5 million. Or the first 3 years at 16.5 million plus whoever is going to start at 2B in 2013. 2 years with the O's tax, who knows, but probably 12+ million and you still have to have someone for the next two years. Then if you sign someone similar to Hudson for those last two years, the cost with the inflation of the win is likely 14+ million. So the savings would then be more like 10-12M when considering the cost of the picks. But sure, so far that looks like the better option.

[mweb]

If I knew BRob was going to start having serious back issues, I wouldn't have extended him. Without knowing that, I was fine with the contract, but certainly could see both sides.

[Sports Guy]

That's some interesting math considering the same 4 years of Hudson would cost 22.5 million. Or the first 3 years at 16.5 million plus whoever is going to start at 2B in 2013.

He said he would give him a 2 year deal...2010 and 2011 would have been those 2 years.

Now, you are correct that you need to figure out what to do for 2012 and 2013 and that money goes towards that but the Orioles could draft someone, trade for someone or maybe Hoes takes a big leap and you have that player for the league minimum.

Of course, you may also have to spend good money on someone.

So, even if you want to just look at it for the next 2 years, you are still talking Hudson, 2 picks and 5-10 million vs BRob.

[orayole]

Sure, and I said as much.

But that doesn't mean you take the year he was "worth" $23M but got paid $400k as a huge discount that it's ok if you pay back later on. Everyone who's any good is playing for pennies on the dollar for their first three years, and still for a fraction of market value for years 4-6. The Orioles are competing with teams with double or triple their resources. The only way to compete is to maximize the number of high-value pre-arb, pre-free agency players and minimize the inefficient older guys.

I understand that point but I can't ignore the human side of it all. I wouldn't do it for any player. I think there's some special players out there you have to do it for.

Would you have let Ripken go to save a few mil? I realize BRob isn't exactly Cal but he's as close as we have and I don't believe the difference between what he got and what he is actually worth in production is that far off.

[srock]

Sure, and I said as much.

But that doesn't mean you take the year he was "worth" $23M but got paid $400k as a huge discount that it's ok if you pay back later on. Everyone who's any good is playing for pennies on the dollar for their first three years, and still for a fraction of market value for years 4-6. The Orioles are competing with teams with double or triple their resources. The only way to compete is to maximize the number of high-value pre-arb, pre-free agency players and minimize the inefficient older guys.

Of course not. But at the same time if a player underperforms the end of a contract, it doesn't necessarily make the entire body of work mute. Not that you implied that, I'm just saying we as fans don't seem to look at the big picture when it comes to player contracts.

I'm not trying to ague your points, which are all valid. I just think it is wise to look at the the entire career of a player.

[cindyluvsbrady]

I still cry when I think about it:002_scry:
Signing My Perfect One :hearts:was one of the BEST things My Os have done EVER!!!!:):clap3::2yay-thumb:

[OFFNY]

I still cry when I think about it:002_scry:
Signing My Perfect One :hearts:was one of the BEST things My Os have done EVER!!!!:):clap3::2yay-thumb:

Now, how did I know that you would vote for the frist choice ??? I think I have ESPN.


.

[Florida_Osfan]

This isn't a fair way to compare. You are looking at 2nd and 3rd round picks. Jordan would have likely had a pick between 16-32 and another between 33-60 (most likely near the front of that since Roberts would have graded as one of the better FAs). We haven't seen what Jordan would do with picks in this range because BAL never gets him picks in this range.

Not only would it be nice to add those two talents, but it would have made the rest of the draft much stronger. Klein is a steal as your fourth pick in a draft -- less so as your second. Added depth to the farm system means BAL may have also been able to more readily move players in deals to fill needs or improve at various positions.

It's a ripple effect -- tough to really judge what exactly would have or could have happened. But I still prefer the options that the $ and extra picks provide. BAL would potentially be looking next offseason to replace Hudson. Maybe he agrees to another one year deal if healthy? I don't know. But it is much cheaper and less restrictive than Roberts's deal, for sure.

Touche.

And it's pretty hard to disagree with you about getting the money and the picks. Two years ago I felt a lot more confident in our drafting because Weiters and Matusz were a huge hype machine. Now, that's fizzled and I'm reluctant to see much good coming from it.

Plus, I think I'm just in the camp that likes the deal we gave BRob.

[OFFNY]

When B-Rob returned last season on July 23rd, our record was 30-65. After that point, we went 36-31. I can see him talking to his teammates in the dugout on that day last July 23rd:

B-ROB: "You guys didn't miss me too much, did ya ???"

THE OTHER 24 ORIOLE PLAYERS: "You bet you ass we missed you !!!" :eek: :eek: :eek:


.

[SrMeowMeow]

We'll see about Markakis. From '12-'14 he's guaranteed $42M, plus a $17.5M club option/$2M buyout for '15. He's probably not too overpaid right now based on what he'd get in arbitration, and it's plausible, maybe likely, he would have gotten at least a 3/44 deal after '11. So far in his career he's been worth nearly $15M a year in equivalent free agent value.

I'm not saying it's a bad contract...it just wasn't particularly team-friendly.

[SteveA]

Obviously I shared the concerns about its length but I was still for it.

Why am I still for it? Because we didn't, and still don't, have a ML ready 2Bman or leadoff man in our system, and that would have left ANOTHER gaping hole for MacPhail to fill. He did an excellent job, IMO, in filling the 1B and 3B holes this offseason, but another gaping hole both in the lineup and at a key position would be awfully tough to have also filled.

Health is a concern, but at least we can see some light at the end of hte tunnel, with a lot of us thinking that we might actually have a winning team this year, and depending on how the young pitching breaks, could be within a year or two of contending. That light wouldn't be visible right now if we were dealing with some sort of makeshift situation at 2B.

And as for hte "money", I do not believe that, had we not signed Brian, that money would have been shovelled back into the development of the farm system or international signings or something like that. So I don't particularly car if Brian is overpaid a bit in terms of $/WAR over hte last year or two of his contract. That type of analysis only matters if Angelos' money was truly fungible and money spent in one place would automatically be diverted to be used for its value somewhere else, other than just going into Angelos' pocket.

[Sports Guy]

Obviously I shared the concerns about its length but I was still for it.

Why am I still for it? Because we didn't, and still don't, have a ML ready 2Bman or leadoff man in our system, and that would have left ANOTHER gaping hole for MacPhail to fill. He did an excellent job, IMO, in filling the 1B and 3B holes this offseason, but another gaping hole both in the lineup and at a key position would be awfully tough to have also filled.

Health is a concern, but at least we can see some light at the end of hte tunnel, with a lot of us thinking that we might actually have a winning team this year, and depending on how the young pitching breaks, could be within a year or two of contending. That light wouldn't be visible right now if we were dealing with some sort of makeshift situation at 2B.

And as for hte "money", I do not believe that, had we not signed Brian, that money would have been shovelled back into the development of the farm system or international signings or something like that. So I don't particularly car if Brian is overpaid a bit in terms of $/WAR over hte last year or two of his contract. That type of analysis only matters if Angelos' money was truly fungible and money spent in one place would automatically be diverted to be used for its value somewhere else, other than just going into Angelos' pocket.

Nick leadoff, Hudson at second.

[RVAbird]

Next offseason will be a pivotal point for BAL and Roberts. He'll have a limited no-trade that blocks 12 teams, but still leaves 17 open. After next offseason, we'll have no out.

It will be interesting to see if the FO solicits offers after, say, 140 games of a .760 OPS.

[Frobby]

Plus, after signing Hudson and the 2 picks, you probably have what, 25-30 million extra? That could have been better used for something else IMO.

Here is the problem with this point of view: Brian Roberts is not a "thing," he's a person. He's a person who a lot of fans of this team connect with. He's a person that others on the team look up to. He's a person who has worked very hard to do whatever he can for the city of Baltimore and the Orioles.

Even when you are the GM of a team that has been losing for a decade, you can't just discount what a person means to your organization. So even if, on a pure "market" basis, it might make sense to dispose of Brian Roberts like yesterday's newspaper, that isn't going to happen unless he is making contract demands that are highly unreasonable and will really hamstring the team. That wasn't the case.

[Stotle]

Here is the problem with this point of view: Brian Roberts is not a "thing," he's a person. He's a person who a lot of fans of this team connect with. He's a person that others on the team look up to. He's a person who has worked very hard to do whatever he can for the city of Baltimore and the Orioles.

Even when you are the GM of a team that has been losing for a decade, you can't just discount what a person means to your organization. So even if, on a pure "market" basis, it might make sense to dispose of Brian Roberts like yesterday's newspaper, that isn't going to happen unless he is making contract demands that are highly unreasonable and will really hamstring the team. That wasn't the case.

A bit hyperbolic, no? Did Tampa dispose of Crawford like yesterday's newspaper? Just because a player and organization part ways doesn't mean it has to be disrespectful.

Not only is Roberts a person, he is a GREAT person. One BAL has been fortunate to have. That doesn't make a four year extension into his mid 30s a good move. Maybe it works out -- hope it does. But let's not start acting like teams are out of line if they part ways with "good guys".

[hoosiers]

Not a big fan of the contract. BRob seems likely to be productive enough to justify the contract - which is really the question here, but, as noted, BRob is likely to be much less productive at the end of the contract when he is costing the most $. My second issue is - why that contract? Those terms are nearly over the top. There is no hometown discount. There is not even a discount for the security of a long term deal. It's a lot of $ for a long period of time.

I really don't care for comparisons to Orlando Hudson. It's the nature of the beast when a team pays for a home grown all star player - that the player will be overpaid and that the team would have been better off with the draft picks.

[DrungoHazewood]

A bit hyperbolic, no? Did Tampa dispose of Crawford like yesterday's newspaper? Just because a player and organization part ways doesn't mean it has to be disrespectful.

Not only is Roberts a person, he is a GREAT person. One BAL has been fortunate to have. That doesn't make a four year extension into his mid 30s a good move. Maybe it works out -- hope it does. But let's not start acting like teams are out of line if they part ways with "good guys".

I'd rather be fans of a team that gives guys like Brian Roberts fair-value extensions so that he could reasonably play out his career with the O's, than a team that plays hardball in contract negotiations with the face of the franchise and really thinks there's no difference between him and whatever Orlando Hudson happens to be available that year.

The O's have done countless dumb things over the past 13 years, but potentially overpaying for Roberts and possibly missing out on a comp pick isn't in the top 100.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not a big fan of the contract. BRob seems likely to be productive enough to justify the contract - which is really the question here, but, as noted, BRob is likely to be much less productive at the end of the contract when he is costing the most $. My second issue is - why that contract? Those terms are nearly over the top. There is no hometown discount. There is not even a discount for the security of a long term deal. It's a lot of $ for a long period of time.

I really don't care for comparisons to Orlando Hudson. It's the nature of the beast when a team pays for a home grown all star player - that the player will be overpaid and that the team would have been better off with the draft picks.

Almost all contracts are that way. They're backloaded at least in part to account for inflation, to minimize the payroll hit right now (especially good for teams who hope to have much greater revenues in the future), and to push off any potential pain to the next GM.

Inflation is a big thing. For a lot of long-term deals that increase in paper value by half a million or a million a year that's probably just keeping up with the cost of a win.

[Frobby]

A bit hyperbolic, no? Did Tampa dispose of Crawford like yesterday's newspaper? Just because a player and organization part ways doesn't mean it has to be disrespectful.

No, it's not disrespectful at all. And my "yesterday's newspaper" comment was really more directed at SG's "something" remark, because a team has to consider more than just cold numbers.

I don't think Crawford is a good analogy. Tampa couldn't afford anything close to what Crawford was going to make on the open market, plain and simple. The Orioles could afford to pay BRob the going market rate, which essentially is what he got at the time.

Probably a better analogy would be something like Atlanta parting ways with some of their big name stars over the years. That's a team with solid, but not unlimited, resources that always seems to part ways a year or two too soon rather than a year or two too late.

What makes Baltimore's case so tricky is that they've had so few home grown "core" guys over the last 10 years, that it's really hard to part with one when they have one.

[Stotle]

I'd rather be fans of a team that gives guys like Brian Roberts fair-value extensions so that he could reasonably play out his career with the O's, than a team that plays hardball in contract negotiations with the face of the franchise and really thinks there's no difference between him and whatever Orlando Hudson happens to be available that year.

The O's have done countless dumb things over the past 13 years, but potentially overpaying for Roberts and possibly missing out on a comp pick isn't in the top 100.

I agree with you in principle.

For a team with the deck stacked against them as far as divisional opponents go, I just think it takes a degree of shrewdness to compete. Tell me BAL is willing to spend in the $105 - 110 million range and they can give all of the "warm and fuzzy" extensions they want. Otherwise, I think it's a poor risk to be paying Roberts over 10% of your payroll in 2013 and 2014.

By the way, I don't remember calling the move "dumb". Those are your words. I simply disagreed with the extension -- years/money.

[Stotle]

No, it's not disrespectful at all. And my "yesterday's newspaper" comment was really more directed at SG's "something" remark, because a team has to consider more than just cold numbers.

I don't think Crawford is a good analogy. Tampa couldn't afford anything close to what Crawford was going to make on the open market, plain and simple. The Orioles could afford to pay BRob the going market rate, which essentially is what he got at the time.

Probably a better analogy would be something like Atlanta parting ways with some of their big name stars over the years. That's a team with solid, but not unlimited, resources that always seems to part ways a year or two too soon rather than a year or two too late.

What makes Baltimore's case so tricky is that they've had so few home grown "core" guys over the last 10 years, that it's really hard to part with one when they have one.

Fair points all around. Completely agree Crawford was a bad example compared to others out there. He was just fresh in the mind because of the offseason. My point, which you clearly got, was just that you can have an amicable separation and it doesn't take away from the great things a player did on and off the field in your city (and doesn't prevent him from staying a part of your organization when his playing days are over).

Again, I love the idea of the homegrown player sticking around, and Roberts is a great part of the community. My issue is that, given the way BAL has handled payroll and FA acquisition, I'm not sure having $10 million tied up in Roberts for 2013 and 2014 is the best use of their resources. If AM says he can bump the payroll AS needed to bring in pieces IF needed, I don't care if they give Roberts $15 million a year. I just don't believe BAL is willing to extend payroll to accommodate Roberts's deal on the off chance he has declined past usefulness in 2013/14.

I mean, we are talking about a team that traded Bradford so they could sign a draft pick. How am I supposed to be comforted that they'll throw an extra $3 million per year to bring in whatever shiny FA is available when they are on the cusp of competing?

[Sports Guy]

Here is the problem with this point of view: Brian Roberts is not a "thing," he's a person. He's a person who a lot of fans of this team connect with. He's a person that others on the team look up to. He's a person who has worked very hard to do whatever he can for the city of Baltimore and the Orioles.

Even when you are the GM of a team that has been losing for a decade, you can't just discount what a person means to your organization. So even if, on a pure "market" basis, it might make sense to dispose of Brian Roberts like yesterday's newspaper, that isn't going to happen unless he is making contract demands that are highly unreasonable and will really hamstring the team. That wasn't the case.I want a good team for the long haul...not a boy scout troop.

BRob is a great guy...But we will get more great guys. We will get more guys that are great in the community and guys that players look up to.

When BRob is no longer an Oriole, the idea of having a great guy is not something that can never happen again.

[DrungoHazewood]

I agree with you in principle.

For a team with the deck stacked against them as far as divisional opponents go, I just think it takes a degree of shrewdness to compete. Tell me BAL is willing to spend in the $105 - 110 million range and they can give all of the "warm and fuzzy" extensions they want. Otherwise, I think it's a poor risk to be paying Roberts over 10% of your payroll in 2013 and 2014.

By the way, I don't remember calling the move "dumb". Those are your words. I simply disagreed with the extension -- years/money.

I agree that they need to be efficient with their payroll. But if paying a popular, respected second baseman who's worth $5M or $7M on the open market $10M in 2013 is keeping them from getting the players they need to compete... well, I'll say I can't imagine that happening. If they fail it's because multiple young players didn't develop, not because they couldn't scrape together that last $4M to get a free agent to come here.

The O's don't make a habit of handing out arguably risky contracts to their homegrown talent. It's just Roberts.

[SrMeowMeow]

I mean...no way would Brian Roberts have gotten only 5M or 7M annually in FA.

[mweb]

I mean...no way would Brian Roberts have gotten only 5M or 7M annually in FA.

Yeah, maybe they could have gotten him for only 3/30 or so, which would have been quite a bit better imo just because that 4th year was the biggest issue with the contract. But I don't think he could have been signed for a deal like Hudson was last year or this year.

[Stotle]

I agree that they need to be efficient with their payroll. But if paying a popular, respected second baseman who's worth $5M or $7M on the open market $10M in 2013 is keeping them from getting the players they need to compete... well, I'll say I can't imagine that happening. If they fail it's because multiple young players didn't develop, not because they couldn't scrape together that last $4M to get a free agent to come here.

The O's don't make a habit of handing out arguably risky contracts to their homegrown talent. It's just Roberts.

I guess we can see what the payroll looks like in 2013 and 2014 and what position BAL is in. I'm happy to be wrong about this -- I just don't think I will be.

[Stotle]

I mean...no way would Brian Roberts have gotten only 5M or 7M annually in FA.

There is a lot between 5M annually and 4/40M extension.

[SrMeowMeow]

There is a lot between 5M annually and 4/40M extension.

In the 2009 - 2010 offseason, Roberts was coming off of four seasons of 3.2, 4.7, 4.7, 3.8 WAR (2006 - 2009). He was 31. He wasn't signing for like 1/7M or 2/15M.

[Stotle]

In the 2009 - 2010 offseason, Roberts was coming off of four seasons of 3.2, 4.7, 4.7, 3.8 WAR (2006 - 2009). He was 31. He wasn't signing for like 1/7M or 2/15M.

Who said he would? That doesn't make a 4/40 extension starting after his final year a good decision.

Your building a bit of a strawman here. THe point isn't that Roberts should have been signed to a Hudson deal. The point is that it's quite possible BAL would have been better off with Hudson and a Hudson-esque deal since it comes with fewer financial constraints in years, less money per year and two draft picks.

[Scrat1]

At the time I was in favor of extending him. Still am. I also felt we overpaid. Still do.

[Frobby]

I want a good team for the long haul...not a boy scout troop.

BRob is a great guy...But we will get more great guys. We will get more guys that are great in the community and guys that players look up to.

When BRob is no longer an Oriole, the idea of having a great guy is not something that can never happen again.

I just want your opinion about something: Two players are exactly alike, and are above average players. One is home grown, has played for your organization for 8 years, is a fan favorite, is great in the community, etc. The other is a guy who is a free agent who always played somewhere else. Which one are you going to sign? Which one will you offer more money?

If you are neutral on this, or prefer the "new" player for draft pick reasons, then there's no point in continuing this discussion, because our value systems are just different.

There is something else to say about BRob's specific situation. There was a drastic and sudden change in the marketplace in the winter of 2008-09, compared to prior years, as soon as the Yankees were done with their three-headed spending spree. Suddenly, guys like Adam Dunn were getting 2/$20mm. I think it was not clear, at the time, that the market would remain that bearish the next winter, when BRob was due to be a free agent. As it turns out, the market did remain quite bearish in 2009-10, but that wasn't completely predictable at the time.

At this point, I just want to root hard for Brian Roberts and enjoy the fact that he's still an Oriole. As I wrote earlier, his performance last year, projected over 140 games, would have been worth $14 mm (per fangraphs). Let's just hope he gives us a full $14 mm season this year, and then for the first two years of his deal, we'll have gotten $20 mm of value for $20 mm in salary, and we'll be in good position to come close to realizing the full $40 mm of value over 4 years.

[SrMeowMeow]

Who said he would? That doesn't make a 4/40 extension starting after his final year a good decision.

Your building a bit of a strawman here. THe point isn't that Roberts should have been signed to a Hudson deal. The point is that it's quite possible BAL would have been better off with Hudson and a Hudson-esque deal since it comes with fewer financial constraints in years, less money per year and two draft picks.

I guess. But we're back to the same old point that teams don't have some combined budget X that they always spend every year - they certainly weren't going to throw 10M annually into the draft.

[Stotle]

I guess. But we're back to the same old point that teams don't have some combined budget X that they always spend every year - they certainly weren't going to throw 10M annually into the draft.

That's true, but $10 million plus what they paid for Gregg plus what they paid for Gonzalez gets you close to someone like Crawford. I guess I'd just like to see more efficient use of money in general (just my opinion that it's been inefficient -- I realize others can and will disagree).

[SrMeowMeow]

That's true, but $10 million plus what they paid for Gregg plus what they paid for Gonzalez gets you close to someone like Crawford. I guess I'd just like to see more efficient use of money in general (just my opinion that it's been inefficient -- I realize others can and will disagree).

It's always been my understanding that there's no curve in WAR cost - if you spend 20M in free agency on five players or on one, you'll get the same total WAR in return (assuming market-value deals, obviously). So three smaller market-value signings are just as efficient as one big market-value signing. If individual signings are poor, of course it would be better to put the money towards a big signing, but the issue isn't spreading money out, it's making the poor signing in the first place.

[Stotle]

It's always been my understanding that there's no curve in WAR cost - if you spend 20M in free agency on five players or on one, you'll get the same total WAR in return (assuming market-value deals, obviously). So three smaller market-value signings are just as efficient as one big market-value signing. If individual signings are poor, of course it would be better to put the money towards a big signing, but the issue isn't spreading money out, it's making the poor signing in the first place.

I'm not sure how this differs from me saying BRob/Gregg/Gonzalez are more inefficient than a signing like Crawford. You are essentially restating my position.

[Sports Guy]

I just want your opinion about something: Two players are exactly alike, and are above average players. One is home grown, has played for your organization for 8 years, is a fan favorite, is great in the community, etc. The other is a guy who is a free agent who always played somewhere else. Which one are you going to sign? Which one will you offer more money?
If you are neutral on this, or prefer the "new" player for draft pick reasons, then there's no point in continuing this discussion, because our value systems are just different.

There is something else to say about BRob's specific situation. There was a drastic and sudden change in the marketplace in the winter of 2008-09, compared to prior years, as soon as the Yankees were done with their three-headed spending spree. Suddenly, guys like Adam Dunn were getting 2/$20mm. I think it was not clear, at the time, that the market would remain that bearish the next winter, when BRob was due to be a free agent. As it turns out, the market did remain quite bearish in 2009-10, but that wasn't completely predictable at the time.

At this point, I just want to root hard for Brian Roberts and enjoy the fact that he's still an Oriole. As I wrote earlier, his performance last year, projected over 140 games, would have been worth $14 mm (per fangraphs). Let's just hope he gives us a full $14 mm season this year, and then for the first two years of his deal, we'll have gotten $20 mm of value for $20 mm in salary, and we'll be in good position to come close to realizing the full $40 mm of value over 4 years.

Umm, a lot more info is needed...How old is each player? Where are they on their career curve? Injury issues? How much money is needed to sign them? etc...

Sure, I prefer to keep the homegrown guy when the situations are equal or close to equal.