Jump to content
FanSince88

How long does your blank check for Elias last?

Recommended Posts

Davis isn't going anywhere. I'd prefer we start the transition of Mancini full-time to 1B as that seems to be his position moving forward. If they can somehow get Davis to be a 0 WAR player then great. If not,  Elias wants to cut him and ownership doesn't allow it, then they might as well have hired Brady as GM since they weren't serious about rebuilding in the first place. Just wanted to appear to be serious. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Aside from the fact that settlements and early retirement does happen on occasion and the Union does nothing since they have no grounds to do anything.  Now if the O's do something grossly out of the norm to pressure Davis that situation would change.

Or is there a case where the MLBPA did successfully right an early retirement settlement?

I was the one who said that a union member would never accept a qualifying offer. I was the lone pundit for a long time. Forever is a longer time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But guys do retire and leave money on the table.  Rasmus has done it two years running.

Gil Meche left 12M on the table in 2011.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/sports/baseball/27meche.html

Mark McGwire retired with 2/30 left on his deal.

Do you recall the players' union "looking heavily" into those situations?

I don't recall the players' union saying peep about either situation.

 

Is it rare?  Yes.

Does it happen?  Yes.

Does the Union have any grounds to say a word about it?  No.

Call it a hunch, but yeah, MLBPA won't be quiet about leaving $92M on the table.  When McGwire retired his right knee was trouble despite surgery.  The $30M was in an unsigned extension.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, terphoopsfan said:

Davis isn't going anywhere. I'd prefer we start the transition of Mancini full-time to 1B as that seems to be his position moving forward. If they can somehow get Davis to be a 0 WAR player then great. If not,  Elias wants to cut him and ownership doesn't allow it, then they might as well have hired Brady as GM since they weren't serious about rebuilding in the first place. Just wanted to appear to be serious. 

Absolutely right. I am quite certain that they don't hire this guy without that assurance. But it may be a while. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

Call it a hunch, but yeah, MLBPA won't be quiet about leaving $92M on the table.  When McGwire retired his right knee was trouble despite surgery.  The $30M was in an unsigned extension.

I don't think anyone is expecting Davis to leave 92M on the table.

What if he leaves 18.4M on the table?  (80% buyout)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think anyone is expecting Davis to leave 92M on the table.

What if he leaves 18.4M on the table?  (80% buyout)

I would be OK with that.   I still think that the new regime will try to "fix" Davis.   I doubt they will be successful, but it's not going to hurt them to give it one last shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

I would be OK with that.   I still think that the new regime will try to "fix" Davis.   I doubt they will be successful, but it's not going to hurt them to give it one last shot.

Unless Davis comes to them wanting out it is sensible to at least give him to the end of spring training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ThomasTomasz said:

There will never be a settlement.  MLB is the only major US sport that has fully guaranteed contracts.  The NFLPA is desperately working towards that.  If the Orioles and Davis agreed to any sort of contract reduction, the MLBPA's lawyers will be immediately all over it.  And then that would create even more pressure between MLB and the Orioles for going rogue in a sense, something that the son's will not risk at this point with ownership potentially being up in the air.  

When I suggest settlement, I expect Davis to be paid in full. Pay the $110 MM over an extended time frame, along the lines of the current deferred money plan. $5 MM a year for 22 years is far better than $17 MM for the next 4 years followed by years of smaller payments of the deferred money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

When I suggest settlement, I expect Davis to be paid in full. Pay the $110 MM over an extended time frame, along the lines of the current deferred money plan. $5 MM a year for 22 years is far better than $17 MM for the next 4 years followed by years of smaller payments of the deferred money.

In real value he won't be being paid in full.  Your suggestion might be lower than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

In real value he won't be being paid in full.  Your suggestion might be lower than mine.

They could calculate the time value of money for the $17 M over the next 4 years and the deferred $30 M over its payout schedule and then create a payout schedule to equal that amount. Davis might get more money at face value but ME might have $10-12 M more to play with in the near term for the next 4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the O's CD is a sunk cost. They'll keep him as long as there is no player who will be a big future contributor and needs his roster spot. Right now there isn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, weams said:

I was the one who said that a union member would never accept a qualifying offer. I was the lone pundit for a long time. Forever is a longer time. 

Being a union member has nothing to do with accepting a QO.    The QO was negotiated in the CBA and there’s nothing anti-union about accepting one.    It’s simply a matter of a player’s judgement as to whether he’ll do better on the open market, or is better off taking the sure thing and waiting a year to test the market.   

In my opinion, there’s nothing anti-union about a player accepting a buyout of his contract, either, if that’s what a player wants to do.    But not many players do that, because they don’t think it’s in their self-interest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think anyone is expecting Davis to leave 92M on the table.

What if he leaves 18.4M on the table?  (80% buyout)

I think he ends up on the DL for an extended period of time with an "injury" before there is a buyout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 10:29 AM, hoosiers said:

I would let Elias and Sig run the Orioles for at least three years almost without question.  I think it will be year four or five before we start to see the impact of players they acquire at the major league level.  I believe 100% in the process these two will bring to player acquisition and the constant search for a holy grail of how to draft and develop (or internationally sign and develop) major leaguers.  As long as that process is followed, I would have these two run the Orioles.

I guess the main questions regarding these two are whether they can lead an organization.  That is what they haven't done and what we don't know they can do.  I don't mean whether they can build out an international scouting presence - more about whether they are respectful, attentive leaders or whether they are tyrannical and difficult to work with (which I don't expect).  We also don't know how much of a counter-weight the Houston GM and other folks in that front office were to good or bad decisions advocated by Elias and Sig.

We also don't know whether these guys (like the Os with AM before DD arrived and said we would win) will know when (and how) to try to win at the major league level instead of simply not competing and gathering prospect talent.  

Those are minor concerns about whether these guys might fail.  In terms of their background, their expertise, these are home run hires.  These guys are at the head of the line with only a handful of organizations in creating leading edge prospect valuations around historical probabilities, scouting input and other factors.  Very exciting for the Os and our future.

Great post and i agree 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • One last thought. When the reserve clause died in court and all players could become free agents every year, the players union was smart and agreed to a service requirement. It was good for salaries and good for the sport to control supply/demand, even if it seemed like a giveaway by the players. If there was a non-performance clause built into free agent contracts that gave some level of relief to owners, it would benefit salaries and the sport. Small to mid size teams would have more ability to chase top talent because the affect of a bad contract would be less calamitous to their limited payroll means if it was discounted by some percentage for non-performance. Ask Scott Boras if he’d rather have three teams bidding for his client or six. Our very own Albert Belle contract made insuring contracts fairly cost prohibitive (though it kinda seems like we’re keeping Davis on the roster for some reason other than insanity). But that practice of insuring contracts showed that there’s more money to spend on players if you give owners some level of protection from disaster contracts like Davis. Owners used to pay huge amounts to insure contracts before they became cost prohibitive. So if it’s good for competitiveness by allowing smaller teams to be more aggressive, and it’s good for player salaries, and it’s good for owners by protecting their investments, by what principle is a player entitled to the full value of a contract that they have essentially defaulted on for non-performance? 
    • By the way, I agree that Davis’ contract was insanely stupid long before he showed us how stupid it was by his performance. Angeles victimized himself. But I’m talking more generally about non-performance of contracts. I think the top earners would fare even better if not for the associated risks by ownership. They aren’t playing with Monopoly money. The risk builds a discounting into what owners will spend. And smaller market teams are less able to take risks because the affect of one Davis-like contract on their smaller payroll is huge. On what principle should players receive the full value of a contract they unable to satisfy competently? We’re rained out tonight....I wouldn’t be asking otherwise. Wait, did you call me noob?  
    • How about a 10 minute deep cleaning between each use of a bathroom stall.  That would be a smarter measure to stop the spread of Covid.  (Or even hourly cleaning of bathroom stalls).  How many Covid infections have really been spread by "outside food"?
    • “Congratulations Mr. O’Corn, I’m thrilled to hire you as my new GM. I’ve always had a real respect, I mean that most sincerely. Obviously we all want to win, I want to win a championship. And I know you want a long career in baseball. and you’d like to keep your kids in school here in Baltimore. Now tell me, should I give you $123 million to work with or $100 million? Which is going to give you a better shot at delivering me a World Series champion?”
    • A catcher can block the plate once he has possession of the ball. Just not before.  Here is the full text of Rule 7.13(2): Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score.  If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the Umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.
    • Tony - I’m not a HIPAA lawyer, but you shouldn’t assume that because the O’s were authorized to disclose he had myocarditis that they are authorized to provide further details or updates.   Even within the organization, except on a need to know basis.    Still, I do find the situation weird and mysterious.  If I were Kjerstad, I’d want Oriole fans to know that I had a good reason for being out.    I hope he will be OK and gets on the field as soon as he can.    
    • MFYs have had numerous examples of big contracts gone bust (the "Fat Toad" comes to mind, LOL). No sweat; just move on to the next.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...