Jump to content
Tony-OH

Analysis of 2020 Rule 5 Eligible players

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

You’d have to show where they had a negative annual P&L

Well, none of us have access to the actual P&L.    But per Forbes the O’s had negative operating income in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018.     They were very profitable in 2019 after dropping the payroll.  Click on this link, scroll down and click on Operating Income.  https://www.forbes.com/teams/baltimore-orioles/?sh=1062414676db

Share this post


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

All that saved money will do is go in their pockets.

 

4 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

If you think the saved money will be spent later your a bit naive,

Even if they never spend the money they saved on Nunez on the team, how exactly is that hurting us in any way? We might win one less game next year and miss out on the 1% chance that Nunez plays way over his head and can be traded for something of value? I'm not going to worry about it

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

They arent storing the money away in some bank account for later transactions. That’s just not how it works, especially this family.

I'd love to know how you know this. Can you link me an article or something? Frobby has a point--they've shot up payroll in the past when the team has been competitive. It's easier to do that when you have more money sitting around like, you know, from when you cut a guy with a multi-million dollar salary to replace him with an equivalent player making league minimum.

And before you ask, I don't know for sure they'll reinvest savings into the team in the future. But it only makes logical sense they'll be more likely to if they have more money, however small

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChosenOne21 said:

 

Even if they never spend the money they saved on Nunez on the team, how exactly is that hurting us in any way? We might win one less game next year and miss out on the 1% chance that Nunez plays way over his head and can be traded for something of value? I'm not going to worry about it

I'd love to know how you know this. Can you link me an article or something? Frobby has a point--they've shot up payroll in the past when the team has been competitive. It's easier to do that when you have more money sitting around like, you know, from when you cut a guy with a multi-million dollar salary to replace him with an equivalent player making league minimum.

And before you ask, I don't know for sure they'll reinvest savings into the team in the future. But it only makes logical sense they'll be more likely to if they have more money, however small

Giving up decent, cheap production for free is dumb.  It doesn’t matter that it likely won’t effect them in the standings.  That’s irrelevant. 

it’s logical to assume they will put money in some kind of a “spend later account”.

Its amazing to me that anyone could actually put faith in this ownership group to do that.  I mean, I wouldn’t put faith in any ownership group to do that but it’s real “bury your head in the sand” stuff to think the Angelos family will actually do something like that.

And no, there aren’t links to things you can’t prove.  I think it’s just coMmon sense and this family has proven it over the last 2 decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Giving up decent, cheap production for free is dumb.  It doesn’t matter that it likely won’t effect them in the standings.  That’s irrelevant. 

it’s logical to assume they will put money in some kind of a “spend later account”.

Its amazing to me that anyone could actually put faith in this ownership group to do that.  I mean, I wouldn’t put faith in any ownership group to do that but it’s real “bury your head in the sand” stuff to think the Angelos family will actually do something like that.

And no, there aren’t links to things you can’t prove.  I think it’s just coMmon sense and this family has proven it over the last 2 decades.

I have a few takeaways from this post.

1. I don't think it's so much that the money is put in a "spend later account" as much as it is that by trimming the fat as much as possible during a rebuild, you can get a bit more ownership buy-in to do a full rebuild rather than some half-a** job where you plug in fillers like Jay Payton part way through because interest has plummeted so far. If you can make the bottom line still look okay despite the rebuild, ownership is going to be more likely to support it--even if it drags on. I think it can also, potentially, buy goodwill for later where the ownership may be willing to over-extend for a year or two, particularly if a GM has shown he's prudent with the owners' money in the lean times. It's not a magic account where money sits until it's used, but I do think there is some benefit to cutting as much as possible now that may show up later. And even if that isn't a guaranteed benefit, I don't see how that hurts unless it ultimately hurts the long-term plan.

2. I think you may be over-estimating Nunez in that first sentence. He's a serviceable DH who can stand at 1B or 3B if you need someone to stand there. The team obviously doesn't think he can handle defense at 3B otherwise I'm sure they'd pick him over Ruiz. Given he's--in their eyes 1B or DH--and you have Davis who they are insisting in holding for now, Mancini who by all reports will be ready by spring,  and Mountcastle who may be penciled in to LF for now, but could easily get pushed out of the OF by more talented defenders, I'm not sure the playing time is there.

With that said, I'm sure they've shopped him around some and would have kept him if they thought they could get anything of value for him, but I don't see the market for a Nunez type player.

I agree that "giving up decent, cheap production for free is dumb", but only if that decent, cheap production holds any real value to other clubs. If not, it's reasonable to assume it can be replaced by decent, cheaper production...or even already team-controlled production.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not overestimating Nunez at all.  I have been very clear what I think about him and how I hope that he doesn’t get much time this year.  
 

But what he does represent is an insurance policy.  Will it matter in the long run?  Probably not. I agree with Frobby that there is potentially more upside in his bat but overall, I don’t think it matters to lose him long term.  
 

What I do think matters is that you gave away solid offensive production for nothing.  His salary is nothing.  It doesn’t prevent you from doing anything and it doesn’t mean you will spend it later or that it would even matter if you did...since 2 million goes nowhere anyway.

And maybe he would never be worth anything on the trade market but I would have kept him around, see how ST plays out and go from there.  You would have essentially been gambling about 400k or so on him.  

That’s a fairly reasonable insurance policy to take on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m not overestimating Nunez at all.  I have been very clear what I think about him and how I hope that he doesn’t get much time this year.  
 

But what he does represent is an insurance policy.  Will it matter in the long run?  Probably not. I agree with Frobby that there is potentially more upside in his bat but overall, I don’t think it matters to lose him long term.  
 

What I do think matters is that you gave away solid offensive production for nothing.  His salary is nothing.  It doesn’t prevent you from doing anything and it doesn’t mean you will spend it later or that it would even matter if you did...since 2 million goes nowhere anyway.

And maybe he would never be worth anything on the trade market but I would have kept him around, see how ST plays out and go from there.  You would have essentially been gambling about 400k or so on him.  

That’s a fairly reasonable insurance policy to take on.

Nunez could not have been dumped in ST if he performed well.  That is only for players that do not perform in ST.   The union requires a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Nunez could not have been dumped in ST if he performed well.  That is only for players that do not perform in ST.   The union requires a reason.

Of course he could be dumped.  The team can easily come up with a reason if players outperform him in ST.

Thats an easy workaround.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wildcard said:

Nunez could not have been dumped in ST if he performed well.  That is only for players that do not perform in ST.   The union requires a reason.

Can you provide an example of the union successfully intervening in one of these situations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, weams said:

Good. Back to the discussion. So are there any of the guys available in this draft that you would drop one of our guys for? If so, who would you drop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They pushed payroll over $100M in 2015-17 if memory serves. There may not be a separate slush fund from money saved in cost cutting years but I am sure there is some kind of system for rewarding the GM for meeting cost goals. Otherwise there would be no incentive to cut costs. No young GM would take a job if the description is purely to cut costs with nothing at the end of the rainbow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2020 at 9:55 AM, Jammer7 said:

Here is an article from MLB Pipeline about the top 30 prospects of each team protected and not.

https://www.mlb.com/news/rule-5-draft-eligible-prospects-2020?t=mlb-pipeline-coverage

My "really" skimming this was Padres #17 Tirso Ornelas.   I'd actually had that guy on a RotoUltra roster awhile ago.  3.11.2000 and was one of the more promising 17-year olds of 2017, but '18 and '19 didn't go as great before this year's black hole.

Last year he had 330 High-A at-bats, shy of Santander's 500 the year preceding his selection, but he is substantially younger.

No surprise the Padres slow-moving crunch gave a (barely) recognizable name.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OrioleDog said:

My "really" skimming this was Padres #17 Tirso Ornelas.   I'd actually had that guy on a RotoUltra roster awhile ago.  3.11.2000 and was one of the more promising 17-year olds of 2017, but '18 and '19 didn't go as great before this year's black hole.

Last year he had 330 High-A at-bats, shy of Santander's 500 the year preceding his selection, but he is substantially younger.

No surprise the Padres slow-moving crunch gave a (barely) recognizable name.

Interesting thing about this list Is that in the past we’ve taken at least two successful guys who were not on anyone’s radar; Joey Rickard and Santander.  And that was the old regime, back in the horse-and -carriage days of analytics, when they did calculations with an abacus, and pitch-tracking with a sundial.

I bet they go for a AA pitcher with a tremendous spin rate, and a 3B with a laser arm, and damn the prospect ranking.

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






×
×
  • Create New...