Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eddie83

They asked Mancini and Santander to defer money

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, LTO's said:

I totally agree with this. I'm just saying, despite how angry it makes me and others, the front office has not lied about anything they said since the day ownership was transferred. Peter was wrong to not delve into the international pool but he did spend money on the team when they were competitive. Maybe something bad is brewing but maybe they really are just trying to improve their profit margins as much as they can to recoup the money they lost this past year.  I'm going to choose to remain optimistic and not doom post like everyone else. They are on their way to having quite the farm system with young talent already at the ML level. I'll enjoy that at the moment.

I agree about the system. They are on the way and there is much to look forward to.  
 

I’m not down on the baseball ops, I’m not worried they are going to move. I get the economics are down but it’s not like we have a bloated payroll to begin with. 
 

The overall quality of an organization isn’t just about winning. Obviously that is what matters most but when you pinch pennies like this it’s not a good look. Some fans are not sophisticated enough to separate the baseball ops and business side. It’s just a bad look and it will impact them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, bpilktree said:

This seems odd to do too younger guys that don’t have lot of financial savings built up.  Why wouldn’t you go to someone like Cobb or Davis who I think would possibly give them a deferral. I think if you went to Davis and said we are not sure we will  play the entire season so you might not get your full salary this year.  We will guarantee you the full amount if you let us defer $5 million of that amount you get this year.  That would seem like a pretty decent gamble for Davis as I think we might play like 144 games or so instead of 162, and not like he needs it right now.  Also if you are penny pinching why spend all that money on international signings this year  

Cobb and Davis have multi-year contracts that are already in place. Mancini and Santander are arb-eligible guys who either agree to a NEW one-year deal or file for arbitration. It might not be precedented, but OFFERING a deal that includes deferrals (that the players declined, as is their prerogative) doesn’t sound particularly underhanded. 
 

The clear difference is that there was a natural opportunity to negotiate for these two. I’m not saying I would have done the same, but bleating “why not Davis and Cobb?” Is sort of irrelevant. 
 

FWIW, Jon Lester’s recent deal with Washington is $5M total with $3M deferred. That deal was offered, he accepted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bpilktree said:

I am not saying this story not true just seems like a dumb idea for $1.5 million.  There are thousands of ways a major league team could do to make an extra 1.5 million. They could offer advertisement of logos on uniform or the outfield wall just seems like this one of worst ways to try and be cheap. 

They own the stadium naming rights. Could always sell that. 
 

Years ago I had a strong opinion about stuff like that, now not so much. If some company puts their name on it I’ll still call it Camden Yards.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BohKnowsBmore said:

Cobb and Davis have multi-year contracts that are already in place. Mancini and Santander are arb-eligible guys who either agree to a NEW one-year deal or file for arbitration. It might not be precedented, but OFFERING a deal that includes deferrals (that the players declined, as is their prerogative) doesn’t sound particularly underhanded. 

It’s unheard of because teams are financially sound enough not to ask it. We will have a payroll of around $60M and yet they need help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I agree about the system. They are on the way and there is much to look forward to.  
 

I’m not down on the baseball ops, I’m not worried they are going to move. I get the economics are down but it’s not like we have a bloated payroll to begin with. 
 

The overall quality of an organization isn’t just about winning. Obviously that is what matters most but when you pinch pennies like this it’s not a good look. Some fans are not sophisticated enough to separate the baseball ops and business side. It’s just a bad look and it will impact them.  

This is going to raise eyebrows around baseball no doubt. I didnt know the O's meager attendance in recent years had this much effect on the bottom line. I mean they were letting kids in for free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you're doing this this drastic it makes me wonder if moving the franchise is also on the teams thoughts. 

Share this post


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

This is why Davis is still here.  They have to pay him anyway but if they cut him they have to pay his roster replacement too.  Sell the damn team already.  The farm is improving, the players are cheap, MASN is a mess, and who knows what's up with the stadium lease.  Let's move on already.

Yep they don’t even want to pay the league minimum for a replacement because that’s another $570k taken away from the bottom line.

I’m not really feeling the excitement to watch any games in 2021. To make this request of players under team control is ridiculous. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leans back in chair......kicks feet up on the desk.....and wonders who the next owner will be. They are clearly positioning this team for sale. And I couldn't be any happier. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Leans back in chair......kicks feet up on the desk.....and wonders who the next owner will be. They are clearly positioning this team for sale. And I couldn't be any happier. 

I will not be happy if they leave Baltimore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LTO's said:

They have stated that they are focusing on building a strong talent pipeline while not spending on the big league club. As pathetic as this and the MASN business looks, they are doing exactly what they said. They have put their money where their mouth is when it comes to player development. You have accused them of cutting corners in that regard as well. So no, you don't get to take a victory lap for something that was plainly obvious.

So we have a team that has:

1- Asked guys with non-guaranteed contracts to take deferred money.

2- Let coaches go to save money

3- Killed pre and post game show to save money

4- Killed fan fest

5- Let announcers go to save money

And yet it's a complete coincidence that they just happen to go underslot with their first round pick and they just happened to leave more money unspent than any other team.

Because no way a ML team would care about a couple hundred thousand.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

And yet it's a complete coincidence that they just happen to go underslot with their first round pick and they just happened to leave more money unspent than any other team.

Because no way a ML team would care about a couple hundred thousand.

Would you feel better if they had given the extra $200K to Coby Mayo or Carter Baumler? The clear hope was that Bitsko (or someone else) would fall and they would go overslot on the second or third pick. When that didn't happen, they went overslot on their 5th and 6th picks and spent almost all of their money. I truly don't think that the $222K saving was an ownership demand.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Would you feel better if they had given the extra $200K to Coby Mayo or Carter Baumler? The clear hope was that Bitsko (or someone else) would fall and they would go overslot on the second or third pick. When that didn't happen, they went overslot on their 5th and 6th picks and spent almost all of their money. I truly don't think that the $222K saving was an ownership demand.

I'd feel better if they had purchased 200K more talent in the draft. 

I don't get why when we see this extreme cost cutting folks aren't willing to consider the possibility that cuts were made there as well.

You think they are saving more than 222K by letting a coach go?

Share this post


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

I'd feel better if they had purchased 200K more talent in the draft. 

I don't get why when we see this extreme cost cutting folks aren't willing to consider the possibility that cuts were made there as well.

You think they are saving more than 222K by letting a coach go?

I honestly don't think that there was an ownership fiat to not spend the full draft allocation. I think they got the guys that were available that they liked when they were drafting, and at the end it turned out that they didn't need to spend the entire amount. I believe this because they haven't previously gone cheap on the draft in recent years and they spent nearly their full J15 allotment (and may well spend the remaining $100K or so with stragglers over the coming weeks). If there was an ownership decree, I think it would have been for well over $222K.

Share this post


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

I honestly don't think that there was an ownership fiat to not spend the full draft allocation. I think they got the guys that were available that they liked when they were drafting, and at the end it turned out that they didn't need to spend the entire amount. I believe this because they haven't previously gone cheap on the draft in recent years and they spent nearly their full J15 allotment (and may well spend the remaining $100K or so with stragglers over the coming weeks). If there was an ownership decree, I think it would have been for well over $222K.

Dude, leave it be.  We'll never contend because of $222k that wasn't spent.  

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.

Sign in to follow this  

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...