geschinger

If the Yankees get back to consistently blowing past the luxury tax (which they might with Cohen in Queens to be compared against) that scares me a lot less than the Yankees approach of the mid/late 90. I have confidence that if Elias is allowed to ramp up to what Os payrolls were in the mid 2010s a well executed Houston model will produce more sustained success than any team loading up on long term deals that include mid/late 30s seasons.

You don’t have to look back too far to see how it translated in the past - look at the mid 2010s when Orioles were decent and the Yankees were old.

They don’t though. They run those mid-30s players out there every day instead of upgrading at those positions (either internally or externally) and are worse for it. Look at the production they got in the second half of Teixeira‘s contract and that one ended at age 36. It would have been great for the Orioles if Boras had been able to have gotten him a 10+ year contract to take him into his late 30s instead of the 8 year deal he got.

I wouldn’t have minded. The more massive contracts for players mid/late 30s years that that a team like the Yankees commit to, the better for the Orioles.

I don't begrudge any player from going after every last dime but do think a lot of times they shoot themselves in the foot by putting themselves in a situation that isn't a good fit in order to pick up those last few dimes.

Anything's possible if he can get the Mets and Yankees into a bidding war. Both will potentially have an opening at 3B.

I think that may just be him describing how it usually works. The Orioles had a nice bump in attendance in 2012 followed by a significant increase in payroll in 2013. Guessing that pattern is a lot more common than in reverse - the big increase in payroll driving attendance gains.

A quote from the book about that reference:

Interesting piece about Lewin in FiveThirtyEight today: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/meet-lewin-diaz-baseballs-biggest-hot-potato-prospect/ Including highlighting hie defensive prowess. Second in Defensive Runs Saved at 1B since 2000 despite only paying about 25% as many innings as the other leaders.

It should absolutely be part of the calculus on the merits about signing him that he is someone who has violated the domestic abuse policy. That was upheld by a three-person abitration panel. While prosecutors couldn't reach the beyond reasonable doubt standard to charge him an arbitration panel was able to conclude under a preponderance of the evidence standard that he did indeed violate MLB's domestic abuse policy. That goes well beyond arguments about whom you believe more.

The independent arbitrator determined there was enough evidence to conclude a suspension of 194-games was acceptable. It sounds like Bauer is going to accept it and not challenge the ruling. If there truly was no evidence he violated the agreement I would expect him to challenge it and not willingly accept the loss of $37m.

Not sure why Elias taking a similar approach to what worked so successfully with his previous org is laughable. The Astros didn't say OMG, we cannot waste Carolos Correa and Jose Altuve's service time and so we have to be super agressive when they came off their suprise 2015 season. Seemed to work out OK, no?

A more cynical take is the GMs driving these moves are willing to take on contracts that have an extremly low probability of working out with the understanding that if they don't win in the short run they won't be around anyway. It won't be them having to deal with the mess they created during the last 2/3 of these deals.

The Yankees aren't the Dodgers, they have an aversion to exceeding and staying over the luxury tax for an extended period of time.

The article isn't really clear on if it was the salaries or the years. I don't think the salaries would be a bit higher than projected but this year seems a bit different in how many additional years some guys are getting over projections. I would be disappointed if the amount per year was deemed to high, much less of an issue if it was more years than they were comfortable offering.

I don't know what the claim was based on but what I am relatively certain of is that Sig's department has done analysis and modeling and decisions will ultimately be data-driven. Doesn't necessaarily mean they will be right but there will almost certainly be data / analysis to backup whatever those decisions are made.

Assuming the roster was as is right now and if they do the right thing and give signficant ABs / innings to rookies/young players I think its likely for a small regression - but one where me might play .450 ball in the first half and .550 ball in the second half as players acclimate and get more experience.

Nope - a few million subs for all services combined. Washington Post reported in June the total number of subs across all carriers is down to 3.6m and it is continually declining. I'm pretty sure they had more than 9m subs a decade ago. Add to that the fact that unlike with many of the other clubs despite the carriage fee being no higher it has to support 2 teams instead of 1. I think it's safe to say the Orioles are worse off than most when it comes to local TV rights revenue.

It's possible they are trying to offset subscriber losses with higer rates but not sure how well that works. I know the YES network tried to raise rates in 2021 and they were quickly dropped by all the streaming providers who previously offered it other than DTV. The great thing about the Dodgers and Padres any everyone else who is locked in for the longer term - is they get their money based on the peak of RSN era no matter what happens with the model going forward. Unfortunately the Orioles have the opposite scenario and own all of the risk of a declining offering.

I suspect you would easily win that bet. I think i remembered reading here they lost a couple million subscribers several years ago and. Subscriber hemorrhages have not slowed down since (and assuming MASN is not an exception) I'm really envious of a team like the Dodgers - not for the amount of their deal as I know that would never have been possible for Baltimore - but for the foresight to lock up their best case scenario deal into the late 2030s and offloading almost all of the risk.

What the Padres have that the Orioles don't is that they are in the middle of a > $1bn TV rights deal where their money is locked in despite RSNs hemorrhaging subscribers at an alarming rate. They were able to get a favorable TV deal as their market also includes and brings in revenue from the Las Vegas as well. The Orioles can certainly spend a lot more than they are now - even as much as 3x should be doable. But their media $ situation is nowhere near as good as what SD has.

Lowering expectations. If the expectation is set that winning the division is the expectation and a month into the season they young guys / rookies are going through a bit of a sophmore slump or struggling to acclimate to MLB there is more pressure on them and then to sit them if they are hurting the team's W/L record. IMO Under promise / over deliver is better - even when it comes to GM/Coach speak.

I don't think they'll crack the top 5, but they were 10th as recently as 2017. If they are consistenly winning it wouldnt be out of charcter for a top 10-15 payroll that occasionally jumps a bit higher.

No doubt, it's a tough thread to needle. I do think there are some decent options left who would be upgrades from what the Orioles have now who if they won't take a one year deal might be able to be had on a 2 year deal which is also fine.

I think this liftoff thing is being wildly misintrepted and has spun out of control. I think is likely nothing more than he slipped back into language / hype / motto from his previous team when they too came off a season as suprising as the Orioles 2022 season. Take a look at how many big FA contracts "Liftoff" equated to for that front office in the offseason before the 2016 season. As you know, the current Orioles braintrust were key contributors to that Liftoff front office.