Pickles
-
Posts
5804 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
You said it.
Being this dense isn't necessary.
Making a 20 mil commitment in 2023 to the 2026 payroll will have to be accounted for in 2026 no matter what the payroll is.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
I admitted as much?????
I thought I explained the example at a very basic level.
Something was stated as an "indisputable fact" when it isn't.
And you can't even admit it.
No idea why you felt a need to mention that the O's will have a cap on their spending EVERY TEAM has a cap on their major league payroll. Even the Mets.
You're attacking things I'm not saying. It's tedious and frankly, incomprehensible.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
I’m glad you are willing to let Elias decide what to do. I mean, after all, it’s his job and we are just discussing things.
Luckily for the fans, it's his job and not ours.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
No, they need to get better. They don’t need to sign a pitcher for big money to do that because there are different ways to go about that but they absolutely need to get better pitching and obviously Elias agrees with that because it’s his publicly stated goal, at least one of them.
The need to increase the margin for error.
What they don’t need to do is touch the offense. They can but that’s not a need.
I tend to agree with you but am content to let Elias decide when and how the best way to improve will be.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Lots of trade possibilities. Stroman or Gray in FA.
Yes, that’s the exact stuff I have talked about for the last 2 months and really, always. I have zero desire to get involved in 4+ year deals for most FAs. There will always be an exception here or there but it’s rare.
I also have very little desire to sign guys to 4-12M deals..most of those deals blow up in your face too. You should be able to produce those players for a fraction of the cost. The only exception to that would be relievers but even then, it better be someone with some great stats that doesn’t look dime a dozen.
Well, then we're more or less on the same page, with the exception of your want to do things now.
I will say this: Even if they don't make a trade or signing to upgrade the playoff rotation, I'm not going to be upset about it. There's no reason that trade has to be made in the offseason as opposed to the deadline. And I'm perfectly willing to trust Elias' discretion in regards to making those decisions.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
But it isn't.
You are assuming that the players signed don't increase revenue. The Padres aren't the best example considering their issues but you can't deny that bringing in outside talent caused an increase in revenue. At one point they were on the receiving end of profit sharing, last season they were second in attendance. Their attendance last year was up over a million from a decade ago.
And the Padres are still losing money, and not that good.
Why should we emulate the Padres?
The FACT is, no matter what the number is, high, low, or in between, the Orioles will always have a cap on their major league payroll. Always.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
So what? Did you get a ring? Have you been making the playoffs and raking in the playoff revenue? Can you easily drop 20M off your payroll to make up for that?
I mean, you don’t ignore 2026 but the point is to win. Any thought that they shouldn’t be everything they can to win is pure stupidity.
They will not be in any danger to lose the top guys if they sign a pitcher to a 2-3 year deal now.
Definitely agree it could mean you don’t keep certain guys but chances are you shouldn’t keep them anyway.
If there was some single move that would guarantee a ring, I think the entire board would advocate for it.
Nothing- spending more, trading for guys,- nothing, guarantees a ring.
The Orioles should be putting together rosters annually that are poised to make deep playoff runs.
Luckily for us, by that metric, this offseason has been a wild success, because that's exactly the kind of roster we have now and for the foreseeable future.
You keep harping that they NEED to do this or NEED to do that; the beauty of their position is they don't need to do anything.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Well, I think that’s a relatively dumb contract to give out, so whatever and if they do give that out, they aren’t worried about what you are talking about.
I’m not talking about those types of contracts.
And again, it still doesn’t matter. You trade guys and you don’t pay 5M to Givens.
You should always have 8-12 players on your team making nothing. There are plenty of very easy and simple ways to keep your payroll down. The stars and scrubs roster is the best way to go.
So basically you're talking about a Cease trade then. LOL.
If you're not willing to give out a contract like the one I proposed above, and yeah, maybe you get Gray on a 3 year deal for a higher annual average but it's still in the same ballpark, then you're not going to get a pitcher who slots in our playoff rotation. That's just reality.
So if you won't give out a contract like that then you're really only going to be able to upgrade the rotation through trade, and then it just comes back to Cease, or maybe Burnes.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Of course payroll will rise with arb raises. Been saying that for a while but so what? Are you saying the Os will non tender Adley because they signed a pitcher to a 3/60 deal? Are you saying they will let Gunnar walk?
It’s not logical. What that may do is stop them from going to arb 2 or 3 with guys like Hays or Mountcastle but they shouldn’t do that anyway, no matter what money they have.
I'm saying if they have 20 million committed to a FA in 2026 that they signed in 2023, that is 20 million less to spend for the 2026 payroll.
That's what I'm saying, and it is an indisputable fact.
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
It has nothing to do with the money not mattering. You would be making sense if people were talking about adding guys on 9 figure, 7-10 year deals. But no one is. We are talking shorter term contracts to help supplement the roster but not garbage signings like Gibson, Lyles, Frazier, et al.
The guys like Eovaldi or Bassett last year..potentially Sonny gray this year. Being ok with the salary for Cease.
Stuff like that. That has no bearing on whether we keep Holliday after 2030.
Well, yes, some people are advocating for 9 figure deals, or 4-5 year deals.
I for one have advocated kicking the tires on Eduardo Rodriguez. If we signed him for 4-80, which I would do, that's 20 million dollars in 2027 that is going to have to be balanced with Bradish in ARB 3. If they have a cap on the major league payroll, whatever it may be, they're going to have to fit Bradish, or G Rodriguez, or whomever, under it, minus the 20 mil they already committed to Eduardo.
This really shouldn't be difficult to grasp.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
I think all of us understand that a finite amount will be spent on payroll.
That's true of every team.
Money being spent on outside acquisitions is not the sole determining factor in how long home grown player will stay with the team.
This isn't children's blocks.
Congrats. You beat the hell out of that strawman.
I never said what you're attacking.
Now I understand your confusion.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
These guys aren’t FA for 4-8 years(depending on the player). WTF does signing someone for 2-3 years have to do with that? There’s no logic or common sense there.
And who is to say they want to retain them or that they will be good enough to retain? Lots of things can happen in the upcoming years.
The major league payroll will start to rise significantly in 2025 through arbitration raises alone. Frobby quoted 35 mil for 2025 alone in a thread this very morning.
So yes, even 2-3 year FA contracts will coincide with internal increases of payroll. Again, that's not to say they can't/shouldn't sign some FA, but it is acknowledging mathematical realities.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
This isn’t even remotely true.
You can pretend the money "doesn't matter" or pretend to not understand what I'm saying like Can of Corn, but the Orioles will spend a finite amount on player payroll. We might not like the amount; we might think it can be higher, etc. but that doesn't matter.
Reality is they will spend a certain amount of money on player payroll. If you allocate some of that money to outside acquisitions, then you will have less to spend on the homegrown players.
This isn't rocket science.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
Oh so you are looking at one factor and ignoring others?
Right, not much common sense there.
They are not going to make any moves based purely off of the cost of contracts.
WTF are you even going on about?
The O's aren't going to make moves based on the financials? Yeah, sure.
Ramble on more about common sense.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
It's faulty logic.
You are assuming that they won't be moved to maximize return and will only be moved when they are not longer financially tenable.
That's not showing a lot of common sense.
No, I'm assuming the Orioles are going to have too much talent to pay them all and keep them all well into their FA years. Do you disagree with that assumption?
I'm not making any assumptions about when/why they'll be traded or allowed to walk in FA.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
You have no evidence that it would hasten anything. They are likely to be sent packing either way.
eViDeNcE
No but I have common sense.
The more money you spend on outside acquisitions the less you have to retain homegrown players.
That's just Logic 101.
-
The top 10 was fairly easy to sus out.
It should start to get very difficult to do that now.
I went Norby-Povich because Norby has to be there imo and Povich has legit starting pitcher upside.
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Yea, it’s always better to be reactive than proactive.
Taking on financial commitments now that extend into future years would only hasten the exodus of our homegrown talent.
That isn't being proactive.
-
1 minute ago, Frobby said:
FWIW, BB-ref projects that our Arb eligible players will cost $35 mm more in 2025 than in 2024, with 21 players elugible next year including Adley, Bradish and Kremer coming on line, among others.
Go look at the tender thread posted today. There's significant raises coming to a lot of players this offseason as well.
The payroll is going to increase organically.
Despite the Rangers' success this past year, a path that isn't viable for teams unless they can extort local governments for public tax money, it's a sign of a healthy, sustainable organization for the payroll to increase on paying your own players, because they're good and successful, rather than poaching at FA rates the good and successful players from other organizations.
-
10 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
I don't get mad at water for being wet. It's as simple as that.
To anyone that thought Angelos would spend after a 101 win season with one of the lowest payrolls in the game, where's the logic? JA just looked at Angelos and said "We fielded a team that won 101 games, spent hardly anything to do it, why increase the payroll? Run it back in 2024, let's do it again."
I'm with @Frobby, I don't care how much they spend, but just win. And I realize that's going to come at the expense of securing guys like Adley and Gunnar to extensions but it is what it is, so I'll enjoy them while they're here. No one can say they didn't see what's going to come, coming.
That's where I am at.
If the team in 3-4 years starts losing talent because they insist on keeping sub 100 mil payrolls, AND they are unable to replace said talent in-house, then I'll start to complain about payroll.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Agreed but there is zero reason that they can’t sign, for example, Nathan Eovaldi…or sign Gray to a 3/70 deal….or something else along those lines.
I don’t even want them out there signing FAs to 9 figure deals. I think that’s just dumb to do.
But overall, they absolutely have to do more to supplement this team both now and going forward, especially if you aren’t going to stress pitching in the draft (I know they did in 2023 but not at the top and we don’t know if that will be the case going forward).
They can and will sign FAs. And hopefully, even a step up from the Fraziers and Gibsons of the world.
But I won't say they NEED to do anything, until they start to not wildy exceed all reasonable expectations.
As Frobby said, I don't care if they never sign FAs as long as they keep winning a lot of games and having reasonable chances at deep playoff runs.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
I mean, he definitely has said he has the ability to raise the payroll. He has said that Angelos is letting him run things as he wants.
There is no doubt about that. Now, I do agree with you about the lift off stuff and how that was interpreted.
End of the day, this is on Angelos, not Elias…we all know that.
I mean payroll did increase last year, and it will increase again going forward, but it will be mostly on paying the guys already here.
I do not expect them to surf the top of the FA market. They're just not going to do it, and they don't need to do it.
Anyone expect that is going to be disappointed, again and again.
-
14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I'm going to disagree with your interpretation and even if you are correct, it wasn't perceived that way by the fanbase.
He's not going to make a mistake like that again.
People are stupid. What can you say?
I don't think Elias made a mistake, so I don't think he's going to not make another one like that.
It's not Elias if people want to misinterpret his words.
-
12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I don't think any of us expecting him to make the same mistake he did last year with the lift off comment.
This is more in line with my expectations for his interviews.
The fuss over the liftoff comment is so much ado about nothing.
He meant the team was going to be entering its competitive period. It in no way referenced money.
Guess what?
The team entered it's competitive period, won 101 games, and the AL East.
I'd say they lifted off just fine.
-
4
-
Mike Elias said O's upward path will "involve the major league payroll" Melewski
in Orioles Talk
Posted
But must you inflict the rest of us with your native malady?