LookinUp

I think our payroll will look like a bell curve that starts well below the median payroll, goes up to a top 10 payroll, and then goes down some closer to the median. It won't be flat though. It'll be driven by talent. In other words, normal in a post Angelos world.

Yes, they were outliers, but they still weren't that valuable in the aggregate. I do think this type of player can play a massive role within the context of a team, but I don't see a path to a really high WAR career unless he hits the ball with authority. [Edit: As RZNJ points out, it's important to acknowledge that his BB rate/swing decisions seem better than those guys, which is great.]

I think they think of him as a starter, but that doesn’t mean he is a starter this year. I really think he could be our electric arm out of the bullpen.

I have a feeling that McDermott will be our DL Hall replacement, just not until July or August at least. He’s the guy who will miss bats.

I think the more accurate question is how Holliday’s timeline influenced the Os approach to trading Ortiz. Ortiz should never be a barrier to Holliday.

Very sarcastic, snarky, judgmental, know-it-all type of personality. Doesn't seem like he ever played a sport. He's kind of in a Jason LaCanfora category for me. Both were in DC. Didn't like them there either.

Even after the trade, there's a still a log jam of outfielders and infielders. Some guys are going to be really sick of Norfolk really soon (they already are).

Jerry Coleman basically prefaced his question by saying "Sorry, I wasn't listening to anything else you just said, but ..." and he then went on to ask questions that had already been asked and answered. That guy is really... nvm. If you can't say anything nice.

My takeaways from Elias (reinforced by Burnes): 1. No more big moves before the season unless some random opportunity arises. 2. No extension for Burnes. 3. This is a go for it in 2024 move.

I think a lot of things are possible. I know what he said last year, but it also appears there were genuine hurt feelings in Milwaukee. I'm holding out hope that Burnes really likes it in Baltimore and is willing to take a ton of money to stay here before hitting the market. He still gets a huge deal, but is willing to take it from us before the Yankees jump in.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I suspect a trade has been in the works for Burnes or Cease for weeks, but was possibly held up because of the business process of selling the team. I do think they would have taken on this payroll in 2024 regardless of whether JA sold the team or not. So I voted yes. I do think there's a small chance that Elias preferred a Burnes trade as his future Verlander, and only made it because there's a new owner. So I do think a trade taking on this payroll was going down either way, but it's possible that the new ownership moved it more towards Burnes than Cease.

I 100% think the O's couldn't make significant changes to payroll while they were finalizing this deal. I don't think that fact means Angelos is cheap. I just think it means that the major financials were settled on and shouldn't be changed in the middle of the process. I think that's standard operations during a massive deal like this.

I'm taking your side in this. The O's payroll should probably be between $150 and $200 million annually. I think the O's big problem will be in 4-5 years when those numbers will have to swell big time. They'll have to figure out how to make the books work at that point. On the other hand, maybe by then they'll be filling the stadium with a lot more fans, have an actual profitable TV rights deal and be regular recipients of playoff revenue. That could change everything. With all of this said, even extensions to Gunnar, Adley and Holliday are mostly going to be back loaded. Now is a perfect time to bring a guy like Burnes in, maybe front load the money a bit to entice him and have a less severe escalation in future payrolls, and count the wins.

Do it. You pay studs. You have to pay some studs if you want a team of studs. Some of that has to go to pitching. That's reality. Do it.

I'd be willing to go 5 or 6 years at 30 million per, accepting that 1-2 of those years could be washouts for injury.

This is true, but why not just sign the big arm now then? Maybe this is a one-time bridge year trade. If so, it is what it is, but I don't love it. I do love having an arm like Burnes and I'd be willing to overpay both in terms of trade price and contract. You have to pay a premium at the top end of the food chain and I think we should to keep him. But I don't like it as a 1-year approach.

I just want to make sure my position on this is clear. I want Elias to get his Verlander. Burnes could be that guy. The price is totally fine with me. I'd have even paid more. The reason I hesitate is because it's for 1 year, which means he's not our Verlander unless/until we extend him. Let's say we lose him this year. Do we trade Tavera and McDermott for next year's Burnes? Even with our system, it's not a sustainable method of talent acquisition. The good news is I believe Elias thinks Burnes is his Verlander. I think he thinks Rubenstein will try to re-sign him. I believe there's a good chance we do. If that happens, I'm also over the moon. It's just that, right now, all we have to go on with Burnes is his comments last year.

I’m hopeful, but would prefer we signed Montgomery than get one year of Burnes for those two guys. Ortiz and Hall could have been great pieces for us too. Even this year, especially Hall in our pen. That said, if we resign Burnes, it’s a home run. As it stands though, we just put a lot of eggs into a one year basket in a sport littered with champions who got hot at the right time. If we’re doing this, I think we need another high leverage reliever now.

I love having his talent here, but I want him here for a long time. I get that everyone here sees it differently. It’s just a lot of risk for a one year contract.

I just don’t like it for one year of control. Pitcher is the riskiest position.

I might as well go on record that I don’t love this trade, unless we have a real chance to extend him. I do get it though.

Hard to say. Leonsis would have to pay the O's for broadcast rights. I'm sure the O's will make the best deal they can, whichever way that goes.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. I have a few points to make... 1. Journalism is dead or dying. If you're not at the top, you're struggling to get by. You need to get and keep a job. Roch did that. 2. Since it's a dying industry, it helps to have some kind of schtick. The streak was Roch's schtick. Not terribly important from a content perspective, but smart from an outsider's perspective. I'm sorry he ended it. 3. I don't get how people here spew hate at Angelos AND Roch. Roch was clearly not allowed to be an actual journalist. He did his job in light of how MASN has been run by the terribly thin-skinned Angelos family for years. I'm not saying Roch's a great reporter or a perfect human, but I do remember him from a long time ago. He has actual personality and can actually write and report. But he got stuck in a tough profession and a tougher organization. I don't hate him for that. He also seems like a good family man, which I respect. I hope he can thrive under better management. fin

He wants to televise the O’s, Nats, Wizards and Caps. He’ll add football programming if possible too.

I listened to him, but don't agree with his reasoning. I think he makes assumptions and jumps to uninformed conclusions. Doesn't mean he's not right, but he recorded that as news was breaking and without any reporting about owner's meetings next week. Personally, I wouldn't be shocked if things are pretty far along on this already and the agreement is approved by owners very quickly.