Per Olney tweet, look for resolution in 48 hours

[Oriolidae85]

He's sitting back and waiting for Vlad to come crawling to the Orioles.

Fangraphs had Vlad at $3.8M in 2009 and project his value at $4.8M in 2011. Clearly the Orioles asking price is reasonable. It is a discount, but it also is a risk.

You have to admit that AM is not clearly waiting for Vlad to come "Crawling" to the Orioles.

[JTrea81]

So the Rangers offered him $5M. That is still a low ball based on his WAR value.

True, but the fact he's 40 makes him even more of a risk to fall off.

And his role would only be a part time one.

I won't argue he was lowballed, but the situation is a bit different.

The Orioles want to use Vlad as their full time DH.

Thome was going to be in a platoon regardless.

[JTrea81]

Since you wont answer, I will. Fangraphs had Vlad at $3.8M in 2009 and project his value at $4.8M in 2011. Clearly the Orioles asking price is reasonable. It is a discount, but it also is a risk.

Fans are projecting his value at $4.8 million, not the site itself. And they also have him playing games in the OF, which would take away his value.

Also look at how they rate Thome and Scott for comparison.

[bluedog]

I always try to get to a lower price, but if there's a point where I want something and it is a priority of mine to acquire, I get it even if it wasn't the rock bottom price it could have been. The exception to that is if it is something that is completely going to blow my budget, which Vlad will not do for the Orioles.

That's something the Orioles have yet to master.

In this case it's obvious that Vlad isn't a priority for MacPhail, and that's the problem really.

If Vlad was a former Cub or could pitch, he'd be an Oriole right now IMO.

Can I hire you to be the negotiator for my next client? With you on the other side of the table, our company would make a fortune.

Some basic economic & business principles you seem to have no grasp of -

1. The value of a thing is set by the market for that thing. Vlad's performance last year has no bearing on his value if there are no buyers. His value is set by what the buyers are willing to pay, period. If the O's offer him 4.5 million and no one beats that offer, 4.5 million IS his value, no matter how many home runs or RBIs he had.

2. People that judge the value of a thing based on how much money they have to spend are called sheep and the market's job is to shear them. Competent buyers apply an absolute value to an object based on their needs and then derive a maximum price based upon those needs - which they will not exceed under any circumstance. Your idea of "max budget = how much have i got in my wallet?" is a strategy for long term financial ruin.

3. Emotions have no place in business. Any negotiator that uses "I want" as a basis for a deal is an amateur at best. The fact that you suggest that your behavior as a consumer ("where I want something"...) has any logical bearing on high stakes contract negotiation shows just how naive you are. You want to see how successful teams are where the owners make emotional decisions based on what they "want"? Check out Daniel Snyder and the Redskins.

4. Negotiating million dollar contracts is not like buying a pack of gum at the mini-mart. Small scale purchase behavior bears absolutely no relation to transactions at the multi-million dollar level. The risk associated with buying a pack of gum is inconsequential. The risk associated with adding another million dollars to a contract is extraordinary.

What this all boils down to, is that you have absolutely no basis for determining what the O's have and haven't been able to master.

From a financial standpoint you are a 6 month old child with vomit on your chin, playing with numbered blocks claiming you know more about money than a multi-hundred million dollar organization filled with successful businessmen, accountants, lawyers and contract negotiators who have hundreds of years of combined experience with multi-million dollar deals.

[bej6789]

Out of curiosity, Jtrea, do you use ebay at all?

Hypothetical situation:

You're bidding on an autographed baseball valued at $10. The last day of the auction, you find out that your bid of $5 is not only the highest bid -- it's the only bid. Would you give the owner an extra $2 because it's closer to the real value of the baseball?

Mind you, every other seller on Ebay now knows that you're prone to bidding against yourself, even if you are the only bidder.

Based on your current argument, you'd pay the extra $2 because it guarantees you get the player. Yet you seem to ignore the entire business side of things. The baseball is only worth $10 if someone is willing to pay $10. When you up your bid with little to no competition, you're doing something in addition to "guaranteeing you get the item" -- you're telling future agents that you're willing to give away leverage for the sake of giving away leverage.

[Frobby]

I think JTrea is both right and wrong. Even if there is nobody outbidding the Orioles, his preference for some other team may cause him to choose not to go to the highest bidder. However, the higher our offer is, the more difficult it becomes for Vlad to turn it down. Obviously, if we offered him $20 mm, he wouldn't be giving Texas or the Angels a second thought.

And yes, in a fangraphs sort of way, Vlad is worth more than $4.5 mm.

But none of that is the issue. The issue is simply, what is Vlad worth to us, and can we afford to spend our limited resouorces on him. I mean, let's say I have an old 32" television set, and I have a budget of $1500 to spend on Christmas presents for my wife and kids and the family. I've spent $1000 of it, and all of a sudden a really nice flat screen 42" TV, normally costing $1500, now goes on sale for one week only at $700. Well, in that scenario the deal is simply too good to pass up, and I'll go buy it even though I've now busted my Christmas budget by $200. But let's say that the TV is on sale for $1100 instead -- still $400 under what it's "worth," but now I'll be $600 over my Christmas budget. In that scenario, I've got to pass on the TV and get by with my old 32" model.

That is kind of where we are here. The question isn't Vlad's value added compared to a "replacement player" (which is what WAR and fangraphs' "value" purport to measure), it's his value added compared to Reimold and Pie in the same ABs. There, you have to consider whether you expect Vlad to do better or worse than last year; whether you expect Pie and Reimold to improve or not; whether there is value in giving experience to Reimold and Pie even if they don't perform as well as Vlad would; whether you have the money to spend; and whether that money can be deployed somewhere else with better effect; and whether this expenditure will make a material difference in ouor chances to make the playoffs in 2011. It is nowhere near as simple as looking at fangraphs.

[JTrea81]

Out of curiosity, Jtrea, do you use ebay at all?

Hypothetical situation:

You're bidding on an autographed baseball valued at $10. The last day of the auction, you find out that your bid of $5 is not only the highest bid -- it's the only bid. Would you give the owner an extra $2 because it's closer to the real value of the baseball?

Mind you, every other seller on Ebay now knows that you're prone to bidding against yourself, even if you are the only bidder.

Based on your current argument, you'd pay the extra $2 because it guarantees you get the player. Yet you seem to ignore the entire business side of things. The baseball is only worth $10 if someone is willing to pay $10. When you up your bid with little to no competition, you're doing something in addition to "guaranteeing you get the item" -- you're telling future agents that you're willing to give away leverage for the sake of giving away leverage.

I've been sniped too many times to find out I wasn't the highest bid. I therefore now set my bid to close to the max amount I want to pay to start.

I don't usually lowball if I am bidding on something as I want the item.

I do look at bid histories to see how much they have been going for obviously and then take into account the rareness of the item when I place my bid.

In the Orioles' case, Vlad is the best hitter left on the market and they need his bat to provide offensive depth.

[Oriolidae85]

Fans are projecting his value at $4.8 million, not the site itself. And they also have him playing games in the OF, which would take away his value.

Also look at how they rate Thome and Scott for comparison.

It does not take away the FACT that Vlad was worth $3.8M in 2009 a point you are blissfully choosing to ignore.

[MikeAD]

I've been sniped too many times to find out I wasn't the highest bid. I therefore now set my bid to close to the max amount I want to pay to start.

I don't usually lowball if I am bidding on something as I want the item.

Oh come on, youre saying this because it suits your argument.

Show me proof :smile11:

[weams]

Tomorrow, Feb 3 2011, I will be saying..."Welcome to Balmer Vlady, Hang on for the Ride!"

[Oriolidae85]

I think JTrea is both right and wrong. Even if there is nobody outbidding the Orioles, his preference for some other team may cause him to choose not to go to the highest bidder. However, the higher our offer is, the more difficult it becomes for Vlad to turn it down. Obviously, if we offered him $20 mm, he wouldn't be giving Texas or the Angels a second thought.

And yes, in a fangraphs sort of way, Vlad is worth more than $4.5 mm.

But none of that is the issue. The issue is simply, what is Vlad worth to us, and can we afford to spend our limited resouorces on him. I mean, let's say I have an old 32" television set, and I have a budget of $1500 to spend on Christmas presents for my wife and kids and the family. I've spent $1000 of it, and all of a sudden a really nice flat screen 42" TV, normally costing $1500, now goes on sale for one week only at $700. Well, in that scenario the deal is simply too good to pass up, and I'll go buy it even though I've now busted my Christmas budget by $200. But let's say that the TV is on sale for $1100 instead -- still $400 under what it's "worth," but now I'll be $600 over my Christmas budget. In that scenario, I've got to pass on the TV and get by with my old 32" model.

That is kind of where we are here. The question isn't Vlad's value added compared to a "replacement player" (which is what WAR and fangraphs' "value" purport to measure), it's his value added compared to Reimold and Pie in the same ABs. There, you have to consider whether you expect Vlad to do better or worse than last year; whether you expect Pie and Reimold to improve or not; whether there is value in giving experience to Reimold and Pie even if they don't perform as well as Vlad would; whether you have the money to spend; and whether that money can be deployed somewhere else with better effect; and whether this expenditure will make a material difference in ouor chances to make the playoffs in 2011. It is nowhere near as simple as looking at fangraphs.

Great analogy...one question: does the T.V. come with a warranty?

[sangar]

Once you get past half a season, there is really no such thing as fluke success in MLB.

Joe Charboneau says Hi.

[JTrea81]

It does not take away the FACT that Vlad was worth $3.8M in 2009 a point you are blissfully choosing to ignore.

Because he was injured.

Could he get hurt again? Sure.

But on a one year deal for less than $8 million, it's worth the risk. You can just walk away after the season, not to mention you can insure a 1 year contract pretty easily.

I seriously doubt unless he's injured, Vlad will put up less than a 2.0 fWAR performance.

[BRob411]

Make a decision Vlad, we're all waiting and no 1 hour ESPN Special announcing you will be taking your talents North of the Border to Toronto lol.

[raypetty]

RT @danconnollysun: #Orioles fans I will be on 105.7 tonight for a few mins at 6:30 p.m with @KenWeinman1057 My guess is Guerrero's name might come up.

Twitter - 1 minute ago