Hardy extended

[Stotle]

I wouldn't be shocked to see this happen. I doubt Buck signed on for 3 years of just rebuilding with ML ready prospects.

Right, but the question is whether my idea of "big moves" is the same as Baltimore's idea of "big moves"....

[SrMeowMeow]

Let's be clear - the move is "treading water" if we put a 70-win team around Hardy, but from a value perspective, injury risk factored in, it is a FANTASTIC extension for the O's.

EDIT: Which means I absolutely love the move for the O's, regardless of context.

[Sports Guy]

This is great news A good fair deal for the player and the team. I see this as the Orioles could have made a trade for potential and gotten back 3 top prospects and ended up with another Felix Pie,Chris Tillman,and Josh Bell who were all at one time considered top prospects that we traded for.

Or they could have dealt him for 2 very good players and instead, they decided to keep him and he gets hurt and we have another revolving door at SS.

See, this game can be played both ways.

[Sports Guy]

How have Billy Beane's teams done lately? They have not had a winning record since 2006 and are on their way to another one this year, in a poor division.

That doesn't make his statement, the one you were quoting from Peace, any less true.

[El Gordo]

Right, but the question is whether my idea of "big moves" is the same as Baltimore's idea of "big moves"....

I bet your idea and Buck's aren't far apart and as we know Buck has Petey's ear.:laughlol:

[mweb]

The price is right. The contract will likely be worth it.

A trade would have made more sense for a team in Baltimore's position, and it seemed interest was out there, but it's a club-friendly salary.

I would have preferred 2 years, and 3 years with a full NTC would have upset me, but this seems like a decent compromise. He's not going anywhere this year or the next, but the Orioles need to be able to move him if/when Machado is ready.

Here's hoping he stays healthy, gives us a couple excellent years at a solid price, and is flipped for a nice package in 2013 when Machado is ready to become a star

Yep. I would have liked to have seen him traded if the return was satisfactory, but this is a favorable contract so I can't complain too much.

[Spy Fox]

How have Billy Beane's teams done lately? They have not had a winning record since 2006 and are on their way to another one this year, in a poor division.

I agreed with the "Beane is Overrated" thread in the MLB forum, but how can you argue with that quote? The proof is in the results of the O's the past 15 years. They only made one attempt at big spending (pre-2004) and one halfway executed rebuild attempt (pre-2008) in the past decade and as a result they've been stuck in this middle phase as a consistently mediocre team. Perhaps Beane isn't following his own advice recently, but it's good advice nonetheless.

[Stotle]

Let's be clear - the move is "treading water" if we put a 70-win team around Hardy, but from a value perspective, injury risk factored in, it is a FANTASTIC extension for the O's.

EDIT: Which means I absolutely love the move for the O's, regardless of context.

Putting into context of current roster make-up, current MiL organization, current reported fiscal restraints on payroll, and the universe of "big picture" items, it's treading water. Put in the contect of Fangraph's calculator for "value", it's likely to turn out well.

[Stotle]

I bet your idea and Buck's aren't far apart and as we know Buck has Petey's ear.:laughlol:

(Fingers crossed)...

[SrMeowMeow]

Putting into context of current roster make-up, current MiL organization, current reported fiscal restraints on payroll, and the universe of "big picture" items, it's treading water. Put in the contect of Fangraph's calculator for "value", it's likely to turn out well.

I'm not talking about whether it's a better move than trading Hardy or letting him walk for picks (debatable). I'm saying that as a contract, in a vacuum, it is a very good one.

[hoosiers]

The $ and length of contract seem reasonable - perhaps even a bargain if Hardy is healthy, but would have much preferred to see Hardy dealt.

[Stotle]

I'm not talking about whether it's a better move than trading Hardy or letting him walk for picks (debatable). I'm saying that as a contract, in a vacuum, it is a very good one.

Fair enough, but there are a lot of "good" contracts that wouldn't make sense for Baltimore.

[SrMeowMeow]

Fair enough, but there are a lot of "good" contracts that wouldn't make sense for Baltimore.

Like who?

[Stotle]

Like who?

Simplifying, Hardy's deal brings Baltimore up to a little north of $60 million in payroll for 2012 (incuding arbs). Assuming Baltimore is a 78-82 win club and assuming Baltimore's payroll ceiling is in the $85 million range again, any contract or combination of contracts that doesn't result in around an addition 9-12 wins for around $20 million probably aren't going to get the job done.

Baltimore could sign Fielder for $20 million per, which I think most would think in a vacuum is a good deal. But if it means they can't add anyone else, it doesn't really make sense for them to do it since they are still likely 4-8 wins shy of where they need to be (from a projection standpoint).

Hardy's contract is a "good" deal, but Baltimore likely needs more bargain basement pricing if they are going to put together a competitive team in the AL east for $85 million, considering the unmoveable contracts they have on the books for the next two years or so.

It's another example of a MacPhail deal that will certainly not cripple the team, but likely runs counter to the team actually competing in the AL East.

[Slappy]

Simplifying, Hardy's deal brings Baltimore up to a little north of $60 million in payroll for 2012 (incuding arbs). Assuming Baltimore is a 78-82 win club and assuming Baltimore's payroll ceiling is in the $85 million range again, any contract or combination of contracts that doesn't result in around an addition 9-12 wins for around $20 million probably aren't going to get the job done.

Baltimore could sign Fielder for $20 million per, which I think most would think in a vacuum is a good deal. But if it means they can't add anyone else, it doesn't really make sense for them to do it since they are still likely 4-8 wins shy of where they need to be (from a projection standpoint).

Hardy's contract is a "good" deal, but Baltimore likely needs more bargain basement pricing if they are going to put together a competitive team in the AL east for $85 million, considering the unmoveable contracts they have on the books for the next two years or so.

It's another example of a MacPhail deal that will certainly not cripple the team, but likely runs counter to the team actually competing in the AL East.

This is really what it boils down to. If we're going to go the FA/veteran route, the payroll is going to have to be raised, probably significantly. If we're going the Big Lots route, we need far better scouting, development, and international departments.

Which route are we going? The problem is, I think Buck prefers Plan A and MacPhail prefers Plan B. So we end up in the middle, floundering.