Jump to content

Hardy extended


nevadaO

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

While I am glad we have a decent SS for the next 3 years, it also angers me a bit to see the team doing this right now when it's so obvious they should have a firesale.

What this means is that there will be little to no movement going on this month or next.

The same team will be in place next year for another "if everything goes right" run at .500.

What this represents is that we're still treading water as an organization and hammering away at the same nail even though it won't go in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, but considering Beane is the one making the statement, if it were so easy to pull off, dont you think he could do it?

He is doing it...He isn't a fence rider.

Some injuries have really hurt them this year...They were going fine and then they just collapsed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am glad we have a decent SS for the next 3 years, it also angers me a bit to see the team doing this right now when it's so obvious they should have a firesale.

I would be angrier if I actually had a sense of what they could have gotten for Hardy. Without that information, it is hard to know whether this was the better move.

I'm hoping (but not expecting) that by the end of the season it won't be so obvious that we should have had a fire sale. (Well, I don't like the term fire sale, which implies that you get rid of guys at all cost regardless of the return; but I know that's not exactly what you meant.) I honestly cannot believe our pitching is as bad as it had been for the last 5-6 weeks. But, as I said in a thread during the all-star break, even if the pitching suddenly reverts to its form from August and September of last year, it will be hard to have any confidence in what that means for 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is doing it...He isn't a fence rider.

Some injuries have really hurt them this year...They were going fine and then they just collapsed.

2007 - 76-86

2008 - 75-86

2009 - 75-87

2010 - 81-81

2011 - 42-54

Prior to 2007 they were very successful. But they've been stuck in below-average mode for going on 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is important to note that MacPhail did this sort of thing in Chicago as well. He has no issue with giving his own players large contract extension, but will not give it to those on the free agent market. The Cubs signed Soriano the offseason after MacPhail left. I believe MacPhail thinks those very large contracts are bad for the game, but it really doesn't matter. If the Orioles want to win with an $85M payroll moving forward then they have to do better than spending $43.5M on the likes of Markakis, Roberts, Hardy, Guthrie, Gregg and Scott. More than half of the teams payroll will account for around 11 WAR this season and another $20.75M for Gonzalez, Guerrero and Lee will account for another 2 or less. That is 13 WAR added for the very high price of $64M. Those numbers are skewed by bad years, injuries, aging veterans and bad luck, but it is always the same old grind for this club. When will management ever start to get it?

Much of the expensive core of players will return next season at even higher base salaries. We will still have holes at SPx2, RPx2, 3B/DH, 1B, LF and at least one quality UTI. Considering that Adam Jones and Jeremy Guthrie get a raise in arbitration and Luke Scott is let go or traded, we will see a payroll of about $65M-$70M and have $15M-$20M to fill 7-8 holes? There is no way we could even land Fielder without going over our budget by $2M-$5M before the cost of the other 7 players we need are factored in. The answer needs to be an $100M payroll and even then I do not think that is going to be enough because a quality starter or two is not going to be cheap. I just think the Orioles have to move Guthrie at this point. That will free up $8.5M-$10M off of next years budget. I would be shocked if he wasn't dealt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, but considering Beane is the one making the statement, if it were so easy to pull off, dont you think he could do it?

Beane is citing the philosophy. It doesn't mean that winning isn't difficult, but spending a ton of money to play for third, fourth or fifth doesn't make sense and the Orioles have that mentality. They seem to think they owe it to the fans to have a "competitive" team on the field, but what they do not get is that it is winning that draws fans to the park. We want exciting baseball and to be part of an epic moment in sports, there just isn't many epic moments when you stink over a decade and a half. The Orioles are very lucky they were able to ride Cal's streak for the good part of two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I don't think Fielder at 20M a year is a "good" deal in the same sense. It might be a fair deal, but I like Hardy's because I consider it highly likely to produce surplus value (as opposed to Fielder at 5/100 or so). And contracts like those are relatively rare and I can't think of any players signed to such deals that I wouldn't want on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Fielder at 20M a year is a "good" deal in the same sense. It might be a fair deal, but I like Hardy's because I consider it highly likely to produce surplus value (as opposed to Fielder at 5/100 or so). And contracts like those are relatively rare and I can't think of any players signed to such deals that I wouldn't want on the team.

Taking injury risk into account you think there is a high likelihood Hardy produces surplus value? How many times in his career has he been worth $7.5 million dollars in production?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking injury risk into account you think there is a high likelihood Hardy produces surplus value? How many times in his career has he been worth $7.5 million dollars in production?

Four out of the last five seasons, according to Fangraphs, although I know you're too cool for WAR. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four out of the last five seasons, according to Fangraphs, although I know you're too cool for WAR. ;)

Not too cool for WAR, but Baseball-reference disagrees, I believe. Insomuch as there is not concensus on the calculations showing even par value, I don't think we can assume that an older Hardy is a safe bet to provide surplus value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too cool for WAR, but Baseball-reference disagrees, I believe. Insomuch as there is not concensus on the calculations showing even par value, I don't think we can assume that an older Hardy is a safe bet to provide surplus value.

Nobody's a safe bet, but Hardy's a bet I would make. I'm happy to agree to disagree though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...