Jones to have MRI

[Mayor McCheese]

From Roch:

Told MRI negative on jones' right wrist. Team off today. He should play tomorrow. Now where's my luggage?

:smile11::boogie:

:smile11::boogie:

[LookitsPuck]

More info:

MRIs in both of jones' hands and wrists showed contusions. He's ok to play, #orioles say. Saw specialist in Sarasota

[whynot38]

From aj

"thanks for all the concern but i'm all good. . On the way to bean town"

[Pickles]

No, fWAR uses UZR while bWAR uses Total Zone. Neither like Jones very much, but I think UZR is a little more accurate. The Fielding Bible (DRS) also doesn't like Jones' defense very much. I tend to think that with so many metrics in agreement they tend to be on to something.

Well, to be fair BP defense system ranks him out as slightly below average. I don't have a problem w that. I do have a problem w bWAR when they ding him a win a year, as they did last year, for his defense. I don't think that in anyway correlates to the kind of defensive player I see in Jones.

I just think your concerns for the wisdom of the contract are misfounded.

1) On the idea of what value Jones' has provided the past few years. Which is an arguable point w no right or wrong answer.

2) On what we're paying him to be worth going forward. You stated in your OP here that we're paying him to be a 4-5 win player. That is simply untrue. We're paying him to be a 3-3.5 win player, IF the value of a win doesn't increase going forward, which seems HIGHLY unlikely.

The first point is debatable; the second is not.

[Say O!]

Well, to be fair BP defense system ranks him out as slightly below average. I don't have a problem w that. I do have a problem w bWAR when they ding him a win a year, as they did last year, for his defense. I don't think that in anyway correlates to the kind of defensive player I see in Jones.

I just think your concerns for the wisdom of the contract are misfounded.

1) On the idea of what value Jones' has provided the past few years. Which is an arguable point w no right or wrong answer.

2) On what we're paying him to be worth going forward. You stated in your OP here that we're paying him to be a 4-5 win player. That is simply untrue. We're paying him to be a 3-3.5 win player, IF the value of a win doesn't increase going forward, which seems HIGHLY unlikely.

The first point is debatable; the second is not.

Since when are the O's in a financial position to be paying "market value" for wins? We need to be like TB and come out ahead on these deals.

Besides, I think the whole concept of market value/win is inflated by the FA deals of superstars and/or NYY & BOS signings. Remove those outliers and the WAR/$ is much lower.

[Babypowder]

Well, to be fair BP defense system ranks him out as slightly below average. I don't have a problem w that. I do have a problem w bWAR when they ding him a win a year, as they did last year, for his defense. I don't think that in anyway correlates to the kind of defensive player I see in Jones.

I just think your concerns for the wisdom of the contract are misfounded.

1) On the idea of what value Jones' has provided the past few years. Which is an arguable point w no right or wrong answer.

2) On what we're paying him to be worth going forward. You stated in your OP here that we're paying him to be a 4-5 win player. That is simply untrue. We're paying him to be a 3-3.5 win player, IF the value of a win doesn't increase going forward, which seems HIGHLY unlikely.

The first point is debatable; the second is not.

Fair enough. I still don't see it as a lock that he remains a 3-3.5 win player either. There's plenty of risk. I also maintain that the Orioles are a team that needs surplus value. We can't really afford to be paying too many guys their actual free agent values, worth it or not. If Adam Jones remains around a 12 million dollar player, the deal hurts us a bit. I'm not as confident as you are that he becomes a 15-17 million dollar player from 2014-2018.

[Pickles]

Since when are the O's in a financial position to be paying "market value" for wins? We need to be like TB and come out ahead on these deals.

Besides, I think the whole concept of market value/win is inflated by the FA deals of superstars and/or NYY & BOS signings. Remove those outliers and the WAR/$ is much lower.

Well, I've stated that I feel pretty confident the O's will come out ahead on this deal so that's exactly why I don't have a problem w it.

It isn't just the Yankees and Red Sox. The Cubs, Nats, both LA teams, Tex, MIA, PHI, etc. all have at least one contract on their books that far exceeds anything the O's have ever spent.

So yes, the O's need to be effecient, but that doesn't make them Tampa Bay.

[Pickles]

Fair enough. I still don't see it as a lock that he remains a 3-3.5 win player either. There's plenty of risk. I also maintain that the Orioles are a team that needs surplus value. We can't really afford to be paying too many guys their actual free agent values, worth it or not. If Adam Jones remains around a 12 million dollar player, the deal hurts us a bit. I'm not as confident as you are that he becomes a 15-17 million dollar player from 2014-2018.

Again, I can provide metrics that suggest Jones has already been a 16 mil player the last three years, so I think it is categorically unfair to ignore them, and act as if fWar has it right, and BP doesn't.

Even if Jones doesn't grow, which I think is unlikely but possible, then value of a win is going to increase, and seemingly increase quite a bit over the course of that contract. The O's get surplus value.

I also think you have to ask yourself: Where can the Orioles get a player of Jones caliber, for that part of his career, for those rates? Pretty much only the way they have. Any excursion into FA would be paying an older, declining player, and O's surcharge to come here. This is about the best kind of long-term commitment the O's can make.

[OFFNY]

Since when are the O's in a financial position to be paying "market value" for wins? We need to be like TB and come out ahead on these deals.

Besides, I think the whole concept of market value/win is inflated by the FA deals of superstars and/or NYY & BOS signings. Remove those outliers and the WAR/$ is much lower.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. The Orioles have had 14 consecutive losing seasons, and they are in no position to be so choosy as to hold themselves to a standard of precisely emulating the team that has had the ideal combination of success on the field and also on the dotted lines with their players' contracts off of it. They need to do whatever it takes to keep the nucleus of their very young and talented team together (Markakis, Jones, Hardy, Wieters, etc.), which means/meant locking up Adam Jones the way that they did, as well as locking up Hardy last year at $7.5 Million per year for 3 years.

Peter opened up his checkbook and allowed Duquette keep our best player, yet fans still b**** and play Monday morning quarterback about how inefficient the deal(s) was/were (also, in relation to locking up Nick Markakis and Brian Roberts back in 2009).

.

[Lucky Jim]

They need to do whatever it takes to keep the nucleus of their very young and talented team together (Markakis, Jones, Hardy, Wieters, etc.), which means/meant locking up Adam Jones the way that they did, as well as locking up Hardy last year at $7.5 Million per year for 3 years.

I think there's a middle ground, frankly. I'm okay w/ the Jones deal - we were kind of hemmed in, and there's little risk that we'll lose from it, but there's some risk. That risk is heavily mitigated if Jones comes anywhere close to his defense this year (according to UZR/150, worth around 13 runs).

Here's the thing: you can pay market value for consistent positive value at a keystone position, provided you save elsewhere (though it gets riskier when you add a Wieters extension into the equation). And you can definitely do this if you expect to get cheap value at other positions (Hardy, for instance) or exceptional/superstar value at other positions (Machado, Bundy). You don't have to "win" every contract if your overall strategy is fine.

That said, Hardy was pure surplus value, and bears little relation to the Jones deal.

[Frobby]

Since when are the O's in a financial position to be paying "market value" for wins? We need to be like TB and come out ahead on these deals.

Besides, I think the whole concept of market value/win is inflated by the FA deals of superstars and/or NYY & BOS signings. Remove those outliers and the WAR/$ is much lower.

Well, I don't know about that. I look at contracts like the following:

Werth (7/$126 mm for ages 32-39)

Hunter (5/$90 mm for ages 32-36)

Crawford (7/$142 mm for ages 29-35)

Soriano (8/$136 mm for ages 31-38)

Lee (6/$100 mm for ages 31-36)

Wells (7/$126 mm for ages 29-35)

Who among those was truly a superstar when their deal was signed? I'm leaving out guys who more arguably were superstars when they signed, like Ramirez (8/$160mm), Kemp (8/$160mm), Griffey (9/$116.5mm), Beltran (7/$119mm), Holliday (7/$120mm), Bonds (5/$90mm), and Ichiro (5/$90mm).

On the one hand, you could argue that Jones is a cut below some of these players. On the other hand, the O's are paying for his age 27-32 seasons, at a cheaper price than any of these deals.

[wildcard]

Its very possible that Jones told O's management about the sore wrist prior to the contract signing and O's management figured it into the contract price.

[Pickles]

Well, I don't know about that. I look at contracts like the following:

Werth (7/$126 mm for ages 32-39)

Hunter (5/$90 mm for ages 32-36)

Crawford (7/$142 mm for ages 29-35)

Soriano (8/$136 mm for ages 31-38)

Lee (6/$100 mm for ages 31-36)

Wells (7/$126 mm for ages 29-35)

Who among those was truly a superstar when their deal was signed? I'm leaving out guys who more arguably were superstars when they signed, like Ramirez (8/$160mm), Kemp (8/$160mm), Griffey (9/$116.5mm), Beltran (7/$119mm), Holliday (7/$120mm), Bonds (5/$90mm), and Ichiro (5/$90mm).

On the one hand, you could argue that Jones is a cut below some of these players. On the other hand, the O's are paying for his age 27-32 seasons, at a cheaper price than any of these deals.

Exactly. To be against the Jones contract means two things: You think the O's should have traded him; and 2) They should never sign FAs, except for middling ones.

[RShack]

So he's had this wrist issue for "weeks", and the MRI before the contract extension didn't tell us anything? Why not rest him then? Instead, you sign him for $85.5M and hope it gets better?

Well, I'm not sure why he's supposed to tell us anything... everybody who's played the game says that something's wrong with you physically most of the time... does anybody else tell us about all their aches and pains?... no, they do not... did we know what Cal was feeling for all those many games?... no, we did not... did Palmer always whine and moan about every little thing that was wrong with him? yep, he sure did... and everybody got tired of hearing it...

As for AJ having done something wrong, I think we'd have to be privy to whatever he did and didn't tell the Dr's before we could possibly have an informed opinion about that... in the meantime, I don't see how anybody can say that there is any malfeasance afoot just because his wrist hurts...

[OFFNY]

I think there's a middle ground, frankly. I'm okay w/ the Jones deal - we were kind of hemmed in, and there's little risk that we'll lose from it, but there's some risk. That risk is heavily mitigated if Jones comes anywhere close to his defense this year (according to UZR/150, worth around 13 runs).

Here's the thing: you can pay market value for consistent positive value at a keystone position, provided you save elsewhere (though it gets riskier when you add a Wieters extension into the equation). And you can definitely do this if you expect to get cheap value at other positions (Hardy, for instance) or exceptional/superstar value at other positions (Machado, Bundy). You don't have to "win" every contract if your overall strategy is fine.

That said, Hardy was pure surplus value, and bears little relation to the Jones deal.

Hardy is one of the young players (he at 29, Markakis at 29, Wieters at 26, and Jones at 26) that makes of the nucleus of the current and future of our team. Signing him and the others to multiple years is relevant to each other, regardless of the different circumstances of the signings.

More significantly, winning should be the top priority in all of this, which is why I stated that we have to have a do whatever it takes mindset when it comes to signing contracts and the amount of money that we dish out ...... and not just from a competitive standpoint, but also from a financial standpoint. I can't prove this, but I certainly would bet my last dime that if the Orioles put together 2, 3, 4 consecutive winning seasons in 2012, 2013, 2014, etc, then OPACY attendance will eventually jump back to what it was when we were winning from 1992-1997 (and also, for the 7 or 8 ensuing years that the fans continued to come in spite of the losing). Winning brings more fans, which brings more revenue, which allows for bigger payrolls, etc.

It's a gamble, because there is always the possibility that we won't win in spite of being liberal and possibly overpaying with the contracts, and then we're screwed. But, considering that the team and the fans have been screwed for quite some time now, I believe that it's worth the risk.

.