Just an interesting article(Hamilton)

[Roll Tide]

$115 million payroll is not too much money, especially for a team that would contend year in and year out for the next 4 years for a Championship. And make no mistake about it, if we brought Hamilton to this core we would be in the thick of it every single year for the length of his contract.

And that is they way top number end assuming everyone is back and Hamilton gets $25 million. I highly doubt anyone is paying $25 million a year for a 32 year old Hamilton, when a 27 year old Fielder only got 21.4 last year. Matter of fact I would bet a lot of money against it.

What justification does Hamilton have exactly to best that by about 20%? None. No idea where these crazy ridiculous numbers for him are coming from, it isn't happening. He will get $20 per year tops and really shouldn't even get that considering his age/injury history. Mostly his age.

So now we are at $110 million for 2013 (with Hamilton at 20), with a ton of money coming off the books in 2014 and beyond with very few major commitments. Again, for a perennial contender that will draw at least 2.5-2.8 million every year.

This isn't some crazy idea that has no feasibility, unless our owner wants to continue to cry poor despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It actually would make a ton of sense, if we really want to put winning ahead of the bottom line.

You build on the little goodwill you earned this year to start the fans coming back regularly, show them you are serious and watch the snowball effect start to roll and get bigger with even more winning and excitement.

I think Hamilton for obvious reasons gets a shorter deal ...but for more annual salary.

[Roll Tide]

Focus on what I am saying. The crux of the article is that because the Orioles have declined Reynolds option, they have money available to sign Hamilton. That is a demonstrably false statement because the Orioles declining Reynolds's option has nothing to do with whether they will bring Reynolds back. If the Orioles had announced that they were not bringing Reynolds back (by declining to offer him arbitration), and thus may have money available to sign Hamilton, then the article would have validity.

Okay ...but they havent offered him arbitration ....and I dont think they will. Based on a sorry 1st 3 quarters of the season Reynolds is worth $5 million or so tops IMO. Forget about the 1st base defense. He STUNK at the plate and the production he had screams 1 year / 5 million. I dont think he signs to stay for that and I think he gets too much in arb. The Orioles need to upgrade somewhere and it sounds like they are passing on upgrading at 2B. So if they cant get Hamilton for 4 years at $20-25 then they can keep Reynolds at 5 or 6 or move Davis to 1B and sign a DH. The Orioles have a extra $25 Million just like every other team...Angelos and co have a stash they havent been spending for years. They have a fan base on the upswing. The worst thing they can do is sit on their hands and have a relapse. They need 2 guys for the middle of the line up that give you power and OBP that can take the pressure or Jones.

[24fps]

Focus on what I am saying. The crux of the article is that because the Orioles have declined Reynolds option, they have money available to sign Hamilton. That is a demonstrably false statement because the Orioles declining Reynolds's option has nothing to do with whether they will bring Reynolds back. If the Orioles had announced that they were not bringing Reynolds back (by declining to offer him arbitration), and thus may have money available to sign Hamilton, then the article would have validity.

Actually the article said that the Orioles were already "a favorite to land the free agent slugger, and they made things a little more likely this week when they declined an $11 million option on corner infielder Mark Reynolds..." I don't see the writer saying that Reynolds' option being declined is the enabling factor.

A favorite in whose mind is my question. I think your first post in this thread had it right.

[TradeAngelos]

I think Hamilton for obvious reasons gets a shorter deal ...but for more annual salary.

I hear this bandied about all the time, but can you give me some examples of this happening in the past? I am not saying it hasn't but I just can't remember anyone similar to Hamilton taking a contract like that at 32.

With baseball contracts being guaranteed, it makes zero sense to sign for 2 years even at a higher rate. You take the most total money, regardless how many years it is especially at his age. If someone has $50 million guaranteed in front of you or $95 million, which are you taking? It isn't even a decision. Now the question will be is the 5 year deal out there, and I would say of course it is.....but what is the number? Might not be 95-100, but it sure will be a heck of a lot more money than a 2 year deal that is for sure.

I just don't see any way that Hamilton takes a two year deal unless his market absolutely crashes which I doubt will happen. There will be 3 years minimum out there and probably a couple 4 and 5's IMO. Any way you slice it the longer deal will guarantee 10's of millions more, and for an aging player the value of that is extremely high. Would be different if he was 27 but he isn't.

[Saintbird]

Whomever signs him is going to have it blow up big time in their face before it's over I think. His body will breakdown and I think a lot faster than normal.

Just like Frank Robinson right?

[Roll Tide]

I hear this bandied about all the time, but can you give me some examples of this happening in the past? I am not saying it hasn't but I just can't remember anyone similar to Hamilton taking a contract like that at 32.

With baseball contracts being guaranteed, it makes zero sense to sign for 2 years even at a higher rate. You take the most total money, regardless how many years it is especially at his age. If someone has $50 million guaranteed in front of you or $95 million, which are you taking? It isn't even a decision. Now the question will be is the 5 year deal out there, and I would say of course it is.....but what is the number? Might not be 95-100, but it sure will be a heck of a lot more money than a 2 year deal that is for sure.

I just don't see any way that Hamilton takes a two year deal unless his market absolutely crashes which I doubt will happen. There will be 3 years minimum out there and probably a couple 4 and 5's IMO. Any way you slice it the longer deal will guarantee 10's of millions more, and for an aging player the value of that is extremely high. Would be different if he was 27 but he isn't.

Where did I say a 2 year deal.... I was comparing Hamilton to Fielder ...Fielder got a 9 year $214 MM deal or (21M per).... If Hamilton get 4 or 5 at $25 Per he gets 4ish more per season ...but less years due to age/risk.

[SoBo]

And so it begins. The O's will be linked to Hamilton all off season. And it makes sense. The O's need his bat and have a hole at LF/1b. DD is not afraid of big deals. I'll be shocked if it happens. I'm in I'll believe when it happens mode.

[rjslomo]

If Hamilton is actually linked to the O's, how long before we start getting stupid references to the Wire based on his past issues. For the record, I like a Mark Reynolds in his prime but if somehow you can get Hamilton for 3 years max on a contract, I say go for it.

[TradeAngelos]

Where did I say a 2 year deal.... I was comparing Hamilton to Fielder ...Fielder got a 9 year $214 MM deal or (21M per).... If Hamilton get 4 or 5 at $25 Per he gets 4ish more per season ...but less years due to age/risk.

I was just using the 2 year example for argument purposes, as it was mentioned earlier in the thread.

Fielder was 27 when he got his money. Hamilton is 32. A 4 year deal is not really a "short term" deal at his age, unless you think there is someone out there who is offering 6-7 years. I don't think that offer will be out there. For me "short term" would be 2 years maybe 3 at the most. And again, if there are any examples of a premier FA going that route let me know, it just doesn't happen despite being talked about a lot.

Only one I can think of is Edwin Jackson, but look where he was in his career...28 years old. Big difference between 28 and 32. I think we could all agree he isn't on the level of a Hamilton anyway.

Closest comparison recently I can find is Matt Holliday, 7 years for $120 million going into his age 30 year. Plays same position, almost identical previous 4 years or so OPS wise (actually Holliday is better) before he signed, just a little younger and much less baggage.

(OPS/WAR)Hamilton.....Holliday

Age 26.....(.922/2.4)...(.973/3.2)

Age 27.....(.901/5.2)...(1.012/5.8)

Age 28.....(.741/0.4)...(.947/5.6)

Age 29....(1.044/8.4)..(.909/2.8)

Age 30.....(.882/3.5)...(.922/5.7)<----- signed 7/120 before season.

Age 31.....(.930/3.4)...(.912/3.7)

Age 32......????????....(.877/3.9)

Age 26-31 Hamilton was worth 23.3, Holliday 26.8.

7/120 is about 17.15 a year. Knock 2 years off for age, adjust for inflation and Hamilton checks in at about 5/90ish assuming both are equal, when a very good argument can be made that Holliday is slightly more valuable and definitely less risky. Holliday also had a better health track record, playing in almost every single game the previous 4 years before he signed.

So with all that said, where would everyone stand on 5/90?

I think it is a calculated risk, like every free agent is to some degree, that this team in this situation has to take if they want to really turn this thing around and put butts back in the seats. If it goes higher than 5/100 then all bets are off, that is where it starts getting iffy and you almost surely won't be getting decent value over the long term.

I would go from "sign him", to "not worth it" at that point or around there.

[NATTYBO's]

If he would do it i would jump at a 5/90 deal but we all know free agent get a ton...with the added revenue from MLB contrat I would stretch it to 5/115.....IMO HE PUTS the O's over the top

[Winter]

Alright I think people are buying into the media when it comes to Hamiltons personal issues, I mean they blew it up b/c he "drank a beer"...If you don't want Hamilton at least make yourself sound reasonable and talk about the contract

By the way, Hamilton would be able to play OF & 1B, I'd take hamilton for a terrible contract than have to root for swisher for 1 game...

[jjnono]

oh I agree, I just question whether a significant payroll increase will actually happen. I think not, but I'l like to be wrong.

after all, it's not my money.

It's wonderful to be wrong when it's not your money, and that's why we all have so much fun on this board!

I'm very publicly anti-Reynolds, and I actually don't think there's much chance the O's bring him back. I can be persuaded, but I just don't buy into most of the "chances are..." arguments that he'll return to 35+ homers. A trained eye sees the holes in his swing and winces. It's been there for 4-5 years and has never improved. Some years he seems to run into more pitches than other years. Sure, this year could have been a low pendulum point, but with Reynolds, it's always a pendulum, and one that will always spend some significant time at its low point. No matter how you feel about Reynolds, you have to admit there's no real predicting anything with him. It's a damn crap shoot. And as a GM, that would drive me crazy and as an owner drive me NOT to pay the man. If I want to shell out cash, I want predictability.

With Hamilton, I feel it's less of a crap shoot and more predictable. I'd feel great about him in left. But I seriously doubt that we pay anything above $15M a year for 5 years for him, which is probably baseline/bottom in this market. Like you, I'd love to be wrong about what Angelos will commit. But I still think Peter has recurring Belle nightmares, and he wakes every morning checking the the mattress stash...

[notyourbuddy]

Baltimore is a horse**** town with bars that close way too early. How much trouble could the guy get into?

4/100$M I say sign him up!

(if it requires 5+ years though which it probably will I'd pass)

[brianod]

Most people were on board with building our farm system and developing our own Hamilton's before last year. Now that we have had a successful year, do we go back to 1998? No. Before I signed anyone, I would ask what effect that signing had on our player development. We need to be patient, prudent and wise. If we can sign Hamilton for a short term deal, go for it. Anything past 3-4 years, no way. Also, if we can't afford to sign him and also develop a second to none player development system, I say pass. The Redsox mirrored the 1998 O's last year and we don't want to go down that path again.

[TradeAngelos]

Most people were on board with building our farm system and developing our own Hamilton's before last year. Now that we have had a successful year, do we go back to 1998? No. Before I signed anyone, I would ask what effect that signing had on our player development. We need to be patient, prudent and wise. If we can sign Hamilton for a short term deal, go for it. Anything past 3-4 years, no way. Also, if we can't afford to sign him and also develop a second to none player development system, I say pass. The Redsox mirrored the 1998 O's last year and we don't want to go down that path again.

Which guy in our system is our own Josh Hamilton? Just curious.