Report: Morosi says a source links us with Hamilton and Ross

[Roll Tide]

McLouth/Reimold > Ross in my mind. Unless Josh Hamilton comes cheaper than expected, I just want to roll with what we got.

I agree with a deal for Hamilton needing to be reasonable. I have zero faith in Reimold and believe he should start next season at AAAA and counted on for no more than a 4th or 5th OF. Hamilton will help the need for he Orioles to avoid paying in so many 1 run games. I still think we will make a trade or 2 regardless of what we do in free agency. In my mind we will still need 2 bats fr e middle of our order that we didnt have this season.

[Spirus]

That's true, but it's also exactly what you're doing here...you really believe that Hamilton is 100% guaranteed to not help us get to 95 wins consistently? Because that is the way you are responding to the other point of view...or even 60% likely to fail...

You believe that Hamilton is 100% guaranteed to get us to 95 wins consistently? Even in the 7th year of a $175 million contract when he's 38 years old? The question goes both ways here.

Do we want unrestrained spending to win right now or do we want to moderate our spending and win both now and in the future?

[OrioleMagic79]

Where in my post did I say that Hamilton is 100% guaranteed to not help us get to 95 wins? He definitely could and I stated as such. That is the potential upside of taking a risk on Hamilton. The downside is what I stated it is as well. Then there are a million scenarios in between those two extremes that could play out. I didn't advocate one view point or the other. If the Orioles decided to sign Hamilton, I would hope that it works out. If they decide against that, I will hope that they are correct in their evaluation that they can win without Hamilton. I really don't have a dog in this race. I was merely pointing out that there are risks of spending big and we shouldn't pretend they do not exist.

You didn't, but that last line in your post read like you were supporting this view (below), and then the quote about people not telling both sides of the story followed...I apologize if I misread your point, but I was being dramatic with the "100%" remark, again sorry about that:

"If it were as simple as signing Hamilton, trading for Butler, and then sitting back while the 95+ wins roll in, the Orioles would be all over that. The reality is that the downside of doing that is the Orioles could still end up an 80-win team only with less money to spend next off season and less talent available in the minors to potentially help as well. People get frustrated with the "let's just spend big crowd" because they oversimplify the entire process. Spending big does have its risk and the O's do not have a limitless amount of cash to keep throwing at potential problems."

[Dark Helmet]

Spending on FA is sort of like spending on a used car. Hamilton may be a Lamborghini but it's a used one, and what's left under the hood is in question. The idea is to put a contender on the field consistently. Winning it all is a matter of luck after that. Hamilton is probably getting 20-25 M per, even though he has never been worth that much, except for 2010. The club that offers him 6 years will be the one to sign him IMO. Sure there's a good chance Hamilton helps us back to the playoffs the next couple of seasons, but he is such a risky proposition, that he could cripple the franchise for 3-4 years after that.

All of the new guaranteed revenues, takes a little of the risk away. I'm not saying theres no risk, but I don't think it's that bad. I think they have to be in win now mode after last season. Especially with Markakis' contract getting close to ending, it's a longshot to extend Wieters. We have a good young core of guys, and now it's time to supplement that with a proven talent imo.

[Dark Helmet]

You believe that Hamilton is 100% guaranteed to get us to 95 wins consistently? Even in the 7th year of a $175 million contract when he's 38 years old? The question goes both ways here.

Do we want unrestrained spending to win right now or do we want to moderate our spending and win both now and in the future?

That's not a guarantee either. One's no more of a guarantee then the other. Just less risk in the moderate spending.

[Roll Tide]

You believe that Hamilton is 100% guaranteed to get us to 95 wins consistently? Even in the 7th year of a $175 million contract when he's 38 years old? The question goes both ways here.

Do we want unrestrained spending to win right now or do we want to moderate our spending and win both now and in the future?

Yes we'd be more likely to win 93+ with Hamilton then without him. Odds say the last year could be a negative. In free agency you have to take some risk. I don't see him getting seven years from anybody at his age/risk. I'd give him 5 with a option and I bet that his pretty close ...to hedge my bets I'd front end the money ...just a ex but A few more million per year now and lower salaries later.

[stomperspc]

I never once said the O's should go out an make a move like the Jay's did. I used the Jay's as an example of a team that took a risk, to improve. And if your trying to make a point to back your own belief, of course your going to point out the pluses of your side, and the negative of the opposing view. Just as you did in your post. For example, i'm pushing for Hamilton and he may cost the O's around 25 mil per. You mention the Jay's making possibly an ugly move to make a case against Hamilton, yet you left out the part about the Jay's taking on roughly 50-55 million of salary for 2013. I'm not proposing that. If signing Hamilton for 25 mil, will hamstring this club for years to come, then Angelos might as well fold up his sails now, and leave the boat in the harbor.

I was referencing your desire to see the O's take a risk like the Blue Jays did. I wasn't inferring that you said we should do the exact same thing the Jays did. Sorry if that was unclear. The point is the same, however. There are downsides to any risks and that was my entire point. The Jays might regret their trade next year. The Orioles might regret signing Hamilton if they do. They might also regret doing nothing.

I have not made a case against the O's signing Hamilton. I don't have any horse in that race. I want the Orioles to put themselves in the best position to be a contender not just next year, but in the foreseeable future. If they can do that by signing Hamilton, great. If they can do that by not signing Hamilton, then that's great too. Pointing out the potential downside to signing Hamilton is not the same as me making a case that they shouldn't sign him.

Your last sentence is the crux of this whole debate. You are not acknowledging that signing Hamilton for $25 million carries a significant downside risk. If you don't believe that a $25 million commitment to Hamilton could hamstring the organization for several years then there is no sense in debating this. You are basically saying that there is little downside risk to signing him which I don't agree with at all. If there wasn't significant risk, then the O's and other teams would be lining him to sign him.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

To be clear, I was on board with limiting spending until we could see some positive results from doing it the conservative/inexpensive home-grown way to build a foundation...but I see Hamilton as a unique opportunity, because he has a stigma about him that has proved to follow him through his career, which keeps a ceiling on his earnings potential (albeit a still really high) that doesn't typically come with a player that is this productive...

I am just as worried by NOT taking this opportunity and ending up being a "flash in the pan" or "remember that one season when" type of team as I am worried about crippling our future success with a contract. If we are an 80 win team with Hamilton added to this foundation, then we aren't going to be able to add much to change that anyway. Remember mid-season last year? We were all wondering who we were going to add at the deadline to keep things going, when we DIDN'T already have a high payroll...they didn't do it, and it worked out well...fine.

But you have to be honest with yourself and look at how big signings have gone over the years...there are just as many HUGE impact players that have made a difference as there are big time busts...Pujols was terrible for two months, but he ended up being totally worth it because he is SO GOOD that he lit fire and almost solely resurrected that team on his own...the pitchers under-performed on that team and Trout was solid all year...so what was the major difference? Pujols caught fire...and likely inspired the rest of the team in the process...

CC Sabathia has ALWAYS been the right choice as a major signing with whatever team he signed with...

Cliff Lee was a really good choice for all teams that have acquired him - he even helped Seattle (full disclosure: SEA got him via trade, not FA) make a mid-season trade for a bunch of highly rated prospects to Texas when it wasn't working out...

I think we can all list busts, bad signings, good signings and huge success from big signings...the question needs to be do you really think this team will be better this year and in the near future with him, or without him? If he's going to make the Orioles a better team, you do what it takes to get him...unless you can use that exact same money to get two guys that will make us even better...but nobody is talking about what is the alternative option...

I would be open to discussing alternatives and even willing to concede that they might be better ideas...that said, the "what if he costs too much and we can't get rid of him" argument doesn't outweigh his value to this team in my opinion...

So it sounds like you're in the "spend whatever it takes" camp - or is there a max you're not willing to exceed?

[El Gordo]

All of the new guaranteed revenues, takes a little of the risk away. I'm not saying theres no risk, but I don't think it's that bad. I think they have to be in win now mode after last season. Especially with Markakis' contract getting close to ending, it's a longshot to extend Wieters. We have a good young core of guys, and now it's time to supplement that with a proven talent imo.

The window to win is basically the years Wieters is under control IMO. After that who will be on the team? Jones, Bundy, Gausman hopefully, and Machado. Who else? Hammel? Chen? Gonzalez? Matusz? Britton? Hardy will be gone. Who is playing 3B? 2B? 1B? With those questions to be answered, do we need to be paying an injury prone, petulent DH/LF, 25M for 2 WAR worth of production the ensuing 3 years?

[stomperspc]

You didn't, but that last line in your post read like you were supporting this view (below), and then the quote about people not telling both sides of the story followed...I apologize if I misread your point, but I was being dramatic with the "100%" remark, again sorry about that:

"If it were as simple as signing Hamilton, trading for Butler, and then sitting back while the 95+ wins roll in, the Orioles would be all over that. The reality is that the downside of doing that is the Orioles could still end up an 80-win team only with less money to spend next off season and less talent available in the minors to potentially help as well. People get frustrated with the "let's just spend big crowd" because they oversimplify the entire process. Spending big does have its risk and the O's do not have a limitless amount of cash to keep throwing at potential problems."

No problem. I can see how it read that way since I did not specifically state my position. Obviously there are risks from standing still as well. I didn't mention those because I was responding specifically to those who are downplaying or ignoring the significant risks associated with signing Hamilton.

[Dark Helmet]

I was referencing your desire to see the O's take a risk like the Blue Jays did. I wasn't inferring that you said we should do the exact same thing the Jays did. Sorry if that was unclear. The point is the same, however. There are downsides to any risks and that was my entire point. The Jays might regret their trade next year. The Orioles might regret signing Hamilton if they do. They might also regret doing nothing.

I have not made a case against the O's signing Hamilton. I don't have any horse in that race. I want the Orioles to put themselves in the best position to be a contender not just next year, but in the foreseeable future. If they can do that by signing Hamilton, great. If they can do that by not signing Hamilton, then that's great too. Pointing out the potential downside to signing Hamilton is not the same as me making a case that they shouldn't sign him.

Your last sentence is the crux of this whole debate. You are not acknowledging that signing Hamilton for $25 million carries a significant downside risk. If you don't believe that a $25 million commitment to Hamilton could hamstring the organization for several years then there is no sense in debating this. You are basically saying that there is little downside risk to signing him which I don't agree with at all. If there wasn't significant risk, then the O's and other teams would be lining him to sign him.

There's no proof that 25 mil per year would hamstring the team, and with the new TV deal, theres more proof that it won't. And i'm not saying there isn't a risk to signing Hamilton. My comment was more that " You have to take some risk every now and then to win, if not then just be content watching everyone else win ". A racecar driver will wreck a few cars going for the win.

[Dark Helmet]

The window to win is basically the years Wieters is under control IMO. After that who will be on the team? Jones, Bundy, Gausman hopefully, and Machado. Who else? Hammel? Chen? Gonzalez? Matusz? Britton? Hardy will be gone. Who is playing 3B? 2B? 1B? With those quetions to be answered, do we need to be paying an injury prone, petulent DH/LF, 25M for 2 WAR worth of production the ensuing 3 years?

/

That's a good point, but I think Hamilton will be very good for 3-4 years. Teams like the Dodgers and Jay's have shown, no contract is untradeable. I think that takes away a little of the risk now too. Even if the O's had to eat a little, to get a good player or two back. I just think the theory that signing Hamilton will hinder us from keeping guys like Wieters, is short sighted. Mostly, because I think the odds of keeping Wieters are slim, even without signing Hamilton. It's like a game of chicken. We won't know until it actually happens. By then, it's too late to avoid the crash.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I have zero faith in Reimold and believe he should start next season at AAAA and counted on for no more than a 4th or 5th OF. .

Since that's not going to happen, it's not really an option. Reimold is either retained or traded/DFA'd etc. I doubt he would clear waivers.

[Dark Helmet]

No problem. I can see how it read that way since I did not specifically state my position. Obviously there are risks from standing still as well. I didn't mention those because I was responding specifically to those who are downplaying or ignoring the significant risks associated with signing Hamilton.

And those of us that do that, are most of the time responding back to specifically those, that act as if there's absolutely no positives' to signing a player like Josh Hamilton. It's not a one-way street. I know your not taking sides, i'm just defending my stance as well.

[Dark Helmet]

Since that's not going to happen, it's not really an option. Reimold is either retained or traded/DFA'd etc. I doubt he would clear waivers.

Does Reimold even have options left? I think the O's are going to give Reimold every chance if he's healthy. Atleast until he's back on the DL again.