So Buster Olney says the Orioles are looking to re-sign Saunders

[CA-ORIOLE]

Of course he has an interest in how the team is managed, but he isn't investing his own money, which is what you implied. The owners of these teams are rich people who spent money on players that put their team in the red, in order to achieve some percieved gain. You say that rich people don't do these kinds of things. Where do you get your info as to what most rich people do? The O's have a core that could be a perennial contender over the next 3-5 years with the addition of a TOR SP and a MOO bat. The question is how much revenue would that kind of contention bring in? Enough to offset the initiall expense?

If PA is the majority owner of the Orioles, I'd be curious to know whose money you think it is exactly? Who do you think the primary stakeholder is?

You don't seem to be able to separate risk, calculated risk, and gambling. What you're proposing (the team adding Greinke and Hamilton for approx 45 mil /year on long term deals) right now isn't a good business risk imo. Disagree all you want I guess. There is no guarantee, certainty, or reasonable assumption that we'll make ourselves contenders the next 3-5 years by adding Greinke and Hamilton. You only have to look at all the teams that have failed with these types of models in the past. The difference being that most of those teams could better afford to fail because they had larger markets and resources to fall back on.

We all know that PA has spent in the past, but at some point he concluded (probably fairly) that it wasn't wise to continue to so as salaries rose. Could he spend more money? Sure. Would it be more beneficial to him financially to increase spending dramatically as you've proposed at this point? Probably not imo.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Reynolds and Hammel are in the same situation. Both have to be tendered contracts by Nov 30 to be with the O's next. Both will have 6 years of service time after the 2013 season and therefore eligible to become FAs. If either or both are not tendered contracts this year they become free agents. Most of us probably believe that Hammel will be tendered and that it is still an outstanding question as to whether Reynolds will be tendered.

To your point about signing Hammel long term, I agree the O's probably do not want him to go FA so trying to negotiate something more than a year this off season is preferable. However Hammel has never had a really good season until 2012 and even then he was injured for a good part of the season. He has a history of pitching well in the first half and poorly in the second half. So to give him several years on a multi year contract could be a big mistake. That is why I suggest that the O's sign him for a year with a club option for 2014. That way he is not a FA after 2013 and the O's can re-negotiate a longer contract with him if he pitches better next year.

Why would Hammel agree to an option now for 2014 when he's due to be a FA in 2014? That makes no sense.

If you disagree about Hammel's risk vs reward profile that's fine. Personally, I think his added sinker and what I saw from him last year (in addition to his track record) makes him a good upside candidate. I'm not the only one. Take a look at the the fangraphs article about him that I posted in another thread.

[Brendan25]

I'd sign Saunders to a 2 year deal. It gives us so much flexibility and trade options with our young arms. There are still so many question marks with some of our pitchers. Britton was awful last year and has a ton of potential. Arrieta was awful last year. Matusz has been awful as a starter but his value is getting stronger. Steve Johnson pitched awesome last year. Bundy is close. Gausman is closer according to some.

If July comes around next year, and our rotation is healthy and we have 3-4 young arms in the minors pitching awesome, it gives us some trade options. I have been against trading our young arms this offseason, but that stance could change next July if they have value and we have a player on another team that would make a huge difference for us.

[Tx Oriole]

I don't understand why there is so much disrespect for Saunders around here. The guy has a 78-65 career record, 103 ERA+, throws a good number of innings, and threw well for us last year. He doesn't have a lot of upside but I have little doubt he'd be one of our five best starters, even though we have more than five who "could" be better. I wouldn't pay him 3/$25 mm but won't be upset at all if we sign him.

I would to see him back. But not for 3 years.

[BMoreKind]

Do you think Hammel and his agent are idiots. He's going to give the Orioles the option of invoking an option in 2014 for his FA year when, If all goes well, he can get the best contract of his career. Now if all doesn't go well, the Orioles have the option of not picking up the option. So there is hardly any downside for the club, which is taking no risk. A player in Hammel's situation would have to be an idiot to sign such a deal.

You seem to be suggesting that the Orioles have some leverage to get him to sign such a contract. The Orioles have to tender Hammel a 1 year contract next year OR he becomes a FA.

I think a buyout clause is normative for an agreement including a team option (or more). Agree that Hammel would not agree to a 1 + team option at this point, but team options do occur and ostensibly arise between disparate, rational parties. At some point, the value of the buyout clause would tip the scales even on a one plus deal.

[wildcard]

Do you think Hammel and his agent are idiots. He's going to give the Orioles the option of invoking an option in 2014 for his FA year when, If all goes well, he can get the best contract of his career. Now if all doesn't go well, the Orioles have the option of not picking up the option. So there is hardly any downside for the club, which is taking no risk. A player in Hammel's situation would have to be an idiot to sign such a deal.

You seem to be suggesting that the Orioles have some leverage to get him to sign such a contract. The Orioles have to tender Hammel a 1 year contract next year OR he becomes a FA.

You want incentive, here is the incentive. In order for Hammel to have a good year he has to play for a good team. Right now he is with a young playoff team. If he decides he wants to sign a one year and go through FA what is the O's incentive to keep him. Did DD keep Guthrie last year? NO. Guthrie was going to be a FA. I think that is definitely on the table if Hammel does not want to sign a one year with a contract with an option. Then Hammel can see how good a year he can have with some second division team. Different manager, pitching coach, poorer defense. There is a risk for Hammel here as well.

Right now I believe both sides would like to see something worked out to keep Hammel an Oriole. But if he thinks DD is going to stand still for Hammel walking away and leaving the O's with nothing after 2013, I suggest that DD may not go that direction.

[Dark Helmet]

1 year wont get Joe. I have read the Brewers really like him and will go 2. It may take the Brewers to go 3 to get Joe to go there, since he really loved coming to Baltimore. Id have no problems if the O's give Joe a a 2/16 mil deal. And those that think 8 per is too much think about this. Guthrie just got 7 per, and Joe has been the better pitcher, and I believe is actually younger then Guthrie. Thinking about it, I wouldnt be shocked if Joe did get a 3/24 deal.

Those against bringing Joe back, just sit back and think about Arrieta, Britton, or Hunter in that role last year. I dont see any of that trio becoming anywhere close to the SP Saunders is. There is worse things then having a #5 that will give you 12 wins, 200 innings, and an ERA around 4.

[25 Nuggets]

#5 starters don't typically give you 200 innings though, right? Because they're skipped from time to time. In order for Joe to get 200 innings and 12 wins with an average ERA, he'd need to be mid-rotation.

[Three Run Homer]

Guthrie's contract set the market...for second division clubs in the middle of nowhere that need to overpay to sign a good veteran player.

We won't need to match Guthrie's contract to sign Saunders. I'm thinking 2 years, $14 million will get it done, if he wants to play on a contending team. And I'd be happy with that signing.

[Dark Helmet]

#5 starters don't typically give you 200 innings though, right? Because they're skipped from time to time. In order for Joe to get 200 innings and 12 wins with an average ERA, he'd need to be mid-rotation.

Joe averaged 6.2 IP per start last year. If he made 28-30 starts, that would still be 180 or so innings. He went 9-13 in 28 starts last year, so I see no reason he couldn't win 12 games out of the number 5 spot.

Though, I don't think he will actually be lined up in the 5 spot. When I said #5 starter, I meant more in line that his stuff is in line with a #5 type. If Saunders is brought back, I could see it being something like..

1. Hammel

2. Chen

3. Saunders/Gonzalez (These two could be flopped either way)

5. Tillman

[Dark Helmet]

Guthrie's contract set the market...for second division clubs in the middle of nowhere that need to overpay to sign a good veteran player.

We won't need to match Guthrie's contract to sign Saunders. I'm thinking 2 years, $14 million will get it done, if he wants to play on a contending team. And I'd be happy with that signing.

I agree that the O's won't need to match Guthrie's contract to get Saunders. He like's it here. I do think a team like the Brewer's would need to go 3 years. I think 2/14 with an option would get Saunders back in Baltimore. The O's aren't going to be in the market for Grienke or Sanchez. I think i'd rather have Saunder's over Dempster and Jackson. Though, if the O's went and got Jackson AND Saunders, I wouldn't be too upset. I do know, I am not comfortable with the thought of Arrieta, Britton, or Matusz being anywhere near the starting rotation in 2013. I could see the O's giving Jackson and Saunders 2 year deals, then trading Tillman. Jackson and Saunders would be a bridge to Bundy and Gausman.

1. Hammel

2. Chen

3. Jackson (2/18)

4. Saunders (2/14)

5. Gonzalez

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'd rather work Steve Johnson (among others) into that 5th spot than give Saunders anywhere near 3/24. We could also look at 1 year deals on guys with more risk and higher upside like Oswalt and McCarthy.

[Dark Helmet]

I'd rather work Steve Johnson (among others) into that 5th spot than give Saunders anywhere near 3/24. We could also look at 1 year deals on guys with more risk and higher upside like Oswalt and McCarthy.

I like McCarthy. I actually forget that he's a FA. I don't want any part of Oswalt. I also don't like Steve Johnsons chances, over a full season starting. I think he's ok spot starting out of the BP, but I just don't see his 87 mph fastball and that floating curveball, sustaining success over a full season. Just my opinion though.

[wildcard]

I have read the Brewers really like him and will go 2.

I have not seen this anywhere. Do you have a link?

Saunders was a free agent last off season and could not find a multi year contract. His season was no better then in the past. So until I see something from a credible source, I think Joe will end up signing a one year contract.

A decent link could change my mind though.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I like McCarthy. I actually forget that he's a FA. I don't want any part of Oswalt. I also don't like Steve Johnsons chances, over a full season starting. I think he's ok spot starting out of the BP, but I just don't see his 87 mph fastball and that floating curveball, sustaining success over a full season. Just my opinion though.

I think we might only need Johnson to get through half a season before one of Bundy/Gaussman might be ready. Plus we have other options and can add more depth with Minor league deals.