Josh Hamilton market update - 3 years $60-75 million

[Can_of_corn]

This is not to bash Peter Angelos. I personally don?t know the man. I will say that I believe that Mr. Angelos has a setup were he knows exactly what he can spend and still make a profit from MASN subscription fees' date=' revenue sharing, attendance revenue etc. Any additional spending becomes a risk in his setup. If he stays the course, he knows he is guaranteed profit. Taking on additional payroll is seen as risk.

[/quote']

He would be a special kind of fool if he didn't. I don't think folks begrudge him a profit, it is the perceived amount of profit that is the issue.

[EddieO'sSC]

He would be a special kind of fool if he didn't. I don't think folks begrudge him a profit, it is the perceived amount of profit that is the issue.

I agree 100%. That is the issue that I have with him. I think he is comfortable making this profit without having to take on additional risk. In other words if he takes on a contract like Hamilton, he may go to the World Series and make additional profit; however, if he takes on this contract and fails to at least get to the playoffs the contract cuts into profits that he is guaranteed.

[DrungoHazewood]

The problem with this line of thinking is the assumption that you could use the $30M-$40M on multiple other available assets, and that those assets would fit how the team is constructed. Sure, if there was a perfectly priced $15M 1B and $15M DH, that logic would make sense. But there aren't, so it doesn't. Also, you're much more likely to get approval to spend that kind of money on a big name, rather than several smaller names.

I don't think so. I'd rather pay a reasonable cost for two good players than double the going rate for one erratic star. Bruno was suggesting paying twice what Hamilton has been worth in his 20s for his age 32-35 seasons. I don't think Angelos, or any non-Magic Johnson owner would sign off on that. But many would sign off on paying two $15M/year players $15M a year.

[BrunoCherrytown]

I don't think so. I'd rather pay a reasonable cost for two good players than double the going rate for one erratic star. Bruno was suggesting paying twice what Hamilton has been worth in his 20s for his age 32-35 seasons. I don't think Angelos, or any non-Magic Johnson owner would sign off on that. But many would sign off on paying two $15M/year players $15M a year.

Do you think that any GM honestly values Josh Hamilton at $15 million a year though?

I wouldn't question your statistical analysis since I've spent a good bit of time complimenting it - and I'm feeble minded in this department (and many others) - but to say Josh Hamilton is a $15 million a year player, to me, weakens those analytical measures. Isn't ARod in all of his wretchedness now like $8-$9 million? Hamilton is much better than ARod now. Is Josh Hamilton an elite talent in 5 years? I don't think anybody would buy that. Can we get 2-3 years of elite play out of him - I think we could.

If the message is, I'd rather not overpay and have zero chance of going to the World Series (that's where we are at now folks), or overpay on a short-term deal and have a very good chance of going to the World Series - if I'm a serious owner, I'm throwing my graphing calculator out the window and overpaying. But we don't have that owner unfortunately. Profits reign supreme in Budgetland still.

So we're now going to be heaping praise on our GM all day for finding players with a 99% chance of never amounting to anything in the indie leagues. That will be our hot thread today. I'd rather DD be given the freedom to take some real chances, not dollar store chances. He proved what he could do with no money last year. Let's give him some and really take the training wheels off this team.

[Roll Tide]

I don't think so. I'd rather pay a reasonable cost for two good players than double the going rate for one erratic star. Bruno was suggesting paying twice what Hamilton has been worth in his 20s for his age 32-35 seasons. I don't think Angelos, or any non-Magic Johnson owner would sign off on that. But many would sign off on paying two $15M/year players $15M a year.

Name the two good players you are getting or the $30 million that is available.

[Roll Tide]

Do you think that any GM honestly values Josh Hamilton at $15 million a year though?

I wouldn't question your statistical analysis since I've spent a good bit of time complimenting it - and I'm feeble minded in this department (and many others) - but to say Josh Hamilton is a $15 million a year player, to me, weakens those analytical measures. Isn't ARod in all of his wretchedness now like $8-$9 million? Hamilton is much better than ARod now. Is Josh Hamilton an elite talent in 5 years? I don't think anybody would buy that. Can we get 2-3 years of elite play out of him - I think we could.

If the message is, I'd rather not overpay and have zero chance of going to the World Series (that's where we are at now folks), or overpay on a short-term deal and have a very good chance of going to the World Series - if I'm a serious owner, I'm throwing my graphing calculator out the window and overpaying. But we don't have that owner unfortunately. Profits reign supreme in Budgetland still.

So we're now going to be heaping praise on our GM all day for finding players with a 99% chance of never amounting to anything in the indie leagues. That will be our hot thread today. I'd rather DD be given the freedom to take some real chances, not dollar store chances. He proved what he could do with no money last year. Let's give him some and really take the training wheels off this team.

I can't rep you again or I would've for this post. I don't believe any other free agent is worth the 1st rounder we give up. I don't see a trade for a guy like Butler. I'm thinking we will see a second tier guy like Morse.

[Tony-OH]

Do you think that any GM honestly values Josh Hamilton at $15 million a year though?

I wouldn't question your statistical analysis since I've spent a good bit of time complimenting it - and I'm feeble minded in this department (and many others) - but to say Josh Hamilton is a $15 million a year player, to me, weakens those analytical measures. Isn't ARod in all of his wretchedness now like $8-$9 million? Hamilton is much better than ARod now. Is Josh Hamilton an elite talent in 5 years? I don't think anybody would buy that. Can we get 2-3 years of elite play out of him - I think we could.

If the message is, I'd rather not overpay and have zero chance of going to the World Series (that's where we are at now folks), or overpay on a short-term deal and have a very good chance of going to the World Series - if I'm a serious owner, I'm throwing my graphing calculator out the window and overpaying. But we don't have that owner unfortunately. Profits reign supreme in Budgetland still.

So we're now going to be heaping praise on our GM all day for finding players with a 99% chance of never amounting to anything in the indie leagues. That will be our hot thread today. I'd rather DD be given the freedom to take some real chances, not dollar store chances. He proved what he could do with no money last year. Let's give him some and really take the training wheels off this team.

I tend to agree with this. At some point you have take on risk. Every team out there seems willing to do this, but the Orioles. We were able to afford a $100 million payroll back in the the late 90s when ticket prices were a fraction of what they are today and without MASN. Yet for some reason we're supposed to buy that the Orioles can only afford a $90-$100 million payroll now to stay profitable? Something tells me that Angelos is not using the MASN money towards the Orioles and probably considers it a separate business that needs to be profitable on its own.

At the end of the day, Angelos is more concerned over his bottom line than winning baseball games or providing a quality product year in and year out. He's a person who is adverse to risk and that doesn't work in a professional sport that has no salary cap.

The Orioles always seem to want the perfect free agent. At the end of the day, if Hamilton can be gotten for a 3 or 4 years contract, the Orioles should most definitely be involved regardless if the money gets to the point where he's probably "overpaid." The Orioles got away with some very small payrolls over the years while they wallowed in last place. It's time to put up or shut up and prove to Orioles fans that they are willing to bring in premium talent that will make them true contenders going into next season, and not just hope we can catch lightening in the bottle two years in a row.

[wildbillhiccup]

I tend to agree with this. At some point you have take on risk. Every team out there seems willing to do this, but the Orioles. We were able to afford a $100 million payroll back in the the late 90s when ticket prices were a fraction of what they are today and without MASN. Yet for some reason we're supposed to buy that the Orioles can only afford a $90-$100 million payroll now to stay profitable? Something tells me that Angelos is not using the MASN money towards the Orioles and probably considers it a separate business that needs to be profitable on its own.

At the end of the day, Angelos is more concerned over his bottom line than winning baseball games or providing a quality product year in and year out. He's a person who is adverse to risk and that doesn't work in a professional sport that has no salary cap.

The Orioles always seem to want the perfect free agent. At the end of the day, if Hamilton can be gotten for a 3 or 4 years contract, the Orioles should most definitely be involved regardless if the money gets to the point where he's probably "overpaid." The Orioles got away with some very small payrolls over the years while they wallowed in last place. It's time to put up or shut up and prove to Orioles fans that they are willing to bring in premium talent that will make them true contenders going into next season, and not just hope we can catch lightening in the bottle two years in a row.

Tony - I think you hit the nail in the head. The Os have painted themselves into a corner in some respects and Hamilton is really the only logicial alternative at this point. Their obvious trade partners have already made moves and their "plan B" free agents have already signed elsewhere. If the big players like NY and LA aren't in the mix for Hamilton then the Os should be. Who wouldn't want to play in Baltimore over Seattle? Offer him 4 years and basically let him sign his own check. Money should not be an issue with this team. The only hang up should be the years, but even then there are work arounds like incentive laden contracts for the later years.

[DrungoHazewood]

Do you think that any GM honestly values Josh Hamilton at $15 million a year though?

I think a lot of GMs believe that his most likely case is starting out at 3.5 wins a year (or $15-20M in value) and declining through the rest of his career. But some of them would be willing to take the chance he has an MVP-type season or two left in him, and pay him more than that.

But I very seriously doubt that any GM would pay him $30M+ a year given his recent performances and risk assessment. I could see a 25% or even 50% premium in the short term (possibly spread over several years to minimize the impact). But 100%? No.

[DrungoHazewood]

At the end of the day, Angelos is more concerned over his bottom line than winning baseball games or providing a quality product year in and year out. He's a person who is adverse to risk and that doesn't work in a professional sport that has no salary cap.

It can work, but it depends on having an efficient player development factory and being relentlessly efficient across the organization. The Orioles have yet to prove they can do either of those things consistently. You have to be the Rays or the A's, and the O's aren't, at least yet.

And they don't have to be, since it's pretty clear they have a lot more revenues than either of those teams.

[Babypowder]

I tend to agree with this. At some point you have take on risk. Every team out there seems willing to do this, but the Orioles. We were able to afford a $100 million payroll back in the the late 90s when ticket prices were a fraction of what they are today and without MASN. Yet for some reason we're supposed to buy that the Orioles can only afford a $90-$100 million payroll now to stay profitable? Something tells me that Angelos is not using the MASN money towards the Orioles and probably considers it a separate business that needs to be profitable on its own.

At the end of the day, Angelos is more concerned over his bottom line than winning baseball games or providing a quality product year in and year out. He's a person who is adverse to risk and that doesn't work in a professional sport that has no salary cap.

The Orioles always seem to want the perfect free agent. At the end of the day, if Hamilton can be gotten for a 3 or 4 years contract, the Orioles should most definitely be involved regardless if the money gets to the point where he's probably "overpaid." The Orioles got away with some very small payrolls over the years while they wallowed in last place. It's time to put up or shut up and prove to Orioles fans that they are willing to bring in premium talent that will make them true contenders going into next season, and not just hope we can catch lightening in the bottle two years in a row.

The Orioles have never had a $100 million payroll.

[DrungoHazewood]

The Orioles have never had a $100 million payroll.

In constant FY13 dollars they have. $85M in 1998 is the equivalent of $120M today. In real terms the Oriole payroll has shrunk by 30%, give or take, over the past 15 years.

And I think baseball inflation has outstripped real inflation over that timeframe.

[Mayor McCheese]

The Orioles have never had a $100 million payroll.

We were in the mid $90MM range in 2007.

[srh523]

Name the two good players you are getting or the $30 million that is available.

LaRoche/Morse and Swisher.... this combination beats Hamilton easily....atleast for what this team needs.

[Babypowder]

We were in the mid $90MM range in 2007.

That doesn't dispute what I said, and it certainly doesn't support the statement that they had payrolls over $100 million in the late 90s.