Paul Folk: Are The Orioles Putting Too Much Faith In Their Own Players?

[primetime]

What high priced FA do you think we should have gone after?

I also said "lack of making any kind of splash"; I thought that was a quick way to summarize not retaining our own big FAs and opting to only hand out raises through arbitration and hold the line on payroll in that $120 million neighborhood.

So again, outside a minor league deal here and there, a cheap 1 year deal to Wright, we've handed out raises through arbitration. We opted to let Nick, Cruz and Miller walk, we stayed away from anyone that could've potentially helped out on the FA market; even smaller pieces like Aoki and Rasmus.

As far as high priced FAs, I don't have anyone in mind, nor did I when I posted. My point was this: I'm hoping that by holding the line on payroll and by not being committed to big $$/years for anyone outside Jones, Hardy and Ubaldo; perhaps this is part of bigger plan to create/maintain budget flexibility to allow for an opportunity to extend our guys that are entering the prime at below market prices.

[Can_of_corn]

That could be an error of as much as a million dollars. Like signing Nolan Reimold a couple times.

Indians are in the lead.

[Can_of_corn]

I think paying Matusz 3.2 Mil is fair criticism. What other players do you think we should not have retained?

Hunter.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Hunter.

Agreed. He's certainly less questionable than Matusz, but his money is certainly a questionable use of resources.

[Can_of_corn]

Agreed. He's certainly less questionable than Matusz, but his money is certainly a questionable use of resources.

I am a bit concerned about the lack of players in the pen that have options, so payroll is not the only issue at play.

[backwardsk]

What high priced FA do you think we should have gone after?

In hindsight, I would have been happy with LaRoche for the years and money he got. It would be one less hole to fill in 2016. But, yes, I do like our guys.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

In hindsight, I would have been happy with LaRoche for the years and money he got. It would be one less hole to fill in 2016. But, yes, I do like our guys.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But there is no guarantee that the O's could have signed him for that.

A more fair guideline would be "I would have been happy with a 10% bump on the contract he received."

[Frobby]

I don't know how anyone can assume Matusz will be traded. He has lasted well past several benchmarks for being moved.

I can agree that the team is relying on their own players too much but they either succeed with what they got or go down with them.

To be honest,it kind of appeals to me. So long as the team is competitive, which it should be. It's an easy team to root for if you ask me.

[backwardsk]

But there is no guarantee that the O's could have signed him for that.

A more fair guideline would be "I would have been happy with a 10% bump on the contract he received."

Sure, there's no guarantee. But why would a 10% premium for a 96 win team be a more fair guideline? I would agree with you pre-2014, but not now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

Sure, there's no guarantee. But why would a 10% premium for a 96 win team be a more fair guideline? I would agree with you pre-2014, but not now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because we know there is another team that is at the least willing to pay what he received. Maybe the White Sox would have gone 2/30 if there was another team willing to go 2/25?

We don't know all the variables and, to me, adding 10% seems more accurate then just looking at what they got.

[weams]

Sure, there's no guarantee. But why would a 10% premium for a 96 win team be a more fair guideline? I would agree with you pre-2014, but not now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The premium is to have the best monetary offer. No one comes for less money. 10 percent is enough to say, ok to.

[backwardsk]

Because we know there is another team that is at the least willing to pay what he received. Maybe the White Sox would have gone 2/30 if there was another team willing to go 2/25?

We don't know all the variables and, to me, adding 10% seems more accurate then just looking at what they got.

That's fine. Not offering Matusz arbitration easily covers a 10-15% premium. I'd still be comfortable giving LaRoche an extra 10%, though I doubt it would have been necessary.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[25 Nuggets]

Agreed. (Hunter)'s certainly less questionable than Matusz, but his money is certainly a questionable use of resources.

I happen to think he'll be well worth it in 2015, so long as the team doesn't try him at closer again. Matusz is another story.

[Can_of_corn]

That's fine. Not offering Matusz arbitration easily covers a 10-15% premium. I'd still be comfortable giving LaRoche an extra 10%, though I doubt it would have been necessary.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't saying that LaRoche would have been a bad sign at 27.5. I just don't agree with the methodology that gets used.

[Can_of_corn]

I happen to think he'll be well worth it in 2015, so long as the team doesn't try him at closer again. Matusz is another story.

If the O's had more flexibility in the pen I wouldn't have as much an issue with Matusz and Hunter.