Regretting Not Signing Andrew Miller?

[25 Nuggets]

Serious question. Can anyone name a situation where a team signed a guy and pretty clearly deposed a good player to insert new player just (or primarily, or even plausibly) because he made more money? Talent/performance levels have to be reasonably equal. I think this is very rare, maybe unprecedented.

Hrm. Well in the case of starting pitchers, plenty of them have been inserted at the top of the rotation but the one who is deposed is the #5 starter, so the talent level is uneven. For example, Max Scherzer was named opening day starter for the Nationals despite other starting pitchers having been just as good (Fister, Zimmerman)... but it's really Tanner Roark who was kicked to the pen.

Regarding position players, the incumbent can have his position moved and stay in the lineup. Detroit signs Prince Fielder and figures they can live with Miguel Cabrera at 3B (where he wins MVP twice). Cleveland signs Michael Bourn and moves Michael Brantley to LF.

The bullpen is really the only place where the #1 guy designated "closer" can be knocked down a rung and really only because of the saves thing. Just look at the Yankees. They had a fine closer candidate in Dellin Betances but they installed Andrew Miller after signing him. And you can trace it back to John Wetteland getting the nod over Mariano Rivera because he was the veteran with the contract. Another example would be 2013 when the Nats demoted closer Tyler Clippard in favor of Rafael Soriano.

[OFFNY]

o

Joe Montana was entering his age 37 season and the 49'ers decided to go with his very talented backup of 7 years.

That and he had been injured the prior two seasons, with Steve Young coming off of an All Pro 1992 season.

Correct.

The Montana/Young situation in between the 1992 and 1993 seasons was somewhat similar to the Peyton Manning/Andrew Luck situation prior to the 2012 season.

Although as you both stated, unlike Luck, who (at that time) had yet to play a down of pro football, Young was already a proven commodity ...... in fact, Young was the league MVP of the 1992 season.

[DrungoHazewood]

Joe Montana was entering his age 37 season and the 49'ers decided to go with his very talented backup of 7 years.

That and he had been injured the prior two seasons, with Steve Young coming off of an All Pro 1992 season.

That seems to imply they played the more talented player. Or the opposite of saying teams often assign roles based on salary.

[ledzepp8]

That seems to imply they played the more talented player. Or the opposite of saying teams often assign roles based on salary.

Yeah that too!

[Malike]

That seems to imply they played the more talented player. Or the opposite of saying teams often assign roles based on salary.

You are correct.

[24fps]

You can't pay a guy who pitches, even 80 innings, can't pay him 10% (9%) of our payroll. I don't care if he's Mariano Rivera. Babe Ruth in the 1914 WS. CAN'T.

In the minds of some you can. I mean the only thing preventing it is supposed greed of an owner who should be content to let others dictate how much profit he should be satisfied with, right? Who cares about fiscal common sense when there's a needy fan base that needs to be fed? I'm sure Zach Britton would find it perfectly acceptable to be paid 3-4 times less than his set-up man. No problem. Probably wouldn't even bring it up in his next arb hearing.

Non-buyers remorse going on 36 pages and counting. A return to actual baseball can't come soon enough.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm sure Zach Britton would find it perfectly acceptable to be paid 3-4 times less than his set-up man. No problem.

Baseball players and their agents understand, if not agree with, the way salaries are determined in baseball. Zach Britton and his agent know that prior to six years of service time he will be paid less than the large majority of players who have more than six years of service time, performance or role notwithstanding. How is Britton currently handling the fact that he makes a small fraction of Tommy Hunter's salary?

[24fps]

Baseball players and their agents understand, if not agree with, the way salaries are determined in baseball. Zach Britton and his agent know that prior to six years of service time he will be paid less than the large majority of players who have more than six years of service time, performance or role notwithstanding. How is Britton currently handling the fact that he makes a small fraction of Tommy Hunter's salary?

Tommy Hunter makes $4.6 million after avoiding third-year arbitration, Zach Britton makes $3.2 after avoiding first-year arb. Britton's in line to make considerably more than Hunter at the same career point if his arb years aren't bought out. That should serve as a significant consolation.

I think your overall point is a good one. My point is that the just-throw-money-at-it argument is silly when Andrew Miller is the subject. Perhaps I could have made it better.

[brianod]

In the minds of some you can. I mean the only thing preventing it is supposed greed of an owner who should be content to let others dictate how much profit he should be satisfied with, right? Who cares about fiscal common sense when there's a needy fan base that needs to be fed? I'm sure Zach Britton would find it perfectly acceptable to be paid 3-4 times less than his set-up man. No problem. Probably wouldn't even bring it up in his next arb hearing.

Non-buyers remorse going on 36 pages and counting. A return to actual baseball can't come soon enough.

Yes, I am saying that it would be good for the organization if the Orioles increased payroll by 12 million and gave it to Miller. If not Miller, someone. And yes, I am advocating Orioles management make less profit. I'm not advocating operating at a loss or even breaking even. I believe that when someone buys a professional franchise, they are not just buying a business. They have a responsibility to the community to do everything they can to try to win. That does include making less profit than they possibly could. I do feel that owning a major league franchise is a public trust. You simply should not operate the Orioles like you operate a bank. The Orioles have an important role to play in the morale of an entire region. And, I'm not dictating anything, I'm simply pointing out the fact of what I think is the right thing for the Orioles to do.

[Can_of_corn]

Yes, I am saying that it would be good for the organization if the Orioles increased payroll by 12 million and gave it to Miller. If not Miller, someone. And yes, I am advocating Orioles management make less profit. I'm not advocating operating at a loss or even breaking even. I believe that when someone buys a professional franchise, they are not just buying a business. They have a responsibility to the community to do everything they can to try to win. That does include making less profit than they possibly could. I do feel that owning a major league franchise is a public trust. You simply should not operate the Orioles like you operate a bank. The Orioles have an important role to play in the morale of an entire region. And, I'm not dictating anything, I'm simply pointing out the fact of what I think is the right thing for the Orioles to do.

Would you agree that 1 billion is a fair valuation of the team?

If so what ROI would you suggest be "fair"?

[Can_of_corn]

Yes, I am saying that it would be good for the organization if the Orioles increased payroll by 12 million and gave it to Miller. If not Miller, someone. And yes, I am advocating Orioles management make less profit. I'm not advocating operating at a loss or even breaking even. I believe that when someone buys a professional franchise, they are not just buying a business. They have a responsibility to the community to do everything they can to try to win. That does include making less profit than they possibly could. I do feel that owning a major league franchise is a public trust. You simply should not operate the Orioles like you operate a bank. The Orioles have an important role to play in the morale of an entire region. And, I'm not dictating anything, I'm simply pointing out the fact of what I think is the right thing for the Orioles to do.

Mr Angelos is well know throughout the city for his charity.

Do you think in lieu of his normal contributions he should operate the O's at no personal profit? Would that be of greater service to the community?

[brianod]

Would you agree that 1 billion is a fair valuation of the team?

If so what ROI would you suggest be "fair"?

Are the Orioles a more successful business if they make 37 million dollars profit and don't make the playoffs or are they a more successful business if they make no profit and win the world series?

[Crazysilver03]

Are the Orioles a more successful business if they make 37 million dollars profit and don't make the playoffs or are they a more successful business if they make no profit and win the world series?

I see you constantly cite $37M but where is that coming from?

[Crazysilver03]

Wrong thread.

[Can_of_corn]

Are the Orioles a more successful business if they make 37 million dollars profit and don't make the playoffs or are they a more successful business if they make no profit and win the world series?

That didn't answer my questions.

Do you agree with a one billion dollar valuation for the purposes of this discussion and what do you think a "fair" ROI is for his investment?

As for your question, Mr Angelos is answerable to his board of directors as he is not the sole owner of the team. It would be unfair, for instance, for him to return no profit from the venture if that is against the will of the other investors.