Jimmy Paredes long-term

[Frobby]

It's a mistake I would have made if I were in charge. It would have been a bad mistake, but I would have done it.

I'm not so sure. I think when you are the one responsible for staying within budget, you see these decisions in a different light.

I'm very happy for Nelson that he is off to a great start in Seattle. Quite honestly, I hope he outperforms the contract Seattle gave him. But even if he does, I won't regret the Orioles' decision. That contract is going to be a loser 3 times out of every 4. The fact that it turns out to be a winner every fourth time doesn't make that a good bet.

[Redskins Rick]

I'm not so sure. I think when you are the one responsible for staying within budget, you see these decisions in a different light.

I'm very happy for Nelson that he is off to a great start in Seattle. Quite honestly, I hope he outperforms the contract Seattle gave him. But even if he does, I won't regret the Orioles' decision. That contract is going to be a loser 3 times out of every 4. The fact that it turns out to be a winner every fourth time doesn't make that a good bet.

I havent done the math, but from the outside looking in, I would have thought the numbers were not that high for the ones that make it, really 1 out of 4 works?

[Frobby]

I havent done the math, but from the outside looking in, I would have thought the numbers were not that high for the ones that make it, really 1 out of 4 works?

That was just a finger to the wind number. It depends on the population of contracts you are talking about. It would be interesting to come up with a list of 4+ year contracts given to players who were 34+ years old when they signed the contract. I can't think of many off the top of my head. Bonds (worked out), Bagwell (didn't work out), Palmeiro (worked out). I'm sure there are some others, but not many.

[Redskins Rick]

That was just a finger to the wind number. It depends on the population of contracts you are talking about. It would be interesting to come up with a list of 4+ year contracts given to players who were 34+ years old when they signed the contract. I can't think of many off the top of my head. Bonds (worked out), Bagwell (didn't work out), Palmeiro (worked out). I'm sure there are some others, but not many.

Raffy was a much smaller chuck of change then the big money contracts today.

As for Bonds, I dont think his reduced performance was worth the 20+ million he was earning for his last couple of years.

[backwardsk]

Raffy was a much smaller chuck of change then the big money contracts today.

As for Bonds, I dont think his reduced performance was worth the 20+ million he was earning for his last couple of years.

This caused me to look up Bonds stats. Unreal. Over 200 IBB's from his age 39 season on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Redskins Rick]

This caused me to look up Bonds stats. Unreal. Over 200 IBB's from his age 39 season on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True, and while I did say reduce performance, it wasn't exactly like he was worthless.

But, it wasn't Bond-like numbers, like he was used to putting up, and not worth the 20-25 million he was earning.

[Ruzious]

Not that they didn't try.

Not sure, why you are so hung up on this?

I think most of, if we were playing fantasy baseball with no payroll limits, would feel the same way.

You would have been okay with the Orioles overspending to keep him?

Probably because he's one of the best hitters in baseball - and I'd like the O's to contend for a championship.

If anything he's underpaid - and not by a small amount. Not re-signing Miller falls under the category of having a limited payroll - he's a luxury item for his role. But Cruz isn't a luxury item. The everyday lineup would be much better with him vs a De Aza and the other players they are paying to use instead of him. And having that much better everyday lineup would likely end up more than paying for itself.

[Redskins Rick]

Probably because he's one of the best hitters in baseball - and I'd like the O's to contend for a championship.

If anything he's underpaid - and not by a small amount. Not re-signing Miller falls under the category of having a limited payroll - he's a luxury item for his role. But Cruz isn't a luxury item. The everyday lineup would be much better with him vs a De Aza and the other players they are paying to use instead of him. And having that much better everyday lineup would likely end up more than paying for itself.

Miller wanted closer money, very hard to pay Miller closer money to be a setup man on this team. He got 36 million for 4 years.

Cruz signed 57 million for 4 years.

So if we have kept those two, then that 26 million for those two.

Trimming 5 million from DeAza and 5 million from Hunter, still leaves you 16 million short.

[Ruzious]

Miller wanted closer money, very hard to pay Miller closer money to be a setup man on this team. He got 36 million for 4 years.

Cruz signed 57 million for 4 years.

So if we have kept those two, then that 26 million for those two.

Trimming 5 million from DeAza and 5 million from Hunter, still leaves you 16 million short.

I just got through saying I understand not paying Miller. Again, I would not have kept Miller.

What did you think of re-signing a 32 year old SS with a .682 OPS for 3/40 (really 3/42 since there's a 2 mil buyout for 2018 that they'll undoubtedly pay)?

[sportsfan8703]

Probably because he's one of the best hitters in baseball - and I'd like the O's to contend for a championship.

If anything he's underpaid - and not by a small amount. Not re-signing Miller falls under the category of having a limited payroll - he's a luxury item for his role. But Cruz isn't a luxury item. The everyday lineup would be much better with him vs a De Aza and the other players they are paying to use instead of him. And having that much better everyday lineup would likely end up more than paying for itself.

Everything you said is 100% true but right now the offense isn't the problem. Right now we're on pace for fewer QS's as a team than when King Felix won the Cy Young a couple years ago. The starting pitching is a joke. This whole offseason was jacked up. The Toronto fiasco. The flop that Ubaldo was the year before. Having 1/2 the 25 man roster being FA's at the end of the year. I don't understand the Long term decision of not having Cruz and Miller. Would we have had a huge payroll this year yes. But then in 2016 we would have a team with alot of guys in pre-arb. Does the Ownership really live week to week. Or year to year.

As for Paredes, I'm confident that he will be able to play an everday position next year. Whether it's 1b,LF,RF. Basically he's the new Steve Pearce.

[Redskins Rick]

I just got through saying I understand not paying Miller. Again, I would not have kept Miller.

What did you think of re-signing a 32 year old SS with a .682 OPS for 3/40 (really 3/42 since there's a 2 mil buyout for 2018 that they'll undoubtedly pay)?

You mean, one of the best shortstops in the game, in a critical position on the field, yes I would.

Most championships are not won with Derek Jeter quality glove at the SS position.

But, they also, are not paying him 14 million per year, either.

[DrungoHazewood]

I just got through saying I understand not paying Miller. Again, I would not have kept Miller.

What did you think of re-signing a 32 year old SS with a .682 OPS for 3/40 (really 3/42 since there's a 2 mil buyout for 2018 that they'll undoubtedly pay)?

I think Hardy's contract was much more justifiable than Cruz', but not without risk. All you have to do to walk away from 4/50+ for Cruz is look at his 2011-13 seasons where he combined for about as much value as he did in 2014. The Mariners are betting on him being not just more valuable in his mid-to-late 30s than his early 30s, but a lot more valuable. There probably isn't one player in 25 who is more valuable from 34-37 than they were from 30-33.

[Ruzious]

You mean, one of the best shortstops in the game, in a critical position on the field, yes I would.

Most championships are not won with Derek Jeter quality glove at the SS position.

But, they also, are not paying him 14 million per year, either.

What are they paying him?

And do you expect he'll be worth what they're paying him for his last 2 years (not that this year looks particularly promising for him)? I'd much rather bet on a great hitter in his mid 30's than a defensive shortstop in his mid 30's.

[Ruzious]

I think Hardy's contract was much more justifiable than Cruz', but not without risk. All you have to do to walk away from 4/50+ for Cruz is look at his 2011-13 seasons where he combined for about as much value as he did in 2014. The Mariners are betting on him being not just more valuable in his mid-to-late 30s than his early 30s, but a lot more valuable. There probably isn't one player in 25 who is more valuable from 34-37 than they were from 30-33.

Cruz is coming off a great year, and all he's needed to do throughout his career is to stay healthy - and he is healthy. Look at the player.

[CA-ORIOLE]

What happened to Jimmy Paredes?