Jump to content

The Time to Make a Decision on Chris Davis is Now

brianod

By brianod
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

OFFNY Hangout Grand Counsel

OFFNY

Posted
Posted

Markakis and Cruz should not be lumped together. Most people here were right on both - that we should have kept Cruz and should not have kept Markakis. Cruz was a great talent who was healthy. Markakis was a good talent who was clearly declining at least defensively and scheduled for a neck operation.

With Davis, you can't just say no without giving an alternative. If we had kept Cruz - which most people here were right on, it would be much easier to say no to Davis. Without him, Jones is the only legit middle of the lineup hitter we'd have - and Jones is not a great hitter. I'm not saying we have to keep Davis - as I think he'll be much more expensive than Cruz was - but we need an alternative if we let him get away. We can't just say no, and leave it at that.

You are wrong that "most people here" wanted to keep Cruz. Only 24% thought we should have matched the Mariners' offer.

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/145416-Would-you-have-matched-SEA-offer-to-keep-Cruz-an-Oriole?highlight=cruz

As to Davis, it all depends on what you have to pay him. Of course we'd like him back at some price. But what price? At 6/$100 mm, I'd probably be in. At 7/$175 mm, I'd certainly be out. Somewhere in between is my stopping point, but I haven't sharpened my pencil yet.

Wasn't there a 2nd, more recent poll about retaining Cruz? As I recall, in that poll, most people thought that they should have kept him.

I wish we never traded Davey Johnson. I never wanted to. I wish we had kept Steve Finley and Curt Schilling. I wish we had traded Matt Riley. And Adam Loewen.

And Earl Monroe.

After the Bullets made it to the 1971 NBA Finals (and lost), Earl Monroe told the Bullets' management that he wanted to be traded to either the Bulls, the 76ers, of the Lakers.

Instead, they traded him to the Knicks for Mike Riordan and Dave Stallworth, just a few games into the following (1971-72) season.

The Bullets should have given Earl his original wish ...... they should have traded him to the Bulls for Chet Walker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Nevermore All-Star

Nevermore

Posted
Posted
Right, and as you can see it is a poll ripe for revisionist history. Obviously there have been a number of developments between the two polls that could cause folks to change their votes.
Or it could have been a matter of "what have you done for me lately?"

The point is that, regardless of what fans here at OH thought about retaining or not retaining Cruz, the question still remains: was not resigning Cruz a budget issue set by PA or was it a baseball issue decided upon by DD? My understanding, from what I've read from what DD has said that this was a baseball issue decided upon by DD rather than a budget issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Or it could have been a matter of "what have you done for me lately?"

The point is that, regardless of what fans here at OH thought about retaining or not retaining Cruz, the question still remains: was not resigning Cruz a budget issue set by PA or was it a baseball issue decided upon by DD? My understanding, from what I've read from what DD has said that this was a baseball issue decided upon by DD rather than a budget issue.

Of course it's both. There's no separating the two. Cruz had a performance risk associated with him, as well as a specific cost. There was some cost point where the performance risk was worthwhile taking on. And some point where it wasn't. The Mariner's offer was clearly above that risk/cost threshold. I was and I remain adamantly against offering Cruz a 3- or 4-year deal last winter for anything like what he got, but I certainly have a cost/length point where I would have been all for signing him. For me that would have been more like 2/25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ruzious Hangout Grand Counsel

Ruzious

Posted
Posted
Of course it's both. There's no separating the two. Cruz had a performance risk associated with him, as well as a specific cost. There was some cost point where the performance risk was worthwhile taking on. And some point where it wasn't. The Mariner's offer was clearly above that risk/cost threshold. I was and I remain adamantly against offering Cruz a 3- or 4-year deal last winter for anything like what he got, but I certainly have a cost/length point where I would have been all for signing him. For me that would have been more like 2/25.

The point has been made by others that average salaries 3 years from now are likely going to much higher than they are now. The NBA projects their salary cap to go up 60% from the 2015/16 season to the 2017/18 season. Baseball may not be going up at that rate, but it gives you an idea of the kind of increases you can expect. At some point, if you care about getting into the playoffs and having a chance to win championships - rather than just looking at a range you want to pay - you have to take a chance - unless you have better alternatives that give you a chance to win - especially when we're talking about a contract that's only in the mid 50's for 4 years - which might be a third of what Davis gets. I still haven't heard any of those better alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
The point has been made by others that average salaries 3 years from now are likely going to much higher than they are now. The NBA projects their salary cap to go up 60% from the 2015/16 season to the 2017/18 season. Baseball may not be going up at that rate, but it gives you an idea of the kind of increases you can expect. At some point, if you care about getting into the playoffs and having a chance to win championships - rather than just looking at a range you want to pay - you have to take a chance - unless you have better alternatives that give you a chance to win - especially when we're talking about a contract that's only in the mid 50's for 4 years - which might be a third of what Davis gets. I still haven't heard any of those better alternatives.
I think that's a lot of speculation. I don't know that I've seen any credible sources indicating that baseball revenues or salary will go up substantially. And there's the risk that ala carte cable might cause revenues to go backwards, as a majority of almost all RSNs' revenues come from people who don't care about sports.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
Or it could have been a matter of "what have you done for me lately?"

The point is that, regardless of what fans here at OH thought about retaining or not retaining Cruz, the question still remains: was not resigning Cruz a budget issue set by PA or was it a baseball issue decided upon by DD? My understanding, from what I've read from what DD has said that this was a baseball issue decided upon by DD rather than a budget issue.

No. It was a poll taken after the race had been run. It doesn't count as a poll it counts as a "Me too."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
The point has been made by others that average salaries 3 years from now are likely going to much higher than they are now. The NBA projects their salary cap to go up 60% from the 2015/16 season to the 2017/18 season. Baseball may not be going up at that rate, but it gives you an idea of the kind of increases you can expect. At some point, if you care about getting into the playoffs and having a chance to win championships - rather than just looking at a range you want to pay - you have to take a chance - unless you have better alternatives that give you a chance to win - especially when we're talking about a contract that's only in the mid 50's for 4 years - which might be a third of what Davis gets. I still haven't heard any of those better alternatives.

If salaries truly do keep rising exponentially in the face of a looming cable revenue bubble, I agree completely. I would never have though that Ricky Nolasco would get so much. Or even Elsbury. It's insane!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ruzious Hangout Grand Counsel

Ruzious

Posted
Posted
If salaries truly do keep rising exponentially in the face of a looming cable revenue bubble, I agree completely. I would never have though that Ricky Nolasco would get so much. Or even Elsbury. It's insane!

I don't know how much baseball salaries will increase, but when it's been pretty much cemented that the NBA salary cap is going from 63,065,000 in the 2014/15 season to 108 mil in the 2017/18 season (71.4% increase), I find it hard to believe that baseball contracts won't increase significantly in that time. NFL contracts seem to going up quite a lot, as well. We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdbdotcom Hangout Grand Counsel

mdbdotcom

Posted
Posted
I don't know how much baseball salaries will increase, but when it's been pretty much cemented that the NBA salary cap is going from 63,065,000 in the 2014/15 season to 108 mil in the 2017/18 season (71.4% increase), I find it hard to believe that baseball contracts won't increase significantly in that time. NFL contracts seem to going up quite a lot, as well. We shall see.

Great time for players and owners to agree to a reduction of service time required before reaching free agency. Cut it back to 5 years and eliminate the Super 2. That last year of arb is sending salaries sky high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jagwar Hangout Grand Counsel

Jagwar

Posted
Posted
Thinking about this lineup without Davis is so disturbing that I'm going to have another drink. Maybe two.

I think I'd be more concerned about Machado leaving in a few years because the O's can't afford him.

Give Davis the QO, let him walk. Extend Manny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nevermore All-Star

Nevermore

Posted
Posted
No. It was a poll taken after the race had been run. It doesn't count as a poll it counts as a "Me too."
To repeat my main point: the question still remains: was not resigning Cruz a budget issue set by PA or was it a baseball issue decided upon by DD? My understanding, from what I've read from what DD has said that this was a baseball issue decided upon by DD rather than a budget issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • emmett16
      Baumann DFA

      By emmett16 · Posted

      It’ll be curious to see what happens.  I see a guy that can’t throw strikes and when he does he gets hammered with meh stuff.  A 4.5 era 1.44 whip guy with significantly less Ks than IP is a dime a dozen in MLB.  
    • Moose Milligan
      Brandon Hyde 2024

      By Moose Milligan · Posted

      I get that and normally I'm in favor of playing the matchup game.   But Ced's terrible go of it lately negates that lefty .825 OPS against Munoz for me in that situation.  I'd have been alright with Mountcastle trying to catch a hold of one there instead...at least I think Mounty would have at a better chance to draw a walk and get on for Gunnar.  IMO, getting a runner on for Gunnar was the most important part of that inning, especially if you're going to prop up the .825 OPS Munoz has against lefties.  If getting a runner on was the most important thing, then I don't want the weakest hitter on the team up there no matter what side of the plate he's standing on, I want the guy who can likely give the best at bat.  For me, that was Mountcastle. Now I get the whole veteran thing, there was no way that Hyde was going to pinch hit for Mullins since he's been a valued member of the team.  But you could argue that Mateo has been a valued member of the team for the past couple years and that pinch hitting Stowers for him was a slap in the face to Mateo, especially when Mateo hasn't been the automatic out that Mullins has been lately.  
    • eddie83
      Baumann DFA

      By eddie83 · Posted

      I’m the opposite. I think he gets claimed. Ton of bad teams would give him a look. 
    • Frobby
      Bring on the robots

      By Frobby · Posted

      I think we’ve all noticed that more calls have gone against the O’s than for them in the last few years.  It was only the Alomar part of your thesis that made me shake my head.   
    • forphase1
      Brandon Hyde 2024

      By forphase1 · Posted

      But when that LHB is a Ced in a terrible slump, does that really matter?  Anyone could have done what he did, regardless of handedness, time in league or past track record.   Letting him try to hit was a bad decision.
    • emmett16
      Baumann DFA

      By emmett16 · Posted

      I will be surprised if Baumann gets claimed.  I think he will be in AAA and that was part of the calculus for the move. 
    • Moose Milligan
      Bring on the robots

      By Moose Milligan · Posted

      Glad I'm not imagining things in regard to it being worse for us in recent years.  I don't recall thinking the umpiring was this bad, say, 10 years ago...but then again, there also didn't seem to be a better solution on the horizon. MLB should want robot umps for a few reasons...first, they should want accurate strike calls, that's just obvious.  Two, it's not a secret that MLB wants offense and they've been looking for ways to create offense ever since they stopped looking the other way on PEDs in the late 90s, early 2000s.   I have to believe that if pitchers aren't getting calls on pitches that are off the strike zone that a few things will happen; walks will increase because a pitcher won't be able to try to paint a corner too often.  They'll run the risk of throwing more balls, and as a result they'll put more over the plate for hitters to swing at.  Batters can feel more confident about taking a ball off the plate because they won't be afraid that an umpire will call it a strike. More pitches in the zone,  more swings, perhaps more offense, MLB should want that....maybe that's just really simplistic thinking but it seems fairly logical to me.  I also can't believe MLB wants the bat taken out of a superstar's hands in a crucial moment because an umpire missed a strike call or two, that's just not good for the game.  You've gotta wonder what the outcomes of some games would be if pitchers aren't getting strike calls because the umpiring is so awful. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as getting rid of the umpires and installing the robots.  The umpires are unionized, they'll strike, whatever.  I wouldn't blame them for doing that, either.   But something's gotta give.  It's my hope that by 2030 there's a solution to this issue and that there's a defined strike zone for batters and that umpires can still have a place in the game, even if it's not as much from behind home plate calling balls and strikes.  

  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...