Our pending free agents

[VeveJones007]

Those FA may cost 53 M this year but next year the ones we would consider having back will cost a lot more. Next year think something like:

C Caleb/Clevenger

1B Parmelee/ Walker

2B Schoop

3B Machado

SS Hardy

LF ???/Snider

CF AJ

RF Alverez

DH Paredes

Flaherty

Lough

Urretia

Pearce

Manny, Gonzalez, and Britton, yes. Where is the rest of that money going though?

[weams]

Manny, Gonzalez, and Britton, yes. Where is the rest of that money going though?

The partners?

[weams]

It would be tough to get much more value than a supplemental first round pick for 2 months of either Chen or Davis. Add in the fact that it would be a slap in the face to the rest of the players on the team if they were in contention, and I would be very surprised if either were traded. It would have to be a hell of an overpay.

Yeah. We are not sellers.

[El Gordo]

Yeah, but he isn't Trout either. There is a big gap between Trout's 6/$145M and Seager's 7/$100M, I would argue that Manny is closer to Seager than Trout.

That's a weak argument IMO.

[El Gordo]

Manny, Gonzalez, and Britton, yes. Where is the rest of that money going though?

It's not going to Davis, Wieters, and Chen, I promise. The three of them will cost close to 50M for next year.

[MurphDogg]

That's a weak argument IMO.

Trout over the last three seasons has been worth 10.3, 10.5, and 8.0 fWAR, 10.8, 9.3 and 7.9 rWAR. Seager has been worth 2.8, 3.9 and 5.8 rWAR and 3.6, 4.0 and 5.4 fWAR. Machado was worth 10.7 rWAR and 9.8 fWAR between 2012 and 2014, over what accounted to about 1.8 seasons due to his injuries. Machado has basically been half as valuable as Trout and 10-20 percent more valuable than Seager.

Obviously the fact that Seager is older makes a difference, but his contract runs through his age 33 season, so there isn't likely to be much of a decline at the end of the contract.

When MLB Network listed their top 100 players at the beginning of the season, they had Trout at #2, Seager at #57 and Machado wasn't even on the list.

I think Machado is more valuable than Seager, but Trout is just in another stratosphere.

[brianod]

I get a kick out of those saying, "I didn't think we should sign Matt but since he's had a great two weeks, I'm on board". Like, his career before those two weeks is irrelevant? Bye bye Matt. I have nothing against him, he's been a fine Oriole but he's an aging catcher who's had two years of arm problems and has never truly met his potential. Add to that the Boras equation and not only no, but, hell no!

[El Gordo]

Trout over the last three seasons has been worth 10.3, 10.5, and 8.0 fWAR, 10.8, 9.3 and 7.9 rWAR. Seager has been worth 2.8, 3.9 and 5.8 rWAR and 3.6, 4.0 and 5.4 fWAR. Machado was worth 10.7 rWAR and 9.8 fWAR between 2012 and 2014, over what accounted to about 1.8 seasons due to his injuries. Machado has basically been half as valuable as Trout and 10-20 percent more valuable than Seager.

Obviously the fact that Seager is older makes a difference, but his contract runs through his age 33 season, so there isn't likely to be much of a decline at the end of the contract.

When MLB Network listed their top 100 players at the beginning of the season, they had Trout at #2, Seager at #57 and Machado wasn't even on the list.

I think Machado is more valuable than Seager, but Trout is just in another stratosphere.

So Seager is making an AAV of 14 M and Trout is making an AAV of 24 M and you are going to offer Manny what to extend 16 M? There's a thread where Frobby is suggesting we offer Manny an AAV of 21 M. I suppose you think that is way off base?

[Scrat1]

They might be cheap and young. But how talented are they really? We don't know; they all can't be Chaz Roe (and he's not all that young). I'd hate to find out that they're not truly all that talented next year when a starter has given 6 good innings, only to have the cheap, young, not-very-talented relievers give the game away.

Of course we don't actually know, just as you don't know that O'Day is going to be effective through his mid thirties. You're acting like his future performance is a given and the future success of our Norfolk arms is a huge gamble. I don't see it that way at all. I think it's actually far riskier to give a single reliever $30 million+, particularly at a point when many players start to lose effectiveness.

All of these decisions are about weighing probability and time and again we see teams overpay for players with strong recent track records, hoping for "the sure thing" and learning the hard way that there's no such thing. In general, when it comes to team building, cheap and young > established and expensive.

[Nevermore]

Of course we don't actually know, just as you don't know that O'Day is going to be effective through his mid thirties. You're acting like his future performance is a given and the future success of our Norfolk arms is a huge gamble. I don't see it that way at all. I think it's actually far riskier to give a single reliever $30 million+, particularly at a point when many players start to lose effectiveness.

All of these decisions are about weighing probability and time and again we see teams overpay for players with strong recent track records, hoping for "the sure thing" and learning the hard way that there's no such thing. In general, when it comes to team building, cheap and young > established and expensive.

Not necessarily so. Each player must be judged individually. Generalizations such as what you put out don't always work to a team's advantage. I agree that there are a lot of "established, expensive" types clogging up various teams' rosters. But to say the opposite, that we can never, ever do proven and established, even if expensive, is another over-generalization. There are no sure things. Which is why there are no sure generalizations. Signing any player is a crap shoot, whether cheap or expensive. Actually, a middle-late reliever, even the most expensive one, is cheaper than either a starter or an established slugger. So I believe that signing Darren O'Day is a crap shoot that should work out to the team's advantage.

[oriole]

Just because the O's don't sign any of their own free agents doesn't mean they won't fill payroll in some way. Whether its another free agent or a trade for an expensive proven and productive players, it doesn't matter. They aren't writing in Alvarez, Walker, and Urrutia into anything but a plan C or worse.

[weams]

Just because the O's don't sign any of their own free agents doesn't mean they won't fill payroll in some way. Whether its another free agent or a trade for an expensive proven and productive players, it doesn't matter. They aren't writing in Alvarez, Walker, and Urrutia into anything but a plan C or worse.

Or they may decide to work a Tampa type payroll.

[jamalshw]

I would love to have Darren O'Day back, but I don't see the Orioles spending that much on a reliever. I also have been pleasantly surprised by some of the arms they have pulled up from the minors. The way I see it, if I had my way, i would resign Wieters and Chen. Putting those two in with the players under control for next year gives you the following:

1. LF- Nolan Reimold ®

2. RF- Travis Snider (L)

3. 3B- Manny Machado ®

4. CF- Adam Jones ®

5. C- Matt Wieters (S)

6. DH- Jimmy Paredes ®

7. 1B- Chris Parmelee (L)

8. SS- J.J. Hardy ®

9. 2B- Jonathan Schoop ®

Bench: Caleb Joseph, Ryan Flaherty, David Lough

Rotation: Tillman, Chen, Gonzalez, Jimenez, Gausman

Bullpen: Britton, Brach, Roe, Cabral, McFarland, Wright, Bundy, Wilson, Drake, Givens, Garcia

Now, if you assume that Wieters and Chen, being Boras clients, do not return, you can put Joseph in at catcher and have Clevenger or someone else back him up, but then I feel you are a bit weak offensively in the middle of the order, particuarly from the left-side, though you may be able to compensate for that with an upgrade at a different position.

As for Chen, you need a lefty in the rotation. Other options: Brett Anderson or Scott Kazmir

[Redskins Rick]

I would love to have Darren O'Day back, but I don't see the Orioles spending that much on a reliever. I also have been pleasantly surprised by some of the arms they have pulled up from the minors. The way I see it, if I had my way, i would resign Wieters and Chen. Putting those two in with the players under control for next year gives you the following:

1. LF- Nolan Reimold ®

2. RF- Travis Snider (L)

3. 3B- Manny Machado ®

4. CF- Adam Jones ®

5. C- Matt Wieters (S)

6. DH- Jimmy Paredes ®

7. 1B- Chris Parmelee (L)

8. SS- J.J. Hardy ®

9. 2B- Jonathan Schoop ®

Bench: Caleb Joseph, Ryan Flaherty, David Lough

Rotation: Tillman, Chen, Gonzalez, Jimenez, Gausman

Bullpen: Britton, Brach, Roe, Cabral, McFarland, Wright, Bundy, Wilson, Drake, Givens, Garcia

Now, if you assume that Wieters and Chen, being Boras clients, do not return, you can put Joseph in at catcher and have Clevenger or someone else back him up, but then I feel you are a bit weak offensively in the middle of the order, particuarly from the left-side, though you may be able to compensate for that with an upgrade at a different position.

As for Chen, you need a lefty in the rotation. Other options: Brett Anderson or Scott Kazmir

Kazmir has been pitcher forever, wonder how many innings he has left in the tank.

[MurphDogg]

So Seager is making an AAV of 14 M and Trout is making an AAV of 24 M and you are going to offer Manny what to extend 16 M? There's a thread where Frobby is suggesting we offer Manny an AAV of 21 M. I suppose you think that is way off base?

Machado is younger, so that factors in as well. I think a potential Machado extension ends up closer to Trout than Seager, even though in output he has been closer to Seager than Trout. Simply because a 6-year Machado extension would cover his 23-28 seasons. Seager's 7-year extension covers his age 27-33 seasons, so there is some potential for age related decline at the end of Seager's contract which there isn't for Trout or Machado. With Trout and Machado you are really only discounting for injury. The skill decline risk is much lower. And this doesn't really apply for Trout, but with Machado there is a decent chance he could improve on his current output, that chance is much lower for Seager.

I don't look at AAV as much with contracts that cover arbitration and free agency. I am more interested in what a team is paying for the free agent years. Trout will be making 33.25 million a year for his free agent years and Seager will be making $18-19 million a year. I think Machado should be somewhere in the $26-30 range.

Something like 8-12-16-26-28-30 seems about right to me. That would be a 6-year $120 million total.

As far as Frobby's deal goes, 11 years is a long time and Machado would be leaving money on the table if he ends up as good as we think he will be. I think a 6-7 year deal is more likely so he can get another huge contract before he is 30. That said, as long as there isn't an opt out on Manny's end, it would be the upper limit of what I was ok with. I really don't care for the opt out, as it keeps the team on the hook if a player falls off a cliff but prevents them from getting any excess value if the player actually lives up to the contract.