Would you sign Manny for 11/$231 mm?

[Bahama O's Fan]

My answer would be "yes, extend him" no matter what the numbers/years are that you listed ...

It's a challenging topic in that he may eventually (when this foundation starts to depart) negatively impact the ability to acquire enough talent to win the WS later in his career with a steep contract, but I personally doubt it would actually play out that way ...

Even if it does, think about this ... is it so bad to not win it all as to sacrifice an all time great going on to be that for someone else?

What if Cal Ripken wanted the equivalent of that much money in his day? Would you trade what we had in Cal for a chance, not a guarantee at all, to build a team that just might if we are lucky have an outside shot at winning a WS once during the rest of his career? (i.e. A team that doesn't win a WS for the last 18 years or so of his career, but that has a hero of that caliber that will stick with you and be someone who you call your own, home grown hero that your kids will remember and tell their kids about?)

I will take a lifetime Oriole HOFer and all those years of memories over a non-guaranteed shot at a WS that we will have to somehow figure out how to win on a cheap budget. I'd argue that a star like Machado and the rest of the team being a bargain-filled Moneyball special would be just as likely to make a run as a team with no top/dominant players trying to fit and make the perfect recipe to win it all (a la the 2015 Royals) which happens VERY rarely ...

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Sign him at just about any cost. Personally, I would go to him now and ask "What would it take to make you an Oriole for 10 more years?"

[OrioleMagic79]

Which is why an opt out can work for both sides. Keep him as long as the club is a contender, then let him walk and take his big contract with him.

I guess my point would be I want to keep him whether we are a contender or not ... I personally don't believe that those things are mutually exclusive, but even if they were and I had to choose between them, I would elect to keep Machado over thinking we just might be able to have a shot at doing what the Royals did last year (maybe once? maybe?) during the remainder of his career ...

[Going Underground]

Still think with his two surgeries he is much too big 9f a risk.

[Frobby]

Uy

My answer would be "yes, extend him" no matter what the numbers/years are that you listed ...

It's a challenging topic in that he may eventually (when this foundation starts to depart) negatively impact the ability to acquire enough talent to win the WS later in his career with a steep contract, but I personally doubt it would actually play out that way ...

Even if it does, think about this ... is it so bad to not win it all as to sacrifice an all time great going on to be that for someone else?

What if Cal Ripken wanted the equivalent of that much money in his day? Would you trade what we had in Cal for a chance, not a guarantee at all, to build a team that just might if we are lucky have an outside shot at winning a WS once during the rest of his career? (i.e. A team that doesn't win a WS for the last 18 years or so of his career, but that has a hero of that caliber that will stick with you and be someone who you call your own, home grown hero that your kids will remember and tell their kids about?)

I will take a lifetime Oriole HOFer and all those years of memories over a non-guaranteed shot at a WS that we will have to somehow figure out how to win on a cheap budget. I'd argue that a star like Machado and the rest of the team being a bargain-filled Moneyball special would be just as likely to make a run as a team with no top/dominant players trying to fit and make the perfect recipe to win it all (a la the 2015 Royals) which happens VERY rarely ...

I'd much rather have a winning team that is a frequent contender (whether they win the World Series or not) than have a losing team that has a Hall of Fame player. I didn't particularly enjoy rooting for Cal in 1986-91 or 1998-2001. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, but with today's contracts you do have to be careful about putting so many eggs in one basket that you can't do anything else.

[OrioleMagic79]

Uy

I'd much rather have a winning team that is a frequent contender (whether they win the World Series or not) than have a losing team that has a Hall of Fame player. I didn't particularly enjoy rooting for Cal in 1986-91 or 1998-2001. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, but with today's contracts you do have to be careful about putting so many eggs in one basket that you can't do anything else.

So trading/not signing Manny guarantees a better shot at winning? I would argue that trading him for prospects would nearly guarantee we take a significant step backward and there's one of your losing windows right there ... and who said we'd be a losing team if we kept Manny?

What decent (less expensive) impact free agents will want to sign with a team that just traded its best player for three stud prospects that will need a few years to (maybe) develop enough to make a significant contribution to the win column? That seems like at least a setback of two, maybe as many as four or five, years right there, given who else will be gone by then and what we have in the farm system.

At that point, who knows if the prospects pan out? And if we ride him out and let him walk in exchange for a compensation pick, that's even worse ... A first rounder that will be just beginning at the minor league level of development that we acquired the year after he leaves? That's probably an even longer window of mediocrity (at best) given what we have here ...

We have been waiting for a foundation to build on to be competitive ... folks, Manny IS that foundation. So we're going to just send him away and try and make it work with guys that statistically have almost no shot at being the kind of impact player that he is, not to mention as early in their careers as he was?

If we trade Manny or let him walk, he will still be a year or two shy of his prime/peak ... what are we even doing if we draft guys that will potentially be superstars one day, only to let them walk, if they do in fact become superstars, just as they enter their prime???

That's why the A's haven't, and never will IMO, win a WS under Billy Beane ... it's like he is constantly tweaking and rebuilding his team ... just when they get a stud or two that will possibly take them to the promise land, they trade him away right as he is entering his prime because they don't want to pay him ... and the cycle starts over ... their farm system usually has a lot of studs, but with their model, they will develop them and then trade them just as soon as they approach their peak ...

The A's are essentially their trade partners' farm team that agrees to prepare guys for a WS run and then send them your way in exchange for the next generation to train ...

I mean what does Beane have to show for it? He's like a keeper league fantasy team manager that can't stop thinking about next year's team instead of realizing when he's built a foundation strong enough to shift his philosophical direction to "win now" ... which has perennially doomed him to never be quite good enough to win it all ...

I mean, I think there is some merit in Moneyball strategies, but committing to it on the level that some of these mid-level market teams have will only ensure that they will always remain in the mid-level market slightly above average and somewhat competitive every couple/few years, but never in a place to win it all ...

Maybe we need to just draft better and build our farm system up on our own instead of trading away the one home grown player we always dreamed of having for someone else's draft picks ...

[El Gordo]

So trading/not signing Manny guarantees a better shot at winning? I would argue that trading him for prospects would nearly guarantee we take a significant step backward and there's one of your losing windows right there ... and who said we'd be a losing team if we kept Manny?

What decent (less expensive) impact free agents will want to sign with a team that just traded its best player for three stud prospects that will need a few years to (maybe) develop enough to make a significant contribution to the win column? That seems like at least a setback of two, maybe as many as four or five, years right there, given who else will be gone by then and what we have in the farm system.

At that point, who knows if the prospects pan out? And if we ride him out and let him walk in exchange for a compensation pick, that's even worse ... A first rounder that will be just beginning at the minor league level of development that we acquired the year after he leaves? That's probably an even longer window of mediocrity (at best) given what we have here ...

We have been waiting for a foundation to build on to be competitive ... folks, Manny IS that foundation. So we're going to just send him away and try and make it work with guys that statistically have almost no shot at being the kind of impact player that he is, not to mention as early in their careers as he was?

If we trade Manny or let him walk, he will still be a year or two shy of his prime/peak ... what are we even doing if we draft guys that will potentially be superstars one day, only to let them walk, if they do in fact become superstars, just as they enter their prime???

That's why the A's haven't, and never will IMO, win a WS under Billy Beane ... it's like he is constantly tweaking and rebuilding his team ... just when they get a stud or two that will possibly take them to the promise land, they trade him away right as he is entering his prime because they don't want to pay him ... and the cycle starts over ... their farm system usually has a lot of studs, but with their model, they will develop them and then trade them just as soon as they approach their peak ...

The A's are essentially their trade partners' farm team that agrees to prepare guys for a WS run and then send them your way in exchange for the next generation to train ...

I mean what does Beane have to show for it? He's like a keeper league fantasy team manager that can't stop thinking about next year's team instead of realizing when he's built a foundation strong enough to shift his philosophical direction to "win now" ... which has perennially doomed him to never be quite good enough to win it all ...

I mean, I think there is some merit in Moneyball strategies, but committing to it on the level that some of these mid-level market teams have will only ensure that they will always remain in the mid-level market slightly above average and somewhat competitive every couple/few years, but never in a place to win it all ...

Maybe we need to just draft better and build our farm system up on our own instead of trading away the one home grown player we always dreamed of having for someone else's draft picks ...

Beane has to do what he does because his team is on a limited budget. The Orioles are too, although not as limited as Oakland.

[jtschrei]

It really depends on resources. Do the Orioles have the resources to keep one of the best players in the game?

If the resources are such that you have to get rid of others to keep Manny, I would. I think Manny is a better long-term investment than Davis, e.g..

I would not be opposed to signing Manny this offseason to a ridiculous contact and then trading Davis.

[WEAVERMAN]

So trading/not signing Manny guarantees a better shot at winning? I would argue that trading him for prospects would nearly guarantee we take a significant step backward and there's one of your losing windows right there ... and who said we'd be a losing team if we kept Manny?

What decent (less expensive) impact free agents will want to sign with a team that just traded its best player for three stud prospects that will need a few years to (maybe) develop enough to make a significant contribution to the win column? That seems like at least a setback of two, maybe as many as four or five, years right there, given who else will be gone by then and what we have in the farm system.

At that point, who knows if the prospects pan out? And if we ride him out and let him walk in exchange for a compensation pick, that's even worse ... A first rounder that will be just beginning at the minor league level of development that we acquired the year after he leaves? That's probably an even longer window of mediocrity (at best) given what we have here ...

We have been waiting for a foundation to build on to be competitive ... folks, Manny IS that foundation. So we're going to just send him away and try and make it work with guys that statistically have almost no shot at being the kind of impact player that he is, not to mention as early in their careers as he was?

If we trade Manny or let him walk, he will still be a year or two shy of his prime/peak ... what are we even doing if we draft guys that will potentially be superstars one day, only to let them walk, if they do in fact become superstars, just as they enter their prime???

That's why the A's haven't, and never will IMO, win a WS under Billy Beane ... it's like he is constantly tweaking and rebuilding his team ... just when they get a stud or two that will possibly take them to the promise land, they trade him away right as he is entering his prime because they don't want to pay him ... and the cycle starts over ... their farm system usually has a lot of studs, but with their model, they will develop them and then trade them just as soon as they approach their peak ...

The A's are essentially their trade partners' farm team that agrees to prepare guys for a WS run and then send them your way in exchange for the next generation to train ...

I mean what does Beane have to show for it? He's like a keeper league fantasy team manager that can't stop thinking about next year's team instead of realizing when he's built a foundation strong enough to shift his philosophical direction to "win now" ... which has perennially doomed him to never be quite good enough to win it all ...

I mean, I think there is some merit in Moneyball strategies, but committing to it on the level that some of these mid-level market teams have will only ensure that they will always remain in the mid-level market slightly above average and somewhat competitive every couple/few years, but never in a place to win it all ...

Maybe we need to just draft better and build our farm system up on our own instead of trading away the one home grown player we always dreamed of having for someone else's draft picks ...

I am with you, SIGN MANNY. We can't let impact players, especially huge impact players entering their prime, like Manny get away. I repeat get it done Duquette. If he can't do, let PGA do it, but get the extension done.

[oriolediehard]

Manny Machado is hands down the best Oriole player bar none!!!

[waroriole]

Pay the man!!!!

[Frobby]

So trading/not signing Manny guarantees a better shot at winning? I would argue that trading him for prospects would nearly guarantee we take a significant step backward and there's one of your losing windows right there ... and who said we'd be a losing team if we kept Manny?

It is very obvious that I did not say that. I was responding to a hypothetical posed by another poster about whether I'd prefer to root for a winning team or root for a team with a home grown superstar who remains with the team. I made it clear that the two are not mutually exclusive. But given the choice, I'd prefer the winning team. That's all I said.

People who say we must re-sign Manny regardless of the cost are simply wrong, though. Cost is always a relevant consideration. It constrains what else the team will be able to do, and obviously, there is some price where the money would be better spent elsewhere. The only debate is where that point is.

[TINSTAAPP]

Which is why an opt out can work for both sides. Keep him as long as the club is a contender, then let him walk and take his big contract with him.

This is the point people are missing when they talk about a long-term extension hamstringing the team. The Orioles would really only be committing four or five years to him because any long-term contract Machado signs will come with an opt-out clause which he will almost certainly exercise.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Exactly my thoughts. No player is bigger than the team. The Cardinals let Pujols walk, although he was certainly older than Manny.

Sort of a weird example to argue the point you're making as the cards signed Pujols to a seven-year $100M extension after his first several years. He was on that team for a decade.

[TradeAngelos]

People who say we must re-sign Manny regardless of the cost are simply wrong, though. Cost is always a relevant consideration. It constrains what else the team will be able to do, and obviously, there is some price where the money would be better spent elsewhere. The only debate is where that point is.

I think that point where the deal becomes -EV is so high it isn't relevant in this extremely special situation.

Obviously you can just write him a blank check, but the value he (should) provide over the life of pretty much any length deal should FAR exceed his pay.

Pay him, watch him dominate, figure out the rest later.

[waroriole]

Good point. You got me. It is a bad example. The Cards played it smart and let Pujols walk after his age 31 season.

Which the O's could do through opt outs. Even if he opts out after 3, you can renegotiate and give him more opt outs at ~30~.