Would Wieters actually Accept a QO?

[SteveO]

Do you believe everything Scott Boras says for public consumption? Do you consider it possible that he might sometimes posture in the service of his own self interest? I do, but frankly it's beside the point. I'm only interested in what Scott Boras says or thinks or might think if I'm entertaining the thought of negotiating with him for the services of on of his clients, in this case Matt Wieters. I don't give a crap about Matt Wieters because the money I would have to spend on him is far better spent elsewhere in 2016 and to take Scott Boras' public pronouncements as gospel would not only be GM malpractice it would be certifiable insanity in all 50 states.

Your belief system seems to be based on the assumption that Scott Boras has told the truth when it comes to qualifying offers and furthermore he will be consistent in that behavior in the future. Think about that last part. Does he strike you as an overly principled guy? Personally I'm not comfortable trusting Scott Boras even though I also don't think he's the bogeyman. In this case I don't have to be comfortable with him. All I have to do is decide whether the long shot possibility that some 40th position draft pick might turn into something serviceable 3-4 years down the road is worth risking one-third of my 2016 retooling budget. Not enough upside compared to immediate needs. Dumb gamble, I'll pass.

First when Scott Boras is very public and very very consistent in his statements regarding the QO system, then yes I believe what he says about this particular subject. Boras is hell bent on getting this out of the CBA. For him to have a client, especially a marketable one like MW take it, would make him look ridiculous and undermine his position on the matter. This is about how Scott makes his money and to answer your next question, YES, Scott Boras is principled on one thing and one thing only, making himself and his clients money. Having a client take the QO is literally as counterproductive to that goal as it gets. I think MW would have to fire Boras as his agent in order to to take the QO. I don't think you understand just how entrenched on this issue he is. I have heard him talk on radio about it in even more negative terms than the direct quotes I provided you.

So in short my belief system is based on strong strong statements that Borras has made about he QO offer system and is backed 100% by his behavior and record in the past. If you think one his clients, let alone a marketable one, is going to be the first to accept a QO, your just wrong and unwilling to admit. Look I have given you DIRECT quotes about how Boras feels about this issue, its not like MW or any other player does not understand what Boras is about. If your gonna insist that MW could take the QO then provide me with something....anything at all that supports your opinion other than your personal analysis and gut feelings. You asked for "anything other than an assertion and perhaps a vague psychological conclusion about Scott Boras' future behavior diagnosed from afar?" I gave you his words and strong ones at that.....your turn....I just will sit here and wait

[tntoriole]

Do you believe everything Scott Boras says for public consumption? Do you consider it possible that he might sometimes posture in the service of his own self interest? I do, but frankly it's beside the point. I'm only interested in what Scott Boras says or thinks or might think if I'm entertaining the thought of negotiating with him for the services of on of his clients, in this case Matt Wieters. I don't give a crap about Matt Wieters because the money I would have to spend on him is far better spent elsewhere in 2016 and to take Scott Boras' public pronouncements as gospel would not only be GM malpractice it would be certifiable insanity in all 50 states.

Your belief system seems to be based on the assumption that Scott Boras has told the truth when it comes to qualifying offers and furthermore he will be consistent in that behavior in the future. Think about that last part. Does he strike you as an overly principled guy? Personally I'm not comfortable trusting Scott Boras even though I also don't think he's the bogeyman. In this case I don't have to be comfortable with him. All I have to do is decide whether the long shot possibility that some 40th position draft pick might turn into something serviceable 3-4 years down the road is worth risking one-third of my 2016 retooling budget. Not enough upside compared to immediate needs. Dumb gamble, I'll pass.

It is not a matter of whether you believe or trust Scott Boras. The facts are that NO player, NONE, ZERO, has EVER taken a qualifying offer in MLB history. No agent, not just Scott Boras, has had their player sign a QO. That is a fact that you seemingly just ignore because of your "belief" with no evidence at all that Matt Wieters, who will be the only big time free agent catcher on the free agent market, won't get a better offer from Philly, from Detroit, from Atlanta than a 1 year qualifying offer from us. And then when that same draft pick that you trash and think "might turn into something serviceable" becomes an ace on another team, some people will likely bemoan the fact that "we could have picked him if we hadn't just given Wieters away without taking the pick." I am glad DD is running the team. I am absolutely OK with Wieters on a 1 year QO deal (but he is not taking it.)

[24fps]

It is not a matter of whether you believe or trust Scott Boras. The facts are that NO player, NONE, ZERO, has EVER taken a qualifying offer in MLB history. No agent, not just Scott Boras, has had their player sign a QO. That is a fact that you seemingly just ignore because of your "belief" with no evidence at all that Matt Wieters, who will be the only big time free agent catcher on the free agent market, won't get a better offer from Philly, from Detroit, from Atlanta than a 1 year qualifying offer from us. And then when that same draft pick that you trash and think "might turn into something serviceable" becomes an ace on another team, some people will likely bemoan the fact that "we could have picked him if we hadn't just given Wieters away without taking the pick." I am glad DD is running the team. I am absolutely OK with Wieters on a 1 year QO deal (but he is not taking it.)

Matt Wieters is not a "big time free agent catcher" , he's a career 100 OPS+, 2 fWAR per year catcher coming off a serious injury on the threshold of his declining years. In other words he's the textbook definition of ordinary. Sleep-inducingly ordinary. Kurt Suzuki's name appears frequently in BBRef's comps. Suzuki is making $6 million this year but you would be OK with paying Wieters $16-17 million next year? You will get the same production from Joseph at $1-1.5 million.

What do you reckon the chances are that our comp pick for Wieter's QO contributes in 2016? How about at all? Remember Delmon Young was first overall in 2003, Travis Snider 14th overall in his draft class and Parmalee 20th in his. Perspective is your friend here. "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" anxiety isn't. So is blind faith that history will repeat itself forever. Circumstances change and so do people, this is especially true of purely pragmatic creatures like Scott Boras.

You're right, it's not a matter of whether or not I believe Scott Boras, because he's irrelevant if no qualifying offer is made. Offering Wieters a QO is offering him a contract that is a virtual lock to be worth less in value than the cost, and doing so in an environment where his services are redundant. The risk is a significant budget hit in a critical transitional year. The upside is a future player that is far more likely than not to be of marginal value at best. If losing a comp pick is the price of insurance guaranteeing I will have roughly $16 million at my disposal to address actual needs for 2016 then it's a justifiable expense.

[Aristotelian]

Matt Wieters is not a "big time free agent catcher" , he's a career 100 OPS+, 2 fWAR per year catcher coming off a serious injury on the threshold of his declining years. In other words he's the textbook definition of ordinary. Sleep-inducingly ordinary.

2 fWAR is worth about $14M, very close to the QO contract. There is a very small chance he takes the QO, and if he does the worst case scenario is that we have a 2 fWAR player for one year at close to market value. Playing with tremendous incentive to put up a monster year at full health.

[24fps]

2 fWAR is worth about $14M, very close to the QO contract. There is a very small chance he takes the QO, and if he does the worst case scenario is that we have a 2 fWAR player for one year at close to market value. Playing with tremendous incentive to put up a monster year at full health.

What I've read has WAR values all over the map. A recent article I read on Hardball Times has catcher WAR value at 4.8 for example. I tend to place less weight on sabermetric calculations when I can just look around for roughly equivalent players (Joseph, Suzuki, etc.) and find out what the market is paying them. I don't have time to look it up right now, does any catcher currently make $17 million a year?

The worst case scenario IMO is that the considerable resources devoted to an unnecessary Matt Wieters aren't available for another much higher impact player. Ideally one with a multi-year future with the O's at a position of need such as 1B or LF.

[weams]

Sure, but that puts Joseph on the bench, and it also is 15-16M less that we can spend in other areas.

Or you could trade him immediately and eat 4 million. Or include a competitive balance pick. We have shown the willingness to do both.

[Aristotelian]

What I've read has WAR values all over the map. A recent article I read on Hardball Times has catcher WAR value at 4.8 for example. I tend to place less weight on sabermetric calculations when I can just look around for roughly equivalent players (Joseph, Suzuki, etc.) and find out what the market is paying them. I don't have time to look it up right now, does any catcher currently make $17 million a year?

The worst case scenario IMO is that the considerable resources devoted to an unnecessary Matt Wieters aren't available for another much higher impact player. Ideally one with a multi-year future with the O's at a position of need such as 1B or LF.

I agree but that is not a bad worst case scenario considering that the probability is small versus the upside of a free prospect. Posey is making $21M per year, McAnn is making $17M, and Martin $15M. $16M for Wieters would not be a good deal but it would not be crazy.

[Can_of_corn]

Sure, but that puts Joseph on the bench, and it also is 15-16M less that we can spend in other areas.

He was a super sub in the minors, they can get him at bats if he hits.

[Stotle]

First when Scott Boras is very public and very very consistent in his statements regarding the QO system, then yes I believe what he says about this particular subject. Boras is hell bent on getting this out of the CBA. For him to have a client, especially a marketable one like MW take it, would make him look ridiculous and undermine his position on the matter. This is about how Scott makes his money and to answer your next question, YES, Scott Boras is principled on one thing and one thing only, making himself and his clients money. Having a client take the QO is literally as counterproductive to that goal as it gets. I think MW would have to fire Boras as his agent in order to to take the QO. I don't think you understand just how entrenched on this issue he is. I have heard him talk on radio about it in even more negative terms than the direct quotes I provided you.

So in short my belief system is based on strong strong statements that Borras has made about he QO offer system and is backed 100% by his behavior and record in the past. If you think one his clients, let alone a marketable one, is going to be the first to accept a QO, your just wrong and unwilling to admit. Look I have given you DIRECT quotes about how Boras feels about this issue, its not like MW or any other player does not understand what Boras is about. If your gonna insist that MW could take the QO then provide me with something....anything at all that supports your opinion other than your personal analysis and gut feelings. You asked for "anything other than an assertion and perhaps a vague psychological conclusion about Scott Boras' future behavior diagnosed from afar?" I gave you his words and strong ones at that.....your turn....I just will sit here and wait

Respectfully, I think your thoughts on Boras are too black and white. He doesn't operate in absolutes. Do I think it's likely Wieters accepts a QO? No. But to pretend like Boras and his clients have already made these decisions completely misunderstands his process. Boras the advocate is not the same thing as Boras the advisor; plenty in front offices will tell you that without hesitation.

Regarding the bolded, that is only true if you believe Wieters will be worse off looking for a long-term deal next year by at least $17 MM in risk/$.

[Can_of_corn]

His greatest value is at catcher. That is diminished if Wieters catches 120-140 games while he's auditioning for his next contract for another team.

I don't see him ever catching 140 in a season again.

I have doubts that Joseph can handle 120+ games at Catcher without wearing down.

[SteveO]

Respectfully, I think your thoughts on Boras are too black and white. He doesn't operate in absolutes. Do I think it's likely Wieters accepts a QO? No. But to pretend like Boras and his clients have already made these decisions completely misunderstands his process. Boras the advocate is not the same thing as Boras the advisor; plenty in front offices will tell you that without hesitation.

Regarding the bolded, that is only true if you believe Wieters will be worse off looking for a long-term deal next year by at least $17 MM in risk/$.

I think Stephen Drew would beg to differ.

I hear what your saying but I tend to think that unless its a case where its just clear as day you have to take it, he is not gonna advise a client to do so.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Stotle]

I think Stephen Drew would beg to differ.

I hear what your saying but I tend to think that unless its a case where its just clear as day you have to take it, he is not gonna advise a client to do so.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Well, what I am saying is that the Boras you are describing is not the Boras that would be described by many folks who actually work with him. That's all.

[weams]

That is also a possibility. Question. If someone accepts a QO can you trade them immediately? There are no rules like with free agents, right?

Correct. No rule against it at all.

[SteveO]

Well, what I am saying is that the Boras you are describing is not the Boras that would be described by many folks who actually work with him. That's all.

That's fair. I don't know him so only going based on his comments. The guy gets results more often than not.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[weams]

Well, what I am saying is that the Boras you are describing is not the Boras that would be described by many folks who actually work with him. That's all.

You would agree that the chances of a Boras client being the first to accept are diminished by his representation though I am certain?