Os Sign O'Day for 4 Years - It's official

[Can_of_corn]

While this is true, I think that every year, we have to adjust ourselves to the new normal of what we should be expected to spend. The fact is that payrolls have increased 10-15% every year. We spent 118M in 2015. Just to keep afloat with average salary increases, we would need to spend 125-130M. So our baseline for 2015 should be 125-130M. If we aren't prepared to spend this minimum, then we shouldn't have the same expectations, and we should go back to a more strict small-market mentality like the Rays. That said, we appear to be in a significantly better financial position than the average small-market team thanks to a pretty favorable TV deal, so pushing our payroll to 130, or even 140, should not be a hugely difficult thing for FO/ownership to accept.

But attendance was down last year. Total revenue was probably down last year.

To me it wasn't a given that payroll would go up.

Of course even with a higher payroll I would rather spend the O'Day money on a starter or CO.

[SteveO]

Having a great bullpen certainly lowers my blood pressure from the 7th inning on.

Mine to.

The older I get, the more I value that

[SteveO]

But attendance was down last year. Total revenue was probably down last year.

To me it wasn't a given that payroll would go up.

Of course even with a higher payroll I would rather spend the O'Day money on a starter or CO.

My personal belief is that if the payroll goes up significantly, it is because PA is starting to consider what his legacy and the perception of him as owner is and will be once he is gone. That is a human thing, PA is a smart man but he is also human last I checked, I do not think its beyond him to want to reshape that legacy and perception while he has the opportunity to. .

For many years as a result of losing there was a perception of PA as a this McScrooge McDuck type character. There was a lot of negativity regarding him, his ownership and his legacy appeared to be one of an inept owner at best. I think that the past 4 years of winning/competitive baseball helped to ease some of those opinions and frankly, I think PA has taken notice and would like very much to not go back down that road.

If we end up spending significantly more in terms of payroll, I am guessing but maybe this is why? Is it crazy to think that maybe Peter is considering what or how people will view him once he is gone. Lets face it, he is not going to live forever and he has already secured the financial well being of his family for generations to come. I don't think that it is a stretch that perhaps he would like to secure how he is remembered in this town next.

Not suggesting he will go hog wild spending like an idiot. Just suggesting that perhaps this would motivate him to spend to that break even point or perhaps even lose a little in the short term for some long term recognition.

[DrungoHazewood]

Of course even with a higher payroll I would rather spend the O'Day money on a starter or CO.

Knowing that O'Day's money would only pay for a fraction of a starter or CO unless there was significant risk attached.

[Just Regular]

Comparing relievers and starters is sort of apple v orange. Greinke is one 25-man slot producing far more net wins than not just O'Day but the comparable starters. There's an escalating premium on every marginal win. 1 WAR guys can be very cheap, 2 WAR guys can land 3/36 easy, and a guy reliably producing 3 WAR can be very expensive.

Also it's not the most honest comparison; career averages aren't really good ways to discuss certain guys, and Greinke broke in very young and turned into something special relatively later.

None of this is a comment on O'Day though. I love O'Day and I'm fine with this contract.

I agree there's something to this.

I'm curious to see how baseball continues to treat pitching from a strategic perspective. It feels like pitching is moving towards a model like RB's and DL's in the NFL. More than ever those units are populated with "wave players" designed to play ~50% of the snaps at effort levels that would be unsustainably high for every down players. We've seen the Orioles embrace this trend with the Norfolk relief shuttle.

There aren't as many Adrian Peterson's or Haloti Ngata's as there used to be, and maybe Zack Greinke's the same species. I'm honestly not sure if that makes the few like him more important or less valuable, but I do know there are risk diversification advantages to three O'Day's vs. one Greinke.

[Just Regular]

You might get a more efficient pen if your closer was used in -1, 0, and +1 run situations rather than +1 to +3.

It would also be fun to have a "winner" role in the pen, who'd only pitch in games where you're tied or down a run or two. They might be credited with 20-30 wins.

I am dying for some progressive closer to smack talk about saves and say that wins are what he really covets. I do enjoy the irony that one of the dumbest traditional stats could be a useful tool for illustrating how to shape the mindset you want your ace relievers to have about when they should appear.

I want to say that watching This Week in Baseball as a kid, their made up Rolaids Relief Man standings did give +2 for a win and +1 for a save.

[SteveA]

You might get a more efficient pen if your closer was used in -1, 0, and +1 run situations rather than +1 to +3.

It would also be fun to have a "winner" role in the pen, who'd only pitch in games where you're tied or down a run or two. They might be credited with 20-30 wins.

Yeah, that -1 situation is REALLY underrated. Being able to keep it a 1 run game is really critical in terms of win probability, and some sharp manager should start strategizing based on that.

Even the mega-pens such as KC don't tend to bring in the big guns when they are behind in the 7th/8th/9th inning. (Obviously those guys can't pitch 162 games so it's a resource allocation issue, but I think they should bring them in down a run MORESO than if they are up 2 or 3 runs. And i don't believe ANY manager does that.

[weams]

I agree there's something to this.

I'm curious to see how baseball continues to treat pitching from a strategic perspective. It feels like pitching is moving towards a model like RB's and DL's in the NFL. More than ever those units are populated with "wave players" designed to play ~50% of the snaps at effort levels that would be unsustainably high for every down players. We've seen the Orioles embrace this trend with the Norfolk relief shuttle.

There aren't as many Adrian Peterson's or Haloti Ngata's as there used to be, and maybe Zack Greinke's the same species. I'm honestly not sure if that makes the few like him more important or less valuable, but I do know there are risk diversification advantages to three O'Day's vs. one Greinke.

Interesting thoughts.

[25 Nuggets]

But attendance was down last year. Total revenue was probably down last year.

To me it wasn't a given that payroll would go up.

Of course even with a higher payroll I would rather spend the O'Day money on a starter or CO.

[weams]

He failed the Petey physical?

Guess he's golden.

[Hallas]

But attendance was down last year. Total revenue was probably down last year.

To me it wasn't a given that payroll would go up.

Of course even with a higher payroll I would rather spend the O'Day money on a starter or CO.

Was it? We don't know how much money the Orioles made on revenue sharing payments. It was certainly substantial, as MLB as a whole is awash in money. Whatever minor hit the O's took in gate revenue would certainly be negated by this. Plus, MASN money is still increasing as far as I know. We do know that other owners, even owners of mid-market teams, are not really that concerned with giving out massively large contracts such as the one that Greinke got. And unless things have changed, MLB does not allow teams to absorb more than a certain amount of debt, or accept cash infusions beyond a certain point, to pay for player contracts.

And if you are unwilling to keep up with the competition with regard to payroll, then you have to shift your focus to being the Rays and extracting value out of pre-6 players.

[Can_of_corn]

Was it? We don't know how much money the Orioles made on revenue sharing payments. It was certainly substantial, as MLB as a whole is awash in money. Whatever minor hit the O's took in gate revenue would certainly be negated by this. Plus, MASN money is still increasing as far as I know. We do know that other owners, even owners of mid-market teams, are not really that concerned with giving out massively large contracts such as the one that Greinke got. And unless things have changed, MLB does not allow teams to absorb more than a certain amount of debt, or accept cash infusions beyond a certain point, to pay for player contracts.

And if you are unwilling to keep up with the competition with regard to payroll, then you have to shift your focus to being the Rays and extracting value out of pre-6 players.

We know attendance was down. We know that home gates were lost and that ownership reimbursed employees. We know there were no playoff games.

Have to think there is a fair chance team revenue was down. At the very least it was up less then projected.

[El Gordo]

Payroll obligations go down from this year to 2018 when there is next to nothing committed This is a rich FA market, next year not so much, so this would be the time to take on extra money.

[Pickles]

To add to the conversation here, let's look at some of the other FA RP contracts doled out in the last week.

Mark Lowe got 2/13 from Detroit.

Soria got 3/25!!! from the Royals.

Madson got 3/22 from the As.

I'll take O'Day's deal over any of those w/o a second thought.

[DrungoHazewood]

To add to the conversation here, let's look at some of the other FA RP contracts doled out in the last week.

Mark Lowe got 2/13 from Detroit.

Had career-bests in most categories after being some combination of hurt and mediocre since 2009. RHP who only threw 55 innings and < 1 IP/G.

Soria got 3/25!!! from the Royals.

Way outpitched his FIP/xFIP, first sub-3.00 ERA since 2010, first 50-inning season since 2011.

Madson got 3/22 from the As.

Really consistently good if you overlook the fact he missed all of 2012-2014.

I'll take O'Day's deal over any of those w/o a second thought.

O'Day's performance record is leaps and bounds better than those others.