Davis Signs With Baltimore (7/$161M, incl $42M deferred)

[SteveO]

...And if the Orioles were to sign Cespedes, the offensive gap would be very narrow, if not closed. And our cefense and bullpen are superior. There is more than one way to skin a cat. There have been quite a few successful teams that didn't have top-flight starting rotations.

If we sign Cespedes, sure that helps. Let me know when that happens though.

Bringing CD back IMO opens up a couple of narrow pathways through which I think this team can get to the playoffs and thus have a shot at a WS.

Bringing in more offense is certainly an approach you can take if the value for what remains with pitching is not there.

[Number5]

I think there are reasons to be a little optimistic. The moves we have made to date will give us enough offense IMO that this team is unlikely to be an utter disaster but they are not enough for me to feel like our post season chances are all that great to be honest.

The good news is that there are still some moves out there that can help provide more depth and alternatives if some of our question marks are not answered by play on the field to our liking.

Since when has pointing out that not addressing the very thing (pitching) that even our GM admitted was not good enough and needed to improve has not been improved. I really do not think it is unreasonable to look at a rotation in which Miguel Gonzalez is your 4th starter and Ubaldo is your 3rd ....as lacking if you want to be considered a serious contender. Yes things could go great, maybe KG steps up, maybe Miggy rebounds, perhaps Tilly and Ubaldo bounce back. All that could happen or what is just as likely is that a couple of guys have better years and a few have worse (either because of injury or performance). I don't think that is negativity, its simply facing reality. The odds that the Orioles pitching staff as constructed now is good enough to get this team in the playoffs is pretty slim IMO. Is there a shot its good enough with a modest addition or two? Absolutely. Without some depth and options to account for regression, injury and other unexpected occurrences, I don't see it. I don't think that is being negative, I think that is simply being honest.

Just because one points out the obvious issues and elephant in the room (SP) does not mean they are being negative, it means they are being realistic. DD went into this offseason and made it a point to say we needed to improve the pitching. To date, I don't see we have, if anything our staff is weaker.

I think it is wrong to suppose that it is necessary to form a starting rotation that can "get us to the playoffs." The Orioles, as currently constructed have no chance to do that. It is not necessary, however, to have that type of rotation in order to have a playoff team. It is extremely rare for a team to excel in every facet of the game. A team with top-flight power, defense, and bullpen pitching can succeed without five aces in the starting rotation. A team constructed like that needs a starting staff that can regularly keep them in the ballgame for six innings. To me, that is the goal the Orioles are trying to achieve at this point.

[waroriole]

The 2015 Orioles and Blue Jays rotations were almost dead even if you average out their FIP/xFIPs. The O's starters actually had a higher K rate by about one per nine.

And if we're looking for reasons to be a little optimistic, the Jays' and O's current rotations are both projected at about 9 fWAR on Fangraphs. Of course the Jays' offense is a bit ahead...

They'll be getting Stroman back for the whole year, though they lose Buehrle.

[SteveO]

I think it is wrong to suppose that it is necessary to form a starting rotation that can "get us to the playoffs." The Orioles, as currently constructed have no chance to do that. It is not necessary, however, to have that type of rotation in order to have a playoff team. It is extremely rare for a team to excel in every facet of the game. A team with top-flight power, defense, and bullpen pitching can succeed without five aces in the starting rotation. A team constructed like that needs a starting staff that can regularly keep them in the ballgame for six innings. To me, that is the goal the Orioles are trying to achieve at this point.

I completely agree with the bolded part. No issues whatsoever with it. We don't have ONE ace that is even remotely proven, never mind five. Hell at this point we do not even have 4 guys who are proven #3 starters.

Ubaldo is so inconsistent you have no clue if your gonna get Ubaldo from last year or Ubaldo circa 2014 whom your looking to walk out in the parking lot and have him sprain his ankle. If that happens who fills his role? Tillman is not exactly a model of consistency, I feel pretty good he will improve marginally but I just don't see him as more than a #3 type guy. Miggy is also a prime bounce back candidate, on that I agree also, that being said, it is also completely possible that he continues to struggle and never regains his form of a couple years ago. This happens to guys all the time, its how their careers slowly dwindle to a close. KG is the wildcard IMO, yea he could be a dominant pitcher or he could be one of those guys who never figures out how to get that 3rd pitch over/use it consistently enough to be that type of guy. I tend to think he will figure that out but certainly this is not a sure thing. Last but not least we have the #5 spot in the rotation, currently not filled, likely to be filled by a player with their own set of question marks.

If enough of those questions are answered in the affirmative, then yea, this team can be really good. That is an awful lot of question marks. I remember 2014, it can happen. More often than not though, when you have that many question marks and few options behind those guys that are legit, your gonna be disappointed. I hope and pray to be wrong. I don't think pointing out that guys can regresss, get injured or have other issues is just as likely as improving, having great years or taking that next step forward is being negative, its simply being realistic and tempering your expectation.

[Stotle]

So, realistically, the deferred money in this deal makes this contract equal to a seven year, $148 million deal that was paid out over the time that Davis is required to play for the team. That?s the real value of this deal when comparing it to other contracts signed this winter. Of course, the fact that he didn?t get an opt-out also has to be factored in as a positive for the Orioles, but he did get a no-trade clause, which has some additional value to Davis. No contract comparison is as simple as what we did above, but when looking at the total dollar figures being bandied about, it?s better to think of Davis? contract as a $148 million deal. That?s the non-deferred equivalent.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-deferred-money-in-the-chris-davis-deal/

[Frobby]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-deferred-money-in-the-chris-davis-deal/

Seems right, if you agree that 4% is the right discount rate to use. One could argue for a higher or lower rate (I used 5% earlier in this thread), but 4% is reasonable enough

[Il BuonO]

I think it is wrong to suppose that it is necessary to form a starting rotation that can "get us to the playoffs." The Orioles, as currently constructed have no chance to do that. It is not necessary, however, to have that type of rotation in order to have a playoff team. It is extremely rare for a team to excel in every facet of the game. A team with top-flight power, defense, and bullpen pitching can succeed without five aces in the starting rotation. A team constructed like that needs a starting staff that can regularly keep them in the ballgame for six innings. To me, that is the goal the Orioles are trying to achieve at this point.

So, you mean unintended consequence right? Because that wasn't their stated goal.

[Dipper9]

My opinion on the Davis signing and its impact on the team is this, and yes, its an optimistic one, so if you're a negative Nellie you may wish to look away.

Jones and other players squawked last offseason about Management (ie Uncle Peter) not stepping up to keep the talented players in Baltimore. Well, the players don't have that excuse this season. The Owner stood up and opened his checkbook to keep Davis and O'Day, to bring back Wieters at 16 million, and to allow for the Trumbo trade and Kim aquisition. And if rumors are to be believed, we may not be finished. So to me the message has been sent to the guys that were already here...."We stepped up, now its time for you to deliver." The Birds have paid $160 million for a middle of the lineup hitter...how would it look it Jones falters? Or Manny declines? Or Hardy doesn't regain his offense. Or better yet, what if we score 6 runs a game but Tillman and Gonzo and Ubaldo struggle to hold leads? To me, the pressure is on those guys to step up and say to owndership...you opened your wallet, you had faith in us, now we will hold our end of the bargain and deliver.

As for people complaining about the signing being too much, I say, "You just can't win." We let guys walk and he's called cheap. We sign guys to too much money and he's called a meddler. He just can't win with some people. This fanboy just wants to publicly thank Uncle Peter for stepping up and bringing Davis back, but I ask that you allow Duke to finish the team right. Having a $160 million first baseman on a 3rd place team does nobody any good. Bring in Upton or Cespedes and a pitcher and lets make a real run at this!

[Number5]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-deferred-money-in-the-chris-davis-deal/

Cameron is high with his $148 million number, IMO. I would suspect he is high purposefully so as to make is initial column, that he wrote before getting the details on the deferred money, not appear as silly as it really was. It has been widely reported that the contract is the equivalent of 7/$128, and that is what MLB will be using for luxury tax calculation purposes, as I understand it. Cameron simply jumped the gun in his zeal to lambaste the Orioles ownership and front office yet again. I have no idea what his issues with PA or DD stem from, but his bias is obvious in nearly every article he writes that relates in any way to the Orioles. Makes him look bad, IMO.

[25 Nuggets]

They'll be getting Stroman back for the whole year, though they lose Buehrle.

Really high on Stroman. Would not be surprised with a sub-3 ERA and 15+ wins. Gausman could be that but we don't know yet.

Behind him though, Dickey and Estrada are just ok (Estrada had quite the year last year though) J.A. Happ just confounds me why they paid him that money. And then there's the enigmatic Drew Hutchison who should be better.

You would think, will all the prospects they gave up, that they are rail thin behind their starting five.

[Number5]

So, you mean unintended consequence right? Because that wasn't their stated goal.

Not sure what about the phrase "at this point" was confusing. The Orioles, like all teams, have to roll with the flow of the off season. Yes, they would have liked to get an affordable front of the rotation pitcher, but it wasn't in the cards. That simply doesn't mean that they should fold up the tent and assume that we are doomed. Quite the contrary.

[Frobby]

Cameron is high with his $148 million number, IMO. I would suspect he is high purposefully so as to make is initial column, that he wrote before getting the details on the deferred money, not appear as silly as it really was. It has been widely reported that the contract is the equivalent of 7/$128, and that is what MLB will be using for luxury tax calculation purposes, as I understand it. Cameron simply jumped the gun in his zeal to lambaste the Orioles ownership and front office yet again. I have no idea what his issues with PA or DD stem from, but his bias is obvious in nearly every article he writes that relates in any way to the Orioles. Makes him look bad, IMO.

I'm not a huge Cameron fan, but I think your criticism is misguided in this instance. His math is laid out in the article and it makes sense. To get to $128 mm you'd either have to (1) use a very aggressive discount rate, or (2) ignore the fact that Davis wouldn't be getting the $161 mm this year, but over the next 7 years.

[Number5]

I'm not a huge Cameron fan, but I think your criticism is misguided in this instance. His math is laid out in the article and it makes sense. To get to $128 mm you'd either have to (1) use a very aggressive discount rate, or (2) ignore the fact that Davis wouldn't be getting the $161 mm this year, but over the next 7 years.

If he were to be getting the $161 million this year, it would be worth much more than 7/$161, not much less, so I don't get your point #2 at all. As to your first point, I am using nothing other than what was reported to be the figure that MLB is using. I am not a mathematician, and did no calculus. If you are saying that MLB is wrong to use the number they use, I would find that difficult to believe, but I am in no position to argue with you.

[Babypowder]

---

I think the most productive players are almost guaranteed to be good values in today's salary structure because nobody will pay them for 7, 8, 9 win seasons at the rate they pay all the other free agents. If the Sox are going to pay Price $31M/year for six wins, but someone is going to pay a guy like Trout/Harper/Machado only $30M for 8-9 wins when they hit free agency, then the Harper/Trout team has a large advantage.

Right, which is precisely why I don't like evaluating a contract that way. For example, if a player signs a 5 year deal worth 100MM and then plays 2 seasons at 7 wins each and then is worthless for the next 3, is that really a worthy contract because he was worth ~100MM for the first 2 and you eat 20 for 3? That doesn't seem logical to me. I like to think when evaluating a contract for actual dollars you deal with realistic actual dollars.

[Larry18]

MLB will assign a value to the contract to be used in calculating the luxury tax threshold. I think we should use that number.