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

[SteveA]

Curious as to who all else was considering Davis in the final days. I was kind of annoyed with the fact that it looks like we bid against ourselves but it's nice to know that the FO got it done.

I've been just trying to think positive about this deal since it's been announced. I think we can all agree that this will probably be pretty bad for the last 3-4 years but the REAL fear is that he just sucks the whole time through.

I understand fears but isn't "sucks all the way through" kind of a ridiculous extreme???

We are talking about the guy who leads the majors in HRs by a pretty healthy margin over the past three years, draws walks at a good rate, is in good physical condition, and plays solid defense at 1B.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[TradeAngelos]

---

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.

A "win" is a "win". Does it matter where and when they come? Can anyone predict/plan for that?

If a player produces 8,2,7,4,2,1, instead of 4,4,4,4,4,4 for are they less valuable than the $192m over that time period because of the fluctuation?

Every "win" has value, even if the player isn't compensated accordingly per year.

[SteveA]

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

And they lose Price.

And Dickey declined some last year and will be 41. And Estrada posted by far the lowest ERA of his career at age 30 despite moving to the AL. Anyone really think he can repeat that?

I'm more bullish on the O's starting pitching than Toronto's, despite the well known issues which have been discussed ad nauseum. Add one more serviceable arm and I'll be happy.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Catch 8]

I like resigning CD and I love how the Orioles are deferring the payments. But if CD is rockin .197 in late May, the boo birds will be in full force -- how will he react?

[Stotle]

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.

Which aspect of Cameron's calculations/argument do you disagree with? I thought he laid it out fairly straight-forward, and included other potential contract constructs to help explain the issues at play.

[SteveA]

I like resigning CD and I love how the Orioles are deferring the payments. But if CD is rockin .197 in late May, the boo birds will be in full force -- how will he react?

He's been there before.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[DrungoHazewood]

---

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.

I think you can argue that, yes, it's a worthy contract. You really did get all that value. And concentrated value leads to more pennants/divisions/World Series than dispersed value. You're better off with a 21-win career taken in three 7-win seasons than in seven three-win seasons. You just have to be smart/lucky enough to have the high-win seasons in years where they do you good, rather than in years where the rest of the team is worth 70 wins.

[DrungoHazewood]

A "win" is a "win". Does it matter where and when they come? Can anyone predict/plan for that?

Yes, it matters when/where, but maybe you can't plan for that.

If a player produces 8,2,7,4,2,1, instead of 4,4,4,4,4,4 for are they less valuable than the $192m over that time period because of the fluctuation?

Every "win" has value, even if the player isn't compensated accordingly per year.

As I said a minute ago, the 8,2,7... distribution might be more valuable than the 4,4,4... And 8-win player will push you to 90+ wins more than a 4-win player.

[TradeAngelos]

I like resigning CD and I love how the Orioles are deferring the payments. But if CD is rockin .197 in late May, the boo birds will be in full force -- how will he react?

It is funny in that literal, worst case scenario of 2014 he STILL managed to be worth about 13m. I mean an unmitigated disaster of a season, and he still managed to pull off 1.8 wins.

Yet somehow people here "fear" he could put together 7 straight years of an even worse scenario, every single year....and be worth nothing!

[Number5]

Which aspect of Cameron's calculations/argument do you disagree with? I thought he laid it out fairly straight-forward, and included other potential contract constructs to help explain the issues at play.

As I stated above, I am not a mathematician. Cameron's $148 number is, however $20 million more than what has been reported as the number that MLB is using. Cameron's number is also easily the highest estimate that I have seen anywhere. Several math guys on OH have chimed in and I have seen numbers ranging $128, $131, $134, and one at $141. It is a hopeless calculation for me, so I cannot comment as to the various formulas and/or methods that the various people are using. It is a fact, however, that Cameron is, by a considerable margin, higher than any other estimate I have seen, and that MLB is reportedly using $128 million. It is also a fact that Cameron wrote a scathing piece about the contract prior to learning the facts about the deferred money.

[BohKnowsBmore]

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.

Also worth noting that each marginal win is probably worth a bit more due to roster/lineup constraints. You can only have 9 batters so a four win single player is more valuable than two two-win players.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stotle]

As I stated above, I am not a mathematician. Cameron's $148 number is, however $20 million more than what has been reported as the number that MLB is using. Cameron's number is also easily the highest estimate that I have seen anywhere. Several math guys on OH have chimed in and I have seen numbers ranging $128, $131, $134, and one at $141. It is a hopeless calculation for me, so I cannot comment as to the various formulas and/or methods that the various people are using. It is a fact, however, that Cameron is, by a considerable margin, higher than any other estimate I have seen, and that MLB is reportedly using $128 million. It is also a fact that Cameron wrote a scathing piece about the contract prior to learning the facts about the deferred money.

Okay, that's fine. Sounds like you simply don't trust the conclusion but acknowledge no factual issue with his work. If there wasn't room for emotion and "gut feels" then message boards would quickly turn into ghost towns, I reckon.

[weams]

Okay, that's fine. Sounds like you simply don't trust the conclusion but acknowledge no factual issue with his work. If there wasn't room for emotion and "gut feels" then message boards would quickly turn into ghost towns, I reckon.

How was Olney's number arrived at? I amuse that he used a factual basis to form his conclusion. I guess the extremes length of the no interest deferral does make a difference. Heck, we could be in a Jimmy Carter interest rate period over the next 22 years.

[Stotle]

How was Olney's number arrived at? I amuse that he used a factual basis to form his conclusion. I guess the extremes length of the no interest deferral does make a difference. Heck, we could be in a Jimmy Carter interest rate period over the next 22 years.

I don't know anything about Olney or his numbers. Did you read Cameron's piece I linked?

[Tx Oriole]

But nobody in 2022 or 2035 cares a bit about the value of the dollar in 2016.

I won't care about in those years since I probably won't be around.