Jump to content

How Much Will It Take To Sign Manny Long Term?


ORIOLE33

Recommended Posts

I really hope they surprise everybody and sign him to a LTC. Most seem to believe that he will not be an O in a couple of years. I'm still optimistic that we can keep him. Will it take at least $35M or even more?

I know I'm not the only one who's sick of Yankee fans literally drooling over Manny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
30 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Depends on how many years.    I think it will take about $35 mm/yr on a 10-year deal.    If the deal is shorter, it could be more per year.

Would you sign him today to a 10/350 contract?  I guess I would, as absolutely ridiculous as that sounds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ripken said:

Would you sign him today to a 10/350 contract?  I guess I would, as absolutely ridiculous as that sounds...

I'd do it, and then go out and celebrate that I got it done.   A franchise gets one Manny Machado-level talent every 15-20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ripken said:

Would you sign him today to a 10/350 contract?  I guess I would, as absolutely ridiculous as that sounds...

If necessary, I'd give him an opt out after 5 years.  But it would be back loaded so he'd have to give up more in the back end to exercise the opt out.  Say $150 mil over the first five years and $200 mil over the second five.  If he opts out after 5 and is willing to take his chances to earn more than $40 mil per year, that probably means we got great production for the first five years and will avoid paying for any downside on the last five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

If necessary, I'd give him an opt out after 5 years.  But it would be back loaded so he'd have to give up more in the back end to exercise the opt out.  Say $150 mil over the first five years and $200 mil over the second five.  If he opts out after 5 and is willing to take his chances to earn more than $40 mil per year, that probably means we got great production for the first five years and will avoid paying for any downside on the last five years.

I'd say if he knees are good to go, and really are fixed right, then I wouldnt have a problem with this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

If necessary, I'd give him an opt out after 5 years.  But it would be back loaded so he'd have to give up more in the back end to exercise the opt out.  Say $150 mil over the first five years and $200 mil over the second five.  If he opts out after 5 and is willing to take his chances to earn more than $40 mil per year, that probably means we got great production for the first five years and will avoid paying for any downside on the last five years.

Sounds good to me.  Call Dan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...