Jump to content

How Much Will It Take To Sign Manny Long Term?


ORIOLE33

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, esmd said:

Which was my point in the first place.  You can have the best player in the game, but if you can't afford (or aren't good enough) to put 24 other good players around him, you're not going to win.  For the Angels, the issue is their other bad contracts and injuries.  For the Orioles, it's that Machado at $35M would take up 21% of their payroll, assuming a 160M payroll, which I think is probably towards the upper end of what they can afford.  One player taking up 21% of your payroll just isn't smart management.  Shoot, even if they went to 200M, it would 17.5%.  Still not good management.  In short, the Orioles cannot afford Manny at 35M, which he's likely to get from someone else.  So the best move, IMO, is to trade him for as many young players/prospects as you can get.  MacPhail set us up for success with the Bedard trade, the thing that needs to happen is for DD to have a similar result by trading Manny.

I don't know that I'd have a problem with one player taking up 21% of the payroll, if that team had a decent number of very productive players who were either pre-arb or in their arb years and had some good young talent coming up through its system.   Granted, the Orioles are not in that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I don't know that I'd have a problem with one player taking up 21% of the payroll, if that team had a decent number of very productive players who were either pre-arb or in their arb years and had some good young talent coming up through its system.   Granted, the Orioles are not in that situation.

I'd rather have Machado than Davis and Jones for 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd rather have Machado than Davis and Jones for 2017.

I'd rather have all three -- and we do!

This is a subject I'm pretty torn on.      Manny's worth $300+ mm, and I love watching him play.    I don't think trading him for two players making half as much would really get us anywhere, but if we won't be competitive with him, then we'd be better off trading him for several good prospects.    So, it really depends on how the rest of the team is doing.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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...