How would you rather spend $300 mm?

[Frobby]

Here's a thought exercise:  would you rather sign (1) Manny for 10/$300 mm, or (2) Schoop for 8/$150 mm, Bundy for 8/$100 mm and Gausman for 5/$50 mm?   Assume that if you sign Manny, you'll lose the other three when they become free agents because the team can't afford to pay them  at FA prices while also paying Manny.    And assume that if we don't sign Manny, we can lock up the other three on the specified terms.    

As a refresher, without extensions the team controls Manny for 1 more year, Schoop for 2, Gausman for 3 and Bundy for 4.    The contract terms I proposed above include the years that they'd be under team control (so, for example, Bundy's 8 year deal includes the next 4 years under team control, plus 4 additional years).

[Barnaby Graves]

Schoop.  I don't want either Bundy or Gausman at those terms.  Manny's impending contract will probably be an albatross... I just hate those long-term deals but find myself more willing to give one to Schoop.

[DirtyBird]

We can get Schoop cheaper than we paid for Davis?

[tntoriole]

I will take Manny.    

[Frobby]

59 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

We can get Schoop cheaper than we paid for Davis?

Remember he's not a free agent for two more years.    He has the risk of injury and the AAV includes two years where he wouldn't be paid at full FA rates.

[ChuckS]

I don't think signing Manny should preclude us from signing all three of the players you mentioned. 

But if it did I would still take Manny, considering we'd have Bundy and Gaus on the team for several more years regardless of extensions.  

[ArtVanDelay]

That's a really high price for Bundy.  I'd want no part of that. 

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, ArtVanDelay said:

That's a really high price for Bundy.  I'd want no part of that. 

Remember in four years that you said that.

[tntoriole]

1 minute ago, birdwatcher55 said:

Signing Bundy long term is a huge gamble in my opinion.

That's what they said after Manny's knee surgery.  Big gains always require risk.  But I understood the OP as an either or question.  

[Aristotelian]

We wouldn't want Bundy to pull a Tillman on us. Extending Tillman was a popular proposal a few years ago, but I am glad we didn't do it. We still have plenty years of control on Bundy. He still hasn't proven he can really hold up over a season. 

Gausman needs to prove that this year was an aberration. I am not extending him yet either.

I would rather have Manny for $300M than Schoop for $150M. I just don't trust Schoop's bat yet, and I don't know that his D plays at 2B in 6-8 years from now. Unfortunately I don't see $300M being enough to get it done for Manny.

[24fps]

Bye Manny.

[Diehard_O's_Fan]

The Orioles are not going to give Manny 300 million. Maybe 200 million at most. Just a little bigger contract that what Davis got. The Orioles should sign him to a shorter term deal and let him test free agency again at age 29 or 30.

[ORIOLE33]

Then they better trade him.

[tntoriole]

8 minutes ago, ORIOLE33 said:

Then they better trade him.

i don't think that is happening either.  

[Norfolk orioles]

Manny made what, 4 outs on 4 pitches tonight.

He was totally checked out. I'd rather give someone who looks like he cares the money and yes, this is probably an overreaction but it's also my opinion because I've seen that garbage from him time and time again.

His half ass non chalant throw to first and miss of the ball lined at him that allowed in the tying run are just par for the course for him these days and he while he is still very talented, we would be wasting far too many resources by signing him for 300 mil when he have gaping holes everywhere.

Trade him and replenish the farm, it's the ONLY option. Trade him and let him drain valuable resources and talent from a rich franchise like his buddy A-fraud.