Projected Orioles Opening Day Payroll 2018

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Ohfan67 said:

Man, what do you consider not much? The Orioles were middle of the pack spenders in almost all of those years and were top ten once. $93,554,808 ranked 10th in 2007 for example. One of the problems with Angelos IMO is that he wouldn't agree to a complete rebuild, but instead kept flushing money down the mediocre free agent toilet. 

Kind of cherry picking there.   Two can play that game.  The O's were 23rd in  payroll in  2010.

I am not calling out Peter here.  I am just looking at the facts.   Maybe Peter was not in a position to spend with his court battles with the MLB and National.  Maybe his GMs at the time were telling him they were accumulating talent for a run later.

However the facts are the O's were sometimes around 100m less than the Yankees.  When Dan came in the spending went up year over year.   Maybe Peter just trusts Dan more than the other GMs.   Maybe its because Dan started winning.

Here are the O's payroll through the 2000s  

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/baltimore-orioles/

Here is the Yankees

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/new-york-yankees/

I am not saying Peter should have matched the Yankees.  I am just pointing out the difference and how much Peter has increased spending under Dan.

 

[AZRon]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Which of those players was on the 2012, 2014 or 2016 teams?

While I'm not saying it's not possible to keep Manny and have a playoff team, ........

I think the situation today is just a lot different than on those teams.  

The Orioles played all of their pennant winning, playoff and World Series baseball with one or more of these players.

Context much?   OK -- you win editing points; Machado was on each of the playoff teams in 2012, 2014, and 2016; the O's have not won a pennant or appeared in a World Series since 1983.

As to the different "situation" today -- and not to be flip -- so what?

Are you suggesting that the "situation" remained unchanged from 1966 through 1997 or from 1998 until the present?

What is different, today versus yesteryear, about the likely success rate of an organization demonstrating good drafting, effective player development, accurate player evaluation and judicious acquisitions?

It all comes down to expert, adaptive management.

Of course, that is both the Orioles' challenge and their predicament.

[weams]

On 10/9/2017 at 2:39 PM, AZRon said:

Opening Day Payroll

Verified @ Baseball Prospectus Compensation Website

What I had seen too.

[Ohfan67]

15 hours ago, wildcard said:

Kind of cherry picking there.   Two can play that game.  The O's were 23rd in  payroll in  2010.

I am not calling out Peter here.  I am just looking at the facts.   Maybe Peter was not in a position to spend with his court battles with the MLB and National.  Maybe his GMs at the time were telling him they were accumulating talent for a run later.

However the facts are the O's were sometimes around 100m less than the Yankees.  When Dan came in the spending went up year over year.   Maybe Peter just trusts Dan more than the other GMs.   Maybe its because Dan started winning.

Here are the O's payroll through the 2000s  

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/baltimore-orioles/

Here is the Yankees

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/new-york-yankees/

I am not saying Peter should have matched the Yankees.  I am just pointing out the difference and how much Peter has increased spending under Dan.

 

I’m not cherry picking. The Orioles had basically a median payroll for most of the years you listed. They only decreased the payroll to the lower fourth or so for a few years. They never fully invested in a rebuild, although MacPhail got them close. Instead they wasted millions on mediocre free agents and consistently paid more per win than almost every other MLB club during the losing streak. The signing of mediocre free agents also prevented them from maximizing the rules at the time to acquire better draft picks. If I remember correctly, Boston for example had better draft slots than the Orioles in many of those years because of the Orioles’ poor strategy. The better strategy would have been to imitate the Rays and bottom out the payroll for three years, manipulate the free agent rules of the time to maximize draft position, trade players in their prime, and truly rebuild. And it seems like the Orioles are on the verge of repeating the same mistakes. 

[wildcard]

2 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

I’m not cherry picking. The Orioles had basically a median payroll for most of the years you listed. They only decreased the payroll to the lower fourth or so for a few years. They never fully invested in a rebuild, although MacPhail got them close. Instead they wasted millions on mediocre free agents and consistently paid more per win than almost every other MLB club during the losing streak. The signing of mediocre free agents also prevented them from maximizing the rules at the time to acquire better draft picks. If I remember correctly, Boston for example had better draft slots than the Orioles in many of those years because of the Orioles’ poor strategy. The better strategy would have been to imitate the Rays and bottom out the payroll for three years, manipulate the free agent rules of the time to maximize draft position, trade players in their prime, and truly rebuild. And it seems like the Orioles are on the verge of repeating the same mistakes. 

Being slightly below the mean of teams payrolls is not as meaningful has being 100m below the teams in the division they were competing with.  

[Ohfan67]

6 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Being slightly below the mean of teams payrolls is not as meaningful has being 100m below the teams in the division they were competing with.  

So, “not much” means not as much as the Yankees to you? Good luck with that. By the way, this year the Orioles were once again in the top five clubs in terms of money spent per win. Mediocre free agents are the kiss of death to MLB payrolls. 

[wildcard]

4 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

So, “not much” means not as much as the Yankees to you? Good luck with that. By the way, this year the Orioles were once again in the top five clubs in terms of money spent per win. Mediocre free agents are the kiss of death to MLB payrolls. 

Peter has increased the payroll 80m for the last 6 years.   So not that much before Dan.  Increased to quite a bit since he has been with the O's.

[AZRon]

Updated the projected payroll chart for today's 5 arbitration settlements

[TradeAngelos]

Thanks AZRon. So 128m now. Was 158m last year.

So bare minimum should have 30m to spend. 

On a few terrible contracts I am sure, instead of an actual good player or two. 

[Luke-OH]

55 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

Thanks AZRon. So 128m now. Was 158m last year.

So bare minimum should have 30m to spend. 

On a few terrible contracts I am sure, instead of an actual good player or two. 

That’s assuming payroll doesn’t decrease, which is also a possibility.

[TradeAngelos]

2 minutes ago, phillyOs119 said:

That’s assuming payroll doesn’t decrease, which is also a possibility.

Why?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/11/22/mlb-revenues-exceed-10-billion/890041001/

Quote

 

For the 15th consecutive year, Major League Baseball set a record for industry revenues in 2017, according to a Forbes report. 

Revenues eclipsed $10 billion for the first time this past season. In 2015, MLB revenues approached $9.5 billion.

According to the report, growth in revenue was due in part because of television media rights and increased ratings. 

 

Do the Orioles own any television or media rights? Asking for a friend. 

[AZRon]

On 1/12/2018 at 9:42 PM, TradeAngelos said:

Thanks AZRon. So 128m now. Was 158m last year.

So bare minimum should have 30m to spend. ....

Last year's opening day payroll was $164.3M

Scenario		Projected $(M)	$ Left to Spend (M)
No Change		164.3	30.2
MLB Average Increase		172.4	38.2
O's Average Increase		188.1	54.0
Same Delta as 2017		182.0	47.9
10% Delta		180.7	46.6
20% Delta		197.2	63.0
30% Delta		213.6	79.5

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, TradeAngelos said:

Thanks AZRon. So 128m now. Was 158m last year.

So bare minimum should have 30m to spend. 

 

7 hours ago, phillyOs119 said:

That’s assuming payroll doesn’t decrease, which is also a possibility.

I agree it’s a possibility.    The O’s made a huge leap two years ago and then another slight increase last year.    It’s entirely possible that Angelos saw a closing window and decided on a short-term spending increase to try to compete while the window was still open a crack, but that it wasn’t an increase he intended to sustain long-term.    But I hope I’m wrong about that.     

[wildcard]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

I agree it’s a possibility.    The O’s made a huge leap two years ago and then another slight increase last year.    It’s entirely possible that Angelos saw a closing window and decided on a short-term spending increase to try to compete while the window was still open a crack, but that it wasn’t an increase he intended to sustain long-term.    But I hope I’m wrong about that.     

I don't no why you would think that this is the year that Peter would cut payroll if Manny stays.  Peter still wants to win  and would be keeping the team together.  The only reason I see the payroll being cut is if Dan can not convince the FA starters to come to the Orioles.  That is always a possibility.

[Frobby]

15 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't no why you would think that this is the year that Peter would cut payroll if Manny stays.  Peter still wants to win  and would be keeping the team together.  The only reason I see the payroll being cut is if Dan can not convince the FA starters to come to the Orioles.  That is always a possibility.

I agree it’s not rational to cut payroll (thus not signing any decent pitchers) and keep Manny.   But it won’t surprise me if that’s exactly what they do.