How long does your blank check for Elias last?

[Can_of_corn]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think Elias and Mejdal are far more likely to fish or cut bait with Davis than Duquette would have been.   No. 1, they have no history with him and he’s not their mistake; no. 2, their analytic bent will tell them that you don’t waste time on a sunk cost.

With all that said, I think they’ll spend some or all of 2019 seeing if Davis can be salvaged.    It makes plenty of sense to give it one shot.    

Footnote: I know it’s been rumored/reported that Duquette didn’t want to sign Davis to that contract.  Even so, it happened on his watch and that made it hard for him to walk away from it.  

 

2 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:

I agree to a point. He was the worst player in baseball last year. The salvage expedition should be short.

I don't think Peter would have allowed Davis to be cut.

I'm not sure the sons will allow Davis to be cut.

It is easy to say, and even mean, that you will be hands off.

It is something else to actually sign off on paying a guy 100M to not play for you.

[weams]

39 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Did you answer the question?

Yes. Davis and his roster spot mean nothing until 2021. There.  All the rest of it is just Larry Bird. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, weams said:

Yes. Davis and his roster spot mean nothing until 2021. There.  All the rest of it is just Larry Bird. 

I disagree with the possible importance of the roster spot.

I would hope they get to the point where they have difficulty finding spots on their 40 man roster for all the young, talented players.  Like the Yankees.

[Satyr3206]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

I don't think Peter would have allowed Davis to be cut.

I'm not sure the sons will allow Davis to be cut.

It is easy to say, and even mean, that you will be hands off.

It is something else to actually sign off on paying a guy 100M to not play for you.

 

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

I don't think Peter would have allowed Davis to be cut.

I'm not sure the sons will allow Davis to be cut.

It is easy to say, and even mean, that you will be hands off.

It is something else to actually sign off on paying a guy 100M to not play for you.

I agree with your outlook. The bottom line is, can he perform at all? Is he even worth a roster spot? Not my decision. If it was he would be fishing somewhere.

[MemorialStadKid]

14 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:

If you say and you do, doesn't that take a little time?

Yes. 

That's my original point. Elias getting a time limit on a "blank check" only a day or so after being hired is premature. 

MSK

 

[weams]

10 minutes ago, MemorialStadKid said:

"Foolish?" Okay. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well man.  

I understand what you're saying, but let's just take a look at the state of the team from the MLB club to single-A. I am very happy that the FO will finally join the rest of MLB with the use of developmental metrics, my original points remain the same though: 

1) It's too early to unfairly criticize Elias or hold him to an impossible standard right out of the gate. 

2) We have over 30 years of mismanagement to overcome. 

3) The team is in shambles and we need to be patient and see if Elias will be allowed to truly shape the organization without  historically documented levels of interference from ownership. 

This all goes back to the classic argument on the OH: justified fan cynicism vs bottomless benefit of the doubt for ownership. 

Elias didn't create this situation, he's tasked with fixing it and then excelling. That's going to require a coordinated effort and unquestioned support from the guys with the money. Here's hoping they give him the support he needs.

Saying and doing are two different things. 

MSK 

 

Happy Thanksgiving. Foolish was a poor word. 

[Satyr3206]

3 minutes ago, MemorialStadKid said:

Yes. 

That's my original point. Elias getting a time limit on a "blank check" only a day or so after being hired is premature. 

MSK

 

I think we agree. Give them 2 to 3 years then we'll see. Any judgement before then is seriously premature.

[AnythingO's]

1 hour ago, weams said:

Yes. Davis and his roster spot mean nothing until 2021. There.  All the rest of it is just Larry Bird. 

While I believe Frobby is right, that ME will at lest try to fix Davis, If the only reason to keep him on the team is his contract then you are sending a message to Mancini, Stewart, Montcastle that their future in MLB is secondary to his bad contract. I'm not saying Davis is a cancer or bad teammate but he has to produce or be gone. The money is lost, negotiate some settlement, free up that roster spot. By mid-year I want Mancini and Montcastle at !B and DH.

[Orioles West]

If Elias is truly granted the budget and promised room to operate, then my blank check extends pretty far. A rebuild of this magnitude feels like a 3-5 year assignment. All of the analytics in the world isn't going to repair the horror show level of player development the organization has had since Angelos took over. How many years of FA patchwork to cover a system that had to develop far fewer homegrown players than anyone in the division? That will take the longest.

I think Mike and Co. will be able to stock up fairly quickly on young talent, it will just take a while to get them on the field.

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

I don't think Peter would have allowed Davis to be cut.

I'm not sure the sons will allow Davis to be cut.

It is easy to say, and even mean, that you will be hands off.

It is something else to actually sign off on paying a guy 100M to not play for you.

It’s one thing to leave a replacement level player on the roster.    That player isn’t helping, but isn’t really hurting that much, either.

At -2.8 WAR, you are killing your team.   And the other players know it.    As do the fans.    It’s simply not good for anyone to have that player around.   You literally can improve your team by about 3 wins just by cutting the guy and getting some AAAA fodder in that roster spot.    

So if the Angelos family insists that Davis can’t be cut until his contact expires, even if he shows no improvement from last year, then I’ll lose whatever respect I’ve gained with the Elias hiring.  But I do not think they’ll do that.   

[24fps]

10 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

If he says we need to cut Davis at the end of spring training what do the sons say?

Probably already covered during the interview process.  I would be very, very surprised if a variety of options concerning CD haven't already been at least loosely discussed. I don't think Davis gets cut after spring training even if he dogs it during the offseason.  At the 2019 trade deadline might be another story, but I think he gets a pass for as long as it takes Elias to put everything in motion.  I don't think he stays after 2019 unless is improves considerably which I don't expect.

I wish he were gone now.

[ThomasTomasz]

10 hours ago, AnythingO's said:

While I believe Frobby is right, that ME will at lest try to fix Davis, If the only reason to keep him on the team is his contract then you are sending a message to Mancini, Stewart, Montcastle that their future in MLB is secondary to his bad contract. I'm not saying Davis is a cancer or bad teammate but he has to produce or be gone. The money is lost, negotiate some settlement, free up that roster spot. By mid-year I want Mancini and Montcastle at !B and DH.

There will never be a settlement.  MLB is the only major US sport that has fully guaranteed contracts.  The NFLPA is desperately working towards that.  If the Orioles and Davis agreed to any sort of contract reduction, the MLBPA's lawyers will be immediately all over it.  And then that would create even more pressure between MLB and the Orioles for going rogue in a sense, something that the son's will not risk at this point with ownership potentially being up in the air.  

I'm all for fixing Davis this year.  Lets see if he can at least be a 0 war guy, if he can get to 1-2 even better.  If not, then it is a sunk cost that you have to absorb, but you have to at least try and let him have a couple months of the leash to see if he can't improve.  

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, ThomasTomasz said:

There will never be a settlement.  MLB is the only major US sport that has fully guaranteed contracts.  The NFLPA is desperately working towards that.  If the Orioles and Davis agreed to any sort of contract reduction, the MLBPA's lawyers will be immediately all over it.  And then that would create even more pressure between MLB and the Orioles for going rogue in a sense, something that the son's will not risk at this point with ownership potentially being up in the air.  

I'm all for fixing Davis this year.  Lets see if he can at least be a 0 war guy, if he can get to 1-2 even better.  If not, then it is a sunk cost that you have to absorb, but you have to at least try and let him have a couple months of the leash to see if he can't improve.  

Aside from the fact that settlements and early retirement does happen on occasion and the Union does nothing since they have no grounds to do anything.  Now if the O's do something grossly out of the norm to pressure Davis that situation would change.

Or is there a case where the MLBPA did successfully right an early retirement settlement?

[ThomasTomasz]

9 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Aside from the fact that settlements and early retirement does happen on occasion and the Union does nothing since they have no grounds to do anything.  Now if the O's do something grossly out of the norm to pressure Davis that situation would change.

Or is there a case where the MLBPA did successfully right an early retirement settlement?

So the best example right now is David Wright.  Were he to retire, he would forfeit his remaining two years and $27 million left on his contract.  Instead, he's been declared medically unfit to play, which means he is supposed to be paid the remaining balance.  While the Mets can strike a settlement with the insurance company, like the Rangers did in the case of Prince Fielder, the player is still guaranteed that money.  Which is my point- Davis is going to get paid all of that money, there isn't going to be any sort of retirement settlement to get him out of here.  Davis would have to retire on his own volition, and I can guarantee you that MLBPA is going to look heavily into that.  Anything that threatens what the players make is taken very seriously.  I mean, look at Albert Pujols.  The guy is 40 years old and set for life.  He's got a debilitating heel condition that makes playing the field painful, much less running.  He's playing out his contract, and not retiring.  I'm sure the Angels would love to reach a retirement settlement so part of that money could go towards putting a winning team around Mike Trout, but they're stuck with the deal, like every other bad $100 million plus deal before. 

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, ThomasTomasz said:

So the best example right now is David Wright.  Were he to retire, he would forfeit his remaining two years and $27 million left on his contract.  Instead, he's been declared medically unfit to play, which means he is supposed to be paid the remaining balance.  While the Mets can strike a settlement with the insurance company, like the Rangers did in the case of Prince Fielder, the player is still guaranteed that money.  Which is my point- Davis is going to get paid all of that money, there isn't going to be any sort of retirement settlement to get him out of here.  Davis would have to retire on his own volition, and I can guarantee you that MLBPA is going to look heavily into that.  Anything that threatens what the players make is taken very seriously.  I mean, look at Albert Pujols.  The guy is 40 years old and set for life.  He's got a debilitating heel condition that makes playing the field painful, much less running.  He's playing out his contract, and not retiring.  I'm sure the Angels would love to reach a retirement settlement so part of that money could go towards putting a winning team around Mike Trout, but they're stuck with the deal, like every other bad $100 million plus deal before. 

But guys do retire and leave money on the table.  Rasmus has done it two years running.

Gil Meche left 12M on the table in 2011.

Quote

When I signed my contract, my main goal was to earn it,” Meche said this week by phone from Lafayette, La. “Once I started to realize I wasn’t earning my money, I felt bad. I was making a crazy amount of money for not even pitching. Honestly, I didn’t feel like I deserved it. I didn’t want to have those feelings again.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/sports/baseball/27meche.html

Mark McGwire retired with 2/30 left on his deal.

Do you recall the players' union "looking heavily" into those situations?

I don't recall the players' union saying peep about either situation.

 

Is it rare?  Yes.

Does it happen?  Yes.

Does the Union have any grounds to say a word about it?  No.