Chris Davis 2019 and beyond

[Moose Milligan]

6 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

I'm afraid the O's will be stuck with Davis for 3 years. 

I don't see that happening.  Under the old regime, maybe.  But Elias seems to have a plan, and if Davis is playing like he did last year I don't see Elias messing around.

[weams]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I would have thought it was on the GM/Manager to reach out to the player.    That’s what “managing” is.    And I’m pretty sure both Elias and Hyde indicated that they were going to do that.   For all we know, they did.    They may have been totally aware of whatever Davis was doing.    Has anyone indicated that they had no contact?

Again, I said my position. I'd expect that if I was the cornerstone that I would at least offer my congratulations. Even if through counsel/agency. All I heard was that Boras told Elias what he expected for Davis at the GM Meetings. But we probably don't hear all of it. 

[interloper]

I've always said all of this year and at least most of next year is what Davis will get at a minimum. Anything less and I will be shocked.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, interloper said:

I've always said all of this year and at least most of next year is what Davis will get at a minimum. Anything less and I will be shocked.

That will prove that Elias doesn't have free reign. 

[interloper]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That will prove that Elias doesn't have free reign. 

If you say so. I think there's free reign and there's ownership. When you're dealing with that much money, no GM in the game can make that call, no matter how much freedom they have, without ownership approval. 

Free reign =/= a guarantee from ownership to sign off on every single thing no matter what. That's unrealistic. What owner would agree to be a yes man for every single decision?

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, El Gordo said:

 

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

If you say so. I think there's free reign and there's ownership. When you're dealing with that much money, no GM in the game can make that call, no matter how much freedom they have, without ownership approval. 

Free reign =/= a guarantee from ownership to sign off on every single thing no matter what. That's unrealistic. What owner would agree to be a yes man for every single decision?

All Elias has to do is show the ownership that they're better off without Davis.  That it's sunk cost and they'd get better performance out of someone else, practically guaranteed.

It's an easy sale.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

If you say so. I think there's free reign and there's ownership. When you're dealing with that much money, no GM in the game can make that call, no matter how much freedom they have, without ownership approval. 

Free reign =/= a guarantee from ownership to sign off on every single thing no matter what. That's unrealistic. What owner would agree to be a yes man for every single decision?

If you don't have control of your 25 and 40 man rosters you don't have free reign to run your team. 

I for one am hopeful that the bottom part of the O's 40 man roster next offseason isn't full of fungible assets.  That Davis taking up a slot would cause a problem.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

All Elias has to do is show the ownership that they're better off without Davis.  That it's sunk cost and they'd get better performance out of someone else, practically guaranteed.

It's an easy sale.  

As long as ownership is rational.

[interloper]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

All Elias has to do is show the ownership that they're better off without Davis.  That it's sunk cost and they'd get better performance out of someone else, practically guaranteed.

It's an easy sale.  

I agree! And I think he'll do that eventually. But it's just silly to say if he's not cut within some arbitrary timeline that he doesn't have free reign. It's not that simple. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

I agree! And I think he'll do that eventually. But it's just silly to say if he's not cut within some arbitrary timeline that he doesn't have free reign. It's not that simple. 

There is NO CHANCE that Elias would want a sub-replacement level Davis on his 40 man roster next offseason.  If he's there it is because ownership if forcing the issue.

That means that Elias doesn't have the freedom he said he did when he was hired.

It is exactly that simple.

How much money Davis is owed doesn't change that.

[interloper]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you don't have control of your 25 and 40 man rosters you don't have free reign to run your team. 

I for one am hopeful that the bottom part of the O's 40 man roster next offseason isn't full of fungible assets.  That Davis taking up a slot would cause a problem.

I definitely agree. I just think this particular situation is a little more complicated because it's so early in the contract and it's SO much money. If, at some point, Davis is mucking things up roster-wise to the extent that it's indefensible, sure, I'm with you. 

I think ownership is completely justified in saying "give us a year or two". They've given Mike a 5 year deal, reportedly. I think they have faith in the guy, but they have some time and they wanna see how he works. There's no rush right now. 

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, interloper said:

I agree! And I think he'll do that eventually. But it's just silly to say if he's not cut within some arbitrary timeline that he doesn't have free reign. It's not that simple. 

I kind of agree, but we're headed into year 3 of the Davis Disaster.  And while the Angelos Brothers are getting comfy in their seats of ownership/control, I am sure they are aware that Davis has been terrible.  

Times running out, the notion that Elias and the Angelos Brothers are new is not an excuse, IMO.  Davis, if not showing significant improvement, needs to be gone by July.  (That's my arbitrary timeline  ) 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, interloper said:

I definitely agree. I just think this particular situation is a little more complicated because it's so early in the contract and it's SO much money. If, at some point, Davis is mucking things up roster-wise to the extent that it's indefensible, sure, I'm with you. 

I think ownership is completely justified in saying "give us a year or two". They've given Mike a 5 year deal, reportedly. I think they have faith in the guy, but they have some time and they wanna see how he works. There's no rush right now. 

I don't think they would be justified at all.

They would be meddeling, just like their father did.

You hired the guy let him do his job.

[weams]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

I kind of agree, but we're headed into year 3 of the Davis Disaster.  And while the Angelos Brothers are getting comfy in their seats of ownership/control, I am sure they are aware that Davis has been terrible.  

Times running out, the notion that Elias and the Angelos Brothers are new is not an excuse, IMO.  Davis, if not showing significant improvement, needs to be gone by July.  (That's my arbitrary timeline  ) 

Mine too. But either way I do not feel that it means a thing about Elias having final authority. Just that he is wrong.