Chris Davis since he broke his 0-fer streak

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Good thing I didn't say that.  But it will be part of the calculations teams use.

true, you have to look at his overall body of work, include the good and not good, and average it out and decide from there.

[Frobby]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

As I said yesterday I'm not sure what his value or or how other team's grade him. 

Let’s see how his season is shaking out in late June.    He’s cooled off considerably in May, perhaps due to the disruption from the hand injury, perhaps just because he was due for a cold spell.    

[Ruzious]

54 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's good since Mancini isn't as average fielding corner outfielder.

It's popular to bash his fielding in the OF, but he's actually been okay, and he mostly plays corner OF, so... yeah... he is.  And the market for 1st basemen likely isn't any better.  

[Dipper9]

16 hours ago, Tx Oriole said:

I disagree with you that it’s a good problem to have. He is not part of the future for this team. I still want the team to play the young guys and see what they have. If they have to play CD 90% the time that’s cuts into others. IMO 

Whether anyone likes it or not, he most certainly IS a part of the future of this team, as he has 4 years remaining on his contract.  So you might as well root for him to succeed because he is going nowhere.  

[Redskins Rick]

5 minutes ago, Dipper9 said:

Whether anyone likes it or not, he most certainly IS a part of the future of this team, as he has 4 years remaining on his contract.  So you might as well root for him to succeed because he is going nowhere.  

I agree, but dont tell that to the DFA Davis crowd, they are the ultimate authority.

[Mayor McCheese]

Remember when Chris Davis was going to be let go before the season starts.....

[Can_of_corn]

2 hours ago, Dipper9 said:

Whether anyone likes it or not, he most certainly IS a part of the future of this team, as he has 4 years remaining on his contract.  So you might as well root for him to succeed because he is going nowhere.  

By next season his presence will be hindering the rebuild.

[LA2]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Let’s see how his season is shaking out in late June.    He’s cooled off considerably in May, perhaps due to the disruption from the hand injury, perhaps just because he was due for a cold spell.    

But currently in a 5-game hitting streak--Imagine how excitedly Jim Hunter would relate that!

[LookinUp]

31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

By next season his presence will be hindering the rebuild.

I'm trying to think this through. I suppose there are three scenarios for Davis.

1. He's so bad that we cut him. This would be a financial disaster, but at least we'd be able to move on with the rebuild. This is looking less likely.

2. He's somewhere between ehh ok to actually good. This is most likely what we're seeing now. This is the most complicated scenario. Here, we might have a chance to avoid total financial disaster and trade him for some salary relief. Or, he might be good enough to keep and create the option of trading other guys. I'd much rather have athletes capable of a .750 OPS and playing multiple positions than 5 guys who are 1b/DHs on the team. So, a good Davis might let us trade Mancini for a better future piece. Mountcastle too. The downside here is if Davis is too good to cut but not good enough to get any salary relief. That is, unfortunately, probably most likely. So this is a troubling scenario.

3. He's a .900+ OPS guy again. If anyone complains about this scenario, I don't know what to say. 

[SteveA]

21 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I'm trying to think this through. I suppose there are three scenarios for Davis.

1. He's so bad that we cut him. This would be a financial disaster, but at least we'd be able to move on with the rebuild. This is looking less likely.

2. He's somewhere between ehh ok to actually good. This is most likely what we're seeing now. This is the most complicated scenario. Here, we might have a chance to avoid total financial disaster and trade him for some salary relief. Or, he might be good enough to keep and create the option of trading other guys. I'd much rather have athletes capable of a .750 OPS and playing multiple positions than 5 guys who are 1b/DHs on the team. So, a good Davis might let us trade Mancini for a better future piece. Mountcastle too. The downside here is if Davis is too good to cut but not good enough to get any salary relief. That is, unfortunately, probably most likely. So this is a troubling scenario.

3. He's a .900+ OPS guy again. If anyone complains about this scenario, I don't know what to say. 

Cutting him wouldn't be a "financial disaster".  We owe him exactly as much money as we owe him, whether we cut him or not.

If cutting him is a financial disaster, it is no more so than keeping him.

[glenn__davis]

3 hours ago, Dipper9 said:

Whether anyone likes it or not, he most certainly IS a part of the future of this team, as he has 4 years remaining on his contract.  So you might as well root for him to succeed because he is going nowhere.  

I think he's part of the team's future in the sense that his salary affects things moving forward, but I don't think his contract guarantees that he's here for 3+ more years.  If he continued to be as bad as he was earlier this year there's a point where you have no choice but to cut bait.  It's been nice to see him turn in around and I'm rooting for him as a person, but I agree with CoC that eventually he's going to be holding guys up that should be here.

[LookinUp]

14 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Cutting him wouldn't be a "financial disaster".  We owe him exactly as much money as we owe him, whether we cut him or not.

If cutting him is a financial disaster, it is no more so than keeping him.

I think you're right, financial disaster is hyperbole. From a sunk cost perspective, this is relatively close. However, it may not be totally sunk. There's a chance to salvage some in the form of production or actually saving money thorough a trade. The worst case scenario is to pay the full amount with no production.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, LookinUp said:

I think you're right, financial disaster is hyperbole. From a sunk cost perspective, this is relatively close. However, it may not be totally sunk. There's a chance to salvage some in the form of production or actually saving money thorough a trade. The worst case scenario is to pay the full amount with no production.

But is the production worth anything given where the team is?  Unless the end result is another team taking on some of the contract I say it isn't.

[LookinUp]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But is the production worth anything given where the team is?  Unless the end result is another team taking on some of the contract I say it isn't.

Right. That's what I tried to lay out in my 3 scenarios. The second scenario could be useful but could also be bad, as you're saying. That scenario really has 3 parts as well. 

1. Sort of bad
2. Ok
3. Good

Only the third part is really useful to the O's. So, to make a long story short, he needs to become a good player again to be useful. Anything less and the sunk cost remains sunk while also hindering the rebuild.

[Moose Milligan]

56 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I think you're right, financial disaster is hyperbole. From a sunk cost perspective, this is relatively close. However, it may not be totally sunk. There's a chance to salvage some in the form of production or actually saving money thorough a trade. The worst case scenario is to pay the full amount with no production.

It is hyperbole, as you and @SteveA noted...he's owed what he's owed.  Whether he's out there at 1st base or at home on the ranch makes no difference...he's getting paid no matter what.

The thing that's somewhat annoying about it is that if he were to be cut/traded...yes, it is sunk cost.  But then you need to allocate MORE money to 1B/DH.  And that's probably ok if it's someone like Mancini or Mountcastle who's got a team friendly salary but the future isn't set.  We don't know if Mancini or Mountcastle will be there to man 1B/DH.  If for some reason neither worked out, going to spend more money at the 1B/DH position isn't very appealing when you've already got a bunch of sunk money at that position already.