Will this weekend be the last time we see Chris Davis in Baltimore?

[Morgan423]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 including a comment by Gary Thorne something like, “we don’t know if that will be his last at bat in this ballpark, but if it was, it was a big one.”    That must have been a little embarrassing for Davis to hear.    

That's not what Gary said.  He said, "Maybe it's the last one at home, maybe it isn't."  He was referring to Orioles home runs this season, not Chris Davis.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Morgan423 said:

That's not what Gary said.  He said, "Maybe it's the last one at home, maybe it isn't."  He was referring to Orioles home runs this season, not Chris Davis.

I don't agree with your interpretation.  I could be wrong but that isn't the feeling I got.

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't agree with your interpretation.  I could be wrong but that isn't the feeling I got.

I only heard what they played over the stadium loudspeakers, so I could have missed some context.   But it definitely seemed to me he was saying it may be Davis’ last HR at OPACY, not the team’s this season.   I do think Morgan423’s quote of what Gary said is more accurate than what I posted previously.   

[TonySoprano]

Gary talked to Davis.  Davis said he spoke with Elias about working on some things and will be at Spring Training next year.
 

 

[AnythingO's]

On 9/20/2019 at 5:40 PM, Can_of_corn said:

Full control doesn't mean, has never meant, that the person in charge can spend whatever they like.  It means that they have control over how the budget is used, what procedures are in place and who the personnel are.

CoC, you are not alome on this hill but I believe some allowance meeds to be made to.such a strict interpretation when that nonperforming asset represents over 25 percent of next year's budget. ME can churn the roster all he wants but he can't write off $23 M a year for 3 years w/o FO approval. I.one of the few that didn't want him signed and I won't follow any game when he in the lineup. I'm giving ME the offseason and ST, maybe until we get another year of Mountcastle, then.CD has to go. 

 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

CoC, you are not alome on this hill but I believe some allowance meeds to be made to.such a strict interpretation when that nonperforming asset represents over 25 percent of next year's budget. ME can churn the roster all he wants but he can't write off $23 M a year for 3 years w/o FO approval. I.one of the few that didn't want him signed and I won't follow any game when he in the lineup. I'm giving ME the offseason and ST, maybe until we get another year of Mountcastle, then.CD has to go. 

 

But if it is Davis today who is it in 2021?  If they aren't allowing their guy full control after a 115 loss season what degree of meddling can we expect in the future?

[AnythingO's]

27 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But if it is Davis today who is it in 2021?  If they aren't allowing their guy full control after a 115 loss season what degree of meddling can we expect in the future?

There isn't going to be anyone approaching 25 percent of budget in 2020 and 2021 other than CD. No Mas.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

There isn't going to be anyone approaching 25 percent of budget in 2020 and 2021 other than CD. No Mas.

And less expensive meddling would be fine?

what if Elias wants to trade Mancini and ownership intervenes?

[weams]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

And less expensive meddling would be fine?

what if Elias wants to trade Mancini and ownership intervenes?

What if ownership has been and will be completely hands off? 

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, weams said:

What if ownership has been and will be completely hands off? 

Then I'm very disappointed that Elias has not released Davis.

[ThomasTomasz]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

And less expensive meddling would be fine?

what if Elias wants to trade Mancini and ownership intervenes?

To me, both of these things are OK.  I run a business as director of operations, and the owner lets me run the business as I see fit.  He only wants me to consult him on major people issues (firings) and big money decisions.  Otherwise, I am free to operate the business as I see fit. 

In the Chris Davis example, ownership is still going to be paying $51 million in salary the next three years, plus $42 million in deferred money from 2023-37.  I completely understand ownership wanting to be involved and sign off on a decision to release him.  Maybe they still see a value in his community work, and also don't see the exact need for a roster spot with most of our prospects still 2-3 years away from making an impact.  Maybe they just don't want to release him and not get anything out of it.  I don't know, but I do know that just about every owner in professional sports is going to be involved in a decision with this much money at stake.......and it's also without precedence in it's scope. 

For Trey Mancini, he is one of the most popular players, a potential building block of the future team and just about one of the only players who can be marketed at this point.  Ownership should absolutely be consulted on a potential trade, and shoot it down if they have issues with it.  

However, when we were at the point of a contract sitting on a table for two weeks for a utility player in Ryan Goins, who in no way was guaranteed a roster spot, or getting involved in the medicals for a 4th and 26th round draft choice is more than a bit overkill.  Should ownership sign off on a big contract, whether it's cutting Davis or signing another player to a huge deal?  Yes, absolutely.  If a trade involves one of the top 3-5 players on the roster?  I think they should be consulted for sure, but for anything less, the GM needs to have autonomy to do what they need to do to fill the roster out and work the draft and player acquisitions side. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, ThomasTomasz said:

For Trey Mancini, he is one of the most popular players, a potential building block of the future team and just about one of the only players who can be marketed at this point.  Ownership should absolutely be consulted on a potential trade, and shoot it down if they have issues with it.  

 

So you were fine with Peter vetoing trades?  How about when he would sign free agents on his own?

They hired Elias because he was better suited to running a team than they are, they should let the expert do his job.  

[ThomasTomasz]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

So you were fine with Peter vetoing trades?  How about when he would sign free agents on his own?

They hired Elias because he was better suited to running a team than they are, they should let the expert do his job.  

If the trade involved a top player on the roster, the owner has that choice to step in.  He vetoed the Britton deal, and I can understand that.  Signing free agents on his own is definitely overstepping things, and if they are at that point, a change in the GM probably needed to happen. 

If I were an owner, I would stay out of just about anything aside from handing out a contract $75 million or over, but Angelos is not me. 

Like I said in my post before this, it got to the point where it was meddling with everything, and you can't run a team effectively that way.  Contracts for utility players and late round draft picks should be left to the professionals.  That's why you hire a guy like Elias and let him control just about everything.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, ThomasTomasz said:

If the trade involved a top player on the roster, the owner has that choice to step in.  He vetoed the Britton deal, and I can understand that.  Signing free agents on his own is definitely overstepping things, and if they are at that point, a change in the GM probably needed to happen. 

If I were an owner, I would stay out of just about anything aside from handing out a contract $75 million or over, but Angelos is not me. 

Like I said in my post before this, it got to the point where it was meddling with everything, and you can't run a team effectively that way.  Contracts for utility players and late round draft picks should be left to the professionals.  That's why you hire a guy like Elias and let him control just about everything.  

I can't.  It was a bad decision and it hurt the team.  Angelos doesn't know baseball.  He hired someone to make those decisions, they should be allowed to do so.

Discuss expectations, set the budget and get out of the way.

[atomic]

3 hours ago, AnythingO's said:

CoC, you are not alome on this hill but I believe some allowance meeds to be made to.such a strict interpretation when that nonperforming asset represents over 25 percent of next year's budget. ME can churn the roster all he wants but he can't write off $23 M a year for 3 years w/o FO approval. I.one of the few that didn't want him signed and I won't follow any game when he in the lineup. I'm giving ME the offseason and ST, maybe until we get another year of Mountcastle, then.CD has to go. 

 

It is only $16 million a year for the next 3 years.  The rest of the money is deferred. Including the money from his first 4 years.  Davis will be receiving Oriole's checks long after Elias and Hyde stop receiving them.  He is being paid through 2037. 

The Orioles will pay Davis $3.5 million on each July 1 from 2023 to 2032 and $1.4 million on each July 1 from 2033 to 2037.