Waiving/non-tendering Villar: pro or con?

[Tony-OH]

13 hours ago, Spl51 said:

Your obvious anger is impeding your ability to try to be understanding of other perspectives.

I personally find enjoyment in dozens of things in baseball absent pure winning and performance. I enjoy seeing progress of individual players as well as strategies and finding value in places that or undervalued. My personal enjoyment of watching the Orioles will certainly change without Villar, but I'm able to see the reasons why it really has no affect on the direction the team is heading towards. 

The slippery slope argument just really doesn't scan for me, and the assumptions about what the ultimate goal for what team it will ultimately be is just obvious hyperbole.

I think this is the key difference. I see this as a major warning sign. A profitable team is just cutting their best player by WAR, who also happens to be in his prime, because they don't want to pay him around $3 million more than last year? This when their 25-man roster is littered with major league minimum guys? 

If they trade away these guys for future talent then we get it, but to just jump them for nothing when the guy just put up a 4-win season at 28-years old is ridiculous and it does send a very bad signal to their fans and baseball.

How can you trust this ownership/management team when we do develop a few stars but then they get expensive. Is this the new norm for those organization. the second a player becomes too expensive and they don' think they can compete the next year they just release the player? 

Maybe it doesn't concern you, but it majorly concerns me.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I think this is the key difference. I see this as a major warning sign. A profitable team is just cutting their best player by WAR, who also happens to be in his prime, because they don't want to pay him around $3 million more than last year? this when they're 25-man roster is littered with major league minimum guys? 

 

If they trade away these guys for future talent then we get it, but to just jump them for nothing when the guy just put up a 4-win season at 28-years old is ridiculous and it does send a very bad signal to their fans and baseball.

How can you trust this ownership/management team when we do develop a few stars but then they get expensive. Is this the new norm for those organization. the second a player becomes too expensive and they don' think they can compete the next year they just release the player? 

Maybe it doesn't concern you, but it majorly concerns me.

Stuff like this is why I'm concerned about international spending.

[Roll Tide]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m confused.   Shares of what?    The $251 mm cited by Forbes includes all sources of revenue except profit shares from team-owned TV networks (like MASN).   But there was no such revenue from MASN this year, because no dividends got paid.    Whatever profits MASN made, it retained rather than paying to shareholders.   

MASN is required to pay to the Nationals a certain amount of money to broadcast the games. That amount per season was a reported $59 million per season”

”

 

×

 

 

Search Modes

 

ALL

NEWS

SHOPPING

VIDEOS

IMAGES

MAPS

BOOKS

FLIGHTS

SEARCH TOOLS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search Results

Featured snippet from the web

Broadcast rights fees

The committee issued awritten decision on June 30, 2014, that MASNshould pay the Nationals an average of $59 million per year for2012 through 2016.

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, mdbdotcom said:

It also serves as notice to teams that the O's intend to non-tender him and if they don't trade for him now they will have to try to acquire him as a free agent, which could turn into an auction and might require a multi-year deal. It's also a good indication that several teams are interested in him. 

Interesting take. Putting him on waivers gives us 7-10 days to trade him?  Creating a deadline. Deadlines get deals done. 

It’s actually pretty smart by Elias. No team was going to trade for him before the non tender deadline. Now they have to if they want him?

[Tony-OH]

5 hours ago, wildcard said:

Here is the logic I have come up with for the DFAing Villar. 

Elias did not want to pay 10m for a 736 OPS player.   That is Villar's career OPS. Yes, he had a good 2nd half but his 1st half OPS was 747.     It is probably more likely that Villar puts up a 736 OPS  in 2020 than the 792 OPS he had in 2019.

And he is not a good middle field player.  He is a high error guy.   Its really his offense that drives his value.   

No other team wanted to make the 10m gamble that he who repeat 2019.

Remember this is he 2nd time that a team Elias worked for has let Villar go by trade or DFA.

To me this is a Jim Johnson move.   Johnson was due 10m in arbitration and the O's traded him for basically nothing.  And it was one season after he was an All-Star and he has back to back 50 save seasons.  And the O's were contenders back then.

Wilkerson/Alberto/ Valaika  can play as good a defensive 2B as Villar.      Elias made it clear he did not want Villar at SS by saying he would acquire a veteran SS.

The O's are adding offensive players next season in Hays and Mountcastle.   Elias may be thinking that its better for the team to be strong up the middle defensively.    That could help the pitching.

What do you think of that argument?

 

I think you're undervaluing a 28-year coming off a 4-win season. Villar is much better second baseman than SS and that SS time hurt is dWAR. Regardless, the only way this makes any sense is if he can be pulled back off waivers and this is just some ploy to force a team's hand by having another team claim him. If however he makes it through waivers and they just non-tender him, then this will be a black mark for Elias and the Orioles.

[theocean]

2 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

I'm just quoting the link you sent when I asked for a source. Teams have more expenditures than player salary.

Forbes hasn't done 2019 yet, but I'd imagine that operating income is higher than 2018, but income definitely dropped along with expenditures, so I doubt it's a big number. 

I wouldn't rely one Forbes too much, they're known to guesstimate numbers. And, I wouldn't really put much stock into operating income or whatever - any company does creative accounting to make it look like they made as little money as possible to reduce their tax bill.

But frankly, it doesn't really matter. Whether they have a ton of money or are pinching pennies, this move is pretty bad from a public relations standpoint. No matter what happens, the Orioles come out looking like a greedy corporation and that doesn't really fly in a blue collar town like Baltimore.

[Roll Tide]

18 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

That article doesn't affect my argument. My point was comparing the Orioles "operating income" to other teams "operating income" coming from the same source. 

It seems that you have an issue with the MLB situation, not the Orioles who have spent a higher proportion of there revenue than most of the teams in the league of the last handful of years. 

No ... they have 120 million in national tv shares. 59 million in outdated MASN broadcast rights fees.

that not counting any other monies that are included in the revenue stream.

They had an 80 million or so in payroll in 2019. Spent some extra money on player development and changing out execs.

Villar is dumped to save 3 or 4 million.

thats an Orioles decision not a MLB decision 

[sportsfan8703]

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I think you're undervaluing a 28-year coming off a 4-win season. Villar is much better second baseman than SS and that SS time hurt is dWAR. Regardless, the only way this makes any sense is if he can be pulled back off waivers and this is just some ploy to force a team's hand by having another team claim him. If however he makes it through waivers and they just non-tender him, then this will be a black mark for Elias and the Orioles.

I’m giving Elias the benefit of the doubt. I think he took control of the situation and created a deadline. Deadlines get deals done. The only deadline out there before was the non tender deadline. I think it’s an aggressive move, that forces trade talks, without us having the risk of getting “stuck” with Villar. 

At least Elias isn’t sitting back. He’s creating the action. 

[7Mo]

9 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Interesting take. Putting him on waivers gives us 7-10 days to trade him?  Creating a deadline. Deadlines get deals done. 

It’s actually pretty smart by Elias. No team was going to trade for him before the non tender deadline. Now they have to if they want him?

Teams have until 1:00 Monday to claim him. If no one claims, O's have from 1:00 to 8:00 to work out a contract with him at whatever figure is agreed to. If that doesn't happen, he would be non-tendered at 8:00.

If 1 team claims him by 1:00 Monday, that team gets him. If 2 or more claim, a team would have to work out a trade with the O's to get him. 

[Tony-OH]

4 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

Let's try and rationally talk through the thought process here. 

1. Elias's idea of a rebuild has no place for lipstick on a pig, that's what Villar in 2020 for 9-10M would be. This shouldn't be a surprise, he's made statements about this from the get go. 

2. Villar has surplus value, even at 10M. People a lot smarter than me on the subject of MLB player valuation have come to the same conclusion. 

3. Position players are much easier to move in the offseason.

4. Elias tries to trade Villar in the offseason, but every interested GM understands point #1 above and calls the Orioles bluff, not believing they would unnecessarily commit 9-10M for a one year player on a rebuilding team.

5. The non-tender deadline is coming up on Monday, Elias has a few options, none of them great.

    a. Tender Villar and then try and trade him (this is the most conservative option from a fan standpoint, but it does risk violating point #1)

    b. Non-Tender Villar (to the same type of outrage that this move generated, doesn't take advantage of point #2)

    c. Force a trade by eating money or taking org players in return (not sure if this is even an option, also doesn't take advantage of point #2 but easier to save face)

    d. Put him on waivers in time for the waiver deadline to be before the non-tender deadline with the hope that it'll force a deal (this is the option he chose, it protects against the risk of point #1, doesn't give up on point #2)

 

So let's assume the teams generally value Villar as a 2.5 WAR player for 2020 (Steamer projects him as 1.8 WAR, but I think that's light given the way he performs better when given everyday reps, each team has their own model of course) and the general valuation is 8M per WAR (that may be a touch high in the current environment). And assume he'll get 10M in arb. So that'd be 10M in surplus value. If they value him like Steamer, it'd only be 4.4 in surplus value. That's a pretty significant difference. But at either valuation, I'm sure there are plenty of teams that'd want his services for 10M and that's what Elias is banking on. That multiple teams claim him and he can get a better offer than was on the table before. 

Will it work? I don't know, none of us do, but putting him on waivers doesn't reduce any potential return, the risk is that only one team claims him and there is no return. It's a better option than non-tendering him straight up, that's unarguable. Is it a better option than tendering him and continuing to try and trade him? Depends on one's perspective. From a fan perspective, definitely not. From a front office perspective, I get it. The logic is that if teams aren't willing to claim him on waivers and work out a trade, they won't be willing to trade for him later in the offseason either and then you are paying a guy that you don't want to pay. 

To address the "cheap owner" concerns, the Orioles in the last 2 years of the Showalter/DD regime ran an operating loss. They were one of only a couple teams in the league that did. Most teams never do that. Those payrolls were unsustainable, but they proved ownership would spend to try and compete, even if the spending was fool-hardy in this case. I personally don't care how cheap they are now, as long as they are willing to spend on J2, infrastructure and player development improvement, and willing to fund the MLB roster robustly when the time comes. But I get it if you feel differently.

A well thought our response as usual, but while I understand your rule #1, it makes absolutely no sense to give your best player away for nothing when everyone knows it;s not like that $10 million saved is going to go into building the organization. I also have a hard time believing this team ever was not making money.

This team is valued at over a Billion dollars and has been valued five times over what it cost to acquire (maybe more because I can' remember the price originally paid). There is no way they are not making money now with such a pittance of a payroll they have currently, not with all the cable money they are getting.

I completely understand not going out and paying for additional talent to put "lipstick on a pig," but you send an awful message to your fans when you clearly are getting rid of a player that they clearly can afford. 

This is the issue at hand. If Villar was a free agent, I would not expect the Orioles to go out and get him, but he's under contract with them right now and I have hard time believing they can't trade Villar even at his arbitration number for something vs getting absolutely nothing and looking like a laughing stock around baseball by non tendering your best player by WAR who happens to be 28-years old.

Perhaps there is some master plan by Elias, and if he ends up trading him for some value then I'll be happy to admit I was wrong for doubting him, but this is an utter PR disaster if it doesn't work out and they just non-tender him.

 

[Tony-OH]

3 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

Do you disagree with anything in my post? You aren't refuting any of the points I made. You are just assuming an irrational actor. I don't think you get where Elias is by being an irrational actor. Just my honest opinion. I don't blame anyone for being upset, it's not a fun thing, but I'd argue it's also not an unexpected thing. The only thing in this turn of events that surprises me is that a team didn't push enough to acquire him before now, but that's teams being smart and reading the Orioles situation better than I did. 

I don't believe Elias is being irrational at all. i do have a couple of concerns though.

Is this an ownership decision where they've given him a very small 25-man roster budget?
Is this Elias just playing the cold, baseball analyst role of the player is not worth the price and the team is not going to be competitive so why not just non tender him?

It's bad news if it's either because it either means that new (I'm considering the sons as new) ownership may not be willing to ever spend or at the very least will not spend until the team has a chance to be competitive and then they may be limited by available options.

If it's the other, it suggests that trading is not Elias' strong suit. I believe Elias is a smart guy, but what we don't know yet is how shrewd a dealer he can be. 

I'm hoping he has a master plan here. But I'm very concerned.

[Tony-OH]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Do you read my posts?

I've stated, for years, that I think MLB profitability is much higher than what is reported.  I've said it within the last day.

Not much can be done about profit driven owners.

I don't believe teams are losing money at all either. Why are the team's values so high if they were?

[7Mo]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

I don't believe Elias is being irrational at all. i do have a couple of concerns though.

Is this an ownership decision where they've given him a very small 25-man roster budget?
Is this Elias just playing the cold, baseball analyst role of the player is not worth the price and the team is not going to be competitive so why not just non tender him?

It's bad news if it's either because it either means that new (I'm considering the sons as new) ownership may not be willing to ever spend or at the very least will not spend until the team has a chance to be competitive and then they may be limited by available options.

If it's the other, it suggests that trading is not Elias' strong suit. I believe Elias is a smart guy, but what we don't know yet is how shrewd a dealer he can be. 

I'm hoping he has a master plan here. But I'm very concerned.

Or the market is just saying Villar has no value at his arb figure. 

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, mdbdotcom said:

Months ago I expressed my opinion that Villar should be non-tendered if he could not be traded before the deadline, so I'm fine with the way this is playing out. Hopefully, they'll get a couple of 16-year-old Dominicans in trade before the Monday deadline. Otherwise, I think letting him go now is the right move, as it cuts payroll, opens up a roster spot and creates an opportunity for a younger player. The fact that the younger player is not on the team right now does not matter. If this costs us five games during the season, that is not a big deal this year.

So you are fine with a MLB team just non tendering a 28-year old 4-win player to make room for a younger worse player? Let's just say I deeply disagree with you.

[Orioles West]

16 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

This is an awful descion by the Orioles. They already have a low payroll and now they are DFAing one their best players because his Arbitration number? This is a middle finger to their fans. We all understand this is a rebuild, but you dont just release players who are good. This is an awful competitive and fan move. It's actually quite embarrassing to do this as well as you just made yourself the laughing stock of baseball.

This is a major warning sign that Elias is not being given the money to put out even a respectable product. If they had traded him I would have gotten the move, but to just DFA him after the year he had is embarrassing. Its embarrasing to baseball and slap on the face to their fans, even the ones who understand they are in a rebuild. 

I have been completely onboarding with what Elias has been doing with this rebuild until this move. I'm now embarrassed as a fan and can give no reasonable excuse for this move as a person who has covered this team for 24 years.

This. So MUCH this. I don't always agree with Tony, but I agree with every word of this post. I've been on board too. The rebuild should be about progress -- they found a temporary solution, but the player fits the need they NOW need to fill in free agency. It's a silly move at best. It also means they're planning on a repeat of the 2019 season to stay gain one more high draft position year (as the pitching short club is now talking of trading Bundy).