Jump to content

Waiving/non-tendering Villar: pro or con?


Frobby

Do you approve Elias’ move of waiving Villar?  

120 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree with putting Villar on waivers?

    • I’m in favor
    • I’m against
    • Don’t know, but I’ll defer to Elias’ judgment

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 11/29/19 at 04:40

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.

Thanks for clarifying.   The award you are quoting was overturned and never paid.    The second award, for about the same amount of money, is on appeal now and hasn’t been paid.   If and when it is paid, the O’s profits per Forbes’ methodology will go up, but their actual profits will go down because MASN will be less profitable and paying less money to the O’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pushmonkey said:

Man Roch is ramping up the Angelos propaganda. He is Saying saving 10 mil is a good thing and waiver is good because it saves money. However, if the dead zombie owner really cared about just cutting costs he would cut Davis. That’s a cost cutting move that everyone would support, this is just a dumb business move. 

Lol, why of course he is. When your boss is firing everyone and giving away players to cut costs, you start toeing the company line real hard. I could see MASN just replacing Roch with a cheaper option real easy. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tony-OH said:

Lol, why of course he is. When your boss is firing everyone and giving away players to cut costs, you start toeing the company line real hard. I could see MASN just replacing Roch with a cheaper option real easy. 

Roch can be replaced by some social media wiz fresh out of college for half the money  by Tuesday (longer because of the holiday).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Thanks for clarifying.   The award you are quoting was overturned and never paid.    The second award, for about the same amount of money, is on appeal now and hasn’t been paid.   If and when it is paid, the O’s profits per Forbes’ methodology will go up, but their actual profits will go down because MASN will be less profitable and paying less money to the O’s.

I don’t care about the profitability of MASN!

All I care about is the amount paid to the Orioles for their broadcast rights.

Money they would be receiving from Comcast or other provider if MASN had not been created.

Im sure you don’t possibly believe that number is 0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

That’s fine. You SHOULD be upset. You should hold onto your money. If the Orioles were a restaurant you wouldn’t take your family there!

I didn’t go to any games or watch them on TV this past season (cord cut). I’m not mad about it, I have much in my life to do and be passionate about. I think, personally, the on field product of this team has been terrible for 35 years save for twelve scattered winning seasons and 5 playoff teams.

I trust that Elias has a plan, and I’ve seen evidence of those things; international scouting and signings, analytics team hirings, old guard employees being removed. This is all stuff we’ve begged for. This was a fundamentally broken organization that started with the people running the show and ended on the field and permeated the culture. I am extremely excited to see the new machine start winning games, because I think it was built to win games for a long time.

The Jonathan Villar move is so “whatever” it’s hard to imagine why anyone cares who’s going to help us win 50-60 games next year. And I’ve said it before, if you’re only NOW threatening to hold onto your money because of the on field product, what exactly have you been watching for 35 years? 

 

From what I'm reading and understanding is that fans are upset that this is the first obvious money only decision (if he's just non tendered or claimed). The Orioles have never just given away their top player to save money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

From what I'm reading and understanding is that fans are upset that this is the first obvious money only decision (if he's just non tendered or claimed). The Orioles have never just given away their top player to save money. 

Trading away draft picks to pay teams to pick up bad contracts is just as bad in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I don’t care about the profitability of MASN!

All I care about is the amount paid to the Orioles for their broadcast rights.

Money they would be receiving from Comcast or other provider if MASN had not been created.

Im sure you don’t possibly believe that number is 0

I don’t really understand your point.   

Currently, the O’s and Nats are paid about $40 mm/yr each for their broadcast rights.    Those payments are part of the $251 mm in revenue that Forbes reports.   If the RSDC decision holds, those payments will increase by about $20 mm/yr, retroactive to 2012 and presumably into the future.    But MASN will be less profitable by  twice that amount (O’s fees + Nats fees), and since the O’s own more than half of MASN, it’s a net loss for the O’s side.    That’s why MASN and the O’s keep appealing the rulings.   
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 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.

What does too expensive mean though? Too expensive for one player or too much spent on overall payroll?

In Villar's case, no one seems to value him at that price point or else we would have gotten a few lotto tickets for him. I certainly hope we don't overpay for sentimental fan favorites when we're good, that seems to have been a hallmark of what went wrong with that last regime.

Ownership showed the ability to raise payroll when they thought we could win in 2016-2018, but one roster move when we're at the bottom of a rebuild is somehow indicative of what future decisions en perpetuity?

Of course this is all assuming the worst of all intentions, and that we get nothing for Villar, which hasn't actually happened yet. The math just doesn't nearly subtract from the positive developments that have happened for the organization for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

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. 

Perhaps, but I don't see us being "stuck" with Villar this year. He could be traded at any time. Even in the worse case scenario that we kept him and regressed, we don't have a player in our system ready to replace him. It's not like he's a 1B/LF who is blocking Mountcastle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 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?

But it also creates a lot of risk to get nothing for him. We'll see. I hope Elias proves to be right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Perhaps, but I don't see us being "stuck" with Villar this year. He could be traded at any time. Even in the worse case scenario that we kept him and regressed, we don't have a player in our system ready to replace him. It's not like he's a 1B/LF who is blocking Mountcastle.

Have they tried to trade him in July and presently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spl51 said:

What does too expensive mean though? Too expensive for one player or too much spent on overall payroll?

In Villar's case, no one seems to value him at that price point or else we would have gotten a few lotto tickets for him. I certainly hope we don't overpay for sentimental fan favorites when we're good, that seems to have been a hallmark of what went wrong with that last regime.

Ownership showed the ability to raise payroll when they thought we could win in 2016-2018, but one roster move when we're at the bottom of a rebuild is somehow indicative of what future decisions en perpetuity?

Of course this is all assuming the worst of all intentions, and that we get nothing for Villar, which hasn't actually happened yet. The math just doesn't nearly subtract from the positive developments that have happened for the organization for me.

I'm not sure that true yet. I just have a hard time believing a 28-year old 2B who can fill in at SS, coming off a 4-win season,  has no value. I think teams were waiting around to see if the team would just non tender him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pushmonkey said:

Man Roch is ramping up the Angelos propaganda. He is Saying saving 10 mil is a good thing and waiver is good because it saves money. However, if the dead zombie owner really cared about just cutting costs he would cut Davis. That’s a cost cutting move that everyone would support, this is just a dumb business move. 

Please don't call him a dead zombie owner. Aging can be real rough. Thanks and happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...