2019 MLB Winter Meetings Grande Thread

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

So then it's all about value. Don't spend stupidly, but still compete. Take advantage of market inefficiencies. It's a business after all. Isn't that what we've been wanting the Orioles to do forever? 

Your real problem is with capitalism, not baseball owners. Which I would agree with, I'm just saying.

I don't have a problem with owners not spending.  I'm just pointing out that two large market teams that gutted payroll during rebuilds seemingly are not using that money to sustain high payrolls when they are competitive.

You don't think Correa is a player the Astros should be spending on?

[interloper]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't have a problem with owners not spending.  I'm just pointing out that two large market teams that gutted payroll during rebuilds seemingly are not using that money to sustain high payrolls when they are competitive.

You don't think Correa is a player the Astros should be spending on?

Maybe that money was used when acquiring guys like Greinke etc. We have no way of knowing where the money goes or how long it lasts. Kind of a useless exercise if you ask me.

Sure I think they should spend on Correa. They could also trade him for pitching that they will sorely need in the next few years and that would make some sense too. I don't see them spending $200-$300 million on one pitcher and it's unlikely their system is going to produce multiple TOR guys, so that pitching is going to have to come from somewhere. 

[interloper]

Quote

The Astros’ projected payroll for 2020 stands at $213.7 million, according to rosterresource.com. Their projected luxury-tax payroll stands at $231 million, a number that would put them over the second threshold at $228 million. And they still need to add a starting catcher and multiple pitchers in their rotation and bullpen.

Quote

Astros owner Jim Crane said in early October he would “prefer not to” exceed the lowest threshold at $208 million. The Astros, as a first-time payor, would incur a 20 percent penalty for every dollar they spent over $208 million, an additional 12 percent for every dollar they spent between $228 million and $248 million.

https://theathletic.com/1450039/2019/12/10/rosenthal-sources-say-the-astros-have-considered-trading-carlos-correa/

[interloper]

53 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If the Rays can do it the O's can do it.

If Oakland can do it the O's can do it.

The template exists.

How are these templates different from the Astros? Other than the fact the Astros can spend more?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

How are these templates different from the Astros? Other than the fact the Astros can spend more?

Oakland and the Rays never tanked.

But mostly yea, it's the payroll.  Nite was worrying about the huge contracts.  

[wildbillhiccup]

31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't have a problem with owners not spending.  I'm just pointing out that two large market teams that gutted payroll during rebuilds seemingly are not using that money to sustain high payrolls when they are competitive.

You don't think Correa is a player the Astros should be spending on?

If I'm being serious, I'm not sure he should be. Correa barely topped 400 ABs in 2017 and 2018 and only had 280 last season. He also doesn't steal bases anymore and his power ceiling seems to be 20-25 HRs. Correa feels a lot like someone who has more perceived value than he's actually worth. 

[interloper]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Oakland and the Rays never tanked.

But mostly yea, it's the payroll.  Nite was worrying about the huge contracts.  

I distinctly recall the Rays being terrible for many years and getting a ton of high draft picks. Then they employed some smart strategies in the years that followed. But there was an element of tank there, purposeful or not. 

I don't know that the O's have as much money as we like to think. I think they can support a couple of $150+ teams but I don't know that they can sustain that perpetually. Who knows. 

I certainly would rather be in our position than the Rays, who REALLY cannot spend. They haven't been able to get over the hump recently and it's all because of their crappy market. Same with Oakland, it's been awhile since they really made some noise. 

[wildbillhiccup]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

I think the Orioles have more money then they’d like you to believe at this point.

MLB annual revenue and annual payroll info can be found pretty easily online. That seems like a pretty good benchmark. How do you think they're deceiving us? 

Revenue - https://www.statista.com/statistics/196638/revenue-of-the-baltimore-orioles-since-2006/ (2018 Revenue $251M)

Payroll - https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/baltimore-orioles/payroll/ (2020 Total Payroll $43,533,782)

[MurphDogg]

30 minutes ago, interloper said:

https://theathletic.com/1450039/2019/12/10/rosenthal-sources-say-the-astros-have-considered-trading-carlos-correa/

The Astros should trade Josh Reddick and his salary for a nonprospect, would save around $3 million in luxury tax payments.

[interloper]

1 minute ago, wildbillhiccup said:

MLB annual revenue and annual payroll info can be found pretty easily online. That seems like a pretty good benchmark. How do you think they're deceiving us? 

Revenue - https://www.statista.com/statistics/196638/revenue-of-the-baltimore-orioles-since-2006/ (2018 Revenue $251M)

Payroll - https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/baltimore-orioles/payroll/ (2020 Total Payroll $43,533,782)

And people will look at this and say, well they have $200 million available for players!! But that revenue has to be spread out to a growing staff with (I think) more high level positions lately, stadium stuff, facilities, equipment, technology, vendors, whatever. 

[interloper]

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

The Astros should trade Josh Reddick and Joe Smith and their salaries for a nonprospects, would save at least 20 percent.

For sure. I think they're listening on Correa whose value isn't at its highest right now anyway. But there's some other salary weight they could and should move first.

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, interloper said:

I distinctly recall the Rays being terrible for many years and getting a ton of high draft picks. Then they employed some smart strategies in the years that followed. But there was an element of tank there, purposeful or not. 

I don't know that the O's have as much money as we like to think. I think they can support a couple of $150+ teams but I don't know that they can sustain that perpetually. Who knows. 

I certainly would rather be in our position than the Rays, who REALLY cannot spend. They haven't been able to get over the hump recently and it's all because of their crappy market. Same with Oakland, it's been awhile since they really made some noise. 

Being really bad isn't the same as tanking.  The 1988 Orioles were not tanking, the 2018 Orioles were not tanking.

[interloper]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Being really bad isn't the same as tanking.  The 1988 Orioles were not tanking, the 2018 Orioles were not tanking.

Yeah, I know. I didn't say it was the same, I said there was an element there.

I don't think there's any amount of money the O's could have spent this year to make them good AND also not completely cripple them in the near future. So you spend a bunch of money to be both bad now AND, if things don't break right, for the next decade as you're caving in under the weight of a ton of bad contracts. 

[wildbillhiccup]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

And people will look at this and say, well they have $200 million available for players!! But that revenue has to be spread out to a growing staff with (I think) more high level positions lately, stadium stuff, facilities, equipment, technology, vendors, whatever. 

Agreed, but I was more curious about how he felt the team was misleading us in terms of the money. Maybe he thinks they're pocketing it all and not reinvesting it back into the team? I'm personally willing to give the sons the benefit of the doubt, until they prove me wrong. I know it's hard not to make assumptions based on Angelos, Sr's reign, but I think almost everything I've seen from them (so far) has been mostly positive. They recognized they're was a need for complete change/shift in culture, they hired a young up and coming GM to lead the charge, and they seem to be heavily investing in the infrastructure of the team. Even something minor like allowing concerts at the stadium sends the message that this is a different more modern ownership era.

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

They have it but if they aren't willing to spend it the fact that they have it is irrelevant.

If the other poster is concerned about us giving out large contracts in a few years I don’t think he needs to worry