Orioles not likely to bid on Ha-Seong Kim

[Roll Tide]

45 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Because I don't think he's going to be that good.   And yes,  I do think if less money can be spent now it will increase what's available later.  Regardless, one thing we DON'T need for our hopefully soon to be competitive window are guys who aren't producing relative to what they are being paid.   I don't think he produces enough to justify that price,  and if I'm right, then we'd be overpaying, and that could made adding more to the payroll different.  While it certainly wouldn't be Davis bad or anything, having any underperforming contracts could make it more difficult to afford talent we need to add when the time is right.  If I was the Os, I'd have been interested at the right price,  but it was clear from the beginning that the price wasn't going to be right IMO.

It’s fine to think this but there is literally not an ounce of proof that it’s true. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

It’s fine to think this but there is literally not an ounce of proof that it’s true. 

I think you would admit that if the O's are paying Kim 7M in 2024 that is 7M that they won't be spending elsewhere.

[Roll Tide]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think you would admit that if the O's are paying Kim 7M in 2024 that is 7M that they won't be spending elsewhere.

If he’s producing 2 WAR who would really care and assuming we are ramping up or at max payroll we already know that number is 160+ million as opposed to 40 million.

To add.....if the theory is sock it away to be used later they could put the 40 million in an interest bearing account out of the 2021 revenue or 2019 revenue and pay it off completely. That way it wouldn’t affect moves made in 2024 as he’s paid out of the current surplus 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

If he’s producing 2 WAR who would really care and assuming we are ramping up or at max payroll we already know that number is 160+ million as opposed to 40 million.

To add.....if the theory is sock it away to be used later they could put the 40 million in an interest bearing account out of the 2021 revenue or 2019 revenue and pay it off completely. That way it wouldn’t affect moves made in 2024 as he’s paid out of the current surplus 

I don't buy the sock it away theory.  I'm just stating that the 2023 team is going to have a budget and questioning if paying Kim ~8M of that budget will be in the best interest of the 2023 team.  Hopefully one of the horde of young shortstops in the system can handle 2B at the ML level by 2023.

[Roll Tide]

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't buy the sock it away theory.  I'm just stating that the 2023 team is going to have a budget and questioning if paying Kim ~8M of that budget will be in the best interest of the 2023 team.  Hopefully one of the horde of young shortstops in the system can handle 2B at the ML level by 2023.

i don’t either
 

So ...I’m sure we can agree. If they are paying him 7 million and he’s producing nothing you’ve lost the gamble. If he’s producing 1.5 to 2.5 WAR you would probably be happy having him. Also if he’s producing 2+ war and has done so consistently you have a trade worthy asset.

[forphase1]

5 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

It’s fine to think this but there is literally not an ounce of proof that it’s true. 

And it's fine to think that it's not the truth, but there is literally not an ounce of proof that it's NOT true.  Facts are none of us know just what they are doing with the extra revenue at the moment, nor do we know just how they will be willing/able to spend when the time is right.  Angelos was clearly willing to spend a times.  Only time will tell what the sons are going to do.  

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

It’s fine to think this but there is literally not an ounce of proof that it’s true. 

Of course there is.   Just look at the 2011-18 payrolls.   

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

Of course there is.   Just look at the 2011-18 payrolls.   

Different owners.

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Of course there is.   Just look at the 2011-18 payrolls.   

That’s not proof at all.  

[DrungoHazewood]

13 hours ago, Frobby said:

Of course there is.   Just look at the 2011-18 payrolls.   

How do those payrolls prove that they were spending prior year money on that year's payroll?  I think it's reasonably clear that (at least) most of this year's payroll always comes out of this year's revenues.  There's some cushion from money saved, but no team wants to get into a situation where they're subsidizing current year expenses with savings.  And I think MLB heavily discourages teams from doing that.

[BohKnowsBmore]

On 1/1/2021 at 3:32 PM, Roll Tide said:

If he’s producing 2 WAR who would really care and assuming we are ramping up or at max payroll we already know that number is 160+ million as opposed to 40 million.

To add.....if the theory is sock it away to be used later they could put the 40 million in an interest bearing account out of the 2021 revenue or 2019 revenue and pay it off completely. That way it wouldn’t affect moves made in 2024 as he’s paid out of the current surplus 

 

On 1/1/2021 at 3:35 PM, Can_of_corn said:

I don't buy the sock it away theory.  I'm just stating that the 2023 team is going to have a budget and questioning if paying Kim ~8M of that budget will be in the best interest of the 2023 team.  Hopefully one of the horde of young shortstops in the system can handle 2B at the ML level by 2023.

I think labeling it the "sock it away" theory misses the mark a bit, or doesn't accurately describe what I (and others) believe may be going on. It's not that these dollars are specifically being put away in a vault to be withdrawn at a later date, Rather, I think it's better described as follows.

Note that I am using made up numbers and deliberately oversimplifying team economics (also ignoring growth/inflation, etc.) in order to have a more straightforward discussion.

• Let's assume revenue net of all non-ML player expenses is $120M (let's also assume this is fixed)
• In order to make an acceptable economic profit from the team, ownership needs to make $30M annually in profit after all expenses
• If the team runs a payroll of $50M in 2021, then profit to ownership is $70M, $40M more than required in a given year
• In exchange for these savings in rebuilding years, ownership may be willing to go all the way up to the $120M "budget" mentioned in point one, or even significantly exceed it going into a loss during competitive years
• Dollars spent in competitive years create more utility on both the baseball side and business side of the organization than during the rebuilding years
  • On the baseball side, those dollars spent accumulating WAR have a much stronger marginal impact on playoff/WS odds (i.e., going from 90 to 95 wins is far more valuable than 65 to 70)
  • On the business side, those dollar spent improving the product can be considered a brand-building investment, whereas adding a couple relatively expensive veterans to a bad team don't do much to move the needle in attracting fans over seeing the young guys develop

Ultimately, I think it's more appropriate to think of it as trading unproductive dollars today for more productive dollars tomorrow, rather than "socked away."

[Can_of_corn]

Current ownership may not be willing to add to payroll during competitive years.  We have no way to know at this point.  All we have seen is that so far is a strong desire to keep payroll low.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Current ownership may not be willing to add to payroll during competitive years.  We have no way to know at this point.  All we have seen is that so far is a strong desire to keep payroll low.

And that they value saving money in trades over max return.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

And that they value saving money in trades over max return.

I think the one is part of the other.