They asked Mancini and Santander to defer money

[MCO'sFan]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

Because the Orioles knew what they signed up for ... 

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I think most fairly educated fans knew it was a bad deal when he signed it. I don't think we knew that it would be arguably the worst deal in MLB history. 

[Sports Guy]

34 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I think most fairly educated fans knew it was a bad deal when he signed it. I don't think we knew that it would be arguably the worst deal in MLB history. 

Yea.  I was completely against the deal but even i felt he would have 3-4 average to well above average seasons.  I wouldn’t have signed him but I didn’t think we were signing a guy that was going to be a complete negative either.

 

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, MCO'sFan said:

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I think most fairly educated fans knew it was a bad deal when he signed it. I don't think we knew that it would be arguably the worst deal in MLB history. 

I was just repeating what Davis said to the media. I hated it and the Trumbo deal once the meddler got involved. It was obvious the fool was negotiating against himself. 
 

I don’t fault Davis or Trumbo and I can’t say anything about Mark not trying to give the Orioles their money’s worth.

What Davis did was take the money and run! It’s unfortunately legal theft imo. Hopefully in the future baseball can find a way to void these contracts if the player doesn’t meet a minimum threshold. I never expected Davis to be the guy he was before the contract. But, if he could have been Rob Deer for 4 or so years you could’ve lived with that.

.200 20-30 Home Runs with a .700 OPS... Davis hasn’t sniffed that since 2017

 

[Frobby]

12 hours ago, TradeAngelos said:

Yeah there are like 20 RSN's in the league, 19 of them are cash cows and make money hand over fist for teams, but the O's have the only one that doesn't make any money. Wait a minute, they actually own 2 RSN's with a combined market of 4th largest, and THAT RSN isn't making any money. Story checks out. 

Did I say MASN didn’t make any money?    No.   I said it’s not much of a cash cow these days, meaning it’s not nearly as profitable for the Orioles as it used to be.    That’s a fact.    All you have to do is read the arbitration decisions and various pleadings in the MASN court case to know that.   Have you done that?   I have.   Thoroughly, and reported on it in detail here many times.   

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, MCO'sFan said:

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I think most fairly educated fans knew it was a bad deal when he signed it. I don't think we knew that it would be arguably the worst deal in MLB history. 

I guess it depends what you mean by well-educated.    Take a look at the OH poll here:

Only 22.5% strongly opposed it.   I was in the next group, “worried.”   The majority either said “love it” or “like it a lot.”

There was no reason to expect the contract to be the fiasco that it’s been.    There were plenty of reasons to think Davis would be unproductive by the back half of his deal.

[Roll Tide]

46 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I guess it depends what you mean by well-educated.    Take a look at the OH poll here:

Only 22.5% strongly opposed it.   I was in the next group, “worried.”   The majority either said “love it” or “like it a lot.”

There was no reason to expect the contract to be the fiasco that it’s been.    There were plenty of reasons to think Davis would be unproductive by the back half of his deal.

I was with the majority who said

Quote

I like it a lot but I'm a little concerned about the future

Never did I think Davis would completely punk out .

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

I was just repeating what Davis said to the media. I hated it and the Trumbo deal once the meddler got involved. It was obvious the fool was negotiating against himself. 
 

I don’t fault Davis or Trumbo and I can’t say anything about Mark not trying to give the Orioles their money’s worth.

What Davis did was take the money and run! It’s unfortunately legal theft imo. Hopefully in the future baseball can find a way to void these contracts if the player doesn’t meet a minimum threshold. I never expected Davis to be the guy he was before the contract. But, if he could have been Rob Deer for 4 or so years you could’ve lived with that.

.200 20-30 Home Runs with a .700 OPS... Davis hasn’t sniffed that since 2017

 

Will that be balanced out with huge bonuses for players who put up MVP numbers but are making $500k a year?  In Mike Trout's 2011-14 seasons he was worth 28 wins (rough equivalent of Brian Roberts' entire career) and was paid $2M total from a team bringing in $250-300M a year.

[DrungoHazewood]

Quote

(From the old 2016 poll) As for the poll, I voted for the like it a lot/concerned about the future one. This is clearly an overpay based on straight risk/reward, but it's a market-valued overpay. The current value of the contract with deferrals is quite close to where I think Davis should have been valued. You can quibble with whether or not the O's should be paying market rates for a bipolar performer like Davis, but it is a reasonable contract using reasonable assumptions.

He will almost certainly have any number of poor seasons in the deal. Maybe at the tail end, maybe as soon as next year.

And if this ends up as Ryan Howard 2, Electric Boogaloo, well... we knew that was a possibility.

I may have been too optimistic, but I did give myself an out. 

I think I was working under the assumption that this meant Angelos had deeper pockets than we'd assumed and this was a sign he was willing to have bigger payrolls going forward.  Turns out it was more like 1997, where he'd pay up for a while, but then figures out that they couldn't afford it after all.  Especially when you pay up for the wrong players.

[Roll Tide]

39 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Will that be balanced out with huge bonuses for players who put up MVP numbers but are making $500k a year?  In Mike Trout's 2011-14 seasons he was worth 28 wins (rough equivalent of Brian Roberts' entire career) and was paid $2M total from a team bringing in $250-300M a year.

I don't know ..... But Trout is a bad comp as he was rewarded with a $426 million dollar contract and has continued to perform. Davis was rewarded with $161 million and other than physically hasn't shown up.

Do you really think this is isolated to professional sports? I have worked many jobs in B2B sales and then as a sales manager. I accepted a role with the Home Depot that was mostly incentive based. When I accepted the role the incentive was based on a 10 man team that was performing at or above 100%. The morale was poor and the head count was 5 with an employee that had submitted his 2 week notice.

I went to work on a paltry base salary and no chance of receiving any incentive for months! I basically rebuilt the team and got the production to 130% within 6 months. On month 7 after reaching full head count I was laid off as part of a national downsizing. They essentially eliminated 1 manager from every region with seniority being the only factor. My team was divided up and given to the 4 other sales managers who got to reap the rewards of my hard work.

 

I guess I'm rambling but ....Stuff happens!

In Davis' case he signed the contract and checked out. Most people would be fired from their jobs for lack of performance. It would be one thing if it were an Albert Belle or Glenn Davis situation where the player was injured and simply unable to do it. Davis' defiance in this case means he has essentially no pride and he must understand that many fans now view him as a POS.

[Just Regular]

A Google of Oriole MLB player rep didn't give an insta-answer but did get me here.

https://www.mlbplayers.com/player-leadership

One line from the page - 

Every two years, all 30 teams hold elections for their Player Reps and Alternates.

No clue if we are mid-term or at the start of a new one, but if new, hmmm.   I have no real guess if in the union Davis is a hero, or if in the clubhouse Davis is a punchline, and the regard for veteranosity runs that deep.   I guess a curmudgeon might say he's likelier than Santander, Means, etc. to still be on the team in two years.

Davis/Cobb/Trey/Yolmer the only guys above 4.000 service time I see, and guessing these reps skew old.

Rhys Hoskins and Jameson Taillon two younger guys on this old list

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/12/mlbpa-player-reps-union.html

[AnythingO's]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I guess it depends what you mean by well-educated.    Take a look at the OH poll here:

Only 22.5% strongly opposed it.   I was in the next group, “worried.”   The majority either said “love it” or “like it a lot.”

There was no reason to expect the contract to be the fiasco that it’s been.    There were plenty of reasons to think Davis would be unproductive by the back half of his deal.

This is weird, I remember there were like 20 or so of us who voted against the signing in January 2016 but this view shows another group in fall of 2017 joining the poll.

Did it get re-opened, I can't tell?

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

I don't know ..... But Trout is a bad comp as he was rewarded with a $426 million dollar contract and has continued to perform. Davis was rewarded with $161 million and other than physically hasn't shown up.

Do you really think this is isolated to professional sports? I have worked many jobs in B2B sales and then as a sales manager. I accepted a role with the Home Depot that was mostly incentive based. When I accepted the role the incentive was based on a 10 man team that was performing at or above 100%. The morale was poor and the head count was 5 with an employee that had submitted his 2 week notice.

I went to work on a paltry base salary and no chance of receiving any incentive for months! I basically rebuilt the team and got the production to 130% within 6 months. On month 7 after reaching full head count I was laid off as part of a national downsizing. They essentially eliminated 1 manager from every region with seniority being the only factor. My team was divided up and given to the 4 other sales managers who got to reap the rewards of my hard work.

 

I guess I'm rambling but ....Stuff happens!

In Davis' case he signed the contract and checked out. Most people would be fired from their jobs for lack of performance. It would be one thing if it were an Albert Belle or Glenn Davis situation where the player was injured and simply unable to do it. Davis' defiance in this case means he has essentially no pride and he must understand that many fans now view him as a POS.

Baseball is an unusual situation where long-term guaranteed contracts are an option.  Davis is a worst-case scenario in this unusual situation.  The owners can't complain.  They're the ones who offered the contract.  Angelos could have insisted the O's operate differently, he could have refused to sign anyone to a long-term deal.  Actually, for years we heard rumors that Angelos wouldn't sign a pitcher to long-term contract because he didn't believe anyone who pitched every five days was worth it.  But in this case he didn't, in fact we're pretty sure the owner intervened and insisted on a contract the GM and others thought was risky and unwise.

Note that the Rays never are screaming about having to eat the last three years of a long, expensive contract.

I'm guessing that if my employer offered me a seven-year guaranteed contract for me to do a job that everyone knew I probably wouldn't be able to do well at some point in the deal, I wouldn't be rushing to give back the money.

In all of this I think baseball would be better off with a contract structure more like soccer.  Where at any point in time anyone can come in a offer up a transfer fee for any player, the teams work out a deal for rights, the player and the new team work out a contract, and that's that.  Because there's no six years of pre-free agency and no delaying big money until a player is in decline, you have mostly fair deals.  When a guy hits his 30s he's very rarely going to be signed to a monster contract.  He already got his money when he was in his early-to-mid 20s, so there's no incentive to sign a 27- or 29-year-old to a stupid contract, and teams allocate money to the valuable, younger players.  Not the old, declining players.  Baseball has hung itself on free agency rules mostly devised in the 1970s.

[Roll Tide]

14 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Baseball is an unusual situation where long-term guaranteed contracts are an option.  Davis is a worst-case scenario in this unusual situation.  The owners can't complain.  They're the ones who offered the contract.  Angelos could have insisted the O's operate differently, he could have refused to sign anyone to a long-term deal.  Actually, for years we heard rumors that Angelos wouldn't sign a pitcher to long-term contract because he didn't believe anyone who pitched every five days was worth it.  But in this case he didn't, in fact we're pretty sure the owner intervened and insisted on a contract the GM and others thought was risky and unwise.

Note that the Rays never are screaming about having to eat the last three years of a long, expensive contract.

I'm guessing that if my employer offered me a seven-year guaranteed contract for me to do a job that everyone knew I probably wouldn't be able to do well at some point in the deal, I wouldn't be rushing to give back the money.

In all of this I think baseball would be better off with a contract structure more like soccer.  Where at any point in time anyone can come in a offer up a transfer fee for any player, the teams work out a deal for rights, the player and the new team work out a contract, and that's that.  Because there's no six years of pre-free agency and no delaying big money until a player is in decline, you have mostly fair deals.  When a guy hits his 30s he's very rarely going to be signed to a monster contract.  He already got his money when he was in his early-to-mid 20s, so there's no incentive to sign a 27- or 29-year-old to a stupid contract, and teams allocate money to the valuable, younger players.  Not the old, declining players.  Baseball has hung itself on free agency rules mostly devised in the 1970s.

Hopefully they fix it during the next lockout. I have no problem with guys earning this crazy money. But, Davis hasn't earned a nickel in 3 years

If owners aren't going to sign players in order to keep them they shouldn't be owners of Major League teams! Have I mentioned that I think we need a hard cap?

Then teams like the Yankees and Dodgers would have even more of an advantage....Again No CAP!

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, AnythingO's said:

This is weird, I remember there were like 20 or so of us who voted against the signing in January 2016 but this view shows another group in fall of 2017 joining the poll.

Did it get re-opened, I can't tell?

Probably didn’t get closed until someone realized that Monday morning QB’s were going in and voting 2 seasons later.    

[MCO'sFan]

8 hours ago, Frobby said:

I guess it depends what you mean by well-educated.    Take a look at the OH poll here:

Only 22.5% strongly opposed it.   I was in the next group, “worried.”   The majority either said “love it” or “like it a lot.”

There was no reason to expect the contract to be the fiasco that it’s been.    There were plenty of reasons to think Davis would be unproductive by the back half of his deal.

Wow, that is pretty shocking. I am surprised. Thanks as always!!