They asked Mancini and Santander to defer money

[eddie83]

20 minutes ago, LTO's said:

I totally agree with this. I'm just saying, despite how angry it makes me and others, the front office has not lied about anything they said since the day ownership was transferred. Peter was wrong to not delve into the international pool but he did spend money on the team when they were competitive. Maybe something bad is brewing but maybe they really are just trying to improve their profit margins as much as they can to recoup the money they lost this past year.  I'm going to choose to remain optimistic and not doom post like everyone else. They are on their way to having quite the farm system with young talent already at the ML level. I'll enjoy that at the moment.

I agree about the system. They are on the way and there is much to look forward to.  
 

I’m not down on the baseball ops, I’m not worried they are going to move. I get the economics are down but it’s not like we have a bloated payroll to begin with. 
 

The overall quality of an organization isn’t just about winning. Obviously that is what matters most but when you pinch pennies like this it’s not a good look. Some fans are not sophisticated enough to separate the baseball ops and business side. It’s just a bad look and it will impact them.  

[BohKnowsBmore]

36 minutes ago, bpilktree said:

This seems odd to do too younger guys that don’t have lot of financial savings built up.  Why wouldn’t you go to someone like Cobb or Davis who I think would possibly give them a deferral. I think if you went to Davis and said we are not sure we will  play the entire season so you might not get your full salary this year.  We will guarantee you the full amount if you let us defer $5 million of that amount you get this year.  That would seem like a pretty decent gamble for Davis as I think we might play like 144 games or so instead of 162, and not like he needs it right now.  Also if you are penny pinching why spend all that money on international signings this year  

Cobb and Davis have multi-year contracts that are already in place. Mancini and Santander are arb-eligible guys who either agree to a NEW one-year deal or file for arbitration. It might not be precedented, but OFFERING a deal that includes deferrals (that the players declined, as is their prerogative) doesn’t sound particularly underhanded. 
 

The clear difference is that there was a natural opportunity to negotiate for these two. I’m not saying I would have done the same, but bleating “why not Davis and Cobb?” Is sort of irrelevant. 
 

FWIW, Jon Lester’s recent deal with Washington is $5M total with $3M deferred. That deal was offered, he accepted. 

[eddie83]

8 minutes ago, bpilktree said:

I am not saying this story not true just seems like a dumb idea for $1.5 million.  There are thousands of ways a major league team could do to make an extra 1.5 million. They could offer advertisement of logos on uniform or the outfield wall just seems like this one of worst ways to try and be cheap. 

They own the stadium naming rights. Could always sell that. 
 

Years ago I had a strong opinion about stuff like that, now not so much. If some company puts their name on it I’ll still call it Camden Yards.  

[eddie83]

Just now, BohKnowsBmore said:

Cobb and Davis have multi-year contracts that are already in place. Mancini and Santander are arb-eligible guys who either agree to a NEW one-year deal or file for arbitration. It might not be precedented, but OFFERING a deal that includes deferrals (that the players declined, as is their prerogative) doesn’t sound particularly underhanded. 

It’s unheard of because teams are financially sound enough not to ask it. We will have a payroll of around $60M and yet they need help?

[jabba72]

6 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I agree about the system. They are on the way and there is much to look forward to.  
 

I’m not down on the baseball ops, I’m not worried they are going to move. I get the economics are down but it’s not like we have a bloated payroll to begin with. 
 

The overall quality of an organization isn’t just about winning. Obviously that is what matters most but when you pinch pennies like this it’s not a good look. Some fans are not sophisticated enough to separate the baseball ops and business side. It’s just a bad look and it will impact them.  

This is going to raise eyebrows around baseball no doubt. I didnt know the O's meager attendance in recent years had this much effect on the bottom line. I mean they were letting kids in for free. 

[jabba72]

When you're doing this this drastic it makes me wonder if moving the franchise is also on the teams thoughts. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

2 hours ago, Ripken said:

This is why Davis is still here.  They have to pay him anyway but if they cut him they have to pay his roster replacement too.  Sell the damn team already.  The farm is improving, the players are cheap, MASN is a mess, and who knows what's up with the stadium lease.  Let's move on already.

Yep they don’t even want to pay the league minimum for a replacement because that’s another $570k taken away from the bottom line.

I’m not really feeling the excitement to watch any games in 2021. To make this request of players under team control is ridiculous. 

 

 

 

[TradeAngelos]

Leans back in chair......kicks feet up on the desk.....and wonders who the next owner will be. They are clearly positioning this team for sale. And I couldn't be any happier. 

[Aristotelian]

2 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

Leans back in chair......kicks feet up on the desk.....and wonders who the next owner will be. They are clearly positioning this team for sale. And I couldn't be any happier. 

I will not be happy if they leave Baltimore.

[Can_of_corn]

How does deferred money even work with a non-guaranteed deal?

[Can_of_corn]

2 hours ago, LTO's said:

They have stated that they are focusing on building a strong talent pipeline while not spending on the big league club. As pathetic as this and the MASN business looks, they are doing exactly what they said. They have put their money where their mouth is when it comes to player development. You have accused them of cutting corners in that regard as well. So no, you don't get to take a victory lap for something that was plainly obvious.

So we have a team that has:

1- Asked guys with non-guaranteed contracts to take deferred money.

2- Let coaches go to save money

3- Killed pre and post game show to save money

4- Killed fan fest

5- Let announcers go to save money

And yet it's a complete coincidence that they just happen to go underslot with their first round pick and they just happened to leave more money unspent than any other team.

Because no way a ML team would care about a couple hundred thousand.

[MurphDogg]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And yet it's a complete coincidence that they just happen to go underslot with their first round pick and they just happened to leave more money unspent than any other team.

Because no way a ML team would care about a couple hundred thousand.

Would you feel better if they had given the extra $200K to Coby Mayo or Carter Baumler? The clear hope was that Bitsko (or someone else) would fall and they would go overslot on the second or third pick. When that didn't happen, they went overslot on their 5th and 6th picks and spent almost all of their money. I truly don't think that the $222K saving was an ownership demand.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Would you feel better if they had given the extra $200K to Coby Mayo or Carter Baumler? The clear hope was that Bitsko (or someone else) would fall and they would go overslot on the second or third pick. When that didn't happen, they went overslot on their 5th and 6th picks and spent almost all of their money. I truly don't think that the $222K saving was an ownership demand.

I'd feel better if they had purchased 200K more talent in the draft. 

I don't get why when we see this extreme cost cutting folks aren't willing to consider the possibility that cuts were made there as well.

You think they are saving more than 222K by letting a coach go?

[MurphDogg]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd feel better if they had purchased 200K more talent in the draft. 

I don't get why when we see this extreme cost cutting folks aren't willing to consider the possibility that cuts were made there as well.

You think they are saving more than 222K by letting a coach go?

I honestly don't think that there was an ownership fiat to not spend the full draft allocation. I think they got the guys that were available that they liked when they were drafting, and at the end it turned out that they didn't need to spend the entire amount. I believe this because they haven't previously gone cheap on the draft in recent years and they spent nearly their full J15 allotment (and may well spend the remaining $100K or so with stragglers over the coming weeks). If there was an ownership decree, I think it would have been for well over $222K.

[Moose Milligan]

9 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

I honestly don't think that there was an ownership fiat to not spend the full draft allocation. I think they got the guys that were available that they liked when they were drafting, and at the end it turned out that they didn't need to spend the entire amount. I believe this because they haven't previously gone cheap on the draft in recent years and they spent nearly their full J15 allotment (and may well spend the remaining $100K or so with stragglers over the coming weeks). If there was an ownership decree, I think it would have been for well over $222K.

Dude, leave it be.  We'll never contend because of $222k that wasn't spent.