Effect of Tatis deal on Adley

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Point being, Rutschman has no incentive to take a team friendly deal and O's can't write a blank check. Hope I am wrong but I do not see it happening and Tatis makes it even more unlikely. 

He obviously has incentive to do it...it’s guaranteed money and long term security. It’s the same as anyone who signs these deals.

Now, the question for him is simply, do you care about that security?  

[Aristotelian]

30 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He obviously has incentive to do it...it’s guaranteed money and long term security. It’s the same as anyone who signs these deals.

Now, the question for him is simply, do you care about that security?  

He does not have incentive to do the same type of team friendly deal the O's are capable of offering. 

[DrungoHazewood]

I actually agree with wildcard here.  The Orioles have Rutschman under team control until about age 30, depending on exactly when he's called up.  Catchers after the age of 30 are quite a bit more likely to decline than players at other positions.  Moving a catcher somewhere else later in his career to save him from the rigors of catching is often discussed, sometimes tried, but rarely works.  I'd be wary of a huge deal for Rutschman lasting into his 30s for a player who hasn't had an at bat above low A ball.  I'd have to have scouting reports that are glowing like a nuclear reactor.

[LookinUp]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

The Orioles have never been a team that hands out pre arbitration long term deals.

I have a bunch of thoughts on this thread, so I'll make each briefly.

1. The O's history of doing this is moot at this point, IMO. They're clearly doing many things differently already as evidenced by the Cobb trade (where we ate significant money) and the International market. I think this type of thinking is definitely in the cards.

2. SG and Wildcard both make really good pro/con arguments here. Definitely a worthy discussion.

3. The fact he's a catcher is very important. Similarly, we could theoretically have the same discussion about Grayson Rodriguez at some point here. My guess is Elias won't get too far out in front of guys at positions with high attrition (but that is just a guess). Age is also clearly an important factor in all of this.

4. Some other guys I would think are worthy of this discussion now or in the future are Mountcastle, maybe Gunnar Henderson or some other position guys. 

5. I included Mountcastle in #4 on purpose because I don't think you need to be elite to be locked up. This isn't just a #2 overall prospect type of discussion, IMO. It's a roster/budget management strategy that I also think the O's should employ.

[Just Regular]

Houston had one of the early lock-ups gone bad with a Mountcastle-type player in Jon Singleton.  He's earned about $10M with no career to speak of.

[LookinUp]

18 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

Houston had one of the early lock-ups gone bad with a Mountcastle-type player in Jon Singleton.  He's earned about $10M with no career to speak of.

So do you trash the strategy altogether? I'd say no. I think it's a player by player consideration. I want to see some more of Mountcastle, but I think the bat has the ability to play for a long time. 

Still, I'm not saying definitely lock him up. I'm saying the conversation should be had by smart people re: if and/or when.

[GuidoSarducci]

No.  Once a player has guaranteed contract there is less incentive to oroduce.  They could very well decide this the last big payout they see and just not work hard enough.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I actually agree with wildcard here.  The Orioles have Rutschman under team control until about age 30, depending on exactly when he's called up.  Catchers after the age of 30 are quite a bit more likely to decline than players at other positions.  Moving a catcher somewhere else later in his career to save him from the rigors of catching is often discussed, sometimes tried, but rarely works.  I'd be wary of a huge deal for Rutschman lasting into his 30s for a player who hasn't had an at bat above low A ball.  I'd have to have scouting reports that are glowing like a nuclear reactor.

Btw, this argument goes back to the discussion on if he was worth drafting #1. 
 

Im not denying his talent or upside or anything like that but do you draft a guy #1 whose value/shelf life is likely only 5 or 6 years?  
 

This is kind of rhetorical because of course you do if they can give you elite performance for those years but I’m weighing that against the idea of who else you could draft.  Witt was the other guy.  Higher risk but perhaps higher reward and a longer “shelf life”.  
 

Just an interesting thought process there, at least to me.

[ThomasTomasz]

6 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Unbelievable.  Bobby Bonilla gets another payday the year AFTER Tatis's deal expires.

If I was Steve Cohen, I would specifically have that money as a line item on the contract deducted from the final sale cost when buying from the Wilpons.  Let them pay the entirety of that mistake.

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

That’s interesting.  Good info there.  Not sure how he was that grossly underpaid in those arb seasons.

Correa’s first 2.5 pre-Arb seasons were great but he missed a lot of time in his final pre-Arb season and his Arb 1 season, and then last year was shortened so he didn’t get as big a bump as he otherwise might have.    Still, I think his agent sold him out a bit cheaply.   

[DrungoHazewood]

17 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Btw, this argument goes back to the discussion on if he was worth drafting #1. 
 

Im not denying his talent or upside or anything like that but do you draft a guy #1 whose value/shelf life is likely only 5 or 6 years?  
 

This is kind of rhetorical because of course you do if they can give you elite performance for those years but I’m weighing that against the idea of who else you could draft.  Witt was the other guy.  Higher risk but perhaps higher reward and a longer “shelf life”.  
 

Just an interesting thought process there, at least to me.

I think we all have to get used to the idea that most Orioles are going to be here six years or less.  You draft solely on projected value in the six years they're under team control.  You probably should be doing something like that anyway, but I could see teams considering tail end value more if they have hundreds of $millions lying about.

As I say this, they're probably constructing a new CBA that makes everything I just said OBE.

[wildcard]

This is where the Tampa Model comes in.   Yes, I think drafting him #1 was smart.  Catching is the highest rated position.   Play him there in his good years and trade him for prospects a year before he is a FA.    Hopefully he is in demand and a couple of teams that want to sign him in FA bid for him.   The O's get some good prospects in the deal.

Tampa does it.   And it appears to working for them.

Miami traded Realmuto  after 4 years for Top  20 Prospect  Sixto Sanchez and a couple of other players.

[Hallas]

41 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think we all have to get used to the idea that most Orioles are going to be here six years or less.  You draft solely on projected value in the six years they're under team control.  You probably should be doing something like that anyway, but I could see teams considering tail end value more if they have hundreds of $millions lying about.

As I say this, they're probably constructing a new CBA that makes everything I just said OBE.

• Or less?  Damn that's harsh.
• What does the Order of the British Empire have anything to do with baseball's CBA?

[Sports Guy]

47 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think we all have to get used to the idea that most Orioles are going to be here six years or less.  You draft solely on projected value in the six years they're under team control.  You probably should be doing something like that anyway, but I could see teams considering tail end value more if they have hundreds of $millions lying about.

As I say this, they're probably constructing a new CBA that makes everything I just said OBE.

I think every teams’ players are with them for 6 years or less 

[Hallas]

59 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Btw, this argument goes back to the discussion on if he was worth drafting #1. 
 

Im not denying his talent or upside or anything like that but do you draft a guy #1 whose value/shelf life is likely only 5 or 6 years?  
 

This is kind of rhetorical because of course you do if they can give you elite performance for those years but I’m weighing that against the idea of who else you could draft.  Witt was the other guy.  Higher risk but perhaps higher reward and a longer “shelf life”.  
 

Just an interesting thought process there, at least to me.

I believe that the WAR position adjustments undersell the real-world difficulty in replacing production from positions like C.  Position scarcity means that it's harder to actually replace that production in the real world.  If you have the option between a catcher like AR and a bargain basement left fielder, or a bargain basement catcher and a more highly-regarded left fielder, I don't think it's terribly easy for the latter combination to be an improvement.