Schmuck on Tex

[Lucky Jim]

Tex will sign for money...plain and simple.

That will be the #1 reason he signs anywhere.

You can mark it down right now...Tex will sign with the team that offers the best contract.

So, you're saying that if the Orioles offer him a million dollars a year more than the Yanks or Sox or Angels, he'll sign with the O's? You assign no value to playing on a winning team?

That seems to be wishful thinking.

If I'm offered $10,000 a year more to leave my firm for another that's an upstart, without a solid client base, am I crazy for turning it down? Now, there's likely a number that would entice me away. But at what point will that firm be overpaying for my services just to compensate for their status?

Players like stability. They like known quantities. There's a value there that you're ignoring.

I mean, how can you assume, on the one hand, a psychological value in returning home, and ignore on the other, the psychological value of a winning team?

[TonySoprano]

Ugh. Yes. Exactly. We are a long-shot to win w/ or w/o Tex. Which is the primary reason we will not be able to sign Tex. The salient point of the article isn't that we're a long-shot to win with Tex, it's why and how the fact that we remain a long-shot to win with Tex actually affects our ability to sign Tex.

I agree with Pete's premise. However, there are diehards here who will tell you, "just show Tex, a Boras client, the most money and he'll sign here." "Tex WANTS to be here."

[Lucky Jim]

I agree with Pete's premise. However, there are diehards here who will tell you, "just show Tex, a Boras client, the most money and he'll sign here." "Tex WANTS to be here."

Yep. SG just said it. And I don't understand - as I noted earlier - how anyone can assume that something not explicitly tangible like "home" can be a factor, but something not explicitly tangible like "playing for a winner" won't be.

It's wishful thinking.

[BedardisAce]

Because realistically it might take 6-7 years to develop a fram system and a cohesive organization that has the ability to win. Passing out a free 20+ mil to to hometown pretty boy doesn't help the team get better, it wastes the teams resources. We shouldn't be talking about aquiring FA's this year or the next, we should all be talking about how to make the fram system better. We have no depth - yea i'm sure someone in response tho this is going to list off 10 names as AA and AAA - wup-dee-doo - same thing will happen again next year that happened this year and last. We will play well for half the year, but when pitchers begin to wear (AND THEY WILL) we will call up some P.O.S. AAAA pitchers and then we will go into a drastic tailspin and achieve our 12th loosing season in a row. TEX does nothing to this team. This team needs to focus on young inexpensive pitching options. PITCHING, PITCHING, PITCHING. Pitching and defense win baseball plain and simple...but yes everyone is correect...Tex would sell more tickets....in April, May...and june if we are lukcy.

C'mon, you don't honestly believe all this stuff, do you?

Tex does NOTHING to help this team? GG defense, 35+ HR power and an OPS over .900?

And what is this obsession wtih inespensive pitching, pitching, pitching? You wanna bring in guys like Jennings, Clement, etc. who are either going to be injured or get hit around like the Hellings and Trax(es) of the world? How is that making the team better for the future?

Again, something people seem to not be understanding (except for SG, JTrea and a few others) is that Tex is NOT being signed to make us a winner in 2009. He would be signed so he could occupy first base for the next 6-7 years when we are contending. Such an obvious point that I feel is not beign grasped by some. Just my opinion.

[Lucky Jim]

C'mon, you don't honestly believe all this stuff, do you?

Tex does NOTHING to help this team? GG defense, 35+ HR power and an OPS over .900?

And what is this obsession wtih inespensive pitching, pitching, pitching? You wanna bring in guys like Jennings, Clement, etc. who are either going to be injured or get hit around like the Hellings and Trax(es) of the world? How is that making the team better for the future?

Again, something people seem to not be understanding (except for SG, JTrea and a few others) is that Tex is NOT being signed to make us a winner in 2009. He would be signed so he could occupy first base for the next 6-7 years when we are contending. Such an obvious point that I feel is not beign grasped by some. Just my opinion.

You do realize this isn't a unilateral decision, right? That we don't get to "decide" whether Tex comes here or not. That it's not a FA "draft"?

[Sports Guy]

So, you're saying that if the Orioles offer him a million dollars a year more than the Yanks or Sox or Angels, he'll sign with the O's? You assign no value to playing on a winning team?

That seems to be wishful thinking.

If I'm offered $10,000 a year more to leave my firm for another that's an upstart, without a solid client base, am I crazy for turning it down? Players like stability. They like known quantities. There's a value there that you're ignoring.

I mean, how can you assume, on the one hand, a psychological value in returning home, and ignore on the other, the psychological value of a winning team?

Can you name me a major Boras client that turned down a lesser contract to play elsewhere?

If contracts are equal, maybe he goes to the contender. I am not sure.

Here is what we do know, for sure:

1) Tex wants to play here and always has.

2) We need to be willing to put the biggest contract on the table.

Those 2 things are totally undisputable.

The contender stuff will come into play if the contracts are either equal or say, within a few million in overall dollars.

But, if his best offer is 6/110 and we come in with a 7/126 deal, there is no doubt he will sign in Baltimore.

[TonySoprano]

Yep. SG just said it. And I don't understand - as I noted earlier - how anyone can assume that something not explicitly tangible like "home" can be a factor, but something not explicitly tangible like "playing for a winner" won't be.

It's wishful thinking.

One month ago, I raised the topic that Tex wanted to play for a contender, and some dismissed his comments as disingenuous cliches.

[Fan4Life]

His most valid point, I think, is not about that Tex doesn't make us a contender next year and thus we shouldn't sign him - in fact he never says one way or the other, and I doubt he thinks this teams winnability next year is a basis for the Orioles' decision-making. Rather, it's based on the Kendrick comment that Tex won't sign for a team that won't contend from the start. This leaves two options:

1. Sign with a team that is a yearly contender (i.e., Yanks, Sox, Angels).

2. Sign with a team for whom the addition of Tex makes them a contender (insert whatever hypothetical team here.)

The Orioles are neither, according to Schmuck, and thus at a serious disadvantage to signing Tex. He doesn't make this point cleanly or clearly, to be sure. But that's the point I got out of the article, and it's a legitimate one.

I agree with this sentiment 100%. If we aren't "trying" to compete in 2009, Tex isn't signing here.

[24fps]

But so what? This is totally meaningless. Tex isn't signed to make us better in 2009...Yes he does that more than anyone else could but he is signed to be one of the cornerstone pieces in 2010 and beyond, when we hope to start to compete.

That is the reason...Anyone even discussing 2009 in relation to Tex and his contributions to the team is totally missing the point of why you sign him.

Most of us, myself included, are happy to grant you the point that Teixiera's impact will be most felt in the years after 2009. What is meaningful is that quite a few people are thinking about how to be better in 2009 also. Those people would be the entire FO and a considerable portion of the remaining fan base among others.

Allocation of resources is usually the most meaningful debate during any off season, and IMO this year is no different. I doubt that anyone in Orioles management is forgetting 2010 and beyond but they don't have the luxury of sacrificing the 2009 season altogether.

Two camps have already formed based on the assumption that the Orioles' budget has some limit. Both sides have a point, and each is far from meaningless.

[Fan4Life]

One month ago, I raised the topic that Tex wanted to play for a contender, and some dismissed his comments as disingenuous cliches.

There are some that will poo poo any evidence that Tex signing here is a long shot.

[Sports Guy]

Most of us, myself included, are happy to grant you the point that Teixiera's impact will be most felt in the years after 2009. What is meaningful is that quite a few people are thinking about how to be better in 2009 also. Those people would be the entire FO and a considerable portion of the remaining fan base among others.

Allocation of resources is usually the most meaningful debate during any off season, and IMO this year is no different. I doubt that anyone in Orioles management is forgetting 2010 and beyond but they don't have the luxury of sacrificing the 2009 season altogether.

Two camps have already formed based on the assumption that the Orioles' budget has some limit. Both sides have a point, and each is far from meaningless.

If you are worried about 2009, Tex improves us more than any player we can bring in here. No doubt about that.

[Mike B]

I agree we need to take a risk, and a Burnett type pitcher would be worth the risk. Look at the royals signing Gil Meche...it look rediculous at the time, but they are the favored team in '09 to do what the rays did today. If we get a Burnett to stabilize the rotation a bit, I think it helps the team long team significantly by letting the young pitchers have some success on the fram and in the short term by eating more innings and saving the bullpen. I think everyone should step back and look at all the teams in the playoffs - the teams with the best pitching made it the furthest....the Tex lead Angels with sub-par pitching (compared to other teams in playoffs) now how did they do? On top of that - the angels are better than us at almost every position - have better pitching - and play in the AL west. We have a ways to go and Tex fits no where in our little puzzle.

We agree, the Royals are interesting. Your point about Meche is a good one. He has been solid except for the first 8 weeks of this year. They spent on pitching first because pitching is a must have. A player like Tex is a very nice to have but not a mandate to winning.

[Mike B]

If you are worried about 2009, Tex improves us more than any player we can bring in here. No doubt about that.

Thers is plenty to doubt about it. Tex without pitching accomplishes very little.

[Lucky Jim]

One month ago, I raised the topic that Tex wanted to play for a contender, and some dismissed his comments as disingenuous cliches.

As for that thread, I think Mackus is right - to a point. He's just underestimating how much money it will take to compensate for not being a winner immediately.

He seems to think it will be a "tie-breaking" thing - i.e., Tex will listen to offers and if two are close, he'll choose the contender. I think the valuation will include "contending" from the get go - it'll be in the very DNA of whatever deal Tex is looking at.

Not radically different. Mine is more pessimistic.

[Sports Guy]

There are some that will poo poo any evidence that Tex signing here is a long shot.

There is only one piece of evidence that is going to matter...MONEY!