Rosenthal: No token bids for Tex or Burnett

[nadecir]

Even if you projected that prior to Opening Day, that Markakis was signed to a 6yr $75M extension, and that Roberts was signed to a 3yr $39M extension… the payroll flexibility of our upcoming rosters is still apparent.

So yes, I would advocate a 2009 Total Player Expenditure of $144M

$144 million would have been the second highest payroll in MLB in 2008.

Do you really think the Orioles could even consider a payroll that approaches $144 million? Here's a chart that shows how attendance and Orioles payroll has correlated over the past 14 seasons with their respective rankings in major league baseball:

1995, 2nd in attendance, 2nd in payroll

1996, 2nd in attendance, 2nd in payroll

1997, 2nd in attendance, 2nd in payroll

1998, 2nd in attendance, 1st in payroll

1999, 3rd in attendance, 5th in payroll

2000, 4th in attendance, 12th in payroll

2001, 6th in attendance, 12th in payroll

2002, 10th in attendance, 16th in payroll

2003, 11th in attendance, 15th in payroll

2004, 12th in attendance, 20th in payroll

2005, 14th in attendance, 14th in payroll

2006, 20th in attendance, 15th in payroll

2007, 23rd in attendance, 10th in payroll

2008, 24nd in attendance, 22nd in payroll

2007 stands out as an anomoly to me.

In the offseason of 1998, the Orioles made Albert Belle the highest paid player in baseball when they signed him as a free agent. The Orioles signed free agents Miguel Tejada, Javy Lopez, and Rafael Palmeiro in the offseason after the 2003 season. It's pretty clear from this chart that they could afford those big free agent signings back then.

What this chart shows is that when the Orioles had one of the highest ranking teams in attendance, they had one of the highest payrolls. When attendance started to fall, team payroll fell along with it. With Orioles' attendance being down again in 2008, and concerns about the American economy prevalent in baseball, I could see the Orioles possibly with a payroll of about $80 million in 2009. But, honestly, even $80 million would be quite a stretch. That's probably enough for one big free agent if the Orioles get creative.

Those who think Angelos is going to dip into his personal wealth and fund the Orioles operations are reaching for a prayer. Those who think Angelos is willing and able to use his personal wealth to pay players don't really understand the complexities of financing a team in major league baseball today. Angelos has shown no signs of doing it in his history, even with the bravado every year from the front office about being aggressive with free agents. No other owner in baseball has funded his team to the scale that people expect Angelos to do now.

I would not be surprised to see another Orioles team payroll of $65-$70 million next season. An Orioles payroll of $65-$70 million next season would be right in line with what other teams with similar attendance and revenues are spending. Fans who think the Orioles can afford a payroll of over $100 million are ignoring a lot of facts that suggest otherwise, including a possible sizable downturn in Orioles revenue next season due to the poor U.S. economy.

[Sports Guy]

It would bother me only that it's a contract that has little chance of working out in the Orioles favor but as long as it's not paired up with other bad contracts I think we could recover.

Yea, I tend to agree with this.

I mean, if we can contend for several years with him being a main piece and even win a WS, then the contract works out, even if he is drastically overpaid in the final season or 2.

I really don't want to go 8 years but as long as we aren't paying 22-25 million per year, I can live with it.

[DrungoHazewood]

Money will not be a problem for PGA. He wants to have a winner NOW! Still not sure about Burnett because of his health concerns. I think Lowe/Byrd are more likely than Burnett. The VAULT will be wide open for Tex.

He wants to win now, but it's more likely that the team spends money on 2nd-tier starters than guys from the top shelf?

I'm sure Angelos has always wanted to win now. The obvious problem is that roughly 15 years in it seems he still has no clue how to build a winner.

[DrungoHazewood]

$144 million would have been the second highest payroll in MLB in 2008.

...

Fans who think the Orioles can afford a payroll of over $100 million are ignoring a lot of facts that suggest otherwise, including a possible sizable downturn in Orioles revenue next season due to the poor U.S. economy.

While you have a point, I think you've gotten your chicken and egg backwards. The O's payrolls fell, and with them the quality of the team, which drove down the attendance. It's not that the O's saw declining attendance and decided to cut payroll. The quality of the team drives the attendance and revenues. And to a not-inconsequential degree payroll is correlated to team quality.

It's quite unlikely that the O's can make the playoffs in the AL East with the 4th-highest payroll in the division. The Rays did it with the 5th-highest, but that just proves it's possible, not likely. So if the O's want a realistic chance at winning they almost have to raise payroll first. A $65M payroll with the players the O's have on contract means almost absolute certainty that they won't compete in 2009. With the contracts that expire after 2009 who knows what will happen then.

[geschinger]

No, it would have been the 4th highest salary in baseball… with 5 other teams above $132M.. And 5 more teams above $100M.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/teamSalary?categoryId=71587

Your chart on attendance is the exact reason why they should spend… spending on marquee talent is what will bring people back to the seats, and build the MASN network.

Winning will bring people back. Expensive FA are not a prerequisite.

Marquee talent added to a team that still isn't a winner will still draw poorly.

[Sports Guy]

Get Burnett if you can get him for 4 years and trade for Vazquez.

Sign Tex.

Trade for a young SS using Scott, Huff or Sherrill.

[ChaosLex]

Money will not be a problem for PGA. He wants to have a winner NOW! Still not sure about Burnett because of his health concerns. I think Lowe/Byrd are more likely than Burnett. The VAULT will be wide open for Tex.

The Tex news is music to my ears.

Anyone think we could sign Lowe to a deal similar to the one the Royals gave to Meche a couple years ago? Seems to have worked out pretty well for them although the price was steep.

[Peace21]

Isn't Rosenthals article pretty much stating the obvious? We know the O's will have to overpay to land either Tex or AJ. But please Ken why is it every time you write a piece about the Orioles, you always revert back to how Angelos is going to be some gigantic hurdle or barrier? Im fed up with it. We have a really good GM and he has convinced and energized this front office and the owners office to get out there and build a winner. Last offseason is an example of that.

[clapdiddy]

Get Burnett if you can get him for 4 years and trade for Vazquez.

Sign Tex.

Trade for a young SS using Scott, Huff or Sherrill.

Yup...Donald would be great for us to target. I'd even target Greene, provided we don't have to give up a whole lot to get him.

[clapdiddy]

Isn't Rosenthals article pretty much stating the obvious? We know the O's will have to overpay to land either Tex or AJ. But please Ken why is it every time you write a piece about the Orioles, you always revert back to how Angelos is going to be some gigantic hurdle or barrier? Im fed up with it. We have a really good GM and he has convinced and energized this front office and the owners office to get out there and build a winner. Last offseason is an example of that.

That stuff is pretty old. I get tired of hearing about it as well. Angelos has obviously relinquished some control.

[nadecir]

While you have a point, I think you've gotten your chicken and egg backwards. The O's payrolls fell, and with them the quality of the team, which drove down the attendance. It's not that the O's saw declining attendance and decided to cut payroll. The quality of the team drives the attendance and revenues. And to a not-inconsequential degree payroll is correlated to team quality.

It's quite unlikely that the O's can make the playoffs in the AL East with the 4th-highest payroll in the division. The Rays did it with the 5th-highest, but that just proves it's possible, not likely. So if the O's want a realistic chance at winning they almost have to raise payroll first. A $65M payroll with the players the O's have on contract means almost absolute certainty that they won't compete in 2009. With the contracts that expire after 2009 who knows what will happen then.

So in your theory, the Orioles just decided to cut payroll and lower the quality of the team when it really wasn't necessary? My theory is that the Orioles spent unwisely, leading to a poor quality team, which lead to declining attendance and revenues, and then lower team payrolls. Exhibit #1 in my case is 1998, when the Orioles finished fourth in the AL East despite having the highest payroll in baseball. 1999 is a further example of poor spending, when the Orioles had the fifth highest payroll in baseball and again finished fourth in the AL East. Lower payrolls did not cause bad Orioles teams in 1998 or 1999, that's for sure.

Do you really think that a significant decline in attendance won't lead to a declining payroll? With more than 50% of a team's revenue coming directly from attendance, I think there is a pretty tight correlation between attendance, revenue and payroll.

The Orioles are more than a couple of free agents away from competing. The Orioles are not going to compete in 2009 with almost absolute certainty no matter what happens, so spending a bunch for marquee free agents is probably not a great idea.

I'd prefer the Orioles employ the theory suggested by John Beamer at the Hardball Times.

For the 75-win team the best option is to invest in scouting, statistics and player development to try to add 10 wins to get into the 85-win sweet spot.

Once you get to 85 wins, then you can think about free agents. Even then, it's a risky proposition.

Adding free agents rarely makes financial sense even if it allows a team a run at the playoffs. Wheeling and dealing other talent makes more sense.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-can-gms-increase-the-value-of-their-franchise/

[Sports Guy]

Right… we agree… winning will bring people back…

If you sign Tex, Burnett, and Sheets….. You can contend… and you will most certainly sell tickets…… Does not mean you WILL contend… and I certainly have high doubts that Burnett and Sheets can stay healthy… history says they can not… but I want to go into 2009, with contention as an actual possibility… and those signings address that.

There is limited difference making talent available… the O's say they are not going to make token offers… we will see…

My argument is overspend for actual difference making talent, if that is what brings them to Baltimore… instread of signing medicore mid-tier FA's such as Garland, or Byrd that will accomplish little.

If you do not want to do what is necessary to obtain the best, just save your money….. If you are going to go after Tex hard, get him… If you get him, don't cheap-out then… get Burnett… you get Burnett, try and do what is necessary to have a chance to win.. And go after Sheets…

So basically, if you go after a player, give them a blank check?

[Fan4Life]

It is not a blank check… it is identifying need… identifying the limits of what you are comfortable paying, to obtain the talent that has the actual potential to change the franchise…

Talent available without having to give up human capital to obtain…

It is realizing that with the state of the franchise, there is going to have to be a premium paid, to make a player of that ilk willing to sign here.

In this thread, you have the original comments and people with supposed connections saying the O's are willing to spend… great… I don't think anyone is surprised by that… but being willing to spend to match the market is not enough…. The O's have to be willing to aggressively beat the market…

It will prove worthwhile when they sell the tickets in response, and remove the apathy of the fan-base….. Putting your best foot-forward, and being willing to pay a premium to obtain difference making talent, is a far better alternative to making a market-level offer and hoping they are just dying to come to Baltimore… (even if you were to be proven right, and could have gotten the player to sign for less)

The O's supposedly are willing to go to 8yrs $160 for Tex… so $20M per year…

The O's supposedly are willing to make a competitive offer to Burnett…… which means at least a total package of $55-$60M…

The O's will do something at SS, and probably want to add another SP with Burnett… maybe a Garland at 4yrs $45-$50M… if they accomplish all of that, and sign Markakis and Roberts to extensions...they are looking at a $110-$120M payroll anyway…

So if that is accurate, what I am suggesting is not really that far past their own projections… my point, is if that is accurate… go all in… be willing to do what it takes…

Many posters cannot fathom a $125m team. They want to be the Oakland A's of the AL East always bargain basement shopping, dumpster diving, etc. This type of process allows some posters to show how smart they really are in terms of baseball. Because if we're just going out buying talent, anyone can do that. Obviously some better than others, but you get the point.

[Omega]

Right… we agree… winning will bring people back…

If you sign Tex, Burnett, and Sheets….. You can contend… and you will most certainly sell tickets…… Does not mean you WILL contend… and I certainly have high doubts that Burnett and Sheets can stay healthy… history says they can not… but I want to go into 2009, with contention as an actual possibility… and those signings address that.

There is limited difference making talent available… the O's say they are not going to make token offers… we will see…

My argument is overspend for actual difference making talent, if that is what brings them to Baltimore… instread of signing medicore mid-tier FA's such as Garland, or Byrd that will accomplish little.

If you do not want to do what is necessary to obtain the best, just save your money….. If you are going to go after Tex hard, get him… If you get him, don't cheap-out then… get Burnett… you get Burnett, try and do what is necessary to have a chance to win.. And go after Sheets…

I think that Burnett is an easier target to begin with than Tex. If we bring him in, then Tex, it may have enough impact to get a look from a Sheets or Lowe, if not, then Byrd/Garland. If we sign 2 of these guys, then we would have 3 innings eaters at the top of the rotation, including Guthrie. That would go a long way to help us keep fresh arms in the BP, and give our younger arms a chance to mature.

So if AM has a no token policy, our chances of this occuring are at least within the realm of possibility. Lets hope we get it done

[wickedwitch]

$144 million would have been the second highest payroll in MLB in 2008.

Do you really think the Orioles could even consider a payroll that approaches $144 million? Here's a chart that shows how attendance and Orioles payroll has correlated over the past 14 seasons with their respective rankings in major league baseball:

1995, 2nd in attendance, 2nd in payroll

1996, 2nd in attendance, 2nd in payroll

1997, 2nd in attendance, 2nd in payroll

1998, 2nd in attendance, 1st in payroll

1999, 3rd in attendance, 5th in payroll

2000, 4th in attendance, 12th in payroll

2001, 6th in attendance, 12th in payroll

2002, 10th in attendance, 16th in payroll

2003, 11th in attendance, 15th in payroll

2004, 12th in attendance, 20th in payroll

2005, 14th in attendance, 14th in payroll

2006, 20th in attendance, 15th in payroll

2007, 23rd in attendance, 10th in payroll

2008, 24nd in attendance, 22nd in payroll

I don't see much correlation in this decade. The attendance took a big dip in 2006, even though the payroll did not. Similarly, when the payroll has gone down substantially, the attendance has not.