Your 2022 FA Wish List

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Went from 71 to 78 wins.  Attendance jump by 280K.  Of course by 2006 it was lower than it was in 2003.

Raffygate.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Raffygate.

I'm sure it played a part.

But mostly I think it was the continuation of non-competitiveness.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm sure it played a part.

But mostly I think it was the continuation of non-competitiveness.

Their attendance had been dropping most years by 200k or so for most of the preceding 7-8 years, but after that year it dropped by 500k.   I think it was partly Raffygate per se, and partly having the rug pulled out the last two months after being competitive the first four.   It was a real downer of a year all the way around by the time it ended.   

[Ruzious]

49 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

As a precursor to competitiveness, I like the idea of ~2 mid-range 2-3 year deals. Something like a solid #3 starter and a veteran SS (Brandon Crawford would have fit the bill if he wasn't doing so well this year). Issue with any position players is that we have some talent coming up through the minors that you don't want to potentially block. OF is somewhere this isn't as much of an issue, but we have a lot of young OF who need to get trials. Always have a place for pitchers.

 

Scherzer will be 37 next year. Could he be had for 3 years / $75M?

While it'd be great to compete sooner rather than later, I don't think signing a 37 year old - even as great as Scherzer - is the way to go.    

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

10 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Why does Correa make sense?  I mean, I get the Elias connection but there has to be more to it  than that.

I'm doubtful about Correa too - but if there is any FA that the O's make a splash for, it'll be him. 

I guess it depends on how close you think the O's are. If you're optimistic - you're probably looking at 2023 as a year where Adley, Mountcastle, Mullins, Hays, Mancini, and Correa are a pretty solid lineup behind GrayRod, DL Hall, Means. They have $0 committed to payroll in 2023. They have money.

[Roll Tide]

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Honest question.  Do you think, from stickily a profitably standpoint, that is a gamble that is likely to pay off?  Wouldn't it make more sense to wait?

If the money saved over the last 2-3 years will be spent later waiting is a perfectly acceptable answer. The problem is that I don’t believe there is any evidence or intention to do so. In the past we’ve seen that half measures don’t work. So adding a couple of free agents that were expensive probably doesn’t make sense. The thing about Correa is, when is Mike expecting to turn the corner? If you invest in a 7 year deal as mentioned you’d want us to be competitive year 3. Do you think you have a SS that can be ready and performing.

As much as I’d like to see them spend some money, I just don’t think they will do what’s need to get Correa. Personally, if I were making the decisions I couldn’t do it.

 

 

 

[Ruzious]

10 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

If the money saved over the last 2-3 years will be spent later waiting is a perfectly acceptable answer. The problem is that I don’t believe there is any evidence or intention to do so. In the past we’ve seen that half measures don’t work. So adding a couple of free agents that were expensive probably doesn’t make sense. The thing about Correa is, when is Mike expecting to turn the corner? If you invest in a 7 year deal as mentioned you’d want us to be competitive year 3. Do you think you have a SS that can be ready and performing.

As much as I’d like to see them spend some money, I just don’t think they will do what’s need to get Correa. Personally, if I were making the decisions I couldn’t do it.

 

 

 

Right, there's no reason to assume money saved by low payroll in one year is then routed to the next year or any future year - especially considering that in the years they don't spend - they are most likely getting declining revenues.  

[Roll Tide]

46 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Right, there's no reason to assume money saved by low payroll in one year is then routed to the next year or any future year - especially considering that in the years they don't spend - they are most likely getting declining revenues.  

That’s true and some excitement around the team could boost revenues. But, the local and National tv monies are still coming in no matter what. I’m quite certain that our payroll has been far below the tv money even with the Davis’ blunder. And 90+ percent of their operating cost is player payroll.

[Aristotelian]

51 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Right, there's no reason to assume money saved by low payroll in one year is then routed to the next year or any future year - especially considering that in the years they don't spend - they are most likely getting declining revenues.  

Money is fungible. It may not be "routed" on a dollar for dollar basis but if money isn't spent the team is left in a better financial position. Certainly you could bankrupt or severely hamstring the team by spending too much when we are not competing. 

[Roll Tide]

30 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Money is fungible. It may not be "routed" on a dollar for dollar basis but if money isn't spent the team is left in a better financial position. Certainly you could bankrupt or severely hamstring the team by spending too much when we are not competing. 

Davis’ contract is falling off the books after 2022. The amount owed including his salary & deferred money is $33 million. That number drops to 9 million in 2023. It’s my understanding that the deferred money is Put away each year earned until it’s paid (feel free to correct if I’m mistaken)

Its my contention that the Orioles could easily afford $120 million annually and I consider that figure a low ball.

The Orioles are around 63 million right now including deferrals for 2021.

Obviously the majority of our players are dirt cheap and there is no reason to expect a spike without spending in free agency.

 

If they gave 2 guys 10 per for 2 seasons it wouldn’t hinder anything now or later IMO

[7Mo]

16 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

If they gave 2 guys 10 per for 2 seasons it wouldn’t hinder anything now or later IMO

Do you believe they will this offseason?

[Roll Tide]

9 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

Do you believe they will this offseason?

No ..but I’m not a fan of this ownership group. As usual they are shopping in the bargain bin.

Although they may splurge on aMancini extension 

[Ruzious]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

Money is fungible. It may not be "routed" on a dollar for dollar basis but if money isn't spent the team is left in a better financial position. Certainly you could bankrupt or severely hamstring the team by spending too much when we are not competing. 

So do you think it's a good plan to extend the period of non-competing in order to have a justifiable reason to keep costs down.  

And spending money to try to win is generally a needlessly risky idea?  

 

[Frobby]

37 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Davis’ contract is falling off the books after 2022. The amount owed including his salary & deferred money is $33 million. That number drops to 9 million in 2023. It’s my understanding that the deferred money is Put away each year earned until it’s paid (feel free to correct if I’m mistaken)

Close.   The money has to be put into an escrow account 18 months after the year it’s earned, at a discount that recognizes the money will be invested and grow (I think they assume 5%) until the time when it’s payable.   So, the O’s will still be paying funds into escrow until 2024, 18 months after the 2022 season ends.  Then, if the money grows to in excess of what’s due by the time it’s payable, the team gets to keep the excess, but if the escrowed money isn’t enough to fund what’s due, the team remains on the hook for the additional amount.   That’s my understanding.   

[Aristotelian]

8 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

So do you think it's a good plan to extend the period of non-competing in order to have a justifiable reason to keep costs down.  

And spending money to try to win is generally a needlessly risky idea?  

 

I don't think it's black and white. I said above I'd be in favor of signing Semien. However, I understand the logic of waiting until we are more competitive. Than again, I have already been called an apologist once today