MLB Lockout Thread

[Sports Guy]

26 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Not talking about 2025.  2021 was the base year in my analogy, not 2022.

So you are still basically punting 2 more seasons.  I’m astonished that anyone would be ok with that.  

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

So you are still basically punting 2 more seasons.  I’m astonished that anyone would be ok with that.  

No I’m not.  I’m expecting them to get better each year, starting with this one.   Maybe I’m confused, didn’t you say your goal was to have them be a top team in 2024?   I’m saying that based on the Tigers, that is possible despite the very low win total in 2021.   

[Moose Milligan]

19 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

If you think it will take them 3 years, that tells me you no very little faith in the prospects they have and it also tells me that you believe whatever Elias sold to ownership will end up meaning nothing and they will go back on their word to him.

I've got faith in the prospects, I just don't see a lot in the way of pitching that's going to get us there outside of G-Rod and maybe the oft-injured Hall.  

Ultimately being an Orioles fan is a lesson in futility.  It's nice to have some hopes but I've been down this road before.

Cheers.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Do you think this team can improve by almost 30 games?

This year?   No, especially if they don’t make any significant upgrade when the lockout ends.  I’m hoping for 63-70 wins.  

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

This year?   No, especially if they don’t make any significant upgrade when the lockout ends.  I’m hoping for 63-70 wins.  

The Tigers were willing to add payroll to an extent that I don't think the Orioles will.

[Sports Guy]

19 minutes ago, Frobby said:

This year?   No, especially if they don’t make any significant upgrade when the lockout ends.  I’m hoping for 63-70 wins.  

So, you are ok with punting another season…and what do you expect in 2023?  500ish?

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

So, you are ok with punting another season…and what do you expect in 2023?  500ish?

Depends what they do in the offseason, and exactly what progress we see this year.  

To be clear, I’m not excited by our offseason so far, and I hope Elias will do more when the lockout ends.   I don’t expect to see any real significant long term moves though.   Maybe he’ll surprise me.   He’s certainly had plenty of time to think about what he wants to accomplish this winter.    

 

[MGH5208]

8 hours ago, forphase1 said:

I'm not sure I agree that it makes teams not really tank.  Do you really think if our roster had a few over the hill stars who were being way overpaid for the meager production they could muster that we'd really be better?  That didn't work out so well back in the Sosa/Jay Payton days and it won't necessarily keep teams from tanking now...it'll just make them spend foolish money to reach some arbitrary floor.  Which of course makes the union and the players happy, but certainly doesn't stop tanking, and could arguably HURT rebuilding teams as roster spots and at bats will be taken away from younger players who you could be building upon.  

Agree, but to take it to the truly absurd: What's keeping the O's from giving Jordan Lyles $45 M instead of 7M to hit the floor?  Assume the 6 (or how ever many teams are "tanking") do the same thing.  they're still tanking and MLBPA has now gotten 6 players to win the lottery, which probably isn't their intended outcome.   But, we're ok with this tanking because we hit the floor?

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, MGH5208 said:

Agree, but to take it to the truly absurd: What's keeping the O's from giving Jordan Lyles $45 M instead of 7M to hit the floor?  Assume the 6 (or how ever many teams are "tanking") do the same thing.  they're still tanking and MLBPA has now gotten 6 players to win the lottery, which probably isn't their intended outcome.   But, we're ok with this tanking because we hit the floor?

The fact that Lyles won't play along and give 35M or it back?

[MGH5208]

38 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The fact that Lyles won't play along and give 35M or it back?

why is he giving any of it back or not playing along - this is what his union fought to get for him.    and I'm fine with being ostracized by the union for the extra 35M - the pina coladas on my private island will ease the pain

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, MGH5208 said:

why is he giving any of it back or not playing along - this is what his union fought to get for him.    and I'm fine with being ostracized by the union for the extra 35M - the pina coladas on my private island will ease the pain

Because there is zero chance the O's would throw money at him instead of spending it in another fashion, even if they were still trying to lose.

They'd give it to Mancini first.

[MGH5208]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because there is zero chance the O's would throw money at him instead of spending it in another fashion, even if they were still trying to lose.

They'd give it to Mancini first.

ok, so give mancini a 3 year $150M deal.  we meet the floor for the next 3 years but are the same team that lost 110 games....(obligatory: "except for the progress all our prospects make")

[forphase1]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because there is zero chance the O's would throw money at him instead of spending it in another fashion, even if they were still trying to lose.

They'd give it to Mancini first.

Not sure I agree.   I wouldn't be shocked to see some stupid deals,  like Lyles getting ridiculous money, to hit a floor.  If you are the O's and trying to get young guys roster spots and playing time,  do you sign 3 players for $10M each to 1 year deals or 1 guy for $30M?  Sure, some could get spent for your younger players,  but often that will take longer term deals, not just 1 year deals.  It's a bad idea imo.

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, MGH5208 said:

ok, so give mancini a 3 year $150M deal.  we meet the floor for the next 3 years but are the same team that lost 110 games....(obligatory: "except for the progress all our prospects make")

I've been over this before.  This is really pretty simple.

All you have to do is sign some guys, like Mancini, to some back loaded long term deals.  Salary cap projections are done by AAV.  Then you trade the players once they start to get more expensive if you don't want to pay them.  Might you have to eat some of the money?  Sure.  But you will have had your "tank" team that fits within the spending restrictions but doesn't actually cost you much money while you are tanking.

 

There is no reason to think a salary floor is going to suddenly cause teams to give insane contracts to terrible players just so they can still lose 100 games.

[forphase1]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I've been over this before.  This is really pretty simple.

All you have to do is sign some guys, like Mancini, to some back loaded long term deals.  Salary cap projections are done by AAV.  Then you trade the players once they start to get more expensive if you don't want to pay them.  Might you have to eat some of the money?  Sure.  But you will have had your "tank" team that fits within the spending restrictions but doesn't actually cost you much money while you are tanking.

 

There is no reason to think a salary floor is going to suddenly cause teams to give insane contracts to terrible players just so they can still lose 100 games.

This is great information.  Since you've clearly seen the end CBA and know how everything will be calculated and determined, when is the season going to start?  Oh you can't?  Maybe because things haven't yet been decided and making assumptions about how things will be calculated going forward,  like AAV and how it applies to any floor is just that,  an assumption.  Maybe AAV will be used.   Maybe actual expenditures and budget for the actual year will be used.   We just don't know at this point.