Jump to content

Tim Dierkes (MLBTR) thinks Orioles payroll probably $130-160 million by '24.


waynebug

Recommended Posts

I honestly bet we give Adley an early deal if he shows to be the real thing. That might be part of that, and I bet ownership would go for giving a young guy money in his prime as to overpaying after free agency. We shall see but the next couple years are going to be much more fun!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MijiT88 said:

I honestly bet we give Adley an early deal if he shows to be the real thing. That might be part of that, and I bet ownership would go for giving a young guy money in his prime as to overpaying after free agency. We shall see but the next couple years are going to be much more fun!

That doesn’t mean their ‘24 payroll is gonna be impacted. The only potentially expensive arb players would be Mullins and Means and they would be 30ish total. Just to get to 130, would require some major FA acquisitions making 60-70 per year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, waroriole said:

That doesn’t mean their ‘24 payroll is gonna be impacted. The only potentially expensive arb players would be Mullins and Means and they would be 30ish total. Just to get to 130, would require some major FA acquisitions making 60-70 per year. 

That is why I said an early Adley deal might be part of it. You put arb years on means and mullins plus a big adley extension plus some FA moves and you get there pretty quickly. I see us adding 2 decent FA players after 22 and after 23 and that might get us to be able to compete well then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MijiT88 said:

I honestly bet we give Adley an early deal if he shows to be the real thing. That might be part of that, and I bet ownership would go for giving a young guy money in his prime as to overpaying after free agency. We shall see but the next couple years are going to be much more fun!

In 2024, deal or no deal, Adley’s salary will be next to nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

you got it, all he knows, and not good at finding many gems there either

spoiler: next year the rebuild will get pushed to the right 1 year…

 

What do we consider the end of the rebuild?   I’d say in 2023 I expect the team to be close to .500, perhaps over.   I expect them to be 10+ wins better than the year before both in 2022 and 2023.   So let’s say they win 63 in 2022, 75 in 2023 (so, short of my goal, though significantly improved.)  Is the rebuild over?   When did it end?   Does Elias keep his job in that scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...