Which of the remaining Free Agents are the best fit for the O's?

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

You don't bash them for not signing Correa.  You're far more subtle.  LOL.

You bash them for not "spending any money."

But when presented with what an actual sensible FA costs, you balk at it, and call the contract atrocious.

You sound like Peter Angelos.  That would make sense.

Didn't you shine his shoes once?

Yes, I balk at 8+ year 300M contracts.

I have never been a big FA guy but I also believe you need free agency to augment a roster.

And, if you build your team properly, you will have many cheap players and not overpay role players and when you do that, you can afford more FA risks.  
 

The Orioles are set up to have a payroll of nothing for quite some time, so they can afford more risks.  Paying Correa 35M a year is a big risk but I would do it for up to 7 years..just not more than that.  There should always be a limit you would be willing to go.  

I realize these are all concepts that are beyond your level of thought but there is no inconsistency there whatsoever.

I would have beaten the deal for Stroman, for example.  That would have been an overpay but I would have done it because of the team need And because I feel he will be ok over the course of his deal.  I think his risk is lower than others.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'd argue that we made the playoffs 3 times in a 5 year span when the aforementioned teams weren't particularly good.  

In regards to what you and SG are debating, I can't even make sense of it anymore.  

The aforementioned teams won't always be this good.  That's a fact.  In 3-4 years, there might be a very different landscape in the AL East.  It will always be difficult for a lot of reasons, but it can't remain this good.

Those 2012-16 Orioles teams weren't great teams certainly.  But you could easily argue that the 14 team was decidedly unlucky for a team that won as many games as it did.  They lost 3-4 of their 5 best regulars.

Nobody of any credence has suggested we "can't" compete in this division.  The differences of perspective are of methods of doing just that: competing.

[Moose Milligan]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

The aforementioned teams won't always be this good.  That's a fact.  In 3-4 years, there might be a very different landscape in the AL East.  It will always be difficult for a lot of reasons, but it can't remain this good.

Those 2012-16 Orioles teams weren't great teams certainly.  But you could easily argue that the 14 team was decidedly unlucky for a team that won as many games as it did.  They lost 3-4 of their 5 best regulars.

Nobody of any credence has suggested we "can't" compete in this division.  The differences of perspective are of methods of doing just that: competing.

The aforementioned teams won't always be this good.  But in case you haven't noticed, we've been practically at the bottom of the barrel more often than not over the past 20 years.  Hell, over the past 30 years.  

So while the Sox and Yankees might not always be good, we have to contend with the Jays and Rays who look to be very good, too.  

I will put it this way, all of the other 4 teams do things better than the Orioles.  I would argue they're all better run.  Maybe that changes when Elias' plan comes to fruition.

For the record, I'd prefer to stay in this division and figure out ways to beat the competition. 

[Frobby]

28 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

There's been plenty of whining over the years on this board about the division.  Maybe not the exact words that "we cannot compete in this division," but similar sentiments.  How can we compete with the payrolls of Boston and NYY, etc.  Calling for re-alignment, etc.  It's been a theme on here for a long time.

That “how can we compete with those payrolls” argument was a great argument — in 2007.    Then Tampa came along.    

But anyway, if the argument is that we will have to take bigger risks than another team might because the teams in our division will always be very good, I’d have to think about that one.   
 

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That “how can we compete with those payrolls” argument was a great argument — in 2007.    Then Tampa came along.    

But anyway, if the argument is that we will have to take bigger risks than another team might because the teams in our division will always be very good, I’d have to think about that one.   
 

Well, I might even agree we need to take more risks, but be specific about the risk.

It is real easy to argue "spend money" but when presented with what flesh and blood free agents go for, say it is "atrocious" is a moving goal post.

[Pickles]

12 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

The aforementioned teams won't always be this good.  But in case you haven't noticed, we've been practically at the bottom of the barrel more often than not over the past 20 years.  Hell, over the past 30 years.  

So while the Sox and Yankees might not always be good, we have to contend with the Jays and Rays who look to be very good, too.  

I will put it this way, all of the other 4 teams do things better than the Orioles.  I would argue they're all better run.  Maybe that changes when Elias' plan comes to fruition.

For the record, I'd prefer to stay in this division and figure out ways to beat the competition. 

I'm not sure why pointing out our division makes it harder to compete makes me answerable for all of ownership's failures.

[Aristotelian]

7 hours ago, Pickles said:

What does that do for the Orioles?

Either a QO/comp pick or flip him for more prospects. In the meantime 5-6 more wins and a happier fan base.

[OriolesMagic83]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes, I balk at 8+ year 300M contracts.

I have never been a big FA guy but I also believe you need free agency to augment a roster.

And, if you build your team properly, you will have many cheap players and not overpay role players and when you do that, you can afford more FA risks.  
 

The Orioles are set up to have a payroll of nothing for quite some time, so they can afford more risks.  Paying Correa 35M a year is a big risk but I would do it for up to 7 years..just not more than that.  There should always be a limit you would be willing to go.  

I realize these are all concepts that are beyond your level of thought but there is no inconsistency there whatsoever.

I would have beaten the deal for Stroman, for example.  That would have been an overpay but I would have done it because of the team need And because I feel he will be ok over the course of his deal.  I think his risk is lower than others.

I'm pretty sure the Correa is aiming for a 10 year contract and will get one in the neighbourhood of 10 year/$350 million.  I would love to add a player of the ability and stature of Correa.  The risk of a huge contract like this going bad for the O's is just too big.  Think of how much the Davis contract limited the O's (I know the lack of a farm system was bigger).  If Correa suffered injuries that decreased the level of player he was, it would cripple the O's for years.  I just can't see these long term mega contracts being a wise decision for the O's. 

[Frobby]

7 hours ago, Pickles said:

Well, I might even agree we need to take more risks, but be specific about the risk.

I’ll buy that.   And I agree Correa in 2022 is probably not the right situation for us. Great player, but (1) has been injury prone, and (2) the fact that we aren’t ready to contend means his probable best years in any long term deal would be wasted.   If we are going to take a risk like that we need to be closer to contention when we do it.   

[Sports Guy]

6 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I'm pretty sure the Correa is aiming for a 10 year contract and will get one in the neighbourhood of 10 year/$350 million.  I would love to add a player of the ability and stature of Correa.  The risk of a huge contract like this going bad for the O's is just too big.  Think of how much the Davis contract limited the O's (I know the lack of a farm system was bigger).  If Correa suffered injuries that decreased the level of player he was, it would cripple the O's for years.  I just can't see these long term mega contracts being a wise decision for the O's. 

The Davis contract only limited them because they wanted it to.  It was an excuse and nothing more.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The Davis contract only limited them because they wanted it to.  It was an excuse and nothing more.

Of course it limited.   It was $23 mm/yr they couldn’t spend on one or more players who were more productive than Davis.

Did it cripple them?  No.    

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Of course it limited.   It was $23 mm/yr they couldn’t spend on one or more players who were more productive than Davis.

Did it cripple them?  No.    

Well it was actually 17M on the current payroll and with the payrolls so small, it was an easy work around if they wanted to.

Lets not pretend that you can’t field a competitive team for 120+M if you do things properly.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well it was actually 17M on the current payroll and with the payrolls so small, it was an easy work around if they wanted to.

Lets not pretend that you can’t field a competitive team for 120+M if you do things properly.

With a little bit of good fortune on your side, you definitely can.   The O’s made a long string of crappy decisions, both long-term and short-term ones.   Davis was the most high-profile, but far from the only one.   

[Sports Guy]

39 minutes ago, Frobby said:

With a little bit of good fortune on your side, you definitely can.   The O’s made a long string of crappy decisions, both long-term and short-term ones.   Davis was the most high-profile, but far from the only one.   

Sure but a lot of those were cleared and off the books over the last few years and certainly are for 2022.

The Davis money was already paid the day you signed him to the contract.  The organization carried payrolls of anywhere from 57-164 million with his contract on the books (not including the shortened 2020 season).

In 3 of those 5 years, the payroll was over 145M.   2019 saw it drop to 80M, in the year they should have been tanking.  
 

But in those initial 3 years, 2 of which were horrible seasons, the Davis contract didn’t stop them from doing anything.  It was horrible mismanagement they did it.

Since then, the mention of the Davis contract as a hindrance in anything they do is just bs.  It was their choice too keep a very low payroll and to tank. They didn’t have to do that and they didn’t have To let the Davis contract stop them from doing anything.  It was their choice.  

[owknows]

50 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The Davis contract only limited them because they wanted it to.  It was an excuse and nothing more.

Oh. This again.