Could the O's "eat" Contracts

[ScGO's]

A lot of this is dependent on whether there is a floor salary requirement. If the new CBA requires each team to be above a certain threshold of salary, the Orioles actually may be forced to spend some money. This is where I think trading for a bad contract could be beneficial for the O's. I like the idea of trading hor Dallas keuchel or another overpaid pitcher as we could get prospects in return while filling a rotation need. An underperforming keuchel is still better than most of our current pitching options. 

[7Mo]

1 hour ago, ScGO's said:

A lot of this is dependent on whether there is a floor salary requirement. If the new CBA requires each team to be above a certain threshold of salary, the Orioles actually may be forced to spend some money. This is where I think trading for a bad contract could be beneficial for the O's. I like the idea of trading hor Dallas keuchel or another overpaid pitcher as we could get prospects in return while filling a rotation need. An underperforming keuchel is still better than most of our current pitching options. 

I agree with your thoughts but if the CBA adds some kind of floor, I can't imagine it being effective at the start of the '22 season. The CBA is likely agreed to in February. Seems more likely that it becomes effective for the '23 season. 

[owknows]

7 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Does anyone outside of Wildcard still think Gunnar can stick at short?

Yes.

[Moose Milligan]

Maybe it's me, but I think the "can we take on a bad contract and get prospects, too?" bit is an internet message board GM's wet dream.  I don't think these things happen in real life that often.

[Sports Guy]

17 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Maybe it's me, but I think the "can we take on a bad contract and get prospects, too?" bit is an internet message board GM's wet dream.  I don't think these things happen in real life that often.

I think a reason they don’t happen a lot is because teams aren’t willing to buy prospects in this manner.  It usually means taking on a bad contract/player in order to pick up someone you hope ends up good. 
 

When you think about it, it’s probably a bad risk in a lot of ways.

[Moose Milligan]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think a reason they don’t happen a lot is because teams aren’t willing to buy prospects in this manner.  It usually means taking on a bad contract/player in order to pick up someone you hope ends up good. 
 

When you think about it, it’s probably a bad risk in a lot of ways.

Yep, exactly.

I can see it happening for a contract that's...I dunno how to describe it, and I'm too lazy to figure out who'd qualify for this...but, like, a mid-range bad contract.  A contract where a guy has 2-3 years left, maybe 40-50 million and he's performing decently.  Certainly not living up to the contract, but not a Chris Davis-level disaster either.  

But then again, the prospects you'd be getting back probably aren't top flight prospects, either and not worth taking on the contract.  The sweet spot for a deal like this is very, very small.

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Yep, exactly.

I can see it happening for a contract that's...I dunno how to describe it, and I'm too lazy to figure out who'd qualify for this...but, like, a mid-range bad contract.  A contract where a guy has 2-3 years left, maybe 40-50 million and he's performing decently.  Certainly not living up to the contract, but not a Chris Davis-level disaster either.  

But then again, the prospects you'd be getting back probably aren't top flight prospects, either and not worth taking on the contract.  The sweet spot for a deal like this is very, very small.

Most deals I can think of involving eating big contracts involved a very rich team eating the contract.   And usually not to get prospects, but to get good established players along with the player with the bad contract.   

[Ruzious]

19 hours ago, ScGO's said:

A lot of this is dependent on whether there is a floor salary requirement. If the new CBA requires each team to be above a certain threshold of salary, the Orioles actually may be forced to spend some money. This is where I think trading for a bad contract could be beneficial for the O's. I like the idea of trading hor Dallas keuchel or another overpaid pitcher as we could get prospects in return while filling a rotation need. An underperforming keuchel is still better than most of our current pitching options. 

Exactly.  This is something I've mentioned several times this offseason that I think people are overlooking.    

[NCRaven]

Reason number two is teams don’t like to give up prime prospects just to dump salary.

[Sports Guy]

The most recent is the Cozart deal where the the Giants got back the Angels 5th prospect.

I think this is something that could have happened after 2020 with so many teams crying “poor me” after the shortened season.

I absolutely think this is a strategy that could work with certain teams but again, is it worth it?  How bad do teams want to move salary?

[Frobby]

On 1/1/2022 at 9:10 PM, wildcard said:

2/17m for a good field/no hit SS that blocks Westburg and Gunnar from SS in 2023.

Here are some projections for DeJong:

ZiPS .224/.303/.405, 2.7 WAR.

Steamer: .235/.316/.428, 1.9 fWAR

Marcel: .223/.304/.405

It appears ZiPS likes DeJong’s defense more than Steamer does, since Steamer projects better offensive numbers but a lower WAR total.    ZiPS’ 2.7 WAR projection would justify the entire two year salary commitment for DeJong in a single year.   The Steamer projection would come close to doing that.   Of course, whether it makes sense to pay $8 mm/win for a non-contender is another issue.   But it’s a lot less than that if you assume the second year is 80-90% of the first.   

[wildcard]

DeJong contract is 6m for 2022 and 9m for 2023 with a 2m  buyout of option after the 2023 season.   The 11m in 2023 makes it harder to trade him after the 2022 season.

[Sports Guy]

36 minutes ago, wildcard said:

DeJong contract is 6m for 2022 and 9m for 2023 with a 2m  buyout of option after the 2023 season.   The 11m in 2023 makes it harder to trade him after the 2022 season.

Why?  You said giving Mancini a 2 year deal would make it easier to trade him and DeJong is a plus defender at a premium position.

[Sports Guy]

Also, chances are you won’t be forced to trade DeJong after 2022 and even if you did, you could pay some of his deal to move him.

Its really not a big deal.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

DeJong contract is 6m for 2022 and 9m for 2023 with a 2m  buyout of option after the 2023 season.   The 11m in 2023 makes it harder to trade him after the 2022 season.

Depends how he does in 2022.   We might not want to trade him anyway depending on how various things went.  Or, if necessary the O’s could eat some of the 2023 salary and justify it on the basis that they were paying for his 2022 production.   

I’m probably done discussing this since the odds the O’s attempt to acquire DeJong are low.   I can only spend so much time arguing the merits of hypothetical moves.   I think it’s intriguing but I certainly don’t expect it to happen.  

Edit: found this quote from Pinstripe Alley interesting:

“DeJong is on an extremely team-friendly deal, being owed $15 million over the next two seasons with a pair of affordable club options following. All this adds up to a hefty prospect price needed to land the 28-year-old shortstop, perhaps too steep for the Yankees’ blood.”

https://www.pinstripealley.com/platform/amp/2021/12/4/22815994/yankees-mlb-trade-rumors-paul-dejong-cardinals-shortstop-stopgap-torres-simmons-volpe-peraza