2023 Early Look Top Prospects

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Its the same thing that happened in the mid 2010s.  That payroll kept increasing largely because of arb raises.

I'd say it was more keeping their own players and not just arb raises.  They kept a lot of players that they could have let leave via free agency.  O'Day, Hardy, Davis, Trumbo, and Wieters for example.

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Here is what I think.  In any business, you have money in reserve for expenses.  Those expenses vary across the board.  
 

So, do the Os have a bank account with money in it for expenses?  I’m sure they do.  They have plenty of them that have nothing to do with players salaries.  
 

I think where we differ is that you seem to think 30M saved today means that’s 30M they will spend tomorrow.

To me, the money that you don’t spend long term isn’t necessarily being saved for the long term but it allows them to spend it long term.

For example, let’s say they have earmarked the budget in 2026 to be 130 million.  If they sign 2 players to long term deals and those 2 are making 40 million combined in 2026, that means they will only have an additional 90M to spend. 
 

So, if they don’t spend that money, then they have that 40M to do something else with.  It’s not that they are saving it up now, it’s just that it will be available then.  There is a difference.

Now, I don’t think they are budgeting out payroll this far in advance but I’m just using it for number purposes.

Under this ownership, the payroll will go up as players see arbitration raises go up.  They aren’t going to make the major FA splashes,  they may do the deals like Ubaldo or Cobb but that’s probably the high end, at least for outside FA.

Its the same thing that happened in the mid 2010s.  That payroll kept increasing largely because of arb raises.

To be honest, I’m having trouble following your example.   But in any event, I’m not saying I think the team retains all its profits and pays nothing to the owners.   But I do think they probably retain a good bit for purposes of spending later if needed.   

Let’s assume, for current purposes, that as the O’s improve and attendance grows, they will be able to break even with a $150 mm payroll.   But, let’s also say that there may be some years where $175 mm is what’s needed to field a team with a good chance to win the WS, which would mean a $25 mm loss for the year.   To me, the way a team funds that is by holding on to some of the profits they earned in the low payroll years and keeping them in reserve.   Do I know that the Orioles are doing that?   No.   But it seems to me the prudent way to run the particular business they are in.   
 

[Sports Guy]

19 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd say it was more keeping their own players and not just arb raises.  They kept a lot of players that they could have let leave via free agency.  O'Day, Hardy, Davis, Trumbo, and Wieters for example.

The payroll went from 84 to 92M between 2012 and 2013.

The team saw the contracts of Jones, Chen, Markakis and Betemit increase 6.25M.  They saw arb raises for Hamme, Johnson, ODay(2013 was an arb year for him but he did sign a 2 year contract), Hunter, Davis and Wieters total 16.2M.5

From 2013 to 2014 the payroll went from 92M to 107M.  They saw contract rise 6.5 from Jones, ODay, Hardy and Chen.  They saw arb raise 16M between Norris, Davis, Wieters, Hunter and BMat.   Ubaldo, Webb and Cruz increased it another 22M.

From 2014-2015. the payroll increased from 107 to 119.  The contracts for Hardy, ODay and Chen increased 5.2M.  The arb raises went up 19.4M(not counting Travis Snider, whom they traded for and paid him an arb contract).  Very little done in free agency, which really should piss us all off coming off of that 2014 season.

From 2015 to 2016, it was from 119M to 147M.  Contracts for Davis, Hardy, ODay and Wieters saw an increase of 16.3M (you can make it 20.5 if you want to include the deferred Davis money).  The arb raises were 11.8.  Trumbo was still arb eligible and signed for 9M...which was an 8.5M increase from Cleavinger.  Another 18ishM in FA contracts

And from 2016 to 2017, the payroll went from 147 to 164.  Contracts for Hardy, Ubaldo, ODAY, Kim and Trumbo increased 7.1M. Arb raises were 23M.  FA contracts 24M.

 

So yes, I think it was the raises in arbitration that caused much of the increase in the payroll.  Sure, it wasn't the only factor but the arb raises are why you generally see increases in payroll throughout MLB.  Obviously some teams are an exception to that but as guys get into their second and third arb years, that's when you see these payrolls really start to jump.

[Can_of_corn]

36 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The payroll went from 84 to 92M between 2012 and 2013.

The team saw the contracts of Jones, Chen, Markakis and Betemit increase 6.25M.  They saw arb raises for Hamme, Johnson, ODay(2013 was an arb year for him but he did sign a 2 year contract), Hunter, Davis and Wieters total 16.2M.5

From 2013 to 2014 the payroll went from 92M to 107M.  They saw contract rise 6.5 from Jones, ODay, Hardy and Chen.  They saw arb raise 16M between Norris, Davis, Wieters, Hunter and BMat.   Ubaldo, Webb and Cruz increased it another 22M.

From 2014-2015. the payroll increased from 107 to 119.  The contracts for Hardy, ODay and Chen increased 5.2M.  The arb raises went up 19.4M(not counting Travis Snider, whom they traded for and paid him an arb contract).  Very little done in free agency, which really should piss us all off coming off of that 2014 season.

From 2015 to 2016, it was from 119M to 147M.  Contracts for Davis, Hardy, ODay and Wieters saw an increase of 16.3M (you can make it 20.5 if you want to include the deferred Davis money).  The arb raises were 11.8.  Trumbo was still arb eligible and signed for 9M...which was an 8.5M increase from Cleavinger.  Another 18ishM in FA contracts

And from 2016 to 2017, the payroll went from 147 to 164.  Contracts for Hardy, Ubaldo, ODAY, Kim and Trumbo increased 7.1M. Arb raises were 23M.  FA contracts 24M.

 

So yes, I think it was the raises in arbitration that caused much of the increase in the payroll.  Sure, it wasn't the only factor but the arb raises are why you generally see increases in payroll throughout MLB.  Obviously some teams are an exception to that but as guys get into their second and third arb years, that's when you see these payrolls really start to jump.

That was a pretty fair amount of work just to agree with me.

I will say that Markakis and Jones don't count as arbitration raises for the 2012-2013 seasons.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That was a pretty fair amount of work just to agree with me.

I will say that Markakis and Jones don't count as arbitration raises for the 2012-2013 seasons.

1) I don’t agree with you, as I stated.

2) and I never said they counted for arb raiders.  

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

1) I don’t agree with you, as I stated.

2) and I never said they counted for arb raiders.  

Sure you do.  You said arb, I said the better term was "keeping their own" (Which is what you do when you offer arbitration).  You agreed that it wasn't just arb.

That's agreeing with me.

Instead of adding payroll from outside free agents those Oriole team's payroll increases were mostly due to retaining the players they already had on their roster.  Some of those guys were via arbitration and some signed long term deals.

So yea, lot of work to just agree with me.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Sure you do.  You said arb, I said the better term was "keeping their own" (Which is what you do when you offer arbitration).  You agreed that it wasn't just arb.

That's agreeing with me.

Instead of adding payroll from outside free agents those Oriole team's payroll increases were mostly due to retaining the players they already had on their roster.  Some of those guys were via arbitration and some signed long term deals.

So yea, lot of work to just agree with me.

SMH

[LookinUp]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Here is what I think.  In any business, you have money in reserve for expenses.  Those expenses vary across the board.  

Put another way, any good business has a financial plan. In that financial plan, there are knowns and unknowns. Arbitration raises fall mostly into the known category.

I'd bet a million $ that the O's financial plan, under Elias, is stashing some of the money not spent now for a later competitive time. I highly doubt it's as much as you or I would like just based on our ownership, but I actually do believe that Elias' planning does account for this future need.

If you believe that to be true, I think it puts our FA strategy over these years in a different, more favorable, context.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Put another way, any good business has a financial plan. In that financial plan, there are knowns and unknowns. Arbitration raises fall mostly into the known category.

I'd bet a million $ that the O's financial plan, under Elias, is stashing some of the money not spent now for a later competitive time. I highly doubt it's as much as you or I would like just based on our ownership, but I actually do believe that Elias' planning does account for this future need.

If you believe that to be true, I think it puts our FA strategy over these years in a different, more favorable, context.

There is no favorable context for this strategy starting for this season.  It’s an awful and definitely unnecessary strategy.

[Frobby]

Looking at SG’s synopsis reminded me how the O’s were really cautious re-signing players with expiring contracts after 2014 and then really aggressive after 2015.  Things would have worked out much better if we’d done it the other way around.   I’ve always thought it was weird that their management style changed so much in a year’s time.   Could be because Duquette was putting the brakes on in 2014 but then lost influence by 2015, or it could be that the O’s saw that their frugality after 2014 hadn’t worked so they changed course.   

[LookinUp]

19 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

There is no favorable context for this strategy starting for this season.  It’s an awful and definitely unnecessary strategy.

Yes there is. If they save $20 million for the future instead of spending it on wins 55-60 that's a favorable context. There's at least a good rationale for it, even if you disagree.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Yes there is. If they save $20 million for the future instead of spending it on wins 55-60 that's a favorable context. There's at least a good rationale for it, even if you disagree.

If they spend 20+M more and do everything else with bringing players up and can only manage 60 wins at most, everyone should be fired and we should be looking to offload these prospects for better players.

 

[LookinUp]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

If they spend 20+M more and do everything else with bringing players up and can only manage 60 wins at most, everyone should be fired and we should be looking to offload these prospects for better players.

 

Ok. 70 wins. Rationale still applies.

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Ok. 70 wins. Rationale still applies.

Not really.  The idea that people don’t see real value out of true improvement is astonishing to me.

I just can’t believe people are ok with losing on purpose for all this time knowing that it actually has zero to do with you winning later. 

[LookinUp]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Not really.  The idea that people don’t see real value out of true improvement is astonishing to me.

I just can’t believe people are ok with losing on purpose for all this time knowing that it actually has zero to do with you winning later. 

The entire discussion here is about saving money for the purpose of using it during a winning period. That's the opposite of having zero do do with winning later.

There's a similar argument about 5 more wins this year from a pretty good 32 year old journeyman having zero to do with winning later too. I'm not that black and white on any of it.

I get, and respect, that you disagree with the approach. I don't get that you just discount it as not being a valid possible option.