Bashing The O’s

[geschinger]

11 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

You tell me why we couldn't have signed Ed-Rod this offseason.  

They could have, it's probably the only contract I've seen so far (other than a mythical long term Correa deal) that could have made sense.

But it's not an obvious call.

Elias has said that the club’s potential investment in free-agent reinforcements will align with that prolonged period of “maximizing playoff odds.”

As most FA value is in the early years of the contract are the Orioles playoff odds maximized with ER in years 3/4/5 and early 30s or signing the equivalent in 2024 and getting years in the late 20s.  Obviously the latter offer better odds. 

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, geschinger said:

They could have, it's probably the only contract I've seen so far (other than a mythical long term Correa deal) that could have made sense.

But it's not an obvious call.

Elias has said that the club’s potential investment in free-agent reinforcements will align with that prolonged period of “maximizing playoff odds.”

As most FA value is in the early years of the contract are the Orioles playoff odds maximized with ER in years 3/4/5 and early 30s or signing the equivalent in 2024 and getting years in the late 20s.  Obviously the latter offer better odds. 

 

I mean if you can add a 2% increase in making the playoffs and you are at 1% currently than that is a 200% increase in odds.  If you already have a 95% chance of making the playoffs that 2% is a lot less meaningful.

So I'm guessing Elias is just waiting for the team to have a 1% chance to make the playoffs before signing someone.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, geschinger said:

They could have, it's probably the only contract I've seen so far (other than a mythical long term Correa deal) that could have made sense.

But it's not an obvious call.

Elias has said that the club’s potential investment in free-agent reinforcements will align with that prolonged period of “maximizing playoff odds.”

As most FA value is in the early years of the contract are the Orioles playoff odds maximized with ER in years 3/4/5 and early 30s or signing the equivalent in 2024 and getting years in the late 20s.  Obviously the latter offer better odds. 

 

But if you start adding talent, your window opens sooner.  You don’t need to wait for your talent to be good.  

[Moose Milligan]

6 minutes ago, geschinger said:

They could have, it's probably the only contract I've seen so far (other than a mythical long term Correa deal) that could have made sense.

But it's not an obvious call.

Elias has said that the club’s potential investment in free-agent reinforcements will align with that prolonged period of “maximizing playoff odds.”

As most FA value is in the early years of the contract are the Orioles playoff odds maximized with ER in years 3/4/5 and early 30s or signing the equivalent in 2024 and getting years in the late 20s.  Obviously the latter offer better odds. 

 

So not acquiring talent is an obvious call?

 

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

So not acquiring talent is an obvious call?

 

Not spending money is. 

Notice they also aren't bothering to extend anyone, which is something...gasp..both the Astros and Rays did/do.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Not spending money is. 

Notice they also aren't bothering to extend anyone, which is something...gasp..both the Astros and Rays did/do.

Hard to extend anyone when you don’t call up players to see if they are worth extending.

[Sports Guy]

17 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

So not acquiring talent is an obvious call?

 

Yep…well at least until our 9 position players are contending for ROY or MVP honors.  At that point, we will be ready to go!

[forphase1]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Not spending money is. 

Notice they also aren't bothering to extend anyone, which is something...gasp..both the Astros and Rays did/do.

Who would you extend?  Has anyone yet shown they are worth a long term contract?  I love AR, but I haven't been so impressed that I feel like we must make sure to have him for a few more years at least.   We definitely should extend our young talent once we know we have some worth extending.  But to this point I don't see that guy... everyone to me either hasn't been in the organization long enough to know or hasn't performed at a level yet that justifies a long term deal. I'd rather it cost us a few more millions to sign them after they have proven worthy than to sign for years and big money now and have them flop.  AR is a bit different as with his age and the short shelf life of catchers, it makes me very cautious.  

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, we basically know that the Os essentially treat MASN as a separate entity, so they don’t even look at those profits as what the team is making.

After the arbitration rulings, MASN is not that profitable.   We’ve had a  lot of transparency into MASN’s profits  thanks to the publication of those rulings (the entirety of the first one and a redacted version of the second one).   Key aspects are discussed here:

 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Who would you extend?  Has anyone yet shown they are worth a long term contract?  I love AR, but I haven't been so impressed that I feel like we must make sure to have him for a few more years at least.   We definitely should extend our young talent once we know we have some worth extending.  But to this point I don't see that guy... everyone to me either hasn't been in the organization long enough to know or hasn't performed at a level yet that justifies a long term deal. I'd rather it cost us a few more millions to sign them after they have proven worthy than to sign for years and big money now and have them flop.  AR is a bit different as with his age and the short shelf life of catchers, it makes me very cautious.  

Me?

Adley, Grayson, Moutcastle, Mullins, Hays.

Obviously I'm talking the normal amount of risk that teams assume in these deals.

I'm 100% in favor of locking in costs.

It's just funny that folks say we are doing what team X or team Y is doing and then it's excuses when it comes to the part of the plan that involves spending money.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

After the arbitration rulings, MASN is not that profitable.   We’ve had a  lot of transparency into MASN’s profits  thanks to the publication of those rulings (the entirety of the first one and a redacted version of the second one).   Key aspects are discussed here:

 

Well yea, but that was before they started saving thousands of dollars by not sending the announcers on the road.

Way more profitable now.

[geschinger]

17 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

So not acquiring talent is an obvious call?

Seeing what you have before making long commitments is not an unreasonable approach.  

The Astros went into 2014 to see what they and made no long term commitments.  They wanted to see what they had before making commitments to free-agent reinforcements 

In 2015 the Astros added approximately $35m to their 2015 payroll via free agent signings.  The added another approximately $32m to that payroll through trades.

Do you think that approach that worked so well was stupid and based on dumbass reasoning?  

[foxfield]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Me?

Adley, Grayson, Moutcastle, Mullins, Hays.

Obviously I'm talking the normal amount of risk that teams assume in these deals.

I'm 100% in favor of locking in costs.

It's just funny that folks say we are doing what team X or team Y is doing and then it's excuses when it comes to the part of the plan that involves spending money.

I agree that it would make sense to sign some of these guys to deals. I dont know that I would do the same guys, but about the same number would make sense.  Mullins or Hays for example, on a good deal, doesnt mean they could not be traded.  

I would definitely extend Grayson, Means and Hall. Adley is a tough call but a good deal would make a lot of sense to me in spite of his age and control now.  

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Seeing what you have before making long commitments is not an unreasonable approach.  

The Astros went into 2014 to see what they and made no long term commitments.  They wanted to see what they had before making commitments to free-agent reinforcements 

In 2015 the Astros added approximately $35m to their 2015 payroll via free agent signings.  The added another approximately $32m to that payroll through trades.

Do you think that approach that worked so well was stupid and based on dumbass reasoning?  

They signed Altuve to a four year deal in July 2013.

[geschinger]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's just funny that folks say we are doing what team X or team Y is doing and then it's excuses when it comes to the part of the plan that involves spending money.

Who did the Astros extend?  Only one I can think of was Altuve when he was already eligible for arbitration.