Gunnar Henderson 2022

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

So, there is no one in the Orioles  entire #1 ranked farm system you feel strongly enough to offer a long term deal?   That seems odd.   Were you predicting super stardom for Henderson last year?    Why Henderson and no one else?    Not Rodriguez?   Not Cowser?     You must have been predicting great things for Henderson last year.    You don't post much on minor league guys.   I think I would remember you thinking Gunnar was going to be a huge star.

Can you at least point us to the thread where you talked about this?

According to you I talked about it in every thread.

As for a ten year deal?  No, not really.  Check in with me next spring on Holliday.  I wouldn't be upset if they did it with Cowser or Rodriguez.

[Bemorewins]

8 minutes ago, Remember The Alomar said:

I think Henderson will be very good, and I would be happy to have him locked up long term, but this is such a funny debate to be having so vociferously after his first three major league games. 

I know I for one am jumping the gun. But I just can’t help it!

As I told my wife last night before deciding to get tix to tonight’s game, “Do you know how long I have waited for this to happen to this team?”

The last few years were unbearable. Watching the O’s over the last 4 years was worse to me than getting a root canal or a prostate exam. It ABSOLUTELY SUCKED!!

It feels like all the suffering has not been in vain…lol

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

According to you I talked about it in every thread.

As for a ten year deal?  No, not really.  Check in with me next spring on Holliday.  I wouldn't be upset if they did it with Cowser or Rodriguez.

I meant the thread where you talked about it and either:

1. Everyone laughed at me

2. No one was on board

3. I had a grade A hit predictioin!

 

I still don't get what the prediction was.   Suggesting a long term deal for a young player is not a prediction.

Edited September 3, 2022 by RZNJ

[Remember The Alomar]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

I know I for one am jumping the gun. But I just can’t help it!

As I told my wife last night before deciding to get tix to tonight’s game, “Do you know how long I have waited for this to happen to this team?”

The last few years were unbearable. Watching the O’s over the last 4 years was worse to me than getting a root canal or a prostate exam. It ABSOLUTELY SUCKED!!

It feels like all the suffering has not been in vain…lol

You're not wrong! And, again, I'm not saying the debate itself has no merit. However, I just can't help but laugh about the intensity of said debate. But, that's also why I love this place. * smashes the refresh button * 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RZNJ said:

I meant the thread where you talked about it and either:

1. Everyone laughed at me

2. No one was on board

3. I had a grade A hit predictioin!

 

I still don't get what the prediction was.   Suggesting a long term deal for a young player is not a prediction.

Right.

Because we have any history of a team signing a kid in A ball to a 10 year contract. 

And no, I'm not going to go digging into my post history ain't nobody got time for that.

[RZNJ]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Right.

Because we have any history of a team signing a kid in A ball to a 10 year contract. 

And no, I'm not going to go digging into my post history ain't nobody got time for that.

You have time to post on here 24/7.     

Edited September 3, 2022 by RZNJ

[Aristotelian]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I wouldn't have done that.  The O's would have needed better terms at the time.  I would have said no to the Franco deal.

I don't know the money.  I admit to not knowing the money.  That's not my field.  I just don't see a value add in suggesting set dollar amounts that aren't rooted in reality. 

 

 

That is fine and completely reasonable but I highly doubt the whole board laughed at that position.

[7Mo]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

That is fine and completely reasonable but I highly doubt the whole board laughed at that position.

Yep, definitely didn't happen.

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

That is fine and completely reasonable but I highly doubt the whole board laughed at that position.

We have Scottland Yard, the FBI, and the FSB looking for the thread.    Corn doesn't want to help.    You'd figure a person who loves to think he's right as much as him would love to find that thread.   Hmmmm.

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

Yep, definitely didn't happen.

Frobby would have posted, "Depends on the terms".    That is probably the "laughed at" "not on board" he's talking about.   LOL

[7Mo]

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Frobby would have posted, "Depends on the terms".    That is probably the "laughed at" "not on board" he's talking about.   LOL

No doubt Frobby would have posted that and of course, without knowing the terms, there's no way of saying whether you would agree with it or not. That's the key.

[owknows]

28 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

This is an approach to take and I’m not saying that you are wrong. 
 

I just think that some guys are special and you can’t just plug in the next guy. Though who knows Holiday may indeed prove to be better.

From a franchise perspective, I hope that we don’t take the “rinse and repeat” approach with all of our stars. I hope some are retained within reason. 
 

No I don’t want to be paying aging guys who are unproductive. But I think there’s a way to be proactive about who you pay and when you pay them so you don’t have to.

If we want to build a strong fanbase taking a rigid “rinse and repeat” approach is not the best way to go IMO. We will be like Tampa, in that constant cycle of rebuild and turnover, where we will be good, young and cheap. But never great. We need to do whatever necessary to win a World Series (I know Tampa has been twice in the last 15 or so years and lost twice). We haven’t won in almost 40 years. I would hate for us to have to go another 20 without one.

No matter how you, I, or anyone slices it; it takes being smart AND spending money on good players to get over the top. 

I believe Gunnar and Adley are the top of foundational pieces that you build on for the long term and not throw away because you have to pay them.

I'll take a perpetual contender/occasional series winner staffed by the best 5 years of any of Adley/Gunnar/Holliday/Beavers/Cowser/Mayo/Norby/Fabian to be perpetually restocked by players of similar capability.... over a team that gets mired in big contracts for the waning years of these players.

I can cheer for, enjoy, admire, and be a great fan of all of these players.. and happily let someone else pay for their down-slope. Particularly if the front office is competent enough to switch from tanking to trading as a means of keeping players of this caliber on the conveyor belt.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, owknows said:

I'll take a perpetual contender/occasional series winner staffed by the best 5 years of any of Adley/Gunnar/Holliday/Beavers/Cowser/Mayo/Norby/Fabian to be perpetually restocked by players of similar capability.... over a team that gets mired in big contracts for the waning years of these players.

I can cheer for, enjoy, admire, and be a great fan of all of these players.. and happily let someone else pay for their down-slope. Particularly if the front office is competent enough to switch from tanking to trading as a means of keeping players of this caliber on the conveyor belt.

I think the idea is that you don't get locked into the waning years.

You extend them early and lock up arb/prearb years so if you do get stuck for a few years it isn't a crippling blow.  It can also lead to a better return if the player is traded.

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the idea is that you don't get locked into the waning years.

Yes... that's certainly what's being discussed in the conversation between you and others. And it is the intent of every decent GM in the league. But as we both know, there's an awful lot of bad contracts out there that were written by people who thought they were not buying the waning years.

Quote

You extend them early and lock up arb/prearb years so if you do get stuck for a few years it isn't a crippling blow.  It can also lead to a better return if the player is traded.

Sure... that's awesome. But it depends on omniscience on the part of the GM... a player willing to forego long term gain for short term gain (essentially a player giving a discount)... and quite a bit of luck regarding injury and potential performance regression.

So your strategy has the potential to pay big dividends... and in fact it's the ONLY strategy I would employ to hold onto high value players after 5 years if I were a GM...  but it is fraught with risk. And I'm sure you know that.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, owknows said:

Yes... that's certainly what's being discussed in the conversation between you and others. And it is the intent of every decent GM in the league. But as we both know, there's an awful lot of bad contracts out there that were written by people who thought they were not buying the waning years.

Sure... that's awesome. But it depends on omniscience on the part of the GM... a player willing to forego long term gain for short term gain (essentially a player giving a discount)... and quite a bit of luck regarding injury and potential performance regression.

So your strategy has the potential to pay big dividends... and in fact it's the ONLY strategy I would employ to hold onto high value players after 5 years if I were a GM...  but it is fraught with risk. And I'm sure you know that.

Yep.  It is risky.

But I think the risk/reward is a lot better than it is for signing older established star players to large deals.

If you don't want to do it at all, I think you risk having down periods where you don't hit on all your draft picks.

No matter what you aren't guaranteed success.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Can_of_corn