Soto & Ohtani Might Be Available, interested?

[interloper]

Come on. No chance we're trading for these guys.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

Come on. No chance we're trading for these guys.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that is going to come to pass.

We are just chatting about the idea.

[Sports Guy]

26 minutes ago, yark14 said:

To quote the late, great Townes Van Zandt: "We've all got holes to fill, and those holes are all that's real".  You East Coasters wouldn't know about him.

We have a hell of a young nucleus, not sure why you are being such a Debbie Downer.  We just need to plug some holes, and most of the plugs are in AA/AAA right now.  If we sign a couple free agents we are the #2 team in our division.

That was my point.

[ExileAngelos]

I would sign both of them.  Easy call.

[Ripken]

I love Soto.  My favorite hitter on the planet.  I'd give him 10/400 without any thought.  But to give that contract and lose something like GRod, Gunnar, Cowser, plus others is just way too much for me.

[DrungoHazewood]

10 hours ago, ExileAngelos said:

I would sign both of them.  Easy call.

You'd have no concerns with a franchise that has rarely had a $100M total payroll signing two players who'd almost certainly cost at least $80M a year between them? It wasn't that long ago that the biggest contract (in total value, not per year) the O's ever signed was Miguel Tejada's 6 year, $72M deal.  Now you want to eclipse that for two players, every year for a decade?

It would be unique to have a team payroll of $100M with 80% of that going to two players.

[DrungoHazewood]

17 hours ago, yark14 said:

The dude pitched 670 innings one year.  That is insane.

I have no doubt whatsoever that there are 200 pitchers in the majors today who could throw 670 innings under the conditions of the early 1880s. Throwing from a box with a front line 50' from the plate.  Competition was maybe comparable to today's mid-tier college level.  Average player was maybe 5' 9", 160 pounds. Home runs were rare. Substitutions were only with the consent of the other team, if at all.  And the way they figured out 670 innings was unsustainable was to have a bunch of guys throw 670 innings and then watch as their arms break down and their careers are over after a few years.

Old Hoss Radbourne is a legendary Hall of Famer from that era.  His MLB debut was at age 26.  The last time he led the league in anything positive was at 29. It's almost like throwing three complete games a week is detrimental to your arm.

[AlbNYfan]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

You'd have no concerns with a franchise that has rarely had a $100M total payroll signing two players who'd almost certainly cost at least $80M a year between them? It wasn't that long ago that the biggest contract (in total value, not per year) the O's ever signed was Miguel Tejada's 6 year, $72M deal.  Now you want to eclipse that for two players, every year for a decade?

It would be unique to have a team payroll of $100M with 80% of that going to two players.

Exactly...note the team standings, Angels with two of best, Nationals with one of the best...both well under .500. One or two players do not make a winning team unlike many sports. You get to bat 1/9 of the time, even great pitchers only pitch less than 1/5 of the time. Baltimore and other mid-low market teams have to be smarter than the LA's, Boston, NY's, etc. We can't have 2 super stars and 24 AAA and win.

[DrungoHazewood]

17 hours ago, Hallas said:

OK so you're treating him as a ~6 win pitcher, and then reducing his risk profile somewhat because he can still provide value as a hitter if he blows his arm out?

 

The numbers I threw out there were discounted rates based on typical contract lengths given to similar high-performing players.  Obviously a 6 win pitcher is worth more than 30 million, but he typically gets around 25-35 million for up to 5 years.  But you still run into uncharted territory with regard to contract amount if you add up typical contract terms for a 4 win DH and a 6 win pitcher.

I just don't think anyone is going to peg him as a player with an established value of 10 wins a year.  Maybe I'm wrong, but even discounting 25% for risk and decline you're looking at $60M or more a year.  Is someone really going to sign him to a 8/500 deal?  Would anyone besides the Dodgers and Yanks even toy with that amount?

Maybe I'm underestimating the tolerance for risk among GMs who are nearly certain that they'll be in some other job before the contract is over, and owners who see the team as a vanity project.

[Orioles0615]

28 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

You'd have no concerns with a franchise that has rarely had a $100M total payroll signing two players who'd almost certainly cost at least $80M a year between them? It wasn't that long ago that the biggest contract (in total value, not per year) the O's ever signed was Miguel Tejada's 6 year, $72M deal.  Now you want to eclipse that for two players, every year for a decade?

It would be unique to have a team payroll of $100M with 80% of that going to two players.

No because they could easily afford it just like every other team. Or did you miss the point of the lock out?

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Orioles0615 said:

No because they could easily afford it just like every other team. Or did you miss the point of the lock out?

There's a wide gap between saying that every team can afford far larger payrolls and actually making that happen. There was a lot of talk about competitive balance and tanking and minimum payrolls and the like.  The practical result of all of that seems to be just about zero.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, AlbNYfan said:

Exactly...note the team standings, Angels with two of best, Nationals with one of the best...both well under .500. One or two players do not make a winning team unlike many sports. You get to bat 1/9 of the time, even great pitchers only pitch less than 1/5 of the time. Baltimore and other mid-low market teams have to be smarter than the LA's, Boston, NY's, etc. We can't have 2 super stars and 24 AAA and win.

I suppose in a though-experiment way you could consider what might be the implications of a .500ish team with a bare-bones payroll like the Orioles adding $80M for two superstars.  

The reality is few superstars would consider Baltimore as a long-term destination any more than they'd consider Cleveland or Kansas City or Pittsburgh. And the Orioles would be very unlikely to offer the industry-leading contracts necessary to make it happen. 

[LA2]

38 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I suppose in a though-experiment way you could consider what might be the implications of a .500ish team with a bare-bones payroll like the Orioles adding $80M for two superstars.  

The reality is few superstars would consider Baltimore as a long-term destination any more than they'd consider Cleveland or Kansas City or Pittsburgh. And the Orioles would be very unlikely to offer the industry-leading contracts necessary to make it happen. 

Generally I agree with this but...so you believe the Correa-signing rumors were groundless? He signed with the Twins for $35.1 million this year (albeit with only player options 2023-24).

[DrungoHazewood]

21 minutes ago, LA2 said:

Generally I agree with this but...so you don't believe the Correa-signing rumors were groundless? He signed with the Twins for $35.1 million this year (albeit with only player options 2023-24).

I think it's plausible they talked a bit. But it didn't happen.  

They can talk all day long, but the Orioles haven't signed an external free agent to a big contract in over 15 years.  And these would be the biggest contracts ever, or close.

[LA2]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think it's plausible they talked a bit. But it didn't happen.  

They can talk all day long, but the Orioles haven't signed an external free agent to a big contract in over 15 years.  And these would be the biggest contracts ever, or close.

Correction: I meant to write "so you believe the Correa-signing rumors were groundless?" But you caught the drift of my question anyway. Thanks.