Will the Orioles eventually increase payroll significantly?

[deward]

19 minutes ago, owknows said:

I still find it strange that the majority of respondents on this board think that a huge payroll is the ticket to sustained winning.

And that it's what we should be working toward.

And that O's ownership are bums for not having a huge payroll.

The entire point of the rebuild and the hiring of this particular baseball executive is to put a perpetual winner on the field WITHOUT having a huge payroll.

Stock the farm.... graduate stud players... play them to the final ARB years...  and trade them for restock...

Lather, rinse, repeat.

That's the way things are going to be happening here (and for the better)... and anyone looking for big contract ball players is going to be disappointed (thankfully)

 

Speaking for myself, I have no interest in that model. I don't want the O's to become Tampa Bay. I don't care if that model works in Tampa, I don't want the constant roster churn, where every good player is just ticking down to being traded to a higher spending club. That isn't enjoyable for me. I want to watch a core grow and develop together, with a select few that stay for the bulk of their careers. Old-fashioned, perhaps, but that's the type of fandom that I enjoy. I don't want to lather, rinse, and repeat every year. You can keep that, thank you.

[Sydnor]

1 hour ago, WarehouseChatter said:

None of these moves were made to slash payroll.  They were made to add players to a minor league system that needs more pitching competition.  You could argue that Elias should have made trades to enhance the team for 2022.  I would have disagreed with this approach if it meant giving up our good minor league talent.  Look at what those in front of us did today.  I would not give up talent to put us in a position to win, what, the wildcard round?  It’s about 2023,24, etc… sustained success.

I think it is highly unlikely that any of the players acquired in the Mancini and Lopez trades will provide meaningful (if any) help in 2023 or 2024. Would you disagree? Do you think that the players acquired will line up with the Rutschman window given the organization’s reluctance to sign any player to an early extension?

[deward]

I also suspect that the constant roster churn is part of why Tampa struggles to keep their fan base.

[Sydnor]

24 minutes ago, owknows said:

I still find it strange that the majority of respondents on this board think that a huge payroll is the ticket to sustained winning.

And that it's what we should be working toward.

And that O's ownership are bums for not having a huge payroll.

The entire point of the rebuild and the hiring of this particular baseball executive is to put a perpetual winner on the field WITHOUT having a huge payroll.

Stock the farm.... graduate stud players... play them to the final ARB years...  and trade them for restock...

Lather, rinse, repeat.

That's the way things are going to be happening here (and for the better)... and anyone looking for big contract ball players is going to be disappointed (thankfully)

 

Even Tampa and Cleveland sign key players to extensions. Tampa with Snell, Kiermaier, Longoria, Franco, etc. Cleveland with Clase, Ramirez, Kluber, etc. If nothing else the extra control enhances trade values. I think it’s unrealistic to think that the organization can simply run out players, trade them when they hit Arb 2, and win consistently. I don’t think anyone truly operates that way.

[owknows]

3 minutes ago, deward said:

Speaking for myself, I have no interest in that model. I don't want the O's to become Tampa Bay. I don't care if that model works in Tampa, I don't want the constant roster churn, where every good player is just ticking down to being traded to a higher spending club. That isn't enjoyable for me. I want to watch a core grow and develop together, with a select few that stay for the bulk of their careers. Old-fashioned, perhaps, but that's the type of fandom that I enjoy. I don't want to lather, rinse, and repeat every year. You can keep that, thank you.

I think your preference, or mine, is a matter of complete indifference to the Orioles.

Their objective is to put a perpetual contender on the field.

And a mid-market team can't afford a 10 year Juan Soto.

Even if he's home grown.

Sorry

[owknows]

3 minutes ago, Sydnor said:

Even Tampa and Cleveland sign key players to extensions. Tampa with Snell, Kiermaier, Longoria, Franco, etc. Cleveland with Clase, Ramirez, Kluber, etc. If nothing else the extra control enhances trade values.

I'm sure the Orioles will sign an occasional home-grown free agent.

But it isn't going to be a Soto, or a Trout, or a Correa.

It'll be 10 million guys... not 100 million.

 

 

[deward]

Just now, owknows said:

I think your preference, or mine, is a matter of complete indifference to the Orioles.

Their objective is to put a perpetual contender on the field.

And a mid-market team can't afford a 10 year Juan Soto.

Even if he's home grown.

Sorry

Your first point is obvious.

I'm not convinced that your second point is correct. That may be Elias' objective, I don't know at all that it's ownerships objective. 

Your third point is completely incorrect. Every team in baseball COULD afford Juan Soto, some would just have to make more compromises elsewhere on the roster than others. If the O's could afford $23M/year for Chris Davis, they can afford $32M for Soto (or Rustchman, or Henderson, or whoever)

[owknows]

6 minutes ago, Sydnor said:

 I think it’s unrealistic to think that the organization can simply run out players, trade them when they hit Arb 2, and win consistently. I don’t think anyone truly operates that way.

Every new way of doing things, was once a way that nobody "truly operates that way".

[owknows]

1 minute ago, deward said:

Your first point is obvious.

I'm not convinced that your second point is correct. That may be Elias' objective, I don't know at all that it's ownerships objective.

Ahh... another "ownership doesn't really want to win" guy...

Not really much I can do with that.

[owknows]

3 minutes ago, deward said:

Your third point is completely incorrect. Every team in baseball COULD afford Juan Soto, some would just have to make more compromises elsewhere on the roster than others. If the O's could afford $23M/year for Chris Davis, they can afford $32M for Soto (or Rustchman, or Henderson, or whoever)

Every 10 year Juan Soto is a potential Chris Davis waiting to happen.

I'll take their good years... you can have their declining years at inflated prices.

Some GM's never learn.

Thankfully the Orioles don't have one of them.

 

[deward]

2 minutes ago, owknows said:

Ahh... another "ownership doesn't really want to win" guy...

Not really much I can do with that.

As I've said in other posts, I need them to prove it at this point. I'm not taking their word for it. It's entirely possible that the low payroll aspect of this plan is the part they care about the most.

[deward]

Just now, owknows said:

Every 10 year Juan Soto is a potential Chris Davis waiting to happen.

I'll take their good years... you can have their declining years at inflated prices.

Some GM's never learn.

Thankfully the Orioles don't have one of them.

 

Every prospect you trade Juan Soto for is a potential failure waiting to happen. I'll take the proven players, you can have the hit or miss prospects.

No plan is perfect, but some fans will drink any kool-aid.

[owknows]

Just now, deward said:

As I've said in other posts, I need them to prove it at this point. I'm not taking their word for it. It's entirely possible that the low payroll aspect of this plan is the part they care about the most.

By your own admission...  Elias wants to win.

And of course Ownership.. Hired Mike Elias... and made him the highest paid GM in the history of baseball when he was hired...

Because they want to... lose.

Because reasons and stuff.

[Sydnor]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

Every new way of doing things, was once a way that nobody "truly operates that way".

What I’m saying is if Tampa can sign Franco and Cleveland can extend Jose Ramirez twice, the Orioles can extend important players as well. I would give Henderson an extension today. I would give Rutschman an extension today. If you want to trade them in year 5, cool. You’ll get more for them with the extra control, so I don’t think it’s smart just to go year to year if you have players that will agree to extensions and Elias probably feels the same given that Houston signed Altuve and Bergman to extensions. If the player is unwilling to do that and Henderson won’t because Boras Corp., then you don’t. I’m not saying they can make a play for Soto and I don’t think it would make sense even if they could. I’m talking about extending pre-Arb players or players like Ramirez (I.e., elite and want to stay).

[connja]

I don't think we would need to increase payroll significantly to field a winning team for the next few years.  I think it will creep up slowly to respectable levels through extensions and a few better pitching signings.  If we are blessed to need to give a huge extension to Adley or Mountie or someone like that, it won't be for at least a few years.