I don't want to become the Rays

[GuidoSarducci]

2 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

The Rays signed Wander Franco to a 11 year deal. https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TBD/tampa-bay-rays-salaries-and-contracts.shtml

There are worse things in baseball than being the Rays. Like Baltimore from 99 to 2011.

Ok, I see that takes him to age 32.  It could be he's still productive by then and maybe play for another 5 years or so, so could end up wearing pinstripes.

[jabba72]

3 minutes ago, GuidoSarducci said:

Ok, I see that takes him to age 32.  It could be he's still productive by then and maybe play for another 5 years or so, so could end up wearing pinstripes.

Yeah, but those are his prime years Tampa signed him for. Franco likely wont get a 5 year extension at 32 unless he is still a star player. 

[deward]

8 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

First off, the Orioles will probably have the opportunity to sign some players longer-term.  But, I haven't looked into your point in any real way, but I tend to think it's not entirely correct.  Or isn't a really big factor.  Even the big market teams don't usually keep a lot of players longer than 6-7 years.

The Dodgers have as many resources as any team, and I think Kershaw, Julio Urias, and Justin Turner are their only players (at least starters/rotation) who've been around more than six years.  Kershaw the only one over 10.  The Yanks have had Judge/Chapman since 2016, I think those are their longest-tenured players. 

So if the Orioles occasionally sign a Henderson or a Rutschman to a deal buying out arb or free agency years that's not much different than the biggest teams.  Winning is a much bigger factor than losing guys to free agency after their initial 2, 3, 4 years in the minors and six or seven with the big league club.

To be honest, most players who come up at 23, 24 are going to be in decline by years 7, 8, 9, and you probably shouldn't sign them anyway.  I mentioned the Phillies in a recent post.  They were very successful about 12-14 years ago.  And made some poor decisions like the Ryan Howard contract because they thought keeping their guys was more important than a sober, level-headed analysis that our guys probably aren't going to be positive contributors by the middle of this long-term contract.

Two other quick points: First, we love these 2022 Orioles, right? Anthony Santander and Austin Hayes are the players who've been here longest, both getting cups of coffee in 2017.  Second, NCAA sports are some of the most popular in the country and nobody ever stays longer than four years.

I just want to jump in on your last point, because it's something I've been asking myself since this thread started: I love college football, those players rarely stay longer than four years, often less, and then they move on - so why does that not bother me as the same model would for the O's? I think there are two key differences. 

1) We know off the bat that college players are only eligible to play during the years they are enrolled in the school. You don't have any different expectations, that's just how the system works, and it really can't work any other way. In pro sports, the player and team always have the option to work out a longer relationship, if so desired. It's not really apples to apples.

2) College sports fans are fans of the school first and foremost, usually because they went there. It's much more satisfying to root for a kid who chose to go to YOUR school, played there for his college career, then (maybe) moved on to bigger and better things, perhaps even representing YOUR school now in the pros. Your favorite player moving on to a pro team becomes a point of pride, not a reason to feel bad. It's satisfying. Your favorite pro player leaving/getting traded away from your favorite pro team over financial considerations is deeply unsatisfying. 

[Just Regular]

3 hours ago, jrobb21613 said:

I don't believe the Orioles to be as small a market team as the Rays but sure as hell not as big as the Yankees. The O's not under Elias as of now have spent money in the past. With Elias and Sig coming from Houston I believe that is the process we are following. Houston developed a lot of their pitching in house. In 2017 they signed Charlie Morton and at the deadline traded for Verlander who put them over the top. 

Whose going to be our Charlie Morton and Justin Verlander next year? 

Charlie Morton and Justin Verlander

[DrungoHazewood]

15 minutes ago, deward said:

I just want to jump in on your last point, because it's something I've been asking myself since this thread started: I love college football, those players rarely stay longer than four years, often less, and then they move on - so why does that not bother me as the same model would for the O's? I think there are two key differences. 

1) We know off the bat that college players are only eligible to play during the years they are enrolled in the school. You don't have any different expectations, that's just how the system works, and it really can't work any other way. In pro sports, the player and team always have the option to work out a longer relationship, if so desired. It's not really apples to apples.

2) College sports fans are fans of the school first and foremost, usually because they went there. It's much more satisfying to root for a kid who chose to go to YOUR school, played there for his college career, then (maybe) moved on to bigger and better things, perhaps even representing YOUR school now in the pros. Your favorite player moving on to a pro team becomes a point of pride, not a reason to feel bad. It's satisfying. Your favorite pro player leaving/getting traded away from your favorite pro team over financial considerations is deeply unsatisfying. 

I think that's all true.  But I think we need to adjust our expectations.  It's been almost 50 years since the reserve clause was rightfully overturned.  Many players who spent long careers with one team in the past only did so because they had no choice in the matter.  We need to accept that players who happen to be drafted by the Baltimore Orioles may be grateful for the opportunities and salaries, and may even like the area... but almost none of them are from here, and given a choice they may well want to play elsewhere.  For money, or to go back to the area they grew up in, or just because the like the fact the weather is always nice in Southern California or they think it's exciting to live in Manhattan.

If I were a ballplayer, or my kids, and they were drafted by the Tigers I'm sure I'd be happy.  But also I'd be thinking about how in seven years a contract with the Orioles might be nice.

We shouldn't take it so personally when a player wants to or needs to go elsewhere when their six years are up.  Often it's in the Orioles best interest to let them go rather than sign what's likely a 30-year-old on the downside of his career to a stupidly large contract.

What might fix all of this, at least to some degree, is to have a CBA that compensates players for their production with far less tie to service time.  In soccer there's no X number of years of team control, and anyone can buy out anyone's contract at any time, if all parties agree.  So contracts tend to closely follow production no matter the age.  22-year-old stars get paid massively, and 34-year-olds rarely so well.  If it wasn't for the market-altering CBA that says you have to be in the league six years to be a free agent you would almost never see a 6/200 deal for a 30-year-old.  Someone like Nick Markakis would have been handsomely paid in his mid-20s, but probably get much smaller contracts as his production waned into his 30s that the Orioles could have more easily afforded and he could have spent his whole career here.  If he wanted to.

[deward]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think that's all true.  But I think we need to adjust our expectations.  It's been almost 50 years since the reserve clause was rightfully overturned.  Many players who spent long careers with one team in the past only did so because they had no choice in the matter.  We need to accept that players who happen to be drafted by the Baltimore Orioles may be grateful for the opportunities and salaries, and may even like the area... but almost none of them are from here, and given a choice they may well want to play elsewhere.  For money, or to go back to the area they grew up in, or just because the like the fact the weather is always nice in Southern California or they think it's exciting to live in Manhattan.

If I were a ballplayer, or my kids, and they were drafted by the Tigers I'm sure I'd be happy.  But also I'd be thinking about how in seven years a contract with the Orioles might be nice.

We shouldn't take it so personally when a player wants to or needs to go elsewhere when their six years are up.  Often it's in the Orioles best interest to let them go rather than sign what's likely a 30-year-old on the downside of his career to a stupidly large contract.

What might fix all of this, at least to some degree, is to have a CBA that compensates players for their production with far less tie to service time.  In soccer there's no X number of years of team control, and anyone can buy out anyone's contract at any time, if all parties agree.  So contracts tend to closely follow production no matter the age.  22-year-old stars get paid massively, and 34-year-olds rarely so well.  If it wasn't for the market-altering CBA that says you have to be in the league six years to be a free agent you would almost never see a 6/200 deal for a 30-year-old.  Someone like Nick Markakis would have been handsomely paid in his mid-20s, but probably get much smaller contracts as his production waned into his 30s that the Orioles could have more easily afforded and he could have spent his whole career here.  If he wanted to.

That's a little bit different conversation. I don't begrudge players the right to choose where they want to play. Unless the next time I see them, they're putting on pinstripes and talking about how they "just want to win a ring". Then they're dead to me. (kidding....kind of)  My objection to the O's following the Rays model is that I don't want to see star players consistently exiting the team because the O's aren't willing to ever pay them*. I understand that you can't have an expensive vet at every position; I don't want the team to get into another Chris Davis type fiasco. However, if Gunnar Henderson (for example) hits the big leagues at 21/22, and happens to become one of the best players in the game, I don't want to see him in another uniform at 27/28. That's all I'm hoping to avoid. If they actually manage to develop some true, homegrown superstars, don't trade them away in their prime out of commitment to a low-payroll model. Or at least not until he demands a 12 yr/$450M contract extension. 

*Yes, I know Tampa signed Franco to an 11 year deal. That was a deal so good that even Tampa couldn't turn it down; if Franco had wanted to bet on himself and wait six years, there's no chance he sticks around (assuming he's anywhere near as good as he seems to be).

[Bemorewins]

On 8/13/2022 at 6:20 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

First off, the Orioles will probably have the opportunity to sign some players longer-term.  But, I haven't looked into your point in any real way, but I tend to think it's not entirely correct.  Or isn't a really big factor.  Even the big market teams don't usually keep a lot of players longer than 6-7 years.

The Dodgers have as many resources as any team, and I think Kershaw, Julio Urias, and Justin Turner are their only players (at least starters/rotation) who've been around more than six years.  Kershaw the only one over 10.  The Yanks have had Judge/Chapman since 2016, I think those are their longest-tenured players. 

So if the Orioles occasionally sign a Henderson or a Rutschman to a deal buying out arb or free agency years that's not much different than the biggest teams.  Winning is a much bigger factor than losing guys to free agency after their initial 2, 3, 4 years in the minors and six or seven with the big league club.

To be honest, most players who come up at 23, 24 are going to be in decline by years 7, 8, 9, and you probably shouldn't sign them anyway.  I mentioned the Phillies in a recent post.  They were very successful about 12-14 years ago.  And made some poor decisions like the Ryan Howard contract because they thought keeping their guys was more important than a sober, level-headed analysis that our guys probably aren't going to be positive contributors by the middle of this long-term contract.

Two other quick points: First, we love these 2022 Orioles, right? Anthony Santander and Austin Hayes are the players who've been here longest, both getting cups of coffee in 2017.  Second, NCAA sports are some of the most popular in the country and nobody ever stays longer than four years.

First of all, as a newbie (long time lurkie) it'a an honor to be engaging with you (one of the long time veterans) that I have been reading on this board for years.

I agree with most of what you are saying, in terms of only being able to keep a few guys long term (maybe 1 or 2 - Adley, Gunnar, Holiday?) However, I think college is a different dynamic as you don't watch "your guys" go to another school and then come back to beat up on your team.

Also, if the O's were able to buy out the arb years with a few add ons with one of these guys, it would represent the type of forward/modern thinking the other smart clubs have, that is going to be necessary for the O's to achieve long term success beyond a defined 'window' like last time ('12- '18).

The only place that I really disagree with you is over the 6/7 period of time. If the O's were to adopt the Rays model, it would truly be a college style of 3/4 years at MAX before (and sometimes less) before guys are traded away.

I honestly believe that's why they and the A's (the model of constant turnover before them) don't have serious fanbases. If year to year, fans don't know who's on the team and who is not, it's going to be a problem for some, especially the casual/not day-to-day fans. Many of them are not going to take the time and energy to relearn a 'new' team every few years.

This is just my opinion and admit that I could be wrong, but there has to be a reason that just winning didn't bring people out to Oakland and it doesn't bring fans out to see Tampa.

[OriolesMagic83]

Late reply to this thread, but I would hate to be the Rays with a great farm system and competing for the playoffs every year.  Of course,all signs point to the O's having more money to spend than the Rays in a worst case scenario.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, OriolesMagic83 said:

Late reply to this thread, but I would hate to be the Rays with a great farm system and competing for the playoffs every year.  Of course,all signs point to the O's having more money to spend than the Rays in a worst case scenario.

Not all signs.

I've never heard of the Rays trying to get an arbitration eligible player to take deferred money.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Can_of_corn

[Emory Eagle]

This thread offended the baseball gods.

[Uli2001]

On 8/12/2022 at 7:21 AM, DrinkinWithFermi said:

But they are the one with the most available data.

For all of the Coles and Sabathias and Mussinas they have spents pallets upon pallets of cash on over the last 20+ years, they have exactly 1 championship to show for it.

Because the MLB playoffs are a crapshoot.

I disagree that it's a "crapshot". There are many factors that go into it. The most important one is peaking at the right time. The 1997 Orioles were the best team in Baseball for most of the year, but went into a funk at the wrong time. (They were already cooling off at the end of September that year.)

Another factor is home field advantage, playing at the right venue in front of passionate fans. If you don't believe it, look at the Yankees themselves.  They left old Yankee stadium and now play in front of a corporate crowd. Look at the Orioles in old Memorial Stadium.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

21 minutes ago, Uli2001 said:

I disagree that it's a "crapshot". There are many factors that go into it. The most important one is peaking at the right time. The 1997 Orioles were the best team in Baseball for most of the year, but went into a funk at the wrong time. (They were already cooling off at the end of September that year.)

Another factor is home field advantage, playing at the right venue in front of passionate fans. If you don't believe it, look at the Yankees themselves.  They left old Yankee stadium and now play in front of a corporate crowd. Look at the Orioles in old Memorial Stadium.

 

By saying they're not a crapshoot, you're implying that there are active steps you can take to have more success in the playoffs.  How do you plan to peak at the right time? How do you make your fans more or less passionate about playoff games?

I went to late season and playoff games in '97, '12, and '14 and the fans were nuts.  And the Orioles still didn't get a trophy.

[Scalious]

"I don't want to become the Rays"  Is just a re-wording of

"I don't want a team refuses to sell an ounce of their future for stacking odds when we are in prime position"

Which I kind agree with, the Rays seem to always been over-loaded with 40 man roster decisions. Which in the abstract is a great problem. They could stand to be more aggressive trading their non elite prospects. Since a lot of these guys end up being exposed to rule 5. There is lost opportunity cost there.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Scalious

[deward]

16 hours ago, Scalious said:

"I don't want to become the Rays"  Is just a re-wording of

"I don't want a team refuses to sell an ounce of their future for stacking odds when we are in prime position"

Which I kind agree with, the Rays seem to always been over-loaded with 40 man roster decisions. Which in the abstract is a great problem. They could stand to be more aggressive trading their non elite prospects. Since a lot of these guys end up being exposed to rule 5. There is lost opportunity cost there.

It's a bit more than that. "I don't want to become the Rays", at least for me, means that I don't want the O's to become a team that either can't or won't employ some payroll flexibility in order to keep the team competitive (whether that's resigning current players, adding free agents, or taking on contracts in trades). The Rays, I assume out of necessity, operate on a shoestring budget, and thus have to rely exclusively on player development and bargain basement shopping to fill out their roster. They've managed to do remarkably well with that approach (at winning games, not so much at building a fanbase), but it's an approach that leaves them with no margin for error. Player development isn't going to ALWAYS come through. Bargain basement acquisitions sometimes will turn out to be bargains for a reason. The Rays can't really change course or adjust if things aren't coming together; they'll end up going through multi-year doldrums like 2014-2017 if a wave of prospects doesn't hit like they're supposed to. 

I'd like the O's to be a team that can marry up a Rays-quality farm system with enough payroll flexibility to give them options when needed.

[vab]

The payroll is really the last piece of the puzzle in getting the Orioles to consistent contention. We'll start seeing if that piece falls into place this offseason.