Mike Trout to the Orioles?

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Ok, buddy. I am done with this ridiculous thread as well as your moving targets.

Show me where I said 150 is too low.  Prove it.

[Aristotelian]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Depends on who you have signed and where they are in their service time.

For example, Jackson Holliday won’t likely even be at arb 3 that year.  Adley May be at the end of his deal.  
 

And btw, there will be years where the payroll will be higher.  The Orioles carried higher payrolls than 150 not that long ago and with more revenue pouring into the sport in the coming years and if the team is winning, they will be able to spend more.

But as guys get arb raises, they will see payrolls increase.  But just like there will be years where it’s higher, there will be plenty of years where it’s lower.

If you build your team properly and you do things the right way, managing the payroll is pretty easy.

 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

 

Lol.  Do You understand reading comprehension?  I prefaced that by saying there will be years where it’s higher.  I mentioned that at times payrolls will increase and decrease.  It’s a general comment about how payrolls will fluctuate year to year based on arb cases, who is up, who isn’t, who was traded before they got expensive, who was signed, etc…

I never said 150 is too low..in fact I already said before that I would focus it around 130ishM and I sure as hell never said anything about 200 or more.  It’s just that there may be years like we saw before where we were in the 165-180 range.  That’s obviously possible.
 

 

[Frobby]

46 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I know I've sometimes said something like "save today so we can spend more tomorrow" but is there any evidence of teams (Orioles or otherwise) putting significantly more money in to a team because they'd had small payrolls in prior years?  I think absent real evidence we have to assume that money saved today just goes into this year's profits.

I’m not sure how you’d really tell.  Last winter, I did a thread noting teams’ payroll ups and downs over the last 20 years.  I compiled a year-by-year chart to back it up.  It’s worth a quick read:

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Frobby

[Hallas]

10 hours ago, foxfield said:

How many players do you think Baltimore will need to include with Mullins to acquire Pablo Lopez?

As a follow up, if not traded, how long is Mullins a starter for Baltimore?

I think the Orioles lose the trade hard if we trade Mullins for Lopez straight up.  Mullins is a good defender and at his best he's already showed a 6 win season, and he's good to play CF at least until his arb years are done.  While we have a couple CF prospects in the pipeline they're not going to be ready for a couple years.  And Lopez is bascially a #3 starter, not the kind of player you trade for a player that showed all-star form a year ago and is still playing well.  On top of that, Mullins has 1 more pre-FA year than Lopez.

I think Mullins' current ZIPS multi-year projection is a bit on the high end but not overly so, and assuming health, he's going to be an above average player until he hits FA, with Adam Jones' peak as his topside projection.

 

I've hashed this out already but Mullins' non-context-adjusted stats make it look like he's going through a much bigger regression than he is, between the change in park effects and the lowered offensive environment.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Hallas

[Sports Guy]

Trout continues to struggle with his back injury.  HIs OPS is over 1000 and he has only been able to homer in 7 straight games.

WAR is 5.1 by fWAR and 5.2 by bWAR and that is prior to tonight.  
 

[ScGO's]

Mullins, Cowser, Hall, Westburg, Rom for Trout and $

[Aristotelian]

Ohtani makes way more sense than Trout

[MarCakes21]

5 hours ago, ScGO's said:

Mullins, Cowser, Hall, Westburg, Rom for Trout and $

I wouldn't go any more than this, but I'm interested by this deal.  I might even pull Hall/Westburg.

[emmett16]

Trout playing with a chip on his shoulder against the Yankees & Red Sox on prime time might just be what the marketing/branding doctor ordered for this franchise.  Insanely risky but the rewards could be incredible.  

[vab]

The recent offensive woes certainly had me reconsidering my earlier reservations about going after Trout but I still think it's a "last-piece" kind of move and this team is certainly still more than one piece away. We still have to get more of these prospects up and see how they fit (or don't fit) into the long term plans. A lot of progress this year no doubt but still a ways to go. 

[RZNJ]

Mike Trout doesn't cure all of this teams problems even if he can stay on the field.   Since 2016, he's missed significant time every year and now he's 31.   You think he's going to be more durable in the next 5 years?    Great player.  I'm happy that his back condition isn't slowing him down.   If it's not the back, it will be something else.   Way too risky a move that doesn't need to be taken.

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Mike Trout doesn't cure all of this teams problems even if he can stay on the field.   Since 2016, he's missed significant time every year and now he's 31.   You think he's going to be more durable in the next 5 years?    Great player.  I'm happy that his back condition isn't slowing him down.   If it's not the back, it will be something else.   Way too risky a move that doesn't need to be taken.

It's not mIkE tRoUt that is the issue.  It's the 300 million guaranteed that is the issue.

It's almost like the valuation of a player includes things like salary and contractual status.  Crazy, I know, right?

For the record, I hope he keeps this up for 8 more years and gets into the short list of greatest players of all time.

[RZNJ]

Just now, Pickles said:

It's not mIkE tRoUt that is the issue.  It's the 300 million guaranteed that is the issue.

It's almost like the valuation of a player includes things like salary and contractual status.  Crazy, I know, right?

For the record, I hope he keeps this up for 8 more years and gets into the short list of greatest players of all time.

Well, I kind of thought the contract part was understood by all.   He's still great when he's on the field.   It's just a matter of how often he's going to be on the field the next 5 years and if these injuries start to take some affect.    It's a risk that we don't need to take.   We are in a good position now without having to take that kind of risk.

[Pickles]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Well, I kind of thought the contract part was understood by all.   He's still great when he's on the field.   It's just a matter of how often he's going to be on the field the next 5 years and if these injuries start to take some affect.    It's a risk that we don't need to take.   We are in a good position now without having to take that kind of risk.

Well, it seems it's not understood by all.  Even talking about 5 years undersells it, because he's owed 100 million for three years after that.

For the record, I agree, there's no need for us to that risk.