Which winter meeting contracts would you have matched or beaten and why?

[Yardball85]

Great post.  Without thinking about it too much, I'd say Abreu, Senga, Quintana and perhaps Josh Bell and Verlander.

[MijiT88]

Welcome to the board! I think the only two I wouldve gone over were Senga and Quintana. I trust that our lineup will be better than last year with the full year of gunnar and adley maybe cowser at some point too.

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, Sanity Check said:

Thank you, both.  I've been lurking for years and really learn a lot from you guys with your analysis. and debates.  

 

Nice post ..I liked Yoshida and Senga.

[OriolesMagic83]

I like the Quintana, Senga, and Tyler Anderson contracts.  I would have been happy with any of these guys at the contracts they got plus a little more.  It is of course questionable if Senga can come here and have success, the same as for any player coming from another league/country.  I would much rather bet $75 mill on Senga making that transition than $200 mill on Rodon staying healthy.  The best strategy for Elias might have been to jump in and try to grab a FA starter as one of the first signings of the offseason.  Of course hindsight is 20/20.

[oriole]

Considering a corner OF lefty is on the wish list I think the Yoshida contract could’ve been beaten. Make it an even $20m over 5 years and I think he’d have been an Oriole. 
 

Clevinger has more upside than Gibson and would have preferred spending a couple extra million to roll the dice a bit with him. Gibson isn’t necessarily bad but there’s little chance of him being any more than a back end guy. 
 

Josh Bell is a clear upgrade at 1B and that contract isn’t bad at all. Mountcastle is obviously on Elias’ shit list and Bell is a much better candidate than Diaz or Cordero. 

 

[wildcard]

50 minutes ago, JR Oriole said:

It is hard for me to envision a future where the offseason doesn't involve what we deem to be "insane" contracts.  Basically, I think this will just be the way it is going forward.  And in the same vein, I don't see us ever being able to participate because we just aren't rich enough and our risk profile doesn't align with what is needed in this business.  So it is like a country club we can never join.  

What the Orioles have amazingly managed to do is transfer their feelings of risk-aversion and budget management to their fanbase, such that our fans actually feel relief from not getting stuck in these contracts even though our own bank accounts are not directly impacted (unlike high gas prices or inflation, which we can't easily avoid).  Like any investment, there is always a justification for not making it.  So we are left rooting for these rich teams to regret these deals, probably knowing that even if those contracts hurt them in later years, they will still have enough money to stay in the club while we are perpetually looking in from the outside.  

To answer the original question, I have no idea what a good contract is versus one that is not good.  I can't say I care either.  All I care about is getting to the playoffs and winning when we get there.  Even if we don't sign anyone else all off-season, I don't care....as long as we make the playoffs and win.  

I think you are right that the O's will not be spending big in FA for a while.  And I agree the fan base in many ways has bought into Elias conservative approach though there seem to a lot that are very disappointed in what has happened in the last month.

I don't think buying into Elias' approach is a bad thing.   83 wins and a jump of 31 games is fun to watch.   And after adding Gibson to replace Lyles  I believe this team as it is current constructed can win 90 next year.   Adley is a difference maker and the teams win percentage since  he was promoted certainly puts the team in the direction of 90 wins.  Add Gunnar and subtract Odor is a huge plus.   Grayson  is a big part of the future.

I don't think Elias is done.  Prices will fall and he is add.  But the players  will be  supplements the young core.  I am looking for more excitement for years to come.  So instead of being discourage  I am actually feeling good around the teams direction.

Edited December 11, 2022 by wildcard

[waroriole]

Like others, I would’ve matched the Senga contract. It seems like the best opportunity to provide excess value. I doubt he would’ve signed that deal with us, since it’s been reported he wanted to be in a big market. Probably less value if we have to pay the 5/100 it would’ve taken. 

[Sports Guy]

56 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Nice post ..I liked Yoshida and Senga.

You would have beaten the Yoshida contract?

[tabletop]

Carlos Santana, Miguel Castro, Josh Bell, Andrew Heaney, Zach Eflin, Jose Abreu, Kyle Gibson, and Jose Quintana.

All of those signings were fair and anyone of them would have improved the O’s at a reasonable cost and none were long term.

Obviously some are redundant so I wouldn’t have signed everyone of them but they were all good signings IMO.

[MarCakes21]

I'm only interested in the contracts what would have been short and improved our (like actually move the needle) team but giving payroll flexibility.  Ie, I'm staying away from both Turner/Xander contracts and Walker/Taillon contracts.  But I'm also keeping my orange tinted glasses on. So here goes:

Verlander: 2/$87

Kershaw: 1/$20

Clevinger: 1/$12

 

[NedFromYork]

Verlander.  Kershaw.  Maybe Abreu.

[btdart20]

Abreu and Senga.

[btdart20]

Yeah Verlander too.

[StottyByNature]

Verlander.  We'd have to be willing to manipulate that third year option if he went in the tank, but I thought he was the exact kind of top end, short contract guy we needed.  I think we wouldn't have any money left for anything but spare parts, but I'd have been OK with that.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

3 hours ago, Sanity Check said:

From the message board posts last week around the winter meetings, I know there are a lot of Hangouters who are disappointed with the lack of Oriole's activity.  While we don't know any of the details around who we made offers to and the parameters of those offers, there were a lot of (in my opinion) eye-popping contracts given out.  Basically, a lot of "stupid money" contracts were being offered, and I mean that in both the slang and literal sense.  While it's easy to be disappointed with what we didn't do, it's also sometimes good to actually be HAPPY with what we DIDN'T do.

So, with  that in mind, and the frustration that many of you/us are feeling, would you have wanted the Orioles to match or beat any of the accepted offers to free agents last week, and if so, which of the contracts awarded would you have either wanted the O's to match or beat, both in terms of years and money, and why?  And also, taking our orange tinted glasses off, for any of the free agents that you would have wanted us to ante up for, do you think the Orioles would have had to offer more money and /or years to get that free agent and would you have done it?

Let's face it, the only real time that I can remember free agents wanting to come play in Baltimore is when Cal Ripken was here and was the face of the franchise.  I know we have some up and comers now, but they have not solidified their place in baseball lore (yet) to make Baltimore an overly attractive place to want to sign.  That day may come again soon, but it's not here now. (again, in my opinion).

While I would have loved to see some impactful moves last week, it was clear to me that we were not swimming in the deep end of the pool, which apparently was much deeper than any of us could have imagined.  And honestly, I found my jaw dropping at some of the contracts, and was thinking to myself, most of those contracts are not ones that we should have even considered doing without looking desperate.

So, which contracts would you have wanted us to match/beat, and why?  And how much, if any, would we have needed to beat the offer by in order to get your guy??  Or, are you grateful that the Orioles did not get involved with the craziness of the contracts that were being offered?

Welcome aboard!

I would have happily taken Quintana, Clevinger, Senga, or Anderson over Gibson, and would have been willing to match the years (including options) and beat the AAVs they received by a million or two if necessary, and maybe even add an extra year in Senga's case (at the same rate he got at least, so 6/$90 million vs. the 5/$75 million he ultimately got). I also might have matched or beaten Walker's deal, but I am a bit higher on him than some others here and am not 100% sure anyway, but it's close.

Additionally, I would have offered Verlander the Scherzer deal he was reported to be looking for without the slightest bit of hesitation. I would have even been willing to offer an additional $1 million per year over Scherzer's AAV to appeal to his ego with the opportunity to beat what Scherzer got, both in terms of AAV and total guarantee.

I can't really think of a hitter who signed whose deal I would have matched or beaten though. I had no interest in Bellinger and would not have offered the third year to Abreu; I might have offered 2/$50 million for him though.

I definitely had no interest in matching or beating the deals any of the guys who got 8-11 years got, which also applies to the one Correa will eventually get.