FA Starters that fit Elias' pattern

[Sports Guy]

27 minutes ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

Really? I wholeheartedly disagree. You don't hire Bora$ if you, as a player, want to "get involved" in the business side of things. 99% of the extensions from Bora$ clients are from established players, not rookie extensions. I am not saying Gunnar couldn't make this request to Bora$ to get it done, but I am telling you with certainty, that Bora$ will attempt to talk him out of it and in these discussions with players, his odd's of winning are pretty damn good.

Henderson’s salary is essentially set at about 50M the next 5 years. He likely won’t sign an extension beyond 8 years (unless it’s like Tatis money) and even 8 may not be realistic.

But I find it unlikely  that he turns down a 7/110-120 type deal. He isn’t giving up much, if any money at all, is getting a guaranteed amount(ie, it’s safe) and he still hits FA before age 30 and can still get a mega 10+ year deal.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Sports Guy

[RZNJ]

20 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sure Boras prefers it.  So what?

Boras is the employee.

Over the years a number of people Boras works for have signed extensions.

Now maybe Gunnar isn't interested at any reasonable price.  That is certainly possible.  But if he is interested, Boras will, in the end, do what his employer wants him to do.

Sure, but Boras is going to advise him against it and he hired Boras because Boras is the “expert”.   It’s not impossible that Henderson would sign an extension but I think having Boras as his agent makes the chances slimmer.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

Really? I wholeheartedly disagree. You don't hire Bora$ if you, as a player, want to "get involved" in the business side of things. 99% of the extensions from Bora$ clients are from established players, not rookie extensions. I am not saying Gunnar couldn't make this request to Bora$ to get it done, but I am telling you with certainty, that Bora$ will attempt to talk him out of it and in these discussions with players, his odd's of winning are pretty damn good.

After a quick search I see that Boras has ~175 clients.  99% of them are not going for free agent deals.

Your perspective may be influenced by a small number of clients that very viably do seek large free agent deals.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why would any GM keep payroll lower than what ownership is willing to set?

I mean I understand why you want to leave a buffer so you can add during the season and not trade draft picks when you want to cut someone (Hi Dan!) but beyond that?

If Elias had significant headroom to add salary why didn't he do more at the trade deadline?

You basic premise just kinda breaks my brain.  The boss sets the budget and the manager makes it work.  What manager in any field just voluntary leaves budget money unspent?  Frankly Wildcard's theory makes more sense to me.

To save that money for later, when you need it.   Or, because spending more money is actually counterproductive to what you are trying to achieve.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Sure, but Boras is going to advise him against it and he hired Boras because Boras is the “expert”.   It’s not impossible that Henderson would sign an extension but I think having Boras as his agent makes the chances slimmer.

I don't disagree.

If only they had signed him long term before he hired Boras. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

To save that money for later, when you need it.   Or, because spending more money is actually counterproductive to what you are trying to achieve.  

1- They didn't "need it" at the trade deadline?  If that isn't a need situation what is?

2- I've never known it to work like that in the real world.  In the real world you undercut your budget and they cut your budget for next year since you obviously don't need the extra funding.

[Can_of_corn]

17 minutes ago, IPlayGM said:

What I mean is that I could see a scenario where ownership set a number for payroll and Elias decides it is not the right time to push the budget to the very top due to where the team is development wise, being fiscally conservative and maintaining flexibility. But now that the team is at a point where it is full on go time, he will want to add. So now we will see if it is ownership is a partner in pushing us over the edge.

Once again I'll mention the trade deadline moves.  If your hypothesis is correct wouldn't that have been a "right time to push the budget"?   How was that not a "full on go time" situation?

[Frobby]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

1- They didn't "need it" at the trade deadline?  If that isn't a need situation what is?

2- I've never known it to work like that in the real world.  In the real world you undercut your budget and they cut your budget for next year since you obviously don't need the extra funding.

I am giving you hypothetical reasons.  I have no idea what the truth is for the Orioles.  I do think though that Elias is the type of guy who will only pay what he thinks something is worth.  He’s not one to get auction fever and pay whatever it takes to outbid someone else.  You can decide if that’s a feature or a bug.  

As to “other businesses don’t work that way,” other businesses aren’t like pro sports.  You don’t see many other businesses that have payroll fluctuations that are as drastic as in baseball.  There are times in baseball when spending $15 mm on a mediocre starter makes no sense at all, and other times when it makes all the sense in the world.  So you spend money when it will have the most impact, you don’t spend it just to spend it.  
 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

I am giving you hypothetical reasons.  I have no idea what the truth is for the Orioles.  I do think though that Elias is the type of guy who will only pay what he thinks something is worth.  He’s not one to get auction fever and pay whatever it takes to outbid someone else.  You can decide if that’s a feature or a bug.  

As to “other businesses don’t work that way,” other businesses aren’t like pro sports.  You don’t see many other businesses that have payroll fluctuations that are as drastic as in baseball.  There are times in baseball when spending $15 mm on a mediocre starter makes no sense at all, and other times when it makes all the sense in the world.  So you spend money when it will have the most impact, you don’t spend it just to spend it.  
 

I don't see other pro sports working that way, I don't see other baseball teams working that way.

[Frobby]

37 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't see other pro sports working that way, I don't see other baseball teams working that way.

Other pro sports have salary floors and harder caps.  You can’t save money today and spend it later to the same degree you can in baseball.   

We see massive payroll fluctuations in baseball all the time.  I wrote about payroll fluctuations throughout MLB from  2000-2021 here.  I don’t know of other businesses that operate that way.  
 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Other pro sports have salary floors and harder caps.  You can’t save money today and spend it later to the same degree you can in baseball.   

We see massive payroll fluctuations in baseball all the time.  I wrote about payroll fluctuations throughout MLB from  2000-2021 here.  I don’t know of other businesses that operate that way.  
 

I can't think of any examples in other sports before they instituted caps. 

[LookinUp]

I think we still undersell the potential of the O's to be purchased.

Consistent with that, I think Elias is told to keep payroll low so Angelos can maximize the purchase price.

[24fps]

3 hours ago, HakunaSakata said:

I'm willing to overlook A LOT of stuff on this message board because the reality is that most of us are just speculating/guessing, but this is some real next level conspiracy driven craziness. Just an absolutely ridiculous claim that is  grounded in as much reality as flying unicorns and giant albino alligators living in our sewers. 

On what do you think Elias' year-end bonus is based?  Or maybe you think he doesn't receive one at all?  That would be unlikely.

What wildcard described might not be the exact mechanism (I certainly don't think it is), but incentive based bonuses are far from conspiracy driven craziness, they're a fact of corporate life and a completely legit source of questions around conflicts of interest.

[IPlayGM]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Once again I'll mention the trade deadline moves.  If your hypothesis is correct wouldn't that have been a "right time to push the budget"?   How was that not a "full on go time" situation?

I think that’s a different conversation. Trade deadline costs you human capital, not just money. I think our discussion is more along the lines of spending money.  

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, IPlayGM said:

I think that’s a different conversation. Trade deadline costs you human capital, not just money. I think our discussion is more along the lines of spending money.  

A monetary value is assigned to the human capital.