BRob News to Come on Thursday?

[Frobby]

I can't believe AM is going to be foolish enough to give him a 4 year deal, unless 2009 is ripped up which I am sure isn't happening.

I am shocked that AM would cave to that 4th year in this market.

Let's see the terms before we decide how good or bad this is. It sounds like this deal will be very favorable to BRob. So long as it doesn't handicap the team in a major way going forward, I'm not going to obsess about it. The way this has played out reminds me a lot of the Mora negotiations. That deal was pretty favorable to him, but at the end of the day, it has worked out OK.

[RShack]

I can't believe AM is going to be foolish enough to give him a 4 year deal, unless 2009 is ripped up which I am sure isn't happening.

I am shocked that AM would cave to that 4th year in this market.

I'm kind of shocked too, frankly. Roberts has little or not leverage, as last I checked his agent isn't Ben Bernanke.

I think you guys are very easily "shocked" ;-)

The only reason for being "shocked" is if you make 3 very iffy assumptions:

• The only meaningful value a player has can be measured by his stats.
• Your expectation about BRob's imminent decline is something Moses carried down from the mountain.
• It's best for the franchise for the GM to play hardball in each and every case.

All three of those things represent iffy assumptions and arbitrary value judgments. It's fine for everybody to make iffy assumptions and arbitrary value judgments. We all do that, you can't have opinions about baseball without doing that. But pretending that those things are Actual Facts is something else.

Look, we know that AM is ready and willing to establish his terms and let the other guy either take it or leave it. He has done that on various other occasions, and his record in BAL includes several deals of various kinds that appear to be very good indeed. So, the idea that he's some kind of patsy just doesn't hold water. Therefore, you have to look for other explanations. One obvious explanation is that AM simply disagrees with the assumptions and value judgments that you have made; if he does this, it means that he thinks they are wrong. It's really that simple. Whether his judgment is correct is something that only the future can tell us.

As for the money, which you guys seem to care about a whole lot more than you care about the team, we'll see. All along, various folks around here (including me) expected it would be 4/40, plus or minus a bit. If it turns out to be "plus" rather than "minus", so what? BRob's gonna give most of that difference away to local causes anyway, so who cares? It will be less than some folks wanted him to flush on Looper, and it's not gonna make any meaningful difference whatsoever in what the team does in other important matters. What it does do is solve the 2B problem for the immediate and mid-term future, narrow down the list of IF problems that AM has to solve, make it easier to attract other FA's next year, and make everybody-except-you happy, both on the team and among Oriole fandom. In other words, it's another case of AM making progress.

If it's 4 years, $44 million, that'd be very un-MacPhail like IMO. Something would be sorta smelly to me in that case...

Don't forget who he works for...

I expect we'll see conspiracy theories about how AM is a just a dancing marionette, with Guess Who pulling the strings.

I guess that will happen any time AM does something that causes Payroll Hawks to conclude that AM is somehow a fool.

IMO, the more likely explanation is that AM thinks the course of action you prefer is the wrong one.

[DrungoHazewood]

• The only meaningful value a player has can be measured by his stats.
• Your expectation about BRob's imminent decline is something Moses carried down from the mountain.
• It's best for the franchise for the GM to play hardball in each and every case.

All three of those things represent iffy assumptions and arbitrary value judgments. I think it's fine for everybody to make iffy assumptions and arbitrary value judgments. We all do that, you can't have opinions about baseball without doing that. But pretending that those things are Actual Facts is something else.

A 4/44 deal for Brian Roberts is a good risk using value that can be measured. In other words, by stats.

[Hank Scorpio]

I think you guys are very easily "shocked" ;-)

The only reason for being "shocked" is if you make 3 very iffy assumptions:

• The only meaningful value a player has can be measured by his stats.
• Your expectation about BRob's imminent decline is something Moses carried down from the mountain.
• It's best for the franchise for the GM to play hardball in each and every case.

All three of those things represent iffy assumptions and arbitrary value judgments. It's fine for everybody to make iffy assumptions and arbitrary value judgments. We all do that, you can't have opinions about baseball without doing that. But pretending that those things are Actual Facts is something else.

Look, we know that AM is ready and willing to establish his terms and let the other guy either take it or leave it. He has done that on various other occasions, and his record in BAL includes several deals of various kinds that appear to be very good indeed. So, the idea that he's some kind of patsy just doesn't hold water. Therefore, you have to look for other explanations. One obvious explanation is that AM simply disagrees with the assumptions and value judgments that you have made; if he does this, it means that he thinks they are are wrong. It's really that simple.

As for the money, which you guys seem to care about a whole lot more than you care about the team, we'll see. All along, various folks around here (including me) expected it would be 4/40, plus or minus a bit. If it turns out to be "plus" rather than "minus", so what? BRob's gonna give most of that difference away to local causes anyway, so who cares? It will be less than some folks wanted him to flush on Looper, and it's not gonna make any meaningful difference whatsoever in what the team does in other important matters. What it does do is solve the 2B problem for the immediate and mid-term future, narrow down the list of IF problems that AM has to solve, make it easier to attract other FA's next year, and make everybody-except-you happy, both on the team and among Oriole fandom. In other words, it's another case of AM making progress.

I expect we'll see conspiracy theories about how AM is a just a dancing marionette, with Guess Who pulling the strings.

I guess that will happen any time AM does something that causes Payroll Hawks to conclude that AM is somehow a fool.

IMO, the more likely explanation is that AM thinks the course of action you prefer is the wrong one.

The one and only reason I'd be shocked is Orlando Hudson's situation at present.

And that's enough reason to be shocked, to me.

[RShack]

A 4/44 deal for Brian Roberts is a good risk using value that can be measured. In other words, by stats.

Thanks for the correction. (Really.)

What I should have said is "how some folks prefer to read the stats".

[Sports Guy]

The one and only reason I'd be shocked is Orlando Hudson's situation at present.

And that's enough reason to be shocked, to me.

Exactly...The market for good second baseman isn't great right now..I know BRob is better than that but is he worth twice the years and another 30-35 million dollars?

[RShack]

The one and only reason I'd be shocked is Orlando Hudson's situation at present.

And that's enough reason to be shocked, to me.

Exactly...The market for good second baseman isn't great right now..I know BRob is better than that but is he worth twice the years and another 30-35 million dollars?

That's kinda like saying nobody shoulda signed Tex without waiting to see what Dunn signed for. (Not exactly, but kind of...)

Putting the Orlando Hudson situation in charge of what the O's do is silly, IMO.

However, I do agree that it is the most compelling argument available to Payroll Hawks.

[Hank Scorpio]

That's kinda like saying nobody shoulda signed Tex without waiting to see what Dunn signed for. (Not exactly, but kind of...)

Putting the Orlando Hudson situation in charge of what the O's do is silly, IMO.

However, I do agree that it is the most compelling argument available to Payroll Hawks.

I'm not trying to be a payroll hawk or say that I vehemently disagree with the deal.

Really, I'm not. I would say Roberts is a fine player to "overpay" for.

I'm just saying that given what we know about MacPhail, it'd be surprising for him to ADD a year and money to a deal in this market when a (relatively) comparable guy is still unemployed.

Do you disagree with that, and if you do, why?

[Frobby]

I'm not trying to be a payroll hawk or say that I vehemently disagree with the deal.

Really, I'm not. I would say Roberts is a fine player to "overpay" for.

I'm just saying that given what we know about MacPhail, it'd be surprising for him to ADD a year and money to a deal in this market when a (relatively) comparable guy is still unemployed.

Do you disagree with that, and if you do, why?

From what I have seen of MacPhail, he has a pretty good sense of player value, and he seems to be willing to bend a little when it comes to key players on the team who are key elements of the "core" the fans care about. I think if he could chose between two equal players, one of whom was a long-time member of the team and a good citizen, and one of whom was an outsider, he'd be willing to pay a premium to keep the incumbent player. Which, I think, is as it should be.

[Sports Guy]

I'm not trying to be a payroll hawk or say that I vehemently disagree with the deal.

Really, I'm not. I would say Roberts is a fine player to "overpay" for.

I'm just saying that given what we know about MacPhail, it'd be surprising for him to ADD a year and money to a deal in this market when a (relatively) comparable guy is still unemployed.

Do you disagree with that, and if you do, why?

Totally agree here Hank.

I am very surprised he would give in to the 4 year demand unless the 4th year is really 2009.

[Hank Scorpio]

From what I have seen of MacPhail, he has a pretty good sense of player value, and he seems to be willing to bend a little when it comes to key players on the team who are key elements of the "core" the fans care about. I think if he could chose between two equal players, one of whom was a long-time member of the team and a good citizen, and one of whom was an outsider, he'd be willing to pay a premium to keep the incumbent player. Which, I think, is as it should be.

Fair enough...

I'd just be surprised if the O's gave in given the market. Not necessarily disappointed, because I like Roberts and I don't think he'll fall off the cliff, but surprised.

[RShack]

I'm not trying to be a payroll hawk or say that I vehemently disagree with the deal.

Really, I'm not. I would say Roberts is a fine player to "overpay" for.

I'm just saying that given what we know about MacPhail, it'd be surprising for him to ADD a year and money to a deal in this market when a (relatively) comparable guy is still unemployed.

Do you disagree with that, and if you do, why?

I'm not surprised in the least. The basic reason is that I think that AM's approach is a lot more... um... what's the word?... how about "holistic"?

By this, I mean to convey that I think AM:

• Sees the rebuilding of the Orioles franchise as being very much about rebuilding a Human Enterprise that is about more than just numbers and dollars.
• Looks at the team and the whole organization as being more than just a sum of individual parts.
• Balances the need for long-term goodness with short-term progress.
• Considers things like hero-value and the fanbase (which everybody wants MLB to do, until it comes time for AM to make a decision ;-)
• Includes soft factors, such as individual character (both on and off the field) and civic contribution, as meaningful parts of the value-equation.
• Views "Oriole family" (keeping-your-own) vs. "getting a hired gun" as being not at all equivalent.
• Makes some pretty basic distinctions about when you play hardball with players vs. when you don't.

If you accept that these things are true about his outlook, then it should not at all be shocking that he would bend a bit to keep BRob around for more than just a couple years. Face it, adding an extra year is a perfect example of "bending a bit". Those who say it's "absolutely terrible", as if 3 years is fine but 4 is a major catastrophe, are over-reacting in a way that's just way, way out of proportion, both to the O's situation and to the fundamental lack of trustworthiness of individual player projections.

The very same kind thinking that says AM shoulda drawn a line in the sand about BRob would also lead to the conclusion that guys like Brooks and Palmer and Cal should have been traded. If you think that way, then trading Cal right after '91 should have been a no-brainer. Now, I don't expect BRob is going to the HOF, but the simple fact is that he's the closest thing to a Brooks-Palmer-Cal player that the O's have had since Cal. The bright projected future of Nick "Um, er" Markakis doesn't change that at all. While I don't know if the O's have a rigid policy about it, I think it is not insane to think the BRob could be a guy who's number gets more-or-less retired (officially or unofficially). If you place any meaningful value whatsoever on the importance of that kind of Oriole tradition, and if you see the franchise turning things around in the fairly near future, then BRob is clearly a guy you work with, not the kind of guy you ship out of town just because of Orlando Hudson's situation. And, as Drungo says, keeping-and-paying BRob is 100% defensible, even if you rely totally on a stats-based perspective. So, the only available reason for dissing the thing or being shocked by it is if you are indeed a Payroll Hawk and if you believe that Orlando Hudson somehow should be the yardstick that determines AM's construction of the Baltimore Orioles.

[Hank Scorpio]

I'm not surprised in the least. The basic reason is that I think that AM's approach is a lot more... um... what's the word?... how about "holistic"?

By this, I mean to convey that I think AM:

• Sees the rebuilding of the Orioles franchise as being very much about rebuilding a Human Enterprise that is about more than just numbers and dollars.
• Looks at the team and the whole organization as being more than just a sum of individual parts.
• Balances the need for long-term goodness with short-term progress.
• Considers things like hero-value and the fanbase (which everybody wants MLB to do, until it comes time for AM to make a decision ;-)
• Includes soft factors, such as individual character (both on and off the field) and civic contribution, as meaningful parts of the value-equation.
• Views "Oriole family" (keeping-your-own) vs. "getting a hired gun" as being not at all equivalent.
• Makes some pretty basic distinctions about when you play hardball with players vs. when you don't.

If you accept that these things are true about his outlook, then it should be not at all be shocking that he would bend a bit to keep BRob around for more than just a couple years. Face it, adding an extra year is a perfect example of "bending a bit". Those who say it's "absolutely terrible", as if 3 years is fine but 4 is a major catastrophe, are over-reacting in a way that's just way, way out of proportion, both to the O's situation and to the fundamental lack of trustworthiness of individual player projections.

The very same kind thinking that says AM shoulda drawn a line in the sand about BRob would also lead to the conclusion that guys like Brooks and Palmer and Cal should have been traded. If you think that way, then trading Cal right after '91 should have been a no-brainer. Now, I don't expect BRob is going to the HOF, but the simple fact is that he's the closest thing to a Brooks-Palmer-Cal player that the O's have had since Cal. The bright projected future of Nick "Um, er" Markakis doesn't change that at all. While I don't know if the O's have a rigid policy about it, I think it is not insane to think the BRob could be a guy who's number gets more-or-less retired (officially or unofficially). If you place any meaningful value whatsoever on the importance of that kind of Oriole tradition, and if you see the franchise turning things around in the fairly near future, then BRob is clearly a guy you work with, not the kind of guy you ship out of town just because of Orlando Hudson's situation. And, as Drungo says, keeping-and-paying BRob is 100% defensible, even if you rely totally on a stats-based perspective. So, the only available reason for dissing the thing or being shocked by it is if you are indeed a Payroll Hawk and if you believe that Orlando Hudson somehow should be the yardstick the determines AM's construction of the Baltimore Orioles.

Very well stated.

[Roll Tide]

4/40 per Scott Garceu on 105.7 fm

[PrivateO]

4/40 per Scott Garceu on 105.7 fm

Like others have said, I really want to see if the first year will start at 2009 or 2010.

Hopefully 2009.