Mike Elias said O's upward path will "involve the major league payroll" Melewski

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Yea, it’s always better to be reactive than proactive.

And that is why I am proactive when it comes to my complaining.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea, it’s always better to be reactive than proactive.

Taking on financial commitments now that extend into future years would only hasten the exodus of our homegrown talent.

That isn't being proactive.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

Taking on financial commitments now that extend into future years would only hasten the exodus of our homegrown talent.

That isn't being proactive.

You have no evidence that it would hasten anything.  They are likely to be sent packing either way.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

You have no evidence that it would hasten anything.  They are likely to be sent packing either way.

eViDeNcE

No but I have common sense.

The more money you spend on outside acquisitions the less you have to retain homegrown players.

That's just Logic 101.

[RarityFlaherty]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea, it’s always better to be reactive than proactive.

Sure, it’s better for those in control of the situation to be proactive. What’s the point in being proactively upset about something that you have no control over?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

eViDeNcE

No but I have common sense.

The more money you spend on outside acquisitions the less you have to retain homegrown players.

That's just Logic 101.

It's faulty logic.

You are assuming that they won't be moved to maximize return and will only be moved when they are not longer financially tenable. 

That's not showing a lot of common sense.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, RarityFlaherty said:

Sure, it’s better for those in control of the situation to be proactive. What’s the point in being proactively upset about something that you have no control over?

It's November 17th.  You got anything better to do?

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's faulty logic.

You are assuming that they won't be moved to maximize return and will only be moved when they are not longer financially tenable. 

That's not showing a lot of common sense.

No, I'm assuming the Orioles are going to have too much talent to pay them all and keep them all well into their FA years.  Do you disagree with that assumption?

I'm not making any assumptions about when/why they'll be traded or allowed to walk in FA.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

No, I'm assuming the Orioles are going to have too much talent to pay them all and keep them all well into their FA years.  Do you disagree with that assumption?

I'm not making any assumptions about when/why they'll be traded or allowed to walk in FA.

Oh so you are looking at one factor and ignoring others?

Right, not much common sense there.

They are not going to make any moves based purely off of the cost of contracts.

[jamalshw]

I think it'll be very interesting to see what happens today with non-tender guys. If we tender most everyone, I think that can be interpreted that we won't be adding much via free agency. If the Orioles save a few million today by non-tendering Mateo, Tate, and/or Urias (maybe a couple others on the lowest end, too) perhaps that opens up the door and some money to add for a free agent sign. I do think most of the potential upgrades come via trade. 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Oh so you are looking at one factor and ignoring others?

Right, not much common sense there.

They are not going to make any moves based purely off of the cost of contracts.

WTF are you even going on about?

The O's aren't going to make moves based on the financials?  Yeah, sure.  

Ramble on more about common sense.

 

[Sports Guy]

18 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Taking on financial commitments now that extend into future years would only hasten the exodus of our homegrown talent.

That isn't being proactive.

This isn’t even remotely true.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Pickles said:

No, I'm assuming the Orioles are going to have too much talent to pay them all and keep them all well into their FA years.  Do you disagree with that assumption?

I'm not making any assumptions about when/why they'll be traded or allowed to walk in FA.

These guys aren’t FA for 4-8 years(depending on the player). WTF does signing someone for 2-3 years have to do with that?  There’s no logic or common sense there.  

And who is to say they want to retain them or that they will be good enough to retain? Lots of things can happen in the upcoming years.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This isn’t even remotely true.

You can pretend the money "doesn't matter" or pretend to not understand what I'm saying like Can of Corn, but the Orioles will spend a finite amount on player payroll.  We might not like the amount; we might think it can be higher, etc. but that doesn't matter.

Reality is they will spend a certain amount of money on player payroll.  If you allocate some of that money to outside acquisitions, then you will have less to spend on the homegrown players.

This isn't rocket science.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

These guys aren’t FA for 4-8 years(depending on the player). WTF does signing someone for 2-3 years have to do with that?  There’s no logic or common sense there.  

And who is to say they want to retain them or that they will be good enough to retain? Lots of things can happen in the upcoming years.

Because ownership will set aside money not spent now to pay for guys later!

Because that has ever happened.