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

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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.

It has nothing to do with the money not mattering. You would be making sense if people were talking about adding guys on 9 figure, 7-10 year deals. But no one is. We are talking shorter term contracts to help supplement the roster but not garbage signings like Gibson, Lyles, Frazier, et al.

The guys like Eovaldi or Bassitt last year..potentially Sonny gray this year. Being ok with the salary for Cease. A short term trade option like Verlander was for the Stros.

Stuff like that.  That has no bearing on whether we keep Holliday after 2030.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

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.

I think all of us understand that a finite amount will be spent on payroll.

That's true of every team.

 

Money being spent on outside acquisitions is not the sole determining factor in how long home grown player will stay with the team.

This isn't children's blocks.

[Pickles]

2 minutes 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.

The major league payroll will start to rise significantly in 2025 through arbitration raises alone.  Frobby quoted 35 mil for 2025 alone in a thread this very morning.

So yes, even 2-3 year FA contracts will coincide with internal increases of payroll.  Again, that's not to say they can't/shouldn't sign some FA, but it is acknowledging mathematical realities.

 

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I think all of us understand that a finite amount will be spent on payroll.

That's true of every team.

 

Money being spent on outside acquisitions is not the sole determining factor in how long home grown player will stay with the team.

This isn't children's blocks.

 

Congrats.  You beat the hell out of that strawman.

I never said what you're attacking.

Now I understand your confusion.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It has nothing to do with the money not mattering. You would be making sense if people were talking about adding guys on 9 figure, 7-10 year deals. But no one is. We are talking shorter term contracts to help supplement the roster but not garbage signings like Gibson, Lyles, Frazier, et al.

The guys like Eovaldi or Bassett last year..potentially Sonny gray this year. Being ok with the salary for Cease.

Stuff like that.  That has no bearing on whether we keep Holliday after 2030.

Well, yes, some people are advocating for 9 figure deals, or 4-5 year deals.

I for one have advocated kicking the tires on Eduardo Rodriguez.  If we signed him for 4-80, which I would do, that's 20 million dollars in 2027 that is going to have to be balanced with Bradish in ARB 3.  If they have a cap on the major league payroll, whatever it may be, they're going to have to fit Bradish, or  G Rodriguez, or whomever, under it, minus the 20 mil they already committed to Eduardo.

This really shouldn't be difficult to grasp.  

[Sports Guy]

I have always said the payroll doesn’t need to eclipse 150M and it won’t be high for a while but there is plenty of room to add to it that has zero effect on the long term in terms of keeping these guys around.

And you could add to the team with upgrades in obvious spots while also trading guys like Santander and Mountcastle, keeping the payroll down while playing better, more talented and younger players from your system.

 

So, you can add to this team and not even see the payroll increase all that much while also getting better.

I’m good with all of that.  I also don’t care about how much they spend overall. What I do care about is that they don’t sit on their hands and just assume the magic will be there again.

Increase your margin for error. That should be what they do this offseason. 
 

The Ravens lost Mark Andrews last night. In previous seasons, that would have been crushing. Now they have improved the depth and improved the passing game design, so the margin for error is better.

That should be the same thought process for Elias this offseason and where you improve upon your margin for error is on the mound, where several upgrades are needed. We have no idea what Means is going to be. Our back up option to that shouldn’t be McDermott. It should be Cease or someone like that. 

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Pickles said:

The major league payroll will start to rise significantly in 2025 through arbitration raises alone.  Frobby quoted 35 mil for 2025 alone in a thread this very morning.

So yes, even 2-3 year FA contracts will coincide with internal increases of payroll.  Again, that's not to say they can't/shouldn't sign some FA, but it is acknowledging mathematical realities.

 

Of course payroll will rise with arb raises. Been saying that for a while but so what?  Are you saying the Os will non tender Adley because they signed a pitcher to a 3/60 deal?  Are you saying they will let Gunnar walk?

It’s not logical. What that may do is stop them from going to arb 2 or 3 with guys like Hays or Mountcastle but they shouldn’t do that anyway, no matter what money they have.  

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Of course payroll will rise with arb raises. Been saying that for a while but so what?  Are you saying the Os will non tender Adley because they signed a pitcher to a 3/60 deal?  Are you saying they will let Gunnar walk?

It’s not logical. What that may do is stop them from going to arb 2 or 3 with guys like Hays or Mountcastle but they shouldn’t do that anyway, no matter what money they have.  

I'm saying if they have 20 million committed to a FA in 2026 that they signed in 2023, that is 20 million less to spend for the 2026 payroll.

That's what I'm saying, and it is an indisputable fact.

[geschinger]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It has nothing to do with the money not mattering. You would be making sense if people were talking about adding guys on 9 figure, 7-10 year deals. But no one is. We are talking shorter term contracts to help supplement the roster but not garbage signings like Gibson, Lyles, Frazier, et al.

I think that was the plan last year and maybe again this year, but now with the rhetoric ("lift off") kept in check.   A lot of the guys in that going into the 2022 offseason that many thought would be good targets for 2-3 year deal ended up getting 5 or 6 years - deals didn't/don't make sense.  

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Well, yes, some people are advocating for 9 figure deals, or 4-5 year deals.

I for one have advocated kicking the tires on Eduardo Rodriguez.  If we signed him for 4-80, which I would do, that's 20 million dollars in 2027 that is going to have to be balanced with Bradish in ARB 3.  If they have a cap on the major league payroll, whatever it may be, they're going to have to fit Bradish, or  G Rodriguez, or whomever, under it, minus the 20 mil they already committed to Eduardo.

This really shouldn't be difficult to grasp.  

Well, I think that’s a relatively dumb contract to give out, so whatever and if they do give that out, they aren’t worried about what you are talking about.

I’m not talking about those types of contracts. 
 

And again, it still doesn’t matter. You trade guys and you don’t pay 5M to Givens.

You should always have 8-12 players on your team making nothing. There are plenty of very easy and simple ways to keep your payroll down. The stars and scrubs roster is the best way to go.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

I'm saying if they have 20 million committed to a FA in 2026 that they signed in 2023, that is 20 million less to spend for the 2026 payroll.

That's what I'm saying, and it is an indisputable fact.

So what? Did you get a ring? Have you been making the playoffs and raking in the playoff revenue? Can you easily drop 20M off your payroll to make up for that?

I mean, you don’t ignore 2026 but the point is to win. Any thought that they shouldn’t be everything they can to win is pure stupidity.

They will not be in any danger to lose the top guys if they sign a pitcher to a 2-3 year deal now.

Definitely agree it could mean you don’t keep certain guys but chances are you shouldn’t keep them anyway.

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, I think that’s a relatively dumb contract to give out, so whatever and if they do give that out, they aren’t worried about what you are talking about.

I’m not talking about those types of contracts. 
 

And again, it still doesn’t matter. You trade guys and you don’t pay 5M to Givens.

You should always have 8-12 players on your team making nothing. There are plenty of very easy and simple ways to keep your payroll down. The stars and scrubs roster is the best way to go.

So basically you're talking about a Cease trade then.  LOL.

If you're not willing to give out a contract like the one I proposed above, and yeah, maybe you get Gray on a 3 year deal for a higher annual average but it's still in the same ballpark, then you're not going to get a pitcher who slots in our playoff rotation.  That's just reality.

So if you won't give out a contract like that then you're really only going to be able to upgrade the rotation through trade, and then it just comes back to Cease, or maybe Burnes.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, geschinger said:

I think that was the plan last year and maybe again this year, but now with the rhetoric ("lift off") kept in check.   A lot of the guys in that going into the 2022 offseason that many thought would be good targets for 2-3 year deal ended up getting 5 or 6 years - deals didn't/don't make sense.  

Which is why, to me, getting Cease makes sense. It’s why going after one of the Seattle pitchers makes sense. It’s about bringing in lower cost arms with big upside.

I don’t want to spend 5+ years on Nola. I don’t want any starter available for more than 3 years unless the AAV is way less (which isn’t happening).  And part of the reason for that is exact thing @Pickles is talking about.

But to act as if a 3/60 deal or something like that means they can’t keep their core long term is an absurd statement.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I'm saying if they have 20 million committed to a FA in 2026 that they signed in 2023, that is 20 million less to spend for the 2026 payroll.

That's what I'm saying, and it is an indisputable fact.

But it isn't.

You are assuming that the players signed don't increase revenue.  The Padres aren't the best example considering their issues but you can't deny that bringing in outside talent caused an increase in revenue.  At one point they were on the receiving end of profit sharing, last season they were second in attendance.  Their attendance last year was up over a million from a decade ago.

 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

So what? Did you get a ring? Have you been making the playoffs and raking in the playoff revenue? Can you easily drop 20M off your payroll to make up for that?

I mean, you don’t ignore 2026 but the point is to win. Any thought that they shouldn’t be everything they can to win is pure stupidity.

They will not be in any danger to lose the top guys if they sign a pitcher to a 2-3 year deal now.

Definitely agree it could mean you don’t keep certain guys but chances are you shouldn’t keep them anyway.

If there was some single move that would guarantee a ring, I think the entire board would advocate for it.

Nothing- spending more, trading for guys,- nothing, guarantees a ring.

The Orioles should be putting together rosters annually that are poised to make deep playoff runs.

Luckily for us, by that metric, this offseason has been a wild success, because that's exactly the kind of roster we have now and for the foreseeable future.

You keep harping that they NEED to do this or NEED to do that; the beauty of their position is they don't need to do anything.