Chourio to get 8/80..Os should do the same for Holliday

[Sports Guy]

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

MVP level talent? Wow...where A+? You act like Holliday is a sure fire All-Star hitting .300/20/100 in the Majors. How many players have we seen BOMB in the big leagues with both a high prospect level AND while destroying the minor leagues? Pick up the phone, Matt Wieters is calling...

Saying Wieters bombed is factually wrong. He didn’t meet a lot of expectations but he absolutely didn’t bomb.

And yes, that is the level of talent Holliday is and that’s why he was taken first. Whether he becomes that or not remains to be seen but in the context of the discussion you quoted and what this thread is about, Elias isn’t going to think he can just acquire Holliday level talent anytime he wants.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Huh?

In what reality did Matt Wieters BOMB?

He had a very nice career.

 

He did, but a Wieters-equivalent career isn’t worth $100 - $110 mm.  Wieters made $62 mm in his career.  

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Saying Wieters bombed is factually wrong. He didn’t meet a lot of expectations but he absolutely didn’t bomb.

And yes, that is the level of talent Holliday is and that’s why he was taken first. Whether he becomes that or not remains to be seen but in the context of the discussion you quoted and what this thread is about, Elias isn’t going to think he can just acquire Holliday level talent anytime he wants.

I’m sure Elias has all kinds of data projecting a range of possible outcomes for Holliday, the odds of those possible outcomes, and what the financial value of those outcomes would be.   And I’m sure there’s a number at which he’d say a deal is worth the downside risk.  But in general, I think Elias is a guy who will will want the tradeoff between potential upside vs. downside risk to be pretty stacked in his favor before he pulls the trigger. 
 

[Moose Milligan]

21 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I also think he's smart enough to have an exit strategy.

Probably. He won’t be hurting for his next move that’s for sure. 

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, Frobby said:

He did, but a Wieters-equivalent career isn’t worth $100 - $110 mm.  Wieters made $62 mm in his career.  

Which is a separate issue.

Honestly being 40M under water on one of these deals is far from crippling.  Where would that deal fall in the list of bad Oriole contracts?  Top 5?

Edited November 30, 2023 by Can_of_corn

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Which is a separate issue.

Honestly being 40M under water on one of these deals is far from crippling.  Where would that deal fall in the list of bad Oriole contracts?  Top 5?

Probably second worst.  Keep in mind, the Orioles have only done 9 deals in their history that were worth $40 mm total.  

https://forum.orioleshangout.com/topic/35413-a-look-at-every-orioles-contract-of-20-mm/#comment-2488045

 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Probably second worst.  Keep in mind, the Orioles have only done 9 deals in their history that were worth $40 mm total.  

https://forum.orioleshangout.com/topic/35413-a-look-at-every-orioles-contract-of-20-mm/#comment-2488045

 

From a total number sure but impact wise?

The Bell deal would have been worse, maybe stuff like the Ubaldo and even the Cobb deal?

40 Million under over 8-9 years just doesn't hit as hard to me as giving up a draft pick and giving Cobb ~50M for three years of 1.5WAR.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

35 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Which is a separate issue.

Honestly being 40M under water on one of these deals is far from crippling.  Where would that deal fall in the list of bad Oriole contracts?  Top 5?

Impact wise the Glenn Davis trade was far worse than being $40M underwater on a contract to Wieters. Maybe the Angelos family would disagree, but most fans would agree losing out on Schilling, Finley and Harnisch was worse than overpaying a player $40M.

[Mooreisbetter27]

29 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Impact wise the Glenn Davis trade was far worse than being $40M underwater on a contract to Wieters. Maybe the Angelos family would disagree, but most fans would agree losing out on Schilling, Finley and Harnisch was worse than overpaying a player $40M.

But that's not what is being discussed.  It's about contracts to players, not trades.  The Glenn Davis trade is pretty widely considered one of the top 10 worst trades in history.  So really, not the same thing.  

[LookinUp]

3 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Of course.  Angelos is always the villain.

So you don't think that Elias believes in himself enough to be able to replace talent?

I think Elias would give a deal that Holliday would take. Something like 80% of the total he could get in FA for the same years if he really hits his upside. And I think Holliday takes it, because it's a very rich guarantee in the face of some downside risk. A win-win for everyone except the owner who would rather risk that his GM will be able to backfill all of these players than commit guaranteed money.

3 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

But Elias' goal since Day 1 has been crystal clear...and that is to have a continuous amount of elite talent flowing through the pipeline.  There are several obvious reasons as to why he'd want to do that, IMO one of them is to replace guys that Angelos doesn't want to pay to extend.  That's a roundabout way to beat the "Angelos is cheap" dead horse that everyone loves to continue to beat on.  Of course Angelos isn't going to pay 8/80 or something similar for Holliday, but at some point Elias is going to have to replace that talent with...well, more cheap, cost controlled young talent.  

I think Elias would view a deal that achieves extra years at reasonable rates as an asset that will help him further the talent pipeline. Sure, he has confidence that the pipeline will produce, but even the arrogant GM knows that keeping top talent for longer allows for more success, all other things being equal. And even if he replaces Holliday, isn't it better to have 2 such players than 1? 

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to think that Elias wouldn't prefer to extend these guys. 

[Moose Milligan]

23 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

 

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to think that Elias wouldn't prefer to extend these guys. 

I think Elias would prefer to extend these guys.

I don't know how more clear I can be.  I don't think Angelos wants to extend those guys, I think it's safe to say that he doesn't want to spend money.

I do believe that Elias is confident enough in his scouting skills and the scouting department that he's created to fill the void if a guy like Gunnar walks in free agency.  Maybe not a 1 for 1 trade in production but I believe he feels that in the aggregate (to borrow a Moneyball phrase/idea) that he can produce enough talent overall to make up for guys that leave because Angelos didn't want to pay them.

That doesn't mean that Elias doesn't want to extend them.  It simply means that I think Elias is confident enough to make up for losses because Angelos is a skinflint.

[LookinUp]

13 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think Elias would prefer to extend these guys.

I don't know how more clear I can be.  I don't think Angelos wants to extend those guys, I think it's safe to say that he doesn't want to spend money.

I do believe that Elias is confident enough in his scouting skills and the scouting department that he's created to fill the void if a guy like Gunnar walks in free agency.  Maybe not a 1 for 1 trade in production but I believe he feels that in the aggregate (to borrow a Moneyball phrase/idea) that he can produce enough talent overall to make up for guys that leave because Angelos didn't want to pay them.

That doesn't mean that Elias doesn't want to extend them.  It simply means that I think Elias is confident enough to make up for losses because Angelos is a skinflint.

Good. I'm glad we agree that Angelos is the villain.

That said, re: the bolded, making up for losses is not the same as stacking talent. One method helps you tread water at a high level, think Tampa. The other method sets you up for success over a decade, like the Astros. It's a big difference. If Angelos wasn't a villain, we'd be much more confidently setting ourselves up for the latter. Right now we're looking like Tampa.

[banks703]

Phew.. I sure am glad SG isn't spending my money. Buying out arb years with a nine figure offer for a second baseman who has never played a major league game is a too rich for my blood. 

 

 

[Number5]

5 hours ago, Brian88 said:

How much would a hot dog cost if we made that deal?

$158,917,102.  Just need to sell 1.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

$158,917,102.  Just need to sell 1.

Maybe Matt Holliday will come to a game when he’s hungry.