Do the Orioles believe in blockbuster extensions?

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Jackson has $8 mm.  More than 99% of people have.   (Okay, taxes, so maybe $5 mm.)

Taxes plus agents fees.

If he doesn’t get back the extra year, his salary is essentially written in stone for the next 7 years(obviously some variation with health and performance). Boras being his agent isn’t changing that.

 

[emmett16]

6 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

While I have come to appreciate the Models and Data that they have gathered there are many cases of under and over performing these things. I don't think they can be a sole way of coming to decisions.

I’m assuming their models factor in under and over improvement reliably accurately  due to the sheer amount of data size(number of players who have had their data captured) and the time that data has had to grow/evolve over time.  

Edited March 26 by emmett16

[Philip]

No. They don’t. But they do believe in drafting better than anyone else.

[Satyr3206]

50 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I’m assuming their models factor in under and over improvement reliably accurately  due to the sheer amount of data size(number of players who have had their data captured) and the time that data has had to grow/evolve over time.  

Ok. I personally don't think computer models and formula's can ever capture the entirety of human existence or accomplishment. Just my opinion.

[Billy F-Face3]

Tony's answer is the correct answer.  Used to be an obvious no. But now it's a resounding "We don't know" until the new owners take over and we see what they do.

With that said, it was already plainly stated by Angelos and Elias that their phylosophy was that they were a draft and develop team. Which was in response to questions about them going out and signing big contracts (which was a code for saying "we are not handing out big contracts").

If you look at the composition of the Orioles organization from top to bottom of the minor leagues, it appears to be prepared to let players go once they hit their free agency. So up until this point it looks like they don't believe in big extensions.

But we will have to see if that changes once new owners take over. Orioles fans absolutely love their Orioles franchise home grown talent so it might be good business to sign their home grown stars to extensions.

If it's going to happen, it has to be done smart and not be handed out on mirage seasons like the one season Chris Davis had. Contracts I hated the first time I heard about the news of them was the Chris Davis contract, the Jimenez free agent contract, and the Albert Bell contract. I felt all were over rated and getting paid too much.  In Davis's case I felt he was a one season wonder. Same for Jimenez. I had absolutely no belief in Jimenez, and I thought Albert Bell's best years were way behind him.

Now with that said, I loved the fact that we extended Cal his entire career, I liked having Brady Anderson as long as we had him, and I liked that we were able to keep Brian Roberts and Adam Jones for so long by giving them new contracts. I had only wished we were able to have given Eddie Murray his extension and had made him an Oriole for life instead of trading him to the dodgers. (I kind of wish we had been able to keep Machado too. But that is what it is. We still got Dean Kremer out of the deal. And we finally recovered from the rebuild with Gunnar Henderson arriving fill the void.)

[emmett16]

2 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

Ok. I personally don't think computer models and formula's can ever capture the entirety of human existence or accomplishment. Just my opinion.

I’d like to agree.  So you think that whole AI thing is just a fad? 

Edited March 26 by emmett16

[emmett16]

2 hours ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

Tony's answer is the correct answer.  Used to be an obvious no. But now it's a resounding "We don't know" until the new owners take over and we see what they do.

With that said, it was already plainly stated by Angelos and Elias that their phylosophy was that they were a draft and develop team. Which was in response to questions about them going out and signing big contracts (which was a code for saying "we are not handing out big contracts").

If you look at the composition of the Orioles organization from top to bottom of the minor leagues, it appears to be prepared to let players go once they hit their free agency. So up until this point it looks like they don't believe in big extensions.

But we will have to see if that changes once new owners take over. Orioles fans absolutely love their Orioles franchise home grown talent so it might be good business to sign their home grown stars to extensions.

If it's going to happen, it has to be done smart and not be handed out on mirage seasons like the one season Chris Davis had. Contracts I hated the first time I heard about the news of them was the Chris Davis contract, the Jimenez free agent contract, and the Albert Bell contract. I felt all were over rated and getting paid too much.  In Davis's case I felt he was a one season wonder. Same for Jimenez. I had absolutely no belief in Jimenez, and I thought Albert Bell's best years were way behind him.

Now with that said, I loved the fact that we extended Cal his entire career, I liked having Brady Anderson as long as we had him, and I liked that we were able to keep Brian Roberts and Adam Jones for so long by giving them new contracts. I had only wished we were able to have given Eddie Murray his extension and had made him an Oriole for life instead of trading him to the dodgers. (I kind of wish we had been able to keep Machado too. But that is what it is. We still got Dean Kremer out of the deal. And we finally recovered from the rebuild with Gunnar Henderson arriving fill the void.)

You’ve missed the entire premise of this thread.  Regardless of ownership, does this group believe they can manufacture adequate MLB players?  Yes or no? If they can, why pay a premium based on emotional attachment?  If they can’t….then, No.  

[Jagwar]

13 hours ago, Aglets said:

This is a pretty silly question (sorry, no offense intended) when we are literally 48 hours away from a new ownership group taking control.

It is clear that the Angelos family didn't care for doing too many of these kinda deals.  Although it's worth noting that Chris Davis sort of qualifies by your metrics (exactly 7 years, over 150M).

I think it's pretty clear Elias and Sig wouldn't mind operating with a top 10 payroll in MLB instead of a bottom 3.   But that is up to ownership.  John Angelos would certainly never have approved something like that.  But now we are on the cusp of getting a new owner with a net worth that is approximately double that of the Angelos family.

Another wrinkle is that some of our top elite young guys are Boras clients so they will be much harder to extend on the kinds of deals you are talking about.

Will we EVER sign a young player to a contract like that?   I think yes.  But who knows when.

For someone thinking it was a silly question, you sure did have a lot to say about it. 

I wouldn't say it was silly, maybe just early timed 

[Bemorewins]

Here are some potential eventual consequences/fall out from such a philosophy as I see it:

1) The human effect on the players. Eventually if you don't pay any of these guys regardless of performance, AND these guys know that is the case, it will effect buy-in, chemistry, and the culture of team within the org. In essence, it will dramatically lower the incentive to and ability to motivate guys to play as a team and make sacrifices for the team. Every player will be all about stats (not that some aren't now) as they will ALL know that I am only playing for my next team and not this one.

2) Some amateur players will eventually not want to come to the Orioles/be drafted by them. So you will be cutting your talent pool to select from.

3) When the other owners get wind of this strategy of effectively eliminating salary growth and their costs, they will copy it. And there will be a FIERCE reaction from the players union. It will most certainly lead to a work stoppage of some sort.

4) There would likely be some sort of negative reaction from some fans. None of the extremely frugal models in the past (Rays, A's, etc) have ever proven very attractive to any fanbase. If some fans know that the org is NEVER going to invest in players and they are all here for the short stay, try marketing those players or selling their jerseys/merch.

5) Where would all the additional "savings" go from making the choice to NEVER invest in player salaries? The owner? The front office? Some place else? - What would be the fall out/reaction from that? Would front office salaries just be exchanged for player salaries in terms of cost? If the money is all pocketed by ownership, what is the response from the players and fans? Who/how many would really get behind a new strategy for the owners to siphon even more money out of the game? It's not like Rubenstein needs a few more bucks does he? Sure he would gain a few extra million by depressing player salaries, but he would be loosing the ability to grow his fanbase/increase his market share. Because again, these type of frugal models have never shown the ability to capture a great deal of fan interest long term in the form of attendance, viewership, merch sale, etc.

[btdart20]

15 hours ago, emmett16 said:

They know what each step in the process (towards a proficient MLB player) looks like and can easily forecast what combinations of data (metrics from all tech) will continue to improve, what they can modify, and what they cannot modify.  Various data milestones all along the way from youth level, to HS, to college, to minors along with make-up data and basic physiological data can create a player profile that is extremely accurate to forecast now that they have players that have reached the highest level.   With a successful blueprint of data in hand they can more effectively draft and more effectively develop the players they bring in their system and more accurately forecast their future success.  With all of that ability, why would they pay market value or even slightly below market value when they can accurately forecast and stock a pipeline of players at every level that can eventually replace the players on the MLB roster once they hit FA or the higher tiers of arbitration? 

Elias and Sig habe to understand that the efficient frontier is still developing.   Meaning, they know that so many of the variables are changing, interdependent, and even unknown.  Plus, other teams will compete/have been competing in a similar way even when we strike upon a difference maker metric.  Chasing body type, GB%, swing decisions, velo, spin, EV, smash factor, angle of entry...  But differentiating and measuring key inputs is different than chasing outputs.  (See NYY pipeline of stuff+ with subpar MLB results.) 

The best analysts both believe in their models (ego/thinking ability) because they are ok questioning their models (humble enough to recognize the dynamic variables of humanity, Game Theory, etc.).

Ego is a perfectly fine word as used in the context you used it (i.e. classically defined).  

I think Elias will lean toward a draft/development model but payroll range will determine if we channel our inner LAD, HOU, or TBR.  Player selection and development IS the org though.

Do Elias/Sig believe in extentions?  Not as a primary means of org building.  Will they do it if it practically fits the org/budget occasionally?  I think so, but it will be the exception not the rule (even for studs).  TBD...  Is Altuve the example from HOU?

RZNJ makes a fair point too. GMs know that young proven studs give more team value than young/unproven or older/overpaid.  Player selection within will grow in importance if we're going to arbitrage that market.  JAGs are tough to trade though.  Are young/controllable JAGs tough as well?

[btdart20]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

Here are some potential eventual consequences/fall out from such a philosophy as I see it:

1) The human effect on the players. Eventually if you don't pay any of these guys regardless of performance, AND these guys know that is the case, it will effect buy-in, chemistry, and the culture of team within the org. In essence, it will dramatically lower the incentive to and ability to motivate guys to play as a team and make sacrifices for the team. Every player will be all about stats (not that some aren't now) as they will ALL know that I am only playing for my next team and not this one.

2) Some amateur players will eventually not want to come to the Orioles/be drafted by them. So you will be cutting your talent pool to select from.

3) When the other owners get wind of this strategy of effectively eliminating salary growth and their costs, they will copy it. And there will be a FIERCE reaction from the players union. It will most certainly lead to a work stoppage of some sort.

4) There would likely be some sort of negative reaction from some fans. None of the extremely frugal models in the past (Rays, A's, etc) have ever proven very attractive to any fanbase. If some fans know that the org is NEVER going to invest in players and they are all here for the short stay, try marketing those players or selling their jerseys/merch.

5) Where would all the additional "savings" go from making the choice to NEVER invest in player salaries? The owner? The front office? Some place else? - What would be the fall out/reaction from that? Would front office salaries just be exchanged for player salaries in terms of cost? If the money is all pocketed by ownership, what is the response from the players and fans? Who/how many would really get behind a new strategy for the owners to siphon even more money out of the game? It's not like Rubenstein needs a few more bucks does he? Sure he would gain a few extra million by depressing player salaries, but he would be loosing the ability to grow his fanbase/increase his market share. Because again, these type of frugal models have never shown the ability to capture a great deal of fan interest long term in the form of attendance, viewership, merch sale, etc.

1. Not disagreeing here.  But Alpha's compete because it's part of their character.  And there is a character component to player selection. 

2. The hungry eat where there's an opportunity.  If our development system proves it can get you an MLB job, then why would you avoid it?  (Hernaiz is in the MLB.  Hall is a #2.)  They'll be FAs even if they don’t sign an extension.

3. This means 0 to Elias today.  If the MLBPA don't like the rules, then figure out a way to change them.  There's grumbling beyond what Elias is doing.  As long as we play by the agreed upon rules.

4. Does winning matter more than a relationship with a player?  Would we rather have a ring in 1997 or Cal as a legacy (or a great community guy like Davis)?  Tampa and Oakland don't even have that.  We/I am a bit ahead of myself here because let's get one first!

5. This is more complicated  (and off topic a bit) because a sports team is a unique mix of civic pride and private ownership.  But it's a whatever burger to me because it's systemic. I just want a competitive team with some rounds chambered for a legit playoff run (and that has required some degree of spending - then you have the recent SDP and NYM).  MLBPA will have that discussion and put pressure on the Uncle Sam sanctioned monopoly.  If the system changes...

[emmett16]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

Elias and Sig habe to understand that the efficient frontier is still developing.   Meaning, they know that so many of the variables are changing, interdependent, and even unknown.  Plus, other teams will compete/have been competing in a similar way even when we strike upon a difference maker metric.  Chasing body type, GB%, swing decisions, velo, spin, EV, smash factor, angle of entry...  But differentiating and measuring key inputs is different than chasing outputs.  (See NYY pipeline of stuff+ with subpar MLB results.) 

The best analysts both believe in their models (ego/thinking ability) because they are ok questioning their models (humble enough to recognize the dynamic variables of humanity, Game Theory, etc.).

Ego is a perfectly fine word as used in the context you used it (i.e. classically defined).  

I think Elias will lean toward a draft/development model but payroll range will determine if we channel our inner LAD, HOU, or TBR.  Player selection and development IS the org though.

Do Elias/Sig believe in extentions?  Not as a primary means of org building.  Will they do it if it practically fits the org/budget occasionally?  I think so, but it will be the exception not the rule (even for studs).  TBD...  Is Altuve the example from HOU?

RZNJ makes a fair point too. GMs know that young proven studs give more team value than young/unproven or older/overpaid.  Player selection within will grow in importance if we're going to arbitrage that market.  JAGs are tough to trade though.  Are young/controllable JAGs tough as well?

Great post.  And great inputs.  Thanks!  

[Bemorewins]

50 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

1. Not disagreeing here.  But Alpha's compete because it's part of their character.  And there is a character component to player selection. 

2. The hungry eat where there's an opportunity.  If our development system proves it can get you an MLB job, then why would you avoid it?  (Hernaiz is in the MLB.  Hall is a #2.)  They'll be FAs even if they don’t sign an extension.

3. This means 0 to Elias today.  If the MLBPA don't like the rules, then figure out a way to change them.  There's grumbling beyond what Elias is doing.  As long as we play by the agreed upon rules.

4. Does winning matter more than a relationship with a player?  Would we rather have a ring in 1997 or Cal as a legacy (or a great community guy like Davis)?  Tampa and Oakland don't even have that.  We/I am a bit ahead of myself here because let's get one first!

5. This is more complicated  (and off topic a bit) because a sports team is a unique mix of civic pride and private ownership.  But it's a whatever burger to me because it's systemic. I just want a competitive team with some rounds chambered for a legit playoff run (and that has required some degree of spending - then you have the recent SDP and NYM).  MLBPA will have that discussion and put pressure on the Uncle Sam sanctioned monopoly.  If the system changes...

First, thank you for your well-thought out response!

1) Yes alphas do compete. But the issue will be getting them to buy-in to the concept of playing winning baseball as a team. The unintended consequence of this approach is that all players on the team play strictly for themselves and their stats. You are removing a significant dangling carrot/motivating factor for the players/people which is to get paid. I can’t see many players willing to make any sacrifices when a part of this system. When things are not advantageous/ideal, I could see some players wanting out/asking for trades. I just don’t see how this leads to a healthy winning environment of the long haul. How do you build team chemistry when no one is fully invested/committed to the idea of TEAM when the org has made it clear what we don’t care about you, won’t invest you, and there is nothing that will change that? After all, the results are not determined by computer programs/simulations/projections, but actually human beings who have to navigate things like playing while hurt, off field distractions, contract situations, etc.

2) Some players will certainly not want to be drafted or be a part of an org who treats them  purely as assets/commodities who have other options.

3) This is where an owner comes in and why you cannot allow the baseball ops to dominate the entire org. Because it’s the owners’ business and the business side matters to the owner very much. Work stoppages damage the money making ability of owners. So while it may not matter to Elias, it will matter to his boss (regardless who the owner is).

4) One this approach is not guaranteed to produce winning. Also, (I’ve made this point in other threads) but while older fans exhibit characteristics of institutional loyalty. Younger fans do not. The game already has a SERIOUS problem with an aging fanbase and attracting younger fans. To think that you do not need to consider that is probably not very wise. Younger fans are much invested in the names/people on the back of the Jersey than the color of the laundry/name on the front of the jersey. Furthermore, the question you ask about Cal or ring, I don’t see it as an either or proposition. Why do we have to make such a difficult choice? Why can’t we have both? It is not industry standard for just about all MLB teams to extend young players. So we would be the extreme outlier here with this approach.

5) We can be competitive without going to this extreme. Also, while you may not care about this, many others will as I have cited with the lack of market interest with other teams who have gone the extreme frugal route. The one person who I am certain will care as merch sale, attendance, ad dollars decrease is Rubenstein. Again, we have never seen this approach (or anything like it) flourish in any market.

[RZNJ]

2 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

Here are some potential eventual consequences/fall out from such a philosophy as I see it:

1) The human effect on the players. Eventually if you don't pay any of these guys regardless of performance, AND these guys know that is the case, it will effect buy-in, chemistry, and the culture of team within the org. In essence, it will dramatically lower the incentive to and ability to motivate guys to play as a team and make sacrifices for the team. Every player will be all about stats (not that some aren't now) as they will ALL know that I am only playing for my next team and not this one.

2) Some amateur players will eventually not want to come to the Orioles/be drafted by them. So you will be cutting your talent pool to select from.

3) When the other owners get wind of this strategy of effectively eliminating salary growth and their costs, they will copy it. And there will be a FIERCE reaction from the players union. It will most certainly lead to a work stoppage of some sort.

4) There would likely be some sort of negative reaction from some fans. None of the extremely frugal models in the past (Rays, A's, etc) have ever proven very attractive to any fanbase. If some fans know that the org is NEVER going to invest in players and they are all here for the short stay, try marketing those players or selling their jerseys/merch.

5) Where would all the additional "savings" go from making the choice to NEVER invest in player salaries? The owner? The front office? Some place else? - What would be the fall out/reaction from that? Would front office salaries just be exchanged for player salaries in terms of cost? If the money is all pocketed by ownership, what is the response from the players and fans? Who/how many would really get behind a new strategy for the owners to siphon even more money out of the game? It's not like Rubenstein needs a few more bucks does he? Sure he would gain a few extra million by depressing player salaries, but he would be loosing the ability to grow his fanbase/increase his market share. Because again, these type of frugal models have never shown the ability to capture a great deal of fan interest long term in the form of attendance, viewership, merch sale, etc.

Ha.  #1 and #2 essentially say why the strategy won’t work and then #3 says essentially that all of the other teams will copy it because of how well it works.

[Bemorewins]

31 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Ha.  #1 and #2 essentially say why the strategy won’t work and then #3 says essentially that all of the other teams will copy it because of how well it works.

No. I was attempting to identify unintended consequences/ripple impact.

I don’t know if it will work, but if it does it will be copied. Almost all pro sports and for that matter the entertainment industry in general, is copy-cat oriented.

My greatest concern is that the strategy while maybe beneficial for the short term in regards to saving the owner some money, long term could have negative impact.

I want the O’s to have sustainable success like most. But I also want the team to grow, flourish, and be viable in this market. I fear the risk of alienating the fanbase/customer will not be worth it in the long term.