Do the Orioles believe in blockbuster extensions?

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

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.

On the last point, winning trumps everything else IMO.   If the team wins consistently the fan base will thrive regardless of what players come and go.  So I think the bigger issue is whether the strategy of eschewing big extensions would keep the team from winning consistently, or perhaps put a cap on their ability to go from good to great.  

[Sports Guy]

The goal should be to extend these guys early and get 2-3 FA years. After that, if you have a Ripken/Brooks like rare exception, you try your best to keep them…otherwise, bye bye.

The Cardinals let Pujols walk and they were just fine right after.

Edited March 26 by Sports Guy

[emmett16]

31 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The goal should be to extend these guys early and get 2-3 FA years. After that, if you have a Ripken/Brooks like rare exception, you try your best to keep them…otherwise, bye bye.

The Cardinals let Pujols walk and they were just fine right after.

I agree that's the goal and that would be the absolute best-case scenario.  What I'm curious about is, is that realistic?  Will they be able to get these players at a salary that they deem efficient and that the players will be OK with.  Obviously the better the player, the more challenging that will be.  Once the international guys start coming up, it will be interesting to see if they are able to get some discounts on guys that come from less fortunate backgrounds.  It sounds terrible to say out loud, but C'est la vie.

[Bemorewins]

48 minutes ago, Frobby said:

On the last point, winning trumps everything else IMO.   If the team wins consistently the fan base will thrive regardless of what players come and go.  So I think the bigger issue is whether the strategy of eschewing big extensions would keep the team from winning consistently, or perhaps put a cap on their ability to go from good to great.  

I appreciate your perspective. I just haven’t seen any organizations who have tried “the frugal approach” that has lead to a thriving fanbase.

TB wins fairly regularly and OAK before them and neither could dry flies.

Maybe here would be different? But I have serious appreciation on how to grow within a market when you have eliminated the ability to market players due to their constant turnover/upheaval of the roster.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I agree that's the goal and that would be the absolute best-case scenario.  What I'm curious about is, is that realistic?  Will they be able to get these players at a salary that they deem efficient and that the players will be OK with.  Obviously the better the player, the more challenging that will be.  Once the international guys start coming up, it will be interesting to see if they are able to get some discounts on guys that come from less fortunate backgrounds.  It sounds terrible to say out loud, but C'est la vie.

These extensions are interesting to me. While I advocate them, I also believe they are overrated by the fan base.

It’s a lot of guaranteed money the team is throwing out there to essentially only get 2-3 extra years..at least on paper.

For me, I look at the extensions as a way to not trade these guys early. In other words, say we don’t extend Gunnar, do you really want him to walk for nothing more than a comp pick?  Yea, you may be able to win with him but that can really screw up the org long term to have an asset like that, in the prime of his career and get nothing for him.

So by getting the 2-3 FA years, you really are getting 3-4 more years. To me, that’s what makes it worth it.

As to how realistic is it, I think it largely depends on when the extensions are given and, more importantly, how old the players are when you give them.

I think most players would want to be in position to be a FA before age 30.  An exception would be Adley, so he’s the guy that maybe you go beyond the threshold I mentioned. 
 

But for guys like Mayo, Basallo, Gunnar and Holliday, I think extending them until that age range is realistic.

I also think it’s needed to know who to extend. Would you extend a pitcher?  For me, probably not..at least not early on.

Anyone I expect to be a 2-4 WAR guy in their prime years, I probably don’t extend, especially if they are older. An example of that would be Westburg.

All in all, I’m extending the elite positional talent and letting the rest of the chips fall as they may.

[btdart20]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

You are removing a significant dangling carrot/motivating factor for the players/people which is to get paid.

How are they not getting paid?  If it's not by the O's through an extension,  it's by someone else through FA.  If it's not through FA, then it's systemic and a macro issue (bigger than Elias and the O's and the OP).

 

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

extreme frugal route

I don't think we'll be "extreme" frugal. Recent/current, low payroll (I believe/hope?) were functions of the scorched earth policy to rebuild (and margins for a sale (and JA's wife's "music career")). The rebuild is over.  New ownership is on the brink.  The goal now is smart investing through portfolio management. At least that's how I'm interpreting things...  

[Bemorewins]

2 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

How are they not getting paid?  If it's not by the O's through an extension,  it's by someone else through FA.  If it's not through FA, then it's systemic and a macro issue (bigger than Elias and the O's and the OP).

 

I don't think we'll be "extreme" frugal. Recent/current, low payroll (I believe/hope?) were functions of the scorched earth policy to rebuild (and margins for a sale (and JA's wife's "music career")). The rebuild is over.  New ownership is on the brink.  The goal now is smart investing through portfolio management. At least that's how I'm interpreting things...  

The point of the OP was not to invest at all. Like never pay anyone or give any extension because they have figured out how to replace all talent, including superstar talent.

I’m all for as you state “smart investing” and trying to contend for championships instead of an ongoing protracted rebuild that never ends roster turnover. That however is not what the OP stated.

Lastly, back to your first paragraph. The risk in paying no one (offering no player long term security) is that team building, chemistry, buy-in, sacrifice, selflessness, etc; all things required to actually win a title become hard to achieve because everyone is out for themselves.

[ThisIsBirdland]

I'm fully aware it may not be the best strategic move for the team, but I absolutely love the Seattle/Julio Rodriguez model for cornerstone players. I have a really young, growing family right now, and I think there's something about growing up with one or a few core franchise icons to develop that connection with as fans. Yes, winning is the most important thing, but I think for kids especially and developing the appreciation/enthusiasm for the game, there are real benefits to having those iconic players in one place for as long as reasonably possible.

The Julio deal specifically has such a nuanced structure to protect both player and team. Here are the bullet points on it, breaking down the team/player options. I don't necessarily think this is something that will become common, but as a fan of the Baltimore Orioles and the young core guys we're talking about, I'd love to be surprised and see it explored. 

• The base is for seven years and $105 million beginning next year, plus a $15 million signing bonus, taking him through the 2029 season. But after ‘28, the Mariners must determine whether to pick up a club option that is dependent on Rodriguez’s performance in AL MVP Award voting.

• The first club option is for eight or 10 years and ranges from $200 million to $350 million based on MVP balloting, whether Rodriguez wins and where he finishes in the preceding seasons. If Seattle exercises its club option, the guaranteed value reaches $320 million and could possibly push as high as $470 million. The largest contract by total value in MLB history is the 12-year, $426.5 million deal that Mike Trout signed with the Angels in 2019.

• If the Mariners don’t pick up the option after Rodriguez’s seventh season, he can exercise a player option following his eighth season (2029) for five years and $90 million -- which underlines the 13-year structure and $210 million floor. It’s also possible that Rodriguez could turn down the player option and reach free agency before turning 30.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

I appreciate your perspective. I just haven’t seen any organizations who have tried “the frugal approach” that has lead to a thriving fanbase.

TB wins fairly regularly and OAK before them and neither could dry flies.

Maybe here would be different? But I have serious appreciation on how to grow within a market when you have eliminated the ability to market players due to their constant turnover/upheaval of the roster.

The Rays have had a lot more continuity than people realize.    Longoria played 10 years there, Kiermaier played 10 years there, Zobrist played 9 years there, Crawford played 9 years there.  They signed Franco for 11 years, though unforeseen circumstances may keep that contract from being fulfilled.  I don’t think their attendance woes have anything to do with their player retention practices.   

[emmett16]

Thanks to all for the comments and thought put in to this thread.  Currently we are at 57% who think this org believes in locking up the young stars.  Thats slightly lower than what I assumed.  I thought it will be 60-70%.  Tons of really well put together thoughts/posts.  It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. 

[Orioles West]

9 hours ago, emmett16 said:

Thanks to all for the comments and thought put in to this thread.  Currently we are at 57% who think this org believes in locking up the young stars.  Thats slightly lower than what I assumed.  I thought it will be 60-70%.  Tons of really well put together thoughts/posts.  It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. 

I think we will have a more definitive answer to this question a year or two from today — we will find out if Elias’ overall strategy has been hamstrung with budgetary constraints or not by ownership. The new boss could be more willing to invest more consistently in payroll or not.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Orioles West said:

I think we will have a more definitive answer to this question a year or two from today — we will find out if Elias’ overall strategy has been hamstrung with budgetary constraints or not by ownership. The new boss could be more willing to invest more consistently in payroll or not.

We are also in a more competitive phase now.   Spending decisions are different when you are a legit WS contender vs. being a rebuilding club or even a middle of the pack team.  So, it’s not just the owner who’s changing, it’s the whole situation.  

[Orioles West]

41 minutes ago, Frobby said:

We are also in a more competitive phase now.   Spending decisions are different when you are a legit WS contender vs. being a rebuilding club or even a middle of the pack team.  So, it’s not just the owner who’s changing, it’s the whole situation.  

I agree. I suppose the owner change is the metaphorical icing on the cake that launched with two consecutive winning seasons.