Could the Orioles be in on Jordan Montgomery after the season officially starts?

[ThisIsBirdland]

10 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

Montgomery was seeking 7 years, he won't get it. More likely to be 1 or 2 years now.

I wonder if a 5 year, 5 opt out contract would do it. Go 30-25-20-15-10 with a 5 mill signing bonus

Guaranteed 35 mil over 1 year. 105 over 5 years if he stays (he won't). Maybe he stays for year two, slight possibility for year three, but I don't see him staying all five unless some sort of freak injury happened

Am I the only one who doesn't like the opt-out structure from the team's perspective? Seems like the team is taking on too much risk of an injury obligating them to pay the player for all of the option years to just guarantee they have 1 good year of the player before they opt out.

Anyone can get injured at any time, but I'd rather see a reasonably long-term (3-5 year) deal if I believe the player has a consistent track record. It's not always easy to find guys willing to go year-to-year who will actually help the team more than what you get out of a Kyle Gibson type.

[ThisIsBirdland]

12 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

Adjacent to this, do you harbor any hope Rubenstein will invest heavily enough to retain Burnes?

If you put $20M on Montgomery for 2025, I think it does close any small door on a Burnes retention.

Hopefully Corbin Burnes is about to have the most successful baseball season of his life, and the team he has it with may want to compete for his services.    We know pretty clearly today the Orioles likely won't have multiple expensive LTC's on Arms.

I love the thought of Burnes long-term but I believe you mentioned the Rodon contract as a possible structure for an extension (6/$162m) earlier in this thread. I think that's way too light for Burnes, especially if he has the type of season we're hoping for. I think Burnes may very well command a 6-8 year deal in the mid $30m-$40m range, and that that will be too rich to realistically pursue. 

[CaptainRedbeard]

Montgomery has been and is projected to be about a 3 WAR SP. He’s projected as the #30 best starter by Fangraphs Depth Charts for 2024. He’s not flashy or a real top of the rotation guy because he doesn’t get a lot of K’s and he doesn’t have good stuff, but he’s pretty darn good at everything else, particularly being durable.

The durability is something Elias has shown to really value in a SP too. All of his SP acquisitions - Lyles, Gibson, Irvin, Burnes - have great track records of durability.

I don’t think Montgomery is good enough to warrant a 5+ year deal or more than about $100M guaranteed, but he’d be a great pickup on the 2 yr with an opt out structure. His age and durability minimizes the risk of a major injury leaving us stuck with a bad year 2 player option and he’s a good bet to deliver or exceed his salary in 2024. 

[HowAboutThat]

Mikes actions towards his own players indicates that he’s going to draft carefully, utilize the waiver wire and “cash considerations” trades, and hoard his chips.

The Rays rarely give extensions, preferring instead to trade guys with time left, and that’s worked well for them. Over the last decade or so, it seems their ratio of dollars per win is probably among the lowest in all MLB, but they always compete and they are always a fun team to watch.

Thats what Mike’s gonna do.

We gonna have Gunnar & The Gang for four years and then they gone.

oh…I went off on a tangent. Sorry. My point was that Mike will bank on Povich and McDermott rather than spend a bunch on Montgomery.

 

Edited March 26 by Philip

[Bemorewins]

54 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I doubt that’s an unpopular opinion.  

Are you sure? There a frequent posts that pop up and many posters backing approaches to how the org can spend as little as possible yet remain competitive. Some have even taken to calling it a “Raysian model” or something similar. From my perspective, this opinion and approach is very popular on this board. 

Signing Montgomery would not really be in line with that approach.

[Bemorewins]

7 minutes ago, Philip said:

Mikes actions towards his own players indicates that he’s going to draft carefully, utilize the waiver wire and “cash considerations” trades, and hoard his chips.

The Rays rarely give extensions, preferring instead to trade guys with time left, and that’s worked well for them. Over the last decade or so, it seems their ratio of dollars per win is probably among the lowest in all MLB, but they always compete and they are always a fun team to watch.

Thats what Mike’s gonna do.

We gonna have Gunnar & The Gang for four years and then they gone.

oh…I went off on a tangent. Sorry. My point was that Mike will bank on Povich and McDermott rather than spend a bunch on Montgomery.

 

Does Mike Elias prefer or view the Ray’s approach as superior to the Astros approach? 

What makes you think that is the case?

Also, it seems that the “Rays” is not really a great model for growing and/or thriving within a franchises marketplace. With ownership changing hands to Rubenstein who seems to be much more business savvy than the outgoing owner who ran the team, what gives you indication that Rubenstein and company would be bought into “the Rays approach”?

[DirtyBird]

22 minutes ago, Philip said:

Mikes actions towards his own players indicates that he’s going to draft carefully, utilize the waiver wire and “cash considerations” trades, and hoard his chips.

The Rays rarely give extensions, preferring instead to trade guys with time left, and that’s worked well for them. Over the last decade or so, it seems their ratio of dollars per win is probably among the lowest in all MLB, but they always compete and they are always a fun team to watch.

Thats what Mike’s gonna do.

We gonna have Gunnar & The Gang for four years and then they gone.

oh…I went off on a tangent. Sorry. My point was that Mike will bank on Povich and McDermott rather than spend a bunch on Montgomery.

 

A lot of baseless assumptions here

[btdart20]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

I know that this may be an unpopular opinion. But when assessing the costs, IMO you have to factor in how low the actual payroll now and the opportunity that his acquisition presents. You have a chance to acquire a player who helps raise the floor of the projectable outcome for the next season or 2 while will be a bottom half payroll in the sport.  Otherwise our fate for this season (at least our starting rotation) is dependent upon players who are injured and may or may not return to form and in hoping that Irvin magically gets the job done with below average stuff.

Depends on the length of the contract.  Not with what Tony is suggesting.  It's a short-term risk investment.  It hedges bad/injured SP.  It raises the ceiling for the short-term.  The money (theoretically) is there.  Montgomery can fit in the portfolio.  I suspect Elias is willing to overpay for the right player on a short contract (See all sorts of overpriced signings that Elias did over the last few years).

The only long term cost is a potential QO pick (no clue just saw chatter) and opportunity cost of how else the team/owner would use the money.

[HowAboutThat]

22 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Does Mike Elias prefer or view the Ray’s approach as superior to the Astros approach? 

What makes you think that is the case?

Also, it seems that the “Rays” is not really a great model for growing and/or thriving within a franchises marketplace. With ownership changing hands to Rubenstein who seems to be much more business savvy than the outgoing owner who ran the team, what gives you indication that Rubenstein and company would be bought into “the Rays approach”?

I don’t know what Rubinstein will do, but my comments were based on what Mike has done.

And the Rays have been a consistently solid team. I don’t know why you suggest otherwise.

It will be a surprise if he signs Montgomery.

Extensions for the kids remain to be seen, but they would also be a surprise.

[emmett16]

I wonder how many players have won back-to-back WS with two different teams? 

[Bemorewins]

22 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Depends on the length of the contract.  Not with what Tony is suggesting.  It's a short-term risk investment.  It hedges bad/injured SP.  It raises the ceiling for the short-term.  The money (theoretically) is there.  Montgomery can fit in the portfolio.  I suspect Elias is willing to overpay for the right player on a short contract (See all sorts of overpriced signings that Elias did over the last few years).

The only long term cost is a potential QO pick (no clue just saw chatter) and opportunity cost of how else the team/owner would use the money.

"All sorts of overpriced signings that Elias did over the last fews years"?? I struggle to name any, unless you think a one year 10 million dollar signing is overpriced. Can you offer a hand full of examples in terms of Elias signings that were overpriced?

[Spy Fox]

3 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I wonder how many players have won back-to-back WS with two different teams? 

Not sure, but I know Will Smith (the reliever) has currently earned three straight WS rings with three different teams. Though he didn't actually appear in the Series for Houston in '22. 

[sportsfan8703]

If Rubenstein wants to win a WS then give Elias the money to sign Montgomery to a Snell type deal, and free Elias up to actually make moves at the trade deadline. I still think the only reason we traded for Flaherty, rather than Montgomery, is because Montgomery was owed a few million more post deadline. 

[Bemorewins]

14 minutes ago, Philip said:

I don’t know what Rubinstein will do, but my comments were based on what Mike has done.

And the Rays have been a consistently solid team. I don’t know why you suggest otherwise.

It will be a surprise if he signs Montgomery.

Extensions for the kids remain to be seen, but they would also be a surprise.

There is nothing wrong with emulate the Rays if the goal is to be consistently good but never quite willing to do what it takes to be good enough. In my opinion, the Astros are the better model because they have the trophies in their case as "proof in their pudding".

I've been to both markets/stadiums and I will clearly tell you which is behind their team and invested a lot more in it's success and it's HOU by far!

I don't really see the appeal of the Orioles having a good (never great team) with a mostly consistent empty stadium and an apathetic fanbase.

I would much rather the team do whatever it takes to win a World Series along with passionate/interested fans in and around town.

[HowAboutThat]

15 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

There is nothing wrong with emulate the Rays if the goal is to be consistently good but never quite willing to do what it takes to be good enough. In my opinion, the Astros are the better model because they have the trophies in their case as "proof in their pudding".

I've been to both markets/stadiums and I will clearly tell you which is behind their team and invested a lot more in it's success and it's HOU by far!

I don't really see the appeal of the Orioles having a good (never great team) with a mostly consistent empty stadium and an apathetic fanbase.

I would much rather the team do whatever it takes to win a World Series along with passionate/interested fans in and around town.

I don’t disagree with anything you said, but going back to sending Holliday down, the apparent disinterest in having him win ROY and thus losing a year of control, not fielding the best possible 26, it seems clear that Mike wants a good and inexpensive team, and to utilize resources over several years.
The Dbacks went to the WS with 84 wins, and a low-win team often has a hot streak that earns a pennant. If we’re good enough to get into the tourney, that is good enough.
And I don’t think the fans will be apathetic or stay away. If we falter in the division series four years in a row, we might get restless, but look at Toronto and Seattle, who still play to good crowds.

On the other hand, a great team that blows too many resources on one season will often flounder the next season because it is out of ammo. We haven’t had a repeat WS winner since NY.

And there’s also the Padres’ model, which is fling as much money as possible at everything, and win 82 games.

The Rays have an agreement to build a new stadium, and have a good and inexpensive team, and I think that is Mike’s goal.

When Rubenstein takes over, that may change, but small market remains small market, so we shall see.