How should we look at FA contracts going forward?

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, interloper said:

Full agree here. 

David Rubenstein =/= spending $2-300 million dollars on a player suddenly. Delusional to think that, IMO. 

Here's my prediction:

We're going to win ~ games this season and ~100 games next season.

And in between, in the next off-season, this board will have several meltdowns bemoaning the lack of FA signings.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

Here's my prediction:

We're going to win ~ games this season and ~100 games next season.

And in between, in the next off-season, this board will have several meltdowns bemoaning the lack of FA signings.

You predicting any rings?

At this point that should be the goal.

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

You predicting any rings?

At this point that should be the goal.

The playoffs is extremely volatile.

This isn't the NBA or even the NFL; the best team doesn't win all the time, or perhaps even most of the time.

So long as they are annually good enough to win the AL East, there really can be no rational critique of their approach.

[Say O!]

My opinion in principle depends on the duration of the FA contract.  For the Orioles as currently constructed, the roster will be inexpensive over next 3 years with most premium guys either pre-arb or early arb years.  That would make me lean toward FA signing of elite SP this upcoming offseason.

Now last winter we saw only Nola receive long duration contract at 7yrs (I’m putting Yamamoto & Ohtani in separate category given the JP marketing angle).  The industry seemed reticent to give $$$ and length to the other premium SPs (Snell, Montgomery) but was this Boras driven?  Would the premium SPs be willing to sign 3-4 yr deals at higher AAVs or instead play out essentially one year deals?  Example — would a guy like Burnes go for 4/175M?

the market dynamics will be interesting this upcoming offseason with demand (which big market clubs pursuing — Cubs, LAA, SFG, NYY?) and supply (Burnes, Fried as FAs and Montgomery, Snell, Cole as potential opt outs).  As well as Boras negotiating factor. 

 

Edited April 19 by Say O!

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

The playoffs is extremely volatile.

This isn't the NBA or even the NFL; the best team doesn't win all the time, or perhaps even most of the time.

So long as they are annually good enough to win the AL East, there really can be no rational critique of their approach.

While I do agree with you to an extent you can certainly make moves that are more targeted towards winning in the playoffs over making the playoffs.

They might not work, but you can make the attempt.

[UMDTerrapins]

If he wasn’t a catcher Rutschman would be one of the few exceptions that I’d extend long term. He’s a winner and a natural leader. Otherwise, unless the player is the one driven for long term security and there’s a financial upside/discount for the team, you have to ride them as far as you can and then let ‘em go. 
 

I think Elias has a really difficult job ahead of him in the next year +. Maintaining the same fire/winning culture this team has established while going through a lot of player turnover is going be a challenge for Hyde too. Sorry…..I veered off-subject 

[Pickles]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

While I do agree with you to an extent you can certainly make moves that are more targeted towards winning in the playoffs over making the playoffs.

They might not work, but you can make the attempt.

Are their ways to make your team better in October that don't manifest in April-September?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Are their ways to make your team better in October that don't manifest in April-September?

Sure.

To give an Orioles example, picking up Andrew Miller is a move that is going to be disproportionality valuable in the playoffs.  Sure he's great to have during the regular season but he's worth even more in a playoff environment.

[Bemorewins]

33 minutes ago, interloper said:

Full agree here. 

David Rubenstein =/= spending $2-300 million dollars on a player suddenly. Delusional to think that, IMO. 

I don’t think that there is reason to believe that we will retain all or even most of our great young players.

But why Rubenstien continue to run the O’s in the miserable, miserly manner that the awful Angeloses managed things?

Why would they not spend market to retain any of the great young players?

[Bemorewins]

29 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You predicting any rings?

At this point that should be the goal.

Agreed fully about this!

We have the requisite talent and depth where a playoff birth is a high probability. But the expectations should be set higher than that at this point. If just making the playoffs in most seasons was the goal, we didn’t need to deploy the extreme tank measures that we did from 19- 21 and were still rebuilding/selling/not adding in 22. And that is after we were last place and the worst team in the sport in ‘18.

[interloper]

3 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I don’t think that there is reason to believe that we will retain all or even most of our great young players.

But why Rubenstien continue to run the O’s in the miserable, miserly manner that the awful Angeloses managed things?

Why would they not spend market to retain any of the great young players?

Not saying he won't spend.

I'm saying there's no reason to believe right now that he will spend what it takes to get a Burnes or a Soto or whatever. Because the majority of teams won't either. 

Edited April 19 by interloper

[Bemorewins]

30 minutes ago, Pickles said:

The playoffs is extremely volatile.

This isn't the NBA or even the NFL; the best team doesn't win all the time, or perhaps even most of the time.

So long as they are annually good enough to win the AL East, there really can be no rational critique of their approach.

We did that last season and then got destroyed in our opening round of the playoffs because predictably our starting pitching wasn’t strong enough. 

Will you be satisfied with a similar result this season?

[btdart20]

53 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I don't think they'll ever spend BIG on pitching.  It's just too volatile and risky.  I also don't think they'll spend BIG on any FA.

There 100+ million contracts, the few of them they do hand out, will almost exclusively go to homegrown guys.

I don't think they'll spend big on SPs either.  At least not until they make better UCLs...  

Maybe the right position player in the right context but generally agree the focus will be homegrown.  At least for the foreseeable future.  

[Bemorewins]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

Not saying he won't spend.

I'm saying there's no reason to believe right now that he will spend what it takes to get a Burnes or a Soto or whatever. Because the majority of teams won't either. 

We don’t need Soto. So he is irrelevant to our concerns. We do need Burnes or a comparable pitcher to him to give ourselves the best shot at success in October. The Rangers, Braves, and to an extent the Dodgers have excellent teams with great lineups. Running out pitches like Kremer like we did last year and hoping and praying for the best against them is not the wisest approach IMO. 

[interloper]

2 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

We don’t need Soto. So he is irrelevant to our concerns. We do need Burnes or a comparable pitcher to him to give ourselves the best shot at success in October. The Rangers, Braves, and to an extent the Dodgers have excellent teams with great lineups. Running out pitches like Kremer like we did last year and hoping and praying for the best against them is not the wisest approach IMO. 

Yeah, I just think we'll continue to try and trade for a guy, or sign someone at around half the price of Burnes, like Montgomery. 

But I'm as curious as anyone on how they will approach the rotation next year. I honestly have no idea what they are going to do.