How should we look at FA contracts going forward?

[CaptainRedbeard]

The Orioles have so much cost controlled hitting that they’d likely need to trade a lot of them to ever really need to sign a free agent hitter in the next few years.  Which means they should have a lot of payroll flexibility and just need to use that in some fashion to add pitching. Whether that’s by signing pitchers or trading the extra hitters or a combination of both, I think that really just depends on who is available and what prospects are blocked.

This past offseason it was clear they needed to trade Ortiz so a trade was the obvious route over FA (even though I wish they did both…). Now they don’t have another prospect of that caliber that is blocked to the same degree so it’s not apparent.

With a new owner as well, it impossible to predict how Elias will approach it this offseason, and I think any route is appropriate so long as they continue to increase payroll and actually leverage the advantage of having a tremendous cost-controlled offensive core. 

[btdart20]

6 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. 

Are you saying you would sign a 7 year deal on whatever beats the rest of the market for Burnes?

Or are you saying Rubenstein and Elias will?

 

But that's really not how I understand the OP posed.  It's more about org building and weighting of FA value to roster construction not specific to where we are currently in payroll.  $30m committed for 7 years today reduces the opportunity to spend differently tomorrow.

Agreed that our playoff odds are high for the next few years.  Balancing the org build/perennial contender ongoing concern with figuring out how to guarantee bumping up the playoff win% odds is the magic question.  Can that be done in the offseason with long term contracts?

[Matt Bennett]

16 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. 

Exactly. What is the point of an almost entirely homegrown lineup if you skimp on pitching? 

Put simply, I don't see a way the O's can field an elite rotation during these golden years of almost an entirely homegrown lineup without a significant investment in capital to that rotation. We have Bradish (we'll see + big Tommy John risk?), Grayson, and Kremer (middle/back end guy) locked up for awhile. That's 3 and you need more than 5. We are already on our SP8 and it's April.

Continually repeating the strategy of giving up years of control of very good prospects for a 1 year ace rental doesn't seem like the best way to preserve "long term health" of the organization, as Elias is always referencing. At some point, you get your guy, and you pay him American dollars to continue being your guy. Burnes is that guy for me. Maybe others have someone else in mind for that role. But it will cost. 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, interloper said:

Full agree here. 

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

I think the whole key to this is Elias, not Rubenstein and I think that’s the part everyone is missing.

And I don’t think Elias would sign off on a deal like that.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Matt Bennett said:

Exactly. What is the point of an almost entirely homegrown lineup if you skimp on pitching? 

Put simply, I don't see a way the O's can field an elite rotation during these golden years of almost an entirely homegrown lineup without a significant investment in capital to that rotation. We have Bradish (we'll see + big Tommy John risk?), Grayson, and Kremer (middle/back end guy) locked up for awhile. That's 3 and you need more than 5. We are already on our SP8 and it's April.

Continually repeating the strategy of giving up years of control of very good prospects for a 1 year ace rental doesn't seem like the best way to preserve "long term health" of the organization, as Elias is always referencing. At some point, you get your guy, and you pay him American dollars to continue being your guy. Burnes is that guy for me. Maybe others have someone else in mind for that role. But it will cost. 

The rotation will be homegrown too…with a sprinkling in of a 2-4 year type FA deal, ala Bassitt, Gray, Eovaldi, etc…

I think the thing people have to remember is the Intl FA side of things. They will bare some fruit from that eventually…and maybe very soon.

But this is also why you move guys like Santander a year early..or Mullins or Mountcastle..guys that you shouldn’t pay arb 2 and especially arb 3 money for. Let someone else buy into those years and obtain arms that way. 

Edited April 19 by Sports Guy

[interloper]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think the whole key to this is Elias, not Rubenstein and I think that’s the part everyone is missing.

And I don’t think Elias would sign off on a deal like that.

Yep, agreed. 

[Since1984]

I do not think the Orioles will spend >$200m on annual payroll anytime soon, but they have room to sign. Burnes Ace type every 3-6 years. 
 

I would offer $150 over 5 years with incentives and options that could exceed $200m, to hedge a sunk cost for injuries.

[Aristotelian]

I would go for older but still elite/above average guys in areas of need who will sign short term deals even if they are high AAV, like some of those Verlander and Nelson Cruz contracts. Sonny Gray would have been good this year. Not sure who the equivalent guys will be next year but I don't see us being in the market for 10+/$300+ type deals. At least I hope we aren't.

[Matt Bennett]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The rotation will be homegrown too…with a sprinkling in of a 2-4 year type FA deal, ala Bassitt, Gray, Eovaldi, etc…

Based on the current state of the organization, I'm curious to see what this homegrown rotation looks like. What are the odds there's an impact SP in Seth Johnson, Chayce McDermott, and Cade Povich? Pretty low. What are the odds all 3 are busts? Pretty low. A likely median scenario is you have 1 serviceable SP, a reliever, and a bust. Or something along those lines. 

I for one am much happier Burnes is in the rotation rather than Bassit, Eovaldi, or someone of that caliber. My preference would have been both once we learned about the Bradish + Means injuries. This time, we paid for the Burnes type front of the rotation pitcher in years of prospect control. I don't think that will always be a luxury we can afford. 

Almost an entirely homegrown lineup and a GM who has shown the ability to piece together a productive bullpen. The rotation is where you strike. But it takes investments.

No reason the Nationals can sign Scherzer and go win themselves a World Series and that avenue of success building is cut off to our collection of billionaire owners running a bottom 5 payroll currently. 

[clapdiddy]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I would go for older but still elite/above average guys in areas of need who will sign short term deals even if they are high AAV, like some of those Verlander and Nelson Cruz contracts. Sonny Gray would have been good this year. Not sure who the equivalent guys will be next year but I don't see us being in the market for 10+/$300+ type deals. At least I hope we aren't.

Agree with this.   The number one priority should be locking up Henderson, Holliday, and to a lesser extent, Adley.   Not that I don't want Adley around...I'm just not sure how many years you want to invest in a catcher.  

Making a deal for a guy like Burnes this year could be an annual/semi-annual kind of thing.   Maybe you splurge one year and trade for a guy with two years left before FA where you may have to give up a bigger prospect.    I don't think it's smart to have long-term money in pitching.  

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, Matt Bennett said:

Based on the current state of the organization, I'm curious to see what this homegrown rotation looks like. What are the odds there's an impact SP in Seth Johnson, Chayce McDermott, and Cade Povich? Pretty low. What are the odds all 3 are busts? Pretty low. A likely median scenario is you have 1 serviceable SP, a reliever, and a bust. Or something along those lines. 

I for one am much happier Burnes is in the rotation rather than Bassit, Eovaldi, or someone of that caliber. My preference would have been both once we learned about the Bradish + Means injuries. This time, we paid for the Burnes type front of the rotation pitcher in years of prospect control. I don't think that will always be a luxury we can afford. 

Almost an entirely homegrown lineup and a GM who has shown the ability to piece together a productive bullpen. The rotation is where you strike. But it takes investments.

No reason the Nationals can sign Scherzer and go win themselves a World Series and that avenue of success building is cut off to our collection of billionaire owners running a bottom 5 payroll currently. 

Well first of all, how are you defining an impact starter?  I would guess you didn’t think Bradish would make an impact.

I think out of Povich or McDermott that one of them can give us good enough starter innings. How much of an impact? Who knows. Ceiling is definitely higher with them than Kremer though.  Is Kremer an impact guy. Did you think he would be 2-3 years ago?

Now, a guy like Luis DeLeon?  High impact potential there.  And we will see with guys like Baumeister, who we have seen so little of so far.

You don’t have to spend 9 figures to invest in pitching. You can trade for it. That’s an investment.   You can make more sensible FA signings.

 

 

[Too Tall]

17 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think the whole key to this is Elias, not Rubenstein and I think that’s the part everyone is missing.

And I don’t think Elias would sign off on a deal like that.

This is spot on. If Rubenstein means what he says, (Eilas/Sigbot will run the show) the question is what will Elias do with more resourses? How is Elias going to meld free agencey with a bigger budget and team needs going forward. I do not see Sigbot buying into long term high dollar deals for pitching. Particularly for 30 plus year old pitching. I feel any long term deals will be calculated around mutual advantage for team and player with as little risk as possible. I sure don't see Sigbot paying out eight years for three to four years potential benefit. 

 

[yark14]

Spend like a drunken sailor.

I want Rubenstein's bank account to be $0 when he passes away.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Too Tall said:

This is spot on. If Rubenstein means what he says, (Eilas/Sigbot will run the show) the question is what will Elias do with more resourses? How is Elias going to meld free agencey with a bigger budget and team needs going forward. I do not see Sigbot buying into long term high dollar deals for pitching. Particularly for 30 plus year old pitching. I feel any long term deals will be calculated around mutual advantage for team and player with as little risk as possible. I sure don't see Sigbot paying out eight years for three to four years potential benefit. 

 

He’s going to do what Houston and Atlanta do. Those are your models. The payroll will still be high, especially when these guys get into their arb years but they aren’t going to go crazy in free agency.

Build through your system, whether it’s promotions or trades and sign the occasional players to fill in the holes. That’s the way they will do it and it’s the best way to do it.

[Pickles]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

I don't really buy that.

The only reason a guy like MIller adds excess value in October is because you're going to use him differently.  If you were willing to use him like that in May, he'd be every bit as valuable then.

I think you could argue a top heavier team might have an advantage over a more balanced one in the playoffs all things being equal, but I don't think you can correlate that to big free agent signings or "flashy" off-season moves.

I'm about to respond to another post here, but people will look at the O's last season and say they didn't have an "ace" and that's why they lost in the playoffs.

If you actually examine the claim it's pretty silly.  Nobody wins 100 games without some top-end starting pitching.  The O's had two guys who were basically top 5 AL pitchers in the second half of last season.  They lost in the playoffs because one of them pitched ok, and one of them got bombed.

We've all appreciated Burns so far, but there's nothing stopping Burnes from getting bombed in the upcoming playoffs.