How should we look at FA contracts going forward?

[Frobby]

1 hour 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.

Put it this way, Elias is not going to spend a lot of money on a move that he thinks is an inefficient use of funds, even if he can.  That doesn’t mean he won’t sign anyone to big contracts, but he’ll be highly selective IMO.

[Pickles]

Just now, Bemorewins said:

Would it have hurt?

The Yankees? IMO, they are not and will not be our main competitors for a World Series. The Rangers, Dodgers, Braves those are the teams who have talent on par with ours. That's who we are going to have to beat.

Yeah, we'll never have to beat the Yankees.  Not like they're in our division or anything.  Not like they're the most successful franchise in the sport's history.   Not like they're in first place as we speak or anything.  Nope we don't need to worry about them.

Or, hear me out, we need to beat the Yankees too, and you just want to ignore them because they are proof positive that big splashy acquisitions of "aces" doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of team building.

[Bemorewins]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

You didn’t answer my question 

IMO, that is not the best use of assets. You are trading short term gains for long term loses. It's okay to do that sometimes, but IMO doing that consistently is not sustainable.

Is there something wrong with supplementing a good young team with impact FA signings? (Like Texas) Or at least seeking to extend most of your core players? (Like ATL)

It seems that those things have worked out well for them. No?

[Bemorewins]

Just now, Pickles said:

Yeah, we'll never have to beat the Yankees.  Not like they're in our division or anything.  Not like they're the most successful franchise in the sport's history.   Not like they're in first place as we speak or anything.  Nope we don't need to worry about them.

Or, hear me out, we need to beat the Yankees too, and you just want to ignore them because they are proof positive that big splashy acquisitions of "aces" doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of team building.

Of corse we need to beat them, along with the Jays, Ray, and Sox because they are all in our division. We actually don't need to be better record wise to secure a wild card birth.

But the Rangers, Braves, and Dodgers are all much better than the Yankees IMO.

[Pickles]

Just now, Bemorewins said:

Of corse we need to beat them, along with the Jays, Ray, and Sox because they are all in our division. We actually don't need to be better record wise to secure a wild card birth.

But the Rangers, Braves, and Dodgers are all much better than the Yankees IMO.

How many FA aces did the Braves sign?

[btdart20]

22 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Put it this way, Elias is not going to spend a lot of money on a move that he thinks is an inefficient use of funds, even if he can.  That doesn’t mean he won’t sign anyone to big contracts, but he’ll be highly selective IMO.

Agreed.  The spigot may have greater volume thru-put but it'll still be focused.

[Bemorewins]

8 minutes ago, Pickles said:

How many FA aces did the Braves sign?

Do they need to? They have developed a few (Strider who was coming off of injury in the 4th round/Friend traded for but was a first rounder) AND they have the best lineup in baseball. I think they hit over 300 home runs last year (307 to be exact).

I'm not that dogmatic. I am not married to any one singular approach. But I believe that recent history shows that if we want to win a championship, we are going to have to spend. - It could be on shorter term older elite starters like the Astros, extensions to young players like the Braves, impact FA signings and trades like the Rangers. I don't expect that we would be anything like the Dodgers.

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Put it this way, Elias is not going to spend a lot of money on a move that he thinks is an inefficient use of funds, even if he can.  That doesn’t mean he won’t sign anyone to big contracts, but he’ll be highly selective IMO.

Just can’t see a scenario where he signs a FA to a big 9 figure deal.

[clapdiddy]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Just can’t see a scenario where he signs a FA to a big 9 figure deal.

But, will he sign one of his guys?

[Sports Guy]

44 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

IMO, that is not the best use of assets. You are trading short term gains for long term loses. It's okay to do that sometimes, but IMO doing that consistently is not sustainable.

Is there something wrong with supplementing a good young team with impact FA signings? (Like Texas) Or at least seeking to extend most of your core players? (Like ATL)

It seems that those things have worked out well for them. No?

Well first of all, I think you are making the mistake that you have to trade high end assets to get good players.  That isn’t true (see Verlander)

Secondly, as you continue to build good farm systems and develop good players, you can’t play them all. Trades have to be made.

It’s a perfect use of resources.

We aren’t talking about extensions. We are talking about big FA deals and yes, there is something wrong with it because those contracts largely blow up in your face.  It’s an awful use of resources and that has been proven time and time again.

Just because the guy has had a good career the first 7-10 years doesn’t mean that it will continue to be as good.  Don’t get lured in by the name. The name doesn’t matter, the production does.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

But, will he sign one of his guys?

I think he will be absolutely for that…but I also don’t think he has to for reasons I have stated in the past.

[Bemorewins]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well first of all, I think you are making the mistake that you have to trade high end assets to get good players.  That isn’t true (see Verlander)

Secondly, as you continue to build good farm systems and develop good players, you can’t play them all. Trades have to be made.

It’s a perfect use of resources.

We aren’t talking about extensions. We are talking about big FA deals and yes, there is something wrong with it because those contracts largely blow up in your face.  It’s an awful use of resources and that has been proven time and time again.

Just because the guy has had a good career the first 7-10 years doesn’t mean that it will continue to be as good.  Don’t get lured in by the name. The name doesn’t matter, the production does.

The Verlander trade requires taking on a lot of money and then doing an extension for an older pitcher. And then that older pitcher missed a season with that team (and making a big salary) due to TJ.

Are you comfortable with taking those kinds of risks?

Oh, the OP was about extensions. No?

I guess you are against all long term deals? If so, that is fine. I just have a difference of opinion. 

[Bemorewins]

15 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well first of all, I think you are making the mistake that you have to trade high end assets to get good players.  That isn’t true (see Verlander)

Secondly, as you continue to build good farm systems and develop good players, you can’t play them all. Trades have to be made.

It’s a perfect use of resources.

We aren’t talking about extensions. We are talking about big FA deals and yes, there is something wrong with it because those contracts largely blow up in your face.  It’s an awful use of resources and that has been proven time and time again.

Just because the guy has had a good career the first 7-10 years doesn’t mean that it will continue to be as good.  Don’t get lured in by the name. The name doesn’t matter, the production does.

I apologize. I got my threads confused. You are right the thread is about FA usage not extensions.

[Pickles]

44 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Do they need to? They have developed a few (Strider who was coming off of injury in the 4th round/Friend traded for but was a first rounder) AND they have the best lineup in baseball. I think they hit over 300 home runs last year (307 to be exact).

I'm not that dogmatic. I am not married to any one singular approach. But I believe that recent history shows that if we want to win a championship, we are going to have to spend. - It could be on shorter term older elite starters like the Astros, extensions to young players like the Braves, impact FA signings and trades like the Rangers. I don't expect that we would be anything like the Dodgers.

By that logic, we've developed Rodriguez and Bradish, and we have an exciting you group of positional talent.  So do we need to?

Your last paragraph is perfectly reasonable, and not very different from my position.  This team is going to spend more money just by arbitration alone, so yeah, the payroll is going to have to increase.  I totally want them to extend select young players.  And I totally want them to sign FAs that help the team.

I do not expect them to spend money at the top of the FA market like the Rangers have done, but the Astros  have not.  I think ultimately a team that makes a lot of sense to emulate is the St. Louis Cardinals.  The Cardinals rarely sign big free agents, but they do occasionally target a pending FA, trade for him using prospects, and then extend him.  Matt Holliday and Nolan Arenado being examples of that.  Those are the biggest splashes I expect the O's to make.  And I'm fine with it.  Making big, expensive moves is radically overrated by most fans in its relation to actually winning baseball games.

Edited April 19 by Pickles

[Bemorewins]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

By that logic, we've developed Rodriguez and Bradish, and we have an exciting you group of positional talent.  So do we need to?

Your last paragraph is perfectly reasonable, and not very different from my position.  This team is going to spend more money just by arbitration alone, so yeah, the payroll is going to have to increase.  I totally want them to extend select young players.  And I totally want them to sign FAs that help the team.

I do not expect them to spend money at the top of the FA market like the Rangers have done, but the Astros and Dodgers have not.  I think ultimately a team that makes a lot of sense to emulate is the St. Louis Cardinals.  The Cardinals rarely sign big free agents, but they do occasionally target a pending FA, trade for him using prospects, and then extend him.  Matt Holliday and Nolan Arenado being examples of that.  Those are the biggest splashes I expect the O's to make.  And I'm fine with it.  Making big, expensive moves is radically overrated by most fans in its relation to actually winning baseball games.

Ok, to respond to your first point. Yes we need to. The Braves supplemented their top notch homegrown guys with trades and signings like Morton to fully staff out their staff. Bradish is a big maybe at this point. And beyond Grayson and Bradish we have a back end guy in Kremer and that is it for next year. So IMO we will have to sign or trade for some one of consequence/impact.

The Dodgers have ABSOLUTELY spent at the top of the FA market - Freeman, Ohtani, Yamamoto.

I don't think that we need to run a model like the Cards in terms of roster construction or trading for big time position players like Arenado or Goldschmidt. However, they are a very good example of a smaller market being sustained by an engaged fanbase who consistently runs a healthy size/larger payroll.