Keith Law...

[orioles119]

Law didn't say that the $4.5 for Weiters was definite. That's just what he thought Wieters would get.

That number, of course, was blown out of the water by Dave Dombroski.

[Aberdeener]

This is a big deal either way, but when a team talks about cutting payroll and building from within, you simply can't let something like this happen. Our "rebuilding" effort has produced a barren minor league system that could lack any significant additions this year. What a mess.

[Mackus]

Law didn't say that the $4.5 for Weiters was definite. That's just what he thought Wieters would get.

That number, of course, was blown out of the water by Dave Dombroski.

At least Dave Dombrowski is smart enough to get his elite talent, top picks signed.

I'd have much rather set this market than enjoy watching Wieters in a Yellow Jackets uniform next spring.

[RayFink1e]

I cant believe I am saying this, but Angelos please meddle in these negotiations. We know you must of approved this pick before it was made. Please Peter.

[geschinger]

At least Dave Dombrowski is smart enough to get his elite talent, top picks signed.

I'd have much rather set this market than enjoy watching Wieters in a Yellow Jackets uniform next spring.

Who has the smarter approach? The Angels or the Tigers?

I happen to prefer the Angels approach which works just as well as the Tigers approach for a fraction of the cost.

[Sports Guy]

Who has the smarter approach? The Angels or the Tigers?

I happen to prefer the Angels approach which works just as well as the Tigers approach for a fraction of the cost.

Who cares? Both got the job done.

I do think Porcello has/had more leverage than Wieters though.

[makoman]

So,. Keith Law was wrong about Wieters being done and the price....He appears to be wrong about Arrieta.

Why are we listening to him at all again?

Because if someone in the national media broke wind and it sounded like "Wieters" it would spawn a 5 page thread on here.

[geschinger]

Who cares? Both got the job done.

I do think Porcello has/had more leverage than Wieters though.

Exactly - so what possible reason could anyone have for wanting the Orioles to do things like the Tigers do instead of emulating what Anaheim does?

[rolliefingers]

Who has the smarter approach? The Angels or the Tigers?

I happen to prefer the Angels approach which works just as well as the Tigers approach for a fraction of the cost.

If you don't want to pay Wieters, don't draft him. Getting talent out of this draft needs to take precedence over philosophical differences over what draft picks "should" make. No. Excuses.

I have a queasy feeling that all the holdouts will sign today except ours. We'll feel all high and mighty for not contributing to the downfall of western civilization, while the other 29 teams sucked it up and MADE THEIR ORGANIZATIONS BETTER.

[rolliefingers]

Exactly - so what possible reason could anyone have for wanting the Orioles to do things like the Tigers do instead of emulating what Anaheim does?

You act like the money isn't there, and that giving Wieters $10M will cripple this franchise for years to come. It's simply untrue.

[geschinger]

What is "The Angels' approach"?

The Angels approach is to offer a generous well above slot offer and present it as a take it or leave it offer and get their players in a win/win deals. Look at their farm system - wouldn't it be nice if generated prospects like they do? They don't limit that approach to first rounders either. It helps them bring Nick Adenhart type talent into the organization as well.

[geschinger]

You act like the money isn't there, and that giving Wieters $10M will cripple this franchise for years to come. It's simply untrue.

The same arguments on this board when we negotiating with Huff - give him $9m a year to get it done, this team can afford it. Never mind that he could be had for significantly less by negotiating/waiting. The same arguments on this board were made when Mora was looking for the extension... "Just pay the man" many said and the Orioles did. In isolation overpaying for a player isn't going to cripple the franchise but making it a guiding principle and doing it over and over again is one way to get to the point where the Orioles are now - a team with salaries of $90+m with nowhere near $90+m worth of talent.

I know that Wieters is a much better investment than the others but that isn't the point. It is simply that the franchise should try to avoid paying X + an X% premium for a player when they can be had for X. I have to admit, I am shocked that it's an idea that seems so unpopular.

[rolliefingers]

The Angels approach is to offer a generous well above slot offer and present it as a take it or leave it offer and get their players in a win/win deals. Look at their farm system - wouldn't it be nice if generated prospects like they do? They don't limit that approach to first rounders either. It helps them bring Nick Adenhart type talent into the organization as well.

That "approach" has little-to-no bearing on the Wieters negotiations.

More than a few of their best prospects were taken in later rounds (Kendrick is a good example). The only "approach" there is quality scouting, which we've done OK with. There's no reason we can't do better, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

This year, we don't have a 2nd or 3rd round pick. The idea seemed to be that since we had fewer top picks to pay, why not go after elite talent and pay a slight premium?

The Angels and Tigers are inherently more attractive organizations than ours is. We don't know this for sure, but I would imagine we'd have had a harder time signing Weaver than the Angels did. Just like we have to overpay free agents, we might have to overpay draft picks, too. In this case, we'd be overpaying someone with tons of talent and upside, instead of Payton or Huff. Wieters is worth overpaying for.

Stop thinking of this in ideological terms for one second and think about this logically. Are we a better organization, A.) signing Wieters for $7-10 million, or B.) not signing him and taking the pick next year? All while keeping in mind that he's probably < 2 years away from the majors and we most likely would not have another crack at him next year.

If you'd actually choose "B" there, then all I can say is "have fun losing".

[rolliefingers]

The same arguments on this board when we negotiating with Huff - give him $9m a year to get it done, this team can afford it. Never mind that he could be had for significantly less by negotiating/waiting. The same arguments on this board were made when Mora was looking for the extension... "Just pay the man" many said and the Orioles did. In isolation overpaying for a player isn't going to cripple the franchise but making it a guiding principle and doing it over and over again is one way to get to the point where the Orioles are now - a team with salaries of $90+m with nowhere near $90+m worth of talent.

I know that Wieters is a much better investment than the others but that isn't the point. It is simply that the franchise should try to avoid paying X + an X% premium for a player when they can be had for X. I have to admit, I am shocked that it's an idea that seems so unpopular.

For the record, I was never in favor of extending Mora or Gibbons at all, and Huff's deal is poor more for the years than the money.

You overpay for premium talent. But more to the point, you don't let some nebulous "principle" distract you from strengthening your organization.

Huff, Mora, Gibbons - those guys you can take or leave. Wieters, you HAVE to sign. And as others have pointed out, $10M for Wieters is far more likely to pay off per dollar than any of the three contracts mentioned above (although Mora is getting closer to earning it than a lot of us thought last year).

[Sports Guy]

The same arguments on this board when we negotiating with Huff - give him $9m a year to get it done, this team can afford it. Never mind that he could be had for significantly less by negotiating/waiting. The same arguments on this board were made when Mora was looking for the extension... "Just pay the man" many said and the Orioles did. In isolation overpaying for a player isn't going to cripple the franchise but making it a guiding principle and doing it over and over again is one way to get to the point where the Orioles are now - a team with salaries of $90+m with nowhere near $90+m worth of talent.

I know that Wieters is a much better investment than the others but that isn't the point. It is simply that the franchise should try to avoid paying X + an X% premium for a player when they can be had for X. I have to admit, I am shocked that it's an idea that seems so unpopular.

But that was because we were told, through rumors of course, that Huff had a 3/21 type deal on the table...So, we were saying to get it done, just offer more since we all acknowledge that we need to overpay.

Those reports were obviously untrue.