MacPhail cites Tex offer as proof the Orioles will spend money

[TonySoprano]

Can't you read? I said everybody starts with what they beleive about AM and then make assumptions to fit it. There's no difference in this regard between you and me, except which opinion of AM we start out with. We each view the Tex situation through our biases about whether AM is a good man for the job, and we each have assumptions that fit that. Everybody does that. How you can take that as not fair is beyond me.

I can read. What I was hoping to do was to get you to admit you have a bias for MacPhail.

[Dr. FLK]

"Common sense" is what people say when they've got nothing else. What's "common sense" to you isn't necessarily "common sense" to other folks. If you wanna say a 7 year commitment at $20M is not grounds for negotiation, well, I think that's just silly. It's certainly not "objective". There's no arguing with your idea of what comprises "common sense".

And that's what people say who know common sense proves them wrong. What's common sense to some of us isn't common sense to...well...to people who don't have common sense.

A 7 year commitment at $20 mil isn't ground for negotiation if people have already offered more.

[mweb]

No one has answered my question, but I asked because just about everyone on this board would have thought 7/140 or more (AM did say he offered over 140) would have been a very strong offer before free agency started.

What I've always thought to be funny is that almost no one supported going to 8/180 before free agency, yet so many were upset that AM agreed with thier initial limits. It would be like if people got upset because the O's weren't willing to go to 7/126 to get Lackey if that's what it will take.

[Dr. FLK]

No one has answered my question, but I asked because just about everyone on this board would have thought 7/140 or more (AM did say he offered over 140) would have been a very strong offer before free agency started.

What I've always thought to be funny is that almost no one supported going to 8/180 before free agency, yet so many were upset that AM agreed with thier initial limits. It would be like if people got upset because the O's weren't willing to go to 7/126 to get Lackey if that's what it will take.

I'm not saying he should have offered more. I'm saying that his offer wasn't enough to get him, and he shouldn't use low-balling a FA as evidence he's willing to spend. I want him to identify players who fit within his plan and budget, and do what it takes to get them and better the team...not low ball the "sexy guys" and try to get a consolation prize.

[RShack]

Great post but I do disagree with the bolded part.

Well, I personally agree that Tex wanted to be a MFY and was waiting for it. However, there are others who think that AM somehow fell short, or was a dope, or was BS'ing everybody, or whatever negative thing they think about AM's part of it. So, I think it's fair to say that we don't have enough info about what actually happened to overcome the tendency of everybody to use Tex as a projective test (projective Tex? ;-) to confirm whatever bias they start out with. If somebody thinks AM is a capable and reasonable guy, they will likely assume he handled the Tex thing OK. On the other hand, if they think they're smarter than AM, or think he's the wrong man for the job, then they will come up with a story about how he blew it. Nobody has enough info to overcome whatever the biases are, so it's just a stand off with the same stuff being repeated again and again. Nobody is changing anybody's mind about it.

[RShack]

I can read. What I was hoping to do was to get you to admit you have a bias for MacPhail.

I would have expected you to have little doubt about what my opinion is. Do you think I've been slippery or not clear that I think he's the right man for the job?

[Dr. FLK]

If somebody thinks AM is a capable and reasonable guy, they will likely assume he handled the Tex thing OK. On the other hand, if they think they're smarter than AM, or think he's the wrong man for the job, then they will come up with a story about how he blew it. Nobody has enough info to overcome whatever the biases are, so it's just a stand off with the same stuff being repeated again and again. Nobody is changing anybody's mind about it.

Because we all know that reasonable men never make mistakes. I mean, either he's perfect or he's terrible, right? I love your logic sometimes.

[orayole]

Because spending half your payroll on one player is such a great idea.

[mweb]

I'm not saying he should have offered more. I'm saying that his offer wasn't enough to get him, and he shouldn't use low-balling a FA as evidence he's willing to spend. I want him to identify players who fit within his plan and budget, and do what it takes to get them and better the team...not low ball the "sexy guys" and try to get a consolation prize.

Well I'm not sure if it was low-balling or not. It depends on what other offers were out there, and clearly I mean current offers, not what the Rangers offered two years before or whatever it was. Like I said, that offer would not have been perceived as a low-ball offer until we saw the bigger offers out there.

[MarkF]

I know I am late on this thread, so I apologize if this has been covered, but these Tex discussions really bother me because of the lack of understanding of the value of a baseball contract. So, here goes:

The difference between the value of the Yankees offer to Tex (8/180) and the Orioles offer (7/140) is NOT $40M. If you think that $40M is the difference, you get an F in Algebra (and in Probability, too.)

The difference between 7/140 and 8/180 is $40M MINUS what Tex will make in 2016.

Tex sold eights years of service to the Yankees. The Orioles only offered to buy seven years, leaving Tex still in possession of 2016. Now, it is certainly possible that Tex will not be able to play in 2016. But what are the odds? He will be 36 years old. He is a very solid athlete who doesn't depend on speed. He plays the least physically demanding position on the field. He keeps himself in terrific shape. And at worst he is a great hitter who could DH.

ARod will make $31M in 2011 at age 36. And 2016 is five years after 2011, when $31M won't be what it used to be.:laughlol:

The fact is the Orioles made an offer to Tex that was very, very close to the Yankees offer. Tex knew it, and certainly Boras knew it. (I'm sure he passed Algebra.)

People here need to stop saying that the Orioles low balled Tex. It just did not happen.

Sorry for the rant.

But one final thing: 7/140 is OBVIOUSLY worth more than 8/160. No question about it.

[Frobby]

one final thing: 7/140 is OBVIOUSLY worth more than 8/160. No question about it.

Huh? This doesn't make a lot of sense. The odds are not high that, at age 36, Tex will still be playing well enough to command a $20 mm salary. A-Rod's contract isn't the barometer here.

[TonySoprano]

Huh? This doesn't make a lot of sense. The odds are not high that, at age 36, Tex will still be playing well enough to command a $20 mm salary. A-Rod's contract isn't the barometer here.

You're being a bit too polite. The Yankees. Angels Nats, all offered an extra year guaranteed money, If someone doesn't think that extra year adds value, Vlad Guerrero says,"hi"

[MarkF]

Huh? This doesn't make a lot of sense. The odds are not high that, at age 36, Tex will still be playing well enough to command a $20 mm salary. A-Rod's contract isn't the barometer here.

Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with this. Tex will certainly make more than $20M in 2016. Check back with me then.

Seriously, what do you predict he will make? He's not an outfielder like Matsui. He's a first baseman. Do you really think he will be over the hill to play first base at 36?

[Arthur_Bryant]

Huh? This doesn't make a lot of sense. The odds are not high that, at age 36, Tex will still be playing well enough to command a $20 mm salary. A-Rod's contract isn't the barometer here.

Who knows what $20MM will buy in 2016?

[MarkF]

You're being a bit too polite. The Yankees. Angels Nats, all offered an extra year guaranteed money, If someone doesn't think that extra year adds value, Vlad Guerrero says,"hi"

Yes, an extra year adds value. But you guys are saying that it adds 100% value. An extra year at $20M = $20M added value. That is just wrong. I can't believe people can't see that.

Never mind. I give up.