Royale: LaRoche bid made

[Sports Guy]

What option does LaRoche have right now? Why would you cave to 3 years?

I get that 3/16 or so isn't that much money and its not a terrible contract but I would be sticking to a 2/12 type deal and adding in a team option or a buyout of 1-2 million.

Actually, this is what I would be offering him:

Contract 1:

1/7 deal with a team option or 1 million dollar buyout. Team option is also for 7 million.

Contract 2:

2/12 deal with 1 million dollar buyout of team option. Team option for 8 million.

I give him until Tuesday to accept or I take all contracts off the table and move on.

And I am saying this with the assumption that we aren't getting Lee.

[maybe2050]

Carl Crawford doesn't really have anything to do with this. They aren't at all similar players--despite your use of selective stats to make it appear so.

If you're trying to say that the O's would be risking less on LaRoche than the Red Sox are risking on Crawford, then yes. Obviously. But I think the Red Sox are smart enough to know that when he gets to age 33, Crawford won't be as valuable as he is right now. They're willing to accept that, though, so they can have him for his peak years, which should be the next three to five seasons.

For LaRoche, those peak years are coming to an end. They aren't going to continue through age 33. He will certainly be an improvement over what they've had, but don't assume that you can pencil him in for three more seasons like the one he has just had. It almost certainly isn't going to happen.

I feel he will not decline in the life of this contract . If he were 33 and we were having this same talk, I'd agree 100%, but 33 is not over the hill in player years. Some of the best contracts players have, are received in the 30-35 age range. Now I could be wrong, but I'm sure you'll find I'm not

[backwardsk]

What option does LaRoche have right now? Why would you cave to 3 years?

I get that 3/16 or so isn't that much money and its not a terrible contract but I would be sticking to a 2/12 type deal and adding in a team option or a buyout of 1-2 million.

The Nationals. Looks like they'll platoon Morse with Bernadina in left. They need a 1st baseman. Another question is what are Lee's options besides Baltimore and Washington now that SD has signed Hudson?

[maybe2050]

The Nationals. Looks like they'll platoon Morse with Bernadina in left. They need a 1st baseman. Another question is what are Lee's options besides Baltimore and Washington now that SD has signed Hudson?

Because why have to worry about filling that position again in 2 years time? If the front office feels good enough about signing him as our "Big Free-Agent signing", then they should offer him a 3 year deal to have him locked up for a while. This is why I never understood the huge rave about getting Lee. You have him here for one year, and because we don't win the East (which we all know isn't happening), he bolts after one season anyways. If we have Laroche here for 3 years, we could actually move on to another pressing need such as the rotation, or upgrading the outfield, or a longterm solution at 3rd when wiff boy is already a memory. I say Laroche could be a part of our core if people would embrace this addition a litttle more

[SilentJames]

What option does LaRoche have right now? Why would you cave to 3 years?

I get that 3/16 or so isn't that much money and its not a terrible contract but I would be sticking to a 2/12 type deal and adding in a team option or a buyout of 1-2 million.

You can't always get what you want. Its not a terrible contract, we get the player we want then do it. You can't win them all when it comes to the contract game.

The Orioles will have to overpay either in years or money.

[SilentJames]

Because why have to worry about filling that position again in 2 years time? If the front office feels good enough about signing him as our "Big Free-Agent signing", then they should offer him a 3 year deal to have him locked up for a while. This is why I never understood the huge rave about getting Lee. You have him here for one year, and because we don't win the East (which we all know isn't happening), he bolts after one season anyways. If we have Laroche here for 3 years, we could actually move on to another pressing need such as the rotation, or upgrading the outfield, or a longterm solution at 3rd when wiff boy is already a memory. I say Laroche could be a part of our core if people would embrace this addition a litttle more

wow, just wow.

[Tuam]

When did 25 homers and 100 RBIs become mediocre? Sign the man, in this crazy world, he is a bargain!

[TheBee]

Pen - writing utensil

Pin - Stick or Bobby

The expression is "...hear a pin drop." NOT "...hear a pen drop."

[BaltimoreTerp]

Because why have to worry about filling that position again in 2 years time? If the front office feels good enough about signing him as our "Big Free-Agent signing", then they should offer him a 3 year deal to have him locked up for a while. This is why I never understood the huge rave about getting Lee. You have him here for one year, and because we don't win the East (which we all know isn't happening), he bolts after one season anyways. If we have Laroche here for 3 years, we could actually move on to another pressing need such as the rotation, or upgrading the outfield, or a longterm solution at 3rd when wiff boy is already a memory. I say Laroche could be a part of our core if people would embrace this addition a litttle more

<img src="http://static.frysforum.com/at/20090727002827780196-0-epic-fail.jpg"></img>

Lots of "epic fails" available, but this one fits you perfectly.

[Bradysburns]

Dude, you're just too funny. But no, if it's showing a diffrent definition, then I'd say Websters would be able to shorten their list. 2 diffrent defs mean 2 diffrent words. I'll try to make this a little easier.

Since MacPhail likes to keep everyone in the dark about what he's actually doing, would it be too much of a reach, to feel he's actually signing Lee instead of Laroache ?

Much better wording here. Your original wording was confusing. And "Dude" was right: you were making too fine a semantic point for a sports message board. He wasn't saying they were one word - so your red-herring argument fails. He wasn't even saying they had the same definitions. He was saying they had the same basic definitions and he was right, so get over it.

Meanwhile, I don't think it's too much of a reach to think that AM has an offer into any other free agent out there who could play first. He might have multiple offers out there for all we know.

[Ven6]

pin

letters

I died when I read this post.

Well not really, I was okay enough to type this.

[maybe2050]

The expression is "...hear a pin drop." NOT "...hear a pen drop."

Pin / Pen, you'd still hear them both drop when a room is silent. LOL

[Mad Mark]

Let me ask you guys something. The way MacPhail likes to keep everyone in the dark about what he's actually doing, what do you think the chances are that he will be signing Lee instead of Laroche? I know it's possible, but anyone think it's conceivable?

It's pretty evident at this point that Andy MacPhail doesn't lay his cards on the table until the hand is done. For all any of us know, Luke Scott could be next season's 1B and MacPhail could go sign Vlad Guerrero to DH. Things are going to shake out however they're going to shake out.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I feel he will not decline in the life of this contract . If he were 33 and we were having this same talk, I'd agree 100%, but 33 is not over the hill in player years. Some of the best contracts players have, are received in the 30-35 age range. Now I could be wrong, but I'm sure you'll find I'm not

I know you "feel" this, but history is against you.

We'll only really know for sure in three years, but here's an interesting exercise. I gather that you've been watching baseball for a while, so you probably remember a lot of players. Take a couple of minutes, and make out a list of 10 former players who seem more or less similar to Andy LaRoche: the same kind of player, roughly the same skills and same level of performance. I'm not going to tell you who to pick, except--don't pick any superstars. Because LaRoche isn't a superstar. He isn't Larry Walker or Eddie Murray. He isn't even Fred McGriff. He's a guy who has had several 25 HR seasons and exactly one 100 RBI season. You might also want to skip the years roughly 1995-2008 because steroids artificially extended a lot of careers.

Now, when you have that list, go to Baseball Reference and look at the career stats of the players you picked. In particular, look to see how many of those players had three straight years, at ages 31, 32, 33, that were all as good as the three seasons which preceded them. Basically, see how often a player was as good through age 33 as he was through age 30.

You will probably find a couple of players who were as good at age 33 as they were when they were when they were 28 or 29. But most won't be. Because most players--except the great ones--start to decline past age 30. Sometimes they decline a little, sometimes a lot. Sometimes they slump and bounce back for a year. But overall, they decline. That's a fact, not supposition, based on the history of thousands of careers over the decades.

I'm not going to be unhappy if the O's sign LaRoche for $18-20MM over three years. (Really). I just don't assume that because he had 25 HR and 100 RBI this year, that he will produce anything like 75 HRs and 300 RBI over the next three years. That almost certainly won't happen.

[bsebllfan4life]

I know you "feel" this, but history is against you.

We'll only really know for sure in three years, but here's an interesting exercise. I gather that you've been watching baseball for a while, so you probably remember a lot of players. Take a couple of minutes, and make out a list of 10 former players who seem more or less similar to Andy LaRoche: the same kind of player, roughly the same skills and same level of performance. I'm not going to tell you who to pick, except--don't pick any superstars. Because LaRoche isn't a superstar. He isn't Larry Walker or Eddie Murray. He isn't even Fred McGriff. He's a guy who has had several 25 HR seasons and exactly one 100 RBI season. You might also want to skip the years roughly 1995-2008 because steroids artificially extended a lot of careers.

Now, when you have that list, go to Baseball Reference and look at the career stats of the players you picked. In particular, look to see how many of those players had three straight years, at ages 31, 32, 33, that were all as good as the three seasons which preceded them. Basically, see how often a player was as good through age 33 as he was through age 30.

You will probably find a couple of players who were as good at age 33 as they were when they were when they were 28 or 29. But most won't be. Because most players--except the great ones--start to decline past age 30. Sometimes they decline a little, sometimes a lot. Sometimes they slump and bounce back for a year. But overall, they decline. That's a fact, not supposition, based on the history of thousands of careers over the decades.

I'm not going to be unhappy if the O's sign LaRoche for $18-20MM over three years. (Really). I just don't assume that because he had 25 HR and 100 RBI this year, that he will produce anything like 75 HRs and 300 RBI over the next three years. That almost certainly won't happen.

I'm sure I'm doing this wrong, but the first three guys I looked up were Paul Oneil, John Olerud, and Robin Ventura. Actually Ventura was the first guy to come to mind to look at. All of these players had very similar careers at ages 31-33, then they did at 30. I agree that this might not be the norm, but these were honestly the first three I looked at.