MacPhail's FA signing history with the O's

[BrunoCherrytown]

I wouldn't be surprised if we have a couple more of those low profile free agent signings in the later part of the offseason.

It will be interesting to see the reaction if/when MacPhail does pay big money to a free agent.

Before coming to Baltimore, did he have a reputation as a GM who was very conservative as it came to free agents?

Oh yes...lots of articles about this. Conservative, slow moving, and mid-rank payrolls has been his m.o. for a very long time.

[Ven6]

Whatever. There hasn't been any reason to spend on higher priced, longer term free agents.

The interesting (and hopeful) thing worth noting is all the activity from AM after Christmas.

[WildDave]

Don't forget extending Brian Roberts, that's got to be part of this discussion I think.

[maybe2050]

Whatever. There hasn't been any reason to spend on higher priced, longer term free agents.

The interesting (and hopeful) thing worth noting is all the activity from AM after Christmas.

"Sure, because winning is so overrated". LOL

[maybe2050]

Don't forget extending Brian Roberts, that's got to be part of this discussion I think.

True, we could have had Giles and Laroche a year ago in trade for Roberts. We also could have had Floyd, or Thames in 2 seperate trades for Roberts. We could have saved a bunch of money

[Frobby]

Every time you look up the O's on Cots Contracts there it is, plain as day. O's salaries 2007 = 93M, 2008 = 67M. That is what rebuilding teams do.

I don't think payroll reductions from one year to the next necessarily indicate rebuilding. Payroll dropped from $73 mm in 2003 to $51 mm in 2004, despite the fact that we signed Miggy, Javy, Raffy and Ponson that offseason. Clearly we were not rebuilding then. We just had a bunch of dead weight come off the books, and the contracts with the players we signed that winter were backloaded.

The big reduction from 2007 to 2008 was partly due to rebuilding (Tejada and Bedard cost about $16.5 mm in 2007), but it was also related to two injured veterans being jettisoned (Wright and Benson cost $14.1 mm in 2007). The $26 mm drop exaggerates the amount of rebuilding that was going on.

[GoldGlove21]

"Sure, because winning is so overrated". LOL

Winning is the most important thing, but many people praised what the Mariners did heading into last season and they were horrible. You have to land the right players for what you are trying to do. This is a 72-84 win team IMO. 84 wins is lightning in a bottle and 72 wins is as bad as it should get. We are talking about a 12 win swing and even then, how do we go from 84 to 95 wins if we land LaRoche and the roster remains unchanged heading into the next offseason? The answer is tied to the continued development of the young players which happens to be the main factor in us reaching a .500+ record this season.

[GoldGlove21]

True, we could have had Giles and Laroche a year ago in trade for Roberts. We also could have had Floyd, or Thames in 2 seperate trades for Roberts. We could have saved a bunch of money

I do remember Floyd for Roberts ever being a validated proposal. LaRoche for Giles would have set the Orioles back as a team, not sure what your point is there. Making a hole by filling a hole doesn't make any sense. When Roberts is healthy he is an All-Star type player, LaRoche and Giles are not.

[BaltimoreTerp]

"Sure, because winning is so overrated". LOL

Says the person who has espoused nothing since their arrival that would lead to winning.

[baltfan]

Who, beside Tex, has signed with another team as a free agent that you regret AM didn't sign for that same contract? I'd be willing to bet that is a short list.

[MrOrange82]

Who, beside Tex, has signed with another team as a free agent that you regret AM didn't sign for that same contract? I'd be willing to bet that is a short list.

Good question. Off the top of my head, the list starts and stops with Dunn.

[Crazysilver03]

True, we could have had Giles and Laroche a year ago in trade for Roberts. We also could have had Floyd, or Thames in 2 seperate trades for Roberts. We could have saved a bunch of money

You continue to prove how little you know.

The Roberts for LaRoche/Giles deal was several years ago when both we were Atlanta, not a year ago, especially considering that Giles was out of baseball and LaRoche was a free agent.

Feel free to try again at not making yourself look like a complete buffoon.

[wildcard]

I don't think payroll reductions from one year to the next necessarily indicate rebuilding. Payroll dropped from $73 mm in 2003 to $51 mm in 2004, despite the fact that we signed Miggy, Javy, Raffy and Ponson that offseason. Clearly we were not rebuilding then. We just had a bunch of dead weight come off the books, and the contracts with the players we signed that winter were backloaded.

The big reduction from 2007 to 2008 was partly due to rebuilding (Tejada and Bedard cost about $16.5 mm in 2007), but it was also related to two injured veterans being jettisoned (Wright and Benson cost $14.1 mm in 2007). The $26 mm drop exaggerates the amount of rebuilding that was going on.

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. The fact that the O's did not put the $14M back in the team and instead went with young players and low cost retreads showed the O's were in rebuilding mode and is part of the reason why the payroll dropped in addition to the trade of Miggy and Bedard.

[Crazysilver03]

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. The fact that the O's did not put the $14M back in the team and instead went with young players and low cost retreads showed the O's were in rebuilding mode and is part of the reason why the payroll dropped in addition to the trade of Miggy and Bedard.

I don't understand what there is to disagree about.

Frobby was simply stating that the reduction in the payroll was from both "rebuilding" trades and from getting rid of dead-weight.

[wildcard]

I don't understand what there is to disagree about.

Frobby was simply stating that the reduction in the payroll was from both "rebuilding" trades and from getting rid of dead-weight.

I might be reading what he said wrong but it looks to me he is saying that the part of the reduction that includes Benson and Wright was not due to rebuilding. If that is what he is saying I disagree. It is because they were in rebuilding that they didn't spend that money on players to improve the team immediately. Instead they went with young players and low cost retreads.