Photo

Chris Davis contract and consequence


  • Please log in to reply
923 replies to this topic

#1 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 24 June 2018 - 06:04 PM

Just trying to pull this discussion into it's own thread.  I'll pull some of the comments from the Machado thread over here for discussion.  There are also some thought in the Davis thread on the Player page.

 

Contract. 7/161, 23M per year with 6M per deferred.

 

Current year costs are 17M per year through 2022 (next 4 years).

 

Of the 42M deferred, 18M is committed by the Orioles I believe you have to consider deferred money from a single year already paid in that year...in other words, if someone claimed the current contract (not that they would), they wouldn't be responsible for all of the 42M deferred, just the deferred money for current/future years.  Because the deferred money hasn't been paid yet, I'm guessing MLB rules allow it to be a consideration in a trade.

 

Active contract beyond 2018: 4/68

Deferred money not committed: 24M, total 4/92

All deferred money included 4/110



#2 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 24 June 2018 - 06:23 PM

Uh, cuz he sucks and he's owed $90+ million between now and 2022?

this is Pedro's quote from the other thread in response to "why do you want to move the contract"  For whatever reason, the full quote formatting didn't copy.

 

For any of these discussions I think it's important to still be the Orioles.  I don't really share what I'd do, I share what I think I could get away with (in terms of opportunity) if I was making the calls under the Orioles structure.  They have sets of rules they use and have used for a long time.  Some may argue that's not fact, but if we were in court, every piece of evidence would suggest it's enough to be correct.

 

We've also seem the Orioles spend something north of 150M on payroll.  That's more than many people thought they'd commit, but it does fall into the structure I'd suggest the Orioles follow.  That is: player contracts are viewed at an individual level, not a collective level.  If the Orioles meet their perceived value (whatever internal assessment they use) then you keep signing guys.

 

That brings you to limit.  There is certainly (likely) some aggregate limit to what the Orioles are willing to do.  We saw them dump CompBal picks to shed minor money.

-----------

 

My response to Pedro's question is you aren't even close to the area where the 17M per year makes any difference in what you can do.

 

Davis' contract doesn't prevent you from adding any player that meets your individual cost assessment and you aren't anywhere near a ceiling that would prevent you from investing resources in any other part of the organization, including player payroll. 

 

Even if the Orioles 'poured' money into staff and scouting and development and IFA and hit their 15% add in the Rule 4, it's still no-where near what they're capable of spending.

 

Losing Davis' contract with Machado or any other combination of players doesn't create any opportunity you don't already have.

You don't need to shed his contract to do anything else.  There's plenty of room.



#3 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 101,208 posts

Posted 24 June 2018 - 06:27 PM

Bob, John, and Brandon provided their thoughts here..

http://baltimorespor...alysts-discuss/

 

Harkins: At the beginning of the season, I thought Davis would be key to the success of the Orioles offense – if he could simply split the difference between his best seasons and his 2017 season and return to an OPS+ in the 110-120 range, it would provide a huge boost to the middle of the Orioles offense. Obviously that didn’t happen, and I think now the hope would be that he could simply return to a 2017 level and an OPS+ near 100, tons of strikeouts and 25-30 homers.

 

It’s tempting to cut bait and I certainly understand the sentiment, but with another four years left on that seven-year, $161 million deal, I’d be hesitant to do so. I think my strategy with Davis at this point would be to hit the reset button. Ask him if he’d be willing to take an extended vacation/DL stay. Perhaps his back were to act up. Or his neck or something. Make something up. Then go on a nice rehab outing. Let him catch his breath and regroup.

 

I’m not saying Davis is or should be a part of the coming rebuild and I’m not expecting him to ever again approach his career years. But if you can get him back to a level where he’s cranking homers on  a semi-regular basis, you might be able to move him at next year’s trade deadline. You’d still have to eat a ton of salary, and you probably wouldn’t get much back in return, but it’s better than nothing.

 

Perrotto: This contract is right on the borderline of crossing into disaster territory. If you read between the lines of Buck Showalter’s recent comments, it is easy to draw the conclusion that the Orioles seriously doubt that Davis can get back to his former level of play. Or even close. Since this is already a lost year, the Orioles can afford to ride it out for the rest of the season. However, if Davis doesn’t show any significant signs on bouncing back then it’s time to move on and absorb the hit.

 

Warne: I don’t really see any reason to move on from him right now. If the Orioles are going to be bad for the foreseeable future — and I think they are — you may as well ride out your sunk costs. If he bounces back, you have a trade chip with the idea that you’ll have to eat most of the money anyway. If you were OK with moving on and paying him anyway, there’s no real gripe there. I think you sit him down though and tell him to fight through it, and that he has your support and you’re going to keep putting him out there as long as he’s not being crushed mentally. Or if he is, you could sit him for a while and then give him another shot. I’m not sure there’s an easy answer, though.



#4 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 24 June 2018 - 06:34 PM

That said, nobody can deny that Davis' contract would not be some level of hindrance if his play does not improve.  

 

It's one thing if he never again approaches his '13 and '15 extreme highs....  but when he is at, "Worst season ever for a MLB player level," and making the $ he is... yeah, that hurts.

-Stoner (sorry, formatting is killing me)

 

I guess there are basically 3 options with Davis.

 

1) Play him and hope he gets back to some level of production that has merit on a competitive team (or to trade and not eat everything)

2) Release him because he's blocking someone or so unproductive it's viewed as a negative.

3) Trade him a) with value to dump the contract or b) for other bad contract that might meet the needs of the other team

 

I think #2 is where Chris's comment generally is.  At some point, if you would rather have Stewart in LF and Mountcaste at DH and Mancini at 1B, then Davis' contract is just an anchor that prevents you from moving on at a team performance level.

 

"Saving the 17M in current year" still (in every reasonable expected case) doesn't allow you to do anything new, so you jsut eat the money and play the guys you think give you more opportunity to win.

 

We may get to this point, but it's probably 2 years away, so you'd have 2 year (or 2+ if you did it in-season 2020) left to eat.



#5 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 24 June 2018 - 06:49 PM

Why do you so quickly dismiss the notion that somebody might take on Davis and his contract if they got Manny along with it and didn't have to lose any of their up and comers? ....  Fact is you have no more idea if this would be a valid option than any of the stuff you propose all the time.

-Steve

 

Teams try to do the "what a prospect is worth" calculations (probably got Dave Stewart fired in AZ) and each team probably has it's own internal metrics.  Personally I think it's more feel than calculation, but calculations are fine to create framework you work from.

 

We should feel confident saying that no team is valuing Manny Machado's trade worth (in terms of prospects) at 92M or even 68M.  

That would be a huge number and if you wanted to try and line it up with some dollar calculation, you'd probably be well under 20M.

 

The real complication is you need a team committed to adding Manny that has some opportunity to leverage even minimal opportunity with Davis.  The trade discussion shouldn't be centered around some generic comment but consideration for a team that could be considered for some deal of that nature.

 

There can always be surprises (that's the out for every conversation) but for anyone at least trying to do a reasonable assessment there's actually a ton of information, maybe up to 80+%, than can be reasonably used to create framework for opportunity.  That's all I do.  I use too many words at times explaining that framework.  Consideration isn't (or shouldn't be) generic/random.



#6 OldSchool

OldSchool
  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 24 June 2018 - 07:05 PM

-Steve

 

Teams try to do the "what a prospect is worth" calculations (probably got Dave Stewart fired in AZ) and each team probably has it's own internal metrics.  Personally I think it's more feel than calculation, but calculations are fine to create framework you work from.

 

We should feel confident saying that no team is valuing Manny Machado's trade worth (in terms of prospects) at 92M or even 68M.  

That would be a huge number and if you wanted to try and line it up with some dollar calculation, you'd probably be well under 20M.

 

The real complication is you need a team committed to adding Manny that has some opportunity to leverage even minimal opportunity with Davis.  The trade discussion shouldn't be centered around some generic comment but consideration for a team that could be considered for some deal of that nature.

 

There can always be surprises (that's the out for every conversation) but for anyone at least trying to do a reasonable assessment there's actually a ton of information, maybe up to 80+%, than can be reasonably used to create framework for opportunity.  That's all I do.  I use too many words at times explaining that framework.  Consideration isn't (or shouldn't be) generic/random.

In 2015 the Braves traded Craig Kimbrel to the Padres and got trash in return because the Padres took BJ Upton's bad contact. The O's would have to pair Davis with a couple guys (Schoop and a prospect). 



#7 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 24 June 2018 - 07:16 PM

I'm not on the trade Davis Bandwagon.  He's been terrible (worst all-time gets you there) although I guess I still have hope he gets out of his head enough to produce.  He was a MOTO bat for many years and it's hard to have a credible presence there consistently.  He's only 32...it's not like he's 38 and done (from an age perspective).

 

If I wanted to trade Davis for some reason, I don't think you use 3A (above, prospect value), I think you target other contract you transition.

 

2 situations I'd look at.

 

Cardinals.  The Cardinals have a complicated roster of contracts and position alignment that they are working through.  It really depends on what they want to do, but they owe Fowler (full no-trade) 14.5 M over the next 3 years (3/43.5), Carpenter (1/14.5 +2) and Gyorko (1/13+1)....that's 72M.  Also, Jose Martinez, moved to 1B to make OF room for Ozuna is going to get himself hurt at 1B.  Watching the Cards the other day and apparently he's having trouble not putting his foot in the middle of the bag with the runner coming...he's been working on it(?), but the struggle is real and he's going to get himself or someone else hurt. 

 

If the Cardinals wanted to swap salaries to clean up their roster, take a chance on Davis finding himself in a different environment and improve their 1B defense with Jose Martinez moving back to the OF, that's something to discuss.  Probably enough risk/reward on both sides and some other things you could do to consider some deferred money on Davis.

 

Cubs. Harper's market is going to come down to a few teams and the Cubs likely need to move Heyward if they want to be involved on Harper.  Harper has the LV connection to Bryant which some (analysts, MLB Radio) believe could be a play.  Heyward is owed 5/108 so you actually have a lot more money tied to Heyward than Davis over the next 5 years.  Davis would need 1B and Rizzo is owed (options) 14.5M....which they would pick up, but Rizzo has scuffled some this year too.

 

If Theo makes the strong Harper play, he needs the Heyward move in his back pocket.  Probably other pieces/$$ involved, but (big picture) you flip Davis for Heyward and Rizzo. 



#8 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,189 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 24 June 2018 - 07:51 PM

Dude your entire premise that they can already financial do the things they should be doing and don't need to get rid of the Davis contract is pure 100% speculation. 

 

I have no idea if they could actually dump his contract if they would turn around and put that or similar amount of money into other players or scouts or whatever. No clue. But I also don't know that they wouldn't. You are just dismissing $17M like its no big deal.



#9 JTrea81

JTrea81

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 24 June 2018 - 08:08 PM

It's criminal that Davis was allowed to be this terrible without him being benched and forced to get his head right (hopefully) much earlier.  Buck even had him batting against LHP.

 

Of course when you overrule your GM and convince the owner to give the team's largest contract ever to a player, then you'd probably look and feel pretty terrible if you had to put that contract on the bench.

 

It's really amazing because Buck convinced ownership in Texas to trade A-Rod because he though one large contract would cripple a team and that eventually gets him fired because it's a terrible trade that cripples the franchise, yet he does a 180 in Baltimore and convinces ownership to keep a player that has tied up $ so they can't extend or sign another A-Rod like player and still keeps his job.



#10 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,762 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 24 June 2018 - 08:25 PM

Davis being on the team doesn't stop them from doing anything.

 

But he's terrible and his contract being off the team would be a blessing.  

 

It was a poor signing when it happened and it looks even worse now.

 

But no, you don't group him with valuable players just to get rid of his contract and get nothing in return.

 

You can get several players that make zero money for several years and they more than make up for the money Davis is getting paid.


  • B00E00N00 likes this
@BSLRobShields

#11 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,025 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 24 June 2018 - 09:19 PM

Dude your entire premise that they can already financial do the things they should be doing and don't need to get rid of the Davis contract is pure 100% speculation. 

 

So is the premise that the team will do something with the money that, in the long run, will be worth the cost of not getting player value in return for Machado.


@DJ_McCann

#12 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 25 June 2018 - 01:54 AM

Dude your entire premise that they can already financial do the things they should be doing and don't need to get rid of the Davis contract is pure 100% speculation. 

 

I don't know why you'd think it's speculation.  It's math.



#13 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,189 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 25 June 2018 - 06:47 AM

Fact - not having Davis contract frees up $17M.

Speculation - The Angelo's would pocket the money.

Speculation - The Front Office convinces them to spend it to support a quicker return to relevance.

Speculation - The players we get in return for Manny become MLB players.

 

Guys I get your thinking and its probably correct. But probably and fact are not the same thing.


  • BSLChrisStoner likes this

#14 weird-O

weird-O

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 556 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 25 June 2018 - 07:09 AM

Dude your entire premise that they can already financial do the things they should be doing and don't need to get rid of the Davis contract is pure 100% speculation. 

 

I have no idea if they could actually dump his contract if they would turn around and put that or similar amount of money into other players or scouts or whatever. No clue. But I also don't know that they wouldn't. You are just dismissing $17M like its no big deal.

Since I only joined this board last week, I apologize if this point was already been made during the winter that the O's were negotiating to extend/re-sign Davis. 

It was well documented that the majority owner told DD that the Davis money was for Davis only. He expressly told DD that money is not to be used for a pitcher, or split between two or three alternative players. If it's not spent to sign Davis, then it's not being spent. 

For me, any discussion about how the O's would re-allocate the money freed up by a Davis trade, has already been answered. And the answer is, it will not be invested back into the team. 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#15 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,189 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 25 June 2018 - 07:28 AM

Since I only joined this board last week, I apologize if this point was already been made during the winter that the O's were negotiating to extend/re-sign Davis. 

It was well documented that the majority owner told DD that the Davis money was for Davis only. He expressly told DD that money is not to be used for a pitcher, or split between two or three alternative players. If it's not spent to sign Davis, then it's not being spent. 

For me, any discussion about how the O's would re-allocate the money freed up by a Davis trade, has already been answered. And the answer is, it will not be invested back into the team. 

You simply do not know that. The circumstances surrounding the team then and now are vastly different.



#16 weird-O

weird-O

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 556 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 25 June 2018 - 07:59 AM

You simply do not know that. The circumstances surrounding the team then and now are vastly different.

You are correct. I don't definitively know that the O's won't reinvest that money back into the team. But the phrasing of your response implies that my not definitively knowing, means that your supposition has a much better chance of being true. So, in the absence of absolute certainty, of either of our parts, we wisely look to patterns of behavior.  

 

Here's what we know to be concrete truth. The majority owner doesn't believe pitchers are worth the money they earn, because they only play every 5th game, that is a direct quote from him. Between the time he made that statement thru today, there has been no action that suggests his philosophy has changed.  

 

Davis signed his new contract in Jan. 2016. It's a little more than two years later. What circumstances are so vastly different? 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#17 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,355 posts

Posted 25 June 2018 - 08:10 AM

If you keep Davis, you get prospects in return for the other trades.  Those players will be cheap, so Davis's $17M salary won't be that big of a deal.  If you include Davis and don't get much in return, then is $17M really enough to fill out the roster?


  • BSLChrisStoner likes this

#18 weird-O

weird-O

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 556 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 25 June 2018 - 08:51 AM

Any conversation about trading Davis just seems like a waste of keystrokes (he says, as he's wasting keystrokes in reply  :) ).

 

No one is going to take his contract. It doesn't matter who you pair him with. No one is going to take on an AAV of $24M for 4+ years. Hosmer, who is in all ways a better 1Bman than Davis, only got $18M/per. And that contract was signed after Davis got his.

 

The O's would have to offer a massive stimulus package along the lines of Davis, Bundy, Gausman, and Harvey, while asking for a bag of balls in return. If his layoff results in him returning to his 2015 production, it would still be a tough sell, because one dimensional hitters are not en vogue. Plus, the potential trade partner would logically fret the possibility (if not likelihood) that he bottoms out again. Added to that, is the fact that he's leaving his prime years, after next season. So there's the natural drop off that non-roided up sluggers experience as they hit their mid to late 30's.   


  • BSLChrisStoner and Nigel Tufnel like this

Good news! I saw a dog today.


#19 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,189 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 25 June 2018 - 08:59 AM

Davis signed his new contract in Jan. 2016. It's a little more than two years later. What circumstances are so vastly different? 

 

Jones, Manny, Britton, O'Day are gone after this season. Schoop has one more year. There are loads of differences in the roster heading to 2019 than then. Now that doesn't mean management will do things any differently but the situations are way different.


  • BSLChrisStoner likes this

#20 weird-O

weird-O

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 556 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 25 June 2018 - 09:15 AM

Jones, Manny, Britton, O'Day are gone after this season. Schoop has one more year. There are loads of differences in the roster heading to 2019 than then. Now that doesn't mean management will do things any differently but the situations are way different.

Ahh, yes...good point. I'm still hung up on the years of ownership's patterned behavior, so I rarely (see never) entertain the thought of the O's acquiring impact FAs at market value. I really don't see a deviation from the standard attitude of signing or trading for low risk, low reward guys like Beckham and Rasmus.    


Good news! I saw a dog today.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners