Photo

President Of Baseball Operations


  • Please log in to reply
403 replies to this topic

#81 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 111,207 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 05:45 PM

So your position is if we paid KG's salary, we would have gotten better prospects in his trade?

 



#82 BSLBobPhelan

BSLBobPhelan

    Movie & MMA Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 8,771 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 19 October 2018 - 06:36 PM

Exactly my point. Thanks for clearing that up.


He said “we don’t have to have a time machine”, not “we don’t have a time machine”.

#83 JTrea81

JTrea81

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,387 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 06:56 PM

It's really strange that nothing has been said while the Mets are in their second round of interviews.

 

Though nobody knew MacPhail was coming aboard when that happened including Flanagan and Duquette...



#84 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 08:29 PM

It's not my opinion. It reality.

If the guys you are trading cost their new team less, you get more back.

Similarly, if the guys you are trading have more team control left, you get back more.

I don't know exactly what we could have gotten back had we paid the remaining salary on the guys we traded and not dumled O'Day. But it is inarguable that we would have gotten more back. We don't have to have a time machine or peer into an alternate reality to know that. It's a simple fact of baseball.


How often have teams paid the salary of guys that they are trading at the deadline? At that point in the season there is about two months or a third of that year's salary still owed. With the exception of O'Day, I don't think the salaries of the players that the Orioles traded had that much impact on the return.



#85 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 83,258 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 October 2018 - 08:46 PM

How often have teams paid the salary of guys that they are trading at the deadline? At that point in the season there is about two months or a third of that year's salary still owed. With the exception of O'Day, I don't think the salaries of the players that the Orioles traded had that much impact on the return.


But it stands to reason that if we sent money with these guys that the returns would have likely been better.

And they obviously got less for KG by including ODay
@BSLRobShields

#86 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 08:46 PM


Ok but you would be wrong. We all hated the deal on here. Now, maybe YOU or the guys at the Sun liked it but it was a terrible deal.


The sun board was down at the time of the trade, so we were all here. We'll see if the O'Day salary dump turns out to be a terrible trade. Also, a lot of people on here initially criticized the Schoop trade. It's not looking that bad right now.

#87 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 08:54 PM

But it stands to reason that if we sent money with these guys that the returns would have likely been better.

And they obviously got less for KG by including ODay

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that a team in rebuilding mode would pay the salaries of guys that they are moving. The O'Day deal is the only deal that involved a salary dump. Manny, Brach, and Britton are pending free agents. That affected their trade value as well. They are rentals in essence. Paying their salaries would not have made that much of a difference IMO.Especially when you consider that Machado and Britton were traded to the Dodgers and the Yankees.

#88 birdwatcher55

birdwatcher55

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,402 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 04:35 AM

I think he is saying he would rather save the money than spend it on KG..which is, of course, ridiculous.


Dumping $30 million dollars (estimated) in future obligations is stupid in a rebuild mode is stupid? How so captain?

#89 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,178 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 06:39 AM

Dumping $30 million dollars (estimated) in future obligations is stupid in a rebuild mode is stupid? How so captain?

O'Day is the only future obligation they dumped. Nobody else was owed a penny in 2019.

It was unwise to insist on dumping the money rather than to take back more talent. I'd have gone so far as to do the opposite, take back other team's bad contracts along with a prospect to offset the cost.

The only justification for not spending money currently during the rebuild is if they are saving that money and will be willing to go over budget in the future by using that reserve. I don't think the Orioles operate that way, so the reduced payroll will never help the team, it will just be more profit for the owners. There is no reason for a fan to support that.

What they should be doing is using the money they aren't spending on MLB players to improve the team. Max out draft spending (they actually do a good job of this). Max out international spending (they never do this). Pay remaining salary on your tradable assets to maximize prospect return (they could have done this but did not). Take on toxic salaries from other teams and get back prospects to offset cost (they did the opposite with O'Day).

Ownership is to blame for all of those decisions and the only excuse for their actions is good old fashioned greed.

#90 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,178 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 06:47 AM

How often have teams paid the salary of guys that they are trading at the deadline? At that point in the season there is about two months or a third of that year's salary still owed. With the exception of O'Day, I don't think the salaries of the players that the Orioles traded had that much impact on the return.

It happens pretty frequently. I'll try to get you some examples when I get a chance. Any time you hear "cash considerations" or that the trade needs MLB approval, money to cover some of the remaining salary is changing hands.

There have also been trades where a team takes on a bad contract but also gets a prospect for doing so.

A third of what we traded away comes to about $15M in savings over the remaining months. It's entirely reasonable to assume we could've gotten 1 or 2 more prospects who would've been back end of top 10 for us had we paid all that remaining salary. That's before considering the dump of O'Day, which would likely earn us another such player had it not been included. Not talking guys like Diaz, but guys like Mullins who might end up making an impact. Certainly guys that are more likely beneficial to the Orioles future than a bigger profit for the Angelos family.

#91 Crouseman

Crouseman

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 06:49 AM

Dumping $30 million dollars (estimated) in future obligations is stupid in a rebuild mode is stupid? How so captain?

I had it closer to $35million for 2018 and 2019.  Yeah I would of liked more for KG, but looking down the road he wasn't going to be part of the 2021 team that will hopefully be on the upswing.  It was a calculated gamble by DD on the deals.  Since Schoop looks like a bust, that gamble looks good.  KG trade jury still out depending on if we can sign one of the Cuban guys.  Even if we just sign the pitcher, Gaston, it will make the deal look OK.

 

Plus the 35 million windfall can be spent on the international signings and will also make it easier to swallow that Davis release after 2019 or 2020.  Those international signings have to come out of the budget somewhere and DD definitely made room for them.



#92 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,178 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 06:54 AM

I had it closer to $35million for 2018 and 2019. Yeah I would of liked more for KG, but looking down the road he wasn't going to be part of the 2021 team that will hopefully be on the upswing. It was a calculated gamble by DD on the deals. Since Schoop looks like a bust, that gamble looks good. KG trade jury still out depending on if we can sign one of the Cuban guys. Even if we just sign the pitcher, Gaston, it will make the deal look OK.

Plus the 35 million windfall can be spent on the international signings and will also make it easier to swallow that Davis release after 2019 or 2020. Those international signings have to come out of the budget somewhere and DD definitely made room for them.

Gausman and Schoop's were owed $0 in 2019 so their future salaries don't count as savings.

Everything you just mentioned could be done without having to dump salaries in these trades. There is no reasonable excuse for ownership on this. It's pure greed. They see an opportunity to cut costs and drive profits up and they are maxing it out.

#93 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 06:55 AM

It happens pretty frequently. I'll try to get you some examples when I get a chance. Any time you hear "cash considerations" or that the trade needs MLB approval, money to cover some of the remaining salary is changing hands.

There have also been trades where a team takes on a bad contract but also gets a prospect for doing so.


I doubt that it happens very often at the deadline. I can recall a few examples of teams paying salaries of the players that they are trading in the offseason. If it happened that frequently the deadline you would be able to give an example without much research.

#94 Crouseman

Crouseman

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 06:56 AM

O'Day is the only future obligation they dumped. Nobody else was owed a penny in 2019.

It was unwise to insist on dumping the money rather than to take back more talent. I'd have gone so far as to do the opposite, take back other team's bad contracts along with a prospect to offset the cost.

The only justification for not spending money currently during the rebuild is if they are saving that money and will be willing to go over budget in the future by using that reserve. I don't think the Orioles operate that way, so the reduced payroll will never help the team, it will just be more profit for the owners. There is no reason for a fan to support that.

What they should be doing is using the money they aren't spending on MLB players to improve the team. Max out draft spending (they actually do a good job of this). Max out international spending (they never do this). Pay remaining salary on your tradable assets to maximize prospect return (they could have done this but did not). Take on toxic salaries from other teams and get back prospects to offset cost (they did the opposite with O'Day).

Ownership is to blame for all of those decisions and the only excuse for their actions is good old fashioned greed.

 

I think the O's are definitely going to operate that way going forward.  Save big bucks in 2019 and 2020, then go over budget in the next couple years going forward.  Plus they saved some salary in the 2018 trades like 7 mil or so which would almost cover their international signings for 2018.  Its all about re-allocating resources until you are competitive again.  Going way under budget in 2019/2020 will allow them to go over budget in 2021-22 so they release Davis and still have a 140-150mil payroll for a competitive team.



#95 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,178 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 06:59 AM

I doubt that it happens very often at the deadline. I can recall a few examples of teams paying salaries of the players that they are trading in the offseason. If it happened that frequently the deadline you would be able to give an example without much research.

It happens frequently. That's why whether or not we would pay salary was a topic of discussion at the time. Doing so would open the market up for lower budget teams and also teams trying to stay just south of the luxury tax threshold.

I can't get you examples from memory because it is so common. The times that it happens do not stand out as unique, I just don't recall which trades teams paid freight and which they didn't. And I don't feel like searching from my phone right now.

#96 Crouseman

Crouseman

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 06:59 AM

Gausman and Schoop's were owed $0 in 2019 so their future salaries don't count as savings.

Everything you just mentioned could be done without having to dump salaries in these trades. There is no reasonable excuse for ownership on this. It's pure greed. They see an opportunity to cut costs and drive profits up and they are maxing it out.

The O's definitely would tender them in 2019 if they were still on the team and that would of been about a 20mil obligation.  They saved that money by trading them in 2018.  If they non tendered them then we get nothing back at all.  And who knows what we get in a trade in the winter.  We would still be stuck with O'Day.



#97 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,178 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 07:00 AM

I think the O's are definitely going to operate that way going forward. Save big bucks in 2019 and 2020, then go over budget in the next couple years going forward. Plus they saved some salary in the 2018 trades like 7 mil or so which would almost cover their international signings for 2018. Its all about re-allocating resources until you are competitive again. Going way under budget in 2019/2020 will allow them to go over budget in 2021-22 so they release Davis and still have a 140-150mil payroll for a competitive team.

If they have to reduce MLB payroll to afford to pay their draft and international bonuses, then all hope is already lost.

They do not. Those are small costs comparatively.

Maybe they will bank savings and go over budget in the future. I will never believe that until I see it, and even then will be skepical.

#98 Crouseman

Crouseman

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 07:02 AM

Gausman and Schoop's were owed $0 in 2019 so their future salaries don't count as savings.

Everything you just mentioned could be done without having to dump salaries in these trades. There is no reasonable excuse for ownership on this. It's pure greed. They see an opportunity to cut costs and drive profits up and they are maxing it out.

Its all about reallocating resources to future years when we are competitive again.



#99 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,178 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 07:02 AM

The O's definitely would tender them in 2019 if they were still on the team and that would of been about a 20mil obligation. They saved that money by trading them in 2018. If they non tendered them then we get nothing back at all. And who knows what we get in a trade in the winter. We would still be stuck with O'Day.

No guarantee means no obligation. We saved nothing in 2019 by trading Gausman and Schoop. I'm not complaining about trading them. I am complaining about not paying their remaining 2018 salaries to increase the return. Not huge in these cases, Manny and Britton and O'Day are the bigger examples where it would've made a difference.

And had we still been stuck with O'Day, we'd have a decent prospect from Atlanta instead. That's the whole point! That's what I want.

#100 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,178 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 07:06 AM

Its all about reallocating resources to future years when we are competitive again.

It's not gonna happen. We will spend what budget allows those years. Not what revenue allows plus the $15M we saved at the 2018 trading deadline.

I just can't imagine this ownership group doing that. It would be an acceptable approach if they did.
  • Ricker Says likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners