312 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

@JonHeyman

fowler deal with orioles is $33M for 3 years

[BaltBird 24]

Not a bad deal at all, honestly. Much rather have Fowler than a potential Marakis reunion. Funny that they both got basically the same exact contract, only Fowler a year less. Get Gallardo past this physical and let's get the season rolling. 

 

Team OBP should be much improved with the additions of Fowler and Kim, plus retaining Davis to go along with Machado's progression. 

 

Unfortunately, I think Schoop, Jones, Trumbo, and Hardy are going to be what they always are. 

[mweb08]

on Heyman ‏@JonHeyman 16m16 minutes ago Florida, USA

fowler deal with orioles is $33M for 3 years

 

Nice.

 

I was reading this Cameron article about the O's opportunity to sign Fowler and he said that the industry places a $15-20 million value on a pick around 14th, while a value of $5-10 million for a pick around 29th (the Chen pick). 

 

So if you want to go with those numbers, Fowler's deal would basically be more like 3/40 if you add the lesser pick tax, while 3/50 with the higher pick tax cost.

 

The former is still a good deal, while the latter is a little on the high side IMO, but not awful. Considering the O's are clearly going for it, I'm fine with the strategy even if I don't like the execution regarding the other player they're potentially giving up a pick for.

[fishteacher]

Good point.

 

He is finally doing what he says.  Its very nice to see.

 

But what do you do about the rotation if Gallardo falls through?

Like my portfolio right now....Thanks a LOT OBama!  

[Mackus]

on Heyman ‏@JonHeyman 16m16 minutes ago Florida, USA

fowler deal with orioles is $33M for 3 years

 
Nice.
 
I was reading this Cameron article about the O's opportunity to sign Fowler and he said that the industry places a $15-20 million value on a pick around 14th, while a value of $5-10 million for a pick around 29th (the Chen pick). 
 
So if you want to go with those numbers, Fowler's deal would basically be more like 3/40 if you add the lesser pick tax, while 3/50 with the higher pick tax cost.
 
The former is still a good deal, while the latter is a little on the high side IMO, but not awful. Considering the O's are clearly going for it, I'm fine with the strategy even if I don't like the execution regarding the other player they're potentially giving up a pick for.

I'd take $10M every year to trade back from 14 to 29. That seems like way too massive of a difference between those two picks.

[mweb08]

I'd take $10M every year to trade back from 14 to 29. That seems like way too massive of a difference between those two picks.

 

Maybe. I'd assume there's a fair amount of research behind those numbers, but maybe not or maybe the research isn't sound.

[Mackus]

Surprised it's 3 instead of 2, and makes it a bit riskier. But the AAV is certainly very nice. Good move, IMO.

[tennOsfan]

I'd rather have this contract than what the Braves gave Nick.

[dude]

I actually kind of go the other way on this (2 vs 3)...if you like the player and you are already giving up the pick....why not 4+1?

 

I'd rather go 4/45 and leverage value an another year.  If DJ Stewart turns into what we hope...he'll go to LF for Kim....we have nothing in the way of OFers....and we're giving up draft picks which limits what you can get.

 

I think there are things to do better than Fowler, only because I don't want to pay the compensation piece.....but if you're going to do it....you have to have the attitude...would I draft a guy today that could help my team over x years with that first pick....ie have present (but more expensive) value.

 

I'd like it more if the Orioles had any serious interest in improving the minors.

[You Play to Win the Game]

To be clear... by official you mean official pending physical.

[mweb08]

In one sense, giving up the pick creates an incentive to go longer with the contract like dude and Dave Cameron suggest. You want to get more out of that loss of value than 1-2 years worth of production.

[RShack]

If the guy is who everybody thinks he is, I don't see why 3 years isn't a good idea.... he just turns 30 next month... I just don't see the problem with it... and since that extra year is supposedly costing just $9M more than 2 years, well, why the hell not?

[fishteacher]

Change the date to 2016 please....(and this time I'm serious).....This team is looking pretty sick, even with a half-assed starting pitching lineup.

[SportsGuy]

In one sense, giving up the pick creates an incentive to go longer with the contract like dude and Dave Cameron suggest. You want to get more out of that loss of value than 1-2 years worth of production.

I'm fine with getting the 3 years and maybe he still ends up with trade value or fetching you a pick later on. 4 or 5 years and that may not be the case.

[Mike in STL]

I like it. Said before I would have switched the Gallardo deals. Totally fine giving three years to Fowler.

[mweb08]

This is from a fantasy perspective, but here is an interesting take on his increasing power from Dexter Fowler's FanGraphs page:

 

Profile: In 2015, Fowler powered his way to a top-30 ranking among outfielders with a career-high 17 home runs. This, despite the fact his home run and fly balls average distance was more than 10 feet less than his lowest mark of the past five seasons. So where did the power come from? It’s not a park factor. Fowler hit 13 of his home runs as a lefty and of the three teams he’s played for, the Cubs play in the least conducive park to left-handed power. Fowler’s home run per fly ball rate was above his career rate, but the third highest of the past four seasons, so it wasn’t some fluke there. The most likely cause is a shift in approach. Fowler pulled his contact at a career-high rate and his fly ball rate edged up for the fourth straight season. This suggests his power increase is here to stay, especially if Fowler, who’s a free agent, signs with a team that plays in a park that aids his power more than Wrigley Field. Fowler’s plate discipline continues to be excellent so look for a bounceback in batting average if his batting average on balls in play returns to career levels. Fowler could see a bump in value if he signs with a team with whom he won’t hit leadoff. (Adam McFadden)

The Quick Opinion: Fowler’s increase in power was due to a change in approach, so it’s repeatable. With his solid on-base skills, he’s a good bet to be an asset in runs wherever he signs. As a 15/15 threat without much buzz, Fowler is likely to be an undervalued asset on draft day.

[mweb08]

I'm fine with getting the 3 years and maybe he still ends up with trade value or fetching you a pick later on. 4 or 5 years and that may not be the case.

 

Sure. 3 years seems just right to me.

 

2 years would have been preferable without the loss of the pick IMO, but I can see why that lost value makes 3 years more ideal.

[RShack]

I don't understand why the pick makes any diff re: whether you want him for 2 years or 3 years...  either you want the guy in the OF for you in Year 3 or you don't...

 

This isn't like amortizing the cost of machinery... whether he costs a pick now or not doesn't have any bearing on whether you're gonna want him as an OF'er 3 years from now....

[SportsGuy]

Sure. 3 years seems just right to me.

2 years would have been preferable without the loss of the pick IMO, but I can see why that lost value makes 3 years more ideal.

I would have liked to have seen 2 years with a vesting 3rd year. He has had some issues playing a full season and that is a little bit of a red flag as he gets into his 30s.

[tennOsfan]

RF Fowler

3B Machado

CF Jones

1B Davis

DH Trumbo

 C Wieters

LF Kim

2B Schoop

SS Hardy

 

However you set it, the lineup ain't bad.