338 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

One of the few benefits of what they've done is having a ton of payroll flexibility. They have not used it to date and if they don't leverage it to their advantage before the young core presumably becomes a lot more expensive, then that will have wasted a massive opportunity. There are many ways to leverage it. It does not need to have anything to do with Mancini or Mountcastle, but the time is now (by the offseason) to utilize it (I'd argue they should have already been doing so).

Agree it's a benefit, and agree they need to leverage it.  Also agree there multiple ways to use it. 

[BobPhelan]

I think Mountcastle will be a good deal better than Mancini over the next three years.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I think Mountcastle will be a good deal better than Mancini over the next three years.

We would have to define "good deal better" but I would take that bet

[BSLChrisStoner]

Mountcastle DOB 2/18/97

Mancini DOB 3/18/92

 

That 5 year age difference should make a big difference in-terms of the next 3 years for each. 

 

What do we think Mancini would get on a 3 year deal at this point?  Is it $30M? Or $45M?

[You Play to Win the Game]

This is just too hilarious. The money is never irrelevant. Doesn't matter if the O's have $10M in payroll flexibility or $200M. Is a business. They make decisions based on that. They trade, extend, release players based on their market assessment.

Sure sometimes a team pays more than the market to keep a player the fans love. Because they think its good for the bottom line in the end.

You think it’s hilarious for the Angelos family to pocket hundreds of millions of dollars while we watch a loser - because it’s a business right?

Can you imagine the product you’d have to write about if Soccer was ran this way internationally?

[Mackus]

What do we think Mancini would get on a 3 year deal at this point?  Is it $30M? Or $45M?

 

$48M is my guess on a 3-year deal.  I think he finds a 4th for around $15M a year.

 

He'd have to limp along <700 OPS for the next two months to have any interest in his side of the option.

[makoman]

We would have to define "good deal better" but I would take that bet

Mountcastle is slumping terribly but was at 123 wRC+ on July 1st. At 25 with his prime not quite reached I can see him doing that or better the next few years.

 

Mancini at 114 at age 30, I expect would not go any higher. 

[mweb08]

I think its still a part of the decision because the money isn't use-it-or-lose-it even in the scenario where you're debating only within the band between "not super cheap" at something like <$80M payroll (just to put a number on your qualifiers) and "not spending a ton" at something over $150M (again, just for a number).

 

If Trey's deal brings your payroll to  $125M, you then only have ~$25M left to spend elsewhere.  So you're not near the limit, and Trey's deal doesn't push you above the limit.  But you're within someone's salary of the limit.  At those numbers you wouldn't be able to simply sign someone like DeGrom for $40M a year (ignore whether you wanna do that or not) without making other moves to cut payroll to fit it all in budget.  But if you hadn't given Trey $15-20M, maybe you could.

 

So the exact details of Trey's deal aren't super important.  I'm definitely on board with not being super concerned with efficiency when you're very close to your max budget.  You can absolutely sign him, trade Mountcastle, and have plenty of money leftover to bring in people.  But if you traded (walk) Trey, keep Mountcastle, you then have even more than that plenty of money leftover to bring in people.  Its plausible that "more than plenty" might buy you someone that "plenty" can't.

 

So...irrelevant goes too far.  But its still of far less importance than most people are giving weight to.  We should be valuing raw performance much more than performance-for-cost for a while.  Don't need 80% of the production for 20% of the cost.

 

The limit should easily be beyond 150M, especially if people like Chris are right and they utilize saved money from the past few years. So I accept your premise, but the numbers should be higher.

 

While what you say here is correct, literally all of it falls into one of my two qualifiers so we agree. 

[mweb08]

So, if they trade Mountcastle, and sign Mancini... that's using their payroll flexibility....  but if they keep Mouncastle, Mancini walks, and they sign someone (with some of the money they would be spending on Mancini); that isn't using their payroll flexibility? 

 

No, not really. Using the money saved on Mancini and putting it toward someone else is doing exactly what a team does without much or any payroll flexibility. 

 

Using the payroll flexibility is to leverage that to your advantage by taking on bad and questionable contracts to get better talent, by outbidding teams for talent on short-term deals even if it goes beyond what makes sense from a value perspective, doing the type of thing I propose here, or simply putting the chips in the middle of the table and spend a huge sum of money on free agents and/or expensive players acquired via trade.

[BSLChrisStoner]

The limit should easily be beyond 150M, especially if people like Chris are right and they utilize saved money from the past few years. So I accept your premise, but the numbers should be higher.

 

While what you say here is correct, literally all of it falls into one of my two qualifiers so we agree. 

My take is that one of the benefits of building this way is payroll flexibility.  The ability to add talent to push them over the top. The ability to find extensions with talent they want to retain, and extend their window. 

I have no definitive opinion of if they will take money they didn't allocate in '18-'21, and place that back into the roster. Color me skeptical. I don't care, I just want them to spend when they're ready to be good, which should be now.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume they were building a war chest for estate taxes. 
I also have no problem with the Angelos family just saving some of the $ for themselves vs. spending when they didn't think it mattered. 

I do think when the team is ready to contend (and that's now and going forward); they owe* it to the fanbase to utilize their limited obligations and add pieces to push them over in-terms of likely contention odds.  Especially in scenarios where they don't have to give up player capital, and can just add via $.   (Trades where they give up little player capital but take on contracts also apply.) 

Ultimately, I think they should get back to their '16-'17 levels of payroll + inflation.  ('17, $164M is $198M today.)

That isn't going to happen all at once, when multiple positions are going to be making very little for sometime. 
But as you stated, and I agree... multiple ways to leverage this.

 

 

*However, if they came out tomorrow and said they don't ever want to spend... and they want to operate like the Rays... I'm fine with that. But be prepared to actually operate like the Rays.

[mweb08]

I'll add another way they can use their payroll flexibility: By extending young players and enticing them with more money upfront/early in the deal than you'd normally see. 

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Mountcastle is slumping terribly but was at 123 wRC+ on July 1st. At 25 with his prime not quite reached I can see him doing that or better the next few years.

 

Mancini at 114 at age 30, I expect would not go any higher. 

Havent looked at Baseball Savant in awhile. Prob should. Feel like Mountcastle has some issues that will consistently limit him though he still will be a solid bat. I just think Trey even at 30 has a better profile as a hitter in many ways. Also expect him to be solid for 3 more years

[Mackus]

I'll add another way they can use their payroll flexibility: By extending young players and enticing them with more money upfront/early in the deal than you'd normally see. 

 

Now we're entering a paradox.

 

Frontloading is only smart if you're not able to bank the money and spend it later (with interest).

If you're not able to bank the money and spend it later, you're probably also not allowed to spend big now.

[BSLChrisStoner]

No, not really. Using the money saved on Mancini and putting it toward someone else is doing exactly what a team does without much or any payroll flexibility. 

 

Using the payroll flexibility is to leverage that to your advantage by taking on bad and questionable contracts to get better talent, by outbidding teams for talent on short-term deals even if it goes beyond what makes sense from a value perspective, doing the type of thing I propose here, or simply putting the chips in the middle of the table and spend a huge sum of money on free agents and/or expensive players acquired via trade.

If they aren't paying Mancini $16M a year for the next 3 years, they have more chips to push in on something else. 
The whole premise here has to be what's the best allocation of resources?

 

If the O's believe they can get like production from Mancini as to what they'd get for Mountcastle, and that Mountcastle's return in a trade would be better than what they could spend Mancini's salary on, or apply to... okay, then I think your idea has merit. 

If the O's think Mountcastle is going to be better than Mancini over the next 3 years (I do), and think they could utilize the would be spending on Mancini for something better than Mountcastle would bring in a trade... that works for me. 
 

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'll add another way they can use their payroll flexibility: By extending young players and enticing them with more money upfront/early in the deal than you'd normally see. 

Absolutely.

[mweb08]

Now we're entering a paradox.

 

Frontloading is only smart if you're not able to bank the money and spend it later (with interest).

If you're not able to bank the money and spend it later, you're probably also not allowed to spend big now.

 

I didn't say to frontload. I am saying to pay the young players more than they'd typically get early on, even more than what teams typically offer in these deals to entice them to sign beyond their team-controlled years. They would still make more in year 7 or whatever then in year 2 of that deal.

[Mackus]

Mountcastle is slumping terribly but was at 123 wRC+ on July 1st. At 25 with his prime not quite reached I can see him doing that or better the next few years.

 

Mancini at 114 at age 30, I expect would not go any higher. 

 

I really don't care about this but can't help myself...

 

seems a little incongruous to ignore (for the sake of stats) a monthlong slump by Mountcastle and refer to his 123 wRC+ thru July 1 but include a weeklong slump from Mancini rather than refer to his 125 wRC+ through July 15th (absolutely arbitrarily picked by me to maximize the point).

 

I also expect Mountcastle to be better over the next 3-4 years than Trey.  But only slightly.  Not sure exactly what that means statistically, but 5-10% maybe?  And mostly due to back-end risk for Trey.

[Mackus]

I didn't say to frontload. I am saying to pay the young players more than they'd typically get early on, even more than what teams typically offer in these deals to entice them to sign beyond their team-controlled years. They would still make more in year 7 or whatever then in year 2 of that deal.

 

Its still frontloading if you're shifting dollars (not necessarily all or even a lot) from the back of the contract to the front that otherwise wouldn't be structured that way along a normal pre-arb extension arc.  Pay them more than typically early and then you don't have to pay them as much as typical late.

 

Or are you saying the "more than typical early" money is basically a bonus used to convince them to sign when they otherwise wouldn't?

[mweb08]

If they aren't paying Mancini $16M a year for the next 3 years, they have more chips to push in on something else. 
The whole premise here has to be what's the best allocation of resources?

 

If the O's believe they can get like production from Mancini as to what they'd get for Mountcastle, and that Mountcastle's return in a trade would be better than what they could spend Mancini's salary on, or apply to... okay, then I think your idea has merit. 

If the O's think Mountcastle is going to be better than Mancini over the next 3 years (I do), and think they could utilize the would be spending on Mancini for something better than Mountcastle would bring in a trade... that works for me. 
 

 

 

Sure, I am just highly skeptical that they will push all or most of the chips in during this time period. If they do, then that's great and the difference in money between Mancini and Mountcastle will be quite relevant. If they don't, then utilize this flexibility in other ways. 

[mweb08]

Its still frontloading if you're shifting dollars (not necessarily all or even a lot) from the back of the contract to the front that otherwise wouldn't be structured that way along a normal pre-arb extension arc.  Pay them more than typically early and then you don't have to pay them as much as typical late.

 

Or are you saying the "more than typical early" money is basically a bonus used to convince them to sign when they otherwise wouldn't?

 

Yes, that's what I am saying. The higher salary than usual during pre and early arbitration is often an incentive used in these deals along with the guaranteed money. So pay them more in the early years than they'd make otherwise in that same timeframe, and yes, I would be willing to take that up a notch or two given if it helps convince them to sign a long-term deal and if that money isn't going to be used elsewhere anyway.