Photo

BSL: Orioles: Still Rough In ’21, Better In ’22, A Contender In ’23


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#41 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,209 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 21 April 2021 - 12:34 PM

I agree with the theory that dude has put forth that the Orioles didn't really bid against themselves, at least not substantially more than a small amount to get the deal done. Rather they restructured the offer so that on the surface it seemed much bigger (for Davis and Boras' sake) by deferring a nearly unprecedented amount of money, this kept the value of the contract the same even if the raw dollar figures were much higher. I forget the reports from the time but 6/$144M seems to stick in my memory, was that the original Orioles offer or just a deal that equates to the same contract Davis actually got (they are nearly identical NPV)?

Also 98% of Orioles fans everywhere would've signed Davis to say a straight 5/$115M deal. People are gonna have to show me posts from 2016 to get me to believe they would've turned something like that down (I know there are a few, but not many). Is it really dramatically different that he got 7/$161M with a ton deferred? So much so that your idea was smart and the Orioles idea is the stupidest thing in the history of baseball? Yes it's a larger scale, no doubt, but Davis went south so fast that no matter what the contract was it'd be laughed about as one of the worst in baseball history even if it was a bargain when he signed it. The major difference between Pablo Sandoval and Chris Davis is not the extra 50% or so on the contract, but it's the impact that the contract had on the franchise. The Red Sox shrugged it off as nearly no issue at all. The Orioles have spiraled downwards and are cutting costs at every turn.

I appreciate the thoughtful breakdown of how you remember the negotiations unfolding. But there's one thing that can't be explained away. The O's offered X, he signed for more than that original offer. That is the definition of bidding against yourself.

 

Here's what I remember about that process. The O's made an offer. Boras said that won't get it done, because other "teams" have shown great interest in Davis's services. Some time passed, and Boras started talking about how Davis wasn't just a 1Bman, that he's a a skilled COFer as well. This is when the rumors started floating that Detroit (who already had a guy for 1B) were interested in that COF idea. None of that "multiple teams interest" propaganda has ever been substantiated. Eventually, Duquette makes the statement that the O's made an offer, and that offer has an expiration date, because they can't hold up their entire off season, waiting for one player to make his decision. More time passes, and Jim Duquette (as a regular on the XM MLB channel, says Dan is tired of waiting for Davis, but he's been told that money is for Davis, and Davis alone. It cannot be used to sign a marquee pitcher (which is what Dan wanted to do). Eventually Dan is no longer involved in the Davis negotiation, because Peter took over the entire thing. 

 

So, not only did they actually bid against themselves, by upping their original offer (even if it was only a marginal increase), they failed at negotiations 101. The stalling was Boras desperately trying to get other teams involved. A smart baseball mind would have pulled the offer, wait for Boras to come back to accept, then let him know the new offer is X number of dollars less. 

And while I wasn't here during those negotiations, I can tell you that I vehemently opposed retaining Davis at a market value rate, because he was too streaky of a hitter. His usual season involved a few, two week stretches, where he'd carry the team, followed by several week stretches where his bat disappeared. I posted this on the SunSpot board. Davis at $10M is fine, Davis at $25M will frustrate you, because he'll ultimately end the season with his usual production. But there will be a lot of 2-1 losses that could have been wins, had he been a more consistent hitter.     


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#42 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,209 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 21 April 2021 - 12:39 PM

Mackus is correct and what the hell are we going to do when Davis isn't here to talk about.

I guess well be talking about that pipeline of impact players. You know, that promise the Warehouse has been making for 20+ years now. I can't wait. Some of those original prospects gotta been in their mid-40's by now. But they're coming, don't you worry.  


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#43 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,933 posts

Posted 21 April 2021 - 12:48 PM

Bill James answered a question about a rebuilding timeline today:

 

Hey Bill, I always meant to ask you this question. If you were the general manager of a really bad team, say the 1962 Mets: how many years do you think it would take you to build a pennant contender? Thanks
Asked by: manhattanhi
 
Answered: 4/21/2021
 I don't really have the skill set to be a General Manager, but I would say this:  that if it takes longer than 7 years then there is something missing in the process, and if you can do it in less than 4 years then you've had some very good luck as well as a good process.  


#44 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,993 posts

Posted 21 April 2021 - 05:56 PM

5 years if management is on the ball, a couple more years if they're merely competent...

 

and that's true regardless of whether or not you treat the fans like dirt... folks who think losing on purpose is an important asset aren't paying attention, they've just been suckered into buying a fad sold to them by amateur internet stat mis-users who overstate they're own knowledge...


 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#45 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,981 posts

Posted 21 April 2021 - 06:23 PM


Bill James answered a question about a rebuilding timeline today:


Hey Bill, I always meant to ask you this question. If you were the general manager of a really bad team, say the 1962 Mets: how many years do you think it would take you to build a pennant contender? Thanks
Asked by: manhattanhi

Answered: 4/21/2021


I don't really have the skill set to be a General Manager, but I would say this: that if it takes longer than 7 years then there is something missing in the process, and if you can do it in less than 4 years then you've had some very good luck as well as a good process.


That's the Bill Jamesiest answer ever.

I think he's right.

#46 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,680 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 21 April 2021 - 10:26 PM

But there's one thing that can't be explained away. The O's offered X, he signed for more than that original offer. That is the definition of bidding against yourself.  

 

99.99% of the people that discuss this say the same thing.  Your comment is the evidence that the tact worked. 



#47 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,209 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 22 April 2021 - 06:46 AM

99.99% of the people that discuss this say the same thing.  Your comment is the evidence that the tact worked. 

I have to admit, I'm confused by your answer. Whenever I suggest that the O's bid against themselves, I have at least one person say that isn't the case. You are often one of those people. So now you're saying that you agree with me, that they did bid against themselves? 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#48 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,209 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 22 April 2021 - 07:04 AM

5 years if management is on the ball, a couple more years if they're merely competent...

 

and that's true regardless of whether or not you treat the fans like dirt... folks who think losing on purpose is an important asset aren't paying attention, they've just been suckered into buying a fad sold to them by amateur internet stat mis-users who overstate they're own knowledge...

The only difference between a rebuild in say, the 90's, and a rebuild in today's landscape, is that in today's rebuild the team announces that they will be intentionally losing to gain draft picks. Everything else is the same. The last time the O's entered a rebuild, it was called a fire sale. But in typical Angelos fashion, instead of trading quality veterans for quality, near-MLB ready prospects, they traded for guys like 36 yr old Trenidad Hubbard. Because they're smart like that.   


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#49 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,680 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 22 April 2021 - 11:40 AM

I have to admit, I'm confused by your answer. Whenever I suggest that the O's bid against themselves, I have at least one person say that isn't the case. You are often one of those people. So now you're saying that you agree with me, that they did bid against themselves? 

 

No.  They set up a contract structure that appeared to create a 'win' for Boras (the perception of an extra 1M per year by not accepting the earlier offer) while the Orioles got what you're actually arguing for (a lower total contract value because Boras didn't accept the initial offer).  

 

The public perception (intentionally) is that they 'bid against themselves' when in fact (it is a fact) they didn't.

 

Think about it like you won the lottery.  If you take the full amount, they pay it out over a bunch of years.  If you take the lump sum, you get a lower amount.  They are using a NPV calculation for it.

 

---------------

I'm tired of going over this forever.  It actually is tangentially related to Chris's thread just in terms of where the Orioles have been comfortable extending their larger contracts (Markakis, Hardy, Jones, Roberts, Davis, Trumbo, ODay) and the conditions that allowed others (Tejada, Jiminez, Cobb).

 

Capacity to spend and willingness to spend and approach to spending are very different things.



#50 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,463 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 22 April 2021 - 12:24 PM

It still is bidding against themselves given no one else was going to give him that initial offer anyway. So technicalities aside, if they were clearly the only team willing to pay him that, it's essentially the same criticism isn't it?

#51 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,701 posts

Posted 22 April 2021 - 12:29 PM


It still is bidding against themselves given no one else was going to give him that initial offer anyway. So technicalities aside, if they were clearly the only team willing to pay him that, it's essentially the same criticism isn't it?


Don't agree that merely making the biggest offer is bidding against yourself. If so, then every team that's ever signed a guy has bid against themselves. With few exceptions, everyone signs for the biggest offer that nobody else would match.

#52 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,463 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 22 April 2021 - 12:30 PM


Don't agree that merely making the biggest offer is bidding against yourself. If so, then every team that's ever signed a guy has bid against themselves. With few exceptions, everyone signs for the biggest offer that nobody else would match.

Obviously. This is Chris Davis. No one will ever convince me there was another team in the ballpark.
  • Moose Milligan likes this

#53 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,701 posts

Posted 22 April 2021 - 12:34 PM


Obviously. This is Chris Davis. No one will ever convince me there was another team in the ballpark.


That was Chris Davis who had hit 159 HR with a 875 OPS over the past 4 years, coming off a 47-HR 900+ OPS season where he got MVP votes. He had one bad year in that stretch, so the risk was there, but if the O's don't sign him I'm convinced he gets most of what he got from us elsewhere.

#54 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,463 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 22 April 2021 - 12:38 PM

That was Chris Davis who had hit 159 HR with a 875 OPS over the past 4 years, coming off a 47-HR 900+ OPS season where he got MVP votes. He had one bad year in that stretch, so the risk was there, but if the O's don't sign him I'm convinced he gets most of what he got from us elsewhere.

Maybe i'm remembering this wrong, but there didn't appear to be any other interest. The one team that was, felt like a classic Boras leak to generate more interest from the O's. I just disagree completely, no way he gets most of what he got here elsewhere. But one of those things we'll never know for sure.



#55 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,701 posts

Posted 22 April 2021 - 12:38 PM

I appreciate the thoughtful breakdown of how you remember the negotiations unfolding. But there's one thing that can't be explained away. The O's offered X, he signed for more than that original offer. That is the definition of bidding against yourself.

The point I'm making is the offer wasn't bigger. It was in a different currency, essentially, but equal value.

If it went up a tiny bit to get the thing done, I don't really care. If it went up a year and $1-2M per, $15-20M in total value, I'd agree that would be bad negotiating.

#56 Moose Milligan

Moose Milligan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 22 April 2021 - 12:50 PM

I remember thinking the Davis deal would most likely be a disaster in the last 3 years or so.  And that it could be crippling if he was bad the whole way through.  I didn't remember thinking he would be THIS bad, though.

 

I also remember thinking that if they were going to do this for Davis, they better be prepared to back the truck up for Manny.  And, IMO, that's where the real shitburger of the whole Davis thing is...is that it's money that could have been spent to keep Manny.  Some will say that Manny was gone no matter what, others may think that whatever was spent on Davis could have kept Manny in Baltimore through his prime.  

 

There's no way to know.  But all of us would agree that it would have been a better idea if they at least took what they offered to Davis and offered it to Manny first.



#57 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,209 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 22 April 2021 - 12:55 PM

No.  They set up a contract structure that appeared to create a 'win' for Boras (the perception of an extra 1M per year by not accepting the earlier offer) while the Orioles got what you're actually arguing for (a lower total contract value because Boras didn't accept the initial offer).  

 

The public perception (intentionally) is that they 'bid against themselves' when in fact (it is a fact) they didn't.

 

Think about it like you won the lottery.  If you take the full amount, they pay it out over a bunch of years.  If you take the lump sum, you get a lower amount.  They are using a NPV calculation for it.

 

---------------

I'm tired of going over this forever.  It actually is tangentially related to Chris's thread just in terms of where the Orioles have been comfortable extending their larger contracts (Markakis, Hardy, Jones, Roberts, Davis, Trumbo, ODay) and the conditions that allowed others (Tejada, Jiminez, Cobb).

 

Capacity to spend and willingness to spend and approach to spending are very different things.

Everybody understands that today's dollar isn't worth the same as next year's dollar. You're trying to argue that his deferred money is worth less, because when he actually receives those checks, their value will be less than if he had been receiving those funds all along. If they hadn't bumped up the $/yr that may be so. But they did bump up that $, thereby accounting for the inflation. Unless you're absolutely confident in your estimation of how inflation is going increase and are able to say (crystal ball style) how the economy is going to evolve.

 

Believe what you want, but it's fiction.   


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#58 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,701 posts

Posted 22 April 2021 - 12:58 PM

NPV of money is very real and very well understood in MLB. There is no rational argument that the contract with deferrals is equal to the same total dollars without deferrals. MLB even has a collectively bargained discount rate for calculating the value of future payments for luxury tax calculations. I believe it's 4% if memory serves, which in reality is lower than what anyone investing these sums of money would expect to be able to return.

#59 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,209 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 22 April 2021 - 01:06 PM

The point I'm making is the offer wasn't bigger. It was in a different currency, essentially, but equal value.

If it went up a tiny bit to get the thing done, I don't really care. If it went up a year and $1-2M per, $15-20M in total value, I'd agree that would be bad negotiating.

$5 is more than $4. If I offer you $4, and you say no, I'm not saving money by saying, OK, then I'll give you $5 total, but I'm going to give you $3 today, and the other $2 in a month. I'm still giving you $5, when my initial offer was $4. So even if you estimate that $5 in a month is the same as $4 today, I didn't actually save any money by deferring the $2. I just bought myself time to pay you the same amount of money. 

 

Explain how I'm wrong about that? Because I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm just trying to understand how $5 isn't greater than or equal to $4  


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#60 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,209 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 22 April 2021 - 01:10 PM

NPV of money is very real and very well understood in MLB. There is no rational argument that the contract with deferrals is equal to the same total dollars without deferrals. MLB even has a collectively bargained discount rate for calculating the value of future payments for luxury tax calculations. I believe it's 4% if memory serves, which in reality is lower than what anyone investing these sums of money would expect to be able to return.

I must not be typing this properly. Yes, $1M is worth more today than it will be in a few years. But they added money to their offer, thus negating the savings they would have gotten by deferring a portion of the annual $. 


Good news! I saw a dog today.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=