28 replies to this topic

[TwentyThirtyFive]

That's kinda like guys no one ever really talked about getting signed and then people talking them up after their favorite GM landed them. Good thing that didn't happen here.

Yeah not what happened. Frazier is a 1 year nothing who could be a 2-2.5 WAR 2b. No one thinks he is special in any way. What happened was he was completely crapped on and then I came in and said he shouldnt be crapped on so hard

[mweb08]

Yeah not what happened. Frazier is a 1 year nothing who could be a 2-2.5 WAR 2b. No one thinks he is special in any way. What happened was he was completely crapped on and then I came in and said he shouldnt be crapped on so hard

Lol ok

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Ok he wasnt overly crapped on.

[BaltBird 24]

I'd be shocked if he's a 2-2.5 WAR player in 2023.

[Mike B]

Chris Bassitt and Jose Abreu were both under 64 million total just to name two of note 

True but to be fair the Angelos family incurred the legal costs from suing each other 

[Ravens2006]

True but to be fair the Angelos family incurred the legal costs from suing each other 

 

Good point...

[DuffMan]

And we made a legit offer to Bassitt so..... Advocating for giving him whatever he wants when payroll will get tighter is foolish. We are past this though. Myself and at least 1 other here believe the Os will add to the payroll in season.

 

 

Apologies if this was already an argument but...legit according to who? Was there a Heyman, Rosenthal, etc who said the Orioles were serious contenders for him? 

This.  I don't ever recall hearing/reading about any actual offer being given to Bassitt.  And I'm not counting that generic quote from Elias when he said they had several offers out there for pitching, he has zero credibility with me when it comes to good faith contract offers.

[dude]

As much as many have lamented our lack of any big moves this off season, I will be more upset if we don't attempt to extend some of our homegrown guys. I think we'd end up with better bang for our buck by making the move to lock up our own guys early, as opposed to paying 18-20 mill per for a middle of the rotation starter. 

 

So whereas I understand being disappointed that we didn't make any real needle moving acquisitions this winter, if we keep going year to year with our core, only to see them all get traded as their arb years wane, that's where I will be ready to get out the pitchfork.

 

This thread shouldn't just devolve into a "who we should have signed for 64M" (it's all it's done, so whatever), but wrt to these comments, there's no relationship between the "signing guys in current years" and "extending internal players".  Doing one doesn't impact the other.

[dude]

I'm confident Forbes tries to standardize these evaluations best they can, but there's so much contextually different in everything that goes on in every organization, I'm also confident it's really difficult.

 

Media contracts have a significant impact on the perception of revenues.  The Mets may show a 138M loss, but if they are making 200+M on the RSN side, it doesn't really matter where the books balance, if you are just focused on the endstate.

 

RedSox fans will be annoyed because this says they are sitting on a pile of cash while they manage the LuxTax, making money behind NESN and finishing behind the Orioles.  They seem to lack any roster direction.

 

For the Orioles, we don't know what other expenses they have.  If John Angelos pays himself 40M, or they take out a 200M loan against the Team and use the team to pay for it (as an expense), I'm not sure the analysis knows how to dive into the nuances of every team in a consistent way.  It's a  big picture look. 

 

The Padres are probably a good model to parallel the Orioles.  They are next to each other in Metro size, but the Orioles media region (and the majority share of the 2 team RSN) is significantly bigger.  I think the Padres are just getting paid for their media rights in their recent contract (not owner owned RSN like NYM where you can hide resources) so when they show 55M loss, there's likely some merit in that figure....but that is on a 200M+ payroll.  They are working to win, spending resources accordingly and that's the high end.

 

I don't expect any Ownership to come out of pocket, but do what you want as long as you aren't making excuses for the product on the field.

 

Nearly every other Organization has worked to make their valuation better.  The Orioles are the only team you could make an active argument that they've tried to make it worse and that's not an accident.  There is likely a lot more behind that 64M that we don't get to see.  There's certainly the MASN piece we understand better now (court docs) and that's still 64M off an intentionally poorly driven system.

 

When you see this for the Padres and you understand the Nationals in recent years, it's pretty easy to see where the Orioles could settle in, at the top end, in the 150-180M range.