98 replies to this topic

[JeremyStrain]

I would be a lot more interested in Swisher if he didn't cost us a pick.

Cle will give the 4th year IMO.

Yeah there is that too. Some people will say there is a tiny (like 20%) chance of hitting on that pick, so you shouldn't be letting it stop you from improving the club in the short term. Me personally, I say that if you draft well and know what you are doing there are plenty of star players to be had in that late first/supp/early 2nd round area that you could have a great player on your hands in 2-4 years depending on how it goes.

[SportsGuy]

Yeah there is that too. Some people will say there is a tiny (like 20%) chance of hitting on that pick, so you shouldn't be letting it stop you from improving the club in the short term. Me personally, I say that if you draft well and know what you are doing there are plenty of star players to be had in that late first/supp/early 2nd round area that you could have a great player on your hands in 2-4 years depending on how it goes.

I would agree with those people if we were adding a true difference making talent...guys like LaRoche, Lohse and Swisher dont fit that description.

[JTrea81]

I would agree with those people if we were adding a true difference making talent...guys like LaRoche, Lohse and Swisher dont fit that description.

Get used to it. Free agency is going to be terrible moving forward as more teams lock up their star players into their prime years. Stanton is probably the next young, premium guy that will be on the market. Everybody else will be in their 30's until then. Cano will be 31 when he hits FA next offseason, and Ellsbury will be 30.

At this point the Orioles need to add, and they have to either trade pitching or give up the draft pick to improve enough to get back to the playoffs and move deeper into them.

Sitting this offseason out simply isn't an option unless they want to miss the playoffs in 2013.

[SportsGuy]

Get used to it. Free agency is going to be terrible moving forward as more teams lock up their star players into their prime years. Stanton is probably the next young, premium guy that will be on the market. Everybody else will be in their 30's until then. Cano will be 31 when he hits FA next offseason, and Ellsbury will be 30.

At this point the Orioles need to add, and they have to either trade pitching or give up the draft pick to improve enough to get back to the playoffs and move deeper into them.

Sitting this offseason out simply isn't an option unless they want to miss the playoffs in 2013.

FA is always that way...always has been, always will be.

Swisher or LaRoche aren't getting us to the playoffs.

We should make trades and build our system up. Passing away draft picks and money on decent free agents isn't smart.

[JTrea81]

FA is always that way...always has been, always will be.

Swisher or LaRoche aren't getting us to the playoffs.

We should make trades and build our system up. Passing away draft picks and money on decent free agents isn't smart.

Free agency hasn't always been terrible as you did have some players hit FA while they were still in the middle of their prime, like Tejada and Teixeira. But now teams have made locking up young star players the norm.

The problem with constantly trying to build your system via trades is the chance you turn into the A's. Beane was constantly dealing, and only until last year did he finally find the right combination of players. Now it remains to be seen how long he can keep this bunch together before having an itchy trade finger.

[SportsGuy]

Free agency hasn't always been terrible as you did have some players hit FA while they were still in the middle of their prime, like Tejada and Teixeira. But now teams have made locking up young star players the norm.

The problem with constantly trying to build your system via trades is the chance you turn into the A's. Beane was constantly dealing, and only until last year did he finally find the right combination of players. Now it remains to be seen how long he can keep this bunch together before having an itchy trade finger.

The fact that you can barely name players shows you how wrong you are about free agency. There is also going to be the occasional player out the but for the most part, free agency blows and always will.

You don't need to constantly build your system with trades...you build your system with draft picks and international signings...along with the occasional trade.

But right now, making some trades is a way for us to bring in younger, cheaper talent while getting rid of guys we can easily replace.

[mweb08]

Free agency hasn't always been terrible as you did have some players hit FA while they were still in the middle of their prime, like Tejada and Teixeira. But now teams have made locking up young star players the norm.

The problem with constantly trying to build your system via trades is the chance you turn into the A's. Beane was constantly dealing, and only until last year did he finally find the right combination of players. Now it remains to be seen how long he can keep this bunch together before having an itchy trade finger.

And Tex has been disappointing.

[Thyrl]

I think there are valid points being made here on both sides of the free agency argument, but baseball is always changing.

During the steroids era it was much safer to give big money, long term contracts to free agents and hope that they'd live up to the money. Some did, others didn't. Post-steroids we see lots of guys signed to contracts that their teams can't hope to see them live up to. These contracts typically take the players well beyond their 35th birthdays which is no longer "safe". Therefore the 27-28 year old free agents are the ones that will get the most heat on the open market. It makes this year's rookie crop particularly interesting if guys like Machado & Trout, Harper etc don't commit long-term to their clubs before free agency.

This year though I think we're seeing the market react and adjust to the post-steroid era. Teams aren't talking about 7-10 year deals. It seems that with a few exceptions 3-4 year deals are becoming the norm.

Here's where I think fans haven't yet adjusted to the new market...especially Orioles fans.

(I'll preface by saying that I'm not much of a Josh Hamilton fan or Nick Swisher for that matter)
Fans continue to talk about what they would or wouldn't commit to a player dollar wise. I wouldn't guess that Hamilton or Swisher is likely to be worth the money they'll get in year 4 of their contracts. I do however think that both could be a major boost for a team, like the Orioles, ready to compete now.

Are fans so convinced, after 1 good year by the O's, that they can or will set themselves up for perennial contention?
If Hamilton or Swisher could make the Orioles really really good for a year or two right now, would that not be worth the gamble of them being bad for the next two years for a team that just lost for 14 years straight?
It's not like we're talking about carrying those bad contracts for 4-6 years after a player's likely prime. The word hamstrung (IMO) doesn't fit when talking about a 4 or 5 year deal for a player who looks like they could really help for the first 2 or 3 years of that deal.

[SportsGuy]

I think there are valid points being made here on both sides of the free agency argument, but baseball is always changing.

During the steroids era it was much safer to give big money, long term contracts to free agents and hope that they'd live up to the money. Some did, others didn't. Post-steroids we see lots of guys signed to contracts that their teams can't hope to see them live up to. These contracts typically take the players well beyond their 35th birthdays which is no longer "safe". Therefore the 27-28 year old free agents are the ones that will get the most heat on the open market. It makes this year's rookie crop particularly interesting if guys like Machado & Trout, Harper etc don't commit long-term to their clubs before free agency.

This year though I think we're seeing the market react and adjust to the post-steroid era. Teams aren't talking about 7-10 year deals. It seems that with a few exceptions 3-4 year deals are becoming the norm.

Here's where I think fans haven't yet adjusted to the new market...especially Orioles fans.

(I'll preface by saying that I'm not much of a Josh Hamilton fan or Nick Swisher for that matter)
Fans continue to talk about what they would or wouldn't commit to a player dollar wise. I wouldn't guess that Hamilton or Swisher is likely to be worth the money they'll get in year 4 of their contracts. I do however think that both could be a major boost for a team, like the Orioles, ready to compete now.

Are fans so convinced, after 1 good year by the O's, that they can or will set themselves up for perennial contention?
If Hamilton or Swisher could make the Orioles really really good for a year or two right now, would that not be worth the gamble of them being bad for the next two years for a team that just lost for 14 years straight?
It's not like we're talking about carrying those bad contracts for 4-6 years after a player's likely prime. The word hamstrung (IMO) doesn't fit when talking about a 4 or 5 year deal for a player who looks like they could really help for the first 2 or 3 years of that deal.

First of all, contracts aren't better now vs a few years ago...in fact, they are worse.

Secondly, Hamilton and Swisher shouldn't be in the same conversation.

Lastly, no one thinks the Orioles should just sit on there money and do nothing. But overpaying a decent player but one who isn't a difference maker plus losing a pick isn't smart.

Swisher is good and if we had more talent, I would want us to get him to help put us over the top but just because free agency isn't good this year, that doesn't mean you treat him like he is elite.

[You Play to Win the Game]

This year though I think we're seeing the market react and adjust to the post-steroid era. Teams aren't talking about 7-10 year deals. It seems that with a few exceptions 3-4 year deals are becoming the norm.

The 7-10 year deal kind of players are few and far between as it is. Hamilton this year would have been one, if not for his baggage, IMO. I don't think he didn't get 7 years because of his age alone. That's a factor, sure, but his issues definitely hurt his market, IMO.

Read Lance's write-up here on BSL for some examples of some really big contracts handed out over the years, including Prince and Pujols, just last year - http://baltimorespor... ... ts-stupid/

[Mackus]

The Swisher deal is something I would have been very interested in. I do think that he's the type of player that's worth giving up a draft pick for. He's obviously not a superstar, since he's only signing a 4-year, reasonable money deal, but I do think he could make a major impact and would have filled a big need for us. I think he would have been perfect for 1B, he has a great OBP, and I think he's a 3.5-4 WAR type player available at a reasonable price. His OBP-driven production is also something that we need.

I'm not crying into my cheerios or anything that we didn't get him, but 4/$60M would have beat Cleveland's offer (but maybe they go higher with more competition) and is a deal I would have jumped at. Of course, it's also likely that Angelos didn't give Duquette the payroll flexibility to add that type of salary.

[BSLChrisStoner]

The Swisher deal is something I would have been very interested in. I do think that he's the type of player that's worth giving up a draft pick for. He's obviously not a superstar, since he's only signing a 4-year, reasonable money deal, but I do think he could make a major impact and would have filled a big need for us. I think he would have been perfect for 1B, he has a great OBP, and I think he's a 3.5-4 WAR type player available at a reasonable price. His OBP-driven production is also something that we need.

I'm not crying into my cheerios or anything that we didn't get him, but 4/$60M would have beat Cleveland's offer (but maybe they go higher with more competition) and is a deal I would have jumped at. Of course, it's also likely that Angelos didn't give Duquette the payroll flexibility to add that type of salary.

The contract Swisher signed for was a lot more reasonable than the numbers I initially saw brandied about for him. I have some questions about how he will age, but I do think you can make the case he should have been pursued at that cost - even with the loss of the draft pick.

[Thyrl]

First of all, contracts aren't better now vs a few years ago...in fact, they are worse.

Secondly, Hamilton and Swisher shouldn't be in the same conversation.

Lastly, no one thinks the Orioles should just sit on there money and do nothing. But overpaying a decent player but one who isn't a difference maker plus losing a pick isn't smart.

Swisher is good and if we had more talent, I would want us to get him to help put us over the top but just because free agency isn't good this year, that doesn't mean you treat him like he is elite.

I wasn't suggesting contracts are better as much as typically shorter. Or in these terms, by my count, Greinke, Hamilton now Swisher and for some reason Pagan are the only players that got deals of 4 or more years that take them past their 33rd birthdays. Further, it's tough to suggest that a 4-year deal at $14 million or so per could "hamstring" your franchise even if the player is only as productive as expected for 2 of those years.

Clearly Swisher and Hamilton are 2 completely different animals, but they're being paid as such too. At the very least, Swisher at $14 million per season can hold his own against the best bats that the Orioles have presently, and for similar money. If you feel that adding a bat that's easily top 2 or 3 on the team to the Orioles doesn't put them over the top then we might as well treat this like the same old Orioles and forget about legitimate contention altogether.

As for passing up on the 24th pick in the draft, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it. For every Mike Trout there are hundreds of "who the heck is that?"'s. It's the old "bird in the hand" adage. Betting that the Orioles are getting an eventual difference maker there is tough to begin with, factor in the time it takes to develop that guy and it's anyone's guess whether they'll even be a team that benefits from whatever that player brings to the table.

If you could look into the future and at $14 mil per season a bat like Swisher had the O's in the playoffs for the next 2 years and maybe even delivered 1 trip to the World Series (without guaranteeing a result) and then only played 50 games per year on a 4th place team for the final 2 years...would it be worth it? Judging from the tone of a lot of conversations I'm hearing from fans my guess is most would say no. (even after 14 straight years of losing)

[SportsGuy]

I am sensing some NST coming from you...and that's not a compliment.

The idea of just spend for the heck of it is awful and that's essentially what you are saying.

Swisher isn't a difference maker. He is a very solid complimentary player who is outside of his prime years and could easily start to decline. If we could have had him for a 3/40 type deal and not lose a pick, I would have been all for him. But to pay him another 20 million, plus an extra year plus lose a pick isn't smart for us with where the team is.

Don't make the mistake of overrating a guy just because its a weak free agency market.

And there just hasn't been the several players available to command longer than 4 years this offseason....the money is still huge and the contracts are still dumb...and getting worse.

[Thyrl]

If Swisher is not a difference maker then it's fair to say the Orioles don't have one (at least offensively) either since his numbers don't stack badly vs. Jones or Markakis who are in the same pay neighborhood. Nuff said. Moot point. You think the O's stink. I get it.

[Mackus]

Swisher is a 3.5-4 WAR player, he could play a position that is currently a hole, and his particular style of hitting (OBP-driven) is sorely needed. For 4/$60M, even with losing the pick, I think that would be something that would make a ton of sense for the Orioles. I do think that as he approaches his mid 30's he'll probably slip a little bit, but I think he is very likely to be worth $60M or more over the next 4 seasons.

I think it is reasonable, on the other hand, to say that if the Orioles are only going to be allowed a $90-95M payroll based on Angelos' BS, that spending $15M or so on Swisher wouldn't be an ideal use of what limited flexibility we do have.

[SportsGuy]

If Swisher is not a difference maker then it's fair to say the Orioles don't have one (at least offensively) either since his numbers don't stack badly vs. Jones or Markakis who are in the same pay neighborhood. Nuff said. Moot point. You think the O's stink. I get it.

No, the Orioles do not have a difference maker although guys like Bundy and Machado could be.

[Thyrl]

No, the Orioles do not have a difference maker although guys like Bundy and Machado could be.

Fair enough. It appears we've found our middle ground. Who'da thunk it?

[McNulty]

Get used to it. Free agency is going to be terrible moving forward as more teams lock up their star players into their prime years. Stanton is probably the next young, premium guy that will be on the market. Everybody else will be in their 30's until then. Cano will be 31 when he hits FA next offseason, and Ellsbury will be 30.

At this point the Orioles need to add, and they have to either trade pitching or give up the draft pick to improve enough to get back to the playoffs and move deeper into them.

Sitting this offseason out simply isn't an option unless they want to miss the playoffs in 2013.

This post blows my mind, El Trea.