Photo

Extending Players with the New Ownership


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#81 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,185 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 08:06 AM

I'd be looking at a 9-year deal for him.  I think that might be achievable.  7-year deal feels impossible to me for any numbers that would make sense for the Orioles.  $30M per for each of the FA years so something like 9/$190M total.  I think its still unlikely he says yes, but that's probably the most I'd go until we get more confirmation that the new ownership will spend closer to the luxury tax threshold.

 

If he were a free agent this past offseason, but somehow 4 years older (i.e. lets assume he has a steady career the next few seasons, no MVP-explosion but no regression), I think he'd have gotten something like 8 years for $30-35M a year.  As a FA he's going to be able to get huge dollars every year through his Age 37 season or longer. So giving him a contract that only pays him less than market rates for the earlier seasons of his free agency makes zero sense for him.  Sure, there is some risk that his career flatlines and he ends up with less, but I don't think its risk enough to only sign away the first 3 of those years for something like $25M per.

I'd be looking at a 9-year deal for him.  I think that might be achievable.  7-year deal feels impossible to me for any numbers that would make sense for the Orioles.

 

If he were a free agent this past offseason, but somehow 4 years older (i.e. lets assume he has a steady career the next few seasons, no MVP-explosion but no regression), I think he'd have gotten something like 8 years for $30-35M a year.  As a FA he's going to be able to get huge dollars every year through his Age 37 season or longer. So giving him a contract that only pays him less than market rates for the earlier seasons of his free agency makes zero sense for him.  Sure, there is some risk that his career flatlines and he ends up with less, but I don't think its risk enough to only sign away the first 3 of those years for something like $25M per.



#82 jamesdean

jamesdean

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,432 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 08:06 AM

Well, yeah, so would basically everyone else.  But Boras is Gunnar's agent, and not Adley's.

Regardless, they're just going to have to pay him the money.  If he evolves into a superstar, he's not going to accept anything less than what that status demands.  If you want to keep your best players, you've got to show them the money.  Hopefully, new ownership won't be cheap dead beats like the Angelos clan. 



#83 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,978 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 09:27 AM

Regardless, they're just going to have to pay him the money.  

 

Guys who are open to extensions typically don't choose Boras as their agent, so there may not be an opportunity to pay him the money, other than in free agency.


  • Mackus likes this

#84 jamesdean

jamesdean

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,432 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 09:52 AM

Guys who are open to extensions typically don't choose Boras as their agent, so there may not be an opportunity to pay him the money, other than in free agency.

I think that's just conjecture at this point.  Even during the lean years, players seemed to love being here and wanted to stay.  It will probably all depend on how badly Gunnar wants to be an Oriole long term and how much new ownership is willing to pay him.  I do think if he enters free agency, he's as good as gone so the objective, if you're Elias/ownership, is to avoid that scenario.  You have to want to get it done badly enough which the Angelos family never prioritized. 



#85 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,185 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 10:17 AM


I think that's just conjecture at this point.

It's not conjecture that Boras' agents almost never sign extensions before being able to test FA. There is that "almost" qualification, and yes there is a very short list of exceptions so suppose there is hope that Gunnar will be one such exception. But I would be shocked if he is. Same goes for Holliday only moreso because he's got family with over $100M in career earnings to "fall back" on if something catastrophic happens and never as earns a FA payday.

#86 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,978 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 10:27 AM

Even during the lean years, players seemed to love being here and wanted to stay.  

 

This sounds like something you heard from Jim Hunter.



#87 jamesdean

jamesdean

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,432 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 10:29 AM

It's not conjecture that Boras' agents almost never sign extensions before being able to test FA. There is that "almost" qualification, and yes there is a very short list of exceptions so suppose there is hope that Gunnar will be one such exception. But I would be shocked if he is. Same goes for Holliday only moreso because he's got family with over $100M in career earnings to "fall back" on if something catastrophic happens and never as earns a FA payday.


Like I said, it will all depend on how much Henderson wants to be with Orioles long term. Just because its rare with Boras doesn't mean it can't be done. If Gunnar wants to stay here, that's his decision, not Boras. But sure, logic tells you he'll want to get the most money possible.

#88 jamesdean

jamesdean

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,432 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 10:30 AM

This sounds like something you heard from Jim Hunter.


No, its reality. Those guys loved playing here despite all the futility. I never could understand it.

#89 CantonJester

CantonJester

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,824 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 12:33 PM

What math am I changing? There is no chance he buys out 3 free agency years (Age 30, 31 and 32) unless you make the value for each of those years something absurd or you give him opt outs that basically make the years Adley-options rather than locked in for the O's (or both). You'll have to pay insanely big to get him to forego the one huge chance he'll have of hitting free agency while still in his prime.

 

I already said to make him the highest paid catcher in the game now. So yeah, you obliterate his arb years in doing so, but so what. You have him until his age 33 season. If he wants to still catch instead of play 1B, after that, you have a decision to make. 

 

You might not be changing the math, but you’re using the term “absurd” for the amount of money it would take, when I’m suggesting making him the game’s highest paid catcher might be enough. Hell, it’s not like Scott Boras is his agent, right? 



#90 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,185 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 12:43 PM

You might not be changing the math, but you’re using the term “absurd” for the amount of money it would take, when I’m suggesting making him the game’s highest paid catcher might be enough. Hell, it’s not like Scott Boras is his agent, right? 

 

I'm using the word "absurd" for how much you'd have to pay him in 2028, 2029 and 2030 in order to get him to agree to extend for those years and those years only.  A 7-year deal like that which buys out 3 FA years is the worst-case duration for him in terms of career-earnings.  He'd prefer any other length.  So to get him to take the worst length, you're gonna have to go to even higher average salaries.

 

He's going to get something like $40M total over the next 4 years through arbitration.  Maybe less, maybe more, but that's what I'd guess.  There is zero chance he locks in that $40M plus a 3/$75M extension after that I'm understanding that you are suggesting (making him the highest paid catcher in the game).  That's 7/$115M.  I'd argue it's an insulting offer unless I'm way overestimating the arbitration years.  If you're saying just pay him $25M a year starting now, or offer him a 7/$175M deal, I think that actually would work, but that is indeed "absurd" because you are effectively paying $135M to get those 3 extra years rather than just keep him for 4/$40M plus or minus through his club control.  I'm not necessarily against absurd, but that's the type of commitment I think it'd take.



#91 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 12 March 2024 - 01:26 PM

This sounds like something you heard from Jim Hunter.

I remember that Tony Bautista loved playing in Baltimore. Even after he had moved on, he would tell other players how great of a place it was to play. 

 

Of course, we're talking about a fringe player telling other fringe players.  


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#92 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,711 posts

Posted 12 March 2024 - 01:30 PM

Dont know how many pitchers loved pitching here. Hitters def loved hitting here. That dynamic has changed a bit with the Wall. Especially RH hitters.

#93 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 13 March 2024 - 10:43 PM

No, its reality. Those guys loved playing here despite all the futility. I never could understand it.

 

It's not hard to understand.  It's a great Park and a good/easy fanbase.  The media is easy.  You can play Baseball and be appreciated.

 

The Cards are that kind of Team in the NL.  That's the mirror for the Orioles.  They've haven't leaned into that nearly as well as they could because of the flaws of Leadership.  Hopefully, new ownership control can just focus on the Baseball (competing) and leave all of the other BS behind.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=