|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Sept 18, 2016 11:11:45 GMT -5
He will require surgery to correct a strained flexor mass. The recovery period is said to be 4-6 months. Mancini promoted to replace him (players on the 60 day list need not remain on the 40 man roster).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 16:35:32 GMT -5
A calculated risk that appears to have backfired, unfortunately. Pearce had elbow issues while with Tampa, but was able to manage the problem easier because he didn't play the outfield. Unfortunately, the Orioles needed him to shore up the corner outfield spots and the injury was exacerbated. Too bad, because Pearce can absolutely murder lefthanded pitching.
I'd like the Orioles to bring Pearce back next season, but I'd monitor those medical reports very carefully. Flexor mass issues can typically be the first step toward TJ surgery, although Pearce is not undergoing a ligament transplant procedure at this time.
With Mancini clearly blocked at first for the time being, I wonder if he'll get a shot at an outfield position next spring. There should be a position open since I don't anticipate Trumbo re-signing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Sept 18, 2016 18:42:33 GMT -5
Someone is going to pay Trumbo stupid money, and it better not be this club. They need to start thinking about Machado (if they plan to resign him, which remains unclear) and Schoop if they can get him. One thing I believe gets a player to hand his agent a list of 29 clubs he'll play for is to mistreat him when he's under club control along the lines of how they're mistreating Manny. Clubs can get away with that when it's unclear how much outside interest there will be. If the Orioles bungle Manny, every single other club will be in the running. And comments bandied about during the Syd Thrift era, such as "least respected brain trust in baseball" will be heard once again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 18:45:48 GMT -5
Someone is going to pay Trumbo stupid money, and it better not be this club. They need to start thinking about Machado (if they plan to resign him, which remains unclear) and Schoop if they can get him. One thing I believe gets a player to hand his agent a list of 29 clubs he'll play for is to mistreat him when he's under club control along the lines of how they're mistreating Manny. Clubs can get away with that when it's unclear how much outside interest there will be. If the Orioles bungle Manny, every single other club will be in the running. And comments bandied about during the Syd Thrift era, such as "least respected brain trust in baseball" will be heard once again. How are the Orioles mistreating Machado? |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Sept 19, 2016 15:25:40 GMT -5
How are the Orioles mistreating Machado? Underpaying him, relative to his talent. That's why I left two different employers over my career. One asked what they could do to get me to stay, and I had to tell them, "By the time you ask that question it is already too late." (Except that I was more polite than that.) Keep people happy, they want to stay. Don't do so, they want to leave. In a lot of cases employers don't need to care, because there's always someone in the pipe after them. Manny's not that kind of talent. When he leaves, the Orioles will feel it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 19:54:11 GMT -5
How are the Orioles mistreating Machado? Underpaying him, relative to his talent. That's why I left two different employers over my career. One asked what they could do to get me to stay, and I had to tell them, "By the time you ask that question it is already too late." (Except that I was more polite than that.) Keep people happy, they want to stay. Don't do so, they want to leave. In a lot of cases employers don't need to care, because there's always someone in the pipe after them. Manny's not that kind of talent. When he leaves, the Orioles will feel it. Machado is being paid exactly as the rules permit by the collective bargaining agreement. There is no mistreatment, and every player who signs a professional contract knows how the economics work. For three years, the club has the whip hand on pay, for the next three, the player has a court of appeal regarding salary. After six years' of service time, he's then free to sell his services to the highest bidder. It has been that way since the onset of free agency: the players were the ones who wanted to maintain some of sort of limited reserve system, doing so in order to artificially limit the supply of free agents entering the market each year. Players need to understand that they will have to wait a bit for the big bucks. Machado is being paid $5 million this year, a figure he and his agent agreed to with the Orioles in mid-January. Had he chose to do so, Machado could have opted to roll the dice in arbitration and perhaps been awarded a higher figure. Losing Machado would be a blow, but so would a mega-contract which restricts much of their payroll flexibility. Would it be more propitious for the Orioles to try and move Machado before his walk year and restock their shallow farm system with some blue-chip prospects, or should they spend the $300 or $350 million necessary to retain Machado? Should they trade him, they could always try and re-sign him the following offseason. As I've said before, the only option they should not entertain is to let Machado play out that last year and get nothing but a draft choice in return. That would be an unpardonable sin. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Sept 19, 2016 20:13:48 GMT -5
Machado is being paid exactly as the rules permit by the collective bargaining agreement. There is no mistreatment, and every player who signs a professional contract knows how the economics work. For three years, the club has the whip hand on pay, for the next three, the player has a court of appeal regarding salary. After six years' of service time, he's then free to sell his services to the highest bidder. It has been that way since the onset of free agency: the players were the ones who wanted to maintain some of sort of limited reserve system, doing so in order to artificially limit the supply of free agents entering the market each year. Players need to understand that they will have to wait a bit for the big bucks. And as I alluded to, when the player is easily replaceable this strategy makes sense. Machado is not easily replaceable. Players like him, you keep happy with cash. Or you prepare yourself for their departure. He should have been their priority in the offseason; instead they signed a guy who's hitting .240 to a long, expensive contract during most of which he will underperform his salary. (Disclaimer: I do not believe Buck's strategy of all home run hitters works.) Losing Machado would be a blow, but so would a mega-contract which restricts much of their payroll flexibility. Would it be more propitious for the Orioles to try and move Machado before his walk year and restock their shallow farm system with some blue-chip prospects, or should they spend the $300 or $350 million necessary to retain Machado? Should they trade him, they could always try and re-sign him the following offseason. As I've said before, the only option they should not entertain is to let Machado play out that last year and get nothing but a draft choice in return. That would be an unpardonable sin. Angelos could easily afford a $200 million dollar payroll if he chose to. He's coining money; never let anyone tell you differently. MASN is very profitable and the Lerners are on the losing end of that deal. That's on them; they signed it, but let's not kid ourselves about the resources available. Duquette has managed to build a club that occasionally thrills, more often disappoints, and will not go back to the world series any time soon, by dumpster diving. I suppose that takes a certain amount of skill. But his priorities confuse me; I can't figure out what his strategy is, or even whether he has one. I also believe that much of the club's success has come from Buck's almost uncanny ability to motivate, and that when he finally gets tired of it and retires, the Orioles will again begin a long streak of sub .500 seasons. At this point my hope is reduced to this: that when Angelos dies his heirs cannot pay the capital gains tax and must sell the team. I'd even take it if they sold to a guy who moved the team away; I'd rather them succeed elsewhere than fail here, and fail is what they will always do as long as the name Angelos is on the checks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 23:17:11 GMT -5
Machado is being paid exactly as the rules permit by the collective bargaining agreement. There is no mistreatment, and every player who signs a professional contract knows how the economics work. For three years, the club has the whip hand on pay, for the next three, the player has a court of appeal regarding salary. After six years' of service time, he's then free to sell his services to the highest bidder. It has been that way since the onset of free agency: the players were the ones who wanted to maintain some of sort of limited reserve system, doing so in order to artificially limit the supply of free agents entering the market each year. Players need to understand that they will have to wait a bit for the big bucks. Machado is not easily replaceable. Players like him, you keep happy with cash. Or you prepare yourself for their departure. He should have been their priority in the offseason; instead they signed a guy who's hitting .240 to a long, expensive contract during most of which he will underperform his salary. (Disclaimer: I do not believe Buck's strategy of all home run hitters works.) The problem with this argument is that if said player were imminently replaceable, there'd be no hand-wringing over whether or not to sign him long term. Last year was Machado's first full season in the majors after two seasons interrupted by knee injuries. The Orioles could probably have signed him on the cheap at that point, but they'd have also been taking a tremendous gamble. Davis is a typical big swinger in that he strikes out a lot, but at the same time, he's also one of the best defensive first basemen in the majors. He's a big reason why the Orioles' infield is considered one of the best by any metric. I'm not sure if the homerun hitting lineup is a strategy or simply a resignation to taking what is available for the price. High OBP guys tend to be costly, and more importantly, they're typically not available. The Orioles thought they had addressed that shortcoming with Dexter Fowler before he backtracked and re-signed with the Cubs. Further, Camden Yards is a park that typically does not reward high-OBP, singles-hitting guys; it's built for homerun hitters. Conversely, teams like Kansas City, which play their home games in a park not considered homerun friendly, have constructed their lineup to try and best suit the dimensions of their stadium. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise. Losing Machado would be a blow, but so would a mega-contract which restricts much of their payroll flexibility. Would it be more propitious for the Orioles to try and move Machado before his walk year and restock their shallow farm system with some blue-chip prospects, or should they spend the $300 or $350 million necessary to retain Machado? Should they trade him, they could always try and re-sign him the following offseason. As I've said before, the only option they should not entertain is to let Machado play out that last year and get nothing but a draft choice in return. That would be an unpardonable sin. Only one team--the Dodgers--currently sports a payroll of $200 million or more, so I'm not sure about your assertion of easily affording such an obligation. (I'm only counting payroll for 25-man rosters; other obligations such as deferred payments, and players on the DL push several payrolls north of $200 million.)I don't know the MASN numbers, but I'm sure it isn't something in the neighborhood of the Dodgers' $8.35 billion/25-year deal with Time Warner, or the Yankees' deal with YES--of which they own 51 percent--which paid them $85 million per annum in 2013 and also guarantees them a five percent annual increase over the life of the contract. That's enough currently to afford the top 16 contracts in baseball--with enough left over to at least fill out the rest of the roster. According to COTS, the Orioles currently have the 12th-highest payroll in the majors at $156 million. They've spent, to be sure, but like every other team, not every dollar was spent wisely. It isn't only the length and dollars of said contracts which make them problematic, however; it's the provisions such as no-trade which essentially handcuff the team. Machado may be worth $300 million or more strictly from a dollar standpoint, but what he'll cease to be is a good contract value. The Orioles will also have other players--Jones, Schoop, Britton, Tillman, Brach, etc. whose contracts will be up around the same time as Machado. If he signs, it's almost certain that the rest will be gone. Rather than spend heavily in free agency in a desperate attempt to come up with a winner, the thing the Orioles need to do is shore up the farm system. With a number of players approaching free agency, it's almost certain that a number of them will be gone. What the Orioles need to do is determine who stays and who goes, and go out and make the best deals possible for the latter. Trades are the best way to elevate a farm system from shallow to productive in relatively short period of time. Just look at the Yankees. |
|
