Orioles are interested in Adam LaRoche, but hesitant

[Jordan Tuwiner]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orio ... 0198.story

And, according to multiple sources, the Orioles have legitimate interest in adding LaRoche.

But the situation is complicated, and the real stumbling block isn’t a three-year deal -- which LaRoche apparently is seeking and what the Nationals reportedly are not about to give. And it’s not the money, which would likely be more than $10 million per season.

Some within the Orioles’ organization would be willing to give LaRoche a third year on a fair-market deal, but if they signed him, it would run counter to executive vice president Dan Duquette’s plan of rebuilding from the draft.

A LaRoche signing by the Orioles would mean the loss of their first-round draft pick in 2013 (the 24th pick overall) because the Nationals made the pending free agent a qualifying offer this fall.

He'd be a nice sign but I don't want to give up a draft pick or give him three years.

[Old Sneakers]

I say "Pass"

He's not worth mortgaging the teams future for. As I recall LaRoche's last foray into free agency he didn't even qualify for compensation (Formerly Type A or Type B). He's older now and not that much better than he was his last go.

[Matt P]

I agree. The more I think about it the more I don't really think he is worth giving up a 1st round pick and a 3 year contract.

[birdwatcher55]

No problem on the draft pick. We have a comp pick that would likely be just as valuable. I would not hesitate to make this move because by in large the AL East has gotten better. We would upgrade our lineup and not give up our young pitching. Seems like a win-win situation to me

[Jordan Tuwiner]

No problem on the draft pick. We have a comp pick that would likely be just as valuable. I would not hesitate to make this move because by in large the AL East has gotten better. We would upgrade our lineup and not give up our young pitching. Seems like a win-win situation to me

If the team is going to give up a first rounder it should be for someone a whole lot more valuable than Adam LaRoche.

[birdwatcher55]

Adam had a nice season a year ago: 33/100/.271 PLUS Gold Glove calibar play at 1B. Nobody on the Orioles fits that bill and considering it's the 24th pick in the draft, this guy would be a steal at two years

[Matt P]

Adam had a nice season a year ago: 33/100/.271 PLUS Gold Glove calibar play at 1B. Nobody on the Orioles fits that bill and considering it's the 24th pick in the draft, this guy would be a steal at two years

He's also 33 years old and wants a 3 year deal.

[ofahn]

He'd be a nice sign but I don't want to give up a draft pick or give him three years.

First, I would NOT give him three years, If another team is willing to do so then that's their problem.

Second, I've thought long and hard about whether I'd be willing to give up the 24th pick for him. The answer is yes because I value that pick as another Nick Delmonico. So, the question becomes would I trade the potential of Delmonico for the two year of solid hitting and above average production of LaRoche? Yes, I would because we simply don't have a valid bat of his caliber ready in our farm system, nor will we in 2014.

[Matt P]

You seem to be a big believer in the "contract year myth" ofahn. What about the fact that last season was a contract year for him and he had the best season of his career?

[ofahn]

What about the fact that last season was a contract year for him and he had the best season of his career?

So, you agree?

I am willing to take a gamble on LaRoche based on his career numbers. He's probably on the down slide (which is why I am adamant on two years) but, in today's market 12.5M a year for a run producing above average defender at 1B is a bit less than market value. We would be off the risk in two years.

I challenge anyone to come up with a better bat, that has a better glove, at a position we can accommodate, for a reasonable salary, on a contract that doesn't commit us to "bad contract years".

[Matt P]

So, you agree?

I am willing to take a gamble on LaRoche based on his career numbers. He's probably on the down slide (which is why I am adamant on two years) but, in today's market 12.5M a year for a run producing above average defender at 1B is a bit less than market value. We would be off the risk in two years.

I challenge anyone to come up with a better bat, that has a better glove, at a position we can accommodate, for a reasonable salary, on a contract that doesn't commit us to "bad contract years".

Agree with what?

The problem is that he wants 3 years. I'm sure someone is going to give him 3 years. Supposedly, the Nationals are willing to give him 2 years. If the O's don't offer him 3 he isn't leaving Washington. There's a reason he picked the Nationals over the Orioles last time he was a free agent and all signs point that he wants to continue playing for them.

Basically, from reading articles and listening to the radio, what I gather is that the only way he isn't signing with the Nationals is if some team either overpays him for 2 years or they go 3 years. If nobody does that he'll likely sign with the Nationals for 2 years.

[ofahn]

The problem is that he wants 3 years.

...and I've been very clear that three years is an overpay and I wouldn't offer it.

[A_K]

Adrian Beltre is the funniest "contract year" example. Everyone points out the great year he had before signing in Seattle, then to his declined production after the contract as evidence that he tried harder when he had a deal on the line. The fact that he moved to a run-suppressing park? Conveniently ignored.

Then, people pointed to his great year in Boston as evidence once again that he was a contract-motivated player... fully ignoring that he signed on a team-friendly one-year deal with Boston because he had previously performed so poorly in a CONTRACT YEAR just 12 months earlier. Again, the fact that he switched to a hitter friendly park? Not a consideration.

Since going to Texas he's been nothing but good, regardless of the fact that he has yet to be a pending free agent.

Contract year theory is based entirely on confirmation bias. The idea makes sense in theory, so people give great emphasis to the stray examples that confirm it, all while totally ignoring everything that doesn't. It's baseball's version of moon landing denialism, 9/11 trutherism, et al.

[ofahn]

Adrian Beltre is the funniest "contract year" example. Everyone points out the great year he had before signing in Seattle, then to his declined production after the contract as evidence that he tried harder when he had a deal on the line. The fact that he moved to a run-suppressing park? Conveniently ignored.

Then, people pointed to his great year in Boston as evidence once again that he was a contract-motivated player... fully ignoring that he signed on a team-friendly one-year deal with Boston because he had previously performed so poorly in a CONTRACT YEAR just 12 months earlier. Again, the fact that he switched to a hitter friendly park? Not a consideration.

Since going to Texas he's been nothing but good, regardless of the fact that he has yet to be a pending free agent.

Contract year theory is based entirely on confirmation bias. The idea makes sense in theory, so people give great emphasis to the stray examples that confirm it, all while totally ignoring everything that doesn't. It's baseball's version of moon landing denialism, 9/11 trutherism, et al.

You forgot "birtherism".

I'm not belittling your opinion, but I am also acquainted with

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

...is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damn ... statistics

Baseball is a game where a group of smart people can all look at the same statistics and EACH come to a different conclusion. That's probably the case here.

[A_K]

I'm well acquainted with the old cliche as well. I mostly find it to be a kernel of truth that's misused in order for people to continue holding their pre-held beliefs even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Some players have great years before free agency. Some have bad years. Some players' production regresses after signing big contracts. Others' doesn't. What the contract year myth does is take perfectly normal variations in a player's year-to-year productivity and attach an easily understood narrative to it.