Sell high on Wieters?

Wieters is doing pretty well so far.

But we are desperate for starting pitching.

If we QO him again he might take the QO again (especially if he slumps to end the season). If we want him back so badly we could probably just re-sign him at the end of the year.

He only plays 3 out of every 4 games or so, and our offense is about to get fully healthy.

Our already-thin minor league rosters will not support a trade for an impact SP. And even if they would, would you want to empty the cupboard yet again?

Why not sniff around and see if there is a suitor willing to give us a 2nd or 3rd starter in exchange for a package including MW and some B level prospects?

I'm sure I'm committing heresy by even suggesting such blasphemy. But maybe it's the rational move.

I was fine to let Wieters go and let Joseph be the starter this year before he accepted the QO, but at this point, with him (Joseph) being injured and not that effective this year before the injury, I dunno. I'd be concerned about how it would affect clubhouse morale/chemistry as well. I think I'd be inclined to stick with the status quo as far as Wieters goes.

If I'm trading from the major league roster I think Wieters would be the first on my list. Not saying I don't think he is a good player to have, I do. But no one else (that's worth anything) should be going anywhere. Though if you're trading Wieters then it's to a contender and what contender would be willing to part with a starting pitcher that would be upgrade?

A team looking to rent Matt would necessarily be one in the hunt. Why would such a team want to get rid of a pitcher that would improve our rotation? Most in the hunt teams aren't looking to weaken their MLB pitching.

We're a + at catcher with Matt. We're far weaker at the position without him.

Out of curiosity, why do you seem so intent from dealing from our MLB club?

Edit - i think it may have been Rene88, who posed that we must trade trumbo and Schoop. I saw the 88 and thought you proposed both.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A team looking to rent Matt would necessarily be one in the hunt. Why would such a team want to get rid of a pitcher that would improve our rotation? Most in the hunt teams aren't looking to weaken their MLB pitching.

We're a + at catcher with Matt. We're far weaker at the position without him.

Out of curiosity, why do you seem so intent from dealing from our MLB club?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some OH posters have no love for Matt.

If we are going for it this year, as it appears we are, I think we have to keep him and ride it out. Then decide if he has improved his stock enough to warrant a QO.

If we our pitching implodes, yes, he would be at the top of my list to trade, along with possibly Britton, JJ, Kim, etc.

A team looking to rent Matt would necessarily be one in the hunt. Why would such a team want to get rid of a pitcher that would improve our rotation? Most in the hunt teams aren't looking to weaken their MLB pitching.

We're a + at catcher with Matt. We're far weaker at the position without him.

Out of curiosity, why do you seem so intent from dealing from our MLB club?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because they are a team with excess pitching and a need for catching. The plausible scenario I heard on the radio was Wieters for Wheeler (Mets).

The other buy high guy at the end of his contract we could make available is Trumbo. This is a DH heavy team, though none are Mark Trumbo.

In either case, you're looking at taking a step back on offense for a step (or several steps) up in pitching. You're also limiting yourself to a very small marketplace where a team might be willing to deal a ML contributing pitcher for a rental. I'm not sure there's another team besides the Mets that makes sense. Perhaps the Nationals, but I don't see a player match there.

Because they are a team with excess pitching and a need for catching. The plausible scenario I heard on the radio was Wieters for Wheeler (Mets).

The other buy high guy at the end of his contract we could make available is Trumbo. This is a DH heavy team, though none are Mark Trumbo.

In either case, you're looking at taking a step back on offense for a step (or several steps) up in pitching. You're also limiting yourself to a very small marketplace where a team might be willing to deal a ML contributing pitcher for a rental. I'm not sure there's another team besides the Mets that makes sense. Perhaps the Nationals, but I don't see a player match there.

But a 2 or 3 starter is not "excess," it's a part of the playoff rotation for such a team.

Like you said, what team is looking to sell pitching for a rental. A team out of the hunt has no use for MW. A team in the hunt isn't looking to get rid of a guy who would be worth downgrading our offense. Maybe the Mets, as you said, that's about it.

While Matt may not have fulfilled his potential, he's still a big plus with the bat at catcher. Look at the numbers that guys put up around the league. Even on our own team, Matt has never had a season with an OPS lower than calebs best season.

I just don't see where this makes sense. For us or a trade partner.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we are going for it this year, as it appears we are, I think we have to keep him and ride it out. Then decide if he has improved his stock enough to warrant a QO.

If we our pitching implodes, yes, he would be at the top of my list to trade, along with possibly Britton, JJ, Kim, etc.

If the team implodes because of the pitching, sure. But as of now, we're a playoff team.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I'm trading from the major league roster I think Wieters would be the first on my list. Not saying I don't think he is a good player to have, I do. But no one else (that's worth anything) should be going anywhere. Though if you're trading Wieters then it's to a contender and what contender would be willing to part with a starting pitcher that would be upgrade?

That's sort of my point. Matts a rental for someone acquiring him, so it would naturally be a contender. What contender is looking to give up a number two or three starter? They'd much rather deal from the minors in that situation, one would think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I would not trade Wieters. I would give another QO after the season. Or try to sign him to a 2 year deal.

To get a starter I would trade some of our prospects. We didn't give up much in prospects to get Saunders or Norris. So this whole we don't have the prospects isn't really correct. I would keep Cisco but anyone else.

If I'm trading from the major league roster I think Wieters would be the first on my list. Not saying I don't think he is a good player to have, I do. But no one else (that's worth anything) should be going anywhere. Though if you're trading Wieters then it's to a contender and what contender would be willing to part with a starting pitcher that would be upgrade?

Good question. Who would replace Matt?

I'd never say never, but so long as we are in contention, I don't see us trading Wieters unless there's a very big upgrade to our starting rotation coming back, and that seems unlikely.

But a 2 or 3 starter is not "excess," it's a part of the playoff rotation for such a team.

Like you said, what team is looking to sell pitching for a rental. A team out of the hunt has no use for MW. A team in the hunt isn't looking to get rid of a guy who would be worth downgrading our offense. Maybe the Mets, as you said, that's about it.

While Matt may not have fulfilled his potential, he's still a big plus with the bat at catcher. Look at the numbers that guys put up around the league. Even on our own team, Matt has never had a season with an OPS lower than calebs best season.

I just don't see where this makes sense. For us or a trade partner.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mostly agree. The scenarios where this makes sense are very few. On the other hand, a guy like Wheeler who 1) isn't a contributor they're using right now, 2) has high upside, 3) is under team control and 4) is still risky enough that they're willing to part with him is exactly the rare type of guy that we may be able to obtain. I seriously doubt the O's would take that risk, but I personally would because I don't view a healthy Joseph as that much of a step down, I like our prospects at C and our near and long term need is starting pitching. I'd take the risk if the Mets would, but I really bet Buck is the one holding that up.

Does OP realize how horrendous Joseph has been this year?

On both sides of the ball.

I don't see where Matt could bring back a pitcher that would make up for Joseph getting that much more playing time.

Honestly I'm not sure I want Joseph over Pena when he gets back.