Jump to content


Limited Posting Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

122 High-A

About FanSince88

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is the Platonic ideal of exactly the kind of signing a rebuilding club should make. Well played, Elias!
  2. This is the kind of return we should have gotten for Villar. I think Bundy's trade value is roughly equivalent. So I'm happy with Bundy's return. The 6th and 8th round picks, if you do the math, were in the top 200 and 300 of draftees this year. And Bradish was a top 150 prospect in last year's draft. Check out this link that attempts to put a monetary value on draft picks https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-on-how-to-value-draft-picks/. Peek is worth roughly $2.5 million, Brnovich $1.5 million, and Bradish $2.8 million. Bundy is projected to be a 2 WAR pitcher next year, which would put the value of his contribution around $16 million. He'll likely make $5.7 million in arbitration, so he's likely to contribute $10 million in surplus value. The sum of our prospects' value is pretty close to that surplus. So I think we got roughly equivalent value using these heuristics and the situation we're in. Villar, on the other hand, only got us back a single 14th round draft pick in Lucas, which is only worth $1 million. Villar is projected to be about a 1.8 WAR player next year. Even though his arb figure is more expensive, it's still kind of a bargain compared to the roughly $14 million or so his play is projected to be worth. I would like to have seen one or two more prospects who were recent 6-10th round picks in exchange for Villar. One 14th round pick seems like a very low return for him.
  3. I absolutely despise it anytime Davis plays first base, because it means Trey Mancini isn't. I'd rather they played Davis in the outfield instead of Mancini. Davis stinks in the outfield too, but at least we would then be showcasing Mancini at his natural defensive position, not a position he can't play well and is more likely to injure himself playing. If the Orioles are truly going to consider dealing Mancini at the 2020 deadline or next offseason, then he can't keep playing corner outfield. Let him build up a defensive resume at first base, which is his best defensive position. Heck, I'd rather see Davis playing third base or frickin second base if it keeps Mancini out of the outfield. If ownership is too stubborn to release Davis, then at the very least Hyde and Elias need to stick him in the outfield or DH to prevent Mancini from playing there. If Davis doesn't like it, he can ride the pine or retire.
  4. Yes, he's been trying to trade Villar, I have no doubt. But the other GMs have been playing rope-a-dope, and just got a TKO. What we did with Villar is not a "sell-off." It's more like deciding not to pay increased property tax and letting the county take the title away from you, instead of putting your house on the market. Now is the right time to deal Bundy. He's probably at peak value and he's due for an injury. Even if he somehow pitches well (under 4.00 ERA) this season, his value won't rise because his service time will be decreased. Only way his value rises if he posts a blistering hot first half of 2020 (like top-15 starter level hot), and then maybe he becomes more valuable. But I don't see that happening. Mancini probably won't be dealt before July 31, 2020, and maybe not even then. We may just hang on to him to put a few butts in seats because the trade interest isn't there from other teams. Only if contender gets real desperate because of a rash of injuries to their sluggers would we get a nice return for him. But it's just as likely that a team with that severe of a roster problem just throws in the towel and tanks for the rest of the year.
  5. In my unprofessional opinion, it does seem that Elias got played a bit by some of the other GMs with this Villar thing. Releasing him is exactly what the contending teams want. Now, it's shamefully true that half the teams in baseball aren't trying to win and probably don't want Villar at any price. And it's also true that guys like Villar are criminally undervalued in today's analytics-driven MLB climate. But he's not a bum by any stretch and is still at least league-average. And there should be at least 10-12 teams who are trying to contend (SOMEONE has to fill those 10 playoff spots after all), and they have to be loving the fact that Villar is hitting the open market and won't have to give up any prospects to get him. I wish Elias had called the other GMs' bluffs. Maybe it would have blown up in his face, with Villar getting injured in Spring Training before we can flip him. But at least we would have gone down with a fight. We just folded our cards here, we blinked first, we let other GMs stare us down and folded our hand when we had a straight. I wish we'd shown a little faith in Villar and gone down swinging. Odds are, someone's starting middle infielder gets hurt, and they have to come crawling to our door offering a Top 200 guy. I'm willing to chalk this up to a young GM getting scared into folding prematurely at the poker table by the other cigar-chomping sharks. Hopefully Elias will take it as a learning experience when the Cardinals sign Villar for a 3 year, $25 million deal, and doesn't let himself get bullied again.
  6. That's a big if, and I'm not holding my breath. At the bare minimum, they need to find someone who is a defensive upgrade from Villar, bat be darned. At least then it will give our pitchers a break, and bring the games to a merciful end more quickly.
  7. Yup, you nailed it. The other factor driving down Villar's price -- besides the devaluing of basepath ability in the modern game -- is that 2/3 of the American League is basically tanking. So it's a double whammy -- Villar has undervalued tools, and the market stinks for sellers. Oh, and teams are hoarding prospects more than they ever have. Having fun yet? I hope Manfred realizes what a bore his game is becoming.
  8. Two thoughts about this. 1) This speaks volumes about the sorry state of contemporary MLB baseball. 20 years ago, and definitely 30 years ago, teams would be falling over themselves to give us a top 100-200 prospect for a 20/40 guy Villar who can play multiple infield positions. Now the analytics nerds are obsessed with three-true-outcomes oafs who can barely jog and are about as fun to watch as waiting for paint to dry. His one year, 10 million salary is an enormous bargain for a guy with his skill set who posted 4 WAR last year. 2) Despite the extant factors about the MLB that may have prevented the Orioles from getting a good deal, I would have appreciated the front office throwing us fans a bone by bringing Villar back. He's an interesting guy to watch play the game. I am not looking forward to watching Wilkerson or whatever comparative scrub they stick at second base. His salary is a huge bargain and we would at least be able to do a salary dump on July 31 if nothing else. I get that there's a long term plan in play here, and that's totally fine, but in the meantime is it really too much to ask to keep ONE guy on the diamond at a bargain price who isn't a snoozefest to watch? I'd be happy to get a few more wins and a lot more fun with Villar, even if it means (gasp) "settling" for the #2 pick in the 2021 draft. I trust Elias's long term plan, but in the short run, just how empty do these guys want Camden Yards to get?
  9. Because Bundy's problems are directly related to homers, which Petco suppresses. If his main problem was walks, Petco wouldn't help that. But his main problem is homers, which Petco does help. Petco plays to Bundy's strengths and masks his weaknesses. Bundy's average exit velocity isn't particularly bad and he's actually very good at suppressing hard hit balls. It's just that his average launch angle is high. A spacious outfield is likely to give Bundy much greater marginal benefit than it would other pitchers.
  10. Let the prospect blocking begin. Might as well trade three of Mountcastle, Nunez, DJ Stewart, and Mancini because Davis is apparently not going anywhere since the Angelos family can never admit they were wrong. Awesome.
  11. TL;DR: The 2020 class is deep with no clear-cut front-runner, and the Orioles have more to gain by their existing players getting better and finding success than getting the #1 pick instead of #2 in 2020 (or #2 instead of #3). https://www.camdenchat.com/2019/8/7/20757690/mlb-baltimore-orioles-detroit-tigers-mlb-draft-2020-mike-elias
  12. How do you know we are the ones who asked for Villar? Seems more likely the Brewers offered him because they wanted to make space for Schoop. Bad call on their part.
  13. Yeah, this. In hindsight, I give this trade a B for Baltimore and a B+ for Atlanta. Gausman helped them win the division last year.
  14. The Braves have all but clinched a playoff spot this year but they were in a tight playoff race at last year's deadline. Gausman's marginal value was worth much more to them last year in the context of a tight playoff race than his ineptitude has "hurt" them year where they've run away with the division anyway.
  15. Gausman was worth 1 WAR last year for the Braves, and -1 WAR this year for them. So from strictly the ATL and BAL point of view, it basically boils down to a double salary dump and some meh prospects for us, in exchange for a 2 month rental for the Braves of an above-average starting pitcher performance. This year was a bust and Atlanta cut bait on him, so you kind of just write it off. Hence, in hindsight, what looked to me at the time like a C- kind of trade for Baltimore sort of looks like a solid B. Still wish we had pressed for better prospects, though, even if it meant we had to keep O'Day. Not sure what all that salary dump really does for us, given that we already have one of the lowest payrolls in the league. It's not like we're looking to make any splashy FA signings this offseason (or, let's be honest, not likely the following offseason either).
  • Create New...