Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Short Season A-Ball

About gtown

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 5/13/1963

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The Tettleton trade was one of the worst in team history but has been overshadowed by the trade for Davis. They traded a switch-hitting catcher with power for a pitcher recovering from arm problems. OBP wasn't valued as much then -- Tettleton walked a lot and was way more valuable than what they got for him.
  2. I'm never crazy about quantity over quality. I'm not fooling myself into thinking that Bundy would net a premium prospect. But maybe one 15-20 in their system instead of four guys? Or two 25-30 guys and no one else. It's easy to give up 30+ guys in even a good system--obviously they're not all going to make the 26-man roster. Maybe they want to flip fringe players for international pool money? And therefore stockpiling??
  3. None of the four made the Angels' midseason Top 30. Mattson: https://baseballamerica.com/players/99840/isaac-mattson/… Peek: https://baseballamerica.com/players/106305/zach-peek/… Kyle Bradish: https://baseballamerica.com/players/99246/kyle-bradish/… Brnovich: https://baseballamerica.com/players/105861/kyle-brnovich/
  4. I'd be very much against signing Russell, not for baseball reasons.
  5. You asked why there wasn't a stronger return, if he indeed was at fair market value. I explained that there are free agents available for fair market value.
  6. I disagree. There are other options at fair market value, so why give up anything now when you can sign free agent X at fair market value. That's why have have continued to argue to roll the dice and try to make a deadline deal, when supply of fair market value is much lower (and salary for 1/2 season is less important).
  7. Since they got a player back, I don't hate it as much. Still very much against. I think he was traded when his value was at its lowest in the annual cycle. The fact that at least one team was interested at $10 mill suggests his value would be higher as a midseason pickup for a contender.
  8. Devan Fink, Fangraphs: I see very little justification for Orioles cutting Jonathan Villar. He hit .274/.339/.453 with a 107 wRC+, was worth 10.5 BsR, and produced a total of 4 WAR. Probably won't repeat those numbers, but I still don't see an issue with paying him ~$10 million in arbitration. And, also, maybe you throw in some cash and trade him? Losing Villar for literally nothing seems less-than-ideal. Eno Sarris, Fangraphs: Come on. Jonathan Villar is projected to be average in just about every facet of the game, and is only due ~$10 million next year. Orioles really couldn’t find a taker without putting him on waivers? The Padres were obviously looking. Nobody else? This sucks. Alex Fast, MLB producer: Option A) Pay Villar $10.4 Mil and trade him mid-season Option B) Let Villar become a FA Struggling to see why option B is better. Dan Connolly (to be fair, in a balanced piece): The other scenario we thought was a possibility heading into the offseason looks fully unrealistic now: That the Orioles would offer Villar arbitration, pay half that award in salary and trade him in July as a rental to get some minor-leaguers in return. That, of course, is gambling that Villar has another great campaign and further boosts his trade value. That’s what is probably going to stick with fans the most. Why not roll the dice? Grant McAuley, Braves radio: So, the Orioles are saying that not one of the other 29 teams in MLB would give them anything for Jonathan Villar, a 4.0 WAR player who doesn't turn 30 until 2021? Not an A-Ball flyer or even the dreaded bad contract/change of scenery swap? Nothing?! Not worth trying? Awful. --------------------- That's not to mention the slew of reporters claiming the so-called lack of interest at $10M is evidence of collusion.
  9. I didn't accuse it and you didn't say it, I back the so-called stupid idea and I used the term myself.
  10. Well then, I guess I m stupid, along with the national media that is crushing the Orioles for this move. And while you're at it, continue to ignore the premise that deadline value is far different than offseason value. And that they *wouldn't* (not couldn't) trade him last July. And that his post-July performance likely increased his value.
  11. Yeah, on a low payoll team. I guess I'm crazy to think the team might want to invest a bit in its own future, rather than putting more $$ in the owners' pockets.
  12. They got three players fro Schoop in down year. And any value is better than no value (current option).
  13. Coming off a 4-win season, it's not a stretch to think that Villar could be the best available 2B at the July deadline. Even if he falls short of that, we have seen contenders trade for much worse players just for their base running skills.
  14. The Brewers did trade him as part of a package to get Schoop. At the time, Villar was young talent. At the time, Schoop was coveted. The Orioles got three players for Schoop. We don't know what the offers were for Villar in July '19, just that Elias wanted more. Villar's strong finish in '19 likely raises that value. And again, any value is better than no value.
  15. Offseason value when supply is high is very different from value in July. Any value in terms of prospects is better than giving him away.
  • Create New...