Jump to content
FanSince88

Sell high on Wieters?

Recommended Posts

No chance the O's do that during the season, but next offseason... it wouldn't shock me. See what the Mets, Dodgers, and even Rangers offer. Don't rule out AL West and Central teams. They can at least bid the price up.

How many position players in the MLB are better than Manny?

Trout for one, and the way Harper is playing, not even Harper.

You dont trade this type of impact player, no, no, no. IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then the Mets would never make that deal. Why would they trade a pitcher with years of control and high upside who is showing healthy for a 1/2 year rental of a catcher?

This is probably a moot point, but the reason the Mets are probably the only team willing to make such a trade is because:

1. They need a catcher.

2. They have that high upside pitcher who they don't need in their rotation.

3. They have a pretty substantial chance to win it all this year, and Wieters is exactly the type of guy that might help them.

The point remains that DD/Buck are extremely unlikely to do this. Also, if Wheeler really has elbow discomfort, you can't entertain this unless it's a totally different trade.

I agree with those who say we'd raid the farm system before making this trade. I'd just rather not raid the farm system, gain payroll flexibility and get that SP all at the same time. Yes, we'd take a hit at our production from catcher, but I think it'd would be worth it. However, I acknowledge this has been a case of useless internet jabber because it simply won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Yep, that's the problem. You could trade Wieters for some good starters, but they won't be starters at the mlb level. If we were in last place an looking to rebuild, then Trade Matty for some future studs. But not when you're in first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd still be OK with him accepting one.

Now 2018 might be a different story.

Scott Boras won't be. Last year he had to accept that QO. 2017 will be an entirely different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get the impression that you don't like Matt Wieters.

When he is not hitting, you ponder whether or not he will OPS .700 for the season.

When he is hitting, you want to trade him.

There is nothing worse in baseball than missing an opportunity to trade a player at his maximum value. Nothing. Really, it's the whole point.

Unfortunately I won't be alive for the 50th anniversary remembrance of selling high on Matt Wieters. I'm sure OPACY will be packed.

Edited by 24fps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression that you don't like Matt Wieters.

When he is not hitting, you ponder whether or not he will OPS .700 for the season.

When he is hitting, you want to trade him.

There is nothing worse in baseball than missing an opportunity to trade a player at his maximum value. Nothing. Really, it's the whole point.

Unfortunately I won't be alive for the 50th anniversary remembrance of selling high on Matt Wieters. I'm sure OPACY will be packed.

I think that blowing a World Series with 2 outs, a 2-run lead, and nobody on base in the 9th inning is worse.

More significantly, that's not the feel that I got from the OP, considering his other thread in regard to Wieters, along with some of his other not-so-uplifting threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get the impression that you don't like Matt Wieters.

When he is not hitting, you ponder whether or not he will OPS .700 for the season.

When he is hitting, you want to trade him.

I'm thrilled that Wieters has outperformed my expectations for him this year. He's really bounced back after struggling mightily to open the year. If we weren't desperate for starting pitching, and razor thin in our minor league talent, I would never be proposing a trade. I doubt it will happen like many others in this thread, but I was just trying to kick around an idea that was a bit off the beaten path for how to augment our starting pitching which is by this team's biggest liability.

So next time, I would appreciate if you didn't make assumptions about how I feel about a particular player, simply because I'm worried about what an early slump might signify or proposing a trade involving him that brings back a return addressing a gaping hole in the organization.

I get the impression that YOU simply don't like ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing worse in baseball than missing an opportunity to trade a player at his maximum value. Nothing. Really, it's the whole point.

Unfortunately I won't be alive for the 50th anniversary remembrance of selling high on Matt Wieters. I'm sure OPACY will be packed.

I can think of many things worse. 14 years of losing for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading Matt Wieters while the Orioles are contending has ZERO chance of happening. It got a lot of discussion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Agreed. To make a deal like this work, you'd need to find a playoff team that literally goes 5 or 6 deep with quality starters so that trading one wouldn't negatively impact their rotation down the stretch. I don't think there is such a team.

Even if there was, they probably hang on to their pitching depth just in case of injury, unless they can trade for a player who is more impactful than Wieters would be for all the reasons the OP mentioned in his initial post.

Edited by bluedog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't really blame him at this point. I won't be excited about if the upgrades are marginal, but this team does have a chance to do it all based on what I see if everyone stays healthy. I'd probably go for it too if it looks like this in a month.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To me it is unconscionable to leave the franchise in the state it looks like he will be leaving it in.

Winning is great but more should have been done to prepare for the future.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well after Wieters just hit 2 homers yesterday, I say we keep him. The problem with getting a quality starter is Ubaldo, for 13 million per year look what we got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me it is unconscionable to leave the franchise in the state it looks like he will be leaving it in.

Winning is great but more should have been done to prepare for the future.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

While I think we are on the same side of the fence, I don't agree with your rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they are mutually exclusive at this point. If you have a plan for going for it at this point and preparing for the future, I'd love to hear it. I understand that your point is that he has made repetitive moves to put us in this situation and I can't really disagree, but it is "in for a penny, in for a pound" time at this point IMO.

Plus, I don't really think the MiL situation is as dire as it seems. We keep sucking down there yet we keep bringing up good pieces every season. Maybe the well will run dry though.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

First thing you can do is not trade value for non-value.

How could Dan not see the trap what was Parra last year?

Could he have been a better candidate for regression?

It was painfully obvious that Parra was not going to turn last year's team into a playoff team.

Yet Dan, desperate Dan, gave up a ML ready piece to land him.

Davies isn't an impact guy but you need players like him to make it work.

If Dan somehow manages to trade for a dial mover I won't object, I didn't object to the Miller deal.

But trading future value for a fraction of a percentage point is negligent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I think we are on the same side of the fence, I don't agree with your rhetoric.

I think you assigning a bit too much meaning to my word choice. I don't think it means exactly what you think it means.

If I'm wrong, sorry for doubting you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...