Jump to content
weams

Orioles Deal Gausman/O'Day to Braves - Schoop to Brewers

Recommended Posts

Just now, Reboulet'sStache said:

I'm talking about not sacrificing prospect returns.  And what is actually the smarter payroll strategy during a real build.  

Ok.  So three things:

1.  Explain how this isn't a "real build."

2.  Explain what you mean specifically by sacrificing prospect returns.  

3.  Explain how having a high payroll dedicated to players that aren't essential to the rebuild is beneficial.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LocoChris said:

The  issue isn't necessarily overrating Gausman but the amount of control he had. I think people expected better for a solid pitcher under control for another 2 years.

It's not really overrating Gausman per se.  

Whatever Gausman's return should have been.  What Gausman gets you as a stand alone.  "This amount in international slot money and these prospects."  By including O'Day in the deal, just so you can free up money for the glorious run next year, that package was diminished to whatever degree.  

Which makes it a dumb move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:

I was very impressed by what DD was able to bring back for Machado and Britton.  These trades just seem like salary dumps or making moves for the sake of making moves.  If the value wasn't there, they shouldn't have pulled the trigger.  I think we got fleeced, big time.  

Must've been ordered to dump salary.

Seems almost impossible to trade both Schoop and Gausman and not get a single top 100 prospect back. I mean, did we get anything close to top 100?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Cy Bundy said:

Hard to trade Schoop and Gausman without getting a top 100 prospect back, but we pulled it off.

 

30 minutes ago, GoldGlove21 said:

They had like 9 players in the top #100 and we couldn't get one BECAUSE...... we offloaded O'Day' money.

Not pleased with this trade at all. I had to check mlbtraderumors again to see if that was it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wildbillhiccup said:

So you think there's an actual trade market for Villar? Because I sure don't...

I didn’t say he was going to bring back the farm. Also Brewers had no room for him and money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Ok.  So three things:

1.  Explain how this isn't a "real build."

2.  Explain what you mean specifically by sacrificing prospect returns.  

3.  Explain how having a high payroll dedicated to players that aren't essential to the rebuild is beneficial.  

I can't.  I've already explained all of that in numerous other posts.  At this point it would just be me copying and pasting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Greg Pappas said:

So, to recap (hope I didn't miss anything):

For Gausman we received--

  • 2.5 million in International Slot $
  • 20-year old 3B Jean Carlos Encarnacion, R/R, 6'3 195
  • 23-year old Catcher Brett Cumberland, S/R, 5'11 205, Draft: 2016, Braves, 2nd rd. (76th overall) College: California
  • 23-year old LHSP Bruce Zimmerman, L/L, 6'3 215, Draft: 2017, Braves, 5th rd. College: Mt. Olive & Towson U. (Born in Baltimore, MD)
  • 23-year old RHRP Evan Phillips, R/R 6'2 215, Draft: 2015 Braves 17th rd., College: UNC Wilmington (Born in Salisbury, MD)

 

For Schoop we received--

  • 22-year old RHSP Luis Ortiz, R/R, 6'3 230, Draft: 2014 Rangers 1st rd. (30th overall) Sanger HS (CA)
  • 18-year old SS Jean Carmona, S/R, 6'1 183, Signed out of the Dominican Repulublic
  • 27-year old Inf. Jonathan Villar, R/R, 6'1 215, Signed out of the Dominican Repulublic

And with clickable links. You sir win post of the day in my book. Thanks. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

The more I look at it the more I think the Brewers trade was great. 

Carmona is a stud SS. 

Ortiz was a former 1st round pick that has 4 pitches. Already in AA. 

Villar has been worth 1.8 WAR this year. Even before the trades he’d be our 2nd best player WAR wise. 

Three weeks ago this would’ve been laughed at. Schoop is a decent upgrade over Villar but we get Villar through 2021.  

Or...

Carmona is a fun prospect but a good 4 plus years away - if he makes it.    

Ortiz is fat and probably projects more as a reliever than a starter.

Villar has an OPS+ of 84 this year - following a 71 in 2017.  What happened to him - He looked like a rising star in 2016.  

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

It's not really overrating Gausman per se.  

Whatever Gausman's return should have been.  What Gausman gets you as a stand alone.  "This amount in international slot money and these prospects."  By including O'Day in the deal, just so you can free up money for the glorious run next year, that package was diminished to whatever degree.  

Which makes it a dumb move. 

I agree with this. I wouldn't have muddied the waters of a Gausman trade with O'Day. It's pretty clear it was the wrong move, especially when you see what the Pirates gave up for Archer. I think most of us would have been ecstatic if Austin Meadows was the headliner of the Gausman trade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

I can't.  I've already explained all of that in numerous other posts.  At this point it would just be me copying and pasting.  

So if I understand you correctly you're upset that:

We traded a pitcher we all overvalued and who most likely wasn't going to reach his full potential in Baltimore and a broken, expensive reliever for:

2.5 million in international money

4 prospects

And why is this bad?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Ok.  So three things:

1.  Explain how this isn't a "real build."

2.  Explain what you mean specifically by sacrificing prospect returns.  

3.  Explain how having a high payroll dedicated to players that aren't essential to the rebuild is beneficial.  

I think his point, or belief, is that if O'Day hadn't been included, we would have received better prospects in return.  Assuming that is true, it makes sense, and we shouldn't have traded O'Day.

  • Upvote 1

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...