Jump to content
MurphDogg

Bundy traded to Angels for Isaac Mattson, Kyle Bradish, Zach Peek, and Kyle Brnovich

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I think you are reading too much into his comments. I don't think anyone is arguing that Elias doesn't care about adding as much talent as he can, just that the value of his trade chips may not be that high and that he may just take what he can get if he perceives it as the best value.

Well, sure. You're never going to get much of anything for Villar when the whole world knows you're about to non-tender him. But as I said, Elias was still able to get a guy he may have drafted himself. So yeah, slashing money is a huge part of these trades so far and I understand how that kind of sucks. But it's not like the guy isn't doing his best to get a decent return, at least IMO. 

He could have unloaded Cashner for some AAAA pitcher, for example, just to dump the salary. But he went deep into their international prospects to dig out a couple of guys he liked. So.. I dunno. His trade pieces kind of suck, but I just took issue with the "he doesn't care" comment was all. 

Villar is the most egregious case of salary slashing for sure. Givens I think he will be willing to go into the season with if he doesn't like the return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, weams said:

There are plenty of guys who outperform their ceilings. Many more who fall through their floors. Things happen. Strange things. 

Strange days have found us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Sadly I lost my post due to a work call

 

You can look at baseball Reference as well as I can. He had WAR of 2.3, .1, and 3.3. A dip in the sophomore year happens as the league adjusts. So 2.3 and 3.3 are reasonably close together despite your claim to the contrary.

Players in their prime typically tend to trend up. So even if they change the ball, have you seen anything from MLB discussing a change? I haven’t 

I don’t think we know what a GM will invest to add him now. Many here thought we’d get nothing from Bundy. We’re you in that group?

i know the level of prospect clearly want top 100. But that appears to be the type of deals that Elias is asking for.

Trade deals typically aren’t for 1 established player for 1 prospect. 
 

 

I said Mancini was an .800 type OPS player his first two years. That's a fact.  Frobby and now you have pointed out that his rookie here defined by other stats is closer to the 2019 season than the 2018 season. Kudos.

I didn't think we'd get much for Bundy. On paper, we didn't. 

Share this post


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

I said Mancini was an .800 type OPS player his first two years. That's a fact.  Frobby and now you have pointed out that his rookie here defined by other stats is closer to the 2019 season than the 2018 season. Kudos.

I didn't think we'd get much for Bundy. On paper, we didn't. 

How do you figure?

We got their #17 prospect, and front top 30, and 2  of their top 10 2019 draft selections.

Per @Tony-OH post Elias wanted a quantity deal . So I think saying we didn’t get much.

But let me ask.... When Elias bumbled the Villar situation and got 1 fringe prospect many here jumped to his defense.On this deal most said Bundy had no value.

How fo you grade the Villar deal and his trades so far?Personally I hated the Villar deal.

on the Bundy deal I would have preferred 2-3 of the Angels top 30 over the A level type quantity deal. But I’m not unsatisfied with the deal.
 

I said Elias might need to figure out Or not be good at the art of trading which pissed off a bunch of guys here. 
 

Either way ... I think I’d want 3 of a teams top 30 with one highly regarded guy for me to part with Mancini

A Givens deal probably is 3 guys that look similar to the Bundy deal

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on the surface it doesn’t look like we got a ton for Bundy, I’m sure “higher rated” prospects were available. The pitchers acquired looked targeted to me, I mean I flat out guessed one (Peek) and Bradish and Brnovich were also names I thought made sense, I just didn’t think they’d get two 2019 draftees. 

I think these players were selected for specific reasons, rather than the “top prospects” they could get.

  • Upvote 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

How do you figure?

We got their #17 prospect, and front top 30, and 2  of their top 10 2019 draft selections.

Per @Tony-OH post Elias wanted a quantity deal . So I think saying we didn’t get much.

But let me ask.... When Elias bumbled the Villar situation and got 1 fringe prospect many here jumped to his defense.On this deal most said Bundy had no value.

How fo you grade the Villar deal and his trades so far?Personally I hated the Villar deal.

on the Bundy deal I would have preferred 2-3 of the Angels top 30 over the A level type quantity deal. But I’m not unsatisfied with the deal.
 

I said Elias might need to figure out Or not be good at the art of trading which pissed off a bunch of guys here. 
 

Either way ... I think I’d want 3 of a teams top 30 with one highly regarded guy for me to part with Mancini

A Givens deal probably is 3 guys that look similar to the Bundy deal

 

 

On paper, we didn't get much for Bundy.  Teams generally have no problem giving up #17 prospects and 6th round draft choices.  Some of these guys sound interesting.  Top 30 guys don't mean much to me when you are talking 15-30. Just look year to year at teams top 30 lists.  Sure, occasionally you get a surprise and a good story. We'll see.  The main focus is that the team will suck next year, Bundy, Villar, and probably Givens and Mancini don't fit into the future plans and you might as well have a 55-60m payroll than a 75-80m payroll if you are going to suck anyway. I am on board with Elias.

 

We disagree on Villar. If anything good was offered at the deadline, Elias would have taken it.  Teams didn't want Villar at 10m and give up something.  Teams were going to wait for the non tender deadline.  By putting Villar on waivers he found one team willing to give him a warm body. The Marlins apparently have to keep their payroll at a certain level for appearances. 10m for a super utility guy on the Marlins makes no sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trades Duquette made at the end of his tenure felt more "we'll take whatever" than these did. But Dan didn't really communicate much after acquiring guys, so it may have just seemed that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, interloper said:

So yeah, slashing money is a huge part of these trades so far and I understand how that kind of sucks. ...

Villar is the most egregious case of salary slashing for sure. 

I'm not blind that the O's are saving money, but it's saving money from guys who won't be under control in the future and don't project to warrant high salaries in that future.

These deals are about trading expiring assets for future value. Getting something from what, if we don't act, will be nothing. 

10 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

When Elias bumbled the Villar situation and got 1 fringe prospect many here jumped to his defense.

I don't believe he bumbled it at all. Something for a future nothing.

Share this post


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

The trades Duquette made at the end of his tenure felt more "we'll take whatever" than these did. But Dan didn't really communicate much after acquiring guys, so it may have just seemed that way.

I certainly believe there is more scouting/analysis going on now.  Mostly the analysis.  

Share this post


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

I don't believe he bumbled it at all. Something for a future nothing.

I don't think bumbled is a fair characterization either. He's just working with the piece that he had.

Share this post


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

I certainly believe there is more scouting/analysis going on now.  Mostly the analysis.  

It would seem that way. Like Luke said, "targeted". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Of course he's going to try and get the best he can for his players, but he already has a precedence of dumping Villar for basically nothing, so there is some validity to saying he might take a lesser return to drop salary.

I don't think it attacks Elias' intelligence or the job he'd doing, but rather pointing out the fact that if a player's has zero projected value over his salary, he's not going to get much in return.

Givens is coming off his worse season and is will start to cost north of $3 million next year. Unless Elias thinks he can get more return for him at the trading deadline or in spring training, then it wouldn't not surprise me if ends up similar to the Villar trade.

At first glance, I like the Bundy return so Elias is not giving everyone away.

I see no reason to hold on to Givens.  The team is going to be terrible so why pay an Ok reliever $3 million.   Might as well just have a guy who can go multiple innings in his place as I don't think we are going to get too many 5 inning starts this season.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I'm not blind that the O's are saving money, but it's saving money from guys who won't be under control in the future and don't project to warrant high salaries in that future.

These deals are about trading expiring assets for future value. Getting something from what, if we don't act, will be nothing. 

I don't believe he bumbled it at all. Something for a future nothing.

We can agree to disagree 

I can’t believe nobody puts any merit in the points in the other thread that included 3 Baltimore Sun interviews.

1) Told the universe he was under no pressure to deal anyone else since he had no pending free agents

2) Miscalculation on where he was with Villar if he he planned to nontender him. Which is essentially the same as him being a free agent 

3) Announced that he had no intention of tendering him September When he was trying to trade him.

Frobby asked me for sources and to his credit thanked me for doing so. The other guys that were adamant about it having nothing to do with effecting his value were quiet.

You could hear the crickets chirping 

 

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...