99ct

Maybe I’m overly sensitive, but I think your post is instigating on race where little to no evidence exists. This is particularly true in view of the fact that many minority players got paid by the orioles. As to your question, I’m not sure I believe that the Orioles weren’t interested. I think they lost interest when they realized what amount of money it was going to take to sign Manny. And you don’t want to talk about other teams, but it’s necessary to look at other teams. If your point is that refusal to pay Manny is indicative of racism, which seems to be your point, then the Yankees, Dodgers, Cindy, etc. are equally guilty. Whu do you think the Dodgers made no effort to resign Manny? I don’t know the answer, but it seems to show that the orioles weren’t the only ones.

Obviously that’s a theoretical possibility, but you have nothing beyond speculation to support it. Not giving Manny the contract he wanted does not make Angelos racist. There’s a bunch of teams that could have afforded him but chose not to, are they also all racist? What about Harpers struggle to get the contract he wanted? Same with Arietta who ended up signing for only three years. All victims of racism?

I'm all in favor of your concept. But we already have this QO regime and comp picks, and now I'm hearing media complaints that the comp picks attached to Keuchel and Kimbral are somehow unfair and should be eliminated.

Lol had to log in just because davis is pitching tonight ????

I think it's probably possible to put a $ value on prospects. I'm not sure how that calculus works, though.

Last time I saw him, he still had that huge mental block preventing him from throwing to 1B. One of the weirdest things in baseball lol...

Lol it's getting hard to keep "waiting and seeing" on this trade. However, at least I feel pretty good about the Manny, Schoop, and Britton trades. I can still sleep at night knowing we went 3/4

Looks like the Brewers valued it at least long enough to make the trade though ?

Yeah, fair enough, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that he just got an MLB start, despite being younger than most (or all?) of the dudes on your list? To me, his promotion is evidence that he was not, in fact, the 8th man down, as you believe.

With all due respect, I am having a hard time believing that Wilson jumped ahead of 8 other prospects in a matter of 3 weeks. This is especially true in view of his minor league started of August 4 and 9, where he combined for 10 ER in 12 IP. He subsequently had one great start in the minors, and then got called up. More likely, the Braves were high on him all along.

I wonder if AJ could re-invent himself as a hitter, especially if he can bulk a little in RF.

I get it. But look, my point is just that there is probably a way to quantify the value of a top prospect. I don't know how to do that, but if I were a baseball professional, I probably would figure this out. Surely you agree that money is finite, and money not allocated to Gausman/O'Day could be allocated elsewhere, and its possible that "elsewhere" would lead to getting good players.

I sort of agree, but I've seen very little analysis on this board comparing the value of the saved salary to the value of prospects. That is to say, is a fringe-100 prospect worth more than, say, $10m? If we had unlimited $, then of course the answer is to prefer a top prospect over the $. In reality, where money isn't unlimited, I don't know the answer to that.

lol awesome. So basically, the usual

Agree with your general sentiment, but surely there is a max to how much cash you would pay for a prospect, don't you think?

...Unless he doesn't become eligible until next year and then all the competition is back in play

Yeah I am feeling a bit underwhelmed too, but we don't know how the deal went down. Maybe the package was set and DD then jammed O'Day down their throats to save an extra ~10+m.

Eh, you don't know what they would have offered without O'Day

Shipping a Cy Young winner out of town wouldn't be as painful if we had gotten more than Scott Feldman in return. And yeah, I realize we technically turned Clevenger into one good year of Trumbo, but that isn't really doing it for me...

Can someone who watched tonight's game give a summary of any changes to his stance/approach? My bet was nothing changed, but then I saw a HR in the box score. Now I'm conflicted because, like a metaphorical Trainwreck, I couldn't look away from CD1.0's historically bad season.

Is anyone on this board familiar with all the terms of an MLB contract? I know that the money is “guaranteed” for all practical purposes, but I wonder if there’s some clause whereby the Orioles could aruge that by being historically bad, Davis somehow has failed go uphold his end for the bargain. For $100m, I’ll bet there are lawyers who would at least attempt that argument.

It’ll be interesting for sure. It doesnt seem financially rational for a player to surrender such money. But as this thread points out, Davis is historically bad so somewhere along the lines I suspect he will finally give up. I dont see anyone having the mental toughness to continue this for five years. But what about the players association? Would they be cool with a guy giving up guaranteed money?

I'd say he's over-perfuming. Really stinking up the joint! But yeah, pretty awesome leap in logic to go from Cano's suspension to Davis. I wish Rene would share his insight on that one.

Not sure if you're implying that taking players in the Rule 5 draft is somehow against an unwritten rule - but there are 10-15 teams doing it every single year, so looks like the dignity of the game may not be particularly high.

Youre right - good call.