Moose Milligan

Right, but c'mon man. You're acting like he's a 4 WAR pitcher each year. He's had only one year with 4 WAR. 1.2, 1.2, 4, 2.0, 2.3 so far this year.

Yeah, if it's not all potential with him then I don't understand how in every spring I keep seeing people saying "Well, if this is the year that Gasuman can put it together..."

I see a guy who throws hard and that's about it. Sometimes he has games where he can control his breaking pitches but other times not. Cracks under the slightest bit of pressure or when something doesn't go his way. I see a guy who can throw hard, but it's a flat fastball with not a lot of movement. First round pick, so I think people were going to be more inclined to try to squint a little harder and see greatness. He's going to the NL, probably will be better over there.

Yup, agreed. I'd much rather have better development. But that still doesn't mean Gausman would have been way better here than he was. We'll never know.

Well, that assumes you think Gausman is talented. I really don't. All about changing the coaching and development here, though.

IIRC, no one was heartbroken when Arrieta was traded. There weren't any grumblings of development strategy with posters here saying, "NOOO WHAT ARE YOU DOING??? He'd be GREAT if you just knew what you were doing!!!" Just because Gausman is a big strong guy that can throw hard doesn't mean it's the same situation. While I'd kick anyone in the shins in order to get to the front of the line to berate this team for development strategy, Gausman doesn't necessarily equal Arrieta. Until he becomes Arrieta.

Give it a B. You guys aren't focusing on the real thing here which is the international money. VVM + others makes this a winner. Anyone bashing this trade is just petrified that he turns into another Arrieta. Newsflash, Arrieta wasn't going to work here. Neither was Gausman.

IMO, this is what it's all about. Yeah, we got some minor leaguers back that might be questionable but VVM and others will really vault us to a top 10 system.

If he's 6'3 230 then Sid Fernandez was only 240, too.

I like it.

Man, Orioles just sent an email with the welcome message for these players. I hope when Ortiz arrives they give him a pair of running shoes and tell him he's jogging to the park.

The Orioles just better get VVM. Braves deal won't look as good without him.

Hell if I know, maybe they want O'Day when he heals up. Because if the two options are great prospects for Gausman or lesser prospects for Gausman and O'Day in a salary dump, when 10 million doesn't make or break the Orioles, then you're accusing DD of intentionally tanking a deal. But you are ignoring the 2.5 million in international money we got back as well. If we can get VVM and another player or two with that, this wasn't a bad deal.

And you guys are thinking that DD went to the Braves and said: "Oh, sorry Atlanta, we really don't want your great prospects. We'll gladly take lesser guys, especially if you take this contract off our hands, which is of no real consequence to us either way." Right.

Yep. Gausman isn't that good. We'd like him to be and we have a big fear of trading someone with a big fastball turning into the next Arietta. But I don't believe the market was that great for him and getting 4 guys is the best we can do. Check Archer's FIP and then look at Gausman's. Archer is a 200 inning guy, Gausman isn't.

There's no proof that having O'Day not included would have made the trade better. That's what he'd like to believe, but there's no proof that it's the case. In other words: Gausman to the Braves for good prospects Gausman and O'Day to the Braves for not as good prospects Keep in mind as of earlier this afternoon there were two other suitors for Gausman. That was widely reported. The Braves weren't the only team to tango with. So DD intentionally took worse prospects from the Braves in order to get rid of O'Day? I find it hard to believe and wildly speculative.

Gausman isn't Archer. There's no real comp there.

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?

Things stay the same.

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.

Ok, you're talking about trading for teams stud prospects by taking on bad contracts in return, correct?

Doesn't look like anyone was willing to do that. I don't know how many teams ate salaries of undesirable players in order to get a stud prospect back this year. Of all the trades I've read about, I can't think of one where a Davis/Trumbo type went along with an A+ prospect. I think what you've outlined is more of a message board wet dream than what actually happens in reality.

So if we're not trying to compete next year, a lower payroll shouldn't really matter. What, you want a team full of Davis and Trumbo types, bloated guys that we can't trade with high payrolls? A losing team with high payroll isn't good. Here, let's do this. You tell me how the Orioles would be better with O'Day's contract still on the books.

Happy we got slot money here. Let's get VVM and some other pieces, too.

Really? Shedding payroll is a horrible thing? It's not just NEXT year, it's for the following years, too. It's for when some of these guys come up and contribute we can extend them before they hit FA. So we avoid another Manny situation. Next year, really? C'mon.