LookinUp

I think the most likely to go is Villar. He's not part of the future and saves us a buck if we trade him. However, you could argue that we could tender him after the season and have him for another year at a not terrible salary, so maybe not. Givens will somehow be most in demand. I wouldn't trade much for him because I don't trust him in high leverage circumstances, but others will probably over pay based on need and control of his next couple of years. I doubt Mancini goes. He's cheap and liked and would likely require a return beyond that which teams are willing to offer. Just my guess. I do think we have three dark horse trade candidates. Sisco, Severino and Nunez. Nunez could likely be had for one DSL guy that Koby Perez likes. Severino could be valuable to a playoff team in need of a catcher. Sisco too, but his bat, age/control are even more valuable and we all know who we just picked #1. If you told me that one of Villar or Givens is the only one not here in a couple of weeks, I'd believe it though.

I'm in agreement with this. Cashner's having a good year and at least one publication (Fangraphs maybe?) made the case that he would be a better bullpen arm if used that way. In other words, I think we could have done a pure salary dump if we wanted, but instead we kicked in some $$. Why? My best guess is because we think were getting some real talent back. At 17, real talent can blow up in a good way or a bad way, so it's clearly a move with risk, but our evaluators have had eyes on these kids, so I think it's fair to say that we probably got a couple of guys that we actually liked coming back.

Elias is really loading our lower minors with a lot of names. I'm not sure how many are decent or better prospects, but the innings are hard to come by. I sort of scoffed at the idea of bringing Bluefield back, but it really does seem like we could use another affiliate at this point.

I feel like the conversation about Mountcastle is almost too binary. My concern isn't that he'll come to the majors and be a scrub, it's just that I don't think he'll come to the majors and become an all-league player. I don't know how the scouting types characterize what I'm thinking, but I'm basically predicting he'll be a C+/B- type of player. He won't have a ton of positional value. His hit tool will be advanced, but his strike zone management will limit his OPS upside. I'll be happy to have in on the field, but don't expect any top 10 MVP seasons even at his peak. He'll essentially be Renato Nunez with a higher BA and maybe a little higher OBP, as driven by BA. I like that player, but I'm not going to over value it. That's why I'm not bullish on him in prospect rankings even though I do like his production. If you use Tony's criteria of who I'd rather have in the org, I think it would actually sink him even farther because I think his profile is relatively easy to replace. Just see Mancini, Nunez and Trumbo, when healthy for somewhat comparable guys. [Edit: I should add that his profile really does improve for me if he can be an above average OFer. In that case, you start to compare him to a guy like Diaz and weigh the pros/cons of each w/r/t rankings.]

Of course you can’t. The only thing we know is our guys down there have had eyes on them and then we can have trust in our guys and hope for the best. I personally like the idea that we’re building a lower level foundation. These two guys will be put next to a bunch of other guys with potential. I assume some will turn into something. This move improves those odds. I honestly don’t understand why you don’t just check out for the next 2 years. Elias is clearly building a different way than you want. You might as well wait for the payoff because the process is driving you mad.

I wouldn’t. There is more than one way to earn your way into the starting rotation. Getting 2-3 inning outings against ML hitters would be valuable experience. I would agree that if Elias wants to make Harvey a starter, he’s much more likely to do so in AAA. I just don’t think that has to be how it’s done.

I compared him to Andrew Miller in another thread. I’ll take a chance on Harvey’s ceiling every day.

I read this post below as you’re squinting to see a starter’s profile. Did I misunderstand?

I think the issue is that his bat might not profile as an every day player, so they may need him to be a 4th outfielder on some future team which may or may not have a great CF.

While you're right, even Luke isn't predicting Ace starter from this kid. Nice outings though, for sure.

All I know is electronic in/out pretty much shut down arguing in tennis. By the way, this rule would suck for little league.

Even if Harvey is our best closer talent wise, I'd personally not want him in that role to start. Let him apprentice, IMO. The fragility combined with inexperience tells me to be careful. Going back to the OP, that's why I also doubt anyone would give up what I'd want in return for his talent.

^^^Facts. With that said, he's the one guy that I could imagine a prospect-prospect trade for. Many teams need bullpen arms right now. You could argue that he's ready for such a role. You could also argue that he's not. However, for budget strapped teams like Minnesota, Cleveland or Washington, if you squint enough you could see a scenario where they value his arm at something between a top pitching prospect and a solid 7th inning reliever, who's cheap, controllable and ready to help a ML team now, and thus be willing to give up decent prospects in return. Going back to your post though, it's hard to imagine any team would value him as highly as the O's should value him. Absent a very strong return, I have a guy who looks like he has a solid chance (>50%) to be a bullpen fixture for years to come, and a decent chance (10-20%) to become a valuable starter or dominant reliever. It's hard to give that up for a 19 year old B level prospect.

I think you missed the word realistic in my post. I agree with your sentiment, but strongly doubt other teams will offer close to what I would want back. That's my point. This post below does a better job of spelling out why I don't think it's realistic. Another team would probably need offer something like $60m in FV just to entertain an offer, all for a guy who has a FIP over 4 and has only done this for 1/2 season. I'd love a team to do that, but just don't think it's realistic.

How much sooner did that 24th rounder sign? Did he have post season awards ceremonies to attend? Trips to Atlanta to be announced to the home crowd? I have absolutely zero problem with how the O's have handled either Gunner or AR at this point.

Hypothetically, I could imagine trading him. Practically, I cannot see a scenario where another team would offer a deal I'd take. His price would be very high. He's a cheap, relatively young, starting pitcher who looks like he could stick as a 3 or 4 for years. That's hard to put a realistic price on.

Lowther threw hard was not what I was expecting.

Interesting that he’d rank him behind Rodriguez.

While your point about the lowest seeds is presumably true, playoff basketball is a much better watch than regular season basketball, for sure.

I can't say I disagree, but at the same time I don't see the value of having a 45-117 team play the last 40 games of their season either. Essentially, I'd be fine with the leagues replacing lost regular season revenue with more playoff revenue, if the math works. I'm also pretty sure it would change the tanking nature of the game that is happening now, at least to some degree.

Actually, I was thinking of the NBA and NHL when I made my comment. Their regular seasons have months of relatively boring activity as well. I do think they're smarter to limit the regular season and expand the playoffs though. I would like for MLB to do that, but find it very hard to believe it happens anytime soon. They want 162 come hell or high water. I'd rather like 124 with 12-14 playoff teams.

It worked for Givens. I know he had a prior history pitching, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Yeah. It would be nice if Elias had an Erik Bedard to sell off this July.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this would accomplish the urgency we desire, it would just mean the wait for that urgency (e.g., September pennant races and playoffs) is shorter. I watch enough youth baseball these days to know that the sport can be amazing. I'm sick of the people who want to change it all that much. I can take pitch clocks and even limits to pitching changes and mound visits by catchers, but for the most part I don't believe it's broken.

It honestly makes me wonder whether Rom has the potential that his numbers would suggest. I've just responded to like 10 of your posts. I'll leave you alone now. lol.