Reboulet'sStache
-
Posts
3027 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Reboulet'sStache
-
-
1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:
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.
I think the Braves taking on O'Day's salary wasn't costless to us. It's reflected in the return. You think they took on O'Day for free because they are just sweet on Dan or something.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
They are shedding over 10M in salary with O'Day's contact.
At least some of that 10M was accounted for in the return.
Nothing is free.
-
1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:
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.
Walk me through the logic of this?
You're saying the return we got for Gausman is what we would have gotten. Then we asked the Braves if they would also take O'Day, and the Braves said, "Yeah, we're feeling generous. Throw him in too."
The Orioles would have to give consideration for the Braves taking O'Day. There's no other way to look at it.
-
1 minute ago, LarryHarlow said:
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.
That's not really a "belief." The Braves took on O'Day's salary as a salary dump. They didn't do that out of the kindness of their hearts.
All anybody could possibly argue is the extent to which it diminished the return. But nobody could, in good faith, argue it didn't diminish the return. -
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.
-
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.
-
Just now, Moose Milligan said:
Ok, you're talking about trading for teams stud prospects by taking on bad contracts in return, correct?
I'm talking about not sacrificing prospect returns. And what is actually the smarter payroll strategy during a real build.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, eddie83 said:
You keep ignoring the International $.
No I'm not.
-
2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
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.
I have absolutely no point what you're making here?
1. Most teams that would need to get Davis' contract off the books, aren't dumb enough to sign him to that contract, so it's not on the books. Most teams capable of signing Davis, aren't sending his contract to you with prospects, because they don't need you to take on his contract. Think the Phillies with Howard. They never would have dumped his salary on anybody for prospects, because they could afford to keep it on the books if that meant they got to keep their prospects.
2. What does any of this have to do with the Orioles dumping O'Day's salary at the expense of prospects? Can you point to me teams that go into prospect rebuild mode and dump salary at the expense of prospects?
-
Just now, Ruzious said:
But you've got to have a reason for hope. I think the O's are short at least a couple of great prospects at this point to have reasonable hope.
And taking less of a prospect return so you can clear O'Day's salary, is not how you obtain those great prospects.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
Here, let's do this. You tell me how the Orioles would be better with O'Day's contract still on the books.
I already explained this to you. It would increase the prospect return. Which is all that matters during a rebuild. You don't do ANYTHING that comes at the expense of prospects.
Rebuilds SUCKKKKKKKKKK. There's no such thing as an enjoyable one. All you can do is hope they don't last long. You know how they don't last long? You get as many good prospects as you can, as quickly as you can, to get you a competitive, cost controlled team. You know how you do that? You don't do anything that comes at the expense of prospects. Instead, you do everything that allows for the maximizing of prospects.
-
Just now, Moose Milligan said:
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.
Yes, I'll take every team's Chris Davis and Trumbo right now if their contracts align with our rebuild. Now if they are on the books for the next 10 years, obviously I don't want that. But 0 WAR players that are making too much money and teams want to get rid of? Let me have them. Send me your top prospects and I'll take them. Build up an elite farm system. And about the time where all of these prospects I've "bought" are ready to turn us into a competitor, is the time these salaries are coming off the books. And now I take that money and invest it in legit free agents to supplement the young, cost controlled players I brought.
That's called a rebuild.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, crissfan172 said:
Too many people think of baseball payroll in terms of a salary cap. Money not spent the next two years isn't a missed opportunity; it's money that can be used in the future.
And the best way to use it for the future would be to keep it on the books for a greater prospect return. Since that of course is the lifeblood of your future.
-
1
-
-
The Braves basically paid us to keep prospects. When we are the team rebuilding and in need of prospects.
This actually makes me envy the Cleveland Browns. They took Osweiller's salary on for a year because they had no intention of investing the money to compete right away. So they invested it in something that allowed them to get back a 2nd Round pick. They brought prospects for their rebuild.
We're in a rebuild and shedding prospects. You can't explain it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:
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.
Yes, it's a horrible thing. I'm not sure why this is complicated.
What do we need to shed payroll for at the expense of prospects? It made some sense sending Webb to the Dodgers with the draft pick to shed his salary. We were trying to compete that year, and so needed the freed up payroll.
We aren't trying to compete next year. Our entire mentality should be the complete opposite right now. What can we do to expand the prospect return at the cost of the short term? We just sacrificed a prospect return to free up money to do absolutely nothing with it. Or at least anything we should be doing.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
You guys act like shedding payroll is a bad thing. Especially on a broke down reliever.
It's a horrible thing. What do we need freed up payroll for next year??? To go out and buy that free agent that is going to allow us to make that run?
If EVERY team in baseball said, "Hey Orioles, I'm going to send you our bad contracts for the next two to three years. But along with it, I'm going to give you top prospects," then we should take that deal. Because we won't, and SHOULDN'T, be investing that money in anything intended to compete right away. That's not what you do during rebuilds. You invest the money in ways that allow for a prospect return.
-
1
-
2
-
-
lol. Braves completely owned us in the Gausman trade.
-
57 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Oh it’s back alright, and probably will be for some years to come.
It's crazy how well some of these major market teams have been run the last few years. They all acted like the 90's Billy Beane, except with a huge checkbook to fill in the missing pieces when they were ready.
-
1
-
-
On 3/19/2018 at 8:55 AM, glenn__davis said:
Always nice to see UNC ousted. Now let's get Duke and Kentucky ousted and we can have ourselves a nice tournament.
I'm afraid that's probably going to be your national championship game.
-
Amazing what a difference a 5* QB can make.
-
The only thing worse than the trade is the idea that we should have tied up all that money into Miller.
We should never have a lot of money tied into a bullpen arm beyond a one year deal. -
21 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:
Why the DJ Stewart hate? Sedlock is off to an equally slow start but Stewart always gets piled on. Stewart is actually in AA doing pretty well. He looks like he's going to be a Steve Pearce type in the MLB. That's good value at the back of round 1. Cheap 6+ years of a cost controlled starting position player.
Because he was always going to be a low ceiling prospect. My issue with him isn't how he has performed in the minors. It's that you don't draft guys who don't have the potential to be stars, in the first round.
-
Love drafting high upside guys in the first round. If the organization can't develop them, fire everybody in the organization. But that we shouldn't ever be drafting the D.J. Stewart's of the world in the first round.
-
Is your main concern Davies? Or that this was a flawed team?
Flawed team and a bad trade. Parra isn't very good, and Davies should have been kept, either to join the major league team or included in a trade that would have given us a much better return on investment.
Orioles Deal Gausman/O'Day to Braves - Schoop to Brewers
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Webb and the draft pick to the Dodgers.