Bundy for Justin Upton?

[Trackmaster]

A few years out of a 37 year old for a potential Hall of Famer with a 20 year career? I think not. (Talking about Dickey of coarse). The Upton trade is just rediculous.

[Ruzious]

It was Jim Duquette and Mike Ferrin, I heard it on XM also. I believe it was JD who was responsible for the quote. JD said he would trade Bundy straight up for Upton, and I agree with him on that one. I can't believe that Bundy was offered for Dickey, but who knows? Gausman is the guy I would hesitate to trade, but I would do a Bundy for Upton swap. Upton, Jones and Markakis makes a sic outfield. Ages 25, 27 and 29.

That'd make some sense if the O's had an unlimited budget. Because they don't, and because Bundy will be MUCH cheaper for many years, trading Bundy for Upton would make no sense.

[wildbillhiccup]

If this was strictly a value based trade and money / years under control didn't factor into the equation I'd have no problem with it. I really like Upton and think this might be a great time to land him at bit of a discount.

That said, trading Bundy for Stanton would make sense, but trading him for Upton...not so much.

Either way, I think the Os should kick the tires and see what the D-Backs want for him. Who knows, maybe they'll get lucky and find that they value one of our other young pitching prospects more than other teams. It's not like we haven't made a trade with teh D-Backs before...

[DrinkinWithFermi]

If this was strictly a value based trade and money / years under control didn't factor into the equation I'd have no problem with it. I really like Upton and think this might be a great time to land him at bit of a discount.

That said, trading Bundy for Stanton would make sense, but trading him for Upton...not so much.

Either way, I think the Os should kick the tires and see what the D-Backs want for him. Who knows, maybe they'll get lucky and find that they value one of our other young pitching prospects more than other teams. It's not like we haven't made a trade with teh D-Backs before...

If we could get him for Arrieta and Schoop, I would be all about it. I just don't think AZ would be. That said, I hope DD at least does his due dilligence in this matter.

No harm in making a phone call.

[Ripken]

puff, puff, pass...

[Brosnan27]

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

[Tx Oriole]

15 minute discussion on MLB network today about how this makes sense for both teams. It's an interesting discussion, what do you think?

No thank you.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

I'll preface this by saying that I like Dylan Bundy... a lot, but I think people really get overly enamored with prospects. I'm not saying I trade him for RA Dickey, or even Justin Upton, but I think folks need to remember that only about 25% of these highly touted prospects turn into the elite superstars you're hoping they become. There are more than 1 or 2 players I'd trade Dylan Bundy for. Probably closer to 30.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't understand the kneejerk responses acting like Bundy should be untradeable. Justin Upton has a career 13.1 WAR at age 24. Upton has speed, power, and gets on base. Why wouldn't you trade someone like Bundy who has just as being successful as he does of being a flop for a proven run producer who plays everyday (Upton)? I'm not saying I would do this trade without a doubt, but I would definitely consider it.

His odds of making a positive impact at the MLB level is much greater then a coinflip.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't understand why anyone would be interested in giving up the best pitching prospect in baseball for the right to pay $40M for three years of Justin Upton.

I really don't understand why Bundy's name would be mentioned by any sane person in connection with a trade for one year of any pitcher.

Bundy could not develop as expected, have TJ surgery, and still be worth 10 or 12 wins and $50-70M over the time he's under team control. If he actually turns into an ace he could easily be worth $150M in surplus value.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't understand the kneejerk responses acting like Bundy should be untradeable. Justin Upton has a career 13.1 WAR at age 24. Upton has speed, power, and gets on base. Why wouldn't you trade someone like Bundy who has just as being successful as he does of being a flop for a proven run producer who plays everyday (Upton)? I'm not saying I would do this trade without a doubt, but I would definitely consider it.

Why would you be in such a hurry to trade a guy with (by your odds) a 50% chance at becoming a very good pitcher making $500k a year, for a guy who makes $13M a year and was barely an average MLB outfielder two of the last three years? Basically you're trading for Upton's upside, and Bundy's is at least as great with a lower pricetag.

[CSB Jack]

3/38 would end the discussion by any sane person on the O's side.

"Sorry, but 3/38." Click.

Why is 3/38 such a bad deal for Upton? Compared to Jones, for instance, he's been worth 13.0 rWAR over the past four years compared to Jones 9.0; Jones is scheduled to be paid slightly less over the next three years (34.5) but then he's got the next three years at another 49M. And Upton is two years younger. I see him potentially being a bargain over the next three years at 3/38.

Which doesn't mean I trade Bundy for him, but it's not because of the price tag on the contract.

[DrungoHazewood]

Why is 3/38 such a bad deal for Upton? Compared to Jones, for instance, he's been worth 13.0 rWAR over the past four years compared to Jones 9.0; Jones is scheduled to be paid slightly less over the next three years (34.5) but then he's got the next three years at another 49M. And Upton is two years younger. I see him potentially being a bargain over the next three years at 3/38.

Which doesn't mean I trade Bundy for him, but it's not because of the price tag on the contract.

Let's say Bundy is worth somewhere between 10 and 30 wins over the next six years. He'll be paid nothing, nothing, nothing, 40% of market, 60% of market, and 80% of market over those seasons. So if turns into anything good, even a 2-3 win #2/3 starter, he'll be a giant bargain, with tons of surplus value. If he breaks out he'll be almost priceless, one of those guys you wouldn't trade for anything.

Justin Upton at his career mark of about 3 wins/year is going to have maybe $5-10M in surplus value over his contract.

There's just a lot more potential for high wins/$ with Bundy, and the O's have to have that to compete with their payroll.

[CSB Jack]

Let's say Bundy is worth somewhere between 10 and 30 wins over the next six years. He'll be paid nothing, nothing, nothing, 40% of market, 60% of market, and 80% of market over those seasons. So if turns into anything good, even a 2-3 win #2/3 starter, he'll be a giant bargain, with tons of surplus value. If he breaks out he'll be almost priceless, one of those guys you wouldn't trade for anything.

Justin Upton at his career mark of about 3 wins/year is going to have maybe $5-10M in surplus value over his contract.

There's just a lot more potential for high wins/$ with Bundy, and the O's have to have that to compete with their payroll.

I understand the potential difference in value with Bundy versus Upton (or quite frankly any veteran player being paid at the going rate). I don't know that I'd trade Bundy for Upton even if I were getting the 22 year old version who was touted as something just shy of what Mike Trout is being projected at. So the issue for me isn't Bundy vs Upton. My question is whether the Upton contract is a bad deal on its own merit. Maybe that is too far from the original topic, in which case I don't want to sidetrack it.

[Can_of_corn]

I understand the potential difference in value with Bundy versus Upton (or quite frankly any veteran player being paid at the going rate). I don't know that I'd trade Bundy for Upton even if I were getting the 22 year old version who was touted as something just shy of what Mike Trout is being projected at. So the issue for me isn't Bundy vs Upton. My question is whether the Upton contract is a bad deal on its own merit. Maybe that is too far from the original topic, in which case I don't want to sidetrack it.

I think it isn't a bad deal in a vacuum but when you pair it with Jones and you look at the spending restraints ownership has set, I don't think it is a great fit.