Dodgers Trade: Thoughts?

[BohKnowsBmore]

Why does Wieters taking the QO kill the offseason? They paid him 10m last year. They added 6m but subtracted quite a bit of salary too. I know there's arbitration, but the Orioles should have a reasonable estimate on those. If Wieters taking the QO killed the offseason, this team is doomed. I suspect Wieters taking the QO will however be the excuse this year.

If you offer the QO you have to be prepared for a scenario in which its accepted. I don't buy that DD and company didn't consider it as a possibility.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crazysilver03]

Why does Wieters taking the QO kill the offseason? They paid him 10m last year. They added 6m but subtracted quite a bit of salary too. I know there's arbitration, but the Orioles should have a reasonable estimate on those. If Wieters taking the QO killed the offseason, this team is doomed. I suspect Wieters taking the QO will however be the excuse this year.

If you have a $40M and someone comes along that requires $16M you werent planning to spend, that will have a large effect on the way the rest of the winter will go.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Dark Helmet]

If you have a $40M and someone comes along that requires $16M you werent planning to spend, that will have a large effect on the way the rest of the winter will go.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Then you don't offer it to him. Plain and simple. There was a good chance he'd accept it. So if that scenario wasn't in their plans, I have serious concerns about the people running this team.

[weams]

Then you don't offer it to him. Plain and simple. There was a good chance he'd accept it. So if that scenario wasn't in their plans, I have serious concerns about the people running this team.

They don't need an excuse. They can just tell you they do not wish to spend more. And you'll learn to like that. Or follow another team or another sport. What makes you think they need excuses?

[weams]

I think most thought the chances were well under 50%. However, we couldn't

Afford to even take a 10% chance. The upside wasn't worth the downside. DD goofed.

Fair enough. He did. But no one here would have been happy if we had not offered either.

[Crazysilver03]

Fair enough. He did. But no one here would have been happy if we had not offered either.

Maybe not happy but would have saw it for what it was. No QO would have been fine in my book. I also understand why they offered. But to me the business decision (not the fan in me) was to not offer.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[JayThomas]

Fair enough. He did. But no one here would have been happy if we had not offered either.

I know I wouldn't have been happy if we'd not offered. That said, I'm not happy that he accepted it. (And) yes, I do give the front office enough credit to anticipate what might happen if he did accept it: plan B.

[JayThomas]

Why does Wieters taking the QO kill the offseason? They paid him 10m last year. They added 6m but subtracted quite a bit of salary too. I know there's arbitration, but the Orioles should have a reasonable estimate on those. If Wieters taking the QO killed the offseason, this team is doomed. I suspect Wieters taking the QO will however be the excuse this year.

No one is saying or implying that it killed the offseason. Some of us are doing arithmetic and concluding that the front office has to be creative to even put as good a team on the field as last year.

Wieters ~16M. If we resign Davis at $22M per (conservative), we're at $38M of the $40M that we have coming off the books.

How do YOU replace Chen, O'Day, Pearce, etc.?

Some of us are simply pointing out what appears to be obvious that DD is going to have to take chances and be either very good or very lucky.

[Dark Helmet]

They don't need an excuse. They can just tell you they do not wish to spend more. And you'll learn to like that. Or follow another team or another sport. What makes you think they need excuses?

I don't have to like anything. You can like whatever you want. A team that expects fans to shell out thousands a year to watch do owe some sort of reasoning behind their moves. Just because I'm not a fan of every single thing they do, that doesn't make you anymore of a fan then you are. So please stop with the "go root for another team" bs.

[Dark Helmet]

No one is saying or implying that it killed the offseason. Some of us are doing arithmetic and concluding that the front office has to be creative to even put as good a team on the field as last year.

Wieters ~16M. If we resign Davis at $22M per (conservative), we're at $38M of the $40M that we have coming off the books.

How do YOU replace Chen, O'Day, Pearce, etc.?

Some of us are simply pointing out what appears to be obvious that DD is going to have to take chances and be either very good or very lucky.

That's not my point. They knew there was a chance Wieters would take the QO. If their budget is that minimal, they shouldn't have risked it. Hell, at this point, who cares about receiving comp picks. It seems the Orioles are too poor to afford the signing bonuses. Especially if they can't even afford to field a 25 man roster.

[JayThomas]

That's not my point. They knew there was a chance Wieters would take the QO. If their budget is that minimal, they shouldn't have risked it. Hell, at this point, who cares about receiving comp picks. It seems the Orioles are too poor to afford the signing bonuses. Especially if they can't even afford to field a 25 man roster.

See post 115 of this thread.

[Dark Helmet]

See post 115 of this thread.

Plan b = dumpster diving it seems.

[JayThomas]

Plan b = dumpster diving it seems.

Or accepting the position of having to pull rabbits out of hats. Yes.

It appears that the O's took a gamble on offering Matt a QO, that most of us and most of the industry agreed with, and that we all assigned a small likelihood that he'd accept (maybe 20%), knowing full well that if he accepted then we could only maintain a comparable on-field presence in 2016 by getting very fortunate in the trade market.

Does that articulate it clearly enough?

I think that it does, and I'm satisfied that the Orioles took the actions that they did knowing full well that there was a 20-ish% likelihood that we'd end up where we are now. We are between a rock and a hard place.

[Dark Helmet]

Or accepting the position of having to pull rabbits out of hats. Yes.

It appears that the O's took a gamble on offering Matt a QO, that most of us and most of the industry agreed with, and that we all assigned a small likelihood that he'd accept (maybe 20%), knowing full well that if he accepted then we could only maintain a comparable on-field presence in 2016 by getting very fortunate in the trade market.

Does that articulate it clearly enough?

I think that it does, and I'm satisfied that the Orioles took the actions that they did knowing full well that there was a 20-ish% likelihood that we'd end up where we are now. We are between a rock and a hard place.

Not sure how they can be fortunate in the trade market. Don't have the farm to make the trades that will make an impact. May as well keep what they have and do the usual. Throw you know what on the wall and hope it sticks. If they weren't going to be able to raise the payroll enough to compensate for Wieters accepting the QO, they shouldn't have risked it. No matter how low the percentage was that he'd take it.

[JayThomas]

Not sure how they can be fortunate in the trade market. Don't have the farm to make the trades that will make an impact. May as well keep what they have and do the usual. Throw you know what on the wall and hope it sticks. If they weren't going to be able to raise the payroll enough to compensate for Wieters accepting the QO, they shouldn't have risked it. No matter how low the percentage was that he'd take it.

Well a lot of people on this board (myself included) and a lot of people in the industry disagree with your last point.