Trumbo an Oriole (For Clevenger Done Deal)

[Stotle]

I get that he's just organizational filler, don't expect a real prospect coming back in a Clevenger-Trumbo deal. This was more of me musing out loud again - almost every time I see a post about a hyper run environment I'm the one replying that a 1.203 OPS isn't necessarily real. I'm truly interested in a scientific/train wreck kind of way to see what happens when you let 500 points of air out of a .600 OPS.

Sorry. I should have been clear that *I knew* that *you knew* he'd be organizational filler. That was actually me musing out loud this time. haha

[CaptainRedbeard]

They absolutely chose the right answer, though. It was a completely justifiable and sensible move. You and I would be right here blasting them if Wieters signed a 4 year deal somewhere on the open market and the O's didn't get the draft pick. Just saying. The right move was made. You offer that QO to Matt Wieters every single time, without hesitation.

This is absolutely right. The expected value of the QO offer to Wieters was definitely positive. The pick is probably worth $5M in surplus value. Wieters' contract at $16M is about zero surplus value, but cost us maybe $5M in surplus value from lost playing time from Joseph (another way to look at this - Wieters probably added 1-1.5WAR to our team, but cost us $16M). That lost $5M really hurts with how constrained we are with the budget this offseason now, but when you weight the probabilities by the fact that MW was much more likely to reject the QO than accept it (probably 70/30), it's a clear expected positive value to make the QO. Even though we're in the negative outcome because we got unlucky and he accepted it, that doesn't mean it was a bad decision.

[DrungoHazewood]

Why do you keep saying this? If he's a DH or 1st baseman, what makes you think he will be worth only one win most likely when besides 2014, he's been worth more than that every year?

Because his 2015 batting line translates to a one-and-change win player as a 1B/DH, with some upside there if he's really a +5 glove at first and that's where he plays. The last time he was a 2+ win player he was 26/27, and he's about to turn 30. Yes, he could be a 2.5 win player if several things break his way, but I'd say his mid-range case is less than that.

[Tony-OH]

They absolutely chose the right answer, though. It was a completely justifiable and sensible move. You and I would be right here blasting them if Wieters signed a 4 year deal somewhere on the open market and the O's didn't get the draft pick. Just saying. The right move was made. You offer that QO to Matt Wieters every single time, without hesitation.

We''ll have to agree to disagree. And no, I would not have been blasting them if Wieters had signed a 4-year deal because didn't think a team was going to give a 4-year, high money deal to Wieters due to age and recent performance.

[Tony-OH]

Because his 2015 batting line translates to a one-and-change win player as a 1B/DH, with some upside there if he's really a +5 glove at first and that's where he plays. The last time he was a 2+ win player he was 26/27, and he's about to turn 30. Yes, he could be a 2.5 win player if several things break his way, but I'd say his mid-range case is less than that.

rWAR disagrees.

[Crazysilver03]

This is absolutely right. The expected value of the QO offer to Wieters was definitely positive. The pick is probably worth $5M in surplus value. Wieters' contract at $16M is about zero surplus value, but cost us maybe $5M in surplus value from lost playing time from Joseph (another way to look at this - Wieters probably added 1-1.5WAR to our team, but cost us $16M). That lost $5M really hurts with how constrained we are with the budget this offseason now, but when you weight the probabilities by the fact that MW was much more likely to reject the QO than accept it (probably 70/30), it's a clear expected positive value to make the QO. Even though we're in the negative outcome because we got unlucky and he accepted it, that doesn't mean it was a bad decision.

It isnt "unlucky" if you figured there was a heightened probability of him accepting.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[DrungoHazewood]

This is absolutely right. The expected value of the QO offer to Wieters was definitely positive.

You can evaluate things from a 20/20 hindsight perspective. But I won't gig someone for making the correct (or at least defensible) call with the information that was known at the time. Offering Wieters the QO was at the very least defensible. Process over results - my offseason mantra.

[Redskins Rick]

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what the "majority" of fans thought on the matter. I would not have offered the QO because the risk of him accepting it did not out-gain the potential loss of a draft pick in my mind. The Orioles don't have the payroll flexibility that allows for Wieters to make $16 million. Now, maybe Angelos will change his tune and that won't affect the Orioles' offseason plans, but I remain very skeptical that Angelos will change his operating procedures that he's used since the Albert belle fiasco.

It easy to sit back and said you would not have offered it now, after the fact.

We all said Angelos wouldn't never go more than 3 years and 10 million for a SP, and he did.

As much as I disagree with Angelos and his running the team prior to the arrival of Andy here, it probably a stretch to reach back and play the Belle fiasco card here.

Again, IMO.

[nadecir]

You'd have to think that the Orioles budget number is a fixed number that is not changing depending on whether Wieters decided to accept his QO or reject it. In other words, Angelos should not be expected to add $16 million to the Orioles budget number just because Wieters accepted the QO. The Orioles took a risk by offering the QO to Wieters, and the risk didn't pan out.

I fully expect Duquette gets a budget number from Angelos, and it's up to Duquette to select the best players with that budget number. A major market team could possibly afford the risk associated with a $16 million QO offer to Wieters, a mid or small market team is less able to afford to be wrong with this size of risk.

$16 million this year for Wieters means that the Orioles are going to have to find even bigger bargains than before Wieters signed his QO.

[Crazysilver03]

So we're still getting a second player in the deal, right? When will we know who that player is?

Should be today since it is the NT deadline. 2nd player is likely no offense 3rd catcher with options.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[mdbdotcom]

So we're still getting a second player in the deal, right? When will we know who that player is?

Maybe after the two main pieces of the deal pass their physicals and we make room on the roster for the other player.

[weams]

Does it matter whether the fans are going to be upset or not when decided on a QO for a player? It's risk assessment game and the Orioles choose the wrong answer and now we have to pay for that this offseason unless Angelos is willing to just eat that contract and still use the normal budget. Angelos' hisotry does not suggest he'll do that.

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what the "majority" of fans thought on the matter. I would not have offered the QO because the risk of him accepting it did not out-gain the potential loss of a draft pick in my mind. The Orioles don't have the payroll flexibility that allows for Wieters to make $16 million. Now, maybe Angelos will change his tune and that won't affect the Orioles' offseason plans, but I remain very skeptical that Angelos will change his operating procedures that he's used since the Albert belle fiasco.

There were a lot of murmurs in the press the week preceding that there was concern and that there were some internal differences of opinion on that.

[Crazysilver03]

It easy to sit back and said you would not have offered it now, after the fact.

We all said Angelos wouldn't never go more than 3 years and 10 million for a SP, and he did.

As much as I disagree with Angelos and his running the team prior to the arrival of Andy here, it probably a stretch to reach back and play the Belle fiasco card here.

Again, IMO.

I dont think too many people have changed their minds. I was against it before it was offered and accepted. The majority were for it still think it was a valid risk. Perhaps someone could make a poll.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Just Regular]

There isn't a rule saying you can't QO a guy again, right? If so, another layer would be that we can still collect a Wieters draft pick a year later.

It relies on him having a good 2016, but I think the industry consensus is still that Wieters's true talent level is at a QO level, and injury recovery uncertainty is some of why he accepted this year.

If he does indeed stay healthy for 120 games with mid-case production, he's QO-worthy again next offseason.

[CaptainRedbeard]

It isnt "unlucky" if you figured there was a heightened probability of him accepting.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

This is assuming the Orioles had inside knowledge and thought it was more like 50/50, or more likely that he would accept? Every bit of news I saw pegged it as closer to 70/30 toward reject, conservatively. I suppose that is possible the Orioles had stronger inclinations he'd accept, but there's no way to show that's the case. You'd have to think they didn't intentionally risk hamstringing the budget if there wasn't a good chance he'd reject it.