Trumbo an Oriole (For Clevenger Done Deal)

[mdbdotcom]

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.

If Wieters is still on the team come August, it will because of one of two things:

1) The O's are in contention

2) Wieters is having a bad year

Otherwise, I expect him to be traded.

[sportsfan8703]

I like the trade. I'll like the trade even more if Davis comes back. Davis coming back is always good. But Davis coming back was going to squeeze clevenger out of AB's even if we play Davis in RF some because of MW accepting the QO. Let's not forget that we have Parades. Who I like just as much as clevenger. There was probably only room for one of them on the team. So not only did we get MOO RH OF bat, we also weren't forced to have to trade/release one of Parades or clevenger in ST.

Here's a link to the mariners blog on sbnation discussing the trade. Read the comments. http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2015/12/1/9832990/mariners-trade-mark-trumbo-to-orioles

The comments definitely give you another perspective on the trade and whoever is going to be the second piece in the trade. Seattle fans feel like they have a ton of useless parts/trash left on the 40 man and after looking they're right. They're guessing Olmos, Bass, Martin or Ramirez.

Anthony Bass is arb eligible so that could be a guy. Jose Ramirez is a hard throwing righty that is out of options.

It's pretty smart of their GM for going out in getting Aoki. That's who I wanted.

[CaptainRedbeard]

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.

Yes. At the very least, it was defensible, and I think the process behind the decision was probably correct.

[Crazysilver03]

MLBTradeRumors speculated that it might be former 1st round pick catcher Steve Baron. I don't think that would be too shabby as the second player in this deal.

Baron fits as a no offense 3rd catcher with options.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Crazysilver03]

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.

From what DD has said, it seems he thought that Wieters would decline. But if they thought it was 70/30 declining, it wouldnt have been worth it (to me). That isnt a fantastic percentage with the money at risk.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[weams]

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

Maybe after the physical?

[Crazysilver03]

If Wieters is still on the team come August, it will because of one of two things:

1) The O's are in contention

2) Wieters is having a bad year

Otherwise, I expect him to be traded.

Couldnt we have said something similar last year? I think I am becoming like Weams with the QO regarding DD trading off pieces in season. I will believe it when it happens since it isnt something we have seen in his repertoire.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Crazysilver03]

Yes. At the very least, it was defensible, and I think the process behind the decision was probably correct.

I agree that it is defensible. But I dont think it was a slam dunk like so many insist.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[24fps]

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.

The debate over the wisdom of offering Wieters the QO was vigorous and not completely one-sided before the decision. Go back and check the threads if there is any doubt in your mind about that.

[DrungoHazewood]

MLBTradeRumors speculated that it might be former 1st round pick catcher Steve Baron. I don't think that would be too shabby as the second player in this deal.

Baron is what you'd expect out of this, but he's not any kind of real MLB player. His 2016 Steamer forecast, if he were to play in the majors, is .211/.248/.298. As I mentioned elsewhere he OPS'd 600 at High Desert, which is literally the best place to hit in affiliated baseball.

[mdbdotcom]

Couldnt we have said something similar last year? I think I am becoming like Weams with the QO regarding DD trading off pieces in season. I will believe it when it happens since it isnt something we have seen in his repertoire.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Last year we were in contention at the deadline and Wieters was basically untradeable, as he could not catch on consecutive days.

[Can_of_corn]

Last year we were in contention at the deadline and Wieters was basically untradeable, as he could not catch on consecutive days.

If I had needed catching help I would have sent a C prospect to the O's for him.

He was pretty obviously not fully healthy last season.

[sportsfan8703]

So we have 40 guys on the 40 man roster as of now. We're going to have to nontender some guys to make room for a 2-1 deal. Probably what the hold up is. Janish and Lough should be non tendered. And we could be active in trades with other potential non tender guys. With as much as we like our guys on the 40 man now, and the rule 5 coming up, I don't see this as just a guy that's going to be roster fodder.

When is the non tender deadline?

[Can_of_corn]

So we have 40 guys on the 40 man roster as of now. We're going to have to nontender some guys to make room for a 2-1 deal. Probably what the hold up is. Janish and Lough should be non tendered. And we could be active in trades with other potential non tender guys. With as much as we like our guys on the 40 man now, and the rule 5 coming up, I don't see this as just a guy that's going to be roster fodder.

When is the non tender deadline?

Do we know that the second player needs to be put on the 40 man?

[clapdiddy]

Do we know that the second player needs to be put on the 40 man?

We don't know for sure, but the reports are that the player is on Seattle's 40-man roster.