Trumbo an Oriole (For Clevenger Done Deal)

[weams]

I think you can call it a bad thing or unfortunate thing that Wieters accepted. But one can't make the statement that the QO was the right move but accepting it ruins Baltimore's chances in 2016.

Drungo's analysis is generally the right thinking, in my opinion, but "losing" can't mean Baltimore is prevented from competing. If that's the case then the QO is the wrong move, even if Wieters would likely turn it down, because you can't risk an entire season on a dice roll.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In that case some teams may never make any moves. Because a bad outcome would doom a team for half a decade. It's time to stop looking at MLB teams being in that situation. And if they are, the ownership and markets areas need to be reevaluated. I feel that MLB made a grave error allowing another team into a saturated Baltimore/DC market.

[Stotle]

In that case some teams may never make any moves. Because a bad outcome would doom a team for half a decade. It's time to stop looking at MLB teams being in that situation. And if they are, the ownership and markets areas need to be reevaluated. I feel that MLB made a grave error allowing another team into a saturated Baltimore/DC market.

Well, I think the reality is that the range of outcomes that play into decision-making at the highest level are a lot broader than folks think.

I also think it's funny that some folks are furious at paying Wieters $16 MM for maybe two wins, but are ecstatic to have Trumbo at $9 MM for maybe a win and a half? One can be better than the other, but I'm struggling with one being genius and the other being moronic.

[mdbdotcom]

Well, I think the reality is that the range of outcomes that play into decision-making at the highest level are a lot broader than folks think.

I also think it's funny that some folks are furious at paying Wieters $16 MM for maybe two wins, but are ecstatic to have Trumbo at $9 MM for maybe a win and a half? One can be better than the other, but I'm struggling with one being genius and the other being moronic.

They perceive Trumbo as filling a position of need, and Wieters as getting paid to do something that was already covered and taking needed funds out of the budget. They aren't thinking about WAR.

[weams]

Well, I think the reality is that the range of outcomes that play into decision-making at the highest level are a lot broader than folks think.

I also think it's funny that some folks are furious at paying Wieters $16 MM for maybe two wins, but are ecstatic to have Trumbo at $9 MM for maybe a win and a half? One can be better than the other, but I'm struggling with one being genius and the other being moronic.

Matt Wieters became a sunk cost when he had Tommy John surgery during a pennant race, took too long to recover and was unable to play enough to have trade value last season. Someone decided that they wanted to risk some money to try to get a discounted return.

[Can_of_corn]

Matt Wieters became a sunk cost when he had Tommy John surgery during a pennant race, took too long to recover and was unable to play enough to have trade value last season. Someone decided that they wanted to risk some money to try to get a discounted return.

Yep in hindsight he should have been non-tendered last year.

I'm still expecting a nice season from him in 2016.

[mdbdotcom]

Yep in hindsight he should have been non-tendered last year.

I'm still expecting a nice season from him in 2016.

Would be kind of ironic if he turned in an MVP candidate type season.

[weams]

Ok show me where DD says he is gonna upgrade the C position without using the words veteran back up, veteran platoon as the context. Show me anything that DD said that would indicate he was uncomfortable with CJ as a starter?

Saying he wanted to upgrade is like saying he had no intention of starting CJ and that notion is ridiculous. The O's were absolutely and rightfully going to start CJ with a veteran guy (who cost a hell of a lot less than 15 million) as the back up.

You obviously misunderstood me with your rant. I never said they were spending 15 million on any catcher Or that they were getting rid of Caleb. Never was he anointed starter though.

[weams]

Yep in hindsight he should have been non-tendered last year.

I'm still expecting a nice season from him in 2016.

Absolutely right. Spot on. But then, they puffed up his progress like he was going to catch opening day. And we all knew that was a lie. From Boras. And Matt.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Doesnt mean they will make stupid trades. You are talking about two players that many thought would be outright released today. They won't bring back much in trades.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Who thought flash would be NT?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

Who thought flash would be NT?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw speculation that Janish would be kept instead since Buck appeared to lose faith in Flaherty's ability to play SS.

[mdbdotcom]

I saw speculation that Janish would be kept instead since Buck appeared to lose faith in Flaherty's ability to play SS.

I suggested they might keep Janish over Flaherty and save a few dollars to be used elsewhere. And it's true, Buck no longer plays Flaherty at SS. Maybe they can trade him.

[weams]

I suggested they might keep Janish over Flaherty and save a few dollars to be used elsewhere. And it's true, Buck no longer plays Flaherty at SS. Maybe they can trade him.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Teams that have spoken with the Padres about James Shields say they're not looking to eat money & hope to get a young SS back (& more)</p>— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) <a href="

">December 3, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[mdbdotcom]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Teams that have spoken with the Padres about James Shields say they're not looking to eat money & hope to get a young SS back (& more)</p>— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) <a href="

">December 3, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Well, I'm glad Flaherty doesn't qualify as a young SS.

[Il BuonO]

I think you can call it a bad thing or unfortunate thing that Wieters accepted. But one can't make the statement that the QO was the right move but accepting it ruins Baltimore's chances in 2016.

Drungo's analysis is generally the right thinking, in my opinion, but "losing" can't mean Baltimore is prevented from competing. If that's the case then the QO is the wrong move, even if Wieters would likely turn it down, because you can't risk an entire season on a dice roll.

Exactly right. And the idea that the FO is so incompetent that they didn't prepare for an eventuality in which he did accept is foolishness.

[Babypowder]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Teams that have spoken with the Padres about James Shields say they're not looking to eat money & hope to get a young SS back (& more)</p>— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) <a href="

">December 3, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

So, let me see if I have this straight. The Padres outbid everyone for Shields services as a free agent, going above the level anyone else wanted to pay him. Then, he has a bad year in the first year of said contract that no one wanted to match in the offseason. Now, they want to trade him while not eating any of the money that no one else but them wanted to pay and get a prospect?

Sounds reasonable.