If Wieters starts hot in 2016, but the team does not...

[Can_of_corn]

Honestly I think in this instance Boras did what was right for his client. It was likely a mutual agreement.

I have to believe that if Matt just flat out was not willing to listen to Scott's counsel, he would ultimately be getting a new agent, why keep an agent who has a different agenda than you do. Matt knows what Scott is about, there is a reason he hired him, to get paid.

Of course I agree that the majority of Boras' clients are full on board with how he conducts business. I just find the idea that he can somehow stop the players he works for from signing extensions insulting to the players. At the end of the day he is the employee, not the player.

[24fps]

Honest question: has Boras ever let a client sign an in-season extension that was even somewhat reasonable? It's one thing to let a client sign a lucrative QO, it's another to let a client playing well in his walk year extend long before the season ends.

Boras is in no position to stop him from extending if that's what Wieters wants to do. You need to understand that fundamental point.

But yeah, players don't hire Boras just to handle the paperwork.

[FanSince88]

Boras is in no position to stop him from extending if that's what Wieters wants to do. You need to understand that fundamental point.

But yeah, players don't hire Boras just to handle the paperwork.

Ok, I take your first point. I agree with SteveO, it was probably a mutual decision by Boras and Wieters to take the QO. I called that, by the way. Lots of people on this board were saying there's no way a Boras client ever takes a QO, but lo and behold not only did that happen this year but a few others took QOs as well. The QO for a guy who missed much of the year is one thing, an in-season extension in 2016 is another. I don't think Wieters' loyalties run that deep, and it's fine if they don't.

[Orioles0615]

They were 3 games under .500 last year and only like 2 games above at the trading deadline and tehy decided to be "buyers" They don't have it in them to rebuild.

[Can_of_corn]

They were 3 games under .500 last year and only like 2 games above at the trading deadline and tehy decided to be "buyers" They don't have it in them to rebuild.

It would take more then five games out in May that is for sure.

Would take pretty much a total collapse, a start like the 2011 club might be enough.

But to actually answer the question.

It would depend on the package. If it seemed to be basically equivalent to the pick I would do it since you would recoup a significant part of his salary.

[FanSince88]

It would take more then five games out in May that is for sure.

Would take pretty much a total collapse, a start like the 2011 club might be enough.

But to actually answer the question.

It would depend on the package. If it seemed to be basically equivalent to the pick I would do it since you would recoup a significant part of his salary.

Your last point is excellent. 100% agree there, look for the equivalent of the pick if you can. Nice logic on that.

I don't see it as a "rebuild" though. He only has a one-year deal to begin with if you want him back that bad you could in theory re-sign him in 2017. Plus with Caleb right behind him all you lose is a little depth in my opinion (and a switch hitting bat which is not insignificant I do admit).

Still, the "equivalent of a pick" should be more than enough for the team to seek and reasonable enough for them to find in the situation I described in the OP.

[mdbdotcom]

Wieters cannot be traded without his consent until June 15.

[FanSince88]

Wieters cannot be traded without his consent until June 15.

Thanks for that. Still, keeps my OP about the same. Let's say he's still +.300 and has 14 bombs on June 15. And the team has an injury or two and is 5 games under.

[SteveO]

Wieters cannot be traded without his consent until June 15.

I doubt we would trade him before that anyway. I would think it would be closer to the deadline.

I think we can all agree if Matt has a great start, trade or not trade is a nice problem to have. Either way via trade or draft pick we have some form of compensation coming if he has a good year.

[FanSince88]

I doubt we would trade him before that anyway. I would think it would be closer to the deadline.

I think we can all agree if Matt has a great start, trade or not trade is a nice problem to have. Either way via trade or draft pick we have some form of compensation coming if he has a good year.

....unless he don't trade him and he slumps in the back half of 2016, and finishes with, say, .250 average .300 OBP and 20 HR. Or, God forbid, gets injured again. Then we're more likely faced with a similar situation as we had this offseason.

[mdbdotcom]

Thanks for that. Still, keeps my OP about the same. Let's say he's still +.300 and has 14 bombs on June 15. And the team has an injury or two and is 5 games under.

If we are trading Wieters, it will mean we are not a contending team. If that's the case, he should be traded when we can get the best return. He could be a valuable trade chip in July, as could Britton.

[weams]

Boras is in no position to stop him from extending if that's what Wieters wants to do. You need to understand that fundamental point.

But yeah, players don't hire Boras just to handle the paperwork.

Matt did not want to sign a three year deal. That is what he had based on how he talked about the process. Whether that was Scott or Matt or both of them, and the decision was not made that Friday. So yeah, if you came at him with a four or five year deal he might listen.

[SteveO]

....unless he don't trade him and he slumps in the back half of 2016, and finishes with, say, .250 average .300 OBP and 20 HR. Or, God forbid, gets injured again. Then we're more likely faced with a similar situation as we had this offseason.

Well if he gets injured or sucks then we move on at the end of the year and get nothing. Yea that would blow.

[weams]

Wieters cannot be traded without his consent until June 15.

And even with his consent, only for $50,00 in value.

[Bahama O's Fan]

Well I would hope the Orioles would do something to fix their issues not trade away one of their best performing players at the moment.

You wouldn't even get much for him... Maybe a backend of the rotation starter and a low level prospect at best.

The love for Caleb is just annoying. We have one of the best catchers in MLB that should be coming back healthier this season and some people still want Caleb playing.

The love for Caleb is that he has almost the same numbers as Winters over their careers for a fraction of the price and is pretty good defensively.