Roch: Matusz Traded (along with draft pick)

[Tony-OH]

The one thing I will say' date=' the top 2 levels of the O's system are a bit light at the moment. the bottom 2 levels appear to have some projectable, young talent.

Maybe Duquette's trying to balance out the system a little bit by sacrificing depth at bottom levels for 2 guys who are settled into AA right now...One of whom looks like he could be in AAA this season if he continues at his current pace in Barker.[/quote']

I don't think the arms were the point of this trade. This was about getting Matusz off the roster and using the rest of his salary to offset some acquisitions later this season. When Duquette smells a chance for his team to compete, he's going to go for it. The arms are more depth than anything else. You never know, but neither have much upside.

[Can_of_corn]

I would also assume you don't value these two prospects as highly DD does? A difference in your definitions of prospects?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I don't value them as highly as Dan appears to.

[Hallas]

I mean, it's a very good writeup. In particular this synopsis:

...but the argument I've originally had is that why even tender Matusz a contract? Most of us were clamoring for the O's not to considering the depth they had in the minors for relievers that can, you know, get out both lefties AND righties...and paying Matusz $4m is really unnecessary.

Now we're losing a draft pick (bottom 2nd rounder) and the extra allocated bonus money. Which was totally unnecessary.

You're right. You have the benefit of hindsight there though. Are you going to just non-tender Matusz before ST?

[LC_O's_87]

I don't think the arms were the point of this trade. This was about getting Matusz off the roster and using the rest of his salary to offset some acquisitions later this season. When Duquette smells a chance for his team to compete, he's going to go for it. The arms are more depth than anything else. You never know, but neither have much upside.

Barker instantly has the best numbers (not really that big a deal at AA I know) of any of their starters at AA. That's a group that includes Chris Lee(7), David Hess(13), Parker Bridwell(16) and Jason Garcia(9). MLB.com prospect rankings are in ()

Barker may not be highly rated but he's been successful thus far. I like guys who climb every year, play above their age, and succeed at each level

And his peripherals have improved every year while he's advanced at each level.

It may not have been the main point, but I don't think Barker is a box of rocks as some are suggesting.

[mcgraw238]

I don't think anyone is currently making an argument otherwise.

I hear ya. You and I are on the same page.

[pdiddy]

And for each Zach Britton (since I think it's still fair to grade Mike Wright as "Incomplete"), there are guys like this.

2008 (81st): LJ Hoes

2009 (85th): Tyler Townsend

2010 (85th): Dan Klein

2011 (64th): Jason Esposito

2012 (65th): Branden Kline

Point being, it is a crapshoot. If the O's honestly feel like they've acquired guys with potential Major League futures, I don't think it's an awful deal.

Don't forget 2008 (4). 100% crapshoot.

[Ruzious]

Barker instantly has the best numbers (not really that big a deal at AA I know) of any of their starters at AA. That's a group that includes Chris Lee(7)' date=' David Hess(13), Parker Bridwell(16) and Jason Garcia(9). MLB.com prospect rankings are in ()

Barker may not be highly rated but he's been successful thus far. I like guys who climb every year, play above their age, and succeed at each level

And his peripherals have improved every year while he's advanced at each level.

It may not have been the main point, but I don't think Barker is a box of rocks as some are suggesting.[/quote']

All 3 of the 23 year old pitchers the O's acquired today: Franderlyn Romero, Brendan Barker, and Trevor Belicek - have something going for them - though I wouldn't have given up the picks the O's gave to get them, and I'm guessing most organizations wouldn't have much use for them. But if one or more of them makes the roster at some point and helps the team, maybe Duq knows what he's doing, afterall.

[clapdiddy]

Young, controllable arms are a big commodity. We don't know if any of these guys will amount to anything, but they've apparently shown at least glimpses of talent.

Personally, I would have liked to keep the draft pick. After seeing FliptheBird's list above, though, it may be worth it to have these three young guys as "inventory", as opposed to total crap shoots.

[DrungoHazewood]

Don't forget 2008 (4). 100% crapshoot.

So how would you acquire young talent if you aren't allowed to spend on large-dollar international signings and you've decided draft picks are no good?

[24fps]

Don't forget 2008 (4). 100% crapshoot.

You mean the guy who once beat Stephen Strasburg head-to-head in college ball and was finalist for the Roger Clemens Award?

I think once the dust settles, the frustration with Matusz will fade and only the disappointment will remain. At the time he was a pretty solid choice for the #4 draft pick.

But yeah, snake eyes...

[Number5]

Completely disagree. We were using him less and less last year. I'm not sure I can recall a non-mop up exclusive pitcher that needed teh situation to be as tailor made for him as Matusz had to have it for him to pitch last year. Then the fact that he salary was going to be 4 million' date=' and we were going to have to carry Bundy in the pen, it was a poor move, without hindsight.[/quote']

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/matusbr01.shtml

[johnnyb]

Can someone more knowledgeable than myself say what Matusz did right in 2009 and 2010 that he could no longer do thereafter? It's not like it was a terribly small sample size. I know sometimes pitchers don't pan out or get figured out, but did he lose a pitch or velocity or something? Something mechanical? It's hard not to think that the Orioles messed him up somehow with that talent.

I don't think he ever sulked or complained. He could have. Especially since the Orioles may have developed him poorly like they have others and he was trapped on this team.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnnyb]

So how would you acquire young talent if you aren't allowed to spend on large-dollar international signings and you've decided draft picks are no good?

Rule 5 and waiver wire!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcgraw238]

I remember him saying that he had tried to sign Rowen in the off-season and that he looked forward to having the son of Charlie O'Brien. Pretty much verbatim.

Here are his comments from the Webb trade. They sound pretty similar to me.

?We have good reports on O?Brien,? said executive vice president Dan Duquette. ?He?s an average catcher and he?s got some potential with the bat. He?s also a switch-hitter and he had a really good year with the bat last year, particularly left-handed. And he grew up around the game. His dad (Charlie) was an excellent catcher and receiver. And he went to a good program at Wichita State.

?When given the opportunity last year, he stepped up and had a really good year. He?s continuing to improve. I know he?s a hard working player because he?s improved his skills the last couple of years. He improved at Double-A and he improved his catching skills this year in major league camp with the Dodgers. He has a good approach at the plate, a good background and he?s a hard-working kid who has a chance to help our major league team in the future.

?He?s been around the game a long time. I?m sure he?s had a lot of conversations with his dad on how to get hitters out. His dad was a good one.?

Duquette compared Rowen, who attended Virginia Tech, to Darren O?Day due to their similar deliveries.

Rowen?s last three appearances in the majors came last season against the Orioles at Camden Yards on June 30, July 2 and July 3. He allowed two runs and four hits over 2 2/3 innings, with three walks and one strikeout.

?Rowen had an underhand delivery,? Duquette said. ?It?s a unique release point, and he has a lot of success getting ground balls in the minor leagues. He releases the ball about six inches from the ground. Those ground balls don?t travel over 400 feet.?

The Orioles lose their competitive balance pick, but the Dodgers are picking up the $2.75 million left on Webb?s contract.

?We value the picks,? Duquette said. ?In this case, we think we?re getting some players who could help our major league team quicker than the player we would get out of the draft. And the Dodgers valued it, as well.

?We?re going to have some other picks this year and some other picks next year, and we like the players we got back from the Dodgers. They could help our major league team.?

[weams]

Here are his comments from the Webb trade. They sound pretty similar to me.

Good find. Rep. Obviously, those guys were not good.