Sell high on Wieters?

[Redskins Rick]

No chance the O's do that during the season, but next offseason... it wouldn't shock me. See what the Mets, Dodgers, and even Rangers offer. Don't rule out AL West and Central teams. They can at least bid the price up.

How many position players in the MLB are better than Manny?

Trout for one, and the way Harper is playing, not even Harper.

You dont trade this type of impact player, no, no, no. IMO

[LookinUp]

But then the Mets would never make that deal. Why would they trade a pitcher with years of control and high upside who is showing healthy for a 1/2 year rental of a catcher?

This is probably a moot point, but the reason the Mets are probably the only team willing to make such a trade is because:

1. They need a catcher.

2. They have that high upside pitcher who they don't need in their rotation.

3. They have a pretty substantial chance to win it all this year, and Wieters is exactly the type of guy that might help them.

The point remains that DD/Buck are extremely unlikely to do this. Also, if Wheeler really has elbow discomfort, you can't entertain this unless it's a totally different trade.

I agree with those who say we'd raid the farm system before making this trade. I'd just rather not raid the farm system, gain payroll flexibility and get that SP all at the same time. Yes, we'd take a hit at our production from catcher, but I think it'd would be worth it. However, I acknowledge this has been a case of useless internet jabber because it simply won't happen.

[sfosfan]

If I'm trading from the major league roster I think Wieters would be the first on my list. Not saying I don't think he is a good player to have, I do. But no one else (that's worth anything) should be going anywhere. Though if you're trading Wieters then it's to a contender and what contender would be willing to part with a starting pitcher that would be upgrade?

Yep, that's the problem. You could trade Wieters for some good starters, but they won't be starters at the mlb level. If we were in last place an looking to rebuild, then Trade Matty for some future studs. But not when you're in first place.

[Prayin4Reign]

I'd still be OK with him accepting one.

Now 2018 might be a different story.

Scott Boras won't be. Last year he had to accept that QO. 2017 will be an entirely different issue.

[24fps]

I get the impression that you don't like Matt Wieters.

When he is not hitting, you ponder whether or not he will OPS .700 for the season.

When he is hitting, you want to trade him.

There is nothing worse in baseball than missing an opportunity to trade a player at his maximum value. Nothing. Really, it's the whole point.

Unfortunately I won't be alive for the 50th anniversary remembrance of selling high on Matt Wieters. I'm sure OPACY will be packed.

[OFFNY]

I get the impression that you don't like Matt Wieters.

When he is not hitting, you ponder whether or not he will OPS .700 for the season.

When he is hitting, you want to trade him.

There is nothing worse in baseball than missing an opportunity to trade a player at his maximum value. Nothing. Really, it's the whole point.

Unfortunately I won't be alive for the 50th anniversary remembrance of selling high on Matt Wieters. I'm sure OPACY will be packed.

I think that blowing a World Series with 2 outs, a 2-run lead, and nobody on base in the 9th inning is worse.

More significantly, that's not the feel that I got from the OP, considering his other thread in regard to Wieters, along with some of his other not-so-uplifting threads.

[FanSince88]

I get the impression that you don't like Matt Wieters.

When he is not hitting, you ponder whether or not he will OPS .700 for the season.

When he is hitting, you want to trade him.

I'm thrilled that Wieters has outperformed my expectations for him this year. He's really bounced back after struggling mightily to open the year. If we weren't desperate for starting pitching, and razor thin in our minor league talent, I would never be proposing a trade. I doubt it will happen like many others in this thread, but I was just trying to kick around an idea that was a bit off the beaten path for how to augment our starting pitching which is by this team's biggest liability.

So next time, I would appreciate if you didn't make assumptions about how I feel about a particular player, simply because I'm worried about what an early slump might signify or proposing a trade involving him that brings back a return addressing a gaping hole in the organization.

I get the impression that YOU simply don't like ME.

[El Gordo]

There is nothing worse in baseball than missing an opportunity to trade a player at his maximum value. Nothing. Really, it's the whole point.

Unfortunately I won't be alive for the 50th anniversary remembrance of selling high on Matt Wieters. I'm sure OPACY will be packed.

I can think of many things worse. 14 years of losing for starters.

[bluedog]

That's sort of my point. Matts a rental for someone acquiring him, so it would naturally be a contender. What contender is looking to give up a number two or three starter? They'd much rather deal from the minors in that situation, one would think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. To make a deal like this work, you'd need to find a playoff team that literally goes 5 or 6 deep with quality starters so that trading one wouldn't negatively impact their rotation down the stretch. I don't think there is such a team.

Even if there was, they probably hang on to their pitching depth just in case of injury, unless they can trade for a player who is more impactful than Wieters would be for all the reasons the OP mentioned in his initial post.

[Can_of_corn]

I can't really blame him at this point. I won't be excited about if the upgrades are marginal, but this team does have a chance to do it all based on what I see if everyone stays healthy. I'd probably go for it too if it looks like this in a month.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To me it is unconscionable to leave the franchise in the state it looks like he will be leaving it in.

Winning is great but more should have been done to prepare for the future.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

[Natty]

Well after Wieters just hit 2 homers yesterday, I say we keep him. The problem with getting a quality starter is Ubaldo, for 13 million per year look what we got.

[Can_of_corn]

I think they are mutually exclusive at this point. If you have a plan for going for it at this point and preparing for the future, I'd love to hear it. I understand that your point is that he has made repetitive moves to put us in this situation and I can't really disagree, but it is "in for a penny, in for a pound" time at this point IMO.

Plus, I don't really think the MiL situation is as dire as it seems. We keep sucking down there yet we keep bringing up good pieces every season. Maybe the well will run dry though.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

First thing you can do is not trade value for non-value.

How could Dan not see the trap what was Parra last year?

Could he have been a better candidate for regression?

It was painfully obvious that Parra was not going to turn last year's team into a playoff team.

Yet Dan, desperate Dan, gave up a ML ready piece to land him.

Davies isn't an impact guy but you need players like him to make it work.

If Dan somehow manages to trade for a dial mover I won't object, I didn't object to the Miller deal.

But trading future value for a fraction of a percentage point is negligent.

[Can_of_corn]

While I think we are on the same side of the fence, I don't agree with your rhetoric.

I think you assigning a bit too much meaning to my word choice. I don't think it means exactly what you think it means.

If I'm wrong, sorry for doubting you.

[SteveA]

To me it is unconscionable to leave the franchise in the state it looks like he will be leaving it in.

Winning is great but more should have been done to prepare for the future.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

What was our farm system rated in, say, 2009-2011?

Given what it was rated then, did it appear that we would be likely to win the most games in the AL over the next five years and make 2 or 3 playoff appearances in that span and be one of only 4 or 5 teams not to have a losing record once in that span?

I'm asking because, first of all, the level of consistent play the Orioles have had over the past five years is better than anything we have experienced here in 32 years. And secondly, because I don't believe we ever had a top 5 in MLB farm system going into that period, yet we clearly are one of the top five teams in MLB these past five seasons.

So assuming the future is bleak because the farm system is rated very poor seems to be a leap. Obviously there is a correlation between farm system strength and subsequent performance, but I wonder if it is as strong and clear-cut as you seem to be assuming.

I'm not saying that I like the Parra trade, or that I don't wish we were better at developing our own talent and more active in the international market. The criticisms of our organization in these areas and the decisions thst have been made are absolutely valid. But I do think there is a serious lack of appreciation as to how good we have it now, and after five years you can no longer consider it lightning in a bottle. It's been sustained and it is not something anyone would have predicted based on the talent level of our farm system in the years building up to it.

And that causes me to give thanks for what the Duquette/Show alter regime has accomplished, as well as gives me hope that the predicted 2018+ downturn might not be the descent into the Dark Ages that everyone is assuming. There is a correlation between farm system strength and subsequent performance but it isnt carved in stone tablet, it can be overcome and this team is proof.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

What was our farm system rated in, say, 2009-2011?

Baseball America rankings.

2009-9th

2010-8th

2011-21th

The 2011 farm system still had Machado and Britton in it so not sure why it was as low as 21st even with the lack of depth.