Should we do a qualifying offer to Trumbo and Wieters?

[Aristotelian]

What incentive to decline?

If he gets a QO, I think he says woo hoo I just completed a 2 yr, 34 million dollar deas

he gets to play for Buck, and he can sign a 3/24 type deal for 2018-2021

QO would backfire again. Team needs to get younger cost controlled players and catcher is one position they could certainly do it

His incentive would be a last shot at a long term deal.

If we got him back for $17M that would be $3M less than Russell Martin money, without any future obligation. I'd rather spend that money elsewhere, but it would fill a need without totally breaking the bank.

I don't get your point about getting younger. A one year deal does not affect our long term picture at the position, while giving us some assurance of productivity while experimenting with Sisco. If Wieters declines, then we likely get a draft pick.

[24fps]

His incentive would be a last shot at a long term deal.

If we got him back for $17M that would be $3M less than Russell Martin money, without any future obligation. I'd rather spend that money elsewhere, but it would fill a need without totally breaking the bank.

I don't get your point about getting younger. A one year deal does not affect our long term picture at the position, while giving us some assurance of productivity while experimenting with Sisco. If Wieters declines, then we likely get a draft pick.

I think $17 million for Wieters totally breaks the bank. And then some.

[sportsfan8703]

I think we're all kind of missing the obvious answer here. Not to be negative, but I just don't think that DD values the comp rd. picks as much as other GM's do. I'm sure he knows the value and would love having them, but he's had to sacrifice them with THIS organization to try and win. This is the same GM that's had to attach to 1st rd comp picks the last two seasons in order to trade Webb and Matusz. Plus we got burned with MW taking it last year.

I think there's little chance we give MW a QO. An extension maybe, but Boras makes him test the market first.

[Can_of_corn]

I think we're all kind of missing the obvious answer here. Not to be negative, but I just don't think that DD values the comp rd. picks as much as other GM's do. I'm sure he knows the value and would love having them, but he's had to sacrifice them with THIS organization to try and win. This is the same GM that's had to attach to 1st rd comp picks the last two seasons in order to trade Webb and Matusz. Plus we got burned with MW taking it last year.

I think there's little chance we give MW a QO. An extension maybe, but Boras makes him test the market first.

I would not be shocked to learn that part of the reason picks are dealt are so those funds can be used toward the MLB roster.

And they were second round comp picks. He traded the first round comp pick in the Norris deal.

[oriolediehard]

I say YES!!, we need to get as many prospects as we can. I don't think Weiters will accept the QO because there is a demand for catchers and I don't think Trumbo will either because he can get a longer deal elsewhere because of his age that now may be his only chance. We desperately need to build our farm system and stop trading away prospects to get old over the hill fringe players. Our farm system is our Achilles heel.

[srock]

Yes and yes. Both are worth paying $17 million for 1 year. No long term contract is a huge plus.

And you have to those picks. Both are unlikely to accept.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[srock]

I am going to say yes to the QO for Wieters. I was for it last year (and admittedly surprised that he took it). This year he has even more incentive to decline and pursue a multi

What incentive to decline?

If he gets a QO, I think he says woo hoo I just completed a 2 yr, 34 million dollar deas

he gets to play for Buck, and he can sign a 3/24 type deal for 2018-2021

QO would backfire again. Team needs to get younger cost controlled players and catcher is one position they could certainly do it

Incentive to decline? Best year for Wieters to get a multi year deal. This may not present itself again.

He is more likely to access then Trumbo but still unlikely.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PaulFolk]

I don't think there is, but I was just asking can we instead of will we?

Technically, you can offer a QO to as many of your free agents as you want (as long as they weren't acquired midseason). There's no limit. But there are only two worth discussing in the Orioles' case -- all the others are an obvious no.

[MDtransplant757]

Technically, you can offer a QO to as many of your free agents as you want (as long as they weren't acquired midseason). There's no limit. But there are only two worth discussing in the Orioles' case -- all the others are an obvious no.

Makes sense. Why the hell we would want Pedro or Tommy Hunter back at that price is beyond me.

[MDtransplant757]

[video=youtube;1W7c8QghPxk]

My answer to if we QO them or not.

[24fps]

I am going to say yes to the QO for Wieters. I was for it last year (and admittedly surprised that he took it). This year he has even more incentive to decline and pursue a multi

What incentive to decline?

If he gets a QO, I think he says woo hoo I just completed a 2 yr, 34 million dollar deas

he gets to play for Buck, and he can sign a 3/24 type deal for 2018-2021

QO would backfire again. Team needs to get younger cost controlled players and catcher is one position they could certainly do it

Sorry, wrong narrative. The pick man. THE PICK! Nothing else matters, even if historically in the 30's, they're pretty much worthless for at least two years. Four or five years down the road there's about a one in five chance that a mid-30's pick might not embarrass themselves at the ML level, but gosh darn it, the team needs to get younger! And really who cares if a team is successful if it isn't young? There's something unclean about the notion that an old team - or even a semi-old team - can have success. Doesn't look good on TV and is hard to defend on internet chat boards. Two strikes right there. So maybe I don't fully agree with you on that point, but I do partially.

But your point about a 2/34 deal for Wieters? That's retail plus. Who but a seriously, perhaps terminally, clueless GM would ever want to walk around with that tag on him? Hard to argue with you there. Kinda like getting run over by a bus in broad daylight and arguing that you didn't see it coming.

[Redskins Rick]

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2016/10/orioles-still-deciding-on-qualifying-offer-for-wieters.html

According to Roch, the team is going to do a QO to Trumbo, and MW is undecided, but probably not.

[MDtransplant757]

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2016/10/orioles-still-deciding-on-qualifying-offer-for-wieters.html

According to Roch, the team is going to do a QO to Trumbo, and MW is undecided, but probably not.

We would get a nice pick for Wieters, I think.

[Redskins Rick]

I hope we can re-sign Matt and avoid that scenario. He and

Trumbo would be huge losses. I want to see both back.

I agree.

Like Roch said, Sisco only 4 games above the AA level and maybe "force-feeding' isn't idea.

[Aristotelian]

But your point about a 2/34 deal for Wieters? That's retail plus. Who but a seriously, perhaps terminally, clueless GM would ever want to walk around with that tag on him? Hard to argue with you there. Kinda like getting run over by a bus in broad daylight and arguing that you didn't see it coming.

He was close to worth it last year at 1.7 WAR. Wieters actually outproduced McCann this year. You are getting close to McCann/Russel Martin production at similar dollars but with no commitment to a long term deal. I would rather have the pick, but I would not be embarrassed at all about making that deal.