Deadline Deal Orioles Mega-Thread

[ISU94]

7 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

Sadly most trades kind of end up being meaningless. Even getting two top 50 prospects may have little impact. In 2007, for example, Billy Rowell and Felix Pie were both top 50.  Not trying to be a party pooper, but couldn't help but think about how pie-in-the-sky some trades can be (pun intended in this case).*

 

*and yes, I know the O's didn't trade for Pie in 2007, just noticed that he and Rowell were both ranked top 50 BA in 2007. All that glitters is not gold. 

Meaningless? I don't think so. Obviously not ever prospect works out and I don't think anyone is assuming that. If every prospect did we wouldn't be talking about a player getting 3-4 of them in one deal. But if it's between losing a guy to FA for nothing or getting a few lotto tickets and potentially getting impact players for the future then I'm way more inclined to go that route. For all we know they could all bust and suck. But I'd rather take the chance than get nothing. Not to mention they ALL could work out and it could be a trade that sets our future up for us...kind of like that Bedard deal did back in the day.

[bpilktree]

The one issue with Buehler is the arm issue.  I expect he is close to being shut down so not sure he can go into the rotation.  I still like Oaks for his heavy sinker.  He has amazing ground ball ratio and does not walk anyone.  

[ISU94]

Just now, bpilktree said:

The one issue with Buehler is the arm issue.  I expect he is close to being shut down so not sure he can go into the rotation.  I still like Oaks for his heavy sinker.  He has amazing ground ball ratio and does not walk anyone.  

We aren't going anywhere this year so don't care much at all if Beuhler is almost at an innings limit/gets moved to pen for remainder of season.

[Ohfan67]

9 minutes ago, ISU94 said:

Meaningless? I don't think so. Obviously not ever prospect works out and I don't think anyone is assuming that. If every prospect did we wouldn't be talking about a player getting 3-4 of them in one deal. But if it's between losing a guy to FA for nothing or getting a few lotto tickets and potentially getting impact players for the future then I'm way more inclined to go that route. For all we know they could all bust and suck. But I'd rather take the chance than get nothing. Not to mention they ALL could work out and it could be a trade that sets our future up for us...kind of like that Bedard deal did back in the day.

Many trades are ultimately meaningless. A significant percentage of the players involved in deadline deals do very little for either team. I'm not against deadline trades, but I'm pretty confident that if you examined all the deadline deals from the last 10 years you would find that a sizable percentage of them didn't do diddly for either team. Maybe even half of them (or more...probably more). And another chunk did just a little. Not saying that teams shouldn't make them, but I am saying that fans shouldn't hold their breath that the future of the O's will be remarkably better even if they score a couple of top 50 players. I think the O's should deal Britton, Castilla (if anyone needs a catcher enough to give up something half decent), and maybe others, but my expectations of what the returning players will actually deliver are pretty low. 

 

p.s. I actually think DD is better than the average GM at finding useful players ("nuggets") that are not highly ranked and highly coveted by other teams, so DD might actually do a better job of selling than some fear.

[Lucky_13]

6 minutes ago, ISU94 said:

We aren't going anywhere this year so don't care much at all if Beuhler is almost at an innings limit/gets moved to pen for remainder of season.

Exactly. These trades are for next year. If we somehow trade for these guys and they catch fire to put us in contention then you trade for a veteran in August if Buehler needs to be shutdown. 

[ISU94]

1 minute ago, Ohfan67 said:

Many trades are ultimately meaningless. A significant percentage of the players involved in deadline deals do very little for either team. I'm not against deadline trades, but I'm pretty confident that if you examined all the deadline deals from the last 10 years you would find that a sizable percentage of them didn't do diddly for either team. Maybe even half of them (or more...probably more). And another chunk did just a little. Not saying that teams shouldn't make them, but I am saying that fans shouldn't hold their breath that the future of the O's will be remarkably better even if they score a couple of top 50 players. I think the O's should deal Britton, Castilla (if anyone needs a catcher enough to give up something half decent), and maybe others, but my expectations of what the returning players will actually deliver are pretty low. 

I disagree. Maybe deals like Zach Davies who is at best a #5 starter for a guy like Gerrardo Parra, but not a deal in which a high end piece is involved. If we're talking the deals for a guy like Castillo, Seth Smith, etc. who are just role players at best then okay, I'd agree. But considering we're talking about a Zach Britton deal, that would not be meaningless at all. For one side, they are likely getting a dominant 1-2 punch and possibly the best 1-2 punch ever in Britton/Jansen and we are likely getting 1-2 pieces that are in AA/AAA and excelling while being major league ready along with 1-2 pieces with upside that are several years off that could flame out or be a key piece to our rebuild.

[Ohfan67]

Just now, ISU94 said:

I disagree. Maybe deals like Zach Davies who is at best a #5 starter for a guy like Gerrardo Parra, but not a deal in which a high end piece is involved. If we're talking the deals for a guy like Castillo, Seth Smith, etc. who are just role players at best then okay, I'd agree. But considering we're talking about a Zach Britton deal, that would not be meaningless at all. For one side, they are likely getting a dominant 1-2 punch and possibly the best 1-2 punch ever in Britton/Jansen and we are likely getting 1-2 pieces that are in AA/AAA and excelling while being major league ready along with 1-2 pieces with upside that are several years off that could flame out or be a key piece to our rebuild.

It would be fun to look at the data to really test my hypothesis. I found a few studies that kind of sought to address this question with things like Trade WARP (TWARP), but reading the articles gave me a light headache. I like statistics, but the articles were just very poorly written and didn't really explain the concept well. I will have to dig into it at some other time, but mainly a poster knows more about this already? 

 

I don't think your reply really addresses the question. Of course trades are great if the prospects you get back turn into valuable ML players. But unfortunately many of them don't. Likewise even very good players that go to other teams, especially as rentals, sometimes don't perform great after the trade. Or they perform well and some other part of the team performs poorly and the end result is no different than if the trade wasn't made. Again, I'm not discouraging the Orioles from trading, but I have seen enough of these deadline deals to know that most are just shrugs in a few years. Of course the Orioles should roll the dice because you can't win if you don't play, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath that the future of the organization will be dramatically changed because of the acquisition of a couple of prospects. Might happen. Might. But probably not. 

[ISU94]

1 minute ago, Ohfan67 said:

It would be fun to look at the data to really test my hypothesis. I found a few studies that kind of sought to address this question with things like Trade WARP (TWARP), but reading the articles gave me a light headache. I like statistics, but the articles were just very poorly written and didn't really explain the concept well. I will have to dig into it at some other time, but mainly a poster knows more about this already? 

 

I don't think your reply really addresses the question. Of course trades are great if the prospects you get back turn into valuable ML players. But unfortunately many of them don't. Likewise even very good players that go to other teams, especially as rentals, sometimes don't perform great after the trade. Or they perform well and some other part of the team performs poorly and the end result is no different than if the trade wasn't made. Again, I'm not discouraging the Orioles from trading, but I have seen enough of these deadline deals to know that most are just shrugs in a few years. Of course the Orioles should roll the dice because you can't win if you don't play, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath that the future of the organization will be dramatically changed because of the acquisition of a couple of prospects. Might happen. Might. But probably not. 

Considering how many small deals there are, of course the statistics would point that way. When you add in the fact that not all prospects work out, of course the numbers are going to be heavy one way. These large deals where someone sends an impact piece while the other team sends 2-3 very highly viewed prospects, 1-2 of which are close, are more likely to make an impact though. Much more likely.

[crawjo]

If somebody won't pony up for Britton at close to what he would have gotten before the season started, then I think we should wait for the offseason to try and work a trade. Maybe we move Brach instead, in that case. 

[Ohfan67]

6 minutes ago, ISU94 said:

Considering how many small deals there are, of course the statistics would point that way. When you add in the fact that not all prospects work out, of course the numbers are going to be heavy one way. These large deals where someone sends an impact piece while the other team sends 2-3 very highly viewed prospects, 1-2 of which are close, are more likely to make an impact though. Much more likely.

I hear you. So, if we agreed on a definition of "small deals" and excluded them then you would agree that we could test the hypothesis that most deals are pretty meaningless? I'm too lazy to actually do this, so just "pondering".

[ISU94]

Just now, Ohfan67 said:

I hear you. So, if we agreed on a definition of "small deals" and excluded them then you would agree that we could test the hypothesis that most deals are pretty meaningless? I'm too lazy to actually do this, so just "pondering".

Whatever you want to do man. All I'm saying is when we are dealing a stud piece I like our chances of getting at least one player that can help long term whether elite or just a solid everyday guy/bullpen arm. We aren't competing so keeping a soon to be FA makes no sense. If the prospects dont work out they dont work out, but considering the Yankees just dealt two last year and already have one impact hitter from the looks of it in Frazier and a top 5 prospect who looks like an elite bat in Gleyber I'd say we should have a solid shot. Not to mention they also got Sheffield who looks like he could help later this year or next season as a #3 starter.

[Ohfan67]

Just now, ISU94 said:

Whatever you want to do man. All I'm saying is when we are dealing a stud piece I like our chances of getting at least one player that can help long term whether elite or just a solid everyday guy/bullpen arm. We aren't competing so keeping a soon to be FA makes no sense. If the prospects dont work out they dont work out, but considering the Yankees just dealt two last year and already have one impact hitter from the looks of it in Frazier and a top 5 prospect who looks like an elite bat in Gleyber I'd say we should have a solid shot. Not to mention they also got Sheffield who looks like he could help later this year or next season as a #3 starter.

I totally agree that the Orioles have to make the deals. I think you are looking at the glass half full and I am looking at the glass half empty. I think you are only looking at the successful trades. But maybe I am just remembering all the worthless trades of the past.

[ISU94]

Just now, Ohfan67 said:

I totally agree that the Orioles have to make the deals. I think you are looking at the glass half full and I am looking at the glass half empty. I think you are only looking at the successful trades. But maybe I am just remembering all the worthless trades of the past.

No, I'm just pointing out two deals that involved elite RP's from just last year and how the league has changed to favor elite bullpens and how badly teams want to replicate it. If you can get someone like Chapman, Miller, Britton, Jansen, etc. then there is going to be a couple guys like I just mentioned likely involved.

[Ohfan67]

3 minutes ago, ISU94 said:

No, I'm just pointing out two deals that involved elite RP's from just last year and how the league has changed to favor elite bullpens and how badly teams want to replicate it. If you can get someone like Chapman, Miller, Britton, Jansen, etc. then there is going to be a couple guys like I just mentioned likely involved.

Love your optimism. Hope you are totally correct. 

[DirtyBird]