POLL: Yay or nay on Hellickson trade?

[thezeroes]

14 hours ago, gtman55 said:

Explain to me again why giving away International slots makes sense?

The Baltimore Orioles are not going to use the slotted money on International Players so why would you keep the slotted amount in fold when it can be used to garner a player?

It is not like they are trading actual money, they are just trading the ability for those teams that acquire the slot to spend more Internationally.

[Luke-OH]

4 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

The Baltimore Orioles are not going to use the slotted money on International Players so why would you keep the slotted amount in fold when it can be used to garner a player?

It is not like they are trading actual money, they are just trading the ability for those teams that acquire the slot to spend more Internationally.

It's similar to trading draft picks.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, phillyOs119 said:

It's similar to trading draft picks.

Except the O's mostly use their draft picks (when they keep them).

[Luke-OH]

20 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Except the O's mostly use their draft picks (when they keep them).

Yeah, I was more comparing it to other sports where you can trade any or all of your draft picks.  The point is international slots are just like draft picks because they are a mechanism to acquire amateur talent for less money than that talent would receive in an open market. 

[HokieOs]

This appears to me to be a darts on the wall kinda trade.... Very random. Doesn't really move the needle much for either team. But at least we didn't get fleeced by MacPhail. I was afraid it was going to be Hellickson for Machado, Schoop, and Sisco or something like that (OK not really, but I still assumed we'd get the raw end of the deal and probably give up a legitimate prospect or two).

I guess this slightly bolsters our rotation with yet another.... guy. One more person who might go on a hot streak.... but we're a ways back in the race now. Not completely out of it, but outside of the White Sox and maybe the As, nobody else is either.

[hoosiers]

3 hours ago, HokieOs said:

This appears to me to be a darts on the wall kinda trade.... Very random. Doesn't really move the needle much for either team. But at least we didn't get fleeced by MacPhail. I was afraid it was going to be Hellickson for Machado, Schoop, and Sisco or something like that (OK not really, but I still assumed we'd get the raw end of the deal and probably give up a legitimate prospect or two).

I guess this slightly bolsters our rotation with yet another.... guy. One more person who might go on a hot streak.... but we're a ways back in the race now. Not completely out of it, but outside of the White Sox and maybe the As, nobody else is either.

All AM cares about is that he has more assets heading into 2018 than he did before the trade without taking on new payroll.  That's the kind of hyper-focus on priorities that a good GM makes.

DD likes to make these - well, it's not giving up much, and improves our chances to compete and, hey, we get an innings eater for the rest of a losing season - deals that end up with us passing off Zach Davies or some top 30 prospect to another team. 

Folks here post that we don't use our international slots so why not use them in some manner.  Well, how about taking our 29th best prospect and those slots and getting a better prospect?

I've also seen folks post that maybe Hellickson will have a strong month and be traded in late August, but I would suggest it is just as likely that Kim has a good month to create some trade value himself.  Hellickson could pitch well and get us some $ later, but it's all a gamble that I don't see the purpose of.

 

[Number5]

5 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

All AM cares about is that he has more assets heading into 2018 than he did before the trade without taking on new payroll.  That's the kind of hyper-focus on priorities that a good GM makes.

DD likes to make these - well, it's not giving up much, and improves our chances to compete and, hey, we get an innings eater for the rest of a losing season - deals that end up with us passing off Zach Davies or some top 30 prospect to another team. 

Folks here post that we don't use our international slots so why not use them in some manner.  Well, how about taking our 29th best prospect and those slots and getting a better prospect?

I've also seen folks post that maybe Hellickson will have a strong month and be traded in late August, but I would suggest it is just as likely that Kim has a good month to create some trade value himself.  Hellickson could pitch well and get us some $ later, but it's all a gamble that I don't see the purpose of.

 

Wait.  Do you actually think that a team is going to give up a real prospect for Cleavenger and a little bit of international spending?  I seriously doubt that.  Heck, the hope with that spending slot is to get a guy that can be ranked like Cleavenger in a year or two.  It takes a lot of spending money to get a blue chipper, and I don't think that a massive amount was given up in this trade.  Do you?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Wait.  Do you actually think that a team is going to give up a real prospect for Cleavenger and a little bit of international spending?  I seriously doubt that.  Heck, the hope with that spending slot is to get a guy that can be ranked like Cleavenger in a year or two.  It takes a lot of spending money to get a blue chipper, and I don't think that a massive amount was given up in this trade.  Do you?

I read it was a million.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I read it was a million.

I read that they got roughly a million in international spending slots between what we traded them and what Washington traded them,  I don't know for sure, though. 

I really think some folks are going a bit overboard on the criticism of a pretty ho-hum trade.  I read one comment that said it was horrible.  I don't know, maybe it's just me, but for a trade to be horrible, the team would actually have to be giving something up.  In any case, I find it hard to believe that we could have gotten a good prospect for Cleavenger and that international spending slot.  Would love to see an example of such a trade.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Number5 said:

I read that they got roughly a million in international spending slots between what we traded them and what Washington traded them,  I don't know for sure, though. 

I really think some folks are going a bit overboard on the criticism of a pretty ho-hum trade.  I read one comment that said it was horrible.  I don't know, maybe it's just me, but for a trade to be horrible, the team would actually have to be giving something up.  In any case, I find it hard to believe that we could have gotten a good prospect for Cleavenger and that international spending slot.  Would love to see an example of such a trade.

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all.

I'm hopeful the trade means less innings for Bundy.

[hoosiers]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all.

I'm hopeful the trade means less innings for Bundy.

There are a number of ways to get less IP for Bundy.

[hoosiers]

17 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Wait.  Do you actually think that a team is going to give up a real prospect for Cleavenger and a little bit of international spending?  I seriously doubt that.  Heck, the hope with that spending slot is to get a guy that can be ranked like Cleavenger in a year or two.  It takes a lot of spending money to get a blue chipper, and I don't think that a massive amount was given up in this trade.  Do you?

I don't think I said a team would give up a "real prospect" for Cleavinger.  (the reading comprehension of posters and the way they interpret what others post on this board is for ****).  If you could point to where I posted that, please let me know. 

What I did post was to move Cleavinger and that international slot for a "better prospect" than Cleavinger.  Conceptually, that would make our prospect list heading into 2018 better, right?

I get it - Cleavinger is no big shakes right now.  Parker Bridwell was no big shakes when we dealt him for cash.  We've seen other teams take our "no big shakes" and turn them into top 100 prospects or major league pitchers.  Since our chances of getting to the playoffs is south of 3%, why are we giving up future assets of any kind for anyone - let alone Jeremy Hellickson?

[Number5]

1 minute ago, hoosiers said:

I don't think I said a team would give up a "real prospect" for Cleavinger.  (the reading comprehension of posters and the way they interpret what others post on this board is for ****).  If you could point to where I posted that, please let me know. 

What I did post was to move Cleavinger and that international slot for a "better prospect" than Cleavinger.  Conceptually, that would make our prospect list heading into 2018 better, right?

I get it - Cleavinger is no big shakes right now.  Parker Bridwell was no big shakes when we dealt him for cash.  We've seen other teams take our "no big shakes" and turn them into top 100 prospects or major league pitchers.  Since our chances of getting to the playoffs is south of 3%, why are we giving up future assets of any kind for anyone - let alone Jeremy Hellickson?

Like I said, I think that some folks have gone a bit overboard with the criticism of this trade.  Better prospect, real prospect, whatever semantics you choose, I am skeptical, to say the least, that such a trade was a real possibility.  If you believe that a lot was given up here, there is no chance that we will come to an agreement.  You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Number5 said:

Like I said, I think that some folks have gone a bit overboard with the criticism of this trade.  Better prospect, real prospect, whatever semantics you choose, I am skeptical, to say the least, that such a trade was a real possibility.  If you believe that a lot was given up here, there is no chance that we will come to an agreement.  You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

I think it's possible he could have made a move on a team with a deeper system that would have to deal with a number crunch on the 40 man.  But the odds of that guy turning into anything isn't good either.

[hoosiers]

24 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Like I said, I think that some folks have gone a bit overboard with the criticism of this trade.  Better prospect, real prospect, whatever semantics you choose, I am skeptical, to say the least, that such a trade was a real possibility.  If you believe that a lot was given up here, there is no chance that we will come to an agreement.  You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

It's not semantics, bruh.  It's reading comprehension. 

if you want to call the attention to the board of what I wrote, by posting, "Wait! Did you really post blah blah blah", you should make some basic efforts to understand what I posted.  Because I didn't post that Cleavinger could have netted a real prospect.

Note that I also posted that Clev was "no great shakes", but that doesn't stop you from responding "If you believe that a lot was given up here ...." 

Comical.  It's why I stayed away from here for the better part of the last 8 months.  I guess I could stay away some more.