TT: DD becomes a buyer at the trading deadline (2017)

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

At the end of the day, three things:

1) We clearly weren't offered the top prospects for Britton that we sought.

2) Yes, it was a mistake to trade any young talent.

3) Peter Angelos has to approve, and any GM he hires will have the same problems Duquette has. Any GM can only do so much in the constraints of Angelos.

 

What was the Nats offer?

[interloper]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

What was the Nats offer?

I'm sure they figured out quickly what was up when no one picked up. So we'll never know. Which, again, comes back to Angelos, not Dan.

[Aglets]

Check out this quote from Roch this morning. 

Do you guys take the underlined portion to mean that Duquette had trade offers for Britton that he was content with but Peter vetoed?  I think that's how I take it.   Shouldn't that lessen our desire to bash Dan?

Quote

The Orioles fielded offers for Britton. They weren’t satisfied with the return, in part because of concerns about the health of a few prospects included in proposed deals. The Astros were one of the teams, according to a source.

I heard that there were at least three trades in the works that fell through. Proposals reached ownership. But in the end, the Orioles added infielder Tim Beckham at the deadline for a short-season Single-A pitcher, Tobias Myers, who has promise but is a long way from contributing at the major league level - if he gets there.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, interloper said:

I'm sure they figured out quickly what was up when no one picked up. So we'll never know. Which, again, comes back to Angelos, not Dan.

I'm more than willing to bash both.

[SteveA]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Not sure how hard they were trying when they had four teams interested and couldn't get a deal done.

My father likes to say things have three prices.

1. I don't want to sell it
2. I'd be willing to sell it
3. I need to sell it.

Britton might have been in the first category, he certainly wasn't in the third category.

And he shouldn't have been in the third category.  We would have been selling low because of the season he has had, with the Injury.

[SteveA]

31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Honest question, how often do August deals contain highly regarded prospects?

And I don't think Brach makes it through waivers.

I think it's clear based on the deals that did take place that Smith or Castillo wouldn't have brought highly regarded prospects in July, so what is your point?

 

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, SteveA said:

And he shouldn't have been in the third category.  We would have been selling low because of the season he has had, with the Injury.

If the commodity is coveted enough, say by four different parties, you can still get a good price even if you need to sell it.

Now if you need to sell it and act like you don't want to sell it, that is when you end up in trouble.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

I think it's clear based on the deals that did take place that Smith or Castillo wouldn't have brought highly regarded prospects in July, so what is your point?

 

Just that August deals are not exciting for fans if you are sellers.

[interloper]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If the commodity is coveted enough, say by four different parties, you can still get a good price even if you need to sell it.

Now if you need to sell it and act like you don't want to sell it, that is when you end up in trouble.

I think it's debatable that we needed to sell Britton at this deadline. 

[SteveA]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

If the commodity is coveted enough, say by four different parties, you can still get a good price even if you need to sell it.

Now if you need to sell it and act like you don't want to sell it, that is when you end up in trouble.

Seeing what Darvish and some of the other deals brought, I am not convinced we could get a good price.  The Indians, Nationals, Dodgers, and Astros all wound up getting bullpen pieces.  All of those pieces were inferior to Britton.  But the prices they paid we're not anywhere near what I would have considered acceptable for Britton.  I don't know where you get certainty that a good deal was to be had.

And yes, it's possible that what spiritof66 said could be true...the fact that we have to run a deal by ownership for approval could have hindered negotiations.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

Seeing what Darvish and some of the other deals brought, I am not convinced we could get a good price.  The Indians, Nationals, Dodgers, and Astros all wound up getting bullpen pieces.  All of those pieces were inferior to Britton.  But the prices they paid we're not anywhere near what I would have considered acceptable for Britton.  I don't know where you get certainty that a good deal was to be had.

And yes, it's possible that what spiritof66 said could be true...the fact that we have to run a deal by ownership for approval could have hindered negotiations.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-dodgers-did-not-steal-yu-darvish/

[Ripken]

17 minutes ago, Aglets said:

Check out this quote from Roch this morning. 

Do you guys take the underlined portion to mean that Duquette had trade offers for Britton that he was content with but Peter vetoed?  I think that's how I take it.   Shouldn't that lessen our desire to bash Dan?

The only thing that's clear... is that we don't know for sure what goes on.  You are right, in that, some bash DD directly.  I, and many others, tend to generalize the frustration to "the organization" in general because I never know who's calling the shots.  Angelos ignored this team for many years and, now that his time is running out, is interfering on some level that clearly is not healthy.  Either way, he's hurt the franchise over his tenure.  I pray his son(s) will be an improvement though I'm not holding my breath.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

I think it's debatable that we needed to sell Britton at this deadline. 

Of course it's debatable.

It will be fun to pick up the thread again next trade deadline.

[interloper]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Of course it's debatable.

It will be fun to pick up the thread again next trade deadline.

The thing about not selling him now for what was offered, is that you're all but guaranteed to not get a better offer next year.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

The thing about not selling him now for what was offered, is that you're all but guaranteed to not get a better offer next year.

And you get the return a year later.

A first round pick in 2018 is worth more than a first round pick in 2019 right?