Tell me again why we didn't claim Verlander

[Tx Oriole]

1 hour ago, bird watcher said:

Claim him. Make a palatable offer to the tigers. If they say no, they can keep him. We would have held all the leverage. They had their chance to trade him without losing the leverage before the Aug deadline.  The only reason is if the O's were unwilling to pay his salary which is a much bigger/deeper issue that will haunt them. 

He had a no trade clause. 

[bird watcher]

2 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

He had a no trade clause. 

We were in the playoff hunt and would have given him a chance at the playoffs.  If he declines then so be it. 

[Tryptamine]

5 hours ago, wildcard said:

Did you want to give up Hays for 34 year old Verlander?   The Astros gave up 1st rounder Daz Cameron(20), son of former MLB AllStar Mike Cameron.  And they are paying 20m a year for Verlander.

Or maybe they would have taken Hunter Harvey.

Daz wasn't even the best prospect they gave up. They also gave up 19 year old Franklin Perez who put up a 3.09ERA in AA. Baseball America listed him as the midseason #32 prospect in baseball.

[weams]

36 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Daz wasn't even the best prospect they gave up. They also gave up 19 year old Franklin Perez who put up a 3.09ERA in AA. Baseball America listed him as the midseason #32 prospect in baseball.

I agree. It would have taken a bit. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, bird watcher said:

We were in the playoff hunt and would have given him a chance at the playoffs.  If he declines then so be it. 

We were?

I thought we were all screaming that we had to trade Britton.

I didn't think we "got back into the playoff hunt" until the hot streak after the deadline.

 

[OFFNY]

2 hours ago, bird watcher said:

 

We were in the playoff hunt, and it would have given him a chance at the playoffs. If he declines, then so be it. 

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

We were ???

I thought we were all screaming that we had to trade Britton.

I didn't think we "Got back into the playoff hunt" until the hot streak, which occurred long after the July 31st deadline.

 

o

 

Here is a thread regarding that sentiment ........ started 3 days after the July 31st trade deadline, and 3 full weeks before the Orioles went on a 10-3, 13-game run which got them back into the Wildcard playoff hunt in late August and early September.

 

 

 

o

[bird watcher]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

We were?

I thought we were all screaming that we had to trade Britton.

I didn't think we "got back into the playoff hunt" until the hot streak after the deadline.

 

I would have been less in favor of claiming Verlander if we had decided to trade Britton, possibly Manny and other assets to do a major retooling.  We didn't do that.  The O's brass decided we had a shot and even added Hellickson and Beckham.  If this offseason there is a major retooling and all of those players are traded and we shed payroll looking forward to 2019/2020 then not claiming Verlander will also make more sense.  I don't see them doing that though,

[Beef Supreme]

3 hours ago, bird watcher said:

We were in the playoff hunt and would have given him a chance at the playoffs.  If he declines then so be it. 

You are correct. On the day Verlander was traded, the Orioles record was 68-65, coming off their "hot streak" of seven consecutive wins. Indeed, they had a legitimate shot of making the playoffs.

Verlander wanted to be traded to L.A. If not, then Chicago. He didn't want to go to Houston, but avquiesced in the 11th hour. Nobody can say, for sure, that Verlander would never have agreed for a trade to the Orioles if the team had agreed make concessions, such as agreeing to void the 2020 option year of his contract, as the Astros did.

If Detroit brass would hold a grudge over a waiver claim, well, they never would have made it to their positions to begin with. The onus was on them to trade Verlander by July 31. Then, they would have avoided any problem with the waiver process. They knew the risks.

As for Houston, who cares if they were unhappy about an Orioles claim on Verlander. If you believe teams hold grudges that prohibit them from doing business, then certainly Houston will not work with the Orioles for years into the foreseeable future because they failed to obtain Britton, as they had desired. Either the grudge was already  in place (sounds like it is to me) or it is imaginary. A Verlander claim wouldn't have changed a single thing in the relations between the two teams.

Meanwhile, the Orioles could be sitting 2-0 over the Astros if they had acquired Verlander. Like saying Verlander would never have allowed himself to be traded to Baltimore, it's unprovable conjecture, to be sure. But the Orioles desperately needed Verlander this past August. They desperately need someone like him for      the next two seasons, also. The Orioles' rotation would also be looking a lot more stable entering 2018 and 2019.

One last thing: Alex Rios. Toronto was happy to let Chicago pay the remainder of his contract. None of us can say for certain that, prior to the trade, Detroit would never have considered letting another team take on the entirety of Verlander's salary. It may seem unlikely, but is is unknown. Remember, Detroit agreed to pay $16MM of Verlander's next two season's salaries (and probably part of this year's salary, as well). If the Orioles had claimed him on August 3rd, the Tigers may have been happy enough to save the money and move on. 

 

[mdbdotcom]

48 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

You are correct. On the day Verlander was traded, the Orioles record was 68-65, coming off their "hot streak" of seven consecutive wins. Indeed, they had a legitimate shot of making the playoffs.

Verlander wanted to be traded to L.A. If not, then Chicago. He didn't want to go to Houston, but avquiesced in the 11th hour. Nobody can say, for sure, that Verlander would never have agreed for a trade to the Orioles if the team had agreed make concessions, such as agreeing to void the 2020 option year of his contract, as the Astros did.

If Detroit brass would hold a grudge over a waiver claim, well, they never would have made it to their positions to begin with. The onus was on them to trade Verlander by July 31. Then, they would have avoided any problem with the waiver process. They knew the risks.

As for Houston, who cares if they were unhappy about an Orioles claim on Verlander. If you believe teams hold grudges that prohibit them from doing business, then certainly Houston will not work with the Orioles for years into the foreseeable future because they failed to obtain Britton, as they had desired. Either the grudge was already  in place (sounds like it is to me) or it is imaginary. A Verlander claim wouldn't have changed a single thing in the relations between the two teams.

Meanwhile, the Orioles could be sitting 2-0 over the Astros if they had acquired Verlander. Like saying Verlander would never have allowed himself to be traded to Baltimore, it's unprovable conjecture, to be sure. But the Orioles desperately needed Verlander this past August. They desperately need someone like him for      the next two seasons, also. The Orioles' rotation would also be looking a lot more stable entering 2018 and 2019.

One last thing: Alex Rios. Toronto was happy to let Chicago pay the remainder of his contract. None of us can say for certain that, prior to the trade, Detroit would never have considered letting another team take on the entirety of Verlander's salary. It may seem unlikely, but is is unknown. Remember, Detroit agreed to pay $16MM of Verlander's next two season's salaries (and probably part of this year's salary, as well). If the Orioles had claimed him on August 3rd, the Tigers may have been happy enough to save the money and move on. 

 

Verlander had cleared waivers a month earlier. He didn't have to clear again. There was no claim to be made on the day he was traded. Anyone could have traded for him.

[bird watcher]

10 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Verlander had cleared waivers a month earlier. He didn't have to clear again. There was no claim to be made on the day he was traded. Anyone could have traded for him.

This is true but it doesn't discount the rest of what Beef Supreme had to say. 

Water under the bridge but I say a missed opportunity that will hurt us next year if we do try to go all in in 2018 like we are hearing they plan to do. 

[bird watcher]

I'll also add that I can't imagine how hard the yankees are banging their heads for bot claiming him. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, bird watcher said:

I'll also add that I can't imagine how hard the yankees are banging their heads for bot claiming him. 

They are on track to get out from under the luxury tax before the huge free agent class of 2019.

Acquiring Verlander would have made that much more difficult.

 

[bird watcher]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

They are on track to get out from under the luxury tax before the huge free agent class of 2019.

Acquiring Verlander would have made that much more difficult.

 

Good point. I still have to wonder if they feel like it would have been worth it for a World series appearance. 

[24fps]

1 hour ago, bird watcher said:

Good point. I still have to wonder if they feel like it would have been worth it for a World series appearance. 

This is from an ESPN story dated April 24, 2017.  It explains how the luxury tax works under the new CBA and paints a pretty clear picture why Coc's point is compelling.

Quote

 

"The new CBA has had no influence on my belief that you don't need a 200-plus million dollar payroll to win championships," Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner said in an email to the AP.

The tax threshold increased from $189 million to $195 million under the new labor contract, and rates were simplified to three levels: 20 percent for first-time payers, 30 percent for those owing for a second straight season and 50 percent for clubs paying three times in a row or more.

A pair of surtaxes were added to discourage high rollers: 12 percent on the amount from $215 million to $235 million this year and a 42.5 percent and 45 percent above that, depending on how many consecutive years a team is paying.

Another change calls for a team more than $40 million above next year's tax threshold of $197 million to have its top draft pick moved back 10 places — with an exception that if a club has a pick among the top six, that would be protected and its second pick would be moved back 10 slots.

The Yankees appear to be trying to get below the threshold in 2018 to reset their tax rate in anticipation of that fall's free-agent class.

 

Take particular note of Hal Steinbrenner's quote.  Remember the Yankees still haven't been eliminated from this year's WS, making the acquisition of Verlander moot for the moment.  They have a solid, mostly young team and it looks like an eye on the future.  An intellegently run Yankees' franchise should have every Orioles fan concerned.

[Luke-OH]

Any team that was willing to take on the entire salary should have claimed him the first time when he was put through revocable waivers.  Whether or not they wanted to give up anything to acquire him.  Period.  I assume the Orioles were not willing to take on the salary.

I doubt the Tigers would have been able to extract the same ransom if they were limited to negotiating with only one team and their only choice was to trade with that team or not trade Verlander at all.