Olney and Ravech: O's are hemorrhaging Machado's trade value

[nadecir]

28 minutes ago, 24fps said:

When Manny had two years of team control left the team that controlled him had just gone 89-73 with a wildcard appearance.  At the time it was justifiable to assume the team was going to be competitive the next year which indeed it was until the second week of September.  Putting a competitive team on the field every year ought to be default mission statement for any team, just ask their fan base - their primary fanbase, not the minority who spend too much time on message boards and/or playing fantasy baseball.  Calling out a team for abandoning that goal to pursue some abstract theory concocted in a vacuum is simply unreasonable. 

I have a hard time begrudging the O's taking one final, best shot last season.  This season is a much, much different story.  

@24fps has it right from a mission standpoint.  A competitive team should be the goal of a MLB front office.  However, a smart front office knows when the odds of competing in a season are very low, and make the appropriate moves with that stark realization in mind.

The Orioles front office should have seen this offseason that the Orioles had little chance of competing in the AL East this season.    When you are counting on 3 rule V picks and some non-roster invitees to make significant contribution on your opening day roster, it's obvious you are not in a position to compete.  An MLB front office is paid to evaluate their own team with objective eyes, and the Orioles should have known the team's roster did not compare to the Yankees or Red Sox, or even compare to most of the other teams in the American League. 

Knowing that the Orioles couldn't compete this season, the Orioles should have traded Manny Machado for the best offer in the offseason when he had a compensation draft pick attached along with his full value to the acquiring team for the entire year.  The Orioles should not have given multi-year contracts to free agent pitchers, both over 30, and given up a draft pick too.  And handing a division rival a compensation pick to boot with one of signings to boot.

Having a lousy team is bad enough, but the only way to make it  even worse is making making harmful organizational moves for the long term at the same time in a woefully futile attempt at "going for it".  At least tanking teams that admit it give their fans hope for the long run that there is a plan in place to make the team better.  

[sevastras]

And they are playing worse than the tanking teams with less talent.  That is what is really hard about this season.  I am glad they are so bad, so maybe they can blow it up and do it right, but I dont think they will in the end.  

Machado, Jones, Britton, Brach all must be traded by the deadline, bonus if we can get something for Rasmus and Valencia.  

Schoop, ODay and Cashner have until this time next year to establish some value to be traded, if they finish the year strong, trade in the off season.

I would consider this year a success if we were to trade all 4 of the first guys and get a top 3 draft pick for next year.  I just dont trust them to get it done.  At the very least you HAVE to get rid of Machado, Britton and Brach.  You cant screw that up, everyone one else you could MAYBE hope to do something after the nonwaiver trade deadline if you cant handle more negotiations than 3 in the next 36 days.

[24fps]

8 hours ago, nadecir said:

@24fps has it right from a mission standpoint.  A competitive team should be the goal of a MLB front office.  However, a smart front office knows when the odds of competing in a season are very low, and make the appropriate moves with that stark realization in mind.

The Orioles front office should have seen this offseason that the Orioles had little chance of competing in the AL East this season.    When you are counting on 3 rule V picks and some non-roster invitees to make significant contribution on your opening day roster, it's obvious you are not in a position to compete.  An MLB front office is paid to evaluate their own team with objective eyes, and the Orioles should have known the team's roster did not compare to the Yankees or Red Sox, or even compare to most of the other teams in the American League.

Knowing that the Orioles couldn't compete this season, the Orioles should have traded Manny Machado for the best offer in the offseason when he had a compensation draft pick attached along with his full value to the acquiring team for the entire year.  The Orioles should not have given multi-year contracts to free agent pitchers, both over 30, and given up a draft pick too.  And handing a division rival a compensation pick to boot with one of signings to boot.

Having a lousy team is bad enough, but the only way to make it  even worse is making making harmful organizational moves for the long term at the same time in a woefully futile attempt at "going for it".  At least tanking teams that admit it give their fans hope for the long run that there is a plan in place to make the team better.  

Any front office should be accountable for a baseline competency which doesn't include owning an accurate crystal ball.  The Orioles tied or outplayed their pythagorean five of six seasons from 2012-2017.  They routinely outplayed the "expert" consensus during that time and usually by a significant margin.  What takes place between the lines matters and is unpredictible except in a general way.   A MLB front office is paid to evaluate their team objectively and fit that information into some very specific business goals, not solely on its own.  

That being said I agree with your paragraph two otherwise.

I don't agree with the proposition that the O's should have taken the best offer this past offseason regardless.  A capable negotiator knows the minimum acceptable deal going in, and if that point doesn't get reached, he walks away.  If you want to make the case that the Orioles were greedy, fine - tell me the offer they turned down.  Otherwise you're advocating granting the acquiring party the leverage in the negotiation and that's ass-backwards.

Yeah, it's a bad team but it's still worth analyzing how it's bad and to what extent - not overreacting.

[Satyr3206]

Here is how the Orioles FO works:

We can get Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Cy Young for Manny.

I don't want to disappoint the fans.

[connja]

I don't know about Manny's trade value, but we are definitely hemorrhaging our reliever's trade value.  Britton, O'day, and Brach and Givens - awful.

[spiritof66]

9 hours ago, sevastras said:

And they are playing worse than the tanking teams with less talent.  That is what is really hard about this season.  I am glad they are so bad, so maybe they can blow it up and do it right, but I dont think they will in the end.  

Machado, Jones, Britton, Brach all must be traded by the deadline, bonus if we can get something for Rasmus and Valencia.  

Schoop, ODay and Cashner have until this time next year to establish some value to be traded, if they finish the year strong, trade in the off season.

I would consider this year a success if we were to trade all 4 of the first guys and get a top 3 draft pick for next year.  I just dont trust them to get it done.  At the very least you HAVE to get rid of Machado, Britton and Brach.  You cant screw that up, everyone one else you could MAYBE hope to do something after the nonwaiver trade deadline if you cant handle more negotiations than 3 in the next 36 days.

Peter Angelos doesn't have to do anything with the Orioles. He doesn't have to listen to his "front office," such as it is. It's his team. He does what he wants with it, and doesn't do what he doesn't want to do. 

[atomic]

12 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

They should have traded him at least a year ago.

We'll never know if they get more at the deadline than they would now.  Quite frankly, a few weeks doesn't make much of a difference.  

They're hoping they can get a team to get desperate and overwhelm them, but that's not a plan.  That's hope.  Let's also not forget that he's not the only 3rd baseman that'll be available.  You're leaving out a lot of things.

Well whatever your belief I don't know what the point of saying they should have traded him a year ago or more over again.  He wasn't traded.   You and Can of Corn have said the same thing 100 times.   I don't see how it adds to anything to the conversation.  

I think they will get more at deadline as he will be cheaper by the day  and the teams will know where they will stand and it is the deadline. I think the Royals found out trading early doesn't help. 

 

[Moose Milligan]

18 hours ago, nadecir said:

@24fps has it right from a mission standpoint.  A competitive team should be the goal of a MLB front office.  

 

He's got it half right.  A competitive team should be the goal of a MLB office every year.  This means a plan of sustained winning, not just some BS "window" where there's only a few years to compete and you have to go into a huge rebuild.  It should be a good balance of having veteran presence, constant youth coming up from the minors to supplement, not getting tied down by Davis-like contracts and knowing when to trade players.  

8 hours ago, atomic said:

Well whatever your belief I don't know what the point of saying they should have traded him a year ago or more over again.  He wasn't traded.   You and Can of Corn have said the same thing 100 times.   I don't see how it adds to anything to the conversation.  

I think they will get more at deadline as he will be cheaper by the day  and the teams will know where they will stand and it is the deadline. I think the Royals found out trading early doesn't help. 

 

Are you being intentionally obtuse?  

It's very simple.  A player's value isn't 100% tied to his on field production.  His value is tied to the contract they're on and the years remaining, also known as team control.  Manny was most valuable two years ago when he was making, IIRC, 5 million.  His production greatly surpassed the value of 5 million a year.  On top of that, had the Orioles traded him to another team, that team would have had him under contract for an additional two years.  That's where the value is, having Manny Machado not only on the cheap from a dollar perspective but having him on contract for MULTIPLE SEASONS at a low rate. 

Failing to capitalize on this value two years ago, a year ago, 6 months ago has gotten the Orioles to where they are.  They could have commanded more in a trade because Manny had MORE VALUE back then instead of what he's got now.  A team that trades for Manny gets him for 3 months before he hits the open market, unless they think they can sign him before free agency.  That's a risk.  As such, teams aren't going to give us a lot of value because there's a strong chance that Manny will only be with them for three months.  

That risk would have been lessened by getting Manny for 2 years before he hits free agency and making every overture to sign him. 

[MCO'sFan]

25 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

He's got it half right.  A competitive team should be the goal of a MLB office every year.  This means a plan of sustained winning, not just some BS "window" where there's only a few years to compete and you have to go into a huge rebuild.  It should be a good balance of having veteran presence, constant youth coming up from the minors to supplement, not getting tied down by Davis-like contracts and knowing when to trade players.  

Are you being intentionally obtuse?  

It's very simple.  A player's value isn't 100% tied to his on field production.  His value is tied to the contract they're on and the years remaining, also known as team control.  Manny was most valuable two years ago when he was making, IIRC, 5 million.  His production greatly surpassed the value of 5 million a year.  On top of that, had the Orioles traded him to another team, that team would have had him under contract for an additional two years.  That's where the value is, having Manny Machado not only on the cheap from a dollar perspective but having him on contract for MULTIPLE SEASONS at a low rate. 

Failing to capitalize on this value two years ago, a year ago, 6 months ago has gotten the Orioles to where they are.  They could have commanded more in a trade because Manny had MORE VALUE back then instead of what he's got now.  A team that trades for Manny gets him for 3 months before he hits the open market, unless they think they can sign him before free agency.  That's a risk.  As such, teams aren't going to give us a lot of value because there's a strong chance that Manny will only be with them for three months.  

That risk would have been lessened by getting Manny for 2 years before he hits free agency and making every overture to sign him. 

While this is a true statement... I can't imagine that any team would have traded a franchise player coming off a wild card berth. Hindsight is 20/20 and I am sure that there were people on the board suggesting just that, as there has been pretty much since he established himself. Just as there has been people saying he should be extended. Hindsight is 20/20 but I can't blame them for not trading him 2 years ago. He didn't have a good year last year and I am sure his value was down this past off season. I don't know what kind of offers they got this off season so I can't say they would have gotten more for him then or now based on his MVP caliber first half. There are examples of rentals bringing back very good returns mid season so who knows. So to say he absolutely would have gotten a better package in the off season is opinion and not fact as often portrayed here. I KNOW that they constant drum beat that they should have done this 2 years ago and they should have done that 6 months ago makes this board hard to read sometimes. I find myself skimming through certain posters or skipping them entirely now. Most of the posters have great insight and I enjoy reading more than posting but this is getting monotonous.

[atomic]

48 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

He's got it half right.  A competitive team should be the goal of a MLB office every year.  This means a plan of sustained winning, not just some BS "window" where there's only a few years to compete and you have to go into a huge rebuild.  It should be a good balance of having veteran presence, constant youth coming up from the minors to supplement, not getting tied down by Davis-like contracts and knowing when to trade players.  

Are you being intentionally obtuse?  

It's very simple.  A player's value isn't 100% tied to his on field production.  His value is tied to the contract they're on and the years remaining, also known as team control.  Manny was most valuable two years ago when he was making, IIRC, 5 million.  His production greatly surpassed the value of 5 million a year.  On top of that, had the Orioles traded him to another team, that team would have had him under contract for an additional two years.  That's where the value is, having Manny Machado not only on the cheap from a dollar perspective but having him on contract for MULTIPLE SEASONS at a low rate. 

 Failing to capitalize on this value two years ago, a year ago, 6 months ago has gotten the Orioles to where they are.  They could have commanded more in a trade because Manny had MORE VALUE back then instead of what he's got now.  A team that trades for Manny gets him for 3 months before he hits the open market, unless they think they can sign him before free agency.  That's a risk.  As such, teams aren't going to give us a lot of value because there's a strong chance that Manny will only be with them for three months.  

That risk would have been lessened by getting Manny for 2 years before he hits free agency and making every overture to sign him. 

Like I said in the post you quoted he wasn't traded 2 years ago. DID YOU EVEN READ MY POST?  You have mentioned it 200 times already.  This has nothing to do with Manny and the Orioles anymore. It is just you repeating the same thing over again to make yourself feel better.  Give it up.  No one wants to hear it anymore.  We know we could have gotten more value 2 years ago.  That was 2 years ago.   I mean are you going to bring this up for the next 15 years?  
 

 

 

 

[TonySoprano]

11 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

Here is how the Orioles FO works:

We can get Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Cy Young for Manny.

I don't want to disappoint the fans.

Well, Babe and Cy are dead, and Hank's 84.  No deal.
Still at 84, even Hank...<insert perfunctory Davis joke here>

[Redskins Rick]

Even if Manny ends up elsewhere, and I think its safe to say he will.

We will still be posting and complaining low and hard about how we should have traded him away for a haul.

[gtman55]

We can go back and forth on this but we all know the Orioles will probably f this up like they have so many times before. Our organization is pretty much the poster child for mismangement.

[Redskins Rick]

we can make a new installment in the series.

[nadecir]

13 hours ago, 24fps said:

Any front office should be accountable for a baseline competency which doesn't include owning an accurate crystal ball.  The Orioles tied or outplayed their pythagorean five of six seasons from 2012-2017.  They routinely outplayed the "expert" consensus during that time and usually by a significant margin.  What takes place between the lines matters and is unpredictible except in a general way.   A MLB front office is paid to evaluate their team objectively and fit that information into some very specific business goals, not solely on its own.  

That being said I agree with your paragraph two otherwise.

I don't agree with the proposition that the O's should have taken the best offer this past offseason regardless.  A capable negotiator knows the minimum acceptable deal going in, and if that point doesn't get reached, he walks away.  If you want to make the case that the Orioles were greedy, fine - tell me the offer they turned down.  Otherwise you're advocating granting the acquiring party the leverage in the negotiation and that's ass-backwards.

Yeah, it's a bad team but it's still worth analyzing how it's bad and to what extent - not overreacting.

When you start the season with 3 Rule V players and some non-roster invitees counted on to make significant contributions, a team is in trouble.  When has an MLB team ever competed successfully with 3 Rule V players on the roster at one time?  It didn't take much foresight to see the Orioles were not competing this season.

It doesn't matter one bit what the Orioles want for Machado.  What matters is what teams are willing to give up for him.  The Orioles had at least 8 offers for Machado this offseason.  I guarantee you the best one was significantly better than a compensatory draft pick.  The market for Machado is the market, no matter what the Orioles front office wants for him.

During the offseason, Machado was worth more to an acquiring team than he is now.  Machado would have been on the roster for the entire season, and the acquiring team would get a compensatory draft pick when he left via free agency.  Teams who made offers for Machado could add additional value to their trade packages given these two benefits versus acquiring him during the season.

What fans don't get nowadays is how much analytics rule the baseball world.  We live in an era of defensive shifts tailored to individual batter's historical tendencies, and these shifts can even change based on the count on a hitter.   Pitchers know how batter's respond to every pitch they've seen, including speed, spin and drop rates.  Baseball free agents are evaluated objectively by their value added in all phases of the game versus their contract demands and taking in mind both aging curves for similar players and payroll luxury tax implications  Top prospects are highly valued because they can be extreme bargains during the years they are under cost control.   

Olney and Ravech are correct, Machado value goes down every single game he plays to an acquiring team.  Baseball front offices are valuing Machado objectively based on the number of wins he can provide over the remaining course of the seasons versus the remaining salary he has left this year.

Good MLB teams today rely on analytics today to make any major decision with their team.  Ignoring analytics, and making emotional organizational moves like over paying in free agency or overpaying to acquire a player in trade get an MLB GM an express ticket out of baseball and a tee time on the golf course with Bill Bavasi.