Jump to content

Orioles Deal Gausman/O'Day to Braves - Schoop to Brewers


weams

Recommended Posts

Just now, Reboulet'sStache said:

I'm talking about not sacrificing prospect returns.  And what is actually the smarter payroll strategy during a real build.  

Ok.  So three things:

1.  Explain how this isn't a "real build."

2.  Explain what you mean specifically by sacrificing prospect returns.  

3.  Explain how having a high payroll dedicated to players that aren't essential to the rebuild is beneficial.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LocoChris said:

The  issue isn't necessarily overrating Gausman but the amount of control he had. I think people expected better for a solid pitcher under control for another 2 years.

It's not really overrating Gausman per se.  

Whatever Gausman's return should have been.  What Gausman gets you as a stand alone.  "This amount in international slot money and these prospects."  By including O'Day in the deal, just so you can free up money for the glorious run next year, that package was diminished to whatever degree.  

Which makes it a dumb move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:

I was very impressed by what DD was able to bring back for Machado and Britton.  These trades just seem like salary dumps or making moves for the sake of making moves.  If the value wasn't there, they shouldn't have pulled the trigger.  I think we got fleeced, big time.  

Must've been ordered to dump salary.

Seems almost impossible to trade both Schoop and Gausman and not get a single top 100 prospect back. I mean, did we get anything close to top 100?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Cy Bundy said:

Hard to trade Schoop and Gausman without getting a top 100 prospect back, but we pulled it off.

 

30 minutes ago, GoldGlove21 said:

They had like 9 players in the top #100 and we couldn't get one BECAUSE...... we offloaded O'Day' money.

Not pleased with this trade at all. I had to check mlbtraderumors again to see if that was it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Ok.  So three things:

1.  Explain how this isn't a "real build."

2.  Explain what you mean specifically by sacrificing prospect returns.  

3.  Explain how having a high payroll dedicated to players that aren't essential to the rebuild is beneficial.  

I can't.  I've already explained all of that in numerous other posts.  At this point it would just be me copying and pasting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Greg Pappas said:

So, to recap (hope I didn't miss anything):

For Gausman we received--

  • 2.5 million in International Slot $
  • 20-year old 3B Jean Carlos Encarnacion, R/R, 6'3 195
  • 23-year old Catcher Brett Cumberland, S/R, 5'11 205, Draft: 2016, Braves, 2nd rd. (76th overall) College: California
  • 23-year old LHSP Bruce Zimmerman, L/L, 6'3 215, Draft: 2017, Braves, 5th rd. College: Mt. Olive & Towson U. (Born in Baltimore, MD)
  • 23-year old RHRP Evan Phillips, R/R 6'2 215, Draft: 2015 Braves 17th rd., College: UNC Wilmington (Born in Salisbury, MD)

 

For Schoop we received--

  • 22-year old RHSP Luis Ortiz, R/R, 6'3 230, Draft: 2014 Rangers 1st rd. (30th overall) Sanger HS (CA)
  • 18-year old SS Jean Carmona, S/R, 6'1 183, Signed out of the Dominican Repulublic
  • 27-year old Inf. Jonathan Villar, R/R, 6'1 215, Signed out of the Dominican Repulublic

And with clickable links. You sir win post of the day in my book. Thanks. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

The more I look at it the more I think the Brewers trade was great. 

Carmona is a stud SS. 

Ortiz was a former 1st round pick that has 4 pitches. Already in AA. 

Villar has been worth 1.8 WAR this year. Even before the trades he’d be our 2nd best player WAR wise. 

Three weeks ago this would’ve been laughed at. Schoop is a decent upgrade over Villar but we get Villar through 2021.  

Or...

Carmona is a fun prospect but a good 4 plus years away - if he makes it.    

Ortiz is fat and probably projects more as a reliever than a starter.

Villar has an OPS+ of 84 this year - following a 71 in 2017.  What happened to him - He looked like a rising star in 2016.  

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

It's not really overrating Gausman per se.  

Whatever Gausman's return should have been.  What Gausman gets you as a stand alone.  "This amount in international slot money and these prospects."  By including O'Day in the deal, just so you can free up money for the glorious run next year, that package was diminished to whatever degree.  

Which makes it a dumb move. 

I agree with this. I wouldn't have muddied the waters of a Gausman trade with O'Day. It's pretty clear it was the wrong move, especially when you see what the Pirates gave up for Archer. I think most of us would have been ecstatic if Austin Meadows was the headliner of the Gausman trade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

I can't.  I've already explained all of that in numerous other posts.  At this point it would just be me copying and pasting.  

So if I understand you correctly you're upset that:

We traded a pitcher we all overvalued and who most likely wasn't going to reach his full potential in Baltimore and a broken, expensive reliever for:

2.5 million in international money

4 prospects

And why is this bad?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Ok.  So three things:

1.  Explain how this isn't a "real build."

2.  Explain what you mean specifically by sacrificing prospect returns.  

3.  Explain how having a high payroll dedicated to players that aren't essential to the rebuild is beneficial.  

I think his point, or belief, is that if O'Day hadn't been included, we would have received better prospects in return.  Assuming that is true, it makes sense, and we shouldn't have traded O'Day.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • Maybe John Means could masquerade as a healthy Chayce McDermott. https://www.milb.com/player/chayce-mcdermott-694646
    • I’m not sure trading for an impact starter is best use of resources. We still have six starters at the MLB level in Burnes, Bradish, GRod, Irvin, Kremer, and Suarez. Then Povich looks like he deserves a shot if needed.    Burnes, Bradish, GRod are the obvious playoff trio.    further injuries would change things, obviously, but at the moment I don’t see a clear need (and would have to pay handsomely for an upgrade). If someone would want Kremer as a part of the package, then maybe it makes sense. 
    • When Kremer comes back you have Burnes, Bradish, GRod, Kremer, Irvin Suarez in the bullpen.  Povich and McDermott at Norfolk. Absent further injury I don’t see Elias doing what it would probably take for Luzardo.  The relievers like Scott, Harvey, etc. will be cheaper.        
    • The basic story Elias told about Corbin Burnes is that Orioles strategic interest was communicated early in the offseason, and Matt Arnold took a long time (beyond even Milwaukee's successful recruitment of Rhys Hoskins) to decide which path to take. Indefinitely, Mike Elias' basic job is to know the availability and acquisition cost of any of the world's best pitchers, especially relievers as it would be awfully tough to unseat the top 3 starters that are really all the tournament asks of a pitching staff from that role. I don't think we will see the big move until near the deadline because the GM's of some teams playing .501 baseball also want all the mid-July information they can get, and they generally have better relievers than the .375 clubs. Jesus Luzardo would answer a 2025 question but quickly create a 2024 one if him or Grayson Rodriguez is going into the bullpen, a tricky ask Elias might prefer to veer away from. If Suarez/Kremer are really wobbly, the Joe Saunders-Erick Fedde kind of guy would be uncertain for the tournament roster.
    • Not specific to sliders, but if you toggle between 2023 and 2024, you can see his chase rate and whiff rate are significantly improved  https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/jorge-mateo-622761?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlb
    • I updated my post above after realizing I missed their trade suggestion: Bradfield, Povich, and Norby.  I think their proposal is too short on our end.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...