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

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildbillhiccup said:

That's fine. I just think it's naive to think that they just included him for free. Honestly I'm more bummed about the Gausman deal because he was rumored to have other suitors (at the time) like the Pirates. That one really seems like a wasted trade chip to me. 

They didn't include him for free, the O's had to pay his salary.

 

[NCRaven]

1 minute ago, wildbillhiccup said:

Well the Twins signed him to a contract so we know at least one other team was interested in him. Who knows how it would have played out if we would have let Elias decide what to do with him in the offseason. 

Just because they signed him after the season doesn’t mean they were in on him at the trade deadline last year.

[weams]

 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 minute ago, NCRaven said:

Just because they signed him after the season doesn’t mean they were in on him at the trade deadline last year.

Twins were 49-57 on July 31st last season and their only chance of making the playoffs was the slim chance of being a wildcard team. I doubt they were in the market for Schoop then. 

[theocean]

36 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

No it isn't.

Still a win because of salary. The Brewers GM even said they lost the trade. And no, the O's don't have to trade Villar to get any value out of him. 

[wildbillhiccup]

6 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Just because they signed him after the season doesn’t mean they were in on him at the trade deadline last year.

That's not what I was implying. I said I wish Schoop had been left for Elias to deal with. If the Twins were interested in signing him in the offseason as a free agent they also might have been interested in trading for him in the offseason. 

[theocean]

14 minutes ago, weams said:

I now understand Corn. Trades of 25 man roster players are of no value unless the Orioles win it all. Or make the ALCS. Or the ALDS. Or win the wildcard game. Or lose the wildcard game. 

Well, according to Corn, there is no proof the GM has full control from ownership unless the GM does exactly what Corn is thinking should be done. So, the roster moves are irrelevant anyway.

[wildbillhiccup]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The Gausman trade always will be compared to the contemporaneous Archer trade, which brought Tampa Austin Meadows and Tyler Glasnow.    I argued that Archer was more valuable than Gausman and hence warranted a higher return, but some folks felt either that the two were equivalent or that we should have been able to pick up at least one Meadows/Glasnow level talent.    That’s the context in which the Gausman trade does not look like an A.    And of course, at the time nobody knew Gausman would fall apart this year.    Archer hadn’t exactly been lights out either (5.35 ERA in 20 starts).

What stings (for me) is knowing that we chose salary relief over prospects even if Gausman would have commanded just one of those players. And I don't think that's a completely unrealistic assumption to make. As you said, he didn't have the same value as Archer (at the time), but he wasn't that far off. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, theocean said:

Well, according to Corn, there is no proof the GM has full control from ownership unless the GM does exactly what Corn is thinking should be done. So, the roster moves are irrelevant anyway.

That's just nonsense.  You know I have never said that.

My view has always been that Elias doesn't have total control as long as Davis is on the roster. 

 

[theocean]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

That's just nonsense.  You know I have never said that.

My view has always been that Elias doesn't have total control as long as Davis is on the roster. 

 

I'm just messin' with you.

[wildbillhiccup]

8 minutes ago, theocean said:

Still a win because of salary. The Brewers GM even said they lost the trade. And no, the O's don't have to trade Villar to get any value out of him. 

Yes it was a win in terms of being the low hanging fruit, but in order for it to be win for the future of the franchise they most definitely would have to flip Villar for something. 

[weams]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's just nonsense.  You know I have never said that.

My view has always been that Elias doesn't have total control as long as Davis is on the roster. 

 

It's a position on the game board. Certainly not a fact. 

[wildbillhiccup]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's just nonsense.  You know I have never said that.

My view has always been that Elias doesn't have total control as long as Davis is on the roster. 

 

I'm not willing to go to that extreme, but I do think they've placed financial restrictions on him. Just like I think Duquette was ordered to cut payroll last summer. It had much more to do with saving money then it did restocking the farm system. 

[TonySoprano]

1 hour ago, weams said:

How is money for nothing not a an A? 

AND your chicks for free

 

[weams]

Just now, wildbillhiccup said:

I'm not willing to go to that extreme, but I do think they've placed financial restrictions on him. Just like I think Duquette was ordered to cut payroll last summer. It had much more to do with saving money then it did restocking the farm system. 

Certainly. He does not have the unlimited budget to blow through the lux tax limit.