Grade the Gausman Deal

[Moose Milligan]

Call me if he's still doing it this time next year.

[jabba72]

39 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Call me if he's still doing it this time next year.

[jabba72]

42 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Call me if he's still doing it this time next year.

[24fps]

50 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Call me if he's still doing it this time next year.

If he's still doing it this time next year (or even at the end of this year) there won't be any need to call.  You won't be able to log on without seeing 5 super hot front page threads moaning about yet another stupid Orioles FO move.

[LookitsPuck]

Last 3 years (including this year)

Chris Archer: 4.11 ERA, 3.66 FIP, 10.5 SO/9, 2.9 BB/9, 1.2 HR/9, 1.288 WHIP

Kevin Gausman: 4.18 ERA, 4.31 FIP, 8.4 SO/9, 2.7 BB/9, 1.4 HR/9, 1.379 WHIP

Archer turns 30 next year and has 1 year left on his contract ($7.7m) and 2 team option years ($9m, $11m)

Gausman turns 28 next year and has 2 years left on his contract. Next year he's arbitration eligible, so I'd expect something like a salary approaching $9m or so.

Archer has better peripherals and he has an additional year of team control (assuming the club picks up both options). But Gausman is younger and their numbers aren't terribly different than one another the last few years.

The return for Archer blows away Gausman's. I don't think the Braves cared much about the international slot money. 

So really it seems that shedding O'Day's salary really hurt the return for Gausman. But you'd think they'd get *something* similar to what the Rays got for Archer...albeit minus one of the names.

I'm still upset on the return for Gausman. It was a very poor trade and I have to wonder....why not hold on to him for next season? Or trade him in the offseason instead of rushing to trade him now? It feels more like a salary dump than an actual trade...and he's arguably the 2nd most valuable of the 4 trades made (Machado, Gausman, Schoop, Britton).

When it's a talent rich club like the Braves,  you *have* to crack into their top prospects. 

[Hallas]

On 8/13/2018 at 5:52 PM, Frobby said:

How does a bad offense and pen hold Gausman back?   As to bad defense, as I’ve mentioned, his FIP was 4.58.   He was allowing 1.5 homers per 9 innings and the fielders can’t do anything about that.    He flat out pitched like a no. 4-5 starter the last two years.   Is he capable of pitching better?   Yeah, I think so.    But not for these reasons.    I’ll be really surprised if he ever becomes a strong no. 2, because he doesn’t have a good breaking pitch and his fastball command comes and goes.   

He was a strong #2 for us for a full season and parts of 2 others.  That's something, right?

Maybe the Braves can get him there more consistently... I don't know.  But I'm sure that it was on the back of their minds when they traded for him.

[hoosiers]

2 hours ago, LookitsPuck said:

Last 3 years (including this year)

Chris Archer: 4.11 ERA, 3.66 FIP, 10.5 SO/9, 2.9 BB/9, 1.2 HR/9, 1.288 WHIP

Kevin Gausman: 4.18 ERA, 4.31 FIP, 8.4 SO/9, 2.7 BB/9, 1.4 HR/9, 1.379 WHIP

Archer turns 30 next year and has 1 year left on his contract ($7.7m) and 2 team option years ($9m, $11m)

Gausman turns 28 next year and has 2 years left on his contract. Next year he's arbitration eligible, so I'd expect something like a salary approaching $9m or so.

Archer has better peripherals and he has an additional year of team control (assuming the club picks up both options). But Gausman is younger and their numbers aren't terribly different than one another the last few years.

The return for Archer blows away Gausman's. I don't think the Braves cared much about the international slot money. 

So really it seems that shedding O'Day's salary really hurt the return for Gausman. But you'd think they'd get *something* similar to what the Rays got for Archer...albeit minus one of the names.

I'm still upset on the return for Gausman. It was a very poor trade and I have to wonder....why not hold on to him for next season? Or trade him in the offseason instead of rushing to trade him now? It feels more like a salary dump than an actual trade...and he's arguably the 2nd most valuable of the 4 trades made (Machado, Gausman, Schoop, Britton).

When it's a talent rich club like the Braves,  you *have* to crack into their top prospects. 

Archer has a reputation that surpasses his actual value while Gausman has a reputation as an underachiever.  That's perception.  That's reality.  The biggest issue to me that should prevent one from becoming upset is that multiple teams bid on both players.  So, one has to assume our FO took the best deal.

Folks here (not calling out Puck) do not seem to understand that we were taking down payroll any way we could - otherwise we would be projecting a payroll near $100M (estimating here without definitive idea) with Gausman and O'Day.  So, Gausman had to be deal and better to package him with O'Day.

IMO, folks here want to say - "the Os should have been taking prospects for the value of passing off O'Day", but that's still what we did in buying the international slots.  I, and other folks here, have been critical of the Os passing of international slots to other teams in recent years, but here we have someone critical of the Gausman deal now claiming that the interntional slot $ wasn't of much concern to the Braves.  Really?

I hope Gausman does well for other teams (same for MM, Schoop and others) in order to reinforce perception that the ALEast is a beast to play that lessens statistical production of our players.

[sportsfan8703]

5 hours ago, LookitsPuck said:

Last 3 years (including this year)

Chris Archer: 4.11 ERA, 3.66 FIP, 10.5 SO/9, 2.9 BB/9, 1.2 HR/9, 1.288 WHIP

Kevin Gausman: 4.18 ERA, 4.31 FIP, 8.4 SO/9, 2.7 BB/9, 1.4 HR/9, 1.379 WHIP

Archer turns 30 next year and has 1 year left on his contract ($7.7m) and 2 team option years ($9m, $11m)

Gausman turns 28 next year and has 2 years left on his contract. Next year he's arbitration eligible, so I'd expect something like a salary approaching $9m or so.

Archer has better peripherals and he has an additional year of team control (assuming the club picks up both options). But Gausman is younger and their numbers aren't terribly different than one another the last few years.

The return for Archer blows away Gausman's. I don't think the Braves cared much about the international slot money. 

So really it seems that shedding O'Day's salary really hurt the return for Gausman. But you'd think they'd get *something* similar to what the Rays got for Archer...albeit minus one of the names.

I'm still upset on the return for Gausman. It was a very poor trade and I have to wonder....why not hold on to him for next season? Or trade him in the offseason instead of rushing to trade him now? It feels more like a salary dump than an actual trade...and he's arguably the 2nd most valuable of the 4 trades made (Machado, Gausman, Schoop, Britton).

When it's a talent rich club like the Braves,  you *have* to crack into their top prospects. 

Archer has more hype. More draft hype. More top prospect hype. He’s been to 2 ASG. One top 5 Cy Young Finish. Korean strikeouts. 

The Braves got a steal. Years ago they bought Touki Toussaint from Arizona for millions. Well they just paid around $12 million to take on O’day and keep a top 100 arm like Touki Toussaint. 

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Archer has more hype. More draft hype. More top prospect hype. He’s been to 2 ASG. One top 5 Cy Young Finish. Korean strikeouts. 

The Braves got a steal. Years ago they bought Touki Toussaint from Arizona for millions. Well they just paid around $12 million to take on O’day and keep a top 100 arm like Touki Toussaint. 

What's a Korean strikeout?

[Going Underground]

16 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

What's a Korean strikeout?

The failed summit with North Korea. 

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Archer has more hype. More draft hype. More top prospect hype. 

Archer was a fifth round pick, Gausman was the no. 4 overall pick.  Archer’s highest prospect ratings by BA, MLB.com and BP were 27, 46 and 29.    Gausman’s were 20, 31 and 10.

It’s not about hype, it’s about who has performed better as a major league pitcher.     But it’s possible Gausman will outperform Archer in the future.

[wildbillhiccup]

8 hours ago, LookitsPuck said:

Last 3 years (including this year)

Chris Archer: 4.11 ERA, 3.66 FIP, 10.5 SO/9, 2.9 BB/9, 1.2 HR/9, 1.288 WHIP

Kevin Gausman: 4.18 ERA, 4.31 FIP, 8.4 SO/9, 2.7 BB/9, 1.4 HR/9, 1.379 WHIP

Archer turns 30 next year and has 1 year left on his contract ($7.7m) and 2 team option years ($9m, $11m)

Gausman turns 28 next year and has 2 years left on his contract. Next year he's arbitration eligible, so I'd expect something like a salary approaching $9m or so.

Archer has better peripherals and he has an additional year of team control (assuming the club picks up both options). But Gausman is younger and their numbers aren't terribly different than one another the last few years.

The return for Archer blows away Gausman's. I don't think the Braves cared much about the international slot money. 

So really it seems that shedding O'Day's salary really hurt the return for Gausman. But you'd think they'd get *something* similar to what the Rays got for Archer...albeit minus one of the names.

I'm still upset on the return for Gausman. It was a very poor trade and I have to wonder....why not hold on to him for next season? Or trade him in the offseason instead of rushing to trade him now? It feels more like a salary dump than an actual trade...and he's arguably the 2nd most valuable of the 4 trades made (Machado, Gausman, Schoop, Britton).

When it's a talent rich club like the Braves,  you *have* to crack into their top prospects. 

I've been beating this same drum ever since the trade. On a deeper level (aside from the disparity between the two trades) what's somewhat concerning is that the team and/or Duquette seemed to prioritize shedding salary over improving the minor league system. If the teams that were interested in Gausman had relatively weak minor league systems then I can kind of see how they might have justified the salary relief as being enough, but the Braves have a gold mine of talented pitching prospects. I think we're really going to look back on this as a missed opportunity, especially if Gausman continues to establish himself as a solid (albeit not spectacular) starting pitcher. 

[wildbillhiccup]

37 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Archer was a fifth round pick, Gausman was the no. 4 overall pick.  Archer’s highest prospect ratings by BA, MLB.com and BP were 27, 46 and 29.    Gausman’s were 20, 31 and 10.

It’s not about hype, it’s about who has performed better as a major league pitcher.     But it’s possible Gausman will outperform Archer in the future.

Good point Frobby. And lets be honest. The hype matters much more to the casual fan then the scouts / GMs working for these organizations. They know what the talent gap is between different players and that hype isn't a measurable statistic. 

[jtschrei]

The Gausman trade was part salary dump. There's no way around that. DD made the best deal that was on the table.

Yes, we could have waited until the offseason, but there is no guarantee that the offers would have been better. Deals get done at the deadline because there's real urgency. Gausman might have hurt his value and sucked the last two months for us. 

Plus, does it make sense to hold onto Gausman next year when the team is probably going to lose 90 games at least? 

I don't know. I just can criticize the deal that much. Would I have liked a better return? Yes. If the choice was keeping O'Day and getting better prospects, would I have liked that better? Yes. But we don't know if that was actually on the table. 

There weren't many ways for the O's to cut salary. Davis and Trumbo are untrade-able. This was a way to get $10 million off the books. 

Let's hope for the best with this 3B Encarnacion. 

 

[wildcard]

10 minutes ago, jtschrei said:

The Gausman trade was part salary dump. There's no way around that. DD made the best deal that was on the table.

Yes, we could have waited until the offseason, but there is no guarantee that the offers would have been better. Deals get done at the deadline because there's real urgency. Gausman might have hurt his value and sucked the last two months for us. 

Plus, does it make sense to hold onto Gausman next year when the team is probably going to lose 90 games at least? 

I don't know. I just can criticize the deal that much. Would I have liked a better return? Yes. If the choice was keeping O'Day and getting better prospects, would I have liked that better? Yes. But we don't know if that was actually on the table. 

There weren't many ways for the O's to cut salary. Davis and Trumbo are untrade-able. This was a way to get $10 million off the books. 

Let's hope for the best with this 3B Encarnacion. 

 

The O's were going to cut at least 60m off the payroll by just not re-signing their FAs.   Gausman has been a 2nd half starter for the last two years.  The only reason to believe that he would not be good again in the 2nd half is that he had no support from the O's defense, offense or pen this year. 

Doing a salary dump on Gausman at the deadline is probably one the stupidest thing that Dan has done if the O's are looking to rebuild in the shortest amount of time.  I think off season their would have been more teams bidding on him.  He would be a building block for most teams.