Grade the Gausman Deal

[Frobby]

28 minutes ago, Hallas said:

Another pretty good comp for Gausman is Clay Buchholz.  He's had a really uneven career, with better "best" seasons, but a few more years where he's less than useless.  Through his Arb1 year, Buchholz accrued 9.8 WAR, then had a good Arb2 year.  Gausman accrued 8.1 WAR by his Arb1 year.  Gausman's Arb2 year probably isn't going to be as good as Buchholz's Arb2 year but if he pitches well for Atlanta, it will be respectable.  I think Buchholz's career is a little closer to Gausman's than Archer's.  While it's partially due to perception of the respective orgs, I certainly think that 2011/2012 Buchholz being traded for a comparable package as Gausman at that time would have been seen as highway robbery.

Interesting comp.    Buchholz has been wildly inconsistent and injury prone.    Whatever else you want to say about Gausman, he’s been sturdy.   This should be his third straight year of throwing enough innings to qualify, while Buchholz has only qualified three times in his 12-year career, and has never done it in consecutive seasons.  To me Archer is a closer comp because he’s also been pretty durable and his performance hasn’t fluctuated as wildly as Buchholz’s.

[Hallas]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Interesting comp.    Buchholz has been wildly inconsistent and injury prone.    Whatever else you want to say about Gausman, he’s been sturdy.   This should be his third straight year of throwing enough innings to qualify, while Buchholz has only qualified three times in his 12-year career, and has never done it in consecutive seasons.  To me Archer is a closer comp because he’s also been pretty durable and his performance hasn’t fluctuated as wildly as Buchholz’s.

Through their Arb1 seasons, Buchholz qualified the same number of seasons as Gausman.  Never in consecutive seasons is a major difference.  But Archer had a full ML season's workload pretty much from the time he entered the major leagues, while Gausman hasn't really.  You're right that archer/gausman vs buchholz/gausman is debatable.

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, wildcard said:

Two and one third seasons of Gausman left before FA.  Makes the deal even worse.

I honestly thought Gausman only had a year and half vs two and half. As I said, out of all the deals the Gausman deal seemed rushed and got what looks like the weakest return. I would not have moved two and half years of Gausman without a good young starter prospect in return. Encarnacio is a lottery ticket that has the potential to pay off as good or better than anyone, but he should not have been the marquee player in a Gausman trade.

Even if you look at Gausman as a league average starter, that's worth more than a lottery ticket, two C-level prospects (Zimmerman and Cumberland) and a throw in reliever in Phillips. 

I liked the return in the other trades, but the Gausman trade is certainly a bit of a headscratcher.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

I honestly thought Gausman only had a year and half vs two and half. As I said, out of all the deals the Gausman deal seemed rushed and got what looks like the weakest return. I would not have moved two and half years of Gausman without a good young starter prospect in return. Encarnacio is a lottery ticket that has the potential to pay off as good or better than anyone, but he should not have been the marquee player in a Gausman trade.

Even if you look at Gausman as a league average starter, that's worth more than a lottery ticket, two C-level prospects (Zimmerman and Cumberland) and a throw in reliever in Phillips. 

I liked the return in the other trades, but the Gausman trade is certainly a bit of a headscratcher.

What if you were under orders to slash payroll?

[24fps]

2 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

Gausman scratched for tonight's start.Not sure why.

It looks like everyone in the rotation is being pushed back a day.  It doesn't seem to be injury related.

[sportsfan8703]

9 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

What if you were under orders to slash payroll?

DD was 100% ordered to do so. So in the owner’s mind he did his job. You think DD wanted to traded comp picks, or chose not to sign players in Latin America?  That was ownership. DD just made best of what he had. 

[Ruzious]

11 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

What if you were under orders to slash payroll?

Still, while the O'Day contract is bad, it isn't terrible.  He's the kind of bullpen leader Atlanta will likely need next season.  They should have gone for quality over quantity.  At the time, Bryse Wilson looked gettable - and our very own Luke-OH posted he was the guy he'd have tried to get. Since then, Wilson's been amazing and even got called up by the Braves and picked up a 1-0 win last night... at 20 years old (he started the season in A ball).  Instead, we got 4 meh prospects - of which 1 is somewhat interesting.      

[Redskins Rick]

11 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

I honestly thought Gausman only had a year and half vs two and half. As I said, out of all the deals the Gausman deal seemed rushed and got what looks like the weakest return. I would not have moved two and half years of Gausman without a good young starter prospect in return. Encarnacio is a lottery ticket that has the potential to pay off as good or better than anyone, but he should not have been the marquee player in a Gausman trade.

Even if you look at Gausman as a league average starter, that's worth more than a lottery ticket, two C-level prospects (Zimmerman and Cumberland) and a throw in reliever in Phillips. 

I liked the return in the other trades, but the Gausman trade is certainly a bit of a headscratcher.

This deal to me, almost looks like a Peter inspired deal, maybe DD was told to dump "XXXX" amount of this year's salary, and this was the best he could come up with?

[POR]

4 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Still, while the O'Day contract is bad, it isn't terrible.  He's the kind of bullpen leader Atlanta will likely need next season.  They should have gone for quality over quantity.  At the time, Bryse Wilson looked gettable - and our very own Luke-OH posted he was the guy he'd have tried to get. Since then, Wilson's been amazing and even got called up by the Braves and picked up a 1-0 win last night... at 20 years old (he started the season in A ball).  Instead, we got 4 meh prospects - of which 1 is somewhat interesting.      

I agree with about you O'Day.  However, they were never getting Wilson.  That was a pipe dream.. 

[Ruzious]

12 minutes ago, POR said:

I agree with about you O'Day.  However, they were never getting Wilson.  That was a pipe dream.. 

At the time, Atlanta had a boat-load of pitching prospects clearly ahead of him.

[POR]

56 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

At the time, Atlanta had a boat-load of pitching prospects clearly ahead of him.

If you want to believe old prospect reports from the off season and think that Wilson was behind a boat load of Braves pitching prospects three weeks ago, go for it.

[Redskins Rick]

3 minutes ago, POR said:

If you want to believe old prospect reports from the off season and think that Wilson was behind a boat load of Braves pitching prospects three weeks ago, go for it.

reminds me of the Orioles, and when they traded 2 mid-level prospects, who ended up being better than the guys higher on the food chain.

[wildcard]

3 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

DD was 100% ordered to do so. So in the owner’s mind he did his job. You think DD wanted to traded comp picks, or chose not to sign players in Latin America?  That was ownership. DD just made best of what he had. 

No matter who ordered it or who executed it,   it still is a stupid deal to trade Gausman and not get back a top 100 prospect or two.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, wildcard said:

No matter who ordered it or who executed it,   it still is a stupid deal to trade Gausman and not get back a top 100 prospect or two.

If you are ordered by your boss to do something, then you do it the best you can, and if maybe he wasn't allow to say no as an option, if the return wasn't high enough.

[wildcard]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

If you are ordered by your boss to do something, then you do it the best you can, and if maybe he wasn't allow to say no as an option, if the return wasn't high enough.

You are assuming a lot.  If that is true then is a bad ownership deal.   You are trying to place blame within the O's organization.  I am not.   I just say its a stupid deal no matter who in the O's organization was involved.