If Andy MacPhail was the O's GM....

[eddie83]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I agree about him as a GM.  But he sure could do some good trades.  That is all I am saying.  Bedard, Hardy, Davis and Hunter.........

Brach was better than Hunter. 

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Redskins Rick said:

I dont think the team is selling.

I know fans are clinging onto that hope, like ship wreck passengers on the Titanic.

It’s all because payroll is going way down which always happens in a rebuild. 

Certainly a team like the Yankees would not trade an O’Day for salary relief but we aren’t the Yankees.  

[wildcard]

24 minutes ago, ShaneDawg85 said:

Didn't Duquette do that with Brad Brach?  Didn't half the bullpen come in from minimal trades or slot money?  How about signing Nate McLouth and Miguel Gonzalez out of nowhere?  Lets not act like Dan Duquette can't find guys to build a roster.

I think Dan did build better teams than MacPhail.  But even Dan gives MacPhail credit for the players that Dan inherited.  

We are talking traded here.   Brach, yes.  Maybe Trumbo his first year. What else in trades.

MacPhail  would have done better with Gausman and Schoop trades.

[Frobby]

It’s folly to compare returns gotten by the GMs without a deep understanding of the market conditions in which they were operating.     It’s one thing to sell a pitcher coming off a career year when the FA market for pitchers is incredibly thin, and it’s another thing to sell a middling starting pitcher having a mediocre year at a time where there are many teams who are attempting rebuilds and engaged in selling lots of pitchers.

I’m not ready to judge Duquette’s trades.    I haven’t had time to compare what he got to what other teams got for their players, or to really study the players we got, or to read third party expert opinions.    My initial reaction is that these returns were a little light, but I want to study them more.    Whether MacPhail would have done better in the current market conditions is anybody’s guess.    

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

It’s folly to compare returns gotten by the GMs without a deep understanding of the market conditions in which they were operating.     It’s one thing to sell a pitcher coming off a career year when the FA market for pitchers is incredibly thin, and it’s another thing to sell a middling starting pitcher having a mediocre year at a time where there are many teams who are attempting rebuilds and engaged in selling lots of pitchers.

I’m not ready to judge Duquette’s trades.    I haven’t had time to compare what he got to what other teams got for their players, or to really study the players we got, or to read third party expert opinions.    My initial reaction is that these returns were a little light, but I want to study them more.    Whether MacPhail would have done better in the current market conditions is anybody’s guess.    

To start with Andy would have gotten better deals or he would have waited until the off season when he could have done his methodical dealing.  Andy squeezed and squeezed a deal.

[eddie83]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I think Dan did build better teams than MacPhail.  But even Dan gives MacPhail credit for the players that Dan inherited.  

We are talking traded here.   Brach, yes.  Maybe Trumbo his first year. What else in trades.

MacPhail  would have done better with Gausman and Schoop trades.

Once again a total of 2 top 100 prospects were dealt in all the deals. The Pirates got back recent top prospects. The world has changed.  

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, wildcard said:

To start with Andy would have gotten better deals or he would have waited until the off season when he could have done his methodical dealing.  Andy squeezed and squeezed a deal.

Has Andy done those types of deals with Philly?

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, Redskins Rick said:

Has Andy done those types of deals with Philly?

Beats me.  I have not followed Philly that close.

[wildcard]

2 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Once again a total of 2 top 100 prospects were dealt in all the deals. The Pirates got back recent top prospects. The world has changed.  

So why trade Gausman and Schoop at the deadline for less.   Wait until the off season.   

[baltfan]

57 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Yeah, not sure where you are coming from here.

Neither Gausman or Schoop are Bedard level players.

Although I would have liked to have seen at least one impact guy gotten in return, neither player's value was going to much higher than they are right now.

Let's face it with Gausman. He's really a #4 pitcher, maybe #3 at best. He'll pitch better in the NL because they only have to pitch to 7 major league hitters out of 9 in the lineup (#8 guy gets waked a lot in order to pitch to the pitcher) but he was not going to be a guy you extend so might as well move him.

As for Schoop, he has major red flags for plate discipline and his range will only diminish as he gets older. I loved watching Schoop for the Orioles, but he was free agent next year and if the Orioles want him back after next year he'll be a free agent and they'll have money to spend (not saying they would do it).

Let's face it, MacPhail made one great trade with the Mariners for Bedard. I think the Orioles got a decent return for the two considering the fact that Orioles fans probably value Gausman and Schoop more than the rest of baseball.

Supposedly AM was offered Votto and Hamilton for Bedard, so you could argue he didn’t maximize Bedard’s value

[eddie83]

Just now, wildcard said:

So why trade Gausman and Schoop at the deadline for less.   Wait until the off season.   

How much more for Schoop do they get? Clearly the Brewers were desperate to do something. Their roster defensively is a mess now.

The key to the Gausman deal is the Int money. They clearly wanted that for a reason. 

[eddie83]

I love Schoop but if he was traded in late June before his recent streak people would be estatic. And once again I am a big fan of his. 

[CallMeBrooksie]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

So why trade Gausman and Schoop at the deadline for less.   Wait until the off season.   

If Gausman continues to pitch like Gausman the remainder of the season, you'll get less for him in the off-season.. not more. And then we would hear "let him re-build his value and deal him at next year's deadline".

When Schoop inevitably cools off, his numbers won't look great.. you'll get less value for him as well. 

Not to mention the significant risk of injury to either player. This thought that you can get more value the longer you wait is pure bunk.

[Frobby]

30 minutes ago, wildcard said:

So why trade Gausman and Schoop at the deadline for less.   Wait until the off season.   

Might have gotten a better return then, might not have.    We’ll never know.   

[DirtyBird]

32 minutes ago, wildcard said:

So why trade Gausman and Schoop at the deadline for less.   Wait until the off season.   

You mean when the Brewers can fill a hole with a FA (or Hiura) and keep their prospects and Atlanta decides it's time to bring up their top prospect(s) to fill the rotation?