Jonathan Villar- Our new 2B?

[OriolesMagic83]

14 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

They think Schoop can play SS. Villar can’t. So it must have been for positional value and Schoop’s power potential. Plus Villar was banged up and Schoop was healthy. 

So far so good for us. Way too early to evaluate the trade, but I think you can say the difference in the two players isn’t that much.  Villar has more control, and we picked up two really nice prospects. 

I'm surprised the Brewers think he can play a good SS.  I'm predicting his poor offense there will more than balance out any bump they get from his offense.  I think the Schoop trade was a really poor decision by the Brewers as he doesn't seem to fit on their team

 

[wildbillhiccup]

7 hours ago, Finisher said:

That extra year is pretty big. Very unlikely he doesn't have trade value in both 2019 and 2020. He's a feast or famine type hitter so if he's feasting at either deadline, could bring back a solid prospect. Schoop deal then becomes Ortiz/Carmona/Prospect from Villar. Key with Villar is being healthy and playing regularly (he was banged up past couple years and getting jerked around with playing time this year). Had him in a keeper league, from May to August 2016 he was insanely productive. Then he got over aggressive and homerun happy and it carried over into 2017.

He wasn't getting jerked around with playing time. He wasn't good enough to play everyday. I still think his 2016 season was the outlier because he's been bad much more often then he's good in his career. I'm happy he's off to hot start, but I think it would be wise to temper expectations. We said the exact same thing about Beckham and now most of us are ready to cut ties. 

[foxfield]

All of this discussion is great.  But the final verdict depends on a number of factors which are unknown.

 

I will say that the actual performance on the field is great but as we saw last year with Beckham, SSS can be huge and it means nothing really.

Except, we got a guy who has some tools, some time under control, and he comes at a cost that compared to Schoop is attractive.  We are not winning the world series next year or the year after that.

If this guy stays healthy, we already won the deal, not in terms of did we do better than Milwaukee, but did we accomplish what we wanted.  He is a place holder.  IF he were to somehow flourish long enough to matter, he would present the same resign option that we had with Schoop or he could be traded.  If he reverts to a fringe MLB player with an average glove, then he fills a spot until someone takes it.

There is plenty of time to debate Villar's actual value and what it means to the Orioles future.  There is plenty of time to debate whether we got anything out of the Schoop trade at all.  But on the surface, if getting a placeholder infielder at a cheaper rate than Schoop was important, it appears that was accomplished.  I sure hope that the longer term assets turn out, because in the end....that is gonna be more important.  Too early, but I like what I see.

[Aristotelian]

12 minutes ago, Roy Firestone said:

Im pleased with what Ive seen so far...but in my view theres ultimately no way the Orioles got a better player in that package than Schoop. I saw Jonathan in LA when they played the Dodgers. He asked me why the Dodgers would trade him for (among others)an infielder that is older than he is, and I didn't have a great answer.I told him that I thought it was a money thing. He just shrugged.

They didn't. We got one older player with more years of control, and two younger players.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Roy Firestone said:

Im pleased with what Ive seen so far...but in my view theres ultimately no way the Orioles got a better player in that package than Schoop. I saw Jonathan in LA when they played the Dodgers. He asked me why the Dodgers would trade him for (among others)an infielder that is older than he is, and I didn't have a great answer.I told him that I thought it was a money thing. He just shrugged.

Villar is not a better player than Schoop.   But Villar does give us an extra year of service, and he has leadoff skills that have been sorely lacking on this team for several years.   Of course, those leadoff skills depend on him being able to maintain a decent OBP.   Last year he didn’t, and this year his OBP is just OK for a leadoff guy.   League average at leadoff is .329 OBP, the O’s are at .301, and Villar is carrying .327 for the season (regardless of where he bats).    So, he’s an upgrade at leadoff in terms of OBP and speed for us, even if not outstanding in the context of the league as a whole.

[Flacco Machado]

22 minutes ago, Roy Firestone said:

Im pleased with what Ive seen so far...but in my view theres ultimately no way the Orioles got a better player in that package than Schoop. I saw Jonathan in LA when they played the Dodgers. He asked me why the Dodgers would trade him for (among others)an infielder that is older than he is, and I didn't have a great answer.I told him that I thought it was a money thing. He just shrugged.

I assume, you mean, Orioles?

Villar, is only 7 months older, than Schoop. Not that big of a difference. And under more control, too.

[webbrick2010]

Don't see how the O's don't "win" this trade. I've never been a big Schoop fan, he epitomizes everything wrong with the O's (old O's I hope). Swing for the fences, low OBP, below average speed, average at best defense. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Brewers try to trade him this offseason.

[foxfield]

1 hour ago, Roy Firestone said:

Im pleased with what Ive seen so far...but in my view theres ultimately no way the Orioles got a better player in that package than Schoop. I saw Jonathan in LA when they played the Dodgers. He asked me why the (Orioles) would trade him for (among others)an infielder that is older than he is, and I didn't have a great answer.I told him that I thought it was a money thing. He just shrugged.

I doubt the Orioles received a better player than Schoop.  But no way is a little strong and frankly not determined.  But ultimately its irrelevant.  The Orioles traded money and service time in the exchange of commodities.  The Orioles have a player for one extra year at less than half the cost.  The players are months apart in age and the Orioles got 12 more years of controllable players who may or may not provide excess value.  

It is too early to tell who won...if you are in to that....but the risk here is entirely on the Brewers.  The Orioles got a stop gap infielder with upside and tools.  They also got salary relief and two prospects.  You make it sound like the Orioles traded a Porshe for a beat up Datsun.  IF Schoop is everything you think he is and more...then the Brewers are very happy with the trade and likely so are the Orioles.

It's pretty unlikely though that this turns out to be regrettable for Baltimore...It remains to be seen if its a huge win for sure.  But I just do not see the downside that you do aside from personally wishing Schoop was here.  But calling it a fleecing as you have, or worse was just indefensible.  Of course if we can't express our personal indefensible ideas here (Baseball...just baseball) where can we,.

Either way, Im glad to see you are slowly coming in from the ledge. 

[El Gordo]

So far he has been fun to watch.

[Finisher]

4 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I still think his 2016 season was the outlier because he's been bad much more often then he's good in his career.

Can't disagree and wasn't thrilled when we got him. It's interesting how free swingers (Villar, Beckham, Trumbo etc) get the greenlight here and look like Gods when we first get them, then pitchers change their approach and .. inevitable collapse. But Villar's .325 career OBP gives him a higher floor than a Beckham (.306 OBP). Pretty decent bet Villar is doing enough at one of the next two trade deadlines to bring back a prospect (not an amazing one, but possibly enough to change the optics a bit on the Schoop trade).

[Whammer]

42 minutes ago, Roy Firestone said:

Im pleased with what Ive seen so far...but in my view theres ultimately no way the Orioles got a better player in that package than Schoop. I saw Jonathan in LA when they played the Dodgers. He asked me why the Dodgers would trade him for (among others)an infielder that is older than he is, and I didn't have a great answer.I told him that I thought it was a money thing. He just shrugged.

Sorry but I don't have any sympathy for Jonathan. The correct answer should have been "you got traded b/c baseball is business and the O's, right or wrong, made a business decision. You can't expect a team to be loyal when, once you have leverage, will not display loyalty in return."

[Dipper9]

13 minutes ago, Whammer said:

Sorry but I don't have any sympathy for Jonathan. The correct answer should have been "you got traded b/c baseball is business and the O's, right or wrong, made a business decision. You can't expect a team to be loyal when, once you have leverage, will not display loyalty in return."

Agreed.

Plus, did Schoop feel sorry for the kids he let down at FanFest when he decided at the last minute to make a business decision not to come?  He made his own bed and now he acts like his feelings are hurt?  Maybe Schoop should have thought about loyalty last January!  

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

16 minutes ago, Dipper9 said:

Agreed.

Plus, did Schoop feel sorry for the kids he let down at FanFest when he decided at the last minute to make a business decision not to come?  He made his own bed and now he acts like his feelings are hurt?  Maybe Schoop should have thought about loyalty last January!  

Schoop is just disappointed that he wasn’t traded to the Dodgers so he could continue playing along side Manny.

[Dark Helmet]

16 hours ago, Frobby said:

 

 

Let’s judge the deal based on five days.   That’s a really sound way to judge a trade.   Just look at how indicative Tim Beckham’s first five games were.   Or first 30 games for that matter.    

All I gave was an opinion of what I've seen so far. Is that not allowed? And Villar has had solid seasons before. Beckham isn't a good comparison.  Have I ever kicked your dog? You seem to respond to me with alot of snark. Do you have an issue with me?

[Frobby]

20 minutes ago, Dark Helmet said:

All I gave was an opinion of what I've seen so far. Is that not allowed? And Villar has had solid seasons before. Beckham isn't a good comparison.  Have I ever kicked your dog? You seem to respond to me with alot of snark. Do you have an issue with me?

No, not at all.   I apologize for my tone.    And sure, you can give your opinion based on what you’ve seen so far.    I merely meant to point out that first impressions can be very misleading in baseball.    Sorry that it came off the way it did.