Cobb & Cashner Clear Waivers

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Packaging Trumbo with Cobb would reduce Cobb's value.

I'm not sure another team would be willing to take over Cobb's contract.  I certainly don't think they would also except Trumbo.

[wildcard]

10 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Packaging Trumbo with Cobb would reduce Cobb's value.

Packaging O'Day with Gausman reduced Gausman's value.  The precedent has already been set.

[mdbdotcom]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Packaging O'Day with Gausman reduced Gausman's value.  The precedent has already been set.

But Gausman did have value. Trumbo has less than none.

[wildcard]

4 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

But Gausman did have value. Trumbo has less than none.

You are comparing the wrong players   Gausman and Cobb have value.   O'Day and Trumbo are not performing up to there contracts.

[maybenxtyr]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

You are comparing the wrong players   Gausman and Cobb have value.   O'Day and Trumbo are not performing up to there contracts.

Gausman and Cobb are nothing alike. Cobb is owed a bunch of money...to the point that he is the actual salary dump.

[mdbdotcom]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

You are comparing the wrong players   Gausman and Cobb have value.   O'Day and Trumbo are not performing up to there contracts.

But Gausman was relatively cheap compared to Cobb. Cobb's contract is a burden to take on, unlike Gausman's. And it's likely that O'Day will have value next year. Trumbo has had no value since 2016. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

You are comparing the wrong players   Gausman and Cobb have value.   O'Day and Trumbo are not performing up to there contracts.

He's been on a nice run but I'm not sure Cobb currently has excess value on that contract.

[Tx Oriole]

20 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Packaging O'Day with Gausman reduced Gausman's value.  The precedent has already been set.

I think they got good value back for Gausman.

[wildcard]

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

He's been on a nice run but I'm not sure Cobb currently has excess value on that contract.

You do not have to be sure.   It just takes one GM that thinks the pitcher he was before this season and the pitcher he has been over his last 7 starts  in someone that GM wants in this rotation.

[wildcard]

10 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

I think they got good value back for Gausman.

Stupid trade.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

You do not have to be sure.   It just takes one GM that thinks the pitcher he was before this season and the pitcher he has been over his last 7 starts  in someone that GM wants in this rotation.

I know a pick was involved but remember, only one GM was willing to give him the contract he currently has and the year he was most likely to do well will be over.

[Greg Pappas]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

We have disproportionately been drafting pitchers for years, especially the last two, and in my opinion it’s a horrible idea to continue that.   

I agree with you. Getting as many talented prospects as possible should be our first priority, and in the draft, position players have historically been more likely to become quality major leaguers than pitchers. Therefore, if your focus is on position players, you'll accumulate more talent and can trade from your depth/strengths to acquire pitching.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Greg Pappas said:

I agree with you. Getting as many talented prospects as possible should be our first priority, and in the draft, position players have historically been more likely to become major leaguers than pitchers. Therefore, if your focus is on position players, you'll accumulate more talent and can trade from your depth/strengths to acquire pitching.

Best

Player

Available

[ScGO's]

If anyone is willing to pick up either of their salaries, they will be gone for a cheap return.  1) Dan knows this club horrible next year with or without them and 2) Attendance will be down for the next 3 years, so its all about cost control.  

Sign a bunch of vets to milb contracts this spring and hope 1-2 sticks.  No one on this team next year should be making more than 10 mil, except Davis I suppose.

[Greg Pappas]

15 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Best

Player

Available

I hear you, but stats don't lie.  This isn't like the NFL, where that strategy has proved to be a strong one.

I myself have lost sight of the disparity and in the heat of the moment have thought that a pitcher was the best choice, as I did this year in Matthew Liberatore.  He or another pitcher (hopefully Grayson Rodriguez) may turn out the best pick at the time we were on the clock, but the numbers indicate that it's a safer and smarter choice to go with a position player. I'm not saying that a notably higher-rated pitcher should get bypassed to take a position player, but when there are players of a similar value available, the stats would seem to argue going with the position player. I'm having trouble recalling my source for this (BA?), but if I recall correctly, both pitchers and position players are just as likely to make the majors, BUT position players have far more career WAR than pitchers. 

@Frobby was it you that posted about this before?