Jump to content

O's trade International Signing Bonus Slots to Blue Jays for OF Dwight Smith Jr


LTO's

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I wouldn’t be suprised you see a few guys we have start in minors or go up and down some to keep their service time under this season.  Hays in the minors to start maybe Mullins down for a period as well.  Like it or not that is becoming a big game for teams especially teams not competing no point burner time to try and win 60 games.  I think you see a lot of musical chairs in the outfield do and corner infield especially if Trumbo is hurt and Davis continue to look lost.  You probably see Mancini or Nunez take over first.  I thought Davis would get a year but with some of these moves like Nunez at first Mountcastle there as well his leash might not be as long as I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, interloper said:

We've signed several international players already. Just nobody worth talking about much yet.

There are always lots of guys that come out of nowhere in the international market let’s hope we find the next Robles or Soto type.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bpilktree said:

I wouldn’t be suprised you see a few guys we have start in minors or go up and down some to keep their service time under this season.  Hays in the minors to start maybe Mullins down for a period as well.  Like it or not that is becoming a big game for teams especially teams not competing no point burner time to try and win 60 games.  I think you see a lot of musical chairs in the outfield do and corner infield especially if Trumbo is hurt and Davis continue to look lost.  You probably see Mancini or Nunez take over first.  I thought Davis would get a year but with some of these moves like Nunez at first Mountcastle there as well his leash might not be as long as I expected.

It's mostly reserved for guys they think are going to become stars.

Which of the young O's prospects do you think that applies to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's mostly reserved for guys they think are going to become stars.

Which of the young O's prospects do you think that applies to?

Why? What’s the downside in doing it with players we hope are simply going to be solid starters or even useful contributors? On a team going nowhere like the 2019 Orioles, why not do it to preserve some more team control?

I know things could change with the next CBA and make this moot, but you operate under the rules presently in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ReclaimTheCrown said:

Why? What’s the downside in doing it with players we hope are simply going to be solid starters or even useful contributors? On a team going nowhere like the 2019 Orioles, why not do it to preserve some more team control?

I know things could change with the next CBA and make this moot, but you operate under the rules presently in place.

Could cause bad blood between the player and the team. 

Could show agents that the O's will conspire to delay their clients' service time.

If you can avoid pissing someone off for no good reason you might want to look at doing that.   What good reason exists to turn a "useful contributor" into a super 2 you are just going to non-tender down the road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Could cause bad blood between the player and the team. 

Could show agents that the O's will conspire to delay their clients' service time.

If you can avoid pissing someone off for no good reason you might want to look at doing that.   What good reason exists to turn a "useful contributor" into a super 2 you are just going to non-tender down the road?

Fair point on the “useful contributor” issue regarding arbitration implications...the bar certainly shouldn’t be too low. However, I tend to think the bad blood point is a little overstated; I think it’s just begrudgingly accepted as part of how business is done under the current CBA. It’s not like any of these guys are likely to be absolutely lighting the world on fire in the minors and painfully obviously ready for the bigs, so it’s defensible and not that egregious to keep them down in the minors for a portion of this year. No one is going to be putting up Kris Bryant-esqe absurd numbers, OPSing north of 1.000 and absolutely beating down the ML door. At least I don’t expect any of our guys will.

Getting another year of control is a “good reason”, I would say, but it’s obviously fine if you disagree.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

You don't need 750K to round out your DSL roster.

 

Overall nice piece.

I think it's wild that you continue to think you're smarter at baseball than Mike Elias. 

Also, maybe you DO need 750k to round out your DSL roster when you're the stupid Orioles who have neglected that roster for years.

After all, we need a bunch of guys people don't want to round out our 40-man roster. Same applies up and down the farm, I'm sure, DSL included. Increasing the talent base. 

Also, other teams apparently think they need $500k to fill out their own DSL rosters, as evidenced by these trades in the first place. So... a jump to $750k for the Orioles seems about right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, weams said:

 

 

1 hour ago, TheOtherRipken said:

This is the first interview where I feel Elias is incredibly refreshing. DD always talked in double-speak and riddles, and honestly so did MacPhail. Finally someone talking candidly.

It's fantastic. He explains everything succinctly. He's educating folks about the international market, which is one of the least understood-by-fans things in baseball. I've learned more about it since he's been on board than I have following baseball my whole life. 

I'm not saying he can do no wrong, because baseball is full of doing wrong intentionally or not. And sometimes people are smarter and better than you. And sometimes ownership doesn't play nice. I'm just saying the narrative that he's pulling the wool over our eyes on the international market is, so far, completely unfounded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, weams said:

 

I found this statement by Meoli intriguing: “Instead, they traded more bonus pool money away in the summer in a deal with the Philadelphia Phillies that proved to be a part of a previous deal between the two clubs, causing plenty of consternation.”    This suggests the Zoellner deal was somehow related to a prior deal between the two clubs.     Looking back, could this mean the Alec Asher deal from March 2017?    That deal was for “a player to be named later or cash considerations.”   We never did send them a player.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...