2019 Trade Deadline

[weams]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I am OK with the Gausman trade, I am just saying I understand the people who didn't like that money was obviously a consideration. Trade KG straight up for prospects and it's a whole different conversation. Yes, we are #8 now, but that is mostly due to Rutschman and continued development of guys we already had. I haven't clicked through the paywall of the Baseball America article but I would guess that the guys we got from Atlanta account for approximately 0% of that ranking.

I think they kinda like ZImmermann. I'm sure they do. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I am OK with the Gausman trade, I am just saying I understand the people who didn't like that money was obviously a consideration. Trade KG straight up for prospects and it's a whole different conversation. Yes, we are #8 now, but that is mostly due to Rutschman and continued development of guys we already had. I haven't clicked through the paywall of the Baseball America article but I would guess that the guys we got from Atlanta account for approximately 0% of that ranking.

I was fine with dumping O'Day.  It was the international money that wasn't spent on international players that I had a problem with.  I'd have rather have had a couple 17 year old DSL players.

[Aristotelian]

Just now, weams said:

I think they kinda like ZImmermann. I'm sure they do. 

Lol, I did say "approximately" 0%.

[weams]

19 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was fine with dumping O'Day.  It was the international money that wasn't spent on international players that I had a problem with.  I'd have rather have had a couple 17 year old DSL players.

I know. Well - now the Orioles are allowed to. 

[wildbillhiccup]

2 hours ago, hoosiers said:

You can pound the table all you want, but this trade was needed at the time and looks like gold in retrospect.  Thank goodness we do not still have Gausman and O'Day and their salaries on our roster.  What a crazy laughing-stock this team would be with a payroll north of $100M and a bottom 3 record.  

Folks want to get paid in prospects - most of the time I would too, but not in this case.  Reducing payroll was a higher priority than improving our prospect list.  I wouldn't wish poor performance on Gausman or O'Day, but clearly those guys represent wasted $ for Atlanta.  We picked up salary relief.  Took a flyer on a couple prospects.

This trade has paid off in spades.  Maybe folks can point to better prospects offered, maybe not, but one litmus test for that deal was how it would look if it wasn't made - and clearly the Os have been much better off without those payroll obligations.

Pound the table all you want - a good trade was made by our former GM and it is staring you right in the face.  Some folks just insist on missing the boat - it will leave without them.

The team payroll is around $72M this year. Gausman and O'Day are both making $9M this season, so it wouldn't have been north of $100M. It would have been around $92M, which would still have been the fifth lowest payroll in MLB. The only people that gained from the salary relief were the owners. That's it. There's zero indication that the money has been reinvested back into the team. Zero. 

[Roll Tide]

28 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I am OK with the Gausman trade, I am just saying I understand the people who didn't like that money was obviously a consideration. Trade KG straight up for prospects and it's a whole different conversation. Yes, we are #8 now, but that is mostly due to Rutschman and continued development of guys we already had. I haven't clicked through the paywall of the Baseball America article but I would guess that the guys we got from Atlanta account for approximately 0% of that ranking.

Encarcion and Cumberland are ranked 29 and 30 by MLB. I don't believe Phillips has prospect status. So Zimmerman is the only guy not in the top 30.

[Roll Tide]

28 minutes ago, weams said:

I think they kinda like ZImmermann. I'm sure they do. 

Interesting is that Zimmermann had 16 starts at AA with a 2.58 ERA but doesn't rank in MLBs top 30. 

[weams]

8 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

The only people that gained from the salary relief were the owners. That's it. There's zero indication that the money has been reinvested back into the team. Zero. 

How do you pay for the decreased attendance and income from a rebuild? To me the payroll should be lower. 

[Whammer]

18 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

The team payroll is around $72M this year. Gausman and O'Day are both making $9M this season, so it wouldn't have been north of $100M. It would have been around $92M, which would still have been the fifth lowest payroll in MLB. The only people that gained from the salary relief were the owners. That's it. There's zero indication that the money has been reinvested back into the team. Zero. 

Hired Elias, Sig, Koby Perez. Signed 27 players during international signing period. I'd say decent investment so far.

[Roll Tide]

15 minutes ago, weams said:

How do you pay for the decreased attendance and income from a rebuild? To me the payroll should be lower. 

The MLB and MASN revenue are the principle ways the payroll is covered. 

Quote

M.L.B. also has media rights deals with Facebook, ESPN and Turner Sports. Its current contracts with ESPN (worth $5.6 billion) and Turner Sports ($2.6 billion) run through 2021.

And their share of MASN has to be worth at least 60-80 million per season.

[Luke-OH]

37 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Interesting is that Zimmermann had 16 starts at AA with a 2.58 ERA but doesn't rank in MLBs top 30. 

You’d hope they don’t use stats to create their rankings, but I do think it’s an oversight in this case.

[Frobby]

6 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

I disagree with the assessment that Kay was the top guy in the deal, but yeah he’s solid. It’s like Grayson Rodriguez and Keegan Akin for Stroman, that’d be a pretty comparable return IMO. Grayson is a little better than Woods-Richardson, Kay is a little better than Akin.

Great deal for the Blue Jays if so.

[Roll Tide]

36 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

You’d hope they don’t use stats to create their rankings, but I do think it’s an oversight in this case.

Obviously a pitchers stuff is given grades and his control. But I think succes in the minors is better than the alternative.

[hoosiers]

3 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

The team payroll is around $72M this year. Gausman and O'Day are both making $9M this season, so it wouldn't have been north of $100M. It would have been around $92M, which would still have been the fifth lowest payroll in MLB. The only people that gained from the salary relief were the owners. That's it. There's zero indication that the money has been reinvested back into the team. Zero. 

Let me know which of the following is free:

 - spending more $ on international prospects in the last calendar year than in team history

 - spending $ on technology

 - building out an analytics group

 - hiring a real international director and more scouts

 - how about a draft pool $5M higher in 2019 ($13.8M v $8.8M in 2018)

 

Some new, incremental investments mentioned below:

https://www.mlb.com/news/orioles-will-be-fillling-multiple-jobs-for-19-c302094826

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/05/11/baltimore-orioles-have-lot-catching/sEG5BYeX60fje2biESMjLN/story.html

 

It looks to me that the Os payroll would be over $100M when including buried minor league $ and right up against $98M with Gausman and O'Day.  Semantics.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/baltimore-orioles/payroll/

"Zero indication that the $ has been reinvested back into the team."  Really?  You really think in your heart of hearts that all of these investments get made by our ownership with $18M in additional costs with no incremental revenue on the 2019 financials.  You really think ownership could find a young, highly respected GM to hire WITHOUT showing an air-tight budget commitment to invest in top priorities.  The boat has left without you, bro.  Can't believe the above isn't crystal clear to a large majority of the board by now.

[Filmstudy]

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

Let's say you view Mancini as a 3 win/year player over the length of his team control (10 wins). 

If the O's can get 8 wins of projected future value isn't that worth more than 10 wins when they are not going to be competitive?

I agree entirely with the notion that wins later are worth more than wins now or in 2020, so I think 10 for 8 would make sense and 10 for 10 would be terrific.

However, I think there is some overvaluation of Mancini here (meaning in the thread i general, not from @Can_of_corn who I believe asked a hypothetical question.  He's a likable player, but he has a decent but unspectacular OBP, plays on the far right of the defensive spectrum where the Orioles have accumulated a logjam of players, and has negative defensive value.  What's worse, his OPS is his strongest category and most of that 1) comes from slugging and 2) isn't park adjusted.  WAA162 provides a better estimate of Mancini's value and by that metric, adding Trey to an otherwise .500 team makes them a .498 team over 162 games.  He's also 27 now, so it's optimistic to project future growth as an offensive player from this local high. 

Mancini is inexpensive, which I'd love in a sport like football with a hard cap, but I don't like the idea of his salary ballooning with arbitration on a bad team while his value depreciates and he holds a spot which could be used to test some of the logjam players.

He could play a supporting role on a champion, but not a lead role.

For the Orioles, I don't believe there is hope he'll do either before the sand runs out.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Filmstudy