2019 Trade Deadline

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

It doesn't make sense to trade Mancini for three low-A boom or bust type prospects. Mancini has more value remaining an Oriole than dumping him for prospects that might have a chance to make it. 

How much value is there if it all occurs during years when the team isn't competitive?

[wildbillhiccup]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

How much value is there if it all occurs during years when the team isn't competitive?

A small amount of marketing value, but otherwise very little. People aren't going to fill the seats again until the team is competitive and I don't see that happening on Mancini's watch. 

[Lucky_13]

47 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

Austin Riley has been awful as of late too. They seem to be filling the Markakis void with Ender Inciarte and spelling Austin Riley with Adam DuVall. They can't be happy with that OF. Mancini and Givens to the Braves seems like it would solve two problems for them. 

That would be a solid package deal for them and they have a strong farm system.  Plus neither are rentals so it makes sense for the Braves.

[wildbillhiccup]

5 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

It doesn't make sense to trade Mancini for three low-A boom or bust type prospects. Mancini has more value remaining an Oriole than dumping him for prospects that might have a chance to make it. 

Elias is clearly looking to play the percentages and restock the farm system. If it makes sense to him then I'm on board. #trusttheprocess

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

How much value is there if it all occurs during years when the team isn't competitive?

True, but I would rather hold out for a more established or under the radar type prospect for Trey. I don't want three players that are a step up from DSL. 

[El Gordo]

Rumored Cubs O's Villar trade discussions.

 

[weams]

Vargas went to Philadelphia. 

[Moose Milligan]

4 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Rumored Cubs O's Villar trade discussions.

 

Link?

[Number5]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

How much value is there if it all occurs during years when the team isn't competitive?

I'm not sure if I understand your point.  Are you saying that a poor team should take less than a player's value in trade because they are a poor team?  If so, wouldn't that pretty much ensure that the team continues to be a poor team?

[hoosiers]

7 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

It was still a terrible trade. A pure pathetic salary dump. Gausman has been inconsistent his whole career, but he'd still be the #2 SP on our team. I didn't dive into the pitch info for his last start, but in general he's been much more successful when he's thrown his slider more. 

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.

[Moose Milligan]

3 minutes 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.

I'm on the boat.  And I sure as hell don't miss Gausman.  

[hoosiers]

10 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

Elias is clearly looking to play the percentages and restock the farm system. If it makes sense to him then I'm on board. #trusttheprocess

Unless a trade is a salary dump or a player on the verge of free agency, the primary reason to deal a player is to get prospects with better or equal talent back.  Why deal Mancini for lesser prospects?  He is a bona fide OPS .850-900 right now.  He is not a salary dump.  He is cheap.  There is absolutely no need to deal Mancini unless a quality prospect haul is received in return.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I'm not sure if I understand your point.  Are you saying that a poor team should take less than a player's value in trade because they are a poor team?  If so, wouldn't that pretty much ensure that the team continues to be a poor team?

 

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?

[Lucky_13]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm on the boat.  And I sure as hell don't miss Gausman.  

Yep I was happy to see Gausman go.

Now I'm hoping we do the same thing this year with Bundy. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

Unless a trade is a salary dump or a player on the verge of free agency, the primary reason to deal a player is to get prospects with better or equal talent back.  Why deal Mancini for lesser prospects?  He is a bona fide OPS .850-900 right now.  He is not a salary dump.  He is cheap.  There is absolutely no need to deal Mancini unless a quality prospect haul is received in return.

What if it is the best deal you think you will get for him over the period of team control?

Do you keep him through the rebuild?