Could we be looking at another sell off?

[Redskins Rick]

47 minutes ago, Number5 said:

That came later in the process.

I think picking up Verlander was good for them and the stretch run that one year, and was dominating in the playoffs, but I wouldnt call Verlander a fringe player either.

 

[atomic]

19 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I think picking up Verlander was good for them and the stretch run that one year, and was dominating in the playoffs, but I wouldnt call Verlander a fringe player either.

 

Where did I say to pick up fringe players? I said if the pendulum has moved to the other side and veteran players are not worth much than perhaps you should trade fringe prospects for veteran players.   Why would I want fringe players?  We have plenty of fringe players. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

Where did I say to pick up fringe players? I said if the pendulum has moved to the other side and veteran players are not worth much than perhaps you should trade fringe prospects for veteran players.   Why would I want fringe players?  We have plenty of fringe players. 

Verlander was dealt for three prospects, two of which had been in the BA top 100 (only one was on the list in the year of the trade).    You certainly aren’t getting a guy like that for fringe prospects.    If anything, Verlander’s trade cost was a little light because he was earning a very high salary and having a good but not great season.    
 

Would you trade, say, Grayson Rodriguez, Austin Hays and Keegan Akin for an ace pitcher with 2 years left on his contract right now?    

[thezeroes]

Verlander also had Five Ten status and could veto any trade.  This alone limited the suitors. With limited suitors you get a limited return.

[sportsfan8703]

4 hours ago, LookinUp said:

 

Fringe prospects are by definition low probability. They are not zero probability. One simple theory is that if you gather a lot of fringe prospects, you have a chance that a couple really hit. Think John Means. It happens.

So would you rather have pretty good veteran players now and win 70-75 games or a better chance to have a couple of better players in a couple of years when our higher rated talent arrives? Would you rather have the money trading veterans would free up to eventually also invest in players during that competitive window?

I think I know your answer, but you should at least acknowledge the calculus behind the strategy.

I don’t want to win 70-75 games. I want the #1 pick in the draft. Next year is when I will start caring about results because we will have a lot of our prospects on the team. 

[HowAboutThat]

8 hours ago, atomic said:

If you can get veteran players for less these days than wouldn't it make more sense to trade fringe prospects for veterans?  Instead of trading your good veteran players for fringe prospects? 

Maybe, but who wants our fringe prospects?

[HowAboutThat]

51 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I don’t want to win 70-75 games. I want the #1 pick in the draft. Next year is when I will start caring about results because we will have a lot of our prospects on the team. 

Not gonna happen. Tigers and Marlins both suck horribly, the Royals are awful, the Reds, Mets, Pirates are badly owned, the Mariners( poor Mariners...) I expect a single digit draft pick but I expect it to be 8-9 at best.

[HowAboutThat]

8 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Exactly but we have the flexibility to trot out guys that haven’t gotten an opportunity and give them ABs to see what they can do. Alberto and Severino showed they can hit LHP. In Alberto’s case, he demolished LHP.

Severino and Alberto would be role players on a good team. Severino might be a good fit on a team like the Astros. Alberto could be a good fit on an NL team because he offers some positional flexibility, could pinch hit, and he can hit LHP. 

I’m in favor of a wash, rinse, repeat, cycle of picking guys up off the waiver wire then trading them if they develop have some value. They could develop into role players for good teams now, but their limited skill set will diminish by the time we’re good. 

Players with a decent ceiling, in A ball, and no immediate 40 man roster concerns, would be ideal in a return. 

You make a valid point, when you say that we have the flexibility to play guys and give them a chance, but just because they succeed with us does not mean they have trade value. Remember we have a terrible team, somebody filling in adequately on a terrible team means nothing to a contending team. Does Alberto offer something they can’t easily get for free in their high minors?

Alberto did a fine job, and with the roster expanding from 25 to 26, maybe somebody would be interested in him. But he’s limited,  and therefore has little value. Anybody would claim him off the waiver wire, but nobody’s going to trade anything meaningful for him. 

Severino was good for us, and I’m glad we have him, but I doubt he’s appreciably better than any one of a dozen catchers you can get for literally free. Sisco Does not even have value as a throw in.

[section18]

Look for Mancini, Villar and Givens with Bundy also a possibility to be traded, In every conversation I've heard with Elias when asked about Mancini he says he's a popular player and good with teammates and they like him but ? But? He always says they will listen to offers for their players. He's not an untouchable and it doesn't appear anyone is on this team. If he moves these players I would not call it a selloff.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, section18 said:

Look for Mancini, Villar and Givens with Bundy also a possibility to be traded, In every conversation I've heard with Elias when asked about Mancini he says he's a popular player and good with teammates and they like him but ? But? He always says they will listen to offers for their players. He's not an untouchable and it doesn't appear anyone is on this team. If he moves these players I would not call it a selloff.

What would you call it?

[wildcard]

26 minutes ago, Frobby said:

What would you call it?

A lowering of payroll.

[atomic]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

Verlander was dealt for three prospects, two of which had been in the BA top 100 (only one was on the list in the year of the trade).    You certainly aren’t getting a guy like that for fringe prospects.    If anything, Verlander’s trade cost was a little light because he was earning a very high salary and having a good but not great season.    
 

Would you trade, say, Grayson Rodriguez, Austin Hays and Keegan Akin for an ace pitcher with 2 years left on his contract right now?    

I would like to keep Hays but I have no problem trading Akin and Grayson for an established player.  Can’t be done in a vacuum. You would have to sign other players trade other prospects.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, atomic said:

I would like to keep Hays but I have no problem trading Akin and Grayson for an established player.  Can’t be done in a vacuum. You would have to sign other players trade other prospects.

This would be just a terrible strategy given the distance we are from competing.  

[Guest]

15 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

The following players have some varied trade value,

Trey Mancini

Dylan Bundy

Mychal Givens

Jonathan Villar

Hanser Alberto

Pedro Severino

Renato Nunez

We’re looking at another 100 loss season. With the exception of guys like Hays, Harvey, Sisco, and Santander, the likely core of our next “good” teams are in AAA and below. 

With teams smartening up and not trading a lot of prospects at the deadline to chase the WC spots, I think more teams would view themselves as “contenders” now, versus in July. 

Who on the above list would even be here in 2022 and beyond?  

Problem is besides Givens and Bundy there isn't much here to attract other teams. I don't think teams are going to offer something new for Villar than from what was being offered in July. I mean we all love Mancini but the market doesn't value LF/1B types like Mancini. Alberto and Severino were great stories in 2019 but I imagine their value is near zero. In Alberto's case his average hit velocity and hard hit percentage were in the bottom 1% as was his BB%. You can find Severino clones in free agency and maybe even among 6 year minor league FAs. Nunez is essentially a pure DH and will be very affordable next year that I don't see them trading him. After all, they still have to field a team in 2020.
 

[atomic]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

This would be just a terrible strategy given the distance we are from competing.  

Sedlock, Bundy and Harvey were all our top prospect at one point. If we trade them at their peak we might be in a better place.