Could we be looking at another sell off?

[crawjo]

I think it is veterans now that are undervalued. If I were Elias, I would be looking to add veteran FAs (or salary dumps from other teams) that fill holes in the current roster, and then look to flip them at the deadline. We should be looking for bounce-back candidates. It's not a path to World Series contention, but it can help at the margins. Also, I am skeptical that the players we have now would get much in return on the trade market. 

I would not tank next season for draft position. Lots of teams are doing that, and anyway I think the biggest rewards will come in international signings. So I'm not trading Bundy unless someone overpays, because at the end of the day this team needs a starting rotation and Lord knows our bullpen isn't currently positioned to carry a heavier load.  

[Spl51]

30 minutes ago, crawjo said:

I think it is veterans now that are undervalued. If I were Elias, I would be looking to add veteran FAs (or salary dumps from other teams) that fill holes in the current roster, and then look to flip them at the deadline. We should be looking for bounce-back candidates. It's not a path to World Series contention, but it can help at the margins. Also, I am skeptical that the players we have now would get much in return on the trade market. 

I would not tank next season for draft position. Lots of teams are doing that, and anyway I think the biggest rewards will come in international signings. So I'm not trading Bundy unless someone overpays, because at the end of the day this team needs a starting rotation and Lord knows our bullpen isn't currently positioned to carry a heavier load.  

If veterans are underwhelming, then why do you think we will be able to trade them for anything at the deadline? I see this sentiment all the time. People complain all the time that the trade and free agent market are super cold from all the conservative front offices, and yet think signing stopgaps to trade will bring back real prospects. We would be lucky to get rid of the salary of the veterans we have now, never mind get real value back in trades. 

[section18]

It would not be a sell off. It would be a lowering of our payroll and bringing in more younger prospects.

[sportsfan8703]

6 hours ago, IronMan6981 said:

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.
 

Villar has a much better market now than he did at the trade deadline. There’s more teams now that think they are competing than there were at the trade deadline last year. Teams are now reluctant to give up prospects at the deadline to chase the wildcard. Villar is a given, but it’s better to try and trade Bundy and Givens now, while there is a bigger market. 

The idea that Bundy having 15 starts with a 3.99 ERA, or Givens having 30 IP with a 2.99 ERA, in the first half that is going to significantly boost theirs trade value is a little wishful thinking. They don’t need some magical stat line to get traded. Teams know what they are. They aren’t Andrew Cashner. 

Overall, my point is that there is a broader market for all players now, versus a narrow market at the deadline. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by sportsfan8703

[Guest]

1 minute ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Villar has a much better market now than he did at the trade deadline. There’s more teams now that think they are competing than there were at the trade deadline last year. Teams are now reluctant to give up prospects at the deadline to chase the wildcard. Villar is a given, but it’s better to try and trade Bundy and Givens now, while there is a bigger market. 

The idea that Bundy having 15 starts with a 3.99 ERA, or Givens having 30 IP with a 2.99 ERA, in the first half that is going to significantly boost theirs trade value is a little wishful thinking. They don’t need some magical stat line to get traded. Teams know what they are. They aren’t Andrew Cashner. 

Overall, my point is that there is a broader market for all players now, versus a narrow market at the deadline. 

Teams will look at Villar’s performance in September and ask themselves is this the Villar we always seen and ask why would we overpay for someone who had one big month when the rest of the season he was an average player. 

[sportsfan8703]

5 minutes ago, IronMan6981 said:

Teams will look at Villar’s performance in September and ask themselves is this the Villar we always seen and ask why would we overpay for someone who had one big month when the rest of the season he was an average player. 

September was actually his worst month of the season OPS wise. It was his 1.053 August OPS that was huge. He also finished with 24 HR and 40 SB. That’s not some hot stretch. 

Villar is in a different spot than Bundy and Givens. We have to tender Villar, wait for the Didi market, then we’ll get offers for Villar. They won’t be huge, but I think we could end up with something better than expected. 

I think the Reds, Cubs, and CWS make the most sense. 

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, section18 said:

It would not be a sell off. It would be a lowering of our payroll and bringing in more younger prospects.

I guess I don’t understand how that’s not a sell-off.    Seems to me that’s essentially the very definition.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I guess I don’t understand how that’s not a sell-off.    Seems to me that’s essentially the very definition.  

Is it a sell-off when your baseline is 54 wins?  Right now the Orioles talent is essentially that of an expansion team.  They could trade Mancini and Villar and still be better next year just by having fewer guys with 9.88 ERAs and calling up Mountcastle and a couple others.

[atomic]

6 hours ago, section18 said:

It would not be a sell off. It would be a lowering of our payroll and bringing in more younger prospects.

I think that is the definition of a sell off.

[atomic]

2 hours ago, IronMan6981 said:

Teams will look at Villar’s performance in September and ask themselves is this the Villar we always seen and ask why would we overpay for someone who had one big month when the rest of the season he was an average player. 

He has been a good player most of his career.  I have no idea why Brewers traded him for Schoop.

[weams]

14 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?    

That was making 30 million a year? 

[sportsfan8703]

6 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Is it a sell-off when your baseline is 54 wins?  Right now the Orioles talent is essentially that of an expansion team.  They could trade Mancini and Villar and still be better next year just by having fewer guys with 9.88 ERAs and calling up Mountcastle and a couple others.

This is my point. Why go through the same season just because we’re “attached” to some names?  

Last year was a failure to me. We didn’t get the number one pick. What’s the point of being this bad if you at least don’t get the #1 pick?  

[MurphDogg]

38 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

This is my point. Why go through the same season just because we’re “attached” to some names?  

Last year was a failure to me. We didn’t get the number one pick. What’s the point of being this bad if you at least don’t get the #1 pick?  

People pay for tickets and to watch the games. Those people would rather watch Major League players. I am not broken up over the Orioles failure to get the #1 pick last year. They were actually watchable the last 6 weeks of the season with Hays and Harvey up and playing well. I enjoyed the 15-22 finish, they didn't get blown out once, losing by 6 twice and 5 once while having a 12-run win and two 7-run wins.

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

People pay for tickets and to watch the games. Those people would rather watch Major League players. I am not broken up over the Orioles failure to get the #1 pick last year. 

I pretty much couldn’t have cared less.    There’s no consensus no. 1 for next year at this point anyway.    I’m glad to have the no. 2 pick and hope they make a good choice.     I’m hoping we get enough improvement from younger players that we’re not close to being the worst team in baseball next year.    

[weams]

8 hours ago, Frobby said:

I guess I don’t understand how that’s not a sell-off.    Seems to me that’s essentially the very definition.  

People would like the team and owners to lessen their financial position.