Waiving/non-tendering Villar: pro or con?

[weams]

2 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Phony straw man argument.  You can have an analytically driven front office that doesn’t throw away an asset to save pennies on the dollar.

Andy was a nice man to have. He gave us Buck and a couple nice players. 

[weams]

Just now, Roll Tide said:

Roch said there were deals on the table that Elias didn’t like .... go back and look.

There was certainly value that is greater than Zilch 

Sometimes a deal is take this guy we over owe and we'll take the guy you are offering. I never like those.  It's like "do you want it in the foot or the shoulder." Neither works for me. 

[weams]

3 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Roch said there were deals on the table that Elias didn’t like .... go back and look.

There was certainly value that is greater than Zilch 

I'm not convinced. No. If that is where you start your premise I can't go there with you. If you say I like seeing him play, I can support that. 

[Roll Tide]

3 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

Ok, what was he offered?

The clearest language I've been able to find is "they engaged with the Cubs". 

I’m not going through MASN crap from July looking for it.

I don’t care exactly what was offered. There were definitely offers.

The fact is there is at least a good chance we get nothing.

Elias gambled that he’s get more this offseason than he was offered at the deadline. That’s obviously wrong! He then decided not to pay him a few million dollar raise and preferred cutting him. If that was the case you make the best deal at the deadline and live with it

[weams]

Alex Fast agrees with the ones who hate this.

 

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, weams said:

Andy was a nice man to have. He gave us Buck and a couple nice players. 

Andy didn't give us Buck.

[weams]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Andy didn't give us Buck.

Ok. Peter did. There. 

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, weams said:

I'm not convinced. No. If that is where you start your premise I can't go there with you. If you say I like seeing him play, I can support that. 

1) I wanted to keep him. I advocated paying him 2-3 years at 6.5 per before last season.

2) if not I’d understand him being dealt for future pieces

However I’m not and never will be on the wagon for a DFA scenario where we lose him for nothing.

 

[7Mo]

Just now, Roll Tide said:

I’m not going through MASN crap from July looking for it.

I don’t care exactly what was offered. There were definitely offers.

The fact is there is at least a good chance we get nothing.

Elias gambled that he’s get more this offseason than he was offered at the deadline. That’s obviously wrong! He then decided not to pay him a few million dollar raise and preferred cutting him. If that was the case you make the best deal at the deadline and live with it

So based on general comments in a Roch article that said there were discussions, that did not give details, that don't tell us if it required giving up international money or take back a bad contract, you're comfortable saying Elias is incompetent, a buffoon and "more of an idiot than you thought" because he didn't take whatever was offered at the deadline. 

Correct?

[weams]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

 

However I’m not and never will be on the wagon for a DFA scenario where we lose him for nothing.

 

I think so too. I've thought so. I am thinking no one wants him for 10. 

[NCRaven]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

I'm not convinced. No. If that is where you start your premise I can't go there with you. If you say I like seeing him play, I can support that. 

Okay.  I would rather see Villar at 2nd base than Wilkerson, Alberto or a Rule 5 draft pick - the likely alternatives.  Especially if it’s for nothing.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

Alex Fast agrees with the ones who hate this.

 

I like how he just assumes Elias can find a trade partner.

That worked out well last deadline and so far this offseason.

The downside is you pay Villar 10M so you can win 56 games instead of 54.

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, 7Mo said:

So based on general comments in a Roch article that said there were discussions, that did not give details, that don't tell us if it required giving up international money or take back a bad contract, you're comfortable saying Elias is incompetent, a buffoon and "more of an idiot than you thought" because he didn't take whatever was offered at the deadline. 

Correct?

There were rumors and Roch after the deadline said he just didn’t get what he was looking for.

 

[weams]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

1) I wanted to keep him. I advocated paying him 2-3 years at 6.5 per before last season.

 

 

Many people including the OP wanted to keep him because he was speedy. 

[weams]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I like how he just assumes Elias can find a trade partner.

That worked out well last deadline and so far this offseason.

The downside is you pay Villar 10M so you can win 56 games instead of 54.

Or 5 million for half a year to trade him IF HE IS GOOD.