Villar Traded to Marlins for LHS Easton Lucas

[7Mo]

1 minute ago, Three Run Homer said:

If you are OK with the O's trading Villar for a token prospect just to get rid of his salary, would you also be OK if the O's traded Givens, Bundy and Mancini for token prospects? 

I think we can all agree that the O's aren't going to be competitive for a few more years.  Should we just trade everyone who will no longer be under team control by the time we are good again, even if we get nothing in return?  

I don't think anyone is gonna say yes to that.

In my view, the people saying they're ok with the Villar trade believe it was the best trade available. I don't think anyone would say the same about a Given, Bundy or Mancini trade.

And this is ignoring the approach where Villar could have been tendered and brought back. 

[Moose Milligan]

3 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Well I won't argue that Villar alone is not going to change the fortunes of the 2020 Orioles much, but it did make them a little less interesting to watch next year. If I was a casual fan, no way am I paying money to watch this team if the organization cares so little about putting any kind of redeemable product on the field during the rebuild.

I get it, no one player is going to move the needle much on this team, but having a few veteran players who are good on the team when the young guys come up can't hurt their development.

And I get that not having him makes the team less interesting to watch, for sure.  No denying that.  I liked watching him, he was fun.  

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:

If you are OK with the O's trading Villar for a token prospect just to get rid of his salary, would you also be OK if the O's traded Givens, Bundy and Mancini for token prospects? 

I think we can all agree that the O's aren't going to be competitive for a few more years.  Should we just trade everyone who will no longer be under team control by the time we are good again, even if we get nothing in return?  

Those guys are making less than Villar and are under control for longer.     They should have more trade value than Villar and we have more time to try to trade them.   Therefore, we shouldn’t trade them for as little return as we got for Villar.    

That said, I’m not going to write off Easton Lucas as a token prospect just yet.    I’d certainly rather have him than nothing.
 

[LookinUp]

15 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:

If you are OK with the O's trading Villar for a token prospect just to get rid of his salary, would you also be OK if the O's traded Givens, Bundy and Mancini for token prospects? 

I think we can all agree that the O's aren't going to be competitive for a few more years.  Should we just trade everyone who will no longer be under team control by the time we are good again, even if we get nothing in return?  

Givens: very over rated on this board, IMO. Will get too expensive pretty soon unless he builds some consistent results. If he hasn't clicked by July, I'd say yes.

Bundy: has real value and more control. May now be ascending under this leadership. I'd trade him for sure because I'm not at all convinced he gets the ball every 5th day on a competitive Orioles team in a couple of years, but not for a deal like this unless he implodes.

Mancini: Opposite of Villar. We have control and he's still pretty cheap. He's productive. I don't like the idea of trading him at all because I don't think he's very valued (e.g, bat w/o position value) outside of this org.

[hoosiers]

2 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

It does matter as it makes a difference to the people you are trying to sell tickets to. I guess it wouldn’t matter if they were going to open the gates at game time for free or prefer to allow the yard to be invaded by the competitors fans.

As mentioned by @Tony-OH the big problem is they essentially gave him away.

Whether people wanted to Believe it Elias screwed this up royally and squandered one of the few traceable assets. He let his mouth and then the deadline devalue his trade chip.

So it’s the move that looks really bad.

You don’t tell rival GMs that you are not going to tender guy in advance of a trade and the deadline.

Its easy to sell that they moved on from Villar by pointing at the return for a rebuilding club. But in this case and the Cashner deal it’s hard to get excited about the return.

As Tony said, they could’ve tendered him or signed a reasonable extension and dealt him at a position of strength. In the meantime the Orioles could allow their fans to watch a good player play. 

Villar was not "given away".  The Os received market value for Villar's expected 2019 contribution and cost.

Negotiations strategies can be handled many different ways, but in the case of Villar and the pending non-tender the biggest issues (after having failed to deal Villar since last year's trade deadline) is URGENCY!  In this situation, letting other GMs know there was a deadline - especially during a time when these guys are working on their 40 man rosters and their 2020 budget - was absolutely the right thing to do.  (Besides, I find the suggestion that other GMs would not be aware of or figure out the urgency regarding Villar to be ridiculous).  

I really don't understand the Cashner complaints either.  As if folks believe we turned down some organization's top 5 prospect offer.  It is difficult to get excited about the return for Cashner, but it was a market value transaction also.

[Moose Milligan]

2 hours ago, TAMC said:

On the other hand, showing disdain for fans, especially season ticket holders, might change the number in the elevator.  Was it smart to not pay Villar? Maybe.  Was it smart to cancel FanFest (that has been a family tradition for us for many years)?  Maybe.  Is it smart to change the Dugout Club? Maybe.  Does all that have a cumulative effect on my desire to fork out a lot of dollars for season tickets (as I have for more than 20 years, including last year)?  You bet it does.  We have not renewed.  Maybe we will and maybe we won't.  I guarantee that if they make me mad enough to make me cancel my season tickets, I will never be back no matter how many wins and World Series they may win. 

Sure, I get it.  And as someone who doesn't really go to games that much due to the distance, I can't really relate.  Can't really relate to fan-fest either.  These aren't game changers for me and don't really play into any decision I have in whether or not I follow the team.  That said, I recognize that these things are important to others.

It's your prerogative to do what you want with your money, obviously.  However I find it hard to believe that after 20 years of season tickets, fan fest, dugout club, etc...you wouldn't be back no matter how many wins and World Series wins they can get.  Seems to be a cut your nose to spite your face type of move.  

1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

I think it's more complicated than that.  I don't think anyone consciously says, "I want to go see Villar."  But, they do say, "I want to watch the Orioles" or "I don't want to watch the Orioles."  Having Villar makes me more likely to watch the Orioles, as a team.  Now, we will have Hays and he makes me more likely to watch the team.  We might have Mountcastle after Elias is through playing control games, and that would make me more likely to watch the team.  So, it's pretty clear that I don't like the move since I don't think it helps the rebuild or shortens the timeline in any way.  And, I don't think keeping Villar would have hurt the rebuild or lengthened the timeline in any way.  But, it would have made the team more watchable, in my opinion as a fan.

I watched them from 1997-2011, pretty sure you did too.  If you did, you're with this franchise through thick and thin no matter what.  There's always something to be interested in, a player to root for or look forward to.  

Look at it this way...this time last year, no one here had any idea that Hanser Alberto would turn in the season that he did.  Same for John Means and Renato Nunez.  Those were three big reasons for me to watch this past summer.  So I understand that Villar being gone takes away some of the interest and excitement to watch the team but there are going to be some guys known (Hays, Mountcastle, Mancini, Alberto, Nunez, Means) and unknown that'll make this team interesting to watch regardless of where Jonathan Villar is.  

 

[Roll Tide]

3 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

Villar was not "given away".  The Os received market value for Villar's expected 2019 contribution and cost.

Negotiations strategies can be handled many different ways, but in the case of Villar and the pending non-tender the biggest issues (after having failed to deal Villar since last year's trade deadline) is URGENCY!  In this situation, letting other GMs know there was a deadline - especially during a time when these guys are working on their 40 man rosters and their 2020 budget - was absolutely the right thing to do.  (Besides, I find the suggestion that other GMs would not be aware of or figure out the urgency regarding Villar to be ridiculous).  

I really don't understand the Cashner complaints either.  As if folks believe we turned down some organization's top 5 prospect offer.  It is difficult to get excited about the return for Cashner, but it was a market value transaction also.

We can agree to disagree .....I really don't need to read any further. But in case you haven't read my previous posts or anything that Tony and some of the other guys have said. It was a really poor move.

My justification ...... Elias announces in a Baltimore Sun interview that he is not going to tender him a contract that costs the Orioles $10 million since they are losing and in a rebuild. At that very point he's showed the other GMs his plan. A rival GM could sit back and wait for the nontender deadline and get him for just money. As it turns out the Marlins thought enough of Villar to offer a fringe prospect to get his rights before that could happen.....So in a way your right! It was the market that was created by Elias.

If you think Villar is overpaid even at $10 million just check all the articles about the very subject the last 3 or 4 days. He did produce a 4WAR season and a 2.7 WAR season the year before. And if you needed any other evidence look at the albatross of a contract that the Reds gave Moustakis (4 years at 16 million per - $64 Million dollars).

 

 

 

 

[Moose Milligan]

47 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:

If you are OK with the O's trading Villar for a token prospect just to get rid of his salary, would you also be OK if the O's traded Givens, Bundy and Mancini for token prospects? 

I think we can all agree that the O's aren't going to be competitive for a few more years.  Should we just trade everyone who will no longer be under team control by the time we are good again, even if we get nothing in return?  

Yes.

Next question.

[Roll Tide]

51 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:

If you are OK with the O's trading Villar for a token prospect just to get rid of his salary, would you also be OK if the O's traded Givens, Bundy and Mancini for token prospects? 

I think we can all agree that the O's aren't going to be competitive for a few more years.  Should we just trade everyone who will no longer be under team control by the time we are good again, even if we get nothing in return?  

Absolutely Not ....unless you want the rebuild to take an additional 3-5 years

[wildcard]

Not keeping Villar is really about the O's pitching or lack there of.  The O's can't win without competitive pitching.   They don't have.  They can't buy it.  And therefore they will lose in 2020.   So spending money on Villar who is probably gone after the 2020 season to FA makes no sense to the long term plan.

Some are making the case that its important to spend  money and keep Villar to make the O's easier to watch in 2020.   That is clearly not in Elias long term plan.   He will use that money for things that will help the team long term.   Like the 7m that he will need to shell out for the #2 draft choice next season.  

Elias has been clear about his focus.   Adding talent  to the organization that helps the O's win in the future.  You may not like it but no one should be calling him a lair.   He has been up front with the fans since he arrived.

 

 

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, RZNJ said:

Elias has been trying to trade Villar for some time.  You assume he could have gotten more of he didn't  make that announcement.  What seems clear to me is that he was offered  virtually nothing up to that point.

I think he passed on more at the trade deadline than he received the other day. That's obviously my opinion, but in the interview after the July deadline he said that he was under no pressure to trade anyone else as he had no other pending free agents. A miscalculation in his narrative if you are planning not to tender your best player a contract.

[DrungoHazewood]

22 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

Villar was not "given away".  The Os received market value for Villar's expected 2019 contribution and cost.

Negotiations strategies can be handled many different ways, but in the case of Villar and the pending non-tender the biggest issues (after having failed to deal Villar since last year's trade deadline) is URGENCY!  In this situation, letting other GMs know there was a deadline - especially during a time when these guys are working on their 40 man rosters and their 2020 budget - was absolutely the right thing to do.  (Besides, I find the suggestion that other GMs would not be aware of or figure out the urgency regarding Villar to be ridiculous).  

I really don't understand the Cashner complaints either.  As if folks believe we turned down some organization's top 5 prospect offer.  It is difficult to get excited about the return for Cashner, but it was a market value transaction also.

Between Villar and Cashner the Orioles saved about $15M.  If they had not traded them they would have been out $15M for about 3-4 wins on a 50-something win team.  The reason neither brought back high-caliber prospects was because they had a $15M bill attached to them that the accepting teams now have to pay.

I understand the position that all of that money just disappears into the ether, that the Angelos family gets to light cigars with it.  Maybe that's true.  But I like to think that Mike Elias gets to add at least some of that to the account they're using to upgrade the franchise in 100 ways, mostly behind the scenes.

Here's a funny thing... the Marlins acquired Villar and his presumptive $10M salary.  Currently they have two players making over MLB minimum.  Villar and Wei Yin Chen, who will make $22M in 2020.  Barring any future expensive moves they're going to have about a $50M payroll, with $32M of that going to Chen and Villar.  I don't know what sense that makes, unless someone whispered in Jeter's ear that it's unbecoming to have a 57-win team with a new taxpayer funded stadium and $209M in shared MLB revenues and a $30M payroll.

[Roll Tide]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Not keeping Villar is really about the O's pitching or lack there of.  The O's can't win without competitive pitching.   They don't have.  They can't buy it.  And therefore they will lose in 2020.   So spending money on Villar who is probably gone after the 2020 season to FA makes no sense to the long term plan.

Some are making the case that its important to spend  money and keep Villar to make the O's easier to watch in 2020.   That is clearly not in Elias long term plan.   He will use that money for things that will help the team long term.   Like the 7m that he will need to shell out for the #2 draft choice next season.  

Elias has been clear about his focus.   Adding talent  to the organization that helps the O's win in the future.  You may not like it but no one should be calling him a lair.   He has been up front with the fans since he arrived.

 

 

Who is calling him a liar! I called him several names the other day but a Liar wasn't one of them. I don't think he is doing anything that he didn't observe in Houston except I don't believe he has mastered the art of the trade yet.

[7Mo]

1 minute ago, RZNJ said:

A miscalculation IF your assumption is correct. However, common sense was that the deadline was the high point to trade Villar.  You assume Elias is dumb and incompetent.   I don't. 

Thank you. 

[hoosiers]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I think he passed on more at the trade deadline than he received the other day. That's obviously my opinion, but in the interview after the July deadline he said that he was under no pressure to trade anyone else as he had no other pending free agents. A miscalculation in his narrative if you are planning not to tender your best player a contract.

lol - are you serious?  One post you are criticizing Elias for making his plan known and the next you are bashing him for saying he was under no pressure to make a deal!  Make up your mind, dude, is he going to #### or is he going to kill us?