Villar Traded to Marlins for LHS Easton Lucas

[weams]

Quote

Lucas registered a 0.96 ERA against left-handed hitters in 9 1/3 innings and a 5.24 ERA against right-handers in 22 1/3. It’s important that Lucas is able to develop his changeup.

Lucas walked 16 batters and struck out 71 in 76 2/3 innings as a senior at Pepperdine. He walked nine and struck out 41 in 34 2/3 innings in his first professional season.

A scout from outside the organization envisions Lucas moving to the bullpen, but the Orioles want to try developing him first as a starter. The scout and Elias agree that Lucas would be slotted in the back end of the rotation.

“I don’t think they got fair value for Villar,” the scout said, “but I’m sure he’s been out there for a while. Everybody knows he’s been available. They’ve been trying to move him.

“It’s too early. In any trade, it always takes three to five years to really evaluate it.”

https://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2019/12/orioles-trade-approach-and-more-on-lucas-and-rogers.html

[Tony-OH]

16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

If he was an O's fan he'd remember the 14 years of losing that were the result of half measures and trying to field a "competitive" team for the fans.

That's not the issue at all. It's not that the Orioles are not trying to get better, it's that they are actively trying to get worse after losing 100+ games for the last two years  for no other reason than to save money during the rebuild. 

I completely understand where the Orioles are at and understand what Elias is trying to do, but just giving away good players over less than what they saved by Trumbo no longer being on the roster is not a good precedent for this organization or baseball.

Plus who is to say that Villar doesn't play well and the Orioles could have moved him next year at some point. What if a contender loses their second baseman and suddenly Villar becomes attractive and they are willing to give up an actual prospect?

The Orioles did not maximize Villar's value and weren't willing to take the risk over what amounts to at worse, half of the money they saved by Trumbo not being on the roster this year.

[Tony-OH]

16 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Yes.

For my money, the absolute worst type of team to watch is a .500 team.  One night they look great, the next they look terrible.  Win three straight, drop two in a row...then win 3 more in a row and drop 4 in a row.  Being in that state of limbo is absolutely maddening.  The 2015 team was frustrating to watch.

So you are ok with the team getting worse for no other reason than to save money and lose more games after two 100+ loss seasons? How did keeping Villar hurt their rebuild time?

You and others keep saying you are totally fine with this move, and I understand your points, but what I don't get is why you are totally fine with the team getting worse after two 100+ seasons when it does nothing but better their bottom line? I'm not against anyone making money, and the Orioles afterall are a business, but if you are going to make business decisions and then veil them as baseball decisions, that's when I'm going to throw the BS flag.

You can't claim getting rid of Villar is part your strategic vision and then keep Chris Davis on this roster. It's all BS unless we can see how that money saved is being reinvested back into the infrastructure of the team. It's certainly by not hiring young, cheap coaches and analysts who are just happy to be in professional baseball.

 

[Tony-OH]

16 hours ago, scOtt said:

We could do worse. But I think ME will get someone more ML ready. Anonymous no-hit slick-glove SS. Probably some veteranosity as well. On the cheap of course. Richie can do a year at Norfolk.

I'd rather just run Martin out next year then do that. Hell, why not just release everyone making over the minimum that we don't think we be part of a winning future? That's what some of you seem to be thinking now.

No one wants half measures or a team being built for .500, but we also should not be happy with the Orioles just blantantly getting rid of good players in their prime without a good return.

[Tony-OH]

15 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We’ll flip him next December at the non tender deadline. 

Probably for a 23rd round, 24-year old A-ball pitcher who "might be a 5th starter".

[Moose Milligan]

29 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

So you are ok with the team getting worse for no other reason than to save money and lose more games after two 100+ loss seasons? How did keeping Villar hurt their rebuild time?

You and others keep saying you are totally fine with this move, and I understand your points, but what I don't get is why you are totally fine with the team getting worse after two 100+ seasons when it does nothing but better their bottom line? I'm not against anyone making money, and the Orioles afterall are a business, but if you are going to make business decisions and then veil them as baseball decisions, that's when I'm going to throw the BS flag.

You can't claim getting rid of Villar is part your strategic vision and then keep Chris Davis on this roster. It's all BS unless we can see how that money saved is being reinvested back into the infrastructure of the team. It's certainly by not hiring young, cheap coaches and analysts who are just happy to be in professional baseball.

 

How did keeping Villar make this team better?  There's a whole offseason to go, let's not get ahead of ourselves.  

They won 54 games last year.  If they win 56 this year is that really an improvement?  59?  What if they win 51 games?  Are we going to be beside ourselves and lamenting how if they had Villar that they'd have been better?  We all know that this team isn't being measured on wins and losses in 2020, it's being measured on what young players can step up and identify themselves as part of a core moving forward.  It's being measured by what John Means can do in his 2nd year.  It's being measured by what AR does in the minors.  It's being measured by what we do with the draft and international signings.

Had Villar been kept, the 2020 season would NOT have been measured by his 20 homers and 40 steals.  It'd be fun to watch but that's not what the season would have been about.

But seriously Tony, I've been very vocal about cutting Davis, I think you should know this by now.  I want him gone, let's not pretend I'm okay with the Villar move and am happy that Davis is still here.  But Davis is guaranteed, whether or not he's on the roster or not he's getting that money.  

 

[weams]

1 minute ago, Luke-OH said:

 

For personally not being for it, I'd rather not have domestic abusers on my rooting interest, not that I think he's irredeemable or think he doesn't deserve a second chance somewhere, I'd just rather not root for him. 

I'm not sure if Hyde vouching for him matters, Hyde never got a chance to coach him after the news came out that Russell was forcefully ripping their infant baby out of his wife's arms (something he is accused of doing repeatedly and hasn't denied) and throwing her to the floor or chasing her and tackling her onto the concrete. And blaming her for making him act like that to her. Is it ok that I'd rather not root for that guy a year later after some league mandated counselling? 

I have to say I agree with this. I'm all for second and third chances, but perhaps in a profession where some introspection can be achieved as opposed to the laudatory arena of professional sports. Just my opinion. 

[Moose Milligan]

15 hours ago, PaulFolk said:

This is a false equivalency. You don't have to be Cal Ripken or Brooks Robinson to, you know, not be a domestic abuser. You can't just group Russell into the category of, "Hey, nobody's perfect, you know?"

It's false equivalency or it's a fan base that's been spoiled by having two shining examples of how to be on and off the field.  BJ Surhoff wasn't a domestic abuser but using him as an example would have been pretty off-beat and random.  

[weams]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

...very vocal about cutting Davis, I think you should know this by now.  I want him gone, let's not pretend I'm okay with the Villar move and am happy that Davis is still here.  But Davis is guaranteed, whether or not he's on the roster or not he's getting that money.  

 

I want Davis cut. But as Frobby has stated that costs 600K.

[Enjoy Terror]

17 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Yes.

For my money, the absolute worst type of team to watch is a .500 team.  One night they look great, the next they look terrible.  Win three straight, drop two in a row...then win 3 more in a row and drop 4 in a row.  Being in that state of limbo is absolutely maddening.  The 2015 team was frustrating to watch.

Ladies and gentleman, your Toronto Bluejays!

[HowAboutThat]

4 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

They won 54 games last year.  If they win 56 this year is that really an improvement?  59? 

56 is better than 54. Win as many as you can without hurting the plan.

I HATE Elias saying wins aren’t important. They are, and he should be insuring as many as possible without damaging the plan.

[Luke-OH]

I also want to say that I'm while not surprised by the move to get rid of Villar's salary and not particularly mad about it, I don't like the system that incentivizes teams to make moves like this. I think it's more a systemic thing than an Orioles thing. I'm not sure how it get's fixed, the MLBPA has been getting beaten badly in CBA negotiations 

[weams]

1 minute ago, Luke-OH said:

I also want to say that I'm while not surprised by the move to get rid of Villar's salary and not particularly mad about it, I don't like the system that incentivizes teams to make moves like this. I think it's more a systemic thing than an Orioles thing though. I'm not sure how it get's fixed though, the MLBPA has been getting beaten badly in CBA negotiations 

They will give up more this next time too. 

[Moose Milligan]

5 minutes ago, Philip said:

56 is better than 54. Win as many as you can without hurting the plan.

I HATE Elias saying wins aren’t important. They are, and he should be insuring as many as possible without damaging the plan.

They are not important.  There's no difference between a 56 win team and a 54 win team, except two meaningless wins.  

I remember years ago when the Orioles were in last place, were looking at the #1 draft pick next year and swept the Yankees on the final weekend to screw themselves out of the #1 pick.  I could have sworn it was one of the Strasburg/Harper drafts that we'd have had the #1, but someone said a few months ago it was actually the Teixeira draft.  I can't remember, it's all a jumbled mess of Orioles suck in my brain.

Were those final wins against the Yankees worth it?  If we won 56 games instead of 54 and wound up with the #2 pick in 2021, would those two extra wins have as much value as picking a player like AR?

There's a big difference between being concerned about the difference between 54 and 56 wins and 98 wins and 100 wins and a playoff berth.  In one scenario, wins matter.  

[Roll Tide]

7 minutes ago, Philip said:

56 is better than 54. Win as many as you can without hurting the plan.

I HATE Elias saying wins aren’t important. They are, and he should be insuring as many as possible without damaging the plan.

And the result is loss in attendance.

I know a handful of wins really doesn’t matter much. But Villar still made watching a lot more fun. His replacement which I fully expect to be a rule 5 guy that has to look up to see the Mendoza line or scrap heap middle infielder with similar issues that they can get near the minimum won’t.