Do you like the Bundy trade?

[wildcard]

30 minutes ago, Sammy Seagull said:

Three years from now this will be regarded as one of the steals of the century.

Hmmm.   Bundy is going to play his home games in a bigger park.   He also will play in a division that has bigger parks in Oakland and Seattle.  Not sure about Houston's park size.

So are you saying that in three years Bundy at 30 will have far and away  done better so it will be considered a steal for the Angels?

[Redskins Rick]

Personally, I hate that he showed traces of dominance, but never came remotely close to the hype.

I dont want to blame TJ, as his velocity mostly returned.

Was the scout reviews incorrect, was our coaching in the minors/majors incorrect, or a combination of both??????

I think he is a likable guy, and was easy to root for.

[TonySoprano]

11 hours ago, weams said:

It's what your quote of Billy Epler said. 

Yeah, I found that quote after I wrote what I did.  Not sure I agree with that approach however.

[glenn__davis]

Meh.  His value wasn't high, none of the guys we got back seem that interesting to me but that's about what I'd expect for Bundy right now.  Hopefully they can mine some gold.  My concern is - I get rebuilding to a point, but you do still need to field a team that can get through a season.  Who the heck is going to pitch for us next year?  Bundy may not have been very good but he could at least give innings.

[Frobby]

31 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Hmmm.   Bundy is going to play his home games in a bigger park.   He also will play in a division that has bigger parks in Oakland and Seattle.  Not sure about Houston's park size.

So are you saying that in three years Bundy at 30 will have far and away  done better so it will be considered a steal for the Angels?

I expect Bundy’s ERA to be lower pitching for the LAA than it was for the Orioles.     But so what?     If his ERA+ is significantly lower, than he’ll have actually accomplished something.     Let’s see if that happens — and I hope it does.   

Will anyone we acquired be an impact major leaguer?    I hope so, but have no particular expectations.    Our development team needs to get to work.    
 

[foxfield]

1 hour ago, webbrick2010 said:

I'm just glad that we don't have him as a reminder of the failed drafting/player development of the previous regime.

Two top 5 pitchers (Gausman & Bundy), Gausman released, and Bundy traded for non prospects.

Don't spoil the moment. Let it linger.  When you hold it up to the light, you will see the previous regime was the most successful regime in your lifetime.  That's the bad news.  The good news is that it's a low bar so there is lot's of room to improve!!!!!  

 

edit to add:  

[NCRaven]

I think it's interesting that Eppler said they were willing to entertain the possibility of sending us a smaller number of higher quality prospects but that Elias preferred numbers over quality.  Maybe the better prospects would require 40 man slots?  Personally, I'd rather have one stud than four maybes and it sounds like that was a possibility.  Hopefully, it works out.  I see more middle relievers than starters or high leverage relievers.  Time will tell.

[atomic]

2 hours ago, webbrick2010 said:

I'm just glad that we don't have him as a reminder of the failed drafting/player development of the previous regime.

Two top 5 pitchers (Gausman & Bundy), Gausman released, and Bundy traded for non prospects.

Bundy was drafted by the Andy Maphail regime.  He took so long to get healthy you just assume it was DD.  DD only had one high draft pick in Gausman who was somewhat successful.  Both Bundy and Gausman were a lot more successful than the 2 pitchers Elias selected #1 overall with the Astros.   Elias isn't some great drafting savant.  Something people on here should know.  He might have made the two worst #1 overall picks of all time. 

And look at the Astros staff.  Almost all free agents and trades.  

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

I think it's interesting that Eppler said they were willing to entertain the possibility of sending us a smaller number of higher quality prospects but that Elias preferred numbers over quality.  Maybe the better prospects would require 40 man slots?  Personally, I'd rather have one stud than four maybes and it sounds like that was a possibility.  Hopefully, it works out.  I see more middle relievers than starters or high leverage relievers.  Time will tell.

Yeah I agree I would rather have one guy who was more likely to succeed.  A lot of these guys Elias could have drafted if he was so high on them. 

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, atomic said:

Yeah I agree I would rather have one guy who was more likely to succeed.  A lot of these guys Elias could have drafted if he was so high on them. 

Elias seems to be playing a numbers game here.    He obviously has a lot of confidence in Chris Holt and feels that the more arms he gives Holt to develop, the higher the chances that we develop a quality major league pitching staff.     I agree these aren’t high ceiling guys, but neither was John Means.     

[oriole]

22 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

I think it's interesting that Eppler said they were willing to entertain the possibility of sending us a smaller number of higher quality prospects but that Elias preferred numbers over quality.  Maybe the better prospects would require 40 man slots?  Personally, I'd rather have one stud than four maybes and it sounds like that was a possibility.  Hopefully, it works out.  I see more middle relievers than starters or high leverage relievers.  Time will tell.

That’s unfortunate. I’d have much rather seen quality over quantity...but I’m content to just trust whatever approach Elias is taking. Even if I disagree completely 

[MurphDogg]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

I won’t down vote you for this post. But they picked up 2 players that have had success in the minors. One was ranked #17 and the other is just outside the top 30 that moved 3 levels last season. In addition, we picked up 2 of their Top 10 2019 draft picks.

I can understand not liking the return but calling them non prospects is just making stuff up.

Also, Gausman wasn't released by the Orioles, he was traded.

And Gausman and Bundy had the 6th and 8th highest rWARs of all #4 overall picks of the last 30 years, so they weren't even failures. You can be disappointed that they didn't do more, but they were not close to failures. They were both legit Major League starters for several years.

[atomic]

12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Elias seems to be playing a numbers game here.    He obviously has a lot of confidence in Chris Holt and feels that the more arms he gives Holt to develop, the higher the chances that we develop a quality major league pitching staff.     I agree these aren’t high ceiling guys, but neither was John Means.     

I think he has no clue about pitchers. If you look at the Astro's roster last season they did not have one pitcher who they drafted or who they developed who had more than 0.6 WAR on their team.  

As much as people go on and on about his drafting DD was better at drafting than him by a long shot. 

[LookinUp]

11 hours ago, FanSince88 said:

Check out this link that attempts to put a monetary value on draft picks https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-on-how-to-value-draft-picks/.  Peek is worth roughly $2.5 million, Brnovich $1.5 million, and Bradish $2.8 million.  Bundy is projected to be a 2 WAR pitcher next year, which would put the value of his contribution around $16 million.  He'll likely make $5.7 million in arbitration, so he's likely to contribute $10 million in surplus value.  The sum of our prospects' value is pretty close to that surplus.  So I think we got roughly equivalent value using these heuristics and the situation we're in.  

Interesting that it's about equal. My guesses are 1) that Elias prefers future value over present value and 2) Elias has confidence that he can get more from these guys than a fangraph valuation, which is essentially an average value for a spot, rather than player/org specific.

2 hours ago, Sammy Seagull said:

Three years from now this will be regarded as one of the steals of the century.

Love it when someone with 15 posts makes statements like this. Is it an internet guy making a funny statement or someone in the know who thinks these guys have upside we can untap? Would love to know.

1 hour ago, glenn__davis said:

My concern is - I get rebuilding to a point, but you do still need to field a team that can get through a season.  Who the heck is going to pitch for us next year? 

I literally care zero about this. I accepted a few years of terrible in hopes of sustained success in the future. This is the price.

[glenn__davis]

31 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I literally care zero about this. I accepted a few years of terrible in hopes of sustained success in the future. This is the price.

I don't totally agree.  I have no problem with terrible.  I disagree with Elias that the full scorched-earth approach is the only way to go, but it certainly is A way to go.

But there's a line where "terrible" crosses into irresponsible.  Again, who's going to pitch games for us?  It's not a rhetorical question.  Right now it looks like our rotation is Means, Cobb, Asher W.   You have to actually field some semblance of a baseball team.  If we can't score that's one thing, but we need at least some guys that can get people out.