Do you approve of the Villar for Easton trade?

[7Mo]

12 minutes ago, Number5 said:

What I'm in favor of is Elias having a definitive plan and sticking to that plan.  Will every move he makes definitely work out?  Probably not.  I, for one, am going to try not to agonize over each and every step along the way.  He said from the get go that it will be a process and that not every move will be easy.

Completely agree with this^^^

[Aristotelian]

53 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

How does that work?

I approve in the sense that I understand Elias' it within the constraints set by the organization and the system. I voted yes. However, that does not mean that I like that we got rid of a 4 WAR player in a salary dump.

[ScGO's]

Yes I approve.  Glad to get anything back for the ability to shed 10 million that would have been wasted on a losing season any how.  I think those that disagree with what Elias is doing need to consider that sometimes you have to take a few steps back in order to take a step forward.  Accumulate talent and apply analytics.

[Whammer]

Many OHers were critical of the Gausman trade when it went down. In hindsight, it was a clear win for O's. $$$ saved made trade worthwhile. Getting a prospect like Zimmermann was a bonus.

Give this trade a year and see how it shakes out.

 

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, weams said:

That is 1.7 million you would just be tossing.  I'm against that. 

One could argue that he might've compromised to sign a contract. We will probably never know but its at very least possible

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Whammer said:

Many OHers were critical of the Gausman trade when it went down. In hindsight, it was a clear win for O's. $$$ saved made trade worthwhile. Getting a prospect like Zimmermann was a bonus.

Give this trade a year and see how it shakes out.

 

I still contend it was poor process to trade for international slot money without the intent to use it.  The return the O's received on the slot money was lacking.

[Whammer]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I still contend it was poor process to trade for international slot money without the intent to use it.  The return the O's received on the slot money was lacking.

The center-piece of the Gausman trade was dumping O'Day's salary. Slot money was a throw-in since ATL couldn't use it.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Whammer said:

The center-piece of the Gausman trade was dumping O'Day's salary. Slot money was a throw-in since ATL couldn't use it.

Really?  It was?

I know what the trade was about.  They got pennies on the dollar for the slot money.  They had been better served getting another actual asset. 

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Really?  It was?

I know what the trade was about.  They got pennies on the dollar for the slot money.  They had been better served getting another actual asset. 

Since to the Orioles under Angelos slot money was viewed as being similar to the play money that comes in the cash register at the toy store. So anything that they received for it was a big win.

[Whammer]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Really?  It was?

I know what the trade was about.  They got pennies on the dollar for the slot money.  They had been better served getting another actual asset. 

How many pennies on the dollar did ATL get when they dumped Gausman? What actual asset did the Reds get for Gausman? 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Whammer said:

How many pennies on the dollar did ATL get when they dumped Gausman? What actual asset did the Reds get for Gausman? 

How is that relevant to what happened before?  If you make a mistake and it works out in your favor is it suddenly not a mistake? 

[Sessh]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't an "I don't know" option. I'm not happy with how the whole situation was handled or that it seems we basically got an org guy for him and nothing else. I'm to the point that I don't care anymore, but it is a bungle on Elias' part in my book. Still plenty to be happy about as far as the direction he's taking the organization, though.

[SteveA]

13 minutes ago, Sessh said:

I voted no, but only because there wasn't an "I don't know" option. I'm not happy with how the whole situation was handled or that it seems we basically got an org guy for him and nothing else. I'm to the point that I don't care anymore, but it is a bungle on Elias' part in my book. Still plenty to be happy about as far as the direction he's taking the organization, though.

Yeah, I had a hard time voting, so I haven't yet.

I disagree with the DECISION to give away Villar for either nothing or a very small return, to save the $$.

But if you take it as a given that decision was made, I suspect we got about as much as we could have, so I can't complain about the deal per se.

I guess overall I'm going to vote No.

[weams]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

One could argue that he might've compromised to sign a contract. We will probably never know but its at very least possible

No. You misunderstand. That would be after he got the contract. And was released in spring training. He would be owed 1.7 million. 

[Roll Tide]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

No. You misunderstand. That would be after he got the contract. And was released in spring training. He would be owed 1.7 million. 

So you believe they would've released him in spring training?