New article evaluates the Duquette 2018 trades and suggest we lost most all the trades badly.

[oriole]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The only questions I have are this:

 

1) Had we paid some money, would the offers have been better?  Logic says yes but its not 100%.

2) Did Duq look for quantity over quality.  

An example is this...I wanted Lux and May for Manny.  At that time, neither player was a top 100 guy.  Lux was a first round pick(I believe) the year before, so the organization obviously liked him and May was an ascending player in their system.  Both appeared to be on the path to be top 100 guys by the offseason.  Now, I have no idea if the Os could have had those players.  There were rumors they were interested in May but who knows.  My question is, if they could have had those guys, does DD take that deal or does he take the deal with 5 players, one of which was a top 50 guy?  

That is the info we just don't have and may never know.  

 

My guess is that the O's could have done better if management wasn't so keen on pocketing money.  I didn't (and still don't) mind the deals with the info we know is true.  I would say that the info we don't have likely means we wouldn't like these deals, even without the benefit of hindsight.

It seemed like only the Gausman/O’Day trade was based solely on money. Sure maybe we’d have gotten a better return if the O’s paid the rest of the Britton or Machado contract but they just got off a few years where the payroll was significantly higher than any point in franchise history so if they wanted to save a bit then I feel like it was understandable at that time. 

[Aristotelian]

Dumb article. When trading off veterans from a losing club it is not about "winning" or "losing" trades, it is about maximizing return. It is fair to say the return has been disappointing. If he wanted to do a real analysis he would compare the return to comparable trades where teams have gotten better return for comparable players and/or suggesting different trading partners to show we could have gotten better return than we did. Otherwise it just seems like DD had no leverage and took the best offers available and it is hard to fault him for that. Again, it is fair to say the return has been disappointing. 

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

33 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

An example is this...I wanted Lux and May for Manny.  At that time, neither player was a top 100 guy.  Lux was a first round pick(I believe) the year before, so the organization obviously liked him and May was an ascending player in their system.  Both appeared to be on the path to be top 100 guys by the offseason.  Now, I have no idea if the Os could have had those players.  There were rumors they were interested in May but who knows.  My question is, if they could have had those guys, does DD take that deal or does he take the deal with 5 players, one of which was a top 50 guy?  

That's my problem with Top 100 Lists - they're pretty arbitrary and more about who is "close" to the majors. You are correct - they weren't Top 100 guys per the prospect lists. But, I think everyone in the know had them pegged as super valuable guys at the time.

I remembering hearing the O's wanted Dustin May and Josiah Gray at the time - but that the Dodgers were super high on them and wouldn't move them. Teams are working with far more data and information than whatever blogger is putting together MLB.com's prospect list.

DD didn't really have much to trade; there is a reason that team only won 47 games. Looking back, the Machado return admittedly has been disappointing - but also I think it is a pipe dream to think that they could have gotten substantially more. The Nats just had to trade a HOF pitcher, still in peak form, just started the All-Star game -- and a super-versatile, perennial all-star with team control to get the Dodgers top two prospects. The O's weren't getting that for a couple months of Manny.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

2 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Dumb article. When trading off veterans from a losing club it is not about "winning" or "losing" trades, it is about maximizing return. It is fair to say the return has been disappointing. If he wanted to do a real analysis he would compare the return to comparable trades where teams have gotten better return for comparable players and/or suggesting different trading partners to show we could have gotten better return than we did. Otherwise it just seems like DD had no leverage and took the best offers available and it is hard to fault him for that. Again, it is fair to say the return has been disappointing. 

When the exercise was dumping payroll, DD was in no position to maximize return by offering to pickup a percentage of the remaining contract on any of the players he traded. 

In 2018 we already knew this and not to get out hopes up that these trades would bring in multiple pieces for the next good Orioles team. Luckily Zimmerman has stepped and performed this year so the net return might not be a total zero. Well besides the obvious payroll savings.

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

1 hour ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

The trades were just as much about reducing payroll as acquiring prospects. Any return for Gausman got reduced by including O'Day and his contract in the trade. 

Britton was getting paid $12M in 2018, when he wasn't putting up elite closer numbers and on an Orioles team where having a closer didn't matter much. 

I remember at the time, ownership was pretty pleased with how DD handled the trade deadline and reduced payroll. There was even speculation they might keep him around. 

It would have been nice to get more for Gausman - but if that saved money helped pay for the Dominican complex, it's money well spent.

[Camden_yardbird]

I see a lot of this: "But Machado was a free agent at season end, they were never going to get much for him"

And then I look at the prospects the Cubs picked up, or the Twins, or pirates and wonder if they maybe knew what they were doing.  Time will tell.

The Orioles have had a breadth over depth approach to trades for awhile now across multiple leadership teams and I still don't know where its gotten them.  Seems like the best trade of the past twenty years was a "Give me your best prospect or pound sand" approach.

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

I see a lot of this: "But Machado was a free agent at season end, they were never going to get much for him"

And then I look at the prospects the Cubs picked up, or the Twins, or pirates and wonder if they maybe knew what they were doing.  Time will tell.

The Orioles have had a breadth over depth approach to trades for awhile now across multiple leadership teams and I still don't know where its gotten them.  Seems like the best trade of the past twenty years was a "Give me your best prospect or pound sand" approach.

I agree with you but the only caveat to that is what is the market dictating in any given year.

Also, as I mentioned, money plays a big part.  Manny was owed a lot of money that year still and the Os weren’t picking any of it up.  Teams were paying for bigger prospects this year.

[Moose Milligan]

Much has been made about those trades over the years.  Some like to whine that we didn't get enough, ignoring that all of those contracts were about to expire.  Some like to say the perceived value of what we got in return was fine, given the fact that those contracts were expiring.

All I'll say is that it's pretty sad that we didn't get a single piece back that looks to be a part of our future.  I'm not whining and complaining that we didn't get an All-Star out of the deal...I'm just saying it's sad that none of these guys have transformed into an every day player or a decent rotation piece.  I think the most promising piece off the top of my head looks to be Dillon Tate.

IMO, I think that's what people are most upset about...there's absolutely nothing to show for these trades.  I'm not really mad about it, it's just a bummer.  

[Pickles]

The idea of winning and losing these trades is a misnomer.  By the time the O's got into that position with Manny, just as one example, they had already lost.  Others have pointed out that is true of Britton as well.

However, I don't really hold that against them.  They had the core of a team that had made the playoffs 3 out of 5 years, leading the AL in wins over that period, and they decided they were going to go for it and ride till the wheels came off.  That's a legitimate strategy.

The problem with these deals, and I alluded to it yesterday, but we traded a bunch of white meat just to save money, which is the absolute last thing you should do in the beginning of a rebuild.

Schoop and Gausman were the exact kind of young MLers you hold on to, build up their value, and flip at the appropriate time.  You don't drop them at their lowest value as a salary dump.  That is criminal.

[Hank Scorpio]

He who hesitates.... 

I think I have beaten my opinion on this into the turf sufficiently but it boils down to this:

If you aren't going to spend money in free agency to rival those in your division then you'd better do the little things significantly better than them. I.E. identify where you stand talent-wise vs. your division and have an honest evaluation of when to trade valuable pieces. It was damn clear to everyone with half a brain that Machado had no interest in staying in Baltimore long term. Waiting until the last second with him because you determined you had a 5% chance of winning the play in game next year was abject malpractice. Be honest with your players and fanbase about who you are. If you need to trade superstars at peak value to keep yourself relevant and avoid a straight up teardown, then DO IT. Get back 3 of someone's top 10 prospects for Machado, get 2 for Britton and help bridge that gap. 

Obviously you want to win @ the MLB level. We all do. But the playing field will never be level money-wise. So you'd better have a better mousetrap than those with deep pockets. This organization tried to walk that line for a long time and ultimately set itself back farther than was necessary. 

It is painful to watch the Orioles in Elias tenure thus far, but he is laying the groundwork for a more sustainable talent base. Draft and trade for them, get a couple years out of them, trade them for the next wave. It's the grim reality of a mid to small market team. 

[interloper]

It is what it is, babe. Onwards and upwards.

I already feel lighter that we've cleared most of these guys out of the organization. Tate has been improving and turning himself into a decent reliever, so that's nice. Zimmermann is a helpful player during the rebuild. Cumberland might be a nice offense-first backup guy to Adley eventually. 

[Frobby]

I tabulated this about 6 weeks ago and concluded we’d obtained 1.2 rWAR less than we would have by retaining these players, and saved $45 mm.   We still retain the rights to Zimmermann, Tate and others for multiple years.   So I don’t see how we lost these trades badly.  Has the return been spectacular?   No.

https://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36478-dan-duquette-did-pretty-well-with-july-2018-trades/page/11/&tab=comments#comment-2674374

[El_Duderino]

10 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

He was expensive, coming off an injury and not as effective as previous years.

The Yanks basically cleared the chaff off their 40 man.

 

Right- moved him at his absolute lowest point of value. Having said that, it was still too little

[sportsfan8703]

7 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

The only questions I have are this:

 

1) Had we paid some money, would the offers have been better?  Logic says yes but its not 100%.

2) Did Duq look for quantity over quality.  

An example is this...I wanted Lux and May for Manny.  At that time, neither player was a top 100 guy.  Lux was a first round pick(I believe) the year before, so the organization obviously liked him and May was an ascending player in their system.  Both appeared to be on the path to be top 100 guys by the offseason.  Now, I have no idea if the Os could have had those players.  There were rumors they were interested in May but who knows.  My question is, if they could have had those guys, does DD take that deal or does he take the deal with 5 players, one of which was a top 50 guy?  

That is the info we just don't have and may never know.  

 

My guess is that the O's could have done better if management wasn't so keen on pocketing money.  I didn't (and still don't) mind the deals with the info we know is true.  I would say that the info we don't have likely means we wouldn't like these deals, even without the benefit of hindsight.

It’s pretty obvious the Dodgers had Lux and May ahead of Diaz and Kremer. Outside publications didn’t factor into that trade. DD got Diaz who the Dodgers had just paid a dollar for dollar tax for and he ended up costing them $31 mm. 
 

DD got a $31 mm Cuban defector, a recent 4th overall selection, a SP that had just led the minors in Ks, acquired a bunch of darts, and shed like $30mm in payroll. That’s hard to hate against. Diaz being always hurt is the issue. 

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

It’s pretty obvious the Dodgers had Lux and May ahead of Diaz and Kremer. Outside publications didn’t factor into that trade. DD got Diaz who the Dodgers had just paid a dollar for dollar tax for and he ended up costing them $31 mm. 
 

DD got a $31 mm Cuban defector, a recent 4th overall selection, a SP that had just led the minors in Ks, acquired a bunch of darts, and shed like $30mm in payroll. That’s hard to hate against. Diaz being always hurt is the issue. 

That trade looked better at the time than it does in hindsight, with Diaz stagnating and Kremer disappointing.   I haven’t given up on either player, but I’m not counting on them, either.