If the Os were to be buyers…

[Sports Guy]

…which of the top guys would you be ok to trade?  Or, in other words, who do you have to keep.

And I know this depends on the return but I think it’s fair to assume that if buy, it’s only going to be for a long term piece.

[Brooks The Great]

Really just Mancini and Santander for starting pitching, even though starting pitching is always in demand at the deadline. Maybe Tate for a prospect pitcher? But that wouldn't be buying.

If we're in contention and buying at the deadline, that means we need to keep Jordan Lyles. With GrayRod out for a while, we can't depend on Grayson for this season. Our starting pitching is already extremely thin as is. 

[forphase1]

I really would not be ok with trading any of our top prospects unless we were getting a long term answer back.  We don't have either the depth in the minors OR the talent yet at the MLB level to add rentals or short term players.  The only position of strength, really, is the outfield, and even then I'm not sure we have the depth to really start trading away those guys with so many having health and/or talent question marks.  At no position do we have a real surplus of talent or guys blocking others.  Unless we got a guy who can be a cornerstone of the franchise for the next 5+ years (and they usually aren't available in trade, and not at prices we should pay right now) then I don't want to move any of our top dozen or so prospects.  I'm hoping this year tells us a bunch about who we are going to be building around and who is surplus to be moved, but I don't think we are there yet.  

[oriole]

At this point my answer is none. Any consistent competitive relevance depends entirely on having as many young, controllable, and, most importantly, good players as possible. Even though it’s one of the best farm systems in the game right now we are still only likely to see maybe three or four of the top 10 guys actually become every day players who can stay healthy. It could be even less than that if things don’t go particularly well.  Don’t trade anyone until you know which ones stick. 

[Sports Guy]

So the solution on here, thus far, is to just wait out all of our prospects and wait for some to succeed or fail and then make trades?  
 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

So the solution on here, thus far, is to just wait out all of our prospects and wait for some to succeed or fail and then make trades?  
 

Yep, once they are identified as not being good enough we trade them to other teams for All-Stars that we pay with all the money they've been saving up.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yep, once they are identified as not being good enough we trade them to other teams for All-Stars that we pay with all the money they've been saving up.

It’s a brilliant plan.  Trading players who aren’t good for really good players.  I don’t see what can go wrong with that strategy?!?

[Aristotelian]

15 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

…which of the top guys would you be ok to trade?  Or, in other words, who do you have to keep.

And I know this depends on the return but I think it’s fair to assume that if buy, it’s only going to be for a long term piece.

What do you mean by buyers? Like trying to go all out to win the World Series this year? We're not going to be buyers in that sense, nor should we be. 

I could see exchanging a near arb player (Hays or Mullins) or top five OF prospect for a top five pitching prospect. I wouldn't call that "buying" in the sense that term is usually used for in season trades. 

 

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

What do you mean by buyers? Like trying to go all out to win the World Series this year? We're not going to be buyers in that sense, nor should we be. 

I could see exchanging a near arb player (Hays or Mullins) or top five OF prospect for a top five pitching prospect. I wouldn't call that "buying" in the sense that term is usually used for in season trades. 

 

Well, in the first post of this thread I said, that it’s fair to assume that if they were to buy, that it would be for a long term piece. 
 

That obviously doesn’t mean trying to go for it this year.  That means player X has several years of control left and his team is far away and are looking to potentially move him if the deal is right.

I don’t have a player in mind, it’s just a hypothetical scenario that if such player was available, who would you be ok with trading to get him?

 

For example, 2 of the players I would put on the table are Hall and Mountcastle.  They aren’t the only 2 but they are examples.

[sportsfan8703]

I remember the Rangers a few years ago traded for Nick Solak from the Rays. The Rangers weren’t really in it but the Rays were and had an excess player and the rangers had a need at 2B. 
 

If a team is buying and has a 40 man roster crunch with players that they are acquiring, then that would be a scenario where we could pick up a piece. 
 

Also, the extended MLB rosters have made the waiver wire pretty much dead so far this year. I expect that to start picking up once teams figure out that they’re definitely “contending” this year. 

[foxfield]

28 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

So the solution on here, thus far, is to just wait out all of our prospects and wait for some to succeed or fail and then make trades?  
 

There is no one on the current roster outside of AR, that I would not trade in a moment for the right package for a young cornerstone controllable pitcher or middle infielder.  

And of course I understand no one person on the roster will bring either of those pieces....but say if you could move Hays and/or Mullins plus for a CJ Abrams (SD) or Mountcastle and/or Santander for a Max Meyer (Mia).  I would do it in a heartbeat.

I would try not to trade minor league talent yet.  But I think the current team could be helped by moving 2 of the OF and 2 of the 1b/DH and getting the best usable piece in return.  And if I have to give something from the bullpen to get it I might.

The O's are not good enough to win but they have become slightly more competitive. One or two really bad weeks could cripple the pitching.

If you cant do the above because that isn't enough...I lower my sights and deepen my starting pitching with best talent available.  Dodgers, Brewers, Marlins are all deep systems.

It ain't my money

 

[Aristotelian]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, in the first post of this thread I said, that it’s fair to assume that if they were to buy, that it would be for a long term piece. 
 

That obviously doesn’t mean trying to go for it this year.  That means player X has several years of control left and his team is far away and are looking to potentially move him if the deal is right.

I don’t have a player in mind, it’s just a hypothetical scenario that if such player was available, who would you be ok with trading to get him?

 

For example, 2 of the players I would put on the table are Hall and Mountcastle.  They aren’t the only 2 but they are examples.

Right, but when most people use the term buyers for in season trades they mean buying veterans to win now. So the answers so far don't make sense because the question doesn't make sense.

I would be willing to exchange any player with long term value for another piece of equal or greater long term value. Could be Mountcastle or anyone really. Probably the only untouchables would Grayson and Adley. That would be more of an exchange than a buy in the usual sense.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

Right, but when most people use the term buyers for in season trades they mean buying veterans to win now. So the answers so far don't make sense because the question doesn't make sense.

I would be willing to exchange any player with long term value for another piece of equal or greater long term value. Could be Mountcastle or anyone really. Probably the only untouchables would Grayson and Adley. That would be more of an exchange than a buy in the usual sense.

It makes sense if you read and use common sense.  

[baltfan]

15 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

…which of the top guys would you be ok to trade?  Or, in other words, who do you have to keep.

And I know this depends on the return but I think it’s fair to assume that if buy, it’s only going to be for a long term piece.

You follow the lead of the Dodgers.  They always took their top 4 or so prospects off of the table and were flexible beyond that.  It seems to have served them well in their many deadline trades for elite players.

[Can_of_corn]

58 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s a brilliant plan.  Trading players who aren’t good for really good players.  I don’t see what can go wrong with that strategy?!?

Frankly I'm shocked more teams don't do it.