Would you rather…

[Jammer7]

2 minutes ago, LTO's said:

Sure, I think Hall has a pretty high degree of risk attached to him because of the command/health concerns. My issue is, if you're trading Hall for a starting pitcher, how much risk are you really losing? Pretty much every starter in baseball is inherently risky because of the high rate of health issues associated with pitchers even if they are established big leaguers. I don't think the O's are at the trade prospects for starters phase yet. I'd much rather them keep Hall and Rodriguez and open up the checkbook to acquire starting pitchers. That way, if your FA signing implodes, you are only on the hook for the $ and keep your org stocked with young talent. Those pre-arb years for Hall and G-Rod will be very important imo. 

Agreed. However, the trading of talent that may be impact level in 1-3 years doesn’t win games now. He hasn’t even pitched a full season yet because of health issues. If you can get a guy winning games now in a playoff run, and you get another year or two of control, you do it. Has to be an impact talent at the major league level, yes. Has to have good health and durability. We have the payroll flexibility to add.

I just do not want to get some Duquette type acquisition and hope we have enough to compete. Either go hard at adding for a playoff run now, or don’t. Maybe do the Snell deal, trade Mancini and Tate too. Call it a day, and go compete and stick to the plan. Do not go half-assed and get caught in between. 

I just hate it when you add a weak pitcher like a Feldman, or a Parra type hitter. These were weak adds on Duquette, but he had little trade capital, in fairness. The Miller deal I would do again and again. 

[clapdiddy]

1 hour ago, DirtyBird said:

Hernaiz & Stowers for Castillo

That's a good start.   I think you are going to need to add to this with another high-level prospect.

Could you possibly do both trades?   Do the Santander for Snell trade AND get another guy for prospects?

[tntoriole]

7 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

Agreed. However, the trading of talent that may be impact level in 1-3 years doesn’t win games now. He hasn’t even pitched a full season yet because of health issues. If you can get a guy winning games now in a playoff run, and you get another year or two of control, you do it. Has to be an impact talent at the major league level, yes. Has to have good health and durability. We have the payroll flexibility to add.

I just do not want to get some Duquette type acquisition and hope we have enough to compete. Either go hard at adding for a playoff run now, or don’t. Maybe do the Snell deal, trade Mancini and Tate too. Call it a day, and go compete and stick to the plan. Do not go half-assed and get caught in between. 

I just hate it when you add a weak pitcher like a Feldman, or a Parra type hitter. These were weak adds on Duquette, but he had little trade capital, in fairness. The Miller deal I would do again and again. 

Of course history suggests we do little

2014- as close to World Series as one can get and the team at its absolute peak  -the offseason led to Markskis, Cruz, Miller all leaving and replaced only with signings of Travis Snider and Wesley Wright.  (While DD was also doing whatever with Toronto too)

That would not happen with current management …. I hope … lol 

[Camden Yards]

It’s a no brainer that you do Santander for Snell. Snell used to be a legitimate ace in the AL East. His numbers have been improving lately and gives you a legitimate starter when the clock strikes midnight for Voth and Watkins. Wells will eventually have to go to the bullpen or shutdown completely when his innings reach their magic number. We get Snell for next year also.

Stowers will get his chance and it seems at the very least he is a better defender. Call up Westburg and Vavra. I believe Vavra can play the OF too. 
 

Snell for a Rule V draft pick? Sign me up. We got plenty of payroll room. These are the chances we need to take.

[IPlayGM]

53 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The thing is, you can’t get in the mindset that you don’t trade unproven assets yet.  Some of these guys we hope we are going to rely on will fail.  It is imperative that you use some of them in trades and try and get the talent needed to win.

If you just sit around and wait, values will plummet.

And I think as we continue to acquire/develop more and more of these types this line of thinking becomes easier. The value of one prospect to the organization becomes less and less when this happens.

[sportsfan8703]

Would Prieto/Norby and Rhodes be enough for one of the A’s pitchers not names Montas?

[mlrhode]

2 hours ago, Jammer7 said:

Agreed. However, the trading of talent that may be impact level in 1-3 years doesn’t win games now. He hasn’t even pitched a full season yet because of health issues. If you can get a guy winning games now in a playoff run, and you get another year or two of control, you do it. Has to be an impact talent at the major league level, yes. Has to have good health and durability. We have the payroll flexibility to add.

I just do not want to get some Duquette type acquisition and hope we have enough to compete. Either go hard at adding for a playoff run now, or don’t. Maybe do the Snell deal, trade Mancini and Tate too. Call it a day, and go compete and stick to the plan. Do not go half-assed and get caught in between. 

I just hate it when you add a weak pitcher like a Feldman, or a Parra type hitter. These were weak adds on Duquette, but he had little trade capital, in fairness. The Miller deal I would do again and again. 

What were his health issues before last year?

[sportsfan8703]

I think Elias will have an easier time investing prospects into this team than millions. That probably means guys like Norby, Prieto, Haskin, and Rhodes. 

[Roll Tide]

8 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

…trade Santander for Snell and eat Snell’s salary or trade for Montas or Lopez for a deal headlined by DL Hall and other prospects.

In one trade, you keep the prospects but get the more volatile and expensive pitcher and with the other trades, you get the younger, more cost controlled pitchers but also have to give up a lot more.  
 

I can see the case for either side and I think both deals are worth exploring but I think I lean towards Snell because of his upside and the lack of quality pieces needed to be dealt for him.
 

Which side of the fence are you on?

Neither

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

A hair more upside than Lyles?
 

Im starting to think people on this site don’t know who Snell is or how talented he is.  

It’s always tricky with pitchers who formerly were great but more recently have struggled.  Kuechel, Kluber, Snell, etc.   Snell obviously has great upside if he gets back on track.  I haven’t followed him closely enough to know what the chances are of getting him back on track.   But flying blind (which Elias & co. would not be doing), I think Santander for Snell is a deal I would do.  

[Sports Guy]

22 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s always tricky with pitchers who formerly were great but more recently have struggled.  Kuechel, Kluber, Snell, etc.   Snell obviously has great upside if he gets back on track.  I haven’t followed him closely enough to know what the chances are of getting him back on track.   But flying blind (which Elias & co. would not be doing), I think Santander for Snell is a deal I would do.  

It’s not as tricky when the peripheral stats are very good.  There are issues, like his BB rate, which has always been an issue. 
 

But you aren’t paying him like an ace, so who cares.

[AnythingO's]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But you aren’t paying him like an ace, so who cares.

I suspect (as I'm sure you do) that John Angelos cares, cuts into his profit margin. Does he care more about the product on the field or the bottom line? We may see.

[Sports Guy]

18 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

I suspect (as I'm sure you do) that John Angelos cares, cuts into his profit margin. Does he care more about the product on the field or the bottom line? We may see.

Well yes, I agree with that.

My comment is made more for the normal person that understands winning and not being a cheap ass.

[RVAOsFan]

I don’t really understand the narrative that the Orioles won’t spend money. The last time this team was competitive they they had a pretty significant payroll for the time (160 mil?). Elias has said his objective the past few years has been to rebuild the organization from the ground up, a total gut job. Spending money during this time would be counter productive. I am not saying I expect them to start dropping bags like the Dodgers but I see no reason they won’t significantly increase payroll over the next few years. 

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, RVAOsFan said:

I don’t really understand the narrative that the Orioles won’t spend money. The last time this team was competitive they they had a pretty significant payroll for the time (160 mil?). Elias has said his objective the past few years has been to rebuild the organization from the ground up, a total gut job. Spending money during this time would be counter productive. I am not saying I expect them to start dropping bags like the Dodgers but I see no reason they won’t significantly increase payroll over the next few years. 

1. They haven't spent money.
2. The guy that spent the money previously is no longer in the position in which he makes the decision to spend money.
3. There are multiple lawsuits going on.
4. The law firm doesn't seem to be providing the revenue it used to.
5. By not spending money I mean they've really not spent money.  Stuff like trying to get arbitration eligible players to accept deferred money, letting coaches go to save money, letting an announcer go over money.  Real nickle and dime stuff.

I don't understand why folks want to reference what Peter did when discussing what the sons might do.