Jump to content

Trade Deadline Primer/Thread

Roll Tide

By Roll Tide
in Orioles Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

Roll Tide Hangout Grand Counsel

Roll Tide

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

The best part about non-tendering someone is the season of decline before you non-tender them.

 

True …Elias is shown the ability to identify quality relievers. It doesn’t bother me if he trades any of them if he gets surplus value for them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 679
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Can_of_corn
Can_of_corn

How exactly is replacing Tate with Hall and Santander with Stowers punting the season? I'd much rather have Hall out there than Tate and Santander isn't anything special. My guess is that Ad

Can_of_corn
Can_of_corn

Aside from the known volatility of relief pitcher performance from year to year?

Can_of_corn
Can_of_corn

I'm not. Just like I'm not sure Santander isn't going to put up a negative WAR the rest of the season. You don't take a 2% chance to make the playoffs and base decisions around it.  Santande

Aristotelian Hangout Grand Counsel

Aristotelian

Posted
Posted

Pure speculation but I'll go down in favor of keeping Tate or at least demanding a "wow" offer. He has doubled his changeup usage and turned himself into a different pitcher by really mastering that pitch. I think what we're seeing is sustainable and he could contribute to our future as well as continue to build value. Of course, I'd be in favor of trading any player if we get value in return. If I were to try and "sell high" on a player it would be Lopez. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aristotelian Hangout Grand Counsel

Aristotelian

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

True …Elias is shown the ability to identify quality relievers. It doesn’t bother me if he trades any of them if he gets surplus value for them.

Do you remember how our bullpen did the last three years? I don't think it's a given that you can build a quality bullpen from the waiver wire. That said, I agree, if you can get surplus value you take it, that's basically a no brainer. The question is how much baseline value do you assign to guys like Tate and Lopez. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Do you remember how our bullpen did the last three years? I don't think it's a given that you can build a quality bullpen from the waiver wire. That said, I agree, if you can get surplus value you take it, that's basically a no brainer. The question is how much baseline value do you assign to guys like Tate and Lopez. 

If there was some guarantee that this bullpen would perform like a quality bullpen next season I'd be more inclined to keep them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spy Fox Hangout Veteran Council

Spy Fox

Posted
Posted

Fangraphs began their annual Top 50 Trade Value series today with the Honorable Mentions and #41-50. As usual one of the inputs was interviews with some team reps around the league. 

Gunnar Henderson was listed as an Honorable Mention. Adley Rutschman seems like a slam dunk for a top 20 spot— he was ranked 24 last year. 

Grayson Rodriguez was not mentioned last year, but I predict we'll see him in the top 40 given how effusive his scouting reports have been over the past year. Even with the injury, it would be surprising if he wasn't on this list somewhere. 

Cedric Mullins was an Honorable Mention last year with the quote "there were just too many questions about how real his 2021 performance is. If he keeps this up, he’ll certainly show up next year; he isn’t eligible for arbitration until 2023." He clearly hasn't kept last year's power but he still posted 6 WAR last year and on pace for 3+ this year with three more controlled years ahead. Seems pretty valuable to me, and I suspect the #31-40 edition may include both Cedric and Grayson. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LookinUp Hangout Grand Counsel

LookinUp

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If there was some guarantee that this bullpen would perform like a quality bullpen next season I'd be more inclined to keep them.

It would be silly to build a 1-9 lineup that looks really strong next year only to have traded away several solid or better bullpen arms for some low A flyers.

I generally agree with selling bullpen guys high, but I also think our mindset needs to shift to having a stud major league team rather than a top rated minor league organization. That means you only trade these guys who are clearly good if you get really good deals. Otherwise you're shooting the major league team in the foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
btdart20 Hangout Veteran Council

btdart20

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, wildcard said:

Too Long?  What is too long? A year?   

I can see them trading Lopez next season at the deadline when he has a year plus two months before free agency.  But there is not reason to do it now other then if someone gives an offer that can't be refused.

Our competitiveness this year is marginal and surprising.  Our BP has increased in value a ton.  Many in the BP have added trade value of team control.  Next year we’ll likely be in a more competitive position.  Why would we trade him next year if we’re more competitive heading into the 2023 deadline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

It would be silly to build a 1-9 lineup that looks really strong next year only to have traded away several solid or better bullpen arms for some low A flyers.

I generally agree with selling bullpen guys high, but I also think our mindset needs to shift to having a stud major league team rather than a top rated minor league organization. That means you only trade these guys who are clearly good if you get really good deals. Otherwise you're shooting the major league team in the foot.

It will be disappointing to build a 1-9 lineup that looks really strong next year only to have the bullpen regress.

 

For the record I'm not advocating giving anyone away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vab All-Star

vab

Posted
Posted

With the number of good arms already in the system and the ability these guys seem to have to rehabilitate pitchers, I wouldn't be upset with trading a Perez, Baker, Akin, Krehbiel or Tate. Now Lopez and especially Bautista, that's a little different story. Not that they would be untouchable but I'd need a good bit for those guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Just Regular Hangout Grand Counsel

Just Regular

Posted
Posted

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/examining-the-american-leagues-2022-40-man-crunch/

Longenhagen with his traditional Trade season review of systems.

For those worried about Gunnar or Westburg depriving anyone worth worrying about of a spot this winter, I noticed he did NOT list the Baltimore Orioles as an AL team with any kind of crunch.    And he even did list Oakland.

Cleveland's Joey Cantillo and Peyton Battenfield were two names who jumped out at me a little as "fringe" guys who could make some pitching contributions in the coming years.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tntoriole Hangout Grand Counsel

tntoriole

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea, it’s absurd to think a pen full of journeyman are going to be successful long term.  I like Lopez and think we should keep him if the offer isn’t really good but I’m open to trading everyone outside of Bautista.  
 

Tate needs to go imo.

This… exactly.  Lopez is AllStar .. his value is peak and can only go down .  Tate is a regression waiting to happen.. peak value … Move them 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LookinUp Hangout Grand Counsel

LookinUp

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It will be disappointing to build a 1-9 lineup that looks really strong next year only to have the bullpen regress.

 

For the record I'm not advocating giving anyone away.

Some will. Some won't. That's why I want more options, not fewer. 

I don't see any of our guys as red flags to suck. I get the regression point re: Tate and Lopez, but that doesn't mean they'll be terrible. And with arm injuries being what they are, I want more people to choose from than less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
interloper Hangout Grand Counsel

interloper

Posted
Posted

Count me in with anyone else who just doesn't trust Tate. It's great that he's been a different and much improved pitcher this year. But I just see a lot of volatility with his delivery and command. If we can get something notable for him, I make that move in a heartbeat. 

Lopez? I've stated elsewhere I'm looking for "established closer" return for him. He's not an established closer, but if someone is willing to go there, then I'm listening. I need a high-minors SP prospect though. 

Bautista is clearly off limits. 

Perez? I don't know that you're going to get much for him, so he's a guy I think stays. Teams know his past struggles and his FIP is a full 2 runs above his ERA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • Baseball fandom
      Anthony Santander 2024

      By Baseball fandom · Posted

      I've made it clear that if they don't sign Santa and Burnes I'm ok with it as long as the money is allocated to other players they feel that fits their profile better .You know you have people on here like SG who only hears what he wants to hear. I need to learn to ignore that guy. 
    • Baseball fandom
      Anthony Santander 2024

      By Baseball fandom · Posted

      Oh mr know it all. Who most times is wrong. Lol
    • DrinkinWithFermi
      Anthony Santander 2024

      By DrinkinWithFermi · Posted

      I also think Santander will age better than Trumbo, despite my repeated comparisons of the two players. But I don't know that he will age better than Trumbo and all of the other one dimensional sluggers who were enjoying the retired millionaire sports star lifestyle by their mid-30s, and I don't want the Orioles to be on the hook when the world finds out in 2 or 3 years. Re-signing Santander to a 4 year, $80 million dollar deal is something the DD/PA regime would have done. Hopefully the ME/DR regime is smarter than that (and I think they are). 22nd percentile is really bad, man. And it's unlikely to improve in his 30s.
    • Moose Milligan
      Hyde Hot Seat

      By Moose Milligan · Posted

      Looks like Baseball Fandom was at the game today!
    • Sydnor
      Anthony Santander 2024

      By Sydnor · Posted

      But that is not what you said. You said he’s a bad fielder, just not quite Trumbo-tier. Thus, you were stating he is close to as bad a fielder as Trumbo was, which is not correct. Generally speaking, no player makes up the loss of offensive value with defensive value as the age. It is usually one of the first things to go. I was not making any sort of argument that he was going to make up declining offense with defense, just pointing out that you made a preposterous statement.
    • Hallas
      Anthony Santander 2024

      By Hallas · Posted

      At least relative to the rest of the league Santander has an interesting profile because he is comfortably above-average at making contact; his whiff rates are much better than Trumbo's so he's not really as much of a TTO player as you would think.  This gives him hope that he will age a little bit better than someone like Trumbo.  Though he's still got a good shot of being out of the league in 3 years.
    • forphase1
      Anthony Santander 2024

      By forphase1 · Posted

      It's not the money, it's the years.  I wouldn't mind signing him for a year or two, even at what I'd consider to be stupid money.  But what I DON'T agree with is signing him for any more than 2-3 years as I don't think he's going to age well.  And I expect him to get more than 3 years from someone, so I'm a hard pass.  Can we afford him?  Money wise, sure.  But I don't want to see us stuck with him 4-5 years down the road when his skillset has greatly diminished, but he's still playing every day because we owe him a lot of money and a lot of loyalty.  Let some other club take that risk, get the QO pick and move on.  

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...