Jump to content

Poll: What’s your take on the Lopez trade


Frobby

What’s your take on the Lopez trade?  

161 members have voted

  1. 1. What’s your take on the Lopez trade?

    • Don’t like it - didn’t want to trade him
    • Don’t like it - the return wasn’t enough to trade him
    • Like it - the return was solid
    • I have no idea, ask me in a couple of years
    • Other

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 08/06/22 at 23:57

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, RarityFlaherty said:

Lopez could see his value increase, but it could also decrease. Relievers are too volatile to value them so highly when they haven’t even had a full season of success. If he continues into next year, maybe he has more value, but there’s a lot of risk you take with that. He was only a waiver pick up, so I’m happy to get what we can for him now. 
 

I don’t really see a reason to keep either of them. Bundy was a below average starter, and Lopez was an awful starter, but has seen a lot of success as a reliever this year. You put Bundy in the bullpen, maybe he makes that kind of jump too, but he was at least good enough to stay a starter. Bullpen pieces just aren’t as hard to find  as legitimate starters, so they have less value.  Lopez has a little more value to the team right now because he was the main piece of the bullpen on a winning team, but we have younger guys to replace him with. I’m really just happy that we were able to get what we could for both of them.

Middling relievers are volatile.  Very good to elite relievers are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Middling relievers are volatile.  Very good to elite relievers are not.

And, with his track record, there’s really no telling which one Lopez is right now. Plenty of guys have come out of nowhere to have great seasons in the bullpen and then fall off quickly. Or they get hurt. In general, pitchers are just too volatile to value that highly until they have multiple years of sustained success. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RarityFlaherty said:

And, with his track record, there’s really no telling which one Lopez is right now. Plenty of guys have come out of nowhere to have great seasons in the bullpen and then fall off quickly. Or they get hurt. In general, pitchers are just too volatile to value that highly until they have multiple years of sustained success. 

And again, his track record means nothing.

And I agree, he needs more years to have higher value.  That’s exactly my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sports Guy said:

And again, his track record means nothing.

And I agree, he needs more years to have higher value.  That’s exactly my point.

If you keep him hoping to trade him for higher value next year, even if you think his play definitely won’t fall off, you still run the risk of him getting hurt and being worth nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RarityFlaherty said:

And, with his track record, there’s really no telling which one Lopez is right now. Plenty of guys have come out of nowhere to have great seasons in the bullpen and then fall off quickly. Or they get hurt. In general, pitchers are just too volatile to value that highly until they have multiple years of sustained success. 

Should we trade GRod?  He now has had an injury, no ML sustained success and has high value as a prospect to acquire someone more experienced and with a track record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RarityFlaherty said:

If you keep him hoping to trade him for higher value next year, even if you think his play definitely won’t fall off, you still run the risk of him getting hurt and being worth nothing. 

I’m good with that.  This return wasn’t such that I would be upset if this happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Middling relievers are volatile.  Very good to elite relievers are not.

Seems like a tautological statement.  

Just to pick a name we all know, do you think Lopez will be better or worse than what we saw from Mychal Givens when he was with the Orioles?  Or, is he about on that same level!
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Seems like a tautological statement.  

Just to pick a name we all know, do you think Lopez will be better or worse than what we saw from Mychal Givens when he was with the Orioles?  Or, is he about on that same level!
 

Lopez has been better but Givens did have several good years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Should we trade GRod?  He now has had an injury, no ML sustained success and has high value as a prospect to acquire someone more experienced and with a track record.

It really depends on what we’d get for him.     I would definitely trade him if we could get a TOR guy with multiple years of sustained success who isn’t old. But those guys are few and far between. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RarityFlaherty said:

It really depends on what we’d get for him.     I would definitely trade him if we could get a TOR guy with multiple years of sustained success who isn’t old. But those guys are few and far between. 

So, GRod for Pablo Lopez?  Or we should have moved him for Castillo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RarityFlaherty said:

If any of the four guys we got ends up being contributors on the major league team, I think you’ll feel a lot differently about this trade. 

Not really.  I believe in evaluation of the process and the situation at the time.

Not to mention, being a contributor isn’t really a big deal.  Kreihbel is a contributor.  If that’s what we end up with, who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RarityFlaherty said:

It depends on the situation at the time, but both of those would have been great trades if we were legitimately in the hunt right now. 

We are legitimately in the hunt next year and they are/were available.

So, you are advocating trading GRod for Lopez this offseason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Lopez has been better but Givens did have several good years.

See, I consider Givens to be well above average (career ERA+ of 130) but there’s still been pretty big fluctuations from one year to another.  In my mind, Lopez will be about on the same level as a reliever in the long run.  

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.




  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • Oh mr know it all. Who most times is wrong. Lol
    • 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.
    • Looks like Baseball Fandom was at the game today!
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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...