Schoenfeld gives Os offseason a D+

[Number5]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Right, and that's still a bad take.

No one is suggesting that Elias should clearly overpay in trades.

Only Peter Angelos and message board types are worried about "winning trades". 

Where are you getting this "winning trades" stuff?  I'm talking about not making bad trades.  You seem to agree, given your second sentence.  I'm afraid the "bad take" is yours, not mine.

[Hallas]

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think that Elias/the O's screwed the pooch by not getting a #1 or #2 starter.  Duquette got a lot of value out of our pitching staff by turning retreads into legit starters.  Also, while there's a lot of if's here, between Grayson, Hall, and Means coming back, there is a lot of talent, and some hope for development here.

 

However, there were other avenues to retool and improve the major league team.  Trade some outfield depth to find an upgrade over Hays.  Sign/trade for a better 2B than Adam Frazier.  Get another 1B/DH in case Mountcastle doesn't bounce back (we are missing a DH anyway, so even if Mountcastle performs, we'd still have a spot in the order for him.)

[Frobby]

The execs polled by The Athletic ranked the following teams as most improved: Rangers, Blue Jays, Yankees, Angels, Mariners, Twins.   Least improved: Tigers, A’s, White Sox, Red Sox, Royals, Orioles.

Schoenfield’s grades differ quite a bit.  He gave the Rangers a C+, the Blue Jays a C.   

[DirtyBird]

7 hours ago, Hallas said:

  Trade some outfield depth to find an upgrade over Hays. 

I don't understand how that happens. 

[Number5]

7 hours ago, Hallas said:

Sign/trade for a better 2B than Adam Frazier.

I can't say I agree with this one.  I don't think Frazier, himself, is the issue, but rather the need to sign a 2B at all.  This has been discussed ad nauseam, but I don't believe anyone has been arguing that we needed to sign a different 2B.

[Sports Guy]

8 hours ago, Hallas said:

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think that Elias/the O's screwed the pooch by not getting a #1 or #2 starter.  Duquette got a lot of value out of our pitching staff by turning retreads into legit starters.  Also, while there's a lot of if's here, between Grayson, Hall, and Means coming back, there is a lot of talent, and some hope for development here.

 

However, there were other avenues to retool and improve the major league team.  Trade some outfield depth to find an upgrade over Hays.  Sign/trade for a better 2B than Adam Frazier.  Get another 1B/DH in case Mountcastle doesn't bounce back (we are missing a DH anyway, so even if Mountcastle performs, we'd still have a spot in the order for him.)

People believe that if you get rid of player X, you can’t replace him. It’s just so foolish.

The goal is to build a TEAM. If you trade Mullins but greatly upgrade the rotation (short and long term), you can find a suitable situation for CF and even if it’s a downgrade in total CF production, you have upgraded the team as a whole.

There is no one way to win. You don’t have to get 4 WAR out of CF. If you get 2 WAR out of CF but gain 3 WAR elsewhere, you are better off overall. And if you do it in a way where you get cost controlled assets back and you give up soon to be expensive FA that will be entering their declining years soon enough, even better.

[Aristotelian]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

People believe that if you get rid of player X, you can’t replace him. It’s just so foolish.

The goal is to build a TEAM. If you trade Mullins but greatly upgrade the rotation (short and long term), you can find a suitable situation for CF and even if it’s a downgrade in total CF production, you have upgraded the team as a whole.

There is no one way to win. You don’t have to get 4 WAR out of CF. If you get 2 WAR out of CF but gain 3 WAR elsewhere, you are better off overall. And if you do it in a way where you get cost controlled assets back and you give up soon to be expensive FA that will be entering their declining years soon enough, even better.

Sure. If you keep Mullins, you have to upgrade SP. If you trade Mullins for SP, you have to upgrade CF. Neither move in itself upgrades the team. I don't see either one being better than the other unless you believe Mullins is overvalued.

 

 

 

 

 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

Sure. If you keep Mullins, you have to upgrade SP. If you trade Mullins for SP, you have to upgrade CF. Neither move in itself upgrades the team. I don't see either one being better than the other unless you believe Mullins is overvalued.

 

 

 

 

 

He is overvalued. The Nimmo deal showed that. Lots of proven vet players are overvalued. 

We know teams have been after him. 

We could have easily replaced his speed and defense.  Maybe been able to replace 70% of his offense and done it for very little money.  Likely a step back overall at the position but not a major step back and combine that with a big increase on the mound and you have a better team. 

 

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

People believe that if you get rid of player X, you can’t replace him. It’s just so foolish.

The goal is to build a TEAM. If you trade Mullins but greatly upgrade the rotation (short and long term), you can find a suitable situation for CF and even if it’s a downgrade in total CF production, you have upgraded the team as a whole.

There is no one way to win. You don’t have to get 4 WAR out of CF. If you get 2 WAR out of CF but gain 3 WAR elsewhere, you are better off overall. And if you do it in a way where you get cost controlled assets back and you give up soon to be expensive FA that will be entering their declining years soon enough, even better.

I don’t think anyone (who’s rational) can disagree with the general point that you can downgrade one position and still have a net upgrade for the team.  Whether that would work in the case of a Mullins trade depends entirely on who’s coming back, and who’s available to replace Mullins.  

[DirtyBird]

 

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He is overvalued. The Nimmo deal showed that. Lots of proven vet players are overvalued. 

We know teams have been after him. 

We could have easily replaced his speed and defense.  Maybe been able to replace 70% of his offense and done it for very little money.  Likely a step back overall at the position but not a major step back and combine that with a big increase on the mound and you have a better team. 

 

 

Who did the Mets give up to get Nimmo?

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, DirtyBird said:

 

 

Who did the Mets give up to get Nimmo?

 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Frobby said:

 

And way too much of it 

[DirtyBird]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Likely a step back overall at the position but not a major step back and combine that with a big increase on the mound and you have a better team. 

 

Ever considered that Mullins wasn't moved because nobody was willing to give up anything that would provide us with "a big increase on the mound"?

[DirtyBird]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

And way too much of it 

"Too much" is relative to the organization. 

Are you saying that money in free agency and players in a trade are comparable?

If so, that is foolish.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

And way too much of it 

Which deal do you think was worse, without hindsight?

1.  Jacoby Ellsbury 7/$153 mm.

2.  Brandon Nimmo 8/$162 mm.