Orioles related trade rumors and speculation leading up to the deadline

[Alasdaire]

16 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Can do or choose to do?

 

Elias has made the point quite a few times that it takes two to tango. And he said yesterday that it's a seller's market.

So if the front office is setting a price they think is fair value based on historical data but potential suitors are either demanding more than that or legitimately have better offers from other teams, it seems like best practice to me to stand pat and wait for better opportunities to present themselves whether that's closer to the deadline or even during the offseason.

There might be a case for overpaying in some circumstances, but this doesn't seem like one of those times.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Did I say anyone had an issue with the trade?   Try reading what I actually wrote.   That is a great under the radar move to get an arm like Fujinami for very little in return.   Simple.

And everyone agreed with that at the time of the trade.

So why mention it again?

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Alasdaire said:

Elias has made the point quite a few times that it takes two to tango. And he said yesterday that it's a seller's market.

 

Right, it takes two and he isn't all that interested in dancing.

Just like it was too expensive during the offseason.

[RZNJ]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And everyone agreed with that at the time of the trade.

So why mention it again?

 

Haha.  LOL.  From the man who beats dead horses.   You are a funny guy.

 

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Right, it takes two and he isn't all that interested in dancing.

Just like it was too expensive during the offseason.

I think something is going to come our way

[waroriole]

So the Rangers traded a Top 50 prospect for a 39 year old rental with a 4 ERA, who they still have to pay 15M? And they may also have to pay this guy 43M next year, which they want to do. But he wants to retain flexibility to opt out and possibly get more than 43M? Rangers are a joke organization in many ways, but I am envious of their owner’s willingness to spend. 

[Tryptamine]

13 minutes ago, waroriole said:

So the Rangers traded a Top 50 prospect for a 39 year old rental with a 4 ERA, who they still have to pay 15M? And they may also have to pay this guy 43M next year, which they want to do. But he wants to retain flexibility to opt out and possibly get more than 43M? Rangers are a joke organization in many ways, but I am envious of their owner’s willingness to spend. 

No. The Rangers pay 22.5M, the Mets pay everything else.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Tryptamine said:

No. The Rangers pay 22.5M, the Mets pay everything else.

That's a bit better for the Mets than it sounds, since they are so far into overage.

[bpilktree]

6 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

No. The Rangers pay 22.5M, the Mets pay everything else.

The other way around.  The Mets are sending the Rangers 22.5 million.  The Rangers are paying the other 35 million.   

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, bpilktree said:

The other way around.  The Mets are sending the Rangers 22.5 million.  The Rangers are paying the other 35 million.   

I wonder if the Mets can get thier overage down to the next lower level?  That'd be something.

Not that Cohen can't afford it of course.

[waroriole]

16 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

No. The Rangers pay 22.5M, the Mets pay everything else.

That’s more palatable I guess. Still too high of a prospect price. 

[waroriole]

9 minutes ago, bpilktree said:

The other way around.  The Mets are sending the Rangers 22.5 million.  The Rangers are paying the other 35 million.   

 

[Bemorewins]

Obviously Scherzer is not the old/prime Scherzer. And he is owed a good deal of cash. But Wells is falling apart and even when he was good he was giving up way too many home runs for success to be sustainable in the playoffs agains the better/best offenses.

I would have loved to even take this version of Scherzer over Wells at this point. (And I really like Wells.)

The money shouldn’t be any issue with a payroll this low. No matter what path we take, success for us does involve keeping the payroll this low and still being able to maintain a team that is a serious challenger for a pennant.

[baltfan]

5 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Obviously Scherzer is not the old/prime Scherzer. And he is owed a good deal of cash. But Wells is falling apart and even when he was good he was giving up way too many home runs for success to be sustainable in the playoffs agains the better/best offenses.

I would have loved to even take this version of Scherzer over Wells at this point. (And I really like Wells.)

The money shouldn’t be any issue with a payroll this low. No matter what path we take, success for us does involve keeping the payroll this low and still being able to maintain a team that is a serious challenger for a pennant.

Would you have given Ortiz plus for him?

[Bemorewins]

1 minute ago, baltfan said:

Would you have given Ortiz plus for him?

Well, first I would have to find out if there was anything out there better than Scherzer.

But if he was the best available (not sure he is) I would have to consider it at the least.

We cannot sit by idly and do nothing with a team this good who has obvious holes/weaknesses. I don’t need to wait until Baker/Perez/Baumann/Wells/Kremer etc fail in a big spot in October because I just wanted to wait and let’s see what happens.

There are prospects that I don’t want to trade away. Then there are some who I would have to consider depending on return. And then there are this who I would gladly trade away.