Orioles related trade rumors and speculation leading up to the deadline

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, HakunaSakata said:

It's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Acquiring E-Rod would be a buying high situation. That's very rarely a winning strategy, especially with older players. 

I think when your point is he's a 4 ERA pitchers my counter points are relevant.

We also don't know if they'd actually be buying all that high, since he's a rental.

[Greg Pappas]

I think it's important to put an asterisk next to players with contract options, as they are not necessarily rentals.  Both Stroman and ERod fall into this category.  One can debate whether or not they would forego their option to keep their guaranteed contracts or attempt to better them by choosing free agency.  Just an FYI... 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Greg Pappas said:

I think it's important to put an asterisk next to players with contract options, as they are not necessarily rentals.  Both Stroman and ERod fall into this category.  One can debate whether or not they would forego their option to keep their guaranteed contracts or attempt to better them by choosing free agency.  Just an FYI... 

The assumption HAS to be that they opt out.

You have to treat them as a rental.

[MarCakes21]

17 hours ago, nevadaO said:

Seattle too. They've got a bunch of young SP.

I keep thinking this is an offseason move, to make a swap young talent for young talent.  Though I would do something like Cowser for Kirby approximately if that's on the table.

[CaptainRedbeard]

A player option / opt out is only downside for the team. The player is only going to not go to free agency if they think they’ll make less that way, most likely due to injury or otherwise a terrible end of the season. I think it’s likely a contributing factor to why Rodriguez is one of the last available SP to move, because it’s hard to value and is almost assuredly depressing his trade value, perhaps moreso than DET thinks is appropriate.

(Unless you have an Arenado situation, but that was highly and unusual and you wouldn’t have that type of relationship with a 2 month trade acquisition.)

[HakunaSakata]

5 minutes ago, MarCakes21 said:

I keep thinking this is an offseason move, to make a swap young talent for young talent.  Though I would do something like Cowser for Kirby approximately if that's on the table.

Cowser for Kirby is not a realistic trade scenario. It would take someone like Henderson to pry him away so he's probably not even worth targeting. Agree on trading a young bat for a young SP probably being more of an offseason move though. 

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, CaptainRedbeard said:

A player option / opt out is only downside for the team. The player is only going to not go to free agency if they think they’ll make less that way, most likely due to injury or otherwise a terrible end of the season. I think it’s likely a contributing factor to why Rodriguez is one of the last available SP to move, because it’s hard to value and is almost assuredly depressing his trade value, perhaps moreso than DET thinks is appropriate.

(Unless you have an Arenado situation, but that was highly and unusual and you wouldn’t have that type of relationship with a 2 month trade acquisition.)

I love opt outs.  I would usually want to get another year out of the player than a lot of opt outs allow but overall, I’m good with it.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, HakunaSakata said:

Cowser for Kirby is not a realistic trade scenario. It would take someone like Henderson to pry him away so he's probably not even worth targeting. Agree on trading a young bat for a young SP probably being more of an offseason move though. 

Yea but Miller or Woo for Cowser is realistic if each side likes the player.

[Greg Pappas]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The assumption HAS to be that they opt out.

You have to treat them as a rental.

In trade talks, yes, we agree.  My point was to note that you could get stuck in a contract you don't want if there is an injury and the player figures he'll stick with his current deal.

[BohKnowsBmore]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I love opt outs.  I would usually want to get another year out of the player than a lot of opt outs allow but overall, I’m good with it.

You shouldn't love it at all in this scenario. There are essentially two outcomes:

1. He pitches well or better post-trade, obviously exercises the option - you got a rental

2. He pitches so poorly that he doesn't want to hit FA - you have a high $$ contract with an underperforming player

That's why an opt-out would make him less appealing than a normal rental in this case.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

You shouldn't love it at all in this scenario. There are essentially two outcomes:

1. He pitches well or better post-trade, obviously exercises the option - you got a rental

2. He pitches so poorly that he doesn't want to hit FA - you have a high $$ contract with an underperforming player

That's why an opt-out would make him less appealing than a normal rental in this case.

1) my assumption would be in getting a rental and would only act in that way in terms of what I would trade.

2) Because I gave up very little for the player, I would take the risk that my coaching staff and the program I believe in would be able to work with the player and turn them around.

[RZNJ]

13 minutes ago, Greg Pappas said:

In trade talks, yes, we agree.  My point was to note that you could get stuck in a contract you don't want if there is an injury and the player figures he'll stick with his current deal.

Sure, but a career altering injury to ERod or Stroman, before the end of the season comes with fairly low odds.  Stroman, in particular has a good history I believe and I don’t recall a surgery on ERod.   Anything is possible but I would go into a trade for either player thinking there is a very low probability of the opt in.

[RZNJ]

9 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

You shouldn't love it at all in this scenario. There are essentially two outcomes:

1. He pitches well or better post-trade, obviously exercises the option - you got a rental

2. He pitches so poorly that he doesn't want to hit FA - you have a high $$ contract with an underperforming player

That's why an opt-out would make him less appealing than a normal rental in this case.

Stroman can suck the rest of the year and get a big contract.  It’s all about the health.

[sportsfan8703]

It’s looking like Flaherty or Lorenzen.  I’d rather have Flaherty. I don’t think we’ll fool around with Ed Rod’s option. I don’t see the Angelo’s family giving $95 million out of their pockets for Verlander. Plus, I also don’t see the no trade clause waived for Baltimore. Stroman isn’t better that Flaherty. So we are where we are. Flaherty and Carlson would fill holes on the 26 man roster. 

[Number5]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

1) my assumption would be in getting a rental and would only act in that way in terms of what I would trade.

2) Because I gave up very little for the player, I would take the risk that my coaching staff and the program I believe in would be able to work with the player and turn them around.

#2 is a very real scenario that you are severely disregarding, IMO.  There's no turning around a season lost to TJ surgery or a torn labrum.  Or even a guy whose talent has simply fallen off a cliff.  Things like this can and do happen.  It would be foolhardy to disregard these possibilities, especially with a team that has the budget of the Orioles.