Grade our two deadline moves

[Number5]

49 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

By no means do I think Scherzer is the pitcher that he used to be or that he is even very good anymore. But the point that I was making is that Texas did not stand pat, but sought to improve their team (even despite injuries to their best 2 starters). IMO that's what good orgs do when they have opportunities. You take your shots within reason.

What?  How does that make any sense at all?  Good organizations spend a lot for players that aren't even very good any more?  It is really hard for me to imagine being in more disagreement than I am with that statement.

[NCRaven]

45 minutes ago, Hallas said:

 

By Fangraphs the difference is a full win.  And yes, IMO they should have.  At least 2 or 3 of those guys have no shot at producing for the Orioles unless someone gets hurt or has some crazy underperformance.

No, good organizations make rational decisions based on what they think players will do in the future.  That includes the players that we want to acquire and the players that we could have included in the trade, whether current major leaguers or prospects.  Then they act based on that analysis.  If anything, that seems to be how Elias and the O's front office operates.

[Bemorewins]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

What?  How does that make any sense at all?  Good organizations spend a lot for players that aren't even very good any more?  It is really hard for me to imagine being in more disagreement than I am with that statement.

So you disagree with the Texas Rangers approach to the trade deadline? I guess you prefer ours?

Time will tell which approach is correct. If we go further than them or best then in the playoffs I don’t think anybody can argue that their approach was better than ours. However if the opposite occurs then that will be a different story/discussion. 

For the record, I don’t think 2023 Scherzer is all that good. He is certainly not what he once was. However, for the Rangers, a team decimated by injuries to their starting staff, while leading the division, it made sense IMO for them to try to fill those voids in the best/credible way possible.

[Hallas]

14 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

No, good organizations make rational decisions based on what they think players will do in the future.  That includes the players that we want to acquire and the players that we could have included in the trade, whether current major leaguers or prospects.  Then they act based on that analysis.  If anything, that seems to be how Elias and the O's front office operates.

 

My comment is based on rational analysis.  If every prospect we currently have hits their projection, we are not giving up any future performance by trading some of them away because they have nowhere to play on the Orioles.  The only time they would contribute to the Orioles is to replace players that underperform or get injured. e.g. if Henderson and Westburg go down with injuries then they would come up.  But if those guys stay healthy and perform then there's no spot for them in the lineup.  The only mortgaging of the future that occurs by selling the other guys is increasing volatility.  There is no reduction in our team's top-line projection.

 

I've never really been a fan of overly splashy deadline moves in the past - I tended to think that they can lead you to places where you feel like you have to sell Zach Davies for Gerardo Parra.  And even when we traded for Andrew Miller, and he performed for us in the playoffs, the cost for that performance was enormous.  But this is different because IMO the system is worse off having a glut of middle infielders in the high minors and nowhere to play them.  Jackson Holliday is going to be ready for at least AAA next year and as a result we won't have a place to play Ortiz in either Baltimore or Norfolk.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Hallas

[Malike]

15 minutes ago, Hallas said:

 

My comment is based on rational analysis.  If every prospect we currently have hits their projection, we are not giving up any future performance by trading some of them away because they have nowhere to play on the Orioles.  The only time they would contribute to the Orioles is to replace players that underperform or get injured. e.g. if Henderson and Westburg go down with injuries then they would come up.  But if those guys stay healthy and perform then there's no spot for them in the lineup.  The only mortgaging of the future that occurs by selling the other guys is increasing volatility.  There is no reduction in our team's top-line projection.

 

I've never really been a fan of overly splashy deadline moves in the past - I tended to think that they can lead you to places where you feel like you have to sell Zach Davies for Gerardo Parra.  And even when we traded for Andrew Miller, and he performed for us in the playoffs, the cost for that performance was enormous.  But this is different because IMO the system is worse off having a glut of middle infielders in the high minors and nowhere to play them.  Jackson Holliday is going to be ready for at least AAA next year and as a result we won't have a place to play Ortiz in either Baltimore or Norfolk.

I think it's a much better time in the off-season to make the deals that will likely be made. The fast food society of if we don't do it right now we're not going to win attitude isn't always prudent, especially when it involves valuable assets that you are likely going to trade for longer term valuable assets. If you get rid of Ortiz and Norby for rentals, who do you bring to the table in the off-season when you are trying to trade for young controllable pitching from the teams like SEA and MIA, etc, who are going to be looking for young controllable bats?

[Hallas]

1 minute ago, Malike said:

I think it's a much better time in the off-season to make the deals that will likely be made. The fast food society of if we don't do it right now we're not going to win attitude isn't always prudent, especially when it involves valuable assets that you are likely going to trade for longer term valuable assets. If you get rid of Ortiz and Norby for rentals, who do you bring to the table in the off-season when you are trying to trade for young controllable pitching from the teams like SEA and MIA, etc, who are going to be looking for young controllable bats?

 

I guess, but my rebuttal to this is why we didn't do it last offseason when it was clear we would need help with pitching?  I was kind of okay with last offseason because it gave our prospects time to develop and turn into trading chips for the deadline.  Our prospects developed into better trading chips, the team overperformed.... except now the deadline passed and we still didn't draw from that well.  So that leaves me scratching my head.

[Malike]

2 hours ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

Just turned on SportsCenter and ESPN was talking about deadline deal winners and losers. ESPN thinks the Orioles are the biggest trade deadline losers because they didn't add the arms they needed. Said Jack Flaherty has command problems and has lost games all by himself the past couple of seasons.

Like Cardinals fans said, Orioles got fleeced.

While Elias is an excellent evaluator of talent, what I'm thinking is that behind the scenes, either Elias is handcuffed by Angelos (who vetoes deals based on player salaries) or Elias has a long way to go before he becomes a highly skilled negotiator.  Probably the prior, if we can say that last year's 2022 deadline trades were good.

ESPN+ article on winners and losers also said this, take anything people say with a grain of salt. Opinions are like you know what's.

[Fiver6565]

5 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm sorry, I was picturing the backlash if no deal had been made.  I'm glad you wouldn't have made a deal just to avoid it, though.  That takes some balls.

Further apologies for not being clear, I should have said that I FELT that Rom and Prieto SHOULD have been enough.  Obviously, they weren't.  

I'm not really sure why you're so combative, I've always gotten a pretty good chuckle out of your posts but you've gotten really defensive.  Whatever.

The point is, clearly how you FELT wasn't indicative of the actual situation.  So, you would have walked away, and Elias chose not to.  How would you have felt if he had walked away, and you later learned that Showalter was the reason why?  I would probably have been annoyed hearing that, but it sounds like you would have been relieved.

[Malike]

Just now, Hallas said:

 

I guess, but my rebuttal to this is why we didn't do it last offseason when it was clear we would need help with pitching?  I was kind of okay with last offseason because it gave our prospects time to develop and turn into trading chips for the deadline.  Our prospects developed into better trading chips, the team overperformed.... except now the deadline passed and we still didn't draw from that well.  So that leaves me scratching my head.

Because I honestly believe to my core they didn't think this was the year. I feel like they figured this was going to be the final year of developing and evaluation and the O's team went nuts.

[Malike]

1 minute ago, Fiver6565 said:

I'm not really sure why you're so combative, I've always gotten a pretty good chuckle out of your posts but you've gotten really defensive.  Whatever.

The point is, clearly how you FELT wasn't indicative of the actual situation.  So, you would have walked away, and Elias chose not to.  How would you have felt if he had walked away, and you later learned that Showalter was the reason why?  I would probably have been annoyed hearing that, but it sounds like you would have been relieved.

Showalter might be great, he might not be great. 19 year olds in Low A for an entire season in an organization who is hyper aggressive at promoting people they think are going to move quickly might say what the org thought of Showalter going forward. 

[Hallas]

1 minute ago, Malike said:

Because I honestly believe to my core they didn't think this was the year. I feel like they figured this was going to be the final year of developing and evaluation and the O's team went nuts.

Yeah this makes sense.  I just don't like it.  Not much urgency to pivot when the circumstances call for it.  It sure didn't help that all our prospects injected helium in their bones and are now banging at the door to Camden Yards despite the fact that they have literally no position to play because of existing players/better prospects.

[Sports Guy]

27 minutes ago, Hallas said:

 

My comment is based on rational analysis.  If every prospect we currently have hits their projection, we are not giving up any future performance by trading some of them away because they have nowhere to play on the Orioles.  The only time they would contribute to the Orioles is to replace players that underperform or get injured. e.g. if Henderson and Westburg go down with injuries then they would come up.  But if those guys stay healthy and perform then there's no spot for them in the lineup.  The only mortgaging of the future that occurs by selling the other guys is increasing volatility.  There is no reduction in our team's top-line projection.

 

I've never really been a fan of overly splashy deadline moves in the past - I tended to think that they can lead you to places where you feel like you have to sell Zach Davies for Gerardo Parra.  And even when we traded for Andrew Miller, and he performed for us in the playoffs, the cost for that performance was enormous.  But this is different because IMO the system is worse off having a glut of middle infielders in the high minors and nowhere to play them.  Jackson Holliday is going to be ready for at least AAA next year and as a result we won't have a place to play Ortiz in either Baltimore or Norfolk.

The Os absolutely have to trade a few of their prospects. There is no doubt there.

That doesn’t mean they had to do it at the deadline for what was available.

[Malike]

1 minute ago, Hallas said:

Yeah this makes sense.  I just don't like it.  Not much urgency to pivot when the circumstances call for it.  It sure didn't help that all our prospects injected helium in their bones and are now banging at the door to Camden Yards despite the fact that they have literally no position to play because of existing players/better prospects.

I don't disagree. I will concede what happened at the deadline and not worry about it, but if they don't trade some of these kids in the off-season for good young pitching, then I will have a much bigger issue with what happened this season.

[Fiver6565]

Last year we were alleged losers at the deadline because we traded Mancini, who is now DFA, and Lopez, who just got traded again.  Forgive me if I don't give AF what all these pundits have to say.

[Hallas]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

The Os absolutely have to trade a few of their prospects. There is no doubt there.

That doesn’t mean they had to do it at the deadline for what was available.

 

I feel like we're not going to get more impactful players if we trade in the offseason, with teams knowing we have a backlog.  It seems like they were already unwilling to pay us full freight for our prospects because of that backlog.  I can't imagine that situation getting any better.  But we'll see what he does this offseason.  Right now I think it was a mistake not to sell them while we have a .600 team at the deadline.