Grade our two deadline moves

[Fiver6565]

1 minute ago, 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.

Yep.  Have to believe that Elias thinks the market will be friendlier in the off season, which I'm fine with if so.

[Malike]

1 minute ago, Fiver6565 said:

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.

The Jays got the best reliever available according to the talking heads and he got slapped off the field. We'll all see who the winners and losers are in October.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Hallas said:

 

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.

I mean, that’s just silly. Teams aren’t going to forgo trades for better players than anyone else can offer them just because we have a lot of guys and they want more.

The last thing I’m worried about is the Os finding teams that want their players.

[Malike]

I feel like we are in a similar position to someone like the Reds, who also didn't run out and give up the farm because they showed up earlier than expected. Like I said earlier, I think the Flaherty deal was fine, but the off-season is going to be the real litmus test for this front office.

[TheWall]

34 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I mean, that’s just silly. Teams aren’t going to forgo trades for better players than anyone else can offer them just because we have a lot of guys and they want more.

The last thing I’m worried about is the Os finding teams that want their players.

I'd agree that is a silly idea in general, but I do think it might have impacted whatever negotiations we had for Cease since the White Sox were completely content to keep him and they apparently got fixated on some top guys.

[btdart20]

My final grade:  B-/C+ mostly built on the acceptance of the balancing act Elias is walking.  The ADD version of me would go lower because we didn't answer short-term needs.  The analytical side of me could go higher because I buy into the perennial contender vision.

Context: EVERY other AL team is trying to chase US down!  But the moves seem to be more akin to treading water vs. getting demonstrably better.  AND we're ahead of our own internal clock!  

Some big picture questions:  

Did Elias answer the TOR questions?  No.

Did Elias answer any rotation questions?  Yes, the middle is better.  The floor for our third playoff SP is higher.

  -- Flaherty - I don't expect him to really impact the ceiling of the rotation but do think he'll help the floor.  I think the upside is pitch mix related (maybe throwing the CB more?).  Was he a guy we targeted?  Or a guy who was there?

Did Elias answer lock-down reliever questions?  Maybe.  Fuji's splitter is special IF he can locate it.  They'll know it's coming but still can't hit it.  

Did Elias answer any reliever questions?  Yes.  Fuji's floor is higher than quite a few others.

Did Elias "trade away the farm"?  Not even close.  We have some combo of future stars and dry powder.

Did Elias trade from the top of the deck?  No.  I wonder if there were any discussions around Mateo or Urias (considering a few "buyers" got an SS or 3B).

Did Elias trade from positions of depth?  Yes.

Did I see much creativity is the deals?  Yes, identifying Fuji.  And Elais also showed a willingness to trade from a position of risk in Showalter too.  But pretty vanilla in general.

 

Ultimately, we didn't move the needle from being a very good but flawed team with BP questions and no TOR-type SP.  But there is less downside risk for this team now too.  I'm a little disappointed we couldn't move more IF depth, but it sounds like there were market demand limitations.  

 

How did others do?

The AL - TEX and HOU are the only two to get much better (and older).  

The AL East is open for the taking.  NYY and BOS did next to nothing.  TB didn't move the needle much either.  They are still real threat, but so are we.  Same with TOR getting Hicks.

Wildcard is open as a plan B.  SEA, MIN, and CLE didn't change the math.  LAA did improve, but they're still a shell game of a team with Ohtani as the pearl of great worth.  They depend on how Giolito pans out as much as anything.

Grayson, Cowser, Westburg, Ortiz, and Kjerstad all have a non-zero shot to scratch some team itches with some significant upside growth/contributions.  Even a guy like DL Hall is now back in the realm of potential contributor.

The NL - I suppose Hand improved the Braves.  But Minter being healthy is bigger.  They are clearly the class of the league.  PHI and ARI got a little better.  I like Ciny adding Moll.  SDP still is a mess but stacked with individual talent.  (How did Choi go from a career 13+% BB% guy to a 2.6% BB% in PIT?)  The rest are kind of bland.

 

Who got away?  The Montgomery deal and a couple of the RP deals had me wondering if we were at the table.  I also saw a few tweets where Elias said other teams were locked on a few of our higher end prospects.  On that note, I really hope GMs don't think "well we can get the #5 guy from them, surely you can trade your #7 guy?"  Alas, anchoring is a real psychological phenomenon even the most rational deal with.  

 

Industry trends - Everyone is scrounging for pitching on both sides of the deal...  That's still a gap in the org (even if we're seeing green shoots taking root).  Elias was at least willing to give up one of his developmental arms to help the 2023 team (BA podcast spoke highly of Showalter too).  We need to hit on a few of the 2023 arms (and those in recovery from prior trades).

[NCRaven]

1 hour ago, Hallas said:

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 this "glut" is a mirage.  Mateo will likely be gone next year opening a spot for Ortiz.  Mayo is more likely to end up at 1B or corner OF than the left side of the infield.  Prieto has already been traded.  If Holliday is the future at SS, then Gunnar goes to 3B and Westburg or Ortiz goes to 2B.  There could be position changes.  Or one could get injured or just not develop.  So, the glut is a good thing, not something that makes the system "worse off."

[RZNJ]

15 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

I think this "glut" is a mirage.  Mateo will likely be gone next year opening a spot for Ortiz.  Mayo is more likely to end up at 1B or corner OF than the left side of the infield.  Prieto has already been traded.  If Holliday is the future at SS, then Gunnar goes to 3B and Westburg or Ortiz goes to 2B.  There could be position changes.  Or one could get injured or just not develop.  So, the glut is a good thing, not something that makes the system "worse off."

Norby might not be our future 2B but he should certainly be included in the glut or non glut whichever you prefer.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, TheWall said:

I'd agree that is a silly idea in general, but I do think it might have impacted whatever negotiations we had for Cease since the White Sox were completely content to keep him and they apparently got fixated on some top guys.

Well they got fixated on the best prospect because they had, in their view, the best asset at the deadline and they wanted to be compensated as such.

Im guessing they will regret that decision and insistence on Holliday but we will see.

[Natty]

Ownerships main goal is to not spend money. 

They achieved their goal. 

[NCRaven]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

Norby might not be our future 2B but he should certainly be included in the glut or non glut whichever you prefer.

Absolutely.

[owknows]

2 hours ago, NCRaven said:

I think this "glut" is a mirage.  Mateo will likely be gone next year opening a spot for Ortiz.  Mayo is more likely to end up at 1B or corner OF than the left side of the infield.  Prieto has already been traded.  If Holliday is the future at SS, then Gunnar goes to 3B and Westburg or Ortiz goes to 2B.  There could be position changes.  Or one could get injured or just not develop.  So, the glut is a good thing, not something that makes the system "worse off."

I think the dealing of Hernaiz and Prieto, both of whom will likely make it to the show with someone, took a little bit of the logjam away. But even with the departure of Mateo over and above that... we still have Urias, Westburg, Henderson, Ortiz, Norby, Holliday, and arguably Vavra for 3 (4 with Util) positions.

So we're likely going to have to deal some of these guys.

Its not exactly an illusion.. just less of a problem than it was.. and even a tick better after this season... when Frazier and likely Mateo move on.

[Moose Milligan]

2 hours 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.

One of the things that frustrates me to no end on this board is when someone gets into a semantics (for a lack of a better word) debate on what someone said.  And you said it right here, clearly how I FELT (the word I didn't use in my initial post) was that Prieto and Rom should have been enough.  But of course I felt that way, that's what I meant when I said that.

But then people are all like "derp, derp, derp, well CLEARLY THOSE TWO WEREN'T ENOUGH!" Like, no ****, obviously they weren't enough, that's why they had to include Showalter.  I know that.  I get that.  But it's a silly thing to point out.  

And so yes, I think they overpaid a little bit for Flaherty.  I don't think they got bent over a barrel, but I also think Showalter was a guy with upside that I'd have preferred to have kept.  As I've said, I don't believe Flaherty makes us demonstrably better.  I don't think he makes us that much better than more bullpen pieces could have.

I can assure you that I wouldn't have been sharpening my pitchfork yesterday if it came out that we missed out on Flaherty because we didn't include Showalter.  Given how well Elias done here, I would have found it odd if there was some sort of backlash for not getting this deal done yesterday.  

 

[Teddy OBP]

Whatever Elias thought was too much to pay for another RP probably was worth doing.

I also wondered why everyone but the Tigers realized they were another reliever away from a WS. I guess it can happen to anyone.

[sportsfan8703]

It’s clear they’ve been thinking that Baker needed to get sent down. So why then didn’t Elias get us a vet RH reliever?  How much would have a guy like Ottavino cost?  Did we pick up Flaherty’s remaining salary or did the Cardinals?