Jump to content

Would the Burnes trade have happened without the pending ownership change?

Frobby

By Frobby
in Orioles Talk

 Share

Would the Burnes trade have happened without the pending ownership change?  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Would the Burnes trade have happened without the pending owjnership change?

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 02/10/24 at 19:33

Recommended Posts

Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted

I’ve seen some posts suggesting that the Burnes trade is related to the pending ownership change.  Do you agree with that view?

My opinion is that they are unrelated and the trade would have happened regardless of the pending ownership change.  The timing is just serendipitous.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Can_of_corn
Can_of_corn

Uhh huh. Because we can declare a player that hasn't even been drafted yet as a lock to be in the majors for six seasons. By that logic the O's get seven years back because the draft pick th

interloper
interloper

JMO but I think any talk of extension is a bit misguided. Adding 1/$15 to the payroll is not much different than the types of deals Elias has made so far (1/$10 for Gibson, 1/$13 for Kimbrel, etc). 

Moose Milligan
Moose Milligan

Nah, he's really good.  I like SG, he brings a lot to the board and I've learned a lot from him over the years even if we've butted heads from time to time.    He's also markedly nicer than he wa

Roll Tide Hangout Grand Counsel

Roll Tide

Posted
Posted

No …. I think Mike didn’t see the value sending good players/prospects for a guy he has no money to extend. I mean this deal gives them what 17 years of controlled players for 1 year of a very good players. Under those circumstances the deal is a loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RZNJ Hangout Grand Counsel

RZNJ

Posted
Posted

The timing is a little curious but this is about the time they did the Irvin trade last year.  I have to assume trade talks regarding Burns did not start yesterday.   I still think we were heavy in on Cease and maybe Elias even preferred Cease for the extra year but finally gave up waiting on Getz to compromise.  Reports on the Orioles, IIRC, moving on from Cease just came out days ago.  I voted YES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
interloper Hangout Grand Counsel

interloper

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

No …. I think Mike didn’t see the value sending good players/prospects for a guy he has no money to extend. I mean this deal gives them what 17 years of controlled players for 1 year of a very good players. Under those circumstances the deal is a loser.

JMO but I think any talk of extension is a bit misguided. Adding 1/$15 to the payroll is not much different than the types of deals Elias has made so far (1/$10 for Gibson, 1/$13 for Kimbrel, etc). 

I'm not sure why folks assume Elias wouldn't make this deal unless he thought he could extend Burnes. Burnes has been adamant about testing the market and I don't think Elias sees much value in shooting for a $250+ million deal for a SP. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

No …. I think Mike didn’t see the value sending good players/prospects for a guy he has no money to extend. I mean this deal gives them what 17 years of controlled players for 1 year of a very good players. Under those circumstances the deal is a loser.

Uhh huh.

Because we can declare a player that hasn't even been drafted yet as a lock to be in the majors for six seasons.

By that logic the O's get seven years back because the draft pick they get when he walks will give them six.

If you assume every player and pick that gets traded is going to be a useful major league player for six seasons why would you ever trade anyone?

Edited by Can_of_corn
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moose Milligan Hangout Grand Counsel

Moose Milligan

Posted
Posted

I think so.  I think the timing was very serendipitous, as @Frobbysaid.

I don't think a trade like that happens overnight, I have to assume that Elias and the Brewers were laying the groundwork for this for awhile.  I don't see a situation where the deal for new Orioles ownership is announced and then Elias hits the phones for Burnes even though the ownership hasn't transferred hands yet.   John Angelos still controls the purse strings, although that's probably not the case by Opening Day.

I can sort of see a situation where Elias and the Brewers had agreed to a deal and Elias couldn't get approval for the 15 million additional salary this year and it was nixed, then went back and completed it as soon as new ownership was announced.  Or it was agreed to and put on hold while the sale of the team was being ironed out.  

Either way, it's going to be popular to think that this deal doesn't happen under JA and that the new ownership is responsible for it because that fits the narrative that people want to believe.  I can see it both ways, but as it is with a lot of things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SilentJames Hangout Veteran Council

SilentJames

Posted
Posted

I guess we will never really know: I voted no but I'm on the fence really. 

The Orioles have made big, positive, trades in the Angelos era. But this is the first I can think of where elite controlled players were traded for a clear pro-active move. 

Bedard we were going to lose in FA, maybe Hoey for Hardy is somewhat comparable here? But Im not sure if we expected to get from Hardy what we got at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Safelykept Major Leaguer

Safelykept

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

No …. I think Mike didn’t see the value sending good players/prospects for a guy he has no money to extend. I mean this deal gives them what 17 years of controlled players for 1 year of a very good players. Under those circumstances the deal is a loser.

How is Hall and Ortiz 17 years. (voted yes) extend Who? Burnes? dont see Elias going 6 or 7 years even with ownership approval. Maybe 2 or 3 years at a higher cost per year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Safelykept Major Leaguer

Safelykept

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think so.  I think the timing was very serendipitous, as @Frobbysaid.

I don't think a trade like that happens overnight, I have to assume that Elias and the Brewers were laying the groundwork for this for awhile.  I don't see a situation where the deal for new Orioles ownership is announced and then Elias hits the phones for Burnes even though the ownership hasn't transferred hands yet.   John Angelos still controls the purse strings, although that's probably not the case by Opening Day.

I can sort of see a situation where Elias and the Brewers had agreed to a deal and Elias couldn't get approval for the 15 million additional salary this year and it was nixed, then went back and completed it as soon as new ownership was announced.  Or it was agreed to and put on hold while the sale of the team was being ironed out.  

Either way, it's going to be popular to think that this deal doesn't happen under JA and that the new ownership is responsible for it because that fits the narrative that people want to believe.  I can see it both ways, but as it is with a lot of things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  

It didn't get done overnight and we will never know where JA stood on this. But you're right its definitely its easier for people to be aligned  Against JA, hell hes this board Darth Vader

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Safelykept Major Leaguer

Safelykept

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, interloper said:

My question is what took this deal so long? It's about as straight forward as it gets. 

Probably the Cease trade talks (maybe others?) More likely waiting for the change in ownership to go thru

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moose Milligan Hangout Grand Counsel

Moose Milligan

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Safelykept said:

It didn't get done overnight and we will never know where JA stood on this. But you're right its definitely its easier for people to be aligned  Against JA, hell hes this board Darth Vader

Well if he's this board's Darth Vader, that must make him someone's father.  I'm picking SG :)

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • SteveA
      2024 Ongoing Lineup Thread

      By SteveA · Posted

      If we were to DH Kjerstad instead of O'Hearn it would be an entire starting 10 who had only played for the Orioles in their MLB career.   Wonder when the last time we ever had such a lineup (if ever).
    • Moose Milligan
      2024 Ongoing Lineup Thread

      By Moose Milligan · Posted

      Per Roch:   For the Orioles Gunnar Henderson SS Jordan Westburg 2B Anthony Santander RF Colton Cowser LF Adley Rutschman C Ryan O’Hearn DH Ryan Mountcastle 1B Cedric Mullins CF Ramón Urías 3B Cade Povich LHP For the Twins Manuel Margot RF Carlos Correa SS Byron Buxton CF Carlos Santana 1B Royce Lewis 3B Kyle Farmer 2B Ryan Jeffers DH Christian Vázquez C Willi Castro LF Pablo López RHP    
    • Malike
      Back to back 90 or more win seasons

      By Malike · Posted

      That would be pretty cool. Just do me a favor and please don't start the magic number thread in June next season.
    • Frobby
      Back to back 90 or more win seasons

      By Frobby · Posted

      There’s another accomplishment from 1983 I’d like to match.  
    • Can_of_corn
      Back to back 90 or more win seasons

      By Can_of_corn · Posted

      I'm more of a Prime Number guy, I'm happy enough with 89. Round numbers are for suckers.   Pretty disheartening they haven't managed to reach that relatively meager goal in 40 years.
    • vab
      Back to back 90 or more win seasons

      By vab · Posted

      Still with a chance to do this for the first time since 1982-83. Would be one more nice accomplishment for this organization. 
    • Frobby
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Frobby · Posted

      The weird thing about our bullpen is that they rarely blow leads.   They have a 69% save rate, 4th highest in baseball.  They make it scary, but generally, when they have the lead, they get the job done.   Where they are really bad is keeping games close when we’re down a run or two, last night being a classic example of that.   This year’s team has 32 comeback wins, compared to 48 last year.   Why is that?   Part of it is obviously on the offense, but part of it is that the bullpen doesn’t keep us in striking distance when we’re behind.   One way you can tell this is by the W/L records of the starters and the bullpen.  Last year, the starters were 57-40, this year they’re 60-49.   The starter got the decision 12 more times this year than last year, including 9 more losses (with 3 games to play).   That tells you that when the team is losing when the starter is pulled, they keep losing.  Meanwhile, the relievers were 44-21 last year, 28-22 now. They’re not picking up wins because they don’t give the offense a chance to catch up and get the win for the bullpen guy.    

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...