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

[Frobby]

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.  

[interloper]

I live in a middle ground where Angelos approves but says please wait until I have the sale in hand. Of course we'll never know. But the trade is something I think Elias has been working on all offseason, so I'll say "yes". 

[Roll Tide]

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.

[RZNJ]

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.

[interloper]

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. 

[Can_of_corn]

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 February 2 by Can_of_corn

[clapdiddy]

I think it would have.   I'm guessing they would have made a corresponding move like dealing Santander for prospects.  I could see them still moving him to make room for Cowser and/or Kjerstad.   

[Moose Milligan]

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.  

[SilentJames]

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. 

[Safelykept]

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.

[interloper]

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

[Safelykept]

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

[sportsfan8703]

Nope. Not just because the $15 million this year, but the future monetary savings of having Hall and Ortiz under team control for so long. 

[Safelykept]

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

[Moose Milligan]

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