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

[OriolesMagic83]

3 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

I have more confidence in Burnes in 2024 but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.   

Yeah that's what I meant.  There is a better chance that Burnes is elite in 2024 than that Cease is.  Of course with pitchers, either one could suffer a season ending injury in April.

[dtk9119]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

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.  

Yes, it would have happened. Would it have meant there was a chance they extend him? Absolutely not.

[RZNJ]

15 minutes ago, Safelykept said:

Yeah SG is a pain in the butt (stubborn, condescending) but to his credit he is well read. Hell over on CWS board where he is hated there were a couple of posters giving credit to Roll Tide and Sg for saying the headliner for a big trade would be Ortiz 

Oh contrare!   The WS fans kept saying they didn’t want Ortiz as the headliner and SG kept telling them he would only be the second piece which, I believe, he was correct in saying.  Hard to believe people think the trade for Burnes was the exact same offer for Cease.

[Safelykept]

9 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

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 was the first time around.  

 

9 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

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 was the first time around.  

Well Done, Well said, All things equal were lucky to have him here

[MijiT88]

I don't think there is any way this has to do with new ownership, I doubt there is any way they can have a say on the operations of the team without the approval of the sale. AND I believe that a big reason why (besides money) that the Angelos' didnt sell all of their stake is because they or Peter want to see if the team can win a WS before he dies. I think they wanted to try and balance keeping cost low (which this does) while making the team better (which this does). This move was well under way before that all came out, timing can make it seem otherwise.

[TonySoprano]

Just now, BRobinsonfan said:

I disagree with your conclusion in this case, but the Godfather Gif is perfect!  

How soon many forget 5 months ago John Angelos, in the NY Times, crying poor, trying to throw big words around like "existential"

Without major changes, he sees only one way the team could retain all of its young stars.

“We’re going to have to raise the prices here — dramatically,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/sports/baseball/john-angelos-orioles.html

Now, he's had a change of heart, like Scrooge on Christmas morning, and is willing to open the team vault (just don't ask to see the books again)??  Burnes will require a 9 figure investment to retain after the season.

[cravens86]

I voted Yes. I just have a tough time thinking that this trade would have not gone through without the news. Elias has been saying we would upgrade via a trade and now he did. I think it took some time to see the Cease price go too high and find a backup with Burnes. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

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.  

I concur with the folks who said that the new ownership group signaled a switch away from the necessary strategy of hoarding every bit of young talent on the assumption that everyone will leave between their 4th and 6th years in Baltimore. Because it's likely that no one of consequence was going to be extended, so you have to do this to win.

But now they can at least occasionally trade from surplus because there's a good chance some of the talent gets locked up longer-term.

[RZNJ]

6 minutes ago, Safelykept said:

 

Well Done, Well said, All things equal were lucky to have him here

[Safelykept]

7 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Oh contrare!   The WS fans kept saying they didn’t want Ortiz as the headliner and SG kept telling them he would only be the second piece which, I believe, he was correct in saying.  Hard to believe people think the trade for Burnes was the exact same offer for Cease.

They probably(did) spit ball a half dozen versions of trade. Just commenting on what a couple of CWS posters said last night. Yes its hard to believe the package for Cease was the same as Burnes, But thats were they were at last night, Many on their  board think we getting Burnes for scraps on the package

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

How soon many forget 5 months ago John Angelos, in the NY Times, crying poor, trying to throw big words around like "existential"

Without major changes, he sees only one way the team could retain all of its young stars.

“We’re going to have to raise the prices here — dramatically,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/sports/baseball/john-angelos-orioles.html

Now, he's had a change of heart, like Scrooge on Christmas morning, and is willing to open the team vault (just don't ask to see the books again)??  Burnes will require a 9 figure investment to retain after the season.

A little sidebar, and we've talked about this, but isn't that just the dumbest, most simplistic statement ever? Like he hasn't had even a PowerPoint slide deck of basic economics? John Angelos thinks, or wants us to think, that if you charge $50 for 10,000 of something you'll make $500k, and if you charge $500 for that same thing you'll make $5M. Without any thought or regard to the idea that nobody is going to buy your $50 thing for $500.

If he were to raise prices dramatically he wouldn't make any more money, because many people just won't buy what he's selling at that price.

In any case, it's statements like this that make me think this deal wasn't happening with Angelos in charge long-term.

Edited February 2 by DrungoHazewood

[RZNJ]

16 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's never going to be a slam dunk lock.

 

No, but I think some folks are dissing Cease and pumping up Burnes now that we got Burnes.

[LookinUp]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I suspect a trade has been in the works for Burnes or Cease for weeks, but was possibly held up because of the business process of selling the team.

I do think they would have taken on this payroll in 2024 regardless of whether JA sold the team or not. So I voted yes.

I do think there's a small chance that Elias preferred a Burnes trade as his future Verlander, and only made it because there's a new owner. 

So I do think a trade taking on this payroll was going down either way, but it's possible that the new ownership moved it more towards Burnes than Cease.

[ChuckS]

50/50 for me.  Evidence for yes is circumstantial at best, but the timing is suspicious. 

[btdart20]

12 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

No, but I think some folks are dissing Cease and pumping up Burnes now that we got Burnes.

Agreed.  Cease has a really high ceiling.  But his floor isn't as stable as Burnes because the BB% and quality of contact measures.  

Burnes - 7.2% BB% career and 33.1% HH% career.  .278 Babip against career.

Cease - 10.4% BB% career and 37.6% HH% career.  .297 Babip against career.