Basallo for Miller y/n?

[Philip]

Would you do that? A simple one for one?

I keep bouncing back and forth: a “exactly as designed” reliever, capable of at least a four out save, but only throwing 60 innings a season, with TJ forever looming on next week’s schedule, vs a stunning no-limits catching prospect who can’t even legally drink yet.

But who do we need NOW?

I think Oakland would do that trade, because Basallo’s clock can reasonably be delayed until 26, so his early years won’t be wasted.

What do you guys think?

[ChosenOne21]

Oakland would absolutely do that. It would be a massive overpay on our part.

Something like Kjerstad for Miller would be more fair, and I'd consider that trade.

[SteveA]

Isn't Miller in the same spot Kyle Bradish is?   Trying to rehab a UCL injury rather than go the TJ route, but with the possibility hanging over his head that he will pitch for some period of time and then it will get worse and he will have to have Tommy John surgery and miss a year-plus?

I think that has to be considered when assessing Miller's trade value.   There's an anvil hanging precariously over his head that could drop at any time and knock out 25-30% of the time for which he would be under team control.

Bassallo is too much, IMO.

[oriolediehard]

Yes.  We need a great closer.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Oakland would absolutely do that. It would be a massive overpay on our part.

Something like Kjerstad for Miller would be more fair, and I'd consider that trade.

I don't think that'd be fair at all.

That's a significant underpay.

I don't think you are rating Miller correctly.

 

[Safelykept]

4 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Oakland would absolutely do that. It would be a massive overpay on our part.

Something like Kjerstad for Miller would be more fair, and I'd consider that trade.

Its a Duquette, Peter slash Buck trade, Empty the farm to win today, only problem is there not here anymore, Mike is, so not likely, plus guys that throw 103 Break

[ChosenOne21]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think that'd be fair at all.

That's a significant underpay.

I don't think you are rating Miller correctly.

 

I'm going off BaseballTradeValues. They have Kjerstad and Miller at something like 27.8 and 25.6 and Basallo at 53.6

Only way Miller is worth way more than that is if you think he can start.

[dystopia]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think that'd be fair at all.

That's a significant underpay.

I don't think you are rating Miller correctly.

 

I think he’s rating a relief pitcher who only pitches about once every 3 days and is a walking TJ surgery waiting to happen just fine. 

[Punchandjudy]

I like Miller a lot but not in a million years.

[sportsfan8703]

I wouldn't do it, but we have three months to see who is out there.  I want to see what Suarez looks like out of the pen.  Wells has reliever potential as well.  Maybe we bring Tanner Scott home?  There's a lot time left before the deadline.  

[Philip]

6 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Oakland would absolutely do that. It would be a massive overpay on our part.

Something like Kjerstad for Miller would be more fair, and I'd consider that trade.

This isn’t like the Erod trade, unless you’re factoring in the typical “position player>pitcher” argument. That point is valid, but I think you’re underestimating what Miller would give the team, which we need desperately right now. If he and Kimbrel shared 9th inning duties, they could factor into 120+ games.

And Miller is a first year guy too, we’d have him til 2029.

I doubt Oakland would be interested in Heston, who apparently isn’t even good enough to get into a game now.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I'm going off BaseballTradeValues. They have Kjerstad and Miller at something like 27.8 and 25.6 and Basallo at 53.6

Only way Miller is worth way more than that is if you think he can start.

I disagree but you are showing your work and I respect that.

I think Miller would be worth a lot more to this O's team over the next few years than Kjerstad would be. 

[Aristotelian]

I'd rather trade Norby or Stowers for a Raley/Barlow type who can help out for 0-2 years without costing an elite prospect.

[Philip]

4 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I wouldn't do it, but we have three months to see who is out there.  I want to see what Suarez looks like out of the pen.  Wells has reliever potential as well.  Maybe we bring Tanner Scott home?  There's a lot time left before the deadline.  

Tanner Scott was infuriating when he was here, and right now he has a blown save, four losses vs four saves and a 1.6 whip. Why in Heavens name would you want him back?

[deward]

6 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Oakland would absolutely do that. It would be a massive overpay on our part.

Something like Kjerstad for Miller would be more fair, and I'd consider that trade.

You'd probably have regrets when Kjerstad is hitting 30 bombs for Oakland and Miller is on the shelf with TJ and never gets back to 100%. I know Miller has been going his best Felix Bautista impression for 13 innings this year, but he's got a grand total of 46 innings in the majors, and the 33 he pitched last year were solid, but not amazing. As mentioned elsewhere, he already had a UCL sprain last year, so the specter of Tommy John is certainly hanging over him. I think trading a top 30 prospect for him would be getting a little carried away, and I can't see Elias doing that.