Trevor Rogers 2024

[Aristotelian]

21 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

Responsible for 2 losses, no wins, over 7 ERA, stole starts from Povich are all net negatives to me. Also lost prospect capital. 

Rogers has two years of control. The book is far, far from closed on this trade. Obviously does not look good so far.

Lol Povich. He has been as bad as Rogers.

I agree Stowers and Norby have some value despite not fitting in our plans but we didn't have a lot of leverage and it's impossible to know what else we could have gotten. Bottom line, they were not elite prospects. 

 

[Alasdaire]

Rogers was not good for Miami even before the O's acquired him. So I think it's the most likely scenario is that the front office did not expect Rogers to be a starter who they could rely on down the stretch let alone in the playoffs. The value in this deal was likely that he's under control for two more years and has shown potential in the past. From that standpoint, nothing has really changed.

But the price paid was too high given that the O's had needs to fill. We have no real need for Norby/Stowers, but if you're going to deal them midseason, it should be for immediate contribution and not a reclamation project.

The front office is stuck in rebuilder mode. They're deploying assets now in the form of prospect packages, but they're still trying to acquire traits more than they are production. Rogers, Soto, and Dominguez are all the types of profiles you want to stack when you're simply trying to add talent to your roster but not when you're trying to win games. This is why it's difficult to pivot from a long rebuild to sustained contention.

[LookitsPuck]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

Rogers has two years of control. The book is far, far from closed on this trade. Obviously does not look good so far.

Lol Povich. He has been as bad as Rogers.

I agree Stowers and Norby have some value despite not fitting in our plans but we didn't have a lot of leverage and it's impossible to know what else we could have gotten. Bottom line, they were not elite prospects. 

 

Povich has upside and is better than Rogers

[Aristotelian]

29 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

Povich has upside and is better than Rogers

But he is irrelevant to the trade

[baltfan]

2 hours ago, emmett16 said:

That’s fair and I’ll remain patient for a little while.  With that said, he did not look good…

 

His final line 4.1 ip 9 R 9 H 1 HR 3 BB 2 K

Glad he didn’t do that in the bigs. 

[EddeeEddee]

Elias went for it because Rogers had roughly 3.50 ERA for the months of June and July after a rough May.  Elias clearly saw Rogers as a likely near term improvement over Irvin and Povich, but the gamble clearly did not work out. 

None of this would hurt quite as much had he not included Norby in the deal.  If it had been Stowers+ we'd be shrugging it off.  Norby's bat would be much better than Jimenez's right now.

[Sports Guy]

It could be ugly for a little while if they are going to really deep dive into things they want him to change heading into the offseason.

[LookitsPuck]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

But he is irrelevant to the trade

He’s very relevant to it as Povich could get the starts instead of Rogers. And now he’s going to regardless because Rogers was god awful.

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

But he is irrelevant to the trade

Not necessarily, for the simple reason that we already had Povich. Good or bad, we didn’t have to pay anything to get whatever production he was able to offer and Rogers was at absolute best, just a lateral move in because he’s much more expensive unless he improves there will be a net loss in the transaction.

He’s lost velocity pretty consistently over the last couple years, and I’m wondering how easy it is to get that back.

I assume that once velocity is lost, for whatever reason, it’s unlikely to return, so that by itself should probably have been the dealbreaker.

[Aristotelian]

2 minutes ago, HowAboutThat said:

Not necessarily, for the simple reason that we already had Povich. Good or bad, we didn’t have to pay anything to get whatever production he was able to offer and Rogers was at absolute best, just a lateral move in because he’s much more expensive unless he improves there will be a net loss in the transaction.

He’s lost velocity pretty consistently over the last couple years, and I’m wondering how easy it is to get that back.

I assume that once velocity is lost, for whatever reason, it’s unlikely to return, so that by itself should probably have been the dealbreaker.

Are you kidding? Everyone was saying at the deadline that we need pitching, with or without Povich. We still need pitching! If Rogers turns it around in the next two years it will be a good deal. 

He has shown capable of a year of 2.64 ERA. That may never happen again but the upside is there. 

[HowAboutThat]

11 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Are you kidding? Everyone was saying at the deadline that we need pitching, with or without Povich. We still need pitching! If Rogers turns it around in the next two years it will be a good deal. 

He has shown capable of a year of 2.64 ERA. That may never happen again but the upside is there. 

Of course we needed pitching. But we needed better pitching than we had and we didn’t get that.

We paid good prospect capital to get something that was at best no better than what we already had.

And as has been mentioned repeatedly, his good year was three years ago, and he hasn’t repeated it since, and all of his stats have been declining since then, especially his fastball velocity.

Sending him down is a strong signal that they don’t expect him to be much of a contributor this season. We can only hope that he will be acceptable next season.

[Aristotelian]

3 minutes ago, HowAboutThat said:

Of course we needed pitching. But we needed better pitching than we had and we didn’t get that.

We paid good prospect capital to get something that was at best no better than what we already had.

And as has been mentioned repeatedly, his good year was three years ago, and he hasn’t repeated it since, and all of his stats have been declining since then, especially his fastball velocity.

Sending him down is a strong signal that they don’t expect him to be much of a contributor this season. We can only hope that he will be acceptable next season.

So it may be a bad trade but Povich is irrelevant. We will find out in two years if Rogers has any success.

[HowAboutThat]

16 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

So it may be a bad trade but Povich is irrelevant. We will find out in two years if Rogers has any success.

I don’t disagree that Povich isn’t anything special, but the point stands that we needed an improvement and Rogers wasn’t one, and we have to hope he can fix enough to be an asset next season…which is only nine months away, after all.

[Aristotelian]

2 minutes ago, HowAboutThat said:

I don’t disagree that Povich isn’t anything special, but the point stands that we needed an improvement and Rogers wasn’t one, and we have to hope he can fix enough to be an asset next season…which is only nine months away, after all.

I never said otherwise. Agreed it has been a poor trade in the short term, nobody is disputing that.

[LookitsPuck]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

Are you kidding? Everyone was saying at the deadline that we need pitching, with or without Povich. We still need pitching! If Rogers turns it around in the next two years it will be a good deal. 

He has shown capable of a year of 2.64 ERA. That may never happen again but the upside is there. 

You don’t trade for a guy that might be good next year when you need help now. Yeah, the O’s needed somebody better than Povich (now). Rogers ain’t it. There were better guys available. Fedde, Kikuchi, etc.

Too many projects. If you’re gonna get a project for the short term, you better be damn sure. Look at the Dodgers are doing with Kopech.

Edited August 26 by LookitsPuck