Trevor Rogers 2024

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Spakman said:

Yeah, he may not be old in age but in experience in the MLB he’s pretty old and pretty bad to still have a starting rotation job. How many teams would he have been starting for except for the Marlins? And it’s not just that how much potential does he really have with the stuff he has? In my opinion not much.

Well, that is your opinion and that’s fine.  Time will prove if you are correct.  I think it’s fair to assume that Elias has a different opinion or he wouldn’t have made the trade.  I wasn’t thrilled with this trade when it was made, and nothing that’s happened in the 5 weeks since then has made me feel any better about it.  But, I’m keeping an open mind, and I won’t judge it based solely on what happens in 2024.   

Edited September 5 by Frobby

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Just when you think opinions can’t get any dumber on here, someone comes in and proves us all wrong!

I’ve got no problem with Spakman’s opinion, except that he thinks there’s no room for debate and the fate of the trade already is decided.  There were plenty of people who gave that trade a “meh” or hated it when it was made.  

[DrinkinWithFermi]

1 hour ago, Spakman said:

Yes, it’s a bad trade no matter what, because we gave up too much. Even if we can fix him and he becomes Cy Young. We gave up way too much for a bad pitcher.  You’re not supposed to give the value of what you think you may be able to turn some picther into to the team that he sucks on. Yeah if he was young and had potential yeah then maybe you pay a little bit more than his current value. This guy has almost no potential, and he’s not young.

The multiple MLB GMs who were reported to be bidding on him at the deadline seem to disagree.

It's simply far too soon to give the trade a final grade. We traded for 2.5 years and it hasn't even been 0.5 of a year yet, so take a deep breath and stop acting hysterical. 

[Spakman]

13 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

The multiple MLB GMs who were reported to be bidding on him at the deadline seem to disagree.

It's simply far too soon to give the trade a final grade. We traded for 2.5 years and it hasn't even been 0.5 of a year yet, so take a deep breath and stop acting hysterical. 

What MLB teams and what packages were they offering? Trust me bro? I’m hysterical. I told everybody to stop arguing about it. I stand by every single thing I said. Bad trade, no matter what it turns out to be. Because if it turns out good, you just got lucky.

[Spakman]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Well, that is your opinion and that’s fine.  Time will prove if you are correct.  I think it’s fair to assume that Elias has a different opinion or he wouldn’t have made the trade.  I wasn’t thrilled with this trade when it was made, and nothing that’s happened in the 5 weeks since then has made me feel any better about it.  But, I’m keeping an open mind, and I won’t judge it based solely on what happens in 2024.   

I don’t think anybody liked the trade when it happened and all of a sudden people wanna argue that they think it might be OK when it looks worse than ever.  My opinion has nothing to do with how he’s performed with the Orioles. He could be doing great and it’s still a bad trade on paper. 

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Spakman said:

I don’t think anybody liked the trade when it happened and all of a sudden people wanna argue that they think it might be OK when it looks worse than ever.  My opinion has nothing to do with how he’s performed with the Orioles. He could be doing great and it’s still a bad trade on paper. 

Your opinion is based on a huge fallacy…that those 2 were worth a lot more than what the market said they were worth.

[RarityFlaherty]

1 hour ago, Spakman said:

Yes, it’s a bad trade no matter what, because we gave up too much. Even if we can fix him and he becomes Cy Young. We gave up way too much for a bad pitcher.  You’re not supposed to give the value of what you think you may be able to turn some picther into to the team that he sucks on. Yeah if he was young and had potential yeah then maybe you pay a little bit more than his current value. This guy has almost no potential, and he’s not young.

So if he wins a Cy Young next year, it’s still a bad trade? Two guys who are blocked in our system and weren’t likely to be difference makers is too much for a Cy Young winner? That’s ridiculous.

I doubt he ever wins a Cy Young, but if he can be a solid backend starter the next two years, I’m fine with the trade. I would have rather gotten Tanner Scott from them, but Norby and Stowers don’t really have much of a future on our MLB team so they needed to be traded. 

[ScGO's]

I'm still holding out on making an overall opinion on the trade. The only issue I'm starting to have with it is that it didn't help us THIS year. 

[Spakman]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Your opinion is based on a huge fallacy…that those 2 were worth a lot more than what the market said they were worth.

I’m not basing it on the players that we traded for him. Even though I think those players have quite a bit of value.  If it was determined by the marlins at those players have no value, then Rogers would’ve been traded to somebody else for a better package. I doubt anybody came anywhere near beating the package we sent. I’m sure if you went to Marlins message board they’d be laughing about how bad they fleeced us. Rogers just isn’t good and he doesn’t have any pitches that have ever really been good.

[Aristotelian]

14 minutes ago, Spakman said:

What MLB teams and what packages were they offering? Trust me bro? I’m hysterical. I told everybody to stop arguing about it. I stand by every single thing I said. Bad trade, no matter what it turns out to be. Because if it turns out good, you just got lucky.

If you look on MLB trade rumors there were reports of the Mets and Reds having interest.

[Spakman]

7 minutes ago, RarityFlaherty said:

So if he wins a Cy Young next year, it’s still a bad trade? Two guys who are blocked in our system and weren’t likely to be difference makers is too much for a Cy Young winner? That’s ridiculous.

I doubt he ever wins a Cy Young, but if he can be a solid backend starter the next two years, I’m fine with the trade. I would have rather gotten Tanner Scott from them, but Norby and Stowers don’t really have much of a future on our MLB team so they needed to be traded. 

Yes Because if you waited to the off-season, you could get him for almost nothing.

[Spakman]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

If you look on MLB trade rumors there were reports of the Mets and Reds having interest.

I don’t doubt there were some interest. Obviously not Interested enough to beat our offer

[DrinkinWithFermi]

Just now, Spakman said:

What MLB teams and what packages were they offering? Trust me bro? I’m hysterical. I told everybody to stop arguing about it. I stand by every single thing I said. Bad trade, no matter what it turns out to be. Because if it turns out good, you just got lucky.

The Mets, for one.

I guess you're just more knowledgeable about baseball than Mike Elias and David Stearns though 

And making an objectively stupid statement and then saying "no more arguing about it" as if that is some sort of magical auto-win trump card only works if you are talking to the mirror alone in your bathroom. In the real world, people are going to push back on you when you say something as dumb as what you said.

6 minutes ago, Spakman said:

I don’t think anybody liked the trade when it happened and all of a sudden people wanna argue that they think it might be OK

I liked the trade at the time and still do, because I don't think Mike Elias is an incompetent idiot like you seem to.

Acting like the book is written and the ink is dry right now, when we got 2.5 years of control and it has barely been one full month, and getting all butthurt about it like you are, is the pinnacle of hysterical. Again, take a deep breath and let's see how he looks after they have an entire offseason to tinker with him.

[Spakman]

7 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

I'm still holding out on making an overall opinion on the trade. The only issue I'm starting to have with it is that it didn't help us THIS year. 

And that’s what trade deadline deals are for. That’s why you overpay at the trade deadline. I would love to know what they think they can fix not just in a year or two but this year what did they think they could do to make this guy good. I just don’t see any plus pitches to work with.

[Spakman]

2 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

The Mets, for one.

I guess you're just more knowledgeable about baseball than Mike Elias and David Stearns though 

And making an objectively stupid statement and then saying "no more arguing about it" as if that is some sort of magical auto-win trump card only works if you are talking to the mirror alone in your bathroom. In the real world, people are going to push back on you when you say something as dumb as what you said.

I liked the trade at the time and still do, because I don't think Mike Elias is an incompetent idiot like you seem to.

Acting like the book is written and the ink is dry right now, when we got 2.5 years of control and it has barely been one full month, and getting all butthurt about it like you are, is the pinnacle of hysterical. Again, take a deep breath and let's see how he looks after they have an entire offseason to tinker with him.

How many players acquired at the trade deadline by contenders are in minors now besides him.