Photo

BSL: How Much More Could the Orioles Have Got For Gausman


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#1 BSLStephenCLoftus

BSLStephenCLoftus

    Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 08 August 2018 - 12:37 PM

BSL: How Much More Could the Orioles Have Got For Gausman

 

http://baltimorespor...d-gausman-deal/


  • BSLChrisStoner, The Epic, Mackus and 1 other like this

#2 Thirteen

Thirteen
  • Members
  • 206 posts

Posted 08 August 2018 - 12:39 PM

I just have one question...what the hell is going on with O'Day's arm in that picture?



#3 The Epic

The Epic

    ^^ That's my name. Don't wear it out.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,150 posts
  • LocationGlyndon, MD

Posted 08 August 2018 - 12:43 PM

I just have one question...what the hell is going on with O'Day's arm in that picture?

 

Looks like some Xavier: Renegade Angel shit.

 

Great article.



#4 bmore_ken

bmore_ken
  • Members
  • 319 posts

Posted 08 August 2018 - 12:47 PM

I wonder if they even talked about absorbing O'Day 2019 salary. Seems like $9M would have been a small price to pay for an additional higher ranked prospect if such a thing was possible.



#5 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,762 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 August 2018 - 12:53 PM

Agree totally with the conclusion.

Not in love with the method of placing a dollar value on prospects and trying to line it up (I get why it’s done, just isn’t my fav method) but the conclusion is spot on.
@BSLRobShields

#6 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,453 posts

Posted 08 August 2018 - 01:05 PM

Good article.  I think you could expand this to the other deals.  How much more could we have gotten back had we paid the remaining salaries on Manny ($6.4M), Britton ($4.4M), Brach ($1.7M), Gausman ($1.8M), and Schoop ($2.8M), and not just the benefit had we not salary dumped O'Day ($12M).

 

One extra guy similar to the guys at the back of our top-10 per every $10M saved seems like a decent benchmark. 

 

I think its naive to think that the money we are saving in salary is going anywhere but to the team's bottom line.  They may also hire more scouts and analytics people and they may spend their allotted international bonus instead of pocket it, but those are things they could do even if they paid out the remainder of those salaries.  I don't give them credit for doing those simple things we should've been doing forever, and specifically for doing them only once they cleared salary that could instead have gone towards improving the on-field product in the form of better returns for our MLB assets.



#7 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,065 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 08 August 2018 - 01:45 PM

Really Interesting article.  I agree that by including DOD in the deal we missed on the chance to add a prospect(s) with upside.    I think the return on all the deals was luke warm, but hold out hope that the international money returns the impact prospects that the Orioles desperately need.

 

If they do not put the 8 million dollar, war chest, they have built up, to procure impact talent, the KG deal and others will be disappointing.


@mikeghg

#8 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,453 posts

Posted 08 August 2018 - 02:49 PM

If they don't spend all of the international money that is the equivalent of declining to use a first round pick.  There is no justification for it.

 

How they spend to use it (a few big expenses versus a ton of small expenses) is reasonable to debate.  But they have to spend it or they will be even more ridiculed than before when they ignored their own allotment.



#9 Dystopia

Dystopia
  • Members
  • 185 posts

Posted 08 August 2018 - 05:16 PM

This is a great article illustrating why this deal was a complete failure -- Orioles priorities way out of whack.



#10 birdwatcher55

birdwatcher55

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 877 posts

Posted 08 August 2018 - 05:42 PM

I'm okay with getting rid of financial obligations for future flexibility. Gausman is going to get expensive over the next two seasons and in my opinion he's not that good. Dumping O'Day was a big win in my book.

#11 Gizmo

Gizmo
  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 08 August 2018 - 11:28 PM

I'm okay with getting rid of financial obligations for future flexibility. Gausman is going to get expensive over the next two seasons and in my opinion he's not that good. Dumping O'Day was a big win in my book.

 

If he gets 'expensive', it will be because he is at least performing reasonably well.  Starting pitching is probably the hardest thing for teams to fill adequately on a year to year basis (unless you have the money to buy whoever you want), that even a mediocre at best pitcher like KG has real value.  As the article states 'This is especially in view of the weak starting pitcher market, making Gausman an attractive option even with his faults'.

 

The article makes a good case for the trade as constructed being pretty fair to both teams, based on money considerations, but the bottom line is that Atlanta got a player that will contribute at the major league level and it is very likely that we did not get anything other than what the article calls 'organizational filler'. I understand if people value the 2.5 million in international money highly, but again that is just as much of a long-shot lottery ticket as low level prospects.

 

This deal might have been good for the O's investors, but it was a horrible deal for the fans imo.



#12 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,453 posts

Posted 09 August 2018 - 06:18 AM

I understand if people value the 2.5 million in international money highly, but again that is just as much of a long-shot lottery ticket as low level prospects.

The bonus allotment is worth a bit more than one of the low level prospects. Outside of Diaz, that money may be the best "prospect" we got in any deal.

Most international guys who sign for roughly $2.5M end up being ranked around 5-10 in their organization. It's obviously not a given that we spend it all on one guy, or on 5 less expensive guys, but the value Iis roughly the same either way. Assuming it gets spent. Not spending it would be a catastrophe.

Even after enhancing your perceived value of that allotment, I think your conclusion regarding the deal remains accurate. This was a better trade for the bottom line than the future record.

#13 Steve55

Steve55
  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 09 August 2018 - 06:54 AM

Gausman pitches again tomorrow vs Brewers. Let's see if he can improve on his 5.40 era after one start.



#14 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,355 posts

Posted 09 August 2018 - 01:45 PM

Keith Law:

 

romorr: There enough J2 talent to justify that Gausman trade if we lose out on Victor Victor? That inclusion of O’Day is awful right? A rebuilding team saving 10 million, at the costs of better prospects, is indefensible. 


Keith Law: There’s no justifying it even if you get VVM, because the trade only gave you a ‘portion’ of him. I am assuming ownership ordered Duquette to shave payroll.



#15 Dystopia

Dystopia
  • Members
  • 185 posts

Posted 09 August 2018 - 04:21 PM

Keith Law:

romorr: There enough J2 talent to justify that Gausman trade if we lose out on Victor Victor? That inclusion of O’Day is awful right? A rebuilding team saving 10 million, at the costs of better prospects, is indefensible.

Keith Law: There’s no justifying it even if you get VVM, because the trade only gave you a ‘portion’ of him. I am assuming ownership ordered Duquette to shave payroll.

Not sure what Law means by that.

#16 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,355 posts

Posted 09 August 2018 - 04:30 PM

Not sure what Law means by that.

 



#17 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,453 posts

Posted 09 August 2018 - 04:54 PM

Not sure what Law means by that.

By the "portion" thing? He means he expects Mesa will cost more than $2.5M, so the bonus money doesn't exactly equal Mesa.

It's like if you traded for a 2nd round pick. Then traded a 3rd round pick and that recently acquired 2nd round pick for a 1st round pick and drafted somebody with it. The trade for the 2nd pick didn't get you that player, but it sure helped.

#18 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 09 August 2018 - 05:02 PM

It was clearly a payroll slashing firesale. And some want to credit the ownership and FO for it. Pretty sad

#19 Dystopia

Dystopia
  • Members
  • 185 posts

Posted 09 August 2018 - 05:42 PM

By the "portion" thing? He means he expects Mesa will cost more than $2.5M, so the bonus money doesn't exactly equal Mesa.

It's like if you traded for a 2nd round pick. Then traded a 3rd round pick and that recently acquired 2nd round pick for a 1st round pick and drafted somebody with it. The trade for the 2nd pick didn't get you that player, but it sure helped.

Thanks. 



#20 Dystopia

Dystopia
  • Members
  • 185 posts

Posted 09 August 2018 - 05:46 PM

Keith Law:

 

romorr: There enough J2 talent to justify that Gausman trade if we lose out on Victor Victor? That inclusion of O’Day is awful right? A rebuilding team saving 10 million, at the costs of better prospects, is indefensible. 


Keith Law: There’s no justifying it even if you get VVM, because the trade only gave you a ‘portion’ of him. I am assuming ownership ordered Duquette to shave payroll.

Also where did Law say this? Was it a podcast or is there a link?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners