Photo

President Of Baseball Operations


  • Please log in to reply
403 replies to this topic

#61 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 86,248 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 October 2018 - 11:00 AM

Unless the president is basically already hired.
@BSLRobShields

#62 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 01:05 PM

No, I'm not. 

We will see what happens structure wise going forward and over time.

We will see what John and Lou are as owners over time.

We will see what organization they develop under them over time.

What I am confident in, is that if you bring on a President and you bring on a EVP / GM; and the organization retains Brady in a position of leadership... that the President and EVP / GM will have a clear understanding of what Brady's role is.

If we - as message board posters - can identify that Brady has had some level of influence with Ownership...  and he's already had the title of VP / Asst. GM...  and Ownership goes to the new hires, and tells them that Brady is going to have to be part of the Front Office going forward in a position of leadership.... it stands to basic logic that those hires will be smart enough to discuss Brady's role (and will have signed off on it as well).



I don't have feelings on John and Lou's competence.  I don't think there is some large body of work.
I feel they basically took over here in '18.

I give them credit for acknowledging some of the philosophical restraints of the organization need to change.
They get graded on their results in enacting that change.


The biggest grade against them so far, is the trade with Philadelphia. And to a lesser degree, the Gausman trade to Atlanta.

 

 

I'd say all the trades, and refusing to pay contract to better the return, are big grades against them.

Meanwhile if the trades had never happened because they or Duquette decided they weren't getting enough, you guys would be complaining about that.



#63 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 86,248 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 October 2018 - 01:10 PM

Meanwhile if the trades had never happened because they or Duquette decided they weren't getting enough, you guys would be complaining about that.


I don’t think any of us would complain about keeping KG for what we got in return.
  • BSLSteveBirrer likes this
@BSLRobShields

#64 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 01:12 PM

I don’t think any of us would complain about keeping KG for what we got in return.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. 



#65 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,222 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 01:12 PM

Meanwhile if the trades had never happened because they or Duquette decided they weren't getting enough, you guys would be complaining about that.

 

Yes, of course not trading away guys this July would have been a heinously bad decision.   A few individuals you could argue we could've kept and dealt later, but the overall firesale needed to begin and keeping those guys would've been astoundingly bad.

 

I didn't say anything about the quality returns in the post you quoted.  I said that had the owners allowed Duquette to pay some of the freight on the contracts he was trading (and not include a salary dump of O'Day), we'd have gotten bigger returns.  Which is undoubtedly true.

 

There is no contradiction there.  It was the obvious choice to trade guys away.  It was a poor choice by ownership to prioritize cutting remaining season expenses over trade return.



#66 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 01:15 PM

  It was a poor choice by ownership to prioritize cutting remaining season expenses over trade return.

How do you know they didn't get the best they could have? Trades don't happen in a vacuum, this isn't MLB: The Show 19 on your PS4. Unless of course you're one of those guys who knows a cousin's girlfriend's sister's boyfriend's uncle who works in the warehouse. I'm relatively new to this board , but posters from the Sun board were notoriously famous for over valuing our players.



#67 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 86,248 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 October 2018 - 01:18 PM

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.


Ok but you would be wrong. We all hated the deal on here. Now, maybe YOU or the guys at the Sun liked it but it was a terrible deal.
@BSLRobShields

#68 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,222 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 01:21 PM

How do yo know they didn't get the best they could have? Trades don't happen in a vacuum, this isn't MLB

 

When you pay the remaining salary of the players you are trading, that makes your offer more valuable and you get more back.  Same thing as us getting less back from Atlanta because they took on O'Day's salary.

 

Had they paid the remainder of the salary on guys like Manny, Schoop, Gausman, etc, they'd have gotten more in return.  Someone wrote an article after the Gausman trade that was linked here, they had analyzed a lot of deals involving money changing hands.  I forget the exact details, but taking on several million dollars of contract netted teams roughly a top-10 organizational prospect.  So we probably could have added another back-end top-10 guy in most of the deals we made had we paid the remaining salary on each trade (maybe a bit less on some of the deals of guys with lower salaries).  Salary we were expecting to have to pay when the season began.



#69 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 115,687 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 01:42 PM

Ok but you would be wrong. We all hated the deal on here. Now, maybe YOU or the guys at the Sun liked it but it was a terrible deal.

 

I didn't (and don't) hate the Atlanta trade; though I do acknowledge they could have gotten more talent back without O'Day.. and agree that should have prioritized.

The other trades were completely fine imo.  Just the result of not trading those guys a year earlier.



#70 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 02:01 PM

When you pay the remaining salary of the players you are trading, that makes your offer more valuable and you get more back.  Same thing as us getting less back from Atlanta because they took on O'Day's salary.

 

Had they paid the remainder of the salary on guys like Manny, Schoop, Gausman, etc, they'd have gotten more in return.

That's your opinion. You have no way to prove that as fact.  The actual fact is we traded a 2nd baseman having a horrible year, a reliever coming back from an injury and an inconsistent starting pitcher. Pay the salaries or not, no one was backing up the Brink's truck for those guys.



#71 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 02:02 PM

Ok but you would be wrong. We all hated the deal on here. Now, maybe YOU or the guys at the Sun liked it but it was a terrible deal.

I could be wrong, so could you, but we'll never know.



#72 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 86,248 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 October 2018 - 02:03 PM


I could be wrong, so could you, but we'll never know.


Umm, actually we do know.
@BSLRobShields

#73 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,473 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 02:16 PM

That's your opinion. You have no way to prove that as fact.  The actual fact is we traded a 2nd baseman having a horrible year, a reliever coming back from an injury and an inconsistent starting pitcher. Pay the salaries or not, no one was backing up the Brink's truck for those guys.

 

It's including O'Day in the Gausman trade that most people took issue with.  You didn't mention him.  O'Day is clearly not worth $12M, so including him reduced the talent coming back.  You trade value for value, and O'Day's value was negative because of his salary.  I don't really think that's a matter of opinion.  Maybe you think the O's will reinvest that $12M into scouting, analytics, international signings, etc. and get a bigger return than from whatever prospect they could gotten instead - is that your argument?



#74 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 19 October 2018 - 02:17 PM

That's your opinion. You have no way to prove that as fact.  The actual fact is we traded a 2nd baseman having a horrible year, a reliever coming back from an injury and an inconsistent starting pitcher. Pay the salaries or not, no one was backing up the Brink's truck for those guys.

Let me preface this by saying, you're right, we won't ever know for sure.

 

With that said, we know how valuable pitching is. And we have the context of other trades to gauge our opinions. KG is a good, albeit inconsistent, pitcher. For a team in ATL's position, he's a good fit, because they didn't want to trade away a haul of their prospects (like Manny was rumored to command). In KG, they get a solid, controllable pitcher, from an organization that is well known for terrible pitcher development. This factors into play, because everyone looks at the O's and sees a team that took a future CYA winner, and turned him into a struggling prospect that couldn't hold on to a position in the starting rotation. Remove the O'Day dump, and the O's certainly would have gotten more back in return. I think you believe that's true, and it's OK that you're hesitant to make "would have/could have" assumptions. But this one doesn't require going out on the assumption limb. KG was worth more than 4 middling prospects and some int'l bonus money. He obviously isn't going to get a blue chipper in return. But he seemed more valuable than what they got. 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#75 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,222 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 04:30 PM

That's your opinion. You have no way to prove that as fact. The actual fact is we traded a 2nd baseman having a horrible year, a reliever coming back from an injury and an inconsistent starting pitcher. Pay the salaries or not, no one was backing up the Brink's truck for those guys.

It's not my opinion. It reality.

If the guys you are trading cost their new team less, you get more back.

Similarly, if the guys you are trading have more team control left, you get back more.

I don't know exactly what we could have gotten back had we paid the remaining salary on the guys we traded and not dumled O'Day. But it is inarguable that we would have gotten more back. We don't have to have a time machine or peer into an alternate reality to know that. It's a simple fact of baseball.

#76 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 05:32 PM

Umm, actually we do know.

You know what people would have thought about trades if they weren't made when they were? I underestimate your super powers.



#77 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 05:36 PM

Let me preface this by saying, you're right, we won't ever know for sure.

 

With that said, we know how valuable pitching is. And we have the context of other trades to gauge our opinions. KG is a good, albeit inconsistent, pitcher. For a team in ATL's position, he's a good fit, because they didn't want to trade away a haul of their prospects (like Manny was rumored to command). In KG, they get a solid, controllable pitcher, from an organization that is well known for terrible pitcher development. This factors into play, because everyone looks at the O's and sees a team that took a future CYA winner, and turned him into a struggling prospect that couldn't hold on to a position in the starting rotation. Remove the O'Day dump, and the O's certainly would have gotten more back in return. I think you believe that's true, and it's OK that you're hesitant to make "would have/could have" assumptions. But this one doesn't require going out on the assumption limb. KG was worth more than 4 middling prospects and some int'l bonus money. He obviously isn't going to get a blue chipper in return. But he seemed more valuable than what they got.

So your position is if we paid KG's salary, we would have gotten better prospects in his trade?



#78 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 05:37 PM

It's not my opinion. It reality.

If the guys you are trading cost their new team less, you get more back.

Similarly, if the guys you are trading have more team control left, you get back more.

I don't know exactly what we could have gotten back had we paid the remaining salary on the guys we traded and not dumled O'Day. But it is inarguable that we would have gotten more back. We don't have to have a time machine or peer into an alternate reality to know that. It's a simple fact of baseball.

Exactly my point. Thanks for clearing that up.



#79 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 86,248 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 October 2018 - 05:42 PM

You know what people would have thought about trades if they weren't made when they were? I underestimate your super powers.


My point was about how people HERE felt. Not the made up narrative you are talking about.
@BSLRobShields

#80 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 86,248 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 October 2018 - 05:42 PM

Exactly my point. Thanks for clearing that up.


Did the rest of that post fly over your head or something?
@BSLRobShields




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners