111 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

Ain't buying that we have the chips to trade for all those guys. I'd like to see some legit proposals.

Well Kyle Seager would take next to nothing.

The other packages would be challenging but the Os have a top 10 prospect and 2 top 40 guys plus some other fringy top 100 guys...they definitely can make basically any trade(s) they want.

[dude]

Ain't buying that we have the chips to trade for all those guys. I'd like to see some legit proposals.

 

Steve, there isn't anything else going on and nobody wants to talk about the actual article that MKory wrote so we can push on this a little given the title of "Next Playoff Team".  I'm likely going to wind up repeating things I've said before, so sorry about that.  I'd like to limit some of that by leaving (what I think are) some obvious things out, but if you want a detailed thought on any of that, just ask and I'll write too many more words.

 

Preface: The common refrain against the things I share (which are just Oriole baseball thoughts on an Oriole message board) are that there isn't enough detail (Rob above) or that there's no way [that one detail]  can happen, therefore, nothing can happen.

 

If we can, I'd like to use some 'reasonable view' perspective.  I certainly don't know every single thing about every single detail of something.  That should be obvious, but we do know about 80% (I could argue more) about each situation.  Just because we know a lot of things about a situation doesn't mean that something still could happen and there's reasons we may never understand and that's fine.  I try to get to a position that seems more than reasonable (despite what everyone, other than Mackus, says....I think he gets it).  You first have to fit the big rocks in to find out the framework for a deal.  That's not just true in Baseball, it's basically true everywhere.  There's layers to a deal.  I may say "X" and we can argue about whether "X" is realistic or not, but at that point in the discussion it could be something reasonable, even if it wasn't "X".  If I said McCoy was the 3rd piece and they wanted Hall, that wouldn't stop the consideration of a deal...it wouldn't matter if the specifics were correct, that's the back piece, not the front piece.  If the framework of a deal is reasonable, finishing details doesn't really change the notion of reasonable trade.

 

Again, this is way too many words, but this isn't a one-hour podcast, so we're limited to trying to share position with words. 

[dude]

Also, we have the current crisis condition that is challenging the world right now and inside of that there is uncertainty.  There are certain (especially cost) conditions out there that are exasperated by crisis like we're experiencing.

 

MLB has suspended all transactions.  Chris discussed in another thread the notion of doing more in a shortened season although he was only talking about internal moves (I think he said that).

 

The things I'll share are off-season trade thoughts although, if the transaction suspension was lifted and you wanted to get crazy (the Orioles don't, I understand that), you could probably do things like this now.

[SportsGuy]

But you are the one who rails against the Os and what they are doing..that rebuilding is a waste, blah blah blah.

You also say you should be able to try and contend every year.

With all of that as the foundation for your arguments, if you are going to argue for that, you need to supply details.

Without details, all you are doing is listing players with no context on how you acquire them and how it effects the franchise long term.

[dude]

Trade whom for Bell?

 

Trade whom for Archer?

 

[thoughts on "trade alliances"] skipped

 

[thoughts on the Pirates, current conditions, generally their situation] skipped

 

I think the Pirates are a super interesting trade partner and there are multiple ways to work with them.  I'm going to limit some of my discussion and if you want to dig deeper into the thoughts on why, like anything else, ok.

------------

 

PIT gets Mountcastle, Diaz, Baumann

BAL gets Bell, Archer, Kramer

 

[why the Pirates should consider that] skipped (some may think it's too good a deal for the Pirates)

 

Other players that could be considered in an expanded deal Polonco (as a salary dump), Tucker, Moran, Fraiser for different reasons on different 'plans'.  Skipped

 

[Bell contract extension discussion] skipped

[dude]

But you are the one who rails against the Os and what they are doing..that rebuilding is a waste, blah blah blah.

You also say you should be able to try and contend every year.

With all of that as the foundation for your arguments, if you are going to argue for that, you need to supply details.

Without details, all you are doing is listing players with no context on how you acquire them and how it effects the franchise long term.

 

I think that if you pursued this prosecution in a fair and objective court you would get embarrassed.

 

You frequently ignore or intentionally misrepresent the things I write, so that doesn't seem like my issue.

[SportsGuy]

I think that if you pursued this prosecution in a fair and objective court you would get embarrassed.

You frequently ignore or intentionally misrepresent the things I write, so that doesn't seem like my issue.

Nothing you can say or argue would be embarrassing for me at all.

It’s what you do...you have even said in the past that details don’t matter.

But they do.

Your plans mean nothing without real details.

I would actually like to discuss your plan...but I need the details to do it.

[dude]

Why would Stroman want to sign here?

 

I don't know Stroman.  Listening to guys talk about him on MLB Radio, I think he's a hyper-competitive guy that gets misread some (I don't want to use the word 'sensitive' there, that's not exactly what I mean).

 

My guess is he doesn't play as well in the Saber crowd as a guy like Syndergaard and there's been enough volatility in his performance that he'd be a better cost-profile for the Orioles.

 

If most of his offers are 4 years, I'd go 5 (and depending on my staff, I'd even consider 6).  So my core offer would be 5/80 (15M per, 5M b/o on team options).

I'd want to sell a competitive underdog position at the front of a young and talented group (that's the rest of the rotation discussion above)

I think he'd understand and embrace both the media and fanbase position, sort of the opposite of NY, and I'd guess one of the big selling point on guys that have been here wanting to stay.

one more reason too

 

When I discussed Price before last season, basically this is the same role (for generally the same reasons) that I wanted him.  This is generally the same cost profile that I'd have wanted in taking that deal.  Go back and look at my discussion on Price, basically they did what I was describing.  They (BOS) played it coy, but they wound up eating half his deal and dumping his contract (plus over 45M in cash) as part of a lesser prospect value for Mookie.

[dude]

Trade whom for Seager and Seager and Pollack?

dude I respect that you have a plan but it'd be a lot easier to discuss the basic fundamental ideas of your plan if you took out silly stuff that serves no purpose.  Why would you give Kyle Seager a 2-year extension?  

 

It's such a small and pointless part of your plan, but it's all anyone will be able to discuss (or maybe this is just my character flaw...) because it's so outlandishly bad of an idea.  I don't know the details of your plan, but it cannot possibly hinge on that extension getting done.  

 

I want to include these comments together.

 

I've re-branded the Seager Plan as The Night Moves Plan, in deference to many of the comments in the original. 

Night Moves I centered around Machado to LAD

Night Moves II centered around them playing for Harper and doing some roster management to get him

Night Moves III centered around Lindor to LAD which I think I only alluded to here.

Night Moves iV would still likely involve Lindor.

 

I've posted the foundations of those deals previously, so these are modified (changing conditions) versions of the same thoughts.

 

There's a number of ways to do this so I don't think it's limited to one narrow path.

 

The Dodgers this offseason were hard up for Lindor.  They settled on Betts but they could probably put both of those guys in the same lineup.  

 

I don't specifically want Pollack, but he a salary dump (offset versus prospect value).

 

Basically, the Orioles are dealing with the Indians, not the Dodgers.  The Indians trade Lindor to LAD for Seager and other pieces.

 

So you get to be the Indians.  This isn't a 'lack of detail', the Indians just get to take the pieces of the trade where they want.

 

CLE gets Seager, Pollack (+10M), Josiah Gray, Kiebert Ruiz and Miguel Vargas

LAD get Lindor

 

CLE gets Lewis, BAL1, BAL2, BAL3

SEA gets Ruiz, Chang, Neustrom, McCoy (the point isn't these guys, just a handful of deeper outside top 20 guys)

BAL gets Seager, Seager, Pollack (+$) 

 

What CLE gets (BAL1, BAL2, BAL3) depends on what CLE wants.  There's value there.  They decide they want Tanner Scott, Drew Rom and the Orioles CompB pick and the Orioles take Pollack too..

 

What does that look like for CLE in the endstate?

 

Lindor for Josiah Gray, Keibert Ruiz, Miguel Vargas, Kyle Lewis, TScott, Rom and a draft pick

 

That's way, way better than letting him walk for a pick.  Better than what BOS got for Mookie.

 

I'll come back to the contract pieces.

[SportsGuy]

Why wouldn’t the Dodgers just wait to get Lindor as a FA at this point?

Seager is 26 in April and doesn’t become a FA until 2022.

The Dodgers would much better served having Seager play this year and hope to see a bounce back year from him. (Although he was a 3+ WAR guy last year). The reality is that he still wasn’t the same player after all the time missed in 2018.

I don’t mind Seager as a target, the problem is that this team won’t be in position to win in 2021 unless a lot of the existing young talent develops quickly and in a shorter year, that’s more unlikely.

Once Seager becomes a FA, the Orioles will have realistically only had him for one year of potential contention and then they would have to pay him a lot to keep him, which I don’t see as a smart move given his injury history.

And to get him (and seemingly get him for less) we can take on an expensive (but not overly so) aging, oft injured OFer who is seeing his defense decline over the last several years.

Pollack’s contract isn’t that bad but it’s also not good when you consider he basically plays 110ish games a year. The OPs is still solid at around 800 but again, it’s nothing special.

On top of this, you are again adding him to a team that isn’t there yet and will probably only be there for a year during his contract.

Now, I know you will say that the team you are putting out there could contend right now.

Perhaps that’s true. I agree it’s possible but I see too many health concerns and too many guys that are showing signs of decline to make this worth it.

Archer, outside of his K rate rising (perhaps because of the NL but it’s still really good regardless) saw all of his stats go up, traditional or new school although he is still missing bats at a really high rate, which I like to see.

He hasn’t thrown more than 150 innings the last few seasons and is on the wrong side of 30.

I certainly wouldn’t mind adding him as a bounce back candidate but he is only signed for one more year (team option), so again, that means you have to contend right away and it’s not likely. It is possible you could trade for him now and get more for him than you gave up but the Pirates gave up a ton for him. They made one of the worst deals we have seen in quite some time, so I doubt they look to just dump him right now. If we have a season this year, him bouncing back and looking strong for them would be huge, so that they can trade him in the offseason.

Stroman is an interesting candidate. Walk and Hr rates are still quite good, he misses bats and, outside of 2018, he generally gives you 180+ IP. He doesn’t get many K and he turns 29 in a month. Do we really want to pay him well into his 30s 17-20M a year? Maybe. That probably will be the going rate for a good 2/3 starter. He has a great mentality on the mound, which I like and his style of pitching may be conducive to a guy who can be good into his 30s. I could get behind his signing although I prefer 4 years at a higher AAV.

Mountcastle May never be as good an offensive player as Bell but I see no reason to trade Mountcastle for him. Would rather have the much younger and cheaper player who is basically the same type of guy. That deal doesn’t make much sense to me.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Dude thanks for the details. They could be workable. Not sure I would do those things, especially Mountcastle for Bell but you did provide some logic. Thanks.

[dude]

Now, I know you will say that the team you are putting out there could contend right now.

Perhaps that’s true. I agree it’s possible but I see too many health concerns and too many guys that are showing signs of decline to make this worth it.

 

I want to address each one of your points but will separate them out for the sake of the discussion.

 

Matt's article is on the "Next Orioles Playoff Roster".  I asked a simple question about what year he's actually writing about because it covers FA additions over 2 years and super-fast emergence of the early draft picks.  It seems unreasonable to me that he's talking about 2022....so it's either 2023 (best case) or 2024 which means you are now in year-4 of contracts like Stroman and Semien.

 

I asked 3 very simple, reasonable questions as my initial response.  How hard is it to respond to that?  Matt has written a number of things across the articles he's done for BSL and he's written stuff that is flat wrong (not opinion, just wrong) and he's not interested in  defending a single thing that he writes.

 

So the article is nebulous about what year that's a playoff team and he's providing the Rebuilding Handbook answer for how rebuilding teams get to their next Playoff Roster...that is, you hit on all of your top picks, they all become All-Stars and you spend money at the top of the market to add elite Talent when you are that point in the winning cycle.

 

One of the other articles he wrote was about 'can you do both' (ie win and rebuild) and he came to the conclusion that you can't.

 

I've proposed similar lineups to the one above basically every year.  Details change each year as the situations change and that's expected.  What I've proposed above (and it's just one of probably 6 variants)  would provide similar opportunity in 2021 compared to whatever year he thinks he's aligning the article with.  

 

What he's suggesting would be a great result of rebuilding in some undefined future year, I'd suggest we could accomplish for 2021 (2019 and 2020 are in the past now) with lower performance, cost and acquisition risk while not needing rebuilding to get there (now).

 

You are pushing back a little on my lineup (your assessed risk, that's fine, just discussion)....are you doing the same for his lineup?  Aren't you curious what year he thinks he's talking about....that's kind of important, no?  Do you think we could realistically compete for Bryant and Syndergaard as FAs?  Would you go 8/270 for Kris and 6/150 for Noah?

[SportsGuy]

I want to address each one of your points but will separate them out for the sake of the discussion.

Matt's article is on the "Next Orioles Playoff Roster". I asked a simple question about what year he's actually writing about because it covers FA additions over 2 years and super-fast emergence of the early draft picks. It seems unreasonable to me that he's talking about 2022....so it's either 2023 (best case) or 2024 which means you are now in year-4 of contracts like Stroman and Semien.

I asked 3 very simple, reasonable questions as my initial response. How hard is it to respond to that? Matt has written a number of things across the articles he's done for BSL and he's written stuff that is flat wrong (not opinion, just wrong) and he's not interested in defending a single thing that he writes.

So the article is nebulous about what year that's a playoff team and he's providing the Rebuilding Handbook answer for how rebuilding teams get to their next Playoff Roster...that is, you hit on all of your top picks, they all become All-Stars and you spend money at the top of the market to add elite Talent when you are that point in the winning cycle.

One of the other articles he wrote was about 'can you do both' (ie win and rebuild) and he came to the conclusion that you can't.

I've proposed similar lineups to the one above basically every year. Details change each year as the situations change and that's expected. What I've proposed above (and it's just one of probably 6 variants) would provide similar opportunity in 2021 compared to whatever year he thinks he's aligning the article with.

What he's suggesting would be a great result of rebuilding in some undefined future year, I'd suggest we could accomplish for 2021 (2019 and 2020 are in the past now) with lower performance, cost and acquisition risk while not needing rebuilding to get there (now).

You are pushing back a little on my lineup (your assessed risk, that's fine, just discussion)....are you doing the same for his lineup? Aren't you curious what year he thinks he's talking about....that's kind of important, no? Do you think we could realistically compete for Bryant and Syndergaard as FAs? Would you go 8/270 for Kris and 6/150 for Noah?

You always want to turn this discussions into something else.

I am merely addressing your post. That’s it. No relation to his article.

And your last questions I would likely answer no...Bryant is a possibility for me to go after but I’m pretty much against anyone at those numbers.

[dude]

Why wouldn’t the Dodgers just wait to get Lindor as a FA at this point?

 

You could have said the same thing about Betts, right?  

 

There's lots of reasons to like Seager, but we should all agree that Lindor is ++ at a number of levels.  I hadn't heard it before this year, but in the recent discussions of Lindor to LAD, there was some discussion about how there was some things (not character, but more technical stuff like swing path) that the Dodgers weren't as excited about with Corey.

 

I'll address some of your other Seager comments in the extension discussion but it's the only way I'd do it....so it's a 3+year window for me or it's nothing.

 

You discussion on Pollack is the reasons you can (IMO) make things work.  There's certainly considerations (value +/-) to doing stuff like that.  I'm just suggesting, like the situation with Kemp, that there's pieces out there that can create leverage for a deal.  If you're willing to assume risk profiles that others aren't, then maybe you can create some unique value.

 

I have fun with the Trade Calculator (just because it's there) and we can talk about why it's specifically wrong ....but it had both the LAD-CLE and BAL PIT trades as ~even.

[SportsGuy]

You could have said the same thing about Betts, right?  
 
There's lots of reasons to like Seager, but we should all agree that Lindor is ++ at a number of levels.  I hadn't heard it before this year, but in the recent discussions of Lindor to LAD, there was some discussion about how there was some things (not character, but more technical stuff like swing path) that the Dodgers weren't as excited about with Corey.
 
I'll address some of your other Seager comments in the extension discussion but it's the only way I'd do it....so it's a 3+year window for me or it's nothing.
 
You discussion on Pollack is the reasons you can (IMO) make things work.  There's certainly considerations (value +/-) to doing stuff like that.  I'm just suggesting, like the situation with Kemp, that there's pieces out there that can create leverage for a deal.  If you're willing to assume risk profiles that others aren't, then maybe you can create some unique value.
 
I have fun with the Trade Calculator (just because it's there) and we can talk about why it's specifically wrong ....but it had both the LAD-CLE and BAL PIT trades as ~even.

The Dodgers got Betts basically for free. They don’t care about the price contract and Verdugo is a nothing loss for them.

They won’t be able to get Lindor that cheap plus they have an elite, MVP caliber player at SS if he’s healthy.

Seager will probably take a lot less to extend too.

They also could keep Seager and just move him to third instead of taking a third rate offer for him.

And sure, you could leverage Pollack into something but I would rather be a younger, more cost controlled asset.

[dude]

I'll come back to the contract pieces.

Once Seager becomes a FA, the Orioles will have realistically only had him for one year of potential contention and then they would have to pay him a lot to keep him, which I don’t see as a smart move given his injury history.

 

I wanted to come back to the extension thing because I didn't include in the earlier post last night.  I've posted this stuff several times, but that's ok.

 

Mackus asked specifically about it (Kyle) and you are suggesting we have him (Corey) for one year.

 

I wouldn't mess with Corey Seager for one year.  If I get him, I want him for a minimum of 3 years.

 

Corey Seager is a Boras client.  We know how this goes.  If I want to create opportunity outside of fairly rigid agent approach, my approach would be to create unique opportunity.  Corey's age/service puts him into a pretty specific profile for maximizing lifetime contract value.  He preferably needs to be a FA before his age 30 season.  Once you get on the other side of 30, the analytics start to work against your contract projections.  That's bumped backwards by probably 2 years over the last 6+ years, it used to be more age 31.  There's certainly some variation on approaches to that and that's fine.

 

Apparently (of course) Seager is a Yankee fan and Jeter was his 'idol'.  While they grew up in NC, the parents are from NY.  Maybe that works against you, maybe it works for you. Torres is taking over at SS this year for likely the next 5.  Timing and exposure can be everything. 

 

I've said this before, Kyle (32) and Corey (26) are separated enough in age that I'd guess they haven't really had the chance to play together for any meaningful games.  I have no idea how close they are or how they feel about it, but I'd guess there would be some real incentive to allow them to play next to each other on the same side of the infield.  Cool for them.  Cool for their parents.

 

Kyle is in that position that has been tough on FAs in recent years.  He's owed 18M in the last year of his 7/100 contract so he's good on money.  He has a 15M option that won't get exercised and he won't get traded if it becomes a Player Option (contractually).  He'll get a job in 2022, there's need, someone will be interested.  It won't be for 15M per.

 

Corey has no contract worries.  He makes 7.6M (whatever that winds up being) this year and is in his last year of arbitration next year.  Let's put next year at 12M (that's probably a little high).  His best timing is maybe a year later, I'm asking for 2.  I don't see Corey in line for 25-30M per...that seems pretty high for what is likely his market....but 18-20M per, that seems fairly reasonable.

 

This would be my approach and it seems like a fairly reasonable (although maybe unique) approach.

 

Build the trade.  I break the CLE-LAD part separately for understanding it, but it's essentially a 4 (maybe more) team trade.

 

As part of the trade, Orioles get a 48-hr window to negotiate with Corey and Kyle.  You bring them both to OPaYC with their respective agents and family if desired.  I don't think you have to sell them much on the stadium, Corey has played 3 games there, Kyle has played 25. I'd like to have done some things, like trade for Bell and Archer, that show you're serious about competing.

 

You put the contracts in front of them. Discuss, then you leave the room.

Kyle is a 2 year, 15M extension.  The years re-balance at 10M per with a 3M buyout on a 12M team option, so it's 3/33.

Corey is a 7 year, 135M contract.  It's 12/15/15 over the first 3 with a 6M roster bonus after year 3 and 4x 20M seasons after that with a 7M b/o on a 20M team option.  There's an opt-out after year 3 and year 4.

You do the math and it's a 3/33 and a 3/42, Corey sticks around for the 4th year (you exercise Kyle), it's a 4/42 and 4/68. 

 

It's a unique opportunity.  It's now in their court.  It's a chance to play together, have good contracts that both create opportunity and protect future value. 

Both of you sign or there's no deal (trade) and you go figure out something else.

[SportsGuy]

Corey Seager laughs at that offer unless he has another injured plagued season or terrible production.

You are valuing playing with his brother way too much.

This is usually where your ideas get crazy. You think people will give up huge amounts of money for sentimental reasons or that they let don’t care about the money. It’s just not realistic.

If Seager is producing at a high level and is healthy, he gets a 7+ year deal for 200+M. He will have the same opt out but make way more money earlier and have more security long term.

So, since he will definitely say no to this, what’s your next plan?

[Mackus]

7/$135M is slightly over half of what Rendon just got. Change it to 7/$210M and it's a conversation. But at 7/$135M we're basically recreating the Seinfeld scene where George thinks he can get Griffey and Bonds in the same outfield.

If extending Kyle gets Corey to agree to that contract, then I'm very cool with it!

Most importantly, 7 is not an even divisor of 135. How'd you come up with that number (I know you broke it out year by year)? Aesthetically $133M or $140M would be much more elegant.

[dude]

You guys think he's getting 30M per year?  Is everyone in the top 50 players getting 30M per year?

 

You think a 20M guarantee with the flexibility to pursue highest career earnings and get a chance to play with you brother for 3-4 years is a joke of astronomical proportions?.  OK.  I guess I disagree. 

 

Do I think he'd sign it to play with the Orioles interdependently?  Nope. 

 

That's specifically why I'd create a unique condition, something you can't just buy with your money.

[SportsGuy]

You guys think he's getting 30M per year? Is everyone in the top 50 players getting 30M per year?

You think a 20M guarantee with the flexibility to pursue highest career earnings and get a chance to play with you brother for 3-4 years is a joke of astronomical proportions?. OK. I guess I disagree.

Do I think he'd sign it to play with the Orioles interdependently? Nope.

That's specifically why I'd create a unique condition, something you can't just buy with your money.

I think the best players are going to get around 30M a year and a healthy Seager playing well is one of the best at a premium position.

Do you have any evidence that Corey Seager wants to play with his brother bad enough that he is willing to give up a boatload of money?

And if the Os offered Seager the most money, why wouldn’t he sign here? He’s a Boras client, that’s what they look for.