24 replies to this topic

[BSLNickStevens]

BSL: First Looks At Former Angels Prospects

https://baltimorespo...gels-prospects/

[BSLChrisStoner]

Liked the review of Stallings.  Think we'll see Mattson at the ML level again relatively soon. 

[Mackus]

I'm still angry about the Iglesias trade.  It's a small scale, but it was and still is a bad trade.  His performance doesn't change my opinion that he had more value than a prospect of Stallings modest level (Stallings having a bad start doesn't make it worse, either). Even if Stallings had a unexpected velocity bump like we've seen from Bradish, it wouldn't change my opinion, as that isn't something that you can really factor in when evaluating a prospect.  It was a weak return.  Iglesias should have been traded, that's not the part I'm complaining about.  But we should've got more.  I think Elias did either a bad job drumming up interest or made a bad evaluation on what he wanted back, or maybe both.  

[You Play to Win the Game]

I'm still angry about the Iglesias trade.  It's a small scale, but it was and still is a bad trade.  His performance doesn't change my opinion that he had more value than a prospect of Stallings modest level (Stallings having a bad start doesn't make it worse, either). Even if Stallings had a unexpected velocity bump like we've seen from Bradish, it wouldn't change my opinion, as that isn't something that you can really factor in when evaluating a prospect.  It was a weak return.  Iglesias should have been traded, that's not the part I'm complaining about.  But we should've got more.  I think Elias did either a bad job drumming up interest or made a bad evaluation on what he wanted back, or maybe both.  

Yes, but he made his bosses happy. That's the factor you aren't considering here. Agreed, terrible trade. And I disagree he should have been traded. Not if, as it turned out, no one was willing to pay for him. 

[Mackus]

Yes, but he made his bosses happy. That's the factor you aren't considering here. Agreed, terrible trade. And I disagree he should have been traded. Not if, as it turned out, no one was willing to pay for him. 

 

Agree with the latter point, shouldn't have been dumped for nothing, should have been dealt for a decent return.  The cost difference between Iglesias and Galvis is so small ($2M), I know that ownership is part of this equation, so maybe they dictated that saving that $2M is top priority.  But even if we knew he gun-to-his-head had to trade Iglesias I'd still be a bit critical.  Less so, but still would have wanted Elias to find a way to get more in return. 

[mweb08]

I'm sure Elias was like, yeah, I want to trade Jose or was told to, but I'm not going to try to maximize the return. Whateves

[Mackus]

He can't just have made a bad trade? I wasn't aware that he was infallible. GMs make head-scratching trades all the time in all sports. This was one for Elias, IMO. Bad trade.

[BSLNickStevens]

He can't just have made a bad trade? I wasn't aware that he was infallible. GMs make head-scratching trades all the time in all sports. This was one for Elias, IMO. Bad trade.

 

Wasn't aware that Stallings has already been declared a bust. Missed that I guess. 

[BSLBobPhelan]

I understand thinking Iglesias had more value than he did but teams obviously didn’t give too much credence to his 45 game offensive outburst. We still got a top 30 prospect (in a good farm system) for essentially nothing (in terms of picking up the option).

[mweb08]

He can't just have made a bad trade? I wasn't aware that he was infallible. GMs make head-scratching trades all the time in all sports. This was one for Elias, IMO. Bad trade.

Of course he could have. But it doesn't make sense to say he should have traded him, but should have traded him for more value unless you think he literally didn't do his job. Assuming he did his due diligence, and I don't know of any reason why he wouldn't have or any evidence he didn't, he got what he felt was the best value.

Of course he and you probably wouldn't agree on the value of all potential packages available for Jose. I have no clue why teams would have been in hot pursuit of him when they could just sign comparable talent for cheap like Galvis, but you may have even liked a different potential package from the Angels more than what agreed to. That's all fine and well, but he got what he perceived to be the most value and there's nothing concrete to compare to as far as I know, so I think your specific complaint is logical.

[mweb08]

I understand thinking Iglesias had more value than he did but teams obviously didn’t give too much credence to his 45 game offensive outburst. We still got a top 30 prospect (in a good farm system) for essentially nothing (in terms of picking up the option).

Nor should they have given much credence to those 45 games.

[BSLZachSpedden]

I understand thinking Iglesias had more value than he did but teams obviously didn’t give too much credence to his 45 game offensive outburst. We still got a top 30 prospect (in a good farm system) for essentially nothing (in terms of picking up the option).

 

Exactly. Iglesias was a career .273/.315/.371 hitter in over 2,900 plate appearances coming into last season. He's hitting around that career line now in nearly as many plate appearances as he had last year (140 vs. 150).

[Mackus]

Wasn't aware that Stallings has already been declared a bust. Missed that I guess.

I don't really care what Stallings does. Nor what Iglesias does. In either direction. That's irrelevant to the evaluation of how much they got back for the asset they traded. I don't like the trade for those reasons.

I hope Stallings turns into something great, that's not going to make me think Elias did a better job unless somehow I am convinced that Elias thought Stallings was a far better prospect at the time than everyone else did.

[mweb08]

Makes sense:

- Saying if that's the best that was available, then don't make the trade

- Comparing different options we have good reason to believe were available and preferring a different one than was chosen

Doesn't make sense:

- Saying he should have traded him, but gotten more value without any sort of evidence that more value was available other than that you think he should have had more value

[Mackus]

I'm saying the first thing.

[mweb08]

I'm saying the first thing.

That's not what I recall and it's not what you said above, but ok.

Additionally, if a team is able to trade a player for something and then replace the lost asset with a very similar player at a cheaper cost, that's absolutely relevant to the trade as long as that next move was feasible at the time.

[Mackus]

Additionally, if a team is able to trade a player for something and then replace the lost asset with a very similar player at a cheaper cost, that's absolutely relevant to the trade as long as that next move was feasible at the time.

Doesn't make the trade better if the return was subpar. The planned replacement makes the performance of the team more palatable after the trade, but it would still be a trade.

[mweb08]

That's not what I recall and it's not what you said above, but ok.

Additionally, if a team is able to trade a player for something and then replace the lost asset with a very similar player at a cheaper cost, that's absolutely relevant to the trade as long as that next move was feasible at the time.

And then the performance of the traded player vs the replacement player matters as well. The prediction that the replacement can roughly replicate the traded player, or outperform him, is part of the thought process of the deal and is an unknown variable of the trade that will be solved in the future.

So far that part is looking really good for Elias.

[mweb08]

Doesn't make the trade better if the return was subpar. The planned replacement makes the performance of the team more palatable after the trade, but it would still be a trade.

If that's the best he could get for the traded player, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, then it does make the trade better if you have the next step setup to sufficiently replace the traded player.

[Mackus]

That's not what I recall and it's not what you said above, but ok.

I didn't say above that Iglesias should be traded no matter how measly the return. I said he should have been traded. A trade worth taking should have been available. I don't think the guys we got back for him qualify as such, and that's been my complaint about the trade the entire time. It's always been and always will be a small scale complaint, because even if you get a great reurn for a Iglesias you're still only talking about a fringe top-10 guy at best, not someone likely to make an impact. But Stallings is two tiers below that if not three and the international guy whose name I can't remember right now seemed like even less.

One tier above Stallings is what I wanted, I still think that was a reasonable ask, and if teams wouldn't meet it then I'd have kept Iglesias.