Photo

BSL: First Looks At Former Angels Prospects


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#21 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,346 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 18 May 2021 - 08:56 PM

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. 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.


Ok, thanks for making that clear. You still said even if forced to trade Iglesias, you would have been critical of Elias, which goes to my primary point on this. I don't think the guy is committing what amounts to GM malpractice out there by failing to do the due diligence to see what's available. He also probably likes the guys we got back more than you do.

#22 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,602 posts

Posted 18 May 2021 - 08:59 PM

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.

No, I disagree, they are separate issues. A plan for once you move on doesn't make the trade return better and doesn't make it ok to get back less than you should have gotten. If we had a ready-to-go stud replacement for Manny (let's say Rutschman was a 3B and we already had him) would that make his trade better? Or the Schoop trade? Similar point wouldn't really apply to Britton or Gausman since you always need more pitchers and it's not a one-to-one.

If you think Stallings was enough for Iglesias, that's fine. Obviously I disagree. But having Galvis or whomever the next faceless SS was gonna be doesn't make the return better.

#23 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,346 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 18 May 2021 - 09:05 PM

No, I disagree, they are separate issues. A plan for once you move on doesn't make the trade return better and doesn't make it ok to get back less than you should have gotten. If we had a ready-to-go stud replacement for Manny (let's say Rutschman was a 3B and we already had him) would that make his trade better? Or the Schoop trade? Similar point wouldn't really apply to Britton or Gausman since you always need more pitchers and it's not a one-to-one.

If you think Stallings was enough for Iglesias, that's fine. Obviously I disagree. But having Galvis or whomever the next faceless SS was gonna be doesn't make the return better.


I'm not saying it makes the return better. I'm saying that if you're able to get something of value, and I'm not even talking up the value here, and then you can replace the traded player with a similar player for less money, that makes the trade better. The reason being is you come out ahead whatever value you assign the prospects plus the saved money (I admittedly don't care about the $ as a fan as I agree with your position regarding them saving money being insignificant at the moment).

#24 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,621 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 19 May 2021 - 01:44 PM

I'm not saying it makes the return better. I'm saying that if you're able to get something of value, and I'm not even talking up the value here, and then you can replace the traded player with a similar player for less money, that makes the trade better. The reason being is you come out ahead whatever value you assign the prospects plus the saved money (I admittedly don't care about the $ as a fan as I agree with your position regarding them saving money being insignificant at the moment).

I think the fact that they got Galvis, makes the trade easier to take.  For me, it looked like we rushed into the deal and the reason was money.  When the Orioles spend money in one place, it comes off in another area.  Right now that area is the major league team.  We spent more money this year on the International market and on a new facility for those players.  I think in part, it was paid for by the subtraction of 5 million on Alex Cobb and 3 M on Iglesias.  In addition, money was subtracted on last seasons trades.

 

My hope, is these type deals, will soon be a thing of the past, and we stop making so many trades with the Angels who do not have a good farm system.


@mikeghg

#25 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,949 posts

Posted 02 July 2021 - 07:57 AM

Balt Sun: Orioles trades with Angels providing plenty of promise on farm: ‘We’re happy with the transactions that we made’






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=