1984Echoes

+1

Whiff.

I'm good with that. It ain't over till it's over...

This is a whiff by Harris... If he's communicating with Eduardo... and is pretty certain he'll pull his no-trade option on a Dodgers deal... Then he should have been all-in on the Orioles instead... Harris can still negotiate with the Dodgers/ Reds/ etc./ other teams... But when push comes to shove, he has to pull the trigger on a deal from a team that Eduardo does not have on his no-trade/ cannot nix the deal. Even if it's a lower haul than a Dodgers deal... you take the best deal that won't be nixed. Push the Orioles as far as they'll go and take their deal. Even if a potential Dodgers deal is better... IMO.

Scherzer and Verlander waived their no-trades... IIRC.

Dalton Rushing, Nick Frasso... maybe one more lower level guy... (just WAG'ing...)

ERRRGGG!!!

Exactly.

I was still hoping for some (at least one?) low-level additional lottery ticket as a throw-in... But... guess not.

I can't get Hao Yu out of my mind. I also don't feel attached, or confused, by all the Lee mentions... So I'm just thinking... Hao Yu?

To the Dodgers or the Orioles for the win...

For Lorenzen... I think yes. Crawford is too much.

Add in some Andrew Baker and Alex McFarlane and that could be really interesting... But... probably not. I never get what I want...

I was just going to post: Lorenzen to the Phillies for Hao-Yu Lee + ...? MLB-TV is talking like the deal is done...

I prefer this one (OPS+): 2017 (Det) - 133 2018 (Det) - 91 2019 (Det) - 70 2020 (Det) - 137 2021 (Det) - 121 2022 (Det) - 82 2023 (Wash) - 128 Which tells me that Candy is an ABOVE-average hitter and that 2019 and 2022 were simply outliers.

And even though I said it was too rich a trade to believe... I ALSO believed it for a second...! "HOLY CRAP!!!" "Wait, wait a second..." "Crap. Confirmed as... crap." "Oh well". "Crap" (all in the space of less than 30 seconds...)

The only problem with considering a trade of Tork!!! right now is that we'd be selling at a low point and not get the return we would like for him... So I guess it would depend on one's viewpoint of Tork: Believe in his upside = we won't get the right asking price = so wait for his development curve to reach a higher point. DON'T believe in his upside or that he's good enough/ we could find better = the right asking price might not be much but go ahead and take it anyways. Personally, I believe he has a much higher upside than what he's shown so far. So my asking price might be higher than others and I don't think we'd get a good enough return offer to contemplate moving him at this point...

No that was definitely too good to be true, For Lorenzen & Cisnero?

Thanks much for the detailed heads U.P. !

I think that's icing, not the cake. Trump is the cake. A poisoned cake that everyone knows for 100% certainty... and to avoid like the plague. Except for MAGA. They're perfectly fine eating poisoned cake. Although I don't see how they can eat that cake and "have" it too...

But if this team is adamant about position flexibility, as you are maintaining... Then we should trade him, right? Because Torkelson is not position-flexible. At all.

How much versatility does Spencer Torkelson have again...?

The reaction times are much faster at 3B than at 2B. Must have a strong arm for 3B. Neither are required at 2B. In fact teams hide guys at 2B if they have to... guys with weak arms and also limited mobility/ reaction times but with a big bat. Range is needed less at 3B than at 2B. Just some off the cuff observations without the empirical data to support those WAG theories...

I wouldn't say it this way. Because we were moving on from Candy in 2023 no matter what, even if we didn't after 2022. He's a FA this year. He's gone. No need to invest a FA contract on him. It doesn't matter to me that they didn't have a ready-made replacement at 3B... that's just a problem to solve. To me the issues were: 1) 2B is easier to slot guys and/or test guys out at than at 3B. Much easier to flip guys like McKinstry/ Short/ Maton etc. through 2B, and some time at SS and some time at 3B, than to push one of them into a starting 3B job. Much easier to handle 2B. And if they show themselves as good enough to take over 3B... then a move could conceivably be made. Same with Malloy and Keith if they made it to MLB this year. But even if no one showed enough at 3B in 2023, we were STILL moving on from Candy during/ after 2023 so to me, that's moot point. The position still needs to be filled. I'd rather make it easier on guys though (2B), and force one of them to "push" Candy out of the 3B job. I don't consider lack of 3B replacement as a "mistake", per se, but instead, the "mistake" of valuing 2B higher than 3B, and of creating a more difficult transition path for new guys (3B instead of 2B), and also of not retaining a "push him out the door with performance" situation. 2) Schoop was a mistake to me. All winter long I assessed him as "toast". Now... what do I know? But, reiterating one of my points... what kind of performance would be required to push him out of a spot? Because it looks like to me: a guy could be the worst player in MLB this year (not counting Schoop), and that would be good enough to push Schoop out of a job. Because... Schoop is the worst piece of hot garbage in MLB, this year. 3) Opportunity Cost: dropping Candy means we lost a draft pick I believe. Why would we do that? Aside from getting guys back in a deadline trade, which may or may not have more value than the draft pick... why are we tossing easy money (draft pick/ traded-for players) out the door? That's a lost opportunity cost, which I think is a mistake. 4) Candy 2023 > Schoop 2023. Any decision otherwise was a mistake. And this was known in October, 2022. At least by those who have some Nostradamus in their DNA. Like me. And Chas. And I think Lee too IIRC...

This is Motown Sports Forums. I've had 50 years of hand-wringing (I'm older than that but not counting when too young to know to hand-wring over anything...). I consider myself a professional now. Hand-Wringing Engineer. First Class.