Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Why did the Orioles, who lost 108 games last year, just waive their most valuable position player?

When you lose 108 games like the 2019 Baltimore Orioles just did, plenty of turnover is expected as the team continues its rebuild.

What is not expected is that turnover reaching a player who was the team’s most valuable position player during the season, according to multiple statistical measures. That would be a truly odd roster move, and also exactly what the Orioles did.

Orioles waive Jonathan Villar

Eyebrows were raised Wednesday when the Orioles reportedly put starting second-baseman Jonathan Villar on waivers after making an effort to trade him. The roster move comes ahead of MLB’s deadline for tending contracts to arbitration-eligible players.

The Orioles are a truly mismanaged team, aren’t they?

 

 

QLE Posted: November 27, 2019 at 09:53 PM | 65 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: jonathan villar, orioles

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Qufini Posted: November 27, 2019 at 10:22 PM (#5904297)
holy $#!^ this is so stupid. I'm banging my head against my desk. Give him an arbitration raise and flip him at next year's trading deadline if his market is thin right now. If you aren't willing to pay Villar, why do you even have a baseball team?
   2. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 27, 2019 at 10:33 PM (#5904298)
Did Villar somehow get bad over the offseason?

I'm not trolling here and I'm definitely not as sabery as most you here, can someone explain their reasoning behind this to me?
   3. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 27, 2019 at 10:46 PM (#5904301)
If you aren't willing to pay Villar, why do you even have a baseball team?
So Peter Angelos can get a table at restaurants befitting the richest man in Baltimore.
   4. Buck Coats Posted: November 27, 2019 at 11:19 PM (#5904308)
MLB needs to start giving teams cash for marginal wins - teams no longer see enough of a financial incentive in chasing marginal wins. If MLB paid the teams half a million bucks for every win over 60, you'd see teams like the Orioles be more willing to spend money on their players.
   5. RJ in TO Posted: November 27, 2019 at 11:37 PM (#5904310)
If MLB paid the teams half a million bucks for every win over 60, you'd see teams like the Orioles be more willing to spend money on their players.

Villar would probably get around $10 million in arbitration, and was a 4 WAR player this year. Why would the Orioles spend $10 million to chase $2 million?
   6. donlock Posted: November 28, 2019 at 12:25 AM (#5904314)
Villar played every game which helped and hurt his counting stats but he hit 20 HRs, stole 40 bases and played two tough infield positions adequately with poor partners. He hasn't had a consistent career but this was a good year for him.

The Orioles, unlike Houston, do not play in a large Metro area and they need bodies to get back in the habit of showing up at Camden Yards. Baltimore has had urban unrest with too many city murders this year to feel comfortable about future attendance. When you are 28th in MLB attendance, you might error on the side of keeping a few bright lights.

The Os do not have any middle infield prospects in the system who seem like they will field, hit, hit with power or steal bases. Last season they played poor outfielders and better infielders. This is a move that will make pitching for the Os an ordeal for a very weak pitching staff.
   7. bbmck Posted: November 28, 2019 at 01:40 AM (#5904317)
2019 position player WAR leaders by team and 2020+ contract status:

1.6 - DET Niko Goodrum: last pre-arb year
2.6 - SEA Tom Murphy: last pre-arb year
2.7 - SEA Edwin Encarnacion: traded with cash during 2019 for minor leaguer, 2020 FA
2.7 - DET Nicholas Castellanos: traded with cash during 2019 for 2 minor leaguers, 2020 FA
2.8 - SFG Mike Yastrzemski: first pre-arb year
2.8 - TOR Cavan Biggio: first pre-arb year

3.0 - TEX Joey Gallo: 1st arb year
3.8 - MIA Brian Anderson: last pre-arb year
3.9 - PIT Bryan Reynolds: 2nd pre-arb year
4.0 - BAL Jonathan Villar: placed on waivers in final arb year
4.0 - KCR Whit Merrifield: 3/15.25-19.25 or 4/25-29

4.2 - SDP Fernando Tatis Jr: 2nd pre-arb year
4.2 - TBR Willy Adames: 2nd pre-arb year
4.4 - PHI JT Realmuto: final arb year
4.5 - CIN Eugenio Suarez: 5/56.2 or 6/69.2
4.6 - CHW Yoan Moncada: last pre-arb year

4.7 - CLE Francisco Lindor: 2nd arb year
4.7 - STL Kolten Wong: 1/11.25 or 2/22.75
4.8 - CHC Javier Baez: 2nd arb year
5.0 - NYM Pete Alonso: 2nd pre-arb year
5.0 - NYM Jeff McNeil: 2nd pre-arb year

5.7 - MIN Jorge Polanco: 4/22.92 or 5/32.42 or 6/43.67 with escalators
6.0 - NYY DJ LeMahieu: 1/12
6.1 - ATL Josh Donaldson: rejected QO
6.3 - WSN Anthony Rendon: rejected QO
6.4 - COL Trevor Story: 2nd arb year
6.8 - BOS Mookie Betts: final arb year

6.9 - ARI Ketel Marte: 3/21.2, 4/28.2 or 5/37.2
7.1 - MIL Christian Yelich: 2/27.75 or 3/41.5
8.1 - OAK Marcus Semien: final arb year
8.3 - LAA Mike Trout: 11/391.3
8.4 - HOU Alex Bregman: 5/100
9.0 - LAD Cody Bellinger: Super 2

Alex Bregman is tied for around 30th largest active contract for a position player and has the 2nd largest contract for a team position player WAR leader.
   8. manchestermets Posted: November 28, 2019 at 05:41 AM (#5904321)
Leaving aside the issues surrounding whether the Orioles want to put good players on the field, why waive him rather than simply non-tendering him?
   9. villageidiom Posted: November 28, 2019 at 07:03 AM (#5904324)
Leaving aside the issues surrounding whether the Orioles want to put good players on the field, why waive him rather than simply non-tendering him?
They can still trade him during the waiver period.
   10. manchestermets Posted: November 28, 2019 at 10:29 AM (#5904335)
They can still trade him during the waiver period.


Right, but they can trade him without the waiver period at any time up until the non-tender deadline can't they? What is achieved by putting him on waivers that wouldn't be achieved by not doing anything?
   11. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: November 28, 2019 at 12:03 PM (#5904345)
#### this. The Orioles deserve what they ####ing get. A bad team is bad, but a boring team is worse, and Villar at least was fun.
   12. PreservedFish Posted: November 28, 2019 at 12:06 PM (#5904347)
What is achieved by putting him on waivers that wouldn't be achieved by not doing anything?


It kinda fits with their team concept to loudly communicate how feckless, arbitrary and terrible they are.
   13. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2019 at 12:21 PM (#5904354)
It kinda fits with their team concept to loudly communicate how feckless, arbitrary and terrible they are.

This is someplace where the commissioner should step in for best interests reason. He should void any attempt by a team to ditch a good, fairly paid player just to save money.
   14. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 28, 2019 at 12:36 PM (#5904359)
In most fantasy leagues there is a “can’t cut list” to prevent somebody from releasing the best players thereby throwing the league to whoever has top waiver priority. There is nothing similar in real sports leagues since the assumption is nobody would actually do that. Lol. Seriously, though, the Orioles couldn’t find someone willing to give up a B prospect for him?
   15. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: November 28, 2019 at 01:20 PM (#5904367)
Let's find a home for Villar. The Padres just traded their second baseman. How about Villar for Miguel Diaz. Diaz is just an arm, but looks like he might turn into a big league relief pitcher. (And, I just noticed, today is his birthday. Happy birthday Mr. Diaz!) I mean, he's probably nothing, but waiving his is definitely nothing. And it's hard to believe that the Padres are serious about going into battle with Ian Kinsler at second.
   16. Rally Posted: November 28, 2019 at 01:47 PM (#5904372)
I would not trade for Miguel Diaz unless I’m sure he’s recovered. He looked like he was in real bad shape, maybe paralyzed, after the fight with Johnny Lawrence’s kid.
   17. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 28, 2019 at 03:01 PM (#5904380)
This is someplace where the commissioner should step in for best interests reason. He should void any attempt by a team to ditch a good, fairly paid player just to save money.


Sounds like a good way to get fired.
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2019 at 03:23 PM (#5904382)
Sounds like a good way to get fired.

That's why the commissioner was designed to be a lifetime appointment.
   19. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 28, 2019 at 03:27 PM (#5904384)
That's why the commissioner was designed to be a lifetime appointment.


Baseball would have integrated far earlier had it been possible to fire Landis.
   20. puck Posted: November 28, 2019 at 04:00 PM (#5904389)
The list in #7 is interesting. I wonder how "normal" 2019 was in regard to WAR leaders being arb/pre-arb.

I assume it's fairly normal.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2019 at 04:16 PM (#5904391)
Baseball would have integrated far earlier had it been possible to fire Landis.

I don't think there's any evidence that most of the owners were any more pro-integration than Landis. This is Rob Neyer's take on the issue (ESPN through WIKI):

"Landis has been blamed for delaying the integration of the major leagues, but the truth is that the owners didn't want black players in the majors any more than Landis did. And it's not likely that, even if Landis hadn't died in 1944, he could have prevented Branch Rickey from bringing Jackie Robinson to the National League in 1947."


It's also highly likely that baseball would have had continued gambling scandals without Landis. If Comiskey could have gotten Landis fired, how long do you think he would have put up with losing most of his best players, while his team was mired in the 2nd division?
   22. Sunday silence Posted: November 28, 2019 at 06:42 PM (#5904414)
It's also highly likely that baseball would have had continued gambling scandals without Landis. If Comiskey could have gotten Landis fired, how long do you think he would have put up with losing most of his best players, while his team was mired in the 2nd division?


Are these two sentences related or are you suggesting that COmiskey would have tried his hand at fixing the world series? Cause I dont understand what you're saying here.
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2019 at 09:06 PM (#5904424)
Are these two sentences related or are you suggesting that COmiskey would have tried his hand at fixing the world series? Cause I dont understand what you're saying here.

I'm saying that if Landis wasn't secure in his job, Comiskey would have gotten Jackson, Cicotte, Weaver and co. reinstated in short order, and more game fixing scandals would have followed.
   24. Sweatpants Posted: November 28, 2019 at 10:27 PM (#5904432)
22. Sunday silence Posted: November 28, 2019 at 06:42 PM (#5904414)

It's also highly likely that baseball would have had continued gambling scandals without Landis. If Comiskey could have gotten Landis fired, how long do you think he would have put up with losing most of his best players, while his team was mired in the 2nd division?

Are these two sentences related or are you suggesting that COmiskey would have tried his hand at fixing the world series? Cause I dont understand what you're saying here.
47. Sunday silence Posted: November 28, 2019 at 06:35 PM (#5904412)
I couldnt remember if Garvey was on the 74 team or not, that's why I left a question mark out there. I couldnt remember who was playing OF for them. Dusty Baker I guess? RIck Monday?

*****

Im not trying to make a case for Garvey. Some of you might want to review your reading comprehension skills. Perhaps a simple standardized format quiz might help to clarify matters:

A good title for this post would be:


a. My friend Steve Garvey.
b. Where does WAR come from?
c. Steve Garvey America's hero.
d. Playing baseball the right way,
Posted within seven minutes of each other, no less.
   25. bbmck Posted: November 29, 2019 at 01:57 AM (#5904446)
[20] Ignoring a bunch of things to make it much faster: only players who played for one team considered, ignoring that some players reach arb in their 4th season, ignoring that international free agents and some players are on long term contracts from even first season. Following year default contract status so if in 1st-3rd pre-arb, 4th-6th arb and 7th+ following year is FA or already on long term contract:

2014
Pre-arb (5): Anthony Rendon 6.6, Jose Abreu 5.8, Juan Lagares 5.3, Brian Dozier 5.2, Yasiel Puig 5.1
Arb (12): Mike Trout 7.6, Josh Donaldson 7.5, Michael Brantley 6.7, Jonathan Lucroy 6.6, Giancarlo Stanton 6.5, Andrew McCutchen 6.1, Jose Altuve 6.1, Jason Heyward 5.8, Buster Posey 5.4, Todd Frazier 5.2, Anthony Rizzo 5.2, Paul Goldschmidt 4.6
FA (13): Jose Bautista 6.7, Adrian Beltre 6.7, Alex Gordon 6.5, Robinson Can 6.4, Jhonny Peralta 5.9, Steve Pearce 5.9, Ian Kinsler 5.8, Troy Tulowitzki 5.5, Ben Zobrist 5, Dustin Pedroia 4.7, Brett Gardner 3.9, Jimmy Rollins 3.9, Seth Smith 3.4

2009
Pre-arb (7): Joey Votto 4.8, Yunel Escobar 4.3, Pablo Sandoval 4.3, Justin Upton 4, Kurt Suzuki 3.4, Garrett Jones 3.3, Alexei Ramirez 2.4
Arb (16): Ben Zobrist 8.6, Joe Mauer 7.8, Hanley Ramirez 7.4, Ryan Zimmerman 7.3, Adrian Gonzalez 6.9, Kevin Youkilis 6.6, Franklin Gutierrez 6.6, Troy Tulowitzki 6.5, Prince Fielder 6.3, Ian Kinsler 6, Aaron Hill 5.8, Shin-Soo Choo 5.5, Michael Bourn 5, Matt Kemp 4.9, Angel Pagan 4, Alberto Callaspo 2.5
FA (7): Albert Pujols 9.7, Chase Utley 8.2, Chone Figgins 7.7, Derek Jeter 6.6, Derrek Lee 5.4, Miguel Cabrera 5.1, Brian Roberts 3

2004 (Ties: BOS Damon and Ortiz, TEX: Blalock and Teixeira)
Pre-arb (8): Orlando Hudson 5.2, Travis Hafner 5, Carl Crawford 4.9, Hank Blalock 4.6, Mark Teixeira 4.6, Lew Ford 4.5, David Wright 2.2, Chad Tracy 1.8
Arb (7): Ichiro Suzuki 9.2, Lance Berkman 6, Aaron Rowand 5.7, Brad Wilkerson 5.1, Jack Wilson 4.8, Adam Dunn 4.7, Brady Clark 2.1
FA (17): Barry Bonds 10.6, Adrian Beltre 9.6, Scott Rolen 9.2, Todd Helton 8.3, JD Drew 8.3, Alex Rodriguez 7.6, Miguel Tejada 7.4, Bobby Abreu 6.6, Mark Loretta 6, Vladimir Guerrero 5.6, Eric Chavez 5.5, Carlos Guillen 4.6, Aramis Ramirez 4.4, David Ortiz 4.3, Johnny Damon 4.3, Mike Lowell 4.3, Joe Randa 2.7

1999 (Ties: LAD Beltre and Karros, SEA Griffey and Edgar)
Pre-arb (4): Magglio Ordonez 5.8, Adrian Beltre 3.9, Troy Glaus 3.1, Corey Koskie 2.6
Arb (11): Derek Jeter 8, Andruw Jones 7.1, Brian Giles 6.7, Nomar Garciaparra 6.6, Bobby Abreu 6.1, Jason Giambi 5.9, Mike Cameron 5.5, Johnny Damon 5.4, Jeff Cirillo 4.8, Vladimir Guerrero 4.4, Luis Castillo 2.3
FA (17): Roberto Alomar 7.4, Jeff Bagwell 7.4, Robin Ventura 6.7, Ivan Rodriguez 6.4, Luis Gonzalez 6.4, Shawn Green 6.4, Brady Anderson 5.9, Mark McGwire 5.2, Larry Walker 5.1, Edgar Martinez 4.9, Ken Griffey Jr 4.9, Sammy Sosa 4.8, Reggie Sanders 4.1, Fred McGriff 4, Eric Karros 3.9, Barry Bonds 3.8, Brad Ausmus 3.4

1994 (Ties: BAL Palmeiro and Ripken, MON: Alou and Grissom, OAK Rickey and Javier)
Pre-arb (4): John Valentin 4.3, Mike Piazza 3.6, Bob Hamelin 2.6, Jose Valentin 2.5
Arb (10): Jeff Bagwell 8.2, Kenny Lofton 7.2, Ken Griffey Jr 6.9, Frank Thomas 6.4, Moises Alou 5.1, Marquis Grissom 5.1, Chuck Knoblauch 4.1, Sammy Sosa 3.8, Mark Whiten 3.1, Jeff Conine 2.9
FA (17): Barry Bonds 6.2, Tony Phillips 4.7, Fred McGriff 4.6, Wade Boggs 4.5, Tony Gwynn 4.2, Rafael Palmeiro 4, Barry Larkin 4, Cal Ripken Jr 4, Paul Molitor 3.6, Will Clark 3.6, Rickey Henderson 3.5, Stan Javier 3.5, Jay Bell 3.4, Chili Davis 3.1, Bobby Bonilla 2.8, Darren Daulton 2.5, Andres Galarraga 2

1989
Pre-arb (2): Ken Caminiti 4.9, Roberto Alomar 4.5
Arb (9): Will Clark 8.6, Barry Bonds 8, Fred McGriff 6.6, Ruben Sierra 5.9, Kirby Puckett 4.9, Devon White 4, Jerry Browne 3.8, Barry Larkin 3.8, Jim Eisenreich 3.1
FA (15): Lonnie Smith 8.8, Wade Boggs 8.4, Ozzie Smith 7.3, Howard Johnson 6.9, Cal Ripken Jr 6.7, Ryne Sandberg 6.1, Robin Yount 5.8, Lou Whitaker 5.3, Von Hayes 5.1, Carney Lansford 4.6, Steve Sax 4.4, Harold Reynolds 4.3, Tim Wallach 4.1, Willie Randolph 4.1, Carlton Fisk 3.3

1984
Pre-arb (4): Wade Boggs 6.3, Tony Gwynn 6.3, Don Mattingly 6.3, Alvin Davis 6
Arb (11): Cal Ripken Jr 10, Ryne Sandberg 8.6, Lloyd Moseby 7.3, Rickey Henderson 6, Tony Pena 5.9, Kent Hrbek 5.6, Chili Davis 5.1, Harold Baines 4.3, George Vukovich 4.1, Mike Scioscia 3.7, Eddie Milner 2.4
FA (11): Gary Carter 7.5, Mike Schmidt 7, Alan Trammell 6.7, Jose Cruz 6.3, Keith Hernandez 6.3, Buddy Bell 6.1, Robin Yount 5.9, Dale Murphy 5.6, Ozzie Smith 5, Willie Wilson 4.3, Fred Lynn 3.8

1979 (Tie: MIL Sixto and Molitor)
Pre-arb (3): Paul Molitor 5.6, Lou Whitaker 4.5, Dave Revering 1.8
Arb (10): Fred Lynn 8.9, Keith Hernandez 7.6, Gary Carter 6, Chet Lemon 5.8, Sixto Lezcano 5.6, Willie Randolph 5.3, Lee Mazzilli 4.9, Butch Wynegar 4.4, Leon Roberts 3.9, Jack Clark 3.5
FA (14): George Brett 8.6, Dave Winfield 8.3, Mike Schmidt 7.9, Buddy Bell 6.9, Dave Parker 6.7, Bobby Grich 6, Johnny Bench 5.6, Ken Singleton 5.3, Ron Cey 5.1, Jose Cruz 4.6, Gary Matthews 4.4, Dave Kingman 4.1, Bobby Bonds 3.5, Otto Velez 2.9
   26. Sunday silence Posted: November 29, 2019 at 03:28 AM (#5904449)

I'm saying that if Landis wasn't secure in his job, Comiskey would have gotten Jackson, Cicotte, Weaver and co. reinstated in short order, and more game fixing scandals would have followed.


LOL, no.
   27. DJS Thinks Apples and Oranges are Similar Posted: November 29, 2019 at 01:37 PM (#5904455)
Right, but they can trade him without the waiver period at any time up until the non-tender deadline can't they? What is achieved by putting him on waivers that wouldn't be achieved by not doing anything?

If you're trying to signal that you *are* going to come to some sort of final arrangement with Villar rather than just dangling him before tendering him, then it is different. Big gamble, but it's what they're trying to do.
   28. DCA Posted: November 29, 2019 at 01:55 PM (#5904457)
Yes, they might close to an agreement with a contending (low waiver priority) team, and this is a gamble that the other team will move closer to the Orioles' position rather then risk not getting the player at all.
   29. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 29, 2019 at 03:59 PM (#5904490)
I don't think there's any evidence that most of the owners were any more pro-integration than Landis.


Most, no. Even in the early days of integration, it was just Rickey and Veeck. Veeck wanted to buy the Phillies and populate them with black players in the early 40's and Landis stopped him.
   30. McCoy Posted: November 29, 2019 at 09:33 PM (#5904502)
Comiskey suspended the players before the end of the 1920 season when they were battling for first place and before Landis was named commissioner.
   31. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 30, 2019 at 02:52 PM (#5904574)
Baseball would have integrated far earlier had it been possible to fire Landis.

Uh, no. At the time of Robinson's signing, every other owner opposed integration. Veeck didn't become the Indians' owner until 1946, and no Commissioner in 1943 would've approved Veeck's stated plan for the Phillies. The only way he could've done it would've been to have shut up about it and then just done it once he got control of the team, as Rickey did with Robinson.
   32. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 01, 2019 at 03:20 PM (#5904703)
When does the waiver action end on Villar? Not until Monday? I'd like to see the Sox in on him, he'd be a good 2B for them - let Dalbec and Chavis handle 1st.
   33. DCA Posted: December 01, 2019 at 03:53 PM (#5904705)
let Dalbec and Chavis handle 1st.

I'd be more comfortable with that if one of them was a LHB. I think you're locking in poor performance vs RHP if you go that route, and Villar's bat has been good only 2 of his 4 full seasons.
   34. "RMc", the superbatsman Posted: December 02, 2019 at 06:17 PM (#5905033)
I was gonna say, "Hey, maybe the Tigers could pick him up!", until I realized that if they did, Villar would immediately revert to his 2017 levels (72 OPS+, 0.1 WAR)...
   35. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 02, 2019 at 08:30 PM (#5905058)
Villar is a Marlin now, traded for their 2019 14th round draftee.
   36. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 02, 2019 at 10:26 PM (#5905083)
Villar is a Marlin now, traded for their 2019 14th round draftee.

Man, when you're salary dumping to the Marlins, you've really hit rock bottom. Is there a 12 step program for sports franchises? If so, sign up the Jets too.
   37. Nasty Nate Posted: December 03, 2019 at 09:02 AM (#5905133)
  27. DJS Thinks Apples and Oranges are Similar Posted: November 29, 2019 at 01:37 PM (#5904455)
Right, but they can trade him without the waiver period at any time up until the non-tender deadline can't they? What is achieved by putting him on waivers that wouldn't be achieved by not doing anything?

If you're trying to signal that you *are* going to come to some sort of final arrangement with Villar rather than just dangling him before tendering him, then it is different. Big gamble, but it's what they're trying to do.

   28. DCA Posted: November 29, 2019 at 01:55 PM (#5904457)
Yes, they might close to an agreement with a contending (low waiver priority) team, and this is a gamble that the other team will move closer to the Orioles' position rather then risk not getting the player at all.
OK, so they might have been forcing other teams to come forward with their final offers by using the waiver. But what do they get out of timing it with the non-tender deadline? Couldn't they just pull the waiver move at any time during the offseason or even spring training? If they are threatening to just non-tender him, it really undercuts any claims they might make during trade negotations that he has lots of positive trade value.
   38. PreservedFish Posted: December 03, 2019 at 09:39 AM (#5905142)
The ESPN article linked in #35 contains no surprises but man it must be distressing to be an O's fan.

"He was a tremendously exciting player for us, a joy to have,'' general manager Mike Elias said Monday. "It was hard to let him go, but we've got to keep an eye on our strategic objectives, which is prioritize the future right now.''


Bullshit. Anyone think Villar's salary will be re-invested in the team?

Meanwhile, the big score for the Orioles?

Lucas is a 23-year-old lefty with one year of minor league experience.

"He's someone who could project as a back-end starter for us possibly with good development,'' Elias said.


Could - possibly - with good development - project as a back-end starter.
   39. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: December 03, 2019 at 10:18 AM (#5905162)
37 - they had tried to trade him previously and not gotten many nibbles.

so, i like this move for miami and dislike it for baltimore -- but, here's why i think this non-insane (this repeats rambles from another thread - and these are rambles versus a coherent argument):
- replacement level for second base is kinda high, higher than we use in war calculations (imo), and there are some good values plays on the middle infield reclamation/fa market if they wanna go that route
- villar is likely closer to a 2 war player than a 4 war player, i don't think you can count on him being a 20/40 guy going forward.
- baltimore can lose without him and one of the most valuable resources they have is pt to offer players to see what they can be.
- revealed preference: the market wasn't exactly hot for him either - everyone knew they could have him for a song and a song is all he cost (apologies to lucas, who had a decent debut for an org guy, but still looks like a likely org guy - hope i'm wrong)

that said,
- villar is likely to produce more value than he costs in salary. you generally want those players.
- he offers positional versatility. he played second and short last year and was solid in a flash of time in center in the past. he need not block anybody.
- though i'm pro-tanking, i think teams should sell excitement and hope, false or true. signalling too hard "we are going to be bad, don't waste your time" can be bad for the health of a franchise. villar helps here.

side note: miggy's miguel diaz note in #15? he was non-tendered yesterday. agree that that's the kind of player that would've made sense in a deal here; it's just funny.
   40. manchestermets Posted: December 03, 2019 at 10:28 AM (#5905164)
"He was a tremendously exciting player for us, a joy to have," general manager Mike Elias said Monday. "It was hard to let him go, but we've got to keep an eye on our strategic objectives, which is prioritize the future right now."



Bullshit. Anyone think Villar's salary will be re-invested in the team?


He didn't specify that it's the team whose future is being prioritised.
   41. Nasty Nate Posted: December 03, 2019 at 11:04 AM (#5905179)
"He was a tremendously exciting player for us, a joy to have," general manager Mike Elias said Monday. "It was hard to let him go, but we've got to keep an eye on our strategic objectives, which is prioritize the future right now."
Bullshit. Anyone think Villar's salary will be re-invested in the team?
If they really were prioritizing the future rather than just dumping salary, they would have (at some point between now and next July) traded him for some real prospect value by paying for most or all of his contract. It's a way for teams to "buy" prospects and this situation seemed like the archetypal situation for the move - because the guy is not old and has actual talent.
   42. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 03, 2019 at 11:17 AM (#5905188)
Villar is projected for less than 2 WAR and will cost more than $10M. On a team expected to win 60 games.

How does it make sense for the Orioles to spend money on him?

They aren't signing his 2019 season. They are signing his 2020 season. If it was such a no-brainer, many teams would have traded for his services.
   43. Nasty Nate Posted: December 03, 2019 at 11:28 AM (#5905192)
How does it make sense for the Orioles to spend money on him?
Well, one path is what I mention in #41.

But more broadly: He is a good player. They are a bad team. Bad teams need good players to get better. If they acquired good players instead of the opposite, maybe they would be expected to win more than 60 games.

It seems like the money isn't going back into the team, so how does trading him for nothing make them better?
   44. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: December 03, 2019 at 11:53 AM (#5905195)
- villar is likely to produce more value than he costs in salary. you generally want those players.


"Generally" nothing, that's the whole point of a baseball team. If you think he's going to bring in more revenue than he's going to cost, you want him on the team.
   45. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 12:59 PM (#5905240)
They aren't signing his 2019 season. They are signing his 2020 season. If it was such a no-brainer, many teams would have traded for his services.


Maybe the Orioles were asking for too much in a trade. I am assuming the Marlins were one of the first teams with waiver priority, so it's not like a ton of teams passed on him.
   46. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 01:09 PM (#5905248)
Maybe the Orioles were asking for too much in a trade. I am assuming the Marlins were one of the first teams with waiver priority, so it's not like a ton of teams passed on him.

Well, if they hadn't put him on waivers, that wouldn't have been a big issue.
   47. Nasty Nate Posted: December 03, 2019 at 01:12 PM (#5905250)
Maybe the Orioles were asking for too much in a trade. I am assuming the Marlins were one of the first teams with waiver priority, so it's not like a ton of teams passed on him.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the process, the Marlins didn't acquire him via a waiver claim. They agreed to a trade before the waiver claims came into play. Or maybe I'm wrong.
   48. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: December 03, 2019 at 01:16 PM (#5905253)
I believe you're correct, Nasty Nate. They put him an outright waivers, I imagine, to signal to make your offer now before it's too late. You only do this if you're not asking for much.

"Generally" nothing, that's the whole point of a baseball team. If you think he's going to bring in more revenue than he's going to cost, you want him on the team.
Well, if more net revenue than the alternative - PT is a fixed asset. You could construct an argument that they should swing Alberto to more shortstop time (to maximixe his value) or go Rule 5 shopping again or...

All this said, I think Baltimore should have kept him, I'm playing devil's advocate here.
   49. PreservedFish Posted: December 03, 2019 at 01:28 PM (#5905260)
The best argument for axing Villar is the following: the Orioles suck anyway, they'll always suck, and none of this #### even matters, so they might as well save a few million bucks.

While that's probably true, baseball is better if all of its teams willingly participate in the shared fantasy that winning actually matters.
   50. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 01:37 PM (#5905266)
Unless I'm misunderstanding the process, the Marlins didn't acquire him via a waiver claim. They agreed to a trade before the waiver claims came into play. Or maybe I'm wrong.


Huh, I am rather confused by this all.
   51. Nasty Nate Posted: December 03, 2019 at 01:49 PM (#5905275)
Huh, I am rather confused by this all.
I believe it goes like this:
Orioles put him on waivers which remove him from the 40-man roster, and then teams have a few days to decide whether to make a claim before any claims are processed. But the Orioles still have his rights and can trade him elsewhere during that time period, which nullifies all the waiver business.

If no trade had been worked out, and if no claims had been submitted, he would have become a free agent.
   52. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 02:25 PM (#5905293)
If no trade had been worked out, and if no claims had been submitted, he would have become a free agent.


At that point, I think the Orioles would have either released him or offered him an outright assignment to AAA, and he would've had the choice between accepting that assignment and declining it in favor of free agency.
   53. cookiedabookie Posted: December 03, 2019 at 02:26 PM (#5905294)
And this is why we need a salary floor for MLB teams.
   54. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 02:30 PM (#5905297)
And this is why we need a salary floor for MLB teams.

Yes. $75M in major league contracts or you lose revenue sharing money dollar for dollar.
   55. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: December 03, 2019 at 02:31 PM (#5905298)
i don't think the outright would have been an option at that point for him, given service time? in any case, he'd've been non-tendered if not released.
   56. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 03:02 PM (#5905311)
i don't think the outright would have been an option at that point for him, given service time?


I think you can always be offered an outright assignment, even if you're over the minimum of service time (as Villar is). You just don't have any obligation to accept it or any negative consequences for rejecting it.

Villar clearly wouldn't accept in this case, and I'm not sure that the Orioles would even choose to extend the offer. But it's still a step in the procedure.
   57. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 03:04 PM (#5905313)
Yes. $75M in major league contracts or you lose revenue sharing money dollar for dollar.


I'd rather set it up as $75M in major league contracts or the current year salaries of all players on your 40-man roster are increased proportionally until the total value meets or exceeds $75M. Why should MLB as an institution keep that money, rather than it going to the players?
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 03:34 PM (#5905330)
I'd rather set it up as $75M in major league contracts or the current year salaries of all players on your 40-man roster are increased proportionally until the total value meets or exceeds $75M. Why should MLB as an institution keep that money, rather than it going to the players?

Sure, good change. Or contribute it the the pension fund.
   59. Sunday silence Posted: December 03, 2019 at 03:41 PM (#5905333)
Why should MLB as an institution keep that money, rather than it going to the players?


well in theory they could be trying to build up their cash reserves with the idea of spending it down the road. I realize for teams e.g. PIT etc its a pipe dream but in theory its their money and their right to use it strategically.
   60. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 03:48 PM (#5905334)
well in theory they could be trying to build up their cash reserves with the idea of spending it down the road. I realize for teams e.g. PIT etc its a pipe dream but in theory its their money and their right to use it strategically.

Money received as revenue sharing is not the individual team's money. It is a subsidy to small markets to help them compete. If they choose not to try and compete, they shouldn't get the money.

Since MLB effectively has a salary cap today, it needs a floor.
   61. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: December 03, 2019 at 04:07 PM (#5905341)
Major League Baseball isn't the kind of thing that has needs. It's not a pet turtle or something. Fans might like it if MLB had a salary floor, but to say that it "needs" a salary floor is to import the idea of a requirement that isn't really there.

A salary floor hurts ownership. From some perspectives revenue sharing with no salary floor is a good thing. It guarantees profits with no risk! That's fantastic! I'd go for it if I could find an investment that offered that (Bernie Madoff-style "investments" excluded). If you're going to advocate a salary floor you either need to suggest something that the players can give back (or advocate a strike); otherwise you're just complaining that you don't like it when franchises don't field competitive teams.
   62. cookiedabookie Posted: December 03, 2019 at 04:21 PM (#5905350)
otherwise you're just complaining that you don't like it when franchises don't field competitive teams

Yes, that's exactly what I am doing. It is bad for the sport to have a dozen teams a year actively trying to not compete. Refusing to sign/keep players who would make your team better just to save money. And I'm not saying every team needs a $30 million contract on the books. But there was no legitimate reason for a team like the Orioles to cut/trade a player like Villar. They could afford to keep him, and he made the team better.
   63. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 04:30 PM (#5905354)
Major League Baseball isn't the kind of thing that has needs. It's not a pet turtle or something.



In a capitalist society, all companies have the need to grow and consume until they encompass the entirety of human existence. It is their raison d'etre.

Shareholder value stomping on a human face, forever.
   64. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: December 03, 2019 at 04:54 PM (#5905359)
But it's still a step in the procedure.
I'd meant realistic option (that he might accept it) - but what you said is fair and true.
   65. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 03, 2019 at 04:56 PM (#5905360)
otherwise you're just complaining that you don't like it when franchises don't field competitive teams.

Complaining, and also pointing out that it's bad for MLB as a whole. MLB with 10 teams not trying at all, is going to generate less revenue than MLB with everyone trying.

When the tanking teams attendance and ratings tumble, you don't get an equivalent increase for the 92 wins teams that now become 100 win teams, and the 98 win teams that become 108 win teams.

More parity (within broad limits) leads to more revenue.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Stormy JE
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Page rendered in 0.5499 seconds
48 querie(s) executed