Around The Majors 2019

clvclv said:
That's a bit of a problem since the reports say they plan to use Montgomery in the rotation.

I don't think Montgomery's much other than a placeholder either, but it's not like anybody was going to give them a prospect with any realistic chance of turning into anything for Maldonado - can only guess that they're hoping Montgomery can be at least as good as most of the trash they have at the upper levels for a bit.
Click to expand...

Okay, then go sign Chris Tillman, Edwin Jackson, James Shields, or Yovani Gallardo. Its the same point. There are still tons of guys out there to fit whatever role they want Montgomery to play and it doesn't matter who it is since they're gonna finish 30 games out of the wildcard anyway.

I can kind of buy the idea that they want to see if Montgomery can produce and pawn him off next year or something for slightly more than they would have gotten for Maldonado, but the notion that they had a *need* for him in order to keep their prospects down is ridiculous.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Okay, then go sign Chris Tillman, Edwin Jackson, James Shields, or Yovani Gallardo. Its the same point. There are still tons of guys out there to fit whatever role they want Montgomery to play and it doesn't matter who it is since they're gonna finish 30 games out of the wildcard anyway.

I can kind of buy the idea that they want to see if Montgomery can produce and pawn him off next year or something for slightly more than they would have gotten for Maldonado, but the notion that they had a *need* for him in order to keep their prospects down is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

They have a "need" for ANYBODY to eat innings - just as the Braves did a few years ago, and it doesn't matter how they get those guys. Sorry, but I wasn't the only one that called your jumping up to call DMGM out for not following the precious charts a little ridiculous. Maldonado held absolutely no value to anyone else, and if Montgomery is as bad as you want to make him out to be you're making that argument by yourself.

It was a trade of two inconsequential players - the reasoning behind the deal makes no difference other than the fact those teams' respective GMs wanted to make the trade. Caratini has been a better player than Maldonado this year, and Contreras will be back in 10 days.
 
clvclv said:
They have a "need" for ANYBODY to eat innings - just as the Braves did a few years ago, and it doesn't matter how they get those guys. Sorry, but I wasn't the only one that called your jumping up to call DMGM out for not following the precious charts a little ridiculous. Maldonado held absolutely no value to anyone else, and if Montgomery is as bad as you want to make him out to be you're making that argument by yourself.

It was a trade of two inconsequential players - the reasoning behind the deal makes no difference other than the fact those teams' respective GMs wanted to make the trade. Caratini has been a better player than Maldonado this year, and Contreras will be back in 10 days.
Click to expand...

Maldonado = Asset. Asset = Value. His value was certainly limited, but I was questioning the idea of trading an asset for current value in lieu of future value. Others have pointed out that the Royals idea could be to build up his value so he could be traded for something more substantial later. That may or may not be a good strategy that I didn't consider. That does not mean that your point wasn't stupid. The idea of trading even a milkshake for someone just to keep your prospects down and eat innings is ridiculous when you're one of the worst teams in the league and there are several arms available for the league minimum.

And I don't think I've insinuated anything about Montgomery being a bad pitcher. I would have said the same thing if they'd have gotten substantially better or substantially worse than Montgomery. The point wasn't that Montgomery is bad, its that he's less useful to the Royals than a 35 FV lottery ticket. Like I said, I hadn't considered them possibly flipping him at a later date, mostly because I hadn't realized that he had two years of arb. remaining, but that has nothing to do with your retort which remains bad.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Maldonado = Asset. Asset = Value. His value was certainly limited, but I was questioning the idea of trading an asset for current value in lieu of future value. Others have pointed out that the Royals idea could be to build up his value so he could be traded for something more substantial later. That may or may not be a good strategy that I didn't consider. That does not mean that your point wasn't stupid. The idea of trading even a milkshake for someone just to keep your prospects down and eat innings is ridiculous when you're one of the worst teams in the league and there are several arms available for the league minimum.

And I don't think I've insinuated anything about Montgomery being a bad pitcher. I would have said the same thing if they'd have gotten substantially better or substantially worse than Montgomery. The point wasn't that Montgomery is bad, its that he's less useful to the Royals than a 35 FV lottery ticket. Like I said, I hadn't considered them possibly flipping him at a later date, mostly because I hadn't realized that he had two years of arb. remaining, but that has nothing to do with your retort which remains bad.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Montgomery is likely to contribute to the Royals in some capacity, unless he's just completely washed up (certainly possible for a 30 year old pitcher). A 35 FV prospect is basically organizational filler.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Maldonado = Asset. Asset = Value. His value was certainly limited, but I was questioning the idea of trading an asset for current value in lieu of future value. Others have pointed out that the Royals idea could be to build up his value so he could be traded for something more substantial later. That may or may not be a good strategy that I didn't consider. That does not mean that your point wasn't stupid. The idea of trading even a milkshake for someone just to keep your prospects down and eat innings is ridiculous when you're one of the worst teams in the league and there are several arms available for the league minimum.

And I don't think I've insinuated anything about Montgomery being a bad pitcher. I would have said the same thing if they'd have gotten substantially better or substantially worse than Montgomery. The point wasn't that Montgomery is bad, its that he's less useful to the Royals than a 35 FV lottery ticket. Like I said, I hadn't considered them possibly flipping him at a later date, mostly because I hadn't realized that he had two years of arb. remaining, but that has nothing to do with your retort which remains bad.
Click to expand...

Montgomery had 1.5 WAR last year and MM had 1.7...this is a pretty inconsequential deal?
 
Super said:
Montgomery had 1.5 WAR last year and MM had 1.7...this is a pretty inconsequential deal?
Click to expand...

Maldanado is a backup catcher who signed as a FA for 2.5m. That's the epitome of an inconsequential player.

I don't think it's especially unlikely they could flip Montgomery for a 35+ down the road.
 
Southcack77 said:
Maldanado is a backup catcher who signed as a FA for 2.5m. That's the epitome of an inconsequential player.

I don't think it's especially unlikely they could flip Montgomery for a 35+ down the road.
Click to expand...

yeah i don't think either team made any kind of mistake here lol
 
Super said:
yeah i don't think either team made any kind of mistake here lol
Click to expand...

The mistake was someone suggesting KC acquired MM to eat innings.

KC clearly thinks they can increase his value and get more than whatever Maldo could have gotten them. Decent idea even if they can't pull it off.
 
Enscheff said:
The mistake was someone suggesting KC acquired MM to eat innings.

KC clearly thinks they can increase his value and get more than whatever Maldo could have gotten them. Decent idea even if they can't pull it off.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize how lopsided his reverse splits were this season (and how terrible he's pitched overall). Splits are pretty even for his career. Curious to see if he figures into any deadline discussions. Wouldn't be a totally wrong-headed move by a contender to have Montgomery as the last guy in the bullpen. I just don't know what anyone would give up for him.
 
Carp said:
I disagree. Montgomery is likely to contribute to the Royals in some capacity, unless he's just completely washed up (certainly possible for a 30 year old pitcher). A 35 FV prospect is basically organizational filler.
Click to expand...

Montgomery is almost certainly going to contribute to the Royals, but who cares? The Royals are going to be awful for the next 2.5 years. Like I said, I can see the argument that Montgomery could rebuild value and be flipped, but if the Royals idea was to trade for him and keep him for 2.5 years, then its a really dumb deal albeit relatively inconsequential, and the Royals would have been far better off getting the 35 FV prospect. At least that player would have a chance at being a contributor at some point on a contending team.
 
Super said:
Montgomery had 1.5 WAR last year and MM had 1.7...this is a pretty inconsequential deal?
Click to expand...

As I said in the post above, my initial post was made without the knowledge that Montgomery still had two years of arb left. For some reason I had assumed that this was his walk year. Him having 2.5 years of control makes a lot more sense since it gives the Royals time to make another move for future value.

But I don't think any deal is inconsequential in a rebuild. I think you need to search for value as often as you can. I would have been just as perplexed if the Braves had traded Dario Alvarez and Lucas Harrell for Tom Wilhelmsen or somebody like that instead of Travis Demeritte.
 
Southcack77 said:
Maldanado is a backup catcher who signed as a FA for 2.5m. That's the epitome of an inconsequential player.

I don't think it's especially unlikely they could flip Montgomery for a 35+ down the road.
Click to expand...

If that is their plan, then it makes some sense.

Once again, my first post was made with the assumption that Montgomery was entering free agency after this season. I still think that they could have gotten some lottery ticket from the Cubs for Maldonado, but 2.5 years of Montgomery might be a better idea.
 
BeanieAntics said:
As I said in the post above, my initial post was made without the knowledge that Montgomery still had two years of arb left. For some reason I had assumed that this was his walk year. Him having 2.5 years of control makes a lot more sense since it gives the Royals time to make another move for future value.

But I don't think any deal is inconsequential in a rebuild. I think you need to search for value as often as you can. I would have been just as perplexed if the Braves had traded Dario Alvarez and Lucas Harrell for Tom Wilhelmsen or somebody like that instead of Travis Demeritte.
Click to expand...

it's extremely unlikely either of them will return anything that ends up being real value. both teams seem to have an idea. overall yeah it's pretty inconsequential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top