hockeyfan1
New member
P Zach Godley from the Arizona Diamondbacks comes to the Jays via waivers.
[tweet]1159192619454480386[/tweet]
[tweet]1159192619454480386[/tweet]
Jays Roster Discussion
- Thread starter Deebo
- Start date
Highlander
Well-known member
Glavis is gone, for squat, another brilliant get nothing for something move by the Blue Jays brass.
Frank E
Active member
Joe S. said:
I feel like I don't understand something about baseball assets and trading, because he certainly looked to be worth something more than nothing to me.
Perhaps someone can let us know why he was waived, besides the fact they needed the at bats and room for the kids.
Kin
Active member
Frank E said:
Probably not. They probably thought it was a good idea to keep him around to play the rest of the year if Bichette struggled and needed more time in the minors. Once Bichette established that he's going to be able to play in the majors then the reality was with Biggio at 2nd and Vlad at 3rd that Galvis was probably going to be on the bench for 90% of the remaining games. This way he gets to keep playing.
The market for Galvis at the deadline would have been pretty lethargic regardless. He's on a one year deal so he'd only have been of interest to contenders and off the top of my head most if not all of the contenders have a better SS than Galvis. Galvis isn't a good enough hitter to have a ton of value as a DH/PH type so he'd almost certainly have been seen as a backup infielder/injury insurance so even if you'd wanted to deal him at the deadline and risked not having a major league SS for August and September the return is probably a C or D level prospect.
Andy007
Well-known member
Struggling to get to a .300 OBP, horrible BB:K rate, $5 million price tag and he turns 30 this year. Players like this can be signed in the offseason pretty cheaply and easily; that's just the weird new economic landscape that has developed the past few years in the MLB. And Cincinnati didn't have anywhere near the first pick either, meaning a whole bunch of teams declined to pick up even a free Galvis.
Captain Canuck
Member
Poor asset management (again)!
Surely we could have got something for Galvis at the deadline instead of just losing him on waivers!!!
We are talking about a guy who is leading the team in hits, runs, doubles, RBIs...you can't tell me he is worth NOTHING!
Andy, "struggling to get a .300 OBP" describes 2/3 of the fricken team...sorry I don't buy the downplay of Galvis.
At this rate Jays management better hope every single pitching prospect they have pans out because they are giving away assets for pennies on the dollar and in this case for free.
Surely we could have got something for Galvis at the deadline instead of just losing him on waivers!!!
We are talking about a guy who is leading the team in hits, runs, doubles, RBIs...you can't tell me he is worth NOTHING!
Andy, "struggling to get a .300 OBP" describes 2/3 of the fricken team...sorry I don't buy the downplay of Galvis.
At this rate Jays management better hope every single pitching prospect they have pans out because they are giving away assets for pennies on the dollar and in this case for free.
Kin
Active member
Andy said:
I think that's a little unfair to Galvis. He's having a pretty good offensive year by WAR. Problem is that value is only meaningful if he's playing every day and there just weren't opportunities for that. Here are the contending teams and their SS's:
New York: Torres/Grigorious
Boston: Bogaerts
Tampa: Adames
Cleveland: Lindor
Minnesota: Polanco
Houston: Correa
Oakland: Siemian
Atlanta: Swanson
Washington: Turner
Mets: Rosario
Phillies: Segura
Cubs: Baez
St. Louis: DeJong
Milwaukee: Arcia
Los Angeles: Seager
With the exception of Arcia, I don't think there's anyone there I'd take at-bats away from to give to Galvis. Backup infielders just aren't worth that much.
Andy007
Well-known member
Captain Canuck said:Poor asset management (again)!
Surely we could have got something for Galvis at the deadline instead of just losing him on waivers!!!
We are talking about a guy who is leading the team in hits, runs, doubles, RBIs...you can't tell me he is worth NOTHING!
Andy, "struggling to get a .300 OBP" describes 2/3 of the fricken team...sorry I don't buy the downplay of Galvis.
At this rate Jays management better hope every single pitching prospect they have pans out because they are giving away assets for pennies on the dollar and in this case for free.
19 teams, until Cincinnati, decided not to pick up Galvis for free. Welcome to the current landscape of MLB baseball. He's a 30 yo super utility infielder who has never cracked a .700 OPS. Heck, he had a WAR over 2 last year and still only got a one-year guaranteed deal. I'm not saying he sucks, I'm saying this is the new reality. Guys like him just don't have a lot of value now.
Frank E
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Sounds like you're working for the Jays. "We timed it perfectly."
Seems like a pretty good pickup for the Reds. Good for them, I guess. Just seems as though the Jays are giving away plenty of serviceable assets for peanuts, and it's starting to feel like the Coyotes here.
Kin
Active member
Frank E said:
I don't think you have to be in the Jays employ to have watched the last two weeks of games and not thought that they screwed up Bichette's development somehow.
Frank E said:
So I've made the case that there's a reason why the market for him would be marginal, Deebo quotes a Jays reporter reporting that the market for him was marginal but we're still back at somehow the Jays didn't get a meaningful prospect for him because...they're not smart enough? They don't care enough about winning?
Frank E
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
But I'm not talking about screwing up Bichette's development, am I? I'm talking about calling him up about 2 weeks earlier to get a better determination of his abilities before the trade-deadline.
Nik the Trik said:
I was reading Shi Davidi's article this morning...Atkins quoted:
?But it?s a matter of what other teams are willing to do. They were transparent about that at the deadline and there wasn?t a deal we were comfortable doing.?
The deals weren't much good, I'm convinced, but I bet it was better than the zero that they got from the Reds.
I'm just sort of spitballing here, with a little bit of evidence, that I'm not really convinced that Atkins is much of a talent sniffer, nor a savvy deal maker.