Then there was the practical results. Tejada played an adequate shortstop, hit .283 with a pedestrian 13 homers and 66 RBIs -- often from the No. 3 spot in the lineup in front of Lance Berkman and Carlos Lee.
Outfielder Luke Scott, one of the throw-ins in the deal, hit .257 with 23 homers and 65 RBIs for the Orioles. In addition, the Astros gave up two of their best pitching prospects -- Matt Albers and Troy Patton. Patton was injured in the spring and did not pitch. Albers was 3-3 with a 3.49 ERA, which would have ranked fourth on the Astros' staff.
Tejada trade will haunt Astros for years
Yes it will. MacPhail's in ur r0ster, fleecin' ur d00ds.
about 1 year ago
zknower
125 comments
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I guess we're even for Glenn Davis now?
"This world extends way beyond this little field of dreams we're dancing in and I want to see that world"
by exitfare on Nov 24, 2008 2:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not until 3 of the dudes we got make the All Star team
"Whether your name is Gehrig or Ripken, DiMaggio or Robinson, or that of some youngster who picks up his bat or puts on his glove, you are challenged by the game of baseball to do your very best day in and day out. That's all I've ever tried to do."
by spike2131 on Nov 24, 2008 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t say Luke Scott was a throw in.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Nov 24, 2008 4:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Is Miggi a FA this year or next year?
[Guthrie's] president of my heart. ~PhilR8
by Stacey on Nov 24, 2008 9:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
nevermind I just read the article
[Guthrie's] president of my heart. ~PhilR8
by Stacey on Nov 24, 2008 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently...
…the Old Navy in White Marsh runs out of fleeces every time MacPhail comes in. That’s how strong his fleece factor is.
by Jonny Pops on Nov 24, 2008 11:38 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Albers was 3-3 with a 3.49 ERA, which would have ranked fourth on the Astros’ staff.
He threw 49 innings. Honestly if you read over that paragraph — one guy that got hurt and didn’t do anything, another guy that threw 49 innings and got hurt, and Luke Scott’s competent season starting — this, uh, isn’t really a “fleecing.” We win, but it’s not the ridiculous one-sided trade it’s made out to be. We’ve got two bum arms and an OK left fielder.
"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum
by SC on Nov 24, 2008 12:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I have to be honest...
I am not a big Luke Scott fan. Yeah he is ok, but there is just something about him. I feel like Nolan Reimold deserves a shot in LF next year. He has a much higher ceiling offensively, and from seeing him play in person at Bowie would be a significant upgrade on defense. If Nolan isn’t ready after Spring Training, then dare I say even trying Lou Montanez in LF. Luke is too streaky at the plate and leaves much to be desired in LF.
by sickuvitall on Nov 24, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
does he?
reimold and scott look to have fairly comparable, raw minor league numbers, though maybe reimold appears slightly more advanced at this age than scott did. hard to say w/o adjusting leagues.
i tend to think that scott IS pretty much reimold’s upside and i’m totally cool w/ that.
"When people ask me what my motivation is, I have a simple answer: Money."
--Jerry Reed, on acting
by j.q. higgins on Nov 24, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I too am not a big fan.
Really slow in the OF and on the bases. Can’t hit LHP. Mediocre (at best) OBP, too many K, not enough RBI, and crazy christian.
I’d like to see Reimold at least against LHP.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really slow in the OF.
Luke had a great year in the field. According to Bill James’s website, he was the fourth best LF in the MLs using the plus/minus system (+12).
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't change the fact that he looks slow as shit chasing balls in the gap.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But he tracked down and caught a lot balls out of a LFer’s typical range (i think that’s the traditional interpretation of +/- system, not sure though). I don’t know how he does it, he’s not fast as you point out. I guess he just gets really good jumps to make up for his speed.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have a hard time believing that.
I’m sure there’s some complicated statistics involved in creating that measure, but after watching 75% of the games this year I just don’t think that’s an accurate assessment of him. Maybe if you were comparing him to Bonds or something.
Exotic stats are nice and all, but when they clash violently with what you see on a day-to-day basis I tend to trust my eyes. He’s slow as shit in the OF and does not get to a lot of balls that I think should be caught or cut off.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m a little leary of defensive stats as well, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Luke take a steep dive next season. But they’re sitll an objective metric however flawed. Even if my eyes tell me one thing, I at least put some trust and merit in defensive stats.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure...like fielding percentage and assists for outfielders.
But I’ve yet to see something that I really trust that tries to account for range.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
see hardballtimes' zone rating.
Luke made 37 out of zone catches. Again, that puts Luke near the top in the AL among LFers. And +/- system is more sophisticated than fielding percentage.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Out of zone doesn't take into account positioning right? It's just based on a grid of the field.
Pretty worthless if you ask me.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not sure,
I believe it is based on a grid fo the field which is why RS OF have a hard time achieving out of zone plays due to the weird zone breakouts of Fenway Park. Like any metric, it probably has its flaws. For me, just because it’s flawed, i wouldn’t be dismissive towards it. It’s just flawed, not useless.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well but if it ignores player positioning then it seems like a fatal flaw.
The whole point of a stat like that is to illustrate a player’s range in getting to balls. If a player is well positioned and thus doesn’t have to run far to catch a ball, but the statistical measure still counts that play as an “out of zone” catch then it is a worthless statistic.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but I imagine there’s some consistency in how fielders place themselves. in other words, each LF in AL doesn’t position in wildly different spots in LF. Again, I’m not saying it’s a perfect measure, but I don’t think it’s fatally flawed.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That plus the fact that they are saying he has good range
certainly renders it suspect at best for me. I’ll choose to disregard it.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
more ramblings
The rating could be influenced probably influenced by scouting reports. Maybe Luke positioned himself well because he wrote in his little black book where guys tend to hit balls. But every LF probably has access to scouting reports which would elminate this effect. In looking at the other leaders though, the validity of the measure is strengthened if you want to go by the ole, I’ll use my eyes type of approach. Crawford is certainly fast. Young and Quentin are quite young as well and probably have some speed. Based on multiple metrics (Dial also ranks Scott highly as well). I would say Scott is somewhere between decent to good defender in LF, For WHATEVER reason (he positions himself, he makes excellent jumps to compensate for his lack of speed, he’s sneaky fast), Scott gets the job in LF.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Luke is ok in LF, but...
Nolan has a GUN! Not to mention, I think he would handily beat Luke in a foot race. You have to give him a look, Luke Scott is not the future.
by sickuvitall on Nov 24, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
quentin is laughably slow
isn’t he? he’s a big dude.
by pipkin on Nov 24, 2008 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All Lfers are responsible for defending the same zone.
RZR is the percentage of balls hit into that zone that the LFer turned into an out.
OOZ is the number of plays out of that zone that each LFer made.
You need to look at both numbers to get a full picture – Luke ranked near the bottom in RZR and near the top in OOZ, so it’s a muddled picture.
Also, simple fielding stats like zone rating need a huge sample size to be useful, so a year’s worth of data isn’t worth much in isolation. Two LFers may have had a similar number of balls hit into their zone, but we don’t know anything about how hard the ball was hit, where in the zone it was hit, or what the trajectory was.
We have several seasons of data on Scott, and most of the metrics indicate that he’s an above-average fielder. His on-the-field value is pretty similar to Tejada, but he’s cheap, under control for 4 more years, and doesn’t come with Tejada’s baggage.
The Tejada-for-Scott trade was a steal, and if any of the other 4 pan out, it will be looked back on as the same level of ripoff as the Bedard trade, IMO.
by dkdc on Nov 24, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thanks, very helpful.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I admit
I didn’t read all of the comments but on the positioning thing…I liked when Don Baylor was in COL and came to the realization that if a ball got over his OFs head it was going to be a triple anyway in the thin air and all that…so he just had them play abnormally shallow to make the plays that usually dropped in front of him. It doesn’t seem that smart but it’s different!
Also, Luke Scott makes plays b/c he’s packing heat and the ball knows that if it drops ti WILL be dealt with!
Always trust your cape. -Guy Clark
by BPinOK on Nov 24, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Adam Jones does that now
As the season progresses, he played shallower and shallower in CF as he realized just how much ground he could cover going back. He basically played to the limit of his range – as far in as he could play and still get to a ball hit hard.
Duck Around - a progressive blog about the Eastern Shore of Maryland. And getting off my lawn.
by duck on Nov 24, 2008 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We’ve got two bum arms and an OK left fielder.
Don’t forget about Sarfate.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, if you phrase it like THAT...
I prefer to think of it as
We got relatively the same offensive numbers for pennies on the dollar and team control for 4 more years from a corner OF (Scott), PLUS a righty BP arm that paid off nicely for 2+ months (Albers) and may yet come back PLUS a righty BP arm that we know know shouldn’t start but can be useful in the right spots (Sarfate) PLUS a MiL lefty with a decent upside whose rehab is going well (Patton) PLUS one more warm body (Costanzo).
I mean, using your phrasing, we’d be complaining about the miracle of the loaves and fish because dessert and napkins weren’t included.
Duck Around - a progressive blog about the Eastern Shore of Maryland. And getting off my lawn.
by duck on Nov 24, 2008 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Sure, if you phrase it like THAT...
I really wasn’t trying to imply anything with my phrasing. Sarfate was part of the Tejada deal.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My reply
probably belonged under the comment you were replying to, rather than under yours. Sorry.
Duck Around - a progressive blog about the Eastern Shore of Maryland. And getting off my lawn.
by duck on Nov 25, 2008 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not exactly fair to evaluate the trade based on Albers’ injury. Stuff happens, he was still a good pickup. Hopefully he recovers.
And as mentioned before, you’ve got to account for Sarfate, who is a solid young bullpen guy (that should never be asked to start again)
by math_geek on Nov 24, 2008 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Technically, we received Costanzo as well but he sucks. The O’s exposed him to the Rule V draft so he might be gone soon.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You cannot look at a trade
In retrospect the way you are. I think that it’s fine to look back and see who got the better haul, but you can’t take Albers injuring his arm in August (?) and fault MacPhail for that. Andy successfully identified Albers as a nice arm in the bullpen, and unfortunately the guy got hurt. I don’t think that Albers’ condition was preexisting, so the addition of a live arm like that was a steal. MacPhail was also able to pry away from Houston Scott and Sarfate, the former being a decent solution in left and the latter an interesting project. Those three players alone would have been a nice return for Tejada, not in retrospect, but with all things considered at the time of the trade.
Patton is the only player whom I can directly fault MacPhail for picking up. If I remember correctly, Patton’s injury is not the type that just suddenly appears due to a clean break or tear. Rather, his labrum was consistently worn down due to wear and tear – something that would have been picked up in a pre-trade physical. My thinking is that MacPhail genuinely believed that Patton could overcome the injury and that the guy had the talent to make an big league impact irrespective of his problem. Although I can find fault our GM for picking up a guy that he knew suffered major shoulder problems, Patton was a great prospect, and if it turns out that guys can now effectively come back from that injury, I’ll give Andy all the credit in the world.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Nov 25, 2008 5:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh come on...
…their summary is as overly positive as yours is overly negative.
We took a big old salary dump on a player that was lying about his age and in midst of consistent decline and actually got serviceable, real deal Major League players in return. That is a considerable win on a trade.
by Jonny Pops on Nov 25, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
Just did a quick look at hitting stats and Tejada and Scott look like a pretty good trade even-up. If either Patton or Albers come back (and who knows about that) we get a lot of upside potential
"Killing a Yankee fan -- is that illegal in this state?" -- Homicide Life on the Street
by BirdFanLA on Nov 24, 2008 1:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Easy to analyze now
from a player standpoint Luke Scott is a serviceable Of.
The key from the Orioles perspective is if Sarfate (he needs to find a cutter and then the strikezone), Patton and or Albers ever pitch for the organization again. But just moving Tejada in terms of the Mitchell report, salary and getting anything was one of two great trades by AM last offseason. If the pitchers perform it looks spectacular.
Now because of Tejada, the Astros may have to trade Valverde their closer. How the guy can say Albers or Patten could be part of a Peavy deal is ridiculous. They are both hurt. If the team struggles in 2009 might Berkman, Carlos Lee (salary at 18.5 in 2009) or even Roy Oswalt go on the market. I can see the Yankees lining up for a chance at that in July.
We havent talked much but Andy Macphail has basically walked on water since he got here. Signed Wieters, traded Tejada and Bedard and Brian Matusz looks like the real deal.
So what have you done for me lately….
by sanders833 on Nov 24, 2008 1:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
is this trade really a win?
Scott – 30 y/o league average LF on bad team (makes up for Tejada’s production)
Sarfate – in bullpen all year because he’s out of options, makes Cabrera look like Maddux
Albers – injured pitching prospect
Patton – injured pitching prospect
Costanza – not covered on 40 man, may not be picked in rule 5
For the future of this team, does this trade really matter? My answer is no, and thusly I don’t consider any great shakes.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 2:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ummm
If you say Scott makes up for Tejada’s production then that alone makes it a win considering the salary dump, avoidance of PR problems, and not having to watch Miggy pack it in come August every year. Also even if they were annoying to watch Sarfate and Albers ate a lot of innings that would have been filled by worse guys otherwise. If any one of the 3 (Sarfate, Albers, Patton) makes anything meaningful out of their careers in Baltimore, or is useful in another trade, then it is an absolute steal. 5-1 trades with salary dumps where you don’t lose production and get 4 prospects are pretty f-ing rare.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well since 2008 and 2009 don’t really matter, than I think a “win” has to be defined by any long term production. I don’t care about salary relief, as I’m not too concerned about making Angelos wealthier. If that money was redirected towards acquiring young talent, great. But I didn’t see that we signed anybody out of “Latin America” or “Asia.”
Re: the pitchers…yeah, I just don’t think they are anything special. Sarfate is a middle reliever with control problems. And we have two injured pitchers. Obviously I hope they will have meaningful roles on the next good Oriole team, but I found those odds pretty long. Consequently I don’t see how this can be considered a win at all.
I don’t get the “5-1” rationale either. The Astros could’ve thrown in you and me to make it a “7-1” but that doesn’t mean the trade is any better. And getting 4 prospects is nice, but if none of them are worthwhile then I don’t see the point.
I hope my pessimism is unwarranted. I just remain unconvinced that it’s unwarranted.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
haha "The astros could have thrown in you and me to make it a 7-1"
I was going to respond with a serious post until I saw that absolutely absurd statement. Get serious. They gave us 5 players 30 or under. 3 of them played in the major leagues this year and 1 more had success in the minor leagues and is very young. I don’t know what there is about the 5-1 nature of the trade that you “don’t get”.
And as far as dumping salary goes – would it have been better to have paid Tejada his salary last year and finished with the same exact record? Nobody even remotely intelligent would say yes to that question. Saving salary in 2008 and 2009 will theoretically allow us to go after free agents, sign draft picks, and lock up long term investments. Saying you don’t care about salary relief is pretty ignorant.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
um, sure
We’ll agree to disagree. the 7-1 comment was for comedic affect. If the players aren’t going to help you win the in the long term then what’s the point? And again, salary dumping for a team that didn’t reuse the money elsewhere. What’s the point of that other than making the owner wealthier? “Theoretically” we could sign a big free agent. “Theoretically” Angelina might call me tonite. But I shouldn’t plan on it.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dumping salary now has a very real impact on long term success.
As I said it enables the team to sign draft picks (Weiters), go after free agents (Texeira), and lock up long term investments (Markakis). All three of those things 100% help the team win in the future.
And of the 5 players we got for Tejada, they don’t even necessarily have to contribute at the major league level to help us win in the long term. Luke Scott replaced Tejada’s production in the lineup for a fraction of the cost while allowing players like Reimold another year of development. Albers and Sefarte ate some innings while showing flashes of effectiveness. Sarfate has serious potential – either as a late inning guy for the O’s or as trade bate. If Albers comes back he’s an innings eater who could help us long term or could be traded. Patton is young and a prospect. These aren’t throw-away guys. You’re making it seem like they gave us 5 non-drafted free agents who were occupying roster spots on their single A team.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: dumping salaries…trading Tejada freed up $26 M or so. How has that been used to improve the team? The Orioles are not a small market team, we should be signing top draft picks regardless. We have an advantage over KC, Pittsburgh and other small markets. Having finally used it to sign Wieters is great, but we should’ve been using it the whole time rather than passing on top talent.
So Luke Scott prevented the Orioles from hastily calling up Reimold? If that’s the case than that means that MacPhail doesn’t know how to do his job, imo. A guy like Jay Payton can play to avoid rushing prospects. Trading a valuable trading chip to avoid rushing a prospect is a poor use of resources imo.
Albers has shown flashes of effectiveness. No argument. But he’s injured and his playing days may be over.
Sarfate was essentially a waiver claim (Astros claimed him from the Brewers in 07).
Patton is young and a prospect. So is Liz, Olson, Penn, Berken etc. That doesn’t mean that they are good prospects. We knew that Patton had a bum shoulder when we acquired him.
In the end the Orioles made two mistakes in the Tejada deal: going for quantity over quality and not bundling cash to get a better package. Obviously I don’t know what was out there, but if that’s the best package, well I guess you take it. But I would think that trying to get two decent prospects for Tejada and half his salary (or all of it) would’ve been the better route if the goal is making us competitive in the long term.
It’s not these guys are garbage. Not at all. But in the long term, will this trade have any more impact than what we received for Steve Trachsel?
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Umm the trade was last year - there has only been one draft since then to use it on.
So I really have no idea how else you would have liked them to have been “using it the whole time rather than passing on top talent.” Was there some second draft in August that I didn’t know about where we passed on some incredible players because we didn’t want to spend the money?
Luke Scott is way better than Jay Payton and didn’t cost any more money (remember the whole 5-1 thing??) so that’s an upgrade.
haha and YES FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST they will have a lot more impact than Steve Trachsel. Getting Steve Trachsel didn’t save us $26 MILLION DOLLARS. This is an absolutely absurd argument. Stocking the organization with 3 additional arms while saving $26 million dollars and getting an everyday left fielder who hit 23 HRs is a ridiculous return for getting rid of a whiney, past-his-prime player. Also having those 3 extra arms allows you to consider trading some of the other ones you mentioned while they are still “prospects” for maybe better prospects. There is not a single downside to the deal that I can think of and all of your arguments thus far have been absurd and tinged with a long-term distrust and frustration with the organization which is well earned, but you still have to be able to objectively look at this deal and realize that it was a good move for the long-term health of the organization.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
alright
It’s obvious to me that we see this trade completely different. Fortunately we’re both entitled to our opinion. So I’m clear, to recap:
Re: saving money…you say this is great because we can use it for other things. I say it shouldn’t matter because we’re not a poor team and should be spending money anyway.
Re: Scott…you say it’s great having a 30 y/o LF who will be a free agent after next year. I say it doesn’t matter because we won’t be good anyway any times soon. You say that his presence enables us to not rush Reimold. I say that any good GM can find some shit ass player to do the same thing (i.e., like Jay Payton).
Re: Sarfate…you hold out hope that he’ll be able to throw strikes consistently. I think he’s on the Orioles because he’s out of options. He reminds me a lot of like Chad Pennington. I hope I’m wrong.
Re: downside deal…sure I guess there’s no downside unless of course we could’ve gotten a better package. You know, maybe if threw in cash or weren’t focused on adding “depth.” I’ll take quality over quantity every time. But that’s just me.
You can call my views absurd, but that doesn’t make them so. Calling this deal a fleecing is a very liberal use of the term. Calling it a win is a lot much too. But hey, I’m not concerned about Angelos’ bank account. I’m not going to see any of that money.
I want this deal to be a great deal. I want to believe that MacPhail will lead us to relevance. But objectively I don’t see what the point is in the long run primarily due to the injury concerns of the two best players in the package (Patton and Albers).
When the Orioles are good again (hopefully 2011), I would be shocked if anyone from either the Trachsel deal or the Tejada deal will have a meaningful role on the team. I hope I’m wrong, but I fail to see any evidence to prevent me from coming to that conclusion.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FYI
Scott won’t be eligible for free agency until after the next presidential election.
by dkdc on Nov 24, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lol next year - 4 years from now - what's the difference????
Also stop comparing him to Jay Payton!! They aren’t even close to being in the same league!
Regarding salary – have you ever heard of rebuilding? Rich team or poor team you don’t just spend wildly on free agents. You restock the organization with youth while cutting salary which is exactly what that trade did. It’s really just common sense that you seem to have trouble grasping.
Sarfate to Chad Pennington?? Huh?? wow.
You can theorize all you want about possible deals we missed out on with imaginary all-stars included, but the bottom line is we sold high and his value only went down afterward.
As far as a fleecing I never called it that. I just disagreed with your questioning of whether the trade was a “win”.
And again, and I know this is complicated, but even if none of these 5 guys are contributing players on the team in 2011 that doesn’t even remotely negate the benefits of this trade. They could be pieces in future trades, allow other pieces of the team to be traded, and enable spending that wouldn’t have been practical with Tejada’s salary on the books. Even though we’re “not a poor team” you still like to have budgetary flexibility which is what dumping Tejada’s salary does. In case you haven’t noticed CY isn’t sold out every game any more…
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OMG!
I thought Luke Scott was arb eligible in 2008 and thus a free agent after 2010! Gawd I’m totally stupid!!!
Oh, and I mixed up Chad Pennington with Brad Pennington! Gosh, I’m such a maroon!
Re: Luke Scott/Jay Payton…I’m not comparing him to Jay Payton…you raised that point that Scott is a bridge to Reimold…Jay Payton could do the same thing. I wouldn’t trade one of my few good players for a bridge to a prospect. THat’s a poor use of resources in my book.
Believe me I’ve advocating rebuilding for a long time…and it’s why I want good prospects rather than injured ones. Silly me, I guess.
Re: selling high…selling high would’ve meant traded Tejada at least a year before we did.
Re: future trades…so you want to trade an allstar for a guy who might help us in trade for something else. But hey, I don’t like kool-aid. Or hey, maybe we’ll get the next Chad Bradford out of the trade. Awesome.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
haha get angry.
Yeah Jay Payton could have done the same thing except while sucking way worse! That would definitely have made the team better today, tomorrow, and 5 years from now. lol. It’s not a fucking use of resources when he’s not making any money and you just dumped 26 Million!
Just because you want good prospects doesn’t mean you automatically get them for an aging complainer who was in the Mitchell report.
Regarding future trades – YES I WANT TO TRADE AN OLD MEDIOCRE ALL-STAR FOR GUYS WHO MIGHT HELP US IN THE FUTURE!!!!! THAT’S REBUILDING!!
You so silly.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
help rebuilding
yup, 30+ outfielders go along to help rebuilding. You’re totally right about that…
And again, $26M dollars that could’ve spent to improve the team instead hasn’t been spent at all. And that helps us how?
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
haha!
A 30 year old outfielder who you have contractual control of for 4 years who hits 23 HRs compared to Jay Payton – yes that’s rebuilding!
Again I’ll ask if there was some 2nd draft in August that I wasn’t aware of when they should have been spending that $26 M???? Maybe I’m confused.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're not confused, nor funny
The Orioles didn’t spend $26M dollars on I don’t know, international prospects, maybe.
We both know there’s not a draft in August. But whatevs, yo.
Did I call Payton rebuilding? No. Trading one of your best players for a bridge to a prospect is a poor use of resources when someone fringy player like Payton can do the same.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So they should have spent millions of dollars just to talk to Japanese prospects?
Do you see a lot of other teams doing that between the trade and now???
And again Scott is not just a bridge to a prospect. He completely filled in for the production of “one of our best players” without all the drama and quit, for a fraction of the cost. That is an excellent use of resources. Holding onto “one of our best players” who was about to be outed as a steroid user and liar, who magically aged 3 years, and who’s production has been tailing for 4 years while waiting for some magical imaginary trade proposal that will never come is a poor use of resources.
You are delusional.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
delusional
whatevs, yo. Keep drinkin the kool-aid. Luke Scott is a lot Frank Robinson! And he’s not a bridge…here are your words:
Luke Scott replaced Tejada’s production in the lineup for a fraction of the cost while allowing players like Reimold another year of development
Yeah, I can’t think of any rebuilding team that could use a Japanese player. Fortunately the Orioles don’t have long term holes at first, second, third or short.
The Tejada trade should’ve been about the long term success, not a stop gap. (I like Luke Scott, but if he’s the best part of the deal that’s pretty telling.)
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ummm
In the sentence that you cut and pasted – where did I say that he’s Frank Robinson? We got the same production for a fraction of the cost while allowing our minor leaguers to develop – that is rebuilding you tard!
Akinori Iwamura was on the Rays in 2007…when Tejada was still an Oriole. Also he is mediocre at best. I would not want them wasting a penny on a player that bats leadoff and puts up a 279 average with twice as many K as BB, only 20 steals over 2 years, and only hits 13 hrs.
And for the 10th time, the trade 100% did make the O’s better in the long term – you’re just not smart enough to understand it since you don’t care about silly little things like dumping enormous amounts of salary, adding prospects, getting the same level of production for a fraction of the cost,etc. It’s tough to argue with a person who isn’t reasonable.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wow
you’re just not smart enough to understand….It’s tough to argue with a person who isn’t reasonable
Excellent debate skills…
re: iwamura…do you think he or luke scott had a better warp3 in 2008?
Actually don’t answer, but feel free to resume with the juvenile insults. Do what you do well in life, right?
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can't we all just get along?
Duck Around - a progressive blog about the Eastern Shore of Maryland. And getting off my lawn.
by duck on Nov 24, 2008 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When people refuse to acknowledge reason there's not a whole lot else to do.
Your arguments don’t make any sense. I could care less what Iwamura’s warp3 was – he is not good and would not have any impact on making the O’s a better team so it would not make even a little bit of sense to sign somebody like him for a few million dollars a year (not counting the money you have to put up just to negotiate with a Japanese player).
I did not once compare him to Luke Scott either so not sure where the idea of comparing the two of their warp stats came from.
Any other ideas??
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
against my better judgment, to continue this thread
A few things:
Re: Iwamura…you called him worthless, I pointed out that he posted a better WARP3 than Luke Scott. So either Scott is worthless or Iwamura isn’t. The Orioles are not in the position to turn down free talent. You can discard WARP3 or any other statistics that don’t jive with your opinion, that’s your opinion. Conversely, maybe I’m not “smart enough” to understand why WARP3 isn’t relevant here.
Re: refusal to acknowledge reason…dude, do you get that while you believe I’m not being “reasonable” it’s entirely possible that you are not being reasonable? In fact, it’s got nothing to do with reason, these are opinions nothing more, nothing less. You can believe that the Tejada trade was a win. Sure, go ahead, hopefully you’ll be proven right. I disagree because I have no reason to have even a modicum of faith in the injured pitchers. And Scott will be a declining player before leaving for free agency.
Re: tone…you used the word “tard,” which is way over the line imo.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
warp3 is great, but look at their actual production
Iwamura has hit 280 over 2 years, K’d twice as many times as he’s walked, put up a mediocre at best OBP, stole a total of 20 bases, and hit a total of 13 hrs. That is not good no matter how you look at it and not worth even a few million dollars a year. And again you have to pay to even negotiate with a player from Japan. So like I said that would not have been an intelligent use of the $26 million that they saved by trading Tejada. Scott on the other hand required zero investment since he was part of a net gain in the Tejada trade. While his numbers aren’t incredible I think they are better than Iwamura’s and required no additional spending.
I referred to you as unreasonable because you refuse to see any advantage in dumping $26 M in salary along with a whiney mediocre player who’s getting worse by the day. That is unreasonable.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 25, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As it pertains to the $26M dollars:
I really don’t care that the Orioles saved $26M over two years. The Orioles payroll was reduced I believe $20M in 08 from 07. Did we take the savings and reinvest in the minors? No. In fact we spent less in the 08 draft than the 07 draft, primarily because Wieters signed for more than Matusz. Is it possible the Orioles have some grand plan to use that money? Yes. And maybe that money is in that shared facility in the Dominican. But every team has a facility in Dominican. And every team spends money in the draft. Even the low budge Royals have been spending handsomely in the draft. In the big scheme of things, $26M doesn’t make a difference to me, especially since the Orioles routinely piss money away on shit ass players. It seems to me that the Orioles benefitted from the $26M, not the fans of the Orioles. So it’s not that there is no advantage to saving $26 M, it’s just that I don’t see how it helps the team improve. Or at least I haven’t yet. I think this prolly comes down to you having more faith in MacPhail than I do. I hope I’m wrong, like I said. So, I refuse to see any advantage to saving the money as a fan of this fucking team not as a general rule of thumb. In fact, in an effort to make amends, I will gladly take $26M from you.
Re: Japan…not every player has a posting fee. IIRC Iwamura had a posting fee, but it was negligible (well, “negligible” is a relative term compared to Dice-K). I am not saying that we should blindly invest in Japan. But to ignore like we did until MacPhail got here in ridiculous. And if we had to pick between the SS equivalent of Iwamura and the roving band of hitless wonders that we played in 08, I’d prefer the mystery guy from Japan everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 25, 2008 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So your problem is that rebuilding takes time.
You wanted to see them go out and throw money at every free agent last year and every foreign player available? That’s not an intelligent way to spend money (see Orioles recent ventures into free agency with signings of Javy Lopez, Palmeiro and Tejada). Rebuilding takes time and impatient fans like you are going to have problems with it. People who understand baseball understand that dumping salary while rebuilding (while at the same time not losing an ounce of production and gaining organizational depth) is a step firmly in the right direction. People who don’t should stick to watching baseball tonight.
And again I really don’t understand your point about Iwamura. Was there some “SS equivalent” of him that the O’s chose not to sign???? I think you’re throwing out imaginary situations again…
by O'sFan21 on Nov 25, 2008 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oh well whatever nevermind
The problem is not rebuilding takes time. Nor do I believe I we should throw money at every free agent. Holy leaping logic batman!
There’s little point in continuing this thread if you are going to draw false conclusions. And that’s OK.
Cheerio!
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 25, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Leaping logic?
What else does “WHY HAVEN’T THEY IMMEDIATELY SPENT ALL OF THAT $26 MILLION IN SAVINGS FROM THE TEJADA TRADE YET?” mean?
haha thanks for giving up because I was starting to feel a little bad about arguing with you. It’s obviously not a fair fight.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 25, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Juvenile insults = tactic resorted by people who can’t debate. But if you want to believe you “won” you go right ahead. You are going to anyway…
I’d ask you why you are editing quotes but I think I know the answer already.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 25, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah definitely don't respond...
to the fact that you were complaining about them not spending the money yet…
by O'sFan21 on Nov 25, 2008 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to get between you two love birds...
… but isn’t calling Tejeda an All-Star talent stretching the facts?
In the past maybe, but I believe his all-star days are long gone.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 25, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But - but - but -
He made the All-Star team this year!
You know…just like Jason Varitek.
by Brotz13 on Nov 26, 2008 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is...
I only seeing the O’s doing 1 of the 3 things you just said salary dumps allow them to do.
You, me, and everyone else in the English-speaking world knows Texeira won’t end up here. And to quote 6 Star Wars movies, when it comes to signing Markakis, “I have a bad feeling about this.”
Duck Around - a progressive blog about the Eastern Shore of Maryland. And getting off my lawn.
by duck on Nov 24, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate this
How am I supposed to know what you’re responding to? I’m probably just missing something, though.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Nov 24, 2008 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hit "up" on his post
and it will show the post he’s responding to.
by zknower on Nov 25, 2008 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The more you know....
Duck Around - a progressive blog about the Eastern Shore of Maryland. And getting off my lawn.
by duck on Nov 25, 2008 9:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So that's what that button is for.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 25, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also why is Latin America and Asia in quotes??
Is that like McCain putting quotes around “women’s health” to indicate that he doesn’t believe in the validity of the phrase? Do you not believe in Asia or Latin America??
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely believe in those places...
…it was more to drive the point home that the Orioles pay nothing more than lip service to the rest of the world nay Aruba. It’s annoying that our team essentially ignored Latin America and Asia for years.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and not having to watch Miggy pack it in come August every year .
Totally agree.
It’s not just that we no longer have to watch Miggy pout…it’s more than that. Luuuuuuke actually brings some positive energy to the team and it’s fanbase. In other words, it’s not just that the fans don’t hate Tejada’s replacement—they actually dig him. And I think he digs them, too, whereas Miggy clearly gave not a shit about the fans.
by zknower on Nov 24, 2008 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OMG, its, not it's. I NEVER do that.
by zknower on Nov 24, 2008 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh. I totally judged you, too.
[Guthrie's] president of my heart. ~PhilR8
by Stacey on Nov 24, 2008 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Disregarding Patton and Albers as injured pitching prospects is foolish.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Nov 24, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I will have to agree...
Albers has some nasty stuff and Patton still deserves a look. They are at least young enough to have a chance to recover, definitely cant discard them already.
by sickuvitall on Nov 24, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus there's the simple fact that...
WE GOT ALL OF THEM IN EXCHANGE FOR AN AGING, EXPENSIVE, MITCHELL REPORT ASSHOLE!
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
who lied about his age
and complained one week, and then the following week claimed that he meant the opposite. but his wife is hot.
"This world extends way beyond this little field of dreams we're dancing in and I want to see that world"
by exitfare on Nov 24, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
I see Albers as a potential seventh inning guy, which is very valuable, and Patton reaching his current ceiling as a 3/4 starter.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Nov 24, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe
I like what I saw out of Albers last year, but his injury could be bad news of course. Or he could recover from it and be a contributor.
As for Patton, I could be totally underselling him. With the labrum tears, I have to see them come back before I believe it.
There are a lot of “ifs” in this package, ’specially compared to the Santana/Aybar package that was allegedly offered some time ago.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Although labrum injuries are serious business
They’re not nearly as bad as they were just five years ago. We’re now seeing guys, like Patton, coming back at near full strength and ready to go. Although Albers still has a long path to travel, the success of Patton gives me hope.
Irrespective of what we got back, however, dumping 32 year old Tejada and his contract was a great move for this franchise. We had a HUGE hole in left when Tejada was dealt, filled by Scott, and the front office figured that one of Bynum/Hernandez/Fahey would at least be able to do something.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Nov 24, 2008 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see Albers as a potential seventh inning guy, which is very valuable, and Patton reaching his current ceiling as a 3/4 starter.
Albers and Patton will probably come back with diminished stuff. I’m seeing one good reliever coming out between these two.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
Patton had the ability to be a #2 before the injury, and now I’ve demoted him to a possible #4.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Nov 24, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
was he number #2?
I thought he was projected to be a middle to back guy before the injury. I’m probably misremembering though. Sickels said he was projected to be back end guy AT BEST in his latest projection. I imagine one of them won’t pan out due to reinjury. If we could get a one back end of rotation guy between Patton and Albers, that’s great. My shooting for one good reliever though.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Patton was the number a top two prospect in the Houston system
And I believe Sickels had him at a B+ or an A-. I don’t think Patton was projected to be a back end guy before the labrum injury was announced. He was somewhat similar to Tillman in that he wasn’t necessarily seen as an ace, but not a back end guy either.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Nov 24, 2008 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We all need to relax
I think moving Tejada simply was a trade to save money (it should be moved forward to the next year’s budget to pursue 2009 free agents, invest in prospects, amateur draft picks (such as a Jake Arrietta type draft pick ) or retain players like Brian Roberts if that works out or organizational bling (like the new video system that all the hitters loved)
The other thing is it provided some organzational depth with Sarfate and Scott. If we get anything from Albers and Patton, its just gravy. I still have my fingers crossed on Patton as his bloodline was good so if the injury didnt rob him to much he should be able to help pretty quickly. Tejada would have been such a distraction to this team and he a tremendous second half falloff. Of course, we traded him a year late but lets not get into all that.
RE Luke Scott, I find it hard to believe he was that good of an outfielder. He seemed like he “fought balls” in the OF and was slow. As a baserunner, slow and no instincts on the basepaths. And he slumped dramatically from August on. Am I really to far off saying he was a little less then Jay Gibbons in Jay’s best years.
I more or less see him platooning with Luis Montanez in either left or DH. He probably has more value for a team that needs a positional lefty and is fighting for a playoff spot. Reminds me a little of say Eric HInske. Maybe Tampa Bay would have interest in him for a pitcher (Edwin Jackson or Jeff Neimann?).
by sanders833 on Nov 24, 2008 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with most of what you said
except for the idea that TB would give up Jackson or Neimann for him…don’t get me wrong I would love that, but it seems like a real real stretch.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE Luke Scott, I find it hard to believe he was that good of an outfielder. He seemed like he "fought balls" in the OF and was slow. As a baserunner, slow and no instincts on the basepaths.
I was surprised too, but objective evidence is what it is. And I almost always trust objective evidence over impressionistic evidence (e.g., what my own eyes tell me). He may not be fast, but he’s a good fielder (possibly because he takes excellents routes).
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 24, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah like I said earlier I think it's a statistical anomoly.
Stats, especially strange ones that nobody really understands even after they are explained, are only so useful.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 24, 2008 11:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
especially strange ones that nobody really understands even after they are explained,
See DKDC’s post. It’s pretty easy to understand. Like I said before, it’s not a perfect measure but I don’t see any reasons to dismiss it.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 25, 2008 12:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And like DKDC said - it's a mixed bag on Scott.
Going with the fact that it’s a mixed bag statistically (only vaguely reliable stats at that since they don’t take into account positioning and really don’t tell the story of the balls out of the zone that he DOESN’T get) and the fact that I watched him play a lot of games these season I’m sticking with my assessment that he’s a mediocre LF.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 25, 2008 12:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, it's mixed bag
with the data that the hardballtimes presents. It’s nice to bring in other measures as well such as the ones I mentioned above (+/- system). In any case, we pretty much agree, you think he’s an average defender, I would say somewhere between average and very good given all available evidence (stats combined with eyeballing it).
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 25, 2008 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The fact you don't understand them...
… doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t.
If you prefer what your eyes tell you over statistics, that’s fine. A lot of folks do. It’s still possible that a majority of baseball people do. But that also doesn’t mean that statistics don’t mean anything. In fact, a lot of GM’s in the NBA are trying to get statistical tools in place directly as a result of how effective they have proven to be in MLB.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 25, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My point was that they were flawed.
And because they are flawed, when they conflict with what you see with your own eyes on a day-to-day basis for an entire season (of watching the guy loaf after balls in the outfield), I am inclined to disregard them.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 25, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I think Tim's and my point...
is that every metric is flawed but I wouldn’t be dimissive just because they’re flawed. They still tell you something valuable.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 25, 2008 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And like I said - when the flaw seems fatal (a stat accounting for catches outside of a zone that doesn't account for positioning sure seems fatal)...
and the stat goes against what you see with your own eyes, then the stat doesn’t seem all that accurate or useful.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 25, 2008 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, like I said, I imagine there’s some consistency in how fielders place themselves. in other words, each LF in AL doesn’t position in wildly different spots in LF so this issue doesn’t seem like a huge problem. But hey, whatever, if you think it’s a fatal flaw, cool.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
by birdman on Nov 25, 2008 9:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By the same definition...
… individual observations may also be fatally flawed. You are making the assumption that you are both a qualified and unbiased observer. Even if unbiased, there is still the qualified aspect. The assumption with profession scouts is that they have the experience to judge talent and are trained observers knowing what to look for. But even scouts can be biased.
For example, in baseball there is a bias towards tall pitchers. Scouts almost drool over big, powerful pitchers who can throw “down” on the hitters. They tend to overlook guys under 6 ft. Yet as Tim Lineicum showed this year, you don’t have to be tall to be good.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 26, 2008 9:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think there's much qualification required to judge
how a person runs after flyballs…I’ve never had a problem with it in the past. From playing against David Wright, Cudduyer, and the Upton brother in high school, to playing division one baseball in college, I think I can tell when somebody covers ground well in the outfield.
by O'sFan21 on Nov 26, 2008 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How come you aren't helping out the O's
by filling the hole at 1st base or in the rotation?
btw – I wasn’t speaking to your individual qualifications. Just the point about using statistics verses subjective observation. There are drawbacks to both.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 26, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very true about stats.
And while I might be able to throw more strikes than some (most??) of our current starters, 84-85 probably wouldn’t miss too many bats…
by O'sFan21 on Nov 26, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to see Montanez nowhere near the team
"This world extends way beyond this little field of dreams we're dancing in and I want to see that world"
by exitfare on Nov 24, 2008 8:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what pipkin said
"This world extends way beyond this little field of dreams we're dancing in and I want to see that world"
by exitfare on Nov 25, 2008 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Montanez has the worst arm
I have seen but he can hit but with questionable power. Lets see if he can win a spot as a platoon partner but I dont think he will ever be a capable major league defender.
If Luke was a good OF why did I see Jay Payton out there most innings late? Plus, I will trust my eyes on this one.
I suspect the only way Tampa Bay moves Edwin Jackson is if they have a budget constraint or they get an offer that really works for them. Maybe the secret plan was to plant Chad Bradford’s contract on them.
My sense is they will move him, Jackson had a LOT of five inning wins and he had a noticable loss of strikeouts. The Cardinals board wants to move Ludwick for Sonny and Zobrist and the Mets board talk of Church for Jackson. Tampa should have plenty of offers. I throw out Huff (if the O’s eat salary) and Scott as just trying to find matches.
by sanders833 on Nov 25, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
we'll see...
But now both are Cish type prospects. Hurrah!
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 24, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a Portland Trailblazer fan and we have a GM (Kevin Pritchard) ...
… that is young, hardworking and so far, seems to be incrediably smart. Just about every deal or move he’s made has turned out to be a gem. They’ve even created a term to describe his deals – “Pritch slapped”.
Hopefully Andy keeps it up and we start talking about how he “McPhail wailed” some poor GM on another team.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 25, 2008 3:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Shit
I’m just happy we seem to be going somewhere. At least now trades and moves are debatable as opposed to a collective “WTF?!?!” every time the front office did something. I trust Andy completely.
"When they get drafted by the Baltimore Ravens, we expect them to play like that. Are we surprised? No."
by UMBC Oriole fan on Dec 1, 2008 3:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Camden Chat
Related FanShots on Camden Chat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Desert Drive: When the routine reveals itself to be anything but
- Rickey Henderson's 80-steal projection doesn't faze Rajai Davis
- Spring Snapshot: A's crossing fingers for comprehensive health
- Answer Man: Troy Tulowitzki talks brackets, Dirtbags and mullets
- Toyota sign proposal in Wrigley Field's bleachers in need of recall
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
