ptbnl???
by patientoriolesfan on Nov 6, 2008 10:29 PM EST
Email
PrintI doubt that the player that we will get back from the Bradford trade will be a proven commodity, but does anybody have an idea of who it may be? I don't know too much about the Rays farm system but I do know that it is adverised as one of the best. I figure that the trade for Bradford had to have been more than just a total salary dump. He wasn't incredibly expensive and I feel like Andy is slick enough to pull a nice little prospect out of that deal. Also, who has an idea of when we may find out?
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I can pretty much guarantee
That it’s not going to be a “nice little prospect,” at least not top 10/15 in our system. Andy has said numerous times that he has had to downplay the deal countless times. It’s probably going to be a kid at low A ball who has a mediocre ceiling and probably won’t pan out. We needed the room in our bullpen with so many arms next year, and it’s a decent salary dump.
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
He is probably trying to lower the expectations
of the people who are delusionally thinking it may be a blue chipper but he could still pull something that would get a lot of fans excited. I’ve been lowering the expectations of myself all my life to come out smelling like roses when I really only did what I knew I was going to in the first place. It works, and I’m telling you that he seams like the kind of guy to use this approach.
Also, maybe the ptbnl deal was based on Bradford’s performance, and if I recall, he did very well when he shed the 20 pound Orioles jersey. Don’t these deals sometimes work like this…
…if your guy pitches well, then we’ll talk about someone from an agreed upon group of good players. If he pitches like shit then you can pick a player destined to play AAAA ball off of the scap heap.
by patientoriolesfan on Nov 7, 2008 8:49 AM EST up reply actions
i think you are correct
and it’s a decent salary dump
Still though this is entirely bullshit considering we cut our payroll $25 MM from the previous season. If Angelos gave MacPhail a directive to run this team like we are a small market then the future is as gloomy as the recent past.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Nov 7, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
PTBNL
MacPhail commented on the PTBNL in today’s Sun.
MacPhail had discussions with Tampa Bay Rays general manager Andrew Friedman about the player to be named in August’s Chad Bradford trade but said that no decision had been reached. “Expectations shouldn’t be high,” MacPhail said.
Also in that link above, Baez as a starter? Are you kidding me? He sucks in limited duty. Why would he be better with more innings?
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
It might be nice to get Jon Garland
but chances are we’ll end up with Judy Garland (AKA Danys Baez)
"This world extends way beyond this little field of dreams we're dancing in and I want to see that world"
Don't sign Garland at all!
He’s not very good. Not very good at all. Why does this team need another backend of the rotation guy? Just put Cabrera in the 5 slot if you’re looking for crap.
the five slot has four slots on this team is the problem
Garland will give you innings. And he’s better than Cabrera.
"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum
by Scott Christ on Nov 7, 2008 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
If hes good enough for the Angels, hes good enough for us.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
My point was
and I didn’t articulate it quite so well, that giving Garland the kind of contract he’ll eventually get will be foolhardy. Based on news reports, extension talks with the Angels during the season suggested he wanted to be paid like a #3 or #2 pitcher when he clearly is not. I don’t disagree with the idea of picking up a free agent or two and using them to plug holes in the rotation, but paying a guy like Garland on a 4-year deal seems like it might backfire more then signing Paul Byrd to a 1- or 2-year deal.
This is not to say that I think the Orioles shouldn’t go after a guy like A.J. Burnett. Someone like that sits at the top of the rotation and would continue to do so after the youth movement makes it to the big leagues.
Eh, I don't really mind
In the end, we’re just killing time until Matusz/Arrieta/Tillman are ready, so why not use Baez instead of wasting money on Garland/Burnett.
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
Because Baez isn’t going to give you 200 innings and he’ll kill the bullpen. He also sucks.
"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum
true dat
but i would gave that a chance than waste money on a mid-tier free agent. if Baez sucks, and let’s face it, he will suck in the rotation, you just insert another Chris Waters type of pitcher until Arrieta, Matusz, and Tillman are ready.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
right, but...
what if one or more blows their arm out? finds jesus? gets hit by a truck? ain’t nothing wrong w/ having dudes that can perform NOW.
"When people ask me what my motivation is, I have a simple answer: Money."
--Jerry Reed, on acting
Then you just stick another one in
As birdman said, we have a TON of spare arms. It doesn’t sound pretty, but between Liz/Olson/Tillman/Matusz/Arietta/Erbe/Britton/Spoone/Guthrie/Patton, we don’t need additional old guys taking up spots.
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
Tillman, Matusz and Arrieta are not 2009 options. Count them out. Erbe is also too young and they won’t mess with him by bringing him up. Count him out. Spoone is a fringe prospect at best right now. Hayden Penn will see another Camden Yards start before these guys do, at least for ’09.
There is no problem with having a genuine innings-eating free agent like Jon Garland on the team. Believe it or not, he’s not blocking anyone, and “rebuilding” doesn’t mean you stop trying to field a team that won’t embarrass you. The young A’s teams had guys like Cory Lidle and the ‘91 Braves had Charlie Leibrandt, y’know? The Twins of the “Moneyball” vintage had Rick Reed and Kenny Rogers. These aren’t exact replica cases or anything, but one of the most absolutely frustrating and mind-numbing things to watch about the 2008 Orioles was their starting pitching, which was not just horrible but went beyond unstable.
Guthrie, Cabrera, Olson, Burres, Loewen, Liz, Waters, Trachsel, Cormier, Albers, Bass, Simon, Sarfate — I’d kind of like to trim that list by a couple. My problem has nothing to do with age; it has a lot to do with whether or not there is more than one guy on that list (there isn’t) or the potential 2009 list as we have it now (there really isn’t) you can count on to give you a competitive five innings. “Rebuilding” is not as simple as “let’s play the kids!” and the Baltimore Orioles are also not so short on money that they can’t easily afford a Jon Garland semi-luxury, or someone else like him if Garland’s reputation drives his price up any, which I have a feeling it will not.
birdman says that “replacement level players are in large supply,” and I agree with this, but I don’t really think it’s as simple in practice as both of us might like. These guys don’t literally fall off of trees, and the last ten years of Orioles Magic should prove that.
If we simply look at VORP, Garland’s 7.6 would have made him (easily, mind you) the O’s second-best starter in 2008. I’m not saying we should aspire to having a Guthrie-Garland front end of the rotation for years to come, or to really call them a 1-2 punch in ’09 if we had them all. A pitching staff cannot be run like ours was last year. Injuries happen, and you try young guys, but at some point these innings have to be pitched. A two-year Jon Garland deal is different than a two-year Jay Payton deal. For one thing Garland is still performing at an acceptable, competent level, while Payton had stopped all that foolishness by the time we got him. For another thing I think that front office signed Jay Payton because they felt he was a good player. I want to sign Jon Garland simply because he knows his ass from a hole in the ground.
The damnedest thing about this is we will not sign Jon Garland.
The other concern I would suppose is probably haunting my mind is that this team, our O’s, has so long been excited about the wrong prospects that even though I know Wieters, Matusz, Tillman and Arrieta have more pedigree and/or genuine talent than we’re used to seeing from “Orioles top prospects,” I still get scared we’re looking at three Matt Rileys and a Keith Reed. I know we’re not, but damn it’s hard to forget.
Anyway, Garland would not be priority #1 for me, but someone that lessens the “Bertsville High School is fielding its first-ever football team! Come try out!” feel of the upcoming spring training rotation auditions would put me a little more at ease.
"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum
by Scott Christ on Nov 8, 2008 6:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Although I don’t know for sure that we won’t sign Jon Garland. I mean, no FA signing is a gimme, as there are always other teams interested. But is unless Garland wants to go to the NL or something, the Orioles are as good a fit as any.
Fans deserve better than to watch their team’s 2-5 pitchers get shelled for 6 ER in 3 innings every other game. It’s just not fun.
Tillman, Matusz and Arrieta are not 2009 options.
I’m fine with that.
There is no problem with having a genuine innings-eating free agent like Jon Garland on the team. Believe it or not, he’s not blocking anyone, and "rebuilding" doesn’t mean you stop trying to field a team that won’t embarrass you.
A team with Garland will STILL BE EMBARASSING.
birdman says that "replacement level players are in large supply," and I agree with this, but I don’t really think it’s as simple in practice as both of us might like. These guys don’t literally fall off of trees, and the last ten years of Orioles Magic should prove that.
Replacement level players do fall off trees… and they typically aren’t very good, thus they prove Orioles Magic in the last ten years. Sometimes these replacement level players do ok for limited stretch like Chris Waters, Jose Mercedes, and Dave Borkowski. Sometimes you find actual useable player like Rodrigo Lopez. Yes, the bullpen will be used more than you would like with replacement level players but that’s not the end of the world. I would rather do that, sacrifice the 3-4 wins, get the better draft pick, and invest the saved money into the farm system.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
A team with Garland will STILL BE EMBARASSING.
As long as we didn’t sign him for too much money, I could watch a game with Garland pitching.
Replacement level players do fall off trees… and they typically aren’t very good, thus they prove Orioles Magic in the last ten years. Sometimes these replacement level players do ok for limited stretch like Chris Waters, Jose Mercedes, and Dave Borkowski. Sometimes you find actual useable player like Rodrigo Lopez. Yes, the bullpen will be used more than you would like with replacement level players but that’s not the end of the world. I would rather do that, sacrifice the 3-4 wins, get the better draft pick, and invest the saved money into the farm system.
This team has really stuggled to find replacement level pitching this past year. And the cost of just putting it on the Bullpen, is that some of those arms you kind of want to keep healthy so that we have them when the Orioles are actually good (Jimmy Johnson, Sarfate)
As long as we didn’t sign him for too much money, I could watch a game with Garland pitching.
True dat, but as Billy Beane said, “You’re either rebuilding for something special, or you’re on the verge of something special. To be in between is foolish.” Signing Garland is a classic in between move. I would rather see Garland pitch a game in 09 over some replacement level player too but I would also rather make short term sacrifices for the long term good.
This team has really stuggled to find replacement level pitching this past year.
I don’t know about that…. the team has struggled to find decent pitching this year and every year. Replacement level pitching is what it is (i.e. sucky).
And the cost of just putting it on the Bullpen, is that some of those arms you kind of want to keep healthy so that we have them when the Orioles are actually good (Jimmy Johnson, Sarfate)
You could still keep JJ healthy by signing some scrub over Garland.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
It’s also not like we’re talking about blowing the big money on Garland. If we signed him to some 40 mil contract I’d be pissed. It’s not like I feel we have to get him.
It’s also essentially an investment. If the team is getting shelled on a regular basis, fans aren’t going to show up. Attendance was awful last year. Improving the quality of the team at a low cost increases attendance and TV viewership, which is important.
It’s not like signing Garland would be the end of the rebuilding process, it’s more like a painkiller during surgery.
It’s also not like we’re talking about blowing the big money on Garland. If we signed him to some 40 mil contract I’d be pissed. It’s not like I feel we have to get him.
Carlos Silva got something like 4 years, 40 million. Garland will get AT LEAST that. So yes, we are talking about blowing a lot money on Garland.
Zartan says, "Sign Dan Johnson."
Well if someone as stupid as Bill Bavasi
bids that much on Jon Garland, they can have him. I was figuring that after Carlos Silva, people would be more reasonable.
I can't see him getting less than 35...
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
A great post
But I still disagree. I guess you could consider me radical, but I couldn’t care less how this team performs in 2009; even with Garland/Burnett we would still stink, so why not invest the money internationally, in the draft and on securing our own players. Instead of going out to get Tex, how about we make sure Markakis doesn’t walk in the near future?
We have quite a few arms we could throw out there to buy time, most of them shitty, but pitchers nonetheless. Cabrera, Waters, Cormier, Albers, Bass, Olson, Liz, Sarfate, Mickolio, Baez, Penn – and those are just potential starters. By ST 2010, we’ll have Tillman, Matusz, Arrieta, Erbe, Hernandez, Patton, Bergesen, and Spoone (maybe) all vying for spots. I realize that injuries will take some of these guys off the board, but with the draft and other trades, we are going to have even more arms at our disposal. My conclusion is that if we do sign Burnett AND Garland, they would, in fact, end up blocking some guys, and we don’t have any room in the bullpen either. If you’re advocating bringing in only one of them then I’m lost, because I don’t see the sense in signing a single pitcher for 50/60+ when he’d have no impact on this team. Holding down a single spot in the rotation wouldn’t go a long way.
I’m not necessarily bashing you for wanting to add a single arm in Garland, I just don’t buy into this idea of getting middle of the rotation guys like Burnett for 4/60 and Garland for 4+ years. Is it really a wonder why the Red Sox are good every year now? Obviously they pay their big leaguers, but Boston is investing big time in the draft and is stockpiling talent in their farm; I believe the Sox were first or second this year in amount of money spent on the draft. If the warehouse hadn’t been willing to shell out first round money for a fifth rounder, we wouldn’t be talking about Jake Arrieta right now.
It’s nice to say that we could do both, but the reality is that we simply wouldn’t. If we went out this offseason and binged on Burnett/Garland, got into a bidding war over Tex, and settled for Furcal, there’d be no way front office would then sufficiently fund our international program and/or the draft. We don’t have the money to go out and get studs like Sabathia who’d be here for years to come, so we work ourselves up over injury prone, middle of the road, twilight pitchers who’d cheat us out of our money. I’ll buy the idea that we can rebuild with a decent major league team when I see it, because right now, I have absolutely no reason to believe it would happen.
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 8, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But I still disagree. I guess you could consider me radical, but I couldn’t care less how this team performs in 2009; even with Garland/Burnett we would still stink
It’s fine to not care what the team does in 2009, but they can’t throw out another team that is hopeless to watch and expect people to come to the park, which does matter. I also think you’d be surprised at how much less stinking this team would have done this year with Garland and Burnett in the rotation alongside Guthrie, but if your point is that that is neither here nor there, I can feel that, yo. 68-93 is the same as 77-84, so big whoop. I’m also trying to consider how the front office might be feeling, and if they’ve maybe taken a big step back on both Olson and Liz.
Look, nobody, rebuilding or not, wants to go into spring training with four open rotation spots to be divided up amongst the riff-raff. It sounds workable and maybe even fun for us, but it’s undoubtedly a fuckin’ nightmare for the coaching staff and the team.
"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum
by Scott Christ on Nov 11, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
Concern
Garland I think made about 11 million last year. Which means a Ted Lilly type contract (4 years/11 million) for a guy with a 4.90 era pitching primarily in the weakest division in the AL West.
He might not eat as many innings as you think and you know what he has a lot of innings on his arm at this point in his career.
I would rather sign B Looper to a two year deal at 6 million per year just to eat innings or offer two year incentive type contracts to B Colon, C Pavano, M Mulder, Mark Prior, B Penny, Pedro Martinez.
I would rather pursue Tex this year and then add a AJ Burnett type when the team appears ready to compete.
Garland I think made about 11 million last year. Which means a Ted Lilly type contract (4 years/11 million) for a guy with a 4.90 era pitching primarily in the weakest division in the AL West.
When he was signed to that big contract, he was coming off an incredible season for the Chicago White Sox, where he finished 6th in Cy Young voting. He’s not going to make that kind of money this year.
As for the “weakest division in the AL” business, that’s a completely deceptive statement. The Texas Rangers are a bad team, but I can’t imagine the privilege of getting to face them on a regular basis was all that beneficial to his ERA. Oakland and Seattle, were admittedly awful on offense. Still, league average ERA for Garland was 4.44. So he was only 0.46 below average. Like I said, not a great pitcher, but still better than most of the ones we have.
Braden Looper wouldn’t be terrible, but he’s 33 years old instead of 29, and pitched for the Cardinals, which means that he gets the benifits of Yadier Molina and Dave Duncan. How many pitchers have been signed out of the Cardinals only to be so much worse?
The army of random “potential” pitchers are fine, but do we really want to stake all of our hope on guys like Carl Pavano and Mark Mulder?
Hopes
Hopes for 2009 is to lay the foundation for better things in the future (when the minor leaguers hopefully arrive).
B Looper should be a cheaper alternative to signing Garland who I truly believe will get the Ted Lilly contract I discussed. Moreover, Garland has worked over 190 innings a year the last seven years. He is an old 29 in terms of innings and it really doesnt instill confidence that he had a terrible year heading into free agency.
I am just trying to sign as many innings eaters without locking myself into foolish or more importantly budget limiting future contracts when the hopes can turn into reality.
We can agree to disagree and if the market for Garland is more in the 24 mil for three years then I could live with it. But I suspect it wont be.
PTBNL
So let me get this right. People honestly feel that letting an aging player like Bradford go hurts us if we receive nothing more than a high upside lower A ball 19 year old? There are a few things to look at in this scenario.
1.) The Orioles would save about $1.3 Million dollars by dealing Bradford before the 08 trade deadline and another $3.5 Million dollars for the 09 season. That is a $5 Million dollar savings!
2.) Where did Bradford really fit in our bullpen? I would say as a situational right hander. $5 Million dollars over a season and a third is a lot for that type of pitcher.
3.) Bradford may have got us a sanwhich pick between the 2nd and 3rd round, so about the 100th overall pick, 2 drafts from now. Keep in mind that we would have to offer him arbitration and he would have to decline. If he has a below average year in 09, he might just accept the offer to stay an Oriole.
4.) We have so many of those fringe starter types that we will need roster spots for them along with Chris Ray and Danny Baez who should return next year. Let’s say the Orioles are going to carry 12-13 pitchers next year, who would they carry.
Starters:
Guthrie
Cabrera
Olson
Free Agent Starter
Free Agent Starter
Bullpen:
Liz
Ray
Sherrill
Johnson
Albers
Baez
Walker
Sarfate
Baez and Walker are both due a lot of money this year, something like $7.5 Million between the two of them. The rest of the bullpen is a bargain considering the high upside of the arms. Liz, Johnson, Ray, and Sherrill all have closer stuff although I like Sherrill better as a left handed setup man. Either way where does Bradford come in? We would have to eat the contracts of Baez or Walker to keep Bradford. That now becomes a $8-9 Million swing.
5.) The Orioles are not going to contend in 2009 and contention in 2010 is unlikely. 2011 is a much better span for putting the team into contention for the long hall.
For those of you who think the Orioles have no money should get a grip. Freeing up money is much differant than having no money. Even the Red Sox and Yankees make these types of moves. As far as payroll goes the Orioles ranked 2nd in 1996 and 1997, 1st in 1998, 5th in 1999 before falling to 12th in 2000. The O’s have money, expect a budget in the $100-$120 Million range in the next 2 years. $100 Milion would be top 10, $120 Million would be top 5. This team will spend money, but being foolish with it is careless.
Josh
Bradford
I welcomed the Bradford move as I agreed he had lost effectiveness and most likely his focus. He picked it up in Tampa but in the playoffs most times he was afraid to “pitch” to important batters. Saving the money was fine and I think Kam Macklio and his 6 9 crossfire can fill the same role as Bradford.
I also agree with Josh. This team used to have one of the top payrolls in baseball. The city is just salivating to support this team. Put a winning product on the field and the fans will come. They also have MASN now. After 2009 every multi year contract that still exists will be gone (pending new deals or free agents).
The Orioles are not Tampa Bay. If they put a good product on the field the O’s will draw 3 million and with MASN can afford 100 million plus payroll. Since we screwed up most of our draft picks for the last decade we need to use intelligent free agent signings to reverse some of that draft failure. Not all of it but some. Pursuing Mark Tiexiera, no matter how futile, is the one foundation player, face of the franchise player, that makes sense. He fits right into the foundation for the length of the contract.
The O’s should open with a 7 year deal to Tex for 21.5. If the Yanks want to trump it fine. But put it out there like you want him and will go the extra. Dont start off with five, then six then seven. Make him the priority and dont be afraid if you overpay slightly. Also dont be afraid to walk away once you played your cards. Considering Tex is one option only to get closer to competing. Its not the only way. Dont go 8-10 years at 25. We dont need no stinking ARod deal. I would however go to 23 a year for seven. You want to sign not only the best free agent but a franchise face player you have to walk the walk. Now not a Tom Hicks walk but maybe one just above the market. Until the Orioles restablish themselves they might have to make that one bold move to let everyone know they are back. Similiar to when the Tigers signed Magglio Ordonez and everyone said that looks nice. So what. Add it to a foundation though and it makes sense a year or two later.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
