Poll: Does anyone NOT want this team to be "sellers"?
by daveh873 on Jul 15, 2008 5:13 PM EDT
44 comments
I just read SC's fron page story, and at the end he wrote how he wanted to make clear that he thinks the "chase for .500" is stupid. Now, I am fully on board with him. I'd be nice to not have a losing season, but who really cares? I, for one, rather get some prospects for whatever tradable talent we have. I think the rest of you feel this way too, but I need to be sure. Does anyone here REALLY think this team having a winning season this year is worth holding onto Huff, B-Rob, Sherill, Etc..? I don't want to sell anyone for less then they're worth, (and if we really could get more for them after the season then during, fine) but I dont think thats really the situation here, at least not with Huff and Roberts. So what say ye?
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
0 recs |
44 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Sure
I’d love .500, but I’d rather have a future
"We might as well just win this game." -Adam Jones
by exitfare on Jul 15, 2008 6:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Do it Andy!
Please, Andy, don’t try to top out at 86 wins next year. Let’s get what we can for Huff/Millar/Payton/BadChadBrad and Ramon.
Would anyone really notice a differene if Quiznos started in Ramon’s place? Maybe a few less passed balls?
by Bee the Ball on Jul 15, 2008 8:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Trade Huff NOW!!!!
He will never be this hot again.
Geaux Eaux's
by NawlinsOriole on Jul 16, 2008 2:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I love Huff
I love that he’s found his stroke, and that he seems to be genuinely having a good time here in Baltimore, with these players, for the first time since he landed here.
That said – I would like him to be seriously shopped and traded if it means a better ballclub for the future.
by PhilR8 on Jul 16, 2008 8:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Who's the monkey what voted for .500?
Seriously, people, .500 should never be your goal. I want 90+ wins within 3 years, and holding onto KevBo/Aubrey/etc. isn’t going to aid in that process.
I always say follow your dreams...even if they're about a giant spider with your father's head, and he keeps stealing your p*nis!
by Ghost of Floyd Rayford on Jul 16, 2008 8:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just can't see
how any self-respecting O’s fan can disagree with this.
"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby
by duck on Jul 16, 2008 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that was me
I voted for selling whatever made sense if the right deal came up, then I put on my “inner circle” thinking cap and voted the other way.
.500 shows that the team is moving in the right direction. Most immediately, it would quiet all the pesky plebians who only look at the standings and do nothing but gripe. Longer term, we expect all the not so quite prime free agents, but still better than we’ve seen for the past ten years, will sit up and take notice that Baltimore is on the move. That fellow AJ Burnett is going to be a free agent and has ties to the Baltimore area. I think he’d come to a winning franchise that is clearly moving the right direction. Keep the veteran core of Sherrill, Huff, Roberts, Millar, and Cabrera to show we’re serious. Sprinkle in the exciting youngsters Markakis, Jones, Olson, and Liz. Perhaps that fellow Texieria will be enticed to join and push it to the next level.
by drj on Jul 16, 2008 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that sounds good but...
We just dont have the depth to be giving up the draft picks we would lose if we signed those free agents.
The past few weeks should show how frighteningly thin our depth is. By keeping Huff and Sherrill and then turning around and surrendering draft picks we would just make ourselves even thinner than we already are.
by nittany lion on Jul 16, 2008 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bleh on AJ Burnett
No, no, no , no, no. He has an option to renew his contract for 2 years and $24 mill. And he’s good for 2 DL trips a year.
Keep the veteran core of Sherrill, Huff, Roberts, Millar, and Cabrera to show we’re serious.
Serious about what? Finishing 5th? That’s where we’re gonna finish this year, and that group, collectively, won’t be any better next year. We’re gonna finish 5th with them, we certainly can without them.
Roberts? Keep him, he’s still only 30 and there’s no reason to expect a serious drop off in his numbers. Plus, he’s a legit MLB lead-off man, and there aren’t many of those around. Roberts-Jones-Markakis is a 1-2-3 you can build a team around for another 4 years. Jones-Markakis for 10 years.
Mora and Millar aren’t performing NOW – why do we expect them to get better? IF we can get ANYTHING for them – including a dozen ash bats – I’d do it in a second. AND pay part of their contracts if needed. Addition by subtraction, especially with Mora.
Sherrill and Huff will never have more trade value – buy low, sell high, not the other way around.
Cabrera? Man, I want to believe. I do. I’m scared to death of him going somewhere else and doing well. But if a decent deal comes along, he’s certainly not untouchable.
As constituted, this team is, at its BEST, a .500 club. I’d rather Andy make the deals he can to get younger (and cheaper, so we have even MORE FA $$$ to use when needed) and rebuild for the long haul.
"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby
by duck on Jul 16, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can always count on you duck
Or almost always. You and my wife share that trait.
My kid daughter is better at sniffing out BS.
by drj on Jul 16, 2008 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, now I'm thoroughly confused...
were you sarcastic, and just waiting for us to pounce, or do you really believe what you posted? Enlighten a fellow CCer working on 4 hours sleep….
"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby
by duck on Jul 16, 2008 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was sarcastically imagining what might be going on in the tight inner circles of ownership. The ideas expressed are not representative of my thoughts.
by drj on Jul 16, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought so...
but you made such a passionate argument…... :)
"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby
by duck on Jul 16, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roberts
Roberts? Keep him, he’s still only 30 and there’s no reason to expect a serious drop off in his numbers.
See this article on the perils of keeping Brian Roberts.
Trading Brian will be tough, but it’s the right thing to do in my mind.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 16, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It makes the arguments for trading Brian Roberts
that is, he will only be a an average second baseman in 4 years. But there is no argument for trading him for less than he is worth. First and foremost… If we don’t re-sign Roberts we will get two first round picks in 2010 for him. That is some value in and of itself.
Second, there are risks to selling players for less than they are worth, as then everyone will think they can squeeze more out of you, so it could potentially have an impact on your future trades. In general, it’s a dangerous policy, especially since if we don’t trade Roberts now, we can trade him in the winter or next July. And we don’t lose him for nothing, we lose him for 2 first round picks.
by math_geek on Jul 17, 2008 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree/disagree
Agreed on the 2 #1 picks for Roberts. Obviously we shouldn’t give him away. I would take the positional equivalents of Tillman, Arrieta and Erbe for him (B+, B, C). Is that fair or not enough?
Re: MacPhail’s rep…I think the Bedard coup gives him credibility (though the Tejada trade was another matter).
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 17, 2008 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tillman, Arrieta, Erbe are B+, B, C?
certainly not next year they won’t be. Tillman may stay at B+, but I would imagine Arrieta and Erbe would move up. I think those level of prospects would be a very good core for Roberts (MacPhail seems to like throw-ins and five player-packages), but I think we should get two B+ or above prospects for Roberts (although I see Arrieta as being better than a B prospect).
Reputations always have to be cultivated, one or two deals are never going to be enough. And furthermore, if MacPhail appears desperate to deal before the deadline, everyone will be trying to prey on him before the deadline. Andy’s very good at not being too desperate to make a deal.
by math_geek on Jul 17, 2008 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
grading those three
I’m certainly no prospect guru, but my thoughts on these three:
Tillman – age v competition is obviously favorable; conversely his youth just means there is more time for an injury. Also minor concerns about going deeper into games. Considering his age, this is pretty minor.
Arrieta – he certainly is all shiny and new, but I don’t want to discount his less than fantastic junior year of college. Plus he’s in Frederick, which is still far from Baltimore.
Erbe – he’s still young obviously, and he has shown flashes of brilliance, but it seems like he struggles when pitching from the stretch which is something he should be working on now. I don’t see too much progress. It’ll be interesting to follow him in Bowie next year. He could be something great, but he could just as easily flame out due to being inconsistent. Plus he could always get injured. I think he fits the criteria of a “C” prospect under the Sickels definition (given where he is in the minors and his ability to be either awesome or never make it…)
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 18, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ergh
.500 shows that the team is moving in the right direction.
Or any number of teams, for whom finishing 83-79 or, I dunno, 87-75 does not guarantee any of the following:
1. Continued winning
2. Free agents going, “Now there’s a team to sign with!”
3. Any success whatsoever
Not making the playoffs at 83-79 is really the same as not making the playoffs at 67-95. You all go play golf and watch the playoffs on the TV. It’s a bad strategy.
"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum
by SC on Jul 17, 2008 4:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A different question would be what MacPhail will do
I’m enjoying the next two weeks where I can tell myself that MacPhail will do the right thing and trade Roberts, Sherrill and Huff (I can’t imagine we could conjure up more than Adam Stern and Calving Pickering for Millar, Mora, Payton and Ramon combined). I genuinely fear that we won’t complete the rebuild which will in turn undercut the efficacy of the Bedard trade (I’m also getting to the point where I’m accepting that all we really got for Tejada was Scott).
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 16, 2008 5:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
The Tejada trade now looks like a complete and total flop if you ask me. There is still time to salvage the situation, but most of the guys included don’t turn out as you hoped.
Sarfate – Cabrera type guy who is in the bullpen instead of the rotation.
Patton – At least he tore his labrum cleanly?
Costanzo- Looks slightly better than Scott Moore but I wouldn’t project him any higher than the league average at best.
Scott – Nice addition for this year but if we really are going to be true contenders in two years then you can’t see this guy being a major piece of the puzzle.
Matt Albers – Pretty grave injury, looks good when he is playing, though.
The only salvation is that the Bedard trade was a complete and total robbery.
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 Jul 16, 2008 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That being said
I am 100% for selling an aging guy past his prime for five young guys, assuming that they at least have a ceiling.
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 Jul 16, 2008 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But even with all that, its still a good trade
After all, Luke Scott is having a better season than Miggy. Luke is at 114 OPS+, vs Tejada at 95. Plus, Tejada turned out to be a couple years older than we thought.
Also, Dennis Sarfate is a nice asset, even if he doesn’t start.
"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 Jul 16, 2008 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Tejada trade now looks like a complete and total flop if you ask me.
We traded a clearly declining 34-year old shortstop for a solid 30-year old starting outfielder, a guy with dominant stuff in the pen (Sarfate), a potential gap-filler at 3B (Costanzo) and two talented but injured pitchers (Albers and Patton). We gave away a CLEARLY DECLINING 34-YEAR OLD SHORTSTOP who has lost his power (the biggest part of his game, mind you) and…saved money.
You’re right, what a crappy trade.
"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum
by SC on Jul 17, 2008 4:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And did it...
on the day before the Mitchell Report came out AND before he admitted he is two years older than he said he was.
"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby
by duck on Jul 17, 2008 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thank you
you ever get the feeling when EVERYONE is saying something that contradicts whats in your head and you kinda go “wait, what am i missing? am i just clueless?”? measured against the bedard trade, the tejada trade wasnt as good. then again, tejada wasnt the chip bedard was. i like that trade and if we get ANYTHING out of albers/patton in the future, its just icing on the cake.
That being said, yea, its possible we could have had a better trade for tejada, but that doesnt make the one we did have bad.
"I’m sure glad he didn’t try to bunt." - DD on Melmo's game winning double, 6/17
by daveh873 on Jul 17, 2008 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We could have
but what was it? What were the deals that were offered? IIRC, there wasn’t anything better out there, or even close. Sarfate will prove useful, hopefully Albers comes back, and Scott has replaced the power numbers from last year, if not the AVG and OBP. Andy did good. Not great, but good.
"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby
by duck on Jul 17, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fwiw...
tejada’s 2008 VORP thus far is 15.4, luke scott’s 12.8. sarfate and albers also add up to a VORP of 15. so, granted it’s 3 players to 1, but the orioles basically netted the production of two luke scott-types for giving up one aging, juicing malcontent.
foghat goes with everything--birdman, 5/16/08
by j.q. higgins on Jul 17, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
3 players to 1....
Well, we got 5. So I have no problem comparing the relative value of ALL the players we got back – and as you said, we got back basically double in VORP than what we traded. We made a deal for 5 players, not just 1.
"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby
by duck on Jul 17, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes Andy did....
"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby
by duck on Jul 17, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
13 million dollars...
...that is currently sitting in PGA’s bank account doing him good but Oriole fans no good. Was this simply a salary dump?
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 17, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
have you been reading?
We got twice the VORP this season than Tejada has provided.
We got five players, all younger than Tejada, any of which could be playing for longer than Tejada.
A salary dump? Really?
Oh, and we’ve also been revitalizing and expanding our international scouting tools… which happens to cost money.
We signed Matt Wieters with a $5 million dollar signing bonus, and Arrieta with a $1 million dollar bonus in 2007. We may have picked an easier signing this year in Matusz… but it’s sooooo not our fault that Alvarez was taken and we already had a Catcher, making Buster Posey a moot point. Matusz happened to be the best pitcher in the draft.
Angelos, despite his numerous faults, has displayed a willingness to spend money on development and rebuilding.
Calling the Tejada trade a salary dump and suggesting that it’s only purpose was to line Angelos pockets is just ridiculous. There is no evidence for this accusation and significant evidence to the contrary.
by math_geek on Jul 17, 2008 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
vorp comparisons this year...
...are of limited value imo. The Orioles aren’t competing and I see no difference between winning 68 games versus 75 games. I like Luke Scott and Matt Albers. Costanza seemed kind of weak to me, Sarfate was a waiver claim and Patton was known by the front office to be damaged goods. Ultimately my beef is with not trading Tejada long before he was dealt, but simply because Tejada was named in the Mitchell report and is two years older than he reported doesn’t make me feel better. The problem was at the time, not post hoc analysis. Again, I don’t care about 2008 performance…trading Tejada was allegedly for the long term.
Wieters was signed before the Tejada trade, so trading Tejada should’ve had no bearing on signing Wieters.
So yeah, Angelos cut payroll twenty million dollars. And we have an academy in the dominican (yeah, we’re just like twenty nine other teams!) and now have “revitalized” international scouting. Who needs actions when you got words? Until proven otherwise, these are steps in the right direction, but nothing tangible has come yet. I’m optimistic, but I’m also pretty sure PGA hasn’t spent a lot of money. And him not spending money on international free agents, not taking on dumb contracts to get prospects or not attaching cash to veterans is evidence of a salary dump (i.e., we’re not a small market team, why wasn’t Tejada packaged with half his remaining salary and instead of Costanza we received JR Towles or something?) is in my mind evidence of him not using all the tools at his disposal.
Believing that MacPhail is going to right the ship isn’t evidence of the contrary either, even though we all want to believe it. IMO.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 17, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reason we bring up the VORP is so that we have something to compare to. By your standards, Tejada was an enormous waste of money because he was never going to be on a contending Orioles team. Yes they should have traded him two years ago… Angelos refused, he was a jerk (probably still is). The whole premise of Andy McPhail is that Angelos is going to let him do what he wants, but clearly PGA was not like that in the past.
Tejada may never be on a contending Orioles team but Sarfate, and Albers could be. Luke Scott may be able to be or prospects we trade him for may be. Costanzo was a throw-in who adds depth to our minor leagues but little else. Patton, the annointed centerpiece (the front office never said it), may never recover from his injury, but if he does he’ll find his way in the majors doing something. It’s not a great package, but we weren’t trading away a great player. I don’t think anyone but the Astros would have traded this much for him.
So everyone else had an academy in the Dominican. We didn’t, now we do. Thank God.
not spending money on international free agents – this is why I brought up the Wieters and Arrieta contracts. If we’ll sign these guys as prospects, theres no reason we wouldn’t pay cash for international prospects. They show Angelos is willing to spend money where it matters.
We can never know what goes on during contract negotiations. Houston is a big city, they are not a small market team either. If they didnt want to give up more prospects and didn’t really care about the contract, then we weren’t going to get a sweet prospect for that 9 million dollars.
This wasn’t some blockbuster rip off, but it was a good trade, and we should benefit long term from it.
by math_geek on Jul 17, 2008 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I’m not sure it turns out to be a good trade, more that I believe it will be inconsequential in the long term.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 18, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sarfate?
I’m not as high on Sarfate as others. Sure he’s got a power arm, but he’s 27 and has allowed 41 walks in 59 innings. That’s a recipe for disaster, imo. Brad Pennington comes to mind…
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 17, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sarfate is also practically unhittable.
5.95 hits per nine innings. Second only to JJ in our club. His walks are a problem, and they stop him from being JJ good, but Sarfate is a good pitcher, and even though he’s 27, he still has time to grow.
A WHIP of 1.5 is not good, but walks are better than hits (even if they are not as much better as conventional baseball seems to think).
Still, the walks have to go down.
by math_geek on Jul 17, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When Sarfate is on, he's unhittable
When he’s not on, he can be trouble. Trembley has kept him out in at least a couple instances where it was obvious he was not on, and that has lead to some pain.
"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 Jul 17, 2008 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats more accurate, but still... he's usually pretty good
last night wasn’t a good day for him, however.
by math_geek on Jul 18, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sarfate is fine… he’s actually pitching quite well, even if he’ll never be a starter.
Albers is injured, but if he recovers he was quite a good young pitcher also.
Patton and Costanzo are pretty much nothing, but Albers and Sarfate definitely aren’t
by math_geek on Jul 17, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't know about that
Sarfate is a reliever with control problems. He is a middle reliever. And that’s not a bad thing, it is just not a particularly valuable thing.
Albers is going to rehab his torn labrum so he can avoid surgery because he knows that is the deathknell of pitchers. Prognosis: negative
I was pretty excited about Albers, or at least I thought he could be a decent pitcher. Really I’m just more pissed that Tejada wasn’t traded 12 months before he was. Criminy Flanagan and Duquette! Tweedle -de and Tweedle-dumb…
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 17, 2008 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I voted no trades
Honestly, too.
My thought process was to let them ride it out for the rest of the season and then trade who you can after the year is over, with 2 exceptions (Jay Payton and Kevin Millar, who both contribute little and are gone after the year anyway…but neither would get anything back). There’s no way of saying, really, that player X’s value will never be higher. What if Sherrill has a terrific second half, leads the league in saves (you and I know that’s worthless, but GMs and reporters mostly don’t), and lowers his WHIP to a manageable role. Similarly, Huff is set to have a real good year to look back on, which should make him seem valuable.
But that’s just my opinion, of course.
Some say he never blinks, and that he roams around the woods at night foraging for wolves... all we know is, he's called Luke Scott.
by elk on Jul 16, 2008 7:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
