Photo

Trade Deadline


  • Please log in to reply
1660 replies to this topic

#21 LanceRinker

LanceRinker

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts
  • LocationPlano, TX

Posted 12 June 2012 - 05:11 PM

Strop has the kind of stuff to be successful long term. Ayala I'd be fine with selling high on though.


I won't argue that, but he also has enough of a control issue where he has to get himself out of jams he created more often than not. I believe that he could certainly work on that if he dialed his fastball velocity back by about 2 mph but that's part of what makes him so unhittable, IMO.

Pretty big difference in speed of the ball at 94/95 and 96/97.

The walks just make me nervous. Would be nice to sell very high on the guy. Or he could be our next closer.

#22 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 12 June 2012 - 08:17 PM

So, SG... is there anybody you wouldn't trade if they were at peak performance and you thought somebody else would pay through the nose for them?

Would you have traded Cal right after his 2nd MVP season, before all the streak stuff started?

Would you have traded Brooks right after he got lots of attention for the Reds WS?

Would you have traded Palmer right after one of his CYA's?

EDIT: the above questions assume that FA money was relevant to all of them...

Franchise, HOF players are different, don't you think?

This team still isn't that good. This organization still lacks talent in a big way. There are at least 10 AL teams with more talent, throughout their entire organization, in the AL.

#23 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,994 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 09:46 PM

Franchise, HOF players are different, don't you think?

Sure... but they're mostly that just in retrospect... none of them were of that status when they had peak value... it's only looking back after they were young studs that that becomes apparent...

For example, Cal went downhill pretty steadily after his first MVP... and his 2nd MVP was pretty much a fluke season... all the HOF talk occurred well after that, what with The Streak being a major headline for a couple whole years when he was well past his peak... Palmer was still a very iffy guy, health-wise, when he got his first CYA... Brooks never had a season at the plate like he did in his '64 MVP season... you could say they were all in decline when they started to really feel like franchise guys.

So, all in all, I think if we treated them as the value they had *at the time* and treated them accordingly, trade-wise, they never would have been franchise players because they would have been traded before they became legends.. if you look at their records as they actually developed, instead of in retrospect as a whole, I think that much is fairly clear...

 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#24 Zwolfe0

Zwolfe0

    Zack W.

  • Members
  • 135 posts
  • LocationOwings Mills

Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:14 AM

Before last night I'd say Kevin Gregg was looking like a decent asset to trade. Then he goes out and reminds everybody why he can't pitch with a 4 run cushion. I see Soriano's name floating around and Ken Weinman mentioned it this morning on Davis & Norris. If the Orioles do take on a player like Soriano it will mostly be about picking up his deadweight contract; and expect nothing in return for him after the season. I think the Orioles will try and fill Reimold's void cheaply, with players like Pearce, before they go out and bring in a Soriano type player and salary.
There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you. - Woody Hayes

#25 JTrea81

JTrea81

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:05 AM

Considering that our biggest trade assets by the time the deadline rolls around will be guys like Ayala, O'Day, Strop and Jim Johnson - I'm not so sure we'd be able to land that big fish that would help put us over the top and into the postseason anyway.

If we really start to fall out of it then our biggest trade chip (out of everyone) would be Jason Hammel. We still have another year of team control over him though (arbitration) so why would/should we trade him unless we are blown away by an offer?

Not saying we shouldn't try, just being realistic about it.

I think at best we could get a decent player in a package involving some sort of salary dump - i.e., Cubs trade us Soriano and a SP for a few mid-level prospects depending on the SP they include. The only one of their's that I would even want is Garza and not sure if they'd toss him in any Soriano deal without getting something good in return outside of just being rid of Soriano and his contract. IF Theo wanted to be rid of Soriano that badly though...I'd say anything is possible and we might as well check on a Soriano/Garza package.

More realistically though, we'll only get so much out of a few overachieving bullpen arms when relievers are so volatile one year to the next anyway. O'Day and J.J. are the only two guys in our bullpen that would probably bring back a decent prospect anyway - but that's just it, a prospect. Not likely a starting position player at either infield corner spot like we need.

My trade targets though, IF we are still in it and wouldn't have to give up our core top prospects, would be Justin Morneau (change of ballparks would be good for him) because the Twins owe him a lot of money and he is not hitting well at Target Field. Twins would want pitching in return - Tillman and Steve Johnson or some combination thereof would be a likely starting point (if I were the Twins GM).

Mat Gamel might not be a bad pickup even though he's out for the season with a torn ACL. Someone to look at during the offseason.

Placido Polanco if he proves to be healthy enough to play - Phillies wouldn't mind moving him and he wouldn't cost that much to acquire.

As far as SP's (not named Garza) are concerned:

Chien-Ming Wang or Francisco Liriano would be realistic targets for me that wouldn't/shoudn't take much to get.

Liriano (yes, laugh away) has actually lowered his ERA by 2 full runs since returning to the Twins rotation on May 30th. It was 8.47 and is sitting at 6.45 currently.


Our biggest trade chips are Manny Machado, Jonathan Schoop, Nick Delmonico, Parker Bridwell, etc.

We can't be afraid to trade some of those guys if we truly want one of the top players available.

Willingham should be our top target if he's available. He's getting on base and having a career year, something that could really help the Orioles and he's signed for only $14 million total over the next few years. LF would finally be fixed, and nobody knows if Reimold will ever play effectively again.

As for SP, Dempster, Garza, Greinke and Saunders could be targets, but if the Phillies make Hamels available, he's the guy you go after if you want a difference maker in your rotation that could swing the balance in the AL East.

A top three of Hamels, Hammel and Chen would be pretty nice for the stretch run.

#26 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 22,238 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:21 AM

Our biggest trade chips are Manny Machado, Jonathan Schoop, Nick Delmonico, Parker Bridwell, etc.

We can't be afraid to trade some of those guys if we truly want one of the top players available.

Willingham should be our top target if he's available. He's getting on base and having a career year, something that could really help the Orioles and he's signed for only $14 million total over the next few years. LF would finally be fixed, and nobody knows if Reimold will ever play effectively again.

As for SP, Dempster, Garza, Greinke and Saunders could be targets, but if the Phillies make Hamels available, he's the guy you go after if you want a difference maker in your rotation that could swing the balance in the AL East.

A top three of Hamels, Hammel and Chen would be pretty nice for the stretch run.


We're not trading Machado.

#27 LanceRinker

LanceRinker

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts
  • LocationPlano, TX

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:00 AM

Our biggest trade chips are Manny Machado, Jonathan Schoop, Nick Delmonico, Parker Bridwell, etc.

We can't be afraid to trade some of those guys if we truly want one of the top players available.

Willingham should be our top target if he's available. He's getting on base and having a career year, something that could really help the Orioles and he's signed for only $14 million total over the next few years. LF would finally be fixed, and nobody knows if Reimold will ever play effectively again.

As for SP, Dempster, Garza, Greinke and Saunders could be targets, but if the Phillies make Hamels available, he's the guy you go after if you want a difference maker in your rotation that could swing the balance in the AL East.

A top three of Hamels, Hammel and Chen would be pretty nice for the stretch run.


Yeah...I was referring to guys we were actually willing to trade.

Unless we're getting the second coming of Babe Ruth I don't see us trading our top prospects - sacrifice, presumably, 10+ years of production out of them for a one time boost in the arm for a 'possible' playoff run? No thanks..

#28 JTrea81

JTrea81

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:02 AM

We're not trading Machado.


Quite frankly, I don't think that anybody knows that for sure. Buck loves Hardy at SS, he's signed for two more years, and Machado is regressing in AA. Might be time to sell to win now while we have a team in place that can.

It may take Machado two more years to get to the majors and be a productive player.

Plenty of top prospects have had that "untouchable" label before, but they've been dealt when the team found that difference making player to trade for. Texas traded Smoak for Cliff Lee for example.

I could see Duquette trading Machado if the right player was out there.

#29 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:05 AM

Quite frankly, I don't think that anybody knows that for sure. Buck loves Hardy at SS, he's signed for two more years, and Machado is regressing in AA. Might be time to sell to win now while we have a team in place that can.

It may take Machado two more years to get to the majors and be a productive player.

Plenty of top prospects have had that "untouchable" label before, but they've been dealt when the team found that difference making player to trade for. Texas traded Smoak for Cliff Lee for example.

I could see Duquette trading Machado if the right player was out there.

For you to want to trade Machado for a rental player is pretty absurd and I can guarantee you the Orioles will not be doing that.

#30 JTrea81

JTrea81

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:08 AM

Yeah...I was referring to guys we were actually willing to trade.

Unless we're getting the second coming of Babe Ruth I don't see us trading our top prospects - sacrifice, presumably, 10+ years of production out of them for a one time boost in the arm for a 'possible' playoff run? No thanks..


See you can't think that you are going to get 10 years of production out of all your top prospects. How many top prospects have the Orioles had in the last 20 years, and how many of them have given 10+ years of production at a least ML average level? You can probably count them on one hand.

You have the opportunity to win now, and dealing Machado, just one player is not going to cripple your organization for years. Plenty of teams have traded top prospects and have been fine afterwards because they just acquire more prospects.

We have to get out of this mentality that all our prospects have to become Orioles, because they don't, and for some it's better to deal them for players that can help you win at the ML level.

It's all about winning at the ML level, not what ranking you have for a farm system in Baseball America. Sure a good farm system is important, but a good farm system also can replace players that are traded to augment the ML club.

#31 JTrea81

JTrea81

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:09 AM

For you to want to trade Machado for a rental player is pretty absurd and I can guarantee you the Orioles will not be doing that.


Hence - my words - "the right player."

The "right" player comes with years of control or an extension.

#32 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 22,238 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:12 AM

Quite frankly, I don't think that anybody knows that for sure. Buck loves Hardy at SS, he's signed for two more years, and Machado is regressing in AA. Might be time to sell to win now while we have a team in place that can.

It may take Machado two more years to get to the majors and be a productive player.

Plenty of top prospects have had that "untouchable" label before, but they've been dealt when the team found that difference making player to trade for. Texas traded Smoak for Cliff Lee for example.

I could see Duquette trading Machado if the right player was out there.


Does anyone know for sure? No, of course not. None of us are sitting in Duquette's office. If Albert Pujols is available and Machado can get him, then sure, you trade him. But let's be realistic, that is not happening. Manny Machado is the 3rd best prospect in the league, according to Keith Law's latest rankings. Buck loving JJ Hardy (which is more opinion than fact) and that he is signed for 2 more years should be nothing when discussing Manny Machado. The earliest Machado would probbaly be up on the team anyway is mid-summer 2013. You don't use JJ Hardy as an excuse for keeping Machado down in the minors or making him expendable.

I just don't see Duquette trading guys like Machado, Schoop, etc. who are the next wave of Orioles talent. Maybe he'll try to trade guys like Arrieta, Tillman, Steve Johnson, etc. But I don't think he'll just let Machado go, nor do I think he should.

#33 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:12 AM

Hence - my words - "the right player."

The "right" player comes with years of control or an extension.

Oh, so you trade a potential 5+ WAR player who you have as part of your organization for the better part of the next decade for a pitcher who you then have to turn around and give a moronic extension to in order to stop him from going to free agency? Guess you still haven't learned, have you?

#34 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 22,238 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:13 AM

Hence - my words - "the right player."

The "right" player comes with years of control or an extension.


But just using the term "the right player" is purely hypothetical and limits discussion. Who is "the right player"?

#35 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,607 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:51 AM

If I'm trading Manny Machado it's for a guy like Clayton Kershaw who I believe is still under team control for a while longer. Unfortunately the Dodgers are contending this year.

If we want Cole Hamels we can wait until he's an FA and try to sign him. If he's traded and extends this year (which I don't think will happen -- Philly won't throw in the towel IMO), oh well.

I'm opposed to trading our elite pitching prospects but I will always listen to offers for elite positional prospects.

Edit: Kershaw has just over 3 years of service time so we'd *hypothetically* have him a while, but yea, that's the type of guy I'd move a Machado for.

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#36 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,269 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:06 AM

I've said it in a couple of threads, but if the O's decide to pursue a larger move, it would have to come out of a package of players probably consisting of:

Arrieta
Tillman
Schoop
Bridwell
Hoes
Avery
R. Bundy
Lino
G.Davis
Schrader
Townsend
Mahoney

I could see a couple of smaller deals taking place, as opposed to grouping 4 or 5 of these players and attempting to obtain a more prominent piece.

It would be interesting to know what something like Schoop, Tillman, Bridwell, Avery, Lino could bring back as a collective though.

#37 RichardZ

RichardZ

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,267 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:13 AM

It would be interesting to know what something like Schoop, Tillman, Bridwell, Avery, Lino could bring back as a collective though.



Not much. Schoop is the only really interesting guy in there and he's probably 2 years away. It's just the old quantity over quality.

To get a difference maker, Schoop would have to be the 3rd guy in a package.


We all know the O's aren't going to make a big splash. You'll see the veteran move like a Kevin Millwood or comparable position player, where some of the players mentioned above might be involved.

#38 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:16 AM

Not much. Schoop is the only really interesting guy in there and he's probably 2 years away. It's just the old quantity over quality.

To get a difference maker, Schoop would have to be the 3rd guy in a package.


We all know the O's aren't going to make a big splash. You'll see the veteran move like a Kevin Millwood or comparable position player, where some of the players mentioned above might be involved.

I disagaree with that. I think could land a very good player for that package but would agree that you can't add a guy like say Greinke for that deal because some team will put 2 better players on the table.

But I could see that package landing you Headley and Quentin.

#39 LanceRinker

LanceRinker

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts
  • LocationPlano, TX

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:15 AM

See you can't think that you are going to get 10 years of production out of all your top prospects. How many top prospects have the Orioles had in the last 20 years, and how many of them have given 10+ years of production at a least ML average level? You can probably count them on one hand.

You have the opportunity to win now, and dealing Machado, just one player is not going to cripple your organization for years. Plenty of teams have traded top prospects and have been fine afterwards because they just acquire more prospects.

We have to get out of this mentality that all our prospects have to become Orioles, because they don't, and for some it's better to deal them for players that can help you win at the ML level.

It's all about winning at the ML level, not what ranking you have for a farm system in Baseball America. Sure a good farm system is important, but a good farm system also can replace players that are traded to augment the ML club.

I said presumably - which is what you hope for out of high draft picks in the first round. You draft them and develop them with the thought that you will get a decent amount of production out of them for years to come.

Does it always work out? No, of course not but there are some prospects who are deserving of the untouchable label for their first few seasons in pro ball to judge as best as you can what you actually have with them.

Are you saying that since Machado is untouchable for rentals that would put the team in a better position to compete for THIS season, would you also trade Dylan Bundy under the same scenario?

#40 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:16 AM

See you can't think that you are going to get 10 years of production out of all your top prospects. How many top prospects have the Orioles had in the last 20 years, and how many of them have given 10+ years of production at a least ML average level? You can probably count them on one hand.

You have the opportunity to win now, and dealing Machado, just one player is not going to cripple your organization for years. Plenty of teams have traded top prospects and have been fine afterwards because they just acquire more prospects.

We have to get out of this mentality that all our prospects have to become Orioles, because they don't, and for some it's better to deal them for players that can help you win at the ML level.

It's all about winning at the ML level, not what ranking you have for a farm system in Baseball America. Sure a good farm system is important, but a good farm system also can replace players that are traded to augment the ML club.

Actually, we probably don't. That's the flaw in your idea.

And even if the chance is there, its not great enough to trade one of your top assets for a rental player that you would have to give 150 million to if you want to extend them.

A terrible contract plus trading one of the top 3 prospects in the game for a team that really isn't all that good is a pretty dumb thing to do.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=