1660 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

Well if we are still right in the thick of contention 5-6 weeks from now, then it won't be a flaw (but I wouldn't deal Machado anyway).

So once again, a wait and see approach is the way to go imo.

[LanceRinker]

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.

Exactly.

You don't trade away prime talent such as Machado unless you are getting a player in the mold of a Kershaw or Hamels, IMO, and then there's the issue of how long you have said player.

[Oriole85]

Well if we are still right in the thick of contention 5-6 weeks from now, then it won't be a flaw (but I wouldn't deal Machado anyway).

So once again, a wait and see approach is the way to go imo.

When was the last time a player of Machado's caliber got traded while in the minors as part of a trade-deadline deal? Seems Steve Phillips esque(remember when he suggested trading Strasburg as part of a package for Oswalt?)

[Oriole85]

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?

I'll put an end to this discussion with Dylan Bundy, he can't be traded until Aug. 15 (after the deadline) due to the Draft rules of no-trades for players until a year after they signed.

[LanceRinker]

I'll put an end to this discussion with Dylan Bundy, he can't be traded until Aug. 15 (after the deadline) due to the Draft rules of no-trades for players until a year after they signed.

Thank you.

Would've been nice to see what response I would've gotten though.

[Oriole85]

Thank you.

Would've been nice to see what response I would've gotten though.

It's always fun talking about non-realistic hypotheticals between this and the "untoucable" thread.

[RichardZ]

Teams skirt that rule (1 year from signed out of draft) by naming that player as a PTBNL. I

[Oriole85]

Brooks is different mainly because the whole team was good, and so was the player-dev pipeline, so we didn't need to trade him. Same thing with Palmer... plus the team benefited from Palmer giving up a lot to stay an Oriole. If there's anybody who the timing of FA was made for, it was him and Reggie... and while Reggie cashed in, Palmer refused to do that mainly because he identified himself as a Baltimore Oriole.

As for Cal, I would be wrong if I had said that Cal quit being valuable, but I didn't say that. What I said is that he went pretty steadily downhill, and he did. His first 3 ML seasons were killer. (Although, to tell the truth, I had forgotten how killer is '84 season was until I looked just now)... and then for the rest of the '80's his trend line at the plate is clearly downhill, albeit with a little bump somewhere in there. He never had a season at the plate that was even close to his '83 and '84 seasons until his very fluky 2nd MVP season in '91... and that '91 season was off the charts for Cal: it was unlike anything he did before or after.

Now, you gotta remember that in '91 pretty much nobody was taking the Streak seriously, as Gehrig was still a mile in front. And it was the Streak in particular, and his longevity in general, that pretty much cemented Cal's HOF status. It's not that he was great all the time, but rather that he was very, very good for a long time that got him there. Without his longevity, he likely would have been kinda like Dale Murphy: clearly special, but not quite special enough.

When you look at the teams he was playing on, for most of his career they were lousy. If you look at things through the eyeballs of '91, not now looking back, the good teams were mainly a memory (with '89 being a freaky thing), the farm system had been ruined for long enough that nobody who was paying attention could lie to themselves about it anymore. It would still be another 5 years before PA would buy the O's a postseason roster. So, if there was ever a time in Oriole history (up to then, anyway) that the franchise needed to do something to build for the future it was then. And, since Cal was the only standout on a lousy team that was going nowhere, there was not much in the way of alternative ways to do it.

In fairness, I gotta tell you that you have altered the way I think about trades. You have not converted me to your point of view, but you have introduced me to your point of view enough that I do take it seriously. I don't think either one of us would be a good GM and for opposite reasons: my problem is that I would not make enough trades, and that's because I actually *like* Oriole players. For exampe, while I could make up all kinds of reasons for keeping Jim Johnson (the main one being that he's not as erratic as RP's are in general), that's mainly me coming up with a justification for my preferences. The actual fact of the matter is that I just *don't want* to trade Jim Johnson, I like that he's an Oriole, etc. I fully grok that a GM can't look at things like that. Now, I think you go to the other extreme: I think you are way, way too trade-happy. Your answer to damn near any question is to make a trade. While I don't go far enough re: treating Oriole players like pieces of meat, I think you go too far in that direction and that is combined with a wheeler-dealer mindset that causes you to want to make trades for no good reason. So, as you can see, I think both you and I are flawed as potential GM's, just in opposite directions.

But that doesn't mean I don't listen to you. I do listen to you. I do take your point of view seriously. While I think you're too trade-happy to be a GM, I think you're valuable as somebody to whisper in the GM's ear about trades to think about. While that might not be the status you aspire to, I think it's true and fair to say that I *do* give you a lot of credit or else I wouldn't say that.

But when all is said and done, I think the Cal is the counterargument. You say you wouldn't have traded Cal. But that's now, looking back... knowing that he broke the Streak, knowing that he's in the HOF, knowing that he helped fill the stands during his 2nd decade as a player when his performance wasn't as good as his contract was. Try as I might, I cannot find anything in what you say that convinces me that you would not wanted to trade him *at the time*... if there were message boards in '91... if you were assessing the state of the franchise during the offseason following Cal's killer '91 season... if you were assessing the expected trajectory of Cal's performance after that season. The value system that underpins your point of view about baseball tells me that you *would* have wanted to trade him after '91. And, to tell you the truth, I think that just might have been the right thing to do *at the time* IFF we had a GM who was serious about rebuilding the organization then. What I don't understand is how you can say be so sure that you wouldn't have.

It's all hindsight, but if we traded Cal, it greatly alters his place in history. Frankly, I don't think the streak is as valuable if he's doing it for multiple teams. It's still an accomplishment, don't get me but there's something to be said about doing it in one place.

I know we had free agency back then, but I think there was a bit more loyalty than there is today on both ends of the spectrum. I think it's reflection on society and probably in part because of the internet, where everyone can vent there opinions.

[Oriole85]

One other thought if message boards would've been as prominent back then, can you imagine every time Cal went into a slump. JoeSchmo123 would've said, "Cal needs rest, eff the streak, we need to win games."

[Oriole85]

Teams skirt that rule (1 year from signed out of draft) by naming that player as a PTBNL. I

Good point, I haven't heard of this happening though. Any players you know of traded this way?

[RShack]

It's all hindsight, but if we traded Cal, it greatly alters his place in history. Frankly, I don't think the streak is as valuable if he's doing it for multiple teams. It's still an accomplishment, don't get me but there's something to be said about doing it in one place.

I agree. I think the same is true of Tony Gwynn and Kirby Puckett... if they'd moved around, they would not be viewed in quite the same way...

I know we had free agency back then, but I think there was a bit more loyalty than there is today on both ends of the spectrum. I think it's reflection on society and probably in part because of the internet, where everyone can vent there opinions.

Definitely true of Palmer... he was in an era where players still identified with their team. Cal and others of his generation may have been the last of that breed... Mussina was kinda on the edge of that, he did take a discount the first time and left only after PA suddenly decided to treat him like just a piece of meat. It's kinda hard to say if anybody has much loyalty anymore. For example, both AJ and Nick decided to stay O's... but really, really big piles of cash were involved in that, not sure how much loyalty was a factor...

[JeremyStrain]

Are we STILL debating WAR and retired players in the Trade Deadline thread? Just sayin'...

[LanceRinker]

Anyone wondering what it would take to pluck R.A. Dickey from the Mets if they fall out of it?

[BSLChrisStoner]

Are we STILL debating WAR and retired players in the Trade Deadline thread? Just sayin'...

I think allstar has this right.

[SportsGuy]

I think allstar has this right.

That's how message boards roll bud.

What I find interesting is how everyone else is wrong here but it's rshack who is right. If roles were reversed, he would be all up in arms. Oh well.

And no Lance, haven't wondered that at all.

[mweb08]

I think allstar has this right.

I agree. However, when someone makes a grand and definitive statement telling SG and myself that we are wrong, yet the entire premise of that statement is so flawed that it's not even debatable, than it's hard for me to move on without that person acknowledging that his conclusion is based on nonsense. Especially when that someone is RShack.

Perhaps some of this stuff can be moved into a new thread about the merits of WAR.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Perhaps some of this stuff can be moved into a new thread about the merits of WAR.

Done. http://baltimorespor....php?f=6&t=1541

[ncicere]

To go with the TRADE DEADLINE THREAD, the O's are going to have to wait and see where they are within a month of the deadline, but I would love to see Reynolds, Betemit shipped, or even with the minor league depth we have, bring back a 2-3 in the rotation starting pitcher, a gavin floyd or a matt garza, something to keep the fan base interested. Maybe have Chris Tillman on the block or bergesen, someone that has pitched in the majors, maybe not with so much success, but maybe someone would want to work on

[Oriole85]

To go with the TRADE DEADLINE THREAD, the O's are going to have to wait and see where they are within a month of the deadline, but I would love to see Reynolds, Betemit shipped, or even with the minor league depth we have, bring back a 2-3 in the rotation starting pitcher, a gavin floyd or a matt garza, something to keep the fan base interested. Maybe have Chris Tillman on the block or bergesen, someone that has pitched in the majors, maybe not with so much success, but maybe someone would want to work on

Betemit is on a two year deal, so I think that's going to make it a bit tougher to see him leave, unless we eat up next years salary.

I think Tillman might end up being a good trade chip in that aspect.

[Mackus]

Reynolds, Betemit, and Tillman aren't bringing back anything of positive value, IMO.

Reynolds could be traded to a team that could use a DH, but you aren't getting anything useful for the stretch run for him. Maybe a C-level prospect, similar to Chris Tillman. Betemit has zero value, he's not very useful and he is having a terrible season. We're better off keeping him as a backup and hoping he can produce better down the stretch and next season.

Tillman could probably be the 2nd piece in a trade for an average player or the 3rd piece in a deal for a solid player (Garza or Headley).

To get anything that really will help the team for a run at the playoffs, we're going to have to give up pieces that we don't want to give up. Maybe Schoop. Maybe one of Britton, Matusz, or Arrieta. Maybe one or tow of the other prospects in the top 5-10.