+ Reply to Thread
Results 556 to 570 of 644
02-07-2012 12:53 PM #556
02-07-2012 01:02 PM #557
What I admit I didn't know was the fact that his value is even lower than I expected because 1) a team trading for him now will have to offer him something like $12.4 million in arbitration and 2) a team trading for him at the deadline couldn't even do that and get a pick.
I do concede that there's a decent downside to this deal whereby Hammel and Lindstrom both perform like they did in 2011. In that case, it's money down the drain, which is basically what I think Guthrie would have been anyway even with a pretty good year (because results in 2012 won't be meaningful in the end).
02-07-2012 01:02 PM #558
Guthrie is coming off of a better year and isn't coming to a new league(yes I know Hammel pitched in the AL in 2008) and a tougher division...that's why I roll the dice with him.
02-07-2012 01:10 PM #559
02-07-2012 01:13 PM #560
And I actually had the chance to speak with a current ML GM, who seemed to be as puzzled with the trade as I was...
It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense...
02-07-2012 01:15 PM #561
02-07-2012 01:27 PM #562
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
Your first two points would seem to indicate that you aren't worried about 2012. I agree.
So the only real value to acquiring Hammel is the hope that he has a good 2012 and that we can trade him. You seem like a reasonable guy so you'd probably agree that Hammel -- after a poor 2011 and now moving to the AL East is unlikely to be significantly better than Guthrie was this past year. But Guthrie who is now expensive and one year from free agency isn't very valuable (see the trade). So how could Hammel -- who we hope will be Guthrie have much value beyond his production in 2012 which is mostly irrelevant?
I don't like the trade -- not so much because of the players but because I don't like its direction. I know what DD said yesterday and I find it absurd. I feel certain that if he had been trying to trade Guthrie from the start, we could have acquired some young talent. I'm not saying we'd get a stud or top tier guy but if we could acquire a B grade young player or two and save some dollars that could be invested more wisely than Guthrie/Hammel/Lindstrom -- I'd go for it.
I don't want to spend $8 mil on Guthrie and I don't want to spend $8 mil on Hammel/Lindstrom and that is a big part of the problem for me. I'd much prefer to take a flier on a semi-prospect and invest the savings elsewhere for the long term.
02-07-2012 01:30 PM #563
02-07-2012 01:36 PM #564
02-07-2012 01:43 PM #565
I do not see the sense, for a team with the questionable starting pitching the O's have, of having a guy whose job it is to get out 4 batters a week. You simply can not leave him in against right handed batters. You are effectively shorting your bench for a handful of a bats a week at best.
02-07-2012 01:43 PM #566
I would also have preferred a B-level prospect. I don't believe that was anywhere in the cards though, particularly not without some $$ offsets.
02-07-2012 02:33 PM #567
02-07-2012 02:37 PM #568
02-07-2012 02:43 PM #569
As I've said before, it's not a horrible "throw ourselves on our sword" trade, I just felt it was unnecessary, especially since there was no way Guthrie was going to win with his $10 million number. I just don't see much of an upside and especially not enough to make a difference in the short or long term.
02-07-2012 02:45 PM #570