Guthrie traded to Rockies for Hammel & Lindstrom

[Lucky Jim]

In his career Guthrie is 41-28 when getting 3+ runs of support. His problem was that in 48 of his 154 (31%) career starts he got two runs or less to work with. Picking a name... CC Sabathia. He's gotten 2 runs or less in 22% of starts.

Of course arb hearings aren't really about presenting a balanced, fair-minded view of a player's accomplishments. More like Newt and Obama presenting their cases about how Obama has done.

Oh, I get that it's adversarial. I live in that world. I just prefer to win with good science before chasing after bad.

[LookinUp]

I will say this...If this deal was known to have been proposed and then ultimately turned down by DD, I think many of those who are happy with it, would be saying they are glad DD turned it down.

They would say look at how bad Hammel was last year and look at what Lindstrom normally is...Combine that with the salaries and people would be against it.

But since the Orioles made the deal, people are happy with it.

I mean, look at all the people coming out of the woodwork now, bashing Guthrie...saying he wasn;t very good, etc....

That was claim on this site for a while and I was constantly bashed for it and my issues were the same ones everyone is bringing up now.

Its funny how this site works.

This definitely doesn't describe me. I've seen a guy with declining and low value for a while now and I'm sure you can find my posts on this board if you look hard enough. He hasn't been the same since the year after he pitched in the WBC (the good year after the first bad year). I've seen a guy with poor fastball command at the wrong times, an average slider and a ball that just seems to carry off the bat. He's a #5 starter, in my book. I think he can give you 5-6 good innings, but that he's incapable of locking down a close game for those next couple of innings.

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).

[Sports Guy]

SG, you didn't answer a question I asked in another thread. Assume Hammel has a year very similar to Guthrie's last one -- 4.3ish ERA, etc. Woudn't he have more trade value at the deadline than Guthrie? He's younger, cheaper, and under control younger. So why is it better to roll the dice and hope Guthrie exceeds his norm, as opposed to rolling the dice with Hammel?

I would say his value would be similar if he does that...The one thing is Guthrie has shown he can end the season well and throw 200+ innings, so that could give him the edge, in the mind of some teams, vs Hammel even if Hammel has the extra year.

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.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

I would say his value would be similar if he does that...The one thing is Guthrie has shown he can end the season well and throw 200+ innings, so that could give him the edge, in the mind of some teams, vs Hammel even if Hammel has the extra year.

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.

Even after acknowledging Lindstrom's potential worth? I realize you're not strongly "opposed" to the trade, but it's hard to argue that both Lindstrom and Hammel will collectively be worth less then Guthrie will be in 6 months time.

[MatthewW]

I've been thinking about the trade and DD's action in general and I think they are pretty genius.

First, all players are resources. Nothing more or nothing less. The most valuable resource in baseball, or one of the most desirable on most teams is pitching.

If the Orioles can build up an inventory of pitchers, and make sure that those resources have value to other teams, you can use those resources to acquire other resources that are needed. Implement a uniform training program with one of the best pitching minds in baseball. Basically become a pitcher factory.

With the Guthrie trade, you added two resources for one.

This just flat out isn't true... because it's really Guthrie AND Rapada for Hammel and Lindstrom. And I know there will be people that say Rapada is no loss, but I'll say again that he held opposing lefties to a .336 OPS. Not batting average. Not On-Base. That's not a typo. A .336 OPS. (And yes, I know that his opp. OPS to righties was 2.212... but I am an advocate for a LOOGY)

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...

[Sports Guy]

Even after acknowledging Lindstrom's potential worth? I realize you're not strongly "opposed" to the trade, but it's hard to argue that both Lindstrom and Hammel will collectively be worth less then Guthrie will be in 6 months time.

Lindstrom is a run of the mill, generic reliever.

He could be good or he could be awful.

We could have picked up someone like him throughout the offseason for less money.

[Singleton]

The more I read about this, the more entrenched I become.

First, I see no reason to worry about who the opening day starter is in 2012.

Second, I see no reason to worry about Guthrie giving us 200 innings in 2012, particularly 200 innings and 17ish losses.

Third, if the O's are willing to eat some salary, I'm sure the deal changes. I don't think the O's have any inclination to eat $4m for Guthrie. If that's an option, I'm now angry about this trade because I do believe we could have done better. I don't think it's a real option though.

Fourth, I'm now absolutely convinced that DD made the best move for the future of this franchise. I don't believe Guthrie with $4m remaining salary is any more likely to net good young players than one or both of Hammel/Lindstrom over the next two years. I don't believe there's a high likelihood of either netting stud(s), but I do think there's at least a chance they net something pretty good (e.g., a Strop type).

I think people love Guthrie and didn't re-base his value over the last year+, and that's why they're disappointed. If we take the emotion out and base this purely on probabilities, I think DD did ok.

I appreciate your rational but here's what I don't get.

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.

[weams]

This just flat out isn't true... because it's really Guthrie AND Rapada for Hammel and Lindstrom. And I know there will be people that say Rapada is no loss, but I'll say again that he held opposing lefties to a .336 OPS. Not batting average. Not On-Base. That's not a typo. A .336 OPS. (And yes, I know that his opp. OPS to righties was 2.212... but I am an advocate for a LOOGY)

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...

Good point. I guess we did not have the luxury of a loogy on our 40 man roster. Righthanders must have OPS'd something like 2.015 against him. It must have seen that he would not be a member of the 25 man roster. It is posible that he is traded during the remaining 9 days.

[allstar1579]

Thanks. It will be interesting to see what Guthrie can command on the open market if he has a good year. I agree though that $12.4 million a year is probably a bit high.

Yeah, Guts is much more consistent than Edwin Jackson, and he was offered 3/$30M this offseason. I think it's more reasonable to say he gets a 3 year deal in the $24-27M range.

[Can_of_corn]

This just flat out isn't true... because it's really Guthrie AND Rapada for Hammel and Lindstrom. And I know there will be people that say Rapada is no loss, but I'll say again that he held opposing lefties to a .336 OPS. Not batting average. Not On-Base. That's not a typo. A .336 OPS. (And yes, I know that his opp. OPS to righties was 2.212... but I am an advocate for a LOOGY)

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...

See I am a staunch anti-LOOGY-ite.

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.

[LookinUp]

So how could Hammel -- who we hope will be Guthrie have much value beyond his production in 2012 which is mostly irrelevant?

The short answer is that teams will have to hold their nose less with Hammel than with Guthrie because you're talking 1/2 the salary and another year if you want to offer arbitration. Plus, you also have Lindstrom who isn't cheap for a reliever, but for 1/2 a season might be someone that a team is willing to take on, again, because he's cheaper than Guthrie.

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.

[Tony-OH]

The more I read about this, the more entrenched I become.

First, I see no reason to worry about who the opening day starter is in 2012.

Second, I see no reason to worry about Guthrie giving us 200 innings in 2012, particularly 200 innings and 17ish losses.

Third, if the O's are willing to eat some salary, I'm sure the deal changes. I don't think the O's have any inclination to eat $4m for Guthrie. If that's an option, I'm now angry about this trade because I do believe we could have done better. I don't think it's a real option though.

Fourth, I'm now absolutely convinced that DD made the best move for the future of this franchise. I don't believe Guthrie with $4m remaining salary is any more likely to net good young players than one or both of Hammel/Lindstrom over the next two years. I don't believe there's a high likelihood of either netting stud(s), but I do think there's at least a chance they net something pretty good (e.g., a Strop type).

I think people love Guthrie and didn't re-base his value over the last year+, and that's why they're disappointed. If we take the emotion out and base this purely on probabilities, I think DD did ok.

Your answer is condescending. Suggesting that everyone against the trade is emotional is ridiculous and not worth commenting on. I've made my points. If you feel I'm some emotional fan boy then that's up to you, but it's the farthest thing from the truth.

[LookinUp]

Your answer is condescending. Suggesting that everyone against the trade is emotional is ridiculous and not worth commenting on. I've made my points. If you feel I'm some emotional fan boy then that's up to you, but it's the farthest thing from the truth.

You are clearly not emotional.

Just digging you, Tony.

[Tony-OH]

Tony, can you expand on this (especially since it seems to be a majority opinion)? Why does a trade with a "small gain" so unsavory?

There have been folks here clamoring for our GM to take any and every opportunity to improve the ballclub by even a single iota and here we have such a deal and the reaction is larglely negative. I understand if the reaction is "solid trade, small improvement", but the general reaction is skewed toward the negative.

Small gains by upgrading the bench or adding depth is just fine. Trading away the only pitcher you could count on for 200 innings when your stated goal is to "win more than we lose" is counter productive in my opinion. His trade has the POTENTIAL to have a small gain, but it will require a pitcher to pitch better then he ever has in the AL East while hoping for a breakout year from an expensive set up guy. I just wouldn't move my only 200 inning pitcher for guys that could gain me a small advantage, but most likely not enough to make a difference. I mean, what is the net gain in wins? Could Hammel have more value at the trading deadline than Guthrie, sure, in theory because he's younger and has an additional year of control. However, I don't see anything that suggests he's going to come to the AL East and have that kind of success. Guthrie is a classic pitcher who outperforms his peripherals while Hammel was a classic guy who underperformed his peripherals in his two decent years before the shoe finally dropped.

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.

[Tony-OH]

He'll be lucky to get $12.4 over 3 years.

That's just silly and inaccurate.