NCRaven

I’m against it simply because I’m not a Bieber believer. His year after year trend doesn’t fill me with confidence that he’d actually prove more value than Gibson did. I’m fine with including Santander in a trade for pitching. Just want to aim higher.

I’m holding out for right field. As a voice in the wilderness…

He retired in August with a month to go in the season. He wasn’t Chris Davis. I don’t think he ever had a multi-year contract. Brooks wasn’t hanging on for a paycheck.

We all know that the only way you will trade for Cease is if he comes in a blockbuster with Luis Robert.

There might be an advantage to not claiming him now and putting him on their 40 man before the draft. Having said that, I forgot that he passed through waivers before they could assign him to AAA.

This guy righting the Orioles blurbs for Sports Illustrated's website calls everyone a star or ace. He's way over the top on potential trade or free agent possibilities.

In addition to the pick, probably in the #30 range depending on teams losing picks for signing QO guys, the Orioles also will get another $2+ million in their draft signing pool.

They are for now.

I believe that Angelos has bought back most of the outside ownership. Not sure how many minority partners are left and what share they own.

Having been outrighted to Norfolk, I expect Vavra to be claimed, assuming he is now eligible.

A really stupid tactic. No way he could build a winner with that approach.

I've remained skeptical about the White Sox moving Robert, but after looking closely, I certainly understand SG's man crush. Plus defender in CF and right handed with power. He makes both Hays and Mullins expendable, not that I'm saying trade both of them. But, you could do a lot worse than an outfield that included Robert (RH), Kjerstad (LH), Santander (SH), Cowser (LH) and Hilliard (LH) or McKenna (RH).

I thought that they changed that so the team losing the player receives a comp pick, but the team signing the player no longer loses a pick. The comp pick is based on the salary level of the losing team. If the losing team receives revenue sharing it's a higher pick than a team that is over the luxury tax threshold, for example.

Is that a five yard penalty and repeat the down for having more than 9 players on the field?

I don't really disagree. But, they could always choose another career if they are terribly troubled by the unfairness inherent in the CBA. Or, once they're members of the MLBPA, they could actually show some cajones and stand up for they guys coming up behind them.

For some reason that bent over bird wing thing just pisses me off. There's no rational reason for me to feel that way. I just find it irritating.

Rant time only because you raise this issue often. Free agency and guaranteed multi-year contracts give players an advantage. The six years of team control and ability to keep players off the 40 man roster for a period of time give management an advantage. Both use those advantages to their own benefit and harm. Peter Angelos freely entered into a crazy contract with Chris Davis. Joe Ortiz freely entered into a career in baseball with its rules and CBA. Is it fair that Arnold Schwarzeneger was paid $20-$40 million per movie and that autoworkers make $35-$60 thousand per year? Everyone works in the system that they've chosen (if you accept that people have some level of free choice in our cultural and economic system). When Brooks Robinson was making $110,000 under the reserve clause and the very early days of free agency, my truck driving father was making $10,000. One entertained you and one put heating oil in your tank to keep you warm in the winter. What does fairness have to do with it? Note: Few people could play baseball like Brooks and many can drive a truck. I understand scarcity and supply vs. demand. But neither of those has anything to do with fairness. God, or the fates, if you prefer, choses to give some incredible talent which combined with hard work can result in incredible incomes. I got to be born in America and others in Haiti. As Tina Turner might have said - what's fairness got to do with it. Hmmm... why have former English colonies seemed to prosper much more than former Spanish and French colonies? Wait, what were we talking about, anyway?

These types of projections are mere clickbait until roster construction is complete. Adding Sonny Gray changes things. Adding another high leverage receiver, assuming Elias follows through on his stated intentions, changes things. Will be more interested in seeing this updated in March. Then I'll complain about how under appreciated we remain.

I see no use in me speculating who may be available when I have no way of knowing which GMs want to trade which relievers. I just asked the question as a follow-up to SG. As to the basic question in the OP, I remain opposed to trading someone like Ortiz for any reliever, especially one with such a limited history of success.

And if he is available in trade, is he really the best? Maybe there are other trade opportunities for better pitchers that would cost us six years of control over a potential plus player like Ortiz.

I'm much more in the horrendous camp than the do it camp, primarily because of the 1 remaining year of control and lack of a consistent track record for Scott. Also think that another lefty with Hall, Perez, Coulombe, Vespi, Davidson, Akin, Zimmerman all candidates for the bullpen, is a low priority. I know that a quality lefty beats a piss poor righty every time, but I'd rather target a quality righty at this point in time.

We’ll thank goodness we don’t have to worry about backup catcher.

In what world is this proof that the deal was for Lugo, Cease or any specific player?

I’d be thrilled with that.

I’m surprised that you’re surprised.