Pickles

All deserved and fairly unexpected.

Sure, there's reasons to trade him, and there's reasons to not trade him. I won't be shocked either way.

Yeah, moving Santander makes "some" sense, so it may well happen. But this particular writer has no insight into whether the O's are going to do that than the average poster here, and he possess no insight into what the Marlins, or whomever, might be thinking in regards to Santader and their own guys. I agree that all we have now is speculation, and I guess I'm just being an old man shouting at a cloud.

Both things can be true. Elias would never publicly disclose his intentions. And, this is some rando spitballing from pretty general premises.

Sure, there are considerations, but he's not going into this offseason with the mentality he HAS to trade Santander, or whomever, because of outside forces.

I think there's more to most of the posters here spitballing than this randos.

Not directly, but an interview of Elias or something, while he wouldn't provide his direct plans, would at least show some insight. This is just some rando spitballing. That said, I think you have the wrong idea about the way Elias goes about his business. I don't think he has guys he "wants" and others he "doesn't want" to trade. He's not going to go into this offseason thinking he has to move specific guys for specific reasons; ie salary, or logjam. He makes moves considering the entirety of the organization.

Well, more so than this. This is some rando blogger just spitballing. I guess we all know this, but I felt like saying it aloud. LOL.

The linked article is rank speculation. It provides no insight into the FO's actual thinking.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. In 2-3 years I think it's likely that they're in pretty bad shape.

You've definitely argued, and continue it here, that the Orioles should/need to make trades, and that Elias should be more aggressive in seeking them out, and be willing to "lose" value, or at least not "win," the trade if it made the major league team better or more balanced. Is that a missummary? The fail rate of prospects can be used equally well as an argument for why one shouldn't trade them. If the Orioles can find win/win trades that improve their roster then they should definitely do that. I think though, sans a crystal ball, that what might appear to be a win/win trade can turn into a lose/win trade very easily, and you shouldn't really go into a trade situation accepting that you'll lose value in a neutral outcome. I'll admit that I fully understand your point. But I expect the Orioles to be a lot more risk-averse than the average OH position. I expect more Hernaiz/Irvin deals, perhaps up a step in caliber, but not near the top tier. Personally, I'm ok with it. I understand a lot of people aren't.

I won't say you never trade within the division, but certainly it is a consideration to be had. You've been adamant that the team may need to "overpay" to bring in a TOR through trade. That may well be true, but I would be much less inclined to do that if it was within the division for obvious reasons.

Of course. That's common sense. They should predicate their team building efforts on their intention of competing against the division. I mean what else should they concern themselves with? How they match up with the Monstars?

Well he can speak for himself and I shouldn't presume, but I think it should be pretty obvious the Rays wouldn't want to help make the Os better.

I think he meant- probably correctly- the Rays wouldn't want to trade him to the O's.

So now we should cut Mullins? LOL. Perfectly reasonable position.

Well, all things considered equal, I'd rather they bonded over the Bible than Strip Clubs.

And it's a good question. And you have to take Gibson over nothing. The O's are still going to need innings next year, maybe not 192, but plenty. I actually feel better about the top of this rotation than I have in living memory, and of course would like to add somebody who slots in to start a playoff game, but when I look at Means, Hall, Irvin, and Wells, I'm not sure how many innings I can get out of that group.

Our two best starters got bombed. It was the "quality's" fault.

Get used to it. Going to be a lot of organizations poaching our baseball operations for talent.

To win the American League East and have the best record in the American League? How did that work out for him?

Regarding the bolded, who gives a crap? He won 101 games and the American League East. He doesn't need to sign a ToP fReE aGeNt to get the benefit of the doubt.

FA are almost always bad long-term propositions. Extending your own doesn't always work out either, but the odds are far more in your favor.

It was not a long-held position, as you have been clear about in regards to Hall, but it was after a frustrating start early in Bedard's 2005 campaign where you posted that they should transition him to an "Arthur Rhodes role." 5 days later he basically turned his season/career around and was an effective starter for the O's the rest of his time here, and often dominant. You already responded to COC's Randy Johnson comp, and, of course, you're 100% correct and the odds are certainly stacked in your favor. But LHPs with good fastballs who take some time to develop command/efficiency and become good starters is not exactly man bites dog stuff. Another name I'd throw out there would be C.J. Wilson.

To play Devil's advocate, I seem to recall you make a similar argument about Erik Bedard in 2005. The odds are certainly in your favor.