Braydog 9

Oh, I completely agree. I guess that's my point, actually. If this was a theme (i.e., trading prospects for rentals) then I'd better understand a lot of the hostility towards it and I'd agree. But the theme has been the opposite and it has at times burned us, so I don't mind going for it every once in a while and trading a prospect. The front office took a shot at a piece that could have helped win a WS by trading a prospect who could be a stud or could've turned into Matusz or much worse. I can maybe question their talent eval of EdRod but I don't hate the concept (again, as long as it is used sparingly). EDIT: Reply fail--supposed to be in response to Drungo's comment number 312.

I find it funny that people are using the Arietta trade to bolster their argument that the Os shouldn't have traded EdRod. If anything, not trading Arietta when he was a prospect with a lot of value and letting him languish before finally giving up on him is support FOR trading EdRod. And, of course, there is Exhibit B--Matusz.

Similarly, imagine if it had been reported that the O's turned down the trade then the O's lost to a Tigers team anchored in the bullpen by Andrew Miller in the ALDS, and now EdRod was still pitching in Double A at about the same level he did for Bowie last year while Wright etc. were pitching for the O's as well as they are now. People would be saying how DD had a surplus of pitching and was crazy not to part with a piece for a shot at a WS and how he should have gone for it. Hindsight--always 20/20.