Rasmus

[MrOrange82]

LOL I'm not trying to be an a-hole about it, I'm just looking at the situation with some objectivity.

There's very obviously something about Rasmus that teams weren't real excited about. If they were willing to dismiss his issues, the deal would certainly have looked different than it did. He's entirely too talented.

If you could put in-his-prime, never-tested-for-roids Gary Sheffield on this team right now, would you do it?

[Sports Guy]

And Guthrie is that much more valuable? Per FG, they've both accumulated 5.2 WAR in the past three years. But that's besides the point. The Cards wanted Jackson, who has surprisingly amassed a 3.0 WAR this year. I wanted Rasmus as much as the next guy, but with this being a highly criticized move, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that the Cards were high on Jackson.

Again, no one is saying that what the Orioles could have offered is that much better or even that ST Louis would have preferred our package to the one they got.

The problem is, the Orioles likely didn't even get involved in this. They aren't a team that is going to go get a piece from one team, just to turn around and move that piece to another team.

Its just not happening and it is disheartening to see a team, in our division, continue to pull off intelligent moves like this that just put us further and further behind.

[Sports Guy]

So you're admitting that you're ignoring the reality of the situation just to piss and moan about it?

The FACT is that the deal that St. Louis ended up accepting doesn't match up with a kid of Rasmus' talent. Ask the "Longtime Scout" you referenced earlier.

No, I am aying that I am not allowing some issues that some kid has with a known jerk of a manager to stop me from acquiring a top talent for very little.

[Sports Guy]

And pretty much every major-league team does. That's why the Jays got Rasmus for their offer, and that is why you fail.

Failure..Something I am sure you know very well.

Pretty every ML team didn't want Hardy or Reynolds either.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Failure..Something I am sure you know very well.

Pretty every ML team didn't want Hardy or Reynolds either.

Yet you claim those aren't similar situations. Make up your hypocritical mind, man.

[Hank Scorpio]

No, I am aying that I am not allowing some issues that some kid has with a known jerk of a manager to stop me from acquiring a top talent for very little.

Yeah I don't really disagree with that.

But it would seem that most of baseball does for some reason.

[MrOrange82]

Yet you claim those aren't similar situations. Make up your hypocritical mind, man.

They're not similar. Hardy was an injury case who suffered a power outage. Reynolds was (is?) a .200 hitter whose WAR was (is) barely above replacement level. The reason the analogies work is because people here tend to like those moves, despite the (different) risks and lower probabilities of return, whereas getting a significantly high-upside player like Rasmus at a discount (though non-negligible overall price) makes people leery because of his "attitude." It's silly.

[Sports Guy]

Yet you claim those aren't similar situations. Make up your hypocritical mind, man.

They aren't, not in the context I am talking about...You just aren't smart enough to follow the conversation.

My point is solely that you and many other endorsed 2 deals made by the Orioles where they acquired talent for very little...talent that had a lot of red flags...Those moves were endorsed...But this non move? Well, that is enough for people to look for whatever little reason they can to justify the Orioles deciding not to make the deal.

[Sports Guy]

Yeah I don't really disagree with that.

But it would seem that most of baseball does for some reason.

But so what? Most of baseball didn't feel it was worth it to get Hardy for nothing. Most of baseball didn't think going after Reynolds was the way to solve third base. Most of baseball didn't want to beat a poor offer for Escobar.

What does that even mean and should we even care?

[BaltimoreTerp]

They're not similar. Hardy was an injury case who suffered a power outage. Reynolds was (is?) a .200 hitter whose WAR was (is) barely above replacement level. The reason the analogies work is because people here tend to like those moves, despite the (different) risks and lower probabilities of return, whereas getting a significantly high-upside player like Rasmus at a discount (though non-negligible overall price) makes people leery because of his "attitude." It's silly.

So Hardy's injury history made people leery of trading for a talented player, because it lowered the perception of his chances of being an effective player.

Reynolds' strikeouts made people leery of trading for a talented player, because it lowered the perception of his chances of being an effective player.

Rasmus' attitude made people leery of trading for a talented player, because it lowered the perception of his chances of being an effective player.

What is the difference?

This isn't some whining over "intangibles" or "leadership". This is a problem with authority and coaching from outside his immediate family. That can have a severe impact on his chances of becoming an effective player long-term.

[Sports Guy]

So Hardy's injury history made people leery of trading for a talented player, because it lowered the perception of his chances of being an effective player.

Reynolds' strikeouts made people leery of trading for a talented player, because it lowered the perception of his chances of being an effective player.

Rasmus' attitude made people leery of trading for a talented player, because it lowered the perception of his chances of being an effective player.

What is the difference?

This isn't some whining over "intangibles" or "leadership". This is a problem with authority and coaching from outside his immediate family. That can have a severe impact on his chances of becoming an effective player long-term.

So could being hurt all the time.

That doesn't mean this isn't a worthwhile risk to a talent starved team.

[Hank Scorpio]

But so what? Most of baseball didn't feel it was worth it to get Hardy for nothing. Most of baseball didn't think going after Reynolds was the way to solve third base. Most of baseball didn't want to beat a poor offer for Escobar.

What does that even mean and should we even care?

Man, I don't know.

It probably means that there's more to baseball than numbers and that the guy's 4.3 WAR isn't worth the headache, or something ridiculous like that.

I'm fairly sure that's why the deal went down like it did.

[Stotle]

The nature of the deal doesn't make you wonder why someone else didn't top it? Certainly doesn't seem like much of a haul to me for a guy of Rasmus' caliber.

So what's missing? Did everyone else crap themselves? It's not like Rasmus wasn't the #1 overall BA prospect like 3 years ago. He's obviously talented.

Was discussing this with someone today. One thought is that STL wanted Rasmus out and wasn't overly concerned with "shopping for the best deal". They found one they liked and went with it.

[BaltimoreTerp]

But so what? Most of baseball didn't feel it was worth it to get Hardy for nothing. Most of baseball didn't think going after Reynolds was the way to solve third base. Most of baseball didn't want to beat a poor offer for Escobar.

What does that even mean and should we even care?

Because it tells us something about this guy.

Look, SG. Despite your best attempts to paint dissent as apologism, the argument isn't a black-and-white debate of "We absolutely should have gone for this guy" versus "We absolutely should not have got him". I'm not thrilled that we didn't go get a talent like Rasmus, just like I was thrilled when we DID go get talents like Hardy and Reynolds. But there are always reasons why you go after certain players and not others.

You take a guy with a flukey injury history, and you hope he stays healthy and thus can perform to his talent. You take a guy who you think strikes out too much and struggles in the field, and you decide that you can coach him and make him even more effective.

But when you look at someone who not only has the reputation of being uncoachable, but has made it known that he is only willing to listen to certain people, that presents a huge risk when it comes to getting this guy to be an effective major-leaguer.

The biggest difference between the deals I brought up in Hardy and Reynolds and Rasmus are the players involved. The first two each took a couple of relievers believed to be expendable. Rasmus, on the other hand, would likely have cost us the two biggest pieces this team has (or at least is willing) to trade. You screw that up and it can put this team in an even worse position than it already is on the field.

It isn't as simple as you want it to be. No matter how much you hope and believe.

[Hank Scorpio]

Was discussing this with someone today. One thought is that STL wanted Rasmus out and wasn't overly concerned with "shopping for the best deal". They found one they liked and went with it.

Wow. Thanks, Nick.

Well, that means one of two things:

1. Rasmus was really that unbearable.

2. St. Louis' baseball operations are run by a complete twit.