Updated: Orioles acquire Taylor Teagarden

[Sports Guy]

I think that's debatable. The evidence is that Teagarden is a better player than Hill. Even ignoring his 2008 line Teagarden has a career OPS 50 points higher than Hill, appears to be better defensively, and is five years younger.

It all comes back to how much you value the 10%-20%(?) chance Henry and Miclat have of ever being useful MLB players.

Hill can throw out runners at a good rate...Neither player is really any good with the bat although I will give you that TT's bat carries more upside. BTW, TT was playing in a great hitters park as well.

Who cares about age...Its a back up C. That is pretty meaningless here.

Much rather have the 3 players than the 1...Really can't see an intelligent argument to suggest otherwise.

[Frobby]

At this point, I just want to put this topic to bed and root for Teagarden to perform well. I feel we gave up more than I would have liked, but at this point I'm ready to move on.

[erb8472]

Shoppach signed with the Red Sox today for a 1 Year $1.35M deal.

[Sports Guy]

Shoppach signed with the Red Sox today for a 1 Year $1.35M deal.

And even if it takes 2M to get him to come here, still a much better move.

Either way, as I said, there would be players out there that could provide similar production to TT that could be had for free...Same thing with Eveland.

Minor trades or not...Players turn out to be nothing or not...You just don't trade assets for players that you can get for free and that's what the Orioles did.

[lint06]

Minor trades or not...Players turn out to be nothing or not...You just don't trade assets for players that you can get for free and that's what the Orioles did.

I think this is where your argument falls apart a bit. What you've done is removed the actual person from the equation. Your argument is essentially that Player A and Player B, because you feel their value is similar, are the same. However, that isn't the case. Each player will have assets coveted by a team, and that is why trades like this get made. Teagarden is not some other catcher, even if the numbers look close.

And, perhaps more importantly, how a trade turns out matters. So even though Sports Guy says that whether a player turns out doesn't matter because you don't trade for players you can get for free, that's wrong. If Henry and Miclat turn out to be "nothing," yet Teagarden ends up being a valuable back-up, heck, a great back-up, then your idea that you always do or don't do something is flatly wrong.

This trade is only "bad" if SOMETHING happens that makes it so. If Teagarden is awful and Henry becomes a serviceable ML pitcher, then yes, this was a bad idea. But a team makes trades like this because they believe a particular player, not a set of numbers (although they are a big part), will be more useful to them than the particular players they give up. Similar numbers do not make two different players the same player.

[Sports Guy]

I think this is where your argument falls apart a bit. What you've done is removed the actual person from the equation. Your argument is essentially that Player A and Player B, because you feel their value is similar, are the same. However, that isn't the case. Each player will have assets coveted by a team, and that is why trades like this get made. Teagarden is not some other catcher, even if the numbers look close.

And, perhaps more importantly, how a trade turns out matters. So even though Sports Guy says that whether a player turns out doesn't matter because you don't trade for players you can get for free, that's wrong. If Henry and Miclat turn out to be "nothing," yet Teagarden ends up being a valuable back-up, heck, a great back-up, then your idea that you always do or don't do something is flatly wrong.

This trade is only "bad" if SOMETHING happens that makes it so. If Teagarden is awful and Henry becomes a serviceable ML pitcher, then yes, this was a bad idea. But a team makes trades like this because they believe a particular player, not a set of numbers (although they are a big part), will be more useful to them than the particular players they give up. Similar numbers do not make two different players the same player.

This is a terrible argument.

First of all, you evaluate a trade when it happens...Whether it turns out good or not is a different discussion.

Secondly, TT doesn't have some kind of a unique skill set. He can't hit and he plays good defense...That's usually the definition of a back up C. Even though he carries the upside of a better than ormal back up C, he still hasn't really proven that.

There is no jusitification for trading assets for guys that you can acquire for free.

LEt's use the Wada and EJack example.

Right now, I would say it is far more likely that EJack gives us a 4 ERA and throws 200 IP in 2012.

However, Wada can maybe give us a 4.75 ERA and 170 IP...and he can do that for 1/3 of what EJack would cost for the Orioles.

So yea, maybe you win 1 or 2 more games with EJack than Wada and maybe on a team that is a legit contender, that is the difference between getting to the playoffs and not.

But on a team like the Orioles, a team that is going to be lucky to even be 500, spending 7-10 million more(and that doesn't even begin to mention the long term nature of each deal) is just not worth it.

Its the same as say TT vs Koyie Hill. Even if TT is a better player and even if he is worth 1 WAR vs Hill being worth .4 WAR, keeping Henry and Miclat for other reasons makes more sense than trading them for TT.

Why give up so much more to get very little, if any, difference in production?

The only reason this trade was made was because Buck has a hard on for TT. Buck is NO position to be making deals like this. He isn't looking big picture. He isn't looking long term and that is the only way the Orioles should be looking right now.

People may not want to hear it, they may not want to believe it but it doesn't make it less true.

[DrungoHazewood]

Minor trades or not...Players turn out to be nothing or not...You just don't trade assets for players that you can get for free and that's what the Orioles did.

That's a fine high-level rule of thumb, just so long as you don't make it a hard-and-fast rule and address each situation on its own.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is a terrible argument.

What I love about you most is your grasp of delicate nuance.

[Sports Guy]

What I love about you most is your grasp of delicate nuance.

When people describe me, the word delicate often comes up.

[lint06]

This is a terrible argument.

First of all, you evaluate a trade when it happens...Whether it turns out good or not is a different discussion.

No, you evaluate it from beginning to end. So, you may presently evaluate said trade, and when all is said in done years from now, you evaluate it then. You also revisit it in the time in between. What you are doing is fracturing the whole of the trade (although, I am to a point, as well). That is, you are artificially creating points in a timeline and saying each of those points is a unique moment unrelated to the others, when in reality, the whole of the transactions matters.

Further, what you've done is basically set yourself up to never have to be "wrong." By claiming that in this moment the trade is bad, if, in the future, the trade turns out to be a Godsend (hyperbole, yes), you can still say, "Well, at the moment it was a bad trade, but right now it is a good trade." Do you see how that is flawed? For your position to be valid, you would have to say, even if the Teagarden trade turns out to be Robinson for Pappas-esque, "The trade is still bad." If you are willing to do that, then I will allow that your position has some merit.

[SrMeowMeow]

No, you evaluate it from beginning to end. So, you may presently evaluate said trade, and when all is said in done years from now, you evaluate it then. You also revisit it in the time in between. What you are doing is fracturing the whole of the trade (although, I am to a point, as well). That is, you are artificially creating points in a timeline and saying each of those points is a unique moment unrelated to the others, when in reality, the whole of the transactions matters.

Further, what you've done is basically set yourself up to never have to be "wrong." By claiming that in this moment the trade is bad, if, in the future, the trade turns out to be a Godsend (hyperbole, yes), you can still say, "Well, at the moment it was a bad trade, but right now it is a good trade." Do you see how that is flawed? For your position to be valid, you would have to say, even if the Teagarden trade turns out to be Robinson for Pappas-esque, "The trade is still bad." If you are willing to do that, then I will allow that your position has some merit.

No, you evaluate process, not results. If you want to perform a meaningful evaluation.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

No, you evaluate process, not results. If you want to perform a meaningful evaluation.

It's the equivalent of buying an unused $5 scratch-off ticket from someone for $20. Whether that ticket wins or not, you're still an idiot for spending $20 on something you could of had for five bucks.

[Going Underground]

I still think the O's sign one of the non tendered catchers.

[MikeAD]

No, you evaluate it from beginning to end. So, you may presently evaluate said trade, and when all is said in done years from now, you evaluate it then. You also revisit it in the time in between. What you are doing is fracturing the whole of the trade (although, I am to a point, as well). That is, you are artificially creating points in a timeline and saying each of those points is a unique moment unrelated to the others, when in reality, the whole of the transactions matters.

Further, what you've done is basically set yourself up to never have to be "wrong." By claiming that in this moment the trade is bad, if, in the future, the trade turns out to be a Godsend (hyperbole, yes), you can still say, "Well, at the moment it was a bad trade, but right now it is a good trade." Do you see how that is flawed? For your position to be valid, you would have to say, even if the Teagarden trade turns out to be Robinson for Pappas-esque, "The trade is still bad." If you are willing to do that, then I will allow that your position has some merit.

I think what you fail to realize is that this isn't a statement about the players we gave up and whether or not they become anything special, or even if TT/Eveland have a good year. The idea is that we've given up 4 players for players whose equivalents could have been had for nothing and/or signed as FAs. This would allow us to have these low-level players (Eveland and Teagarden with different names) and keep the four prospects. Down the road OR RIGHT NOW, these players can be traded for real talent, or added to packages to get more players back. This is a scenario where nobody is saying that the pink ranger's zord is that important, but its needed to combine with the rest if Megazord is going to take on some space monster.

Nobody is saying that the prospects we gave up will have impressive futures. We are saying that this isn't how a smart rebuilding team handles transactions.

[lint06]

No, you evaluate process, not results. If you want to perform a meaningful evaluation.

I said you evaluate the whole. The fact is, the results come from the process; they are a part of the whole. You cannot disregard the the results because they are directly linked to the whole of the process.