#Orioles and #Braves are making progress on an Adam Jones deal. Hearing Jurrjens is involved

[24fps]

This is a situation that I would be much more comfortable with if MacPhail were here. I was in favor of the change, but we need to pay AM a consulting fee to run point on these negotiations.

Yep. With AM, we should get this puppy wrapped up by June. Fourth of July at the latest.

[DrungoHazewood]

Eh, I think at some point you have to roll the dice. Whatever we've been doing now hasn't been working.

I'd rather be neither a risk-averse bad organization, nor a risk-happy bad organization. I want the O's to make moves likely to push them ahead, not take on unnecessary risk just because it's different.

[Lucky Jim]

I agree with this in principle, but isn't this unavoidable? Even if we traded Jones for Minor and Delgado, a deal very few of us would turn down, neither of those guys are sure things. Any sort of return we get is going to include a "possible miss."

Not all risk is created equal.

[Lucky Jim]

Of course it's mitigated. If I sell you a car worth 150K for 10K because it may not run your risk is certainly mitigated and you may end up driving an unreal car that you got for pennies on the dollar (not saying that this is the most apt comparison for Hanson and AJ).

I'm not the Atlanta Braves team doctor, and I'm not James Andrews (who I assume operated on Hanson) so I obviously know very little about his health. What I do know, is that if he can come back with a clean bill of health he's easily worth Adam Jones, especially when we can go out and sign a Coca Crisp to play CF. It's worth at least looking into. I'm assuming that any trade would require a rigorous physical which would (hopefully) reveal any damage.

I agree with Drungo on this. The risk isn't mitigated because you haven't taken account of the enormous opportunity cost, as I stated. That's no small deal. And "I'm frustrated, so just do something already" isn't a source of mitigation, either.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'd rather be neither a risk-averse bad organization, nor a risk-happy bad organization. I want the O's to make moves likely to push them ahead, not take on unnecessary risk just because it's different.

It's not taking an unnecessary risk just because it's different. The Orioles have been, in my opinion, incredibly risk averse over the years and it's really gotten them nowhere. Trading for a guy like Tommy Hanson, who has the potential to be a staff ace for "only" Adam Jones is a move I endorse not for the sake of just doing something "different" but because I truly believe that, if our doctors give him a clean bill of health, the opportunity is too big to pass up.

[DrungoHazewood]

Of course it's mitigated. If I sell you a car worth 150K for 10K because it may not run your risk is certainly mitigated and you may end up driving an unreal car that you got for pennies on the dollar (not saying that this is the most apt comparison for Hanson and AJ).

I'm not the Atlanta Braves team doctor, and I'm not James Andrews (who I assume operated on Hanson) so I obviously know very little about his health. What I do know, is that if he can come back with a clean bill of health he's easily worth Adam Jones, especially when we can go out and sign a Coca Crisp to play CF. It's worth at least looking into. I'm assuming that any trade would require a rigorous physical which would (hopefully) reveal any damage.

But you can be nearly 100% sure that if the team that has him and knows him best will trade four years of him for two years of Adam Jones he's not healthy.

It doesn't do the O's much of any good to buy a totaled Ferrari for 10k if their goal is to compete in a race sometime in the near future.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I agree with Drungo on this. The risk isn't mitigated because you haven't taken account of the enormous opportunity cost, as I stated. That's no small deal. And "I'm frustrated, so just do something already" isn't a source of mitigation, either.

What's the enormous opportunity cost? Trading Jones for 2-3 guys in the minors who may or may not be just as big a risk as Hanson?

[DrungoHazewood]

It's not taking an unnecessary risk just because it's different. The Orioles have been, in my opinion, incredibly risk averse over the years and it's really gotten them nowhere. Trading for a guy like Tommy Hanson, who has the potential to be a staff ace for "only" Adam Jones is a move I endorse not for the sake of just doing something "different" but because I truly believe that, if our doctors give him a clean bill of health, the opportunity is too big to pass up.

And I truly believe that if the Braves are willing to give up four years of Hanson for two years of Jones he's broken, and the Orioles aren't likely to fix him.

[Pedro Cerrano]

But you can be nearly 100% sure that if the team that has him and knows him best will trade four years of him for two years of Adam Jones he's not healthy.

It doesn't do the O's much of any good to buy a totaled Ferrari for 10k if their goal is to compete in a race sometime in the near future.

Well to be fair I do not know what the Braves are thinking. Maybe they believe that their pitching staff is fine and that outfield offense is a position of need. I have to believe that right now the Orioles have turned down JJ and have asked about Hanson. If that's the case, and the Braves haven't jumped at the gun to say yes, that leads me to believe that they still see some inherent value in Hanson.

It would also render this discussion somewhat moot.

[Pedro Cerrano]

And I truly believe that if the Braves are willing to give up four years of Hanson for two years of Jones he's broken, and the Orioles aren't likely to fix him.

Well then I guess we just have a difference of opinion. I'm sure that there are countless examples of pitchers who never bounced back from these sort of injuries and countless players who did.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I also just read that his injury didn't require surgery. Makes him seemingly less risky.

[DrungoHazewood]

What's the enormous opportunity cost? Trading Jones for 2-3 guys in the minors who may or may not be just as big a risk as Hanson?

At least with the 2-3 guys you've help mitigate the risk by spreading it over multiple players. And teams will do that type of deal even if the prospects are good because they're in a different part of the success cycle than the O's.

Look at it from the Braves perspective. Why would they make this deal? It's not that hard to find a pretty good LF/CFer. If Hanson was healthy and ready to have a 200 inning, 125 ERA+ season with 200 Ks wouldn't it make a heck of a lot more sense for them to sign Coco Crisp to play left field and keep Hanson? There's just no good reason for the Braves to do this deal unless Hanson is broke. Not unless the Braves are stupid, and I don't think they're stupid.

[DrungoHazewood]

I also just read that his injury didn't require surgery. Makes him seemingly less risky.

And much less likely to be traded for Adam Jones, unless his "doesn't require surgery" is the Orioles type of injury where he doesn't require surgery until his ERA is 8.74 on May 8th.

[Lucky Jim]

What's the enormous opportunity cost? Trading Jones for 2-3 guys in the minors who may or may not be just as big a risk as Hanson?

That's right. Spending one of our sole chips in a trade for damaged goods on the hope that (i) he's not as damaged as our trade partner believes; and (ii) that he'll return to form. He lost 1.5 MPH on his average FB last year, and over 22 points in pitch value. He has a known shoulder issue.

How many buy-low trades for, or signing of, guys with shoulder issues have worked out, Pedro?

[Sports Guy]

DD being intrigued by Hanson doesn't mean the Braves would consider trading him.