Jump to content

Rate the Guthrie trade (Poll)


DrLev

How would you rate the Jeremy Guthrie trade?  

298 members have voted

  1. 1. How would you rate the Jeremy Guthrie trade?


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I think this is one of the reasons he was traded and I like the trade.

"Jeremy is at a certain point in his career where it's time to become a winning pitcher,'' Connor told Dan Connolly of The Sun. "Pitchers really can't control wins so much, but I've been on some teams that were pretty bad that had a couple of guys that won more than they lost. He's pitched in the big leagues, he's been in the rotation three or four full years … it's time for him to be the guy and set an example."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-11/sports/bs-sp-schmuck-column-0612-20110611_1_jeremy-guthrie-rotation-three-or-four-orioles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Yes, this is my take. They traded a 3-ish win pitcher with one year left under contract at 80% of market value for two guys of similar value (but with some upside) at similar costs. Hammel's uncertainty, and the idea that he can get back to being a 4-win pitcher makes this a mild win for me. If all three pitchers live up to their top billing you've dealt one year of a 3-4 win Guthrie for two years of 3-4 win Hammel and 1-win Lindstrom. At their respective salaries that's more value coming back than going out.

How do you take into account the 2-1 nature of the deal? For example, Hammel could possibly return to his value and provide similar value to what Guthrie would provide. But, Lindstrom is a 1-win RP. If we didn't get Lindstrom, couldn't we have found a 1-win RP who didn't cost us $3+ million? How rare is a 1-win RP, and what is their market value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's to say we could of acquired prospects for him? I'm surprised by the gross over reaction of this trade.

My thoughts as well. Guthrie was gone after this season anyway. At least they got something for him. Everyday he was on the roster, his value decreased

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is one of the reasons he was traded and I like the trade.

"Jeremy is at a certain point in his career where it's time to become a winning pitcher,'' Connor told Dan Connolly of The Sun. "Pitchers really can't control wins so much, but I've been on some teams that were pretty bad that had a couple of guys that won more than they lost. He's pitched in the big leagues, he's been in the rotation three or four full years … it's time for him to be the guy and set an example."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-11/sports/bs-sp-schmuck-column-0612-20110611_1_jeremy-guthrie-rotation-three-or-four-orioles

If he was traded because of his W/L record, there should be a coup. A bloody coup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is one of the reasons he was traded and I like the trade.

"Jeremy is at a certain point in his career where it's time to become a winning pitcher,'' Connor told Dan Connolly of The Sun. "Pitchers really can't control wins so much, but I've been on some teams that were pretty bad that had a couple of guys that won more than they lost. He's pitched in the big leagues, he's been in the rotation three or four full years … it's time for him to be the guy and set an example."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-11/sports/bs-sp-schmuck-column-0612-20110611_1_jeremy-guthrie-rotation-three-or-four-orioles

I think talk of a pitcher stepping up to become a winner is mostly nonsense. You can be a leader, and you can pitch to the best of your ability. You can do whatever you can to improve. But this stuff about being a "winner" is leftover BS from 100 years ago when pitcher wins and losses meant something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trade itself, in a vacuum, is fine.

But big picture, it just didn't do much for the team. Its a much better trade if you get a B prospect instead of Lindstrom.

Doesn't sound like any real prospects were available for Guthrie. If Lindstrom pitches well he will have value at the deadline to a team. I think you could see a nice return for him.

I wonder if this means they might try Johnson in the rotation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound like any real prospects were available for Guthrie. If Lindstrom pitches well he will have value at the deadline to a team. I think you could see a nice return for him.

I wonder if this means they might try Johnson in the rotation?

If you can't get prospects and your reason for dealing Guthrie is money, don't bring back $8.5MM worth of "meh" players. Salary dump Guthrie to someone who'll have him and use that saved $8MM on something useful for the future of the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you take into account the 2-1 nature of the deal? For example, Hammel could possibly return to his value and provide similar value to what Guthrie would provide. But, Lindstrom is a 1-win RP. If we didn't get Lindstrom, couldn't we have found a 1-win RP who didn't cost us $3+ million? How rare is a 1-win RP, and what is their market value?

My take is that the Rockies wanted the deal to be roughly salary-neutral, they didn't want to take on dollars, so they insisted on Lindstrom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't get prospects and your reason for dealing Guthrie is money, don't bring back $8.5MM worth of "meh" players. Salary dump Guthrie to someone who'll have him and use that saved $8MM on something useful for the future of the club.

I don't think this deal was made for salary reasons. I think they valued 2 years of Hammel and Lindstrom more than 1 year of Guthrie. Both of these guys could have good value at the deadline if they pitch well next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't get prospects and your reason for dealing Guthrie is money, don't bring back $8.5MM worth of "meh" players. Salary dump Guthrie to someone who'll have him and use that saved $8MM on something useful for the future of the club.

I don't see why it's such a negative to trade for or otherwise acquire incremental upgrades. We're always in this mindset that the only way to build a team is to trade off anyone of value for huge freakin' shovelfuls of prospects. I don't think I'm so against the Duquette model, which is frequent trades and acquisitions to accomplish moderate upgrades.

If you're always trading Bedard for a bunch of kids, the kids better work out or you haven't accomplished anything. You're often trading guys who are good for guys who you hope are good one day. Duquette seems to be trading guys who're pretty good for guys who could well be 1-2 wins better right now. Do it over a period of years (well, of course) and maybe your baseline climbs. You're not starting every year hoping for a 20 win jump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why it's such a negative to trade for or otherwise acquire incremental upgrades. We're always in this mindset that the only way to build a team is to trade off anyone of value for huge freakin' shovelfuls of prospects. I don't think I'm so against the Duquette model, which is frequent trades and acquisitions to accomplish moderate upgrades.

If you're always trading Bedard for a bunch of kids, the kids better work out or you haven't accomplished anything. You're often trading guys who are good for guys who you hope are good one day. Duquette seems to be trading guys who're pretty good for guys who could well be 1-2 wins better right now. Do it over a period of years (well, of course) and maybe your baseline climbs. You're not starting every year hoping for a 20 win jump.

Yeah, but are these guys upgrades in the AL East? I dunno, Drungo...Guts gave us 200 innings year in, year out. He had his ups and downs but I dunno how this trade makes us incrementally better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why it's such a negative to trade for or otherwise acquire incremental upgrades. We're always in this mindset that the only way to build a team is to trade off anyone of value for huge freakin' shovelfuls of prospects. I don't think I'm so against the Duquette model, which is frequent trades and acquisitions to accomplish moderate upgrades.

If you're always trading Bedard for a bunch of kids, the kids better work out or you haven't accomplished anything. You're often trading guys who are good for guys who you hope are good one day. Duquette seems to be trading guys who're pretty good for guys who could well be 1-2 wins better right now. Do it over a period of years (well, of course) and maybe your baseline climbs. You're not starting every year hoping for a 20 win jump.

When you are thin on talent, incremental upgrades do essentially nothing to get you back to a state of competition. You have to bring in legit talent from somewhere. If the thought is that BAL has to do that by growing it themselves, rather than trading for prospects, then they should be operating at a $50MM payroll and pumping money into development and scouting. There is no reason to have an $85MM team that has next to no chance of finishing out of last place.

I appreciate that you and Lucky Jim are trying to spin this as an intellectually astute move, but I don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...