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

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.

A couple of points. First, I'm really not. I don't see it as an "astute" move, nor do I see it as an epic failure. I gave it a moderate thumbs-down in my evaluation.

That said, if Hammel is essentially Guthrie (and, according to some metrics he was basically better before last year) then we still have him, with the option to recover Guthrie-like value in a year. The opportunity cost you've pointed out ("legit talent from somewhere") only exists if (i) Guthrie could have brought it; or (ii) it is now unavailable

I think the real point of conflict/contradiction here is that Duquette probably could have gotten lesser prospects and he preferred moderate MLB upgrade. I don't agree or disagree with this, but if the return was something like "two Wynn Pelzers," well, I find it hard to be upset. What you get for two Wynn Pelzers, I guess, is a free $8m. That's not insignificant. But the argument that we could free up money to reinvest elsewhere hasn't really been the point of contention here.

I'm open to that logic, certainly. It has a certain Machiavellian appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

I think Hammel's upside is higher than Guthrie's, and he's ours through '13. And we get Lindstrom, too, for the same price.

Sure, they could both implode. But so could have Guthrie, and he's gone in a year. Worst case the O's still suck, best case they have a good pitcher or two for

12 and '13, and the option of just non-tendering Lindstrom if two grounders bounce over his head in the World Series*.

* Somewhere in this mess I had to make an obscure Freddy Lindstrom reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. If you're a 70-win team and you make three trades that turn you into a 75-win team, is that really nothing? You don't have to bring in star talent, you don't necessarily have to bring in A+ prospects to build your talent base. You can try to slowly turn your 2-win players into 3-win players, your Andinos into Hardys, your Accardos into Lindstroms. Then when you've gotten a 80-couple win team you can sign some top talent to round things out.

Over time I've become less enamored with the burn it to the ground and start over approach. The Duquette plan I've described certainly doesn't have to work, but it is a plausible way out of the wilderness without trading off everyone, betting on a bunch of guys currently in A Ball, and hoping 2017 is going to be a good year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points. First, I'm really not. I don't see it as an "astute" move, nor do I see it as an epic failure. I gave it a moderate thumbs-down in my evaluation.

That said, if Hammel is essentially Guthrie (and, according to some metrics he was basically better before last year) then we still have him, with the option to recover Guthrie-like value in a year. The opportunity cost you've pointed out ("legit talent from somewhere") only exists if (i) Guthrie could have brought it; or (ii) it is now unavailable

I think the real point of conflict/contradiction here is that Duquette probably could have gotten lesser prospects and he preferred moderate MLB upgrade. I don't agree or disagree with this, but if the return was something like "two Wynn Pelzers," well, I find it hard to be upset. What you get for two Wynn Pelzers, I guess, is a free $8m. That's not insignificant. But the argument that we could free up money to reinvest elsewhere hasn't really been the point of contention here.

I'm open to that logic, certainly. It has a certain Machiavellian appeal.

Sorry, I meant "astute" in the context of a potentially interesting new approach (playing down Tier 2 prospects and instead focusing on lower-level MLB certainty).

The incremental upgrade simply isn't enough for a team like Baltimore. The orioles essentially kicked the can down the road, which has been what a lot of this off-season has been about. Was it a terrible move? No. But if the team isn't going to make moves for the future I'd strongly prefer just saving the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. If you're a 70-win team and you make three trades that turn you into a 75-win team, is that really nothing? You don't have to bring in star talent, you don't necessarily have to bring in A+ prospects to build your talent base. You can try to slowly turn your 2-win players into 3-win players, your Andinos into Hardys, your Accardos into Lindstroms. Then when you've gotten a 80-couple win team you can sign some top talent to round things out.

Over time I've become less enamored with the burn it to the ground and start over approach. The Duquette plan I've described certainly doesn't have to work, but it is a plausible way out of the wilderness without trading off everyone, betting on a bunch of guys currently in A Ball, and hoping 2017 is going to be a good year.

As much as I hate to admit this, I think Duquette is addressing the Trea-ian "negative value" issue, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This statement makes so much sense it hurts and the Orioles failure to recognize it is why we are looking at year 15 of this debacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. If you're a 70-win team and you make three trades that turn you into a 75-win team, is that really nothing? You don't have to bring in star talent, you don't necessarily have to bring in A+ prospects to build your talent base. You can try to slowly turn your 2-win players into 3-win players, your Andinos into Hardys, your Accardos into Lindstroms. Then when you've gotten a 80-couple win team you can sign some top talent to round things out.

Over time I've become less enamored with the burn it to the ground and start over approach. The Duquette plan I've described certainly doesn't have to work, but it is a plausible way out of the wilderness without trading off everyone, betting on a bunch of guys currently in A Ball, and hoping 2017 is going to be a good year.

Sounds like your plan would net us an aging, expensive team with little long term upside.

The idea that, this isn't a bad trade because we didn't really lose anything is pretty poor.

What we gained, if anything, is pretty minimal and its very little long term.

And I have no idea why people bring up Lindstrom as a positive in this deal. How much better is he than Gregg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant "astute" in the context of a potentially interesting new approach (playing down Tier 2 prospects and instead focusing on lower-level MLB certainty).

The incremental upgrade simply isn't enough for a team like Baltimore. The orioles essentially kicked the can down the road, which has been what a lot of this off-season has been about. Was it a terrible move? No. But if the team isn't going to make moves for the future I'd strongly prefer just saving the money.

I can only imagine what the outcry on here would have been if he'd traded Guthrie for the marginal prospects (likely available). I would have been fine with a press conference that said: "we've traded Guthrie for two Wynn Pelzer's. But, in truth, we merely wanted to cut costs. So, I'm happy to announce that, with the saved money, we've built a complex in Venezuela and signed 12 prospects out of the DR."*

*Temporal issues aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only imagine what the outcry on here would have been if he'd traded Guthrie for the marginal prospects (likely available). I would have been fine with a press conference that said: "we've traded Guthrie for two Wynn Pelzer's. But, in truth, we merely wanted to cut costs. So, I'm happy to announce that, with the saved money, we've built a complex in Venezuela and signed 12 prospects out of the DR."*

*Temporal issues aside.

At least, that's a direction.

What is the direction right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. If you're a 70-win team and you make three trades that turn you into a 75-win team, is that really nothing? You don't have to bring in star talent, you don't necessarily have to bring in A+ prospects to build your talent base. You can try to slowly turn your 2-win players into 3-win players, your Andinos into Hardys, your Accardos into Lindstroms. Then when you've gotten a 80-couple win team you can sign some top talent to round things out.

Over time I've become less enamored with the burn it to the ground and start over approach. The Duquette plan I've described certainly doesn't have to work, but it is a plausible way out of the wilderness without trading off everyone, betting on a bunch of guys currently in A Ball, and hoping 2017 is going to be a good year.

The problem is that the rest of your roster isn't static, so if your incremental improve from 70-85 wins takes you three seasons, you've effectively wasted the cheap years of the young talent you had in place at 70-wins. Perhaps a larger concern, the players that are giving you your marginal improvement, generally, are not going to be the higher caliber players -- which is the group that generally gives you a little more certainty in production. So you are just as likely to have made no progress, or moved backwards, on your 25-man.

You don't need to burn things to the ground, but you do need to make tough decisions in shaping your roster. Simply reshuffling deck chairs while you work to improve your operational effectiveness in scouting, development and analysis is nothing more than a waste of dollars. Why do you need to bring on Lindstrom? In addition to that, we hear Baltimore is still looking to add more bullpen help? It all potentially points to questionable decision making and prioritizing -- which is at the heart of Law's critiques, which have been hammered around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, if Hammel is essentially Guthrie (and, according to some metrics he was basically better before last year) then we still have him, with the option to recover Guthrie-like value in a year. The opportunity cost you've pointed out ("legit talent from somewhere") only exists if (i) Guthrie could have brought it; or (ii) it is now unavailable

Guthrie can not fetch prospects at this point, trade for a younger cheaper Guthrie, try to flip him for prospects down the road. You could sell me on that if it's the case. I don't think that is what's going on here but what do I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only imagine what the outcry on here would have been if he'd traded Guthrie for the marginal prospects (likely available). I would have been fine with a press conference that said: "we've traded Guthrie for two Wynn Pelzer's. But, in truth, we merely wanted to cut costs. So, I'm happy to announce that, with the saved money, we've built a complex in Venezuela and signed 12 prospects out of the DR."*

*Temporal issues aside.

But the real culprit there would be the previous administration, with the "botch" being not moving Guthrie at a time when his value was higher. I think there was likely to be anger, regardless of the move, because whatever reasonable outcome was reached, it's likely less valuable than what Baltimore could have had a year ago, or two years ago.

It's a larger picture issue -- an organization that continues to show signs of not fully understanding itself, it's prospects for competition, it's current talent level in the Major and Minors -- essentially, everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the real culprit there would be the previous administration, with the "botch" being not moving Guthrie at a time when his value was higher. I think there was likely to be anger, regardless of the move, because whatever reasonable outcome was reached, it's likely less valuable than what Baltimore could have had a year ago, or two years ago.

It's a larger picture issue -- an organization that continues to show signs of not fully understanding itself, it's prospects for competition, it's current talent level in the Major and Minors -- essentially, everything.

I think you're absolutely right that there's a time-value component to MLB talent, though it depreciates and accrues, at different rates, along the vectors of performance trajectory and years/control. For instance, while Jones may go up with a break-out year, he depreciates some due to contract status. Hardy may solidify, though he's risky. Wieters could jump, and shouldn't have too much near-term decline in value. Reynolds is "meh."

So, if we full rebuild, we trade Jones, Hardy, Wieters and Reynolds. We're likely stuck with Markakis and Roberts (though we could potentially move Markakis if we swallowed cash). But, to be honest, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if between now and the end of 2013 Jones, Hardy, Reynolds, Lindstrom, and Hammel have all been moved. Who knows with Wieters? Of those, perhaps Hardy and Jones will have been held onto for too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're absolutely right that there's a time-value component to MLB talent, though it depreciates and accrues, at different rates, along the vectors of performance trajectory and years/control. For instance, while Jones may go up with a break-out year, he depreciates some due to contract status. Hardy may solidify, though he's risky. Wieters could jump, and shouldn't have too much near-term decline in value. Reynolds is "meh."

So, if we full rebuild, we trade Jones, Hardy, Wieters and Reynolds. We're likely stuck with Markakis and Roberts (though we could potentially move Markakis if we swallowed cash). But, to be honest, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if between now and the end of 2013 Jones, Hardy, Reynolds, Lindstrom, and Hammel have all been moved. Who knows with Wieters? Of those, perhaps Hardy and Jones will have been held onto for too long.

Making those decisions now, instead of next summer, gives you 1.5 years to develop long term solutions and to implement money saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...