Rate the Guthrie trade (Poll)

[Singleton]

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.

Dag that's well said!

[Birds of B'more]

I gave it a D. At best, the O's broke even and saved a little money in the process (and if that money goes to Ramirez, the trade is automatically downgraded to an F). But no matter what, they are no better than they were before, either now or long-term. Given that, I don't see what the point was.

[mweb]

I gave it a D. At best' date=' the O's broke even and saved a little money in the process (and if that money goes to Ramirez, the trade is automatically downgraded to an F). But no matter what, they are no better than they were before, either now or long-term. Given that, I don't see what the point was.[/quote']

I don't see how it's possible to say no matter what, they are no better before now or long-term. Hammel had better FIP's in 2010 and 2009. Lindstrom is decent. It's not hard at all to imagine them being more productive than Guthrie this year.

As far as long-term, well there is the extra year of club control for both pitchers, so there's that. Otherwise, if the O's do get more value out of the new pitchers, than it stands to reason that they'd be able to get more in a trade given the extra year of control.

[maudibjr]

Most people think Hamels is similer, if not slightly better, to Guts. Hamels is younger, so maybe you could flip him later. Lindstrom is not a terrible throw in.

The time to trade guts was last year, so maybe this is the best you can get. An incremental improvement and kick the can for a year. I don't see us any worse, if anything we will probably be a a bit better. That to me is the definition of a C trade.

[OK_Os_Fan]

Not seeing the issue with the trade.

Got back Guthrie level talent in Hamel and a reliever. If Lindstrom pitches to 3 ish ERA he can net the B type prospect 'folks think we should have gotten for Guthrie' at the trade deadine.

If not you haven't lost much.

[Birds of B'more]

I don't see how it's possible to say no matter what, they are no better before now or long-term. Hammel had better FIP's in 2010 and 2009. Lindstrom is decent. It's not hard at all to imagine them being more productive than Guthrie this year.

As far as long-term, well there is the extra year of club control for both pitchers, so there's that. Otherwise, if the O's do get more value out of the new pitchers, than it stands to reason that they'd be able to get more in a trade given the extra year of control.

If they can trade one or both of them for something of value, then it's certainly better than a D trade, I'll give you that. An extra year of each vs Guthrie does nothing more than save money....money which, if history holds, will only go to a washed-up vet (Hello, Manny). No gain. And again, looking at Hammel's #'s last season tells me that the likelihood of him equaling Guthrie's production is a very best-case scenario. If he's more likely to replicate 2009-10, then why did Colorado trade him? What do they know about him? A question the Orioles frequently fail to ask themselves.

[canonfaz]

LOL at the 1 person who gave the trade an "A".

[mweb]

If they can trade one or both of them for something of value' date=' then it's certainly better than a D trade, I'll give you that. An extra year of each vs Guthrie does nothing more than save money....money which, if history holds, will only go to a washed-up vet (Hello, Manny). No gain. And again, looking at Hammel's #'s last season tells me that the likelihood of him equaling Guthrie's production is a very best-case scenario. If he's more likely to replicate 2009-10, then why did Colorado trade him? What do they know about him? A question the Orioles frequently fail to ask themselves.[/quote']

This trade has nothing to do with saving money since it doesn't save them any money.

Him performing to the level of 2009 and 2010 is as good or better than what Guts is likely to provide and then there's a decent reliever. It's very plausible that these two pitchers will contribute more to the O's this year than Guthrie would have. There is uncertainty obviously, but a miracle is far from needed for this trade to turn into a net gain for the upcoming season, and then there's the extra year of control.

[Birds of B'more]

This trade has nothing to do with saving money since it doesn't save them any money.

Him performing to the level of 2009 and 2010 is as good or better than what Guts is likely to provide and then there's a decent reliever. It's very plausible that these two pitchers will contribute more to the O's this year than Guthrie would have. There is uncertainty obviously, but a miracle is far from needed for this trade to turn into a net gain for the upcoming season, and then there's the extra year of control.

Of course it saves them money. They get two players for slightly less than they would have paid Guthrie. Plus they are under control in 2013, thus potentially saving more money next season if they would have had to re-sign them as FAs or get two FAs to replace them.

As for whether they can equal or exceed Guthrie's production is highly questionable. You keep pointing to 2009 and 2010. I look at the more recent samples and say it's unlikely. And given the giant blob of question marks that was already our starting rotation, I say Guthrie's value to the club actually exceeded just his mere stats.

[Sparkwinder]

Upon further reflection, I think this is a solid A trade. My initial reaction upon reading over the stats was B/B+, but now it looks like a definite A to me.

Firstly, Hammel is 4-years younger than and has 1/3rd the salary of Guthrie. Hammel had to pitch at Coors field, which, in my mind (and the stats reflect this) narrows the talent gap considerably. Hammel's road stats over the past 3 years align very well with Guthrie's overall stats. Yes, Hammel was pitching in the NL, so I'm still going to give the nod to Guthrie, but not by all that much. So, you get a player who is 90% as good as Guthrie who is 4 years younger, costs 33% of Guthrie, is under control for a year longer, and you get rid of the player who led the league in losses 2 out of the last 3 years. I know, I know, W-L doesn't matter. Except that it DOES matter, especially when you are content pitching for a perennial loser.

Throw in Lindstrom, who had an extremely solid season last year, and it turns into a nice trade. Yes, Lindstrom's salary is a little higher than you'd want to see, but if he provides the production he did last season, he'll earn it.

Most importantly, each of these guys has the potential to net us draft picks and or prospects in the future.

I'm not sure why everyone is so eager to "win" trades, or that it never crosses most people's minds that both teams can "win" a trade. Each team's needs are different, and therefore each player offers a different value to that team. Having an aged losing veteran on the Baltimore Orioles, who even by the longest of shots aren't anywhere near contention, makes no sense. Would I have rather seen us get some prospects instead of who we got in return? Absolutely. But maybe the prospects weren't there. Maybe the deal was never right. The point here is that we got younger, we gained flexibility, we got cheaper, and I would say there is a better than 50% chance that we got *better* through this trade.

Good luck to Guthrie, though I'll always remember that he was conspicuously absent from a commercial/public service that the O's pitching staff did for the "It Get's Better" campaign last spring. A lot of the pitching staff was in it, sans Guthrie. Why wasn't he in it? Maybe he wasn't around that day, and I'm stating clearly that I have no knowledge in this matter, but I'd bet it was for other reasons. I think it serves as a good reminder that someone can be perceived as philanthropic or a leader in community service / outreach, but actually be advocating and advancing positions that you are adamantly opposed to.

[Birds of B'more]

Upon further reflection, I think this is a solid A trade.

I'll have what he's having!

[MrOrange82]

I'll have what he's having!

Finely-aged embalming fluid with a splash of "I'm secretly a Yankee fan"?

[mweb]

Of course it saves them money. They get two players for slightly less than they would have paid Guthrie. Plus they are under control in 2013' date=' thus potentially saving more money next season if they would have had to re-sign them as FAs or get two FAs to replace them.

As for whether they can equal or exceed Guthrie's production is highly questionable. You keep pointing to 2009 and 2010. I look at the more recent samples and say it's unlikely. And given the giant blob of question marks that was already our starting rotation, I say Guthrie's value to the club actually exceeded just his mere stats.[/quote']

No, it doesn't save them money. 8.35M for these two vs 8.2 for Guthrie. And I don't see how potentially paying Lindstrom 4M next year and whatever Hammel would get in arbitration can really be spinned into saving them money. Sure, if they play well this year, then they'll be good values next year, but that remains to be seen and obviously you don't see that as being that likely.

More recent sample you mean. You act like 2009 and 2010 are so long ago. Even this past year, Guthrie wasn't significantly more effective than Hammel.

[weams]

Of course it saves them money. They get two players for slightly less than they would have paid Guthrie. Plus they are under control in 2013' date=' thus potentially saving more money next season if they would have had to re-sign them as FAs or get two FAs to replace them.

As for whether they can equal or exceed Guthrie's production is highly questionable. You keep pointing to 2009 and 2010. I look at the more recent samples and say it's unlikely. And given the giant blob of question marks that was already our starting rotation, I say Guthrie's value to the club actually exceeded just his mere stats.[/quote']

Money is not an issue in this transaction.

[Fan4Life]

No, it doesn't save them money. 8.35M for these two vs 8.2 for Guthrie. And I don't see how potentially paying Lindstrom 4M next year and whatever Hammel would get in arbitration can really be spinned into saving them money. Sure, if they play well this year, then they'll be good values next year, but that remains to be seen and obviously you don't see that as being that likely.

More recent sample you mean. You act like 2009 and 2010 are so long ago. Even this past year, Guthrie wasn't significantly more effective than Hammel.

Well, it could save them money. If they are able to move either along with their salary at any point before it's all paid, it's a savings. Moving Guthrie had he won his arbitration case, would have not been doable. Likely not doable had we won arbitration unless we paid some of it to move him.