Any obligation to keep the team respectable?

[RShack]

You don't have to be a good player to be able to teach young players how to go about their business professionally.

Walker and Bradford may be able to impart some amount of wisdom to younger players. Maybe not, none of us know. But if they can, then I certainly believe that there are other MLB relievers out there who could pass along the same information. Go sign those guys for $1M contracts and have them put up 4.50 ERAs in our bullpen the next two years and mentor our "kids". Trade Walker and Bradford and get back more talented "kids" to mentor.

If you want to say veterans in the bullpen are important because they provide insight and leadership vital to the development of young players, I won't agree wholeheartedly but I won't completely disagree or argue with you either. But if you say that Walker and Bradford specifically offer something that nobody else we could sign cheaply could, then I disagree.

Oh, I wouldn't keep them for that. I'd keep them because we need some guys in the BP who DT can pretty much count on. I think that matters. My hunch is that both DT and AM also think that matters. I'm not worried about how much they make. How much Walker and Bradford make is not a big problem. Having a BP without some guys who DT can pretty much count on to not blow up games left and right, that's a much bigger problem.

It'll be mildly hilarious to see how the extreme-blow-it-up guys try to say that AM has somehow sided with them if he hangs on to these guys. The short term stance will be, "Oh, he's just keeping them 'til the deadline when he can sell high." That's predictable and is already happening. It'll be more interesting to see what rationale gets used if AM keeps one or both of them past the deadline...

[RShack]

As others have already said "keep the team respectable" is a pretty ironic line. In trying to keep the team respectable the last 4-5 years, they have become downright unrespectable. Another funny thing. The blow it up crowd started as a noisy minority and has grown to become pretty much the majority around here. Now the GM is even on board. There are still a few who need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, but eventually they'll be on board as well, because most of them always say, "McPhail (or insert any Oriole GM) knows more than us. Whatever he does is probably the right thing." Blow it up, isn't exactly the same for everyone, but hell, if trading BRob, Miggy, and Bedard ain't blowing it up, than I don't know what is. If trading Bradford & Walker at the deadline brings back the most value, and IMO, that's the likely case, then so be it. However, in no way, do I hold onto these guys, because it makes us more respectable in some way. If you can get good prospects for them now, do it!!!!!!!

I think you're making a federal case about the specific words Frobby used. I think that's clearly missing the point of his question. The point of his question was whether it's good to keep some guys who actually know what they're doing, to help stabilize things so that you don't have talented but if-fy kids suffering debacle after debacle.

As for whether extreme-blow-it-up people are gonna be claiming that AM is doing what they said all along, well, I fully expect that to happen. Some people are gonna be cherry-picking the various moves he makes very selectively in order to say that it proves how smart they are. The truth of the matter is that the situation now is very different in some important ways compared to just a couple years ago. What AM decides to do now says nothing about what made sense to do a couple years ago. However, I fully expect that some folks won't admit that.

[Greg Pappas]

This relates to SG's thread about why keep Walker or Bradford around if we are rebuilding?

On the one hand, if we are rebuilding, it makes sense to get as many veterans as possible out of here, including veteran middle relievers.

On the other hand, do you want your young players in an environment where they are terribly overmatched day after day? Those last 5-6 weeks of last season were pretty chastening for me. I would not want to watch that kind of baseball for 162 games, and I doubt the players would want to play in an environment like that, either.

I think there may be some minimum number of solid veterans you have to keep around to avoid having a complete debacle on your hands.

If so, who are they?

I think that the "obligation", if any, should remain in keeping our bullpen strong, so that our young starters don't get too down watching their solid efforts ruined yet again by a poor pen. I am not necessarily opposed to dealing either Walker or Bradford, but it truly depends upon what sort of players we could get in return. If it's a no-brainer, we should deal them, however if it's for a mid level type, I'd prefer we keep them and deal them later.

Good thread Frobby, as usual. It poses an obviously debateable and interesting question.

[RShack]

Can you cut this down to a sentence and repost. You lost me after "I think".

Well, you could take just the first sentence, and cut out the part about thinking. That would be most of it ;-)

[Icterus galbula]

The point of his question was whether it's good to keep some guys who actually know what they're doing, to help stabilize things so that you don't have talented but if-fy kids suffering debacle after debacle.

I think the Marlins and Tigers have shown in the past that "suffering debacle after debacle" one year doesn't preclude them from having great success the next year or in later years. I certainly see the value of a decent bullpen, but if the right deal is there you can't hold on to them.

In addition, the players we are most likely going to get back in the rumored deals are major league ready, if not close.

I do not think we are going to have a garbage year just because we are trading Bedard, Roberts, and Tejada, and even if we did have such a year, it would not doom the youngsters careers definitively, as you seem to suggest.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think you're making a federal case about the specific words Frobby used. I think that's clearly missing the point of his question. The point of his question was whether it's good to keep some guys who actually know what they're doing, to help stabilize things so that you don't have talented but if-fy kids suffering debacle after debacle.

As for whether extreme-blow-it-up people are gonna be claiming that AM is doing what they said all along, well, I fully expect that to happen. Some people are gonna be cherry-picking the various moves he makes very selectively in order to say that it proves how smart they are. The truth of the matter is that the situation now is very different in some important ways compared to just a couple years ago. What AM decides to do now says nothing about what made sense to do a couple years ago. However, I fully expect that some folks won't admit that.

Are we still having this petty little argument about just how many stars have to be traded off for kids to prove that they did or didn't blow it up? Can't we all just be happy MacPhail seems intent doing what's needed to be done for years?

[RShack]

Are we still having this petty little argument about just how many stars have to be traded off for kids to prove that they did or didn't blow it up? Can't we all just be happy MacPhail seems intent doing what's needed to be done for years?

IMO, what's petty is all the snarky stuff about how right you guys supposedly were. If people would just let it go as "What AM is doing makes sense now", then none of this petty stuff would happen. What's bogus is patting yourself on the back and trying to claim that AM doing trades *now* somehow validates a highly debatable (and IMO highly faulty) opinion that some people had years ago.

It's the not-so-thinly-veiled glee from Some Guys about Flanny's problems that's just a bit hard to take. Look, had PA spent for a couple big bats after Miggy and Javy, we likely wouldn't be here right now. That's not Flanny's fault. Hell, if the pitching had turned out differently just this year alone, we wouldn't be here right now. During the second half, they kept showing AM on TV, sitting upstairs and grimly looking down on the field. Usually, it was in the 8th inning, right after the pitching blew up yet another ballgame (or right after we left RISP and lost yet another 1-run game). Had the young pitchers stayed healthy and done well, and the team had won just the normal share of 1-run games and therefore stayed upbeat and positive, I believe the story now would be very different than it is at the moment. Had that happened, then I doubt we would have had all the resulting bad vibes, and I bet AM would be focused on re-signing Bedard, looking for somebody to bat 4th behind Miggi (finally), and telling people who want BRob to forget it. If the kid pitchers had showed up from Norfolk and just mowed down the bad guys in relief and allowed us to win some more games, thus providing a bright spot to make everybody feel good instead of bad, don't you think that's exactly what he'd be doing?

So, if you want to stop the petty arguments, then quit trying to make bogus claims that AM's actions now have anything at all to do with opinions from a couple years ago. They don't. But some people keep trying to sneak it in there, as if it's real when it's not. It reminds me of my brother in law. He's a good guy, but he kept telling me that I should get rid of my Saab. He was saying that when it had 50K miles on it, and he kept on saying it. Then, when it got flooded by water years later, after I put a couple hundred thousand miles on it with no trouble, he said, "See, I told you that you should've traded it back then. See how right I was?" Same silly kind of logic here. He was patting himself on the back for an old opinion that had zilch to do with what actually happened.

[tennOsfan]

Look, had PA spent for a couple big bats after Miggy and Javy, we likely wouldn't be here right now. That's not Flanny's fault. Hell, if the pitching had turned out differently just this year alone, we wouldn't be here right now.

What bats? The Orioles made offers and free agents went elsewhere. Surely you remember that.

It may or may not be Flanagan's fault those FAs shunned us, but it IS his fault (and he should be held accountable) for all of those pitching decisions he was part of. And please don't make me list them.

Sometimes there's a reason the pitching doesn't turn out right. Sometimes you picked the wrong pitchers.

I think your arguments are a bit petty. Many on the Hangout have been against the continual free agent band aid approach of this organization. Take a shallow base talent pool and surround it with a bunch of 35+ year old free agents and be sure you don't have any talent at all at AAA, and see it everything breaks your way. That's how this organization has behaved for 10 years, and we see the results. I didn't always disagree with what we've done, but I think I've seen the light.

McPhail is doing his job differently from his predecessors. Forgive some people if they rejoice.

[mweb]

Rshack, why are you only focusing on the blow it up argument from a couple years ago, when it's heyday is the past 6 months or so? There were some, including you if I'm not mistaken that thought "blowing it up" wasn't realistic or smart within the last 6 months.

I feel that it is much worse to fail to admit one was wrong in a highly debated argument, than it is for one to basically say "I told you so." The latter wouldn't be needed if people would "man up" and admit they were wrong. Message boards are a great place for people to make strong points and then run away and hide or totally spin things once they are shown to be wrong, the real world usually doesn't work the same way.

[Sports Guy]

RShack, do you dream about SportsGuy saying "I told you so" and wake up in the middle of the night? Just asking.

He really is obsessed...Its ridiculous...I think him and El Gordo are either the same person, life partners, best friends or something along those lines.

I am pretty sure that both of them spend at least 70% of their posts either quoting or talking about me.

[RShack]

RShack, do you dream about SportsGuy saying "I told you so" and wake up in the middle of the night? Just asking.

Nah, it's only when I run into it here. It's kinda hard to miss it these days. I let it go for a while, figured he'd get over it, but evidently not...

[RShack]

Rshack, why are you only focusing on the blow it up argument from a couple years ago, when it's heyday is the past 6 months or so?

Oh, that's because the only people I really seeing trying take bogus credit are the ones who keep talking about years ago. That's the only reason for it.

Most folks don't seem to be trying to take credit for anything (bogus or otherwise). Most people just seem interested and eagerly looking forward to seeing whatever is about to happen. That includes me, I'm looking forward to seeing what's gonna happen too. For quite some time I've been saying that I can't wait to see what AM would do.

There were some, including you if I'm not mistaken that thought "blowing it up" wasn't realistic or smart within the last 6 months.

For me, that depends entirely on which of the many definitions of "blow it up" you're referring to. Now, they're all getting blurred together by the very few people who are patting themselves on the back for Flanny's problems, but 6 months ago there were discussions in which people had very different ideas about what it supposedly meant.

[Sports Guy]

For me, that depends entirely on which of the many definitions of "blow it up" you're referring to. Now, they're all getting blurred together by the very few people who are patting themselves on the back for Flanny's problems, but 6 months ago there were discussions in which people had very different ideas about what it supposedly meant.

Same tired, stupid argument.

It has been perfectly clear, to most intelligent people, that the difference in what people have said is to trade Bedard and BRob or not. That is where blow it up has differed over the months.

Seeing as you are dodging the question in the other thread.

If AM trades 5-7 guys and has a practically all new starting lineup, is he going to be wrong and wacko?

I mean, the 80-90% of us that want this have been called wrong and wacko by you, so I will assume you think AM is wrong...correct?

[mweb]

Oh, that's because the only people I really seeing trying take bogus credit are the ones who keep talking about years ago. That's the only reason for it.

Most folks don't seem to be trying to take credit for anything (bogus or otherwise). Most people just seem interested and eagerly looking forward to seeing whatever is about to happen. That includes me, I'm looking forward to seeing what's gonna happen too. For quite some time I've been saying that I can't wait to see what AM would do.

For me, that depends entirely on which of the many definitions of "blow it up" you're referring to. Now, they're all getting blurred together by the very few people who are patting themselves on the back for Flanny's problems, but 6 months ago there were discussions in which people had very different ideas about what it supposedly meant.

I think you're mostly talking about the same people, they thought things should be blown up then and now, and I'll put myself in that group, although not nearly as extreme as some.

I don't think it's really about taking credit, as it is looking for a resolution to a debate. When info comes out that shows one side to be right, or at least mostly right, the other side should admit they were wrong, that is the honorable thing to do. Failing to do that is being cowardly imo. And I'm not posting this to defend SG, even though, according to you, I may be one of his disciple's. I've said the same thing to him.

I think you're mostly getting into semantics with the "blow it up" definition. If McPhail trades Bedard, Tejada, and Roberts for young players, that's basically blowing it up. Those have the key cogs in this debate for a long time now, anyone else is minor. It also seems he wants to trade at least one of Millar/Huff, and wouldn't mind trading Ramon, but the value of those guys aren't high.

[66-70-83-??]

He really is obsessed...Its ridiculous...I think him and El Gordo are either the same person, life partners, best friends or something along those lines.

I am pretty sure that both of them spend at least 70% of their posts either quoting or talking about me.

The *understatement* of the year.

Obsessed with you, obsessed with arguing to the nth degree over semantics or minute details or petty gripes just for the sake of arguing.

It is really getting old.

And he has the gall to lecture others on how they *disagree* with others.