Duquette and the Pennant: This Time It's Personal

[Flash- bd]

Individually they're of low-probability. But high-ceiling guys w/ some performance background are rare enough that we should be adding, not subtracting, them from inventory. To me. I get that others don't feel that way.

At this point I think you have to consider Hoes very likely to have "major effects on the ML squad". His ceiling is relatively low, but he's definitely high-probability at this point. He's also of specific value to us due to his OBP profile, good defensive profile, and his position (LF, where there happens to be a gaping hole in our team).

His value isn't high enough where there's going to be teams over-paying for him, so to me he seems like a simple case: hold on to him.

I guess I see our prospects kind of like this:

1-2: Bundy, Machado--just as/more talented than anyone on our team not named Wieters/Jones

3: Schoop--Really good prospect, potential to make nearly as much impact as Machado, though not quite as likely

4: Hoes-- shouldn't really be trading him

After that there's a major drop-off-- I won't lose major sleep over trading Avery/Delmonico who are clearly the next two in line, but I'd hope we'd be getting something of real value for them (ie, not two months of a player in a desperate try for the playoffs).

[Lucky Jim]

At this point I think you have to consider Hoes very likely to have "major effects on the ML squad". His ceiling is relatively low, but he's definitely high-probability at this point. He's also of specific value to us due to his OBP profile, good defensive profile, and his position (LF, where there happens to be a gaping hole in our team).

His value isn't high enough where there's going to be teams over-paying for him, so to me he seems like a simple case: hold on to him.

I guess I see our prospects kind of like this:

1-2: Bundy, Machado--just as/more talented than anyone on our team not named Wieters/Jones

3: Schoop--Really good prospect, potential to make nearly as much impact as Machado, though not quite as likely

4: Hoes-- shouldn't really be trading him

After that there's a major drop-off-- I won't lose major sleep over trading Avery/Delmonico who are clearly the next two in line, but I'd hope we'd be getting something of real value for them (ie, not two months of a player in a desperate try for the playoffs).

Oh, right. Completely agree. I would have included Lino in certain trades w/o any issues whatsoever. Many of the others, as well. This isn't an absolute framework - I'm talking about trades for short-term help, mostly.

[Flash- bd]

Oh, right. Completely agree. I would have included Lino in certain trades w/o any issues whatsoever. Many of the others, as well. This isn't an absolute framework - I'm talking about trades for short-term help, mostly.

No, I know--my post was mainly in response to the idea that all after the top 3 are "fungible" (in other words, I don't think Hoes is), and a qualification to your post that they are low-probability guys.

On the general philosophy we clearly agree. When you say,"But high-ceiling guys w/ some performance background are rare enough that we should be adding, not subtracting, them from inventory. To me. I get that others don't feel that way," I definitely don't belong in the "others" category.

[Tony-OH]

Every human being has personal history, desires, emotions, and experiences that make them who they are. We are molded by people who influence us and events that impact us.

We hired a human being as GM. Of course his experiences and his past affects how he views things and how he performs his job; that's true for everybody.

I have seen nothing in the moves he has made, or the statements that he has made, so far that indicates to me that he will be reckless in tossing young talent or players with potential around like they are pocket change.

Obviously, he has made it clear that he is taking this season into account and making some effort to keep us in the race. So if someone is part of the contingent who believes competing this year is so unlikely as to not being worth any loss of future value, than it's already clear that DD is to the left of them on the PRESENT..........FUTURE spectrum where one extreme is giving up the entire future to win this year and the other extreme is not caring a whit about this year in the effort to build a team for the future. But I have seen nothing so far to make me worry that makes me believe DD is as alarmingly far to the left on that spectrum as you seem to fear based on your posts in this thread.

Some great points here. I probably wouldn't be too happy with both Schoop + Arrieta/Matusz for Greinke but I would move Matusz/Arrieta + a guy like Avery/T. Berry/Bridwell for him. I don't see any reason to think Duquette is going to mortgage all of the farm for this season, but at the same time, too many people over value our prospects. At the end of the day, Greinke could solidify this rotation and if were able to get a guy like Headley as well we might actually be true contenders for a wild card. Again our farm system is not that strong right now and outside of Machado and Bundy, the Orioles aren't holding open spots on the 25-man roster for anyone anytime soon.

[Flash- bd]

Some great points here. I probably wouldn't be too happy with both Schoop + Arrieta/Matusz for Greinke but I would move Matusz/Arrieta + a guy like Avery/T. Berry/Bridwell for him. I don't see any reason to think Duquette is going to mortgage all of the farm for this season, but at the same time, too many people over value our prospects. At the end of the day, Greinke could solidify this rotation and if were able to get a guy like Headley as well we might actually be true contenders for a wild card. Again our farm system is not that strong right now and outside of Machado and Bundy, the Orioles aren't holding open spots on the 25-man roster for anyone anytime soon.

The basic argument is this (and I know you understand this, but I still think it's worth putting in the simplest terms possible): if we want to spend the 5/90+ that it will cost to have Greinke solidify our rotation, why don't we wait 2 months to do so instead of giving up valuable commodities in Avery+Arrieta/Matusz?

Too many people are acting like if we get Greinke signed to an extension than, boom, we've added Greinke long-term. But it's not that simple...we've added Greinke long-term plus about 18M per year to our payroll, and lost someone like Matusz/Arrieta AND Avery who at least have the potential to produce results that far outweigh their maybe 1M salary per year, whereas Greinke will only perform to his salary in his very best, optimal-performance years.

[Vertigo]

The basic argument is this (and I know you understand this, but I still think it's worth putting in the simplest terms possible): if we want to spend the 5/90+ that it will cost to have Greinke solidify our rotation, why don't we wait 2 months to do so instead of giving up valuable commodities in Avery+Arrieta/Matusz?

Too many people are acting like if we get Greinke signed to an extension than, boom, we've added Greinke long-term. But it's not that simple...we've added Greinke long-term plus about 18M per year to our payroll, and lost someone like Matusz/Arrieta AND Avery who at least have the potential to produce results that far outweigh their maybe 1M salary per year, whereas Greinke will only perform to his salary in his very best, optimal-performance years.

I think the obvious answer to this is you trade for him now because given our current record we are in a position to win now.

Without an extension, a deal probably isn't made anyways.

[Flash- bd]

I can't edit and I wrote my post a bit too fast so let me also add this.

The strongest argument--for me--why trading for Greinke is a really bad idea is this: there's a strong argument to be made that signing Greinke as a FA isn't even a good idea (and a very strong one to be made that it isn't cost effective), thus it only follows that signing Greinke while also giving up valuable commodities in Matusz/Arrieta + Avery is a bad idea.

Giving up anything of significance for just two months of Greinke, then, is a really bad idea. And you can pretty much guarantee the team who gets Greinke WILL be giving up something of significance....

[Vertigo]

I would imagine the price on Greinke should be significantly less than what the Brewers gave up to get him. And what they gave up, even at the time, wasn't extremely significant.

[weams]

I'd rather see Roch say Duquette and the Pennant: This time it's permanent!

I don't want to see a one and done type run this season.

One and done a la Florida is fine for me, just so we put up a flag while doing it. One and done a la the Cubs? No thank you.

[Ampontan]

You're absolutely correct, he has to leave his ego in the parking lot and make decisions now and in the off season that will benefit us in 2013 and beyond.

I agree, but it's also very possible Kubatko was getting carried away with himself, which is what we shouldn't do until some trades are made. At which point some of us will get carried away with themselves.

I remember some years ago Brooks Robinson addressing this same point. Without hesitating, he said you absolutely go for it that year if you have a chance.

On a tangent, I think C of C said the two Korean signings were disasters. I wouldn't call the one Korean signing a disaster (the pro reliever). The official story was that his wife didn't want to come, but it didn't take much digging to find the stories that he failed the physical. No blame for that one at all.

[Ampontan]

For what it's worth, a lot of the great men throughout history, from Julius Caesar to George Patton, were motivated by self promotion and personal glory. While it is selfish, it is not inherently a bad thing.

And everyone who ever sat, or wanted to, in the Oval Office

[Dark Helmet]

I can't edit and I wrote my post a bit too fast so let me also add this.

The strongest argument--for me--why trading for Greinke is a really bad idea is this: there's a strong argument to be made that signing Greinke as a FA isn't even a good idea (and a very strong one to be made that it isn't cost effective), thus it only follows that signing Greinke while also giving up valuable commodities in Matusz/Arrieta + Avery is a bad idea.

Giving up anything of significance for just two months of Greinke, then, is a really bad idea. And you can pretty much guarantee the team who gets Greinke WILL be giving up something of significance....

Matusz and significant value really doesn't belong in the same sentence. Unless there is value in a guy who can't command any one pitch and tops out at 90-91, and that's putting max effort into the pitch which usually flattens it out. Im not sure a pitcher that's a sure loss every 5th day has and can't even give you 5 innings has any value no matter how low their salary is.

And I also think your underestimating how much the new compensation rules will affect Greink's value. Teams can no longer recoup any prospects they gave up by getting back compensation Greinke picks. I think the Brewers would get more value by keeping him and getting the two comp picks back. If we could get 2 months of Greinke for Matusz and Avery for a chance to make the playoffs, id do it without blinking.

And if money became an issue in not extending or signing him this offseason, id be highly upset with this team.

[Can_of_corn]

I agree, but it's also very possible Kubatko was getting carried away with himself, which is what we shouldn't do until some trades are made. At which point some of us will get carried away with themselves.

I remember some years ago Brooks Robinson addressing this same point. Without hesitating, he said you absolutely go for it that year if you have a chance.

On a tangent, I think C of C said the two Korean signings were disasters. I wouldn't call the one Korean signing a disaster (the pro reliever). The official story was that his wife didn't want to come, but it didn't take much digging to find the stories that he failed the physical. No blame for that one at all.

That wasn't what I meant. Did you look at Chong's numbers? I was tickled that he changed his mind. His LH/RH splits were ridiculous. Best case scenario he would have a ROOGY. Not someone you want to offer a ML contract to.

[Tony-OH]

The basic argument is this (and I know you understand this, but I still think it's worth putting in the simplest terms possible): if we want to spend the 5/90+ that it will cost to have Greinke solidify our rotation, why don't we wait 2 months to do so instead of giving up valuable commodities in Avery+Arrieta/Matusz?

Too many people are acting like if we get Greinke signed to an extension than, boom, we've added Greinke long-term. But it's not that simple...we've added Greinke long-term plus about 18M per year to our payroll, and lost someone like Matusz/Arrieta AND Avery who at least have the potential to produce results that far outweigh their maybe 1M salary per year, whereas Greinke will only perform to his salary in his very best, optimal-performance years.

Because it's not just about getting Greinke, it's about competing this year. My goal is to be above .500 but if we can get Greinke then maybe we have a chance for a wildcard if some things break right. At the end of the day, I'd rather go for a Garza because he signed for next year but I'm willing to give up assets, as long as it's not the big two, and as long as it's not too many of the "reluctants."

[weams]

Because it's not just about getting Greinke, it's about competing this year. My goal is to be above .500 but if we can get Greinke then maybe we have a chance for a wildcard if some things break right. At the end of the day, I'd rather go for a Garza because he signed for next year but I'm willing to give up assets, as long as it's not the big two, and as long as it's not too many of the "reluctants."

Things really don't change do they.