Jump to content

What is the "right offer"?


Sports Guy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I keep seeing people say, if AM takes the "right offer", he would make these deals.

The question I have is, what is the right offer?

Does the right offer, in the mind of AM, mean us getting blown away or is he willing to take a good, fair offer and move these guys?

Maybe all of the following can't/won't happen, but I'd be happy with the following:

Bedard to M's for:

Jones

Clement

Truinfel

Roberts to Cubs for

Gallagher

Murton

Cedeno

the last hole to fill will be SS or 2B depending on where we put Cedeno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep seeing people say, if AM takes the "right offer", he would make these deals.

The question I have is, what is the right offer?

Does the right offer, in the mind of AM, mean us getting blown away or is he willing to take a good, fair offer and move these guys?

The right offer is is the one that improves the team long term.

With or without Bedard & Roberts we're a 4th place team. Tampa Bay has alot of young pitching talent, so by '09 theres a good chance we're in the cellar, even with B-Rob & Bedard.

I think holding out to be "blown away" hurts more than it helps. People keep stressing that we don't need to trade either of them. Which is correct contractually, but in the big pictures, we absolutely have to trade them. Bedard's value is sky high. The odds of his value increasing aren't nearly as great as the odds that he could get injured or his value decreases (even though I think if he's healthy he'll produce at an elite level), you also have to factor in that each year you wait to trade Bedard or B-Rob, they inch closer and closer to being rental players.

We cannot keep delaying the inevitable. We keep wasting seasons with stop gap players that lead to 4th place. We can finish 4th or 5th place with young players with upside, who are getting valuable on the job training. Losing with a team that has no chance of contending and no long term potential has got to stop, IMO.

If you can get a superstar prospect + 2-3 good to very good players for Bedard, you do it. Just by trading Bedard we can possible fill 2-3 holes on this team with young cheap players, who are under control for many years to come. We'd still be losing games, but at least we'd be losing with players who are going to get better.

B-Rob should net you 2-3 good MLB ready prospects. Same theory applies.

In todays day and age with ridiculous contract teams are not going to gut their farm system. It just doesn't happen. We need to keep our trade demands realistic, IMO. You don't have to be "blown away" to help improve the team long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe all of the following can't/won't happen, but I'd be happy with the following:

Bedard to M's for:

Jones

Clement

Truinfel

Roberts to Cubs for

Gallagher

Murton

Cedeno

the last hole to fill will be SS or 2B depending on where we put Cedeno.

Both fair deals. I'm pretty sure that AM will want more arms than Gallagher coming back, however...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep seeing people say, if AM takes the "right offer", he would make these deals.

The question I have is, what is the right offer?

Does the right offer, in the mind of AM, mean us getting blown away or is he willing to take a good, fair offer and move these guys?

Would you have traded Bedard for the package Beane got from the D'backs for Haren? If so that answers your question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the right offer is the one that meets most of our needs. In my opinion the Orioles have two major needs :

First, there isn't enough talent at the major league level to compete with the teams in our divislon. We need to acquire, at a minimum, a major league ready short stop, a center fielder and a top of the rotation 1 or 2 pitcher. Thus guys like Jones, Gallagher, Cedeno, Morrow, Patterson etc are imperative

Second, there is a significant talent gap between our lower level teams Delmarva and Frederick and our upper level teams Bowie and Norfolk. We need to acquire players that are one year or less away from the ML to fill in the gap at Bowie and Norfolk and give the very good talent we have at A and A+ ball to develop. So then, high end mid level guys like Veal, Triunfel, and Tillmen are essential as well.

If MacPhail can make a couple of deals that return us both major league ready talent and mid level mil talent we will have met our needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Switch Truinfel for Chen to replace BRob at 2B and switch Cedeno for Marshall?

You don't switch Triunfel to Chen just to end up with a mediocre guy like Marshall. That would be terrible.

We have enough arms...If we just added one more, that would be plenty. We got 2 potential starters in the Tejada deal plus everything we already have, not to mention anything we could get in other deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't switch Triunfel to Chen just to end up with a mediocre guy like Marshall. That would be terrible.

We have enough arms...If we just added one more, that would be plenty. We got 2 potential starters in the Tejada deal plus everything we already have, not to mention anything we could get in other deals.

I think we have plenty of arms, too. I was merely guessing that AM would ask for more arms - because he seems to value (or overvalue) pitching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How on earth does that have any relevance to Bedard?
People have pointed to the Haren deal as an example of how easy it is to get a deal done. Haren and Bedard have been regarded as comparable. Both Beane and MacP are rebuilding. Why not answer the simple question would you have accepted that package for Bedard? That will help determine what you think is "fair" value for him. Personally I wouldn't have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have pointed to the Haren deal as an example of how easy it is to get a deal done. Haren and Bedard have been regarded as comparable. Both Beane and MacP are rebuilding. Why not answer the simple question would you have accepted that package for Bedard? That will help determine what you think is "fair" value for him. Personally I wouldn't have.

Haren was under contract for three years to Bedard's two. Bedard shouldn't bring as much in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have pointed to the Haren deal as an example of how easy it is to get a deal done. Haren and Bedard have been regarded as comparable. Both Beane and MacP are rebuilding. Why not answer the simple question would you have accepted that package for Bedard? That will help determine what you think is "fair" value for him. Personally I wouldn't have.

By who? Bedard is better.

No, I wouldn't have accepted the deal because I needed higher ceiling guys for Bedard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...