What is the "right offer"?

[amateurfan]

Some teams might value Bedard more than Haren, but that wouldn't be for any logical reason. It'd be for nonsensical ones like him being left handed... which really doesn't matter in the least. If you're banking your argument on a GM making a gross miscalculation, you've already lost the argument. All I said was that Haren should have more value, not that all the GM's would be smart enough to see it that way.

VaTech did a really good job examining the two pitchers with you, but I wanted to compare Haren's and Bedard's 2nd halves of 07 because I can't figure out why you value Haren more just because of IP. I don't think that gets into it enough.

After July 1, Haren was a completely different pitcher than he was before. Consider that Haren made 17 starts after July 1, but made it past the 6th only twice. Bedard made 11 starts (even with an injury) and made it past the 6th 6 times, once pitching a complete game. Of those 17 GS, the A's lost 10, and Haren was on the hook for 7 (only in three did the bullpen lose it). In Bedard's 11 GS, the O's won 10 and lost 1, which Bedard took as well. Haren was indeed on the mound more than Bedard, but he wasn't effective.

Haren's Post AS era was 4.15, Bedard's was 2.69.

After July 1, Haren's OppAvg was .298, while Bedard's was .189.

It's difficult to assess the severity of Bedard's injury. I do not think it is a stretch to conjecture that AM pulled him because a more severe injury would have hurt his trade value. There was no reason for Bedard to pitch once he got hurt. To me, the injury is a non issue.

[amateurfan]

He wouldn't be dropping the 5th starter, though.

If he goes to the Cubs, he's likely replacing Hill, who is between their #1 and #3 starter. If he goes to the Reds, he's likely replacing Bailey or Cueto, either of whom is likely to fall into that same #1 to #3 range. If he goes to Mil, well, actually, I have no idea what they'd be giving up. But even if it's not Yovanni Gallardo or Manny Parra (#1-2 and #3 starters, respectively), they aren't going to be able to replace the value of a guy like Corey Hart, Rickie Weeks, or JJ Hardy with something close enough to cover the gap adequately.

First, if Bedard is replacing a #1, then it is necessary to examine Bedard's value as a #1 to the replaced pitcher. Bailey's 07 does not project him as a 1, 2, or 3 for 08. It projects him as a 4 or 5. Cueto is a complete unknown and he might just mow everyone down, but that is exceedingly unlikely. You are using their projections for next year, and that's just too soon.

Hill has been debated a lot lately on this board, but so far, his actual numbers do not make him a #1 in the AL let alone the NL, and in no way do his results compare to Bedard's. This part of your argument doesn't really hold water. Bedard's value is to the whole of a rotation, though, not just one fifth. Hill, Bailey, Cueto, whoever, would likely win more games because Bedard is in the #1 spot. If the Cubs or Reds give up Hill or Bailey or Cueto to get Bedard (the only one I have any interest in is Cueto) then the comparison stands, but the Cubs don't have enough to get Bedard, and from the Reds, I want Cueto only (who hasn't even pitched for the Reds). No manager puts a complete unknown in the #1 spot. Maybe the 3, but there is little reason to justify putting Cueto in the 3 on the Reds. Harang and Arroyo are the 1 and 2. At best Cueto's 3, but Bailey's experience, I would think, make him a more logical choice. Furthermore, Cueto's only got 83 IP above A ball.

Finally, your statement that Hill is between their #1 and #3 starter simply means that he's the #2 on the Cubs. Why didn't you just state it like that? I can't imagine you intended that Hill is better than Zambrano. Lilly was pretty good. The Cubs have holes in their rotation, which, if they could keep what they've currently got, and acquire Bedard, they would be top flight. As stated previously, though, they don't have enough, and honestly, the last person I want in return is Hill. How does Hill make the O's a contender for the long term, or at least for the projected 2010-11 seasons? Hill will be 28 this year. Sorry, but I'm not interested.

[Fan4Life]

Tough to say....I think I ultimately make the trade with the intention of trading Sherrill at the deadline.

I make that trade because of Jones.

Curious that you'd settle for 1 elite ML-ready prospect, 1 prospect that, although well regarded, is only in A-ball (with some shaky peripherals to boot) and thus is a highly volatile commodity, and 1 30-YO reliever, but you can't fathom a realistic package from the Cubs that you'd prefer.

Seems to me, right off the top Pie + Gallagher meets or exceeds Jones + Tillman, and finding someone like Sherrill to add would be cake.

As well as:

If Jones and others aren't on the table, then Morrow, Wlad, Triunfel and Tillman need to be IMO.

When looking at what SG is willing to accept here, and evaluating the post from December (below) where SG asks posters to list their deals from various teams that had interest in Bedard:

Seattle: Jones, Triunfel, Morrow

Yankees: Kennedy, Jackson, Melky

DBacks: Young, Callaspo, Quentin..This assumes Upton isn't available.

Mets: Martinez, Gomez, Pelfrey/Humber, Heilman

Dodgers: Kershaw, Kemp, LaRoche

I would rank the Dodgers #1 and the Yanks #2, Seattle #3.

Would it be a fair statement to say that what he is willing to accept now is a lesser package than what's listed above? My premis is that the bar for what he (and other posters) want for Bedard has been lowered since we began this phase of the offseason and I want know if that is a reasonable statement.

[Sports Guy]

So, if you were the GM, Bedard would likely still be an Oriole while you try to hold out for Jones, Clement, and Triunfel/Tillman. Disagree?

I can't say because I don't know what else out there or what else could have happened with the Dodgers...I think the Dodgers stuff bothers me more than anything.

[Sports Guy]

As well as:

When looking at what SG is willing to accept here, and evaluating the post from December (below) where SG asks posters to list their deals from various teams that had interest in Bedard:

Would it be a fair statement to say that what he is willing to accept now is a lesser package than what's listed above? My premis is that the bar for what he (and other posters) want for Bedard has been lowered since we began this phase of the offseason and I want know if that is a reasonable statement.

I like Tillman more than Morrow.

Sherrill obviously not as much as Triunfel but give Sherrill the closers job, pump up the saves category and then move him for 1-2 top prospects in July.

That would be my intention.

Ultimately, i am not holding onto Bedard if that is the best offer. While that offer isn't as much as I would like, it is enough for me to pull the trigger if the other alternative is holding onto Bedard.

Jones is that good and that much of a need for us.

[Fan4Life]

I can't say because I don't know what else out there or what else could have happened with the Dodgers...I think the Dodgers stuff bothers me more than anything.

Are you still willing to accept a deal without Jones?

[Sports Guy]

Are you still willing to accept a deal without Jones?

Yes, if we get 4 of their top 5 young guys.

Wlad, Clement, Triunfel and Tillman/Morrow would be fine with me. That is a very good offer.

[Fan4Life]

Yes, if we get 4 of their top 5 young guys.

Wlad, Clement, Triunfel and Tillman/Morrow would be fine with me. That is a very good offer.

I don't know their players as well as you do and I realize some of these guys would/could be used to acquire other guys, but excluding that, just on the surface analysis, what holes would that fill and what would be left to fill?

[Sports Guy]

I don't know their players as well as you do and I realize some of these guys would/could be used to acquire other guys, but excluding that, just on the surface analysis, what holes would that fill and what would be left to fill?

Have to see if Wlad can play CF...I have read he may be able to...If not, he goes to LF and Scott goes to DH or first.

Clement is used to either acquire a SS or Ramon is used to acquire a SS/2nd.

Triunfel and Tillman are in the minors and become 2 of our top 4 prospects.

[33rdst]

The "right' deal(s) for me would be:

Seattle; Jones; Morrow; Chen; Sherrill; would settle for the first three listed

This allows us to trade Brob for;

Cubs; Gallagher, Veal, Cedeno.

Two front end of the rotation pitchers, starting shortstop, starting second baseman, starting center fielder, closer for this year and set up man for the future, AA pitching prospect with promise.

[Mackus]

The "right' deal(s) for me would be:

Seattle; Jones; Morrow; Chen; Sherrill; would settle for the first three listed

This allows us to trade Brob for;

Cubs; Gallagher, Veal, Cedeno.

Two front end of the rotation pitchers, starting shortstop, starting second baseman, starting center fielder, closer for this year and set up man for the future, AA pitching prospect with promise.

I'd like both of those trades, although I'd prefer to replace Veal with Murton if possible. Also, you're not getting Morrow, so replace him with Tillman and we're still in business. My prefered Seattle deal (assuming we can't get both Jones and Clement) would be Jones, Tillman, Triunfel, and Sherill/Chen.

[Fan4Life]

Have to see if Wlad can play CF...I have read he may be able to...If not, he goes to LF and Scott goes to DH or first.

Clement is used to either acquire a SS or Ramon is used to acquire a SS/2nd.

Triunfel and Tillman are in the minors and become 2 of our top 4 prospects.

Ok, thanks. For me, and maybe you can enlighten me here, but I would prefer a lesser package from the Dodgers than this one from the M's, for example, I would take Kemp and Hu/LaRoche for Bedard, or an Ethier, Hu/LaRoche, and Prospect. This gives us less overall players, but more ML ready talent. This may have been what you were eluding to in your remark that the Dodgers scenario bothered you the most.

[raiders3604]

O's fans you want niether "Cedeno or Murton". AM is doing the right thing and asking for other players, these are two players the Cubs are looking to ship out of town.

[33rdst]

I'd like both of those trades, although I'd prefer to replace Veal with Murton if possible. Also, you're not getting Morrow, so replace him with Tillman and we're still in business. My prefered Seattle deal (assuming we can't get both Jones and Clement) would be Jones, Tillman, Triunfel, and Sherill/Chen.

Wouldn't Murton be stuck behind Scott. My reason for Veal is we need some depth at AA. Also, I'm hoping Seattle would consider Morrow if we accept him as part of a 3-1. Let them keep Sherill. I would accept Tillman instead of Morrow only if we get Sherrill. It would of course mean that we must get Gallagher from the Cubs.

[Sports Guy]

I'd like both of those trades, although I'd prefer to replace Veal with Murton if possible. Also, you're not getting Morrow, so replace him with Tillman and we're still in business. My prefered Seattle deal (assuming we can't get both Jones and Clement) would be Jones, Tillman, Triunfel, and Sherill/Chen.

I would prefer Jones, Clement, Triunfel and Sherrill...That would be the best case scenario, assuming you can't get Tillman in this deal instead of Sherrill.