Justify keeping Bedard or Roberts

[square634]

Rebuilding is something that can be done without trading a team's good players

FWIW, I would call that standing pat and praying for the best, not rebuilding.

[Sports Guy]

FWIW, I would call that standing pat and praying for the best, not rebuilding.

Right...Trading your garbage for players who are borderline MLers and hoping that your guys develop isn't rebuilding.

[Dr. FLK]

More "us-vs-them". What's with you guys, everything has to be a gang fight?

Did someone say gangfight...

<img src="http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f6/275px-Anchormenweapons.JPG">

Back to baseball.

When you plan to renovate your house, you don't talk about blowing it up. Nor do you begin with the idea that the "Big Most Important Step That Matters Most And Must Be Done Immediately" is destroying the very best things about the house. Well, maybe some folks would, but I wouldn't.

What if your house is falling down, built out of rotten balsa wood, infested with termites, has a crumbling foundation, and is in a horrible neighborhood? Would you blindly invest all of your capital into temporary improvements that would do nothing to the inevitable outcome of your house falling down? Or, would you look to start over completely, cut your losses, and build a new one?

[RShack]

FWIW, I would call that standing pat and praying for the best, not rebuilding.

I have zero problems with you having that opinion. You can have whatever opinion you want. The good news is that you're not being a jerk to somebody just because they disagree with you. On the other hand, I think it's just wrong to claim that a team can't rebuild without trading it's good players.

How did the Braves rebuild? Did they trade their best players? Nope.

How did the O's get good in the first place? Did they do it by trading away their best players. Nope.

How did the Red Sox get good? You think they did it by trading all their best players? Nope.

AFAIK, rebuilding means creating a successful franchise. Not a team that wins every once in a while and then sucks for a few years. The main point of rebuilding is to create a good franchise, one that's a consistent contender. The simple fact is that the way most good franchises get to be good franchises has almost nothing to do with trading away their good players, and has almost everything to do with other things. Just because small-market teams have to trade away their best players to have a prayer, that has nothing to do with either rebuilding or the O's situation.

I don't know why people start gang-tackling you if you simply point out the truth. And the truth is that there's a big diff between the goal of rebuilding the franchise and the crazy idea that you *have* to trade your best players to do it. In actual fact, most good franchise got good *without* trading away their best players. Sadly, it's hard to start a trading-frenzy based on the facts (as recent weeks should show). As for why some people choose to *ignore* the entire history of modern baseball and *insist* that rebuilding means "blowing it up", I have no good explanation for that. It sure seems goofy to me. As does the proven fact that they get *mad* at you if you just question it, and start claiming that you *want* the O's to be losers if you disagree with their goofy idea. I guess they like simple formulas and slogans, but I don't really know.

[RShack]

Did someone say gangfight...

<img src="http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f6/275px-Anchormenweapons.JPG">

Very good;-)

Back to baseball.

What if your house is falling down, built out of rotten balsa wood, infested with termites, has a crumbling foundation, and is in a horrible neighborhood? Would you blindly invest all of your capital into temporary improvements that would do nothing to the inevitable outcome of your house falling down? Or, would you look to start over completely, cut your losses, and build a new one?

Absolutely not. Of course you wouldn't. But nobody is suggesting that. I don't know of a single person who's saying that. I'm certainly not. That's just the completely phony argument people make if you challenge their goofy idea: they start saying "Either you agree with us, or else you want more of the same". Which leads directly into the mindless gang-tackling. That's a 100% bogus argument. It's a phony "either-or" choice that's not real. But, since it keeps coming up, I guess it's the best argument they've got. I can't see why else they'd keep saying it.

[DrungoHazewood]

More "us-vs-them". What's with you guys, everything has to be a gang fight? Just because not everybody agrees with you, that's no reason to start making it a matter of high school cliques about what "most of us" think while using non-arguments to diss those who don't buy it.

Look, the claim that "blow it up" is just another word (or three) that mean the same thing as "rebuild" is ludicrous. If all people meant by it was "rebuild" then we wouldn't have had "blow it up" being such an anger-thumping slogan. If you'd just stop and think for a sec, you'd (prolly) admit that they are *not* synonyms. "Blow it up" was a rallying slogan for those who favored giving up on the current group of good players on the roster, trading them for "prospects" who may or may not turn out, and biting the bullet for a couple years of more-or-less intentional losing so that the O's could be good later, after the prospects (maybe) turned out to be good ML guys.

You know that's true, so why all the gang-tackles and word games? Rebuilding is something that can be done without trading a team's good players, but that's certainly not what "blow it up" means. Rather, "blow it up" is a slogan for those posters who wish to diss anybody who thinks that maybe the idea of keeping some good players might be one possible path to rebuilding the franchise.

You do know that you're basically the only one here who's spun up over what terms to use for the rebuilding process, right?

I take issue with the idea that blowing up the team is "more-or-less intentional losing." When the franchise has been unintentionally losing for 10 years that loses its meaning. The Orioles could plausibly blow it up by trading Tejada, Bedard, and Roberts and end up with more wins in 2008 than they had in 2007.

The only reason you're gang tackled is that you enjoy being the guy in the middle in British Bulldog or Smear the Queer. You're the one who decided to start and maintain the Blow It Up is a Simplistic Term for Petty People Club. All I can figure is that you must enjoy tilting at windmills.

[Lucky Jim]

You do know that you're basically the only one here who's spun up over what terms to use for the rebuilding process, right?

I take issue with the idea that blowing up the team is "more-or-less intentional losing." When the franchise has been unintentionally losing for 10 years that loses its meaning. The Orioles could plausibly blow it up by trading Tejada, Bedard, and Roberts and end up with more wins in 2008 than they had in 2007.

The only reason you're gang tackled is that you enjoy being the guy in the middle in British Bulldog or Smear the Queer. You're the one who decided to start and maintain the Blow It Up is a Simplistic Term for Petty People Club. All I can figure is that you must enjoy tilting at windmills.

I want to see RShack deny this. Just for kicks.

[Mackus]

why the O's need to take advantage of the leverage they have on Bedard to get him to sign a 3-4 year "bargain" contract.

I must have missed your post, but can you please explain how you are going to get Bedard to do something he clearly doesn't want to do? Is there some sort of blackmail or ransom going on here? Because Bedard absolutely WILL NOT sign an extension with the Orioles. He very clearly wants to test FA and get a huge payday.

[ON BASE %]

I must have missed your post, but can you please explain how you are going to get Bedard to do something he clearly doesn't want to do? Is there some sort of blackmail or ransom going on here? Because Bedard absolutely WILL NOT sign an extension with the Orioles. He very clearly wants to test FA and get a huge payday.

It does seem that Bedard is willing to assume the risk and go for the big payday. That, and he can choose wher he wants to play too.

[Sports Guy]

FWIW, I would call that standing pat and praying for the best, not rebuilding.

"You're either rebuilding for something special, or you're on the verge of something special. To be in between is foolish."

--Billy Beane

[RShack]

You do know that you're basically the only one here who's spun up over what terms to use for the rebuilding process, right?

I take issue with the idea that blowing up the team is "more-or-less intentional losing." When the franchise has been unintentionally losing for 10 years that loses its meaning. The Orioles could plausibly blow it up by trading Tejada, Bedard, and Roberts and end up with more wins in 2008 than they had in 2007.

The only reason you're gang tackled is that you enjoy being the guy in the middle in British Bulldog or Smear the Queer. You're the one who decided to start and maintain the Blow It Up is a Simplistic Term for Petty People Club. All I can figure is that you must enjoy tilting at windmills.

Oh, stop. Look, it's fine with me if some people want to trade everybody. I think it's dumb to say that it's the only way to rebuild, but people can favor whatever approach they want.

Not everybody who believes in trading the good players is a jerk about it. Lots of people like the idea of big dramatic trades, but they aren't jerks about it. Not everybody who thinks big dramatic trades are the key to rebuilding start gang-tackling you when you challenge the idea. Most of them don't start an adolescent game of choosing up sides and saying "our side is bigger than your side." Most of them don't accuse you of "wanting to lose" just because they have a different opinion about what rebuilding means. And very, very few of them start saying that you're playing "Smear the queer" just because you disagree with the idea that blow-it-up is some kind of gospel.

Personally, I am 100% sure that there is nothing about the entire history of baseball that says that rebuilding means that you trade your good players. Which means there is nothing about the history of baseball that says that the important thing is to "blow it up" and make dramatic trades. That's what I base my opinion on: the history of how good franchises get to be good franchises. History shows it has almost nothing to do with big dramatic trades.

For those who prefer to base their opinions on the size of the crowd that lines up with them, and to claim that those who dare to disagree are playing "Smear the queer", well, I don't know anything about that. IMO, forming an opinion about what the O's should do is properly based on Actual Baseball, not on message-board hype and adolescent attacks. As for people having different opinions, I never diss people for that. Some people like to discuss fantasy trades as their hobby. I think it's a fine hobby. It's not my hobby, so I don't do it, but it's fine with me if other people do. I don't criticize people who participate in trade threads. I don't say that they're on the wrong side of the issue and want the O's to lose. Never have, never will. Unlike some around here, I think it's fine for people to look at things differently than I do. I don't try to turn it into an "us-vs-them" issue. If I disagree with them, I provide Actual Reasons.

[DrungoHazewood]

Personally, I am 100% sure that there is nothing about the entire history of baseball that says that rebuilding means that you trade your good players. Which means there is nothing about the history of baseball that says that the important thing is to "blow it up" and make dramatic trades. That's what I base my opinion on: the history of how good franchises get to be good franchises. History shows it has almost nothing to do with big dramatic trades.

Until 1974 free agency didn't exist. Until the mid-80s free agency was still in an embryonic form. The situation facing the Orioles today is unique to the last 10 or 15 years. Free agency and modern market conditions in baseball have created a new, unique challenge for a team that directly competes with others that are willing and able to outspend their competition 2:1 or 3:1 while maintaining a healthy, productive farm system.

Radical new challenges often require radical new solutions. A team with several assets with high current value but many other holes and a shaky developmental system might do well to trade its valuable pieces, maybe in big, dramatic ways, for a foundation of a more balanced, productive organization.

For those who prefer to base their opinions on the size of the crowd that lines up with them, and to claim that those who dare to disagree are playing "Smear the queer", well, I don't know anything about that. IMO, forming an opinion about what the O's should do is properly based on Actual Baseball, not on message-board hype and adolescent attacks.

I base my opinions on what I think is the most logical, productive way for the Baltimore Orioles to construct a productive, sustainable winning organization. It has nothing to do with cliques or adolescent attacks. I couldn't care less who's on my side and who isn't. I want Andy MacPhail to Blow It Up so that I can enjoy watching the 2009, 2010 and beyond Orioles win ballgames. That's it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Actual Baseball, but I've watched an awful lot of actual baseball in my life and I think my opinions have a pretty strong connection to how real baseball works.

As for people having different opinions, I never diss people for that. Some people like to discuss fantasy trades as their hobby. I think it's a fine hobby. It's not my hobby, so I don't do it, but it's fine with me if other people do. I don't criticize people who participate in trade threads. I don't say that they're on the wrong side of the issue and want the O's to lose. Never have, never will. Unlike some around here, I think it's fine for people to look at things differently than I do. I don't try to turn it into an "us-vs-them" issue. If I disagree with them, I provide Actual Reasons.

I think anyone who's ever dared type "Blow It Up" might disagree. You consistently and vehemently diss our opinions. You succeeded in making the arguments over the validity of minor league numbers or the balance between defense and offense into a war between those you label stats guys and anyone and everyone else. If you thought my point of view was fine you had a strange way of expressing it. Just in this post I'm responding to you've labeled people who form opinions based on "Actual Baseball" as us and those who engage in "message-board hype and adolescent attacks" (whatever that means) as them.

Maybe you need to step back and consider why you think the world (or at least the Orioles Hangout world) is out to get you.

[square634]

I have zero problems with you having that opinion. You can have whatever opinion you want. The good news is that you're not being a jerk to somebody just because they disagree with you. On the other hand, I think it's just wrong to claim that a team can't rebuild without trading it's good players.

How did the Braves rebuild? Did they trade their best players? Nope.

How did the O's get good in the first place? Did they do it by trading away their best players. Nope.

How did the Red Sox get good? You think they did it by trading all their best players? Nope.

AFAIK, rebuilding means creating a successful franchise. Not a team that wins every once in a while and then sucks for a few years. The main point of rebuilding is to create a good franchise, one that's a consistent contender. The simple fact is that the way most good franchises get to be good franchises has almost nothing to do with trading away their good players, and has almost everything to do with other things. Just because small-market teams have to trade away their best players to have a prayer, that has nothing to do with either rebuilding or the O's situation.

I don't know why people start gang-tackling you if you simply point out the truth. And the truth is that there's a big diff between the goal of rebuilding the franchise and the crazy idea that you *have* to trade your best players to do it. In actual fact, most good franchise got good *without* trading away their best players. Sadly, it's hard to start a trading-frenzy based on the facts (as recent weeks should show). As for why some people choose to *ignore* the entire history of modern baseball and *insist* that rebuilding means "blowing it up", I have no good explanation for that. It sure seems goofy to me. As does the proven fact that they get *mad* at you if you just question it, and start claiming that you *want* the O's to be losers if you disagree with their goofy idea. I guess they like simple formulas and slogans, but I don't really know.

I agree that it is possible to try to rebuild the farm without altering the ML roster. However, when the farm system is not in good shape to begin with, that goal can be accelerated by trading ML players to infuse new young talent into the pipeline. That goal can also be delayed by trying to sign a bunch of high-priced free agents to make a one year run with Bedard and Roberts, while in the process losing draft picks that would have helped the future development of the farm system (it seems like MacPhail is wisely choosing to avoid this path). A third option is to try to rebuild without changing anything, in which case the O's almost definitely won't become a playoff contender in the next two years anyway, and we are left with either declining veterans or compensatory picks come 2009-2010.

[Migrant Redbird]

I must have missed your post,.... Because Bedard absolutely WILL NOT sign an extension with the Orioles.

I must have missed your post where you announced that Bedard has signed you as his agent. How do you know absolutely what he will do unless you and he are the same person? Even players and their agents sometimes don't seem to understand what each other really want, as witness the A-Rod circus and Kenny Rogers firing his agent.

... can you please explain how you are going to get Bedard to do something he clearly doesn't want to do? Is there some sort of blackmail or ransom going on here? He very clearly wants to test FA and get a huge payday.

If you actually can read Bedard's mind or divine his intent, then you're right. However, I've observed far too many cases where players and/or their agents stated one thing emphatically while negotiating a new contract and then turned around and did exactly what they claimed they weren't going to do.

A player who is still under his team's control for 2 more years is largely at the team's mercy, if they're willing to risk what he might win in arbitration. They could pay him his arbitrated salary and then bench him for the next 2 years -- thereby effectively destroying his FA value -- if they wanted to. (Subject of course to the Collective Bargaining Agreement; there may be language in it which would address this situation if a team was not acting in good faith.)

Given the player's vulnerability, he has a considerable incentive to sign a multi-year contract with his current team which covers his remaining years of arbitration eligibility and some number of his potential free agent years. It costs him money from a potentially huge free agent bonanza contract in a couple years, but it takes the risk of injury and/or substandard performance off the player and puts it onto the team instead.

There have been situations where a player was so determined to get out of town that he refused to make this tradeoff of risk and potential earnings to get the guaranteed multi-year contract. The best example which I can think of was when Scott Rolen turned down a reported 10 year, $140M extension with the Phillies during the 2003 season. Not only did Rolen do that, he also sabotaged his team's ability to get a good trade by emphasizing that the acquiring team would only be getting him for a 2 month rental, since he intended to test free agency in order to get to an NL team in the Midwest. That effectively reduced Ed Wade's potential trade partners to the NL Central, with only the Reds and Cardinals being serious suitors. Under the circumstances, I thought that Ed Wade got an extremely good deal from the Cardinals, receiving Placido Polanco, Mike Timlin, and Bud Smith in return for that "2 month rental" (at a time when it appeared the Cards would miss the post season, IIRC). I've since concluded that Ed Wade must have arranged for Jocketty to confer with Rolen or his agent, since Rolen signed a 7 year deal for $90M within a couple weeks of joining the Cards. Walt must have known that was virtually guaranteed to have given up that much in return.

Back to Bedard, I certainly don't know if he would accept a multi-year contract or insist upon playing out his obligation and leaving town. I thought that I recalled reading here that he was asking $40M for a 4 year extension about the same time that it was reported he wouldn't sign one. Regardless, I'm still confident pretty confident that there is some contract value that would be sufficient, unless he's doing a "Rolen".

Rolen wanted to get away from the terrible artificial turf in the Vet that he blamed for his back problems and he didn't want to play any longer for Larry Bowa. I don't recall if I ever heard which was the greater of the two reasons.

But I have a difficult time imagining why Bedard would be that determined to get away from Baltimore. He has a "players' manager" in Trembley and a new pitching coach next season. I can see him preferring to play someplace else, but surely he doesn't hate the city that much?

I remember when Buehrle was looking forward to free agency and Cardinals fans were eagerly awaiting it because Mark had frequently expressed his desire to play for the Cardinals. However, Mark twice signed multi-year contracts with the Sox, just as Cardinals fans were licking their lips anticipating signing him that winter in free agency. The inevitable suspicion is that his preference to play in "baseball heaven" was just a negotiating ploy with the Sox.

[RShack]

[* cue Twilight Zone music *]

Maybe you need to step back and consider why you think the world (or at least the Orioles Hangout world) is out to get you.

[* end Twilight Zone music... fade to a shot of Planet Earth *]

Um, I hate to break this to you, but I don't think the OH is out to get me.

Why would I think that? I think the OH consists of a lot of people with a lot of various opinions.

I have no problem with the OH. I like it.

What I have a problem with is a very few guys who seem to think that *you* are the OH. It's actually a very few people who get into name-calling and phony "us-vs-them" BS. It's not most people on the OH, it's just a couple of you. I certainly don't think you speak for the OH. However, it would appear that you think you do. I don't know why you think that you get to speak for everybody. Nor do I understand why you make such a big deal out of pursuing this phony "us-vs-them" baloney instead of talking about baseball. My best guess is that you just can't stand it when somebody disagrees with you, but I could be wrong.

How long do you wanna keep this going? It seems pretty pointless to me, but it seems important to you. Don't you find this tiresome?