Justify keeping Bedard or Roberts

[ShoelesJoe]

No, its actually quite different. A backup catcher who can't hit his weight is not ever likely to hit 60 homers.

And a 28 year old starter with a 40-34 record, who's never yet thrown 200 innings in a season is not ever likely to still be pitching at a ML level when he's 41. By the time Glavine was 28 he'd been a fulltime starter for seven years, won 108 games (w/three 20 win seasons), and was averaging 210 innings a year. At this point the only thing a 28 year old Bedard has in common with the 28 year old Tom Glavine is that they're both left handed. Expecting Bedard to closely follow Glavine's career path from here on would be an act of willful ignorance. Erik could very well be dominant for the next few years, but that's a far cry from believing he could or should be a competent ML pitcher a decade from now.

Saying that a guy who is currently dominating the league (injuries aside) "could" pitch another 12 years is much more based in reality.

Any opinion that ignores a particular pitcher's injury history, or the extreme likelihood of significant injuries that faces every ML pitcher as they age is not based in a reality that should influence a team's plans to improve itself. To quote James Cameron: "Hope is not a strategy."

Like somone else said...I would hate to speak to ANY of the men in the HOF, or who have ever played 20 years in the bigs, and tell them that "statistically speaking" they should have started to decline half way through their major league career.

Most of them probably started to decline earlier than halfway through their careers.

In general you may be right, but suggesting that every guy who is 28, 29, 30 should be traded as if its some magical bean is just ludicrous!

Look up the phrase "straw man". Nobody is recommending trading every player who's 28-30, so your arguing against it is a waste of time. What we are saying is that as currently constituted the Baltimore Orioles are better off with 6-8 hot young prospects in their system than one really good 28 year old starter and one really good 30 year old second baseman.

If the Orioles had ten more guys as good as Roberts and Bedard we wouldn't be having this conversation. But they don't, and aren't likely to at any time in the next five years unless we make some smart trades.

[Migrant Redbird]

Good Lord, it's statements like this that make we weep for the species.

Starting pitchers who are productive as long as Glavine has been are about one in a thousand.

I'd say the odds against are higher even than that, but stranger things do happen. You will never succeed in building up a strong team if your policy is to always sell off your blue chippers for prospects unless you've confident of being in contention the next season.

As Shack pointed out, you don't need Bedard to pitch into his forties like Glavine for trading him to have been a bad deal. All you need is for him to pitch at a reasonably high level for the next 4-5 years (e.g., Mussina's 1st 6 years with the Yankees) when he could turn out to be the difference maker on the 2009 or 2010 O's team that otherwise will fold late against the Yankees or Red Sox, long before any of those prospects have begun making significant contributions.

If you're going to run with the big dogs, you're going to have to take some risks now and then. Sometimes the risk is that players signed to multi-year contracts will get career-ending injuries. Sometimes it's riskier to blow up the team for prospects and subsist on cellar mold for a couple years waiting for them to develop. That strategy doesn't seem to work all that often for either the O's or most other teams. There is something to the "bird in the hand" theory.

There is not any way keeping those two players helps the team. Bedard has two years left. We all know it is not much chance he will staY in Baltimore and Roberts won't either whne his contract is up....

That seems to be the religious dogma among the "blow it up" crowd, but I'm far from convinced that it's the case. The arguments they will leave fall into to areas:

(1) The O's are such a crappy franchise that no one would want to remain on the team (except possibly BJ Surhoff), so that's why Bedard and Roberts will leave.

(2) Bedard (and presumably Roberts) can make so much more in free agency that they won't consider signing reasonable extensions.

(3) Bedard told the team that he wouldn't sign an extension (along with a report I saw once that he was seeking $40M for 4 years).

(1) is probably false but, even if it is, trading off your best players is no way to turn the franchise reputation around. It's time to reach out to players and convince them that the team is going someplace and they'll really benefit from being along for the ride. I don't know what's going on within the bowels of the warehouse, but I have a difficult time believing that the O's are that much more disfunctional than many other organizations.

Walt Jocketty was fired (or left by mutual consent) not because the Cardinals slipped below .500 after winning the 2006 WS; nor because the contract extensions to Edmonds and Carpenter were stupid and unnecessary (managing owner; Bill DeWitt, has admitted the Edmonds extension was his idea); nor because the Mulder/Haren trade backfired badly; nor because of several other recent ill-starred acquisitions. Walt was fired because he couldn't accept the promotion of Jeff Luhnow to head up scouting and development; because he fostered a division within the Cardinals organization between the Luhnow "camp" and the Jocketty loyalists; and because he permitted friends of his in the media to write articles about how Walt might be in another organization within a short time. It was the insubordination -- whether justified or not -- which forced Jocketty out in St. Louis, not his performance.

If the O's have an organizational problem, the solution is to fix it, not to assume that current O's can't be persuaded to remain with the team and trade off anyone of halfway decent value.

(2) It's true that Bedard and Roberts might hit a huge financial jackpot in free agency (especially Erik), but it's a long way from being guaranteed and the risk is far too high to the players to take that gamble if they receive a halfway decent extension offer from the O's now -- or even a year from now. Bedard has earned a little less than $6M to date if my figures are accurate and will probably get something close to that for 2008 if his case goes to arbitration.

Yadi Molina just signed a $15.5M contract for 4 years with a club option for a 5th year at $7M, which is probably about half what Bedard should be offered by the O's for a 3 or 4 year contract (pitchers are less durable) with a similar option year.

Figure $5M/$7M/$9M with a $10M option for 2011 and a $1M buyout for a guaranteed $22M and it would be awfully difficult for Bedard to turn that down for $6M in arbitration this year, with the attendant risk of getting injured and not being able to get anything for 2009 if his career is washed up.

And it would be a relative bargain for the O's because Bedard will still get his $6M for 2008 and somewhere around $8M for 2009 if he has another big season, plus a 5 or 6 year contract worth in the neighborhood of $15M per year that could drive his total cost for the next 4 years closer to $50M instead of around $30M.

So Erik would be looking at a worst case of about $6M if he does arbitration and his career flames out next year, compared to $22M guaranteed with a 3 year contract extension and 1 option year bringing it to $30M, or $50M if he waits for free agency. Most young players have been opting for the guaranteed extension simply because the teams are in much better position to accept the risk of injuries than the players themselves, being able to spread out the risk among several players and even to insure the larger contracts. Even the A's and Twins have been doing this with selected players, then attempting to trade those players as their salaries escalate beyond the team payroll's ability to absorb.

Everyone seems to take (3) as gospel, ignoring that Erik's statement about not signing an extension was made while in the process of negotiating for a 2008 contract which could well be part of a multi-year deal. I think it's silly to assume that he won't sign; anyone would sign if the money were right. The problem for the O's is to find out what Erik's real price is for a 3-4 year extension plus an option year and then to sign him if it's anywhere close to what the club estimates he's worth -- because it's going to be one heck of a lot less than he would make in free agency if he remains healthy. The club option is evidence that the teams have the player over a barrel, because the option if the player is injured or his performance declines. There is no reason for a player to agree to a club option if he could get the contract without it -- the club option is just the team stacking the deck for the next round of contract negotiations and all that the player can do is try to negotiate the option buy out as high as he possibly can.

[RShack]

Everyone seems to take (3) as gospel, ignoring that Erik's statement about not signing an extension was made while in the process of negotiating for a 2008 contract which could well be part of a multi-year deal. I think it's silly to assume that he won't sign; anyone would sign if the money were right. The problem for the O's is to find out what Erik's real price is for a 3-4 year extension plus an option year and then to sign him if it's anywhere close to what the club estimates he's worth -- because it's going to be one heck of a lot less than he would make in free agency if he remains healthy.

If it was me, I'd be trying to re-sign him and, because his perfectly reasonable and legitimate worry is being stuck with a loser, I'd work with him to build in some clause that gets him out of town to a decent team if the O's fail to perform up to a certain level by whatever year we're worrying about. That way, both sides are getting what they want/need and nobody's pretending that getting stuck with a losing franchise is not an important concern. It is an important concern, and especially so for someone of his caliber.

[Pruke]

I think it's silly to assume that he won't sign; anyone would sign if the money were right. The problem for the O's is to find out what Erik's real price is for a 3-4 year extension plus an option year and then to sign him if it's anywhere close to what the club estimates he's worth

I think that's a good point. I don't know what's true as to whether he would sign here or not.

McPhail has said that he doesn't have to trade Bedard - only if he was bowled over with an offer.

Some questions worth considering -

- if Bedard said he would sign a 3-4+1O for 50-80MM, would you simply sign him? or would you explore trade options?

- if you explored trade options, would you also want to see a Jones, Tillman, Triumfel, Chen type of return and take it or go back to focus on signing Bedard long term?

- IMO, this is just a question of whether you believe we have the talent level within the organization to truly contend within 2-3 years. I don't know that answer but I tend to think that without an influx of young talent to be molded and grow and develop under this new regime (per se), we will not. I think we need to trade Bedard, if we want to contend within 2-3 years - period.

The one caveat I will throw out there is that the return on Bedard has to be equal to or better than the risk assumed in letting him walk in 2 years, taking those draft picks, and waiting another 2-3 years to seem them develop and hopefully contribute (4-5+ years on that side).

[Sports Guy]

If it was me, I'd be trying to re-sign him and, because his perfectly reasonable and legitimate worry is being stuck with a loser, I'd work with him to build in some clause that gets him out of town to a decent team if the O's fail to perform up to a certain level by whatever year we're worrying about. That way, both sides are getting what they want/need and nobody's pretending that getting stuck with a losing franchise is not an important concern. It is an important concern, and especially so for someone of his caliber.

But only after weeks of research, right? LOL

[RShack]

But only after weeks of research, right? LOL

Of course. I'd need some mega spreadsheet about who-all is getting paid what, how much I've got committed, how much I'm planning to spend on other stuff, graphs using calculus to gauge trends of salary trends (the duplicate use of "trends" in there is *not* redundant) and, oh yeah, what my budget is. And that's just the numerical basics. I'd also need details about what everybody said about everybody at the big org meeting, plus the history of all the conversations that AM had with anybody.

You think it's silly, but I don't. This is serious business (or is it "bid-ness"?)

[Migrant Redbird]

Some questions worth considering -

- if Bedard said he would sign a 3-4+1O for 50-80MM, would you simply sign him? or would you explore trade options?

I absolutely would not sign Bedard to a contract like that now!! Those are the kinds of contracts he'd get offered if he were already a free agent. (e.g., Burnett, $55M/5) Bedard is 2 years away from that point; he's at the mercy of the Orioles! The Orioles can tie up his services for the next 2 years for a maximum price of what he can obtain in arbitration and if he tears up his rotator cuff in spring training, they're only on the hook for about $6M (depending on how his arb comes out). Bedard can't do anything about it except to trade away potential free agent bonanzas for a lesser amount of guaranteed salary through a reasonable extension. He gives up money in exchange for transferring the injury risk to the Oriole. The O's take on risk in exchange for a bargain price for Bedard's services in his first couple years past arbitration, then they spin off some of that risk to an insurance company and spread the remainder out on their entire portfolio of player contracts. The club option gives them leverage to negotiate another contract in 2-4 years to lock him up for an extra 3-4 years, if the team feels he's worth it. Or, they can take the path the Twins and A's did with Santana, Hudson, Mulder, and Zito, which was to negotiate away the arbitration years at a bargain price, then trade the pitcher off for or let him walk for draft picks.

Like I said, you negotiate until you figure out what it will take, then you decide if you're willing to give him that much. I've suggested $20M to $30M for 3-4 years and a club option is a reasonable compromise that's good for both sides, but obviously I don't know how much the O's are willing to pay or how willing Bedard is to carry the risk himself.

- if you explored trade options, would you also want to see a Jones, Tillman, Triumfel, Chen type of return and take it or go back to focus on signing Bedard long term?

I won't discuss trade options because I frankly don't consider myself qualified to evaluate the talent of those players. I believe that Chris Duncan for Brian Roberts would be a good deal for Chris, the O's, and the Cardinals. (Can't speak for Roberts; after all, there's La Russa! )

- IMO, this is just a question of whether you believe we have the talent level within the organization to truly contend within 2-3 years. I don't know that answer but I tend to think that without an influx of young talent to be molded and grow and develop under this new regime (per se), we will not. I think we need to trade Bedard, if we want to contend within 2-3 years - period.

I believe that you and all the "blow it up gang" are wrong, but I will acknowledge that you know the Orioles organization and players better than I do. About all that I will contend is that you don't know your own organization's capabilities quite as well as you believe, and that's obviously something which I can't prove!

The one caveat I will throw out there is that the return on Bedard has to be equal to or better than the risk assumed in letting him walk in 2 years, taking those draft picks, and waiting another 2-3 years to seem them develop and hopefully contribute (4-5+ years on that side).

It's all about assessing risk and determining which risks you are prepared to accept. I believe that way too many O's fans have misjudged the risks. I suspect that McPhail's judgment is probably better than yours, but I really don't know. Trades often come out of left field, like the Rolen for Glaus trade.

[Sports Guy]

Of course. I'd need some mega spreadsheet about who-all is getting paid what, how much I've got committed, how much I'm planning to spend on other stuff, graphs using calculus to gauge trends of salary trends (the duplicate use of "trends" in there is *not* redundant) and, oh yeah, what my budget is. And that's just the numerical basics. I'd also need details about what everybody said about everybody at the big org meeting, plus the history of all the conversations that AM had with anybody.

You think it's silly, but I don't. This is serious business (or is it "bid-ness"?)

It would take less than 30 minutes for anyone with a clue to figure out what kind of offer he is worth and what level you are willing to go.

BTW, are you going to answer my question? 6/110 contract for Bedard..Yes or no?

[RShack]

It would take less than 30 minutes for anyone with a clue to figure out what kind of offer he is worth and what level you are willing to go.

Well, all I can say is that, when it comes to making Important Decisions, I'm kinda OCD. If we're talking about multi-zillion dollar decisions that may have important consequences, then that just brings out the worst (or best, depending on your point-of-view) of me. However, after doing my homework project (which would include pleasant friendly chats with both Bedard's agent and Bedard, I would in the end have a clear answer for myself, including starting positions, absolute ceiling, and points about which I was prepared to provide some significant give-and-take.

BTW, are you going to answer my question? 6/110 contract for Bedard..Yes or no?

After repeatedly explaining to you why I don't wish to play your silly game, I will do something stupid and play it anyway. If the question is 6/110 for a pitcher, I'd prolly say "nope"... but that is a tentative answer, pending the results of the OCD project which I have neither the info nor the motivation to undertake. None of which proves a dang thing, so why did you bother harping on it?

[Sports Guy]

After repeatedly explaining to you why I don't wish to play your silly game, I will do something stupid and play it anyway. If the question is 6/110 for a pitcher, I'd prolly say "nope"... but that is a tentative answer, pending the results of the OCD project which I have neither the info nor the motivation to undertake. None of which proves a dang thing, so why did you bother harping on it?

Stop making this so hard...You aren't stupid(i don't think)....You see what contracts are being given out. You know how much pitching is going for.

This isn't a difficult question that takes your hesitance....Everyone on this site could answer that quickly...Either you think he is worth that kind of committment or you don't...It is very simple.

[clapdiddy]

Stop making this so hard...You aren't stupid(i don't think)....You see what contracts are being given out. You know how much pitching is going for.

This isn't a difficult question that takes your hesitance....Everyone on this site could answer that quickly...Either you think he is worth that kind of committment or you don't...It is very simple.

I vote a resounding "NO"!

Long term pitching contracts are usually bad, bad things. Look at Mike Hampton, Denny Neagle, Kevin Brown, Carl Pavano, Darren Dreifort, etc, etc. I'll bet the Giants will be regretting the Zito deal as well.

I truly can't think of many very good pitchers who got these big deals who stayed healthy. Maddux, Clemens, Schilling...maybe a few others. I think tying up big money over a long period of time in pitching is not a very smart investment.

[El Gordo]

And a 28 year old starter with a 40-34 record, who's never yet thrown 200 innings in a season is not ever likely to still be pitching at a ML level when he's 41. By the time Glavine was 28 he'd been a fulltime starter for seven years, won 108 games (w/three 20 win seasons), and was averaging 210 innings a year. At this point the only thing a 28 year old Bedard has in common with the 28 year old Tom Glavine is that they're both left handed. Expecting Bedard to closely follow Glavine's career path from here on would be an act of willful ignorance. Erik could very well be dominant for the next few years, but that's a far cry from believing he could or should be a competent ML pitcher a decade from now.

Any opinion that ignores a particular pitcher's injury history, or the extreme likelihood of significant injuries that faces every ML pitcher as they age is not based in a reality that should influence a team's plans to improve itself. To quote James Cameron: "Hope is not a strategy."

Most of them probably started to decline earlier than halfway through their careers.

Look up the phrase "straw man". Nobody is recommending trading every player who's 28-30, so your arguing against it is a waste of time. What we are saying is that as currently constituted the Baltimore Orioles are better off with 6-8 hot young prospects in their system than one really good 28 year old starter and one really good 30 year old second baseman.

If the Orioles had ten more guys as good as Roberts and Bedard we wouldn't be having this conversation. But they don't, and aren't likely to at any time in the next five years unless we make some smart trades.

Look up the phrase(sic.) "sophomoric".

[Sports Guy]

I vote a resounding "NO"!

Long term pitching contracts are usually bad, bad things. Look at Mike Hampton, Denny Neagle, Kevin Brown, Carl Pavano, Darren Dreifort, etc, etc. I'll bet the Giants will be regretting the Zito deal as well.

I truly can't think of many very good pitchers who got these big deals who stayed healthy. Maddux, Clemens, Schilling...maybe a few others. I think tying up big money over a long period of time in pitching is not a very smart investment.

I don't think there is a pitcher in this sport I would give a contract of more than 5 years to...Unless we are signing them for well below market value.

[Del34]

I don't think there is a pitcher in this sport I would give a contract of more than 5 years to...Unless we are signing them for well below market value.

Agreed. Maybe with the exception of a few...like maybe Beckett, Peavy, or Webb.

No way I give Bedard a contract that big. I don't think any team would. I'd much rather be throwing 100 million dollar contracts at a guy like Tex.

[RShack]

Stop making this so hard...You aren't stupid(i don't think)....You see what contracts are being given out. You know how much pitching is going for.

This isn't a difficult question that takes your hesitance....Everyone on this site could answer that quickly...Either you think he is worth that kind of committment or you don't...It is very simple.

It's not "very simple". The 6 years is a crazy idea, but the 6 years don't really matter much. What matters is how much you pay for the 4 or 5 years you're willing to do. If I thought he was worth that many $$$ for 4 or 5 years (which I prolly don't), then I'd be happy to give him that much over 6 years. It'd save money.

As for what's been given out, I don't keep up with it at the level of worrying about exactly what makes sense. I let other people argue about that. To me, they're just big numbers with one-zero-too-many on the end. I care about Actual Baseball, about how guys play. If I want to worry about finances, I noodle about that in ways that actually affect me. Playing fake-GM with Monopoly money is not a hobby of mine. However, if you like to do that as a hobby, that's fine with me. But the idea that that's somehow the essence of knowing baseball is silly.

When it actually comes up for real, then I think about it... briefly. When there's an Actual Contract, I'll form my opinion about whether it's good, bad, or too soon to tell. For example, with Wieters, I thought your idea of "$10M, $15M, whatever it takes" was silly. I thought what AM actually paid Wieters was fine. I also especially liked that it was a MiL contract. But I think the game of trying to *predict* contracts is less-than-no-fun. If I was working in the FO, then I'd worry about it. Since I'm not getting paid to do it right, I don't do it.