Justify keeping Bedard or Roberts

[wildcard]

Yes, he has shown that to some extent. And he continues to show it by trying to trade Roberts & Bedard. Is there any doubt in your mind, that he wants to trade them?

No doubt, I think MacPhail will trade either guy if he gets his price. But his price is way high. I can't argue with that logic. I may argue that he did not get high value if he does trade them though.

I am happy with the Tejada trade but Roberts and Bedard are different. They require high ceiling guys in return. I just hope MacPhail does not give in.

[RShack]

It's about sustained success, not the quick and easy path. Build a strong organization from the bottom up. If Bedard and Roberts stay to be a part of it, fine. If not, that's ok too.

IMO, you're exactly right. The big delusion that's going on is that lotsa people are assuming that "rebuilding" is doing something *way* different than other things. It's not. It's mostly just the same. The only real difference is that you're more willing to *listen* to trade ideas about your best players (which is way different than being in a big rush to trade them), and that you don't go signing big-money FA's to "put you over the top", simply because you're not near the top. Other than that, a good franchise behaves pretty much exactly the same whether it's rebuilding or not. I think that many O's fans just don't know how a good org behaves because they've not been watching one. So, as a result, they get sold on some over-simplified formula, which is what all the "blow it up" stuff is: a bizarrely over-simplified phony-formula that is *not* what good franchises generally do. The whole "blow it up" thing is just a bumper-sticker myth.

The truth is that you don't need to trade your best guys to make the org better. When the O's got good, it wasn't because of that. To the contrary, Paul Richards traded guys like crazy, but that didn't help at all: the O's stayed a 6th-or-7th-place team the whole time. They got good after AM's daddy took over and quit doing that trade-everybody nonsense. When the Braves got good, it wasn't because of trades either. Bobby Cox took over as GM of ATL when the org was terrible. They had a couple good young P's signed, but that's about it. In 5 years, he built a majorly-good org, one that set the stage for the Braves amazing run of success. He didn't do it by trading his best player. His best player was Dale Murphy, and Murphy didn't get traded until he was all used-up. That didn't stop anything. The only trade that Cox made because he was rebuilding that he wouldn't have done otherwise was when he traded Doyle Alexander to the Tigers to get a MiL guy named Smoltz. That's about it. He built a great org from scratch in 5 years, and he didn't "blow up" anything. Instead, he mainly did what any good org would do regardless of their status. But nobody wants to believe that, because they've been sold on some silly "blow it up" formula that's not even real. It does make a good sound-bite slogan though. For some reason, a lot of folks here have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. I think it's just because they don't know how a good org acts because they've not been watching one. The diff between a good org and what they O's have been for a while is indeed a huge difference, but it has almost nothing to do with trades.

[wildcard]

It's about sustained success, not the quick and easy path. Build a strong organization from the bottom up.

Agreed. That means only sign key essential free agents that would cost draft choices like Tex or Dunn.

Building through draft, improving scouting and improving player development.

Keeping Roberts and Bedard speeds up the process.

[wildcard]

IMO, you're exactly right. The big delusion that's going on is that lotsa people are assuming that "rebuilding" is doing something *way* different than other things. It's not. It's mostly just the same. The only real difference is that you're more willing to *listen* to trade ideas about your best players (which is way different than being in a big rush to trade them), and that you don't go signing big-money FA's to "put you over the top", simply because you're not near the top. Other than that, a good franchise behaves pretty much exactly the same whether it's rebuilding or not. I think that many O's fans just don't know how a good org behaves because they've not been watching one. So, as a result, they get sold on some over-simplified formula, which is what all the "blow it up" stuff is: a bizarrely over-simplified phony-formula that is *not* what good franchises generally do. The whole "blow it up" thing is just a bumper-sticker myth.

The truth is that you don't need to trade your best guys to make the org better. When the O's got good, it wasn't because of that. To the contrary, Paul Richards traded guys like crazy, but that didn't help at all: the O's stayed a 6th-or-7th-place team the whole time. They got good after AM's daddy took over and quit doing that trade-everybody nonsense. When the Braves got good, it wasn't because of trades either. Bobby Cox took over as GM of ATL when the org was terrible. They had a couple good young P's signed, but that's about it. In 5 years, he built a majorly-good org, one that set the stage for the Braves amazing run of success. He didn't do it by trading his best player. His best player was Dale Murphy, and Murphy didn't get traded until he was all used-up. That didn't stop anything. The only trade that Cox made because he was rebuilding that he wouldn't have done otherwise was when he traded Doyle Alexander to the Tigers to get a MiL guy named Smoltz. That's about it. He built a great org from scratch in 5 years, and he didn't "blow up" anything. Instead, he mainly did what any good org would do regardless of their status. But nobody wants to believe that, because they've been sold on some silly "blow it up" formula that's not even real. It does make a good sound-bite slogan though. For some reason, a lot of folks here have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. I think it's just because they don't know how a good org acts because they've not been watching one. The diff between a good org and what they O's have been for a while is indeed a huge difference, but it has almost nothing to do with trades.

We are on the same page with most of this. However if the young pitchers progress, and McPhail uses some of the surplus pitchers and OF to trade for a ss and maybe a CF then I think the O's should consider signing Tex or Dunn next winter. Either would be a big step forward for the franchise.

[RShack]

We are on the same page with most of this. However if the young pitchers progress, and McPhail uses some of the surplus pitchers and OF to trade for a ss and maybe a CF then I think the O's should consider signing Tex or Dunn next winter. Either would be a big step forward for the franchise.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that. People can disagree about the specific details of Tex and Dunn, those are specific issues unto themselves. But the main point is the same: that a good org acts mostly the same whether it's rebuilding or not. The idea that there is a huge diff in how the org should act is a myth that's got everybody in a trading frenzy. AM should trade his good guys if, and only if, he gets what he wants for them in light of how he reads the situation. The idea that "he's got to trade them because he's rebuilding" is nonsense.

[ON BASE %]

Agreed. That means only sign key essential free agents that would cost draft choices like Tex or Dunn.

Building through draft, improving scouting and improving player development.

Keeping Roberts and Bedard speeds up the process.

I agree too that Bedard and Roberts should only be traded for high value. After those two the Orioles are very limited in tradeable commodities.

This probably deserves it's own thread but the Orioles should consider locking up Markakis similar to what the Rockies are doing with Tulowiczki. I realize Markakis is only beginning Year 3 but he does have a good track record so far. Give him a pay bump for 2008, then buy out all three arbitration years, and possibly one or two years of free agency. For a pitcher I would have reservations about doing this but not for a solid bat like Markakis. It would provide the Orioles cost certainty and possibly some savings down the road.

A byproduct would be it shows a commitment to winning and could be a selling point to Bedard, Roberts, or Teix/Dunn. But in the end it's a very real possibility that we don't sign Teix/Dunn and Bedard/Roberts both depart via free agency. While the Orioles can make competitive offers they can't force these guys to sign.

[clapdiddy]

I posted this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate here:

I'm really not sure how to read the whole Bedard/Roberts situations.

If we were to make some decent smaller moves for young guys who could play right now, I might be inclined to keep Roberts and Bedard, then go all out for Teixiera next offseason, I could see this team being competitive in 2009.

The way I see it, if we intend on keeping Roberts and Bedard, the three positions we need to target are 3B, SS, and CF. Again, this is assuming that we're making Teixiera an offer he can't refuse next year. We already have a plethora of 1B/DH types, plus Teix will obviously be playing 1B in 2009.

So...what players can we target at these three positions who are young, available, and can be had with what we're willing to offer?

ADDITION: I want to go on record that I am FOR trading both Bedard and Roberts. I'm just not sure that we are going to get what AM would deem an acceptable offer.

Also...one guy I would target in this scenario is Nate McLouth. I think he's going to have a breakout season this year, and would be a great fit hitting number 2 behind Roberts.

[NoVaO]

Despite reading my "excellent post" (as wildcard called it), your thinking is still trapped inside a box. You're not objective. You're thinking like a loser!

Almost every objective observer agrees with my (and most others) view that this team is not close to competing and needs to start over.

The Cardinals farm system has been rated towards the bottom half of the bottom half by "experts" for more years than I care to remember. I could show you some statistics which appear to indicate that might not have been true, but I've spent too much time with a colleague trying to explain why they don't "prove" the converse -- that the Cards organization was actually superior over that time frame -- to get into that much depth here. Suffice it to say that we're just looking for excuses here for losing, and if one should be be discredited, the pessimists will simply trot out a dozen more.

....

I appreciate what the Cardinals did, but in all honesty they have nothing to do with this Orioles team. What makes you so qualified to discuss whether this team can compete when you admit that you know very little about the Oriole organization?

Big turn arounds are the exception and not the rule. And when they do occur, usually we can see it coming. Not everytime, but most of the time. Most of the teams you listed were big time sleepers heading into the year.

Relying on the unexpected and luck is not smart baseball practice.

- Ray Lankford, our "All Star center fielder" in 1997, whose defense had deteriorated sufficiently from injuries that he was relegated to left in 1999 and 2000, who only played in 128 games and batted just .253 (116 OPS+, though)

Bolded part is key.

A rookie who won 11 games.

A rookie with a 3.50 ERA in 30 starts.

The "fragile flower" in Anaheim managed to remain relatively healthy in St. Louis for 6 monster seasons in St. Louis. It happens. We got lucky. Who's to say that the O's can't too?

I'm tired of relying on luck. And this "fragile flower" played 154 games and 133 games the two years before his injury-riddled season. It wasn't surprising that he bounced back. How much he bounced back was the surprising part.

Solid? LanKKKKford? A broken down center fielder who managed to give us 128 games in left that season, but hardly "solid".

OPS+ of 116.

I would argue that Drew was significantly superior to Markakis in everything except durability and -- possibly -- attitude, but he had a manager who persisted in yanking him from the lineup every time he would begin to get into a groove at the plate.

120 OPS+ in 470 PAs

You might want to look at that "extremely productive 300 at bats" again.

OPS+ of 204 in 321 PAs...April and June were your 1st and 3rd best months overall in terms of win %.

Tatis had an incredible 1999 season and he was off to a fast start in 2000. He came in to field a ground ball on the 29th of April and pulled a groin muscle, and was never a productive major league hitter again. Yes, he came back at the end of June and managed a few lucky hits in July, but he was below the Mendoza line in August and September.

A few lucky hits in July was included in the line of .272/.398/.587/.985? That was what he hit in July. You are correct in him sucking the rest of the way.

Still, OPS+ of 116 in about 370 PAs overall.

That 2000 lineup was pasted together with strings and sealing wax (and maybe a little Mary Jane). The incredibly fortuitous circumstance which made that particular season was a rotation that somehow managed to make all but 7 starts with the original opening day rotation.

I guess. They seemed to be a bit more productive than you remember though it was hurt by injuries somewhat.

Ankiel was a phenom, but he was throwing too many pitches and not going deeply enough into games because he had some minor control problems.

His results spoke for themselves. He still gave you guys just as many innings as Bedard has given us.

Kile won 20 games pitching with a partially blocked coronary artery which eventually killed him.

I can't believe you are using this as something that actually hampered Kile. Many people with the condition he had look and feel healthy. He had no health problems in spring training two years later and often times heart attacks come on suddenly with few warning signs.

I give up!

I'm not sure about anything which will happen with the O's except that they've got a bunch of fans with closed minds who aren't going to open them until after the O's somehow manage to pull off a winning season or two.

Your post is the DEFINITION of close-minded. You refuse to acknowledge that trading Bedard could very well be what is best for the franchise. You do acknowledge that you are hardly qualified to judge the level of Oriole talent because you know so little about the system and you want us to rely on what is mostly luck.

The conclusions I have reached and others have reached is not just shared by the majority of this fan base, but by the majority of objective observers not associated with the Orioles in any way.

[ON BASE %]

We are on the same page with most of this. However if the young pitchers progress, and McPhail uses some of the surplus pitchers and OF to trade for a ss and maybe a CF then I think the O's should consider signing Tex or Dunn next winter. Either would be a big step forward for the franchise.

Or the surplus pitchers could be used in the bullpen. One of the keys to this year is getting a good read on our pitchers. Will Penn and Loewen recover from their injuries? Can Cabrera, Liz, and the others get their walks under control.

But I'm not ready to make any deals now with our young pitching. And no, I don't think Atlanta will deal a Lillibridge for a Patton, Penn, or Liz. As Gorilla Monsoon used to say, "highly unlikely."

I'm not an LH fan but he is making the league minimum. Let's see how superior his glovework really is.

As for CF, I can live with mediocrity there while we develop/evaluate organizational talent in 2008.

[ON BASE %]

Also...one guy I would target in this scenario is Nate McLouth. I think he's going to have a breakout season this year, and would be a great fit hitting number 2 behind Roberts.

I can see why the Orioles would want McClouth. But what would the Pirates motivation be in trading someone so talented with so little service time?

[wildcard]

I agree too that Bedard and Roberts should only be traded for high value. After those two the Orioles are very limited in tradeable commodities.

This probably deserves it's own thread but the Orioles should consider locking up Markakis similar to what the Rockies are doing with Tulowiczki. I realize Markakis is only beginning Year 3 but he does have a good track record so far. Give him a pay bump for 2008, then buy out all three arbitration years, and possibly one or two years of free agency. For a pitcher I would have reservations about doing this but not for a solid bat like Markakis. It would provide the Orioles cost certainty and possibly some savings down the road.

A byproduct would be it shows a commitment to winning and could be a selling point to Bedard, Roberts, or Teix/Dunn. But in the end it's a very real possibility that we don't sign Teix/Dunn and Bedard/Roberts both depart via free agency. While the Orioles can make competitive offers they can't force these guys to sign.

I continue to say that MacPhail will never let Bedard and Roberts become FAs while they are O's. MacPhail will sign them or trade them by the begin of 2009.

[Mackus]

I continue to say that MacPhail will never become FAs while they are O's. MacPhail will sign them or trade them by the begin of 2009.

I agree with that, I just disagree with you completely about the liklihood of either signing. I would say that Bedard has about a 1% chance of signing and Roberts has about a 10% chance.

[Dipper9]

Big turn arounds are the exception and not the rule. And when they do occur, usually we can see it coming. Not everytime, but most of the time. Most of the teams you listed were big time sleepers heading into the year.

You seem to contradict yourself here. You say on one hand that usually we see big time turnarounds coming. Then a sentence later you say but most of the turn around teams are sleepers. Which is it? Just recently, I've seen the Rockies and Tigers go from nothings to World Series contenders. While I am all for dismantling this team properly, I also always hold out some slim chance of hope that we will be one of those turnaround teams...just like that bunch of no names from 1989! Hey...why not?

The more AM drags his feet, the more and more I want Tex and BRob here in the rebirth of the Baltimore Orioles.

[clapdiddy]

I can see why the Orioles would want McClouth. But what would the Pirates motivation be in trading someone so talented with so little service time?

I believe they have an even younger guy waiting to take over in CF. Plus, we would make it a win/win by trading them a young pitcher such as Olson or Penn. Maybe we even throw in a reliever and get a prospect back...many different ways this could play out.

[wildcard]

Or the surplus pitchers could be used in the bullpen. One of the keys to this year is getting a good read on our pitchers. Will Penn and Loewen recover from their injuries? Can Cabrera, Liz, and the others get their walks under control.

But I'm not ready to make any deals now with our young pitching. And no, I don't think Atlanta will deal a Lillibridge for a Patton, Penn, or Liz. As Gorilla Monsoon used to say, "highly unlikely."

I'm not an LH fan but he is making the league minimum. Let's see how superior his glovework really is.

As for CF, I can live with mediocrity there while we develop/evaluate organizational talent in 2008.

Right now I think the time frame for the young pitching for a SS trade is late March after the O's and the rest of the league sees how the O's young pitchers are doing. Also it allows the O's to scout the young ss.