Last-minute attempt by O's to sign ace holding up trade

[ON BASE %]

I finally and completely hate Angelos.

Welcome to the club and glad to have you onboard! Membership has its privileges including pitchforks and torches.

[wildcard]

Orioles.com

'Sources close to the Orioles said Wednesday that club owner Peter Angelos wants to keep the ace pitcher and called Bedard last Sunday night to discuss a five-year contract. Bedard said he might be interested and would talk to his agent, Mark Pieper. '

[Fan4Life]

Last-minute attempt by O's to sign ace.

I give this turn of events 5 smiley faces.

I do not know which way this off season will turn next but Peter talking directly to Bedard is about the best way to know if the two men can come to a agreement. I like the direct communication. I hope Bedard is signed.

If Peter decides to build around Bedard and Roberts the franchise will be moving on a much faster track to contention.

Don't back down, going into the offseason there wasn't anyone on this board that was saying "trade Bedard whether or not he'll sign an extension", in fact all of them were saying "If he won't sign an extension, he needs to be traded". So, now he's considering signing one(assuming the story is correct), and yet all you hear now is how idiotic that would be. LOL

[square634]

Don't back down, going into the offseason there wasn't anyone on this board that was saying "trade Bedard whether or not he'll sign an extension", in fact all of them were saying "If he won't sign an extension, he needs to be traded". So, now he's considering signing one(assuming the story is correct), and yet all you hear now is how idiotic that would be. LOL

Actually, I was definitely saying that.

[blueberryale77]

Actually, I was definitely saying that.

Me too, as were plenty of others.

[RShack]

Don't back down, going into the offseason there wasn't anyone on this board that was saying "trade Bedard whether or not he'll sign an extension", in fact all of them were saying "If he won't sign an extension, he needs to be traded". So, now he's considering signing one(assuming the story is correct), and yet all you hear now is how idiotic that would be. LOL

You're fairly describing about 95% of folks who were arguing to trade him. Maybe more. But not 100%.

I don't think he should back down about that. It's the other thing where he kinda dug a hole. Maybe he'll correct our, um, misunderstanding about that soon ;-)

[Fan4Life]

Me too, as were plenty of others.

In October?

[blueberryale77]

In October?

Whenever somebody first brought up the subject of signing Bedard to a big extension, my immediate response was that it would be a better idea to trade him. Perhaps what I said at the time, rather than proposing a trade, was that I didn't think it would be a good risk to sign him right now to the kind of contract he'd likely want coming off his career year when you still had two years under control, but I definitely have never, ever advocated breaking the bank to extend Bedard long term. I won't try to speak for others as to when they posted what, but my recollection is that there has always been a fair amount of controversy on the subject of whether to trade him this winter, attempt to extend him, or wait a year (or until the deadline) before deciding which to do (with the last being the least popular option but still advocated by some).

[wildcard]

You or wildcard can make a case for keeping Bedard & Roberts and trying to build a team around them. No problem. I disagree. However, when Wildcard is happy that Peter Angelos (hypothetically) is sticking his nose into GM decisions, then I have a problem with that line of thinking. The O's should have made a plan from the beginning on whether they could/should sign Bedard or not and whether it made any sense to. Apparently, MacPhail made that decision. Let's hope this talk of PA contacting Bedard himself is just that. Talk.

Just because Peter talked to Bedard does not mean McPhail did not endorse the approach. He may have suggested it.

[Pruke]

i honestly wonder how you judge a GM's ability when the owner makes the major decisions

Wanted: GM

Responsibilities:

1. Talk to other GM's

2. Lead them into discussions regarding trades

3. Make us seem credible

4. Replace Water Cooler once per day

5. Call me on my new pink Razor cell phone once a day

6. Talk to those dreaded reporters

7. Drive misinformational stories out to the general media

8. Run minor transactions through my sons prior to execution

9. Run major transactions through me prior to execution

10. Put on the charrade that we're attempting to rebuild

11. Explain to the media why we don't execute the mega-deals without putting blame on me

12. Must not have self-esteem, dignity, success oriented approaches

Please send CV to my law firm for a thorough legal review and technical edits prior to us scheduling an interview / cross-examination.

Respectfully,

PA&Sons

This was in jest, but I could not help it given the comment by wildcard about Peter calling up Bedard directly. Without any offense to wildcard, the concept that Pete has taken to picking up the phone while working on a family matter that has taken him away from approving an incredibly important deal (for the future of his franchise), is not simply mind-boggling, it's actually hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fan4Life]

Whenever somebody first brought up the subject of signing Bedard to a big extension, my immediate response was that it would be a better idea to trade him. Perhaps what I said at the time, rather than proposing a trade, was that I didn't think it would be a good risk to sign him right now to the kind of contract he'd likely want coming off his career year when you still had two years under control, but I definitely have never, ever advocated breaking the bank to extend Bedard long term. I won't try to speak for others as to when they posted what, but my recollection is that there has always been a fair amount of controversy on the subject of whether to trade him this winter, attempt to extend him, or wait a year (or until the deadline) before deciding which to do (with the last being the least popular option but still advocated by some).

If I recall the speculation by Frobby and others was something in the range of 5 years $64M. That was hardly a bank breaking idea at the time...

I'm sure there may have been a few (very) who were for trading Bedard in October regardless of our ability to sign him, you likely being in the forefront of them, but the vast majority of those who post loudly and regularly here we saying only if he couldn't be signed should we trade him.

[NoVaO]

Don't back down, going into the offseason there wasn't anyone on this board that was saying "trade Bedard whether or not he'll sign an extension", in fact all of them were saying "If he won't sign an extension, he needs to be traded". So, now he's considering signing one(assuming the story is correct), and yet all you hear now is how idiotic that would be. LOL

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1069515#post1069515

I would prefer to trade Bedard with or without the extension. This organization needs an overhaul and infusion of young, talented players. You will have filled almost every hole your organization has with the exception of maybe 1 or 2 positions and also will have added a lot of depth to your organization by trading Bedard.

October 11th, playoffs just underway.

[Life Long O Fan]

This offseason is definitely making a lot of stressed out O's fans. I really hope they get the trade done and stop messing around.

[Fan4Life]

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1069515#post1069515

October 11th, playoffs just underway.

Rep points for you....

[blueberryale77]

If I recall the speculation by Frobby and others was something in the range of 5 years $64M. That was hardly a bank breaking idea at the time...

I'm sure there may have been a few (very) who were for trading Bedard in October regardless of our ability to sign him, you likely being in the forefront of them, but the vast majority of those who post loudly and regularly here we saying only if he couldn't be signed should we trade him.

OK, fair enough, but I think sometimes the "loudness" and frequency of certain posters makes the majority opinion on a subject seem like it has a greater majority than it actually does. I also think some of the people who were interested in giving him an extension in October may have been legitimately swayed by either evolving perception of how much it would take to resign him or excitement over the number and quality of prospects being discussed in various trade offers.