Evaluate the Bedard trade

[Fan4Life]

I would liked to have gotten more MLB ready players also. Although this kind of deal appears to be normal.. IE MCab... if we can spin someone off to help us get Pie or a SS, that will make it a very good deal to me at that time.

[AgentOrange]

Jones for Bedard is a money trade. Read my sig. The fact that we get two prospects that are #2 type upsides is unreal as well. Tillman rates out higher than any of our minor league pitchers right now. Butler is a close second.

Sherrill should be our closer and I think he will inflate his value so we can get a great piece for him at the deadline if we feel the need to. People overpay for great BP pitching if they are in the hunt. And to be honest, even if Sherrill is a bust, it doesn't matter. We have a lot of young guys contending for BP slots. If he does have a good year and you add him to Walker and Bradford, we have some solid arms in the pen to help the young guys develop by putting them in non high pressure situations until they get their feet wet.

As for Bedard for Jones straight up.

http://ussmariner.com/2008/01/08/adam-jones-and-erik-bedard-quantified/

Enjoy.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think I'll save my full thoughts for an article, when it happens. But I think a teaser would go something like "Jones for Bedard, straight-up, would have been defensible."

[wildcard]

And if they're paying that kind of money when you're receiving Jones' production for close to league minimum, they still aren't winning those years.

In that park Bedard should win 20. He will be worth alot.

[AgentOrange]

In that park Bedard should win 20. He will be worth alot.

OK, please read that article I posted. It should shed a little light on the subject for you.

I think you aren't taking into consideration how much good production for league minimum is worth.

[Mark Carver]

I think they will make a push to sign him soon. He has the risk of injury on his side until he signs long term. He could sign by middle season. It does not appear that the O's tried that hard to sign him.

Well, when his agent says that Bedard prefers to go year-to-year on his contract, what is the team suppose to do? Should they bid against themselves?

[japes121]

I love everyone wanting to discuss this, but these "counting your chickens before they hatch trades" give me some very uneasy feelings.

[DrungoHazewood]

In that park Bedard should win 20. He will be worth alot.

What does ballpark have to do with how often he wins? His teammates I can see, but park?

[66-70-83-??]

Your question assumes that "winning" is some agreed upon definition, however, Baltimore and Seattle have two different agendas right now. We are faced with the choice of purgatory with our current stars or the potential for something better without. In that light the Bedard and BRob trades (assuming they go through and we get fair value in return) = "winning" for us. Meanwhile Seattle is trying to win a championship now so of course in the short term they're "winning" too.

Your definition appears to be immediate contributions to the major league ball club. So of course we're going to be losing at first, that's the whole point of rebuilding. We're going to be winning at the minor league levels. We're going to be cheaper with more payroll flexibility. We're going to be stockpiled with young arms, if enough of which turn out will give us a talented cheap young rotation and bullpen. Or, we can trade away from that depth to fill position needs.

Again, there is no winner or loser here, just two teams who've satisfied their particular agendas.

I agree. As I was reading through the first several posts, I was thinking along the same exact lines....

Either no winners or both are winners because each team got what they wanted or else there would be no deal (assuming the deal does indeed go down, fingers crossed).

[wildcard]

The other thing that the Mariners get is the ability to trade Bedard. The could try to sign him until next season then trade him to NYY or Boston for a ton. So it is not just the next two year and a possible extension. It is also a possible trade.

[wildcard]

What does ballpark have to do with how often he wins? His teammates I can see, but park?

It's a pitcher's park. Easier to win 20 in.

[gtown]

What does ballpark have to do with how often he wins? His teammates I can see, but park?

It might have a marginal effect on wins. Pitching in a pitcher-friendly park allows a pitcher to go deeper into a game with the same amount of pitches, which gives a bullpen less of a chance to blow a lead.

It's slight, but it can have an effect.

[furryburres]

The fact is that the Mets won't deal their 4 guys without an extension in place with Santana. The Mariners giving us 5 guys and assuming the risk of working a contract extension with Bedard. There's a difference. Right? I have no idea how hard the O's tried to sign him. Frankly, I'm glad they didn't.

The difference between the two? The Mariners have one of the worst front offices in baseball. There's a difference between the Mariners and the Mets.

[amateurfan]

And if they're paying that kind of money when you're receiving Jones' production for close to league minimum, they still aren't winning those years.

Money is not an issue, and it should not ever be an issue. Production is the only issue. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not examining the situation properly. This trade was made for the purposes of production. MLB is so closed door on it finances that anyone who postulates on cost efficiency is talking out of the rear section (and furthermore is subject to ideas about player salary that owners want fans to think). None of us knows how much money each team is bring in. What we do know is that MLB brought in $6 billion. Futhermore, cost efficiency does not equate to more wins. In fact, it doesn't properly equate to anything. On the dollar Jones may be more cost efficient, but he's not going to help a team win more games. There are bad contracts, but I fail to see how this relates to fans, or why some fans have an interest in contracts. The only issue that is important is winning. I have never at the end of a season said, "Man! That's awesome! Not only was Markakis great, but he was cheap too! Thank god he's so cheap! If he weren't so cheap we'd never have a chance at winning!"

When evaluating a trade, the two most important issues are production and length of production. The cost is irrelevant. Santana brought the Twins less because it's one guaranteed year. The reason I can't stand the argument of cost efficiency is because I know that most fans, even the die hards, aren't sitting around assessing the salary that the O's have been delegated by PGA and diligently studying how to produce the most wins per dollar. We just don't know. Furthermore, we don't know the profit margin of these teams. If we knew that, fine, talk about cost efficiency, but we don't so it's a useless discussion.

The Mariners did fine in this trade. Jones is an unproved commodity, and off the ML roster they lost only Sherrill. Of the others, only Mikolio (SP) might have impacted the ML team, and that late in the season. The Mariners gave up future potential for production now. They did well. We did well too. I think it's an even trade, but I would have liked Triunfel.

[Frobby]

The other thing that the Mariners get is the ability to trade Bedard. The could try to sign him until next season then trade him to NYY or Boston for a ton. So it is not just the next two year and a possible extension. It is also a possible trade.

This is a good point. It's not like Bedard will just walk away at the end of 2 years and they will get nothing. They'll either get draft picks, or something better, even if he won't re-sign.