Was ERod too much for Andrew Miller

[PA724_Oriole]

And the Tigers got David Price for virtually nothing.

If Bundy is so saught after, there is no reason he caught have got Price.

Also those odds youre talking about. How did the As and Tigers only raise their odds by one precent but the Os would have Jumped two points? Because they were already projected as a better chance of getting there than us.

Heres my take on how you guys are thinking.

You try and make fun of me by saying, "oh you want to trade the whole farm" well to me, you guys sound like you would trade our entire major league roster if we got everyones top 2 prospects. Because you guys covet prospects more than proven talent.

That's what.some of you guys sound like to me. Lets not trade our prospects to be good now. Lets hang on. So why not trade all of our good plauers for the future since you guys are more worried about the future than the present.

[PA724_Oriole]

It should read Bundy could have got Price solo. For some reason I cant edit anymore.

[stef]

From Melewski's blog:

In an insider-only story written on ESPN.com, Keith Law said the Red Sox's acquisition of Rodriguez was the best value move by any team yesterday.

Law said the trade was "a great return for Boston, and the deal with the best minor league prospect moved over the course of the whole day. Two months of Miller, who's a free agent after the year, isn't much of a return for one of the top 100 prospects in the game, so Boston made out great here."

In this write-up on the deal by Baseball America, an American League scout provided this quote about Rodriguez:

"He's throwing 96, will throw you a plus slider at times and the changeup you can see is going to be an average pitch. This guy's got a chance to have three plus pitches. It's about repeatability. He's a deep-count guy, but the good news is the arm works, the delivery's good and he throws 96. He's got a chance to be maybe a No. 2 starter in the big leagues."

http://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2014/08/brad-brach-on-his-outing-and-cheering-section-and-reaction-to-the-andrew-miller-trade.html

[PA724_Oriole]

I think everyone would prefer to acquire the best possible players. But there's only so much a rational GM would give up for bumping up his World Series odds from 4% to 6 or 7%.

Those odds are more pointless than some actual stats.

They are opinions formed by ppl just like us forming our own opinions about these trades.

What were the odds of the Cavaliers getting the number one pick this year. It was about 14%. I wouldn't make a trade based on a percentage nimber. I would make a trade based on what the player could provide. What someone estimation on our odds.

[Redskins Rick]

And the Tigers got David Price for virtually nothing.

If Bundy is so saught after, there is no reason he caught have got Price.

Also those odds youre talking about. How did the As and Tigers only raise their odds by one precent but the Os would have Jumped two points? Because they were already projected as a better chance of getting there than us.

Heres my take on how you guys are thinking.

You try and make fun of me by saying, "oh you want to trade the whole farm" well to me, you guys sound like you would trade our entire major league roster if we got everyones top 2 prospects. Because you guys covet prospects more than proven talent.

That's what.some of you guys sound like to me. Lets not trade our prospects to be good now. Lets hang on. So why not trade all of our good plauers for the future since you guys are more worried about the future than the present.

Ask Seattle how Bedard trade work for them?

Trades do not always work, and to say the Tigers got Price for nothing, is a bit over the top.

[Redskins Rick]

Those odds are more pointless than some actual stats.

They are opinions formed by ppl just like us forming our own opinions about these trades.

What were the odds of the Cavaliers getting the number one pick this year. It was about 14%. I wouldn't make a trade based on a percentage nimber. I would make a trade based on what the player could provide. What someone estimation on our odds.

Wrong answer.

You make trades based on calculations on how it can help your team improve.

[Stotle]

I think everyone would prefer to acquire the best possible players. But there's only so much a rational GM would give up for bumping up his World Series odds from 4% to 6 or 7%.

I think the likes of Bundy and Harvey are a little overvalued around these parts, but I don't disagree in principle. I think for the right piece either of those guys should have been traceable. That said, there isn't a GM in baseball that 1) doesn't fear giving away the next first division, league minimum player, and 2) wouldn't throw "1" out the window if it meant winning a World Series.

I would say Beane is a pretty rational GM, and there's no way you can argue that he didn't give up more "value" in Cespedes, Russell, McKinney, and a B Comp Pick than he received in Lester, Samardzija, and Hammel. But his assessment is clearly that Oakland has an inside track and, even if his playoff/WS odds only went up by a very little bit it is important for him to try and fully leverage this opportunity. If Oakland wins a World Series he won't think twice about Russell becoming the next Tejada. And he shouldn't. Heck, if the team makes a strong run he'll still sleep easy knowing he did what he could.

I'm all for prudence, as you know. The same, when a team has an opportunity to push the chips to the middle and leverage an opportunity that doesn't come along very often, I will never fault a front office for being overly aggressive. Philly crashed and burned, but I thought it was fantastic that they poured money and prospects into putting together one of the best teams on paper towards the end of the last decade. As much as Amaro gets flamed (deservedly so), I would have loved to have been rooting for that club for the duration of the run they had.

Rambling, but I think too often we get stuck in this paradigm where moving a potential elite prospect means "punting on the future". It's all a series of risk assessment. I'm not saying the right deal was out there to move someone like Bundy/Harvey, but if it was I would have been all for getting aggressive. Moving one elite prospect won't sink your future any more than one big signing will. And holding on to one elite prospect is highly unlikely to guaranty future success. Lots of ways to skin a cat; love or hate Beane, he's reminded a lot of people of that this past month.

[DrungoHazewood]

Look at the list of prospects that have been traded for Cliff Lee. I don't believe any of them have panned out. Works both ways.

Of course many of these guys will/should produce a lot of future value, but the Rays have traded Kazmir, Garza and Shields over the last five seasons or so, and have gotten about 20 rWAR out of the 12 players they received. By far the most valuable to this point has been Sean Rodriguez.

So far the Rays have won those deals about 20-14 in rWAR, and they'll probably continue to move ahead as the pitchers they traded away decline, remain more expensive, and the Myers and Ordoizzis and Archers produce.

And since leaving Tampa those three have pitched two playoff games (both Kazmir), 10.2 innings, 10 runs.

[DrungoHazewood]

And the Tigers got David Price for virtually nothing.

If Bundy is so saught after, there is no reason he caught have got Price.

Also those odds youre talking about. How did the As and Tigers only raise their odds by one precent but the Os would have Jumped two points? Because they were already projected as a better chance of getting there than us.

Heres my take on how you guys are thinking.

You try and make fun of me by saying, "oh you want to trade the whole farm" well to me, you guys sound like you would trade our entire major league roster if we got everyones top 2 prospects. Because you guys covet prospects more than proven talent.

That's what.some of you guys sound like to me. Lets not trade our prospects to be good now. Lets hang on. So why not trade all of our good plauers for the future since you guys are more worried about the future than the present.

1) The Orioles are in first place now with a 70-something percent chance of making the playoffs.

2) Almost nothing they could have done yesterday, up to and including trading all of their top prospects, would have significantly changed their odds of winning the Series.

So, they're a good bet to make the playoffs, and nothing they could have done would have made them a lot more likely to win it all. So... why would you trade the future for that?

[Stotle]

Of course many of these guys will/should produce a lot of future value, but the Rays have traded Kazmir, Garza and Shields over the last five seasons or so, and have gotten about 20 rWAR out of the 12 players they received. By far the most valuable to this point has been Sean Rodriguez.

So far the Rays have won those deals about 20-14 in rWAR, and they'll probably continue to move ahead as the pitchers they traded away decline, remain more expensive, and the Myers and Ordoizzis and Archers produce.

And since leaving Tampa those three have pitched two playoff games (both Kazmir), 10.2 innings, 10 runs.

I don't follow the gist of your post, but I'm not a terribly bright guy. Seems like the takeaway is Tampa either scouts or develops well, or both?

As an aside, shouldn't the comparison be some combination of WAR per player divided by cost, or something like that? I'd assume Tampa would still "win", but I don't see how a straight tally of accrued WAR tells us much of anything. Too many other variables in team building.

If we want to go a step further, that WAR/player/cost would have to then be normalized to account for differences in org needs/resources. 3 WAR at $500 K is worth much more to Tampa than it is to the Dodgers.

[DrungoHazewood]

Those odds are more pointless than some actual stats.

They are opinions formed by ppl just like us forming our own opinions about these trades.

What were the odds of the Cavaliers getting the number one pick this year. It was about 14%. I wouldn't make a trade based on a percentage nimber. I would make a trade based on what the player could provide. What someone estimation on our odds.

Your argument now is that quantitative risk assessments are the same as random guys throwing out opinions? You're looking at a franchise worth $100s of millions, talking about what to do with its key assets, and your analysis is "screw the numbers, forget thinking through this in any detail, let's frickin' go for it!"

[Tony-OH]

From Melewski's blog:

http://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2014/08/brad-brach-on-his-outing-and-cheering-section-and-reaction-to-the-andrew-miller-trade.html

I would say that Keith Law is much more bullish on Rodriquez than anyone else I've ever talked to. I don't know one scout that likes his slider or his fastball command. They can both improve of course, but they are concerns. Also, it's misleading to say the guy is throwing 96 MPH. He sits 91-93 and will touch 94-95 on occasion. Perhaps he dropped a 96 on a hot gun but to say he throws 96 is being disingenuous.

Saying that, perhaps he was the best prospect sent and perhaps he is a top 100 prospect in KLaw's eyes. Regardless, look at how many "top 100" prospects flamed out. Zach Davies continues to out perform E-Rod yet you don't hear KLaw talk about him at all.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't follow the gist of your post, but I'm not a terribly bright guy. Seems like the takeaway is Tampa either scouts or develops well, or both?

As an aside, shouldn't the comparison be some combination of WAR per player divided by cost, or something like that? I'd assume Tampa would still "win", but I don't see how a straight tally of accrued WAR tells us much of anything. Too many other variables in team building.

If we want to go a step further, that WAR/player/cost would have to then be normalized to account for differences in org needs/resources. 3 WAR at $500 K is worth much more to Tampa than it is to the Dodgers.

I'm sure I rambled a bit, and I may have even changed my opinion while typing. But in the end, I think I was getting at Tampa won those deals. They traded established stars for a bunch of kids, and they came out ahead. The teams that went for it, trading the future for those big pitchers didn't get any playoff glory out of it.

So I guess I'm saying that's a point in favor of holding onto Bundy and Gausman and Harvey (and to some extent Rodriguez).

[Stotle]

1) The Orioles are in first place now with a 70-something percent chance of making the playoffs.

2) Almost nothing they could have done yesterday, up to and including trading all of their top prospects, would have significantly changed their odds of winning the Series.

So, they're a good bet to make the playoffs, and nothing they could have done would have made them a lot more likely to win it all. So... why would you trade the future for that?

I think the differences in opinion stem from the fact that you view the playoffs as a veritable crap shoot. Your wish list for Baltimore seems to be "put together a team that will make the playoffs and take your chances." Is that about right? I am not saying it's an incorrect way to look at things, mind you.

Some FO members look at that philosophy and see the reality embedded in it (history has shown us many many WS winners that were not the "best team"). But they still elect to try and make incremental changes to put their team in the best possible situation to take full advantage of every possible situation they might be faced with along the way. You can't prepare for everything, so different folks put emphasis on different areas.

I think it might come down to what you have invested in the season. Fans want a team to win the World Series. For a front office, a World Series makes your career. It's your life. I don't think someone like Beane is worried about his ability to adjust in the future. He may end up short of a World Series and down some big assets, but I have trouble faulting him for aggressive moves, even if it only moves your playoff percentage needle 1%. That won't matter if Samardzija and Lester happen to throw back to back shutouts in the playoffs. It's not an outcome you can depend on, but the chance for that outcome is every bit as real as the chance that Addison Russell becomes a 3 WAR player by 2016.

[Stotle]

I'm sure I rambled a bit, and I may have even changed my opinion while typing. But in the end, I think I was getting at Tampa won those deals. They traded established stars for a bunch of kids, and they came out ahead. The teams that went for it, trading the future for those big pitchers didn't get any playoff glory out of it.

So I guess I'm saying that's a point in favor of holding onto Bundy and Gausman and Harvey (and to some extent Rodriguez).

Got it. It would be interesting to run through all the big trades of the last fifteen/twenty years and see how things have shaken out. Beckett for Hanley ended up as a prospect developing into one of the best players in the game, and Boston still got their World Series out of it. Johnson to the Astros got them a World Series appearance, but then they were swept out by the White Sox. Phillies obviously made big investments to bring in Oswalt and Lee, never got that second World Series, but ended up not trading much of import. It's all case specific analysis, I'd think.