Hypothetical, Jones for McCutchen

[Redskins Rick]

Trade Ubaldo, Lough & Matusz for McCutchen, put McCutchen in CF and move AJ to LF.

[OFFNY]

Haha! Good one. Don't fall in love with the player. Love the uniform!

I can't operate that way. Of course, you have trades, free agency and turnover, but I will never see my team as just a bunch of WAR units who happen to wear our uniform. There have to be guys I consider true Orioles who I'll remember as such 25 years from now. Sports would not be worthwhile for me if it were otherwise.

I agree with this.

I think that the "Root for the Laundry" sentiment is actually the opposite of what the previous poster was inferring.

My understanding of the "Root for the laundry" sentiment is that it stems from situations such as ......

You have a favorite team in the first place, and they have a core group of players that you have grown to like and/or love. Then, if there happens to be one or two players that you don't particularly like that get traded to your favorite team, you accept it, even though you don't like them, and root for them to play well ...... along with the other 23 or 24 players on the team, all of whom you like and/or love.

[allquixotic]

I can't operate that way. Of course, you have trades, free agency and turnover, but I will never see my team as just a bunch of WAR units who happen to wear our uniform. There have to be guys I consider true Orioles who I'll remember as such 25 years from now. Sports would not be worthwhile for me if it were otherwise.

Agreed! Also, in a real trade by sane GMs, a trade like this would never go through. My problem would be, how much value do we have to add in addition to Jones to get back McCutchen? The Angels don't need money, so they would want a player, like Bundy/Gausman/Tillman/Harvey or at least Markakis - in addition to Jones. Trading a top prospect or TWO from our starting lineup or rotation to get one guy is increasing organizational risk significantly. For one, unless we can replace Markakis from within the organization with someone just as good, we'd have to give up even more and go shop for another corner outfielder with plus defense. Similar situation if we traded a SP. The second problem is that if McCutchen gets hurt, you just surrendered two excellent players who have been clutch for us all year, for a guy who will just sit on the DL.

People have pretty short memories. Remember how we got Jones in the first place? We got him and several other good players, notably Tillman, for one perceived ace starter in Bedard. Well as soon as Bedard got traded he got injured. The Mariners lost a lot of value from creating a single point of failure scenario.

Honestly I'd rather have a team full of good players than one or two elites, if it means trading multiple good players for one guy. Injuries are a huge risk. If a good player gets injured, it isn't all that hard to replace them with someone with similar stats. If an elite gets injured, your playoff hopes are significantly dashed.

Not even going to comment on the OP because it's pointless to think about a scenario that will never happen.

Never put all your eggs in one basket.

It's simple. If you decompose your entire team plus your income and disposable capital into dollars, you have X amount of money. Any sane trade with another team is not going to increase your net value by a very significant amount - other GMs, by and large, are not fools. You may see the occasional mistake but it's rarer in today's moneyball world.

Thus, assuming an even trade, surrendering value in 2 or 3 players for a higher value condensed in a single player always increases risk, because if that player is hurt, you've lost as much value on the field as if ALL the multiple guys you dealt for him simultaneously got injured, which is extremely unlikely to actually occur.

[DrungoHazewood]

The "He's our guy" and "don't want to upset team chemistry" arguments are a slippery slope. It's all about "he's our guy" verses the baseball advantage to the trade. If you want to argue that the advantage is not big enough to trade "our guy", fine. However, if the argument is only that he's "our guy", then you must also be willing to say you wouldn't trace Nick Markakis for McCutcheon tomorrow as well.

I got pretty good crampons, so I don't worry about slippery slopes. I prefer to judge each outlandish suggestion on it's own merit, and not be forced to conclude that everything is a binary switch.

[DrungoHazewood]

Help me understand this a little better. I do agree, currently, Cutch is a better player.

But I feel Jones has a better chance of improving his play than Cutch. I only say that because he already hit .330 or better in a season and as you mentioned has a damn good OBP.

But could you see Cutch having better year than his best year before seeing Adam improve on his best year?

Jones is older and therefore less likely to change what he is. But your baseline assumption should be that they both are what they are and any changes will be modest. McCutchen will probably continue to be better than Jones.

[Redskins Rick]

Agreed! Also, in a real trade by sane GMs, a trade like this would never go through. My problem would be, how much value do we have to add in addition to Jones to get back McCutchen? The Angels don't need money, so they would want a player, like Bundy/Gausman/Tillman/Harvey or at least Markakis - in addition to Jones. Trading a top prospect or TWO from our starting lineup or rotation to get one guy is increasing organizational risk significantly. For one, unless we can replace Markakis from within the organization with someone just as good, we'd have to give up even more and go shop for another corner outfielder with plus defense. Similar situation if we traded a SP. The second problem is that if McCutchen gets hurt, you just surrendered two excellent players who have been clutch for us all year, for a guy who will just sit on the DL.

People have pretty short memories. Remember how we got Jones in the first place? We got him and several other good players, notably Tillman, for one perceived ace starter in Bedard. Well as soon as Bedard got traded he got injured. The Mariners lost a lot of value from creating a single point of failure scenario.

Honestly I'd rather have a team full of good players than one or two elites, if it means trading multiple good players for one guy. Injuries are a huge risk. If a good player gets injured, it isn't all that hard to replace them with someone with similar stats. If an elite gets injured, your playoff hopes are significantly dashed.

Not even going to comment on the OP because it's pointless to think about a scenario that will never happen.

Sorry, no perceived about it. Bedard was an Ace. In fact, some people list Bedard on the Orioles list of top 10 pitchers, Jim Palmer being one of those.

His last year here, for a very bad team, which lost 93 games, he was 13-5 with 221 KOs and 3.16 ERA and a WAR of 5.5, he was also on the short list of CY-Young that year. In this time frame, some said he had the best curve of any pitcher going. In 2007, he also matched Mussina's record of striking out 15 batters in one game.

[Old#5fan]

Hyporthetical: my first thought when I saw this thread was PLEASE SOMEONE, ANYONE, DELETE it! Trading Adam Jones would be akin to trading Frank Robinson is his prime. Just flat out stupid, but even more pitiful is bringing it up in the middle of a great season so far! This thread deserves a negative star rating IMO. I agree with ATOMIC (for once on this). Trading Adam would be almost as stupid as trading Cal Ripken in his prime for Derek Jeter. STOOOPID!

[allquixotic]

Sorry, no perceived about it. Bedard was an Ace. In fact, some people list Bedard on the Orioles list of top 10 pitchers, Jim Palmer being one of those.

His last year here, for a very bad team, which lost 93 games, he was 13-5 with 221 KOs and 3.16 ERA and a WAR of 5.5, he was also on the short list of CY-Young that year. In this time frame, some said he had the best curve of any pitcher going. In 2007, he also matched Mussina's record of striking out 15 batters in one game.

You missed my point. I edited my post to try and clarify. Maybe that'll help. Maybe not.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not sure how everyone thinks McCutchen is absolutely better than Jones. Jones has more pop is just as good of a fielder and McCutchen is a more disciplined hitter with more speed' date=' but I'm not seeing how its such a clear cut thing.[/quote']

The whole reason to have value constructs like WAR are to approach questions like that in a disciplined, structured, consistent way and to come up with defensible answers.

[SteveO]

AJ is our guy and I have an emotional attachment to him so no thanks. Not enough an upgrade to warrant the risks associated with it.

[Redskins Rick]

I would remember Andrew M. being an Oriole 25 years from now. Is Frank Robinson a true Oriole?

Not if you a Reds fan.

[Malike]

You'd trade a hypothetical three wins a year for all of the relationships and leadership and affinity for the city and the community Jones has established? Jones grew up with this team, is the de facto captain, and a big part of why they've gone from laughingstock to contender. I wouldn't pull the trigger on a straight-up challenge trade for three wins a year. I'd rather not tell the fanbase that people just don't matter.

I think fans know that baseball is a business, and by trading Jones I don't feel that the FO would be stripping him of his humanity and telling their fans that people just don't matter. If they traded Jones for a bag of balls, then we'd all be upset, but it would be a trade (both healthy considered) that would be a landslide for the O's and better for the team going forward. Pittsburgh would never contemplate such a move, but its neat to discuss. I also think he offers more than three wins due to his salary, allowing the team the flexibility to add more wins at a different position, he's signed really cheap for his production.

[DrungoHazewood]

People do matter. The fans are people. I would do it. The fans have short memories. The fans would love Cutch by the end of the season if not sooner. BTW, what is your cutoff in win total before people don't matter? Would you not trade Markakis for Cutch?

I would trade Markakis for McCutchen if that was really on the table and there were no strings attached. I wouldn't have a straight cutoff in wins.

But like I said before, if someone came to me with a seemingly ridiculous offer like Markakis for McCutchen I'd immediately be very suspiscious. Those trades only happen when the better player has a ton of baggage.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think fans know that baseball is a business, and by trading Jones I don't feel that the FO would be stripping him of his humanity and telling their fans that people just don't matter. If they traded Jones for a bag of balls, then we'd all be upset, but it would be a trade (both healthy considered) that would be a landslide for the O's and better for the team going forward. Pittsburgh would never contemplate such a move, but its neat to discuss. I also think he offers more than three wins due to his salary, allowing the team the flexibility to add more wins at a different position, he's signed really cheap for his production.

It becomes more and more difficult to suspend disbelief the more lopsided the hypothetical trade becomes. When someone asks me "would you trade Markakis for McCutchen?" that's like asking if I'd trade my 2005 Mini for a new Audi R8. The answer has to be about the catch.

[Old#5fan]

Not if you a Reds fan.

Ask Frank. He will tell you. He didn't win the Triple Crown and WS as a Red. (although he did win an MVP).