This is A Mess (Mega RANT Thread)

[Stotle]

By the way, this is why the whole "I won't accept a critique of the front office unless you can come up with better moves" line is utter garbage. If you're getting hung up on a specific player in a proposed alternative approach then you are drastically missing the point.

You can simplify it for yourself (if you don't want to bother with examining the players with whom you are unfamiliar) by asking yourself if the profiles are acceptable.

So, would you trade Jones/Britton/Norris last offseason if it brought back:

1. Justin Upton

2. another $11 MM to spend in 2015 (and the ability to avoid some of the smaller "platoon" player signings)

3. the potential for three cost controlled MLB OFs from 2016 to around 2020 or so

4. a 2016 $25MM rotation that includes another potential mid-rotation arm (Wisler) under control for 6 years, to go with Gausman and the rest of what Baltimore has in-house.

5. Enough new payroll flexibility to lock up Machado this off-season without compromising the team's ability to make other moves necessary to fill any remaining holes.

That's it. Not an easy question at all, but that's really the decision you are making. Flexibility and some risk associated with the younger players in exchange for the comfort and dependability of Jones/Britton at a higher cost.

[El Gordo]

Baseball is at bottom an entertainment business, and you can't trade the face of the franchise while you are in contention, and expect to keep your audience. Can't see why BOS would want Norris, and we would be just as well of with Lough in CF.

[wildcard]

By the way, this is why the whole "I won't accept a critique of the front office unless you can come up with better moves" line is utter garbage. If you're getting hung up on a specific player in a proposed alternative approach then you are drastically missing the point.

You can simplify it for yourself (if you don't want to bother with examining the players with whom you are unfamiliar) by asking yourself if the profiles are acceptable.

So, would you trade Jones/Britton/Norris last offseason if it brought back:

1. Justin Upton

2. another $11 MM to spend in 2015 (and the ability to avoid some of the smaller "platoon" player signings)

3. the potential for three cost controlled MLB OFs from 2016 to around 2020 or so

4. a 2016 $25MM rotation that includes another potential mid-rotation arm (Wisler) under control for 6 years, to go with Gausman and the rest of what Baltimore has in-house.

5. Enough new payroll flexibility to lock up Machado this off-season without compromising the team's ability to make other moves necessary to fill any remaining holes.

That's it. Not an easy question at all, but that's really the decision you are making. Flexibility and some risk associated with the younger players in exchange for the comfort and dependability of Jones/Britton at a higher cost.

My answer is no. I think I have made my concerns with the trades pretty clear. Its time for someone else on the OH to discuss this trade with you. Someone who believes that trading Jones and Britton is a good idea.

[Stotle]

My answer is no. I think I have made my concerns with the trades pretty clear. Its time for someone else on the OH to discuss this trade with you. Someone who believes that trading Jones and Britton is a good idea.

I'm not selling THIS trade. I'm selling the idea that in order to sustain, oh **** it. Forget it.

[DrungoHazewood]

By the way, this is why the whole "I won't accept a critique of the front office unless you can come up with better moves" line is utter garbage. If you're getting hung up on a specific player in a proposed alternative approach then you are drastically missing the point.

You can simplify it for yourself (if you don't want to bother with examining the players with whom you are unfamiliar) by asking yourself if the profiles are acceptable.

So, would you trade Jones/Britton/Norris last offseason if it brought back:

1. Justin Upton

2. another $11 MM to spend in 2015 (and the ability to avoid some of the smaller "platoon" player signings)

3. the potential for three cost controlled MLB OFs from 2016 to around 2020 or so

4. a 2016 $25MM rotation that includes another potential mid-rotation arm (Wisler) under control for 6 years, to go with Gausman and the rest of what Baltimore has in-house.

5. Enough new payroll flexibility to lock up Machado this off-season without compromising the team's ability to make other moves necessary to fill any remaining holes.

That's it. Not an easy question at all, but that's really the decision you are making. Flexibility and some risk associated with the younger players in exchange for the comfort and dependability of Jones/Britton at a higher cost.

After many years of reading proposals here to improve the Orioles I'll respectfully decline yours and go with the more popular "get Angelos to stop gold-plating his yachts and just throw another $75M a year into payroll" option.

[El Gordo]

My answer is no. I think I have made my concerns with the trades pretty clear. Its time for someone else on the OH to discuss this trade with you. Someone who believes that trading Jones and Britton is a good idea.

I wouldn't be opposed to trading Britton in the off season. He'll start becoming expensive next arb and he could bring back something we need more. I don't see trading Jones unless the team is in major rebuild.

[Stotle]

Baseball is at bottom an entertainment business, and you can't trade the face of the franchise while you are in contention, and expect to keep your audience. Can't see why BOS would want Norris, and we would be just as well of with Lough in CF.

Yeah. Why would Boston, a team who entered the season with pitching as the huge short term need (with a bunch of arms entering AAA but not quite ready to be handed a big league job) be interested in one year of a veteran arm coming off a season with just under a 3/1 SO/BB ratio, 1.2 isn WHIP, and an $8MM price tag? Especially if the cost in trade is a center fielder that they are no longer relying on with Betts now being handed the job long term? That's just crazy talk.

Not to mention -- take someone else back instead of Bradley if THAT is your hold-up. You're moving Norris to open up a spot for Gausman; if you are fine with Lough in center rather than getting something like Bradley fine. It's irrelevant to finding a place to move Norris.

[El Gordo]

Yeah. Why would Boston, a team who entered the season with pitching as the huge short term need (with a bunch of arms entering AAA but not quite ready to be handed a big league job) be interested in one year of a veteran arm coming off a season with just under a 3/1 SO/BB ratio, 1.2 isn WHIP, and an $8MM price tag? Especially if the cost in trade is a center fielder that they are no longer relying on with Betts now being handed the job long term? That's just crazy talk.

Not to mention -- take someone else back instead of Bradley if THAT is your hold-up. You're moving Norris to open up a spot for Gausman; if you are fine with Lough in center rather than getting something like Bradley fine. It's irrelevant to finding a place to move Norris.

I thought you were talking about now. I wanted to trade Norris last winter. I wouldn't be surprised if DD didn't try but didn't like the offers he got in return, and decided to go with depth. If I were DD and BOS offered Bradley I'd decline. And I wouldn't have entertained trading Jones last winter because I know the owner wouldn't go for it.

[Crazysilver03]

The fact remains. He has been sold by two well run teams. The Rays sold low on Myers. That is where the run out of town comment comes from. They didn't value him highly.

Didn't value him highly? Based on what he has been traded for twice, seems he is valued pretty highly.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Stotle]

I thought you were talking about now. I wanted to trade Norris last winter. I wouldn't be surprised if DD didn't try but didn't like the offers he got in return, and decided to go with depth. If I were DD and BOS offered Bradley I'd decline. And I wouldn't have entertained trading Jones last winter because I know the owner wouldn't go for it.

But keeping Norris ceases to be about depth if it takes you half of the season to decide maybe he isn't cutting it in the rotation. If the front office really wanted to move him, it's because they were comfortable with someone else taking his spot in the rotation. It seams to me like they've bent over backwards thus far to make sure no one else got that spot until the last week or so.

Maybe they listened to offers. I have a hard time believing they were motivated sellers with regards to Norris. He was coming off of a solid year and was a pretty cheap back-end option for any number of teams.

[DrungoHazewood]

And I wouldn't have entertained trading Jones last winter because I know the owner wouldn't go for it.

I wouldn't have traded Jones last offseason because I like winning and I like Jones. And I know that's completely punting on Stotle's goal of shoring up the future of the franchise, but I don't really care. A current team that's enjoyable and wins games is a tangible, real thing. A future team with potential holes that the GM may or may not have reasonable solutions for within his budget isn't.

[Stotle]

I wouldn't have traded Jones last offseason because I like winning and I like Jones. And I know that's completely punting on Stotle's goal of shoring up the future of the franchise, but I don't really care. A current team that's enjoyable and wins games is a tangible, real thing. A future team with potential holes that the GM may or may not have reasonable solutions for within his budget isn't.

No fair, that's the argument I make about not sweating climate change! In all seriousness, this is all silly, right? We all know the front office would NEVER do something like this. And we all know the organization is set on a fixed course, for better or for worse.

To be honest, I think the idea that Adam Jones is a singular player upon whose shoulders the franchises future rests is silly. You don't honestly believe losing Jones for the season on opening day would instantly make this team uncompetitive. So I'm not sure why you believe trading him (a scenario where you actually get back assets -- in this instance Justin Upton among others) would have that impact.

In any event, it's fun to talk about this stuff but trust me I'm grounded and comfortable with the fact that 1) the front office is in no danger of making these sort of out-of-the-box moves, and 2) the everyday fan would lose his **** over moves like this.

[DrungoHazewood]

But keeping Norris ceases to be about depth if it takes you half of the season to decide maybe he isn't cutting it in the rotation. If the front office really wanted to move him, it's because they were comfortable with someone else taking his spot in the rotation. It seams to me like they've bent over backwards thus far to make sure no one else got that spot until the last week or so.

What you characterize as bending over backwards I see more as giving a recently successful pitcher time to return to form. I think that a strength of this organization is their patience in dealing with underperforming players. Not that the fanbase is a great barometer, but we've often seen players rebound to have success a month or two after a majority of OH would have traded the guy for a fungo bat.

Maybe they listened to offers. I have a hard time believing they were motivated sellers with regards to Norris. He was coming off of a solid year and was a pretty cheap back-end option for any number of teams.

Like, for example, the Baltimore Orioles.

[Stotle]

What you characterize as bending over backwards I see more as giving a recently successful pitcher time to return to form. I think that a strength of this organization is their patience in dealing with underperforming players. Not that the fanbase is a great barometer, but we've often seen players rebound to have success a month or two after a majority of OH would have traded the guy for a fungo bat.

Like, for example, the Baltimore Orioles.

I'm not being clear, I suppose.

"Like the Baltimore Orioles." -- If that's the case, you believe the Orioles were not in fact shopping him actively? It can't be both. It can't be "Norris is excess we can move to free up money and use elsewhere, since we have cheaper in-house options for the rotation" AND "Norris is a good cheap back-end solution for us."

The first part of your response is irrelevant if the above inconsistency is cleared-up. If the point is that the Orioles were not trying to trade Norris and didn't have cheaper options they liked, then I agree with your post and I disagree with their decision not to try and trade Norris.

If the point is that the Orioles were indeed trying to ship Norris and couldn't find a landing spot then it's inexcusable it has taken them half a season to go to the other options they were otherwise comfortable with.

[El Gordo]

But keeping Norris ceases to be about depth if it takes you half of the season to decide maybe he isn't cutting it in the rotation. If the front office really wanted to move him, it's because they were comfortable with someone else taking his spot in the rotation. It seams to me like they've bent over backwards thus far to make sure no one else got that spot until the last week or so.

Maybe they listened to offers. I have a hard time believing they were motivated sellers with regards to Norris. He was coming off of a solid year and was a pretty cheap back-end option for any number of teams.

Since we don't know the particulars this is all idle speculation. Norris was a league average SP last winter, fairly reasonably priced. He had value in trade and he had value to the O's. No one expected this level of implosion. Maybe they felt that unless they were overwhelmed by an offer it was better to keep Norris and make Gausman earn his way onto the rotation. If he did and Norris was still a league average SP, then he should have been easy to move in a trade. Their error appears in not anticipating this melt down.