Trade Watch (It starts)

[Three Run Homer]

I agree with the premise that this team either needs to sell or it needs to do something to upgrade the team.

It does seem that the team has snapped out of its July offensive funk and that the starting pitching has stabilized, which suggests that the team could make a run between now and the end of the season. So I'd be ok with the team buying, even though I agree with VaTech that other teams in the league are better this year and that the probability of reaching the WS is slight.

But I don't think the team needs to make a major splash. The team doesn't need a major bat or starting pitcher to make a run. It just needs something better than the black hole we currently have at 1B or RF (depending on where Davis plays) and perhaps LF, and it needs another matchup lefty in the bullpen.

It shouldn't cost that much in terms of prospects to get the pieces we need. The Angels gave up almost nothing to get David Dejesus, Shane Victorino and David Murphy. Any of those players would have been a meaningful upgrade for the O's, especially David Murphy. A good LOOGY should cost even less.

[spiritof66]

I agree. I'm just saying a dispassionate view of our circumstance would say we are better off to sell than sneak in as WC2 or even WC1. The truth is that most fans won't be remotely happy if we get there but lose the WC game. I know that because I watched people call for JJ's head for years after 2012 when we won a WC game and played tough in the DS. I also realize that most of these same fans that won't be happy unless we reach the WS, also won't acknowledge how long of a shot it really is to get there.

So, for all those reasons, I agree there is no way to actually sell and make it work with the fans. I also repeat my support for the DD is in a no win situation thread.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I guess I'm not "most fans," then. I would be more than happy to see the Orioles recover from their recent poor play and make it to the post-season before the team changes through the loss of FAs. Disappointed at the brevity of a one-game post-season, for sure, but happy that we got that far.

And no matter what moves we make this week or in the off-season, I have no confidence that this small-market team will make it to the post-season in the next few years -- as the NYY and Red Sox reload and the Jays keep spending to buy some pitching.

[Machado13]

Considering it is explicitly forbidden to sell competitive balance picks I am curious if MLB will close this loophole.

Since it is pretty obvious that the Dodgers are in effect buying picks.

Can't blame them for taking advantage of the situation as it currently exists.

Agreed...it should not be allowed but this one may take time to pass/ratify because what owner wouldn't love to just dump the bad contracts onto big market payrolls at the expense of a pick.

I'm sure GMs don't like it but getting this to pass with owners will be tough

[DrungoHazewood]

I think it was Danny Ainge who coined the phrase "running the treadmill of mediocrity" or at least he used it when dismantling the Celtics by trading Garnett and Pierce. Someone asked why he was dismantling a team that could make the playoffs and had an outside shot at a title. He responded by saying something to effect of, an outside chance at a title is not worth what gains could be made by drafting higher in the draft, acquiring assets via trade and freeing up capital to spend elsewhere.

Now I realize baseball and basketball are vastly different games and I am sure you could give a thousand reasons why the analogy does apply, but my point is if the Orioles hold steady and field what most believe has a small chance at even getting into the playoffs then the future rests on their ability to develop from a farm system that is largely barren and from next year's draft, players who would be conservatively 3 years from MLB which at 2018/19 is past the window for competing with Jones or Manny.

If you want to go for it, by all means they should get what they can to improve the team intelligently, but don't sit there and accept that you are happy with a small shot at the playoffs. This team didn't have what they needed to beat the Royals last year in a seven game series and the Royals are only better this year.

From my understanding basketball has a far higher correlation between talent and results than any other major sport. The best team wins a dramatically higher percentage of the time in the NBA. Getting to the playoffs is a big thing in MLB, every team has a chance once you're in. I think that's not necessarily the case in the NBA.

[Aglets]

From my understanding basketball has a far higher correlation between talent and results than any other major sport. The best team wins a dramatically higher percentage of the time in the NBA. Getting to the playoffs is a big thing in MLB, every team has a chance once you're in. I think that's not necessarily the case in the NBA.

Well, bad teams make the playoffs in the NBA. If half (or more?) the teams in MLB made the playoffs I'd bet you see a better correlation between talent and playoffs success.

[Ohfan67]

From my understanding basketball has a far higher correlation between talent and results than any other major sport. The best team wins a dramatically higher percentage of the time in the NBA. Getting to the playoffs is a big thing in MLB, every team has a chance once you're in. I think that's not necessarily the case in the NBA.

One or two players can also have a bigger impact on winning. High draft picks in NBA are potentially more important.

[Creamsicle]

I agree with you, but to this day people still bash Angelos for going for it in 1996 rather than trading away Bonilla and Wells...even though we made the wild card that year and won the division Wire to Wire in 97.

I never, ever heard anyone bash PA for that. I've heard Gillick "bashed" (harshly second-guessed) plenty.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well, bad teams make the playoffs in the NBA. If half (or more?) the teams in MLB made the playoffs I'd bet you see a better correlation between talent and playoffs success.

I think it goes much deeper than that. Even game-to-game. I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) there are routinely NBA games where one team has an 80+% chance of winning. Something to do with there being so many possessions (i.e. trials) and the disproportionate impact of a star in basketball. Dodgers with Kershaw probably isn't a 75% chance of winning over the Phils' 5th starter.

[MurphDogg]

I agree with you, but to this day people still bash Angelos for going for it in 1996 rather than trading away Bonilla and Wells...even though we made the wild card that year and won the division Wire to Wire in 97.

People bashed Angelos for overruling his baseball people, because that gave him the will to do so again in less successful ways. Nobody bashed the results.

[Machado13]

@Ken_Rosenthal: #SFGiants fading in Hamels derby. Have not been in touch with #Phillies in last 24 hours, according to a source.

[DrungoHazewood]

I never, ever heard anyone bash PA for that. I've heard Gillick "bashed" (harshly second-guessed) plenty.

Bashed may be too harsh, but many, many conversations here about how Angelos overrode his GM on a baseball matter, it seemed to work in the short term even though it violated the proper order of the universe, and that was a precedent for him not trusting his baseball guys and subsequently making calls that frankly didn't make much sense over the advice of his GM.

[osfan83]

Put me down as a fan that would be happy to make the playoffs every year with a 10% chance to win it all. To me, the goal of the 162 game season is to make the playoffs. If we go every year, every once and a while we will catch fire and move on to the WS. The Yankees made the post season in like 17 of 18 seasons, they didn't win the WS every year, but they gave themselves a shot.

If we are a wildcard team each of the next 10 years..I think we could win the WS in one of those seasons.

[osfan83]

I think it goes much deeper than that. Even game-to-game. I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) there are routinely NBA games where one team has an 80+% chance of winning. Something to do with there being so many possessions (i.e. trials) and the disproportionate impact of a star in basketball. Dodgers with Kershaw probably isn't a 75% chance of winning over the Phils' 5th starter.

Yes...one player has far more control of a basketball game. Only 5 on the court at a time. A team with two high level players in the NBA is exponentially better than a team with zero superstars. In Baseball you can't give Trout 50% of the Angels at bats, or bring your shut down closer in to only pitch to Trout each time he comes to the plate.

[bpilktree]

@Ken_Rosenthal: #SFGiants fading in Hamels derby. Have not been in touch with #Phillies in last 24 hours, according to a source.

I don't see how they were in it in the first place the Phil wanted ransom and the Giants even if they wanted to don't have anything worth while.

[Camden_yardbird]

From my understanding basketball has a far higher correlation between talent and results than any other major sport. The best team wins a dramatically higher percentage of the time in the NBA. Getting to the playoffs is a big thing in MLB, every team has a chance once you're in. I think that's not necessarily the case in the NBA.

While agree with you that NBA talent correlates to title chances more than in MLB, I think you would find that there is a pretty direct correlation in the MLB playoffs between money spent and winning the WS. Now I know money doesn't equate to talent so it's not perfect, but you still have to commit to win, whether that's in open g day salary or talent acquisition during the season. I think that's why you see Moore pushing all his chips into the middle of the table.