Cabrera, Sherrill, Roberts = our big trading chips

[RLB29]

Because teams overvalue closers.

Closers/late inning relievers are important for playoff teams.

But how do playoff teams get to be playoff teams without already having closers/late inning relievers?

I don't see us getting real value for Sherrill unless there is an injury on a contending team.

[bigbird]

Most of these guys should take very little effort to trade.

Then why are they still here?????

[Golgo]

No guarantee we are a contender then...I think we have a better chance at contending in 2010 trading him then we do if we keep him.

Actually I think we have better odds of being a contender in 2010 than we do of sherill being lights-out in 2010.

[tywright]

Then why are they still here?????

There's no market and the parity in the league has kept the GMs gun-shy.

[BaltimoreTerp]

A great deal of trade talk is based on the assumption that it's smart and good to trade guys at their peak, or maybe just a little bit past their peak. Personally, I think that is a very flawed assumption. It is certainly not the basis for how good teams get built and maintained. Teams who get good and stay good don't act that way.

Teams who get good and stay good aren't in that position.

Teams that are trying to get to that point, however, need to get as much talent as possible.

[Sports Guy]

But how do playoff teams get to be playoff teams without already having closers/late inning relievers?

We have enough guys that can be late inning relievers/closer and we could still get more in trades, FA and the draft.

I don't see us getting real value for Sherrill unless there is an injury on a contending team.

Not sure why you feel this way. Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Sports Guy]

Then why are they still here?????

Either because....

1) AM isn't looking to move them enough

2) AM isn't willing to eat money

3) AM wants to keep the team in tact right now

4) AM wants too much for these guys

[Sports Guy]

There's no market and the parity in the league has kept the GMs gun-shy.

I am not sure that is true...I think some of them could be moved, especially a guy like Bradford...Bradford for Larish could happen I would think...Makes sense for both sides IMO.

[BaltimoreTerp]

If what you say is true, and closers are over-rated and it's easy to find a replacement, then why would any team want to trade for Sherrill, or give you anyone of value for him?

Because GMs are sheep. They don't want to do anything risky that could cause them to lose their jobs if they fail, so they do the same things as everyone else even if it is obvious that they aren't as they seem.

Having a guy who can get three outs with a three-run lead in the ninth is not the same thing as having a guy who can get five outs with a one-run lead by coming on in the eighth with two on and one out.

Because the "save" doesn't take that into consideration, it overvalues the easy situations and undervalues the difficult ones. Teams see guys getting thirty saves and automatically assume they are great pitchers, when they might just be on a team that gets them comfortable leads.

Just look at Oakland. They got Jason Isringhausen from the Mets in 1999, ressurected his career as a closer, got two good years out of him, then let him go in FA (and got compensation picks in the "Moneyball" draft where they ended up with Swisher and Blanton).

They got Billy Koch from the Blue Jays, got a good year from him, then traded him for Keith Foulke.

They got a good year out of Foulke, then let him sign with Boston, getting a comp pick that ended up being Huston Street.

Those four years, they won 91, 102, 103, and 96 games.

You can find a quality reliever to get you saves.

[Sports Guy]

Because GMs are sheep. They don't want to do anything risky that could cause them to lose their jobs if they fail, so they do the same things as everyone else even if it is obvious that they aren't as they seem.

Having a guy who can get three outs with a three-run lead in the ninth is not the same thing as having a guy who can get five outs with a one-run lead by coming on in the eighth with two on and one out.

Because the "save" doesn't take that into consideration, it overvalues the easy situations and undervalues the difficult ones. Teams see guys getting thirty saves and automatically assume they are great pitchers, when they might just be on a team that gets them comfortable leads.

Just look at Oakland. They got Jason Isringhausen from the Mets in 1999, ressurected his career as a closer, got two good years out of him, then let him go in FA (and got compensation picks in the "Moneyball" draft where they ended up with Swisher and Blanton).

They got Billy Koch from the Blue Jays, got a good year from him, then traded him for Keith Foulke.

They got a good year out of Foulke, then let him sign with Boston, getting a comp pick that ended up being Huston Street.

Those four years, they won 91, 102, 103, and 96 games.

You can find a quality reliever to get you saves.

Damn BTerp, your posts recently have been spot on...Someone take your screen name?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Damn BTerp, your posts recently have been spot on...Someone take your screen name?

Nah...I just started taking time before I post to look inside myself and say, "What Would Sports Guy Do?"

...And then write the opposite!

(Oh, c'mon. You knew it was coming...)

[Miller192]

Damn BTerp, your posts recently have been spot on...Someone take your screen name?

Dude, I've said the same thing too.

Sorry, BTerp.....but it's true

[davearm]

Most of these guys should take very little effort to trade.

Perhaps you should try telling this to the various GMs around baseball that have been unable to trade...

Frank Thomas

Jacque Jones

Jim Edmonds

Reed Johnson

Jason Michaels

Kevin Mench

Brad Wilkerson

and probably some others I'm forgetting.

There's no market for the type of mediocre, over-the-hill veteran players the O's have in abundance, that you think should be easy to trade. They're completely worthless in today's market.

Think about it. Any of these players would've been dealt, along with 90% of their remaining salary, for a 25-YO 5th starter in A-ball, if only one of the other 29 teams had even that minute level of interest. In fact that's just about exactly what the Marlins (reportedly) offered Jim Hendry for Jacque Jones about 12 months ago. Now they've got him for the prorated league min, and zero players given up.

[El Gordo]

Perhaps you should try telling this to the various GMs around baseball that have been unable to trade...

Frank Thomas

Jacque Jones

Jim Edmonds

Reed Johnson

Jason Michaels

Kevin Mench

Brad Wilkerson

and probably some others I'm forgetting.

There's no market for the type of mediocre, over-the-hill veteran players the O's have in abundance, that you think should be easy to trade. They're completely worthless in today's market.

Think about it. Any of these players would've been dealt, along with 90% of their remaining salary, for a 25-YO 5th starter in A-ball, if only one of the other 29 teams had even that minute level of interest. In fact that's just about exactly what the Marlins (reportedly) offered Jim Hendry for Jacque Jones about 12 months ago. Now they've got him for the prorated league min, and zero players given up.

Dave don't burst his bubble, it's all he has.

[RShack]

You can find a quality reliever to get you saves.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

The O's needed one, and AM got one. Cheap and long-term.

If he was expensive and short-term, everybody would want to trade him.

But he's cheap and long-term, and everybody wants to trade him?

Clearly, people are not happy with a guy who's cheap, under our control forever, and doing great. Can't have that.

Maybe AM should play Closer Roulette. Here's how you play Closer Roulette: you keep getting closers, let them do well, and then trade them as soon as they're value rises. It's like day-trading in baseball players. You keep doing this until you find a closer who's no good, blows up games left and right, and who we therefore can't trade. Then we can add that guy to the Gibbons/Payton/Huff list of guys we need to get rid of. Would you be happy then?