Cabrera, Sherrill, Roberts = our big trading chips

[Mackus]

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

Is it really that difficult for you to understand?

If Sherrill was 26 and would be 28 when we're gonna be contending, it'd make a ton more sense to keep him. But he's 31. And will be 33 by the time we're contending. Relievers that don't debut until they are 27 don't tend to have the longest careers. They are also an inherently volatile commodity.

Nobody wants to give up an excellent, cheap closer who is under control for a long time. But nobody wants to hold onto a cheap, struggling, aging reliever who is under our control for a long time. There is far from a guarantee that Sherrill isn't going to fall into that second category. He's pitched under 150 innings in the majors in his career, and never has pitched more than 45 innings in a season.

There is simply no possibly way to have any idea what to expect from him in the closer's role over an extended period of time. So if you can get something that you are very confidant is going to be a valuable piece of your future, or get multiple pieces, its far from unreasonable to consider that package.

You act like you are the only person who can see the possibility of him staying here being a good thing. What you don't admit is that you are one of the few who, whether or not they'd trade him, refuse to admit the possibility of trading him as a potential smart move.

I don't know if they'll trade him or not, but I guarantee MacPhail will listen to offers, and consider them seriously if he gets offers that he views as fair value. He definitely has a price tag in his head for Sherrill, and if someone is willing to pay it, he'll be moved.

[RShack]

Nobody wants to give up an excellent, cheap closer who is under control for a long time.

That's exactly what a lot of people want to do.

What you don't admit is that you are one of the few who, whether or not they'd trade him, refuse to admit the possibility of trading him as a potential smart move.

I understand the need for carefully targeted trades, to complement the development of kids and the occasional FA signing. I can also understand the preoccupation with trading everybody when the team sucks and everything's going bad. What I don't get is how any time any Oriole pitcher does good, people want to hurry up and trade him. Because it would be so "smart". It's become a simple Pavlovian response: "Is an O's pitcher doing great? Yep, sure is... so lets trade him! It's the smart thing to do!!!!"

Now, the truth is that I realize that making up trades, any kind of trade, is a hobby some people enjoy. And that's fine. As a rule, I stay out of most of the trade-talk threads. I should stay out of this one too. I don't wanna ruin anybody's fun. You're not hurting anybody, and it's not bad for your liver. It's just that sometimes it's hard for me to keep it separated, that's all. Carry on...

[Mackus]

That's exactly what a lot of people want to do.

No, that's not what anybody wants to do, because we don't have a guy like that. What we have is a guy who might be like that. Or he might be a LOOGY on a hot streak. Or he might be somewhere in between. We have no idea. He's never closed before and more importantly, has never pitched over 45 innings before, so there is no knowing what he will do over a course of an entire season and certainly not over several seasons.

I understand the need for carefully targeted trades, to complement the development of kids and the occasional FA signing. I can also understand the preoccupation with trading everybody when the team sucks and everything's going bad. What I don't get is how any time any Oriole pitcher does good, people want to hurry up and trade him. Because it would be so "smart". It's become a simple Pavlovian response: "Is an O's pitcher doing great? Yep, sure is... so lets trade him! It's the smart thing to do!!!!"

Now, the truth is that I realize that making up trades, any kind of trade, is a hobby some people enjoy. And that's fine. As a rule, I stay out of most of the trade-talk threads. I should stay out of this one too. I don't wanna ruin anybody's fun. You're not hurting anybody, and it's not bad for your liver. It's just that sometimes it's hard for me to keep it separated, that's all. Carry on...

Compare Guthrie to Sherrill or Cabrera. People aren't clamoring to trade Guthrie. Why not? Because he seems a safer bet to be a valuable player. Closers are overrated, especially lefthanded ones at the trade deadline. Teams that are trying to contend but having bullpen issues overpay for relievers all the time. Unreliable pitchers like Cabrera are...unreliable.

Sherrill may be a great closer for the next 8 years. Or he could be a guy who will never be able to throw more than 45 innings, he's never done it in the majors. Even if he had he's not a lock to be a reliable late inning guy, just given the general trend of relief pitchers, particularly ones that don't debut until their late 20's.

Cabrera may be ready to become a very good #2 or even a #1 pitcher. Or he just might be having the longest hot streak of his career and by mid-June will be back to the guy we all know and get frustrated watching. Like Sherrill, he's about as far from a sure thing as you're gonna find.

The argument isn't "Is an O's pitcher doing great? Yep, sure is... so lets trade him! It's the smart thing to do!!!!" the argument is "these guys may be doing a lot better right now than is reasonable to expect in the future, and if some team is willing to pay the premium for their inflated performance now, it'd be smart to deal them." That's the role the talent evaluators on the team need to play. Do they think Cabrera has figured it out and is a safe bet to be this guy going forward? Do they think Sherrill will be a reliable late-inning guy who can pitch 65 innings a year for the next several years? If so, then keep them. If not, or if they think whatever packages are being offered are more likely to be of greater use to us, then you make the deal.

[RLB29]

If Sherrill was 26 and would be 28 when we're gonna be contending, it'd make a ton more sense to keep him. But he's 31. And will be 33 by the time we're contending. Relievers that don't debut until they are 27 don't tend to have the longest careers. They are also an inherently volatile commodity.

How old was Eckersly when he became a reliever?

There is far from a guarantee that Sherrill isn't going to fall into that second category.

But you don't know that he will. It is just your opinion.

There is simply no possibly way to have any idea what to expect from him in the closer's role over an extended period of time. So if you can get something that you are very confidant is going to be a valuable piece of your future, or get multiple pieces, its far from unreasonable to consider that package.

Agree, but if Sherrill's abilities are so "iffy", why would a team give us anything of value for him? I can see this happening if a contending team has injury issues.

What do you consider a good return for Sherrill?

I don't know if they'll trade him or not, but I guarantee MacPhail will listen to offers, and consider them seriously if he gets offers that he views as fair value. He definitely has a price tag in his head for Sherrill, and if someone is willing to pay it, he'll be moved.

Agree, I think that MacPhail will trade nearly everyone that he thinks will improve the team in the long run.

[Cubsfan]

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.

You're right. In addition to looking at your own team, you have to look at the competition. The Rays are young and talented, the Red Sox have blended in youth with their vets, and the Yankees (and Red Sox) have a gigantic payroll. The O's are certainly headed in the right direction, but they need to trade anybody with trade value to be real contenders by 2011.

[Sports Guy]

Is it really that difficult for you to understand?

Yes it is....Rshack thinks we should around and wait 5 years before we can really be good...He thinks building through the draft and being patient is the way to go...Ignore the fact that we are likely going to have 11 straight losing years...Just go for 16 and then we will magically be ready to contend!

If Sherrill was 26 and would be 28 when we're gonna be contending, it'd make a ton more sense to keep him. But he's 31. And will be 33 by the time we're contending. Relievers that don't debut until they are 27 don't tend to have the longest careers. They are also an inherently volatile commodity.

Yep...People didn't want to get rid of Walker...Now they can't wait to get rid of him. Relievers are volatile, as you say...Plus, Sherrill's value is extremely high right now because of that save category. He is likely worth more to us in a trade than as a reliever..Isn't that the whole point of making a deal? If you can get more for the player in a trade than he is worth to you on the field, don't you have to trade that player?

Nobody wants to give up an excellent, cheap closer who is under control for a long time. But nobody wants to hold onto a cheap, struggling, aging reliever who is under our control for a long time. There is far from a guarantee that Sherrill isn't going to fall into that second category. He's pitched under 150 innings in the majors in his career, and never has pitched more than 45 innings in a season.

There is simply no possibly way to have any idea what to expect from him in the closer's role over an extended period of time. So if you can get something that you are very confidant is going to be a valuable piece of your future, or get multiple pieces, its far from unreasonable to consider that package.

You act like you are the only person who can see the possibility of him staying here being a good thing. What you don't admit is that you are one of the few who, whether or not they'd trade him, refuse to admit the possibility of trading him as a potential smart move.

I don't know if they'll trade him or not, but I guarantee MacPhail will listen to offers, and consider them seriously if he gets offers that he views as fair value. He definitely has a price tag in his head for Sherrill, and if someone is willing to pay it, he'll be moved.

This is spot on...No one is saying Sherrill needs to be dealt for whatever...But if a good deal is there, he does need to be moved.

[LookitsPuck]

It comes down to this:

The Orioles farm system is pretty much void of positional talent. If we want to have any semblance of respectability (look how poor our lineup is right now) in the future, we need to fix those gaping holes. To me, trading a never was closer (although he certainly may turn out to be great), an aging 2B with declining power, and an enigma SP who may/may not have turned to the corner for prospects/MLB ready players who can help this team in the next couple years and beyond is infinitely better than bogarting a closer, wishing upon a star that Roberts continues to be good/great, and hoping against hope that Cabrera, if continues to be great, will continue to be great next year and beyond.

Some gambles you take, some you don't. The Orioles do not have the luxury of gambling right now.

[ColumbiaOriole]

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?

Do you do anything other than make up hyperbolic strawmen to argue a point that no one is arguing with you? No one is even implying the silliness you've written in your second paragraph. We are a rebuilding team. We have a closer who is already 31 and will clearly be on the downside of his career when we are ready to compete. We would be better served getting young talent that might be able to help us long term. When you throw in the fact that Sherill has troubling peripherals that don't necesarily portend success in the future, it makes sense to see what we can get for him at the deadline. Add that to the fact, that we have a lot of young pitching talent in the minors that can take over the overrated position of "closer". The fact that he's cheap and under team control for four years adds to his value...it'd be nuch tougher to trade him if he made a lot of money whic his basically the opposite of what you're saying in your first paragraph. No one wants to trade relievers just because they're doing well. We want to trade this particular one because it should help us more in the future which those of us who aren't short-sighted are looking at as we build this team.

[Flip217]

I was going to start a new thread to ask this, but I figure it could go here...

On a different thread, a debate is going regarding bringing up Reimold and/or Wieters. One reason offered to keep them where they are is to give more playing time to our vets, hoping to increase their value and thus get more for them when we trade them.

But I wonder -- even if guys like Millar and Ramon and Sherrill perform amazingly, how much will their value increase? Doesn't their more substantial previous body of work give teams a good idea of what they're getting?

I know we want to keep getting nice returns on our trades, but I wonder if we've already seen the best we're likely to get. Should we be more or less making space for the youngsters soon?

[RLB29]

It comes down to this:

The Orioles farm system is pretty much void of positional talent. If we want to have any semblance of respectability (look how poor our lineup is right now) in the future, we need to fix those gaping holes. To me, trading a never was closer (although he certainly may turn out to be great), an aging 2B with declining power, and an enigma SP who may/may not have turned to the corner for prospects/MLB ready players who can help this team in the next couple years and beyond is infinitely better than bogarting a closer, wishing upon a star that Roberts continues to be good/great, and hoping against hope that Cabrera, if continues to be great, will continue to be great next year and beyond.

Some gambles you take, some you don't. The Orioles do not have the luxury of gambling right now.

Agree with your premise, but aren't prospects also a big gamble?

[LookitsPuck]

Sure are.

But if we can get 8-10 (optimistic?) guys from Cabrera, Sherrill, and Roberts, you'd have to assume some of those will pan out.

As it stands, I think the gamble I'd go for are the younger fellows.

[Sports Guy]

Agree with your premise, but aren't prospects also a big gamble?

No more of a gamble than what many are hoping to expect out of Sherrill long term.

[Roll Tide]

Sure are.

But if we can get 8-10 (optimistic?) guys from Cabrera, Sherrill, and Roberts, you'd have to assume some of those will pan out.

As it stands, I think the gamble I'd go for are the younger fellows.

I think 8-10 is realistic especially if they are traded in different deals. AM should go as heavy as he can on positional talent this time around.

[i_miss_cal]

Sure are.

But if we can get 8-10 (optimistic?) guys from Cabrera, Sherrill, and Roberts, you'd have to assume some of those will pan out.

As it stands, I think the gamble I'd go for are the younger fellows.

I can see dealing Roberts and Sherrill if the deal is there, but I think we need to keep Cabrera

[Mackus]

I can see dealing Roberts and Sherrill if the deal is there, but I think we need to keep Cabrera

Cabrera is obviously the easiest of these guys to keep. He plays the most premium position, is the youngest, and seems to finally be putting things together.

Of course, the fact that he has less of a proven record and has been so inconsistent in his career is a reason to consider trading him "at his peak" if you think he's likely to very quickly revert back to what he's always been. Cabrera is certainly the toughest decision to make, and it will depend on several factors that will begin to reveal themselves over the next 2 months, but it will ultimately rely on a lot of speculation.