Trading Bedard

[Eli Eon]

First off, I saw plenty of Brooks Robinson - or did you miss the part where I said he's my all time favorite player? Also, please show me where I said I preferred Schmidt (remember who is my favorite player). I'm an Orioles fan - have never had an allegiance to another baseball team, and never will.

The problem with your argument (and it is a gigantic problem) is that you are basing your opinion of Schmidt on a short series.

Whether we want to admit it or not, humans have selective memory. You brought up Close and Late - guess what, they did have that stat.

Brooks - 279/327/409/736

Schmidt - 260/370/480/850

Once again Schmidt comes out way ahead. Once again, their numbers are very close to their overall numbers - which should surprise absolutely no one.

One final thing, you say this "I don't wish to offend anyone who believes stats are the end-all-be-all of the measure of a player." Guess what, that comment in and of itself is offensive. Just because someone uses stats, that doesn't mean they think they are the end-all-be-all for measuring players.

No that comment is not offensive, you are misreading it completely for some reason. I have nothing against stats, but I have seen some people who seem to confuse real baseball with fantasy baseball and look soley to stats to judge how they view players and that is what I disagree with. Even so, I am not trying to offend those folks who do so, it is certainly their prerogative. just as it is my prerogative not to have anyone try to inflict thier views on folks like me who don't have a like view.

Also you throw out numbers but are the for Brooks' entire career which began I believe in the late 50's or for a certain period. Also, again I don't think Mike Schmidt was facing pitchers throwing from the higher mound like Brooks was earlier in his career. These are just a few things that make stats less meaningful when they are not comparing players during the exact same time frames.

No need to be condescending about it. We just view the game and players differently. There is simply no way Mike Schmidt is, was, or ever will be a preferred choice to me over Brooks Robinson period, ever, never, ever~~~ and I am not basing it on his performance in the 1983 series but that certainly had to be an embarassment to him because he pulled an AROD during that series and played like choke city so you can't dismiss it either. Brooks came up big in most World Series games which again is indicative of a "clutch" player.

[Leitch]

I have nothing against stats, but I have seen some people who seem to confuse real baseball with fantasy baseball and look soley to stats to judge how they view players and that is what I disagree with.

The thing is, I don't see you having come into contact with any of those people in this thread and yet here we are reading the same old "You statheads think this is all a computer game" crap

[Eli Eon]

I'm not misreading anything, I quoted word for word what you said.

I have not tried to inflict anything on you, just as you aren't trying to inflict anything on me.

I'm making a fact based argument as opposed to your opinion based argument.

You're also missing the point on the numbers I'm quoting. The point is that their "clutch" stats are very similar to their overall stats. If one was such a better clutch hitter, then it would stand to reason his "clutch" stats are better. Because I'm comparing overall to clutch, era doesn't matter.

By the way, are you from Alabama by chance?

Here is a fact for you. I saw Brooks Robinson play in his prime, not only when he was over the hill as apparently you did or you wouldn't be singing the praises of Mike "choke city" Schmidt the AROD of the 1983 series over Brooks Mr. MVP and the Greatest ML Third baseman to ever play. Your stats don't over rule what I saw on the field. I would be willing to bet even Schmidt would agree that Brooks was better. I have been following the Orioles for over 40 years and I can guarantee you stats or no stats with the exception of Frank Robinson there is no other Oriole in their entire history I would rather see hitting during the prime of their career when a clutch hit was needed. Again, you are looking at these stats over all. Try looking at the close and late stats say from 64 to 71 which would be the prime of Brooks' career. Also think about that era a little bit when pitching was dominant. You are being very narrow minded on this. Talk to some people who actually saw Brooks in his prime, you will get the same view as mine. Guaranteed.

[Leitch]

No need to be condescending about it. We just view the game and players differently. There is simply no way Mike Schmidt is, was, or ever will be a preferred choice to me over Brooks Robinson period, ever, never, ever~~~ and I am not basing it on his performance in the 1983 series but that certainly had to be an embarassment to him because he pulled an AROD during that series and played like choke city so you can't dismiss it either. Brooks came up big in most World Series games which again is indicative of a "clutch" player.

He was the MVP of the 1980 World Series(again, .381/.492/.714), so really get off the '83 series.

Also, he hit .467/.529/.800 in the 1983 NLCS.

[Eli Eon]

He was the MVP of the 1980 World Series(again, .381/.492/.714), so really get off the '83 series.

Also, he hit .467/.529/.800 in the 1983 NLCS.

Oh, so he gets a mulligan for the 83 series? Sorry, he played like a chump and even Philly fans were down on him. Of course he like Brooks and mostly all players decllined as they got older. If you compare Brooks in his prime to Schmidt, I will still take Brooks any day. Again, if you didn't see him them just admit it. I can't hold that against you, just as you shouldn't discount what I witnessed.

[RayFink1e]

If we trade Bedard our pitching of the future gets alot worse. Loewen isnt a number 1. Olson is more of a 3-4. Cabrera is a wild card. I would say the jury is still out on Guthrie. Burres is more of 3-5.

Unless we get one impact bat and an impact pitcher, then I wouldnt do it

[Eli Eon]

Right, I'm being narrow minded.

Your mind is so narrow that you continue to miss the point.

Also, I'm not necessarily arguing that Schmidt was the better overall player (even though I must painfully admit that he probably was). I'm arguing that he was a much better player in the "clutch" than you are giving him credit.

Maybe he was, but you can't overlook his pathetic performance in the 83 series like you wish to do to support your belief. It is a fact, he was terrible in that series and a big factor in the Orioles coasting to a win. Sorry, but anything a player does in the WS is magnified. Just look at AROD for example. Roberto Clemente didn't choke in any WS like Schmidt did. Great players usually rise to the ocasion.

I think Schmidt had a great (MVP) regular season much like AROD but essentially was a non-factor for his team against the Orioles and I remember watching him struggle and was thinking, man this guy is choking big time. Sorry but when I think of Brooks I think of greatest fielding third baseman ever and next to Frank Robinson, greatest Oriole clutch hitter ever. When I think of Schmidt (I know this is unfair) I see a guy who choked in the 83 WS and let his team down, certainly not playing like the MVP level that was expected of him.

[utvolzac]

If the Mets or Dodgers are willing to give up at least two top prospect and another mid-range 10-15 prospect, I'd trade Bedard.

If we could get a package or Andy LaRoche or Kemp and Kershaw for Bedard, I'd take it.

Or if the Mets offered Pelfrey & Milledge, I'd do that one too.

Bedard is a very good pitcher, but I think both of those other pitchers have high ceilings as well, plus we get a big bat on top of that.

We have a lot of holes that need filled, you have to give up talent to get talent. To get anything significant you'd have to trade guys like Tejada, Roberts, Bedard, Ramon, etc. The Millars/Trachsels/etc won't get you enough back, IMO.

[Mackus]

If we could get a package or Andy LaRoche or Kemp and Kershaw for Bedard, I'd take it.

Or if the Mets offered Pelfrey & Milledge, I'd do that one too.

I wouldn't take either of those packages, at least not right now. If you can get all 3 of the LA specs, or add Gomez to the Mets deal, it becomes very hard to turn down though.

I think I'd wait until next deadline to deal Bedard if he doesn't sign an extension. As good as he is right now, and GMs know that, he's not a huge household name yet. If he leads the league in striekouts, makes the ASG and finishes in the top 5 or so in ERA, he'll be a huge star, and his value goes up even further, as he then becomes notn just a boost on the field, but in ticket sales and image as well.

[RayFink1e]

Yea, Bedard is only going to get more known nationally as the year goes on. He has always had the stuff, but now he is putting it all together. If he continues on he will be getting Cy Young mention

[weemnj]

I wouldn't take either of those packages, at least not right now. If you can get all 3 of the LA specs, or add Gomez to the Mets deal, it becomes very hard to turn down though.

I think I'd wait until next deadline to deal Bedard if he doesn't sign an extension. As good as he is right now, and GMs know that, he's not a huge household name yet. If he leads the league in striekouts, makes the ASG and finishes in the top 5 or so in ERA, he'll be a huge star, and his value goes up even further, as he then becomes notn just a boost on the field, but in ticket sales and image as well.

If either team offers the third player, you trade him now--got to worry about the injury bug. Vtech alluded to this possibility recently and made a strong arguement about that possibility.

[Adam]

I agree with all who say trade Bedard, sometime in 2008, if it becomes apparent that he won't sign an extension. Maybe this year if we're absolutely blown away. Same with Roberts, actually. The Orioles need to be proactive for once, and jettison some of these guys (as much as I may want them to stay) before they walk away.

[nucmed]

No.

I'm not a believer in trading something that was so damn hard for us to get in the first place.

This quote says it all for me. Rep points!!

[TyCobb]

It has probably been said already, but Bedard has a chance to increase his value by next season trading deadline. I won't even bother listening to offers now and just wait until next season if we can't extend him. Something in the 4 year with 5 year option type deals.

[davearm]

Eli I'm curious to know if you're familiar with some of the newer sabermetrics, especially Wins Over Replacement Player.

The reason I ask is because a quick glance at these stats for Schmidt and Robinson leaves absolutely, positively no doubt that Schmidt had the better career. It's not even close, really.

Schmidt was good for 10 or more wins over replacement virtually every season from age 24 through 37. Schmidt's WARP3 figures, 1974 through 1987, are as follows:

12.4

11

11.3

11.2

7.7

11.1

12

13.3

10.3

11.1

10.9

7.6

10.7

10.5

Robinson, on the other hand, exceed 10 wins only three times in his long career, and he routinely was in the 5 to 9 win range. From 1961 to 1974 (ages 24 through 37), Brooks' WARP3's went:

5.9

10

5.8

10.3

5.9

8.1

11.1

9.1

6.5

5.8

7.7

5.5

5.1

7.4

Schmidt averaged 10.8 wins over the 14-year span identified above; over the same age 24 to 37 window, Robinson averaged 7.4 wins.

A margin of 3+ wins per year is a large difference.