Trading Bedard

[Moose Milligan]

Still can't do it...still wouldn't do it.

I'm not trading someone who we've been waiting for so long to emerge...and someone who's just killing people...for a package of prospects that "might" pan out.

Bedards the sure thing and Guthrie is rapidly becoming a sure thing...Don't trade them, cause they'll be too damn hard to replace.

[Sports Guy]

Still can't do it...still wouldn't do it.

I'm not trading someone who we've been waiting for so long to emerge...and someone who's just killing people...for a package of prospects that "might" pan out.

Bedards the sure thing and Guthrie is rapidly becoming a sure thing...Don't trade them, cause they'll be too damn hard to replace.

And if he doesn't want to sign an extension?

Do you just hope you can change his mind?

[srh523]

It would have to be a deal similiar to want the Indians got for Colon!

I think Colon would be much more comparable then Mulder.

[Moose Milligan]

And if he doesn't want to sign an extension?

Do you just hope you can change his mind?

Thats a bridge we can cross when we come to it. Probably not ideal in your eyes, but hey...like I said, I'll be irate if what we get back for him doesn't add up to what he currently brings to the table.

What are the chances of that? No one knows. I just get a feeling in the pit of my stomach when we talk about trading him, that no pitching prospect we get back will pan out the way Bedard has and contribute as much as he's doing right now.

I hope that in 2.5 years we're competitive and can throw a good chunk of money at him. If we trade away Tejada and the secondary players on this team and build with youth that pans out, this won't sting as much.

[Frobby]

My argument is also that the Cubs don't have nearly the same need as some other teams do (as outlined above), and therefore their willingness to pay is not nearly as high as some other teams' probably is.

Sounds good to me -- so why discuss it?

The O's should not trade Bedard unless they get a king's ransom in return.

The Cubs have no good reason to trade a king's ransom to get Bedard.

Therefore, Bedard will not be traded to the Cubs.

[NewMarketSean]

Bedard is an ace. If not an ace, he is the closest thing we'll probably have to an ace. I know that we'd get back 3-4 good prospects in a Bedard trade but what are the chances that any of them would be as Bedard is now?

[nadecir]

Sounds good to me -- so why discuss it?

The O's should not trade Bedard unless they get a king's ransom in return.

The Cubs have no good reason to trade a king's ransom to get Bedard.

Therefore, Bedard will not be traded to the Cubs.

If Bedard is unwilling to sign an extension, at some point you take less than a king's ransom for Bedard.

As Bedard gets closer to free agency, his value will decline. At some point, you to take the best offer you get for Bedard as long as an offer is significantly better than the draft picks you get for him for losing him during free agency.

What happens if hold on to Bedard this year, and he has an injury next year mid-season and you can't trade him (like Tejada this year)? Then you are forced to either move him as a short-term rental in 2009, or just hold on to him and take the draft picks.

If the Orioles intend to extend Bedard, then they are waiting too long to get it done. His trade value, along with the price to extend him, are very high at this point. Let's hope front office inaction does not cost the Orioles once again.

[MAKEAMOVE]

I'm willing to concede that Loney, Kemp/Laroche, and Kershaw/Billingsley isn't realistic, and Milledge, Gomez, and Pelfrey probably wouldn't happen either.

However, based on what other teams got for similar pitchers, some of whom were less talented, Jackson, Quentin, and Anderson is a fair offer for Bedard.

And in place of Pelfrey, replace him with Robert Parnell (ranked in 10-20 range) and Mike Carp (#7) is also fair.

It really depends on how desperate teams get and what they are willing to give up. There is an asking price and if a team doesn't meet it, we can simply keep him. I don't think this team would have the balls to trade him anyway.

When I started this thread, I should have made a few things clear. ONe i think Bedard is an ace (last night proved that). Two, I would not give him up in a fair deal. We would have to be absolutely blown away by two major league ready players plus a top prospect.

WIth that being said, I believe we should start talking to his agent as soon as possible. I know he has 2 years left after this one, but if we are going to try and keep him, it has to be through his prime. I can't see trying to keep him for two years of potentially mediocre O's teams and then try and trade him in his free agent year. Look at Mark Buehrle. The White Sox just aren't gonna get equal value for him because teams don't want to rent him for the year. I say go for a 4-5 year deal sooner rather than later, if he doesn't want to take it, trade him sooner rather than later.

[davearm]

If Bedard is unwilling to sign an extension, at some point you take less than a king's ransom for Bedard.

As Bedard gets closer to free agency, his value will decline. At some point, you to take the best offer you get for Bedard as long as an offer is significantly better than the draft picks you get for him for losing him during free agency.

What happens if hold on to Bedard this year, and he has an injury next year mid-season and you can't trade him (like Tejada this year)? Then you are forced to either move him as a short-term rental in 2009, or just hold on to him and take the draft picks.

If the Orioles intend to extend Bedard, then they are waiting too long to get it done. His trade value, along with the price to extend him, are very high at this point. Let's hope front office inaction does not cost the Orioles once again.

Nicely said.

Just to throw some round numbers around:

Odds of Bedard's production further improving between now and 7/31/08, thus increasing his trade value: 10%. Upward potential: small.

Odds of Bedard's production remaining basically constant between now and 7/31/08, thus leaving his trade value unchanged: 50%

Odds of Bedard's production slipping (and/or an injury occuring) between now and 7/31/08, thus decreasing his trade value: 40%. Downward potential: large.

Thus anyone who thinks the O's should hold out for more than they could get for Bedard now is willing to accept the significantly larger downside risk in the small hopes of a slight uptick in value.

[davearm]

Sounds good to me -- so why discuss it?

The O's should not trade Bedard unless they get a king's ransom in return.

The Cubs have no good reason to trade a king's ransom to get Bedard.

Therefore, Bedard will not be traded to the Cubs.

I'm only answering a question that keeps coming my way, and refuting the asinine notion that the Cubs "don't have enough" to get Bedard.

[Sports Guy]

Nicely said.

Just to throw some round numbers around:

Odds of Bedard's production further improving between now and 7/31/08, thus increasing his trade value: 10%. Upward potential: small.

Odds of Bedard's production remaining basically constant between now and 7/31/08, thus leaving his trade value unchanged: 50%

Odds of Bedard's production slipping (and/or an injury occuring) between now and 7/31/08, thus decreasing his trade value: 40%. Downward potential: large.

Thus anyone who thinks the O's should hold out for more than they could get for Bedard now is willing to accept the significantly larger downside risk in the small hopes of a slight uptick in value.

I agree with Dave here. Not sure if i agree about the percentages but whatever, that is nothign to even begin to quibble about.

The bottom line is Bedard is pitching the best ball of his career and is arguably among the top 3 lefty starters in the game. He is doing all of this in the AL as well, which makes it even more impressive.

And, on top of that, he is doing it with a high BABIP and unlucky HR rate.

However, to think we should hold onto him and that his value will INCREASE is a bit much. It is certainly possible but his value likely won't be as high if, for no other reason, he will be under a team's control for one less year.

However, let's not fool ourselves into thinking he still won't have very good trade value next year, assuming he is pitching at a high level.

BTW, i don't think the Dodgers offer i mentioned gets brushed away so quickly. By all indications, the Dodgers are playing Loney more to showcase him. Now, obviously if he is tearing it up and Nomar is playing a steafy third base, that may change.

Losing Loney, Kemp and Kershaw barely puts a dent into the Dodgers and it gives them a #1. I am not saying that would do it for sure but i think to dismiss it is wrong.

[Sports Guy]

I'm only answering a question that keeps coming my way, and refuting the asinine notion that the Cubs "don't have enough" to get Bedard.

Dave, REALISTICALLY, they don't.

No one thinks they are going to trade Hill for him or something like that.

We are talking prospect/very good young player type thing. We aren't talking top flight ML contributor. Obviously the Cubs won't do that.

[davearm]

Dave, REALISTICALLY, they don't.

No one thinks they are going to trade Hill for him or something like that.

We are talking prospect/very good young player type thing. We aren't talking top flight ML contributor. Obviously the Cubs won't do that.

Well as has been explained ad nauseum, "don't" is far different than "won't".

The Cubs have more than enough bullets in the gun, it's just that they'd be foolish to fire it.

[davearm]

And as an aside, I think anyone who thinks that a guy like Bedard would get dealt away for three prospects guys with minimal to no ML experience is misguided.

Think about the Tejada deals from last year. The primary target on the Astros was Oswalt, not Hirsh or Pence or Patton. The target on the Angels was Santana, not Wood or Adenhart or Kendry Morales.

For Bedard to be dealt would require at least one or two guys that the O's can look at as having shown some sustained success against bigleague hitters/pitchers.

[Mashed Potatoes]

And as an aside, I think anyone who thinks that a guy like Bedard would get dealt away for three prospects guys with minimal to no ML experience is misguided.

Think about the Tejada deals from last year. The primary target on the Astros was Oswalt, not Hirsh or Pence or Patton. The target on the Angels was Santana, not Wood or Adenhart or Kendry Morales.

There was some different management in place. We don't know either way what McPhail is looking to do with the team. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of a big time prospects only return.