Stand Pat!

[Ven6]

Sure, just like I think we trade Nick and AJ for the right return.

But that's not the point, is it? Do you think we could get a lot for Nick and AJ? I do.

So, shouldn't we be talking about trading them too?

Actually, it is the point. We're rebuilding. Sherrill is a closer who might be at an all-time high value-wise. He's a great candidate to consider trading.

AJ and Nick are the cornerstones of the franchise for many years to come. I don't think we consider trading them.

But if you're ready to make a deadline deal with Nick and AJ, gosh, well, I read you wrong.

[Peace21]

BTW, Comcast is showing Cal Ripken "Beyond the Glory."

[waroriole]

But if we got the right return?

I mean, if the real point here is that we should trade guys for the right return (which I don't think it really is, but let's pretend it is), then we should be looking to trade anybody for the right return, shouldn't we?

That may be, but I think everyone is looking at this from a standpoint of who is likely to be traded. Is it likely that a team will be willing to meet our asking price for Nick or AJ. No. Is it likely that a team would be willing to meet our asking price for Sherrill or Huff or Bradford. Alot more likely.

[millartime15]

But if we got the right return?

I mean, if the real point here is that we should trade guys for the right return (which I don't think it really is, but let's pretend it is), then we should be looking to trade anybody for the right return, shouldn't we?

No, it's to trade guys who can help other franchises win now for guys that can help us win later.

Trading guys like Huff who are older and will not help this team in the future is what we should be doing.

Trading a 21 and 24 year old outfielder who can help this team win for 10 years isn't really a good idea, and I know you know that.

[BaltimoreTerp]

But if we got the right return?

I mean, if the real point here is that we should trade guys for the right return (which I don't think it really is, but let's pretend it is), then we should be looking to trade anybody for the right return, shouldn't we?

I would trade Nick Markakis for Ryan Howard and Chase Utley. Or Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun. Or David Wright and Jose Reyes.

Are you saying that we shouldn't make those deals, despite it being the right return, simply because it involves Nick Markakis

[JTrea81]

BigBird's post, if I recall, mentioned AM wanted two arms with high upside. I'd take that.

Actually his post said two ML ready players. Didn't have to be pitchers. I'd prefer if we didn't get back pitchers but if dealing with Tampa or Boston we must take one of their pitching prospects away.

[gallden]

An Rshack blows tag, really? C'mon guys.

[Ven6]

You're right, JTRea. I agree on getting a pitching prospect from Tampa or Boston, too.

[ColumbiaOriole]

Does rshack ever actually post anything baseball related? It seems his thing is making up a ridiculous position that the other side isn't actually taking, then needlessly attacking that imaginary position and finally patting himself on the back after showing the rest of us how much better he is than the rest of us (only in his own mind, I'd assume). No one wants to make trades just for the sake of making trades. People want to make trades for the sake of making this team better in the future. It doesn't matter if these trades occur at the deadline (gasp!), in the offseason, at MacPhail's Christmas party, over Thanksgiving dinner or at the GM meetings, etc. On a rebuilding team, trading older players with value for a greater number of talented, young players is a very smart thing to do. All of us want to see the O'd do well long term and over the next 11 days, we have a chance to make further progress in that direction by trading guys like Huff, Sherrill, Bradford, maybe even Cabrera and Roberts. If a deal is there that will be beneficial to our team in the long term, we should make it.

[RShack]

No, it's to trade guys who can help other franchises win now for guys that can help us win later.

Trading guys like Huff who are older and will not help this team in the future is what we should be doing.

Trading a 21 and 24 year old outfielder who can help this team win for 10 years isn't really a good idea, and I know you know that.

OK, so if a guy is, say, 30, then we should be actively trying to trade him, but if he's, say, 27 or less, we shouldn't be actively trying to, and if he's 28 or 29, then it's a tougher call... is that more-or-less right?

[RShack]

That may be, but I think everyone is looking at this from a standpoint of who is likely to be traded. Is it likely that a team will be willing to meet our asking price for Nick or AJ. No. Is it likely that a team would be willing to meet our asking price for Sherrill or Huff or Bradford. Alot more likely.

So, you think Huff is really likely to be traded? Why is that? Because you think lots of teams really want him? Or because it's become something of a tradition around here for a some posters here to just want to trade him? Personally, I don't recall there being any mega-rumors about big demand for Huff, do you? But I certainly recall various folks really, really wanting to trade the guy, mainly because of the combination of his birthday, his contract, and his until-recently numbers. Do you remember that differently than I do?

[RShack]

Actually, it is the point. We're rebuilding. Sherrill is a closer who might be at an all-time high value-wise. He's a great candidate to consider trading.

AJ and Nick are the cornerstones of the franchise for many years to come. I don't think we consider trading them.

But if you're ready to make a deadline deal with Nick and AJ, gosh, well, I read you wrong.

Oh, I'm not in a big hurry to trade them. I'm just trying to go by what folks *say* their rationale is, that's all.

As for Sherrill, the talk about "flipping him" started before he ever put on an Oriole uniform, despite the fact that he was good, cheap, and under team control forever, which is normally just the kind of guy people *say* they want. As a matter of actual fact, the trade-Sherrill talk started from the get-go. His good performance just helped ramp it up some, and then the AS game just ramped it up even further. But more than a few folks thought AM was goofy for getting him to begin with, and they wanted to trade him before the season even started. It was 100% based on 2 things: his birthday, and the belief that AM should not have been worrying about getting us BP guys. You can look it up.

[RShack]

An Rshack blows tag, really? C'mon guys.

It's what you call a level-headed response... it probably has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I was commenting about how ugly people were getting just because somebody (in this case, Peace) dared to question the supposedly-great importance of making "deadline deals".

[mweb]

I don't see any reason to believe 1. that making a run at .500 this year somehow creates "consistency" and "winning" for a team that's lost for 10 straight years, or 2. that "a chance to earn a winning record" is a reason to hold on to older guys, with extinguishing contracts, who won't be contributing to a contender.

Huff certainly won't. Scott and Sherrill are tougher calls. I don't think we're going to get more value in trade than Scott offers on the field. But I think it likely that we will with Sherrill.

I'd trade both Sherrill and Huff in a heartbeat.

Totally agree. I don't think we'd get a good enough offer to deal Scott, so keep him. Brob, DC and Guthrie are all tough calls imo, just like everyone else, depends on the offer, but I'm on the fence with these guys based on the offers I'd expect. Huff should be dealt either this month or the offseason imo. Sherrill should be dealt this month.

Huff is only signed through next year, a year that we are very unlikely to contend, and we should not pay him a lot of money for his age 33-36 seasons. Sherrill is good and club controlled for a long time, but his value is artificially high due to the saves, so we can get back more than what he's worth to us.

[mweb]

So we trade Sherrill for two young prospects, and then we have a big hole with the closers role?

No, you put Johnson in that role which ups his value. And next year, Ray is a possibility, or maybe Liz, or a guy we pick up by dealing one of our vets. It does take away from the pen, because an effective reliever is lost, but the closer role is the most overrated role in baseball.

And even if no one does good in that role, a non contending team lacking a good closer is not the end of the world.