Eye On The Prize - Blow It Up

[AlBumbry]

I will add that I don't think it would be a slam-dunk if that kind of closer right now. But I wouldn't just keep him if what we are getting back is likely to be better for the team in the long-term.

It seems that is what a lot of people want to do with Sherrill who hasn't performed near to that level.

I think we have common ground here . . . like I said, I don't think we have a Rivera in our system . . . but it would be a shame to have to look back at what we traded away, unless what we got back was really special.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I think we have common ground here . . . like I said, I don't think we have a Rivera in our system . . . but it would be a shame to have to look back at what we traded away, unless what we got back was really special.

Sure. But would you rather have Mariano Rivera on a bad-to-mediocre team, or long-term answers at shortstop and in the rotation with someone like Sherrill closing on a good team?

[cindyluvsbrady]

Several months ago, we were enjoying dealing Miggy and we were prepared to deal EBedard and BRob.

Soon, AM pulled off a strong trade of EB to Seattle for five players. Among those five, we received a strong CF prospect who is blossoming into someone with perennial near-all star/all star aspirations in Adam Jones, a top pitching prospect who is blossoming into a mid-season top 25 pitching prospect in AA, a quality major league reliever in GS and two other quality minor league parts.

Our FO reviewed numerous trade offers from ChiCubs for BRob but could not work something out. The Cubs have moved on to be strong contenders in the NL and BRob is having an outstanding season - certainly it appears he has retained most of his pre-2008 value if not increased it.

Our goal last winter? Build a strong, young and cheap core of talent to compete in 2010 or 2011 and for years after since our existing major league veteran roster looked very mediocre and their contracts would expire in 2009. We were prepared to deal with two or three lean years with the major league roster in the meantime.

What has happened since? Aubrey Huff has hit like a monster and GS has blossomed from quality reliever into a respectable closer. In fact, it's tempting to think we could entice Mark Tex to sign as a FA deal, deal for a quality SS, get Wieters to the majors and, voila, we would have a playoff-caliber offense. We could field a quality bullpen of Albers, JJ, Chris Ray, Bradford and GS. Our FO would need to work some magic on the pitching staff after Guts, but the overall talent would have some possibilities - some aspirations. It's plausible.

But I say ..... let's stick to plan we were exercising last winter. Let's deal BRob. Let's deal Sherrill. Let's not look a gift-horse in the mouth and let's deal Huff. Let's check out offers for Guthrie.

First, one lesson from the Bedard trade should be that we do not have to sacrifice too much of the present when dealing top players. This lesson has been evident with Oakland after they dealt Haren and still fielded a quality squad and with Minn after they dealt Santana. We can get quality prospects in AA and AAA for our top players and some of those prospects will be ready to contribute next year.

Second, as we also learned from dealing EB, it is better to deal a player at or near their likely max value before injury occurs or decline sets in.

Third, the core of Wieters, Jones and Markakis will still be in place. That is an unbelievably strong offensive core from which to build a contender. If the deals for our desired major leaguers net one position player of similar or near-all star caliber and two other solid position players, we would likely field a top five offense with just one quality FA acquisition by 2011 if not sooner. This offense would compliment the organization's pitching prospects which Baseball America rated third in Baseball entering this season. We would still have a young, cheap bullpen built around Chris Ray, JJ and Albers.

We bought into the re-build plan over the winter. We were prepared for several years of losing before our core prospects and young major league talent would enable us to compete. The strong play of BRob, Huff, Sherrill and, even, Guthrie has tempted us to think about competing sooner by keeping these producers and acquiring major league parts for next season. Instead, I hope our FO follows through on the re-build plan and deals the appreciated assets mentioned above. If you believed in the re-build plan over the winter, you have to believe dealing these appreciated assets now would yield an even stronger and deeper core of young talent than the one we were prepared to embrace about a couple months ago.

To the front office I say, "We bought into the re-build plan. If you stick with that plan and deal our best veteran players for prospects (as intended), we will have an even stronger and cheaper core to compete in 2010 and after. Please finish what you started."

Trading Brian Roberts is a big NO!

[LuckyHorseshoe]

Signing overrated pitchers for big (comparatively) money while adding-in scrubs like Bell and Shuey and Williams?

You're saying that is the same as converting decent starters to quality relievers and having good arms included as lesser parts of trades?

I looked but I dont see where I said that, no. If I have a point on this subject it is that there is no hard and fast rule. There is gonna be an exception to whatever you suggest is or should be the rule. Look at Eckersley, Isringhausen and Kerry Wood. Should we convert a starter? Or let a reliever set up a couple years and then close like Rivera? I say we trade Sherrill because he is our best chip in terms of bringing back the most in return without crippling us down the road. Ray might be our closer long term. One of the other arms might fill that slot. Or we might have to get one from another team. We can decide when all the internal options fail. It is like drafting shortstops when you need a 2B. One who cant cut it at SS gets a shot at 2B. I always say get a pitcher and a shortstop. Ask for a single A pitcher or SS in every trade as a throw in.

But my comment about last year was mostly gallows humor

[LuckyHorseshoe]

Trading Brian Roberts is a big NO!

Tell us how you really feel!

[BaltimoreTerp]

I looked but I dont see where I said that, no. If I have a point on this subject it is that there is no hard and fast rule. There is gonna be an exception to whatever you suggest is or should be the rule. Look at Eckersley, Isringhausen and Kerry Wood. Should we convert a starter? Or let a reliever set up a couple years and then close like Rivera? I say we trade Sherrill because he is our best chip in terms of bringing back the most in return without crippling us down the road. Ray might be our closer long term. One of the other arms might fill that slot. Or we might have to get one from another team. We can decide when all the internal options fail. It is like drafting shortstops when you need a 2B. One who cant cut it at SS gets a shot at 2B. I always say get a pitcher and a shortstop. Ask for a single A pitcher or SS in every trade as a throw in.

But my comment about last year was mostly gallows humor

Oh ok. Around here you can never be sure

I agree that there is no real rule.

[RShack]

RShack... don't you realize that you're part of the "same pattern"? How many dissertations do we need to read from you about your perceptions of the dynamics of certain chat-group mentalities? I rarely say anything negative here, but it's typically condescending and arrogant of you to attempt through your posts to make others feel stupid or beneath your standards of common sense.

You seem to be a smart guy, and you're likely well educated, as your writing style is top notch... it's just that sometimes, well actually more than just sometimes, you seem to post to make yourself feel better about being smarter and more observant than others. I expect that I'll take heat for my comments, but they are intended to point out the hypocrisy in the message you send. My apologies in advance if I offended anyone, staff included.

Well, you are correct when you say that I am a participant in the pattern that get's repeated.

In fact, I think you'll see that I included myself when I outlined what the pattern is. So, we agree about that.

As for the rest of it, I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out when a major theme that gets repeated around here like crazy is one that simply doesn't hold water. And that's the thing that I try to point out. As a general rule, I think you'll find that what I attack is the weak ideas and the underlying poor understanding of how good franchise get good and stay good. After all, isn't that the point, to have the Baltimore Orioles get good and stay good? That's the part I focus on: the flawed thinking about that. I don't address that part to individual people, I don't say that it's all the fault of This Person or That Person. Instead, I focus on the weak idea, and I do that because I think it's the weak idea that's the problem, not those individuals who might fall into buying it. And, of course, when I do that, the Usual Suspects want to know the specific names of people, because they're trying to turn it into a message-board brawl based on personal insults. They *always* turn it into a personal issue rather than address the merits (or lack thereof) of the strategy.

IMO, this is because they cannot defend the strategy. There is no example of it working, it's just a faith-based message-board idea that is not supported by baseball history, and it has obvious logical flaws, just going on what we know about actual baseball. So, because they can't do a good job of defending it, they do two other things instead:

• 1. They make it personal, while ignoring the substantive points of the strategy in question, and
• 2. They play what I believe is an overtly dishonest game by denying that the weak ideas are repeatedly and routinely held out as being sensible a rallying point for making a bunch of trades.

In other words, they can't deal with the issue on substance, so they retreat into personal attacks.

Now, you could well say that, by referring to the Usual Suspects, I am not just talking about their flawed ideas and am indeed referring to people. And you probably have a good point there. But how else do you handle it when the same handful or so of posters repeatedly change the subject to personal attacks *and* repeatedly deny the obvious and demonstrable truth that the whole "Blow it up!" mentality is indeed based on trading guys who are 30? Upon examination, you'll see that, in general, there is nobody they want to trade who isn't 30 and, for the most part, there's nobody who's 30 who they don't want to trade. It's about as close to a completely perfect match as you can find anywhere. Yet, they somehow have the utter gaul to deny it's true. It's like you're standing in a downpour when it's raining cats and dogs, and this handful of people keeps telling you it's not raining a drop. How do you deal with that?

So, let me ask you a question: If you were making points about the difference between a sound strategy vs. an inherently flawed idea that gets repeated ad nauseum, and if people responded by (a) completely denying that the ever-present flawed idea even exists (and demanding that you count the raindrops to prove it's raining), then (b) spend virtually all their response by making personal attacks, while they © completely ignore any substantive discussion about their so-called strategy, then what would you do? Just role over and take their BS, or would you call them on it?

Regardless, it seems to me like making personal attacks is just fine around here, but if you instead try to focus on the underlying ideas and the key flaws in them, then you're somehow being condescending. Where I come from, you're supposed to stick to discussing the ideas, and when people can't do that and instead rely on personal attacks and cheap rhetorical tricks, you're supposed to insist that they do better than that.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Regardless, it seems to me like making personal attacks is just fine around here, but if you instead try to focus on the underlying ideas and the key flaws in them, then you're somehow being condescending.

This deserves the world's largest coming from you.

Just look at that other thread. I went ahead and explained in detail what was being argued by one side, you ignored it and when called on it went on your own attacks.

You are a hypocrite, and a sanctimonious hypocrite at that.

[Miller192]

Shack, I gotta hand it to you.

I think your opinions are way out there and I couldn't disagree with you more, but the world would be a boring place if we all shared the same opinions.

Lots of people have been critical of you in this thread and you've handled it well.

Good to see you can debate while keeping your cool.

[66-70-83-??]

Well, you are correct when you say that I am a participant in the pattern that get's repeated.

In fact, I think you'll see that I included myself when I outlined what the pattern is. So, we agree about that.

As for the rest of it, I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out when a major theme that gets repeated around here like crazy is one that simply doesn't hold water. And that's the thing that I try to point out. As a general rule, I think you'll find that what I attack is the weak ideas and the underlying poor understanding of how good franchise get good and stay good. After all, isn't that the point, to have the Baltimore Orioles get good and stay good? That's the part I focus on: the flawed thinking about that. I don't address that part to individual people, I don't say that it's all the fault of This Person or That Person. Instead, I focus on the weak idea, and I do that because I think it's the weak idea that's the problem, not those individuals who might fall into buying it. And, of course, when I do that, the Usual Suspects want to know the specific names of people, because they're trying to turn it into a message-board brawl based on personal insults. They *always* turn it into a personal issue rather than address the merits (or lack thereof) of the strategy.

IMO, this is because they cannot defend the strategy. There is no example of it working, it's just a faith-based message-board idea that is not supported by baseball history, and it has obvious logical flaws, just going on what we know about actual baseball. So, because they can't do a good job of defending it, they do two other things instead:

• 1. They make it personal, while ignoring the substantive points of the strategy in question, and
• 2. They play what I believe is an overtly dishonest game by denying that the weak ideas are repeatedly and routinely held out as being sensible a rallying point for making a bunch of trades.

In other words, they can't deal with the issue on substance, so they retreat into personal attacks.

Now, you could well say that, by referring to the Usual Suspects, I am not just talking about their flawed ideas and am indeed referring to people. And you probably have a good point there. But how else do you handle it when the same handful or so of posters repeatedly change the subject to personal attacks *and* repeatedly deny the obvious and demonstrable truth that the whole "Blow it up!" mentality is indeed based on trading guys who are 30? Upon examination, you'll see that, in general, there is nobody they want to trade who isn't 30 and, for the most part, there's nobody who's 30 who they don't want to trade. It's about as close to a completely perfect match as you can find anywhere. Yet, they somehow have the utter gaul to deny it's true. It's like you're standing in a downpour when it's raining cats and dogs, and this handful of people keeps telling you it's not raining a drop. How do you deal with that?

So, let me ask you a question: If you were making points about the difference between a sound strategy vs. an inherently flawed idea that gets repeated ad nauseum, and if people responded by (a) completely denying that the ever-present flawed idea even exists (and demanding that you count the raindrops to prove it's raining), then (b) spend virtually all their response by making personal attacks, while they © completely ignore any substantive discussion about their so-called strategy, then what would you do? Just role over and take their BS, or would you call them on it?

Regardless, it seems to me like making personal attacks is just fine around here, but if you instead try to focus on the underlying ideas and the key flaws in them, then you're somehow being condescending. Where I come from, you're supposed to stick to discussing the ideas, and when people can't do that and instead rely on personal attacks and cheap rhetorical tricks, you're supposed to insist that they do better than that.

What a crock! Look in the mirror- you are what you claim everyone else is.

LOL. So predictable.

People get fed up with your BS and tactics and turn the tables on you and you claim to be the poor victim.

[RShack]

This deserves the world's largest coming from you.

Just look at that other thread. I went ahead and explained in detail what was being argued by one side, you ignored it and when called on it went on your own attacks.

You are a hypocrite, and a sanctimonious hypocrite at that.

While I did mention personal attacks, I didn't make a point to talk about the name-calling.

To me, that's just one of the lowest forms of personal attacks. Not sure whether it deserves it's own category or not.

How anybody can think it helps a discussion is completely beyond me.

To me, this is somewhat reminiscent of how, in that other thread, you threatened to ding anybody who disagreed with you.

I'm happy to have a discussion with people who play fair.

Greg Pappas plays fair, he just tries to discuss things. I don't think you do, at least not these days.

EDIT: Oh, I see you neg-repped me for my previous post, when I was responding to Greg. Good job. I think this might be last post I address to you. Lately you've sunk about as low as anybody goes. You publicly threaten people with neg-rep for disagreeing with you, and then you did it again here when I was responding to Greg. I think you need to take a pill, or an anger-management class, or something.

[LuckyHorseshoe]

Well, you are correct when you say that I am a participant in the pattern that get's repeated.

In fact, I think you'll see that I included myself when I outlined what the pattern is. So, we agree about that.

As for the rest of it, I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out when a major theme that gets repeated around here like crazy is one that simply doesn't hold water. And that's the thing that I try to point out. As a general rule, I think you'll find that what I attack is the weak ideas and the underlying poor understanding of how good franchise get good and stay good. After all, isn't that the point, to have the Baltimore Orioles get good and stay good? That's the part I focus on: the flawed thinking about that. I don't address that part to individual people, I don't say that it's all the fault of This Person or That Person. Instead, I focus on the weak idea, and I do that because I think it's the weak idea that's the problem, not those individuals who might fall into buying it. And, of course, when I do that, the Usual Suspects want to know the specific names of people, because they're trying to turn it into a message-board brawl based on personal insults. They *always* turn it into a personal issue rather than address the merits (or lack thereof) of the strategy.

IMO, this is because they cannot defend the strategy. There is no example of it working, it's just a faith-based message-board idea that is not supported by baseball history. So, because they can't do a good job of defending it, instead they do two things:

• 1. They make it personal, while ignoring the substantive points of the strategy in question, and
• 2. They play what I believe is an overtly dishonest game by denying that the weak ideas are repeatedly and routinely held out as being sensible a rallying point for making a bunch of trades.

In other words, they can't deal with the issue on substance, so they retreat into personal attacks.

Now, you could well say that, by referring to the Usual Suspects, I am not just talking about their flawed ideas and am indeed referring to people. And you probably have a good point there. But how else do you handle it when the same handful or so of posters repeatedly change the subject to personal attacks *and* repeatedly deny the obvious and demonstrable truth that the whole "Blow it up!" mentality is indeed based on trading guys who are 30? Upon examination, you'll see that, in general, there is nobody they want to trade who isn't 30 and, for the most part, there's nobody who's 30 who they don't want to trade. It's about as close to a completely perfect match as you can find anywhere. Yet, they somehow have the utter gaul to deny it's true. It's like you're standing in a downpour when it's raining cats and dogs, and this handful of people keeps telling you it's not raining a drop. How do you deal with that?

So, let me ask you a question: If you were making points about the difference between a sound strategy vs. an inherently flawed idea that gets repeated ad nauseum, and if people responded by (a) completely denying that the ever-present flawed idea even exists (and demanding that you count the raindrops to prove it's raining), then (b) spend virtually all their response by making personal attacks, while they © completely ignore any substantive discussion about their so-called strategy, then what would you do? Just role over and take their BS, or would you call them on it?

Regardless, it seems to me like making personal attacks is just fine around here, but if you instead try to focus on the underlying ideas and the key flaws in them, then you're somehow being condescending. Where I come from, you're supposed to stick to discussing the ideas, and when people can't do that and instead rely on personal attacks and cheap rhetorical tricks, you're supposed to insist that they do better than that.

At the risk of being swatted on the nose and told again that I havnt been here long enough to voice an opinion, If you look at your post you will see why people are upset. You flat out say that your opinion is cosmic certainty and unassailable and their opinion is indefensible and wrong in every way possible. You set yourself up as judge jury and executioner, in fact more like pope. We are morons who shouldnt deign to disagree with anything you say. Whether you see it or not in your posts, that is how it comes off and that is what people try and tell you here repeatedly. I have taken enough heat but hopefully no one can accuse me of saying I am right and you are wrong, now bow down and kiss my ring. I believe what I believe and am not likely to change my opinion but I was raised with more manners than you apparently and am willing to present my opinion as my opinion and not say as you just did that any opposing theory is a "weak idea" or "flawed thinking" or "inherently flawed". Your hubris is galling. I disagree with their opinion but I recognize it as valid for discussion. You just need to get over your god complex. Call this a personal attack if you want but it is based on your posts and the reactions to them and the lack of mere manners and social graces. I am not particularly warm and fuzzy when I post but I throw in a smiley or an "IMO" to take the edge off every now and then. In answer to your specific question, if I ever thought that a widely held opinion was categorically "weak", "inarguably wrong" or "flawed" I would go look in a mirror and see if there was a crown on my head or halo around it. . . or maybe check for stigmata.

[RShack]

At the risk of being swatted on the nose and told again that I havnt been here long enough to voice an opinion, If you look at your post you will see why people are upset. You flat out say that your opinion is cosmic certainty and unassailable and their opinion is indefensible and wrong in every way possible. You set yourself up as judge jury and executioner, in fact more like pope. We are morons who shouldnt deign to disagree with anything you say. Whether you see it or not in your posts, that is how it comes off and that is what people try and tell you here repeatedly. I have taken enough heat but hopefully no one can accuse me of saying I am right and you are wrong, now bow down and kiss my ring. I believe what I believe and am not likely to change my opinion but I was raised with more manners than you apparently and am willing to present my opinion as my opinion and not say as you just did that any opposing theory is a "weak idea" or "flawed thinking" or "inherently flawed". Your hubris is galling. I disagree with their opinion but I recognize it as valid for discussion. You just need to get over your god complex. Call this a personal attack if you want but it is based on your posts and the reactions to them and the lack of mere manners and social graces. I am not particularly warm and fuzzy when I post but I throw in a smiley or an "IMO" to take the edge off every now and then. In answer to your specific question, if I ever thought that a widely held opinion was categorically "weak", "inarguably wrong" or "flawed" I would go look in a mirror and see if there was a crown on my head or halo around it. . . or maybe check for stigmata.

Well, I think they *are* weak ideas, and I think that so-called strategy *is* fundamentally flawed. Now, if you don't think so, well, you can disagree all you want, that's fine. But I don't see where you do that at all here. Instead, you just lay into me for saying what I think, which is that that they *are* weak ideas that *are* fundamentally flawed. If that's what I think, then am I supposed to lie about it? It's a bad thing to attack ideas, but it's fine to attack people?. When did that happen? Now, if you get upset because I think it's a goofy idea, well, you certainly can do that. But why would you?

Personally, I think it would be "condescending" to assume that people can't handle disagreement and somehow need me to say my opinion about the whole "Blow it up!" thing is different than what it is. Why should I misrepresent my opinion about an idea? Because the people who believe it are too fragile to handle me saying that I think it's goofy? Or maybe because it's some basic religious principle? People are acting like I've somehow peed on the Bible. Personally, I think that's a lot of what it comes down to. For some folks, I think it is a near-religious principle, and I'm goring their sacred cow. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's how it seems.

As for manners and social graces, you like it better when people call other people names? And, if you can find any place where I've called anybody a moron, please let me know. I've attacked an idea. If you want to take it personally, if you want to make it about the people rather than the idea, well, that's up to you. But that's you, that's not me.

ps: I'd never give you crap for being a newbie. I've never done that, I think it's a 100% BS thing to do. So, I'm not sure who you're talking about there, but that ain't me either.

[Roll Tide]

Wow ... I mean Wow:eek:

Back to the thread Title .... I believe the Orioles should see rebuilding through. The idea that Roberts, Scott , Sherrill & Huff would not be on the back 9 when the O's are good again is very unlikely . What the Orioles have done so often in the last half dozen years is what I call "Pretending". (Playing above their heads in the 1st half).. Which has tricked our owner & front office to want to contend now. Sadly it has proven a bust in the second half.

Not to forget about Cindy & the other B-Rob lovers.... I am happy Roberts has been a Oriole. I would love to see him retire a Oriole. Sadly that wouldn't be in the best interest of this club that has so many holes. Lacks Organization position talent at almost every position on the field. Not to mention the lack of power bats in the minors. And more arm injuries to pitchers than stripes on a zebra.

While I have seen some progress in our drafting positional talent Wieters & Markakis in the last several years. Our system has a long way to go to catch up. Because of the we should be trading anything that we can get a good return on asap. That will speed the process of repairing our farm system as well as getting some major league ready talent that can be brought up to the O's. That would be other than Markakis, Guthrie, & Jones IMO.

Oh well ... On the other matter .... Its obvious that no one here knows everything ... Opinions are like AS_ Holes everyone has one. I haven't been here very long and sometime find this place to be like a good ole boy club. You know either your in or not.

Lastly .... Can we all just get along???

[Cokeman]

While I did mention personal attacks, I didn't make a point to talk about the name-calling.

To me, that's just one of the lowest forms of personal attacks.

EDIT: Oh, I see you neg-repped me for my previous post, when I was responding to Greg. Good job.

Pot meet Kettle...and you know exactly what I'm talking about.