Eye On The Prize - Blow It Up

[mweb]

Baltfan in post 48 of thread titled "Orioles need Burnett" said :

"Let's really go for broke -- Sabathia, Sheets, Burnett, and Teixeira. Hope for a championship. If not sell them all off. Worst that happens is you drop an extra $70 mil next year and don't win."

That is pretty close to what I said. Hopefully you wont nitpick and hold me to a direct quote. I will be back with the rest . . .

Three big problems with that plan:

- We have to compete with the other teams to get these guys, so it's unlikely that we'd be able to land them all.

-To land them all, we'd have to give them higher contracts than anyone else is willing to pay, therefore it likely wouldn't be easy to deal them after a year.

- That's a ton of money to spend, and isn't in the nature of AM or PA to do that, so this is much more unrealistic than trading a few vets for prospects.

However, I will say if PA was fine with spending a ton of money, and we somehow landed all of those guys, that would be a team with a chance, and I would enjoy watching it.

[Sports Guy]

Would you deal Huff and Sherrill for a package similar to what NYY gave up for Nady and Marte???

Not Sherrill but I would certainly deal Huff for a Tabata-esque prospect.

Apples and oranges though...Those guys were rentals...Huff and Sherrill aren't.

[TinCup]

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.

Awesome stuff Greg!! Well said. A fair analysis if I may say for public consumption. Seriously, I doff my hat for a great post!!! :thumbsup1:

We can only hope it registers.

[LuckyHorseshoe]

You can still put up a reasonable prediction.

You have a pretty good idea of the years and money.

1. reasonable is in the eye of the poster

2. if anyone can do it why is it so important that RShack do it in his presentation of a plan? I wouldnt presume to talk numbers in such a discussion either. One might say estimating return in a trade might be easy to present too but I see many silly suggestions.

we just disagree. can we leave this dead horse to rot in peace now?

[LuckyHorseshoe]

Three big problems with that plan:

- We have to compete with the other teams to get these guys, so it's unlikely that we'd be able to land them all.

-To land them all, we'd have to give them higher contracts than anyone else is willing to pay, therefore it likely wouldn't be easy to deal them after a year.

- That's a ton of money to spend, and isn't in the nature of AM or PA to do that, so this is much more unrealistic than trading a few vets for prospects.

However, I will say if PA was fine with spending a ton of money, and we somehow landed all of those guys, that would be a team with a chance, and I would enjoy watching it.

lol you missed part of the thread. I wasnt suggesting this plan, just showing that it had been suggested elsewhere on the forum.

[mweb]

lol you missed part of the thread. I wasnt suggesting this plan, just showing that it had been suggested elsewhere on the forum.

So because you didn't suggest it, I can't critique it?

[LuckyHorseshoe]

So because you didn't suggest it, I can't critique it?

Jeez, lighten up! I just didnt want you to think that I was changing direction on the whole thread so explained I wasnt suggesting this but . . . never mind. why bother?

[AlBumbry]

It's not easy to construct a good bullpen imo, but that's because a lot of relievers are inconsistent and there's typically at least a couple unproven young guys/journeymen in the pen who are even harder to predict.

It is however easier to find relievers who will be good for at least one year because more guys that can be had cheaply perform surprisingly well compared to other positions.

Some relievers are pretty consistent, and those are the elite guys, the ones who get paid a lot(too much if they close) once they are eligible for free agency.

Concerning trades, I think closers are quite overrated, so I'd have no problem trading Ray if he establishes himself as a good closer, and thus has good value on the market. Good relievers who aren't closers are actually underrated imo, so I'd hang onto to them if I thought they were going to continue to be good.

Re: the closer idea. So theoretically speaking, you would have traded Mariano Rivera after 1997, and if you were the Red Sox you would be looking to trade Papelbon, and would have traded K-Rod a year or so after he became a closer? Not trying to be facetious (or compare Sherrill to these guys), but realistically what you are saying is that after establishing a relievers value by letting him close for a year, your general strategy would be to trade him hoping to get another team to overpay, right?

[DrungoHazewood]

Re: the closer idea. So theoretically speaking, you would have traded Mariano Rivera after 1997, and if you were the Red Sox you would be looking to trade Papelbon, and would have traded K-Rod a year or so after he became a closer? Not trying to be facetious (or compare Sherrill to these guys), but realistically what you are saying is that after establishing a relievers value by letting him close for a year, your general strategy would be to trade him hoping to get another team to overpay, right?

If you have an incredible, lights-out, consistent shutdown guy you lock him up. Otherwise, yes, that's the strategy. Flip him for something more valuable.

A closer with a 4.00 ERA almost always has more perceived value than real value. Pretty much the definition of a guy you make out on by selling high.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Re: the closer idea. So theoretically speaking, you would have traded Mariano Rivera after 1997, and if you were the Red Sox you would be looking to trade Papelbon, and would have traded K-Rod a year or so after he became a closer? Not trying to be facetious (or compare Sherrill to these guys), but realistically what you are saying is that after establishing a relievers value by letting him close for a year, your general strategy would be to trade him hoping to get another team to overpay, right?

There are two problems with your point. Both are differences in levels.

1) You are talking about the very best at a position as opposed to someone who has been pretty-good for half-a-season.

2) You are talking about consistent playoff teams as opposed to one that needs to get as many quality players in as possible to build to that level.

[bigbird]

Not Sherrill but I would certainly deal Huff for a Tabata-esque prospect.

Apples and oranges though...Those guys were rentals...Huff and Sherrill aren't.

But they will most likely bring back 4 top draft picks......

[AlBumbry]

If you have an incredible, lights-out, consistent shutdown guy you lock him up. Otherwise, yes, that's the strategy. Flip him for something more valuable.

A closer with a 4.00 ERA almost always has more perceived value than real value. Pretty much the definition of a guy you make out on by selling high.

Without looking back, I'm assuming that the performance (which I would say would only run through the trade deadline of the first year they were closing) of the guys I mentioned in the earlier post would have qualified them as "shut down"? So at most you have a about 1.5 years to determine if the person is "shut down", since once he has closer trade-value, you would be trying to trade them, right?

[BaltimoreTerp]

if anyone can do it why is it so important that RShack do it in his presentation of a plan? I wouldnt presume to talk numbers in such a discussion either. One might say estimating return in a trade might be easy to present too but I see many silly suggestions.

He's the one sitting up high whining about everyone else without being willing to get his own hands dirty. If he doesn't like what is being discussed, he can offer his own ideas (and I mean ideas, not mud-slinging) or ignore the thread.

He wants to show that he's above us, but his actions and statements suggest the opposite.

[AlBumbry]

There are two problems with your point. Both are differences in levels.

1) You are talking about the very best at a position as opposed to someone who has been pretty-good for half-a-season.

2) You are talking about consistent playoff teams as opposed to one that needs to get as many quality players in as possible to build to that level.

I'll concede your second point to a degree, but not number 1. In 1997, you did not know that Rivera would continue to be that dominant for what seems like forever. I just responded to Drungo's post . . . with the general strategy of make a guy a closer and trade him, you won't get the chance to see how dominant the player would be (at least not on your team), b/c you trade him as soon as he establishes the so-called closer trade value.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Without looking back, I'm assuming that the performance (which I would say would only run through the trade deadline of the first year they were closing) of the guys I mentioned in the earlier post would have qualified them as "shut down"? So at most you have a about 1.5 years to determine if the person is "shut down", since once he has closer trade-value, you would be trying to trade them, right?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riverma01.shtml

Rivera had a 2.09 ERA in his year at setup, and 1.88 in his first year as closer.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rodrifr03.shtml

He was a setup guy for two years (after the 2002 playoffs), with ERAs of 3.03 and 1.82, and 2.67 in his first year as a closer.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/papeljo01.shtml

In his first year in the 'pen, he had a 2.65 ERA, and 0.92 in his first year as a closer.

EDIT: Compare with...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sherrge01.shtml

...and I think you'll see a severe LACK of comparison.