Jump to content

Please can we trade for LaRoche...

bej6789

By bej6789
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

JTrea81 Hangout Grand Counsel

JTrea81

Posted
Posted

Bradford for LaRoche makes sense for both sides. LaRoche has nowhere to play and can't stay healthy enough to show what he's got. The Dodgers need relief help now with Saito out.

The Orioles can afford to lose Bradford for the potential of LaRoche even if he's on the DL more than he's on the field while under team control.

No way do I trade Sherrill for him straight up though - too much of a risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
Posted
The increased mentionings of Bradford as a reliever on the move combined with his post season experience, Coletti's love of veterans, and LaRoche's falling out in LA all lead me to that conclusion.

Its unlikely but, as I said, it would be silly to dismiss the possibility of it happening as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roll Tide Hangout Grand Counsel

Roll Tide

Posted
Posted
Matt Kemp is not even arbitration-eligible, while BRob is a free agent after '09. And BRob is at his peak, while Kemp has a ton of upside. I'd give Kemp the edge in terms of value, especially to a rebuilding team.

Andy LaRoche is the top prospect in their system right now that's still in the minors. It really isn't going to happen -- not for Chad Bradford.

Peak is your opinion really ... While I agree he's in his prime years that is perfect for a team wanting a leadoff hitter. Basically He's more valuable to the Dodgers then Kemp is. Also Brian has a year left on his contract & I dont see any reason he wouldn't sign a extension.

Kemp has potential upside .... Which may be more valuable to Mcphail. Neither you or I are AM so the edge would need to be determined by him. The disadvantage in this hole matter would be on the Dodgers because if the determined they needed a Leadoff hitting 2B for the pennant race time would not be on their side. The Orioles & Mcphail never appear to be in a rush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JTrea81 Hangout Grand Counsel

JTrea81

Posted
Posted

So those who want LaRoche for Sherrill straight up:

What if LaRoche is on the DL more than he's on the field for the seasons he's under team control. Would it be worth losing Sherrill then?

LaRoche has been injury prone for the past two seasons, and the reason LA is fed up with him is most likely because he can't stay on the field.

There's a reason MacPhail wants two players for Sherrill, because one may not pan out and we can't afford to give up our best trading piece at the deadline for a guy who may or may not be the future at 3B, when we could potentially get a guy or guys that have a much more certain future.

MacPhail said he'll only make a deal if it improves the future of the club. You can't say that for certain about LaRoche because of his injuries and the value that Sherrill has to the club and the trade value he has in general. Now if we trade Bradford for LaRoche, then it's worth the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
clapdiddy Hangout Grand Counsel

clapdiddy

Posted
Posted
So those who want LaRoche for Sherrill straight up:

What if LaRoche is on the DL more than he's on the field for the seasons he's under team control. Would it be worth losing Sherrill then?

LaRoche has been injury prone for the past two seasons, and the reason LA is fed up with him is most likely because he can't stay on the field.

There's a reason MacPhail wants two players for Sherrill, because one may not pan out and we can't afford to give up our best trading piece at the deadline for a guy who may or may not be the future at 3B, when we could potentially get a guy or guys that have a much more certain future.

I hear what you are saying here, Jtrea, but you can't base everything off of what COULD happen. What if Sherrill gets hurt pitching tomorrow and is out for the season and possibly next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • webbrick2010
      Gunnar/ Adley . Would Gunnar have been a good choice at 1-1?

      By webbrick2010 · Posted

      There probably was no "right" choice and absolutely no "absolutely right choice" I was on record wanting to choose Abrahms and my logic was simple, a 1:1 is a chance to pick a HOF type talent A college catcher was a safe pick and Adley is having a nice career but he is clearly not a MVP/HOF type player.
    • interloper
      Speculating on how the O's handle the pitching logjam

      By interloper · Posted

      I disagree with the entirety of this post. 
    • CaptainRedbeard
      Speculating on how the O's handle the pitching logjam

      By CaptainRedbeard · Posted

      Agreed, Akin is pitching too well to be optioned until there’s no other choices. Tate should certainly be optioned before him. The only reason I could see Akin needing to be optioned is if BOTH Means and Irvin end up in the pen (with Bradish, Kremer and Suárez starting). That’s possibly the best 5 SP right now if they believe Suárez > Means/Irvin. In which case you really can’t have 5 lefty RP and only one RHP to go with Kimbrel and Cano. Otherwise, they should carry 4 lefty RP (with one of Means/Irvin as the long man) before optioning Akin. 
    • foxfield
      Gunnar/ Adley . Would Gunnar have been a good choice at 1-1?

      By foxfield · Posted

      The answer to the question is obviously no. Now if the question was would Gunnar have been worthy #1 pick the answer seems obvious that he would have been.    But taking him where he went allowed the Orioles to maximize their draft which is what every team hopes to do.    You can argue whether Adley was the right pick but if Gunnar went first there is no way the two picks work as well for Baltimore. 
    • 24fps
      Time Gunnar's triple

      By 24fps · Posted

      1080i video is redrawn a half frame (field) at 60 times per second.  Progressive footage like 1080p is 30 whole frames per second but often converted to interlaced format for transmission. If you are doing this on an ongoing basis, here's a suggestion: download the free version of one of the numerous non-linear editors out there like Avid or DaVinci Resolve and throw the clip on a timeline for your measurement.  Manually clicking through hundreds of frames seems like it would be needlessly cumbersome not to mention slow.  
    • LGOrioles
      Speculating on how the O's handle the pitching logjam

      By LGOrioles · Posted

      This. I don’t get the Akin going down talk (even though it seems more based off his option remaining than performance). Right now Akin is arguably our 4th most trusted reliever (can argue with Webb) based off his usage and his peripherals are clearly in the top 4 with Cano, Kimbrel, and Coulombe. He might not be a setup guy but he’s a solid piece to have in the middle innings.   Akin’s K-BB% is nearly double that of Baumann’s in both of their careers as relievers. He K’s more, walks less, and gets more chases and whiffs.   Keeping Baumann over Akin even for a week isn’t a move that winning teams make. Not to trash him, but Baumann is just not good, so who cares if he gets claimed? He’s not trusted at this point late in close games unless the bullpen is overused, so if you lose him and need a replacement later in the year you have Heasley, Charles, and Tate (if he gets optioned). Then you also have Wells who should be a bullpen guy when he comes back. Having the flexibility is good but keeping one of your worst relievers just because he doesn’t have an option doesn’t seem like a good way to solve a log jam. 
    • ChosenOne21
      Gunnar/ Adley . Would Gunnar have been a good choice at 1-1?

      By ChosenOne21 · Posted

      Witt had hit tool questions on draft day, and Abrams was much less of a sure thing than Adley. Based on information known at the time, we absolutely made the right choice with Adley.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...