No deals per Olney

[nadecir]

Why do I get the feeling that Andy McPhail would never just accept the best offer on the table for a player?

I wonder if one reason Peter Angelos hired Andy McPhail is that McPhail and Angelos share one key attribute. Both share the negotiating philosophy of driving a hard bargain in negotiation, and their side must win outright in a negotiating session, or they are not going to do a deal. Both seem to exhibit this tendency.

Maybe Andy McPhail will find other teams to meet his price most of the time in trades. But it is acceptable to take the best deal on the table. Not every situation will result in a better deal later.

If we require opposing GMs like Bavasi and Wade to get deals done, then the Orioles may not be able to make many deals going forward.

It's quite possible that some teams will find McPhail's trade demands so high that they won't even bother talking to the Orioles on deals, as they see it as a waste of time. Flexibility is a key in negotiating, and accepting the best offer available is the right thing to do in some cases.

Sometimes a better offer doesn't occur later, and the highest offer was the best offer earlier. Look at the difference in Teixeira's value in the space of one year. Tex's value cratered based on his service time and other teams needs in one year. Javy Lopez's value cratered in six months based on performance. Melvin Mora's value was sky high in 2003 and 2004, and by 2006 it was a lot less. In baseball, where service times matter, and player performance often declines, player values can fluctuate downwards rather quickly. Waiting to trade a player does not always work out to your advantage.

[Sports Guy]

Why do I get the feeling that Andy McPhail would never just accept the best offer on the table for a player?

I wonder if one reason Peter Angelos hired Andy McPhail is that McPhail and Angelos share one key attribute. Both share the negotiating philosophy of driving a hard bargain in negotiation, and their side must win outright in a negotiating session, or they are not going to do a deal. Both seem to exhibit this tendency.

Maybe Andy McPhail will find other teams to meet his price most of the time in trades. But it is acceptable to take the best deal on the table. Not every situation will result in a better deal later.

If we require opposing GMs like Bavasi and Wade to get deals done, then the Orioles may not be able to make many deals going forward.

It's quite possible that some teams will find McPhail's trade demands so high that they won't even bother talking to the Orioles on deals, as they see it as a waste of time. Flexibility is a key in negotiating, and accepting the best offer available is the right thing to do in some cases.

Sometimes a better offer doesn't occur later, and the highest offer was the best offer earlier. Look at the difference in Teixeira's value in the space of one year. Tex's value cratered based on his service time and other teams needs in one year. Javy Lopez's value cratered in six months based on performance. Melvin Mora's value was sky high in 2003 and 2004, and by 2006 it was a lot less. In baseball, where service times matter, and player performance often declines, player values can fluctuate downwards rather quickly. Waiting to trade a player does not always work out to your advantage.

Which you do wonder about....I mean, if elsid is right and teams weren't really calling about GS, you have to wonder why...My guess is the reason is because AM wanted more than what Sherrill was worth and they knew that going in.

[Lucky Jim]

Which you do wonder about....I mean, if elsid is right and teams weren't really calling about GS, you have to wonder why...My guess is the reason is because AM wanted more than what Sherrill was worth and they knew that going in.

So, wait - just to clear this up - we blame AM when we have speculative/imaginary deals that we think he's not taking and claim that he wants too much.

And then we blame AM when no one offers him anything because - we say, speculatively - he wants too much.

That's just fantastic.

No offense, SG, but you seem to be fitting any outcome to your preconception. That's not sound reasoning.

[Cubsfan]

Why do I get the feeling that Andy McPhail would never just accept the best offer on the table for a player?

I wonder if one reason Peter Angelos hired Andy McPhail is that McPhail and Angelos share one key attribute. Both share the negotiating philosophy of driving a hard bargain in negotiation, and their side must win outright in a negotiating session, or they are not going to do a deal. Both seem to exhibit this tendency.

Maybe Andy McPhail will find other teams to meet his price most of the time in trades. But it is acceptable to take the best deal on the table. Not every situation will result in a better deal later.

If we require opposing GMs like Bavasi and Wade to get deals done, then the Orioles may not be able to make many deals going forward.

It's quite possible that some teams will find McPhail's trade demands so high that they won't even bother talking to the Orioles on deals, as they see it as a waste of time. Flexibility is a key in negotiating, and accepting the best offer available is the right thing to do in some cases.

Sometimes a better offer doesn't occur later, and the highest offer was the best offer earlier. Look at the difference in Teixeira's value in the space of one year. Tex's value cratered based on his service time and other teams needs in one year. Javy Lopez's value cratered in six months based on performance. Melvin Mora's value was sky high in 2003 and 2004, and by 2006 it was a lot less. In baseball, where service times matter, and player performance often declines, player values can fluctuate downwards rather quickly. Waiting to trade a player does not always work out to your advantage.

Which you do wonder about....I mean, if elsid is right and teams weren't really calling about GS, you have to wonder why...My guess is the reason is because AM wanted more than what Sherrill was worth and they knew that going in.

Which is what a lot of the discussion on these boards has centered around: AM can ask for the moon, but if he has any hope of rebuilding the O's into contenders, he had better get a realistic feel for the market. Ask anyone trying to sell a house nowadays.

[Sports Guy]

So, wait - just to clear this up - we blame AM when we have speculative/imaginary deals that we think he's not taking and claim that he wants too much.

And then we blame AM when no one offers him anything because - we say, speculatively - he wants too much.

That's just fantastic.

No offense, SG, but you seem to be fitting any outcome to your preconception. That's not sound reasoning.

Its really not that difficult.

I believe AM is overvaluing his players...I don't believe he is that aggressive and I do not believe he is a guy that is willing to be as flexible as he needs to be.

[Shopay]

Which you do wonder about....I mean, if elsid is right and teams weren't really calling about GS, you have to wonder why...My guess is the reason is because AM wanted more than what Sherrill was worth and they knew that going in.

Just to be completely accurate, elsid didn't say that teams weren't calling about his brother, he said "no one really wanted Sherrill either. Most teams said they did, but no one came up with anything worthwhile from what I heard. These could be two different things. It could mean little to no calls to AM about GS as you suggest, but it could very well mean that there were only marginal offers received in several calls. IMO, its speculative to contend that AM turned down good offers that we don't even know exists, but even more speculative to assert that GMs didn't call AM because they knew his demands were too high. But hey, it is possible.

[Pushmonkey]

Uh-oh....SG and Oldfan agreeing on something. There's something in the air!

:mwahaha:

:scratchchinhmm:It's not snowing, but it should:scratchchinhmm:

[Sports Guy]

Just to be completely accurate, elsid didn't say that teams weren't calling about his brother he said "no one really wanted Sherrill either. Most teams said they did, but no one came up with anything worthwhile from what I heard. These could be two different things. It could mean little to no calls to AM about GS as you suggest, but it could very well mean that there were only marginal offers received in several calls. IMO, its speculative to contend that AM turned down good offers that we don't even know exists, but even more speculative to assert that GMs didn't call AM because they knew his demands were too high. But hey, it is possible.

Well, we do know that people were saying AM was asking for a lot...so I am not sure how speculative it is.

But of course, many on here want to believe AM did the right thing.

[Lucky Jim]

Its really not that difficult.

I believe AM is overvaluing his players...I don't believe he is that aggressive and I do not believe he is a guy that is willing to be as flexible as he needs to be.

A rock-solid foundation for a theory, there. Outside of the Cubs deliberations, what is this based on?

[Peace21]

Well, we do know that people were saying AM was asking for a lot...so I am not sure how speculative it is.

But of course, many on here want to believe AM did the right thing.

Again, what is this teams future plan?

[Lucky Jim]

Well, we do know that people were saying AM was asking for a lot...so I am not sure how speculative it is.

But of course, many on here want to believe AM did the right thing.

And you want to believe that he didn't. It appears. Because there's no evidence either way.

[Sports Guy]

A rock-solid foundation for a theory, there. Outside of the Cubs deliberations, what is this based on?

What people are saying...We heard that he was asking for a lot.

We know what AM himself has said about what he expects, what he wants.

His stubborness was great for us in the Bedard deal. But that isn't always going to be the case.

He has to be willing to be flexible...He has to be willing to pay contracts...He has to be willing to adjust his expectations to what the true market level is.

Now, if that true market value isn't enough to deal Sherrill, then fine. I am ok with that...But there were other moves that could have been done.

[Cubsfan]

A rock-solid foundation for a theory, there. Outside of the Cubs deliberations, what is this based on?

I would think that the fact that nobody seemed to get close to making a deal for a very-available lefty closer, nobody really asked about one of the top 2B in baseball or a slugger having a great year, etc. might lead to the conclusion that AM is asking (and has asked) for too much in deliberations.

[Lucky Jim]

What people are saying...We heard that he was asking for a lot.

We know what AM himself has said about what he expects, what he wants.

His stubborness was great for us in the Bedard deal. But that isn't always going to be the case.

He has to be willing to be flexible...He has to be willing to pay contracts...He has to be willing to adjust his expectations to what the true market level is.

Now, if that true market value isn't enough to deal Sherrill, then fine. I am ok with that...But there were other moves that could have been done.

By the way, I'm just being difficult - long day. I think we agree, actually, that there can be severe opportunity costs in trying to maximize return on every transaction (the cost is time devoted to other deals.)

How much this exists is difficult to guess. But the potential is certainly there.

I just have a feeling that the market wasn't as friendly to someone not desperate to cut a player loose...

[Shopay]

Well, we do know that people were saying AM was asking for a lot...so I am not sure how speculative it is.

But of course, many on here want to believe AM did the right thing.

I don't know if he did the right thing or not. Frankly, unless we are privy to some offers he rejected none of us will ever know, so we are all speculating. I felt like it was a good time to move GS and we should have gotten some decent offers for him, but elsid's post seems to cut against this. The bottom line is I like the deals AM has done so far, I like the direction of the club now, so, at this point, I have to defer to AM, unless I see some concrete evidence that would lead me to feel otherwise.