Reliever market

[Sports Guy]

Walker and Bradford will both probably end up with an era around 2.50. If traded we'll also need to replace them next offseason. I can't see them going with a young starting staff supported by a young pen.

This thinking is very short sighted.

There are always guys out there you can trade for or sign to a cheap 1-2 year deal who can do all of these things.(btw, i think it is a stretch to expect either of them to have a 2.50 ERA this year, much less both).

Guys like Aaron Fultz slip through the cracks every year while similar guys like Walker get long term, expensive contracts.

Building a BP should be very easy to do.

There is no way you should hang onto those guys if you can get good value for them.

Bradford is essentially a ROOGY, so he especially needs to go IMO.

[Guest rochester]

I think we could replace either of them pretty easily. Doyne and/or Hoey should be ready next season to take Bradford's spot. We should be able to find a lefty to replace Walker somewhere.

I don't want to trade these guys for nothing, but if we were offered a team's 5 - 10 type prospect for one of them, you need to consider it. We are woefully short in the position player department.

I am not sure why many feel that RPs like Bradford and Walker are so easy to replace. If that was the case wouldn't everyone have them and not be looking to trade for them? WHich one is it? They are a dime a dozen and nobody needs them or they are not and would generate decent offers?

I am in the camp that we should keep B&W. They are the one constant we have in the BP and, oh yea, we still need a good BP. One may think that after the Sox series this weekend that this fact is obvious...

[Sports Guy]

I will always remind people of Buddy Groom when thinking about this type of stuff.

We held onto him after one solid year and a great year...After that he was awful.

Who knows what we could have traded him for. Maybe we trade him for some blocked prospect that ends up being the next Jeff Bagwell. You just never know.

Instead, like always, we end up with nothing because we held onto the player one year too long.

This is ALWAYS the worse strategy.

[Ruzious]

I think its almost a lock that we could spend $16M over the next two seasons more wisely than Walker in his age 36-37 seasons and Bradford in his age 33-34 seasons. That doesn't even include whatever talent we could get in return for them.

Maybe a lock for some teams - but not the O's. Actually, I think Bradford was somewhat of a bargain. I'd keep him. Walker was over-paid, but he has value.

[Sports Guy]

I am not sure why many feel that RPs like Bradford and Walker are so easy to replace. If that was the case wouldn't everyone have them and not be looking to trade for them? WHich one is it? They are a dime a dozen and nobody needs them or they are not and would generate decent offers?

Because you have so many relievers, it is unlikely you "hit" on all of them. Sometimes you just need to add a decent guy to balance out the pen and sometimes your key guys are hurt or underperforming.

Because of that(and since you are contending and want to win), you need to add BP help.

A good BP is very important in the playoffs...That has been proven time after time.

So, while a lot of these guys are dime a dozen, most contending teams don't want to throw some Jim Hoey-esque prospect in the middle of a pennant race and rely on that pitcher to do what it is neccassary for his team to win.

They need/want proven, vet guys with playoff experience.

In the offseason, the demand is a little different...At the deadline, it changes completely.

[Fan4Life]

That's a bit of a bold assumption. If either of them have a random five-run, 1/3 of a inning appearance their ERAs would be over 4.00. When you pitch 60 innings it doesn't take much to ruin your year's totals, and they're both on pace for about 80 games/60 innings.

I'd really like to see that reversed. 60 games, 80 innings.

I liked the idea I think you proposed where we fill our bullpen with pitchers that have primarily been starters. This way they eat more innings, need less of them, and provide greater bench flexibility. I think you also proposed the actual starters could be available for relief appearances on their throw days. If we adopted either of these options to some degree, how would that change your perspective of trading any of the current relievers we have?

[DrungoHazewood]

Building a BP should be very easy to do.

Easy? No. If it was easy everyone would do it and nobody would lose leads after the 6th.

But it's certainly not as hard as the Orioles make it out to be.

[DrungoHazewood]

I liked the idea I think you proposed where we fill our bullpen with pitchers that have primarily been starters. This way they eat more innings, need less of them, and provide greater bench flexibility. I think you also proposed the actual starters could be available for relief appearances on their throw days. If we adopted either of these options to some degree, how would that change your perspective of trading any of the current relievers we have?

You'd have less use for guys like Bradford and Walker who throw about 2/3 of an inning an appearance.

[AlBumbry]

I am not sure why many feel that RPs like Bradford and Walker are so easy to replace. If that was the case wouldn't everyone have them and not be looking to trade for them? WHich one is it? They are a dime a dozen and nobody needs them or they are not and would generate decent offers?

I am in the camp that we should keep B&W. They are the one constant we have in the BP and, oh yea, we still need a good BP. One may think that after the Sox series this weekend that this fact is obvious...

I agree with you, people seem to talk out both sides of their mouth on this issue.

"Don't spend money on middle relief, its too unpredictable". Does that mean that any team who has a good bullpen just got lucky that year? After all its unpredictable, so it just means they happened to get a bunch of guys who are having a good year.

If its just a crapshoot, what's the strategy for building a bullpen?

[hoosiers]

If traded we'll also need to replace them next offseason. I can't see them going with a young starting staff supported by a young pen.

It's not a big deal to me that Walker or Bradford would need to be replaced. They are both plus relievers, but if we could cash one in for a LT answer at 1B, I would not hesitate. Both of these guys should have real value and we should look to cash them in if the offers are sufficient - particularly Bradford. I say Bradford because Hoey is looking good and I hope there are better days ahead for Baez.

[soxhotcorner14]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07152007/sports/boras_taking_a_rod_into_tratosphere_sports_joel_sherman.htm

Gotta put feelers out there for Bradford, Ray and Walker.

Yea, make sure you trade the only pitchers worth having in the bullpen. Pretty smart idea.

You're too trade happy man... realize that Bradford and Walker were pitching out of their element. Trembley has been putting them in spots for what they were supposed to be doing when they came here..and their succeeding... You need to build on players like that, not sell them off.

But as I'm sure from reading your posts for the past 3 years, you're always right. Good talk.

[Fan4Life]

For me, I want guys in the bullpen that have at least 3 pitches, including one good off speed pitch. I would lean towards anyone who can add a good-great changeup and a split finger fastball to the usual fastball and curveball offerings. Unfortunately these guys seem to be rare. When I look around the league at the most successful pitchers, they have one or both of these pitches in their resume. Carmona with Cleveland, a good example of a young pitcher with e split finger fastball that is working well for him thus far.

[Sports Guy]

Yea, make sure you trade the only pitchers worth having in the bullpen. Pretty smart idea.

You're too trade happy man... realize that Bradford and Walker were pitching out of their element. Trembley has been putting them in spots for what they were supposed to be doing when they came here..and their succeeding... You need to build on players like that, not sell them off.

But as I'm sure from reading your posts for the past 3 years, you're always right. Good talk.

You don't build off of mid 30ish relievers.

Hoey, Doyne, JJ Johnson, Liz, et al can go into the pen.

Next year, depending on health, development and if they are still in the organization, we could have as many as 7-8 starters who shoul dbe here...You can throw a few of them in the pen.

You can sign someone(s) to a cheap 1-2 year deal as well.

Find the next Aaron Fultz or scour the trade market for another Donnelly type guy.

The options out there are plentiful.

This team needs positional talent in the worst way. If we are able to obtain some good young, position players and still be able to hold onto Bedard, this is how you have to do it.

While a good BP is very important, it is also somewhat of a luxury on a terrible team that is going nowhere and that needs a huge infusion of young talent.

[davearm]

I'm not sure this is the case. I think one argument the FO used for acquiring "good" middle relievers was that they would always be marketable. Trading would be available if other options presented themselves (like Hoey, Doyne).

However, i think the above argument is bunk. Teams do not want to acquire contracts - which is why guys like gagne, dotel, etc. are more liquid - they don't have multi-year contracts. Trading for one year obligations is much more preferable to GMs.

Unless the FO is willing to eat $$ to move either bradford or walker - I just don't see a trade as a possibility. Trading either one is likely a more difficult challenge than getting the stadium authority to pony up for a new scoreboard.

The bolded section above needs lots of emphasis here.

AFAIK, there is no established market for non-closer, "specialist" type relievers that have multiple years and multiple millions left on their contracts.

I'd be happy to be shown I'm wrong on this point, but until that happens, I'll continue to be very wary of the market demand for this type of player.

Keep in mind that the majority of teams seem to be fundamentally opposed to paying these sorts of contracts to middle relievers when they're free agents. Any team in baseball could've had either of these guys last winter, but none was willing to pay them as much as Baltimore did. Why now would they take on a contract they weren't willing to offer in the first place, *and* surrender prospects on top of that? It makes no sense.

The market for relievers is always strong at the deadline, that's undeniable. But historically the demand has been for less expensive pre-FA guys, or bigger $$$ guys with expiring contracts.

[Sports Guy]

AFAIK, there is no established market for non-closer, "specialist" type relievers that have multiple years and multiple millions left on their contracts.

This is also a new market...I believe, the idea of paying these relievers these contracts was first started by the Cubs with Howry(can't think of another middle reliever who got a contract like that before him)...So, the idea is relatively new.

Keep in mind that the majority of teams seem to be fundamentally opposed to paying these sorts of contracts to middle relievers when they're free agents. Any team in baseball could've had either of these guys last winter, but none was willing to pay them as much as Baltimore did. Why now would they take on a contract they weren't willing to offer in the first place, *and* surrender prospects on top of that? It makes no sense.

Let's not make it sound like no one else was bidding on these guys...They got 2-3 year offers. They just didn't get as much as the Orioles offered...However, the contract is smaller now(albeit not by a whole lot) and they would now be locked into these player at something more like what they were offering them to begin with.

Plus, their aren't a lot of sellers out there and relievers are in high demand.

The market for relievers is always strong at the deadline, that's undeniable. But historically the demand has been for less expensive pre-FA guys, or bigger $$$ guys with expiring contracts.

Agree with this 100% but again, this is a new market with the way relievers are getting paid, so things may be changing.

BTW, we could always eat 1-2 million of the contract as well, thus really bring the contracts down to like 2/6 or so. That is manageable for pretty much every contending team.