Reliever market

[Sports Guy]

But you also want guys who won't cost you 10 times the MLB minimum for the next 2-3 years. There are a lot of veteran relievers available who don't have silly contracts. Almost every team under .500 has a couple they'd be happy to move.

Yea and there are a lot of relievers who do get silly contracts.

Not including what is left on these year's contract, Bradford is owed 7 million and Walker 9 million.

I don't think you have to kick in any money for BRadford, other than what is owed for this year....A 2/7 contract for a solid reliever is fine.

Walker may require more money to kick in though.

[Sports Guy]

That works a lot of ways.

It sure does but Crisp also walks at a much better rate than CPat(even though that rate isn't as good as you would like)

[Frobby]

But you also want guys who won't cost you 10 times the MLB minimum for the next 2-3 years. There are a lot of veteran relievers available who don't have silly contracts. Almost every team under .500 has a couple they'd be happy to move.

Walker and Bradford are more than just "veteran relievers." Since 2002 Walker has had an ERA+ of 113, 130, 141, 116, 161 and 154 (this year). Bradford has had an ERA+ of 150, 140, 106, 114, 149 and 134. If I am in a pennant race right now, I'm not worried that they might cost a little more than some veteran reliever with a lesser track record. Give me the guy who has pitched well this year and every other year for the previous 5 years, and who pitched under pennant race pressure last year.

[hoosiers]

Drungo, I appreciate what you are saying about 15-20 innings and all, but quality relievers fetch top 10 prospects all the time. I believe Urbina may have fetched two of them a few years ago.

[Guest rochester]

I think counting on MLB GMs to be foaming at the mouth, quivering and shaking, desperately looking for situational relievers is a great way to be let down.

No I agree, however, there will not be GMs who are foaming...but if they are hungry enough then we can make a good deal. I guess my bottom line is not to get rid of them just to get rid of them. There are too many other "players" we need to get rid of first (Gibbons, Bako, Huff, etc.)

Someone mentioned making Huff the super-sub...I think that he is way too inconsistent. I would go with Mora if he is not traded...

[Leitch]

Drungo, you know as well as i do that many of the contenders are not going to throw inexperienced relievers in the middle of a playoff push.

Cla Meredith anyone?

[davearm]

Cla Meredith anyone?

Cla Meredith is just the tip of the iceberg.

Jon Papelbon

Adam Wainwright

KRod in 2002.

And there are lots of lesser names that were solid contributors to playoff pens despite inexperience. The Cards had 3 or 4 guys that met this description last season.

[davearm]

Drungo, I appreciate what you are saying about 15-20 innings and all, but quality relievers fetch top 10 prospects all the time. I believe Urbina may have fetched two of them a few years ago.

I thought that we had established earlier in this thread that there are virtually no reasonable trade comps for Walker or Bradford, given their contract status.

[Sports Guy]

Cla Meredith is just the tip of the iceberg.

Jon Papelbon

Adam Wainwright

KRod in 2002.

And there are lots of lesser names that were solid contributors to playoff pens despite inexperience. The Cards had 3 or 4 guys that met this description last season.

Yes, sometimes it happens, as i said in my posts.

But most teams don't do this and not all of them have the arms like this waiting in the wings.

[Sports Guy]

I thought that we had established earlier in this thread that there are virtually no reasonable trade comps for Walker or Bradford, given their contract status.

I do think this is something that can't be overlooked Dave.

As i have said, this is new territory.

If these contracts are going to become the orm for these types of relievers, than trading them won't be that difficult.

If the market is going to correct itself and most teams don't want this, than it will be difficult to trade them.

I do think we will need to put some money for each player to net a better player though.

I would be surprised if we get a solid prospect and have the other team take on all of the contract.

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo, I appreciate what you are saying about 15-20 innings and all, but quality relievers fetch top 10 prospects all the time. I believe Urbina may have fetched two of them a few years ago.

Urbina was a closer with 26 saves at the break. We all know teams have a blind spot for closers. When's the last time a highly-paid LOOGY was moved for a top 10 prospect? Or even better, a ROOGY?

Plus, that was 2003, before the market went haywire.

Look, I'd absolutely love to trade Bradford, Walker, and Millar for top 10 prospects and get out from under their contracts. That would be spectacular. If McPhail, Flanny, and Duquette can pull it off, good for them. I don't see it happening, and am not going to rail against them if they can't get it done.

[Guest rochester]

Urbina was a closer with 26 saves at the break. We all know teams have a blind spot for closers. When's the last time a highly-paid LOOGY was moved for a top 10 prospect? Or even better, a ROOGY?

Plus, that was 2003, before the market went haywire.

Look, I'd absolutely love to trade Bradford, Walker, and Millar for top 10 prospects and get out from under their contracts. That would be spectacular. If McPhail, Flanny, and Duquette can pull it off, good for them. I don't see it happening, and am not going to rail against them if they can't get it done.

I think that this statement covers an overwhelming majority of what everyone here is saying.... see what they can get but do not just let em go for BS....

I am not even sure F&D will or should be involved in the next 2-3 weeks - Duq is most likely (at least) mentally out of Baltimore...Flanny is, well, Flanny..

And not railing if they do not get it done - that is just plain common sense but...

[Sports Guy]

I think Millar can definitely fetch one of those guys...He has like an 850 OPS, 400 OBP and is playing very well right now.

No reason to think he couldn't fetch a solid prospect.

BTW, we are all saying this but i find it hard to believe that the Orioles would deal Bradford or Walker for a Hoey type prospect.

[hoosiers]

Urbina was a closer with 26 saves at the break. We all know teams have a blind spot for closers. When's the last time a highly-paid LOOGY was moved for a top 10 prospect? Or even better, a ROOGY?

Plus, that was 2003, before the market went haywire.

But Urbina was NOT brought in to close. Looper was still given the initial closer opportunities after that trade. Urbina was brought in for the 8th inning and as insurance in case Looper fell apart - which he did. Seems like Drungo might have his facts wrong - must kid as it happens so little.

Regarding the contracts, I just don't see them as a problem. In fact, I think they are more likely a positive. There are more than a couple of teams with multi-million $ arms in the bullpen besides the closer. When one looks at the contract the Mets gave Schoenweis, then the contracts to Bradford and Walker are bargains. It's all relative.

I think a team trading for Walker or Bradford would be comfortable knowing they could keep these ERA+ relievers for an additional year or two. If these two are considered overpaid, it is not by an amount large enough to affect the quality of prospect we get back.

[AgentOrange]

I think Millar can definitely fetch one of those guys...He has like an 850 OPS, 400 OBP and is playing very well right now.

No reason to think he couldn't fetch a solid prospect.

BTW, we are all saying this but i find it hard to believe that the Orioles would deal Bradford or Walker for a Hoey type prospect.

Would you deal Hoey for a Bradford or Walker type player?

Assuming we are a team that would need a reliever and were close to contending.