Guthrie for Hardy

[Sports Guy]

Well I'd rather not trade 4 years of Guthrie due to banking on Hardy wanting to sign an extension with us, and the O's actually making a good enough offer to make him pass on free agency.

The trade is not Hardy for 4-5 years for Guthrie for 4 years, if that was the case, of course it would be much more appealing. I don't think that's the way this trade can be evaluated, it's much better to plan for him not extending than visa versa. That is unless we can work out an extension in a 72 hour or so window that before the trade goes through.

Even if all we get is 2 years of Hardy..I would still rather have those 2 years and 2 draft picks than Guthrie.

[Greg Pappas]

We have in our midst a man who is under team control for years to come, has the desire, the skill, and the leadership qualities to anchor our youthful staff for these next few years (pending health). And an oft-forgotten benefit revolves around these young arms that are here currently, and those coming up in the next couple of seasons: and that is that they need an older player with the qualities and experience that Guthrie has to help them get acclimated to the majors. Sure Guthrie is short on lengthy experience, but here's a man who can relate to these high-profilers... a man who was a former #1 pick, who overcame injuries, and adversity, and persevered through the rough times to eventually become the product we see today.

He wants to be here, be a leader, and help show our prized youngsters, whether position players or pitchers, what it takes to become a good major leaguer.

So, to answer the question at hand... no. I want to keep him.

[Mackus]

Its called money.

True, if we traded for him and offered him a lot I think he'd sign. I'm not sure he'd take a 4/$40M deal though. He'll make ~$5M next year and then probably $8-9M in 2010 through arbitration. So thats basically a 2/$26M extension, I don't think thats enough to deter him from testing the market. Maybe if you give him a 5th year in the $15M range he'd consider it.

I don't know if I'd rather have Guthrie for 4 arb years (roughly $2M, $4M, $6M, $8M) or Hardy for 5/$65M. I can certainly understand a case being made for either.

[Mackus]

Even if all we get is 2 years of Hardy..I would still rather have those 2 years and 2 draft picks than Guthrie.

This I disagree with completely. Thats a foolish approach. Hardy would maybe, but only a slim possibility, be able to play on a contending team in 2010 then he'd walk. That's not nearly enough return for someone as valuable as Guthrie. You've been saying you don't care about 2009, and thats something I generally agree with. So if you ignore 2009 what you're really trading is 3 years of Guthrie and 2 picks in the 2013 draft for 1 year of Hardy and 2 picks in the 2011 draft. Not a good trade, IMO.

[cindyluvsbrady]

I love Jeremy!

This whole idea is a BIG NO!

[cindyluvsbrady]

We have in our midst a man who is under team control for years to come, has the desire, the skill, and the leadership qualities to anchor our youthful staff for these next few years (pending health). And an oft-forgotten benefit revolves around these young arms that are here currently, and those coming up in the next couple of seasons... they need an older player with the qualities and experience that Guthrie has to help them get acclimated to the majors. Sure Guthrie is short on lengthy experience, but here's a man who can relate to these high-profilers... a man who was a former #1 pick, who overcame injuries, and adversity, and persevered through the rough times to eventually become the product we see today.

I want to keep him. He wants to be here, be a leader, and help show our prized youngsters, whether position players or pitchers, what it takes to become a good major leaguer.

So, to answer the question at hand... no. I'd keep him.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!:clap3:!!!!

[El Gordo]

Its called money.

4 years? he'd be silly to go for that little time, you'd have to offer him at least 6.

[Sports Guy]

This I disagree with completely. Thats a foolish approach. Hardy would maybe, but only a slim possibility, be able to play on a contending team in 2010 then he'd walk. That's not nearly enough return for someone as valuable as Guthrie. You've been saying you don't care about 2009, and thats something I generally agree with. So if you ignore 2009 what you're really trading is 3 years of Guthrie and 2 picks in the 2013 draft for 1 year of Hardy and 2 picks in the 2011 draft. Not a good trade, IMO.

I don't see Guthrie being as valuable in 2011 and 2012 as you do.

[mweb]

Even if all we get is 2 years of Hardy..I would still rather have those 2 years and 2 draft picks than Guthrie.

Even though you apaprently don't care about the first year. Interesting.

Well I think that's hard to justify unless you think Guthrie is going to fall off quite a bit and/or Hardy is going to be a superstar.

[Greg Pappas]

I don't see Guthrie being as valuable in 2011 and 2012 as you do.

Great thread SG...

While I've stated my preference to keep Guthrie, I wanted to express that the decision was not an easy one. You make good points regarding Guthrie's future value, and we may very well regret not dealing Guthrie, while he has real solid value.

In your OP you said that the deal would likely need to be expanded... agreed. The Brewers would likely want another player to consummate the deal, as Hardy's value may be a bit above Guthrie's. Just a guess, but if the Brewers were interested in this deal, they'd probably want the addition of someone with as much value as Erbe or Rowell, or at least a player with the value of a Tyler Henson. The latter I could swallow.

If a deal such as Guthrie and Henson for Hardy went down, I'd be surprised personally, and while I prefer we keep Guthrie, I would at least understand AM's reasoning and wouldn't whine about it. I just hope we keep plugging along, making smart baseball decisions, continue improving our minor league talent base and keep preparing to field a strong, young, and talented squad for 2010 and beyond.

[Sports Guy]

Even though you apaprently don't care about the first year. Interesting.

Well I think that's hard to justify unless you think Guthrie is going to fall off quite a bit and/or Hardy is going to be a superstar.

I think VaTech has raised some legit concerns.

By 2011, I think Guthrie could be a 4/5 type starter..Obviously, still have value but not the value, IMO, of the 2 draft picks.

And I still think an extension is very possible. So, that "risk" is also part of this trade and I think it is a good risk.

[Florida_Osfan]

I hope this doesn't come down as the thrashing of a relatively good thread... But what good is defense if our pitching allows 8 runs a game ala Olson, Liz, CaBBrera, etc.? Fact is, Guthrie is the only pitcher that offers us a chance to win games.

And it's somewhat misguided to believe that Guthrie isn't going to pitch well because he turns 31, and it doesn't mean he'll instantly start producing less effective outings, either. Besides, he's cheap, under team control, and a pretty solid #2 starter in his career with Baltimore. I don't see how the next few years won't be made better having him as our rotation potentially fills out with the likes of other prospects such as Tillman, Arrieta, Erbe, Hernandez, or Berken to name a few.

I would rather draft and develop a shortstop than sell our only valuable pitcher for a 2 year rental. Because as much as we want to speculate what Hardy will accept as an extension offer, there is no evidence to suggest he will, either.

[Sports Guy]

Great thread SG...

While I've stated my preference to keep Guthrie, I wanted to express that the decision was not an easy one. You make good points regarding Guthrie's future value, and we may very well regret not dealing Guthrie, while he has real solid value.

In your OP you said that the deal would likely need to be expanded... agreed. The Brewers would likely want another player to consummate the deal, as Hardy's value may be a bit above Guthrie's. Just a guess, but if the Brewers were interested in this deal, they'd probably want the addition of someone with as much value as Erbe or Rowell, or at least a player with the value of a Tyler Henson. The latter I could swallow.

If a deal such as Guthrie and Henson for Hardy went down, I'd be surprised personally, and while I prefer we keep Guthrie, I would at least understand AM's reasoning and wouldn't whine about it. I just hope we keep plugging along, making smart baseball decisions, continue improving our minor league talent base and keep preparing to field a strong, young, and talented squad for 2010 and beyond.

I was thinking something like sending them Sherrill, along with Guthrie and us getting back Hardy and a Henson type prospect...some low level, non 40 man high ceiling guy.

[TonySoprano]

You've been saying you don't care about 2009, and thats something I generally agree with. So if you ignore 2009 what you're really trading is 3 years of Guthrie and 2 picks in the 2013 draft for 1 year of Hardy and 2 picks in the 2011 draft. Not a good trade, IMO.

You have to add to that the #1 overall pick in 2010, up from the #5 pick in 2009 because without pitching we'll have six months of September in 2009. A team like that will be real attractive to Teixeira wouldn't it? After all, he was a Ranger at one time.

Oh, but Soprano, you don't understand, Tex is a money-driven mercenary. He plays for the money and for those Cal Ripken posters on his childhood bedroom wall. Winning is a cliche to him.

If we have a staff in 20-whatever where Guthrie is a 4/5 that would hopefully mean that three arms were collecting work out for us. What are the odds of that?

[BaltimoreGhost]

Pitching is just too valuable to give up, especially an innings eater such as Guthrie. Hardy is great and I'd love to have him, but I think our pitching is thin enough as it is. Now if we acquired more arms, then I think it would be more plausible. Also a younger pitcher who is more of a gamble may be more worth it.