Bradford return

[Frobby]

Didn't we do the same thing with Ponson? We traded him for that Moss character and a PTBNL. Ponson (switching leagues) was the player to be named.

No, we re-signed Ponson as a free agent (unfortunately for us).

[allstar1579]

I'm actually not that bothered by this. We basically traded Bradford for Matusz. I know that sounds silly, but we used his money to sign him. So, we had this awesome, high draft pick, and we signed him for just about nothing. And we're getting another, albeit probably crummy, player in return.

Although it does suck that we traded from an obvious weakness. Pure salary dump seems a little harsh: Bradford was never going to be a part of a winning O's team. Matusz figures to be a huge piece of our next winning team. This just made a bad season worse, that's all.

That is one way to look at it, but really if you are happy that we are in the habit of clearing veterans from our team to sign draft picks that we should be signing regardless of who we have under contract, then that works for you.

Personally, I think that we should have more than enough money to sign the 4th pick in the draft, and if we think we need to "clear space" to sign them for what they are worth, then we are more inept in the F.O. than I thought.

[Sanfran327]

That is one way to look at it, but really if you are happy that we are in the habit of clearing veterans from our team to sign draft picks that we should be signing regardless of who we have under contract, then that works for you.

Personally, I think that we should have more than enough money to sign the 4th pick in the draft, and if we think we need to "clear space" to sign them for what they are worth, then we are more inept in the F.O. than I thought.

I never said anything about clearing space... We wanted to trade Bradford all year long, so we found a taker and got his awful salary off the books. I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think this move was made to afford Matusz, I think that was just a side effect.

[JTrea81]

I never said anything about clearing space... We wanted to trade Bradford all year long, so we found a taker and got his awful salary off the books. I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think this move was made to afford Matusz, I think that was just a side effect.

You could argue that for what he provided, that his salary wasn't really awful. The Orioles could have afforded him IMO...

[Crazysilver03]

You could argue that for what he provided, that his salary wasn't really awful. The Orioles could have afforded him IMO...

And the Orioles could afford him this coming season as well. The big reason Bradford was traded was because MacPhail was trying to clear out space in the bullpen for the relievers we are trying to develop.

Next year, we have Baez and Walker on contract, as well as Sherrill, Sarfate, and most likely Ray and Johnson in the bullpen.

We have nearly 5-6 other pitchers who could be in the bullpen so Bradford was traded to try and make space for them.

I wouldnt be completely surprised to see Walker moved or released this offseason as well, to create more openings.

[Mackus]

You could argue that for what he provided, that his salary wasn't really awful. The Orioles could have afforded him IMO...

For what Walker provided in 2007 his salary wasn't awful. How does it look now?

I'd rather miss Bradford and have $4M in my pocket than have Bradford and be stuck dealing with his contract if he flops like Walker has.

[Sanfran327]

You could argue that for what he provided, that his salary wasn't really awful. The Orioles could have afforded him IMO...

Here's my view: if they were to keep him, then we should have been looking to extend this off season or resign him after next year. If he fits in this year, then he'll fit in for a while. But we're looking to spend money in other places. The bullpen is the worst place to tie up financial resources. We have about 684 right-handed "relief-types" in our system, and Bradford was the most expensive one. Now we don't have to pay his salary anymore.

[Frobby]

That is one way to look at it, but really if you are happy that we are in the habit of clearing veterans from our team to sign draft picks that we should be signing regardless of who we have under contract, then that works for you.

Personally, I think that we should have more than enough money to sign the 4th pick in the draft, and if we think we need to "clear space" to sign them for what they are worth, then we are more inept in the F.O. than I thought.

We are definitely in trouble if we needed to trade Bradford in order to sign Matusz or our other draftees.

[S'GOS]

We are definitely in trouble if we needed to trade Bradford in order to sign Matusz or our other draftees.

I don't think it means we are trouble at all. Baseball is a business and you have a budget to plan and numbers to meet. I am not concerned with the "salary dump." Any time you spend money you have to justify it. For example if we "buy" Texiera, what is the return over time? Do we sell more season tickets? Do we see attendence increase? How does that effect merchandise sales and food and beverage sales at games? In sports stores?

I hate talking business, budget numbers, and money when it comes to baseball because that is not why we watch, but it is like any other business in the world, you have product or service to provide and your goal is profit in return.

Also, Baltimore is a small market team now that the Nats are in DC. I don't care how you look at it, the truth is we are small market now

[Mackus]

We are definitely in trouble if we needed to trade Bradford in order to sign Matusz or our other draftees.

I don't think trading Bradford was a direct result of needing more cash to pay for the draftees. Having the cash around after didn't hurt, but I don't think their draft signings would have been any different if Bradford wasn't traded.

I think it was more about next year, and evaluating whether Bradford was the best use of $3.5M.

[clarence]

I think crazy is on the right track. It is a numbers game and Bradford's salary and experience made him the most attractive to move. Clearing up room on the 40-man and dealing with pitchers who are out of options is going to mean more moves are coming. Losing Bradford isn't that big of a deal in the scheme of things. If we had kept him, we might have won like one more game.

[dedwretched]

I think the further down they go in the Rays' minor league chain, the greater potential talent they will receive. You insist on "Major League ready" with the guy we got for Bradford, you're probably talking a quad-A guy, a Salazar type.

Chris richard?

[Ruzious]

Chris richard?

With him, Bigbie, Matos, and Gibbons - we were set in the OF for the next decade!

[Enjoy Terror]

I'd be estatic if we could snag Zobrist... but I am thinking it will be more along the lines of Jeff Carroll.

Zobrist is out. The rule, despite what others are saying, is that they can't be on the 25-man roster, because it requires the player to change leagues. This is why there was speculation it would be Jonny Gomes, because he was sent down to Durham a day before the Bradford trade.

Zobrist was on the 25-man the day of the trade because he was filling in at short for the injured Jason Bartlett.

MacPhail has a done a decent job of downplaying everyone's expectations as to what the player will be; we know it won't be a name that many people outside of the Rays organization will recognize. Despite this, I am expecting a collective groan of disappointment from OH when we do find out who it is.

[Greg Pappas]

I expect, based on all that's been said by MacPhail, that we're looking at a youngster at Low A ball or lower. This leads me to believe that we're looking at a kid like Nick Barnese... he's a solid 19 year old starter who was very good this past season at short-season Hudson Valley and a former third rounder from the '07 draft.

I see him as a ceiling...

A couple of other solid youngsters...

Matt Moore

Elias Otero