A lot of little moves = a significantly better team?

[Mackus]

So you don't think there was any team willing to offer a Reimold and Olson quality for Huff??

You don't think there was a team that would have offered a semi top end IF prospect for Sherill?

I don't think either of these types of trades are possible right now. These guys value just isn't as high as we hope it would be.

[bluedog]

No where in that post did I say top talent.

Mora is going to go for nothing after we pay him his 9 million or whatever this year. Huff may very well go for nothing because will we want to be on the hook for 10 million next season if he accepts arbitration? Sherill had top value at the deadline and now becomes an aging LOOGY by the end of the year.

If he couldn't drum up enough interest in those guys last year to trade them for more value than I just mentioned that we will receive after 2009, then he really has no place as a MLB GM.

Talk about the "what have you done for me lately" mentality.

Were you this brutal about AM after the Bedard trade - widely considered one of the most lopsided trades in major league history? By all account AMs tactics were the key reason we got the haul from Seattle that we received.

The guy is the heir apparent to the MLB Commisioner's job. He's among the most admired and respected front office people in all of baseball. You think he got there for being inept?

If there were quality offers that would have been in the best interested of the O's franchise in the long term available for those players last year, then AM would have taken them. To think otherwise is just silly.

[RShack]

No where in that post did I say top talent.

Mora is going to go for nothing after we pay him his 9 million or whatever this year. Huff may very well go for nothing because will we want to be on the hook for 10 million next season if he accepts arbitration? Sherill had top value at the deadline and now becomes an aging LOOGY by the end of the year.

If he couldn't drum up enough interest in those guys last year to trade them for more value than I just mentioned that we will receive after 2009, then he really has no place as a MLB GM.

So, you'd rather he ships them out early, while they are still useful, so he can get guys who are likely to never be solid ML players?

And, because he didn't, he has no place as a MLB GM.

Right.

IMO, lots of trade talk here is based on an assumption:

• It's always better to trade guys, just so you don't get nothing for them.
• It doesn't really matter what kind of MiL filler you get for them.

I think that assumption is silly.

Doing that kind of nonsense is not what well-run franchises do.

However, perhaps AM is willing to throw everybody at least a little bone.

Just look at the Bradford trade. You liked that trade, did you?

[Shopay]

Wow..just wow.

We're looking back at a rotation that included Daniel Cabrera, Adam Loewen, Steve Trachsel and Brian Burres and trying to suggest that its somehow less ominous than what we have now?

Really Roy. I don't understand this logic.

I'd take Uehara (and his inexperience in MLB) 100% of the time over Cabrera (and his proven lack of control), Loewen (and his injury history), Burres (and his career ~6.00 ERA) or Trachsel (and his 8.30 ERA over his last 15 major league starts).

The other three spots are quite clearly going to be used to give youngsters a chance to stick at the minor league level. Olson, Liz and Penn will probably get the first shot. Bergesen & Patton will likely be right behind them. By season's end, one or more of Arrieta, Tillman, Hernandez, Matusz and Berkens may get the call.

I for one would much rather see Guthrie, Uehara and 3 young guys with live arms and bright futures than Burres, Trachsel and Cabrera. But hey, that's just me.

Make that two of us. Nice post.

[Mackus]

I was talking about last year's deadline.

Well then obviously you have to know the value for Huff wasn't there.

Sherrill we probably could have gotten somebody good for at the deadline last year. I don't think we were getting someone like Jason Donald, but we could have gotten a solid prospect. I do think he made a mistake in not dealing him then.

[Mackus]

I think he should have traded Huff, Mora, and Sherill for their top value at the deadline last year, because it didn't take a genius to determine that.

Huff had zero value at the deadline last year (teams wouldn't take him for free) and Mora has a NTC. So those two arguments are bogus.

Sherrill I agree with.

[Mackus]

Huff I would have offered to pay money as well. We are going to be paying him anyway, why not try to get a decent prospect? The guy was putting up an MVP season, it's hard to believe he had zero value.

I don't understand why his value was so low, but its not arguable that it was. Nobody even put in a waiver claim on him. There was no possible way we could have gotten a decent prospect for him.

Anyways, we'll get two draft picks for him after the season. I don't think we'll get any offers that are worth more than that, so I don't think he will or should be traded.

[Mackus]

I don't think it's a given we offer him arbitration.

I do.

letters

[Enjoy Terror]

It's funny, you criticize the Scott trade as getting all that for a platoon LF, yet a couple weeks ago I was lambasted because that was a horrible trade for the O's. And both sides are equally as sarcastic about it. Funny stuff.

Your Izturis point is comical as well. We can get a mediocre SS for pennies on the dollar, so screw the longterm! We'll just win 73 games in 2009 instead of 70. WS here we come baby!

And naturally, since Tex said he always wanted to be a Yankee at his NY Yankee press conference, and since the New York Times, that covers the New York Yankees, said Tex always wanted to be a Yankee, it must be true. How stupid could I be?

You want Pie +2 for Scott. We were trying to get Pie for Olson and it didn't work out, and Olson is the bigger trade chip. Scott is a platoon left fielder. I think it makes a lot of sense why that trade wouldn't work.

Calling Izturis mediocre to inflate the importance of your statement... please stop. He's a defensive asset to this club and an upgrade from the SS carousel from last year. I'm fine with him for the short term until some other opprtunity presents itself. Sherrill is worth more to this club than a "semi top end infielder prospect" that 1) no one was offering and 2) would be an equivalent to Ronny Cedeno.

And as for your last paragraph... maybe pretty stupid since you're asking for opinions. The guy said it in black and white, and if you want to find fallacies in everything anyone says when it's convenient for your own arguments, then that's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean the New York Times is a bunch of liars.

[RShack]

I think he should have traded Huff, Mora, and Sherill for their top value at the deadline last year, because it didn't take a genius to determine that..

A) Their value would never be higher with the O's.

B) They are very likely to get nothing for us after 2009.

C) The value they bring back will be more than they will contribute to a winning O's team, other than Sherill who may be a quality LOOGY by the time that comes around.

Your points "A" and "B" seem 100% consistent with what I said was the silly assumption that a lot of trade-talk here is based on.

However, your point "C" claims that AM could have traded for guys who would indeed actually "contribute to a winning O's team".

Now, we know that the guys you wanted him to trade actually do have value at helping win ballgames in the present.

So, I assume your point is about trading win-value now for win-value later.

Exactly how do you know that he could have gotten back guys who would actually "contribute to a winning O's team" in the future?

How do you know he wasn't looking at bad packages of old guys and MiL filler, or packages with little but very iffy prospects?

Face it, you don't. None of us do. But you talk as if you have some vast store of inside knowledge about what he could have gotten.

Either you know what you're talking about or you don't. If you do, just spill it. Tell us about all these valuable trades he missed out on.

To be clear, I'm not asking about the ones in your head. I'm asking about the ones AM declined.

You know, the ones that show he has no business being a MLB GM. Tell us about those.

I say you can't. I say you just want to trade vets, and you don't really care what we get back.

Then, when we get nothing back, you adopt a different story about how it's not necessary to get players who will help in any way at all. Just like you did with Bradford.

[Enjoy Terror]

Well then obviously you have to know the value for Huff wasn't there.

Sherrill we probably could have gotten somebody good for at the deadline last year. I don't think we were getting someone like Jason Donald, but we could have gotten a solid prospect. I do think he made a mistake in not dealing him then.

Who was offered? What solid prospect? Who did MacPhail decline for Sherrill? It's silly to think that MacPhail dropped the ball for not making a trade that you are pretending existed.

Show me the article that says we were offered Alcides Escobar for Sherrill and we said No. Show me the Phillies offering us Jason Donald and we turned it down. Please find me where MacPhail turned his back on Elvis Andrus for George Sherrill.

I'm thinking that young shortstops are a hot commodity and more than an over 30 lefty reliever is going to be required to get them. Other than that, I think George Sherrill would have gotten us not much more than filler in return, and if that's the case I'd rather have Sherrill.

[Enjoy Terror]

I'm not saying it wasn't possible. Maybe Jason Donald was offered for Sherrill at the deadline. But we don't know, so we can't label not trading Sherrill as a mistake. Trading Sherrill for organizational filler would be a mistake.

[Mackus]

Who was offered? What solid prospect? Who did MacPhail decline for Sherrill? It's silly to think that MacPhail dropped the ball for not making a trade that you are pretending existed.

We don't know what the offers were, if any. But its not much of a leap of faith to figure that Sherrill's value was pretty damn near an all-time high following that All Star game. And there were a lot of teams that could have used a solid reliever down the stretch.

I already said I didn't think he'd be bringing back Jason Donald, a lesser prospect than Escobar and Andrus, so your ridiculous ranting about that is uncalled for. But Sherrill could likely have gotten us a good prospect or two at the deadline last year. Or at the very least would have gotten more than we are likely to get for him right now or in the future (not necessarily a lock for the future, but still likely) and almost certainly something worth more to us than Sherrill's present and future on-field production (the main bottom line).

If all you wanna do is respond to the things that do happen, then good for you. I also have interest in thinking about and discussing moves that have the potential to be made, and if I feel that MacPhail has made a mistake by not moving someone when their value was seemingly peaking, I have no qualms about criticizing him for that.

[RShack]

We have no idea what goes through his desk.

But nonetheless you imply he has no business being a MLB GM.

Because he didn't make trades that you don't even know are real.

Earlier, I said that I thought a lot of trade talk here was based on the following assumption:

• It's always better to trade guys, just so you don't get nothing for them.
• It doesn't really matter what kind of MiL filler you get for them.

I also said that I think that assumption is silly, and doing that kind of nonsense is not what well-run franchises do.

What part of that do you take issue with?

[Enjoy Terror]

I don't think it's fair to judge MacPhail on things that potentially could have happened.

I can judge MacPhail on the Bradford trade. We got cash for that. I think that was dumb.

I can judge MacPhail on not having signed Markakis yet. I think that's dumb.

These are tangibles.

But I'm not going to judge MacPhail on not moving Sherrill at the deadline. If I knew that MacPhail passed on a particular shortstop I could make a judgement, but you and Mackus are inclined to judge MacPhail based on "Sherrill wasn't traded" alone. I prefer to look at it as "Sherrill wasn't traded for Cedeno", then good. "Sherrill wasn't traded for Donald" then that's really bad.

We don't know what happened. You don't know what was offered. You can't pass judgement.