Aubrey Huff: His Orioles Future...

[Greg Pappas]

What is your solution for 1B next year?

Possibly Snyder, but our long-term 1B'man may need to be dealt for. Smoak from Texas makes sense, but I'm unsure if there would be a trade match with them.

We obviously need long-term answers at SS, 3B and 1B. Hopefully AM has a few youngsters in mind.

[theobird]

With all due respect Mr. Pappas, and there is nobody on this board who has more of my respect than you do, I think you under value what Huff brings to this team. I have been very impressed with Huff at first base so far this seaon, last nights error not withstanding. And we have no first baseman in the wings that is all that close. I don't think Snyder will be ready until 2011 at the earliest, though I hope that I am wrong.

I am on board with your desire to further add young talent to our system in the never ending pursuit of building a team that can compete year in and year out. No doubt in my mind, that is the direction we should be going in. And I think we are heading in that direction finally. But to me you have to get very good value in any Huff trade or resign him. Letting him walk, even with draft pick compensation, is the wrong course to take.

[JTrea81]

Possibly Snyder, but our long-term 1B'man may need to be dealt for. Smoak from Texas makes sense, but I'm unsure if there would be a trade match with them.

We obviously need long-term answers at SS, 3B and 1B. Hopefully AM has a few youngsters in mind.

Texas would probably deal Davis or Salty before they'd deal Smoak IMO.

[Anonymous]

This is actually one of the easiest calls ever, IMO. The answer is to evalaute trade offers for him during the year, but make the deal only if overwhelmed (not likely to happen) -- and then to offer him arbitration. The reasoning is as follows:

There are many components to building a sustainable championship-caliber club, one critical element of which (and the hardest to obtain) is the highest of high-end talent, preferably grown in-house. The question is how you go about getting it. The answer, for the in-house portion at least, is to stack together as many high-end draft picks as you can and hope that a reasonable proportion of them pan out at or above the expectation level.

But how do you get these high-end draft picks? Two ways. First, you make sure you don't lose your own. Second, you acquire others by letting Type A free agents walk.

Sounds easy enough. But it leads to the question ... which Type A free agents can you afford to let walk? If they're the kind of guys who look like vital future cogs for us, we don't want to let them walk. On the other hand, if they're the kind of guys who are Type A based on stats but not really valuable contributors, you run the risk that they'd accept an arb offer when that's the last thing in the world you want, and then you're stuck.

The Huff situation is the absolute perfect storm when it comes to the Type A free agent dilemma. This is a classic opportunity to obtain two high draft picks, which is the likeliest outcome of offering him arbitration. But in the event he surprises the team by accepting the arb offer, that's not the end of the world either. He'd be a fine contributor during the 2010 season, barring a trade -- which can always remain an option on the table.

If he leaves, we're set for next year even with internal options (for which there would be a beautifully balanced LH/RH mix of starters and subs): Wigginton at 1B and backup at 3B and LF; Moore at 3B and backup in LF; Scott at DH and backup at LF and 1B (for which he will have had a full year of hopefully serious practice under his belt), and Salazar also in the mix at DH, 1B, 3B, and LF.

If Huff stays, we'll find a good spot for him.

Best of all worlds scenario. There's not a better candidate than Huff for this kind of treatment; and there's not a better year than 2010 (one year prior to serious playoff contention, when optimality on the big league roster is not yet the paramount concern) in which to make this happen.

[olehippi]

IMO, Huff and Scott are both likely candidates to be traded at some point during the season, especially if their stats are comparable to last year.

While I doubt the return would be anywhere close to what we received for Bedard and Tejada, they should be able to get 4, maybe 5, legitimate prospects.

I believe the keys to trading either or both depends on a number of things:

-- the development of Felix Pie into a productive ML player. If he turns the corner like Markakis did, Scott is expendable. If not, Scott stays.

-- the offensive impact of Matt Weiters once her arrives. If he produces as hoped, Huff's offense becomes expendable. But....

-- how soon the young pitching gets to the ML, and how they perform may change everything. If the likes of Bergesen, Tillman, Hill, et al come up and pitch well, I think the likelihood of Huff being traded drops to zero.

[waroriole]

Possibly Snyder, but our long-term 1B'man may need to be dealt for. Smoak from Texas makes sense, but I'm unsure if there would be a trade match with them.

We obviously need long-term answers at SS, 3B and 1B. Hopefully AM has a few youngsters in mind.

I don't think Snyder will be ready next year and if we trade for Smoak he may not either. BTW, I would agree with JTrea that Texas would be unlikely to trade Smoak.

If we could get Huff to accept arbitration that would be ideal. Because we could have him for one more year while we look for the "1B of the future."

As far as the long-term answers at 3B and SS, I don't think it's that big of a priority. As long as there are servicable defensive SS's, the rest of our offense will pick up the slack (like this year with Izturis). 3B is the one problem that I can see. I don't believe in Moore; and Wiggington and Mora will be gone after next year. It would have been nice this past year to get Alvarez in the draft (if he stays at 3B). That may be an area where we have to make a play in FA.

[NewMarketSean]

Here's how I view the situation.

If Huff has a solid year he'll want to test FA. Extending now is taking money out of his pocket, a few months before he could become a FA.

Between Huff and Scott, Scott is the guy you keep. He's cheap and under your control for a few more years.

How Brandon Snyder does this year is going to weigh heavy on what we do with Huff. I think Huff will be shopped at the deadline for some more pitching prospects.

[RShack]

I would be shocked if AM trades Huff. It's about the last thing I expect him to do.

Whether AM gets Huff to re-up or not, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

As for the idea that Huff and/or Scott would get us legit ML prospects, I seriously doubt it.

I'm sure they could get players called "prospects" but not anybody who would be a difference-maker.

At some point, you need to keep some actual ballplayers if you wanna win anytime soon. I think that's where the O's are now. The idea that they should keep kicking the can down the road, getting prospects for later, is a great way to stay lousy. Yes, we need an ongoing supply of MiL talent, but not at the expense of creating holes in the big-league team.

[ACE]

Texas would probably deal Davis or Salty before they'd deal Smoak IMO.

100% agreed. I remember reading something about Smoak being so talented that other Rangers were giving Davis a hard time about Smoak taking his job this year. Which is kind of awful and hilarious at the same time.

I think the idea of us trading for a young 1st baseman with huge upside it a bit of a pipe dream. Teams are more willing to hide them in the OF or stash them in the minors.

What about drafting someone like Dustin Ackley from UNC and use the model to how most teams are handling high end college players, 1 year and change in the minors and let them rip.

Plus I'd like to believe Snyder will be knocking on the door sooner than later.

[rolliefingers]

There is no deal, at any perceived bargain, that I'd want to resign Huff. I see Huff's value lying in his trade value or at worst as a couple of high draft picks. We need to continue improving our young talent base, and players like Huff -and Luke Scott to a lesser degree- could be the means to expand said talent base.

I agree, and I can't believe anyone would seriously advocate extending him for anything more than maybe 2/10. He's got proverbial Old Man Skills, and this team should be getting younger.

Between Scott, Reimold, Snyder and (fill in marginal, freely available power-hitting first baseman here), we can easily replace much of Huff's recent production for a fraction of the cost.

I'd much rather take the picks.

[rolliefingers]

Possibly Snyder, but our long-term 1B'man may need to be dealt for. Smoak from Texas makes sense, but I'm unsure if there would be a trade match with them.

We obviously need long-term answers at SS, 3B and 1B. Hopefully AM has a few youngsters in mind.

You had to open that can of worms, didn't you?

[LookitsPuck]

Trade him or let him walk. Do not bring him back.

[Why Not?]

I would be shocked if AM trades Huff. It's about the last thing I expect him to do.

Whether AM gets Huff to re-up or not, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

As for the idea that Huff and/or Scott would get us legit ML prospects, I seriously doubt it.

I'm sure they could get players called "prospects" but not anybody who would be a difference-maker.

At some point, you need to keep some actual ballplayers if you wanna win anytime soon. I think that's where the O's are now. The idea that they should keep kicking the can down the road, getting prospects for later, is a great way to stay lousy. Yes, we need an ongoing supply of MiL talent, but not at the expense of creating holes in the big-league team.

I agree with your premise, but I don't think Aubrey Huff is the guy to latch onto for his decline years. He's not an elite bat at 1B and it's unlikely he ever repeats his 2008 production. No, other teams aren't going to give us top talent in a trade for Huff. But therein lies the same reason we shouldn't extend him.

I think we should sell at the deadline or take the picks.

[Crazysilver03]

I agree with your premise, but I don't think Aubrey Huff is the guy to latch onto for his decline years. He's not an elite bat at 1B and it's unlikely he ever repeats his 2008 production. No, other teams aren't going to give us top talent in a trade for Huff. But therein lies the same reason we shouldn't extend him.

I think we should sell at the deadline or take the picks.

To get the picks, we need to offer arbitration and I doubt he finds any where close to $10M per year on the open market.

[LookitsPuck]

Yeah, I think Huff is going to be a .810-.860 OPS guy this year, and certainly be lucky to be around .800-.825 in the years to come.