Rosenthal: O's more willing to deal Baez and Sherrill

[Mashed Potatoes]

Long-term, I think he probably has, because starter surplus will be turned into quality relievers. Ideally.

Completely agree about the long term, I was questioning rshack's claim that the bullpen was promptly fixed when MacPhail joined and this it is now currently fixed.

I think Berken and Hernandez will excel eventually in the bullpen, maybe Liz as well.

Our pen hasn't been that bad this year, absent Ray and Walker.

Our pen wasn't that poor last year either minus Walker/FCab/Bierd, I don't think we're significantly improved yet from 2008.

[CrimsonTribe]

Come on, Drungo. You're better than that. You're always digging up some kind of stuff to support your theories. Tell me how trading George Sherrill is going to earn us 13 wins. I'd love to hear this.

I mean, if you had at LEAST said that you'd be mad if the O's missed out on wins 96 and 97 in 2011, I'd be on board, because that's probably going to be the difference between winning this division and being the WC that year if I had to venture a guess. But then you'd look especially silly claiming that ONE reliever was going to cost os 21-24 wins.

I'm dying to know what exactly you think we can get for Sherrill, even if we package him with another player. Because we're not trading Jones, Markakis, Wieters, [probably] Reimold, or any of our top-tier pitchers. So please, let me know what we're going to get in return for Sherrill and a load of aging, spare parts.

What are you talking about? Who ever said anything about trading Sherrill earning us 13 wins?

[Lucky Jim]

Completely agree about the long term, I was questioning rshack's claim that the bullpen was promptly fixed when MacPhail joined and this it is now currently fixed.

I think Berken and Hernandez will excel eventually in the bullpen, maybe Liz as well.

Our pen wasn't that poor last year either minus Walker/FCab/Bierd, I don't think we're significantly improved yet from 2008.

I agree - and agree, too, that Shack's offering nothing but dogma & ideology on this point, anymore.

[Sanfran327]

So he has little value to other teams but he's irreplaceable to us?

Do me a favor and show me where I labeled him as irreplaceable.

I said that as soon as you trade him, you're looking for another guy with his exact same skills.

My other point - and this is a biggie, so try to follow me - is that we aren't going to get a ton in return for GS. I doubt we're going to get anyone who's eventually going to be an impact on our ML roster. I have nothing to back that up, but I have a tiny hunch that tells me that trading a reliver doesn't get you a huge return. Like I said, if you can do it, great. I just don't see it.

[RShack]

What are you even talking about? AM disagrees with me huh?

So is the only way to fix the bullpen to ensure we keep Baez and Sherill here at all costs? To make sure we have a veteran presence?? Well he didnt hesitate to cut bait with Walker this year or Bradford last year' date='both for nothing.... so what makes you think that he wouldnt move a Baez or Sherril when he could actually get back some valuable pieces to fill holes on our team.

I am not talking about trying to lose this year or not caring about what our current performance is. Do you really think that with the amount of young pitching we have moving up that we couldnt adequately survive without imploding by replacing Baez and Sherrill for a few months?

If so then I am glad you arent running the team.

All of our young starters can't fit in the rotation to start. So couldnt Koji , Berken, Hernandez etc... contribute out of the pen while Johnson or Ray closes? Those are just a few options that the team could have.[/quote']

Take a deep breath, hot shot... This is what you said, and it is what I was responding to:

But what does the short-run matter when we are focused on the long-run? ... does it really matter if we take a few more lumps while these younger bullpen arms get experience at the big league level?

You seem to think it doesn't matter if we let them "take a few more lumps" in the present in order to obtain benefit years down the road. I was pointing out that AM has been quite clear that having a successful BP is one of his priorities. It is something he thinks is important to have now, not just later.

[Sanfran327]

What are you talking about? Who ever said anything about trading Sherrill earning us 13 wins?

Drungo, who somehow made trading GS the missing link between 74 wins and 87 wins next season.

[DrungoHazewood]

Come on, Drungo. You're better than that. You're always digging up some kind of stuff to support your theories. Tell me how trading George Sherrill is going to earn us 13 wins. I'd love to hear this.

I mean, if you had at LEAST said that you'd be mad if the O's missed out on wins 96 and 97 in 2011, I'd be on board, because that's probably going to be the difference between winning this division and being the WC that year if I had to venture a guess. But then you'd look especially silly claiming that ONE reliever was going to cost os 21-24 wins.

I'm dying to know what exactly you think we can get for Sherrill, even if we package him with another player. Because we're not trading Jones, Markakis, Wieters, [probably] Reimold, or any of our top-tier pitchers. So please, let me know what we're going to get in return for Sherrill and a load of aging, spare parts.

I don't know, but I think you have to consider trading a LOOGY who another team thinks of as a closer ,while you have a surplus of pitching. That's a classic exploitation of a market inefficiency, and it's dealing from a strength.

If he doesn't bring back a good return of player(s) who could reasonably help in the near term, don't do it. But it's crazy to not actively shop him.

And of course he's not the difference between 87 and 74 wins. I'd be surprised if he was the difference between 76 and 74. I was throwing out numbers to illustrate the point that today's wins aren't as valuable as next year's. The overally organization would be the reason for the 13(?) wins, and the organizational strategy could include trading assets that are overvalued.

[Martian Man]

Take a deep breath, hot shot... This is what you said, and it is what I was responding to:

You seem to think it doesn't matter if we let them "take a few more lumps" in the present in order to obtain benefit years down the road. I was pointing out that AM has been quite clear that having a successful BP is one of his priorities. It is something he thinks is important to have now, not just later.

LOL Hot Shot, haven't heard that slang since 1987. BTW the bullpen "in the present" is not much better than last years

[J.D.]

Come on, Drungo. You're better than that. You're always digging up some kind of stuff to support your theories. Tell me how trading George Sherrill is going to earn us 13 wins. I'd love to hear this.

I mean, if you had at LEAST said that you'd be mad if the O's missed out on wins 96 and 97 in 2011, I'd be on board, because that's probably going to be the difference between winning this division and being the WC that year if I had to venture a guess. But then you'd look especially silly claiming that ONE reliever was going to cost os 21-24 wins.

I'm dying to know what exactly you think we can get for Sherrill, even if we package him with another player. Because we're not trading Jones, Markakis, Wieters, [probably] Reimold, or any of our top-tier pitchers. So please, let me know what we're going to get in return for Sherrill and a load of aging, spare parts.

Ummm.... Yeah, I'm pretty sure the point was that the team should be much better with the young players maturing for a year and improving should bring us up to the 85-90 win level, presumably. Not that trading Sherrill would net us 13 wins by itself.

If Sherrill brings back even ONE player that contributes to the ML team next year, or two or three down the line, it's something you have to consider. There are in-house replacements for him, and teams tend to get ridiculous around the trade deadline for good relievers and closers. He's piled up enough saves over the last year and a half to be one of the best closers, based on track record, on the market for a team needing one to get them over the hump.

[Sanfran327]

You seem to think it doesn't matter if we let them "take a few more lumps" in the present in order to obtain benefit years down the road. I was pointing out that AM has been quite clear that having a successful BP is one of his priorities. It is something he thinks is important to have now, not just later.

Thank goodness someone else can see the value in keeping an effective, inexpensive arm around for the long haul. Sherrill is right up there with the core of our next successful team, IMO. Not saying that he's as important as AJ or Wieters, but he's going to get us some big outs when we're in the pennat race in 2011.

[Sports Guy]

Do you really think that the Orioles brass is considering using DHernandez as a closer? Because that does intrigue me.

I would say that the Orioles want to see if DH can make it as a starter but would probably, in a moment of honesty, say that he is MORE LIKELY destined for the pen...and since they won't use him the proper way(100 IP< fireman type role), i think closer is where they could envision him...and what a closer I think he would make.

[mikezpen]

"I think Sherrill and Baez could both be gone for a less-than-stunning return, whether or not there's a guarantee they'll be immediately replaced by someone similar in value."

DH, if they traded Baez and Huff, threw in $4 million or so to offset some salary, and didn't demand Major League-ready talent in return, could they get a couple of good double-A prospects, the kind who mite be up here next year, in return?

I'd make that kind of trade in a heartbeat.

[Sports Guy]

Thank goodness someone else can see the value in keeping an effective, inexpensive arm around for the long haul. Sherrill is right up there with the core of our next successful team, IMO. Not saying that he's as important as AJ or Wieters, but he's going to get us some big outs when we're in the pennat race in 2011.

So, you are saying that we can't replace Sherrill?

[Dadaist]

Do me a favor and show me where I labeled him as irreplaceable.

I said that as soon as you trade him, you're looking for another guy with his exact same skills.

My other point - and this is a biggie, so try to follow me - is that we aren't going to get a ton in return for GS. I doubt we're going to get anyone who's eventually going to be an impact on our ML roster. I have nothing to back that up, but I have a tiny hunch that tells me that trading a reliver doesn't get you a huge return. Like I said, if you can do it, great. I just don't see it.

So you are saying MacPhail shouldn't make a bad trade. Thanks a bunch for that keen insight. Freaking waste of time.

[RShack]

MacPhail donating Bradford to the Rays seems to run counter to the idea that he'll almost never trade a good player at the expense of current performance. In fact, the Bradford deal is completely counter to rshack's theory: it was a trade for nothing, it only freed up a little cash, it didn't help the team substantially in the short- or long-term, and it arguably contributed to the Orioles' collapse. It was an obvious salary dump of one of the team's best relievers in the middle of the season, by Andy MacPhail.

No it doesn't. AM addressed this very point: He said he thought he had the horses to replace Bradford without hurting the team, and subsequent events proved him wrong. He said he was counting on one thing and got something else. He did not intend to have the BP suffer a hit. He expected that Bradford was replaceable from within. Sadly, nobody on the list stepped up and performed in a way that met AM's expectation, so it turned out bad. That's not about AM's intent, it's about his expectations having been proved wrong.