Jump to content

Worse case scenario for a failed "blow up"?


Sports Guy

Recommended Posts

I'd argue they never began the process.

Of course they haven't.

I agree the quickest way to get younger is to blow it up. But unfortunately the goal is not to just get younger. It is to get younger *and* better.
Well, we aren't hoping they trade for garbage.
Rebuilding a team takes years, why the headfirst rush to take the most difficult and risky option available?

I disagree it is the riskiest option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Oh God, this sounds exactly like something the front office would say over the past 3 years. You can't honestly be using this for an argument. We need to give up hope on the next two years. Build for 3 years out. Patience is key, but so is instituting the right plan - starting now.

I agree. It amazes me that people say "the guys we get back for Tejada, Roberts and Bedard will all be in the minors, how will they help the team next year, yadda, yadda, yadda..."

They fail to understand what rebuilding is -- giving those guys a job in the MLB and letting them grow over the course of a few years, even if they lose 120 games.

I can't believe that some people here don't have a grasp on this idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you trade Tejada, you need at least one eventual all star to come back for it to be successful IMHO. As we all know, a team of mediocre to good players won't cut it. You need a few All Star level guys to win in this league. If we traded Tejada and came out with a 750 OPS SS and a 775 OPS LF, I would argue that we got worse, not better.

If we traded Bedard and came out with a pitcher who produces 200 IP at a 4.00 ERA and a 825 OPS 1B, I'd argue that we came out worse, not better.

If we traded Roberts and came out with a 750 OPS 2B and a 775-800 OPS LF, I'd argue we came out worse, not better.

Ok and if this was the outcome of these trades, how are we really any worse off than we are now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your argument is "We shouldn't make any trades because the current people in charge of making trades are incompetent," then fine, that is a valid argument. But for the sake of debate, lets take the management out of the equation and debate the merits of this strategy assuming all other things are equal.

That's not my argument at all. I have no objection to making trades that provide actual benefit. There is nothing about making trades that is unique to this board or to this discussion. Making trades is just part of baseball.

The thing that is unique to this discussion is that some of the most vocal people focus on things that do not address the core problem, and instead focus on making proposals which are completely implausible. The idea of turning over 80% of the starting line-up is a prime example of silly propositions. The belief that doing crazy things like this will work is a prime example of delusional thinking. The idea that what has been wrong with the franchise is the absence of some crazy imperative to blow things up is just silly.

If you have a talented people running the show, you don't need silly slogans. If you have talented people running the show, they will make good judgments. Good judgment is not about being radical for the sake of being radical, nor is about making trades for the sake of making trades. Good judgment means that you mix a few remarkable players with a bunch of less-remarkable players IN A WAY THAT WORKS. That's what good GM's do: they get the right guys so that the team WORKS. We have not had talented people with authority who demonstrated the ability to do that. We have not had people who know how put together the right mix of guys. THAT is the problem.

What's important is that the O's fix THAT problem, the real problem. If the do, then we don't need silly slogans. If they don't, then we're hosed regardless. We don't know if MacPhail is the fix for that problem. Whether he is or not is what will tell the tale. How many people he trades DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is whether he makes the team better-and-younger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok and
Originally Posted by vatech1994

Well, if you trade Tejada, you need at least one eventual all star to come back for it to be successful IMHO. As we all know, a team of mediocre to good players won't cut it. You need a few All Star level guys to win in this league. If we traded Tejada and came out with a 750 OPS SS and a 775 OPS LF, I would argue that we got worse, not better.

If we traded Bedard and came out with a pitcher who produces 200 IP at a 4.00 ERA and a 825 OPS 1B, I'd argue that we came out worse, not better.

If we traded Roberts and came out with a 750 OPS 2B and a 775-800 OPS LF, I'd argue we came out worse, not better.

[/Quote]if this was the outcome of these trades, how are we really any worse off than we are now?

Your premis is comparing us doing nothing, going into next season, against blow-it-up rebuilding which is absurd. The choice is to keep some core guys and try to improve what is lacking, versus trading most/all of our core guys in hopes that the vast amount of talent coming back will produce some results in a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not my argument at all. I have no objection to making trades that provide actual benefit. There is nothing about making trades that is unique to this board or to this discussion. Making trades is just part of baseball.

The thing that is unique to this discussion is that some of the most vocal people focus on things that do not address the core problem, and instead focus on making proposals which are completely implausible. The idea of turning over 80% of the starting line-up is a prime example of silly propositions. The belief that doing crazy things like this will work is a prime example of delusional thinking. The idea that what has been wrong with the franchise is the absence of some crazy imperative to blow things up is just silly.

If you have a talented people running the show, you don't need silly slogans. If you have talented people running the show, they will make good judgments. Good judgment is not about being radical for the sake of being radical, nor is about making trades for the sake of making trades. Good judgment means that you mix a few remarkable players with a bunch of less-remarkable players IN A WAY THAT WORKS. That's what good GM's do: they get the right guys so that the team WORKS. We have not had talented people with authority who demonstrated the ability to do that. We have not had people who know how to pick the right guys. THAT is the problem.

What's important is that the O's fix THAT problem, the real problem. If the do, then we don't need silly slogans. If they don't, then we're hosed regardless of whatever sound-bite slogans you favor. We don't know if MacPhail is the fix for that problem. Whether he is or not is what will tell the tale. How many people he trades is not what's important. It's whether he makes the team better-and-younger that matters.

This argument has nothing to do with the discussion. Of course we want a talented front office to make the right decisions. If we are talking about that then obviously goal A#1 is for Angelos to sell the team. We've talked about that at length.

We are debating what those right decisions should be. People are merely laying out what they think McPhail should be doing to improve the organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your premis is comparing us doing nothing, going into next season, against blow-it-up rebuilding which is absurd. The choice is to keep some core guys and try to improve what is lacking, versus trading most/all of our core guys in hopes that the vast amount of talent coming back will produce some results in a few years.

Those core guys will be past their prime before we have a chance at competing and they will all be free agents within 3 years. That's why you trade them now for younger guys who will be ready to compete in 3 years and we will then have control of for the next 6 or 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's important is that the O's fix THAT problem, the real problem. If the do, then we don't need silly slogans. If they don't, then we're hosed regardless. We don't know if MacPhail is the fix for that problem. Whether he is or not is what will tell the tale. How many people he trades DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is whether he makes the team better-and-younger.

You seem to be one of the few caught up in silly slogans. The rest of us just use "blow it up" as shorthand for trade whoever is necessary to turn the thing around, and quit doing the dumb things they did in the past.

Who really cares what you call it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think there are people on this board who are advocating just that. I can name three without even trying hard.

It makes virtually no sense to say you "have" to trade anyone yet there are those on this board who do that every single day, multiple times a day.

If you trade Roberts, you have to replace one of the top 3 2B in the AL.

If you trade Tejada, you have to replace one of the top 3 SS in the AL.

If you trade Bedard, you have to replace one of the few true #1 starters in the league.

If the guys we receive in trade don't yield at least that return, than we have "lost" something. It is really that simple. That doesn't mean you don't trade people, it just means you don't create holes just to say you've done something.

Miggy makes sense to trade because he isn't likely to be good enough by 2010 to be a top 6 SS in the AL. Roberts and Bedard are both still likely to be producing at high levels in 2010. If either of them walk away, they are both likely to yield multiple high draft picks in compensation. I have no issue with trying to trade either of them, but I don't think you "have" to trade either of them either.

I know one thing for sure. We need to trade for guys that aren't already in the majors in order to come out with more potential players than we're trading. No team is going to trade All Star caliber major league ready young talent in a 2 or 3 for 1 type of scenario. Young, major league ready players are just too valuable in this day. To go for a "big" return, we would have to trade for mostly guys who are projected to be ready by 2009 or 2010.

If you trade Miggy, Bedard, and Roberts this offseason and all our young pitchers suddenly put it together (like Detroit last year and Chicago the year before), we are going to be mighty upset that we've got virtually no offense at all to support them because all our "prospects" are still in the minors.

Unless this team really turns things around, I think all 3 of those guys will need to be replaced after 2009 anyway. Draft picks aren't enough in return imo. So again, it comes down to if we can compete in the next two years or not. I think it's possible, but highy unlikey, unless we go all out.

As I've said before, I'm an advocate for going all out in either direction, no more of this in between stuff that has gotten us nowhere. If we can get some good to elite players without giving up much or any young talent, and if that gives us a legit chance at contending, great. Then if that fails, rebuild at the trade deadline or the next offseason. However, if we can't put together a legit contender, I'd rather just trade most if not all of our vets besides maybe Bedard if we can extend him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miggy makes sense to trade because he isn't likely to be good enough by 2010 to be a top 6 SS in the AL. Roberts and Bedard are both still likely to be producing at high levels in 2010. If either of them walk away, they are both likely to yield multiple high draft picks in compensation. I have no issue with trying to trade either of them, but I don't think you "have" to trade either of them either.

Hopefully Bedard would be producing at a high level in 2010. Being a pitcher at the age that he is - especially one who hasn't been the most durable guy in the world - and that is far from a sure thing.

With regard to Roberts... I believe he's signed through 2009. He'll be 32 at the end of that deal and will likely be looking for a long term contract at big money. Are you confident enough he'll produce at a high enough level well into his mid 30s to sign him to a deal that will have him here in 2010?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miggy makes sense to trade because he isn't likely to be good enough by 2010 to be a top 6 SS in the AL. Roberts and Bedard are both still likely to be producing at high levels in 2010. If either of them walk away, they are both likely to yield multiple high draft picks in compensation. I have no issue with trying to trade either of them, but I don't think you "have" to trade either of them either.

Then how are you going to get talent to surround them on the field? No FA will come here. Our MiL system is too bare to supply us with MLB level talent.

You have to trade these guys to get better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2010,

Bedard will be 31

Roberts with be 32

They may both be playing worse at that point than they are today, but I would hardly say it is "likely". I think you've been drinking too much of the SG kool-aid. Everyone doesn't magically become terrible just because they are on the wrong side of 30. It might happen, it might not. Both guys are fit and thin. Bedard is more of a risk than Roberts since all pitchers are risks.

Look at the ages of the Yankees' roster. Look at the ages of the All Star Rosters this year. Ortiz is 31. Varitek is 35. Lowell is 33. Manny is 35. Imagine if the Sox had traded all of them a couple years ago, because they would "most likely be on the downside of their careers" at this age. If we trade people JUST because they are 30 or over and their performance might crash, we will never compete.

Again, I have no problem at all with trading any of these guys, but the attitude that we should trade all of them for whatever we can get because they won't be worth a darn by the time we're good is extremely faulty logic IMHO. Trade them if the offers make good sense. Keep them if they don't.

Not sure if anyone disagree's with that.

I don't think anyone is saying to trade all those guys for whatever they can get regardless of what that is. But at the same time, we should be confident that we can get a great package for Bedard, at least a very good package for Brob, and a good to very good package for Tejada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you keep typing that no FA will come here doesn't make it true. It isn't. Huff, Ramon, Tejada, and Javy all came here. Some good players will come here if we pursue them

And saying that FA's will come here does not make it true either. At least the kinds of FA's this team needs to start signing, if that is the direction they are going to take. Tejada came here because there wasn't much competition for him. Think he would have come here if Boston or NY had been after him? Huff and Javy are hardly the kinds of FA's we need to become contenders. Javy was signed after a deceptive career year and had 1.5 good seasons before becoming dead weight. Despite Huff's recent surge, he's been dead weight as well, not worth his contract. Signing those kinds of FA's will only extend our current problem.

The fact that you keep typing that our MiL system is bare doesn't make it true either. Despite the popular sentiment on this board, the main problem with this team continues to be the pitching. If our bullpen was a good bullpen this year, we'd have been very competitive. We have lots of young arms that should be ready. Olson, Penn, Loewen, Hoey, Liz, Burres, Birkins, Doyne.....If more than half of them pan out and join Guthrie, Bedard, Cabrera, Bradford, Walker, Baez, our pitching could be very, very good. If they all continue to defy their minor league numbers and suck, we're screwed regardless of what happens.

Spare me the "if's". Our MiL system may have good arms in the minors but when they make the jump to the majors they lack whatever it is that makes them effective. I'm not saying that some or most of these guys will eventually learn to pitch in the MLB, but their starts leave me worried, and makes me wonder what is being taught down on the farm and in our clubhouse.

Bottom line, right now the MiL system can't be relied on to supply us with talent to contend. We need to supplement the talent in the MiL with trades, most of which will net us MLB talent.

I almost hope we do trade all of these guys so you all get your wish. If it happens, go on record immediately as to whether you like the trades and stick with it. Don't change your mind if the prospects don't pan out or get injured. If none of them turn out to nearly as good as Bedard or Roberts, don't be surprised.

Don't worry I will. But what will you have to do if we have to do that? I'm sick of people saying that our plans aren't good enough but then never offer up their own plans to improve the team. And don't say stay the course. What a laugh riot.

And again, I'm fine with trading any/all of the players on this team. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be making up our minds to trade them for the best offer this offseason. If the offer isn't good enough, we pass. Simple as that.

I agree. But if it comes down to losing Tejada or Bedard to free agency, or trading them for the best available package, I will trade them 10 out of 10 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I really need to answer this question?

If you are willing to accept that Tejada is between an 825 to 875 OPS SS, he is much, much more valuable than a 750 OPS SS. Meanwhile, it shouldn't be tough at all to locate a 775 OPS left fielder (though I admit we sure have made it tough). So, why trade a good SS for a lesser SS and a fairly easy to locate LF?

Bedard's production by itself is much more valuable than the combo production I proposed above. Same with Roberts.

We have to get more than this back to make trading them worthwhile. I'd rather let them walk, enjoy their production for two more years, and get the draft picks than get a large group of mediocre to slightly better than mediocre players for them.

But you don't know that the results you mentioned will happen for a few years.

So, let's say we make trades that you are OK with and we get the results you mentioned....Are we, as an organization, really going to be that much worse off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think there are plenty of people saying trade them for the best offer we get regardless of whether that offer is good enough. Now, are these people ASSUMING that we're going to get good enough offers. Sure they are. But assuming it will happen, doesn't make it so.

There are people here who thought Aybar and Santana were plenty good enough to trade Tejada. How would that trade look now? Multiply that trade times three and you can see how some of our "experts" can agree with a trade yet be wrong that we can't end up worse off than we are now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6522

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6280

You shouldn't think. :D

No one is advocating a trade just to trade these guys type thing, at least not with the top players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...