Jump to content

Red Sox looking at Hanley Ramirez, shouldn't the O's?

NJBird

By NJBird
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

Fan4Life Hangout Veteran Council

Fan4Life

Posted
Posted
We do of course, however we did just draft Givens and the position wasn't the liability in 2009 as it was in 2008.

My point was the organization needs to seek it's own path to success not Boston's.

Ok, the OP was asking why we aren't in on this SS if he is available. Sounded like you thought the post was misguided by what other team(s) do. Thanks for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply
crawdad Major Leaguer

crawdad

Posted
Posted
I'd go a step further and say it's not a big deal regardless of slotting, so long as you are signing a player that is worth losing the pick. A middle-reliever would not qualify, for me. A front-end starter or middle-of-the-order bat would qualify, for me.

Of course. There are limitations to my statement. Solving a long term need is one thing. Signing Raul Ibanez is another, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
I think as long as a team can overslot . . . losing a 2nd or 3rd round pick is not a big deal.
I'd go a step further and say it's not a big deal regardless of slotting, so long as you are signing a player that is worth losing the pick. A middle-reliever would not qualify, for me. A front-end starter or middle-of-the-order bat would qualify, for me.

No argument on either point. I just want to make sure we identify the costs accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mackus Hangout Grand Counsel

Mackus

Posted
Posted
Thanks. Who did we pick and passed on Papelbon?
We didn't pass on Papelbon, he was a 4th round pick. You can't make reasonable arguments about it being a mistake to not have drafted a guy that ended up going later in the draft.

You can really only pass on first-round talent. Every team passed on Papelbon, including the Red Sox, several times. Trying to turn not drafting him into a mistake by the Orioles is a failure of logic, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JTrea81 Hangout Grand Counsel

JTrea81

Posted
Posted
EDIT: The O's did choose Bob McCrory with pick #104, ahead of Papelbon at #114.

Now that was a horrible move...

Good lord our scouting was horrendous.

It would be nice if we could have some immediate success, so we can stop having constant reminders of how much this organization has failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enjoy Terror Hangout Grand Counsel

Enjoy Terror

Posted
Posted

You can't argue that the Red Sox got lucky with drafting Papelbon and we missed him by getting McCrory. In an alternate universe, there's no telling how the Orioles farm system handles and develops a player like Papelbon, and the Red Sox farm system could turn McCrory into an all-star. The Red Sox have a world class farm system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. FLK Hangout Grand Counsel

Dr. FLK

Posted
Posted
We didn't pass on Papelbon, he was a 4th round pick. You can't make reasonable arguments about it being a mistake to not have drafted a guy that ended up going later in the draft.

You can really only pass on first-round talent. Every team passed on Papelbon, including the Red Sox, several times. Trying to turn not drafting him into a mistake by the Orioles is a failure of logic, IMO.

Good point here. It was a mistake by everyone. This certainly was not Michael Olowakandi moment here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvz1997 Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

tvz1997

Posted
Posted
Now that was a horrible move...

Good lord our scouting was horrendous.

It would be nice if we could have some immediate success, so we can stop having constant reminders of how much this organization has failed.

Why is Snoopy wearing shades when there is no sunshine in the universe? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan4Life Hangout Veteran Council

Fan4Life

Posted
Posted
We didn't pass on Papelbon, he was a 4th round pick. You can't make reasonable arguments about it being a mistake to not have drafted a guy that ended up going later in the draft.

You can really only pass on first-round talent. Every team passed on Papelbon, including the Red Sox, several times. Trying to turn not drafting him into a mistake by the Orioles is a failure of logic, IMO.

Agreed. I didn't realize he was a 4th rounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RShack Hangout Grand Counsel

RShack

Posted
Posted
So once again a team 20-30 wins ahead of us in the win column will add more than we do in the off season.

Both BOS and the MFY's are at a place where incremental improvement is very expensive. Even if AM does nothing, which he won't, the O's will show a lot more net improvement this coming year than either BOS or the MFY's will. It's dumb to compare what the O's do to what those teams do until the level of our overall team goodness gets in the same general neighborhood as theirs. Until then, it's apples and oranges, and the kind of comparison you're making is silly. No matter what kind of phenomena you're talking about, the first 90% of improvement is way, way cheaper than the last 10%. The O's are still working on the first 90% of improvement. For AM to spend now as if he's going after the last 10% of improvement would be incredibly stupid. It'd be like a car racer spending a fortune to put his race car in a wind tunnel to improve its aerodynamics when the race car is powered by a little Kia motor: doing that is not the best way for him to go faster. Same basic thing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mackus Hangout Grand Counsel

Mackus

Posted
Posted
So once again a team 20-30 wins ahead of us in the win column will add more than we do in the off season.
As they should.

Trading a bunch of our top talent for a current star player would only make sense if we were already a very solid team. The Red Sox can easily mortgage part of their future because the immediate return is worth it. We can't afford to trade off those pieces and still be relevant in the future, and adding Ramirez now doesn't make us a winner so there is no short-term benefit.

Trading for top talent is an even worse strategy than signing expensive talent for a team in our position. Signing FAs you get the present benefit and may get the future benefit or may get future financial hardship, but you don't lose any of your own talent. Trading for stars have the same pluses and minuses of the FA talent, but you also lose some of your own talent. That can be offset if the player is particularly young or locked into a team-friendly contract. Ramirez has 5/$64M left, which is very reasonable, and he is young, but I still don't think it'd be a wise move to give up Matusz, Reimold, Britton, and Snyder or some similar package for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JTrea81 Hangout Grand Counsel

JTrea81

Posted
Posted
As they should.

Trading a bunch of our top talent for a current star player would only make sense if we were already a very solid team. The Red Sox can easily mortgage part of their future because the immediate return is worth it. We can't afford to trade off those pieces and still be relevant in the future, and adding Ramirez now doesn't make us a winner so there is no short-term benefit.

Trading for top talent is an even worse strategy than signing expensive talent for a team in our position. Signing FAs you get the present benefit and may get the future benefit or may get future financial hardship, but you don't lose any of your own talent. Trading for stars have the same pluses and minuses of the FA talent, but you also lose some of your own talent. That can be offset if the player is particularly young or locked into a team-friendly contract. Ramirez has 5/$64M left, which is very reasonable, and he is young, but I still don't think it'd be a wise move to give up Matusz, Reimold, Britton, and Snyder or some similar package for him.

How are we supposed to get talent then because the bats that are available are in the OF, not at SS or 1B.

We will have to wait until after 2011 to get those bats on the FA market.

Not to mention next offseason, those same bats will only have 1 year left on their contracts and thus will likely want to test FA because they are so close. If you trade for them now, they are two years out from FA and are more likely to sign an extension IMO because they've also played with the team for a year.

Are you willing to basically write off two more seasons to get those bats via FA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • Grt 2BA FL Gator
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Grt 2BA FL Gator · Posted

      Soto. 
    • Aristotelian
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Aristotelian · Posted

      Soto has been fine since his first couple appearances and appears to be picking up steam. That makes seven. Problem is Cano has been the most reliable and all of a sudden looked terrible twice in a row. Hopefully he can get in one decent appearance in the final series.
    • Safelykept
      Starters vs Minnesota?

      By Safelykept · Posted

      So It's 13 pitchers for the Wild card round? What position player are you dropping?
    • Wavetrapper
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Wavetrapper · Posted

      There have been 2-3 times when it seemed logical to call him up but they don’t.   I’ve never understood this thing they have for Baker.  Hey, Cole Irvin is available again!!
    • Aristotelian
      Congratulations Yankees

      By Aristotelian · Posted

      While we lost some talented players, I think the consensus was some of the players we lost were actually blocking more talented prospects. The loss of Westburg and Urias should have been mostly offset by Holliday and Mayo. Instead, they were truly abysmal.  Povich had some nice moments but he was disappointing as well.  Maybe our expectations were too high - Elias is not going to hit on every prospect, and even the ones that turn out good may take a while to adjust. Still, I think it is fair to have expected more out of Mayo and Holliday since the organization deemed them ready to promote.  In addition to the prospects, you had Adley hit a wall, going from a 6 WAR pace to replacement level, and Cowser and O'Hearn both struggling.  Certainly injuries hurt us, but we should have been strong enough to overcome them. Maybe not to sustain a 105 win pace but I think it is fair to say we should have been able to beat 95 wins and win the division even with the injuries.  
    • Sanfran327
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Sanfran327 · Posted

      I was wondering what the knee-jerk reaction would be to an ugly game last night, but the truth is that the bullpen is fine, as is the rest of the team. We lack a true lockdown closer, but we have six arms by my count that are very good relievers in Akin, Perez, Coulombe, Webb, Cano, and Domingez. And you can add Suarez to that list next week, and possibly Povich, who should also make the PS roster as a lefty long relief option to mirror Suarez. Anyway, that game could have and would have gone much differently, IMO, if it were a playoff game. Burnes obviously stays in longer and gets at least through the top of the order if not back down to the bottom third to hand it over to the bullpen. Hopefully we'd be able to scratch out some runs, but that's not the bullpen's fault.  This is an extremely good team with a lead. Let's hope we get on the board early and often starting tonight.
    • Roy Firestone
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Roy Firestone · Posted

      Boy, Brandon Young who has some decent numbers at Norfolk must be injured or unimpressive to the front office to not even get a look for this bullpen. Bryan Baker is almost a waste of a call up.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...