The team's situation next winter will be very different

[now]

If our young talent fails, its trade value will drop and thus the return we get back.

Hence why I want us to trade the players we think won't make it now, before that happens for established talent so that we can avoid a collapse if some of that talent doesn't pan out.

Zrebiec said that he didn't see Tillman as much more than a mid rotation starter. That's somebody you've got to deal because of his hype of being a potential TOR if that's the case.

Tillman, Arrieta, Snyder and Pie have the most question marks out of that talent we have and you can put together a nice package for an established piece using those 4 players.

Not if we trade the ones that we think won't succeed for established talent while their value is still high.

Trade them before they fail or disappoint.

It's called evaluating your talent and trading those that you think won't make it.

Schuerholz was a genius at this.

He was able to sell high on guys like Luis Rivera, Salty and others. If the Braves were offering a prospect, you wondered what was wrong with them.

This is the age-old dilemma. Your stance makes it seem like an easy call (though you credit Schuerholz with doing better than most). But as Lucky Jim points out, everyone we might trade with can come to the same conclusion about uncertain players whom "we think won't make it" - thus reducing the value we can expect in return.

Your logic relies on "hype" and "genius" in order to work. Can you honestly claim that y/our genius in true evaluation and prediction aligns with over-hyped outside opinion of Tillman, Arrieta, Snyder and Pie to create a realistic opportunity to reap that advantage in trade?

Again the logic breaks down with this simple fact: If JTrea (or Now, or any of us amateurs) has strong evidence that player T, A, S or P is going to be a bust, then any potential trade partner will have access to the same evidence. Conversely, if we have an accurate idea that their true value is high, we may as well keep them for our own benefit!

To me Frobby's point makes the most sense: trade once we have more certainty about our surpluses, and trade from those positions to fill other positions of need. Then trades are mutually beneficial, with other teams looking to do the same ... that's why we deal outside the division, btw.

The advantage in this more realistic scenario lies in stockpiling talent and creating cheap surplus in the first place ... which is exactly what AM has been doing since day 1.

[Lucky Jim]

It's come off for you, because it fits your agenda. To everyone else he's still an unfinished product with some chance of being anything from Jose Bautista to Bert Blyleven. Everyone else.

Besides that, if the shine is really off no amount of hype is going to hide it. You're in fantasy land if you think that the O's have soured on him, but can still fool someone else into thinking he's the next coming of Sandy Koufax.

No! Wrong! There's still uncertainty in the players you acquire, and the uncertainty in the guys you give up mean you're not going to get equal value. Their price is discounted by the development risk. Unless you're counting on MacPhail ripping off his opponents in the majority of his trades, you're not coming out ahead. The Orioles will be worse off in both talent and payroll.

This is, of course, spot on. And it's also the argument for not really finding 2nd round talent later in a draft.

Both arguments are only disproved if you are reasonably certain that your information level is superior to that of your competition to the point that your competition is grossly over-/under-valuing talent.

What's truly amazing is that any rational version of Trea's strategy is inherently and incredibly reliant on the quality of the information you have about a prospect. But time is the most significant component of good information.

And yet Trea has the least sense of the value of time of anyone on this board.

[DrungoHazewood]

It's not optimism, it's being realistic,

I'm sorry but not all of Tillman, Matusz, Bergesen, Bell, Snyder, Arrieta, Reimold, Wieters, Jones, Britton, Erbe etc. are going to hit their ceilings.

Some are going to exceed expectations, some are going to meet them and some are going to disappoint.

A good GM has a good idea of the ceilings of their players and what weaknesses they have that could cause them to not be as effective as hyped when they reach the majors.

And yes, you can sucker GMs as there are some suspect ones out there.

Why did Dombrowski trade for Aubrey Huff for instance?

You don't need all of them to succeed. If 4-5 of them hit their ceilings you have a fantastic foundation for a winning team.

Suckering other GMs is fine when it happens, and it's nice that the O's got a live body for the remains of Aubrey Huff, but that's no strategy for building a team. Most GMs are very smart, few are desperate, and trades like Glenn Davis or Erik Bedard come along very infrequently.

[Shopay]

What's truly amazing is that any rational version of Trea's strategy is inherently and incredibly reliant on the quality of the information you have about a prospect. But time is the most significant component of good information.

And yet Trea has the least sense of the value of time of anyone on this board.

And Trea has probably spent the least amount of time of anyone on this board actually watching the O's and some of the players he claims will never develop. :rolleyestf:

[DrungoHazewood]

What's truly amazing is that any rational version of Trea's strategy is inherently and incredibly reliant on the quality of the information you have about a prospect. But time is the most significant component of good information.

And yet Trea has the least sense of the value of time of anyone on this board.

His strategy is based on two things:

1) Spending a lot of money.

2) Knowing a lot more about your prospects than anyone else, and successfully leveraging that knowledge before the secret gets out.

[Maverick2143]

He's not the only one though. I think the shine is starting to come off of Chris Tillman a bit.

I think we need to trade him sooner than later, preferably before the season.

If he gets demoted to AAA this season, his value is going to plummet.

Can the shine really come off of a 21 year old ML pitcher (who was the 4th youngest player in the AL) in 65 innings??

[Lucky Jim]

His strategy is based on two things:

1) Spending a lot of money.

2) Knowing a lot more about your prospects than anyone else, and successfully leveraging that knowledge before the secret gets out.

I'm not saying a hedge fund approach is a bad one, really. It just can't be the central one because the information asymmetries are slight.

[jmmarvel]

Can the shine really come off of a 21 year old ML pitcher (who was the 4th youngest player in the AL) in 65 innings??

Yes. If he hits a batter, walks a batter and gives up a home run in every inning that he pitches in. Don't recall Tilly doing these things though.

[RVAbird]

I'm not saying a hedge fund approach is a bad one, really. It just can't be the central one because the information asymmetries are slight.

Great point, and one we should all keep in mind. I don't really have anything to add to what you or Drungo or NOW have said in this thread, but it's been a great discussion.

[DrungoHazewood]

To me Frobby's point makes the most sense: trade once we have more certainty about our surpluses, and trade from those positions to fill other positions of need. Then trades are mutually beneficial, with other teams looking to do the same ... that's why we deal outside the division, btw.

Of course this is much more realistic, much more likely. In fact, I'd say most trades are thought of as win-wins at the time they're made and only become lopsided after the fact. There will always be cases where teams have different evaluations of the same guy, but you just can't count on any GM consistently screwing his opponent.

[Lucky Jim]

Of course this is much more realistic, much more likely. In fact, I'd say most trades are thought of as win-wins at the time they're made and only become lopsided after the fact. There will always be cases where teams have different evaluations of the same guy, but you just can't count on any GM consistently screwing his opponent.

Exactly: trades are usually about swapping risk/reward ratios and not about valuation. The important element is temporal. Sadly, for Trea, time =

[Greg Pappas]

I have said this before, but I also believe MacPhail is looking at 2010 as the year to know with greater certainty what we have. I also agree that this time next year the O's will be in a position to make big moves. I've been pointing to 2011 as the year we begin competing, and I stand by that assessment.

[DrungoHazewood]

Exactly: trades are usually about swapping risk/reward ratios and not about valuation. The important element is temporal. Sadly, for Trea, time =

And of course the entirety of the O's strategy is making up for a lack of money with lots of cheap young players that bring with them risk.

[JTrea81]

I have said this before, but I also believe MacPhail is looking at 2010 as the year to know with greater certainty what we have. I also agree that this time next year the O's will be in a position to make big moves. I've been pointing to 2011 as the year we begin competing, and I stand by that assessment.

MacPhail's going to have to seriously buck some trends that he's had.

His biggest FA signing is for $27 million and he's never made a 1 for 4 or 5 trade.

He'll have to do one or both of these things before 2011 for what you expect to happen.

I don't see it. 2012 is probably when we'll compete and it will be because MacPhail has left the team to be commissioner.

[Hooded Viper]

MacPhail's going to have to seriously buck some trends that he's had.

His biggest FA signing is for $27 million and he's never made a 1 for 4 or 5 trade.

He'll have to do one or both of these things before 2011 for what you expect to happen.

I don't see it. 2012 is probably when we'll compete and it will be because MacPhail has left the team to be commissioner.

Well just because he hasn't must mean that he never will. I have never been to Australia but I just booked my vacation for next October. Does this mean that I am really not going???