Seems like MacPhail "gets it"

[bigbird]

This will not be a blow up fire sale. You can bet the farm on that!

[AgentOrange]

This will not be a blow up fire sale. You can bet the farm on that!

Well what is realistic? It seems like the major pieces that could be traded are at pretty high value (Bedard and Brob). IF we do things the way MacPhail wants and rebuild, these guys will be on the downside of production by the time we turn it around. I don't see how Miggi's value could be any higher than it is right now. At least not moving forward. If anything, his value will drop over the next year and we don't get much in return. It will be hard to pull this off, but we need to stop trying to win now and rebuild at the same time, it doesn't work unles your "win now" bunch has talent, which it doesn't/

[Tomkingsize]

The Mets are one team...Milledge would be fine...I would certainly take Pelfrey or Humber but i am not sure they are as good as many here think.

Would the Cubs want BRob? I think Dave said they like DeRosa there...If they would be interested, would a Pie and Mashall deal work?

I would think the Padres would be interested but if we get LaRoche in a deal for Bedard, that takes away what we could get back from them.(Headley would be target)

The Rockies could have interest in BRob as well.

I just through out those 3 trades but at the end of the day, this is what we need to come up with:

CF

SS

third base

2nd

1st

pitching

In other words, we need everything because well, we have nothing.

YOU GOT IT, MAN!!!

:002_sbiggrin:

[Tomkingsize]

This will not be a blow up fire sale. You can bet the farm on that!

If this is indeed the case, then they've learned absolutely nothing.

The term 'fire sale' implies we'd be giving quality away.

If we get some of the guys that SG mentions (Kershaw, Milledge, Pie, etc.), we'd be doing the right things in terms of building for the future.

[Delduck]

Roy, I haven't read the rest of this thread, but my guess is that you just triggered 2 things:

1. A response of "you just don't get it".

2. A bunch of follow-up posts about specific trade ideas.

This is what always happens when you question the premise.

Here's how I think this works:

• Take a 100 point scale, where 0 = "doing nothing", and 100 = "cleaning house and trading everydamnbody".
• SG thinks 100 is the One True Path. I think this is because he views this as a commodities problem, one in which being attached to anybody is a flaw, and one in which all short-term concerns are red herrings that must be bravely ignored. "Sell that commodity while it's high" is all that matters. He does not see baseball as anything beyond that.
• Nobody but nobody favors 0. But if you don't take the 100 position, some folks assume you do. No middle ground is permitted. Moderation is labeled as stupid half-measures that are equivalent to 0. So, even if you would place yourself at 60 or 75 or 80, you are treated as if you are advocating 0. It doesn't matter what you say, it's all or nothing, so if you don't say 100, then you're accused of supporting 0. (It's very similar to our modern politics ;-)
• Personally, I think there are good things about being attached to what you have, if you show good sense and are selective about it. I also think there are practical reasons which dictate that you cannot and should not do everything at once. But this is always met with a response of "you don't get it".
• I think that SG has some good insights, but I think there are things that he doesn't get either, such as the value of stable attachments and the need for steady, gradual improvement. But, since he doesn't even see these things, he truly believes that I am somehow blind. He doesn't get that I'm seeing some real things too, things that he fails to see. His only explanation for disagreement is that the other person fails to see things with his laser-like clarity, and therefore just don't get it.

I think it comes down to some folks not being able to recognize their blind spots. We all have blind spots. It's just that SG thinks that any disagreement with him is proof that everybody else has a blind spot. He doesn't believe that he might have some too. So, if you see something he doesn't, it's a case of you failing to see properly. In the meantime, he gets a lot of support. I think part of this is because he's selling answers that are both easy and decisive. And easy-yet-decisive answers always have some audience (which is another way in which this is similar to our modern politics).

You are spot on with this. It seems as if you take a middle ground stance you are branded a narrow minded short sighted idiot, and can't see the big picture.

I for one am very optimistic about this off season. The 07 season is behind us and a new season is just beginning. Trades to be made, deals to be done, and soon everyone will be 0 -0 again and you just never know if this is the year we get some good breaks:002_sbiggrin: We have a new guy in charge, and I for one have no reason to doubt him. What moves he has made thus far have been good ones. Who knows what AM can do for the O's, he has a very rough row to hoe, but as long as he takes his time does the right things at the right time(NOT WHEN WE WANT THEM DONE) I feel he can bring the Birds back to the top.

And rshackelford I am glad you are around. Some guys don't want/like to here sound reasoning, but I find your posts very sound and well thought out.

[Mashed Potatoes]

Roy, I haven't read the rest of this thread, but my guess is that you just triggered 2 things:

1. A response of "you just don't get it".

2. A bunch of follow-up posts about specific trade ideas.

This is what always happens when you question the premise.

Here's how I think this works:

• Take a 100 point scale, where 0 = "doing nothing", and 100 = "cleaning house and trading everydamnbody".
• SG thinks 100 is the One True Path. I think this is because he views this as a commodities problem, one in which being attached to anybody is a flaw, and one in which all short-term concerns are red herrings that must be bravely ignored. "Sell that commodity while it's high" is all that matters. He does not see baseball as anything beyond that.
• Nobody but nobody favors 0. But if you don't take the 100 position, some folks assume you do. No middle ground is permitted. Moderation is labeled as stupid half-measures that are equivalent to 0. So, even if you would place yourself at 60 or 75 or 80, you are treated as if you are advocating 0. It doesn't matter what you say, it's all or nothing, so if you don't say 100, then you're accused of supporting 0. (It's very similar to our modern politics ;-)
• Personally, I think there are good things about being attached to what you have, if you show good sense and are selective about it. I also think there are practical reasons which dictate that you cannot and should not do everything at once. But this is always met with a response of "you don't get it".
• I think that SG has some good insights, but I think there are things that he doesn't get either, such as the value of stable attachments and the need for steady, gradual improvement. But, since he doesn't even see these things, he truly believes that I am somehow blind. He doesn't get that I'm seeing some real things too, things that he fails to see. His only explanation for disagreement is that the other person fails to see things with his laser-like clarity, and therefore just don't get it.

I think it comes down to some folks not being able to recognize their blind spots. We all have blind spots. It's just that SG thinks that any disagreement with him is proof that everybody else has a blind spot. He doesn't believe that he might have some too. So, if you see something he doesn't, it's a case of you failing to see properly. In the meantime, he gets a lot of support. I think part of this is because he's selling answers that are both easy and decisive. And easy-yet-decisive answers always have some audience (which is another way in which this is similar to our modern politics).

I'm reading from this post that you believe in some middle ground approach, a "66.6" if you will. SG has taken a lot of time to lay out possible routes for the O's to take. What exactly would your plan entail? What is a 66.6?

My worry is that if you trade one of Tejada/Roberts, you have to trade the other, or we'll be stuck in neutral like the past decade. Furthermore, if you trade Tejada AND Roberts, Bedard will likely want to leave. Forgetting the rest of the team for a moment, it seems to me like you have to go firesale or big spending win-now.

[Fan4Life]

This will not be a blow up fire sale. You can bet the farm on that!

Would trading Tejada, DCab, Roberts, and perhaps Bedard constitute a fire sale?

[Dr. FLK]

This will not be a blow up fire sale. You can bet the farm on that!

In other words, we should expect no significant improvements/changes to be made?

[Moose Milligan]

And rshackelford I am glad you are around. Some guys don't want/like to here sound reasoning, but I find your posts very sound and well thought out.

True that.

[Fan4Life]

And rshackelford I am glad you are around. Some guys don't want/like to here sound reasoning, but I find your posts very sound and well thought out.

I agree with this. And I appreciate the time and effort RShak spends excersizing his opinion here especially due to the fact that much of the time it is done in response to disagreements (some more constuctive than others) and it would be much easier for him not to post at all and just let things be.

[wildcard]

Sorry Wild Card, I just noticed that I posted about the same thing you did.....

"If there is one thing that the last two months have brought home, you have no chance in this division if you don't pitch well," he said. "When I first came here, I said that pitching is 85 percent of the game. In this division, it might be 90 percent. When Erik Bedard started, we were 19-9. Good pitching is going to thwart real good teams. It is my belief now that this franchise is really going to have to focus on pitching."

I think this is the most telling quote in the article. Because of this, I can also see McPhail hanging on to Bedard. If I had to guess what his plan will be, I would guess that he tries the following....

:Trade Tejada and Cabrera for the best combination of young pitching prospects offered.

:Try to sign Bedard long term. If he can't get it done this offseason, I think he will wait until next offseason hoping that Bedard will a new outlook on the franchise and want to sign an extension.

:Try to sign Tori Hunter to replace Tejada's bat

:Try to release and or trade the following... Mora, Gibbons, Payton

Sounds like we agree. It sounds like Bedard will stay.

I don't think Hunter will come to Baltimore though. He sounds Texas bound.

[bigbird]

As bad as the O's were this year, just try to imagine how much worse they'll be if they lose Tejada, Bedard, and Roberts to free agency in a couple years, and get nothing but draft picks in return.

Or if you traded them and ended up with Santana and Aybar.

[Dr. FLK]

Or if you traded them and ended up with Santana and Aybar.

So those are the only options? Trade all 3 of our best players for nothing but Santana and Aybar or lose them for nothing? If we can't get a great return for those 3, then we hired a complete idiot to run the show.

[Mackus]

Or if you traded them and ended up with Santana and Aybar.

Right, there are two options which turn the team into an even worse franchise:

keep Bedard, Roberts, Tejada, and others and lose them as FAs in two years

trade those guys and get burnt on every single deal

There are a couple options which put us at a slightly better franchise but still have no realistic hopes of competing:

keep Bedard, Roberts, Tejada and others and add a couple FAs, perhaps even one huge name guy

trade those guys and get burn on all but one deal

There is only one option which I think realistically allows us to compete, both in the near and distant future, and that is to trade off almost all the talent. I'm ok with holding onto Bedard if you can extend him, but the rest need to be shopped. They are all at or past their primes and almost certainly won't be major impact players on any contending Orioles teams. They could be role players, but not the guys leading the charge.

[wildcard]

Right, there are two options which turn the team into an even worse franchise:

keep Bedard, Roberts, Tejada, and others and lose them as FAs in two years

trade those guys and get burnt on every single deal

There are a couple options which put us at a slightly better franchise but still have no realistic hopes of competing:

keep Bedard, Roberts, Tejada and others and add a couple FAs, perhaps even one huge name guy

trade those guys and get burn on all but one deal

There is only one option which I think realistically allows us to compete, both in the near and distant future, and that is to trade off almost all the talent. I'm ok with holding onto Bedard if you can extend him, but the rest need to be shopped. They are all at or past their primes and almost certainly won't be major impact players on any contending Orioles teams. They could be role players, but not the guys leading the charge.

How soon will Loewen, Olson and Penn be able to fill spots in the rotation? I think that is a huge key to the O's future. If it is soon then the O's can possibly contend with Bedard and Roberts. If it is never, then I agree with your assessment on the timing for contention.