Tejada deal up to Angelos

[hoosiers]

You'll never get Angelos to agree that a pitcher,who takes the mound every fifth day, makes the team better than an everyday player like Tejada.

I only wonder if we'll have another 600 post topic on Monday when Tejada is still in the orange and black.

You raise a good question, Tony, but I do not believe we've received an offer that would cause this board to tilt. One more prospect to Santana/Aybar - that may be another question.

[mcneck]

You'll never get Angelos to agree that a pitcher,who takes the mound every fifth day, makes the team better than an everyday player like Tejada.

I only wonder if we'll have another 600 post topic on Monday when Tejada is still in the orange and black.

Yep and Sports Guy will have 300 of them

[square634]

Whether or not Santana and Aybar make the Orioles better, it would still be ridiculous to say we would be an "interesting" (at least in terms of competitive) team, when we would have glaring holes at LF, 1B, and SS (until Aybar develops enough).

My post was directed at that comment by Olney, which I disagree with.

[ejf1025]

1) Why else would an analyst say that that Astros offer is "strong."

2) I'm really looking at Bedard's last 8 starts, since he apparently learned the new changeup. I know it's unreasonable to expect Bedard to keep this up for much longer, but he's been a lot better than Santana over the last month. Also, look at our lineup. We would be at best looking at a .400 winning percentage with wins in Bedard/Santana starts. Also, someone like Everett does not have upside, although Aybar admittedly does. And who says Tejada is below average defensively? He has been great in past years, and this year I would say he is at worst average, although I think he has been recovering from an injury.

3) Olney's comment has nothing to do with that. He did not mention LF/1B. Clearly he has not watched the Orioles very much (not that I blame him). Also, what in the past few years should convince me that we will really try to improve LF/1B. Oh wait. I know! Let's get Doug Mientkewitz, since he's a "slick fielder"

1) So let me get this straight: a respected journalist with a very strong background is actually trying to manipulate the O's into trading Tejada to a stronger market to improve Baseball Tonight's coverage and/or make his job more interesting (?). Not to mention the fact that he used to cover the O's, probably has a certain affinity for the town and fanbase. This is such a typical Baltimore inferiority complex.

2) Santana has a better WHIP, only slightly less Ks and 1 less win. He's also 23. He's not just "some young pitcer"- he an outstanding young pitcher. And who cares if we finish THIS season with less wins after the trade (and I think your estimation of .400 is too low). This move is about next year and the year after and the year after...and so on. Also, Tejada has been a shell of himself defensively. He's 30 yrs old with tons of mileage...do you really think this drop is just a fluke?

3) Olney said they would be interesting NEXT year. And I totally agree. Don't take him so literally...there obviously needs to be other improvements, but the point is you can still put together a decent offense without Tejada. And you've greatly improved your rotation by trading him. We upgraded at C and CF this past off-season. We've also got a very good 2B, a decent 3B and an emerging RF. And a decent DH. Is it really that far-fetched to think that we could upgrade LF and 1B? Fix the rotation, worry about the offense later. There are ALWAYS bats available.

[TonySoprano]

You raise a good question, Tony, but I do not believe we've received an offer that would cause this board to tilt. One more prospect to Santana/Aybar - that may be another question.

It would be nice to know what offers were refused, but somehow I don't think we'll get that answered.

[66-70-83-??]

Whether or not Santana and Aybar make the Orioles better, it would still be ridiculous to say we would be an "interesting" (at least in terms of competitive) team, when we would have glaring holes at LF, 1B, and SS (until Aybar develops enough).

My post was directed at that comment by Olney, which I disagree with.

I agree with Olney on this one- adding two good young players will make this team more interesting. Aybar is ready to play now. If Cabrera wasn't playing well in Anaheim, Aybar would be playing every day.

[ejf1025]

Whether or not Santana and Aybar make the Orioles better, it would still be ridiculous to say we would be an "interesting" (at least in terms of competitive) team, when we would have glaring holes at LF, 1B, and SS (until Aybar develops enough).

My post was directed at that comment by Olney, which I disagree with.

Well...you didn't just disagree with him. You basically called out his professional integrity and said he doesn't know anything about the O's.

And how are they not interesting? Bedard and Santana could be 20 games winners. And almost assuredly will be 15 game winners. That's interesting. Does it mean we are playoff bound? No. But a lot of teams in baseball would be pretty envious of this rotation: Bedard, Santana, Cabrera, Loewen, Penn.

[The Rick]

Yep and Sports Guy will have 300 of them

I know, what's up with that... a 600 post thread w/o SportsGuy. I think we need some stat guys to do some research, that could be a record.

Anywho, I mean Aybar and Santana for Tejada is respectable, but I just don't think it's enough. I just wouldn't come away from that trade feeling all that great.

Edit: If this was the Angels "final offer" we had been hearing about that just pisses me off. I mean you have to do better than that to acquire one of the premiere players in the league that you'll have in your control for 3 more years.

[ejf1025]

Where have you been for three years, man?

We've been expecting 100+ OPS improvement at those positions for three years. Besides, Conine has been decent.

Our big improvement next year better come from the 4/5 when RLo and Chen blew up this year.

Totally agree with this. And getting Santana helps this.

Improve the pitching. Worry about hitting later.

We look god awful with Tejada, we can look god awful without him.

We may have been looking for improvement from 1B/LF for 3 years, but we've been desperately looking for pitching improvement for the better part of a decade.

[The Rick]

It would be nice to know what offers were refused, but somehow I don't think we'll get that answered.

We may get an idea if Duquette runs in the off-season.

[square634]

I think it makes us more interesting to watch, but not necessarily much better. He also said a "young pitcher" not necessarily Santana. We already have young pitchers, the difference is we need young and great pitchers like Santana. I guess you could say he was referring to Santana/Aybar. But if he means something from the Texas/Houston offers (since the Angels apparently dropped out), possibly even Hirsh, I don't agree that it makes us much more exciting. Santana is still much more of a sure thing than Hirsh.

1) I don't really believe that, but I was just suggesting a possibility. I know we don't really know for sure what the Astros offer is, but from all published reports, including reports on the Stark Market which is also from ESPN, it looks something like Everett, Lane, Taveras, Lidge. That just isn't a "strong offer," and I can't see how anyone would think that it is. The Santana/Aybar package is, however, a strong offer, and it is definitely better than even Hirsh/Pence IMO. So what is Olney talking about? Also, just because he used to cover the Orioles doesn't mean he likes them. Tell me right now that the Astros apparent offer is "strong" and that you would be satisfied with it, and I will agree that I'm wrong.

2) I know Santana is not just "some young pitcher," but again look at the last 8 games, when Bedard does have a better WHIP, and even when he gives up about one earned run per start he doesn't win every game. .400 winning percentage was a bit of an exaggeration, when even in our worst years we were like .430. I would still like to see statistics supporting that Tejada has been below average defensively, even though scouts seem to think he lost some of his range. I know last year BP had him ranked as the best defensive shortstop in the game. 30 is not that old...

3) We did upgrade at C and CF, but Hernandez has looked awful since getting so tired from overuse, and Patterson's OBP is still too low and downright scary (he relies to much on BA). The rest is true, but you're forgetting that by trading Tejada, we go from superstar to decent at best (at least next year). And if we were really going to improve in LF/1B, we might as well keep Tejada and try to ride the young pitching we already have in 2 years. But recent history suggests that is hopeful to the point of foolish.

I agree with The Rick, I just wouldn't be that ecstatic about it. Now Santana and Wood, who can actually fill Tejada's shoes in a couple years

[ejf1025]

I think it makes us more interesting to watch, but not necessarily much better.

1) I don't really believe that, but I was just suggesting a possibility. I know we don't really know for sure what the Astros offer is, but from all published reports, including reports on the Stark Market which is also from ESPN, it looks something like Everett, Lane, Taveras, Lidge. That just isn't a "strong offer," and I can't see how anyone would think that it is. The Santana/Aybar package is, however, a strong offer, and it is definitely better than even Hirsh/Pence IMO. So what is Olney talking about? Also, just because he used to cover the Orioles doesn't mean he likes them. Tell me right now that the Astros apparent offer is "strong" and that you would be satisfied with it, and I will agree that I'm wrong.

2) I know Santana is not just "some young pitcher," but again look at the last 8 games, when Bedard does have a better WHIP, and even when he gives up about one earned run per start he doesn't win every game. .400 winning percentage was a bit of an exaggeration, when even in our worst years we were like .430. I would still like to see statistics supporting that Tejada has been below average defensively, even though scouts seem to think he lost some of his range. I know last year BP had him ranked as the best defensive shortstop in the game. 30 is not that old...

3) We did upgrade at C and CF, but Hernandez has looked awful since getting so tired from overuse, and Patterson's OBP is still too low and downright scary (he relies to much on BA). The rest is true, but you're forgetting that by trading Tejada, we go from superstar to decent at best (at least next year). And if we were really going to improve in LF/1B, we might as well keep Tejada and try to ride the young pitching we already have in 2 years. But recent history suggests that is hopeful to the point of foolish.

I agree with The Rick, I just wouldn't be that ecstatic about it. Now Santana and Wood, who can actually fill Tejada's shoes in a couple years

1) Well, I think Olney basically meant to imply that the O's should have taken the Angels deal. He really made a point to express how good a package that was previous to his "young pitcher, defensive SS" comment, so I don't think he was even thinking about the Astros deal. Plus, the Astros scoop was Starks' not his- so I don't think he was talking about their deal- more relaying what Stark had reported. I don't like the Astros reported package either. I do like the Angels. I realize it is not the blow you away best case scenario package, but I stand firmly behind my claim that Santana makes us better than Tejada does- Aybar is just icing.

2) Defensive stats are pretty unreliable...but for this purpose: Tejada ranks 17th of a qualified 28 in Fielding Percentage, 8th in Range Factor and 21 in Zone Rating. I'm sure someone more versed in stats could be more helpful, but take from that what you will.

3) Obviously, Hernandez/Patterson are not Tejada. But they are above average, while they may not have been the high profile signings everyone likes to see. They have been productive. It doesn't seem that far-fetched to me that you could add two similar bats (or better) to the lineup this off-season. Would the lineup be dynamic? No. But the defense would be better, the pitching would be much better and the offense would be adequate.

[mweb]

I'd tell Houston we want Hirsh and Pence and we'll take Ensberg and see what they counter with. They probably won't go that far, but they are deperate as they've put everything into this season and have apparently given up on Ensberg. He would be the real steal IMO. We can add on a mid-level prospect if need be.

Totally agree, that's what I'd ask for as well. Would settle for Ensberg, Pence, and Patton, but even that is asking alot! Ensberg, Pence, and Everett is more than fair as well.

[square634]

OK, I'm going to just start ignoring Everett whenever he comes up in a package from now on

So Tejada for Ensberg and Pence.... I don't really think that's good for us. Think about it, Ensberg is basically Tejada offensively if he is healthy and if he stays close to his career year last year. He is also a year older and plays a less important defensive position. Pence, IMO, is just not that great. I see him as Nolan Reimold, and I don't see Reimold turning into a great player (I hope I'm wrong).

Ensberg, Pence, and Patton is more of a fair deal.

[The Rick]

OK, I'm going to just start ignoring Everett whenever he comes up in a package from now on

So Tejada for Ensberg and Pence.... I don't really think that's good for us. Think about it, Ensberg is basically Tejada offensively if he is healthy and if he stays close to his career year last year. He is also a year older and plays a less important defensive position. Pence, IMO, is just not that great. I see him as Nolan Reimold, and I don't see Reimold turning into a great player (I hope I'm wrong).

Ensberg, Pence, and Patton is more of a fair deal.

I'm down. I'm just tired of hearing about it. Don't get me wrong, you don't trade him just to trade him. But if there's a fail deal, like this one, then get it done already.