Jump to content


Photo

Frustrated Team


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#41 Spen

Spen

    Pro Bowler

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,071 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 May 2015 - 08:50 PM

Excellent!
  • 0
Hi.

#42 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 29 May 2015 - 09:58 PM

I still have to say that trading Davis is far from an obvious choice, even in hindsight.

First, his 2013 campaign is called a "fluke" but I'd disagree on two fronts:

1. his 2012 campaign was stellar in 100 fewer plate appearances. He hit 33 hr and drive in 85 runs despite shaky playing time early. In today's game, I'd take the 33hr and 270 average without hesitation. 2013 was huge, but people act like that had to be repeated for him to have value. That's just false.

2. Given that he's really only had one season since that 2013 campaign, it's hard to shrug and say it's never happening again. His now 12 hr are on pace for more than 30 - really pushing 40 - again. His average is lower than before, but recovering, and it could still go anyway, like the power. But let's just jump and say 2013 was farcical and 2014 is valid because it makes the argument better for your cause. The reality is that 2012 to 2013 is more the player Davis always projected to be early on.

Finally, you still miss context, papa in a different way. This team has rarely had an anchor bat at 1b or dh in there last 20 years. Where do we get one? We bet on prospects and gamble on potential. But even you have to acknowledge that, especially in baseball, you won't hit more than 1/4 on a prospect and even that but is more likely to be a single than a hr.

Just like Flacco and the Ravens. What alternative exists? Don't extend Joe on principle or whatever, fine. But how many qbs can replace that? It's not just about demand, you have to factor in the lack of supply.
  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#43 cravnravn

cravnravn

    Hall of Famer

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deltona, Fl

Posted 30 May 2015 - 05:32 AM

How bout that JJ Hardy :)
  • 0

#44 cravnravn

cravnravn

    Hall of Famer

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deltona, Fl

Posted 30 May 2015 - 05:51 AM

Congrats to Buck,400 wins as O's manager
  • 0

#45 Spen

Spen

    Pro Bowler

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,071 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 May 2015 - 11:19 AM

It was before the interweb so I had to post it on cork boards in grocery stores but I told you all we should have traded Ben McDonald right after we drafted him.
  • 0
Hi.

#46 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,989 posts

Posted 30 May 2015 - 11:35 AM

I still have to say that trading Davis is far from an obvious choice, even in hindsight.

First, his 2013 campaign is called a "fluke" but I'd disagree on two fronts:

1. his 2012 campaign was stellar in 100 fewer plate appearances. He hit 33 hr and drive in 85 runs despite shaky playing time early. In today's game, I'd take the 33hr and 270 average without hesitation. 2013 was huge, but people act like that had to be repeated for him to have value. That's just false.

2. Given that he's really only had one season since that 2013 campaign, it's hard to shrug and say it's never happening again. His now 12 hr are on pace for more than 30 - really pushing 40 - again. His average is lower than before, but recovering, and it could still go anyway, like the power. But let's just jump and say 2013 was farcical and 2014 is valid because it makes the argument better for your cause. The reality is that 2012 to 2013 is more the player Davis always projected to be early on.

Finally, you still miss context, papa in a different way. This team has rarely had an anchor bat at 1b or dh in there last 20 years. Where do we get one? We bet on prospects and gamble on potential. But even you have to acknowledge that, especially in baseball, you won't hit more than 1/4 on a prospect and even that but is more likely to be a single than a hr.

Just like Flacco and the Ravens. What alternative exists? Don't extend Joe on principle or whatever, fine. But how many qbs can replace that? It's not just about demand, you have to factor in the lack of supply.

Davis hasn't come close to .270 since 2013.  His strikeouts are way to high and really do hinder the team.  But you make my point.  I said he would never repeat his 2013 season.  Many thought he had arrived.  That means he has the highest value he will ever have.  That is when you trade him.  

 

With Joe you trade him.  There were plenty of teams that would have grabbed him.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#47 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 30 May 2015 - 12:30 PM

But "their highest value" is only half of the equation. The other half is actually replacing the production.

 

He may never hit 50 HRs again. He may not hit 40 - though not many guys in the league do these days. The question still remains, can trading away the 50 HRs actually return even the 35 HRs we can maybe expect?

 

As for 270 - you again say "since 2013" as if it's been more than a season. It's been a season and 1/4. He could easily be "near 270" at various points this year. I think 250 is more likely.

 

And so we come to this - when you trade 270 and 50 HRs away, are you actually able to replace 250 and 35 HRs? With Joe, when you trade his highest value away, are you actually able to replace even his average value?

 

The answer in both cases is not so easily "yes." What you are likely to get is 3-5 guys, probably only 1-2 with even the potential to be 250-35. 

 

The flaw in the theory remains that you assume that the trade will always be a good one and will always pay appropriate dividends. But we know that is not the case. Bedard was the exception, not the rule. And Bedard happened when this team was bad and needing many pieces. You predicted last year the team would flounder. Instead, they made the ALCS with 20 more wins than you expected early in the season. So why do we trust such assumptions ... we do we take them as given and certain?


  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#48 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,989 posts

Posted 30 May 2015 - 01:10 PM

Or you could get a 1st baseman that hits 25 bombs and bats 280 that has no time towards FA.  Plus add in a SS prospect to replace Hardy when the time comes.  Finally add a solid middle relief.  To me that would more than make up for what Davis produces.  You may not be getting 30 bombs but you are close.  The relief can take some bombs away from other teams and when Hardy is done which I believe to be sooner rather than later it is done with little in the way of hiccups.  Oh and BTW that SS prospect could have been playing this yr and Hardy could have been allowed to walk.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#49 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 30 May 2015 - 04:11 PM

Or you could get a 1st baseman that hits 25 bombs and bats 280 that has no time towards FA.  Plus add in a SS prospect to replace Hardy when the time comes.  Finally add a solid middle relief.  To me that would more than make up for what Davis produces.  You may not be getting 30 bombs but you are close.  The relief can take some bombs away from other teams and when Hardy is done which I believe to be sooner rather than later it is done with little in the way of hiccups.  Oh and BTW that SS prospect could have been playing this yr and Hardy could have been allowed to walk.


Who are these prospects you are talking about?

Watch out Chris Davis is getting hot! A .818 OPS now!
  • 0

#50 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,989 posts

Posted 30 May 2015 - 04:18 PM

Who would have thought all of the return for Bedard?


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#51 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 30 May 2015 - 06:33 PM

But you act as if the Bedard year is the rule. It's the exception. There are myriad trades each year where the big name in the bad team returns how many prospects... And yet few of them turn into the Bedard trade.

You're doing in your last part what you accuse so many others of... The crazy hypothetical... "Trade him for 25hrs, a ss and a reliever." Oh, that easy?

Side note: why would this team ever trade for a reliever except when in a big run like last year? We are the best team in the league at turning starters into "solid middle relief" and every team has it.
  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#52 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 30 May 2015 - 06:36 PM

Extra side note: not only are you assuming what we could get in the deal in the first place... You're asking that they all pan out in the end!

Go get a young first baseman... Who one day might, might, hit a lot of home runs. Or he might settle into mediocrity like Justin Smoak or Jarrod Saltaksmacchia or how many others.

Go get a short stop prospect .. Who could have been starting this year! Or he could have been Ryan Flaherty, Jonathan Schoop, Jameel Weeks, Jerry Hairston... But let's assume, because we know every prospect is a hit, that the young guy we get will be perfect in every way...

And isn't there good reason the holders of those kinds of players DON'T trade them away?
  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#53 Spen

Spen

    Pro Bowler

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,071 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 May 2015 - 06:37 PM

If we would have traded Davis two years ago we might be able to now trade the players we got for him.

 

#missedoppurtunities


Edited by Spen, 30 May 2015 - 06:37 PM.

  • 0
Hi.

#54 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 31 May 2015 - 10:31 AM

Completely agree with DC... Papa you're not giving enough weight to how risky prospects are. Even a 25 HR, .280 average 1B, take Texas for example: at one point they had Chris Davis, Justin Smoak, and Mitch Mooreland, each was a top prospect and none of them panned out for the Rangers.

You also mention the Bedard trade... A whole front office got fired because of that. Not the norm, that trade was the exception.
  • 0

#55 cravnravn

cravnravn

    Hall of Famer

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deltona, Fl

Posted 31 May 2015 - 11:55 AM

Let's take the series from Tampa.
  • 0

#56 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,989 posts

Posted 31 May 2015 - 03:33 PM

But you act as if the Bedard year is the rule. It's the exception. There are myriad trades each year where the big name in the bad team returns how many prospects... And yet few of them turn into the Bedard trade.

You're doing in your last part what you accuse so many others of... The crazy hypothetical... "Trade him for 25hrs, a ss and a reliever." Oh, that easy?

Side note: why would this team ever trade for a reliever except when in a big run like last year? We are the best team in the league at turning starters into "solid middle relief" and every team has it.

NO. 4: ORIOLES AND YANKEES MAKE 17-PLAYER TRADE (NOV. 17, 1954)
After the Orioles completed their first season in Baltimore, they pulled off a gigantic mega-trade, giving up seven players and acquiring 10, which remains the biggest trade in MLB history in terms of the number of players involved.

The players acquired as part of the initial swap included Gus Triandos and Gene Woodling, both members of the  Orioles Hall of Fame, and the effects of the trade remained in the organization for more than 30 years. Willy Miranda, also acquired as part of the swap, was later dealt for Jim Gentile, another member of the Orioles Hall of Fame. 

There's more. Gentile was re-traded for Norm Siebern, who was swapped for Dick Simpson, who was one of the three players sent to Cincinnati as part of the Frank Robinson deal (which we'll be seeing later on this list). Then Robinson begat Doyle Alexander (among others), who became part of another huge trade with the Yankees, a 10-player swap in 1976, which brought in three more O's Hall of Famers -- Rick Dempsey, Tippy Martinez and Scott McGregor.

Long story short, players continued to be acquired and re-traded until the thread ran out in 1987. The Birds got some incredible mileage -- and a laundry list of franchise stars -- from that original mega-trade.

 


NO. 1: ORIOLES ACQUIRE FRANK ROBINSON FROM THE REDS (DEC. 9, 1965)

This was an easy pick for No. 1 on the list. It's pretty safe to say that no single transaction has impacted the Orioles more dramatically than the Frank Robinson trade, a move that vaulted the O's to their first World Series win and established them as one of the premier franchises in baseball.

The Orioles of the early 1960s were a team on the brink of contention -- posting five winning seasons during the first six years of the decade -- but were missing that one extra ingredient to push them over the hump. And that's when Robinson arrived. Robinson was an instant game changer for the Orioles, winning the Triple Crown and AL MVP award during his debut year, when he had 49 home runs and a 1.047 OPS, helping lift the Birds to their first-ever AL pennant and a World Series sweep of the Dodgers.

Robinson's Orioles playing career lasted six years, which was more than enough time for him to become a Baltimore sports legend. Robinson brought a winning attitude and an elite bat to the Orioles, establishing himself as a fiery leader both on and off the field as well as one of the most productive players in franchise history. That's not bad for a player the Reds called an old 30. With Robinson at the forefront, the O's took a stranglehold on the AL, winning 100 or more games three times and making four World Series appearances.


The problem is the O's have made many great trades.  Andy made a ton white he was here.  That same game plan should have been continuously used.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#57 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 31 May 2015 - 03:44 PM

So, two picks from more than 50 years ago are out guide to how teams run now? Two picks from a different league- fewer teams, fewer playoff games, no free agency?

Meanwhile, isn't the Frank trade the opposite of what you advocate for? They traded away three players for a guy about to be 31 and "past his prime." In today's world the year might not be considered so lopsided because had Frank been able to hit free agency, the Reds may have been wisely getting some value for a guy about bolt at a huge price.

But here, giving up myriad talent for the super star is the good move?
  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#58 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 31 May 2015 - 03:48 PM

And the point remains, there are maybe one or two years that really pan out in thus way every year across all teams... The other 95%?

You continue to assume that some how we could convince the Reds to make that trade every year in perpetuity... As if they'd all pan and all be agreed to
  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#59 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,989 posts

Posted 31 May 2015 - 03:59 PM

http://www.csnbaltim...eshaped-orioles
Andy made 4 great trades to set this team up for winning.  The same practice should have continued.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#60 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 31 May 2015 - 08:21 PM

No one is disagreeing that a good trade will do well. And this team has not abandoned that strategy. As much as anyone, I claimed at the time and still do now that MacPhail was playing a brilliant long game. Brilliant. Too many didn't see it at the time.

 

You simply continue to abandon any context for the moves. The most important context of course, which I will state once but should be in bold throughout this post, is that under MacPhail's reign this team was bad and trying to get better. Not good and trying to maintain. It's a lot easier, for many reasons, to trade away a single piece for many "potential" pieces when you aren't in immediate need.

 

The Bedard trade is absolutely stellar. No one could ever say otherwise. But even in relation to the others - which were all GOOD if not great - it was an outlier. It was demonstrably different from a few (or at least those trades are different than what you advocate) or simply different in it's obvious big payout.

 

I'll point out two that demonstrate not that trades are bad, but that you're throwing shit at a wall and seeing if it sticks - you're not even following your own logic, let alone anyone else's.

 

JJ Hardy trade - turned out to be quite the winner. But it's the opposite of what you advocate in many ways. Traded away two prospects for an aging, declining, oft-injured skill player. He was still just 28 when acquired, but in the four years prior to acquisition... HRs: 26, 24, 11, 6. SLG: 463, 478, 357, 394. So we hit a homerun in getting a payout, but the entire premise was what you advocate against. We traded away minor league talent for a veteran with declining value and rising contracts. 

 

Miguel Tejada trade - again, not a bad trade. But two major problems with pointing it out in your defense. First, it was significantly different from the Davis trade in that Tejada was 3 years older than the Davis you wanted to trade. Second, he was acquired via FA and so was already expensive and there was no chance at compensation if he ever left via Free Agency. (Let's also remind the difference between this team in in 2007 and 2013). 

 

More importantly, the Tejada trades proves precisely everything that is wrong with your theory in terms of banking on success. The O's got five players from the Astros - FIVE. Only ONE was even on the roster when this team was contending four years later, and he was contributing as a solid middle reliever. So your theory is that if we trade away Chris Davis now (or in 2013), then by 2015 we have a short stop and a first basemen and a middle reliever and how amazing that they would be contributing right now!

 

And yet, here we have quite perfect evidence of ditching a major piece and getting... an average OF bat who never really started anywhere else but on a bad Baltimore team, three middle relievers who never really did much, and a Costanzo who never made the majors in any legit way. 

 

The question is, which is more likely. If we ditch Hardy, Wieters and Davis... do we get Bedard returns or Tejada returns? The overwhelming evidence points to Tejada returns more often than not. Which is why the Rays are always almost there, but also frequently falling out of it... because the likes of Wil Myers don't actually become Wil Myers as often as people bet on.

 

But please, keep pretending that any trade is a good trade. 


  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users