dc.

No, you're right. It hasn't been fun. Though, the pitching is finally-mostly-coming along. Several great pitching performances. But the team feels flat and just not fun to watch.

How much of a different do you think the four months made in his value? Wouldn't have changed his contract. Arguably they got more moving him at the deadline when a team was desperate, as the Tigers were dying to hold off KC and Oakland...

But giving him his just due under control is no hindrance to his trade value. You're completely disconnecting from the question. Trading Price, even earlier, would have netted a better value only because of the sought addition if added time, not because of money savings. Trading him would have also cost the Rays his production, obviously, and it's hard to imagine then competing as they did without his production. Trade him in 2011, miss the playoffs a bit more than already, and maybe have two Drew Smylys instead of one this year!

By the way, you are wrong about the Rays and the Price contract. He was still under arbitration this year with the Tigers. He set a new arbitration record - 19m - but still under team control this season (and of course, when they traded him). So they didn't "give him a contract" ever. The Rays always paid him arbitration amounts (or less).

Trade him a few years earlier and I'm sure they make the playoffs in all those seasons.

Same two thoughts, broken record style: 1. Right, Andy was rebuilding. But we're not rebuilding anymore. Albers-Scott-Patton was a fine enough haul to hold over a team that wasn't competitive, though ideally it would have contributed more in the long-term. But Albers-Scott-Patton is not an acceptable return when you're in the midst of a series of winning seasons when you can't afford to trade a Davis for a Scott and assume all will be fine. 2. The Rays make a ton of trades. They get big returns in numbers. And yet they don't always pan out - in fact they don't really ever pan out in the long run. The Rays do huge numbers in their trades, but not always huge return. David Price got them Drew Smyly, Nick Franklin and Willy Adames. (Speaking of which... if that's all they could get for David Price? No thank you on trading Chris Davis... even if he falters). They traded 4 guys away (mostly prospects) in the Wil Myers trade to get 5 guys back. None are difference makers. They traded Ben Zobrist and Yunel Escobar to get three players, the biggest name being John Jaso. And that's why the Rays - who made 4 playoff appearances WITH David Price, Carl Crawford, James Shields and the like - are not perennial World Series contenders. They make a big splash when the names line up - which isn't actually all that often. By the way - how about this for proving to be horribly wrong in the Rays - trade AWAY James Shields and Wade Davis (and ptbnl) in return for? Wil Myers, Jake Odorizzi (maybe worth it?), Patrick Leonard and Mike Montgomery. Whoops. I'd take Shields and Davis. They also have let plenty of players walk without a trade - like Crawford - and of course held on to Evan Longoria (15 year contract(!) starting in 2008). Keeps him cheap for sure, but his 271 career average and fading power aren't quite what they were banking on.

I would objectively disagree that he was not as bad as Davis the last two years. Besides being a poor fielder, he was wildly inconsistent at the plate. Meanwhile, what I'm saying is this: a team full of Matt Albers, Luke Scott and Troy Patton isn't winning games. We tried. It failed.

I'll expand that: I'm saying if we got the same haul for Davis that we got for Tejada, we'd be in worse shape now. If we made that trade in 2013, we don't win the division or make the payoffs in 2014. If we make it last year, we don't win the division or go to the Alcs and we're a worse team today. By the way - please go reconsider Scott's "decent average"

I am saying Luke Scott never played for q decent team and that's not coincidence.

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.

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

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?

He's not alone. Plenty of people think there are some ulterior motives.

Probably could see it from 70 but would be pretty far away. And yes looks like a smaller blimp, all white, and a bit weird shaped with bigger "fins"... First time I saw it I thought UFO because it was at an odd angle so I thought it was a saucer... Lol

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?

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.

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?

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.

Yeah - distracts me on my morning commute frequently.

Haven't been able to touch Feldman since he left the O's. Not that you're going to win on one run, but hate when we give up the lead right after we take it. Mean while, the "HitParades" continues...

Just found a few sites saying they are designed to identify missiles

Those are the Aberdeen Proving Ground radar blimps they have been testing. Several over the area, one right over the proving ground that looks like it's hovering over 95 when you're on 695. Forget exactly why they are dosed to better than normal radar - done detection maybe? - but I know they got a sight slam when they didn't detect the gyrocopter that guy flew onto the Capitol lawn from Pennsylvania...

Wow, Cleetz,I just turned 27 too! Congrats! It's a great age

Thanks all... But I don't know what this "30" thing you speak of is...??? Far as I know, yesterday was just another day...

The Matusz issue will be interesting. They aren't really disputing it, though Buck has said everyone does it and he thinks the rule should be changed to acknowledge that pitchers need to grip the ball. But apparently the O's clubhouse was up in arms that the Marlins called them on it. My first thought is that one or more Marlins pitchers was using something as well, and the O's didn't call them out so they are feeling snubbed/shorted... Especially by a front office guy turned manager this week. Second thought is that they think it was legal - Smith on the Brewers said it was just sunscreen and rosin on his arm. Curious is Brian just had rosin with sweat or something, trying to bend the rule and setting up a conflict with the league. Interesting nonetheless. And a shame we couldn't get a run in all game!