Frustrated Team

[dc.]

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.

[dc.]

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?

[Spen]

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

 

#missedoppurtunities

Edited May 30, 2015 by Spen

[thundercleetz]

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.

[cravnravn]

Let's take the series from Tampa.

[papasmurfbell]

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.

[dc.]

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?

[dc.]

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

[papasmurfbell]

http://www.csnbaltimore.com/blog/orioles-talk/ten-moves-andy-macphail-reshaped-orioles
Andy made 4 great trades to set this team up for winning. The same practice should have continued.

[dc.]

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.

[papasmurfbell]

I always thought Andy was doing a great job. He was starting so far in the hole he couldn't fix it all while he was here.

 

You have to remember at the time peopel were pissed about the Bedard trade. They wanted to keep their fan fav.

 

The Hardy trade was trading two losers for an all star. Again sometimes those players that aren't good that you get in a trade can in turn be turned into something else.

 

In the Miggy and Davis trade concept I say trade Davis so you don't have to pay him big money. Also you would turn him into parts that are also cheap but help in more positions.

 

Are you saying Luke Scott was not a real help while he was here? Hitting for a good average and a good amount of power and cost the O's nothing.

 

 

I think you get at least something between them.

[dc.]

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

[dc.]

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"

[papasmurfbell]

But he was useful while he was around. The are going to lose him anyway so go for the trade.

 

I looked. He hit I think 272 one yr. I also remember 250 something in there. His last yr here was bad. But not as bad as Davis has been at the plate the last yr and change.

[dc.]

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.

[papasmurfbell]

But it was Andy fixing the whole system. Of course you aren't winning with that. The farm system is pretty well stocked and it isn't like Andy looking for warm bodies. Why is it that the Rays can make these trades and get large returns?

[dc.]

But it was Andy fixing the whole system. Of course you aren't winning with that. The farm system is pretty well stocked and it isn't like Andy looking for warm bodies. Why is it that the Rays can make these trades and get large returns?

 

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.

[papasmurfbell]

You would be looking for different kinds of parts. Also Miggy was not that wanted at that point. His star had dimmed here. Davis was going red hot at the time.

 

They screwed up by not trading Price earlier. They went all in and gave him the contract. They should have traded him a coupel of yrs ago when he had a yr left. Price was pitching better then and the haul would have been better.

[dc.]

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

[dc.]

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).

[papasmurfbell]

The Rays had to give him a bunch. People including me were surprised when they brought him back.

[dc.]

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!

[papasmurfbell]

Well really it was what last yr that they kept him longer. They would have been better trading him earlier.

[dc.]

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...