Quick hit this morning. We've talked a bit about the major and minor moves this off-season. What about the moves that weren't made?
________________________________________________
So far as I can tell, the two most talked about free agents for Baltimore to potentially go after were Teixeira and Burnett. There was talk about potentially trading for a SS like Hardy, or moving Roberts, Huff or Sherrill for some prospects.
What moves, if any, do you think Baltimore should have made? Do you think any opportunities were missed?
________________________________________________
FA-wise? Honestly, no. I think they did what they should have done. Except, they should have had no interest in entertaining Teixeira or Burnett. I did not and do not see them being useful within our potential salary structure.
ReplyDeleteTrade-wise? I understand the money we were paying Ramon was a sunk cost and that by dealing him we were able to acquire a decent utility guy and a couple fringe prospects. Maybe Freel had to be part of the deal, but I think it would have made more sense just to give Cinci an extra million or two to keep Freel. Honestly, we have guys like Donnie Murphey and Chris Gomez who can handle these spots. I question how useful Freel's bat really is against lefties and why we even care it is useful. We had no fixation on being in the playoffs, so why did we pay premium for a specialized role player who will be gone after this season? I guess we must assume he had to be part of the deal. Seems like a waste to me, though.
That said, I think we should have tried to deal for Swisher. The ChiSox basically gave him away for two guys who arguably were not in the Yanks top 20 along with Betemit, who is a lackluster Jack of a few trades kind of player. I'd deal Berken and Butler to get a couple years out of Swisher, who would make sense in conjunction with Roberts' extension. I do not think this is a huge miss though.
I think we still miss out on international signings. I think Sherrill and Huff have very little value.
I agree with Jon re Freel. The farther we get into ST, the more redundant he seems to be. Trading Ramon for prospects alone may have been a better move.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not sure that R. Bierd will become a factor in the Sox pen, but with Pauley being out of options, the club may feel pressured to keep him despite the alarming number of baserunners he has allowed in his ST appearances. Who knows how that one will shake down, though. I gave the trade an "I" for incomplete in my Hot Stove review.
Tex is pretty hefty a price to pay, though I thought it would have meant a lot to the fans. I think Dunn could have been had. Look at how little he signed for in DC. The guy has so much power that a reasonable two year deal would make me ignore his suspect fielding and the fact that he'd be the club's nine thousandth lefty.
Also, I've been shouted down in many fora for this, but I would love to see the team take a flyer on Barry Bonds. Look at his 2007 numbers. He can still hit. He wouldn't hold out to play for a contender, and he wouldn't whine about DH'ing.
I contacted his agent, who read one of my articles and thanked me for the support, but declined to comment. His people are desperate for someone to sign the guy. They're talking to bloggers, for god's sake. 2 mill plus incentives would be about all it would take.
Generally, I agree with what has been said here. I think Freel was actually an okay target so long as Wigginton/Gomez were not already in the "plans". Once they were added to the system, as well as Pie to a certain extent, Freel became the least valuable UTL based on price/production. I include Pie since Freel would have otherwise spelled Scott periodically to keep him fresh.
ReplyDeleteI think critiquing a non-trade is problematic in that we don't have anywhere near enough details as to what is/was available. Accordingly, I don't really have any thoughts as to moves Baltimore should have made. I would have been interested in Ceda -- not so much in Swisher (though that's because I'm on record as a Reimold-lover and I want him to get his ABs somewhere).
I agree with Jon that Baltimore didn't miss out on any free agents. I like the fact that the players that were targeted were generally solid value, versatile, or both. THe versatility, in particular, is something I believe to be important for a team looking to transition into a competitor. It will allow them a to explore a wide variety of potential trades and and greatly improves their depth for this year.
What I said about Freel at the time of the trade: "My hope is that this is the first in a series of moves in which the O's spin Freel for something of reasonable value (another prospect like Turner)...Even if the keep Freel then it's a good move...They free themselves of the headache of dealing with Ramon as a potential back-up, and get a decent utility player. Plus, as an extra added bonus to me, the team now has a guy who's scrappy, gritty, and plays the game the right way."
ReplyDeleteIn a back-up role, I've got Freel being just about worth the $4 M he's being paid this year. He's not exactly the kind of piece a rebuilding team needs, but he's not hurting anything or (hopefully) taking the job of a younger player that will be important to the team in the future,
When the off-season started I was actually hoping the team would sign Derek Lowe - but that was when I expected him to be under-appreciated (he wasn't). I said 8/180 was as high as I'd go for Tex, but also that it doesn't make much sense for the O's given where they are on the contention curve. Dunn would have been an OK signing, but I don't really see where he fits in with the team.
Of possible moves that the team reasonably could have made, I don't think they really missed anything. Hardy is underrated (worth around 5 WAR last year) but is going to be expensive soon and would have cost a ton to acquire. Swisher looks slightly less good given the way the market shaped up for corner outfielders, and there's no good place to play him - he's not really a better hitter than Scott or Huff.
The Pauley-Beird trade made sense since Pauley used in Bierd's role (non-hard throwing/GB getting right-handed middle-reliever) would likely put up better numbers.
Andy took the kinds of chances he should have taken (given the make-up of the team) and didn't take the kinds of chances that he shouldn't have taken. The only thing I really disagree with was not keeping Daniel Cabrera at a cheap-ish rate (if that was even possible).
Bonds probably could still hit pretty well, but I doubt he'd bring much more value than Scott to the team given he's been out for a year, can't really field much, and probably would miss time due to health issues. Then add in all the bad PR, and I don't see how that would really help the organization.
"THe versatility, in particular, is something I believe to be important for a team looking to transition into a competitor. It will allow them a to explore a wide variety of potential trades and and greatly improves their depth for this year."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. I think the macro picture of organizational management is sometimes overlooked.
FrostKing, thank you for your comments regarding Bonds. I carried his torch for a while around here, and was shouted down many times. I respect your opinion.
ReplyDeleteOne question, though. Wouldn't Bonds' much higher OBP (vs. Scott's) mean something?
Oh, Bonds would provide a better bat than Scott. It's not really fair to do this given the interrelations of a roster, but lets compare just Scott to Bonds.
ReplyDeleteScott: 150 PA in LF (where he's a slight plus), 425 PA at DH. That's 575 PA at .355 wOBA (.343 OBP/.476 SLG). Total of 1.7 WAR.
Bonds: 100 PA in LF (where he's a pretty big minus at this point) and 400 at DH at DH. That's 500 PA (which he hasn't reached since '04) of .395 wOBA (.415 OBP/.475 SLG). Total of about 3 WAR.
So Bonds is about 1.3 wins better than Scott, assuming he can still play at a pretty high level.
If the team was looking at a 90 win club then maybe that upgrade makes sense. Given their projection of 75-80 wins, I don't think that addition is really worthwhile.
Then looking at the team overall, what do you do with the players they have? Nobody will give up enough for Scott or Huff, and Pie is on the team more for his future production than his current production. It's pretty much the same issue with Dunn - he's a good player and may be had cheaply, but the marginal benefit doesn't look like it's worth the marginal cost to me.
Honestly; I don't like Bonds personally at all, but I'd hesitantly call him the greatest player of all time.
Thanks for the WAR projections. That definitely puts things in perspective. I stopped banging on the Bonds drum once the Pie trade went through. The Wigginton signing obviously put another nail in that coffin.
ReplyDeleteNot that anyone took me seriously, but it was worth the fight prior to Pie and Wiggy entering the fold.
I know Bonds is not a nice guy, but I can't figure out why it's ok for a marginal catcher like Zaun to use roids, get caught, and not apologize, but it's not ok for Bonds.
Oh, well. Water under the bridge, really. As you said, as of today it wouldn't make sense.
I'm totally with you on the double standard regarding steroids and the stupid things that go along with it. (Though that may be a topic for another time... I'd post something on that tomorrow if there are no objections (it's kind of off-season related with the A-Rod junk).)
ReplyDeleteI will say that I was really surprised nobody signed him last year. Since the Rays had a hole at DH and were obviously in contention, their not signing him (given that they have one of the smartest front offices in baseball) makes me think that a realistic cost/benefit analysis just wasn't in Bonds' favor. This year there are even more question regarding his value to a team and with the other cheap options on the market it makes more sense.
I think the O's didn't make enough moves to acquire starting pitching. They let Daniel Cabrera who would have cost them very little this season to eat innings on the big league club. Outside of Uehara, I don't think they brought anybody into the fold who has a good chance to add even the minimal value that Cabrera would have provided in 2009.
ReplyDeleteIf the organization wants to leave the youngsters in the minors, they needed to make sure they had the arms to do so...at least until mid-season. Cabrera would have helped the organization do that...he was the second best starter for the club last season.
We just have to hope that A) MacPhail has cobbled together enough arms to make it through this year or B) some of the young arms are much closer to the bigs that they seemed during last season.