Arbitration Eligibles: Baltimore Orioles

A look at the Orioles players who will arbitration-eligible after the season…

Albers could be a non-tender candidate, in that his 2010 numbers are nothing special.  On the other hand he's earning only $680K this year.

Last November Jones was on the losing side of a three-way tiebreaker to determine whether he'd receive Super Two status.  He'll get his first big payday this winter, perhaps $3MM or so.

Guthrie, 31, and Scott, 32, are a couple of late bloomers.  I expected the Orioles to shop them this summer, but there hasn't been much in the way of rumors.


52 Responses to Arbitration Eligibles: Baltimore Orioles Leave a Reply

  1. basemonkey 5 years ago

    Doubt Guthrie gets dealt this summer.

    The Os have entered every offseason the last decade with a wish to add dependable starting pitching only to get spurned by the better options who have offers from contenders. Thats why they have had such a list of older vets added every year trying to reestablished themselves or on their way out of baseball (e.g. Trachsel, Millwood, Rodrigo, Sele, etc..). The only way I see the Os dealing vet starting pitchers is if one or more of their young guns have broken out, and they need roster room. They’re not there yet, and they won’t be this offseason.

    • niched 5 years ago

      Agreed. They’d have to get a knock out offer to deal Guthrie.

  2. Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

    Every year I wonder who will be the Delmon Young of ’10, the Adam Jons of ’09…The player who has a breakout campaign and really puts on a show. Well I think Felix Pie will be thatin 2011. I think something like a 2yr/5MM deal through arbirtration should get it done given that he hasn’t had more than a couple hundred AB’s in a season.

    • Prince_Fielders_Donuts 5 years ago

      Casey McGehee! btw kinda off topic but your probley the smartest high schooler ive seen, i mean how many kids in high school know almost every player in the majors and minors? your a rare breed my friend

      • Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

        Thanks man! Really, really apprecate it! Just trying to know as much Baseball information as I can! If I ever get the chance though, because of your comment I will do my best to get you to be Doug Melvin’s assistant. Or Doug Melvin your assistant. Or Prince Fielder’s donut salesman. You pick!

        Casey McGehee is one that I forgot but he’s having an incredibly good break out year. Maybe even better than Delmon but that’s a different story. Add the Ax man to that list as well. He’s only blown 2 saves right?

    • basemonkey 5 years ago

      Felix Pie has really turned it around in Baltimore. He’s no longer a free-swinger chasing balls, bailing, and striking out. He’s been injured somewhat this season but whenever he has been in there, he’s been remarkably consistent and exciting to watch. He’s also become a pretty exciting fielder as well.

      It just makes you wonder how he might do in a full season. He can imagine him turning himself into one of the best, say, #2 hitters in the AL next year. He’s become so much more reliable now that he’s embraced being a singles hitter who let’s it rip in occasionally favorable counts.

      • basemonkey 5 years ago

        “I” not “He”. Haha.

      • Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

        And he also has a ton of power. He hit one to dead center at progressive and just has been great this season when healthy as you said. I really like Pie a lot I just he has tremendous potential and hopefully next season is the season where he just turns in to a star. Glad were on the same page here. Nice.

        • basemonkey 5 years ago

          I like Pie a lot too, but I think he’s a better player when he sees himself as a Jimmy Rollins, not Ryan Howard.

          With a Jimmy Rollins type of player, they have a level line-drive swing and are swinging to the situation either to the left or right side, on the ground or air, trying to get good contact. And, they’re good enough to hit it out of the ballpark occasionally if they get great contact in and around 20 HRs per year. Couple that with a great consistent glove and double digit SBs, then we’re talking about a star.

          The Ryan Howard type of player has an uppercut swing and thinks about driving the ball in most counts, getting RBIs, hits everything in the air, and believes in an acceptable amount of Ks. If the balance of exchanging AVG and Ks for HR and RBI works out, these guys get the most glory and respect, but if it doesn’t, these guys can offset their win value added.

          • Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

            Really good analogy and comparison.

            I fully agree. Really has potential to be I guess way Carlos Gonzalez is or even better.

  3. Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

    I think it’s fair to say that Luke Scott is going to get traded this off-season.

    He’s inline for a big pay day and a team not competing doesn’t need to be paying a player 8+MM.

    • coachofall 5 years ago

      Sad thing is no team is going to pay him what Arbitration will require. Better chance of being non-tendered. Will probably be a victim of the system. Not worth what Aribitration will say he is worth

      • Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

        The Matt Capps of 2010? (best non-tendered player and completely unexpected as to why he was non-tendered)

        I agree with you.

      • Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

        And also, this might be the year that Adam Jones gets locked up. His OBP has been dreadful but overall he has had a decent season, he’s still 24-25 and he is a rising star. I think he at least deserves something in the neighborhood of what Denard Span got in spring training.

        • basemonkey 5 years ago

          I think its one year premature for Adam Jones. He’s still very cheap, and a long ways away from becoming expensive or reaching free agency. You have to factor in how much longterm money it would save you to lock him up today vs. waiting an offseason or two more. The guys who gets such extensions that far out of free agency tend to be great batting eye strike zone stalwarts like Longoria and Markakis. They age better, are likely to reach your expectations, and are better bets not to regress. In spite of Adam’s great star potential, his strikezobe judgment makes him a decent gamble.

          • Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

            But he plays better defense than maybe every outfielder in Baseball except for maybe 5 or 10? I agree with you man I’m just saying he’s has a better season than last, so if he puts up huge numbers you don’t want to be paying him 20 mil over 3 years whereas you can pay 15 mil over 4 years now.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            I think we both more or less agree. We just move around our numbers differently. It just doesn’t make that much sense to me to extend him now to only buy out one free agent year, which may work out to a substantially higher than 3M immediate raise.

            Keep in mind that even a certifiably quality player like Markakis has suffered a power decline this season. So anything can happen with jones who may exhibit great promise but strike zone judgment below markakis. And even with Markakis they waited a few seasons into arb to give him the big extension. IM just saying the Os should wait one more season. Maybe he gets slightly more expensive, but if he has a 3rd good year, he’s a better bet to continue and you’re more reasonably able to buy out more free agent years when he’s in his prime. It’s also about buying about years when he is in his peak.

          • Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

            Okay I got you now and I agree. Sold.

            I just think that they should not trade him if his value does increase.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            Oh yeh for sure. We agree there. Based on what I’ve seen, I think he stands to be a lifelong Oriole. The fact that he started off the season in arguably the worst slump of all the regulars but is where is now says a ton about how good he is. He was looking the most lost of the bunch in the first half, but has still managed to salvage a strong year and perhaps better last year’s breakout season. He should never get traded.

          • Dave_Gershman 5 years ago

            You bet

    • niched 5 years ago

      The argument that the O’s should trade Scott because they won’t be competing next year is rather self-defeating. And Scott lack trade value because of his age. If you trade him, then you have to replace his power through free agency. It may be better to roll the dice on Scott hitting home runs for an improved O’s team next year than rolling the dice trading him for filler who won’t add that much to the team, whether they compete or not. Even though the O’s have had a dismal season this year, there are clearly hopeful signs for next year. Who would have thought the 2003 Tigers would be competing a couple years later? Who would have thought the 2007 Rays would be in the World Series the following year? Ditto with the ’97 Marlins, ’01 DBacks. The O’s have a good amount of young talent like these teams do/did (even though they have a few more holes to fill than they did). The O’s are closer to competing than horrid season suggests. Trading Scott could make them more competitive in the long run. But of course it depends on who they can get for him — only if the return is very good (not Erik Bedard trade good, but maybe somewhere just below Miguel Tejada trade good and way better than George Sherrill trade good). But trading Scott just because he is a candidate to be traded, without pushing his value to the limit, would be the work of a defeatist. By the way, the situation with Guthrie is similar to Scott. But even though Guthrie probably has more trade value, as a solid starting pitcher he is even less likely to be traded based on his performance this year.

  4. bleachercreature 5 years ago

    The Oriole’s seeming refusal to go into rebuild mode is what’s really hurting the team. Luke Scott should not be there next year and even though Guthrie is still somewhat young he can be traded for someone younger. Until they commit to starting over they’re going to stay in last place. Showalter seems to be the right direction though.

    • basemonkey 5 years ago

      Sorry but your comment sounds like you aren’t paying attention. Its accurate about 6-7 yrs ago.

      They have been in rebuild for several years. The minors have been the major focus by signing overslot at many draft picks, setting multiple franchise signing bonus records, expanding scouting in Asia, starting a new academy in the DR. I am not sure the actual count now but perhaps 75% of the ml roster is at or under 25 yrs old.

      What few names other baseball fans might recognize are vets like Guthrie or Scott, but those 30+ yr old guys comprise very little of the ml team.

      • alxn 5 years ago

        I agree that the Orioles don’t need to go into full rebuild mode, but there is no reason to keep a guy like Luke Scott. He’s a great player and probably one of the most underrated players in the league, but he has no future with the Orioles and hanging onto him is only going to diminish what they get back in a trade.

        • basemonkey 5 years ago

          I agree with you. Scott should be traded for younger parts.

          Some here think the fact that he hasnt been traded is proof the Os arent rebuilding, but I think the fact that he’s underrated has hurt his ability to return good prospects before. He never had full seasons as an everyday player before arriving to the Os. It’s only until now that he’s worked up solid trade value. This offseason may be the first ever when the Os might receive good legitimate offers for Scott. In previous years other teams were looking to get him at “well kept secret” discounted prices.

        • niched 5 years ago

          Luke Scott is a good player, but not a “great one”. He is similar to another player the O’s let go that I’m sure they would love to have back — Aubrey Huff. Huff is having a stellar year with the Giants. If they got someone like Huff, kept Scott, their pitching keeps developing the way it has shown the past month or two, and they one or two more solid free agents, the O’s could be positioning themselves to challenge the Rays and Jays. But to do this you need good veterans around. You can’t stay in a perpetual state of rebuilding.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            Agreed. At the end of the day I think the Os would be wise to trade Scott for a solid B type prospect, who figures to stay around for a long time at a position of need. It’s only now that Scott has put in enough full time seasons of this level of production to make him attractive to teams.

          • niched 5 years ago

            Maybe, but why trade Scott for a “B” prospect when he has shown such good power, and power is one of many things the O’s lack. I don’t like the idea of trading Scott for some B prospect shortstop. They can get a B shortstop on the free agent market. Hell, MacPhail got Josh Bell for George Sherrill. In my mind they should get someone quite good before they trade a guy that is in the top 20 in the league in OPS. And if they trade him (and assuming they lose Wigginton to free agency) who do they replace him with? Maybe Adam Dunn, maybe Carlos Pena, maybe Paul Konerko, but those are all big maybes.

            Either way, nothing is happening until after the season. Maybe the O’s shouldn’t trade Scott until they have a power hitting free agent or two signed first.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            Well, I would argue that you can’t get a star SS on the free agent market, or at least, not one that you expect to be a longterm part of the nucleus. For one thing, the avg age of Free Agents is 30-31. First time free agents average at about 28. Though by then, any who are quality players will be very expensive.

            You say that the Os got Bell for a cheap price, Sherrill, but if the Os searched for a Bell type of player after he has reached his potential at age 28, on the free agent market, he’d easily cost at least 10M/YR, and perhaps more. Look at the deal Chone Figgins got last offseason, another quality first time free agent.

            I understand that you value Scott so much, and, the Os do have a lack of power that has been hard to replace for them, but it doesn’t make sense that your argument to keep him is because he provides hard-to-find power that can be so easily found on the Free Agent market. Isn’t that contradictory?

          • niched 5 years ago

            I didn’t say that finding power in the free agent market would be easy for the O’s. I was saying the opposite when I suggested that the Orioles could have trouble signing the likes of Dunn, Pena or Konerko. That’s another reason I would be hesitant to trade Scott, at least before they have filled his place in the lineup with one or more replacements.I also don’t see your point about paying a lot of money to quality veteran infielders. So what if they are expensive? The O’s have money to spend, whether it’s on middle infielders, corner power hitting infielders, or on outfield upgrade like Jayson Werth. The issue isn’t if the O’s can afford to spend money. The issue is whether they are willing to spend it (though Angelos has shown in the past he has been willing to pay big money for big names such as Albert Belle and Miguel Tejada). The other issue is whether top free agents are willing to begin coming to Baltimore again.Also, I don’t think the O’s have to have a star shortstop. They could trade Scott for a top flight first baseman or a shortstop or a high ceiling player at some other position. I was just using SS as an example of an area of need. If they get offensive production at other positions, then it’s fine to have a shortstop who is really mostly a glove guy (like Izturis). It’s just that the O’s became accustomed to having star middle infielders like Ripken and Tejada. Defense is more important up the middle so long as you are getting strong OPS from other positions.Also, I don’t understand why you are concerned about the cost of expensive infielders when good players at any position are expensive. If you trade Scott and replace him with another slugger through free agency, are you suggesting the O’s go with a cheap free agent slugger? All of the good power hitters available in free agency will be pricey, which is especially unfortunate since really only Adam Dunn (and maybe Konerko) is still a top power hitter (and I’m excluding Albert Pujols since it would take a miracle for Pujols to come too Baltimore).

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            Basically I don’t really get what you are saying, I guess. You are arguing to keep Scott. And, then you argue how to trade him.

            Maybe you have an issue with my description of a “B Prospect”? By that, I DON’T mean a “Type B” Free Agent, which is a completely different thing. When you’re using a “B” scouting grade for prospects, it usually means they are a quality prospect that has 1 or 2 issues that will dictate how good they will be, perhaps a star if all goes well. For instance, when Randy Johnson, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettite first came up, they were all B prospects but still needed to prove they had command (with RJ), consistency (with Rivera), or endurance/command (Pettite) yet to be resolved. I think if the Os get an offer for a B prospect in his early 20s who could fill a need somewhere on the diamond, they should take him. Otherwise hold onto Scott and take his power in the lineup, for reasons you described on how difficult it is to attract top tier slugger FAs. Other previous B prospects Orioles fans might be familiar with are Adam Jones, Josh Bell, Nick Markakis, Roberts (Maybe a C+). The only As I can remember on the Orioles in recent memory is Wieters and Matusz. Also remember that that scouting grade has no real bearing where they end up. This is not something I’ve made up. It’s something all scouts use.

            As far as budgets, I know the Os aren’t a cheap payroll team. I’ve followed the Orioles for 30+ years and I understand that. I may be misinterpreting what you wrote, but I am just contesting your assertion that the Os could add a Free Agent that would supply what Scott would command in a trade. Theoretically that’s true, but after you factor in the premium rates Free Agents demand from the Orioles, a last place team, I am not so sure it makes much sense. For instance, when Pavano came off his career year, he asked the Os to pay him MVP prices for his average pitcher numbers. When Vladimir was a free agent, the Os offered him an extra two years than anyone else at 3M/YR more than anyone else, but waited a full 3 months and signed for much less with the Angels. Look at the Gil Meche deal with KC, who at the time of his signing was a sub-average pitcher. Considering all of those case studies, is it reasonable to assume that the Os would be able to sign a bonafide SS (or whatever position) who would be part of a nucleus and could replace Scott’s power as easily as you suggest than to trade him? To me, the only way that reasonably could happen is if the Orioles signed waaay over market rates than what they’ve tried before, they pull a rabbit out of their hat a la Jose Bautista low risk/high reward move, or they trade Scott for a high promise “B PROSPECT.”

          • niched 5 years ago

            Yes, I get your points. But why trade Luke Scott for just one B prospect? If George Sherrill can bring back a single B prospect in Josh Bell, then surely Luke Scott would have to bring back two B prospects, or one A prospect, or two B prospects and something else. Erik Bedard brought back Jones and Tillman and three other players. Scott doesn’t have the kind of trade value Bedard had, but he certainly should more than Sherrill did, and maybe a notch below what Tejada had a few years ago. But if other teams don’t offer that much for him (and they may not because of his age), should the O’s still trade him? I say no.

            But my main point for not trading Scott is that I think the O’s are closer to contending than others are saying. You’re saying he is not easy to replace in free agency, which would be another argument not to trade him if you think the O’s can compete in the next year or two. I think they can, if not quite in 2011, then in 2012 if the front office makes a few decent moves. So, yes, my inclination is keep him, but of course you would trade him if the return is a knock out. But is a trade preferable to not trading him? I would argue no because, as has been said, other teams perceive him as older (and therefore won’t trade as much for him), he’s hard to replace in free agency, and because the O’s can compete sooner than people are giving them credit for. The main missing ingredients this year for the O’s has been health, confidence and motivation. They are getting all those back. Along with young players developing and along with a few other moves in the offseason (mainly through free agency), the O’s can compete in 2011 or 2012 without moving Scott in my opinion.

            As far as the difficulty in signing free agents to come to Baltimore, you have to sign some. If you don’t, the O’s will always be in last place. Has it been difficult for the O’s to sign free agents? Post 2005 especially — yes. Has it been impossible? No. Tejada came here. Rafael Palmeiro came back here. Wigginton signed last year, Gonzales this past offseason, etc. The O’s will have to open their wallets if they want to finish better than 4th place in the AL East. They don’t have a minor league system like the Rays to improve without also adding through free agency imo. Andy MacPhail himself said he would buy bats. Was he lying? Hope not because otherwise the O’s stay in the cellar.

            If the O’s had a minor league system like the Rays, then free agents are not quite as important. But even the Rays went out and got Carlos Pena and others. And the O’s don’t have the kind of top prospects the Rays have stocked up the past several years. You may argue that’s the reason to trade Scott, to strengthen the talent in the minors. I would say fine, but only if you bring back multiple type “B” or better players. But if you only get one for one, well, then you’re moving your legs but still staying in the same (last) place. If you can’t more than one type “B” for Scott (and I’m not sure they can), then you’re just creating a younger last place team. I think the timing is there for it to be OK keeping him and going for parts in free agency. With Showalter here, with the pitching improving, with Pie and Jones showing their stuff, Baltimore has to look more attractive to free agents (at least position players) at any time since the 90s.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            IM not making an offer for Scott so I just mentioned a B prospect. I wasn’t saying it’s a straight up deal. Youre outting words into my mouth. I am just saying that the centerpiece of the deal should be that kind of young player. If the Os can get a B prospect who might have a, say, BJ Upton type of ceiling, you say yes and figure out the right package. Even the sherrill trade included Steve Johnson. The idea of getting an A prospect for Scott is totally ridiculous. That will never ever happen. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see it happen for the Os, but keep in mind that at any given time there might be 3-5 prospects in all of baseball deserving of an A grade. And, when they get moved, it tends to be for other A grade prospects like, say, the Delmon Young for Garza deal.

            Another side note is that the Rays picked up Peña for cheap after he was released. I forget but he was either a waiver pickup or a minorleague contract signing. He’s not a good example of a last place team picking up a free agent. The whole point of the Os spending their money wisely is because they use the money saved to do things on the farm, which suffered greatly when they were running in place by signing guys like javy Lopez, tejada, raffy. Everytime they overpaid for type A free agents, they lost draft picks and had less money to sign top flight draftees like, say, Matusz and Wieters. If you look at their free agent signings and cross check it with respective draft classes in the early 00s, you’ll see them passing on players like Jay Bruce, linaecum, etc..

            Mymmain point is that don’t let your/our love for Scott blind us from the plan..which is to build from youth. If a team offers a package that includes a young quality player who can be a part of a core, you pull the trigger. Scott himself was kind of a throw-in in the Tejada deal.

          • niched 5 years ago

            I don’t have a love for Scott. I just realize that if you trade him, then you have to go out and find a replacement for his production. BJ Upton is not a replacement for his production, this year or any year. You seem to not think the O’s have chance to compete next year or the year after. I do, and I think that’s why we differ so much in our opinion on Scott, and on the O’s in general. Now that we’re in the middle of or at the end of the rebuild period, they have to add bigger, badder veterans. They don’t have enough top players in the minors to do otherwise.

            Also, I don’t completely buy your argument for the reason not to spend on free agents in that it takes away from the minor league spending. That depends on who is in charge. Andy MacPhail himself said they would go out and buy the bats. I’ll take his word on it, even though he hasn’t done it quite yet. I don’t blame him for not trying harder to sign Teixeira because Teixeira is the most overpaid player in the game (imo), and because the O’s weren’t really at the point where a top free agent would really help the team move forward. But now I believe they are at that point (or quite close to it). And I think MacPhail will go after free agent bats more aggressively (or I think he must). And I think they will also continue to spend on the draft. The main problem with the O’s and the minors has been poor drafting after the first round more than anything else. The team has money.

            The rebuild plan of trading vets for youth is not a plan that lasts forever. If it does, the O’s are doomed to last place for a long time. Their drafts have not been good enough to propel them to the level of the Rays. Trading Luke Scott for a high ceiling BJ Upton type makes sense only if that player fills a position of need, and that player really looks promising. But Upton is already looking like a bust and he does not fill a position of need. Scott for a Reid Brignac makes a lot more sense.

            But the other point is that teams seem unwilling to give up much for Scott. Would the Rays trade Brignac for Scott? No. The Rays need Brignac too much, and they wouldn’t make such a big trade within the division. Scott is in the Top 10 in OPS for the entire league. He has to bring back a lot more than a disappointment like Upton. At the end of the day that would be the main reason the O’s keep him. He is likely more valuable to the O’s than to another team. And I agree that he would not bring back an A player, even though the O’s got Felix Pie for Garrett Olson. Garrett Olson! Pie was an A player at one time. Then again so was Upton. The difference is that Upton has been in the league now for 5 years, and is not looking good. And I would be willing to bet the Twins would trade Delmon Young for a Luke Scott by the time the Twinse were fed up with Young.

            But the main point is that attractive trade choices involving Luke Scott look quite limited. Neither of us have been able to suggest a realistic trade involving Scott that looks good for the O’s and doable for the other team. MacPhail has shown himself to be a trading mastermind (and really bad with free agents), so maybe I will be proved otherwise. But how will the O’s replace Scott’s power? If they trade him they will have to try and replace his power in free agency. Avoiding Konerko, Pena or Dunn because they are too expensive is a losing attitude now that Matusz and Arrietta are in the rotation and Britton will soon join them. They have to tap free agency soon. If the Nationals can sign Dunn, then the O’s can do just as well and then some.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth.

            I never said the Os shouldn’t or are unlikely to spend. I am just saying that there is a balance at work. When you spend some in the most visible way, in the majors, it detracts what you can do in the minors. The Os aren’t a small market ballclub, but like it or not, they don’t have unlimited resources. I’m not going to argue you about what you think I am saying, because you’re just misrepresenting me. I am just saying that the team should start spending in a major way once the nucleus is ready. If it is before then it’s caught again in the Catch 22 of the late 90s and early 00s, of never having quite enough resources in either the farm or majors. And, I am sorry if you don’t like it, or wish it weren’t the case, but right now is not yet that time. The moment to break open the bank is when the young core players have significant breakout seasons. That breakout might be next year. I think and hope it will be, but you can’t go into this offseason as the GM spending based on a sympathetic wish that happens, because if it doesn’t, it’s a major setback. Losing the 2nd rd pick already has hurt a little this past season. How much was Gonzalez worth there?

            I am not saying that we should trade or not trade Scott. I acknowledge he has a lot of value. I think he’s a pretty solid player today. I am not thinking of bagging in the 2011 season either. I am just saying we need to be able to keep our priorities straight if the right deal comes along. If a team offers a valuable young prospect that the Os don’t have, and can be a part of a nucleus for a long time, then you pull that deal every day of the week. You seem to want to parse it with a lot of other factors concerning the power Scott brings today, but I think of it this way: Scott’s power will decline in the next few years. A young quality player could be a part of the team for 10+ years. Which would you want?

            You seem to weigh present day values so heavily, that it’s like if this were the Bedard deal, you’re arguing that we should pass on Adam Jones because Bedard was contending for the strikeout lead at the time of the rumors and we need his arm in the rotation in ’07 because we might contend. Would you have argued to keep Sherrill too? He was our closer at the time. Or, is this just based on how you just like Scott better than, say, Sherrill? I am saying that we shouldn’t bank on “might” and plan on contending in 2012. What that does is allow us to deal for young players, instead of holding onto players we might need.

          • niched 5 years ago

            Yeah, we mostly agree, except that you’re forgetting a key part of my argument, which is that imo it’s doubtful that Luke Scott has the kind of trade value that would bring back a key, needed prospect(s) relative to what he gives the team as a player. If you disagree with my assessment that the O’s will be ready to compete next year or the following, I understand. But I have no idea why you’re comparing a potential Scott trade to the Bedard trade or the Sherrill trade, in addition to suggesting I might have opposed those trades. They’re totally different players with different trade values, at different times in the team’s history, who bring different levels of productivity to the team. Who is putting words in someone else’s mouth now (especially when I said or implied the opposite before)?

            To suggest that I would prefer to have kept Erik Bedard simply because I prefer to keep Scott is just dim (and I know you’re not dim). I already stated, or overstated, why trading Luke Scott does not compare to trading Bedard or Tejada. It’s pretty simple: 1) The O’s were in a much weaker state back then, and 2) Luke Scott, imo, has nowhere near their trade value of a Bedard, nor does he have strong trade value relative to his production on the field (unlike Sherrill who had very strong trade value relative to his WAR or whatever stat measure you wish to use). That’s the essence of my argument.

            I do understand and agree that trading Scott for a good young player(s) is advisable and have said as much when I suggested someone like Starlin Castro (though I doubt the Cubs would trade him for Luke Scott). But I would only do this if they can sign a Carlos Pena AND a Derrek Lee on the free agent market since the O’s would need both a first baseman and a DH in terms of Scott’s power (and when they would likely lose Wigginton too). The O’s are close to competing with Matusz, Arrieta, Pie and Jones all improving, but they are weak at the power positions of 1B and DH. If you trade Scott, you have to replace his power and then some to move them even closer to competing. Otherwise, you just move the end of the rebuilding period further and further out.

            You also suggest that signing Gonzalez was a bad move. You may be right. But that’s a different issue. Signing expensive relievers that take away draft picks is a dicey move for all but the best teams in the league. That said, are you suggesting it would be OK for the O’s to trade Scott and not replace his power in free agency? (and stop accusing me of putting words in your mouth; it just sounds defensive and juvenile; I’m merely trying to gauge and anticipate your position; the words are in my mouth).

            If you think the team is not ready to compete and the O’s should trade expensive, productive veterans close to free agency, and who can bring something good back in a trade, I can understand that. But I have already stated multiple times why I think trading Scott may not be in the cards. He’s certainly more valuable than Sherrill to merely bring back a Josh Bell type, and he’s not nearly as valuable as a Bedard or Tejada and the 10 player haul they brought back — even though he has shown improvement every year he’s been here and is having one of the best seasons any Oriole has had in the past decade. He’s a late bloomer who, in my opinion, should be traded only if he brings back a solid 1B or SS and another player (maybe a solid pitcher), or if he brings back a sole Type A prospect. I think that much of Scott and what the O’s could do over the next couple of years. But if you and others disagree, I certainly understand. Can we go home now?

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            Anyways I don’t know why you are arguing me. We actually agree. You are mistaking me for someone else in this thread.

            Generally speaking, as valuable Scott is as a player for the Os, if another team is willing to match that player for future-day values in a young player, you do it. You parse my words wanting more than one “B Prospect” player or so, but if I told you that a team offers one player who is the equivalent of Adam Jones value at SS, then you wouldn’t agree to that deal? Maybe I haggle over bringing in a veteran stopgap with some pop, or a few throw-in players, but I basically take that deal.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            Or maybe you’d turn down that deal for a “Adam Jones” type of player because you want to possibly contend in 2011-2012, which would likely be years of productivity before Scott starts to decline?

          • niched 5 years ago

            It would depend on how advanced this mythical Adam Jones at SS you have conjured up is. Would he help us compete now or next year? Or are we waiting until 2013? And does he have power? If we’re waiting until 2013, then I’d say we also need another player or two since we already have Manny Manchado in the minors. But really, the O’s can start to compete sooner than 2013 imo.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            I just don’t think we should link the two issues. If we can add that kind of prospect, we should do it without linking it to our ability to replace Scott. I am not saying NOT to replace Scott. I am just saying that we address that issue after such a deal.

            Don’t get me wrong. Your thinking has an immediate logic to it, but this is precisely how having a plan counts. If our target date to contend is in the near-term, that is, next year or so, then we have to turn down these kind of deals. If the Os were having a season like the Reds, who feature a strong up-and-coming young core whose development is phased to peak together, then I would want to keep solid bats like Scott’s without question. Though I would argue that the Reds’ 2010 season has as much to do with them being able to make tough decisions sticking to the plan when they dealt top round picks of Kearns (1st) and Dunn (2nd) a few years back. They made very honest public announcements of what years they intend to target contention. Being caught in the limbo of wanting to contend but also rebuilding is precisely how the Os got to where they are today. It is a backdoor way towards mediocrity.

          • niched 5 years ago

            The equivalent of Adam Jones at SS I like, but may not be quite enough unless he is as proven as Adam Jones is now (as opposed to being Adam Jones 3 years ago). Anyway, I doubt other teams would part with an Adam Jones at SS (like a Starlin Castro or a Reid Brignac) so easily for Luke Scott. Scott’s trade value suffers due to his age and due to the fact that he is thought of primarily as a DH. It’s kind of like the same reason Adam Dunn was never that overly pursued in free agency a couple years back.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            No one is going to willingly offer Starlin Castro for Scott after he has a breakout season. A Brignac type, maybe, but the Rays really highly regard him, which they should. I guess the trick is scouting a player who is likely at AAA right now or perhaps going to enter into AFL this Fall, and finding next year’s Castro before they breakout. Another option is finding a high potential guy who is falling victim to the business of baseballl and roster shuffles a la how we landed Guthrie and Pie.

            I agree with your assessment of Scott’s DH-ness. It hurts his value a bit. Then again for a DH type he’s proven now to be pretty consistent over his career. Before he came to the Os he was seen as a Lefty platoon/part-time player. Only after he was an Oriole did he get fulltime play, and got a lot of ABs. NOw after consecutive years of full seasons he’s proven a lot of critics wrong and he has legitimate power and AVG. Pretty streaky, but when he’s hot, it’s unbelievable.

            Overall, in spite of the rough patches of an abysmal season, it has put a bad taste in all Os fans’ mouths but there’s still a lot to like about the young team. This year we just learned that our young players needed another year to learn how to play in the majors. I believe they will tell us when they are ready, so until then, we shouldn’t stray from the plan of rebuilding. Keeping Scott because we wish to contend next year seems strange to me.

    • niched 5 years ago

      More or less the total opposite of what you say is true. The O’s firmly committed to the rebuild mode a few years ago when MacPhail traded Bedard and Tejada for a total of 10 players. They acquired Luke Scott as part of the Tejada trade, so he is part of the rebuild mode, not an obstacle to it. Then they traded George Sherrill last year for Josh Bell, and they traded Tejada yet again this year for Wynn Pelzer.

      The question is not when the O’s should go into rebuild mode. They have been in it for awhile. The question is if they could continue to trade veterans like Scott when the team should be much improved next year — and even better with him on the team. The O’s should trade Scott only if they can get a really good young player for him (like a Starlin Castro). Otherwise there is little point in trading him since they would need to replace his power through free agency anyway.

    • basemonkey 5 years ago

      Again. I am interested in your response. The Orioles have been in full rebuild for the last several years. Most of their roster is filled with 25 yr old or younger players. What top value vets they have had were traded off a while ago in very good deals. Those trades of vets for young players includes Tejada, Bedard, Sherrill, Huff, Trachsel, Ohman, etc, etc..

      As the previous poster mentions, only until now, is one of those parts, Scott, has developed into real value to warrant flipping him. In recent years, Scott was seen by other clubs as a one-dimensional player who doesn’t have a glove nor could sustain his HR rate. So he’s never attracted offers better than minorleaguers who expect to be more than future role players.

      • bleachercreature 5 years ago

        I understand that they have been rebuilding but having people like scott and Guthrie serves no purpose. Does anyone actually think the orioles are going to challenge anyone next year? maybe the blue jays but does it really matter? I mean look at the Diamondbacks, they clearly went into rebuild mode this year and got some very good talent. The Orioles should try to get some good talent for Scott and Guthrie and whatever older talent they have. I mean isn’t that more important than trying to catch the Blue jays next year? They should bring up whatever young talent they have, let them get a taste of the big leagues and put faith in them that they are the future (unless they don’t have much, i’m not aware of how their system looks) I guess the only other reason i could think to keep these guys is to try to keep some name recognition so the fans come to see them (kind of like Strasburg and the Nats) but at the end of the day is it really worth it? The Orioles look like they’re going to have the worst or second to worst record this year so hopefully they will sign a strasburg-like pitcher or a great talent like bryce harper, who could legitimately be in the majors in 2 years and lead the future team.

        • ugen64 5 years ago

          You can’t have a roster full of kids for a simple reason – without older players, there’s nobody for them to learn from. There’s only so much a coaching staff can do.Guthrie in particular is likely to stay because he will be the only experienced starter on the roster next season (assuming we don’t sign anyone in free agency). A secondary reason is that it’s hard for young players to perform well (thus increasing their confidence and helping them improve) without some good veterans on the team. For instance, Matt Wieters has received more intentional walks than Kevin Youkilis or Adrian Beltre… because teams don’t fear the players hitting behind him.

          • bleachercreature 5 years ago

            ok yes that is true, good point

        • basemonkey 5 years ago

          As urgen64 already points out, the Os have had moments in the early 00s when they’ve featured a full rotation of rookies, and that turned into a disaster, as it always does historically speaking. No rotation filled with 100% rookies seems to be successful without burning out a ton of arms in the bullpen and minors in the process. The rotation is already at 3-4 rookie of second year players.

          I love the idea of trading Guthrie and getting quality prospects for him, but up until this season, all offers for him have been very very very underwhelming. You have to understand that he’s been seen as a project with upside who would come cheaply by other teams, up until very recently. The thinking behind keeping him thus far has been about, keeping his 200 IP in order to mentor the young guns, eat innings, prevent rushing/burning out an arm and ruining a young career. If the prospect(s) offered by another team are more valuable than that list of things Guthrie contributes to the Os, then pull the trigger. Though every trade rumor involving Guthrie has been involved in so far has been offeres for another teams’ future role player C prospects and extra parts.

          • basemonkey 5 years ago

            “rookie or second year players” that is.”

        • niched 5 years ago

          Look at what the young Oriole players have done over the past month or two. Most of them have showed why people were so high on the O’s before the season. If Wieters starts turning it on again too, and the O’s add two or three good free agent pick-ups, then the O’s could compete as soon as next year. I’m not saying they will compete, I’m just saying they could. But if they take away all veterans, they definitely will not compete. You’re being misled by the O’s terrible record. They have a solid core of youth despite the horrendous record. Now we’re seeing that youth become better and more consistent. Why shed veteran players as the young players start to come into their own? What the O’s need is a nice compliment of veterans — like the Rays of ’07 and ’08 and now. What they don’t need is a team completely absent of veterans. They need a mix, and then they have a chance. No mix, no chance.

          • Slopeboy 5 years ago

            This posting is right on!! The O’s have been rebuilding for years, and have had talented players in their system. What has been lacking is a manager that had the respect of the players and accountability. Oftentimes the players looked disinterested when playing and making continuous bonehead plays showed a lack of desire or caring. Showalter has come in with the mandate that says ‘we’re going to win today, not in 3 yrs’. That’s why I can’t see them trading Scott for just a B type FA. You need some veterans in the line up. Buck did not come to rebuild, he sees the talent and while it won’t happen overnight, the O’s are going to play better baseball. They’re going to bring people to the park, become relevant again, and attract better FA’s to the cause. If the owner lets McPhail and Showalter run the tream, the AL East is going to be real fun to watch.

  5. All the outfielders will stay. I can see them aggressively shopping Guthrie, but Albers will stay.

Leave a Reply