More Sarfate
Dennis Sarfate understands the 40-man roster crunch that awaits the Orioles, who must protect a batch of young prospects before the Rule 5 draft, but he'd prefer to stay in Baltimore. That's his top choice.
If only he made that decision.
Sarfate is one of the candidates to be removed. He's out of minor league options and hasn't established himself as an integral part of the bullpen due to injuries and ineffectiveness, but he's hoping that a strong finish swayed the front office into giving him another chance.
"I don't know what's going to happen," he said. "If they do it based on me being hurt and the time that I missed, then yeah, I'm probably gone. But if we go by how I was throwing at the end, then maybe not. The smart thing would be to have someone come out here and watch me throw, and maybe that's what they're going to do. I don't know.
"My numbers are going to be skewed. I'm dominating and I'm going to keep on dominating.
"I want to stay in the AL East, I want to stay in Baltimore, but I don't know what they're thinking. I felt like by the end of September, I put my name back on the map."
He's traveled around it since the Orioles played their last game.
As I wrote yesterday, Sarfate leads the Mexican Pacific League with five saves and has allowed only one run in 9 1/3 innings. Click here and scroll down for his game-by-game numbers.
During our phone conversation, Sarfate also talked about the importance of the club acquiring a frontline starting pitcher.
"I think we're going in the right direction," he said. "The AL East is a beast. It's tough to throw against the Yankees and Red Sox every other series, and the Rays and Blue Jays. But that's what's going to make us better. I think we'll be good. Obviously, we need some starters. You can't rely on four guys under 23 years old, not in this division.
"The cities we go to, New York and Boston, that's tough. And we saw that at the end of the year, those young guys wore it a little bit. (Brian) Matusz and (Chris) Tillman held their own, but I still think we need to sign a No. 1 starter to help (Jeremy) Guthrie out. I think he puts a lot of pressure on himself to carry the staff and be a mentor, and I think it's too much."
To acquire that pitcher, Sarfate believes the Orioles will have to part with one of their young prospects. Otherwise...
"You're going to have to overpay to get a guy to come to Baltimore, which is a shame," he said. "If they knew what was going on here...but it's hard to get that point across, the way we finished."
Sarfate, of course, came to the Orioles in the Miguel Tejada trade, which leads to today's question:
How would you grade that deal, or would it be an incomplete because you're waiting to find out whether Troy Patton gets back to the majors and lives up to his potential?
 |
Categories (click for archive)Roch Kubatko | Roch Kubatko Orioles |
seeing that tejada aged 4 years in the last 2. I still think the o's are on the better end of that one.
As of now the Tejada trade gets a C. Just moving Miggy right before he was named in the Mitchell Report and before he magically aged two years was worth anything that came back in return. Scott has been servicable if incredibly streaky. Albers and Sarfate gave the team some utility in 2008, less so in 2009, though injuries had a lot to do with both cases. The big question remains Patton. If he makes it to the majors even as a fifth starter the grade goes up. How high he ends up determines how high the grade, but even if he never makes it back to Baltimore it was still a C trade.
That trade was an instant success once Miggi's steriod news came out the day after we traded him. It was and still is a great move!
Roch am I the only one who watched him dominate at the end of the season? if Sarfate gets cut and Chris Ray is still in the bigs.... it just won't make any sense!
You've got to be foolish to think that the numbers Tejada put up in Houston would have been replicated had he stayed in Baltimore. His numbers were declining, as was his work ethic and attitude. Playing in a shoebox in the NL Central is much more conducive to offensive numbers than playing in the AL East.
I do think that we need to find out about Patton before we put a final grade on the trade, but if you factor in what Tejada was likely to do in Baltimore had he not been traded, I think that Tejada for Scott, Albers, and Sarfate is pretty much a wash. Costanza apparently isn't going to pan out, so he's a non-factor. Patton could wash out or he could be a star; at this point, we don't know. Sometimes it takes three or four years to figure these things out. All the rush to judgement on trades is not fruitful. Patience is a virtue. Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Luke Scott's production has been about equal to what Tejada is putting up in Houston. That and the baggage following Tejada around has gone from a briefcase to a full set of Samsonite's, and about 5 Piggly Wiggly bags, we got the better end of the deal, and if Patton's arm falls off I'll still feel the same way.
At worst, I would call the deal a break-even, but we won't know the full extent of it until we see what shakes out with Patton.
Roch,
I'll give the advantage to the O's but not as big of one as I initially thought. Miguel aging 2 years immediately following the trade definitely puts this over the top still. I feel like the players we received have done "ok" but in the end of I figure only Scott and either Sarfate or Albers will be around. Patton still a big ? but would be nice if he could come back refreshed and regain his velocity.
As far as the Tejada trade, it was not as fruitful as the Bedard. Especially, if Patton. Sarfate, Albers and Scott are a bust with the O's. But, Tejada had wore out his welcome and did not play like the player we had signed 3 or 4 years before. Then again, the Bedard trade, the jury is still out on that one, too. Jones, is he really the impact center fielder, we thought we were getting. He seems to be injury prone to me and easily to tire in the latter months. Probably, right now Sherrill may have been the best in that trade. But, like I said, the jury is still out.
I think the O's got the better of it. Not every trade can be the Bedard deal. I liked Miggy but it was probably good to get him out of here before the Mitchell Report and Age-gate. We didn't really get an impact player back, but we got depth, which we lacked before. If Patton becomes anything, it will qualify as a fleecing, but even now I'll take it.
I think that the deal Angels were offering would have been a better one as it'd have brought .300 hitting slick shortstop Erick Aybar, and Santana among other players.
Roch,
I have to agree with Puck. Over the long haul, we win on that deal. I think all in all, Mr. McPhail has done a great job, certainly better than expected based on what he had to start with. The Cincinnati deal may be his second-best deal after the fleecing of Seattle. Houston fits in as number 3, but still a solid win for Baltimore. Who knows old Tejada really is, and we got more out of the trade last year than Houston did. I can't believe MT has many more productive years left.
Jim
In terms of talent, I would say at this point pretty even. Scott has hit about the same as Tejada, but with more power and a lower avg. Sarfate, Albers, Patton...all have been injured and have missed significant time, and Sarfate and Albers may not even be on the team next year. I think Patton has a lot of potential to be good, just needs a few months at AAA and I think we will find out who he is in the majors.
But, outside of talent and production since that trade, it regardless needed to happen, and if the Astros really knew what they were getting, they wouldn't have gave up 5 players for Tejada.
So, on the Princeton grading scale, I give it a C+ at this point, since Macphail got a steal on the quantitative return.
With all the steroid talk and the age discrepancy soon after the trade, I believe AM did pretty well. Teams weren't exactly jumping at us with offers. Tejada has been hitting the ball pretty consistantly for Houston, but his power is down and many are saying a move to third is in store. He wasn't going to be a part of the O's future.
I know Luke Scott isn't a prospect but he definitely added a dynamic to the club. He works hard and seems to liven up the clubhouse. He's inspired the Luuuuuuuke chants and it seems most fans like him. He played a pretty decent left field his first year here and then accepted the DH role last year and adjusted pretty well. Even though he finished in a funk, he was as hot as anyone early in the year. His inconsistancy has been frustrating but he's been more than just a throw in.
Sarfate and Albers have shown flashes of potential for the last two years but haven't been able to put it together. Hopefully Albers gets the conditioning message because it seems like the stuff is there. I'm not sure if its injuries or just ability with Sarfate, but he's had his chances as well.
AM took a shot on Costanzo and he's turned out to be an org filler. He was the throw in and his not panning out doesn't hurt the trade for us in my opinion. If he would have produced that would have been a bonus, but the trade definitely didn't hinge on him.
All this being said I still think the grade is TBD until we see what we have in Patton. He was coined the 'jewel' of the trade and I thought he had a shot to start with the big club in 2008. He dominated AA last year and then seemed to run out of gas with his promotion to AAA. A lot of outlets have said he has a chance to be special and hopefully he can show that this year.
The Tejada deal was done just in time considering his Mitchel report association. His poor play while with the Orioles near the end of his time with the team drove me crazy and I hope to never watch him field a grounder at short again. I give the team an "C". We got a power hitting left fielder that lead our team in HRs last year. I don't think the team can give up on Sarfate. We need to remember his 2008 season. He started and was a reliever. 2009 might have just been an off year. It happens. I don't think Troy Patton figures into the future of the team but lets see. I do think the Orioles waited far too long to make a move with Tejada. A move a year earlier might have brought more in return but I think he got injured around that time.
I think the Tejada trade was great. Look, Patton and Sarfate are incomplete at best. But if nothing else, we traded Tejada and got rid of his contract, for Scott. And, I believe, Scott has put up the better numbers (except average) the past 2 years. So, we got rid of huge contract, and steroid baggage and got a few pitchers who may or may not develop. Scott was a throw in and numbers-wise, it was a wash!
Tejada put up some offensive numbers and moreso than Luke Scott, so it comes down to the pitchers (since Mike Costanza remains a bust and both the Phillies and Astros knew that). Matt Albers and Troy Patton. If Patton succeeds for the Orioles it will have been a good trade. If not, it was a chance we had to take. Essentially, a little loss for a little gain.
Luke Scott alone made that deal worthwhile.
I'd call it a wash. Patton, Sarfate, Albers, and Costanzo are all organizational depth. Luke Scott has hit about as well as Tejada, and the difference in depth is about even with the difference between Scott's defensive shortcomings and Tejada's.
On the salary side, that deal made a lot of money for the Orioles. I just wish they'd have spent more of it, and on players of a higher caliber than Izturis, Wiggington, Uehara, Hendrickson, and Eaton.
If nothing else, we got ride of pitch tipping Trader-hada! So I'd say a b!
I think the O's got the better end.
Practically speaking, neither Houston nor Baltimore did much the past few years. It's not like Tejada would have helped the Orioles nor did he help the Astros. In contrast, Patton still has a chance to help this club, Scott has shown that he has potential to be really good, and Albers has shown that he can be a decent reliever when he's in shape.
Aside from that, they got three high rated pitching prospects in the deal. Trading for prospects is always a risk.
You want a little sunshine on the starting rotation? Goto Baseball Reference and look at the 2006 Phillies. Their veteran anchor was Jon Lieber (36). Brett Myers (25), Cole Hammels (22), Randy Wolf (29), Cory Lidle (34) and Gavin Floyd (23) were the other starters until they acquired Jamie Moyer at the trade deadline. As long as Bergy is for real, Guthrie, Bergy, Matuz, and Tillman are at least in the same ballpark as Wolf, Lidle, Hammels, and Myers. If you can find a guy via trade or FA to pitch 200 innings with an ERA in the 4.50 range, you've got a staff with Hernandez, Berken, Patton, and Arieta ready to step in for injury or ineffectiveness.
To remove Tejada and his salary from the team for more than a bag of balls was well worth it. Anything else obtained was just gravy.
I can't remember all of the players we got. Scott has looked pretty good and he showed the potential to be a clean-up guy when he was on his hot streak. I still think Patton and Sarfate could do something, but it is too soon to tell. Who else did we get? I feel like it was a 5 for 1 deal.
Roch, I remember when the rule5 started and the orioles protected palmero and not bret butler or rhodes and they lost them both nobody will take a high salary player in rule 5 draft so they can protect their prospects better.
I liked the deal for no other reason than it saved the club 26 million to be used for better reasons later. We wern't winning with Tejada so it was time to rid the team of his bad habits, ie showing up late, swinging at everything and loafing on routine ground-outs.
This deal is far from being able to be graded. We have yet to see Patton and have a pretty good young bat in Luke Scott that isn't making anything near what Tejada would have commanded had he stayed here.
Not too mention - What kind of a cancer would Tejada be to the rest of the young guys on this team had he stayed?
You can't have a core group of young players during a rebuilding stage with a guy like that around on a losing team...not worth it. I personally never really liked Tejada in the first place but the deal is too soon to rate, IMO.
I think not having to deal with Tejada in the Mitchell report two days after the deal makes it worth it.
C -
I would write why but am not allowed to go into detail anymore.
C+, IMO The fact that Patton hasnt pitched up here does count. Sarfate and Albers are a waste of space, Luke Scott is too inconsistent to be a starter, and Costanzo is a fringe AAA guy or "organizational player." We didnt get much here and we didn't give up much either. I only give this one a C+ because the bottom line is Tejada had to go and we were lucky to find a taker before the Mitchell and ESPN reports came out on him.
Luke Scott hasn't been quite as good or as useful as Tejada has been over the last two years, and Sarfate and Albers have both struggled quite a bit (and both might be out of the organization in a few weeks). Meanwhile Mike Costanzo turned into a huge bust and Troy Patton has been hurt and ineffective above AA in two years.
Seeing as holding onto Miggy wouldn't have helped us out in a meaningful way and now he's a free agent, whereas we have Luke Scott and Troy Patton who both could still be useful into the future (and the deal has saved quite a bit of money)...I guess I'd lean towards slight win for the Orioles, but it really is incomplete until we know what Troy Patton ends up contributing.
Roch - I would give the trade and incomplete because we still need to see what Patton can do. In terms of the other players, Albers and Sarfate have shown some flashes but been inconsistant, and Scott has been as advertised - about an average left fielder. If Patton does not amount to anything and Albers and/or Sarfate do not provide more consistency, then I would say Houston probably got a little more out of the trade based simply on on-the-field play. However, when you factor in getting rid of Tejada's salary and all of the distraction with his age and steroids, and the fact that the Orioles simply needed to move on, I would do the trade again.
My initial reaction this morning was to give it a C+ with the potential to up the grade next year based on Patton's performance. After re-evaluating, I would give it a solid B. He was unhappy and the Mitchell Report was due out any time. We needed to unload him in a hurry and we wouldn't have blamed MacPhail if he settled for a lot less. We definitely got the better end of the deal based on timing alone. The deal could still end up being an A, Patton pending (pun intended).
Can't overlook all the steroid controversy we avoided after that deal as well.
I would have said it was a successful trade (solid C+) even if it was Scott for Tejada straight up. The addition of the other players is a bonus. If Patton can become a #4 type starter or a good reliever, the trade easily becomes at least a B.
This trade was another positive move by subtraction.
My other thought though, is did the Angels really offer Aybar and Santana for Tejada? And did we really try to hold out for another player or two? I seem to recall at the time I was not too sure about that offer, but hindsight has to make you wonder...that would have been interesting...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those talks with the Angels came during a previous season. Their interest, as I recall, had waned quite a bit. - Roch
B... Salary dump and steroid/age issues avoided alone make it a B. Scott has been a solid bat in his time here and could be flipped for some bullpen help. Not to mention what we may get from Patton. Nice job by AM.
Roch,
What is missing in the blog now is varying opinions. It seems every blog points out positives even in light of a negative situation. That is to be expected when you are dealing with posters who are "die hard" fans. They will see sugar no matter how many times they read salt. We (fans on this blog) are not the real fans out there. We are the extreme right with both devotion and with following the team. With that said, the blog has taken on a perspective where it now can be perceived as propaganda for the front office when negative perspectives are not allowed to be put forth at all. I hope I have not hidden the perception that I am a die hard O's fan. I merely am not in love with the Manager, GM, or Owner. I think they have snowballed the fans for too long and need to be held accountable. Unfortunately now, this blog is not a place where a true O's fan can come and put forth their ideas (even if they are not in favor of the Warehouse)if they dont agree with the culture in the warehouse.
Lets hope the blog changes back. Not to where it was, but definitely not to where it is now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Jack, what's missing now is some of the ugliness that you seemed to take great pleasure in spreading. People can be critical, and they are if you read closely (plenty of fans expressed their displeasure with Sarfate yesterday), but the repetitious bashing has stopped. And you can't see the difference, which is why I have no problem with you moving on. It appears that the maturity level of this blog is a little too high for you, and that's coming from someone who loves working in a "That's What She Said." I suggest that you start your own blog. You could call it "Andrew And Ole Pete," and you could file one post after another that says the same exact thing. I think it would be a fine outlet for you. Good luck with it. - Roch
Costanza is a bust, Sarfate nearly a bust.
Scott has been a nice ocntributor but not worthy of Tejada in a one for one deal.
That leaves Patton, who will be the key to the deal. If he contributes as hoped the deal will be an A. If not, it is a C+.
I still wish the Orioles had made the Tejada for Aybar and santana deal with the Angels. But that was a different regime.
I think it was classic addition by subtraction, plus we got five guys back.
I'd give it a B- but I don't think think it'll get any better than that, regardless of Patton's development (guess I'm feeling 'glass half empty' this morning...)
I was tempted to say B- but now I'll go with incomplete. Joe in DC makes a good point that shouldn't be overlooked. The club saved money by dumping Tejada's salary. There's also an element of "addition by subtraction" as many have pointed out.
We know Mike Costanzo won't pan out, and that's a shame because I remember how Roch initially pointed out how he was a hard worker, eager to please, and the consummate organization guy. Seems like injuries have played a role in his setback. Wherever he ends up, I wish him the best of luck.
When you look at the final numbers, Luke Scott has produced as well as we could have expected, though the streakiness has driven some fans around the bend.
It really comes down to the other three players. Roch has already mentioned Patton. I expect him to start 2010 in Norfolk and I'm hoping he makes it to the Orioles by mid-season or September at the latest. But is he the same calibre of prospect after coming back from his labrum tear? Sarfate and Albers have the potential to turn into decent performers but will Sarfate even stick with the Orioles this off-season? And let's hope Matt Albers is already fully focused on an off-season conditioning program since the club made no secret of their concerns.
I'd love to see two out of those three guys have productive seasons in 2010. That could raise the grade for this trade to a B+. And what if a guy like Scott is dealt for a couple of prospects who end up panning out. That could make the deal even sweeter.
No one can predict what will happen when you get five players in exchange for one. I think it's safe to say Tejada had to go, though, and I believe MacPhail did his best to get a decent return.
Sometimes a trade is deemed as a success because of the talent received in return. I deem this trade a success because we needed to trade Tejada. His poor attitude and lack of hustle were noticeable to everyone. If you include the age issue, the Mitchell report, and the fact that Tejada was not a part of the O's future plans, I'd say this trade was addition by subtraction. If Patton makes the majors, this trade will be a huge success.
I think we came out on the better end of the Tejada trade... and this is coming from someone who was very much against it at the time. I never jumped on the "Hate Miggy" band wagon and was sad to see him go.
It won't rate anywhere near as high as the Bedard trade, mind you, but I still think it was a good trade for this team. If we can hang on to Dennis and he shows that he's fully healthy and able to better control his location, then I think the deal ends up looking even better.
The trade was a B+, Luke Scott equalled Tejada's numbers plus Albers has given us quality innings. The busts are Castanzo and Sarfate. I predict Patton will be our long relief guy by June.
Funny, I think we sign Tejada to play third for 1 year and then sign Bedard. I believe both are free agents.
Jack said:
whomp wah, whine, snivel, stomps foot, crosses arms & pouts....
Maybe someday you'll get it jackie.
As for the trade, it's a win no matter how you look at it. Addition by subtarction. It was necessary. Of course the Astros didn't get fleeced like Seattle. Scott has been very serviceable with comparable #'s to Miggy. The jury is still out on Sarfate and Albers of course, as many have mentioned. Patton has a ton of upside and now that he's finally healthy, hopefully he can start paying dividends as well. Costanza has turned into an organizational player, but hey we need those types as well.
Jimmy says the Phils in five-
Man, he likes to talk that jive.
Jimmy, Pedro - both will see
Yanks are Phillies big Dad-dy.
Yanks own seven; four to go
Lock & load & rock 7 roll.
Can we all say 1950?
Yeah, Yogi: "It's deja vu all over again."
I didn't really, like the trade at the time, and still don't, but I trust Andy, and it was probably the best he could do, I just wish the previous regime could have moved him the haul would of been great.
With that said I give the trade a C, that could become a B, if Patton becomes a productive major league starter. Despite peoples tendencies to bash Luke Scott(and I was never enamored with him like most fans, though i do think he is a good player), he alone makes the trade a wash.
One more factor is whether Scott gets traded, and the return on that. I just don't see Scott getting traded after his terrible slump to end the season...unlike a lot of fans I understand that you don't just look through your roster and find players you don't want and then come up with a trade to get a player(s) you do want...
Based on on the field preformance the trade was a win for Houston. I dont see Sarfate, Albers, or Patton ever helping us. Scott is an average player at best. He has potential, but we need to start grading players on results not potential. You have to ask yourself could any of these players play for the Yankees or Red Sox ? Tejada could.
Roch,
I read your comment regarding Jack: Yes! you do have a pair...
Welcome to the revolution against idiots and Oriole bashers. People do have a right to disagree, yet -negative everyday, every hour, every minute, tells me that they have problems deep down within, that no one can resolve -other then their mental health worker.
Also, the resistors of Gorky Park would have been honored to have you as a member.
yankeefanintowson:
Take your doggerel and post it on, I don't know, maybe a Philly paper. You will not get your desired level of ire in response here. Everyone in Roch's class expected your team to make it to the series. They paid for it, and they made it. Congrats. Your boasting here is like a HS senior bursting in on an elementary class to tout his team making it to the state championships. All the kids are like, wha? Okay, if you say so. Our interest is in the O's metriculation next year, not the expected outcome of the Yankees spending spree this year. Take my advice: post your "verse" somewhere on a Philly rag site. You'll get exactly what you so desperately need.
In the immortal words of Frank "Trader" Lane, the Tejada trade was "addition by subtraction."
We begin with a positive and add to it the value of Luke Scott over the last two seasons and the potential that Luke will help this team in one, or more, ways next season and beyond = major addition.
Dennis' value, if he makes the 40-man and the OD roster, will be understood next season. The same for Patton, except that he should make the 40-man.
It seems like this trade started moving us in the right direction. Tejada dogged it for the O's, except his first year with the team. He seemed Lackadaisical on defense & not running out ground balls.He was an offensive version of Scott erickson in that he was a bad influence. I would view the trade as a C+ and hope that the grade would be higher if Patton has a good year and DS can make the 40 man roster and contribute in 2010.
Basically, I think it was a trade that had to be made, and started the Macphail era on a decent note..can't dismiss the left handed bat that Luke Scott added.
I wonder if we could have done better? In the end did we just come away with some mediocre talent. Perhaps not if Scott can be a .275/25 HR/90 RBI bat if Patton can be a ten + game winner, and if Albers and DS develop into useable quality bullpen arms.
Quote of the day:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! . . . When I see my image on the security camera at the country club, I wonder, are they stealing my soul? I get so upset, I hop out of my Range Rover, and run across the fairway to the clubhouse, where I get Carlos to make me one of those martinis he's so famous for, to soothe my primitive caveman brain. But whatever world you're from, I do know one thing--in the 20 years from March 22, 1972, when he first ordered that extra nicotine be put into his product, until February 25, 1992, when he issued an interoffice memorandum stopping the addition of that nicotine, my client was legally insane."--Phil Hartman as "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer," "Saturday Night Live," March 23, 1996
F-------
Let's be clear: MIGGY NEEDED TO GO!
But the returns Andrew got have been terrible to say the least. A sign of a front office that cannot scout talent properly and predict how they will perform in the AL East, in my opinion. The status quo.
Constanzo will never see the majors.
Albers cannot stay healthy, consistent or in shape. How many times did he bounce on and off the 25 man roster in '09? He is the definition of a retread. He is the reason so many hitters in the AL East have great stats. The only people who will be sad to see him go are the managers of the Krispy Kreme shops!
Sarfate: See above, although he is slightly better than Albers and in better shape. You could call him a rich man's Matt Albers.
Patton: On paper he is a "prospect." Keyword: PAPER. Besides several quality starts at AA, he has done little else. He can't stay healthy and has yet to pitch anywhere close to a full season. We have been fed a lot of "HYPE" by Andrew but have seen little in the way of returns. Typical.
Scott: A mediocre hitter who sometimes pretends to be a power hitter. He dropped off in the second half. Andrew should cut his losses with this bum and trade him to the highest bidder.
Overall, a trade that was necessary, but horrible returns ensued.
The Tejada deal is hard to grade but I think it was an essential one for the O’s. It eliminated a declining player with a huge salary and, along with the Bedard deal, shifted the club’s direction toward rebuilding.
In his two seasons with Houston, Tejada has hit 13 and 14 home runs and has posted OPS figures under .800 OPS playing at a park known for being a hitter’s park. It’s hard to believe on a lesser team such as the O’s he would’ve been any better. It could be just coincidence but here’s a case study in a player losing his power around the time steroid testing began.
And, of course, with being named in the Mitchell Report, the age thing, the decline in play, and the overall deteriorating economic conditions that would’ve made his $12 million salary extremely gaudy, he would’ve been near impossible to trade. The O’s would’ve been stuck with him or dealt him for a lesser package and might’ve had to eat a lot of that salary.
Could the O’s have gotten a better package for him? Perhaps, but if they’d have waited another day, no, they wouldn’t have.
Roch
How many runs does this Offense score?? Where is that 30-30 guy? tghts on Smucks column today?
Doug Corbett
O' 2010 lineup
1. B. Robert 2B
2. A. Jones CF
3. N. Markakis RF
4.N. Reimold LF
5. M. Wieters C
6. L. Scott DH
7. M. Aubrey 1B
8. T. Wiggington 3B
9. C. Izturis SS
Roch,
I grade it a "B". I think we were all spoiled by the Bedard trade. That one is likely on par with the Glenn Davis trade (shuddering). We cannot judge it on those merits.
We got an every day player in Scott, a reliever in Sarfarte and a probably bullpen/starter arm with Patton. That is a good haul for an aging position player who was in the Mitchell Report.
We have to be happy with that.
What do you think? What do you think Patton will do this year?
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tejada had to go. My opinion of the return hinges greatly on Patton. He was a primary figure in the deal and I've never seen him healthy. I expect him to start the year in Norfolk's rotation. The rest is the great unknown. - Roch
The Maggy trade was one of the best in O's history. I would take him for Scott straight up. Obvioulsy getting Patton, Albers, and Sarfate were bonuses. (I never thought Constanza would amount to much).
Tejada was an overarated player that lied about his age, had a poor attitude, and was a clubhouse cancer. He was a below average defensive player, although 2 of his 4 years in baltimore were very strong offensively. His signing, set the O's back 3-4 years.
It still depends upon Sarfate and Albers. I can't discount the fact that Miggy is an impact player that put up good #'s this year.
C- unless Sarfate blossoms into a setup guy or closer.
My grade is a B Miggy had lost his coverage as a shortstop during 2007. If not traded he wouldn't have been any better then the 6-8 SS. we ran out their. his average and homers were down in 2008. Him and Scott were on par other then average. Other than a true all-star how many home run hitters have good averages. this being the third year after trade we should either see if Patton is player or a bust.
I can't figure out why Jack and Bo. keep trying to close you down with there dribble. they both seem to have some knowledge of baseball, but would rather rant. Could it be they're part of Nestor crew.
Well Sarfate's saying the right things. A lot of guys can talk the talk. We shall see what he can do in ST. Sure Im pulling for him, I just don’t have any reason to believe in him based on what I have seen on the field. I love his heater but he needs more than that north of the border.
Brummie - you cannot grade the Tejada deal at this point. Patton was the jewel of the trade. He was returning from Tommy John surgery last season. Besides, what did you expect to get for a guy whose skill set was obviously in decline & was about to be charged w/ perjury? We got 5 players. Maybe if we didn’t have to burn our pen out on a yearly basis some of these guys would pan out?
I'd grade this trade as a C- right now with the potential to go up based on Patton's performance.
A question Roch: Why are so many people saying that the O's need a "right handed" power bat for the middle of their lineup? I understand we have the left handed Markakis at the 3 spot, but we have righties or switch Jones, Reimold, Wieters, Bell, and Snyder all with middle of the lineup potential. It seems to me that a left handed power bat would be a better fit. Put that bat at 5 and Reimold at cleanup to break up lefties.
Keep up the good work!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trembley stated his desire to have a RH bat hitting fourth behind Markakis. Bell and Snyder might not be on the roster on Opening Day. They'd rather bat Jones and Wieters lower than fourth. - Roch
I know I've already posted my grade of this but would like to add in another topic for discussion.
Could another GM have made a better deal than MacPhail considering the timing and Tejada's disenchantment with the organization?
I believe the answer is no. Andy made the best deal anyone could have made under those circumstances. It's easy to make Lemonade out of Lemons, but Andy is trying to make Lemonade out of horse manure. It's much harder than some posters here seem to think it is.
I read Doug's comment on wishing they made the aybar and Santana trade with the Angels. Was that one of the trade offers? If so, I think I like that one better.
Yeah, Brummie, I don't know how you can say "It was 100% necessary that we get rid of Tejada" and then give it a 0/100 grade. I mean, clearly at least one requirement of a "good deal" was met, i.e. Tejada being traded.
I can't argue with any of your other points except to say that Luke Scott and Miguel Tejada came very close to each other in terms of offensive production over the last two years. And seeing as one played in the AL East and one played in the NL Central, it's pretty hard to make the case that on that strength alone, even without Patton or Constanzo or Albers or Sarfate, the deal is pretty close to even, or at least closer to even than it is to 0/100.
I STILL LIKE THE TRADE THEY TURNED DOWN WITH THE ANGELS FOR ERVIN SANTANA AND ERICK AYBAR ALOT BETTER.
Right now, I'd give it an Incomplete. I want to see what Patton does in a full season at AAA, or a season split between AAA and the majors.
However, even if Patton is a bust, Scott remains streaky, and the other three players retire tomorrow, it has to be a positive trade. We got rid of a declining player who had become a bad influence on the team. Addition by subtraction all the way. WHen you consider that, about two days after the trade, Tejada was outed as a steroid user and magically aged two years, it looks even better. Waiting 48 hours means we would have gotten an Aubery Huff-level return for Tejada. So while I think the trade should get an INC currently, I can't imagine its final grade being less than a C+.
Darrin said:
You have to ask yourself could any of these players play for the Yankees or Red Sox ? Tejada could.
--------------
Tejada COULD play for the Sox, certainly they'd have been interested in him when he signed with Baltimore. The Yankees pretty much have the left side of their infield covered for at least a couple more years. And I bet the Sox have no interest in Tejada for 2010 or beyond at whatever price he will command (likely a lot less than his last contract) and probably had no interest in him for 2009 at his current level of production and cost.
I agree that based on performance so far none of the guys the Orioles got back would likely be regular players on the Sox or Yanks. But Scott is cheap and could be a bench player for either, and I don't believe that either Albers or Sarfate have reached their peak, assuming they can stay healthy. I used to have more confidence in Albers but based on how they finished up the year I'm liking Sarfate more. Patton still has upside potential. He's not ready to pitch for any MLB team now, but has the possibility of being a legitimate MLB starter. If he is left off the 40-man roster I can pretty much guarantee some team would take him. So he could be good enough to pitch for the Sox or Yanks in 2011.
Not sure how that translates to the guy who wants to score it as a total bust for the Orioles. I think he's upset that the Orioles got George Costanza when he wanted them to hold out for Elaine.
P.S. About the Tejada Trade, I forgot to mention Albers. Before he went down two seasons ago, he was doing a pretty effective job out of the bullpen. He chose to rehab a labrum tear(?) and did not have a noteworthy 2009.
If he checks in at spring training in shape, he will have a chance to make our bullpen in 2010. So, that's another plus for our side of the trade.
V. Putin said:
Roch, I read your comment regarding Jack: Yes! you do have a pair...
You little Ruskie show-off; nice photo-ops with your shirt off. We have our eye on you. You will end up in the Gulag Hilton.
Some of you guys have a knack for damning with faint praise: You were trying to praise Roch; but, by saying, in effect -- finally you man up, Nancy; why the devil didn't you do something earlier? -- you actually insulted him.
StinkyD said:
yankeefanintowson:
"Take your doggerel and post it on, I don't know, maybe a Philly paper. You will not get your desired level of ire in response here ... ."
Nicely done, StinkyD.
Schoolman,
Another gift for Brummie - a blog question asking to evaluate Andrew. I wonder if this curious person known as Brummie -- who seems to be very intent to maintain posting privileges -- realizes how fortunate he is.
these are the quotes a search show up for the parameters "patton macphail" Please identify which ones you consider "hype" by Andy. The quotes sound pretty realistic and hardly overhyping to me. Granted I only looked twenty deep in the search responses so there might be more quotes. But I did not edit or skip any quotes I found and I presented only quotes. You keep accusing MacPhail of hyping this guy or that but there are never any quotes to back up your assertions. In fact twice, Roch has said he doesn't recall any such comment by MacPhail in response to your assertions.
"That's the beauty of getting five players," MacPhail said. "You can take some chances."
"I could've had a different player in there, but [Patton is] 22, left-handed and already worked his way to the big leagues," MacPhail said. "I can wait. I'm all right with that. And I think sometimes you need to swing for the fences as part of a deal. I'm obviously very satisfied with the way the other guys from that deal have handled themselves so far in spring. No regrets from my standpoint."
"Their team physician and our team physician spoke, and they traded records," said MacPhail, explaining the process. "We were cognizant of the different issues, and it had an impact on how the deal was put together."
"The pitching help was essential," MacPhail said. "You can't have enough pitching. You can do all the analysis you can do, and you can have our best evaluators out, but you have to work with numbers. To get 10 solid pitchers you have to have about 25 stacked up in the inventory. That certainly helps us in that regard."
"We want to attack the pitching with numbers," he said Friday. "We've given up two players in these two high-profile transactions and we picked up seven pitchers. We think that they're talented and they have futures. We know by definition that if you've got seven, you might end up at the end of the day with three or four. That's just the way the game works."
"Nobody knows for certain how these young players are going to evolve, but if you get five, you start playing the percentages, quite honestly," MacPhail said.
“It's pretty much what I expected. I could've gone a different way (but) sometimes you've got to go the high-risk, high-reward type deal,” said Andy MacPhail, president of baseball operations. “I could've had a different player in there, but (Patton is) 22, left-handed and already worked his way to the big leagues. I can wait.”
"Even in the worst-case scenario, with Troy being 22 and left-handed and really demonstrating a feel for pitching, we felt comfortable taking the risk, especially when one considers the other four players we already had coming back in the deal," MacPhail said. "It was something that made sense for us."
I'm a little concerned about Patton since he got ripped in AAA. If he makes our rotation in 2010 or even 2011 then its a good deal. If not then its still addition by subtraction, but I would hesitate to call it a 'good deal'... perhaps just a 'necessary deal'.