Arbitration Eligibles: Baltimore Orioles

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?

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?