What's wrong with the Guthrie trade?

[Jordan Tuwiner]

I didn't really understand the Guthrie trade at first but looking over the numbers, I don't see a problem with this deal.

Jason Hammel is essentially Jeremy Guthrie and was actually a very good pitcher in 2009 and 2010, where he put up 3.9 WAR in both years. The Orioles lost Guthrie's almost assured 200 innings but in Hammel they have another durable starter who is moving to better pitching conditions and has more upside.

On top of Hammel, Lindstrom adds a nice piece to the bullpen and is a guy who can keep the ball in the park. He should fit in well at OPACY.

Duquette has done a solid job of improving the team (for now), especially considering the fact that he said there were no prospect offers for Guthrie.

Why are so many people upset with this deal?

[ofahn]

Why are so many people upset with this deal?

After looking at the same numbers you have I am LESS upset about this trade. I suppose what I am most upset about is that we didn't trade Guthrie when we could have gotten a much better return for him. I guess that was Andy MacPhail's parting gift.

[TuckerBlair89]

The main reason people are upset about this deal (at least from a twitter veiwpoint):
They are too entwined with Guthrie as a fan. Honestly I really think that is it.

I say it every year, "NEVER get attached to a player on a perennial losing club. You will almost ALWAYS end up hurting."

Another aspect is that everyone seems to think Guthrie is not replace-able. I do not think that at all.
This is not the greatest trade in the world by any means, but the Orioles did not "lose" it like everyone seems to indicate.
Sometimes I think trading for controllable young talent is actually pointless. In the end, Hammel and Lindstrom may end up being useful pieces for the Orioles.

[ofahn]

In the end, Hammel and Lindstrom may end up being useful pieces for the Orioles.

By that do you mean during the years we control them, or beyond?

[TuckerBlair89]

In the end, Hammel and Lindstrom may end up being useful pieces for the Orioles.

By that do you mean during the years we control them, or beyond?

Possibly both. Who knows, the Orioles could use them as trade bait in the future, or they could easily resign both. But it really depends on what they do NOW during their contracts.
Hammel is the wild-card. Depending on what he does, this trade could actually be GOOD.
I have no worries about Lindstrom. He is what he is, a pretty useful RP that can potentially close, although he probably in 2nd or 3rd tier closer-worth.


Would you agree?

[ofahn]

In the end, Hammel and Lindstrom may end up being useful pieces for the Orioles.

By that do you mean during the years we control them, or beyond?

Possibly both. Who knows, the Orioles could use them as trade bait in the future, or they could easily resign both. But it really depends on what they do NOW during their contracts.
Hammel is the wild-card. Depending on what he does, this trade could actually be GOOD.
I have no worries about Lindstrom. He is what he is, a pretty useful RP that can potentially close, although he probably in 2nd or 3rd tier closer-worth.


Would you agree?

The most honest thing I can say right now is I HOPE SO.

[Matt P]

We got a pitcher just as good (possibly better) as Guthrie and a back of the bullpen power arm and have them both for two seasons at about the same price as Guthrie would have cost.

No teams were offering any young talent and rightfully so. He's not a #1 or a #2 and on a lot of playoff teams he isn't even a #3. He isn't even going to qualify as type B after this season unless he has an incredible year.

[A_K]

The trade reinforces the O's continued goal of making marginal improvements to the big league club in the short term.

The best that can be said of the trade is that we have a comparable pitcher to the one we traded, but we have him for an additional year. That's fine, but we were already destined to be a last place team in both of the seasons for which Hammel is under contract. As long as that's the case, what's the point? We can finish in last place with or without Guthrie or Hammel. As long as we're looking at the trade in a short term perspective, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that the trade changed absolutely nothing in a short term perspective.

Duquette has said no one was offering top prospects for Guthrie, which I no doubt believe is true. But certainly we could have used a few mid-level prospects. Considering we're guaranteed to finish in last place, and that we have one of the five or six worst farm systems in baseball, I'd argue that two mid-level prospects that may never make the majors would be of much more value to us than a middling starter and a 7th inning reliever that average 30 years of age.

It's not all on Duquette. It's an organization wide frustration. We should have traded Guthrie last year, or the year before, or held onto him this year until a better deal came along. If no better deal came along, then we'd be in the same position we are now: with no new viable prospects, and a last-place major league team. But Guthrie's performance has held constant for many years now, and guys that hit 200 innings are generally more in demand at mid season, when multiple teams are on the brink of contention and need to solidify the fifth position in their rotation, than they are in early February, when most rotations are set and teams have hopes for a few young pitchers or reclamation projects.

I have no problem with trading Guthrie. I've wanted them to do it for a long time. I'm not a sentimental fan, and I view all matters of personnel dispassionately. The problem here is the same as it was with the Koji trade. In all likelihood, we received surplus value. But the return on the trade suggests an organization that foolishly believes the next 24 months hold any significance at the big league level. They don't.

[Zach]

After taking a little bit of time I agree that this trade isn't as bad numerically as first reactions indicated, but I think that A_K made a very valid point. This fanbase should be upset that this trade did nothing towards the development of the organization. Duquette can't control that Guthrie wasn't traded last year when his value was higher, but could have either gotten prospects out of this trade or waited until later in the season when Guthrie's value would have again gone up. It just seems to be a move that doesn't really benefit us at all and while losing Guthrie in and of itself isn't necessary a bad thing for the organization, it is losing what could be gotten for Guthrie that fuels the frustration. We don't invest in the short term enough to actually see real improvement while using our short term investments to ignore the long term

[birdwatcher55]

My sense is (a) the Orioles didn't want to risk losing arbitration for a guy who might win $10 mil (b) who they cannot get prospects for in return and (c) have club control for two years for two arms who could help out the bullpen

[A_K]

a) Calculated risk (they're 6-0 in arbitration hearings decided by the arbitrator that was ruling on Guthrie) that amounted to a difference of $3 million, aka Garret Atkins money.
b) "Couldn't get top prospects" should never be confused with "couldn't get prospects."
c) to what end? Trading for two years control of bullpen arms on a last place team is kinda like buying one of those coupon books from the kids that sell them door to door just because you'd like to save some money. There are better ways to do it.

I'd suggest turning the burden of proof around to those who think this was a good move. What's right about the Guthrie trade?

[ofahn]

What's right about the Guthrie trade?

Perhaps we have to console ourselves with the fact that this was the best that DD could do with the circumstances he was stuck with.

I find it ironic that when I was whining about this to a friend he said "Now I know how Obama feels". Maybe the prez can send SEAL Team 6 to get us some real prospects.

[PasadenaPaul]

Obviously no one was offering prospects and If the O"s gave up a prospect for a two time 17gm loser the Nation would go balistic. So we got what we could. Loved watching him pitch, but time to move on.

[thezeroes]

The short term gain of having two years of control over two pitchers as opposed to one year on one pitcher. Is this shortsighted?? I think not.

The long term gain would be if having Hammel and Lindstrom allow Arietta, Matusz, Tillman, Bergesen more time to further their development in AAA so that the next time they make the 25 Man Roster they actual perform and stick. I also think it gives the Orioles the option to slow the Arbitration clock on Britton or at least to remove the Super two status eligibility.

Having the five of them at AAA also allows those at AA to not be pushed before ready. This improves the depth through the minors as it would take a stellar performance to advance to the next level. Long term gain because of short term filler. This has an upside and just my view.

[birdwatcher55]

Perhaps just perhaps DD is looking to clean out this well-chronicled "culture of losing" starting with once piece at a time. I could see Markakis being moved next