thats a very formidable heart of the order.
Probably the best in the NL central if not the NL.

Too bad the rest of the team will have less than 20 total home runs. But you gotta start somewhere.

What do the O's want in Luke Scott? Markakis is already in RF, and is younger and better in every way. Plus, as AROM points out, it's hard to think of a contender that would have use for him.

My hope is that Scott allows the Orioles to dump Huff or Millar. (Like all Orioles fans at this point, I've got no use for Jay Gibbons, but we couldn't pay anybody to take him off our hands right now; I'd rather play Gibbons for half of a lost 2008 season, hope he hits, and then shove him onto a desperate contender.)

This just in, Bobby Petrino has been named manager of the Astros.

There really ought to be a place in modern baseball for the Adam Everett's of the world. I would much rather watch a defensive wizard than yet another slugger that hits the occasional homer and draws a lot of walks.

That said, with Kaz Matsui and Brad Ausmus on the premesis the Astros can't afford that many outmakers.

The Orioles' rotation last year included two good starters (Bedard and Guthrie), a talented-but-ineffective enigma (Cabrera), a terrifying-but-improbably-mediocre Steve Trachsel, and a collection of filler (Brian Burres, Jon Leicester, Jaret Wright, Victor Zambrano, Victor Santos, Kurt Birkins, and a not-ready-for-prime-time Garrett Olson and Radhames Liz). They'll get Loewen back next year, but they'll also probably flip Bedard, so there are still plenty of starts out there for "the field".

My major qualms about this deal, though, are that the Orioles are extremely unlikely to be willing to use all of their pitching prospects. It doesn't help to accumulate players you aren't going to let play.

They now need to flip Bedard for hitters, not pitchers.

he's just good at going down and getting those balls

Are you kidding me? Are you ####### kidding me? Sixty or so comments and no one breaks out a Piazza joke? What happened to this site?

Regarding a post about New Orleans's park factor: BP's #s '04 through '06: 899, 913, 924. Coors Deep South it is not. While I realize that PFs >115 or <85 are pretty rare, I was kinda surprised Zephyr Field's are even that high. It gets awfully humid in this part of the world in summer (which begins, for all intents and purposes, in March). The park is situated so there's often a nice breeze off the river blowing out to right, but mercy, can it be oppressive on a still night. Fences aren't all that distant, about 330 down the lines, 400 (used to be, IMS, 410) to center.

I refuse to believe that Houston will play Tejada at SS & Everett at 3B. If I see it in an actual regular-season game, I will still refuse to believe it, and sensibly so, as that would be evidence that the universe has turned inside out, in which case nothing would be real. Moving Everett would rank as one of the biggest asset-deployment blunders in all of baseball; they're shooting themselves in the foot, and using five young players, albeit of varying expected usefulness, as the ammo. Dumb.

Question, why would Baltimore want to move Bedard? He's only 28, he's one of the majors' elite pitchers, he doesn't cost a ton (and when he does, the Orioles have shown that they can generate heavy-hitter revenues if they put a good club on the field) ... pitcher-projection caveats aside, isn't he someone they should want to keep, regardless of their current spot on the all-hallowed success cycle? If someone knocks them over with an offer, then, hey, you do what you gotta do, but to be shopping him around (if that's what happens) doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

Happy Base Ball

... Bobby Petrino has been named manager of the Astros

This would be a better move than playing Everett at 3B so Tejada can stay at short.

There really ought to be a place in modern baseball for the Adam Everett's of the world. I would much rather watch a defensive wizard than yet another slugger that hits the occasional homer and draws a lot of walks

Preach on, Brother Vance. Would the game be more interesting if balls hit over the wall were considered outs, or am I spending too much time with people who've gone off their med's again?

Happy Base Ball

You'd need either a terrific hitting team that can contend but has a SS hole, or a rebuilding team that wants to ease life for its young pitchers. I don't see very many fits here at all,

How about a rebuilding team that wants to ease life for its young pitchers and has just created a hole by trading away its starting shortstop?

My major qualms about this deal, though, are that the Orioles are extremely unlikely to be willing to use all of their pitching prospects. It doesn't help to accumulate players you aren't going to let play.

I'm not sure what this means. Are you concerned about vets blocking the prospects? b/c the only "vets" on the staff next year will probably be Bradford and Walker, and even they might be gone.

"This just in, Bobby Petrino has been named manager of the Astros."

This just in: Rumors are connecting Bobby Petrino with the Toledo Mud Hens job. Petrino denies all knowledge.

Everett would fit well on the A's. They're semi-rebuilding, have a giant giant question mark/black hole at shortstop, and have young pitchers. However, the farm system is pretty awful, I don't know what we have that the Astros might want. Not that Everett merits a huge return, though, of maybe it could happen

I was just thinking the same, if they decide not to trade Haren/Blanton. He's hit just .242/.288/.352 over the past 3 years, which is one of the worst lines in baseball. But according to the Fielding Bible, he's made 92 more plays than the average SS over that span. Let's conservatively say those were all singles he turned into outs.

What would Everett's putrid batting line look like if you gave him those 92 extra singles on offense and turned him into an average fielding SS? He'd have hit .313/.354/.432 from 2005-2007, which is well above average for a SS. He only made $2.5M last year, so he should be a good bargain. He can even start the year as a utility guy until Crosby gets hurt or confirms his sucktitude once and for all.

I'm not sure what this means. Are you concerned about vets blocking the prospects? b/c the only "vets" on the staff next year will probably be Bradford and Walker, and even they might be gone.

I'm concerned that they'll get more veterans, because teams virtually never are willing to put five 'unproven' pitchers in their rotation. Without Bedard, we've got Guthrie (sophomore, never thrown more than 175 IP), Loewen (coming off serious injury), Cabrera (ugh), Patton (rookie), and someone from Olson (rookie)/Liz (rookie)/Albers (ugh). Well, perhaps we get Bailey for Bedard and plug him into the last slot.

First, I don't see the Orioles going with that rotation.

Second, that already gives us a surfeit of pitchers -- you only get to use five starters -- and still nothing in the way of offense. Less than nothing, since we're now down Tejada. Of course, not all the starters will work out, but it doesn't make sense to have 10 pitchers for 5 slots on the theory that some won't work out when you have nobody to hit.

Where's bbc to give her post mortem?

What would Everett's putrid batting line look like if you gave him those 92 extra singles on offense and turned him into an average fielding SS? He'd have hit .313/.354/.432 from 2005-2007, which is well above average for a SS.

You can't do it quite that way, because you've just taken away 92 outs from Everett's batting line that still have to be made by someone. A better way to estimate the equivalent is to hold Everett's "outs" constant, not his ABs - so it's more like .292/.333/.395, which is in the 80s in terms of OPS+.

-- MWE

I'm concerned that they'll get more veterans, because teams virtually never are willing to put five 'unproven' pitchers in their rotation.

More Victor Zambrano! Lohse and Silva will be too expensive but I could see the O's picking up Traschel again.

I'm concerned that they'll get more veterans, because teams virtually never are willing to put five 'unproven' pitchers in their rotation. Without Bedard, we've got Guthrie (sophomore, never thrown more than 175 IP), Loewen (coming off serious injury), Cabrera (ugh), Patton (rookie), and someone from Olson (rookie)/Liz (rookie)/Albers (ugh). Well, perhaps we get Bailey for Bedard and plug him into the last slot.

First, I don't see the Orioles going with that rotation.

Second, that already gives us a surfeit of pitchers -- you only get to use five starters -- and still nothing in the way of offense. Less than nothing, since we're now down Tejada. Of course, not all the starters will work out, but it doesn't make sense to have 10 pitchers for 5 slots on the theory that some won't work out when you have nobody to hit.

It's pretty clear that MacPhail is gutting the team, and he's already said that he won't go after many FAs, so I don't think that's a concern. As for your second point, I can't see how it's a bad thing to have lots of young pitchers. Some will be Norfolk, some will get injured, some will pan out. I just don't understand why having 10 pitchers for 5 slots is a problem. In any event, it's also pretty clear that they're going to trade Bedard for at least a couple of good bats.

Question, why would Baltimore want to move Bedard? He's only 28, he's one of the majors' elite pitchers, he doesn't cost a ton (and when he does, the Orioles have shown that they can generate heavy-hitter revenues if they put a good club on the field) ... pitcher-projection caveats aside, isn't he someone they should want to keep, regardless of their current spot on the all-hallowed success cycle?

Because he will be 29 next year and has never have broken 200 IP. Now is the time to trade high, especially as a cheap alternative to Santana.

What happened to Bedard 2001 through 2003? According to thebaseballcube.com, he threw only about 200 innings in those three years.

Question, why would Baltimore want to move Bedard?

Because he won't sign a damn extension with the O's.

You can't do it quite that way, because you've just taken away 92 outs from Everett's batting line that still have to be made by someone. A better way to estimate the equivalent is to hold Everett's "outs" constant, not his ABs - so it's more like .292/.333/.395, which is in the 80s in terms of OPS+.

I'm not following. It seems that with each additional defensive play he makes, he should get credit for the extra out and for the saved single. But in converting that to offense, you're just giving him credit for the "saved" single.

What happened to Bedard 2001 through 2003

Dr. James Andrews happened.

Lance, the Orioles do want to keep Bedard, but he doesn't want to stay. Negotiations for a contract extension have gone nowhere, so the team is looking at only two more years of his services. O's fans have already experienced the "just let your ace pitcher play out his contract and then leave" approach to rebuilding, and it didn't work...

It's pretty clear that MacPhail is gutting the team, and he's already said that he won't go after many FAs, so I don't think that's a concern.

I do. I'm not worried that he's going to go out and bid big bucks on Clemens or try to trade for Santana or something. I'm worried we're going to get a Trachsel or the equivalent. I simply don't see them -- or any team -- using the rotation I outlined. They're going to look at that and see a bullpen that will be overworked by May.

As for your second point, I can't see how it's a bad thing to have lots of young pitchers. Some will be Norfolk, some will get injured, some will pan out. I just don't understand why having 10 pitchers for 5 slots is a problem.

For the same reason having 4 kidneys and no liver is a problem. You can only use 2 of the former, and meanwhile you die from lack of the latter. It doesn't make sense to have depth without breadth. Until you've filled all your holes, you're just wasting players at Norfolk. And the Orioles have a lot of other holes. Like about 7 of them on offense.

In any event, it's also pretty clear that they're going to trade Bedard for at least a couple of good bats.

That's not the latest rumor I've heard; that one seems to be two pitchers and one bat from the Reds.

Question, why would Baltimore want to move Bedard? He's only 28,

Because he's a free agent in two years and the Orioles aren't going to be contenders in that time no matter how well he pitches. And their farm system is empty and he's one of their only valuable chits. If they don't trade him:

Likely scenario: he pitches very well for two years while the Orioles lose 95+ games each year. Then he leaves and the Orioles have just a draft pick to show for it, and still are 95 game losers because their farm has failed to produce anything in that time.

Worst case scenario: he gets hit by a bus on the second day of spring training, the Orioles lose 100+ games, and they don't even have a draft pick to show for him.


His trade value will never be higher, and they desperately need to cash him in.

It seems that with each additional defensive play he makes, he should get credit for the extra out and for the saved single. But in converting that to offense, you're just giving him credit for the "saved" single.

When you keep Everett's ABs constant and add hits, you also subtract outs from Everett's line as well. But some hitter (or group of hitters) STILL has to make those 92 outs - they can't just disappear, because the number of outs a TEAM makes is constant for this discussion. So you have to redistribute the outs among the hitters on the team - and then you penalize the other hitters on the team for Everett's gains. Everett's making a play in the field doesn't penalize the other fielders (not really - they have fewer chances to make plays but in the plus/minus system they shouldn't be affected by that), so it's unreasonable to penalize the other hitters for something positive Everett did on offense.

You therefore hold the OUTS constant, to avoid penalizing the other hitters.

-- MWE

For the same reason having 4 kidneys and no liver is a problem. You can only use 2 of the former, and meanwhile you die from lack of the latter. It doesn't make sense to have depth without breadth. Until you've filled all your holes, you're just wasting players at Norfolk. And the Orioles have a lot of other holes. Like about 7 of them on offense.

I still don't think this makes sense. Obviously all of these young pitchers aren't going to pan out, so it's good to have depth. Regardless, MacPhail has also said that he's just going to get the best talent available, and sort it out later. That seems to be what he did here, and I think it's the right approach.

Dumping Everett makes this a bad move to me.

When you keep Everett's ABs constant and add hits, you also subtract outs from Everett's line as well. But some hitter (or group of hitters) STILL has to make those 92 outs - they can't just disappear, because the number of outs a TEAM makes is constant for this discussion. So you have to redistribute the outs among the hitters on the team - and then you penalize the other hitters on the team for Everett's gains. Everett's making a play in the field doesn't penalize the other fielders (not really - they have fewer chances to make plays but in the plus/minus system they shouldn't be affected by that), so it's unreasonable to penalize the other hitters for something positive Everett did on offense.

But why assume the extra plate appearances Everett creates for his teammates will have a net negative value? Shouldn't we assume they'd have a positive run expectancy and a zeroed win expectancy? That those 92 extra outs would be accompanied by positive outcomes, as well?

I'm not following. It seems that with each additional defensive play he makes, he should get credit for the extra out and for the saved single.

Yeah, this makes the most sense to me too. IOW, Everett turned 92 singles into outs with his glove. So to see how valuable he is, we're going to turn 92 of his batting outs into singles. I don't see the problem with Danny's math here.

I still don't think this makes sense. Obviously all of these young pitchers aren't going to pan out, so it's good to have depth.

I don't think David, or anyone, contests that depth is good. He's just saying that you need hitters to win so it might be wise to pick up a few of them at some point because Markakis, Wieters and Rowell isn't a enough.

But why assume the extra plate appearances Everett creates for his teammates will have a net negative value? Shouldn't we assume they'd have a positive run expectancy and a zeroed win expectancy? That those 92 extra outs would be accompanied by positive outcomes, as well?

Sure, they would. But if you do that, Everett's gain on offense becomes MORE than the value of 92 extra hits overall to the team, and then you give the offense more of a boost than the comparable defensive savings.

To do this *right*, you add 92 hits to the Astros' *team* line, without changing the *team* total number of outs. Then you have to figure out how the extra opportunities would be distributed to the rest of Everett's teammates, and how they would be distributed to Everett. And when you do all of that extra work, you wind up with something that isn't significantly different, in terms of the overall impact to the team, than just adding 92 singles AND 92 ABs to Everett's line - IOW, holding Everett's outs constant.

-- MWE

That those 92 extra outs would be accompanied by positive outcomes, as well?

Exactly. Otherwise you would be essentially arguing that adding a high-OBP player to a team "penalizes" his teammates.

I still don't think this makes sense. Obviously all of these young pitchers aren't going to pan out, so it's good to have depth.

Look, eventually you'll get a flat tire, so it's good to buy a spare to carry in the trunk. But if you've got limited resources (*) for obtaining more parts, you should probably replace the broken carburetor rather than buying the fifth tire. Right now, the Orioles aren't just getting a fifth tire, they're getting a sixth, seventh, and eighth tire. Again, that's not a bad thing in the abstract -- some of these tires are pretty shabby, so they're might need to be replaced -- but the car isn't going anywhere until the engine gets fixed, so all those spares aren't doing you any good. They're just taking up space in your garage.


((*) In the Orioles' case, the limited resource isn't cash, but players with trade value.)

Regardless, MacPhail has also said that he's just going to get the best talent available, and sort it out later. That seems to be what he did here, and I think it's the right approach.

If we were talking about the draft, where you're trying to get players for five or six years down the road and you don't know what you're going to need then, I would agree with that approach. But I'd like a little more of a big picture approach when you're trying to put together a major league roster, even if you're looking at a year or two down the road.

Plus, when you have too many pitchers, you can't "sort it out." There's only a limited number you can look at. I'd rather make a commitment to, say, seven of them than pull the "Okay, we gave him 3 starts in the majors and he got knocked out early each time, so let's demote him and give three starts to the next guy because we've got a lot of guys to try out" shtick.

I think Mike's right because his answer looks more right :-P Our starting point here is, what, like a 625 OPS? Getting from that to "well above average" would be quite a feat.

Of course, Everett used to actually hit something like 292/333/395 with his bat (ok, never literally quite that good, but close twice), so if you were to do this exercise and add 30 singles a year to that statline, then you'd really have something.

I'm not actually sure that Everett/Tejada is a better alignment than Tejada/Wigginton, especially if Tejada has an adjustment period learning to play 3B. But all other things being equal, it's just intrinsically cooler to have someone who is the best in the world at one thing, as opposed to someone who is very mediocre at everything. In an ideal world, Wiggy is a utility IF anyway.

In any event, it's all contingent on Everett still being the same fielder after this leg injury. I'd certainly want to rely a lot on my medical staff here.

Still, the Nats have nothing to lose by signing him :-) And yeah, neither do the O's...

But if you do that, Everett's gain on offense becomes MORE than the value of 92 extra hits overall to the team, and then you give the offense more of a boost than the comparable defensive savings.

Mike, an "out not made" compounds in this way for both defense and offense. It is a little silly to subtract value from one part of a player's line and add it elsewhere, but there's no fundamental mathematical reason why it is misleading. If you accept that Everett turned 92 singles into outs, then that is the equivalent "value" of turning 92 outs into singles.

The only additional adjustment would result from team context, since the compounding effect is slightly greater in a high offensive environment than in a low offensive environment. If the offense is strong, or the pitching/defense weak, then the compounding effect will be greater. On a good team you would (very marginally) prefer the offensive contribution. On a team that allows more runs than it scores you would prefer the defensive contribution.

Our starting point here is, what, like a 625 OPS? Getting from that to "well above average" would be quite a feat.

That's just a fancy way of saying that you don't believe he turned 92 singles into outs over a three-year period. Because if he did, that would be a HUGE defensive contribution.

Let's do a quick reality check on Danny's math. According to BPro, Everett's totaled 7.3 WARP1 over the past 3 years. In that time, they have him at 33 runs above average as a fielder. If we were to substitute the fielding bible's 92 plays above average, and use Dial's ~.8 runs per play, he was 'actually' 74 runs above average in the field. That's an extra 7 or so wins. Add that to his 7.3 WARP1 and he's up around 14.3 WARP, or 6 WARP per full season.

How does that compare to Danny's hypothetical .313/.354/.432 average defensive SS? It sounds pretty close. In 05, Rollins was about 350/450 with a -13 FRAA and had 4.6 WARP.

With all the bats the Cubs have (and possibly adding Brian Roberts), couldn't they use Everett? Theriot doesn't seem to be the answer there.

Somebody tell me why this deal wouldn't work.

Bedard
Roberts to 3b or LF.

to Milwaukee

for:

J Jeffres
A Escobar
L Cain

???

It's a shame Dan R's WAR is only available through 2005. That year (one of Everett's good ones with the bat) he was 1.6 wins below average with the bat, 0.2 wins above on the basepaths and 1.3 wins above with the glove. So that makes him roughly an average player even before the positional adjustment.

Crazy Joe Bivens Posted: December 12, 2007 at 07:29 PM (#2643089)

Where's bbc to give her post mortem?

- sulking

after haveing to watch loretta "play" SS and knowing i'm going to be watching the same anmount of crapulence makes me puke. tejada is being pimped as a clubhouse "leader" whatever the eff that is. 50 homers off of roids my black ass

HEY YOU MALES!!!

why do 25 professional baseball players, major leaguers, need a "leader" will someone male PLEASE explain that to me because i have zero testicular fortitude and can't seem to get it.

so to speak.

anyhow,

from what i have seen

luke scott is a DAMM good ballplayer, a decent glove in both left and right, although he is a natural LF and he hits lefties just fine. the ONE thing he can NOT do is pinch hit. he really SHOULD be playing full time. he should have played full time last year too

matt albers, um, is not good, not as a reliever, not as a starter. he doesn't have good command and i'm not real too impressed with either FB or slider. not sorry he's gone. not sure if dewey robinson would have got more from him then colborn

troy patton - seemed to have a decent FB but i only saw 12 innings, so i'm a lousy judge

sarfate - looked electric over his 14 innings. and i mean ELECTRIC. too bad his track record in the minors sux

costanza - shrug. i will be real surprised if he turns into bagwell

Several of the comments regarding Scott and Markakis and OF defense should also factor in the postage stamp Camden Yards OF. If the Orioles were smart and wanted to maximize the home field, they'd not worry a whole lot about OF defense, and push the spectrum as far as they could. To protect themselves they should have a strong defensive bench OF for subs and road games.

In short, they ought to try Markakis in CF, because of their home field.

I don't think David, or anyone, contests that depth is good. He's just saying that you need hitters to win so it might be wise to pick up a few of them at some point because Markakis, Wieters and Rowell isn't a enough.

That's pretty self-evident. The question is whether MacPhail could have gotten better position prospects for tejada. At this point none of use know one way or the other, so criticizing him for it is a bit pointless. And if that's DN's only point, that's hardly controversial. The issue is his claim that the orioles have too many pitching prospects.

Somebody tell me why this deal wouldn't work.

Bedard
Roberts to 3b or LF.

to Milwaukee

for:

J Jeffres
A Escobar
L Cain

Well, the Orioles would have to be crazy to accept it.

Bedard
Roberts to 3b or LF.

to Milwaukee

for:

J Jeffres
A Escobar
L Cain

???

Beano:

None of the Milwaukee guys have sufficient rep in the evaluation community to make this deal remotely feasible. And Jeffress now has character concerns with the suspension. Brewer fans may regard them as valuable commodities but their market value isn't that high. At least not high enough for Baltimore management to sell this deal to the fan base.

Milwaukee would have to include something real and tangible from the major league roster. Personally, I wouldn't be distressed by Sheets, Hall, minor leaguer deal for Bedard/Roberts. I think that's a decent starting point for discussions.

Personally, I wouldn't be distressed by Sheets, Hall, minor leaguer deal for Bedard/Roberts. I think that's a decent starting point for discussions.

That is still way short of the talent required to get Bedard, let alone Bedard and Roberts.

Those are also the wrong kind of players. The Orioles are looking for prospects/young major leaguers who will be cheap for years. The 5 guys they picked up in the Tejada trade have 3 years of Major League service time combined.

For Bedard alone, the Mariners currently have a deal on the table headlined by Adam Jones and other prospects, and the Reds are reportedly offering Bailey AND Votto.

For Roberts alone, the Cubs are certainly willing to part with Gallagher and Cedeno, and are contemplating sending Pie.

So the Brewers would need to bring a lot more to the table to get them both.

In any event, it's all contingent on Everett still being the same fielder after this leg injury. I'd certainly want to rely a lot on my medical staff here.

Good point. When Ozzie Guillen came back from his knee injury, he went from a great fielder to an average one. Not sure how a broken leg affects SS play compared to a knee problem, but Jermaine Dye took a few years before he was fully recovered from his break, and Juan Rivera may have similar problems - he ran like a Molina when he came back last year.

Post 144:

Sigh. If the O's trade Bedard they should consider having someone in the short term who is both somewhat comparable in talent capable of filling Erik's role while also not being a long-term burden to the team. Hence, Sheets.

With the infield in flux Hall's versaility is valuable. He is also signed for the next 3 years at a cheap price relative to his projected output.

And then some minor leaguers.

And I also said my combo was a STARTING point.

If the Orioles are solely interested in unproven talent that foolish.

If the Orioles are solely interested in unproven talent that foolish.

They've written off competing in 2008 and 2009, so anyone who isn't likely to be around in 2010 and beyond has very little value to them. It looks like Sheets and Hall both will be free agents by then.

Whether you agree with this strategy or not (and I happen to agree), that's the reality of the type of talent they are looking for.

DKDC:

Look, there is a difference between having a long-term plan and failing to see how the short-term can assist the long-term.

Ben Sheets is, by market standards, a reasonable expense and capable of being a quality starter. I happen to believe in the "walk year" motiviation idea so expect Ben to be pretty solid. Which will only equate to appearing decent in 2008 while providing a draft pick for the O's and money available for future investment if and when he walks. Hall would also provide the appearnce of not having completely given up and in turn could be a useful trading chip down the road should the opportunity present itself.

So these two guys buy the O's some short-term and could be leveraged for assets in the long-term.

As opposed to getting just a boatload of really young players, sifting through them and likely tossing 60% aside once they prove not to pan out.

Or are the O's so proficient at player evaluation they know who will be a good to great player among the talent being offered? Because I haven't see that type of ability from the organization of late.

But AGAIN, it was a suggestion. If the O's are so hot and bothered about wanting 20 year olds good luck to them......

Per Rosenthal, Everett signs a one year deal with Minnesota.

Why would the Orioles trade Bedard for Sheets (among other players)? I just don't see what that would accomplish.

As opposed to getting just a boatload of really young players, sifting through them and likely tossing 60% aside once they prove not to pan out.

'

I'd rather toss out 60% after a few years than 100%, which is what they would do with anyone near free-agency. No one worth re-signing would likely stay for a price that the O's would want to pay. This team is built to lose 100 games for a few years...