Peter,
To my knowledge, the Ravens have never won when playing in the rain. In fact, during many games played in inclement weather the Ravens have hardly shown up (Colts game last year, a Dolphins game in Miami a few years back). This is despite analysts saying that rainy weather helps a team with a strong defense and running game, which is exactly what one radio personality said this morning. Do you think that the weather might turn what should be an easy win into an ugly game we could lose?

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I don't think so. The Bengals have some of the same issues....and they're also the Bengals.

I really think the opinions of the local media are off target on this proposed trade, and in fact on the regression of the O's front office. The issue isn't whether or not fans are suddenly back in love with Olson, or if it's even the same fans, but his value relative to the proposed return. Roch is espousing how LF is not a strength on this team despite Scott, Montanez and Riemold. There is depth there. You're over here practically amazed that fans don't want this deal done, and also how bad LF is. The point is, it isn't a need, but pitching is. Therefore, why trade what you need for something you don't. Furthermore, if this is all that AM can seemingly accomplish since the Bedard trade, it's a huge disappointment. This team has several needs and yet all he can do is add depth to a position we've actually got some depth at. Come one. If a player can't hit in the PCL, than he can't play in the Majors. Pie is a bust. It doesn't matter if Olson is, too. The Orioles don't need all stars at every position. LF is not a significant source of underproduction on the current MLB lineup. The trade makes no sense. If you think trading scraps for scraps is worthwhile, well, I guess you'll be happy. I'd rather focus on making the O's a better team. Getting Pie does not do that - it has nothing to do with Olson.

As has already been mentioned on the blog, Felix Pie is similar to another "can't miss, five tool, huge upside" Cubs' prospect, Corey Patterson. The fear for the Orioles should be whether, like Patterson, Pie proves to be a bust after they trade for him. One good thing is that the O's would be getting Pie at a younger age (24) than they did Patterson (26), meaning there might be more room for development.

I can't see the Orioles keeping Luke Scott if they get Pie (unless they're willing to have Pie start the season in Norfolk, because they both bat left handed and one of the off season goals of front office is supposed to be to get more right hand balance in the lineup. Doing this would be a gamble, for sure, because while Scott was a pretty dependable (if a slight disappointment in some respects), no one really knows for sure whether Pie will ever hit in the majors. Scott can hit, and now with a year facing AL pitching under his belt (and in his notebook), could be posed to have a big year.

Left field is more a strength than a weakness, even if Scott starts there with Lou Montanez ready to play when a southpaw is on the mound his .283 BA against lefties was 70 points higher than Scott's)

In sum, the Orioles wouldn't be addressing a crucial need by trading for Pie, though his acquisition might produce dividends long term. Then, again, 2009 might be the year that Garrrett Olson figures it out and becomes a valuable member of the starting rotation. He once was considered a top prospect for the O's and doesn't turn 26 until after the season, so there still may be potential there.

Pie or Olson? An tough decision, which is why Andy MacPhail is being paid the big bucks.

Strength as in quanity not quality, they have Scott, Lou and Nolan all three cheap and with left field as the best place to put them. I would much rather the O's trade for an infielder.

Does Pie even have any options left?

For the record I don't love Olson I would just rather throw him out there then have the O's give Garland a 3 or 4 year deal. The O's have very little to lose by tossing him out there every 5th day next season, and the current alternatives are worse.

Btw, RBI are a stupid way to judge productivity.

...............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Well, I would agree it's a simplistic way to judge productivity., but when you can find me a 100-RBI guy who isn't valuable and a 65-RBI guy who doesn't steal bases or play great defense who is, I'll concede the point.

I'm not really a Felix Pie fan but you aren't going to get much of anything for a pitcher with Olson's track record. They should have dumped him for Greene (if that offer was true).

A guy in 160 innings has a 6.87 era and allowed 300 runners on base (roughly 15 per 8 innings or more likely 8 per the usual 4 innings he lasts) just isn't worth spending much time thinking about keeping.

Not everyone wanted to run him out on a rail. Some of us do realize that rookies usually struggle when they first come up to the majors.

If he isn't traded, he should get the chance to win a rotation spot in spring training and get at least one more year before we really worry about him.

I'm not opposed to trading him, but we don't HAVE to trade him. We definitely need more back than either Pie or Greene on their own, even if we have to add something to the deal.

And as for Luke Scott, the Orioles got a .805 OPS from left field last season, fourth in the AL and only behind Boston and Chicago among playoff teams (just ahead of New York, and almost 100 points better than Tampa Bay or the Angels).

Plus he spent most of his time in the #6 spot in the lineup, behind the "RBI" guys in Markakis and Huff, as well as Millar and Hernandez, who didn't get on-base much last year.

I wouldn't have a problem replacing Scott in left field if we used him to get talent at another position; at the very least, we have Nolan Reimold who could get a chance to play there. But he definitely isn't a problem.

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I didn't say he's a problem. He did some good things last year. There were times when he was the best clutch hitter on the team. I only said LF could not be considered a strength.

Pie is a fine young player. I'd love to see the O's continue to add young talent. Pie was not given a chance in Chicago. They wanted to win now. Pie can come to Baltimore and get to go out and play everyday. Like what the O's did with Markakis and Jones.

63% SB percentage? Just a young guy that needs to work on learning how to steal bases. Working on team with Brian Roberts can only help.

He is a raw talent. But he has already shown to be a AAA All Star. MLB is different. But MacPhail tried to get him in the deal for Roberts last year. If all it takes is a kid with an ERA close to 7 then go for it.

So, Peter, you're saying Derek Jeter wasn't valuable in 2008?

.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: No, but I don't remember him playing in LF last year.

Who says Scott doesn't play great defense? The fielding bible has him at +12 last season, 4th in left field and oddly enough the same score Nick got in RF...

I will also say Huff is your not valuable 100 RBI guy, he had 108 last season and no one claimed him off waivers for fear the O's would salary dump him.

Also Scott's OPS last season was .807, Pie had a .802 in AAA and his career minor league OPS is just .823 as opposed to Scott's .851 career OPS in the majors. So please tell me how Pie is going to be an offense upgrade over Scott, and don't say stolen bases, I would rather have a runner stand on the bag then try and steal at 63% you lose less runs that way.

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I'm pretty sure they would view Pie as a developing player, so holding him to his minor league SB percentage isn't really logical. As for Huff, I don't know if anyone claimed him off waivers, since waivers are confidential and the O's would not have let him go for nothing.

Also for your 65 rbi guy that doesn't steal bases or play great defense....

Wade Boggs, he had 14 seasons with less then 65 RBI, never stole more then 3 bases, wasn't a wizard with the glove and yet is in the hall of fame.

...............................................................................................
Pete's reply: So let me get this straight, you're comparing Luke Scott to a career .330 hitter?

You asked for a valuable player who 1- didn't steal bases, 2-wasn't a great fielder and 3-didn't have 65 rbi in a given season.

I found one, I am not comparing Scott to Boggs, I am pointing out that rbi are a real bad way to judge value.

As for holding him to his minor league stolen base number...you think he is going to be better at stealing off of major league batteries then he was in A ball? Considering his best years % in the minors were in 2002 and 2004 I don't think its likely, he was at 61% last season.

...............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I think you've taken this discussion out of the bounds of reason. I never said, in general, that someone with 65 RBI couldn't be a valuable player. I said that you cannot consider LF a "strength" if your starting LF (148 games) drives in only 65 runs. Trotting out Derek Jeter (who is a shortstop who can hit 320) and Wade Boggs (who is one of the greatest pure hitters in the history of the game and also not a LF) defies any semblance of logic. I'll give you this. If you're average fielding left fielder bats .340 and has 220 hits a year, I'll concede the point.

Scott is a streaky hitter. Month to month its like night and day:

April - .279/ .374/ .419
May - .212/ .312/ .470
June - .333/ .389/ .704
July - .185/ .295/ .383
Aug - .326/ .414/ .523
Sept - .181/ .192/ .319

Up until September it looked like Scott was going to have a good year.

Without Sept numbers he'd have been:
.270/ .354/ .499 - 60 R 25 2B 2 3B 57 RBI 2 SB in 403 ABs

Pete, your reliance on RBI as a legitimate stat to value and determine players worth is a major stumbling block. Luke Scott had the 2nd highest SLG of LF with at least 300 ABs last year. Furthermore, he's working towards not being a platoon player. As a DH he was not as good, but the 65 RBI by Scott did not all come as a DH. The Orioles had 89 RBI out of LF this year. Your assessment is not even close. The one area Orioles Left Fielders did not excel was in OBP, and Pie is not going to help in that area. Pie would be a permanent downgrade at LF for the Orioles.

...............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I'm not putting that much stock in RBI. I said, quite simply, that LF is "not a strength" and used the 65 RBI as a reason. I like Luke Scott and think he's a decent player, but the notion that they are set at the position because he has a decent slugging percentage just doesn't fly.

But for LF totals I'd think the O's got solid production.

Scott - .271/.357/.512 361 AB 53 R 98 H 20 2B 2 3B 21 HR 49 RBI 45 BB

Payton - .256/.290/.387 168 AB 16 R 43 H 6 2B 2 3B 4 HR 28 RBI 8 BB

Montanez - .299/.316/.455 77 AB 11 R 23 H 3 2B 0 3B 3 HR 12 RBI 2 BB

So overall LF was:
.271/.331/.470 606 AB 80 R 164 H 29 2B 4 3B 28 HR 89 RBI 55 BB

I'd think a lot of team would have been happy with those numbers for LF.

You admitted the problem: you needed a reason, and you found one in the 65 RBIs. Unfortunately that's really the only stat that fits the argument, and it is a poor way to judge an individual player (which you did admit).

We got more production out of left field then several playoff teams, and were close with all but Chicago. And they had the guy who would have been MVP were he not hurt most of September.

Luke Scott isn't a star player, but he is good offensively and at least average defensively. Left field should be way down there with the rest of the outfield on the list of priorities this off-season.

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I like the way you take a few words and basically say I conceded the argument. Luke Scott is not "at least" an average LF. He is, at best, an average LF. If you want to compete in the AL East, you need to get better everywhere you can. Is Pie better? I don't know. I'm guessing, however, that MacPhail is trying to improve the outfield defense along with the pitching staff, and he needs somebody to DH, so it's not like you'd be throwing Scott on the scrap heap if he played less left field and more DH. But the bottom line is this: It's not like this deal -- if it happens -- precludes anything else. Some of the posters are acting like "This is our deal this year?" I don't think it's all that important whether they do it or not.

No Peter you said:
"when you can find me a 100-RBI guy who isn't valuable and a 65-RBI guy who doesn't steal bases or play great defense who is, I'll concede the point."

You did not specify left field.

My points, since you think I am out of bounds are:

RBI is not a stat that should be used when comparing players value.

Pie is not an offensive upgrade over Scott in left field.

.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: But we were talking about LF, but let's not quibble. As for whether Pie is better offensively than Scott, I think it's obvious they're not judging Pie in the present. I think if they make the deal, they are gambling that he'll bloom into something better than Scott, who probably is who he is going to be. Who knows who's right, but you still can play Scott at DH.

Pete, yes, his SLG does fly and it does make him an above average LF (in terms of hitting). Yes, the O's are set at the position and if they really feel that they aren't, there are other ways to fix that problem. If it is a real problem, it's no where near the biggest problem. The production out of LF as a whole is fine. I think what most readers reacted to was in your response to the Featured Comment, you definitely sounded as though this was something you thought was a priority. The implications throughout your post are clear - improve LF, and trading Olson is worth it. I think what most readers are trying to get across to you is the shock that this is what AM is focusing on. You may not think it's a strength, but it isn't a weakness and ought not be a priority. Fans are rightly anxious. AM hasn't accomplished anything in over 10 months, is painfully slow to act, and the offseason is starting to wear on.
Also, not everybody wanted Olson out of town. The assertion that 65 RBI is acceptable only on a last place team is wildly inaccurate. Only four teams in the AL are set at LF. Across the AL it's a rather weak position. The only two I would want over Luke Scott right now are Crawford and Quentin. Damon - old. Anderson - old. Ibanez - old. Young - attitude problem and not producing.

...............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I don't think it is a priority. I think it's just something they want to do because Andy wants to stockpile young position players. Who's to say whether Andy is actually focusing on this. Teams talk about lots of things at the same time. I'm sure he's talking to agents and is waiting to see where the Teixeira thing goes.

Neither do I, which is what I've been trying to say.

I don't think we're that far apart, really. Just slightly differing opinions on Scott's ability.

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I'm sure you're right. I'm a Luke Scott fan. Thought he was one of the guys who kept the team respectable in the first half. I don't know if he's the starting LF on a really good team, but there also isn't any urgency to replace him. I think this deal would be about overall position depth.

I have always like Olsen, He's raw, obviously, but come on. The guy just needs a little tweaking and He's there. We even have a nickname in our house for him: we call him Thor, He has that whole norse look down pat. So do you trade a norse god of thunder for a piece of dessert?

Two obvious comments, which surprisingly haven't appeared in this firestorm: 1) Who is the Orioles fallback if Jones gets injured or needs a day off? 2) Olson had psychological issues last year. My thoughts on the first point are that Pie would be young, cheap, and a valuable 4th outfielder who might become more. On the second, if we hang onto Olson but keep the same coaching staff, why should we assume he'll improve? He was a decent prospect in the minors, but never projected to more than a #3 starter at best. There is risk in any trade, but I'd make this deal.

Pete... You're not asking the right question. What you should be "reporting" on is this fetish that MacPhail has with Cubs players. It's getting down right embarrassing. I wonder if Angelos's medical plan covers this....

Jeff V -

You are missing Pete's point when talking about Luke Scott and his 65 RBI output in LF. Luke is a nice 4th outfielder and can play for extended periods of time. He is not, nor should he be viewed as the LF of the future for this team. And since the conversation centered around Olson for Pie, who by the way plays LF, just like Luke, you can be serious throwing a name like Boggs out there trying to make a point on a 65 RBI producer. If you look at Tony Gwyn's RBI production for RF, you're going to find that he doesn't exactly fit into the upper half of RF RBI producers during his playing era. But then find me a RF with Gwynn's batting average. See the point here!

Pete -

You should probably change the title of this post.

I think "Attack of the Statheads" is appropriate.

To all the Pie haters out there, take a look at Jones and Markakis' first 250 at-bats in the majors and then tell me how you can bash the guy based just on those at-bats after having solid numbers in minors just like Markakis and Jones did. Do we have options already in left, yes. But Pie has a much higher upside than any of those options. Good old Andy has done a pretty darn good job so far bringing in young guys so why don't we just let him work his magic and if he makes this trade just keep that faith than our boy Andy knows what he's doing. Because if this does go through, and he's right, we're looking at the best young outfield by far that will be together for years to come. There's no magic cure to bring the Orioles back to contention but stock piling guys like this is the closest thing to a long-term magical cure as you can get.

I just want to point out, a lot of people seem to have gotten lost in the details of the trade. It's not Garrett Olson for Pie, it's Brian Roberts to Chicago and possibly Olson to San Diego. Why is no one concerned that we aren't focusing out efforts on building a team Roberts wants to play for and possibly making a middle infield that is only solid at second base not solid at all?

If this team gets decent pitching staff they can be a contender in the East. This team scored 782 runs last year, that's 7 fewer than the Yankees and 63 fewer than the Red Sox, but it's more than the division leading Rays. The problem is we gave up 869 runs when the next closest team to us (again the Yankees) gave up a mere 727, that's a 147 run difference.

Go sign a decent short stop, I don't care who it is, put up the money for a bat in Tex and get those top pitching prospects we have in Bergeson, Waters, Olson, Patten ready to play in the majors and you've got a contender. Do you have a World Series winner? Probably not, but Roberts wants a contender and the last time I checked we don't have anyone in the minors that can fill his void so if anything we should be looking for middle infield prospects, not outfielders.

It makes no sense for us to deal Roberts to Chicago and it makes no sense for them to pursue him. They have Soriano who is a great lead-off hitter and can play second as well, they have a rising star in Cedeno who can play second and short and they have Ryan Theriot and Mark Derosa who can both play second well. We have no infield prospects (see last season's SS fiasco) and no need in the OF.

It makes no sense Pete, don't join the hype parade on this kid. I'm not in love with Olson, but it makes no sense to trade what they want for what they're offering.

If luke scott is your starting LF, you're not going to be that good. Luke is a nice 4th outfielder/dh if given 400 abs a year in which he has a real shot at success, could give you .280/20/70 with a nice slg and obp. That may be a little low. The guys the Os have make LF a lower priority than other positions. Unfortunatley, Gary Roenicke and John Lowenstein ARE NOT walking throught that door.

Let me get this right. People are mad that the Orioles might trade a pitcher that no one wanted in the majors last year. They don't want Pie, a AAA prospect with good defense, young, and alot of potential, because we have a AA prospect who is older, slower, and who plays poor defense, and a current LF who is not in the Orioles long range plans. And then complain that the Orioles are not doing anything.

Guys, when did the O's become a great team that we can look the other way on chances to improve? We are dead last (DEAD LAST) in the AL East so to say that we have Luke and Lou so adding Pie is a joke. Luke is a nice player and maybe he would be better served as a DH because his bat is his best commodity.

You want to get better? You get players you feel have a big upside and you worry about where they are going to play afterwards. How can you guys honestly say Pie is a bust? How many of you guys have seen him in the minors? He is on a team that has a lot of money and a win now attitude so he got lost in the shuffle. Maybe Pie never does anything or maybe he is a guy that turns out to be a very good player, but till we are the Yanks or Sox, we can't rule out anyone.

I could swear that posters on here, hated Olson? Now he is the second coming of Schilling? The O's have a lot of guys they are developing as SPs so maybe this is the guy that is expendable? The O's are looking at a couple of Japanese SPs that might shore up the backend of the rotation and give guys a chance to properly develop in the minors so let's not make like trading Olson, is a sign that Andy or anyone in the F.O. is saying we don't need anymore pitchers.

I am sorry for the long post, but we are a bad team and have been since 1998 so I am shocked that people are content with keeping things the same instead of looking for steals and being proactive. I, am also shocked that Wade Boggs and Jeter were mentioned in the same breath as Luke Scott. Next, Baez will be talked about as a poor man's version of Lee Smith.

How about we let Andy mess up before questioning him? Did you guys not like the players we got for Bedard and Miggy? How about Bass that we got from the Twins? The kid was pretty good when he was in the rotation especially for a guy that was used to coming out of the pen. Say what you want about Andy's style, but his record with the Twins and Cubs, speaks for itself so unless you guys want Flanny or Duquette back, let's support the F.O. because this is the 1st of many deals that will take place because when you lose like we do, don't just say SS and SP is our weakness because it's a combo of everything.

In the middle of the Ravens rush to the playoffs, your last 2 posts on the O's have received over 70 comments. Who really owns this town?

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: That's a good question.

Luke Scott has has some upside-power from the left side, decent fielder,etc but he's not an everyday player. He's 31 and if he can't hit lefites by now, he's not likely to. He would have been an excellent part of the platoons Earl Weaver used -see Roenicke/Lowenstein/Ayala. Teams rarely go that way now, most use a set lineup but no reason why O's couldn't . The problem is finding the RH portion as Jay Payton didn't exactly strike fear in the hearts of opposing lefties.Either Salazar or Montanez could match the pop-gun numbers put up by Jay..that platoon should put up 25 Hrs/90 RBI and a decent avg.
Pie isn't the answer in my opinion and left field is the least of our worries, in light of the bigger holes at SS and 1B. SanDiego may actually be in worse shape than the O's so why can't they take Pie and the so-called prospects from the Cubs for Peavy?
If SanDiego is so desperate for starters that they are talking to us, then maybe they might take DCabrera off our hands for Greene.

Ok one last post here for me on this topic.

Where are you guys seeing this potential for Pie? Have you looked at what he has done in the minors?

His career OPS is lower, in the minors, then Scott's is in the big leagues.

His HR/AB ratio is 1/40.46 so he doesn't have a lot of homerun power.

He has a K/BB ratio of worse then 2.5 to 1.

His SB success rate is 63% and has been going down as he has progressed through the levels.

Now on to defense, career he is a .978 fielder with a 2.26 RF, last year Scott was at .990 with a 2.17 RF, however Scott's career numbers, in the majors, is 2.84 RF is center (warning very small sample size) whereas Pie gets a lot of starts in CF which can skew RF numbers.

There is also the fact that he has shown little promise during his short stints in the majors and in fact regressed this year in AAA.

Honestly aside from a wicked hot 55 game stint in AAA in 2007 I am not seeing anything that great.

Oh and since I was looking up minor league stats anyway, Reimold has a higher career OPS and stolen base % then Pie, and a HR/AB ratio of 1/20. I am kinda curious what kinda numbers Nolan could put up in the hitters league that is the PCL.

Can't we all just get along? This bantering back & forth is boring..... Our team was so great last year i think we should just stand pat. I don't think Olson is going to be the answer to our pitching woes, but I could be wrong. I am only a fan. I don't see any problem making a trade for a prospect lilke Pie if Olson is all you have to give up. Then with our new found surplus in LF, we can work a trade to improve our pitching. I would however like to keep Luke Scott. He reminds me of Paul O'neil.