O's bring back Uehara, are close to acquiring J.J. Hardy

After a flurry of rumors following the Mark Reynolds trade, the Orioles have apparently made two important moves. First, the O's re-signed Koji Uehara to a one-year deal with a vesting option for 2012. At the moment, other contract details haven't been disclosed yet. And second, the O's are very close to trading for J.J. Hardy of the Twins. According to Dan Connolly of The Baltimore Sun (via Orioles Insider), the O's will receive Hardy and infielder Brendan Harris in exchange for two minor leaguers, rumored to be Jim Hoey and Brett Jacobson. If the deal is completed, Hardy would become the everyday shortstop, while Harris would likely be the team's utility infielder.

In his post, Connolly also mentions both players' contract situations:

Hardy in his final year of arbitration after making $5.1 million in 2010. He will be a free agent after the 2011 season. Harris signed a two-year, $3.2 million extension with the Twins after the 2009 season. He is owed $1.75 million in 2011.

Harris (30) might not be with the O's beyond 2011, so that's not a big deal. Hardy (28), on the other hand, may be someone the O's want to keep around for more than one season. The O's probably won't do this, but they could try to work out a multi-year deal with Hardy, buying out his last arbitration year and ensuring that he stays in Baltimore for more than just one season. Or they could take the more likely option, which is to see how much Hardy makes via arbitration, pay him, and see how 2011 plays out before possibly negotiating a future contract. Since Hardy has had his fair share of injuries, neither is really a bad route to take, but the O's would risk repeating their 2010 search for a shortstop if Hardy opts to sign with another team.

With Hardy, the O's will have a shortstop who can both hold his own at the plate and in the field. Cesar Izturis was a solid shortstop for the O's in terms of fielding, but he was dreadful at the plate -- for his career, Izturis has hit .256/.296/.323 with a 4.9 BB%. Hardy, meanwhile, has a career line of .263/.323/.423 with an 8.1 BB%. Those aren't fantastic numbers, but they are better than Izturis's stats, and again, Hardy also plays strong defense. That's definitely an upgrade.

To me, there's only one negative with the two moves, and it isn't trading the often-injured Hoey or 24-year-old Jacobson, who seems like a decent prospect (though 24 is a little old to still be in Single A). Instead, it's that both Uehara and Hardy have previously missed significant time because of injury, which can happen again at any moment. Most O's fans are already familiar with Uehara's previous inability to stay healthy, but his move to the bullpen seems to have eased many of those worries. Hardy, though, dealt with a wrist injury last season that allowed him to play in just 101 games. He has dealt with several other injuries in his career, but it's worth noting that he has still played in at least 100 games for the last four seasons. Still, the O's probably don't want a shortstop who's going to miss 60 games, but it's at least possible that happens. The presence of Harris alleviates some of those worries because of his ability to play shortstop, but he is probably better suited at third base anyway. But regardless of his injury history, Hardy is easily better than Izturis.

Both moves are ones the O's needed to make. They needed a younger, competent shortstop to take over for Izturis, and they needed to at least shore up the bullpen after trading away David Hernandez to acquire Reynolds. The O's may not be done dealing -- they could still use a first baseman, another reliever, maybe another starter, etc. -- but the O's have seemingly made some clever moves so far. Having Hardy and Reynolds on the left side of the infield also presents a significant improvement over anything the O's have had the last few seasons.

Quick note on the Haynesworth saga

So the Redskins have suspended Albert Haynesworth for four games, which also happens to be the rest of the season. Claiming that Haynesworth demonstrated "conduct detrimental to the club," the Redskins are also saying that Haynesworth had stopped talking to Mike Shanahan and that he refused to play in certain defensive packages during games. Obviously there's much more behind this fiasco, and things are far from over.

It would be hard to argue that any single party in this matter handled things well. It's also possible that the only reason the Redskins didn't release or trade Haynesworth this season was to build a case against him, including all the negative things he's done in a Skins uniform (and there's a lot of them), and go after not only the rest of his salary this season, but also some of the $21 million bonus he received before the season (in April).

Lots of fans and commentators have been talking about how it's just Haynesworth's fault or that Shanahan's huge ego is to blame. Many have also blamed Dan Snyder and the departed Vinny Cerrato for signing Haynesworth to begin with; remember, Shanahan and Bruce Allen didn't bring him in, though they knew dealing with him would be part of the job. In actuality, they're all at least partly to blame. Shanahan and Haynesworth seemed to butt heads from day one, and the trouble really began with the whole conditioning test debacle that lasted way too long. If Shanahan really didn't want Haynesworth on the team anymore, Allen could have dealt Haynesworth away to the Titans at some point during the season, but they either asked for too much in return or really weren't that serious about a trade. And Cerrato and Snyder made the huge mistake of not doing their homework and making Haynesworth the highest paid defensive player in the league two seasons ago. Switching to the 3-4 defense also looks like a huge mistake, not only because the Redskins front office had to know that Haynesworth would not be happy, but because the entire defensive unit has been abysmal.

But for those people who think that Haynesworth is only playing a small part in this matter -- and believe me, there are some people out there who think that everyone is to blame except Haynesworth -- do me a favor and watch the play below.

You've likely seen that play at least a few times by now. Is that really the guy you want to defend? Does that look like someone who loves the game of football, like he says? Or is that someone who just quit on this team and his teammates when they needed him most?

Haynesworth's appeal of the suspension should be coming soon, and this situation won't go away for at least another few weeks -- and maybe not until the season is over and the Redskins officially get rid of Haynesworth. So there's always that to look forward to.

Reactions to the Mark Reynolds trade

Yesterday the Orioles acquired third baseman Mark Reynolds from the Diamondbacks in exchange for relievers David Hernandez and Kam Mickolio. Andy MacPhail said that he wanted to improve the team's offense and overall team power, and he did just that with this move.

Reynolds, 27, has lots of power and hit 121 home runs in four seasons with Arizona. After a breakout season in 2009 -- .260/.349/.543, 44 HR -- Reynolds took a big step back last season, hitting .198/.320/.433. He still hit 32 home runs, but the O's hope that they're not trading for the guy who's going to replicate that type of season in Baltimore.

With Reynolds's immense power, though, comes numerous strikeouts; he struck out more than 200 times in each of the last three seasons. The linked article above also casually mentions that those are the three highest strikeout totals in MLB history. So Reynolds will immediately upgrade the O's combined power and slugging percentage, but he will also strike out more than once per game. That's the trade-off the O's are making for Reynolds's services (besides, you know, the actual trade).

Reynolds is currently in the middle of a three-year, $14.5 million contract that he signed with Arizona. His deal also includes a 2013 team option. Last year, the first year in that deal, Reynolds made $500,000. In 2011 his salary bumps up to $5 million, and he'll earn $7.5 million in 2012. Reynolds's team option for 2013 is $11 million, with a $500,000 buyout. So the O's will be paying Reynolds a decent amount for his services, but his contract certainly seems reasonable. Also, the O's control him for at least the next two seasons for not a huge sum of money. If Reynolds fails to impress, then the O's can pay him his buyout money in 2013 and move along.

My take is that I like this move. The trade seems pretty even, especially since Hernandez (25) and Mickolio (26) are under team control and are not expensive. But they are also relievers and can be replaced; that is, if the O's handle the bullpen situation right (i.e., not overpaying for relievers). The deal will seem much better if Reynolds reverts back to his 2009 form instead of 2010's, but it's also likely that he'll finish 2011 as a combination of the two. I seriously doubt that he'll hit under .200 again, but that doesn't mean he'll slug at a .543 clip again either. But for this trade to be effective, he doesn't have to.

Other reactions:

- "Though Reynolds will head east after the first season by a qualified player of more Ks (211) than BA (.198), it's a risk the Orioles had to take. They've struggled to attract any free agents this offseason with their standing at the bottom of the AL East and Reynolds will bring the sort of over-the-wall power that only Luke Scott(notes) could provide last season. He hit 44 and 32 homers the last two seasons and he'll definitely need to record a number between those two — as well as avoid setting the single-season strikeout record again —to make himself a winning import for the O's." [Kevin Kaduk, Big League Stew]

- "Whether it’s the right move for the Orioles is open to debate. Hernandez couldn’t cut it as a starter, and if you’re going to move young talent, make it a reliever or two. Only the best relievers in the league come close to 2.5 WAR in a season, and I don’t think Hernandez or Mickolio are close to that yet, although Hernandez, at least, looks like he might do well (all those fly balls will be scary in the desert, though). There is something to be said for the Orioles just having a non-horrible presence at third (or first, if that’s what they decide to do, although Reynolds’ overall offense is much less impressive there). Unless one of the traded relievers turns into another Joakim Soria, this probably won’t hurt them too badly in the long-term (when they might be able to contend in the AL East), either, although Reynolds himself isn’t likely to be much help then. Overall, this looks like a fair trade for both sides that fills a need for the Orioles for the next couple of seasons." [Matt Klaassen, FanGraphs]

- "As for the guys Baltimore sent to the desert, losing David Hernandez is a bit of a blow. I think Hernandez will be, someday, a successful major league pitcher. However, his path is almost certainly that of a reliever at this point and you shouldn't hesitate to part with relief arms to improve the club. Hernandez did manage to increase his K rate to something close to his minor league rate in 2010 but he was still essentially a flyball pitcher and figures to do better in Arizona. I have little doubt that he may have success going forward but he won't be as valuable as Reynolds has the chance to be." [Heath, Dempsey's Army]

- "The book on Reynolds is simple: plenty of power, plenty of strikeouts, low average. He’s coming here to provide much-needed power, plain and simple. Not much else to it. It isn’t what I’d call a great acquisition, but it is appropriate. . . . Ultimately, I can’t say I love this. And if it’s the only big move they make, I’ll probably hate it. For now I suppose it suffices to say that it seems to improve the team at least somewhat. That’s a start." [Neal Shaffer, The Loss Column]

- "Andy MacPhail needs to inject some power and run production into the Orioles lineup and he came up a little short on Victor Martinez, which left him with a list of available players that all have some kind of drawback. Personally, I would have been happy to take Adam Dunn and split him between first base and DH in spite of his strikeout total, but he's got some of the same issues as Reynolds and he got $56 million from the White Sox." [Peter Schmuck, The Schmuck Stops Here]

Contract information via Cot's Baseball Contracts

Terps need upperclassmen to step up

In yesterday's 64-61 loss to Temple, which dropped Maryland to 6-3 on the season, Gary Williams did his best to send a message to his starters (other than Jordan Williams): play better or your minutes will diminish.

Williams, unquestionably the Terps' best player, had 17 points and 11 rebounds in 32 minutes. But no one really helped him out on the boards, and he was the only Terp to grab more than six rebounds. Because of that, Maryland was outrebounded by nine, including by four on the offensive end.

Still, though, Gary Williams did his best to send a message to Cliff Tucker, Adrian Bowie, and Sean Mosley. That trio played just 18, 22, and 19 minutes, respectively, and only scored a combined eight points. For Maryland to go places this season, Tucker and Bowie (seniors) and Mosley (junior) absolutely must play better than that. The Terps also could use a better effort out of Dino Gregory (senior) too -- one point (0-4 shooting), six rebounds -- but he has basically already shown what kind of player he is at this point.

Down 15 early in the second half, Gary Williams decided to give his young guys a chance, and it got Maryland back in the game. He likely won't forget that going forward. Going with a lineup of Terrell Stoglin, Pe'Shon Howard, James Padgett, Haukur Palsson, and either Williams (foul trouble) or Gregory, Maryland cut Temple's lead to four with about 12 minutes to go. Maryland kept battling and eventually tied the game on a dunk by Padgett with 1:52 left, but Temple swiftly passed the ball up court and hit an and-one layup to seize the lead for good.

For the game, Stoglin, Howard, and Palsson -- all freshmen -- and Padgett, a sophomore, all played over 12 minutes and scored a combined 35 points. Stoglin scored 16 points on 5-12 shooting, and Howard chipped in six points and six assists. Padgett had eight points and three rebounds, while Palsson had five points and two boards. Those four gave the Terps the spark they were looking for, but it wasn't quite enough for them to pull out the victory.

Other than the inconsistent play by Maryland's upperclassmen, the Terps have a few weaknesses. Here they are:

1) Three-point shooting

Other than Tucker or maybe Stoglin, Maryland doesn't really have a solid three-point shooter. As a team, the Terps are shooting just 30.4 percent from three-point range, which ranks 10th in the ACC.

2) Free throw shooting

As a team, the Terps are shooting 64.5 percent from the line, which is 11th in the ACC. That is something that absolutely will have to change if Maryland is going to win some close conference games as the season rolls along. Williams has already shot 66 free throws, and he's made just 34 of them (51.5 percent). They really need him, and some others, to make more of their free throw attempts.

3) Depth behind Williams

The Terps have done a pretty good job rebounding and defending so far, but that may change when they play against deeper, more athletic teams. Williams can hold his own against just about anyone in the country, but when he gets in foul trouble, the Terps obviously miss his presence in the paint. Padgett and Palsson both play hard, but they're not as good, or as big, as Williams.

Nevertheless, the young Terps are certainly fun to watch, and it should be interesting to see how they grow as a team and if Stoglin and Howard eventually earn starting roles if Bowie, Mosley, and Tucker continue to struggle.

Skins lose again; season over with four games to go

Because I didn't have much to do today, I've been thinking all afternoon/evening -- after the Redskins' latest disappointing performance, a 31-7 loss to the Giants -- what to write about the game.

It was obvious early on that the Redskins weren't going to win. The Giants quickly took the lead, scored twice in the first quarter, and didn't allow the Redskins to do much of anything the entire game. The Giants took a 21-0 lead going into halftime, but honestly, I decided to stop watching the game after that third touchdown. And that's not something that I offer lightly. Even during the Eagles blowout in Week 10, I kept watching. Most true and loyal fans probably did, even though it was a train wreck of a performance by Washington from the very beginning.

I really don't like writing about myself, especially in a post like this, but I'm just tired of this team. I'm tired of such a poorly run organization going for a quick fix year in and year out, regardless of the team's actual situation. I'm tired of the team overpaying for veteran players, especially ones that don't fit what the team is trying to accomplish on the field.

But more than anything else, I'm tired of the team trading away draft picks instead of working hard to identify young, valuable talent. In his tenure as the team's owner, Dan Snyder has tried just about everything. He's invested huge sums of money on countless coaches and players, and most of the moves have not worked. But the one thing that the Redskins organization refuses to do is rebuild -- yes, that dreaded word. This organization does not value draft picks, and it very rarely develops and holds on to young stars. The offensive line is absolutely terrible, and yet the Redskins have not selected more than a handful of linemen over the last few years. Sure, Trent Williams seems talented, but the line isn't made of one guy. The Redskins have more holes on their roster than most teams, and they also have no depth. That's what happens when draft picks are not properly valued.

I subscribe to the theory that draft picks are similar to lottery tickets. Yes, obviously some organizations are much better at identifying talent that fits their team's personnel and scheme, but when teams obtain more draft picks, they're more likely to draft better players. And that's essentially what I believe, or something along those lines. Anyway, the Redskins haven't given themselves much of a chance when it comes to drafting because they usually have fewer choices than every other team. And at the end of the day, that's my biggest beef with the Redskins.

After this week's debacle, many fans will take shots at the players, saying they gave up and demonstrated no heart in such an important game. Remember, if the Redskins ran the table, they could have maybe, just maybe, earned a playoff spot. It doesn't matter that the Redskins haven't won more than two games in a row and lost 59-28 just a few weeks ago. Some fans were still delusional enough to think that this team had some kind of chance to win five games in a row just because it miraculously happened in 2007 after Sean Taylor's death. It's nice to be a wishful thinker, but come on, there was just no chance of that happening.

As a team, the Redskins have no chemistry. They're just a bunch of parts haphazardly thrown together into schemes that don't fit. And that's a seasonal occurrence in D.C. The Redskins don't have the personnel or defensive talent to run a 3-4, but they're doing it anyway just because. The Redskins offense has been terrible for years, but instead of building through the draft and taking their lumps for a couple of seasons, they traded for Donovan McNabb, yet another piece that just doesn't seem like it's going to work. And that's not even counting the pain of being forced to cheer for someone like McNabb, who certainly is a nice guy, but has been an enemy of the Redskins on the field from his time in an Eagles uniform. That's the kind of thing that Redskins fans have to deal with -- not just losing, but now losing with a guy who they've been cheering against for more than a decade. Thanks for that, Redskins front office.

All of this isn't to say that the players don't deserve any blame. Of course they do. They're on the field, and they lost the game. But that doesn't mean that they're underperforming either. Maybe they're just not good enough. So yeah, I have no idea how the Redskins beat the Packers, Eagles, or Bears this season. Even bad teams get lucky, I guess. But until fans stop getting fooled into thinking that a few annual free agent acquisitions will transform the Redskins into a Super Bowl contender, things probably won't change. And it doesn't matter who's coaching or playing on Sundays. That's an organizational philosophy, and everyone needs to get on board.

If not, well, then the Redskins are likely going to keep having seasons like this, when they look competitive early on and then fade as the weather gets colder and their older players can't stay on the field.

Week 13 picks

Here are my picks for Week 13.

EAGLES (-9) over Texans

Picked this one already here.

Bills (+6) over VIKINGS

The Bills deserve a lot of credit. They're only 2-9, but they've either won or lost by just three points going all the way back to Week 7. In that stretch, they've lost to the Ravens, Chiefs, Bears, and Steelers -- all by three points each. Considering those teams have a combined record of 31-13, that's rather impressive for a two-win team. Wins are obviously most important, but there's something to be said for a below-average team battling week in and week out.

DOLPHINS (-5) over Browns

A few weeks ago I said the Dolphins were not to be trusted anymore, and maybe they're not. But Jake Delhomme is starting this game for the Browns. Enough said.

TITANS (-3) over Jaguars

The Jaguars continue to be a confusing team. Not counting the NFC West because of how much of a disaster that division has been, the Jaguars are the only division leader (via tiebreaker over the Colts) that has been outscored this season (-54). Here are the point differentials for the other division leaders: Eagles (+63), Bears (+50), Falcons (+67), Jets (+77), Ravens (+62), Chiefs (+54). Also, at 6-5, the Jaguars have beaten just one team that's currently above .500: the Colts, in a 31-28 win. Now, at 5-6, the Titans are not necessarily a bad team and have actually outscored their opponents by 39 points; unfortunately, they've lost their last four games. It's entirely possible that the Titans have shut things down and will lay down again this week. But Kerry Collins will start at quarterback, which is great for the Titans because 1) it gives them some semblance of a passing game, and 2) he's not Rusty Smith. Chris Johnson is also due for a bounce-back performance after rushing for five yards last week.

CHIEFS (-8.5) over Broncos

I'm not sure how the Broncos blew the Chiefs out (49-29) a few weeks ago. Maybe it was the mile-high air or the fact that, shockingly enough, the Broncos jumped out to a 35-0 lead in the second quarter. But the Chiefs have not lost a game yet at home this season, and they should be able to put up plenty of points against the NFL's worst-ranked defense (29.4 points per game). I'm also going to bet that the Broncos don't have 35 points by halftime again either.

GIANTS (-7) over Redskins

This game is all about the battle upfront. If the Redskins can get some pressure on Eli Manning and also give Donovan McNabb enough time to throw, the Skins have a chance to earn the upset win on the road. If not, it's going to be a long day.

Bears (-5) over LIONS

Two words: Drew Stanton.

PACKERS (-9) over 49ers
Saints (-7) over BENGALS
CHARGERS (-13) over Raiders

It's entirely possible that one of these games, or even all three, end up being close. But I just have no confidence in making any of those choices.

Falcons (-3) over BUCCANEERS

Here's another team that deserves a lot of credit: Tampa Bay. At 7-4, they're plenty alive in the battle for a playoff spot in the NFC. Still, the 9-2 Falcons are absolutely rolling and have won five straight. Division rivals always have the chance for an upset, but the Falcons' only losses this season have come against the Steelers and Eagles -- two outstanding teams.

SEAHAWKS (-4.5) over Panthers
Rams (-3.5) over CARDINALS

These two games may end up being pretty bad, and yet they have playoff implications because of how awful the NFC West is. At 5-6, a win for the Seahawks or Rams would put them at .500. So that's something.

COLTS (-5.5) over Cowboys

Tough loss for the Cowboys last week, and now they get to travel to Indianapolis to face an angry Colts team that really, really needs a win. The Colts have been proven to have flaws, particularly in the running game, but it would be difficult to argue that the Cowboys don't have just as many flaws, if not more.

Steelers (+3) over RAVENS
Jets (+4) over PATRIOTS

Sunday and Monday Night Football should be phenomenal this week, as maybe the top four teams in the AFC will be battling. All four teams are rather even, and I wouldn't be shocked to see both games go down to the wire. And actually, that's what I'm predicting: games decided by a late touchdown or field goal.

Last week: 8-8
Season: 76-94-6

Thursday night pick

I'm in a hurry this morning, so two quick things before I make my Texans-Eagles pick: 1) nice win (62-39) for the Terps last night on the road against Penn State, even if they started out extremely sloppy and slow (they didn't score a point until about five minutes into the game); and 2) awful effort -- particularly on the defensive end -- from the Wizards last night against the Raptors (a 127-108 loss). The Wiz are also now 0-9 on the road.

On to the pick!

EAGLES (-9) over Texans

The Eagles offense is tied for second in the NFL in points per game (28.2), and after a subpar game against a tough Bears defense last week, Michael Vick and the Eagles should be able to score at will against a Texans defense that allows the fifth-most yards per game (386.4) and the seventh-most points per game (26.1). The Texans looked much better in a 20-0 win over the Titans last week, but that came against a currently dysfunctional team with a third-string quarterback named Rusty Smith starting who threw three interceptions.

Philadelphia's defense isn't phenomenal and is ranked 20th in points allowed per game (23.4), but they don't allow a ton of rushing yards, meaning that if the Texans can't run the ball effectively with Arian Foster, the Eagles should be able to create enough pressure on Matt Schaub to make him uncomfortable and more susceptible to turn the ball over.

Giants sign Tejada to one-year deal

Miguel Tejada won't be coming to play for the Orioles for a third time -- at least this season. Tejada has signed a one-year, $6.5 million contract with the Giants. After losing Juan Uribe, who recently signed a three-year deal with the Dodgers, the Giants were convinced that they needed another infield option, so they brought in Tejada, who can play both shortstop and third base if needed.

According to the MLB Trade Rumors article linked above, written by Ben Nicholson-Smith, the Giants will probably use Tejada at shortstop, but he may also see some playing time at third, especially since "[t]hird baseman Pablo Sandoval is falling out of favor with the Giants." That's not to suggest that the Giants are looking to move Sandoval, but the O's, who are looking to upgrade at both corner infield positions, would at least be intrigued if Sandoval were made available.

The Baltimore Sun's Dan Connolly, in a post on Orioles Insider, notes that Ryan Theriot won't be the O's shortstop next season either, since the Dodgers just traded him to the Cardinals. The O's are still looking to make an improvement at shortstop and may not want to bring back Cesar Izturis for another year or two.

Connolly also mentions Jason Bartlett (Rays) and J.J. Hardy (Twins) as possible trade targets, but no deal seems imminent. I'd rather the O's go after Hardy instead of Bartlett, and Connolly also hints that the O's favor Hardy as well.