Orioles Acquire Dana Eveland from Dodgers

[jgdomino]

so we should hang on to any player that has a minute chance of making it to the majors? These guys are at there most valuable to us in small trades or throw ins on other trades. We already replaced a few of these guys in the Rule 5 draft. Come June we will replace more.

[NewMarketSean]

You know it's the same scouts? I missed that blurb. I take it all back, the O's are still stupid.

They may not be the same scouts but they are employed by Angelos, who was forced to hire his 5th or 6th choice as GM because he ran the team into the ground, and that GM, out of baseball for 10 years, picked them.

Look, I hope Dana Eveland turns into the next great find. I hope to be wrong on this one, I really do.

[DrungoHazewood]

Look, I hope Dana Eveland turns into the next great find. I hope to be wrong on this one, I really do.

Then I think we're pretty much on the same page. I think there's about an 80% chance Eveland is nothing. But I'll hold out some hope Duquette isn't MacPhail or Beattie or the other Duquette or Flanagan until he proves he is.

[NCRaven]

We traded Henson, not Hudson.

Henson, Hudson, Pot-ay-to, Pot-ah-to. Different guys, but I'd have the same reaction either way.

[Lucky Jim]

so we should hang on to any player that has a minute chance of making it to the majors? These guys are at there most valuable to us in small trades or throw ins on other trades. We already replaced a few of these guys in the Rule 5 draft. Come June we will replace more.

Reductio ad absurdum!

[NCRaven]

I didn't say that the players we traded had no value. They were worth Teagarden and Eveland. That's how much value they had. No more. No less. Duquette showed he would pick the low hanging fruit that was free in Antonelli, and trade fringe minor league value for fringe major league value in the other two. DD hasn't made an impact acquisition, but the minor ones he has made are no indication of incompetence.

[SrMeowMeow]

And you responded to me with a list of multiple pitchers who many of whom don't have better stats. Around here, you can have any opinion you like, but lazy "research" is going to get called out. There are plenty of boards that you can post on that will allow you to post drivel without consequence, the Hangout is not one of them.

I'm sorry, but any of the first 10-15 names on that list are better than Eveland. And you asked for 3. Do you not realize how bad Eveland is?

[SrMeowMeow]

I didn't say that the players we traded had no value. They were worth Teagarden and Eveland. That's how much value they had. No more. No less. Duquette showed he would pick the low hanging fruit that was free in Antonelli, and trade fringe minor league value for fringe major league value in the other two. DD hasn't made an impact acquisition, but the minor ones he has made are no indication of incompetence.

I just vomited! Oh god.

Also, I just traded my car for a basket of fruit. Thank god that means that a basket of fruit is worth my car, or I'd feel like an idiot right now.

[jgdomino]

if you think the four guys we traded are worth anything more than we got then you are delusional. If they were more valuable they would be in the majors or at a higher level of the minors than they were. These guys would be lucky to be September Callups in an Average Minor League System. the Pitchers were buried under 20 other similar or better pitchers. The position prospects were never that good.

If you traded your car for a basket of fruit you must drive a real clunker. This trade was not a clunker it was trading 2 bikes for a scooter. Neither is a very cool way to get around but the scooter at least has some HP.

[Sports Guy]

if you think the four guys we traded are worth anything more than we got then you are delusional. If they were more valuable they would be in the majors or at a higher level of the minors than they were. These guys would be lucky to be September Callups in an Average Minor League System. the Pitchers were buried under 20 other similar or better pitchers. The position prospects were never that good.

If you traded your car for a basket of fruit you must drive a real clunker. This trade was not a clunker it was trading 2 bikes for a scooter. Neither is a very cool way to get around but the scooter at least has some HP.

I bet you would have said the same thing about Hoey and Jacobsen last year.

[DrungoHazewood]

I just vomited! Oh god.

Also, I just traded my car for a basket of fruit. Thank god that means that a basket of fruit is worth my car, or I'd feel like an idiot right now.

Yes, that's a great analogy. If your car isn't really a car, but a drawing of a car that might be built in 2015.

[DrungoHazewood]

I bet you would have said the same thing about Hoey and Jacobsen last year.

I think you're confusing "warm bodies" for those particular players, and that the Hardy trade was about anything but the Twins not wanting to pay his salary. Even Minnesota didn't think Hoey and Jacobsen were likely to become anything at all, and they didn't.

[SrMeowMeow]

if you think the four guys we traded are worth anything more than we got then you are delusional. If they were more valuable they would be in the majors or at a higher level of the minors than they were. These guys would be lucky to be September Callups in an Average Minor League System. the Pitchers were buried under 20 other similar or better pitchers. The position prospects were never that good.

If you traded your car for a basket of fruit you must drive a real clunker. This trade was not a clunker it was trading 2 bikes for a scooter. Neither is a very cool way to get around but the scooter at least has some HP.

I say this meaning as little offense as possible, but this is the worst, most circular reasoning I've ever read.

Eveland must be worth the two players we traded for him, because that's what the market would bear.
But if I trade my car for a basket of fruit, my car must be crappy.
But the Eveland trade wasn't like that, because Eveland isn't crappy.

Haha, what?

[SrMeowMeow]

Yes, that's a great analogy. If your car isn't really a car, but a drawing of a car that might be built in 2015.

It's not an analogy for the trade. It's an illustration of the logical fallacy of saying "Eveland must be worth the two players, because he was exchanged for them. Therefore the trade is fair." Surely you won't defend that quagmire?

[CA-ORIOLE]

It's not an analogy for the trade. It's an illustration of the logical fallacy of saying "Eveland must be worth the two players, because he was exchanged for them. Therefore the trade is fair." Surely you won't defend that quagmire?

We'd have assume the quagmire to be that the market is inequitable because one of the two parties that deemed the trade to be equitable was grossly negligent then? Also there is no "must be worth" in the context of the quote.