Orioles Acquire Dana Eveland from Dodgers

[DrungoHazewood]

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?

Of course not. But the fact that a major league GM made the deal at least injects the possibility that the player has a chance at making the deal work out because of factors not obvious to you and me. And since Duquette has something of a good track record, and isn't necessarily steeped in the miasma of Orioles past, I can't completely discount that possibility.

[SrMeowMeow]

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.

The quagmire was referring to the poor logic. I don't really know what your first sentence means, though.

In the post I'm responding to, yes there is:

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.

[Sports Guy]

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.

Martin has every bit the upside as those guys, that's the point.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The quagmire was referring to the poor logic. I don't really know what your first sentence means, though.

In the post I'm responding to, yes there is:

You used quagmire originally, I didn't. The quote doesn't say "must". You added it to suit your context. The concept clearly is market value as market value is perceived by both parties in the deal. That doesn't imply that everyone else should some how agree.

[SrMeowMeow]

Of course not. But the fact that a major league GM made the deal at least injects the possibility that the player has a chance at making the deal work out because of factors not obvious to you and me. And since Duquette has something of a good track record, and isn't necessarily steeped in the miasma of Orioles past, I can't completely discount that possibility.

Sure, I accept that possibility. I just don't accept that as an impenetrable shield protecting the move (and by extension, all moves) from criticism. It's possible to weigh "maybe there's something here" accordingly with "I see basically no redeeming features to this player" and come up with "I still don't like the move, although I could be wrong, as a rational actor with imperfect information." It's also possible to weight those two differently and come out liking the trade. I just object to what is basically a massive appeal-to-authority that is used to justify any move ever.

[SrMeowMeow]

You used quagmire originally, I didn't. The quote doesn't say "must". You added to suit your context. The concept clearly is market value as market value is perceived by both parties in the deal. That doesn't imply that everyone else should some how agree.

He's saying Eveland is exactly equivalent in value to the two players traded. You can take out the "must" if you feel better, the argument is the same (and still wrong). I didn't intend any massaging of the quote to suit my criticism, as it's clearly unnecessary.

[CA-ORIOLE]

He's saying Eveland is exactly equivalent in value to the two players traded. You can take out the "must" if you feel better, the argument is the same (and still wrong). I didn't intend any massaging of the quote to suit my criticism, as it's clearly unnecessary.

He is not saying Eveland is exactly equal in value to the mil two players. You're creating a strawman. He is talking about market value and that the two sides determined the trade to be market value. I get it , you disagree. That's fine.

People don't make trades to get equal value and be in the same place. They make trades to get more value. The assumption would have to be both sides think they got more value. Value could encompass a lot of different variables.

[SrMeowMeow]

He is not saying Eveland is exactly equal in value to the mil two players. You're creating a strawman. He is talking about market value and that the two sides determined the trade to be market value. I get it , you disagree. That's fine.

People don't make trades to get equal value and be in the same place. They make trades to get more value. The assumption would have to be both sides think they got more value. Value could encompass a lot of different variables.

I'm not going to beat a dead horse any longer, but you need to re-examine your argument. It's incorrect.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'm not going to beat a dead horse any longer, but you need to re-examine your argument. It's incorrect.

I disagree and I've taken the time to dissect your argument in detail.

[grimed1]

All i know,is KC and Cleveland got Lowe and Sanchez and the O's got Eveland. I know Lowe is a risk but at least he has a chance for a comeback. I guess you can't give up chicken crap when the other team wants chicken nuggets.

[Singleton]

Problem is that apparantly #3 starters on the FA market cost 5 years and 77.5 million dollars!!! Unless you want CJ to be our #1, and in that case the Orioles still suck!

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/s...year-775m-deal



Over/Under on the amount of pages on that thread if he doesn't make the opening day roster and we lose him to another team for nothing? The current thread is 29 so you would have to place that one at least at 15 pages right?

So many people wanted AM gone because he didn't make decisive quick decisions and were tired of him percolating. Now DD makes some quick decisions based on what the scouts have told him and the board is up in arms. You cannot have it both ways. AM was great at winning a trade, but didn't have the bold vision to trully implement a change of the organization. DD appears to have a vision and is going for it right away. I will trust what Soxhotcorner has to say about what he did with the Redsoxs and hope that he can duplicate it here. Is anybody in 2-3 years really going to care about these 2 trades? Any chance we gave up John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander? I don't think so. This year is going to be a waste at the MLB level. It was going to be that way no matter who the Orioles GM was going to be. I am at least intriqued that he has a plan and is going for it from the start. As has been said so many times in the past, we have held onto guys so long that never amounted to anything. What have we really lost?

Wow. That's some serious kool aid. Did you just suggest that Dana Eveland and Taylor Teagarden show bold vision?

[DrungoHazewood]

Sure, I accept that possibility. I just don't accept that as an impenetrable shield protecting the move (and by extension, all moves) from criticism. It's possible to weigh "maybe there's something here" accordingly with "I see basically no redeeming features to this player" and come up with "I still don't like the move, although I could be wrong, as a rational actor with imperfect information." It's also possible to weight those two differently and come out liking the trade. I just object to what is basically a massive appeal-to-authority that is used to justify any move ever.

Sure, can't argue there. But there's been a bunch of absolute certainty in the various trade threads, basically saying that Eveland is obviously nothing at all, the prospects definitely have all of this upside, and Duquette is clearly hopeless.

[SteveA]

... was the first weekend of the 2010 season, when he shut us out. Then he and his catcher pretty much called us out after the game as being unable to make adjustments at the plate:

"It was actually one of the weirdest games I've ever pitched," the left-hander told reporters. "I just had a good changeup (pitch).

"It was down in the zone and had a little sink to it and they (the Baltimore batters) were just beating it into the ground or popping it up."

Toronto catcher Jose Molina admitted that had prompted him to continue to call for the pitch.

"When you have a team that is chasing a pitch you just try to keep going with it until they show you that they can make the adjustment," Molina said.

"Tonight, the Orioles didn't make that adjustment on him, and that's why we took advantage of it."

In baseball terms, when everyone is taught to speak the same cliches to reporters, that's as close as you'll ever see to saying "Man those Orioles are a bunch of stupid hitters at the plate".

http://wsau.com/news/articles/2010/a...t-out-orioles/

[waroriole]

Ahhh, that's why I remember that name so well. Too bad he can't pitch against the O's anymore.

[JTrea81]

People forget this is the same guy that found Tim Wakefield.

In the end the Orioles traded some spare parts that were likely organizational filler for somebody that could contribute at the ML level for minimal cost.

People get up in arms about trading our prospects, but these guys were suspects at best and Duquette isn't afraid of trading these guys because they are not quality depth.

I'd rather see Eveland than signing another Duchscherer that has hardly any chance of sticking on the roster.