Updated: Orioles acquire Taylor Teagarden

[ChaosLex]

I said you evaluate the whole. The fact is, the results come from the process; they are a part of the whole. You cannot disregard the the results because they are directly linked to the whole of the process.

That is the cutest dog ever.

I have nothing else to add to the thread.

[lint06]

It's the equivalent of buying an unused $5 scratch-off ticket from someone for $20. Whether that ticket wins or not, you're still an idiot for spending $20 on something you could of had for five bucks.

That's a kind of a bad example. Acquiring the $5 doesn't involve evaluation based on need and past performance of the same scratch-off.

[lint06]

That is the cutest dog ever.

I have nothing else to add to the thread.

Thank you

[lint06]

I think what you fail to realize is that this isn't a statement about the players we gave up and whether or not they become anything special, or even if TT/Eveland have a good year. The idea is that we've given up 4 players for players whose equivalents could have been had for nothing and/or signed as FAs. This would allow us to have these low-level players (Eveland and Teagarden with different names) and keep the four prospects. Down the road OR RIGHT NOW, these players can be traded for real talent, or added to packages to get more players back. This is a scenario where nobody is saying that the pink ranger's zord is that important, but its needed to combine with the rest if Megazord is going to take on some space monster.

Nobody is saying that the prospects we gave up will have impressive futures. We are saying that this isn't how a smart rebuilding team handles transactions.

Okay, yes, I see what you are saying. You've articulated it clearly and without snark. I'll shall have to rep you, even if I don't agree wholesale with your position.

[Austin]

I think what you fail to realize is that this isn't a statement about the players we gave up and whether or not they become anything special, or even if TT/Eveland have a good year. The idea is that we've given up 4 players for players whose equivalents could have been had for nothing and/or signed as FAs. This would allow us to have these low-level players (Eveland and Teagarden with different names) and keep the four prospects. Down the road OR RIGHT NOW, these players can be traded for real talent, or added to packages to get more players back. This is a scenario where nobody is saying that the pink ranger's zord is that important, but its needed to combine with the rest if Megazord is going to take on some space monster.

Nobody is saying that the prospects we gave up will have impressive futures. We are saying that this isn't how a smart rebuilding team handles transactions.

+Rep for the completely apt Power Rangers analogy.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The idea is that we've given up 4 players for players whose equivalents could have been had for nothing and/or signed as FAs. This would allow us to have these low-level players (Eveland and Teagarden with different names) and keep the four prospects.

That's fine, except that's not a point that many on the other side agree with. I do think most (if not all) agree we probaby gave up too much for Tegarden with Miclat being the difference maker.

[Frobby]

No, you evaluate process, not results. If you want to perform a meaningful evaluation.

It seems to me you cannot evaluate "process" in a vacuum, without knowing the team's evaluations of Henry, Miclat and Teagarden. If Duquette thinks those two prospects are junk, and Teagarden is a starting-caliber catcher who is in a backup-C role, then you cannot fault the "process" if events prove him right.