Orioles Acquire Dana Eveland from Dodgers

[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.

[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.