On the Record: Better pitchers available that could be had for free instead of Eveland

[Barnaby Graves]

No, but it is pretty idiotic to accuse a scout of not valuing good scouting.

Then I guess it's good no one did that, then.

[SteveA]

Can we not give DD and his advisors the benefit of the doubt on this at least until we see Eveland pitch 10 games as an Oriole?

Here is the issue as I see it. We have a faction on the board that are conclusively saying Eveland sucks and shouldn't have been acquired. We have another faction that say, maybe the O's scouts (or whoever) know something that we fans don't... let's see what happens... we only lost two no-name prospects from the bottom of our list.

Which one is more extreme?

Yes, but the second faction is telling the first faction, in many cases, that they have no right to express their opinion. I don't see anyone in the first faction telling the second faction that.

And as for "benefit of doubt", 14 years of losing makes that tough to do. A lot of people thought Garret Atkins was a poor acquisition, but we were told to "give the benefit of the doubt". Ditto Vlad Guerrero. I know, that wasn't DD. But he came in with a reputation as a guy who wouldn't waste any time, who wouldn't take weeks to complete deals or "let the market percolate" and miss opportunities. So when the best he comes up with out of the winter meetings is a guy who failed with 5 teams and whose 6th team was willing to give him up for very little, it's hard to get very excited.

Just about every deal ever made by any of our GMs has had people in favor of it and people against it. But this one seems unique to me in that the people that like the deal, seem really upset for some reason that there are people that don't. That's what has me confused. Instead of just disagreeing like we do about most everything, suddenly there are folks getting really upset that there are people that don't like the deal. Maybe it's because the "leader" of the anti-trade folks is Sports Guy, who is a polarizing personality who also tends to state his opinion as fact.

[weams]

Yes, but the second faction is telling the first faction, in many cases, that they have no right to express their opinion. I don't see anyone in the first faction telling the second faction that.

And as for "benefit of doubt", 14 years of losing makes that tough to do. A lot of people thought Garret Atkins was a poor acquisition, but we were told to "give the benefit of the doubt". Ditto Vlad Guerrero. I know, that wasn't DD. But he came in with a reputation as a guy who wouldn't waste any time, who wouldn't take weeks to complete deals or "let the market percolate" and miss opportunities. So when the best he comes up with out of the winter meetings is a guy who failed with 5 teams and whose 6th team was willing to give him up for very little, it's hard to get very excited.

Just about every deal ever made by any of our GMs has had people in favor of it and people against it. But this one seems unique to me in that the people that like the deal, seem really upset for some reason that there are people that don't. That's what has me confused. Instead of just disagreeing like we do about most everything, suddenly there are folks getting really upset that there are people that don't like the deal. Maybe it's because the "leader" of the anti-trade folks is Sports Guy, who is a polarizing personality who also tends to state his opinion as fact.

SteveA is still here.

[OrioleMagic]

Yes, but the second faction is telling the first faction, in many cases, that they have no right to express their opinion. I don't see anyone in the first faction telling the second faction that.

And as for "benefit of doubt", 14 years of losing makes that tough to do. A lot of people thought Garret Atkins was a poor acquisition, but we were told to "give the benefit of the doubt". Ditto Vlad Guerrero. I know, that wasn't DD. But he came in with a reputation as a guy who wouldn't waste any time, who wouldn't take weeks to complete deals or "let the market percolate" and miss opportunities. So when the best he comes up with out of the winter meetings is a guy who failed with 5 teams and whose 6th team was willing to give him up for very little, it's hard to get very excited.

Just about every deal ever made by any of our GMs has had people in favor of it and people against it. But this one seems unique to me in that the people that like the deal, seem really upset for some reason that there are people that don't. That's what has me confused. Instead of just disagreeing like we do about most everything, suddenly there are folks getting really upset that there are people that don't like the deal. Maybe it's because the "leader" of the anti-trade folks is Sports Guy, who is a polarizing personality who also tends to state his opinion as fact.

I see your point. I think the part about "stating opinion as fact" is what the second faction is trying to tell the first faction they can't do. I need to emphasize that most of those in the first faction weren't terribly extreme with their opinion and didn't state it as fact, at least from my perspective. I think most of us are really just frustrated with our baseball team.

[Sports Guy]

Maybe BBREF is wrong the guy started in the PCL at the age of 22 and was dominant there after being dominant in AA at 21. He had one stint of 26 innings in the IL. Other than a a few innings of rehab in A+ ball, the the rest was all PCL. The point is this guy showed good ability at an early age in the high minors minors. His overal Mil trakc record is very good. It's not the picture you're trying to paint that it took him 5 years to master AAA/PCL.

That all being said, I realize he's not the pitcher he was at 22 and this is more about what the scouts see and like about him at this point in his career.

Also, in some of your other posts you keep saying Slowey was free. He cost a PTBNL and I don't think that player has been announced yet. I also read that we were negotiating for Slowey.

1) Eveland has been injured and lost MPH on his fastball. What he was at age 22 is meaningless.

2) The PTBNL for Slowey was posted on here...Essentially a ceiling of a long reliever who was like 24 years old putting up mediocre AAA numbers.

[Sports Guy]

Can we not give DD and his advisors the benefit of the doubt on this at least until we see Eveland pitch 10 games as an Oriole?

Here is the issue as I see it. We have a faction on the board that are conclusively saying Eveland sucks and shouldn't have been acquired. We have another faction that say, maybe the O's scouts (or whoever) know something that we fans don't... let's see what happens... we only lost two no-name prospects from the bottom of our list.

Which one is more extreme?

Maybe you want to get sucked into that fantasy again...I will pass.

[SrMeowMeow]

One final thought re: benefit of the doubt.

Yes, Dan Duquette is a new GM. He shouldn't be judged for the mistakes of past regimes, etc. Yes.

But he's still a GM that met with Angelos's approval. Which suggests (to me) that he will be risk-averse. He will feel a responsibility to maintain a "respectable" product on the field for the sake of public opinion. He will be beholden to Angelos's sacred cows, both in the organization and on the roster. And with this old-guard traditionalist mold that I feel Angelos values, I fear a corresponding rigidity of thought in respect to conventional wisdom. That means things like overvaluing speed. Overvaluing the effects of catcher defense (hi, Teagarden). Overvaluing major league experience and overvaluing 15 wins split between the majors and the minors with a corresponding distrust of young players (maybe, say, resulting in Dana Eveland getting a rotation spot over a rookie just because).

So Duquette will have to live down these concerns and many more. And when I see him make a questionable move that suggests parts of the above outlook, I'm certainly not going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[OrioleMagic]

Maybe you want to get sucked into that fantasy again...I will pass.

Why do you root for the Orioles if you can't even show a slight amount of patience or tolerance for a new GM who makes a trade that is questionable? I guess we all react to outside stressors in life differently.

[SrMeowMeow]

Why do you root for the Orioles if you can't even show a slight amount of patience or tolerance for a new GM who makes a trade that is questionable? I guess we all react to outside stressors in life differently.

Do you react to outside stressors with patronizing condescension? Because if so, you might want to check for outside stressors.

[OrioleMagic]

Do you react to outside stressors with patronizing condescension? Because if so, you might want to check for outside stressors.

I didn't intend to be patronizing or condescending. I'll let this go.

[Capn Vivi]

Arguing about this is like arguing about someone striking out with the bases loaded to end the 3rd inning. Yeah it sucks... but there's a whole ballgame left to play! What's done is done.

I get the sense people are more upset about what this might mean about the rest of the offseason. No amount of hand wringing will allow this board to move on until Duquette makes another move.

I just hope it's soon.

[SrMeowMeow]

Arguing about this is like arguing about someone striking out with the bases loaded to end the 3rd inning. Yeah it sucks... but there's a whole ballgame left to play! What's done is done.

I get the sense people are more upset about what this might mean about the rest of the offseason. No amount of hand wringing will allow this board to move on until Duquette makes another move.

I just hope it's soon.

That's a reasonable analogy, but...it still is understandable to get angry when someone strikes out with the bases loaded in the 3rd.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yes, but the second faction is telling the first faction, in many cases, that they have no right to express their opinion. I don't see anyone in the first faction telling the second faction that.

And as for "benefit of doubt", 14 years of losing makes that tough to do. A lot of people thought Garret Atkins was a poor acquisition, but we were told to "give the benefit of the doubt". Ditto Vlad Guerrero. I know, that wasn't DD. But he came in with a reputation as a guy who wouldn't waste any time, who wouldn't take weeks to complete deals or "let the market percolate" and miss opportunities. So when the best he comes up with out of the winter meetings is a guy who failed with 5 teams and whose 6th team was willing to give him up for very little, it's hard to get very excited.

Just about every deal ever made by any of our GMs has had people in favor of it and people against it. But this one seems unique to me in that the people that like the deal, seem really upset for some reason that there are people that don't. That's what has me confused. Instead of just disagreeing like we do about most everything, suddenly there are folks getting really upset that there are people that don't like the deal. Maybe it's because the "leader" of the anti-trade folks is Sports Guy, who is a polarizing personality who also tends to state his opinion as fact.

Who has said the second faction can't have an opinion? The closest thing I've seen is Tony asking people to go on record with better guys that we can get for free. Which was the mantra of the first faction. The main thing I've seen from the first faction is the team is too dumb to make a good decision based on scouting and citing the Garrret Atkins example (as you did) and/or 14 years of losing as rational. SG even going to the extent that this deal is somehow indicitave of overall organizational ineptitude and others indicating we gave up some kind of real value here (I don't see it).

To many people's credit, stats and analysis has been cited and when that's done it's actually kind of interesting. I think Allstar helped filled in some of the void as to what the scouts may be seeeing.

Somebody pointed out that Eveland has a lower FIP than Joe Saunders.

Despite people saying Eveland's Mil stats aren't good.. they're wrong...they are good. His walk rate was good in the minors. In the ML he's got some interesting peripherals (GB rate/HR rate) and some scary ones (babip/BB rate). Not uncommon for a sinkerballer to have issues with command and walk rate. Not rationalizing a 4.5/9 bb/9 as acceptable, but perhaps there's room for improvement at the ML level.

The second faction has admitted that this largely depends on the O's scouting. No one has said that's to be blindly believed. No one has said this has any significant possibility of success. But why wouldn't we give a new GM (who has extensive experience in player analysis) the benefit of the doubt, especially when it comes to such a small and insignificant deal. We're just supposed to mope and believe that we'll never get better at this?

The reality is, the first faction has overblown the significance of this deal way out of proportion imo. As you've made clear in your own post, I think the frustration is more about DD and the overall direction than than the specifics/merits of this particular deal.

Somebody said lets wait until he has 10 starts for the Orioles. Heck lets wait till he has a couple appearances in Spring Training. He's ML minimum, better than several guys we already have imo and his acqusition doesn't stop us from dropping him off the roster if we acquire better or he doesn't perform.

[Capn Vivi]

That's a reasonable analogy, but...it still is understandable to get angry when someone strikes out with the bases loaded in the 3rd.

I agree! I'm ready to move on at this point, though, haha.

It's usually a bad sign when you already have your rally cap on in the 4th.

[Capn Vivi]

Just throwing this out there. Between the PCL and the majors last year, Dana Eveland threw 183.2 innings with a BB rate of 3.28/9.

Orioles with at least 45 IP in 2011 possessing a BB rate BETTER than that (at the ML level) are:

Tommy Hunter 1.30/9

Koji Uehara 1.53/9

Jim Johnson 2.08/9

Brad Bergesen 2.85/9

Jeremy Guthrie 2.86/9

Alfredo Simon 3.11/9

And that's it. The next closest SP is Britton at 3.62/9.

You can argue that since Eveland put up that BB rate mostly in the minors last year it doesn't mean as much, but it was the PCL and in 29.2 IP at the ML level, Eveland had an even better BB rate than that (which of course I don't think is sustainable).

My point is: if you want to count Eveland's most recent performance, then you should consider he may possess better control than MANY of our other candidates for the starting rotation.