O's DFA Eveland

[atomic]

1. We have the worst rotation in baseball. Arguably.

2. We got lucky this spring that none of these guys got hurt. Not exactly. We got lucky that our "prospects" aka Matusz and Arrieta came back healthy. We actually have a decent rotation if those two plus Britton come back healthy and perform.

3. It was good to trade young players away for Eveland. Don't confuse "young players" with "good players". Angle was more of a prospect then Martin was and we let him go for nothing; no one made a huge stink about THAT. At least with Martin we got the opportunity to have Eveland in the event we have to address our consistently unhealthy rotation.

Well I did and a couple of others.

[atomic]

If anything this move shows the Orioles arent high on Ryan Adams either. Bell is about 10th on the depth chart right now.. I'm not sure where they play Wheeler. Does he have to stay on the 25 man? What happened to Flaherty and Antonelli, Betemit and Andino? How many 2B does a team need?? Does this mean Reynolds days are numbered?

One can hope.

[Frobby]

What's the value in over-insurance, exactly?

And my point was about our reaction to it - it was heightened because it was the second trade of its kind w/in a short window.

I don't have the energy to go through this in huge detail. Let's just say that when it comes to pitching, it is better to be over-insured than under-insured.

[Lucky Jim]

I don't have the energy to go through this in huge detail. Let's just say that when it comes to pitching, it is better to be over-insured than under-insured.

You don't need to. The entire argument fails on its premises. The opportunity cost of not trading for Eveland at that time is not "not having any insurance."

My point - and everyone else's who argued against the trade - was simply that (i) we could have waited; and (ii) we could have gotten equivalent value; when (iii) we had a better idea of what arms we'd have in camp.

None of these are arguable, I don't think.

[CA-ORIOLE]

My point - and everyone else's who argued against the trade - was simply that (i) we could have waited; and (ii) we could have gotten equivalent value; when (iii) we had a better idea of what arms we'd have in camp.

I (and probably others) disagree with your point, especially considering the circumstances at the time of the trade and Eveland's attributes. Now, that may be true in hindsight (I'm not sure if it even is right now).

[LookinUp]

What is the definition of prospect? Even after the DFA, Eveland is worth more to this org than Henson/Martin would ever be. They were non-prospects. If he gets claimed, that's only slightly less than true, as Henson/Martin will never provide ML value.

[Rene88]

They better not be that stupid.

The staff, IMO, should be this:

Bmat, Hunter, Chen, Hammel, Arrieta

JJ, Gregg, Ayala, Lindstrom, Patton, Wada and Strop...Wada and Patton can act as long men.

I like minus Gregg. Put Simon to replace Gregg.

[Sports Guy]

Is that so farfetched? He's spent at least some time in the majors for the last 7 years. I don't know everyones's rosters and certainly don't keep up with it as well as I used to. He's known more as a starter than a lefty reliever so that probably works against him. Gun to my head, I'll say he clears waivers.

Farfetched? No.

Likely? No.

I am not saying its not possible, just don't see it as the likeliest outcome. He isn't anything special.

[Sports Guy]

We traded 4 players for TT and Eveland. One of them was a power lefty reliever in need of a lot of development. Another was a solid RH relief prospect who has put up good numbers.

We also picked up Galaragga and Paulino for free.

Trading players who have some value when you can pick up similar players for free is always dumb, whether it is minor or not.

[Scrat1]

The moves were stupid but also not a big deal. Not sure what the debate is about.

[Roll Tide]

You don't need to. The entire argument fails on its premises. The opportunity cost of not trading for Eveland at that time is not "not having any insurance."

My point - and everyone else's who argued against the trade - was simply that (i) we could have waited; and (ii) we could have gotten equivalent value; when (iii) we had a better idea of what arms we'd have in camp.

None of these are arguable, I don't think.

From what I remember hearing here Matusz and Tillman were headed to the minors was a foregone conclusion. No one could have ever expected Matusz to look so good. There were concerns about Arrieta....I don't blame DD for the move even if it turned out to not be necessary. That said ou could argue it was better to have a guy in camp that was stretched out rather than get a guy off waivers that you'd need to stretch out early in the season....as for the players we lost....You have to break a few eggs to make a omelette.

[Sports Guy]

From what I remember hearing here Matusz and Tillman were headed to the minors was a foregone conclusion. No one could have ever expected Matusz to look so good. There were concerns about Arrieta....I don't blame DD for the move even if it turned out to not be necessary. That said ou could argue it was better to have a guy in camp that was stretched out rather than get a guy off waivers that you'd need to stretch out early in the season....as for the players we lost....You have to break a few eggs to make a omelette.

There was plenty of reason to believe Bmat would be fine.

[LookinUp]

We traded 4 players for TT and Eveland. One of them was a power lefty reliever in need of a lot of development. Another was a solid RH relief prospect who has put up good numbers.

We also picked up Galaragga and Paulino for free.

Trading players who have some value when you can pick up similar players for free is always dumb, whether it is minor or not.

I "like" the Eveland trade more than the Teagarden trade*, but I'd bet the odds of the players we acquired providing more value than the players we dealt are pretty darn solid. If I'm a GM and I'm making 100's of moves, I want the odds to be in my favor most of the time. I may take worse odds for high upside, but I think it's stretching things to suggest that the guys we dealt actually have high upside, even with their low probability. Martin could, I guess, but probabilities are very, very low.

*I actually don't really like them, but I think you're position is to choose lightning in a bottle possibilities over higher probabilities of incremental improvements to the organization, and I think a bunch of can't hit (opposite of can't miss) prospects actually forestalls organizational development.

[xKHx]

I have never seen so many people be wrong about a trade then jump up and defend the trade even more when they are proven to be wrong because he was DFA! I see the one most vocal about how tremendous of a pitcher he is/was is at least taking a back seat in this thread.

[Rene88]

The moves were stupid but also not a big deal. Not sure what the debate is about.

I think the concern is what if it was a bigger trade-can DD be trusted? Probably not.