Fangraphs: Tanking, in the MLB

[DrungoHazewood]

Pretty sure that ERod and maybe Hader are better assets than what was kept.

That's how it's worked out. But at the time. I get that you wouldn't have traded any of them, but if you're trading two then at the time those would have been the two to trade.

[theobird]

This thread makes me laugh. I was down on the direction DD was going 3 years ago, but that was met by an awful lot of noise on here. As I said at the time, and still believe, a GM has to be judged 3 years down the road. Last year was the start, we needed to win 6 in a row at the end against lousy lineups to finish .500. I am pretty sure it wont be better this season.

I wonder if I will still be hearing from some posters about our "great GM" or how the Orioles will be "perennial winners" under this leadership group? Sorry guys, our great GM is now working down the road in Philadelphia.

[Can_of_corn]

That's how it's worked out. But at the time. I get that you wouldn't have traded any of them, but if you're trading two then at the time those would have been the two to trade.

You said they avoided trading their best young assets. If fact they avoided trading their highest rated prospects.

Ideally teams shouldn't be trading away guys only to have them see an immediate jump in performance when they change organizations. The O's have seen that happen three times in recent history, that is at least twice too many.

[Stotle]

See, that's what I'm talking about. If you take a middle ground and trade some 5-10 ranked prospects but keep hold of the Bundys and the Harveys for the future I think that's a reasonable strategy. But I'm reading a lot of skepticism in your post, right? That my point of view is basically acting as a front office apologist, or at least someone who's willing to ditch any sembelence of development, correct?

Or am I reading too much into that?

I don't think it's being an apologist at all. But I think it's assuming too high a hit rate on "top prospects" (especially prospects that aren't really impact prospects at present) and shrugging off mid-level prospects as fungible. Hader should be a good lesson on that front (and an example as to why having good scouts that can point you to a second or third piece in a trade that might be interesting if things break right is important).

It's putting your eggs in one basket and hoping for the best. It might work out. Maybe all the guys they hold on to end up panning out and there is no issue. It's just a lot of gambling for my taste.

[Frobby]

You said they avoided trading their best young assets. If fact they avoided trading their highest rated prospects.

Ideally teams shouldn't be trading away guys only to have them see an immediate jump in performance when they change organizations. The O's have seen that happen three times in recent history, that is at least twice too many.

Arrieta -- check

EdRod -- check, I guess

Hader -- I don't really see that his performance jumped after he was traded. He was already doing very well.

[weams]

I think most reasonable minds would be satisfied with the FO acknowledging the future's existence.

Certainly doesn't have to come at the expense of the present.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beware the savage Yaw, of 2019.

[weams]

Arrieta -- check

EdRod -- check, I guess

Hader -- I don't really see that his performance jumped after he was traded. He was already doing very well.

Hader was not the mega man he is now. He was progressing nicely. He still weighed 155 lbs.

[DrungoHazewood]

You said they avoided trading their best young assets. If fact they avoided trading their highest rated prospects.

Ideally teams shouldn't be trading away guys only to have them see an immediate jump in performance when they change organizations. The O's have seen that happen three times in recent history, that is at least twice too many.

I'd be surprised if you found too many fans happy with the way Arrieta and ERod haved worked out. One of my suggestions for the future would be to fix something so that doesn't happen anymore.

I don't think it's being an apologist at all. But I think it's assuming too high a hit rate on "top prospects" (especially prospects that aren't really impact prospects at present) and shrugging off mid-level prospects as fungible. Hader should be a good lesson on that front (and an example as to why having good scouts that can point you to a second or third piece in a trade that might be interesting if things break right is important).

It's putting your eggs in one basket and hoping for the best. It might work out. Maybe all the guys they hold on to end up panning out and there is no issue. It's just a lot of gambling for my taste.

Yes, it is a lot of gambling. No, it's not ideal. Yes, I hope they fix some of these developmental issues while fielding a competitive team. I fully understand that it may not work out. We'll see.

[Can_of_corn]

Arrieta -- check

EdRod -- check, I guess

Hader -- I don't really see that his performance jumped after he was traded. He was already doing very well.

Outlook: Viewed by some experts as no more valuable than the competitive balance draft pick accompanying him to Houston in the 2013 Bud Norris trade, Hader turned plenty of heads in 2014. The former 19th-round pick rode an uptick in fastball velocity to Pitcher of the Year honors in the notoriously hitter-friendly California League with Advanced Class A Lancaster.

http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2015/04/09/get-to-know-the-astros-top-10-prospects-in-the-minor-leagues/

[Frobby]

http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2015/04/09/get-to-know-the-astros-top-10-prospects-in-the-minor-leagues/

Tony said after the 2013 season he would have ranked Hader 6th in our system if he'd still been with us. The five in front of him were Bundy, Gausman, EdRod, Harvey and Schoop. So, I'd say Hader was pretty highly regarded around here.

[Stotle]

Tony said after the 2013 season he would have ranked Hader 6th in our system if he'd still been with us. The five in front of him were Bundy, Gausman, EdRod, Harvey and Schoop. So, I'd say Hader was pretty highly regarded around here.

Doesn't seem mutually exclusive to me. A comp pick could certainly slot in around there, as well.

[weams]

Doesn't seem mutually exclusive to me. A comp pick could certainly slot in around there, as well.

A comp pick is eating a chicken with no name. The prospect is eating the one named Josh.

[Frobby]

Doesn't seem mutually exclusive to me. A comp pick could certainly slot in around there, as well.

I am only making the point that I don't think Hader had some unexpected leap in development after stalling with the Orioles (as Arrieta and EdRod arguably did). He was doing just fine for us and his stock was at its highest point (in our organization) when we traded him. Obviously, he has continued to progress from there. But his continued progress doesn't lead me to question whether the Orioles had developed him well at the point where he was traded. I do have those questions about Arrieta and EdRod, considering how quickly those two got turned around after they were traded.

[weams]

I am only making the point that I don't think Hader had some unexpected leap in development after stalling with the Orioles (as Arrieta and EdRod arguably did). He was doing just fine for us and his stock was at its highest point (in our organization) when we traded him. Obviously, he has continued to progress from there. But his continued progress doesn't lead me to question whether the Orioles had developed him well at the point where he was traded. I do have those questions about Arrieta and EdRod, considering how quickly those two got turned around after they were traded.

Makes sense.

[Redskins Rick]

I am only making the point that I don't think Hader had some unexpected leap in development after stalling with the Orioles (as Arrieta and EdRod arguably did). He was doing just fine for us and his stock was at its highest point (in our organization) when we traded him. Obviously, he has continued to progress from there. But his continued progress doesn't lead me to question whether the Orioles had developed him well at the point where he was traded. I do have those questions about Arrieta and EdRod, considering how quickly those two got turned around after they were traded.

Sometimes pitchers get their light bulb moment.

Britton is a pretty good comparison, look at how Britton here as a failed starter, coming into 2014 ST, some were questioning if he would even make the 25 Man roster, but, he fixed his delivery/mechanics or whatever was ailing him, and he has become a very dominant closer.