Zach Davies

[Pat Kelly]

It is fairly clear Oriole leadership is not very good at assessing major league ready starting pitching candidates.  What is crazy is the guys they have moved have gone on to be not marginal contributors but difference makers for their teams. 

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, Pat Kelly said:

It is fairly clear Oriole leadership is not very good at assessing major league ready starting pitching candidates.  What is crazy is the guys they have moved have gone on to be not marginal contributors but difference makers for their teams. 

Well, it happens a fair amount.   Rodrigo Lopez, Jeremy Guthrie and Miguel Gonzalez were all guys we picked up for free.    But I don't disagree that we have squandered a lot of pitching talent that was present in our system despite having major pitching problems at the major league level even while fielding a competitive team.    

Davies really is the one who stands out the most.    Arrieta and Bridwell had struggled in our system and didn't seem likely to contribute here.     EdRod had struggled a bit at AA, and at least we got a top talent for him (I didn't like the trade, but at least we got what we paid for).     Hader and Brault were a very long way from the majors.

But Davies?  3.86 ERA at Delmarva at 19, 3.69 at Frederick at 20, 3.35 at Bowie at 21, 1.75 in the Arizona Fall League at 21, 2.84 at Bowie at 22.     Young for his league at every level, good right away and getting better at each stop.   Completely major league ready at 22.    And we gave him away for a 2-month rental of a guy with a .738 career OPS.   Of all the guys we traded away, he's the one who's most indefensible (even if he's not the top pitcher of the group).    

[stef]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I hate that trade.    Not just because Davies has been successful, but because he's exactly the type of pitcher I love to follow.     He'll have a 15-year career, miss only a handful of starts and everyone will wonder how the scrawny kid did it.

I remember when we traded him, Duquette made some remark to the effect that the organization saw Wright, Wilson and Davies as basically equivalent, but that the former two were ahead of Davies in terms of experience.    One of the dumbest things I've heard DD say.

Yep. Maybe another Jamie Moyer type? I'm also rooting for him; at the same time it aggravates me.

What DD said is part of this evaluation issue for the Os. I believe Tony said at the time that he would have kept him over the other two (I'll leave the Parra part of the equation out of this?) So, what didn't the Os see that Tony and Milwaukee did? Frustrating.

[SteveA]

44 minutes ago, Sessh said:

It always gets a chuckle out of me to see people imply that we shouldn't talk about this stuff and to "get over it" because it's done, over with and history. The problem is it's none of those things. The reason the Orioles have the major problems they have with pitching is because we traded away all of our pitching talent for essentially nothing. Bridwell, Davies, E-Rod, Hader and others for practically nothing. Miranda has room for improvement next year, but who knows? As mentioned already, Brault had a great start in his return from the minors as well and who knows if he can put it together or not in the Pirates system.

Yes, even Arrieta and Strop have cost us with the former being more the fault of our pathetic system than anything else, but what we got in return for them was, again, nothing. This organization have given their future away for nothing. The Orioles are having all these problems right now entirely because of all these horrible deals that were made some of which I'm sure were because Buck didn't like them for some reason. Miranda and Bridwell at least, but he has say in everything that happens personnel wise which is unfortunate because he is terrible at talent assessment as he showed in Texas as well with Gonzalez and Young. This whole organization is a mess and, yes, it is because of these players we let go. If the Orioles had a solid pitching staff, people would care a lot less I'm sure. Now, we may see Davies turn into an elite arm as he is now showing is possible. Quite funny considering there were several on here claiming that Davies was "nothing special" at one point.

These bad trades are going to be at the root of the dark years to come. It is not history or in the past or above talking about and complaining about; it is the Orioles present and definitely the future as well. So will be the same with Machado when he walks for nothing and already waited too long to trade Britton, so that's out the window now too. It's pathetic. It's even more pathetic that anyone is even remotely OK with this or think it to be so insignificant as to be unworthy for discussion. I hope it keeps coming up so when this team is once again perennial basement dwellers, everyone remembers why.

I don't think anyone thinks it's insignificant or not worthy of discussion.  

I don't think anyone thinks they were good trades in hindsight either, and a lot of people didn't like then when they happened.

But there's only so many times you can beat the same dead horse.   We could be having a discussion about Tillman's shoulder and someone feels its absolutely necessary to interject what an awful deal the Davies deal was.   It's everywhere, and constant.   How many times does it have to be posted, over and over again, the same thing every time?

What more is there to say about it?   No one is arguing that Davies for Parra is a good deal.  No one.   So seeing it pointed out 100 times a day that it is a terrible deal, accomplishes what exactly?

[tntoriole]

3 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I don't think anyone thinks it's insignificant or not worthy of discussion.  

I don't think anyone thinks they were good trades in hindsight either, and a lot of people didn't like then when they happened.

But there's only so many times you can beat the same dead horse.   We could be having a discussion about Tillman's shoulder and someone feels its absolutely necessary to interject what an awful deal the Davies deal was.   It's everywhere, and constant.   How many times does it have to be posted, over and over again, the same thing every time?

What more is there to say about it?   No one is arguing that Davies for Parra is a good deal.  No one.   So seeing it pointed out 100 times a day that it is a terrible deal, accomplishes what exactly?

I agree with all the points made and that it comes up constantly all over the board...but, in fairness, this IS the Zach Davies thread, so it is pretty clear what is going to be coming here anyway.  

[SteveA]

Just now, tntoriole said:

I agree with all the points made and that it comes up constantly all over the board...but, in fairness, this IS the Zach Davies thread, so it is pretty clear what is going to be coming here anyway.  

True, good point.

[Sessh]

31 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I don't think anyone thinks it's insignificant or not worthy of discussion.  

I don't think anyone thinks they were good trades in hindsight either, and a lot of people didn't like then when they happened.

But there's only so many times you can beat the same dead horse.   We could be having a discussion about Tillman's shoulder and someone feels its absolutely necessary to interject what an awful deal the Davies deal was.   It's everywhere, and constant.   How many times does it have to be posted, over and over again, the same thing every time?

What more is there to say about it?   No one is arguing that Davies for Parra is a good deal.  No one.   So seeing it pointed out 100 times a day that it is a terrible deal, accomplishes what exactly?

Well, when we're constantly reminded of these things every time this team takes the field, it makes it futile to expect these wounds not to fester and produce frequent outbursts. It's completely understandable. What does any discussion on here truly accomplish? Nothing, so what's the point? If people want to vent, let them vent. There's plenty of reason for it and that's what this place is for. It's highly unlikely that changes any time soon. It's not a "dead horse"; it is an open wound on a salt flat. It's very simple to grasp why these topics keep coming up with all the emotion they had the first time they were discussed. Why does something need to be "accomplished" in order to vent about something? That's kinda ridiculous really.

[Frobby]

Just now, Sessh said:

Well, when we're constantly reminded of these things every time this team takes the field, it makes it futile to expect these wounds not to fester and produce frequent outbursts. It's completely understandable. What does any discussion on here truly accomplish? Nothing, so what's the point? If people want to vent, let them vent. There's plenty of reason for it and that's what this place is for. It's highly unlikely that changes any time soon. It's not a "dead horse"; it is an open wound on a salt flat. It's very simple to grasp why these topics keep coming up with all the emotion they had the first time they were discussed. Why does something need to be "accomplished" in order to vent about something? That's kinda ridiculous really.

It bothers me when people start multiple threads on the same topic -- either one that repeats their own thread from before, or one that repeats a thread posted by somebody else that same day or very shortly before.    There must be nine different threads complaining about why Hays isn't playing more right now.    There are god knows how many threads about the pitcher trades.    It does get tiresome.   

[SteveA]

4 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Well, when we're constantly reminded of these things every time this team takes the field, it makes it futile to expect these wounds not to fester and produce frequent outbursts. It's completely understandable. What does any discussion on here truly accomplish? Nothing, so what's the point? If people want to vent, let them vent. There's plenty of reason for it and that's what this place is for. It's highly unlikely that changes any time soon. It's not a "dead horse"; it is an open wound on a salt flat. It's very simple to grasp why these topics keep coming up with all the emotion they had the first time they were discussed. Why does something need to be "accomplished" in order to vent about something? That's kinda ridiculous really.

OK, but when other people vent that they are sick of hearing the same thing over and over again... respect that too.

[Sessh]

Just now, Frobby said:

It bothers me when people start multiple threads on the same topic -- either one that repeats their own thread from before, or one that repeats a thread posted by somebody else that same day or very shortly before.    There must be nine different threads complaining about why Hays isn't playing more right now.    There are god knows how many threads about the pitcher trades.    It does get tiresome.   

Well, I can agree with that. AN excess amount of threads on the same topic is certainly annoying and clutters up the entire thread listings. All I'm saying is expecting people to compartmentalize all this other stuff isn't very reasonable to me because all those roads lead to the same place. There's a lot of anger and it's not their fault that it's there. Of course it's going to come up in discussions relating to topics only a stone's throw away from this issue. Of course it's going to keep coming up because the reminders are constant and it's all connected together.

Just now, SteveA said:

OK, but when other people vent that they are sick of hearing the same thing over and over again... respect that too.

Well, someone already pointed out to you the title of the thread, so if you are tired of hearing the same thing over and over, why click on it? It's a reasonable question.

[SteveA]

Just now, Sessh said:

Well, I can agree with that. AN excess amount of threads on the same topic is certainly annoying and clutters up the entire thread listings. All I'm saying is expecting people to compartmentalize all this other stuff isn't very reasonable to me because all those roads lead to the same place. There's a lot of anger and it's not their fault that it's there. Of course it's going to come up in discussions relating to topics only a stone's throw away from this issue. Of course it's going to keep coming up because the reminders are constant and it's all connected together.

Well, someone already pointed out to you the title of the thread, so if you are tired of hearing the same thing over and over, why click on it? It's a reasonable question.

You are correct.   It was about the 10th time in the past couple days that I came across a post where someone was expressing anger about the Davies deal.   I had seen so many and gotten so sick of seeing them constantly that I vented.   And just my luck I happened to do it in the ONE thread that was actually devoted to the topic, the last 9 I had seen had been in game threads and any number of other discussions.

So I reacted tot he wrong one.   My apology.

But don't worry, if our starter struggles tonight, someone will bring up Davies in the game thread.

[Sessh]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

You are correct.   It was about the 10th time in the past couple days that I came across a post where someone was expressing anger about the Davies deal.   I had seen so many and gotten so sick of seeing them constantly that I vented.   And just my luck I happened to do it in the ONE thread that was actually devoted to the topic, the last 9 I had seen had been in game threads and any number of other discussions.

So I reacted tot he wrong one.   My apology.

But don't worry, if our starter struggles tonight, someone will bring up Davies in the game thread.

Well, I can admit that I've done it time or two in passing. I see our bad pitching, I think about why it's bad, I wonder what we have in the minors (nothing), then inevitably remember the wealth of major league caliber pitching talent that we've given away. I watch the game, I watch our pitching staff give up runs, lose games and fail to be competitive knowing that all this nonsense was not only completely self inflicted, but also completely preventable. Then, I think about where we could have been if this organization had even a shred of a clue what they were doing. It's like we've got three guys who all have their own plans and are all different from one another. We got one guy going one way, another going another way and so on. That's what it feels like, that's what it looks like and this is the result of it. It's really hard not to think about it because the reminders are right in our faces every game and seeing what the future holds as a result of all these bad personnel decisions. It's really all connected to the problems this team is currently experiencing and is a significant reason for it. It's a reality that is quite hard to avoid.

[SteveA]

Just now, Sessh said:

Well, I can admit that I've done it time or two in passing. I see our bad pitching, I think about why it's bad, I wonder what we have in the minors (nothing), then inevitably remember the wealth of major league caliber pitching talent that we've given away. I watch the game, I watch our pitching staff give up runs, lose games and fail to be competitive knowing that all this nonsense was not only completely self inflicted, but also completely preventable. Then, I think about where we could have been if this organization had even a shred of a clue what they were doing. It's like we've got three guys who all have their own plans and are all different from one another. We got one guy going one way, another going another way and so on. That's what it feels like, that's what it looks like and this is the result of it. It's really hard not to think about it because the reminders are right in our faces every game and seeing what the future holds as a result of all these bad personnel decisions. It's really all connected to the problems this team is currently experiencing and is a significant reason for it. It's a reality that is quite hard to avoid.

We've given away some talent, no doubt, but I think it does get exaggerated a bit.

Davies has had an amazing breakout year (in the NL).

Arrieta -- well, let's not re-hash that, but it is certainly possible that he was never going to do what he did in Baltimore, whether it's because of inferior coaching /development here or that he just needed the kick in the pants of a change of scenery.

EdRod -- has established himself as a major league starter this year with a 108 ERA+.   Good for him.   And we'd love to have that in this year's rotation.   Last year he wasn't that good, AND even if he had had a 108 ERA+ last year it would have been 3rd best on our rotation, behind Tilly and Gausman and essentially tied with Bundy.   Basically, he's meatloaf that looks like prime rib to us because of how bad our pitching has been this year.   Pretty decent meat loaf, but our starvation makes him appear much better.

Miranda -- in somewhat of a pitcher's park and among the major league leaders in home runs allowed.   I'm not convinced he's anything.

Bridwell -- peripherals indicate regression, not to mention the league will get a scouting report on him.   If the Angels count on him next year they are probably making a mistake.

Hader -- a good hard throwing LH reliever, no idea if he would have worked here as a starter.

And we've let go of PLENTY of pitchers who have done little to nothing of importance so far... Drake, Gunkel, Despaigne, Worley, Matusz, Saunders, Brault, Tarpley... or who have been horrible (McFarland, Guthrie).   Others have had a modicum of success (Feldman, Adelman, Hammel) but I'll bet if they were in this year's rotation here they wouldn't be all that great either.

The notion that every pitcher we let go turns to gold is abetted by the constant discussion of the golden ones.   We have probably let about 25 pitchers leave the organization in the past few years and the ones that have done well are discussed to death.   As it was pointed out, you can make a list for every team of guys they let go that became stars.   I'm sure Arizona would love to have Scherzer back, the Jays Syndegaard, the Nationals Robbie Ray, the White Sox/Phillies/A's would all love to have Gio Gonzalez.  I'm not defending any of the deals we made, they are no doubt bad, but the idea that we could have never let go someone who became any good elsewhere is unrealistic too.

[Nevermore]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

It bothers me when people start multiple threads on the same topic -- either one that repeats their own thread from before, or one that repeats a thread posted by somebody else that same day or very shortly before.    There must be nine different threads complaining about why Hays isn't playing more right now.    There are god knows how many threads about the pitcher trades.    It does get tiresome.  

The talk will continue while DD is still our gm (or whatever title he has). I know that I'm frustrated because these pitcher trades (and our giveaway of Gonzo for absolutely nothing) keep happening year after year. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over. It doesn't appear that DD has learned anything.    Is he capable of learning? There's are reasons why he was  out of baseball for how many years.

[Malike]

It would have been nice to have Davies, but despite his 17 wins, his WHIP is terrible, his K/9 is pedestrian and his ERA+ doesn't even put him in the top 10 pitchers in the NL, let alone baseball. He would be a clear upgrade but I don't see him approaching Ace territory. His HR/9 is great, and was in the minors as well. If that changes his numbers will not look pretty. Too many baserunners. Still, he'd be a massive upgrade in our rotation and cost effective. I'm over it, though. Good for MIL.