Second guessing Hyde

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, theocean said:

Not blaming Elias for the Orioles being a bad team - but when you give a manager a bunch of AAA guys... you can't expect much.

I still think that the market was so advantageous this winter that the O's could have signed a cheap veteran or two to help them through this process. Would have given all the younger guys - and manager - a better chance to succeed.

cheap veteran or two, just spends money and doesnt really improve the product on the field, let the youth come up and see what they have. IMO

The end goal to build a long time solid contender.

[interloper]

23 hours ago, Frobby said:

The intentional walk was just Hyde preferring to face Alonso rather than Abreu.    As I mentioned in another thread, I almost always oppose walking the bases loaded, especially in a 1-run game with 2 outs and a command-challenged pitcher on the mound.    Too many things can go wrong with the bases loaded — HBP, walk or even just falling behind in the count and having to throw the batter a cookie because you can’t afford to walk him.   That said, none of those things actually happened.

I also have this thing about walking the bases loaded. In the dark years it must have had a pretty high fail rate because it never, ever seemed to work out. Makes total sense to do it at times, it just never fails to give me anxiety. 

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

I also have this thing about walking the bases loaded. In the dark years it must have had a pretty high fail rate because it never, ever seemed to work out. Makes total sense to do it at times, it just never fails to give me anxiety. 

I seen it work and Ive seen it fail.

I get the reasoning why, it allows anybase to be an out, but it doesn't make me a fan of the move. But, as noted, any number of things can go wrong.

 

[thezeroes]

8 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

10 minutes ago, theocean said:

Not blaming Elias for the Orioles being a bad team - but when you give a manager a bunch of AAA guys... you can't expect much.

I still think that the market was so advantageous this winter that the O's could have signed a cheap veteran or two to help them through this process. Would have given all the younger guys - and manager - a better chance to succeed.

cheap veteran or two, just spends money and doesnt really improve the product on the field, let the youth come up and see what they have. IMO

The end goal to build a long time solid contender.

I would also add that when adding a " cheap veteran or two" they would be holding down both 25 and 40 man roster spots without having the ability of using optional assignments.  Basically those moves of signing FA (even on the cheap) clogs the roster,  removes the likely hood of player movement, removes the ability to sign waiver claims, blocks upward movement throughout the Organization for those that garner advancement while placing the needed AAAA players in jeopardy of being released.  This is in addition to what Redskin Rick said.  IMO

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

30 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

cheap veteran or two, just spends money and doesnt really improve the product on the field, let the youth come up and see what they have. IMO

The end goal to build a long time solid contender.

At this point I’m only in favor of adding veteran players to fill out the roster when the Orioles start getting good again.

If you’re going to be bad then just embrace it. Getting the number one pick in 2020 will be worth it if Elias and Sig know what they are doing.

[LA2]

32 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I seen it work and Ive seen it fail.

I get the reasoning why, it allows anybase to be an out, but it doesn't make me a fan of the move. But, as noted, any number of things can go wrong.

 

Also makes perfect sense if we still had someone like Zach on the mound.

[Tx Oriole]

43 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

cheap veteran or two, just spends money and doesnt really improve the product on the field, let the youth come up and see what they have. IMO

The end goal to build a long time solid contender.

I agree with you.

[Frobby]

20 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I seen it work and Ive seen it fail.

I get the reasoning why, it allows anybase to be an out, but it doesn't make me a fan of the move. But, as noted, any number of things can go wrong.

 

I understand it in certain situations, like when there’s one out and you’re trying to create a DP opportunity.    And it worries me less if you’ve got a pitcher with good control on the mound.   But with a guy like Castro, it makes me super nervous.   Not something I would do with two outs unless it was Trout at the plate and the weakest hitter on the team on deck.   

[HowAboutThat]

OK, what’s going on with Hyde’s bullpen use?

I understand he doesn’t have a whole lot of options, but when the guy who is allegedly your closer is doing so badly, it makes sense to avoid using him at all, much less in a closer situation. If Hyde had to use him, why didn’t he use him earlier?

Early in the season, Hyde appeared to have a quick hook, which is erring on the side of caution. Good for him.

Now he doesn’t really seem to have any particular plan, and it’s annoying. I’m actually pretty confident that nobody is more upset than Givens himself.

what say you?

[Moose Milligan]

18 minutes ago, Philip said:

OK, what’s going on with Hyde’s bullpen use?

I understand he doesn’t have a whole lot of options, but when the guy who is allegedly your closer is doing so badly, it makes sense to avoid using him at all, much less in a closer situation. If Hyde had to use him, why didn’t he use him earlier?

Early in the season, Hyde appeared to have a quick hook, which is erring on the side of caution. Good for him.

Now he doesn’t really seem to have any particular plan, and it’s annoying. I’m actually pretty confident that nobody is more upset than Givens himself.

what say you?

I think there's a very fine line between believing in your guys and giving them chances, even when they're not doing too well to see if they can work through it and then setting them up for failure.  

Today, I think he sent Givens out for failure.  

[HowAboutThat]

12 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think there's a very fine line between believing in your guys and giving them chances, even when they're not doing too well to see if they can work through it and then setting them up for failure.  

Today, I think he sent Givens out for failure.  

I agree, it seems like he knew Givens was going to fail, and he sent him out, anyway. Could One of the other guys have gone longer? Nobody really distinguished himself today, So maybe he didn’t have any choice, but he didn’t seem to make plans before the game to do everything possible to avoid using Givens. And if you have to use him, why use him At the most stressful point?

[El_Duderino]

I think his plan was to stay away from Givens but then felt he had no choice. This isn’t the California Penal League, the manager isn’t putting anyone in to fail. 

[Moose Milligan]

7 minutes ago, Philip said:

I agree, it seems like he knew Givens was going to fail, and he sent him out, anyway. Could One of the other guys have gone longer? Nobody really distinguished himself today, So maybe he didn’t have any choice, but he didn’t seem to make plans before the game to do everything possible to avoid using Givens. And if you have to use him, why use him At the most stressful point?

I disagree, I think it's a couple of things:

First, lack of options.  On that, we all agree.

Two, I think Hyde is a good guy.  I think he means well.  What I was trying to say is that I think he wants to show Givens that he still has faith in him and wants to get him out there to see if he can do well.  And that's not what Givens needs right now.

I don't think he felt that Givens was going to fail and sent him out there anyway.  

[HowAboutThat]

11 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I disagree, I think it's a couple of things:

First, lack of options.  On that, we all agree.

Two, I think Hyde is a good guy.  I think he means well.  What I was trying to say is that I think he wants to show Givens that he still has faith in him and wants to get him out there to see if he can do well.  And that's not what Givens needs right now.

I don't think he felt that Givens was going to fail and sent him out there anyway.  

Oh I don’t think I was clear, I don’t think he wanted Givens to fail, But he would not be human if he did not expect him to fail.The Radio guy(Jim Hunter’s partner, his name slips my mind) Was going into detail about Givens’ Problems, and how he had no idea where the ball was going when he threw it.

If that is correct, then logically Hyde would’ve known it as well, And yet he still used him as usual, and the expected happened.

[Moose Milligan]

10 minutes ago, Philip said:

Oh I don’t think I was clear, I don’t think he wanted Givens to fail, But he would not be human if he did not expect him to fail.The Radio guy(Jim Hunter’s partner, his name slips my mind) Was going into detail about Givens’ Problems, and how he had no idea where the ball was going when he threw it.

If that is correct, then logically Hyde would’ve known it as well, And yet he still used him as usual, and the expected happened.

Correct, well I think either Hyde is either trying his best to show support or really thought he could get the job done.  We'll never know, he'd never admit that he thought Givens couldn't get the job done.

Anyway, what's done is done.  I feel bad for Givens.