Is Hyde Managing for the #1 Pick or to be fired?

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

29 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes I agree completely about the age thing, and because he has three options, we can afford to keep giving him chancesYes I agree completely about the age thing, and because he has three options, we can afford to keep giving him chances

#TrustTheProcess 

[thezeroes]

9 hours ago, Philip said:

I’m honestly wondering what he has shown? He’s a single digit draft pick who has already been given up on by two teams, each of which Is far more developed and analytics then we were at the time we made the trade, and may be now as well.

In 17 innings, He’s given up 17 hits, eight walks, 4HBP and three homeruns. He’s had 17 Ks as well, but they hardly negate those other numbers. He still has all three options so I’m certainly not suggesting cutting ties, but he hasn’t shown anything on which to bet the farm.

He was part of TRADES, not waiver claims, not DFA, and certainly not "GIVEN UP ON"

August 1, 2016: Traded by the Texas Rangers with Nick Green (minors) and Erik Swanson to the New York Yankees for Carlos Beltran.

July 24, 2018: Traded by the New York Yankees with Cody Carroll and Josh Rogers to the Baltimore Orioles for Zack Britton.

[Philip]

2 hours ago, thezeroes said:

He was part of TRADES, not waiver claims, not DFA, and certainly not "GIVEN UP ON"

August 1, 2016: Traded by the Texas Rangers with Nick Green (minors) and Erik Swanson to the New York Yankees for Carlos Beltran.

July 24, 2018: Traded by the New York Yankees with Cody Carroll and Josh Rogers to the Baltimore Orioles for Zack Britton.

He was traded because they no longer wanted him, and they were able to unload him. When a top prospect is no longer a top prospect and changes hands not once but twice while still so young, it doesn’t look good.

[SteveA]

11 minutes ago, Philip said:

He was traded because they no longer wanted him, and they were able to unload him. When a top prospect is no longer a top prospect and changes hands not once but twice while still so young, it doesn’t look good.

Lots of prospects get traded by contenders for veterans.  It means the contender wants immediate help, and they have to pay to get it.  And sometimes it happens twice to a guy.  Doesn't always mean that the team is giving up, just that you have to spend something to get something.  And sometimes it happens to a guy twice.

Red Sox traded Anthony Rizzo to acquire Adrian Gonzalez.  Then Padres traded Rizzo to Cubs.

Good Gonzalez went from the Phillies to the White Sox for Nick Swisher, then from the White Sox to the A's, then from the A's to the Nat's before making the majors and having a good career in Washington.

Ignoring the fact that he is now sitting in a prison cell, Felipe Vazquez was traded twice while a prospect before becoming a good pitcher for the Pirates.

Just because you are used as "value" by a contender to pick up a veteran doesn't mean they have given up on you, just that they value the present need at the moment as more urgent.  Tate was traded for two quality veterans (Carlos Beltran and Zach Britton).

 

[Frobby]

27 minutes ago, Philip said:

He was traded because they no longer wanted him, and they were able to unload him. When a top prospect is no longer a top prospect and changes hands not once but twice while still so young, it doesn’t look good.

That’s a pretty weak take.   It’s not like he was traded for nobody’s.   Did we “give up on” Eduardo Rodriguez when we traded him for Andrew Miller?    No, we wanted Andrew Miller badly enough to trade EdRod to get him.    

[Luke-OH]

You gotta give something to get something. Trades are pretty fair for the most part at the time of the deal. Of course assets have risk/reward profiles and how those turn out often flavors the view of the trade afterwards, but for the most part, teams aren't dumb, the valuations generally line up. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That’s a pretty weak take.   It’s not like he was traded for nobody’s.   Did we “give up on” Eduardo Rodriguez when we traded him for Andrew Miller?    No, we wanted Andrew Miller badly enough to trade EdRod to get him.    

I think the Yankees had no intention of putting Tate on the 40.

[Philip]

5 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Lots of prospects get traded by contenders for veterans.  It means the contender wants immediate help, and they have to pay to get it.  And sometimes it happens twice to a guy.  Doesn't always mean that the team is giving up, just that you have to spend something to get something.  And sometimes it happens to a guy twice.

Red Sox traded Anthony Rizzo to acquire Adrian Gonzalez.  Then Padres traded Rizzo to Cubs.

Good Gonzalez went from the Phillies to the White Sox for Nick Swisher, then from the White Sox to the A's, then from the A's to the Nat's before making the majors and having a good career in Washington.

Ignoring the fact that he is now sitting in a prison cell, Felipe Vazquez was traded twice while a prospect before becoming a good pitcher for the Pirates.

Just because you are used as "value" by a contender to pick up a veteran doesn't mean they have given up on you, just that they value the present need at the moment as more urgent.  Tate was traded for two quality veterans (Carlos Beltran and Zach Britton).

 

Yes I don’t disagree with any of that, but Tate and Ortiz did not progress and their teams chose to move them rather than hope for progress. And it happened twice. And each player has been awful for us. Top prospects are drafted based on potential. When they are traded as young prospects it’s still because of potential. And when they make minimal progress, the teams decides the potential is less likely.

theres a calculation of monetary value for a 4rth pick. I don’t know what it is but it’s high. the teams decided that value was unlikely enough that they traded it for two months of a player. It is highly significant that they balked at letting other players go because they still believed in the potential those players had. 

And each player has been poor for us. I like Tate and hope he succeeds, but he hasn’t moved the needle yet.

[Philip]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That’s a pretty weak take.   It’s not like he was traded for nobody’s.   Did we “give up on” Eduardo Rodriguez when we traded him for Andrew Miller?    No, we wanted Andrew Miller badly enough to trade EdRod to get him.    

ERod was a one for one. The Red Sox knew exactly who they wanted and got him. That’s completely different and not comparable. I don’t think Dan specifically wanted Ortiz or Tate(although he did always have a thing for first rounders.)

And Britton and Machado were one for many. Quantity over quality.

I May be wrong, and happy if so. Let’s see how they turn out.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Philip said:

ERod was a one for one. The Red Sox knew exactly who they wanted and got him. That’s completely different and not comparable. I don’t think Dan specifically wanted Ortiz or Tate(although he did always have a thing for first rounders.)

And Britton and Machado were one for many. Quantity over quality.

I May be wrong, and happy if so. Let’s see how they turn out.

I don’t want to get caught up in semantics.    I’d say EdRod was more highly regarded when he was traded than either Tate or Ortiz were, even though EdRod had been somewhat lackluster that season at Bowie.    So I don’t disagree with you there at all.   I just didn’t like the terminology that their previous teams had “given up” on them.    

As to whether either has a future as a major league pitcher, like you I’m pretty dubious about it.    They certainly have not progressed well since being traded to the Orioles, or looked good in their major league stints.    

[Philip]

5 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

You gotta give something to get something. Trades are pretty fair for the most part at the time of the deal. Of course assets have risk/reward profiles and how those turn out often flavors the view of the trade afterwards, but for the most part, teams aren't dumb, the valuations generally line up. 

I don’t disagree with that. My point is that teams trade high potential only reluctantly. If a team trades a single digit pick it can mean, among other things, that the other team insists on that player( as when Boston got ERod)or it can mean the team has decided that the potential is less likely. Dan traded Davies because Davies was small and Dan didn’t think he would hold up. He didn’t think he’d reach his potential. The Brewers have been happy ever since. But Davies was only traded once.

When that same high draft pick is shortly thereafter traded a second time, after showing little to no progress, to me it is a warning bell.

 

[Philip]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t want to get caught up in semantics.    I’d say EdRod was more highly regarded when he was traded than either Tate or Ortiz were, even though EdRod had been somewhat lackluster that season at Bowie.    So I don’t disagree with you there at all.   I just didn’t like the terminology that their previous teams had “given up” on them.    

As to whether either has a future as a major league pitcher, like you I’m pretty dubious about it.    They certainly have not progressed well since being traded to the Orioles, or looked good in their major league stints.    

I agree about semantics.im not sure I was using them in my comment. The Red Sox wanted a specific guy and got him. To the best of my knowledge, Dan did not specifically target Tate or Ortiz, but accepted them, which is a different thing. And yes, their continued lack of progress is telling.

It would be interesting to learn whether single digit draft picks, traded twice or more without reaching the majors-or possibly the high minors- fare better or worse than their never traded counterparts.

 

[thezeroes]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

He was traded because they no longer wanted him, and they were able to unload him. When a top prospect is no longer a top prospect and changes hands not once but twice while still so young, it doesn’t look good.

Why is your "TAKE" on ALL Orioles transactions, that the Orioles only acquire players that other teams don't want anymore but all the other 29 teams make trades between themselves as being even up trades??? 

[LA2]

11 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

Why is your "TAKE" on ALL Orioles transactions, that the Orioles only acquire players that other teams don't want anymore but all the other 29 teams make trades between themselves as being even up trades??? 

Because he plays the cello, a deeply--and incessantly--plaintive instrument.

[Philip]

26 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

Why is your "TAKE" on ALL Orioles transactions, that the Orioles only acquire players that other teams don't want anymore but all the other 29 teams make trades between themselves as being even up trades??? 

You are mistaken, that is not my take. I complain about specific trades made by Elias’ Predecessor, And I don’t mention trades by other teams at all, Except as they specifically relate to Baltimore.

If that’s really what you have inferred from my comments, your comprehension is poor.