14-16 at the midpoint

[Aristotelian]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's every GM ever.

 

Of course but I don't see why he wouldn't listen on Pedro. Say someone offers a top 50 prospect, Elias really says no to that because Pedro Severino is untradeable? 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Of course but I don't see why he wouldn't listen on Pedro. Say someone offers a top 50 prospect, Elias really says no to that because Pedro Severino is untradeable? 

If someone offers a top 50 prospect for Severino, Elias will likely be in prison for rape or some kind of assault with a deadly weapon charge.

[ArtVanDelay]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

If someone offers a top 50 prospect for Severino, Elias will likely be in prison for rape or some kind of assault with a deadly weapon charge.

[wildcard]

34 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Elias has said he will listen on anyone if there is a good offer. 

I believe that.  But the price on Severino will be really high.

[Can_of_corn]

17 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I believe that.  But the price on Severino will be really high.

Why do you think that?

What do you think his offense will stabilize at?

Aren't you worried about how his defense has looked this year?

[DrungoHazewood]

58 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I believe that.  But the price on Severino will be really high.

What do you mean by "really high"?  The Padres' 9th-best prospect? 

I don't really have to repeat the resume... but what the heck.  .700 OPS.  Meh defense.  .644 OPS 2nd half of last year.  .642 minor league OPS.  Waived by the Nats. 

Real MLB GMs don't give up a big package on the basis of someone's last 81 at bats.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

If someone offers a top 50 prospect for Severino, Elias will likely be in prison for rape or some kind of assault with a deadly weapon charge.

Maybe he meant top 50 in a particular organization.

[Aristotelian]

30 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Maybe he meant top 50 in a particular organization.

Lol, I meant MLB Top 50 but just as an extreme example of a deal he would have to do. Was responding to the position that Elias would not trade Pedro full stop. I happen to think he would do a B or C prospect too and even then might be accused of heinous crimes.

[HowAboutThat]

3 hours ago, SteveA said:

Honstly Philip I think you just want to see an unrealistically quick hook.

Our starters are averaging 4.3 innings per start and you think they are going too long over the course of the season.

Yes, sometimes they get in trouble and get knocked out.   But you've got to at least try to get 4+ out of a starter if he isn't totally being blasted.   Even with a 28 man roster relievers aren't an infinite resource.

Every time a starter gives up a couple runs in his final inning you are in the game thread saying he should be yanked.   When a starter does go 4 or 5 and gets out of a jam in the 4th you never have a complaint.   And of course you always assume that the reliever would have done better, which is inherently untrue.   The reliever you bring in when a starter is getting yanked as early as you like is usually not one of your top 4 or 5 guys in the pen and he might do just as bad.

I appreciate  your comment. I try to be consistent.

Hyde knows the trends of a pitcher, his strengths and weaknesses, and should be able to see whether his starter “has it” or not on a given day. Hyde KNOWS how they pitch. He should never expect a long outing from one of them, and the rare times it happens, he can be pleasantly surprised.

When a guy throws 30 pitches in the first inning, he MAY be good for four innings, but that’s unlikely, so reasonably, Hyde should have someone warming up soon. But we often see a dreadful three innings, and the guy comes out for a fourth, and gives up a W or a H and THEN someone starts warming up.

Sometimes a guy goes south really fast, and there’s no way to anticipate or prepare for it. That happens a lot with relievers because they only have 2-3 batters anyway.

My complaint is that Hyde waits too long. If I express that frequently, that’s because Hyde frequently waits too long. And he’s got extra pen guys anyway.

[HowAboutThat]

3 hours ago, SteveA said:

Not caring about results at the MLB level allows Mike to not rush AR, and use <whoever> at catcher.

It's ice that we have two productive offensive catchers this year but it is a luxury.   

I don't think the presense of Holaday or Wynns has any affect whatsoever on Rutschman's ETA.   If they vanished into thin air, perhaps sent to the cornfield by that nasty little boy on the Twilight Zone, Elias would shake a tree and find a couple AAAA Cs somewhere and Rutschman would still come to the majors on whatever magic date Elias has in his head.

My point was that it doesn’t matter who is catching, Mike isn’t going to rush anybody. Whether the catcher is elite, or replacement level, doesn’t matter a bit to Mike.

[SteveA]

2 minutes ago, Philip said:

I appreciate  your comment. I try to be consistent.

Hyde knows the trends of a pitcher, his strengths and weaknesses, and should be able to see whether his starter “has it” or not on a given day. Hyde KNOWS how they pitch. He should never expect a long outing from one of them, and the rare times it happens, he can be pleasantly surprised.

When a guy throws 30 pitches in the first inning, he MAY be good for four innings, but that’s unlikely, so reasonably, Hyde should have someone warming up soon. But we often see a dreadful three innings, and the guy comes out for a fourth, and gives up a W or a H and THEN someone starts warming up.

Sometimes a guy goes south really fast, and there’s no way to anticipate or prepare for it. That happens a lot with relievers because they only have 2-3 batters anyway.

My complaint is that Hyde waits too long. If I express that frequently, that’s because Hyde frequently waits too long. And he’s got extra pen guys anyway.

Well, I just disagree.   He has extra pen guys but not an infinite amount.   And some of them at the back end have been pretty bad.   And those back end guys are the guys you will often wind up using if the starter goes out early.

Sometimes you have to put a guy out there to do a job -- give you at least a bare minimum of innings -- and if he can't, well, you are probably going to lose.   You can't manage every game as if there is no tomorrow at least not until the postseason.

The guys' weaknessses are basically that they aren't good major league starters.   So yes, they will suck sometimes, and you will probably lose those games.   Yanking them an inning earlier to bring in an extra mediocre reliever for that inning might raise your chance of winning that one game from 20 to 25% or someth ing like that.   But it won't pay off in the long run.   Maybe if we had stayed with 30 man rosters all year.

If your starter is having a bad day and gives up a few runs in the 4th inning -- the problem isn't that you left him in too long.   It's that he's not good enough to be a major league starter.   It's a GM problem, not a manager problem.   No bullpen even with a 28 man roster is deep enough to survive starters going even less than 4.1 innings on average.

And sometimes the starter gets out of the 4th or 5th inning jam.   I can think of a few times where he's even gone on to give us a couple more good innings.   And no doubt some of those times you wanted him yanked, the Hess or Carroll or whoever would have come in would have been just as bad.

I like to try to manage along with the manager when I'm watching the O's.   So if I am thinking the pitcher might need to be removed, I'm going to ask who would likely come in.   And if it's the 4th inning, it won't be Givens/Sulser/Castro/Scott/Fry.   At best you might get Lakins.   And I'll think about who isn't available, and how many innings you have to cover the rest of the game with who IS available, and allowing for the possibility of needing more for extra innings, and where will that leave your bullpen for tomorrow's game.

Meanwhile, you sit there and say "get him out".   Hyde doesn't take him out, he gives up some more runs, and you feel like you were "right".   And I get the feeling you haven't even considered all those factors like how you will cover the remaining innings of this game with guys available, who that will leave available the next day, etc.

And getting up guys "just in case" early in the game -- something you are definitely in favor of, as you state above in your disdain about waiting for the walk or hit to get a guy up -- that ALSO takes something out of a pitcher's arm.   Buck hated to get guys up without using them and he did it as little as possible -- and for many of his years here we had one of the better bullpens in the league.   Coincidence?   I don't think so.

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

He’s only disappointing if you had/have unrealistic expectations for him.

Well, I was kind of expecting that he would be better than he has been, And I didn’t think those were unrealistic expectations, but it certainly appears that they were.

[Aristotelian]

I think Elias' hook has been about right. Way quicker than Buck for sure.

[HowAboutThat]

16 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I think Elias' hook has been about right. Way quicker than Buck for sure.

I don’t deny that Buck was way too slow In pulling a starter who is having a bad day, and initially I thought Brandon was better. But, no.

@SteveA you’re being a little unfair.

Yes our guys suck, and if a guy is having a bad game, you pull him. If that means you use your long guys early, well so be it. The alternative is to not pull a guy who is having a bad day, and letting the game get out of hand.

The game that matters is the game we are playing right now, and not the game we are going to play tomorrow.

If he’s like this with extra relievers, in a season of only 60 games, what is he gonna be like if this were a regular season with a regular roster?
for instance, last night, Wojo stayed in too long. He opened the 5th, gave up a double and THEN he came out. I don’t have a problem with bringing Scott in, and that leadoff double didn’t score, but that’s what I mean.

That happens constantly. It’s not a question of saving the bullpen, because you’re gonna be using the bullpen anyway, and it’s not a question of expecting a sudden reversal from the starter.

But if the guys are bad, you just have to have Long guys in the bullpen. 

[HowAboutThat]

42 minutes ago, SteveA said:

 

And getting up guys "just in case" early in the game -- something you are definitely in favor of, as you state above in your disdain about waiting for the walk or hit to get a guy up --

I don’t want to get them up without a reason, but the combination of knowledge of the pitcher and the ability to see problems arising should alert Hyde to the need.
If a pitcher has a 30 pitch first inning, what are the chances that you’re going to need someone else to pitch the fourth? Well, Hyde knows the history of the starter, and he knows that pitcher’s warning signs.A lot also depends on how well he handles the second, but odds are good that unless he has a stellar turnaround, you’re gonna need somebody to get ready during the third inning to open the fourth, and if he opens the second as sloppily as he pitched the first, then I would expect to get somebody up sooner.
Yes I agree you don’t want to get somebody up unless there’s a good chance that he will be needed, my point is that he is always needed and it’s just a question of when. Buck waited forever, Hyde a little less.