Jump to content

Jose Iglesias traded to Angels.


LookinUp

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, orioles22 said:

This kind of trade makes me wonder if it's time to give up on baseball. Baseball has major problems with such a disparity in payrolls. It's very discouraging that we can't keep a player with a very modest salary in baseball terms.

It’s just what happens during a rebuild

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, joelala said:

https://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2020/12/iglesias-baltimore-was-special-for-me.html?fbclid=IwAR11KZvra2Wak7K5eaG66_9QAFDNSU0KEjrrXNGfe_VaIp7htEIEfZIyvZA
 

Interview with Jose post-trade. A good reminder that these guys are human, and moreover, an encouraging sign that he says he absolutely loved the atmosphere and culture Hyde et. al have created in the clubhouse. 
 

Best of luck to Jose! Seems like a cool dude. 

He’s a class act.   I hope he kicks ass for the Angels.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, joelala said:

https://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2020/12/iglesias-baltimore-was-special-for-me.html?fbclid=IwAR11KZvra2Wak7K5eaG66_9QAFDNSU0KEjrrXNGfe_VaIp7htEIEfZIyvZA
 

Interview with Jose post-trade. A good reminder that these guys are human, and moreover, an encouraging sign that he says he absolutely loved the atmosphere and culture Hyde et. al have created in the clubhouse. 
 

Best of luck to Jose! Seems like a cool dude. 

I hope Hyde gets this team winning soon so they don’t fire him.  I think he has a lot of managerial talent.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I hope Hyde gets this team winning soon so they don’t fire him.  I think he has a lot of managerial talent.

Winning?  After they decided that 3.5 million was too much to keep Iglesias?  Either that, or they were afraid Iglesias was going to help them win too many games.  Or both.  Cue to Dr. McCoy:  "Dammit Jim, I'm a manager; not the world's greatest magician!".   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Winning?  After they decided that 3.5 million was too much to keep Iglesias?  Either that, or they were afraid Iglesias was going to help them win too many games.  Or both.  Cue to Dr. McCoy:  "Dammit Jim, I'm a manager; not the world's greatest magician!".   

I think they decided that Iglesias isn’t really that good and that they can get a similar player for less money and bring talent into the system.  This trade was fine from a pure baseball perspective.

However, as you eluded to, the idea that money is an issue here and that ownership basically forced this decision is what is sad.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I hope Hyde gets this team winning soon so they don’t fire him.  I think he has a lot of managerial talent.

He is in position to try things out and learn with little to no pressure.  It's not a bad way to start your coaching career.  Whether here or elsewhere people will know not to judge him on his record. 

Knowing he hasn't been given much to work with and intended tank, they better be judging him based on implementing "the plan" vs pretty much anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jerios55 said:

He is in position to try things out and learn with little to no pressure.  It's not a bad way to start your coaching career.  Whether here or elsewhere people will know not to judge him on his record. 

Knowing he hasn't been given much to work with and intended tank, they better be judging him based on implementing "the plan" vs pretty much anything else.

You would hope.  Current ownership is getting everything they need to out of Hyde and Elias.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

You would hope.  Current ownership is getting everything they need to out of Hyde and Elias.  

Cheap everything, while maintaining a good attitude? 

Honestly, Hyde maintaining the positive attitude alone is a magnificent accomplishment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I think they decided that Iglesias isn’t really that good and that they can get a similar player for less money and bring talent into the system.  This trade was fine from a pure baseball perspective.

However, as you eluded to, the idea that money is an issue here and that ownership basically forced this decision is what is sad.

I think they decided adding to their stable of minor league pitchers was more important than having Iglesias.   Simple as that.   Elias is bringing in a ton of prospects and hoping that some develop well.   The more there are, the better the chances.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I think they decided adding to their stable of minor league pitchers was more important than having Iglesias.   Simple as that.   Elias is bringing in a ton of prospects and hoping that some develop well.   The more there are, the better the chances.   

I think Elias decided that.

 

But I think ownership said cut more costs somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think they decided adding to their stable of minor league pitchers was more important than having Iglesias.   Simple as that.   Elias is bringing in a ton of prospects and hoping that some develop well.   The more there are, the better the chances.   

Bottom line of both Iglesias and Rule V. More pitching in hopes that some develop.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Except it’s not more pitching in terms of the rule 5.  We lost 2 and gained 2 and what we lost has higher upside than what we gained.

You're really digging in on the "Pop's middle relief to potential late inning arm is higher upside than two guys who have a chance to be starters and whose stuff would most likely play up if moved to the bullpen" point aren't you?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

You're really digging in on the "Pop's middle relief to potential late inning arm is higher upside than two guys who have a chance to be starters and whose stuff would most likely play up if moved to the bullpen" point aren't you?

Well first of all, I don’t buy into either of these guys being able to be starters for the long term, especially Ben’s nephew.  Maybe Wells could but I think it’s unlikely.  
 

So, my evaluation of all of these guys is that they will be relievers and Pop has the best stuff and most upside of the group.  Plus, he’s a few years younger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...