AM, Penn/Andino and Eaton

[maudibjr]

Well, intelligent analysis couldn't have told them he was a worthwhile signing.

He was signed because AM hoped he would eat innings and because he has a track record..AM basically said this in his interview yesterday.

Good you have answered your own question from the OP. This is the exact reason he was signed, that and he was cheap. He is a gap filler. He and Penn are at the same scrub replacement level ranking. Eaton has shown some success at the ML, while Penn hadn't even managed that. It dosn't really matter as I expect him to be gone by the end of May.

I would read nothing into AM's or DT's comments on Eaton other than they were PC.

If you are arguing that the O's shouldn't have even bothered with a gap filler and gone right to Bergy, that is a diffrent question and wasn't in your OP.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well, intelligent analysis couldn't have told them he was a worthwhile signing.

Really? Is that the same intelligent analysis that said that Baez should have been cut six weeks ago and Pauley should be a fixture in the rotation for at least half the year?

What you should say is that your analysis based on the information at your disposal doesn't support the signing. MacPhail's analysis said that Eaton was the best of a bunch of warm bodies available at MLB minimum to plug a hole for a few months. Either one of you might be right, if there is a clear/right wrong that even exists here. But I'd put my money on MacPhail and his scouts and analysts.

He was signed because AM hoped he would eat innings and because he has a track record..AM basically said this in his interview yesterday.

I was going to reply, but Mackus' post is pretty much what I was going to say:

They "hoped" is the thing. Thats all they are doing with him.

They do not want the young guys up here this early. They are being very conservative with them. The only way they bring up any of them is if all the stop gaps completely suck (6+ ERA) and they are left with no choice.

They would rather see Adam Eaton pitch to a 5.75 ERA averaging 5.5 innings a start than see Bergesen or Hernandez or Patton up here earlier than they think they should be. If Eaton and the rest of the scrubs can't reach that 5.75 ERA and 5.5 IP/GS marks, and I'd give them about 3-4 starts to get there (Eaton won't get his 3rd start until April 26th) then they'll probably go with one of the younger guys earlier than they'd like to. But as long as the "vets" as you like to call them or "crappy guys" as I like to call them can pitch to a ~5.75 ERA and get 5-6 innings deep most times out, they'll be up here and the young guys will be in the minors for as long as the organization feels they should.

Now, if you are arguing that the organization shouldn't be so conservative with the young guys, that is a different argument (and one I'd have more agreement with). But you are basically saying that the reason Eaton is here is because he's a vet. That's not the case. He's here because he can breathe and throw a fastball and isn't someone who they care about developing. They tried to find the 3-4 best cheap guys to throw in the back end, we can also debate if they did or didn't accomplish that.

The entirety of this situation stems from their desire for Bergesen, Hernandez, and Patton to get more time in the minors (and even more time for the other guys further away than that group). It doesn't exist because MacPhail and Trembley "want veterans".

[Sports Guy]

Really? Is that the same intelligent analysis that said that Baez should have been cut six weeks ago and Pauley should be a fixture in the rotation for at least half the year?

Yep..the same analysis you base every post you make on. Lately you seem to only use stats and age when it serves your argument but throw it out the window when it doesn't.

Not one stat points to this being a good idea.

[crawdad]

Yep..the same analysis you base every post you make on. Lately you seem to only use stats and age when it serves your argument but throw it out the window when it doesn't.

Not one stat points to this being a good idea.

You are getting a bit frothy with this. You are making definitive statements regarding situations in which you do not have all of the information. Your conclusions are just not as solid as you want them to be. It is fine being emotional and having convictions, but dressing them up as ironclad logical statements is just a bit much.

We do not know everything. We know Eaton was targeted for a while. That he was only deemed signable after he hit the free market and could be signed for the minimum. That really no one stepped up to be included in the rotation. I think the argument for Bergesen to skip AAA completely is about as valid as the argument that Eaton should be used to kill off some innings.

I think signing Eaton was not a good thing. I think rolling him out every five days is not a good thing. I think it is a missed opportunity to leverage the situation and try to find under appreciated talent. The likelihood of finding talent like that is slim, though. So, I see no need to get too upset. I also do not see how one could be so definitive against the move. It serves a purpose. Eaton has the ability to be passable, but he has yet to show it.

[Sports Guy]

You are getting a bit frothy with this. You are making definitive statements regarding situations in which you do not have all of the information. Your conclusions are just not as solid as you want them to be. It is fine being emotional and having convictions, but dressing them up as ironclad logical statements is just a bit much.

We do not know everything. We know Eaton was targeted for a while. That he was only deemed signable after he hit the free market and could be signed for the minimum. That really no one stepped up to be included in the rotation. I think the argument for Bergesen to skip AAA completely is about as valid as the argument that Eaton should be used to kill off some innings.

I think signing Eaton was not a good thing. I think rolling him out every five days is not a good thing. I think it is a missed opportunity to leverage the situation and try to find under appreciated talent. The likelihood of finding talent like that is slim, though. So, I see no need to get too upset. I also do not see how one could be so definitive against the move. It serves a purpose. Eaton has the ability to be passable, but he has yet to show it.

That's enough for me..The idea that he was a target is terrible.

[crawdad]

That's enough for me..The idea that he was a target is terrible.

And that is why you perspective is troublesome. Eaton has little realized value and little potential value. He does not have no value. With the state of this team, SP with little value are worthwhile targets. We need to bide our time and that makes sense.

I would have gone with different little value worth pitchers, but my suggestions are wrought with as much downside as wanting Eaton.

[Sports Guy]

And that is why you perspective is troublesome. Eaton has little realized value and little potential value. He does not have no value. With the state of this team, SP with little value are worthwhile targets. We need to bide our time and that makes sense.

I would have gone with different little value worth pitchers, but my suggestions are wrought with as much downside as wanting Eaton.

Its troublesome to you..That's great.

I see zero reason to bring in a garbage vet pitcher with no value or upside..You think its fine to do it. To me, that's troublesome but to each his own.

[Mackus]

Its troublesome to you..That's great.

I see zero reason to bring in a garbage vet pitcher with no value or upside..You think its fine to do it. To me, that's troublesome but to each his own.

Did you read beyond his first sentence?

[NewMarketSean]

That's enough for me..The idea that he was a target is terrible.

I think you're getting hung up on the word "target".

We knew all along that the O's were going to begin the season with 1, maybe 2 place-holder SP's. You can talk about how bad an idea that is, but it's pretty much a fact. So going by that theory, the place-holder SP had to be cheap and signed to one year. Other than Eaton and to a lesser extant, Hendrickson, who else would you have liked the O's to go after?

Eaton is about as good as it gets under those circumstances. He is still pretty young (31) and has pitched well in the past, so it's nothing more than a low-risk move. The O's could have signed someone with no upside whatsoever like Livan Hernandez. Eaton still has a small chance to become a 2007 version of Steve Trachsel or he'll be gone by July. It's not like AM was targeting Eaton to be a full-season SP. He was targeted to be a low-risk place-holder pitcher. That's all.

[DrungoHazewood]

Its troublesome to you..That's great.

I see zero reason to bring in a garbage vet pitcher with no value or upside..You think its fine to do it. To me, that's troublesome but to each his own.

I just don't see how you can come to the conclusion that this is a 100% bad decision with zero upside. I think you're being black and white in a situation where there's a lot of gray.

If I've learned anything in my time on the Hangout it's that stats are a big part of the whole picture, but you have to always, always, always leave room for other stuff that inform you of why the stats are the way they are. And that while good baseball people often make bad decisions, there are often reasons behind those decisions that make more sense with more information.

This could be a case of laziness and poor decision making on MacPhail's part. Or it could be the end result of a thorough analysis of a bunch of less-than-stellar options using a bunch of different resources.

You assume it's laziness. You can't know.

[Sports Guy]

I just don't see how you can come to the conclusion that this is a 100% bad decision with zero upside. I think you're being black and white in a situation where there's a lot of gray.

If I've learned anything in my time on the Hangout it's that stats are a big part of the whole picture, but you have to always, always, always leave room for other stuff that inform you of why the stats are the way they are. And that while good baseball people often make bad decisions, there are often reasons behind those decisions that make more sense with more information.

This could be a case of laziness and poor decision making on MacPhail's part. Or it could be the end result of a thorough analysis of a bunch of less-than-stellar options using a bunch of different resources.

You assume it's laziness. You can't know.

On a bad team that is going no where, sending out a terrible vet with np upside vs sending out a younger, more talented pitcher is the wrong thing to do IMO.

I don't care if Penn or Pauley are likely to make it long term or not..They are still more likely than Eaton(for us) and that is enough for me to want them here over Eaton.

[Frobby]

This could be a case of laziness and poor decision making on MacPhail's part. Or it could be the end result of a thorough analysis of a bunch of less-than-stellar options using a bunch of different resources.

You assume it's laziness. You can't know.

I've seen nothing from MacPhail to make me think the word "lazy" should ever be attached to him. A guy can have a bias or a mode of thinking you disagree with, without being "lazy."

I didn't like the Eaton acquisition, and I don't understand exactly what the thinking was that brought him here. But I doubt it's as simple as, "what the heck, he's a veteran pitcher, bring him in and hand him a spot." MacPhail is a pretty careful thinker IMO, and I'm sure he had his reasons, whether I'd agree with them or not.

[Sports Guy]

I've seen nothing from MacPhail to make me think the word "lazy" should ever be attached to him. A guy can have a bias or a mode of thinking you disagree with, without being "lazy."

I didn't like the Eaton acquisition, and I don't understand exactly what the thinking was that brought him here. But I doubt it's as simple as, "what the heck, he's a veteran pitcher, bring him in and hand him a spot." MacPhail is a pretty careful thinker IMO, and I'm sure he had his reasons, whether I'd agree with them or not.

His reasons are that he has a track record and had 10 QS last year....That is what he said.

Sure, he wants to hold off on the young pitchers but guys like Pauley and Penn don't really qualify for that in this instance, so that argument can't be used.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yep..the same analysis you base every post you make on. Lately you seem to only use stats and age when it serves your argument but throw it out the window when it doesn't.

Not one stat points to this being a good idea.

If you think I make every post based solely on numbers I've been doing a poor job of getting my points across.

Numbers are a big part of what I know about baseball. But the context of those numbers and the reasons behind them are vitally important. And the probabilities of numbers repeating or changing are just as important.

And in any case, it doesn't matter. In the grand scheme of things this is less than window dressing. This is nothing. Adam Eaton's 4 or 8 or 12 starts for the Baltimore Orioles will be long forgotten when the better pitchers arrive. Just as Twins fans have forgotten that Kyle Lohse and Scott Baker were stinking up the joint while Fransciso Liriano was being treated with kid gloves.

[TyCobb]

His reasons are that he has a track record and had 10 QS last year....That is what he said.

Sure, he wants to hold off on the young pitchers but guys like Pauley and Penn don't really qualify for that in this instance, so that argument can't be used.

I rather have Eaton than Pauley.