Orioles Acquire LHP Dana Eveland From LA

[TuckerBlair89]

Take a look at this velocity graph from Fangraphs:


http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx? ... P&pitch=FA

His velocity is trending downwards. Not a very good sign. (The picture is cut off for the '11 season, but it is trending downwards more)

[ofahn]

Maybe so. I just think we should be going after two or three more guys like Eveland this year and see which ones earn a spot on the 25 man roster. A left handed starting pitcher performing at league average or better becomes valuable in July. Evelend's age and service time would make him even more valuable.

[A_K]

I'd rather do nothing than sign 2-3 more guys like Eveland. I would have rather done nothing than acquire one guy like Eveland. This move improves us not at all.

[ofahn]

I'd rather do nothing than sign 2-3 more guys like Eveland. I would have rather done nothing than acquire one guy like Eveland. This move improves us not at all.

People made similar comments after we picked up Guthrie. Let's see what happens before we make absolute statements like that.

[TuckerBlair89]

I'd rather do nothing than sign 2-3 more guys like Eveland. I would have rather done nothing than acquire one guy like Eveland. This move improves us not at all.

People made similar comments after we picked up Guthrie. Let's see what happens before we make absolute statements like that.

Guthrie had not pitched 7 seasons in the majors though. He had small stints with the Indians and that was it. Eveland has been around the block with the Brewers, Diamondbacks, Athletics, Blue Jays, Pirates and Dodgers. I don't think he would be on his 7th team if someone believed he was anything better than a stopgap/AAAA guy.

[A_K]

I'd rather do nothing than sign 2-3 more guys like Eveland. I would have rather done nothing than acquire one guy like Eveland. This move improves us not at all.

People made similar comments after we picked up Guthrie. Let's see what happens before we make absolute statements like that.

If we had given up for Eveland what we gave up for Guthrie (nothing) then it'd be a reasonable comparison. We didn't acquire him for free. And, Eveland has a longer major league track record than Guthrie had, suggesting he has less room for projection. And his declining velocity is obviously a cause for concern, as is the fact that he's been on six teams already.

Obviously there's a chance he could defy the odds and be a good pitcher for us. I'm open to any possibility. I'd happily watch him get his career on track as a member of the Orioles. But my statement that I'd rather watch the O's make no moves at all than the one they just made is based on what I perceive to be the likeliest outcome. That is, he'll provide virtually no value whatsoever to the Orioles in 2012, and won't be with the team come 2013.

[ofahn]

The British SAS or Special Air Service has a motto that goes "Who dares wins". I have always felt that you have to take some risk to get ahead. I think that's what has been done here.

Do I see this as the magic solution to all of this team's problems? No. Do I discount your concerns? No; however, I prefer to see this as a "glass half full" instead of half empty.

[A_K]

I have to say, I don't think the British SAS had in mind acquiring a 28-year-old journeyman who's been given up on by 6 teams in 7 years when they said that risk is necessary for success.

That saying would be a relevant explanation for Jerry DiPoto in reference to spending more than $300 million before most of his team's fans had even had their morning coffee today. Those are bold moves, the kind with lots of risk but the potential for mountainous reward.

Dana Eveland is a low-risk, low-reward signing. Best case scenario is that he eats up a lot of innings while pitching to an ERA above 4, while Jarret Martin never cracks the majors. That's hardly the type of move Virgil had in mind when he said "fortune favors the bold."

[ofahn]

I have to say, I don't think the British SAS had in mind acquiring a 28-year-old journeyman who's been given up on by 6 teams in 7 years when they said that risk is necessary for success.

That saying would be a relevant explanation for Jerry DiPoto in reference to spending more than $300 million before most of his team's fans had even had their morning coffee today. Those are bold moves, the kind with lots of risk but the potential for mountainous reward.

Dana Eveland is a low-risk, low-reward signing. Best case scenario is that he eats up a lot of innings while pitching to an ERA above 4, while Jarret Martin never cracks the majors. That's hardly the type of move Virgil had in mind when he said "fortune favors the bold."

Well put BUT this team needs to takes some major steps forward before they are ready to take risk at the level of the Marlins or Angels this off season.

[A_K]

I have to say, I don't think the British SAS had in mind acquiring a 28-year-old journeyman who's been given up on by 6 teams in 7 years when they said that risk is necessary for success.

That saying would be a relevant explanation for Jerry DiPoto in reference to spending more than $300 million before most of his team's fans had even had their morning coffee today. Those are bold moves, the kind with lots of risk but the potential for mountainous reward.

Dana Eveland is a low-risk, low-reward signing. Best case scenario is that he eats up a lot of innings while pitching to an ERA above 4, while Jarret Martin never cracks the majors. That's hardly the type of move Virgil had in mind when he said "fortune favors the bold."

Well put BUT this team needs to takes some major steps forward before they are ready to take risk at the level of the Marlins or Angels this off season.

I agree. No part of me wants the Orioles to start throwing around money in free agency. Where we disagree is that I don't see the acquisition of Dana Eveland as one that moves us even one step closer to becoming a respectable major league organization. The best case scenario of his arrival is one in which we tread water.

I'd prefer to see us trade Guthrie, Jones, Markakis, Roberts, Reynolds and Hardy. If we aren't going to do that, I'd rather target true high-upside guys like Kendrys Morales and John Niese. Like you said, the team should be going bold. This trade is timid.

[ofahn]

Where we disagree is that I don't see the acquisition of Dana Eveland as one that moves us even one step closer to becoming a respectable major league organization. The best case scenario of his arrival is one in which we tread water.

When a team makes selections in the June draft most picks between 11 and 50 are a crap shoot and could not be realistically seen by themselves as moving the team "even one step closer to becoming a respectable major league organization". Yet good scouting and development occasionally turns one of those picks into an ML regular. A team shouldn't concern themselves about the total signing cost of those players, it should consider the one or two that developed from that draft to be worth the money spent on the players that failed.

Albert Pujols was a 13th round pick. Do you think anyone envisioned him as a player that teams would be throwing 250M at? The Cards probably considered him worth all the money spent on the failures in his draft as well as the two or three drafts before his and the two or three after his.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you put enough players like Eveland into the mix a few might turn out to be something. We should have been doing this all along but Andy MacPhail was allergic to signing a player that he thought he might have eat the salary for. The way I see it is you sign five guys for a total of 5M and one of them might play like a guy worth 10M. Don't complain about the four that didn't make it. Be happy about the one that did.

[A_K]

You're looking at this exactly upside down, based on your Pujols comparison.

Dana Eveland is 28. There is no upside. If you put enough Evelands into the mix a few might turn out to be... Jeremy Guthrie. None will ever turn into Albert Pujols.

Now, your example of good scouting and player development needing to occur at all levels of the organization, at all levels of financial commitment and to players drafted in all rounds, is a perfect explanation for why it doesn't make sense to trade Jarrett Martin and Randy Henry for 28-years-old backup catchers and middling veteran starters/long relievers.

[ofahn]

You're looking at this exactly upside down, based on your Pujols comparison.

Dana Eveland is 28. There is no upside. If you put enough Evelands into the mix a few might turn out to be... Jeremy Guthrie. None will ever turn into Albert Pujols.

Now, your example of good scouting and player development needing to occur at all levels of the organization, at all levels of financial commitment and to players drafted in all rounds, is a perfect explanation for why it doesn't make sense to trade Jarrett Martin and Randy Henry for 28-years-old backup catchers and middling veteran starters/long relievers.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not looking for another Pujols, I'm looking for another Guthrie. Not only would a player like that take some of the pressure off of the kids but he would be worth a B/B+ level prospect in July. Isn't adding a prospect of that level what you have written multiple posts about?

I don't see adding an Eveland as the solution. I see him as part of a multi step way to get to the solution. My ultimate goal is to add as much quality young talent to this organization as possible. I just think there's more than one way to achieve that goal and I'm willing to look outside of the box to find as many ways as possible.

[A_K]

My question: why not just trade Guthrie? Why trade prospects to receive a reclamation project on the hopes that it'll be successful so we can trade him for prospects?

[ofahn]

My question: why not just trade Guthrie? Why trade prospects to receive a reclamation project on the hopes that it'll be successful so we can trade him for prospects?

Because I'd rather have two Guthries to eventually trade than just one. I want to add as many quality prospects to the organization as possible, and you have to have something of value to trade if that's the route you're going to use to get them. IF we acquired five players like Eveland and only one of them was traded for a prospect the level of Schoop, wouldn't that make you forget the two guys we gave up for Eveland?