ofahn wrote:I don't understand how you jumped from five well scouted and evaluated players for a total cost of 5M to one player at 7M in order to find a nugget? The approach I suggest is not the only way to (eventually) add quality talent to an organization, it's just one more way to add young talent.
The other thing to take into consideration is that the FO feels they have an obligation to put a respectable team on the field this year. Clearly, they see Eveland (and players like him) as the way to do that.
I want to be clear that I'm not saying I believe Dana Eveland is an impact pitcher but I would like to point out that his ML WHIP was the best he has ever had in 2011, and his minor league WHIP was the best he's had since AA ball. Dan Duquette talked about his recovery last winter from bone chips. Maybe during that process he learned to stop throwing and start pitching. That would explain the loss of fastball velocity which might have actually been the cause of his improved control.
Maybe Don can get us an updated scouting report on him.
His career bests in 2011 coincide with a mere 29 major league innings in 2011. I'd be far, far, far more likely to attribute those improvements to the small sample size than to any improvements that he may or may not have made. For the most part when you go searching for explanations for why a guy outperformed his career totals during a brief stretch you end up tying yourself in knots over something that's very easily explained: he didn't have time to regress to who he truly is. You see this during the first month of every season. So-and-so is having a great year not because it's only been 4 starts and he's been fortunate in those four starts, but because he found a new grip or worked out with a different trainer in the winter or is using his slider more or something or other. More often then not, a month later he's reverted back to his career averages and all those ex-post explanations are out the window.
Here's my complaint with the idea that ownership has a "responsibility" or a "duty" to give the paying fans a competitive team, or at the very least, to make some attempt to field a competitive team: I'm a fan too. Who says which group of fans have the perspective that most needs to be taken into account by ownership? Sure, there are plenty of fans who are offended by the notion of being asked to purchase tickets to a team that has essentially forfeited the season before it even begins. But there are also fans like me, who are offended by the notion that it's a virtuous goal to spend a token amount of money to reach a .500 record. So who decides to which group of fans ownership is beholden?
I'd prefer they just pursue a championship via whatever route they decide is most fruitful. A championship. Not a .500 record.
We've gone around and around on Eveland at this point. I don't see him as a meaningful improvement for the major league product in the short term, and I don't see him as a likely asset on the trade market in the slightly longer term. There are only so many ways for us to verbalize our disagreement.