OnlyBucs

An 8 pitch 1-2-3 third for Baz.

Baz went 5 innings. 2 hits (both HRs), 0 walks, 5 Ks, 65 pitches/51 strikes. Nice debut.

5D7B7C69606C7B6D650E0 wrote: Watching the game, and man it's almost like the Rays announcers are rubbing it in, but they aren't. They can't help putting the picture of all three in the trade with the caption, "Quite a Haul" or something like that. Meadows is the first Ray to drive in 100 runs since 2010 btw.



They said as soon as he came over, they had him ditch his 2 seam, worked on his 4 seam, taught him a slider, and developed his change up.






Two guys on MLBNR were talking about this, and both said that the Bucs are by far, not the only team that have been taken by Erik Neander.



After a while, one of them joked that, if they were a GM, and Neander ever called to ask about a possible trade, they would hang up on him. The guy must be pretty good.

6055424249704242494E42270 wrote: Watching the game, and man it's almost like the Rays announcers are rubbing it in, but they aren't. They can't help putting the picture of all three in the trade with the caption, "Quite a Haul" or something like that. Meadows is the first Ray to drive in 100 runs since 2010 btw.



They said as soon as he came over, they had him ditch his 2 seam, worked on his 4 seam, taught him a slider, and developed his change up.






Two guys on MLBNR were talking about this, and both said that the Bucs are by far, not the only team that have been taken by Erik Neander. 



After a while, one of them joked that, if they were a GM, and Neander ever called to ask about a possible trade, they would hang up on him.  The guy must be pretty good.






Neander is no doubt really sharp but our trade was pure stupidity. Archer isn't worth 1/3 of any of the 3 players we gave up. Plus we couldn't possibly contend even if Archer turned out to be a solid #1.

I wasn't critical of the trade at the time, so I'll remain consistent.  I thought that we paid a steep price to get a guy we wanted, and I knew that it was a high risk.  The guys we gave up weren't any stars for us.  So, I had no problem with them leaving.  I didn't assume that Archer would turn into a star, so I was doubtful.  But, I liked that we went for it rather than curling up like we've done so many times before and since. I thought that we gave up one too many guys.



The trade itself didn't upset me at all.  What upset me is the question as to why the Rays were able to get our guys to do so well after our development program obviously whiffed.  That was a fatal flaw of our organization, and based on what we've seen more recently, I'm not convinced of any significant improvement.  I hope that there is.



When I see guys who don't know how many outs there are, can't do a routine rundown, and can't correctly run the bases, it makes me wonder whether we've plugged the holes in our balloon yet.  That, to me, is even more damaging than this trade, as long-lasting as that will be. 

7045525259605252595E52370 wrote: I wasn't critical of the trade at the time, so I'll remain consistent.  I thought that we paid a steep price to get a guy we wanted, and I knew that it was a high risk.  The guys we gave up weren't any stars for us.  So, I had no problem with them leaving.  I didn't assume that Archer would turn into a star, so I was doubtful.  But, I liked that we went for it rather than curling up like we've done so many times before and since.  I thought that we gave up one too many guys.



The trade itself didn't upset me at all.  What upset me is the question as to why the Rays were able to get our guys to do so well after our development program obviously whiffed.  That was a fatal flaw of our organization, and based on what we've seen more recently, I'm not convinced of any significant improvement.  I hope that there is.



When I see guys who don't know how many outs there are, can't do a routine rundown, and can't correctly run the bases, it makes me wonder whether we've plugged the holes in our balloon yet.  That, to me, is even more damaging than this trade, as long-lasting as that will be. 
Meadows looked like a real stud when he made his debut for 2.5 months in 2018. Glasnow was a total bust at that time and Baz had a lot of potential but was just 19 and in rookie league ball. As it turned out, Meadows was more than enough for the Archer of 2018. The Archer of the 3 years of 2013, 14 and 15 was outstanding. But in 2016 he lost 19 games and his ERA jumped from 3.23 to 4.02. Proving 2016 was not an outlier, he had a similar ERA of 4.07 in 2017. At the time of the trade in mid 2018 he was in the midst of his worst career season with ERA of 4.31, career worst hit rate of 9.4 per 9 innings and career worst WHIP of 1.385.



At the time I gave NH the benefit of the doubt and thought he and his people must have known something about Archer that indicated his recent stats (of 2+ years) were not indicative of his ability and that he could be expected to be a solid #1 starter. That was the only way the trade made sense. The only way that Meadows would not have been more than enough for Archer. TB was taking a chance on Glasnow, who appeared to be a washout and a lot can happen between rookie leagues and MLB so Baz was far from a sure thing. So I think the idea was that between Glasnow and Baz, one of them could turn out to be productive and Meadows was a stud prospect who did very well vs MLB pitching when given a chance. And that seemed like a fair deal for a #1 starter.



But with Archer it was what you see is what you get. A struggling pitcher who had not been dominant for 3 years and was getting progressively worse. I thought Huntington must know something we didn't know. Unfortunately, he didn't. Maybe the TB GM convinced him that Archer was ready to turn things around and return to the pitcher he had been 3 years earlier. But in hindsight, Huntington received exactly what it looked like he was receiving and gave TB a package of players worth a great deal more.

Meadows was far from any stud, IMO. He looked closer to one of our stand panflashers we've seen far too many of. Archer was thought to be as able to benefit from a change of scenery. I didn't mind getting him. I thought it was a reach. Didn't anticipate how much of a reach it became.



I was among the minority on our former board (no surprise) who felt that we were too far from making the playoffs, even though the record said otherwise. My eyeballs said that separation was going to come and it did. Of course, one of the reasons was....Archer.

665344444F7644444F4844210 wrote: Meadows was far from any stud, IMO.  He looked closer to one of our stand panflashers we've seen far too many of.  Archer was thought to be as able to benefit from a change of scenery.  I didn't mind getting him.  I thought it was a reach.  Didn't anticipate how much of a reach it became.



I was among the minority on our former board (no surprise) who felt that we were too far from making the playoffs, even though the record said otherwise.  My eyeballs said that separation was going to come and it did.  Of course, one of the reasons was....Archer.
He was with the Pirates from May 18-July 9 and hit .292 with 8 doubles, 2 triples and 5 HRs and 13 multi-hit games in 31 starts including four 3-hit games. That seemed pretty studly to me for his first look at MLB pitching.

Baz was simply dominating today.

5.2 innings. 9K’s 1BB, 3 Hits, 0 runs

That trade is going to sting for a very long time!