03313D3D291B38313C393631500 wrote: Yeah, I think they expected Hudson to play a large role in middle-late innings. That hasn't worked out so far. Forget Watson for a second, things might look even more different if Hudson were working right.
Yes, if Hudson was getting batters out in the 7th/8th innings, there would be no conflict over whether Rivero should close or remain a fireman.
June 7th vs Orioles
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
June 7th vs Orioles
I have to chuckle how quickly some fans excuse and condone things when they don't go as well they think it should have. While simultaneously crediting the front office for when things go better than expected.
But keep in mind, Antonio Bastardo had a 4.67 ERA last year. Daniel Hudson had a 5.22 ERA last year. After 8/17, Tony Watson had a 4.32 ERA last year. There were more than enough signs to suggest those three would not be good in 2017. People can hope all they want they would perform better, but what we've seen from those three reasonably should have been expected. Excusing the front office for assembling this bad bullpen for performing badly is not objective.
But keep in mind, Antonio Bastardo had a 4.67 ERA last year. Daniel Hudson had a 5.22 ERA last year. After 8/17, Tony Watson had a 4.32 ERA last year. There were more than enough signs to suggest those three would not be good in 2017. People can hope all they want they would perform better, but what we've seen from those three reasonably should have been expected. Excusing the front office for assembling this bad bullpen for performing badly is not objective.
-
johnfluharty
June 7th vs Orioles
5B6965657143606964616E69080 wrote: Yeah, I think they expected Hudson to play a large role in middle-late innings. That hasn't worked out so far. Forget Watson for a second, things might look even more different if Hudson were working right.
Hudson was expected to be reliable, for sure. The fact that he got a two year contract makes that clear. I'm guessing that when he was signed he was also considered an option to take over closer in case Watson struggled.
Hudson was expected to be reliable, for sure. The fact that he got a two year contract makes that clear. I'm guessing that when he was signed he was also considered an option to take over closer in case Watson struggled.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
June 7th vs Orioles
1D3D2E33325C0 wrote: I have to chuckle how quickly some fans excuse and condone things when they don't go as well they think it should have. While simultaneously crediting the front office for when things go better than expected.
But keep in mind, Antonio Bastardo had a 4.67 ERA last year. Daniel Hudson had a 5.22 ERA last year. After 8/17, Tony Watson had a 4.32 ERA last year. There were more than enough signs to suggest those three would not be good in 2017. People can hope all they want they would perform better, but what we've seen from those three reasonably should have been expected. Excusing the front office for assembling this bad bullpen for performing badly is not objective.
Hmm? People who AREN'T fans thought those players collectively would be better than this. They thought the pen would be average. Baseball at large doesn't seem to agree that (preseason) they would be bad.
Saying otherwise is also not objective. I suppose you could pull out reasons why they would be bad (or optimists might find reasons to think they'd be great) but at that point I think we're losing track of what "objective" means.
In the end the management has to own the results, of course.
But keep in mind, Antonio Bastardo had a 4.67 ERA last year. Daniel Hudson had a 5.22 ERA last year. After 8/17, Tony Watson had a 4.32 ERA last year. There were more than enough signs to suggest those three would not be good in 2017. People can hope all they want they would perform better, but what we've seen from those three reasonably should have been expected. Excusing the front office for assembling this bad bullpen for performing badly is not objective.
Hmm? People who AREN'T fans thought those players collectively would be better than this. They thought the pen would be average. Baseball at large doesn't seem to agree that (preseason) they would be bad.
Saying otherwise is also not objective. I suppose you could pull out reasons why they would be bad (or optimists might find reasons to think they'd be great) but at that point I think we're losing track of what "objective" means.
In the end the management has to own the results, of course.