Roundtable on the 2009 CIF slots
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 10:36 AM CDT
298 comments
Over at the DMN blog, Mike Hindman solicits the opinions of various folks (including me) as to what the best solution for the Rangers at the CIF slots for next season are.
Almost everyone goes with Chris Davis at first base next season, but there are a variety of opinions as to third base...I'm the only one who suggests moving Michael Young over to third base in 2009, but several people suggest looking for a short-term solution with an eye at moving Young to third base in 2010...
Mike is in favor of keeping Davis at third base and planning on Justin Smoak taking over at first base by 2010, which is also when Elvis Andrus is scheduled to be ready...but the one issue I would have with that (other than questioning whether Davis will be a viable third baseman long-term, particularly as he gets older and bigger) is you don't really have anywhere to put Michael Young in that scenario, unless you just bite the bullet and make him a very weak-hitting DH.
0 recs |
298 comments
Email
Print
Comments
If there were to be a trade partner
that offered to take MY for virtually nothing in return, would you make the trade? More importantly, would the Rangers’ FO make the move? I think most people here would, but I’m not sure the FO has the cajones to put up with the general fans’ reaction.
Which is a shame in a way because and infield of Kinsler, Davis, Smoak and Andrus would be cheap and beastly….in 3 years.
by GhettoBear04 on Sep 1, 2008 10:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Young
If a team were dumb enough to take Young off our hands for nothing (and he would waive his no-trade protection), I would make that deal in about two seconds. If it wasn’t clear before, this season has made it abundantly clear that the right move with Young was to let him play out his contract this season and then thank him for his efforts and let him walk. Instead, we gave him a deal that can best be described as the Rusty Greer contract on steroids.
His defense is bad at SS, and his bat doesn’t even play okay at 3B, much less a more premium offensive position. I guess I would leave him at SS for one more season, primarily because Andrus needs at least another year, and then move him to 3B, primarily because we don’t have any better options at 3B for 2010. That said, I wouldn’t have a problem with signing a good-fielding SS for 2009 and going ahead and moving Young over to 3B next season. It’s not a though we have any better options there for 2009 either.
Although I doubt the organization feels the same way, I think it’s pretty clear that we are stuck with a $16 million/year problem for 5 years, with no real way of escaping it.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
you've got to be assuming
that the 15 mil a year we’d be paying Mike would end up adding to the 90 plus million payroll Hicks is churning out…or you’ve got to be thinking that Hicks wouldn’t pay a dime past 90 mil if we were still paying Young that 15 mil, and that we would outbid everybody on Sabathia, no matter the cost. and that won’t happen. I think Hicks will pay for a top notch starter or he won’t, I don’t think it depends on whether or not he’s paying Young. and I would rather have Young on this team than not, simply put.
"So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know... "
by Walter Sobchak on Sep 1, 2008 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Budget
I absolutely believe this team has a budget, and I absolutely believe that Young’s $16 million salary will count towards it. Over the life of his contract, Young is likely to be a below-average 3B taking up 15-20% of this team’s total payroll.
When you eliminate the emotion and the all the “face of the franchise” crap, I don’t see how anyone can conclude that Mike Young is worth anything close to $16 million a season, which makes him a significant liability. In fact, his contract is probably closer to the Chan Ho Park neighborhood than the Rusty Greer neighborhood.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
If they would take his contract?
Yup.
by philkid3 on Sep 1, 2008 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know i am in the minority
but i love the way travis metcalf plays 3B. still, the much more likely solution will be to pick up blalock’s option and let him play 1B while keeping Davis at 3B because, as you said, we have Smoak coming up to play 1B, and the org would love to see Davis play the field and not be relegated to DH (where we most likely have Max Ramirez, unless he is dealt).
Oh Michael Young. He is about to experience what Biggio did in his last years as an Astro. The fans love him, but there is just no optimal place for him on the field.
by clark on Sep 1, 2008 10:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Blalock
I wouldn’t pick up his option. Six million sounds like a lot, but the guy is broken down and never plays. That’s a waste.
I think they should come up with a plan for Opening Day going forward.
I’m totally in favor of Young going to 3B, but it may be a little soon. He’s not a butcher at short yet so they might as well wait until they have a SS who’s ready.
by Black Francis on Sep 1, 2008 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
who plays 3rd?
I don’t think it makes 2 cents who is playing 3rd if we don’t have pitching to keep us in the game. Obviously someone has to be traded for pitching that is much better than what we have now. Whom would that be?
¡yo soy Horsedooty!
I soloed in the Mile High Club!
by horsedooty on Sep 1, 2008 10:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed.
i just can’t get worked up over this decision since there’s no indication the pitching will have us competing next year. i don’t see any reason to rush to move MY from short.
by SteveP on Sep 1, 2008 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could just as well say...
…that there’s no use getting worked up about the pitching next year, because there’s no indication the defense will have us competing.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the rest of the defense is fine.
how many runs do you really think MY is costing? I havnt noticed him standing out for a lot of poor plays lately. Im sure hes costing a run here and there but its nowhere near the factor that straight up bad pitching is.
the preceding post is not nearly as negative or insulting as you think it is
by DSheppard on Sep 1, 2008 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
certainly not a run per game
which is probably what we’d have to do to seriously compete.
by SteveP on Sep 1, 2008 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
but we aren’t going to bring in enough pitchers to shave a run off the team ERA, but possibly (prayerfully), the staff can be improved to make up some of that difference, the defense can be improved to make up some of that difference, and after a couple years of incremental improvements in pitching and defense – we might be close to where we need to be.
I don’t understand the idea that just because there is a big problem to be fixed, and it can’t be fixed suddenly, that we just throw up our hands and punt. Replacing MY with a competent defensive SS isn’t going to make this team a contender overnight, but it will get us closer, which is a worthwhile goal.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe its not just runs,
maybe he costs extra pitches/game. This could be said of poor defense in general.
As an example, that little bouncer that Wood hit in the 7th inning yesterday. That is a routine play that should have been made, either getting the force out at second or the easy out a first. He gets neither, which necessitates a move to the bullpen…an overworked bullpen.
The team has made tremendous strides this season upgrading the outfield defense. Now it is time to work on the infield.
by T Coleman on Sep 1, 2008 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
andrus has what 32 errors in AA?
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not the same
The argument has been made, with supporting data, by those smarter than I, that minor league error total is not a predictor of major league error total.
His manager has also stated that he is trying things now that he would not necessarily try in the big leagues. The same is probably true of the high number of caught stealings.
by T Coleman on Sep 1, 2008 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
groundballs arent any different in the major leagues?
i agree with the caught stealing but not necessarily with the errors
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we are discussing two different things
The complaint with MY is lack of range. The complaint with Andrus is errors.
IMO, lack of range is either the lack of skill (mobility) or the lack of an intangible (the ability to anticipate where a ball will be hit). The majority of errors are from a lack of concentration or fatigue.
I would anticipate as a 20-yr old matures, his ability to concentrate will improve. I would anticipate as a 30-yr old gets older, his lack of range will decrease even more.
I have no idea how good of a major league SS Andrus will be. The experts seem to think he will be pretty good. And I’d like to find that out with a “T” on his hat, not some other logo.
by T Coleman on Sep 1, 2008 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grounders and the minors and increased errors?
we discussed this topic a while back and it was brought up that some amount of these errors happen in minor league parks where the infield dirt and the infield as a whole arent in very good condition and the result was more weird bounces in the minors, more inconsistent quality of fields than if you are playing on a major league quality infield with less inconsistencies comparatively.
its something worth considering when discussing errors in the minors with IFers
"I’m sure you’ve seen Kiker before but I’ll just reiterate that the kid is mean on the mound. He is only 5’10’’ but he is an intimidator. He looks like he hates hitters. He has the juice for pressure situations."
-Jason Parks on Jul 22, 2008 10:08 PM
by Jayslick on Sep 1, 2008 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
Third base has been a disaster defensively this year. CF has been well below average. So has 2B, albeit because of too many errors, which I think is correctable.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
why wouldn't
you just take have a 1B/DH rotation between Smoak and Davis with MY at third, Andrus at short for the 2010 scenario?
by SteveP on Sep 1, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
CF below average
Who is CF has been below average on defense?
by peachygbc_1 on Sep 1, 2008 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hamilton
Boggs has been about average.
Hamilton’s improved, though. For a while he was borderline bad.
by philkid3 on Sep 1, 2008 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you think
that Boggs could handle CF just as well as Byrd, if not better?
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, absolutely I do.
Boggs = Byrd was just correcting myself because I accidently said Boggs when I meant Byrd.
by philkid3 on Sep 1, 2008 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I understood
Boggs would seem to have more value if he was used in CF more often.
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
defense is defintely not important enough to keep a team from competing.
i thought you knew things?
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does it hurt
to be so stupid?
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
"If you ain't got no money, ain't nobody calls you honey," Bo Diddley
by Rodney on Sep 1, 2008 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the white sox and twins are 12th and 13th in the AL fielding percentage
but they are totally out of the race right?
and texas’s struggles also has nothing to do with the pitching right and the horrible era right?
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fielding percentage?
Not a good way to evaluate fielding.
They are 15th and 22nd in DER. Texas is 28th, ahead of just Pittsburgh and Cincy.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 2001 Mariners
they were the best team ever in large part because of their awesome defense. Having a guy like Mike Cameron out there really saved quite a few runs.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many runs...
…difference do you think there is between a great defensive CF’er, and a poor one?
Or a great defensive shortstop, and Michael Young?
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no im not.
a centerfiedlers range doesnt come in to play too often and when it does it doesnt have to cost the team a run
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes you are
How many plays per year do you think a great defensive CFer makes, that a bad defensive CF’er doesn’t?
Same with shortstops.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why a team like the Twins can be succesful
They have a great defensive OF (Delmon/Gomez/Span, L-to-R most nights) and good defenders in the IF. Their offense is only okay, with a bunch of meh hitters mixed in around a couple of really good hitters in Morn-o and Mauer.
It’s a big reason why their pitcher “over perform”, imo.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's right
Problem is, the Rangers aren’t likely to have a great defensive OF in the near future, although I think an alignment of Hamilton-Borbon-Davis, right to left, would be okay.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think an OF with some sort of Boggs/Byrd/Murphy platoon in LF, Bourbon in CF and Hambone in RF is most definitely a plus defensive OF
That’s the kind of OF I dream about, actually.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
It is. I just think that Davis probably ends up out there at some point, unless Smoak is a bust.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To the Twins D...
I think playing on Astroturf makes their fielding much more consistent using the opposite argument used to explain more errors in the minors. If a player has more “range,” the player will have a better chance of making of play due to the consistent bounce from the turf (or lack thereof of the inconsistent bounce).
by Parman on Sep 2, 2008 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bingo!!!
"California is the most liberal state in the union. No joke that place is probably going to slide into the ocean one of these days. California is a wasteland run by liberals"
-Sharky- what a nice guy huh? I guess he doesn't watch any TV shows or movies.. If California goes so goes the entertainment industry. What a nut job!!
by LAMuscleFag on Sep 1, 2008 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Metcalf
Do people object to Rhyner’s idea? All that bothers me is it delays the inevitable move for Young.
Anyway this will happen in 2009:
1B: Davis
2B Kinsler
SS: Elvis
3B: Young
Might not be opening day is all.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Sep 1, 2008 10:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Metcalf
I don’t think he’ll hit well enough to justify a regular spot in the lineup.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know that he's any worse than young
Pretty clearly the first time he has ever looked at a web site. "And there are readers' comments at the bottom! And advertisements for products! And best of all, I won a free iPod!"
-Ken Tremendous on Mike Downey.
by BudLight on Sep 1, 2008 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, but he is so much worse
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you mean 2010
Although, I guess you could make the argument that Elvis might be ready by next September and your stopgap SS could sit then. I don’t want to count on Elvis before opening day 2010, though, and even then I think we need to be prepared for him to struggle for a while. He’s a baby.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 1, 2008 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Elvis
I’m wondering what decision is reflected in assigning him to OKC. He needs refinement? How much, though? The FO would accept his 2008 performance at the ML level, I think…start slow, get better. Are they sure he wouldn’t?
Plus his D is game-ready for the bigs, so the story goes.
Plus whatever stock should be put in makeup, his is anecdotally off the charts. He wants the challenge.
No surprise if he’s assigned AAA out of the gate — that’s where the young pitching’s eventually going next year anyway (Holland, Feliz, Hunter, the 2008 boys).
It’s actually the need for FOTF’s defensive replacement that creates upward pressure on Elvis. Let him start getting used to the job.
Plus, again, what marginal instruction is he getting from spending 2009 in AAA?
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Sep 1, 2008 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
D is ready maybe, but
he’d surely make a lot of mistakes. I don’t think the big league team has anything to lose by keeping in AA/AAA all of next year. He is not ready enough to help the big league team win in 2009, but could be in 2010. You can get a stopgap SS who will hit as well as Andrus will be able to, and probably one who will make fewer mistakes as well.
Plus, sure he’d like the challenge, but I think the organization has already challenged him quite a bit, and being in AA/AAA andnot turning 21 until August is still a fair challenge. There is challenging, and then there is rushing. TX has been quite aggressive with many of its prospects. It does not need to start pushing that over the line into rushing everyone.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 1, 2008 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rhyner's dead
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Sep 1, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andrus
Is it really a given that he will be ready for the majors by 2010?
If so, I might as well see MY in LF rather than DH.
by chrisR on Sep 1, 2008 10:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not LF
He doesn’t hit enough for that spot, and I’d rather have a real OFer in the RBIA’s big LF.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 1, 2008 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not LF… He doesn’t hit enough for that spot…
this argument is getting very old.
…you don’t have to have Grady Sizemore at every position to win a championship.
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, you don't
However, you’d rather not have a 750 OPS $15 million per year defensive liability in LF, either.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
I think he’d be less of a defensively liability, though, and more of an offensive asset, at 3B than at LF.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young at 3B
He’s not “more of an offensive asset” at 3B. He’s less of a liability.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
when it comes to “MY, the DH” vs “MY, the LF”, I think I’d prefer the latter, all things considered.
The RBIA left field isn’t the most spacious in baseball. Also, the benefit of having a legitimate DH (Max Ramirez perhaps? – if he pans out) over a singles-hitter should make up for Michael’s defensive shortcomings.
And if Julio Borbon ever learns to take walk every now an then, his range in center also could be helpful.
by chrisR on Sep 1, 2008 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Left field
Our left field is probably one of the bigger left fields in all of baseball actually. The OF position where you need the least speed is RF at our ballpark
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Sep 1, 2008 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Old argument
still valid and always will be. The team is likely to have a light hitting SS and/or 3B for the next couple of years, and catcher doesn’t look to be a big plus either. How many positions are you willing to sacrifice offense at with the difficulty the Rangers have had assembling a competitive pitching staff?
Get all the offense you can. Young is much less likely to be a burden offensively at 3B than in LF.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 1, 2008 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if the trade-off is better defense, i'm all for it.
the Rangers are approaching (if they haven’t already) over 100 unearned runs allowed this season.
…i’ve about had it with this team’s offensive concerns superceding defense and pitching.
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think...
…Young at LF, rather than 3B, would improve the Ranger defense?
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
when did i suggest Young should be our left-fielder?
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm just tired of the argument that if a person doesn't hit well-enough to FIELD a position you need another option.
Jason Bartlett… OPS under .700…
he’ll win a ring.
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
... Julio Lugo ...
… has won a ring …
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jason Bartlett...
…is also a hell of a defensive player.
If you don’t hit well, and aren’t a great defensive player, then there’s a problem.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
...that heroic glare into the distance... that handsome half-smile...
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its also okay if dont field well but hit well
MY
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Context, numb nuts
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it matters if he doesn't hit well enough for left.
If that’s the position where he’d hurt us the least and we don’t have the guts to bench him, put him there.
Yeah, he’d be a below average left fielder, but all that matters (if you’re not willing to bench him) is where he fits in the context of the team.
by philkid3 on Sep 1, 2008 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Note
I don’t suggest left is where he’d hurt us the least. It could actually be DH, whether he hits way below a typical DH or not.
by philkid3 on Sep 1, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blalock
why would we not pick up his option? it’s reasonable, especially compared to what guys like Casey Blake will get. Keep Davis at third. This organization obviously had plans for him to play third until we found out guys like Botts and Broussard were playing everyday. He has a strong arm and one of the only bad thing I heard about from the almighty guys from BA was his footwork sucked. Well that is something you can fix by drills. One of the easiest things to fix. I do agree with the “he will get bigger” thing. That could be a problem
by meatbonelefty on Sep 1, 2008 11:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind
Whether it’s MY or Davis at 3B, it won’t matter much in terms of range. Elvis at SS covers up any perceived statues at 3B. It’s like when A-ROD played next to Blalock.
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he can't play anywhere in the field
and he can’t hit lefties. We already have a guy like that called Cat, and we are already stuck with him.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
by DJCahill on Sep 1, 2008 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young
As I mentioned on the DMN blog, Young would be a below average offensive third baseman, we have no idea how he would do defensively (but obviously doesn’t have the range to be great), and we have no real internal replacement until Elvis is ready. Moving Young to 3B would be a huge mistake. It makes me shudder to even consider him at DH or LF. If he isn’t a SS, he shouldn’t be on the field.
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 1, 2008 11:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well
My guess is that he’d be above-average defensively…the range requirements for third basemen are less than for a shortstop (I doubt there are any third basemen out there who have the range to be just below-average at shortstop), and he’s got the arm to play there. They aren’t just going to sit him. I think he can be a decent major league third baseman for the next few years, and I think you have to bite the bullet and stick him there, rather than let him continue to kill you with his defense at short.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young
We need to trade him then, ASAP, instead of sticking his below average bat and unknown defense at 3B.
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 1, 2008 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
he has a no trade clause, and i have a hard time believing anyone would touch his contract even if he didn’t.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Contract
I’m sure we’d have to eat a portion of that ridiculous contract, but there are plenty of GMs out there that would still see him as an All Star with a good face. I think he’d rather be traded to a team that would let him stay at SS than move to 3B for the Rangers. If not, pay him to waive the no trade.
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 1, 2008 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ed Wade is looking for some one
to complete his IF. And Ozzie has always been a fan. Maybe?
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shortstop
IMO, Shortstop is a highly demanding position mentally. There are not many plays in which the SS is ont involved. That is why the offensive performance of A-Rod and Cal Ripken made/make them such great players. Not only could they hit, but they could catch the ball, and they played every day.
So here is the question: Would moving MY off SS to 3B free him up mentally to become a better hitter? I think the answer is yes. The question is how much better.
There are probably not too much historical data to measure against…maybe Biggio from Catcher to 2B and Robin Yount from SS to Centerfield……
by T Coleman on Sep 1, 2008 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
doesnt he have
very nice splits when he DHs? dont know where to find that stat but I think I remember that being the case.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Sep 1, 2008 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only 91 ABs lifetime though,
.407 .455 .593 1.048
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
"If you ain't got no money, ain't nobody calls you honey," Bo Diddley
by Rodney on Sep 1, 2008 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OT...
So my screen is all blue and I can barely read anything. Not sure what I did but it is only on this site that it happens. Anyone else have/had this happen?
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Sep 1, 2008 11:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
No problem for me.
The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ
by NYTXFAN on Sep 1, 2008 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A question for everyone on here,
do you guys really think that Elvis is gonna be here in this organization come next year?
I don’t. he is major trade bait and I could see that he won’t. To aquire a starter I’d rather include Elvis than Davis.
The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ
by NYTXFAN on Sep 1, 2008 11:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Anyone can be dealt
But if Andrus goes, you don’t have a long-term option at shortstop anymore.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
His
name is Marcus Lemon.
Today is the youngest you will ever be. Act like it.
by miles on Sep 1, 2008 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lemon
he is, from what i understand, marginal defensively at ss
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lemon
When EG talks about Elvis as trade bait, I substitute Lemon’s name. And then it starts making sense.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Sep 1, 2008 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know thats what makes it difficult to trade him.
But Im sure you could find a replacement for SS in two years.
The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ
by NYTXFAN on Sep 1, 2008 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you could say the same thing about Davis
That you could find a replacement 1B, which makes deal him more expendable.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not only that
but I’d think that CD has significantly more value on the trade market right now.
So you can trade an asset that is readily replaceable for a greater return (CD), or you can trade an asset that has no replacement for a lesser return (Elvis). Seems like an easy call.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Elvis has got to be untouchable
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Small sample size, but MY has good stats as a DH. Could it be that he has only so much to give in a given day?
by Jspsm on Sep 1, 2008 11:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Round tables
of this sort, all for ’em.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 1, 2008 12:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
2010
1B: Davis
2B: Kinsler
SS: Andrus
3B: Young
DH: Smoak/Ramirez (trade one of the two)
Its not that complicated. This would give you plus defense at SS and 3B, average defense at 2B, and I feel Davis will be a plus defender with more time at first. Also by this time Hamilton will be in RF and Borbon will man CF, which will drastically improve our OF defense. With that combination, theres no reason for us not to be one of the top defenses in the league IMO.
by erikj07 on Sep 1, 2008 12:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I dont think Young will be plus at third,
but probably someone you could live with there for a couple years(3-4).
The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ
by NYTXFAN on Sep 1, 2008 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
why not...
he has a really strong arm, and has below average range for SS which would translate to above average range at 3B. There’s no reason he wouldn’t be a plus defender there in my mind.
by erikj07 on Sep 1, 2008 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and how much will a good defense help? worry about important things
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Failure to field a better than decent defense
Is the single biggest factor over the previous seven years in terms of pitching performance, and ancillary defensive play (including throwing arms) to prevent runs against. This year for the first time since the late 1980’s the Rangers defense in the outfield has been a benefit to the team.
Now the infield needs to be improved. And, pitchers better damn well learn to field their position, at least those who totally fail at the job now.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Sep 1, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
x
and how much will a good defense help?
Ask Tampa Bay. That’s the biggest reason they’ve gone from being a cellar dweller to a first place team this year.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perfect example
That team changed the left side of their infield (what a coincidence, the very side that’s killing the Rangers) and it is a huge part of their improvement.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 1, 2008 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
right, it has nothing to do with kazmir, shields, Garza, and Sonnanstine all pitching well
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
on the contrary...
…could it be that one of the best defenses in the American League makes that pitching staff look that much better?
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you really think...
…that having a good defense behind you has nothing to do with a pitcher’s ERA?
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a little little bit. maybe .3 runs a game
think about it…how often does the defense cause a run to come in? not counting errors since we are talking about earned runs
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you average those 4 guys ERA it is 3.77
and thier FIPs averaged together it is 3.80
so no its not the defense
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its actually hurting them. most pitchers have thier atl east FIP 20 points higher
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow my bad.
its actually hurting them. most pitchers have thier FIP at least 20 points higher than thier ERA
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tampa's FIP is .34 higher than their ERA
That’s the best in the A.L. The only other team close is Anaheim:
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
So their defense isn’t hurting them. Their defense is saving them about 50-55 earned runs over the course of the season, compared to an average team. The difference between their defense and the Ranger defense, over the course of a full season, is about 100 runs.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love how we've given up ~ 200 runs above AL avg.
Even Baltimore, the only other team who has allowed 700+, is a full 100 runs ahead of us.
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their defense hurt them
a lot last year and their pitching suffered for it. They improved their defense and the rest of the team took a step forward.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 1, 2008 8:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats
Kazmir — 3.70 FIP, 3.13 ERA
Shields — 3.81 FIP, 3.61 ERA
Garza — 3.95 FIP, 3.53 ERA
Sonnanstine — 3.96 FIP, 4.61 ERA
Sonnanstine’s split is mainly due to him having an inordinately low LOB%.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
those Ranger teams of the late 90's?...
…excellent defense.
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ideally by mid 2009 for me..
C: Teagarden
1B: Davis
2B: Kinsler
3B: Young
SS: Andrus
LF: Murphy/Boggs platoon
CF: Borbon
RF: Hamilton
DH: Salty/Ramirez platoon
"There is nothing wrong with a good baseball argument, even if it gets a little personal now and then. If someone here get[s] their feelings hurt because of a blog post they really need to get a grip."
t ball
by booyahcaveman on Sep 1, 2008 12:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather
trade Tea away and go with this
C: Salty/Max
1B:Davis
2B:Kinsler
3B:Young
SS:Andrus
LF:Bradley/Murphy- Bradley is still recovering from ACL surgery. For most athletes, it takes a full year to recover. For him to have played from April, and up to this point, when it has been only 11 months since the injury, shows that he can be durable.
CF:Borbon
RF: Hamilton
4th/5th OF: Murphy/Boggs
DH: Max Ram/ Bradley
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
by hinduplaya on Sep 1, 2008 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 things....
thats probably rushing Elvis a bit. And if Salty and Ramirez are going to be platooning at DH, one HAS to be dealt before that happens.
by erikj07 on Sep 1, 2008 12:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
that is why i said ideally by mid 09. Andrus does need SOME time in AAA IMO. In regards to Salty and Ramirez I just dont think that rangers will deal either within the next year. I still think they dont know what they really have.
"There is nothing wrong with a good baseball argument, even if it gets a little personal now and then. If someone here get[s] their feelings hurt because of a blog post they really need to get a grip."
t ball
by booyahcaveman on Sep 1, 2008 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
as someone else said
it doesnt matter, the pitching wont be here. besides defense is extremely overrated on this blog, michael has cost us what 10 runs all year?
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 12:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Uh, no
It might not even be possible to calculate his full effect.
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, there is a multiplying effect
missed grounders equals extra baserunners and extra runs, which can be quantified. But the extra pitches and extra innings that invariably come from crappy relievers can’t really be quantified, but if you watch a full season of Ranger games, you know it has a huge effect.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the same with ians errors? and andrus has made a million errors in AA.
what about the runs that michael has created offensively? i guess that doesnt matter right, its just the bad things about him
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Michael Young
given his falling OBP and SLG, he hasn’t created all too many runs offensively this year.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its very small. probably 2 wins defensively
but people forget he is the best hitting shortstop in the AL
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's saying a lot.
Pretty clearly the first time he has ever looked at a web site. "And there are readers' comments at the bottom! And advertisements for products! And best of all, I won a free iPod!"
-Ken Tremendous on Mike Downey.
by BudLight on Sep 1, 2008 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its the same thing with mauer being the best offense catcher
I give up
by Steal Home on Sep 1, 2008 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's got a point
the only other SS you could really make a case with is Jeter
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
by hinduplaya on Sep 1, 2008 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jhonny Peralta
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Aviles
has a claim on that title this year. Jed Lowrie probably also factors into the conversation.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young
He’s 10 runs above average offensively for a shortstop, per BP.
If he’s 10 runs below average defensively — and I’d say that’s probably close — then he’s an average shortstop.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BP's FRAA has him at 13 above average fielding =)
the preceding post is not nearly as negative or insulting as you think it is
by DSheppard on Sep 1, 2008 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BP's defensive stats suck
Even they admit that.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As mentioned in Mike's post
I pretty much echo Adam’s general premise that Young’s ultimately headed for third base…I just don’t see it happening by Opening Day, and I don’t see an in-season transition going down, so it’s more probable in my eyes that the move is made between next season and 2010.
Given that Blalock and Vazquez probably aren’t all that likely to be here in 2009, the most sensible solution seems to be one where Duran or Metcalf comprise one half of a third base platoon, and the other half is sought out in the marketplace….I don’t know, perhaps Vazquez can be convinced to take a one-year deal, and if that’s the case the Rangers probably use him extensively at third base in ‘09 alongside Duran or Metcalf…that’s probably still a below-average solution offensively and defensively, but nothing else really jumps out at me as an obvious answer.
I suppose Davis could remain at third base and Blalock could be brought back, but Hank’s a pretty significant injury risk going forward, and if Texas ends up going that route there’s probably a good chance that the Rangers end up having to reshuffle the infield anyway.
by jamcadbury on Sep 1, 2008 1:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Could you plan on Blalock getting hurt?
Start off the season with:
1B: Blalock
2B: Kinsler
3B: Davis
SS: Young
And then, when the totally unforseen tragedy strikes of Blalock suffering a 3 month injury (which should happen about mid-May), call up Elvis, move MY to 3rd and Davis to 1st?
by GhettoBear04 on Sep 1, 2008 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
development of elite young talent (Andrus)
I’ve heard two schools of thought on this with regard to position players. One is that you give these type players as much time as they need in the minors so that when they are brought up, their bodies and psyches are fully developed and they have all the skills needed to have success right off the bat.
The other is that youngsters with elite talent develop best if they are given steady playing time in the ML at an early age, with the reasoning being that there are certain adjustments that can’t be made until facing ML competition and early exposure to the highest level of competition speeds up the development process.
I tend to put more stock in the second school of thought. Wonder if others have opinions on this one way or the other.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 1:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But he's so young
that even if he doesn’t come up until August 26, 2010 he’d still be just 22 then. I think opening day 2010 is plenty early for him to make a debut at age 21.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 1, 2008 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ive read somewhere that elvis wanted as a personal goal to be in the majors at 20 years old.
"I’m sure you’ve seen Kiker before but I’ll just reiterate that the kid is mean on the mound. He is only 5’10’’ but he is an intimidator. He looks like he hates hitters. He has the juice for pressure situations."
-Jason Parks on Jul 22, 2008 10:08 PM
by Jayslick on Sep 1, 2008 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
when is Joe Crede's contract up?
what would it take to get Josh Fields right now…?
"So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know... "
by Walter Sobchak on Sep 1, 2008 1:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Crede
He’s a free agent after this season.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pass.
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
on who, Crede...Fields...
or all of the above?
"So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know... "
by Walter Sobchak on Sep 1, 2008 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Initially Crede
but definitely both.
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by Chase Irwin on Sep 1, 2008 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young solution:
deal Kinsler. he is coming off of a career year, so trade him while his value is highest. granted, don’t just trade him to trade him, but there are quite a few young arms who could be had for him.
by clark on Sep 1, 2008 1:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
taking a bad situation
and making it worse
by tangiers on Sep 1, 2008 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Davis' size
Really going to hold him back from becoming a capable 3B’man? Troy Glaus is 6’5", 240 lbs., an inch taller and 5 lbs. heavier than Davis, and he leads the NL in range factor and is 4th in zone-rating. Davis also has long arms and a long reach and a gun for an arm. Just get him to work on his quads and calves so he can plant and drive in either direction with more power. Plus, when Andrus is up, he’ll just go to his right and vacuum up the balls Davis doesn’t get to.
by Rangerchick on Sep 1, 2008 2:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Glaus
Range Factor is nearly a non-measure of anything except maybe what hand the average team pitcher pitches with and how many flyballs/groundballs he gives up.
Not sure about how good this stat is, but Revised Zone Ratings puts Glaus fairly low at .704 (around Garciaparra, Zimmerman, Kouzmanoff, A-Rod (!?), Chipper, Figgins (!?) level). So, it should provide a better indicator of defense than ZR.
As to Davis, I think it’s still quite possible for him to be a capable 3B’man. The question is really his instincts and quickness, which I don’t really have a clue on….
R
by Requiem on Sep 1, 2008 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i am of the opinion that Elvis Andrus should be our starting shortstop on Opening Day.
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 2:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Andrus...
Defensively he’s ready, but can he hit? I’d imagine he’d be as good offensivly as Metcalf, so Young/Andrus = Young/Metcalf offensively and Young/Andrus is a better defensive tandem.
The question is does it stunt Andrus’ offensive growth to bring him up early?
by Topgun22 on Sep 1, 2008 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
...take your lumps... learn adjustments...
…this team needs speed and defense.
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he's not strong enough
Elvis knows what he’s doing at the plate. His body limits him right now. He just doesn’t have the strength to drive the ball, as I’ve said many times in the past. He’ll get there. He’s got decent plate awareness and the ability to make contact, but he needs some more strength and physical maturity to be able to turn on balls once in awhile. That’ll come soon. I’d prefer he not be physically overmatched by big leaguers in 2009.
by mjh on Sep 1, 2008 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Michael Young at DH
First of all, I want to say that I stated the Michael Young contract was stupid within minutes of it being announced. But the reality is that the Rangers are stuck with him and they have to do something with him.
Consider this:
Michael Young @ age 26: .306 / .339 / .446
Player X @ age 26: .270 / .333 / .410
Michael Young @ age 27: .313 / 353 / .483
Player X @ age 28: .297 / .356 / .408
Michael Young @ age 28: .331 / .385 / .513
Player X @ age 29: .281 / .340 / .426
Michael Young @ age 30: .315 / .366 / .418
Player X @ age 31: .312 / .384 / .452
Michael Young @ age 31: .285 / .334 / .411
At age 32, Player X basically stopped playing in the field (he had come up as a SS, and then played mostly 2B and then 3B, albeit poorly). He stayed in the game as a DH for another decade and now he’s in the HOF as a career .306 / .369 / .448 hitter. Michael Young is a career 300 / .346 / .443 hitter.
I’m not saying that Michael Young is as good as Player X. But playing him at DH isn’t necessarily the worst thing in the world.
by mjh on Sep 1, 2008 3:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Who is this mysterious player X?
Rocky Mountain Ranger
by Strangers on Sep 1, 2008 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds a lot like Paul Molitor
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not the worst thing in the world
but I’d rather have a better hitter there, like Max Ramirez.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather keep Max at catcher
Having a passable defense/plus offense catcher is a huge weapon. I’d deal TT, Laird and Salty and roll with Mad Max exclusively starting in ’09.
And if you’re not gonna roll with Max at catcher, imo you need to trade him to a team that will use him as a full time catcher, cause he’ll be more valuable to them in trade than he’d be to us as a DH.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dont you Keep Laird...
To mentor the young guy/guys we end up holding on to?
Rocky Mountain Ranger
by Strangers on Sep 1, 2008 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
A Bill Hasselman-type can do that. In fact, that’s what those guys were put on Earth to do, imo.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mentor him in what exactly?
Laird doesn’t seem like the mentor type, and I’d rather leave all the mentoring to guys who are getting paid to do it – like Matt Walbeck.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather have Paul Molitor.
Oh wait, that’s not an option?
Sorry. Misunderstood.
by philkid3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You really think Franchise Face is going to defy convention and get better and better in his mid-30's like Molitor did?
Also I like how you conveniently choose to leave out Molitor’s age 30 season where he hit .353/.438/.566. Oops. I’m sure it was a mistake.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it was
I also omitted Molitor’s 26 year old season, in which he hit less than .250
by mjh on Sep 1, 2008 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
in 46 at bats
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young vs. Molitor
You aren’t taking into account the difference in league averages when they played. Molitor finished with a career OPS+ of 122, while Young’s is currently 103. Paul Molitor was a much better hitter than Michael Young.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course Molitor compares favorably.
And Young won’t plateau as high as Molitor did, most likely. But I’ll take Paul Molitor’s word over any statistical summary. When asked which current player is most like himself, his answer was Michael Young. They profile similarly, and in a couple of situational ways Young has done better although his overall numbers are a good deal worse.
I guess the reason I don’t really enter threads of this nature is that no conference of gurus will make the necessary decisions about who does what for the Rangers in ‘09 and beyond. I tend to think the GM and staff probably will. I don’t know at all how much Ryan will influence as team president. Some are tightly involved, some are not. Larry Lucchino and Theo Epstein, if anyone wishes to study such relationships.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Sep 1, 2008 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, he was
and I said so; just saying that if they have to put Young at DH, it probably wouldn’t be the reason the ship sinks
for me, it comes down to what Max does; if he’s going to be a better hitter than Smoak — and he very well could — then you want Michael at 3b; if not, then you want Smoak at 1b, Davis at 3b and FOTF at DH
trust me: I’m saying that the Young contract will turn out to be a massive disaster for this franchise, the question becomes how to best work around it
by mjh on Sep 1, 2008 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Max
If Max becomes a better hitter than Smoak, you’d want Davis at 3B, Smoak at 1B, Max at DH (if he isn’t the catcher), and Young not on the field.
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 2, 2008 3:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
very true
but the truth is that they are stuck with Michael Young for a long time; I just hope that they don’t spend the length of the contract capitulating to him by allowing him to stay at SS for much longer
by mjh on Sep 2, 2008 4:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's say a team comes along and is willing to take the Face off our hands
In your opinion, would they pull the trigger?
In other words, is he viewed as an absolute albatross by team management like he is by us here?
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 2, 2008 4:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doubt it
People are down on Young but with a little push in September he’ll get his 200 hits again.
Plus, the leader thing.
I actually think he’s got trade value. Being a franchise player…I mean, that ship has sailed, but some GM could envision him working well on a winning team. I’m not going to look up stats to back that up though.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Sep 2, 2008 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He'd have trade value
if he didn’t have star’s contract, when he clearly isn’t a star.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
by DJCahill on Sep 2, 2008 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Money
There’s a ton of money circulating into the game. Even Barry Zito’s got a star contract. Millwood’s making average dollars for a mid-rotation innings absorber.
Young’s salary isn’t the worst thing about his overall profile…it’s more the length of the deal. If he can stick at 3B though, given the depth at the position in this org (and even the game overall), he won’t be such a problem.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Sep 2, 2008 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zito is also
untradeable. The problem with MY is that we have so many up and coming CIFs, we have no place to hide him, and his hitting as been in a straight line decline since his year 28 season.
I think there is a reasonable chance that by the end of his contract, he is a 700 OPS guy, and his contract will be comparable to a CHP level disaster.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
by DJCahill on Sep 2, 2008 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well actually
There’s no depth at 3B, unless it’s Whittleman or the darkhorse possibility Vallejo moves.
If Young took over there, it’d be fine. Probably better than Chris Davis.
Young a 700 OPS guy in 5 years? Yeah, I can see it. It doesn’t seem like a disaster for 3B, though.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Sep 2, 2008 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It'd be pretty bad.
I just don’t know what you do though. You can’t leave him at SS, and you may have been better with Metcalf at 3B than Young down the road. Metcalf is likely to improve, while Young is likely to continue his decline.
If you could find a sucker to take his contract without you paying too much on it, it would be the best thing to do, but I really don’t think its an option.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
by DJCahill on Sep 2, 2008 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Geez
Stop with the Travis Metcalf BS. He’s never going to be a FT major-leaguer.
Travis Metcalf is Scott Coolbaugh, nothing more.
by robert_d_wilfong on Sep 2, 2008 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Metcalf has a glove
is cheap, and is likely to have every bit as high of an OPS as MY.
If I could trade MY for beans, and be forced to live with Metcalf at 3B, and have an extra 14 or so million in my budget every year, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Metcalf may not be much, but he will likely be as productive as MY over the next 5 years on a rate basis.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
by DJCahill on Sep 3, 2008 4:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You really think
the team is better with Davis at 3B and FOTF at DH rather than FOTF at 3B and Davis at DH? I was under the impression Davis wasn’t much of a 3B.
Granted, MY has the range of a fencepost, but he does make plays that are hit close to him, and he does have a decent arm.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
by DJCahill on Sep 2, 2008 8:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reason I think Mike Young
would be Dogshit over the next 5 years as a DH.
Age 28 2005 OPS 898
Age 29 2006 OPS 815
Age 30 2007 OPS 784
Age 31 2008 OPS 745
With MY, the trend isn’t your friend. He needs to be able to plug some defensive position. You are stuck with his abortion of a contract, because I don’t think you could find anyone to take it off your hands. If you could, you’d be stupid not to just give him away.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
by DJCahill on Sep 1, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
JD is a great GM
if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young's contract
I suspect this one is on Hicks, not Daniels.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Giving away pitching…the only pitcher I see that he’s given away is Galarraga.
The only horrible contract is Michael Young, which I don’t think was him.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's amazing that few of the many mistakes on JDs watch
were his.
I figure if he didn’t fight hard against a stupid contract that was going to tie the hands of the GM, it is his damn fault.
I can’t let any GM off the hook for a Contract that represent 15-25% of a teams payroll and will handcuff a team.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
by DJCahill on Sep 1, 2008 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mistakes
I like JD, but there is a disturbing trend of people giving him credit for things that work out and blaming the stinkers on someone else.
He always gets a pass on the Chris Young debacle, because people blame it on Showalter. Now, you’re giving him a pass on the Mike Young contract.
He’s in the GM’s seat. Credit for good and bad should fall in his lap.
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 2, 2008 3:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't give him a pass on the Adrain Gonzalez debacle
It was a stinky, stinky trade at the time he made it, and it’s just as smelly now. I just think that overall he’s really got the organization headed in the right direction. He’s been far, far less than perfect, but I like the fact that he’s the GM of my team and I’m happy we’re gonna move forward with him at the helm.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 2, 2008 4:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Either he made the deal, or was a spineless jellyfish and got run over without objecting. Either way, its on JD.
JD gets 100% of the blame or credit for all drafts, trades, and signings. Blaming showalter or hicks is a cheap way out.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
by DJCahill on Sep 2, 2008 7:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
THe difference between Cahill and Sharky
is a tiny bit of eloquence and a giant leap across the political spectrum.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for the commentary
care to dive in and discuss issues?
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
substance
Bring some to the table.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Internet feuds are stupid
i’m done with you. Let’s just agree to leave each other alone for awhile.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 9:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitching
Well, he certainly gave away Chris Young, and the Danks-McCarthy deal isn’t working in our favor right now.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the Chris Young trade is of no consequence anymore.
…dude’s not that good.
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't give away Chris Young
Or John Danks, for that matter.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
keep tell'n yourself that Adam.
its how i live as well.
"I’m sure you’ve seen Kiker before but I’ll just reiterate that the kid is mean on the mound. He is only 5’10’’ but he is an intimidator. He looks like he hates hitters. He has the juice for pressure situations."
-Jason Parks on Jul 22, 2008 10:08 PM
by Jayslick on Sep 1, 2008 8:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He pretty much did
give away Chris Young. Considered he traded for an always injured starter, and a fairly unremarkable setup man.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
by DJCahill on Sep 1, 2008 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would say
it’s more like he gave away Adrian Gonzalez.
I kinda understood the thought process behind Chris Young, if it was Chris Young+Sledge for Aki+Eaton, that’d just be a bad deal, but the random addition of A-Gon at probably his lowest value point was the true giveaway.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd go along with that
The eval on Young was wrong, but trading Gonzalez as part of that deal was stupid.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 1, 2008 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young was the 3rd best player in that deal, imo.
And it’s not all that close.
He’s been so ridiculously overrated due to Petco it’s crazy. He’s a solid LAIE, which is a nice thing to have, but I’m not shedding too many tears over losing him like I am Volquez and Danks.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 11:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And on that note
it’s kind of shocking how San Diego just let their OF defense turn to suck after being an asset. I still wonder what they could have gotten for Otsuka last year if he’d been healthy.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 2, 2008 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Answer: A ton
He’d have brought back more than Gagne, imo.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 2, 2008 1:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
JD's contracts
Millwood’s contract is bad enough that no team claimed him on waivers.
Cat’s contract is a big liability, he can’t even get on the field and we’re stuck with him again next year.
Fukumori and Jennings were huge wastes, thus bad contracts.
Broussard was a terrible idea and a waste of several million.
And, of course, all these pail in comparison to the albatross. One contract like his could get a GM justifiably shitcanned.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
did Cat's signing cost us a pick?
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yup
16th overall.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
think about this for a sec...
…Michael’s contract was given out in an off-season that featured…
…the signing of a first-year manager…
…the signing of Sammy Sosa…
…the signing of Kenny Loften…
…the signing of Eric Gagne…
…the signing of Frank Catalonotto…
…the trading of John Danks…
…whatever was being passed around the Rangers front-office that off-season was most certainly illegal.
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sammy Sosa
much, much, much better signing than Catalanotto.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
by DJCahill on Sep 2, 2008 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd have been happier
if neither one had been signed, or if at least one or both had been traded for something useful.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
by t ball on Sep 2, 2008 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was the reason
why so many of us didn’t like the Cat deal in the first place.
Of course, the defenders kept saying “Oh, they’re planning on signing a pitcher.” but I still didn’t want to give up a 2nd rounder for Cat. You give up those picks for a Manny Ramirez, A-Rod, Sabathia type. Not for a player like Cat.
Also, the type-A FA SP offered arb. available that year:
Zito (bleah)
Schmidt (I admit I was interested, but he’s turned out to be damaged goods)
Suppan (mediocre innings-eater)
That’s it.
It was another short-sighted decision in a slew of them while JD was learning the ropes, though probably not with the long-lasting consequences of the Young extension or Young/Eaton deal….
R
by Requiem on Sep 1, 2008 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cat
Agreed on Cat (although it was a first round pick instead of second). I liked Cat a lot and was one of the people that wrongly thought he should be kep at 2B instead of MY back in the day. However, i couldn’t see the rationale for a team in our position giving up a first round pick to bring him in.
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 2, 2008 3:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's saying that it would've been a second rounder if we'd signed one of those other type-A's
like was the logic thrown out by some at the time.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 2, 2008 4:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on
You are saying that every player that cleared waivers cleared because he had a bad contract? It doesn’t work like that.
Cat’s contract hasn’t worked out, but isn’t that big a deal.
Fukumori and Jennings didn’t get that much…they were low dollar, low risk signings. Sometimes a move like that works out (see, e.g., Bradley and Gagne). Sometimes it doesn’t.
Just because a signing doesn’t work out doesn’t mean that it was a horrible contract.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying that Millwood's contract
is a bad one. It’s been bad for the Rangers and no other team in baseball would want him right now under those terms. Evidence of that is the (reported) fact that he cleared waivers.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am willing to bet...
…that if you offered to give him away right now, someone would take him.
The fact that he cleared waivers does not mean that his contract is so bad no one would take him on. Quite a few players clear waivers with acceptable contracts.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you might be right
but if you are keeping a tally of JD’s moves, I’d put the Millwood contract in the negative column based on his price/performance ratio. His contract isn’t the worst in the league, and it’s not the worst on the team, but it hasn’t been money well spent.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still maintain
that evaluation based on performance is ultimately a futile exercise. THere are some deals that JD swung that I thought he got bad value – like the Gagne trade – that ended up working well just because of random luck (Beltre not pulling a Delios Guerrera, Murphy not being bad). What I’d like to see is an evaluation of his moves based on the simple question of “Did he get value” or did he get correct valuation.
There can be a good argument made that the Millwood contract was an improper valuation of an aging pitcher, but given the market, it’s not exactly Chan Ho Park or Ted Van Poppel. Plus, several teams, including Boston were willing to offer similar years, so it’s not like it was a bad gamble. Catalanatto, on the other hand, was a truly awful deal, one of the truly awful deals of his tenure, along with the CY trade.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the end of the day
All GMs are judged based on performance though. You can’t lose forever at the Major League level.
If you give away a bunch of contracts to folks who don’t work out, you will eventually get fired.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
by DJCahill on Sep 2, 2008 7:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Millwood
Probably a negative, at this point, in terms of moves made, but a small one. And I don’t think the Rangers would be willing to simply give him away at this point…there was supposedly a deal in place before he got hurt at the deadline, and at this point, he’s worth $11 million for one year to come back for 2009.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Millwood deal at the deadline
Did I miss that? Or is that something that you caught wind of and can’t repeat?
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll see if I can find it
The stuff I can’t repeat I don’t talk about on here…
This was something in one of the print publications, that it appeared there was a pretty nice deal for Millwood in place before he got hurt.
It could, of course, be simply the organization trying to spin things with the press. I don’t know. But I saw/read that somewhere.
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Millwood
We got really lucky on Millwood. His contract was ridiculous at the time, but the FA starting pitching contracts have gotten even worse since then. As a result, Millwood’s contract doesn’t look bad now (and likely had pretty good trade value before he stunk it up again this year).
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 2, 2008 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A bunch of teams.....
would take Millwood right now, since his contract is effectively only one guaranteed season at $11 million and a club option for 2010.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was researching Molitor vs. Young
prior to reading the comments in the post.
Offensively, they don’t necessarily compare well. Molitor is a superior offensive player. But Molitor also went through a period where he wold fill in defensively at multiple positions when needed — albeit not very well. That’s where Young as a DH would have an advantage over Molitor.
But part of my rationale behind Young at DH was also the defensive utility role that I think he could play. Young has the ability to play all four infield positions — maybe with the exception of SS in the coming years — and could be a very serviceable spot infield starter to give guys days off or against a particularly tough matchup against specific pitchers (Davis vs. tough LHs, to keep Kinsler fresh, etc.). Days that Young plays the field, you have the opportunity to either DH the guy he is replacing (Kinsler, per se) or slide your fourth OF into the DH slot. You also have the security of having a capable player to slide in if something were to happen to one of your regulars long-term, without taking as big a hit in the lineup.
Having a defensively capable DH, I think, is a really nice luxury to have.
by robert_d_wilfong on Sep 1, 2008 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a defensively capable DH
is a nice luxury, but I’d much rather have someone that mashes.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
DYK
There are only four teams that have a DH that has enough ABs to qualify as a full time DH.
Bradley, Huff, Thome & Kubel. If not for injuries, Ortiz would also be on that list as well.
Here’s how the other teams satisfy their DH needs (teams total DH OPS):
TB: Floyd, Gomes, Hinske (.745)
NYY: Matsui, Damon, Giambi, Posada (.863)
Tor: Stairs, Thomas, Eckstein, Stewart (.701)
Cle: Hafner, Dellucci (.727)
Det: Sheffield, Thames (.677)
KC: Butler, Guillen (.762)
LAA: Anderson, Guerrero (.764)
Oak: Thomas, Cust, Sweeney (.686)
Sea: Vidro, Clement (.617)
See the trend. Broken down old guys, a slot for an injured position player or a rest area for older positional players.
Today’s DH is no longer a slot for a masher, its a triage. Wouldn’t it be nice to go into the year knowing that the person that you’ve identified as your DH (who, btw has a higher OPS this year than 9 other teams’ DH production) could slide into a positional role if needed?
by robert_d_wilfong on Sep 2, 2008 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
DH
So, you would advocate committing to a DH whose UNADJUSTED OPS this season would have been in the bottom third in the league for the position this year and can only be expected to decrease in the future?
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 2, 2008 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the question becomes
what else do you do with a boat anchor like MY, who can’t play SS, but you are stuck with for the next 5 years.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
by DJCahill on Sep 2, 2008 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young
You play him at SS until his above-average bat no longer outweighs his below-average glove. At that point, you bench him (or pay someone else to take him). The thought that we have to keep playing him even if it hurts the team just because he is the FoTF and we are committed to paying him a ton of money boggles my mind. His contract was idiotic, but it is a sunk cost. Compounding the mistake by playing someone that isn’t the best alternative at a position isn’t very smart.
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 2, 2008 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
9th was AL only
so that’s top half.
OPS+
1. Bos 128
2. NYY 124
3. ChW 123
4. Bal 121
5. MY 98
6. LAA 97
6. Min 97
8. KC 96
9. TB 92
10. Cle 89
11. Tor 83
12. Oak 79
13. Det 76
14. Sea 60
by robert_d_wilfong on Sep 2, 2008 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OPS
That is DH OPS+? Good grief, that is pitiful.
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 2, 2008 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was my point regarding the state of the DH
Teams aren’t paying for full-time masher DHs anymore. It seems most have realized that throughout the course of a season that an older player is going to get hurt or need regular rest. So there’s no sense paying $12-14m per year on a full-time DH.
So if you can have a guy that is your stated DH that can step into multiple positions then you’re eliminating a situation like the Yankees have now where they are forced to play Giambi at first despite his horrid defense. In this scenario, MY might not even play the majority of games as the DH.
by robert_d_wilfong on Sep 2, 2008 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd strongly consider trading Ian Kinsler this off season
I know he’s a super, duper star, but he’s our most tradable commodity (meaning: the one most likely to bring back a stud pitcher) and dealing him allows us to slide Franchise Face over to 2b.
But only if it’s in a package for a true stud. There are precious few pitchers I’d deal Kinz for, and most of them aren’t likely to be available.
Still, I’d look into it hardcore.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
any person opposed to this thought is a fool.
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
once again, as always
name the pitchers…it had damn well better be a sure-fire ace (which will not be traded anyways).
otherwise, any person proposing the thought is a fool.
"So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know... "
by Walter Sobchak on Sep 1, 2008 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not convinced...
…Young wouldn’t be a defensive liability at 2B…
by Adam J. Morris on Sep 1, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you think moving him to third is the only viable option?
I agree that’s prbably his best position, as it would take advantage of his strong arm and his nice reaction speed while limiting the number of plays where his slow foot speed comes into play as a negative.
If you really believe that’s the only viable place for him, then I’d do my darndest to move him. I really think it could happen if we actually wanted to try to do it, big fat contract be damned. You have to remember that this is a league with Kenny Williams, Ed Wade and Jim Bowden as GM’s. Someone could be talked into taking the Face off our hands if we wanted to trade him. I just don’t think we’d ever do it.
And, before you bring it up, I think he’d waive his no-trade pretty quick if he was going to a contender. Especially one in Cali like the Dodgers.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kenny Williams
I think it is funny that you seem to imply he is a bad GM. He’s actually very good.
Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.
by tricer on Sep 1, 2008 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mainly meant that's not afraid to employ very bad defenders so long as they hit
He’s playing Ken Griffey Jr. and Nick Swisher in CF this year.
Plus he’s gone on the record several times in the past as a huge lover of the Face.
Although I’m glad I could make you laugh.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kenny Williams
along with Ned Coletti and maybe Brian Sabean are our best chances to get out under the MY contract. Let’s hope one of them does something stupid this offseason and trade for him.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young
What makes you think we would trade him, even if one of those three (and I don’t think Sabean would do it) wanted him?
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because Tom Hicks
is hemorraging money thanks to Liverpool, Josh Hamilton has taken over as the FOTF, and logistically, Elvis Andrus is about ready to take over @ SS.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cardinals
I could see a team like the Cards being interested in him as well (too bad Jocketty isn’t still there).
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 1, 2008 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jocketty
still runs the Reds, who are also starving for a SS.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
does the rest of baseball really view Michael Young as a "SS"?
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When your alternative
is Jeff Keppinger, maybe. We could very well include someone like Arias or Lemon, who could concievably take over sometime in the future. But given that someone is currently paying and playing Miguel Tejada at SS, I wouldn’t doubt that we’d be able to put MY on someone.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeter
People still fawn over Jeter’s defense as well, so there is hope.
--Brian
by BCanfield on Sep 1, 2008 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
MY has also
been helped by some odd BP stats which show him as good, and a decent range factor. I’m sure some team will be able to convince themselves that he’s a average-good SS.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miguel Tejada...
…the Astros thought he was two years younger than he really was…
no, money down!
by oc on Sep 1, 2008 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which would still have put him
@ 32 years old.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When they traded for Tejada
they thought he was 32 years old, the same age MY is going into next season
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Dodgers make some sense, imo
Their 3b, SS and 2b are all headed to FA after the year.
Hmmm… Andruw Jones or Juan Pierre straight up for the Face.
Who doesn’t do that deal?
Man, I think I could really get on board with an Andruw Jones/Face swap this off season.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another swap of bad contracts
Helton for MY. Helton might not have the power anymore, but he’s a legitimate DH at least for the next 2 years. We keep Max at C, let Milton walk and Colorado gets their 2B that finally replaces Matsui.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Helton's contract is pretty grizzly
’09: 16.6mil
’10: 16.6mil
’11: 19.5mil
’12: 23mil (4.6mil buyout)
With Jones you’d be on the hook for only one more year. I don’t think I’d go anywhere near Helton’s contract, even if it meant getting rid of Face’s deal.
Plus I can’t see either guy waiving their no-trade to switch to those teams… especially Helton. Why leave a team one year removed from the WS and the place you’ve played your whole career to go to Texas and rebuild for ’10 or ’11?
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's
the thing. I don’t think Coletti would take MY’s contract because the lack of length on Andruw’s.
Maybe he’d do it for Juan Pierre’s, but Helton’s have essentially the same contract as Pierre lengthwise, and I think Helton is a better bet to stay productive.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I was figuring the Dodgers would jump at the chance to deal Andruw
since their entire fan base HATES him and his manager often just doesn’t play him, plus they’d actually want to get Michael Young for ~12mm a year (once you discount the 18mil they would’ve paid Andruw and applied it out over the five years of FF’s contract) to plug one of their three IF holes for next year. That way you could sell them on the Face like he’s got a 5yr/60mil deal, which would make him a heck of a lot more movable. And Andruw is just so terrible I figure they’d be itching to dump him. I mean the guy has a 34 ops+. That’s beyond terrible. It’d be a straight salary dump by us and a straight hated-fat-guy-who-sucks-and-no-longer-cares-about-baseball dump by them.
And, fwiw, even if we forget that Helton would never waive his no-trade to come here, I’d still rather have Face at 3b than take on Helton’s deal, personally.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Sep 1, 2008 8:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that makes a lot of sense
at this point, we should all be hoping the Plsachke and Simmers of the world start calling for Andruw Jones’ head.
by FirebatM3 on Sep 1, 2008 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kinsler
I’ve said for a while that I thought trading him was our best option for getting a real top-of-the-rotation pitcher, but I’ve grown much more leery of making that move for several reasons.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Kinsler
Because I thought we would have to include him in a deal to get a really good pitcher, and I thought that Young could move over to 2B (that’s when Davis was still playing 3B in the minors).
Now, he’s signed to that very club-friendly deal, he’s even better than I thought he would be, and I don’t think Young would even be an average 2B. Plus, with the significant improvement in our farm system, I think we can put together a package that doesn’t include him to get a pretty good pitcher, or put a team of position players together that’s cheap enough to allow us to go money-whip a pitcher into coming here.
by Darrell McKown on Sep 1, 2008 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm, interesting
I agree about the Kinsler contract, but that might be part of what makes him so valuable.
Only issue I have is that I think we need a couple of starting pitchers before we can compete.
Also, I think I’ve become more of a defensive prude, so if Kinsler deteriorates into a bad-defensive 2B, I think we have to look into other options…. Plus most of middle infield options seem to be of the 2B variety (Vallejo, Duran, Young maybe, Lemon, Arias, etc.)
Right now, I’m ambivalent about trading Kinsler, but if you can package him for a stud starting pitcher, I think you’d have to look very hard into it.
R
by Requiem on Sep 1, 2008 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
