Royals add Braves catcher
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 3:26 PM EDT
Email
Print*NOTE: Working off a media release reproduced by an internet poster, still looking for confirmation*
In the category of "transactions that don't make sense except that Dayton used to work for the Braves", the Royals picked up a third catcher today, claiming Brayan (pronounced "Bryan") Pena off waivers from the Atlanta Braves. To make room for Pena on the 40 man roster, the Royals transferred P Luke Hudson to the 60 day disabled list. They will need to make a corresponding transaction on the 25 man roster.
Pena (no relation to Tony despite a resemblance in batting statistics) is a lifetime .228/.252/.315 hitter in 71 games and was 4-14 this season for Atlanta. He is a .314/.360/.405 hitter in the minors, including hitting .301 last season in AAA.
95 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
em
This doesn’t really make sense, I can’t say I know this guy very well. Unless Dayton is thinking about giving Olivo more time in DH/1B and getting Pena was just relieving Olivo of the backup catcher duty.
Now that we’ve got the two worst Penas of the MLB, can we move on to acquire all five? I mean the list looks better after Tony and Brayan. You have Wily Mo, Tony(Ari setupman), and big bopper Carlos
by playingwithfire on May 30, 2008 3:39 PM EDT reply actions
Oh. That's good.
We need a backup catcher. Former Brave…hmm…I wonder if he is extremely religious?
His major league batting average
is less than 1.000. You tell me.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
Confirmed by the Star
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/642722.html
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
the anticipation for the DDJ-Andruw Jones' tattered remains Blockbuster mounts
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
I don't know that this means they are adding him to the 25-man roster
If this guy is injured, they can move him to the DL (as they did when they claimed Roman Colon off of waivers last year). Or they can outright him to the minors, and then he can either refuse the assignment or accept it.
Adding him to the 25-man roster would be really stupid unless Olivo is being traded. I would have no problem with adding him to the 40-man roster, as this organization has zero catching depth. It would be hard for him to be worse than Tupman.
I probably disagree with you.
Apparently the Royals site says he'll join the major league team
This only makes sense if
1. Either Buck or Olivo is going on the DL
or
2. Either Buck or Olivo is about to be traded
If this is about adding a third catcher, then I’m just speechless.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Another possibiltiy
Grudz could be DL bound. Which would give us two weeks to decide what to do with this roster logjam.
I’ve like DM’s acqusitions of talent, but as far as knowing how to compile a 25 man roster, he seems in over his head. This is a poorly constructed 25 man lineup.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
If someone other than a catcher goes to the DL
...I don’t see why that DL’d player would be replaced by a third catcher. There are other and better options.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
The Atlanta thing is an old and tired joke
Much ado about nothing.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
For the most part it is just minor deals for minor leaguers
No big deal and no problem. This three catcher thing seems pretty stupid. But the complaining about Moore acquiring Braves or former Braves is about as meaningful as the complaints about him acquiring Christians or not acquiring African Americans.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I never really said it was a problem
But he does bring in a lot of ex-Braves.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Mostly he's acquired ex-Braves into our minor league system
No big deal.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
"as far as knowing how to compile a 25 man roster, he seems in over his head"
I don’t think I’d say that. What other problems have you had with how he’s put together a 25-man roster? It’s not like he’s leaving a lot of talent in Omaha which should be in KC. And I’m all for an 11-man pitching staff, but Moore is like pretty much every other MLB GM in his desire to have a 12-man staff.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Problems with the roster
-12 man pitching staff. Completely unnecessary.
-Signing a first baseman to a 2 year deal who should be a bench player at best, curious since they want to make Butler a 1B, and they still have Shealy. They also have a couple of guys in Teahen and Gordon who could fill in at 1B in a pinch. A mere defensive replacement is a complete luxury this team cannot afford
-Acquiring Callaspo. Great move. But I guess he’s not here to play shortstop if they’re not going to play him over the awful Tony Pena. So that must mean he’s here for 2B. So why didn’t they move German and/or Grudz? Having three second basemen is ludicrous.
-Signing Miguel Olivo. Great bat. Just seems kinda redundant with Buck. Only makes sense if you move Buck. And he’s disgruntled unless he’s getting everyday playing time. So you have to find a place for him.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Ok
-12 man pitching staff. Completely unnecessary.
That’s a completely non-unique criticism. It’s like saying a manager doesn’t know how to use a pitching staff because he almost only uses his closer in the 9th inning with a 3-run or smaller lead. If every manager/GM does it, then it is hard to say that the manager GM is “in over his head” by doing what everyone else does.
-Signing a first baseman to a 2 year deal who should be a bench player at best, curious since they want to make Butler a 1B, and they still have Shealy. They also have a couple of guys in Teahen and Gordon who could fill in at 1B in a pinch. A mere defensive replacement is a complete luxury this team cannot afford
I wouldn’t have signed Gload to a 2-year deal, but having him on the team and on the roster isn’t a problem. If the Royals couldn’t get a real 1B (and there were none to be had that I know of), then you have to go with what you’ve got. I don’t get the argument that the Royals “can’t afford a luxury like Gload…only contending teams can afford a decent bench player.” That’s completely wrong. Gload is a 1B space filler until the Royals acquire a real 1B/DH. Until then your decent bench player has to start out of necessity. Once the Royals acquire that real 1B/DH, Gload settles into his bench utility role.
-Acquiring Callaspo. Great move. But I guess he’s not here to play shortstop if they’re not going to play him over the awful Tony Pena. So that must mean he’s here for 2B. So why didn’t they move German and/or Grudz? Having three second basemen is ludicrous.
Trading German or Grudz for nothing would be ludicrous. The trade should be made when the market is such that their value is maximized. That will be sometime in the summer when a team feels like they are in contention and need a 2B or utility IFer. The Royals didn’t acquire Callaspo to make them a contender this year. They acquired him for 2009 and beyond. So, for a while, the Royals have more 2B’s than they need. So what? The problem (to the extent that it is a problem at all) is solved when one is traded and that should be done when the best trade can be made. There’s no reason to rush it.
Signing Miguel Olivo. Great bat. Just seems kinda redundant with Buck. Only makes sense if you move Buck. And he’s disgruntled unless he’s getting everyday playing time. So you have to find a place for him.
The Royals needed a backup catcher. He was arguably the best choice of the available inexpensive catchers. They knew he would be an able backup and someone who could DH against lefties (and the Royals didn’t have any good RH DH’s). What should they have done? Gone with an organizational filler like Tupman as backup catcher? Olivo has been an asset. Hard to argue with that move.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok
-Doing a foolish thing that a lot of others do is is a sign you don’t know what you’re doing
-Gload is a roster glut that prevents us from going out and getting another 1B or seeing what we have in Ryan Shealy. He is completely unnecessary
-If you’re going to acquire Callaspo, you should be prepared to move German or Grudz. You should be prepared to trade German for next to nothing. Holding onto marginal players in the hopes of reaping top value while clogging the roster in the interim is what bad teams do. The good teams know when to cut their losses, DFA a player and move on to assemble the best 25 man roster they can. Look at all the decent players that have been DFAed this year. German is no better than them. You have to unclog the roster.
-It didn’t make sense to sign a guy with the same skills as Buck. Tupman would have served fine as backup catcher.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
disagree
i don’t think any of your arguments make much sense, just cause something isnt ideal, doesn’t mean it isn’t better than the alternative
by ZeppelinDZ on May 30, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
an extension
yes, 12 pitchers isn’t needed, but it doesnt hurt to protect arms from innings…and its not like we have a hot prospect in aaa that needs abs
gload isn’t great, but shealy has had a lot of ML time to prove his worth
3 2bs isnt great, but again, what replaces them, german is a better ball player than all of the aaa hitters
I see
Those moves in totality tremendously reduce roster flexibility. We have a team floundering with by far the worst offense in baseball, and its very difficult for us to make roster moves because we have two first basemen, three second basemen, twelve pitchers and now three catchers, many of those players without options left.
“yes, 12 pitchers isn’t needed, but it doesnt hurt to protect arms from innings…and its not like we have a hot prospect in aaa that needs abs”
Yes, but there have been bats out on the market that we could have given a shot to.
“gload isn’t great, but shealy has had a lot of ML time to prove his worth”
So has Gload, and we know what we have in Gload – a light hitting defender. Give Shealy his one last shot. And if you don’t like Shealy, go get your 1B. To be satisfied with Gload as a solution is sillly.
“3 2bs isnt great, but again, what replaces them, german is a better ball player than all of the aaa hitters”
Go get a bat. Make a trade. And if no trade is available, dump German and get a bat that can help you. German has pretty limited utility, and when he’s not hitting, he has pretty much no utility.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, but there have been bats out on the market that we could have given a shot to.
point taken, maybe i just like 12 pitchers, agree to disagree
So has Gload, and we know what we have in Gload – a light hitting defender. Give Shealy his one last shot. And if you don’t like Shealy, go get your 1B. To be satisfied with Gload as a solution is sillly.
Gload is not a solution, neither is shealy, choosing one over the other does nothing to help the team. neither is the “right” answer
Go get a bat. Make a trade. And if no trade is available, dump German and get a bat that can help you. German has pretty limited utility, and when he’s not hitting, he has pretty much no utility.
if it were that easy, i feel any GM would
There is a right answer
“Gload is not a solution, neither is shealy, choosing one over the other does nothing to help the team. neither is the "right" answer”
Shealy has options. He is young. He has power. He has some (albeit limited) upside.
Gload has no options. He is old. He is more expensive. He has no power. He has no upside.
The choice is clear.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
They both stink and there is little reason either would be an even average 1B...
And every projection system had Gload considerably better than Shealy. Gload is a useful piece who isn’t blocking anyone who might genuinely help the Royals in the future.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
The projection systems I saw
Have them pretty much even. And Shealy is younger. And cheaper. And has power. And has options, meaning you have greater roster flexibility.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
niether is cheaper at this point
regardless of what we do, we pay the same money this year and next (both are potentially zero)
We must not be looking at the same projection systems
PECOTA, CHONE, ZiPS, I believe all liked Gload a lot more than Shealy. And Shealy’s failure in Omaha this year should tell you something about him as well.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't have time to look up Pecota or Chone
But ZIPS has almost exactly identical.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Wasn't he blocking Butler earlier this year?
If we’re rebuilding we might as well have played Butler.
Gload has no options. He is old. He is more expensive. He has no power. He has no upside.
so what do we do with him? we still are on the hook for his contract if we release him, money down the drain just to get shealy PT? I just don’t have any faith that shealy will ever be anything in the MLs
Giving him a two year contract was foolish is my point
But I’d be all for DFAing him and eating the contract to move on and find a better solution.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Yeah, DFA him so we can find a "better" solution like Broussard or Botts
I think the options that are or have been available shows the fallacy in creating more roster flexibility. So we can sign stiffs like that? That’s just random desperation.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd say we're in a desperate situation
We should be looking for young power hitters as much as we can. I know Broussard isn’t young, but he’s better than Ross Gload. Botts should be the kind of guy we should be taking a chance on, not over the hill Ross.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Those desperate moves are pointless and short-sighted
Start DFAing guys so we can add more castoffs who aren’t young enough to be real prospects anymore? Botts really, really stinks. He’s a waste of time and would be a waste of space on the roster. Broussard is very Gload-like. He hasn’t been better than Gload for at least two years. Broussard can’t hit anymore and he’s only a few months younger than Gload.
We’re working on building a contending team in the future. So there is no need to eat 1 2/3 years of contract money in the hopes that we can get lucky with some worthless MLB castoff. If we were a contending team who really needed an upgrade this year to help get into the playoffs, then sure, go for it. But we’re not in that situation.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't see the downside
Try guys out, why not? What do you have to lose? Nothing. You’re already paying the money. It is a sunk cost. Play the best available. We know what Gload is. And he’s not even doing what we thought his limited skills could bring to the table. So try someone different.
Keeping Ross Gload simply because he has a two year contract instead of looking for someone who might possibly be an upgrade is the same justification Allard used to keep playing the rotting carcass of Angel Berroa.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Dumping a sunk cost and losing a player so that we can try out someone else who doesn't appear to be any good either?
It’s called wasting money for no good reason. Botts and Broussard stink. At this point in their careers, they are no better than Gload. If there was an option out there who might genuinely be better than Gload, go for it. If the only other option is more sub-mediocre Gload-types, then don’t bother. Th downside is wasted money, and for no good reason.
is the same justification Allard used to keep playing the rotting carcass of Angel Berroa.
It is nothing at all like that. There were lots of options out there which were clearly an upgrade from Berroa. Hell, any slick fielding SS was an upgrade over Berroa, regardless of hitting. And there’s always an abundance of easily obtainable good fielding, light hitting middle IFers out there. There is no parallel between the situations.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
It is wasted money already
Because Gload isn’t producing. The money is being spent regardless of whether Gload is on the team or not. The only difference is whether or not you want to have him on the roster or not. The only downside is not having the services of Ross Gload anymore. With the way he’s playing, and even considering what he’s capable of, I don’t think that’s much of a loss.
The small chance that someone like Jayson Botts or Chris Shelton or Ben Broussard could outperform him is worth it. The downside is small – losing out on Ross Gload. The upside is you find a guy who, given another shot, turns into a useful MLB player.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 31, 2008 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Somewhat ironic I suppose
When Ross was 27, the age Botts is now, he had very much a Jayson Botts-type career. Great minor league numbers, hadn’t done much in limited time in the majors.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 31, 2008 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
If I thought any of these guys had a decent shot of being an upgrade, then I'd DFA him
There really is no reason to believe they would be an upgrade, and therefore no reason to dump him and get zero value for the money the Royals are spending on him. Picking up more MLB refuse isn’t the answer.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 31, 2008 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Apparently you wanted German or Grudz off of the team so that we can sign some of the available FA stiffs
So basically, quickly make a move in the hopes that one of these pieces of crap can get the Royals out of its slump. In a rebuilding year, I’d much rather get maximum trade value than move them quickly so we can sign some Gload-like stiff like Ben Broussard. This isn’t a contending year, so Moore shouldn’t act like we should be contending. He should continue to build for 2009 and beyond. And he is.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
like above, just saying
you are right, all 4 points are bad roster positions for the royals, but in all 4 cases, it is b/c we don’t have good alternatives
Reply
-Doing a foolish thing that a lot of others do is is a sign you don’t know what you’re doing
Apparently it is a sign that just about every GM doesn’t know what he’s doing. How many teams have gone with an 11-man pitching staff for more than a couple of weeks this season?
-Gload is a roster glut that prevents us from going out and getting another 1B or seeing what we have in Ryan Shealy. He is completely unnecessary
Gload isn’t preventing us from acquiring anything. He’s only preventing us from acquiring someone if you think Moore thinks he’s a good 1B and should be the 1B of the future. I don’t think there is anything to support such a contention. Moore couldn’t fill every hole on this team. There are only so many FA’s, talent and money to go around. Gload is filling space until we get the real deal. He is “blocking” Shealy, if you can call it that. But based on how Shealy has hit in the PCL this year, I can’t say that he’d be any better.
-If you’re going to acquire Callaspo, you should be prepared to move German or Grudz.
I Moore is.
You should be prepared to trade German for next to nothing. Holding onto marginal players in the hopes of reaping top value while clogging the roster in the interim is what bad teams do.
That’s nonsense. What benefit do you get from giving away German or Grudz for next to nothing? Opening up roster space for some AAA stiff like Aviles? There is no downside from this “roster clogging” of which you speak. It is only a problem if good players are being blocked. They aren’t. Giving away decent players who have some trade value is what stupid GM’s do.
The good teams know when to cut their losses, DFA a player and move on to assemble the best 25 man roster they can. Look at all the decent players that have been DFAed this year. German is no better than them. You have to unclog the roster.
When you’ve got a better option to replace a player, then it can make sense. The Royals have no such options. Are you talking about Shealy as this good young talent that is being blocked by the horrible “roster clogging”? I don’t know that he’s worthy of many MLB at bats, but after German and/or Grudz is traded, the Royals can call him up and give him 2-3 months of AB’s. Problem (if there is one) solved.
-It didn’t make sense to sign a guy with the same skills as Buck. Tupman would have served fine as backup catcher.
The other FA options were not better choices. Tupman would have been a much, miuch worse choice. He’s a crappy 30-year-old piece of organizational filler. And Olivo fills the need this team had for a DH against LHP. Adding Olivo helped the team, it was cheap and it is only a one-year commitment. Zero downside to this move.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
If this is about adding a third catcher, then I’m just speechless.
I would pay money to see this.
(winky face)
(I know, I know, sextuple secret probation for me. I’ll be in the corner with a copy of Joe Morgan’s Baseball for Dummies and Emmy-Winning Broadcasters)
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on May 30, 2008 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
From the Star article
“The Royals will need to make another roster move today to add Peña to the 25-man active roster.”
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Rotoworld suggests that Olivo will be fulltime DH
so Hillman won’t have to worry about not having a backup catcher if Buck should get hurt.
Doesn’t solve the problem of who is going to be dropped…German? A trade maybe?
Could easily be Grudz to the DL
He is having back problems. Hopefully this 3 catcher thing won’t last long.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe Buck's arm is dead
have you seen his throws lately. I would have to agree with you on Grudz makes more sense with the Aviles call up too. They shoul play Olivo at 1b if they can. Buck calls a better game behind the plate.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
Buck has yet to throw out any runner attempting a SB this year
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
it would be ridiculously retarded to make him the DH..
he is an outstanding defensive catcher and throws out a lot of baserunners.. including Carlos Gomez TWICE yesterday.. buck has yet to throw out anyone
Yasuhiko Yabuta is to Major League Baseball as Drew Carey is to The Price is Right
He has a good arm...
He seems to bat the ball around quite a bit from what I’ve watched.
Is it just me
Or does it not make sense at all to make a claim on a backup catcher, while letting guys with some power like Jayson Botts and Ben Broussard go unclaimed? Not that I think that either of those guys are great, but keeping Olivo at DH and putting one of those guys at DH seems smarter than signing Pena as a backup catcher, and moving Olivo to DH.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
At least Pena fills an area of need in the organization
We don’t even have good backup catcher prospects in AAA. Botts and Broussard are Gload-like crap (or worse).
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Royals ERA
when Buck starts at catcher: 4.17
when Olivo starts at catcher: 5.48
per Press Pass…interesting.
I have many leather bound books...
Yeah...but Buck also caught
all three of Bale’s starts, so there.
Anyway, point taken, meaningless stat, I thought it was interesting more because of the difference in arms…I would have thought it was lower with Olivo because of his CS%. I guess that is meaningless, too??
I have many leather bound books...
No, CS% is not meaningless
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think it is very complicated
Catchers don’t really have an impact on the ERA of the pitchers they catch for. But catchers do have a lot to do with whether base stealers successfully steal bases against them.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but if CS% IS meaningful
it would stand to reason that a catcher with a higher CS% helps lower pitchers ERAs, no??
I have many leather bound books...
Yes it helps, but it is a pretty small element in all of the things that affect runs allowed.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
CERA is a meaningless stat
There’s been a lot of research to support this, and some threads discussing that on this site within the last month.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Brayan Pena
Is not a good catcher prospect. He is the same as Matt Tupman.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
He's like Tupman, but two years younger and with better stats
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Pretty marginal difference
Adding a player that is pretty similar to one we already have and adding him to the big league roster. Not sure I get it. I can kind of understand if he was in Omaha, but the three catcher roster? I guess that’s one more thing Dayton brought over from Atlanta. I hated how the Braves did that.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not defending putting him on the 25-man roster
That makes no sense. But let’s be honest and tell the truth about him. He’s better than Tupman. Better and younger. It makes sense to add him to the organization, but not to the 25-man roster. Hopefully this is a very short-term experiment.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not crazy about Olivo as DH but neither Botts nor Broussard is the answer
Botts cannot hit major league breaking balls and makes so little contact his minor league walk rate will not transfer to the majors.
Broussard is essentially the same player as Gload—almost as old but just swapping a few points of OBP for a few points of SLG. Broussard is also a butcher with the glove.
Basically, I disagree with the assertion that if a player isn't very good, then DFA him
How does that make sense? DFA him so we can go out and sign a similarly not very good player like Botts or Broussard? Now that is desperation. And I don’t see how signing one sub-mediocre journeyman to replace another helps the team any.
I probably disagree with you.
I agree
Given that Gload’s already signed (and it seems everyone is on board with saying that he shouldn’t have been, at least not for two years), I think that any potential improvements made by getting rid of him and replacing him with Broussard wouldn’t be enough to offset the remaining money on the contract.
The separate issue (although equally moot given that Gload’s already signed) that is more interesting is what options there might have been in the off-season. Personally, I think Broussard would hit better, although it’s true that he’s not great on defense. Zips does have both Gload and Shealy (!) at 5.2 RC/27 as opposed to Broussards 5.1. That’s a pretty small different, and I still think Broussard would hit better and provide some power, and can play outfield just as badly as Gload, and might have come cheaper. But not a huge difference. (And, yes, I know that projected RC/27 isn’t the greatest comparison tool. But it means I don’t have to use my brain or calculator).
One interesting thing is that Zips has Shelton at 5.8 RC/27! I actually am surprised more teams didn’t take a chance with him as a bench guy, despite his struggles, given a pretty good minor league record and good streaks in the majors, as well as surprisingly good defensive metrics that went against expectations. Again, it’s probably irrelevant at this point, and it’s not like it would have made the Royals contenders. Just throwing it out there.
One problem with using Zips: they project Aviles at .250/.285/343. II think they accidently subtracted .75/.100/.200 from that.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on May 30, 2008 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Chris Shelton
Another player I would have liked to have taken a flyer on.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions
And he also would have been a waste of time and a waste of roster space
There is a reason that every MLB team passed on him when he was waived this offseason.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it was a mistake
Still think he has power to offer.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 30, 2008 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
If he has MLB power, he's certainly been hiding it well
And it has completely evaporated in Texas, a great hitting environment. If every MLB team’s talent evaluators passed on the guy, that’s got to tell you something. He’s a 28-year-old player with “old player skills.” All he has is some power. He has no other skills to fall back on. Those players tend to deteriorate early and quickly. It looks like that is happening with Shelton.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Nearly everyone passed on Jack Cust
And Carlos Pena. And Raul Ibanez.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 31, 2008 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions
No, that's not true
Teams kept picking up Cust and Pena and Ibanez. These guys were never out of work. Someone always picked them up. And for every Cust there are dozens of no-name losers who failed. Bringing up the exceptional case proves that it is the exception to the rule. Adding more late-20’s, early-30’s crap is a waste of time.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 31, 2008 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Shelton
Isn’t hiding power, he just doesn’t have that much of it. His IsoP is .140, which is actually pretty decent for a guy who you’re saying is a waste. He also has a .342 OBP despite only hitting .206 in 63 ABs. And also, that’s a rather small sample size to say that Shelton is not going to be able to bring that BA up.
What does this mean for the Royals? Zip. Shelton does not have the upside-even if he gets his average up to .270-where it’s worth giving him a starting job. We already know he wasn’t that much of a hitter for a first basemen. Shelton might not be done, but I don’t think he’d help the Royals much. He looks more like a platoon NLer to me.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
At the risk of getting reamed out
I agree with the points about the limitations of guys like the 28 year-old Chris Shelton, even if I tend to think he wouldn’t be a bad risk for a team looking for a one-year deal for a first baseman.
But these points against Shelton also serve pretty serious indictment of 32 year-old Ross Gload’s 2-year deal. I realize that no one here is (as far as I can tell) defending the deal, just thought it was interesting. If one holds that giving Broussard or Shelton a one-year deal is pointless, what does one think of a two-year deal for Gload?
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on May 31, 2008 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn't like Gload's 2-year deal
But Gload has been better over the last two years than Shelton, and I think Broussard too. Until this year, Gload could usually be counted on for a high 700’s to low 800’s OPS with good 1B defense and some ability to play a corner OF position. He’s underperforming this year. He may do it again next year. I think the two-year deal was a mistake. I thought so at the time.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 1, 2008 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions
OK
I knew you didn’t like the Gload deal, so I guess my post was redundant. Despite the the recent numbers, for different reasons (not worth getting into here, especially since you didn’t like the Gloal deal) I think getting Broussard or Shelton for a 1-year stopgap would have been a better idea, but what’s done is done, and the difference is probably negligible anyway. I have my (probably crappy) reasons, but it’s not worth quibbling about.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 1, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting pick up...
He’s hit at every level in the minors, but has just never had a chance to start…He doesn’t have horrible MLB numbers either
I hope this only lasts as long as someone is on the DL
...and then he gets outrighted to Omaha.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on May 30, 2008 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
One factor we're forgetting here...
Grit…Catchers are always a source of high-quality, high-quanity grit…and with Grudz decomissioned, Pena fills the grit void
I just ran the numbers...
Pena has a .286 EqGrit…Not bad for a guy his age
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
