Royal Holes
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 12:38 AM EDT
231 comments
While reading some posts and comments about possible trades the Royals could make, I started pondering what the real holes are on this team which need to be filled (yes, I know that's what she said). Before I get into this, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about holes that should necessarily filled during the 2008 season and especially not for a mythical playoff push. These are holes on the 2009 team (and perhaps beyond) which need to be filled for the team to either get into contention or at least closer to it.
First, I'll start with the parts of the team which are NOT HOLES:
Starting Pitching - The Royals have a good top four in Greinke, Meche, Bannister and Hochevar. There is also quality depth for the near future in Davies, Rosa, Cortes and Pimentel. While I wouldn't expect any of that latter group to dominate in 2009, I'm confident that at least one of those pitchers would make a more than competent fifth starter. And then there's the possibility of Soria becoming a starter which could turn the rotation from good into great.
Relief Pitching - As with the starting pitching, the Royals relief corps has four very good pitchers in Soria, Ramirez, Nunez and Mahay. Any bullpen which goes four deep with good pitchers is a pretty damned good bullpen. And, despite the fact that some have struggled this year, there are some other decent pieces for the front end of the bullpen in Gobble, Yabuta and Peralta. The minors provides additional MLB-ready depth for 2009 in Neal Musser and Ryan Braun. Also, Tejeda and Bale could possibly contribute next year. And, if some of the top pitching prospects aren't ready to start in the majors, they could contribute out of the bullpen.
Long story short, the Royals pitching staff is stocked for the foreseeable future. Pitching is the area of depth from which the Royals could trade, not an area they need to trade for.
Catcher - John Buck has settled in as a league average catcher. While I'd love for the Royals to have an above average catcher (and to be above average at every position), this can't be considered a hole on this team. When there are other positions which are below average, upgrading a position where you have an average player can't be a high priority.
Second Base - Mark Grudzielanek has manned this position more than ably for the past three years. He has consistently provided the Royals above average hitting for the position as well as good defense. But his time with the Royals should be over either by the trade deadline or the end of the season. The Royals now have two potential second basemen of the future in Alberto Callaspo and Mike Aviles. Both project to fairly well for middle IFers with more than sufficient defense.
Third Base - Without getting into a long and potentially acrimonious discussion of the future of Alex Gordon, let's just say that he is and will be at least a league average 3B. No hole here.
Centerfield - This year, David DeJesus has done one of two things: either 1) shown that 2007 was a flukey down year and returned to a plateau of 2005-06, or 2) shown that 2007 was a flukey down year and had a breakout, taking his game to a higher level. In either case, he's an above average CFer both offensively and defensively.
Left Field - In the offseason, Dayton Moore wanted some corner OF power and signed Jose Guillen. Guillen has provided that and will be a fixture in the middle of the lineup at least through 2009.
And now to the HOLES:
First base/Designated Hitter - The Royals have a good, young, cheap 1B/DH in Billy Butler. He needs a partner who can provide at least league average production for those positions. Ross Gload isn't it. Even if his first three months of 2008 are just a slump, he's a below average catcher. With his poor 2008 season so far, we have to face the very real possibility that what we're seeing is a precipitous decline in his skills and, therefore, performance. He's a slap hitter and good defender. That might be enough for a middle IFer. That is woefully insufficient for a 1B/DH.
Shortstop - All acrimony and emotion aside, Tony Pena Jr. has shown that he is not a a major league baseball player. Mike Aviles is a below average defensive SS, but if he can be counted on to have an OPS roughly in the high .700's, that would be fine for the position. But I don't think we can count on that. I'm not counting him out at this point, but the track record for SS's following Aviles's carer path is very poor. What would be ideal is for the Royals to acquire a legitimate shortstop and then let Aviles and Callaspo compete for or share the second base position. Or, some combination of those three players could rotate through shortstop and second base. While it wouldn't be the end of the world, I'm not comfortable with standing pat with Aviles and Callaspo as the only options for SS and 2B.
Right Field - I had high hopes for Mark Teahen. But the power just hasn't come back. I still think he can and will be a .285/.360/.425 player for several years, but a .785 OPS for a corner OFer isn't enough. He might be able to handle CF, where those numbers would be acceptable, but I don't think Moore and Hillman would allow that to happen. What needs to happen is for the Royals to acquire a legitimate corner OFer and make Teahen a 4th OFer/supersub who can play LF, RF, 1B, 3B, pinch hit and pinch run. He would be the kind of player who gets quite a few starts when players get a day off or go on the DL and many AB's over the course of a season. That would be the proper level of exposure and best use of a guy like Teahen.
I would prioritize these holes/needs as follows:
1. First base/Designated Hitter - get the biggest bat you can find and, as much as possible, disregard defense
2. Right Field - get a big bat, defense should be a secondary concern
3. Shortstop - a plus defender would be nice, but he has to be able to hit some - an average shortstop bat would be fine
These holes could be filled by trade or free agency. In general, I would be opposed to making a trade which creates as big of a hole as it fills. For instance, while I have long argued for trading DeJesus, I think I've decided it would be a bad idea. Teahen hasn't improved enough defensively, so I think the Royals would not move him to CF if DeJesus were traded. Unfortunately, the starting CFer would become Slappy Joe Buntright (aka, Joey Gathright). And, unfortunately, he's proven himself as a way, way below average hitting CFer. Joey is no better than a 5th OFer who can pinch run and come in as a defensive replacement. Unless a DeJesus trade brings back a package which included a major league ready CFer, the Royals can't afford to trade him.
I also don't know that all three of these holes have to be filled in order for the Royals to contend, but two of them almost certainly would have to be filled with at least league average players for their respective positions.
While the Royals have a few players who are legitimate deadline trade possibilities (like Grudz and Olivo), none of them would be enough to land someone who could be expected to sufficiently fill any of the above holes. I think the Royals main trading chips which could be used to acquire someone to fill some/any/all of those holes are (in no particular order):
Mark Teahen Joey Gathright Esteban German Perhaps one of Mahay/Nunez/Ramirez Jimmy Gobble Joel Peralta Carlos Rosa Dan Cortes Julio Pimentel Blake Wood
Of course, in order to get a legitimately good young player or MLB-ready prospect, the Royals would have to put together a package of some of the above players. As you can see, this list is not full of stars. So trades alone aren't going to fill the Royals holes. In fact, I'd be surprised if more than one of these holes could be satisfactorily filled by trade. So a free agent or two will have to be signed to fill the other holes. But the Royals do have an abundance of good pitching prospects. Dayton Moore is correct in saying that pitching is the currency of baseball. Sometime between now and opening day 2009, it's going to be time to spend that currency.
3 recs |
231 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Good piece, but...
...I find, NYRoyal, your seemingly incessant focus on making Soria a starter to be mildly annoying/bothersome/irritating. Don’t mess with success. This one-to-one relation you propose between bullpen and starter success doesn’t just happen. The Ryan Dempsters of the world are the exception, not the rule.
Despite Teahan not being a good fit for the outfield, I don’t think we should trade him. After floating him all over the diamond, he is already--or is going to be—a great, Mark DeRosa-like supersub. Teahan should be a part of the core we keep.
Still, I agree with the core of your analysis. Something needs to be done about right field, shortstop, and first base.
PS – To Dayton, get Butler back up here immediately. There’s no reason to treat him differently than Gordon if we’re still developing players—-even if we happen to be winning a bit more this year. – TL
by timlacy on Jun 27, 2008 5:11 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I like how an offhand mention to something is an incessant focus.
I also like you cite Ryan Dempster, even though he was a starter for his first six major-league seasons (making a total of 156 starts for Florida and Cincinnati), then was hurt for a year, then was a reliever for three years, before returning to the rotation.
Soria was never a reliever before joining the Royals.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 7:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The "incessant" adjective...
...comes with a history. It was NYRoyal, I believe, who first advocated strongly for the move in a post in Feb. or March. And the advocation has extended to several subsequent posts. He knows I’m at least close to right, which is why he didn’t deny it below. – TL
by timlacy on Jun 27, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NYRoyal bringing up the idea
in Feb or March was not the first time it’s been brought up. A great many people think it’s a worthwhile idea and would love to see what the Mexicutioner could do in 180 innings.
It’s a legitimate argument, one which I subscribe to, and it’s not “incessant” unless the meaning of that particular has changed to “any idea for bettering the KC Royals.”
...ever think he might’ve taken the high road below?
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two things
1. NYRoyal, whose tagline was “I probably disagree with you,” take the high road? Um, he’ll reply if he thinks I’m offbase.
2. Am I the only one who doesn’t like the “Mexicutioner” tagline? It’s a big ugly, but maybe that’s the sliver of academic correctness in me. C’est la vie. – TL
by timlacy on Jun 27, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, never mind.
What NYRoyal thinks of your little adjective, I found it petty. Plenty of people have argued that Soria should be a starter, including me, and plenty of people have argued against it. No one’s incessant about it.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NYRoyal and Soria as a starter
I wasn’t the first person to bring up the idea of Soria in the rotation. It was discussed a great deal during the 2007 season by many Royals fans on this site, as well as by Dayton Moore and Bob McClure.
I guess it is ok for you to complain about my “incessant focus,” although I don’t think it is at all accurate. I don’t mention it any more than the “don’t mess with success” crowd.
I would suggest that the “don’t mess with success” people do some reading on the relative value of a SP vs. a closer. While the closer role clearly strikes an emotional chord with fans and it sure seems really important. Most of a closers’s innings aren’t particularly high leverage and aren’t anywhere near important enough to outweigh the value of the nearly 3 times as many innings such a pitcher would throw as a starter. In short, 180+ good SP innings are worth more to a team than 75 great closer innings. FWIW, the sabermetric research on this is unanimous and undisputed (and by that, I mean all of the sabermetricians agree on this point.
I want the Royals to get the most value out of their best players.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You say unanimous too often
In theory, with all things being equal, it is a great idea. Had Nunez stayed healthy this year, the Soria as a starter movement probably could have taken off.
Most of the plate appearances vs. Soria have been high leverage in his short MLB career, and there was nearly a 2:1 ratio of high and medium to low leverage TPAs against him last year.
What if the Royals are contenders in 2009-2011, as planned? Will their need for a closer diminish with more low leverage ninth innings? Joe Borowski faced 170 high leverage PAs, 55 medium leverage PAs, and 67 low leverage PAs last year when the Tribe won the AL Central. K-Rod faced 155/59/71 high/medium/low leverage PAs in 2007 when the Angels won the AL West. Papelbon faced 106/46/72 high/medium/low leverage PAs in 2007 on the stupidest team in MLB if the research you’re parroting is 100% true as you suggest. Joe Nathan had better than a 2:1 ratio of high & medium to low leverage TPAs against him in 2004. Mariano Rivera has also faced mostly high leverage TPAs in his career, with more than a 2:1 ratio of high & medium to low leverage TPAs against him. The research paper writers may have been in unanimous agreement about their conclusions, but where are the closers who spend most of their time in low leverge situations, I wonder?
The equally important question is who would close after Soria went to the rotation? Are you advocating paying for a “proven closer” or an Arthur Rhodes or Brandon Lyon? List your top 5 RP FAs to compete for the closer role. Maybe they’ll be more useful than Yabuta.
I was more onboard with the Soria as a starter deal when I first read about leverage and had heard that Soria has four pitches before that, but I can’t seem to find one closer with mostly low leverage situations. I don’t want Soria to be the next Scott Williamson, either. That’s a very real risk which you didn’t address. It would not be worth trying him as a starter were he to end up on the DL and not be able to perform either role well afterward.
In the real world, the question of whether Soria should be a starter or a closer is neither simplistic nor unanimous.
by Stat Ninja on Jun 29, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The sabermetric research on this is unanimous and undisputd
I’m sorry, but it is. If you can find some sabermetric research which shows that a great closer is more valuable to his team than a good starting pitcher, then please show it to me. I’ve looked and I haven’t found any. I’ve found quite a bit which shows the opposite.
The research paper writers may have been in unanimous agreement about their conclusions, but where are the closers who spend most of their time in low leverge situations, I wonder?
No one is saying that most of a closer’s innings are in low leverage situations. You certainly won’t find any comments from me saying that. What I have said is that closer innings aren’t as high leverage as many fans and broadcasters pretend that they are. While their innings are, on average, higher leverage than SP innings, the increase in leverage does not make the value of those innings (75 as compared to 180+) greater than the value of SP innings. That is why all of the research is in agreement.
The equally important question is who would close after Soria went to the rotation? Are you advocating paying for a "proven closer" or an Arthur Rhodes or Brandon Lyon? List your top 5 RP FAs to compete for the closer role.
The closer role could be ably filled by Ramirez, Nunez or Mahay. And Moore can easily find another middle reliever on the FA market (as he has found Riske and Mahay).
In the real world, the question of whether Soria should be a starter or a closer is neither simplistic nor unanimous.
Please don’t pretend that your analysis is “real world” and mine and that of the sabermetric community is somehow unrealistic. That’s a joke.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not unanimous nor indisputable
Here is one BP writer who was still advocating keeping Papelbon as a closer in 2006, including this quote:
In fact, in only three cases in baseball history has a pitcher thrown at least 90% of his innings as a starter following a year in which he accumulated at least 25 saves and had an ERA of 3.00 or better.
I remember Rob Neyer (probably my favorite baseball-related author, FWIW) writing in favor of converting Papelbon to a starting role as well. His pro-starter argument also assumed that he would be more effective than Derek Lowe, the last Red Sox pitcher to convert from closing to starting with very mixed results in each role. Anecdotally, I suppose that it didn’t hurt the Red Sox too much to have kept Papelbon in the closer role in 2007.
No one is saying that most of a closer’s innings are in low leverage situations. You certainly won’t find any comments from me saying that.
Your exact words:
Most of a closers’s innings aren’t particularly high leverage…
You see, all of those examples I cited did in fact pitch MOSTLY in high leverage situations. If you have examples of closers with mostly medium or mostly low leverage situations, then feel free to enlighten us with some real data. And then we could discuss whether the closer’s stats had been watered down by pitching in too many non-save situations.
Moore can easily find another middle reliever on the FA market (as he has found Riske and Mahay).
Are you kidding? Riske gave up an OPS over 1.000 in high leverage work last year and .802 for his career in high leverage!
He could easily end up with the next Riske, I mean Ricky, Bottalico or Arthur Rhodes or trade for another Octavio Dotel or move Carlos Rosa into the role and reboot this conversation all over again.
Besides, who would be left to relieve the so-called most important innings 6-8, if you believe all of that?
Please don’t pretend that your analysis is "real world" and mine and that of the sabermetric community is somehow unrealistic.
Wow, I didn’t realize it was me vs. The Sabermetric Community. All I’d done was point out a few facts: that closers often spend most of their time in high leverage situations; that there is more to the decision than leverage# x IP; that the replacement closer’s performance could outweigh the gains, especially if the converted starter ERA is worse than expected; that injury could be an issue; and that the results are not always as simple as expected. I don’t believe the intent of the researchers was to replace all other thought or to ignore all other factors other than x*IP=justdoit!, so you can stop defending them as though they are your backup band or fraternity brothers or whatever.
Do you know why Arthur Rhodes failed as a closer after excelling as a set-up man for so long? I don’t know that, either. I don’t know that any research done as to why so many closers weren’t able to get it done.
There is an underlying assumption by leverage that there is no skill involved between performing well in a high/medium/low leverage situation. Do any of these pitchers have Attention Deficit Disorder, I wonder? One of many ADD traits on various lists I’ve seen include the ability to focus in high-pressure situations, and many athletes have been diagnosed as having ADD. I don’t know what the science is behind that information, and it would be difficult to translate to baseball, but it suggests that a scientific basis for high leverage skill may exist. Interestingly enough, the stat which assumed that there would be no skill to performing in low/med/high leverage situations may prove just that over time.
by Stat Ninja on Jun 29, 2008 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Reply
Here is one BP writer who was still advocating keeping Papelbon as a closer in 2006
That has a lot to do with the particulars of Boston’s situation. He is used in higher leverage situations than closers. And the Sox get into more such situations (high leverage with the team winning) than a team like the Royals, and indeed probably more than any other team in baseball.
In fact, in only three cases in baseball history has a pitcher thrown at least 90% of his innings as a starter following a year in which he accumulated at least 25 saves and had an ERA of 3.00 or better.
I find it odd and interesting that you’d select this quote. This only goes to show that full-time closers rarely turn into full-time starters a year later. Is that supposed to be significant? No intelligent organization would take a full-time closer and his roughly 75 ip and make him a full-time starter the next year at 180+ innings. Increasing IP by that much would be criminally negligent and would likely lead to injury. Someone making the transition from closer to starter must be brought along slowly, increasing IP from one season to the next by roughly 30 innings.
Me: No one is saying that most of a closer’s innings are in low leverage situations. You certainly won’t find any comments from me saying that.
You: Your exact words:
Me: Most of a closers’s innings aren’t particularly high leverage…
Exactly. I did not say that most of a closer’s innings are in low leverage situations. I said that most of a closer’s innings are not in high leverage situations. There is something in between high leverage and low leverage, isn’t there? It would be pretty odd to say that there is no middle ground. In fact I think you recognize a middle ground by using BP’s “high/med/low leverage” trichotomy. For most closers, if you add the low and medium leverage appearances or PA’s, they are greater than his high leverage appearances or PA’s. Therefore, most of a closer’s innings aren’t particularly high leverage.
You see, all of those examples I cited did in fact pitch MOSTLY in high leverage situations. If you have examples of closers with mostly medium or mostly low leverage situations, then feel free to enlighten us with some real data. And then we could discuss whether the closer’s stats had been watered down by pitching in too many non-save situations.
Papelbon – low/medium 138 high 106
River – low/medium 2052, high 1911
Most of the plate appearances vs. Soria have been high leverage in his short MLB career
Do you even read the data you link to? Most of Soria’s PA’s have NOT been high leverage
Soria – low/medium 210 high 194
Other closers with more career low/medium leverage PA’s than high leverage PA’s
Rob Nen
B.J. Ryan
F. Rodriguez
The list goes on and on. You seem to be putting a lot on medium leverage situations. I wonder if you know what a medium leverage situation is. I’ll give you a for instance. According to BP, median leverage is approximately 1.66 (the higher the number, the higher the leverage). And the leverage for a typical 2-run save (starting the 9th inning, no one on base, 2-run lead) is 0.91. Even a 2-run save in the 9th isn’t very high leverage. It’s considerably below average leverage. So, for most (if not all) “medium leverage” situations, you don’t need your shut-down closer.
Are you kidding? Riske gave up an OPS over 1.000 in high leverage work last year and .802 for his career in high leverage!
Did you read what I wrote? You asked me who would close if Soria moved to the rotation. I said Ramirez, Nunez or Mahay. Then Moore could find another reliever on the FA market to take the newly opened up middle relief/setup role.
Wow, I didn’t realize it was me vs. The Sabermetric Community
Well, now you know.
so you can stop defending them as though they are your backup band or fraternity brothers or whatever.
No, I’m pointing to serious research which should be given more weight than the gut feelings of fans like me or you.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 30, 2008 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrelt;./4ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttp['=[]'
by Sean O Se on Jun 27, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i should never leave my keyboard open with cats around.
but i think Sebastian made a good point.
by Sean O Se on Jun 27, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to ask if you had a seizure or an aneurysm
But now that you mention it, I can’t disagree with anything Sebastian wrote.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The "incessant" adjective
also comes with a definition. Perhaps you could look it up, or I can save you the trouble: it means without cease. Not “frequently” or “every so often” or “when it’s relevant and appropriate”.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
"Soria was never a reliever before joining the Royals"
You’ve mentioned this a few times, but it is incorrect.
Soria spent time as both a starter and a reliever before joining the Royals, but was primarily used as a reliever.
In 2005, he pitched the entire year in Mexico and was usually used out of the bullpen. In 2006, he split the year between Mexico and San Diego’s Midwest League affiliate. In his time with Mexico, he was one of the league leaders in saves. Once he came to the Midwest League, he had 7 appearances on the year – all coming out of the bullpen.
To say that he was never a reliever before 2007 is utterly false.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on Jun 28, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was a starter and a reliever before
I see no reason there should be a dispute.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 28, 2008 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dispute or no dispute
I thought it should be pointed out that Soria certainly worked as a reliever before joining the Royals.
As for the above argument, I really don’t have a strong preference either way. I could understand trying him out as a starter, but I can easily see why we would keep him in the closer’s role. Win-win either way.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on Jun 28, 2008 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that he'll be successful either
way. Though I lean heavily towards making him a starter at some point.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 28, 2008 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A win-win
It would also be a win either way if Jose Guillen were a starting OFer or a pinch hitter. He’d succeed in either role. But in one of those roles, he’d help the team a lot more than the other.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Notion of Soria as a successful starter
is a bit wore out. His fastball is 90-91 coming out of the pen. What is it going to be after 3-4 innings? 85? He primarily throws only two pitches out the pen as well the fastball and the curve. While the curve is a nasty pitch we all saw what Posada did with it after seeing it a couple times. I know that is a isolated incident but I just don’t think he would be the same quality 3-4 times through the lineup and facing guys multiple (10+) times during a year.
Currrently he can get away with the 90-91 mph fastball (ala Hoffman) because of its location and the adjustment to his stuff from other pitchers who pitched previously (Ram, Nunez, Mahay) but I think he would lose some of that effectiveness over multiple outings because he would lose velocity and location as he wore down in an outing.
JMO but if Hoch (#2 or3) develops as we have seen glimpses this year, Meche (#2 or 3) doesn’t get traded and returns to ‘07 form which he seems like he is headed down that path. Greinke is a TRUE #1 and gets resigned, Banni (#4) pitches like he has done all year up and down but somewhat streaky consistent. Then KC is left with only a #5 open for Soria in the rotation with arms like Davies, Rosa, Bale (who I hate) more than likely all ready for ‘09 I just don’t see the value as Soria in the rotation. I know 180 IP is alot but I look at Soria’s 70 IP as far more valuable and I would rather run him out there every other night than Mahay, RamRam or Nunez even though I have confidence in them.
I think Soria should only be moved to the rotation if one of three things happens. KC loses Greinke to FA or trade, Trades away Meche or all three #5 options I mentioned above turns into Tomko jr.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on Jun 29, 2008 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reply
to myself. I know he has four pitches and can lean on the other two he doesn’t use much but we don’t know if those other two are as quality is my point.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on Jun 29, 2008 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He shows night after night that he has four good pitches
He has proven that they are quality pitches. All of the scouting reports and analysts I have read have referred to them as good pitches, not “average,” “developing” or “questionable” pitches.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My reply
Notion of Soria as a successful starter is a bit wore out
It’s worn out to the people who don’t agree with it.
His fastball is 90-91 coming out of the pen. What is it going to be after 3-4 innings? 85?
I would say that his fastball is more like 90-92, but that’s quibbling. Do other pitchers lose 5-7 mph off of their fastball after 3-4 innings? Of course not.
He primarily throws only two pitches out the pen as well the fastball and the curve.
He throws a lot of at least 3 pitches in every appearance, as well as a fourth.
Currrently he can get away with the 90-91 mph fastball (ala Hoffman) because of its location and the adjustment to his stuff from other pitchers who pitched previously (Ram, Nunez, Mahay) but I think he would lose some of that effectiveness over multiple outings because he would lose velocity and location as he wore down in an outing.
Like every pitcher, he would lose 1-2 mph off of his fastball going from reliever to starter. Considering that he doesn’t primarily succeed by use of his velocity, I don’t see this as a major problem. As far as your assumption that he’d lose a lot of velocity after 3-4 innings, you have no support for that. That doesn’t happen to other pitchers. Do you have some reason to believe that he has so little strength or stamina that he’ll lose velocity more than any other pitcher?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It happens to quite a few pitchers
Gil Meche throws in the mid 90’s at the start of games and throws in the low 90’s late in games. Its not if he can hit 90-92 mid-late in games but what he is consistently going to hit late in games the difference between 91 and 88 is a Huge difference to ML hitters. I do believe his stamina is up to par of a starter. He on more than one occassion has needed an extra (more than 1) day off when KC could’ve used him after throwing multiple games.
Further down he was compared to Maddux. I imagine because of his slower fastball and number of capable pitches. One of the differences between Soria and Maddux is the amount of movement on their fastball. Maddux fastball appeared to move anywhere from 6-8 inches lateraly, I might be wrong but I don’t see Soria with that much movement. I am not saying his fastball doesn’t have movement just not as much. I also don’t think Maddux would’ve had quite as much success with baseballs current focus on the strikezone. The late 80’s early to mid 90’s the Braves pitchers strikezone was often 6 inches off the outside of the plate. I think you see a little less of that today. Not saying Maddux still wouldn’t be good to great just not as good to great.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on Jun 29, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody loses 5 mph over the course of a game
It is rare for a pitcher to lose more than 2 or 3 mph over the course of a game. Many SP’s succed very well with a 89-90 mph fastball, particularly when they have excellent control and other plus pitches.
I do believe his stamina is up to par of a starter. He on more than one occassion has needed an extra (more than 1) day off when KC could’ve used him after throwing multiple games.
I assume that was a typo and you meant that his stamina is NOT up to par for a starter. Of course it isn’t at this point! No pitcher who is being used as a one inning only reliever is stretched out enough to have much stamina. But, if you stretch him out and start using him every 5th day as a SP, there is absolutely no reason to believe he won’t then have sufficient stamina to be a starter.
Further down he was compared to Maddux
They are similar kinds of pitchers, but I’m certainly not predicting Maddux-like success and multiple Cy Young awards.
I also don’t think Maddux would’ve had quite as much success with baseballs current focus on the strikezone. The late 80’s early to mid 90’s the Braves pitchers strikezone was often 6 inches off the outside of the plate. I think you see a little less of that today.
And, at the same time, the top and bottom of the strike zone are much larger than they were in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Back then, pitchers weren’t getting strikes at the belt, much less over it.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meche loses 4-5 his last 3 times out. Starts 94-95 and sits around 90-91 about the 5th inning. I’m talking where he throws the higher amount of fastballs. The Braves pitchers in that time period got their fair share of pitches at the belt and above. I should know I was at the Cardinals-Braves game the year McGwire hit 70. We treked all the way to Stl from Omaha just to see McGwire get run in the first inning for arguing a called strike three he took from Glavine.
One other thing this comment
That’s a joke.
Some of the people on here just spent the better third of this post ragging on a guy for calling your opinion as incessant and you break out your opinion of his analysis is a joke? Come On almost every time someone differs with your guys opinions it breaks out into this. I’ve been on here for the better part of a month and that is what I continue to see, whether it is the Aviles Debate, Soria Starter Debate or anything else.
IMO the Sabermetric community far underplays the psychological effect of the game. That is false players play this game and while you can roll all their stats in these nice time capsules every game is played one by one by each player. Could I tell you that Michael Jordan was gonna average 30 pts per game over a 82 game stretch yes, but is it gonna tell that in the important game of the NBA finals with a severe case of the flu he would rise above and drop 40+ NO. The saber-metrics of that would tell you he would score less than his career average because players as a whole play worse with the flu. Would it tell you that a dominant closer like Dennis Eckersley led A’s would have any problem with Kirk Gibson’s bad knees and watch the Dodger leave one in the right seats demoralizing that team and go on to a 4 game sweep. Only afterwards can they tell you anything. They aren’t predictors they gather info and spit out possibilities and in most cases they are wrong as much as they are right. Most players I’ve heard from deem dominant closers (which is what KC has) as pretty valuable commodities.
What do the stats say for a Closer vs Starting Pitcher(s) on a team that scores 600-700 runs, does that change anything? Or does it change at 750 runs? With most statistical curves there is breaking point at which it can be proven wrong. Based on KC’s performance of the past don’t they need to find that point and try to isolate it. Does the closers roll become more or less important then? How about for a team like the Cardinals? 18 Blown Saves would they trade Soria for Pineiro or Izzy first? Again IMO KC isn’t going to have a knock out drag out offense anytime soon so if that is the case Soria’s involvement in saving good Meche, Greinke and so and so games are more important than as a 4 or 5th starter. KC could easily have 8-10 more BS (that could be a low number) by moving someone average to the closer spot is Soria gonna win 8-10 more games in the rotation than a Davies/Rosa/Bale?
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on Jun 29, 2008 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Reply
Meche loses 4-5 his last 3 times out. Starts 94-95 and sits around 90-91 about the 5th inning. I’m talking where he throws the higher amount of fastballs.
No, you’re wrong. Go back through the pitch f/x data and you won’t find that he’s ever throwing his fastball consistently at 94-95. His fastball peaks at 94-95. That’s where the very fastest of his fastballs hit. In the early innings, his fastball is coming in at 92-93. By the late innings, he’s down to 90-91. His average fastball velocity drops by maybe 2 mph.
Some of the people on here just spent the better third of this post ragging on a guy for calling your opinion as incessant and you break out your opinion of his analysis is a joke?
No, I didn’t say that his analysis was a joke. I will direct your attention to what I actually said:
Please don’t pretend that your analysis is "real world" and mine and that of the sabermetric community is somehow unrealistic. That’s a joke.
What I said there was that his “in the real world” comment implied that his analysis was well grounded in reality and that my analysis (and that of the sabermetric community) was unrealistic. That notion is a joke.
IMO the Sabermetric community far underplays the psychological effect of the game
Perhaps they do. But at least statistical analysis deals with known, quantifiable variables. Taking psychology into account entirely involves guesswork. How important is psychology/mindset/attitude/etc. in the making of a good closer? We have no idea. I don’t know, you don’t know, Joe Morgan doesn’t know. So when we’ve got known quantifiable variables on one hand and mere guesswork on the other, I’m going to hang my hat on the former.
They aren’t predictors they gather info and spit out possibilities and in most cases they are wrong as much as they are right.
Their predictions based on that info that “gather…and spit out” have a much better accuracy rate than any prediction or projection system which is not based on advanced statistical analysis.
Most players I’ve heard from deem dominant closers (which is what KC has) as pretty valuable commodities.
No one is suggesting otherwise. Dominant closers are clearly valuable. Good starting pitchers are also valuable. What is being debated is whether a great closer is more valuable to his team than a good starter.
What do the stats say for a Closer vs Starting Pitcher(s) on a team that scores 600-700 runs, does that change anything? Or does it change at 750 runs? With most statistical curves there is breaking point at which it can be proven wrong.
I think the breaking point for this may have to do more with the run differential than with the number of runs scored. Perhaps with a run differential closer to zero (as opposed to +100 or -100) there will be a disproportionately high number of high leverage innings for a closer to pitch, thus increasing his value over the average closer. But that’s just a theory off the top of my head.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 30, 2008 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Theory
I think the breaking point for this may have to do more with the run differential than with the number of runs scored. Perhaps with a run differential closer to zero (as opposed to +100 or -100) there will be a disproportionately high number of high leverage innings for a closer to pitch, thus increasing his value over the average closer. But that’s just a theory off the top of my head.That’s exactly what I’m talking about where is the statistical analysis? Anybody can write that a starter who pitches 180-200 IP is more valuable than a guy that pitches 70 Ip. I would like to see where it shows a team that has a run differential in the +50-100 point(since KC is probably gonna be in that range). I think Total Runs would have to come in to play as well because you are talking 180-200 IP vs 70 IP and the run differential data would be too inaccurate to prove one pitchers performance.
As for Meche I would be interested to see his pitch data for his last 4-5 starts. He is consistently in the 94-95 mph range early (1st/2nd inning) in his most recent starts. His pitch data might be lower earlier in the year when he obviously had less velocity topping around 92-94 and pitching in the 88-89 range quite a bit.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on Jun 30, 2008 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not just NYRoyal
The Royals have been rumored to be considering moving Soria to the rotation as well. The contract stipulation about him being a starter is obvious evidence they are considering it. As well they should, 200 innings of Soria is more valuable than 70 innings of Soria.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 27, 2008 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Royals + NYRoyal + All goodhearted people
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
My use of the term ‘incessant’ by no means should be construed as a dislike by me of NYRoyal. His posts are generally thoughtful. He just has this one fetish about Soria, and it’s been backed up by team brass. – TL
by timlacy on Jun 27, 2008 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My "fetish" has been backed up by other fans, analysts, team brass (to some extent) and essentially the entire population of sabermetricians
It wasn’t even my idea. I just jumped on the bandwagon when it became evident what would be best for the Royals. Hell, I’m a relative Johnny-come-lately.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You fetishy freak
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I find, NYRoyal, your seemingly incessant focus on making Soria a starter to be mildly annoying/bothersome/irritating. Don’t mess with success. This one-to-one relation you propose between bullpen and starter success doesn’t just happen. The Ryan Dempsters of the world are the exception, not the rule.
I think everyone’s well aware of your feelings on the subject of Soria possibly converting to a starter, and no one’s calling your opinion an incessant focus or giving it any other somewhat insulting title.
I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: we debate a lot of topics on RR, and what can make these debates unpleasant sometimes is when people to use ad hominem arguments rather than actually debating said topic.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There you go with your big words again, nerd
What, are you trying to show off? We’re right back to anal goe again.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hey, didn't you read? no ad hominem remarks
you big turd brain
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
by buddyball on Jun 27, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me? Nothing, nothing,
just wondering why some people don’t seem to get the distinction between:
-Arguing reasonable opposing points-of-view
AND
-Deriding someone else’s reasonable point-of-view as inherently inferior with no real basis.
Ad hominem, tu quoque, antidisestablishmentintarinsm(who cares how you spell that), supercalifragilisticexpeallidoshus.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it must be people gearing up for the upcoming
election season.
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
by buddyball on Jun 27, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Claiming to find something...
...irritating does not constitute an ad hominem argument. It’s simply a statement of my emotional reaction to the proposition from NYRoyal, who has (at least) continually (if not incessantly) argued for Soria to be in the rotation. I’d say his expressions on that matter here at RR outnumber my comments to the contrary. Anyway, I like NYRoyal. It’s comforting to know that there are Royals fans in NYC! – TL
by timlacy on Jun 27, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I said,
attacking someone’s argument reasonably is fine, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to call someone else’s argument incessant and irritating just because you don’t agree with it.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soria and Teahen
I find, NYRoyal, your seemingly incessant focus on making Soria a starter to be mildly annoying/bothersome/irritating.
I find the placement of that comment as a response to this fanpost to be particularly odd. All I did was mention that Soria is a rotation possibility. Any analysis of the Royals starting pitching for the near future should include a mention that Soria is a possibility for the rotation. Like it or not, it might happen. As Retro pointed out, this is not just a creation of the fevered imaginations of fans. Moore and McClure have talked about that possibility more than once and then there’s his contract. It could happen, and it would affect the quality of the rotation.
This one-to-one relation you propose between bullpen and starter success doesn’t just happen.
I have never said that all or even most successful relievers would make good starters. I have never said that all or even most successful closers would make good starters. The vast majority of good relievers definitely would NOT succeed as starting pitchers. Most relievers are relievers because they have only one or two good pitches and/or inconsistent control. For instance, a great reliever like Mariano Rivera (even at his peak) would not make a good starting pitcher, because he has only one good pitch. As a closer you can ride one good pitch to a successful career. If that one good pitch is a great pitch, you can become the best closer in the history of the game. But if you had to go three times through a lineup with that one great pitch, you’re going to eventually get hammered.
Joakim Soria, on the other hand has at last 4 good pitches and pinpoint control. He, unlike most closers, has the pitch arsenal and control of a very good starting pitcher. He can add and subtract velocity and make every pitch move. He’s got several ways to get batters out and his pitches almost always go exactly where he wants them. He fits the perfect profile of successful starting pitcher. But you know what the best part is? If I and others are wrong and he fails as a starter, he can go right back into the bullpen with minimal harm done. There’s absolutely no reason not to try it.
Despite Teahan not being a good fit for the outfield, I don’t think we should trade him. After floating him all over the diamond, he is already—or is going to be—a great, Mark DeRosa-like supersub. Teahan should be a part of the core we keep.
If a guy isn’t good enough to start at any available position on the team, then he isn’t part of the core. Good bench players aren’t part of the core which should not be part of the untouchable core. As I mentioned above, he’d make a very good supersub, so he’d be very useful for this team. But, if you can use him as part of a trade which fills a position of need, then I wouldn’t hesitate to trade him. Filling a starting player spot is more important than keeping your supersub.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a thought: ...
...Doesn’t Maddux really only have one good pitch, his change-up/breaking ball. It actually acts like a knuckler. I thought of this in relation to your argument on Rivera (i.e. his superb cutter).
And, to me (to continue thoughts from earlier posts), being a closer is more about one’s mentality (i.e. Borowski) than the quality of one’s pitches. Borowski, Rivera, Hoffman, and Soria (I think) have a great bounceback/aggressive mentality that works well in the bullpen.
...I’m sorry the incessant part came at the beginning, creating the odd tone for my overall comment set. It’s just that you’ve been a high-profile advocate for Soria’s changing roles here. No big deal. As long as he succeeds in any role we need, that’s all that matters in the very end. – TL
by timlacy on Jun 27, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maddux
.Doesn’t Maddux really only have one good pitch, his change-up/breaking ball. It actually acts like a knuckler. I thought of this in relation to your argument on Rivera (i.e. his superb cutter).
Not at all. I, and I think most, would say that Maddux, even at his peak didn’t have any great pitches, but he had multiple good pitches. In that way, he profiles a lot like Soria (not that I think Soria would become as good as Maddux).
And, to me (to continue thoughts from earlier posts), being a closer is more about one’s mentality (i.e. Borowski) than the quality of one’s pitches. Borowski, Rivera, Hoffman, and Soria (I think) have a great bounceback/aggressive mentality that works well in the bullpen.
No one can prove or disprove the “closers have a special mentality” argument. I think there might be a small percentage of good relievers who can’t handle the stress of being a closer. But the reality is that many non-closer relievers face as many or more high leverage situations than a closer does. When a team gets in trouble with runners on in the 6th, 7th or 8th inning, they call in a setup man, not a closer (with the occasional exception of a closer coming in with 2 outs in the 8th). Setup men are the new firemen who come into the game in the highest leverage situations to put out fires. Closers typically have more 2-out, 3-out and non-save situation appearances than genuinely difficult one-run save situations. I don’t think those low leverage situations require a special mentality.
Being a good pitcher is much more about the quality of one’s pitches that about his mentality. Rivera, Hoffman and Soria are/where great closers because of their stuff and control. Borowski has only appeared to be a decent closer because of the Save totals. The fact that with his mediocre-to-poor pitching, he’s still been able to get saves just goes to show how easy it is to get a save. If you put even a mediocre pitcher into a closer’s role and hand him the ball in every save situation in the 9th, he’s going to rack up a lot of saves.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And then there's also the fact that Soria
is a freakin’ starter who we put in the pen to marinate while sitting through his Rule 5 year.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he wasn't put into the bullpen because he projects as a reliever
He went into the bullpen because the way the Royals acquired him required that he be on the 25-man roster immediately and pushing him right into the rotation would have been criminally negligent. He quickly rose through the bullpen ranks to the spot of the best relief pitcher. If you put most (if not all) #1 or #2 SP’s into a bullpen, they’d quickly become dominant starters. That is, I think, what we have now: a #2 SP who is sitting underutilized in the bullpen. It was a smart move in his Rule 5 season. It’s ok for now. But it needs to change, Joba-style.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you put most (if not all) #1 or #2 SP’s into a bullpen, they’d quickly become dominant relievers.
I fixed that sentence for you, since you’re not arguing with me, and I don’t want anyone else to get confused. ;)
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love or hate the Yankees
It’s been interesting how after Joba’s last few starts (granted, again NL competition) there have been less “Cashman is making a huge mistake!!!111” columns out there.
Hopefully the Royals will get to watch KCStar columnists eat their words in a similar manner in the next year or so.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have KC Star columnists come out against Soria starting?
JoPo made some cautious comments about it, and later clarified them by saying that he was just pointing out that it’s not certain that Soria will make a good SP, but that’s not a reason to try it. I read JoPo as kind of on the fence about it like a lot of fans.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
JoPo's opinion...
...mirrors mine.
On Joba, well, it’s too early to tell. I’ve heard tell he’s a “max effort” guy, so there’s some difference of opinion on his ability to be efficient and maintain consistency (i.e. through stamina). But I don’t think Joba’s situation compares to Soria’s. If anything, while I’m opposed for this season, I think Soria was a better chance to be a better starter for a longer period of time than Joba. – TL
by timlacy on Jun 27, 2008 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Teahen's power
Dude, he’s on pace for 17 homers, and that’s including that stretch of 3 billion AB without one. Don’t write his power off so quickly.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 7:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why dontcha try using baseball-reference for once?
It was 2.85 billion. Don’t sell him short.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
But even with his HR pace, his SLG is only .409. If he maintains his current IsoP and gets his BA back up to .285 (where I think it will be for most of his career, if not this year), that only takes his SLG up to about .440. I would argue that .285/.360/.440 (.800) isn’t acceptable for a corner OFer.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
You could live with that as long as Butler comes back and hits like he is supposed to, and we get another good option to put at 1B/DH. And .800 OPS would sure look good in the 7 spot in the lineup.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on Jun 27, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you say "his current IsoP"
do you mean his IsoP for the season as a whole, or recently? Because he’s not just homering more lately. He’s been hitting the ball hard all year, of course, but he was awfully snake-bit from Tax Day to Memorial Day. Lots of deep flies and line drives landing in gloves.
Which is to say, his IsoP is improving as well, so if his BA climbs, he could easily slide past .450.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean his IsoP for the 2008 season as it currently stands
He’s been much hotter power-wise recently. I hope it is part of a trend which takes his IsoP up higher. It will need to if he wants to get his SLG over .450, even when his BA comes up.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh,
but seventeen home runs doesn’t tell the whole story. As NYRoyal points out, that gets him to .285/.360/.440 which is nice, but not thrilling, and certainly not what you want from a power position.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Referring to it as a "power" position
over-fetishizes positional hitting. I agree that you don’t want to carry someone who’s grossly below average at his position, but you have to conclude he’s grossly below average overall, not just because you expect him to have power and he doesn’t.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, fine,
but unless Teahen really is improving quite a bit in other ways, his current IsoP leaves his ceiling at a little above average given his defense. That means we have to look elsewhere for centerpieces to the line-up. That’s not the case with some teams that have legit power threats at Teahen’s position.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I for one really hope
we don’t trade Cortes. NYRoyal do you have anyone in particular that you would like the Royals to make a run at to fill any of these holes? I know most people on this site seem to like the idea of trying to trade with the Dodgers for Hu.
by gordonrules on Jun 27, 2008 7:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't have any great trade ideas off the top of my head
I haven’t really looked into the needs of other teams and who might match up well. I still like Hu, but I think he’ll only be available if the Dodgers re-sign Furcal. If not, they need to keep Hu.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hu
I don’t get the infatuation with him. Most of his value comes from being a good defensive shortstop. I see him as a .280 BA/.320 OBP type with not a lot of power. That’s basically what Aviles will probably be with less power. So is giving up Cortes worth upgrading the defense and giving up some good power in the lineup? I dunno…
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on Jun 27, 2008 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think most project better hitting from him than that
I don’t think he’ll have major league power, but I think the he’d hit better than that.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've long been a Teahen critic
But do you really think the power is gone? He’s been hitting home runs lately. The SLG is low, but that’s largely a product of his low batting average. His ISO is a fairly respectable .153.
Now, I think he needs to improve. He needs to drive the ball more. He needs to cut down on his strikeouts and lift his average. But he’s slowly starting to turn things around. Don’t get me wrong, if he slumps in July with another homerless month and a .333 SLG for the month, I’ll have deep concerns, but I’m not fully convinced there’s no power there with Teahen.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 27, 2008 8:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just don't think he's going to show enough power to be an acceptable corner OFer
I really like Teahen and I have been a staunch defender of him. I wanted the Royals to show patience to give him a chance to show the power. He hasn’t shown much. I think he’s usually going to be a .285 hitter. With an IsoP of .153, that means a SLG of .438. I generously projected an OBP of .360 which would make his line .285/.360/.438/.798. That’s decidedly below average for a corner OFer.
But, while I did my “hole analysis” on June 26, the Royals really don’t need to until October. Teahen has the entire second half to improve his hitting. If that IsoP goes more than a little higher, Teahen can change my mind.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind, by the way
IsoP is NOT rendered in a vacuum. Not every ball that’s not falling in for a hit will fall in for a single. Many of the additional hits which come as a result of an increase in BA will be doubles; also, the increase in BA can be partially caused by balls leaving the park instead of falling short and settling into leather.
So if someone’s average goes up 20%, his IsoP should go up as well unless he’s Joey Gathright. (Probably not 20%, but not insignificantly.)
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very good piece.
I’ve thought for a while that our biggest holes to fill were SS and 1B/DH partner for Butler. With Aviles arrival and performance, I think this it gets a bit confusing. I, too, lean heavily toward still needing to get a SS that is average or better offensively and defensively.
Regarding Teahen, I like other posters, still have reasonable hope that he can be a productive RFer. I say give him the rest of the season of regular duty and then decide.
One question…is Pimental really that highly regarded?
Final thought…remember a few years ago when German was one of our best hitters but we couldn’t find a position for him to play regularly? I don’t want that to happen with Aviles.
I don't fight extra players.
by paleblueeyes on Jun 27, 2008 9:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pimentel
He is very highly regarded. He’s certainly not a top 100 prospect, but when I read analysts talk about the Royals good pitching prospects, Pimentel is always on the short list they mention. His AA performance has been inconsistent, but this is his first year at the level and scouts and prospect analysts love his stuff.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Teahen as a late power bloomer
I have always advocated trades in the past for either DDJ or Teah but I really have thought about it and taken a step back away from that. I look at DDJ performance currently and don’t think we could match a CF or corner OF for him without giving up one of our top pitching prospects (Rosa, Cortes, Wood, Pimental). I’m completely against that. Then I look at Teahen and his power recently and his body type and I am convinced he is gonna be a late bloomer power source. He has a big chest kind of gay I know but the dude looks like he is gonna get real big come his late 20’ and early 30’s. With his athleticism I think he might develop into a corner OF’r/1b that hits in the high 20 low 30 HR numbers. The only thing that will hold him back IMO is a longer type swing overuse of the opposite field. He and Alex need to almost work off each other Alex pulls too much and Teah goes to the opposite field too much. If Mark can pull (line drives/flyballs) a little more frequently he will develop that power.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on Jun 29, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When looking to fill the SS and 1B holes
won’t they look at the defensive combination? Will they want to put in a below average defender at both positions? One of the reasons Gload may be seeing regular time at 1B is that he is the most likely to dig Avilanche’s throws out of the dirt. If I remember correctly, Teahen struggled with a few of those and Ross has been at 1B ever since.
Nobody will celebrate harder when the Royals make the playoffs!!
by juano on Jun 27, 2008 9:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They probably won't want below average defenders at both positions
First, I don’t think any team should worry much about first base defense. It is the least important defensive position on the field, and one of the most important offensive positions. Second, if Moore acquires a SS, he will be at least above average defensively. I think you can bet your house/car/balls on that.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At first base, you need a thumper.
We should all hope that the FO doesn’t go crazy trying to go “Gold Glove or bust” at first. At short, I think the Royals would definitely would someone with a good glove.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Davies, Rosa, etc.
Either (as well as some others) would be more than acceptable as a fifth starter and probably above league average for a fifth starter.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jason Giambi?
This was brought up on Royals Corner a day or two ago, and I think it’s a fantastic idea. That said, if he keeps hitting like this (4th in AL OPS) then I’m sure NYY will activate his option for 2009. But, on the off chance it doesn’t happen, I think he would be the perfect choice for the 1B/DH role for a couple years at $15+ mill/yr or so.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on Jun 27, 2008 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's not insane, if he keeps it up
The Yankees signing Teixeira might play into the Royals hands, too, as they have other older guys who are gonna need to shuffle through the DH sport (Matsui—Giambi’s playing mostly first this year).
I must admit I’d be leery of more than one year for him, though, given his age and more frequent injuries.
I’d love so see how he fits into HIllman and Moore’s “clubhouse culture”
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meh
I see him dropping off pretty abruptly, and he’ll be expensive on a short term deal. Isn’t he pretty close to 40?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 27, 2008 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts
This is a good post, but I want to say it’s a bit depressing in one regard: These are the same holes we were discussing last off-season! Sure, Moore plugged one hole with Guillen, but for the most part, the work to ressurect the offense remains undone.
I will echo the sentiment about Teahen – the month of June has been very good (5 homers), so perhaps we should wait until the end of the season to see if the April/May stretch or the June stretch represents his true ability. If he were to hit 18-20 homers this season, given his age, I think he might be capable of settling in as a 20-25 homer a year guy, and that would not be a hole on the team.
As for Soria, I remain in the camp that says we should at the very least try him in the rotation. I just can’t shake the idea that his arsenal of 4 pitches, at least 3 of which are above average, might translate into a second ace to go with Greinke. Imagine a playoff rotation of Greinke, Soria, Meche, and Bannister! THAT’S how you WIN playoff series. When the offense is ready, go out and get the closer to replace Soria.
by loyal2sdad on Jun 27, 2008 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Might I add also
that finding someone who is good enough to close most save opportunities is much, much easier than a lot of people think.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the 2003 Red Sox only made it to the conference finals!!!111
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(slap)
If one more person seriously informs me that that was because of having no closer, I will put him or her on triple secret scissoring probation.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thank you, Dean Wormer
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
by buddyball on Jun 27, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't even try
I tried making Animal House jokes with him on almost exactly this same topic weeks ago, only to realize he was too young for Animal House (which also meant I couldn’t succeed with my “fat, drunk, and stathead is no way to go through life, son,” crack), which led to my wife having to keep me from lighting myself on fire.
I hate it when people are smarter, funnier, AND younger than me.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I should rent Animal House
so you all don’t feel so old. :P
I hate it when people are smarter, funnier, AND younger than me.
AND I’m popular, too!!!111onesixthreeseventeen
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't make me go all ad hominenny with you, sonny
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
by buddyball on Jun 27, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Put up your dukes
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Snyder and Wayne
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
by buddyball on Jun 27, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't Forget "Of
Earl”.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jun 28, 2008 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I few of my less stupid thoughts
Avilanche: I don’t know for sure, but I still tihnk Callaspo has shown more offensive potential, and he seems to be a 2B kind of guy. I wish they’d all the non-Grudz starts to him. What does this have to do with Aviles? Well, maybe he can’l handle SS. But shouldn’t they spend the rest of this season finding out for sure? I still think that, optimistically, his bat will turn out to be just above average for the position, but that becomes less of an advantage the further “down” (I can’t remember if left or right is better) the defensive spectrum. The Royals aren’t in a position yet to go nuts with trades to get someone obviously better at SS (with the potential exception of Hu), and unless they really think they can contend in 2009, they shouldn’t. So I say let him do it until he obviously fails. That will also free up time this year for Callaspo. And, for Pete’s (SQUAWK!) sake, if they really aren’t going to trade Grudz, I think it’s time to decrease his playing time for Callaspo and give the other starts to German to either showcase a bit or, heaven forbid, get someone into the lineup who can get on base.
1B/DH: The big name that gets batted around (chortle) is Adam Dunn. I know NYRoyals is into that, and I was going to post a discussion thread about it a few weeks back, but then got absorbed into the more important task of nicknaming and Rany-mocking. There are a lot of issue here that require their own thread. The issue isn’t so much whether he’s a good hitter who would be a massive improvement - well, some people seem to think he’s no Freddie Sanchez - but I think it’s clear that he would be. Even with his defensive inadequacies, if he’s average or just above considering both offense and defense, well, the Royals could USE a guy who is league average or just above at LF (assuming Guillen moves back to RF)/1B/DH to go with Butler and Guillen.
The whole concept of “overpaying” is complicated, too. The Royals plan for contention won’t even get off the ground unless Gordon in particular and also Butler can be average or just above for their positions while in their cheap years. So that has to be assumed. In short, it’s OK to “overpay” (whatever that means) for the positions of need when the others are filled by “cheapies.” Then the discussion turns to “how much is too much.” And it gets complicated. This is particularly so in Dunn’s case because of his not-quite-1990-Barry-Bonds level defense in LF, and non-Gloadesque abilities at first. And also his hitting style. Like I said, with the defensive problems, he would still be a massive improvement for the Royals in 2009, probably 2010, but beyond that? Hafner’s a different case, but here’s a guy who was, in my very amateurish opinion, who had better hitting skills than Dunn, and now looks like he’s done (groan). If Dunn wants a five year deal at $15 million or more, that might be OK for the Royals the first year or two, but if he gets to be below average (because of an offensive dropoff relating to his “old payer skills” and/or not everything pans out with the other players, the team could be Royally (angry groans, eyerolling) screwed.
My rethinking of the Dunn thing (from my initial unbridled enthusiasm to a much more cautious view) was motivated by this interesting exchange on Lookout Landing. Maybe they’re wrong in their evaluations, I dunno. But it’s well thought through.
I know that’s a disorganized mess, but that’s basically what I wanted to talk about in my never-done “Adam Dunn and His One Big Tool” post that may or may not happen now. It was gong to be my introduction of the “that’s what she said tag,” but that rat bastard NHZ ruined it anyway (sigh). (Or he said).
Who to trade: Not much to add here, other than concerns about trading away starting pitching depth for hitting (giving up as much as the team gains) can be mitigated by allowing Soria to move to the rotation.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 12:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, no you didn't!
but that rat bastard NHZ ruined it anyway (sigh).
Look, you just have to get over it and see other tags.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aviles and Dunn
The Royals should definitely let Aviles start the rest of the season (and almost exclusively at SS). And I agree that trade possibilities should be explored, but not forced. Hu and some other MLB-ready SS prospects might be gettable, but if no one is a good fit, then don’t overspend to force a trade. I put the SS need as third out of three because if push comes to shove, Aviles and Callaspo can handle SS in 2009, which probably won’t be a contending year. But whatever Moore does, he must NOT waste money on a veteran FA SS.
Dunn, I’m willing to pay him whatever the market requires (which probably means up to 5/100). One of the reasons I think this is doable for the Royals is that even if I’m wrong and we don’t get into contention in 2009-11, Dunn will be tradable. With salary inflation (which should continue into the forseeable future), $20M is going to become less money with every passing year. If we keep him for three years, we can flip him for the last two. Even if we give him away for peanuts, we can free ourselves of the money and spend it elsewhere. But the good news is I don’t think he’ll go for $20M per year.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But whatever Moore does, he must NOT waste money on a veteran FA SS.
I think Moore should sign BOTH Orlando Cabrera AND Edgar Renteria for next year and let them (perhaps literally) fight it out. It would also have the side benefit of finally confirming/disconfirming the possibility of human spontaneous combustion (“reports from New York today indicate that a male, late-30s, early 40s, may have exploded [beginning with the head] while watching SportsCenter…”). At the very least, we’d get to test, once and for all, NYRoyal’s alleged “absolute faith” in Moore. I guessing double murder-suicide.
Hey, a guy can dream!
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dayton Moore can do no wrong...
...unless he signs Orlando Cabrera or Christian Guzman. ;)
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
AND
washed up SSs are the currency of baseball!
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thankfully Guzman just signed an extension with the Nationals
We’re safe. For now.
by jsolo on Jun 27, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He signed it?
Awesome.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where does Bowden rank on the
“alternatives to Snakeskin Boots” list?
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty high
but the annoying thing is that he’s such a transactions packrat that he does something right every-so-often.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus,
the Nats have Ryan Zimmerman! Who will ALWAYS be better than Gordon.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
seriously?
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Though Zimmerman might always be a better defender.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
just got panicky for some reason. Don’t follow the NL like I should. I remember him having a good first season.
I wish that “stories” would get put in the right hand column. I was a latecomer to your Gordon “story,” and posted, but I don’t think, once “stories” get shoved down the front page, people keep up with those discussion. Anyway, here’s the non-jokey part of my post from that thread:
I don’t know what to expect of Alex Gordon. Maybe a guy who averages .275/.360/.510 with 25-30 jacks (and, if he keeps running, 10-20 steals) in his prime isn’t exactly A-Rod, and maybe some people got so worked up by the hype that they expected .300/.400/.580, 35-40 HRs, but, heck, isn’t the first option not so bad? Eric Chavez without injuries indeed!That kind of performance and improvement (.275/.360/.510) from Gordon would make him the best hitter on the Royals this year (unless you think Guillen can keep up the current hot streak… which would make him one of the best hitters ever. Maybe I’m just an bastard pessimist, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s unlikely), and probably next. If Butler has a similar developmental curve, then KC, with a smart free agents addition on offense or two (what that is a whole ‘nother debate) and the pitching keeping on, can definitely contend, I would think.
I guess the question for me still other there as to whether and when Gordon can reach something like the .275/.360/.510 level. I’m not saying I doubt it, I’m asking if that’s a realistic expectation for next year. Cause that would be cool, seriously.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well,
the cool thing is that he’s already hitting like against righties. And yes, I think he could come close to the numbers you’re posting there, maybe by next year if he can still seeing lefties better.
Something I neglected to mention to the extent I should’ve in that story-exclusive, everyone!-is that Gordon’s patience is completely intact in terms of walk rate and Ks versus lefties…he’s just not squaring the ball up and, ya know, hitting it well when he makes contact.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think his hitting vs. lefties will come around
I think very talented, multi-skilled players like Gordon usually improve their platoon splits. This is merely anecdotal, but Johnny Damon was dominated by lefties early in his career and then improved that greatly.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I need to some homework
on platoon splits early in careers and how they develop.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, there's lots of data out there, but I haven't seen any studies on the persistence of platoon splits
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thank whatever gods may be
One possible bullet dodged
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crap. He hasn't signed it yet.
I misread the news I was looking at. It’s been offered, but not signed. There is still time for him to end up in Royal Blue thus killing several innocent kittens across the Heartland and possibly cause Garden City to be absorbed into Colorado.
This is bad, Nats need to raise their offer immediately. $4 million/yr for a stiff just isn’t enough. He could turn into Neifi and be worth a power hitting corner OF in his prime.
by jsolo on Jun 27, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to believe Guzman
hasn’t snapped that offer up.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's waiting for $5 millon a year
and perhaps a side of Bryant’s BBQ. He’s been to KC before. He knows good BBQ.
by jsolo on Jun 27, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, shit.
Keep him away from our BBQ! (and our five million a year)
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Guzman doesn't accept that offer, he's an idiot
This is his shot to stay in the majors for a while longer. He needs to cash in now before reality sets in again.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Response
But whatever Moore does, he must NOT waste money on a veteran FA SS.
Agreed. Definitely agreed, the FA market is going to give Orlando Cabrera another silly contract, amongst other things.
With salary inflation (which should continue into the forseeable future), $20M is going to become less money with every passing year. If we keep him for three years, we can flip him for the last two. Even if we give him away for peanuts, we can free ourselves of the money and spend it elsewhere.
I’m guessing we’re flipping him for his decline phase? My ONE concern with Dunn is that he profiles as I guy who could suddenly go all Travis Hafner on you on never come back.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Um...
for some reason all the text on my screen got RRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEALLLLLLLLYYY small and I couldn’t see the reply link. Bad trip. Bad trip. Your own stupid fault.
Anyway, this is response to NYRoyal’s post responding to finger infernal’s post.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hafner
Whatever happened to Hafner (some people think it has to do with a couple of beanings last year, or the shoulder), if it is a decline, I sort of see Dunn as even scarier that him, because Hafer was a guy who made a lot more contact than Dunn. In other words, Dunn doesn’t have “as far to fall” or whatever.
Of course, he seems to be more athletic in general than Pronk (that’s what makes the whole situation so depressing—“Pronk” is one of the best nicknames ever), and injury-free, relatively speaking. I’m just trying to clarify my point about “old player hitting style” above.
What did you (or anyone) think of Lookout Landing’s take on Dunn?
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your Lookout Landing link is actually a link to the Aviles nickname thread
...you narcissistic bastard.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Muahahaha!!! Just shoving AVILANCHE in your face!!!!
or I’m just an idiot who can’t copy-and-paste properly.
Here’s the Lookout Landing Discusion of Dunn (I hope).
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their discussion of Dunn
First, I think it was a little defense-heavy. Particularly if Hillman is willing to freely use a defensive replacement behind him, I’m not too worried about his defense. This team needs hitting desperately. And I am worried about his old player skills and the decline curve of guys like that. But I’d like to see some comps which had careers like his and suddenly turned to crap. I keep seeing names like Kevin Maas and Ben Grieve and they just aren’t comparable to Dunn. Dunn has been a consistently good hitter (good OBP and SLG showing excellent plate discipline and power) through age 28. No drop off, no decline yet. Kevin Maas had a brief flash at age 25 and fell off the cliff immediately thereafter. Ben Grieve peaked at 24 and declined precipitously thereafter. Hafner is a potential cautionary tale, although their career paths were, as has been mentioned somewhat different. I’d like to see some more comps before I jump off the bandwagon.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comps are not pretty
But I’d like to see some comps which had careers like his and suddenly turned to crap.
Dale Murphy
Richie Sexson
Greg Luzinski
Cecil Fielder
Gorman Thomas
Roger Maris
Jeff Burroughs
Bobby Bonilla
Boog Powell
Carlos Delgado
PECOTA projection for Dunn over the next 5 years has him as essentially an average hitter for a 1B/corner OF by the second year of his next contract:
age 29 28.2 VORP
age 30 23.5 VORP
age 31 21.5 VORP
age 32 19.4 VORP
age 33 11.2 VORP
by Gopherballs on Jun 27, 2008 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A VORP of 20ish+ for four years
I’ll take it, and since it requires giving him a 5 year contract, I’ll do it even though h won’t be very good in that fifth year.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Paying $20 million per year for a 20ish VORP would be a disaster
$20 million per year only makes sense if the player produces near an MVP level (60+ VORP), not like Garret Anderson.
by Gopherballs on Jun 28, 2008 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple things
First, his next PECOTA projection is going to be bumping those VORP estimates upwards. Dunn just keeps raking. Second, paying $15-20M per year for a guy who will give you a total VORP over 4 years of 95-100 is worth it, considering salary inflation which is going to hit yet again. Remember how much Hunter and A. Jones got? Salaries are just going to keep going up. You can’t evaluate contracts based on the markets from 1-3 years ago.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
has there been anything written, whether from an statistical standpoint or not, on the effect of the decline of the U.S. dollar (general inflation, not just baseball salary inflation) on baseball salary trends? At this rate, in 4-5 years $20 million U.S. won’t be all that much, comparatively speaking.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 28, 2008 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I know for certain is that teams and agents take this into account
The value of $1 decreases every year because some level of inflation occurs every year. I’m sure every team has financial consultants who project inflation so that they know value of every contract and every offer in real terms. And agents have the same kind of information. One of the reasons contracts are often backloaded is because of inflation. If a player is making the same amount of money every season, he is taking a pay cut every year in real terms.
Teams and agents also take into account the very particular inflation in player salaries which baseball experiences. But, of course, that inflation is more speculative and less consistent. But it goes without saying that salaries for any and every type and level of player are going to be higher 4 (or even 2) years down the road than they are now. And considering the huge revenue increases which every team is experiencing, one should expect significant salary inflation every year for the foreseeable future.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 2:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adam Dunn is currently 77th in VORP among hitters (15.7)
He finished 36th in VORP among hitters (again, no pitchers) in 2007 (45.5).
He finished 104th in VORP among hitters in 2006 (23.5).
He has no defensive value (he would cost 15-20 runs if he played LF). And projection systems like PECOTA project a significant decline (if not an outright collapse like Delgado or Sexson) over the next five years.
Seriously, this is the guy you want to make the third highest paid player in baseball (behind A-Rod and Santana, tied with Manny) by paying him $20 million per year?
Not even Weimer Republic inflation could make that salary look good.
by Gopherballs on Jun 29, 2008 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be surprised
if the PECOTA projection wasn’t re-vamped a bit after this year.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
He keeps postponing the expected early decline.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PECOTA seems to be getting him right so far
His 2007 VORP was 45
His 2008 PECOTA projection was 39 VORP
His 2008 VORP is 17 (on pace for only 34 VORP).
by Gopherballs on Jun 28, 2008 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And this is rec'd...
why? I’m quite aware PECOTA’s pegged him well. It’s just that another successful year will lead the projection system to back off his decline happening so quickly.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 28, 2008 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I share that concern
It just isn’t enough of a concern for me to not want him signed.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Dunn for three years being good and bad for two >>> anyone we have now in terms of power of the same span.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then it will be Kila Kaaihue time!
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More likely it will be Hosmer time!
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could handle that
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It had better be
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As an alternative to signing a bigtime 1B FA
Does anyone know how Kila Kiaahue projects in the majors? He’s destroying AA in what I think is a pitcher’s park. What about a Butler/KIla 1B/DH combo?
by jsolo on Jun 27, 2008 1:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Kila
The positives are that he’s absolutely mashing in AA with both power and plate discipline. The negatives are that at 24 he’s a little old for the level and hadn’t hit well in the minors until he repeated the level. That isn’t the usual profile of a good prospect. But, he could go all Mike Aviles on us (but we shouldn’t expect the exceptions to start becoming the rule). Even if Kila does develop, I think he’s going to take at least two years (and perhaps three) in Omaha before he’s ready for the majors, meaning he wouldn’t be ready to fill a hole until 2011.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe by 2011 the announcers would learn how to pronounce his name!
by jsolo on Jun 27, 2008 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It will take 5 MLB seasons before other teams announcers and the idiots at ESPN would learn how to pronounce it
I would guess that it is pronounced:
Kah-ah-eee-oo-ay
And that is one of the coolest names in baseball.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's no Shooter Hunt
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 27, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
or Rusty Kuntz
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
by buddyball on Jun 27, 2008 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Close
Should be KEE-ah—ah-HOO-ay, with that middle pause more pronounced.
(I had an ex who was, despite being totally Scots-Irish, a native Hawai’ian who never set foot on the mainland until college. Was interesting.)
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes that sounds better
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tell you what
I cannot WAIT to hear Jon Miller pronounce it, because you just KNOW he’ll pronounce it “correctly”, only with so much over-exagerrated emphasis on the pauses and semi-glottal stops that we’ll be rolling on the floor.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I love his over-pronounced names
And then he pauses after over-pronouncing as if to say “aren’t you so very impressed that I hit all of the syllables right?”
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought it was more
“someone tell me I got that right, please”, but now that you mention it…
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get the feeling that Miller is usually/always very pleased and impressed with himself
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rescue the funky names from football!
I love football, but baseball is the greatest of all sports and needs more exposure. I would never be surprised to hear that name on an NFL broadcast, but some people will drop their beers when they hear it at the baseball stadium.
by BrRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone needs to introduce baseball to Samoa
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Closer
but the spelling is Ka’aihue (Kah-AH-ee-HOO-ay)
Its just easier to say KILA NOW!!
Nobody will celebrate harder when the Royals make the playoffs!!
by juano on Jun 27, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No I?
Then you would be correct, sir.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was right!
I must have a psychic connection with Kila, just like I do with Greinke.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or maybe you just ignored
the misspelling of his name up above. I took it for granted that it was correct. ;D
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Listen man, I'm psychic, period
You just don’t get it. But Zack does, and Kila too. I talk to them every night in my dreams. And then Shannen Doherty and Tiffany Amber Thiessen break into the dream and start making out.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you were worth anything
you’d have a psychic connection with Trey and tell him to stop doing dumb stuff.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 27, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well,
that stinks. It’s too bad they prevent you from talking to Zack and Kila.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 27, 2008 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It really isn't too bad
I kinda like it when the come into the dream. For some reason it makes me stop thinking about Kila and Greinke entirely.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 27, 2008 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I put the "i" on the wrong side of the "aa"
Damn these players who need to buy a consonant!
by jsolo on Jun 27, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Either way
He should be in Omaha as soon as Butler is back up. There’s no reason to see if this improvement for him isn’t real. Because if it is, and he goes to Omaha and hits .270/.400/.500…that makes our offseason so much easier with one less hole we MUST fill.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on Jun 27, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kila's line:
.284/.431/.567 and for those of you counting at home, that’s 50 walks and 17 HRs in 194 ABs/
by jsolo on Jun 27, 2008 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Priorities
I would see the priorities as being:
1. 1B/DH – same as NYRoyal
2. SS
3. RF
I think that getting a good shortstop (both defensively and offensively) would be a much bigger upgrade over TP Jr. than anyone possible at the moment over Mark Teahen. Teahen can hold his own at the plate. TP Jr. looks over matched every time he even thinks about getting into the batter’s box. Just my 2 cents worth…
by stlfan on Jun 28, 2008 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The only way I would tweak that
...is that an upgrade over TPJ isn’t the issue. TPJ isn’t going to be the SS next year under any circumstances. The issue is a middle IF upgrade over Aviles/Callaspo. The reason I put SS at #3 is because Aviles and Callaspo are decent players.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
how much is jason bay going to cost?
he’d give us a young RF, use Teahen/Butler at 1B/DH.
Frankly, if we get one more bat, we can deal with a strong defensive MI hitting .260 to go alongside Aviles with Callaspo as their backup.
by Bart41 on Jun 28, 2008 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bay is signed through 2009
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to get Bay
I wonder what the Bucs would demand in return? I wonder if Pittsburg would go for something like: Costa/Gathright/Gobble for Bay?
Under Pittsburg’s ancien regime they were the type of team that would have found Gload a very attractive player.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on Jun 28, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we could get him for a group of secondary players, I'd be happy to do it
But I think it is going to take more talent than that
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No need for a trade. The Royals can buy the talent on the FA market.
Rather than trade away a useful player like Teahen, Gobble, DeJesus, etc. I would rather the Royals focus on upgrading this off-season via free agency. There are some players who will be available who I would be happy to see GMDM spend some money on:
1B/DH – Mark Teixeira will be available. He will cost a ton, but he is damn good. I wouldn’t hate at all seeing Jim Thome or Jason Giambi brought in on shorter contracts.
SS – Rafael Furcal will be on the market. He would be a great addition. I don’t at all hate the idea of bringing in Edgar Renteria either.
OF/DH – There will be a nice free agent class this year. I would love to see the Royals throw money at Adam Dunn, Vladimir Guerrero, Pat Burrell or Manny Ramirez.
Anyway, the Royals have a lot of money to spend now. They can afford a roster payroll of $80M right now and are only paying $58M this year. That gives them $15-20M+ they can play with on the free agent market. What the Royals have in abundance is cash, not talent. I hope they buy talent rather than trade for it.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on Jun 28, 2008 12:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Royals can't afford to fill all of those holes through free agency
The $58M payroll is actually closer to $68M (I have a spreadsheet with all of the guaranteed major league salaries on it and it is up to about $67M right now). Even with the money coming off the books this year, they can’t afford more than one top tier free agent. You may think the Royals should be spending $90M+ in payroll next year, but that is unrealistic.
Teixeira would be great, but the Yankees #1 need is a 1B, so they’ll dump a ton of money on him. Do you think the Royals can outbid the Yankees on their #1 target? The Yankees will be happy to offer him 5/125 if necessary. The Royals can’t top that.
The problem with Giambi or Thome is that even if they’ll do a short-term contract, it would be a very big salary. If Geoff Jenkins gets 2 yrs/$14M, then Giambi or Thome will get more than $12M+ for a one-year deal.
Furcal would be a nice player to have, but someone is going to give him a huge, long-term contract. And I don’t think he’s worth that. Renteria is going to be 33 and is more likely to have an OPS+ under than 90 than over 100. He might be ok for a couple of years, but he’s also probably going to get a longer contract than that.
Vlad has a 2009 club option for $15M which will probably be exercised. I think Manny Ramirez’s option will be exercised too. Dunn and Burrell are good options.
The Royals will be able to afford one top tier free agent and a couple minor FA’s. So, in order to really fill those three holes, at least one significant trade will need to be made.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, Renteria has an $11M team option for 2009
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to Cot's the payroll is only $58M
which includes all obligations. Here is the link. And there will be no deadweight next year. This time out the Royals are still playing for Berroa.)
As of 2007 the break even point for the Royals was $80M. So $90M in 2009 might be a wash finacially. Anyway, the Royals certainly have $15M to spend, and might have twice that amount. So they can certainly sign one top tier free agent.
I think Furcal would be great at 2/$15M. I expect the Royals will need to pony up something like 4/$60M to get into the Dunn sweepstakes, but they can afford to do that and I think he would be a good addition. Burrell is kinda a wild card now. The real Vlad, Manny and Teixeira are long shots, but the Royals have the money to make runs at them.
The only player being hung out there for trade right now that I really would want to Royals to go after without second thoughts is Bay.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on Jun 28, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Payroll, etc.
According to Cot’s the payroll is only $58M
I think that figure is probably the opening day 25-man roster. It does not include all of the guaranteed money the team is on the hook for. While this is a couple of months old, it shows a complete breakdown of the Royals true, complete MLB payroll (each individual salary number is from Cots). A few minor changes have been made since then, but the overall number is close. The Royals are at about $67M right now.
So they can certainly sign one top tier free agent.
Agreed. So they can fill one hole through free agency. Any other holes would have to be filled via trade or not at all.
I think Furcal would be great at 2/$15M.
That would be great. But he’ll get a considerably longer contract than that, and probably at more money per year.
I expect the Royals will need to pony up something like 4/$60M to get into the Dunn sweepstakes, but they can afford to do that and I think he would be a good addition
Agreed. I’d love to get him for 4/60. But I think someone will offer him a 5-year deal.
The only player being hung out there for trade right now that I really would want to Royals to go after without second thoughts is Bay.
The problems are that he’s only signed through 2009 and he’ll be 30 years old next year. If we’re trading, I’d rather trade for younger players and/or MLB-ready prospects. But if we can get Bay for the group of mediocre players you suggested, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I just think it would take considerably more than that, even for a one-year rental.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm starting to wonder
where the “Aviles’s defense is not that good” is coming from. I’ve seen him making play after play at SS and even some tough ones. I was at the game last night and I thought his play at Short was well above average. I’m not saying he is a gold-glover but I think the way he has played has been more than adequate, especially when you throw in the way he’s hit the ball.
by I need more Esteban on Jun 28, 2008 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He does very well on the balls he gets to
He just gets to fewer balls than an average MLB shortstop. Defensively, his main problem is range. His secondary problem is his arm. His throws aren’t always as accurate as you’d want them to be, particularly when he rushes them. But his defense is acceptable for a plus hitter. If he can be a .800 OPS hitter, his defense is more than sufficient. If he’s a .725 OPS hitter, his defense isn’t nearly good enough. And if he falls somewhere in the middle, that’s where it gets interesting.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could agree with the range
but the Arm I’m not so sure I agree. I mean, yes, I did see a couple low throws early on, but lately I have seen him make more than a few pretty strong throws….now I’m sure you’ve read something that scouts say his weakness is range and arm so if that is the case then I will defer to the experts, but, I do feel like his arm is above average from what I’ve seen, which is just a fan’s perspective.
by I need more Esteban on Jun 28, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The arm issue
I think his arm is strong enough; the problem is accuracy. It’s not a major problem, but I think it is a minor thing which needs to be included in the mix of in evaluating his overall defensive skills.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a tough thing to figure out
But, assuming the Royals can’t pull off a trade for someone like Hu, Aviles is a better option, at least for 2009, than overspending for a washed up player like Cabrera or (shudder) Guzman. Or Renteria, for that matter. Furcal would be big improvement, but he’ll be too much money, I bet, for the improvement he would represent. I personally think he’s a bit overrated, too.
On Teixeira, but-he-loves-baseball” >Rosenthal reports that he and Boras want 8/$160. That’s a long-ass contract, but I’m curious, NYRoyal (or anyone else), because I think you said above that you’d be willing to go 5/100 for Adam Dunn. I’m with you on (all other things being equal) Teixeira is the better choice than Dunn given his skills and aging curves, etc. (I only recently realized, though, that Teixeria is only a few months younger than Dunn). But, while 8/160 is a big contract, it still comes out to 20 million a year, and if you think Dunn would be tradable after 2-3 years, I’m guessing that Teixeria is at least as likely to be. Continuous salary inflation also means the back end gets less onerous.’
So, if the report is true, would you be willing to go 8/160 for Teixeira?
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 28, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmmm
That’s a toughy. An 8-year contract would cover ages 29-36. So we’re talking about half of the contract term being in peak-plateau years and half being in decline years. If Dunn were signed to a 5/100 deal (which I think is his ceiling value-wise), then I think he would be tradable after 3 or 4 years significantly because there would only be 1 or 2 years left on the deal. So the risk for the acquiring team would be limited. However, after 3 or 4 years, Teixeira’s contract would still have 4-5 years on it at $20M per year. So it would basically be like signing a 34-year-old to a 4yr/$80M contract. Even with salary inflation, that’s a big commitment to a player into his declining years. I wouldn’t do it.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 28, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Where’s the disrecommend button?
I’m sorry, but he is NOT “not getting to” balls. Last night, on a hard-hit grounder up the middle which he tried to dive at and missed, was the first - FIRST - time I have seen him “not get to” a ball he had any business getting to, and even that was questionable.
This isn’t to say that he’s been a Hoover; there haven’t been that many balls hit in his general direction of late, which of course is why it looks like he gets to fewer balls than an average MLB shortstop. But if he should be getting to them, he has been getting to them.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 28, 2008 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sorry, but he is NOT "not getting to" balls.
I had to read this sentence 3 times to figure out what was going on. I should probably stop hitting the UMKC student union with my buddy Al so often. I should call him to see if he got home OK…
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 28, 2008 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course there are balls he's not getting to that an average defensive SS should get to
He handles the balls he gets to. But his range is clearly limited. I think it is at least a bit below average. And I think scouts and analysts would agree with me on that. It will be interesting what advanced metrics like UZR say about him at the end of the season (the sample size would be too small to be meaningful at this point).
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give me examples.
Seriously. I have watched all but three innings of every game since he came up save one, and I just have not seen him not getting to balls. At all. With the one exception I noted, there has not been one time a ball has been hit in his direction that he has not gotten to which he should have which I have observed.
If it’s happening, I’m not seeing it. Please tell me where you have, because if I am wrong, I’d like to know it.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 29, 2008 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How shall I give you examples?
A few games ago a ball went up the middle which I think a SS should have gotten to. There have been others. I have not cataloged them. It’s just my subjective opinion, which happens to be consistent with all of the scouting reports on him. Do you think his defensive skills have suddenly improved? Or were all of the scouts wrong about his defensive abilities?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I have not catalogued them"
And I wouldn’t honestly expect you to. The thing is, I’ve been watching him, specifically because he came up and somehow, someway, didn’t suck. So I wanted to pay close attention and see how often he didn’t get to a ball.
Am I saying he’s Ozzie? ‘course not. He’s going to start not getting to balls. He’s just not doing it yet, and he’s not doing it enough that I think it’s time we stop stating that he’s a bad shortstop as if it were a fact.
As for the scouts… let’s not pretend the scouts never completely miss. Hell, there’s this guy getting on a quick flight back across the state right now that the scouts thought wouldn’t ever amount to much. He’s only gone .300/30/100 seven seasons in a row.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 29, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scouting hitting is a much more difficult than scouting defense
Guys can destroy minor league pitching and never hit well in the majors. But defense is pretty constant. If you’re in your mid-twenties and you’re a below average fielding middle IFer in AAA, you’re not going to suddenly field better in the majors. Projecting hitters is very speculative. Fielding doesn’t even take projection. It is what it is.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently not.
You realize Brett was a butcher at third when he came up, right?
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 29, 2008 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was 20 years old when he came up.
Defense can improve significantly from age 20. Not so much from age 27.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever.
You’re not going to convince me that my eyes deceive me, and I’m not going to convince you of anything that involves what I see with my own eyes, so this isn’t going to get us anywhere.
But I still insist that he’s not a true liability at shortstop.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 29, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"happens to be consistent with all of the scouting reports on him."
that is a moot point when he was quoting past scouting reports. Aviles hasn’t shown significantly less range in any of the 20+ games he’s played at SS. If anything has lacked in his defense at the position it has been his arm which has been a bit wild.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on Jun 29, 2008 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
John Buck is definitely average at the plate...
but would it be too much to ask that he throw out a runner?
by True Blue Hawkeye on Jun 28, 2008 11:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
On the other hand
I bet he can hold onto the ball on a tag at the plate where the only effort to knock the ball loose on the part of the runner consists of “bumping into the catcher’s mitt”.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Jun 29, 2008 3:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would also look at his stats at throwing out runners throughout his career
His percentage this year is much different from the other years in his career. Overall, he’s been decent in that regard. We shouldn’t overreact to the small sample size aberration of his low percentage this season.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was three enough today?
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on Jun 29, 2008 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right about that
Depending on where you look, his career percentage sits at about 30%. But it’s hard to imagine him (or anyone, for that matter) improving that stat too much in the long run.
by True Blue Hawkeye on Jun 29, 2008 1:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And 30% is decent
I would argue that that percentage is about average for MLB catchers.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 29, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mark Teahen isn't that bad
I disagree with your points on Mark Teahen.
He has not been your prototypical 20-30 HR guy for a corner outfielder, but as long as we get the production from somewhere in the lineup, I don’t feel like it has to come from any particular position. Secondly, I would argue that Teahen has shown quite a bit of imrpovement this year (on pace for 16 HRs as well as a career high 64 BB compared to 122 Ks, second lowest in his brief career) Obviously, the Ks need to come down and the walks go up, but Teahen is putting together a marginal-to-decent season. Thirdly, he’s on pace for 240 total bases, which would be a career high by a comfortable margin. He’s not going to be Manny Ramirez, and I would argue the Royals would be hard pressed to sign/trade for someone who is going to be substantially better.
Other than that, I agree that 1B/DH and SS are our holes, my problem is you don’t build a winning team through free agency, you build it through the system. It takes longer, but that’s how it is done. When the Evil Empire in the Bronx was winning, it was with Bernie Williams and Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada, all players that were either drafted by the Yankees or acquired as prospects. A-Rod and Abreu and Mussina and all the rest of the $$ guys haven’t won it all. The FA acquisitions on those world series teams were more role players like Scott Brosious (with the possible exception of John Wettland, who I think was WS MVP). Free agency is important, but it is not the silver bullet.
by PowerCatScott on Jun 30, 2008 10:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
2009 FA OFers
Alou, Garrett Anderson, Milton Bradley, Emil Brown, Pat Burrell, Adam Dunn, Cliff Floyd, LuGo, Ibanez, Jacque Jones, Kevin Mench, Jason Michaels, Craig Monroe, Jay Payton, Wily Mo Pena, Manny, Juan Rivera, Abreu, Casey Blake, Brian Giles, Vlad, Jacque Jones, Bobby Kielty, Brad Wilkerson
All of them older than Mark Teahen and only Adam Dunn and Wily Mo Pena are under 30 and the last thing the Royals need is another guy to come in and strike out 150 times.
by PowerCatScott on Jun 30, 2008 10:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not this again,
striking out 150 times means nothing by itself. Nothing. If we signed Dunn and he struck out 150 times, but OBP .380 and slugged 35-45 home runs, I’d be thrilled.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 30, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The funny thing is
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about signing Adam Dunn - but people always bring up a reason that doesn’t matter - “he’ll strike out too much!” Not his defense or aging curve. I’m not saying the Royals shouldn’t sign him, but that people arguing against it so often pick the least effective way to go about it (like the Lookout Landing discussion, whether you agree with it or not).
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jun 30, 2008 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
If someone posted
I don’t want Dunn because I’m concerned he’ll go for about 15-20 million a year for five years or so, which will take us right into the decline phase of many players who share his statisical/scouting profile, thus saddling us with an albatross contract for the last couple years of the deal.
The only thing I could would be “good point, but I think it’s worth the risk.” But no, it’s the Ks everyone talks about.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jun 30, 2008 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That comment was directed more towards Wily Mo Pena than to Adam Dunn, but I still think Dunn is a bad sign (for this reason as well as the fact that he’s two years older and will probably make 3-4x as much as Teahen next year)
Adam Dunn (29).224 BA, .388 OBP, .518 slugging, 11 2b 0 3b 20 hr 48 rbi 42 runs, 1 sb 87 k 65 bb 5 e and 4 OF Assists this year and made $10.5 million last year.
Mark Teahen (27) .257, .339 OBP, 426 slugging, 13 2b 4 3b 8 hr 27 rbi 34 runs 2 sb 61 k 31 bb 2 e (only 1 in OF) and 3 of assists while making a whopping $416,000 last year.
Adam Dunn isn’t going to make or break the Royals being a contender in 2009 so we’re going to pay him upwards of $15 million to hit 14 more homeruns than Mark Teahen will hit for $500k? That’s 30x the salary for only a slight improvement in production.
by PowerCatScott on Jun 30, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That isn't a slight improvement
that’s a bif improvement.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jul 1, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Massive
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jul 1, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jul 1, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is what she said
I suck at posting today.
Anyway, by “bif” I meant “gigantic.”
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jul 1, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And by massive, I meant maffive
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jul 1, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with you
I think you meant “huge.”
(psst. I have to disagree with you for no good reason every-so-often so people won’t discover we’re actually the same person)
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jul 1, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You couldn't be more wrong
[is it any wonder that two people with similar sabermetric mindsets who read many of the same articles and research and similarly value that kind of research would often agree?]
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jul 1, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your analysis
is fatally flawed
[no, and FTR I recall well our duel-to-the-death over Gathright last year]
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jul 1, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been very schizophrenic on Gathright
I’m off the bandwagon for good now (I assume when we debated him, I was pro-Gathright?) He’s clearly a 5th OFer/pinch runner now. Not even good enough to be an able 4th OFer.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jul 1, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You were, indeed,
pro-Gathright. I think now he’s established, though, that 2007 was his “peak.”
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jul 2, 2008 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would tweak that slightly
...and call it an outlier. I haven’t seen him improve in his ability to get infield hits or bunt hits. And opponents have adjusted somewhat to him in that regard. No power, and not drawing many walks. He’s a good pinch runner and defensive replacement. It does look like his defense has improved, and he’s a decent base stealer, but that’s about all I can say for him.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jul 2, 2008 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
I’m really glad DDJ has come around this year, because watching Gathright start in CF would be…even more painful than watching Trey waste PAs on him now.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jul 2, 2008 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I stand by my theory
that, with TPJ on the bench, Gathright would be the “new” TPJ (i.e., target of justified fan ire, followed by claims about how valuble his defense/speed or otherwise overrated quality is).
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Jul 5, 2008 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gator's speed or defense
doesn’t make up for his crappiness in general. So I quite agree.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Jul 5, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But no, it’s the Ks everyone talks about.
K’s are just normal outs but Dunn’s stats in situations is bad now and gonna worsen as he gets older.
Career wise he K’s 26% of the time with Runners On Base/25% of the time when runners are in scoring position. Toss that in with his 54 GIDP and that means 28% of his career he has failed to help the team and hurt their chances of scoring. Those numbers will rise as he gets older. This is compared to Guillen’s 15% marks career.
Plus Dunn has always played in a hitter friendly park .
That is a lot of money that would be giving to a guy to fail 10% more than KC’s current highest paid player.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on Jun 30, 2008 5:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We should also take into account
...how good the outcomes are the other 75% of the time in runners-on-base situations. And we should take into account how well he does with the bases empty as well. No player comes without negatives. His 130+ OPS+ would be extremely valuable on this team. I’d take Teixeira or Burrell as well. But someone is going to outbid us for Teixeira, no matter how much we might want him. And Burrell has negatives as well.
For those who say no to Dunn, would you rather go with an older player with just as many negatives or turn your back on the FA class entirely?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 30, 2008 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
