Thursday, May 09, 2013
ESPN: Simon: Andrelton Simmons makes all the plays
(espn.go.com)
Entering Wednesday, Simmons had played 680 innings in his major league career and the Baseball Info Solutions (BIS) numbers have him with 30 defensive runs saved. He had 19 in 426 innings last season and already has a major-league best 11 in 254 innings in 2013.
For a little perspective, that’s an incredible number for what amounts to less than half a season’s worth of play. No shortstop has had 30 defensive runs saved in a full season since Troy Tulowitzki had 31 in 2007.
Simmons has been ...
Read More...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 6 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 >Setting aside that "at least not right now" is meaningless unless his feelings change hour to hour --
Am I correct that a player's 10/5 rights have no bearing on waivers? Assuming there's not much a chance in hell Dempster passes through waivers - the Cubs probably could just save themselves 6-7 million and Alexi Rios him. If Thed wanted to be an evil shite, they could explain to Ryan that if it ain't Atlanta, the roll of the waiver dice will determine his new home come August 1. Does he like Pittsburgh? Oakland? New York? Because it seems to me - he's not getting past any of those teams (among plenty others) if the Cubs just put him on waivers.
Now... I'm not saying that I'd do that - I would expect Dempster to be compensation eligible - so I guess I'd just take a sandwich pick, but I think that I would certainly threaten it.
But what it looks like here is that Ryan told the Cubs a trade to Atlanta would be ok, and now he's pissed because there was a leak and the clubs didn't properly come before him in supplication. Unless this is just some tactic where he's trying to get a multi-year offer out of Atlanta before agreeing to a trade, it seems very petty.
[Edit: grammar]
I think if they simply waive him, that's fine but I don't think they are allowed to get anything out of the deal. So if he just gets waived and claimed, that's fine. If he passes through waivers and then the Cubs engineer a deal at that point or they make a deal with a team that claims him on waivers, he would have the right to refuse it.
Given that presumably the Dodgers' offer is better than nothing at all the "evil Theo" plan probably would not make sense. Theo's got 7 days to get the Dodgers to up their offer or to get the Braves to McGriff him and give him a bunch of money to change his mind.
Dempster hasn't rejected it yet.
Jayson Stark is saying that there should be a resolution soon.
It's like the kids at my college who, first day they got there, said "the only reason I'm HERE is because I didn't get into Princeton." Oh, how nice for you!
Ryan Dempster told reporters Tuesday that he will take "much of the next week" to decide on a potential trade.
Great... because I'm sure Atlanta, given the increasingly iffy nature of their rotation, isn't going to move on to a plan B.
Despite my hyperbole on the other thread, I get that Dempster has a fairly negotiated right to veto a trade... and perhaps I might do the same in his shoes.
But at this point, if I were Thed, I might find a way to diplomatically (and I don't know how you do that, but hey -- Theo's the one with a shiny harvard MBA) let Dempster know that he's going to be somewhere else come August 4th. He can go to Atlanta now, or, we're going to pocket 6 million and just put him on waivers, letting the process fall where it will.
Then, if I were a player, I might suggest to my MLBPA rep that the next CBA ought to include waiver exclusions under 10/5.
I'm not on 'ownership's' side here - but I am on the front office's side.... and Dempster has already expressed a willingness to go to a contender. If Rosenthal's reporting is accurate, the Braves were -- at least formerly -- his second choice.
I hate taking management's side on virtually anything -- but this is still a business, and I don't think Dempster gave the Cubs a hometown discount.
Is there nothing of value that 6 million dollars buys the team? Apparently, the Ricketts are desperate for some Chicago assistance in Wrigley improvements.... How far does 6 million go in that regard?
I think this has to be at least somewhat resolved by the time Dempster's scheduled to start next (which somebody said is tomorrow?). Before then, there's absolutely no rush anyway, but when push comes to shove, do the Cubs start him tomorrow or try to give him another day or two if they can (although with Garza day-to-day, I don't know that they can)? And even if he doesn't hurt himself in his next start as a Cub, that's one fewer start he'll be available to either the Braves or Dodgers which could lower his value (albeit fairly slightly).
That said, this whole episode is what's wrong with journalism in the Twitter era and leaves a sour taste in my mouth for everybody who's been "reporting" and speculating and what-not (including myself).
Eh, if he pitches ok it will all be forgiven. Yankee fans seems to have gotten over Hiroki Kuroda rejecting a trade to the Bronx last year.
Carl Crawford and John Lackey didn't let the BoSox multiple musings on just letting Manny go via a waiver claim influence their decision to sign with Boston. Francisco Cordero didn't let the Jays letting the White Sox have Rios for the price of his contract impact his decision to sign with the Jays.
Come to think of it, I'm liking this idea if you can PROMISE it will impact FA decisions to sign with the Cubs!
This is a plan that I would expect from the worst GM in the game. Let's see, we'll publically humiliate a long-term, well-liked, high-performing veteran, with a sick kid no less, and in return we get ... what exactly? A public demonstration that they're not to be ###### with during the late-July deadline period? Gee, it's like there's no downside!
Is there any evidence of that? What MLB teams have a reputation of treating players badly, and thus have to pay more to acquire them? What MLB teams treat their players well, and thus get players to sign for less or equal amounts?
I thought the Cardinals treated Pujols like royalty, and he rewarded them by taking a higher offer. There is nothing wrong with Pujols doing that, but it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that the dollars offered will be determinative.
If there is an exception, it would be players' desire to get to media-friendly high exposure cities, but I cannot even back that up, for MLB.
You're likely to get more than $6M worth of whatever back in trade from the Dodgers, even if their package isn't as good as Atlanta's. That's why it's stupid and counterproductive.
Like I said - Boston all but publicly threatened this with Manny on several occasions before he was ultimately dealt. Didn't impact Crawford or Lackey's decision to sign with them!
A whole bag of 'em? Are they in a plastic bag all mushed together like chicken parts, or are they upright in a paper bag like baguettes?
The Pirates had a terrible reputation for the way they treated players during the Littlefield era, and as a result had trouble getting even garden-variety minor league free agents to sign with the franchise.
Maybe I owe McCoy an apology... if we still had Big Z, maybe Zambrano could set Dempster's locker on fire or something.... so the fiery Venezuelan actually had some uses after all!
You've got your cause and effect backwards there.
That's because Manny was regarded as a jackass who'd earned that sort of treatment, a rep that Dempster doesn't have.
Awww, you poor widdle thing. Someone get a binky for baby Sammy!
Actually, minor league FAs usually WANT to sign with losing teams, since losing teams have less talent separating the minor league FAs from the majors than good teams would.
Milton Bradley got run out of town, didn't stop DeJesus from signing here.
Carlos Silva was pissed about being released last spring - didn't stop Maholm from pitching here.
Hey - look - I'm not saying I'd do it... and if they did do it, it's like the FO needs to tweet "HAHAHAHAHA FU, RD!" when he ends up in Atlanta anyway... or Baltimore... or wherever. They can simply say "this was a very tough business decision. We wish Ryan well with his new club and hope that he can win a ring this year with them."
This (probably intentionally) completely misunderstands the Cubs' motives. They don't give a #### about the $6 million - they're not trading him away because of his salary, and at any rate he's performing to his salary level anyway. They're trading him away because of the return he'll bring in a trade.
Dumping him on waivers gives them nothing in that regard. It would be a pointless act, in addition to being petty and spiteful.
No; these are the Gil Meche/Jose Guillen type signings that have served the Royals so well.
That's not the way smart people run a ballclub. If you send him off on waivers, not only do you not get whatever prospects the Braves/Dodgers/whoever are offering, you don't get the backup plan prospects either - draft pick compensation.
Now you're really reaching, to the point where I think it's fair to say that you're being willfully disingenuous. As if every team doesn't have someone who's upset about being released.
I thought that a team claiming a player off waivers claims the right to negotiate with the player's team to acquire him. He does not automatically go to the team for free. I'm not sure if any of this changed with the most recent C.B.A., but it's worth reviewing the process considering that it's late July. I know I'm not clear on it. [ Edit: yous guys typed faster than I did, but I think it's still interesting to discuss the waiver wire process. ]
Thanks.
A no-trade clause can be used to override a waiver claim, and 10/5 rights are senior to a no-trade. Dempster appears to be holding all the cards here.
OK - I think it would be fair to say that Dave Winfield was pretty well liked and respected, no?
George Steinbrenner did one hell of a lot worse -- and more, and more often -- spiteful things to Winfield anything any other team has done to any player in my memory (at least, since Curt Flood).
Did the Yankees ever experience any blowback from this in their pursuit of free agents?
It would be a negative act for now; the question is the future ramifications. It is kind of like when Boras let J. D. Drew go play in an independant league rather than sign with a certain MLB club. It showed the rest of the league for the rest of Boras's career that he will shoot the hostage, if that is what it takes, and not to F*** with Boras. In this case, the next time that a player wanted to exercise his proper and lawful rights, when Theo reminded him that Theo could then exercise his proper and lawful rights, leaving both player and team worse off, the player would know that Theo would pull the trigger, and the player would relent.
zonk stipulated (or at least heavily implied) that the Cubs would release him for the cost of his salary.
He did? That diabolical...
Charles Pierce wrote yesterday that "always and forever, baseball management will mourn the death of the reserve clause." Apparently this is true of some fans as well.
In any case, your argument seems moot. It's far from clear that the Cubs are better off with their don't-####-with-us attitude than they are just letting Dempster pitch, if it came to that; the benefits you outline are extremely tentative and could easily backfire. And it doesn't appear that waivers work that way anyway for 10/5 guys, so it's a stupid plan as well as a particularly douchey one.
But other than that, good thinking, guys.
Yeah - 38 nails it... It's a reverse Boras. We don't want to shoot the hostage, but it's a threat that ought to at least be soft sold. Just like Boras in the Drew negotiations, we hope it doesn't come to that -- but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Hell - for that matter - if LA is the only team that Dempster will "accept" a trade to, perhaps this also gooses the Dodgers a bit... if Dempster becomes available in a week for anyone who's willing to shell out 6 million, then perhaps they get a bit concerned that a competitor gets to him first. Dempster has experience closing -- and last I checked, the Giants have some issues at the back end of their bullpen.
I have no idea - I was like ten years old back then.
Wasn't that around the time teams were colluding to hold down FA salaries?
But the equation of having a pissed off ("you just tried to trade me") veteran on your roster earning another $5 million to pitch for 54 games that will decide whether your team finishes in 5th place or 4th place, and whom you have no interest in signing after the year (all of which fits this Cubs situation), vs. just putting the guy on waivers, and saving the $5 million, seems to be a pretty close one, to me. Yes, the Cubs would be better if they could get rid of the $5 million salary burden and get Randall Delgado, but that may not be an option that they have.
First of all - it was MY plan! Not a collective plan.
Second of all, from what I can tell in the CBA -- the 10/5 would only apply if a trade were to be put together... Near as I can tell - and I'm far from certain - the Cubs could just do the screw job and get nothing back (except save 6 million). They just probably don't have any leverage to work out a deal.
Finally, I still come back to 38 -- Scott Boras is VERY good at his job. To some extent, it probably did cost him clients and there are also some teams that supposedly, will not negotiate with him... but he still gets clients and he still gets them really big contracts.
Nothing wrong with showing men of will exactly what will is -- Kaizer Sose taught me that.
They were -- but still signed the immortal Ed Whitson!
You're threatening to do something that cuts directly against the team's best interest. Not much of a threat. No player is going to believe a threat like that, even if it's true.
"Selling" an idea like that only underlines your lack of leverage.
LOL. That is all.
U
As I understand things, "trade" is mostly an informal word in MLB rather than an official one. I believe the formal word for all trades, waiver claims, etc., is "transferred," and when it comes to no-trade clauses and 10/5 rights, there's no difference between a trade and a waiver claim. Both are "transfers" that can be blocked by the player.
Page 1 of 6 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.