Interesting logic, that. But good for AJax.

Good choice, zips has his OBP under .300.

I don't think he'll have a good year, but, if you acquire a guy to be your long-term answer in CF, and he's goes out and puts up a 339/413/554 spring line like Jackson has, I guess you got to give him the job to start.

I doubt they have a super long leash, but the other options aren't so great that giving him 6-8 weeks is a terrible idea.

“He’s the Opening Day centerfielder, and he’s going to lead off, and he’s going to get a good opportunity to break in. I feel real good about it. I’m very impressed. I like him a lot.”

It worked for Carlos Gomez.

It worked for Albert Pujols and Hanley Ramirez.

I just like it when clubs do things like this. They're often wrong, but it's always plausible that a toolsy kid has made a qualitative leap forward that scouts and coaches have been able to detect during preseason games and drills, and it's always cool when a kid pulls that off, gets recognized, and starts on Opening Day. That's old-time baseball, John McGraw ####.

Matt:

Actually, John would work with a young guy and ease him into the lineup. But he did like the kids

Was he Irish and Catholic?

Jackson as starting CF is probably fine but leadoff wouldn't seem the right spot for him. Put him down in the 6/7 hole where he can hack away and drive in some runs in lower-pressure situations while he's learning. And even if by some miracle the spring training numbers are "real", why do you want a 200+ ISO in the leadoff spot? (I know, lineup order doesn't matter much and it gets him more PAs)

leadoff wouldn't seem the right spot for him

I'm pretty sure somebody was talking about this on one of the Tigers' broadcasts this past week. IIRC, the logic is that otherwise you'd have to put Johnny Damon at leadoff, and he's not as fast. Perhaps it was Jim Price...

Yes, turn-of-the-1970s baseball is back in Motown.

Yes, turn-of-the-1970s baseball is back in Motown.

Dial it back to 1968 and you're onto something.

Yeah, I look at Jackson's stats and it seems like his best case scenario development path as a hitter involves him knocking in runs rather than being a table-setter.

It isn't like the Tigers actually have good table-setting options though. If Leyland was not fibbing, the 6-7-8-9 hitters will be Brandon Inge, Gerald Laird, Scott Sizemore and Adam Everett. That's just...

I just like it when clubs do things like this.

Yup, just as it would be interesting if the Mets decided they just had to have Mejia on the ML club and put him in long relief where he could break in slowly, build up arm strength, work on his secondary pitches, and probably provide at least as much value as if he was put in the frickin' eighth inning role.

If Leyland was not fibbing, the 6-7-8-9 hitters will be Brandon Inge, Gerald Laird, Scott Sizemore and Adam Everett. That's just...

...not quite as awful as Daniel Murphy, Jeff Francouer, Alex Cora, Rod Barajas, pitcher du jour.

...not quite as awful as Daniel Murphy, Jeff Francouer, Alex Cora, Rod Barajas, pitcher du jour.

Putting Cora in the lineup is pretty disingenuous (if Reyes was out for the year or most of the year maybe) and Francouer and Murphy are both likely to be better hitters than any of those Tiger hitters. Also Barajas and Cora are actually better hitters than Laird and Everett.

That leaves Sizemore who's best case scenario is around a .740 OPS and whose most likely scenario is around a .695 OPS.

So I think you're being a bit over dramatic with the Mets there.

So I think you're being a bit over dramatic with the Mets there.

You new here Voros? :-)

Yes, turn-of-the-1970s baseball is back in Motown.

Funny you should mention early 70s Motown baseball; there's a new book out on the 1972 Tigers that lost the ALCS to the A's in 5. Niche press. Here's the link.

http://www.amazon.com/1972-Detroit-Tigers-Martin-Half-Game/dp/0786448202/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269817331&sr=8-1

As to AJax, he's struck out once per 7 PAs in spring training 2010 as opposed to one in four last year. Small sample size, sure, but plenty of room for optimism. It's a key factor in where he's starting the season, that's clear.

Wow - many thanks for the tip, SBB. That remains my favourite boyhood team, even ahead of the 1968 World Champs. The A's were hated rivals for years afterwards.

You new here Voros? :-)

I didn't want to get snarky about it. :)

I had a chance to see AJ in Pawtucket 2 years ago and without knowing his history or stats -I think it was the last game of the season-He was clearly the most talented player on the field.Dominant. All everything. Defense. Wheels. He made plays.
I remember Craig Hansen getting tossed for something

That means you’ll be starting the season and your career when you step in to face Zack Greinke.

"Hey skip, any chance I can start the season the next day?"

It isn't like the Tigers actually have good table-setting options though. If Leyland was not fibbing, the 6-7-8-9 hitters will be Brandon Inge, Gerald Laird, Scott Sizemore and Adam Everett. That's just...

Yeah, as it is, Magglio will have to hit like he did in the 2nd half and Guillen will need to stay healthy (or Raburn hit as well as he did last year as his replacement) for them to be even a league-average offense. Damon should probably bat leadoff, move everyone else up a slot and stick Jackson after Guillen, though you still have four mediocre right-handed hitters in the 6-7-8-9 spots who will become anemic in the late innings when they inevitably see only RHPs.

hey, so it looks like it's not just the Yankee fans that believe in the hype of their prospect.

(having said that, A-Jax will now probably go all Hanely on us)

...not quite as awful as Daniel Murphy, Jeff Francouer, Alex Cora, Rod Barajas, pitcher du jour.

Putting Cora in the lineup is pretty disingenuous (if Reyes was out for the year or most of the year maybe) and Francouer and Murphy are both likely to be better hitters than any of those Tiger hitters. Also Barajas and Cora are actually better hitters than Laird and Everett.

That leaves Sizemore who's best case scenario is around a .740 OPS and whose most likely scenario is around a .695 OPS.

So I think you're being a bit over dramatic with the Mets there.

You're willfully ignoring the simple fact that, even if we allow your rather creative ommission of the pitcher, we are talking about a 1b, rf, a mi and a c on the Mets, and a 3b, 2 mi's, and a c on the Tigers. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the idea that 1b and rf are bigger bats than MIs and 3bmen, and your pretending that doesn't matter when you're watching players hit and evaluating them as hitters seems, I dunno, what's that phrase I'm looking for? "pretty disingenuous" of you to have omitted that from your comment.

Oh, and comparing Opening day lineups is "pretty disingenuous"? Spin much, my friend? :) Putting Cora in the lineup would have been pretty disingenuous if I had claimed this was the Mets season-long lineup, but I didn't, nor did I imply it. Choosing to take a remark out of context and simply making it mean what you want it to mean, is "pretty disingenuous."

Also Barajas and Cora are actually better hitters than Laird and Everett.

If by "better" you mean Barajas's career OPS+ is a single point "better" than Laird's, then you're technically correct, even while your remark itself is "pretty disingenuous", considering that that single point falls well within the margin of error for OPS+. We weren't talking about their skills overall, but Kennedy has been a much better player overall than Cora. He'll be cheaper in 2010, too. Maybe not for you, but that makes watching Cora hit, since there's no redeeming value to balance it, more painful than it would be to watch Kennedy hit in a Mets uniform.

That leaves Sizemore who's best case scenario is around a .740 OPS and whose most likely scenario is around a .695 OPS.

Why on earth would the "most likely scenario" for Sizemore's age 25 season be 30 points worse than the MLE for his age 24 season, particularly since the Tigers play in a slight hitter's park?

And, let's see, what did you leave out... oh! the pitcher! That was, um, pretty disingenuous of you, wasn't it? I was making the point that watching the given five "hitters" for the Mets would be a more appalling experience than watching the given four hitters on the Tigers. But you chose to leave the worst one, by far, out of your analysis. Pretty damned... creative of you.

You new here Voros? :-)

Kiss my arse, Walt. :) Let's see... in the last couple of weeks I've enthused over Familia's progress, mentioned I think Mejia has an excellent chance to develop into a top of the rotation starter, mentioned how the accumulation of fourth and fifth starters gives the Mets a ton of options wrt to structuring the pen and wrt to how the rotation pitches, and also helps them towards the postseason by helping them avoid blowouts, and described Murphy in terms only slightly less glowing than those used by Sam M., so please don't feed the meme.

(having said that, A-Jax will now probably go all Hanely on us)

Jackson doesn't quite have Hanley's tools, does he?