User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.3770 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
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.
1. Halofan Posted: January 17, 2009 at 07:41 AM (#3054221)The thinking may be that if they decide to hold Elvis down in AAA for a month or two, they don't want Young to suddenly have to move to 3B without having played there since spring training.
I'm not arguing that the underlying plan is a good idea -- there doesn't seem to be any reason to think Andrus's bat is ready, and Vizquel's bat is long gone -- but this may be their rationale.
Also, if you're looking for a tutor for young Andrus, who better than Vizquel?
Oh, I know that's what their plan is, I'm saying it's ####### stupid. As I posted when he got the extension, that was a horrific decision. As I posted when this 3b thing came up earlier this week, that's a bad decision, moving him for Andrus this year, to 3b, with that contract. He *has* to play short (or second) to even have a chance of justifying those dollars. He won't anyway, but still. So now, on top of those decisions, the decision is to sign 52 year old Omar Vizquel so that if Andrus isn't ready, they can still keep Young at 3b.
"I plan to break my leg by falling down the stairs. I might fail to break my leg falling down the stairs, so before I throw myself down, I'm going to buy a $900 golf club to swing at my legs after I fall, even though I have a lead pipe sitting right here."
I agree with most but not all of this. The extension was bad -- check. But it's now a sunk cost. If their best current option (factoring in offence/defence/$$) is to put Young at 3B and player X at short, they should do this even though Young would be a horribly overpriced 3Bman as opposed to a merely overpriced SS. That said, I'm not convinced that Young at 3B + guy who can't hit at SS really is/was there best option, given the presence of Davis and Blalock on the roster who can play 3B. It seems particularly ill-considered when the SS who (probably) can't hit is a 20 year old top prospect who is being rushed to the big leagues before he is ready, possibly setting back his development.
I can't really defend this move because Vizquel projects to hit slightly better than random, reasonably talented high schooler, but I'm rooting for him anyway. I want to him to keep it up.
This all raises the question of why the Rangers would award him that contract, but if he's never not going to be a Ranger, he needs to be a Ranger playing a position where he can contribute defensively.
Someone who can hit. Everyone says Andrus is big-league ready with the glove. It's the bat that's not ready. So hire someone who can hit for Andrus and stay in the game at short. Mentor as a hitter? Eh. One presumes they have coaches and instructors for that.
Young's contract is what it is. The amount of money he's making shouldn't dictate where you put him on the field. The contract was a big mistake, but keeping him at shortstop, or moving him to second base (where he'd also be a defensive liability) and shuffling Ian Kinsler around, because you feel like you have to justify the contract would just be compounding the mistake.
The Ranger infield of the future has Kinsler at 2B, Andrus at SS, and Young at 3B. Get Young at 3B now, so when Elvis is ready, he can step in.
This is one case where the amount of money he's making should impact where he plays in the field. Maximize his value as much as possible and hope someone jumps. What's the big rush for Andrus?
I could see arguments both ways. Basically, do you want to risk screwing up the star young guy, or do you want to risk making the old guy an even less attractive commodity than he already is?
I'm not sure myself, but I do think it boils down to that question, which of the two "true" 2B you want at 3B.
For as long as you've lived in Ranger Neighborhood, you can't find it surprising though, can you?
Know they've got a stable full of rejects, out-of-shapes, journey filler, and prospect busts
Know they're playing in a bandbox
but replacement level is nudging their pitching stats
just can't be that bad
and with their d, can't even discern who's good (gallaraga, volquez, danks)
Right.
Finding the right position for a player is important - it's not a matter of placing someone as far to the right on the defensive spectrum as possible
Agreed.
which your opinion here seems to risk endorsing.
I'd say I would give a guy a legit shot at as far right as he can get, yeah. Sometimes you have to just give up and shove an Ortiz at DH, of course.
I agree that no other GM is going to believe that Young is a great defensive SS worth his salary. Which means TEX might as well move him off the position he can't handle and try to help their team.
Well, wait, this is my whole point. We know the Rangers will have to eat some salary basically no matter what, or whatever, doesn't really matter. But if you shove him over at 3b for two years, he keeps hitting the same way he does now, then he has to get *way* better defensively (innately or not) to make that part of it not a net negative. You're giving up the little chance you have that someone will take him off your hands, and in return for what? Omar Vizquel and maybe an untested 20 year old must get their ABs? It makes no sense. There's no driver for it, they didn't go out and sign a guy who is better than Young (ignoring salary), even!
For as long as you've lived in Ranger Neighborhood, you can't find it surprising though, can you?
A little. This is uncharacteristically silly and I thought that had gone a while ago and we were graduated up to making normal bad decisions these days.
If anything, the fact that Young is a bad defensive shortstop to me suggests that moving him off the position is likely to be a positive.
You're going to have to elaborate on that one.
I don't see anything in your statements that would rule out moving Young to 2B. Would you prefer that (and Kinsler, whom you're not trying to trade, at 3B)? Or do you just feel Andrus is not ready yet?
This won't be true in every time and place, and it will certainly vary greatly among particular third basemen and shortstops, but I don't see why a leftward move on the defensive spectrum should be presumed to be a net loss.
So we know that he'd be below average as a hitter as far as 3b go. We know he's a below average SS fielding wise. I'm just reiterating that he has to get better defensively the whole amount that he loses going from SS to 3b as a hitter. AL 3b last year went for a .768 OPS, fourth overall, in the middle of a tight bunch of DH/3B/LF, and behind RF and 1B. AL SS were good for .694, the worst by a considerable margin. Relative valuewise, he's got to pick up those 74 points with his glove, being better at 3b than he was at SS.
Of course 3b is easier, but I don't think it's that much easier.
I don't see anything in your statements that would rule out moving Young to 2B. Would you prefer that (and Kinsler, whom you're not trying to trade, at 3B)? Or do you just feel Andrus is not ready yet?
First, I'd make Andrus make it an issue in ST. If he did, yeah, I'd be better with Young at 2b. Though not much, as AL 2B were damn good last year.
That's future Hall of Famer Omar Vizquel to you.
And Vizquel was once traded straight-up for Yaz.
In trying to figure out what the hell you mean by this (still haven't), I discovered probably the best hitter of all time that I've never heard of before. Who was Reggie Jefferson and why couldn't he ever hold a job?
(In my defense, I didn't start following baseball until 1996...)
EDIT: I guess it has something to do with those wicked platoon splits.
That didn't work for A-Rod.
Year UZR +/-2004: -21 -34
2005: -27 -39
2006: -4 -10
2007: -10 -15
2008: -4 -7
By both UZR and Dewan's plus/minus, 2008 was Young's best defensive year at SS. If I remember my plays-to-runs conversions correctly, both metrics also agree that he's been about 6 runs below average per year over the past 3 years after being completely awful his first two years at the position.
I understand that if Andrus and Young are both playing, you'd want the better defensive player (Andrus, presumably) at SS. But I cannot see how it's beneficial to move Young to 3B at this point. They're skipping Andrus past AAA despite him being far from dominant in AA, starting his service time clock so early that they'll have to pay full price if they want him in their prime, and hurting Young's trade value.
If Young is a -6 SS, a rebound to his 2006-2007 offensive production makes him pretty much worth his contract.
(EDIT) Okay, you changed it.
(EDIT^2) Stop that!
If Young is a -6 SS, a rebound to his 2006-2007 offensive production makes him pretty much worth his contract.
Yes but if it helps the pitching staff and makes the defense better, isn't it still worth it? If Young isn't the 3B then who? Metcalf? Duran? I can see the logic in going with the future earlier if the alternative is another year of horrid defense.
I meant his 2006-2007 offensive production (~.350 wOBA, ~107 OPS+).
That said, if one believes the 2008 data Danny posted accurately reflects Young's D at SS AND if one believes that change will last, then moving Young to put Elvis Andrus at SS age 20 does not seem like a good idea. My assumption is that Daniels believes metrics that tell him either that Young was in fact a -30 type guy in 2008 or that he will be again in 2009.
Huh? Says who? And how far are you trying to take this? Should a guy have equal value whether he is at first base or center field? Third and short are somewhat similar, but they're not nearly clones, and this is the first I've heard this. Indeed the Neyer thread I referenced earlier was about the theoretical side of exactly this question, and I don't remember you saying this there.
Vazquez isn't with the Rangers anymore, and was horrific with the glove. Blalock isn't an option at third base any more -- his arm is shot. And Davis was a third baseman only in 2007. He played some third base in 2008, but wasn't good.
The Rangers made the decision that long-term, Young was going to end up at third base. Given that the Rangers expect Andrus up before the end of the 2009 season and playing shortstop every day, it makes sense to move him there now. They also seem to be committed to getting a good defense in place behind the young pitchers they are bringing up. Leaving Young at shortstop and putting Chris Davis at third base isn't going to accomplish that.
And this is fair. If I see that they are really committed to a sensible effort to upgrade the defense, especially if done so in recognition of the affect on the pitchers, I will accept taking value away from Young. But mark my words, going into Spring Training for 2011:
1) Michael Young will not be the starting third baseman. In order of likelihood: traded for almost literally nothing and the Rangers paid a big chunk of salary, starting at shortstop for Rangers, backup with Rangers, traded for good value, and finally, released.
2) 2-1 against Andrus being the shortstop.
3) 5-1 against a single pitcher that has not made his ML debut (so not counting Hurley) as of now being in the rotation at all. At best one or two will get a few starts. If there's one thing they can do, it's waste "a generation" of pitchers without ever giving them a real chance. They have a doctorate in the field.
4) Even odds that the starting third baseman is worse defensively than Davis or Blalock, negating any benefit.
Why won't Andrus be at shortstop in two years?
Why is it so exceedingly unlikely that Derek Holland, Neftali Feliz, Kasey Kiker, or Omar Poveda (to name a handful of guys who will start 2009 at AA or higher, and who haven't made their major league debut) won't be in the 2011 rotation?
Why do you put even odds at the 2011 starting third baseman being one of the worst defensive 3B in the majors?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main