Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Saturday, March 27, 2004

Chicago White Sox

Acquired OF Timo Perez from the New York Mets for P Matt Ginter.

As chronicled earlier, the White Sox have a serious lack organizational depth in the outfield and while this isn’t quite the cleverest way to go about getting that extra bit of generic 5th outfielder magic, I don’t think Timo is as bad as he’s played at times with the Mets.  He’s essentially Marvin Benard without the steroids rumors.

Ginter’s strictly a middle reliever and will be league-average or a tad below for the Mets wherever he plays.

Dan Szymborski Posted: March 27, 2004 at 11:35 PM | 14 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. bhoov Posted: December 03, 2003 at 07:05 PM (#569079)
That projection seems very optimistic for Miles. He posted a .304/.351/.445 line at AAA at 26 y.o. and he's gonna have essentially the same numbers in the majors? I think ZIPS has a glitch somewhere. Or are the posted numbers still the original projection that is being discounted (.352/.436)?
   202. Walt Davis Posted: December 03, 2003 at 10:20 PM (#569080)
Ummm...you may have noticed that Mr. Miles will be (if he makes the team) plying his trade in Coors Field which I believe has been known to inflate a rate stat or two. I believe ZIPS is projecting actual performance, not park-neutral performance. Though in that case, it's a little odd that Uribe wouldn't drop off some -- I guess that he didn't because he's still in the development stage.
   203. bhoov Posted: December 04, 2003 at 12:26 AM (#569081)
Yes Coors will inflate rate stats. But does it essentially turn an average Major league pitcher into an average AAA pitcher? Or conversely turn an average AAA hitter into an average ML hitter? Maybe it does, but that seems a little excessive to me.
   204. Noffs Posted: December 04, 2003 at 12:32 AM (#569082)
I saw Miles in the AFL. I liked him. Remember that the Rockies have $10M to spend on 20 players, so they kind of have to do stuff like this.
   205. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 04, 2003 at 01:35 AM (#569083)
Blah. I hear about Uribe being traded for very little on the same day I get word of Abe Nunez's extension. Ain't that a kick in the teeth?
   206. Jonathan Adelman Posted: December 04, 2003 at 06:58 AM (#569086)
It's a semi-hijack, but I'm continually amazed at how little the Sox seem to value Jose Valentin, who has turned into quite the underrated baseball player these past few years. A Valentin/Graffanino platoon has (had?) the potential of being better than what a lot of teams will throw out there...
   207. Noffs Posted: December 04, 2003 at 11:50 AM (#569087)
Jonathan,

Jose Valentin is getting $5M this year. He batted .237 last year. He is no longer underrated.
   208. flournoy Posted: December 14, 2003 at 06:21 AM (#569906)
a solid #2 starter for excellent compensation

Yuck. I despise the word "compensation" as euphamism for "payment." Baseball players are not being compensated, they are being payed. Compensation is a term agents use to make it sound as though being payed millions of dollars to be an athlete is a livin' the tough life.
   209. Mikαεl Posted: December 14, 2003 at 02:01 PM (#569907)
Buerhle's career looks a lot more conistent through the eyes of DIPS. dERAs, 2001-2003, no park adjustment:

4.22, 4.15, 4.22
   210. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 14, 2003 at 03:44 PM (#569908)
No human touch. Buehrle is at just about the perfect age for a slight uptick in K rate.
   211. Walt Davis Posted: December 15, 2003 at 01:00 AM (#569909)
Clearly, Zips has a "human touch" since a purely computer-driven approach would probably have churned out something like 4.85 K/9IP.

Not so, it would just depend on how you model it. Tango's Marcel the Monkey (i.e. a 5/3/2 weighting of the last 3 years) might spit out 4.85 but a computer could include age effects (as Dan pointed out) and it could be regressing the prediction toward the league mean (which since Dan didn't point it out I'm assuming his program doesn't).
   212. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: January 08, 2004 at 07:34 AM (#571215)
Colon who?
   213. White Sox Fan Posted: January 08, 2004 at 03:24 PM (#571216)
Cool, the team did...something! Yay!

(sobs in corner)
   214. Walt Davis Posted: January 08, 2004 at 07:37 PM (#571219)
Good $800,000 gamble. Heck, with about 30 more career saves, he'd be Braden Looper. :-) Anyway, if the shoulder's healthy, he should deliver decent to good bullpen innings.
   215. ColonelTom Posted: January 08, 2004 at 09:58 PM (#571221)
Meanwhile, the vastly inferior Julian Tavarez gets $4.2M over 2 years from the Cardinals. Ain't life grand?
   216. Dylan B Posted: January 09, 2004 at 03:53 AM (#571223)
Carpenter was let go after the season he didn't disclose his injury at the start of the season. Now Politte and Walker have been let go after they didn't disclose that they were injured. Hinske did the same think this year, how long before he is playing on a different team.
   217. Kris Posted: January 22, 2004 at 08:02 PM (#571896)
He's a sidearmer as well, that could give him a little edge first time around the league I'd think.
   218. Danny Posted: January 22, 2004 at 08:32 PM (#571898)
PECOTA has Otsuka posting the second lowest ERA in the majors with incredible peripherals. Takatsu isn't listed.
   219. bhoov Posted: January 22, 2004 at 08:44 PM (#571900)
Anybody have his Japanese league stats?
   220. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: January 22, 2004 at 08:47 PM (#571901)
OK, let me try this...

<pre>Year Team G W L Sv IP
   221. White Sox fan Posted: January 22, 2004 at 09:33 PM (#571870)
Max: yep, that's him!

"Uh, hi, Kenny Williams? Hi, I'm an ex-San Francisco Giant outfielder with OBP issues who can play a passable center field, and I'd really like an opportunity to make the White Sox. My name? Arma--uh, Marvin Bernard. Yeah, that's it..."

Truthfully, though, as cmr says, he's not a bad minor-league contract guy. The problem is, the White Sox have brought in pretty much no one except good minor-league contract guys.
   222. White Sox fan Posted: January 22, 2004 at 09:36 PM (#571903)
So THIS is what Kenny's been up to all this time!

(sobs in corner)

According to stats I saw posted on another site, Takatsu's K/IP have been declining, and his BB/IP have been rising. I really doubt he'll do a whole lot.
   223. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: January 22, 2004 at 10:09 PM (#571904)
So is Takatsu very popular in Japan? I know he's the all-time saves' leader over there, but Lee Smith holds MLB's saves record and he's not extremely popular with fans.

Anyway, I suppose this is a good move, although I do have concerns. Takatsu's K rate has been dropping steadily since 1999, and his walk and homer rates have gone up during this time period. Taking a WAG, I'd expect him to pitch like the 2003 version of John Franco, only less effective and with more innings.

Our bullpen looks to be about filled. We still need a fourth starter, a second baseman, and a back-up outfielder, though. Sadly, Marvin Benard has a good shot at making the team.
   224. Cferejohn Posted: January 22, 2004 at 10:56 PM (#571872)
Didn't Benard play on the White Sox last year? Except he went under the name "Armando Rios."

That's not really accurate. Sure they are about the same height, but at their best Rios had far more power (slugged over .500 over ~380 ABs in 1999-2000). Benard is essentially a little worse at everything...
   225. Ned Garvin: Male Prostitute Posted: January 22, 2004 at 11:25 PM (#571873)
OK, so you are turned off by Benard making the major league club. Now, imagine instead of signing him to a minor league contract, you traded a quality hitter for him. Now, imagine he was earning $1.75 million. Now, imagine he was worse.

Thanks, Bavasi.
   226. Danny Posted: January 22, 2004 at 11:32 PM (#571874)
Hi, I'm an ex-San Francisco Giant outfielder with OBP issues

Rios has a career .341 OBP while playing primarily in pitchers parks. He's above league average at getting on base. Come to think of it, so is Benard.
   227. BrandonMO (U L) Posted: January 23, 2004 at 12:36 AM (#571908)
I guess the Sox don't need any upgrades for their starters or hitters.

So they go for a relief pitcher.

I guess it's Reinsdorf's way to spend money.

Frank Thomas hasn't hit over his listed weight (275lbs) since 2000
   228. BrandonMO (U L) Posted: January 23, 2004 at 02:04 AM (#571913)
CMR:

Batting average? *shakes head*

I thought you were better than that, UL


Somehow, Thomas has lost those extra hits, mostly singles, that make the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter. Since you don't speak that tongue, here's some more stuff from Frank's post-injury faze.

OBP: 2002 - .361 (worst ever for career), 2003 - .390 (third worst)
   229. bhoov Posted: January 23, 2004 at 02:11 AM (#571915)
UL,
   230. BrandonMO (U L) Posted: January 23, 2004 at 02:34 AM (#571917)
But, come on the guy posted a .952 OPS last year good for 6th in the AL. He had a 149 OPS+ last year. If you put him on the majority of teams in the AL he would immediately become that teams' best hitter (including your beloved royals). The 6th best OPS and a 149 OPS+ are harbingers of an ugly season? I don't think so

Two reasons: Contract year, and The Cell. The Cell was a great hitters park. Thomas's numbers in the cell were damned good. It increased his homers by 38%. If I put Thomas on any other team, it's likely he would have done worse in 2003. His home numbers carried him. 1064 OPS at home, 834 OPS on the road. Other than Coors, Frank wouldn't be that good in any other park for 81 games.

But, what is more accurate a predictor for a 36 year old's season, the surprisingly good showing he had at 35, or the awful season he had at 34?

Hitters are prone to decline as they get older. We've noticed that, right? :)

As for Frank and Ozzie. Ozzie didn't like Frank when they were teammates. Ozzie said that Frank would be benched for various things. Frank either turns the other cheek alot, or he's gonna be pissed at Ozzie.
   231. BrandonMO (U L) Posted: January 23, 2004 at 02:59 AM (#571919)
1037 OPS v. KC

7 singles, 5 doubles, 5 homers

surprisingly, Thomas has 6 singles, 3 homers, 3 doubles v. Detroit
   232. BrandonMO (U L) Posted: January 23, 2004 at 05:15 AM (#571921)
Finally.. the Japanese Dan Quisenberry. (Not that I know Shingo compares to him as a person or anything, just pitching-wise)

Konerko, Harris, Valentin, Crede.

Would that be a tolerable infield?
   233. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 23, 2004 at 01:54 PM (#571925)
Toyota Camrys are awesome.
   234. bhoov Posted: January 23, 2004 at 06:27 PM (#571927)
UL,
   235. BrandonMO (U L) Posted: January 23, 2004 at 08:54 PM (#571932)
I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from, but the cell had a park factor of 99 last year according to baseball-reference.com. Almost exactly a league average park

Bill James Handbook.

The Cell was the best park for HRs among right-handed hitters. Look it up.

The Cell does reduce BA, but it increases power.
   236. bhoov Posted: January 23, 2004 at 09:31 PM (#571934)
The best park for HR? That's even worse than saying some park is the best park for BA. If you told me it wa the best park for right-handed OPS then that would be a good argument, but best park for HR, while decreasing BA?
   237. Jason Posted: January 24, 2004 at 01:07 AM (#571936)
In 1999, my beloved Tigers brought over a Japanese reliever named Masao Kida, to a lot of ballyhoo. After one year, 30 walks in 65 innings, and an ERA+ of 79, he was gone just as quickly.
   238. Buford Sharkley Posted: January 25, 2004 at 01:09 AM (#571942)
First, has it ever occurred to anyone that Frank simply sees the ball better at Comiskey? He's been staring at the same hitter's backdrop for 13 plus years now.

You have a good point there, but it's somewhat inaccurate.

From 1991-1996, New Comiskey park had a blue, metal batter's eye, which matched the blue seats.

In 1997, Albert Belle complained that he couldn't see the ball with the blue batter's eye. The metal was painted black.

In 2002, the black metal batter's eye was scratched, and replaced with a foliage-infested tower-like structure, said to improve visibility in the daytime.

In 2003, the batter's eye structure was equipped with an extra porch or something.

In 2004, the batter's eye will further be changed somehow. I think there'll be an extra bleacher section on top of the batter's eye or something.

I'm not sure the last two alterations have/will have made any difference to the batter.

....Well, that's my input.
   239. robert Posted: January 25, 2004 at 10:59 PM (#571945)
The Mitsubishi A6M fighter was called the "Zero" because they designated their fighters after the year first produced. The A6M was developed in 1940 (or, by the Japanese calendar, 2600), thus it was identified as "Type 00", which was shortened to simply, "Zero".

The Imperial Japanese Navy Air Force used four different systems for designating and naming aircraft.

The first, the Shi number, was only given to experimental types. Each type was issued a designation consisting of ?Navy Experimental? followed by the year (in this case, the year of the Emperor?s reign, which began in 1925 A.D.), and a description of the role. The Mitsubishi Zero, for example, had the Shi-number Navy Experimental 12-Shi Carrier Fighter during its developmental stage.

Once a Navy design passed the experimental stage, it was assigned a short designation, using a system based on the US Navy designation, which indicated role, aircraft type, manufacturer, and model ? for example, to once again use the Zero, A6M1. The first letter, ?A?, designated a carrier-based fighter. The first number indicated the number of different aircraft that had been ordered under each type designation ? in our example, the ?6? indicates the sixth carrier fighter to be ordered. The second letter, ?M?, indicates the manufacturer, Mitsubishi. These three letters and numbers would remain the same during an aircraft type?s life. The second number, ?1? indicates the specific model of the aircraft, in this case the first type. Subtypes of a specific model were indicated by a further lower case letter ? for example, A6M5c. If an aircraft was modified to perform another duty, the new duty was indicated by a hyphen and the letter for the new function. ?K? indicated trainer, so the trainer version of the A6M2 was the A6M2-K. This system was by far the most important of the Navy designation systems.

The third System was the Type number. Aircraft accepted for production and service were given another designation that incorporated both a role description and a Type number. Aircraft that remained prototypes were not given Type numbers. The Type number was based on the last digits of the Japanese year in which a particular aircraft was accepted. Prior to the year 2599 (1939 A.D.), the last two digits were used. Navy aircraft accepted in the year 2600 (1940 A.D.) were given the Type number 0 instead of 100 (Army aircraft accepted in 1940, however, did use 100 as the type number). Because obviously more than one type of aircraft was accepted by the IJNAF during each year, the exact function of an aircraft was incorporated into the Type number. This is why the most famous Japanese aircraft of all-time, the Mitsubishi A6M, or Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter under this designation system, became universally known as the Zero.

The specific model was indicated by two numbers, the first indicating the airframe, and the second the engine. The first model of a design was designated Model 11. If the airframe was changed but not the engine, the next designation would become Model 21. If the engine was changed but not the airframe, the Model 11 would become the Model 12. If both engine and aircraft were changed from the Model 11, it would become the Model 22. Thus, the designation Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52 indicated it was the fifth airframe model and second engine model as compared with the original Zero, the Model 11.

In July 1943, the IJNAF began assigning official names to their aircraft, sometimes instead of Type numbers. Names were assigned under very strict rules:

Fighters ? named after meteorological phenomena

Carrier and seaplane fighters ? names ending in pu or fu (wind)

Interceptor fighters ? names ending in den (lightning)

Night fighters ? names ending in ko (light)

Attack aircraft ? named after mountains

Reconnaissance aircraft ? named after clouds

Bombers ? named after stars or constellations

Patrol planes ? named after seas or oceans

Transports ? named after skies

Trainers ? named after trees, plants, and flowers

Miscellaneous aircraft ? named after landscape effects

This system provided some of the most striking names of any nation?s aircraft - Aichi E16A Zuiun (Auspicious Cloud); Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko (Moonlight); Yokosuka P1Y Ginga (Milky Way); and my favorite, the Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden (Violet Lightning).
   240. robert Posted: January 27, 2004 at 01:01 AM (#571948)
There were only two transports that actually got names under this system - the Kawanishi H8K2-L Seiku (Clear Sky), and the Kawanishi H11K1-L Soku (Blue Sky).

I guess you extrapolate "Rainy Sky", or "Snowy Sky"...
   241. RickG Posted: February 08, 2004 at 07:56 PM (#571877)
Marie, what are your opinions of Colin Farrell?
   242. White Sox Fan Posted: March 11, 2004 at 06:29 PM (#572858)
Who are the better options to backup in CF? Rowand is the nominal starter, unless Jeremy Reed gets pushed, and he's not really a CF. Borchard? Magglio? Willie Harris??
   243. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 11, 2004 at 10:17 PM (#572861)
Borchard and Harris. Borchard because he has at least some potential and Harris since the Sox are going to carry him anyway for some unknown reason. Harris, of course, is ostensibly the starting 2B, but it should only be a month or so for that to be an obvious failure.
   244. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 12, 2004 at 02:38 AM (#572862)
As a Giant's fan, I think that it should also be noted that Benard's not much of an option to backup CF either (defensively or otherwise).

Cubs fans need to do whatever it takes to prevent Dusty from successfully lobbying for Benard's services. At least Goodwin can claim one athletic skill (speed), albeit an overrated one.
   245. White Sox Fan Posted: March 12, 2004 at 03:31 AM (#572863)
Thanks, Dan. Coincidentally, Kenny Williams was on the radio this afternoon, and he mentioned that if something really bad happens to Rowand, Borchard and Reed will be waiting in the minors. So it seems like Willie Harris will be the second-best CF on the White Sox major league roster.

(Shudder)
   246. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 12, 2004 at 04:08 AM (#572864)
Dan and Kenny Williams - two peas in a pod.
   247. Anthony Giacalone Posted: March 12, 2004 at 08:21 AM (#572866)
Come on, White Sox Fan, if you've seen many Sox games or looked at defensive stats then by now you should have recognized that Rowand is a gold glove caliber centerfielder. How may years in a row does he need to be as good or better than everyone else in the league before we recognize this? I know that he doesn't look like a centerfielder but he is fantastic out there?
   248. White Sox Fan Posted: March 12, 2004 at 03:11 PM (#572867)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I like Rowand's defense in CF. I think he's stretched as a starter at the plate, though, and it really worries me that if (when, with the way he flies into walls) he gets hurt, the backup plan right now appears to be, "Hey, who else around here wants to play CF? Anyone? Willie?"

Ideally, Rowand is the 4th OF, starting against lefties and being used as a defensive replacement, on a championship White Sox team.
   249. SuperGrover Posted: March 12, 2004 at 06:03 PM (#572869)
But according to the local rags here in Chicago, Person was supposed to be "this year's Estaban Loiaza."

Actually, I was pretty pumped about the Person acquisition. It's unfortunate that he got hurt so badly because a hleathy Person could easily have put 150 league average innings in the 5 spot which would've allowed Schoney to be the long man in the bullpen where he belongs.
   250. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 12, 2004 at 06:26 PM (#572871)
What's suprising to me is that the Sox really haven't picked up much positional depth this offseason. I'm not talking about major league free agents, but even lesser guys that hover around on the fringes like Rontrez Johnson or Bo Porter.

Overall, the White Sox have 4 outfielders on their 40-man roster (Borchard, Lee, Ordonez, Rowand)and only 2 non-roster OFs left (Reed, Mario Valenzuela) and Charlotte's roster is only listed as having *1* outfielder, Scott Bikowski. You have to go down to Birmingham just to find a Sox team with enough outfielders to field a team.

Hopefully, the Sox are just waiting for some cuts, although feeding off spring training losers isn't really the best strategy.
   251. Anthony Giacalone Posted: March 13, 2004 at 12:54 AM (#572876)
I'm going to try this again. The only way that one can characterize Rowand as a "tweener" is if you don't think that he can field well enough to play CF. His ZRs for three consecutive years now, with different staffs, have consistently been at the very top of the AL. If we can believe ZRs at all we have to say that he is at least as good a defensive CF as Torii Hunter and Darin Erstad. In his career, essentially one full season of playing time, he has hit .273/.325/.418, a 94 OPS+. That's a better 650 PAs than Hunter had last year. He has posted two partial years with OPS+ numbers of 113 and 104. Plus, he's just starting his prime years.

This all comes down to perception. Rowand does not look like Torii Hunter or Mike Cameron, but he has been just as good a CF over the last three seasons. The only way to justify that he is a "tweener" is to ignore the defensive stats.

Now, do the Sox have a backup to him? No. Willie Harris will be the nominal backup if anything should happen to him in a game and then Uribe would play second.

I see no possible good that can come out of bringing Singleton into camp. The Sox made a series of great moves in getting Singleton for free when he was 26 and coming off a bad AAA year and then moving him when he was 28 for another player with potential. Singleton is the great example of a player that can have some use for you if you get him during his prime and then dump him. To bring him back at the age of 31 would be stupid.

My guess is that the Sox feel that there will be some talent dumped at the end of March that they will be able to scoop up.
   252. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: March 13, 2004 at 03:12 AM (#572877)
cmr (and anyone else reading the thread, I suppose),

Word is that the Sox will start the season with 12 pitchers on the major league roster. I don't exactly agree with it, but it's not like the Sox have a slew of position players looking for bench spots. That said, here's my opening day roster:
   253. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: March 13, 2004 at 04:30 AM (#572878)
Bleh, stupid me. Put Thomas at DH on that predicted roster.
   254. Snowboy Posted: March 13, 2004 at 07:32 AM (#572879)
I just looked at their roster. Dan counts only 4 OFers? How about this - there are 4 catchers! Olivo, Alomar, Mike Rivera, and Jamie Burke. They only have 38 people on the roster...and one of them is Jason Grilli?!?!

Is Williams even trying any more? More seriously, is there that much suspicion among players and agents about Ozzie Guillen/Reinsdorf/the organization that no one wants to go there?
   255. Anthony Giacalone Posted: March 14, 2004 at 07:00 AM (#572882)
Chris:

Rowand's defense is a particular pet peeve of mine. I didn't meant to take it out on you.

I think that Rowand's second half is mostly the result of a small sample size. That said, his first half was mostly do to a horrible hit rate and he didn't get enough at bats in the second half to even his overall numbers out. Also, I think that we all should recognize that Rowand is coming into his prime years now. I think that it is likely that he will post one really good year in the next three. Something in the neighboorhood of .295/.350/.500 for a year would strike me as about right. Not saying that it's going to happen this year but I would expect it in the next while. I think that we forget sometimes that he was a first round pick.

I too am a bit worried if he gets hurt. In a limited sample size, Borchard had very good ZRs in CF but he looked pretty shaky out there when I saw him in the season and in AZ. My guess is that Reed could play there fine, but I don't think that they want to throw him in just yet. I really doubt that Gload can play there effectively and would prefer Maggs there in a pinch. The biggest problem if Rowand were to get hurt is that it would force Uribe into the lineup. Ugh.

AG
   256. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: March 16, 2004 at 12:37 AM (#572885)
I just saw that Borchard was heading to Charlotte today also. This is going to be an odd bench. Alomar, Uribe, and Gload will definitely make the team. I think the last spot will go to Jamie Burke. Allegedly, Burke can play catcher and any corner position. Harris will back-up Rowand in center. They've been playing Gload in center for some games this spring, but I really can't see him handling that position very well.

On another note, rumor has it that Kris Benson is coming to Sox for Jon Rausch and Josh Stewart. I sort of like Benson, but he's making way too much for a pitcher who has only thrown 230 innings in the past three years.
   257. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 16, 2004 at 12:47 AM (#572886)
Have a link on that, Mark? Not doubting, but interested in it for re-post purposes.
   258. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: March 16, 2004 at 01:43 AM (#572888)
I saw a blurb about it on a White Sox message board. I only read the relavant quote without bothering to read the link. Well, here's the link:
   259. All you Need is Glove Posted: March 25, 2004 at 08:08 AM (#572892)
I think it's funny that a bunch of non-athletes like ourselves can sit here on a website and try to play General Manager. I think it's particularly funny that there are so many Marvin Benard bashers. Before the Giants put him on the shelf, he had back to back 100 run seasons, stole more than 20 bases, went almost 2 years without an error and had back to back 15+ homer seasons in a row and he is a leadoff man!! For two years, he was pretty damn close to being the best leadoff man in the National League. Everyone the Giants brought in to replace him didn't even come close to putting up the numbers that he has averaged over his career. They brought in Shinjo, Calvin Murray, Dante Powell, etc etc and no one even came close to his numbers. The sad thing is that he never got a chance to get 600 at bats year after year. This is a guy who would have easily been a 20/20 guy, hit at least .270, play solid defense (he is a MUCH better outfielder than Barry Bonds RIGHT NOW). I watched him every year and if he would have been thrown out there for 150 games, he would put up numbers that would put him into the top 5 lead off men in his league. The White Sox should have kept him around, he would have made that team easily. Instead, because of this steroid rumor, they decided to axe him before he became a distraction. I
   260. Sam M. Posted: March 27, 2004 at 11:48 PM (#573119)
Duquette has a serious problem, this addiction to acquiring decent, relatively young relief arms. He certainly seems to be trying to corner the market on them. The rumors were that Timo would be moved for a back-up middle infielder. Maybe they have a plan to trade a reliever (Wheeler? Bottalico?) for the infielder.
   261. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: March 28, 2004 at 12:01 AM (#573120)
Ever since the Sox sent Joe Borchard down to Charlotte a week ago, they've needed a back-up center fielder. Ross Gload has played some CF this spring, but I don't think he's impressed much. For a back-up CFer, Perez looks OK.

Ginter will probably be a decent long reliever. He didn't have a good chance of making the Sox, though he probably deserved a spot. I'd take him over Takatsu and Grilli.
   262. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: March 28, 2004 at 03:12 AM (#573123)
I like this move for the Mets. Ginter is a former 1st round pick and according to what i've read still has some potential. Timo, on the other hand, had worn out his welcome with the Mets.
   263. Roadblock Jones Posted: March 28, 2004 at 03:56 PM (#573126)
Other than making the worst play in the history of the Met franchise, Perez' troubles recently included a series of minor injuries: IIRC, he had a hip thing, he got hit on the hands by pitches a few times, and he had a hammy thing all last year. I don't recall him being DLed, just that he never seemed like he was 100% for more than a week or two at a time.

I don't see why a healthy Perez, used judiciously, couldn't approach his 2002 numbers, which didn't suck for a versatile reserve.

If nothing else Perez was fun to watch. One time, he had called time and stepped out of the box, but his request wasn't granted and the pitch was on the way -- somehow, he managed to step back in in time and sent a ball screaming down the left field line, just foul. Bobby Valentine said afterward it was the most amazing play he'd ever seen.
   264. Sandlapper Spike Posted: March 28, 2004 at 05:38 PM (#573127)
The Mets just picked up Ricky Gutierrez from the Tribe for cash and a PTBNL (see homepage).
   265. Sam M. Posted: March 28, 2004 at 06:57 PM (#573128)
The Mets just picked up Ricky Gutierrez from the Tribe for cash and a PTBNL (see homepage).

Ugh. There are so many useful players available -- why in the name of God would you pick up a $4 million, completely useless player???
   266. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: March 28, 2004 at 07:34 PM (#573132)
The Indians are paying most of Gutierrez's salary, the Mets will possibly just pay what they saved by trading Timo (about a million).

It'll all depend who the PTBNL is, but right now this doesn't seem like a bad deal.
   267. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: March 28, 2004 at 07:45 PM (#573133)
Duquette on Gutierrez:

"He's also the type of offensive player we need if Jose or Kaz [Matsui] needs a day off. He's a high on-base percentage (career .340) kind of guy. We were looking primarily for an offensive guy who could catch the ball, as well."

Gutierrez is slated to make $3.9 million this year, but the Indians will pick up approximately 75 percent of that, including the $750,000 buyout for next year. Gutierrez is slated to make $5 million in 2005.
   268. Sam M. Posted: March 28, 2004 at 07:55 PM (#573134)
Well, if the Indians are paying 75% of the tab, then I guess you could say this might have the positive effect of reducing the # of ABs Joe McEwing gets. It's a pretty meaningless deal, all in all.
   269. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: March 29, 2004 at 11:34 PM (#573146)
By the way, the Mets don't have any OF'rs in the minors either.

Raul Gonzalez and Eric Valent aren't that much different than Timo, and both make less than him.
   270. Joshemy Posted: March 30, 2004 at 02:41 AM (#573147)
Raul Gonzalez and Eric Valent aren't that much different than Timo, and both make less than him.

Timo can play a respectable center, which was his biggest asset on this team. Without him, its either Cedeno or McEwing out there on Cameron's day off and if Cameron gets injured... wow... that will be bad... You might see Jeff Duncan, but he needs minor league at bats badly...
   271. Sam M. Posted: March 30, 2004 at 04:16 AM (#573149)
Come on now, K-50. Do you really think equating Matsui to Glavine and Stanton is fair? They are pitchers, in their late 30s when the Mets signed them, and (especially in Glavine's case) showing clear signs of decline. Matsui is a 28 year old shortstop, who surely needs to make some adjustments to the major leagues but who is not on the downside of his career. Let's give him a few actual ABs that count, shall we, before we declare him a washout?

As for no one hitting besides McEwing, both Piazza and Cameron have been hitting the ball well.

Not that I disagree with your evaluation -- 75-80 wins, unless things break very, very (and unexpectedly) well. But that was an awfully bleak take on the spring to this point.

Jeremy: If Duncan gets called up, it'll be to start in Cameron's absence. So he won't just be sitting on the bench; whether in Norfolk or at Shea, he'll be playing every day.
   272. Sam M. Posted: March 30, 2004 at 05:21 AM (#573151)
In the long term, they've limited the development of promising future players - putting off the horizon for turing it around.

I just don't see this. Other than some potential relief prospects who are being crowded out by Franco, Stanton, and Weathers, I don't think you can name a single truly young player who has been held back since mid-2003 by the Mets acquiring or keeping a veteran. Don't give me Scutaro; he's 28 years old. Diaz, Duncan and Garcia? None are truly ready for a major league job, and belong in the minors getting ABs and experience.

Starters? Seo got his chance and made the most of it last year. Heilman, too, got a shot last year, and will get another chance before 2004 is out. Roberts is probably going to get the 5th starter role, and if he doesn't, Yates might. Either way, the path for both of them is wide open, and the organization is clearly anxious for them to succeed.

They worked in Wigginton and Reyes and Phillips last year. The other position players of value aren't really ready yet, but are making their moves.

The point is, folks, the youth movement has begun, and will gradually continue, turning over the roster gradually and, I expect, virtually completely by 2006. The last truly objectionable, misguided signing was Glavine; we will look back on that deal as the death spasm of the Phillips Era, and by 2006 we will look back at this point and wonder why we didn't realize the process was unfolding before our very eyes.
   273. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: March 30, 2004 at 06:46 PM (#573153)
I hope I'm wrong about Matsui, but I'll bet his "upside" will be at the 2003 Roberto Alomar level, nothing more.

You cannot be serious. Matsui has had what? 50 ABs of spring training games and suddenly he is Roberto Alomar (who btw hit over 300 in his spring training as a Met)? While I'm a little bit worried about Kaz right now, i hope you didn't expect him to become a superstar as soon as he got here. After all, Hideki (an even better hitter than Kaz) struggled mightly in his first two months before finally adjusting to the different pitches:

Hideki Matsui 2003

April 255/322/368
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6108 seconds
47 querie(s) executed