Reds get Aaron Miles for Taveras and Rosales
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
From: RJA on 2 Feb 2010 15:27 On Feb 2, 2:32 pm, David Short <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > On 2/2/2010 1:51 PM, RJA wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 12:28 pm, John Kasupski<w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> > >> On a better team, batting seventh or eighth instead of leading off, even his > >> .240 in 2009 wouldn't have been as damaging. Hell, the Cardinals won the > >> division with Rick Ankiel hitting .231. The Rockies were NL wild card with Chris > >> Iannetta hitting .228. Taveras had NEVER hit .240 before. The reason a lot of > >> people whined about the Reds signing him was because he doesn't walk enough to > >> be in the leadoff spot. and it's true that the guy doesn't take many walks...but > >> if had walked 100 times last year, I still don't think it would've made that > >> much difference in the Reds offense to make up the 13-game gap between the Reds > >> and the Cardinals in the division standings. > > > Of course not, but you don't spend 6 million (luckily it only ended up > > being 2) on a guy who can't get on base and apparently can't even > > judge a fly ball. > > His defense was what shocked me. I simply could not believe the routes > that I was seeing. If I saw it, I can't imagine how anybody associated > with MLB didn't see the same thing. > > Fast is great, but ...yesh. Yeah, someone didn't do their due diligence on this guy. The worst part was that they did it right after the Corey Patterson experiment, and it turned out the same way. Both of those guys had huge red flags just by looking at their baseball cards.
From: David Short on 2 Feb 2010 15:41 On 2/2/2010 3:27 PM, RJA wrote: > On Feb 2, 2:32 pm, David Short > <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: >> On 2/2/2010 1:51 PM, RJA wrote: >> >>> On Feb 2, 12:28 pm, John Kasupski<w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> >>>> On a better team, batting seventh or eighth instead of leading off, even his >>>> .240 in 2009 wouldn't have been as damaging. Hell, the Cardinals won the >>>> division with Rick Ankiel hitting .231. The Rockies were NL wild card with Chris >>>> Iannetta hitting .228. Taveras had NEVER hit .240 before. The reason a lot of >>>> people whined about the Reds signing him was because he doesn't walk enough to >>>> be in the leadoff spot. and it's true that the guy doesn't take many walks...but >>>> if had walked 100 times last year, I still don't think it would've made that >>>> much difference in the Reds offense to make up the 13-game gap between the Reds >>>> and the Cardinals in the division standings. >> >>> Of course not, but you don't spend 6 million (luckily it only ended up >>> being 2) on a guy who can't get on base and apparently can't even >>> judge a fly ball. >> >> His defense was what shocked me. I simply could not believe the routes >> that I was seeing. If I saw it, I can't imagine how anybody associated >> with MLB didn't see the same thing. >> >> Fast is great, but ...yesh. > > Yeah, someone didn't do their due diligence on this guy. The worst > part was that they did it right after the Corey Patterson experiment, > and it turned out the same way. Both of those guys had huge red flags > just by looking at their baseball cards. Patterson's defense wasn't a problem. Anybody yearning for Paul Janish to get more time at shortstop would do well to remember Cory Patterson in centerfield. dfs
From: HTP on 2 Feb 2010 16:28 On Feb 2, 12:41 pm, David Short <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > On 2/2/2010 3:27 PM, RJA wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 2:32 pm, David Short > > <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > >> On 2/2/2010 1:51 PM, RJA wrote: > > >>> On Feb 2, 12:28 pm, John Kasupski<w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> > >>>> On a better team, batting seventh or eighth instead of leading off, even his > >>>> .240 in 2009 wouldn't have been as damaging. Hell, the Cardinals won the > >>>> division with Rick Ankiel hitting .231. The Rockies were NL wild card with Chris > >>>> Iannetta hitting .228. Taveras had NEVER hit .240 before. The reason a lot of > >>>> people whined about the Reds signing him was because he doesn't walk enough to > >>>> be in the leadoff spot. and it's true that the guy doesn't take many walks...but > >>>> if had walked 100 times last year, I still don't think it would've made that > >>>> much difference in the Reds offense to make up the 13-game gap between the Reds > >>>> and the Cardinals in the division standings. > > >>> Of course not, but you don't spend 6 million (luckily it only ended up > >>> being 2) on a guy who can't get on base and apparently can't even > >>> judge a fly ball. > > >> His defense was what shocked me. I simply could not believe the routes > >> that I was seeing. If I saw it, I can't imagine how anybody associated > >> with MLB didn't see the same thing. > > >> Fast is great, but ...yesh. > > > Yeah, someone didn't do their due diligence on this guy. The worst > > part was that they did it right after the Corey Patterson experiment, > > and it turned out the same way. Both of those guys had huge red flags > > just by looking at their baseball cards. > > Patterson's defense wasn't a problem. > > Anybody yearning for Paul Janish to get more time at shortstop would do > well to remember Cory Patterson in centerfield. > > dfs- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You can make the same comparison between Cabrera and somebody like Lopez or Keppinger or Hairston. Lopez hit so well he won a silver slugger, yet was gone the next year. I've gotten to the point where i just cringe at the idea of so important a defensive spot being manned by a guy who should be well past his defensive prime, and for good money. Janish cost next to nothing and if he fails its no big deal to dump or demote him. I guess one upside to cabrera is that he could be readily flipped in mid-summer if things dont work out.
From: David Short on 2 Feb 2010 16:34 On 2/2/2010 4:28 PM, HTP wrote: > You can make the same comparison between Cabrera and somebody like > Lopez or Keppinger or Hairston. Lopez hit so well he won a silver > slugger, yet was gone the next year. I've gotten to the point where i > just cringe at the idea of so important a defensive spot being manned > by a guy who should be well past his defensive prime, and for good > money. fair enough. As I quoted in the blogoshpere thread "We�re just talking about different shades of suckitude. Neither guy is going to be the guy to lead the Reds to the next level." If anything having both Janish and Cabera would allow Baker to spot them both and insulates the team a bit against either one of them cratering. > Janish cost next to nothing and if he fails its no big deal to dump or > demote him. Except if they didn't have Cabrera around, if Janish hits 180 over the first half of the season, you then have to promote Valakia or Cozart early or put Frazier at shortstop where the team doesn't believe he belongs. > I guess one upside to cabrera is that he could be readily flipped in > mid-summer if things dont work out. .... I know defense matters, especially at the shortstop position, but guys who hit 220 don't last no matter what kind of glove they have. dfs
From: Ron Johnson on 3 Feb 2010 14:28
On Feb 2, 2:17 pm, David Short <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > On 2/2/2010 12:32 PM, HTP wrote: > > 220. You have to throw some serious leather out there in order to have a > starting lineup slot handed to you if you hit 220. The difference > between Cabrera and Janish in terms of runs scored is huge. Don't see it. Dan Szymborski has Janish at .239/.310/.340 (for a 72 OPS +) and Cabrera at .282/.326/.377 (OPS+ of 86). Both look eminently reasonable to me. Even making allowances for the transition to the NL, you're talking 15 runs tops. There can't be a huge difference offensively because Cabrera isn't good enough. |