| Jump to bottom |
53 Steve
C'mon Chris, a couple; or a few? Let's be honest here:-)
53 Steve
I'm wrong all the time - and have no problem admitting it. Bring On Benitez. Defending the Renteria trade when it happened. The list of things I've been wrong about on this forum wouldn't fit here. Been right a few times too though.
53 Steve
Chris, DD was "limited" in 2009 as you say to due to his mismanagement of a large budget in 2008. Getting cheap players would not have been his first choice. Even with that, the payroll still ranked in the Top 5 in MLB in 2009 didn't it? And we still couldn't close the deal in terms of a title.
53 Steve
I think we need to give Verlander whatever it takes to keep him here. Period. Over market, additional years, whatever.
53 Steve
Where I agree with you is - I think overall DD has been good for the franchise. I think the last four years - three years of contending - one improbable WS trip - a lot of top quality players have rolled through here - some tremendous drafting - the team has been very marketable and the fan base has bought in - the best stretch in franchise history at the box office... those are all good things.
Where I disagree with you is - I think DD is paying for some things that have blown up on him right now - and I don't think things are going "to plan" for him. I think DD thought he had a built a "super power" going into 08 - like guys like Jayson Stark were saying - and I think he "blew his wad" (can I say that) that off-season with all the extentions and dollars given out - basically thinking the team was pretty much set for a 3yr run of contention - with little to do but tinker. He left himself very little flexiblity for the 09 and 2010 off-seasons.
DD has been an opportunity buyer in terms of adding talent here - he's taken what's been in front of him - without much thought to how it all fits. There's no overriding "style of play" in the team that he's tried to put together - it's been increase the talent level by an means available - and take who we can get - when we can get them. They aren't the Angels or the Twins who always value speed and defense. They aren't the Yankees or Red Sox who place a premium on plate patience and power. You say DDs big thing is "big hard throwing" pitchers - but give me one GM that doesn't value big hard throwing pitchers - that's not a style of play - or any type of unique way to build a team.
The one unique strategy that DD has been successful with here is the paying overslot for draft pics and not being afraid to draft the best available player in the first round (not scared off by signability concerns). That's paid off big time for him - as the Tigers have used the #1 pick to net them Verlander - Cabrera - Porcello - Perry - Turner from the last five drafts. No team has done better in the first round in the last five yrs.
I also don't really agree that the Tigers are likely to remain in the upper tier payroll wise. They may attempt to keep spending if certain scenerios play out - but a tear down and start over could well be in the near future - based on what happens with Verlander. They could easily have a 70-80mm payroll going into 2011 - and if Verlander forces their hand in a trade - they might well strip the whole thing down again and start over. I don't think DD left him self much wiggle room payroll wise in each of the last two off-seasons - and if things go really south this yr - Verlander's going to want out of here - and it's blow it up time. They might be able to rebuild quickly. At the same time - maybe they will stay in contention in 2010 - and Verlander will decide to stay long term - and they will spend some money for 2011. We'll see.
I do think DD recovered pretty well in 2009 after the disaster of 2008. He was limited - but to me - the adding cheap defensive players and grinders was actually needed - and worked pretty well. I'm open minded to what he will do this off-season - whatever it is. But I just don't think it's time to be singing his praises too loudly right now. He's been part success part failure here - and his legacy could be teetering on what happens next. No GM bats 1000. I'm not surprised - he's made some mistakes and had some reasonable things blow up on him too - and I give him more credit than many for what I do think overall has been a good run for the franchise. I'm still pretty much in his corner - but I can see scenerios - where I could want him gone at some point this yr or next off-season. Bringing Polanco back would be a huge sign to me that he's not learned a thing from what's primarily gone wrong for him - but I doubt that will happen though. I think he's smarter than that.
53 Steve
...Why not just wait till next offseason when some bad contracts clear?
Cuz it's easier to transform a team over multiple seasons rather than trying to do it in one season over 3-4 significant signings. Sure they'll have $60 million to play with (assuming they want the payroll to return to being high as it's been... and I think they've already been on the record of indicating their payroll has been too high).
But what will that $60 actually net them, if in essense, you're limiting those dollars to the free agent class of 2011? They could re-sign JV with no problem. Besides extending JV, they'll still have 2 starting pitchers to find. They'll have an opening at SS, 3B, at least one outfielder, catcher, closer, probably another late-innings reliever, and possibly a DH (if Guillen's career starts to slide).
It's much easier to transition your team over multiple years, and including trades, rather than waiting and hoping your $60 million of payroll flexibility could immediately solve everything.
53 Steve
I think what Marc is suggesting is - why not just tread water for 2010 - knowing that you have so much money coming off the book before 2011. Why not allow the payroll to rise 5-10mm for this one yr - which is what they would have to do to keep Verlander, Granderson, Cabrera, and Jackson - and at least keep Rodney or sign another legit closer and set up and Everett (and that's with Polanco and Thames being gone). And it's a fair enough question.
Reality is - the Tigers are restricted because of DDs mistakes (or if you'd rather - things that gone wrong with DDs money committments). If Mags hadn't vested - there would be no talk of Granderson being shopped. If we didn't have 30mm committed to Bonderman, Robertson, and Willis - we would talking about addressing our biggest actual need going into this season - adding another quality starting pitcher - instead of trading Jackson for a 400K pitcher or prospects. This is a buyers market for teams with free agency this yr - and the Tigers are going to be forced to sit it out - because they have no money to spend. They could have gotten a cheap big bat replacement for Mags fairly easisly in this market.
If the Tigers didn't have money restrictions on them - they would be looking to address needs - adding one more big quality starting pitcher that is desperately needed if you want to be a playoff team next yr - adding either a lead off hitter that pushes Granderson to the middle of the lineup or another RBI guy for the middle of the lineup - adding not subtacting from the bully (at least being able to retain Rodney and Lyon on reasonable short term market-value contacts in the current down market).
Instead we're talking about trading our 2nd best player that is in his prime and signed to a perfect contract - and our #2 starter that gave us 21 QS last yr (on a team that was 11th in the AL in QS overall - SP after our top 3 is/was a huge team weakness) - for 400K guys and prospects.
So to pass this off-season "gameplan" from DD we are hearing off as - just DD being smart and prudent - is going to grate some people. I think there's merit in this team changing direction some - not committing dollars to aging vets past their prime - getting younger - making "prudent" spin trades like what could happen with Jackson. Whatever they do - they aren't doomed for 2010 for sure - who knows what can happen. Baseball is so liquid - no way to call what will happen whether the payroll goes up or down.
I'm not a huge DD basher. I think he's a good baseball guy for the most part - and has been overall good for this franchise. But even he will tell you - if he's being honest - this 2010 off-season is the product of many things going bad on decisions he's made and the money piled up so high - that they just don't have much flexiblity to address needs in the way that they probably would like to address needs.
So we're going to have to hope for surprise rebounds from some reclamation projects (most of whom we were hoping for rebounds from last yr and they couldn't do it). We're going to have to hope that youth will be served and deliver in certain spots. And we're really going to have hope that it doesn't get so bad (or ever just so mediocre) that Justin Verlander starts looking out on the horizon for greener pastures - because then it's take to blow the whole thing up and start over.
Personally - I can live with the tread water plan if they would choose it - but I can also live with shuffling the deck too (and we all have our own preferences for what shuffling the deck would mean). But don't act like this all part of some great logical master strategy from DD. Good baseball guy (which I do think he is) or not - it's pretty clear - he's making this thing up as he goes. And the payroll crunch the Tigers are in right now - is his doing.
53 Steve
Chris D, resigning JL to a two year extension last May before he had proven he can manage the Tigers team in the second half is what got me on the "DD must go bandwagon." DD has made a lot of great trades; however, he is terrible at judging his own talent and giving them contracts.
53 Steve
I think there's a lot of similarity between Polanco's 09 and Renteria's 08. Both showed steep decline in overall offense from the yr prior. Both offered almost nothing to the table from the OBA - SLG perspective. Both disappeared offensively for long stretches in the season. Polanco produced more when it counted in RBI chances and his run production was overall better - but still below league average for his place in the lineup and position. Both declined in the field as you would expect with their age (don't even get me started on Polanco's Gold Glove) - although Renteria's decline there was steeper. Both had overall disappointing seasons - despite both finishing stronger in the 2nd half (actually Renteria's 812 OPS in the 2nd half showed more life than Polanco's .758) - and both finished the yr at ages when reversing decline is unlikely.
To me - letting go of Polanco - is as easy a decision as letting go of Renteria - maybe easier since you have Sizemore in the fold.
If the Tigers would trade Granderson and then resign Polanco - it would be the ultimate sign that the oranization doesn't clue one what it ultimately is doing in the big picture. Trading your 2nd best player in his prime for futuristic considerations - then resigning a 34 yr old player in decline to block a top prospect - moves like could get me on the DD must go bandwagon.
53 Steve
The Tigers were non-committal on Renteria last yr until the day of deadline to offer arbitration. Like Polanco - it was assumed by most he wouldn't be back - but it wasn't really official until the day they declined arbitration.
The Tigers aren't going to say anything on Polanco while he's drawing up interest from other teams. But there's not a chance in heck that he's a Tiger next yr - based on what they're doing and saying right now.
53 Steve
I get that - not agruing that - however - doesn't mean we have to be the one's paying for him.
53 Steve
I don't really know why you have to throw out the "silly" and "amusing" card all the time when talking about other people opinions. And it is my "opinion" that you're talking about it - and I've stated many times - it's just my opinion.
There were 7 1b in the mlb last yr with higher OPSs than Cabrera. There were 14 1b in the top 30 OPS in baseball. That's why I say - in my opinion - he's more easily replacable than Granderson because of the position he plays.
I don't really buy Cabrera as a top 5 hitter of baseball - or whatever. He's a top five Batting Average combined with SLG guy - but not in that elite of a company in OBA combined with SLG. His youth and durability make his production reliable right now - and that certainly has value. But if a Thome or a Delgado or a Branyon can manage to stay healthy for a full season next yr - I don't know that the Tigers are all that much better off with Cabrera than those guys as a clean up hitter. The real up on those guys Cabrera has is that he is way more likely to stay healthy - so that's good. But are the Tigers realy that much better off than the Reds who have Joey Votto as their young 1b middle of the lineup hitter - for way less dollars and committment???
It's just my opinion - but as a 1b (and a fruitcup mentally) - I don't think he's worth that contract - I think it's long term going to be an anchor (potentially a disaster at some point)- and if they can get out from under it now - if I'm in charge - I'd do it - and it wouldn't take the greatest package of anything to pull him either.
I guess Ken Rosenthal is silly and amusing too - because he thinks it doesn't make sense that the Tigers are talking about moving Granderson and not Cabrera too. But in reality - we don't really know. There's so few teams that would be able and or willing to take on his contract - that the Tigers might well be shopping him just as much as Granderson - and there might be absolutely no takers for that paper right now. And that's somewhat telling to me too - in terms of how replacable he might be - and how long term bad the situation with his contract might get.
53 Steve
Fair enough on your opinion.
Personally - I don't see a ton of difference between Santiago and Polanco at this stage of Polanco's career - so I would have no problem with him as a fall back. Polanco's a slightly better guy - but not a ton better. Neither are big OBA or SLG guys. They both can slap the ball around and handle the bat. Polanco's a little better all the way around - but not worth extended a contract to at age 34 imo.
I also am completely not in favor of using anyone as a UT that is not a capable defender at that position. The best news of the off-season so far was Leyland saying we will never see Raburn again in the infield. No way in the world - I'd be shifting Sizemore all over the field to detriment of our defense.
53 Steve
Stat guys - don't look at Error Total as a stat that means much. I'll take % of balls hit into zone converted into outs - which is another stat in which Polanco declined greatly in 2009 (from top 2 in the league 06-08 to bottom 2 among every day AL 2b in 09). There's no question Polanco's range fell off in 2009 - and his steady eddie hands on balls hit right at him might not be making up for the balls getting under his glove (that better 2b are converting into outs) hit up the middle anymore.
Sizemore is going to make more errors than Polanco - no doubt. But it's yet to be seen how much overall drop off there would actually be in % of balls turned into outs. Might not be much. We might even be better with Sizemore - even with the errors.
And the only thing steady about Polanco's offense is the steady decline he's showing. He gives you nothing from a SLG % perspective - doesn't walk - and if he's not hitting for a 300+ average - he doesn't give you enough OBA. I give him credit for maintaining his RBI-R totals with so much decline in his other numbers - but his RBI-R totals were below average for a 2B and a #2 hitter anyway. He hit with RISP this yr - had a good 2nd half (after a terrible 1st) - and won a few games in the 2nd half with big hits. He wasn't a zero by any means. But he was a below AL average producing 2b and #2 hitter in 2009 - and that's not arguable.
53 Steve
There's a difference between quotes from Ezell and DD - and quotes from managers and coaches. Managers and coaches have to interact and manage players on a day to day basis - and manage against other teams. They aren't going to be putting negative energy out there against anybody. They are going to give you fluff. If you can get some specifics out of them - some real meat and potatoes stuff about a guys development - that's one thing - "But I'll take that guys talent on my team anyday" - tells you zero or maybe (well he looks like a good athlete and is a nice enough kid and I'm not going to kick an oppenent when he's down.
Ezell and DD are going to give you fluff sometimes - but when they are talking specifically about something - I listen - they are the guys making the organizational plan. That's why I placed some faith in Iorg before this yr - mainly based on what DD was saying about him.
I'm lukewarm on Strieby to the OF - but I'm not lukewarm on Strieby as an elite hitting prospect. I do quote what Ezell had to say about it - that he thought the conversion could go well and likes his arm out there or whatever - but I haven't come out all that enthusiastically on his chances of being an OF. There were going to send him to the AFL to play strictly OF - so the conversion plan seems to be still in the works. Looks like for sure they are going to try Strieby in the OF - so it's a possility to talk about - I'll take a wait and see how it can work out - but I'm not taking a wait and see on his bat - he has the type of bat that should force the Tigers to find a spot for him - and I don't need Ezell or other teams minor league managers to tell me that.
| Jump to top |
