If No Fielder... What about?
by Binjo42 on Jan 4, 2012 3:12 AM EST
Email
PrintSince super agent Scott Boras is clearly waiting out for Pujols numbers and causing me to hate him by the minute. I was wondering what could be a stop gap temporary solution to our clean up spot. Although limited I found a temporary solution. Would you sign a player with this stat line to back up JoBau and prevent teams from pitching around and walking him 130 times?
| 2009 | 135 | 471 | 91 | 107 | 39 | 100 | 87 | 163 | 3 | 3 | .356 | .537 | .227 | |
| 2010 | 144 | 484 | 64 | 95 | 28 | 84 | 87 | 158 | 5 | 1 | .325 | .407 | .196 | |
| 2011 | 153 | 493 | 72 | 111 | 28 | 80 | 101 | 161 | 2 | 2 | .357 | .462 | .225 |
Good Power: 2nd on Jays
Good Walk Rate : 2nd on Jays
On Base: 5th on Jays
RBI: 3rd on Jays
Slugging: 3rd on Jays
figure out who it is?
What do you think?
120 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
what could it hurt
to sign him to a one year deal and see how it works out, if hes having a good season and were out of the playoff picture after the allstar break we could also deal him for some prospects. im in favour of the move.
Nah.
I think EE can put up close to as good or better numbers at DH, and I think with a healthy season Lind can do the same.
We basically already have Carlos Pena
His name is Adam Lind…better batting average, worse on base, similar power. Both have significant L/R splits, Pena not quite as drastic career though.
I don;t really need to see the need…maybe if we needed a righty masher, but at 1B/DH/LF we’ve already got 4 guys, three of which who are lefties.
Pass for me.
I hear ya about Lind but he’s not a true clean up hitter. If I remember correctly the year he mashed 35 Homers he was batting in the 5 hole. Would I prefer a right handed bat to bat clean up of course. But then again if we get Fielder he is a lefty as well and would still be in the same situation. The other thing is as a clean up hitter you not only have to mash home runs but you do have to have the ability to walk which Lind hasn’t really shown in his career.
Why the preference for a righty? I don’t love Lind as the clean-up hitter, and if he’s going to play against lefties he should never be the clean-up hitter (ideally, I’d platoon him anyway and rarely have him hit against lefties, he’e fine against righties). And even so, I just don’t see Pena as a big upgrade, and that’s before considering the cost.
I want Jonny Gomes
(I don’t know how to insert pictures, but do a Google search and you’ll find a nice one of him punching out a Red Sox player).
VS LHP
2011 OBP .407, OPS .863
Career OBP .385, OPS .877
Davis career OBP vs LHP is .350. Considering his speed once he’s on base, that’s decent.
Throw Gomes into the mix with Snider, Davis, EE, Lind at LF/DH/1B, and you’ve got a pretty good platoon situation.
I thought I read that his numbers against left-handed starters were fine..it’s bullpen specialists that skew his splits.
Baseball Prospectus
I only read part of it, becuase some was behind the paywall.
There were big splits, but his numbers against lefty starters were not good…they weren;t as bad, but not good at all.
I'm with Billy Beane on this one
No thanks on Pena. The solution to our #4 spot could be JBau. If Lawrie keeps hitting he’ll become our #3. Then we have to find a #5 to back-up Bautista. My bid’s on Kendry Morales
Yeah I agree down the road Lawrie will become our 3 possibly even a #2 with his speed. But right now We need some one who puts a lil fear in pitchers eyes.
Morales would be a sufficient 4 this year and a great 5 once Lawrie slides everyone back one. I can’t see Lawrie as our #2. The speed is going to decrease as he ages and starts to “pace himself” and even if it doesn’t, the power should be utilised to greater effect than it would be in the 2-spot
Eventually either Gose or Marisnick will make it to the big club. If it’s Gose he’ll slot in at #1 with Escobar sliding in behind him. If it’s Marisnick, Escobar will probably stay at #1 with Marisnick slotting in behind him.
Vague parameters
These are still fairly raw prospects, especially in the case of Marisnick. “Eventually” could mean anything from 2013 to 2016.
if either Marisnick or Gose
take until 2016 to make the Majors, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be significant pieces (besides the fact that they might be gone through the Rule 5)
Risky
Morales hasn’t played in 18 months and it remains to be seen if he can be anywhere near the player he was before his bizarre injury (I will think of it every time Lawrie leaps into a crowd at home plate and cringe).
morales is the truth. he's not going to all of a sudden forget how to hit hrs to hit
I found a delivery in my flaw
by syc on Jan 4, 2012 9:20 AM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
stoopid iphone
I found a delivery in my flaw
by syc on Jan 4, 2012 9:20 AM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
i dont think it really makes sense we already have a streaky hitter in lind.
I found a delivery in my flaw
by syc on Jan 4, 2012 9:18 AM EST via iPhone app reply actions
The Jays already have the backup for the Jedi
His name is Travis Snider and he’s already on the team. If Snider’s playing left (because Thames is unavailable or sucking), then it Davis or that new OF the Jays picked up. If the Jedi goes down long-term, the Jays season is toast anyway, so you might want to see how Gose does.
i agree of u could trade Lind i would like this move more
I found a delivery in my flaw
by syc on Jan 4, 2012 10:44 AM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Boras is Pena's agent.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Jan 4, 2012 10:45 AM EST reply actions
I don't think
we really have an elite bat a la Montero anywhere close to the Majors right now; I think 1B/DH will be a hole for at least a year or two
Mike McDade is in AA and is coming off a great season
The 22 year old is probably as far away as D’Arnaud.
We could always sign a league average or better first baseman in the coming years.
.785 OPS
for a 22 year old first baseman at AA is a great season? I’m sorry but I’ll have to disagree with you on that. McDade may be a good fielder, but that’s simply not good enough hitting for a first baseman in the Majors, let alone DH. his plate discipline simply isn’t good enough right now (almost 4:1 K:BB).
d’Arnaud, on the other hand, had an OPS of .914 (129 points higher) while also playing good defense, only this time at the hardest position on the diamond. d’Arnaud could use some work on plate discipline too (3:1 K:BB), but he walks almost 2% more than does McDade and his offense need not be nearly as good, since he’s a catcher.
d’Arnaud should be ready for the Majors by July, if all goes according to plan. if McDade can’t fix his plate discipline, his ceiling is probably AAAA slugger
McDade was hurt in the second half of the season
His first-half and second-half splits are quite different, which suggests his .782 OPS for the whole season doesn’t tell the whole story.
I agree with you on the plate discipline though, McDade is a hacker. He needs to get a little more selective at the plate if he’s to crack the big league roster.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
Could he be in a similar situation as Gose?
Where hes instructed to strike out?
Maybe, but unlikely
Gose came from a different organization. The Jays wanted to him to completely re-work his swing. To ensure that he kept his new swing, the Jays forbade him from making defensive swings (in his old style). That is, they preferred that he swing hard no matter the count and they wouldn’t be concerned about a high swinging K%.
Well AA felt he had to waste a spot on the 40 man roster spot on him before the rule 5
So clearly AA sees something in him that neither of you do.
that only means...
he was more valuable than the players that were left unprotected… not saying much there.
So hes worth more than
Carlos Perez, Jake Marisnick, Noah Syndergaard, and Deck McGuire? I can’t say I agree.
Not a matter of being protected
They aren’t Rule 5 eligible…Perez will be next year (if not added to 40 man), Marisnick + McGuire in 2013, Syndergarrd in 2014.
That's what I meant
protected, ineligible same thing really. they cant be drafted
Never said I didn’t see anything in him. I said counting on him for anything is presumptive…for the exact reasons benk pointed out. If he can take another couple steps forward and become a major contributor, great. But the ods are still pretty long
All I'm saying is the scouts must love him
I can’t see any other team selecting him in the rule 5.
I wouldn’t draw either of those inferences at all (they may be the case, but objectively, I can;t draw the conclusion from what we know). You protect him if you think there’s a greater chance of him producing at the MLB level than the next most valuable guy…considering no uprotected player was poached, this turned out to be a good call, who knows if someone else was intersted in McDade (if other GMs were asking about him, AA might have been tipped off)
But my point is
“They don’t boo nobodies” They don’t add a 22 year old to the 40 man roster without first having evaluated that he would have a legitimate shot at being a MLBer and a decent one at that. A 40 man roster spot is just too valuable.
I guess
but that says very little about whether or not Mike McDade will turn into an effective Major League DH that can start on a contending team in the AL East. I’d say the chances of that happening within two years are about 5%.
Well I think AA's number is different
If it was a true 5% chance he wouldn’t waste a roster spot on him. We still have to release somebody for Oliver and another guy for Frasor I think. If its him I take back everything I said.
All I’m saying are the professionals took a hard look at McDade and decided that he was worth a spot on the 40 man roster as a 22 year old. We obviously thought a team might snatch him up and use him on the 25 man roster, so we protected him. They went way more in depth on whether or not to add him and they decided to.
A 40 man roster spot is just too valuable.
Last I checked, we still had guys like Darin Mastroanni and Luis Valbuena on there. It’s certainly valuable, but its not like it’s a guarantee of anything at all. After the Rule 5 draft and winter FA signing (which the Jays appear to basically be done with, once someone gets removed for Oliver), the 40 man will not be a major constraint at all until next offseason. So basically, you protect him, see how he does, and if he flops, he could be gone next offseason. He’s a wild card, maybe he amounts to something, maybe not.
Busts tend to hang around on the 40 man
Because nobody wants to remove them because they don’t want them selected off of waivers. People like Jo-Jo Reyes make a career off of that.
Look at the group of people added to the 40 man and those who weren’t, and you can judge how an organization values those players. Just like if Brett Cecil is pitching opening day we know who John Farrel values most.
Huh?
Who is the bust you’re referring to? Mastroanni is a low drafted role player, not a bust. Valbuena was a waiver pick-up, not a bust for us.
A prospect will be added to the 40 man for one of two reasons:
1) If the team needs him at major league level, since to be on the active 25 man roster you have to be on the 40 man
2) If he can be lost to the Rule 5, and the team would rather he occupy a 40 man spot than risk losing him.
In McDade’s case we know it was #2. All we can infer from him being added to the 40 man is that Jays valued him enough to avoid risking losing him, versus leaving him exposed. That’s all, that’s it.
That's my point exactly
The Jays don’t think he has a “5% chance of success” if they use a roster spot on him. Whoever is kicked off the 40 man is arguably considered to be “worse” than McDade because we decided to keep him and not the other person.
that's not what it means at all
first off, I didn’t say McDade has a 5% chance of success. I said he has a 5% chance (in my opinion) of being a legitimate starting DH on a competitive team in the AL East – pretty strict criteria for “success.”
second, all putting him on the 40-man implies is that the Jays think his expected value is higher than any other player that was subject to the Rule 5 Draft.
whoops
another criterion for “success” I said was that he needs to become a legit starting DH on an AL East competitive team in the next two years since we were talking about holes that will be present in the next few years (following the comment that the Jays should wait a year to see our holes more clearly).
In that case
Agreed. My bad, I must have read that comment upside down or something lol I missed that.
1B not DH
IF McDade makes the big club, and that is a huge if regardless of his inclusion on the 40-man (of course he was included on the 40-man; we drafted him; he’s 22; can field and can bop and they want to give him another year or 2 to see if he can take the next step in his development). But IF he makes the big club, it will be as a 1B not a DH. He’s currently the best defensive 1B in the system, by all accounts
FWIW
they’ve been talking about him on MLB radio a lot lately..say his swing is too long, and he’s probably AAAA, it’s why the Friars went and got Alonso. If true that Gonzales trade looks more, and more fishy all the time to me..especially with the participants working together again..I hope Karma keeps biting the Red Sox in the ass over that one.
I'm no talent evaluator
but he did put up a .433 wOBA in PCL at 21… that doesn’t scream AAAA to me, especially since he’s just so young and was so highly regarded as a prospect. it’s entirely possible the Jays/other scouts know something I don’t, but he’s a very intriguing prospect to me
this is true
but Wallace also wasn’t producing well in PCL at age 25 (!) – on the surface, looks like a totally different case from Wallace. when we traded for Gose, Brett only had an OPS of .858 (wRC+ of 120) – nothing really impressive, especially considering the age
Admittedly
I don’t know what to make of Rizzo either, but calling him an AAAA player after 49 big league games? Granted, they were a pretty horrendous 49 games. But I don’t see how one would come to that conclusion after such a short amount of time in the big leagues.
I think Karma more than bit Boston last season btw. It just about tore both cheeks off.
Its almost as crazy as extending Lawrie
After 43 games in the MLB :P
Lol
But I guess the idea there is that if you extend him now you’ll get him at a significant discount, like Matt Moore. I’d do it, Lawrie probably wouldn’t
that's the idea, yeah
Longo style too. it’s high-risk (if he flames out), ridiculously high-reward (if he pans out)
You can't say 49 games don't matter for Rizzo
Then say 43 games do matter for Lawrie. You all know if Lawrie went JPA on us (terrible when he first came up, well after his debut) then nobody would be suggesting we extend him.
I think Lawrie should be extended but not now. In 100 games from now he will hit his little wall and fall back down to earth, then I think its a good time. Its not like he will maintain this level of performance for 6 years straight. Thames had a similar start (with less slugging%) if you look at his first 43 games. But then he came back down.
of course I can
which is also why I think we should acquire Rizzo, because his first 43 games aren’t indicative of his future performance because his BABIP was so out of whack. Lawrie’s BABIP was high but not that high, and his Minors performance (as with Rizzo) suggest Lawrie (and Rizzo) will be excellent in the Majors
Then hes a great example of a player you should sign to an extension
I don’t remember ever hearing “buy high” as a good thing.
Need clarification
Are you saying Lawrie would be a buy high?
by Matthew Mueller on Jan 4, 2012 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
Extending him now would be, yes.
You think .293 BA is his floor? Power to ya’
It’s not that the .293 is a floor, it that it he puts up anything close to last season again, he’ll be a 4+ WAR player, and very expensive.
Either way, I doubt the Jays extend him for atleast a year. It’s their pattern…it’s what they did with Wells back in the day, it’s what they did with Romero
I wouldn't use Wells as a reference
Not only was that under a completely different GM, but it was done against the wishes of that GM.
It’s better to look at Romero, as you mentioned, but also Escobar and the Jedi.
Escobar and Bautista don’t fit, because they weren’t pre-arb players who got extended.
I hesitated to put Wells there, since it was a different regime, but there is a certain amount of institutional memory…it worked out, so maybe that made it easier to do Romero’s deal (they did the same thing with Hinske, it didn’t really work out, but the absolute money was okay value due to the cost controlled nature)
Anyway, I’ll be surprised if anthing happens with Lawrie before the beginning of the season, and probably even efore the end of the 2012 season.
Dear Benk
I just was wondering your dollar figure and years you think it would take realistically to sign him?
I don't really know...
I’d guess he might sign a Longoria deal, maybe a few million more total? I’d do that. the potential rewards if he pans out are just so enormous compared to losing some $10M or whatever if he suffers a catastrophic injury/is somehow only a 1 WAR player.
but of course, like everything, it would depend on what we’d have to pay for it. I guess in Lawrie’s case (since I’m far more bullish than you are) I’m more risk-loving, and you’re risk-averse
20M on a player who has played 43 games?
Tbh I might do it if it was Longoria’s exact contract. I just had a feeling it would be a lot more
yeah, I'd spend 20M on a player who's played 43 games
but I think the best part of Longoria’s contract, while the Rays save a heckuva lot on arb years, are the three team options at the end
He would only need to put up like what 3 WAR over the life on the contract to make it worth it?
When you adjust for baseball inflation at the end?
I’d do that. I talk on another forum and when the topic was brought up people were saying 100M/15 years and 80M/10 and stuff. I never even bothered to check Longoria’s contract.
That's what I said
But then everybody went all “LAWRIE IS GAWD” and said my prediction of .250/.360/.480 for 2012 was “The worst post I’ve read in my 10 year history on this site”
Its amazing how much the casual fan is going to be disappointed when Lawrie puts up my numbers.
I'd be thrilled with .360/.480
I don’t meant to nitpick, but I believe you actually predicted a .330 OBA (just because I remember the OPS was just over .800).
and a .360/.480 line over 575-600 PAs is actually awfully close to… Evan Longoria. with average defense and baserunning Lawrie’d be worth 5 WAR for the season. I doubt anyone would be disappointed in that
Ditto
I’d be thrilled with that line for him as a 22 year old next year…the BA is probably a little low relative to the OBP…I’d guess .260/.350/.480 is more proportional (note: not my prediction, just modifying Mike’s) but regardless, it would be great
That could be the case
For some reason I think he sees the baseball well and now other teams are going to pitch around him more. I think he can handle that.
his plate discipline in the Minors
was actually supposed to be plus (according to Sickels) and his Majors/PCL plate discipline numbers were pretty solid. with Lawrie’s power, so long as he can make average contact he should be a very good hitter
Your right
I just remembered the OPS and not the breakdown.
I know eventually a poster like one of you guys came and supported my post, and quickly pointed out those are some of the best numbers for a 3B in the league.
I'd be happy
To buyout Lawrie’s control years for 30M guaranteed, if it got us a couple options. It’s a gamble easily worth taking, though again, I think they’ll want to see it over a full year first, even if it’s more expensive.
But
Lawrie’s major league performance matched expectations and his minor league performance. Rizzo’s major league performance was completely opposite of his minor league performance. Not to say that Lawrie couldn’t end up being less than what we’d hoped, but when you look at like that you see why one sample might matter more than the other.
That doesn't make sense
So both of them showed that they could hit in AAA, but then in the MLB they went in different directions over 43-49 games and now suddenly Lawrie is deserving of an extension and Rizzo should be waited on until he bounces back THEN sign him to an extension?
I don't think you get it
Lawrie – expected to be good —> was good
Rizzo – expected to be good —> wasn’t good
Now, which of the two scenerios are you going to pause and look at critically? The one that falls in line with your expectations (Lawrie) or the one that doesn’t (Rizzo)?
As I’ve said before, Lawrie could very well end up being a different player than he was last season. But that’s the logic. When you expect a scoop of ice cream in your cone, you don’t stand there surprised. When someone at Dairy Queen hands you an ice cream cone with a hamster in it you just might say wtf.
I don't think you get it
Rizzo – expected to be good —> wasn’t good
You cannot draw the inference that he wasn’t good from 50 PAs or so, it’s an insignficant sample size
I wasn't trying to say Rizzo wasn't good
I was saying he wasn’t good in those PAs. You missed a 1 before the 50 I’m pretty sure.
How is that a freaking straw man
I don’t think you get it
Rizzo – expected to be good —> wasn’t good
You cannot draw the inference that he wasn’t good from 50 PAs or so, it’s an insignficant sample size
So 43 games is an appropriate gauge for a players whole career?
2 post that say the same thing, his is an argument and mine is a straw man?
we're not talking about a player's whole career
we’re talking about likelihood of being a successful player.
also this whole Rizzo/Lawrie business is getting kind of convoluted since one is a discussion about cost controlling (Lawrie) and one is a discussion of acquiring the playing (Rizzo) which are two totally different issues
Something about a Hamster?
I don’t know I went and got a snack when I heard “Dairy Queen”
by Mike Andrew on Jan 4, 2012 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Someone said 49 games shouldn't hold significant weight
In predicting Rizzo’s major league career. And then someone else said if that’s true why are people wanting to give Lawrie an extension after just 43 games
Anyone feel free to correct if I got it wrong
Without commenting on whether or not that’s accurate, since I’m really confused about it, here’s what my ideal policy would be:
Every highly ranked positional prospect that you believe in, give them a Longoria type deal before they hit the majors: Buyout 5-6 years for 10-20M depending on their pedigree, with 2-3 options years. There will be some failures, but the upside far outweighs the risk, especially in aggregate
Of course not
Was 3 starts an appropriate guage for Matt Moore’s career? That’s not what the hypothetical extension is about.
I think they should do it.
just to ruin the weekly “Longo has the best contract evah!!” fanpost on DRaysBay…petty I know.
random question
do we have Lawrie for 6 more years (until 2016 inclusivve) or five more years (until 2015 inclusive)?
Lawrie cannot become a FA until after 2017
by MjwW on Jan 4, 2012 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bluebird Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
