Some baseball reading material
Kommienezuspadt
or -- http://tinyurl.com/yzczs6n
====
or --- http://tinyurl.com/y8tlluc
Hey it's about the Reds & it's 6 degrees.....
john smith
Aaron Harang 12-31 over the last two seasons.
Willie Taveras a .285 on base percentage the last two seasons.
Homer Bailey 6-1 over his last 9 starts with an ERA of 1.70.
Paul Janish 21 doubles in only 265 at bats last year...
Kommienezuspadt
"john smith" <eddy...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:28818-4B40...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
Yeah -- if you only live by W - L 3's -- Aaron's do look pretty sick.
the 21 2 baggers did surprise me too.
John Kasupski
wrote:
I had seen this stat from the beat writers previously. This is a main reason
(along with his defense) that I'm not too concerned if Janish is the starting
shortstop. As long as he can hit line drives - and the relatively high number of
doubles for the number of ABs would tend to suggest that he can - there's hope
for him as a hitter. Dave Concepcion wasn't much with the lumber either when he
first came up but turned out to be an asset in the long run.
Harang...well, this is why you don't judge pitchers by W/L record. He kept the
team in the game in most of his starts the last two seasons. It's hard to get
wins when you have to produce a quality start AND hit a three-run homer in order
to do so. He produced plenty of quality starts. They'll just have to work with
him on htting those three-run homers!
Taveras...we can only hope he has an outstanding performance in spring training
while another team has a rash of injuries and becomes extremely desperate for an
outfielder so the Reds can trade him without having to eat his salary. Even if
it's a sack of used batting practice balls for Taveras and an autographed
picture of Max Venable.
Bailey...I've actually been waiting for David to point this out, but so far he
hasn't: four of those last nine starts were against the Pirates - after they
traded away Wilson, Hinske, and McLouth. Mowing down the likes of Brandon Moss,
Luis Cruz, Lastings Milledge, Ryan Doumit, Ronny Cedeno, Neil Walker, and Brian
Bixler doesn't exactly make me ready to annoint Homer as the next Jose Rijo. I'm
a bit more hopeful looking at his performances against the Dodgers and Cardinals
during that stretch, though.
JK
David Short
> Bailey...I've actually been waiting for David to point this out, but so far he
> hasn't: four of those last nine starts were against the Pirates - after they
> traded away Wilson, Hinske, and McLouth. Mowing down the likes of Brandon Moss,
> Luis Cruz, Lastings Milledge, Ryan Doumit, Ronny Cedeno, Neil Walker, and Brian
> Bixler doesn't exactly make me ready to annoint Homer as the next Jose Rijo. I'm
> a bit more hopeful looking at his performances against the Dodgers and Cardinals
> during that stretch, though.
There are pitchers where I would worry about the level of competition
that they faced, but Homer is bit different. I think Homer is now a lot
like Danny Jackson used to be. He's either going to beat you or beat
himself. I'm very encouraged by the fact that Homer didn't beat himself
in those starts. They could have been against the knothole all-stars and
if Homer pitched like he used to, he would have found a way to lose.
That he didn't find a was to lose, but instead dominated (admittedly
weak opposition) is a good thing.
I'm not on the Homer bandwagon, at least not yet. I want to see more.
There are a lot of guys like that with the reds. Homer, Bruce,
Stubbs....Hanigan, Hernandez, Dickerson, Herrara, Burton, Masset....
Even Scott Rolen. If Rolen can play 140 healthy games, I won't complain
about him any more.
John Kasupski
<David.n...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
>There are pitchers where I would worry about the level of competition
>that they faced, but Homer is bit different. I think Homer is now a lot
>like Danny Jackson used to be. He's either going to beat you or beat
>himself. I'm very encouraged by the fact that Homer didn't beat himself
>in those starts. They could have been against the knothole all-stars and
>if Homer pitched like he used to, he would have found a way to lose.
>That he didn't find a was to lose, but instead dominated (admittedly
>weak opposition) is a good thing.
Well...considering that Eric Milton got lit up like a Christmas tree by the
Pirates' Single-A team on a back field in Sarasota at spring training in 2007,
maybe we can safely say that Homer has passed Milton now. That's still not
saying a whole lot. I was, and still am, hoping for a lot more from Bailey than
to merely be better than Eric Milton. I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.
Dude was picked 1st by the Reds and 7th overall in that draft. You want a little
more from that high a pick than another Kip Wells or Jimmy Haynes.
>I'm not on the Homer bandwagon, at least not yet. I want to see more.
>There are a lot of guys like that with the reds. Homer, Bruce,
>Stubbs....Hanigan, Hernandez, Dickerson, Herrara, Burton, Masset....
I'd add Paul Janish to that list. Hanigan, I think he is what he is, which is
basically a righty-hitting Jeff Reed, although he fields the position better
than Reed did. Hernandez is okay at his current salary, but they'd have been
nuts to exercise an $8 million option on him because there's no way he's worth
that. Frankly, the Orioles took detritus for him and still got the better end of
the deal by dumping his salary. The other three guys - like you, I haven't made
up my mind on them yet either, but I'm beginning to think Burton is another Todd
Coffey - a guy who has talent but isn't going to amount to squat until after he
leaves the Reds. Maybe the new pitching coach can change that, though. Masset is
at the right age to be peaking and seems to be doing just that, but how long
will it last? As for Herrera, I think he is the real deal and that we haven't
even seen the best of him yet, but then again, he's such a little dude that I
have to wonder about durability...although I suppose that's not as much of an
issue for a loogy, who's going less than an inning a game, as it is for a setup
man or middle reliever type.
>Even Scott Rolen. If Rolen can play 140 healthy games, I won't complain
>about him any more.
Yes, if he stays healthy, I think he will put up 20 or so dingers, around 90 RBI
and give us the best D we've seen at 3B since Buddy Bell. But that's a big if.
I'm not holding my breath. Dude hasn't played in that many games in a season
since 2006, and that was coming off a 2005 in which he only played 55.
JK
David Short
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:36:10 -0500, David Short
> <David.n...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
>
>> There are pitchers where I would worry about the level of competition
>> that they faced, but Homer is bit different. I think Homer is now a lot
>> like Danny Jackson used to be. He's either going to beat you or beat
>> himself. I'm very encouraged by the fact that Homer didn't beat himself
>> in those starts. They could have been against the knothole all-stars and
>> if Homer pitched like he used to, he would have found a way to lose.
>> That he didn't find a was to lose, but instead dominated (admittedly
>> weak opposition) is a good thing.
>
> Well...considering that Eric Milton got lit up like a Christmas tree by the
> Pirates' Single-A team on a back field in Sarasota at spring training in 2007,
> maybe we can safely say that Homer has passed Milton now. That's still not
> saying a whole lot. I was, and still am, hoping for a lot more from Bailey than
> to merely be better than Eric Milton. I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.
> Dude was picked 1st by the Reds and 7th overall in that draft. You want a little
> more from that high a pick than another Kip Wells or Jimmy Haynes.
Just FWIW Stubbs was drafted almost as highly as Homer was.
Baseball draft picks fail. Even high draft picks fail. It's a crap shoot
combined with the refusal of (bad) small market teams to draft the best
player for signability reasons.
I think one of the first things baseball can do to help the small market
clubs is to allow them to trade draft picks. I understand the
objections, I just don't think they carry much weight in the real world
having watched a GM draft real talent that he had no intention of
signing (Bowden and Sowers)
>> I'm not on the Homer bandwagon, at least not yet. I want to see more.
>> There are a lot of guys like that with the reds. Homer, Bruce,
>> Stubbs....Hanigan, Hernandez, Dickerson, Herrara, Burton, Masset....
>
> I'd add Paul Janish to that list.
I won't argue. Bill Bray belongs too.
>Hanigan, I think he is what he is, which is
> basically a righty-hitting Jeff Reed, although he fields the position better
> than Reed did.
Considering his career seemed to over several times, that a real success
for both him and the organization.
dfs
John Kasupski
<David.n...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
>Just FWIW Stubbs was drafted almost as highly as Homer was.
>
>Baseball draft picks fail. Even high draft picks fail. It's a crap shoot
>combined with the refusal of (bad) small market teams to draft the best
>player for signability reasons.
Yes, any draft is a crapshoot, but unless you're a team with deep pockets that
can go out and sign pretty much whoever you want off the free agent market
regardless of cost, you can't afford to keep missing on those high picks. If it
happens once in a while, that's one thing, but when you're constantly picking
one bust after another, you have a problem. Especially when you're picking in
the top half of the first round, teams like the Reds have to make those picks
count, and the Reds have a track record of failing to do that.
Bowden playing games with guys like Sowers is doubly criminal, because it's
throwing away those picks on purpose. More on this below.
>I think one of the first things baseball can do to help the small market
>clubs is to allow them to trade draft picks. I understand the
>objections, I just don't think they carry much weight in the real world
>having watched a GM draft real talent that he had no intention of
>signing (Bowden and Sowers)
I'm sorry but I can't agree. The only way small market teams have of building a
competitive roster is to do it through the draft. They sure can't do it through
free agency. Allowing them to trade draft picks equates to allowing them to
shoot themselves in the foot.
FWIW, I think Bowden/Sowers was mandated by Carl Lindner, or maybe by John
Allen, because the team didn't want to pay for top prospects. As an
organizational strategy to keep expenses down, that ranks slightly below Marge
Schott gutting the scouting department on the effectiveness scale, and well
below that on the ethical scale. The farm system is finally starting to recover
from it now. This is one thing I don't blame Bowden for. There's plenty that I
do lay at his doorstep, but to be fair about it, I think this was above Bowden's
pay grade.
>>> I'm not on the Homer bandwagon, at least not yet. I want to see more.
>>> There are a lot of guys like that with the reds. Homer, Bruce,
>>> Stubbs....Hanigan, Hernandez, Dickerson, Herrara, Burton, Masset....
>>
>> I'd add Paul Janish to that list.
>
>I won't argue. Bill Bray belongs too.
Wow. I'd forgotten all about Bray. I'd just kind of mentally filed him as a
permanent resident of the DL, I guess. Yeah, add him to that list, too.
>>Hanigan, I think he is what he is, which is
>> basically a righty-hitting Jeff Reed, although he fields the position better
>> than Reed did.
>
>Considering his career seemed to over several times, that a real success
>for both him and the organization.
Considering that Hanigan started out as an undrafted amateur free agent, I have
to agree. We can start by thanking Leland Maddox, the scout who signed him.
JK
David Short
If it has value, they should be able to trade it.
The #10 draft slot probably produces a major league player less than
half the time. That's IF you put the money into scouting and sign the
best available player. Would you rather have that or ....oh say the pick
of the best player from some teams AAA/AA roster?
Now, you've turned that #10 pick into somebody who has a lower ceiling,
but is a bit further up the developmental ladder plus you don't have to
pay a signing bonus, so you have more money to put into your major
league squad (not just free agents, but to keep the young/good players
that you might have to deal)
Trading draft picks hasn't hurt parity in either the NFL or the NBA.
> Considering that Hanigan started out as an undrafted amateur free agent, I have
> to agree. We can start by thanking Leland Maddox, the scout who signed him.
I know the reds released him at least twice.
dfs
John Kasupski
<David.n...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
>Trading draft picks hasn't hurt parity in either the NFL or the NBA.
I don't follow the NBA, but it's sure hurt the Washington Redskins.
Beyond that, there are several differences. The NFL and NBA both have salary
caps; draft picks in baseball usually spend several years in the minors before
they crack the 40-man or 25-man (if they ever do); the NFL draft is seven rounds
while MLB's is, like, 40. But most of all, if I'm an NFL GM and I trade a draft
pick in February, I know what the value of that pick is, because the draft's
going to be held in April based on the won/lost records of teams during the
season that's just been completed in January. I have a chart in front of me that
tells me exactly what that draft pick is worth.
The MLB draft happens while the season is in progress. That pretty much makes it
impossible during the winter when you're trading draft picks to have a clear
idea what the draft order is going to be, and therefore, what the value of that
pick is. The Brewers were in first place in the middle of June and finished 11
games out and below .500 - you tell me where they're going to be in June 2010
when the next draft is held. How do you determine what their second-round pick
in June is going to be worth so you can make a trade with them on January 6?
I think allowing teams to trade draft picks would merely grant teams blanket
permission to run their franchises like the Pirates almost do now - just sit
there in the division cellar, drafting and developing players only to trade them
away as soon as they show any promise, and lather/rinse/repeat until the fans
get so disgusted you can fit all your season ticket holders in the dugout.
At the other end of the spectrum I think you'd have a bunch of teams who would
trade a lot of draft picks for players to help themselves in the short term, and
get a rude awakening a couple of years later when those players they acquired
from somebody else's AA/AAA roster walked as free agents they couldn't afford to
pay - forcing them to turn to a farm system that's as bare as an apple tree in
mid-February because they traded away the draft picks they might have used to
stock that farm system.
The only way I buy this is if you get a salary cap past the MLBPA. That, of
course, is about as likely as Jaimee Grubbs getting invited to Elin Nordegren's
next birthday bash. And if you could get the union to sign off on a salary cap,
you'd have already fixed the problem for small market teams by setting a
reasonable payroll limit and leveling the financial playing field, and without
incorporating the trading of draft picks.
JK