PDA

View Full Version : Reds acquire Shin-Soo Choo and Jason Donald for Drew Stubbs and Didi Gregorious



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

jojo
12-12-2012, 02:07 PM
Choo has been known to take poor routes in the outfield.

Expectations should be low but it would not surprise me that Bruce eventually ends up covering center and Choo returns to the corner.

Ya. I don't think Choo is going to be a credible defensive CFer.

Instead of hearing how defense doesn't matter in left, we'll get to hear how defensive metrics are *insert perjorative language*.

I think Choo as a CFer is a good bet to be a 3.5-4 WAR player which means adding him makes the Reds better in a meaningful way concerning playoof and WS chances. But the leather side probably isn't going to be pretty.

osuceltic
12-12-2012, 02:15 PM
Choo has been known to take poor routes in the outfield.

Expectations should be low but it would not surprise me that Bruce eventually ends up covering center and Choo returns to the corner.

I can't see them moving Bruce around. He's here long-term and will be the right fielder. I don't think they'll be moving him to center for a year for a marginal improvement (and I think that's what it would be -- Bruce would be a bad center fielder at this point).

jojo
12-12-2012, 02:21 PM
I can't see them moving Bruce around. He's here long-term and will be the right fielder. I don't think they'll be moving him to center for a year for a marginal improvement (and I think that's what it would be -- Bruce would be a bad center fielder at this point).

This.

I don't think we've seen anything out of Bruce over the last two seasons that suggests he would be an answer in CF.

Choo is likely to play long enough in center for us to argue. He probably isn't going to be there long enough for us to get an answer. Probably mixing in Heisey as platoon partner in CF a bit and letting Choo spell Ludwick in left as a rotational thing is the best way to hide Choo's glove.

Use a little creativity and let it be what it will be.

M2
12-12-2012, 03:07 PM
A good number of us have actually seen a similar move to shifting Choo to CF.

In the 1981 season the Reds took 31 year-old Ken Griffey Sr. and moved him from RF to CF. The reason why was they had an OF of Griffey, Dave Collins and George Foster and none of them was a pure CF. Collins had been given CF gig in 1980, but the decision was made to move Griffey over for 1981. Griffey had a reputation as a mediocre RF. DRS agrees that it was a well-earned reputation.

But the Reds wanted to get those three bats in the lineup, so to CF Griffey went.

And it worked like a charm. The team finished with the best record in baseball (though it got jobbed out of the playoffs thanks to some expert politicking by Peter O'Malley). And, by any measure, it was one of the better defensive clubs in the league. According to modern defensive stats, Griffey actually played CF better than he played RF.

Obviously your results will vary with different humans, but the Reds have had success with this exact type of move in extremely similar circumstances.

cinreds21
12-12-2012, 03:08 PM
JIM BOWDEN ‏@JimBowdenESPNxm
Walt Jocketty told us that he told Choo that the idea was to try him in CF in Spring Training but they're going to see how it works out

redsmetz
12-12-2012, 03:13 PM
Here's the story from The Korean Herald. Much of it seems to be from the wire service, but there's a couple of tidbits particular to the Korean market.


http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20121212000619

jojo
12-12-2012, 03:14 PM
A good number of us have actually seen a similar move to shifting Choo to CF.

In the 1981 season the Reds took 31 year-old Ken Griffey Sr. and moved him from RF to CF. The reason why was they had an OF of Griffey, Dave Collins and George Foster and none of them was a pure CF. Collins had been given CF gig in 1980, but the decision was made to move Griffey over for 1981. Griffey had a reputation as a mediocre RF. DRS agrees that it was a well-earned reputation.

But the Reds wanted to get those three bats in the lineup, so to CF Griffey went.

And it worked like a charm. The team finished with the best record in baseball (though it got jobbed out of the playoffs thanks to some expert politicking by Peter O'Malley). And, by any measure, it was one of the better defensive clubs in the league. According to modern defensive stats, Griffey actually played CF better than he played RF.

Obviously your results will vary with different humans, but the Reds have had success with this exact type of move in extremely similar circumstances.

If Choo performs offensively like he's done for his career and the Reds limit him to under 840 innings like they did Sr in 1981, that would be managing him about as well as they could absent an opening in the corner.

klw
12-12-2012, 03:16 PM
Here's the story from The Korean Herald. Much of it seems to be from the wire service, but there's a couple of tidbits particular to the Korean market.


http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20121212000619

My favorite part of that article- thanks to Google Translate

Choo, MLB Cincinnati Lightning Trade!

American League Cleveland Indians guns of PS (30) was traded to the Cincinnati Reds, CBS Sports columnist Jon Heyman and portal site Yahoo bankruptcy columnist Jeff Cleveland, Cincinnati, Ohio, the Arizona Diamondbacks by three teams, including the triangular trade Choo has shuffled since the 12th twitter Choo said other emergency Cincinnati and a one-year contract believed to have first Cleveland, Choo • instead of sending it to put their cash to Cincinnati infielder Jason Donald and outfielder Drew stub Su shortstop Didi Gregory brought reliever Gregory, Tony, sent to Arizona first baseman Lars Anderson, right-hander Trevor Bauer • Brian Shaw • Matt Alford bus 3:03 traded agreed whopping nine people yeokin complex trade center fielder and toptaja sense Cincinnati and points taken Choo Cleveland pitcher wanted to understand right off the market basing on local time 20:00 Choo took place. Choo • Lightning Trade - Utilization of agent Scott Boras - Utilization and joined the Dodgers of contract after successfully finish the trade immediately Choo 2006 big league debut for the Seattle Mariners in the year 2005 , they said. moved to Cleveland, Choo This third uniform change clothes the way he jumped in the American League debut in the National League next year. Klamath blends Choo explore the long-term contract, but was rejected after the trade him, he publicly declared that Cleveland can not afford to pay the big bucks after next season to qualify to get a free agent (FA), Choo said. was chosen to get a pitcher goyukchaek attack name combines a five-tool player , fielding, baserunning triplex with Choo batter into the center of Cleveland from 2008 has become the quick feet and a strong arm, slugging, accuracy, power, and threw so far this year career batting average of .289, 83 home runs, 3 hitter who went had 373 RBIs, 85 stolen bases, 20 home runs from 2009 to 2010 for 2 consecutive years and achieve -20 steals the American League as the top outfielder grew hitter in mid-May of this year, Choo Appearances successfully has transformed toptaja hitting sense strutting like this seems to be looking for the right person to stand at the forefront of the offense that meets the tastes of Cincinnati can be traced to the post-season with a new team you want to join the big-market club in the preferred Choo is greatly attractive club to Cincinnati Cincinnati's payroll this year, but Cleveland ($ 78,430,000) $ 82,200,000 to more than 17 of the full 30 teams ranked in the affluent side is not , however, the 'masters' Dusty Baker's leadership, this year's District 1 Back to secede postseason, so teamwork like to be taking the stage for the first time in his life, the next year, Choo autumn feast, the bigger the possibility the other hand, '' Killer Cincinnati Reds fans heard the news of miracles Choo s perspective Choo expectations were furious flew from Cincinnati and inter-league game this year batting .407 (27 at-bats 11 hits) on null. 11 hits in eight or more extra-base hits were doubles. .351 career batting average against the Reds, seven homers, 16 RBIs ... was strong.

Bill
12-12-2012, 03:16 PM
I can't see them moving Bruce around. He's here long-term and will be the right fielder. I don't think they'll be moving him to center for a year for a marginal improvement (and I think that's what it would be -- Bruce would be a bad center fielder at this point).

I agree it would be best to keep Bruce in his long-term home of RF, but it all depends on how competent Choo proves to be in the end.

M2
12-12-2012, 03:19 PM
If Choo performs offensively like he's done for his career and the Reds limit him to under 840 innings like they did Sr in 1981, that would be managing him about as well as they could absent an opening in the corner.

The Reds didn't limit him to 840 innings in 1981, the strike did.

jojo
12-12-2012, 03:35 PM
The Reds didn't limit him to 840 innings in 1981, the strike did.

It doesn't matter why, if Choo can be limited to below 840, it would be smart.

traderumor
12-12-2012, 03:38 PM
The last I heard, there was a lot of debate on whether the speedy Stubbs was actually statistically an above average CFer, or if he simply looked good because he had the speed.

With that being said, if he was at best average despite his speed, I would guess that Choo could at least match that, then the D is a push and the offense is obviously going to be an improvement. I think the D will be impacted much less than we think going in.

I certainly don't think we will see post injury Junioresque performance out there, and anything above that we should be able to live with.

Scrap Irony
12-12-2012, 03:42 PM
Fearless Predictions (2012):

-- Choo plays a passable CF and hits like his hair's on fire (.300/ .400/ .500) and plays his CF spot well enough for serious MVP consideration.
-- Choo's emergence as a leadoff hitter allows Votto-- who's completely healthy and crushing the ball-- to lead the league in BA, OBP, and RBI.
-- The addition of Choo means Phillips sees more fastballs, which allows him to turn on them. This results in a 20-homer season and his highest slugging percentage since 2007. His OBP climbs as a result as well-- over .350 for the second time in his career.

-- DiDi Gregorius struggles to hit in Spring Training, struggles to hit early in the season, and is sent down in favor of former A, Pennington. Gregorius comes up in 2013, plays passably well, and is a career secondary SS starter-- a decent guy to have on your team if he's not too expensive. In other words, he's the epitome of meh.
-- Speaking of meh, Drew Stubbs will K. A lot. Iinterestingly, he won't lead his team in Ks in 2012-- but he'll still K more than 190 times. As a CF, he might get some Gold Glove votes, but will continue to struggle to hit anything but mistake pitches.

M2
12-12-2012, 03:52 PM
It doesn't matter why, if Choo can be limited to below 840, it would be smart.

The 1981 Reds beg to differ. They committed to Griffey in CF and it worked. Gave him some days off vs. LH starters and used a defensive sub late in some games (Sam Mejias or Paul Householder), but he was on pace for 147 CF starts that season and 1,260 innings at that position.

The Reds had what some modern folks would label as a bad idea and went all-in on it. It netted them one of the best lineups in the NL, one of the best defenses in the NL and the best record in baseball.

If you think picking an arbitrary innings number reached by arbitrary means and completely not reflective of how the player was actually used when the Reds tried this before is "smart" then I'm sure no one will be dissuading you of that notion.

Me, I'm curious to see how this dumb idea plays out.

westofyou
12-12-2012, 03:58 PM
Me, I'm curious to see how this dumb idea plays out.

Me as well.

Gerrymandering should be fully applied and with Choo in CF I see Xavier Paul and Heisey have having to look over their shoulders as a true CF as the option for 5th OF is not out of the question.

jojo
12-12-2012, 04:00 PM
The last I heard, there was a lot of debate on whether the speedy Stubbs was actually statistically an above average CFer, or if he simply looked good because he had the speed.

With that being said, if he was at best average despite his speed, I would guess that Choo could at least match that, then the D is a push and the offense is obviously going to be an improvement. I think the D will be impacted much less than we think going in.

I certainly don't think we will see post injury Junioresque performance out there, and anything above that we should be able to live with.

I'm pretty comfortable with the notion that Stubbs and Choo are not defensive equals in CF.

Tom Servo
12-12-2012, 04:09 PM
jaysonst Jayson Stark
I'm thinking several of them might score RT @Cincy_Flyer: @jaysonst 2012 Choo vs '12 Reds leadoff OBP extrapolates to 105 extra baserunners.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 04:14 PM
jaysonst Jayson Stark
I'm thinking several of them might score RT @Cincy_Flyer: @jaysonst 2012 Choo vs '12 Reds leadoff OBP extrapolates to 105 extra baserunners.

Probably between 35-45 extra runs scored. That means that it's still 2 extra wins for the Reds if Stubbs to Choo is a loss in 20 runs defensively.

traderumor
12-12-2012, 04:15 PM
I'm pretty comfortable with the notion that Stubbs and Choo are not defensive equals in CF.Actually, memory was serving me that you were one of a few that was reminding us that Stubbs wasn't all that great a CFer according to D stats. I'm going from memory, so if I'm remembering wrong, I am getting old.

BTW, I never said they were "equals" since you like to mince words. I was making a little more of a broad analysis than that. That was pretty clear from the post, at least it should have been according to the reasonable person test.

westofyou
12-12-2012, 04:18 PM
When Didi Gregorius grows up, he has a chance to become Cliff Pennington.

Jonah Keri

klw
12-12-2012, 04:46 PM
http://espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/story/_/id/8739743/shin-soo-choo-reds-lineup-helped-tuesday-three-team-trade-drew-stubbs-reds-pitchers

Choo is a brilliant lineup fit in Cincinnati, as the Reds had by far the major leagues' worst on-base percentage from their leadoff hitters in 2012 (.254). Choo, by comparison, ranked among the majors' top 20 qualified hitters in on-base percentage in each of his three batting title-eligible campaigns (2009-10 and 2012), and his walk rate ranked among the top 25 in both 2010 and 2012. Therefore, there's an excellent chance that the Reds will have their leadoff man on base a good 75 times more than they did in 2012, and that presents a huge advantage for projected middle-of-the-order sluggers Joey Votto, Jay Bruce and Brandon Phillips, who combined had 232 RBIs in 1,731 plate appearances (one per 7.46).

To say that the odds of the Reds boasting at least one 100-run scorer (Choo) and as many as two 100-RBI men (Votto and Bruce, the likely Nos. 3 and 5 hitters) are good is selling this lineup short. Surely Choo should be a .280-average, .375-OBP performer in 2013, and coupled with probable 100-run, 20-steal contributions, his value will improve. That he'll also experience a boost in home run potential in his new ballpark, which is good for left-handed power, means Choo deserves every bit of his boost in ranking, from my No. 86 overall player to 78th.

Defensively speaking, however, there are concerns for Reds pitchers following this deal. (And that's not because of anything Donald, a projected backup infielder for his new team, does to the team.) Choo as a center fielder is a puzzling experiment, as he has 10 career big league games at the position, only one in the past six seasons and only 161 total as a professional. The man he's replacing, Stubbs, had the third-best Ultimate Zone Rating (per FanGraphs) out of 20 qualified center fielders (6.8), while Choo had the worst UZR of 17 qualified right fielders (-17.0). With Ryan Ludwick in left field, Choo in center and Bruce in right, the Reds have an outstanding chance of placing all three outfield positions in the bottom five in the majors defensively in 2013 … so good luck, Reds fly-ball pitchers.

Two Reds hurlers had higher than the major league average fly-ball rate in 2012, Bronson Arroyo with 38.3 percent (27th out of 88 qualifiers) and Homer Bailey with 37.6 percent (32nd), so don't count on either having as easy a time repeating what were solid ratios in 2012. Both lose a solid $1-2 in NL-only auction drafts as a result of Stubbs' departure and Choo's arrival.

RANDY IN INDY
12-12-2012, 04:56 PM
Boy, they are really selling Jay Bruce short in right. I also thought Ludwick, while not gold glove caliber, was better than average in left.

Wonderful Monds
12-12-2012, 05:26 PM
Man, I cannot wait until modern defensive metrics are never spoken of again.

westofyou
12-12-2012, 05:29 PM
Man, I cannot wait until modern defensive metrics are never spoken of again.

You mean when you die?

Because they ain't leaving in our lifetime, if anything they'll just experience a tribble like life experience

Wonderful Monds
12-12-2012, 05:32 PM
You mean when you die?

Because they ain't leaving in our lifetime, if anything they'll just experience a tribble like life experience

You don't think we can do better than UZR?

westofyou
12-12-2012, 05:34 PM
You don't think we can do better than UZR?

Sure, I think someone will figure out something someday that trumps what's out there, I also think a lot of what's worse will also bubble up and get some play

osuceltic
12-12-2012, 05:34 PM
Boy, they are really selling Jay Bruce short in right. I also thought Ludwick, while not gold glove caliber, was better than average in left.

I thought Jay took a serious step back last year. He's still a good, solid right fielder, but not the top-notch defender he appeared to be previously. Maybe it was just a bad year. We'll see.

As for Ludwick, I think he's average to slightly below. The larger point about the Reds' outfield not being especially good is a solid one. I don't think it will be a disaster, but it's not going to be a strength.

Wonderful Monds
12-12-2012, 05:36 PM
Sure, I think someone will figure out something someday that trumps what's out there, I also think a lot of what's worse will also bubble up and get some play

I think we'll be in good shape once HitFX is around, but until then, I don't much trust what we've got at this point.

Wonderful Monds
12-12-2012, 05:37 PM
I thought Jay took a serious step back last year. He's still a good, solid right fielder, but not the top-notch defender he appeared to be previously. Maybe it was just a bad year. We'll see.

As for Ludwick, I think he's average to slightly below. The larger point about the Reds' outfield not being especially good is a solid one. I don't think it will be a disaster, but it's not going to be a strength.

Jay had a couple glaring bad errors at a few times, especially the SF game. Aside from that, he still looked Bruce as usual to me.

Not seeing that with Ludwick. He looks average at the bare minimum out there to me.

jojo
12-12-2012, 05:43 PM
Actually, memory was serving me that you were one of a few that was reminding us that Stubbs wasn't all that great a CFer according to D stats. I'm going from memory, so if I'm remembering wrong, I am getting old.

BTW, I never said they were "equals" since you like to mince words. I was making a little more of a broad analysis than that. That was pretty clear from the post, at least it should have been according to the reasonable person test.

I've argued that Stubbs is something closer to a neutral defender when he was projected to develop into a plus to elite defender in center. Choo has graded out as a slighly minus defensive corner outfielder which suggests he's be fairly bad defensive centerfielder.

You described their defensive values to be a push based upon your guess. I'm not sure how that would be interpretted to mean they'd be anything other than roughly equal by any reasonable person test.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 05:47 PM
When Didi Gregorius grows up, he has a chance to become Cliff Pennington.

Jonah Keri

Offensively, they are likely similar (though Pennington plays in a giant park). So let's just say that he does become the .700 OPS guy Pennington was before this season. Well, that makes him a slightly below average offensive shortstop. Toss in plus defense and we now have a slightly above-average overall shortstop. Sure, he won't be Tulo. Still a lot of value there.


You don't think we can do better than UZR?

We already are doing better. The +/- system that Dewan/BIS are doing is better. The field F/X system, while not really being shared with the public, assuming it is working like they say, it already vastly better too. In fact, it is probably the best thing you are ever going to be able to get if it works right.


Who cares who "wins" or "loses" a trade anyhow?

Did the Reds get better from this trade? Absolutely. Thus, they are winners.
Well, they are better for 2013 as long as Choo or Bruce can play center adequately and Cozart plays 150 games. If one of those two things can't happen, things are murky as if the Reds are actually better.


So who's our SS when Cozart's out?
For an actual amount of time? Who knows. There is literally no one in full season minor league baseball who is a true shortstop at this point and the backups on the Major League squad are, well, not true shortstops either.


Agreed. I see LaMarre as the heir to Heisey, so long as he can maintain a .700-.750 OPS in the majors as a 4th OF.
With his defense and ability on the bases, if LaMarre can OPS .700-.750 he should probably be starting in center for someone.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 05:50 PM
Fangraphs article from Mike Newman on the perceived value of shortstops (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/gregorius-bauer-and-perceived-shortstop-value/)

Yesterday’s three-team blockbuster which sent Shin-Soo Choo to Cincinnati included a couple of my favorite prospects from the 2012 season. Trevor Bauer ranked is the third best right-handed starting pitcher and Didi Gregorius ranked as the seventh best shortstop. On Twitter, prospect followers consider Gregorius to be a lesser player than Trevor Bauer and surmised that the DBacks traded the right-hander because he’s not as good as advertised. From four-plus years scouting prospects in person, this may not be the case considering I see more quality starting pitching prospects in one season than I ever have shortstops.

kaldaniels
12-12-2012, 05:56 PM
Would you have made this trade Doug? Let's assume it was take it or leave it, with no adjustments able to be made.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 06:11 PM
Well, they are better for 2013 as long as Choo or Bruce can play center adequately and Cozart plays 150 games. If one of those two things can't happen, things are murky as if the Reds are actually better.


Doug, even if Choo is 20 runs worse than Stubbs in center (which is probably a bit of a stretch), the Reds are still two wins better with Choo than Stubbs.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 06:12 PM
Personally, I make the trade without hesitation. But...I also look to make some additional moves to bring in some minor league kids for AA or AAA that could fill a SS void. Outside of Cozart, we're very thin on SS prospects right now. Scary thin.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 06:14 PM
Would you have made this trade Doug? Let's assume it was take it or leave it, with no adjustments able to be made.

As I have said a few times, yes, I would have. I just think it isn't a trade with a ton of risk involved.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 06:17 PM
Doug, even if Choo is 20 runs worse than Stubbs in center (which is probably a bit of a stretch), the Reds are still two wins better with Choo than Stubbs.

I could easily see Choo being 20-30 runs worse than Stubbs defensively (actual runs, not UZR runs) if he plays in CF for 150 games.

And that part of the equation is still missing the fact that the Reds have their starting shortstop returning at age 27 with a career .290 OBP and literally not another single true defensive shortstop in the organization with full season baseball experience.

The Reds are taking huge risks with this move.

edabbs44
12-12-2012, 06:17 PM
As I have said a few times, yes, I would have. I just think it isn't a trade with a ton of risk involved.

I wouldn't agree that there is a ton of risk. Risk? Sure, you always have to give up something in order to get something. But a ton? Not sure I see where that is.

edabbs44
12-12-2012, 06:18 PM
I could easily see Choo being 20-30 runs worse than Stubbs defensively (actual runs, not UZR runs) if he plays in CF for 150 games.

And that part of the equation is still missing the fact that the Reds have their starting shortstop returning at age 27 with a career .290 OBP and literally not another single true defensive shortstop in the organization with full season baseball experience.

The Reds are taking huge risks with this move.

This regime has shown that they are pretty aware of defense. If Choo is that much of a fiasco in CF, do you think they'd allow him to play 150 games in CF?

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 06:19 PM
I wouldn't agree that there is a ton of risk. Risk? Sure, you always have to give up something in order to get something. But a ton? Not sure I see where that is.

You don't see a ton of risk in not having someone who likely rates out as even a slightly below-average center fielder and the only shortstop in the organization with full season experience is a 27 year old with a .290 OBP for his MLB career?

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 06:19 PM
This regime has shown that they are pretty aware of defense. If Choo is that much of a fiasco in CF, do you think they'd allow him to play 150 games in CF?

No. But then they have to go with Bruce, who probably isn't much better. They surely aren't going to start Heisey out there and bench one of Ludwick/Choo.

Tom Servo
12-12-2012, 06:22 PM
Personally, I make the trade without hesitation. But...I also look to make some additional moves to bring in some minor league kids for AA or AAA that could fill a SS void. Outside of Cozart, we're very thin on SS prospects right now. Scary thin.
That's what the draft is for.

edabbs44
12-12-2012, 06:23 PM
No. But then they have to go with Bruce, who probably isn't much better. They surely aren't going to start Heisey out there and bench one of Ludwick/Choo.

324 games of LF and CF. could easily see Heisey getting a fair amt of time in CF. Especially after watching Ludwick get as much rest as he did in 2012 and looking at Choo's numbers vs LHP. Hopefully he makes strides. And if not, there is always the ability to make more moves.

edabbs44
12-12-2012, 06:24 PM
You don't see a ton of risk in not having someone who likely rates out as even a slightly below-average center fielder and the only shortstop in the organization with full season experience is a 27 year old with a .290 OBP for his MLB career?

There is time to stock some SS talent. Walt is very good at roster and organization management. He gets it.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 06:26 PM
There is time to stock some SS talent. Walt is very good at roster and organization management. He gets it.

I am sure Walt will somehow acquire someone for AAA who can actually play shortstop. But will he be able to acquire someone who can actually play shortstop at the MLB level if Cozart continues to OBP .290?

kaldaniels
12-12-2012, 06:26 PM
Cozart did have a terrible OBP. But how does that relate to his WAR? Without a real dog in the fight, I could see that being an interesting discussion.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 06:27 PM
324 games of LF and CF. could easily see Heisey getting a fair amt of time in CF. Especially after watching Ludwick get as much rest as he did in 2012 and looking at Choo's numbers vs LHP. Hopefully he makes strides. And if not, there is always the ability to make more moves.

Ludwick got some rest because the Reds didn't go into the season with him as the starter, needed to get Todd Frazier work in left as well.... this year, he is the starter. He won't rest nearly as much. The Reds brought him in to start 145 games in left field.

edabbs44
12-12-2012, 06:39 PM
I am sure Walt will somehow acquire someone for AAA who can actually play shortstop. But will he be able to acquire someone who can actually play shortstop at the MLB level if Cozart continues to OBP .290?

Major league SS average OBP was .309 with 40% of baseball having a sub .300 SS OBP. If he plays good D and doesn't fall off the cliff offensively Janish style, I'll live with him.

Nathan
12-12-2012, 06:40 PM
I am sure Walt will somehow acquire someone for AAA who can actually play shortstop. But will he be able to acquire someone who can actually play shortstop at the MLB level if Cozart continues to OBP .290?

If it was all about OBP, I might be concerned about him. That's only one part of the equation though. He also brings some pop and plus defense to the table. Surely he's a starter, damned his obp. He was miscast as a #2 hitter last year, which he won't have to do this year; he'll be batting lower in the order where he belongs.

M2
12-12-2012, 06:45 PM
One other thing to take into consideration is that the Reds led all of MLB last season in the difference between their RC per game (above average at 4.6) and their actual runs per game (below average at 4.13). While there's some randomness built into that, a decent chunk of that inefficiency falls on the void in the leadoff spot. The Reds' lineup didn't work, at least not like it should have. Choo's addition might go a long way toward rectifying that. The potential gain in efficiency would actually be larger than Choo's boost in the RC department. An extra 100 runs from the cumulative effect wouldn't be all that surprising.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 06:45 PM
I can't believe the amount of people who don't find concern in a 27 year old with a career .290 OBP being a starter. Yes, he has things he brings to the table that are certainly good.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 06:47 PM
One other thing to take into consideration is that the Reds led all of MLB last season in the difference between their RC per game (above average at 4.6) and their actual runs per game (below average at 4.13). While there's some randomness built into that, a decent chunk of that inefficiency falls on the void in the leadoff spot. The Reds' lineup didn't work, at least not like it should have. Choo's addition might go a long way toward rectifying that. The potential gain in efficiency would actually be larger than Choo's boost in the RC department. An extra 100 runs from the cumulative effect wouldn't be all that surprising.

I could counter with that Choo or Bruce in center is going to cost our starters pitches and innings (and runs),meaning they throw fewer, leaving more for the bullpen and thus making them less valuable and then adding in a few extra guys who aren't nearly as good to fill in needed innings for those guys.

It kind of goes both ways. Choo is an upgrade to the team, no doubt. I just don't know how much and I don't think something like WAR is really going to tell us because so many other things are being effected by the move that won't show up in an individual players WAR.

edabbs44
12-12-2012, 06:50 PM
I can't believe the amount of people who don't find concern in a 27 year old with a career .290 OBP being a starter. Yes, he has things he brings to the table that are certainly good.

In a vacuum maybe. But I think you need to look at the whole picture. If that is the biggest issue with the team, then I'm game.

traderumor
12-12-2012, 06:52 PM
I've argued that Stubbs is something closer to a neutral defender when he was projected to develop into a plus to elite defender in center. Choo has graded out as a slighly minus defensive corner outfielder which suggests he's be fairly bad defensive centerfielder.

You described their defensive values to be a push based upon your guess. I'm not sure how that would be interpretted to mean they'd be anything other than roughly equal by any reasonable person test.Yea, see, now it seems you are just being argumentative, since now you are shifting to "roughly equal," whereas your earlier condescending remark used equal. Exhausting.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 06:53 PM
I could easily see Choo being 20-30 runs worse than Stubbs defensively (actual runs, not UZR runs) if he plays in CF for 150 games.

And that part of the equation is still missing the fact that the Reds have their starting shortstop returning at age 27 with a career .290 OBP and literally not another single true defensive shortstop in the organization with full season baseball experience.

The Reds are taking huge risks with this move.

That same 27-y.o. shortstop put up nearly 3 WAR last year as a 26-year old. Seems you are purposely ignoring the bigger picture.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 06:53 PM
In a vacuum maybe. But I think you need to look at the whole picture. If that is the biggest issue with the team, then I'm game.

I agree that it is the biggest issue with the team as far as starting players go and major pitching parts. Still, it could develop into a very big issue and there, at least as things stand no, literally no other option behind him. When your worst player literally has no back up in the minors for years to come, it shouldn't just be acceptable because the rest of your team is good.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 06:53 PM
That's what the draft is for.

That's not going to address the hole between Cozart and the lowest levels on the farm. Anybody we draft will most likely start in A ball or below. We need legitimate shortstops for the Reds, AAA and AA at least IMO.

Doug's right. If Cozart got injured in spring training for example....what then?

I'm not saying I don't do the trade. I love the trade. I do it 100 times out of 100. But let's not pretend there's not significant risk here for the short-term. I just think the potential gain outweighs the risk.

Tom Servo
12-12-2012, 06:54 PM
In a vacuum maybe. But I think you need to look at the whole picture. If that is the biggest issue with the team, then I'm game.
:thumbup:

Tom Servo
12-12-2012, 07:00 PM
That's not going to address the hole between Cozart and the lowest levels on the farm. Anybody we draft will most likely start in A ball or below. We need legitimate shortstops for the Reds, AAA and AA at least IMO.

Doug's right. If Cozart got injured in spring training for example....what then?

I'm not saying I don't do the trade. I love the trade. I do it 100 times out of 100. But let's not pretend there's not significant risk here for the short-term. I just think the potential gain outweighs the risk.
Honestly, I'm not all that terribly concerned with who is playing SS for the Louisville Bats or Pensacola Blue Wahoos, be it a no-stick guy in our system or minor league filler. You are right, the Reds should have a contingency plan for SS should something happen to Cozart. But as far as the rest of the organization goes, you just have to draft and develop more stars. You're not going to have a top-notch prospect at every position in your minor league system.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:02 PM
For the record:

Cozart AAA 2011

.310/.357/.467/.825

Gregorius AAA 2012

.243/.288/.427/.715

The argument last night against trading Gregorius was that despite his weak bat, his glove made him valuable. Well, Cozart put up nearly 3 WAR last year in his first full season in the big leagues. It seems either this is an inconsistent argument or perhaps Cozart deserves a second season before hanging him in effigy for his ".290 OBP"

jojo
12-12-2012, 07:02 PM
Yea, see, now it seems you are just being argumentative, since now you are shifting to "roughly equal," whereas your earlier condescending remark used equal. Exhausting.

Drop roughly. The point still stands. I'm confused by what point you're making. You drew an equivalence between the defensive abilities of Stubbs and Choo. If you really don't think the difference between the two is a push defensively then we agree.

Superdude
12-12-2012, 07:03 PM
I can't believe the amount of people who don't find concern in a 27 year old with a career .290 OBP being a starter. Yes, he has things he brings to the table that are certainly good.

Is constantly chiming in with Cozart's OBP in his first full season really an argument? I don't understand your point in putting up blinders to every positive aspect of his game. Especially when the overall picture paints Cozart as an average to above average shortstop.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:11 PM
Honestly, I'm not all that terribly concerned with who is playing SS for the Louisville Bats or Pensacola Blue Wahoos, be it a no-stick guy in our system or minor league filler. You are right, the Reds should have a contingency plan for SS should something happen to Cozart. But as far as the rest of the organization goes, you just have to draft and develop more stars. You're not going to have a top-notch prospect at every position in your minor league system.

My point was that the AAA ss should BE the backup for Cozart in the event of an injury. A backup/utility infielder on the Reds should be just that...not a long term solution for short.

And I don't expect top notch prospects at every position. But for a defense first position (SS, C, CF and to a lesser degree 2b) I expect there to be a legitimate defender at most levels for those slots. Even if they're a Janish-type with limited offensive skills. We don't have that for short right now. So IMO the next trade we make should be to trade from a strength (RH relief pitching?) to fill some upper level holes in the minors. I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I really wish we hadn't dealt away Janish. He sure would be a nice insurance policy for AAA right about now.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:12 PM
For the record:

Cozart AAA 2011

.310/.357/.467/.825

Gregorius AAA 2012

.243/.288/.427/.715

The argument last night against trading Gregorius was that despite his weak bat, his glove made him valuable. Well, Cozart put up nearly 3 WAR last year in his first full season in the big leagues. It seems either this is an inconsistent argument or perhaps Cozart deserves a second season before hanging him in effigy for his ".290 OBP"

Fair point...but don't forget to factor their ages into that argument. It's a rather big factor.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:15 PM
Fair point...but don't forget to factor their ages into that argument. It's a rather big factor.

Not when we're talking about right now. If the issue is Cozart's .290 OBP isn't good enough, then it calls into question why Gregorius is any better an option.

Can Gregorius be a better hitter in 5 years? Possibly, though scouts don't seem to think so. But Gregorius is a weak-hitting shortstop right now, so age is irrelevant to having him in the organization as a backstop.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 07:17 PM
Not when we're talking about right now. If the issue is Cozart's .290 OBP isn't good enough, then it calls into question why Gregorius is any better an option.

Can Gregorius be a better hitter in 5 years? Possibly, though scouts don't seem to think so. But Gregorius is a weak-hitting shortstop right now, so age is irrelevant to having him in the organization as a backstop.

No one is arguing Gregorius is a better option today. But what about July? 2014? 2015? Right now, Cozart is literally the only option for any of those questions within the organization.

kaldaniels
12-12-2012, 07:18 PM
It seems like some are not happy with Cozart. If that is the case, which SS in baseball would you be happy with right now?

Again, his OBP stinks, but I feel kinda greedy complaining about it.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:19 PM
Not when we're talking about right now. If the issue is Cozart's .290 OBP isn't good enough, then it calls into question why Gregorius is any better an option.

Can Gregorius be a better hitter in 5 years? Possibly, though scouts don't seem to think so. But Gregorius is a weak-hitting shortstop right now, so age is irrelevant to having him in the organization as a backstop.

Just to be clear, I'm very happy with Cozart as our SS. My concern isn't his OBP (low in the order I'm fine with it). My concern is the lack of anything remotely resembling a shortstop beyond Cozart.

But to your point...if you're talking about the here and now only....then I absolutely choose Cozart over Didi. I was only pointing out that showing Didi's AAA stats and comparing them to Zack's AAA stats is pretty unfair towards Didi considering their development level at the time.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:20 PM
No one is arguing Gregorius is a better option today. But what about July? 2014? 2015? Right now, Cozart is literally the only option for any of those questions within the organization.

It's still awfully inconsistent, Doug. You are dismissing Cozart because of his on-base percentage but last night fretting the loss of Gregorius because his defense, in the bigger picture, makes him valuable in spite of his weak bat. So shouldn't you be applying the same thinking to Cozart's 3 WAR?

kaldaniels
12-12-2012, 07:20 PM
Just to be clear, I'm very happy with Cozart as our SS. My concern isn't his OBP (low in the order I'm fine with it). My concern is the lack of anything remotely resembling a shortstop beyond Cozart.

But to your point...if you're talking about the here and now only....then I absolutely choose Cozart over Didi. I was only pointing out that showing Didi's AAA stats and comparing them to Zack's AAA stats is pretty unfair towards Didi considering their development level at the time.

I can agree here. Organizational depth is a concern.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:20 PM
It seems like some are not happy with Cozart. If that is the case, which SS in baseball would you be happy with right now?

Again, his OBP stinks, but I feel kinda greedy complaining about it.

I don't think that's the case. I think most here are very satisfied with Zack. It's the lack of anything beyond him that's concerning IMO.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 07:22 PM
Is constantly chiming in with Cozart's OBP in his first full season really an argument? I don't understand your point in putting up blinders to every positive aspect of his game. Especially when the overall picture paints Cozart as an average to above average shortstop.

People keep tossing around "first season" or "rookie" with Cozart as if he were 23 years old and is very likely to improve. He is a 27 year old player. He is older than Jay Bruce, Homer Bailey, Johnny Cueto, Mat Latos, Todd Frazier, JJ Hoover, Mike Leake, Aroldis Chapman.... At his age, rookie or not, he isn't really likely to show big improvements.

The overall picture paints him as being solid. And he is. Unless he goes the Drew Stubbs route and declines every year after his first. Then what? We don't have any other options at all if he does. Or heck, even if he goes out and has a bad collision at second base again and has to miss 4 months. Or if his range begins to decline like most guys do after age 25.

Odds are, Zack Cozart is nearly peaked as a player right now and there is no one behind him for years to come and he, thus far, has been a pretty poor offensive player. Drew Stubbs career as a hitter is better than Cozart.

I guess you guys can not be concerned by that. I am.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:22 PM
I don't think that's the case. I think most here are very satisfied with Zack. It's the lack of anything beyond him that's concerning IMO.

You can develop more prospects. You can go out and sign organizational depth that will be far more ready to step in than Gregorius. Heck, Jason Donald will be able to do what Gregorius could do right now.

Superdude
12-12-2012, 07:22 PM
I don't think that's the case. I think most here are very satisfied with Zack. It's the lack of anything beyond him that's concerning IMO.

I see the argument, but it seems a little greedy calling for competent minor league back ups at every position. If the need arises for a different long term option for whatever reason., I'm assuming that'll get addressed just like anything else.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:23 PM
People keep tossing around "first season" or "rookie" with Cozart as if he were 23 years old and is very likely to improve. He is a 27 year old player. He is older than Jay Bruce, Homer Bailey, Johnny Cueto, Mat Latos, Todd Frazier, JJ Hoover, Mike Leake, Aroldis Chapman.... At his age, rookie or not, he isn't really likely to show big improvements.

The overall picture paints him as being solid. And he is. Unless he goes the Drew Stubbs route and declines every year after his first. Then what? We don't have any other options at all if he does. Or heck, even if he goes out and has a bad collision at second base again and has to miss 4 months. Or if his range begins to decline like most guys do after age 25.

Odds are, Zack Cozart is nearly peaked as a player right now and there is no one behind him for years to come and he, thus far, has been a pretty poor offensive player. Drew Stubbs career as a hitter is better than Cozart.

I guess you guys can not be concerned by that. I am.

27 isn't 33.

Very few rookies, 26 or otherwise, don't show some improvement in their second season. Especially prior to 30 years old.

corkedbat
12-12-2012, 07:23 PM
This item from MLBTR says that Atlanta and the Mariners both made "aggressive" last minute offers to the Tribe to try and snake Choo away from the Reds. Probably speaks to the value that Gregorious had.

Also, lower in the piece, it states the Phils may consider moving a LH relieve. Any interest in Antonio Bastardo or Raul Valdes?

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/nl-east-notes-braves-nationals-phillies.html

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 07:25 PM
It's still awfully inconsistent, Doug. You are dismissing Cozart because of his on-base percentage but last night fretting the loss of Gregorius because his defense, in the bigger picture, makes him valuable in spite of his weak bat. So shouldn't you be applying the same thinking to Cozart's 3 WAR?

I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:26 PM
You can develop more prospects. You can go out and sign organizational depth that will be far more ready to step in than Gregorius. Heck, Jason Donald will be able to do what Gregorius could do right now.

I know we can. That's the point I was bringing up. We need to do it sooner rather than later. Trading Didi and moving Hamilton off of short has left the SS cupboard BARE! Sure we can address it with the draft, but that won't help us soon enough. And sure, Donald could come in and do what Didi could...with the bat. My concern is with the leather. That's where we have the shortage. We don't even have a glove only guy in the minors for that slot.

And while Donald and Hannahan can cover SS for a short period of time, it's not their real position and the defense takes a major blow. We can cover a poor bat in the lineup. But a hack at short with the glove is a whole different thing.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:27 PM
I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

I'd rather have a 27 year old with a so-called "crappy bat" as the devil I know than a 23 year old with a "crappy bat" as the devil I don't know.

Cozart last year was an above average shortstop. I don't know why that should be fretted. The Reds should have 3-4 years to develop someone else to step in.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:31 PM
I see the argument, but it seems a little greedy calling for competent minor league back ups at every position. If the need arises for a different long term option for whatever reason., I'm assuming that'll get addressed just like anything else.

Just to be clear, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm calling for competent DEFENDERS at defense-first positions at SOME of the minor league levels. If we had a viable SS defender at AA. I could live with it. But I think we have to go all the way down to A ball or even rookie ball to find a real shortstop defensively. Sure, I'd love a whole-package kind of SS at every level. But that's not going to happen of course. But at least 1 glove-first guy at either AAA or AA is not too much to expect IMO. (again, I'm talking about SS, CF, C for the most part)

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:32 PM
Just to be clear, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm calling for competent DEFENDERS at defense-first positions at SOME of the minor league levels. If we had a viable SS defender at AA. I could live with it. But I think we have to go all the way down to A ball or even rookie ball to find a real shortstop defensively. Sure, I'd love a whole-package kind of SS at every level. But that's not going to happen of course. But at least 1 glove-first guy at either AAA or AA is not too much to expect IMO. (again, I'm talking about SS, CF, C for the most part)

Jocketty seems to think Donald is a competent backup middle infielder.

Superdude
12-12-2012, 07:34 PM
I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

I think it ultimately came down to the fact that Cozart is a proven commodity that's likely to be a solid player next year and going forward. Didi is an unknown, and while he may be better down the road, I feel much better about only Cozart than only Didi right now.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:35 PM
I'm honestly curious... what's really being debated here? Should the Reds not have acquired Choo just because now they don't have a 23-year old, unproven backup to Cozart?

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:35 PM
I'd rather have a 27 year old with a so-called "crappy bat" as the devil I know than a 23 year old with a "crappy bat" as the devil I don't know.

Cozart last year was an above average shortstop. I don't know why that should be fretted. The Reds should have 3-4 years to develop someone else to step in.

Add in the phrase "if he stays healthy" to your last sentence. If he doesn't...we have ZERO fallback.

Superdude
12-12-2012, 07:37 PM
I'm honestly curious... what's really being debated here? Should the Reds not have acquired Choo just because now they don't have a 23-year old, unproven backup to Cozart?

That's a great question. I'm not totally 100% confident in Cozart for the next five years either, but it comes down to assuming a little risk for the sake of adding a big bat to the lineup.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:37 PM
Jocketty seems to think Donald is a competent backup middle infielder.

He is, and I agree that he is. But a back-up middle infielder is not the same as a regular shortstop for an extended period of time. 2b is Donald's natural position. He's considerably worse at short. As is Hannahan (although 3b is his natural slot).

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:40 PM
I'm honestly curious... what's really being debated here? Should the Reds not have acquired Choo just because now they don't have a 23-year old, unproven backup to Cozart?

I don't think anybody is saying we shouldn't have acquired Choo. Or even traded a shortstop. Just that there is some major risk involved in this trade because it leaves us DESPERATELY shorthanded at shortstop if an injury occurs. It also significantly reduces our outfield defense. (yes, there's also a significant uptick in offense...but those other 2 risks are still very real and very concerning)

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:41 PM
Add in the phrase "if he stays healthy" to your last sentence. If he doesn't...we have ZERO fallback.

I renew my question, should they not have done the deal for that reason alone? If you agree they still should have, then I'm really not sure what the fuss is about.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 07:41 PM
I'd rather have a 27 year old with a so-called "crappy bat" as the devil I know than a 23 year old with a "crappy bat" as the devil I don't know.

Cozart last year was an above average shortstop. I don't know why that should be fretted. The Reds should have 3-4 years to develop someone else to step in.

I'd rather have the other guy, but that isn't the point. The point is that Cozart probably isn't going to get better and may get worse, and if he does get worse, there is literally no one to replace him. Or if he gets hurt.

WAR says Cozart was an above-average shortstop last year. Not sure I fully buy into that. Was he average? Yeah, I could buy into that. Not sure I buy into anything more than that.

I am basically hinging on this, if Cozart takes even a slight step backwards in his game, I don't see him as "starting material", but the Reds don't have a single option behind him to replace him. I am not saying he will. I am saying he could. And if he does, the Reds have no options but to play him. It is like Stubbs all over again. You must play a crappy option because you don't have another one. Except that with how it looks right now, if that step backward does come this year, you may be stuck with that for years. It is a concern for me.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:42 PM
I don't think anybody is saying we shouldn't have acquired Choo. Or even traded a shortstop. Just that there is some major risk involved in this trade because it leaves us DESPERATELY shorthanded at shortstop if an injury occurs. It also significantly reduces our outfield defense. (yes, there's also a significant uptick in offense...but those other 2 risks are still very real and very concerning)

There's risk to every trade. And I truly get the impression Doug is saying the trade shouldn't be made, or else he's being awfully argumentative for a point that really doesn't make much difference.

If the position is there's risk, well what trade doesn't have risk involved?

Superdude
12-12-2012, 07:44 PM
WAR says Cozart was an above-average shortstop last year. Not sure I fully buy into that. Was he average? Yeah, I could buy into that. Not sure I buy into anything more than that.

Just out of curiosity..why? Not trying to pick. I've done my fair share of WAR questioning.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 07:44 PM
I'm honestly curious... what's really being debated here? Should the Reds not have acquired Choo just because now they don't have a 23-year old, unproven backup to Cozart?

It seems that everyone thinks the deal should have been made. What is being debated I guess is that some believe there is no way this deal can't possibly work out for the Reds, where as some of us believe that there is plenty of risk for the trade to not work out. While it isn't a 50-50 scenario, it could be 60-40 or 70-30.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:45 PM
I'd rather have the other guy, but that isn't the point. The point is that Cozart probably isn't going to get better and may get worse, and if he does get worse, there is literally no one to replace him. Or if he gets hurt.

WAR says Cozart was an above-average shortstop last year. Not sure I fully buy into that. Was he average? Yeah, I could buy into that. Not sure I buy into anything more than that.

I am basically hinging on this, if Cozart takes even a slight step backwards in his game, I don't see him as "starting material", but the Reds don't have a single option behind him to replace him. I am not saying he will. I am saying he could. And if he does, the Reds have no options but to play him. It is like Stubbs all over again. You must play a crappy option because you don't have another one. Except that with how it looks right now, if that step backward does come this year, you may be stuck with that for years. It is a concern for me.

So you're saying the Reds shouldn't have made this deal?

I still think you're being inconsistent. Two years ago, you were singing Cozart's praises. Now you're convinced he can't get better and will probably get worse.

If they'd kept Gregorius and in two years traded the next up and coming shortstop, I surmise you'd be arguing against that too :)

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 07:46 PM
It seems that everyone thinks the deal should have been made. What is being debated I guess is that some believe there is no way this deal can't possibly work out for the Reds, where as some of us believe that there is plenty of risk for the trade to not work out. While it isn't a 50-50 scenario, it could be 60-40 or 70-30.

Exactly. It's not the slam dunk that many here think it is. I LOVE the trade, and I'm glad they made it. But I want some follow-up deals to address the holes it created. People were acting like we were dealing from a position of strength/depth. That wasn't the case. Sure, we had 2 MLB ready shortstops...one was borderline ready. But ZERO behind it. That's not depth.

kaldaniels
12-12-2012, 07:46 PM
It seems that everyone thinks the deal should have been made. What is being debated I guess is that some believe there is no way this deal can't possibly work out for the Reds, where as some of us believe that there is plenty of risk for the trade to not work out. While it isn't a 50-50 scenario, it could be 60-40 or 70-30.

Heck, I'd argue it's closer to 50/50. That's just the reality of the odds. Arizona has 6 years to recoup something out of Didi. We have a year to do so with Choo. Not to mention Stubbs.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 07:47 PM
Just out of curiosity..why? Not trying to pick. I've done my fair share of WAR questioning.

Just not sure a .288 OBP, 1 win defender somehow works out to being a 3 win player. Doesn't quite add up in my head. Yeah, he had more power than other shortstops, but OBP>>>SLG and his OBP was really poor. Again, I could totally be wrong here, but that is just how I feel about it.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 07:47 PM
So you're saying the Reds shouldn't have made this deal?

I still think you're being inconsistent. Two years ago, you were singing Cozart's praises. Now you're convinced he can't get better and will probably get worse.

If they'd kept Gregorius and in two years traded the next up and coming shortstop, I surmise you'd be arguing against that too :)

Two years ago he upped his walk rate big time. Since then it has been cut in half. And two years ago was two years ago. Things change in two years. Going back to my prospect guide from 2010, the last sentence I wrote about Cozart was this:


The key for Cozart will be to keep his bat at an acceptable level and he could become a quality starting shortstop

Right now, I don't know that his bat is at an acceptable level and if it is, it is by the smallest margin possible.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 07:51 PM
Two years ago he upped his walk rate big time. Since then it has been cut in half.

It's more likely that one year was an outlier since every other stop before and after has been 5-6%.

That said, he's just now entering his prime and he will be heading into his second full season in the bigs. It's very, very likely he shows improvement. Bill James' projections have him upping his walk rate, lowering K rate, and consequently, upping his OBP by 20 points and slugging by an additional 16 points. The end result is close to an additional win of offense this season. If so, he'd be nearly a 4-win player.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 07:52 PM
Bill James projections suck. They always have. I don't know who comes up with them (They are in his books/on his website, but I don't think that he actually has anything to do with them) or what formula is used, but they have consistently ranked far behind the other projection systems.

757690
12-12-2012, 08:00 PM
A Rabbi with a frog on his shoulder walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey, where did you get that?" The frog says, "Brooklyn, they're everywhere."

You could substitute good fielding SS for Rabbi, and major league free agent market for Brooklyn, and the joke still works.

Jocketty could put out a tweet that the Reds are looking to sign a good defensive SS to back up Cozart, and he will get over a dozen messages from agents in a matter of minutes. And if Jocketty can't find a decent backup SS for close to MLB minimum salary, he should be fired.

That said, I don't even think they need one. This team is a contending team even with Donald or Burriss at SS for the whole season.

cincrazy
12-12-2012, 08:01 PM
Doug I'm not being snarky here, I want your honest opinion. Do you really think Didi can hit well enough to be an every day starter at short? Do you think he can outperform Cozart with the bat?

kaldaniels
12-12-2012, 08:03 PM
Doug I'm not being snarky here, I want your honest opinion. Do you really think Didi can hit well enough to be an every day starter at short? Do you think he can outperform Cozart with the bat?

"Can" is the important term here. "Will" would be a whole different question.

Sorry to butt in, but "can" just allows an easy way out. :D

757690
12-12-2012, 08:06 PM
Here's how i look at the trade:

Shin-Soo Choo is very good at baseball. Drew Stubbs isn't. If that upgrade costs the Reds a good glove, suspect bat minor league SS, then I make that trade every day.

M2
12-12-2012, 08:10 PM
I could counter with that Choo or Bruce in center is going to cost our starters pitches and innings (and runs),meaning they throw fewer, leaving more for the bullpen and thus making them less valuable and then adding in a few extra guys who aren't nearly as good to fill in needed innings for those guys.

Yeah, but you can't counter with anything like 100 runs or even get close to that neighborhood, which is the point.

We're doing straight addition on how many runs Choo is going to add to the lineup. Yet the lineup was massively inefficient last season, leaving 81 runs it theoretically earned in the RC column on the table. Choo fixes the greatest inefficiency in the lineup, replacing Stubbs and banishing Cozart to the bottom of the batting order.

Choo + scoring efficiency (Choo-aided to a large extent) = an offense ready to take some names and kick some butt.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 08:11 PM
A Rabbi with a frog on his shoulder walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey, where did you get that?" The frog says, "Brooklyn, they're everywhere."

You could substitute good fielding SS for Rabbi, and major league free agent market for Brooklyn, and the joke still works.

Jocketty could put out a tweet that the Reds are looking to sign a good defensive SS to back up Cozart, and he will get over a dozen messages from agents in a matter of minutes. And if Jocketty can't find a decent backup SS for close to MLB minimum salary, he should be fired.

That said, I don't even think they need one. This team is a contending team even with Donald or Burriss at SS for the whole season.

I agree with everything except that last paragraph. Yes, they are a contending team even with Donald or Burriss (but it's certainly harder)....but they STILL need one.

_Sir_Charles_
12-12-2012, 08:12 PM
Here's how i look at the trade:

Shin-Soo Choo is very good at baseball. Drew Stubbs isn't. If that upgrade costs the Reds a good glove, suspect bat minor league SS, then I make that trade every day.

100% agreed. Just don't stop with this trade. Address the hole it created.

M2
12-12-2012, 08:14 PM
Add in the phrase "if he stays healthy" to your last sentence. If he doesn't...we have ZERO fallback.

So you'd rather have a backup SS than a starting CF?

Always Red
12-12-2012, 08:26 PM
Yeah, but you can't counter with anything like 100 runs or even get close to that neighborhood, which is the point.

We're doing straight addition on how many runs Choo is going to add to the lineup. Yet the lineup was massively inefficient last season, leaving 81 runs it theoretically earned in the RC column on the table. Choo fixes the greatest inefficiency in the lineup, replacing Stubbs and banishing Cozart to the bottom of the batting order.

Choo + scoring efficiency (Choo-aided to a large extent) = an offense ready to take some names and kick some butt.

boom. case closed.

Hope he can track down balls in the gap. I think he could be average at that.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 08:27 PM
Doug I'm not being snarky here, I want your honest opinion. Do you really think Didi can hit well enough to be an every day starter at short? Do you think he can outperform Cozart with the bat?

Yes and yes. Let's work under these presumptions that I have about Gregorius. He can hit you 10-15 home runs in a season (not today, but maybe in a year and moving forward). He will walk 6-7% of the time. He will strike out 15% of the time. He will hit you 25 doubles and 5 triples.

Math suggests then that he would hit roughly this:


PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB K HBP SH SF AVG OBP SLG BABIP
600 546 150 25 5 13 39 90 5 5 5 .275 .326 .410 .306


In the above scenario I gave him a 6.5% walk rate and a 15% strikeout rate. That is the kind of guy I see him as at the plate. Not today. But in the near future. At the MLB level.

757690
12-12-2012, 08:28 PM
So you'd rather have a backup SS than a starting CF?

Worrying about this trade because it left the Reds without a decent backup SS (which I don't think it did) is like complaining that you convinced Mila Kunis to go to prom with you, but it resulted in you missing the final episode of Chuck.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 08:30 PM
Yeah, but you can't counter with anything like 100 runs or even get close to that neighborhood, which is the point.

We're doing straight addition on how many runs Choo is going to add to the lineup. Yet the lineup was massively inefficient last season, leaving 81 runs it theoretically earned in the RC column on the table. Choo fixes the greatest inefficiency in the lineup, replacing Stubbs and banishing Cozart to the bottom of the batting order.

Choo + scoring efficiency (Choo-aided to a large extent) = an offense ready to take some names and kick some butt.

I never argued that he wasn't an overall addition. Simply that how much of an addition, we can't be sure about. I don't know that I want to give him credit for taking away stupidity from his manager who would have hit other players out of their spot. That isn't on him. It is on him that he will cost his pitchers pitches and thus innings all year long though. There isn't the right math for it, and overall I believe he creates a + amount of value for the team. I just don't know how much it is going to be and something like WAR isn't going to tell me.

M2
12-12-2012, 08:34 PM
I just don't know how much it is going to be and something like WAR isn't going to tell me.

That's where I completely agree.

edabbs44
12-12-2012, 08:37 PM
Just not sure a .288 OBP, 1 win defender somehow works out to being a 3 win player. Doesn't quite add up in my head. Yeah, he had more power than other shortstops, but OBP>>>SLG and his OBP was really poor. Again, I could totally be wrong here, but that is just how I feel about it.

2012

Cozart OBP: .288
Mlb ss OBP: .309

Cozart OPS: .687
Mlb SS OpS: .685

Doug, do you need to recalibrate your scale? Is Cozart that much of an offensive drag?

membengal
12-12-2012, 08:37 PM
All I know is Walt today said with Cozart they are set at SS for 5 or 6 years. They are moving Hamilton to CF. They dealt Didi. So my conclusion is that the Reds are more than comfortable with what Cozart is. And so am I, by extension. The power was legit and a nice sweetener, and if he can maintain that, even an OBP around .290 isn't really an issue on this team as currently constructed. He hits 8th and turns into JJ Hardy, sign me up.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 08:42 PM
2012

Cozart OBP: .288
Mlb ss OBP: .309

Cozart OPS: .687
Mlb SS OpS: .685

Doug, do you need to recalibrate your scale? Is Cozart that much of an offensive drag?

Well, OBP is about twice as valuable as SLG is, so being 21 points worse there is a lot of lost value that you don't see when solely looking at OPS which weighs OBP and SLG as the same.

And my issue is that Cozart is a little below average offensively right now. But what happens if he takes even a tiny step back? Then we have a real problem with no internal solution to even consider thinking about. People were ready to run Stubs out of town for years because of his offense and he was considerably stronger offensively than Cozart has been.

Brutus
12-12-2012, 08:52 PM
Well, OBP is about twice as valuable as SLG is, so being 21 points worse there is a lot of lost value that you don't see when solely looking at OPS which weighs OBP and SLG as the same.

And my issue is that Cozart is a little below average offensively right now. But what happens if he takes even a tiny step back? Then we have a real problem with no internal solution to even consider thinking about. People were ready to run Stubs out of town for years because of his offense and he was considerably stronger offensively than Cozart has been.

The correlation difference between OPS and 1.8*OBP+SLG, which is the more effective measure, is really only about .02. Hence, it doesn't change the end result very much that Cozart was essentially a league average shortstop with the bat.

Bill
12-12-2012, 09:14 PM
Cozart of course played college ball creating a bit of drag on his development age wise.

Surely Cozart will gain from a year of big league experience regardless of current age but are there studies of average improvement in the second year sorted by age for those playing regularly? I would assume the player that reaches the bigs earlier in age will be blessed with more talent and therefore show a bigger jump but I expect that a 26 year old's second year around will not show a nonsignificant difference in hitting stats.

Cooper
12-12-2012, 09:29 PM
i ahven't read all the postings - if someone already said this then i apologize.

GABP appears to not have deep power alleys -thus it took away from Stubbs ability to show off his best asset -running a ball down in the gap (maybe that's why it's a great home run park). If this is the case, seems like it would be possible to get away with a CFer who doesn't have great range

Good management wires around people's limitations. Baker's limitation (though small) is hitting a non-hitter first. If the trade wires around that limitation -that's great planning by upper management. The job of any manager -at any level is to wire around limitations and promote strengths. Great move on 3 or 4 levels by GM.

Vottomatic
12-12-2012, 10:00 PM
Holy smokes. All I ever hear about Jay Bruce is "he's young"......"he's developing"......"he's only had a couple of years......he's gonna get better every year".........

Then suddenly with Cozart, who had a very good season for a rookie SS........it's like some people think he's hit his ceiling and won't improve. What he have.......something like 16 HR's???? He was awesome defensively. Geez. Made me forget who even played SS the last few years.......I seriously can't remember.

Then there's Gregorius. There's nothing in his minor league stats that stand out and say he's going to be a really good or even average major leaguer.

Reds won this trade hands down.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 10:05 PM
Holy smokes. All I ever hear about Jay Bruce is "he's young"......"he's developing"......"he's only had a couple of years......he's gonna get better every year".........

Then suddenly with Cozart, who had a very good season for a rookie SS........it's like some people think he's hit his ceiling and won't improve. What he have.......something like 16 HR's???? He was awesome defensively. Geez. Made me forget who even played SS the last few years.......I seriously can't remember.

Then there's Gregorius. There's nothing in his minor league stats that stand out and say he's going to be a really good or even average major leaguer.

Reds won this trade hands down.

No one said the Reds didn't win it. No one.

A lot of things in Gregorius minor league career suggests he will be an average Major Leaguer.

Jay Bruce is younger than Zack Cozart by a year and a half. His talent is on an entirely different playing field, particularly at the plate. There is a lot more room for growth with a guy like Bruce than there is a guy like Cozart. Scouts have wondered aloud since day one whether he would ever be more than a .240 hitter in the Majors.

I guess you can say Cozart had a good rookie season if you want. But most rookies aren't nearly as old as Cozart is, so that doesn't really tell us much.

Gallen5862
12-12-2012, 10:09 PM
What are the chances that the Reds could sign Stephen Drew? He did not get the offers he was expecting. Would he take a one year deal with an option? Would he be a upgrade?

Plus Plus
12-12-2012, 10:14 PM
Yes and yes. Let's work under these presumptions that I have about Gregorius. He can hit you 10-15 home runs in a season (not today, but maybe in a year and moving forward). He will walk 6-7% of the time. He will strike out 15% of the time. He will hit you 25 doubles and 5 triples.

Math suggests then that he would hit roughly this:


PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB K HBP SH SF AVG OBP SLG BABIP
600 546 150 25 5 13 39 90 5 5 5 .275 .326 .410 .306


In the above scenario I gave him a 6.5% walk rate and a 15% strikeout rate. That is the kind of guy I see him as at the plate. Not today. But in the near future. At the MLB level.

I disagree with your projections. Gregorius has 20 career minor league home runs in 1,909 career minor league plate appearances. In 561 PAs in 2012, he had 7. This doesn't sound like a guy who projects for 13 home runs in any season in MLB, especially in NL-west ballparks.

I think your overall projections are a direct translation of his 2012 year, and are coupled with optimistic aging curves for him while your projections for Cozart ignore the fact that he had 30 more home runs, 43 more doubles, .010 more OBP despite .001 lower BA, and only 257 more PAs.

I understand that Didi is significantly younger than Cozart, but if one is to project the age 27-29 years as the peak years for a career, and also give Cozart a little bit of wiggle room because of the fact that he went to college and didn't join the Reds' farm system until he was 21 (while Didi was 18 when he was signed), then I feel that hammering on the point of Cozart being the biggest lineup problem for the Reds will be similar to someone watching the Victoria's Secret fashion show and constantly pointing out the "least attractive" girl in the runway show.

It's much ado about nothing. Maybe Cozart ends up being "only" league average for six years of team control. But if the team's biggest flaw is a league average SS, then I will be one happy Reds fan.

REDREAD
12-12-2012, 10:25 PM
I am sure Walt will somehow acquire someone for AAA who can actually play shortstop. But will he be able to acquire someone who can actually play shortstop at the MLB level if Cozart continues to OBP .290?

As long as he plays defense as well as he did last year, I'm not worried about Cozart's OBP. We can carry one low OBP guy, especially at a pre-arb salary.
Cozart is going to bat 7 or 8th.. it's not a problem.

I think Cozart is going to outhit Didi next year, so it makes sense to keep Cozart.

In a way, this is similiar to the 1999 preseason. Reds dealt Konerko and kept Casey.. Casey was producing better "now" and that's what a contending team needs. Sometimes that means dealing the prospect with the higher ceiling, because you need production now, not later.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 10:33 PM
I disagree with your projections. Gregorius has 20 career minor league home runs in 1,909 career minor league plate appearances. In 561 PAs in 2012, he had 7. This doesn't sound like a guy who projects for 13 home runs in any season in MLB, especially in NL-west ballparks.
He has also been young for every level he is at and often hasn't even tried to hit for power. He went to AAA this season and made an attempt to hit for power. Wound up with 6 home runs in 200 at bats. When he wants to use a power swing, the swing, strength and bat speed are there. He simply doesn't go to it often at this point in his career. As he matures his approach and game, he will go to it more often. Plenty of scouts I have talked to have Gregorius in the 10-15 HR area. I really don't care what his power numbers in the minor leagues from age 18-22 say. I have watched him swing the bat in a way that will produce power in the future, at least a moderate amount. I doubt he ever cracks 20 home runs, but he isn't Juan Pierre or Willy Taveras with the power either.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 10:37 PM
As long as he plays defense as well as he did last year, I'm not worried about Cozart's OBP. We can carry one low OBP guy, especially at a pre-arb salary.
Cozart is going to bat 7 or 8th.. it's not a problem.

I think Cozart is going to outhit Didi next year, so it makes sense to keep Cozart.

In a way, this is similiar to the 1999 preseason. Reds dealt Konerko and kept Casey.. Casey was producing better "now" and that's what a contending team needs. Sometimes that means dealing the prospect with the higher ceiling, because you need production now, not later.

I think Cozart probably could outhit Didi for 2013. We may even get a chance to see. I don't even mind that we traded Didi and kept Cozart. I would rather have it the other way around, but it isn't a big deal for me either way. The fact that we are laying out entire bet on either one of them is the issue for me. Well that and that we don't have a guy who I think projects to even be a below-average center fielder on our team that the Reds will actually play there (re: Chris Heisey isn't going to be the every day starting center fielder this year unless one of the corner guys gets hurt and Bruce/Choo slides over).

It isn't that we traded X player and kept Y player. It is that we have a whole lot of our eggs at shortstop with no other option in the organization for years to come and that our center field options, defensively, suck. The trade is a net plus (in almost all scenarios) for 2013. But I see a lot of risk with it for the organization.

REDREAD
12-12-2012, 10:40 PM
Doug's right. If Cozart got injured in spring training for example....what then?
.

I can see that point.. but we can say that about just about anyone.
If any starter gets hurt, there's a pretty big dropoff. Sure, Heisey is a better fill in than Donald, but it's still a big dropoff.

Vottomatic
12-12-2012, 10:55 PM
No one said the Reds didn't win it. No one.

A lot of things in Gregorius minor league career suggests he will be an average Major Leaguer.

Jay Bruce is younger than Zack Cozart by a year and a half. His talent is on an entirely different playing field, particularly at the plate. There is a lot more room for growth with a guy like Bruce than there is a guy like Cozart. Scouts have wondered aloud since day one whether he would ever be more than a .240 hitter in the Majors.

I guess you can say Cozart had a good rookie season if you want. But most rookies aren't nearly as old as Cozart is, so that doesn't really tell us much.

I disagree about the age thing. Seems like more and more rookies are starting out in the 25-27 age range. Only the superstars are starting out at 21 -22. College is also becoming more of a factor.

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 10:58 PM
I disagree about the age thing. Seems like more and more rookies are starting out in the 25-27 age range. Only the superstars are starting out at 21 -22. College is also becoming more of a factor.

No, it just seems like more Reds rookies are starting out at that age because the Reds have had an influx of them lately. Most rookies, at least ones that turn into starters, are beginning at 22-24. Stars generally start before then. College has always been a factor. Or well, at least for the last 50 years.

Vottomatic
12-12-2012, 11:05 PM
No, it just seems like more Reds rookies are starting out at that age because the Reds have had an influx of them lately. Most rookies, at least ones that turn into starters, are beginning at 22-24. Stars generally start before then. College has always been a factor. Or well, at least for the last 50 years.

......and that would be your opinion. :thumbup:

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 11:18 PM
......and that would be your opinion. :thumbup:

Well sure, I guess it is my opinion that you would think that for a specific reason. But I don't think we are at some point in baseball history where a rash of rookies are becoming rookies at ages 25-27 and sticking around more than ever.

WVPacman
12-12-2012, 11:43 PM
Did I hear right yesterday that he will be a FA after this year.Do you expect the reds to try to get him extended or let him walk.Leting him walk will be dumb on the reds part after having to trade away the kid that plays SS.Scott boris is his agent so we might be in trouble if they want to resign him.

kaldaniels
12-12-2012, 11:46 PM
Did I hear right yesterday that he will be a FA after this year.Do you expect the reds to try to get him extended or let him walk.Leting him walk will be dumb on the reds part after having to trade away the kid that plays SS.Scott boris is his agent so we might be in trouble if they want to resign him.

cough(comppick)cough

dougdirt
12-12-2012, 11:48 PM
Did I hear right yesterday that he will be a FA after this year.Do you expect the reds to try to get him extended or let him walk.Leting him walk will be dumb on the reds part after having to trade away the kid that plays SS.Scott boris is his agent so we might be in trouble if they want to resign him.

Jocketty was on 1530 this afternoon and said that they are going to let 2013 play out and see how it goes before trying to see if he would sign. And that they would be willing to go with Billy Hamilton in 2014. Basically, it sounded like the only way they would try to extend Choo was if Billy fell flat on his face and then some during 2013 in AAA.

Chip R
12-12-2012, 11:57 PM
Boy, they are really selling Jay Bruce short in right. I also thought Ludwick, while not gold glove caliber, was better than average in left.

I agree. Although Ludwick may have looked better in comparison to our previous LFers.

I don't think Choo's going to disappoint in CF. The guy has played OF, he knows how to catch a ball. If he starts dropping easy fly balls out there, there's a problem. He's not going to get to a lot of balls Stubbs did but not many players could.

WVPacman
12-13-2012, 12:01 AM
Jocketty was on 1530 this afternoon and said that they are going to let 2013 play out and see how it goes before trying to see if he would sign. And that they would be willing to go with Billy Hamilton in 2014. Basically, it sounded like the only way they would try to extend Choo was if Billy fell flat on his face and then some during 2013 in AAA.

If hamilton is ready to play by next year then I say that would be the smartest thing to do.

WVPacman
12-13-2012, 12:05 AM
cough(comppick)cough

Cough drop my friend?

http://www.mountainside-medical.com/product_images/uploaded_images/HALLS-CHERRY-COUGH-DROPS-30-COUNT.jpg

Vottomatic
12-13-2012, 12:16 AM
If Hamilton is ready, it's not just that he's ready........it's financials too. Reds probably can't afford what they have signed up now.

I wish they could re-sign Choo. I like what he brings to the table. Kind of makes me wish Billy would have panned out defensively as a SS. I'd love to have Choo in CF and Hamilton at SS. And don't get me wrong, I really like Cozart.

Just think if Hamilton was a solid SS. Think of the lineup:

SS Hamilton
CF Choo
1B Votto
LF Ludwick
RF Bruce
2B Phillips
3B Frazier
C Hanoraco (Hanigan-Mesoraco for all you slow people ;) )

Oh well. So many options to choose from.

camisadelgolf
12-13-2012, 03:44 AM
What are the chances that the Reds could sign Stephen Drew? He did not get the offers he was expecting. Would he take a one year deal with an option? Would he be a upgrade?
The chances are zero/nil/nada/none/zip.

Would he be an upgrade? Maybe slightly, but probably not when you factor defense. The Reds picked Cozart, who is paid significantly less. Between Burriss, Cozart, and Donald, the Reds have their shortstop situation figured out, and it's already an upgrade over Cozart/Valdez.

_Sir_Charles_
12-13-2012, 07:58 AM
So you'd rather have a backup SS than a starting CF?

No. Go back and re-read. Not just one post.

_Sir_Charles_
12-13-2012, 08:02 AM
I can see that point.. but we can say that about just about anyone.
If any starter gets hurt, there's a pretty big dropoff. Sure, Heisey is a better fill in than Donald, but it's still a big dropoff.

Here's where we disagree. Sure they'll be a dropoff to any non-starter. But most of the other positions (if not ALL of them) have a guy either on the Reds or in the upper minors who can defend at that position. I expect the hitting to take a step back with a non-starter. But there should be a capable defender somewhere in the top 3 levels (MLB, AAA, AA). ESPECIALLY in the defense-first positions.

Caveat Emperor
12-13-2012, 08:36 AM
Here's where we disagree. Sure they'll be a dropoff to any non-starter. But most of the other positions (if not ALL of them) have a guy either on the Reds or in the upper minors who can defend at that position. I expect the hitting to take a step back with a non-starter. But there should be a capable defender somewhere in the top 3 levels (MLB, AAA, AA). ESPECIALLY in the defense-first positions.

That's the worry? Hell, there are probably 2 dozen AAAA-type guys out there who can play competent SS for the Louisville Bats that Walt could sign right now to a minor-league deal.

The world is full of Rey Olmedos.

_Sir_Charles_
12-13-2012, 08:48 AM
That's the worry? Hell, there are probably 2 dozen AAAA-type guys out there who can play competent SS for the Louisville Bats that Walt could sign right now to a minor-league deal.

The world is full of Rey Olmedos.

LOL. People are acting like I'm up in arms about this. I'm only saying it needs to be addressed. We have zero depth right now at short. That's all. Donald, Hannahan, Burriss...none of these guys are shortstops. They can cover it about as well as Keppinger could. And it's not like I want a glove only guy. I'm saying we've got some depth at RH relievers in the bigs, we've got some depth at AAA at several positions...let's trade from a strength and get a decent SS prospect that can slot into AA or higher.

dunner13
12-13-2012, 09:13 AM
I'm curious if Doug or some of you other guys that follow the defensive stats more then I do can answer this question for me, Is there anything that looks at the OF defense as a whole rather then at just each individual player? Heres what I'm thinking, Choo might be a below avg CF but if we have 3 solid OFs can they as a whole make up for not having a top defensive CF? For example if a team had a great CF but then a horrible LF and a below avg RF would they possibly have worse outfield defense then a team like the Reds who have 3 guys that would probably all be above avg in left or right but below avg in center?

traderumor
12-13-2012, 09:18 AM
All the hand wringing over plan B for SS from this trade and whether Choo will make us long for 30 something Griffey Jr. in CF.

With SS, while I get that may be a need to be addressed, we are in December, 2012. So January through March depth at positions at various levels of the org. can be addressed.

Choo, as an average range RFer with a good arm, will likely be serviceable in CF. Maybe he'll make everyone happy and dive more and run into more walls, and not drop balls at the walls like our suddenly gold glove caliber former CFer. My guess, is he'll play a slightly below average CF, which can be mitigated with late inning defensive replacements when the offense posts 5-6 runs.

Paralysis by analysis. Oh, and I'm sure none of those discussions occurred prior to the deal. The Reds just went for the bat and have no clue whether there is a snowball's chance that Choo or Bruce can play center on a day to day basis.

I guess I've learned my lesson from chuckling at some hair brained things the Cards have done with their outfield D, like signed Berkman to play RF, the aforementioned Jay in CF, Matt Holliday butchering LF, several starts of Schumaker in CF. Glad to see the Reds not being penny wise (Stubbs getting to a few more fly balls that he can drop after he gets to them) and pound foolish (letting an opportunity to fill their desperate top of the order need slip by because the D will take a hit).

I conjecture one thing: if WJ did not make this move because of the downsides brought up in this thread, he would be lambasted---and rightly so.

bucksfan2
12-13-2012, 09:37 AM
I'd rather have the other guy, but that isn't the point. The point is that Cozart probably isn't going to get better and may get worse, and if he does get worse, there is literally no one to replace him. Or if he gets hurt.

WAR says Cozart was an above-average shortstop last year. Not sure I fully buy into that. Was he average? Yeah, I could buy into that. Not sure I buy into anything more than that.

I am basically hinging on this, if Cozart takes even a slight step backwards in his game, I don't see him as "starting material", but the Reds don't have a single option behind him to replace him. I am not saying he will. I am saying he could. And if he does, the Reds have no options but to play him. It is like Stubbs all over again. You must play a crappy option because you don't have another one. Except that with how it looks right now, if that step backward does come this year, you may be stuck with that for years. It is a concern for me.

Doug tell me why Cozart can't improve? You have pigeon holed Cozart because of one season in the bigs and his old age of 27. Players can improve no? Players can adjust, right? Do you take into consideration that he was put in a situation where he wasn't all together comfortable during his first season?

I wouldn't be shocked if Cozart put up a .330 OBP. I wouldn't be surprised if after his first season in the bigs he was able to adjust. I wouldn't be surprised if moving him down in the order helped out his batting this season.

jojo
12-13-2012, 09:55 AM
I'm curious if Doug or some of you other guys that follow the defensive stats more then I do can answer this question for me, Is there anything that looks at the OF defense as a whole rather then at just each individual player? Heres what I'm thinking, Choo might be a below avg CF but if we have 3 solid OFs can they as a whole make up for not having a top defensive CF? For example if a team had a great CF but then a horrible LF and a below avg RF would they possibly have worse outfield defense then a team like the Reds who have 3 guys that would probably all be above avg in left or right but below avg in center?

I don't think anyone is suggestng the defense will implode by having a minus defender in centerfield.

The point really is that playing Choo in CF is likely to significantly impact his overall value because it's likely he'll fair poorly so it's important to consider when evaluating a trade and valuing his impact on the team's potential.

That said, assuming he's a -10 defender in CF over the course of a full season (on average a corner outfielder gets dinged 10 runs for moving to center and he's been a slightly minus defender in the corner so this is a conservative estimate that gives him benefit of the doubt for his speed), he'd still be a 3.5 to 4 WAR player (assuming his bat produces along his career lines) despite having a defensive value that would've made him one of the worst qualified defensive centerfielders in the majors last season.

Stubbs was a 1.3 WAR player last year and he's been on a three year downward trend.

Choo makes the Reds significantly better despite the defensive problems his addition seem to present for the outfield. The calculus works on this one. I'm a huge proponent of defense but the goal is to get better and there are a gazillion ways to skin a cat. I think this move makes it more likely that the Reds play in a WS this season.

REDREAD
12-13-2012, 09:56 AM
Here's where we disagree. Sure they'll be a dropoff to any non-starter. But most of the other positions (if not ALL of them) have a guy either on the Reds or in the upper minors who can defend at that position. I expect the hitting to take a step back with a non-starter. But there should be a capable defender somewhere in the top 3 levels (MLB, AAA, AA). ESPECIALLY in the defense-first positions.

That's a solid point as well.

Crumbley
12-13-2012, 09:57 AM
Here's what I want out of SS: .300/.400/good defense. Cozart looks to be a good bet to hit that level for the next few years and he's super cheap.

Benihana
12-13-2012, 09:57 AM
Again, I'll preface this comment by reiterating that I am very happy with the Choo trade and happy as can be with Walt and the current state of the Reds. That said...

The way the events played out this week really make me wonder if there wasn't an even bigger trade the Reds could've made. Arizona is clearly enamored with Gregorius, and willing to basically trade Bauer for him almost straight up. So I wonder if the Reds could have really pulled off something like:

Leake, Corcino, Gregorius, Stubbs and Lutz for Upton and Bauer.

Upton is likely as good or better of a defensive CF than Choo.
Bauer could be the 6th starter/complement to Chapman, with each pitching about 140 IP in the 2013 rotation.

Oh well, it's all water under the bridge now (and I'm still happy). I'll have to wait until the 2014 offseason to reboot my efforts to trade for Justin Upton :)

Kc61
12-13-2012, 10:00 AM
Leake, Corcino, Gregorius, Stubbs and Lutz for Upton and Bauer.

Upton is likely as good or better of a defensive CF than Choo.
Bauer could be the 6th starter/complement to Chapman, with each pitching about 140 IP in the 2013 rotation.

Oh well, it's all water under the bridge now (and I'm still happy). I'll have to wait until the 2014 offseason to reboot my efforts to trade for Justin Upton :)

I think the Reds would have made that trade if it was available.

But Upton is signed through 2015 and thus is far more valuable in a trade than Choo. Choo, of course, is a one-year rental.

I think the DiamondBacks would have wanted considerably more for Upton and Bauer. Probably Bailey, Gregorius, Corcino, maybe more.

dunner13
12-13-2012, 10:05 AM
I don't think anyone is suggestng the defense will implode by having a minus defender in centerfield.

The point really is that playing Choo in CF is likely to significantly impact his overall value because it's likely he'll fair poorly so it's important to consider when evaluating a trade and valuing his impact on the team's potential.

That said, assuming he's a -10 defender in CF over the course of a full season (on average a corner outfielder gets dinged 10 runs for moving to center and he's been a slightly minus defender in the corner so this is a conservative estimate that gives him benefit of the doubt for his speed), he'd still be a 3.5 to 4 WAR player (assuming his bat produces along his career lines) despite having a defensive value that would've made him one of the worst qualified defensive centerfielders in the majors last season.

Stubbs was a 1.3 WAR player last year and he's been on a three year downward trend.

Choo makes the Reds significantly better despite the defensive problems his addition seem to present for the outfield. The calculus works on this one. I'm a huge proponent of defense but the goal is to get better and there are a gazillion ways to skin a cat. I think this move makes it more likely that the Reds play in a WS this season.

I have no doubt that Choo makes the reds significantly better I'm just wondering can we somewhat "hide" his below avg defense by having above avg guys in the corners? Mixed with most of his games in a smaller ball park and the possibility of him playing CF better then what were giving him credit for could the hit on defense actually not be that bad?

REDREAD
12-13-2012, 10:14 AM
I am pretty sure there's going to be a dropoff in defense going from Stubbs to Choo.

I wonder what the dropoff is going to be betweeen Choo and Heisey?
IMO, Heisey was a notch below Stubbs (although I know others disagree).

In interleague games, would it be worthwhile to DH one of Ludwick/Choo just to get Heisey's glove in there? Let's assume it's a tight divisional race and every win counts. We know that in reality, Dusty will use the DH to give all the bench guys some at bats.. That's not a bad thing.. was just wondering about using Heisey in CF if you wanted to optimize..

mattfeet
12-13-2012, 10:17 AM
I am pretty sure there's going to be a dropoff in defense going from Stubbs to Choo.

I wonder what the dropoff is going to be betweeen Choo and Heisey?
IMO, Heisey was a notch below Stubbs (although I know others disagree).

In interleague games, would it be worthwhile to DH one of Ludwick/Choo just to get Heisey's glove in there? Let's assume it's a tight divisional race and every win counts. We know that in reality, Dusty will use the DH to give all the bench guys some at bats.. That's not a bad thing.. was just wondering about using Heisey in CF if you wanted to optimize..

I almost guarantee that Ludwick will DH with Heisey in LF for interleague games.

RedsManRick
12-13-2012, 10:18 AM
I almost guarantee that Ludwick will DH with Heisey in LF for interleague games.

They wouldn't shift Choo to LF and put Heisey in CF?

mattfeet
12-13-2012, 10:24 AM
They wouldn't shift Choo to LF and put Heisey in CF?

Well, yea, good point. Heisey in CF, Choo in LF, Luddy DH.

jojo
12-13-2012, 10:33 AM
I have no doubt that Choo makes the reds significantly better I'm just wondering can we somewhat "hide" his below avg defense by having above avg guys in the corners? Mixed with most of his games in a smaller ball park and the possibility of him playing CF better then what were giving him credit for could the hit on defense actually not be that bad?

I think they can be creative and find ways to minimize his glove while maximizing his bat.

I don't think the Reds have corner outfielders that can compensate for CF. I've slowly begun to expect less from Bruce's glove.

WildcatFan
12-13-2012, 11:36 AM
For reference, the 2012 NL slashes by lineup position (leadoff, second, cleanup, etc.), followed by the assumed Cincinnati lineup's 2012 stats:

1. .261/.324/.391 Choo .283/.373/.441
2. .262/.321/.393 Phillips .281/.321/.429
3. .274/.350/.463 Votto .337/.474/.567
4. .273/.345/.467 Ludwick .275/.346/.531
5. .260/.322/.436 Bruce .252/.327/.514
6. .257/.322/.420 Frazier .273/.331/.498
7. .249/.309/.400 Cozart .246/.288/.399
8. .244/.308/.367 Hanigan .274/.365/.338

They're clearly above average now in all of the top six spots and the 8 hole, unlike last season when they were generally well below average in the top two spots. That's what the Choo trade did almost single-handedly (with help from the Ludwick re-signing).

If Cozart can make any kind of improvement at the plate this season, which, I know he's 27, but is almost a sure thing, he should be able to become a league-average 7-hole hitter, and you pretty much have no holes in the lineup.

M2
12-13-2012, 12:59 PM
That said, assuming he's a -10 defender in CF over the course of a full season (on average a corner outfielder gets dinged 10 runs for moving to center and he's been a slightly minus defender in the corner so this is a conservative estimate that gives him benefit of the doubt for his speed)

...

Choo makes the Reds significantly better despite the defensive problems his addition seem to present for the outfield. The calculus works on this one. I'm a huge proponent of defense but the goal is to get better and there are a gazillion ways to skin a cat. I think this move makes it more likely that the Reds play in a WS this season.

I'll start with the last part first: I agree. The bat upgrade is kind of huge. I actually think this is a very Moneyball move. If you look at the CFs who've been signed or traded this winter - Upton, Pagan, Span, Revere - none of them is a true impact bat. They have some moderate offensive ability, but they aren't game changers. Choo is. The market inefficiency in CF is big bats. If you can find a Choo-like bat who can handle the defensive duties well enough, then you're talking about some real separation from the pack. Moving Choo to CF strikes me as the kind of crazy that moved Scott Hatteberg to 1B.

That's probably a fair guesstimate on his defense. One thing I'll add is a RF to CF shift probably isn't all that linear. The reality is very few RFs make a full-time switch to CF. It usually works the other way around and it usually happens while the guy is still a fair defender in CF. Andre Dawson shifts to RF. Vlad Guerrero doesn't shift to CF. So the standard metric adjustment is based largely on a rightward defensive spectrum shift.

I think you touched on something key when you mentioned Choo's speed. Dude is fast. Fast conquers a lot of imperfections in CF. When you look at who the RFs are that can make any kind of permanent shift to CF, the answer would seem to be "the fast ones." This is why I brought up Sr.'s 1981 CF shift earlier in the thread. He wasn't an outstanding RF, but he was fast. As it turned out, he was pretty much the same fielder in CF that he was in RF. He got the job done well enough.

If you're looking for a modern equivalent, Alejandro De Aza seems to be that kind of guy. It doesn't seem to matter where he plays in the OF, you get the same forgettably competent defense out of him. He's a real wherever man. His teammate Alex Rios might be the same sort of cat. Mind you, it's tough to say anything definitive about Rios because he's one of the most maddeningly inconsistent ballplayers of modern times. Some seasons he forgets how to play baseball. Yet in 2010 he was a perfectly acceptable CF.

And there's an argument that CarGo is actually better in CF than he is in the corners.

So the question, and we have no way of knowing the answer, is whether Choo's cut from that mold. Complicating matters is getting a fix on what kind of fielder Choo is in RF. According to his numbers, he was solid from 2009-2011 and then had a dog of a 2012. Was that a tipping point? Was it an anomaly? Do you take his three-year average or should you do four since he was banged up in 2011? His defense is a bit of an ink blot test.

Projecting him as a moderately poor CF is a reasonable starting point. He could be a disaster out there or he could turn out to be furiously average. For now, somewhere in between strikes me as a decent placeholder.

REDREAD
12-13-2012, 01:06 PM
So the question, and we have no way of knowing the answer, is whether Choo's cut from that mold. Complicating matters is getting a fix on what kind of fielder Choo is in RF. According to his numbers, he was solid from 2009-2011 and then had a dog of a 2012. Was that a tipping point? Was it an anomaly? Do you take his three-year average or should you do four since he was banged up in 2011? His defense is a bit of an ink blot test.
.

I'm not at all concerned about Choo's 2012 defensive stats (nor Bruce's)
Both are good athletes.
Choo is an above average RF IMO.
Not sure how that will translate to CF, but I'm not worried about the stats saying he was bad last year. He's a good RF. I'm assuming he's over whatever injury he had. I admit I did not watch him much last year, but it would be unusual for an OF at his age to suddenly lose it defensively.

jojo
12-13-2012, 01:40 PM
I'll start with the last part first: I agree. The bat upgrade is kind of huge. I actually think this is a very Moneyball move. If you look at the CFs who've been signed or traded this winter - Upton, Pagan, Span, Revere - none of them is a true impact bat. They have some moderate offensive ability, but they aren't game changers. Choo is. The market inefficiency in CF is big bats. If you can find a Choo-like bat who can handle the defensive duties well enough, then you're talking about some real separation from the pack. Moving Choo to CF strikes me as the kind of crazy that moved Scott Hatteberg to 1B.

That's probably a fair guesstimate on his defense. One thing I'll add is a RF to CF shift probably isn't all that linear. The reality is very few RFs make a full-time switch to CF. It usually works the other way around and it usually happens while the guy is still a fair defender in CF. Andre Dawson shifts to RF. Vlad Guerrero doesn't shift to CF. So the standard metric adjustment is based largely on a rightward defensive spectrum shift.

I think you touched on something key when you mentioned Choo's speed. Dude is fast. Fast conquers a lot of imperfections in CF. When you look at who the RFs are that can make any kind of permanent shift to CF, the answer would seem to be "the fast ones." This is why I brought up Sr.'s 1981 CF shift earlier in the thread. He wasn't an outstanding RF, but he was fast. As it turned out, he was pretty much the same fielder in CF that he was in RF. He got the job done well enough.

If you're looking for a modern equivalent, Alejandro De Aza seems to be that kind of guy. It doesn't seem to matter where he plays in the OF, you get the same forgettably competent defense out of him. He's a real wherever man. His teammate Alex Rios might be the same sort of cat. Mind you, it's tough to say anything definitive about Rios because he's one of the most maddeningly inconsistent ballplayers of modern times. Some seasons he forgets how to play baseball. Yet in 2010 he was a perfectly acceptable CF.

And there's an argument that CarGo is actually better in CF than he is in the corners.

So the question, and we have no way of knowing the answer, is whether Choo's cut from that mold. Complicating matters is getting a fix on what kind of fielder Choo is in RF. According to his numbers, he was solid from 2009-2011 and then had a dog of a 2012. Was that a tipping point? Was it an anomaly? Do you take his three-year average or should you do four since he was banged up in 2011? His defense is a bit of an ink blot test.

Projecting him as a moderately poor CF is a reasonable starting point. He could be a disaster out there or he could turn out to be furiously average. For now, somewhere in between strikes me as a decent placeholder.

My take on Choo's defense is that he's "fast not natural" so he can compensate. I wouldn't fixate on 2012 unless there is an underlying, compelling reason to believe his trueskill has deterioratated (injury etc). His poor numbers were almost entirely due to range. But the top of the heep of RF defense last year was populated with some excellent defenders-there were a bunch of gold glove awards on the the walls of the guys above him. I think Choo's 2012 defensive numbers are skewed a bit by "cohort" bias.

Probably a good place to start with estimating his defensive worth is to look at his career UZR/150 in RF (-2.7 in 5067 innings). If someone wanted to argue he looked worse due to the talent distribution in right during 2012 (he wasn't dinged for a change in his talent but rather he was dinged by a change in the distribution of talent he was comapred to), I wouldn't quibble with characterizing him as a neutral corner defender.

I get why Walt did what he did.

dougdirt
12-13-2012, 01:49 PM
Doug tell me why Cozart can't improve? You have pigeon holed Cozart because of one season in the bigs and his old age of 27. Players can improve no? Players can adjust, right? Do you take into consideration that he was put in a situation where he wasn't all together comfortable during his first season?

I wouldn't be shocked if Cozart put up a .330 OBP. I wouldn't be surprised if after his first season in the bigs he was able to adjust. I wouldn't be surprised if moving him down in the order helped out his batting this season.
It isn't that he can't, it is that he isn't all that likely to do so. Offensively and defensively, players tend to work on a bell curve. For offense, the bell tops out at age 27 or 28. Cozart is there, right now. Defensively, the bell tops out around 24-25. Cozart is already on the wrong side of that. Historically speaking, players at his age simply don't show dramatic improvements.

marcshoe
12-13-2012, 01:55 PM
Very limited knowledge on my part, but does a bell curve work when you're talking about progression? I've tended to see it used to explain distribution among a common demographic, thus accounting for deviation. I may be being a little too literal, though, I get what you mean.

M2
12-13-2012, 02:07 PM
I'm not at all concerned about Choo's 2012 defensive stats (nor Bruce's)

One thing to consider with Reds OFs and defensive stats is if you put capable fielders in multiple positions, they're likely robbing outs from each other given the relatively narrow power alleys at the GAB.

When you look at the 2012 Reds' defense as whole, it grades out as pretty darn good (4th in the NL in DER, TZ and DRS ranked the Reds defense 2nd overall in the league). Only 4.9% of their opponents PAs resulted in doubles or triples, which is better than average. The opposing BA of .247 was 4th in the NL. Clearly plays were being made at the macro level.

My guess is if Bruce plays next to a lesser flychaser, he'll get more of those either/or balls at the GAB, making his personal stats shinier while not particularly affecting the team's overall defensive profile.

traderumor
12-13-2012, 02:14 PM
It isn't that he can't, it is that he isn't all that likely to do so. Offensively and defensively, players tend to work on a bell curve. For offense, the bell tops out at age 27 or 28. Cozart is there, right now. Defensively, the bell tops out around 24-25. Cozart is already on the wrong side of that. Historically speaking, players at his age simply don't show dramatic improvements.Begging the question on several fronts.

Was 2012 his norm? Was it in line with his major league/minor league projections? How much of 2012 numbers are attributed to randomness and could fluctuate positively without any additional "improvement"?

Who says a player regresses defensively post 25? While I can see the physical peak aspect, that doesn't mean a late 20s to early 30s player doesn't keep his defensive play in tact, or even improve, by knowing the game better, i.e. positioning, anticipation. It is counter intuitive to say a guy has done as well as he is going to do defensively by the time he is 25.

M2
12-13-2012, 02:16 PM
I think Choo's 2012 defensive numbers are skewed a bit by "cohort" bias.

Excellent point. I tend to view noisy CF numbers as a reflection of general defensive wizardry at that position, some years a guy looks brilliant and others not so much. Hadn't much considered the +/- effects of increasing RF excellence.

And the use of "cohort" would normally set me off on a Quinta del Buitre jag, but this would be the wrong forum for that.

dougdirt
12-13-2012, 02:41 PM
Begging the question on several fronts.

Was 2012 his norm? Was it in line with his major league/minor league projections? How much of 2012 numbers are attributed to randomness and could fluctuate positively without any additional "improvement"?

Who says a player regresses defensively post 25? While I can see the physical peak aspect, that doesn't mean a late 20s to early 30s player doesn't keep his defensive play in tact, or even improve, by knowing the game better, i.e. positioning, anticipation. It is counter intuitive to say a guy has done as well as he is going to do defensively by the time he is 25.

I think 2012 was about his norm. Scouts have long questioned whether he was anything more than a .240 hitter at the MLB level. He has, outside of one season, always been an aggressive swinger/low walk type of guy.

As for the peak defensive thing, it was from a subscriber article on Bill James online, but was referenced by Rob Neyer here (http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/2/3/1972752/the-most-important-thing-you-will-read-this-week).


One of the first things that is becoming apparent from better defensive measurements is that defensive value peaks earlier and fades MUCH younger than offensive value. Players often reach their defensive peak at ages 22-25, and many players are fading defensively by the age of 28, long before 30.

pahster
12-13-2012, 02:46 PM
Very limited knowledge on my part, but does a bell curve work when you're talking about progression? I've tended to see it used to explain distribution among a common demographic, thus accounting for deviation. I may be being a little too literal, though, I get what you mean.

The bell curve is shorthand for a standard Normal distribution. It doesn't have anything to do with a linear (or otherwise) progression through time.

marcshoe
12-13-2012, 03:24 PM
The bell curve is shorthand for a standard Normal distribution. It doesn't have anything to do with a linear (or otherwise) progression through time.

That's what I was thinking. I thought this was important because the bell curve explains deviation from the mean and wouldn't really translate to charting progression. But like I said, I was likely being more literal with the phrase than Doug intended.

MikeThierry
12-13-2012, 03:32 PM
I think this is officially the longest thread in Red Zone history :laugh:

dougdirt
12-13-2012, 03:35 PM
I think this is officially the longest thread in Red Zone history :laugh:

Nah. We have had ones started over with Part 2 because the originals got up to 1000 posts.

Caveman Techie
12-13-2012, 03:50 PM
Dougdirt, I understand where you are coming from, but this trade was for now, not two or three years from now. So as you have said you think we gave up the wrong shortstop, but then you admit that Didi would likely be outperformed by Cozart in 2013.

So with the thought process being that this trade is for 2013 only and hopefully getting a WS title this year, don't you think the Reds traded the right guy then?

dougdirt
12-13-2012, 03:57 PM
Dougdirt, I understand where you are coming from, but this trade was for now, not two or three years from now. So as you have said you think we gave up the wrong shortstop, but then you admit that Didi would likely be outperformed by Cozart in 2013.

So with the thought process being that this trade is for 2013 only and hopefully getting a WS title this year, don't you think the Reds traded the right guy then?
Not really. The difference between Didi and Cozart for 2013 is small. Maybe a win, which on this team, isn't going to make a difference. And by the time the playoffs roll around, I think they will be on par.

Again, this isn't to say I don't like the trade or wouldn't have made it. Just that I believe there is more risk involved with the trade than a lot of people seem to believe there is, even for 2013.

_Sir_Charles_
12-13-2012, 04:29 PM
I think the Reds would have made that trade if it was available.

But Upton is signed through 2015 and thus is far more valuable in a trade than Choo. Choo, of course, is a one-year rental.

I think the DiamondBacks would have wanted considerably more for Upton and Bauer. Probably Bailey, Gregorius, Corcino, maybe more.

I don't know if they would've made that trade or not. Walt seemed pretty pleased that he didn't have to give up any of the pitching depth to get Choo. Dealing away 2 of them for Upton/Bauer is still shortening our pitching depth. Had we not signed Ludwick I think the odds would've been better, but adding Ludwick AND Upton puts a two year hold on Hamilton...another thing I don't think Walt wants to do. I just don't know.

_Sir_Charles_
12-13-2012, 04:31 PM
I think this is officially the longest thread in Red Zone history :laugh:

LOL. We've had freaking GAME THREADS go this long. :O)

REDREAD
12-13-2012, 04:34 PM
One thing to consider with Reds OFs and defensive stats is if you put capable fielders in multiple positions, they're likely robbing outs from each other given the relatively narrow power alleys at the GAB.

When you look at the 2012 Reds' defense as whole, it grades out as pretty darn good (4th in the NL in DER, TZ and DRS ranked the Reds defense 2nd overall in the league). Only 4.9% of their opponents PAs resulted in doubles or triples, which is better than average. The opposing BA of .247 was 4th in the NL. Clearly plays were being made at the macro level.

My guess is if Bruce plays next to a lesser flychaser, he'll get more of those either/or balls at the GAB, making his personal stats shinier while not particularly affecting the team's overall defensive profile.

Excellent point for sure.

_Sir_Charles_
12-13-2012, 04:39 PM
Not really. The difference between Didi and Cozart for 2013 is small. Maybe a win, which on this team, isn't going to make a difference. And by the time the playoffs roll around, I think they will be on par.

Again, this isn't to say I don't like the trade or wouldn't have made it. Just that I believe there is more risk involved with the trade than a lot of people seem to believe there is, even for 2013.

Doug and I are on the same page for the most part. He's higher on Didi than I am for sure, but he's spot on when he says people are overlooking the amount of risk here. A team that's won on pitching and defense just lessened a cornerstone on defense considerably in center and took the knees out of the clubs' depth at yet another defense cornerstone, shortstop. I don't think ANYBODY is against this deal...it's just not a slam dunk like some portray it.

Personally I didn't think it would've mattered very much as to which shortstop we dealt, just the fact that we traded either of them hurts. I was quite concerned as soon as Jocketty announced that they were open to dealing one of the shortstops at all.

As for Jason Donald, I've seen him play some but not a bunch. When I've seen him he's been Keppinger-esque defensively at short but looked much better at 2nd. Does anybody have any kind of glowing praises about his defense? Because he strikes me as strictly a back-up infielder and not to be used for long stretches. Same goes for Hannahan except he looks fantastic at third...but pedestrian at short. Hopefully I'm wrong.

vaticanplum
12-13-2012, 04:43 PM
One thing to consider with Reds OFs and defensive stats is if you put capable fielders in multiple positions, they're likely robbing outs from each other given the relatively narrow power alleys at the GAB.

When you look at the 2012 Reds' defense as whole, it grades out as pretty darn good (4th in the NL in DER, TZ and DRS ranked the Reds defense 2nd overall in the league). Only 4.9% of their opponents PAs resulted in doubles or triples, which is better than average. The opposing BA of .247 was 4th in the NL. Clearly plays were being made at the macro level.

My guess is if Bruce plays next to a lesser flychaser, he'll get more of those either/or balls at the GAB, making his personal stats shinier while not particularly affecting the team's overall defensive profile.

GABP intel is one of my favorite things about following this team. It's like watching Stat Sleuths (which is the MLB Network's next hit, or should be).

M2
12-13-2012, 04:58 PM
I think this is officially the longest thread in Red Zone history :laugh:

It's about 59,000 posts short - http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26042

Krono alone had more posts in that thread than there are in this thread.

marcshoe
12-13-2012, 05:10 PM
Maybe the longest thread title.

MikeThierry
12-13-2012, 05:13 PM
It's about 59,000 posts short - http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26042

Krono alone had more posts in that thread than there are in this thread.

Most epic thread ever. That is hilarious stuff.

MikeThierry
12-13-2012, 05:15 PM
Has Krono brought everyone apple juice?

Puffy
12-13-2012, 05:33 PM
It's about 59,000 posts short - http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26042

Krono alone had more posts in that thread than there are in this thread.

Wow, go to post #237 of that thread (and remember that thread was started in 2004).

I missed that appointment.

traderumor
12-13-2012, 07:37 PM
Not really. The difference between Didi and Cozart for 2013 is small. Maybe a win, which on this team, isn't going to make a difference. And by the time the playoffs roll around, I think they will be on par.

Again, this isn't to say I don't like the trade or wouldn't have made it. Just that I believe there is more risk involved with the trade than a lot of people seem to believe there is, even for 2013.On par by playoff time is a pretty aggressive stance. Don't see it, I'm not sure I would be as bold as projecting as anymore than any slick field no hit shortstop that litter the game's history.

dougdirt
12-13-2012, 07:49 PM
On par by playoff time is a pretty aggressive stance. Don't see it, I'm not sure I would be as bold as projecting as anymore than any slick field no hit shortstop that litter the game's history.

And I obviously disagree with that.

At this point, Cozart is a slick fielding no hit shortstop isn't he. Sure, he has a little bit of power. But he still can't hit. For all of the people who keep talking about how Didi is a light stick, are they forgetting that their current guy couldn't muster a .690 OPS at age 26 in the Majors?

Caveat Emperor
12-13-2012, 07:58 PM
Wow, go to post #237 of that thread (and remember that thread was started in 2004).

I missed that appointment.

Today I Learned: Venus is the only planet that rotates clockwise.

westofyou
12-13-2012, 08:09 PM
Today I Learned: Venus is the only planet that rotates clockwise.

Me as well

jojo
12-13-2012, 08:10 PM
Today I Learned: Venus is the only planet that rotates clockwise.

It spins the other way in Australia.

traderumor
12-13-2012, 08:11 PM
And I obviously disagree with that.

At this point, Cozart is a slick fielding no hit shortstop isn't he. Sure, he has a little bit of power. But he still can't hit. For all of the people who keep talking about how Didi is a light stick, are they forgetting that their current guy couldn't muster a .690 OPS at age 26 in the Majors?I think your needle's stuck. Yes, Cozart is an old rookie, I get it. He has one year of major league numbers for you to drone on about, and drone on you will. By age 26, who will Gregorius be backing up?

westofyou
12-13-2012, 08:11 PM
On par by playoff time is a pretty aggressive stance. Don't see it, I'm not sure I would be as bold as projecting as anymore than any slick field no hit shortstop that litter the game's history.

Yep (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/reesepo01.shtml) some folks think that a light will go on and then the guys out of the game at 31

Wonderful Monds
12-13-2012, 08:12 PM
And I obviously disagree with that.

At this point, Cozart is a slick fielding no hit shortstop isn't he. Sure, he has a little bit of power. But he still can't hit. For all of the people who keep talking about how Didi is a light stick, are they forgetting that their current guy couldn't muster a .690 OPS at age 26 in the Majors?

You keep harping on this age thing when it's quite clear that a good number of us absolutely could not care less about it. He was still a rookie, 26 or not. He will get better with more MLB experience.

And yeah, Cozart didn't hit for any kind of average and he didn't get on base much, but he still showed good power for a SS.

By the way, Cozart has shown more than Gregorious has ever dreamed of to this point. Gregorious has some kind of mythical power potential. Cozart has actual power.

Wonderful Monds
12-13-2012, 08:12 PM
It spins the other way in Australia.

Shut down Redszone, none of us will ever top this one.

dougdirt
12-13-2012, 08:20 PM
You keep harping on this age thing when it's quite clear that a good number of us absolutely could not care less about it. He was still a rookie, 26 or not. He will get better with more MLB experience.

And yeah, Cozart didn't hit for any kind of average and he didn't get on base much, but he still showed good power for a SS.

By the way, Cozart has shown more than Gregorious has ever dreamed of to this point. Gregorious has some kind of mythical power potential. Cozart has actual power.

Sure. Most 26 year olds are better than most 22 year olds. I don't care what a good number of you think about him being an old rookie. Your assumption that he will get better with more experience may be true. But history of thousands of players just like him suggest it won't be by much and that the guy he is today is very likely close to the best he is going to ever be.

I also doubt that Gregorius has sat back and dreamt of his future and thought "Man, I bet in my best dream possible I can't hit .250 or get on base 29% of the time".

Gregorius doesn't have mythical power. He hit 6 home runs in 200 AAA at bats last season. He isn't Zack Cozart in the power department. Cozart has average power. Gregorius may have average shortstop power. There is a difference and Cozart undoubtedly has an edge there.

I really am done with all of this stuff though.

Within two seasons, Gregorius is going to be better than Cozart is. The Reds need to address their complete lack of actual shortstops behind Cozart. The Reds don't have a starting center fielder on their roster. I am glad we acquired Choo, even at the expense of Gregorius. The Reds offense is going to be awful good in 2013. /dougdirt in this thread.

RANDY IN INDY
12-13-2012, 08:29 PM
Will be truly interesting to look back at this in two years to see who is the better player.

Roy Tucker
12-13-2012, 08:30 PM
If I had to pick my poison, I'd rather be arguing about SS depth at AAA than a glaring hole at the top of the major league club lineup.

Sure, I"d like better depth, but I think WJ can putty up and bondo up SS depth by the end of sring training. It won't be perfect, but it will be passable.

M2
12-13-2012, 10:23 PM
Wow, go to post #237 of that thread (and remember that thread was started in 2004).

I missed that appointment.

Stay thirsty, my friend.

Nathan
12-14-2012, 12:15 AM
Here's my two cents. Yes, Gregorious has the potential to be a better player than Cozart. Indians and Diamondbacks probably knew this. Everyone involved preferred Didi over Zach. The Reds weren't going to let one player stop them from getting the guy they want, especially with the position already covered. So, realistically, could've they traded the guy they really wanted to keep to get the guy they wanted worse?

Patrick Bateman
12-14-2012, 12:21 AM
Within two seasons, Gregorius is going to be better than Cozart is.

You really need to stop saying stuff like this.

Did might be better than Cozart. To this point Cozart is an average regular. Did has done nothing to suggest that he is a complete lock to even OPS .700 in the majors. If he fails to improve his hitting, he'll be little more than Janish. There isnt THAT much projectability with Didi that makes it a sure thing.

At some point you can't keep assuming that a prospect is guaranteed to make that next step in development. If it were true, every top 100 guy would be a locked in above average major leaguer which simply is not the case.

There are currently about 15 people in the world that can do what Cozart does. That's not something completely worth dismissing. I understand his flaws, and I understand the Reds dont have much SS depth, but how many teams have two SS in their system currently able to play a starting role competently? There's a reason that Didi was so coveted. The Reds need another SS as much as most other teams (ie. if any team's starting SS goes down they probably dont have a great alternative ready).

757690
12-14-2012, 12:43 AM
Here's my two cents. Yes, Gregorious has the potential to be a better player than Cozart. Indians and Diamondbacks probably knew this. Everyone involved preferred Didi over Zach. The Reds weren't going to let one player stop them from getting the guy they want, especially with the position already covered. So, realistically, could've they traded the guy they really wanted to keep to get the guy they wanted worse?

Yep, it really doesn't matter who is or will be better between Didi and Zach. This trade only gets made because the D-Backs had a massive man crush on Didi and were willing to overpay to get him. They weren't going to give up Bauer for Zach, which means the Tribe wasn't going to trade Choo for Zach.

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 03:37 AM
You really need to stop saying stuff like this.


I guess we should just shut down Redszone, and the internet while we are at it. What is this, Russia, circa 1960?

camisadelgolf
12-14-2012, 04:13 AM
I guess we should just shut down Redszone, and the internet while we are at it. What is this, Russia, circa 1960?
It's called RedsZone for a reason.

traderumor
12-14-2012, 07:34 AM
I think 2012 was about his norm. Scouts have long questioned whether he was anything more than a .240 hitter at the MLB level. He has, outside of one season, always been an aggressive swinger/low walk type of guy.

As for the peak defensive thing, it was from a subscriber article on Bill James online, but was referenced by Rob Neyer here (http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/2/3/1972752/the-most-important-thing-you-will-read-this-week).
As with most attempts to analyze defense, it is still quite the wax nose scientifically speaking. I wouldn't consider it fair by anyone in a discussion to speak with absolute authority about this theory. Also, it begs the question on "defensive value." The argument seems to be "defensive skills" more than "defensive value," which would be a category error. Of course, all I can read is a Rob Neyer blurb, so whether this research is confusing categories isn't fair for me to say, just raising the question.

traderumor
12-14-2012, 07:36 AM
Will be truly interesting to look back at this in two years to see who is the better player.
Wait, I thought that wasn't allowed on RZ? Holding people accountable for their opinions is forbidden and makes you a meany.

kaldaniels
12-14-2012, 07:36 AM
Ok here's a question. Who would have still made the trade if it were Cozart instead of Didi?

Obviously we would then need someone else to play SS for us this year...

traderumor
12-14-2012, 07:37 AM
Ok here's a question. Who would have still made the trade if it were Cozart instead of Didi?

Obviously we would then need someone else to play SS for us this year...The funny part of that is that we would have traded Stubbs because of the bat being too weak to gain from his defense and kept a guy with the same issue.

traderumor
12-14-2012, 07:40 AM
I guess we should just shut down Redszone, and the internet while we are at it. What is this, Russia, circa 1960?
I think the point is that dogmatism on ballplayers makes folks look foolish later, then they get offended because their foolishness is linked. Exhibit One--Zach Stewart's Cy Young Award is still a running joke on here.

PuffyPig
12-14-2012, 08:26 AM
Everyone involved preferred Didi over Zach.

We don't know this.

Caveat Emperor
12-14-2012, 08:29 AM
I think the point is that dogmatism on ballplayers makes folks look foolish later, then they get offended because their foolishness is linked. Exhibit One--Zach Stewart's Cy Young Award is still a running joke on here.

Checking...

Yup, still funny.

(So that the newer members can play along at home: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1938341&postcount=213)

Tony Cloninger
12-14-2012, 08:32 AM
I think the point is that dogmatism on ballplayers makes folks look foolish later, then they get offended because their foolishness is linked. Exhibit One--Zach Stewart's Cy Young Award is still a running joke on here.

Stewart is the Cy Young of being of traded....and will soon rival Bruce Chen as the Bobo Newsom of the 2010's.

WildcatFan
12-14-2012, 09:09 AM
It's about 59,000 posts short - http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26042

Krono alone had more posts in that thread than there are in this thread.

Wow, RedsZone invented Twitter before Twitter did.

REDREAD
12-14-2012, 10:07 AM
Ok here's a question. Who would have still made the trade if it were Cozart instead of Didi?

Obviously we would then need someone else to play SS for us this year...

I probably wouldn't make the trade if they demanded Cozart.
If that was the trade, now we are playing a corner OF in CF AND we have a massive hole at SS. Two relatively young starting players for one year of Choo is too much (even if one is Stubbs) . I'd rather get De Arza from the White Sox or something like that.

Cozart >>> Didi next year. Maybe Didi eventually passes Cozart, but I'm mainly worried about 2013 now.

kaldaniels
12-14-2012, 10:32 AM
Wouldn't it be funny if Stubbs turns out to be the premier player from here on out in this trade, from amongst Choo, Didi, and Stubbs himself. It's certainly possible. :laugh:

Patrick Bateman
12-14-2012, 10:35 AM
I think the point is that dogmatism on ballplayers makes folks look foolish later, then they get offended because their foolishness is linked. Exhibit One--Zach Stewart's Cy Young Award is still a running joke on here.

Exactly. Stating items as a matter of fact when it comes to prospects is extremely foolish and comes accross as extremely arrogant.

Of course Doug can say what he wants, but it's no wonder why stuff like the Zach Stewart quote gets thrown around for a half decade when it's assigned to such an arrogantly presented position. The "you need to stop doing stuff like this" post was meant as more advice than an order.

Kc61
12-14-2012, 11:02 AM
There's a long, long line of prospects in baseball who are slick fielding shortstops and ultimately come up short on offense.

We can name a dozen of them in the Reds' system since RedsZone began, maybe more.

The jury is obviously out on whether Didi will have enough stick to rise above this list. He may well, it's a gamble, nobody on earth knows.

If he turns out to have a .750 OPS or thereabouts, or better, he will be a very, very valuable player. If not, he will have some value mostly due to defense. And he could wind up as a good defensive backup player.

We can debate it forever, time will tell, I value Doug's view that he will hit, but the DBacks did take a bit of a gamble with him. Either they were idiots or geniuses. That's why we follow the game, to find out.

For me, I like Cozart as long as he hits lower in the order. I love sure handed, low error shortstops. I like his power. I recognize his flaws. I'm happy with Zack as the Reds' shortstop and delighted this controversial draft pick (remember?) has worked out so well.

traderumor
12-14-2012, 11:04 AM
Wouldn't it be funny if Stubbs turns out to be the premier player from here on out in this trade, from amongst Choo, Didi, and Stubbs himself. It's certainly possible. :laugh:It may be possible, but I'd assign it a very low probability.

Roy Tucker
12-14-2012, 11:14 AM
This is all what makes baseball so much fun.

There isn't any other sport where trades are made and you can get ~1000 posts made on the nuances and assumptions and implications and predictions of trading a AAA shortstop. People get in here and endlessly wrangle over the trade.

But, we're all fans and we love this stuff and we thrive on it. We *like* endlessly wrangling and carrying points to the most extreme reaches of the universe. Sometimes people get too serious or get their noses out of joint, but its because we love this sport. And the fun thing about RedsZone is that it is a time machine where you can go back in time and see all the arguments pro and con before the story all unfolded. Some people end up correct and some people end up way off.

My wife laughs at me because sometimes we're standing in the checkout line at Target or Costco and I'm on my phone reading RZ and muttering under my breath and how some people are full of crap and she asks me "why do you bother so much about that stuff?". And then I go on this big rant about this player or trade and she looks at me like I've got a 3rd eye in my forehead. And then I realize how much of a fan I am and how much the Reds are part of the fabric of my life. Have been since the age of 12 and I think I'm pretty much stuck with it to my grave. But I think, overall, its a pretty good way to pass time and it keeps me out of bars.

Carry on... just me thinking out loud.

Superdude
12-14-2012, 11:27 AM
This is all what makes baseball so much fun.

There isn't any other sport where trades are made and you can get ~1000 posts made on the nuances and assumptions and implications and predictions of trading a AAA shortstop. People get in here and endlessly wrangle over the trade.

The truly outstanding part is that we all essentially agree on this trade that we've been vehemently arguing about for days now. :laugh:

RedEye
12-14-2012, 11:31 AM
This is all what makes baseball so much fun.

There isn't any other sport where trades are made and you can get ~1000 posts made on the nuances and assumptions and implications and predictions of trading a AAA shortstop. People get in here and endlessly wrangle over the trade.

But, we're all fans and we love this stuff and we thrive on it. We *like* endlessly wrangling and carrying points to the most extreme reaches of the universe. Sometimes people get too serious or get their noses out of joint, but its because we love this sport. And the fun thing about RedsZone is that it is a time machine where you can go back in time and see all the arguments pro and con before the story all unfolded. Some people end up correct and some people end up way off.

My wife laughs at me because sometimes we're standing in the checkout line at Target or Costco and I'm on my phone reading RZ and muttering under my breath and how some people are full of crap and she asks me "why do you bother so much about that stuff?". And then I go on this big rant about this player or trade and she looks at me like I've got a 3rd eye in my forehead. And then I realize how much of a fan I am and how much the Reds are part of the fabric of my life. Have been since the age of 12 and I think I'm pretty much stuck with it to my grave. But I think, overall, its a pretty good way to pass time and it keeps me out of bars.

Carry on... just me thinking out loud.

*Love* this post. This happens to me all the time, too. Smart phones have made me into a chain-poster on RZ some days -- as you all may have noticed lately.

PuffyPig
12-14-2012, 11:37 AM
It may be possible, but I'd assign it a very low probability.


While it's always possible, Stubbs has actually regressed each year. It's more likely that this may be his last year as a reguler than him out-performing everyone else in the trade.

I'll always remember his two consecutive game winning hits off of Cordero last year.

MikeThierry
12-14-2012, 11:54 AM
It spins the other way in Australia.

This man won the internets.

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 01:50 PM
I think the point is that dogmatism on ballplayers makes folks look foolish later, then they get offended because their foolishness is linked. Exhibit One--Zach Stewart's Cy Young Award is still a running joke on here.

Nah, I just get annoyed by 3+ years of "IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" posts. It just comes off as childish to me. There are tons of times I could have said something similar to a whole lot of people around these parts for being wrong. We are all clearly wrong, often, assuming we actually put an opinion out there with any kind of regularity. But I don't. I look at it as the way children act, not adults.

Scrap Irony
12-14-2012, 01:59 PM
Let's not get into that discussion again, please.

It's been done-- three times in the past few months.

Suffice it to say, there are posters on each side of that fence, and the more you state your opinion as fact, the more people are going to dog you for it. It has little to do with opinions-- it has lots to do with the way those opinions are presented.

traderumor
12-14-2012, 02:09 PM
Nah, I just get annoyed by 3+ years of "IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" posts. It just comes off as childish to me. There are tons of times I could have said something similar to a whole lot of people around these parts for being wrong. We are all clearly wrong, often, assuming we actually put an opinion out there with any kind of regularity. But I don't. I look at it as the way children act, not adults.I fail to see maturity in someone who makes strong assertions in arenas like prospect predictions, then whines when a track record for those predictions is documented.

westofyou
12-14-2012, 02:11 PM
Be sure of three things when it comes to the game.


Nobody knows everything

Everybody can learn something new every day

The game is bigger than all of us and our opinions on the game

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 02:15 PM
I fail to see maturity in someone who makes strong assertions in arenas like prospect predictions, then whines when a track record for those predictions is documented.

Whines? Please. I probably have my opinions attacked on this site more than anyone (at least on the baseball side of the forum). There is no whining. I don't go crying to moderators. I usually just respond back with my evidence as to why I have my opinion. And for the record, no track record is brought up. People bring up Stewart. No one brings up how I told everyone that Stubbs had power when hardly anyone believed he could hit 10 home runs. Or that I was about the only person around who believed Mesoraco was still a prospect (and even a decent one) when most everyone else was writing him off as a bust. My track record isn't perfect. No one who deals in sports is going to be. No one who has and posts opinions on hundreds of players a year will.

Wonderful Monds
12-14-2012, 02:20 PM
Nah, I just get annoyed by 3+ years of "IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" posts. It just comes off as childish to me. There are tons of times I could have said something similar to a whole lot of people around these parts for being wrong. We are all clearly wrong, often, assuming we actually put an opinion out there with any kind of regularity. But I don't. I look at it as the way children act, not adults.

You really, *really* can't understand why that happens?

jojo
12-14-2012, 02:21 PM
Let's not get into that discussion again, please.

It's been done-- three times in the past few months.

Suffice it to say, there are posters on each side of that fence, and the more you state your opinion as fact, the more people are going to dog you for it. It has little to do with opinions-- it has lots to do with the way those opinions are presented.

If one dives into the archives-and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do (actually everyone should play in the archives, it's loaded with interesting stuff)-one should just make sure that they accurately represent the original position. If that's the case, there really shouldn't be much of an argument. If that's not the case, then evoking the archives might be one of the more transparent tells there could be....

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 02:23 PM
You really, *really* can't understand why that happens?

Sure, I understand why it happens. People get something by "winning" and letting someone else know it.

Wonderful Monds
12-14-2012, 02:57 PM
Sure, I understand why it happens. People get something by "winning" and letting someone else know it.

Respectfully, that completely and utterly misses the point

RedsManRick
12-14-2012, 03:07 PM
*Love* this post. This happens to me all the time, too. Smart phones have made me into a chain-poster on RZ some days -- as you all may have noticed lately.

Agreed. Posts like this make me want "rep" back...

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 03:37 PM
Respectfully, that completely and utterly misses the point

I don't think it does. If that weren't the point, it wouldn't happen.

traderumor
12-14-2012, 03:50 PM
Whines? Please. I probably have my opinions attacked on this site more than anyone (at least on the baseball side of the forum). There is no whining. I don't go crying to moderators. I usually just respond back with my evidence as to why I have my opinion. And for the record, no track record is brought up. People bring up Stewart. No one brings up how I told everyone that Stubbs had power when hardly anyone believed he could hit 10 home runs. Or that I was about the only person around who believed Mesoraco was still a prospect (and even a decent one) when most everyone else was writing him off as a bust. My track record isn't perfect. No one who deals in sports is going to be. No one who has and posts opinions on hundreds of players a year will.Right, you win some, you lose some. Which is why the dogmatism in your assertions is browbeat.

RANDY IN INDY
12-14-2012, 03:58 PM
Right, you win some, you lose some. Which is why the dogmatism in your assertions is browbeat.

I think that nails it. When folks make statements with such confidence and certainty, they set themselves up for ridicule when they are wrong.

westofyou
12-14-2012, 03:59 PM
I think that nails it. When folks make statements with such confidence and certainty, they set themselves up for ridicule when they are wrong.

Bank on it

Roy Tucker
12-14-2012, 04:04 PM
Bank on it

Mortgage payment and first-born son

Always Red
12-14-2012, 04:10 PM
I think that nails it. When folks make statements with such confidence and certainty, they set themselves up for ridicule when they are wrong.

Conversations go much better when softened with words and phrases such as:

Maybe
Might
Perhaps
In my opinion
Probably
I'm not 100% sure
Possibly
I could be wrong


It's just more social and polite, it's easier to read, and when wrong (happens to me a lot) people go easier on me. :beerme:

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 04:20 PM
I think that nails it. When folks make statements with such confidence and certainty, they set themselves up for ridicule when they are wrong.

Isn't it implied that "I think" is before every statement about the future? But, yeah, I do say things with confidence and certainty. Why would I open my mouth and talk about something I didn't feel that way about? I have strong opinions because I put plenty of thought and research into them.

RANDY IN INDY
12-14-2012, 04:21 PM
Conversations go much better when softened with words and phrases such as:

Maybe
Might
Perhaps
In my opinion
Probably
I'm not 100% sure
Possibly
I could be wrong


It's just more social and polite, it's easier to read, and when wrong (happens to me a lot) people go easier on me. :beerme:

Wise, you are.

RANDY IN INDY
12-14-2012, 04:25 PM
Isn't it implied that "I think" is before every statement about the future? But, yeah, I do say things with confidence and certainty. Why would I open my mouth and talk about something I didn't feel that way about? I have strong opinions because I put plenty of thought and research into them.

Tone and perception. Sometimes we don't realize how we come across. Strong opinions get strong replies. Been there.

CySeymour
12-14-2012, 04:27 PM
Conversations go much better when softened with words and phrases such as:

Maybe
Might
Perhaps
In my opinion
Probably
I'm not 100% sure
Possibly
I could be wrong


It's just more social and polite, it's easier to read, and when wrong (happens to me a lot) people go easier on me. :beerme:

I'm wrong so much, I surprise folks when I actually get things right! :party:

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 04:32 PM
Tone and perception. Sometimes we don't realize how we come across. Strong opinions get strong replies. Been there.

Sure. I just find it silly that the replies continue happening, in absolutely no context to that opinion, years and years down the road other than to simply be a "in your face" for the benefit of the person saying "in your face".

Patrick Bateman
12-14-2012, 04:38 PM
Isn't it implied that "I think" is before every statement about the future? But, yeah, I do say things with confidence and certainty. Why would I open my mouth and talk about something I didn't feel that way about? I have strong opinions because I put plenty of thought and research into them.

Your comment in this thread was "Gregorious will be xxxx as a hitter". At no point in your argument about him have you recognized there is even a slight chance that he might not be an acceptable major league starting SS.

I just don't get that. As a prospect, that isn't even elite, I find it difficult that you aren't willing to even entertain that notion. People get turned off by the notion that you state things as a fact, especially when you generally do so in regards to prospects. Just because you watch the minor league games more closely than us, and examine the stats, and talk to the scouts does not make your stances infallible, and does not mean that another poster's perception of the prospect is flawed because they didn't arrive at the analysis the same way. It just seems especially on that topic that posters here are consistently turned off by the tone you use on those arguments.

kaldaniels
12-14-2012, 04:39 PM
Isn't it implied that "I think" is before every statement about the future? But, yeah, I do say things with confidence and certainty. Why would I open my mouth and talk about something I didn't feel that way about? I have strong opinions because I put plenty of thought and research into them.

But when you say things with such confidence and certainty when there is an opposing viewpoint, and that opposing viewpoint turns out to be correct...prepare to take the heat. Not call the other side "childish".

I think Zack Cozart is going to be better than Didi career-wise. But I could be wrong.

However you will never see me write a curt response to someone simply saying "Cozart will be better than Didi." It comes across confrontational to many, whether or not it was intended that way. So I would ask that ones who speak/type like that confront that reality. And many take the heat just fine. You usually do too Doug, but every once in a while you break out the "act like an adult" speech.

We've (the board) had this discussion earlier this year...

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 04:49 PM
Your comment in this thread was "Gregorious will be xxxx as a hitter". At no point in your argument about him have you recognized there is even a slight chance that he might not be an acceptable major league starting SS.

I just don't get that. As a prospect, that isn't even elite, I find it difficult that you aren't willing to even entertain that notion. People get turned off by the notion that you state things as a fact, especially when you generally do so in regards to prospects. Just because you watch the minor league games more closely than us, and examine the stats, and talk to the scouts does not make your stances infallible, and does not mean that another poster's perception of the prospect is flawed because they didn't arrive at the analysis the same way. It just seems especially on that topic that posters here are consistently turned off by the tone you use on those arguments.

When I use the words project or has the potential to be, and I have numerous times in this thread, it means he isn't that and needs to work to do so. It is implied within there that of course there is a chance it won't happen.

traderumor
12-14-2012, 04:50 PM
Isn't it implied that "I think" is before every statement about the future? But, yeah, I do say things with confidence and certainty. Why would I open my mouth and talk about something I didn't feel that way about? I have strong opinions because I put plenty of thought and research into them.
If you would have said something like "don't be surprised if Didi outperforms Cozart at the same age," I'm guessing there would have been friendly discussion from dissenters. Instead, you get "who does this guy think he is?" type responses. It just sounds arrogant. And I know arrogant. Look at my posting history ;)

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 04:52 PM
If you would have said something like "don't be surprised if Didi outperforms Cozart at the same age," I'm guessing there would have been friendly discussion from dissenters. Instead, you get "who does this guy think he is?" type responses. It just sounds arrogant. And I know arrogant. Look at my posting history ;)

I prefer the term confident. And I am. I don't just talk to talk.

Patrick Bateman
12-14-2012, 04:54 PM
When I use the words project or has the potential to be, and I have numerous times in this thread, it means he isn't that and needs to work to do so. It is implied within there that of course there is a chance it won't happen.

It's implied only when you use it.

Ok, as usual, everyone wrong but you. The rest of us are the ones with the reading comprehension problem!

traderumor
12-14-2012, 04:57 PM
I prefer the term confident. And I am. I don't just talk to talk.Confidence wouldn't spend several posts defending oneself after they claim to be done with the discussion.

RANDY IN INDY
12-14-2012, 04:59 PM
I prefer the term confident. And I am. I don't just talk to talk.

If you are being told that you sometimes come across as arrogant, and you come back with a comment like this one, well, I think you deserve whatever gets thrown your way when your opinions are wrong.

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 05:00 PM
Confidence wouldn't spend several posts defending oneself after they claim to be done with the discussion.

I am done with the conversation as it involves the players involved. I however am not done defending myself or to sit back and not respond to people who attack or question me.

dougdirt
12-14-2012, 05:00 PM
It's implied only when you use it.

Ok, as usual, everyone wrong but you. The rest of us are the ones with the reading comprehension problem!

As we have seen when this has been brought up in the past, I am hardly alone on "my side".