Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Madden
They still look like pretty much the same hitter to me...
Going by career numbers, that's a solid point.
I think last years Janish is the "real" Janish.. what would should expect in 2012. If others disagree, I can understand.
But if we go under the assumption that the rest of the league has figured out how to render Janish totally hapless (521 OPS, like last year), then it makes sense to add another SS. Valdez is no one's dream SS, but he's an upgrade to a 521 OPS SS who is average at best defensively (My opinion of Janish, which I think Walt shares).
Considering what we paid for Renturia last year, paying around 900k ish for Valdez is not an excessive expenditure. It's probably a better fit for us than Theriot.
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bumstead
Janish has played 33 games (19 starts) at 2B/3B in his career. Certainly too small a sample size for you to say one way or the other how good he can be in a utility role at those positions. Continue to mock me if you will. We traded nothing for a better utility player and you have an attachment to probably the worst MLB baseball player that had 350 PA's last season. One fluke season does not a player make.
TRF: don't bore me with your "prove it" statement. I have been to baseball-reference.com and looked at the stats and I have actually objectively watched both players play baseball. Valdez is better; he's not great, he's not good, but he knows his role and he can certainly fill that role for this team better than Janish can.
Bum
I looked too. the internets are fun.
Valdez isn't better. He's the same. Just older. They both had seasons where it was .600 and in the .500's. Valdez low OPS season is .511.
Edit: Valdez never had a .700+ OPS season. Not even close to one really.
yeah, he's fantastic.
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TRF
I don't have the software to pull numbers the way you do. BTW, what do you use?
Here is a link to espn's 2010 stats. Yes, we all know what Janish did last year. I think some are forgetting what he did the year before. sorted by AB's, minimum 200 PA's
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting...Bats/minpa/200
look that list over.
he was 9th in OPS at SS. Yes, he had exactly 200 AB's, but as a backup SS, how many SHOULD he get. You may want a larger house, but it doesn't exist.
In 2010, offensively, Paul Janish was one of the best backup SS's in baseball. I can't believe I just typed that, but it's true. He was also one of the best defensive SS's in baseball period.
And in 2011, his offense was putrid. Go figure.
http://www.baseball-encyclopedia.com/
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
REDREAD
Going by career numbers, that's a solid point.
I think last years Janish is the "real" Janish.. what would should expect in 2012. If others disagree, I can understand.
But if we go under the assumption that the rest of the league has figured out how to render Janish totally hapless (521 OPS, like last year), then it makes sense to add another SS. Valdez is no one's dream SS, but he's an upgrade to a 521 OPS SS who is average at best defensively (My opinion of Janish, which I think Walt shares).
Considering what we paid for Renturia last year, paying around 900k ish for Valdez is not an excessive expenditure. It's probably a better fit for us than Theriot.
Considering Valdez has actually had a WORSE season than Janish last year, I think that the real Janish can easily be determined by looking at the career stats page for Wilson Valdez. Actually, I looked at the stats wrong. Valdez has NEVER had a season as good as Janish in 2010. He's never come within 50 points of that OPS. So, actually, Janish has the higher ceiling. He probably reached it in 2010. I see Janish as a likely .640ish OPS backup next year. But he could get to .700, because he has gotten there.
Valdez? never.
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Why do I get the feeling that had Horst simply been released it would have slipped through the cracks of Redszone relatively unnoticed?
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TRF
I looked too. the internets are fun.
Valdez isn't better. He's the same. Just older. They both had seasons where it was .600 and in the .500's. Valdez low OPS season is .511.
Edit: Valdez never had a .700+ OPS season. Not even close to one really.
yeah, he's fantastic.
Yes...and reading is hard...I said Valdez wasn't even good...but the last 2 years Valdez' OPS has been 660-ish and 630-ish...Janish had the fluke season and every other season has been 601 or worse. Why are you so attached anyway? Janish is terrible. Just career numbers make Valdez 30 points better...can you read that? Plus Valdez plays more than one position; I know we are ignoring that because we all just "ass-u-me" that Janish can play those other positions even though he hasn't...
I should quit posting, but I find this all pretty entertaining. Paul Janish? lol
Bum
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kaldaniels
Why do I get the feeling that had Horst simply been released it would have slipped through the cracks of Redszone relatively unnoticed?
That time leading up to Spring Training gets awfully boring...gotta have SOMETHING to talk about :laugh:
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Like I've said a few times earlier in this thread I'm not worried about losing Horst or how much Valdez will be paid.
I really don't care one way or the other about this trade, I'm not gonna lose sleep over it.
All I'm sayin' is I disagree with those who claim Valdez is clearly a better hitter than Janish.
When the stats of both players are that close neither one of them is clearly the better hitter. That's all I'm sayin'.
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bumstead
Yes...and reading is hard...I said Valdez wasn't even good...but the last 2 years Valdez' OPS has been 660-ish and 630-ish...Janish had the fluke season and every other season has been 601 or worse. Why are you so attached anyway? Janish is terrible. Just career numbers make Valdez 30 points better...can you read that? Plus Valdez plays more than one position; I know we are ignoring that because we all just "ass-u-me" that Janish can play those other positions even though he hasn't...
I should quit posting, but I find this all pretty entertaining. Paul Janish? lol
Bum
Reading is hard. I've said they are both not good. In fact, I've said both are bad.
So if they are both bad, and in fact very similar as nate clearly pointed out, why trade for him.
You seem to think this is about Janish. It isn't. It's about Valdez. and really about Horst.
Horst's minor league K/9 was 8.5. That isn't bad. The reds invested development time and salary in a young LH reliever.
And the return is Wilson freaking Valdez? That is a poor allocation of resources. Especially for a small market team.
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TRF
Reading is hard. I've said they are both not good. In fact, I've said both are bad.
So if they are both bad, and in fact very similar as nate clearly pointed out, why trade for him.
You seem to think this is about Janish. It isn't. It's about Valdez. and really about Horst.
Horst's minor league K/9 was 8.5. That isn't bad. The reds invested development time and salary in a young LH reliever.
And the return is Wilson freaking Valdez? That is a poor allocation of resources. Especially for a small market team.
Horst is a Loogy who was organizational depth at best. The Reds traded nothing. Horst was taking up a 40-man roster slot for no good reason. He's NOT young anymore and he's not particularly good, certainly nothing special. Loogy's are a dime a dozen. There is no point in being caught up on one that hasn't made a much of a dent in MLB at age 26...
I seem to think this is funny regardless of whether it's about Janish or Horst.
Bum
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bumstead
Horst is a Loogy who was organizational depth at best. The Reds traded nothing. Horst was taking up a 40-man roster slot for no good reason. He's NOT young anymore and he's not particularly good, certainly nothing special. Loogy's are a dime a dozen. There is no point in being caught up on one that hasn't made a much of a dent in MLB at age 26...
I seem to think this is funny regardless of whether it's about Janish or Horst.
Bum
Yes, you've made that clear, that you think it is funny and all.
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nate
To me, Janish is kind of a GGLIG (Good Glove Late Inning Guy) and I'm OK with that on the roster. From a roster point of view, I don't see the need for Janish and Valdez.
To me, debating which is better is kind of beside the point. The issue is that Cozart-Janish-nothing wasn't an acceptable shortstop depth chart for a team that's supposedly trying, thus the acquisition of another guy who can play quality shortstop. They'll keep one on the bench and stash the other in Triple-A (doesn't matter much to me which is which), and be one body farther away from the abyss of playing a non-shortstop at shortstop (which is important to me, although not everyone agrees) or calling up some kid who has no business being in the major leagues yet. Just flipping depth in one spot for depth in a thinner spot. That's all. No big deal.
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TRF
Yes, you've made that clear, that you think it is funny and all.
I just don't see how it's a big deal...you and a couple of others are losing sleep ranting about how terrible it is. We gave up nothing for a UT infielder who is a little better, albeit not good, than Janish. We have a Rookie SS. It seems like a logical move to me, if not a non-event. Nobody good gets blocked and nobody good was lost. What's the rub?
Bum
Re: Reds trade LHP Jeremy Horst to Phillies for infielder Wilson Valdez
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bumstead
I just don't see how it's a big deal...you and a couple of others are losing sleep ranting about how terrible it is. We gave up nothing for a UT infielder who is a little better, albeit not good, than Janish. We have a Rookie SS. It seems like a logical move to me, if not a non-event. Nobody good gets blocked and nobody good was lost. What's the rub?
Bum
a.) I'm not losing sleep, but thanks for the concern. 2.) I don't like seeing resources wasted. I think WJ had three very fine transactions, and 2 clunkers. this was one of the clunkers. The Reds have 7 guys on the 40 man roster that can man SS in a pinch if Janish were the primary backup. If all Valdez cost was cash, then I might not mind. In reliever land, 26-27 is actually still young. Most of the best relievers are over 30.
I posted a transaction about Cleveland buying a player from TB. THAT is how you build a club in a mid or small market. All Cleveland loses in the deal is cash. They bought a young power hitting OF. The Reds traded for an aging no hit MI.
If you cannot get how that is just the wrong thing to do, then I guess you just don't get it. I am glad you think it's funny though.
It isn't that I think Valdez will hamstring the budget. It's that he isn't necessary. period. It's that he'll get starts and suck, like he has ALWAYS sucked. It's that Bill Bray has a history of injuries that cause him to miss significant amounts of time. It's that Marshall is not a LOOGY. So if Bray goes down... Who do the Reds have as a LH reliever?
No One. Only Chapman, Bray and Marshall are LH. Chapman is a starter right now. There are no LH's on this tree you say they grow on.
So, did the Reds trade from depth here? no. Had it been Jordan Smith or Carlos Fisher, THOSE guys grow on trees.
