JJ Hardy or Orlando Cabrera? Seriously...why go out of your way for Hardy when you already know that Cabrera is a good presence on the team?
The numbers look similar and we know Cabrera is fine with the glove.
Hardy was traded for Gomez a year ago and now is available yet again, while in his "prime". He sounds like a real blue-chipper.
This just seems like a case of the grass is greeners.
Last edited by edabbs44; 11-22-2010 at 11:41 AM.
Huh? You mean Carlos Gomez?Originally Posted by edabbs44
edit: Yes. Easy mistake to make. Proceed.
Whoops...my bad. Edited, thanks for the heads up.
Do they make the major league club better?
Yep. Both would.
If the talent going back the other way is as marginal as the upgrade they'll likely provide, I'm all for grabbing either one of them, with Scutaro slightly ahead of Bartlett.
But, yeah, JJ Hardy would be a much better option than either of them and an actual serious upgrade at the position from what Janish/ Cozart is likely to provide.
I'm not worried about career OBP. I'm worried about 2011 OBP. Career is only relevant insofar as it helps us predict 2011. Neither Scutaro nor Bartlett are likely to repeat those career figures in 2011. Better than Phillips? Sure. Better than Stubbs? Maybe.
And even then, a myopic focus on one need at the expense of another leads to spinning one's wheels. Adding runs through OBP while giving those runs back via worse defense is a pointless exercise. I want a better SS, not just a different one.
As for Janish, I'll continue to argue that we should take his 2008 & 2009 performances with a massive grain of salt considering his ridiculously low BABIP. He finally had a reasonably decent BABIP in 2010 (.283) and put up a line comparable to what we'd expect from Scutaro or Bartlett (.260/.338/.385). I simply don't see anything unsustainable about his 2010 performance. Everybody expects him to regress, but I'm not quite sure why. 2010 looks like his regression to me.
That does not suggest Janish is a perfect option nor that we should necessarily expect him to produce offense equal to the aforementioned options. But considering that we know he's the best defender of the bunch and in light of my expectations for his offense (an OPS in the 700 range), I'm quite hesitant to give up talent and/or money to acquire a mediocre alternative. I think they're all something like 2 wins players in full-time duty.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 11-22-2010 at 12:16 PM.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Cheaper in talent? Because he should get more than Bartlett in arbitration since he did last year.
"Reality tells us there are no guarantees. Except that some day Jon Lester will be on that list of 100-game winners." - Peter Gammons
Are you taking his minor league career with that same grain of salt?
Absolutely.
It's pretty straight forward. His poor offensive seasons have been the result of a poor BABIP. Now, I'm completely willing to engage in the conversation about the degree to which those low BABIPs are a function of bad luck or his his talent, but the relationship is clear.Code:Season Team PA BB% K% ISO BABIP AVG OBP SLG wOBA 2006 A 108 6.5% 10.2% .214 .400 .398 .435 .612 .473 2006 A+ 393 9.7% 11.6% .143 .286 .278 .355 .421 .358 2006 AA 16 6.3% 33.3% .067 .400 .267 .313 .333 .301 2007 AA 391 12.8% 16.7% .086 .287 .244 .358 .330 .330 2007 AAA 227 6.2% 15.6% .095 .247 .221 .278 .317 .274 2008 AAA 365 7.1% 22.3% .135 .302 .252 .324 .387 .319 2008 Reds 89 7.9% 22.5% .063 .230 .188 .270 .250 .244 2009 Reds 292 8.9% 15.6% .094 .247 .211 .296 .305 .275 2010 Reds 228 9.6% 15.0% .125 .283 .260 .338 .385 .315
If you think he'll put up a .280ish BABIP in 2011, the reasonable expectation is an OPS around .700.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Right. Either his poor offensive seasons were a result of "bad luck", or his better offensive season were a result of "good luck".
Why wouldn't Scutaro repeat the numbers he has put up for his entire career?
Agreed. His peripheral stats are quite consistent, so it basically comes down to those singles falling in or not.
I realize there are shades of gray here (it's not an either/or but rather a where on the spectrum question), given what we know about batted balls generally and the LD% he's put up, I think the smart money is on the former.
Even if his balls in play are generally weaker than average, I don't see a case for believing that his career major league BABIP of .258 to be our expectation for him in 2011.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
That's he's a 35 year old SS and SS tend to decline quickly in their mid 30's is a good place to start.
But let's say he does perform at his career average. Let's say he hits .267/.336/.385, just how much more productive is that than Janish offensively? And furthermore, how much more so when defense is factored in?
For reference, he's a -3.5 UZR/150 SS compared to 10.6 for Janish. Obviously the defensive stats come with a much larger grain of salt than offense, but it should be part of the conversation.
Looking at offense, a .320 wOBA is equal to 5 runs below average over 600 PA. That's Scutaro's career average. Janish's career average wOBA, .285, equates to 23 runs below average, an 18 run difference. Last year, Janish put up a .315 woBA, 8 runs below average. (for reference, 10 points of wOBA over 600 PA is worth ~5 runs)
If we just look at their career averages, we have Scutaro as a 8 runs below average (-5 wOBA, -3 UZR) and Janish as 12 runs below average (-23 wOBA, 11 UZR). So, is a 4 run bump worth the increase in salary and/or the talent we'd have to give up?
And if we're projecting 2011 and adjusting from those career lines, how does the math change? I find it difficult to make the case that it makes sense trading for one of those guys considering the cost/benefit.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 11-22-2010 at 12:56 PM.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Depends on your beliefs, but there is a possibility that it is materially more productive. Janish has a much bigger band of where his numbers could land, especially on the downside. .700 OPS is probably Scutaro's floor...Janish could easily land in the low .600s and I don't think it would be a shocker.
Janish's floor is quite a bit lower than that 700 OPS some are assuming.
There's something to be said for raising the floor with an acquisition.
Dealing for Scutaro or Bartlett (or signing Hardy, for that matter) would be such a move.
After all, Red Sox GM Theo Epstein once said that it's not the stars you have on your team that put you in contention-- it's the steady, everyday players that play at or just above league average that aren't complete black holes of non-production.
Scutaro, Bartlett, and Hardy are devils you know-- they're likely to be league average or slightly better, positionally.
Janish is the wildcard that could be above average. Or, he could fall completely flat.
If you're Jocketty, you have to ask yourself:
1) If Janish tanks, what other option is there?
2) What is the likelihood of Janish tanking?
3) Even if Janish tanks, how does that hurt the team?
4) How much will it cost to upgrade from a question to a statement and beyond?
The answers, I suspect, as they almost always have in Jocketty's GM history are to lean toward the veteran "sure thing". However:
1) Cozart may be decent and could be ready by June. There is nothing behind Cozart remotely ready, though Valaika and Phillips may do in a pinch.
2) Janish, at this point, looks to be questionable. He's certainly not a sure thing and definitely could tank. The percentages are murky, though we may know better after the yearly prognostications come out. Anybody know?
3) If the team could weather the season Cabrera put up, can it withstand one just as poor from Janish? I don't know if they could, as 3B, bench, and C could all drop precipitously offensively, while CF, 1B, and 2B could drop a bit. In short, the offense needs a better SS this season to compete, especially at the level they're shooting for.
4) There are no SS options that look to be available better than Scutaro, Bartlett, and Hardy. We, as fans, dream of Hanley Ramirez, but, as of now, it's still a pipe dream at best. The cost of upgrading significantly looks to be exorbitant.
Last edited by Scrap Irony; 11-22-2010 at 01:01 PM.
It all depends on the talent that goes to the other time. I wouldn't miss Carlos Fisher, Daniel Ray Herrera, Phil Valiquette, Jordan Smith, and many other bullpen arms that could be sent in a trade for a shortstop. For me, it's not about upgrading over Paul Janish--it's about getting depth. If Janish goes down, you're stuck with an unproven Cozart or total crap.
And as for Janish's numbers, it would be interesting to see what he can do over a full season. People frequently bring up that they don't trust Hanigan to produce as well when playing everyday, and I'd venture the same might be true for Janish, as well.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote