David Holmberg

[dougdirt]

How is the defense portion of a catcher's WAR figured? I mean in just a few games Hanigan still has an awful bat, but somehow the metrics of his defense have given him a positive WAR.

Simply being a catcher makes it almost impossible to have negative WAR because so few players can actually do it. A full time catcher gets a FULL WIN right off of the top for a positional adjustment simply by playing catcher (over the course of nearly a full season). You have to be really bad after that to be of negative value.

[SirFelixCat]

To me, one of the hallmarks of a really well run organization is knowing when to part with competent, expensive veterans and make way for cheap, home grown, big upside prospects. The Reds doubled down on that this off-season with Arroyo/Cingrani and Hanigan/Mesaroco.
Maybe they could've gotten more return but I doubt it.
I think it was time to pull those triggers, though, and I feel good that both players will pan out.

Totally agree. I said this when it happened that it's ALWAYS better to let a player go a year early than a year late. I loved what Hanny brought to the team and the wisdom he imparted to Mes, but it was time to make the switch. Mes is showing that.

[REDREAD]

I think the Rays were the market for Hanigan. But if Maddon's into him, that does say something.

Honestly, with all the points made about improving the offense, I'm thrilled the Reds made this trade and got Pena (not saying you disagree).
This might be a case of Walt trading a player that another GM really had a craving for. He's done that before (Didi and others).

Hannigan's a great receiver, but our offense really couldn't afford to carry him anymore. Plus it was Mez's time to sink or swim. Even if Mez washes out, I'm glad they made this move. I'm really glad the Reds didn't give Hannigan 3 more years at 11 million too.
Anything we get out of Holmberg is gravy, although I am a fan of his.

[REDREAD]

Simply being a catcher makes it almost impossible to have negative WAR because so few players can actually do it. A full time catcher gets a FULL WIN right off of the top for a positional adjustment simply by playing catcher (over the course of nearly a full season). You have to be really bad after that to be of negative value.

Wow, thanks for the insight. This is another reason I dislike WAR for comparing players in other positions.
A catcher gets a free +1 just for being a catcher, yet it's relatively challenging for a middle reliever to earn a 1 WAR.

[kaldaniels]

Wow, thanks for the insight. This is another reason I dislike WAR for comparing players in other positions.
A catcher gets a free +1 just for being a catcher, yet it's relatively challenging for a middle reliever to earn a 1 WAR.

It is rather interesting. I'm trying to figure out who a "replacement level" catcher would be.

Corky Miller has had a positive WAR with the Reds in 2010 and 2013 when he was called up. Honest question - if the Reds didn't have a catcher (Corky included) today and had to grab a guy off the street or from the minors (our system or elsewhere - this is the definition of replacement level) - could they really not find a guy as good as Corky?

[dougdirt]

Wow, thanks for the insight. This is another reason I dislike WAR for comparing players in other positions.
A catcher gets a free +1 just for being a catcher, yet it's relatively challenging for a middle reliever to earn a 1 WAR.

That is because a lot of crappy starting pitchers can be solid relievers. Not many guys around baseball can actually catch.

[dougdirt]

It is rather interesting. I'm trying to figure out who a "replacement level" catcher would be.

Corky Miller has had a positive WAR with the Reds in 2010 and 2013 when he was called up. Honest question - if the Reds didn't have a catcher (Corky included) today and had to grab a guy off the street or from the minors (our system or elsewhere - this is the definition of replacement level) - could they really not find a guy as good as Corky?

WAR over such a small sample size, which is what you are going to get with Corky Miller's playing time, isn't worth looking at really. Corky is probably perfect for replacement level.

[Chuckie]

Just keeps getting worse for Holmberg. 14.46 ERA through 3 starts. Yuck.

http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats...pbp&pid=571787

We traded Hanigan for a bag of baseballs. But since Mez is raking, it's all good.

[dougdirt]

3 starts.

Chuckie, I quoted the important part for you to base your decision on. Be sure to read it a few times over, grasp what it actually tells us, then re-assess.

[OGB]

Because I want to be optimistic about the future of the Reds current rotation, I'm curious to see how guys like Holmberg, Marshall, Crabbe, Rogers, and Josh Smith can pitch out of the pen, particularly since several of those profile as future relievers anyway.

Not saying to move anyone, but if the Ondruseks or Christianis wear out their welcome at some point, I think there might be some potentially higher ceiling relievers on the way.

[Chuckie]

Chuckie, I quoted the important part for you to base your decision on. Be sure to read it a few times over, grasp what it actually tells us, then re-assess.

Yeah, I never said it was based on 30 starts. But after 3 starts, he looks pretty bad. He was billed as a possible No. 5 starter for the Reds in the future when the trade was made. He's not even close to that. Could things change? Of course. But it's not looking good at this point.

[dougdirt]

Yeah, I never said it was based on 30 starts. But after 3 starts, he looks pretty bad. He was billed as a possible No. 5 starter for the Reds in the future when the trade was made. He's not even close to that. Could things change? Of course. But it's not looking good at this point.

You word things funny.

You can't say he's not even close to a #5 starter and then say things could change. Homer Bailey looked like a guy who belong in Double-A after three starts. And heck, I am sure there were some looney toons out there thinking he should be sent to the minors after three starts too, but we have a track record that says he isn't as bad as that. Same with Holmberg. A bad start doesn't mean you aren't something, it means you had a bad start.

[corkedbat]

Saw were Hanny hit two bombs last night

[Chuckie]

You word things funny.

You can't say he's not even close to a #5 starter and then say things could change. Homer Bailey looked like a guy who belong in Double-A after three starts. And heck, I am sure there were some looney toons out there thinking he should be sent to the minors after three starts too, but we have a track record that says he isn't as bad as that. Same with Holmberg. A bad start doesn't mean you aren't something, it means you had a bad start.

It's early, but it's not looking good. If you disagree, cool. We'll agree to disagree. I'm not writing him off, but I'm very disappointed in his first three starts.

[dougdirt]

You can be disappointed in his first three starts and still believe that he can be a number five starter. That is my point. You seem to be saying that because of his first three starts that he can't be.