Giants Interested in DeRosa; Would part with Jonathan Sanchez
So says Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe.
over 2 years ago
Ryan
295 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I’m all for acquiring more pitching, but I have some concerns about this guy, and DeRosa has been pretty important to us as of late. Sadly, waiting until Cabrera comes back to move DeRosa would be pretty pointless, as Westbrook and Laffey are supposed to return around the same time, so why deal for pitching, unless we still have concerns about them.
I worry about his high number of walks and the fact that his ERA is over 5 in the NL. That said, someone mentioned he has potential as a reliever and that his difficulties come later in the game, so he might have value as a middle reliever.
Someone asked about his walk history in the minors. Here’s the info I found on that:
Sánchez began the 2006 season with the double-A Connecticut Defenders, where in 13 appearances (3 starts), he went 2–1 with a 1.15 ERA and 46 strikeouts (9 walks) in 31⅓ innings pitched.
Near as I can tell, he skipped AAA, made one appearance with the Giants, then was sent to AAA to become a starter. All of his big league numbers indicate 1 walk per 2 IP, more or less.
So I’m torn. But any move that gets Peralta back over to third looks good to me.
-Kyle
any move that gets Peralta back over to third looks good to me.
I don’t think you can look at it this way. The goal is not to optimize Peralta’s defense, but moreso to run the strongest 1-9 out there that we can.
FE WEE
I disagree. If Peralta’s going to be in the line-up no matter what (and he should be, if we’re using our best 1-9), then he should be in the spot where he can help the team the most.
I’m relatively certain both Valbuena and Barfield have better range (Carroll might, too). I think moving DeRosa puts Jhonny back at third and Valbuena and Barfield up the middle until Cabrera comes back.
Honestly, today’s line-up could have been the first indication that they’re thinking of dealing DeRosa, since they had Valbuena at short.
-Kyle
I think it is pretty specious to assume Barfield or Valbuena have better range than Jhonny, and it’s insanity to think they have his arm or his consistency. Barfield was one of the worst defensive 2B in the majors just two years ago.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
They traded for Valbuena because he has range, so I don’t think there’s any gross assumption there.
A better point: Carroll has experience at short, but Valbuena does not. So why were they in the positions they were in today?
-Kyle
Experimenting. Or maybe they think Carroll’s significantly better at second than at short. Or maybe it just doesn’t matter that much.
Look, any argument that’s predicated on shifting Peralta with the result of getting Barfield more playing time is a non-starter as far as I can see, and I’m a pretty big Josh Barfield fan.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 7:42 AM EDT up reply actions
They traded for Valbuena because he has range
Are we just making things up now? Valbuena is considered to be a solid defensive 2B and little more; their use of him at shortstop at all is frankly a bit odd.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Not making things up at all. Valbuena’s got 3+ octaves. He’s like the Venezuelan love-child of Prince and Barry White.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Yes, the scouting reports (or the reports about scouting reports) that we saw after the trade all limited him to 2nd, but we saw the Indians work him in at SS in March and then again in Columbus. They must think he has some ability there.
I think more exploratory than anything else. They want him playing SS everyday about as much as they want BenFran playing CF every day.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s what I’m saying, though. They obviously feel he has the ability to play 3rd, short, and second. I can’t imagine they would have played him that way in AAA if they hadn’t planned that when they acquired him.
Carroll has experience at short, which is why I found it strange that Valbuena was at short. I’m wondering if they want him to get some experience in the majors there, in case they need him on a regular basis aka Jhonny moves back to third full time because we deal DeRosa.
-Kyle
I see little way they could have known how he’d look at SS and 3B until they tried him there.
His long-term value as an asset is affected only marginally by this kind of versatility. It’s handy at the moment, because he doesn’t have a lineup spot and position locked down, and because we need to move pieces around. His long-term value nonethless remains a function of his ability to be an everyday second baseman, almost entirely.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
This is crazy talk. Sanchez is a promising pitcher. The Indians should throw in Shoppach to make this happen. I remember the game he started against Cleveland. Seven and two-thirds, five hits, one run. He’s an extraordinary catch. Attended Ohio Dominican too. Make it happen, Shapiro.
there’s no way Sanchez is worth both Shoppach AND DeRosa
by world dictator on Jun 7, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m just kidding boys. I know how highly regarded Shoppach is in these parts. Okay, then throw in Garko.
I don’t think just DeRosa gets Sanchez. The Giants have been asking after Carlos Lee and Jorge Cantu (unsuccessfully, of course).
I hold Shoppach in absolutely no regard, but the Giants already have a franchise catcher, if I’m not mistaken. I think this is his first year.
-Kyle
Just kidding around. I’m trying to make the point that DeRosa + X = Sanchez.
I don’t think X is Shoppach, but he’s not Stephen Head.
X might not be Head but its no more than Brown.
And really, I still think thats almost too high. But then again, I’m part of the minority around here that would like to see what Brown could do
by world dictator on Jun 8, 2009 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions
He could do about 250/300/350 at first, which is the problem. Until they raise the white flag, this team can’t risk that kind of non-production from first base, not when the other options are Martinez and Garko and DeRosa.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 7:46 AM EDT up reply actions
If I may ask, did you calculate that line or are you just guessing?
Granted, I’m not expecting to hit .350 right off the bat, or even .300, but those two other numbers (OBP and SLG) seem a bit low to me – that’s only .650 OPS. I think posting a +.700 OPS wouldn’t be out of the question for him, even off the bat – he does have a good eye at the plate and his 2Bs production has never been in question outside of his 2008 season, where most acknowledge he was not 100% due to injury.
Just my 2 cents – no offense.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
No calculations. My only point is that the performance you project would be a very positive outcome — e.g., somewhat unlikely — and it’s not really any better than what the Indians are getting out of first base now. So…why bother? We’re trying to win a division here, not to develop Jordan Brown.
by fleerdon on Jun 9, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Hello fleerdon,
A greater than .700+ OPS would be a very positive outcome for someone with his skill set, that he’s demonstrated every year outside of 2008? I’m not sure I agree with that. If it was .800+ OPS, I could probably agree with that, but .700+? I think you sell Brown a bit short – he’s posted the following OPS’s in his 3+ full seasons:
2006: .831 at High-A Kinston (473 ABs)
2007: .905 at AA Akron (483 ABs)
2008: .754 at AAA Buffalo (420 ABs)
2009: .884 at AAA Columbus (185 ABs)
If Brown had been posting that .750 or so OPS all throughout his Minor League career, I might agree that he would be likelier to post a .700+ OPS to start off, but keep in mind that most agree that he was not 100% healthy in 2008 (coming off knee surgery, plus also had a problem with his shoulder or elbow if I recall correctly, which prevented him from driving the ball), so the real Jordan Brown is likelier the guy whose lowest OPS was .831 at High-A.
Therefore, I don’t see him falling under .700 OPS at the ML level over a reasonable number of ABs (at least 100-150 ABs).
Additionally, as has been mentioned, in our market, we always have to have an eye on the future. I don’t think anyone expects Garko or Francisco to be long-term pieces, but Brown may offer the one skill-set that this lineup could use long-term – a hitter who consistently puts up tough ABs where he makes consistent contact and doesn’t strike out much, plus has a propensity of using the whole field. Francisco isn’t known for that, and Garko is inconsistent at it, plus Brown is considered a better defender at 1B than Garko is – Garko has made himself into a decent defensive 1B, but most would rate Brown higher, plus Brown can play multiple positions well, something Garko can’t do. Therefore, not only are we trying to win a division, we’re trying to fill the holes and weak spots that are in our lineup long-term – it’s never just about winning a division, but making ourselves better for the long-term as well, since we can’t fill many holes via FA, and you can’t fill a tremendous amount via trades either.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Fact is, with his piss-poor discipline, Brown looks exactly like the kind of player who can contribute to Triple-A championships from age 24 to 38, while rarely if ever contributing to a big-league club. I have nothing against the guy, but that’s the reality of his performance at his age.
It would be one thing if he were hitting .350 in Triple-A at age 22, or if he had significant defensive value, or if he had more than decent power. But he is and has none of those things. He is a player who, at the peak of his physical maturation, has very good production in Triple-A and poor peripherals. Those players almost always are journeymen and almost never are big-league contributors.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m also with you on Brown – I know Tony Lastoria mentioned in an article around 6 weeks back that, even more than the Indians need power in their lineup, they need guys who make consistent hard contact and provide consistent batting average – Brown has shown consistently that he is that type of prospect, so unless we are “bowled over” for a deal in which Brown is part of that deal, I find out what he has first.
Additionally, we have revolving question marks at DH, 1B, and LF, all three positions Brown could fit into (I even seen a game or two, if I’m correct, where Brown even played RF, so it seems he’s 100% healthy again and isn’t a bad OFer). That’s all the more reason why I’d want to find out what he can give the Indians at the ML level first before I consider trading him – we have too many guys who don’t consistently use the whole field and who strike out too much to not give Brown some time first – more consistency at putting up better at-bats with fewer strikeouts would likely help the offense as much, if not more, than getting a high HR, high-strikeout guy in the lineup.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I thought this was interesting:
Carl Pavano, RHP, Indians: He really likes it in Cleveland, but the Indians undoubtedly will be tempted to shop him, or at least listen to offers.
If Pavano really likes it, I mean really likes it, in Cleveland then it gives me hopes that resigning him is actually a possibility. This would make me less interested in trading him.
We could trade him though, with a promise of an offer come FA time.
Personally, I hope he’s pitching for us in October and next April.
FE WEE
yeah I agree
Considering how well Pavano’s pitching and the always high demand for starting pitching I think you have to take the guaranteed benefit of trading him.
by world dictator on Jun 7, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Definitely, while Shapiro has proven good at acquiring some future talent at trade deadlines, you can only push your luck so far before you deal a Pavano and don’t get a Santana in return.
Plus if he really likes it here, which I’m sure he does since we gave him a great opportunity, then he’ll come cheaper here than elsewhere. Plus we don’t have to outbid the Yankees in FA, I’m assuming, haha.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
but as Jay pointed out, given Pavano’s age, injury history, and track record the odds are the player we get for Pavano is going to have more upside than Pavano over the next few years.
Plus at a much cheaper cost
by world dictator on Jun 8, 2009 5:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Plus if he really likes it here, which I’m sure he does since we gave him a great opportunity, then he’ll come cheaper here than elsewhere
This never, ever, ACTUALLY happens.
Paul Byrd.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
?
2 years/$14.25M (2006-07), plus 2008 club option ($8m). Looking at Cotts, that doesn’t seem that far out of line from Market for 2006 FA pitchers.
He was offered three years guaranteed and left it on the table.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
This is actually a sound statement if you look at it from how I was, which wasn’t very clear. The point being that if he signs here it will be because he likes it here and isn’t gonna chase top dollar. That is the only way he signs here is my point, making him cheaper here than elsewhere. If he starts looking for top dollar, this club is always automatically out of the running. I just phrased it poorly.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
I see no reason to keep him. He’s on the wrong side of 30 and looking at the wrong side of regression next year. At $2 million, he’s delicious, but his next deal won’t be nearly as tasty.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d very interested in Sanchez. Aside from his walk rate, his numbers have remained steady (and good) across the board. Is this his last pre-arb year?
Yes. Unless he’s sent down in the next two weeks for the rest of the season.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
What’s the rush? Let’s let teams keep talking and thus, increases DeRosa’s trade value. By the end of June we could be somewhat healthier (and in a better position to lose him) and get a better grade of player for DeRosa in the process.
A better grade of player? We’re talking about a player under Cleveland’s control for the rest of the season, and you can get a 26-year-old power lefty with 300 innings of ML experience, and you want something better? As was shown with C.C., early often reaps the best players.
Sorry, if I am not bowled over by a guy who’s career WHIP is worse than Jeremy Sowers, Zach Jackson and Bryan Bullington. Against NL competition.
NL West even. Bunch of pitchers’ parks and terrible lineups.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Because now is when we need an extra arm, not next month, at which point Smith, Westbrook, Laffey and even Scott Lewis may all be coming back.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions
didn’t castro say Smith should be joining Cleveland any day now?
by world dictator on Jun 8, 2009 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions
He’s pitched his way out of AAA, that’s for sure.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 8, 2009 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I’ve convinced myself this is happening. I’ve also convinced myself that playing Valbuena at short for the first time was a clue that it’s happening, as he’ll be manning that spot until Cabrera is back, with Jhonny going back to third full time.
I can convince myself of pretty much anything, though, so that’s not saying much.
-Kyle
I don’t believe this is going to happen. It’s way too good for the Indians. If it were a real deal, it would already be done. This appears to be more idle speculation. Somebody says the Giants want offense and would be willing to give up Sanchez for the right bat, and somenody else says the Indians would give up DeRosa for league-ready pitchers, and the conclusion is made with nothing more to support it,
Shapiro didn’t work this way with Eduardo Perez, or Sabathia, or Casey Blake, did he? There was speculation, but what eventually happened was quite different from initial conjecture.
Not entirely. The Blake deal was widely speculated and followed earlier rumors that Sabathia-Carroll-Blake were going to L.A. in a huge package for prospects. Sabathia deal was widely discussed in the media, too.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Which one, Ben or John?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the Sabathia deal is an outlier compared to Broussard/Perez/Blake, given his standing as one of the best pitchers in baseball with a history of being such and the promise of continuing to be as such. My guess is, lots of talk, get other teams interested to see if they can beat something. Or, lots of talk for Shapiro anway.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
It was before I was posting, but I do recall LaPorta being discussed extensively on this site weeks before the trade went down.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 8, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I want this deal done already.
No one probably remembers it but I was pitching the Garko for Sanchez deal in the off-season when the Giants were begging for someone to take the guy.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
I don’t remember but probably would have supported taking anything of value for Garko.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I mean this was when we were all lamenting the loss of Bavasi and decided Sabean was our savior.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
Ed Wade.
Wait, did he get fired yet?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions
can someone please recapitulate what is so great about sanchez? His numbers in the majors look pretty bad; as some others have noted, he does not compare favorably to sowers in an easier league. There is obviously some other info here—what is it?
Well, he had this one good game against us.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And rightly so. But it’s kind of like, even if you have a .400 OBP, you still have to slug better than .350 if you’re gonna play first base.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Sowers for DeRosa would be a good deal for the team getting Sowers. A young starting pitcher under control for half a year of a middling (and 34-year-old) infielder. People are subjective when it comes to evaluating players on their teams. We make fun of cleveland.com for overvaluing certain Indians, but are not immune to such inflation here.
I am a fan of the American League, but the NL is also a major league. It’s not as if it’s AAA (though if the Indians had someone with Sanchez’s record in AAA, people would be excited). The NL West has pitchers’ parks in Arizona, SF, SD and LA, but it also has Coors Humidor.
I don’t think anyone is saying that Sanchez is worthless, though I think the Indians can do better given the amount of interest in DeRosa.
But to think that Sanchez would be an immediate help (over Huff or Sowers) is crazy talk, much less more valuable than DeRosa for the rest of this year. Trading DeRosa for Sanchez means the Indians are no longer competing in 2009.
This is all conjecture on my part, obviously. But is there a lot of interest in DeRosa? The Braves reportedly said they wouldn’t give up a young pitcher for him, which leaves the Cubs, I suppose.
I don’t think this is a white-flag move, either. DeRosa’s offense would be missed, but last time I checked, the Indians were third in the majors in runs scored (of course, they have played the most games). There is enough middle infield depth with Carroll and Valbuena. Sanchez is an upgrade over Huff right now, I think, and perhaps Sowers (who only recently, remember, started showing any signs of returning to big league status) . But isn’t the point that he has to be a better option than Ohka?
I’m definitely getting the sense that Willis is awakening a monster in Huff.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
The tell-tale sign is on his upper lip.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 8, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good Lord, Sanchez is not an upgrade over Huff.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Huff has greater upside, but he’s pitched 20.2 innings in the big leagues. Right now Sanchez is a better bet.
Right now Sanchez is a better bet.
WALKSWALKSWALKSWALKS
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 8, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
WALKSWALKSWALKSWALKS
RUNSRUNSRUNSRUNSRUNS
Smaller sample size, sure, but Huff’s ERA is 3 and half runs higher and he’s given up more hits per IP.
I don’t know that Sanchez is all that better, but he’s definitely not worse.
And his high K rate means he could be useful as a lefty middle reliever down the line.
-Kyle
You can if one would be replacing the other. In fact, you actually have to.
It’s a matter of whether Sanchez now is better than Huff now, because the Huff of the future (however good he might be) doesn’t help us now.
-Kyle
Sadly, so true. But I think if there was ever a time, it’s now, since they just need someone to get them over the hump of this month (in theory).
That’s my view: Sanchez would be an upgrade right now over Huff and has the potential to improve over the next few years.
Huff could be great in the future, but we need help now.
-Kyle
That the Indians only make deals for the a supposed future and never for now…and, inevitably that future never comes.
-Kyle
we have derosa in the first place because they make deals for NOW.
they make all deals considering both now and the future, with regards to money and control. whether you choose to believe that or not.
Actually, had they been realistic about NOW, they wouldn’t have dealt for DeRosa, they would have just started Jhonny at third from day one.
They hedged their bets with DeRosa.
Shapiro doesn’t really gamble on trades, which I understand, because he doesn’t have the safety net that lets him do that.
But there are times when taking risks might help us.
-Kyle
Actually no, starting Jhonny immediately would have been taking a huge chance that Cabrera would continue to produce, Jhonny would adapt to 3rd and someone could play second, that would have been planning for the future…. Instead they left Jhonny where they knew he could play, brought in a decent 3rd basemen and have several guys who could play 2nd should one or two struggle. = they planned for this year, now.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
it’s that kind of a vacuum that helped start the Great Depression….
by Logodaedalus on Jun 8, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I said it before, I see Huff making rookie pitch location mistakes that you can get away with in AAA but not the bigs. He is learning what these mistakes are and how not to make them, as evidenced by his increased effectiveness each start. What you can’t learn by simply studying your mistakes is control, that is mechanics, thats is being sent to AAA to be straightened out, that is not what we need.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
This anti-rookie prejudice has no rational basis. Bill James demonstrated decades ago, very persuasively, that when properly translated, minor league numbers are about as predictive of major league performance as major league numbers are. That’s why there’s so much emphasis on MLE, and why PECOTA includes all minor league numbers.
With that in mind, Sanchez has never achieved a season equal to Huff’s 2008. Sanchez may be said to have the greater upside due to his raw throwing ability, but right now, at this very moment, Huff is clearly the smart bet to be the better pitcher.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re kidding me, right? DeRosa has put up 33RC so far this season. This guys’ CAREER line is 080/115/107 for an amazing 222 OPS. C’mon, that’s worse than Ruben Amaro, Jr.
by gte619n on Jun 8, 2009 9:22 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
But he’d hit eighth for the Cardinals!
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 8, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually St. Louis sportswriters are saying he could hit 4th at this point. That’s how desperate it is.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
/whispers
we’re talking about Sanchez
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 9, 2009 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions
On the bright side, Sanchez struck out almost a batter per inning over 158 innings – not an easy feat. Despite not throwing terribly hard (his fastball averaged 91 MPH), he showed a remarkable ability to induce swings-and-misses – in fact, batters swung and missed at 10.9% of his Sanchez’s pitches, the 9th highest total in baseball. Pitchers who induced higher rates of swings-and-misses were a who’s who of major league baseball’s best pitchers: CC Sabathia, Scott Kazmir, Ryan Dempster, Johan Santana, Cole Hamels, Edinson Volquez, and John Danks. That’s some elite company.
Certainly, Sanchez threw too many balls this year (38.6%, to be exact – league average is 36.5%), and walked too many – 4.27 per nine innings. However, starting pitchers who can get as many swings-and-misses – and, therefore, strikeouts – as Sanchez are few and far between. Sanchez’s ERA was artificially inflated by his inability to "stop the bleeding" this year – a fact that is probably borne from a combination of inexperience and bad luck. Therefore, it’s likely that Sanchez will fare better in "clutch" situations next season, thus lowering his ERA, perhaps considerably. He will almost certainly rack up a lot of strikeouts. And, if he can cut down on his walks – certainly possible – he could lower his ERA even further. However, even if Sanchez walks too many, he’ll more than make up for it with a ton of strikeouts and a respectable ERA.
Said Bendix in 2008, calling 2009 a potential breakout year for Sanchez.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 9:52 AM EDT reply actions
No doubt he’d be a high-reward acquisition, but the Indians need pitching now. Carl Willis may very well be able to fix his wildness, but that’s not going to happen overnight.
He certainly fixed Fausto. Oh, wait…
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Jun 8, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I called 2009 a potential breakout year for Peralta, but so what?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
So did I, and thats what I get for changing my mind on him. Thanks alot, Peralta.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
So nothing. Just putting the comments in context.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
There seems to be a little broken record syndrome going on here. Does anyone have anything new to say about Sanchez?
Pros:
Young
Misses bats
Limits hits
Small sample size of major league failure
Cons:
Walks. Tons.
Does not dominate NL West
Then factor in how much you like DeRosa, and how much you think this season can be saved.
Steel Nick
That’s only a pro compared to not trading DeRosa at all. Trading DeRo for someone different may result in more savings, less savings or no savings at all.
I think a lot of the people down on Sanchez are not saying “keep DeRosa.” They’re saying “we can do better.”
I think the issue is whether we can do better NOW. There are lots of teams that could offer us something better, but probably not until next month. We need pitching help now, to get us to the All Star break.
-Kyle
This is the last time I’m going to say this, because so many others are saying it too and it’s getting tired.
He has an ERA+ of 84 (career 85). He should be at Fresno working on his 6.2 walks per 9. He has a WHIP of 1.654. He would be a project if we acquired him.
He simply does not help us NOW.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 8, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Neither does Huff.
It basically boils down to is Sanchez > Huff and is it worth losing DeRosa for the upgrade.
The problem, of course, is that we need DeRosa now — when he become expendable (or more so) for us is when we get people back, at which point we’ll no longer need Sanchez.
-Kyle
Huff > Sanchez
Done.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
There is plenty of reason to think Huff is helping us now (4.50 ERA over his last three starts) and will continue to help us. There is better reason to think that for Huff than for Sanchez.
I am amazed that you and others are making dour conclusions about Huff based on just two bad starts, the first two of his big-league career. I am even more amazed that you seem to expect people to think those are smart things to say. The man has a track record much longer than that, and nothing smart comes out of weighing 7 IP more heavily than the hundreds that preceded them.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you know any statistics on pitchers who upon first coming up do mediocre for a few weeks and slowly improve vs. pitchers who come up and are great for a few months and then backslide?
I’m thinking of Sowers backslide after 2006 and for the other side of the coin I grabbed CC’s numbers from 2001, which through 10 starts were 5innings per start, 5.4k/9, 5.36ERA.
I guess my thought is there are some pitchers who come up with everything they’ve got and eventually get figured out and others who come up with a quite a bit, but it doesn’t all translate and then figure more out while they are up here? Stretch?
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Speaking totally out of my rear, but my guess is it’s all just noise.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 8, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Probably, but I’m always trying to find some enciteful new way of looking at things.. but often swinging and missing.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
And, with regards to Sanchez, his history is pretty odd. The Giants didn’t really seem to know what to do with him, calling him up from AA the first time around. He might be a guy who could benefit from a different situation.
I’m sure Huff could benefit from continued ML starts, too, I just don’t know that we’re in a position to take that risk right now.
-Kyle
Really? When would be a better time to ‘take that risk’?
by jakesinger777 on Jun 9, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Seriously. I don’t even consider it all that risky, but as I’ve been saying lately, we need to be wiling to take a few risks, do some things with upside that could actually add up to something. Keeping Huff in the rotation is one of those things, even if the upside isn’t super-high.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
The Giants didn’t really seem to know what to do with him
I imagine the conversation went something like this:
GM: “So what about this Sanchez guy? He’s striking everybody out?”
Manager: “Yeah, we could use a power arm like that.”
Pitching Coach: “Not so fast fellas, he’s either trying to raise money for charity or has very erratic control.”
Manager: “Well, can you straighten him out?”
Pitching Coach: “Will you fire me if I don’t?”
GM: “No.”
Pitching Coach: “Sure, yeah, I can do it. Get him up here.”
fin.
by gte619n on Jun 9, 2009 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The hundreds that preceded them were in the minors — Sanchez’s numbers in the minors were more impressive, if you want to compare those.
Honestly, I don’t even know how this became a Huff vs. Sanchez debate to begin with. It would be a Sanchez vs. Ohka issue, as I’m sure that’s the spot he’d slide into. In which case, I say he’s a better choice, as he has a career ahead of him.
As for Huff vs. Sanchez, the issue is that we don’t really know what we’re going to get from Huff, do we? He might have a 4.50 ERA over his last three starts, but he only went 5 innings for two of those, and just 4 for the other.
Given how tenuous the Tribe’s position is right now, can the afford to just hope Huff will get better? And what if he doesn’t?
With Sanchez they would know what they’re getting — and they’d only need him for a few weeks, after which he can go to the ’pen or AAA to work on his issues.
-Kyle
I’d say its Huff vs. Sanchez because that is the slot that will be around longest, no trade of a productive veteran is worth 3-4 starts from a 4-A pitcher. 4 starts from Tim Lincecum maybe, but he’s not for sale.
And we don’t have to hope Huff is getting better, he is. First he makes mistakes and allows runs, so he corrects and takes care of the issue there. Now he will have to correct his pitch count. Learn to pitch with success, then learn to pitch efficiently, but he has to be allowed to do so.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Productive veteran. AAAA pitcher. Really?
How can we be so certain about Huff? Haven’t we learned anything from projecting AAA pitchers?
Calling Sanchez AAAA might have been mean, but is DeRosa not a productive veteran at the moment?
I’ve seen marked improvement in Huff every time out, I’ve learned that much, learned enough that I’d rather send him out to the mound, someone who is improving, than trade DeRosa for an arm that has steadily gotten worse this year.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Productive veteran is such a loaded phrase. It mostly means a guy who knows how to play the game. DeRosa is a good clubhouse guy, and he has all those runs created bona fides, but he’s not really a great player.
I never said he was a great player either, did I? And I’m also not saying we shouldn’t trade him, I just want what he’s worth.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Just because you’re jaded by Jeremy Sowers doesn’t mean a AAA pitcher is unlikely to succeed.
FE WEE
Without looking it up, I suspect a pitcher with 300 innings of ML experience is more likely to succeed than a pitcher with AAA experience, unless he’s David Price.
The amount of innings has nothing to do with whether or not he will succeed if he has not succeeded to a reasonable degree in those 300 innings.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
He has, in fact, succeeded to a reasonable degree in 300 innings. He has a better than average BA against. Fewer hits than IPs. Lots of walks, yes, but I would say, ipso facto, he has succeeded by pitching 300 innings in the major leagues. Does Brian Bullington have 300 IPs?
The point is a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. You have a “proven veteran,” which is someone who’s pitched 300 innings in the major leagues, versus someone who has vague potential, indeterminate and promising.
Strasburg and Miller are NOT Huff, comparing them is wrong.
And you never answered if Sowers is a success.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
There is nothing vague about Huff’s success or potential, or about Sanchez’s mediocrity.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It’s baseball — all potential is vague.
Sanchez would be just as good as Ohka in the #5 spot and then we’d have the chance to see if he improves (like, for example, Huff) over the next few seasons.
-Kyle
Trading DeRosa for an Ohka replacement for a few weeks is not worth it, I know some of you disagree with me so I’m just gonna let it go.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
but hopefully in 2-3 weeks our #5 guy becomes our #7 or 8 guy. Why should we trade DeRosa for a mediocre pitcher who in a best-case scenario would pitch for Columbus?
FE WEE
Yet, in a best case scenario, Huff and Sowers would be pitching in Columbus, too.
No, we trade for a #5 guy for 2-3 weeks, who then turns into another prospect with more potential than, for example, Ohka.
It’s clear from all the info being tossed around about Sanchez that SF really messed up with the way they moved him through their system.
-Kyle
Added to the growing list of your misconceptions about this …
Sanchez is not a prospect.
He is 26.5 years old, and he’s completing his third year in the majors. He is under club control for only another three seasons, none of them at minimum salary.
David Huff is a prospect. He’s 24.8 years old, and he’s been in the majors less than a month. He is under club control or another six seasons, three of them at minimum salary.
Sanchez would not be another prospect and depth option for us, he’d be just another depth option.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Maybe. How can we be so sure than any of those three—coming back from injury—can be relied upon? I watched Bonderman pitch tonight. He didn’t look like the Bonderman of old.
Westbrook is the question mark (to people who don’t register for LGT in his honor at least) but it hasn’t been that long since Lewis and Laffey pitched.
FE WEE
Seems oblique injuries have an unsettling effect on pitchers’ regimens (see Phifer and Sabathia). He may be fine and he may need a couple of months (in Lee’s case, half a season) to return to normal. And as for Lewis, he’s been out for three months, and no one really knows what happened with him. I wouldn’t be so sure he picks up with late-2008 form. He might, but maybe not.
Lee’s was suffered in spring training, though—his training regimen never got off the ground. So I don’t see it as as big an issue with Laffey.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 9, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d be happy to acquire Sanchez, but more as an option for 2010/2011 than as immediate help right now. The basic reality that Sanchez has sucked, right now, seems to be escaping you.
by APV on Jun 9, 2009 4:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Playing time = success.
You should go to work for the union.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
If you’re so successful why ain’t you playing? Is there a more pragmatic definition of success than games played?
So Marte is actually a success and Blake isn’t? This is silly. Of course there are mitigating factors, but how else can you define success than in the act of succeeding?
No. How do we know if Marte sucked in 08 or not? He sat in the equivalent of a bus stop and played dominoes the whole f-ing time.
FE WEE
You guys seem to have some strange platonic realm of baseball where successful players are prevented from playing either through managerial choice or inexperience. These platonic players, while great, have not yet had an opportunity to actually play. But if they did they would be incredibly successful. I am as frustrated as the next person about Marte’s treatment, and with Wedge’s bizarre personality disorder. But prima facie, Marte has not been successful. Maybe if he had a chance to be successful he would be. But he hasn’t. We can guess he would be successful, or that certain pitchers project as high-quality arms, but until it actually happens it is just platonism, pure and simple.
These platonic players, while great, have not yet had an opportunity to actually play. But if they did they would be incredibly successful.
When has anybody ever said that?
Answer the question, or concede the point.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Are you saying, you’re the one who’s saying it?
You’re the one with the strange platonic realm of baseball?
I honestly am just confused now.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I believe I have read people on this board assert that if Marte were given playing time he would be successful.
And I don’t believe it is unfair to infer from your statements above that Huff will be successful once he has enough major league innings.
If this is an unfair inference, I apologize.
What generally has been asserted is that Marte deserves his shot, hasn’t gotten it, and might be successful.
Re: Huff, what I’m saying about him isn’t different than what I’d say about Laffey, just to throw out another name. I believe he is a solid major-league pitcher, right now — and by the way, i believe that Sanchez isn’t one.
With any major league pitcher, though, you don’t know for sure if he’s going up or down, and certainly not how his next half-dozen starts will be. There is no playing-time controversy with Huff, though.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
So Marte is actually a success and Blake isn’t
I’m growing more and more impatient with your paraphrasing distortions.
Nobody is saying that lack of playing time makes Marte a success. What is clear — without even bringing Marte into it — is that different organizational situations and decision-makers make playing time an unreliable indicator of ability.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Here’s a statement without distortion: Playing time is an indication of success. There is a direct correlation between games played and success. It could, in fact, be the definition of success. Success, not ability. Many players have ability but are not successful because of injury, etc. There is no suggestion of causality here.
And, for my edification, what does Westbrook’s quatrain mean?
It means that not everyone gets an equal opportunity for playing time, even if they seem to merit it, making playing time an unreliable indicator. His statement, not mine, but I believe that’s what he’s saying.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, my point is you can’t say Blake was successful and Marte wasn’t just because of the playing time that Wedge gave a guy who he favored.
FE WEE
Agreed. Marte has not been successful, by definition, it’s just a bit misleading to make that statement in an unqualified way.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 9, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I think there’s more to it than just playing, because in this case everyone is a success.
Unlike elementary school contests, not everyone in the big leagues is a winner.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
by USSChoo on Jun 9, 2009 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Go look up Jeff Conine’s career stats.
by supermarioelia on Jun 9, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Ipso facto. A pitcher with 300 innings experience is more likely to succeed than Adam Miller. I’m not talking about whatever ineffable future or potential you wish to express. A pitcher who has pitched 300 innings in the big leagues is more likely to succeed than a pitcher who has pitched in the College World Series.
If that’s all the information we have, then yes.
But it’s obtuse — really, it’s stupid — to make an argument for one pitcher over another based on playing time, when we have plenty of other data, more specifically on-point with the question.
Sanchez’s growing track-record of below-averageness speaks for itself. Huff’s brief but robust track record in the upper minors is better.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Here’s another analogy: If Tony Pena Jr. were on first base with no outs, he would be more likely to score than would Alberto Callaspo at the plate with no outs. Because Pena is already on first base.
I would argue that both Huff and Sanchez are “on first base,” and Sanchez has been just standing there for about three years.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Sanchez has been standing there during the rain delay (and is now thoroughly drenched), but Huff has just walked up to the plate. Or has a 2-0 count.
Also, Sanchez is only averaging 5.1 innings per start this year, so there’s no real evidence to suggest he’d be much different.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
It’s a completely valid criticism, and yet I laugh every time you say it.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 9, 2009 8:09 AM EDT up reply actions
A reasonable person could say the same thing about Sanchez. I suspect you’re not being objective. Seven innings is a small sample size, except when it’s not. Three hundred innings are okay, except when they take place in the NL West.
I like Huff. This isn’t a pissing contest between Huff and Sanchez. Maybe Huff is better than Sanchez. I don’t care because that’s not really the point.
Seven innings is always a small sample size, and the NL West is always the NL West, and a below-average ERA in the NL West is always unimpressive (at this point in history anyway). The point isn’t to disqualify good things or bad things as a whole, but rather just to see things in context, making a reasonable attempt to compare apples to apples.
Making reasonable and well supported adjustments, Sanchez’s performance in the NL West has in fact been less impressive than Huff’s performance in the IL. Huff has also had a full season of tremendous success, with great, projectable indicators, as a starter in the upper minors. Sanchez had a handful of starts and less than 80 innings total in the upper minors, most of those coming as a reliever.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think you’re just being provocative, which I can appreciate. The International League is a tougher pitcher’s league than the National League?
Park factors (2008, courtesy Clay Davenport):
SF 1002
LA 971
SD 903
ARI 1060
COL 1063
AL Central:
CLE 1010
CHI 1039
DET 1029
KC 1013
MIN 961
I went too far OT with my post so I guess it makes sense that your reply took it even further. I’m not going to debate park factors here.
Back to what Jay said;
Making reasonable and well supported adjustments, Sanchez’s performance in the NL West has in fact been less impressive than Huff’s performance in the IL.
and your reply:
The International League is a tougher pitcher’s league than the National League?
That wasn’t really his point. You must consider that Sanchez and Huff are extra variables. Sanchez isn’t as good as Huff.
FE WEE
There’s nothing to debate about park factors. They are empirical figures. The NL West has the most extreme pitchers’ park in the majors, and the most extreme hitters’ park.
Jay’s claiming that Huff’s MLEs in AAA are more impressive than Sanchez’s numbers in the NL. That may be true. Is Jay saying that the IL is a tougher league than the NL West? Or that, reasonable adjustments considered, Huff has shown better numbers than Sanchez?
I am not saying the IL is a tougher league than the NL West. I will say the difference is probably smaller than you think.
Huff’s raw numbers were also far better than Sanchez’s raw numbers, particularly when you consider peripherals. I’m saying the difference in pitching environments (Huff’s was easier) is less than the difference in raw numbers (Huff’s were better).
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Also, looking at BP’s preseason stuff ratings for Huff (15) and Sanchez (21), VORP (Huff 11.1 and Sanchez 16.7) and SN/WX (Huff 1.79 and Sanchez 2.57) indicate that reasonable adjustments might consider Sanchez equivalent if not superior.
OKAY THEN — let’s go with “equivalent if not superior.”
THE POINT IS you don’t trade DeRosa just to replace Huff with a pitcher who is possibly and only marginally better.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
That argument, though, suggests that Sanchez would benefit from more time in the minors, which goes to what I was saying before: make him our #5 starter and then see if he can improve from there, just like Huff.
I don’t think he’s a bigger gamble than Ohka, and he’s obviously has a bigger upside.
-Kyle
This is the point though, we need pitching now making this trade not worth it.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
If Sanchez were the closest thing we could get to quality ML-ready pitching, then I think whether this trade would be good for the Tribe hinges on the return projections for our key pitchers, and even more so Cabrera, though in the opposite direction. Probably this is moot though, since I’m guessing DeRosa is valuable enough to enough teams that Sanchez is not, in fact, the closest thing to quality ML pitching that can be gotten for him.
Sanchez is in his first arbitration year after this season. What do you guess he’ll end up settling for? $ 3 million? 4?
This makes me think all the more likely that we will NOT acquire Sanchez, at least, not as the main centerpiece – we’d rather get guys who will be around for a while and not be expensive.
Granted, Sanchez is hardly a lock to be great at this point, which should keep his arbitration value relatively low, but with his experience, he still likely would cost more than one with less experience, and certainly less than Huff. And has been mentioned, Huff is probably as good, or even a better bet, to be the more effective pitcher long-term, at least in the rotation.
Sanchez seems more like a project to be worked out, much like Carmona is (great stuff, lack of command, but at least Carmona had a dominant year; I don’t think you can say the same about Sanchez – yes, his 2007 and 2008 were okay, but still not close to Carmona’s 2007. Carmona had put it together to where you felt comfortable thinking Carmona could duplicate that success; Sanchez hasn’t even done that yet, and like Carmona has regressed in terms of his command, in the league where pitchers and bench players hit regularly, no less).
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I hope we get him. He’s one more guy I can say Zach Jackson is better than.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Don’t care. This is the hill I will die on.
In all seriousness, though, the only real stand I’ve taken vis a vis Jackson is that I was more excited about his prospects than Anthony Reyes’s. Still true.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that was prescient in a tragic way.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 8, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I prefer to think of myself as prescient in a prescient way.
by fleerdon on Jun 8, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
No offense, but I was more enthused with Reyes when we acquired him than I was with Jackson – Reyes at least had ML success before he came here, whereas Jackson never did. Of course, hearing that Jackson was the second prospect when we dealt Sabathia didn’t help, when in reality, Jackson was the real throw-in to that trade and Brantley was really the second-best prospect in that trade, but still, the only real knocks on Reyes were his inability to work with respected pitching coach Dave Duncan and a questionable injury history.
Yes, he was inconsistent, but most young pitchers are. At least Reyes had some viable ML exposure and had some ML success as well, especially in 2006 and 2007; Jackson has less ML experience and had less impressive numbers in the Minors than Reyes did, and in the brief ML time Jackson did have (SSS understood), his H/IP, his BB/IP, and his K/IP were not very inspiring. In fact, outside of his 10.4 K/9 IP rate in the 3 games he’s pitched for Cleveland in 2009 (SSS, obviously), his highest K/9 IP rate was the 7.3 he posted at Dunedin (High-A Florida State League) back in 2005 when he was 22-YO. Outside of his short stint at Buffalo in 2008 (8 games), the last time his K/9 IP rate was over 6 was in 2007 at AAA Nashville (of the Pacific Coast League), 6.5.
By comparison, Sowers’ lowest K rate in the Minors was back in 2006 at 5.0, followed by 5.7 in 2007, 6.4 in 2008, and 7.3 in 2009 – at least with Sowers’, his K rate is moving up in the right direction with each repeat trip to AAA; the same cannot be said for Jackson, going from 6.5 in 2007 at AAA Nashville to 5.3 at AAA Nashville in 2008 before we acquired him late in the season.
Also by comparison, while Sanchez’s BB rate is certainly worse than Jackson’s (althought a respectable 3.5 in 6 AAA appearances in 2007), Sanchez’s K rate are nearly twice Jackson’s (11.8 to 6.5 in 2007). Therefore, if Sanchez could ever gain the command (a sizable IF), he’d be a much more valuable pitcher than Jackson because Sanchez would have a greater margin for error, due to better velocity and better ability to miss bats than Jackson.
Therefore, I have to disagree with you – I was much more hopeful of Reyes than I was of Jackson going into 2009. Granted, Reyes’ injury history would give the edge to Jackson – in that sense, I can agree with you, but based on overall skill and track record, Reyes had the edge going into this season in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents – no offense.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
You’re gonna have to ease up on the two cents – no offense or make it your sig. No one here really gets mad at others for their opinion (unless you talk about cats or facial hair in a game thread, but thats another story), so you don’t really have to worry about the disclaimer. And you might wanna cut down the response size, thats a chore to read.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Take it easy, he’s been here a lot longer than you have.
by cleveland teamer on Jun 8, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m just sayin he doesn’t have to worry about us getting angry is all.
I’M JUST TRYING TO HELP! *hides in corner
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
I don’t mind the length of his posts or the 2 cents thing, but it does bother me when he (and he didn’t do that here) writes the same reply paraphrased in 2 or 3 places.
FE WEE
I’ll start by saying that these were only my expectations, which are a strange thing to disagree with — retroactively, at that — but nobody cares, so here goes…
You can’t toss off the injury question here. Reyes’s stuff had been in steady decline, punctuated by serious and regular injuries relevant to his pitching motion. If I had reason the believe we were getting some version of the guy Reyes was at one point, well, of course he’d be more exciting than Zach Jackson. But there’s no way we would’ve netted that guy for Luis Perdomo.
Basically, I think we got Reyes, and everybody went, “Ooh! A not-left-hander who had a good fastball, like, three years ago! He’s our Guthrie!” Um, about that…
Oh, and this is obligatory. Zach Jackson: not a throw-in. As I’ve said before (and never will again, promise), the Brewers, shallow in pitching and in the middle of a pennant race, had no reason to include a depth starter in that deal UNLESS WE NEGOTIATED FOR HIM. I also think we may have paid more for Zach Jackson than we did for Anthony Reyes.
1/2 season of Sabathia – LaPorta – Brantley – Bryson > Luis Perdomo (whom we didn’t have room for anyway)
by fleerdon on Jun 9, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Does not dominate NL West?
Is a below-average pitcher in the NL West.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 8, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Let’s also keep in mind here that while we’re getting sore with the joys of rosterbation that the actual quote, by Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe, is
The Giants would part with lefty Jonathan Sanchez.
Nick Cafardo isn’t Ken Rosenthal. He isn’t even Buster Olney. I remember him saying that Sabathia wouldn’t be traded by Cleveland.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jun 8, 2009 11:39 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I have been listening to Bon Iver all day, so this just makes me sad.
In all seriousness: meh. I guess I’d be fine with it? The Indians need to (continue) to stockpile arms, and any arm that:
A) Throws more than 92
and
B) Isn’t an injury risk
looks pretty decent to me. Especially lefthanded.
Seriously, I am sick of all these injured pitchers.
I am looking at our pitching stats and listening to Morrissey. Fun.
by Les Fleurs Du Mal on Jun 8, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I was unaware that Jonathan Sanchez could be so polarizing.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
Quote seen at McCovey Chronicles:
I think Sabean will make a trade, but it won’t be for any of our better players, or Sanchez.
Kind of says it all.
The Sanchez thing is a classic stuff vs. results disconnect. See also, OPS vs. RBI.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 9, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
That doesn’t say it all, at all. It’s a poster’s opinion.
I’m not saying he isn’t right but come now.
Steel Nick
It’s this poster’s opinion that that poster’s opinion says it all.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 9, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Is that, just, like, your opinion, Jay?
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
by USSChoo on Jun 9, 2009 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Okay, yeah, I give. After tonight I think it’s impossible for me to actively promote trading DeRosa for…well, for almost anyone.
So let’s pray that either a) Sowers/Huff/Ohka can give us quality starts until July or b) we can make a deal for some of our non-regulars like Garko/Shoppach/prospects.
But any upgrade in pitching at the cost of DeRosa would be too high.
I have seen the light!
-Kyle
Well, I never WANTED to trade DeRosa, I just thought we had no choice. But now I realize we’d be done for without him.
-Kyle
Probably would have depended upon what Hafner did after him.
It’s just a matter of our offense become just as tenuous as our rotation if we move him. I’m praying that our rotation can hold, as opposed to trading him and praying we can score runs.
I guess I just have more faith that our offense, with DeRosa, can dig itself out of any hole our mediocre 3-5 pitchers can put us in.
-Kyle
DeRosa had 4 RBI last night. If he keeps that up, he could finish the season with 440 RBI!
Yes, we must keep him.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I can say that I came from a great college community, whereas you can say you came from a great community college.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Haha, sorry forgot that was sort of an inside joke.
If you ever are watching What Happens in Vegas (I don’t reccommend you do, but we worked on it here), there is an extra on the disc that is a faux-interview conducted by Zach Galifianakis, and the joke’s in there. Its good stuff.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Is that… is that a leaking tire I hear? Or… or maybe a snake? I can’t… can’t quite make it out….
by Logodaedalus on Jun 10, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I like Sanchez, but a whole lot less than I did last year.
In fact, just dealt him in my fantasy league because his walks were killing my staff numbers. Will he turn into a #1-3 starter? Doubtful, I’d place odds at 10% at best. Will he turn into a #4-5? I’d place that at 40%. Which means there’s 50% chance he just doesn’t make it all.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
