Comments on: Leyland gives us something to talk about http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/ News, views, and analysis on the Detroit Tigers and baseball Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:06:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Deryl G http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29963 Deryl G Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:49:35 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29963 Ordonez and Sheffield should bat in front of Granderson with Gullien leading off. Get as many AB's for your best players. I think Shelton should be starting. Ordonez and Sheffield should bat in front of Granderson with Gullien leading off. Get as many AB’s for your best players.

I think Shelton should be starting.

]]> By: Roto9 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29953 Roto9 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:53:48 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29953 Ordonez has a better OBP than Granderson. Are you going to hit Ordonez leadoff? Sheffield? Lineup construction is not so formulaic that you just look at an individual statistical category and rank based on it. The 2006 OBP differences between Granderson, Pudge and Polanco are pretty minor(335,332,329) and Granderson strikes out more than any of them. BTW, Chris Shelton surpasses all of these 3 players in OBP. Ordonez has a better OBP than Granderson. Are you going to hit Ordonez leadoff? Sheffield? Lineup construction is not so formulaic that you just look at an individual statistical category and rank based on it.

The 2006 OBP differences between Granderson, Pudge and Polanco are pretty minor(335,332,329) and Granderson strikes out more than any of them. BTW, Chris Shelton surpasses all of these 3 players in OBP.

]]> By: Doug Purdie http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29949 Doug Purdie Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:30:40 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29949 How can you not have your two best hitters, Guillen and Sheffield, in two of the 1st three slots? Maximize the number of PA's from your best! Make sure they always get up in the 1st inning. And how can you not have your three best OBP guys, Sheffield, Guillen and Granderson in the 1st three spots? Why try to re-make Polanco or IRod into OBP guys when you already have some that don't need re-making? Besides, both Polanco and IRod are low-K contact hitters - the kind of hitter you like batting <i>behind</i> OBP guys. It's really hard to criticize Leyland, but his lineup logic escapes me. How can you not have your two best hitters, Guillen and Sheffield, in two of the 1st three slots? Maximize the number of PA’s from your best! Make sure they always get up in the 1st inning. And how can you not have your three best OBP guys, Sheffield, Guillen and Granderson in the 1st three spots?

Why try to re-make Polanco or IRod into OBP guys when you already have some that don’t need re-making? Besides, both Polanco and IRod are low-K contact hitters – the kind of hitter you like batting behind OBP guys.

It’s really hard to criticize Leyland, but his lineup logic escapes me.

]]> By: Mat http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29945 Mat Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:22:37 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29945 I suspect RF/DH will rotate between Ordonez and Sheffield (whenever they aren't hurt). Granderson will play almost every day. That leaves one OF spot for Thames and Monroe. Since 4 of those 5 are right handed (and the infield is righty dominated as well) the Tigers would like to exchange Thames for a lefty. (Houston's Lance Scott for Thames via a 3-way deal was rumored.) I brought up Lofton because, in my mind, it has the potential to kill 3 birds with one stone: -a left hand hitter to platoon in -a leadoff hitter to set the table -acquire a left-hand reliever in exchange for Monroe Thanks for your time, Kenny Lofton's Agent I suspect RF/DH will rotate between Ordonez and Sheffield (whenever they aren’t hurt). Granderson will play almost every day. That leaves one OF spot for Thames and Monroe.

Since 4 of those 5 are right handed (and the infield is righty dominated as well) the Tigers would like to exchange Thames for a lefty. (Houston’s Lance Scott for Thames via a 3-way deal was rumored.)

I brought up Lofton because, in my mind, it has the potential to kill 3 birds with one stone:
-a left hand hitter to platoon in
-a leadoff hitter to set the table
-acquire a left-hand reliever in exchange for Monroe

Thanks for your time,
Kenny Lofton’s Agent

]]> By: Mat http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29942 Mat Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:14:31 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29942 I think age and playoff performance are legit concerns about Lofton. However, barring any major upheavals or staggering contacts to free agents, I see LF as the position most easily upgraded. The Casey signing indicates the club is content with their 1B situation. I don't think Inge is going anywhere. Most of the other positions are pretty set. Where would that $6M be better spent? A bullpen lefty or a better 5th starter perhaps? This team's biggest weakness is its susceptibility to right hand pitching and lack of plate discipline. Dave Roberts would have been another good fit but he's not available anymore. Lofton addresses these needs perfectly and wouldn't rock the boat on a pretty successful team. I'd rather add a young player like Carl Crawford too, but in the spirit of winning now, without totally sacrificing the future, I think Lofton is pretty ideal. Unfortunatly, doesn't seem like DD agrees with me... I think age and playoff performance are legit concerns about Lofton. However, barring any major upheavals or staggering contacts to free agents, I see LF as the position most easily upgraded. The Casey signing indicates the club is content with their 1B situation. I don’t think Inge is going anywhere. Most of the other positions are pretty set. Where would that $6M be better spent? A bullpen lefty or a better 5th starter perhaps?

This team’s biggest weakness is its susceptibility to right hand pitching and lack of plate discipline. Dave Roberts would have been another good fit but he’s not available anymore. Lofton addresses these needs perfectly and wouldn’t rock the boat on a pretty successful team.

I’d rather add a young player like Carl Crawford too, but in the spirit of winning now, without totally sacrificing the future, I think Lofton is pretty ideal.

Unfortunatly, doesn’t seem like DD agrees with me…

]]> By: Dave T. http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29941 Dave T. Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:13:26 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29941 Is Maggs planing on splitting time in RF with Sheff? Or are all 5 OF/DH's assuming Thames is on the team and not Shelton going to rotate through? With the exception of Granderson not being a DH? Is Maggs planing on splitting time in RF with Sheff? Or are all 5 OF/DH’s assuming Thames is on the team and not Shelton going to rotate through? With the exception of Granderson not being a DH?

]]> By: Kurt http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29938 Kurt Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:47:10 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29938 I think I collected Lofton's baseball card as a kid, and I haven't been one of those for a long time! I think we're an old enough club right now. I fear the "talented, aged club slides to mediocrity" that we seem to observe at least once per season in MLB already. I think I collected Lofton’s baseball card as a kid, and I haven’t been one of those for a long time! I think we’re an old enough club right now. I fear the “talented, aged club slides to mediocrity” that we seem to observe at least once per season in MLB already.

]]> By: Mat http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29937 Mat Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:39:39 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29937 In terms of '08, I don't think we'd be forced to rush Clevlen or Maybin. Assuming we trade Monroe, we still have Thames to man the OF spot. If that doesn't make sense then you still have Sheffield/Ordonez available...corner OF is probably the easiest position to fill. I just don't think Monroe is that much better than average for his position, and by 2008 he won't be very cheap either. More importantly, with guys like Rogers, Pudge, Guillen, Ordonez, Sheffield getting older, shouldn't we be gunning for a title NOW. Isn't that what the Sheffield trade was all about? In terms of ’08, I don’t think we’d be forced to rush Clevlen or Maybin. Assuming we trade Monroe, we still have Thames to man the OF spot. If that doesn’t make sense then you still have Sheffield/Ordonez available…corner OF is probably the easiest position to fill. I just don’t think Monroe is that much better than average for his position, and by 2008 he won’t be very cheap either.

More importantly, with guys like Rogers, Pudge, Guillen, Ordonez, Sheffield getting older, shouldn’t we be gunning for a title NOW. Isn’t that what the Sheffield trade was all about?

]]> By: Chris Y. http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29936 Chris Y. Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:31:38 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29936 $6M for Lofton? Better spent elsewhere, that dude is one step from the washer. Besides his sub-.100 BA for the Dodgers this postseason is a little underwhelming with regards to the PS argument (career .244/.314/.344 line in the PS). If we end up with this club in the spring, I like all the ideas floated by Jim. That said, I hope we make another move. Really, there are alot of desperate (and dumb) GMs (see Basavi, Hix, etc), out there who have few options with the current free-agent market (re both price and quality). We are coming off a stellar year and have loads of duplication on a roster that is one true corner infielder away from being serious. $6M for Lofton? Better spent elsewhere, that dude is one step from the washer. Besides his sub-.100 BA for the Dodgers this postseason is a little underwhelming with regards to the PS argument (career .244/.314/.344 line in the PS).

If we end up with this club in the spring, I like all the ideas floated by Jim. That said, I hope we make another move. Really, there are alot of desperate (and dumb) GMs (see Basavi, Hix, etc), out there who have few options with the current free-agent market (re both price and quality). We are coming off a stellar year and have loads of duplication on a roster that is one true corner infielder away from being serious.

]]> By: Mat http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29935 Mat Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:22:21 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29935 On Lofton - Yes, he could play LF or CF. Ditto for Granderson. I haven't checked who is better defensively. Either way, one could backup the other. Granderson was orginally meant to be a corner guy, I believe. Offensively they are very different players. Although they have a similar build, Lofton is a speed OBP guy (i.e. prototypical leadoff hitter), while Granderson has a lot more power, but strikes out much more and doesn't steal bases. (A 330 vs 370 OBP.) Granted, Granderson still has much more room to grow, but I think we can agree that ideally he is hitting 7th or 8th in the lineup not leadoff. I see Lofton as a replacement for Monroe, not Granderson. ...Even if we're signing Lofton for 2 years that can provide a transit to the Maybin era. On Lofton – Yes, he could play LF or CF. Ditto for Granderson. I haven’t checked who is better defensively. Either way, one could backup the other. Granderson was orginally meant to be a corner guy, I believe.

Offensively they are very different players. Although they have a similar build, Lofton is a speed OBP guy (i.e. prototypical leadoff hitter), while Granderson has a lot more power, but strikes out much more and doesn’t steal bases. (A 330 vs 370 OBP.) Granted, Granderson still has much more room to grow, but I think we can agree that ideally he is hitting 7th or 8th in the lineup not leadoff.

I see Lofton as a replacement for Monroe, not Granderson.

…Even if we’re signing Lofton for 2 years that can provide a transit to the Maybin era.

]]> By: Matt in Toledo http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29929 Matt in Toledo Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:35:22 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29929 That plan would seem to put quite a bit of faith in either Clevlen or Maybin being ready for the bigs in '08. Otherwise, the Tigers have to pony up for another free agent again next offseason. That plan would seem to put quite a bit of faith in either Clevlen or Maybin being ready for the bigs in ’08. Otherwise, the Tigers have to pony up for another free agent again next offseason.

]]> By: Deryl G http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29927 Deryl G Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:24:10 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29927 I think Mat was looking at lofton in left field. Obiviously the Tigers would have to get rid of one of their other LF's. Lofton would give them someone with good OBP and a legitamate backup in CF since Thames and Monroe are best suited for a corner spot. I know Monroe has played CF but I'm not a fan of him there. I think Mat was looking at lofton in left field. Obiviously the Tigers would have to get rid of one of their other LF’s.

Lofton would give them someone with good OBP and a legitamate backup in CF since Thames and Monroe are best suited for a corner spot. I know Monroe has played CF but I’m not a fan of him there.

]]> By: Matt in Toledo http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29925 Matt in Toledo Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:15:23 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29925 Kenny Lofton wouldn't come to Detroit because he would look at Curtis Granderson - a left-handed leadoff hitting center fielder - and say, "Where are my at bats going to come from?" I'd also like to think the Tigers would look at Lofton, then look at Granderon, and say, "Don't we already have a younger, cheaper, better defensive version of Kenny Lofton with more power?" Kenny Lofton wouldn’t come to Detroit because he would look at Curtis Granderson – a left-handed leadoff hitting center fielder – and say, “Where are my at bats going to come from?”

I’d also like to think the Tigers would look at Lofton, then look at Granderon, and say, “Don’t we already have a younger, cheaper, better defensive version of Kenny Lofton with more power?”

]]> By: Deryl G http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29921 Deryl G Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:18:40 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29921 Matt - Sorry I wasn't clear, but I was actually wondering if Infante had options left. And I suppose you are right about Santiago... Mat - I really like the Lofton idea. It does seem like a perfect fit. Matt – Sorry I wasn’t clear, but I was actually wondering if Infante had options left. And I suppose you are right about Santiago…

Mat – I really like the Lofton idea. It does seem like a perfect fit.

]]> By: Mat http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29919 Mat Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:08:31 +0000 http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2006/12/leyland-gives-us-something-to-talk-about/#comment-29919 Given that the two most pressing deficiencies in the lineup seem to be a left-handed bat and a reliable lead-off hitter, why aren't the Tigers making a run at Kenny Lofton? A reliable vet, who probably doesn't need to play every day but would be a huge asset in the playoffs and seems to be available (according to ESPN) for around $6M for a 1-year deal. Sounds like a pretty low-risk commitment for someone who is appears to be an ideal fit. Am I missing something here? Maybe he doesn't like Detroit or has a conflict with someone in the organization... This would obviously mean trading Monroe or Thames to open up some playing time, but personally I'd rather have a Lofton/Thames "platoon" in left rather than Monroe. Moreover, Monroe would generate more return in a trade and as Billfer pointed out, is more expensive than Thames... Given that the two most pressing deficiencies in the lineup seem to be a left-handed bat and a reliable lead-off hitter, why aren’t the Tigers making a run at Kenny Lofton? A reliable vet, who probably doesn’t need to play every day but would be a huge asset in the playoffs and seems to be available (according to ESPN) for around $6M for a 1-year deal. Sounds like a pretty low-risk commitment for someone who is appears to be an ideal fit.

Am I missing something here? Maybe he doesn’t like Detroit or has a conflict with someone in the organization…

This would obviously mean trading Monroe or Thames to open up some playing time, but personally I’d rather have a Lofton/Thames “platoon” in left rather than Monroe. Moreover, Monroe would generate more return in a trade and as Billfer pointed out, is more expensive than Thames…

]]>