Comments on: Why Ramon Santiago

By: Eddie

Eddie — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:33:37 +0000

90% of all players put through waivers last Spring Training cleared with no problem. Worrying about losing a player as insignificant as Ramon Santiago is pointless, because it’s not a big loss and it’s not likely to happen.

The job of a bench should be to ensure that all positions can be covered capably and to ensure that there aren’t black holes at positions on off days. Assuming Brandon Inge can take to shortstop, I see no reason for Santiago being on the team, especially with Guillen around in an emergency.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:35:19 +0000

Seems to me that the assumption that Santiago would easily make it through waivers may be a little flawed at the moment. With the complete and utter lack of shortstop FAs available this year, I think there’s a really good chance that some team that has realized it’s a little thin in the middle infield would be willing to take a chance on Santiago due simply to the paucity of Major League ready shortstops available any other way. I think he may make the opening day roster and then be sent down within a couple weeks as other teams get more comfortable with their bench SS options.

If there are 13 pitchers on the roster, I will midwife Chuck’s cow-birth.

By: Joey the K in Portland OR

Joey the K in Portland OR — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:08:32 +0000

Leyland liked Neifi and that got him on the team, we all know how well that worked out.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:50:14 +0000

Why Ramon Santiago? Because people always prefer The Devil They Know over The Devil They Don’t Know.

You know as well as anyone that Jim Leyland is not looking at advanced defensive metrics. Santiago has MLB experience and he is *perceived* to be a plus defender. Good enough for The Smoker.

I will say this: if what you say comes to pass and the Tigers take 13 PITCHERS north — especially in April with all the off days and expected weather postponements — I will give birth to a full-grown cow.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:12:09 +0000

Not that I disagree with your reasoning, Bilfer, but I’m working under the assumption Santiago is pretty close to a lock as well — based on what we’ve learned about Jim Leyland in two seasons mainly. I think he’s close to a lock based on that.

I think the argument that the Tigers lack a backup shortstop without Santiago has some water, too. Yes, Gullen technically can still sub there if needed, but I also think Leyland is going to keep him to just first base this year. And I’m sure Inge could play it as well, but with so much being put on his plate, I don’t think the Tigers would want to do that either. (Further, if Vance can’t come back at the start of spring training, I think they’ll view Inge as backup catcher and Santiago as utility infielder).

If it’s a choice between Santiago and Raburn, I like Raburn. If it’s a choice being Santiago or losing Cruceta (if he does pitch as well as advertised), I take Cruceta. But will Leyland?

By: The Spotstarters » Blog Archive » Links

The Spotstarters » Blog Archive » Links — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:56:08 +0000

[...] Detroit Tigers Weblog has a great little piece up on Ramon Santiago. I’m with Bilfer in that I don’t like to get too down on guys but I don’t see why Santiago should have a spot “locked” up with the Tigers. I’m a big Raburn guy. [...]

By: Kyle J

Kyle J — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:46:45 +0000

I think we just have to accept Leyland is always going to want a defense-only middle infielder on his bench. We can at least be thankful that player is no longer Neifi.

I could also live with Raburn getting regular at bats at Toledo to start the season. I still think he could be the left-fielder of the future.

By: rings

rings — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:32:29 +0000

Bilfer, I totally agree with your reasoning, but as discussed previously, I think Leyland likes Ramon, thinks there’s “value” in his defense and that’s the biggest thing he has going for him. He’s his “Neifi” of ’08 (who shouldn’t have been on the team last year either).
Inge hasn’t played SS since college and he’s not going to re-start in the major leagues, unless its an emergency…and there’s a lot of other options available long before its an emergency.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:21:42 +0000

That would be great if Inge or Raburn can play ss and maybe they could experiment in SP with Inge or Raburn, but if they cannot then it leaves Santiago. Guillen ss days are over and beside if you use him in the late innings, then who on the team can play 1B well defensively.

By: billfer

billfer — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:14:33 +0000

I’m not trying to knock Henning or Knobler, they are just the most prominent people to link to. Everybody, talk radio, message boards, everybody thinks Santiago is a given. I just don’t get why.

By: David G.

David G. — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:08:39 +0000

Eh, if it comes down to the 2 I would not mind seeing Raburn start in Toledo, stay hungry, and get some more comfortable ABs. Agree with the premise of Bilfer’s analysis and that it should not be taken for granted who makes the team, but in reality who makes the team out of ST does not make that much difference, does it? Maybe ride a month or two of Santiago and see how things shake out, but I would like to see Raburn up sooner than later this year.

By: Vince in MN

Vince in MN — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:04:44 +0000

Perhaps Henning and Knobler are both premising their assumption (I don’t see how they can be so sure it is a ‘lock’) for Santiago being on the opening day roster based on the fact that he is out of options and Raburn is not. Or that Leyland loves his D so much. In any case, both are very weak arguments.

As far as Santiago’s real value, I go with Billfer’s assessment 100%.

While we are batting around the option issue, assuming both play up to their potential in ST, and, since Santiago is, IMHO, a ‘lock’ to pass through waivers (no wait, maybe the Yankees need a defensive replacement for Jeter in the late innings ), wouldn’t it make more sense to start the season with Raburn, retaining his remaining option, just in case there is a need for roster changes later?

Besides, I ain’t sure I put all that much stock in what Knobler or Henning says – they have been wrong before.

By: Eric Cioe

Eric Cioe — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:27:53 +0000

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I’m no huge Inge fan, but it seems like if you need a late inning defensive sub, he’d be a decent option for short. What do you call a third baseman with a great arm and a huge range? I call him a shortstop. I don’t know why someone who can back up second and who also has a strong arm can’t also back up shortstop.

I think a bench of Inge, Raburn, Thames, and Wilson would be best. But what if Wilson isn’t ready, and Inge steps up and says he’ll be the primary backup catcher? What then?