Comments on: Game 2009.149: Tigers at Twins

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:42:13 +0000

Mr. X, the Tigers and your TV both breaking at the same time might not be a coincidence. In any event, please don’t disappear like that again.

By: David

David — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:07:19 +0000

On the Ankiel bit I know he has a crazy arm. But I don’t understand if you’re trying to cut spending or just maintain it several things

1) Where you would put him, and if you say RF what happens to Maggs and Guillen
2) How he is vastly superior to Clete
3) Why you would spend money on him when you have Clete, Ramirez, Rayyyyburn
4) Durability issues

I mean he wouldn’t be terrible, I just don’t see what he adds that we don’t have and how we’d create room for him.

I’d rather them take some of the money possibly coming off the books and throw it at Chone Figgins or Matt Holiday or Rich Harden or John Lackey or Erik Bedard.

By: Coleman

Coleman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:38:55 +0000

I wish I had any sort of skills of a graphical nature…I’d do it myself. What meagre skills I have though are of a more wordy sort. (Well, that and the physical superpowers, obviously).

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:15:49 +0000

Hilarious & should be done

By: Coleman

Coleman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:07:55 +0000

Ankiel has a good glove, and a great arm…he has power but hits for a low avg and strikes out a ton…hmmm…sounds like a certain All-Star in our current line-up.

Thinking outside the box (the one that says ‘Logic’ on the outside) we could get Ankiel and he could help us transition Dontrelle into our new every day Left Fielder.

Just don’t trade someone like Zach Miner to get Ankiel, considering how the Cards have done with pitcher castoffs they’ve picked up. I’d hate to see so many perfectly good minds here destroyed by seeing Miner with 20 wins…

By: colin

colin — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:26:37 +0000

Guys the problem with Milton Bradley is he’s not really an outfielder. Fortunately we’re an AL team so we have a spot in the lineup for half a ballplayer. I thought that was really obvious so I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. I also thought that it is pretty obvious that this near-.500 team could be upgraded with an impact bat. Buy low, sell high right guys?

If the Twins picked up Milton for a DH, started any three of Span Gomez Cuddyer and Kubel in the outfield and flipped the fourth OF for a 2B or SS that could hit I’d be scared, wouldn’t you?

As for Seay I’m not really into the ‘closer’ mythology to say the least but I just don’t see him working the ninth so another live arm will be needed. That lineup on blessyouboys is one RP short of being really pretty good though IMO especially when it comes to building a sustainably good team and farm system while trimming budget.

By: Coleman

Coleman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:37:38 +0000

They should know better than to sell the naming rights 2 years ahead (remember Enron Field in Houston?)…I guess they probably need the money now though.

I wonder what the nickname will be…let’s see, Comerica Park is Copa…I’m thinking Cisco Field would be known as Cissyfi…

By: Rick G

Rick G — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:27:10 +0000

There's information on the Oakland A's web site here that says they'll be moving to Fremont California probably for the 2011 season. Their new stadium will be known as Cisco Field. A lot of the information is old, but I would think they'd remove anything that wasn't still true. By the way, the last standing piece of Tiger Stadium was demolished this morning.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:39:36 +0000

Bradley? No thanks. Laird? He’s a keeper!

By: Coleman

Coleman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:17:16 +0000

I would take Milton Bradley in the outfield–but only if you give the other two outfield spots to the Parker Brothers.

(It’s somewhat ironic that the proverbial buzzkill of the Baseball Is A Game enjoyment of baseball is named Milton Bradley…I think an Onion-style ad for the games designed by this Milton Bradley practically begs to be created…)

By: Coleman

Coleman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:58:34 +0000

I made that comment once–just a random observation, but also, even more randomly, a reference to a dumb Saturday Night Live bit–and immediately he got out of the jam he was in, so I figured it was good luck.

So far: 7 rabbit comments in 7 appearances. Total earned runs: 0

There was one appearance when I was busy, and didn’t make the comment. He got shelled…clearly I have an important responsibility here now…

By: David

David — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:40:18 +0000

1) OK, now I know
2) There is a reason Bradley keeps shuffling through teams. I wouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole. His offense is sub par as a career outfielder, cut it any way you like. Bringing in someone like him to the fold would be the absolute wrong idea.
3) Why spend money for Ankiel when you have Clete Thomas, Ryan Raburn and plenty of other OF? Plus Maggs, Guillen and Granderson. I wouldn’t understand that at all. Its all fine and good that he has a good OF glove, but we have that already for much cheaper.
4) I think Guillen has another productive year or two left in him. Why trade him when his value couldn’t be any lower, and he is supposed to be a leader on this team?
5) I think Seay has been terrific in the 7/8 innings where there is more at stake IMO. So I guess we’re in somewhat of an agreement here.
6) I agree with this as well. To not even offer him a contract and gauge his interest is what I found to be foolish. If he is too expensive/wants too long of a deal, fine. If not go after him.
7) Same, I think he is too young to declare his career as a starter is over.
Dismiss his #s? Bradley has never had a season of EITHER 80 Runs OR 80 RBI as a corner OF. Plus we already have more than enough OF that are already signed. Plus the excess crap he comes with. All those point to me not wanting him.

Um. I think you have me pegged all wrong. I’m for being efficient with your money, I’m for looking at the numbers in depth. I’m for youth and shying away from people I consider to be unproductive or cancerous. I don’t understand why this team would go after any so-so OF when they already have a large surplus.

I don’t understand why you would not offer Polanco a contract AT ALL. I don’t understand what you could get for Laird that would be worth it. I don’t understand why you would give Jackson such a lucrative contract right now based upon his history and the “career year” he has been having.

I’m sorry but whoever wrote that, doesn’t know what they are talking about, and sure as … wasn’t using data or being “efficient”.

By: David

David — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:18:41 +0000

I did not know that.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:26:13 +0000

that wasn’t Ian’s proposed roster, that was a fanshot, an article written by a commenter on the site.

By: RPS

RPS — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:24:00 +0000

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Simma down nah.

First, Ian didn’t write it.

Second, Milton Bradley’s crappy season of discontent includes a .378 OBP. The Cubs are desperate enough to get rid of him that they will probably be willing to either take a bad contract in exchange (*cough* Guillen and Willis) or pick up most of his salary in exchange for nothing. Doesn’t seem crazy to want to take a chance on a guy that can produce like he has. If he’s cheap enough that you can jettison him if/when his attitude turns, why not?

Next, Ankiel is a very good defensive OF. I cringe to think how his bat projects to the AL, but not a ridiculous idea.

You try to trade Guillen because he is a very expensive DH with durability issues who is obviously past his prime.

I don’t want Seay as closer not because he can’t do it, but because he is more valuable in the high-leverage spots he currently works. He is more important than any non-Rivera closer in his current role. Offer Lyon and Rodney arb. If one takes it, great, he can close. If not, Seay is just as good as anyone else in that spot. And cheap. I’m willing to take my chances with Perry/Seay.

I think it would be a mistake to not offer Polanco arb. I’d love to have him back at like $7 mill for one year, but not for the 3/$20 he can probably get on the market. No matter how you slice it, his bat has been awful this year.

I’m assuming Bondo only goes to the pen if it looks like he still can’t start.

I agree with you that Jackson needs to show his improvement for another year before an extension, and that Laird should be kept.

None of these are such terrible ideas, however. There are legitimate arguments for and against all of them. I think the author of the post is of a different baseball belief system than you are. I think his interests run more towards xFIP and WAR and economic efficiency, and yours run more towards leadership and clubhouse cohesion and veteran presence. Neither is inherently right or wrong. If you try to understand his point of view better, and he tries to understand yours, you both become smarter. Just like you can’t dismiss Milton Bradley’s attitude, you also can’t dismiss his numbers.

Being entirely unreceptive to something like this doesn’t help anything.