Comments on: Roster Cutting

By: Minor notes: Protection, Bourquin, and the AFL

Minor notes: Protection, Bourquin, and the AFL — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:50:04 +0000

[...] talked here already about the Tigers need to trim the 40 man roster and the need to protect players ahead of the rule 5 draft coming up in December. The 40 man will be [...]

By: TSE

TSE — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:33:40 +0000

Yes, but a person has to be gone before one can say “He’s BACK!!”

By: TSE

TSE — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:32:32 +0000

He’s probably on a treadmill at this exact moment.

By: Tigers Fan For 50 Years

Tigers Fan For 50 Years — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:54:18 +0000

Thames is gone….Lets move on…..

By: Tigers Fan For 50 Years

Tigers Fan For 50 Years — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:51:33 +0000

I agree with you…..

By: Tigers Fan For 50 Years

Tigers Fan For 50 Years — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:38:05 +0000

Leyland left it open saying he had to perform/earn the every day position…..He is way over weight and out of shape to play the field effectivly….If he can show up at spring training in shape and loose #### Pounds….. All he is good for is hitting…..Sorry……Salary, Over Paid…..Trade him or DH……

By: TSE

TSE — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:27:56 +0000

Sure, there’s no point any longer in talking about what the Tigers should do with Thames, unless we were talking about trying to still sign him to a deal and for a cheaper amount, which is still possible. His market value has to be dirt low considering the Tigers have destroyed his perceived value as much as they could. Let’s sign him and get a great bargain!

By: billfer

billfer — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:21:26 +0000

But Thames has already been let go so there is that reality to deal with.

By: TSE

TSE — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:09:41 +0000

But there is no guarantee that Guillen plays in LF. What if the Tigers for some reason put him at 3B, or SS, or 2B, or 1B? If they do any of those then that’s going to change your perceived reality. I guess if you are sure that all of those spots have been ruled out, then your reality is indeed what it is, but I haven’t chosen to rule out those spots. It’s in the Tiger’s best interest to play Guillen in an IF position in lieu of the OF, so it is most logical to talk around the optimal choice that is available to them.

By: Andre in Chi

Andre in Chi — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:36:01 +0000

TSE,

“I’m moving Guillen to SS and then replacing Everett with Thames”

That’s cool, cause in my scenario Illitch is selling Little Ceaser’s and using the proceeds of the sale to acquire V-Mart, Beltre, Crede (just to bench him), Manny Ramirez, Vlad G., (you get the point), etc…

When reality isn’t relevant, neither are your scenarios.

By: TSE

TSE — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:18:48 +0000

Comparing Raburn to Thames isn’t relevant for me, because it’s not an either/or scenario for me. The problem is the Tigers seem to have Guillen penciled in at LF, thus I’m moving Guillen to SS and then replacing Everett with Thames (still plenty of guys to field in the outfield from Raburn / Ramirez / Wells / whoever). Raburn doesn’t need to be compared to Thames unless we are choosing one over the other, and I choose to keep both, because we have plenty of room for both of them.

We have plenty of room for ALL of the players on the team that I wanted to retain. You have to keep in mind I have extra spots that others don’t have because Everett is not going to be considered and Laird would eventually have been traded to somebody for something, and I’m probably going to have others that would be traded as well, although not required to easily conform to the roster limit.

By: Andre in Chi

Andre in Chi — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:17:04 +0000

Sorry, I’ll elaborate. The two sides of the argument were (generally speaking): 1) Marcus doesn’t get enough playing time to consistently produce, and 2) Marcus doesn’t consistently produce enough to justify more playing time.

Its seems be more 2 than 1. That’s where Marcus being so one-dimensional hurts him; there’s no defensive upside to allow for keeping him on the field while he works things out, and no room for a cold DH.

In any case, Raburn supplies Thames-like power, with less defensive downside, at a fraction of the cost. With other younger OF and DH candidates out there (Ramirez, Larish), its not cost-effective, and likely we’ll see similar numbers out of whoever replaces Marcus in a platoon.

By: TSE

TSE — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:58:47 +0000

There’s evidence for BOTH sides of the argument, and both sides can be argued for, and not 100% of baseball players will be affected identically by having spotty play time in place of consistent time. People are complex dynamics and different things affect different people.

By: Andre in Chi

Andre in Chi — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:53:43 +0000

“Plus, you could make an argument that if he had more consistent batting time that he could actually improve and get better than his career average. For some people it might be tougher to play random spotty time.”

We’ve had plenty of arguments here along those lines. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.

By: billfer

billfer — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:49:16 +0000

TSE – Do you read your posts before hitting submit?

As for Thames, he can’t play the field which limits his value. You’re ignoring positional scarcity when your valuing him. He is an average hitter at the easiest position to fill. How does that make him a $3 million player?