Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Frobby

  1. Sometimes, life's not fair. Is it fair that George Kell had to work in the offseason to make ends meet, while today some mediocre player who never made the all-star team has $25 million in his pocket? Is it fair that my son can't get into the same college I got into even though his grades are better and his board scores are comparable? That's life.
  2. I think you have to consider the position the Cubs are in. They are in "win now" mode, and just don't have time for on the job training. Pie is out of options so they can't bounce him to the minors if he struggles. He's much better off in a place like Baltimore that can afford to give him 400+ AB even if he yields only a 700-ish OPS like Jones did last year. This whole deal is about "win now" vs. "win later."
  3. This discussion brings up a more general point -- is the Hall of Fame too selective, or not selective enough? Personally, I'd prefer that it be a bit stricter, and the fact that some undeserving player was voted into the Hall in 1955 is not a good reason to induct an equivalent player now. And I could certainly make an argument that there shouldn't be a veteran's committee. Of course it's hard to say where the line should be drawn exactly, which is what makes it fun.
  4. Without speculating on whether this actually happens, if MacPhail pulls off Olson for Pie, Marquis and $4 mm, then his naysayers need to SHUT UP!
  5. Right. Olson was 24 last year, and he's had 33 major league starts, equivalent to a full season. Pie really has not had the chances Olson has had. If we trade for him, he needs to get ample playing time to show what he's got.
  6. I think I'd vote for Brandon Snyder and David Hernandez. Snyder I think is particularly underrated by the national pundits. Just look what he's done the last 13 months: Hawaii ------.378/.398/.544 Frederick --- .316/.358/.490 Arizona -----.349/.431/.667 When you consider that he was still pretty young for each of these leagues, to me he's reestablished himself as one of the better hitting prospects in the game. As to Hernandez, it seems like people focus on his shortcomings without giving enough credit for what he does well. I mean, all the guy has done is strike out batters wherever he pitches: 9.58 K/9 in Delmarva, 10.40 K/9 in Frederick, 10.60 K/9 in Bowie. People focus on the fact that his BB rate went way up last year, without crediting the fact that his BAA went way down, and he did a far better job pitching with men on base. I recognize that he'll need to improve some things if he wants to remain a starter, but it seems to me he has a great future as a reliever if he has to be moved to the pen. Who do you think deserves more attention from the national media who cover the minors?
  7. Frobby

    Brandon Snyder

    Not a bad comp. I see two major differences. First, Conine had a brief cup of coffee at age 24 and only played 37 major league games total before age 27. I think there's a chance Snyder gets a September call-up next year at age 22, and if not, I certainly hope to see him at some point the following year at age 23, and on the team for good by age 24. Second, I think Snyder can do better than Conine's career ISO of .158. Conine had 4 seasons with 30+ doubles, but I think Snyder will do that routinely and in fact top 40 doubles pretty regularly.
  8. You know why I like him? Because he throws strikes, works fast and doesn't walk guys. I'm looking at some of his games last year: 8 IP 96 pitches 8 IP 96 pitches 7 IP 93 pitches 9 IP 98 pitches 7 IP 94 pitches I love games like those. Not to say he didn't have his clunkers, but he's pretty pitch-efficient.
  9. There is no guarantee all four of those guys are ready to be major league starters by opening day 2010, and even if they are, you want them to force the issue, not just be handed a slot because we have no alternatives. It would be sweet if they all were ready, I'll admit.
  10. I think of the Angels as a good defensive team. I'm surprised the Orioles fare that poorly. Having a better SS situation will help that a lot. Not only were the shortstops collectively poor as a group, but it can't be that easy for the 2B and the 3B when the starting SS is being changed once a month.
  11. This is the kind of post I can really appreciate -- you answered my questions, and gave me some other usedful data I hadn't asked for, all without being the least bit snarky. I believe all the pitchers on your list are free agents, except Marquis, correct? Here's a few thoughts: Jason Marquis -- OK, depending what we're giving up Odalis Perez -- doesn't throw enough IP per start for me Paul Byrd (I’d also give him 2 before I’d give Garland 4) -- depends on relative length and amount Braden Looper (see Byrd) -- Eh, OK Jamie Moyer -- OK Freddy Garcia -- not after pitching 73 innings the last 2 years Pedro Martinez -- I think he's done Carl Pavano -- maybe if he's very cheap Brad Penny -- health is an issue Pretty much in every case I'd need to know the specifics of what contract Garland would take, and what these other guys would take. Randy Wolf (see Byrd
  12. I agree it's possible we'll have seller's remorse. I think it's worth mentioning, however, that Olson has been given much more of an opporunity than Maine did - 33 starts and 165 IP versus 9 starts and 43.2 IP.
  13. OK, who are they? By the way, we need to acquire more than one pitcher this offseason IMO. Signing Garland, if it happens, should not be the exclusive move. It's OK with me if we go get a cheaper option AND sign Garland. I do see the danger in picking up a guy with declining K rates and rising BB rates. But we need to be careful how starkly we portray that. Garland was never much of a strikeout pitcher, and his K rate has dropped some but not that drastically. His BB rate has gone up the last couple years but it is still quite good, and better than it was early on in his career. I think the comparisons to Trachsel by some posters (sorry, Drungo) are lazy. Trachsel had surgery in 2005, and after that his IP/start dropped to 5.5 per game, his K rate dropped by 25% and his K/BB rate went to 1:1. Garland is very durable, the drop in his K rate is not drastic and he is still throwing a lot of innings. Garland is more like Benson, but he's younger than Benson was when we got him and hasn't had arm problems.
  14. You can't ignore the length of the contract in this analysis. If both are being signed for 4 years, I'd go with Burnett. If it's Burnett for 5 and Garland for 2 with an option for a third, I'd go with Garland.
  15. You need to stop babbling and realize that Burnett hasn't thrown 200 IP 2 of the last 3 years: 2006: 135 IP 2007: 165 IP 2008: 221 IP Sure he's more injury prone than many pitchers. Of course he is. He's only thrown 200 innings 3 times in a 10-year career. Will that continue in the future? I don't know, but you'd be nuts to say he's not a bigger risk to miss time than Garland, who has thrown 32 or 33 starts each of the last 7 years. I'm not advocating Garland over Burnett. But if the price of Burnett goes too high, we have to look at alternatives.
  16. I agree that's the explanation we've heard, but I think NoVaO's question is a good one. In any event, Arrieta will start at AA, as he should. If Tillman's still there, Arrieta will have to outperform him on the mound to leapfrog him as some are suggesting.
  17. There is too much smoke here for there not to be a fire. Clearly Pie/Olson is contingent on a Peavy deal, though I don't blame the O's for denying that - it's not their business to comment on other teams' trades.
  18. Franklin Gutierrez was the best RF in the AL this year. http://www.fieldingbible.com/
  19. Two years ago I would have said that, now I don't think so. Pie's upside is Corey Patterson in his better years.
  20. Duh. But the talent disparity between Pie and Olson is not that dramatic. I'd agree Pie's upside is better than Olson's, but it's not so much higher that I'd necessarily trade away from need. Maybe yes, maybe no.
  21. If we had better pitching, I'd agree. Pie is a guy who was considered one of the top 50 prospects in baseball before he lost rookie status. Olson was never that highly regarded. My biggest reservation is that we need as many young pitchers as we can get, and I hate to give one up for a guy who hasn't had much success at the major league level.
  22. Actually, Cal probably got short-changed when it came to Gold Gloves. Brooks, I think, won a couple on reputation in years when someone else was a bit better. But there's little doubt in my mind he was the greatest defensive 3B ever. The problem with your argument is you are generalizing. Nobdoy is saying that all the Gold Gloves ever awarded were undeserved. But a lot of them were. Specifically, many Gold Gloves have been given to (1) guys who at one time were the best at their position, but no longer were, and (2) guys who were very good hitters but only average as fielders. By the way, Nick is an excellent defender but he did not deserve a Gold Glove.
  23. Well, that is a step in the right direction. And coupled with Belkast's comments, it gives me a shred -- just a shred -- of optimism.
  24. Hornsby - 175 OPS+. Wow, just wow.
  25. We knew the Jays were offering Burnett 4/$54 mm weeks ago. So we had to know that we needed to be at least in that ballpark at a minimum, and that 3 years was never going to do it. Personally, if this has gone to 4/$64 with a vested option then I have no problem saying "pass." We should put our best offer on the table, see if Burnett wants to take it, and if not, move on.
  • Create New...