Does Brett Lawrie make sense?

[weams]

1 hour ago, birdwatcher55 said:

Lawrie makes total sense. He would provide protection in the event Hardy has back issues this season and Machado must move to short. He's a much better option than Flaherty. Instant bench upgrade.

I disagree. 

[InsideCoroner]

9 hours ago, Frobby said:

Thanks.    None of that seems so terrible that it would necessarily disqualify him from a look if he filled a need for us.    However, I'd be worried that a part-time role might not work with his personality -- not that he's selfish, but just too high-strung to sit on the bench and play less than half the time.   

I wasn't making an argument either way, just pointing out what I remembered reading about him. Still, if you give me a guy who's put up 15 WAR in six seasons yet who just burned his way through his third team by age 27, I have to think that the gift horse must be Trojan.

[Moondoggie]

4 hours ago, birdwatcher55 said:

Lawrie makes total sense. He would provide protection in the event Hardy has back issues this season and Machado must move to short. He's a much better option than Flaherty. Instant bench upgrade.

If they thought Hardy was going to miss significant time, Lawrie would certainly be a better option to play 3B every day. I'm not sure he's right for the sort of utility role that Flaherty fills. Not that there wouldn't be better options than Flaherty, but Lawrie probably isn't that guy.

[Spy Fox]

On 3/3/2017 at 7:38 PM, backwardsk said:

According to some, Donaldson is better than Machado.  He also had more years under control than Manny has now.  So why should we expect a much better return?  

I seem to remember people thought the A's return for Donaldson was lower than it should have been. And he hadn't quite reached the offensive levels he's shown in Toronto. Those two factors don't necessarily mean we'd get a lot more for Machado than the A's got, but they're potential answers to your question.

[backwardsk]

8 hours ago, Spy Fox said:

I seem to remember people thought the A's return for Donaldson was lower than it should have been. And he hadn't quite reached the offensive levels he's shown in Toronto. Those two factors don't necessarily mean we'd get a lot more for Machado than the A's got, but they're potential answers to your question.

Donaldson had put up 15WAR his previous to seasons prior to being traded.  So it wasn't like he came out of nowhere. For context, Manny has accumulated a 15.9 WAR for his career.

[Frobby]

23 minutes ago, backwardsk said:

Donaldson had put up 15WAR his previous to seasons prior to being traded.  So it wasn't like he came out of nowhere. For context, Manny has accumulated a 15.9 WAR for his career.

Uh, Manny has accumulated 24.4 rWAR, 23.0 fWAR in his career.   Not sure where your numbers come from.   

Donaldson was great for those two seasons in Oakland, no doubt.    Now he's making a fool out of people who think all players decline once they reach age 28.    

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Uh, Manny has accumulated 24.4 rWAR, 23.0 fWAR in his career.   Not sure where your numbers come from.   

Donaldson was great for those two seasons in Oakland, no doubt.    Now he's making a fool out of people who think all players decline once they reach age 28.    

I'm thinking that is a very small group of foolish people.  That being said I wouldn't want to sign him to a six year contract at market value.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm thinking that is a very small group of foolish people.  That being said I wouldn't want to sign him to a six year contract at market value.

As an aside, the Blue Jays benefited tremendously from the past Bautista and Encarnacion deals, and the Donaldson trade.   Talk about getting more than you paid for!

[Superbee83]

23 hours ago, Babypowder said:

Flaherty has the ability to stand in the outfield and play it poorly. I would guess Lawrie does too as he's much more athletic than Flaherty. Flaherty's "ability" to play first base also isn't useful. The O's already have 3, possibly 4 guys who will be on the 25 who can play first without Flaherty. There are also already 2 shortstops, so the utility guy doesn't really need to do that either. Lawrie is a much better player than Flaherty and would be an obvious upgrade. I just don't think he'd want to be a utility player as someone else will have an everyday use for him.

   I disagree that Flaherty's ability to play multiple positions including OF and 

   1b aren't useful. While I agree that they are not essential in the overall

   makeup of the team, this ability has allowed the Orioles to keep an extra

   optionable pitcher at times. Also, while I will concede that Lawrie is the 

   better offensive player, I would argue that Flaherty is a better infielder than

   Lawrie. Buck values defense and I think that Lawrie would not be the 

   defender that Flaherty is at third or second. More importantly, He has 

   displayed the ability to play shortstop at the MLB level. ( Lawrie has not.)

   Like I stated earlier, signing Lawrie as a utility player does not make sense 

   at this point, my prediction is the "someone else" that He plays for on a 

   regular basis will be a Triple A team.

   

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Superbee83 said:

   I disagree that Flaherty's ability to play multiple positions including OF and 

   1b aren't useful. While I agree that they are not essential in the overall

   makeup of the team, this ability has allowed the Orioles to keep an extra

   optionable pitcher at times. Also, while I will concede that Lawrie is the 

   better offensive player, I would argue that Flaherty is a better infielder than

   Lawrie. Buck values infield defense and I think that Lawrie would not be the 

   defender that Flaherty is at third or second. More importantly, He has 

   displayed the ability to play shortstop at the MLB level. ( Lawrie has not.)

   Like I stated earlier, signing Lawrie as a utility player does not make sense 

   at this point, my prediction is the "someone else" that He plays for on a 

   regular basis will be a Triple A team.

   

FTFY

[Frobby]

I think the record shows that Lawrie and Flaherty are about equal at 3B, while Flaherty is better at 2B.    Flaherty is below average at the other positions he's played, while Lawrie has never played them.    Overall I think if Lawrie could adjust to being a part time player, his offensive advantages over Flaherty would make him more valuable, especially if we end up carrying three LH outfielders and might want a RH PH late in games.    Not that Lawrie would necessarily play OF after pinch hitting, though he might, but at least he'd be a decent option late in games.    And I'd probably prefer a Manny/Lawrie to Manny/Flaherty or Janish/Manny as the left side of our IF if Hardy had a DL stint.   

[Superbee83]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think the record shows that Lawrie and Flaherty are about equal at 3B, while Flaherty is better at 2B.    Flaherty is below average at the other positions he's played, while Lawrie has never played them.    Overall I think if Lawrie could adjust to being a part time player, his offensive advantages over Flaherty would make him more valuable, especially if we end up carrying three LH outfielders and might want a RH PH late in games.    Not that Lawrie would necessarily play OF after pinch hitting, though he might, but at least he'd be a decent option late in games.    And I'd probably prefer a Manny/Lawrie to Manny/Flaherty or Janish/Manny as the left side of our IF if Hardy had a DL stint.   

    I think that the record shows that Lawrie was shifted to 2b from 3b by the

    A's is an indication that He is not a good enough defender to play 3b 

   on a regular basis. The other aspect of Lawrie converting to a utility 

   role is that He would have to adjust to not receiving regular at bats. This

   may impact his offensive value to a team if He were to have this role.

    

 

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, Superbee83 said:

I think that the record shows that Lawrie was shifted to 2b from 3b by the A's is an indication that He is not a good enough defender to play 3b on a regular basis. 

If you take a closer look, you'll see that the A's problem was that their starting 2B, Eric Sogard, was carrying a sub-.600 OPS for the second year in a row.    So, when Danny Valencia was put on waivers by KC, the A's picked him up and slid Lawrie over to 2B.    It's not because of poor fielding by Lawrie at 3B.

[backwardsk]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Uh, Manny has accumulated 24.4 rWAR, 23.0 fWAR in his career.   Not sure where your numbers come from.   

Donaldson was great for those two seasons in Oakland, no doubt.    Now he's making a fool out of people who think all players decline once they reach age 28.    

Yeah, I don't know where I got that from.  I was going from memory from when I looked up something for the how much would it take for to extend Manny thread a few days ago.  But that 15.9 is wrong.  Must have been something else.

[Superbee83]

28 minutes ago, Frobby said:

If you take a closer look, you'll see that the A's problem was that their starting 2B, Eric Sogard, was carrying a sub-.600 OPS for the second year in a row.    So, when Danny Valencia was put on waivers by KC, the A's picked him up and slid Lawrie over to 2B.    It's not because of poor fielding by Lawrie at 3B.

   Frobby, I'll take your point, it makes sense that the A's would have made this move to add offense to their lineup. However, much like Flaherty's lack of offense is exposed when He plays regularly, I think the fact that Lawrie was not a real good MLB third baseman made this move make even more sense. I think the reality is that being a super sub may be a good role for Lawrie in the future. I believe that He played for the Canadian National Team as a catcher and was converted to the infield after He was drafted. He is young enough to play winter or instructional ball as a catcher. He could possibly reinvent himself as a catcher/corner guy. Plus, I remember when Cervelli played for the Yankees he played some second in addition to catching.