Jump to content

Orioles sign Ty Wigginton to a 2 year deal


jamesenoch

Recommended Posts

I think it's plausible that any of Freel, Gomez, or Wigginton could play there. At Gomez' age you can't just assume he's a better defender than the other two. You're just going to have to accept that whoever is there is a huge step down from Izturis with the glove. Gotta hope that for 30 games or whatever that their offense makes up for the lack of defense.

I have to think there's a chance Gomez just gets cut. He's a .625-.650 OPS guy in his late 30s who's main calling card is maybe average defense at SS. His numbers at 2B are pretty poor lately.

I agree. However, I think it's safe to assume that Izturis is going to play 150+ games at SS. No way does he miss 30 games with the back-up SS we have currently. Izturis will be missing AB's and innings as a SS when he's pinch-hit for. But then the question remains... who plays SS in that case? Freel and Wiggington have never played SS at the MLB level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Comps List

Fernando Tatis (965)

Joe Crede (951)

Sean Berry (950)

Hank Blalock (945)

Dave Nilsson (943)

Morgan Ensberg (942)

Eric Soderholm (937)

Ray Jablonski (935)

Jay Gibbons (931)

Bill Hall (930)

I kinda like the Ensberg comp the best, similar hitters playing similar positions in similar playing time situations (Platoon, etc.). One additional note, none of these players have aged very well. But, for a two year deal I don't know if that is a concern.

All in all pretty much what you would expect, althought I could have done with out Jay Gibbons. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure we do. Just not a defense-only shortstop like Juan Castro. Izturis is that guy, and he's the starter. Why not have the backup be a bat?

Not disagreeing with you, but I'm not sure we want Freel or Wigginton playing shortstop if we're giving Izturis the day off here and there. Neither one of those guys seem like suitable shortstops.

I'm not saying they couldn't play there...I'm just saying that the way DT and AM stress defense, they don't seem like the type of player that we'd want there. Gomez, while not great, is pretty sure-handed and will "field what he gets to".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From yesterday's Sun:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.orioles03feb03,0,5912280.story

MacPhail apparently has a different definition of "imminent" than I do. :P

So now what? Is Scott about to be moved? Freel?

Hilarious - and incredibly unpredictable.

Why not throw Roberts name out there - Freel to 2B and Roberts out for position prospects? Roberts paired with Scott for a better haul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure we do. Just not a defense-only shortstop like Juan Castro. Izturis is that guy, and he's the starter. Why not have the backup be a bat?

Because this goes against what Trembley's MO is and has been since he's been a manager.

I am thinking that Scott may be traded and the guy we get back is the back-up SS option which guarantees that Gomez is not making the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think something is cookin'. Will we revisit the White Sox talks concerning Roberts? Now that we have Ty is it possible that we move Scott and Roberts for Floyd and Getz? I am just speculating. I definitely think that Scott gets moved. When Roch talked to Scott he didn't see crazy about DHing, so maybe we are looking to move him for another player and maybe he is packaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not disagreeing with you, but I'm not sure we want Freel or Wigginton playing shortstop if we're giving Izturis the day off here and there. Neither one of those guys seem like suitable shortstops.

I'm not saying they couldn't play there...I'm just saying that the way DT and AM stress defense, they don't seem like the type of player that we'd want there. Gomez, while not great, is pretty sure-handed and will "field what he gets to".

I agree that it's completely out of character for Trembley/MacPhail. I have to think this is the first move of several more, or that they're really going with a 12-man staff and keep Gomez along with Freel and Wigginton.

Not really sure about the Gomez infatuation. He can't hit, he's old, and he's only adequate in the field. I'd give his spot to some Izturis clone who can mainly play great D in the late innings after they pinch hit for Izturis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the plan is to go back to the Earl Weaver days of playing everybody on the bench at least once a week.

With Freel, Wigginton, Gomez and backup catcher as the bench, I can see Trembley resting guys liberally, including Roberts and Markakis.

Speaking of a back-up catcher (eventually third behind Weiters and Zaun), has Willington done any catching in the minors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it necessarily means anything. It gives the O's the ability to trade Scott or Huff but doesn't mean they have to do it. Wiggs can play several positions.... now it means our bench is better and gives Trembley the ability to rest one of Scott, Huff or Wiggington several times a week.

It sets up platoons all over the place, Wigginton plays a decent 3rd, pretty good first and the corners in the OF. I was hoping AM would bargain shop the FA's and he has done a nice job. Basically he is taking the Millar spot. A real nice upgrade. Good job AM.

Good news for those who wanted to see a 12 man staff, bad news for those who wanted that extra player to be Scott Moore and Oscar Salazar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...