Hopefully My Last Post About Doug Mientkiewicz
In recent weeks, I might have appeared somewhat dismissive of Doug Mientkiewicz, which isn't really fair to him. In isolation, I don't have a problem with him. He's a totally functional major-league ballplayer, and he deserves his props for that. I just think that freaking out about not having him is crazy--he's a decent bench player, and I'm not convinced that a willingness to get up in Randy Johnson's grill makes Mientkiewicz any more than that.
In the comments yesterday, though, an exchange between Azibuck and WTM explains pretty well something else I don't like about guys like Mientkiewicz and Luis Gonzalez:
Azibuck: I’m still curious about what you don’t understand about NH’s bench construction. You can disagree on which players to choose, for sure (i.e., 0-for-3vas, Gomez), but you seem to indicate something else. Perhaps more along the lines of the type of players. I’d pass on Gonzalez too, but I think I understand the thinking.WTM: I wish NH would make more effort to look for overlooked younger guys with a little upside. The fallacy in his thinking is that you need a really, really old guy to sit on the bench. But backups can get 300-400 ABs a year, especially on a crappy team like the Pirates. The assumption that only a veteran can be productive as a bench player is not a good one, especially when you’re talking about vets like Rivas, Michaels and Monroe, who show every sign of being finished. Better to take a chance that a younger guy can’t adapt to the bench than gamble that a guy with Monroe’s track record is going to produce.
This is dead-on, I think. There are a couple of problems with a team like the Pirates signing someone like Mientkiewicz. First, obviously, because of his age, it's more likely that he'll go downhill than up, and so there's a good chance that if you sign him for 2009, you won't even get back the modest production you got in 2008.
Second, the Pirates have enormous question marks all over the lineup, especially at both outfield corners and third base. If someone really tanks or gets hurt, that's not good, but a potential silver lining is that you have 400 at bats to give a tryout to someone else. For a team in the Pirates' position, there's really nothing to be gained from giving 400 at bats to Doug Mientkiewicz, Chris Gomez, or Luis Gonzalez, who are all well over 30. Even someone like Luis Rivas, who's younger, is a waste of time, because he's gotten all kinds of chances in his career and has never produced. He's a known quantity.
When you get guys like Ramon Vazquez or Eric Hinske, who are a bit younger than the Mientkiewicz/Gomez/Gonzalez class and a bunch more interesting as hitters than Rivas, you're increasing your chances that if someone tanks or gets hurt, you might get something interesting out of those 400 at bats, and then if the player isn't under contract for the following year, maybe you can convince him to come back. In other words, Mientkiewicz is competent but very low-ceiling, whereas Vazquez and Hinske are competent but with a somewhat higher ceiling.
But if you can get another team to give you a young-ish role player, or a blocked young player, for a low price and then give one of your bench spots to that young player, that's even better than getting guys like Vazquez and Hinske, because then you can control that player for several years if you need to.
One team that's done a nice job employing this principle this offseason is the Seattle Mariners, who today acquired Garrett Olson and Ronny Cedeno from the Cubs for Aaron Heilman. I'm not a huge fan of Olson, but he's a potentially functional young starter, and I'd trade Heilman for him straight-up. But let's forget that for a second and talk about Cedeno.
Cedeno will be 26 next week, and he can play either middle infield position. His track record isn't strong enough that you'd want to plug him into a starting position, but his strong hitting at Class AAA (.921 OPS there in 2005 and .959 in 2007) suggests that he might be a bit better as a hitter than his major league performances suggest.
The Mariners have a young middle infield in Jose Lopez and Yuniesky Betancourt. If you remember much about the early-00s Twins, Lopez and Betancourt are sort of like Rivas and Cristian Guzman were--young, but not progressing the way you'd like. Lopez at least hit for good power last year, but Betancourt, in particular, has flatlined, posting OPS+ marks of 80, 86, 93 and 85 in his career while probably getting worse with the glove.
So this year, if Betancourt tanks in April (or gets hurt), the Mariners have a solution to the problem that could actually be relatively interesting, because then maybe Cedeno grabs the starting job and starts hitting like he has at Class AAA. That probably wouldn't happen, but it would be a coup for the Mariners if it did, because then they could keep Cedeno for a couple more years while they get better.
As USS Mariner pointed out today, new M's GM Jack Zduriencik has been grabbing lots of these sorts of players this offseason: Cedeno, Franklin Gutierrez, Chris Shelton (yes, I know), Russell Branyan. Branyan's a bit older than the others, but has always hit well and has still never been given a lot of playing time; I certainly wouldn't expect him to hit 30 homers for the Mariners, but if he did I wouldn't be shocked. The M's got Shelton for the price of a minor league contract. Shelton's had a tough time since the beginning of the 2006 season, but he isn't old, was once among the Tigers' most productive hitters, and batted .340/.409/.570 at Class AAA Oklahoma last year.
I'd much rather see the Pirates grab guys like these than Chris Gomez or Doug Mientkiewicz. The younger guys honestly aren't that much harder to find or more expensive to acquire, and there's at least some chance they'll surprise you.
UPDATE: From the Post-Gazette's blog today:
With the bench, the thought process mostly is aimed at cost. A team spending in the Pirates' range is better served, as they see it, investing more in the everyday position players and quite a bit less in the reserves. The age and experience of those players really does not matter to them much as it relates to rebuilding, largely because they would not want any true prospects sitting and rotting, anyway. In fact, the age and experience actually can help in the area of intangible[s].
As for "intangibles"... well, whatever. We can debate that all day, but I haven't seen much indication that all the "intangible"-rich players the Pirates have brought in over the past five or six years have done a bit of good.
Where I think Huntington and Coonelly really go wrong, though, if this is an accurate description of their thinking, is imagining there's a solid line between players who are "true prospects" and those who aren't. There isn't. It's not that the word "prospect" isn't useful or that I wouldn't look at you funny if you described, say, Mientkiewicz as a prospect, it's that there is a class of players who might not be "true prospects" but who nonetheless have some upside--players like Cedeno and Shelton. I wouldn't describe Shelton as a true prospect, but it's not impossible that he could return to the majors and have a nice little second career, so why shouldn't the Pirates take a chance on those possibilities where they can?
0 recs |
46 comments
Comments
Prospects
I think Winston Churchill, a huge Pirate fan, summed it up best; “Never has so much been written about so little”.
by Orrington on Jan 28, 2009 8:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree and disagree
- I agree that we should have younger players, even on the bench, because they should still be motivated to prove something that makes them more valuable and marketable for the next year. Knowing nothing about any of the specific players discussed above, at least the younger ones still can see that if they do well (off the bench or as an extended substitute for a non-producing player) with the Pirates, they might create a chance for themselves next year, when Team A is looking to replace an ailing/aging veteran at second or a corner outfield position. For example, the Mets (fans) desparately want to dump their 2nd baseman, who is basically Brian Bixler but older and w/less range. Maybe a strong performance this year w/the Pirates gives someone a leg up on that position next year.
I disagree w/the casual dismissing of the value of having older players IF they are good role models. I can think of nothing positive Joe Randa taught anyone. But Sean Casey two years ago may be why Nate McLouth was a solid hitter this year. He may be why Jack Wilson or Jason Bay kept from spouting off and being a disruptive influence in the dugout. We’ll never know. And while I agree that this doesn’t add to the 67 wins column, it might very well have prevented a rough streak from becoming a meltdown and leading to a 100-loss year.
Regards, Trog
by Trogluddite on Jan 28, 2009 10:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Or the spectacle of the overpaid, unathletic, underproductive Casey being handed a starting job may have resulted in Ryan Doumit concluding that there was nothing to be gained by getting in top condition.
As long as we’re engaging in utterly unsupported speculation . . . .
by WTM on Jan 28, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I made
exactly this point in one of the Minky threads, that I’d rather they look for young guys with Minky’s skill set who MIGHT turn into Minky. Guys like Mackowiak. Thanks for amplifying.
by bucdaddy on Jan 28, 2009 10:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Charlie's last sentence
I wouldn’t describe Shelton as a true prospect, but it’s not impossible that he could return to the majors and have a nice little second career, so why shouldn’t the Pirates take a chance on those possibilities where they can?
Heck…the Pirates don’t even seem to want to take a chance on the 25 year old Pirates version of Chris Shelton. And he’s already on the 40 man roster…Steven Pearce.
by Thunder on Jan 28, 2009 11:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m kind of curious to see how this all plays out. A few of the NRI signings this year (Phillips and Salazar, the returns of Mateo and Bautista) were encouraging to me, because a) these are guys who could hit life-changing money for a couple of years if they caught the right opportunity, and b) I would think their agents were telling them, “Pittsburgh’s not a complete joke any more.”
I might be wrong, but I don’t think the Pirates have gotten many of these guys recently. You would think AAAA guys would flock to lousy teams, but the Pirates always managed somehow to enter the spring with a relatively set roster.
With respect to signing failed major leaguers v. the best minor league free agents, I think the major leaguers have an advantage because most role players are really a bundle of goods, sometimes unrelated to each other. I don’t think the scouting in the minors is such that you could settle that a marginal overall player can do several things at a major league level.
by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 28, 2009 11:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t feel like looking back through the AAA rosters, but I’m pretty sure that the quality of the minor league signees under DL dropped over time. Made sense, because DL wouldn’t give opportunities to guys like that. He seemed to judge players solely by how long they’d spent in the majors, so he always insisted on filling needs with obviously inadequate players like Jeff Reboulet and Randall Simon. That’s one of the things that bothers me about NH’s insistence that bench guys have to be aging major leaguers. Like DL (in this area, at least), he’s cutting himself off from a potential supply of talent. Rising-from-the-ashes type success stories, like Carlos Pena, Brandon Phillips and Josh Hamilton, don’t exactly happen every day, but they do happen with one or two players a year. But it’s never going to happen to the Pirates as long as they insist on looking to guys like Craig Monroe and Luis Rivas to plug holes.
by WTM on Jan 28, 2009 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Far be it from me to argue with WTM, but ...
Randall Simon put up OPS+s of 112 and 112 in the two seasons before he came here. That’s not terrific but it’s certainly not “obviously inadequate.” (Unless you mean his second-go-around). His line for his age 27 year was .301/.320/.459 in 458 ABs. Yeah, he wouldn’t take a walk, but he also seldom struck out. His closest comp for age 26 and age 27 was Bill Terry. Maybe the clue should have been his somewhat extreme home/away split in Detroit that year (2002), but really: Was there any reason at the time to think this guy would turn into a tree stump?
by bucdaddy on Jan 29, 2009 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Second go-round
His OPS+ that first year was 90. And Bill Terry didn’t weigh 280 pounds. Guys with Simon’s physique don’t last long.
FWIW (and I’ve written plenty of things that turned out wrong), this was the last sentence in my entry for Simon on my web site before that second season started:
Simon will give the Pirates far-below-average production in 2004 and they
won’t have the intelligence to realize it.
by WTM on Jan 29, 2009 12:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn't so good for us in 2003
But he was better with the Cubs in his couple months there. So I’m intrigued what you saw that led to that prescient call that he’d be a black hole in ’04, at age 29. Was it entirely this?
“Guys with Simon’s physique don’t last long.”
Because there are obvious exceptions: Tony Gwynn, Kirby Puckett, some guy named Ruth. George Scott was a big fella too, wasn’t he? Ernie Lombardi was never built to be a hitter. And David Ortiz could perhaps best be described as “stout.” Yeah, I know. They were all much better hitters than Simon in the first place. And Simon wouldn’t be the first guy to eat himself out of a job.
I just don’t think, from looking at the numbers, it was so obvious he’d bomb.
Which makes your call an especially good one. And explains why I’d be extremely reluctant to pick a fight with you. :-)
by bucdaddy on Jan 29, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All of those guys were significantly more talented than Simon.
Gwynn, for example, could keep playing as a big fat blimp because he had historically great hand-eye coordination. And even he experienced greatly decreased effectiveness as he aged as a result of the weight. He went from a guy who stole 30-50 bases a year to one who never ran at all. And his range in the field shrank. And he started missing time with lots of little injuries – he had 140+ GP five times in six full seasons before turning 30, but only one time in nine full seasons after that.
So if you’re starting out with something less than Tony Gwynn’s skill set, as most mortals do, then you’re going to go downhill much more quickly. It happened to Joey Meyer, and Boog Powell, and John Kruk, and Willie Horton, and Cecil Fielder… and probably 99 out of every 100 fat hitters. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ortiz ends up being nearly done, too. Even with the protection offered by the DH slot, he’s still running into more and more medical issues, and his numbers tanked last year.
The other tipoff with Simon is that he was already a lead-footed no-glove 1B/DH when in his physical prime. Guys with low levels of athleticism (however you want to define it) typically age less gracefully than guys with high levels. Guys like Gwynn and Puckett (and even Ruth, though it feels weird to say it in retrospect) were tremendous natural athletes. Gwynn and Puckett were CFs. Ruth was a pitcher, and he played a little CF when he started making the transition to hitting full-time.
The other other tipoff with Simon was that his stat line didn’t show a lot of room for positive growth. When we acquired him, his stat line was almost entirely BA-driven, and he had basically a 1/1 ratio of 2B+3B/HR, limiting potential future power growth. If he wasn’t going to get any faster, and he wasn’t going to get any stronger, then where could he go but down?
I didn’t hate the Simon move as much as I should have at the time, but at least I learned from it.
by Vlad on Jan 29, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad - I Didn't Check "The Facts" But ...
I think that if you do, you will find that Tony Gwynn played 90% of his games in RF, not CF.
by thegunner on Jan 29, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not too bad...Gunner
actually 92.2% of his games were in RF.
by Thunder on Jan 29, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gwynn ended up playing mostly RF...
…because the Padres already had a strong defensive CF (All-Star Ruppert Jones) when he came up. Just like Barry Bonds ended up in LF for us even though as a young player he covered enough ground to be a CF, because we already had Andy Van Slyke. And once Gwynn was established at that position for a couple of years, they left him there.
In 1982, his rookie year (when he was in the best shape of his career), he had 25 starts in CF, and 11 apiece in LF and RF.
The young Gwynn wasn’t just a top athlete – he was a two-sport star. In college, he was the starting point guard for his school’s basketball team, and he was chosen in the NBA draft (but decided to focus on MLB instead).
by Vlad on Jan 29, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad ...
Just a suggestion.
I was once taught that when you make a mistake, don’t make excuses. Just say, “I made a mistake” or “I f’d up”.
I might know a little more about Tony Gwynn than you do. I lived in San Diego from 1970-1985, and I watched Gwynn play basketball at San Diego State and I saw him play his first game at then-San Diego Stadium.
I know quite a bit about Tony Gwynn.
by thegunner on Jan 29, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In the context of an argument that Gwynn was athletic at the beginning of his career, pointing out that he was a CF in his early days seems reasonable and relevant. Vlad never said Gwynn never played RF.
by Charlie on Jan 29, 2009 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know a lot about Tony Gwynn, too, but I’m going to keep it all a secret for now.
by WTM on Jan 29, 2009 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is hardly worth responding to...
…but in case my point was unclear to anyone who isn’t deliberately trying to misunderstand it: Gwynn was a good enough athlete as a young man that he was able to break into the majors as a CF. Simon was a poor enough athlete that he would’ve been a laughingstock as a CF at any age. As such, the two are not exactly equivalent commodities, from a predictive standpoint.
by Vlad on Jan 29, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They were all much better hitters than Simon in the first place.
Well, yeah. Most of those guys weren’t nearly as out of shape as Simon, either. Lombardi was a big guy and immensely strong, but I don’t think he was fat. Ortiz is fat, but he’s also looking really shaky now at age 32 or 33.
The other thing that struck me about Simon, though, was that he was completely dependent on his undoubtedly extraordinary reflexes. He had no approach at the plate at all. He had no strike zone judgment. His swing path was all over the place, so when he made contact he was just as likely to hit the ball straight up into the air as to drive it to the outfield. He was like a guy swatting flies. The way I put it at the time was that I figured he’d have the career progression of a video game player. The slightest slippage in those reflexes, or his ability to get a bat around, and he’d be toast. Since he clearly declined in 2003 (that 90 OPS+ was for the full season, his OPS+ with the Pirates was 85, as a firstbaseman), I figured he was in a decline that would probably accelerate rapidly.
by WTM on Jan 29, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I read one time...
…that Simon learned to play ball by swinging a broomstick at bottle caps.
Given that context, his approach makes a lot of sense, in retrospect.
by Vlad on Jan 29, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, Wilbur
Excellent analysis as always. What feels better, nailing one like that or calling the home run on the pitch? (Not that it ever feels great to be proved right when you say “Pirate X is going to suck,” but …)
by bucdaddy on Jan 29, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s great to think I called that one right, and then I remember that, of all the Pirates’ first round draft picks in the last decade or so, the one I liked the least other than Moskos was Maholm.
by WTM on Jan 29, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I was all knotted up about passing on Michael Aubrey.
by Charlie on Jan 29, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On BTF...
…I actually predicted that we were going to take Moskos on the morning before the draft, by assuming that Littlefield/Creech would make the worst possible decision.
Like Charlie, I wanted Aubrey over Maholm. Of course, who’s to say that Aubrey’s back would’ve become an issue if he’d ended up with us instead of the Indians, or that Maholm wouldn’t have gotten hurt if he’d ended up somewhere else? We like to think we know these things, but a lot of it is guesswork and luck.
by Vlad on Jan 29, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, BTW
Maybe he was just being flip but James wrote that Lombardi, over time, “acquired a huge belly, which he lugged around with a huge effort.” Also that his center of gravity was four feet behind him.
But I’ve learned my lesson. If you say he wasn’t fat, he wasn’t fat. ;-)
by bucdaddy on Jan 29, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gabe Kapler
In Littlefield’s first winter on the job I tracked him down at Piratefest and discovered his best trait: an openness to discussing the team and baseball generally with fans on a one-on-one basis. He was an awful GM, but a hell of a nice guy.
Anyway, at that time I pushing for him to get Gabe Kapler b/c he was a still young, formerly elite prospect that had not yet failed in a fair opportunity at the big league level and he projected as a backup at the time (with Texas, I believe). I even went public with that suggestion at a Q&A. At the time, I felt that Kapler perfectly fit the above description from WTM, which is exactly what we should have been looking for then as secondary acquisitions and exactly what we should be looking for now. DL didn’t do it and it seems that NH isn’t making it a high enought priority either. You’ve gotta put yourself into position to get lucky with a Josh Hamilton type every now and again.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jan 29, 2009 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The earliest batch of NRIs this year was encouraging to me.
Each successive wave has been less so.
by Vlad on Jan 29, 2009 9:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So, who is available...
Who is available that fits the bill as a relatively young player who has yet to live up to his potential? Are there any Carlos Pena types available? Obviously there were guys available in trade that would have looked great on the Pirates. Capps is a much better closer than Gregg. NH could have been able to pull in Ceda, Pie, and Cedeno for him. Pie would have been a starter (how much better would the pitching be with him in center instead of McLouth!) and Cedeno would have pushed Sanchez and Wilson. Give Ceda another year of seasoning and he could have been a valuable bullpen guy.
by uneasy rider on Jan 29, 2009 10:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You're going to hate me for saying this...
…but Andy LaRoche is pretty much a textbook example.
by Vlad on Jan 29, 2009 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
“Where I think Huntington and Coonelly really go wrong, though, if this is an accurate description of their thinking, is imagining there’s a solid line between players who are "true prospects” and those who aren’t. There isn’t. It’s not that the word “prospect” isn’t useful or that I wouldn’t look at you funny if you described, say, Mientkiewicz as a prospect, it’s that there is a class of players who might not be “true prospects” but who nonetheless have some upside—players like Cedeno and Shelton."
You mean guys like Thompson, Salazar, Phillips…? I think they are following the plan you sugggest. They got a bargain on Doung last year and didn’t have any better options at the time. I think Gonzales stuff was created by his agent and not our FO. And there is nothing wrong with getting a Hinske because it will probably force Morgan to the bench and may end up a platoon situation at the end of the year with Pearce. And one thing I think you forgot is that the FO does have an obligation to put the most competitive team possible on the field while staying within their “plan.” With that being said I would rather have a Hinske over a Shelton because there is some upside and better track record on the MLB level. With guys like Helton there is not. I would have liked for us to pick up someone like Cedeneo but Vasques is fine and we don’t really have an expendable Heilman type we can afford to trade.
by Slick1 on Jan 29, 2009 11:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Issue is Starting Pitching Not Position Players
Who we have on the bench (veteran or prospect) will have minimal impact of this year’s team (and possiblly over the next few years) as compared to who we have starting for us. We proved last year that scoring runs (like we did before Bay/X-man left) but having poor starters got us nowhere. As has been discussed, signing a decent starter (if they will play for us) that costs us a draft pick makes no sense.
One comment about “intangibles”. What the Bucs have lacked during this series of losing seasons are players who lay it out every game to win. The desire to win and the wiilingness to do what it takes to win is critical to improving as a player. If Doug M. show guys like Doumit, McLouth, LaRoche (Sr/Jr), McCutheon, Moss, Snell, etc. that you have to play hard every pitch-that to me is worth gving them a roster spot. Much as the Manager can push this, the players have to see others buying into it before them will commit. As much as I like Bay, he never seemed to instill in others any sense of dedication to winning. Jack Wilson, Freddie also don’t seem do this either. Doug M at least left it all on the field. I think he helped Doumit and McLouth improve.
by zogger on Jan 29, 2009 12:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i hope so too haha
BRING BACK TIKE REDMAN
by omar moreno on Jan 29, 2009 12:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i liked doug by the way
but i think robby mackowiak was a great bench player. maybe the best weve had this decade
BRING BACK TIKE REDMAN
by omar moreno on Jan 29, 2009 12:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm kinda surprised that Dougie M hasn't received an offer from another team yet
and I think that NH is likewise surprised… that way he could “save face” with the fans by stating the PBC couldn’t match the $, playing time, and/or postseason opportunities that said “another team” offered Doug.
by humbucker on Jan 29, 2009 12:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Don't completely disagree
I agree with some others here that maybe one of those guys with upside is Pearce, and NH hasn’t truly given up on him or buried him, just laid it on Pearce to improve an important part of his game if he wants to be in Pgh.
It’s a good idea, Charlie, but maybe it’s not practical, even for a bad team. I don’t at all mean to overplay chemistry, but if things break bad, and then the guys you’re trying out turn into embarrassments, the guys you do want to keep might begin doubting the FO’s aptitude. The clubhouse goes downhill. The players you might be able to trade at the deadline can’t produce because they’re pitched around.
Those are all if’s and maybe’s, it’s just that I find it very easy to think things can really go to crap in a hurry with that kind of bench makeup.
by azibuck on Jan 29, 2009 1:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Azibuck...
Pirates management has pretty much indicated…in so many words…that they expect Pearce to start in Indy. After being up with the big club for portions of 2 different season…and the fact that the 2009 version is likely a 100 loss team…I’d say Steven Pearce has pretty much been buried. They played Minky and Michaels…as well as Morgan…ahead of him last year…and it sure looks like they are acquiring players to not allow him to make the team this year.
by Thunder on Jan 29, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know he's starting in Indy
But I doubt he’s completely ruled him out of turning his game around. I’m not a believer in Pearce myself, I’m just saying it’s possible. I guess he’s buried, but he’s probably still got a chance to dig his own way out.
by azibuck on Jan 29, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Those are all if’s and maybe’s, it’s just that I find it very easy to think things can really go to crap in a hurry with that kind of bench makeup.
Didn’t things go to crap pretty quickly last year with a veteran bench? Wasn’t Luis Rivas an embarrassment? If your point is that people would react more negatively if a Ronny Cedeno completely flops as opposed to a Mientkiewicz, I think you’re probably right, but on the field, the result is the same. At this point, I think the fanbase probably runs a real risk of making the team worse, and I hope Bob Nutting has the guts to continue to not listen to them.
by Charlie on Jan 29, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing to do with fans' reaction
Did Mientkiewicz work in his role last year? It doesn’t even out Gomez and Rivas, clearly they were mistakes. But their crappiness was mitigated because we still had Bay and Nady, pretty much proven guys. This year we’ll be starting with question marks. Adding spec players to the bench just seems risky since the odds of them working out is pretty low. And what if Moss and Nyjer are respectable? Then you’re going to use the spec guys as pinch-hitters… when? You can keep sending them to the plate to get overmatched I suppose, but why?
Paulino and Nyjer were the other bench players last year in the beginning, and Paulino showed some past ability, and clearly they liked Nyjer, and while he started poorly, he was very good after being called back up. That’s not quite what you’re suggesting, but they did give in-house candidates a chance to rebound.
I think this will be my last post, hopefully, about the bench until we’re close to opening day. The catcher and Hinske look set. I thought Cruz was a lock but DK indicates in the Q&A he’s on the 40 man bubble. Bixler? Otherwise, I don’t think the last 2-3 bench spots are settled. I’m willing to see how it plays out before I say he can’t build a bench.
by azibuck on Jan 29, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rule 5 guys?
I agree with the idea of using younger guys with more upside for the bench. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to fill the bench with rule 5 guys every year. Until we are contending for the post season, why not?
by wvbucco on Jan 29, 2009 6:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
As opposed to somebody like Cruz or Bixler, who are suited only to being defensive replacements on a team that doesn’t figure to need defensive replacements, it’d make sense to carry at least one Rule 5 guy on the bench.
by WTM on Jan 29, 2009 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















