2012-13 Offseason Discussion

[ballmich]

That KC trade is almost as bad as Randy Smith's Juan Gonzalez one.

I don't think that was a great trade for the Tigers, but it didn't turn out particularly bad. We lost a few years of Catalantto and Cordero, for one-year of JuanGone and a few good years from Patterson.

This could just as easily be something closer to the Cabrera trade, than the JuanGone trade. We just don't know at this point.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

To be comparible with the Cabrera deal, I think it means the Royals have to extend Shields and have him more than 2 years. Not sure I see that happening.

[ballmich]

To be comparible with the Cabrera deal, I think it means the Royals have to extend Shields and have him more than 2 years. Not sure I see that happening.

Not really, because that wasn't part of the trade.

[Shelton]

For it to be comparable to the Cabrera deal, shields would have to be a future hall of famer in his mid twenties, sign an extension prior tithe start of this season ( which is certainly part of the calculus; Cabrera was never going to hit the market after being traded from Florida), and Davis would have to completely forget how to pitch yet inexplicably be given a large amount of starts.

Oh, and Myers, odorizzi, et al. Would all have to amount to nothing, which seems highly unlikely given myers's performance in the high minors that maybin had never shown.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Not really, because that wasn't part of the trade.

It gave the Tigers exclusive negotiating rights with Cabrera, which they exercised.

I would say that for the Shields trade to have similar impact on the Royals as the Cabrera deal did for Detroit, the Royals will have to exercise that right as well.

[ballmich]

For it to be comparable to the Cabrera deal, shields would have to be a future hall of famer in his mid twenties, sign an extension prior tithe start of this season ( which is certainly part of the calculus; Cabrera was never going to hit the market after being traded from Florida), and Davis would have to completely forget how to pitch yet inexplicably be given a large amount of starts.

Oh, and Myers, odorizzi, et al. Would all have to amount to nothing, which seems highly unlikely given myers's performance in the high minors that maybin had never shown.

No that's not part of the calculus. If it was, a lot more trade would happen, and I'm sure we thought we were signing JuanGone to a huge extension as well, but it turns out he didn't want to sign with us. That stuff is all post-trade, and not really a consideration of the trade itself, other than at team knows they will (or won't) make an effort to sign a player to an extension.

[ballmich]

It gave the Tigers exclusive negotiating rights with Cabrera, which they exercised.

I would say that for the Shields trade to have similar impact on the Royals as the Cabrera deal did for Detroit, the Royals will have to exercise that right as well.

We had exlcusive negotiating rights to JuanGone which we exercised too. And he didn't sign with us despite the huge contract offer (which turned out to be a good thing, but fans were pissed at the time, if you recall). The point is, it's not a part of the trade.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

We had exlcusive negotiating rights to JuanGone which we exercised too. And he didn't sign with us despite the huge contract offer (which turned out to be a good thing, but fans were pissed at the time, if you recall). The point is, it's not a part of the trade.

What is your point about the deal being closer to the Cabrera deal than the Gonzalez deal, if all we are looking at is a couple years?

[ballmich]

What is your point about the deal being closer to the Cabrera deal than the Gonzalez deal, if all we are looking at is a couple years?

The point is exactly what I originally stated:

This could just as easily be something closer to the Cabrera trade, than the JuanGone trade. We just don't know at this point.

We don't know if this is like the JuanGone trade, which was perceived to be a bad trade of prospects for major league players. Or it could be more like the Cabrera trade, which was perceived to be a good trade of prospects for major league players. The trade could go in either direction, and we won't know until a couple of years down the road.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

We don't know if this is like the JuanGone trade, which was perceived to be a bad trade of prospects for major league players. Or it could be more like the Cabrera trade, which was perceived to be a good trade of prospects for major league players. The trade could go in either direction, and we won't know until a couple of years down the road.

I don't think anyone argues that we don't know for certain what the future holds. All we can do is take the available information and form an opinion based on what is known today.

I think it is a lousy trade, but concede the possibility exists that Kansas City has made what will be considered a great trade in retrospect.

[pyrotigers]

If Cabrera had left Detroit as a free agent without them ever having made the playoffs with him on the team would we all be going 'oh man that was an awesome trade, thank god we had the 2008 Detroit Tigers season! Yeah!'?

[Gehringer_2]

I don't think anyone argues that we don't know for certain what the future holds. ....

I don't think anyone argues that we don't know for certain what the future holds. .

I don't think anyone argues that we know for certain what the future holds. .

Kewl,

Biggs, you just coined a 'flammable'/'inflammable' phrase where the meaning is the same with or without one of the negations. Those amuse me.....

...now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[Shelton]

No that's not part of the calculus. If it was, a lot more trade would happen, and I'm sure we thought we were signing JuanGone to a huge extension as well, but it turns out he didn't want to sign with us. That stuff is all post-trade, and not really a consideration of the trade itself, other than at team knows they will (or won't) make an effort to sign a player to an extension.

You're using hindsight to provide an example of how the trade could turn out, so the fact they were able to sign a member of the trade to an extension ahead of free agency is just as much a factor as the performance of the players involved. Signing him was an unknown, as was the performance of everyone involved in that trade.

[rhino]

I don't think anyone argues that we don't know for certain what the future holds. .

I don't think anyone argues that we know for certain what the future holds. .

Kewl,

Biggs, you just coined a 'flammable'/'inflammable' phrase where the meaning is the same with or without one of the negations. Those amuse me.....

...now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

I'm missing it. The first sentence seems to imply the opposite of what Biggs meant?

[irvink]

Knobler with the latest on Anibal...

The Dodgers have seemed to be the one team that could be willing to meet Sanchez's asking price (said to be as much as $90 million). The Red Sox and Royals were scared off by the high price, and the Rangers so far haven't shown interest (although they might).

The Tigers would still like to re-sign Sanchez, who pitched well for them after coming over in a July trade with the Mariners. But the Tigers have also made it clear that they don't plan to come anywhere close to Sanchez's asking price.

If no one else does, either, Sanchez would most likely return to the Tigers.

Who's next for big-spending Dodgers? Could be Youk or Anibal - CBSSports.com

[Gehringer_2]

I'm missing it. The first sentence seems to imply the opposite of what Biggs meant?

The meaning of the word "argue" is shifting. In the first case - Bigg's actual line - he is using 'argue' in the sense of "I won't argue that point" or "nobody disagrees with the statement that X" - where X is "we don't know for certain what the future holds". In the second line, where I drop the 'will not', 'argue' is used in the sense of 'make the case for'. "I won't make a case that we know X" - where X is "we know for certain what the future holds.

So the semantics of the word 'argue' shifts between the two sentences in such a way that the meaning stays the same with or without the negation. English never lacks for examples of the strange....

[TheCouga]

Knobler with the latest on Anibal...

Who's next for big-spending Dodgers? Could be Youk or Anibal - CBSSports.com

If the Dodgers are really intent on spending more money, it's hard to see them spending on Sanchez. They already have 7 SP on their roster. Greinke, Kershaw, Ryu, Billingsley, Beckett, Harang, Capuano. Why they would need 8, I don't know. Especially when they still have holes at 3B and 2B. I could see them being a player for Cano next year, but for now, Youkilis makes a lot of sense.

The Angels are a far bigger threat to sign Sanchez. After Weaver and Wilson, the rest of their rotation is mainly question marks. I wouldn't count the Rangers out, either, but I think the Rangers are more likely to try and trade for Dickey.

The only thing I see in our favor is that the Rangers and Angels have aging rosters. Young was dealt and Kinsler/Beltre/Cruz are starting to get old...I can see why they want to trade for Upton. If they get that deal done, it makes more sense to acquire Sanchez and build around an Andrus/Upton/Harrison extension plus Profar/Darvish/Olt, etc. If they can't get Upton, it may make more sense to go all in for the next year or two and just re-sign Hamilton and go for it while Kinsler/Beltre/Cruz still have something left in the tank.

It's hard to see where the Angels are going. They have Trout, Pujols, Weaver, and then a bunch of mediocre players that don't promise to have much value a few years from now. Would paying Sanchez even be worth it for them? It might be if they want to try and win something before Pujols starts (continues?) his age-based decline. It's important to note that the Pujols/Wilson/Weaver contracts are all significantly backloaded, and Trout will get very expensive in arbitration fast. Those four guys will eat up about $100MM in payroll, and they don't have a lot of extra support waiting in the wings. But the way they're constructed, it makes more sense to sign a 2-year stopgap rather than spend lavishly on Sanchez.

[john doe]

I don't think anyone argues that we don't know for certain what the future holds. .

I don't think anyone argues that we know for certain what the future holds. .

Kewl,

Biggs, you just coined a 'flammable'/'inflammable' phrase where the meaning is the same with or without one of the negations. Those amuse me.....

...now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Perfect comparison/analogy/exemplification/..... Symbolization characterized by the relation between a sample and what it refers to, at it's best! Gotta luv it.

[irvink]

If the Dodgers are really intent on spending more money, it's hard to see them spending on Sanchez. They already have 7 SP on their roster. Greinke, Kershaw, Ryu, Billingsley, Beckett, Harang, Capuano. Why they would need 8, I don't know. Especially when they still have holes at 3B and 2B. I could see them being a player for Cano next year, but for now, Youkilis makes a lot of sense.

The Angels are a far bigger threat to sign Sanchez. After Weaver and Wilson, the rest of their rotation is mainly question marks. I wouldn't count the Rangers out, either, but I think the Rangers are more likely to try and trade for Dickey.

The only thing I see in our favor is that the Rangers and Angels have aging rosters. Young was dealt and Kinsler/Beltre/Cruz are starting to get old...I can see why they want to trade for Upton. If they get that deal done, it makes more sense to acquire Sanchez and build around an Andrus/Upton/Harrison extension plus Profar/Darvish/Olt, etc. If they can't get Upton, it may make more sense to go all in for the next year or two and just re-sign Hamilton and go for it while Kinsler/Beltre/Cruz still have something left in the tank.

It's hard to see where the Angels are going. They have Trout, Pujols, Weaver, and then a bunch of mediocre players that don't promise to have much value a few years from now. Would paying Sanchez even be worth it for them? It might be if they want to try and win something before Pujols starts (continues?) his age-based decline. It's important to note that the Pujols/Wilson/Weaver contracts are all significantly backloaded, and Trout will get very expensive in arbitration fast. Those four guys will eat up about $100MM in payroll, and they don't have a lot of extra support waiting in the wings. But the way they're constructed, it makes more sense to sign a 2-year stopgap rather than spend lavishly on Sanchez.

Counting Lily, the Dodgers already have 8 SPs. I agree that Anibal makes little sense for them.

I also agree that the Angels are the team that probably need him the most, but based on their other moves this offseason, I have to wonder if their owner will greenlight the necessary funds to make Sanchez happen.

[Hart]

If the Dodgers are really intent on spending more money, it's hard to see them spending on Sanchez. They already have 7 SP on their roster. Greinke, Kershaw, Ryu, Billingsley, Beckett, Harang, Capuano. Why they would need 8, I don't know. Especially when they still have holes at 3B and 2B. I could see them being a player for Cano next year, but for now, Youkilis makes a lot of sense.

The Angels are a far bigger threat to sign Sanchez. After Weaver and Wilson, the rest of their rotation is mainly question marks. I wouldn't count the Rangers out, either, but I think the Rangers are more likely to try and trade for Dickey.

The only thing I see in our favor is that the Rangers and Angels have aging rosters. Young was dealt and Kinsler/Beltre/Cruz are starting to get old...I can see why they want to trade for Upton. If they get that deal done, it makes more sense to acquire Sanchez and build around an Andrus/Upton/Harrison extension plus Profar/Darvish/Olt, etc. If they can't get Upton, it may make more sense to go all in for the next year or two and just re-sign Hamilton and go for it while Kinsler/Beltre/Cruz still have something left in the tank.

It's hard to see where the Angels are going. They have Trout, Pujols, Weaver, and then a bunch of mediocre players that don't promise to have much value a few years from now. Would paying Sanchez even be worth it for them? It might be if they want to try and win something before Pujols starts (continues?) his age-based decline. It's important to note that the Pujols/Wilson/Weaver contracts are all significantly backloaded, and Trout will get very expensive in arbitration fast. Those four guys will eat up about $100MM in payroll, and they don't have a lot of extra support waiting in the wings. But the way they're constructed, it makes more sense to sign a 2-year stopgap rather than spend lavishly on Sanchez.

The problem is a two year stop gap is going to be a 4 or 5 starter while Sanchez has a good chance to be better than that. If Sanchez goes to the Angels or Rangers, I think that is a huge blow to the Tigers. The Tigers are still weak on defense and the bullpen at this point is shaping up to be a weakness as well IMO. In addition, we are probably going to hit into a crapload of double plays next year. But if we resign Sanchez, I think we have the edge on the other AL contenders. If we lose him, especially to the Angels, then we lose our starting pitching advantage...which was the heart of our playoff push last year.

[TheCouga]

The problem is a two year stop gap is going to be a 4 or 5 starter while Sanchez has a good chance to be better than that. If Sanchez goes to the Angels or Rangers, I think that is a huge blow to the Tigers. The Tigers are still weak on defense and the bullpen at this point is shaping up to be a weakness as well IMO. In addition, we are probably going to hit into a crapload of double plays next year. But if we resign Sanchez, I think we have the edge on the other AL contenders. If we lose him, especially to the Angels, then we lose our starting pitching advantage...which was the heart of our playoff push last year.

I actually think our bullpen looks pretty good, and our OF defense will be pretty good as well. Infante at 2B is a significant improvement over last year. Even without Sanchez, 90 wins is probably doable. Our offense will be significantly better as well.

Winging it this year and then signing either Johnson or Garza next year might be a better idea. Unless of course we can, in fact, get Anibal for a fair price.

[Gehringer_2]

I actually think our bullpen looks pretty good, and our OF defense will be pretty good as well. Infante at 2B is a significant improvement over last year. Even without Sanchez, 90 wins is probably doable. Our offense will be significantly better as well.

Winging it this year and then signing either Johnson or Garza next year might be a better idea. Unless of course we can, in fact, get Anibal for a fair price.

The starting 8 in the field are better this year. The big difference to me is that last year I felt we had a lot of emergency pitching depth with Turner, Crosby and Olliver. If we don't sign Sanchez, going into this year that is down to basically Crosby, Adam Wilk and Zach Miner(?) Now as it turned out, we didn't use any innings from that Toledo crew last year, other than the three - "this is the MLB kid" starts for Turner which we could have done without anyway, so it didn't matter. But one year, sooner or later, it will.

[TigersSlappy]

The starting 8 in the field are better this year. The big difference to me is that last year I felt we had a lot of emergency pitching depth with Turner, Crosby and Olliver. If we don't sign Sanchez, going into this year that is down to basically Crosby, Adam Wilk and Zach Miner(?) Now as it turned out, we didn't use any innings from that Toledo crew last year, other than the three - "this is the MLB kid" starts for Turner which we could have done without anyway, so it didn't matter. But one year, sooner or later, it will.

I may be in the minority but I'd include Belew in the emergency pitching depth.

[gzbach]

The starting 8 in the field are better this year. The big difference to me is that last year I felt we had a lot of emergency pitching depth with Turner, Crosby and Olliver. If we don't sign Sanchez, going into this year that is down to basically Crosby, Adam Wilk and Zach Miner(?) Now as it turned out, we didn't use any innings from that Toledo crew last year, other than the three - "this is the MLB kid" starts for Turner which we could have done without anyway, so it didn't matter. But one year, sooner or later, it will.

Zach Miner is gone.

[TigersSlappy]

Zach Miner is gone.

signed with the Phillies.

[mmmccall]

Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN
Sources: Unless something unexpected pops up, the Dodgers are finished in the market for starting pitching.

[RandyMarsh]

Not really, because that wasn't part of the trade.

Technically it isn't, and I know other people feel the same way you do in that regards but I side more with Biggs on this, and that is that it allows you time to exclusively negotiate with said player and/or make them feel comfortable in your environment. I would be willing to bet that if we never traded for Cabrera and just waited for him to go on the open market we either would've have been outbid or had to pay a helluva more for him than we did.(We probably would've had to go above and beyond like we did with Fielder to outbid everybody) Because at the time Cabrera would've been a FA the Yankees and Red Sox were spending money like crazy. THe Yankees went out and gave A-Rod the biggest contract in sports and signed the 3 top FAs of the 08 class(Sabathia, Tex, Burnett) to like half a billion dollars combined. You don't think they would have been all in on somebody the talent of Cabrera? Same thing with the Red Sox, they desperately were looking for somebody like Cabrera for years before finally getting the Padres to trade A-Gon to them for a boat load of prospects. If Cabrera would've been on the open market they would've been all over that. So I would say that there is a very real chance that Cabrera was never a Tiger long term if we didn't trade for him which is why I think that aspects of trade should be looked at.

[PuNk42AE]

Twins sign Correia for 2 years and 10M

[Vonlenska]

Twins sign Correia for 2 years and 10M

lol

[Tim Mitchell]

Hey KC has good position players. Their rotation is now average. I think its a great trade for the Royals. I think they will now be a .500 club and probably give us fits.

[Tim Mitchell]

I am anxious to see what the Twins end up with when they move Mauer, Morneau, and Willingham.
I hate the Twins.

[ballmich]

lol

Correia's only a tick worse than Guthrie, who commanded 3/$25MM... for ages 34 through 36. If you have a giant hole in the back of your rotation and need someone to throw 150+ innings, you could do worse than Correia. Glad that's not the Tigers though, but it doesn't seem that long ago that we were in that position.

[ballmich]

Post Winter meeting update:
So as of Today, I would make the 25 man as:

Position
1-Avila
2-Pena
3-Fielder
4-Infante
5-Cabrera
6-Peralta
7-Worth
8-Hunter
9-Jackson
10-Dirks
11-Martinez
12-Santiago (DFA if team not made)
13-Berry

Pitchers
1-Verlander
2-Scherzer
3-Fister
4-Smyly
5-Porcello
6-Benoit
7-Dotel
8-Coke
9-Villareal
10-Alburqurque
11-Below
12-Rondon

ST Players fighting to displace one of the bench/BP spots. Unless noted those not making team go to/stay at Toledo.

1-Boesch
2-Kelly (if he signs MiLB contract before season)
3-Kobernus
4-Garcia
5-Bonderman(?) (FA if team not made)
5-Holaday
6-Ramon Cabrera

I think if the team above stays healthy - and Martinez is a major question mark - I would say this starting 25 is overall - better than last season's, and biggest wildcard player being - as he was last yr - Rick Porcello.

I'm not sure how you can carry both Worth and Santiago. Berry is tough given that we should have a RHB to platoon with Dirks (even if not a straight platoon). I think you might have left off the Rule 5 pitcher we selected. If you sign Bonderman, almost certainly it's with the idea of starting off in Toledo (plus I believe he had TJ in April 2012, which means he's not likely to be game ready until May at the earliest).

[Gehringer_2]

... I think you might have left off the Rule 5 pitcher we selected. .

Yes - good catch forget the rule 5s (D'OH!)- who gets the bump? Has to be Villareal or Below. And I'll guess we keep the 3nd LHP. - and we won't carry Santiago and Worth, it will be Santiago and Kobernus.

Probable roster update as of end of winter meetings

Position
1-Avila
2-Pena
3-Fielder
4-Infante
5-Cabrera
6-Peralta
7-Kobernus
8-Hunter
9-Jackson
10-Dirks
11-Martinez
12-Santiago (DFA if team not made)
13-Berry

Pitchers
1-Verlander
2-Scherzer
3-Fister
4-Smyly
5-Porcello
6-Benoit
7-Dotel
8-Coke
9-Lobstein
10-Alburqurque
11-Below
12-Rondon

ST Players fighting to displace one of the bench/BP spots. Unless noted those not making team go to/stay at Toledo.

1-Boesch
2-Kelly (if he signs MiLB contract before season)
3-Villareal
4-Garcia
5-Bonderman(?) (FA if team not made)
5-Holaday
6-Ramon Cabrera
7-Worth

[STLTiger69]

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think that Andy Dirks isn't really that much in need of a RH hitting platoon mate.

For his career here is Dirks splits:

I	Split	G	PA	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	BAbip	tOPS+
	vs RHP as LHB	146	465	429	126	30	5	10	50	26	79	.294	.338	.457	.795	196	5	.339	100
	vs LHP as LHB	67	114	104	30	1	0	5	13	8	10	.288	.345	.442	.787	46	2	.281	99

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/11/2012.

And this is Dirks 2012 splits;

Split	G	PA	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	BAbip
vs RHP as LHB	80	261	241	81	18	5	5	31	15	45	.336	.375	.515	.889	124	.394
vs LHP as LHB	42	83	73	20	0	0	3	4	8	8	.274	.354	.397	.751	29	.274

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/11/2012.


Dirks splits are more prenounced in 2012, but I don't think left handed pitching is lethal Kryptonite to Dirks chances to simply be a full time starter.

[ballmich]

ST Players fighting to displace one of the bench/BP spots. Unless noted those not making team go to/stay at Toledo.

1-Boesch
2-Kelly (if he signs MiLB contract before season)
3-Villareal
4-Garcia
5-Bonderman(?) (FA if team not made)
5-Holaday
6-Ramon Cabrera
7-Worth

You might add the following pitchers as well, given they all saw time in the majors last year: Marte, Downs, Wilk, Putkonen, even Ortega, which would make me hurl.

[ballmich]

Dirks splits are more prenounced in 2012, but I don't think left handed pitching is lethal Kryptonite to Dirks chances to simply be a full time starter.

114 career PA's against LHP isn't really enough to not carry a RHB compliment, just in case. It doesn't have to be a straight platoon, but you'd want some assurance in case that small sample size doesn't hold up.

[Gehringer_2]

...


Dirks splits are more prenounced in 2012, but I don't think left handed pitching is lethal Kryptonite to Dirks chances to simply be a full time starter.

This is likely because JL did not protect Dirks from LHP as much as in '12 as in '11. see: 2012-13 Offseason Discussion

[PuNk42AE]

DKnobler ‏@DKnobler

can confirm @Jim_Duquette report that Tigers were trying hard for Shields before he was traded to Royals.

Wow, wonder what that would have been.

[TigersSlappy]

DKnobler ‏@DKnobler
can confirm @Jim_Duquette report that Tigers were trying hard for Shields before he was traded to Royals.