ShortStop - What are the options?

[ballmich]

I'm not a DD hater, but at the same time, he is known for the easy, lazy move. He always goes with the familiar name, big dollar guy even if they are risky due to age, injury or salary commitment.

I don't agree with your assessment.

[will the thrill]

not sure how Drew manages to get anywhere close to the top 10% OF Shortstops

Zobrist, Jeter, Tulowitzki, Andrus, Reyes, Cabrera, Desmond, Tejada, Escobar, Castro, Rollins, Peralta.

The best idea for this team at Shortstop is to hope Peralta can get back to his normal self (not 2011, his career .264-17-80 self) unless they get a chance to acquire a younger player like Castro or Andrus. Anyone who thinks Stephen Drew is going to come in and save the day is crazy.

[Scottwood]

Despite what UZR might suggest, I think Peralta is horrendous at SS. He won't make many errors, but his range mirrors Derek Jerter's and his arm is very weak. If they can sign Drew to a comparable salary and flip Peralta then I'd do it. If they get a useful player out of Perlata that could contribute in the BP or as a RH OF, then even better.

[will the thrill]

I'm not a DD hater, but at the same time, he is known for the easy, lazy move. He always goes with the familiar name, big dollar guy even if they are risky due to age, injury or salary commitment. I would never expect him to make a move for a Didi Gregorious or Zach Cozart, similar to how he didn't let Delmon walk in order to sign a guy like Dejesus or something along those lines last year.

This describes 99% of "baseball People" I can deal with MLB network and their staff of ex-jocks lately, nobody will ever say anything bad about anyone, Swisher hits .246 and i hear Dan Pleasac say "yeah his average was a little down this year"

[Sports_Freak]

This is my feeling. I hope we sign Drew and trade Peralta, but I'm not expecting a 2008 Drew.

Sometimes the best moves a team makes are no moves at all. Keep Peralta, Nick C. and Garcia. With our limited young talent, you never know who is going to blossom into an All-Star.
If Peralta tanks, we can always make a move at the deadline or next off-season. I'm just really against giving up on young, team controlled talent. Now if there's another Cabby out there, it may be different. But if Upton is so good, why would Arizona want to give him up? As for him being a 2 time All-Star? I didn't look it up, but every team gets at least one player named.

[TheCouga]

But if Upton is so good, why would Arizona want to give him up?

That's kind of begging the question.

There's plenty of reasons Arizona could want to give him up. They could be wrong about their assessment of his value, for one. They could also be wanting to build more for the future. They could also simply desire to swap an OF for an IF because they have less solutions for IF.

They don't know any better than we do what Upton's future will be, so the fact that they're willing to give him up doesn't really tell me anything about his true value at all.

[tiger337]

If Peralta tanks, we can always make a move at the deadline or next off-season. I'm just really against giving up on young, team controlled talent.

Peralta can be traded without giving up young talent.

[Gehringer_2]

Peralta can be traded without giving up young talent.

But by himself he's not going to bring much, so what would be the point?

[sabretooth]

I agree...that's why I want them to trade him now. I think his value is as high as ever.

Castellanos' value as a corner OF is about as much as Upton, given a best case scenario. Except we need performance starting now. I'm not too concerned about Upton's home/road splits. The BOB is offense-friendly, but it can't skew people's numbers that much. I think sometimes hitters just focus better in front of a home crowd or when they're not jet-lagged.

Upton is still young enough that it's quite possible we haven't even seen him at his peak performance. And he's already been an All-Star twice. His contract is very manageable for the next 3 years, too. And his defense is good.

I generally go for the bird-in-hand approach of trading the prospect for the veteran equivalent of what we hope the prospect will become...but in this case I don't see Upton as a very desirable player (OK hitter with better-than-average upside, good-not-great corner OF defense), and his contract is hardly a bargain for a guy with a .730 career road OPS and the chance to be a .800 - .825 OPS hitter.

I'd rather keep our cheap prospects (Nick/Avasail) and see what they can do. I'd pass on Upton if it meant giving up the farm.

[tiger337]

But by himself he's not going to bring much, so what would be the point?

I think he could maybe get them a reliever. Mostly, I just want Peralta gone because I'm pessimistic about his future.

[ballmich]

But by himself he's not going to bring much, so what would be the point?

That seems to be the concensus, but I wonder why this would be the case. He's a starting major league shortstop. And he's by no means one of the worst in the league. He's not signed to a bad contract.

It seems to me that Drew is a pretty good comp when it comes to Peralta, offensively and defensively. And Peralta is less than 1-year older than Drew. What I'm seeing here when I threw out 3/$27MM for Drew, was general acceptance for that kind of contract. If Drew is worth that, than Peralta probably is in that ballpark too.

And if Peralta is in that ballpark, and you can get him on a 1/$6 million contract, that seems like a pretty good deal to me. Seems to me like he should be worth more than a reliever or 4th OF type. I'm not saying he is, just that it seems to me that he should be.

[Gehringer_2]

That seems to be the concensus, but I wonder why this would be the case. He's a starting major league shortstop. And he's by no means one of the worst in the league. He's not signed to a bad contract.

It seems to me that Drew is a pretty good comp when it comes to Peralta, offensively and defensively. And Peralta is less than 1-year older than Drew. What I'm seeing here when I threw out 3/$27MM for Drew, was general acceptance for that kind of contract. If Drew is worth that, than Peralta probably is in that ballpark too.

And if Peralta is in that ballpark, and you can get him on a 1/$6 million contract, that seems like a pretty good deal to me. Seems to me like he should be worth more than a reliever or 4th OF type. I'm not saying he is, just that it seems to me that he should be.

What I am finding so curious on this board is the disconnect between the support for Trout's MVP campaign, based largely on the boost his WAR gets from his defensive metrics, and the unwillingness of so many people to accept those same defensive metrics wrt Peralta. Jhonny outranks Drew defensively pretty consistently both by UZR and FRAA. From a statistical perspective, if either or both of those measures have any value, the probability that Peralta outranks Drew in both but yet is a clearly inferior fielder (the argument made pretty universally in this thread) should be very low.

I haven't watched Drew play enough to offer any eye-ball ranking of my own. I do think Peralta gets knocked at least in part because he doesn't dive much -- which is probably valid, but also because his style of body movement is very fluid. This makes it look like he is moving slower and throwing less hard than other guys that have a choppy physical style - which looks faster to the naked eye, but may not be in total.

Just curious.

[4hzglory]

That seems to be the concensus, but I wonder why this would be the case. He's a starting major league shortstop. And he's by no means one of the worst in the league. He's not signed to a bad contract.

It seems to me that Drew is a pretty good comp when it comes to Peralta, offensively and defensively. And Peralta is less than 1-year older than Drew. What I'm seeing here when I threw out 3/$27MM for Drew, was general acceptance for that kind of contract. If Drew is worth that, than Peralta probably is in that ballpark too.

And if Peralta is in that ballpark, and you can get him on a 1/$6 million contract, that seems like a pretty good deal to me. Seems to me like he should be worth more than a reliever or 4th OF type. I'm not saying he is, just that it seems to me that he should be.

I agree. I think we could get at worst a decent prospect with some upside for Peralta - i.e. some other teams Garcia/or pre 2012 Smyly + another mid prospect. Or he could likely save sending Garcia to AZ if DD wanted to go after Upton with Castellanos and Peralta as the primary chips. There just aren't that many avg/slightly above avg SS/3b out there who are signed for $6 mil.

[Scottwood]

What I am finding so curious on this board is the disconnect between the support for Trout's MVP campaign, based largely on the boost his WAR gets from his defensive metrics, and the unwillingness of so many people to accept those same defensive metrics wrt Peralta. Jhonny outranks Drew defensively pretty consistently both by UZR and FRAA. From a statistical perspective, if either or both of those measures have any value, the probability that Peralta outranks Drew in both but yet is a clearly inferior fielder (the argument made pretty universally in this thread) should be very low.

I haven't watched Drew play enough to offer any eye-ball ranking of my own. I do think Peralta gets knocked at least in part because he doesn't dive much -- which is probably valid, but also because his style of body movement is very fluid. This makes it look like he is moving slower and throwing less hard than other guys that have a choppy physical style - which looks faster to the naked eye, but may not be in total.

Just curious.

Check the Fan Scouting Reports on both players with respect to what UZR and DRS says. Trout ranks high across the board. Peralta rates as average with DRS, very good with UZR and one of the worst starting defensive SS in MLB according to the Fan Scouting Report.

[Gehringer_2]

Check the Fan Scouting Reports on both players with respect to what UZR and DRS says. Trout ranks high across the board. Peralta rates as average with DRS, very good with UZR and one of the worst starting defensive SS in MLB according to the Fan Scouting Report.

so what to make of all that? Do fans know what they are looking at or not? In general quantitative folks think the fans don't know jack about what they are looking at. In many respects I agree - I would judge a large number of the plays that appear in highlight reels (particularly when it come to OF) are guys exhibiting great athleticism on plays were it should have been unnecessary if the skill level had been higher.

If you extrapolate that general principle, it means that most fans are going to rank players based on athleticism instead of actual plays made - they are not going to be the same.

To put it in quantitative terms: if a one shortstop has better ball reading skill to the point where his brain concludes where the ball will be 100 milliseconds faster than another (a difference not out of the realm of likelyhood) and if he has good form and body balance, he can break sooner and will probably be able to cover roughly 2 more feet toward the ball than the slower perceptioned competitor. If the second player is more athletic and gets to the ball by virtue of a dive and pop-up throw, he will look like a better SS than the first player, but he is not. And by the naked eye even a trained/disciplined observer will be extremely hard pressed to see that. At least as I understand it, that is the whole purpose of trying to use a 'zone' concept in advanced defensive evaluation.

[tiger337]

What I am finding so curious on this board is the disconnect between the support for Trout's MVP campaign, based largely on the boost his WAR gets from his defensive metrics, and the unwillingness of so many people to accept those same defensive metrics wrt Peralta. Jhonny outranks Drew defensively pretty consistently both by UZR and FRAA. From a statistical perspective, if either or both of those measures have any value, the probability that Peralta outranks Drew in both but yet is a clearly inferior fielder (the argument made pretty universally in this thread) should be very low.

I haven't watched Drew play enough to offer any eye-ball ranking of my own. I do think Peralta gets knocked at least in part because he doesn't dive much -- which is probably valid, but also because his style of body movement is very fluid. This makes it look like he is moving slower and throwing less hard than other guys that have a choppy physical style - which looks faster to the naked eye, but may not be in total.

Just curious.

Peralta's metrics are All over the place while Trout is consistently high across the board. Thus, I'm more inclined to believe what the metrics say about Trout than Peralta. Also, the fan scouting report givers high marks to Trout compared to other center fielders. Peralta gets mediocre marks from Tigers fans on the Fan Scouting report.

I don't think that Peralta is a horrible fielder. He has bad range and a bad arm, but makes up for it by being steady. He was probably about average or slightly below average last year, but looking old and probably trending downward. I could not care less if he dives for balls. Jackson never dives for balls and I think he's a good defender. Whitaker and Trammell didn't dive for balls either.

I do not think Drew is a lot better than Peralta defensively. However, If he's fully healthy, I think he probably has more left than Peralta offensively and defensively.

[tiger337]

so what to make of all that? Do fans know what they are looking at or not? In general quantitative folks think the fans don't know jack about what they are looking at. In many respects I agree - I would judge a large number of the plays that appear in highlight reels (particularly when it come to OF) are guys exhibiting great athleticism on plays were it should have been unnecessary if the skill level had been higher.

.

I don't think the Fan Scouting Report is a bunch of fans going off highlights. For the most part, I believe it is Tigers fans who watch a lot of games rating Tigers fielders and Angels fans who watch a lot games ratiing Angels fielders. Do I fully trust them? No, but I think it's a useful data point to add to the quantitative stuff.

[Gehringer_2]

Peralta's metrics are All over the place while Trout is consistently high across the board. Thus, I'm more inclined to believe what the metrics say about Trout than Peralta. Also, the fan scouting report givers high marks to Trout compared to other center fielders. Peralta gets mediocre marks from Tigers fans on the Fan Scouting report.

I don't think that Peralta is a horrible fielder. He has bad range and a bad arm, but makes up for it by being steady. He was probably about average or slightly below average last year, but looking old and probably trending downward. I could not care less if he dives for balls. Jackson never dives for balls and I think he's a good defender. Whitaker and Trammell didn't dive for balls either.

I do not think Drew is a lot better than Peralta defensively. However, If he's fully healthy, I think he probably has more left than Peralta offensively and defensively.

Peralta has been a case that has me rethinking some of my view on defensive metrics a little. As for fan ratings, I would be more skeptical of the average fan's defensive ratings, especially for IFs. I think we've discussed this in more detail in the past and IIRC the difficulty of assessing IF range at anything but the crudest level seemed to be a point of general agreement.

And speaking of rankings being all over the place: I noted that Drew, Peralta, Jeter, Wilson - all had bad zone range numbers in the 2007-2008 period. Aren't UZRs normallized for position each year? That becomes a real weakness at least for the purposes of a discussion like this as it leaves a question as to whether a player is really inconsistent at a particular position over time, or if numbers are jumping around because other very good or bad players are entering or leaving the league.

[Shinzaki]

Not looking to argue defensive stats or anything...but...my eyeball test (been watching and playing baseball since 1970) conducted during the ALCS says that Drew is a better defensive SS that Jhonny Peralta.

[tiger337]

And speaking of rankings being all over the place: I noted that Drew, Peralta, Jeter, Wilson - all had bad zone range numbers in the 2007-2008 period. Aren't UZRs normallized for position each year? That becomes a real weakness at least for the purposes of a discussion like this as it leaves a question as to whether a player is really inconsistent at a particular position over time, or if numbers are jumping around because other very good or bad player are entering or leaving the league.

I would say if a player is staying the same, but is getting worse in comparison to league average, then he his costing his team runs in the years that he is below average. It's similar to a hitter that hits the same number of home runs even though the balls are livelier in a given year. Of course, if the question is whether or not a player is declining physically, then rankings against league average are a problem.

I guess I would be more skeptical of the average fan's defensive ratings, especially for IFs. I think we've discussed this in more detail in the past and IIRC the difficulty of assessing IF range at anything but the crudest level seemed to be a point of general agreement.

But if all the data point (quantitative and qualitative) to a player being a great fielder, it gives me more confidence that he's a great fielder. If the data are all over the place like with Peralta, then it becomes harder to make a conclusion one way or the other and I'm forced to rely more on observation and anecdotes.

[TigersSlappy]

Not looking to argue defensive stats or anything...but...my eyeball test (been watching and playing baseball since 1970) conducted during the ALCS says that Drew is a better defensive SS that Jhonny Peralta.

I see more of a consensus that Drew will be or has the potential to be a better defensive player going forward, especially as he gets further from his injury.

[clemma]

I know he has a reputation as being a douche bag, but I'd prefer Yunel Escobar at SS.

[Nastradamus]

I'd love to snag Escobar. Not sure what he'd cost, but Florida would definitely move him.

Prospects for Escobar, Peralta for Andrew Bailey.

[Gehringer_2]

I don't think the Fan Scouting Report is a bunch of fans going off highlights. For the most part, I believe it is Tigers fans who watch a lot of games rating Tigers fielders and Angels fans who watch a lot games ratiing Angels fielders. Do I fully trust them? No, but I think it's a useful data point to add to the quantitative stuff.

The highlight reel point was just an illustration of the principle that athleticism looks more impressive than more subtle skills. After all, the TV guys are also just fans at heart, and what they find impressive is probably not much different from what the typical knowledgable fan finds impressive. But wrt UZR, I doubt that many fans, even serious ones, have a stop watch and zone grid in front of them when they watch the game, which is about the only way I would think their observations would trump the zone observations of BIS stringers over issues of 100 milliseconds or less. Now I could certainly be persuaded that neither the fans nor the stringers were very accurate, but assuming the stringers get some training in observation technique, tools, and theory, I don't think I'd be likely to believe the fans *over* the stringers in almost any case.

[tiger337]

The highlight reel point was just an illustration of the principle that athleticism looks more impressive than more subtle skills. After all, the TV guys are also just fans at heart, and what they find impressive is probably not much different from what the typical knowledgable fan finds impressive. But wrt UZR, I doubt that many fans, even serious ones, have a stop watch and zone grid in front of them when they watch the game, which is about the only way I would think their observations would trump the zone observations of BIS stringers over issues of 100 milliseconds or less. Now I could certainly be persuaded that neither the fans nor the stringers were very accurate, but assuming the stringers get some training in observation technique, tools, and theory, I don't think I'd be likely to believe the fans *over* the stringers in almost any case.

Your opinion here seems to differ from a lot of your past posts where you express disagreement with the fielding numbers and explain why you think a player is better or worse than numbers suggest. While I basically agree with your current thoughts, I can see one potential advantage of the fan vote. They are supposedly evaluating skills whereas the numbers are intended to measure performance. A stringer might observe that a player has a bad arm, but as long as he makes plays in a particular year, that does not matter to him. However, if performance varies a lot from year to year, the observation of skills might say more about his future performance than the recording of performance.

[Gehringer_2]

Your opinion here seems to differ from a lot of your past posts where you express disagreement with the fielding numbers and explain why you think a player is better or worse than numbers suggest.

I was waiting for that! I would put it this way. I don't think the unaided/untrained human eye is in general capable of detecting things like who gets to the most ground balls - for the reasons I've noted. Perception is not good at detecting the lag time differential to a fielder's first step (especially since most fans are looking at the hitter the moment the ball is struck and in replays you almost never see the batter and fielder in together in time), and style of motion is also deceptive. I've seen the demonstration of this from an unrelated area (martial arts).

Now, all that said, I will defend the ability of some one who pays enough attention to baseball to make some reasonable 1st order judgments about things by eye, but I would say that many of these judgments are inferential or indirect - not based on judgments of individual plays and also in general they apply more to outfielders than infielders (our previous discussions were about AJax). For instance: Does the player exhibit the complete skill set for his position? Is his footwork correct? If a player exhibits the skill set of his position it is usually a reasonable inference that his performance at making outs is going to be good, that is why they teach those skills for that position after all! But this is admittedly a purely circumstantial argument. It only gives you a probability that you still want to see confirmed by other means. I do think conclusions on the converse are probably more reliable - (which is what I usually am arguing by eye). If a player hasn't mastered the skills, it will be hard for him to perform well. My favorite example being that if an outfielder cannot basket catch I absolutely know his range is a few feet less than another player with that same jump and foot speed. And in the most trivial case, you can certainly judge after a few attempts that a fielder has an inaccurate arm.

But other things are purely inferential - it is very difficult to judge the speed of throw across the diamond in time, but if you understand that looking at the arc of the throw tells you about the velocity, then you are capable of a more sophisticated level of observation. And with IFs, you have to consider total time, not just time of flight. Some IFs take a little longer to set up a throw but then throw harder - which actually gets there quicker? Very hard to judge by eye. Here again, easier with an OF, since for an OF I know I should take the stronger throw every time because time of flight is much longer for an OF throw compared to set-up, but for a 2b that might be a much more debatable question. Yet I would argue that in most cases a fan will judge the player with a quicker release as the more skilled IF. I think most of us had to be taught by George and Ernie that Aurelio Rodriguez really did get the ball there quicker even with that almost lazy looking prelude to his release.

Now, if you care to, you can watch a particular player in isolation. From that you can start to see if an outfielder gets good jumps or takes optimum routes (and again this applies primarily to OFs and is harder with IFs). I just doubt many of the fans that vote in on-line polls observe the game and the players in these more abstract ways that are required to make useful observations. Almost by definition you have to stop watching the game for the game to watch these things - you are viewing more in the mode of an umpire, which is not a perspective I believe the average fan takes very often.

But primarily with regard to middle infield range, which is the point of departure for Peralta, I would never trust an unaided human eye to detect the difference between the total time and distance covered by two different IFs without some kind of instrumentality except in the grossest cases - e.g Deivi Cruz after the ankle injury ! I would much rather trust the logic of statistics on his plays made and I don't think I have ever claimed otherwise on that particular point. And if I did I was wrong!

[tiger337]

I was waiting for that! I would put it this way. I don't think the unaided/untrained human eye is in general capable of detecting things like who gets to the most ground balls - for the reasons I've noted. Perception is not good at detecting the lag time differential to a fielder's first step (especially since most fans are looking at the hitter the moment the ball is struck and in replays you almost never see the batter and fielder in together in time), and style of motion is also deceptive. I've seen the demonstration of this from an unrelated area (martial arts).

Now, all that said, I will defend the ability of some one who pays enough attention to baseball to make some reasonable 1st order judgments about things by eye, but I would say that many of these judgments are inferential or indirect - not based on judgments of individual plays and also in general they apply more to outfielders than infielders (our previous discussions were about AJax). For instance: Does the player exhibit the complete skill set for his position? Is his footwork correct? If a player exhibits the skill set of his position it is usually a reasonable inference that his performance at making outs is going to be good, that is why they teach those skills for that position after all! But this is admittedly a purely circumstantial argument. It only gives you a probability that you still want to see confirmed by other means. I do think conclusions on the converse are probably more reliable - (which is what I usually am arguing by eye). If a player hasn't mastered the skills, it will be hard for him to perform well. My favorite example being that if an outfielder cannot basket catch I absolutely know his range is a few feet less than another player with that same jump and foot speed. And in the most trivial case, you can certainly judge after a few attempts that a fielder has an inaccurate arm.

But other things are purely inferential - it is very difficult to judge the speed of throw across the diamond in time, but if you understand that looking at the arc of the throw tells you about the velocity, then you are capable of a more sophisticated level of observation. And with IFs, you have to consider total time, not just time of flight. Some IFs take a little longer to set up a throw but then throw harder - which actually gets there quicker? Very hard to judge by eye. Here again, easier with an OF, since for an OF I know I should take the stronger throw every time because time of flight is much longer for an OF throw compared to set-up, but for a 2b that might be a much more debatable question. Yet I would argue that in most cases a fan will judge the player with a quicker release as the more skilled IF. I think most of us had to be taught by George and Ernie that Aurelio Rodriguez really did get the ball there quicker even with that almost lazy looking prelude to his release.

Now, if you care to, you can watch a particular player in isolation. From that you can start to see if an outfielder gets good jumps or takes optimum routes (and again this applies primarily to OFs and is harder with IFs). I just doubt many of the fans that vote in on-line polls observe the game and the players in these more abstract ways that are required to make useful observations. Almost by definition you have to stop watching the game for the game to watch these things - you are viewing more in the mode of an umpire, which is not a perspective I believe the average fan takes very often.

But primarily with regard to middle infield range, which is the point of departure for Peralta, I would never trust an unaided human eye to detect the difference between the total time and distance covered by two different IFs without some kind of instrumentality except in the grossest cases - e.g Deivi Cruz after the ankle injury. I would much rather trust the logic of statistics on his plays made and I don't think I have ever claimed otherwise on that particular point. And if I did I was wrong!

Thanks for your explanation. The original question was why we would trust the numbers on Trout, but not Peralta. It seems the numbers universally show Trout as a plus fielder whereas Peralta is all over the place. Thus, I'm more willing to believe that Trout is a good fielder and less willing to say anything definitive about Peralta. Then I added the fan scouting report as additional evidence. It sounds like you are saying that you would trust the Angels fans evaluation of Trout more than the Tigers fans evaluation of Peralta.

[Gehringer_2]

Thanks for your explanation. The original question was why we would trust the numbers on Trout, but not Peralta. It seems the numbers universally show Trout as a plus fielder whereas Peralta is all over the place. Thus, I'm more willing to believe that Trout is a good fielder and less willing to say anything definitive about Peralta. Then I added the fan scouting report as additional evidence. It sounds like you are saying that you would trust the Angels fans evaluation of Trout more than the Tigers fans evaluation of Peralta.

Well, we do have to take into account that those are Southern Californians watching Trout.......

[tiger337]

Well, we do have to take into account that those are Southern Californians watching Trout.......

They do miss the last three innings of every game, but six innings is probably adequate for assessing fielding skills!

[TigersSlappy]

Yankees/Peralta?

Two other infielders – free agent Marco Scutaro and Detroit shortstop Jhonny Peralta - might be even better fits for the Yankees due to their greater experience playing both short and third.

The Tigers, after exercising Peralta’s $6 million club option for 2013, are willing to trade him if they can find a more athletic shortstop. But they have not spoken with the Yankees, sources say.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/a...umbered-112412

[Sven Draconian]

"It's always better to get rid of a player 2 years early than one year late."
-Branch Rickey

Peralta is coming off a bad season and is about to play his age 31 season.

It's interesting because both players have an obvious outlier. If you remove Peralta's 2011 season, he is about a 90 OPS+ hitter with an OBP in the .315 range in his recent past.

Other than his 40 games with Arizona this season, Drew is a 95ish OPS+ hitter that ill post a .325ish OBP with better defense than Peralta.

*IF* you can deal Peralta for a mid tier prospect (not unreasonable considering he is an upgrade for several teams, there's a shortage on the market and he can also play 3rd base.... all on a nice, tidy contract) and sign Drew to a comparable deal (2 years at 7 million per, with a mutual/team option for a 3rd) it would be foolish not to do it. You get comparable (probably better) player and a prospect for a marginal increase in $ as well as a something else (ideally a prospect, maybe a bullpen arm).

[STLTiger69]

"It's always better to get rid of a player 2 years early than one year late."
-Branch Rickey

Peralta is coming off a bad season and is about to play his age 31 season.

It's interesting because both players have an obvious outlier. If you remove Peralta's 2011 season, he is about a 90 OPS+ hitter with an OBP in the .315 range in his recent past.

Other than his 40 games with Arizona this season, Drew is a 95ish OPS+ hitter that ill post a .325ish OBP with better defense than Peralta.

*IF* you can deal Peralta for a mid tier prospect (not unreasonable considering he is an upgrade for several teams, there's a shortage on the market and he can also play 3rd base.... all on a nice, tidy contract) and sign Drew to a comparable deal (2 years at 7 million per, with a mutual/team option for a 3rd) it would be foolish not to do it. You get comparable (probably better) player and a prospect for a marginal increase in $ as well as a something else (ideally a prospect, maybe a bullpen arm).

Let me again play devils advocate here and point a few things out;

First, age-wise, Peralta and Drew are seperated by only about 10 months. So if anyone wants to talk about Peralta getting older, fine, Drew is 29 years old and Peralta is 30 years old. Also if you want to say Peralta is coming off a bad season (which would be true), how would you describe Drew's previous two years?

Secondly, here's something I don't understand. Everyone is saying Drew is a better shortstop because he has better range, better arm, bla, bla,...ok..fine. Now here's my question, if Drew was healthy enough to be a better shortstop in the field than Peralta was this year, can somone please explain what happened to Drew's bat? Whenever anybody says, "Excuse me, Drew's hitting numbers sucked for the last two years..." the refrain is always "We'll Drew had this horrible ankle fracture..." Really?

Let me point this out, Drew sucked with the bat after the injury AND BEFORE the injury.

Year	Age	Tm	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+
2010	27	ARI	151	565	83	157	33	12	15	61	10	5	62	108	.278	.352	.458	.810	113
2011	28	ARI	86	321	44	81	21	5	5	45	4	4	30	74	.252	.317	.396	.713	93
2012	29	TOT	79	287	38	64	13	1	7	28	1	2	37	76	.223	.309	.348	.657	79
162 Game Avg.			162	612	83	162	36	10	15	70	7	3	58	121	.265	.328	.433	.762	96

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 11/24/2012.



So yes, Peralta had a down year, but he also PLAYED 150 games vs Drew's 79 total games for 2012 who was coming back from a fractured ankle that took round about 11 months to heal.

Speaking of time to heal, take a look at this comment;

Stephen Drew makes rehab start days after criticism by Diamondbacks owner - MLB - Sporting News

In an interview on XTRA Radio in Phoenix on June 5th, Ken Kendrick, managing general partner of the Diamondbacks made it clear he thought Drew should be back already.

"I'm going to be real direct about Stephen (Drew). I think Stephen should have been out there playing before now, frankly," Kendrick said. "I, for one, am disappointed. I'm going to be real candid and say Stephen and his representatives are more focused on where Stephen is going to be a year from now than on going out and supporting the team that's paying his salary."


Two days later on June 7th, Drew reported to the AA Reno Aces for his rehab assignment. Coincidence? I'm not sure but it is interesting...


Also let's talk for a minute about Drew's price tag. Drew is the top free agent SS available for 2012. Jonny Gomes who is a OF/DH just signed a 2 year/$5M per year deal, and he's a part time DH/OF. Peralta is making $6M this year that Tiger fans call "team friendly" yet a Scott Boras agent client in Drew will be happy to sign a $7M per year deal for say 2 years with a "mutual option" for a 3rd year? I just don't see it happening. My guess is he's looking for more than $10M per year and if the open market can't give Drew that, he and Mr. Boras are going to take the next best thing for a single year and that is that.


Lastly, this concept of a "mid level prospect" is sort of fun too. Are pitchers for the Tigers like Adam Wilk, Jose Ortega or Andy Oliver considered top or mid level prospects? Because if your looking for a player that might be able to help the Tigers you might be better off just getting a ML free agent player right now than trying to get a "mid level prospect" for Peralta and hoping for the best sometime down the road from that prospect. Peralta is not the player you trade to restock your depleated farm system.

LOL, Ok, I've got it out of my system, Thanks!!!!

[tiger337]

Some good points have been made in this thread for Peralta versus Drew. I still prefer Drew, but part of it is because I don't like watching Peralta play offensively or defensively. Given his poor approach at the plate, I sense he'll be the type of player who doesn't last long into his thirties. I think Drew has a better chance at being a .750 OPS guy for the next couple of years.

[RandyMarsh]

Some good points have been made in this thread for Peralta versus Drew. I still prefer Drew, but part of it is because I don't like watching Peralta play offensively or defensively. Given his poor approach at the plate, I sense he'll be the type of player who doesn't last long into his thirties. I think Drew has a better chance at being a .750 OPS guy for the next couple of years.

I agree with this but I think STLTigers brought up a good point about salaries. We're all expecting Drew to come at a reasonable price but if Gomes got 2/10, why would the clear top SS bring anything close to that? If we could get Drew for close to Peralta's AAV(say 2/14) than I'd probably go with Drew and trade Peralta. But I think Drew is going to be alot more expensive than we think, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a 2/20MM or something along those lines.

[tiger337]

I agree with this but I think STLTigers brought up a good point about salaries. We're all expecting Drew to come at a reasonable price but if Gomes got 2/10, why would the clear top SS bring anything close to that? If we could get Drew for close to Peralta's AAV(say 2/14) than I'd probably go with Drew and trade Peralta. But I think Drew is going to be alot more expensive than we think, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a 2/20MM or something along those lines.

I think Drew will be expensive, but that doesn't concern me if it doesn't concern DD and Illitch. The only contractual thing that concerns me is the length of the contract. Two years would be OK. Three years might not be.

[RandyMarsh]

Saw this "beauty" of a trade proposal on ESPN. This guy proposes we trade Peralta, Castellanos, Garcia and Crosby for Hardy, Jim Johnson and Troy Patton. Now I'd definitely rather have Hardy over Peralta and I would like to have Johnson in our bullpen but in no way is that worth Castellanos, Garcia and Crosby. If DD did that I think I'd lose it.

Five blockbuster trade suggestions - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

[irvink]

Saw this "beauty" of a trade proposal on ESPN. This guy proposes we trade Peralta, Castellanos, Garcia and Crosby for Hardy, Jim Johnson and Troy Patton. Now I'd definitely rather have Hardy over Peralta and I would like to have Johnson in our bullpen but in no way is that worth Castellanos, Garcia and Crosby. If DD did that I think I'd lose it.

Five blockbuster trade suggestions - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

Saw that. Absurd. Could be a fair deal if you take out Castellanos.

[RandyMarsh]

Saw that. Absurd. Could be a fair deal if you take out Castellanos.

Yeah if they took out Castellanos I'd probably consider it but even then I don't know if I'd do it. I consider Peralta and Hardy to be almost equal, and I don't think Garcia and Crosby is worth a reliever that K's less than 6 per 9 innings. Now if the Orioles switched Hardy for Machado than I'd do it in a heartbeat but of course they'd never do that.

[Sven Draconian]

Let me again play devils advocate here and point a few things out;

First, age-wise, Peralta and Drew are seperated by only about 10 months. So if anyone wants to talk about Peralta getting older, fine, Drew is 29 years old and Peralta is 30 years old. Also if you want to say Peralta is coming off a bad season (which would be true), how would you describe Drew's previous two years?

Secondly, here's something I don't understand. Everyone is saying Drew is a better shortstop because he has better range, better arm, bla, bla,...ok..fine. Now here's my question, if Drew was healthy enough to be a better shortstop in the field than Peralta was this year, can somone please explain what happened to Drew's bat? Whenever anybody says, "Excuse me, Drew's hitting numbers sucked for the last two years..." the refrain is always "We'll Drew had this horrible ankle fracture..." Really?

Let me point this out, Drew sucked with the bat after the injury AND BEFORE the injury.

Year	Age	Tm	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+
2010	27	ARI	151	565	83	157	33	12	15	61	10	5	62	108	.278	.352	.458	.810	113
2011	28	ARI	86	321	44	81	21	5	5	45	4	4	30	74	.252	.317	.396	.713	93
2012	29	TOT	79	287	38	64	13	1	7	28	1	2	37	76	.223	.309	.348	.657	79
162 Game Avg.			162	612	83	162	36	10	15	70	7	3	58	121	.265	.328	.433	.762	96

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 11/24/2012.



So yes, Peralta had a down year, but he also PLAYED 150 games vs Drew's 79 total games for 2012 who was coming back from a fractured ankle that took round about 11 months to heal.

Speaking of time to heal, take a look at this comment;

Stephen Drew makes rehab start days after criticism by Diamondbacks owner - MLB - Sporting News

In an interview on XTRA Radio in Phoenix on June 5th, Ken Kendrick, managing general partner of the Diamondbacks made it clear he thought Drew should be back already.

"I'm going to be real direct about Stephen (Drew). I think Stephen should have been out there playing before now, frankly," Kendrick said. "I, for one, am disappointed. I'm going to be real candid and say Stephen and his representatives are more focused on where Stephen is going to be a year from now than on going out and supporting the team that's paying his salary."


Two days later on June 7th, Drew reported to the AA Reno Aces for his rehab assignment. Coincidence? I'm not sure but it is interesting...


Also let's talk for a minute about Drew's price tag. Drew is the top free agent SS available for 2012. Jonny Gomes who is a OF/DH just signed a 2 year/$5M per year deal, and he's a part time DH/OF. Peralta is making $6M this year that Tiger fans call "team friendly" yet a Scott Boras agent client in Drew will be happy to sign a $7M per year deal for say 2 years with a "mutual option" for a 3rd year? I just don't see it happening. My guess is he's looking for more than $10M per year and if the open market can't give Drew that, he and Mr. Boras are going to take the next best thing for a single year and that is that.


Lastly, this concept of a "mid level prospect" is sort of fun too. Are pitchers for the Tigers like Adam Wilk, Jose Ortega or Andy Oliver considered top or mid level prospects? Because if your looking for a player that might be able to help the Tigers you might be better off just getting a ML free agent player right now than trying to get a "mid level prospect" for Peralta and hoping for the best sometime down the road from that prospect. Peralta is not the player you trade to restock your depleated farm system.

LOL, Ok, I've got it out of my system, Thanks!!!!

Right, Drew had a down season last year. However, he really only had "down" first half of his season (.290 OBP and an OPS+ of 60) with Arizona. When he went to Oakland he posted a .326 OBP and 97 OPS+). When taken in conjunction with his 2011 line (.317 OBP, 93 OPS+). You can interpret Drew's season a few different ways. You can make an excuse for him (he snapped his ankle and it took time to get back) or you can view the season in the context of he had a poor 40 game stretch without having the benefit of 120 games to cover it up to level out his stats. (IE, a large enough sample size).

In fact, if you were to cut down Peralta's season down to July and onward his OBP drops to .280 and his OPS+ drops into the 70 range (you know, worse than Stephen Drew).

So to me, Peralta having a down year playing 150 games is significantly more worrying than Drew having a down year only playing 80. Peralta had a much larger sample size to make his numbers reflect his skills.

[Nastradamus]

This thread has convinced me that signing Drew would be a bad idea. He's just not that good, almost certainly not an upgrade(other than in the sense that he's not the devil we know) and he'll be more expensive. Plus we are talking about then dumping Peralta for practically nothing. No thank you.