Jump to content

Joec03

Tigers Scouting Dan Haren

Recommended Posts

And if you say I am overvaluing our own prospects, I remember (along with 84Lives) defending the rationale behind the Moore/Farnsworth and Ross/Coyler trades. One of which turned out good for us and one which definitely didn't, but neither really kept us from the post season, but you could probably argue that the Farnsworth trade (and subsequent trade with Atlanta) helped us get there in 2006 as Miner's first few starts were pretty important to us getting the wildcard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I would agree with that.

So... forget the "moot" comment I made and go back to the regularly scheduled programming of "Zumaya versus Perry: Who to Keep?"

Tough vote... depends on perspective. Win this year perspective = keep Zumaya. Build team for the future = keep Perry. Although there may be those who still vote for Zumaya over Perry regardless of perspective (I could be one of those...).

I think this team is sort of in the middle of those two perspectives. We have a great chance this year; and DD is in the middle of rebuilding the team for the future.

So... I can't decide which way to vote... but I would lean towards Zumaya.

I guess I question if Zumaya is really going to be better than Perry the last half of the season. Especially if he is abandoning his curve for a slider that he hasn't really thrown. I think and hopefully am wrong that we may have seen the best of Zumaya for 2010 already and would definitely include him in a package over Perry. He definitely has not shown anywhere close to the control he did at the start of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) And by consider it, I mean I would be very surprised and disappointed if he didn't jump on it.

2) If Porcello is included, I think we have to get Drew also. If it is just Haren, I am very hesitant to include Porcello and there better not be any other significant pieces going from our way IMO. I do not question that Haren will likely be better than Porcello this year and next. However, I do think Porcello will likely be better after that and will still be considerably cheaper, younger, and under team control longer.

3) With the other young arms we have coming up and in the rotation already, I would probably do a straight Porcello for Haren deal because of the upgrade for this season and likely next, and having him under a very manageable contract for a few years but I wouldn't be surprised if it would backfire in a couple years.

1) Same here. But I don't think there's any way a deal for Haren centers around Crosby. So if that deal went down... I'd say I would be more stunned/ shocked than anything else!!! If you're saying Oliver or Turner plus Perry for Haren, I'd be less shocked.

2) Several things I agree with here... but I'm going to add a comment on (3) here as well: I doubt there's a straight-up 1 for 1 deal for several reasons: Arizona will not want to put all their eggs in 1 basket; and they have other needs that will push them to ask for more than a 1-for-1 deal. Even if they were getting Porcello for Haren, I think they'll ask for relief pitching, which we have an abundance of. I also think, to your point in #2, that DD will ask for Drew along with Haren if we are sending Porcello, which is another reason against a 1-for-1. I think that's why we are a great matchup for them. Lots of relievers, and several MLB or almost MLB-ready high-end starters. They have Haren, and a decent SS for us, where we have a hole there.

We can throw in other pieces, as needed. I don't see losing a couple relievers (not Zumaya, Coke, or Valverde, almost anyone else just might be available from Perry on down...) as a deal-breaker for us. And anyone after Porcello and a reliever or two... I just see as fillers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you think every player we send for Haren must be a superstar?

No, but you're suggesting the D-Backs are going to really have interest in two guys (Larish and Fien) that they could have had for merely a waiver claim earlier this year....that's where the problem comes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Same here. But I don't think there's any way a deal for Haren centers around Crosby. So if that deal went down... I'd say I would be more stunned/ shocked than anything else!!! If you're saying Oliver or Turner plus Perry for Haren, I'd be less shocked.

2) Several things I agree with here... but I'm going to add a comment on (3) here as well: I doubt there's a straight-up 1 for 1 deal for several reasons: Arizona will not want to put all their eggs in 1 basket; and they have other needs that will push them to ask for more than a 1-for-1 deal. Even if they were getting Porcello for Haren, I think they'll ask for relief pitching, which we have an abundance of. I also think, to your point in #2, that DD will ask for Drew along with Haren if we are sending Porcello, which is another reason against a 1-for-1. I think that's why we are a great matchup for them. Lots of relievers, and several MLB or almost MLB-ready high-end starters. They have Haren, and a decent SS for us, where we have a hole there.

We can throw in other pieces, as needed. I don't see losing a couple relievers (not Zumaya, Coke, or Valverde, almost anyone else just might be available from Perry on down...) as a deal-breaker for us. And anyone after Porcello and a reliever or two... I just see as fillers...

I tend to agree with all of this. I would also add that if Turner or Oliver is included instead of Porcello - which likely would need to happen if Porcello isn't involved - I still think we need to get Drew also. If we are just getting Haren, I would much rather see us include 2-3 extra prospects a notch down and keep them. It may not be possible to do, but then it takes it from a slam dunk to a long thought process for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I question if Zumaya is really going to be better than Perry the last half of the season. Especially if he is abandoning his curve for a slider that he hasn't really thrown. I think and hopefully am wrong that we may have seen the best of Zumaya for 2010 already and would definitely include him in a package over Perry. He definitely has not shown anywhere close to the control he did at the start of the season.

In the middle of a pennant race, Zumaya is arguably the most critical reliever we have, maybe even moreso than Valverde. It doesn't even matter whether he does, or does not pitch better than Perry over the remainder of the season. Perception is key here. Zumaya has pitched better, so far; is the KEY reliever brought in to eliminate scoring threats (Coke being the other key guy), has proven dominance previously, and also this year. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY DD trades Zumaya in the middle of this pennant race. You KNOW DD is not going to do that; no matter the long-term logic that keeping Perry may make (sense-wise).

And from my perspective: I'm not certain that Perry will become a better reliever than Zumaya. Now or in the long-term. Perry is 23, and Zumaya is 25? This is not a 23 versus 32 y.o. discussion... If Perry doesn't improve his control/ command, he will NOT become a better reliever than Zumaya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you think every player we send for Haren must be a superstar? So... it'll take Porcello, Zumaya, Perry, Turner, Oliver, and Boesch to get Haren & Drew? Because that's just stupid.

Who did we trade for Cabrera and Willis? Miller and Maybin. And, oh yeah, Rabelo, De La Cruz, Badenhop, and...??? I don't even remember all the garage sales pieces we sent in that trade.

So yeah, I'll stand by my Haren and Drew trade for Porcello, two minor league relievers (or maybe Brad Thomas as one of them), Furbush, Larish, and Worth. My trade is NOT dissimilar to the Cabrera-Willis trade.

And Cabrera is much, MUCH more valuable than Haren.

Per SI.com 12/11/07

"The makings of the deal were hatched only late the previous night, when Detroit's assistant G.M., Al Avila, called Florida G.M. Mike Hill to inquire about Cabrera. When the Marlins asked for Miller and Maybin, the Tigers insisted that Willis be thrown into the mix too. By 9:30 the next morning Florida president Larry Beinfest had given Dombrowski a list of six names he wanted for Cabrera and Willis: Miller, Maybin, catcher Mike Rabelo and minor league pitchers Burke Badenhop, Eulogio De La Cruz and Dallas Trahern."

Do you really think Thomas, Fien or Larish would be on AZ's list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but you're suggesting the D-Backs are going to really have interest in two guys (Larish and Fien) that they could have had for merely a waiver claim earlier this year....that's where the problem comes in.

I don't think a guy getting waived or not is the final determination of a players value though. Several players that have been waived go on to lead productive careers. Alot of teams could have had Carlos Pena or Ryan Ludwick for free. And I'll bet there are alot of teams that would love to have the chance (if they had a crystal ball) to make that claim, or trade for them, if they'd have known.

IMO, it is less an issue of "could have had them for free" than of negotiation tactics. IE: Arizona gets 1 reliever from us in this potential deal, and asks for another 1. DD says "too much". Zona says "gotta get another reliever". DD says "I can give you Fien. He was waived a couple times over the winter, but he's got decent stuff and excellent control... might be able to help you out.". Zona says: "Fien."

Maybe that's a dumb example, but I still don't see including Fien or Larish as throw-ins that could possibly help Arizona in certain areas as a problem. I see weakness at 1st and 3rd for them (isn't LaRoche a FA after this year?) and see them willing to take a chance on a less than perfect solution that maybe still has some decent potential. Not a superstar by any means. But neither was Rabelo... who coincidentally, was subsequently waived by Florida and now he's back with us.

Edited by 84 Lives!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see weakness at 1st and 3rd for them (isn't LaRoche a FA after this year?) and see them willing to take a chance on a less than perfect solution that maybe still has some decent potential. Not a superstar by any means. But neither was Rabelo... who coincidentally, was subsequently waived by Florida and now he's back with us.

Isn't Mark Reynolds their 3B? Are they ready to get rid of him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Do you really think Thomas, Fien or Larish would be on AZ's list?

Do you really think Mike Rabelo, Burke Badenhop, Eulogio De La Cruz and Dallas Trahern are such superior prospects to Thomas, Fien, and Larish that my proposal is that far out of line?

Don't forget, Cabrera is superior to Haren by leaps and bounds. So Arizona, as I've stated previously, is not in a position to demand all our best prospects for Dan Haren. They WILL have to settle for some garage sale prospects. Whether that's Thomas, Fien, Larish, or a group of other maybe/ could-be's is irrelevant.

I already posted to Micro different scenarios where I could see one of these guys included in the deal. And just in case you are overlooking a couple of my earlier points: (A) I said it could be ANY two of a group of relievers. If they get Perry in a deal with us, they are NOT ALSO getting Zumaya.... so yes, I absolutely believe that if they want a second reliever, it'll have to be a lower tier guy like Thomas or Fien, and I definitely DO see them having an interest in one of these guys on that basis. (B) Second... in my BEST guess... I did NOT include Thomas or Fien, I included Zach Simons and Weinhardt. So why are you concentrating on guys that I just mentioned as "potentials" in a trade. Is it that big of an issue to you? Do you wanna take issue with Larish and Danny Worth, who actually are IN my best guess proposal? (As for Larish, see my post above (to Micro I believe) and below concerning him...).

Edited by 84 Lives!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't Mark Reynolds their 3B? Are they ready to get rid of him?

I don't know, but he doesn't have the highest contact rate. He has power, and I'm not saying Larish would be any better contact-wise (he wouldn't); but if LaRoche is close to leaving as a FA, it doesn't hurt to slot Larish in back of the two of them and give him a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zumaya, Porcello, Streiby and Crosby for Haren and Drew..I'd do that all day.

I would have no problem with this trade. Haren is a proven elite pitcher and we could desperately use an above average SS. I wonder if we could send a package of Zumaya, Porcello, Santiago, Furbush instead...I wouldn't care about losing Streiby in the slightest but if we could get away without having to give up both Porcello and Crosby that would be ideal.

(Channels inner-Blue Adams)

1) Jackson - CF

2) Damon - DH

3) Maggs - RF

4) Miggy - 1B

5) Boesch - LF

6) Guillen - 2B

7) Drew - SS

8) Inge - 3B

9) Avila/Laird - C

1) Verlander

2) Haren

3) Scherzer

4) Bondo

5) Galarraga/Oliver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you say I am overvaluing our own prospects, I remember (along with 84Lives) defending the rationale behind the Moore/Farnsworth and Ross/Coyler trades. One of which turned out good for us and one which definitely didn't, but neither really kept us from the post season, but you could probably argue that the Farnsworth trade (and subsequent trade with Atlanta) helped us get there in 2006 as Miner's first few starts were pretty important to us getting the wildcard.

We weren't off-base on the Ross-Colyer trade.

Ross is exactly what we said he would be: a .750-.800 OPS guy that is a 4th OF'er, sometimes starter. And Colyer was exactly what we said he would be: a flamethrower with nasty stuff and control problems, that could become a Billy Wagner, or could flame out completely.

IMO, it wouldn't be any different than if we traded Casper Wells for Danny Schlereth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would anyone trade Armando Galarraga?

Sure, but I don't think he'd be at the top of anyone's trade-for list.

And it doesn't make huge sense to trade him because (A) What are you going to get in return for him (answer: nothing better than what he already provides to the team), and (B) Financially, it might make sense to have Verlander-Haren (if we trade for him)-Scherzer-Oliver-Galarraga, and let Bonderman walk rather than overpay him, for next year.

I think Bonderman's the better pitcher, but cost-controlled Galarraga may be > expensive Bonderman, in DD's mind.

Don't know what the Tigers think about that... but I think (A) is the more critical issue anyways. He's a good pitcher... but I don't think you get good offers for him. Nothing that would make sense for us, anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have no problem with this trade. Haren is a proven elite pitcher and we could desperately use an above average SS. I wonder if we could send a package of Zumaya, Porcello, Santiago, Furbush instead...I wouldn't care about losing Streiby in the slightest but if we could get away without having to give up both Porcello and Crosby that would be ideal.

(Channels inner-Blue Adams)

1) Jackson - CF

2) Damon - DH

3) Maggs - RF

4) Miggy - 1B

5) Boesch - LF

6) Guillen - 2B

7) Drew - SS

8) Inge - 3B

9) Avila/Laird - C

1) Verlander

2) Haren

3) Scherzer

4) Bondo

5) Galarraga/Oliver

not to nitpick..but Drew might lead off Jackson would hit 9th..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the middle of a pennant race, Zumaya is arguably the most critical reliever we have, maybe even moreso than Valverde. It doesn't even matter whether he does, or does not pitch better than Perry over the remainder of the season. Perception is key here. Zumaya has pitched better, so far; is the KEY reliever brought in to eliminate scoring threats (Coke being the other key guy), has proven dominance previously, and also this year. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY DD trades Zumaya in the middle of this pennant race. You KNOW DD is not going to do that; no matter the long-term logic that keeping Perry may make (sense-wise).

And from my perspective: I'm not certain that Perry will become a better reliever than Zumaya. Now or in the long-term. Perry is 23, and Zumaya is 25? This is not a 23 versus 32 y.o. discussion... If Perry doesn't improve his control/ command, he will NOT become a better reliever than Zumaya.

When is the last effective July Zumaya had..he's 5.40 for the month with 2 BS.

June 2009 2-2 6.10 ERA .286 BA 14/10 BB/K 3 BS

June 2008 5G coming off injury 3.36 ERA 0 Holds

June 2007 Hurt

How we doing..worried yet..

Keep Zumaya..I get the idea..but, has the last month of fluke blisters and control issues begun to make your confidence waver. It's called sell high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When is the last effective July Zumaya had...

I see you're suffering from myopia again Sportz. Are you sure you don't need my glasses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not to nitpick..but Drew might lead off Jackson would hit 9th..

I was actually thinking about that...or having Drew hit 2nd and Damon hit 6th/7th...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Dan Haren, RHP, Diamondbacks — Scouts from the Yankees, Twins, Nationals, Cardinals, and Tigers all came out to watch his last start, a 9-3 loss to the Yankees in which he went seven innings and allowed six hits and three runs. It will be interesting to see whether the Diamondbacks wind up dealing their best starter and whether anyone will break the bank to get him."

via Baylor is feeling skipped over in managerial mix - The Boston Globe

What do you guys think? I think he'd be a good pickup and alot cheaper than Cliff Lee.

I think Don Baylor should STFU!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see you're suffering from myopia again Sportz. Are you sure you don't need my glasses?

really myopia..

insanity and impatience..no argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
really myopia..

insanity and impatience..no argument

I could go with that. But... wait a second:

Insane = "selling high" your most critical reliever in the middle of a pennant race.

Myopia = Looking at how a pitcher historically fares in the month of July and determining that's a good reason to trade him.

Impatience = Unnecessarily overpaying for someone when the other team is desperate to get ANY talent upgrade over what they currently have.

Damn sportz, you're guilty on ALL counts!!!!

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

:wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Haren, but no thanks. I'd rather target a 2nd tier guy and give up few prospects and not be locked up on a prohibitive contract (and yes I do consider Haren's deal to be prohibitive).

Lilly is a better fit. With a Lilly trade we can probably keep out top prospects, Porcello included, and use the cost savings to re-sign Bonderman to a reasonable deal this winter (which at this point looks like a good idea).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...