Jump to content

UCFKNIGHT92

Who Would Help The Tigers More?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Gehringer_2 said:

that too. But I can't argue that timing doesn't matter. The future status of any player is always progressively less predictable each year further you have to project into the future. Spending big guaranteed money today for a guy whose performance you are banking on to put you in the playoffs 4 or 5 yrs out doesn't seem like the highest probability of success course to choose.

But how often is a 26-year-old player of Machado's caliber available at any price?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

Anytime you can acquire a 26 year old 6+ WAR player you should do it, particularly when it is "only" money.   Yes the Tigers probably aren't going to contend next season or maybe even the following one but at his age you should expect him to have atleast 5-6 more prime seasons in him.    

Also you just never know how your fortunes are going to change in the organization.  Maybe Fulmer or Miggy return to their old selves, or Candalario breaks out or prospects in the minors break out and suddenly you find yourself going from being a high 60s win team to a high 70s win.  In that scenario a player like Machado could be the difference between being on the cusp of the playoffs or not.    

Fulmer is an inconsistent mess, not good. Forget Miggy. His better days are behind him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fulmer’s idol is Chris Shelton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've tried the superstar route and it was fun but did not deliver a world series championship. Why not try a balanced approach and build a roster with depth? Investing so much into one player would be counter productive at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tigermojo2 said:

We've tried the superstar route and it was fun but did not deliver a world series championship. Why not try a balanced approach and build a roster with depth? Investing so much into one player would be counter productive at this point. 

Don't try and wreck the "Chris Illitch is a cheapskate narrative" this early in your posting career.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tiger337 said:

But how often is a 26-year-old player of Machado's caliber available at any price?  

 

right - that is exactly the counter argument. I may be reading too much into it, but the whole Manny-at-shortstop episode at Baltimore has made me a lot less a fan of him as a player. I'm not naive enough to think that the average great player is necessarily a guy anyone would be interested in being BFF with, but he wasn't helping his team win with that move. I can accept a great player may be a jerk, but I still expect him to think winning is the most important way to contribute to his team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bryce and Manny get their money. Almost certainly not the insane 400-500 some were predicting a year or two ago, but I'd guess both top 300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Tigermojo2 said:

We've tried the superstar route and it was fun but did not deliver a world series championship. Why not try a balanced approach and build a roster with depth? Investing so much into one player would be counter productive at this point. 

You are 100% correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tigermojo2 said:

We've tried the superstar route and it was fun but did not deliver a world series championship. Why not try a balanced approach and build a roster with depth? Investing so much into one player would be counter productive at this point. 

It got them into the post-season a lot though.  Most teams that win the World Series have some stars.  Some are balanced and some are not.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

right - that is exactly the counter argument. I may be reading too much into it, but the whole Manny-at-shortstop episode at Baltimore has made me a lot less a fan of him as a player. I'm not naive enough to think that the average great player is necessarily a guy anyone would be interested in being BFF with, but he wasn't helping his team win with that move. I can accept a great player may be a jerk, but I still expect him to think winning is the most important way to contribute to his team.

What about Jeter playing shortstop for the Yankees instead of A-Rod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

It got them into the post-season a lot though.  Most teams that win the World Series have some stars.  Some are balanced and some are not.   

That's all you can do. The Tigers had a hel l of a run. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tiger337 said:

But how often is a 26-year-old player of Machado's caliber available at any price?  

 

What does it matter?  Machado is going to cost too much money ..and best case is that it will still be several years before the Tigers field an entire team good enough to seriously challenge for a World Championship.  Furthermore, even though 'only' 26, ..Machado is arguably not even not one of the top 10 players in baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

What about Jeter playing shortstop for the Yankees instead of A-Rod?

Advanced fielding metrics only existed for one year before ARod went to NY, and he was +8 as a SS, so he may well have still have been a better SS than Jeter when he got there, though I doubt the way has bulking up it would have stayed that way for long. But that question aside, the difference is that NY didn't have a 3b - Ventura had played there in '03 but he was gone (and almost done anyway).  Of course they had also traded Soriano so they didn't have  2b either, which would have been open for Jeter. Not much to go on in terms of MiLB experience - it doesn't show that ARod or Jeter had ever played anywhere but short coming up. I would guess that ARod had the better arm for 3rd. 

IDK, lets say they had played ARod at short and Jeter had been willing to go to 2nd, who would have played third? As it was they got OPS+ of 100 from Cairo at 2b. If they didn't have a 3b that could have given them that then moving ARod to 3rd may still have been the best winning strategy. Also, in 2004 the Yankees were an all RH starting staff, so moving Jeter to 2b probably wasn't going to add much to team defense facing lineups loaded with LHH. I'd say it was a more ambiguous call, despite all the press it got at the time.

But it is certainly true that Jeter did appear at the time to be demanding what he wanted without regard to whether it was best for the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tigermojo2 said:

We've tried the superstar route and it was fun but did not deliver a world series championship. Why not try a balanced approach and build a roster with depth? Investing so much into one player would be counter productive at this point. 

Astros, Indians and Dodgers seem to have benefited from having a superstar SS the last couple of seasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Astros, Indians and Dodgers seem to have benefited from having a superstar SS the last couple of seasons

1 of those 3 delivered a championship and given how often Correra is hurt can we call him a superstar? 

 

And I don't think the orginal post meant no really good players. Every good team has them, that's what makes them good. He was referring to the stars and scrubs approach we had instead of something more along the lines of Boston or Astros where you might have one superstar in the lineup instead of 3 and then 8 really good players instead of 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m still advocating for Machado.  The perfect acquisition for this team.  Build around him and Cabrera (because you have to)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Astros, Indians and Dodgers seem to have benefited from having a superstar SS the last couple of seasons

What percentage of their teams' payroll are they making? They developed or traded for those players. They didn't pay them hundreds of millions. The Tigers should develop their own players. There is a limit to how much money they can spend. Mr. I couldn't buy superstars for the bench or bullpen or minor league replacements. Tying so many resources to one player would be a mistake. 

It would make more sense to emulate the Astros and Indians during their rebuilding phases rather than sign a good shortstop because contending teams have good shortstops. Contending teams have a lot of good players and the 25 man roster is not enough. Every team has to get the most out of their 40 man roster in order to contend. 

For those wondering, I've been here since 2002 just as 1 instead of 2. Mostly just lurking since I didn't reclaim my original account back when things changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tigermojo2 said:

What percentage of their teams' payroll are they making? They developed or traded for those players. They didn't pay them hundreds of millions. The Tigers should develop their own players. There is a limit to how much money they can spend. Mr. I couldn't buy superstars for the bench or bullpen or minor league replacements. Tying so many resources to one player would be a mistake. 

It would make more sense to emulate the Astros and Indians during their rebuilding phases rather than sign a good shortstop because contending teams have good shortstops. Contending teams have a lot of good players and the 25 man roster is not enough. Every team has to get the most out of their 40 man roster in order to contend. 

For those wondering, I've been here since 2002 just as 1 instead of 2. Mostly just lurking since I didn't reclaim my original account back when things changed. 

This

4AE6A2C8-B2D0-417D-A3CB-C98AED51D118.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we sign Machado,what will we do with the gross of SS prospects AA has stockpiled in the warehouse?  We just gonna give em away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tiger337 said:

What about Jeter playing shortstop for the Yankees instead of A-Rod?

Absolutely.  Clearly A-Rod was the better shortstop but Jeter made it clear to the front office that he wasn't going to move.  Great leader, great team player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lei Pong said:

If we sign Macado,what will we do with the gross of SS prospects AA has stockpiled in the warehouse?  We just gonna give em away?

Hey Manny, you're playing third.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

1 of those 3 delivered a championship and given how often Correra is hurt can we call him a superstar? 

 

And I don't think the orginal post meant no really good players. Every good team has them, that's what makes them good. He was referring to the stars and scrubs approach we had instead of something more along the lines of Boston or Astros where you might have one superstar in the lineup instead of 3 and then 8 really good players instead of 2

They got into the post-season a lot with that approach.  Is there evidence that teams with more depth and balance win the World Series?  One could argue that depth means less in the post-season than it does in the regular season.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

They got into the post-season a lot with that approach.  Is there evidence that teams with more depth and balance win the World Series?  One could argue that depth means less in the post-season than it does in the regular season.  

If you ask me, if your team plays north of Cincinnati, or is going to play a team from there, the thing you need in your playoff team is guys who can hit in the cold. The next big competitive advantage will be for playoffs level teams that start adding weather variables to their player tracking stats....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

1 of those 3 delivered a championship and given how often Correra is hurt can we call him a superstar?

Fine, we can't call him a superstar.

But I'd love to call him the Tigers' starting shortstop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manny won't come here to play third.  ****...he won't even trot to first base if he winds up here, you sure won't get him to play a position he doesn't like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×