2023 Detroit Tigers Regular Season Discussion Thread

[CMRivdogs]

27 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don’t think it can be called versatile if he can do a lot of different things below average-like.

Zach of all trades, Master of none

[chasfh]

10 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Zach of all trades, Master of none

I meant Hackin’ Harold.

[RandyMarsh]

Candy currently posting a solid 109 ops+ for the Nats in 79 PAs. His inconsistentcy made it a tough choice for the Tigers but he is somebody I wish we wouldve kept just cause he wasn't that far removed from a great offensive season. 

[gehringer_2]

45 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Candy currently posting a solid 109 ops+ for the Nats in 79 PAs. His inconsistentcy made it a tough choice for the Tigers but he is somebody I wish we wouldve kept just cause he wasn't that far removed from a great offensive season. 

Good for him. But the caveat with Candy is always staying power. He's has 20 hits in 18 games but 9 came in one 4 game stretch last week.

[mtutiger]

In general, I don't love the "we should have kept Candy yet still made the Vierling/Maton/Soto trade" discussion point whenever it happens because it's not actually clear to me that keeping Candy means they make the trade. 

Butterfly effect and all.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, alex said:

Zach is starting to grow on me as well. Not sure what type of career he may have but he hit go gap to gap, has some speed (both excellent for Comerica Park) and good baseball instincts - at least it seems that way, but that does not mean every player does not have a gaff now and then (Harold had several on the bases and did not seem instinctive there). Zach seems to have a game plan and knows the situation each time on base.

Totally, he's a gamer in the Brandon Inge mold, though probably not as talented.

To be clear, I didn't have a ton of love for the trade when it happened, but some of the reactions to it were perplexing.... just seemed like there was a hive mind view from the beat writers and fans equally that it was a boneheaded move that needed a heap of scorn when, at the end of the day, we're talking about trading a lower level prospect for a guy who's occupying one of Spots #24-26 on the Tigers roster.

Evan Woodbery in particular with his snide tweet about how they gave a bunch of ABs to other guys in competition for that spot only to trade for a guy who had a terrible ST for the Cubs.... like, at some point you're blurring the lines between journalism and opinion.

Edited April 20, 2023 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

Proposed MLB rule change: Any batter runner executing a cartwheel between bases counts for two runs if he/she subsequently scores.

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by gehringer_2

[RandyMarsh]

27 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

In general, I don't love the "we should have kept Candy yet still made the Vierling/Maton/Soto trade" discussion point whenever it happens because it's not actually clear to me that keeping Candy means they make the trade. 

Butterfly effect and all.

That's true and even though I did want Candy back if it indeed would've been one or the other I would take Vierling and Maton.

[casimir]

35 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

In general, I don't love the "we should have kept Candy yet still made the Vierling/Maton/Soto trade" discussion point whenever it happens because it's not actually clear to me that keeping Candy means they make the trade. 

Butterfly effect and all.

I don't know.  Was the Soto trade made to fill 3B (sort of) or was it made to move Soto for some pieces that might be useful (Maton being one who has played mostly SS but also has played other IF)?  Candelario was let go in mid November.  Maton was traded for in early January.  Ibanez and Nevin were acquired before Maton.  Malloy was, too, but I doubt he was considered for MLB action.

I guess what I am getting at is that I don't think retaining Candelario would have prevented or necessarily dissuaded Maton as part of a Soto deal.  Maton could have been used at 2B with Candelario at 3B.  We've seen Maton at 2B with Nevin at 3B.  Soto has proven control issues.  Maton has an eye for OBP outside of AVG.  I think trading away a player like Soto and trading for a player like Maton fits into Harris' desire for controlling the strike zone.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Good for him. But the caveat with Candy is always staying power. He's has 20 hits in 18 games but 9 came in one 4 game stretch last week.

Streaky or not, it still all adds up to a solid 109 OPS+.

[mtutiger]

17 minutes ago, casimir said:

I guess what I am getting at is that I don't think retaining Candelario would have prevented or necessarily dissuaded Maton as part of a Soto deal. 

Really the only person who knows whether this is true or not is Scott Harris.

I know it isn't necessarily a fun answer, I just think we need to be open to the idea that keeping Candy may have resulted in subtle changes as to how the team approached this particular offseason. Hence referecing the butterfly effect... small changes can have a big impact.

Edited April 20, 2023 by mtutiger

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Really the only person who knows whether this is true or not is Scott Harris.

This is true of literally everything Scott Harris does. We still enjoy the speculating.

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, chasfh said:

We still enjoy the speculating.

In terms of speculating, I speculate that Scott Harris made up his mind on Candy sometime before the non-tender deadline last offseason, didn't see Candy as a future piece on this ballclub, pulled the trigger on non-tendering him and probably isn't losing sleep over what Candy is or isn't doing with the Nationals.

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

In terms of speculating, I speculate that Scott Harris made up his mind on Candy sometime before the non-tender deadline last offseason, didn't see Candy as a future piece on this ballclub, pulled the trigger on non-tendering him and probably isn't losing sleep over what Candy is or isn't doing with the Nationals.

Really the only person who knows whether this is true or not is Scott Harris. 😉😅

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Really the only person who knows whether this is true or not is Scott Harris. 😉😅

This is true of literally everything Scott Harris does. We still enjoy the speculating.

[Motor City Sonics]

no game today.   what am I gonna do?   on 4/20 ?     I can't think of anything !

[gehringer_2]

22 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Streaky or not, it still all adds up to a solid 109 OPS+.

this goes back to the discussion the other day. Are streaky totals actually worth less than consistent ones? One on hand, it's absolutely true that you can only win each game once. If you have streaky players you will have situations were they combine for excess runs you end up wasting in routs. The counter point is that you have 9 guys hitting so one player's heat will normally be at least somewhat balanced by another going cold. Even there you will suffer some cost in terms of batting order optimization  - though probably not much.  And of course you can end up with the 2022 Tigers where everyone runs cold at once.......😭

[gehringer_2]

Just now, Motor City Sonics said:

no game today.   what am I gonna do?   on 4/20 ?     I can't think of anything !

It's a conspiracy!

[Tiger337]

24 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Streaky or not, it still all adds up to a solid 109 OPS+.

which is pretty much where the projection sytems had him at the beginning of the season.  I looked up Paredes (the great one who got away) and Candelario just yeterday and noticed they were similar.

[casimir]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

which is pretty much where the projection sytems had him at the beginning of the season.  I looked up Paredes (the great one who got away) and Candelario just yeterday and noticed they were similar.

21st Century Babe Ruth seems easier to type.

[casimir]

22 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Really the only person who knows whether this is true or not is Scott Harris.

I know it isn't necessarily a fun answer, I just think we need to be open to the idea that keeping Candy may have resulted in subtle changes as to how the team approached this particular offseason. Hence referecing the butterfly effect... small changes can have a big impact.

Yup.

I'm not suggesting my theory is what happened or that your theory isn't accurate or anything like that.  I just don't know that one move was dependent upon the other.

I do think we have learned over one offseason of Harris is that he isn't afraid to have multiple options at the disposal of the club at the MLB/AAA levels.

[casimir]

8 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

no game today.   what am I gonna do?   on 4/20 ?     I can't think of anything !

WWWillieNelsonD?

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, casimir said:

Yup.

I'm not suggesting my theory is what happened or that your theory isn't accurate or anything like that.  I just don't know that one move was dependent upon the other.

I do think we have learned over one offseason of Harris is that he isn't afraid to have multiple options at the disposal of the club at the MLB/AAA levels.

Or maybe he would have made a similar move with another team for players who were equally promising.  

[mtutiger]

13 minutes ago, casimir said:

Yup.

I'm not suggesting my theory is what happened or that your theory isn't accurate or anything like that.  I just don't know that one move was dependent upon the other.

And that's fair. I'm not trying to pick on anyone or anything, but now that Candy has gone on a hot streak in a Nationals uni, we're starting to see the suggestion come back.... even aside from the fanbase, it's something that Cody and his cohost suggested during one of their podcasts during the Spring as well.

Just as we don't know that one move was dependent on the other, we don't actually know that it wasn't either... both moves were made at completely different junctures of the offseason and were independent of one another. Certainly it's possible, if not likely, that Maton/Vierling were not even on the team's radar when they non-tendered Candy. And on one hand, certainly Scott Harris did come out and say that a LHH IF was a target prior to letting Candy go,  but on the other hand, he may have been saying that knowing that he intended on non-tendering Candy as well.

Either way, it's fair to speculate that Harris may not have had a real attachment to Candy and was fine letting him go regardless of whatever second-guessing he's recieved for it.

Edited April 20, 2023 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Or maybe he would have made a similar move with another team for players who were equally promising.  

Certainly possible...