Shinzaki Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 Day game Tork bomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 30 minutes ago, alex said: He is a decent player. He had shown flashes before, but like many injuries prop up. He had pedigree as a prospect - so this may not be a mirage at all. Two years should be doable (IF the price is right). After all, we can say we have Rogers and Dingler - but one injury and it is back to the scrap pile. I prefer all 3 and then/when something happens we are still in decent shape. The C position for us has 'not' really been a problem (It has been for many teams). Maybe it is best to keep it that way in the 'D'. If by price you mean AAV, that shouldn't be a huge problem. I would guess less than 10, maybe 8. But I'd be concerned about giving him two guaranteed years, and if his demand is three-plus years, we definitely should pass. Because when it comes to a commodity like he, years are a bigger risk than AAV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 I decided, hey, way not tune in some minor league baseball this afternoon, since the Hens, 'Wolves, and 'Caps all have day games. All all three are getting crushed by blowout scores. F-Tigers on tonight. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 58 minutes ago, Shinzaki said: Day game Tork bomb As of today, Tork's OPS at Toledo is about 50 pts higher than it was when he was at AAA in '22. That's not a lot be excited about, but I guess it's more progress than if the numbers had been the reverse. To me, if he can get his average up to something north of 270 at AAA it might mean he's covering enough of the zone for another shot against MLB pitchers. He's hanging around 250 now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 For anybody advocating multiple years for Carson Kelly, I propose the following hypothetical: would the Tigers have moved on from Maeda yet if he was signed to a one-year deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 9 minutes ago, Edman85 said: For anybody advocating multiple years for Carson Kelly, I propose the following hypothetical: would the Tigers have moved on from Maeda yet if he was signed to a one-year deal? Not sure how they could right now regardless of the money. Madden has not been effective, Manning is sort of floundering around - presumably working on new stuff that's not ready. Gipson-Long is out. Montero already filling in for Mize and Flahety's health seems precarious again (plus he might get moved...). Convert Faedo or Holton to start? - bullpen is already thin. Englert? A bad team spending on a bridge pitcher in a deadline deal seems like a pretty dumb route. Choices besides giving Maeda more shots to fix himself aren't so great currently. I guess the other thing is, does anyone in the org have a guess as to why he's failing? It's not like what little velo he has is gone. It's that command is lacking - he can't get ahead, which is easy enough to see, not so much to fix. It's not like anyone expected him to notch a winning record or anything, but they sure couldn't have expected this implosion either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 28 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: .... Choices besides giving Maeda more shots to fix himself aren't so great currently. I guess the other thing is, does anyone in the org have a guess as to why he's failing? It's not like ... 7 GOOD starts with a 1.95 ERA and a 0.92 WHIP, from April through June. His 8 BAD starts however... horrendous. They've gotta be working on what's going wrong for him. Here's a KEY POINT however (and you listed multiple other, not very good options to replace Maeda's starts...): IMO: This waits until Spring Training next year. Maeda stays at least until then. And perhaps beyond that: Skubal, Olson, and...? Even if 3 starters other than Maeda grab spots (Mize, Montero maybe?, do we re-sign Flaherty in the offseason? would Jobe be ready in spring training to grab a spot)... they could still hold onto him as an emergency starter in the bullpen, giving him 3-4 inning outings wherever they can... Plus 6th starts, when needed, etc... And if there is NOT 3 guys who can take away his rotation spot next year, then I think we are stuck with him for one more year. I think we are, regardless. I'm not really so worried about him. He's still a good pitcher (50/50) on his good days. Hopefully they figure out what the problem is. But he's gone anyways after next season and all the hopeful-kids in the Org can work their way into Detroit's rotation whenever they are ready to do so. So no rush, no pressure, we have to just deal with it while he is still here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, Edman85 said: For anybody advocating multiple years for Carson Kelly, I propose the following hypothetical: would the Tigers have moved on from Maeda yet if he was signed to a one-year deal? I don't understand why Maeda's failures have anything to do with Kelly's future performance/health. If Harris is too f******* scared to sign Carson Kelly to a 3/36M extension, he should just quit now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious D Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 33 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said: I don't understand why Maeda's failures have anything to do with Kelly's future performance/health. If Harris is too f******* scared to sign Carson Kelly to a 3/36M extension, he should just quit now. Agree. Where is the correlation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 Multi year deals are a performance risk. You are stuck with the player if they fall off a map. If Maeda was on a one year deal, they would cut him the moment Mize returned from his hammy. Kelly, while I defended him earlier in the thread, is a 30 year old catcher with an injury history. A multi year deal means if he falls off a cliff in year 1, you have a dead roster spot for two more years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 52 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said: If Harris is too f******* scared to sign Carson Kelly to a 3/36M extension, he should just quit now. One man's scared is another man's smart. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 8 minutes ago, Edman85 said: Multi year deals are a performance risk. You are stuck with the player if they fall off a map. If Maeda was on a one year deal, they would cut him the moment Mize returned from his hammy. Kelly, while I defended him earlier in the thread, is a 30 year old catcher with an injury history. A multi year deal means if he falls off a cliff in year 1, you have a dead roster spot for two more years. Weren't you saying yesterday that you thought Kelly was good and not a mirage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) 3 hours ago, chasfh said: If by price you mean AAV, that shouldn't be a huge problem. I would guess less than 10, maybe 8. But I'd be concerned about giving him two guaranteed years, and if his demand is three-plus years, we definitely should pass. Because when it comes to a commodity like he, years are a bigger risk than AAV. Yeah, 3 years is probably too much. Two might be OK. Edited July 10 by Tiger337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 23 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: Weren't you saying yesterday that you thought Kelly was good and not a mirage? There's a difference between saying he has only marginally outpaced his projections and saying he should be locked up long term, at 30, as a catcher with an injury history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 33 minutes ago, Edman85 said: Kelly, while I defended him earlier in the thread, is a 30 year old catcher with an injury history. A multi year deal means if he falls off a cliff in year 1, you have a dead roster spot for two more years. So he and Jake are basically the same guy in that respect. So what are you willing risk for a possibly higher level of performance? That's a question that never goes away. If you're willing to risk nothing, you probably never hit any winners either. If Dingler is better than both of them and will play 80-100 games next season, then by all means stay with Jake since he's cheaper and the role is backup. So if I'm the GM what I want to know is what do I have in Dingler? Get him up here to see some MLB pitching. It will be a roster dislocation but if he's not willing to do that his year I think Harris needs his head examined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 4 hours ago, chasfh said: If by price you mean AAV, that shouldn't be a huge problem. I would guess less than 10, maybe 8. But I'd be concerned about giving him two guaranteed years, and if his demand is three-plus years, we definitely should pass. Because when it comes to a commodity like he, years are a bigger risk than AAV. One WAR is worth 8-10 million. If you think that is all he is worth, then do you even bother going beyond one year? I think if they offer him two years, it's because they think he is more than a one WAR player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalTiger Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: One WAR is worth 8-10 million. If you think that is all he is worth, then do you even bother going beyond one year? I think if they offer him two years, it's because they think he is more than a one WAR player. Would Kelly accept one year ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalTiger Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 58 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: So he and Jake are basically the same guy in that respect. So what are you willing risk for a possibly higher level of performance? That's a question that never goes away. If you're willing to risk nothing, you probably never hit any winners either. If Dingler is better than both of them and will play 80-100 games next season, then by all means stay with Jake since he's cheaper and the role is backup. So if I'm the GM what I want to know is what do I have in Dingler? Get him up here to see some MLB pitching. It will be a roster dislocation but if he's not willing to do that his year I think Harris needs his head examined. Agree but maybe Harris has already decided to trade him so he needs to play to maintain value and he doesn’t want Dingler sitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: One WAR is worth 8-10 million. If you think that is all he is worth, then do you even bother going beyond one year? I think if they offer him two years, it's because they think he is more than a one WAR player. Maybe he is worth more. I just saw he will be the youngest catcher in the free agent class. Maybe someone will throw 3/45 or 4/60 at the guy. I just doubt it's going to be the Tigers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 1 hour ago, SoCalTiger said: Would Kelly accept one year ? I don't know. I am just saying if you think he is worth one WAR (which is where h is at half way through the season), then you probably wouldn't worry about losing him. So, you would offer him just one year or trade him. If you think he is worth more than that then he'd cost more per year but a two year deal might be worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 11 Author Share Posted July 11 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I don't know. I am just saying if you think he is worth one WAR (which is where h is at half way through the season), then you probably wouldn't worry about losing him. So, you would offer him just one year or trade him. If you think he is worth more than that then he'd cost more per year but a two year deal might be worth it. But there is another way to look at it to consider. Maybe he is only a 1 War player, but if the best you have behind him is -1 WAR, then losing him 'costs' you 2 WAR. I think you can get into a lot of pain making player decisions without considering the context of the current team. IMO, it's something the Tigers have done way too much of in recent years - moving guys they didn't think were 'worth' what they would have cost only to leave behind an completely empty hole with a seriously sub replacement player getting playing time. Not arguing for Kelly in particular but just raising the point that I don't like player decisions made "in vacuo" because they never really are. Edited July 11 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: But there is another way to look at it to consider. Maybe he is only a 1 War player, but if the best you have behind him is -1 WAR, then losing him 'costs' you 2 WAR. I think you can get into a lot of pain making player decisions without considering the context of the current team. IMO, it's something the Tigers have done way too much of in recent years - moving guys they didn't think were 'worth' what they would have cost only to leave behind an completely empty hole with a seriously sub replacement player getting playing time. Not arguing for Kelly in particular but just raising the point that I don't like player decisions made "in vacuo" because they never really are. I still don't think you want to offer a multi-year deal to a below average player (which is what one WAR is). Maybe offer him one year in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermojo Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 They could just play Rogers more and get equal value. No need for a 50/50 split. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: So he and Jake are basically the same guy in that respect. So what are you willing risk for a possibly higher level of performance? That's a question that never goes away. If you're willing to risk nothing, you probably never hit any winners either. If Dingler is better than both of them and will play 80-100 games next season, then by all means stay with Jake since he's cheaper and the role is backup... I think this is the final decision. Even if Dingler doesn't grab the starter's spot for the next two years (I think he will...), the MARGINAL improvement/ tied-at-the-hip with whether Rogers/Kelly stay as the starter or get pushed to backup... Is NOT worth it. Rogers is cost-controlled for the next two years. Full stop. Dingler may, or even if he doesn't, become starter... makes the MARGINAL improvement of Kelly over Rogers, IMO... moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 11 Author Share Posted July 11 5 minutes ago, Tigermojo said: They could just play Rogers more and get equal value. No need for a 50/50 split. well, that's where the discussion more or less started - has Kelly shown he's significantly outpaced Jake's production rate? The question is certainly debatable, but my initial question was about how far you go to keep Kelly if you believe he will be a better catcher/hitter going forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.