Hot stove heater

[mark1]

http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove2003/diamondbacks.html

 

[Derek in Tucson]

That writer must read this board. It was Stottlemyre's failure that directly prevented the team from having a solid #3 man in the rotation, and not the contracts of Williams and Bell. But at least the writer was correct in that Colangelo should be blamed for the excessive contracts given to Bell and Williams. Most people around here blame the players.

 

[Smolder]

he's right on about everything. everybody who keeps asking whats with the "fudd," read this article right here. summarizes everthing that needs to be said.

the only way i see us making a real run at the world series is if, as the author said, patterson goes on a rampage, otherwise, things are awfully iffy...

 

[schillingfan]

Well, I found it somewhat annoying that he keeps mentioning age, without mentioning that the D-Backs have two player who will essentially be rookies in Overbay and Patterson and have gotten younger at catcher as well. He also failed to mention the factor of the injuries to Danny B and Counsell as well.

D-Backs will definitely have two rookies (Patterson and Overbay) and three guys who will be 2nd year (Spivey, Moeller, Koplove) and the last bullpen guy will be either Prinz or a rookie. So they are mixing in some significant youth, which people seem to ignore.

 

[Dback Jon]

Typical prospectus blather - nothing new.

I have to disagree with him on a few things.

1) Bell/Williams: Yes, they were/are expensive, but that was the price to bring respectibility to the franchise immediately.
Bottom Line: No Bell/Williams, no World Series.
Would you prefer we have Tampa's owner?

2) San Francisco - he talks about SF's additions, while failing to mention all the bonehead signings (Neifi Perez) and trades that Sabean has made. IMHO, SF is weaker at this point than last year.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
Well, I found it somewhat annoying that he keeps mentioning age, without mentioning that the D-Backs have two player who will essentially be rookies in Overbay and Patterson and have gotten younger at catcher as well. He also failed to mention the factor of the injuries to Danny B and Counsell as well.

D-Backs will definitely have two rookies (Patterson and Overbay) and three guys who will be 2nd year (Spivey, Moeller, Koplove) and the last bullpen guy will be either Prinz or a rookie. So they are mixing in some significant youth, which people seem to ignore.

He doesn't ignore it, he points it out that where we're good we're old, and where we're young, were not so good. There is a qualification. Just throwing out some rookies doesn't constitute getting younger and better. Most of these guys aren't even young.

Overbay ( career 12 ML AB ) is the same age as:

Carlos Beltran, Eric Chavez, Andruw Jones, A.J. Burnett, Ryan Dempster, Roy Halladay, Mark Mulder, Roy Oswalt, and Kerry Wood.

Spivey I've already done

Moeller is the same age as Spivey.

Patterson has a chance to contribute and be successful ( which is pointed out )

And Koplove is a potential closer ( like we need another one ), but again is older than Overbay.

We don't have any significant position players comming in. This means we're going to have to go out and sign more FA talent which is what Huckabay points out. It's a circular problem that worrites me.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Typical prospectus blather - nothing new.

I have to disagree with him on a few things.

1) Bell/Williams: Yes, they were/are expensive, but that was the price to bring respectibility to the franchise immediately.
Bottom Line: No Bell/Williams, no World Series.
Would you prefer we have Tampa's owner?

2) San Francisco - he talks about SF's additions, while failing to mention all the bonehead signings (Neifi Perez) and trades that Sabean has made. IMHO, SF is weaker at this point than last year.

So...because he happens to also work for BP it means his opinion of our team is crap? That makes little sense.

Saying Bell and Williams gave us "respectibility" kinda sidetracks the situation that we overpaid for their services. Did we have to have Williams or Bell? No. Did we have to pay both of them so much money? For Bell I think not at all. For Williams we had a choice of more moeny or no-trade clause. JC chose the one he thought he could live with most. Possibly the first in a long line of questionable financiall decisions.

SF is bound to take a fall just by the regression of Bonds, but around him they are at least as good as they were last year. Trading Kent and Lofton for Alfonzo and Durham is a push and possibly comming out better depending on Kents decline in 03.

 

[Derek in Tucson]

Trading Kent and Lofton for Alfonzo and Durham is a push and possibly comming out better depending on Kents decline in 03.

But when you factor in the swap of Grissom for Sanders, the Giants probably don't have the possibility of coming out better offensively. Swapping Moss for Ortiz can probably be made up by their starting pitching talent at Fresno with Ainsworth, Foppert, and Williams being top of the line starting pitching prospects.

Agree with just about everything you said about Bell and Williams, however when the team won the World Series all bad financial decisions were forgiven by me, but then it was the first time I saw the team I root for win a World Series after over 30 years of being a fan.

 

[Ryanwb]

Did something about Durazo's personality prevent the D'backs from getting more in return for him? I am still urked that we couldn't land more talent or atleast a higher quality pitcher for him. Atlanta would have probably given up Millwood and more for him because of their 1B problems...hell they signed Fick to fill the postion this week

 

[Derek in Tucson]

Durazo's injury history had more to do with his lack of trade value than anything else. Durazo was also traded before Schuerholz's panic move dumping of Millwood. The Braves weren't looking to trade Millwood until after Maddux agreed to arbitration.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
Durazo's injury history had more to do with his lack of trade value than anything else. Durazo was also traded before Schuerholz's panic move dumping of Millwood. The Braves weren't looking to trade Millwood until after Maddux agreed to arbitration.

With the way Beane was covetting Durazo, I don't think there was any hesitation. We gave Beane a list of SPs we'd take and he worked from there. Take that for what it's worth but Dessens is who Joe Jr wanted.

 

[Derek in Tucson]

So if Millwood would have been available at the time, you don't think Joe Jr would have traded Durazo for Millwood? I find it hard to believe that the DBacks wouldn't have tried to jump on this what with the Braves situation at 1B, but would have instead dealt for Dessens. And that's even with Millwood's expected 8-10 million arbitration award. Given that the Larry Walker failed trade would've added payroll to the team, I don't think the DBacks would've been gun shy with Millwood.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
So if Millwood would have been available at the time, you don't think Joe Jr would have traded Durazo for Millwood? I find it hard to believe that the DBacks wouldn't have tried to jump on this what with the Braves situation at 1B, but would have instead dealt for Dessens. And that's even with Millwood's expected 8-10 million arbitration award. Given that the Larry Walker failed trade would've added payroll to the team, I don't think the DBacks would've been gun shy with Millwood.

I honestly don't know if they would have gone after Millwood. It's near impossible to speculate the org's motivations between the lack of information the teams release and that most of that is PR anyways. Supposedly we could have had Moss, he was available as he went to SF but for whatever reason we didn't get him. When we did snag Dessens he came with $1M and even at his possible $3+M arb salary for '03 he's a lot cheaper than Millwood. We know Walker was asked to defer salary for whatever reason and didn't want to. Would Millwood feel the same way?

 

[Derek in Tucson]

Well I don't know if the DBacks would've been tempted to sign Millwood to a longterm deal, but I don't think they would've balked at a 1 year rental of Millwood.

Moss I'm not that big on. His 111:89 strikeout to walk ratio sends up warning flags. Although he seemingly got his control in check with Richmond in 2001, he really didn't have that much command in 2000 at the same level when he had a 123:106 K to walk ratio. You're a big DIPS fan, right? How does Moss shake out with that analysis?

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
Well I don't know if the DBacks would've been tempted to sign Millwood to a longterm deal, but I don't think they would've balked at a 1 year rental of Millwood.

Moss I'm not that big on. His 111:89 strikeout to walk ratio sends up warning flags. Although he seemingly got his control in check with Richmond in 2001, he really didn't have that much command in 2000 at the same level when he had a 123:106 K to walk ratio. You're a big DIPS fan, right? How does Moss shake out with that analysis?

I'm bigger on Moss than I am Dessens because Moss is much younger and cheaper than Dessens. Moss's DIPS ERA was 5.16(!) last year as he had the benifit of ATL good defense ( a .234 BABIP ). Yes the K:BB of 1.25 is pretty pathetic as is his K/9IP 5.58 ( but not as bad as Dessens ) It seems almost every time Moss jumped a level his BB rate skyrocketed but then came back down a bit. In 2001 he had a 2.47 K:BB in 89 IP but then the BBs came back when he reached ATL.

 

[schillingfan]

Derek, Larry Walker did not add payroll to the team this year. It added payroll long term, but this year the trade would actually have reduced payroll. Walker makes about $12.5 for this year (as well as 2004 and 2005 for the life of the contract). Williams will make $10 mil and Finley signed for $5.5 or thereabouts, meaning that Walker was actually $3 mil cheaper for this year.

DWKB I disagree with you on the age issue. 25 is an okay age for a rookie to debut. Even given the stats about productivity it is still below peak production. Don't be so rigid in your interpretations. It doesn't matter how old Overbay for purposes of are the D-Backs getting younger and better. I've seen people predict him to be a possible rookie of the year and every analysis I've seen says he should give Mark Grace type production with excellent BA and OPS because he will hit a lot of doubles.

But for injury Patterson would have debuted earlier. He's always been presumed to have high ceiling. Again, people expect him to have an excellent rookie year.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan

DWKB I disagree with you on the age issue. 25 is an okay age for a rookie to debut. Even given the stats about productivity it is still below peak production. Don't be so rigid in your interpretations. It doesn't matter how old Overbay for purposes of are the D-Backs getting younger and better. I've seen people predict him to be a possible rookie of the year and every analysis I've seen says he should give Mark Grace type production with excellent BA and OPS because he will hit a lot of doubles.

Did you know that, on average, a 20 yr old with the same ability can be expected to play in almost 3x as many games as a 25 yr old? He can be expected to hit 4x as many HRs as the 25 yr old too? Sounds ludicrous doesn't it?

A 25 yr old rookie with the same ability will be expected to have 33% less hits and 30% less BBs in his career.

Marty Cordova was ROY at age 25, Bob Hamelin was ROY at age 25, Chris Sabo was ROY at age 26, Joe Charboneau was ROY at age 25. Are these the guy you want Overbay to turn out like?

 

[schillingfan]

Yeah, I know the numbers show that, but numbers are only generalizations and average.

Lyle Overbay could have debuted much sooner. The extent to which he whacked the cover off the ball would have justified a double jump at some point. But fact was he was blocked by Durazo and Cust.

Call-ups to older guys can mean they are less talented. It can also mean they were drafted out of college or injured or moved slowly for reasons having nothing to do with talent.

There are no certainties, only best guesses. Some people make guesses based on numbers other people on personal observations.

 

[Derek in Tucson]

Derek, Larry Walker did not add payroll to the team this year. It added payroll long term, but this year the trade would actually have reduced payroll. Walker makes about $12.5 for this year (as well as 2004 and 2005 for the life of the contract). Williams will make $10 mil and Finley signed for $5.5 or thereabouts, meaning that Walker was actually $3 mil cheaper for this year.

So you think for some reason the DBacks are concerned only about this year's payroll? This year, next year, or 3 years down the road, the fact is the DBacks were willing to add payroll. Again you focus on the payroll for each individual year instead of looking at the real picture of the DBacks deferred payroll situation. You only take it into account when it suits your need(Larry Walker), and you don't realize that the DBacks are still paying for Stottlemyre and Bell, among others. This leads you and other fans to incorrectly focus the blame on one individual, Matt Williams, and his $10 million salary for this season. How much of that is deferred?

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
Yeah, I know the numbers show that, but numbers are only generalizations and average.

Lyle Overbay could have debuted much sooner. The extent to which he whacked the cover off the ball would have justified a double jump at some point. But fact was he was blocked by Durazo and Cust.

So you're saying that the DBacks were stupid or just flat out irresponsible with their farm system managing, as Overbay was ML ready but we weren't smart enough to capitalize on it and he was left wallowing where he shouldn't be??

Originally posted by schillingfan

Call-ups to older guys can mean they are less talented. It can also mean they were drafted out of college or injured or moved slowly for reasons having nothing to do with talent.

College players debut at around the age of 22/23. Still light years ahead of age 25. Injured player's are less apt to develope, further proves my statement, what other reason are you speaking of? Organizational idiocy?

Originally posted by schillingfan

There are no certainties, only best guesses. Some people make guesses based on numbers other people on personal observations.

Where did you see the word "certainty" in my last post? I missed it.

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
So you think for some reason the DBacks are concerned only about this year's payroll? This year, next year, or 3 years down the road, the fact is the DBacks were willing to add payroll. Again you focus on the payroll for each individual year instead of looking at the real picture of the DBacks deferred payroll situation. You only take it into account when it suits your need(Larry Walker), and you don't realize that the DBacks are still paying for Stottlemyre and Bell, among others. This leads you and other fans to incorrectly focus the blame on one individual, Matt Williams, and his $10 million salary for this season. How much of that is deferred?

Derek, I don't use payroll only when it suits my needs. I'm pointing out a distinction. That happens all the time where a team trades a long term obligation for a short-term one. Dodgers-Cubs trade with Karros was an example, where the Dodgers traded players with only one year's obligation to Chicago for one playe with a two year obligation. Both got rid of "problems" because they had different needs. The Dodger's primary concern was getting under the luxury tax for this year.

I don't know what Joe Jr's budget mandates are. And listen, it's not a criticism of the D-Backs to say they were willing to take on Larry Walker's salary for 2004 and 2005. My only point was that for this year it was actually a salary reduction. The budgetary reasons and constraints for the D-Backs I don't know. The trade was agreed to by both sides presumably because they had different needs. To my mind, the Rockies wanted to get rid of the long-term obligation of Larry Walker. The D-Backs were willing to take on the longer commitment for the sake of getting rid of the one year commitment to a player who has hampering their abilities to win this year.

I had originally thought that the D-Backs wanted to make one last run as long as they had Randy guaranteed. The Walker trade furthers that aim.

Since that trade fell through, the D-Backs have done nothing to indicate that their primary aim is to win it all this year. To the contrary, their moves look like they decided to start the belt tightening and rebuilding process this year.

I'm not criticizing them for that move. Just trying to realistically assess what they are doing. But I still think blame should be put on Matty if they sputter this year. I can't believe you would say that the D-Backs are a better team with Finley and Williams than they would have been with Walker and Colbrunn.

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by DWKB
So you're saying that the DBacks were stupid or just flat out irresponsible with their farm system managing, as Overbay was ML ready but we weren't smart enough to capitalize on it and he was left wallowing where he shouldn't be??

College players debut at around the age of 22/23. Still light years ahead of age 25. Injured player's are less apt to develope, further proves my statement, what other reason are you speaking of? Organizational idiocy?

Where did you see the word "certainty" in my last post? I missed it.

Well, you were arguing like it was certain or at least felt it was highly likely that Overbay will flop. Otherwise why are we arguing?

No, I don't think the D-Backs were stupid. I don't think Lyle Overbay's development was hurt by getting all that minor league experience, was it? In fact I could argue that Travis Lee's career was hurt irreparably by the D-Backs aggressive promotion of him. You completely miss the point. My point was that had he not been blocked by Durazo and Cust he would have debuted at least a year earlier or pushed more aggressively. That's not always a good thing for player development. You can't just say in a vacuum that someone is a lesser prospect because he debuted at an older age, which is exactly what you are saying isn't it?

I think the better argument is that he will be successful, which most analyses I have seen say, because numbers at AA and AAA tend to be pretty predictable to the majors and his numbers at those levels would tend to predict being a .300 hitter. Someone who has put up the numbers that Overbay has put up would have been more aggressively promoted, if not blocked.

Hey Derek, where are you on this argument? You were the one telling me that Overbay is going to be very good and 1B is not a downgrade.

DWKB I think you are applying the "younger debut" analysis too rigidly. Generally the better prospects will debut at a younger age because they are better and will be aggressively promoted. I think that argument makes sense when it comes to Junior Spivey. BTW, Durazo debuted in the middle of the season at age 25 1/2, so are you suggesting he lacks the talent to succeed? Billy Beane said that Durazo is his "Great White Whale"and you admire Billy Beane's acumen.. I am not being hostile when I raise this, just saying that you need to look behind the numbers and at the individual. Besides Overbay's numbers are great.

I don't know the numbers, but age 22-23 sounds too young for a college senior. That would mean very little minor league experience. Mark Prior was an exception. And look what happened to Ben McDonald. And are pitchers the same as hitters in that regard? Don't know.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
Well, you were arguing like it was certain or at least felt it was highly likely that Overbay will flop. Otherwise why are we arguing?

So it's my fault that you're putting words in my mouth? Didn't you just say in another post I shouldn't jump to conclusions and read into posts more than there is?

Originally posted by schillingfan

No, I don't think the D-Backs were stupid. I don't think Lyle Overbay's development was hurt by getting all that minor league experience, was it? In fact I could argue that Travis Lee's career was hurt irreparably by the D-Backs aggressive promotion of him. You completely miss the point. My point was that had he not been blocked by Durazo and Cust he would have debuted at least a year earlier or pushed more aggressively. That's not always a good thing for player development.

Well from my perspective, either he needed the "experience" or it was wasted. If he needed it, he's not going to have as much production in the majors as you'd think or as you seem to believe, he was ML ready and was wallowing in the minors. You can't have it both ways though.

Originally posted by schillingfan

You can't just say in a vacuum that someone is a lesser prospect because he debuted at an older age, which is exactly what you are saying isn't it?

No it's not what I'm saying. I said "a 20 yr old with the same ability can be expected to play in almost 3x as many games as a 25 yr old"

Originally posted by schillingfan

I think the better argument is that he will be successful, which most analyses I have seen say, because numbers at AA and AAA tend to be pretty predictable to the majors and his numbers at those levels would tend to predict being a .300 hitter. Someone who has put up the numbers that Overbay has put up would have been more aggressively promoted, if not blocked.

Minor league numbers are very predictable to the majors but you still have to understand the caveats of the situation. You've accused me of just looking at the numbers but you are guilty of that exact thing when you ignore Overbay's age. At the age Overbay was hitting a nice 1.006 OPS in Rookie ball, Carlos Beltran was winning the ROY and posting a nice .791 OPS in the majors. Eric Chavez was posting a nice .760 OPS in the majors and Andruw Jones was posting a .836 OPS in his 3rd year in the majors

Originally posted by schillingfan

BTW, Durazo debuted in the middle of the season at age 25 1/2, so are you suggesting he lacks the talent to succeed? Billy Beane said that Durazo is his "Great White Whale"and you admire Billy Beane's acumen.. I am not being hostile when I raise this, just saying that you need to look behind the numbers and at the individual. Besides Overbay's numbers are great.

Yes I am fully aware of Durazo's age situation and Steve and I have talked a lot about it lowering his potential. Beane isn't counting on Durazo to be the "1B of the future" for OAK like I think we are for Ovarbay.

Originally posted by schillingfan

I don't know the numbers, but age 22-23 sounds too young for a college senior. That would mean very little minor league experience. Mark Prior was an exception. And look what happened to Ben McDonald. And are pitchers the same as hitters in that regard? Don't know.

Well if you go and look at college players in MLB you'll see a ton at 22/23 with just as many at 21 as at 24.

 

[Derek in Tucson]

I'm not criticizing them for that move. Just trying to realistically assess what they are doing. But I still think blame should be put on Matty if they sputter this year. I can't believe you would say that the D-Backs are a better team with Finley and Williams than they would have been with Walker and Colbrunn.

Again, you pull out only a portion of the trade to suit your needs. It wasn't just Williams for Walker, it was Williams/Durazo/Prinz/Dellucci for Walker. So instead of Finley/Williams for Walker/Colbrunn as you suggest, it should be Finley/Williams/Durazo/Prinz/Dellucci for Walker/Colbrunn. All that aside, I just don't see how 1 player out of 25 can be blamed for the team's success or failure when it's Matt Williams. So if Randy Johnson goes down with a bad back in April and the DBacks win only 80 games, Matt Williams will get the blame for a bad year in the standings? Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds? Last year Matt Williams had a season that was one of the worst of his career when he only played in 60 games, and the Diamondbacks still won the division. I think they can do the same thing this year.

If you think the fortunes of the Dbacks hang on the loss of Colbrunn vs what Williams will contribute, then you just aren't being realistic. Although Colbrunn is good at what he does, he's still only a part time player. During the last 2 years, when the DBacks won the division both years and the World Series in 2001, Colbrunn had a grand total of 268 at bats during the regular season. That's not a huge loss. Even if Colbrunn would have maintained last year's numbers when he put up an OPS of 1.004, the droppoff to Williams shouldn't lead to that many less DBacks wins given the amount of playing time Colbrunn contributes....maybe 1 or 2.

As far as Overbay goes, although I don't see him as having a long annd glorious career with the Dbacks, I do think he'll be better than the .740(?) OPS that DWKB projects him out to. I think he'll have an OPS of .800 or better in 2003 because he's made any adjustments he's had to make at every level he's played at as a pro.

I also don't think it's as black and white as DWKB suggests when he says Overbay either needed time to develop or his time was wasted in the minors. You have to factor in the DBacks being a contender the last 2 years. If Overbay was with an organization that wasn't contending and/or had few options at 1B, he could have been promoted earlier with a scenario of half a season at AA, 2nd half promotion to AAA in 2001, then starting with the MLB team in 2002.

If I was hard pressed to provide an opinion, I'd say he was held back to a certain extent. At Missoula in 1999, it was clear enough early on that he wasn't being challenged when he set a short season record with over 100 RBI. He could've been promoted quickly to either South Bend or High Desert. Then in 2000 he played half a season at South Bend before getting promoted to AA El Paso for the rest of the season. He could've started the year at High Desert, or maybe even El Paso which is what they did with Chad Tracy when he went from South Bend to El Paso.

But during this time of Overbay's development the DBacks had Lee, Durazo, and Grace at 1B so there was no need to fast track him up the ladder, which IMO was why Overbay was promoted slowly, but I wouldn't label it as a waste of time.

 

[schillingfan]

DWKB, posting on message boards is not a contest to see who wins the argument. I could care less if I "win" the argument, but rather see more value if we can better define the issues and either ultimately agree or disagree, but at least thrash an issue out. I've changed my opinion often by virtue of discussion over the issues. I guess I don't understand what your point is about Overbay then. I said

You can't just say in a vacuum that someone is a lesser prospect because he debuted at an older age, which is exactly what you are saying isn't it?

To which you responded?

No it's not what I'm saying. I said "a 20 yr old with the same ability can be expected to play in almost 3x as many games as a 25 yr old"

So what am I missing here? If playing in 3x as many games is not another way of saying someone is better, then what does it mean? Usually better players play longer. I thought your point was that the D-Backs are not getting younger and better by playing Overbay because he really is not that good a prospect. If that isn't your point, then what is it?