Why Can't We Get Jason Michaels?

[CubfaninCA]

Days like this suck. According to Rotoworld, once the Coco Crisp/Andy Marte deal goes down, the Phillies are going to trade Jason Michaels for Arthur Rhodes. Yep, a reliever who seems to have random good years and bad years.

 

What about Michaels? Oh, well, his line last year was just .304/.399/.415/.814, and he literally kills left handed pitching. We couldn't POSSIBLY have any use for that...

 

Just kills me to see what could be an essential piece to our team go elsewhere for so little. Surely a package of Novoa and Welly would be a good place to start.

 

Ugh

 

Where you want to play him? In a platoon in RF?? You're not worried about him playing over Murton?

[treebird]

No your missing the argument , more than obp for a player who has not show great power , defense or been put in the line up everyday to prove he can hold a smaller sample size , is not valued for good reasons by many orgnizations to the same level you would. Case in point for valuing metrics. Theo (sabermetric friendly man) Bill James , BoSox are about to sign a ss who is worse offensively than Nefi Alex Gonzales, all they write about and rave about is his defense . James in more thank one book( i have read ALL his books) talks about valuing defense and more than one stat To really understand a player. I used this because again if its Michaels available as a backup and platoon guy (and we could get him) fine. But the slappy - dusty- nefi talkers are making themselves one deminsional critics. God Bless Coach L.

 

i think i want to change my name here at nsbb from Treebeard to sabermetric friendly man.

[RynoRules]

So your argument is that no one has traded for him b/c either the Phils asked too much or the other teams offered too little, which is essentially to say that the Phils are dopes and are the reason he was not traded during his 20's?

 

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Isn't it possible that he is just more suited for and productive in the 4th OF role?

 

No. That sounds like a reasonable assumption based on known information. What I bolded is a self-fulfilling prohecy. It is Dusty logic.

 

Its not really. Its the role he's been for years with the Phils. Could n't they be right and/or know something we don't?

 

My point isn't that Michaels is not an attractive optiion; he is. Its that it just does not make sense that he hasn't been used more often or traded to a team that recognizes his potential. If we "know" it, why hasn;t someone else picked up on it?

 

Lot's of things in life don't make sense. Why did the Cubs sign a back-up SS to a 2.5 million dollar contract?

 

Is your point that Michaels' situation doesn't make sense? If so, I agree. Which leads me back to my original point; the sensible thing would be one of the following:

1) Play the guy every day; or

2) trade for him and play him every day.

 

It sure does not make sense that neither of these things has happened. Therefore, its reasonable to think there is something about him we do not have knowledge of. Its possible that there isn't, but there's enough evidence, IMO, to suggest that there is.

 

You have to understand that this is a weak argument though. When you first found out about Michaels, did you first see why he got the playing time he did? Of course not, most(if not all) people rightly look at performance first. This is a case of moving way down the list of things that you can find wrong in a player, and making inferences about the player based on situations out of his control, and under control of inept management.

 

And you have to understand that I disagree with your assessment. Just b/c you disagree doesn't mean that my argument is weak. I don't know why you believe that.

 

You appear to be to so focused on the stats that you are missing the bigger story. Nine time out of ten, when a player's stats indicate what Michaels do they either play or are traded to someone who will allow them to play. Michaels is now 30, a relatively advanced age for a baseball player (at least in terms of identifying potential), yet - as discussed ad nauseam above - he has not played consistently and has not been traded to someone who will use him every day. To me, this means there is more to the story; and its perfectly reasonable to think so.

 

Note that this does not mean that I am "right" and you are "wrong". We are both potentially "right" on this issue. The point is that they are both valid points of view. The notion that the stats tell the whole story - especially here where the stats stand in opposition to the reality - is ignorant of other reasonable possibilities.

[Kyle]

I find it hard to believe every organization in baseball is plain stupid. Michaels looks good on paper to a point. But to call out someone and say his argument is weak by saying he hasn't proven he can put those numbers up in a full-time role, is stupid too. I think both of you guys make good arguments. Personally, I'll take my chances with a 305 career hitter, who has played full time throughout his career, over a guy who has yet to play a full time role. That doesn't mean Michaels can't do it full time, but he's never proven it. I think a GM would be stupid to take a chance on a Michaels if you can get a Pierre. It's a safer bet. I don't like a lot of Hendry's offseason moves, but getting Pierre was a GREAT move. We haven't had a real leadoff hitter since Lofton, and we saw what he did for us. Hell that year Patterson was going nuts before his injury, but we were a better team with Lofton in the lineup everyday than we were with Patterson that year. Why complain about the one decent offseason move Hendry did make?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I find it hard to believe every organization in baseball is plain stupid. Michaels looks good on paper to a point. But to call out someone and say his argument is weak by saying he hasn't proven he can put those numbers up in a full-time role, is stupid too. I think both of you guys make good arguments. Personally, I'll take my chances with a 305 career hitter, who has played full time throughout his career, over a guy who has yet to play a full time role. That doesn't mean Michaels can't do it full time, but he's never proven it. I think a GM would be stupid to take a chance on a Michaels if you can get a Pierre. It's a safer bet. I don't like a lot of Hendry's offseason moves, but getting Pierre was a GREAT move. We haven't had a real leadoff hitter since Lofton, and we saw what he did for us. Hell that year Patterson was going nuts before his injury, but we were a better team with Lofton in the lineup everyday than we were with Patterson that year. Why complain about the one decent offseason move Hendry did make?

 

Can someone actually come up with a reason why Michaels would not continue his success in a full time role? Splits, quotes, anything? Most players who play part time have a reason for doing so besides 'they've never played full time'. Michaels is a better defender(unless that will get worse with more playing time despite 2 full seasons of duty) than Pierre, and he consistently has been better than Pierre's best seasons, nevermind when Pierre has BABIP hiccups and doesn't hit .300 and is terrible offensively.

 

The Pierre move wasn't decent at all. We overpaid for a marginal talent who is the very definition of one-dimensional, without any room for improvement upon previous success.

 

Also, our offense was worse after we acquired Lofton and Ramirez. Mind-blowing pitching performance carried us to the playoffs.

[CubfaninCA]

I find it hard to believe every organization in baseball is plain stupid. Michaels looks good on paper to a point. But to call out someone and say his argument is weak by saying he hasn't proven he can put those numbers up in a full-time role, is stupid too. I think both of you guys make good arguments. Personally, I'll take my chances with a 305 career hitter, who has played full time throughout his career, over a guy who has yet to play a full time role. That doesn't mean Michaels can't do it full time, but he's never proven it. I think a GM would be stupid to take a chance on a Michaels if you can get a Pierre. It's a safer bet. I don't like a lot of Hendry's offseason moves, but getting Pierre was a GREAT move. We haven't had a real leadoff hitter since Lofton, and we saw what he did for us. Hell that year Patterson was going nuts before his injury, but we were a better team with Lofton in the lineup everyday than we were with Patterson that year. Why complain about the one decent offseason move Hendry did make?

 

Can someone actually come up with a reason why Michaels would not continue his success in a full time role? Splits, quotes, anything? Most players who play part time have a reason for doing so besides 'they've never played full time'. Michaels is a better defender(unless that will get worse with more playing time despite 2 full seasons of duty) than Pierre, and he consistently has been better than Pierre's best seasons, nevermind when Pierre has BABIP hiccups and doesn't hit .300 and is terrible offensively.

 

The Pierre move wasn't decent at all. We overpaid for a marginal talent who is the very definition of one-dimensional, without any room for improvement upon previous success.

 

Also, our offense was worse after we acquired Lofton and Ramirez. Mind-blowing pitching performance carried us to the playoffs.

 

fatigue.

 

Hey I'd be productive, if I had every other day off. ;)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I find it hard to believe every organization in baseball is plain stupid. Michaels looks good on paper to a point. But to call out someone and say his argument is weak by saying he hasn't proven he can put those numbers up in a full-time role, is stupid too. I think both of you guys make good arguments. Personally, I'll take my chances with a 305 career hitter, who has played full time throughout his career, over a guy who has yet to play a full time role. That doesn't mean Michaels can't do it full time, but he's never proven it. I think a GM would be stupid to take a chance on a Michaels if you can get a Pierre. It's a safer bet. I don't like a lot of Hendry's offseason moves, but getting Pierre was a GREAT move. We haven't had a real leadoff hitter since Lofton, and we saw what he did for us. Hell that year Patterson was going nuts before his injury, but we were a better team with Lofton in the lineup everyday than we were with Patterson that year. Why complain about the one decent offseason move Hendry did make?

 

Can someone actually come up with a reason why Michaels would not continue his success in a full time role? Splits, quotes, anything? Most players who play part time have a reason for doing so besides 'they've never played full time'. Michaels is a better defender(unless that will get worse with more playing time despite 2 full seasons of duty) than Pierre, and he consistently has been better than Pierre's best seasons, nevermind when Pierre has BABIP hiccups and doesn't hit .300 and is terrible offensively.

 

The Pierre move wasn't decent at all. We overpaid for a marginal talent who is the very definition of one-dimensional, without any room for improvement upon previous success.

 

Also, our offense was worse after we acquired Lofton and Ramirez. Mind-blowing pitching performance carried us to the playoffs.

 

fatigue.

 

Hey I'd be productive, if I had every other day off. ;)

 

Okay, let's see how well Michaels performs with 0 v. 1+ days off. It's a worthy reason if there's something behind it.

[CubfaninCA]

I find it hard to believe every organization in baseball is plain stupid. Michaels looks good on paper to a point. But to call out someone and say his argument is weak by saying he hasn't proven he can put those numbers up in a full-time role, is stupid too. I think both of you guys make good arguments. Personally, I'll take my chances with a 305 career hitter, who has played full time throughout his career, over a guy who has yet to play a full time role. That doesn't mean Michaels can't do it full time, but he's never proven it. I think a GM would be stupid to take a chance on a Michaels if you can get a Pierre. It's a safer bet. I don't like a lot of Hendry's offseason moves, but getting Pierre was a GREAT move. We haven't had a real leadoff hitter since Lofton, and we saw what he did for us. Hell that year Patterson was going nuts before his injury, but we were a better team with Lofton in the lineup everyday than we were with Patterson that year. Why complain about the one decent offseason move Hendry did make?

 

Can someone actually come up with a reason why Michaels would not continue his success in a full time role? Splits, quotes, anything? Most players who play part time have a reason for doing so besides 'they've never played full time'. Michaels is a better defender(unless that will get worse with more playing time despite 2 full seasons of duty) than Pierre, and he consistently has been better than Pierre's best seasons, nevermind when Pierre has BABIP hiccups and doesn't hit .300 and is terrible offensively.

 

The Pierre move wasn't decent at all. We overpaid for a marginal talent who is the very definition of one-dimensional, without any room for improvement upon previous success.

 

Also, our offense was worse after we acquired Lofton and Ramirez. Mind-blowing pitching performance carried us to the playoffs.

 

fatigue.

 

Hey I'd be productive, if I had every other day off. ;)

 

Okay, let's see how well Michaels performs with 0 v. 1+ days off. It's a worthy reason if there's something behind it.

 

Has Michaels had trouble w/ injuries in the past??

 

I've heard announcers talk about the "dog days on summer" when players get real tired and decline. Who knows how much effect this has on performance. Guess it depends on the player.

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh, well, his line last year was just .304/.399/.415/.814, and he literally kills left handed pitching. We couldn't POSSIBLY have any use for that...

 

He'd probably be convicted of murder pretty shortly after we acquired him.