Transmogrified Tiger

Williams is better than a bottom feeder. His performance puts him in the top 30 starters in the NL, which is equivalent to a 2 starter.

I'm not sure, a quick glance shows that he's borderline to be a FA after next season.

There's no way in the world Cano is 'definitely' better than Walker. I don't have time to break down the numbers right now, but I think Walker is better than a good portion of the 2B's listed in that second tier(Eckstein is a SS).

Link? Sarcasm dude. Link? See how it works?

Michaels has a career .291 AVG, including .304 last year.

Bengie Molina: 295/336/446, 15 HR, 69 RBI, 41/27 K/BB, IsoP 110 Michael Barrett: 276/345/479, 16 HR, 61 RBI, 61/40 K/BB, IsoP 134 A bit bigger difference than I expected, but not much, and entirely in IsoP. Wouldn't Molina's better defense cancel out Barrett's slightly better slugging? I'm not anti-Barrett, I'm just thinking of trade currency and ways to improve the OVERALL team here. Like I said before, that was a career year for Molina. Aside from this past year, he's never had an OBP over .320, and for his career he barely cracks a .700 OPS(84 career OPS+, yikes). He'll be 32 this summer and age normally isn't too kind to catchers. If he were several years younger I'd like it alot more, and I could understand the shift to a defense oriented catcher philosophically, but I don't think switching Molina for Barrett is the way to go, unless you can get a LOT in trade for Barrett.

You really aren't reading the responses, are you?

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.

This is ridiculous. The guy had around 350 PA's each of the last two seasons. He's not some specialist who only sees the light of day in certain situations. It's a greater assumption that he'll somehow fall apart with an extra 150-200 PA's than to assume he'll stay productive, and not fall apart for reasons that no one is able to provide, other than "there's a reason Philly never started him". At the very least, Michaels will get 200 more ABs in 2006 if he plays full time. Assuming he hits near the top of the order, he should expect an additional 300 plate appearance than his 289 last year. By comparison, Crisp had 594 ABs in 2005. I was just upping the total to qualifier status, which is 500 PA's to my knowledge. It wasn't any type of prediction.

What I'm saying is that when you have an organization as ineffective recently as the Phillies and who just fired their GM, using their action or inaction as justification(and to this point the ONLY justification) to devalue a player is faulty.

This is ridiculous. The guy had around 350 PA's each of the last two seasons. He's not some specialist who only sees the light of day in certain situations. It's a greater assumption that he'll somehow fall apart with an extra 150-200 PA's than to assume he'll stay productive, and not fall apart for reasons that no one is able to provide, other than "there's a reason Philly never started him".

Plus isn't Bengie Molina 33 or something around there? For a catcher that's pretty old. There has to be a reason he's not getting any love on the free agent market. Molina's not a bad player at all, but saying he's even close to Barrett's level offensively is incorrect.

No one ever said the Phillies were a smart organization. Again, you're defending the decision making of an organization that just replaced it's GM as the basis of the argument. I mentioned this in the other thread and received no reply: What about the fact that over the last three or so years, no other org. has been beating down the doors to get Michaels? If he's so underutilized yet so valuable, why haven't other fwd-thinking teams put togethr a deal for him? The argument that Bowa, Manuel and Wade misused him does not explain this. EDIT: BTW, CubsDad is not my twin and I don't have a second user name. O:) There's a multitude of reasons why a player isn't traded. Teams asking too much, offering too little, etc. The lack of Michaels being an everyday player isn't proof he is incapable of handling it, or that there is something wrong with him. That's just faulty logic.

Are you reading the arguments? Michaels is a better defender than Pierre, he gets on base more, he hits for more power, he does just about everything better than Pierre. It's not one dimensional at all.

Solid. I'd put him in the pen.

Barrett and Molina are not offensive equals. Molina had a career year offensively and he still wasn't within 40 OPS points of Barrett.

Not quite drinking...

No one ever said the Phillies were a smart organization. Again, you're defending the decision making of an organization that just replaced it's GM as the basis of the argument.

ESPN profiles are garbage. His .150 career IsoP is plenty good enough for a CF, and he's a better defender than Pierre. Michaels is better, aside from basestealing, which Pierre has just a good a chance to hurt the team as to help, Michaels is superior in every aspect of the game. Michaels has nearly 1000 PA's of very good production, it's not a sample size issue at all. Also, assuming there is some unknown reason Michaels isn't playing, and therefore a competent front office, from an organization that just fired it's GM recently seems to be a bit of a contradiction. Pierre for his career is near that break even point, but he's had his good years and bad stealing bases, hence the just as likely to hurt as help comment.

I just watched the game (i've been working a ton and had it taped). How can you call that a clean block? Moody got hammered. Not that it mattered. I can't believe we gave that game away. Self cost us that one. You tell your kids explicitly, "Don't shoot until ten seconds are left in the clock." But were just jacking it up. Unbelievable. We should be undefeated in conference. Instead we're 2-2 with losses to our two biggest rivals. We've got our work cut out for us if we want to make the tourney now. self's not a great in-game coach. he'll do something with those recruits, though, provided that they stay for a couple years. and moody DID get hammered. you'd think a 3-4 time academic all-american could develop some type of consistent and repeatable free-throw shooting form. it's not that hard. Yeah, choke city. But really, we shouldn't have been in that position anyway. Kudos to Mizzou for never giving up and taking advantage, though. They were very poised. McKinney definitely wacked him in the arm, going through the one towards the ball. I saw a lot of fans getting upset with Self for his management at the end of the game. Particularly him calling timeouts when Mizzou had no more.

Not at all. At least not from my perspective. He's a nice hitter, for a 2B, but his defense has always been a problem. It's more of an explanation for why so few teams seem interested in him... I also dispute that the Cubs have screwed him. I remember hearing the guy from Baseball Solutions.com on the radio rattle off the numbers about 2B . Walker was the worst 2B in the MLs at turning the double play in 2003. He platooned in 2004 and was injured for part of 2005 so I don't think he's improved in that area. I think teams are taking those things into consideration. Certainly, if he were a hot item he would have been traded already. Defense is not a static ability. Like hitting people have good year's and bad years. Walker had a very bad year defensively in '03, and was better in '04 and '05. Still below average, but not the travesty that people are making his defense to be. In fact, very similar to Juan Pierre in CF. It might not be static but he is still a below average defender. One could argue that Pierre's defense will improve now that he's playing half of his games in a cozy ballpark. However, I don't think there is a senario where Walker's defense can be improved dramatically. Juan Pierre will not become a better defender because he plays at Wrigley. Wrigley will not help him take better routes to balls, or put some extra zip on his throws. It may help disguise his shortcomings because of tinier alleys, but he's still the same guy.

ESPN profiles are garbage. His .150 career IsoP is plenty good enough for a CF, and he's a better defender than Pierre. Michaels is better, aside from basestealing, which Pierre has just a good a chance to hurt the team as to help, Michaels is superior in every aspect of the game.

2 of Pierre's 5+ seasons he's been short of .350, 36% of his career PA's. He's not a lock at all. His baserunning is not guaranteed to be helpful with the amount of times he's been caught stealing in the past. Meanwhile, the only period Michaels was short of .350 was his first real stint in the big leagues, 123 PA's with a .347 OBP.

Not at all. At least not from my perspective. He's a nice hitter, for a 2B, but his defense has always been a problem. It's more of an explanation for why so few teams seem interested in him... I also dispute that the Cubs have screwed him. I remember hearing the guy from Baseball Solutions.com on the radio rattle off the numbers about 2B . Walker was the worst 2B in the MLs at turning the double play in 2003. He platooned in 2004 and was injured for part of 2005 so I don't think he's improved in that area. I think teams are taking those things into consideration. Certainly, if he were a hot item he would have been traded already. Defense is not a static ability. Like hitting people have good year's and bad years. Walker had a very bad year defensively in '03, and was better in '04 and '05. Still below average, but not the travesty that people are making his defense to be. In fact, very similar to Juan Pierre in CF.

Who are all of these players who you are certain can step in and play GG calibre defense at either middle infield spot for less than $2.5 million. Neifi was over-extended last year, he is after all a backup. He gave wonderfull production offensively and defensevely for a backup middle infielder. It is not his fault that he is not a top of the order hitter. Neifi is an above average defender, whether that fits the wildly subjective GG category I don't know. He is an abhorrent offensive player. This makes his total package virtually a net zero, completely replaceable. This means there are scores of players with similar skillsets that can do the exact same thing as Neifi Perez, except many are younger so they have the potential to be better. This isn't complicated. Sully I think you are completely wrong on this. For beane it was all about getting the most baseball production for the dollar. At that time OBP was the undervalued commodity, great defensive players or speed, or power could just as easily have been the commodit that was undervalued and if they were he would have gone after those talents instead. If it isn't a very big contribution then it is not undervalued. Okay, to simplify things, let's say that things have an importance toward winning on a scale of 1-10. Let's say at the time Moneyball was written, OBP was valued as a 4 on the open market when in actuality it was an 8. It was undervalued, and it is important to building a successful club. Now, let's say at some point in the future the ability to steal bases is valued as a 1 in the open market when in actuality it's a 3. It's undervalued, but pursuing it just because it's undervalued doesn't help you because it's not all that important.