MLB Hot Stove 2012-2013 - Page 9 - Talksox

rjortiz · 12-20-2012, 06:41 PM

Chicago has a pretty decent rotation this year.

Lucienbel · 12-21-2012, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSN07

I'd rather have TB pitching staff. Dickey is an auto ? coming from the NL and not even having to consider he's 38, a KB'er(who is on a 3 year peak, how long do those last for KB pitchers?). Johnson is health issue. He's shown flashes of being an ace, but I view him as more of a Burnett-Beckett type. He's gonna be good, and he's gonna be bad. Buehrle is a soft tossing LHP. He's a good smart vet, but if one of the first 2 stumble, counting on him as a # 2 or higher is a big stretch IMO. Romero was absolutely terrible last season. I'm thankful he is still in the rotation, I see that as a plus for the rest of the division. Morrow has about the highest upside of them all IMO. He's got big boy stuff but hasn't put it all together yet.

Agreed on Morrow. I think he's going to end up being a really good pitcher. At the very least, the veterans on the staff will have a positive impact on him.

While I prefer Tampa's rotation, I don't think it's fair to count Toronto's out. If all these guys have good years they'll be looking real good. With the way other pitching staffs in the AL East are too, they're still one of the best in the East.

a700hitter · 12-21-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucienbel

Agreed on Morrow. I think he's going to end up being a really good pitcher. At the very least, the veterans on the staff will have a positive impact on him.

While I prefer Tampa's rotation, I don't think it's fair to count Toronto's out. If all these guys have good years they'll be looking real good. With the way other pitching staffs in the AL East are too, they're still one of the best in the East.

Plus, the Jays got rid of their loser of a manager.

Lucienbel · 12-21-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a700hitter

Plus, the Jays got rid of their loser of a manager.

That guy sucked so bad.

Palodios · 12-21-2012, 07:17 PM

Random question to everyone out there:

Why don't more players sign one year deals with bad teams? Players always want to play for a winner... but by signing a one year deal, it almost guarantees that they'll be traded to a contender at the trade deadline anyway. Many players really like to limit themselves to a select group of teams, but sometimes those teams end up going nowhere. Great example here is Cody Ross.

Rdsxmbnt · 12-21-2012, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palodios

Random question to everyone out there:

Why don't more players sign one year deals with bad teams? Players always want to play for a winner... but by signing a one year deal, it almost guarantees that they'll be traded to a contender at the trade deadline anyway. Many players really like to limit themselves to a select group of teams, but sometimes those teams end up going nowhere. Great example here is Cody Ross.

Better teams generally have more money to offer and larger fan bases. Why would a bad team offer a lot of money to a guy for one year when they aren't competing. It could also backfire on the player if they have a bad season because then they are stuck in Kansas City or Cleveland. Have you ever been to those cities?

Palodios · 12-21-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdsxmbnt

Better teams generally have more money to offer and larger fan bases. Why would a bad team offer a lot of money to a guy for one year when they aren't competing. It could also backfire on the player if they have a bad season because then they are stuck in Kansas City or Cleveland. Have you ever been to those cities?

This isn't always true though. The Mariners and Indians have had a ton of money to spend, and no one seems to be biting. I know in Seattle's case it has to do with park factors, but there is money out there.

And as far as why a team would offer that deal? For the prospects.

I have been to Kansas City. Its actually a phenomenal city, they call it the City of Fountains-- its a beautiful place. I'd rather live there than LA/Chicago/NY.

Rdsxmbnt · 12-21-2012, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palodios

This isn't always true though. The Mariners and Indians have had a ton of money to spend, and no one seems to be biting. I know in Seattle's case it has to do with park factors, but there is money out there.

And as far as why a team would offer that deal? For the prospects.

I have been to Kansas City. Its actually a phenomenal city, they call it the City of Fountains-- its a beautiful place. I'd rather live there than LA/Chicago/NY.

No one's biting because players don't want to play there. Think about it, Free agents are either right in the middle of their prime or almost on the way out. Players derive value from playing in front of fans and being on a winning team. Victorino gladly accepted less money play in Boston rather than waste the last couple good years of his career in Cleveland. They may be wholesome cities but not for a human with star power and who's career is played out in front of the public.

Palodios · 12-21-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdsxmbnt

No one's biting because players don't want to play there. Think about it, Free agents are either right in the middle of their prime or almost on the way out. Players derive value from playing in front of fans and being on a winning team. Victorino gladly accepted less money play in Boston rather than waste the last couple good years of his career in Cleveland. They may be wholesome cities but not for a human with star power and who's career is played out in front of the public.

I don't think any of this is relevant. I'm talking about a rebuilding value type deal, or a deal where a player simply didn't get any value on the free agent market.

a700hitter · 12-21-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdsxmbnt

No one's biting because players don't want to play there. Think about it, Free agents are either right in the middle of their prime or almost on the way out. Players derive value from playing in front of fans and being on a winning team. Victorino gladly accepted less money play in Boston rather than waste the last couple good years of his career in Cleveland. They may be wholesome cities but not for a human with star power and who's career is played out in front of the public.

Cleveland might have a better team than the Red Sox this year.

Rdsxmbnt · 12-21-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palodios

I don't think any of this is relevant. I'm talking about a rebuilding value type deal, or a deal where a player simply didn't get any value on the free agent market.

It is though. Good players only accept one year deals if there was something wrong with them in the year before. No bad team is team is paying 13mil to Dan Haren or 9.5mil to Stephen Drew. There's too much risk in hoping a wildcard bounces back and then finding someone to deal legitimate prospects for them. That is further diminished by the fact that you can't get draft picks for players traded for mid-season.

Rdsxmbnt · 12-21-2012, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a700hitter

Cleveland might have a better team than the Red Sox this year.

Highly doubt that, the Red Sox have bottomed out, Cleveland might still get worse.

a700hitter · 12-21-2012, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdsxmbnt

Highly doubt that, the Red Sox have bottomed out, Cleveland might still get worse.

The Red Sox have not improved themselves to the point where they are sure to be competitive in 2013. They could very well be a last place team again in 2013.

Lucienbel · 12-23-2012, 11:17 PM

I think this thread brings up a lot of good points. I'd have to assume that once you start playing at a certain level, you kind of just want that pay day and want to know where you're going to be living. As others have said, playing in front of a lot of people is probably a large factor as well.

I think the point about the playing bad is a good point as well. You sign a one year deal with somewhere you don't see yourself long term, and then play bad you get stuck there.

Chone Figgins comes to mind when I think of why players wouldn't want to go to Seattle at least recently. He had rather good numbers before getting there, and now it's safe to say he'd have an impossible time getting MLB playing time anywhere unless he seriously showed something in Spring Training. I figure some players definitely have that in the back of their mind when thinking of Seattle. He certainly isn't the first player to go there and tank either.

At the end of the day though, I could imagine one year deals aren't the most attractive, no matter what the reason. It seems that knowing where you're going to be and having guaranteed money locked up is probably a big deal, just as it is for any working person.

Palodios · 12-25-2012, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucienbel

Chone Figgins comes to mind when I think of why players wouldn't want to go to Seattle at least recently. He had rather good numbers before getting there, and now it's safe to say he'd have an impossible time getting MLB playing time anywhere unless he seriously showed something in Spring Training. I figure some players definitely have that in the back of their mind when thinking of Seattle. He certainly isn't the first player to go there and tank either.

I always thought that Figgins was a product of Seattle as well. But I just dug into his stats, and sure enough, his stats are just as bad in away games as they are in that huge ballpark. I think in his case he had a good few years, cashed in, and fell off a cliff.