2013 Season, Awards

2013 Cy Young and MVP Talk

101 Comments

Congrats, Max. Scherzer earned 28 of the 30 first place votes. Even Fangraphs was on board with this. Don’t let this one slip by you – Anibal Sanchez finished 4th in the voting (and had 1 first place vote).

 

(saving this space for tomorrow)

 

In other news, Peralta met with the Mhets yesterday.

The Tigers are going to have to deal either Porcello or Scherzer (or Fister) this off-season, else we’ll all have to pledge to buy Hot N Ready’s until our belts explode. This means Smyly to the rotation, which is less exciting to me now than it was last year at this time.

Joe Nathan is getting a lot of pub as he looks be the early favorite for your 2014 closer. Curious to see how free agent Joaquin Benoit is feeling right now. I mean, he didn’t load the bases. He only gave up 1 of those earned runs.

Brayan Pena’s replacement is Ronny Paulino.

I’ll update this tomorrow.

101 thoughts on “2013 Cy Young and MVP Talk”

  1. people are funny. except for the blow-pen, the Tigers have the best 9 in baseball. why is it necessary to change anything except the pen? Peralta’s gone – he knows it; he’s talking to the Mets. anybody who wants to trade a starting pitcher is a MORON! [except Porcello]. and how much value are we gonna get for Porcello? I can’t be the only one who sees how useless he really is. yeah, Profar is an excellent player……but at THAT price?? no friggin’ way. and Infante did fine last year; we don’t need Kendrick. oh yeah, I forgot about Fielder. maybe a trade package with Porcello + Fielder. but we gotta be careful to have protection for Miggy. VMart’s not gonna last a whole lot longer….then what? [if we trade Fielder] if we can get an ‘attitude adjustment’ for Fielder, then we’ll be ok there, too. I don’t think Benoit was bad as a closer; what we really need are the set-up guys that can THROW STRIKES and not get the snot knocked out of ’em. remember, other than the pen, WE HAVE THE BEST 9 IN BASEBALL [we’re better than the RSox]

    dialog from a movie sums it up best for me:

    person 1: “we can’t just do nothing!”
    person 2: “why? it’s generally best”

    LET’S NOT BE STUPID HERE!!!

    1. scott – it is going to be very difficult to keep Fister, Porcello and Scherzer from a payroll perspective. Better to trade them and get value then let them walk in free agency.

      I trust Dave Dombrowski.

      1. Scott, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Tigers have the best 9 in baseball. They do have a strong 6 of 9 if they keep Infante. The starting rotation carried the Tigers in 2013 and made that 9 look better than it was.

        Agree that the bullpen is what needs the overhaul. I’d like to see some other changes, but I’m not itching for big trades or big signings. Don’t like trading starters myself, but Porcello has as much trade value as Fister and is the more expendable one. I think that Porcello and Avila, to name a couple, are much more attractive to other teams than their home team detractors can see.

        I don’t think doing nothing works out very well in baseball, generally. Ask the White Sox.

        1. WSox did do something: they traded Carlos Quentin for Jake Peavy, who’s now with………the RSox. I knew it was a stupid trade when they did it, at the time, Quentin was their best player. I know this was a few years back, but it illustrates the concept of ‘doing something’…….generally to the detriment of one’s own team.

          1. Quentin and Peavy were never traded for one another, but Quentin for Peavy would have been a win for the White Sox.

            I was talking about last year, when the White Sox pretty much stood pat over the offseason. I picked them to finish last, and they did.

            1. I don’t see payroll concerns driving trades of Scherzer, Fister, or Porcello. I think the Tigers can afford whoever they want, pretty much. If they want to sign Robinson Cano to a 10-year, $300 million deal, they can do it. I don’t think they should, but I think they can.

              The payroll angle is overplayed. You can’t ignore it when you’re playing fantasy GM, but I find the whole thing decidedly boring. Some people embrace it. I bow to it grudgingly for the sake of realism. I like the game on the field a whole lot better.

            2. “Better to trade them and get value then let them walk in free agency.”

              I think I disagree with this conventional wisdom. Or maybe I’m just feeling contrarian today. I think it’s a philosophy more suited to an organization that is rebuilding or housecleaning. Or maybe it makes a great organizational “way of life,” but I prefer a little more stability. A great season from Scherzer in 2014 before he walked away wouldn’t be a loss, to my mind. Thanks, so long, no complications, and no regrets.

              1. No way. You’ll end up with a bunch of dinosaurs like the Yankees. You have to get good young value in return to stay relevant. Especially with our weak drafts as of late. This isn’t a problem for us right now, but it could be at the end of the decade.

              2. You have to choose your dinosaurs carefully. The Tigers have made two dinosaur deals with Verlander and Fielder, and will soon make another one with Cabrera. I’m fine with those dinosaurs.

                Then there are deals where the dinosaur was in the present tense. That can work out well. Torii Hunter, for instance. The Tigers and Yankees are both pretty good at this kind of deal. I think the Tigers would be well-served to sign Granderson to a Hunter-like deal. I think he’d take it.

                Then there are “prime deals.” Martinez. Benoit. Sanchez. The deal Scherzer should be offered. These are the best deals.

                Then there are “cautious prime deals.” Peralta. The deal Infante will get, here or elsewhere.

                None of these require any extra shrewdness about squeezing out the last drop of value in the form of younger talent or prospects. Sign the contract, honor the contract. Scherzer walks? Then someone else walks in. You got your money’s worth.

                The Tigers have the trade pieces – excluding Scherzer – to bring in plenty of new talent, young or old or in between, and prospects. I think the fascination with trading a Max Scherzer is the idea that this will net a great glob of talent all at once (while saving money to boot!). Sure, just like the Marlins got for Miguel Cabrera.

                There’s another way to get young talent and regenerate without rebuilding: Develop it. This has occurred to the A’s and Cardinals. Tigers might want to consider it some day.

              3. Regarding the trading of Scherzer (I don’t see trades of Porcello or Fister being pre-emptive get value before free agency deals):

                If you think Scherzer is going to be a blue chip starter through 2018, then you pay the price to keep him. Probably now. If you don’t think so, you plan to replace him, starting now. There are a number of reasons you wouldn’t trade him to replace him:

                1. Unless you think 2013 was a fluke (in which case you should trade Scherzer tomorrow), the Tigers need Max in 2014. They have a starting pitching surplus. They don’t have a Max Scherzer surplus.

                I’ll get to the other reasons if this freak November storm leaves me with life, house, and electricity.

              4. 2. A team interested in trading for Scherzer now would have to be interested in keeping him long-term, right? I mean, what win now team just looking for that dominant starter could offer a package that wouldn’t shoot their win now plans in the foot? So the team looking to add Max and become a contender can either give up the moon now or just wait and bid on him after 2014. What team is desperate enough for the former, and what does such a team have to offer the Tigers anyway?

                3. What would be fair compensation to the Tigers for losing Scherzer for 2014? I can’t think of anything that would fair to ask for.

                The only situation I can see trading Scherzer early in is if the Tigers are out if it in 2014 as the trade deadline approaches. The time to trade Scherzer would have been before this season, and we’re glad that didn’t happen. It’s too late now, which is not a bad thing.

  2. yeah I trust Dave too……..he can let Porcello [and Coke] walk right now for all I care. that’ll free up some $ space. the starting pitching got us to where we are now – you don’t trade what got you success. especially starting pitching…..how many teams are crying for starting pitching? even the Skankees are. I know what we can do: we can trade all 4 starters……and then fight the Twinkies for the bottom slot….. 🙁
    any trade talk involving the starters is just asinine.

    WE DON’T NEED Kendrick
    WE DON’T NEED Profar

  3. Ah, but Kevin, Benoit allowed all those runs to score. Earned or not, he let ’em in. His job not to. He certainly didn’t need to let them *all* in.

    1. I’ve read comments from Brian Kenny (mlb network) and the Saber-like that insist Trout was robbed AGAIN this year for MVP. Call me biased or an idiot, but i’m just not seeing it.

      Cabrera had 34 fewer AB’s than Trout and hit 17 more HR’s, had 40 more RBI and scored just 6 less runs than Trout. Yes Trout ruled the SB category, and is a great defensive OF but:

      Cabrera: AVG: 348 OBP: 442 SLG: .636 OPS: 1.078
      M Trout: AVG: 323 OBP: 432 SLG: 557 OPS: .988

      i’m all for considering Sabermetrics, WAR, etc…and any other means that measures a players value or productivity, but these formulas are not perfect and therefore shouldn’t be viewed as “all that and a bag of chips” when comparing players.

      Someone I know who has a better understanding than me of WAR (and most other analytical things) recently offered me this perspective on WAR:

      one of the problems with WAR is that it is a stat which combines every facet of hitting & fielding & base-running together, and primarily treats each ‘stat’ equally with no fluctuation in weight or precedence. Compiling statistical data in this manner/formula employs a method called ‘beta weighting’. For example, HBP & BB stats are considered equal to HRs (minus applicable influence on RBIs) – additionally, “positioning” adjustments provide an increased WAR for corner OF positions more than corner infield positions… which could/should be viewed as flawed…

      WAR also doesn’t consider that Cabrera played injured the last 1 1/2 months of the season – imagine what his stats woulda/coulda been had he been healthy. If Trout had a similar injury in August, he would have been shut-down for the season since LAA never really contended.

      According to 2013 WAR stats alone, Trout should be AL MVP and Carlos Gomez should be NL MVP – I rest my case.

      1. Not to mention that there is no WAR number–there are WAR numbers. For example, Cabrera has a Fangraphs WAR of 7.6, and a Baseball Reference WAR of 7.2.

      2. In agreement with you SN$, I have always questioned how this “stat” was developed, sometimes considering all things equal is not the way to go. Trout will be an MVP some day, but his “traditonal” stats ( HR,RBI etc) have to go up. Old baseball axiom, you can’t steal first.

          1. I wonder what the thought process was when they came up with Most Valuable Player. If what they meant was Best Player, they could have said so. No, it’s “most valuable.” Literally, that would mean “most expensive,” which would be easy to settle. But it’s most valuable in terms of… what? Performance that could have and should have helped to win games, or performance that played a part in actual team wins? Also, is it this winning contribution relative to and across all players and teams, or relative to one team? It’s very ambiguous, and the snippets of the voting guidelines I’ve read don’t make it any clearer.

            Still glad Miguel Cabrera is the 2013 AL MVP. Settles no arguments, only starts them, but it’s a well-deserved accolade for a great player who will – we hope – always be remembered as a Detroit Tiger as well.

  5. Peralta would make a great super sub for the Tigers, if only it were possible. 3B, SS, LF. Too bad.

  6. baseball $$$ is totally out of control. Therefore conventional wisdom of how to put your team together is out of the window. Owners are falling over themselves discussing the $300 million dollar player. How much you spend and what your payroll is has practically nothing to do with team success!

  7. sometimes the best move it to do nothing…..if the season started today the Tigers are either 1 or 2 on the AL…that ain’t bad. And they aren’t even close to being over the hill age wise. There is absolutely no reason to reduce payroll. Why in todays market would you want to.? will it make your team better? will it give you value for your $$$….answers no..no..and no!..I also trust DD

    1. The Tigers have got to do more than nothing, but not a lot more. They don’t even need to pursue Benoit or Infante. What it appears that they *must* do is:

      a) Trade a starter, be it Porcello, Fister, or Smyly.
      b) Bring in some bullpen from the outside, anywhere from 2-4 guys

      So there could be no more than two truly new faces in 2014, both in the bullpen. The idea of Santiago and Kelly back for the bench alarms me, and the youth movement of Castellanos, Perez, and Holaday alarms others, but it could work. Seems like it’s counting a bit much on a starting rotation pitching out of its mind for a second consecutive year (isn’t something just *bound* to go wrong here in 2014?), but then again, the following is not inconceivable:

      a) Healthy Cabrera all season
      b) Good Victor all season
      c) A return to form for Fielder
      d) Bounceback year from Avila

      Add in a better bullpen… OK. “Nothing” could make the playoffs. But it usually doesn’t.

    1. Interesting article. A whole slew of them over there, actually.

      Where I take slight issue with the article is the question of defense and XBH where the Tigers are concerned. With the Tigers, it’s not about XBH allowed. It’s about singles that could have been outs that extended innings, DPs that weren’t, and to a significant degree the inability to control the opponent’s running game. Iglesias will make a difference whether paired with Infante or Perez or whoever, but the corners are what they are until you can push one of them (Cabrera in 2015 would be my choice) to DH. Controlling the running game, well, who knows, but you’d think a manager like Ausmus is going to take this personally.

      Still no sign of any shift in the direction of better defense and baserunning. Not much room for it, I guess. There’s nothing wrong with Kelly and Santiago as defenders or baserunners, but ironically, there aren’t two position players I more want off the team.

      I wish it wasn’t the convention to carry 12 pitchers on the 25-man roster. No bench flexibility for me at all.12 pitchers! What a waste.

      1. I agree on the 12-man pitching staff being a waste. Not all the time, of course, as there are periods during the season when there are no off days for a long time, or when the bullpen is just getting a lot of work in for whatever reason. Mostly though, and especially with a staff like ours that tends to go deep into games, the extra player would definitely be more useful coming off the bench. Early in the season, when you are trying to ease the innings/pitch counts up, it makes some sense, but later, no. And when those situations do arise, you go to your extended bench/staff (Toledo/Erie) and put those options to work, which the Tigers are actually pretty good at doing. One guy who will buck the trend occasionally is Gardenhire (when his starters can be relied upon to go more than 4 innings; not last year!), but I am not aware of anyone else in the AL. Another problem with “too many” relievers is the potential for them to become ‘specialists’ (some managers like those), e.g. ROOGYs and LOOGYs, which to my mind may not necessarily be the best use of the talent (re: Smyly).

        1. At the very least a team could be flexible about carrying 11-12 pitchers, as you suggest. 12 seems to carved in stone now, along with the notion of specialists. Relief pitchers are babied beyond belief. I could write an entire article on the subject of “rest” in baseball in general. Most of a ballplayer’s working life, with the exception of the catcher’s position, is spent sitting or standing around. The grind, it would seem to me, is the travel. True “time off” would be being excused from part of (at least) a road trip. I have to laugh when I hear about “getting a guy off his feet.” Standing is work? (So why are they standing at the dugout railing on their off days?) They’re not playing hockey out there, you know.

          Anyway, while it’s conceivable that you might need to use 5 relievers two games in a row, and somewhat conceivable that 2 of them might not be good to go two in a row… 4 guys is a pretty thin position player bench. The cost of doing business in the AL, I suppose. So get rid of the DH. I wouldn’t mind. (Get rid of interleague play, too, while you’re at it.)

      1. Long term contracts are always a gamble. But they are now the norm. 10 years ago if someone was offered a 4-5 year deal, the reaction would have been “what are they thinking”, while today we mostly just yawn. There is so much money in pro sports now that the owners probably don’t even consider these kind of expenditures a gamble, but a necessary “reasonable risk” instead. And with tax breaks and insurance maybe it isn’t even that.

        1. Long term contracts in baseball seem pretty insane to me. The player is looking for security, and the organization is looking for stability (including a locked-in price). That seems sensible on the surface, except that the commodity being bought and sold is too volatile. The players do end up with their money. Aside from that, there’s no security and stability added. It’s done nothing to slow the increase in top salaries – quite the opposite. That would be predictable to someone schooled in economics, probably. To me it seems counterintuitive.

          The question is: What is in it for the owners? Must be something. Why would you go along with something that doubles or triples payroll every ten years?

          1. But back to Fielder and Howard. There is, of course, a great deal of difference between the two players and the two situations. Fielder would have landed that Tigers deal with someone else if not the Tigers. He had a HoF track record. Still does, actually.

              1. I don’t recall. I think the Tigers went after it in terms of making an offer that could not be refused, so set on Fielder were they. I don’t know if another team would have offered 9 years, but they might have traded down, dollars for years, to a 7-year deal. For a guy with his record entering his prime…

  12. Wally Joyner is an upgrade at batting coach no mater if he is good at it or not..We are going from rock bottom in this area!

      1. Wow, a defensive coordinator. Matt Martin. Wow. This could be good. I like all these coaching staff moves.

        I don’t know how much of the Tigers’ defensive shortcomings can be (or could have been) attributed to scouting/analysis/positioning/coaching (and/or the manager paying any attention to all this). We could be about to find out. That would be grrrrrreat!

        1. Another sign of moving into the 21st C. perhaps? Should we worry about this “changing the culture”?

          1. Sure looks like changing the culture. I guess we really won’t know until the 2014 regular season whether it will translate to the field. Makes me wonder what DD could have meant with his “not changing the culture” remark.

            1. I thought it was just another throwaway line (but then I am pretty cynical) – a sound bite kind of thing. After all, what exactly is this “culture” that they speak of? A pretty vague term that can be used to describe just about anything (to the point of not describing anything). I think that if you asked 50 different people what they thought it meant, you would get 50 different “well, yeah, ah, hmm” answers. Feel free to have at it though.

              Maybe we could have a “Culture: What It Means To You” thread when the trade rumors become unbearably silly.

              1. Good points. Although I don’t precisely remember the context of DD’s remark, it was on the heels of Leyland retiring. So I’m guessing it meant:

                “Don’t think we’re happy that Leyland is retiring or that there was any pressure on him to. We were pleased with the overall state of the team and not plotting any particular “change in direction” based on dissatisfaction with results.”

                But now… domino effect. Totally. The times they are a-changin’.

    1. Should have asked Cy whether he thinks he was (and maybe still is) really the best pitcher of all time.

  17. Ridiculous pitching contracts are driving up Porcello and Fister’s trade value already, I think.

  18. What I take away from Joe Nathan’s comments reported by Jason Beck is that Nathan wants to pitch for the Yankees.

      1. Expensive, too. Perfect fit.

        I wonder whether the Tigers have Mujica and C. Perez on their radar. Or whether they, too, are set on old and expensive.

          1. No good? Is it the pitching or the personality? Or both? I don’t think he’s washed up at 28.

            1. What I really like about it is the potential for a (entire group) bullpen nickname. The Doobie Brothers. Can’t think of a song that ties in with relief pitching offhand, though. ” It Keeps You Runnin’ ” is clearly no good.

              2. “What a Fool Believes?”

                Ha ha. How about some help here? There must be at least one Doobie Brothers song with an uplifting bullpen message. I’m going to check their discography. I only know the hits.

              3. Nah. Nothing but bullpen doom. Losin’ End. You Just Can’t Stop It. Nothing But A Heartache. Livin’ On The Fault Line.

                There’s always “I Cheat The Hangman.” Too obscure. OK, Perez is out.

  19. I like our new coaching hires, but Prince Fielder is our whole off-season. Is he going to get back on track, or not?

    Moreover, after two seasons’ worth of close observation, I don’t think Cabrera can stay healthy playing 3B over the long term. He’s just too big and not quick enough laterally for the position.

    We were 0-for-2 these playoffs: Cabrera hurting and Fielder in a deep slump. If even one of them is “on”, the Tigers win the World Series.

    Really, that’s Dombrowski’s only call. If “Yes, Prince will bounce back,” then go get Joe Nathan and make another run – but Prince has to prove it.

    If “No, Prince will never reach his Brewers level”, then pair Scherzer and Fielder in a trade and see if another one of the 31 owners will go, “OMG, the Cy Young winner and a 50-HR hitter!” and compel his GM to make the deal.

    I’d be happy with a low-level prospect in return, just to back out of Prince’s contract. Then Miggy can move back to 1B and you’ve freed up the money for a payroll-neutral run at Robinson Cano.

  20. On second thought, in the “Scherzer + Fielder trade” scenario, I’d hold out for for a young 3B in return (someone like Toronto’s Brett Lawrie or Houston’s Matt Dominguez), even if we had to toss in a prospect. *

    *Excepting Castellanos or Jake Thompson.

    1. I don’t think the Tigers are interested in freeing up money. I don’t the Tigers have the slightest interest in trading Scherzer or Fielder, much less both of them at once. I doubt that Cabrera will ever replace Fielder at 1B. Cabrera has DH written all over him after 2014, unless the Tigers unwisely to decide to chase after some other legless bat after Martinez departs.

  21. EDIT: 29 owners besides Mr. Illitch. Pardon me, as it’s the middle of football season and I was thinking of the 32-team NFL.

    1. Diving part of the future from these tea leaves… I say the Tigers do not wait for Nathan waiting on the Yankees, and sign their closer before the winter meetings. Maybe even Nathan. But I don’t think so.

  25. http://www.freep.com/article/20131120/SPORTS02/311200137/detroit-tigers-miguel-cabrera

    the economic hurdle (reality) likely prevents DET from signing ‘both’ Cabrera and Scherzer to extensions this off-season – Cabrera could get a Pujols-type (10 yrs $240M) contract and Scherzer could get $25M+ per yr for 6-8 years ($150M – $200M), and those numbers factored in with dollars/years committed to just Fielder, Verlander & Sanchez takes DET up the ‘team payroll’ ladder to the NYY-level (or above if ARoid remains suspended and they save or reallocate that $30M)

    So I reiterate, if the right deal presents itself, Scherzer will be traded this off-season… unless of course DD trades Sanchez instead. As Salvatore ‘Sal’ Tessio (in Godfather I, upon realizing he was about to get whacked) said, “Tell Mike it was only business… I always liked him” Tom Hagen replies: “He understands that”

    Fielder & Scherzer both turn 30 during the ’14 season, while Cabrera will turn 31. Prime years for most.

    1. I don’t think there is any right deal for Scherzer. Sanchez is as much a part of the plan as Scherzer, and when you consider that he’s already signed through 2017, Anibal is the less flexible part of the plan at this point.

      I don’t anything prohibits the Tigers from extending both Scherzer and Cabrera. If there was a choice between the two, clearly Cabrera would stay and Scherzer would walk. After 2014. No trade.

      There is not a reason in the world for a team in the Tigers’ position to trade elite players in the prime of their careers. None.

  26. Fielder traded for Kinsler. Wow. Look how wrong you (I) can be. Wow. Not the part about me being wrong – that happens every day. Just a completely unexpected swap.

    1. Do we go shopping for a third baseman and move Miggy back to first, or does the fact that Lennerton was put on the 40-man yesterday give the nod to him as Fielder’s heir apparent? Or does Castellanos move back to his old position (with it being his job to lose)? If that is the case DD can shop for an OF bat – is Ellsbury in play? Maybe extending Scherzer and Cabrera are both possible now. Anyway this one deal, that NOBODY thought had a chance to get done, changes the complexion of the Tigers in multiple ways. Onward to a team that can do something besides slug it.

      2. Yeah, the possibilities for Lennerton are now interesting. Maybe it’s not automatic that Cabrera moves to 1B.

        1. I had put it out of my mind that Castellanos would ever be a candidate for 3B again, but everything’s up for grabs now. Very interesting. This could have implications for Peralta as well – very capable of moving back to 3B, that guy.

          1. Peralta is a thought too, but not for 45M. We’ll have to wait ans see what the Yankees finally do – they may end up gobbling up all available shortstops to platoon with Jeter.

    1. A Festivus miracle!

      I’m not so happy to lose Fielder, not so unhappy to gain Kinsler.

      “Not changing the culture”? Talk about misdirection.

      1. Fielder is a good guy I think, and hopefully he rebounds in Texas. But he was a mis-match for the Tigers from the get-go. The lineup will be more balanced now and the defense has the potential (depending on what other moves are made) to be vastly improved.

        Now about the untradability of Alex Avila…

        1. Avila and Porcello for bullpen, bullpen, bullpen, maybe?

          I still consider Avila more or less untradeable (Tigers point of view). Which can only mean that it’s about to happen.

  29. Prince wore himself out after one season in Detroit..Hard working caring people support the Tigers…don’t give us that “so what we lost BS..and so what I stunk BS….good riddance!…welcome Ian!!

  30. It figures…I’m out when bug news breaks, and I’m too distracted to have an opinion. Other than I thought Fielder was untradeable. I wonder how much his post-WS comments figured in?

    2. Also: whoever is playing first next season can have a day off or two. The most annoying regular season thing about Fielder was that consecutive game streak.

      1. “I wonder how much his post-WS comments figured in?”

        In hindsight, I think they were a symptom of something recognized within the organization much earlier in the season and not liked at all. His fate might have been sealed much earlier than we think.

        1. I posted it under his name. I’m going to steal your thoughts for the article when I take remote control of Kevin’s motor functions to type it up.

  32. Tigers are sending 30M to Texas along with Fielder. Somewhat of an admission that they overpaid to begin with. And please DD, no more 9-year deals.

  33. I agree with Coleman that streak with Mumble totally afraid to end it might be a biggest reason Prince tanked at the end of the year. He absolutely needed a break and now its The Rangers problem….hey Miggy get that 1B mitt back out!!!

    1. You know, it’s early, very early, but at this point I’m thinking I’d like to see what Lennerton has to offer. Miggy is no great shakes at 1B, and you’re wasting the gun he’s got at 3B. Maybe they can mix it up (+DH) a little. I see other teams with such flexibility and am a bit envious.

Comments are closed.