Comments on: Off-season timeline

By: eponymous coward

eponymous coward — Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:01:22 +0000

Guzman would even be OK at a million…but I suspect we’d try and sign him to a multiyear deal ala Spiezio/Ibañez.

Let’s put it this way:

Guzman’s 2004 OPS: .693
Rich Aurilia’s 2004 OPS: .667

Aurilia beats Guzman’s 2004 OBP .314 to .309, so the 26 point difference in OPS is smaller than it appears.

His defensive value’s likely better than Aurilia’s, but I’d pass on anything other than cheap filler duty (if we decide Jose Lopez is going to be in Tacoma in April 2005).

By: stan

stan — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:26:57 +0000

Paul C, I really don’t think Leone is a prospect. He strikes out too much and he has trouble throwing the ball across the diamond….

By: Paul Covert

Paul Covert — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:00:32 +0000

ESPN reports that the Lowell FA possibility is looking realistic:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1902843

Lowell’s VORP’s for the past three years have been 47, 52, and 53; UZR puts his defense about 7 runs below average (Davenport is more optimistic there). So his recent performance would seem to be worth about 4-5 games a year (more if Davenport is right about his defense); as he’s now over 30, I’d figure on more like 4, 3, 3 over the next three years (but still an average-to-above 3B). If he goes FA he’ll be giving up a year at $7.5M in Florida; I could see him being worth about $20M/3yrs, maybe a little more (though not much more).

Whether he’ll be worth that much in the M’s specific situation is another question, of course. First, it’s only relevant if Beltre doesn’t come here, of course; I do not wish to promote Lowell as a reason not to go hard after Beltre, only as a possible backup plan just in case.

Even then, Lowell would only make sense after signing a couple of higher-caliber guys (maybe Clement and J.D. Drew). If we’re going to be rebuilding next year anyway, I’d rather give the 3B time to Leone and see if he pans out.

By: The Ancient Mariner

The Ancient Mariner — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:42:23 +0000

If we could get him for the minimum (or close), maybe.

By: stan

stan — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:20:30 +0000

Ancient Mariner…. I don’t know much about him other than what I saw when he played at Cheney Stadium…. He hits the ball hard…. Not a whole lot of foot speed, decent throwing arm, adequate defense… I don’t know how old he is, though I don’t remember seeing him in the Coast League until 2004… He looked to me like a guy who can play the game…. I doubt that he could ever be an All Star but in answer to #42 I would rather have him than Christian Guzman.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:57:56 +0000

CBS Sportsline is reporting that the Twins refused Cristian Guzman’s option for 2005. Any thoughts on Guzman?

By: The Ancient Mariner

The Ancient Mariner — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:10:41 +0000

Furmaniak looks like the better of the two to me as well, but all I have is a single stat line to go on. Anyone know more about this kid?

By: stan

stan — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:29:46 +0000

Ancient Marainer, yes Furmaniak is the shortstop I had in mind. I was not sure how to spell his name. He looked like a decent player who will never dislodge Kahalil Greene. I had forgotten about Vazquez, but I think he would be a decent alternative. Either one would be an upgrade over what the Mariners currently have, though Furmaniak is in my opinion the better player.

By: The Ancient Mariner

The Ancient Mariner — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:12:05 +0000

Re #35: I presume you mean J. J. Furmaniak? His numbers certainly look good; I don’t know much else about him, though. SD might be willing to part with him since they have Khalil Greene. Failing that, I’d be happy to get Ramon Vazquez back–he didn’t hit this season, but he has much better in him.

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:53:56 +0000

I have to agree with Dash (#35). Baylor is this year’s Randolph/Chambliss. Everyone will talk to him so that they can be in compliance with the rules regarding minority candidates.

Houston will aslo have to randomly select a minority candidate with whom to speak before they are allowed to remove the “interim” tag from Garner’s name plate.

Here’s a question: If MLB teams do not need to interview minority candidates to name an interim manager, why don’t clubs just keep their “interim” managers? Is there any reason why a club could not keep the interim manager for, say, five or six years. After all, “interim” is simply a designation indicating the the manager will not be manager for ever, which is true of all managers.