Cabrera to Tigers rumor?

If I were Florida

I'd want Maybin, Miller, and Porcello, plus another player.

Neither Miller nor Maybin is a can't miss prospect at this point, and if Maybin/Miller and change is all it takes to nab Cabrera AND Willis, I'd have to think somebody like Colletti would be all over that. I mean, Matt Kemp and Clayton Kershaw is a much better deal than Maybin/Miller...isn't it?

by ajohnst1 on Dec 4, 2007 12:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Maybin

Maybin is better than Kemp and Kershaw is better than Miller. I would take Maybin/Miller over Kershaw/Kemp. It the Dodgers made a move for abrera I assume he wouldmove to the outfield so as not to block Laroche. The Tigers would keep Cabrera at third and either trade Inge, or use him as a super sub.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

pardon my grammar in that post

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

Kemp is so much better than Maybin, it's scary.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

your so wrong

by High Heater on Dec 4, 2007 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

please defend that position

i'd LOVE to hear how you do it

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 4, 2007 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybin

Maybin has the potential to be an amazing player. His ceiling is higher than any player in the minors including Jay Bruce. Now, Maybin has a lot of work to do to reach that ceiling and it is possible that he never will, but he will still be a great player. He plays gold glove caliber defense, has a strong arm, could steal 50+ bases in the big leagues, could have 40 home run power and still hit for a solid average. Kemp cannot come close.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

bollocks

People cling to this "highest ceiling in the minors" crap. Based on what? This is such an arbitrary, unverifiable statement.

Why is Maybin's ceiling higher than Bruces? Because he has more power? no. Because he strikes out less? no. Because he's a great "athlete"? Great.

So is Rasmus, and Rasmus has actually performed.

For that matter, so is Matt Kemp, and he's also actually performed.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you implying

that Maybin hasn't performed? That is simply not true. He hasn't performed at the same level as Rasmus and Bruce, but he certainly hasn't not performed.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he has "performed"

by virtue of the fact that the word is a verb and he has "performed" in a mediocre way and well beneath expectations.

He has done nothing to indicate that he has 40 homer potential, other than being 6'3". Sean Burroghs was also a big guy.

He strikes out way too much (like Kemp) and he hits way too many ground balls (unlike Kemp). Until he addresses those major holes, he's got a pretty pronounced "ceiling".

If he does address those holes, then maybe he can approach the level of production that Kemp has already achieved in a pitcher's park - you know - .840 OPS with 17 homers and 16 steals in his first 450 AB, and having never put up less than a .900 OPS above low A

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So I see

Where we disagree is Maybin's ablility to reach his ceiling. I think he can get close to it based on watching him play and scouting reports, but you do not.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

define "ceiling"

You are making this assumption that he has this astronomical ceiling. Why? He's an amazing athlete. So what. So is Joey Gathright. He just can't hit a baseball worth shit.

I challenge your assumption that he has an amazing, limitless, best-in-the-minors ceiling.

There is no reason to think so aside from the fact that "ooooh, he's so fast and graceful". That may result in him being a great defensive CF

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybin

Maybin can not only hit a baseball, he can crush it. His ceiling is based on a lot more then the fact that he is an amazing athlete, which btw is also a very good thing about him.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

really? crush it?

This based on groundball rates over 50% late line drive rates around 12%? That's "crushing" a baseball?

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re

No, this based on watching him play and scouting reports that back my observations up.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok,

so no tangible facts.

Great. Moving on.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Scouting Reports

I'd say scouting reports are pretty tangible... Just sayin', but to discount entirely the opinion of the scouting community seems a bit foolhardy to me.

by GuyinNY on Dec 4, 2007 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and these scouting reports are....

where exactly?

I can say I have scouting reports that say anything. As long as I don't show them, or link them, or quote, them they are not facts.

Maybin does not hit the ball hard. That's his entire problem.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

(subscription required)

But not for the Maybin scouting report by Kevin Goldstein :
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6929

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/hotsheet/264664.html

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/features/264953.html

Both reference Maybin as a game changer with the bat and his legs. And they both reference the fact that he has a TON of power. It comes from learning to scout players by learning to observe which athletic traits are valuable, and who is putting them to use (and what it looks like when they do it) and how to do it.

Maybin's raw/toolsy, so it's not all there yet. But every in the scouting community seems to agree its coming, and that his ceiling, due to his athletic ability, is as high as anybody's.

by GuyinNY on Dec 4, 2007 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

two questions for you

do you think Maybin's so-called "ceiling" is higher than Kemp's? if so, along what dimensions? defense is the only one that sticks out for me, though both their ceilings are as centerfielders
even if you do think Maybin's ceiling is higher, is it enough higher that you think it makes up for Kemp's actual minor and major-league production?

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 4, 2007 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re

Kemp is a good youg player, but knowing what I do about Maybin, I believe Maybin's ceiling is higher when it comes to baserunning ability, defense, and power. Maybin is still raw however, and farther from reaching his ceiling then Kemp.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybin v. Kemp, STEEL CAGE

1) I happen to be of the mind that Maybin's ceiling is higher than Kemp's. If they both become the absolute best player that their athletic ability allows, I think Maybin will be a faster and better baserunner/defender, has the ability to contend for batting titles, and could add 30-40+ HR pop. Alot of this has to do with him shortening his swing and learning to lift the ball.

This is not a knock on Kemp, nor is it a lack of familiarity with Kemp that leads me to this opinion. I think Maybin's tools have been rightly compared to Ken Griffey Jr.'s, and that's just a very tough thing to top. Throw in that Maybin could be a legit. GG CF in time (despite the fact that he's blocked) and I have a hard time disputing the sheer quality of Maybin's tools. He's a scout's dream.

2) I do not think, as of right now, that Maybin's possible ceiling makes up for his relative lack of production compared to Kemp. For me, Kemp is right there, and ready to produce in the major leagues. I don't like Kemp's plate discipline, at all, and the fact that he's 2 years older than Maybin is onviously not in his favor. However, Kemp remains very young and it's impossible to discount his performance last season, unsustainable as I may think it was.

Maybin has many of the same problems as Kemp, in addition to all those other issues that come with being so very, very raw (he's still learning to hit for power, prone to green mistakes). I'll take Kemp over Maybin for now, with the caveat that I do believe its possible for Maybin to become a better player in time, and that if they both become the absolute best player they can be (something that doesn't happen all too often), Maybin will be the more valuable player.

Kemp's much, MUCH closer in my eyes, and I'm willing to overlook a bit of potential to lock up what should be a very good OF for a very long time in Matt Kemp. But, it's very close and I reserve the right to change my mind.

by GuyinNY on Dec 4, 2007 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

PS

None of this matters, since Kemp and Maybin are battling for the IC title of young outfielders. Melky's got the world title, and the only real challengers are the Upton Bros.

...is it wrong I sometimes wish I could play Super Upton Bros. ? Yahaa...Wahoo!

by GuyinNY on Dec 4, 2007 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thanks for the response

i can see where you're coming from for the most part.

there's still one problem i have in assessing a higher ceiling for Maybin, though i guess it's a subjective assessment, and that is this:

physically speaking, i don't believe Cameron Maybin is more impressive than Kemp. i don't believe he is significantly faster, nor stronger, nor does he have a stronger arm. i have trouble believing his "power potential" is really higher -- though i think Kemp will have trouble REACHING his power potential, given his player discipline problems, as you say, Maybin has problems of his own, and Kemp certainly matches up with anybody in terms of raw power.

next comes the idea that Maybin is "raw." the thing is, that's the number one word that comes to mind for Kemp, who has no pitch recognition, gets horrible reads on fly balls and can't steal bases despite his lightening speed. as is well-documented, he didn't really start focusing on baseball until the minor leagues, and it still shows. to whatever degree "rawness" will be cured with time, it should affect Kemp as much as it affects Maybin, and the two-year age-gap should not be a factor.

having said that, i agree with you -- Kemp's current production is unsustainable, unless he irons out his mechanics and improves his pitch recognition.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 4, 2007 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybin

I have mentioned this in numerous threads, but I want to point it out once more. I totally disagree that Maybin has produced "well beneath expectations". Cameron was supposed to be raw when he was drafted, as the scouts said, and he was supposed to take a while to get his tools in line with production. I actually think he has produced well above initial expectations. I do think he is behind in development of guys like Rasmus NOW, but he is going to pass them and be the better player by the time they are in their prime.

I am not saying he is better then Kemp, BTW. I just again wanted to point out that scouts really didn't expect as much from Maybin right away as they did some other players.

by drwmsu1 on Dec 4, 2007 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

exactly

and the idea that Cameron Maybin is a better physical specimen than Kemp is equally absurd

combine that with Kemp outperforming Maybin every step of the way, and now at higher levels, and there doesn't seem to be much of an argument -- ESPECIALLY about who would have a higher trade value

sure, it's POSSIBLE Maybin will suddenly become Willie Mays, but i don't see any scouting or statistical grounds to say he's better than Kemp

by the way, the closest statistical comp you can make is when both played in the FSL at age 20:

Kemp: 418 ABs, 21 2Bs, 4 3Bs, 27 HRs, 23 SBs, .306/.349/.569 (918 OPS)

Maybin: 296 ABs, 14 2Bs, 5 3Bs, 10 HRs, 25 SBs, .304/.393/.486 (879 OPS)

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 4, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I get it

this is one of those "Melky Cabrerra is a way better defensive center fielder than either Coco Crisp or Jacoby Ellsbury" type of things?

Ahhh, ya got me. I fell for it. Way to go.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotta disagree

There's a difference between being better than another prospect and having a higher potential ceiling. For me, I think Kemp is the better player right now, while Maybin has a higher ceiling. For the pitchers it's just the opposite - Miller is likely the better pitcher now, but Kershaw's ceiling is higher.

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Dec 4, 2007 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Porcello can't be traded

I PTBNL has to be named within 6 months of a trade and 6 months from now, Porcello stil will not have been signed for a full year.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is this true?

Im not sure, I was just wondering, I never heard that. I would love for a trade of Cabrera and Willis for Maybin, Miller, and Porcello. And I am a marlins fan who is against trading cabrera for anything. The only package I saw that I like so far is Kershaw Kemp and Laroche and I meven skepticle of doing that because Cabrera is playing like a hall of famer and is only 24 years old. But man I hope they can do that trade.

by FishHead on Dec 4, 2007 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

What SB Captain said. Can't trade a guy within 1 year of signing as an amateur.

There's still plenty they could work out a deal for though.

Would you really rather have Cabrera for the next two years and then he leaves then get something good in return?

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2007 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea i know that

I know you cant trade a player until 1 year after he is drafted, I was talking about 6 months to name the "PTBNL"

by FishHead on Dec 4, 2007 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tigers

If the Tigers can pull this off, they have to do it. I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with the Tigers system, but Cabrera is the sort of talent that you hope that Maybin becomes, and if anyone can get Willis back on track, it's the Tigers. Besides which, this is a (generally) older team, and they could use a bat like Cabrera to carry them into and through the forseeable future.

by GuyinNY on Dec 4, 2007 12:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re:

Miller and Maybin have high ceilings. But they also currently have a few flaws in their game and a general lack of polish. It's not unreasonable to think could they fall well short of those ceilings. This could be Bobby Witt and Mike Cameron for Miguel Cabrera. Sure Mike Cameron is underrated, but I wouldn't trade a HOF for him.

If I'm the Marlins I don't feel compelled to trade Cabrera for this package. Nevermind throw in Dontrelle.

by McLovin on Dec 4, 2007 1:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I think a lot of it will depend on the Marlins' ability to "fix" whatever is wrong with Miller, and to successfully develop Maybin into a superstar. If the Marlins think they can do those things, then maybe it's a good trade. Otherwise, I'd hold out for a package of "safer" prospects: something DET probably can't offer.

Get the Dodgers on the line...

by ajohnst1 on Dec 4, 2007 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

I wouldn't trade Cabrera for guys I'm gambling I could "fix".

by McLovin on Dec 4, 2007 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You wouldn't trade one year of Cabrera

for that? Miller becoming Mark Mulder is the floor -- imagine Mulder with more strikeouts and you have what Miller is most likely to become. Miller's tools make him one of the best pitchers in the NL immediately. And a top 5 center fielder for over half a decade in a cavern of a ballpark? AND more?

For one year of Cabrera? If the Tigers offer me that, I take it and laugh my way all the way to the bank.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

get your facts straight about Cabrera

Cabrera can't become a free agent until after 2009. You are really drinking the Miller koolaid too. That's your right, but I don't think it's grounded in reality. He was just awful for Detroit this year - 1.75 WHIP!! Watching four of his starts he had no command of his secondary pitches. He may become something special, but he may not. My personal belief is it wouldn't be until 2010 until if he did.

The more I think about it, you just don't have a realistic view of prospects. Please visit Baseball America's all-time top 100s to see how often big time prospects fall well short of their press clippings:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/features/26983.html

by McLovin on Dec 4, 2007 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you're going to make me out to be some kind of

idiot, at least use non-idiotic stats. WHIP? Really? In this day and age?

So who are you to question my knowledge of prospects? You think I don't know how many prospects flame out? And did you even think of thinning out the prospects without Miller's tools? Keep in mind you're lumping in all those 17-year-olds with awesome stuff, zero polish, inconsistent mechanics and no control.

You're separating Mulder from among his peers, and it didn't even occur to you that you're not doing the same with Miller? And you're attacking my credibility? That's real low brow and bad misjudgment on your part.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

I think we've found the new Joba the Great!

by I Love Oakland As on Dec 4, 2007 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

what kind of fool looks at how many batters get on base against a pitcher?!!?? Certainly no sabermatrician!

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And as for Cabrera's free agency year,

I can admit being wrong on that, but I'm not the only one out there. It's easy to make that misconception because the Marlins never signed him to a multi-year contract to buy out his arbitration years and his first free agent year (a la Santana), and after 2008 it will have been six years since Cabrera started his arbitration clock. In any matter, can somebody at least point out a source stating what it is either way?

And even if it is two years, the Tigers would still be overpaying, IMO. Just not quite as absurdly.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

math is your friend

5.6 years is not 6 years.

by McLovin on Dec 4, 2007 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You could have done that more politely.

And you still haven't cited a source.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

He debuted on June 20th of 2003, that's why 2003 doesn't count as a full year. I didn't provide a link or source because anybody could find that out with Google in 3 seconds. I'm not your secretary.

by McLovin on Dec 4, 2007 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know when he debuted.

And I figured out what you were saying in your first post. But I don't believe it works that way. For example, Alex Rodriguez began his arbitration clock in 1995, when he played half a season in the Majors. If that is true, he would have played on the 2001 Mariners. I'm under the impression that once you log in a certain amount of IP or AB (I can't remember the exact numbers but I believe it's around 100 and 250; this information is difficult to dig up), your arbitration clock begins that year.

And he's not the only example.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And you still didn't cite the source.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Mulder floor

"Miller becoming Mark Mulder is the floor -- imagine Mulder with more strikeouts and you have what Miller is most likely to become."

Absolutely nobody has a floor of what Mulder did in his prime. That's ignorant.

by TINSTAAPP on Dec 4, 2007 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

that was a completely idiotic suggestion.

by Bowser on Dec 4, 2007 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is it?

6.46 K/G, 2.03 BB/G and a .56 GB% aren't a floor for anybody? These numbers are good no doubt, but they're in no way ace numbers, in which Mulder never was one. And that was just in his best season, 2003.

This is the best Mulder got, and you're saying nobody has that floor?

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mulders prime

In Mulders prime he put up ERA+s of 126,125,142,103,116 while averaging over 200 innings a year. Explain how that is someones "floor".

Why are you bringing up his K and Walk numbers?
It doesn't matter what his K rate was while he was doing it, it obviously wasn't six years of luck.
Do you really think that Ks an Walks are how you evaluate production? Not project performance mind you, but evaluate how good someone has been?

by nms on Dec 4, 2007 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're forgetting groundball percentage.

Here's my tactic to pitching evaluation:

The only things a pitcher has control over a batter are the ability to miss bats, the ability to suppress power, and the ability to not give up free bases. Thus, I use stats that reflect a pitcher's ability for analysis. Strikeouts mean you're missing bats, walks mean you're giving free bases, and groundballs mean you're keeping the ball in the ballpark. History has shown that pitchers who do some kind of combination of these the best are better than those who don't.

ERA is in large part a result of what happens after a pitcher has done everything he can, so while I think ERA+ is one of many fun toys to play with, I never use it for analysis of a pitcher's ability or performance.

Also, I'd like to thank you for responding to me in a civil matter.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Makes sense, then...

...why you think Miller's floor is Mark Mulder's prime...check out that sweet 5.48 BB/9 innings last season. And that pedestrian 7.88 K/9.

Yup, he's the next Mark Mulder, alright, that's his FLOOR.

by ajohnst1 on Dec 4, 2007 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're ignoring a lot of information

to try to make me look foolish.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What information?

I'm ignoring his minor league numbers...he had a decent K/9 (hardly elite), decent BB/9 (again, not dominant), and a good GB/FB ratio and HR rate.

Now, I'll agree that he has the same tools as Mulder; the things he did well in the minors are the same things Mulder did so effectively in the majors. But to suggest that Miller can emulate Mulder's major league success and that he WILL are two entirely different animals. I don't think anyone denies that Miller could become a Mulder-like pitcher, but it's far from his FLOOR.

by ajohnst1 on Dec 4, 2007 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

contact

A pitcher doesn't know how to induce weak contact? That doesn't jibe with anything I know about baseball. I don't mean this offensively, but this is a major problem I have with DIPS.

by GuyinNY on Dec 4, 2007 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

gb, whatever

yes history shows those are all good things, but a pitchers performance is not always totally dependent on those things. Mulder striking out 9 per 9 in Oakland instead of 6, but still pitching the same innings and giving up the same runs, wouldn't've been any better in terms of what he actually produced.

youre just missing the point

by nms on Dec 4, 2007 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

His floor, assuming no injury is a reliever like Ramiro Mendoza or so. Someone with poor control who throws hard sinkers and thats about it

by Kanst42 on Dec 4, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There must be more to the story- or nothing at all

Florida wouldn't trade both guys for "only" Maybin and Miller. No way.

by my dixie wrecked on Dec 4, 2007 1:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Rosenthal and Gammons just latch onto any rumor they ever hear. It could be from the guy who empties the garbage cans at Yankee stadium. Doesn't matter to them. I honestly believe they have no interest in being accurate - it's only about stimulating hype/buzz and discussion to their columns. Rosenthal is like a baseball tabloid.

by McLovin on Dec 4, 2007 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Am I the only one who thinks the Tigers

Are getting fleeced? They only get Cabrera for one year and Willis is way overrated and they only get him for one year too. Maybin is one of the best prospects out there, Andrew Miller is better than D-Train right now and there's potentially even MORE on the table (Inge, a big defensive upgrade maybe?). All for a fraction of the price for five to six years, and they're ALL Major League ready.

Now if the Tiggers can ink Miggy long term, that may be a different story. But I don't any team standing in between him and free agency.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 1:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re

I doubt the Tigers would do this unless they thought they could sign Cabrera long term.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

Especially the part about Miller being better than Willis right now.

Although I think that the Tigers would have a shot at extending Cabrera before free agency, at maybe 10% discount to the market.

by Yakker on Dec 4, 2007 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno

It really depends on Willis, since you KNOW Cabrera is going to produce. Most people seem to think that Willis can return to his 2005 form if his mechanics get cleaned up. I'm not sure if that's realistic or not (I tend to think not), but if the Tigers really see something wrong with Dontrelle on the tape, they might really be able to fix him. Regardless, I don't think Miller is better than Dontrelle right now. Neither has any semblance of command, and Miller's secondary stuff has disappeared.

by ajohnst1 on Dec 4, 2007 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Miller posted an ERA+ of 85 last year in limited action, while Dontrelle rang up a paltry 83. Neither had a good season, and Miller's younger, cheaper, and has better stuff and far fewer miles on his arm.

I concede that it's probably a bit of an exaggeration to say Miller's better right now, but the point is, no one in their right mind (I think) would trade Miller for D-Train straight up.

by Yakker on Dec 4, 2007 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would.

Miller has shown the ability to be a ground ball machine, and even as terrible as he was last year, he still missed more bats than Willis. In the stronger league. That alone makes him just about D-Train's equal, and I don't know anybody who believes Miller can't post a sub-5 BB/9 in the NL next year.

Then throw in the economics, and Miller is a more valuable commodity than Willis.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

You and I agree. Just went back and re-read my post, and it was vague.

I meant no one would trade for Willis straight-up right now.

by Yakker on Dec 4, 2007 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt Miller's stuff just disappeared

unless he's hiding a major injury. Same goes with the command. He just went through that Major League adjusting period that 99 percent of Major Leaguers go through, and it's only been 75 innings. He got lost making the Major League adjustments and it happens to everyone. I will be very surprised if he doesn't make the adjustments before the All-Star break.

Also, take a look at Willis' HR/FB rates. In 2005 it dropped to half as much and none of his peripherals changed as significantly as people would have you think. Since then, yes, D-Train has declined, but even if he pitches a touch better than he did in 2005, I seriously doubt that his ERA would go below 3.50 without the help of another phenomenon like the HR/FB.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Update

Tigers mlb.com beat writer came on 97.1 fm in Detroit and said he does not think that Miller and Maybin would be enough for the Marlins to make the deal.

by SBcaptain2 on Dec 4, 2007 1:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Most beat writers suck.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me go into that a bit further.

I'm not a fan of many MSM writers or even many beat writers for any specific team. They feel their careers are being threatened by bloggers and in turn won't even acknowledge the possibility that the modern talent evaluation techniques have any place in baseball.

Sorry if it sounded like I was snapping at you. I'm just a little bit on edge since somebody decided to take a civil conversation and turn it into a flame war.

by elrey34 on Dec 4, 2007 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs