(Otherwise known as "who I voted for")
1B Richie Sexson, SEA
2B Asdrubal Cabrera, CLE
SS Luis Hernandez, BAL
3B Melvin Mora, BAL
OF Jacque Jones, DET; Brad Wilkerson, SEA; Adam Jones, BAL
C Kenji Johjima (only if Washburn gets the start), SEA
DH Frank Thomas, TOR
1B Dan Ortmeier, SF
2B Kazuo Matsui, HOU
SS Cristian Guzman, WAS
3B Pedro Feliz, PHI
C Ronny Paulino, PIT
OF Andruw Jones, LA; Jim Edmonds, SD; Michael Bourn, HOU
Showing posts with label brad wilkerson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brad wilkerson. Show all posts
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Brad Wilkerson : Then and Now
THEN: Rios for Wilkerson would be an excellent deal. Wilkerson would give the Jays a nice bat in RF, while Rios might just be "toolsy" enough to interest Bowden.
THEN: Last year it was Wilkerson for Wells, pretty sure it hasn't gone down by *that* much.
THEN: Batista for Wilkerson is quite palatable, but why not add Rios, Hinske and a couple of exciting young arms to the offer and get Nick the Stick too?
THEN: If I'm Washington, I don't like Reed Johnson plus Batista for Wilkerson - I think I would hold out for Alex Rios (which I think is still doable)
THEN (my favourite): I'd do Batista for Wilkerson in half-a-second. Would JP? How about about Chacin and Rios for Wilkerson? I'd do that one even quicker. But what do I know? Nothing, that's what -- except that JP ain't done and I ain't gonna bitch and moan about who he trades and whoever the hitters are that he comes up with until I see how the '06 season plays out.
NOW: Wilkerson was signed off the scrap heap.
NOW: Wilkerson has not done much for over 2 years against all types of pitchers. I would much rather have a Lind/Stewart platoon.
NOW: As for Wilkerson, I'm not so fond of that acquisition.
Bonus Miguel Negron sighting! Furthermore, and I have only circumstantial evidence to back this up, but I would bet that Wells will be in a different uniform in 2008. If that's the case, who's going to play CF if Rios is traded? Negron?
THEN: Last year it was Wilkerson for Wells, pretty sure it hasn't gone down by *that* much.
THEN: Batista for Wilkerson is quite palatable, but why not add Rios, Hinske and a couple of exciting young arms to the offer and get Nick the Stick too?
THEN: If I'm Washington, I don't like Reed Johnson plus Batista for Wilkerson - I think I would hold out for Alex Rios (which I think is still doable)
THEN (my favourite): I'd do Batista for Wilkerson in half-a-second. Would JP? How about about Chacin and Rios for Wilkerson? I'd do that one even quicker. But what do I know? Nothing, that's what -- except that JP ain't done and I ain't gonna bitch and moan about who he trades and whoever the hitters are that he comes up with until I see how the '06 season plays out.
NOW: Wilkerson was signed off the scrap heap.
NOW: Wilkerson has not done much for over 2 years against all types of pitchers. I would much rather have a Lind/Stewart platoon.
NOW: As for Wilkerson, I'm not so fond of that acquisition.
Bonus Miguel Negron sighting! Furthermore, and I have only circumstantial evidence to back this up, but I would bet that Wells will be in a different uniform in 2008. If that's the case, who's going to play CF if Rios is traded? Negron?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Blast from the Recent Past
Back in the 2005-06, when the world was fresh and green and a young man could usually post on a Jays-related website without wanting to spill blood all over it, a group of us had a conversation about Brad Wilkerson over at Batter's Box. Wilkerson was a popular rumoured target of the Jays at the time, a target that I think we all can say we're relieved not to have hit.
I had something to say that I saw again tonight and that I thought was a particularly good, short point about my favorite hobbyhorse, risk.
You've done a much better job at outlining the anti-Wilkerson case, which I acknowledge is totally legit and sensible. Few players are perfect, and Wilkerson's flaws are more obvious than most good players (his skills are also less obvious).
Much of that case boils down to Wilkerson having a bad year last year. If he hadn't, there is absolutely no way he'd be available in the first place - the year before he'd hit 32 home runs and nobody could touch him with a ten-foot pole. "What have you done for me lately?" has a powerful psychological hold on fans, press and baseball people, but it shouldn't make us lose sight of the fact that Wilkerson's skills do not appear to be significantly eroded, he is still in his prime, and his relatively poor performance last year will make him cheaper in arbitration.
Wilkerson is risky, because he may not return to the level he played at previously. Because of the Jays' position in the AL, it is imperative that they take significant risks in order to be competitive. The Jays cannot wait for the "sure thing" to drop into their lap, not merely because we've all waited long enough, but because they need to get more bang for their buck than the typical team. Taking risks needs to be an essential part of their strategy. Signing players like Wilkerson who have just had an off year is a sensible way to add risk to the team.
In business, in life, in baseball, too often we equate the notion of "risk management" with "risk minimization". This is not the proper way to see risk. Properly considered, risk in and of itself is value-neutral, and merely adds variability. The Jays need to make variability their friend if they want to win a World Series - almost anybody does. If you want an example of that, call up Kenny Williams and ask him why he signed Orlando Hernandez and Jose Contreras or ask the Pistons why they "rolled the dice" with Antonio McDyess.
Properly managed, risk wins championships.
I had something to say that I saw again tonight and that I thought was a particularly good, short point about my favorite hobbyhorse, risk.
You've done a much better job at outlining the anti-Wilkerson case, which I acknowledge is totally legit and sensible. Few players are perfect, and Wilkerson's flaws are more obvious than most good players (his skills are also less obvious).
Much of that case boils down to Wilkerson having a bad year last year. If he hadn't, there is absolutely no way he'd be available in the first place - the year before he'd hit 32 home runs and nobody could touch him with a ten-foot pole. "What have you done for me lately?" has a powerful psychological hold on fans, press and baseball people, but it shouldn't make us lose sight of the fact that Wilkerson's skills do not appear to be significantly eroded, he is still in his prime, and his relatively poor performance last year will make him cheaper in arbitration.
Wilkerson is risky, because he may not return to the level he played at previously. Because of the Jays' position in the AL, it is imperative that they take significant risks in order to be competitive. The Jays cannot wait for the "sure thing" to drop into their lap, not merely because we've all waited long enough, but because they need to get more bang for their buck than the typical team. Taking risks needs to be an essential part of their strategy. Signing players like Wilkerson who have just had an off year is a sensible way to add risk to the team.
In business, in life, in baseball, too often we equate the notion of "risk management" with "risk minimization". This is not the proper way to see risk. Properly considered, risk in and of itself is value-neutral, and merely adds variability. The Jays need to make variability their friend if they want to win a World Series - almost anybody does. If you want an example of that, call up Kenny Williams and ask him why he signed Orlando Hernandez and Jose Contreras or ask the Pistons why they "rolled the dice" with Antonio McDyess.
Properly managed, risk wins championships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)