Deadpool Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Let them! DFA creates a 40-man roster spot. More than one team will put in a claim. Trade him! Heck add a minor leaguer and send them to Pittsburgh for de Jesus. If he can be traded, I am fine with this. If he gets let go for nothing, I am not fine with it. I HATE losing assets for nothing!
GD Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 I'd say very good. I won't say great. I'm giving him an A-. I base that on his continually playing Bonifacio in the infield. It was even happening prior to Lawrie's second injury. It has to stop altogether. There comes a time to cut bait. Bonifacio, as much as we all hate him, has been significantly better at 2nd lately. UZR/150 of something like -2.1 which isn't completely horrendous I guess. He's passed the eye test as well (for me, at least).
GD Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Let them! DFA creates a 40-man roster spot. More than one team will put in a claim. Trade him! Heck add a minor leaguer and send them to Pittsburgh for de Jesus. Ivan de Jesus really isn't that great. Had a nice '08 but never really put things together.
KSaw Verified Member Posted June 23, 2013 Author Posted June 23, 2013 Ivan de Jesus really isn't that great. Had a nice '08 but never really put things together. Look at what he's doing this year.
oakville69 Verified Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Very good points Mac I think his laid back southern drawl,"King of the Hill" persona is ideal for this team. I don't hear any complaints from the players when they are moved around in the lineup. Gibby's bullpen management has been great. Farrell would drive fans nuts by refusing to do logical matchups. I also like Gibby's defensive substitutions in late innings. What surprises me is that no other mlb team let him manage after the Jays in 2008. Why did that happen? He seems happy to be here whereas Farrell wants to be a star for the red sox.
GD Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Look at what he's doing this year. At age 26 on a .384 BABIP striking out 18% of the time?
KSaw Verified Member Posted June 23, 2013 Author Posted June 23, 2013 At age 26 on a .384 BABIP striking out 18% of the time? I was more speaking to the extra base hits that have been going in since ST where he did bat over .400 and with several dozen at bats and not a token taste. I get the BABIP. I also get that this is a kid that had his development slowed by injuries and who was slap hitting when expected to drive balls. Well, he's healthy and driving balls. This is a player with pedigree who was a highly regarded prospect. He's not a scrub out of nowhere.
KSaw Verified Member Posted June 23, 2013 Author Posted June 23, 2013 He showed some of this in 2010. It's a good sign for him to get back to it. He has 15 BB as well btw. I'm calling late bloomer on this one.
KSaw Verified Member Posted June 23, 2013 Author Posted June 23, 2013 We can do much better at 2B. Perhaps but at what cost and who?
GD Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Perhaps but at what cost and who? I still like the Michael Young idea.
GD Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Gordon Beckham? 85 wRC+ for his career.
Captain Adama Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 85 wRC+ for his career. Wow, wasn't aware of that /sarcasm. A cheap, buy low option, who's still has upside and if the Jays are lucky, he can hit like he did in his rookie year.
GD Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 If Ackley is available for a similar price you should really be trading for him over Beckham.
KSaw Verified Member Posted June 23, 2013 Author Posted June 23, 2013 I still like the Michael Young idea. Me too.
Deadpool Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 If Ackley is available for a similar price you should really be trading for him over Beckham. Those are both interesting options... Buy low guys w/ options and upside are things this team should be interested in right now.
frizzer1 Verified Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Very good points Mac I think his laid back southern drawl,"King of the Hill" persona is ideal for this team. I don't hear any complaints from the players when they are moved around in the lineup. Gibby's bullpen management has been great. Farrell would drive fans nuts by refusing to do logical matchups. I also like Gibby's defensive substitutions in late innings. What surprises me is that no other mlb team let him manage after the Jays in 2008. Why did that happen? He seems happy to be here whereas Farrell wants to be a star for the red sox. ...I'm no expert and Gibbons might actually be a very good manager...but he is the worst interview ever....let him manage but don't let him talk..he has nothing but cliches in his repertoire.
Sammy225 Old-Timey Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I think the Red Sox fans are starting to understand Farrell: http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ml-redsox&tid=279625
Deadpool Old-Timey Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I think the Red Sox fans are starting to understand Farrell: http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ml-redsox&tid=279625 Heh, #Farrellball
ElNik2013 Old-Timey Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 ...I'm no expert and Gibbons might actually be a very good manager...but he is the worst interview ever....let him manage but don't let him talk..he has nothing but cliches in his repertoire. That's why AA got Kawasaki bro.
Dr Negative Verified Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Gordon Beckham has had 4 straight years of doing pretty much the same thing. He is what he is at this point.
IBTrini Verified Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I agree that the way he handled Lind was excellent, but I think you have the causality backwards. I think it was less of a case of "Gibbons put Lind in against righties exclusively to build his confidence, and when he was confident, made him a full time guy." and more a case of "Gibbons put Lind in against righties exclusively because his career numbers say that's how best he should be used, but Lind forced his way into the everyday role." Either way, definite credit to Gibbons for realizing that Lind could be a useful everyday player (for the time being, SSS warning etc...). You cannot stop Adam Lind, you can only hope to contain him... I agree with your perspective on this.
jaysblue Old-Timey Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Managers are meant to make the decisions which put players in the best position to succeed. The Blue Jays have won 11 straight not because of John Gibbons. The players on the Blue Jays (pitching, and hitting) have won 11 straight because they have been playing great baseball. It's the same with the slow start. It wasn't Gibbons fault, the team played awful. Not discrediting the role Gibbons has done. I think he's been great this year. But the Jays record is clearly an indicator of the way the players have performed.
IBTrini Verified Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Perez doesn't have options, someone will 100% claim him. They will most probably send down someone who still has options and that could be Wagner.
GD Old-Timey Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I think the Red Sox fans are starting to understand Farrell: http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ml-redsox&tid=279625 The Canadians tried to tell us........but who really listens to them. I like this one.
backontop Verified Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 AA is responsible for the bull pen success. I've never rooted for a team in 50 years that had a better bull pen then this 2013 Blue Jays team. My only faultfinding was, why did you guys spend so much time building a bull pen when winning games is far more important so finding the best starting five was far more important! People ask what are we going to do when Morrow and Happ come back. you can never have too much good pitching so you send them to Buffalo because six of the guys we have in the bullpen must remain on the parent team, thats why the Yankees were so great from 1923 to 1965, they sent their surplus players down to Columbus who was their triple a team then, there was no free-agancy during those years from 1923 to 1965 as a kid I remember hearing many times. how great their minor league team was.
ElNik2013 Old-Timey Member Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 AA is responsible for the bull pen success. I've never rooted for a team in 50 years that had a better bull pen then this 2013 Blue Jays team. My only faultfinding was, why did you guys spend so much time building a bull pen when winning games is far more important so finding the best starting five was far more important! People ask what are we going to do when Morrow and Happ come back. you can never have too much good pitching so you send them to Buffalo because six of the guys we have in the bullpen must remain on the parent team, thats why the Yankees were so great from 1923 to 1965, they sent their surplus players down to Columbus who was their triple a team then, there was no free-agancy during those years from 1923 to 1965 as a kid I remember hearing many times. how great their minor league team was. I'd be surprised if Morrow came back this year at all. It's really only Happ and he won't like being sent down to Buffalo, but at least that's about a month away. Also, our Wang may have softened up by then.
Arjun Nimmala Vancouver Canadians - A+ SS It's been slow going at the start of the season for Nimmala, but on Sunday, he was 3-for-5 with his 3rd home run and 3 RBI. Explore Arjun Nimmala News >
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now