September 20, 200619 yr IMO we need to keep Dontrelle. Just think if you were a casual Marlins fan and you read in the paper that the Fish traded Dontrelle Willis for ________. The first thing you would probably think is "FIRE SALE". I understand that trading Trelle could help us but it could also hurt us. I say if we are going to get Crawford, Young etc: we need to trade some guys in the minors. Dontrelle, to me is too valuable to trade away.
September 20, 200619 yr In Jacobs' defense (and he doesn't need me to make it for him) this is his first full year playing the position and I'd like to believe (yeah, I'm being optimistic) he will look back on this season, learn from his mistakes and be a more complete (and hopefully healthy) ballplayer in 2007. If he can learn to hit to the opposite field more and shorten up his swing, he could have a long major league career. The good hitters, those who stick around, know how to use the whole field and when it's more important to be the guy scoring a run than trying to do it all by themselves and driving one in on a homerun. You watch guys like Valentin reach out and push one over the infielder's head and you have to think, why do the Fish swing so hard so much of the time when contact is the first rule of good hitting? I don't think we know yet how much range or how adept he can become at first base until we see him healthy next spring. He's definitely a work in progress.
September 20, 200619 yr See ya later Jake... and in regards to Willis, Id definitely test the waters.. Besides w/ jake you have the option of an extra catcher. no you dont, not anymore Jake's offense isnt good enough to offset how crappy his defense is The thing is, I think it is. But just barely. Plus we have to remember he has been playing most of this season semi-hobbled by an ankle injury. The only player who I would write has a bat that isnt good enough to offset how his crappy defense would be Jeremy Hermida. But he was held back even more by injuries this season. No, but see, this could very easily be all that Jacobs is. His range is poor, his hands are terrible, and he swings hard and misses a lot. He probably hits the ball harder than anyone on the team, but he doesn't hit it all that often. I still go back to my former formula: Willingham has more value at first base than left field (defensively) Willingham has more value to the team than Jacobs (with the bat it's a no contest and with the glove it's no worse than a wash) Thus, Jacobs has more value to the team through trade than he would return by blocking a more valuable player from a position. Plus, it's not like there aren't a plethora of corner outfielders out there who could hit .260/20/85 with a .785 OPS. Willingham is at .281/25/73, with an .869 OPS which is an average corner OF. (30th among NL OF in OBA; 22d in SLG.) . Not bad, but not hard to replace, especially considering his horrid defense that gives back some of the runs he scores on offense. At 1B, however, he would rank near the bottom in OPS, and below Wes Helms. So putting him there would be shear idiocy, even if he can field the position (which I doubt). Add to that that he is probably one of the most defensively inept players in MLB, and you can see his only real value is in a trade to an AL team where he can be the DH!
September 20, 200619 yr Author See ya later Jake... and in regards to Willis, Id definitely test the waters.. Besides w/ jake you have the option of an extra catcher. no you dont, not anymore Jake's offense isnt good enough to offset how crappy his defense is The thing is, I think it is. But just barely. Plus we have to remember he has been playing most of this season semi-hobbled by an ankle injury. The only player who I would write has a bat that isnt good enough to offset how his crappy defense would be Jeremy Hermida. But he was held back even more by injuries this season. No, but see, this could very easily be all that Jacobs is. His range is poor, his hands are terrible, and he swings hard and misses a lot. He probably hits the ball harder than anyone on the team, but he doesn't hit it all that often. I still go back to my former formula: Willingham has more value at first base than left field (defensively) Willingham has more value to the team than Jacobs (with the bat it's a no contest and with the glove it's no worse than a wash) Thus, Jacobs has more value to the team through trade than he would return by blocking a more valuable player from a position. Plus, it's not like there aren't a plethora of corner outfielders out there who could hit .260/20/85 with a .785 OPS. Willingham is at .281/25/73, with an .869 OPS which is an average corner OF. (30th among NL OF in OBA; 22d in SLG.) . Not bad, but not hard to replace, especially considering his horrid defense that gives back some of the runs he scores on offense. At 1B, however, he would rank near the bottom in OPS, and below Wes Helms. So putting him there would be shear idiocy, even if he can field the position (which I doubt). Add to that that he is probably one of the most defensively inept players in MLB, and you can see his only real value is in a trade to an AL team where he can be the DH! Yeah!!! Because let's ignore that Jacobs has a worse BA, OBP, SLG, OPS and homerun total than Willingham. And, Jacobs, 8th in NL 1st baseman in fielding percentage. Statistically worse defensively than Delgado. Yeah!!!
September 20, 200619 yr Willingham is at .281/25/73, with an .869 OPS which is an average corner OF. (30th among NL OF in OBA; 22d in SLG.) . Not bad, but not hard to replace, especially considering his horrid defense that gives back some of the runs he scores on offense. No .869 is a well above average corner OF. He currently ranks 9th out of all LFer's in the Majors in OPS, and 16th in OPS for all outfielders. And I'd say about 90% of the guys in front of him are premier players. Now I don't know about you, but I don't see our FO going out and acquiring one of these players, based on our current financial situation. Back to the question, I could easily part with Jake, the question is though, I really don't know how much value Jake would have. Most teams have a pretty good hitting 1st baseman, and right now I'd have to say Jake is a below average 1st baseman both offensively and defensively. I'd like to see the Hammer at 1st base personally, he's been an infielder pretty much his whole baseball career, and from the little I've seen of him at 1st he seems to look much more comfortable there. At this point we probably shouldn't be trading any of them unless we are offered an young impact CFer.
September 20, 200619 yr No, but see, this could very easily be all that Jacobs is. His range is poor, his hands are terrible, and he swings hard and misses a lot. Jacobs will mature, and his defense is harmed by his injuries. Much like most of the team, he performed better after May 20. If one were to remove March and April from the picture, Jacobs was better than Willinham. He probably hits the ball harder than anyone on the team, but he doesn't hit it all that often. Strikeouts are not a rarity on the Marlins, Jacobs is not the worst and Josh and Mike are so close as to be statistically the same. I still go back to my former formula: Willingham has more value at first base than left field (defensively) Based upon what? He has no time at 1B Willingham has more value to the team than Jacobs (with the bat it's a no contest and with the glove it's no worse than a wash) Willingham is right-handed, a year older, and not significantly better than Jacobs over his first 500 ML ABs. As for the glove, I doubt it would be no worse than a wash. Thus, Jacobs has more value to the team through trade than he would return by blocking a more valuable player from a position. Jacobs is not blocking anyone from 1B. Willingham is an OF, the one place that the organization has no options for. Plus, it's not like there aren't a plethora of corner outfielders out there who could hit .260/20/85 with a .785 OPS. Why would we want that? Jacobs, when healty, should far exceed those numbers.
September 20, 200619 yr Author No, but see, this could very easily be all that Jacobs is. His range is poor, his hands are terrible, and he swings hard and misses a lot. Jacobs will mature, and his defense is harmed by his injuries. Much like most of the team, he performed better after May 20. If one were to remove March and April from the picture, Jacobs was better than Willinham. He probably hits the ball harder than anyone on the team, but he doesn't hit it all that often. Strikeouts are not a rarity on the Marlins, Jacobs is not the worst and Josh and Mike are so close as to be statistically the same. I still go back to my former formula: Willingham has more value at first base than left field (defensively) Based upon what? He has no time at 1B Willingham has more value to the team than Jacobs (with the bat it's a no contest and with the glove it's no worse than a wash) Willingham is right-handed, a year older, and not significantly better than Jacobs over his first 500 ML ABs. As for the glove, I doubt it would be no worse than a wash. Thus, Jacobs has more value to the team through trade than he would return by blocking a more valuable player from a position. Jacobs is not blocking anyone from 1B. Willingham is an OF, the one place that the organization has no options for. Plus, it's not like there aren't a plethora of corner outfielders out there who could hit .260/20/85 with a .785 OPS. Why would we want that? Jacobs, when healty, should far exceed those numbers. Willingham's not good in left-field. In limited playing time in the spring and last year, Willingham looked capable at first base. Willingham is producing, Jacobs is not. Injury or no injury, Jacobs is seen by me (and Omar Minaya) as a guy who'll probably hit 25 HR's. His ankle is not causing him to swing at bad pitches, or have a long swing. If the ankle jacked him of a few infield hits or a few misplays on balls hit to him, he's still fighting to be average. I like Jacobs a lot. He's an incredibly nice guy, but he's not that good. Willingham at first and one of the plethora of free agent corner outfielders who will take a one year deal (Alou, Sheffield...) is a substantial upgrade over staying the course. Willingham's bat > Jacob's bat Willingham's glove >= Jacob's glove. Pretty simple.
September 20, 200619 yr Whats the point of this? We sold off our team last season to get these young guys. Why would we turn around and sell them of younger guys?
September 20, 200619 yr Author Whats the point of this? We sold off our team last season to get these young guys. Why would we turn around and sell them of younger guys? There's always room for improvement, and last I checked we could stand to improve in three areas (catcher, center, bullpen) and absolutely must improve in two (CF, BP).
September 20, 200619 yr He probably hits the ball harder than anyone on the team, but he doesn't hit it all that often. Strikeouts are not a rarity on the Marlins, Jacobs is not the worst and Josh and Mike are so close as to be statistically the same. What statistic are you looking at? Willingham has been quite a bit better over the length of this season.
September 20, 200619 yr He probably hits the ball harder than anyone on the team, but he doesn't hit it all that often. Strikeouts are not a rarity on the Marlins, Jacobs is not the worst and Josh and Mike are so close as to be statistically the same. What statistic are you looking at? Willingham has been quite a bit better over the length of this season. On strikeouts? Josh: 1 SO per 4.755 AB Mike: 1 SO per 4.422 AB That is a statistical quirk given the small sample size. Also: Josh: 514 MLB ABs, .852 OPS Mike: 551 MLB ABs, .839 OPS That is not a significant differance, especially considering that Josh is a year older and Mike was slowed by an ankle injury. Jacobs' only significant period of health this season (Late May - Late July) he was pushing 1.000 OPS
September 20, 200619 yr Ah, but Willingham has a sizable advantage in an adjusted version of OPS that has a stronger correlation with offensive success. It's 1.8xOBP+SLG. Willingham has a 1.159 to Jacob's 1.039.
September 20, 200619 yr I said at the beginning of the season that we need to give the rookies 2 years to really begin to evaluate. So, I'd be inclined to hold them all unless some offer comes along that's beneficial to the team. Only Cabrera, Willis, Hanley, and Volstaad should be off the table entirely. . Except for Willy. I've seen enough from him. His offense is good and will likely improve. But his defense is putrid and projects to not get much better. I can't picture this team getting through the playoffs in any year with Willy in the field.
September 20, 200619 yr I recall another rookie Marlins outfielder who went to the playoffs and was among the team's best OVERALL players throughout his tenure despite routinely playing terrible defense.
September 20, 200619 yr Ah, but Willingham has a sizable advantage in an adjusted version of OPS that has a stronger correlation with offensive success. It's 1.8xOBP+SLG. Willingham has a 1.159 to Jacob's 1.039. Not if one looks at career stats where the PAs are closer: Willy: 1.142 Mike: 1.101 40 points is not a significant spread over less than a thousand PAs. And again: Jacobs is a left handed hitter, who will play a better 1B when healty, and is a year younger.
September 20, 200619 yr Slugging makes up all of Jacobs' value while defense is still a question for both of them.
September 20, 200619 yr I recall another rookie Marlins outfielder who went to the playoffs and was among the team's best OVERALL players throughout his tenure despite routinely playing terrible defense. ok...I'lll bite. Who?
September 20, 200619 yr I recall another rookie Marlins outfielder who went to the playoffs and was among the team's best OVERALL players throughout his tenure despite routinely playing terrible defense. ok...I'lll bite. Who? He's pretty good, I think his name is Miguel Cabrera.
September 20, 200619 yr I'm not sure how he was defensively, but with the bat D. Lee really sucked his first full year in the majors.
September 20, 200619 yr Author I'm not sure how he was defensively, but with the bat D. Lee really sucked his first full year in the majors. He was also 22.
September 20, 200619 yr I'm not sure how he was defensively, but with the bat D. Lee really sucked his first full year in the majors. are you comparing him with Jacobs?
September 20, 200619 yr I'm not sure how he was defensively, but with the bat D. Lee really sucked his first full year in the majors. are you comparing him with Jacobs? Just saying Jacobs is just a rookie, why wouldn't he have room for improvement? I know they don't compare defensively at all.
September 20, 200619 yr keep Olivo trade Jacobs for Todd Helton. keep Uggla keep Hanley keep Cabrara dump Hermida keep Willis keep johnson keep Olsen keep Sanchez keep Nolasco
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.