I have a real hard time...actually a damn hard time, calling Jacobs a "powerbat" with a sub .800 OPS, especially at 1st base.

 

FYI, Baldelli's OPS last season, .872...as a 24 year old centerfielder.

 

Yeah, let's stick with the older, less productive player. :thumbup

 

If all it takes to get Baldelli is a Nolasco/Jacobs package, we better be falling all over ourselves.

You have to explain to me exactly why you talk about Jacobs' numbers from last season as if he wasn't playing hurt the entire season, because I am really trying hard to avoid saying something insulting. Jacobs OPS the season before was over 1.000. I'm not saying that is necessarily indicative of his abilities, but you can't be a fan of this team and be completely oblivious to the fact that last year Jacobs was never at 100%. Hermida, who in addition to a dissapointing year, also spent a lot of time on the DL, gets a free pass, but everyone is falling overthemselves to give up on Jacobs.

 

Again, if Baldelli's trend of deteriorating health continues, he will be playing in something like 40 games next season. Now I don't think it'll be that bad, but I seriously doubt it's going to be anything in the neighborhood of 140 games either. BTW, Baldelli's 871 OPS last season comes from a sample size about as reliable as I'm sure you'll say Jacobs 1.085 in 2005, of under 400 plate appearances. Every other season Baldelli's OPS has been under 770. Which is more indicative of his abilities? And does it even matter if he is on the DL half the season?

 

and Eddie - if you could format/line up the columns I might actually try to read that.

 

And by your own standard, Baldelli isn't a walking injury machine?

 

I guess he wasn't playing hurt next year.

 

I'm going to be very very brief since you don't get it.

 

Baldelli played in 156 games in his first major league season at age 20, 136 games as a 21 year old when he suffered an injury that caused him to miss all of 2005. Last season, he played in 104 games combined between major and minor leagues. He had one fluke injury that caused substantial missed time and other than that it's been just typical wear and tear. I don't think he's on pace for 40 games as you so intelligently predict.

 

If he posted superior or equal numbers to Jacobs last season in substantially fewer games while playing with bad hamstrings, odds are, he's a better player.

 

Oh, and PS: Taking Jacobs' 1.000 OPS from 2005 is laughable, it was in 100 AB's, hardly a sample size indicative of one's true abilities.

Gee, I'm enjoying not being in the middle of this argument, there's almost no words to describe how liberating it feels.

 

I think you're both knit-picking. Baldelli had a couple of back to back serious injuries that almost ended his career. He fought his way back and you'd have to think if weren't playing on turf next season he'd have an even better chance of staying healthy. To suggest he's in decline and will only play 40 games next season is just plain silly.

 

On the other side, it is fair to point out Jacobs played the entire season hurt. It was painful as a fan just watching him try to just run down the first base line, limping all the way, and to ignore that impacted his play undermines ones case. No one knows what kind of numbers he could have put up last season if he was healthy. I do remember he was the Mets' consensus (fans and media types) pick as their 2006 Rookie of the Year candidate after his performance last fall.

And by your own standard, Baldelli isn't a walking injury machine?

 

I guess he wasn't playing hurt next year.

 

I'm going to be very very brief since you don't get it.

 

Baldelli played in 156 games in his first major league season at age 20, 136 games as a 21 year old when he suffered an injury that caused him to miss all of 2005. Last season, he played in 104 games combined between major and minor leagues. He had one fluke injury that caused substantial missed time and other than that it's been just typical wear and tear. I don't think he's on pace for 40 games as you so intelligently predict.

 

If he posted superior or equal numbers to Jacobs last season in substantially fewer games while playing with bad hamstrings, odds are, he's a better player.

 

Oh, and PS: Taking Jacobs' 1.000 OPS from 2005 is laughable, it was in 100 AB's, hardly a sample size indicative of one's true abilities.

#1 - I already said Jacobs' 1.085 OPS wasn't probably indicative. I don't need you to repeat me as if you are arguing against me. The point is that Baldelli's inflated 871 OPS last season is also not indicative of his true abilities. In his preceding seasons he never even reached an OPS of 770.

#2 - as for the 40 games, I said that was if the trend continues. The trend is as such: since he started - he played in roughly 153 games one season. The next season he played about 20 less games (roughly 130-something). Leading up to last season, where he lost another 40 or so games off the total to bring it down to 92 (minor league games are irrelevant because it is of no value to us). Now, if that very simple trend continues, he'd lose about another 60 games and be playing something around 40-50 games.

Now as I said before and you chose not to read, I do not expect that to be the case, but I also do not expect the guy to be healthy enough to play even 130 games next season. Raw numbers and stats are nice, and he may be twice the player Jacobs is. But if he's on the field half as much of the time, it would balance out. Except for the cost. Not to mention pitcher(s) who get sent off with him. Not to mention the fact that Helms is gone.

One of my main reasons for throwing Jacobs into the package so readily all the time is because it seems likely that the front office does want to move him, so either the Marlins will be bringing back relief help (doubtful) of a CF for him.

And this seems likely why? If anything, I would think the departure of Helms and an article on the Marlins' own website saying "Jacobs in line for more playing time" would suggest the exact opposite. I think they are willing to entertain the idea of trading him, but I haven't heard that they are actively shopping him, or that any other club was especially interested in him.

There is no formula to predict the number of games he will play. That's absurd. The human body does not work like that.

:lol

Do any of you read? It was simple (and so far) consistent trend, but I've said twice already that I don't expect it to go that way.

 

Insider info and some of the press I've read.

please elaborate.

Wanna let you know player A is BJ Upton Player B is Mike Jacobs

 

 

BTW Plz help me out i have no idea how to allign the columns everytime I post, it sets itself to default setting

Wanna let you know player A is BJ Upton Player B is Mike Jacobs

 

 

BTW Plz help me out i have no idea how to allign the columns everytime I post, it sets itself to default setting

different positions, different ages and different amount of playing time. very poor comparison :thumbdown

There is no formula to predict the number of games he will play. That's absurd. The human body does not work like that.

:lol

Do any of you read? It was simple (and so far) consistent trend, but I've said twice already that I don't expect it to go that way.

 

Insider info and some of the press I've read.

please elaborate.

If you don't expect it to be the trend, why did you post such nonsense?

...

Because I do not expect Baldelli to have a healthy, injury free season where he plays beyond 90-120 ML games total. And I think it would be silly to expect such a thing. I also think there is a very real possibility that he could re-aggrivate one of his injuries and could play in even fewer games. Probably not a number as drastic as 40, but getting any lower than 92 games for a guy who would be our 3rd highest paid player and we would be giving up talent ( that I don't consider disposable) is unacceptable IMO.

 

Now would you care to actually expound on that whole "insider info" or point out some of that press you've read?

There is no formula to predict the number of games he will play. That's absurd. The human body does not work like that.

:lol

Do any of you read? It was simple (and so far) consistent trend, but I've said twice already that I don't expect it to go that way.

 

Insider info and some of the press I've read.

please elaborate.

If you don't expect it to be the trend, why did you post such nonsense?

...

Because I do not expect Baldelli to have a healthy, injury free season where he plays beyond 90-120 ML games total. And I think it would be silly to expect such a thing. I also think there is a very real possibility that he could re-aggrivate one of his injuries and could play in even fewer games. Probably not a number as drastic as 40, but getting any lower than 92 games for a guy who would be our 3rd highest paid player and we would be giving up talent ( that I don't consider disposable) is unacceptable IMO.

 

Now would you care to actually expound on that whole "insider info" or point out some of that press you've read?

 

I would take the over in a 92 games for Rocco next year, I will take the under for Jacobs for 800 OPS (if he is in florida).

I would take the over in a 92 games for Rocco next year, I will take the under for Jacobs for 800 OPS (if he is in florida).

You do realize his OPS was 798 on a bad ankle, right?

I would take the over in a 92 games for Rocco next year, I will take the under for Jacobs for 800 OPS (if he is in florida).

You do realize his OPS was 798 on a bad ankle, right?

 

You realize an ankle has very little to do with strike zone judgement?

 

...and that Baldelli was a superior player in fewer games and with nagging hamstring injuries.

The problem with this argument is people on either side continue to compare apples to oranges as if they're the same.

 

My assumption is Ramp's continued hints that Jacobs will be traded in the near future have little to do with something onfield related. I find it impossible to believe some team covets him so much after seeing him play injured for an entire season that they're banging down the doots chanting "We want Jacobs! We want Jacobs!"

 

Is he on someone's sh*t list? Did Girardi cause irreparable harm to him by playing him with a stress fracture to his ankle? You don't give upon a rookie who hits 20 homeruns on one foot without a reason.

 

There has to be a back story here.

No backstory (that I know of), and I dont think people are banging down houses going after Jake. But his defense is flat out terrible and his offense is not good enough for 1b. The FO believes thats Josh Willingham is a much better overall 1B, as do I.

You realize an ankle has very little to do with strike zone judgement?

 

...and that Baldelli was a superior player in fewer games and with nagging hamstring injuries.

You realize an ankle has a lot to do with swinging for power and reaching base before a throw when you aren't able to hit for too much power? Or did I miss the part where we started talking about strikeout totals? Because I thought we were talking OPS.

 

Superior in fewer games = small, unrealiable sample size. At least it seems to for Jacobs's 2005 numbers. Look at any other season and Baldelli had more than 150 more plate appearances along with an OPS more than 100 points lower.

You realize an ankle has very little to do with strike zone judgement?

 

...and that Baldelli was a superior player in fewer games and with nagging hamstring injuries.

You realize an ankle has a lot to do with swinging for power and reaching base before a throw when you aren't able to hit for too much power? Or did I miss the part where we started talking about strikeout totals? Because I thought we were talking OPS.

 

Superior in fewer games = small, unrealiable sample size. At least it seems to for Jacobs's 2005 numbers. Look at any other season and Baldelli had more than 150 more plate appearances along with an OPS more than 100 points lower.

 

Wait, you mean two and three seasons ago? So Jacobs is a certainty to improve as a 26 year old rookie, yet it's absurd to suggest that a player who was in the big leagues at 20 became a markedly better player at 25? Yeah, that makes sense. :thumbup

 

I'm going to be as simplistic as possible:

Baldelli had 16 HR's in 364 AB's last season

 

Jacobs had 20 in 469 AB's.

 

Prorate the same HR/AB ratio and given equal AB's Baldelli's got 21. To go with a superior OBP...Baldelli is easily better.

 

But, then again, I'm sure you'll find some other inane way to ignore facts and continue to harp on that ankle. Never mind that you allow Jacobs a free pass but diminish Baldelli's accomplishments on bad hamstrings.

 

I'm done now, say whatever you want and just sink this discussion further and further into the quagmire of retardedness.

The Upton and Jacobs comparison is valid because a lot of people are so down and ready to dump Jacobs but are on the other hand talking about Upton as the arrival of next Phenom but when you look at numbers blindly it is obvious from a statistical standpoint Jacobs is a more accomplished player in their brief MLB careers. If you don't see my point yet I will make it clearer...Upton at this point has shown nothing at the major league level while Jacobs, with injuries and all, has some very good numbers that many players would marvel at after only over 500 at bats. Don't get me wrong I still like what Upton brings to the table. I would love for the Marlins to get him and initiate his conversion to the Outfield but if you guys are inpatient with Jacobs don't expect an overnight impact by Upton. I am noy saying again Jacobs is better or worse than Upton, I am just saying he has shown a lot more than Upton as of now

The Upton and Jacobs comparison is valid because a lot of people are so down and ready to dump Jacobs but are on the other hand talking about Upton as the arrival of next Phenom but when you look at numbers blindly it is obvious from a statistical standpoint Jacobs is a more accomplished player in their brief MLB careers. If you don't see my point yet I will make it clearer...Upton at this point has shown nothing at the major league level while Jacobs, with injuries and all, has some very good numbers that many players would marvel at after only over 500 at bats. Don't get me wrong I still like what Upton brings to the table. I would love for the Marlins to get him and initiate his conversion to the Outfield but if you guys are inpatient with Jacobs don't expect an overnight impact by Upton. I am noy saying again Jacobs is better or worse than Upton, I am just saying he has shown a lot more than Upton as of now

Upton is 23, Jacobs is 27

 

next.

At least for me this gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

If the Marlins as an organization thinks Josh Willingham is a better "overall" first baseman I don't know what they could have possibly based that on since over the last three years and 170+/- games and 1,150+/- innings, Josh Willingham has played a total of three (3) innings at first base, less than Jason Wood, less than Miguel Olivo, less than Jeff Conine, less than Wes Helms. And according to flamarlins.com, Willingham did not play so much as a single inning at first base during spring training.

 

One would think with an injured Mike Jacobs and Cody Ross or Joe Borchard or Alfredo Almezaga or Wes Helms available to play left field in place of Willingham so he could move over to first, if the Marlins were really interested in seeing how well Willingham played the position, somehow they would have found him some playing time there.

 

Color me highly skeptical. :mischief2

At least for me this gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

If the Marlins as an organization thinks Josh Willingham is a better "overall" first baseman I don't know what they could have possibly based that on since over the last three years and 170+/- games and 1,150+/- innings, Josh Willingham has played a total of three (3) innings at first base, less than Jason Wood, less than Miguel Olivo, lessthan Jeff Conine, less than Wes Helms. And according to flamarlins.com, Willingham did not play so much as a single inning at first base during spring training.

 

One would think with an injured Mike Jacobs and Cody Ross or Joe Borchard or Alfredo Almezaga or Wes Helms available to play left field in place of Willingham so he could move over to first, if the Marlins were really interested in seeing how well Willingham played the position, somehow they would have found him some playing time there.

 

Color me highly skeptical. :mischief2

Why would they move Helms to LF and put Willingham at 1b? That doesnt make much sense at all.

 

And they are basing it on pure athleticism and the fact that Josh has been able to play SS, and 3b in the past. Mike Jacobs can barely move at 1b, you would have a better zone rating and defensive efficiency score.

At least for me this gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

If the Marlins as an organization thinks Josh Willingham is a better "overall" first baseman I don't know what they could have possibly based that on since over the last three years and 170+/- games and 1,150+/- innings, Josh Willingham has played a total of three (3) innings at first base, less than Jason Wood, less than Miguel Olivo, lessthan Jeff Conine, less than Wes Helms. And according to flamarlins.com, Willingham did not play so much as a single inning at first base during spring training.

 

One would think with an injured Mike Jacobs and Cody Ross or Joe Borchard or Alfredo Almezaga or Wes Helms available to play left field in place of Willingham so he could move over to first, if the Marlins were really interested in seeing how well Willingham played the position, somehow they would have found him some playing time there.

 

Color me highly skeptical. :mischief2

Why would they move Helms to LF and put Willingham at 1b? That doesnt make much sense.

 

And they are basing it on pure athleticism and the fact that Josh has been able to play SS, and 3b in the past. Mike Jacobs can barely move at 1b, you would have a better zone rating and defensive efficiency score.

 

Don't be ridiculous Ramp. If they wanted to see the guy play there he would started a half dozen games in September, plattoned there instead of Wood or Amezaga or Miguel Olivo for chrissakes. They would have found time to evaluate him on the field, god knows with Jacobs injured they had every opportunity.

 

Who exactly are these people anyways? If you're just blowing smoke up everyone's ass because you've had a hard*n for Willingham for a year and half that's okay, but to say Jacobs can barely move at first when you know he's playing with a stress fractured ankle is so disingenuous it's laughable. You should know better.

 

Now what's the real story?

 

BTW, I'm not adverse to Willingham platooning with Jacobs at first this season or taking over completely if Jacobs can't make the grade when he's healthy but the FO would be fools to give 25 homeruns that easily. Or are we back to Barry Bonds gimping around left field again? Is that what this is all about?

At least for me this gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

If the Marlins as an organization thinks Josh Willingham is a better "overall" first baseman I don't know what they could have possibly based that on since over the last three years and 170+/- games and 1,150+/- innings, Josh Willingham has played a total of three (3) innings at first base, less than Jason Wood, less than Miguel Olivo, lessthan Jeff Conine, less than Wes Helms. And according to flamarlins.com, Willingham did not play so much as a single inning at first base during spring training.

 

One would think with an injured Mike Jacobs and Cody Ross or Joe Borchard or Alfredo Almezaga or Wes Helms available to play left field in place of Willingham so he could move over to first, if the Marlins were really interested in seeing how well Willingham played the position, somehow they would have found him some playing time there.

 

Color me highly skeptical. :mischief2

Why would they move Helms to LF and put Willingham at 1b? That doesnt make much sense.

 

And they are basing it on pure athleticism and the fact that Josh has been able to play SS, and 3b in the past. Mike Jacobs can barely move at 1b, you would have a better zone rating and defensive efficiency score.

 

Don't be ridiculous Ramp. If they wanted to see the guy play there he would started a half dozen games in September, plattoned there instead of Wood or Amezaga or Miguel Olivo for chrissakes. They would have found time to evaluate him on the field, god knows with Jacobs injured they had every opportunity.

 

Who exactly are these people anyways? If you're just blowing smoke up everyone's ass because you've had a hard*n for Willingham for a year and half that's okay, but to say Jacobs can barely move at first when you know he's playing with a stress fractured ankle is so disingenuous it's laughable. You should know better.

 

Now what's the real story?

 

BTW, I'm not adverse to Willingham platooning with Jacobs at first this season or taking over completely if Jacobs can't make the grade when he's healthy but the FO would be fools to give 25 homeruns that easily. Or are we back to Barry Bonds gimping around left field again? Is that what this is all about?

 

In the McKeon era, Willingham worked out at first a lot in the spring and during infield practice he allegedly took ground balls at first and was thrown into left as an afterthought.

 

He was signed as a third baseman, and has shown (and this is being nice) an inability to adjust to the outfield.

 

Much like Miggy this year to last, Willingham's heart and talent is in the infield and the organization knows it. Jacobs is hardly the irreplaceable player many make him to be. As a first baseman, he's borderline terrible defensively. He's bottom 3rd among NL first baseman in fielding percentage, his throwing arm is average...and well, not to pile on, but the #1 job of a firstbaseman is to be able to scoop it, and Jacobs just couldn't do that very well either.

 

Willingham is a better player than Jacobs offensively. Willingham would have to make a conscious effort to be less of a player defensively at first base than Jacobs. Ergo, Jacobs has little to stand on in terms of forcing his way back.

Trading Jacobs now is the best move for the Marlins if they can package him in a trade for the right CF ? say a Rocco Baldelli ? and not have to give up Anibal, Olsen or JJ along with him. He managed to put up some respectable numbers as a rookie last season playing injured much of the time and in the end Beinfest can point this out to his fellow GMs when talking trade this offseason. No dice if he manages to show marginal improvement in his power numbers in 2007, his BA/OBP stays pretty much the same, he compiles more errors at first base and he racks up alot more strikeouts. I'm not saying that will happen, and the Marlins could regret trading him, but I do see this as being a very real possibility with Jacobs. If we can't get what we need in a Jacobs-centered package, we stick with him and hope he shows improvement against LHP, fielding, and stays uninjured in 2007. But in the end, I want Willingham in our lineup and I want him out of leftfield. If that means moving him to first base, where the Marlins seemingly think he will be comprable if not better than Jacobs defensively, so be it. Even moreso if trading Jacobs means getting our CF for 2007 and beyond.

At least for me this gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

If the Marlins as an organization thinks Josh Willingham is a better "overall" first baseman I don't know what they could have possibly based that on since over the last three years and 170+/- games and 1,150+/- innings, Josh Willingham has played a total of three (3) innings at first base, less than Jason Wood, less than Miguel Olivo, lessthan Jeff Conine, less than Wes Helms. And according to flamarlins.com, Willingham did not play so much as a single inning at first base during spring training.

 

One would think with an injured Mike Jacobs and Cody Ross or Joe Borchard or Alfredo Almezaga or Wes Helms available to play left field in place of Willingham so he could move over to first, if the Marlins were really interested in seeing how well Willingham played the position, somehow they would have found him some playing time there.

 

Color me highly skeptical. :mischief2

Why would they move Helms to LF and put Willingham at 1b? That doesnt make much sense.

 

And they are basing it on pure athleticism and the fact that Josh has been able to play SS, and 3b in the past. Mike Jacobs can barely move at 1b, you would have a better zone rating and defensive efficiency score.

 

Don't be ridiculous Ramp. If they wanted to see the guy play there he would started a half dozen games in September, plattoned there instead of Wood or Amezaga or Miguel Olivo for chrissakes. They would have found time to evaluate him on the field, god knows with Jacobs injured they had every opportunity.

 

Who exactly are these people anyways? If you're just blowing smoke up everyone's ass because you've had a hard*n for Willingham for a year and half that's okay, but to say Jacobs can barely move at first when you know he's playing with a stress fractured ankle is so disingenuous it's laughable. You should know better.

 

Now what's the real story?

 

BTW, I'm not adverse to Willingham platooning with Jacobs at first this season or taking over completely if Jacobs can't make the grade when he's healthy but the FO would be fools to give 25 homeruns that easily. Or are we back to Barry Bonds gimping around left field again? Is that what this is all about?

I still don't get it. With Jacobs ailing, why would they move Helms to LF and move Josh to 1b? For argument sake, Willingham is probably the better LFer over Helms(being that Helms hasnt played the OF in a while), so that move makes no sense. There was never a need to move Josh to 1b this season.

 

Jacobs could barely move at 1st base before he got hurt. I don't have to prove sh*t to you. I think I've done enough in the past for you to believe my posts are genuine. If you think I'm blowing smoke up your ass, thats fine with me. Believe what you want.

Wait, you mean two and three seasons ago? So Jacobs is a certainty to improve as a 26 year old rookie, yet it's absurd to suggest that a player who was in the big leagues at 20 became a markedly better player at 25? Yeah, that makes sense. :thumbup

 

I'm going to be as simplistic as possible:

Baldelli had 16 HR's in 364 AB's last season

 

Jacobs had 20 in 469 AB's.

 

Prorate the same HR/AB ratio and given equal AB's Baldelli's got 21. To go with a superior OBP...Baldelli is easily better.

 

But, then again, I'm sure you'll find some other inane way to ignore facts and continue to harp on that ankle. Never mind that you allow Jacobs a free pass but diminish Baldelli's accomplishments on bad hamstrings.

 

I'm done now, say whatever you want and just sink this discussion further and further into the quagmire of retardedness.

OK, it seems we've gotten far away from the point here, so let me get back to it.

 

I never said Jacobs was, in one shape or form, "better" than Baldelli. What I have said is the following:

#1 - Jacobs isn't a bust. Plain & simple. If Hermida gets a pass for a lousy year because he was hurt, Jacobs at least deserves the same. If Jacobs healthy is midway between what he showed in 05 and his injured performance in 06 I think he is fine.

 

#2 - There are legit concerns about Baldelli's durability. The guy has seen the number of games he plays a season plummet since his debut. When we talk about taking on a contract worth 2 million + a year (on the Marlins) and trading away significant talent, I think we should be minimizing those kind of concerns. For some of the same reasons that Barry Bonds won't get his asking price - because there's no argument that Baldelli's great and would be a boost to the team when he's on the field, the question is simply how often will he be on the field. If it's around 90 games like last season, then you still have a hole in CF for about 70 games. We don't have the OF depth that TB does to deal with that. What we end up with is another half season of Cody Amezacrobreed patrolling CF - which is what we are trying to avoid. Plus the loss of whatever talent we give up in the trade.

 

I'd like to add on, since this has devolved into this weird Jacobs vs Baldelli discussion, that it's borderline irrelevant. We're not talking about a possible 1-1 trade of Jacobs for Baldelli. That I'm willing to go with. But that ain't gonna happen. They will want a starting pitcher, preferably not named Petit, Mitre, or Nolasco. And even then, I'd rather keep Nolasco. Even if we have the talent to force Nolasco out of the rotation, he showed that unlike Mitre & Vargas, he can be effective from the bullpen.

 

So let me leave the Baldelli discussion with this: Jacobs may not be better than Baldelli, but he isn't trash. Jacobs + any of our starting 5 is too much IMO for a guy with the injury history of Baldelli who will also raise our total payroll 8-10% (by current estimates). I do realize that anyone we pick up could get a nasty injury and we lose out, and part of that's dumb luck. But with Baldelli there's already a history, and odds are worse on him staying healthy. When you invest that much, we should be able to be a bit more secure that the player will be healthy for a larger part of the season. Either that or it should cost less. And I don't think TB will lower the price.

 

Continue if you like, but that's my peace on Baldelli. I'm not discussing him again unless something actually happens, which I doubt.

 

I still don't get it. With Jacobs ailing, why would they move Helms to LF and move Josh to 1b? For argument sake, Willingham is probably the better LFer over Helms(being that Helms hasnt played the OF in a while), so that move makes no sense. There was never a need to move Josh to 1b this season.

 

Jacobs could barely move at 1st base before he got hurt. I don't have to prove sh*t to you. I think I've done enough in the past for you to believe my posts are genuine. If you think I'm blowing smoke up your ass, thats fine with me. Believe what you want.

I think the point is that if, as you suggest, the organization views Willingham as the future 1B solution, they would have actually given him playing time in real major league games. If not with Helms in LF then they could plug in Borchard or Cody depending on whether the other team had a LHP or RHP on the mound. But considering that they were willing to even play Jason Wood & Miguel Olivo at 1B at various times, it's hard to contend that they didn't have opportunities to play Willingham at 1B.

I still don't get it. With Jacobs ailing, why would they move Helms to LF and move Josh to 1b? For argument sake, Willingham is probably the better LFer over Helms(being that Helms hasnt played the OF in a while), so that move makes no sense. There was never a need to move Josh to 1b this season.

 

Jacobs could barely move at 1st base before he got hurt. I don't have to prove sh*t to you. I think I've done enough in the past for you to believe my posts are genuine. If you think I'm blowing smoke up your ass, thats fine with me. Believe what you want.

I think the point is that if, as you suggest, the organization views Willingham as the future 1B solution, they would have actually given him playing time in real major league games. If not with Helms in LF then they could plug in Borchard or Cody depending on whether the other team had a LHP or RHP on the mound. But considering that they were willing to even play Jason Wood & Miguel Olivo at 1B at various times, it's hard to contend that they didn't have opportunities to play Willingham at 1B.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if/when Mike is moved. Maybe they are having a change of heart with Jake but I doubt it. I'm sticking with what I have been hearing since the end of the season. His defense is not good enough, especially for a team like ours that needs to have a solid 1st baseman. His offense does not come close to compensating for his defense, hurt or not. When Mike went into a slump in 2006, he was literally worthless at the plate. Atleast with a guy like Josh Willingham, when he slumps, he still gets on base via the walk. Mike's slump kills an entire lineup.

 

We're also talking about Joe Girardi as our manager. Remember, he was starting Amezaga vs lefties just because he could. Once he knew he was on the outs, the last thing he was going to do is start experimenting with players and positions.

Since jacobs talk is heavily in here as well. May I make a suggestion of a possibility of Chris Ray being traded by the O's after they just have supposedly come to terms with Baez in a contract to let him close.

 

If that is true and they are shopping him for a DH type. What about sending them jacobs. Of course that is assuming they like his worth and our FO would deal with their foolishness of a FO.

 

Still he is a nice bullpen arm to add to the mix.