Re: Time to Bench Salty
posted at 8/12/2012 12:58 PM EDT
According to Cafardo, the FO "Definitely" tried to move Salty. And he couldn't understand why they wanted to keep Shoppach so much. What does that tell us?
You keep repeating this same tired old rant like it is the bible or something.
Cafardo could be 100% wrong for one thing.
The fact (if indeed it is a fact just becuase a baseball writer said it was) that we tried hard to move Salty does not imply we thought he had little or no value.
Ben was looking to improve our team by addressing our weaknesses. You automatically assume that because Salty's name was the centerpiece, Ben must have viewed Salty as the weakest link. This is possible, but certainly far from obvious or even probable.
How about looking at it this way? Ben saw our catcher position as our psotion of strength. He really valued Salty, but determined that Lava and Shoppach had tremendous value too. He obviously wanted to keep Lava, since he is under team control for many many more years than Salty and at a much lower financial cost. He realized that Shoppach would not bring back much in return to seriously improve one of our other weaker areas. Just because other teams asked about Shoppach and not Salty, does not mean they valued Shoppach more than Salty, but rather they didn't have to give up nearly as much for a 2 month rental back-up catcher than a starter catcher with 20 HRs and another year of reasonable cost control. Ben might have seen the drop down from Salty/Shopp to Lava/Shopp as not a big a drop as the improvement differential might have been at the position he got a return player in, like SP.
You are jumping to illogical conclusions about a writer's rant.
It's counterintuitive isn't it? Wouldn't most teams want to trade the back up?
Yes, assuming they'd get the same rturn as if they traded their starter, but we both know that is far from the truth here.
Wouldn't most teams want to have a left handed catcher and a right handed catcher? Instead they seemed to want to end up with 2 RH catchers. Why would they try so hard to trade Salty? Shoppach only had 1/2 year of control? Salty had 1.5.
See above. If you really think Shoppach was going to net us a useful piece for 2013, you are dead wrong. I'm sure the offers for Shoppach were a mid-level at best prospect, or a bottom relief pitcher or4/ 5th OF'er type...things we didn't need.
It means they didn't want Salty back next year.
You need to take a logic class. There are several alternative logical explanations for a GM looking into trading a certain player. I brought up one above, but there are more.
It means they maybe had a FA in mind plus maybe Lavarnway. It means Salty was not in their plans going forward. It means they wanted to trade him and they didn't get the return they wanted or they would have traded him. But no doubt they wanted to trade him.
Please follow along:
They only "wanted to trade him" if the got equal or better return. Equal, if it was at a position of greater need, better if it helped our team overall in other ways (like very good future prospects).
Looking to trade someone does not automatically mean we don't want him, of that he doesn't fit into our plans. Most GMs have several plans and contingency plans based on certain moves or non-moves, injuries, surprising player results (good or bad) and so forth. Ben was exploring one or more plans by supposedly shopping Salty. He may or may not have gotten an offer or two, and if he did, he decided he liked Salty better than what the alternative would have been had he traded him. One could just as easily look at the non-trade as evidence that Ben likes Salty more than any other GM in MLB. While this belief is as flawed as yours, it is just as plausible.