Master Index of Archived Threads


Andy Dirks?

Benjamin Grimm Dec 05 2011 02:52 PM

D. Benjamin Satkowiak, Yahoo Sports wrote: One team which has been extremely quiet on the first day of winter negotiations is the Detroit Tigers. For most of the day, nothing outside of the already rumored position acquisitions was heard from general manager Dave Dombrowski's camp. However, at approximately 2:19pm (CST), Joel Sherman of the New York Post issued a tweet, which has since been corroborated and enhanced by several media outlets, which report the Tigers have spoken with the Mets on a possible deal involving Detroit outfielder Andy Dirks swapping teams with the Mets' Daniel Murphy. As a utility infielder in 2011, spending time at first, second and third base, the 26-year-old Murphy had a .320 batting average with 6 home runs, 49 runs-batted-in and just 42 strikeouts in 423 at-bats. Murphy was well on his way to a breakout season, before a torn MCL ended his year in early August. In 78 games for Detroit, Dirks had a .251 average with 7 home runs and 28 runs-batted-in. When injuries forced a horde of Tigers' reserve players to step into starting roles, Dirks was on of the brighter performers. His ability on both sides of the ball began to develop rapidly, earning him the respect of the team, and the faithful Tiger fans. Sherman also noted, in his tweet, that the Mets' affection toward Dirks is based on his potential of being a vastly better option than their current one, Angel Pagan. If this does turn out to be one of Dombrowski's first offseason moves, it doesn't appear to be a horrible one. Murphy is a solid performer at all three infield bags. Though I am a fan of Dirks and his ability, the Tigers have options in the outfield and, all things considered, the infield addition is a far more pressing matter. I never heard of Andy Dirks until a few minutes ago, but it seems to me that Murphy should be able to bring back a better return.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 05 2011 02:54 PM Re: Andy Dirks?

Sherman is also apparently saying that the Padres and Blue Jays are also interested in Murphy.

TransMonk Dec 05 2011 02:58 PM Re: Andy Dirks?

I think Murphy is slightly more valuable than Dirks straight up. But, having Dirks potentially saves us some cake that could be spent on upgrading pitching rather than contributing to the Angel Pagan sucks fund.

Ashie62 Dec 05 2011 03:19 PM Re: Andy Dirks?

I guess we are officially rebuilding rather than retooling. Hope its' watchable...

Frayed Knot Dec 05 2011 06:18 PM Re: Andy Dirks?

I don't know enough about Dirks to opine whether this proposal is a good one or not, but I don't see the idea of trading talking trade with Murphy to be somehow proof of rebuilding. It's not like he's an established star at this point.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 05 2011 06:41 PM Re: Andy Dirks?

Um... decent contact skills, half-decent power, good-not-great speed, iffy plate discipline/walk skills, and a glove that plays in center but is better in a corner: isn't this essentially an import Kirk Neuwenhuis?

Ashie62 Dec 05 2011 07:26 PM Re: Andy Dirks?

Frayed Knot wrote: I don't know enough about Dirks to opine whether this proposal is a good one or not, but I don't see the idea of trading talking trade with Murphy to be somehow proof of rebuilding. It's not like he's an established star at this point. Well, if you don't know enough... Murphy does have a resume..

Ashie62 Dec 05 2011 07:27 PM Re: Andy Dirks?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Um... decent contact skills, half-decent power, good-not-great speed, iffy plate discipline/walk skills, and a glove that plays in center but is better in a corner: isn't this essentially an import Kirk Neuwenhuis? I have iffy plate discipline at lunch.

Frayed Knot Dec 05 2011 07:54 PM Re: Andy Dirks?

Ashie62 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I don't know enough about Dirks to opine whether this proposal is a good one or not, but I don't see the idea of trading talking trade with Murphy to be somehow proof of rebuilding. It's not like he's an established star at this point. Well, if you don't know enough... Murphy does have a resume.. But not one which suggests that dealing him is akin to rebuilding.

smg58 Dec 06 2011 03:53 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Um... decent contact skills, half-decent power, good-not-great speed, iffy plate discipline/walk skills, and a glove that plays in center but is better in a corner: isn't this essentially an import Kirk Neuwenhuis? Yes. He'll be 26 when the season starts, too. I'm not sure where the potential to be vastly better than Pagan comes from, since I don't see his upside matching Pagan's 09 or 10. The proposed deal makes far more sense from the Tigers' perspective than from ours.

TransMonk Dec 06 2011 08:16 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

smg58 wrote: I'm not sure where the potential to be vastly better than Pagan comes from... This would be a value deal. He wouldn't be vastly better than Pagan, but he would be vastly cheaper.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2011 08:39 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

I would think you can get a guy who's not better than Pagan, but cheaper, without trading Daniel Murphy.

Nymr83 Dec 06 2011 09:11 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

I wouldn't make a deal like this. -the savings between Murphy and Dirks aren't going to be invested back in payroll, they'd go to the "we got fucked by Bernie fund," making the savings meaningless from a baseball perspective -I think its easier to find a mediocre outfielder than it is to find an infielder if needed (Murphy is harder to replace than Dirks.) -Murphy provides an option down the line at 3B if Wright gets dealt.

Vic Sage Dec 06 2011 09:17 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

What is Pagan's status currently? signed, or arb eligible, or FA? I'm all for replacing Pagan, but if Sandy is willing to replace him with a cheap Nieuenheis-type player... guess what? we've got one already. Giving up Murphy for the Tigers' version of Captain Kirk makes no sense. Andy Dirks minor league numbers are similar though somewhat inferior to those of Murphy, and Murphy's major league production shows he's clearly able to do some things, but Dirks has yet to prove anything. This isn't even a lateral move; its just a bad idea -- offering superior talent for inferior talent is usually a bad idea, unless your just moving bad contracts. and usually even then.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2011 09:22 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

Yeah, I think this is a deal that the Tigers want (understandably) but hopefully one that leaves the Mets disinterested. Pagan is eligible for arbitration, and the estimate is that he'll get around $5 million. I think it would be foolish for a budget-conscious team to pay Angel Pagan $5 million.

Frayed Knot Dec 06 2011 09:23 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

Vic Sage wrote: What is Pagan's status currently? signed, or arb eligible, or FA? Currently 5+ years of ML service. So is arb eligible now and qualifies for FA at the end of 2012.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2011 09:50 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

It's a confounding job, building a baseball team. Pagan was perhaps the most outstanding Mets in 2010, and that performance for $5 millon would be a laughable bargain. But the Mets have no reason to expect a return to that level. Do they have a right to expect some bounceback however? Was any of it real? Was the defense an illusion? Would/should a team have non-tendered Tommie Agee after 1968?

smg58 Dec 06 2011 10:01 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

Edgy DC wrote: It's a confounding job, building a baseball team. Pagan was perhaps the most outstanding Mets in 2010, and that performance for $5 millon would be a laughable bargain. But the Mets have no reason to expect a return to that level. Do they have a right to expect some bounceback however? Was any of it real? Was the defense an illusion? Would/should a team have non-tendered Tommie Agee after 1968? A performance halfway between 2010 and 2011 would be a laughable bargain at $5M.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2011 10:07 AM Re: Andy Dirks?

I'm pretty much kinda agreed. A bargain anyhow, though perhaps not laughable, but we all have different humor points.