0 |
Subject: 2003 Detroit Tigers, circa 2008
Posted by: blue hen
- Leader [710321114] Mon, Mar 10, 2008, 23:36
What a difference a year makes!
1. Carlos Pena (30) 2. Jeremy Bonderman (25) 3. Cody Ross (27) 4. Nate Robertson (30) 5. Fernando Rodney (31) 6. Craig Monroe (31) 7. Eric Munson (30)
A year ago, Pena had been passed by Nate Robertson, who actually established himself as a Major League pitcher. In 2007, he put himself back on the map. Even though he's 30 now, it looks like he'll have a career and looks like a virtual lock for the best of the 2003 Tigers.
Bonderman has looked lost the last couple years and hasn't quite emerged into the ace we all predicted. It might still happen, but he better start doing something soon.
Cody Ross had a great partial season in 2007, and at 26, still has an outside shot to be a star. Very outside.
Rodney throws hard. He'll be a closer and save 30 games some year, but he's not getting any younger.
Here's the link. Did I miss anyone? Dean Palmer and Dmitri Young don't really count. |
1 | Flying Polack Sustainer
ID: 378582811 Tue, Mar 11, 2008, 08:51
|
Can I vote for Justin Verlander? Since the Tigers got him with the #2 pick as a result of that disasterous season.
|
2 | holt
ID: 341542412 Tue, Mar 11, 2008, 20:43
|
ug. 2003 tigers. what a stinky stinky team. you've really got to give a lot of credit to their front office for the turnaround.
warren morris, 2b. spectacular rookie season in 99 with pirates. 2003 season with tigers was his last in the majors. was only 29 in 2003.
alex sanchez, 52 sb's. 26 yrs old in 2003. 2004 he was 19 of 32 stealing. 2004 he was 8 of 13 stealing and washed out of baseball.
dmitri young was a monster. .297 .372 .537
Higginson was in the middle of his Stink era, but was still good enough to start. 52 RBI. wheee.
Inge hit .203, in 330 AB.
Munson had 18 HR, and not much else.
Craig Monroe was, well, Craig Monroe. Not very good, but on this team he was a star.
Shane Halter. Remember him? .217 in 360 AB's.
Craig Paquette. This is where his career went to die. Good roleplayer in StL, where the fans appreciated him. 2001 StL .282 15 HR 64 RBI 2002 DET .194 4 HR 20 RBI 2003 DET 33 AB's and out of baseball
Ramon Santiago. 2003 was his first chance to be a starter. he was only 23. he hit .225 in 444 AB's. from 2004-2007, he has a total of 194 major league AB's. appears that 2003 was basically a career ender for him as well.
Mike Maroth. 21 losses. that's something you can almost be proud of.
Nate Cornejo, age 23, was the ace of this staff, with an ERA of 4.67 and a record of 6-17. trust me, he was the ace. look at the team stats. that's really all you need to know about the "pitching" staff.
|
3 | holt
ID: 341542412 Tue, Mar 11, 2008, 20:50
|
oh yeah their record was 43-119.
poor Alan Trammell. this was the team he was blessed with as a rookie manager. he played all 20 seasons of his hall of fame caliber career with the Tigers. He's a bench coach with Cubs now.
|
4 | blue hen
ID: 8115717 Sat, Jun 13, 2009, 19:44
|
In honor of a big weekend from Cody Ross, here is the latest on this situation...
1. Carlos Pena (31) 2. Fernando Rodney (32) 3. Brandon Inge (32) 4. Cody Ross (28) 5. Jeremy Bonderman (26) 6. Nate Robertson (31) 7. Ramon Santiago (29)
Pena remains the obvious choice for #1 and it'll be hard for anyone to pass him. Rodney is having a decent career as a closer, and probably holds onto the #2 spot. Inge finally started hitting in 2009, and moves way up to the #3 spot. But he'll have to keep hitting to stay there.
Santiago is on a pace for his most games since 2003, so he finally gets onto the list.
Will this team have a Hall of Famer? Pena will have to keep doing this a while. And Bonderman is young enough that if he comes back healthy and dominates for a couple years, he could be in the discussion. Likely? No, but the best odds of anyone other than Pena. Rodney is 32, so it's unlikely he'd be able to reel off enough 40 save seasons to even come close, but you never know with closers.
|
5 | Seattle Zen
ID: 45201323 Sun, Jun 14, 2009, 00:20
|
And Bonderman is young enough that if he comes back healthy and dominates for a couple years, he could be in the discussion.
A couple years? Even if he came back and dominated for a decade he wouldn't be in HOF discussions. He has 59 wins and a horrible 4.78 career ERA. He would need to add at least 200 wins to that total and drop that ERA well below 4.00 in order to gain some traction. Who has ever done that in the history of baseball?
|
6 | blue hen
ID: 8115717 Sun, Jun 14, 2009, 01:16
|
Bonderman is only 26. After his age 26 season, Randy Johnson had 24 career wins. Johnson didn't win his 59th game until the middle of his age 29 season. Granted, Randy is a freak, but...
Jamie Moyer got off to an even slower start, and while he's far from a Hall of Famer, if Bonderman can win 250 games in this day and age... of course, Moyer is also a freak.
And oh yeah. Through his age 26 season, Johan Santana also had exactly... 59 wins.
Clearly, Bonderman has a long way to go before he reaches even Tim Hudson's level of respectability. My point is that he started very young, and is still young enough that we can't completely eliminate him just yet.
That's just wins, of ocurse. The ERA will have to improve by a metric ton for any of this to be relevant.
|
7 | Mikel
ID: 265462116 Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 17:49
|
I love the Bondo faith BH, but even I'm starting to give up hope.
He's on the shelf until at least September and I'd be surprised to see him back with the Tigs this season. Post surgery Bonderman tops out around 90 on the fastball and he still hasn't developed a changeup; even though its seems like he's been working on it ever since he broke into the league.
The Tigers sent him to the bullpen (no appearances) after his start this year (just before he was placed on the DL). At first glance maybe a conversion to the pen is what would work best for Jeremy (when healthy, he has a nice strikeout educing slider, and it could help the Tigers manage his health), but again, with the slight drop of in velocity, it certainly makes me wary.
May I ask why you place Nate Robertson over Ramon Santiago?
|
8 | PuNk42AE Donor
ID: 036635522 Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 22:27
|
But but but Mikel we've read all the stories during Spring Training each year that "Bonderman has finally found his changeup". :'P
|
9 | blue hen
ID: 8115717 Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 23:53
|
Robertson had a bit of success. Even at his best, Santiago is a slap hitter with the occasionally high average. I think what Robertson has already done is ahead of that, no?
|
10 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 01:53
|
Comparing Bonderman to RJ is just silly. It is far better, I think, to compare him to the average pitcher to see how he does (the average pitcher's career in MLB is about 4.6 years ).
An early success bodes well for a long career, but Bonderman was awful his first year, and he's living on borrowed time. He's got "middle reliever" written all over him anymore, if that.
|
11 | blue hen
ID: 8115717 Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 03:02
|
Does this include the fact that pitchers with low success rates don't last long? I'd imagine pitchers who reach 59 wins last much longer.
And what does this look like for pitchers who reached the majors at age 20?
Don't get me wrong - Bonderman is cooked. He's behind Cody Ross on this list. I'm just trying gauge the potential.
|
12 | Mikel
ID: 265462116 Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 19:46
|
The way I look at Santiago v. Robertson is by asking, "Right now, who has more to offer a Major League Club?"
Nate Robertson
Robertson's best season was easily 2006 in which he went 13- 13 with a 3.84 ERA. He probably should have had a few more wins that year but fell victim to the second worst run support in the American League (Kelvim Escobar was worst).
Since '06 Nate's posted (ERA/WHIPS) of 4.76/1.47, 6.35/1.66, and 7.71/1.76 and Nate's most impressive stat came last year when he accrued a league leading 119 earned runs! GO NATE!
Nate currently finds himself as a long reliever in the Tigers BP and even then he's stuck behind Zach Miner as the Tigs first option.
Santiago
Sure, Santiago hasn't played in more than 58 games in a season since 2003 but he has played a vital roll on the Tigers bench since returning to the club in 2006.
Santiago's 2008 campaign was the best offensively of his career; Ramon played in 58 games while posting an OBP% of .411 and a SLG% of .460.
Ramon's true value comes from him being able to play shortstop and second base. He's strong defensivly at both, and was a nice defensive option late in games when Guillen and Renteria were the Tigers starting options at SS from 2006-2008.
Today, Santiago continues to play the roll of Tigers utility middle infielder, filling in for starters Adam Everett and Placido Polonco. Through 37 games he has a OPS of .763.
Bottom Line
Nate Robertson is stuck in the bowels of the Tigers bullpen and while Santiago continued to churn out productive support in the middle of the Tigers infield. I'll take Ramon.
|
13 | Mikel
ID: 265462116 Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 19:54
|
Haha, you're dead on Punk. Every Spring Training, he worked on it, every Spring Training there seemed to be in an article written about it, and every season he never used it.
Looking back it sure would be interesting to see how the Jeremy Bonderman story would read had he gotten a few more years in the minors and really had a chance to develop a third pitch.
|
14 | Mikel
ID: 265462116 Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 20:11
|
Bump for the HR Derby. Who would have thought that there would be two players from the 03 team in a HR Derby?!
Go Inge!
|
15 | blue hen Dude
ID: 710321114 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 09:49
|
Good point. I think at this point Pena has this contest essentially licked and actually has more than a 1 percent chance at the Hall (I'd put it at about 7 or 8 percent, I guess).
Inge will fall short, but after a year like this one, he solidified his place and is set to have a long career.
|
16 | Seward Norse
ID: 58082219 Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 11:30
|
Love this thread! I agree, nobody's going to catch Pena.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|