Diamondbacks Bullpen

stu · Veteran Presence Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 1804

I know for a fact that he's the Whiskey Sour that keeps our clubhouse feelin' tipsy.

In other words, don't confuse you with facts, your mind is made up. I suppose everyone is different but Tony Clark. He is the one exception to the rule but other than your opinion you cannot cite any facts for this. I find these types of argument less than compelling.

A roster spot is important. I am one of those who has defended Clark saying that he has performed a valuable role this year. However, your arguments are beginning to convince me otherwise.

If the best you can do is that he is defensive replacement for one inning at first and starts every 7 days with a poor batting stats I am thinking that the spot is probably better used for another player.

shoewizard · Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject:

I think we need to differentiate what Clark has done, and can hopefully still do this year, vs. what he is likely to do next year if extended.

He is borderline useful in a baseball sense this year. Yes, he has had some big pinch hits.....because he pinch hits A LOT. Had he come up with a big hit yesterday, and driven in the runner on 3rd, the 9th would not have been so tense, would it? His big hits are coming less and less frequently. It only gets worse from here. At his age, and with his physical limitations now, (even though that WAS a great play last night), nobody can reasonably project him to be anything other than worse than what he has been this year. This is what happens when players age.

But thats ok. I'm fine with him the rest of the year. I just don't want to see him extended for NON BASEBALL PERFORMANCE issues.

For 2008 and beyond: Coach Yes, Roster Spot NO

YBC-Dog · Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject:

Here is something I don't understand.

When a rookie is called up and put on the bench in favor of a PV, almost everyone on this site gets upset (including me). However, it seems here that almost everyone on this site would prefer we do this scenario and get rid of Tony Clark.

Why is it "stunting Conor's development" to bench him in favor of TC in '05, but acceptable to most out here to bring some kid up with no major league experience and then leave him to rot on the bench behind Conor?

I bring it up because I wouldn't mind keeping TC around in his current role of pinch hitter/clubhouse guy (at the same price we are paying now). If he were not good at coming off the bench, or if he were demanding a bigger role I would be against it, but he's been good off the bench and hasn't complained about playing time and helped the kids when asked.

And we are not stunting Tony's development like we would someone from the farm.

So is the line in the sand that it's "stunting someone's development" when he's brought up to backup a guy with more than 3 years of MLB experience, but not stunting the development when it is someone with less than 3 years of mlb experience? Kidding...but seriously, what's the difference?

That it's acceptable to stunt certain player's development because we don't want to lose them, and have to conserve our roster spots because of a loaded farm?

I personally would prefer letting PV's sit on the bench as opposed to young talent that should be playing every day.

qudjy1 · Hall of Famer Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 4283

TAP · Face of the Franchise Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 7713

shoewizard · Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject:

qudjy1 · Hall of Famer Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 4283

And, oh by the way - the only reason i answered that question is because you used the word roster "CONSTRUCTION"....

moviegeekjn · Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject:

stu · Veteran Presence Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 1804

I think Clark's record of leading teams into the playoffs and his clutch performance once there speaks volumes for his veteran leadership.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clarkto02.shtml

THE SHADOW · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 502

All this talk about TC coaching. Yes he wants to coach but it won't be baseball. He will be coaching hoops when he is done.

But hey if they pay you $1 million+ to play some partime ball you do it as long as you can.

TAP · Face of the Franchise Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 7713

THE SHADOW · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 502

charlie · MLB Rookie Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 131

One last note...

Using Clark's fine defensive play the other night as an example of why he should be re-signed misses the point in that it assumes another player would not have made the same play.

I don't find that reasoning very compelling.
_________________
formerly ROF

Dylan · Journeyman Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 418

EvilJuan · Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:05 am Post subject:

<bump>

whatuwant · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject:

wedge · Journeyman Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 273

poor cojack...

NJ-DBACKS-FAN · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject:

B. O. N. D. · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject:

EvilJuan · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject:

Dre · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:51 pm Post subject:

I'll go against popular opinion here, I think re-signing TC is a fine idea. Ww don't know how well Tracy will respond to surgery. TC is still capable of starting on occasion and still demands respect as a PH. any 1 year deal at $1.5M or below is fine by me as long as the front office is going to commit to CoJack for 140 starts.

shoewizard · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject:

Oden · Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject:

Yet he won't do that with the LF'er.