Diamondbacks Bullpen

dirtygary · Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject:

I just have a real hard time moving a guy or keeping him off the field because 25-30% of his AB's are against lefties which he struggles against.

Obviously Tracy benefited from the Tony Clark factor, and maybe that's what we need to do.

2005: 503 AB's; 82.3% vs righties
2006: 597 AB's; 69.5% vs righties

Maybe let Callaspo play 3B against lefties if Tracy still sucks? It wouldn't be a bad way of breaking in a young utility-type player, especially if he's more comfortable vs lefties. One or two starts a week, won't get beat down by the grind, and would surely improve Tracy's value if we do eventually decide to move him.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 560

Melvin has no clue as to platooning. I doubt he even understands that lefthanded hitters have trouble against lh pitchers and some more than others.

Projekt · AAA Stud Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 72

dirtygary · Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject:

Seriously, though, what if we give Tracy the first two months to pick it up, and then we go with a Callaspo/Tracy platoon at 3B?
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun

David B · Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject:

Well now, look what side thinks they wouldn't be getting value in return...

Joe Saunders-S- Angels Dec. 5 - 8:16 pm et

The Angels aren't willing to give up Joe Saunders in return for Arizona's Chad Tracy, according to the Los Angeles Times.

If GM Bill Stoneman is going to be that stingy, it seems unlikely he'll get the bat owner Arte Moreno is said to want. Saunders doesn't have much more than No. 4-starter potential, so Tracy would be a perfectly fair return.

Source: Los Angeles Times

Bob A · MLB Rookie Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 229 Location: Tucson

For what it's worth I for one hope we don't give up on Chad Tracy. I think he's got a lot of potential and is still relatively young. He needs at least one more year to prove himself (or disprove himself). Yes, we need starting pitching but we do have a lot of youngsters who will soon fill that role. Big bats are hard to come by too and very expensive. We've got one under contract, fairly cheap and with a lot of potential. Let's not give up on Tracy for a number four starter!

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

shoewizard · Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject:

Here is the exact wording from the LA TImes story

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

why do you assume that it wasn't the la times guy who was full of shit?

qudjy1 · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1121

I tend to not believe any of this - like we have been saying, trades that really get discussed dont hit the papers like this. Why would anyone from inside the AZ or LAA FO mention those 2 player's names with regards to trades? Both players are on the ML rosters next year, and may play a big part in thier season - i just dont see this getting out like it has if it was real...

shoewizard · Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject:

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

I would think that if we were willing to go after a #4 lefty in a trade for Tracy, we'd have just gone with Maholm.

coop981 · AA Prospect Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 42 Location: Peoria

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

Pittsburgh has also stated they wouldn't trade any of their young pitchers but that's likely posturing.

patlawman · Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:49 am Post subject:

Perhaps the assumption that the trade was Saunders for Tracy is wrong. In tge past JB has gotten a player with good potential thrown into the "primary" trade. This article says that the deal fell apart when JB asked for Saunders, it didn't say it was a straight up deal, one for one.