New Poll: The Tigers' Biggest Need at the Winter Meetings?

by Ian Casselberry on Dec 7, 2009 6:00 AM EST Comment 14 comments

For the past month, we've heard several rumors about trades the Detroit Tigers might make this offseason. Maybe Edwin Jackson could go, in an attempt to get lower-cost starting pitching. Curtis Granderson might yield a shortstop and starting pitching. Miguel Cabrera could take a big salary off the team payroll, while also bringing back some valuable prospects.

Are the Tigers looking to cut payroll? Or trying to move what players they can, working within that current budget?

We should finally get some answers this week, with baseball's annual trade show taking place at the Winter Meetings in Indianapolis. Last year, Dave Dombrowski got a starting catcher, shortstop, and starting pitcher (after almost getting a closer) at these meetings. This year, shortstop and closer are among the team's primary concerns.

But what need do the Tigers need to fill the most this week? That brings us to our new poll question:

Which position do the Tigers need to address most at the Winter Meetings?

You can find the poll on the right sidebar below the FanShots block. Or you can vote here. Please add your thoughts in the comments. And if you have suggestions for future poll questions, send them over via e-mail.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I went with closer...

I feel at short and outfield that our problems can be solved internally. Ramon and Raburn have earned their shots in my mind. We have a very good 1-2-3 punch of starters right now. The 4-5 guys just need to be solid. Possibly solved internally as well.

I chose closer because until Lyon is resigned, this club doesn’t have a clear takeover to the job right now. Zumaya needs to prove his shoulder is stronger than glass. Perry needs to prove that he can keep consistent control. You could look at Bobby Seay as a possible option, but why move the guy out of his established roll on this team? Especially one that he has been very good at. A clearer candidate for the job of closer is needed.

My Music: Some Sorta Giant
My Blog: Inside A Head

by madpoopz on Dec 7, 2009 6:20 AM EST reply actions

Quite a few people are drinking the closer kool-aid.

If the category were bullpen I’d have voted that but I think the OF is still a primary concern. Closers come and go (often appearing out of nowhere) so I don’t really believe there’s a pressing concern there (hell, we used Rodney and Todd Jones in years past).

by 13194013 on Dec 7, 2009 8:31 AM EST reply actions

^^ what he said

Unless you’re getting Joe Nathan or Mariano Rivera, you shouldn’t overpay for a closer. Especially when your shortstop is “fill in the blank.” Shortstops play nearly daily and anchor the infield. Much, much more important.

Mack Avenue Tigers

by Kurt Mensching on Dec 7, 2009 9:06 AM EST up reply actions

We could still use a steady hand in the 'pen

Course, we could give the job to Seay. I’d prefer a SP with some upside in the back of the rotation- should do us some good to have the #4 and #5 slots not filled by “staff” all the time.

President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.

by David Tokarz on Dec 7, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions

I was torn between

OF and SS. I went with SS. I don’t see the closer as a major concern. I think one will turn up. But with SS, the choices we have are quite limited . Asi was growing up, I was taught the the role of the SS is the most important in the infield. I know many of you think Adam Everett will do, but I think he lacks in offense and Crosby isn’t much better. After watching Opie bobble the ball so many times last year, I am reluctant to have the Tigers sign him again. Especially without Polly there to cover his ass. I hopw we come out of these meetings with a good SS.
Also…..
I don’t understand why they don’t let Ramon play the position daily. He did a good job last year and seem to make more contact with the ball that Adam did. Yeah, I know he’s not an everyday player. I don’t believe that either. We think that because they tell us that. Give him the chance and if it proves to be too much, take it from there.

by Detroitchik on Dec 7, 2009 9:16 AM EST reply actions

Yeah, I know he’s not an everyday player. I don’t believe that either. We think that because they tell us that.

So if we don’t go by Leyland and Dombrowski on this, whose opinion should be trusted?

I’m not saying we should accept what the team spoon-feeds its fans and the media. Far from it. But in the case of Santiago’s suitability for full-time work, what else is there to go on? How do we know that Santiago isn’t successful exactly because of the limited playing time he receives?

And if it does “prove to be too much,” then what?

Bless You Boys

by Ian Casselberry on Dec 7, 2009 9:46 AM EST reply actions

I could not tell you that, Ian. I am simply stating my opinion.

Baesed on information and comments and decisions coming out of the front office, I don’t trust any of them and I personally have a hard time believing anything they tell the general public or the media. I think one time Santiago was given the opportunity several years ago. But he’s developed more that he was at that point in time. I think to compare what he did as a rookie player, to what he may possibly be able to do now is irrelevant. His skills have had more time to progress at a major league level. He was much younger and undeveloped as a player then. Maybe they say that to keep him earning a big fat pay increase…

There are a great many things that all of us can do better once our skills and talents are given time to grow.

by Detroitchik on Dec 7, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions

Santiago's career line is a .244 average and .650 OPS

his post-all star line was a .264 average and .647 OPS. In 326 career games at shortstop, he is below average.

He is a platoon player at best, and can be a valuable addition as a backup infield. That’s what he should remain if you want any hope of watching a winner next year.

Mack Avenue Tigers

by Kurt Mensching on Dec 7, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions

So then

what would be wrong with Platooning him with the rookie, Dlugach?

by Detroitchik on Dec 7, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions

Kurt doesn't trust him either

President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.

by David Tokarz on Dec 7, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions

I would pass on both of the options given

meaning Everett or Crosby

by Detroitchik on Dec 7, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions

I voted closer.

The question, to me, boiled down to Everett or Lyon. Looking at our bullpen right now, I don’t see anyone that can easily be counted on to throw 70+ innings with a sub-4 ERA. Our best hope for that right now seems to be Perry, and to me, that’s a little unsettling.

by StringTheory on Dec 7, 2009 11:59 AM EST reply actions

There's really no difference in the four of them

Bobby Crosby (career)
.238 BA
.683 OPS
.973 Fld %
Adam Everett (career)
.245 BA
.648 OPS
.976 Fld %
Brent Dlugach (minors – career)
.270 BA
.703 OPS
.949 Fld. %
Ramon Santiago (career)
.244 BA
.650 OPS
.975 Fld %

But I still like the combo of the rookie and Ramon

by Detroitchik on Dec 7, 2009 12:03 PM EST reply actions

I like the platoon idea as well (with ramon getting majority of playing time)

but the argument still remains that neither Dlugach or Santiago are proven everyday players. Everett has essentially started 4x more games than santiago career and has twice as many PA’s to back the numbers up with.

I mean, if two unproven potential starters are going to be given a shot to prove that one of them will be the main starter…somebody is going to have to really step up.

I would really like this pairing to happen. I just don’t think that the numbers are there for them to risk something at a very important position on the field.

My Music: Some Sorta Giant
My Blog: Inside A Head

by madpoopz on Dec 7, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions