Why not play Snider and Thames and bench/trade Rasmus?

[Leolovinliberal]

Being as objective as possible, the two aforementioned guys are playing better than Rasmus who has shown zip since he's come to the Jays. At what point does Colby Rasmus have to look over his shoulder and fight for playing time, or is he the Bargnani of the Jays, i.e. play awful, and not be held accountable at all and still start?

[Mattd97]

hes got a year until gose is breathing down his neck.

[vaff87]

Because neither of those guys can play CF half as well as he can?

[illy]

i thought i hated when people used hockey references when talking about basketball. but basketball for baseball is much worse.

1) rasmus is a far superiour CFer than both
2) rasmus is a 1st round pick, more potential than thames and better or equal than snider.
3) has speed nothing compared to snider/thames

theres much more

[Avenger]

Why not get your head out of your ass ? Not only is it laughable to evaluate players based on ST numbers but you're trolling when you compare him to Andrea Bargnani right? One of those players has been terrible for 5+ seasons and the other had a bad couple of months during which he was clearly battling injuries. One of those players has conistently been in the bottom five at his position and the other is just one year removed from being the 3rd best hitter at his position.

[Hendrix]

I don't really understand this idea.

This would be the worst defensive LF/CF combo in baseball.

What is the upside here? I'm assuming the upside is that both of these guys that have yet to breakout, are both going to breakout if we play them? If that's case than wouldn't it be a lot more likely that the guy that would breakout is Rasmus, who has already posted a 4.3 WAR season?

It's not like Rasmus is even some old has been. He's the same age as Thames, and a couple years older than Snider. However, he's done a lot more than either of them in his career. Why would he take a backburner to them? Even in his 1 down year he was hardly behind Thames in WAR, and only slightly behind Sniders career WAR.

I don't see how a Bargnani reference ties into anything. Rasmus has been very productive for 2 out of his 3 years in the league. He's played 35 games for the Jays. You don't think bringing up the idea of trading a guy that has been bad for 35 games with us to hold him "accountable" is somewhat excessive?

[Leolovinliberal]

i thought i hated when people used hockey references when talking about basketball. but basketball for baseball is much worse.

1) rasmus is a far superiour CFer than both
2) rasmus is a 1st round pick, more potential than thames and better or equal than snider.
3) has speed nothing compared to snider/thames

theres much more

1. I don't agree that he is "far superior" to Snider, but even if he is, his offensive is such a liability that it negates his superior defense.
2. Who cares if he's a first round pick? That's less meaningful in baseball than any other sport.
3. Again, I don't think his speed is superior to Sniders. Do you have a link for that?

[Leolovinliberal]

[quote="Avenger"]Why not get your head out of your ass ? Not only is it laughable to evaluate players based on ST numbers but you're trolling when you compare him to Andrea Bargnani right? One of those players has been terrible for 5+ seasons and the other had a bad couple of months during which he was clearly battling injuries. One of those players has conistently been in the bottom five at his position and the other is just one year removed from being the 3rd best hitter at his position.[/quote]

I stopped reading after the bolded part. If you're so completely and utterly incapable of not insulting someone that has an opinion that differs from your own and basic civility that is common for a 5 year old is too difficult for you to exercise, than anything that you write can't be of much value.

[Leolovinliberal]

Because neither of those guys can play CF half as well as he can?

I dunno if I agree with "half as well", but say that that is true; at what point is his does his woeful offense negate his great defense?

[Leolovinliberal]

You raise some good points, but he wasn't just bad for 35 games with us, he was so bad with the Cardinals prior to the trade that he had been benched in favor of another player. At what point does his "great season" become the aberration?

I don't really understand this idea.

This would be the worst defensive LF/CF combo in baseball.

What is the upside here? I'm assuming the upside is that both of these guys that have yet to breakout, are both going to breakout if we play them? If that's case than wouldn't it be a lot more likely that the guy that would breakout is Rasmus, who has already posted a 4.3 WAR season?

It's not like Rasmus is even some old has been. He's the same age as Thames, and a couple years older than Snider. However, he's done a lot more than either of them in his career. Why would he take a backburner to them? Even in his 1 down year he was hardly behind Thames in WAR, and only slightly behind Sniders career WAR.

I don't see how a Bargnani reference ties into anything. Rasmus has been very productive for 2 out of his 3 years in the league. He's played 35 games for the Jays. You don't think bringing up the idea of trading a guy that has been bad for 35 games with us to hold him "accountable" is somewhat excessive?

[sule]

[augustine]

Or, why not drop Francisco and go something like this (based on a week with 7 games):

Lind 1B 6 games
Encarnacion 1B 1 game, DH 4 games, 3B 1 game
Snider DH 1 game, LF 4 games, CF 1 game
Thames DH 3 games, LF 2 games
Rasmus CF 6 games

This gives every player 6 games out of 7 (except one), it gives every player rest for a long season, it allows the best players to prove themselves (remember, spring training supposedly means nothing, so why give Thames the job over Snider without 2012 season games?), it preserves the options on Snider and Thames for next year, it makes the players happier, it prevents Rajai from being used in CF and keeps him for late inning pinch running. And, honestly, does Snider have anything more to prove in Los Vegas?

[Lateral Quicks]

Or, why not drop Francisco and go something like this (based on a week with 7 games):

Lind 1B 6 games
Encarnacion 1B 1 game, DH 4 games, 3B 1 game
Snider DH 1 game, LF 4 games, CF 1 game
Thames DH 3 games, LF 2 games
Rasmus CF 6 games

This gives every player 6 games out of 7 (except one), it gives every player rest for a long season, it allows the best players to prove themselves (remember, spring training supposedly means nothing, so why give Thames the job over Snider without 2012 season games?), it preserves the options on Snider and Thames for next year, it makes the players happier, it prevents Rajai from being used in CF and keeps him for late inning pinch running. And, honestly, does Snider have anything more to prove in Los Vegas?

Precisely. This is what I was arguing for in LF competition thread. More than enough AB's to go around for both Thames and Snider if Francisco is released. Remember Francisco was likely to be waived before AA traded for him. Are we really going to lose Snider for Francisco?

[There There]

You raise some good points, but he wasn't just bad for 35 games with us, he was so bad with the Cardinals prior to the trade that he had been benched in favor of another player. At what point does his "great season" become the aberration?

Really ?

No, he was benched because Tony LaRussa is as **** mental as this thread.
We benefit from LaRussa's insanity, in the form of acquiring a potentially elite offensive talent, especially relative to his position, and you want to bench or trade him because of 140 plate appearances after the trade, and three weeks of Spring training ?

Rasmus with St.Louis: .330 wOBA, 110 wRC+, 1.3 WAR
Thames: .333 wOBA, 108 wRC+, 0.9 WAR
Snider: .273 wOBA, 67 wRC+

So Rasmus' "so bad he was benched" time with the Cardinals was arguably equal to Thames' season and absolutely **** Ruthian compared to Sniders' season.

I'm all in favour of rolling the dice on Snider again and giving him regular at-bats, because I think in his case last season was a huge aberration, but it should be at the expense of Lind, who has been really **** over two full seasons, as opposed to Rasmus' 140 plate appearances with this team.

[illy]

for those saying theres enough bats to go around, if thats such a good idea why has AA done it already? you wanna know why? because it makes no sense to keep both. im not gon keep arguing my same points, but its pretty clear.

head back to the raptors forum where you belong boys.

[Parataxis]

for those saying theres enough bats to go around, if thats such a good idea why has AA done it already? you wanna know why? because it makes no sense to keep both. im not gon keep arguing my same points, but its pretty clear.

head back to the raptors forum where you belong boys.

Not that I disagree on this specific point, but that's a pretty silly argument.

AA is not perfect. Sometimes he gets things wrong. Arguing that 'if AA isn't already doing something, then that something isn't worth doing' is an argument for stasis - and since we're not winning championships right now, stasis clearly isn't what we want.

[Lateral Quicks]

And wouldn't it be nice if coarse individuals such as yourself disappeared entirely, illy. Perhaps one day you will learn that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

[WpgPage]

Rasmus is not going anywhere he is an elite talent and until he plays himself out of a job he gets to run out to CF everyday. I was originally in favor of keeping them both and rotating them but I think now one has to go back. A rotation would get complicated quickly, and what happens when one player gets on a role? Taking him out could ruin a potential week of superior AB's especially with a streaky hitter like E5. I hope they keep Snider up I'm still a believer in him, even if he sits at a high K% hes got enough power to make up for it.

[augustine]

for those saying theres enough bats to go around, if thats such a good idea why has AA done it already? you wanna know why? because it makes no sense to keep both. im not gon keep arguing my same points, but its pretty clear.

head back to the raptors forum where you belong boys.

Can we have a discussion based on logical relations between propositions rather than ad hominem fallacies please? There really is no point to the latter.

As for the former, I am assuming that by you saying: "for those saying theres enough bats to go around, if thats such a good idea why has AA done it already"; you mean: "For those saying there are enough at bats to go around: if that is such a good idea why hasn't AA done it already". If this assumption is correct, then I have already demonstrated where the at bats can go, and almost everyone gets six out of seven days of playing time, plus one day off - which is a healthy ratio.

With respect to your point about AA not opting for this path: he may yet. Neither has been cut yet. It is true that he is suggesting it will not happen, but sometimes alternative possibilities assert themselves. This is my hope.

I am assuming by you saying: "because it makes no sense to keep both. im not gon keep arguing my same points, but its pretty clear"; you mean: "It doesn't make any sense to keep them both. I am not going to keep arguing my points, but it is pretty clear". If this assumption is correct, I would submit to you that by the very fact that this discussion is going on, it is not clear to everyone. In such a scenario it appears appropriate that you would argue your points, as the discussion has not yet reached its conclusion. But, I leave it up to you.

[BossManJr]

LOL, I DIED!!!!