Why would they replace a LHH leadoff hitter with a LHH leadof hitter and take on much more money?

 

 

Entirely reliant on what you would get back for De Aza.

 

Cannot judge any such speculation without knowing what would be coming back in return.

 

 

 

It'd be like hotdogs without mustard.

Like ESPN First Take without clowns.

Entirely reliant on what you would get back for De Aza.

 

Cannot judge any such speculation without knowing what would be coming back in return.

 

 

 

It'd be like hotdogs without mustard.

Like ESPN First Take without clowns.

 

Very true I forgot Bourn is a FA.

Why would they replace a LHH leadoff hitter with a LHH leadof hitter and take on much more money?

 

Trade Rios and replace him with Bourn. De Aza goes to LF, Bourn CF, and Viciedo to RF.

Trade Rios and replace him with Bourn. De Aza goes to LF, Bourn CF, and Viciedo to RF.

 

That's the exact scenario my friend wants to happen.

 

That's more like it.

Trade Rios and replace him with Bourn. De Aza goes to LF, Bourn CF, and Viciedo to RF.

 

Alejandro's probably better suited for RF than Viciedo.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/...ers-sources-say

 

AJ to meet with Rangers

ug

Edited December 18, 201213 yr by Baron

Alejandro's probably better suited for RF than Viciedo.

Why? Viciedo was originally in RF when they moved him to the OF, and his arm sort of fits there, while Alejandro has better range and so would seemingly be a better fit in LF.

I put De Aza in LF because I thought he said he was more comfortable in LF last year?

Why? Viciedo was originally in RF when they moved him to the OF, and his arm sort of fits there, while Alejandro has better range and so would seemingly be a better fit in LF.

 

He was awful in RF, and actually OK in LF. That's my rationale.

I put De Aza in LF because I thought he said he was more comfortable in LF last year?

Wasn't that compared to Center Field though? RF wasn't an option because Rios is more comfortable there. With Wise playing, you could put either one in CF or LF, and De Aza chose LF givenn those 2 options.

Why? Viciedo was originally in RF when they moved him to the OF, and his arm sort of fits there, while Alejandro has better range and so would seemingly be a better fit in LF.

 

I always thought Viciedo sucked in RF.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/...ers-sources-say

 

AJ to meet with Rangers

ug

 

Good fit for AJP there. Wouldn't be shocked if that gets done quickly.

I always thought Viciedo sucked in RF.

You should have. He had very little experience there. He played 95 games in RF in AAA before being called up and playing 19 more games there in the big leagues at the end of 2011.

 

He was markedly better in the OF last year, IMO, and I'd bet that would have translated to RF as well as LF. He got LF because Rios likes RF for whatever reason, but based on makeup you'd put him in RF.

What exactly makes RF harder to play than LF? I get you want a good arm in RF, which Viciedo obviously has, but in terms of catching and getting to the ball I don't see a difference, at least not at the Cell.

 

And I could be totally wrong here, but I actually would think more balls would be hit to LF given the amount of right-handed hitters in the league. If true, I would think RF would actually be easier to play as long as you have a good arm, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

What exactly makes RF harder to play than LF? I get you want a good arm in RF, which Viciedo obviously has, but in terms of catching and getting to the ball I don't see a difference, at least not at the Cell.

 

And I could be totally wrong here, but I actually would think more balls would be hit to LF given the amount of right-handed hitters in the league. If true, I would think RF would actually be easier to play as long as you have a good arm, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

 

The play of the ball off the bat. A righthanded slice is brutal, sometimes it is really tough to read.

What exactly makes RF harder to play than LF? I get you want a good arm in RF, which Viciedo obviously has, but in terms of catching and getting to the ball I don't see a difference, at least not at the Cell.

 

And I could be totally wrong here, but I actually would think more balls would be hit to LF given the amount of right-handed hitters in the league. If true, I would think RF would actually be easier to play as long as you have a good arm, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

 

Does it really matter how or why? The fact is Dayan was WAY better in LF.

Does it really matter how or why? The fact is Dayan was WAY better in LF.

Well, it kind of does. There's still a question as to whether or not the improvement was due to experience rather than a natural predilection for one over the other. That's relevant because of his arm strength, which would profile him as a right fielder.

If you are used to playing one or the other, it might be a little more difficult to play the one you are not used to due to the different angle. Other than that, the throws are much harder in RF. You don't want a weak throwing RF. A good arm in LF is nice to have. A good arm in RF is a must.

Edited December 19, 201213 yr by Dick Allen

Well, it kind of does. There's still a question as to whether or not the improvement was due to experience rather than a natural predilection for one over the other. That's relevant because of his arm strength, which would profile him as a right fielder.

 

So are you willing to potentially waste a couple of months on a "maybe"? How many games are you willing to lose trying to figure out something, when we already know where he can play?

 

 

So are you willing to potentially waste a couple of months on a "maybe"? How many games are you willing to lose trying to figure out something, when we already know where he can play?

I'm not saying we should do anything about it, I'm just saying it does maybe matter as to why. If, theoretically, someone could figure it out, they might consider putting him in RF again.

 

I also wouldn't be against playing him in RF every once in a while just to see what happens.

I'm not saying we should do anything about it, I'm just saying it does maybe matter as to why. If, theoretically, someone could figure it out, they might consider putting him in RF again.

 

This I like

I also wouldn't be against playing him in RF every once in a while just to see what happens.

 

This I don't like.

 

I think he struggled in RF because he wasn't used to playing the outfield. His defense was markedly better in the second half compared to the first. That said, I think you play him in one or the other to make the load easier to bear. Don't get him overthinking out there. Let him get comfortable in one position, and let him stay in one position.

Well, it kind of does. There's still a question as to whether or not the improvement was due to experience rather than a natural predilection for one over the other. That's relevant because of his arm strength, which would profile him as a right fielder.

Thank you for posting this. I don't understand why anyone would purposely ignore the reason behind his better defense play in LF vs RF. Considering he played RF in the minors, it would highly suggest that his improvement in LF was due to general experience in the OF and not something inherent to LF itself.

 

Like you said, Viciedo has the arm for RF and would be more valuable at that spot. Not giving him another chance in RF based on a small sample of games at a new position would be foolish IMO, especially if the position opens up in the near future.

Thank you for posting this. I don't understand why anyone would purposely ignore the reason behind his better defense play in LF vs RF. Considering he played RF in the minors, it would highly suggest that his improvement in LF was due to general experience in the OF and not something inherent to LF itself.

 

Like you said, Viciedo has the arm for RF and would be more valuable at that spot. Not giving him another chance in RF based on a small sample of games at a new position would be foolish IMO, especially if the position opens up in the near future.

 

If he played it prior, that kind of throws the "experience" thing out the window, and makes it more likely that he is just a better LF. Considering he hadn't played LF prior to last year, that should have made him worse out there, not better, according to that logic.

So are you willing to potentially waste a couple of months on a "maybe"? How many games are you willing to lose trying to figure out something, when we already know where he can play?

 

Because LF'ers are easier to find than RF'ERS?

 

Using your logic Viciedo should be a platoon player because we are going to lose a lot of games if he faces RH'ers regularly.

Because LF'ers are easier to find than RF'ERS?

 

Using your logic Viciedo should be a platoon player because we are going to lose a lot of games if he faces RH'ers regularly.

 

So answer the question then. How many games would you be willing to sacrifice to see if that theory holds up?