Tigers trade Sizemore for Purcey

kellmellus50 · Post #1 » by **kellmellus50** » Fri May 27, 2011 10:25 pm

Tigers trade 2B Sizemore for A's pitcher David Purcey

We've been trying to get him for a long time," Dombrowski said. "We tried to get him last winter, but they wouldn't trade him. We also tried to get him when he was traded by Toronto, but weren't fortunate enough to get him.

TSE you have been saying the tigers need a trade,now hopefully they will trade for an outfielder.

I see the Tigers have moved on from Sizemore. I still think Sizemore is going to be an average defensive infielder and an above average hitter but at some point youhave to go to the next guy. Rhymes had his chance and may get another but now it will be Worth’s chance. Or perhaps Santiagos with Worth taking on the utility role. Purcey is a nice arm to have in the bullpen but he’ll never be more than a lefty specialist.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110527/SPO ... more-for-A’s-pitcher-David-Purcey#ixzz1Naut6Wdw

TSE · Post #2 » by **TSE** » Fri May 27, 2011 11:03 pm

Well we're pretty good at OF having AJ along with 3 other young guys in Boesch/Wells/DIrks, plus we still have Raburn, and Magglio will be hopefully healthy by playoff time if we wanted to still seriously try to contend.

We need to trade for infielder upgrades. We have 3 major holes at SS/2B/3B, and no obvious or surely- to-pan-out prospects. We have some decent starters plus depth at various positions on this team, but we are barren at those 3. That's the weak link that has been crippling us for years, you can't win without good players at those positions. And i'm not saying you can't win a baseball game, I'm talking about the game of having the best roster design in professional baseball, and a tremendous assortment of awesome infielders is a requirement in my mind.

PITCHERS, OUTFIELDERS, and MINOR LEAGUERS....they all need to be tossed into the Trade Grinder. Well not Verlander, but everybody else needs to be turned into slurry and then we get what we can get with that.

Post #3 » by **ajaX82** » Sat May 28, 2011 1:05 am

Sizemore never did a damn thing outside of AAA, so no harm in trading him. Hopefully Purcey upgrades the pen

kellmellus50 · Post #4 » by **kellmellus50** » Sun May 29, 2011 3:27 am

I am glad perry was sent down to work on his pitching.

Tigers sent reliever Ryan Perry to Toledo after Friday's game. Perry had a 12.19 ERA, giving up 14 earned runs in 10 1/3 innings in 13 games

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110528/SPO ... z1Ni0nqtHX

TSE · Post #5 » by **TSE** » Mon May 30, 2011 2:04 am

ajaX82 wrote:Sizemore never did a damn thing outside of AAA, so no harm in trading him. Hopefully Purcey upgrades the pen

But what if Sizemore pans out and becomes and excellent player? That wouldn't be harmful? Sounds to me like you are assigning a 0% probability that Sizemore will pan out. That's the only way that your comment can hold true. The reason I don't like the trade is because I believe that the percent is not only a positive number, but a significantly high positive number relative to this trade. I believe it's obviously harmful, not because of what Sizemore has done in the past as that is irrelevant, but for the sake of giving up whatever his "panning out" percentage would be.

kellmellus50 · Post #6 » by **kellmellus50** » Mon May 30, 2011 2:25 am

TSE this is driving me nuts Ryan raburn 1st game 4 abats a 0-4 and 3 strike outs.(typical game)
Am i the only one seeing that this guy should be in the minors A.S.A.P bat avg .195

As far a sizemore goes your right ........but at this time i will take anything in order to try and turn this season around and try to make a run at the playoffs ,of coarse they will need 1-2 more trades which i think they will make by the deadline.

Post #7 » by **ajaX82** » Mon May 30, 2011 3:17 am

TSE wrote:
ajaX82 wrote:Sizemore never did a damn thing outside of AAA, so no harm in trading him. Hopefully Purcey upgrades the pen

But what if Sizemore pans out and becomes and excellent player? That wouldn't be harmful? Sounds to me like you are assigning a 0% probability that Sizemore will pan out. That's the only way that your comment can hold true. The reason I don't like the trade is because I believe that the percent is not only a positive number, but a significantly high positive number relative to this trade. I believe it's obviously harmful, not because of what Sizemore has done in the past as that is irrelevant, but for the sake of giving up whatever his "panning out" percentage would be.

What makes you think Sizemore will pan out?

TSE · Post #8 » by **TSE** » Mon May 30, 2011 4:50 pm

ajaX82 wrote:
TSE wrote:
ajaX82 wrote:Sizemore never did a damn thing outside of AAA, so no harm in trading him. Hopefully Purcey upgrades the pen

But what if Sizemore pans out and becomes and excellent player? That wouldn't be harmful? Sounds to me like you are assigning a 0% probability that Sizemore will pan out. That's the only way that your comment can hold true. The reason I don't like the trade is because I believe that the percent is not only a positive number, but a significantly high positive number relative to this trade. I believe it's obviously harmful, not because of what Sizemore has done in the past as that is irrelevant, but for the sake of giving up whatever his "panning out" percentage would be.

What makes you think Sizemore will pan out?

I don't think he will pan out. The odds are against him. But the odds were in our favor to let him try. He's nothing but a longshot lottery ticket, and my problem is that we the expected value of gambling on Sizemore is a worthwhile asset that shouldn't have been scrapped for a pitcher, especially when we need to make trades in the reverse in order to improve as a team. For the last 5 years we haven't had one second where our infield wasn't the crux of the reason why we suck in terms of player talent, and this trade just gives out more assets than it takes in and we are a worse baseball team as a result. The "unlikely to pan out" Sizemore is worth too much to us.

And on the flipside, I think it was a genius move by the A's, cause they need to make the same types of moves that most teams need to make, such as the Tigers, with moves like this type. It may not be a gigantic haul, but the gap of gain that they add shouldn't be possible to manufacture in theory, yet they did it by just simply using their heads to think better than their competition, and to me that's awesome when you can use your brain to bilk another team and make your sports franchise stronger while riding on some other team's dime.

TSE · Post #9 » by **TSE** » Mon May 30, 2011 4:56 pm

kellmellus50 wrote:TSE this is driving me nuts Ryan raburn 1st game 4 abats a 0-4 and 3 strike outs.(typical game)
Am i the only one seeing that this guy should be in the minors A.S.A.P bat avg .195

As far a sizemore goes your right ........but at this time i will take anything in order to try and turn this season around and try to make a run at the playoffs ,of coarse they will need 1-2 more trades which i think they will make by the deadline.

Raburn likely wouldn't have been on my team as of even last year due to trade. I would have scalped him for anything I can get. He would be a good throw in with Magglio to our trade pool. We have some veterans, we have some high priced guys, we have some low priced guys and we have some young guys. We have nice shapes and recipes we could put together for trades by having dumped the massive glut of useless players we have on this team along with our cash to not only find some upgrades but to potentially cut down some of our financial liability.

And well if we do make some more subsequent moves and end up injecting new serious talent into our infield, then this swap retroactively can start to make more sense. For example, if we now trade 4 of our relievers to then combine for some of the material we need to get that new infield help, well then the dynamics of this trade shift and Purcey's value now becomes logical to possess and we can create a roster design efficiency by dumping the corresponding players in his position. But if we do some kind of trade like that and it's botched in some way, then we have potential for a double penalty, and I don't trust DD cause none of his moves have proved to be logical. He has an extremely low percentage in that regard, and so I just have no expectation that he will build this team properly this year, cause I was waiting for the complementary moves in every previous season and every time he never did the second half of his job to validate how the first half of his job made any sense!

Post #10 » by **ajaX82** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:39 pm

TSE wrote:I don't think he will pan out. The odds are against him. But the odds were in our favor to let him try. He's nothing but a longshot lottery ticket, and my problem is that we the expected value of gambling on Sizemore is a worthwhile asset that shouldn't have been scrapped for a pitcher, especially when we need to make trades in the reverse in order to improve as a team. For the last 5 years we haven't had one second where our infield wasn't the crux of the reason why we suck in terms of player talent, and this trade just gives out more assets than it takes in and we are a worse baseball team as a result. The "unlikely to pan out" Sizemore is worth too much to us.

And on the flipside, I think it was a genius move by the A's, cause they need to make the same types of moves that most teams need to make, such as the Tigers, with moves like this type. It may not be a gigantic haul, but the gap of gain that they add shouldn't be possible to manufacture in theory, yet they did it by just simply using their heads to think better than their competition, and to me that's awesome when you can use your brain to bilk another team and make your sports franchise stronger while riding on some other team's dime.

So you don't think Sizemore will be a good player, but you are pissed that we traded him to shore up our bullpen, which sucks?

I guess I'll just leave it at that. I'm not sure I agree with the thought but life goes on

TSE · Post #11 » by **TSE** » Mon May 30, 2011 8:16 pm

Yep. We paid too much, because the %chance of Sizemore converting is a greater value than what Purcey adds to our pitching value. A greater amount going out than what is coming in equals a terrible deal. The size of the loss is tiny as it's a pair of very small pieces, but the percentage we are losing relative to the size of those values is a high loss as a percentage, and just illustrates further that we have lousy management that continues to cut our odds down a little by a little. There is no reason to intentionally stick an anchor to this team's development, and i'm very upset about it.

kellmellus50 · Post #12 » by **kellmellus50** » Tue May 31, 2011 10:34 am

For what its worth, i am not a big fan of votes, but i was board so i thought i would post it.

CyberSurvey
No more Sizemore
Should the Tigers have given Scott Sizemore a longer shot at winning second base?

Yes 46.26%

No 53.74%

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/forums/tig ... emore_2011

TSE · Post #13 » by **TSE** » Wed Jun 1, 2011 4:50 pm

Yeah but that's Tiger fans voting, they have no idea what this team needs to do anyhow. I haven't seen many fans that have ever really nailed down truly understanding this team and this sport. I think DD's opinions hold more value to me than the average fans who I think are even worse on average with regard to baseball strategy, and that's saying a lot considering how low of an opinion I have of DD. That's just the nature of the sport, is the game is extremely complex to analyze, and the masses are completely oblivious to having full and sound knowledge of this sport as compared to other sports, so you see a lot of crazy data that goes into all kinds of misleading directions.

kellmellus50 · Post #14 » by **kellmellus50** » Sat Jun 4, 2011 12:23 pm

Would the Tigers have considered trading Inge? It seems unlikely, since they signed him to a two-year, $11.5 million contract during the offseason
Inge just became a "10-and-5" player, which means that he cannot be traded without his consent under the rules of baseball's collective bargaining agreement
Is there a market for third basemen batting under .220 with no power

Another bad contract for the tigers to ponder over what to do with this mess and now on the DL.

P.s. side note:Sizemore was immediately assigned to Triple-A Sacramento playing 3rd routinely getting on base in Sactown, we already knew he could hit at the Triple-A level

TSE · Post #15 » by **TSE** » Sat Jun 4, 2011 5:07 pm

He has no trade value now. I wanted to trade him when he made the all-star team, cause then he had a salvageable value that would have been strategic to finagle if some other team overvalued him then. I assume that to be the case because I believe that the vast majority of teams would have seen him as worth more than what I did. He just was never priced in correctly to make sense with his suspect bat. Every contract he obtained from this team has been an illogical move on DD's part. More wasted money and more lost time in finding a really good 3B player.

kellmellus50 · Post #16 » by **kellmellus50** » Thu Jun 9, 2011 12:01 am

Sizemore remind me of outfielder Matt Joyce is 26 years old and will earn $426,000 this season to play baseball. He is currently second in the majors in batting with a .340 average

remenber he played for the tigers a few years ago.

TSE · Post #17 » by **TSE** » Thu Jun 9, 2011 4:05 pm

Yeah I loved Matt Joyce. Guys that are cheap and can produce are worth a lot in baseball, you gotta put them into your team's bank of franchise assets and exploit that, the more you can do that, the more powerful of a baseball team you can become. The Tigers blew it by not retaining Joyce properly and missing a helluva opportunity, now we are at risk for losing on Sizemore if he pans out too. And we won't win a championship this year either to further not justify both of those similar moves.

kellmellus50 · Post #18 » by **kellmellus50** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:54 am

Scott Sizemore went 3-for-4 with three RBIs for Oakland on Friday and went 5-for-9 with two walks and no strikeouts in his first three games with the A’s

TSE · Post #19 » by **TSE** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:55 am

And we have a barrel of pitchers. We should have 1st place by now with like an 8 game lead if we just did things the easy way.

kellmellus50 · Post #20 » by **kellmellus50** » Tue Aug 2, 2011 10:46 pm

Struggling left-handed reliever David Purcey has been designated for assignment, making room on the Detroit Tigers' roster for newly acquired reliever David Pauley

http://www.freep.com/article/20110802/S ... ext|Sports

Did the Tigers end up giving away Scott Sizemore? If David Purcey gets claimed on waivers, they did.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110802/SPO ... z1TumEVpId