The Jennings Situation
by Dave Gershman on Jan 23, 2011 1:53 PM EST
Email
PrintDespite losing Carl Crawford, many saw Desmond Jennings as "that guy" who would easily jump in to the Opening Day lineup and play 162 games. Some also expected Jennings to put up Crawford like numbers as soon as he recieved the starting job. That is obviously not going to happen. And if the Manny and Damon signings suggest anything towards Jennings, it's that he will not be with the Rays on Opening Day.
As of right now, the Rays crowded OF features the likes of B.J Upton, Matt Joyce, Desmond Jennings, and Johnny Damon. Ben Zobrist is also a guy who the Rays still consider an outfielder but will most likely see most of his time fielding ground balls at either 2B, or even 1B depending on how things line up. Sam Fuld and Brandon Guyer, the former Cubs who were brought to St. Petersburg in the Garza trade, are outfielders as well, but are really potential 4th/5th outfielders at the big league level. So what does this mean for Desmond Jennings?
Well, there's obviously a lot to like in the speedy 24-year old. The question is, even if he has a fine Spring Training, will there be room for him to play every day in the Majors? It wouldn't make sense to have him play 3 or so times a week.
In my opinion, I think the extra Durham at-bats could benefit Jennings a great deal. Despite the possibility of not having a starting job come Opening Day, Rays fans wishes of Jennings being the next Crawford could come to fruition much sooner if he spent more work in the higher levels of the minors. He's still a top prospect and among the opinions of many, he is still viewed as a potential big league star left fielder.
The one thing that must be said here, as long as Andrew Friedman and the rest of the great Rays management is running the club, trusting the Rays process is the way to go. The Rays management have always been fantastic talent evaluators, and they know whats best for their players. If they think Jennings is best suited for 100-200 more Triple-A at-bats, I wouldn't question their decision. However, I would hope that Jennings wouldn't question it either.
As seen with Chris Carter a couple years back, he dominated Double-A in the A's organization, even winning the Player of the Year Award in the Minor Leagues back in '09. However, as many were quick to pencil him on their personal Opening Day lineup at 1B, with the Ryan Howard expectations, the A's organization, a great one as well, decided Carter needed some more time at Triple-A. Carter spent more than half of the 2010 season at Sacramento where things did not go as planned for him. He hovered around .230-.250 before getting on a hot steak in early August. So my point being, I hope Jennings doesn't let the possible pressure or the disappointment's sticking at Triple-A get to him, thus the 24-year old needs to show the Rays organization that he is 100% ready to be an every day outfielder in the Majors.
Again, there's a lot to like in a 24-year old with speed, defense, and superstar instincts. The Rays are only going to what's best for Jennings. Without him in their organization, the Rays system wouldn't be second best in the league. However, as the future looks bright for Jennings and the Rays, he needs to trust their decisions as well. The Rays are not going through a rebuilding effort. They still have a team that can compete even with all of the depletions that have occured recently. Perhaps it would help Jennings to have guys like Damon and Ramirez around, serving as a mentor to the rookie. But until then, Jennings needs to prove that he is the future and that he is that guy who can impact a lineup. Something like the Rays former left fielder, Carl Crawford.
This post was written by a member of the DRaysBay community and does not necessarily express the views or opinions of DRaysBay staff.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Jennings will contribute in 2012
the beauty of the damon signing is there is NO reason to rush DJ….in andrew we trust
by GiovanniRaysFan on Jan 23, 2011 2:04 PM EST reply actions
They probably want him to take over CF rather than LF
Which may be why he’s going to be spending a couple of extra months in AAA.
PIZZA?!?
Service time is the key here, sure he could probably use more polish, but why make him a free agent a year earlier than we have to
Hell yeah it is.
Any amount of points can be scored week to week. well, besides 1 point. Any number is as likely to be reached as another, since there’s only one of each number, each has the same chance to be hit. IT’s how the syetemof averages works.
by waltermercier on Sep 21, 2010 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
by Andy Hellicksonstine on Jan 23, 2011 6:43 PM EST up reply actions
No one is questioning Jennings talent level.
It all comes down to consistency. He has to show them he can stay healthy and play at a high level while doing it.
Sam Bradford
There are other factors that benefit the team even if Jennings was/is consistent
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Is he enough to get Soria? He hasn't show anything at the ML level whereas Soria is an All Star.
The caller said the boy, after removing the bulb from its socket, left the building and threw the bulb on the ground. When the bulb broke, the caller said the boy screamed "I am going to deem your kids as a POS"
by Top Gun Numba 1 on Jan 23, 2011 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I am an extremist on this kind of issue,
but I not only would not make that trade (Jennings for Soria) as a Rays fan, I will go further.
If the Rays were offered Mariano Rivera in 1998 and we were certain he would pitch as well as he has in his career, I would not trade Jennings for him. In fact, I might not even deal Guyer.
That is not because I do not respect the greatness of Rivera. He is a HOF pitcher, probably the greatest closer of all times. But in my view, even an average regular is more valuable than the greatest closer in history.
To make perhaps an exaggerated point, if you were offered the greatest first base coach in history, and I mean supposing there really are significant differences in the performance of first base coaches, and in return had to give up let’s say Guyer, projected by many to max out as a 4th outfielder, would you do it? I wouldn’t, because no matter how great a first base coach is, he cannot have as much impact on winning as a good 4th outfielder. Nor can a closer, no matter how great, have the impact of a solid let alone star outfielder as Jennings may become.
I agree with TGN1 that Jennings would likely not be enough, but that is a problem with the way some GMs value their players. It is not a true evaluation of the actual value each can provide, even if with Jennings it is still only potential.
I have to disagree
average outfielders are a dime a dozen. Even if Guyer could provide more value than Rivera (which I find dubious) he is so easily replaceable that it is a moot point . Replacing Rivera wold be virtually impossible. Relievers are so fungible that having a consistent one, who is great, over those years would be so much more valuable to the organization than having an average outfielder.
I think you are right about Guyer.
As I noted, I was exaggerating in order to highlight a general point. While it is true that a reliever like Rivera is more valuable than other relievers because he is unique and not easily replaced, I still think the function he serves is dramatically overvalued. Just look at the hysteria in Rays land over the absence of a name closer. As soon as any “name” closer was brought up, most of us expressed the hope the Rays would sign him: Dotel, Jenks, Fuentes, Rauch, Gregg. The only question seemed to be who was preferred, not the advisability of wanting one. And as each was signed elsewhere, it seemed the remaining alternatives could be deemed just as good.
Consider this. According to fangraphs, Rivera’s WAR in 2010 was 1.7. (He has had seasons when it has been as high as 3.3). Soriano’s 2010 WAR was 1.6. Soria outdid both with a 2.1.
I do not claim that WAR is the definitive stat, but it is thought provoking to note that as great as these closers are, according to one scale they barely managed to add 2 wins to their teams. How big a gap can there be between the greatest reliever around and simply a good one? Balfour is credited with a 1.2 WAR, less than 1 game difference. Even Farnsworth earned his team .7 wins, 1 less than Rivera and Choate got the Rays .5 wins. I know that in a given year that one win could be crucial, but when projecting into the future and trading off a possible starting outfielder for a closer, might it not be unbalancing the concern for both the future and the present?
Meanwhile, Joyce, in just 261 PAs netted a 1.9 WAR, more than Rivera or Soriano. And on the Nationals and Yankees, where he was the 4th outfielder, Austin Kearns had a 1.5 WAR total.
There are many factors to consider, of course. But it does raise the question of whether the Rays would have lost much had they not paid $7.5 million for Soriano and used what they had on hand already to close. At least in this case, the Rays were not trading future assets to get him; in fact they gained future assets which is what made the deal so brilliant. But suppose he had cost the Rays an Alex Cobb or Matt Sweeney, lesser prospects than Jennings, and not brought back draft picks. Are we sure that would have been profitable?
Do you believe that WAR really is even a good stat for measuring high leverage relievers?
I would tend to agree that the true talent differences (FIP, etc) between Farnsworth and Rivera may not be as far apart as perceived. But I feel that when utilized predominantly in high leverage situations, even small differences in true talent level are magnified in terms of wins or losses. And this is where WAR fails because it does not take this into account. The opposite extreme would be to use WPA to evalauate relievers as this number is dominated by performance in high leverage situations. In reality, some metric that combines the two is probably best. Of course, the players have no control over when they are used, but this still must be factored in when accounting for the differences in wins a Farnsworth might bring versus a Rivera.
In general, I actually agree with your thesis. I just may value relievers a bit more than you do. I suppose I am just closer to being a moderate on this issue as opposed to your self characterization as an “extremist.”
Fair enough.
I mention WAR only because it suggests a line of inquiry, not because I think it clinches any argument.
I do know that the issue is far more complex than I am making it out to be. And certainly we remember the bullpen disaster of ‘07. If this year’s version replicates that, the Rays are in big trouble. Nonetheless, when it comes to swapping talent, my first reaction is to oppose dealing prospective regulars for relievers no matter how good the reliever.
I don't think thats possible given the improvement of the quality of the defense
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
I'm not really disagreeing with anything here, but I found this point interesting. Even if we go to the opposite extreme, using WPA, Rivera's 2010 value only moderately increases.
From 1.7 wins to 2.24 wins.
Over the course of his career, the difference is a bit bigger: 36.5 wins compared to 51 wins. I think the true answer is somewhere in the middle, and 40-50 wins is nothing to sneeze about. Then again, he is also the best closer of all time….most closers don’t come anywhere near that.
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Jan 24, 2011 8:11 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting, I figured the WPA difference would be bigger.
I guess most save opportunities really aren’t all that high leverage.
by RaysTheRoof on Jan 24, 2011 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
Also, Jennings is more than enough to get Soria
TGN1 was being sarcastic.
Can this really be true?
Is it really possibly they could be that stupid? Maybe the Yanks floated in an attempt to scare other teams away from Soria
by RaysTheRoof on Jan 24, 2011 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe.
but I am not convinced Dayton Moore would trade Soria for Jennings. I would if I were the KC GM, but not everyone in KC would be happy.
Do you think the Rays history of not promoting guys to delay service time
will have any impact on their ability to sign some draft picks in ’11? Will some players be hesitant to sign with the org for this reason?
Reid Brignac stayed up all season last year despite most thinking he would be sent down rather early
by Jason Collette on Jan 23, 2011 7:44 PM EST up reply actions
I'm sure they have. I think Longo was slightly gamed, but he was still brought up young
You have to use the system as best you can. Damon makes it pretty easy to justify Deez and his 2010 .750 OPS in AAA.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Doubt it
Unless they draft someone who drops and is looking for a major league contract. College players have mostly moved pretty quickly, and high schoolers would need to either go to JC or wait three years.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
I am assuming DJ would have no hard feelings since he is also a Boras client now
Pretty safe to assume this was at least part of the discussion in bringing Damon here.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Please read our Community Guidelines.
Related FanPosts on DRaysBay
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
DRB Suggestion Box
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
