Well, At Least Jorge Cantu is Right About Something

by Matt Sammon on Jul 21, 2007 12:10 AM EDT Comment 26 comments

After getting optioned to triple-A Durham Thursday afternoon, Jorge Cantu said he had no business being in Tampa Bay. He's 100% right, and he's 95% responsible for the situation he's in.

It's not like I don't like the guy. Cantu stole all of our hearts in his magical 2005 season. How could he not have? With the aging Roberto Alomar deciding late in spring training to hang it up, Cantu's explosion on to the main stage was remarkable in what would become another train wreck of a season. In 150 games, Cantu seemed to answer the franchise's question on what was on second. He had a .286 batting average, 28 homers, 117 RBI, and easily was selected as the team MVP. Then came 2006.

After a letdown and injury-plagued 2006 season, Cantu looked to return to his '05 form in 2007. He hit a respectable .255 in spring training but was just beat out by second base contestants Ty Wigginton and B.J. Upton. Of course, Cantu's suspect defense didn't help his cause that much to begin with. Cantu was one of the final cuts in spring training and he wouldn't let you forget it. Instead of putting his chin up and vowing to fight his way back to the majors and prove everybody wrong, Cantu demanded a trade and there was much speculation on if he would report to Durham. Cantu was called up several weeks later, only to spend the majority of his time on the bench while Upton starred at second, and Josh Wilson filled in well after being claimed by the Rays in early May. Cantu's Rays career was toast before it had a chance to be revived.

But it was Cantu who wouldn't allow his own career to be revived. By making such a big clamor over his demotion at the start of the season, Cantu placed himself over everybody else on the team when in reality he was an average second baseman living off the fumes of one really good season. The Rays didn't have to go out of their way to make him happy afterwards, and they didn't. With better alternatives than Cantu, his demotion to AAA Thursday night should be no surprise to anybody.

It's not a surprise to Cantu, who clearly sees the opportunity he may have had to make everything right flew out the window in April. Now he's handling himself a little better than his first demotion, acknowledging the team is going in a different direction and he doesn't fit in. Still, Cantu is looking for the easy way out hoping the Rays just release him so someone else can pick him up. Cantu's agent, Steve Canter, isn't helping matters by trying to compare Cantu's situation to those of Julio Franco, Milton Bradley, and Shea Hillenbrand. With the Rays thoroughly wrapped around the idea of getting value for value, I don't see that happening too soon.

So the Rays go on with Wilson, Wigginton, and Upton at second. Cantu goes on as the sore thumb on a youthful team in Durham. Instead of fighting one more time to get back, Cantu wants the Rays to just let him loose in the hopes of what he did for one magical season makes him a star on another team.

Well... I thought Cantu got it right.

Other notes from Raysland:

Stuart Sternberg threw his support behind Joe Maddon prior to Friday night's 14-4 win at Yankee Stadium. That should be seen hardly as a surprise despite Maddon's 99-158 record in just under two years of service. Despite Maddon's ever-confusing lineups (and reasons for them), his alleged aloofness to a losing situation, and his buddy-buddy approach to managing, Maddon will likely stay past 2007 and for a simple reason-- he keeps quiet. As long as Maddon sings a happy song and doesn't throw a temper tantrum, he's good for the NDRO. And as long as Maddon keeps fans scratching their heads, that's more of a spotlight on Maddon instead of the moves by management that have caused some head scratching.
Sternberg also pumped up the idea of the team's financial flexibility, suggesting that if a big-contract player comes along to help the team it won't be a big deal. Interestingly though, Sternberg said, "We have needs, but every other team does, just like the Yankees and the Red Sox. There isn't a team in baseball that doesn't. Hopefully they'll stretch to us for one of their needs and I think we can have a fit with most any team." It's true Stu, all 29 other MLB teams have needs, but using that as an excuse for not making a good deal is unacceptable. It does take two to tango, but sometimes you have to initiate the dancing.(Thanks to the Tampa Tribune's Marc Lancaster for the quotes)
Speaking of Yankee Stadium, I learned a few things from my trip to the old ballpark while on vacation a few weeks ago:

The stadium is a hulking dump in one of the worst neighborhoods in America. But thanks to 26 World Championships and a pile of Hall of Famers and legends who wore the pinstripes, there is some charm between the walls with peeling paint in the Bronx.
New York City weather forecasters suck even more than Tampa Bay weather forecasters. All week long I heard about how torrential downpours were supposed to wash out the entire day of the game. My wife and I prepared for rain, only to get five straight hours of sun on us in the bleachers. I'll send my bills for skin cancer treatment to FOX 5.
Speaking of weather, nothing sucks more than wondering if the game you've waited weeks to see will get rained out. Stop complaining about the dome.
Stub Hub = happiness. Two tickets in the right field bleachers, Row A, plus shipping and handling came out to $48 total. Best seats in the house.
Yankees fans are talkative, and very passionate. At first it was cool because you don't always get that in the Trop. By the fifth inning I wanted to strangle the guy sitting next to me.
The line between "passionate" and "ignorant" with Yankees fans is very thin. After allowing one walk in the second inning, fans were screaming for Joe Torre to pull Kei Igawa. And put in that gas can of a bullpen? Come on now...
When P.A. announcer Bob Sheppard says "Joe Mauer", it sounds like he's saying, "Joe Mama". Highly entertaining.
Sheppard was entertaining when I could hear him. Whoever was playing the music that day seemed more interested in listening to Usher and T.I. instead of a legendary voice.
Even if you hate the Yankees and their fans as much as I do, see the old ballpark before a wrecking ball knocks it down in 2009.

Speaking of the Yankees, I laugh when I read "expert" columnists in the New York papers who suggest Bobby Abreu should be traded. If these knuckleheads haven't realized now that Abreu is at his hottest in August and September, I don't know how they keep their jobs.
That bastion of truth in New York, the Post, reports the Rays are listening to "anything about anybody" when it comes to trades. The Yankees like Ty Wigginton, but the Rays are reportedly not letting him go for nothing (a.k.a. Scott Proctor).
There was something in the air tonight Fernando... both Dioner Navarro AND Julio Lugo hit grand slams. Go play the lottery while you can.
Is it me, or was the recent hoopla over the Phillies losing their 10,000th game in franchise history just a bit much?
If you want the real losers of baseball, Fox Sports' Dayn Perry says look no further than Tropicana Field. In his top ten ranking of the worst sports teams of all time, the Rays trail only the legendary Washington Generals and the Prairie View A&M football squad.
Finally, I was shocked and confused to find out the new "Cavemen" show on ABC has gone through a total rewrite and recasting recently. What? A TV show based on a car insurance commercial wasn't good enough to stand on it's own?

*DISCLAIMER: As of this summer, Matt Sammon is now a part-time, paid employee of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. His views and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays' ownership, management, players, coaches, or other employees.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

On Maddon

The single most important aspect of a manager's job, made even more crucial on a team in the Rays' position, is to evaluate talent and put it in a position to thrive. On that score, Maddon is about as good as any manager I have ever seen. And part of his success is his ability to see beyond the obvious numbers to more subtle indicators. (note: when in LA, reporters often went to Maddon for analysis of opposing pitchers and hitters because of his ability to break down their strengths and weaknesses so accurately and clearly.) Perhaps the most obvious example will be his commitment to Edwin Jackson.

Naturally, it is possible that Jackson will never develop and all the starts he is getting are wasted. But when Maddon said 3 starts ago that Jackson pitched very well in a 7 run allowed outing, most people scoffed. Maybe Joe was right. Since then, his next 2 starts have been decent, and at his age, it is possible he is beginning to learn the game.

But there are myriad examples. I read numerous articles and posts urging the Rays to get rid of Upton after last year's disaster. How many people appreciated the possibility that Harris might be able to play or that Wilson had any value? Above all, Maddon is flexible, willing to change course as he has done with the bullpen assignments as well as lineups and playing time, while also making sure he gives each player an opportunity to prove himself. His patience is an invaluable asset to the Rays.

As for his leadership, I have questions about it too, but there is a suggestion in today's St. Pete Times that his public support for players does not reflect his actual toughness when he has them in private. If so, that is another mark in his favor.

The criticisms of his lineups and bullpen use are nitpicks. His motives may not always be obvious to us, but to suggest that he is not aware of the options or the "correct" choices strains credibility given his intelligence and experience. He knows exactly what he is doing and why, and his reasons, when considered fairly, are entirely defensible.

by bobr on Jul 21, 2007 6:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: On Maddon

Bob,

In all honesty I'm torn on what's to be done with Maddon. There are many positives of the man's experience here (some you have highlighted) and just as many "head-scratchers" to even out the positives.

While Maddon's current situation calls for his assessment of talent and motivation, it also requires him to make the right decisions in personnel and play-calling to win with whatever talent he has. That's what ALL major league managers, regardless of the situation, have to do to stay employed. Some of Maddon's moves, no matter what justified them, are head-scratchers. On the other hand, the guy has only been here a year-and-a-half and for some people that's not enough time. While some people were calling for his head in March, I wrote on this very same site that the man needs a chance to prove himself this season. When you look at where the Rays are now (38-57) and where they were after 95 games last season (39-56), you have to wonder exactly what type of improvement has come solely from Maddon.

As for the talent, I don't think Jackson and Upton are the best examples. Maddon had no choice but to work with Jackson because he's out of options. The Rays know at Jackson's young age, quite a few teams would pick him up during the waivers process if he was sent down to AAA. Other teams have the luxury of leaving a guy like Jackson down in the minors for a couple of years so he can improve. I'm a big supporter of Jackson, I know of the struggles he had last season getting jerked around between the majors and minors and the rotation and bullpen. I'm still cheering for him because I don't want somebody who's so young and who could be immensely talented if given the chance to grow to just get kicked to the curb. If you're Maddon, you have to jump on Jackson's side and pump him up.

Upton's improvement has to be credited more towards him and not necessarily Maddon. It seems Upton has finally realized if he wants to play in the majors, he can't do it at shortstop. Give the player some credit for realizing the adversity and adjusting to it by fixing his swing and adjusting defensively to second base and center.

I think the real "nitpick" factor in the Maddon argument is him not ripping his players publicly. I commend Maddon for not throwing Piniella-like tantrums to make a point. He does handle things differently behind closed doors than when he faces the press. But there is a way to criticize without naming names, or better yet there's a way to express your criticism of the team as a whole without screaming or yelling or throwing anybody under the bus. Maddon did that at the All-Star break when he steamed about the bullpen's problems... but after the team lost 13 of 14 where Maddon kept singing, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". The bigger issue with Maddon's disposition is the atmosphere in the clubhouse. There are a few players, some of them influential on the team, who don't take Maddon seriously because of his ultra-sunny disposition. That also leads to a "country club" atmosphere, something that is not productive in a growing, young clubhouse.

Wow... any more comments and we'll need a second page! Thanks for the comments Bob. The Maddon issue is one that will be hotly debated as the decision on if his contract should be renewed will rage with every win and loss.

Matt Sammon, draysbay columnist and professional bump on a log

by Matt Sammon on Jul 21, 2007 11:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: On Maddon

I know a few dislike Maddon for his stubborness to use Stokes and Jackson, but really I have no issue with that, I do however dislike the usage of Camp and to a far larger extent Fossum. It's one thing to stick by younger guys with potential, and considering Stokes / Jackson are nearly the same case it's acceptable, but I guess this goes back to the personnel and who's fault is it management or the manager in regards to getting a bullpen suitable for a big league club.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 21, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: On Maddon

It's interesting how different observers arrive at different conclusions despite general agreement. For example, while I have come to the conclusion that Stokes is a lost cause, I am less upset about Camp. I wonder whether Camp's problem is as much a combination of bad luck and porous defense as it is poor pitching. There is considerable evidence that the Rays have the worst infield defense in baseball. Camp is a ground ball pitcher. It is possible that his ineffectiveness results from his grounders finding holes through infielders with little range.

Watching him pitch, he keeps the ball down, his ball has terrific movement, and while his control this year is erratic, he has generally had adequate control. I have no illusions that he is anything more than a journeyman, but I can see him having uses at the end of a bullpen. His extraordinary inability to strand inherited runners this year is eerie, yet every time I watch him in a game, the hits that score them are either bloops or seeing eye grounders. I wonder if the data supports my observations.

by bobr on Jul 21, 2007 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Data and not-data

As of Sunday morning, Camp's batting average against is .329, his WHIP is 1.79 and his ERA is 5.68. In my opinion, the data says he's not a big league pitcher.

The not-data part is also troubling to me. He looks absolutely scared to death when he's on the mound. I actually think he's going to burst into tears at times. That sort of thing hardly inspires confidence in your teammates, and hardly strikes fear into the hearts of opposing batters. Maybe that's why the league is beating him like a drum.

One more stat:

Camp BAA 329; Fossum BAA 340
Camp WHIP 1.79; Fossum WHIP 1.77 (this works out to one less walk and one less hit in 100 innings)
Camp ERA 5.68; Fossum ERA 7.46.

Can anyone explain why Fossum is still occupying space in the bullpen? I know having a lefthander in the bullpen is supposed to be a necessity. But a lefthander who can't get people out seems to be a luxury the Rays can't afford.

I like the idea of getting value (Scott Proctor) even though you have to give up value (Ty Wigginton), but if the Yankees go for that deal, I would insist that they have to take Camp and Fossum as well.

by Fox 71 on Jul 22, 2007 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Data and not-data

One more stat about Fossum, and it reflects poorly on Maddon. The notion seems to be that we have to have a lefty in the bull pen to pitch to left hand hitters. And Maddon seems to like that move. Unfortunately, his lefthander is not Koufax or Spahn or Billy Wagner. It's Fossum, and left hand hitters are hitting .356 against him. He holds right hand hitters to a mere .332 batting average.

If Maddon uses him because he thinks he can get people out, then Maddon's rose colored glasses are affecting his thinking. The thinking may be, "Well, we're paying the guy a lot of money, so we have to keep him on the roster and put him in games." If that's Maddon's theory, it's just silly. It could be upper management's thinking, and if so, there ought to be a quite, unobtrusive way for Maddon to let that fact be known to the press.

by Fox 71 on Jul 22, 2007 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Data and not-data

The reason they were using Fossum in lefty vs lefty situations was to hope he would succeed and gain some trade value. He's gone come Sept 1 at the latest.

www.lakelandbaseballacademy.com

by SeanDubbs on Jul 22, 2007 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trade value

Fossum's trade value goes down every time he takes the mound.

Today's line - 2/3 IP, 3 hits, 1 walk, 3 earned runs. And just to add a little spice to the mix, he inherited two runners and they both scored. So he not only screwed up his ERA, but he screwed up Shields' ERA also. His ERA in his last 9 games is a flossy 10.something. He has allowed 9 of 11 inherited runners to score. He is, in short, awful. And everyone knows it (except Maddon, apparently.)

The only way Fossum's trade value goes up is if he stays on the bench, and his numbers are magically deleted from the official stats.

by Fox 71 on Jul 22, 2007 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Camp as of Sunday afternoon

This is a follow up to my earlier post, before Camp came in against the Yankees in today's blow-out. Camp's line - 1.1 IP, 9 hits, 5 runs. So for his last "game"

IP 9.1
H 19 (that's not a typo - 19 hits in his last 9.1 innings)
R 9
BB 4
ERA 8.68
WHIP 2.53

Sorry if this offends all you fans who believe that Camp is a solid performer and just victimized by shoddy defense. His problem is that we're not allowed to have our outfielders sitting half way up the bleachers.

Camp and Fossum and Ryu are simply not major league pitchers. Putting them in the game and watching with horror is not fair to Rays fans. It will not induce more people to come to the ball park, because as soon as these guys come in, the game is no longer competitive.

I'm not saying anything new. But I am saying these guys have to go. If this sounds pig-headed and opinionated, it is. Until someone can show me that the numbers for these guys justifies their continued presence on the club, then I cannot believe that Rays management is concerned about putting a major league product on the field. (And this is my favorite team!)

by Fox 71 on Jul 22, 2007 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: On Maddon

In my opinion, and it may not be the whole truth, but Maddon knows the game of baseball. The biggest thing though with Maddon that is the NDRO's biggest love is the fact he won't question the front office or ownership.

Forgive my choice words but he is a "Lackey" for Friedman. He may know the game, but he won't speak up or challenge the front office on personnel matters. Smart man, but a tool. I like a relationship that has some friction in it.

Joe

by joedobr on Jul 21, 2007 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: On Maddon

I have heard this point a number of times and frankly do not understand it. First of all, why does anyone want the manager to question the front office, especially in public? Aside from the fact that is not his job, it is also more likely destructive than constructive? Second, why question this front office? It has made a series of intelligent moves clearly consistent with its stated intentions and clearly implementing a well constructed plan. And third, it is entirely possible that he agrees with the front office on fundamental decisions. In fact, it is likely that in the hiring process, the overall approach was thoroughly discussed and agreed upon.

by bobr on Jul 21, 2007 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: On Maddon

I do not enjoy the thought of returning to the days of the manager publicly complaining about the direction and decisions of the team. Leave that to bitter, reactionary, semi-informed fans like myself. It got old with Piniella and didn't do a bit of good for anyone. I don't have a clue what goes on behind closed doors, but I'd bet or at least hope that Maddon puts in his two cents in a constructive manner.

by RATW on Jul 21, 2007 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: On Maddon

That's my point. The manager should not just be the mere "rubber stamp" for the front office and ownership to carry out their plan. Is it important to be on the same page on the same mission? Of course it is. But to tote the company line and be harmonious is not necessarily a good thing.

Having tons of friction and heat is obviously counterproductive too. But you need to have different perspectives saying different tunes than the same kind of person saying the same thing, thinking like you. It creates a false sense of security.

I am for a balanced approach, not just being argumentative or a rubber stamp but somewhere in the middle.

Joe

by joedobr on Jul 22, 2007 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: On Maddon

There is absolutely no benefit in having a manager who publicly disagrees with the front office. There are times when it may happen and can be overcome, or where it may even accidentally have a positive effect, but it is never a desireable situation.

by bobr on Jul 22, 2007 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jorge

You'd kinda figure he'd learn from Gomes, take his demotion, produce an OPS of .900+ then get re-called in two weeks, but that's seemingly not good enough for him. I don't even think he cares to play, it's just the glamour that comes with being a MLB player.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 21, 2007 11:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Maddon

Thank you for the response Matt and for the information therein. I do think he deserves credit for Upton, because he is the one who decided how to use him. Initially, he considered using him as a super-sub, then modified his intention by installing him at second. It all looks inevitable now, but was not at the time. I think his moving him up the lineup so deliberately was also a wise decision. I also credit him with keeping Jackson in the rotation rather than bouncing him around.

As for his in-game tactics, I really think the importance of that aspect of managing is exaggerated anyway. I always chuckle at the enthusiasm people have for the double switch, for example, as if it takes some special insight to use it. In any case, head-scratchers or not, it is simply not credible to think Maddon is not aware of the "correct" tactics in each case. There is quite a bit of evidence that lineup construction does not matter anyway, and his habits of substitution and bullpen use may have more to do with the need to test his players than the standard reasoning. Note too that after a while, he does tend to settle into stable choices that make sense.

Your comment about the clubhouse atmosphere is disturbing and is one reason I am not as enthusiastic about Maddon as I was last year. It is possible that he can take the team only so far. My reading is that this is a team that can make huge strides very quickly. I see major league players at every position (catcher still uncertain) with current and potential stars at quite a few. I also see at least 3/5 of a major league rotation, possibly even 4/5, on hand. There is also a useful bench, and in my view, bullpens are the easiest thing to fix. So I have to wonder why it has not come together yet, and it is possible that Maddon cannot bring it off. I hope that is not the case because otherwise I consider him one of the most appealing managers I have ever seen.

by bobr on Jul 21, 2007 11:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Maddon

The idea that Maddon seriouisly considered using Upton as a super-sub, utility guy while starting Greg Norton and Ty Wigginton would be a big point against him. It was a bad idea then just as it is now. Didn't he only end up installed at second by default due to Norton starting the season on the DL and Wigginton shifting to first base? Then Upton comes out of the gate red hot and the rest is history.

If you give him points for Brendan Harris, then in the name of consistency would you not subtract for not recognizing the deficiencies of Ben Zobrist until it was blantantly obvious (378 OPS) to everyone he wasn't up to task, whose poor play is the primary reason Harris ever emerged from the bench?

I give you Jackson in that Maddon kept him as a starter. I'm all for sending the young guys out there (even Navarro) until it is blantantly obvious they are incapable of meeting expectations, but even I had all but given up on him as a starter after his 0.1 IP outing vs. San Diego. It still may not work out (odds are against it), but it is a worthy effort.

All things considered, I'd rate Maddon as average. He's limited by his resources and dealing with a very young team playing under difficult circumstances. He and the front office have shown a lot of patience and level-headedness regarding the young players, that is a big plus. That both sides are seemingly on the same page is definitely beneficial (vs. the Piniella years). My biggest question in terms of the roles and choices of players would be how much of that is driven by the front office or Maddon? At the same time, I haven't seen enough indication that he can lead this group to better things, that he can make the strategic decisions to get the most out of his club. The team is in last place with the worst record in the majors at 38-58.

by RATW on Jul 21, 2007 3:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Maddon

On the contrary, his decisions on Upton were exactly right. Coming into the season, Upton's value was about as low as it could be. Many were calling for him to be dumped, and the consensus was that if he could not handle short or third, there was no reason to expect him to be able to play second. Maddon believed Upton could recoup his offensive value if he no longer had to worry about his defense as much, a view that was routinely mocked. But he was exactly right. Upton started hitting immediately and also proved passable at second. It was Pena, not Upton, who got his chance because of Norton's injury. Wigginton was initially pegged as the primary first baseman although it was always known he might fill in elsewhere on occasion.

As for Zobrist, that is another example of Maddon's willingness to give young players more time than many like, but it hardly is a criticism. Of course, patience will not always work, but baseball is replete with examples of players who emerged after long struggles, and Maddon's patience is particularly valuable to a team with so much youth and therefore so much likelihood that there will be frustrating struggles. Actually, we still cannot be sure that Zobrist will not find a niche in the majors, but it is to Maddon's credit that he allowed him time, did not simply bench him when he failed but gave him further opportunities, and yet recognized that Harris could help out and finally did replace Zobrist. In fact, it was Maddon who gave Harris playing time even while Zobrist was installed as a regular and thus could determine that Brendan could play. Despite criticisms of his roster management, another of his pluses is that he gives most players lots of exposure.

Of course, it is hard to distinguish between the roles of the front office and Maddon in identifying talent effectively. But unless Friedman or Sternberg is setting daily lineups and roles, it is Maddon who is using his roster, and he is doing that exceptionally well.

by bobr on Jul 21, 2007 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Maddon

I completely disagree with that first paragraph. If you were giving up on Upton, it's because you paying way too much attention to a small sample size where he had a hurt shoulder and had been jerked around for 2 years. Upton had star written all over him. I've has him as the organizations most important player for 3 years now, and he's proving why. He's going to be great.

Upton as a super-utility guy, not playing everyday was a terrible idea from the beginning. He should have been playing everyday and moving him around would not have been a good idea. He's been pretty much at a stable position and he's killed the ball.

If you look at his history, not once in his career has his bad defense affected his hitting. He's always been a bad SS and he's always been a great hitter. Until last season, where I submit that it wasn't his defense that caused his problems, but his poor hitting mechanics and shoulder bothering him. once his shoulder healed, and they tweaked his mechanics, he immediately started hitting again.

For some reason, his work ethic was also questioned, which was clearly unfounded. He's always worked out in the off-season with David Wright, Ryan Zimmerman and his brother Justin (#1 prospect in the game).

by Tyler on Jul 21, 2007 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Maddon

I never gave up on Upton. My point is that there was a great deal of sentiment after his disastrous 2006 to do so, obviously a premature judgment and one that Maddon did not support.

As for the plans going into the season, they were in flux. There was talk of Cantu or of moving Iwamura to second. Certainly Wigginton was in the mix, although he was generally seen as the regular first baseman. If you check the spring training stats, you will see that Upton played about equally in center and at second as well as some innings in right field.

As for being sure that the defensive issue affected his hitting, of course I cannot say that definitely. But there was some opinion that in his first extended major league exposure, he was so criticized for his play that his offense suffered as well. Maddon's notion was to eliminate that concern. Whether that was a factor in his rejuvenation I cannot be sure, but I think there is no doubt that Maddon's handling of Upton in the spring was both creative and effective.

by bobr on Jul 21, 2007 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Maddon

I think we are in agreement on a lot of things, but when it comes to Upton I'm more inclined to agree with Tyler. But good discussion and food for thought.

by RATW on Jul 21, 2007 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Maddon

Interesting comments bobr, but how can you have any certainty that Upton's offensive production improved because he no longer worried about defense? Or more basic than that, how do you know Upton no longer worried about defense given the circumstances: he was being told he had to learn new positions on the fly in the majors and didn't even know where he would start from day to day.

Also, if Maddon initially had Upton tagged to play as a super-sub as you say and Wigginton as the primary first baseman, then who was pegged to be the primary starter at second base?

by RATW on Jul 21, 2007 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Maddon

Or even better, what Tyler said.

by RATW on Jul 21, 2007 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jorge

Wow, An agent comparing his player to Milton Bradley, Shea Hillenbrand, and Julio Franco not a great idea.

The Rays should not have recalled Cantu. There was no point in having him sitting on the bench and letting him accrue time toward arbitration. They should have given him AB's in Durham and let him try and regain his batting stroke of 2004/2005.

by TomT on Jul 21, 2007 4:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Jorge

Jorge's arbitration status is meaningless to the Rays. He's not in their future plans and if he's not traded, he'll be non-tendered (released) this offseason.

by Tyler on Jul 21, 2007 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Future Plans

Plans change quickly. He was not in there "plans" in 2005 (remember Roberto Alomar)and ended up getting 28 HR 117 RBI and was named the team MVP. He was looked at as a big part of the future prior to 2006 and we see how that "plan" has worked out. I would rather they had given him 125 games at 1b in Durham to see if he could bounce back then rust on the bench.

by TomT on Jul 21, 2007 5:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs