01-31-2013, 01:02 AM #121
And I think it completely misses the point that the other side is just saying. If you have a legitimate chance to make a distinct improvement to the ballteam, fretting about whether or not the "no-upside" and very replaceable players might get claimed off a DFA is misplaced angst.
Last edited by jokin; 01-31-2013 at 01:06 AM.
01-31-2013, 01:52 AM #122
01-31-2013, 09:21 AM #123
Originally Posted by jokin
BTW, I'd be inclined to challenge the notion that he has "no upside." He was a Top 100 prospect at one point, he's 27, and his velocity has increased each year in the majors. His K-rate, while unimpressive, was above average on this squad last season. He's got as much upside as anyone who's going to be sitting at the end of your bullpen accepting a mop-up role as anything more than a transitional phase.
01-31-2013, 04:14 PM #124
As far as "upside" you mention his increased velocity and I see, year-over-year, 5 starts in 2012 vs. 11 starts in 2011, yet a decreased K/BB, a near-doubling of his HR/9 rate, an increasing OBA and WHIP and reflected in a falling ERA+ score of 81 down from an an already substandard 94.
My argument would be for a rebuilding team like the Twins, to give the long-relief job to young guys waiting in the wings for their potential debut as starter. Low pressure and chances to hone their craft. A Swarzak represent the opposite of this philosophy.