Cowart Off To Good Start in Triple-A

[Chuck]

5 hours ago, totdprods said:

Kaleb MLB career: .176/.210/.267

Danny 2017: .170/.237/.307

I can totally see how Cowart could be worse than Espinosa. He also didn't look real good at 2B last year. And he was raking in SLC each year that he came up and sucked in Anaheim too. 

It's a new league for Danny, a contract year, and he's probably pressing at this point. He has always been an extremely streaky player. He deserves a couple months.

Cowart needs more consistent playing time to get into a groove. His major league stats are small sample size. 

[Chuck]

32 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

At what point are the sample sizes no longer small?

We have 139 PA of Cowart in the majors now. With 5 walks and 42 strikeouts.

Mike Trout had 135 PA in his first cup of coffee, but received consistent playing time down the stretch.

That said, he still only posted a .220/.281/.390 slash line with 30 K's. 

Troy Glaus in his first 182 PA's had a sweet .218/.280/.291 slash line with 51 K's and only 1 HR. 

Sample Size! 

Cowart is never going to be Mike Trout or Troy Glaus, but he's never going to show what he can become unless he's given consistent playing time so that he can become comfortable against major league pitching, much like what was afforded to Mike Trout and Glaus. 

[Dick B Back]

[LooneyPlatoons]

Has Cowart been getting most of his playing time at 2b this year in AAA?  He made a few flashy plays last year in his limited time at 2nd with the Angels

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

7 hours ago, totdprods said:

Kaleb MLB career: .176/.210/.267

Small sample size, and playing 1 game every week or so, or getting 1 AB late in the game as a defensive replacement isn't a very good way for a player to get their timing down or to get any confidence at the plate.

[totdprods]

Just now, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Small sample size, and playing 1 game every week or so, or getting 1 AB late in the game as a defensive replacement isn't a very good way for a player to get their timing down or to get any confidence at the plate.

I get all that - but it's still not too difficult to imagine a scenario where he's still that bad.

[totdprods]

1 hour ago, Chuckster70 said:

Cowart needs more consistent playing time to get into a groove. His major league stats are small sample size. 

Right - I'm not disputing that it's a small sample size or that he had irregular playing time. 
I'm just saying that it's not too much of a stretch to think he could still be worse than Espinosa has been. 

Even with how bad Espinosa has been - it's still better than what Cowart has shown so far.

[Chuck]

17 minutes ago, LooneyPlatoons said:

Has Cowart been getting most of his playing time at 2b this year in AAA?  He made a few flashy plays last year in his limited time at 2nd with the Angels

He's played about 10 games at 2B, the rest at 3B. 

[Troll Daddy]

I would love to see Cowart get a much deserved chance again ... down the road. 

[totdprods]

I think all of this is moot, and we see Valbuena/Marte splitting 1B/3B next year.

I would almost rather Cowart keep putting up gaudy PCL numbers so maybe, just maybe, he has some trade value come July. Ship him (and others) off to KC so they have a back-up plan when Moustakas is gone and get back Vargas or Kennedy for stretch run. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

General observation, not specific to any players in this thread...

When a player who has a proven major league track record over years and years stinks for a few weeks, everyone wants to get rid of him.

When another player, who has zero track record, stinks for a few weeks, everyone bitches that Scioscia didn't give him a chance and should just "let him have 500 ABs."

I always find that to be backward logic. 

(The addendum to this if that if a player with a track record stinks for an extended period with another team, everyone wants to get him because you're sure he'll turn it around.)

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

2 hours ago, totdprods said:

I get all that - but it's still not too difficult to imagine a scenario where he's still that bad.

Imagine your wrong and he could be at least a .250/.350/.450 player with gold glove defense. It's worth a shot since nothing else has been any better than what you expect from Cowart. Even if he is as bad as you imagine it still is no worse than what we have right now at a fraction of the cost.

[Jobu]

2 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

General observation, not specific to any players in this thread...

When a player who has a proven major league track record over years and years stinks for a few weeks, everyone wants to get rid of him.

When another player, who has zero track record, stinks for a few weeks, everyone bitches that Scioscia didn't give him a chance and should just "let him have 500 ABs."

I always find that to be backward logic. 

(The addendum to this if that if a player with a track record stinks for an extended period with another team, everyone wants to get him because you're sure he'll turn it around.)

I remember you making this same observation about Matt Joyce.

[totdprods]

1 hour ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Imagine your wrong and he could be at least a .250/.350/.450 player with gold glove defense. It's worth a shot since nothing else has been any better than what you expect from Cowart. Even if he is as bad as you imagine it still is no worse than what we have right now at a fraction of the cost.

Cowart's entire career doesn't even approach that line. 3,323 plate appearances and he's .254/.322/.386. Forgive me if I'm not buying projections on a guy who has hit like a back-up in eight years of pro ball. 

Good for him that he's taking in SLC, but that's just about the only place he's hit (so has everyone else) and he's promptly sucked each time he's gotten an opportunity after putting up good AAA numbers. Why should I expect anything different?

You know what Danny Espinosa had done by his age 25 season? Played two full seasons for the Nationals, put up 304 H, 70 2B, 44 HR, 137 RBI, stole 37 bases, walked 112 times, had a .727 OPS, and posted 6 WAR. Guy got opportunity and ran with it. 

Look, I would be thrilled if Kaleb could muster a .220/.290/.350 slash at this point but even that seems less likely than Espinosa rebounding after 100 plate appearances in a new league, facing new pitchers, playing for his favorite team in his backyard and shifting back to a position he hasn't played for a couple years. I'll give him some slack. If he's pulling this shit come June 1, yeah, bench him, cut him, whatever, and give Sherm/Cowart/Fletcher a shot, but I'm not curbing a generally productive player who kicked the door down when opportunity knocked for him because a former first-rounder flameout is finally hitting well in the freaking PCL and *may* become a glove-first UT IF. He didn't even improve his second time up in the bigs.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

52 minutes ago, totdprods said:

You know what Danny Espinosa had done by his age 25 season? Played two full seasons for the Nationals, put up 304 H, 70 2B, 44 HR, 137 RBI, stole 37 bases, walked 112 times, had a .727 OPS, and posted 6 WAR. Guy got opportunity and ran with it. 

Pujols used to win MVPs, I don't care what some one did on another team. What have you done lately. Lately Espinoza stinks.

Danny Espinosa .160/.223/.287/.511 5 BB, 37 SO That's 5 outs for every hit rate.

There was a reason Washington DFAd him.

[Mark68]

2 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Pujols used to win MVPs, I don't care what some one did on another team. What have you done lately. Lately Espinoza stinks.

Danny Espinosa .160/.223/.287/.511 5 BB, 37 SO That's 5 outs for every hit rate.

There was a reason Washington DFAd him.

That reason is named Trea Turner.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

9 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

That reason is named Trea Turner.

Why Get Trea Turner, maybe they wanted more than a 209 BA from 2B.

[Chuck]

27 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Why Get Trea Turner, maybe they wanted more than a 209 BA from 2B.

?

Just a heads up, Trea Turner is a stud and not available.  

.209 BA?

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

13 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

?

Just a heads up, Trea Turner is a stud and not available.  

.209 BA?

Yeah, but the Nats got him so they could rid them of Espinosa who hit .209 last year. I just don't like Espinosa.

[tdawg87]

They didn't "get him". He was in their system.

[Docwaukee]

15 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

They didn't "get him". He was in their system.

they did get him.  From the Padres.  for dick.  

[tdawg87]

Just now, Dochalo said:

they did get him.  From the Padres.  for dick.  

Oh yeah. But that was in 2014 though, wasn't it? 

[AngelsLakersFan]

Also it's the Padres... they are the Africa of MLB organizations.

[Docwaukee]

4 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Oh yeah. But that was in 2014 though, wasn't it? 

2015, but he was the reason they changed the rule.  He was the PTBNL in the wil myers deal.  Nats actually gave up Souza but got Joe Ross and Turner. 

[Chuck]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

2015, but he was the reason they changed the rule.  He was the PTBNL in the wil myers deal.  Nats actually gave up Souza but got Joe Ross and Turner. 

Damn... The Nats scored. I forgot about Ross.