Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Cody Ransom: why is he still around? (Latest: claimed on waivers by Diamondbacks; post 43)


Menotti80

I admittedly haven't watched as many games as I normally do, mainly because of my new job. But why in the world is this guy still on our team?

 

I've seen about 6 ABs of his this weekend (I'm pretty sure at least 5 of the ABs were strikeouts), and every time it looks like he basically has no clue and has no chance of putting the ball in play,much less getting a hit. And what's up with the excessive blinking? Can he see? (If he has some eye problem I apologize for my insensitivity.

 

Don't we have better bench options in the minors, or will he be gone after September callups?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

Not sure if we have a better bench option or not but I see no reason why Bianchi shouldn't have Ransoms spot. We know Ransom won't be on the team enxt year. Bianchi has a chance to make the team as a utility guy and he is already on the 40 man roster.

 

ps. Ransom is striking out over 48% of the time this year and that was before today when he had 2 or 3 more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the team now out of the playoff chase, Roenicke was asked if there's been consideration to moving a younger player like Jeff Bianchi or Eric Farris into the utility role that Ransom is filling.

 

"Cody's been really good defensively. Really good," Roenicke said. "A utility man, when he can play three positions as well as Cody does, it's really important.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/166692286.html

 

There is your answer. I can't think of anything clever enough to say about Ron Ron that we all don't already know.

There are three things America will be known for 2000 years from now when they study this civilization: the Constitution, jazz music and baseball. They're the three most beautifully designed things this culture has ever produced. Gerald Early
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's carrying a .700 OPS and is a backup IFer who is cheap. I guess I can't see what the major problem is? Would you rather have Izturis? I sure wouldn't.

 

Now, if you want to question carrying Ishikawa instead of Taylor Green... (and then having Green back up 3B/2B/1B)... then I'd agree with you.

"I wasted so much time in my life hating Juventus or A.C. Milan that I should have spent hating the Cardinals." ~kalle8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ishikawa has an OPS around 750. What's to complain about with two bench guys who can give us something off the bench? Especially when the two people being advocated to fill their positions didn't exactly wow anyone in the limited time they had as bench players. I'm also not sure why it is such a forgone conclusion Ransom or Ishikawa won't be part of the future here. Both are cheap, are happy with being a bench player and seem to do fairly well in that role so far. Why wouldn't they be in our future plans in some way?
There needs to be a King Thames version of the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is old and terrible so there really isn't a reason he is still on the team. It shouldn't be that hard to find a shortstop that hits better than .180, has an ops greater than .600 and doesn't strike out half the time.

 

Your expectation for Ransom going forward is simply what he's done for the Brewers in 155 AB this year? You just ignore everything else he's done in his career, including what he did this year with a different team? What kind of logic is that?

 

Ransom isn't anything special but he's maybe a .300/.400 batter and an average defensive SS. That isn't bad at all for a backup. If your expectation is higher, you need to do some benchmarking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread topic on the heels of an email exchange last night:

 

Me: "Tom, it's one thing when it's a regular who makes other contributions, but Cody Ransom's contributed about zero offense & one of the crappiest K ratios of any Brewer I can recall. Is there a reason they keep him around and don't let someone like Jeff Bianchi get his ABs? I wouldn't think Bianchi's got a higher ceiling than "possible role player," but we see what we have in Ransom & it's usually pretty ugly."

 

Tom Haudricourt: "I was thinking the same thing. I'm not covering tomorrow but I emailed Todd Rosiak to suggest he ask Roenicke about that. TH"

 

So that was kinda cool...

 

...The answer from Roenicke being a focus on defense at 3 positions (& presumably hitting w/ a little pop in the relatively rare circumstances lately when he actually puts a ball in play) isn't a total surprise given that Ishikawa's only IF position is 1B. But Ransom's offense being SO unproductive w/ that K rate (meaning LOTS of totally useless ABs) makes me wonder if Bianchi really is so shaky in the field anywhere other than SS that they won't let him play 2B & 3B at all.

 

I sure hope Taylor Green's on next year's roster and, if he's not starting (I realize what various possibilities would have to play out for him to start), I sure hope he's the backup corner IF & 2B (given 2B was his original position), which, if Ransom's on the team, would significantly limit the amount of playing time he'd get anywhere besides SS. . . . But w/ Gonzalez coming off his injury and Segura, while promising, still needing to continue earning his stripes, I'd much rather re-sign Gonzalez for added depth and "Segura insurance" (like having a Plan A & A' at SS) and have Green backing up 2B & 3B than have Ransom anywhere near this team next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if we have a better bench option or not but I see no reason why Bianchi shouldn't have Ransoms spot. We know Ransom won't be on the team enxt year. Bianchi has a chance to make the team as a utility guy and he is already on the 40 man roster.

 

ps. Ransom is striking out over 48% of the time this year and that was before today when he had 2 or 3 more.

 

 

Yeah, agreed. Lets at least give Bianchi a fair look. I mean, it won't really be a "fair," look because we're rock solid around the IF, but if you're going to squeeze in back to back starts for Ransom, why not for Taylor Green or Bianchi?

 

Over the next 6 weeks of the season I'd like to see

5 or so starts from Peralta

5 or so starts from Thornburg

Jesus Sanchez in relief

Schafer and Gindl getting some playing time.

 

And if there is anyone else they think has a good arm, throw 'em out there also. Kintzler, see if he's got anything. I'd like to have seen a little Nelson, but aside from not having enough room with Rogers, Peralta, Thornburg and Fiers needing looks, but his little injury and then his ensuing mediocre performances put an end to any thought of that.

Icbj86c-"I'm not that enamored with Aaron Donald either."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why cut anyone now when rosters are set to expand in 10 days. ride it out, not like it matters any at this point!

Posted: July 10, 2014, 12:30 AM

PrinceFielderx1 Said:

If the Brewers don't win the division I should be banned. However, they will.

 

Last visited: September 03, 2014, 7:10 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your expectation for Ransom going forward is simply what he's done for the Brewers in 155 AB this year? You just ignore everything else he's done in his career, including what he did this year with a different team? What kind of logic is that?

 

You are making a silly assumption and have broken logic, he has been horrible his whole career and has been trending down, why are you ignoring that? Like I said before he is also old so not getting any better. He had a 585 ops in 2009, 578 in 2010 and 546 ops in 2011. You are the one ignoring what he had done in his career and basing your expectation on 52 at bats with Arizona this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making a silly assumption and have broken logic, he has been horrible his whole career and has been trending down, why are you ignoring that? Like I said before he is also old so not getting any better. He had a 585 ops in 2009, 578 in 2010 and 546 ops in 2011. You are the one ignoring what he had done in his career and basing your expectation on 52 at bats with Arizona this year.

 

Extrapolation of a handful of AB over 3 years (and omitting his 2012 data from Arizona because it doesn't support your argument). That's at least 3 statistical rules being broken. Let's see how many major league AB we are talking about here:

 

2009: 79 AB

2010: 42 AB

2011: 33 AB

 

I am looking at all the data (including what he's done in the minors) to come to the conclusion that we should expect him to hit OK for a back up SS (which isn't saying much). His rest-of-season ZiPS projection is .211/.290/.400. He might get another 50 AB with the Brewers this year. Inconsequential.

 

Again, you quoted Ransom's numbers with the Brewers this year and suggested that it is your expectation for him going forward. Not exactly a hard sell to call that faulty logic. Now, let's start focusing on what REALLY is the cause of the Brewers' 2012 woes, Garth Iorg!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know Ransom won't be on the team enxt year.

 

Do we? He's still pre-arby and the Brewers are playing him ahead of Bianchi and Green now, so I wouldn't be so sure. Assuming no trades, our backup IF's next year will be between Gamel, Ishikawa, Green, Bianchi and Ransom. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 2013 bench of Maldonado, Schafer, Ransom, Green and either Gamel or Ishikawa with Bianchi in AAA as "insurance" if he has another option.

 

Schafer would be primary backup at all OF positions, with Hart getting some starts in RF. Gamel/Ishikawa would be a bench bat, getting some starts at 1B. Green would backup 2B/3B and Ransom would backup SS. I think Roenicke likes Ishikawa more than Gamel, and Ransom more than Green, so what I think will happen isn't necessarily what I would like to have happen.

 

But w/ Gonzalez coming off his injury and Segura, while promising, still needing to continue earning his stripes, I'd much rather re-sign Gonzalez for added depth and "Segura insurance"

 

First, I doubt we'll pay $4-6MM for a bench bat. More importantly, I doubt there's any way Gonzalez signs knowing he'll be a backup and get less than a start a week. We've seen how valuable shortstops are. That's why we were stuck with Ransom and Izturis and why we traded Greinke for a SS. Gonzalez will almost certainly sign a deal to start somewhere.

 

The lack of SS's in MLB is also why I think we could see Ransom as our 2013 backup with Bianchi in AAA. Even though he's not good, we've lacked depth at SS for a long time, and since he'll play for near-league-minimum, we may hold onto Ransom for one more year.

"The most successful (people) know that performance over the long haul is what counts. If you can seize the day, great. But never forget that there are days yet to come."

 

~Bill Walsh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets see. Wolf, who turns 36 in a couple days, may have the worst ERA of anyone in the NL with over 20 starts. K-Rod's been awful for almost all season. Livan Hernandez, 37, has 5.40 ERA which doesn't seem all that bad because he doesn't torture us by walking guys. Mike Mclendon has a 5.93 ERA. Parra's only been acceptable by comparison to those guys. Morgan's been lousy all year too.

 

And you're worried about Ransom still being around? At least he's had a couple big hits and plays defense.

 

I wouldn't have hesitated releasing any of those guys and would have by now. Sure when the rosters expand, you can sit all of them but what kind of atmosphere is that for young players you are bringing up to have a half dozen veterans around with no role next year and who are just occupying space?

 

Specifically to Ransom though, I think they like Bianchi playing everyday until September. Ransom probably can use the roster time toward his pension (unlike the others that are set), and they are rewarding him for coming in and doing some positive things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically to Ransom though, I think they like Bianchi playing everyday until September. Ransom probably can use the roster time toward his pension (unlike the others that are set), and they are rewarding him for coming in and doing some positive things.

 

I hope this is the case, because otherwise Roenicke really believes that Ransom should be playing ahead of Bianchi and Green. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'll believe that Bianchi and Green are ahead of Ransom on the depth chart when I see them getting starts ahead of him. If September rolls around and either Bianchi/Green are not called up, or they sit on the bench while Ransom gets PA's and starts, then I would guess that Ransom will be our utility IF in 2013.

 

Good point that there are a lot of wasted roster spots right now. It will be interesting to see what happens come September. The Brewers have already said that Wolf will continue to start, so I don't see a whole lot of changes other than managing the young pitchers' innings and having some more bullpen arms up (we'll see if they play).

"The most successful (people) know that performance over the long haul is what counts. If you can seize the day, great. But never forget that there are days yet to come."

 

~Bill Walsh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should be annoying Attanasio, is that Roenicke is choosing to rest regulars on days when they have capacity crowds. Why alienate that many paying fans? At this point in the season, all they have to offer is entertainment. Watching Ransom fan 4 times isn't entertaining and those fans may not ante up the next time.

 

Ransom's around so that guys like Bianchi and Green can play every day. I get that. Ramirez as an older player needs a day here and there, but not on the same day you are also resting Hart. I think Morgan's playing time is to showcase him but the more he plays, the less interest he garners.

 

But as far as pitching goes, fans would rather see Peralta or Thornburg starting games instead of Randy Wolf. It's a very callous attitude to think because they have already sold tickets that they can run out Wolf who nobody in their right mind would buy a ticket to see now. Peralta logged 150 innings last year, and is only at 130 right now. Thornburg's only at 113. Innings shouldn't be that big an issue and they can control them somewhat with a 6 man rotation. I'd go with Gallardo, Fiers, Marcum, Rogers, Peralta, and Thornburg and I'd sent Estrada to the pen to help out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm the only person who would rather have Cesar Izturis over Cody Ransom. As has been said before, he strikes out way too much, the most unproductive out. Izturis at least put the bat on the ball. He has a better career batting average and with many more at-bats. Defense is about the same between the two. If Izturis is as bad as everyone on here thinks he is than why has he continued to find a job on a major league team?

 

Yes Ransom has more power and a higher OPS but I cant get over the strikeouts. If your reasoning behind keeping Ransom as a backup IF is that he gives us some power, then my question would be Why do we need our backup infielder to have pop in his bat? I think its some people's obsession with home runs.

 

Its just a matter of how you want your bench to look like. Some people want everyone to have HR power. I want our bench to give us quality defense and productive at-bats (limit the strikeouts). We already have tons of pop in our everyday lineup so I just don't see the need for our bench to look the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But w/ Gonzalez coming off his injury and Segura, while promising, still needing to continue earning his stripes, I'd much rather re-sign Gonzalez for added depth and "Segura insurance"

 

First, I doubt we'll pay $4-6MM for a bench bat. More importantly, I doubt there's any way Gonzalez signs knowing he'll be a backup and get less than a start a week. We've seen how valuable shortstops are....

 

1. If Gonzalez has a chance to sign elsewhere to be the starter coming off his ACL surgery, more power to him.

2. My premise was that if we re-signed him, it wouldn't be by picking up his option, but rather declining it and coming up with an incentive-laden deal.

3. I'd rather have Gonzalez & Segura (in whatever order) at the top of our depth chart at SS, then followed by Bianchi/etc., than Segura immediately followed by Ransom & then Bianchi/etc. It may not be a great possibility, but I'd still go for Gonzo on a 1-yr deal to see if it can happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the point of Gamel vs. Ishikawa, Gamel's out of options, so unless he's traded or not fully recovered from his injury, I'd think he & his much higher ceiling have a far greater chance of being on this team next year than Ishikawa.

 

Ishikawa's done a half-decent job given what they've asked him to do, but he's not essential if Gamel & he would be filling the same bench role (obvious caveat is that if enough injuries in the right positions created a way for both to logically make the roster).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the point of Gamel vs. Ishikawa, Gamel's out of options, so unless he's traded or not fully recovered from his injury, I'd think he & his much higher ceiling have a far greater chance of being on this team next year than Ishikawa.

 

Higher ceiling is also why he may be the best trade option we have. His ceiling, cost and control are all things that may get us a nice established veteran reliever and maybe another pieces to boot. Ishikawa is not worth much that way but is worth quite a bit if he can succeed in this role as well as he has so far. Either way they choose to go it is far from certain he has no future here.

 

Ransom isn't that bad, but I agree since he won't be around next year and the crew are out of it this year I agree that the SS spot (or INF utility spot) should be filled by Bianchi or some other young farm talent.

Why do you say Ransom has no future here? A guy who is happy to be a bench player, who can play all the infield positions well, is cheap and gives you anything offensively is not all that common. To have one has value.

There needs to be a King Thames version of the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm the only person who would rather have Cesar Izturis over Cody Ransom. As has been said before, he strikes out way too much, the most unproductive out. Izturis at least put the bat on the ball. He has a better career batting average and with many more at-bats. Defense is about the same between the two. If Izturis is as bad as everyone on here thinks he is than why has he continued to find a job on a major league team?

 

Its just a matter of how you want your bench to look like. Some people want everyone to have HR power. I want our bench to give us quality defense and productive at-bats (limit the strikeouts). We already have tons of pop in our everyday lineup so I just don't see the need for our bench to look the same.

 

In most situations, a strikeout is exactly the same as any other out. In some situations it's better, and in some it's worse. Cesar Izturis came to the plate 47 times with a runner on first and less than two outs this year, and he GIDP'd seven times. That's significantly worse than a strikeout.

 

Izturis doesn't have a job on a MLB team right now, the Nationals kept him for about two weeks before releasing him. He hasn't been a MLB starter since 2010. And clearly there have been many horrible players who have not belonged on MLB rosters who continued to get a roster spot; that's hardly sufficient to say that they're worthwhile MLB players.

 

Ransom is not a problem as a bench guy on a mediocre ballclub. He plays solid defense at three difficult positions. This is the first season where he's had a chance to put up over 200 PA's, and he's hitting .204/.297/.379. Again, you can't just ignore his performance with Arizona.

 

But, given that this team is out of the running this year I'd have absolutely no problem if they decided to let him go and plug in Taylor Green and Jeff Bianchi to get them a few more PA's when the MiLB season ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm the only person who would rather have Cesar Izturis over Cody Ransom. As has been said before, he strikes out way too much, the most unproductive out. Izturis at least put the bat on the ball. He has a better career batting average and with many more at-bats. Defense is about the same between the two. If Izturis is as bad as everyone on here thinks he is than why has he continued to find a job on a major league team?

 

Its just a matter of how you want your bench to look like. Some people want everyone to have HR power. I want our bench to give us quality defense and productive at-bats (limit the strikeouts). We already have tons of pop in our everyday lineup so I just don't see the need for our bench to look the same.

 

In most situations, a strikeout is exactly the same as any other out. In some situations it's better, and in some it's worse. Cesar Izturis came to the plate 47 times with a runner on first and less than two outs this year, and he GIDP'd seven times. That's significantly worse than a strikeout.

 

Izturis doesn't have a job on a MLB team right now, the Nationals kept him for about two weeks before releasing him. He hasn't been a MLB starter since 2010. And clearly there have been many horrible players who have not belonged on MLB rosters who continued to get a roster spot; that's hardly sufficient to say that they're worthwhile MLB players.

 

Ransom is not a problem as a bench guy on a mediocre ballclub. He plays solid defense at three difficult positions. This is the first season where he's had a chance to put up over 200 PA's, and he's hitting .204/.297/.379. Again, you can't just ignore his performance with Arizona.

 

But, given that this team is out of the running this year I'd have absolutely no problem if they decided to let him go and plug in Taylor Green and Jeff Bianchi to get them a few more PA's when the MiLB season ends.

 

If you have the stats of when Ransom has come to the plate with a runner on first and less than two outs, I'd like to know how he compares...

 

You might say that Izturis isnt a worthwhile MLB player but this is the first year of Ransom's 10 yr MLB career where he has had over 100 PA's. Izturis has had only 1 yr of less than 100 PA's. Ransom is not a worthwhile MLB player.

 

Izturis and Ransom play the same defensive positions and have played a similar number of games. Izturis has 3 errors and Ransom 4...... so they both play solid defense at difficult positions.

 

I just do not see how anyone can make a solid argument for us keeping Ransom the rest of this year and having him be a backup candidate next year

 

O yeah and I dont know if this has been said but he strikes out at a very high rate....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Brewer Fanatic Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Brewers community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of Brewer Fanatic.

×
×
  • Create New...