The San Francisco Giants have offered Mark DeRosa a two-year deal worth $12MM, according to Jon Heyman of SI.com (via Twitter).

MarkyD we Never Knew Ye.

No chance at 6 million a year. They say he’s even hoping for more…

Boys, boys, let 'The Cleaner' through ...

But this one has gotten messier than usual, I'd say. William, deep breaths! You aren't being ganged up on, but you ARE digging yourself in hard.

My cleaning up point is the simple one I seem to have to keep making: Gardner's worth on the team, batting 9th and running is NOT tied to being 'above average' as a HITTER. Indeed, the 'top prospect' line WAS a moving of goalposts. I haven't seen/read anyone here alleging 'top' about Gardy. The discussion is if he's a 4th or a fairly classic case of so-so batting, vg fielding OF. It almost always has been that, with a few outliers saying 'if he could bunt/hit grounders/stop popping up he could even be a star because of his speed' ... but those ARE outliers, here at any rate.

OYF has been (ably) making the case that on this team, a league average starter (thinking D and offence, both) dirt cheap opens up opportunities to invest in flamboyantly expensive stars ... and he's dead right. It is also worth reminding ourselves that value is not only at the plate, and this whole discussion seems to have locked in on that. We are supposed to be fans in the more enlightened age, that notes the value of good D, and cites Texas's era improvement as one example thereof.

THIS team can carry Gardner at #9 hitter and either CF or a (difficult) LF comfortably if he performs at reasonable projection levels that involve only modest improvements. Cashman decided that as between OF and P his need this month/winter was for a solid starter ... and I think he was as dead right as OYF (and that's high praise!).

Now everyone grab a brush and start scrubbing.

It’s true, he does seem to swing only from the waist up, rather than using his legs. But if he fixed that…maybe he could hit a lot better.

I am not as enthusiastic as Cliff about Gardner’s defense. He’s got very nice speed, but often seems to jump the wrong way.

I’m willing to give Gardy a shot. Melky had his chance, and, well, wasn’t exactly Melky Mantle. However, I am pretty sure the Yanks will sign a left fielder. Damon? Bay? Hollliday? Dye?

I agree entirely.

I have no idea what you actually believe, william.

I’m not sure I understand what that means. I am more than wiling to discuss the numbers in context. I have expressed openness to consider that walks are not as transferable, that Gardner was not young for his level, and so forth.

I have a perfectly fine understanding of the stats, as I see it, and more importantly a willingness to discuss and try to interpret what they mean.

You on the other hand have admitted no understanding of the numbers: they are so befuddling and untranslatable that you prefer—indeed, insist—on dismissing them out of hand and relying on personal observation.

[138] How can you make that argument if the numbers are untranslatable…if the age 24 AAA season is analogous to the a broken thermometer?

Which is it? Are the numbers completely useless, or are they useful when interpreted properly in context (as you hint at here)?

Average can have three meanings: mean, median, and mode. It sounds like you want the median. But even then I think you’ll be disappointed. The vast minority of players reach the majors, and stick, before their their 24th birthday.

“I just can’t accept taking them at face value without considering all of the mitigating context.”

Except when it comes to using the stats to understand the contexts, you ignore the stats? How does that make sense?

“I prefer to substitute my own observation.”

The observation of one is always more limited and more biased than the observations of many. And that’s even if you’ve seen every at-bat and every play he’s made in the field. Your eyes can’t see everything.

“even absent an understanding of them”

That’s needlessly inflammatory.

[134] No…the conversation could continue if you could find away to interpret his MiL numbers, but that’s not the case. While you choose to just look at the numbers, even absent an understanding of them, I prefer to substitute my own observation. If that’s being obstinate, so be it, although I think that is more fitting your position as you seem incapable of accepting that one could actually make an assessment on what they see. I, on the other, hand can accept your desire to only rely on stats…I just can’t accept taking them at face value without considering all of the mitigating context.

WAR doesn’t skew SBs and there he’s above average.

[128] Ha! Great minds…

[130] By your age-based definition, Brackman could never be a prospect. Yet, he’s been consistently rated a “top” prospect.

[132] Funny, that’s how many “saw” fire…pre-Maxwell.

Given that, Gardner producing good numbers at age 24 in AAA and then being promoted to MLB at age 24 seems to fit right into the ML average. Ot a top prospect, not a likely superstar, but certainly not well behind the curve such as to dismiss out of hand his age 24 MiL statistics when trying to decide his probable future development.