Cubs Potential Offseason Targets: Jeremy Hermida

As I mentioned earlier, this is an exercise at some of the low profile names the Cubs could or should look at this offseason. And remeber, these articles are designed to just start the discussion, not settle the case one way or another.

I think it's a fair assumption that the Cubs will be likely focusing at second base and either center or right field along with some bullpen help. So today's guest is another possible non-tender candidate, Marlins outfielder Jeremy Hermida.

Hermida was the 11th pick in the 2002 draft and was the top Marlins prospect from 2004 to 2006 according to Baseball America.

Year Age Tm G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ GDP HBP
2005 21 FLA 23 47 41 9 12 2 0 4 11 2 0 6 12 .293 .383 .634 1.017 168 1 0
2006 22 FLA 99 348 307 37 77 19 1 5 28 4 1 33 70 .251 .332 .368 .700 84 6 5
2007 23 FLA 123 484 429 54 127 32 1 18 63 3 4 47 105 .296 .369 .501 .870 125 10 4
2008 24 FLA 142 559 502 74 125 22 3 17 61 6 1 48 138 .249 .323 .406 .729 91 12 7
2009 25 FLA 129 491 429 48 111 14 2 13 47 5 2 56 101 .259 .348 .392 .740 96 6 4
5 Seasons 516 1929 1708 222 452 89 7 57 210 20 8 190 426 .265 .344 .425 .769 102 35 20
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 10/24/2009.

Cardinals-Marlins As we see here, nothing too special from his major league career besides a decent season in 2007 at age 23. His minor league numbers ended with an .834 OPS and that went up dramatically pretty much each year as his power developed. There's little denying his talent as the Red Sox were considering him as the main attraction in a Manny Ramirez trade before moving on to Jason Bay. On the other hand, there have been plenty of whispers about his attitude and general lack of fire about playing baseball. 

Defensively, UZR at Fangraphs doesn't think too highly of him, nor does the Fan's Scouting Report, while BP's Rate 2 numbers have him at 103 out of right field for his career. A scouting report from John Sickels in 2006 didn't make him sound like anything more than an average right fielder.

On the bright side, his career splits are a .721 OPS at pitcher-friendly Landshark Stadium versus an .815 on the road. If you look at the year-by-year splits, there was a particular stunning discrepany in 2007 and 2008, so a change of scenery might be the match strike to get his career going. And at age 26 next year, a team would be hoping his best years are still to come. 

He made $2.25M last year in his first year of arbitration eligibility, although the two sides settled before going to an arbitation hearing. I don't think there would be any shortage of interest in Hermida if the Marlins starting shopping, it just depends on what the Marlins will be asking or how much they want to save the money.

Much like Kelly Johnson, if the price is right I'm all for taking a shot at a 26-year old with a high ceiling and some major league success. Of course, the Marlins may want to move on, but they know what kind of talent they have as well and I would expect a pretty decent market for him if he is indeed shopped in the trade market. And if they just decide to non-tender him, you'd have to expect a bunch of small market teams are going to make their run at him with more playing time guarantees than the Cubs could offer.

Return to Homepage

Comments

I'm sure Rudy Jaramillio will unlock Hermida's awesome potential!!

Cubs should sign Hal McRae, too. I envision a dream team of batting coaches.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It doesn't fix our outfield defense, and it doesn't fix our driving in runs issue (if you think that wasn't an aberration).

Are you going to take a look at Willy Taveras?

Boy...that Taveras sure is fast!! (checks Taveras' numbers)

Yep...he still sucks too.

I haven't put together a definitive list or anything, but Taveras was signed to a 2-yr deal by the Reds (including $4M for 2010), so I'm guessing they're just holding on to him. If I run out of subjects, maybe...

along the side bar...and i know the article was posted on here already...there was a link about jarhead and bradley...

"This young man has all the talent in the world," Jaramillo said. "He worked hard. When he came in [to Texas], I knew my job was, 'Hey, I have to win this kid over.' It took me a while. He was a good student. He had an outstanding year for us. He still has a lot of baseball left. We got along great. I knew kind of what buttons to push. He started trusting me, and we started to get that rapport and things started to get better and better and he led the league in on-base percentage and slugging, so his ability is still there, there's no doubt in my mind."

...can jar be manager?

Dear Tom Ricketts,

Criteria for new manager:

1. Can you coddle a 31 year old man enough to convince him to do his job and not be a douche?

that's what managers do...they make 25+ people want to show up for their job...and it's not hard work if you're good at it.

managers filling out a lineup card is one of the most minor jobs they can do...as long as the people in the clubhouse understand why player A is playing and players B, C, etc. aren't.

if it was just "show up and play" with plug/play lineups and everyone could be counted on to man-up...we wouldn't need managers, especially superstar ones...we could all just act like it's a pickup game down at the park.

Milton Bradley's new "My Buddy" doll.

How about "It's your job..to get paid an amazing amount of money, to PLAY A FUCKING GAME!?"

$7 million or whatever to play baseball for a living. Well boo effing hoo...how about motivation like "gee..if I have a good season, not only will I continue to get a huge salary, more than people see in a lifetime..but I'll get a raise...endorsement money...it'll be great."

I know that it's every manager's fault, not Milton bradley's...but please, let's take a moment to weep for the poor millionaire.

it'd be nice if you could count on that, wouldn't it?

who are you to insist manny ramirez, gary sheffield, milton bradley, etc. man up? who's that worked for so far?

they don't have to realize or act like they earned anything and some will take while acting like the world owes them more.

everything isn't the manager's fault, but it's the manager's job to..well..manage.

EVERYONE who deals with a milton bradley at this point knows what buying a milton bradley is about. to invest in a milton bradley and expect him to be just fine without holding his hand and putting the work into making the baby feel better is wasting money. he takes work.

we don't live in a libertarian fantasy world. we have to deal with greed and babies and those that want to do things their way on their own time...MLB managers have to deal with greedy babies who make millions. not all people are going to pull their weight just because they should.

personal case in point...

during the tech boom of the late 90s/early 00s i managed a QA crew for a division of NCR.

we had "superstar" programmers who did things like...leave at 2pm to play golf or whatever with only a moment's notice. if i did that, i'd get fired. i can't do that...i wasn't that valuable to the team. it screwed with other people's work and it was occasionally frustrating, but you HAD to live with it if you expected that particular talent to work for you.

i managed 2 people in particular who were "hard" to manage, but we needed them on the team. 1 was a fundamental christian weirdo who let the entire world stress him out. occasionally i had to tell the dude to take a little while off and surf the net to chill out or just go home. he SHOULD be working, but his quality of output SUCKED ASS if he didn't get this occasionally.

i had another woman who was actively going through a divorce. she was handled similar to the above dude, but she also occasionally needed time for emotional support to get through a day. it ate up MY time, it ate up HER time, and it occasionally ate up other worker's time. without this work, though...she would not give quality output at work.

managing people and output...they're not mutually exclusive in almost every case.

I agree with Crunch on the role of the manager. A good manager, whether in baseball or in business, has to learn how to relate in the best way to each individual. A "one size fits all" approach doesn't work.

Where Crunch and I disagree is in whether or not Lou Piniella is to blame for Milton Bradley's behavior. My feeling is that Bradley is not manageable. None of Bradley's managers have been completely successful in controlling his behavior/attitude. That leads me to believe that the problem is strictly with Bradley, not with Piniella's people managing skills.

None of Bradley's managers have been completely successful in controlling his behavior/attitude.

Bud Black, Ken Macha, Ron Washington...

Bud Black -- Tried to stop Bradley from attacking an ump and Bradley ended up injuring himself.

Ron Washington -- Bradley went after a Royals broadcaster who said something he didn't like while on Washington's watch. He (Bradley) also admitted that he faked injuries at the end of his tenure in Texas so as not to hurt his stats and diminish his value as a free agent.

Bradley's behavior in Chicago may have been worse and/or had more of an impact in the clubhouse, but he's had his problems everywhere he has gone.

all 3 of those guys all had nothing but good things to say about Bradley and were more than willing to work with them and the Padres incident was pretty much uniformly blamed on a out-of-line umpire...

but I suppose they didn't neuter him like a stray dog, so your statement stands true...

but obviously people can work with Bradley, if they actually put some effort in it...

Seriously, are people afraid of libel if they say something bad about a player?

I imagine if Cubs are able to trade Bradley, Lou would parrot the other managers.

There is reason he's on team # whatever now in 7 years.

Seriously, are people afraid of libel if they say something bad about a player?

have you seen my thoughts on Dusty Baker, Neifi Perez or Aaron Miles?

I imagine if Cubs are able to trade Bradley, Lou would parrot the other managers.

There is reason he's on team # whatever now in 7 years.

yeah, he's kind of a dick... one the Cubs poured 3 years/$30M into...

you'd think that sort of investment coupled with his known past would result in making sure they knew how to handle him, which obviously can be done. And no, I don't think Macha, Black or Washington are just being nice about it...

I meant the managers were worried about libel.

You keep slandering away, good buddy.

You're correct. All three did have good things to say about Bradley. But Black and Washington both had problems with him.

I have read that the ump baited Bradley in the incident while he was in San Diego, but if that's true, I can only guess that it was because of Bradley's reputation among umpires. The doesn't make it okay, but it does somewhat come back on Bradley for his past transgressions. Plus, he only played 42 games for San Diego, so to say that he didn't display his patented behavior problems while with the Padres is a case of using a small sample size.

By my count, Bradley has played for seven different managers. With the exception of Ken Macha and Felipe Alou, all of them has had some degree of trouble with Bradley. Why would you assume that five of the seven just didn't put the effort in to "managing" Bradley rather than pinning the blame for the troubles on Bradley himself?

what problems did he have with Ron Washington or Black? he had problems in Texas and San Diego but not the managers...

but the larger point here is that yes, Bradley's a dick, but the Cubs knew that and then signed him to 3/30. So if you do that, you have to make sure that you know how to deal with him and are sure you can make it work. Alright, that's on Hendry, what did he do to ensure Bradley's success in Chicago besides handing out the contract? Lou gets paid something like $4M right? Does he get paid that for his brilliant in-game management and putting Bobby Scales in left field? No, because he should be getting the most out of his players.

It was just an epic failure from the top down...Hendry to Lou to Bradley...

Rob, I agree with you. The trouble started when Hendry signed Bradley, paid him too much money, and apparently didn't consider his past behavioral problems.

I also agree that Bradley apparently got along well with Black, Macha, and Washington. My point is that even while getting along with them (at least Black and Washington), he still had behavioral problems. So whether the manager gets along with Bradley (Black, Washington)or doesn't (Wedge, Piniella), Bradley is still going to cause problems.

We agree that the Cubs should have never signed Bradley. The only point I was trying to make is that Bradley is beyond being managed, so I can't blame Piniella (or his other managers) for Bradley's bad behavior or the fall-out from that behavior.

What problems did Bradley cause in Chicago again? Apparently being the scapegoat for an underachieving team is being a problem.

Wow. Can I borrow your rose colored glasses?

Sure, I call them www.factcheck.org Use them anytime.

TRN -- Don't you think you're being a bit disingenuous here? To say that Bradley did not cause problems for the Cubs this year is to separate yourself from reality. For instance:

- In Bradley's first at-bat at Wrigley Field, he argued a called third strike, bumped the ump, and was suspended.

- In June in a game against the White Sox, the frustration over his poor hitting got the best of Bradley. After a poor at-bat, Bradley threw his helmet in the dugout and then beat the hell out of the Gatorade dispenser. After an exchange with Lou Piniella, Bradley was sent home early.

- Later in the year in a game against Milwaukee, Bradley pulled himself out of a game with a sore knee. When asked about it by reporters after the game, he angrily explained that he's had two knee surgeries and inflammation is what happens after surgery, He then refused to answer any other questions.

- The next day, when asked to pinch hit, Bradley refused and then later told a reporter that he is the hardest working player on the ball club, but he never gets credit for it. He then went on to say that with all of the negativity surrounding the team, he can understand why they haven't won a World Series in more than 100 years. Bradley is then suspended for the remainder of the season. Following news of the suspension, Bradley's teammates unanimously sided with management, indicating that Bradley was even more of a problem in the clubhouse than we were told.

Other players get upset and throw a helmet or beat a Gatorade machine. One even got suspended for bumping an ump. But no one on the team put together a string of bad behavior than could come close to matching Milton Bradley.

As for being a scapegoat for an underachieving team, I think you are misstating the facts. While people have been upset with his behavior, I have not heard/read anyone, including here on TCR, claim that Bradley was the cause of the Cubs failure to make the post season.

"- The next day, when asked to pinch hit, Bradley refused and then later told a reporter that he is the hardest working player on the ball club, but he never gets credit for it. He then went on to say that with all of the negativity surrounding the team, he can understand why they haven't won a World Series in more than 100 years. Bradley is then suspended for the remainder of the season. Following news of the suspension, Bradley's teammates unanimously sided with management, indicating that Bradley was even more of a problem in the clubhouse than we were told."

taking a little bit of liberty with that summation of events.

Which part isn't correct? To the best of my knowledge, what I wrote is factual.

The "universally siding with management" bit isn't true. You had the team leader saying he thought Bradley should do what he needed to do to not end the season suspended, and AramRam said that he'd never heard of a player being suspended for comments to the press. That's not siding with management on the suspension decision or length.

He didn't bump the umpire, he was bumped by the umpire. He wasn't the first person to attack the gatorade dispenser, either.

Clearly, when Hendry revamped the team last winter he put together a crew that did not benefit from the leadership of our $4 million manager. And Lou's lackadaisical leadership was part of the problem.

Rudy Jaramillo, on the other hand, wants to be a manager and he's paid like one by the Cubs, so give him a shot next year at $800K, let Lou go (next year is a club option, what's the point bringing him back for one more year??), and use the $3.2 million saved each year to soften the blow of MB's backloaded contract ($9 MM -2010, $12MM-2011).

i hear ya on you not thinking milton is manageable...there's a case for that over the long haul.

i do think milton's behavior is milton's fault, too.

my thing is...milton is in a period of "being milton"...what does the manager do? what does the manager do when it supposedly is effecting others, too? what does the manager do when it keeps getting worse?

lou's comments about him giving up on milton early in the season seems like an ill approach to the situation to me. you can never fully contain or tame milton, but he needs input from others to stay on some level of "normal."

also, keep in mind lou is a manager who rarely goes into the player's clubhouse, aka they police themselves. it's a very oldschool way of managing, but if something is festering there and there's no true clubhouse leader things can get ugly.

Please take into consideration that Manny Ramirez and Gary Sheffield have put up, steroid enhaced or no, HOF type numbers, while Bradley has a breakthrough season if he plays 100 games, stays off the DL, and drives in 77 runs.

Apples to ducks....

how bradley plays in the field vs. how bradley effects a lockerroom is apples to ducks.

it has a bit to do with why he's going away, but it doesn't help how you should handle him. it's not like it's roses and valium when he's hitting .300 and healthy as hell.

Crunch, you are a knowledgeable poster, and a staple of TCR. I will agree to disagree about the Milton Bradley debacle.

Now as far as Lou running Bobby Scales out in LF every day...?

From Muskat:

Jeff Samardzija gave up four runs, five hits, and four walks over five innings in Mexicali's 9-4 win over Navojoa on Sunday. Samardzija struck out three, and left with the game tied at 3.

Go through this with me slowly...

Jeff Samardzija gave up four runs...

and left with the game tied at 3.

So they're playing Calvinball?

he must have left the game with someone on base and the reliever let in a run....

Calvinball...yes...yes...awesome.

I personally don't think Hermida is the answer, but if you're looking for a buy low/high potential candidate, Hermida might fit the bill. The guy has talent. It's just been a little while since he's shown it.

I like the Jeremy Hermida idea much more than I did the Kelly Johnson idea. Really though, and I've said it before, even though batting average isn't a very good stat, I think this lineup needs a 300+ average hitter, even if he has little power. Many times this year it felt like they couldn't push runs across without a home run. So many guys were left on base. A high avg hitter hitting 5th or 6th would be a huge boost.

The problem is, you'll pony up some $ for a high average hitter and that's seemingly exactly the opposite of what the Cubs appear to be doing this year.

a dan uggla says what?

I LOVE this "potential Cub target" series, ROB G.

Thanks!

Hermida only had 429 at bats. That makes him a fourth outfielder.

This past year Hermida would have tied for 4th on the club with 47 RBI. I just finally noticed that Theriot was third on the team with 54 RBI! What's that about?!

Signs that your team had a bad year: Theriot is third in RBI's with 54.

Yes, and "...Theriot was third on the team with 54 RBI!"

Could Milton Bradley play some CF to spot Kfuk next year?

Hermida
Bradley
Kfuk
Soriano

could each get 400ish at bats with that arrangement. Any of those guys are good candidates to miss at least some time.

are Bradley, Kfuk, soriano all being traded to the same team that Hermida ends up on?

cause pretty sure Bradley's not coming back to the Cubs, although it would be awesome for blog traffic and the number of comments we get...

"there have been plenty of whispers about his attitude and general lack of fire about playing baseball"

So he's Adam Dunn without the power?

There is a difference in a lack of fire to play baseball and still putting up stats and being outright lazy and not putting up any stats.

Whatever you believe about Adam Dunn, he is going to go out there and drive in 100 RBI, hit for power, and have an OBP near .400, year in and year out.

Bradley your going to get the biggest dick ever and you never know what your going to get from him offensively, but one thing is certain, you can never ever depend on him when your team needs him.

Some people may not love their job but they still do their job. Milton just has outright contempt for playing the game of baseball and will do almost anything in his power to play the least amount of it as he can. He can go yank himself out of lineups and refuse to play for some other mananger.

Huh? I thought we were talking about Hermida? Seems like we've been assuming that Bradley will be gone one way or another anyway.

nothing will ever get in the way of Mike ranting about Milton Bradley...

Great......let's target another problem child OF. What's Bradley have to do to convince you supporters that the juice isn't worth the squeeze? Take a crap on the pitcher's mound on his way out to RF on the days he feels like playing? God, I keep hoping Ricketts will eventually put someone competent in charge of this asylum.

The low average, the strikeouts, the bad defense, lack of a track record of endurance, millions of dollars, a possible price in prospects ... too much for me to not like about a Hermida deal. They might as well play Hoff with an eye on a midseason trade compared to this.

X
  • Sign in with Twitter