Johnson designated for assignment
According to MLB.com
6/20/06 Cleveland Indians
Designated RHP Jason Johnson for assignment; Purchased the contract of INF Joe Inglett from Triple-A Buffalo.
It feels good, doesn't it? Hopefully Shapiro can work out a trade in the next 10 (?) days so we don't have to eat the entire contract.
UPDATE: We're waiting for official word, but apparently ...
0 recs |
46 comments
Comments
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by exileincincy on Jun 20, 2006 3:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
Whose side are you on?
That's our money that's getting eaten there!
by Jay on Jun 21, 2006 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by thetravishalffull on Jun 20, 2006 4:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Joe. on Jun 20, 2006 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Avindian on Jun 20, 2006 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Thommy on Jun 20, 2006 4:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by drerikbrady on Jun 20, 2006 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
It comes down to "what have you done for me lately' and "do you have any options?"
by emd2k3 on Jun 20, 2006 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by talonk on Jun 20, 2006 4:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
I can't imagine we'd have Inglett and Vazquez both on the club for too long. Unless another infielder is moved?
by dgcambridge on Jun 20, 2006 4:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
Unless Belliard is going to be traded soon.
by Ryan on Jun 20, 2006 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by dgcambridge on Jun 20, 2006 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Thommy on Jun 20, 2006 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by APV on Jun 20, 2006 4:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
I've got to believe that Sowers will be called up to replace one of Inglett or Vazquez (barring a Belliard trade).
by jdudas on Jun 20, 2006 5:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by drerikbrady on Jun 20, 2006 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
Usually, Wedge is very upbeat and optimistic, looking for the silver lining. From him, this was clearly a vote of no confidence.
by jdudas on Jun 20, 2006 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
Dubois really can't blame anyone but himself. He hasn't put up the numbers.
by dgcambridge on Jun 20, 2006 5:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Jay on Jun 20, 2006 5:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
RP Kazuhito Tadano was designated for assignment by the A's on Tuesday.
Tadano, who came over from the Indians in a trade earlier this season, was 0-2 with a 9.62 ERA in nine games, three starts, at Triple-A Sacramento. Perhaps he should give his former career another shot. Jun. 20 - 4:49 pm et
by exileincincy on Jun 20, 2006 5:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
I'm happy for Inglett. A player in his career situation is unlikely to get much of a shot except in an emergency -- not during a playoff race.
by Jay on Jun 20, 2006 5:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
If they continue to play such uninspired ball, I would think Wedge would consider his job in jeopardy. But of course I lack the patented Shapiro patience.
by emd2k3 on Jun 20, 2006 6:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
Next, Marte will replace Boone and Kouzmanoff will move up to AAA.
by kov on Jun 20, 2006 8:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Thommy on Jun 21, 2006 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Jackdaw on Jun 20, 2006 10:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
I think the fact that Johnson was tradeable -- and to a division-leading team no less -- is an indication that savvy teams know that what I wrote is true. That is, that Johnson has not been quite as bad as his ERA makes it look.
The Indians thus get the best of both worlds. They appear to be making a stand on accountability and improving the team ... but what they are really doing is starting over with a few rookies, and with a clear sense of having little if anything left to lose.
They may feel that Sowers is being rushed a tad, but on the other hand, he should be under minimal pressure to succeed right out of the gate, as Johnson's successor on a team 15 games out.
The other thing, which I didn't address in that article, was that Johnson was on a downward trend. Johnson leaves with a 6.43 RA, 5.96 ERA and 4.93 FIP -- compare with 5.11::4.71::4.91 for Cliff Lee. So the case that Johnson was getting screwed was clear-cut.
Take away Johnson's first three starts, however, and it looks a lot worse -- the ERA jumps to 7.93, which even corrected as FIP is still going to be over 6.50. That's a two-month snapshot.
The most recent one-month snapshot looks better for ERA, 6.68, and there was even a stretch of 2-of-3 quality starts in there, 3.50 ERA -- that's when I started writing my article. But that masks the fact that he'd started to give up home runs in bunches -- eight out of his last six starts at this point, after giving up only one in the previous five.
One wonders if he had started to change his game, having given up on his defense. It is interesting that Boston, proud new owners of baseball's best infield defense, is not afraid to start him, and is willing to pay some $2.5 million to do it.
So it's true that he was better than he appeared -- or more to the point of my article, that he had not hurt the team anywhere near to the level being discussed by Indians fans everywhere. And in that sense, he has been scapegoated. But it is also true that he seemed to be getting more and more lost as the weeks went by.
by Jay on Jun 21, 2006 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
I would bet that Johnson isn't going to be any more effective in Boston than he was with us (though he may start out well like he did with us). Here is what the Plain Dealer wrote today:
"Clubhouse confidential: There were no departing hugs when Jason Johnson, designated for assignment on Tuesday, left Jacobs Field.
Johnson marched past everyone without saying a word en route to the players parking lot. "One of the most aloof guys I've ever met," a Tribe official said."
Doesn't sound like a fun guy to have around the clubhouse.
by LeftyCatcher on Jun 21, 2006 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Jay on Jun 21, 2006 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
This is nothing more than "we made and egregious error in judgment signing this guy so please take this salary off our hands" deal.
Shapiro cutting his losses.
by SpringTrainingFun on Jun 21, 2006 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by APV on Jun 21, 2006 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
THT sez: "Research has shown that about 11% to 12% of outfield flies are hit for home runs. For pitchers, significant variations from 11% are probably the result of "luck," but for hitters this stat is more indicative of a true skill (hitting the ball hard!)."
by Jay on Jun 21, 2006 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by APV on Jun 21, 2006 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Jay on Jun 21, 2006 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
Arbitrarily dividing Johnson's season between April (when Johnson was ok) and post-April (when he was terrible), it's pretty clear his control has suffered.
His HR/9IP went from 0.28 to 1.79
His GB/9IP rate remained the same, 20.2-20.1, although, he was allowing more men on base per game and these men seemed to be the result from increased walks (from 2.0/9IP to 3.0/9IP) and more batters making solid contact (LD+FB/9IP 11.5 pre-May, LD+FB/9IP 14.5 post-April).
The numbers are too small to say anything for sure, but he seemed to lose control and effectiveness.
by APV on Jun 21, 2006 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by dgcambridge on Jun 22, 2006 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Jay on Jun 22, 2006 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by APV on Jun 23, 2006 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
Thanks for the link.
by dgcambridge on Jun 23, 2006 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by thetravishalffull on Jun 20, 2006 10:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by afh4 on Jun 21, 2006 2:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
(1) What does Mujica's arsenal contain? Serious heat or moderate heat with good control? Off-speed pitches? Slider or sinker (I think I recently read that he just acquired a splitter this year)?
(2) Does anyone know what Sowers' ERA would be AFTER the 1st inning? It seems like nearly all the runs he gives up are in the first, but he doesn't get rattled and just shuts 'em down once he gets into a comfort zone.
Also--the legit. concerns about his low K/9 rates should be mitigated by his apparent ability to keep the ball in the park...I hope.
by DocNo on Jun 21, 2006 6:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/sports/baseball/14858932.htm
It's also odd that people have stopped complaining about the Coco trade the past few weeks...or is it?
by Thommy on Jun 21, 2006 8:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good points, DocNo!
- I'm not sure about Mujica's arsenal, but I think he can reach the mid-90s when necessary. The addition of the splitter has enabled him to handle lefties a little better (they're batting .267 against him, better than the over .300 they were batting last year, while keeping righties to an .086 average in 2006.)
- I've noticed that about Sowers as well; it usually takes time for him to get settled in. Many of his walks are usually in the first inning as well, which may quell the higher than ideal BB/9 IP rate concerns, as it's understandable for a pitcher to get into a groove before he can dominate, which Sowers usually has done in most of his starts this year.
We will find out beginning Sunday! :-)
by indiansfan on Jun 21, 2006 8:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
Johnson may have been the victim of bad play behind him and given last year's defense might have been a marginally acceptable 5th starter, but why keep him when it appears we have youngsters who can pitch as well, maybe better (maybe a LOT better).
You do have to give Johnson props for battling diabetes, for a couple of good starts, and for telling whiny Posada to get a life after he inadvertantly hit him with a pitch and Posada went juvenile about it (I can't read lips, but that's what I would have said).
I'm surprised Guthrie was sent back down. I don't think this bodes well for his future with the Tribe.
I hope there will be more moves in the near future. If we're lucky a few of the new guys will play well and will finally add some excitement to this dreary season...
by LeftyCatcher on Jun 21, 2006 8:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Thommy on Jun 21, 2006 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Johnson designated for assignment
by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on Jun 21, 2006 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 
















