Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: The Michigan Fan's Guide to Beating Ohio State Bar-right-arrows

Bridge burning?

Hegel1_tiny by DocNo on

This post is not intended to reduntantly reiterate the ineffectiveness and seeming lethargy of the one who currently patrols approximately 5 square feet surrounding the X where a shortstop is supposed to stand, but rather to speculate on how far the Indians staff are from the point of no return concerning Peralta's future.
Whatever pills the Wedgie takes to control his facial contortions must not be readily available in the state of California, as his emotions seemed to bypass his censoring mechanism during the post-game interview, and he let this incredible quote fly:

the context: Mark Ellis hit a slow roller toward left. Shortstop Jhonny Peralta was able to get to the ball, but he couldn't quite get it into his glove, and Ellis was on first with a single.

the quote: "[Peralta] should have made the play," manager Eric Wedge said, clearly frustrated with a season's worth of watching his defensively challenged infield. "I'm tired of talking about the guy.

"We've challenged him in about every way you can -- in terms of his pregame work, in terms of his first step and just what he needs to do out there. He's going to have to do better for him to be the defensive shortstop that we need him to be."

Yes, I believe we too are "tired of talking about the guy", but c'mon, "the guy"? It sounds as if they are so disgusted with Jhonny that they cannot even bear to think about him anymore.
Has the last drop fallen into that proverbial bucket? the final straw been drawn? the fire on the bridge been lit? And if so, where the hell do they go in search of a rental middle infield?

0 recs | Comment 138 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Bridge burning?
Yeah, it does not sound good. It sounds like Wedge has not been able to get through to Peralta. Kind of like how Wedge could not get through to Phillips. Or maybe how Wedge could not get through to Bradley. One could argue that this is more of a function of Phillips, Peralta and Bradley, but I am finding it harder and harder to believe.

by oxforddave on Sep 22, 2006 9:39 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Restated: Every player on our team should be good all the time.  If he isn't, it's Wedge's fault.

by Thommy on Sep 22, 2006 9:49 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Aww, c'mon. This is a simplistic misrepresentation of my argument.

by oxforddave on Sep 22, 2006 10:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
What happened to Sizemore, Hafner, VMart, and CC over the last 3 years. Did they just happen to be good, or did Wedge "get through to them"? If you hold Wedge responsible for malcontent Bradley, you better acknowledge that some players have taken tremendous strides.

by ghostofjuniornoboa on Sep 22, 2006 3:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
I disagree.  Their development was in line with what they did in the minors and what people projected them to do.  The fact that the team has two of the best hitters at their positions and is in 4th for the division speaks loudly of what is going on up top.

by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 2:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
That is simply not true.  Hafner and Sizemore have far exceeded any expectations anyone had for them in the minors.  You could argue that Victor has as well, and Peralta of course far far exceeded expectations last year.

by Jay on Sep 23, 2006 4:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
I completely disagree with all but Hafner, however he is somewhat debatable given the progress he showed along the way in the minors.
Sizemore is developing into exactly the hitter scouts/experts expected from him.
Martinez is right on course with his minor league numbers, he has made the required adjustments at the plate each year to improve his BABIP.  
Peralta is actually falling short.  Last year was as much as aanyone could have expected, but not "far far" exceeding expectations.  His extra base hits were increased by about 3% and his OPS increased by about 15 points.  Neither totals are incredible leaps by any stretch of the imagination.  
(On a side, I actually predicted 25hr and a .300 average for Peralta last season)
Crisp, I can give you that.  His power was quite a bit more than anticipated, however like Peralta, he simply translated his doubles into home runs (36, 4: 24, 15).  All in all, his XBH actually decreased in his first full season with the Tribe.

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 10:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Sizemore is developing into exactly the hitter scouts/experts expected from him.

Sizemore was expected to be this good eventually, as in 2008 rather than 2005.  Now they're wondering if he'll eventually hit 40 home runs, which is not what anyone was saying two years ago.

Hafner became the best hitter in the game (arguably), and nobody ever is projected to do that, least of all a guy who didn't even hit Triple-A until he was almost 25.  It's not like he was A-Rod, who hit the bigs at age 19 and was widely expected to be an elite player.

Peralta absolutely "far far" exceeded expectations last season.  Scouts barely even gave this guy the time of day, and even as IL MVP, there was no indication he could hit 24 home runs in the majors.  If you predicted it, you were the only one, and I congratulate you.

Martinez is the only one who I think has been about exactly as good as expected -- solidly a star player, occasional hints of superstardom.

by Jay on Sep 24, 2006 4:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
So Sizemore has developed into the player scouts expected him to...Whether or not he exceeds that, is yet to be seen.  Whether or not he is 3 years ahead, that makes little difference.  He is currently the player experts expected.

Whats Hafners nickname?  "Project"/"Donkey" do you think its "Project" because they expected him to top out at his triple a total for HR?  Or is it "Project" because he had such unlimited power potential due to the growth he showed in the minors.  A writer for Minor League Ball wrote "His current numbers are very much what you'd expect based on his 2002 MLE at Triple-A Oklahoma"...Apparently hes exceeding, but this is far from unrealistic.

Peralta's expectations?  Well, what were they when he entered Buffalo in 2004?  280 with 12hr?  I wonder if those experts renewed his major league expectations after that season.  If they did, I highly doubt "far far" exceeding expectations is a reasonable statement.

So you've eliminated one player from this list(Martinez) had no reply for another(Crisp), how many more can we add?

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 8:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
So Hafner had unlimited potential because half of his nickname says so?

You are on crack.

by Kos on Sep 24, 2006 10:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Hahaha, thanks Micheal Moore, make sure you send your resume to Fox News!

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 11:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Um, you realize Michael Moore is one who often (read: always) jumps to insane conclusions, right? You know, things such as "Project Donkey must mean he had Hall of Fame potential!" How the hell does his nickname (which I believe he earned in 2004, after he was already in the majors and raking) have anything to do with his ceiling?

by Kos on Sep 24, 2006 11:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Hitting the scouts expectations THREE years in advance, is pretty significant. Based on normal player progressions it can be expected that he will get better with age. Do some players plateau early or even regress, certainly, but that is not the norm. For someone to do what Sizemore is doing at his age is something to get excited about.

Hafner...No way he leaves the Rangers org. if he had ever been projected to be this good.

The Peralta arguement...well I'm going to give the old wait and see response. One amazing rookie season does not make a career. I feel way more confident in saying I know what we have with a player like Sizemore who has two very good years under his belt at a young age, than with Peralta who has struggled often this year. To me next year will be the year that dictates what we have in Peralta.

by hans on Sep 24, 2006 11:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Hafner...No way he leaves the Rangers org. if he had ever been projected to be this good.

Exactly. I guess Brandini's argument will be that he wasn't named "Pronk" yet, so they couldn't know his greatness.

In related news, I have nicknamed Aaron Boone "Proone." He will hit 86 home runs next season.

by Kos on Sep 24, 2006 11:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
don't feed the trolls any more than we already have...

by afh4 on Sep 24, 2006 11:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
You can add Crisp to the list, too.

by Jay on Sep 23, 2006 4:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Okay, my last post on this and then I'll stop poking you.  To the three players you comment on:

Peralta:  MVP candidate season last year.  This year...Wedge can't get through to him? Look, if you discredit Wedge for not making Peralta hit well this year, you have to give him credit for making Peralta hit well last year - you can't pick and choose your side).  So did Wedge forget how to make Peralta hit and field well? Or is Peralta just a young pup making adjustments? Of course, I can't be sure, but I'll take the latter.

Phillips: Wedge managed him for 370 ABs in 2003, and that's the only sample size you can look at.  That year, in AAA, he hit 175/247/279 in 170 ABs.  In the majors, under Wedge, he hit 208/242/311.  That's an improvement.  Wedge then managed him for all of 12 games over the next two years, then he was traded to Cinci by...not Wedge.  Wedge has so little to do with Phillips it hurt me to write this paragraph.

Bradley: Wedge managed him in 2003 for 377 ABs, where he hit 321/421/501.  That's it.  Those ABs were also the best of his career, and its not even close.  Phillips was not a good guy - are you familiar with his history?  Has anybody else on the team had a problem with Wedge since?  Did anybody defend Phillips?  

If anything, you've made my point, not yours.

 

by Thommy on Sep 22, 2006 10:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Please be so kind as to replace Phillips with Bradley in the last section...I get excited...

by Thommy on Sep 22, 2006 10:40 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
You make very good points. Wedge has performed admirably with the starting pitchers (and I keep saying this). He did a great job with Peralta and Sizemore last year. So much so, that it was easy to say that matters much more than the tribe's failings in close games.

But after this year, it does not look so good. He has had 1 notable failure (Phillips) and 5 successes with young hitters (Sizemore, Hafner, Martinez,  Peralta, and Bradley). But 1 of these successes could not stay around (Bradley), and another is really struggling this year. So I don't know how much of these can really be called a success. After this year, my counting is 3 for 6. Is that good? Is that bad?

by oxforddave on Sep 22, 2006 11:21 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Dave, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to stop referring to Phillips as one of Wedge's "failures," or I'm going to have to start calling you "retarded."  Wedge managed Phillips for three months, more than three years ago, at a point when he clearly was not ready to deal with major league pitching.  Beyond that, Wedge only interacted with Phillips for a handful of weeks over the next 2.5 years.

Phillips was booted out of the organization for failing to become a fundamentally sound hitter in Buffalo.  Had he done better in Buffalo, both statistically and in terms of pure skills, he'd still be an Indian.  Wedge was not even present.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 3:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
There have been about 2,000 posts on this site about Phillips in the last year, and before today, none were from me. He clearly could not perform for the tribe and had to go. I'm glad for him that he is doing well elsewhere.

I was just struck on the parallels of the organization not getting through to Phillips, and some of the same language bandied about with respect to Peralta. Doesn't make a tribe fan brim with confidence.

But still, to state that Wedge was not involved with Phillips when he was with the organization is ludicrous.

I guess the only way to not be retarded around here is to defend every decision that Wedge makes.

by oxforddave on Sep 22, 2006 3:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Dude, let it go.  You should be making the "what was I thinking when I typed that" face right now, not snarking defensively.  I mean, all those jokes we've been making about Wedge mismanaging Akron pitchers from 30 miles away, or mismanaging Jose Mesa from nine years in the future ... did you not realize those were jokes?  You really think Wedge has the power to mismanage a player in Buffalo while he's in Cleveland?

Or during Spring Training?  Is that one of the manager's main priorities in Spring Training, turning around a struggling prospect?  Or could it be that he's there to evaluate the major-league-readiness of a prospect, and if he needs "turning around" it's going to have to be done elsewhere.  Maybe?  Hello?  Are these things on or am I just wasting my time?

If Peralta can't be turned around, that's going to be a totally different story.  Peralta has played for Wedge his entire major league career.  Just like Phillips, he played for Wedge for half of 2003 and a handful of games in 2004.  Unlike Phillips, he played another two years under Wedge after that point -- and counting.  Peralta is an established major leaguer, and if he falters, the major league coaching staff will be accountable if anyone is.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 4:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
You confuse me with other posters. The vitriol is not becoming.

I will not partake in anymore posting about Phillips. I did not want it to go down these lines, but those who complain about posts about Phillips have taken it down these lines.

Apparently you see zero parallels between Phillips, Bradley, and now Peralta. Your choice.  

by oxforddave on Sep 22, 2006 5:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
I actually don't -- although the common thread might be that Wedge has a bit of a rigid streak, something I have written about myself.  But leaving Peralta out of it for a moment, I think it's a disservice both to Phillips and to Wedge to act as though the Phillips and Bradley situations are similar.

When we shipped Bradley out, it was quite possible that he was about to put up an All-Star season, maybe even an MVP season.  And he had to go anyway, because his behavior was just that extreme.

Wedge may not have liked Phillips or liked his appraoch.  But there is no way that Wedge dumps Phillips if he'd already flashed an All-Star performance in the majors.  With Phillips, it's more like, "I don't like his vibe, and he's not that good anyway, so what do you say you don't make me look at him every day in my clubhouse?"

If you really think about it, that is nothing like the situation with Bradley.  Bradley has behavior problems that actually get him arrested.  Phillips is just not all that coachable.  There is a world of difference between the two, and it's not fair to Phillips not to recognize that -- and not fair to Wedge to think that he doesn't recognize it.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 11:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
yeah,,,anyone see the Bradley blow up on Sportscenter tonight....nice to see that some old white haired bench coach or whatever was able to hold Bradley back even if Bradley knocked the man's hat off. what a tough guy.

by hans on Sep 23, 2006 2:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
This will also be my last post on the Phillips situation, but...I see Phillips as Wedge's failure not because of Phillip's failure to develop with the Tribe but because the Vazquez over Phillips decision was a bad one.  In the end, that decision came down to Wedge.  That is where the failure lies.

As multiple people have stated, a utility infielder has very little capacity to positively or negatively impact a team.  Neither Phillips or Vazquez was going to make or break the team this year.  Which is exactly why we should have kept Phillips and not Vazquez.  The potential Vazquez was going to be something valuable in the future zero.  Phillips might also have had zero chance of turning into a success in Cleveland, but given the lack of a 2B beyond this season, there was at least a chance he might turn into something serviceable.  

Wedge had the choice to occupy possibly the least important offensive position on the the 2006 roster with one of two guys.  One was a 29-year old guy who hadn't been viewed as anything more than a utility guy ever whose best full season action was an .826 OPS at AAA in 2001.  The other was a 24-year old formerly highly regarded prospect whose development had stagnated since 2002 (when he posted an .886 OPS at AA as a 21-year old).

With no 2B going forward, Wedge made the wrong choice.

by APV on Sep 22, 2006 7:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Hey, did you just stumble accidentally into The Case For Vazquez?  Vazquez actually cracked an 800 OPS at Triple-A, something Phillips never managed in three tries.

By the way, that 886 for Phillips was in 60 games at Double-A.  For his full Double-A career of 127 games, his OPS was 831.  Of course, I don't really think either of these are good arguments for Vazquez, I just think it's funny.

People really do forget that for all the hype and scouting reports, Phillips never really put up the numbers at any level of the minors, other than those 60 games at Double-A.  Which, coincidentally, is very similar to Broussard's resume.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 11:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
yeah vazquez was 25 when he did that. He also put up some solid .700 numbers in his first two seasons with the padres. This was also three years ago... I'm not sure Vazquez himself could stumble on an arguement for Vazquez, how should hopefully continue to stumble around at SS in Buffalo from now on.

Phillips isn't exactly raking it anymore though, but is putting up slightly above avg. numbers. ehhh. In  any case if we pick up someone else we may be better off for next year than if we had kept Phillips.

by hans on Sep 23, 2006 3:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
sorry should say, "who should stumble around in Buffalo"

by hans on Sep 23, 2006 3:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
I have to agree, Wedge also had Phillips for multiple Spring Trainings.  More or less any player invited to Spring Training has the ability to be "gotten through" by the Manager.  If the manager feels he is uncoachable, that is one thing - and the case with Phillips.  Unfortunately for the Indians, Phillips is making the organization look stupid.

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 4:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
My question is, just how much influence does Wedge have, or should he have, in F.O. decisions? Wedge wanted Bradley gone and for good reason. Good riddance. I think it's pretty clear that Wedge wanted Philips gone, so he's gone. I don't have a problem with dumping Philips but I think it might have played out better in order to get a higher return. Does all of this mean that Wedge wants Peralta gone? It will be an interestng off-season to say the least. I have no problem with Wedge providing input into what players he would like (or wouldn't) in the clubhouse but if it gets to the point that befriending Wedge becomes more important to a player than winning then there is an issue. If Wedge is busting Peralta's chops for his play on the field or his work ethic then I'm all for it. If he has other motives, I'm not.

by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 10:51 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
This is the kind of issue I was aiming at with the original post. Wedge has clearly reached his boiling point with watching Peralta day in and day out, but does this translate into a move being imminent? Because with Peralta the stakes are high. He has shown what he is capable of over a full season (2005), and haste could backfire.
Futhermore, if there is any leading candidate for a Peraltan slide in 2007, it would have to be Brandon Phillips.

by DocNo on Sep 22, 2006 11:10 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
We can disagree with Wedge's opinion of whether it was the right thing to do to boot Phillips, but the real failure, if there is one, lies with Shapiro.  One, it was his call -- period.  Nobody told Shapiro he had to give Wedge his way on this one.

Two, the Indians held onto Phillips almost purely as a depth player, not trusting Vazquez in the event Belliard or Peralta went down, and therefore kept him in cold storage while his trade value plummeted.  As we've seen the last three months, it's not that hard to accumulate 3-4 replacement-level middle infielders.  Had Shapiro done so a year ago -- or better still at the end of 2004 -- he could have traded Phillips for significantly more value, and lost nothing in terms of depth.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 3:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Jay, you get to a more disturbing point that we've been dancing around. When was the last time the Tribe traded a prospect when his stock was at its peak? It seems we hang on to guys until one of 2 things happen, he has a breakout year and becomes a staple in the line-up or rotation or he fizzles out completely and rides off into the sunset. That's what I've meant when I talk about Shapiro's proclivity for "hoarding" prospects. I realize that its no easy task to determine which guys to keep and which guys to trade but that skill is where a lot of a G.M.'s value lies.

by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 4:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
While Coco is past the prospect stage, I think a pretty good argument can be made that we traded him at his peak.
July 28, 2006 - The Andy Marte Era officially begins. Proud to be the unofficial Andy Marte Apologist.

by woodsmeister on Sep 22, 2006 4:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
It would be pretty much impossible to argue anything else.  Nobody's getting a top prospect for him now.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 4:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
No, we didn't. He hit his peak AFTER we traded him. He pretty much sucked while he was here. We held on to the stock too long, sold it at its low point and then it rebounded after we sold it.

by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 4:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Sorry. I thought we were talking about Philips. Okay, yes, we did unwittingly sell Coco high.

by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 4:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
But NOT as a prospect.

by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 4:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Gave me a good laugh ... the way I was reading it, you were working up a full head of steam ...

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 4:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
I agree, and that bugs me, too.  (See above, I am often accused of being some kind of apologist.  I am actually trying to pinpoint management's real mistakes, which are a lot harder to figure out.  This is not obvious until you're willing to accept the fact that these people are not morons, they do things for a reason.  So you start by figuring out the reasons.  Once you understand the reasons, it becomes easier to tell a real mistake from just dumb luck.)

In that vein, you will note that if Phillips manages to remain more than just a role player, he'll join Bradley as the only discarded Indians of the Shapiro era to do so.  A lot of guys, when they're at their peak value ... well, they're valuable, and we want them.  The cliche about veterans is that it's better to let them go a year too early rather than a year too late (I'm lookin' at you, Robbie Alomar).  But you have to wonder if the same isn't true of prospects as well.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 4:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
he'll join Bradley as the only discarded Indians of the Shapiro era to do so.

That is a good point.  I would like to add Danny Baez to that list also.  However, what about the opposite?  How many "good moves" has this FO made?  All of the moves that would go into that category seem to be moves that helped for a single season, but in the end, put the franchise back a step for the following - ie Millwood.

My issue with the FO at this point is their inability to see talent and the cloudiness to see their own players faults.  This is the 3rd season in a row where a relatively young pitcher has had a breakout season (Westbrook 04, Lee 05, Sabathia 06), the following season has been poor at best, now I'm not calling for CCs head, but I am relatively worried about him as the true #1 next season - thats why I would like to see a starting pitcher along the lines of Vazquez brough in.  
The FO seems to think that their players - after having one solid season - are better then they really are.  It is difficult to fault them, because as a fan I get excited after a player has a stand out season, but as you mentioned "these people are not morons", they need to see through some of the smoke screens.

by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 4:10 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
When I state "inability to see talent" I am not talking at an amatuer level, they do an excellent job at drafts, I am talking at the major league level.  Signings such as Graves, Johnson, Vazquez, Hollandsworth.  Also, they seem to commit the cardinal sin a manager can make - they fall in love with their own players.

by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 4:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
That's an unreasonable list. None of those guys were supposed to contribute much, if at all. In fact, two of them were signed to minor league deals, right? They're just not significant signings.

Besides, Hollandsworth was fine as a bench player. The only players taken from FA on this team that were expected to contribute were Byrd, Boone (albeit a while ago-is he even a Shap signing? I think he is...), Belliard, Eduardo Perez, and Bob Wickman (again, a long time ago).

I might be missing somebody. For the most part though, that's a mixed bag. You have a bad 3B who got injured playing basketball, ruining his career (apparently), you've got a FA pitcher who hasn't panned out too great (which, umm, just about every other team in the majors has on of), you've got a 2B who was salvaged really effectively off the scrap heap, you've got a guy who's career was resurrected for 3 and a half months this year and would've been a great part for a stretch run, and you've got Wickman who, for all his faults, is a really effective closer and has been for a while for the Indians.

The fall in love with their own players thing-I don't see what choice the Indians have. We can't afford anyone else's players.

by afh4 on Sep 23, 2006 10:20 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Wickman came from the Hart era.  He was then dealt for an unknown value.
Belliard was servicable at best.  The 2b pool was thin that year, but in hindsight what about Palonco or Grudzielanek?

As for Perez, he played good while in the Tribe uni, but it shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone that his numbers have significantly slipped since the trade.  The truth is, hes just not that great of a ball player.  But even this signing is an example of one step forward, two steps back.  Had the team stayed competitive this season, Garko wouldn't have been given a shot.

I will give him his due where he deserves it, such as Howry and bringing aboard Sizemore, Lee and Phillips.  However, it is starting to become a trend of "blocking" young players with mediocre veterans.

by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 2:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
So you don't mean that he's been bad at signing free agents? All I'm saying is it's a mixed bag, like most teams who don't have much money to spend.

This falling in love with players thing is just not tenable in my opinion. Garko didn't earn a chance to play because of his performance in AAA this year and the Broussard/Perez platoon was simply incredible while in effect. As soon as it became clear that the Indians were out of it, both players were dealt for great value (in my opinion) and the youth movement began.

I would actually say that the handling of the first base situation is probably the highlight of the season and a master stroke on the organization's part. They get the most out of two journeyman style players, far exceeding expectations at a low cost, then they get great value for both players via trade, and they get a young first basemen up for a ton of reps so they know what they have going forward after a disappointing season. I don't see what the problem is.

Who else has been blocked, even slightly? Marte came up early in some opinions, and he certainly didn't come up late. Neither did Jhonny. I guess they waited a while on Joe Inglett but, c'mon, he's a utility player. Grady came up young and stuck. Sowers came up young and stuck. They've not let any relievers be blocked, as if that was possible. Phillips was up very young, was terrible, and then could have never been reasonably promoted again. The only real argument is ST this year and I'm not getting into it. Continue to think whatever you'd like to and I'll do the same. It's a dead horse at this point. They've even gotten Kouzmanoff up despite the fact that he has no position and his best positions are filled by our most heralded prospect (3B) who the team has a clear commitment to, the prospect who has played best this year (Garko), and our can't miss number one best player (DH).  

Who's been blocked for any significant amount of time? I would actually think no one. If anything Garko had to wait another 90 games or whatever while the team figured out if they were in contention and he acted like a dope in AAA.

by afh4 on Sep 23, 2006 4:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
All I'm saying is it's a mixed bag, like most teams who don't have much money to spend.

It is in fact a mixed bag regardless of the budget size.

by Jay on Sep 23, 2006 5:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Garko - blocked after having a solid season+ in triple A by "two journeyman style players".  I can see why he acted like a dope.  also, giving him 200-250 at bats isn't really the best sample size to discover his future.  even an entire season is a tough one to look at.  what if the Indians were in contention though?  look at what Broussard and Perez have done for their careers - now look at their current season totals, how AWESOME would it have been to be in contention and have the TRUE Broussard and Perez numbers?  the team wouldn't think about calling Garko up in a penant race! (block #1)
Marte - I agree more seasoning was due for him, but was he REALLY in triple A because of Aaron Boone?  Again, would this team have called him up in a penant race?  (block #2)
Any of the Starting Pitchers in the Organization - Remember JJ?  Was he really going to have a better season then anyone the Tribe had in triple A?  Atleast then they could have put to rest who was a prospect and who isn't.  (block #3)
Any relief pitcher in the Organization - Graves.  I think that is enough said.  (block #4)

It is impossibly to argue that the team is currently playing for anything.  So is it not blocking if they are taking at bats away from young guys such as Choo and Gutierrez to start Blake and Micheals?  Theres a chance atleast one of those two won't be with the organization next year, why not see if there is an in-house replacement.  Blake can only lower his value, while Micheals isn't really good enough to increase his.  (block #5)

You're right though, the organization has done a great job handling their youngsters and haven't blocked anyone from being a contributor this season.  I hope that they have learned something from Jhonny Peralta and that is to not fall in love with a player after one season.  
As for Kouz, its actually sad the organization didn't try him out at other positions this season(if they did, my mistake).  It can be argued that he was blocked by Marte/Boone.  Also, its not as if the organization "got Kouzmanoff up", it wouldn't surprise me if they were still dissapointed Hafner got injured.

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 11:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Get real. Garko got up as soon as the season was lost. The team wanted proven commodities going into what was to be a contending season and the proven commodities they went with performed awesomely.

Kouz is a long-time injury concern. It's not sad that the team didn't go jerking him around the first time he ever started to stay health and hit great in his career.

What do you want them to? Not keep Graves up for, what, 5 weeks and instead have the incredible talents of the current bullpen up then instead? You want them to not sign JJ and go into the season, which was supposed to be a good one, with Sowers in the rotation, in his second pro season?

Just be happy our young players appear to be pretty good. This doesn't mean they all should've been with the big league for 162 games. Situations and contexts change.

The fact that all these players are performing as well as they are at such young ages indicates to me that they were handled very well, if anything.

by afh4 on Sep 24, 2006 4:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Lets rewind
You said nobody was blocked
Then you stated that Garko was called up as soon as the season was lost...

Lets say the season isn't lost, but Graves, Boone, Broussard/Perez and Johnson perform as they typically have, would you not agree taht Garko, Marte, etc were "blocked".  
I honestly don't care when they were called up this season, the fact is they were held back by poor to awful major leaguers in order to contend this season.  
Unfortunately those "proven comodities" were blocking the developement and statistics of players who were obviously better.

As for your breakdown...

  1.  I never stated Sowers as the replacement for Johnson, rather anyone!   There are multiple arms in the Indians system that could at the very least be tested in the majors to see if they are more then minor league pitchers(I believe I stated that earlier).
  2.  Graves was an awful player to have on the roster even for 1 day.  Andrew Brown could have easily pitched beginning in April.
  3.  I never said anything about Kouzmanoff other then the fact that they didn't really not block him.  You talked about how wonderfully they handled his situation, and truth be told, had it not been for the Indians struggles, he would still be on the double A roster.

As for your conclusion that these players are performing as well as they are at such a young age, you must be refering to the fact that only one of the youngsters is performing at even a decent major league level(Garko).  That youngster who yourself said did not deserve a callup("moping around" was your quote).  Yes, this team is doing wonders with their youth!

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 8:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'll take Sabathia over Vazquez!
Hello Brandini,

While I can understand some concern about CC, I think CC has more-less proven this year that he is a #1 pitcher; no pitcher is perfect, heck, look at Santana the other night when the Twins had a perfect chance to take the Central lead over the Tigers, and Santana faltered with his command.  It happens to everyone.  Plus, very few pitchers have to deal with such a little range, porous defense like ours.

Plus, Javier Vazquez really hasn't been that great since his first half season with the Yankees.  Since then, he's shown flashes, like CC has, but he has shown a tendency to fall apart when his defense makes a mistake or he gives up a base hit after a long at-bat.  CC hasn't fallen apart like that that often, and that's with a poorer defense than the White Sox.  

It was debatable whether Vazquez was a true #1 even when he was with Montreal, but in my opinion, he definitely is not a #1 and is not better than CC.  I don't think he'd be an upgrade for the rotation, especially since he likely would cost at least as much as Byrd.

My concerns with the starting rotation would lie more with the LWB trio, specifically Byrd and Lee.  I wouldn't mind an upgrade there, specifically Carmona, and using one of Byrd or Lee, along with a few prospects to get either a quality young reliever who could maybe be a possible closer (maybe Jonathan Broxton of the Dodgers?) or a 2B (Orlando Hudson or Brian Roberts?)  

Your point about where the organization values our own players too much, I sort of think they do that with the LWB trio a bit.  I know they have value, but I think Carmona could outdo them in time with a little more development.  The question is, will the Indians be willing to give Carmona that opportunity or will they keep sending the 35-36 year-old Byrd and the "5 2/3 IP" Cliff Lee 2 out of every 5 days?  Unless Lee improves his command or somehow regains his low-90s velocity, I'm not confident he'll repeat his 2005 season (which was overrated a bit to begin with due to the offensive support he received) any time soon.  As for Byrd, is this just a bad stretch for him or is this the beginning of the end for him?

In that regard, I might agree with you, but I do agree with afh4 that really no one has been blocked for any significant length of time, even Kouzmanoff, who looks to be blocked everywhere outside of LF, and he's not ready to go out there (if he ever is.)  So, I think the organization does what it can with the players they have and sign, and like afh4 mentioned, we have a limited budget and have to make the best of it with what we have, and for the most part, the Indians have done a reasonable and respectable job in regards to that.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Sep 23, 2006 5:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I'll take Sabathia over Vazquez!
Sorry, I didn't mean to call out CC.  I was more or less stating that I would like to see a true number 2 behind CC.  I feel as though Vazquez can be that guy - a power righty behind CC.
Also, I think pitching at the Jake would help Javier's numbers, similar to what the O did for him in Montreal.  This is also a small market, similar to Montreal, that could also be one of his problems.
Vazquez has been quite dominant at the Jake - which could be more of a case of facing the Indians rather then the ballpark.

I'm not exactly thrilled with the rotation the team has going into 07.  I do like CC, Sowers, Byrd, Lee and Westbrook as individual pitchers.  CC, Sowers and one of Westbrook or Byrd I would go with in next years rotation - with Byrd being the favourite due to his fly ball tendency and zero trade value.

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 11:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Sorry, I misunderstood your point!
Hello Brandini,

Sorry, I thought you were referring to Vazquez as a #1 over CC - my mistake.

I think the organization is waiting for Adam Miller to fill that #2 hole, and if he arrives as projected (I know, sizable IF,) I think he'd be better than Vazquez, and cheaper as well.  You make a good point about Vazquez doing well at Jacobs Field (as well as questioning whether it's the ballpark or the Indians' inconsistent offense that has led to Vazquez doing so well here,) but Vazquez has been known to falter or come apart when his defense doesn't make a play it should or he doesn't get a call from the umpire, etc.  Then it usually leads to a big inning that knocks him out of the game.  

I feel he'll struggle more with us since our defense is weaker than Chicago's and the IF defense won't be changed that much this offseason (probably just one new player,) which means that unless the players there now improve a great deal, the defense could be similarly weak next year.  

If it was the Javier Vazquez who was in Montreal, I could see him as a #2, but now, at best, he might be a #3, and more likely is a #4.  In fact, he sounds similar to our #4, Cliff Lee, in terms of giving up big innings.  

Regarding the 2007 rotation, like you, I'm not totally thrilled with the rotation either; I'd used one of Lee or Byrd, along with some prospects, to try to get us a 2B or add a quality reliever to our bullpen.  I think Carmona could be better than both of them in time if given the chance.  And I certainly think Adam Miller will be considerably better than both of them when he comes up and establishes himself, so that's why I would consider trading one this offseason, then the other one by the 2007-2008 offseason.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Sep 25, 2006 1:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I should add...
Hello again Brandini,

I should add this to the last sentence of my last post:

Presuming, of course, Adam Miller develops, I would trade the other one of the two by the 2007-2008 offseason; if not then, likely shortly thereafter when Miller has acclimated to the ML level.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Sep 25, 2006 1:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
No, you credit Buffalo's hitting coach for making him an IL MVP and that carrying over into the majors.  You then place the blame on Wedge and the Indians hitting coach for not assisting Peralta on making adjustments.  It was clear opposing teams were going to find a weakness in his opposite way doubles power.  The majority of hitters go through a "sophmore slump", where was Wedge to get him through that?

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 4:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
It is not his hitting that is my concern, I agree with work over the winter and in spring training (if he want to), he should be able correct some of his hitting problems, by hitting up the middle, waiting back on the breaking pitch. What concerns me is his lack of range and the fact that his head does not seam to be in the game. Did we give a big  contract too soon and now he has lost his desire? I do not see how this is Wedge fault, the problem lies with the player, a manage can do just so much.      
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2006 5:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
If the club didn't know he had slow feet to begin with, this club has issues!  I had heard "fantasy" experts talking about his keeper value decreasing as he should one day be moved to one of the corner spots in the infield.  If a fantasy guy can see that, how can a FO guy not see that?
As for Peraltas fielding, it isnt bad, but it isnt great.  Again, his range is poor, his instincts are mediocre, but he doesnt make many errant throws, he doesnt try to do to much, hes in there and virtually filling a spot.  

The problem is, his fielding hasn't gotten worse - if it has, it has only been a marginal amount.  However, when he was hitting .292/.366/.520 he was nearly an "allstar" SS.  His only flaw at the end of last season was his strikeouts/plate discipline.  With all of that in mind, I imagine there would be no discussion if he was again hitting .292/.366/.520 again this season.

by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 6:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Yeah, it's perception as much as anything. I don't think his physical skills have eroded, at least to my eyes. What is disturbing is the lack of effort and the inability to adjust to the league. Every good major-league player should at least do those well in order to have a lengthy career.

Wedge doesn't generally call a player out in the media - I really can't think of another instance other than the St. Louis game, but that involved Peralta as well - so Peralta better get his act together and come into Spring Training in better shape and with a better mindset...or else.

by Ryan on Sep 22, 2006 6:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
Yea, but this shouldn't be news to the Indians organization.  The guy has always been rather sluggish, overweight, lazy, etc.  I think to call him out at this point - especially from a man who isn't a regular in the "calling out" game - is a rather coward thing to do, it almost sounds as if Wedge is saying, "Well none of this is MY fault, these guys just haven't been trying to fix their flaws, we've given them ample instruction".

Its curious though, I remember hearing that Peralta was taking many extra ground balls before batting practice each game and that is what had resulted in the great stretch of errorless ball he played in the summer months.  This is beginning to look liek Wedge is fearing his job and is starting to point fingers.

by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 3:54 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Bridge burning?
The guy has always been rather sluggish, overweight, lazy, etc.

Really?  I never heard any of that.  That's a pretty significant accusation.

by mkwng on Se