Bridge burning?
by DocNo on Sep 22, 2006 4:14 AM EDT
Email
PrintThis 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?
138 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
by ghostofjuniornoboa on Sep 22, 2006 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
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 up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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 up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
You are on crack.
by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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 @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
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?
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Futhermore, if there is any leading candidate for a Peraltan slide in 2007, it would have to be Brandon Phillips.
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by woodsmeister on Sep 22, 2006 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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 up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 4:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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 up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
It is in fact a mixed bag regardless of the budget size.
Re: Bridge burning?
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 up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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...
- 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).
- Graves was an awful player to have on the roster even for 1 day. Andrew Brown could have easily pitched beginning in April.
- 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.
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll take Sabathia over Vazquez!
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.
Re: I'll take Sabathia over Vazquez!
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 up reply actions
Sorry, I misunderstood your point!
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.
I should add...
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
by Brandini on Sep 22, 2006 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
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 up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
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.
Re: Bridge burning?
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 up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Really? I never heard any of that. That's a pretty significant accusation.
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 23, 2006 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
Why was there talk of moving Peralta to one of the corner infield spots? Was it because he was too fast and thin to play middle infield? Maybe it was his incredible range?
While there are zero accounts that directly stated he was "lazy and overweight" I think there were a lot of fingers pointing in that direction during parts of last season. Those discussions went away when they acquired Marte, but even then there was discussions of "what to do with Peralta".
As for making it up. I am saying what I have seen. I can't even count the amount of times I have seen Peralta play, and while I have always loved his bat, he has never seemed to really try. But I'm trying to figure out where I said that anyone else said it. I simply stated that I don't know how the organization missed it - I didnt!
So Jay, next time you call me out, make sure you do some reading and you haven't been "following" a player based on his statistics. I don't know how many times you've seen Peralta play in the last 5 years, but if you have seen him in the last two years and you want to call him not overweight...GO FOR IT! Just let me know where you have read that he is not overweight.
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Need more, use your time machine and watch him field or run out ground balls to first.
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Can you find anything that stated Peralta had...incredible range?
I can.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/peraljh01.shtml
I just wanted to post that link...I'll leave the rest of this up to Jay. This should be good.
by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Check out the FRAA. That ridiculous total means he has good range. You can argue whether or not BP's fielding metric is accurate, but I find it hard to believe that a system could rate a fat, lazy, poor defender as one of the best fielders in the league. Even if it is inaccurate, it still helps make the case that he's average or above average defensively.
by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Well I guess my eyes have prooven wrong.
So you think Peralta has above average range?
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 25, 2006 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
But you need to remember that many people here, like myself, argue based on both numbers and opinions. Defensively, there's only one set of number that is updated in season, and those are in the BP link above. What that says, btw, is that Peralta is worth 3-4 wins with his glove this year. That's a lot...I looked through other SS until I got bored, and nobody came close - some were as bad as costing thier team 2 games, and nobody else exceeed 2 safely.
In fact, he looks to eclipse Adam Everett's mark last year - and Everett is far and above the best defensive shortshop in the majors (from either scouts or numbers geeks.) So I ask you to consider the posibility that Peralta was the best defensive shortstop in the majors this year by a wide margin, regardless of how he looked.
Re: Bridge burning?
I think that statement alone ends this conversation. If you want to call Peralta the best defensive shortstop in the game, GO FOR IT! I know I don't have a link to back this up, but I imagine 99% of the league would go with atleast one other SS defensively!
So are you willing to look at those numbers and state that due to those numbers Peralta is the best defensive short stop in the league? If so, then those numbers and the reliance that "numbers geeks" and yourself are putting on them is becoming more and more ridiculous!
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
Until then, however, it will be up to the SS to decide whether he feels like diving today.
I certainly hope Wedge isn't "losing" Peralta. There are probably only a certain number of buttons that today's manager can push. Peralta is a 24-yr old former IL MVP; he's got one big season under his belt, and a (relatively) big contract. What can Wedge do if Peralta doesn't perform? He can talk to him, he can bench him here and there, but you can't sit the guy for 40 days, or send him to Buffalo because he's hitting .240 (.150, sure, but not .240 with semi-respectable peripherals). Now, he's decided to push the "call him out in the post-game" button.
Fans are clearly disappointed, with the team in general and JhP in particular. Fans (and managers) want to see effort and results, but they'll accept one or the other, within reason. It's perceived laziness and poor performance they can't take. Since Peralta hasn't thrown his helmet, or broken a water cooler, we assume he doesn't care when he strikes out. Maybe if he'd dive after a ball, even if he knows there's no way he could get up and throw the guy out, we'd be impressed with his hustle. We have no way of knowing how hard he's working, except for what we see during the game.
The manager does see how a player prepares himself, so I'm inclined to trust him on that subject.
But here's where I'm uneasy: remember about 5-6 weeks ago when, late in a game, somebody hit a shot up the middle that took a weird bounce past JhP? Wedge criticized him for it, even though the consensus of everybody who saw the replays on TV was that there was virtually no way JhP could be expected to get an out on the play? I wonder if Wedge's objectivity is compromised by his frustration? Is he overly critical of guys who aren't look mad enough when they boot one?
Maybe, of all the things a manager does, one of the most important is to avoid putting somebody in the dog house when they don't belong there.
I'm pretty sure of this: the Tribe operates on thin margins. When they get a talented player, they need to get performance out of him. They can't take the "dump him and buy a free agent" approach. Wedge can't press the "Z" button to keep a guy from swinging at a breaking ball that's out of the zone; and he can't force a player (especially a young almost-star with a big contract) to work harder. But he can try to motivate guys, and being fair and objective plays to that.
by CaptainEasy on Sep 22, 2006 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 22, 2006 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
players agree with Wedge about Peralta and several other players who are perceived as apathetic. Other than Peralta, they did not name names on either side, except they indicated that the critical players were significant and not fringe players (that narrows things quite a bit).
Re: Bridge burning?
I can recall two months ago when Peralta made the significant improvement in his fielding. He went on a stretch of something like 40+ games without committing an error and everyone was praising him for all the extra work he was putting in before games.
Its also interesting that a player who has always been "overweight", slow, sluggish and simply put lazy "looking" is now being called out. I think this can tie into the season he is having overall, if he was posting the numbers he did last year or when he won IL MVP nobody would say a thing. This is where I personally would be calling Wedge out, what other then sitting Peralta has Wedge done to help the kid out?
by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 3:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
outstanding post.
Half
by thetravishalffull on Sep 22, 2006 10:16 AM EDT reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Unfortunately I think I'm the empty half.
Re: Bridge burning?
Peralta, he ought to sit him for the rest of the season.
His previous short sittings have not had a positive impact.
After the Phillips situation, I sure the FO will not let Wedge make the decision on Peralta by
himself. Shapiro may not be willing to give up on him yet, but I would think he would make sure he has someone in spring training who can push him hard for the starting position and not just
let Peralta assume he has the starting spot locked up.
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
As for Wedge, I came into this year a big supporter of him. However, it is a little hard to retain support for the guy leading the most underperforming team of the past 40 years. This year Wedge has been much more vocal in supporting "his guys" (Sizemore and Hafner) and harping on the "other guys". Wedge has to be able to count a few more guys on his side of the margin to keep my support.
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
by SpringTrainingFun on Sep 22, 2006 1:06 PM EDT reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
.227 avg
.274 obp
.304 slug
He probably will improve next season -- youngest player in Triple-A and all -- but can we really afford to put an almost guaranteed 600 OPS in the lineup, with a decent chance that he'd be overmatched entirely?
So many of these ideas depend on how Crowe does in instructional league and Arizona.
Re: Bridge burning?
You've pointed out in other threads that we're still well above the league average in runs scored. I'm not sure that having one pretty poor hitter would sink this ship. Whereas we know that having poor defense up the middle, particularly at shortshop, will leave you in 4th place in the AL central.
Balance may be the key for us to make a world series run. I think it's unreasonable to expect that every regular on the team is going to kill the ball at the plate. Frankly, I'd be willing to accept a poor bat at short.
Am I way, way off base here?
Re: Bridge burning?
Only in degrees. I agree that we could accept a weak bat at shortstop, but AstroCab likely would be putting up sub-Neifi numbers in 2007, and also not in the best environment to develop as a hitter. Let's not forget, the guy is a very good prospect all-around.
I think if you put that easy of an out in the lineup, you really give a lot back to the opposing starter. We can put a lineup on the field that comes pretty close to giving starters that old facing-the-Indians queasiness. That can sustain a 700 OPS, but not a 500 OPS.
Bottom line, we need that one-year patch, maybe even an Alex Gonzalez type. Maybe even Neifi himself.
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
We'll see how everyone's doing mid-year and adjust. If Peralta's hitting and fielding, the new guy's hitting and fielding, and Crowe's adjusted to second base and mugging Triple-A pitchers -- and everyone's healthy -- then we'd have one quality player too many for a few months. But that's not much of a "problem", and it's a lot of ifs to get there -- otherwise, we have exactly enough quality players.
I'm thinking that moving Peralta to second base is not much of a solution when you have three lefty starters, but someone else can probably speak to that with more authority than I can.
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
- He hurts the team if he's not ready.
- He burns a year of major-league service.
by CaptainEasy on Sep 22, 2006 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Yikes. Please tell me you're joking. If anyone in the majors could post a 500 OPS, it's Neifi (he's at 579 this year).
by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 23, 2006 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 23, 2006 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 22, 2006 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
I can understand being frustrated with poor play on the field, but sometimes it almost sounds like Wedge is disgusted with Peralta as an individual, not necessarily as a player. It's not like we're dealing with Albert Belle or Milton Bradley here, the kid just needs to play a little tighter on defense. Don't forget Peralta's fielding percentage is still 6 points higher than his rookie season. Not great as a league benchmark, but it's still a sign of improvement.
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
by Bill Glynn on Sep 22, 2006 3:23 PM EDT reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Then, we're going to count all the players that fail that were thought to have the ability to succeed at one time. Again, doesn't matter who-just count them. And count them double if they go somewhere else and put up a halfway decent season!
I mean seriously. What the F people? Players' ability to hit the baseball effectively, especially when they are all-star caliber, has far less to do with the Major League manager than it does who they are. You're telling me it matters where Alex Rodriguez comes up? Or Travis Hafner? Or Grady? Or John McDonald?
Managers don't have anywhere near as much influence as is being claimed here. Just because there are an infinite number of stupid beat articles about hitting coaches talking to guys in slumps about opening up their front halves doesn't mean we should forget that most players, with a minimum of normal big league level teaching, will become pretty much the players they are.
The only possible way I can see faulting a manager or organization for not developing a player is if you can point to specific instructions that actually hurt the player, a la Ortiz in Minnesota. Otherwise, sitting around and acting like hypothetitcal managers and coaches somewhere get better results is hard to substantiate.
Most big league teams do things pretty similarly when it comes to teaching kids to hit, field, etc. And the differences, like Oakland's insistence on taking pitches and Anaheim's free swinging approach, are real but not in the sense that one approach works all the time-in fact, it's probably close to impossible to know which system would be best for a player until he has failed in one and succeeded in the other.
I don't support Wedge. I don't care about Wedge. But I'm not going to buy into the absurd idea that he made Travis Hafner awesome or the absurd idea that he made Jhonny forget to stay back on the ball and hit the curve. I'm sure Jhonny's been told that and if he's not fixing it, it's on Jhonny. I don't need any dumb theatrics about benching him for 20 games or sending him down or anything. Peralta has the ability and knows how to use it. If he's not listening to change his approach, that's on him. And you know what? He's 24. I'll take my chances that he'll figure it out.
All that said, if Wedge is dumb enough to throw down some sort of Peralta or me gauntlet, I'm positive Shapiro is smart enough to show Wedge the door. Otherwise, fire him, don't fire him. Whatever.
Re: Bridge burning?
I mean it as an opinion but I never remember to write "I think" before every clause and don't have the motivation to go add it back in.
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
We've all been down all these paths. No one here is anywhere near as interested in talking about this as interested in what the next step is. And we have to wait a loooong time to see what all those next steps are.
Anyways, Tribe in 2007.
Re: Bridge burning?
"Do not use the phrase 'I think' when expressing an opinion."
Look, it's a blog. Every reader should automatically insert the phrase "I think" in their heads when reading any comment. If I say "Jhonny will bounce back fine," anyone with any common sense should know that I mean "In my opinion, Jhonny will bounce back fine." If I say "Jhonny is 3 for his last 24 in road night games on turf," I am expressing a fact (or I am palcal).
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 22, 2006 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
Sorry, I remember last year after they fired the hitting coach the Indians completely turned around their season.
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Note that I am not being facetious. It sounds like this is your opinion (which may be reasonable).
Re: Bridge burning?
Sure, managers talk to young players, as do their coaches, about hitting, getting out of a slump, etc. But they all are going to say and try pretty reasonable things-things that have worked for managers in the past. Like Wedge apparently has challenged Jhonny privately. He's called him out, sort of, in some press conferences. If one of these had worked it would be "Aha! What a great motivational tool!" But when they don't, it's "He's a bad manager."
For me, the typical example is Leyland throwing tha tirade. Now Detroit's going to the playoffs and that's pointed to as some kind of watershed moment. Did it work? Well, they won after it happened. So it correlated to success. Did it cause success? Honestly, who knows?
It gets pretty far into human behavior and the variables become so insane that no one can account for them. Look at the simple situation. The variables in play are, just to try to generate a list, Jhonny's ability, Jhonny's history in using that ability, Jhonny's age, what's happening in Jhonny's life otherwise (is his cousin sick? did his girlfriend dump him?), what pitchers has Jhonny faced, how is Jhonny's physical state (is he any taller? has he felt well? is he tired?), what is the hitting coach telling Jhonny, what is Jhonny telling himself, what is Wedge telling Jhonny, is Jhonny listening, etc etc etc.
Some of those clearly don't mattter. But which ones? Managers sometimes "fix" players-but how do we know they fixed them? How do we know something else didn't fix them or they didn't fix themselves? Again, I think it's valid if you can point out that a player was getting bad advice. It's also valid when track records become overwhelming, like Leo Mazzone.
But Wedge's track record? Some hitters are overperforming. Some are underperforming. I don't see a track record of Wedge destroying or fixing marginal players, the way Mazzone did. I just see a scatter plot with so many variables that I can't possible tell you why Hafner is awesome and Jhonny is not, this year. But I do know that I think the overwhelming factor in the analysis is their raw talent.
The same thing with pulling pitchers. Rarely do managers make pitcher changes that at the time you can say "This has no chance of working." They bring in major league relievers and they tend to bring in their best relievers in the most serious situations (with the exception of closing, which is a disease all it's own). Sure, sometimes people argue he should've used pitcher A instead of pitcher B, and sometimes those people look smart. But they also look not as smart as the manager sometimes.
With Wedge, it's easy to criticize when he brings in a bullpen pitcher because, frankly, they're all terrible. But every time he brings in a pitcher and somebody yells "DAVIS?!? AGAIN?!" nobody ever has a great answer for who it should be instead.
Is Joe Torre an awesome manager in Cleveland? Not to be repetitive but, who knows? But I think Wedge probably does just fine if he gets to manage those late 90s Yankees teams.
I guess in short, Managers become hall of famers and revered as the best in the game for winning games and world series. You know who else gets into the hall of fame? The players on the teams they managed.
Re: Bridge burning?
- Inspiring confidence in the players. That is the players knowing that their manager won't screw things up and/or get outmanaged. That gives the players confidence to see to their job.
- Have a working relationship with all of the players. They don't have to like each other, they just need a situation where they don't tune each other out.
For instance, I though Belicheck did good things as head coach with the Browns (I was one of the few, my Mom still thinks he is the devil). But in the end, he made 1st time coaching errors, and he lost the team and had to go.
I have no idea where the tribe is right now, nor could anyone else from the outside. The tribe needs confidence, and it has to come from somewhere. Maybe it just is winning begets winning. Maybe not.
Re: Bridge burning?
Thus, I find the kind of discussions where people talk about how Wedge didn't get Phillips to play like Jerry Narron or whatever supremely frustrating. Who knows what was going on? And who knows if it was fixable?
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
by dgcambridge on Sep 22, 2006 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Joe Girardi anyone....?
Re: Bridge burning?
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
I can say with metaphysical certainty you're putting words in his mouth with the above comment; like Beck says in "Soul-Suckin' Jerk" : 'you're mouth is full of sand, and you don't understand'
You need to drop the hyperbole, now. This is not a talkshow, and you are not its host.
by homelytourist on Sep 25, 2006 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Garko can make adjustments and, for example, get the bat on the ball with 2 strikes on him. Peralta can not.
Sowers can make adjustments and perform better when he pitches against a team for the 2nd time.
If a player can't make adjustments he is doomed to failure in the ML.
Re: Bridge burning?
You see, you are like the boy, thinking sarcasm is like your signs that say "Lost Dog". But in reality, your signs say, "I think I'm smarter then you and therefore if I post this sign someone will do the leg work for me".
I imagine your idea of a good franchise is the team that signed JJ, Graves, Perez, etc...Wait, you did call those good moves!
by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
Re: Bridge burning?
But I don't think thread locking is the worst thing in the world either. Sometimes the discussion is just going nowhere.
That said, since threads don't jump to the top here, it's probably not necessarry.
Re: Bridge burning?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
