Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Explaining Jeremy Lin's Early, Surprising Success

Bridge burning?

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?

Comment 138 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

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 reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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

by oxforddave on Sep 22, 2006 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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

You are on crack.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

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

by afh4 on Sep 24, 2006 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

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

by Jay on Sep 23, 2006 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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

by hans on Sep 23, 2006 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
But NOT as a prospect.

by exileincincy on Sep 22, 2006 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 up reply actions  

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 @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 23, 2006 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I'm calling you out.  I'd like you to find one published account, anywhere, prior to this seasons, where someone is calling Peralta lazy or overweight.  I've been following Peralta for five years, and I think you flat-out made this up.

by Jay on Sep 23, 2006 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Can you find anything that stated Peralta had a slick glove and incredible range?  That Peralta had all out hustle and worked extremely hard?  Can you find soemthing that says otherwise?

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?
Sorry, YOU leveled the accusation, the burden is on YOU to prove it.  

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
"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."

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?
This is getting really stupid. This is like a four year old's defense.

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?
Sorry, explain what these numbers mean...You sound like Jay saying that he has "followed him the last 5 years".  I would like to see some thing in those numbers that calls him "fit and not lazy".

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I would like to see some thing in those numbers that calls him "fit and not lazy".

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?
Wow, first time I've ever seen that.
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?
Yeah, I'd say so. I don't know how you can prove that theory correct or incorrect, though.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
He does not have above average range, watch him play. Let's get serious he is average at best defensively.  It was his bat that made him above average last year, if he was hitting 300 20 HR and 80 RBI we would be talking about how great he is.
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 24, 2006 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
His positioning may be what makes him a good defender by BP standards. There's really no way for us to know. I just find it odd that a guy considered a horrible defender is having one of the top (BP-rated) defensive seasons in recent memory. Could the system really be so out of whack that it makes a stonehanded fat ass look like a Gold Glove candidate? I guess it's possible, but it's also possible that Jhonny is a bit better than what our eyes tell us.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 25, 2006 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
You could be right, but I have a hard time rate him above average. When I think of above average def player, he should make a few great plays and all most all routine ones
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 25, 2006 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Your post illustrates your opinion.  You bring up the words lazy and overweight.  Me?  I don't care what he looks like.  If you want to argue that he looks overweight, that's your opinion, and you'll always be right.

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.  

by Thommy on Sep 24, 2006 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Peralta was the best defensive shortstop in the majors this year by a wide margin

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?
Is Peralta the type of "head case" in the manner of a Bradley or a Phillips? I doubt it, and have not heard much complaint to suggest he is. Perhaps he is just a little "slow" in more ways than one. The illustration: about two weeks ago (Chicago series) Wedgie kept jH on the bench for three days in a row to get things straightened out (and because of his poor history against opposing pitchers). One could and should clearly take this as a message. jH, on the other hand, had not a clue why he was sitting. Maybe the messages sent to him should be really, really clear.

by DocNo on Sep 22, 2006 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Someday, in the not-too-distant future, all players will have an RFID chip embedded in their necks.  And the manager will have an Xbox controller in the dugout.  And if the SS doesn't dive, it will be the manager's fault, because it means he didn't press the "B" button in time...

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?
Great post.

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 22, 2006 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Apparently (according to Hamilton), a number of
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).

by palcal on Sep 22, 2006 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Its beginning to sound to me as if Wedge is fearing for his job, and as you mentioned is pushing all the buttons he can to keep it - we've all done the button mash at one point or another.
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?
Doc,

outstanding post.

Half

by thetravishalffull on Sep 22, 2006 10:16 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Why thanks Half. That's mighty kind of you.
Unfortunately I think I'm the empty half.

by DocNo on Sep 22, 2006 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
If Wedge is serious about getting a message to
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.

by palcal on Sep 22, 2006 11:35 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I think the way to really send a message that his defense is unacceptable is to keep pulling him late in games for a defensive replacement.  Either that, or buy him a new glove.
-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 22, 2006 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
maybe they are going to have to be creative and find a better way to improve Peralta than just "punishing" him. I having a feeling you are just going to banging your head into a wall if you think sitting him down is going to solve the problem. He's been riding him most of the season.

by hans on Sep 22, 2006 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I'd be seriously disappointed if we make the decision this off-season to somehow part ways with Peralta.  This is a guy who at age 23, while playing serviceable if not great SS, posted an EQA of .308.  Obviously this year has been a drop-off, but he's still only 24.

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.

by APV on Sep 22, 2006 11:44 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I agree. At least in the media, he has consistently picked on guys in his doghouse like broussard and Peralta, but guys like boone and Vmart don't get the same heat.

by hans on Sep 22, 2006 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Move the guy to 2B and be done with it.  Let AstroCab play SS next year.  

by SpringTrainingFun on Sep 22, 2006 1:06 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
The more I think about it, the more I think this idea has merit.
-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 22, 2006 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
It is tempting, but here are AstroCab's MLE numbers for this season:

.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.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I completely agree about these things depending on how Crowe does in instructional league.  All the same though, I'm not sure a weakly hitting shortstop on this team would be such a huge disaster.  Maybe we should have AstroCab come up just to play great defense up the middle.  At the same time, he's working on his hitting at the ML level with people like Sizemore and Hafner as examples.

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?

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 22, 2006 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Am I way, way off base here?

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.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
All of this falls back on the minor assumption that the Crowe to 2B experiment fails, and Peralta makes a successful slide to 2B.  If Crowe to 2B fails, then we have a logjam in the outfield, which could arguably be a very nice problem to have.
-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 22, 2006 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
No, I'm assuming that we need give ourselves another quality option in the middle infield, and maybe we need to think about making it a guy who can play good-or-better-quality shortstop or second base, not just second base.

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.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Moving him may help; he goes to his right much better than he does to his left, and with his strong arm he could play a littler deeper than he can at short. Now turning the double play is a different thing, never saw him play 2nd.
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2006 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I have to add, that if he begins to struggle at the ML level, the pressure is going to be immense. To the point where it can get into his head and effect his defense. I would love a defensive guy like him up here, but I think we've agreed that Seattle rushed him up a little quickly, and he needs at least one more year in AAA.

by hans on Sep 22, 2006 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Two problems with rushing A-Cab:
  1. He hurts the team if he's not ready.
  2. He burns a year of major-league service.

May be better to wait until he's ready to hold his own offensively.

by CaptainEasy on Sep 22, 2006 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Maybe even Neifi himself.

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?
You're right.  I was thinking of Neifi in his prime, when he was routinely putting up 700 OPS or better.  But even those numbers were tainted by pre-humidor Colorado park effects.

by Jay on Sep 23, 2006 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
As much as I despise Neifi Perez, he did used to have a great glove. His defense has clearly declined with age, though. Considering Detroit already has him under contract (at almost $3M) for 2007, he's as big of a longshot as anyone out there. Thank God.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 23, 2006 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I don't even find it tempting.  It's a classic case of backup QB syndrome.  Clearly Jhonny has been the most frustrating Indian to watch this year, but AstroCab has proven absolutely nothing to me.  I wouldn't make that switch.

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 22, 2006 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
In response to the speculation that Wedge is preparing to boot Peralta out of town, one (but not the only) thing stands out to me as to why it won't happen next year.  Shapiro doesn't want another Brandon Philips case hanging over his head.  Peralta starts next year.  

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.

by Pronk33 on Sep 22, 2006 1:10 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
It's not his fielding % I'm concerned about it is lack of range, or maybe he has just outgrown the SS position and is really a 3rd baseman.  
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2006 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Well he sure as hell isn't a third baseman if he's hitting like this.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
he would still be better than Boone.
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 22, 2006 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Yeah, well, Boone isn't really a third baseman anymore, either.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
         I call it a lack of a sense of urgency for keeping balls hit his way in the infield. His approach to the responsibilties of his position must infuriate the pitchers. Had the season ended yesterday, I don't think anyone could make a case that we have a starting SS on the roster for 2007 planning purposes.

by Bill Glynn on Sep 22, 2006 3:23 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I've got this great idea for evaluating managers. We're going to go through every major league team and count up all the players under the age of thirty that have improved while the manager was managing a ball club. It doesn't matter if they are Manny Ramirez entering his prime or Juan Uribe having a couple of ok years.

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.

by afh4 on Sep 22, 2006 4:49 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Yeah I have a tendency to get moving and then end up writing what seems like "THE ANSWER TO THE THREAD! EVERYONE MAY LEAVE NOW."

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.

by afh4 on Sep 22, 2006 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I love it dude.  I realize we all have a tendency towards this, since we hang out at this blog, but overanalysis has started to get out of hand.  It's mostly out of frustration, which we all share in.  We've learned some valuable things about our club for next year, let's just hope that the pieces that are still missing can be identified and brought on board.  I don't care how we do it, I just want to see the Indians play into October and bring home the big trophy.
-Erik

by drerikbrady on Sep 22, 2006 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Yeah that's where I'm coming from. Same as when I posted that we get to look forward to another 8 months of rehashing Crisp, yelling about Michaels, Wedge, etc.

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.

by afh4 on Sep 22, 2006 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Is everyone paying attention?  This is very important, one of the best lessons I ever got from a teacher.

"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?
I didn't think it was over the top at all.  It thought it was great.  But I may not be the right guy to ask.

by Jay on Sep 22, 2006 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Managers don't have anywhere near as much influence as is being claimed here.

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?
In your opinion what does a manager do? Decide when to bunt or pull a pitcher? Is that it?

Note that I am not being facetious. It sounds like this is your opinion (which may be reasonable).

by oxforddave on Sep 22, 2006 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
It's not that they don't do anything. It's that they all do the same thing or things that are so interchangeable that you can't really argue with the decision until hindsight comes into play.

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.

by afh4 on Sep 22, 2006 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I'm pretty much in agreement about the game decisions. I think the most important traits in a manager are

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

If he fails at either one, a manager will lose his team. That does not necessarily mean he is a bad manager, it happens to good ones also. But if a team is "lost" the guy has to go.

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.

by oxforddave on Sep 22, 2006 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I guess part of what's being driven at is that it's all unquantifiable. Inspiring confidence, being in touch with players, those sound like great things-but like you said, how could anyone from the outside know?

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?

by afh4 on Sep 22, 2006 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Agreed. From the outside one can only look at the thinnest of patterns. And just because a pattern is there does not mean it is significant, it may be random. It may not even be a pattern. I am already on record for the patterns I have noticed. My comments will not be repeated until my level of frustruation boils over again.

by oxforddave on Sep 22, 2006 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I'm not in disagreement with the afh4 approach to managers, but as I think Andrew has mentioned himself in the past, it's not really a defense of Wedge.  If you think the manager has little to no effect on the players (and that there's no way to measure it), then in this case, why not toss him?

by dgcambridge on Sep 22, 2006 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I've actually said before that I'd fire him just for the shock value. It's sort of a gigantic Leyland tirade. Will it affect things? I don't know. But honestly, what can it hurt?

Joe Girardi anyone....?

by afh4 on Sep 23, 2006 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Yep, I can get behind that, 100%.

by dgcambridge on Sep 23, 2006 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Nice post...Do you understand you are more or less stating that a manager is meaningless to a team?  That said, that is ridiculous!

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
This will probably be my last post this season... maybe not the best note to go out on, but here it goes:

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?
We're making Carlos Lee look good.

by palcal on Sep 22, 2006 10:46 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
The Rangers have a good deal with Michael Young.

by palcal on Sep 22, 2006 10:57 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Peralta doesn't have the ability to make adjustments. Offensively or defensively. Therefore he won't be rebounding anytime soon.

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.

by ronh on Sep 23, 2006 8:53 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Welp, you've figured it out. You should probably start applying for GM jobs.

by afh4 on Sep 23, 2006 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Replies like that are what make message boards ridiculous!  Thanks for your input and completely moronic reply...Your reply actually reminds me of a book I once read, called, "The Puppy who Lost its Way".
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?
Seems pretty unlikely Peralta would have had the success he's had if he couldn't learn and adjust.  If he can't make adjustments, a player probably fails at AA if not sooner.  And when you say Peralta can not get the bat on the ball with 2 strikes, are you really saying his batting avg with 2 strikes is 0.000?  because I bet without looking it up that it isn't.

by plato on Sep 23, 2006 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I have to agree.  Peralta has shown huge improvements in his hitting many times, from 2001 to 2002, from 2003 to 2004, from 2004 to 2005.  I guess it's possible that the growth was purely due to physical maturation, but it seems unlikely.

by Jay on Sep 23, 2006 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Jay, Ryan, have you considered a thread locking policy?

by afh4 on Sep 24, 2006 11:39 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
You could always just not read it....that's what I do (well, more specifically, open thread, then skim and/or use Back button when people start getting stupid).

by Jackdaw on Sep 25, 2006 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I know.

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.

by afh4 on Sep 25, 2006 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
I think you answered youself with that last line. Once off the main page threads die.

by hans on Sep 25, 2006 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Bridge burning?
Well can somebody post some diaries then?

by afh4 on Sep 25, 2006 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions — and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Etat_small
Eric's 2012 Cleveland Indians Projections...
Its_alive-fstn_small
Oswalt > Carmona/Heredia
Topps1978-332f_small
Indians by the Numbers — #24
Avatard_small
Nickname Seeks Indian — "Country Peach Passion"
Avatard_small
Nickname seeks Indian vote — "Fridge Magnet"
Topps1978-332f_small
Indians by the Numbers — #23
Small
Seriously Go Get Carlos Peña Now
Avatard_small
Indians by the Numbers — #22
Avatard_small
Nickname Seeks Indian: "Fridge Magnet"
Stinkees_small
Are you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Featured Poll

Poll
Will Matt LaPorta be on the opening day roster?
Yes
59 votes
No
140 votes

199 votes | Poll has closed

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

A look back at the last Tribe arbitration hearing
MLB.COM Tribe Top 20
Jared Goedert is Puddin Head Jones
Chisenhall v.  Hannahan
After watching Lindor in the Fall Instructional League, I have very little...
Coming off of an optimistic 80-82 season, is this the Indians window to win?  

See full post on Beyond the Box Score
Praising the Indians offseason
Brooks Baseball Stats
Hello my friends! I hope you guys are ready for Super Bowl Weekend? Make...
Heyman reporting Indians will sign Kotchman

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Managers

427px-nap_lajoie_1913_small Ryan

Dosequisman_small Jay

Editors

3444ant_black_small APV

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small afh4