Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Steve McNair Found Shot to Death


Indians pass on infielders?

In Paul Hoynes' latest Indians Insider article, he mentions that the two free agent infielders the Indians have been targeting are Orlando Hudson and Rafael Furcal (as we expected). According to him, though, the team determined last week that physical questions about Hudson (left wrist) and Furcal (back) weren't worth the risk of multiyear commitments. So he says the team is turning their attention to signing a closer.

I'm not sure about the validity of this story, considering the source, but if it's true then maybe the Indians think they can get an infielder through a trade (Roberts, Cano?). I know there has been a lot of talk on here about signing Hudson but it seems that may not be happening.

Hoynes also gives stats of some players in winter ball and notes that Peralta has been playing some third base.

Link 7 months ago Lebron_s_shot_tiny Buckeye Brad Comment 118 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Pluto speculates in the same issue that the Indians might (or should) look at someone like Freddy Sanchez. I’m not sure I want someone like that, but it does remind one of the possibility that they may try to improve the infield either through a trade (and not just for Roberts or Atkins) or even by being bottom feeders (trying to pick up a scrap heap type guy who might help them — someone was talking about Felipe Lopez in something I read. Ugh!!! Hey, how about Ramon Vasquez? If he grew a beard, Wedge would have him play all 9 positions!!

by peter m on Nov 30, 2008 1:11 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hadn’t really thought about Sanchez. He is 31, and prior to last season, had a couple pretty good seasons for a second baseman.
He doesn’t walk much, so he is pretty dependent on his BA to be productive. When that fell last year, it got ugly. Could be a buy low situation, or he could be declining (or, both, really). He is owed 4.5 mil in 2009 and has a 2010 club option for 8 mil. Average defense, by all accounts, and I think I saw it mentioned he has played some 3rd base, which could be helpful.
All in all, probably not worth the $ for a marginal upgrade over Jamie Carroll.

by bewwolv on Nov 30, 2008 2:21 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

ah yes vazquez with a beard… dreams so sweet.

One of these days... bang, zoom, straight to the moon...

by mixmasterasia on Nov 30, 2008 2:50 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If we are going scrap heap, why not Orlando Cabrera? He’s the completely unspectacular with the bat, but a solid defender (although maybe not as good as he was once thought) and consist as it gets over the past few years.

by hans on Nov 30, 2008 3:01 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I’d take cabera, but I assume he’ll cost too much.

by world dictator on Nov 30, 2008 8:01 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I honestly don’t think he is being considered along with Furcal and Hudson, so there is a the possibility quite a step down in cost for the next tier middle infielders. He’s not coming off of a tremendous offensive year, he hit better in LAA than Chicago. I’m interested in what others think of his defensive ability?

by hans on Nov 30, 2008 8:36 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

his defense is fo-sho overrated. by how much I’m not sure.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 1, 2008 3:54 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I just posted something over at Paul’s place about Sanchez, but I would definitely not be happy if that’s the direction the team went. As I said over there, when somebody mentions the name of a guy I don’t know real well, my first response is usually to look at the player’s graphs over at fangraphs.com. I did that with Sanchez and, um, no. That looks like the picture of a player just beginning a decline, who probably doesn’t have much margin of error in the first place.

by APV on Nov 30, 2008 3:02 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Count me out for Sanchez also — he was never that good in the first place.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 30, 2008 3:13 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Let’s give Shapiro a little credit here. Sanchez isn’t a player that they are likely to be interested in, whether it be his declining skills or his inflated reputation.

by ClarkM on Nov 30, 2008 8:48 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

*cough*nixondelucci*cough*

Roberto Hernendez

by danvail on Dec 2, 2008 8:35 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

I think you’re forgetting the relative cost of those players and the roles they were expected to play (platoons, middle reliever) as opposed to trading talent for a starting infielder.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 2, 2008 10:48 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

whatever. dolan is a tightwad and shapiro can’t draft.

by Brick. on Dec 2, 2008 11:04 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Omar y amigos.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 2, 2008 11:09 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

are we really targeting Furcal? What happens if he signs and Peralta is a complete bust at third?

by ASP on Nov 30, 2008 4:53 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Interesting thing to worry about. What if we sign Furcal and Furcal sucks eggs?

Responding to your question directly. If Peralta can’t field third base, then one of two things have happened: (1) he’s totally collapsed defensively at 27, or (2) there are some skills unique to third base that he can’t acquire for whatever reason. If it’s (1), then Jhonny’s not a baseball player any more, since I can’t imagine his bat would hold up any further down the defensive spectrum. I assume you meant (2), though. I think it’s unlikely we’d get there. The Indians saw Jhonny at third in the minors, and are seeing him there this winter. So hopefully they’d have a good enough gauge on Peralta-as-third-baseman not to paint themselves into that corner. If they do, I guess they’ve got to flip him to somebody as a shortstop. Fortunately, it’s a massive position of need throughout baseball and Jhonny’s got lots of stick for it. I have to think Shap could engineer a trade that returned a third-baseman for him.

My take, then: your hypo would be sub-ideal, but not season-threatening.

by fleerdon on Nov 30, 2008 5:39 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He is a short stop, and has the arm for the position (3B). Maybe he ends up being no better than Blake at third, but I would hardly call that a “bust”.

by hans on Nov 30, 2008 8:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Waitaminute, J.J. Putz is a trade possibility?

Let’s get a blockbuster going for Putz and Beltre.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 30, 2008 8:46 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Beltre’s splits the last three years:

home: .252/.311/.432/.743
away: .287/.338/.503/.841

He’s not an on-base guy, but he plays great defense, hits for power, and is still only 29 (he’ll be 30 next April). Get him out of Safeco, and I think he’ll put up a decent line. The downside is that he’s a year away from free agency and is a Scott Boras client.

by xrickx on Dec 1, 2008 2:10 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A year of Beltre and two from Putz would be fine with me.
While we’re at it, let’s add Brandon Morrow to the deal.
They could probably use any or all of Garko/Shoppach/Gutz/BenFran/Leftypitcherguy

by Chiefroy on Dec 1, 2008 6:47 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So YOU’RE the one that lumps all the lefties together.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 1, 2008 7:46 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Beltre, Putz and Morrow? Ooh… sign me up, and get Bavasi retroactively on the phone somehow.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 1, 2008 10:22 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I actually think Shoppach, Gutz, Laffey and Sipp would be an amazing return for Seattle. That’s four major league or major league ready players that are cheap and would fill multiple holes on starting day. If I’m Seattle, I take that in a heartbeat. If I’m the Indians, I think about the deal for awhile , see if I can include another pitcher, but take it eventually.

The broader point made here in my opinion is that the Indians have some pretty good trading chips right now. (Including other players not mentioned above) None of these players are superstars prospects, but in some ways they’re even better. They’re projectable, young, inexpensive commodities, who still have room to improve while under team control for several years.

by world dictator on Dec 2, 2008 12:23 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I would rather we not give up on trying to sign players before even 3 players sign league-wide.

by Roger Dorn on Nov 30, 2008 9:37 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

GET MIKE FONTENOT

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=6098

Bat him leadoff vs righties. Play Jamie Carroll vs the occasional lefty.

Move Cabrera and Jhonny to the right.

by Chiefroy on Dec 1, 2008 6:57 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Is he available?

First thing that caught me was the .353 baBIP, but he did have a 24.1% LD rate. He was almost exclusively used against RHP, but as you state it, he wouldn’t be used for anything more than that here.

He didn’t have as good of a campaign in 2007 overall, but if you look only at his plate-appearances vs. RHP it doesn’t sound so bad (781 OPS, but once again a .340 baBIP). This is where a better breakdown of his BIP would come in handy (anyone know where we can get fliner % for hitters?) as its possible to make a case that he has the ability to be a high LD/Fliner type hitter.

by hans on Dec 1, 2008 9:04 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Depends

Do we have a decent Lefthanded bat, preferably one who plays RF?

by world dictator on Dec 2, 2008 12:25 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

hmm, I don’t know that I’d do a trade of Choo for Fontenot even considering the position valuation. Choo was just so damn good in about the same sample size as Fontenot and in the big boy league. plust Choo’s defense at his position is probably better than Fontenot at his. We would have to get more in return.

by hans on Dec 2, 2008 2:15 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Actually I was thinking outloud, not suggesting a Choo for Fotentot trade. That’s most definetely not a trade I’d make. There’s really no point in even exploring a trade involving Choo.

by world dictator on Dec 2, 2008 3:02 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Bendix, you want to weigh in on Fontenot?

Even his PrOPS was 864. He’s a serious asset even if you mark him down to 804.

by Jay on Dec 2, 2008 2:35 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

/obligatory joke about giving him some props/

by Brick. on Dec 2, 2008 2:45 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I thought you were gonna go with obligatory joke about Fontenot not having a #2 ceiling.

by NickFantana on Dec 2, 2008 4:11 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

that phrase sounds like a nickname for one of those frat party jokes that involve sabatoging a toilet.

by Brick. on Dec 2, 2008 4:26 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I was gonna type:
“HELP, I can’t use it… the ceiling is too low… is this PED’s house?”

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 3, 2008 9:59 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I know this is hardly an ideal solution to our IF problems, but what about Mark Loretta on a one year deal? He’s only going to make $4 mil next year tops. He could play a little 2nd and a little third.

by world dictator on Dec 2, 2008 12:30 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

he still plays?

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 3, 2008 10:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rumor, and I emphasize rumor, has it that the Rays are willing to trade Bartlett. Doesn’t make much sense on the Rays part, imo but boy would I take him in a heartbeat.

Of course we probably lack the right fielder/dh the Rays are looking for, unless they’re willing to take Choo + prospect. Doubt it, but a boy can dream.

by world dictator on Dec 2, 2008 6:07 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

he has to be on another team for two more years to cease being a twin that i don’t want.

by Brick. on Dec 2, 2008 7:11 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Maybe I’m missing something, but my impression is that Bartlett is a good fielder and a not-particularly-good hitter (at least by the numbers). He would be an upgrade at SS defensively, but certainly not offensively — Jhonny had a similarly bad OBP and outslugs him by a mile. For that matter, apart from SB, Jamey Carroll’s offensive numbers last year weren’t far off Bartlett’s. I haven’t watched Bartlett a lot, I confess, so maybe he’s that good a fielder. But, trading Choo AND a prospect for him … I don’t know.

by peter m on Dec 2, 2008 9:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah, I wasn’t thinking of including a major prospect,more of a throw in actually. But given Bartlett’s age, I agree a 1:1 trade is more appropriate.

Though I doubt the Indians would agree to that trade. However, I wouldn’t put it pass Shapiro to put together a creative trade to acquire Bartlett. He seems like the kind of player Shapiro would target.

by world dictator on Dec 2, 2008 10:25 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Pssh. I wouldn’t trade Choo one-for-one. Maybe Francisco.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 2:09 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah, some other team is going to value him as a cheap, young starter for multiple years — they won’t want to give him away cheap, just as we won’t with Shoppach.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2008 2:11 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Francisco I’d trade. But, I ’d rather keep Choo.

by peter m on Dec 3, 2008 9:18 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Let’s trade Dellucci instead. I bet Tampa would go for that too!

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 10:38 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well that’s the point I’m trying to make. Bartlett certainly isn’t worth anything we would have to give up, and the Rays have no reason to accept what we’d offer.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 10:50 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

ie what I said in my first post ;-)

But on the other hand I think there’s three team trade potential here.

Cle sends Shoppach to X team
X team sends RF/DH to Tampa
Tampa sends Bartlett+ prospect to Cle and Prospect to X team.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 10:55 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not exactly what you said in your first post because I am religiously opposed to a Bartlett deal that would involve Choo.

Again, I just don’t see why we would want Bartlett.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 11:05 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree. I don’t see why we would want to give up Choo (or Shoppach) to acquire Bartlett unless there were other players involved that would help us.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2008 11:16 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I’m not sure what kind of return you’re expecting for Shoppach but Bartlett and a prospect seems like a pretty good return.

And considering the lack of options at both 3B and 2nd/SS I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the value of acquiring Bartlett.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 11:52 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Your Honor. The defense rests.

Bartlett is Jamey Carroll pretty much.

And I’m not sure how you quantify “a prospect,” as if they’re all the same. Throw in a prospect and the deal’s a win-win-win.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 11:59 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

like this guy?

I hear he can START AND CLOSE!

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 3, 2008 10:04 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah maybe the Rays don’t know about him yet.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 10:34 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I’d give Benfran + Looch for him, but not Choo.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 3, 2008 10:03 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Except the problem with your argument is that Carroll is a part time player and Bartlett is not. Not to mention Carroll is 34 and Bartlett is 28

I suspect that if Carroll were a full time player and 28, he would have a lot of value as well. Especially if Carroll had the same cheap contract Bartlett does.

Bartlett might not be a superstar but he plays solid defense and has a solid bat (though flawed offensively).

Like I said, I’m not sure what you’re expecting for Shoppach but I doubt we’d get anything better. And acquiring Bartlett is a lot better option than signing Hudson for $50 mil or signing Nefi Perez.

As for the PTBNL prospect. I admit I’m being fairly vague, but the way I see it, unless you have a decent understanding of another teams system we’re just shooting in the dark anyways.

Chances are the prospect we would get in this trade, or any trade, isn’t someone we’ve heard of unless its a fairly big trade. The way I see it, when it comes to trades, prospects are generally “superstar prospects”, “solid prospects” or A ball prospect with high upside.

Thus, when I say we would get Bartlett + a prospect, I mean someone from the latter two categories.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 2:54 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I have no idea what you mean by “Carroll is a part time player and Bartlett is not.” Players who are part-time players are such because they’re not good enough to play every day. And a part-time player for one team may be a starter for another team, and vice versa. So I don’t know what you mean by that classification. If you mean that Bartlett is better than Carroll, then just say that.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2008 3:05 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Come on Brad, spare me your unnecessary semantics. By part time player I mean in Carroll’s six year career he’s only had more than 400 AB once. I also mean that Wedge says he considers Carroll a part time player and will use him as such.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 3:28 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Seems to me that you were the one with the unnecessary semantics, and Brad was debunking them.

Either “part-time player” has a specific meaning and relevance or it doesn’t. Was Carroll being protected by favoring his splits? Does he tire easily? What, exactly?

by Jay on Dec 3, 2008 5:09 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I respectfully disagree.

Carroll’s playing history and Wedge’s statements give a pretty conclusive definition of part time. A player who has historically played part time and who will continue to play part time for the foreseable future.

Similarly, if I said Bob Howry is a relief pitcher and Cliff Lee is a starting pitcher I don’t think you would be questioning my use of terms.

If you or Brad think that Carroll shouldn’t be a part time player or you disagree with my definition then you should make the argument instead of playing the "what is " game. Similarly, if you want to argue that Bartlett would only be a part time player on the Indians then I’m willing to listen, but once again the burden is on you to make the point.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 5:42 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think Carroll should be a part-time player if we have better players who can start. I think Carroll should be a starter if we don’t have better players at his position. That’s what makes a part-time player; his talents relative to the other talents on the team. It’s not some defined position as you seem to be making it out to be.

In my whole life of talking baseball, I’ve never heard someone argue that a certain player is better than another player because he’s a full-time player while the other person is a part-time player. Just say that you think Bartlett is a better player, and show us the stats to prove it. You’re the one making the statement, so you need to prove it to us.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2008 5:54 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Also, Kelly Shoppach is a part-time player. Does that mean every starting catcher is better than him?

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2008 6:03 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Actually Brad you misunderstood my original point.

First, the origin of this argument is that Bartlett is no better than Carroll. Nick’s link compared both Carroll’s and Bartlett’s 2008 stats. However Bartlett, despite being injured, had more than 100 AB more than Carroll. Why? Because Carroll only played part time while Bartlett started.

My point was that saying Bartlett is just Carroll is not an argument against Bartlett because if Carroll put up those kinds of stats on a full time basis and was 28 he would have a much higher value similar to what Bartlett’s value is, imo.

My argument was not Carroll plays part time and Bartlett starts therefore Bartlett is better. You might disagree with my analysis and conclusion but my usage of part time is sound given Wedges comments and Carroll’s career.

Second, Carroll’s value relative to the Indians is as a part time player. That is a descriptive fact. The only way your “part time player is relative” argument makes any sense in this context is if you also argue that Bartlett would only be a part time player on the Indians. Once again, an argument I’ll listen to but one you need to make first.

Third, and I’ll admit this argument has a certain subjectivity to it, if Carroll were a player who other teams thought could play full time at an acceptable level, then 1. Carroll would have probably signed with those teams 2. Carroll would have probably demanded more money to re-sign and 3. Colorado would have probably demanded more in exchage for trading him to Cleveland.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 8:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My point was that saying Bartlett is just Carroll is not an argument against Bartlett because if Carroll put up those kinds of stats on a full time basis and was 28 he would have a much higher value similar to what Bartlett’s value is, imo.

You’re confusing me a little. Do you mean if Carroll had put up Bartlett’s stats given Bartlett’s playing time, Carroll would have higher value? Because that would be worse than what Carroll did with less ABs.

Or are you saying if we extrapolate Carroll’s numbers over Bartlett’s ABs Carroll would be equal to Bartlett? Because again, Carroll would definitely be better.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 10:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I’m saying the latter. Also, I’m curious why you think Carroll would be better than Bartlett offensively if they had the same number of AB’s. And I say this completely open to being convinced.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 11:17 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Because Carroll shows much better patience and greater pitch selectivity than Bartlett. It’s impressive considering he’s often coming into a game after several days off.

Also!

If you’re saying the latter—“if we extrapolate Carroll’s numbers over Bartlett’s ABs Carroll would be equal to Bartlett”—doesn’t that mean there’s no point in acquiring Bartlett?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 11:24 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Let’s go reverse order because that’s way more fun.

1a. my point more specifically was that if Carroll could put up those numbers as a full time player he would have a higher value. Bartlett has proven he can, a point I know is in contest, which is why he has more value.

1b If Carroll could put up those numbers playing full time then they’res no reason to acquire Bartlett, or any other FA middle infielder, in my opinion. (Particularly given the market.)

1c Of course could is the key word in both of the previous points. It seems that most GM’s, ours included, don’t see Carroll as a full time player. I base this observation on his playing time in two previous organizations and his willinginess to re-sign in Cleveland as a part time player. Of course this is just inductive reasoning, but I’d say its a fairly sound conclusion.

1d If Carroll can start full time, I’m interested in hearing and learning from these arguments. This is the point I’m least sure about one way or another, which is why I supported acquiring Bartlett (and prospect) earlier. Which takes us to point #2.

2. Is patience and pitch selectivity measured in strikeouts as well? In approx 100 less AB Carroll struck out 65 times as opposed to Bartletts 69 times. If Carroll played full time it seems like he would likely strikeout more.

2a. Why does Carroll’s ability to draw walks automatically make him the better player? I understand walking is important, but I don’t understand why its enough to give a clear advantage over one player.

by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 12:39 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

All right I’ll follow along your outline.

1a.

if Carroll could put up those numbers as a full time player he would have a higher value

Again, what numbers are we talking about here? Bartlett’s numbers were worse. Your argument is that Carroll would perform worse given more ABs, so you’re saying he would… perform… much like Bartlett. As in worse. Seriously, what “numbers”? OPS? OPS+? EqA? wOBA?

1b.

they’res

Ow.

1c. Yes I would much prefer to get a better player for our MI situation, just like our FO would. Since I wouldn’t want to give Carroll the starting job I CERTAINLY don’t want to give Bartlett—the lesser offensive player—that job either.

1d. From now on you’re only allowed to say “and prospect” if you actually look at Tampa’s system and suggest a player. This tiered prospect thing is BS. You can’t just blanket a second player as a prospect and expect me to attach a value to that. If you don’t know the system don’t bring it up.

2.

Is patience and pitch selectivity measured in strikeouts as well? In approx 100 less AB Carroll struck out 65 times as opposed to Bartletts 69 times.

Granted. I actually have already pointed that out. But players who see pitches are going to have counts go against them. Bartlett is a hacker. Carroll’s advantage in walks (again, despite the way fewer ABs) and OBP should suggest he’s the more patient hitter. I don’t care how Carroll makes outs as long as he’s doing it less often than Bartlett.

2a.

Why does Carroll’s ability to draw walks automatically make him the better player? I understand walking is important, but I don’t understand why its enough to give a clear advantage over one player.

Ok, well which statistic would you prefer? The ones I mentioned higher up in my post? We could compare those ones instead. Of course Bartlett does have some advantages. His BA was almost 10 points higher. He showed massive power (.361 SLG) over Carroll (.346 SLG) which resulted in 1 home run.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 8:41 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Carroll’s EQA and PA the last three years, starting from most recent: .267 (402), .227 (268), .263 (534).

Bartlett: .264 (494), .267 (570), .274 (372).

After considering their ages, I’d say Bartlett is likely to be the better offensive player, but the difference isn’t likely to be worth the cost to acquire him.

by ClarkM on Dec 4, 2008 9:37 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Woah how’d I miss that? Good call sir. I knew I had a long post ahead of me and I glanced at the numbers.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 7:42 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nick, I really appreciated your reply which was 90% snark and 10%’ substance.

Maybe next time you’ll give me a straight anwser to my questions, instead of trying to be funny. (The key word here is try.) I can admit I don’t know everything about baseball or I might base my arguments on different assumptions than other people. So I’m really hoping for a substantive anwser to my questions.

So here I go trying again.

1. I’m still genuinely curious why you think Carroll in a full time role would put up numbers similar to or better than the numbers he put up in a part time role.

2. You say Carroll put up better numbers but isn’t this mostly due to Carroll’s walk rate. My back of the envelope math, which I literally did on the back of an envelope, says that if Bartlett had 10 more walks his OBP would go from .321 to .350. This in turn would raise his OPS from .690 to .711.

I suspect that if Bartlett OPS’ed .711 with an OBP of .350 you would hold a much more favorable opinion of Bartlett. So I don’t get why 10 walks can turn a good player into a bad player.

by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 11:27 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

wait wait wait. we get to add stats to guys now?

i would like to add 5 homeruns and 13 steals to carroll’s numbers to make him more attractive.

by Brick. on Dec 4, 2008 11:31 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Don’t be silly. Add to his OPS or OBP. That’s where its at.

But in all seriousness, I’m not adding stats or trying to pretend Bartlett actually had a .350 obp. Instead I’m breaking down the stats and asking does the difference in 10 walks make or break a player.

(I don’t know the anwser to that question)

by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 11:58 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think ten walks is actually pretty significant. If it’s over 500 PA, that’s a 2% difference in walk rate, as in the difference between 8% and 10%. It isn’t massive, but it is significant.

Keep in mind, the walks aren’t just baserunners and non-outs, which is their primary significance, but also signifiers of the overall soundness of the player’s approach at the plate. A player with a higher walk rate is going to be a tougher out over a longer period of time, more consistent as a hitter overall and tougher to beat with scouting reports.

by Jay on Dec 4, 2008 10:34 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ryan Garko OPS’sd .750 and we think he had a bad year (and have doubts about him longer term). He’s not a shortstop, obviously, but .711 (with or without added walks) is not a good number.

by peter m on Dec 4, 2008 11:56 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Garko disappered for four months and only had two good weeks at a premium offensive position that’s a lot easier to fill.

by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 12:02 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agreed, 711 OPS is not a bad OPS for a decent shortstop.

by Jay on Dec 4, 2008 10:36 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Honestly there was one bit of snark in my post and it was when I drew attention to your spelling of “they’res” which, let’s be honest, was pretty outrageous. Besides, I didn’t make a single joke in the entire reply so I’m not sure where the “trying to be funny” comment comes. Read it again if you have to.

Again, I’ll respond as you’ve numbered them:

1.

I’m still genuinely curious why you think Carroll in a full time role would put up numbers similar to or better than the numbers he put up in a part time role.

I didn’t. I’m saying right now Carroll is outperforming Bartlett on offense. I made those arguments and I won’t restate them for the sake of your inability to scroll up. That’s not snark. It’s likely that in a full time role Carroll’s numbers would slip and look more like Bartlett’s. Which means if Carroll got worse he would be equal to Bartlett. THEREFORE if we already have a Bartlett-esque player on the roster why would we pay something in talent to acquire him? There is no obvious benefit other than we would have Bartlett longer. Can’t you admit that? Why do we need Jason Bartlett? If your goal is to have a Carroll-esque player for even longer, then sir, your goals suck.

2. If the Queen had… etc. etc. etc.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 7:53 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yawn. I waited all day for that?

Anyways, this argument bores me. And in all honest Nick, you and I have much more important things to talk about like how were going to convince Seattle to trade Beltre to Cleveland.

by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 7:59 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Seriously. It’s all becoming circular anyway.

Eyes on the prize. Wonder Twin powers activate! Form of: USS BELTRE.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 8:39 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Geez, Nick, why do you have to be so mean to people?

by Jay on Dec 4, 2008 10:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think what Brad thinks — unlike “starter” and “reliever,” “part-time” often is more based on circumstance and roster construction than actual ability or suitability. Most relievers are not capable of starting and some starters couldn’t relieve. If a player is good in a part-time role, however, he likely would be nearly as good in a full-time role, unless he’d be leaving a platoon situation. Neifi Perez was an everyday player, Willy Taveras still is. Has nothing to do with their quality of play, and they certainly were no better suited to it than Carroll.

The point is that Carroll seems every bit as suitable to play every day as Bartlett, and Bartlett is as appropriate of a choice for a part-time role as Carroll. You don’t get to magically declare that not to be the case, just because Wedge says so. What, are we now saying Wedge is always right about giving doling out playing time to infielders? Hm?

by Jay on Dec 3, 2008 5:59 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I have no problem with most of what you’re saying, but then again this is more along the lines of what I said to Brad.

 You might believe Carroll is capable of starting for Cleveland or Bartlett shouldn’t start for Cleveland but that’s an argument for you to make, not me. (And your post above provides a barebones argument in that direction.)

I simply made a descriptive claim based on Carroll’s history and statements made from the front office, Carroll is a part time player. You and Brad seem to be making a nomintive claim, Carroll is capable of starting.

And while I don’t consider Wedge to be the end all be all, I’d argue that the managers opinion on how he plans to utilize that player is a pretty good way to gauge if a player is part time or full time on his current team.

Bottomline: Whether Carroll is capable of starting is irrelevant to my description of him being a part time player.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 8:27 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I’m not claiming Carroll is capable of starting, nor saying that he’s better than Bartlett. I haven’t looked up the stats because I don’t really care that much right now. As I’ve said all along, I thought your statement that Carroll is a part-time player and Bartlett isn’t, so we therefore we would prefer Bartlett, was a silly argument to make. I don’t know why you didn’t just say (and you still won’t just say) that Bartlett is a better player. All this “part-time player” stuff is just nonsense.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2008 10:01 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

rec

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 4, 2008 12:26 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah, I know where to get those stats. Like I said, I wasn’t trying to argue who was better so that’s why I didn’t bother looking them up. You don’t need to try to make me look like an idiot.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 4, 2008 7:18 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I wasn’t trying. I actually kind of wanted everyone to have the link there so we could look at Carroll’s superior season any time we wanted.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 8:42 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

OK, sorry. You have never seemed like the type to be a jerk so I shouldn’t have assumed so.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 4, 2008 2:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

At no point did I ever say, Bartlett is a better player soley because he plays more than Carroll. In fact I explictly stated that was not the point I was trying to make. I don’t know where you’re getting lost but I’ve stated it as clearly as I can.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 11:12 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That “Hm?” at the end made me chuckle. So line-in-the-sand.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 10:40 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I also think you need to look at acquiring Bartlett in terms of the other moves we’re going to make/we can still make if we acquire Bartlett.

Bartlett made less than $1 mil dollars this year. He’s arb eligble so he might make $2-3 mill this year. If we spend $10 mil per year on a closer then we’re only going to have around $5 mil left. Do you know of a better MI we can acquire for $5 mil or less?

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 4:03 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What Carroll lacks in the age advantage he makes up for in patience. Despite 100+ less ABs Carroll walked 12 more times and struck out 4 less times than Bartlett.

Are you sure he’s a solid defender?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 3:13 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No offensive Nick, but that’s non responsive to my point. I’m not arguing that Jason Bartlett is a perfect offensive player without flaws, I’m arguing that Bartlett is a solid all around contributor, who’s cheap and under control for a couple of years. Not to mention he’s a much better option than the old crappy and expensive middle IF market.

As for his defense, he was 3rd in the AL in ZR (9th in the ML) and 6th in the AL in Range.

by world dictator on Dec 3, 2008 3:55 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ok, I understand your opinion that Bartlett is “solid” enough to acquire even though his offensive output is less than Jamey Carroll’s and his defense is likely on par.

I just don’t agree.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 10:54 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Something I’ve been thinking about our second baseman in 2009. He’s going to be

1. a free agent (looking increasingly less likely — if it’s not that Orlando guy and it’s not that other guy, I don’t think it’s going to be a free agent), or
2. somebody we trade for, either as a long-term or a short-term fix, who would be more expensive on account of the supply variable to #1 slipping down the curve. It’s been said that no second basemen (or shortstops, for that matter) are “available.” That’s a relative term, of course. Everything’s for sale. Brian Roberts IS for sale. Hey, Brandon Wood’s for sale. We just wouldn’t like the asking price.

And maybe this next part doesn’t factor into the decision, sunk cost and all, but still. Here’s what we’ve fed into the hole at second in recent years: our investment in Brandon Phillips as a prospect, half a season of Eduardo Perez (sort of), Sean Smith, Kevin Kouzmanoff, Andrew Brown, the remnants of Ron Belliard, and the return in the trade of the remnants of Ron Belliard. (Hector Luna OPS’d 750 in Syracuse last year.) The less rational decision-maker in me… my dad memorably calls it “the male f*** it gene”… is ready to do just that. I’m tired of wasting resources on this problem. We’ve got a very promising group of players at every position but one, and if you consider Asdrubal a shortstop, we’re not going to “fill” that position unless we overspend or we downgrade our expectations.

So, that’s kind of where I’m at on second base. Punt. Jamey Carroll and the Josh BarField of Dreams. Baseball is not feng shui. The purpose of a front office is to put a team on the field, not to balance my id. Figure something else out later, maybe mid-season when we’ve got some deadline leverage to work with. Spend the money where it can be spent more efficiently. Just, for the love of Pete, stop batting Jamey Carroll second.

by fleerdon on Dec 3, 2008 11:36 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Step back from the ledge dude. Droobs at 2B is not a bad thing. The argument that he’s our best SS may not be wrong, but it has yet to be proved that he’s not a better 2B than a SS.

The same could be said of BP, actually.

I’m still stubbornly holding out for a Casey Blake signing so I can trash the FO, but I’m starting to think that Wedge and Shap will finally admit, weeping at night under a gibbous moon with a couple of beers on the cliff over the quarry where they pledged to be joined at the hip forever, that Casey and his griity beard has got just too uptown for them, and they’ll have to make do with what they got.

Which means Asdrubal at 2B, Jhonny at SS, and… what? They got Marte, Carroll and Barfield. You could see a variety of infield alignments with that mix, but if it comes down to it, Marte is going to get first playing time at 3B. He’s on the roster fer chrissakes, and is the best third baseman.

by mcrose on Dec 4, 2008 1:15 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Step back from the ledge? There’s no panic here. Just fatigue.

I happen to agree with you. I’d be fine with heading into the season Marte – Peralta – Cabrera – whoever. So long as Marte, and not Carroll, is the actual third baseman, and so long as Barfield gets a chance if he merits it. I’m responding to the situation on the ground, where that scenario seems awfully unlikely.

by fleerdon on Dec 4, 2008 11:16 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I was just making a funny with the ledge quip – so what scenario do you consider most likely?

Since it seems comfirmed now that we’re not going to sign a FA middle infielder, barring a trade it looks to me like we’ll go into 09 with Asdrubal at 2B and Jhonny at SS again. The question mark is at 3B, not 2B. At least that’s the way I see it.

by mcrose on Dec 4, 2008 12:04 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I’m increasingly convinced they’re going to find a way to get JP to 3B. There’s literally no options at 3B if the Indians have ruled out Blake and are cool on Crede. I think they’d rather go with Barf/Carroll at 2B or sign someone like Loretta than to try to dig up a 3B.

If JP actually goes to 3B I suspect it’ll be for keeps and that raises an interesting question for me-how much value does Hodges have?

by afh4 on Dec 4, 2008 12:11 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i feel like we’re going to sign a FA closer next week, then we’re going to hold out till the end of spring training and see what’s left to snag on the cheap for all other needs.

by Brick. on Dec 4, 2008 12:14 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

guys, its jason bartlett. we can’t honestly be talking about him.

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 4, 2008 12:26 AM EST reply reply actions actions   1 recs

Maybe we can get Pedroia instead

by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 12:41 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

well, no. but i fail to see how jason bartlett is a significant enough upgrade over anything on our roster to warrant moving pieces for him.

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 4, 2008 12:13 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

this sums it up for me.

by Brick. on Dec 4, 2008 12:15 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I hear he has a hot wife.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 8:43 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I thought Jason Bartlett was bad defensively?

by afh4 on Dec 4, 2008 9:41 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

See this is what I keep thinking. The only person who disagrees and has a valued opinion on the matter is Tango, which I’ll admit makes me pause a bit.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 7:56 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

According to +/-, he has been +30 over the past three seasons, though this past year was his worst. Who says that he’s bad?

by ClarkM on Dec 4, 2008 11:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This whole time I’ve assumed he was average. This based more on memory of the numbers than anything anecdotal or anything I’ve very recently looked up. My argument has been Jamey Carroll is just as average at more positions. But wow, +30? Frankly that’s news to me. Considering he was -1 in 2008 that’s quite a weird drop-off (going from turf to… turf). I wish there was a BRef for all the defensive metrics so I could just glance at them during debates.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 5, 2008 12:26 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

28 seems a little young for his skills to rapidly deteriorate so I’m assuming a large part of it was him having a bad season. That said, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to rebound to his previous form.

by ClarkM on Dec 5, 2008 12:40 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well I’ve always felt that a player’s D is no different than a player’s offense, meaning they can fluctuate from year to year and it might not mean much.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 5, 2008 12:25 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It doesn’t usually fluctuate as much, though. It may be a similar fluctuation if you correct for BIP variance.

by Jay on Dec 5, 2008 2:16 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Worth note, I thought:

The A’s abruptly pulled out of the Rafael Furcal sweepstakes Friday after the free-agent shortstop rejected their four-year contract offer.
The A’s had given Furcal a Saturday deadline to accept their offer, according to major-league sources. When Furcal rejected the deal, team officials informed Kinzer they would move on to other pursuits.
No other club is believed to have given Furcal a four-year proposal, but Kinzer said length of contract is only one consideration.

“That isn’t a deal-breaker,” Kinzer said. “There are a lot of other things that go into it.”

The Giants talked to Furcal before signing free agent Edgar Renteria on Thursday to a two-year, $18.5 million contract.
Furcal, 31, could expand his market if he were willing to move to second base, a position he has played extensively in winter ball.

All of this could mean a better deal if the Indians wanted to get back in the mix. All of this could mean that the Indians still aren’t interested because of the injury concerns. Or it could all mean nothing I suppose. The article notes that he’s still looking for $10M+/year.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 6, 2008 12:40 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Wow
that
is
interesting.

by Jay on Dec 6, 2008 12:58 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well I took different bits and pieces from the article.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 6, 2008 1:36 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Constantly updated CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Start posting about the Indians »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Junkballer_small
Anatomy of a Wasted Season

Recent FanPosts

Dv-pabst_small
Your 2009 American League All-Stars
Hansonnnnn_small
In regards to Victor Martinez and Ryan Garko
Junkballer_small
The Struggles of Uncle Jhonny
Burgandy_1__small
Is Our Fans Learning?
Indiansfan-possibleavatarforlgt_minorleagueball__small
It's Time to Begin Working Toward 2010!
Hand_small
Shapiro's Latin American Endeavors
Small
Seeking Jamie Moyer
Jaketaylor_small
Start it with Shapiro
Jaret_small
Kerry Wood - 3 and out?

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

Featured Poll

Poll
Biggest 2009 Breakout
Asdrubal Cabrera
84 votes
Jhonny Peralta
63 votes
Anthony Reyes
51 votes
Jensen Lewis
4 votes
Matt LaPorta
70 votes
David Huff
25 votes
Scott Lewis
14 votes
Aaron Laffey
12 votes
Tony Sipp
13 votes
Ben Francisco
28 votes
Travis Hafner
96 votes

460 votes | Poll has closed

BUY THE BOOK

Indians Annual 2009 from Maple Street Press

FanShots

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

Recent FanShots

Martin Shines at AAA Syracuse
Gotta love the media
Herges DFA, Abreu Up
Independence Day Rumor Rundown
View From the Booth: Carmona to the Clippers
Meloan dealt to Rays
Newsflash: Zombie Marte Sighted by Fangraphs
Nyjer Morgan is a Valuable Asset...
Indians international prospect ages three years overnight
DeRosa to Have Tests on Wrist

Post_icon New FanShot All FanShots Carrot-mini

SweetBabooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Sweet Baboo, now with glitter


Managers

Seagull_on_sale_pier_small Ryan

Walter_small Jay

Authors

3444ant_black_small APV

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small afh4

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports