POLL: Offseason Options
by stickpiano on Dec 16, 2008 12:09 PM EST
Email
PrintWell, the Indians are getting closer to being finished this offseason. Does the FO really see Valbuena as the immediate solution to 2B? Is the FO satisfied with Marte and Barfield battling it out at the last chance saloon in Goodyear? Is the FO ready to go with their surplus of 4th and 5th starters as the 3/4/5 in the rotation?
What direction do you think the FO should take with the remainder of its offseason resources? Lets cover the options:
1. Sign an infielder to play 2nd or 3rd in 2009. The options include Joe Crede, Ty Wiggington, Craig Counsell, Juan Uribe at 3B and Ray Durham, Jerry Hairston Jr, Mark Grudzielanek, Damion Easley, or Aaron Miles at 2B.
2. Sign another starting pitcher. The affordable and semi-affordable options include Freddy Garcia, Jon Garland, Randy Wolf, Chuck James, Braden Looper, Brad Penny, Odalis or Oliver Perez, and Tim Redding.
3. Trade for another starting pitcher. The most likely scenario involves Kelly Shoppach. The Red Sox seem like a likely suitor with Justin Masterson a potential target.
4. Trade for another infielder. I heard one person throw out a Shoppach for Jed Lowrie trade, but I don't like that scenario any more now that Valbuena is in the fold.
5. Stay put. This option means you are comfortable with having 3 of the following names in the rotation for 2009: Anthony Reyes, Jeremy Sowers, Scott Lewis, Aaron Laffey and Zach Jackson. This also means you are comfortable with either Barfield, Marte or Valbuena breaking camp as an every day starter.
Please vote in the poll and then use the comments to discuss your answer. Personally I would prefer to sign a starting pitcher and keep Shoppach for a mid-season acquisition that could put us over the top.
186 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Infielder value?
Beyond the Box Score had a post a month ago on gauging hitters value relative to their WAR. Two interesting IF made the list.
BTBS had Grudzielanek worth a 1 year 12 million dollar contract and Ray Durham worth 10 million. If you could sign either guy for 1 year 4-6 million, do you do it? Durham probably needs a platoon partner, but Carroll could probably handle it.
Joe Crede
Incidentally, Crede came in at 15 million and Orlando Hudson came in at 16 million. Crede could potentially be the best bargain of the bunch – IF he can stay healthy.
there has to be some injury consideration done here….Crede has major back problems and Hudson is coming off wrist surgery. those aren’t minor risks – and as we are all becoming aware in the real world, properly valuing risk is important
Right, but if there’s an infielder out there that I want, it’s him. Because of this, I might vote to stay pat.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by “him” – I’m assuming you mean Hudson. I would have been in that camp, but not now with the acquisition of Valbuena. I don’t think Valbuena’s going to step in right away, but he seems like a reasonable bet to provide a cheap option for 2010 onwards. No reason to sign a guy for 4/40 when we only need a 1-year fix…for now at least.
You forgot Randy Johnson as an option.
Also, what about the DH/1B/LF talent void? Certainly, signing someone there needs to be an option.
re: Randy Johnson – yeah, I forgot him, but the list says “options include” and then instructs you to discuss your choice in the comments…so if you voted for an option based on someone one not included in the list, it is probably good to include the name in the comments.
Did you vote for signing an SP? Do you think Randy is an option? I figured he’d be out of our price range, but I’m interested in hearing more.
As for the big bat void – I didn’t include that as an option because I feel that isn’t our biggest need and we are stuck with Delucci for the time being. I’m fine with a Looch/Ben Fran/Sizemore/Choo OF picture for now, with Crowe hopefully forcing us to DFA Looch based on a massive spring. I am not in favor of rushing LaPorta or Brantley. I want to maximize their service time completely. It is the only way we can survive financially. Maximize the non-arbitration years, sign affordable long-term extensions for their arbitration years and first few years of free agency.
The big bat void, IMO, is more worrisome at DH and 1B than LF. The trouble is, that between Hafner, Garko, and Francisco (can’t bring myself to include Delucci as an option here) someone is not going to produce at a ML level. Those being the three positions typically associated with the most productive offensive players, it’s hard to just write off the idea of trying to find someone you could rely on there.
I actually didn’t vote, because my vote would probably go there. Second vote is for a #3, but I’m terrified of the FA options available, at least on a multiyear contract. That’s why, as faninteeexas, says, if Johnson is available for one year around ~$10M, I choose him.
Alright, i went with signing an SP. But let’s be clear here: I don’t mean at $12 M per.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
i’m not against this. penny isn’t that far removed from some pretty good numbers. could be a ‘millwood’ type signing. although, penny’s good years were in the NL…
Weren’t Millwood’s good years prior to the Indians in the NL too? Braves and Phillies I believe.
by world dictator on Dec 16, 2008 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
One thing that I don’t want to see is this hypothetical Barfield vs. Marte deathmatch. I mean, I don’t care about the deathmatch itself, but I care about Peralta being ready for the season. If he’s going to move to 3B, he should be playing every inning there by the start of March, if not sooner. That is not compatible with a wait-and-see approach on the rest of the infield.
agreed. which is why i’m still expecting some sort of veteran stop-gap signing either at 3B or 2B. We sign a 3B, Peralta stays at SS and Cabrera at 2B for 2009, Carroll rotates around, and whoever we sign plays at least part-time (80-100 starts) at 3B. If we sign a 2B, Peralta and Cabrera make the official switch left, and the signee starts at 2B (with regular subs from Carroll) until Barf or Valbuena step up and claim the spot.
i think i agree.
especially if we can get durham, grudz or hairston on cheap 1 year deals. i think that makes the most sense, and should leave the payroll flexibility in place for a shoppach for a pitcher trade. especially if the pitcher is a cost-controlled one like masterson.
can’t we just have kouzmanoff back?
I’m not in the Grudz camp…which means I have migrated over the course of the off-season from the Hudson camp, to the Beltre camp, to the Grudz camp.
about to post that I’m thinking about him being the best option for infield improvement at the least cost. He fields the position well and can split some time with Carroll or whoever moves up from AAA between Valbuena and Barfield during the season. He can likely come on a one year deal, maybe an option where he fills in for Carroll in 2010.
My guess is that Masterson, even if available, would cost Kelly and Laffey, for starters. The Red Sox have an excellent Big 3, but are thin after that and would demand a starter. I’m all for maximizing Kelly’s trade value and would like to see him in a package that brings in a high-upside starter.
Moving Laffey for Masterson seems very much like marching in place to me. I’m starting to wonder if Kelly, valuable though he may be, is really going to command a viable starter on the trade market. That’s a two-part question, too: When is the return for Kelly so low that he’s more valuable to us than he is in returned value?
by fleerdon on Dec 16, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think Kelly alone brings in the type of pitcher I’d like to see. Kelly-plus-Laffey should net a pitcher who is one Shoppach-unit better than Laffey.
I’ll leave it to others to determine whether Masterson is worth that, given his fairly thin record. But I’d like to see the Indians use this window of opportunity to see if Shoppach is enough of a cornerstone to get us a significant upgrade.
I’d rather supplement Shoppach with a good position player prospect, if possible, than trade Laffey…. Maybe I’m overvaluing the Laffster, but I can’t see it making sense to trade the best of our 4/5 starters to get a starter. Sowers or Lewis I’d do (of course they’re obviously less valuable, so that would probably dictate the inclusion of a lesser prospect in addition), but Laffey is too valuable in my mind.
Is Masterson a full Shoppach unit better than Laffey? I’ve never watched him start, but I’m skeptical.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 16, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
I’m using Laffey for exactly that reason. He’s probably the only one in that cohort who has trade value. Nobody wants Sowers. I’m using Masterson because he’s the example given in Option 3 above and because Boston needs a catcher.
i’m certainly open to other scenarios for a shoppach trade. the sox aren’t the only team in need of catching help.
any ideas or targets?
i like josh johnson or ricky nolasco from florida too.
posada is back, but probably not as a full-time catcher. they would probably use shoppach much like we did last year. is it a big enough need that they would trade cano, kennedy or hughes…probably not. plus, i’m not sold on kennedy being any different than laffey.
i think i’m with the people who think we need to package shoppach with a top 10 prospect to get anything decent, and provided that player is pre-arb, i’m on board.
You’re probably right that he’s the only one of that group with trade value — I guess I don’t see that making sense, and I’d rather trade hitting prospects if we can.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 16, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
Sounds like one of those situations in which the reason a guy has trade value is the reason you can’t trade him.
Something I posted over at Paul’s yesterday: We needed 12 starters to get through last season, and 7 to get through 2007 (including Laffey, who was way the hell down the depth chart out of spring training). I’m not inspired to start dealing from the 8ish starters we have now, not when so many of them are question marks anyway.
As far as finding a new guy, I think Shoppach + prospects could get the job done, but it would really, really hurt. I think we’d be looking at at least one of our top ten.
by fleerdon on Dec 16, 2008 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
I think it would take one of the top ten, but I’d do it if the return is an above average pre-arb guy.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 16, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
I absolutely disagree. There’s no reason to believe Boston would ask for Laffey in addition to Shoppach.
If Boston needs another starting pitcher then they would simply hang on to the known quality of Masterson, who is the superior pitching talent.
I don’t take Epstein as the type of GM who would downgrade a starting pitcher and allow the consolation prize to fill a spot in the rotation. You either need a starting pitcher or you don’t.
Besides, with Bucholz, Bowden, and their other AAA starters, not to mention possible Free Agents, why would Boston want Laffey when they have better options?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to bash Laffey or worship Masterson. I realistically don’t know which is better. But if you propose/make that trade I think you’re saying Masterson is the better pitcher.
I suspect this is just another case of suggesting a certain prospect/player because we’ve heard of them. Sort of like when people suggest we include Adam Miller in trade proposals because they’re unaware of a “decent prospect” to suggest instead.
by world dictator on Dec 17, 2008 5:34 AM EST up reply actions
Well, that’s not really what I mean. If we sign a stopgap at either position, that’s the end of the road for Marte, because Barfield is a far more logical backup. I believe the Indians will value Barfield more highly as a cheap backup for the 2009 season than as a guy to send to Buffalo in hopes of reviving his hitting stroke for the future or a trade, etc. This would be a change from the 2008 season, but I believe it’s a logical one.
My real concern, however, is if we don’t sign anyone to a major league deal to play either position, leaving us back in the Barfield vs. Marte situation, where one of them or Carroll has to be a starter. In that situation, I think that they have to commit to either Peralta or Marte at 3B, and go through spring training with that assumption in place. If it’s Peralta, then they wait for an opportune moment to trade Marte for something else, and they acquire a cheap infielder for the bench, some Vazquez type, or maybe even a Mike Rouse type. If it’s Marte, then Barfield remains as a backup.
The other option, again assuming no serious acquisition, is that spring training becomes an audition for these players, and because of the need to prepare Peralta for a position switch, that is the scenario I don’t want to see.
jay, i agree that i don’t want to see peralta in positional limbo if possible.
do you think peralta’s winter league time at 3b will help him out if this limbo does happen?
obviously, the best situation is to commit to a solution (rouse et al, grudz et al, marte, or barf) before the spring starts – but if that doesn’t happen, hopefully peralta’s time in venezuela fielding grounders at third will help ease the transition.
Completely agreed. The FO needs to decide before ST starts.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 16, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
Why there is a enough games in the spring to play both Barfield and Marte. Do you think playing at 3rd in the spring he is going to make Peralta forget how to play SS. Go to ST with a open mind if one of them breaks out do we lose anything. If they both fail, pick up a good fielding 2nd/SS and start Carroll at 2nd. We should be able trade for someone like Alex Cora at the end of ST if needed. If we are going to spend more money or trade for somebody make it pitching.
Fan in Texas
We should be able trade for someone like Alex Cora at the end of ST if needed.
You don’t see the possibility of adding Alex Cora as a downside of not deciding who to keep before spring? I need a beer.
by fleerdon on Dec 16, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think it’s a good idea to play Peralta at 3B without playing him there every day of spring training. That won’t happen unless the decision has already been made.
my guess is if what you say is true, than the decision has already been made. he starts at 3rd and Asdrubal at SS and a mix of Carrol/Barfield/Valbuena and ? who every that may be at 2nd. They play Marte alot in ST to hope to drive up his value.
Fan in Texas
He is suggesting that the Indians might consider making a significant personnel change in the baseball operations side of the organization.
by SuddenSam on Dec 17, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It came about in a game thread, IIRC, as a result of some kind of formatting error involving italics.
Interesting side note: That the Indians are willing to shift Jhonny right now tells exactly how the Indians feel about Wes Hodges—his defense prevents him from being a MLB third baseman. There’s but no talk of “oh no, don’t block Hodges.” Maybe Hodges is an option at first base if Garko again struggles.
Well, Hodges is probably slated for a full season in AAA this year. There’s nothing terribly wrong with Having Peralta play 3B this season and slide back to SS next season if Hodges has a breakout year in AAA and all of the sudden becomes a better infield option than Barfield or Valbuena (or whatever I don’t know his damn name yet). Or you have a trading chip in Peralta with Hodges ready to step in.
I suspect that once we see AstroCab at shortstop for a full season that Jhonny will not be sliding back there, at least not for us.
by woodsmeister on Dec 18, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe, but I think we’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Every move we do or don’t make should be geared toward winning in ’09.
I’ve seen people ‘round here looking toward ’10. If this attitude reflects a pessimism about ’09, I’ll have none of that. Now people, ’09. Win. Everything.
Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF
Right on
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 16, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
I voted for “trade for starting pitcher.” I really think they need to get help in that area, and don’t think the free agent options make much sense. I think they can muddle through with the infield options they have (or at least they can start the season that way and see what happens); if they sign someone like Grudzelianek, I won’t object, unless it’s an either/or situation: either Grudzelianek or a pitcher, I mean.
I agree. Trade for a SP, look to the FA market for an infielder. An unimpressive veteran free agent IF is more palatable to me than a more expensive, risky free agent SP.
by cleveland teamer on Dec 16, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
Are there any options out there who aren’t dangerously old? Like, dangerous in terms of possible big dropoffs in performance? I’m thinking about Pettitte/Johnson. After that, for affordable pitchers, aren’t we talking about guys like Braden Looper? I’m more inclined to rely on the guys we’ve already got or look to trade for someone who can help beyond this season.
by cleveland teamer on Dec 17, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve been a Reds fan most of my like ( Indians still #1) Dunn would frustrate our fan to death so many time I have watched him stand at the plate with a runner on 3rd with less than two out and never swing.
Fan in Texas
Adam Dunn has a career OPS of .942 with a runner on third and less than two outs, with 137 RBI in 266 PAs. I think I can live with that.
the last three years it was .788 (19 bb 26 so in 78 ab) would I perfere him over Ben, yes, but not for what is is going to want 4/5 yrs at 13-15m and best suited for DH
Fan in Texas
haven’t we dismissed this very idea already? If not-
78 ABs over 3 years means almost nothing, just because it is a small sample size. The fact that it was preceded by 3 years by the same player with the very different results should tell you its worthlessness. It would be like me saying Victor’s OPS playing on turf over the last 3 years is .650. It’s true, but that doesn’t mean his career would be over if the Indians switched the type of field was at the Jake. In fact, it means absolutely nothing.
further-
Vlad Guerrero with runner on 3rd and less than two outs OPS:
2005- 1.181
2006- .759
2007- 1.066
2008- .672
Now, unless you think Vlad’s clutchiness at getting a man in from third with less than 2 outs is directly impacted by whether it is a even or odd numbered year, you should see that this stat means NOTHING.
By the way, Dunn: (less than two outs, runner on third)
2005- .950
2006- .555
2007- .946
2008- .800
Alright, I’ll stop now. Hopefully you get the point.
2005 32ab ball in play 12 – 20 either ss or bb
2006 28ab ball in play 11 – 17 either ss or bb
2008 40ab ball in play 18 – 22 either ss or bb
could not find 2007
I what I was talking about before you started on OPS is if you watch Dunn alot you are going to see him stand at the plate and walk or strikeout more than he does anything else. His Hr help his team his walk help, but he does nothing else.
Fan in Texas
His Hr help his team his walk help, but he does nothing else.
Kind of like Jim Thome, David Ortiz, Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, and Ryan Howard. Losers like that.
The only player on this list that belongs is Howard, and even Howard had that crazy good ’06 season.
Eh, it’s just a dump list of players that both strike out and walk more than 100 times in the average season. The point is that “just standing there” can still make you a very good player.
you are not telling me Dunn is as good as Jim Thome, David Ortiz, Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi
Fan in Texas
that was your point not mine. Mine was a comment but if you guys want to take it as criticizing him I guess that is your choise.
Fan in Texas
Your point was that all he does is walk and hit home runs — similar to the truth — and the walks don’t help — not really true at all — so that other than the home runs, he will not be helping much — in sum, a conclusion not very similar to reality.
I never said that walks don’t help
" His Hr help his team his walks help, but he does nothing else" by nothing else I was refering to his Def. of course he get some hits that are not Hr. other wise he would not be in the majors. Do you think he is average or above at putting the ball. What else does he do that help his team win?
Fan in Texas
He typically hits about 20 points below the league average, while reaching base about 40 points above the league average. He typically hits about 18 home runs more than the average left fielder. His range was somewhat above-average in 2008 and 2006, somewhat below average in 2007 and 2005. In terms of Win Shares, among all NL outfielders, he has ranked 6th, 11th, 10th and 4th in the last four seasons.
didn’t say that he doesn’t hit Hr. and for his range I’m 62 and could cover more ground then he does. just kiding on the last part. but you did not answer my question " Do you think he is average or above at putting the ball in play. What else does he do that help his team win?"
Fan in Texas
Don’t give up on your instincts. I am ambivalent about Dunn, because I prioritize an improved rotation, but of course that all depends if and where value exists in the market.
I don’t have the deductive reasoning ability to tell you where the value’s going to be, but I have my instincts.
Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF
I’ve lived in Cincinnati and Dayton the last 7 years. I watched a ton of Dunn through his career- so the “you had to be there” argument doesn’t help.
Walking is almost as good as a hit. HRs are the best kind of hit. Dunn walks and hits HRs way above league average. There is no way to twist this to make him look like a bad offensive player.
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 17, 2008 11:01 AM EST up reply actions
never said that Dunn was a bad Offensive player, He is a good offensive palyer, he is just not a great one. And he can drive you nuts when he becomes to patient of a hitter. I would love to see him in our lineup but would not want to pay him the 13-15m for 4-5yrs.
Fan in Texas
Which explains why Cleveland hasn’t tendered me a contract yet.
Still, I remain optimistic.
by world dictator on Dec 17, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
patient, three true outcome hitters do not drive me nuts.
Nobody is suggesting the Indians should pay him for 5 years at 15M per. But, since there has been rumors that he has only got offers in the 9M per range, there is a possibility that something like a 3 year/33M could get it done. I’m going to hold out hope until there is any evidence that Dunn is going to get a 5yr/75M type deal.
I was doing some thinking the other day about 2010 and I found myself getting cautiously optimistic. This is what I would call a “good-case scenario,” somewhat short of best-case, but still counting on at least a few good things to happen.
From the group of Brantley, Astrubal, Valbuena, maybe Choo: two on-base types who could fill the top of the order and allow Grady to hit third.
From the group of Victor, Hafner (hope springs eternal), LaPorta, Peralta, Santana, Choo (maybe he fits better here), Garko (unlikely), Mills, the mythical Dunn-type-signing: three guys with some pop who could hit 4-6.
Now that’s a lineup. The rest of the order hits 7-9 and none of the likely candidates are an embarrassment.
In other words, without a big deal and without expecting everybody to develop as planned, we could be looking at a very strong offense in two years. If this makes any sense, than the best course of action now is to enhance the rotation. Pitching is always fragile and we don’t have a lot of quality depth in starters. The bullpen will always be a year-to-year thing, but we do have a fair number of promising young prospects, plus Wood may work out as the centerpiece.
A reliable and above-average starter really looks like the most desirable piece we could add. And, yes, everybody wants one of those, but we have a power-hitting catcher to offer.
by SuddenSam on Dec 16, 2008 3:27 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I’m with you. I was feeling very optimistic about 2009 for a while, but I’ve come off of that some. In 2010 though, I really think we can kick some ass. But yes, we need a starter.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 16, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Screw that, I’m still optimistic for 2009.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 16, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
me too turk. me too.
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 16, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, the division will be weak. But honestly, there aren’t any AL teams I fear right now, at least off the top of my head. I don’t see why we couldn’t end up being the 2009 Rays.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 16, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t care, we’re better.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 16, 2008 8:15 PM EST up reply actions
The Rays were a fluke.
It won’t be anything like a Cinderella story if we make it that far.
Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF
the rays might have arrived early, but i don’t think it was a fluke.
the rotation is improving and davis, mcgee, hellickson, and barmese are on the way.
the lineup is young and improving. longoria and upton will keep getting better. crawford will play a full season.
the rays are scary and with the amount of pre-arb players on that team, they should be good for a while.
I’ve heard this all before. They’re not all on the way. Maybe two of them, I don’t know which. We have our own.
Arbitration comes on in a hurry, and they’ll have to replace Navarro, Pena, Floyd, et al. Won’t be cheap.
Crawford playing a full season? I’ll believe it when I see it. Maybe Baldelli will too. And if he does—is that such a good thing?
I think they’re kind of scary, but not terrifying. There isn’t a dominant club anywhere in baseball on the order of the late ’90s-early ’00s Yankees.
First things first, we just have to win our division.
At any rate, the Indians won’t be the ‘09 Rays, because we don’t have much in common (we’ll have a heavier payroll and a FA coup, just to name a couple)—-but the actual ’09 Rays might very well be the 2006 Indians.
Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF
the actual ’09 Rays might very well be the 2006 Indians
Or the ’08 Indians.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 16, 2008 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
I think the Rays will be good because they have some starting pitching. Shields, Kazmir, Garza, Sonnanstine, Price? That’s pretty awesome
It looks that way at first glance, but that depends on whether Sonnanstine continues his progress (I think the league will figure him out this year), and on how many of the other four will be ineffective due to injury. It’ll be at least one. It always happens.
Even though they’ve suddenly become overrated, I still prefer their rotation to ours, but I like our team better as a whole. They’ve got some duds on their roster. We have potential duds, but better overall reliability and greater upside.
Back to the rotation, if Carmona and Lee are anything like what we know they can be, we’re in pretty good shape. If not… well, Huff is our Price.
It’d give me piece of mind to get one more quality pitcher in the rotation. It just won’t be Sonnanstine. They’ll need him.
Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF
McGee is out for 2009 with TJ.
Nick Barnese is on his way to Low-A.
Jeremy Hellickson is Scott Lewis.
I think are some parallels. Both guys put up great peripherals, but aren’t as good as their numbers because those numbers were a result of excellent command and control, not great stuff. This isn’t to say that they aren’t great prospects, just that they aren’t as good as their numbers might suggest. Hellickson is a better prospect because of the health factor. I don’t know maybe you would prefer Ian Kennedy as a better comp.
Yeah, that K:BB is nice, but those taters at AA are gross.
Everybody else’s prospects are not the boogie man. Somewhere, somebody’s up late worrying about facing Dave Huff. That goes double for Tampa, where it took an expansion draft and a decade of high draft picks and zero expectations before they amounted to anything.
We didn’t play these guys until July, when charitably we hadn’t played a meaningful game in a month, while they were in the thick of a playoff hunt. We beat them on the season 5 to 2, outscoring them by 19 runs.
Not to go off on you, s.p., but this needs nipped in the bud. The Rays. I am not afraid of them so much at all.
by fleerdon on Dec 16, 2008 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
i’m not afraid of the rays either. i’m just saying that they aren’t a fluke. that is all. kazmir, shields and price is the start of a pretty decent rotation. they’ll be around a while, that is all. nothing to see here.
I think there’s a difference between being “afraid” of a team because they can beat you and “afraid” of a team because you think they’ll be really good next year. For the most part I think the Indians can face any team and win. But that’s been true for sometime now.
But as far as racking of a lot of wins and going deep in the playoffs, you have to mention the three AL East teams, especially if the Red Sox sign Tex
by world dictator on Dec 17, 2008 5:49 AM EST up reply actions
I think if we’re especially good in 2009, it’s going to have a lot to do with some guys who weren’t healthy last year bouncing back, and some guys who by rights shouldn’t be ready next year — I’m including LaPorta in that — developing into legit Major Leaguers early.
Bullpens, though. Having a good bullpen is like having a good short game in golf. A team with a bevy of solid relievers can give anybody trouble.
by fleerdon on Dec 16, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
Precisely.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 16, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
I didn’t say I wasn’t still optimistic, just that I had come off some from being “very optimistic”
by Logodaedalus on Dec 16, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
… because, as we all know the whole point of this game is to find a way for Grady to bat third!
Fans go to the games wondering, “Will the Indians find a way to bat Grady third today?” And then it doesn’t happen — “We lost today, regardless of the score.”
What do these players have in common?
• Brantley
• Asdrubal
• Valbuena
• Choo
• Sizemore
Answer: They all bat lefty. So guess who won’t be making up the top three spots in the lineup?
Okay, there’s an exception in there — Asdrubal is actually a switch-hitter. Bottom line, though, they’re not going to stack up three lefties at the top of the lineup, so this only works if it’s:
• Brantley/Valbuena/Choo
• Asdrubal
• Sizemore
Could happen, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Brantley probably will break in 2010-2011 in the bottom of the order. If all goes well, he could be batting leadoff for 2012.
Grady batting third isn’t the point of anything. I’ve never been on that bandwagon. The point is to have some guys who get on base, followed by some guys who hit for power, followed by some more guys who can hit or at least aren’t offensive liabilities. As it stands, Grady bats first so he can get the most ABs, not because he is an inherent lead-off hitter or because the rest of the batting order makes sense. Also, I am a huge fan of power in the lead-off spot and do not consider those HRs wasted. A top of the order of Grady-Astrubal-Choo, for example, could be great if Astrubal becomes an OBP type.
Essentially, I’ve been trying to think about the future from a batting order point of view, not just a position point of view. And I am beginning to believe we might be on the verge of putting a very strong 1-9 lineup out there, which is different than how I usually think of our team.
by SuddenSam on Dec 16, 2008 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
A guide to this comment:
Start with a bowl of biting sarcasm
Apply sarcasm liberally to canvas in illustrating a scenario
Pose a riddle
Provide the answer to said riddle
Appear triumphant
Realize there’s a bit of a hole in the riddle
Acknowledge but minimize said hole
Realize the hole might be larger than originally thought
Back off a bit
Change the subject
Leave the first half there because being sarcastic and appearing triumphant are so much fun!
by Logodaedalus on Dec 17, 2008 2:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, it really isn’t anywhere near that simple. If you don’t have the lefty thing figured out, the original point is that any two out of four guys is all you need. With the lefty thing in mind, even with the “loophole,” it still gets a lot harder to work out.
Anyway, the move-Grady-to-3rd meme is worth ridiculing in its own right, regardless of any of that other stuff.
I did enjoy that part. Well, I enjoyed the whole thing, but for different reasons.
I know, I know, you clearly have a point. I realize the combinatorics of the two situations. It was just amusing to watch you remember about Asdrubal halfway through and then back off from the stronger point which you originally made with such bravado.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 17, 2008 2:37 AM EST up reply actions
Two questions:
1. Why would it be a bad thing to have three guys (or two even) who were good top of the order hitters, instead of just one?
2. Which of these lineup combinations would never have worked?
a. Sizemore-Astrubal-Hafner
b. O’Neill-Martinez-Williams-Strawberry (3-6)
c. Rose-Griffey-Morgan
A lot of talk about the Red Sox’ need for a catcher on here. A couple of observations – there have been several recent articles in the Globe about Varitek and their catching situation. Shoppach has not been mentioned in any of those articles – the Texas catchers are always discussed. [I doubt that they’ve plugged the leaks here yet]. It seems like they are just waiting out Varitek and hope to sign him as a backup (they released his backup, Kevin Cash). I do not see any indications that they are interested in trading Masterson (maybe Buchholz??). So, I think it would take a lot (as in “too much”) to get Masterson. However, it is possible that a different trade scenario could develop, but it hinges on them signing Texeira. In that case, Lowell (or Youkilis) could become available. It wouldn’t surprise me if Shap has had some discussions along these lines.
I realize “sign right handed outfielder” wasn’t an option, but since I don’t have the requisite LGT points to create my own post (and this idea probably isn’t worth its own post anyway), I’m putting it here. I’m (possibly irrationally) concerned that, with all our OF depth, our system is swimming in leftfielders, either of the speedy, weak-armed variety or the miscast 1B/DH types. Considering that, as well as the heavy lefthanded tilt of our lineup, I’m getting greedy for a righty-hitting outfielder who can hold his own in any of the three positions; a 4th outfielder who can platoon with S-SC, give Grady the occasional day off, and have enough bat to start in left every now and then (which I never felt Gutz had, and I’m just not a fan of BenFran). Someone who could be a high-upside play, especially if there’s any truth to recent reports of an incorrectly diagnosed medical condition (although I already liked the idea of this guy in a part time role, even before these reports surfaced).
Baldelli, anyone?
by ManchildinBeantown on Dec 17, 2008 2:07 AM EST reply actions
This was pointed out in a Cleveland hospital. I think we kinda have to sign him now.
Also, I’m assuming the fact that he was in a hospital in cleveland is a concidence/not sports related right?
by world dictator on Dec 17, 2008 6:28 AM EST up reply actions
coincidence? yes. the cleveland clinic is one of the best hospitals in the world, and presumably why baldelli was there.
however, if his newly re-diagnosed condition requires regular treatments at the cleveland clinic, i hear there is a ballpark nearby.
i could get on the baldelli replacing dellucci bandwagon.
Plus think of the money we save on name-on-the-back-of-the-jersey, as the club can just keep the “dell” and “i” and substitute a “bal” for the “ucc”.
That’s just asking for a mistake of delicious proportions.
by cleveland teamer on Dec 17, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
I think the best course of action is obvious. Which ever is the most cost effective in terms of maximizing cost/value. Realistically, a case could be made for any of these positions, but given the relatively slim pickings, I’m willing to acquire the best player we can get regardless of a position.
I’m still strongly pushing for a Ben Sheets signing, though we’d have to move some payroll first (Dellucci and a prospect?). I know Sheets has injury concerns but unless the Indians staff thinks there’s some major medical issue that will prevent him from pitching long term, there’s no excuse to not go buy extremely low on a #1 starter. I really think some team is going to get a steal with Sheets.
As was mentioned up above, I’ve been advocating a Shoppach for Lowrie trade for awhile now. I don’t think that option is, or should be, off the table. There’s no such thing as too much depth at a position. If Valbuena does well in AAA this year, then Shapiro has a rather a pleasent little problem to deal with. Fine with me. Good teams trade from depth. Besides, Lowrie’s versatility fits Wedge/Shapiro’s mold of player. (Lowrie can play 3rd, 2nd, SS)
Ideally, I’d like to fill other holes, but as I said early, maximizing cost/value is most important. Besides trading for Lowrie still leaves us approx $10 million in salary to hopefully fill another hole.
I wonder, and I’m thinking out loud here, if Boston would do a Masterson+ Lowell+ Cash for Shoppach+ mediocre prospect deal, as a way to dump salary if they sign Tex.
If you can get that deal done, then you really are the World Dictator. Can you get them to throw in Ortiz, also? :-)
by CaptainPenny on Dec 17, 2008 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
Jonny Gomes
How do people feel about this non-tendered FA? He bats RH and crushes left-handed pitching. He can play both corner OF spots, though not exceptionally well.
Talk me out of this – but he has to be better than Dellucci. There is just no way to get rid of Looch, is there?
It’s easy to get rid of Dellucci, you just DFA him.
Gomes = Eduardo Perez, but I wouldn’t count on the happy ending.
we don’t need a rabbit punching chubby younger dellucci
by Sizemorgasim on Dec 17, 2008 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
They need to leave Marte at 3b. Jhonny and Cabrera should stay where they are. It’s inconceivable to me how stupid this beloved FO (by me, mind you) would have to be to think Jhonny Peralta at 3b is even remotely a good idea.
I’m actually surprised I haven’t heard more of this sentiment. I hate moving Jhonny to 3rd. But I’ve kind of accepted it with Barfield and Valbuena being better than Marte at this point.
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 18, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
I’m surprised to hear this sentiment at all. Look, I can obsess about Andy as much as the next guy, but the organization’s mind is made up. Not. Gonna. Happen.
I don’t look at it as a Marte issue at all. To me, the most valuable guy in this equation is Peralta. Moving him to 3rd reduces his value a lot. I understand that Cabrera is better defensively. But I’m looking at this from a run scoring perspective. Considering Marte, Carroll or Barfield is probably going to be in the opening day lineup, I’d want it to be Carroll, at 3rd. I realize this doesn’t maximize our defense (although it is a difficult calculus- Is Carroll, Cabrera, Peralta really better than Cabrera, Peralta, Carroll?) But I think we still have a better chance of finding a good offensive 3B that can help us this year (whether that acquisition is now or in July) than a 2B. I like the Crede idea, I would have been ok with re-signing Blake, etc.
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 19, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
If you check mlbtaderumors.com they say that indians have intest in Ohman
by Sizemorgasim on Dec 17, 2008 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
Spelling it incorrectly took you that long? ; )
Signature to be named later.
by emd2k3 on Dec 23, 2008 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
