Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Trade speculations...

3444ant_black_tiny by APV on

Things have been a little more encouraging of late, but I can't help but feel that should the offense remain unproductive a fairly significant trade is going to be made soon.  The future obviously remains bright for the club long past this season, but with it being CC's final year and a number of other players in their "core years" (Garko, Martinez, maybe Cliff Lee), you kind of have to go for broke this season.  The obvious upgrade position is one of the corner spots, either outfield or infield, and possibly the bullpen.  We'd presumably have to trade young starting pitching, since that's our greatest strength (Miller, Laffey, Sowers), plus some other stuff (young prospects + major league filler).

What corner bats might be available?  What would you give up for them?  Do you think a trade is likely sometime in May?

1 recs | Comment 104 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

It seems a bit early for a trade like this to happen. Who is available that won’t cost a lot and will be a significant upgrade at either corner?

Tribe fan from far, far away

by LGT Patrick on May 2, 2008 8:45 AM EDT   0 recs

I think the answer you’re looking for is Carlos Quentin, but the ship has sailed.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on May 2, 2008 9:01 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I doubt we’d get a young guy, just because they cost more and are a lot harder to come by (and if we were talking young guys, I think I’d want Edwin Encarnacion). I was thinking along the lines of a veteran with a high contract. Some names that come to mind:

Ken Griffey Jr.
Adam Dunn
Jason Bay
Lance Berkman
Austin Kearns
Brian Giles
Hank Blalock

I’m certainly not saying I would want all these guys, but these are the kind of people I’m thinking of.

by APV on May 2, 2008 9:26 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If Shapiro makes a big move this season, I see it happening earlier in the process rather than later. But that’s just a hunch…

by APV on May 2, 2008 9:38 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I doubt anything happens until Choo is ready and Shapiro’s hand is forced.

Free Andy Marte!

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on May 2, 2008 8:49 AM EDT   0 recs

Every time people talk about Choo I feel like the kid in class who never understood calculus and watched everyone else discuss it with interest.

by tabler84 on May 2, 2008 9:25 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Choo is intriguing because when he is healthy, its going to force a decision from the FO, and it appears the Andy Marte Era could be over. Choo is also intriguing b/c he gives us a better bench. He is a better option to give Gut days off in right than Michaels is, he is a solid defender, and is a good baserunner. I don’t think anyone thinks he is the answer to our offensive woes, but I do think he would give us a better bench or at least one Wedge is more likely to utilize.

by ClarkM on May 2, 2008 10:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

“Andy Marte era.” Heh.

Lasting roughly as long as, what the Al Gore Presidency?

(Not a political statement; just a comparison of time and reality).

by tabler84 on May 2, 2008 10:08 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

To put in more personal terms: More like the Katy Couric Era – lots of hoopla and no production.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on May 2, 2008 10:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That would be apropos if Katie Couric were sitting in the back of the newsroom while Dan “Casey Blake” Rather were still doing the broadcasts.

by emd2k3 on May 2, 2008 2:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, it’s actually an awkward analogy.

Couric is now in her 21st month as the CBS News dead weight — sorry, I meant “anchor” — and generally her ratings have trended down and down and down ever since she started the gig.

So if Marte was given the starting job for most of two seasons - say, last April through the 2008 trading deadline - and got worse and worse every month, then it would be a good analogy.

It would also help if Marte had been preceded by Cal Ripken — long, legendary career with a multiple years in decline at the end — rather than Casey Blake.

by Jay on May 2, 2008 6:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Choo affects the outfield logjam – not Andy Marte. I would suspect the Jason Michaels era to be over before the Andy Marte era is over for the simple issue that Choo does not play third base. If we cut or trade Andy Marte to make room for Choo and, heaven forfend, Casey Blake has a season-ending injury, are you really comfortable with Jamey Carroll as our everyday third-baseman. Or moving Cabrera or Peralto to 3B and bringing up Barfield to hold down second base every day?

Free Andy Marte!

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on May 2, 2008 10:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Choo affects the 25 man roster, but as to who, if anyone, I don’t know. I surmised Marte would be the choice b/c of the allotment of playing time. Wedge has shown an unwillingness to play him, which I take to mean the Indians have little confidence in him. I think the hesitation to dump Marte is for the reasons you listed, but I’m not sure the Indians, in the event of a season ending injury to Blake, wouldn’t aquire a third baseman even if Marte was still on the team. I may be reading too much into the delegation of playing time, but I don’t think they think Marte is a legitimate option at third.

Cutting Michaels in favor of Choo seems unlikely. Dellucci can’t hit lefties, neither can Choo really. Wedge has shown an unwillingness to play Blake in the outfield, which I don’t think is likely to change once Choo arrives.

by ClarkM on May 2, 2008 11:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I may be reading too much into the delegation of playing time, but I don’t think they think Marte is a legitimate option at third.

Much has been and will be written about Wedge’s view of Marte, but you’re making a logical leap here. Marte is note their first option at 3B, but that’s about all we can say definitively. We can’t say Marte isn’t a legit option at 3B for them any more than they can say that Francisco isn’t a legitimate option for the big-league bench. Those two jobs are just not vacant at the moment.

Cutting Michaels in favor of Choo seems unlikely.

But cutting Marte rather than Choo does seem likely? Given the depth difference at those positions, it just doesn’t add up. If their choices are (a) bat Dellucci against lefties, (b) put Blake in the outfield against lefties, (c) try to sneak Choo through waivers, and (d) trade Marte for a bag of balls … I just can’t see them choosing (d).

by Jay on May 2, 2008 11:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t think its a logical leap, because there is no dispute that Marte isn’t their first option at third, so why would I even bring it up. I think the fact that Marte has 14 plate appearances tell us that they don’t think he can contribute much and that they don’t care that much about his development, both being potential indicators of their assessment of his being a long term option at the position. If they valued Marte at any level, I think they would find a way to work some playing time in for him. It’s not like it would be that hard, you could start with giving him Michaels’ at bats against righties.

by ClarkM on May 3, 2008 4:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The question people keep asking is—who’s the 2nd option (if Blake continues to stink or gets hurt?). They don’t have another one, unless you think Carroll is a regular 3rd baseman or Andy Gonzalez is a major league 3rd baseman. Unless they acquire a 3rd baseman, I think Marte will stay (and continue not to play, I fear).

by peter m on May 3, 2008 5:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think you make a valid point about Marte’s development. I can’t in anyway think that its ever a good thing for a young offensive player developing to have such long periods of inaction against opposing pitching. He can take all the batting practice they shove at him and its not going to be as good as actual in-game at bats against ML level pitching.

Its quite possible that the internal scouting reports on Marte at this point suggest that he isn’t capable of much and that he is not worth the risk (poor performance on a contending team) to be played regularly. Its the only thing I can think of, because otherwise they are basically ruining this kid with the length of inaction when he could be building up quality developmental work against major league quality pitching.

by hans on May 4, 2008 2:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

if this is the case, than I fully expect him to be the odd man out when Choo returns and not Michaels. I think they go to Carroll at third for a while (if Blake went down after getting rid of Marte) and maybe work in a guy like Whitney. This sounds crazy I know, but this all assumes that they view Marte as not ML ready. Lets face it, if they are unwilling to play Blake in the outfield at all now to prepare for dumping Michaels than its not likely they are going to dump Michaels when Choo comes off the DL. So its between Choo and Marte at that point. I can see them trying to trade Choo or sneak him through waivers, but in either case I don’t see it leading to more playing time for Marte so Marte must not be that valuable unless they think a whole year of sitting on the bench isn’t going to disrupt an already shaky development process for Marte and he’d be ready to step in next season.

by hans on May 4, 2008 3:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Terry Pluto seems to think that they’ll recall Francisco in a few days (when he’s eligible) and make a move with Michaels. Pluto is a Francisco advocate, but he may also have heard something.

Since Blake has played poorly now for a sustained period of time, it would be logical (and consistent with Wedge’s approach to other players—Peralta, Garko, Cabrera, even Hafner) to sit him today (Sunday). If he doesn’t, we know Marte is really deep in some kind of doghouse.

by peter m on May 4, 2008 12:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If they do that, that adds a little flexibility in that they can always just send BenFran back down when Choo comes off the DL. Although this still leaves us one right handed hitting OF short unless they finally come to their senses and shift Blake out there.

by hans on May 4, 2008 1:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The way things are going, they might almost send Mastny down and keep both Francisco and Michaels. They’re not using the back end of the bullpen at all, and they obviously need to do something to spark the offense. I’d prefer to see Blake’s position be the end of the bench, at this point.

by peter m on May 4, 2008 3:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

if this is the case, than I fully expect him to be the odd man out when Choo returns and not Michaels. I think they go to Carroll at third for a while (if Blake went down after getting rid of Marte) and maybe work in a guy like Whitney. This sounds crazy I know, but this all assumes that they view Marte as not ML ready.

There are several problems with that thesis, the first of which is that if that’s what they thought of Marte (and Carroll), they could have gotten rid of Marte by now. Nothing about what they think of Marte or Carroll has changed, only (possibly) what they think of Michaels and/or Blake.

The second is, there is no way they think Whitney (a) can hit big-league pitching better this season than Marte, and (b) can play 3B half as well as Marte. All indications are that they don’t think Whitney will ever be a reasonable option defensively at 3B. So this not only sounds crazy, it is crazy.

Again, to act like playing Blake in the OF is so totally unthinkable that they’d rather start Matt Whitney at 3B in the majors is to blow the Blake-in-OF thing totally out of proportion. They have opted not to play him in the OF so far, but that doesn’t mean they’re avoiding it like the plague. They do have four other outfielders to play!

I would suggest that this is all a distraction, though. Marte’s real problem at this point is that the Indians have a real problem, and it isn’t getting Marte more playing time, and it isn’t Casey Blake specifically. It’s a massive offensive failure at multiple spots, and fiddling with Michaels/Blake/Marte’s resepective playing time would be exactly what’s meant by the expression “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”

Everyone acknowledges that Michaels isn’t here for the long haul, and neither is Blake really, and that breaking Marte in as a hitter at the very least will almost certainly take some patience. The Indians are in less of a position to be patient right now than they were a month ago, so despite Blake’s struggles, Marte’s ability to get playing time probably has gotten worse.

by Jay on May 4, 2008 4:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

While it’s true that it’s probably to Marte’s detriment that the entire offense is scuffling, it also doesn’t seem to behoove them to pass him over and acquire a better hitting 3B does it? Suppose they could acquire Hank Blalock, just to throw a name out there. Would they look to move Marte in that trade package to alleviate overcrowding or would he just back up Blalock with Blake moving to the OF?

The question I can’t answer is why they aren’t more compelled to get Marte in the lineup. They have 131 games left to evaluate him before they have to make a decision on the 3B position for 2009 and right now they know absolutely no more about that position than they did in ST.

To synthesize those two points, it would seem to be to their benefit to improve the offensive production elsewhere, in the outfield, such that they could try and better evaluate Marte as a long-term solution at 3B.

By the by, there’s a meme growing steam around here that Marte must not be showing anything in BP or practice or whatever and now the FO and Wedge think less of his abilities. Can we stop it with that already? What did they see? Is he going blind? I can’t think of any flaw so readily apparent in batting practice that it would prevent a guy from supplanting 71 year old Casey Blake once or twice a week.

by NickFantana on May 4, 2008 5:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Blalock is hurt, I think, so that’s probably not going to happen. But, if they could get a solid major league third baseman, I’m sure they’d be willing to include Marte in the deal (since there are all kinds of question marks about how he’ll develop anyway).

On the BP point, I basically agree. But, I did not that Wedge went out of his way to praise Gutierrez for the WAY he practised, so it could be that part of Wedge’s reluctance to use Marte has to do with his perception of Marte’s willingness to try to work on things he’s not good at (let’s say he stands in the batting cage and tries to pull everything every time he’s in there?). I don’t think that’s why he’s not playing, but it may not be helping.

by peter m on May 4, 2008 5:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That should say “note” in paragraph 2, line 1.

by peter m on May 4, 2008 5:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah its pretty far fetched. The issue I keep running into is that it can’t be good for Marte’s development for him not to be seeing some in-game action and if anything its going to lead to him being “rusty” if handed the job during the season. There has to be some larger plan on what to do with him this year other than let him rot on the bench for the season. He is missing some valuable experience right now while a player that is barely producing is allowed to continue to play (and even get bumped up to second in the order for a dismal game!).

You are right that Marte isn’t going to solve the offense. Thats going to require multiple moves and/or a trade at this point.

by hans on May 4, 2008 6:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But his name is CHOOOOOOOO and when you yell it at games it sounds like Boo’s but it’s not!

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on May 2, 2008 10:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i was saying boo-urns

by dwight on May 2, 2008 11:09 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well done.

by tabler84 on May 2, 2008 2:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Favorite offseason trade target Jason Bay is putting up decent numbers, though they’re mostly buoyed by having a really high walk rate (he’s actually hitting .242 vs. .247 for last year, but has an OBP .045 higher). Also, he’s got 6 HR but only one double, which means.. I don’t know what it means, really.

Despite all of my best intentions, I have not, in fact, grown up to be a debaser.

by zempf on May 2, 2008 8:59 AM EDT   0 recs

Trade for Jason Bay? It’s depressing enough having one player who fell off a cliff.

by tabler84 on May 2, 2008 9:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, I don’t really want him either. Just noting where he was since I think half the offseason was filled with OMG WE SHOULD/WILL GET JASON BAY! threads.

Despite all of my best intentions, I have not, in fact, grown up to be a debaser.

by zempf on May 2, 2008 10:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ya know what? I see Hafner on the way back – cuz they’re finally handling him properly. Sit him down against tough left-handers and guys with ++breaking stuff, and bat him down in the order. Give him time to get his confidence bace and he’ll turn this thing around.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on May 2, 2008 10:59 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

What? One game turns around your opinion?

Left handers are not the issue; they haven’t been for three years. He’s roughly the same against both sides.

I hope you’re correct in saying it’s a confidence thing.

by tabler84 on May 2, 2008 2:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Nope not one game, I think you’ll see that I’ve been hopeful on and off for the last coupla weeks. The key is taking the pressue off and it looks like Wedge is realizing that. See, he shouldda called me last June.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on May 2, 2008 2:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Honestly, 6 home runs is something I think we need. It feels like our whole team has that many. The Warning Track Power is getting a little old

by Roger Dorn on May 2, 2008 9:49 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t really understand this obsession with corner outfielders. Last I checked we have a huge logjam there and it’s not going away until the end of the year.

Shouldn’t we rather focus on getting a solid 3rd base bat? It allows us to cut free from waiting on Marte and puts Blake back into his Super-Utility role.

by Toxicadam on May 2, 2008 9:42 AM EDT   0 recs

One could argue that corner OF are much more easy to come by than starting 3rd basemen.

by emd2k3 on May 2, 2008 9:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

3rd base is an issue, but trading for someone at that position is tough (although Blalock, always seems to be hurt, can play there, I think. And, if you did get someone who’s a long-term solution, you’ve just said that Marte is not going to play. That may be the way to go, but I’d want to find out if he can play at all first. We might be in the Barfield situation—trading for a guy (Barfield) when the answer was in your own system (Phillips). 20-20 hindsight, I know, but I hope Shapiro tries to avoid that.

There is a logjam at the corners, but we could certainly upgrade there and possibly at 1st. Would people be willing to trade Dellucci or Garko (in a package with prospects or a young outfielder like Francisco) to obtain a better hitter at one of those positions? Unless we’re satisfied with the production we’re getting from those “power” positions, I think you need to be willing to explore options (although I wouldn’t argue they need to act right away).

I’m opposed to trading any of the young starters, unless there’s a really great deal out there that’s too good to refuse (I’ll take Pujols, obviously—ain’t gonna happen, equally obviously).

by peter m on May 2, 2008 9:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I would be concerned about Blake in a super utility role. Wouldn’t that just take at bats from Gutierrez, Garko and even Victor? The manager can’t fill out a lineup without writing Casey’s name somewhere.

by odradek on May 2, 2008 9:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Can we tie Casey up and hide him in the Stadium storeroom? That might work.

by peter m on May 2, 2008 9:58 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Nope – they’d just go get Hafner’s dog to sniff him out.

Free Andy Marte!

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on May 2, 2008 10:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Can we persuade the dog to bite him in the right arm—hard?

by peter m on May 2, 2008 10:25 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, that’s the value in Casey. He can provide rest to many, many different players. He could play on the rest days for Garko, Gutz, LF or 3B. So he can still get in plenty AB’s (assuming he is productive) and not really “take away” anyones playtime.

by Toxicadam on May 2, 2008 11:19 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It’s kind of like the old QB saying in football, when you think you have two QBs, you really have none.

Sure, we have a logjam of corner OF’ers, but 0 of which are or project to be a middle of the order hitter. Dunn, Griffey, Berkman, and even Bay would instantly start for us and hit 3, 4, or 5. Gutz, Francisco, and Choo have skills and could become something, but aren’t yet, and we are still in a win now mode. Dellucci and Michaels are league average guys against one type of pitching. They are nice parts, and it would work if you had a DH, a Catcher, and a Shortstop putting up all star/mvp numbers. We don’t have that luxury right now.

The other side of this is what 3B would be a significant upgrade over Blake? Someone mentioned Encarnacion, but really? He is like the Gutz of infielders. I’d love him, but I don’t think he is really an instant upgrade for the lineup. Blalock is hurt. A-Rod, Wright, Braun, A. Ramirez, Atkins, C. Jones, and Zimmerman aren’t going to be available. There just aren’t that many 3B that would be an upgrade. Adrian Beltre is the only guy I could think of.

I love the idea of Dunn. I think he has a no trade clause that expires in June, and I think by then the Reds could be ready to deal him.

by DaytonDogg on May 2, 2008 10:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Have you looked at Encarnacion’s line this year so far this year? His OPs+ is 142. He has 7 home runs. Granted, this is in the National League, and I know this is a small sample size, but it’s not like he wasn’t projected to be a better than average major league hitter and put up solid numbers at third base. His fielding has been a little shakey, but we have Kasey Shakey at 3B right now. Encarnacion would be a significant instant upgrade to this lineup.

The problem is that Encarnacion is not going anywhere unless we give up the moon, the stars, and several minor asteroids. In addition, the Reds fired the guy most likely to trade Encarnacion (Krivsky) and replaced him with someone reasonably competent (Jocketty). We might get Encarnacion if we also took Dunn off their hands, but it would have to be a mondo blockbuster that would cost us most of our minor league pitching depth and significant low minor prospects (think Weglarz).

Free Andy Marte!

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on May 2, 2008 10:22 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i predict the yankees finally accept defeat and we acquire bobby abreu

by Brick. on May 2, 2008 10:22 AM EDT   0 recs

I guess that settles it, then.

Good thread, everyone.

by Jay on May 2, 2008 10:27 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

don’t get it. are you mocking the mock?

with all due respect to adam, of which i have heaps of. these things always somehow come around to us discussions about us getting tim lincecum for jason stanford or passive aggresive fantasy roster discussions. i don’t know, speculation for speculation’s sake doesn’t seem to ever go anywhere.

what i really think: shapiro will stand pat and let things patiently play out. un-exciting as that may be.

by Brick. on May 2, 2008 10:40 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I almost agree. I think he’ll do something about the “outfield logjam” at some point, especially if Choo actually does come off the DL as scheduled and they’re forced into making a roster decision. Some kind of trade might emerge then. But, it might just involve dumping Michaels, as Jay (I think?) said somewhere else.

by peter m on May 2, 2008 10:44 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

it’s one of those….. huh…. maybe…..things. i think he’d be a good roster fit and he’s in his last contract year, but don’t think the yankees would make it a fair enough deal to ever happen – or give up on the season. so in the end, i’m not serious.

i think yeah, the choo thing plays out one of two ways (both after seriously milking the minor league maximum time for rehab clock). michaels goes, choo stays. or we cut bait on choo and he gets dfa’d and we trade him for some low level minor leaguer. i don’t think anything overly complex happens where somehow multiple players and roster spots are affected. and who knows, someone could get injured in the meantime.

by Brick. on May 2, 2008 10:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I actually think (as I alluded above) that they could sneak Choo through waivers and might well try—they obviously have the depth to “survive” losing him. Who really wants an (almost) 26-year-old coming off the DL who put up terrible numbers last season and is out of options? I’d rather not lose him, but I don’t think he can be considered a good enough prospect at the moment, considering his injury history, to take up space on someone’s 25-man roster without even seeing if he can perform at all.

by Jay on May 2, 2008 11:41 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You forgot about the Kenny Lofton speculation last July.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on May 2, 2008 10:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i think that was totally different. there was more to go on. he was available nearing a hot tradining period and a perfect fit for us. a) i don’t think there’s a perfect fit for us out there. b) if there is, i doubt they’re available and c) the second day of may just doesn’t seem like a time a big deal is going to happen.

by Brick. on May 2, 2008 11:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Giles actually seems like a pretty good fit, but you’d have to be willing to take playing time away from Gutierrez.

by Jay on May 2, 2008 11:48 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

are the padres looking to move him right now? i guess i didn’t know they had a glut of outfielders. i guess it looks like they won’t compete in that division, really but it’s so early. that said the LGFT’ers would love to get him i’m sure. i personally like gutz and looch just fine out there.

by Brick. on May 2, 2008 11:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Their outfield looks pretty weak, apart from Giles. But, I imagine they’d be interested in moving him if they play themselves out of the race (big salary, old player).

by peter m on May 2, 2008 12:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Looking more 1-2 months down the road. Glut or no glut, by the end of May they’ll still owe him $6 million for 2008 and at least a $3 million buyout for 2009, or they can chip in another $6 million to keep him for his age-38 season.

The net option of $6 million isn’t bad - Casey Blake money, right? - but I can’t see them being that excited about paying him $9 million for the last four months of a losing season. That park has just been death on his HR numbers.

by Jay on May 2, 2008 12:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Looking more 1-2 months down the road.

i guess that’ s the crux here. i feel like nobody’s going to be making external moves just yet.

by Brick. on May 2, 2008 12:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree with Brick. I don’t think Giles is a significant enough upgrade over Dellucci/Gutz to matter. I think we either need a bonafide big bopper (a la Dunn) to make it worth replacing Dellucci and cutting Gutz’ playing time.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on May 2, 2008 12:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i thought you hated trade speculation.

by emil minty on May 2, 2008 10:44 AM EDT   0 recs

I do, but I’m in Europe for five weeks doing work and am more removed from baseball than I usually am. Also, in season trade speculation has a different basis than off-season trade speculation. Now our team is actually assembled and putting up numbers, both good and bad, on the field. We’re no longer evaluating projection, we’re also evaluating production. I still think discussion of trade speculation is dumb, but less dumb in the season than out of the season. And dumb can be fun (sometimes).

by APV on May 2, 2008 11:19 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

plus, we really aren’t doing much talking between games around here. though the last two days have picked up a bit.

by Brick. on May 2, 2008 11:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The Brewers just dumped Derrick Turnbow. Anyone want to trade for him? He’d give us another experienced ex-closer who can’t throw strikes! Go for it!

by peter m on May 2, 2008 11:33 AM EDT   0 recs

He’s one of those guys that are helped greatly by his herky-jerky motion. But once you get past that, he doesn’t have great stuff and seems to have lost his control on top of that.

by Toxicadam on May 2, 2008 11:43 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I should amend that he obviously has a great fastball .. but his other pitches aren’t that impressive. But like all pitchers .. if you can’t locate your fastball, you can’t survive in this league.

He will definitely get picked up by someone else .. but hard to say who. I just can’t see him coming back this year and being effective. In the two games i saw him play, he looked like the second coming of Ryan Drese and Rick Ankiel.

by Toxicadam on May 2, 2008 11:48 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m too removed; so, this is going to be an inanely dumb question.

Does anyone put any stock in cold weather affecting hitting?

by 94neverout on May 2, 2008 11:43 AM EDT   0 recs

I’m skeptical. Warm last night - no hitting. Cold the night before - much hitting. I’m sure it’s hard to hit when it’s really cold out, but it can also be hard to pitch—getting a grip on the ball, muscles tightening up, etc. No doubt someone has done a study of this, so I’ll defer to the experts.

by peter m on May 2, 2008 11:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i feel like it’s the types of pitchers. get us some guys that rely on the fastball more or at least have below average off speed stuff… i think if cliff lee had to face the indians right now, we’d hit him better than we would jamie moyer.

by Brick. on May 2, 2008 11:58 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs