Prospectus Q&A: Travis Fryman

The Indians' rookie-level manager (and last really good third baseman) talks about Indians past and future — Chambliss, Vizquel and Chisenhall — and a few Tigers, too.

2 months ago Jay Comment 35 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That’s a nice little piece. Interesting insights into player development and the indians’ strength in focusing on its Latin American prospects.

This is neither here nor there, but I can still remember being thrilled as a kid to watch Buddy Bell and Chris Chambliss at the corners of our infield. Then they dealt Chambliss, to the Yankees no less, and it was the end of innocence.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Aug 4, 2008 11:51 AM EDT 0 recs

man, i think we’re out of stuff to talk about now. we’ve covered Fryman and Leauge Park. we’ve made our trades, prospects have been counted and re-counted. until someone gets waiver-traded or we bring someone up from the minors, we’re pretty much in “data collecting” mode on guys in question for roles next year. “hey! did ya see carroll at 3rd base – that’s sorta not interesting.”

by Brick. on Aug 4, 2008 12:11 PM EDT 0 recs

Just a few ideas:

Victor’s rehab is going to start soon. When he’s ready to return, do we have him catch, or play him primarily at first base?

Speaking of which, who plays first next year? If it’ll be a platoon, what’s the best combination?

Hafner—I don’t think anyone sees him coming back this year. Will we see Barfield again? Ever?

Will Carroll and / or Gutierrez be our utility guys next year? One of those? Or maybe none of those two.

In the procession of relievers we’ve seen, who has most impressed you?

Should we trade Jhonny and get it over with?

Andy Marte is finally getting regular playing time—have anyone’s minds changed about him?

After LaPorta, who’s more exciting: Weglarz or Mills?

Should we sell high on Ty Cobb?

by jhon on Aug 4, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

Why trade Jhonny again?

by Roger Dorn on Aug 4, 2008 1:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ok, maybe that one’s better for the offseason, since it’s pretty clear that Jhonny will be our SS for the remainder of the season.

I wonder how Jhonny would look in the outfield…

by jhon on Aug 4, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

Nobody likes my idea of DH’g Jhonny. Or at least no one has picked up on the discussion. And you didn’t mention Choo in your longer list of questions.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Aug 4, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

(Like me, you’re no longer counting on anything from Hafner)

Jhonny’s too good to DH though. Why not find a Matt Stairs out there? You know, a ‘professional hitter’ type. If he isn’t a SS, Jhonny is at least good enough to play somewhere where his bat is commensurate or better than the offensive expectations we have of that position.

by jhon on Aug 4, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

How would Jhonny look in the outfield? Bad, I think. Real bad. Dellucci, with more arm but less range. Francisco, with softer hands but dumber routes. I mean I just want no part of that.

And not to be a spoilsport, but I just don’t see Jhonny hitting enough to be in the outfield. He’s had a studly summer, but those 3-week dry spells are a lot more palatable from a shortstop than they would be from a left fielder.

by fleerdon on Aug 4, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

When did we trade him a first time?

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

by westbrook on Aug 4, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

I feel like someone mentions trading him every week. I have no desire to do so

by Roger Dorn on Aug 4, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

Because it’s a position of depth. He can be traded for a massive return, and we’d still have a major-league shortstop (albeit one with a different skill set who is not yet as effective all-around), plus we’d save money to be used in other areas.

by Jay on Aug 4, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

Let ShopVac finish the season behind the dish. Save Vic’s body and try to have him find his power stroke.

by JulioBernazard on Aug 4, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

Victor primarily should DH when he comes back, with a little catching mixed in. Playing 1B is not as stress-free as it seems.

I really think we’ll see a Victor-somebody platoon at 1B next year, assuming neither Victor nor Kelly are traded.

We’ll see Barfield real soon.

Carroll and Gutierrez will both be used more than bench players but less than platooners, barring significant injury.

Mujica has most impressed me.

We should trade Jhonny and get it over with if the return is suitably massive.

Marte has not played well enough or bad enough to change anyone’s mind. At least one person here is actually deluded about his defense being worse than Blake’s — despite the overwhelming subjective consensus to the contrary along with every possible statistical measure. So the sides are pretty well dug in.

Weglarz is more exciting, but it won’t take much for Mills to exceed him. The prospect-aware fans are going to play hot-hand with these guys on a monthly basis, if not weekly, if not daily.

We should not sell high on Ty Cobb, because the price ain’t high enough, and we probably are about to lose some high-minors OF depth.

by Jay on Aug 4, 2008 5:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

Think the Giants would bite on a Matt Cain for Peralta swap? Both have long-term deals running through 2011, both free agents after that.

Or do you go the prospect route, trying to fill a few pieces by leveraging Peralta?

by xrickx on Aug 5, 2008 2:59 AM EDT up 0 recs

I think the prospect/rookie route.

This gets into the bigger question of whether we’re still short on overall talent in the upper minors, even after the Blake and Sabathia deals. We’ll have Meloan and Huff in the majors, LaPorta and Hodges and Jackson in Triple-A, Santana and Green (or whoever) and Mills and Weglarz in Double-A. The Triple-A guys are depth for 2009, but the Double-A guys aren’t counted on.

by Jay on Aug 5, 2008 9:33 AM EDT up 0 recs

Am I the person who thinks Marte’s defense is worse than Blake’s?

by oxforddave on Aug 5, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

I certainly hope there isn’t more than one.

by FredOx on Aug 5, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’ll put it to the group: Who else wants to step forward to stand with Dave on this?

by Jay on Aug 5, 2008 6:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

are we adding 1st base, 3rd base and RF defense together? if so, it’s a landslide.

by Brick. on Aug 5, 2008 9:21 PM EDT up 0 recs

I have never thought that Blakes’s defense at 3B was better than Marte’s, and as far as I know I have never written that Blake’s defense was better than Marte’s. If you can find me stating this anywhere on this blog I would be amazed. I have stated many times the opposite to be true. Blake is a butcher.

What I have stated many times is that a) Blake was a much better choice than Marte for 3B for the tribe in 2008, at least when contending (i.e. trying to win games). For some reason this is still a radical thought in these parts despite the overwhelming objective statistical measures of 2008 performance.

I have also stated that b) I have observed Marte’s defense to be raw at times and not at all exceptional. This point is debatable.

I think you confuse a) and b) with the statement that c) Marte’s defense is worse than Blake’s. c) does not follow from a) and b) and is fact not correct.

You dream up an obvious untruth, associate this falsehood with me with innuendo, so you can associate me with being deluded. This is incredibly unfair and uncivil, and I don’t think you are either. I will just take this as an honest mistake.

by oxforddave on Aug 6, 2008 12:37 AM EDT up 0 recs

Marte’s advocates (myself included) were arguing that he needed playing time because of the future of the team, so objective 2008 statistical performance isn’t all that important once the season was considered to be lost. Considering Blake’s versatility, it would have served the team just as well to play him some at first base, the outfield and third base as well letting Marte play 3-4 times a week.

What I probably didn’t totally account for was how much return we would have ended up getting by trading Blake after his solid performance this season. Again though, I still think the team would have been better served by using Blake in varying capacities and not just as the everyday third baseman.

by Roger Dorn on Aug 6, 2008 9:21 AM EDT up 0 recs

Everything you have written here makes plausible sense and is very defendable.

What Jay was pointing out was this previous comment:

Am I the person who thinks Marte’s defense is worse than Blake’s?

That is significantly different from what you have typed above.

by talonk on Aug 6, 2008 11:33 AM EDT up 0 recs

I’m with you on points a) and b)

by DaytonDogg on Aug 6, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

I may have misunderstood a comment you made in a game thread the other day.

I think what you were and/or are trying to say is, Marte’s defense is subpar, even if it is better than Blake’s, and that’s part of the reason why Blake rightly should have been (and was) playing 3B over Marte this year. Is that basically it?

Marte has played just over 1000 innings in the majors — about 112 games worth — so there have been missteps here and there. Having said that, his range numbers (based on limited sample) are a country-mile better than Blake’s, and he looks smooth on early every play.

I think there are exactly three exceptional defenders on this roster — Gutierrez, Shoppach and Cabrera — and beyond that, from what I can tell with my eyes and with the numbers, Marte is as good of a defender as anyone else on this team. I think, basically, that there is plenty of evidence — objective, subjective and anecdotal — to support that he is a fine defender and no real evidence to the contrary. Everybody makes a shaky play once in a while, and Marte certainly has not made a habit of it.

by Jay on Aug 6, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

Travis came to speak at my high school once in a surprise assembly, one of the handful of assemblies I didn’t cut out on. He seemed like a really great guy. Some girl I liked was sitting behind me, and I overheard her make a remark to her friend about how hot Travis looked. It made me very jealous.

by jhon on Aug 4, 2008 1:18 PM EDT 0 recs

She must have had a thing for gritty gamers.

by JulioBernazard on Aug 4, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

He was a huge guy though. I one stood behind Sandy Alomar in line at Best Buy. He was enormous, like, football player huge.

In case you wondered, Sandy bought a big pile of batteries. Nothing more.

by jhon on Aug 4, 2008 1:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

Heh. I saw Big Z at best buy with his girl. He browsed for a few minutes, then walked out without buying anything.

by joeee on Aug 4, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

I used to work at the Rini Regos on Detroit rd in Westlake (before it moved to the south side of the street and became Giant Eagle) and we had a few athletes come in. Charlie Nagy was surprisingly big, Junior Ortiz was surprisingly small. (actually maybe that’s not so surprising).

by mrich on Aug 4, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

I saw Jim Thome at a gas station in Bainbridge once, I expected him to be much bigger than he was.

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

by zempf on Aug 4, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

I realize it may be tongue-in-cheek, or maybe you were just looking at defense… but Casey Blake as an Indian was a better, more productive hitter than Travis Fryman as an Indian. Plus, Travis had some better lineups.

by DaytonDogg on Aug 4, 2008 2:53 PM EDT 0 recs

Good point about the offense. I didn’t realize that until I looked up the numbers, but Fryman had an OPS+ of over 100 just twice in his five year in Cleveland (127 and 114). The other three times he was in the 70’s. Blake’s lowest OPS+ was 93 in his years with the Indians.

But what does “Travis had some better lineups” mean?

The Shin-Soo Choo of LGT.

by Buckeye Brad on Aug 4, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’m not at all sure I agree with the premise, but if you assume the overall lineup was better for Fryman, it could have a couple of effects. First, more RISP = more RBI opportunities, and Fryman had significantly more RBIs than Blake. RBIs being what they are, of course. Also, in theory Fryman could have had better pitches to hit depending on his spot in the lineup. In 2000, Fryman’s sole All Star year in Cleveland, the most common lineup had Travis hitting 7th, between Segui and Cordero.

by FredOx on Aug 4, 2008 3:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

Right, I mean he had most of his ABs coming around some of the best offenses in memory. He was hitting with more runners on base and with better hitters behind him. Casey on the other hand had some pretty good lineups and some really bad ones. But all that is really secondary. Casey Blake was just better at the plate than Travis Fryman.

by DaytonDogg on Aug 4, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up 0 recs