Indians to Announce 40-Man Additions Today

Hafner's not likely to be among the initial additions. Aaron Laffey, Josh Barfield and Tom Mastny are probably givens. Other possibilities include Michael Aubrey, John Meloan, Rich Rundles, and Brian Slocum.

10 months ago Ryan Comment 33 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The name Rich Rundles makes me laugh. If you ask me why, I’ll be forced to admit that I’m a 13-year old.

by APV on Sep 2, 2008 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No, you’re not. You use punctuation!

by peter m on Sep 2, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shut up

Idiot!!!!!!!!!

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Sep 2, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve met Adam. He’s 15 if he’s a day.

by Jay on Sep 2, 2008 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i am looking forward to seeing how masnty responds to never pitching because of the expanded roster as opposed to all other reasons he’s never pitched when with the indians.

by Brick. on Sep 2, 2008 1:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

are they just going to hang up masa for the rest of the year now? might as well.

by Brick. on Sep 2, 2008 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Let’s just replace him with Mastny as far as usage goes. Treat it like the Marte of the bullpen.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 2, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The way Shapiro was talking yesterday about Crowe, I suspect he may be a call-up.

by odradek on Sep 2, 2008 1:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree. Say what you will, but the FO still sings Crowe’s praises at every opportunity.

by APV on Sep 2, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

[insert joke about eating crow here]

by Brick. on Sep 2, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m kind of miffed about how Newsom is not getting a look-see. I think we could lose him in the off-season.

by Toxicadam on Sep 2, 2008 2:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think we could lose him in the off-season.

FOR NOTHING!

by Brick. on Sep 2, 2008 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t get the Newsom love. In his nine innings since the ASB in Akron, he’s had an ERA of 8.0. And his peripherals are garbage.

You don’t get a look when you’re: A) All smoke and mirrors to start with and B) Can’t maintain run suppression for a whole season.

He has 35 walks and 34 K’s this season. Despite the ERA, I still think it would be ridiculous to bring him up, even if he hadn’t exploded lately.

35:34 BB:K. Great.

by afh4 on Sep 2, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you have to look at him as a ROOGY though and fitler down the stats vs. LHB (as you would mostly do when you look at LOOGYs but with RHB). Although even then the control problems stand out with a 4.25 BB/9 rate. He’s an extreme groundball pitcher (66.3%) doing a good job at limiting the homeruns. But he’s also kinda old for the level (26 yrs. old I believe).

by hans on Sep 2, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Using 9 innings is a major SSS, especially when compared to his past 1 1/2 years in AA. Not to make excuses for him .. but being bounced from AA>AAA>AA probably isn’t a recipe for a good mental state.

As hans elaborates, the guy is most likely a 7th inning matchup guy. Or someone to bring in to diffuse a bad situation (ie. bases loaded and one out).

If it were 2007 (and our bullpen is top in the league), then ya .. who cares about this guy. But, it’s 2008 and you can’t tell me Newsom would be any worse than what we have out there now. Then to bring up Brian Slocum (!!) over Newsom is just inexcusable.

by Toxicadam on Sep 2, 2008 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do think the guys we are looking at are guys that it’s much more pressing to evaluate. These guys:

Lewis
Donnely
Mujica
Rincon
Rundles
Jeff Harris
John Meloan
Rundles
Mastny
Sipp

All offer much, much more compelling reasons to look at than Newsom does in my opinion. So when you thrown in Perez, Masa, and Betancourt, all of whom clearly need to be on the roster, than Newsom is 14th in line. 14th. If you squint, maybe you can raise him to 12th.

So, there you go. That’s how I feel about Randy Newsom-there are 13 guys I think need to be looked at before him.

by afh4 on Sep 2, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you have clearly been won over by the work ethic and attitude of jeff harris.

by Brick. on Sep 2, 2008 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not Harris. Whoops.

But, yeah. It’s the work ethic.

by afh4 on Sep 2, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That guy has been a great addition to our organization, and I’ve really grown to love him.

by Jay on Sep 2, 2008 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, with the influx of retreads this past season, I can see how a guy like Newsom gets aced out (or pushed down the list, as it were). Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

by Toxicadam on Sep 2, 2008 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m with Andrew … I just don’t get it.

It isn’t about Newsom getting pushed down the list. He didn’t put himself on the list to begin with.

There was no chance — ZERO — that he was going to get added to the 40-man roster after putting up only 34 K in 55 IP, mostly in Double-A, or after giving out 35 walks in 55 IP, or especially after allowing 35 BB with only 34 K. It’s just … not even a close call.

I don’t think he’ll make a compelling Rule 5 pick, and I know he doesn’t make a compelling choice to use up a 40-man leading up to that draft. Given that you can’t be a September callup without being on the 40-man, this complaint is way out of left field.

Basically, any time you spent thinking that he was a potential callup was deeply misguided.

by Jay on Sep 3, 2008 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I’m reading the Indians team page correctly, neither Rundles or Newsom are on the 40-man, seemingly making them unlikely call-ups. Crowe is also not on the 40-man.

by APV on Sep 2, 2008 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think they have a couple of spots on the 40-man, so they could add one or both of them if they wanted to. They may not want to make that commitment, though. The PD this morning mentioned Rundles, but not Newsom, if I remember correctly. Wedge was also hedging about the 6-man rotation (probably in the light of Laffey’s recent struggles).

by peter m on Sep 2, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here are the 6 Callups

Josh Barfield
Mike Aubrey
Brian Slocum
Tom Mastny
John Meloan
Rich Rundles

by Nat on Sep 2, 2008 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Mastny was 1-2 with a 2.00 ERA in nine appearances, eight of which were scoreless.

How can you lose 2 games with only 1 non-scoreless appearance? What am I missing?

by Nat on Sep 2, 2008 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Must be an inherited runner – doesn’t count against the ERA but does count in the W-L column..right?

You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person

by jakesinger777 on Sep 2, 2008 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nope

by oxforddave on Sep 2, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There’s an error in the source. Mastny had seven scoreless appearances, and one (Aug 11) in which he gave up an unearned run, giving him a loss.

by FredOx on Sep 3, 2008 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

with Rundles added to the 40-man roster, there is one spot left (presumably for Hafner)

by palcal on Sep 2, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

When is the Player Later to be Named to be named? I thought it was the end of the minor league season. Might that other slot be for Unknown Brewers Prospect?

by odradek on Sep 4, 2008 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe. Brantley doesn’t need to be protected until Nov 2009, and it’s Nov 2010 for LaPorta (though we assume he’ll be added during the 2009 season. Green, however, would need to be protected this offseason, as a 2005 college draftee.

by Jay on Sep 4, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to me this just all goes back to brantley being hurt when the deal went down. i feel like it makes sense that he was the guy they wanted, but since he was hurt they had to get into this PTBNL business. all the other names being fall-back plans

by Brick. on Sep 4, 2008 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s all a conspiracy. Shapiro knew the team was going to continue to exhibit great suckage, so by not naming the PTBNL until, well, later, it would give us something to talk about other than Ryan Garko’s vertical power.

by FredOx on Sep 5, 2008 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs