Transactions: Indians Trade for Mark DeRosa
by Ryan on Jan 1, 2009 12:34 PM EST
in Transactions
Email
PrintTraded RHP Chris Archer, RHP Jeff Stevens, and LHP John Gaub to the Chicago Cubs for IF Mark DeRosa
Jeff Stevens should be ready to contribute next year in the bullpen, but the other two are quite a ways away, and neither were considered top prospects. So it looks like the Cubs did this deal to save some money, as DeRosa is slated to make $5.5M this season. Away from Wrigley and in the American League, I'd expect DeRosa to be about league-average offensively, which will play at either second or third.
DeRosa had the best offensive season of his career in 2008, posting a 118 ERA+ as a everyday player for the Cubs. He played 20 games at four different positions for Chicago, but his main position was second base. He's never spent a full season at just one position; at times he's been more of an outfielder, a third baseman, or a second baseman. He's not going to play much outfield for the Indians, so that leaves second, third, or a supersub role.
Anthony Castrovince believes DeRosa was acquired to play third, which I don't like, especially if you consider the Gutierrez-Valbuena deal earlier this offseason. If the long-term configuration is Peralta at third, Cabrera at shortstop and Valbuena or Barfield at second, then it makes sense to move Peralta now and not mess around with a temporary fix at third. If DeRosa is just insurance at third in case Peralta has defensive difficulties, then fine.
What this move does mean is that Andy Marte is gone. Ever since last Opening Day it's been apparent that the Indians don't believe he can play; Eric Wedge half-heartedly spotted him at third through the spring, and by the time circumstances gave Marte everyday playing time, he'd been on the bench for two-thirds the season.
110 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
League-average offensively at 2b and 3b respectively are two very different things, no? I suspect he’d be appreciably better than league-average at 2b.
Anyway, he’s a better fit at 3b. Let Jhonny stay at SS where he belongs. If the team is as urgent as most people here are to move Cabrera to SS, they could always trade Peralta after this season. But to make Peralta the long-term 3b would be foolish.
League-average offensively at 2b and 3b respectively are two very different things, no? I suspect he’d be appreciably better than league-average at 2b.
Yeah, that’s what I meant. His offense will play at third, and if it can play at third, it will play at second.
It seems the defense at third will be above avg., but only avg at 2B. Count me in as one that likes the idea of DeRosa playing third, keeping Peralta’s trade value higher as a SS.
If the only argument for moving Peralta to 3B now is to start his transition to 3B when a better defensive middle infielder arrives (Valbuena presumably) in 2010, I’d argue that keeping Peralta’s SS trade value high in case we would like to trade him for a heft return after 2009 is the way to go.
Maybe even trade Peralta as a SS in mid-2009 if the tribe is out of contention again. We’ve got guys coming up to cover 2B/SS/3B in Valbuena, Rivero, Chisnell, and perhaps even Hodges over the next couple of years.
by kov on Jan 1, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
Well, I’m thinking long-term here, even if “long-term” means just through 2011, which is how long the Indians still have control over Peralta. So when DeRosa is gone after 2009, both Peralta and Cabrera are set at their positions and you just swap in Valbuena or Barfield. Plus you immediately get an upgrade in defense.
That’s a fair point, I wonder if they have some contingency plans for who plays 3B beyond this season, possibly someone they can acquire. I’m not sure. I think I’m standing by the value of keeping Peralta at SS for another year or maybe this move allows him to switch over to 3B gradually, playing a few games there a week while DeRosa switches from 3B to 2B to accommodate. Either way it will be interesting to see how Wedge uses these guys.
(a) This.
(b) DeRosa may not be average at 2B anymore. His 2008 RZR certainly was not average.
My guess is that he’s about as good at 2B as Blake as at 3B, and he’s quite a bit better at 3B.
by Jay on Jan 2, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions
I know this subject has been overworked, but why all the assumption about trading Peralta? It’s as if we can’t wait to be rid of him. He’s not a bum. The reason he stays at short is not to enhance his trade value (any team interested in trading for him would scout him and see for themselves his limitations as a fielder). He plays at short because it is his best position. No one says Sizemore should be kept in center because it enhances his trade value in case we want to trade him in 2010.
Nor does anyone say we should think about trading Asdrubal in two years. I know, he’s younger and under control, etc. But why is Peralta always the odd man out? He’s a very good player. A keystone of Valbuena and Cabrera doesn’t mean Jhonny is going to be traded. Maybe he plays left field.
by odradek on Jan 1, 2009 3:42 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I want to be clear that I’m (nor do I think anyone else) is making an assumption that the Indians are going to look to trade Peralta, but only that he may represent a Coco Crisp, a player that has more value to another team than to the Indians if perceived as a SS. I’d like to keep the guy personally, but I love the roster flexibility allowing us to take advantage of good trades when we can. This team really needs to hit on there trades, because A.) we don’t have the money to compete with the big market teams in FA and even the international markets now, and B.) Shapiro seems to be really really good at identifying talent in other organizations and capitalizing on acquiring this talent through trades.
Okay, I’m also interested in flexibility. But flexibility should by nature include names other than Jhonny.
Do you really think the Coco comparison is fair?
if perceived as a SS.
Indiansfan suggested Jhonny’s value would be enhanced, if other teams saw him as a shortstop. I think this is kind of offbase. It’s not whether he is perceived as a shortstop. It’s whether he is a shortstop. I can’t think of any GM who would somehow be snookered into thinking Peralta is a shortstop when he isn’t. It’s not perception. It’s performance. Jhonny plays a decent short and hit 42 doubles last year.
If Jhonny couldn’t play the position would the Indians keep him there to enhance his value to another team? That would seem foolish to me.
Hello odradek,
You said what I meant, but my main point was that if Jhonny is moved to 3B, his value would diminish in other teams’ eyes because we don’t “see” him as a SS any longer, plus the fact that his offense at 3B would only be about average, whereas it’s elite or close to it at SS.
Once Peralta gets moved off SS, it’s unlikely he’ll get moved back there long-term, by us or by another team. Therefore, I think the Indians don’t want to move Peralta off SS unless it was absolutely the best move for 2009.
According to a recent article on Ohio.com (and probably by Castrovince as well), Shapiro said that he was not comfortable with Peralta shifting to 3B, nor did he want to shift both Peralta and Cabrera to different defensive positions for 2009. Additionally, some metrics and reports suggest that DeRosa is better at 3B than at 2B, which would add to the reasons why the Indians want him to play primarily at 3B, not 2B.
This move also gives Valbuena more time to fully develop as a hitter, being that he was rushed through Seattle’s system, much like Cabrera. Cabrera also needed to “catch his breath” as well, so I think this trade was a very solid and smart trade by Shapiro.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Joe, maybe I’m splitting hairs, but Peralta’s value doesn’t diminish in other teams’ eyes because we don’t see him as a shortstop. It would be because he couldn’t play short. The Indians could continue to see Peralta as a shortstop even when he’s 39 and weighs 270 pounds and can’t tie his shoes, but that wouldn’t mean other teams would think, Well he doesn’t look like he can play short, but the Indians think he can, so he must be worth more than I thought.
I’m just saying the potential of Asdrubal, Valbuena and whomever doesn’t match, at present, the actual value of JP.
Peralta will play SS for the Indians, because they do perceive him as a SS. Is he the best defensive SS on the team no, and when there are two better fielding middle infielders on the team (if Valbuena progresses in 2010) then the Indians should look to either trade Peralta or move him to 3B (either of which I would be fine with).
Hello odradek,
In that case you cited, it’s certainly obvious that NO ONE, not even the Indians, will see Peralta as a SS.
My main point is that the Indians have always seen Peralta as a SS because they feel comfortable enough with his defense there. However, if the Indians move him off there to 3B, other teams are going to see this and think, “Well, the Indians, the team that always had Peralta at SS and who know Peralta as well as anyone, now move him to 3B – what do they know that we don’t?”
My main point is that that lingering question in the back of other team’s minds about whether Peralta can play a good-enough SS for them is going to turn into a convincing “No” if they see the Indians shift Peralta to 3B now. As a result, other teams will very likely want to trade less to us because they see us move Peralta to 3B.
As long as Peralta looks capable of playing SS AND we keep him there, there’s a realistic chance we could get more value for Peralta because the organization that knows him better than anyone is keeping him there while he’s still doing a credible job there. If we move him off there now, that lingering question in their minds is going to come full-force toward a “No” and they’ll likely try to give us less in order to get Peralta because they’ll see him as being good enough to play 3B, but not good enough to play SS.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat
by jakesinger777 on Jan 1, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
i’m with the joe school of liking that derosa is headed for 3B. as much as i love him, i think penciling in all these moves to accomodate asdrubal to short is a little premature. of him, jhonny and derosa, who is the most difficult to project his 2009 contribution? his defense is still up the middle. jhonny is where he’s most comfortable. derosa is at his best position. i think valgood and barfield provide a better back-up plan than marte and hodges if asdrubal struggles hitting or jhonny struggles at third forcing a huge switch-around. carroll and derosa’s versatility of course are all in there. i guess i’m mainly talking about plan A and unproven youngsters – and not sure i’m entirely making sense anyway…
“We liked all three guys, they’ve all got some upside,” Shapiro said. “Two of them are certainly further away. Jeff Stevens is a guy we felt could contribute in the big league bullpen at some point this year. You make these trades, and you’re not looking to just steal a guy. My hope is that at least two of those guys end up contributing for [Cubs GM Jim Hendry] at some point and Mark DeRosa has an outstanding year for us.”
“The lion’s share of our resources have been committed,” Shapiro said. “If we do anything else, it’s going to require a creative contract or some sense of subtraction [of payroll] before addition.”
anybody else hear Shapiro almost call it “Jacobs Field” and then quickly correct himself in the conference call on cleveland.com? pretty funny.
I think Valbuena is a decent prospect, and obviously the Indians think so too…but it’s not beyond the realm of possibilty that they consider Hodges to be the better prospect, or at least his equal. I’m just saying that I’m not sure they consider Peralta at third and Cabrera at short to be their definite “long-term configuration.”
Buster Olney has a comment in his “Around the Major’s” Blog about the trade (Insider section after the free write up on the Cubs general direction) and mentions he has talked to at least on scout who says that 3B is DeRosa’s worst position. He then goes into the Peralta to 3B and AstroCab to SS theory we all have lived and breathed over the last year or so.
Oh, and not to get ahead of ourselves, but he says the Indians have to be the early favorite for the AL Central. I can’t say I disagree after some very astute moves by Shap & Co.
Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that Gutz will succeed in Seattle.
The Indians should be the favorite, until Sizemore and DeRosa get hurt in the stupid and unnecessary World Baseball Classic. Sorry, I can’t understand why the Tribe brass allow starters to play in that nonsense.
by Tribe Fan Matt on Jan 3, 2009 9:12 AM EST up reply actions
Sizemore’s gonna go all out whether it’s in ST or the WBC. I honestly don’t think his odds of injury go up or down playing the Classic.
Agreed. It’s not on the players — they just want to play. I just can’t understand why the organization would allow it, given the significant investment they have made, particularly in starting players. Apply this situation to another industry. Say I am a sales guy and my company relies on me hitting my sales numbers for the year to make its projected revenue targets. But I come to them and say, I’d like to go work for someone else for a few weeks during a given year, taking away from time I could be using to improve my understanding of the sales techniques my company uses (read: spring training) and gettting better at employing those techniques in my daily work (read: regular season). And the other company I want to work for during that time offers no compensation back to my existing company for the time I am away, and no protection back to my company if I am injured on that job. I mean, what company would allow that? If baseball is a business, I just think the Tribe should apply the same rules that would apply in the rest of the business world.
by Tribe Fan Matt on Jan 4, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
The analogy only makes sense if you couldn’t have been making any sales for your main employer over the period while you were going to be away.
The rules governing WBC participation for major leaguers were agreed to among the owners and the Players Assocation; the Indians have to act within those rules. Those rules say that a team can forbid a player from participating who was on the DL for 45 or more days during the previous season, but beyond that, the team can make its opinion known, but it’s ultimately the player’s call.
The Indians excel on medical issues and communications with players, so in that sense, they have a leg up on dealing with the WBC. I kind of think they should send Betancourt — maybe this time, it will help him get his head on straight.
Remember that MLB is staging the WBC for …… (drum roll) ……… you guessed it…..
the money.
MLB is making a boatload of money directly and indirectly through merchandise sales and increased exposure in Europe. They know that the tournament will only be (financially) successful in the long run if the best players play. That’s why they don’t allow teams to forbid participation except under certain circumstances and why teams (i.e., owners sharing the pie) continue to support the endeavor.
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
You can claim the ultimate motive is to just make more money those markets are developed, but MLB is staging it to increase the worldwide popularity of the sport. And I’d say that so far, it’s working.
Right. Increasing the worldwide popularity of the sport is synonymous with the owners making more money — and there’s nothing wrong inherently with either thing.
by Jay on Jan 4, 2009 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
Guys … you know that dorm room you had with all the posters of models and beer-bikini chicks on the walls? The one women never came to? This site is not that dorm room. Women come here and should be made to feel welcome, so let’s not be postering. Maybe a SFW link now and again, but that should be all that’s needed. Surely you can find one or two other places on the “masturbation superhighway” to share that kind of stuff.
I am in the hellhole known as southern california, and have been since before this transaction went down, and will be returning to an equally hellish hellhole known as Phoenix tomorrow for several days…but with that caveat, count me as a lone voice that does not like this trade. Perhaps fuller digestion will change my opinion, but I feel like thisi particular 3 for 1 is not so great. It doesn’t in my mind create a satisfying resolution to our infield solution for next season while giving up 3 guys who all are marginally (at least) interesting. Stevens I’m sure will be a contributing major league bullpen guy as early as 2010. Archer, not as promising as Joey Mahalic, but still an interesting young arm. Gaub who is an old(ish) low-A reliever, but also has something going for him enough that he was second in all of the minors in K-rate. For a guy who is a super-utility guy making a transition from a small park-NL team to a neutral park AL team. Color me skeptical…. (and drunk and in southern california)
I think there’s something of the Shapiro bullpen amalgamation philosophy at work here. I really think Shapiro believes in just acquiring live arms, comboing them with a couple of “proven relievers”, and seeing if he can find a bullpen out of it. I also think Shapiro thinks live arms are pretty cheap and can come from anywhere-hence the toss-in of Joe Smith and the constant attempts at reclamation.
I’m not saying a guy like Stevens is valueless but I think the Shapiro philosophy sees him (and Gaub-already a reliever) as imminently dispensable. Unless Stevens stuff is much better than most people seem to think, he’s probably a middling setup man at best and Shapiro thinks he can find that kind of guy on the open market cheap. And I don’t think they think Archer is very good.
I might be putting too much of my own philosophy into Shapiro’s.
I’d be interested to hear why you don’t think DeRosa is a satisfying solution (or at least besides park factors). My feeling is that if DeRosa can get on base then he’ll be fine and I don’t see any reason to think he can’t get on base.
There is a good chance Jeff Stevens will be a whole lot more than a middling setup man. However, I still think the deal was worth it.
There seemed to be a good chance that both Fernando Cabrera and Andrew Brown would be much more than middling setup men. It’s the risk you take.
I think Shapiro means it when he said something to the effect of, “we’re not looking to just steal a guy.” We’ve flat-out stolen players before, but the bargains are seemingly tougher these days and we can’t expect that the magic will happen in every deal.
Then said, we’ve exploited a team that wanted DeRosa, but apparently needed to dump 5 million dollars in a hurry. That tells me we’ve benefited from the timing. Everyone agrees that DeRosa and Blake are more or less similar. Compare the return for rental-Blake to the expense for rental-DeRosa. Meloan is at least Stevens’ equal, and our two pitchers are nowhere near as valuable as Carlos “No. 1 prospect” Santana.
Jeff Stevens is going to pwn the Franchise in every Cubs-Reds matchup for the next few years. That will be sweet enough for me.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jan 3, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I guess my concern is that I see Asdrubal as being our SS of the future. That means Peralta has to be moved, either off the team or to 3B. 3B seems like a better choice than off the team. The acquisition of Valbuena provides a reasonable in-house solution, though certainly no sure thing, about our 2B of the future. I’d rather whatever acquisition we made accelerated that future by making the Asdrubal-Peralta shift now. I like DeRosa’s super-utility and on-base credentials, and I’ll probably end up liking this deal, but right now I’m dissatisfied.
by APV on Jan 3, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions
I’m fine with keeping JP for a year. I think the JP contract situation is already in the mix here: next season at mid-season is the first time JP becomes a reasonable trade option in my mind.
I wonder what happens to that club option if he gets dealt.
Clauses that change the contract terms upon a trade are very much the exception and not the rule. When a trade is made and the contract stays the same, the reports don’t even make a point of mentioning it, that’s just what’s normal.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2009 2:39 AM EST up reply actions
The alleged need to shift our infield is an argument against playing DeRosa at 3rd not against acquiring him. This is twice as true if you can’t suggest a viable option at 2nd base. Realistically DeRosa was probably the best option available considering defense, production, and price.
Let’s not forget that DeRosa doesn’t just play 2nd/3rd, he plays in the outfield too. This gives us a great chance to adjust our lineup depending on the situation.
On top of all of that, there’s a good chance we can get at least a supplemental pick when he leaves as a free agent next offseason. That pick alone is arguably more valuable than any of the players we traded.
by world dictator on Jan 4, 2009 12:13 AM EST up reply actions
I like that he’s got super-utility potential, but I again don’t see the team shifting Peralta to 3rd mid-season. So I think the flexibility will have more to do with Cabrera and Carroll’s success/struggle than the long-term positioning of Peralta. But I don’t have much to stand on, so it’ll have to be a wait and see kind of thing.
If they end up with a true first-rounder in addition to the supplemental pick, then you could make the argument. Stevens is a nice relief prospect, but still just a relief prospect, and he’ll be an “old 25” this season. You have to recognize that a lot of guys with that kind of K/BB never do much of anything in the majors — Fernando Cabrera, Tom Mastny, Ed Mujica. Makes you appreciate a guy like Perez all the more.
I’m a little flummoxed here. Why does it matter if the Indians get a true first rounder? Isn’t the equation just:
Does Stevens equal or exceed Sandwich pick?
If he is a type A player, then it is a first rounder and a supplemental. If DeRosa were a free agent this year, he’d be a type A player, though he just barely makes the cut. There is a pretty good chance of him matching his ’07 production this year, which would presumable keep him in the type A category.
So I’m clearly wrong on this. The DeRosa was a stud last year. It’ll be interesting to see how he adjusts to the AL next season and I was hoping for a more permanent configuration in our IF to emerge next year, but this clearly seems to have been a good value acquisition.
Cub fan here.
From watching DeRosa the last two years I would agree 3B is his best position. He will not be spectacular but will make the routine plays. He is not as steady at second. Although, I am going off a small sample size. I also think he should bat second. I haven’t looked up his stats in these situations. This just what my eyes tell me. He’s a good player. I’m glad he and Woody went to my favorite AL team. I hope you win that division.
Is it just me, or have Cubs fans been really pleasant to us? Nicest group of fans I’ve encountered on the interwebs in a while.
by supermarioelia on Jan 3, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
The Cubs fans have been great, but so were the Brewers fans. There is really nothing not to like about Indians fans … except when your team is the root of all evil and its fans are the scum of the earth and the Indians fans are throwing it in your face. I mean, there is the whole “Indians” thing, but what the hell, it’s not like we do that atrocious “tomahawk chop” with the “war cry” like the Braves fans.
by Jay on Jan 3, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
I just chalk the Cubs and Brewers fans being pleasant to the whole Midwesterner Niceness thingy. Then again, if one thinks of ChiSox fans and that whole theory goes in the toilet. But definitely, agreed that the thoughtful, considerate fans that have stopped by are a fresh of breath air.
Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that Gutz will succeed in Seattle.
Never had a problem with Tigers fans, and only rarely with Cubs or White Sox fans. Industrial towns yield tough fans, but Cleveland is a part of that, too.
(1) Weren’t there Detroit trolls all over LGT after a Tigers win?
(2) Isn’t Milwaukee an industrial town?
All over?
How many are we talking about, really? One or two people can make a lot of irritation.
Every team has its handful of anti-social types — certainly we’ve had ours.
by Jay on Jan 4, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that every team has its antisocial types. I’m more comfortable with that than with making blanket generalizations about fans in any given city. I would imagine the ratio of antisocial/nice is about the same everywhere. Perhaps one indicator of niceness (facial hair aside) is socioeconomic status, not geography. That is probably a function of education, though it may have to do with a person’s world view. A working-class Sox fan might view a middle-class Cubs fan’s indomitable optimism as pollyannish and unrealistic (welcome to the real world, North Sider).
There are plenty of smart, sociable White Sox fans, and there are many dimwitted and antisocial Cubs fans.
Or maybe it’s just that misery loves company.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jan 4, 2009 3:06 AM EST up reply actions
Thank you
for being such good hosts. You have a great site here!
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
Maybe he can’t bunt.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
So that’s what Wedge was doing when he made Andy Marte do all that bunting – he was showcasing him for a trade to the Twins! Wedgenius!
Is Wedgenius related to Mangenius? :-)
If that’s the case, we have a major family reunion here – Shapiro – his sister and Mangenius – Wedgenius – could it equal 2 championships (Indians and Browns)? :-)
And, the Cavaliers are making a push as well – are their brighter days ahead for Cleveland sports? Let’s hope!
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Yeah, I also found that confusing — how bad could they have wanted him? It may be that their prospect cupboard is a little bare right now, since they promoted all those pitchers to the majors last year.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions
The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune had the following in late December:
“The Twins have expressed interest in Japanese pitchers Kenshin Kawakami and Koji Uehara. Kawakami, 33, went 9-5 with a 2.30 ERA for the Chunici Dragons last season. He is a starting pitcher, and the Twins currently have five young starters they like, but the Twins are keeping their options open in case they make a trade. The more immediate need for the Twins is bullpen help, and Uehara, 33, most likely will enter the majors as a reliever. He went 6-5 with 3.81 ERA for the Yomiuri Giants this year.”
The thinking is the Twins could put Kawakami in the rotation and trade one of their young starters.
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.
