Hopeful
by ClevelandCrazy29 on Jan 4, 2009 12:46 PM EST
96 comments
With the continuing success of the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Browns firing of Romeo Crennel the Cleveland Indians are being overshadowed. However, the Tribe has finally shown that they want to be a winner by going out and making a few offseason moves without giving up anything in the process. At the start of the offseason I was a bit worried that Shapiro would just stay put and do nothing. I guess I should have had a little bit of faith in him. I also like the promising young talent we have in our farm system. They include Matt LaPorta, Wes Hodges, Adam Miller, Trevor Crowe, Luis Valbuena, Beau Mills, Carlos Santana, David Huff.... the list goes on. Now to get to my point. With all this offseason shopping is it still crucial for the Tribe to add a middle of the rotation pitcher and if so who is the Tribe looking at? My final question is why would the Indians want DeRosa and 3rd base when he played 2nd all of last year. Wouldn't Asdrubal make a better fit at SS that Peralta? So far this offseason i have seen two articles about the possible rebound of the Tribe. Although they aren't guaranteeing it it makes me excited for the possibility of another exciting ride aboard the Tribe Express.
0 recs |
96 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Sure I’ll take another starter.
We’ve been discussing the pros and cons of DeRosa at 3rd in the DeRosa comments.
This line bothers me:
the Tribe has finally shown that they want to be a winner
What were they doing all previous years?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jan 4, 2009 1:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nothing, unless the signing of Dave Delluci, Trot Nixon and Paul Byrd can be considered as something special.
by ClevelandCrazy29 on Jan 4, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Paul Byrd signing worked out pretty well for us.
by jds16 on Jan 4, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re missing my point. Are you saying the Tribe was actually not trying to win up until this year?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jan 4, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The issue is that our Crazy friend thinks that “trying to win” = “signing expensive free agents.”
There are dozens of things that the front office does to try to win. Signing free agents is not one of the more important things they can do, but it is what gets the fans’ attention. I daresay the Indians’ development of players like Carmona and Victor, and their acquisition of players like Grady and Asdrubal, is ample evidence of a desire to win.
Crazy … aspire to be smarter about these things. Focusing on free agents, we all do that. But focusing on free agents while ignoring everything else, that’s for stupid people. You don’t have to be one of those people, you have a choice.
by Jay on Jan 4, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, maybe your right. It’s pry just post depression after failure to do anything with our 2008 season. I know they have made some good and some bad moves. I hope all these moves work out.
Go Tribe!
by ClevelandCrazy29 on Jan 4, 2009 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The good moves Shapiro has made far far far far outweigh the bad ones. Its not even close. There’s a reason he’s won Sportingnews GM of the year twice.
As for 2008, its not Shapiro’s fault that their 3 and 4 hitter were injured this year. Not to mention their #2 and #3 starting pitchers. Let’s see any team compete with those injuries.
Bottomline, you should get down on your knees and be thankful that you have an intelligent front office. Trust me, I’m a Raiders fan. I know sports despair like few people ever get to experience. And don’t tell me your a Browns fan…it ain’t even close.
by world dictator on Jan 5, 2009 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pfft – don’t give me any of that Raiders angst BS! Try being an Indians fan from ‘59 to ’94. The Raider’s have hardly been in existence that long!
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Jan 5, 2009 2:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Raiders have won 3 Super Bowls. The Browns haven’t been to one.
"...leading the league in most offensive categories. Including nose hairs."
by sarcasmdave on Jan 5, 2009 5:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, it’s not even close. Oakland has been utterly incompetent the last 6 years, experienced heartbreaking playoff losses, and the team was moved from the original city, only to return some years later. Yeah, Browns fans can’t relate to that at alll.
by ClarkM on Jan 5, 2009 9:15 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I’m going to direct all of my responses here.
At the end of the day, you can fire everybody in an organization except the Owner. The Raiders problems begin and end with Al Davis.
Al Davis, who’s 79, runs the entire franchise. THE ENTIRE FRANCHISE. Personnel, the draft, coaching staff, all of it. Davis even dictates the type of base defense we run (man to man). Think Jerry Jones type of control x10.
But not only does Davis run the entire franchise directly, he makes decisions as if this were 1967. He drafts recievers who are fast but can’t catch, defensive backs who are chisled but can’t tackle, and Defensive tackles who are big but have no technique.
He hires coordinators, assistant coaches, and head coaches seperately. There’s no GM, and hardly anybody wants to coach for us or play for us, unless we grossly overpay. Bad free agent signings? We wrote the book, the sequel, and the prequel.
Our recievers caught 86 receptions for 1,116 yards and 11 touchdowns. THAT’S COMBINED.
When your only hope for getting better is the death of your owner that’s saying something. (I’m not actually hoping for Al Davis to die of course but Davis is a lot more likely to die than relenquish control of football operations)
The Raiders haven’t won a Super Bowl for nearly 20 years. In the vast majority of that time the Raiders have been an embarssing and horrible team. Its not like I’m a Cowboy fan saying “woe is me, with all of our great coaching and superstar talent we didn’t make the playoffs this year”
We’ve gone from one of the best run franchises in sports to arguably the very worst run franchise.
While the Browns were bad this year, there are lots of promising signs. A team a year removed from the playoffs, Brady Quinn, Braylon Edwards, the possibility of hiring Eric Mangini or Scott Pioli.
by world dictator on Jan 5, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t have to root for Al Davis to die — he’s going to die at some point regardless.
You’re rooting for him to die sooner.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You know Jay…that means more to me than you’ll ever know.
by world dictator on Jan 5, 2009 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Man, dig yourself. You’re bitchin’ about a team that’s been to five Super Bowls in what? 41 years. Man the Indians have barely been to that many WS in over a hundred. Pulleese!
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Jan 5, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention that the same fan base that cheers for the Indians (usually) cheers for the Browns, a team that has never been to the Super Bowl.
by fwembt on Jan 5, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: rotation—If the team doesn’t add another starter, then everything will have to work out as well as possible for the team to be competitive. That is, we get Carmona v.2007, Reyes does not get hurt and pitches effectively, and Laffey and Sowers both perform reasonably well. That’s a lot of hoping. You could also hope that Huff dominates in the spring, which continues into the season (making it possible for one of the previously mentioned to fail). But basically, we need zero of our pitchers to fail if we stand pat in the rotation. I don’t like those odds, and I’m sure the front office doesn’t either.
I like the work Shapiro has done lately, but we can’t get fooled into thinking that those trades have somehow made the rotation non-scary.
by jds16 on Jan 4, 2009 1:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I never said it made the rotation not scary because thats one spot that I am really nervous thinking about!
by ClevelandCrazy29 on Jan 4, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Now to get to my point. With all this offseason shopping is it still crucial for the Tribe to add a middle of the rotation pitcher and if so who is the Tribe looking at?
I was addressing the first part of your question. As to the second part, I expect Shapiro to do make a move none of us anticipated (trade for someone off our radar, for example).
by jds16 on Jan 4, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would the Indians want DeRosa at 3rd base when he played 2nd all of last year?
He would have played more third (his best defensive position), but the Cubs have an excellent third baseman: Aramis Ramirez .289/.380/.518.
by odradek on Jan 4, 2009 4:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It depends on Jhonny. As long as he’s on the team and able to play, then his bat should be in the lineup. He’s important.
If DeRosa is played at 2nd, then who plays Third? It’s either Jhonny or Carroll, right? If Marte somehow makes the team, that opens up a lot of options.
The IF is built around the best combination of players, and the rotations work around that. The best combination of hitters we currently have in our IF is with Jhonny, Asdrubal, and DeRosa, so they’ve got to fill in somewhere.
So, assuming Marte doesn’t make the team, is it better to have Jhonny play 3B and DeRosa play 2B, just so Asdrubal can be our SS?
DeRosa is worse at 2B by all accounts. Have we improved our IF defense with the Asdrubal setup? I don’t think we have.
So, for 2009, Jhonny stays at SS, DeRosa takes over 3B, and ’Droobs also remains at 2B. For now.
by jhon on Jan 4, 2009 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think what is lost on people — and what the Indians are way too smart to say publicly — is that DeRosa is worse at 2B than Jhonny is at SS or 3B. Jhonny was basically solid-average at shortstop last season, and this configuration gives us plus-defenders on either side of him. This plan is a lot niftier than people are giving it credit for.
by Jay on Jan 4, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. For DeRosa to play 2B alongside Peralta as a SS, then Marte would have to make the team. That actually is the only way it would ever happen. The Indians clearly mean it when they say that he’s taking over at 3B.
by jhon on Jan 4, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think that’s what anyone assumed would happen. If DeRosa is playing 2B, then Asdrubal is playing SS and Jhonny is playing 3B. If DeRosa is playing 3B, then the other two are at their current positions. I really don’t see how either move affects Marte.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 4, 2009 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was worth pointing out, because since none of us seems to think that Marte has much of a shot at making the team at all (which would be a sensible choice at this point, since better options in the all-around IF picture are likely to exist at all times ). Peralta’s not going to move around. He’s either going to be a SS or a 3B, and the benefits of moving him to 3B appear small, and there might not be any benefit at all.
It looks to be that—barring injury—he’s our everyday SS. Therefore, DeRosa will see very little if any time at 2B. Which is good, because he admits to being more comfortable there. That’s why you’ll never see a Carroll 3B, Peralta SS, DeRosa 2B alignment, for example. Does not compute.
In other words—until Peralta is traded, injured, or the team announces he’s being moved—we can stop thinking of DeRosa as a 2B / 3B, and finally regard him as a 3B. Maybe a 3B / LF.
Mark DeRosa – 3B – CLE. That’s it. If everything goes right, he might not play a single inning at 2B.
by jhon on Jan 4, 2009 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well jhon you’ve completely left out Barfield. How about this: Barfield OPS at a .900 clip this spring while Astrubal tanks. Then what?
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Jan 4, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please disregard privious transmission. Of course DeRosa stays at third – duh!
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Jan 4, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“…Barfield OPS at a .900i clip this spring….”
by Logodaedalus on Jan 6, 2009 2:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m assuming that “i” refers to an imaginary number.
"...leading the league in most offensive categories. Including nose hairs."
by sarcasmdave on Jan 6, 2009 6:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Barfield is a SAAB?
Signature to be named later.
by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Barfield 2B, Peralta SS, DeRosa 3B, Carroll UI, Marte ?
or
Marte 3B, Peralta SS, Barfield 2B, Carroll UI, DeRosa LF
by jhon on Jan 4, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I can hardly wait!
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Jan 5, 2009 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’ll have to let me know how it goes. I have never looked at a spring training stat in my life
by Roger Dorn on Jan 5, 2009 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By my calculations and if there are no other acquisitions, Marte would probably make the team. Of course, it would probably be a black hole for a roster spot since Wedge probably would not play him, but what are the alternatives? Barfield? He has an option remaining and potentially could carve out some at-bats in AAA which would be infinitely better for him from a player development standpoint than to sit on the bench in the MLs. Of course, he doesn’t have a position now in AAA, but that is just a detail. My point is that unless someone really wows them in spring training, Marte is the only one without an option, and I could see them holding onto him until something better comes along. Of course, another option is for them to sign a league minimum utility-type of free agent which would probalby be a better use of the roster spot. My hypothesis is that, as of now, Marte holds that roster spot until something better comes along, and that possibility is not necessarily guaranteed before the season’s start. This statement is nothing profound, but I simply think that it is ironic considering that most of us have written off Marte a long time ago.
by Kenyafan on Jan 5, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DeRosa’s ability to play the outfield certainly makes this theory credible, in the event that the light bulb suddenly flicks on for Marte and he becomes the player that we thought he would be when we acquired him. However, I suspect that even if Marte bats .955 in spring, he would still be the team domino champion.
by woodsmeister on Jan 5, 2009 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Barfield shouldn’t be in AAA if Valbuena’s there, and Luis has an outside shot of making the team. It probably won’t happen—he should be getting the majority of the starts wherever he winds up—but it’s conceivable that such a rotation is worked out.
I think you might be right about Marte, but that’ll depend on so many factors. I’ll continue to assume he’s a gonner, although we seem to have more depth at 2nd than we do at 3rd. Barfield and Marte aren’t both going to make the team.
Between Hafner, Aubrey, Marte, Barfield, and Dellucci something’s going to give. They can’t all make the team.
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t get past this
Barfield shouldn’t be in AAA if Valbuena’s there…
or this
..we seem to have more depth at 2nd than we do at 3rd. Barfield and Marte aren’t both going to make the team.
by Brick. on Jan 5, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a puzzle. I’m not saying I know the answer to it.
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s simple. It’s probably either Barf or Marte, but it might be neither.
What do you think?
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i feel like the depth question should win. If derosa gets hurt we have to use peralta, carroll, then hodges if we let loose marte. all of which have big question marks. plus, if we use peralta, that takes our SS depth down to asdrubal and carroll.
even with no one hurt, why throw away depth and flexibility? barfield and valgood can be kept down south for safe keeping and second can be covered by asdrubal, carroll, and derosa on the big club. third by derosa, marte and carroll, and short by peralta, asdrubal and carroll. why get rid of marte to have barfield sit there?
by Brick. on Jan 5, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a shame that Josh can’t play SS, and that Marte can’t play 2B.
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a shame that Josh can’t hit, and that Marte can’t hit.
by SuddenSam on Jan 5, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
But as the papers say “Marte had to hit .291 over his last 34 games” to bat .220 on the year.
So, sometimes, he’s a .291 hitter!
Signature to be named later.
by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I got ya. Let’s assume that Barfield and Valbuena both go to AAA then.
Then it’s down to Crowe, Aubrey, and Marte for the final two spots. We’d each like to see Marte get one of them, and so it’s down to Crowe and Aubrey. Marte can play at 3B and DH—maybe even a little 1B, so DeRosa would have to pick up some extra time in LF for Marte to play much at all.
If this is the case, and assuming Dellucci is not released, DeRosa becomes the 5th OF candidate. In this arrangement, Aubrey most likely makes the team ahead of Crowe, even if Hafner is healthy.
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s no reason we couldn’t keep both Barfield and Marte. Marte would get some 3B/1B time, Barfield an occasional 2B and late game pinch-running gig while Shapiro waits out some team getting their 2B injured to dump Barfield in a mid-season trade.
by woodsmeister on Jan 5, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There are plenty of reasons for why this couldn’t last. We’ll eventually carry 12 pitchers, at a time, and Barfield would already hinge between Columbus and Cleveland.
That injury will have to happen in the Spring.
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One other option is to add some outfield duties for Barfield, while in Columbus. The Padres, if I recall correctly, had considered this earlier in his career.
by macasson on Jan 5, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You guys are way overthinking this. The idea that the Indians will be thinking about lineup flexibility when they already have DeRosa and Carroll on the roster is patently silly. They are swimming in flexibility already, even without knowing who the 13th position player will be.
C — Victor, Kelly, Ryan
1B — Ryan, Victor, Travis
2B — Asdrubal, Jamey, Mark
SS — Jhonny, Asdrubal, Jamey
3B — Mark, Jamey, Jhonny
OF — Grady, Shin-Soo, Ben, Dave, Mark
Barfield would keep DeRosa off 2B. Marte would push him occasionally to 2B or OF. We don’t need either guy on the roster, but on that alone, Barfield wins. And you know what other position Barfield plays that Marte doesn’t? Pinch runner.
Barfield is going to make the roster as a backup. After two bad seasons in a row, his "development" will now take a back seat to his usefulness as a dirt-cheap bench player.
Meanwhile, the priority for Valbuena remains on his development. You can’t play them both everyday in Triple-A, so guess who’s going to get those AB? Right, the guy who hasn’t been stagnating since 2006.
It is possible that they decide they’d rather not expose Marte to waivers just yet — precisely because they don’t need any more flexibility — and it’s very possible that they’ll break camp with seven relievers. If both of those things happen, Barfield goes to Columbus — although doing what, I have no idea. In every other scenario, he’s on the big-league bench.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2009 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i know i’m totally overthinking it. where’s mike rouse when you need him?
by Brick. on Jan 5, 2009 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Barfield stays on the 25-man and doesn’t burn the option, does that make him slightly more tradable?
by SuddenSam on Jan 5, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know, either he’s burning the option or racking up service time. I really think the smart move with Barfield is to ride him out as a cheap bench guy for the next two years, since he won’t get more than 2M or so in 2010 arbitration, and then punt. For a team loaded with shortstops, Barfield is as valuable of a 25th man as we need.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm. i JUST realized that with gutz gone we don’t have to carry a 5th OF for the first time in forever – especially with derosa in the fold. i think marte should stay regardless i think considering that.
by Brick. on Jan 5, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
unless we want someone who can legitimately backup CF. wait, we don’t have one of those.
by emil minty on Jan 5, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For the 5 games a year that Grady doesn’t start (21 over the past 4 seasons)? I think the OFs on the roster can probably manage.
by FredOx on Jan 6, 2009 9:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we just had four last year until Choo came back. Grady, Gutz, Delucci, Michaels, right? Ben started out in Buffalo.
Speaking of which, are we ever going to get a PTBNL for Michaels?
by SuddenSam on Jan 5, 2009 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1 C – V Martinez
2 C – K Shoppach
3 1B – Ryan Garko
4 DH – Hafner (if healthy) / Aubrey (?)
5 2B – A Cabrera
6 SS – J Peralta
7 B – M DeRosa
8 LF – B Francisco
9 LF – D Dellucci
10 CF – G Sizemore
11 RF – S Choo
12 UI – Jamey Carroll
That’s at least 10 and probably 12. That probably leaves 2 more roster spots for position players, since we can lead the year off with 11 pitchers. Contenders: Crowe, Aubrey, Marte, Barfield, Valbuena, + Torregas, Fasano (j/k), other ?
OK, maybe Barfield and Marte could still technically be on the team at the same time. Crowe doesn’t have to be on it, with Dellucci our 4th OF and DeRosa our 5th, but that’s a lot of infielders and RH hitters. Marte’s lack of an option is an issue.
Then there’s potential AAA overlap between Valbuena / Barfield in addition to Aubrey / Brown.
Personally, I’m pulling for Marte over Barfield. But that’s only personal.
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is no need to carry a 3rd catcher on the 25 man when we have Garko
by APV on Jan 5, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t start the season with an 11 man pitching staff because I think it is risky to depend on Reyes, Laffey, Sowers, et al to consistently last 6+ innings especially at the beginning of the season.
As it stands now, Marte seems to be the logical choice to start the season…
by Kenyafan on Jan 5, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I have my chart about right. Keeping Marte means 9 additional IF configurations (without regard to quality here—just the possibility), and it opens up the possibility that DeRosa plays a little at 2nd (I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing). Keeping Barfield affords us up to 4 possible configurations with Peralta as a SS, and only 2 if Peralta is moved to 3rd.
Seems to me that Marte is the better depth option. You Marte believers might be right.
I think we start off with 11 because usually we can skip the first start the 5th guy would make.
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m probably spending too much time thinking this way, and not enough thinking the jay’s post above way.
by Brick. on Jan 5, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s the same way. It’s just more fun for to scheme ways in which Marte makes the club, even when they’re rife with Theory Comfirmation bias or whatever else is being trotted out nowadays.
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, it’s cool to think about DeRosa playing all these positions—he’s our shiny new toy—even though that isn’t the best idea.
by jhon on Jan 5, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Having Valbuena and Barfield is a nice dilemma, I would say. Valbuena seems like a lock for 80% of the AAA 2b at-bats. Which leaves Barfield as A. the 2b at AAA if Valbuena is injured, B. trying to learn some other position which is a stretch, but maybe he could handle some LF or CF and become a superutility guy, C. bumping Marte off of the 25 man roster, or D. something I haven’t thought of.
by Kenyafan on Jan 5, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just because I didn’t know where else to put this in, but I suppose it fits here with what Jay mentioned about free agency, I’ll put this here…
I was skimming an article on the Red Sox site where Josh Bard signed with them, I like to keep tabs on former Indians. And the comment after the article blew my mind. I’m starting to think you can’t be a real sports fan unless your team gets punched in the face once every few years…
commenter wrote:
I will not renew my Redsox nation membership and will not attend Redsox games in Kc this year great job theo and henry great offseason. as of right now Youk batting cleanup? COME ON. Wake, Ellsbury, Beckett, Lowell, Tek if you resign him, Penny, Bucholtz if he beats out Penny, Drew being on and off the disabled list all year, Lugo-Lowrie all have comeback years IS THAT WHAT WERE HOPING FOR? THE RAYS FOR CHRISTSAKE.
He posted the same message three times. Apparently Red Sox fans don’t like player development or grammar.
by JRontherim on Jan 4, 2009 5:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Are you sure it’s not a Cleveland.com poster doing some spoofing?
by woodsmeister on Jan 4, 2009 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So what’s the line-up look like, as of January 4, 2009?
Sizemore – CF
DeRosa – 3rd
Choo –RF
Marinez – DH
Peralta – SS
Garko – 1st
Shoppach – C
Ben Fran – LF
Caberra – 2nd
Carroll UI
SPs
Lee
Carmona
Reyes
Laffey
Jackson
RPs
Wood – C
Perez – Lsetup
Betancourt – Rsetup
Lewis
Smith
Masa?
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Jan 4, 2009 8:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ask one of the other guys – you don’t wanna hear from me on the subject of Travis Hafner,
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Jan 4, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With or without Hafner we’re gonna be fine. We went to the ALCS without him or Lee, now we’re gonna hafta do it without CC and maybe Hafner. I’m still optomistic.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Jan 4, 2009 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Eddie Gaedel. Good OBP but that’s it.
by odradek on Jan 4, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
at least until B shows something
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Jan 5, 2009 12:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see Meloan or MIller figuring more prominently than Masa, and I’ll take Sowers over Jackson.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jan 5, 2009 8:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
we spotting the other teams 4 player this year
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Jan 5, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Funnily, my angst about the rotation actually goes down if its just:
Lee
Carmona
Laffey
Reyes
Jackson
I don’t know why that is.
Also, given this lineup, if Hafner could be 2/3ds of Pronk, I’d really be very happy.
by NickFantana on Jan 6, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like a call for a new measurement – the Pronk Unit. I think his 2007 season represents about 0.67 Pronk Units. Maybe we can call that 1.00 Hafners.
by woodsmeister on Jan 6, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So what is Dellucci? I’d say about 0.0085 Pronk Units.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 7, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can Pronk Units be negative?
Signature to be named later.
by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but we’d have to establish some sort of zero-line-indicating performance. I’m more in line with the theory that, much like Mojo Nixon once proposed about Elvis, every player has a little Pronk in him except for Nick Punto, the Evil Anti-Pronk.
Nick Punto has got no Pronk.
by woodsmeister on Jan 8, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I figure negative Pronk units would require someone having a detrimental impact on the performance of other players. Where a hitter with zero Pronk units is, say, a rock or a blow-up doll — they strike out looking every at-bat, but don’t hurt anyone else’s chances — a hitter with negative Pronk units might, for example, throw things at teammates while pitches are being delivered, or shove them off-base so they get picked off… things like that, in addition to striking out every time.
by Logodaedalus on Jan 8, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Kryptonite or Madame Curie type debilitation. Low negative pronk units can’t pass through lead shields, or reach past much distance. High negative pronk units expand across an entire team, and cannot be avoided. The Indians-Reds series in Great America was an example of high negative PUs.
Negative pronk units wear you down. It feels like you’re wearing concrete boots.
Zero Pronk units do strike out looking, but not before the count goes to 3-1.
by odradek on Jan 8, 2009 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it’s getting to where you can smell a logo post coming a mile away. and that is in no way a bad thing.
by Brick. on Jan 8, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I assume you mean it’s not a bad thing so that you can abandon thread in time to avoid serious injury.
by Logodaedalus on Jan 9, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
