RHP Mitch Talbot is PTBN from Shoppach trade.
Castrovince, via Twitter. Hat tip: rolub. Talbot, 26, is out of options, and gets added to the 40-man.
about 2 years ago
fleerdon
219 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Strange. As I see it,
1. Talbot’s worth more than I think he is, or
2. Shoppach was worth less than I thought he was, or
3. there are some as-yet-unreported elements to this trade.
Seems like entirely too much risk that Talbot will suck or get hurt, and we’ll have nothing to show for Kelly.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 1:17 PM EST reply actions
And it’s really important that we continue to win the Crisp-Marte trade.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
Agent M is still on this mission.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 21, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
Between that and sending cash, why not just non-tender shoppach?
by Brick. on Dec 21, 2009 1:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Maybe it isn’t a good thing that I can understand and explain most every move the Indians make. Maybe they should be making moves that don’t make sense to me — because after all, all I’ve got are the numbers. The saberblog view is essentially that since the numbers are all we can be sure about, the numbers are all that matter, and anything else is pure luck. In other words, the entire career of a GM like Pat Gillick was pure luck.
Maybe.
by 7foot3 on Dec 21, 2009 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, but that’s only applicable when I want to blame the front office after the ostensibly rational decisions have gone awry. Meanwhile, I like feeling smart.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
The most interesting thing about Mitch Talbot’s entire body of work is that he was both a Charlotte Stone Crab and a Montgomery Biscuit. He’s like a walking seafood dinner.
by FredOx on Dec 21, 2009 1:22 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
It’s a shame Harvey Haddix is no longer our pitching coach.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 21, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions
And I guess it’s too late for Dizzy Trout, or Catfish Hunter, or Preacher Roe.
by ken from alexandria on Dec 21, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
Shoppach was given a $1.95 million contract a year ago, in his first year of arbitration eligibility, and, despite his subpar 2009 season, he’s due to receive a raise from the Rays in his second round. Unloading that financial burden was perhaps the biggest incentive for the Indians in making the trade. -Castro
Horsey sauce, AC. In summary, financial burden of Kelly Shoppach + playing time for Marson & Santana + Mitch Talbot < on-field value of Kelly Shoppach, unless somebody can ’splain me otherwise.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 1:36 PM EST reply actions
Tony Lastoria says that the Indians also sent cash to complete the deal.
It won’t cripple the team by any means, but it’s definately a very poor deal.
This is retarded. I’d rather have a mediocre one tool A ball player (good hitter, live arm, good defender at premium position) than a subpar out of options AAAA pitcher with no distinguishing characteristics that set him apart from Jeremy Sowers.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Dec 21, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
If I can spring to Zack Jackson’s defense, I can surely something nice about Mitch Talbot. But even the most ardent Talbot supporter would have a hard time matching up the credits and debits, based on what we know.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
I’ll try.
Has decent stuff — low 90’s fastball (saw some reports he touch the mid 90’s, not sure how accurate those are), good changeup and good slider/cutter.
Good control (2.6 BB/9 during minor league career), solid K rate (7.6 K/9).
FIP of 3.52 in the minors as well as a strong groundball rate (well over 50% and gave up only 46 homeruns in about 700 IP).
Still meh. Hopefully he’ll be a pleasant surprise, but I’m not holding my breath.
It remains kind of hard for me to shake the idea that, if this guy were a major league pitcher, he’d be one already.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
And he wouldnt have sucked in AAA
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Dec 21, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Mediocre in AAA = Worse than that in the majors.
I hate this deal.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
Championship!
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Dec 21, 2009 1:47 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
So, have they already offered ambriz back?
by Brick. on Dec 21, 2009 1:57 PM EST via mobile reply actions
You know, on one hand, I get that we’re talking about $2MM here, and a couple of guys who had no futures with their respective organizations. The Cubs just traded Milton Bradley for $36MM of Carlos Silva. It’s all relative.
On the other hand, pfffffft.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
In a related announcement, Cleveland GM Mark Shapiro said that in an effort to re-awaken Cleveland’s championship attitude, the organization will make a strong push to win the International League title this season.
“We really feel that with a starting rotation of Masterson, Laffey, Huff, Rondon and Carrasco, the Clippers will really be a force.”
/not real
“We hope to break camp with Sowers, Talbot, Ambriz, Pino, and Jackson as our starting five,” Shapiro added. “Things are bad all over, and it’s time the Indians lended a hand-up — not a hand-out — to the option-less upper-twenty-somethings among us. Probably I’ll add that to the mission statement.”
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i want that job. stand in the batters box in the pen and take hacks as guys warm up.
by Brick. on Dec 21, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe they’re hoping he’ll become a very poor man’s Trevor Hoffman out of the bullpen.
That’s the only way I can really see Talbot being a factor with the 2010 Indians – I can’t see where’s he a real upgrade for the 5th starter spot compared to the other candidates. Heck, Ambriz would be just as compelling a candidate in the 5th starter’s spot as Talbot would, and Ambriz has already been pegged for the bullpen.
I’m thinking too – Talbot likely is headed to the bullpen as well, in hopes that he regains some velocity (consistent low-90s, maybe even approach mid-90s at times), along with that changeup. I hadn’t heard his slider/cutter being plus, just his changeup.
At the very best, you might have a lite version of Trevor Hoffman someday, but like JP Frost mentioned, I’m not holding my breath.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
At the risk of simply rationalizing a justification for this. We pretty much all preferred Cruz, but he was a 21-year old in low-A this season. He scores out as a better prospect, but he is still really a fringe guy, meaning he isn’t necessarily a guy you can plan on being part of the future big league team. A good 2010 and that can all change, but a bad 2010 and he becomes another nameless innings filler in the system. Talbot, on the other hand, will be given a shot to contribute something at the major league level this season. His service time is (I think) only 16 days, meaning if he does stick around he is under control for 6 seasons, and cheap for 3 of those.
So, you can definitely argue the expected return from Talbot is greater than that of Cruz, even if you think the potential ceiling is lower.
Joe Cruz could very well turn out to be Mitch Talbot someday, and that wouldn’t be an entirely unhappy career. I admit I’d be much more mellow about this if it hadn’t been for the Indians’ cloak-and-dagger routine. It’s like you’ve got a friend who flatly refuses to tell you what he does every Saturday morning, and then it turns out he’s been tiling his bathroom.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
That’s because he’s afraid you’ll demolish it.
by jds16 on Dec 21, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So the question, is, which asset is less sustantial:
- The 20-year-old pitcher who more than two years away from even getting to the point where he still doesn’t exist per TINSTAAPP, or
- The out-of-options non-prospect whom we’ll most likely lose on waivers in March.
How did the choice between the two of these become our payment for Kelly? That’s what befuddles me.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Teams are broke, and arbitration rarely resets salaries downward. That’s how. If this were 2007, it would be a different story.
AL lowest percentage of caught stealing by catcher (minimum 600 innings or 50 stolen-base attempts):
Jason Varitek, Bos, 8.5%
Victor Martinez, Cle-Bos, 12.5%
Mike Napoli, LA, 14.9%
A.J. Pierzynski, Chi, 16.8%
Kurt Suzuki, Oak, 17.3%
Greg Zaun, Bal-Tam, 18.9%
Kell Shoppach, Cle, 21.0%
It’s tempting to call this the catcher defense idiot stat, but it isn’t quite that.
Anyway, there’s a lot more to catcher defense than CS, and my guess is that Shoppach had become low-rated in several areas.
This doesn’t prove he’s low-rated, but it contributes to an understanding of his present reputation,
Some, yes, but mostly it just confirms he isn’t one of the truly awful ones. These things fluctuate a fair amount anyway. I really think this is about reputation and scouting moreso than stats.
So…..
Westbrook
Carmona
Masterson
Laffey
Talbot
Wood
Sipp
C. Perez
J. Smith
R. Perez
Jensen Lewis
Sowers? Ambriz? Grilli?
With AAA:
Huff
Carrasco
Rondon
Not the end of the world to have Huff back at AAA. And this assumes a healthy Westbrook. But this deal…surprises me. Two guys who are out of options? One coming off a major elbow injury? Hrm…
I think this deal is another example of the Indians taking a risk on a post-injury guy with high upside who otherwise might not have been available in this deal if the injury hadn’t occurred.
I can’t see any team taking a shot on him until he proves he’s healthy. At the end of the spring, maybe some team will have interest, but only if the Indians eat a big chunk of his salary. And even then, I’m not sure you get much return. Unless the name of the game is just to clear part of his salary.
If he has a nice half-season and the Indians are out of it, then you can probably deal him at the deadline for something more legitimate. Hey— look what Casey Blake brought in his walk year. Hell, grabbing a player like Scott Barnes is even worth it. But I don’t think other clubs not in the heat of a pennant race are willing to deal a Barnes.
I somewhat agree with you, but since 2010 will likely be a lost season anyway, why not let guys like Huff and Carrasco work things out in the majors? They both showed they can handle AAA batters.
Because I have a feeling that they’ll get their 20 starts in Cleveland, regardless.
Is Westbrook really healthy? If so, will he last the whole year in Cleveland?
Is Masterson not destined for the bullpen?
Can Carmona be counted on for anything? Would Carmona even be starting if he didn’t have the contract he has?
What kind of pitcher is Aaron Laffey? Is he a left-handed Jake Westbrook or can he just not strike out any batters?
How’s Talbot’s elbow?
There’s too many questions with the guys who have spots. Others will be needed.
Is Westbrook really healthy? If so, will he last the whole year in Cleveland?
If he is healthy then I assume he will be traded at some point. If he isn’t, then no. I think penciling in 14 starts for Westbrook in Cleveland sounds about right.
Is Masterson not destined for the bullpen?
I hope not. But if he is going to be in the majors in 2010 it seems like a real possibility. I would still like to see him start the season in the rotation at Columbus. Masterson never really learned how to be a starting pitcher in the minors, why not give him the opportunity.
Can Carmona be counted on for anything? Would Carmona even be starting if he didn’t have the contract he has?
Counted on, I don’t know. But Carmona would certainly be here even without his contract. He’s under our control and he was one of the 5 best pitchers in baseball in 2007. You don’t abandon that right away with a young guy. Look at Greinke.
What kind of pitcher is Aaron Laffey? Is he a left-handed Jake Westbrook or can he just not strike out any batters?
What if he is a left-handed Westbrook – that’s a pretty good thing isn’t it?
How’s Talbot’s elbow?
I don’t think the Indians would have acquired him if they weren’t confident it is ok.
Masterson’s done enough pitching at the major league level — I don’t think there’s a point for him not to be contributing either in the bullpen or in the rotation.
And yes, I’m hoping Laffey springs forward in 2010 like Westbrook did in 2004.
I don’t think there’s a point for him not to be contributing either in the bullpen or in the rotation.
What about asset utilization at the major league level? Maybe Masterson doesn’t need to be in AAA, but he can be at AAA.
I think the Talbot acquisition most affects Sowers and/or Ambriz. Ambriz was a long shot to stick anyway. Maybe Sowers starts the year as the longman. We can’t argue with his results the first time through the lineup. But with the depth options at AAA, hanging on to Sowers seems less necessary.
Hanging on to Sowers seems less necessary.
If you’re saying in comparison to Talbot, I’d argue that hanging onto Talbot seems less necessary as Talbot enters a 25-man roster with the “out-of-options, 26-year-old, maybe he can be a swingman because he doesn’t look like a viable MLB starter” role already filled in Sowers, who has consistently performed better (and at a higher level) than Talbot across the board..
Talbot’s no different than a lot of these arms (other than, you know, being OUT OF OPTIONS) that have to be parsed through this year and forgive me as I know I’ve used this before before, but “we already have a George”.
by The DiaTriber on Dec 21, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
I bought one of those “Indians-only” packs of baseball cards for my son, that are basically all of the filler guys from the ’80s, and the Mitch Webster card included was one (among many) that brought a smile to my face.
by The DiaTriber on Dec 21, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
I bought one of those "Indians-only" packs of baseball cards for my son
And this brought a smile to my face. Isn’t your son, like, three years old?
by ken from alexandria on Dec 21, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
Yep, tomorrow in fact.
I actually bought it for him when we were taking one in from the Mezz this summer. He is inexplicably fascinated by the Allanson card.
by The DiaTriber on Dec 21, 2009 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
Well, there are a couple of somewhat sparkling items on Talbot’s resume.
One is an all-around terrific 2006 season, age 22 in Double-A.
Another is a tremendous K/BB of 4.03 in his last full season, 2008, age 24 in Triple-A. Sowers dominated in Triple-A in terms of run-suppression, but his K/BB was 2.36. He may have finally figured out how to be a mediocre major league pitcher, but he’s always going to be a marginal guy. You could argue there’s a chance to catch lightning in a bottle with Talbot.
In other words … HIGH CEILING BABY.
You could argue there’s a chance to catch lightning in a bottle with Talbot.
May this represent the first and last time that “lighting in a bottle” and “Talbot” appear in the same sentence.
by The DiaTriber on Dec 21, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
Talbot – 9 2/3 MLB innings
Sowers – 400 MLB innings
If we’re saying that Sowers “figured out how to be a mediocre major league pitcher” ( which Jay did, and I agree with), how long is the leash on Talbot to do the same with no chance for him to be sent down to Columbus?
Ultimately it looks like trading two unwanted players for each other, which is disappointing, particularly in the context of the contracts that catchers that I would say are worse than Shoppach are getting this off-season.
by The DiaTriber on Dec 21, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
I guess the thing with Talbot is this:
1. The Indians are now that team that can afford to give him a pretty long leash.
2. If he’s really that terrible given the opportunity, maybe we don’t lose him on waivers anyway.
3. I think the Indians generally are worried about having too few options for the rotation rather than too many. That may seem counterintuitive given the list of 8-10 starters, but there’s injury histories in there and significant performance issues, and it’s a long season.
I understand this…but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
To me, MLB innings this year are a valuable commodity in figuring out who among Masterson, Laffey, Huff, Rondon, Carrasco, and (to a lesser degree) Sowers figures into the 2011 mix. Giving Talbot that “long leash” just prolongs the time until the team knows more about their internal options.
Maybe you’re right that 2011 isn’t the target date as giving a guy like Talbot innings would certainly point to 2011 still being a year that the young pitchers attempt to adjust.
by The DiaTriber on Dec 21, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions
I assumed he was talking about not cutting an out-of-options guy just to have Masterson start the season in the majors.
I would still like to see [Masterson] start the season in the rotation at Columbus. [He] never really learned how to be a starting pitcher in the minors, why not give him the opportunity.
Woo hoo! There are others on my side here!
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
That’s another puzzling aspect of this deal for Shoppach – Talbot had an elbow strain last year. Yes, he made 2 IL playoff spots, but that elbow still has to be a bit of a concern.
So, not only do we get a meh prospect (if he’s still even a prospect, which is borderline at best due to his age and performance), we get a meh prospect with a recent injury history that is worth noting.
The question is, this is the best we could do for Shoppach, considering the fact that TB was looking for a catcher, not to mention other teams like Toronto (and about 3-4 others) were also looking for catchers (Toronto signing Buck for 1 year)?
That’s why I think this deal is making many of us scratch our heads and think, “that’s all?!” Let’s hope the Indians’ scouts are right about Talbot, but I think we’ll be genuinely surprised if he really makes an impact for the Indians.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Not the end of the world to have Huff back at AAA
I’m conflicted on this a little…but I think I’d rather have Huff at the major league level working with the new pitching coaches. But, if he did end up in AAA to start the year, I can’t imagine him staying down there too long.
by MooneysRebellion on Dec 21, 2009 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
I like this better read without the implied “more interesting than last year’s spring training.” As in, “2010 spring training will be a little more interesting than the entirety of 2009.” And so it will.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
Eh, look, I think rebuilding is plenty interesting, but it’s not as interesting as contending.
Now that 2008 spring training, that was pretty boring as I recall.
Certainly, you want to contend than rebuild, but being we’re not in that position right now (unless the AL Central really falters, which isn’t totally out of the question), we have to look for the silver lining in the dark cloud, right? :-)
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
My gut reaction is this: I was wrong. I thought that Shoppach was a valuable player, certainly one of the best 30 catchers in the game, but the market doesn’t support that. I certainly thought he was more valuable than a partial year of Carl Pavano (and yes considering their salary status), but he just got traded for a Pino without the options, someone coming off an elbow issue. I understand that Talbot may have been a better choice than Cruz, and that there is always a chance that maybe he’ll magically become a star. But that guy, with no options, for Shoppach. I was wrong, wrong, wrong.
That too makes this deal puzzling as well – cash in addition to Shoppach.
Talk about a brain teaser for Christmas week. :-)
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I’d rather have Mitch Talbot than Kelly Shoppach, all things considered. -Keith Law
He’s free to elaborate on that.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
we do have some wicked changeups in the organization — Huff, Carrasco, Talbot, Lewis, Carmona (at times), and I’m sure I’m forgetting one or two pitchers.
Here is a more substantive argument for Talbot: prior to this season, Talbot looked like a very good prospect. Cruz has yet to look like a very good prospect.
2009 Progress score numbers: Cruz – 4.50, Talbot – 3.86
Talbot’s Progress score numbers in 2008, 2007, 2006: 8.62, 7.11, 8.53
Talbot got old and injured in 2009, but prior to 2009 looked like a very good prospect (His 8.62 in 2008 is right in line with what Carrasco did this season). In the Cliff Lee trade the Indians acquired a couple of assets (Marson and Donald) that were suffering through a hard season but were not far removed from being thought of very highly. It makes sense to weight recent data more heavily, but perhaps the Indians are looking to take advantage of distressed assets.
That last sentence explains it perfectly. It’s Hagadone. It’s Donald. It’s Talbot. To a certain extent, it’s Knapp. Players with high upside that may not be available if it weren’t for injury questions.
That’s fine, if you can just show me where the “high upside” resides with Talbot.
Players like Hagadone, Donald, and Knapp – all highly-thought-of prospects with recent injuries – are a horse of a different color when compared to guys like Talbot.
by The DiaTriber on Dec 21, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
How about “higher” upside than what was otherwise available? Lee and Martinez were quite different from Shoppach, so the approach from the Front Office might have been the same, but the players involved were of quite different caliber.
by Deep South Ken on Dec 21, 2009 4:32 PM EST up reply actions
Now that I’ve emoted, I’ve decided I’m ready to separate myself from the (kind of ridiculous) context of this deal, elements of which must be escaping me, and start liking Talbot as an inexpensive asset. There is at least something to be said for not converting all of your marketable pieces into A-ball assets.
I’ve also decided that I’m ready, emotionally, to start disliking the Rays, who have, in my estimation, done not much more to earn their talent than be resolutely worse than everybody for a decade, and then finally hire a grownup to put the pieces together. They’re the Pirates with better luck and nicer weather.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
And has the Tribe shown itself to be so hot at rehabilitating injured players? Like Soloff and Schickendanz pride themselves on fixing lost causes? Because that’s a reach. It’s not like the tender loving care of the Tribe training staff has done much for the flat-brimmed guy from St. Louis, or the fellow with the bum finger.
Good point – perhaps that’s the pattern in this case, and not the “young guy with overpowering stuff” trend of late.
And as Deep South Ken pointed out below, Shoppach wasn’t equal to Lee and Martinez, so you really couldn’t expect the same level of prospect as we got in those deals. Let’s hope Talbot works out.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
This “distressed assets” theory makes sense to me.
By the way, I have never seen it confirmed that Cruz was the other available choice. I know that people believed that, but it seems possible that the report was partially incorrect or incomplete. Much of the conversation on this thread assumes that Cruz was the other option.
by Deep South Ken on Dec 21, 2009 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
I haven’t seen this posted anywhere, but Anthony Castrovince on his MLB.com report added this, so I’m sorry if it looks like I’m stealing someone’s thunder.
The Tribe had until Sunday to select the player to be named. The other player on their list to consider was right-hander Joseph Cruz, a 21-year-old who spent all of ‘09 at Class A Bowling Green. Had the Indians selected Cruz, it’s believed they would have had to send another player to the Rays as compensation.
Wait a minute. Cruz was worth Kelly Shoppach AND another player?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 21, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
You know what?
Good for them. Jay, myself, and many others have made the arugment that the Indians ought to be doing more things that aren’t ‘expected.’ Something that indicates an “insider” level of knowledge. Well, it’s not sexy but here it is.
My take is: Shapiro is very smart, there’s no doubt about that. I don’t think he’s just turned into Bavasi. Either this was all that could be had (which is a shame but there was no point in keeping Kelly) or there’s something about Talbott we don’t realize.
I think Talbott stays in the rotation all year. We just got ourselves a decent starter, I think. /hopeful.
Well, there’s something about Mitch, or there’s something about Kelly. Shoppach does have that surgically reconstructed shoulder. /unwise and unfounded speculation
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
The only part about this that irritates me is that they even spent the money to pick Ambriz. That looks to me like totally wasted money and if money is such a big deal than don’t just waste it for no reason.
We now have a number of guys in camp who have to either make the 25 or walk and it’s pretty obvious that Ambirz is walking.
Jay, myself, and many others have made the arugment that the Indians ought to be doing more things that aren’t ‘expected.’ Something that indicates an "insider" level of knowledge. Well, it’s not sexy but here it is.
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
It’ll be a wash when Lofgren gets returned.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 21, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
Really? I’m not as convinced of that – why pick Ambriz if you’re just going to waste money?
I think his chances are better than you are implying because the bullpen is in such a state of disarray – who are real locks to start the ML season in the bullpen? You can’t even say with 100% certainty that Lewis and R. Perez are locks to start there, since both have been inconsistent.
Right now, as I see it, this guy is a lock due to his contract:
Kerry Wood
These guys are as close to locks as you can get, though I don’t know if Id say 100% (call it 99.9%):
Chris Perez
Tony Sipp
Lewis and R. Perez are not in that same group in my opinion – I’m not totally aware of their options remaining off the top of my head, but I think both could still be sent to AAA without problems, correct? If so, then I think those two definitely have to show in ST (as well as one can show in ST) that they have their kinks worked out and look more like the pitchers from 2007 (and 2008, especially in Perez’s case).
If they don’t, I think there’s a decent chance that they could find their way back in Columbus. That to me makes me think that Ambriz does have a legitimate shot of making it – of course, he has to prove that he can do that, but even if he stays on the Indians all of 2010, a projected rebuilding year for the Indians, the Indians, I think could always send him back to AAA in 2011 if he has some ups and downs during 2010.
Otherwise, why make him a Rule 5 pick? Obviously, there is something about him that they thought could be useful in 2010, just like with Talbot. The Indians haven’t made a habit of picking too many Rule 5 picks in recent years, so I doubt they just picked him just because they had an open spot on their roster – they picked him, like Talbot, because something about Ambriz intrigued them, particularly out of the bullpen, though in some ways, he might be more impressive than Talbot was as a starting pitching prospect, looking at his age and performance in hitter-friendly leagues.
Therefore, I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that Ambriz is walking – that remains to be seen this upcoming spring.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Even for the Indians, 25K is pocket change. I don’t think they’d make a pick frivolously, but they certainly aren’t worrying about the money.
I agree that they’re not worried about the money, but at the same time, it’s not every day or every year that the Indians make a Rule 5 pick – granted, I can’t recall the last time the Indians were even in position to make a Rule 5 pick (i.e. have a 40-man roster spot open), but I think it’s premature to just write off Ambriz.
In fact, you could ALMOST interchange Ambriz and Talbot in terms of their circumstances:
Both are somewhat long shots to remain on the ballclub for 2010.
Before Ambriz was marked for the bullpen, both of which could have either started or relieved (I still think Talbot may wind up in the bullpen like Ambriz, rather than being our 5th starter).
If one or both make the ballclub, one or both will have the chance to establish themselves on a team that is rebuilding and can afford to be patient with both, and obviously, the Indians seen something in both of them to have interest (I presume the Indians agreed upon which players could be included on that list in the Shoppach deal, even though TB had the final say on who we received, correct?)
If one or both don’t make the ballclub, it’s a minimum loss – Ambriz would cost us $25K, while Talbot was received for a guy we really weren’t going to have a place for in 2010 anyway, and by most accounts, seems to have very little value.
Therefore, I think Ambriz is similar to Talbot in that both will probably get a solid opportunity to make the ballclub – if one or both are solid to impressive in ST, I think one or both could really make the ballclub, especially when you consider the rotation, and especially, the bullpen are in flux (at least 2 spots in that bullpen are up for grabs in my mind, and I don’t think Lewis or R. Perez are absolute locks to start the season in Cleveland if they are shaky in ST – one or either could start the season in Columbus with a poor ST).
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
It is interesting how Rule 5 picks are somewhat in the same boat with out-of-options guys. The key difference, of course, is that while their roster status is similar for the current year, the out-of-options guy will be optionless in every subsequent year as well — like Marte, three years in a row now — while the Rule 5 guy has three option years remaining, but the current year just isn’t one of them.
Ambriz was selected as a bullpen guy all the way. Does this trade really change that at all? Maybe they’ve really given up on Sowers. Yes, he has this thing about going through the lineup the first time. But it’s not like the Indians are set to lose much from going to Sowers to Ambriz to Grilli to Pino in a long relief role, especially considering how things probably shape up in 2010.
While I posted the quote above, I can’t help but question the logic. A lot of the moves the Indians have made that passed Sabermetrics 101, have been successful. But some of the Indians downfall has been because of reasons that haven’t passed Sabermetrics 101. I know Baseball Prospectus has, on more than one occasion, suggested the Indians lack of bats in the corners would be an issue. The Indians have frequently just kind of been ‘eh’ when it came to putting pitchers out there who can get strikeouts.
Taking a different, unexpected approach to building a bullpen, and maybe with prioritizing defense a bit more? Absolutely I’d be down with that, and I think they have started that already. But a somewhat questionable starter, while we have already have more than a few depth arms, that is out of options and may have been dropped later in the offseason? Can we do something unexpected without doing something I’d expect Bavasi to do?
That’s a good point Andrew – certainly, Shapiro and company had to see something in Talbot.
With that said, I wouldn’t rule him out as being a reliever, more in the Trevor Hoffman type mold with that changeup (and no, I don’t mean as a closer; I just mean the repertoire that could make him effective as a reliever, provided there is enough separation on his fastball and changeup).
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Along these lines, Mitch Talbot appears to be the first baseball prospect (at least that I can recall) that Tony Lastoria openly dislikes:
I’ll be honest, I am not a fan of what the Indians received in this trade at all. I am sure a high percentage of Indians fans feel the same way too. Talbot is just so bland and has so little upside, not to mention he makes an already crowded pitching situation even more crowded with guys who need to make the 25-man roster out of spring or risk being lost.
Talbot is just so bland and has so little upside
I love Tony, but has there ever been a more blatant example of favoritism for the guys in our system than this statement? Yeah, I do it too.
by dgcambridge on Dec 22, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Okay! So, who’s Jhonny getting traded to? Houston?
by fleerdon on Dec 21, 2009 5:01 PM EST reply actions
We’ll be really irritated when we only manage to get #40 on Ed Wade’s 40-man.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
You know, I’m only half joking. Peralta, Wood, Westbrook — in light of the pitiful market for Shoppach, should we reasonably expect anything other than some salary relief by getting rid of the Tradeable Trio next season? I feel as though that’s what I have to look forward to from this team in 2010: moral victories from the starting rotation, and three big lumps of contract getting shoveled off so the team can eeke its way back to the break-even point.
And that’s what I really hate, at the bottom of this trade. It’s not much to do with Talbot. It’s the dawning realization that we’ve moved all the significant chips we had, and that the organization that’s been assembled is the one we’re stuck with for the next three years.
by fleerdon on Dec 22, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
I would have had him on the fringe list. He’s fringe because his 2009 was not super and his prospect window has passed him by. But his 2006-2008 numbers are more than enough to keep him in the picture. Based on performance alone, his 2008 numbers would have him only behind Rondon and just slightly behind Carrasco.
“There were a number of complexities to the player to be named component,” assistant general manager Chris Antonetti said. “Cash was a consideration, in the event that we went with Talbot.”
Simply put, they like his stuff — particularly what Antonetti called an “above-average” changeup and cutter — and his potential to land a job.
“He’s another upper-level starting option for us,” Antonetti said. “He’s a guy we’ve had interest in for quite a while. He’s logged close to 400 Triple-A innings, and we’re adding him to our mix to come in and compete for a spot.”
Given that the main point of the trade was to save a little money, I don’t mind it. If they are interested in Talbot from prior scoutings, fine. He’s at the point where he should be competing for a major league job, and that’s the only reason they got him – to add to the rotation free for all in ST.
I don’t really see any reason to rank him ahead of Huff, Laffey, Masterson or Sowers at this point. But given that every single SP we have is a big question mark going into 2010, it makes sense to add to the “nothing left to prove at AAA” depth at this point. If it turns out it merely further enables Rondon or Carrasco to finish what they need to at Columbus, it’ll be worth it.
Of course, it seems they’ve already decided if he doesn’t even make it out of ST, it’ll be worth it.
While it can be said that our ‘pen is fairly set and the starting lineup is either fairly set or simply waiting in the wings (I’m looking at you – Santana & Chisenhall), it will be mighty interesting to watch the SPs this spring training. I honestly don’t know who our starting five are at this point. Heck, I’m not sure I know who the favorites are outside of Westbrook (if healthy) and Carmona (if he doesn’t break down sobbing on the mound). With those two, I count at least 7 guys for 3 spots.
I just wanted to believe.
Setting yourself up. It’s only one great season he’s had. He could steal a car next week.
by Jay on Dec 22, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
He’s why I keep my dorm room at UAkron locked.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on Dec 23, 2009 1:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe its just me, but I believe the Indians projected rotation next year is poor. There really isn’t a single SP in this entire organization that can be counted on to perform well at the major league level next year. Carmona’s struggles are obvious, Masterson is best suited for relief but is giving starting a try, Huff is an average talent that struggled in 2008, Laffey nearly had a 1:1 BB/K ratio in 2008, Westbrook is coming off a major injury, Carrasco had major command issues in the majors last year. SP could be a disaster next year for the Indians. Enter Mitch Talbot.
Add in prospective injuries, and you’ve got a situation that needs to be addressed. Talbot is nothing too special, but perhaps the Indians could get some useful innings out of him.
Below is a link to Talbot pitching in AAA last year. He’s got a good arm stroke, threw 88-94 MPH with a change-up. He reminds me of Tim Drew a few years ago.
by OhioTommy on Dec 21, 2009 11:49 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Mitchapalooza 2010. Re-released into the wild.
Lead singer and driver of the Winnebago.
by Fredward on Dec 22, 2009 1:57 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Some interesting news from Tony Lastoria on the trade:
http://www.indiansprospectinsider.com/2009/12/offseason-happenings-rays-not-indians.html
Apparently the Rays made the choice of trading Talbot and not the Tribe.
It is a situation where I feel like we need to add all the starting alternatives that we can.
Oh sweet Jesus that doesn’t sounds good.
Via Fangraphs via Minor League Splits
Courtesy of Minor League Splits, here are his major league equivalent lines:
2007: 5.11 FIP, 5.82 K/9, 4.57 BB/9
2008: 3.76 FIP, 6.45 K/9, 2.59 BB/9
2009: 3.58 FIP, 6.46 K/9, 3.16 BB/9CHONE projects a 4.91 big league ERA for Talbot in 2010, with 5.65 K/9, 3.35 BB/9 and 1.15 HR/9. He could work his way into the back of Cleveland’s rotation.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
Just thinking out loud here: Could we look to flip Talbot before ST opens?
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
Just what kind of market do you think there is for out-of-options pitchers?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 22, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe we can get a catcher who OPSed 865 in 2008.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
by westbrook on Dec 22, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
We got something for Guthrie? I didn’t think so and B-Ref doesn’t either.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
Those trades were so impressive that I’m having a mental block over what we got. :-)
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
mY last post got me thinking — supposedly in our recent trades we’ve been targeting guys who had a down year prior to our acquiring them. Isn’t that Shoppach?
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
Yeah, kinda defeats the purpose.
Then again, we want to get guys coming off of down years who are also still cheap.
Having just read through most of this thread at once, I have to confess, I may not purchase any sort of MLB.tv or Extra Innings package this year. Maybe not even the radio thing. OK, probably still the radio thing.
2010 is going to suck for the Indians.
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.
