Game 29: Red Sox 13, Indians 3
by afh4 on May 7, 2009 10:01 PM EDT
in Game Recaps
342 comments
For five innings, it seemed like last night had been a turning point in the Indians' season; Jeremy Sowers, newly minted in the rotation, was pitching very well, leading 2-1 coming into the fifth and making the Sowers-Laffey-Chulk Affair (think XYZ Affair) look like a boon, not a boondoggle. Then, Sowers turned back into Sowers, putting six straight men on base (there was an intentional walk in there but are we really giving bonus points for that?). He was followed by Masa, who acted like Masa, and then finally Matt Herges, who's behavior I don't have a read on but seemed to stay true to his personality. 15 batters later, it was 13-3 and 2009 had turned back into 2009.
The night ended at 13-3, with the Red Sox pounding out 13 hits for Feng Shui symmetry. There's not a lot else to say; the pitching was horrible, the offense not much better. It looked like games we've been watching all year. The only notable point here is that Sowers continues to look like some kind of movie subplot where an awkward kid is forced to play baseball by bullies and ends up pulling at his uniform all the time. I'm not sure how that movie ends but it probably involves an animal saving Sowers. No animals appeared tonight and Sowers most assuredly does not have good baseball face.
At this point, the Indians player and management have to be searching for answers, however, it's unclear that there are any more to be had. The Indians have spent most of their bullets-LaPorta is here, Laffey is in the bullpen (?!?) and the only piece of legitimate pitching depth left unused in AAA is David Huff. That is, unless you're interested in 40-manning guys like Greg Aquino, Randy Newsom, or Frank Hermann.
The only radical pitching moves left are Rondon, Huff or an option outside the organization. The Indians have trading chips-there's a lot of position player depth and, bizarrely, Andy Marte could conceivably become an integral figure in an Indians' move. It will almost certainly be a long night for Shapiro, Antonetti, and Wedge; we shall see what the future holds.
Next Up: Verlander vs. Lee, back at the P[redacted]. Tomorrow at 7:05 ET.
2 recs |
342 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The problem with Sowers? His name. Say it. Jeremy Sowers. That’s a crappy baseball name, folks, and everybody knows it. Jeremy Sowers is not a baseball player. He’s a junior hedge fund manager who wears plaid shorts and Tevas on the weekends.
He needs to change his name to Mad Joe Manski, “Cornpone” Cal Jenkins, Sasafrass Walker or Two Legs Lawson. Then, he’ll be successful and we will adore him like no other.
Sometimes, I just like to b****.
by emd2k3 on May 7, 2009 10:17 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
(i) so do sowers and laffey get flipped now?
(ii) isn’t jhonny the piece we’re best in position to do without?
Jhonny’s value is so, so low, I’d imagine. My likely candidates on the major league roster are Shoppach and Garko.
given how well vic is responding to limited time behind the plate, i don’t get the sense shop is negotiable. jhonny’s had a miserable 100 ABs, but you think people are convinced he suddenly can’t hit anymore at 27?
Toregas is raking and has always been pimped as ready defensively. He’s probably a more typical backup-mostly glove and not really part of a platoon, but a lot of teams get by with that kind of guy.
No. A bad start should not cloud that fact that he’s been among the best hitting shortstops in the league for a few years now.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Could it be said he’s the best-hitting shortstop in the American League? Once again, people are eager to unload Jhonny. Maybe the Tribe could trade an outfielder? It’s also unlikely anyone will trade before the 40-game mark.
I love JP but if the tribe is moving a player, it ought to be a good player. In the OF, who is that? Brantley, Choo, LaPorta? I’m fine with dealing Brantley for the right package but the other two are far more untouchable than JP.
Guys like Francisco are not going to get us the kind of fix we need, I fear.
Of course, we don’t have to get a fix. We can see what happens internally.
If Crisp brought Ramon Ramirez—who would be awesome in the Cleveland pen—you could do pretty well there.
Don’t forget the Gutierrez for Smith. That turns out to be a big deal, and Joe’s absence is obvious.
What amazes me is the Tribe’s continuing ability to roll snake eyes. The Smith trade seemed pretty good to me at the time, but I bet Smith is pretty much worthless for months. The Indians have once again had a confluence of bad luck, inconceivable underperformance and lack of good surprises. (Asdrubal qualifies as a positive, but who else has exceeded expectations?)
Yeah. It’s hard to know if this is a time to be reconfiguring a larger plan, a time to be cursing the gods (again), or a time to be trying to expand horizons in terms of the kinds of deals that are viable (i.e. prospects for vets).
I think the Indians are approaching a place where they need to re-evaluate basically every single one of their tenets.
I just think you think the Indians might have gotten everything wrong. Right now, we’re looking at a terrible bullpen, and kinda….that’s it. Because if our bullpen wasn’t terrible, Laffey would’ve pitched last night. We just need to go back to the scrapheap and try again.
I dunno. I’m also quietly contemplating the problems inherent in a team that doesn’t discount a high-K approach. Also, pitchers who pitch to contact as something the organization values.
This is also a team that is getting useful innings out of Carl Pavano and turned Eduardo Perez and Casey Blake into Asdrubal Cabrera and Carlos Santana. The front office isn’t as perfect as Dave Cameron would have you believe, but
re-evaluate basically every single one of their tenetsis a bit extreme, right? They can’t figure out the bullpen, otherwise they seem to do pretty well.
I disagree. This isn’t just a bullpen issue. It’s also an organizational issue. Why has the pen remained a problem for sometime (excepting 2007)? Why the inability to fill corner positions? As Andrew says, why the pitch-to-contact philosophy (perhaps a market value, but not with an impaired defense)? This is not a mere matter of getting a middle reliever. This franchise has not made wise trades, the aforementioned exceptions aside. Sometimes the worst trades are the ones you don’t make.
I understand that those are considered problems, but how big are they? I feel pretty confident that this team rattles off 360 wins over the last 4 years without the bullpen issues. That isn’t a sign that they need to re-evalute every tenet, its a sign that they haven’t put together a bullpen, and that can be absolutely disastrous to a season. It isn’t a matter of getting a middle reliever, its a matter of getting three.
Okay, I’ll grant you that’s one way to look at it. But when you have a team that show promise—with the exception of one area—and you are unable to correct that problem area over four seasons (and it will probably be a fifth year in 2010), that’s a significant organizational flaw that force you to re-evaluate not just your assumptions about bullpens, but some of your other assumptions as well.
It all depends on how your assumptions are working out in your other areas. It’s a tough concept for me to grasp. They have put together a pretty good lineup for years now, and the rotation, even this year, hasn’t been a problem. How can you put that together, but not a bullpen. Putting together a lineup, rotation, and bullpen can’t be completely unique skills can they?
Sowers will definitely get another start. He actually pitched well for five innings before succumbing. The bullpen vibe is pretty ridiculous right now, like its a contest a la America’s Worst Bullpen. Kobayashi needed to get attention to stay up in the online polls, but the new guy Herges insists on making the most of the lucky opportunity.
For some reason I think its more likely we’ll see Rondon in the pen before Huff. Both pretty much unthinkable a few days ago.
But why not Rondon brought up? Fausto did it. Is it really going to mess up his development? He’s on the forty and it wouldn’t hurt to give him a spot start or a week in the pen. That’s what the 40 man is for – juggling the 25.
Carmona had nearly 300 innings in AA and AAA before they put him in that situation. It doesn’t seem that similar to me.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 7:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Similar actually seems like a good word there.
So who do you think it more likely to see in the pen, Huff or Rondon?
Personally, if the Indians plan on keeping Laffey in the pen as long as he’s successful, I’d stick Huff in the rotation right now and move Sowers to the pen where he won’t have to worry about being effective for all that many innings.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
Not a bad thought. I like it better than Huff in the bullpen.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Herges smartly gives up the opening bomb, knowing that it hurts Masa’s ERA more than his, then proceeds to ice the next six batters.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 7:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Honestly? Herges was great last night. We needed those six outs badly, and one way you ensure you’ll get the outs within a reasonable number of pitches is by accepting a little more HR risk, i.e., throwing strikes. That home run meant absolutely nothing to either team, and the six outs meant a lot to us.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Let’s all calm down and face the facts. All we can do is wait this out. In a few months we’ll deal Lee away for some stunning prospects, and then it will be August and the team will catch fire and we’ll play .680 ball for the rest of the year, going from 18 games under .500 to finish 82-80, astonishing the baseball world and convincing us, once again that Next Year is our Year! And Wedgie’s job will be safe for another season.
you are gonna get blasted, but for the record, i’m pretty much in agreement with you at this point. shapiro’s first five year plan has worked out about as well as stalin’s did. let’s hope we don’t have to wait around and see the second. . .
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 7, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
i guess i should concede that fewer animals and people died in shapiro’s first five year plan than stalin’s. . . and it didn’t do as much damage to our GDP. so that’s something.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 7, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Too aristocratic.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Yep
That’s pretty much how it goes. I’m pretty sure the next move is to get rid of Wedge. And yes, I know, it’s not necessarily his fault. But what’s left to do?
And why will he get “blasted” for this comment? It’s pretty on the money.
A week ago I would have been blasted for what I wrote. A week ago I wouldn’t have written it.
by LeftyCatcher on May 7, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
While all of those moves may transpire, I don’t think the sunny optimism for 2010 will be there if it does.
On the one hand, we’d be moving into 2010 with a stronger core. On the other hand, the bullpen can single-handedly sink a season in a few weeks’ time, and we won’t have any reason to think the Indians can build a good one.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 7:45 AM EDT up reply actions
From my view at Fenway, I actually thought Sowers looked pretty good. He lost it in the 6th, obviously, but prior to that he seemed in command. Masa on the other hand, should not, in my opinion, pitch another inning for Cleveland. I would like to think that tonight was his final Cleveland outing. LaPorta and Valbuena both had a couple of good knocks on the ball, though Valbuena didn’t end up with anything to show for it. Also some nice range to his right for Valbuena on defense.
I hear you on Sowers but I feel like this is all part of the same syndrome: saying that what we’re doing or the players we have or whatever are great until they’re terrible.
Not trying to call you to the mat, obviously, it’s just wearying to constantly be rationalizing the bad parts of someone like Sowers, or Laffey in 2008, or whoever.
He did. He also hit a screamer that got nabbed by Pedroia. And I don’t want to make Sowers sound better than he was, but had the Indians taken him out after 5 (which would have been insane since he’d only used like 65 pitches) it would have looked like a nice start. The gun at Fenway was only clocking him at 88-90, which was kind of discouraging, but I think there are positives to take from it.
I’m just tired of finding positives in things like a 7 ER start. I’m ready to say there is no positive in that, at all. I don’t care if he was throwing a hundred and commanding. It’s a garbage result and I can’t stomach any more garbage results.
Additionally, I wouldn’t of really been that encouraged by him going 6 IP, 1 ER if his line was 3 BBs and 1 K.
by afh4 on May 7, 2009 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I just want to, completely unsarcastically, thank you for continuing to speak your mind on this season. I know you wouldn’t do anything else, so maybe what I should do is thank you for so concisely saying what I’m thinking. It makes it a lot easier to try and make sense out of all of this if someone else is talking down the same line.
Basically, a long way of saying….THIS.
Hello Andrew,
I agree with your main premise of not being encouraged by a line of 3 BBs and 1 K, though to be fair, one of the 3 BBs was intentional, so it’s actually 2 BBs and 1 K, though that wouldn’t be much more encouraging.
Even so, I also agree with your premise that Sowers will get another start; despite somewhat better peripherals, Reyes’ last 2 starts have left much to be desired as well. Additionally, I don’t think they made this Laffey to the bullpen move just for 1-2 outings; I think they plan on leaving him out there for a while, at least until some of the members of that bullpen get things straightened out (Lewis and Perez especially, and since Perez can’t come back up for around another week or so at the earliest, I suspect Laffey will be in that bullpen for another 1-2 weeks, minimum, which would likely give Sowers 2-3 more starts at a minimum).
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
You know something, though? We’re trying to grease the squeaky wheel here as far as this bullpen goes, but I think a decent major league rotation should be able to put together a string of 7+ inning starts several times over the course of a season. I don’t know about everybody else, but with Fausto, Reyes, and Sowers/Lewis, I’ve always got my fingers crossed that they’ll polish off 5 or 6 innings. That’s no way to go through a season.
I guess, I realize it’s unfair to expect the rotation to be exemplary, but I don’t think it’s asking too much for these starts to last another 4 or 5 outs.
by fleerdon on May 8, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
It actually is a pretty normal way to go through a season, but we’ve been spoiled with great, deep rotations since 2005.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I don’t think it’s abnormal. I just think it kind of sucks.
Also! I miss Jake.
by fleerdon on May 8, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s a context here and that context is the previous Sowers. I refuse to get excited about what’s been shown to be an unsustainable model until I see that the model has changed.
by afh4 on May 8, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Sowers exceeded my expectations for five innings. Boston is a very good team, maybe the best in baseball at this point. We held them to 2 runs for nine innings last night and Sowers held then to 1 run for five more innings. I wasn’t surprised they got a rally going, but I was surprised at how fast the game got out of control in the 6th (no doubt so did Sowers!). I’m hopeful Sowers will do okay in his next outing.
by LeftyCatcher on May 7, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
yea, i made a similar point in the game thread, but there was absolutely nothing to fear in the bottom third of their lineup tonight
B team, bottom third of lineup: 5-12, 4 RBIs. Wish we had a B lineup….
by LeftyCatcher on May 7, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
“Masa on the other hand, should not, in my opinion, pitch another inning for Cleveland.
Masa would have to record three outs to pitch an inning, and that didn’t happen tonight. Some folks were calling for him to stay out there (presumably to embarrass him). Who knows how many hitters he would’ve faced if that had happened.
I don’t have anything against Masa—before tonight I felt cautiously hopeful that he’d be ok—but I join you in hoping that he’s a goner. And I think that my hope coincides with the intentions of the FO. I expect to read here tomorrow that he has been moved.
With all due respect to Masa (and I know that he hasn’t worked all that much), but why exactly did the Indians let go of Salas without at least bringing him up and seeing what he could do. At one time, Salas was a decent to very solid prospect. Chances are, Salas could do no worse than Masa, and probably likely he’d be a bit better, yet the Indians let him go without even trying him.
Does this sound like the release of Breslow in 2008 again, except Breslow did actually make it up here (and not used very often) before being let go? Or is it just my imagination?
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Salas has never even reported to a minor league team, apparently. He is totally MIA for reasons that we can only speculate on but have made it a fact that he will not pitch for the Indians.
Hello Roger and Andrew,
Thanks for the info. – I thought I heard or read Salas didn’t report, but had forgotten about that – no wonder the Indians DFAed him so quickly. I wonder what his absence was all about anyway?
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Calls for Masa to stay out there weren’t to embarrass him. They were to spare the rest of the bullpen, and who gives a damn how bad it gets, and who gives a damn if he wears out his arm? It’s called “taking one for the team.”
His performance recalls Tom Mastny’s start from last year.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 7:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does anyone think there’s a possibility that, rather than trading from the 25 man, Shapiro would trade prospects for bullpen help to try and bail out the season?
It doesn’t seem like I have to worry about that but I wasn’t worried last week about Huff or Rondon being added to the bullpen and now I am, slightly.
I really hope he doesn’t. The bullpen sucks, yes, but what else gives the hope of a good team? One starter with an ERA under 5? An offense that fits and starts? Horrendous bullpen management? I’m not trying to be a jerk, I just don’t see where a few bullpen arms is a panacea.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
At the same time, maybe it’s time to reevaluate not dealing guys like Huff; again, not to be a jerk, but Huff is some version of Sowers, Brantley is some version of Gutierrez.
This is probably going overboard at some point but there’s a sentiment of “F it, stop staying with your guys, period, be they major leaguers or prospects. ship some supposedly valuable pieces away.”
We can’t horde mediocrity until it turns into a championship.
by afh4 on May 7, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Hello Andrew,
I can understand the comparisons, but I think you’re a little off in regards to Huff being Sowers or Brantley being Gutierrez; there are some notable differences.
Huff has kept the high strike out rate in AAA, while Sowers certainly hasn’t. Huff also has at least one plus pitch (his slider or changeup – not sure which), plus his fastball is above-average; Sowers never has had a plus pitch, and his fastball has been basically average for the past few seasons.
Brantley isn’t the defender Gutierrez is, but Gutierrez was NEVER the leadoff hitter Brantley is, due to Gutz’s long swing and propensity to strike out, something Brantley doesn’t have. And, if I recall correctly, Brantley has made it to AAA even younger than Gutierrez did.
So, in both cases, I think the comparisons are off a bit – I don’t think Huff and Brantley are the same “mediocre” as Sowers and Gutierrez, IF Huff and Brantley are even mediocre. Huff looks to be a good #2-#3 starter, a label I don’t recall Sowers ever getting – I read and thought at one time maybe a #3, but never a #2 starter. As for Brantley, he has virtually every skill you’d want in a prototypical leadoff hitter, which we really have not had since the prime days of Kenny Lofton (all due respect to Grady, but he really should be in the heart of the order, not leading off – not only is his RBI numbers affected by the fact that he has to depend on the bottom part of the order to get on base as compared to the top and middle of the order, but his streakiness can lead to periods where he doesn’t get on base, which seems to adversely affect the Indians’ ability to manufacture runs when they don’t hit HRs).
Therefore, it’s certainly not a given that Huff and Brantley will be mediocre – heck, they look to fill some significant holes on this team in the very near future, as we are questionable in the #2-#3 spot(s) in the rotation and we have a struggling hitter at the top of the lineup who is probably not in the best spot in the lineup (and likely won’t be there long-term).
While I agree “hording mediocrity until it turns into a championship” is not a good approach, “trading away quality pieces that can fill sizable holes on your team for cheap” is an equally bad or even worse strategy, and from my perspective, Huff and Brantley have much better chances of filling sizable holes on this team than Sowers and Gutierrez ever did – a front to middle of the rotation starter and a legltimate leadoff hitter who has strong plate discipline and who can cause havoc on the bases – that fits Huff and Brantley better than it ever did Sowers and Gutz.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I said “some version” for reason. It doesn’t matter if they’re the exact same player. It just matters that they are valuable, unproven chips in the rotation and outfield.
Are you saying then that you think Sowers has value? Gutierrez pretty much always had value because of his excellent defense in CF, but I don’t think many are convinced that his bat will be a consistent plus. In other words, Gutierrez had one great tool that gave him value; what particularly about Sowers do you think gives him value, and how much value?
For Huff, he’s shown a consistent strikeout rate and his slider or changeup is considered a plus pitch, plus he has an above-average fastball. He just needs time to iron out a few things out with his delivery and with his focus. For Brantley, he has the speed and the approach you want a leadoff hitter to have, so that’s where his value is.
I’m just curious to know what you think Sowers’ value is and why he has value? Just because he’s young? I’m not convinced that Sowers would be more than a throw-in or alone for a decent prospect at best, but not for a major upgrade as you seem to be suggesting. That’s why I don’t think your analogy between those four seems to be accurate.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I don’t know what you think I’m saying about Sowers. I’m saying that Huff is some earlier version of a permutation of Sowers; he is a good, maybe not great, pitching prospect. So was Sowers once and we could’ve gotten the world for him after his initial ML run; we didn’t and, though the process in the decision may have been sound, it can only be called a mistake.
The larger point is that if the Indians want to get better, they have to find some young guys they can afford to part with. Obviously, you think they should stand pat.
Essentially, you’re saying that we should have traded Sowers after that great ML rookie season? No offense, but that’s easy to say in hindsight. Now, based on his so-so peripherals coming into his rookie campaign, I can see why that might have been a sound move, and one I could have maybe supported at that time, depending on what we could have gotten for him.
However, as mentioned, Huff has kept that strong K rate in AAA, something Sowers didn’t do (and even with repeated exposure at AAA, still hasn’t matched Huff’s K-ability at AAA), which is why I don’t think Sowers and Huff are the same type of pitcher as you seem to be implying.
Huff’s secondary stuff, per written reports, seem to be considerably better than Sowers’ secondary stuff, and the stats and reports seem to back that up. Granted, we can’t know for sure if Huff will be the “total denominator” at the ML level as we’d like him to be, but I’m not sure anyone is thinking Huff is a bonafide ace in the making. I think though he could be a very good #2-#3 starter, something that was not really projected for Sowers even when he was pitching well up through 2006. Most seen Sowers as being a solid #3 starter at best, mostly because people had concerns about his so-so peripherals at AAA; Huff has not had that problem, and his stuff is reportedly much better than Sowers – both his fastball velocity and his changeup.
Regarding your larger point, it sounds like you think that if the Indians make a trade that it will light a fire under this team and get them going on the right path. While that could happen, my greater worry is that that will not happen because there is too much inconsistency from the players we have here right now, and I’m not convinced that one or two trades, even if they are “major” trades, are going to do enough to address the holes and get this team to play the type of ball we were expecting from them. And, if they don’t improve their play, then we essentially give up some of our quality prospects that could legitimately help us within the next two seasons just to try to right ourselves for this season when it’s far from a certainty that such a trade or two will help propel us in the right direction this season. Plus, we further reduce our chances of competing in the near future as well.
Essentially, I think the Indians are in a bit of a transitional phase, as tough as that may be to hear. Guys like Lee, Peralta, Martinez, and even Sizemore are not that far from having their contracts ending (moreso with the first three, as Sizemore’s doesn’t end until after ‘12, 3 additional seasons after ’09) – we could legitimately try to trade some of the up-and-coming prospects that are knocking on the door to try to help this group reach the postseason and win a championship. But, if the move backfires and it’s not enough help, then we not only shoot ourselves in the foot with this current group, we likely do it with our next group as well, especially if we give up too many of them, and as of right now, we need all the help we can get, being that 4/5 of our rotation is questionable (Reyes, Pavano, Sowers) or not here long-term (Lee), the bullpen is a major question mark (Lewis/Perez/Betancourt; Wood is only here for a few years; Sipp is the only one who is likely to be a lock long-term, barring a major trade), and the offense has several players nearing the end of their contract (Peralta, Martinez; Sizemore a little later on down) or are not long-term answers (Francisco; DeRosa; Garko) – only Cabrera, Valbuena, Choo, and LaPorta look to be here for next wave (Shoppach is questionable and Sizemore likely not here past 2012).
My main point is that there are likely to be a lot more holes in the not-too-distant future; if we trade away too many quality prospects, we may be in for a real long drought, which is why if we can’t resurrect this 2009 season, it’s going to be a double-whammy. I’d rather be patient and see how things play out with our team right now rather than do a “knee-jerk” trade or two in order to turn this team around, and I don’t think Shapiro will do a “knee-jerk” trade or two either for the reasons I mentioned above.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
rec for that last line. you’re on a roll tonight.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
It was a nice line, but I don’t know if he’s on a roll so much as off his meds.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 7:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t agree with all (probably less than half actually) of what he’s saying… but he’s “on a roll” as far as he’s succinctly saying some stuff I really agree with.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
More evidence that he’s off his meds.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not disagreeing with that sentiment at all. I just wonder if trading a starting pitcher or outfield prospect for a bullpen piece is a good move ever. We’ve seen the immolation of Betancourt firsthand. In 2007, any team would have wanted him and would have parted with prospects, valued or not, to get him. If we make the equivalent move now does it really helps us that much?
I become an expert simply by doing something.
We traded a guy who has a chance to be a really valuable CF for a reliever. Obviously, Shapiro and Co. don’t think this is always out of the question.
More than that, I’m exhausted by the idea that we have to simply eliminate certain kinds of deals as inherently bad (prospects for vets, position player for bullpen). It is true that these deals are bad on average but that doesn’t mean you can’t make one of these deals that is good. And isn’t that the FO’s job?
We certainly did not trade a CF for a reliever. Surely you don’t suggest that Valbuena was some kind of a throw-in.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
It wouldn’t be more than 1 or 2 games, but I have this feeling that if we hadn’t made that trade, we’d have more wins than we do right now.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
I think that’s crazy.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
It is true that these deals are bad on average but that doesn’t mean you can’t make one of these deals that is good.
But with this team, why make it? Do you really think we are just a bullpen arm away from erasing a seven game deficit? Our starting pitching is awful, our offense is mediocre and our star player is the most overrated anything, ever.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
My main thought is, why would we ever trade a starter prospect for a reliever? Wouldn’t it be better in almost every case to just make our starter prospect into a reliever, cutting out the middle man? Who are these great relievers anyway?
As for the outfield piece, that deserves more consideration. I agree with Andrew’s basic contention that a club should not have to overwhelm us to get Mills or Brantley, much as I like both of them and especially Brantley, and we should be careful not to over-value Weglarz, despite the immense heat surrounding him from seemingly every direction.
Still, the question comes back to, who are these relievers that we would trade for? Andrew has essentially recast the volatility surrounding almost all relievers as “dumpster diving.” Are we supposed to give up genuinely good prospects for just a couple more dives into the dumpster? The one epiphany would seem to invalidate the other.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m obviously playing a lot of sides of a lot of fences over the last 48. I’m really just trying to work out frustration and the scenarios in my mind.
Again, I think my preference is Huff and Rondon to the bullpen. However, I can’t help but get on a soapbox when IF or whoever starts on the “our prospects are too valuable to part with” hobby horse. That, to me, is the thinking fan’s prospective having been influenced seriously by the public perception of the Shapiro regime and, as a recovering ‘thinking fan’ myself, I think it’s time that many of us try to divorce our own opinions from those of Shapiro.
Frankly, I doubt this is much of a problem for you-you’ve always had a more complete grasp on baseball decision-making than most of us. But I hope you can appreciate that many of us literally have equated good baseball decision making to acting like Shapiro. It’s time to tear down that wall.
by afh4 on May 8, 2009 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I know some people will find this odd, but I have never entirely bought into the Shapiro regime. Yes, I’m a big fan, because they are a class organization, and they get the basics right — they don’t make big moves that you and I could have figured out are stupid. That is a hell of a first start.
They have reasons — reasonable reasons — for everything they do, and usually very good reasons. I buy into that, and that alone is more than maybe 20 teams can say. The Cubs making all those moves just to sign Milton Bradley to a contract where he can’t ever be the DH — that was just not a reasonable strategy, and it dominated their whole offseason. When the Indians make a move, you can look at all the little pieces on the floor and gradually figure out why they probably did it, with a bare minimum of assuming and rationalizing. I appreciate that immensely.
But having the right basic precepts and making the right decisions are not precisely the same thing, and that’s something I have always realized. We acquired Asdrubal, and I looked at it carefully and said, I get it! I get it! Great move! But the thing is, it’s only a great move is Asdrubal can actually play.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I’ve been rolling around the phrase: “Eminently praisable, not eminently successful.”
I don’t know what Shap’s ultimate legacy is going to be but there seems to be something to realizing that what they do is inherently easy to praise and that’s not necessarily an indicator of what they do being inherently successful. In fact, being so praisable (and I know this is a terrible fake word) might be a bad thing. It points towards a lack of proprietary information.
Kenny Williams gets ripped around these parts all the time but KW is just playing a game we don’t understand. He’s doing his job in a way that we fundamentally can’t understand at times because he’s following proprietary scouting reports and sentiments and, oftentimes it seems he’s right.
by afh4 on May 8, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think there is something (potentially) to be said about Shap & Co’s emphasis on quantitative assessment. And by quantitative, I don’t just mean numbers-focused/sabermetric approaches. Part of the praise they receive is for putting together scouting information, make-up assessment, and performance into a single system (DiamondView). But my sense is that this is fundamentally a quantitative system. Which means part of what they are doing is taking fundamentally qualitative assessments and translating them into quantitative evaluations. I think when you hear Antonetti or Shapiro going on about small samples size, predictability and risk assessment – you are hearing this focus on quantitative approaches. The challenge, and this is one I face in my professional work, is that just because you can quantify something doesn’t mean it is important or correct or reflective of some significant “reality”. Likewise, just because you can’t quantify something very well, doesn’t mean it doesn’t represent something real or important. Given the choice between a hard quantitative approach and a willy-nilly gut approach, I will always prefer the former. But I think it’s possible that some of the areas the Indians have struggled in reflect a failure to properly translate more qualitative information into a decision focused quantitative system.
by APV on May 8, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree that there may be an issue with decision-making regarding qualitative information, but I don’t think it plays out quite the way you portray it. One thing I got from my talks with CA was the sense that they don’t try to simplify everything down to a single number — as you and I have with Progress Score, which has an almost comical over-simplifying quality (part of its charm of course).
As part of the Shoppach discussion, I was talking to him about who the Indians would or wouldn’t trade, and he basically said that they would consider trading literally any player if the players coming back would truly make the club better. He then quickly qualified that certain players would be extremely hard to get to that threshold. I followed up by asking, do the Indians have every player boiled down to a simple number or dollar value as an asset? And he said, quickly, and simply, “No.” (And maybe I should have asked, “Why not?”)
It’s well known that the Indians amass huge amounts of qualitative data and attempt to give it some kind of quantitative coherence. That does not mean, however, that they’re trying to integrate those quantities with OPS (or whatever) so that they can have a purely quantitative decision-making formula. I doubt they do any kind of quantitative integration at all, when it comes to “soft numbers” based on scouting or makeup. I think they feel that decisions are far too complex, and they have far too much respect for the human element, to try to quantify it all.
Rather, the point of quantifying the qualitative data is just to clarify and maximize the quality of communication within the organization. All the scouts use the time-honored 20-80 scale, but maybe some guys use it differently than others. If a guy writes down 50, is that an average major leaguer, or an average minor leaguer? Is he using the scale differently for different skills and tools? What if one guy is using it like a bell curve — so a 60 is very close to an 80 — while another guy is doing it more linear? If one guy is saying 50 and another is saying 65, but they actually mean the same thing, that’s a problem. It’s like everyone having their own strike zones, right? And of course, there are many areas in which the qualitative data doesn’t even start off with a well established scale, so the Indians have established one. They do the same thing with nomenclature (or jargon if you prefer). They just want to make sure they all understand what everyone is trying to say.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I didn’t mean to imply that they combine the information into a single mega-stat, only that they put everything into a single system which almost by definition, is quantitative. Clearly part of what they are concerned with is evaluating the certainty of some kinds of data – but that again reflects a desire to quantify inherently difficult data.
But I hope you can appreciate that many of us literally have equated good baseball decision making to acting like Shapiro. It’s time to tear down that wall.
Awesome.
by supermarioelia on May 8, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
“Immolate” has become the official word of Indians Baseball 2009.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d prefer they didn’t do that – as fwembt mentioned, we have more problems than just the bullpen. The rotation is shaky, as expected, and some expected main contributors to the offense are struggling (Peralta and Sizemore, specifically), along with the fact that Pronk is now a non-factor (not because he wasn’t contributing when he was in the lineup, but because he’s now injured).
I know this will be hard for some to hear, and it is only the early part of May, but I’d rather go through a dreadful season than try to make some in-season adjustments that will likely NOT add up to us winning a championship, or even reaching the postseason for that matter.
After all, we have so many holes on this team (the offense, the rotation, the bullpen, the defense) that we’d have to trade every valuable prospect we have to address all our weaknesses, and that STILL may not be enough. I’m not for that.
The future does look bright – you can see the likes of LaPorta, Valbuena, and Sipp being mainstays on this ballclub in the very near future. You don’t trade pieces like that (and I’m sure that at least one of those three would have to be traded in order to address our current weaknesses with any quality upgrades) just to try to salvage a season that is off to a bad start.
Either this team is going to find itself quickly with the players they have and immediate reinforcements in AAA (that could include guys like Huff, Meloan, Hodges, Aubrey, Head, Brantley, Toregas, etc.) or they’re going to continue to sink or tread water, but not rebound. I don’t see Shapiro making any “knee-jerk” significant trades just to try to right the bullpen, or even the offense or rotation – there are too many question marks and weaknesses to address to sabotage our farm system and the impending bright future that is coming about. Don’t forget also that guys like Martinez, Peralta, and Lee are nearing the end of their contracts as well – while that could convince some to think we “need to go for it now,” that could also indicate we’d be willing to trade them to get high-ceiling and very close to ML-ready prospects that would hopefully help to shore up those weaknesses that are presenting themselves (such as our shaky rotation and questionable bullpen).
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
i don’t think there will be any more moves. Our next six games are at home against Central Division teams, and how we do in those six games will make or break us.
by LeftyCatcher on May 7, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
+1 – I wholeheartedly agree with this. I think if we can win both series, going 4-2, we can hopefully gain some momentum and get ourselves back in this race (though KC is currently 7 games ahead of us) – if we do worse than that and/or lose one of those series at home, I think our chances of fighting back and getting ourselves back in this race are slim, unless we find the latter half of 2005 again, which seems unlikely at this point.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
pictoral evidence of the circle of suck in action
by APV on May 7, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
I would be happy to never see this photo again
by Roger Dorn on May 7, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The cupping, the hot-dog eating jokes… none of it is funny when the player is implicated in a disaster like the one we’re seeing.
I have been trying to wrap my head around what that even looks like. For starters, I think it’s Rondon to the ‘pen, and whichever of Huff/Laffey/Sowers that isn’t in the rotation to the ’pen.
Then, I think it’s dealing some truly valuable pieces-somebody like Michael Brantley, Wegz, Mills, Shoppach, Garko, JP, etc for even more pitching-youngish, cost controlled bullpen arms, maybe starter arms with bullpen potential. Somebody like Michael Bowden, perhaps.
Finally, I think it’s endgame time with Wedge-fire him and hire somebody like Cito Gaston or whatever.
We have the worst record in the AL, second worst in baseball. I have to think Wedge’s job is in jeopardy.
by LeftyCatcher on May 7, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Hello Andrew,
With all due respect, it would not be wise to trade guys like Brantley, Wegz (what happened with your lovefest for him – I know he’s in a slump, but come on!), and Mills for bullpen arms – you do recall Giles for Rincon, correct?
Starters, maybe, but as I said above, Brantley has the legitimate chance to fill the need for a true leadoff hitter – even with Sizemore’s great skills, he is NOT a true leadoff hitter, not with his propensity to strike out and be streaky (as evidenced by the lower-than-ideal BA). Plus, Sizemore’s contract is up after 2012, and we can’t presume he’s going to be here beyond that. At some point, whether Sizemore is still here or not, we are going to need a leadoff hitter to help stabilize this offense and help make it more consistent.
And I’m going to presume Crowe is out of the question, or at least, Brantley would be the preferred choice.
Besides that, is one or two young starters really going to make THAT much difference for 2009? And, as you well know, we do have several promising young starting pitching prospects that should be up here within the next 2 years – Huff (and no, I don’t believe he’s Sowers redux – see my post above, Rondon – keep him as a starter, or at least, he should be a starter long-term, NOT a reliever, Berger, De La Cruz – provided he can stay healthy, Gomez – shows some promise, though maybe not as high as the other names mentioned, Putnam – I’ve heard conflicting reports on whether he should be a starter or reliever, Perez – likely more like 3-4 years away, but looks to have the ability to make a sizable impact at this point as well).
I do agree with you about Wedge, as well as most to all of the staff – I think their endtime is near; while not all of this is attributable to Wedge, how is it that we only start off on a good streak in 1 out of 7 seasons? Heck, even the Pirates, Reds, and other relatively weak teams have better starts than that more often – we can’t keep digging ourselves a hole and expect to climb out of it every season. At some point, someone will take the blame for that, and that man likely will be Wedge and a good portion of his staff. Hopefully, Skinner is included in those dismissals – he sent Dellucci home the other night on a play where he was likely to be thrown out, yet wouldn’t send Lofton in Game 7 of the ALCS when he had a very good chance of scoring and tying that game.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
The point is that the Indians can’t live forever being afraid to trade away the next Giles. All of these guys are not Giles; some of them are Trevor Crowe right after Gammons called him Ty Cobb.
I agree, but again, the point stands that trading position players for bullpen pitchers isn’t usually the best trade to make, and it sounded like you would be up for that to add a quality bullpen arm or two.
Additionally, when Hart made that deal, he thought he was addressing the one main weakness on this ballclub, being able to handle tough lefties late in games. Nowadays, as mentioned above, this team has a lot of weaknesses and holes – one trade, and probably not even two trades, will address them all.
Unless this team starts gelling together and starts showing some consistency (we’ve only won 2 games in a row ONCE all season), no trade is going to turn us from a “pretender” into a “contender.” Unless this team starts showing some consistency, I’d rather we hold onto the talent we have, and even add to it (maybe trade guys like Lee, Peralta, possibly even Martinez if we can’t resign him – he’d be the one I’d try to retain out of the three mentioned) rather than just trade some away in hopes that we can salvage 2009. This team, as is right now, has to show some consistency and ability as we expected them to before I believe Shapiro will even consider making such a noteworthy trade to help this ballclub.
You don’t normally give up quality talent like that to try to turn around a struggling team; you give up quality talent when you are ready to make that leap from being a postseason contender to a WS contender, and we are not there right now, sorry to say.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
If they want to win this year, they have to add quality to the bullpen. If it comes from outside, it’s going to have to be a pretty decent player going out the door.
I don’t know if it’s what I’d do but I think that’s the reality. You either fix the bullpen, now, or you punt the season.
I agree with the fact that the bullpen has to be improved, one way or the other, in order to get this season on the right track again.
But, as we’ve often mentioned on here, bullpen pitchers have questionable track records – one year, they look really good; the next year, they could be downright horrible, which is why I think it’s very tricky to trade quality prospects for bullpen arms (see Giles for Rincon as just one example, as Rincon was highly-regarded coming from the Pirates, but really did not do much for us).
That’s why I think it’s more likely we’ll look at DFAs, Minor League FAs, maybe a minor or moderate trade or two, but I’m not sure I see a major trade in the works, as how many quality relievers are out there for the taking and how much would we be willing to get one or two of these relievers if we can find them?
Additionally, the rotation is not without its weaknesses – Reyes has been iffy or worse in his last two starts, Sowers has a questionable history, and there are still some question marks surrounding Pavano and Carmona; even if we can add some quality arms to that bullpen, if the rotation can’t do enough to get leads or ties to the bullpen, it’s likely not going to matter if we add quality arms to the bullpen or not, which is all the more reason why I’m not fond of trading quality prospects for bullpen pitchers. Too much uncertainty with this year’s team to ensure as best as one can that righting the bullpen will make this team a postseason contender. Additionally, the offense is also sporadic, scoring 9 runs in one game and 3 runs in the next – no consistency from game to game, which is why we can’t win more than 1 game at a time before another loss.
Until the Indians can show they have some consistency on some parts of this team, I’m not sure ANY trade, for the bullpen or otherwise, will make this team a playoff contender, sorry to say.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Trading somebody like Nick Weglarz for a reliever is the definition of a “minor trade” to everyone but Indians’ fans.
Probably not to Indians’ management either – Weglarz is becoming more well-known of being a major prospect, so while a trade of him wouldn’t be as “earth-shattering” as A-Rod or Manny being traded (few trades would), it still would be more significant than say, Tom Mastny getting traded. Those who follow baseball and know the Minor Leagues would be well-aware of who Weglarz is, certainly not the casual fan who doesn’t follow the Minor Leagues.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I certainly understand Andrew’s frustrations with this way of thinking. The team has overvalued its prospects more often than not, and has done a relatively poor job of drafting. Caution and prudence haven’t worked too well, so maybe a little boldness is in order.
It’s kind of surprising for me to read all the Wedge endgame stuff. It seems pretty much accepted as an inevitability, and we’re not talking about a cleveland.com pitchfork and torch crowd. Not that I don’t think he shouldn’t be fired. I think at this point it is definitely in order.
Yep.
I think the other thing being missed here is you don’t have to do like Mills for whatever the 2009 version of Guerillmo Mota is. You can do something creative and get a young arm with rotation upside.
Again, I’m not saying this is the best route but it’s something. Frankly, Huff and Rondon to the bullpen is my choice, I think; the more creeping problem is that we are literally running out of internal options. If we DFA Masa, we already DFA’d Chulk, we have to find bodies somewhere. That might mean signing Luis Vizcaino or it might mean conjuring a bullpen from milb starters or it might mean a trade.
Hello odradek,
If we target the right prospects, and particularly, prospects in areas where we have other quality options, then perhaps it might be the way to go.
However, I don’t think Brantley is one of those prospects – Sizemore likely won’t be here long-term, and likely won’t remain in the leadoff spot indefinitely. Who leads off when Sizemore is moved down in the order or leaves? Brantley is the only legitimate leadoff hitter in the upper-reaches of the system (maybe the whole system) and is not far from being ready. I also think Sizemore’s streakiness partly leads to the Indians’ offensive inconsistencies – if he doesn’t get on base, then it seems like we have a hard time manufacturing runs, which is likely why we can’t score too often without the HR ball. Brantley and other hitters with good plate discipline (Jordan Brown and Matt Brown come to mind in the Indians’ system) would help us to cut down on our strikeouts, make more contact, be tougher outs, and enable us to produce more consistently without the HR ball.
That’s why I think Brantley needs to be kept unless we absolutely get blown away in a deal and he has to be dealt, but as for a bullpen reliever – I’m not for that.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. We have gotten to place as fans, and we were led here by Shapiro, where we are saying we’d have to be blown away to give up Michael Brantley.
Michael Brantley is a good prospect, a chance to have an interesting career. The term “blow away” is probably not one that is going to be associated with that career in any capacity.
In other words, Brantley has to have a “blow away” career in order to justify giving him up for less than a “blow away” reliever or player? I don’t agree with that.
Realize what Brantley has the good possibility of doing – as mentioned above, he has a chance to fill the leadoff hole in a way that hasn’t been filled since the days of Lofton in his prime. All due respect to Grady, he doesn’t provide the same presence as Lofton did at the top of the order – Grady is much more streaky. Yes, his power is nice, but it would play better in the middle of the order. Too often, our offense is incapable of manufacturing runs, and let’s face it, you are not going to win a championship by relying on the HR ball to score the majority or even half of your runs, as the Indians are nearly doing right now (I think it’s between 40-43% as of a few nights ago if I heard that stat correctly).
Having more guys who put the ball in play, put up tougher bats at the plate, not strike out so much, and are more adept at hitting more types of pitching would enable us to be not so streaky as an offense. If we had a more consistent offense, our pitching wouldn’t have to be stellar or near-perfect to win more games – we likely would have a better record than 11-18, even with an unstellar pitching staff, because we would be able to score 4-6 runs a game more times than not. Too often, we only score on the HR ball and have scored 3 runs or less in 10 games (over 34%), going 0-10. There have also been 5 games when our pitching staff has given up 4 runs or less, yet we’re only 1-4 in those games. When we do finally have an offensive explosion, we fall right back into getting shut down the next game or two, as evidenced by the recently completed Boston series.
My main point is that we have to address the holes we have on this entire team, both in the short-term and in the near-short-term (i.e. 2010 and 2011); while the bullpen has certainly been a sore spot, a shaky starting rotation and an inconsistent offense have contributed just as much to our poor start. Addressing the bullpen with trades is not a guarantee that we’re going to be a postseason contender. Additionally, it may be time to realize that our offensive approach and lack of consistently executing the fundamentals and little things is why our offense continues to be inconsistent and go through prolonged droughts over several of the seasons under Wedge’s tenure, whether it’s due to Shelton, Wedge, a combination, or the players we have.
Having a more traditional leadoff hitter and having more hitters with good contact ability and less propensity of striking out might help improve the Indians to be a consistent contender year in and year out, as well as not having poor Aprils 6 out of the last 7 seasons. Guys like Michael Brantley and Jordan Brown might be two hitters who could help us do that, and giving up guys like that for relievers who may or may not help us right the ship in 2009 are not the moves I’d make. Personally, as mentioned, if this team, as is doesn’t start showing some consistency in at least two areas (between offense, starting pitching, and relief pitching), I’m not sure ANY trades will help make us a postseason contender in 2009, which would make any trades of quality prospects a waste in my opinion, regardless of whether they turn out or not, and if they do turn out, that’s a double-whammy on us, something we can’t afford in our market.
Just my 2 cents – no offense.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
If we can get anybody who will help the major league club for Jordan Brown, we should do it in a heartbeat.
by woodsmeister on May 8, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’d hope they did go outside of the oganization, or at least outside the Skinner/Lovullo circle.
Bob Melvin was just fired; I have an impression of him as a good tactician based on his 2007 bullpen management and the corresponding Pythagorean defiance. I don’t follow the NL close enough to claim that it’s anything more of an impression, though.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I was always a deep skeptic of Melvin’s tactical gifts. There is no evidence that managers have anything to do with defying Pythagoras, and I don’t really know why so many people seem to assume that would be the case. As for his bullpen management in 2007, what he did was the patently obvious thing to do. They go down by three runs, and he calls it low-leverage. Didn’t Wedge do that last night?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
That is more or less what Wedge did, although it’s not reflective of the way he used Perez and Lewis over the last two weeks, when the writing was on the wall as to their reflectiveness.
Melvin is the sort of manager I’d be comfortable taking over for Wedge—comfortable with stats, has a history (superficial or otherwise) of good bullpen management, playoff experience, and is from outside the organization. But that’s a prototype rather than an individual endorsement of Melvin. And, obviously, what the hell do I know anyway? For now, though, he looks like the best candidate to me.
Sincerely, I’m not ready to see Wedge fired. But if they do, they have to hire the right replacement or it means nothing. I don’t see any internal replacements who would represent anything more than a surface change. Maybe they missed the boat when they let Farrell go (not that he fits any of my criteria above).
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That should say “effectiveness” at the end of the first sentence.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
My outsider’s view is that the team appears to be properly motivated. They just can’t assemble a proper bullpen, and do things like assembling an outfield of Dellucci-Francisco-LaPorta when a flyball starter is on the mound.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree. This team is not at all properly motivated. Otherwise we wouldn’t see the same hang-dog stuff night after night. This is not to say there should be a Marine drill sergeant. But someone needs to have these players believe in themselves. That sounds touchy-feely. But I mean someone who permits players to have confidence in themselves. Or relax and hit the ball.
Dude, you are just making stuff up. You have no idea what they’re thinking or feeling in there.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’d trade you for a reliever.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That’s the catch. You’re not going to get a reliever (with recent success) without giving up something of value.
Look at what the Yanks gave up to acquire Damaso Marte, the Red Sox gave up for Eric Gagne, the Brewers gave up for Linebrink.
I like this young starter with bullpen stuff idea. It also reminds me how “stuff-poor” our system is. Undoubtedly, this is the biggest factor in preventing us from finding help in minors. Most of our young pitchers don’t profile as high K./9 rate guys in a major league bullpen. Of course, that’s not the only qualification for bullpen fodder, but it’s certainly a qualification we lack in any great degree with most of our pitchers, majors and minors.
The best proof of this is what a revelation Sipp has been when he’s come in and, you know, struck a bunch of guys out.
We traded what I think you can reasonably consider to be three of our top ten raw arms this off-season. Either the Indians know something we don’t about evaluating and valuing “stuff,” or they’re in the wrong.
That said, I think this most recent draft represents something new. All these arms we overpaid for, they’re fraught with question marks, but the dudes can throw.
by fleerdon on May 8, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Put ‘em both together … the big, raw arms may not make better major leaguers, but they make better trade bait — and we’re better at trading than drafting anyway.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I sometimes wonder if Dolan isn’t a little more active as an owner than we’d like to believe. I have a feeling that there was a conversation this off-season to the effect of, “Here’s ten million dollars. For the love of Pete, buy me some arms.”
by fleerdon on May 8, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
We traded what I think you can reasonably consider to be three of our top ten raw arms this off-season.
Wait, who are we talking about?
I was as purposefully vague about it as I could manage, both because it’s an inexact thing to measure and because my own take on it was purely anecdotal. I’m interested, as Nick seems to be, in the comparative value of big-armed prospects, and I’m wondering if the most recent draft represents a re-evaluation of what the Indians are willing to pay for raw stuff. Obviously that doesn’t mean there’s a connection between the DeRosa trade and this conversation.
by fleerdon on May 8, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
If by big armed, you mean high velocity – I’m pretty sure only Stevens would qualify off that list. Gaub apparently has a nasty curveball, and I think Archer is more of a soft-tossing groundballer. I might be wrong, though – those two were low-A guys last year.
by APV on May 8, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Just got done speeding through the game. Andrew, like you said, you can’t ignore the 6th inning when evaluating Sowers tonight. But I would like to say that I was pretty impressed with the first five innings, mainly because I thought his changeup was better than I’d ever seen it before. He had more separation between the fastball and changeup tonight, and hopefully that will translate well. I’ve always described him with a grade C slider and a grade D changeup. I like him much more than you ever have, Andrew, but his offspeed stuff has always left a lot to be desired.
That said, we never saw the reported 92-93 that was talked about in Columbus. He did hit 91 when striking out Drew, but it was mostly 88-90.
Speaking of K’s, most everyone sees their strikeout rate drop in the majors, but it seems pretty extreme with Sowers. For anyone who has seen him this year, how does he strike these guys out? Are they just “4A” hitters who don’t have the batspeed to catch up to the fastball or what?
From what I’ve seen, you’ve got more of a scout’s perspective than I do and so I’m a bit heartened by the changeup looking better.
That said, I still see a guy, as you said, with an 89 mph fastball, no pitches with real movement, and is generally pretty easy to put the ball in play against.
My working theory has always been that Sowers is simply much, much smarter than the players at AAA. His brain overwhelms their paltry combination of developing mental and physical skills. At the major league level, the script is flipped; Sowers’ opponents overwhelm him with much, much better physical skills than he brings to the table. His brain is no longer enough to keep him in the game, let alone allow him to dominate.
Interesting theory, Andrew. Could be. I still think that if he pounds the strike zone, he has enough deception in his delivery to get by with that 89 mph fastball. He was able to get the ball inside on a lot of hitters last night, and they were late. But if he doesn’t pound the strike zone, it’s trouble. And other than the last half of 2006, we haven’t seen it.
By the way, that Pestano thing that Tom (Manhattan Tribe) keeps pushing is seeming more and more likely.
Hire Pestano?
He jumped out at me when I went through the Akron roster. I haven’t seen what Tom (never knew his real name) said about it, but I like this idea better than some of the starter into reliever ideas.
To be clear, I haven’t seen anything you haven’t. He has pretty-looking numbers and I’m not concerned about ruining the development curve of a AA closer.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Alright, final word. I’ve been toying with, pushing for, whatever, the idea of even more movement within the big league club; this is primarily because we know that some move pretty much has to be fortchoming. Masa is probably gone.
To be fair, and maintain some integrity, I was just praising Shapiro this morning for doing something proactive-pushing Laffey to the bullpen. So, is it a lose-lose for him? Makes a move and, after just one day of that chance, is being told he must do more, now, a day later? Yeah, it is lose-lose. But, at the same time, it’s a sinking ship and he’s not just the captain, he built the damn ship.And there appear to still be holes that must be plugged.
More than anything, I’m just not ready, personally, to quit on 2009. That’s a sad prospect on May 8.
by afh4 on May 8, 2009 1:20 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Andrew, I know it’s frustrating to pull the plug on 2009 – trust me, I don’t want to either. At the same time, I’m just not convinced even a major trade can plug all the holes we currently have.
Essentially, this team has to show some consistency in two out of the three main areas (offense, starting pitching, relief pitching) before I think Shapiro will consider doing a major trade to help the one area that is still struggling. If that isn’t shown within the next few weeks (end of May or so), then I think we have to look more toward 2010, as I don’t think Shapiro will sacrifice the future just to try to repair a broken ship that has little chance of staying afloat if the current players driving this boat can’t get it together consistently over the next 3.5 weeks.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Andrew, I know it’s frustrating to pull the plug on 2009 – trust me, I don’t want to either. At the same time, I’m just not convinced even a major trade can plug all the holes we currently have.
Essentially, this team has to show some consistency in two out of the three main areas (offense, starting pitching, relief pitching) before I think Shapiro will consider doing a major trade to help the one area that is still struggling. If that isn’t shown within the next few weeks (end of May or so), then I think we have to look more toward 2010, as I don’t think Shapiro will sacrifice the future just to try to repair a broken ship that has little chance of staying afloat if the current players driving this boat can’t get it together consistently over the next 3.5 weeks.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Andrew, I know it’s frustrating to pull the plug on 2009 – trust me, I don’t want to either. At the same time, I’m just not convinced even a major trade can plug all the holes we currently have.
Essentially, this team has to show some consistency in two out of the three main areas (offense, starting pitching, relief pitching) before I think Shapiro will consider doing a major trade to help the one area that is still struggling. If that isn’t shown within the next few weeks (end of May or so), then I think we have to look more toward 2010, as I don’t think Shapiro will sacrifice the future just to try to repair a broken ship that has little chance of staying afloat if the current players driving this boat can’t get it together consistently over the next 3.5 weeks.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Actually, I think the case for radical moves in the bullpen is precisely the fact that the rotation and lineup are fairly stabilized, and the lineup probably will be very good regardless of whatever else happens.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
My god, we’ve played a hellish schedule thus far, and are only four games out of first (I’ll be dead and gone if you think I’m acknowledging that the freaking Kansas City Royals are in first place, Kansas City might as well be playing in Japan for all I know, they will never be in first place), Let us focus on our pathetic division and not worry about the East, the East is a beast this year, a few cash cows and a team that drafted first overall for the past twenty years!. We play in the weak central, this might as well be Poland, or Seven Hills, either way its the land of pansies, Any team with the balls would have ran away with this division by now, but none of them have. I don’t want Wedge fired I want him gunning it out the rest of the season straight to hell, I’d rather him drag this team to one hundred losses than let him eek out of this hell hole he’s helped to dig.
I’m right with you here.
Keep in mind:
Jhonny isn’t hitting.
Grady isn’t hitting.
Travis isn’t playing.
At least 2/3 of those things are going to change. This is going to be a team that can spot its SP a few runs.
Shoppach isn’t hitting. Francisco isn’t hitting. Garko isn’t hitting. Injuries have been quite problematic. This is not simply fixed by Jhonny going on a tear. How do we know something else doesn’t happen. This is sort of what happened last season: Don’t worry, they’ll come around. But when they did, there was too deep of a pit. And this season is beginning to get to the quarter pole.
Our strength of schedule now sits at .545. No other team is really all that close to us (San Diego and Arizona at .530) especially in the AL (Detroit .521 despite playing a few games against the worst team ever).
The Royals and White Sox haven’t had it easy either, though — 9th and 10th hardest in the majors respectively.
Boston’s had it the easiest, probably because they’ve already had a couple series against us — at .456. 456!
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
too-late error:
The Royals and White Sox haven’t had it easy either, though — 9th and 10th hardest in the majors respectively.
The White Sox, Royals and Twins haven’t had it easy either, though — 9th, 10th and 11th hardest in the majors respectively.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
Are those SOS adjusted? I think SOS is a really skewed stat, though I’m not a statician. Maybe someone like APV can chime in. A team’s SOS gets bad when you win a lot of games, because your opponents, through you, now have a lot of losses. And vice versa.
Strength of schedule is generally just a stat I don’t trust, and certainly not a quarter of the way into the season.
Il faut d'abord durer.
I’m no expert on this either, but I think SOS in baseball is particularly non-informative. The difference between the best and worst baseball teams is not especially huge (unlike football or basketball). Meanwhile, the difference between how good any given team is (or is expected to be) one day to the next, based on their lineup, starting pitcher, and who is available in the bullpen, is pretty big. So I’m pretty sure the quality variance of any given team will nullify the average quality difference between teams. Which isn’t to say that teams don’t face decidedly stronger/weaker schedules, just that looking at a simple SOS stat isn’t likely to reveal that. You’d have to look specifically at what combination of players they faced while removing the impact of their performance against those players.
by APV on May 8, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks, though that’s not a statistical reasoning for why SOS isn’t a good baseball stat, it definitely explained it better than I did.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Yeah, I know. But you can’t deny that we’ve faced some tough competition this year. We have for the most part avoided Greinke, though.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
But you can’t deny that we’ve faced some tough competition this year
Did I attempt to? Although I’ll point out that last night we game up a major league record for runs without an out to a good team, but perhaps the crappiest lineup they could throw out there.
by APV on May 8, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
His point is that he doesn’t think the Royals will win the division. For my part, I’m not as certain.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, it’s a lot easier for them to drop seven than it is for us to gain seven, but the result is the same.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I am definitely taking the Royals for real. Just because ESPN isn’t all over them yet doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of winning a crappy division with 82-85 wins.
There is enough talent there for that, no question. They’re doing a lot of this with Gordon on the shelf, too.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m tired of rationalizing and excuses. We’re 7 GB.
by JulioBernazard on May 8, 2009 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought the biggest event from last night’s game was Wedge’s decision to use Masa, down by 2 with the bases loaded. Masa had two consecutive good outings, one of which (May 3) was the first time he’s been brought in to a game within less than 3 runs all season. Last night was the second. After the previous night’s Pavano/Laffey combo, it wasn’t as if Wedge didn’t have options. The decision to go with Masa, in the context of obvious bullpen shakeups, seems an intentional test. A test that Masa obviously failed catastrophically. If Masa sticks around, does anyone think Wedge will put him into a game in which the team has any chance of winning in his next 15 outings? If the rumors of a Luiz Vizcaino signing are true, it would not surprise me at all if he replaces Masa.
I was thinking earlier, unless and until we’re back in contention, I think every relief inning with a lead is high leverage.
Which reminds me, if Kerry Wood is decent, I’m willing to see him pulled out of the closer’s role at the moment. Call me crazy, but if that had been Wood coming in instead of Masa last night I wouldn’t have been upset.
by fleerdon on May 8, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I have a different view, and perhaps one shared by Wedge. It looked like a two-run deficit, but the run expectancy was ~2.4, therefore it’s a projected 4.4-run deficit. And that’s given an average performance by the next reliever. With no outs, that runner on 3B scores 87% of the time, the runner on 2B scores 62% of the time, the runner on 1B scores 51% of the time. One guy who isn’t on base yet scores 36% of the time, two guys not yet on base score 23% of the time, and three or more guys not yet on base score 10% of the time.
In other words, this was already a low-leverage situation, and WPA reflects this — when Masa came in, we had only a 7.6% chance of winning (per WE). Once he gives up that double to the first batter, it’s already down to 2.4% — game basically over — and then after the infield single, it was 1%. It may have seemed like a close game at that point, but 7.6% does not leave much room for leverage.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe so. But the leverage index when he came in last night (0.88) was still the second highest he’s been exposed to all season. I still think it was a make or break test for him. But I’m probably wrong.
by APV on May 8, 2009 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not entirely conversant with the way LI is calculated, but I would think that the LI on that PA is based largely on the possibility of getting out of the inning without allowing any more runs. But the chance of doing that nonetheless is remote.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Haha yeah, Eric thought through all of that.
by supermarioelia on May 8, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Himself? Maybe not. I think this is Datz’s job.
by fleerdon on May 8, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
OK, I laughed.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
With no outs, that runner on 3B scores 87% of the time, the runner on 2B scores 62% of the time, the runner on 1B scores 51% of the time.
Not if you’re an Indian.
and as I noted in the other thread, Gaylord sports has removed the twitter message. Doesn’t sound like Vizcaino is coming this way.
by APV on May 8, 2009 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I can understand the feeling that they should be willing to deal prospects, but if you do that, you need to guess right much more often than not. Otherwise, you end up looking like Peter Bavasi.
Maybe it was Buzz. Nepotism, love it!
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d say, at least be very accurate about the talent you’re acquring; that’s the more controllable variable, no? Lookout Landing did an interesting piece on the Jones-Bedard trade, the idea being, look, this could bite us in the ass for a solid decade, Adam Jones’s ceiling is ridiculous … but at least Erik Bedard is reasonably likely to be awesome.
by fleerdon on May 8, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
And as Jay said, we seem to be better at trading anyway…maybe trade our prospects for other team’s prospects!
We are better at trading, but we haven’t been prolific at piling up prospects that other clubs would want. I’ve speculated on this a couple times before, but you could almost call it the Aaron Laffey effect. We acquire and develop guys like Laffey, and they turn into significant assets at a significant rate. But other clubs aren’t looking for players like that, so we end up with prospects that we perhaps over-value while other clubs perhaps under-value them. Regardless of who’s right, that guy isn’t getting traded.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not sure why, but I wasn’t expecting such a radical reaction. We didn’t learn anything new last night. Sowers is a temporary patch, nothing more, with a very fine line between him and disaster. Masa is not good. And we can’t put it together against Wakefield. None of this changes the season. We just made a few radical moves. Let’s let those sit for at least a week (though we still might add an outside arm) before going crazy.
Here’s my other thoughts on what I’m reading (what? you don’t care? too bad, it’s the internet!):
- We don’t move Huff and Rondon to the pen because Rondon is not ready, and Huff is our number six starter. He is absolutely next. Someone will get hurt or suck. After him is Okha. Okha! The rotation has stabilized, I guess, but it wouldn’t take much to push it off center.
- We seem to want to tear down the Shapiro principle that our prospects are amazing and can never be traded unless we’re blown away. Fine, except – is that even true? Half the time we hear the other side – the Tribe never gives their young guys a chance. Hell, Franky G can be the poster guy for both sides – we gave him too much playing time AND we let him go too soon.
- I’m not sure I agree with the notion that we necessarily value Peralta more that anyone else. There easily could be a market for him. I love the guy, and expect him to go on a tear any minute. But it just makes sense given our holes elsewhere.
- Re: the Red Sox “B” lineup. This is their lineup. They are built around bad bodies Ortiz, Drew, Youk, and Lowell. Somebody is going to be hurt from that group (at least one) most of the time. They signed Baldelli. They have the cash, they put it elsewhere and now have guys like Green, Van Every and Bailey as their depth. And they brought back Varitek.
The radical reaction was cathartic and necessary. I enjoyed reading all the thoughts and suggestions. I felt the pain.
Personally I want to stand pat for the next six games which are at home against division rivals. We’ll know more about this team in six days.
What I find most frustrating is how little I know about the intangibles of this team (or any team). I can’t put my finger on anything that Wedge has done wrong as a manager, but he’s one constant in all our frustrating seasons. I wish we could send him to Columbus and bring up Lovullo, like we would with a player who needs to spend some time figuring it out at AAA. Embarrassing? Sure, but no more for Wedge than Raffy P. Better than getting fired IMO.
You may scoff at Tomo Ohka, but is there any reason to believe he could not be called up to pitch out of our bullpen more effectively than several of the guys we have there now? I know he’s not on the 40-man, but still, he has had stretches of effectiveness as a major league pitcher in the past.
He’s only scoffing at Ohka in that he’s our #7 starter at this exactly moment, and there’s a big dropoff in expectation from Huff to Ohka, as starters.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
But we’ve already burned through the depth; at this point, where out of depth in two places: starters and relievers. We’ve got Lewis coming back, we’ve got a hope for something from Sowers-we have no bullpen options internally outside of Pestano, and that’s saying something.
So, there’s no point in trying to preserve SP depth right now. It ought to be all hands on deck and if the ship goes down, we go down with everybody on it. There’s no point in saving David Huff in the event that SLewis and Sowers can’t cut it; if SLewis and Sowers can’t cut it, the season is over anyway and we can just send Huff back to the AAA rotation. Similarly, if the bullpen isn’t improved right now the season is over.
Is it good to be wallpapering over gaping holes? No. But it’s the only option. If the house still won’t sell, it doesn’t matter that we put up crappy wallpaper. It wasn’t selling anyway.
I’ve got to quit with the analogies.
I guess I disagree. We did have extra depth – and yeah, we’ve burned through it. And I think that reaching in and moving Huff to pen – you are actively cutting into the starting staff. Because the odds are that Huff will be needed this year. Bank on it. And not because our starters are particularly bad – but because few teams are going to be able to ride the 5 same starters from May 8th on.
Although I admit to not trusting in the Lewis/Westbrook recoveries right now.
Also, I’m certainly not against a flip between Sowers and Huff in the near future, but that’s a roster issue.
I just don’t think we’ll need Huff as a starter until it’s all over. We need defrib paddles, now, to even get us to a point of needing Huff.
That’s my perspective and the only thing that could change it is, I guess, if we needed Huff as a starter in the next ten games. Because these ten games are probably the season and I’m confident the current bullpen can lose at least 4 of them.
/insanely reactionary over the past 24.
I’m not against moving Huff to the bullpen at all costs, I just don’t think it’s one of our next two or three moves.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Has anyone ever been blown away by Asdrubal’s defense? In the few games I have watched Valbuena, he has made a few spectacular plays that I have never seen Droobs make in his time with our team. Droobs is obviously an upgrade over Peralta, but I don’t think he is that ++defender that some people hyped him up to be.
I think we imagined that he might — might — be Omar-like, and he isn’t. For one thing, he’s going to hit 25 home runs some day, and I don’t mean for his entire career.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I am ready for a Cabrera-Valbuena DP combo as soon as now
by Roger Dorn on May 8, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
It just feels so right.
So tired of intellectualizing that square peg round hole thing. It’s exhausting.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
When it eventually happens, I just have this sense there’ll be a collective, “why didn’t we do this earlier” moment
by APV on May 8, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I won’t be a part of that moment, but I will be relieved not to have to talk about it anymore.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
So in this scenario, DeRosa is in RF most of the time, right? Pushing LaPorta back to AAA until “the magical date” and then he comes back as a 1B, allowing us to trade Garko? Right?
The Problem: This leaves Shoppach in his 2007 role.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
So poll:
Am I the only person who had no idea ZImmerman had a 25-gm hit streak?
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
I drafted him and Jhonny in one league on the theory that one of them would maintain and the other would break out in a big way. So yeah, I’ve been paying attention.
In related news, my starting SS is currently Asdrubal Cabrera.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
This thread feels like a Mountains of Change moment with a shift in how many of us look at the organization. Really interesting stuff.
Sowers just sucks. Never understood why his value was compared to Buchholz last year. Clay is far and away better and I wish we had him right now.
I compared the two because despite the exorbitant hype, Buchholz has never outperformed Sowers at any age or level. And he still hasn’t. But the blind lust just rolls on and on, oblivious to actual performance …
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
So here’s an idea: Chien-Ming Wang is ready to come back fairly soon. Why not try to trade for Phil Hughes? He’s basically the forgotten Yankees prospect and the team should capitalize on that. Also, he’s really good.
Well he is sort of the odd man out right now. And the team is surpisngly lacking in positional players, especially in the outfield. Brett Gardner? Really?
Hughes is the odd man out? I don’t think that’s the current situation. I don’t think Yankees management is assuming that Wang will be an easy fix and that Hughes will then be shipped out.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090507&content_id=4612746&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
The guy will be back very soon.
If Hughes is the odd man out then they’re stupid and I’d love to exploit them.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
Let’s see, their rotation consists of a fat guy, a guy goes on the DL every year, a 40-year-old who can’t use his HGH anymore, a guy who missed all last season and can’t keep the ball down, and a hard-throwing young pitcher who has never played a full season and who has already had injury and off-the-field issues.
I’d say the attrition is going to come naturally. Maybe even Biblically.
To be honest, I don’t agree with any of your assessments and they have Kennedy in AAA should one of those pitchers go down.
So……
CC isn’t fat. AJ isn’t injury-prone. Pettite isn’t old. Wang doesn’t suck. Chamberlain is a proven commodity as a starter. And Kennedy is good.
Okay.
No as in you saying CC is fat is absurd because you’re insinuating he’s gonna get injured when he is in fact extremely durable. Saying AJ Burnett used to get injured a lot is like saying Anthony Reyes used to not be horrendous. It’s irrelevant now.
Also Pettitte is 37 and has shown no signs of slowing down. As for Wang, CC sucked last April too. They’re not going to just give up on a guy that is gets Carmona like groundballs when he’s on. And Joba has top 5 stuff. Granted, he’s a huge question mark but I don’t see him not being in that rotation unless he gets hurt.
I think Kennedy is overrated but he’s done very well in AAA so far so even without Hughes, they’re 6 deep. No rotation is without question marks but their rotation is one of the more stable ones in baseball.
This Yankees team is average or subpar in every aspect of the game except starting pitching. Outfield, bullpen and bench all suck. Offense is mediocre (and old), even if ARod comes back.
It’s all on the rotation for this team and there are question marks throughout. Also, Justin could well be needed back in the pen. So the Yankees are not going to trade Hughes or Kennedy or anyone else who is remotely capable of pitching in the big leagues.
Yes, CC is a remarkable athlete and is the surest thing of the bunch. But he has been in the rotation since 2001, throws hard, has a lot of innings on the odometer, was heavily used by the Brewers, and plants 350 pounds firmly on his right leg every time he throws the ball. And it goes, quickly, downhill from there.
So you’re admitting pitching is their strength yet still don’t think they might want to trade their 6th starter? Huh?
Exactly.
Because if their rotation goes bust, they are toast. Girardi’s out of a job. Cashman’s out of a job.
And no team can expect five or six starters to hold up all year (you follow the Indians, right?). And that’s especially true of this Yankees’ crew.
BTW, starting pitching has been a strength of the Indians in recent years (not the current year) and I haven’t noticed an inclination to trade the 6th, 7th, or 8th starters. If the rotation is your strength, that is a very good thing and you need to keep it that way, not expose it.
Where does the price for Hughes start? I’d think Choo.
I would actually put Clay on the list as well; the Indians-Red Sox are willing to deal with each other and they have a great deal of pitching. Bucholz’ value is probably inflated right now, though based on his AAA stats.
Choo? I think Shapiro laughs at Cashman if he asks for Choo. I was thinking something along the lines of Weglarz, Mills, and Meloan.
It would be very un-Cashman to trade a near ML-ready SP for a AA talent even if the guy has a high ceiling
But he has nowhere to play the guy. 4/5 of those rotation spots aren’t freeing up for a while and Kennedy, who they like and I think blows, can fill in for Pettitte next year.
There is no reason to think the Yankees aren’t willing to stockpile pitchers in the minors.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 8, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Yanks are going to do a trade, it’s going to be for bullpen help. They are just as desperate as us for bullpen guys. It would be akin to the Indians trading away Huff for some AA prospects.
There were also reports today that Mariano Rivera is still having pain with his (surgically repaired) shoulder. It could just be post-blown save, excuse making or it could be something else. I know he didn’t look as dominating when we faced him in NY (although the results were good for him).
Also, something that may have already been discussed and forgive me if it has but, why have we not cut Anthony Reyes yet in favor of David Huff? What upside does Anthony Reyes have? Is it that 88 mph sinker that doesn’t actually get any grounders? Is it that mediocre at best curveball? Or is it the horrendous walk and strikeout rates? This guy should not still be in the rotation.
Because 1) he has had excellent stuff in the past, 2) in 5 games, he’s given us 4 middling starts and 1 horrible one (Cliff Lee used to be middling, look it up), and 3) as you note, we’d have to cut him.
We are not in position to jettison mediocre starters!! No way.
No one here would be surprised if he blew up or got hurt. But that applies to all of our non-Lee starters.
Cutting Reyes now would be like not sending Sowers out to start the sixth yesterday. We know its dangerous, but you’ve got to let your mediocre guys play to a certain point, because we don’t have talent to cover ever potential problem. No one does.
We’re not discussing jettisoning mediocre starters. We’re discussing jettisoning Anthony Reyes. Seriously, he’s not even slightly good.
There are actually bigger disasters than Anthony Reyes pitching in ML starting rotations right now.
Granted, he’s a bit removed from his minor league career, but we’re talking about a guy that had an over 4:1 K:BB ratio in 73 starts … he’s had a lot of trouble translating that success to the majors (see also, Sowers, Jeremy.) but he’s only 28, so …
Consider Adam Eaton has made 5 starts for the Baltimore Orioles or that Russ Ortiz is currently in the Astros rotation.
Sometimes, I just like to b****.
Neither the Orioles or the Astros are any good nor expected to contend this season. I really don’t think that it should make any of us feel better that those two teams have a couple terrible starters in their rotation as well.
first place Royals are starting Ponson. There are some terrible disasters in the starting rotations of good teams
No problem sloppy, we’ve just got him valued differently. He’s been replacement level overall in these early starts, and I think he can do better over the course of the season. He’s not far off from Pavano/Sowers, and worth keeping considering our problems. You’ve got him down as suckity suck sucky suck. I’m not there.
I was thinking why not send Reyes to the pen instead of Laffey? Not that I expect his stuff to translate to a relief role any better, but Laffey > Reyes as a starter. I mean, we’re still going on a hope and a prayer in the bullpen anyway, and Sowers and Reyes giving us about 5 innings a night of 86 and 87 ERA+ isn’t going to really fix anything.
And he’s unathletic.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I know I left it open to that, but in all seriousness, it seems like they’re throwing anything at the wall and praying it sticks. You can still try out all your options and go about it like you at least know what you’re doing. I can’t really find a good way to defend “we need to fix our pen, so lets throw out Sowers and Reyes for 40% of our starts”. There’s some clamoring here for Huff to the pen, why not Huff to the rotation (with Laffey) at least until we see what we can get out of SLewis and Westbrook?
Keith Law chat today:
Max, NY, NY: Next manager fired… Wedge? Manuel?
SportsNation Keith Law: Wedge. He might be dead man walkin’ right now. Opposing PA guys should just play that clip where Sean Penn comes out of his cell for the last time whenever Wedge goes to the mound.
Manuel? Really? Because the Mets are 1/2 game back of the Phillies? The people here are delusional.
Leyland is testing out the theory that lineups don’t matter. Clete Thomas batting third tonight?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 8, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Great thread. Exactly why I love this place, across the board. I’ll just comment that, as frustrating as this is, really the Tribe has been exactly what we should probably expect for the last 5 years. One great year, one good one, one underperforming due in large part to injury, one I can’t remember (’06), and one that is thus far something I hope to forget (and drink heavily almost every other night to induce such forgetfulness).
What should we really expect from low-to-mid payroll? A range of outcomes which we’ve seen. Suggesting that this team struggling at the start and finishing strong ala 2008 is anything more than disappointing (such as Wedge’s fault, or representative of a flaw in Shapiro’s method) all depends on what you expect of it.
Sowers and Reyes might suck, but they are exactly what you should expect the 4th or 5th starter on a Major League team not in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, or only occasionally from a mid-market team. Huff might end up being more of the same, but he should be allowed at least a few months in AAA regardless the Tribe’s situation. Stick with the plan. If we think Shapiro should trade more of our prospects, then we sure as hell shouldn’t get excited about them.
We’ve got the core for 5 more years of exactly what the last 5 years have been like, and I think that isn’t bad. The alternatives are 1) boom and bust, 2) perpetual crap (KC/PIT), 3) perpetual bankrolling. I don’t think it is that horrible that our season hangs on the ability of a bullpen to gel and perform to expectations. Sometimes it will, and we’ll be as good as any team out there. Sometimes it won’t and you’ll have 3 of the last 5 years. Wedge and Shapiro were as involved in 06 and 08 as they were in 05 and 07 – why fire either of them?
If your standard is >20% (25% really) playoff appearances, you should probably be less of a baseball fan and more of a basketball fan. And really, 2005 should actually count, too, so your bar is really >50% then. Basketball is definitely your sport.
by APV on May 8, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It’s not that they are losing that bothers me. It’s that they continually fall short of expectations. We all know this team is talented. We knew they were talented in 2006 and 2008. From 2002-2004, it was a lot easier for me to accept that given those rosters, I should probably temper my expectations. This continual disappointment begs for some sort of change in the way they do things
I agree with this. Our expectations were for the Tribe to reach the postseason in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. One out of five doesn’t cut it, because we know the Indians have a good team.
We have had a decent collection of talent for the money spent. We have a good value roster. But that certainly shouldn’t lead to expectations of postseason more than 40-60% of the time during their prime, a period during which some have had injuries, others have been traded, some have gone through developmental issues, and others have underperformed. That should drop your expectation somewhat.
More fundamentally, there are issues as to what to expect the team to do relative to the individuals. We can all talk about how great it is to get walks and see pitches, but this team could use more contact hitters right now for important at-bats. Walks don’t do us much good with RISP and less than two outs against good teams and pitchers. Sure, average it all out and we’ll get good numbers with those walks, largely because bad pitchers will succumb to the pressure and pitch counts. But good pitchers won’t give in and help us out, and we’re forced to swing the bat.
Finally, we’ve been somewhat unlucky. I dunno, it just seems like what has happened should have been given a greater probability going in. Everything went right in 2007. That just doesn’t happen very often, even with good players.
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
- BIG Series: Padres and Giants set to battle for control of NL West
- The Grandstand: Crunch time in September arrives again
- Hello, Bourjos: Angels rookie plays it fast on both sides of ball
- An off-the-wall take on why the Twins will make the World Series
- John Lindsey couldn't have come any closer to his first at-bat
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.
