Email
PrintComments
I hope that Agent M becomes a regular contributor to the offense; I don’t think that’s a certainty at all. From what I’ve seen so far, he’s more patient at the plate than he was last year, but he still looks vulnerable to outside breaking stuff. Let’s see if he can adjust, once pitchers find the holes in his swing.
Even if he does become a regular, I can’t imagine Trevor Crowe will be scoring with any regularity on his base hits. LaPorta should be the regular left fielder, I’d imagine, so that leaves Crowe where he probably belongs – as a spare part. And Brantley’s not far behind LaPorta.
by peter m on Aug 3, 2009 9:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Next year will be Marte’s last pre-arb year….that is at least some incentive to give him a roster spot next season
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An interesting sub-plot next year is going to be what happens to Marte/Peralta/Jordan Brown (assuming he keeps succeeding).
by Toxicadam on Aug 3, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly? As crowded as our 40-man picture has become, I’m not sure Brown even gets rostered. Not saying he won’t, but it’s really not clear.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I have no idea how it’s going to play out. Marte could fail and be let go at the end of the season, Jhonny could be traded (least likely scenario), Brown could be non-rostered or he could survive and spend another season in AAA.
by Toxicadam on Aug 3, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. Jordan Brown is as much in our plans as Beau Allred is…
Stuart Dean
by stuart dean on Aug 3, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you mean…
Shoeless Beau Allred
Clueless Beau Allred
Clubless Beau Allred
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah Beau … he rocked the Canton-Akron Indians.
Turner Ward. Tom Magrann. Mike Twardoski. Julius McDougal.
And some guy named Joey.
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 3, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Turner Ward I remember, the rest of those guys not so much (save belle of course). We seriously had a guy named Twardoski in our system?
by mrich on Aug 3, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had season tickets to the CAK Indians inaugural season … 1989 …
First batter in Thuman Munson Stadium … Deion Sanders … walked by Jeff Shaw.
He immediately tried to steal 2nd and Magrann gunned him down … place went crazy.
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 3, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have never seen Brown play but there must be something that the management doesn’t like about him, I know that he is 25 and his Hr total is not high but he does hit a lot of 2 bagers, and he has had 2 outstanding years out of the last 3. A OPS of 906, 754 and 912 this year. He has to be a better option than Chris Gimenez who is 27, before you say it, yes he can catch, but how many catcher do we need?
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 3, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not a huge Gimenez fan (he’s useful, that’s about it), but I don’t think you can so quickly pass off Gimenez as just another catcher. He can also play 3B, which Brown cannot, and which makes him a much easier guy to fit on the roster as the 24th/25th man than someone who is solely limited to corner OF and 1B. I’d also suggest that Gimenez’s secondary components (BB%, ISO) have generally been better than Brown’s and have a better trend to them, which I think suggests he’s a better bet to translate some of those skills at the major league level.
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i agree. I have no problem with keeping Gimenez on the bench. He can play both infield corners, LF and catch. Like you said, he also has some pop and knows how to draw a walk.
by JP_Frost on Aug 3, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gimenez is also a significantly more credible outfielder than Brown.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
are you saying that he is a Garko defensive type player in the outfield and 1st or just the outfield?
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 5, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m saying Gimenez can play all the corner positions pretty well, and Brown is a decent 1B and LF, as I understand it. When a guy can play two skill positions well, it’s safe to assume he’s a significantly better defender at every position than someone who is limited to 1B and LF. Brown presumably is better than Garko as a defender, because few players who’ve regularly played LF are worse than Garko. But that doesn’t mean that Gimenez isn’t a lot better than Brown.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 5, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
this is interesting because I’ve had quite a heated discussion about Brown on the indians prospect insider message boards. The reason being some system rankings and i said that I wouldn’t mind see Brown going to the rule 5 draft if it means protecting some of the younger, higher upside prospects we have. I also don’t see Brown really fitting into the Tribe’s future plans with some higher regarded guys in front of him. Apparently that meant I was bashing him to continue my LaPorta crusade and justifying the CC trade.
Anyway, I wouldn’t mind seeing Brown get a callup this season, but I’m not that high on him.
by JP_Frost on Aug 3, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, if Jordan Brown gets taken in the Rule 5 it’s probably better for everybody involved. I don’t see any way he fits in to this team; he was pretty much just replacement-level insurance for 1B/LF this season.
by mrich on Aug 3, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IF JBrown walked or had a stellar glove, I would be interested.
Stuart Dean
by stuart dean on Aug 3, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IF JBrown moonwalkedor hadwith a stellar glove, I would beinterestedecstatic.
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
IF JBrown moonwalkedor hadwith astellarsequined glove, I would beinterestedecstaticfrightened.
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 3, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The avatar looks great, by the way. My favorite part is how it catches the eye first thing
by Roger Dorn on Aug 3, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it really glitters
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There should be as many moves during the offseason as there have been since DeRosa was moved. Shoppach could leave, and if Crowe can be serviceable someone could bite. Reyes might be worth something. We have a lot of clutter at the top and not much room for the people that we know are going to be a part of the future.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 3, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reyes has no value; he’ll be released and possibly re-signed to a minor league deal.
I could see a Crowe deal, but it wouldn’t yield much.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And honestly, there’s not much incentive besides the yield. He’s cheap, and a fine fit for us as a 4/5 outfielder. They’re clearly comfortable with him.
by dgcambridge on Aug 3, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, I had honestly completely forgotten Anthony Reyes was even still with the team. I was, “Reyes? Who the hell is that?”
by mrich on Aug 3, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well the intent would be to make some room as opposed to actually reaping a high yield.
Barfield too at this point.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 3, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there could very well be a lot of off-season deals, although most of them probably pretty minor
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could see Crowe as the 4th outfielder with Laporta as the starter in LF, I would not like to see us bring up Brantley to sit on the bench
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 3, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That too.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This what makes the next few months so interesting. We have collectively no idea how the 2010 offense will work.
by danvail on Aug 3, 2009 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep. We have Grady, Choo, Cabrera, and half time Hafner. Every other position is up for grabs.
by dgcambridge on Aug 3, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love Louie V, perhaps uncomfortably so.
Stuart Dean
by stuart dean on Aug 3, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
840 Ops in July… he’s been looking good.
by danvail on Aug 3, 2009 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, it took me way too long to figure out who you were talking about. Yeah Valbuena is looking … Valmuybuena
by mrich on Aug 3, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I’m writing Luis in at 2b. Donald had me question it. But he’s the guy, right? Our everyday 2b? I’m using ink.
by dgcambridge on Aug 3, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s certainly the best guy we have had there since Fat Ronnie was playing short RF.
by Toxicadam on Aug 3, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha .. how soon I forget. It’s amazing how quickly I have erased his waiting period to push out Peralta.
by Toxicadam on Aug 3, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he was never really the 2B, that was just sort of his defensive on-deck circle.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But, but…. unassisted triple play!
by Logodaedalus on Aug 3, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that as the SS, he could somehow get four outs at once.
by FredOx on Aug 3, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Donald becomes Carrol 2.0?
Stuart Dean
by stuart dean on Aug 3, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he may have a better bat. I also think there is no way I could have put more qualifiers on that.
by fwembt on Aug 3, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Either way I’m not sure there’s much room for him in 2010 unless he does become Carroll 2.0. This is with me assuming Valbuena “wins” the starting 2B job.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 3, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think DeRosa 2.0 is a better way to describe him.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to make a comment that he could be compared to DeRosa when he does better than a .620s OPS as a 24-year-old in AAA.
Then I saw DeRosa’s .652 OPS as a 24-year-old in AAA.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You just lawyered yourself.
It should be pointed out that Donald’s knee injury this year is probably affecting his hitting a lot.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shapiro said that Valbuena and Donald are going to compete for the 2B job next year
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See, I knew I wasn’t making that up.
by dgcambridge on Aug 3, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Donald’s a legitimate prospect, but in my eyes, Valbuena seems like the guy with better potential. Valbuena’s luck + park corrected 2008, which was pretty much split between AA and AAA, was .312/.390/.441. Donald’s luck + park corrected 2008, which was entirely at AA, .280/.367/.457. Donald had a little more power and a lower batting average, but Valbuena is 15 months younger. Donald has spent much more time at SS than Valbuena, but Valbuena generally has better minor league UZR numbers, mainly at 2B.
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Valbuena has to have the serious edge.
1. More ML experience
2. More time with Cabrera
3. His job to lose
4. Younger
5. Better 2009 numbers
by danvail on Aug 3, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does minor league splits account for luck? When you account for luck it looks like they reduced Donald’s BABIP from .368 to .329, which is well below his previous seasons.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know exactly how they do it, but I think they normalize BABIP based on component BIP data
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
very few (like Ichiro and that’s about it) can maintain a BABIP over .360 from year to year
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I know high BABIP is hard to maintain. And while I’m hardly an expert with luck, i’ve read that certain types of players can have consistently higher or lower BABIP’s.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it would be interesting to see how players with a history of high BABIP in the minors tend to perform at the major league level. I’d be interested to see how their skills translate. Is there a good comparison?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Choo has maintained his high BABIP for 2 years now (career .366 now).
by Toxicadam on Aug 3, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems to make sense this correlates well with LD%.
by danvail on Aug 3, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Choo is better than ice cream.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is he better than Choo flavored ice cream?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The hurricane’s name is Hurricane Ditka.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 3, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see Donald’s as a cheap utility infielder for 2010, a Carrol replacement, a little better glove a little less stick.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 3, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does one have less stick than Carroll?
by fwembt on Aug 3, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you haven’t noticed, Carroll has a pretty nifty OBP
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this a New York Times crossword puzzle clue or not?
Usually, an incredible waste of pixels.
by emd2k3 on Aug 3, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was assuming he was in reference to actual hitting. Carroll has a career SLG of .352 and OPS .706, so he’s not really a great pure hitter. I would think that Donald would be able to match that, provided his walk rate stays high.
by fwembt on Aug 3, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would take that next year, as our utility infielder.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 3, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carroll has a .337 wOBA and a career high .382 OBP, which I doubt he’ll maintain. Still his career .353 OBP is still pretty good..
That being said I wouldn’t be shocked if Donald equals or surpasses a .353 OBP/.337 wOBA either this year or next. So yeah I think he’ll have a better bat
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m talking next year not long term, Carrol’s OPS is 746 that is not bad for a utility infielder
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 3, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s also the third highest of his career, so probably not terribly likely to be repeated.
by fwembt on Aug 3, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
3rd highest out of what, 7 seasons? i think it’s his 4th lowest, so he must have a lot of upside beyond that.
by Brick. on Aug 3, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m going to posit that his being 35 rules that out.
by fwembt on Aug 3, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or maybe Jamey Carroll is one of our better prospects.
by fwembt on Aug 3, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well with Carroll and Donald, you’ll see some fluctuation if they’re only playing in a part-time role.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 3, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that bad? It’s actually terrific. It’s not all that bad for a starting 2B.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
more power than Carroll, less obp.
by Logodaedalus on Aug 3, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only one of Valbuena and Donald was a top 100 prospect entering this season. I think it is a lot closer than people realize, and Donald should have a fair chance at winning an everyday job if he can regain his footing.
by Roger Dorn on Aug 3, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a good point. Considering the age/numbers difference that seems to favor Valbuena, how is it that Donald is a top-100 prospect and Valbuena was relatively unheard of (at least as far as I know — maybe Valbuena was more recognized than I remember). Do we overvalue our prospects, or were the publications wrong?
by Chemo on Aug 3, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It could be a scouting versus numbers thing. I am not too sure
by Roger Dorn on Aug 3, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Valbuena’s preseason ranking was a classic underestimation by the scouterazzi.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems likely. BA said he would have been our 11th best prospect had they gone beyond the top 10.
by Roger Dorn on Aug 3, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Valbuena seems like another example of what Shapiro does best. I would love it if the front office developed that ability a little more effectively with pitchers…we’ve had some nice reclamation projects (e.g. Howry), but I wouldn’t mind us pulling a Ryan Franklin out of the hat at some point.
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
looks like they unintentionally went beyond the top ten
by clusterchuck on Aug 4, 2009 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A discussion of the future of the offense should begin here, by downloading Tyler’s piece from the Annual (free!) and the engrossing 5-year depth chart at the end of it.
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 12:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What are the current odds that we pick up that club option on Hafner?
by dgcambridge on Aug 3, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s an easy 0%, with a slight chance of 100%. The more interesting question is what are the chances we pick up each, or any, or Fausto Carmona’s three club options, 2012, 2013, and 2014
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those seemed like no-brainers at the time. Perhaps the most important aspect of any contract Shap has inked.
by danvail on Aug 3, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were never no-brainers, because pitchers get hurt all the time.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, of course, that’s true. The reality of what’s happened, though, in respect to Fausto’s career, seemed an impossibility at the time that contract was signed.
by danvail on Aug 3, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. Same with Peralta, same with Kerry Wood …
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kerry Wood has had some questions about his ability and health for years. Peralta was more similar.
Shapiro really needs to stop signing contracts immediately after the big year.
by danvail on Aug 4, 2009 7:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Questions about Kerry Wood’s ability? When?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When we signed Wood there was a some question on here as to whether it was a good contract but I don’t think ability ever entered into it. Most people who questioned it did so based on the idea that he might get hurt. No one predicted that he would be both healthy and bad.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Going back to that chart, it is interesting how the 1B-DH picture has changed. Hafner’s still around on a part-time basis, but Garko and Aubrey are gone. Mills has stepped back, and Victor isn’t in the mix anymore. You would think Brown would be there…but he’s not.
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s why I think Brown is rostered this year. For an organization that values depth, it would be silly to let him go considering what we have behind him (Head?).
by Toxicadam on Aug 3, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it would be silly to value him over a similarly productive player who can play other positions.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we have Wegz. And LaPorta? And Gimenez. And Mills even. Mills is struggling, but if those first two guys can’t play the outfield, we are a lot shallower there than we are at first.
In fact, this has been bothering me a lot. I see our biggest non-pitcher shortage as LF. If LaPorta’s being groomed for first, then that leaves our LF position for 2010-2012 as Brantley, and that’s it. I like Brantley, but he’s not ready today, and I’m not sure when he will be. There’s a hole there.
It seems to me like we’ve got a ton of guys who can play first. And the fact that LaPorta is being groomed there makes me think that they really don’t trust his outfield D. (If that’s true, fine, I’d rather not take chances on defense). If LaPorta can’t play the OF, can Wegz, or Brown?
We’ve got catchers, we have third baseman. I really think we can find a 1b who can OPS 800 or more. We need a left-fielder.
by dgcambridge on Aug 3, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weglarz is still playing a lot of LF. For what it’s worth, here are minorleaguesplits.com’s UZR numbers for Wegz over the past 3 seasons.
Yr Age Team Lg Org/Lev Pos Outs Chances Runs Runs/150
2009 21 Akron EL CLE/AA LF 123 223 14 31
2008 20 Kinston CAR CLE/A+ LF 111 236 2 4
2007 19 LC SAL CLE/A LF 163 380 -15 -19
I have no idea if this is evidence of improvement, evidence of bad data, or evidence of variable performance. Scouting reports of him aren’t great, but don’t say he can’t play the OF.
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, everything I’ve ever read about Weglarz says he can stick in the OF (although he’s not exactly Gootz out there). So your next 3 LFs are LaPorta (2010), Brantley (2011), Weglarz (2012?). I’m comfortable with that.
by mrich on Aug 3, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he looked alot more athletic in the future’s game than I imagined he would. He barely had to make a play, but there’s definately a chance he could become an average outfielder.
by JP_Frost on Aug 3, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m very weary of minor league UZR, particularly when it flies in the face of what i’ve read about a prospect’s defense. It’s all just a data point though I suppose. But I usually read that LaPorta’s OF defense is solid while Wegz is below average.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Count me as impressed by the scrollbar…
Stuart Dean
by stuart dean on Aug 3, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scouting reports of him aren’t great, but don’t say he can’t play the OF.
Scout: He’s no Garko, thats for sure.
As General Manager of this team, I demand to know when I'm getting a start.
by bigbrabbs on Aug 3, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not even Garko is as bad as Garko…
Stuart Dean
by stuart dean on Aug 3, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Take that back.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think LaPorta is being looked at as primarily a 1B right now? I think LaPorta is our LF until Brantley forces him to 1B. For 2010 I think you’re looking at a LaPorta / Grady / Choo outfield with Marte at 1B. Hard for me to imagine Jordan Brown hitting his way into that scenario. It’d be nice if he made it thru Rule 5 so we could keep him in Columbus another year, but I don’t think he’ll get rostered.
by mrich on Aug 3, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do think they are viewing him as a 1B
by Roger Dorn on Aug 3, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the fact that LaPorta is being groomed there makes me think that they really don’t trust his outfield D. (If that’s true, fine, I’d rather not take chances on defense).
Looking at B-Ref, LaPorta has split his time pretty evenly between the OF and 1B, playing slightly more games in the OF.
I have no clue why people are so eager to force LaPorta to 1B. The front office has gone out of their way to mention LaPorta’s soild defense in the outfield. A view that’s also been confirmed by various scouts, including Kevin Goldstein.
From what I can tell, LaPorta is refining his 1B defense in order to A) provide Wedge flexibility and B) because the front office believes Brantley can be an everyday outfielder.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m trying to figure out what they are doing with him. His time at 1b has increased recently.
This is where I’m confused, if the guy can play solid defense in the outfield, then just stick him in the OF and leave him there. We have a hole there. We’ve always had as much or more depth at first than the OF corner.
He should just be our LF, and if Brantley wants to come along an knock him off, then make him do so.
Does it really improve his value so much that he can play 1B right away?
by dgcambridge on Aug 3, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are specifically working him more at first to get him comfortable there. My guess is that with Victor and Garko gone, they see LaPorta spending more time at 1B next year than LF, and they want to give him the opportunity to get comfortable there in AAA now, rather than in the majors. I really think there is some belief that Brantley will be our starting LFer on opening day next season, and that it makes more sense to put LaPorta at first now even if that is not his long term role.
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
versatility! you know guys will bounce around.
by Brick. on Aug 3, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d be surprised if Brantley starts in LF next year but I guess it is possible. If the front office does want LaPorta at 1B next year, still a big if imo, I think they’re more likely to sign a FA outfielder next year.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would they pay for an outfielder in a year when they don’t think they will contend?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shapiro’s comments indicate that he plans on contending next year.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is a very selective if not downright obtuse reading of Shapiro’s comments.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s funny I thought the same thing about your interpretation.
I think Shapiro’s comments, especially after he traded Vic, gave the impression that he wasn’t giving up on 2010. He more or less called the AL Central a weak, or at least winnable, division.
We tend to discuss 2010 in black and white terms. Either we will compete or we won’t compete. I think Shapiro looks at 2010 in terms of we can compete. Which is why I don’t think signing a cheap free agent outfielder to a one year contract, maybe two with a club option, isn’t out of the realm of possibility
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those words were a concession to PR and team morale. The Indians will not invest in 2010 contention.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re assuming that a free agent, or trade, addition would only be a one year deal.
So are you saying we won’t sign a single free agent this off season?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m assuming that you don’t sign someone in 2010 to help you contend in 2011. The Indians didn’t function this way in 2003 and 2004, and I don’t believe they will 2010, when money is even tighter.
It is possible we’ll sign a stopgap guy, which is what we thought Ronnie Belliard was at the time, to a one-year deal. It is also possible we let guys on a minor league deal compete for a major league job, as we did with Casey Blake during those years.
It is more likely, however, that we’ll seek to fill every position player spot on next year’s roster internally, simply because it’s cheaper and we have the players to do it and 40-man spots are at a premium for us now.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Todd Hollandsworth, 2006, minor league deal, 900K only if he made the big-league roster.
That’s the kind of free agent we’ll be signing.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i want all payroll adding monies to go into locking up the aschoobals of the world.
by Brick. on Aug 4, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we would have to sign a SP FA. Here’s a list of FA for next year:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/12/2010-mlb-free-a.html
Lots of guys on there that would be affordable for a year or two.
by Toxicadam on Aug 4, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just an aside, but going into the 2003 season the Indians signed Jason Bere, Brian Anderson, Dave Burba and Terry Mullholland in the off-season.
Of course, our farm system was in a dramatically different place then it is now.
by Toxicadam on Aug 4, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Westbrook
Carmona
Laffey
Masterson
Huff
S. Lewis
Sowers
Carrasco
Rondon
Do we really need to sign a SP?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lee, Pavano, Fausto, Reyes, Lewis, Sowers, Laffey, Huff and Adam Miller (no, seriously!) going into this season and we had Tomo Ohka pitching by the end of May.
by Toxicadam on Aug 4, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but this year, we don’t really care if Ohka is pitching by the end of May.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we’re not aiming for a pennant next year.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but then I wouldn’t even put Sowers or Lewis on that list.
The nice move would be to sign a reclaimation project with some kind of club option for 2011.
by dgcambridge on Aug 4, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean like a Mark Mulder type signing?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben Sheets? What the heck is going on with him? He’ll probably be too expensive for us, though.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 4, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On 18 July Olney said not to expect him back this year.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could through Lofgren in there if you are feeling spicy
by Roger Dorn on Aug 4, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s a 23 year old left hander in AAA who can reach the mid 90’s. I don’t think there’s any reason to give up on him. I think people forget he’s that young.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
where are you getting this mid-90s figure? it was my understanding that he doesn’t really get it much over 90 these days.
by APV on Aug 4, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
90 is mid-90s for a lefthander.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is from IPI’s scouting report on Lofgren before the season began:
Lofgren was once considered one of the top left-handed pitching prospects in all the minors, but his performance the last two years no longer puts him in that class. He is a physical starting pitcher who has a good four-pitch mix led by a fastball that sits at 90-93 MPH and has topped out as high as 95 MPH in the past. In addition to the fastball, he also throws a slow curveball that tops out at around 75 MPH and a changeup and slider which sit in the low 80s. He possesses one of the best swing-and-miss fastball statistics in the Indians system, which is heavily influenced by the deception in his delivery.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was my understanding that reports about his drop in velocity were rumors. I’m not saying he sits at 94-95 but I thought he could reach it.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess, but he needs more AAA to see if he can step up beyond “filler” level. That’s all he’s showing right now. As opposed to someone like Rondon, who is using AAA to refine his ability.
There was talk in the other thread that we may leave him exposed to the Rule 5 draft. We probably won’t lose him.
by dgcambridge on Aug 4, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we would lose Lofgren if we left him exposed. I don’t see why a team like the Pirates that have a GM that is probably a little familiar with Lofgren, not take a stab at him
by Roger Dorn on Aug 4, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the Pirates want to use a roster spot on Lofgren all next season, more power to them. I’m not too familiar with their roster but they may have prospects of their own to worry about and might not be so interested in poaching Lofgren… personally I am done worrying about Rule 5. When have we ever missed anybody that we lost? Looking over this list, the most significant guys taken from our system were Hector Luna and Willy Taveras in 2003. What does that tell you?
Unless people are still upset about losing Brian Barton or something.
by mrich on Aug 4, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in last night’s game against Columbus, John Halama started, was relieved by Mariano Gomez, and Brian Barton played in the OF. It was awesome.
by APV on Aug 4, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Id idn’t say i was worried. I just said he might get selected
by Roger Dorn on Aug 4, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except Rondon didn’t have two years of personal problems that derailed his minor league career.
Every player doesn’t light up AAA on their first try. If Lofgren were 25 or 26 I’d be more inclined to agree.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m cheering for the guy. Let’s keep him around while we can.
I’m all for the “every player doesn’t light it up on the first try” and “he’s only 23” points with someone like Brantley, because 1) he’s shown recent excellence, 2) he’s a hitter, and so the projected growth is more steady, and 3) the skill he most needs to add (power) isn’t a bad bet at this point. Lofgren, not so much.
So part of this is TINSTAAPP. And Lofgren just hasn’t shown anything in a while.
I think it makes sense to divide guys into “on the path to being a major league regular” and “needs to make a big jump in ability.” You can’t put Lofgren in the first group, even though we like the guy.
by dgcambridge on Aug 4, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with most of this. I guess I would just categorize filler as a third, lesser category. One that you don’t put a 23 year old pitcher who with decent, not great but decent, periphs on. Particularly when its his first year “back”.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming 2010 is lost, I just realized I would definitely be happy on a personal level for Lofgren to pitch on the big league club. Like in an atta-boy way.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool, Jason Johnson is available.
Stuart Dean
by stuart dean on Aug 4, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think the intention is to focus on contending in 2011, but realizing that we have enough pieces to luck into something in 2010 without committing to it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 5:12 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Its also possible that the front office might sign a defensive specialist 4th outfielder if they’re not impressed with Crowe. Maybe an Endy Chavez type player.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I’d be on board for that.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 5:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is defense a problem with Crowe?
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 4, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on who you ask. RZR has him around Gutierrez level, RF has him as league average. There is a massive disparity there (obviously) and, I think, in the anecdotal evidence. He almost certainly can’t hit, that’s pretty much not debatable.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UZR has him as slightly above average in the OF, but the sample size is tiny. I don’t fully agree with you that he can’t hit. He has displayed good walk rates in the minors and generally hit for a solid average. He also has a little bit of pop. Is it enough to be an everyday outfielder? Probably not, but it should be fine as a bench player.
Let’s not forget that Brantley isn’t that much better with the bat. He has more upside though.
by JP_Frost on Aug 4, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a vast misreading of Crowe’s minor league numbers.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brantley is also a full three years younger. Even Crowe’s MLE’s are bad .263/.349/.349. That makes him Elvis Andrus, only five years older and without the glove and the speed. Trevor Crowe cannot hit. If he ever achieves a .700 OPS in the majors, the world will be stunned.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Endy Chavez, IIRC, is Gutierrez-level with the glove. Even if Crowe was good I’d still be impressed with him out there.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d say Shapiro kind of owes us this one…
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do we have any reason to think they’re unimpressed with Crowe? Especially if he’s not a starter? I think they love that guy.
by dgcambridge on Aug 4, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would think that even the most rose-colored glasses realizes that the Crowe ceiling is a pretty decent 4OF. Why they didn’t realize that before they drafted him is an altogether different question…
Stuart Dean
by stuart dean on Aug 4, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
remember the second base experiment? If that would’ve worked he’d probably be our everyday 2nd baseman. Not sure if they had that in mind when they drafted him though.
by JP_Frost on Aug 4, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He hasn’t hit well enough to lock in a starting 2B job.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope Shapiro is not even thinking in this direction, what FA would we sign that would be any better than what we have in LaPorta/Crowe/Gimenez/ Brantley/Brown. If we are going to be in a rebuilding stage for the next 1 to 2 years, we don’t need a another Dellucci type FA. If we going to rebuild than lets rebuild.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 4, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. Let’s do it Marlins style and surprise everyone.
by JP_Frost on Aug 4, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Endy Chavez, three year contract.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reason #196965864 I want to see Wedge gone, especially with the “new wave” of youngsters.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 3, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the implication here that Wedge is ordering LaPorta to play 1B in Columbus? Does the manager make those decisions?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 3, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
please, please, let’s hope he doesn’t
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 3, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think that’s the implication.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well then I’m confused. The topic was why LaPorta is being played at 1B so much in Columbus, and the comment is another reason that Wedge should be fired.
Honestly, I’m asking, do managers control this? I didn’t think they did.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 3, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there is no chance that Eric Wedge has any meaningful influence on who plays in Columbus
by APV on Aug 3, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or Marte would be a world class dominoes player by now.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, more implying that I don’t want Wedge to even have the slightest opportunity to ruin a new crop of youngsters
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 4, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wedge has overseen the development of plenty of young talent. Probably more than a lot of current managers.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, he’s been given some incredible talents that would make even if I were managing the team. Grady lucked into a spot and ran with it, Asdrubal got a chance because Barfield (a young talent in his own right at the time) posted a 54 OPS+. More marginal talents or players requiring special attention have consistently failed to develop under Wedge.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is pure confirmation bias
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Honestly, you haven’t provided an argument that needs to be dispelled.
This criticism of Wedge is simply a biased reading of the data. Anytime a player succeeds under Wedge you say “Well he would have been great regardless of the manager.” Anytime a player fails you say “See, Wedge fails to cultivate another young player.” It’s a classic cognitive bias.
But besides that, how do you distinguish a can’t miss prospect from other types of prospects? The real problem with this argument seems to be that we can’t verify how players would or would not have developed in an alternate timeline where Wedge wasn’t the manager.
Not trying to be rude, I’m just saying
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This criticism of Wedge is simply a biased reading of the data. Anytime a player succeeds under Wedge you say "Well he would have been great regardless of the manager." Anytime a player fails you say "See, Wedge fails to cultivate another young player." It’s a classic cognitive bias.
You have to admit this is true. People here hate Wedge no matter what.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now in every single case this could prove to be true, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a bias.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you doubt that Grady pans out under any manager? Or Asdrubal? Do you deny that Phillips and Marte could have been handled better?
The original comment was that Wedge has probably developed more young talent than other managers in the bigs. Is that even moderately verifiable?
The point, if overstated, is that Wedge is not some sort of managerial wonder worker with young talent. He hit big with Grady and Asdrubal, he missed big with BP and Marte. I don’t see the argument that he develops talent better than anyone else, which is what was proffered.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I deny that Phillips could have been handled better.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At Wedge’s insistence we kept Ramon Vazquez as our utility infielder over The Franchise. I’d say it could have been handled better.
"It's all part of life's rich pageant, you know?" - Inspector Clouseau
by woodsmeister on Aug 4, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And keep in mind we’re not arguing whether Wedge is “some sort of managerial wonder worker with young talent.” Exactly the opposite. I’m arguing against the assumption that he will destroy anything other than a can’t-miss.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 4, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’re confused.
At no point during this conversation did I ever say Eric Wedge was a prospect developing guru. The other Phil’s original comment argued that Wedge has a habit of ruining young talent.
As I pointed out there are several young players who have developed while Wedge has managed the Indians. (Grady, Asdrubal, CC,Lee, Victor,Choo,etc) So to say that Wedge ruins young players is verifiably false.
Your first response argued that the talents that succeeded under Wedge would have succeeded under anyone.
This, as I pointed out is a confirmation bias. You refuse to attribute credit for any player that succeeds under Wedge but you give him the brunt of the blame for any player that fails under his tenure.
Yes, I can imagine a world where Grady Sizemore fails to become an All Star center fielder. Just like i can imagine a world where Alex Escobar is the starting center fielder with the Indians. That’s because there’s no such thing as a sure fire can’t miss prospect.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wedge has overseen the development of plenty of young talent. Probably more than a lot of current managers.
That is what I am arguing.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I pointed out there are several young players who have developed while Wedge has managed the Indians. (Grady, Asdrubal, CC,Lee, Victor,Choo,etc) So to say that Wedge ruins young players is verifiably false.
He didn’t say Wedge ruins all young players.
Several young players have done well under Wedge. Some have done very well at first and then gone downhill. Basically none have improved.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 5, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Way to resurrect a dead argument Jay. Sooooo argumentative.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 5, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It isn’t dead until I say it’s dead.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 5, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 6, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
THIS!
Usually, an incredible waste of pixels.
by emd2k3 on Aug 7, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Straw man. In looking for a bias you took a position and made it an all or nothing proposition. I disagree with your point that Wedge is better than most at developing young talent. I didn’t say that it was an “anytime.”
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, you did straw man my statement.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wedge has overseen the development of plenty of young talent. Probably more than a lot of current managers.
That is what you said. I argue that this is not only, by your own standards, completely unmeasurable but probably also not even allegorically true. Wedge has a track record of not relating to young players or blocking them with veterans. The only ones who he “develops” are those who come along and leave him no choice but to play them.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That comment was in reply to this one:
No, more implying that I don’t want Wedge to even have the slightest opportunity to ruin a new crop of youngsters
…as if he ruined the last one(s). Grady, Asdrubal, Victor, Cliff, and Choo were already mentioned. There’s also Garko, Casey Blake (sure, a minor league veteran, but he developed under Wedge), Hafner, Betancourt, and Coco Crisp. Coco certainly developed in the majors under Wedge….I don’t think it was certain that Coco was definitely going to develop, and also note that he hasn’t been the same since leaving the Tribe.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “more than a lot of current managers,” but I wouldn’t make him out to be terrible in this department either. I agree with nickjs:
And keep in mind we’re not arguing whether Wedge is "some sort of managerial wonder worker with young talent." Exactly the opposite. I’m arguing against the assumption that he will destroy anything other than a can’t-miss.
My two cents (no offense).
Baseball isn't boring. YOU ARE.
by Matt Y. on Aug 4, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify my comment about wedge overseeing more young talent than most managers was a reference to the number of young players that have come through Cleveland in the past seven years because of our strong farm system. It wasn’t a testimony to Wedge turning magic beans into a golden goose.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 5, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, then I greatly misunderstood you.
by fwembt on Aug 5, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Hey, I just noticed that your avatar is Jesse from Brand New. They’re one of my favorite bands
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 5, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m planning on seeing them in Philly this tour if I can scrape together the money. They are playing with Thrice there and Manchester Orchestra in Cleveland. I may end up trying to see both. I saw Brand New in Columbus a couple of years ago and they played a 27 song, 4 hour show. It was awesome.
by fwembt on Aug 5, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn a four hour show. That’s amazing. I admit, I’m kind of jealous right now. I’ve never seen them live.
I hear they’re working on another album already
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 5, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Daisy is coming out in September. I’ve heard some of it and it is incredible. There’s rumor it may be their last album.
Not to twist the knife, but they were incredible live.
by fwembt on Aug 5, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you wonder why people don’t like you.
by junkballer on Aug 5, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is what I meant. As usual, Jay said it better and earlier.
Getting back to the point on Wedge, there is now a fairly long list of young players he has failed to relate to.
There’s also a nice list of players who are rated with such off-the-charts makeup that the manager’s deft touch wouldn’t matter.
In between? A very thin vein of marginal players whom Wedge may have reached and helped to become marginal.
by fwembt on Aug 4, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think actually that (a) quite a few young players have arrived and succeeded immediately under Wedge, and (b) hardly anybody has found any success _without _ succeeding immediately. Then we have © a couple of guys who had to be sent down in order to retool.
Where, in any of those three scenarios, is Wedge actually overseeing anyone’s development?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This assumes young players stop developing once they’ve experienced some level of success in the majors.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was sitting here reading the comments on Wedge so I asked myself a couple of questions about Wedge
Does he work well with his boss?
How does he relate to his players?
Do they perform up to expectation?
Is he a good communicator?
Does he develop his player to their full potential?
Does he make the team better?
There is noway that I can answer these questions.
Do I like Wedge as the manager ?That is a big NO
But you know what? I have hard time remembering the last manager I liked. I always want to blame them; they are such an easy target.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Aug 4, 2009 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I did too, until he brought in Mesa. I’ve been furious with him ever since.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Aug 5, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wha? Who else do you bring in there?
Bringing in Jaret Wright in the 1999 ALDS, that’s what did it for me.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 5, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He should’ve stuck with Jackson. I saw no need to make a change at all.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Aug 6, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to be a little more clear. He didn’t pull Jackson for Mesa. He pulled him for Anderson, who gave way to Mesa. Jackson didn’t pitch at all in Games 4 and 5, pitched 2 innings in game 6. I would’ve left him in for two innings in game 7. And history might be different if he had.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Aug 6, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evidently saving him for Game 8, or perhaps a more important series.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He should just be our LF, and if Brantley wants to come along an knock him off, then make him do so.
</blockquote
This is my point. If the front office sees Brantley as a future everyday outfielder, then we’ll have four players we want in the lineup for only three outfielders spots. So we teach LaPorta how to play 1B so we can play all four players.
Brantley is the key to the equation. If he develops properly then LF is his, probably in 2011. If he doesn’t LaPorta stays in LF and the 1B slot goes to someone else.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is supposed to look like this:
He should just be our LF, and if Brantley wants to come along an knock him off, then make him do so.
This is my point. If the front office sees Brantley as a future everyday outfielder, then we’ll have four players we want in the lineup for only three outfielders spots. So we teach LaPorta how to play 1B so we can play all four players.
Brantley is the key to the equation. If he develops properly then LF is his, probably in 2011. If he doesn’t LaPorta stays in LF and the 1B slot goes to someone else.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a good point. There’s a reason to be obsessed with versatility if there’s a very real situation where we need to find ABs for these guys. Better to know LaPorta can play first as a back-up plan.
It should become more clear when we see where LaPorta plays after the call-up, because if you’re right (and I like your thinking) then there’s no one who should be pushing LaPorta to 1B right now.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 3, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course they could always be anxious to get Marte reps at 3B. So maybe it wouldn’t mean that much.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 3, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’re right to see this as linked to where Marte plays. If they trade Peralta, Agent M moves to 3b, which opens up 1B for LaPorta. By the time 2011 rolls around, there’s going to be a debate about who plays LF (Weglarz/Brantley/Sizemore) and CF (Sizemore/Brantley). They don’t need LaPorta (not to mention Brown) in that mix also.
by ken from alexandria on Aug 4, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s so many variables in our current defensive alignment that I have no idea who will be playing where for the rest of the season. Though I’m still uncomfortable with our corner infielder situation. It feels like there’s more quantity than quality, outside of LaPorta.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It isn’t just Brantley, it’s also Weglarz, who isn’t far behind him.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 3, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
true, but I guess I assumed that Weglarz would play 1B. Most of the things I’ve read say LaPorta’s defense is better than Wegz
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 3, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I won’t argue that because I don’t care. Either way, you’ve got one more guy worth playing.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 4, 2009 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll admit to holding a little of the traditional bias with first base. As in, any one can play 1b. It doesn’t add much to your versatility, it’s just the (second to) last position we fill defensively. We’ve been hurting for corner outfielders for years.
by dgcambridge on Aug 4, 2009 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Been pondering that particular comparison. Brantley’s got an edge until Wegz can put up the numbers at AAA, but a skin-deep look tells me that Wegz is one-half year younger and significantly more powerful.
XB% BB% SO% LD% BRANTLEY WEGLARZ 8.2
by fleerdon on Aug 4, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, so, I’ve learned the space bar posts comments if you click outside the text field. I just lost my enthusiasm for this PRE-tag project, but my conclusion was going to be, if these two are the 2010 AAA outfield, it’s going to take an awful lot of defense and SBs for Brantley to make up the difference in SLG, since I’m not convinced that Brantley’s has a substantial advantage over Wegz in discipline.
by fleerdon on Aug 4, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They should be fun to watch in Columbus next year.
Very different players, although they share 2 things in common: their plate discipline, and their crappy 09 BABIPs (compared to their career numbers).
by dgcambridge on Aug 4, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I’m at it, I don’t know where everybody’s at on Brantley’s outfield defense these days, but for a while there Milwaukee was getting him> reps at first base. I know Brantley’s a lot faster than these other guys; I’m not sure I know he’s a better defender.
by fleerdon on Aug 4, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And we put Garko in the outfield. Didn’t mean he belonged there
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 4, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the scouting report on Brantley before 2008 was that his defense was mere average despite his speed. He couldn’t handle CF, which meant he had to move to a corner. Not sure why he played some 1st base with Milwaukee, but it wasn’t a testament to his defensive prowess.
Coming into this year however, some people said his defense really improved. If those were just Indians officials wearing rose colored glasses, I don’t know, but I don’t think he’ll be awful in LF either. Perhaps he can play some CF if they really need him to (think Ben Francisco), but he certainly won’t push Grady out of the way.
by JP_Frost on Aug 4, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
