Brown won't be called up, but Romero will?
Very strange move. I'm not the biggest fan of Brown, but his play does merit a look this month.
5 months ago
JP_Frost
267 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I feel bad for Brown, he seems pretty optimistic about getting called up.
“I think I will be brought up,” Brown said simply. “They try not to say too much, but the feeling I get is that it will happen. I can’t wait.”
by Toxicadam on Sep 8, 2009 11:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It does suck for him. What more can he do?
That said, perhaps there’s something going on that we don’t know about, because it certainly can’t be performance.
by JP_Frost on Sep 8, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What more can he do?
hit better than marte did.
because it certainly can’t be performance.
no, it’s his performance. really.
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
like I said, I’m not the biggest Brown supporter out there, but you can’t say his performance is the reason.
by JP_Frost on Sep 8, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His performance is the reason.
He does not hit well enough, and at his age isn’t projectable enough, to be considered a good prospect at 1B and LF.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has medium power, doesn’t walk and can’t run. At least he has a lousy glove…
Buckaroo Bonsai deserved a sequel.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only way that he would have any value is if his D at 1st was Olerud-like.
Buckaroo Bonsai deserved a sequel.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has medium power, doesn’t walk and can’t run.
Andy Marte, come on down!
by thejamootz on Sep 9, 2009 6:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andy Marte had 18 HR in 325 PA. Jordan Brown had 15 in 450 PA. Marte is also a very good defender, which Jordan Brown is not.
by FredOx on Sep 9, 2009 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, he left off the last part of my quote? “At least he has a lousy glove…”
by stuart dean on Sep 9, 2009 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so i’m not necessarily disagreeing, but at 25, this year, he put up essentially the same triple-slash as laporta did at 24. i understand the year is important (as is the HR vs 2B making up the slugging), but how much weight do i give to the fact that laporta spent an extra year at college ball?
by emil minty on Sep 8, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the key to look at is the K/BB rate which heavily favors LaPorta. When you take that into account with the triple slash stats, Brown is more in-line with Garko (24) and Francisco (25).
by Toxicadam on Sep 8, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garko (24) and Francisco
ewwwww
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
by westbrook on Sep 8, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LaPorta also had a much better season last year.
by Joe. on Sep 8, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is a situation where it helps to look at time in the pros in addition to age. LaPorta has played essentially two seasons of pro ball. Brown had doubled that.
by APV on Sep 8, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but his play does merit a look this month.
maybe. but does it merit a roster spot this offseason?
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
See Giants, Garko…
Buckaroo Bonsai deserved a sequel.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NL West.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
by westbrook on Sep 8, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what I’ve been wondering. Maybe that’s another reason to bring him up.
by JP_Frost on Sep 8, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, because then you’d have to roster him, then de-roster him.
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Over guys like Gosling and Giminez? I would say yes.
by Toxicadam on Sep 8, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
gosling won’t be on our roster after the season. i’d rather keep gimEnez on the roster simply because of the positions he can play. not because of either bat.
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With Marson and Toregas on the roster already, it pretty much eliminates any defensive value GimUnez has. Unless you susbcribe to the new SuperHuff theory.
by Toxicadam on Sep 8, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if we’re talking either brown or gimenez, i’m picking gimenez. frankly, i don’t think either needs to be on the roster.
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If 13 pitchers is roster construction of the future, Chris F. Gimenez’s value increases.
Buckaroo Bonsai deserved a sequel.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if i have to pick one or the other. not neither, not both, but one:
-i don’t think either guy is going to be an mlb starter.
-as a back-up, therefore, i think ginemez has more value with his 3B/C psuedo-ability.
-i think exposed to other teams for the taking, gimenez would get taken sooner for the above.
that’s really all i’m saying. i think both would be nice guys to have stashed in columbus next year – taking up as few roster spots as possible in the meantime.
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
than I agree with, just did not understand what you where saying. Make sense now.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 8, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so, really. those scrambling to see Brown…. didn’t we just get to where we get to see PT for Marte and LaPorta? do we really need to see Brown at the expense of their PT, which are the two postions you could “fit” Brown into the lineup?
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 11:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m not scrambling to see Brown this month (it’s kind of pointless since he would get 10-14 PA’s at best). I just think he should be rostered in the off-season.
by Toxicadam on Sep 8, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s a reasonable approach. I’m not sure I want to see him rostered, but I’d rather go your route than play him for 14 days then take him off the roster and expose him to the Rule 5.
by APV on Sep 8, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, pretty much this.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
by westbrook on Sep 8, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. At his best, he’s an ab black hole. At his worst, he could be a new Wedge crush.
Buckaroo Bonsai deserved a sequel.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not one of those. I’m strongly on the side that he does not have a future as a regular. But I think it would be appropriate to call him up to sit around this month. I don’t care, give him 5 ABs. Doesn’t this happen all the time
by dgcambridge on Sep 8, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m just not sure they don’t just plan to leave him unprotected this offseason, though
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, I agree. So they would have to purchase his contract him, and then outright him off of the roster? I guess that doesn’t make sense.
by dgcambridge on Sep 8, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if Shap doesn’t trust Wedge with Brown’s usage.
by afh4 on Sep 8, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very funny. There is crush-risk there…
Buckaroo Bonsai deserved a sequel.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We wouldn’t have to. They’ve already shut down Grady, Hafner continues to get regular days off, and they’ve said they’ll be doing the same for Choo as they don’t want to push him even this long after his surgery.
He probably wouldn’t get every day time, but he could get a decent number of ABs.
A better question: Do I want Romero taking starts away from what appears to be our infield of the future?
-Kyle
by Kyle Garret on Sep 8, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An even better question: do you really think Romero was brought up to start?
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 8, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure he’ll get starts. I’d be surprised if he doesn’t.
-Kyle
by Kyle Garret on Sep 8, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t be.
Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009
by USSChoo on Sep 8, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At this point, what difference does one start make? Who cares if Valbuena, Peralta, or Cabrera gets an extra day off.
by fwembt on Sep 8, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We called up a defensive utility guy, rather than a guy who would leach AB’s from unproven guys with upside. I don’t see the problem.
by Joe. on Sep 8, 2009 12:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that’s really the long and short of it. Romero can be a late inning defensive replacement and this maximizes ABs for the corner guys that need them.
by afh4 on Sep 8, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is probably how he signs his questions when writing in to advice columns.
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
My favorite comment over there, from one with whom many of us are familiar:
You know, this is probably the worst single move in Indians’ history. Not that it means much in absolute value but it screws multiple prospects, really is unfair to a guy with two MVPs and a batting championship in four years (the one non-award winning season was when he was hurt) and is one of the most laughable moves I can ever imagine as a representation of the management in this organization.
by FredOx on Sep 8, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but it screws multiple prospects,
If I could decipher the logic in this I would be capable of many great things
by APV on Sep 8, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
romero, clearly. gets the poor chap’s hopes up…
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve decided it makes more sense if “screws” “multiple” and “prospects” mean different things than I think they mean
by APV on Sep 8, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
My guess is that he feels like that it proves that it doesn’t matter what your minor league success is, if you are not on the “in list” you will never succeed in this organization. So, it sends a bad message to others in our system and could hamper their mentality.
Just a guess.
by Toxicadam on Sep 8, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
obNOSCOus?
Buckaroo Bonsai deserved a sequel.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he’s been on a tear lately. I can’t resist trying to reason with him, although that urge has become less.
by JP_Frost on Sep 8, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whenever I hear Nosco, I think of the Seinfeld episode where George refuses to give out his ATM pin.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 8, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my favorite episode.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
by westbrook on Sep 8, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know, this is probably the worst single move in Indians’ history.
Legit LOL.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
seriously everyone knows it was when we gave michael aubrey away for nothing
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that was a close number 2 to DFM – Designated For Meloan
Buckaroo Bonsai deserved a sequel.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Curse of Rocky, er, Jordan Brown!
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 8, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know, this is probably the worst single
moveissue inIndians’comic book history.
Fixed.
by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t even see these comments. I just see two comments.
by afh4 on Sep 8, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The action is on Tony’s message board, not the Blogger comments.
by FredOx on Sep 8, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
After reading JP’s exchange with Bosco, I would offer this advice….lost cause.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 8, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just stuck my toe in over there – I hope I remember to go back and pick up the shredded pieces of me…
Buckaroo Bonsai deserved a sequel.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ever seen him play. it’s kind of odd. i think he has a nervous tick. some people involuntarily swear, but he just occasional yelps out a VORP, VORP! from time to time. it really just sounds like very loud hiccups.
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, Woolner excretes VORP from his pores when he sweats.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 8, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I probably should have said RP as he is eminently replaceable…
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah I see. Yea VORP didn’t really make sense there and confused me a little.
by Joe. on Sep 8, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The message boards as a whole aren’t that bad, aside from Nosco and some the occasional stupid comment. Though I much rather discuss Tribe baseball here.
by JP_Frost on Sep 8, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regardless of the content, the format here is 100x better.
by dgcambridge on Sep 9, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I spent the last 5 hours thinking it was Carlos Rivero who got called up, not Niuman Romero. Now I care even less.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 3:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m surprised it took this long in the thread to see this – but maybe I’m just too old for you guys…but this HAD to have happened…
Brown, cleaning out his locker in Columbus, see’s Romero walking by with his bags packed for Cleveland…“Niuman!!”
by TribeJay on Sep 9, 2009 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lastoria has a new post up with some quotes from Atkins suggesting that the club respects what he’s done offensively but thinks he’s not close to ready defensively. Ultimately, though, it’s this quote from Tony that sums up the gulf between Brown’s fans and the rest of us:
It’s hard not to feel for what Brown is going through. He’s proven to be a good player offensively with very good bat-to-ball ability that would be a nice complement to a Cleveland lineup often heavily laden with strikeout prone players. He is a tough out and is very comfortable hitting when behind in the count. With two strikes on him he digs in and does everything he can to put the ball in play. If that means poking a ball over the infield and dumping it into left field, so be it.Tony loves guys like that. The FO values them somewhat less than he does.
by FredOx on Sep 8, 2009 4:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
lastoria with questionable cliche-to-point ability
by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
At least some of those cliches were fresh.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 8, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really like and respect Tony and his work but he’s “too close” to this one.
by stuart dean on Sep 8, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ease up on the contact ability there. This guy isn’t Michael Brantley. This year he struck out in 14% of his PAs, not bad, but still just on the cusp of being “good” at the major league level. Last year, 14%. In contrast, Michael Brantley, who does have very good contact skills (along with plate discipline, which Jordan Brown does not), had a K% of 5% last year and 9% this year…which is very good. Matt LaPorta’s K% in Columbus this year – 14% – same as Browns. Andy “is that a hole in your swing or do you just like donuts” Marte’s K% in Columbus this yer – 15%. Marte and LaPorta also had much better power numbers.
by APV on Sep 8, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
This amused me.
As for Romero, Wedge said, “He’s a grinder. He’s pushing his way through the system. He’s very versatile. . .can play anywhere on the infield. He knows how to play the game.”
by Jeffrey R on Sep 8, 2009 5:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 9, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
F WEDGE.
(The F does not stand for Fire.)
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 9, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grinder? Pencil in Romero for 10 starts. And some pinch-hitting opportunities for LaPorta and Marte.
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 9, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wedges type of player, can do alot of things below average, a star in the making.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 9, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I haven’t heard anything as far as getting a call, and if I haven’t gotten it by now I probably won’t get it," said a frustrated Brown on when asked about his roster status. "That is not a knock on their part as they have their own agenda and they have their own plans, but I am not sure if I fit into their agenda and plans. I think they have their own ideas and goals they want out of certain players, and sometimes guys are more of a priority than others. So hopefully I am a priority for them, and I guess only time will tell."
Via Lastoria again. Brow is P’Oed.
by afh4 on Sep 8, 2009 6:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think this is the appropriate response for him.
by hans on Sep 9, 2009 3:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s also a pretty extensive discussion in which Brown talks about how much the weather in Buffalo bothered him.
Considering the tendency for those who love a guy like Brown to get so down on “mental toughness”, I wonder if he lost any fans.
by afh4 on Sep 8, 2009 6:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Cry me a river, Jordan. Nobody deserves anything. Hit more homers, play better defense, run faster, whine less. You pick.
by FredOx on Sep 8, 2009 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, they didn’t call me up either, and you don’t see me whining about the weather.
by fwembt on Sep 8, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t get called up, but I did whine about the weather. It was the first day of school, and I had to take the kids to the bus stop in the rain.
by FredOx on Sep 8, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cry Me A River Jordan?
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 9, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
since when is being a push over considered “mentally tough”?
Also this is his exact quote:
"I think last year I got into a mental funk," said Brown. "I really only had two bad months early in the year when it was freezing and I just got dominated. I would come to the yard and I was not happy and I just mentally was not there.
Being self aware of one’s mental state is a good thing. This is exactly the kind of attitude and self-efficacy a player needs, not exactly sure why a bunch of posters on a blog should consider it something to make fun of.
by hans on Sep 9, 2009 3:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well he’ll certainly be a good Cleveland Indian if he gets dominated in less-than-perfect weather.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 9, 2009 5:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least he’ll be well-rehearsed with the excuses.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he comes off as a whiny little girl. Where’s the recognition that the reason he didn’t get called up may be because he needs to work on his sucky defense, rather than because he isn’t one of the popular kids?
by FredOx on Sep 9, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where does this constant claim of sucky defense come from? He plays an ok 1st from everything I’ve heard/read and he plays a solid RF from what I’ve watched here in Columbus. This isn’t Ryan Garko, and he’s put up better numbers than Garko ever did at AAA.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 9, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For what it is worth, and it possibly is not worth much, if you look at his minorleaguesplits.com defense page, he doesn’t have a single positive UZR number at any position over the past four years.
by APV on Sep 9, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mental funk? Hey, wait a minute, he is Ryan Garko 2.0!
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 9, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brown really is almost identical to Garko. Same 23 y/o season at AA – same 24/25 season at AAA. Both “held back” by logjam, etc. The thing is: when we have Garko starting, we scramble to replace him. He sucks. Pop up hitter. No defense. Then Jordan Brown: Garko or slightly better, deserves a shot, etc. Calling for his playing time is because you sympathize with a guy who could be on an ML roster somewhere else. Not because he should play for the Tribe.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, we all complained about Garko. But one of the reasons is because he was dime a dozen- there were guys like Brown to replace his exact production. And, we could get something for Garko- which we did. Plus, Brown can play both corner OF positions legitimately, adding to his value, and Brown isn’t among the slowest baseball players in the world, like Garko is.
And despite everything telling me he is more valuable than Garko, it’s not like I want to give him a starting job for a competing team. I think he can be useful for the next 3 years or so (as a 4/5th OF, backup 1B taking the bus back and forth from Cleveland to Columbus based on injury and 25 man needs), and that we could then trade him for something else useful. And I think that is the better route to go with Jordan Brown than leaving him exposed to the Rule 5.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 9, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think he’ll hit as well as Garko, but he’s unlikely to be nearly as bad in left field or on the bases.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Umm…I have to disagree. Garko was basically a year older when he started, but was starting in Buffalo (and putting up an OPS of .882 in his second full pro season). He only spent a half a season at Kinston and Akron along the way. Brown spent full seasons at Kinston and Akron before arriving at Buffalo, and put up a truly unimpressive .754 OPS when he arrived.
by APV on Sep 9, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually agree that Garko was a better prospect than Brown. I was being generous to enhance my point.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you have to be generous, you don’t have a point worth making.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If your point hinges on generosity, sure. But if you allow your opponent’s best-case, highly idealized scenario (in this case, that Brown is a similar or better prospect than Garko) and can still make an argument, then you can have a point.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whiny little girls across America are giving you the hairy eye ball right about now my friend
by hans on Sep 9, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure i saw anywhere that he was upset about being disliked by the cheerleaders and picked on by jocks.
by hans on Sep 9, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess my point, which i’ve now stretched over three comments somehow, is that correcting the misguided Jordan Brown supporters who think this guy really deserves a call up based on his pedestrian offensive numbers and specifically batting avg. is a valid action, but the guy himself should believe in himself enough and “want it” badly enough to be upset when he isn’t picked for a call up to the major leagues, I mean its what he’s been working towards for the majority of his life right?
by hans on Sep 9, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see this. I mean, it’s not like Niuman Romero is anything special.
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 9, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Christ- the starting 1B today- Niuman Romero. I think Jordan Brown and those of us who think he is worth more than a bag of balls have a legit gripe.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 9, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really, because it’s Jordan Brown. DD: it’s Jordan Brown. It’s not your fault. It’s Jordan Brown. It’s Jordan Brown.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Goodwill Hunting. Terrible movie. Bad reference.
There are better, younger 1b options in both the majors and AA right now. JB is trapped and irrelevant.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if you didn’t like it or think it is overrated, there is no way you can call it one of the worst of all t ime.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 9, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw Taken last night. That was truly terrible. How did Liam Neeson get cast in what was basically a Steven Siegal script?
by APV on Sep 9, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually thought Taken was entertaining, but typically hate movies like that.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 9, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I LOVED Taken. It was pretty goofy, but literally 2 hours of wall-to-wall coked out action. Talk about a feel good movie!
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also! You can really relate.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 9, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It had no pretense of reality. Like Iron Man.
by joeee on Sep 10, 2009 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I liked Taken as well. I think Liam Neeson gave that movie a respectability it had no business having. Like, if it had been Nicholas Cage doing those things, you would have just said “this movie is godawful” and that would be that. But because it was Liam Neeson, I was sitting up going “I can’t believe Liam Neeson is doing this nonsense!” And thus I was entertained.
by Chemo on Sep 10, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this. No chance I would have even seen it if it were Nic Cage.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 10, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is probably true. Not like anyone would challenge the statement, “This movie would be worse if you replaced X with Nicolas Cage.”
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it is. Matt Damon’s character is the least accessible character I’ve ever seen. He’s every pale-face’s dream: completely unencumbered by any semblance of privilege (any modicum of privilege would make him less attractive), he’s a tough bro who keeps it real with all his Boston homies, he’s literally a once-in-a-millenium genius who doesn’t have to try to learn anything he wants, meanwhile is the most handsome man most people have ever met – and he doesn’t have a shred of careerist pride, happily accepting a job as a janitor or construction working instead of losing his cred at some money-making scam-job. And – on top of the fact that he is dirt-poor, his Dad used to beat him as a kid! His only flaw is that he pushes people away to avoid getting hurt again! He’s had the hardest life imaginable but is literally the best human on Earth.
And the pretense of him being self-made is so annoying too. He hasn’t actually done anything. He’s not like one of those hard-edged geniuses who experience tremendous success through other-worldy determination but happen to be a-holes (Daniel Plainview). He’s just another whiney young punk who interviews for think tank jobs.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also! Any movie that glorifies being a Red Sox fan is already one of the worst movies there is. Seriously – outside of my petulant Indians fandom – what does the idea of being a Red Sox fan mean to a lot of people? That horrific sentimentality…
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know this.
The pump was primed well before the 2004 Sawx-explosion. I’ll admit it: I wore a hand-me-down Red Sox hat prior to the ’04 championship. The Red Sox WERE baseball. The classic, down-on-your luck underdog locking horns with the Yankee giant. Add this to New England fetishism that has existed for awhile, and boom! Sentimentality.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, that was the Cubs. The Red Sox only got elevated through their decade of fruitless struggle against the Yankees.
Consider that 2007 was their one and only division title in the last 14 seasons.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Er, this seems like false-choice, but the Red Sox have dominated baseball romanticism since the 90s. They might have usurped the Cubs or even shared the throne. But the Yankees battle cemented their spot.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember, Sox futility was an honorable one. It was at the hands of Goliath. Cubbies futility is just ‘cause they suck. I’d say the Bartman and Buckner incidences cancel out.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree. I don’t think the Red Sox really took over until early this decade, peaking with then lost that LACS Game 7 on the Aaron Boone shot.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, but the movie has some wicked pissah lines.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 9, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
God I could go on. His girlfriend is a hot Brit. Most British people are a little fugly (sorry), and most American chicks have awful piss-ass senses of humor (Live, Love, Laugh and be Happy type crap). But he gets both! Hot girl who’s hilarious! And loaded, but has experienced personal tragedy which grounds her sensibility! Perfect!!!
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, some of us dudes have wives and girlfriends with great senses of humor.
I mean … they’re with us.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strongly agree. She laughs at all of my jokes.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 9, 2009 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or the hair, in your case.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 9, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or mine, certainly.
I assume you’re one of those dorks with hair?
by Jay on Sep 10, 2009 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, I’m just a bald guy who’s not quite married.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 10, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Than both Be Rad and I have it in spades.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 10, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
most American chicks have awful piss-ass senses of humor
I resent this.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Sep 9, 2009 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, point taken and comment revoked. It was strident.
Many people have bad, boorish human. Pan-gender. But the Brits have a monopoly on scathing dry wit.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You should try to not be so specific. Perhaps a generality or two would add something.
by fwembt on Sep 9, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really wasn’t seriously offended.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Sep 10, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I thought you were an old dude anyway.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, you’re not convincing me. There are some great conversation scenes in that movie. I’d watch at least a half hour’s worth every time I saw it on TV if it weren’t for the cusses getting bleeped.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 9, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the movie making, writing, acting, directing, and feel were all great, even if the story was a little too out there for you.
Wait, you liked Taken though? I think you are a lost cause on this one.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 1:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did not like Taken. Although on a side note I like Liam Neeson, who has chosen some roles that just make him stick out like a sore thumb (Taken, Love Actually, The Phantom Menace).
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 10, 2009 2:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, sorry- the last line was directed at joeee.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reason I hate GWH is because it reeks of having been written by a bloviating cocky young smart kid. So much as I think I’m smart, I know I’m the other things and can easily identify them.
But Taken was just ridiculous. Like a 2 hour episode of 24 without the consistent backstabbing. A man going to Europe and killing the crap out of a bunch of kidnappers, kicking ass and saving his weirdo daughter from a strange fate. It wasn’t character driven. It was action driven. And it’s engine – action – was amusingly tuned.
Taken was not pretentious. Any movie that’s tangentially or directly about pretension has a long way to go to prove it doesn’t suck.
by joeee on Sep 10, 2009 2:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one is comparing Taken to a movie that attempts to have a realistic plot, but it is okay every now and then to have a movie made just for the sake of a little action. Sometimes those movies end up being terrible because the dialogue is horrific, but I found Taken enjoyable despite the outlandish plot.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 10, 2009 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What exciting action? Liam Neeson unrealistically beating up a bunch of Albanian sex traffickers? Or him talking on the phone in an agitated manner with French police?
by APV on Sep 10, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
joeee, i think this is more about you than it is about the writing of the movie
by hans on Sep 10, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not my fault. It’s not my fault.
Trust me – these flaws are real, this character is presented as believable and fascinating but he is just like Harry Potter, another incarnate of god or something.
by joeee on Sep 10, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, I don’t get that at all. And from your comments on movies in this thread, why on earth should I trust you?
It does seem more personal than anything near objective for you. Which is fine, movies are a very subjective thing.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm. How can I be more clear? I’ll try one more time:
Will Hunting is perfect in every way.
That’s my objection. Perfect movies have flawed characters. Flawed movies have perfect characters.
by joeee on Sep 10, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok-
Will Hunting is not near perfect. He is deeply flawed from his upbringing, surroundings. he is dense, he is stubborn, and he is small-minded. he has an exceptional mind in the life and body of a blue collar derelict. He lacks ambition of any sort.
You have the right calculus up there, you have just applied them incorrectly.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Being blue collar is not a flaw.
Secondly, you’re missing the fact that his blue collar personality and job preferences underscores the fact that he has such a miraculous brain. We admire him deeply for being one of the most profound genius’ in human history – literally – yet he retains all his street cred with his construction job. This is one of his strengths! Not a flaw!!!!
by joeee on Sep 10, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The character’s dilemma actually made a good deal of sense to me. He was stabbed as a young boy by foster father, and beaten repeatedly. Does it not make some sort of sense that he has built walls to protect himself from achieving everything he is capable of?
by Roger Dorn on Sep 10, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s an interesting view, but I still think you’re framing it wrong. I understand that it seems to be the perfect life to be tough and from the streets AND also academically superior. But that’s not how he wears it. He’s totally uncomfortable to be in both positions. You’re pointing out the positive aspects of those two worlds, but he’s also aware of the negative ones.
“Being blue collar is not a flaw”
Please. Of course it’s not a character flaw, but there are real and significant limitations to his first world. It’s ridiculous to say otherwise. Sure, he has a ticket out, but he’s very aware that his friends don’t. Why should he have won the lottery? That’s a significant point of the movie, and you seem to have missed it.
And there is the phoniness of the academic world and those relationships. You’re totally glossing over the negative sides of the two worlds.
It’s a sappy movie, with some cringe-worthy moments. There is a fantasy point to it, but I think you’re leaving a lot out.
by dgcambridge on Sep 10, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I was not talking about the direction of the movie or the points it was making. My beef is that the central character in a character-driven movie is the ultimate romantic fantasy, as you’ve mentioned.
Surely you can talk about the guilt of gift or privilege, the bankruptcy of academic medal seeking – or corporate rat-racing (which Will is too legit to stoop to) – while having a character that has traces of ugliness.
Not to start down another path, but Don Draper is this character done correctly. Draper is a near-God – stunningly good looking, brilliant at his job, good-hearted. But Draper has REAL skeletons in his closet. He actually cheats on his wife. He actually experiences wide stretches of displeasure/disgust with his home life. He actually is capable of shameful duplicity and deceit.
by joeee on Sep 10, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that it seems to be the perfect life to be tough and from the streets AND also academically superior.
Since when was he academically superior?
He never really “applied himself” did he? prior to what the movie tells us.
So he’s a guy who is a self made man in a way, (once again from what is told in the movie) so what is wrong in taking enjoyment (i.e. watching a movie) in that? He basically lucked out genetically but suffered from an environmental perspective.
Now on to the romatinic fantasy part…where in the world is Matt Damon the prototypical “love interest”? Seriously we are not talking about a good looking man here, no matter what your ex-girlfriend from high school is telling you, nobody was “on that” prior to “borne identity” and nobody would have claimed that either. So lets just put that one to rest there.
And lets talk about “real skeletons in the closet” why is cheating on your wife more of a skeleton then cheating on your own potential? is morality based on how we treat others? but not on how we treat ourselves?
by hans on Sep 13, 2009 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His hair looks pretty outdated. There. Flaw.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 10, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way, if you can grow hair at his age, you have to let it go like that.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 10, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love Actually is on my list of Romantic Comedies That Don’t Suck. It’s a short list. It helps that Richard Curtis is a truly funny guy.
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are parts of that movie that don’t suck. But there are parts that are just so unbearable. The whole Keira Knightly plotline is just awful. I mean, she just got married and goes and kisses her husband’s best friend because, what, he had a crush on her? Jesus. Why is that okay?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 10, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and was the last good thing that Aflack did…
by stuart dean on Sep 10, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know, people really need to look on IMDB before posting stuff like this.
by Jay on Sep 10, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is going to turn into a Shakespeare in Love discussion again, isn’t it?
Ben Affleck was in Smokin’ Aces, directed by Joe Carnahan, who is making The A-Team with Liam Neeson. There. Full circle.
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gone Baby Gone, which he co-wrote and directed, is the obvious one. He is going to end up with more than one Best Director Oscar nomination by the time he’s done.
Shakespeare is pretty clearly the best movie he’s been in, but I thought Hollywoodland was also quite good, and he was quite good in it.
He’s made a few other films that had their good qualities while not being all that great on the whole.
by Jay on Sep 10, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said to myself after watching Gone Baby Gone, “I think Affleck has found his true calling.”
by Roger Dorn on Sep 10, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Starting from a Dennis Lehane novel is a good way to go. I’ll be interested to see if Scorsese and DiCaprio can screw up Shutter Island.
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was quite disappointed that they pushed the release date back. I expect it to be good.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 10, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m obligated to link to this.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gone Baby Gone, which he directed, was awesome.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 10, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or maybe you meant Casey Affleck. But he was in Gone Baby Gone and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, so that doesn’t work either.
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still see plenty of those commercials.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Sep 10, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miramax Studios Security Guard Gordon: Sorry to interrupt sirs, but we’ve got a 10-07 on our hands.
Matt Damon: [exasperated] Oh Jesus, again Ben?
Ben Affleck: [cocky] No, bull****, because I wasn’t WITH a hooker today, ha-HA!
Miramax Studios Security Guard Gordon: There they are!
Jay: Affleck, you the bomb in “Phantoms”, yo!
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I detect some racism in this comment which I resent. And I’m very serious, and it has nothing to do with Joe Inglett or Jamey Carroll.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 9, 2009 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m an Irish american. I’m mocking myself. That’s inbounds.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is dangerously close to the border on a sports site, but “the thinking man’s sports fan” is so racist it can be incredible. I don’t consider it completely inbounds. Criticism of Good Will Hunting is inbounds, partially for the reasons you state, so I’ll allow it. But I wanted to get my dissent on the record, for reasons even I don’t fully understand.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 9, 2009 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having said that, your criticism is basically that he’s an entirely sympathetic character who happens to be white. And your criticism seems to be that he can’t be both white and sympathetic. That’s racist. And with that, I withdraw from the conversation. Do your worst.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 9, 2009 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the thinking man’s sports fan
What is this?
As to the larger point, I think you’ve missed it.
The point is that the writers are taking the easy way out by crafting a character who is extraordinarily admirable and has only the most forgivable of faults, in that he never really hurts anyone but himself. (Like saying at a job interview, “Sometimes I’m too much of a perfectionist, and I work too hard.”)
It is undeniable that the character plays differently if he isn’t white — it raises other, more difficult issues while simultaneously making the protagonist less identifiable to white people, who are the bulk of the U.S. audience (and a huge majority of critics). (Do you doubt this?)
How making this point is an act of racism, I don’t quite get.
I thought it was a damned good movie in spite of its faults. Let’s face it, the movie is Damon and Williams, and those are some great scenes.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jeebus, Jay. Remind me to make points that you agree with more often. MTF actually had me worried. Like we had institutionally discriminated against white men from the east coast or something.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, the plight of the white man. Free Jordan Brown!
by Jay on Sep 10, 2009 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
/thoughtfully considers.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 10, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
/wish you had done that for me instead of pulling out a nuclear bomb
by joeee on Sep 10, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sea monsters, dude.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 10, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ve clearly never seen Good Luck Chuck.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 9, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very good movie, but I didn’t get the reference.
Anyway, you are still missing the point that he can play three positions at least at an average level (1B, LF, RF). So the fact that some teams have better options, doesn’t mean he isn’t a valuable piece.
Anyway, I think we should be clear on what we are advocating. I would have liked him to get a cup of coffee in Cleveland this year, but I’m not torn up that he didn’t (though this crap with Romero playing 1st today makes me think that was an unnecessary slap in the face). I mostly just want them to protect him from the rule 5 draft.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 9, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know what? Except for Garko and catchers, you can stick basically every position player at 1b or RF, watch them for one or two games and declare them “average.”
We have 4 better outfielders right now. We have 2 better 1bmans right now.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure.
We have four better OF’s right now? Brantley, LaPorta, Choo, Sizemore? ok. 2 better 1B’s right now? LaPorta and Marte? Here’s the thing- if any combination of the following happens, there is a spot for Brown on the 25 man next year:
- Peralta is hurt or traded, meaning Marte becomes #1 3B.
- LaPorta becomes every day LF.
- Marte struggles and is DFA or demoted to bench.
- Marte is traded.
I don’t think the organization is oozing 1B/3B/LF/RF types to the point where Brown is as expendable as you make him to be. The guy put up a very good season in AAA. He had a bad first go round there, but before that was a pretty legit prospect. Who are you counting on if the above occurs? Gimenez? Crowe? I think Brown looks like a superstar compared to these two. Wegz? Mills? They are at the very least another year away.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 9, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Weglarz right now is a better 1b option. Of course that would never happen, and the Indians would never make the AA-MLB jump with him, but it is an interesting perspective to view Brown through. Right now, our 21 y/o AA 1bman is very likely to have better walk rates and more power at the majors than Brown.
If first base is not occupied by Marte next year, and I don’t expect him to be there, it will be played by LaPorta. Brantley will be our everyday left fielder, and we’ll keep a Crowe or someone to spell them. Of course Brown would be nice to have stashed in AAA; but that isn’t what we’ve been talking about. We’re talking about getting him ABs now, and I’m saying that it really doesn’t matter. Not worth the trouble debating it.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously it is worth the trouble debating it. We’ve had a couple threads on it here and it’s been a major point of comment and debate at every respectable and not-so-resepctable website/outlet you’ll find.
Oh, and we are talking about the same Weglarz right? I mean, the guy that has had injury problems and has barely scratched out a .800 OPS this year at AA (something like a .600 MLE)? Of course Wegz projects to a better major leaguer than Brown in the future, but it is flat wrong to consider Wegz a better option for the major league team at this time, or for 2010.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I think a healthy Weglarz is about the same or better than JB in 2010. Weglarz is still improving and growing. We don’t know what he could be – only know what he has now, which is power and plate discipline. Which JB does not have.
Maybe I’m being dense, but what are you saying about JBs playing time? That he deserves it?
by joeee on Sep 10, 2009 3:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m saying that he should have been called up. Not that I really care, because 5-40 ABs isn’t going to tell us anything about anyone. But it would be a good reward to a player with a very good season.
My bigger concern than the call up though, and what has gotten me a little more fired up is the idea of rostering him vs. exposing him to Rule 5. I think he can be more useful to the team in the next couple years than some on here are suggesting and I think we should add him to the 40-man.
Oh, and you are crazy on Weglarz. Like I said, I know Wegz is growing and improving, and someday will likely be much better than Jordan Brown could ever be. But, he is only 21, he only OPS’d .800 at AA, and he has had injury problems. None of these things make him a bad prospect, per se, its just that they make him unlikely to be better than a 25 year old that OPS’d over .900 at AAA for at least the next 12 months.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And therein lies the crux of the dispute. The FO has said that they do not use the expansion of the rosters in September to reward players for minor league performance. Given that neither Santana nor Rondon are on the big club’s roster, I think you have to take them at their word, even if you think it should be otherwise.
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and for the umpteenth time I’m not really worried about the September callup as much as I am about rostering the guy before the Rule 5 draft.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m starting to lose track of who all these people are. Except Barton, of course. Barton’s a baller, talent be damned.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 10, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m recc’ing this not to be a jerk to DD, but because these pictures are just perfect.
by joeee on Sep 10, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t get it. Jordan Brown > Brian Barton.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is that guys that get taken in Rule V are not that good. (Except Johan and a guy coming off of a major drug addiction.)
by Roger Dorn on Sep 10, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but they can be useful parts. Usually a Loogy. Sometimes a Soria, once in a lifetime a Santana.
And I think Brown has done better in the minors than someone like Barton- who put up a a Brown-eque season but with significantly less power in AA in his age 25 season, right before being taken in the Rule 5.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
POSITIONAL VALUE. DEFENSE. THEY COUNT.
by Jay on Sep 10, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’ve gotten to the point of worrying about whether we’ll lose the next Ben Francisco in the Rule 5 draft before we can trade him to a contender. Even assuming that Jordan Brown is the next Ben Francisco, if the way to extract value from him is to give him 184 big league starts, I’m not interested.
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neither may be able to hit at the major league level. But at least Barton understands the physics behind it.
by APV on Sep 10, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I mean, the guy that has had injury problems and has barely scratched out a .800 OPS this year at AA (something like a .600 MLE)?
As a 21 year old.
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know! And like I said:
Of course Wegz projects to a better major leaguer than Brown in the future
Wegz is undoubtedly the better long term prospect, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about helping the major league team over the next year. Brown is better suited to do that than Weglarz. I’m not suggesting that we should keep Brown over Weglarz, just that Weglarz does not make Brown expendable.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he can play three positions at least at an average level
What is your foundation for this?
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For 1B, I’m going by memory of what I’ve read on scouting reports and the like. For OF, I’m going be a handful of games I’ve seen him play in right. Obviously, its not enough to make some claim of defensive greatness, but given the low(er) demand of these positions, and especially in comparison to Garko, I’m pretty confident Brown would be average at LF, RF, or 1B.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re saying he’s at least average, i.e., average or better. You can’t back that up. He may be a little below average at one or all of them.
by Jay on Sep 10, 2009 7:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And what, precisely, does Garko have to do with average? Garko’s so far from average you can’t even see average from where he stands, plaintively hoping the ball isn’t hit in his direction.
This discussion keeps veering back to Francisco and Dellucci and Garko. Why?
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve used Garko and Francisco as comparisons and examples of how a player with Brown’s skills can be a useful major leaguer and a valuable asset.
They both played a role (and now continue to do so) for a competitive major league team and they both were also used as assets in trades to help our team’s future.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. I don’t have a lot to back it up. But I think I have as much to back it up as anyone saying he has “sucky” defense.
It is my opinion from what I have read and seen that he is an average defender. What else do you want for defensive analysis of a not-to-exciting AAA 1B/OF? It’s not like there is tons of data to go by, and what is out there shows he is slightly below average, but I don’t find those metrics all that reliable/useful.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ultimately, of course, it doesn’t make any difference. Old minor-leaguers who don’t draw walks, steal bases or hit for power tend to see a lot of their AAA singles and doubles become major league outs. Jordan Brown would need above-average defense at a different position to be anything other than irrelevant, and there’s certainly no evidence to suggest that he’s above average, even at his non-skill position(s).
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is a good contact hitter with a little bit of pop. I’m not projecting the next Pronk or Manny here. Just the next Ryan Garko or Ben Francisco.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this reminds me of when people say player X should be in the hall of fame because he has similar numbers to Phil Rizzuto.
by Brick. on Sep 10, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sean Casey should be in the Hall of Fame.
by Jay on Sep 10, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a lot of high strikeout guys in the HOF, so a good contact hitter like Sean could really help.
by Jay on Sep 10, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
And just look at his use of the whole field.
by FredOx on Sep 10, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think all of that is great.
I think the fact that he’s still making excuses for the way he played a year and a half ago is not so great.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not me, I’d rather he believe that his poor performance for two months was because of cold temps than his own defeciencies. Confidence, confidence, confidence. Its something the world’s most interesting man should know a thing or two about I’d gather…
by hans on Sep 9, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know a thing or two about confidence.
Misplaced confidence, however, is not a drink I’d recommend.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
You keep playing to character, and I’ll keep reccing it.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 9, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, I thought it was a little weak, but I couldn’t formulate anything better in 20 seconds.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s the humility I admire most.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 9, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I liked it actually. Jack Palance would probably have been in a better position to respond with something like “misplaced confidence is not very sexy (insert seething sound through teeth)”, but I like the involvement of not recommending a drink.
by hans on Sep 9, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t Antonetti strongly hint in your interview with him that accountability was one of those big things they investigate when looking at player character?
by Roger Dorn on Sep 9, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow that’s corporate speak.
I like my first baseman to be “accountable.” Remember: corporations helped bring about the death of accountability.
by joeee on Sep 9, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever it is, Antonetti specifically mentioned accountability when the question of background checking a player’s character came up.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 9, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a discussion mostly about established major leaguers, about bringing in a veteran and wondering what kind of role he’ll play in the clubhouse. No doubt they want to see great character in their draft picks as well, but it’s a little different trying to get a sense of that out of a college junior than a ten-year veteran. Brown was acquired four years ago, not last week.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Misplaced confidence, however, is not a drink I’d recommend.
Definitely leaves you regretting your choice the next morning
by APV on Sep 9, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, it’s not something I really care about but it’s exactly the kind of thing that if, say, JP came out and said many cle.com types would be all over him.
by afh4 on Sep 9, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it also happens to be untrue. Here’s his month-to-month OPS for 2008:
754, 841, 733, 664, 849
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jay, enough of this. Don’t you realize he’s pulling the ball too much when it’s cold?
When are you going to learn something about baseball?
by afh4 on Sep 9, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was doing that, but now he’s a great hitter for our lineup.
by Jay on Sep 9, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since scoring runs is the biggest problem with the Indians, let’s only focus on that.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 9, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I won’t argue this, I agree Jordan Brown’s supports (in general) are pretty delusional about him.
by hans on Sep 9, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a question did anyone watch him play this year more than 3 or 4 games?
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Sep 9, 2009 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, about 15 games. He’s fun to watch and I can see why Lastoria likes him. But if you want mashers at the corner positions, he’s not the guy. I’d rather see Marte before Brown at first based on what I saw at Columbus. Marte has more power and better defense.
by JK in CBus on Sep 9, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For me, it’s less about wanting mashers on the corners than it is a belief that old slow guys who pad high AAA batting averages with singles and doubles but can’t hit homers in minor league parks against minor league pitchers aren’t going to amount to much.
by FredOx on Sep 9, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt. Hitting singles through holes between infielders isn’t easier at the next level either.
by JK in CBus on Sep 9, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d guess I’ve seen him 5 times this year. I think each of those times he was in RF, and liked I’ve mentioned a couple times looked perfectly comfortable and competent out there. I saw him hit the ball hard several times, but never a real Marte-like HR swing.
by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 10, 2009 2:15 AM 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.
