"We're excited, we potentially could have a rotation at Triple-A full of guys who are A ball age," said Acta.
almost 2 years ago
Brick.
97 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Not especially. If you think of a guy drafted out of college spending his first full pro season as a 22-year old, a placement in A or A+ is the norm.
Average age of pitchers in the SAL league last year was 21.6 according to B-Ref. The average age of an interesting prospect in A-ball is presumably lower.
Well, then I don’t see the value in asserting “Our AAA rotation will be composed of guys who would be uninteresting A pitchers.”
I mean, isn’t a 22 year old doing a full season in A basically as uninteresting as a 24 year old in A?
Nothing to do with Acta’s quote, but I love that clecom pretends the rest of the internet doesn’t exist:
The Tribe’s game against the Rangers can be heard on WMMS 100.7/FM on a delayed basis at 7 p.m. EST. There is no radio or TV coverage of the Tribe’s game against the Giants. Cleveland.com will give in-game updates.If you’re going to read game updates on the internet, why not just go to mlb.com and listen to the broadcast? Or is ST audio not free this year?
Valgood to AAA?
Utility Situation: When the Indians claimed infielder Anderson Hernandez off of waivers on Wednesday from the Mets, it all but locked him in as the utility guy for the big league club. The Indians like his ability to play both shortstop and second base, plus like that he can run and switch hits. Bixler was DFAed, but if he clears waivers they will probably keep him as the utility guy in Triple-A Columbus though they were not really impressed with what they saw of him this spring. The real interesting story may come later in camp as I’m hearing if Mark Grudzielanek continues to play well and makes a run these last few weeks that Luis Valbuena may be the odd man out and be sent to Columbus to start the season. Even though the Indians have played him some at third base this spring, Grudzielanek is viewed strictly as a second baseman at the moment.
From Lastoria’s daily ST update:
Hadn’t even considered Grudz starting, but if he and Hernandez are both on the 25, Valgood dominos down to Columbus.
i think i mentioned this the other day. bixler is a non-issue. i can’t see them not give grudz a shot the way he’s played and why claim this guy just to re-waive him a couple weeks later. it seems set up to suppress valbuena’s service time.
And also try to get off to a faster start. That’s a big deal for Acta this year to break with recent performance, something that’s been related to “wedge’s teams”. I keep thinking that was part of why they signed Branyan too.
Grudz starting? Aw, that makes me sad. I have no interest in seeing that.
Fine, if this is necessary for some service time issue, I’ll take my medicine, but I won’t like it.
by dgcambridge on Mar 19, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I view Tony’s roster predictions cautiously. Valbuena came into camp as the starting 2B, I would be surprised if he starts the year in AAA. They added Hernandez to the 40-man, but if Grudz makes it he would also have to be added. I guess I wouldn’t at all be surprised if one of those two is on the team in April, but I would be surprised if both of them are.
I agree with this … except … they did make a bit of a mess of Valbuena’s service time … and it’s not like he looked like he had nothing to learn. I guess I won’t be that shocked if they seize on an opportunity to stuff him in the minors for a month or three.
Late April callup to get an extra year of control, mid-June to push back arbitration.
i’d say the year of control is almost stupid not to do. i’ve said it before, but there’s an easy scapegoat: “we want him to go down there and work on his approach against lefties.”
Yes, but it was even more stupid last year, for three whole months, and it would have taken 11 fewer days to get it done last year than it will this year or next.
There are 183 days in the season, from the first Sunday (most teams start the next day) to the final Sunday. (7 days times 26 weeks = 182, plus the extra Sunday.)
However, once a player gets 172 days in a single season, it’s deemed as a full year.
So if you demote a player for 11 days in a season, it essentially counts as 0 in terms of reducing his service time. If you demote him for 31 days, it counts as 20. If you demote him for another 20 days after the first 31, total of 51, it counts as 40.
With me so far?
So what this means is that with respect to reducing service time, in any given season, a player has to be demoted for 11 days before the days even start to count backwards from 172.
So here’s Valbuena, demoted for the first 31-or-so days of the 2009 season. If you demote him for another 13 days — 13! — you knock 13 days off his service time.
If, however, you wait until the following season to demote him, and then send him down for the same 13 days … it only knocks 2 days off his service time, because you have to burn off those extra 11 days first.
Make sense?
by Jay on Mar 19, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
it was even more stupid last year
and, to a greater degree, Eric Wedge.
... Paul Hoynes is a really great guy ...
by westbrook on Mar 19, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think I can pin service time issues on Wedge, unless Shapiro took too much of his input in making decisions.
STBNL
That does appear to be the case.
If and when I do a follow-up with Antonetti, I’ll ask him about this, i.e., why did they potentially squander millions by keeping a rookie hitting .200 in the majors for five months? It just seems ridiculously irresponsible, and can the answer really be, “We owed it to the manager to give him the team he felt was best capable of winning games?”
Did it really come down to loyalty to Wedge, giving him every chance to save his job by putting up a late-season rally purely for PR cover?
Half the people here think Laffey and Valbuena are fungible assets or marginal major leaguers, and half are coming up with ways to push back free agency. And I think it’s the same half in both cases.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 19, 2010 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
The food here is terrible and the portions are too small.
by SuddenSam on Mar 19, 2010 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I think either one could be much more than fungible.
I think even a fungible guy is more valuable with an extra year at minimum salary.
I think Valbuena is vastly more valuable, if only because position players are generally far less injury-prone, and Valbuena has never had an injury, and Laffey has had plenty.
Damn it, Jay.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 19, 2010 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
And before Jay jumps all over me, my point with Valbuena—it doesn’t apply to Laffey at all—is that we don’t really seem to know what kind of a player he’ll be. If he’s not going to be a guy the Indians are going to keep around for 6+ years—a Garko-type, without the ability to play left, of course—don’t we want to figure out if he’s going to be any good before we have 90-win ambitions?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 19, 2010 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
First, in case it isn’t clear, I’m bullish on Luis V. Always have been. I like the minor league track record, and as awful as it sounds, he sure looks like he’s going to hit for real at some point, maybe soon.
Second, the thing is, he’s just OUTRAGEOUSLY close to those arbitration thresholds. And in a way, I’m not worried about finding out if he can play, precisely because I’m already pretty sure that he can.
Third, even if he doesn’t emerge as a core player, don’t we want him for that extra season at the minimum before we send him to the Giants for Nobody Whatsisname in late 2013?
I’m bullish on him, too, but I’ve heard an awful lot of talk about him being a utility player. If that’s what he turns out to be, no, I don’t care about the extra year. I want to find out before he goes Josh Barfield on us in a season we’re trying to win. So it basically comes down to how confident the Indians are that he’s a sure thing.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 20, 2010 6:42 AM EDT up reply actions
As Jay mentioned above, Valbuena may turn into quite a hitter. I think its this bat that is going to save him despite his limited range. I think we are going to see an increase in slick fielding, so-so hitting middle infielders around the league as “defensive” metrics have become all the rage, His hitting will become even more valuable at the position because of this.
ADVANCEDBALLINPLAYDATAJACKZRUNPREVENTIONPLUSMINUSLOOKOUTLANDING!
by fleerdon on Mar 21, 2010 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It has been so long since we acquired a respectable full-time second baseman that people can no longer recognize one even when he’s actively demonstrating his value.
As for your concerns about having a Barfield redux situation, consider
1. In Donald, Kipnis, and Rivero, we’ve got three high-level, well-regarded middle infield prospects, at least one of whom should spend time on the 25-man this season. Josh, when he came along, was the only 2B show in town.
2. Valbuena really has never demonstrated a weakness on par with Barfield’s historic issues with right-handed pitching. Which, looking back on it, should have been a bigger deal to me.
3. He’s better than Ronnie B at defense. I dispute the validity of any defensive metric which says otherwise.
by fleerdon on Mar 21, 2010 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions
You’re totally misunderstanding me. I love Valbuena. If anything, I’m confused about how the collective opinion of him cratered over the winter without him playing a single game. But apparently I was mistakenly projecting the opinions of a vocal few onto the whole board.
Or maybe it was some garbage I read from Keith Law, who knows. I really haven’t kept up with things this offseason like I have in the past. I’ve never had less to myself in my life.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 21, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I think I get you. I was just responding specifically to the “what if he’s Barfield, shouldn’t we find out” sentiment. And my response was, we wouldn’t be nearly so upacreekwithoutapaddleish as we were when Plan Barfield failed, and it’s a lot less likely to begin with.
by fleerdon on Mar 21, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
…how the collective opinion of him cratered over the winter without him playing a single game.
The numbers crunchers found something that was not apparent to the naked eye.
What happened is that we actually looked at the numbers, and they show obvious problems. We sort of clung to the idea that Valbuena was showing a lot of promise, with little else to cling to in the regular season, but which the numbers blatantly belied. We did the same thing with Barfield’s defense for many months.
But do the numbers factor in solidly hit outs?
by supermarioelia on Mar 22, 2010 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
More than we’d like to think, yes.
It may be that our casual estimates of Luis V’s line drive rates were not all that accurate. After all, we are not self-renowned for being intelligent and objective. This ain’t Lookout Landing, y’know.
I don’t buy this. We said the word DRIVE during game threads last year at least 2,000 times. No less.
by supermarioelia on Mar 22, 2010 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions
we potentially could have a rotationatfull of Triple-Afull ofguys
fixed…
by stuart dean on Mar 19, 2010 2:00 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
Unless, of course, Westbrook goes boom (or, you know, off to wear someone else’s uniform).
it always starts the same, with a boy and a girl and a hook and a game
You think the idea that Westbrook is awful this season is “stupid”? Wow.
Westbrook is a good-not-great innings eater, 30 years old, hasn’t pitched in two years. There’s a real chance he’s terrible – not trivial or "stupid – greater chance than a 25 year old who is considerably more talented and has not shown an inclinations of breaking down just yet.
this conversation is stupid. whatever you think is likely or not, wesbrook is most definitely not a “AAA pitcher” even if he has a rough season. if lincecum blows out his elbow tomorrow, neither is he.
by Brick. on Mar 22, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
“Most definitely not,” huh? This isn’t 2004. The fact of the matter is that – even if healthy! – we have no one who is more likely than not to be great, or even good. Our rotation is still a rebuild-year tossup.
Let’s grant a significant number of innings pitched.
The likelihood that the following pitchers are better than AAA:
Lincecum:
Extremely high.
Westbrook:
?
You say that Westbrook is “most definitely.” Where the hell do you get that certainty?
I think you’re mixing up injury likelihood with poor performance.
... Paul Hoynes is a really great guy ...
He could have season interrupting/ending injury, and he might be a decent bet for that. But assuming he doesn’t, there are still the following legit concerns, both generic and specific to Jake:
-Performance draining/nagging injury
-Problems adjusting to two years away from baseball/recovery decline
-Age-related decline
-The fact that he never was much beyond “good” to begin with, when young and healthy
by joeee on Mar 22, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m with you, joeee. I’m not sure why it’s so absurd to think there’s a greater than 50% chance that Westbrook has a crap year.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Mar 22, 2010 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
There will be plenty of time for mood swings in season, so right now I’m going to stay positive.
That said, I’ll be elated if Jake contributes this year, and if he’s healthy, he’ll contribute something. A healthy Jake is better than AAA—he just has to be—but I think you know that and are guarding against people who you think are expecting too much. I dunno if they are or aren’t; don’t care.
I always thought of Jake as pretty average—and lucky in the times that he has been better—but when he throws strikes he transcends his averageness. He’s had stretches of excellence in commanding his pitches in the past. Who knows if he’ll have the same command after his layoff that he has had in other times.
So there’s still a slight “upside” for Jake, I think, but for this year, I am conditioned to expect a Mauichuckian all-or-nothing projection for Jake. 50% average, 50% injured. But that’s only my meaningless expectation. Just talkin’ baseball.
I agree with you on all points (and personally like Westbrook). I don’t expect Jake to have a mid-5s ERA. I expect him to be Gil Meche, which is to say, who knows what? I just think it’s not beyond the pale for him to – as the mauichuck says – delaminate completely.
Pretty different styled pitchers, similar results. Gil has the potential to strike batters out*, so naturally that impresses me. He does other things less well, but I think he has better potential.**
*Understood that strikeouts aren’t the be-all-end-all of pitching, but what can I say? I favor the Ks.
**I’m aware of their career norms, and that Jake’s best season is arguably better than Gil’s.
You know who should get more strikeouts than he does? Fausto. Fausto’s also in the “who the hell knows?” category as far as I’m concerned, but I still think of him as a special talent.
Yep
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Mar 23, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Brick is perhaps overly strident in making his point. However, his point is more right than wrong. You write:
Westbrook is a good-not-great innings eater, 30 years old, hasn’t pitched in two years.
These are all points worth considering, but there are systems that quantify each of these effects, and those systems indicate that Westbrook will be a solid-plus number-three starter — essentially what he was in his worst full season, 2005. If he’s worse than expected, he’ll be a number-four starter. If he’s much worse, number-five.
In other words, it will take a fairly significant disaster for him to lose his job in the rotation, i.e., for him to be a Triple-A starter. He’s projected to be perhaps two full runs of ERA or FIP better than a “Triple-A starter.”
So we can either just flit these concepts around in the wind, or we can actually quantify what those factors tend to mean. Westbrook is not, present-tense, a Triple-A starter by any reasonable definition, and if quantifying means anything to you, he’s not reasonably expected to be one this season.
Eh, they’re basically a bunch of A-ball guys. I mean, come on, can’t we find some more experienced pitchers for the Columbus fans?
O/T, but has anyone gone to a Clippers game? Have people taken to the team?
I regrettably know many people from the Columbus area who are Yankees fans. It disgusts me that I share a state heritage with these people
Consequently I identify first with Cleveland, my City, secondly with Northeast Ohio, thirdly with the Great Lakes region including Canada, and finally with Ohio, my State.
What about Justin Germano? (ducking)
"...maybe this year, there's no gorilla" - YoDaddyWags
by woodsmeister on Mar 23, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
i’m sure i was most definitely being overly strident. which muddied the waters.
jay and fred did all the heavy lifting for the simple assertion that i wanted to make regarding what jake is considered now and would be considered after a bad year. it’s just a pet peeve similar to a lot of the ‘what is a 5th starter’ conversations we had.
If it helps any, Brick and I really hashed this out at a bar and decided we’re not talking to Joey anymore.
Except for those late-night texts, right?
afh4: hey
afh4: i ain’t missin u
by joeee on Mar 23, 2010 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
