Minor league depth: Sorting through the detritus
by APV on Jun 16, 2010 10:50 AM EDT
Email
PrintThe Indians have quite a few older players performing well in this high minors this year. Some of these guys were formerly legitimate prospects who fell off the map because of injury or lack of performance, some of them are simply minor league vets putting together a great season. Given the questionable talent on Cleveland's roster, and the questionable tenure of the talent that is there, it is worth sorting through some of these guys and evaluating whether any of them stand a shot of contributing in Cleveland.
Jared Goedert (3B/OF, 25.1) - Jared Goedert had a great run for Lake County...3 years ago. You'll be excused if you have forgotten that stretch, as he has done little since. But already this season Goedert has managed to ring up 30 extra base hits (20 2Bs, 10 HRs) between Akron and Columbus. When Goedert was on the brink of looking like a prospect the Tribe tried to turn him into a second baseman (de ja vu all over again...) with no success. What he provides defensively would be limited. His offensive success when he was younger was a combination of power and plate discipline. He has re-found his power stroke this season but his plate discipline has gone, meaning he is very contact dependent (his BABIP this season is nearly .400).
Goedert's numbers are enticing, but it is difficult to make an argument that he deserves a shot in Cleveland when Andy Marte, who has the same profile coupled with much better defense and a better pedigree, is still sitting on the Cleveland bench. If Marte weren't around, though, it is not hard to imagine Goedert occupying his minor role.
2010 line: 53G, .338/.390/.591, 20 2B, 10 HR, 8.0 BB%, 18.0 K%
Joshua Rodriguez (2B/U, 25.5) - Rodriguez probably has the best pedigree of anyone on this list. An alum of the Rice baseball program, following a minor breakout season in 2007 Rodriguez was one of the Tribe's top 10 prospects heading into 2008. The past two seasons have been rough, though. His transition to AA in 2008 went disastrously (.694 OPS, 122 Ks in 137 games), and his follow-up campaign in 2009 was derailed by injury (just 33 games). Nearly forgotten coming into this season, a strong performance coupled with an opening above him in the organization (created by Asdrubal's injury) and pressure from below (in the form of Cord Phelps) have pushed Rodriguez into Columbus' starting lineup. His line on the season, split pretty evenly between Akron and Columbus, reflects the best of Rodriguez - above average power for his position coupled with a strong enough walk rate to offset his strikeout problems. Rodriguez began his tenure in the organization as a full-time shortstop before transitioning to 2B. Rodriguez has a strong arm, and while not providing great defense, probably is the most legitimate middle of the infield defender on this list.
If Valbuena and/or Donald continue to struggle and Rodriguez stays healthy, I think it would not be a bad idea to drop Anderson Hernandez from the roster and give Rodriguez a temporary starting gig in Cleveland, with the idea of previewing his potential as a 2011 utility infielder on the team.
2010 line: 37G, .313/.413/.530, 10 2B, 5 HR, 15.4 BB%, 17.0 K%
Chris Gimenez (U/C, 27.4) - Gimenez is the only one here with major league experience, but his .497 OPS last season explains why he is no longer on the Indians 40-man roster (or anyone else's). But the fact that Gimenez can play catcher, either corner infield and both corner outfield positions, and that he has shown decent patience and power, makes me guess he'll be on someone's roster again. Gimenez is a streaky hitter, so it is hard to get a sense of what his true ability or ceiling is. After getting a late start in April this season for Columbus, he came out of the gate roaring putting up a 1.013 OPS with 5 HRs in just half of April's games.
The current makeup of Cleveland's roster doesn't have any use for Gimenez's skill set. We already have excess marginal corner players and catcher is occupied. With both Santana and Marson it is hard to see Gimenez having a spot with Cleveland when, on another team, he might have a backup catcher role. Gimenez has the most Casey Blake-like profile, though, so it possible a multi-faceted role based on his positional flexibility can emerge for him. He's not great, but he is better than he showed in Cleveland last season.
2010 line: 44G, .288/.350/.488, 8 2B, 8 HR, 8.9 BB%, 17.3 K%
Jordan Brown (OF/1B, 26.5) - Brown is a well-discussed commodity. He has struggled somewhat in his return from injury this season, further diminishing what little shot he has at seeing time in Cleveland. He has a contact-dependent bat, with occasional flashes of power (mainly in the form of doubles), and nothing in the way of defensive value - a fairly marginal skill-set. When he is on, as he was last season (.913 OPS), his bat is probably good enough to provide some value. It is a real question how likely he is to be on at the big league level.
The only real opportunity for Brown in Cleveland anytime in the near future would be a simultaneous departure of Branyan and Marte. LaPorta and Weglarz are, appropriately, going to get priority.
2010 line: 29G, .271/.308/.430, 9 2B, 1 3B, 2 HR, 5.1 BB%, 9.4 K%
Wes Hodges (1B/DH, 25.6) - Even less to offer than Brown, now that he is no longer viewed as viable at 3B. Probably has more true power than Brown, but many more problems in his basic plate approach. I can't imagine Hodges has any future in Cleveland in any role.
2010 line: 62G, .266/.304/.409, 15 2B, 2 3B, 5 HR, 5.8 BB%, 17.8 K%
Jose Constanza (CF, 26.6) - I am on record with my view of Constanza. If the Indians are going to give Trevor Crowe, who profiles as a poor 4th OFer, a roster spot, they would be better served giving that role to Constanza. Constanza's higher ceiling comes from three well developed, if marginal, skills. He is very fast (49 SB in 2009, 12 so far this season), a good defender in CF, and he has good contact skills at the plate (his K-rate hasn't been above 11% since 2007). He has no power and never will, and perhaps that limitation would allow major league pitchers to toy with him, but he does have a few skills.
I don't know if Cleveland views Constanza seriously at all. I don't know what they view in Crowe.
2010 line: 47G, .340/.383/.424, 5 2B, 2 3B, 1 HR, 6.3 BB%, 9.4 K%
87 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If Valbuena and/or Donald continue to struggle and Rodriguez stays healthy, I think it would not be a bad idea to drop Anderson Hernandez from the roster and give Rodriguez a temporary starting gig in Cleveland, with the idea of previewing his potential as a 2011 utility infielder on the team.
Hear hear
He’d still be the 2nd utility infielder, behind Donald or Valbuena, no?
by dgcambridge on Jun 16, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree completely on the comparison points you made in Costanza versus Crowe. The only advantage Crowe has at this point is that he’s a fairly predictable commodity at the MLB level. While Costanza might ultimately do marginally better than Crowe, he’d have to go through the usual adjustment issues of a young player and that small marginal return might not be worth the effort in this year where the Tribe has bigger problems to worry about than Crowe or Costanze. So, I think he’s likely to only get his shot on a different team.
On a better, happier subject, shouldn’t Joseph Gardner be pitching in Akron?
Conversely, however, this would be the perfect time to integrate Constanza into the ML atmosphere – after all, we’re rebuilding, Crowe has been somewhat okay offensively, very poor defensively, and Brantley is not deemed ready.
Even if Constanza is just a very small cog, if he’s a bit better than Crowe (and defensively, it’s almost a given that Constanza is, as Crowe looks very uncomforable in the OF, especially in CF), he should be integrated now in 2010. Constanza is not getting any younger, and the Indians want to progress from rebuilder to gradual contender as early as 2011.
Therefore, why shouldn’t we integrate him now? It’s not going to make this season any worse. I’d seriously consider him, since Crowe really is a poor defender, and Constanza can probably do just as well or slightly better than Crowe offensively long term.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Because we don’t have to choose. We can keep Crowe and Constanza … by keeping Constanza in the minors.
There is a lot of Costanza love on this sight lately but IO think it is 100% attributable to the fact that he is not Crowe…
I think I am the source of a lot of the Constanza love, dating back to this piece in the off-season. Constanza helped his own case by getting off to a torrid start to the season (.361/.431/.577 – a line totally unrepresentative of his previous 5 seasons of work). I think the argument generally boils down to bringing nothing to the table (Crowe) versus bringing a little something to the table (speed, contact, possibly defense).
Constanza had five doubles, two triples and one home run on May 3, and he hasn’t had even one extra-base hit in seven weeks since. I think it’s fairly reasonable at this point to ask exactly what he was on in April. He had 22 extra-base hits, none of them home runs, in 573 PA in Akron last season.
Seriously? I’ll pass. Exactly which prospect are we not going to protect from Rule 5 in order to hold onto this guy?
As for Gardner, he hasn’t been at Kinston long enough yet – I don’t think he has even had 10 starts there yet, maybe 5-6 or so. He’s only been there a month or so, as he did start this season at LC.
If he keeps pitching like he has, he could see Akron before the season is up. Plus, it’s hard to make room at Akron – by my count, you have White, De La Cruz, Hagadone, Barnes, and I can’t remember who the fifth guy is – perhaps he could be removed, but the other four are all legitimate prospects – Espino was already moved out of the rotation and piggybacking with Hagadone for the most part. Therefore, it’d be hard for Gardner to move up right now, but provided he keeps pitching like he has, the Indians will find room somehow, though I don’t know if any of those pitching prospects will move up to AAA Columbus this season, partly because none of those guys may have enough (White, Hagadone) time/done enough (De La Cruz, Barnes) at AA and the fact that you have Carrasco, Gomez, etc. at Columbus.
Add in the fact that Gardner is only 22 (I think), and at worst, he could start next season at AA Akron and still be on par, but with the Indians’ recent aggressive promotions, the Indians will likely get Gardner up to AA Akron by season’s end if he keeps pitching like he has, somehow, some way.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I can’t remember who the fifth guy is
Eric Berger.
by ken from alexandria on Jun 16, 2010 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks – I knew I forgot someone, and as I was thinking, he too is a legitimate prospect, who just came back from injury recently to pitch at AA Akron.
As a result, there really is no room at AA Akron to promote Gardner right now, short of moving Hagadone, Barnes, De La Cruz, etc. to the bullpen, and I don’t think ANYONE wants that, certainly not right now – they still project as starters, and recently, Barnes has been making some nice progress, while Hagadone still has to get his feet wet and keep working on honing his command. De La Cruz still has to find his “old self” at a new level, so this is all the more reason why Gardner will remain at High-A for the time being.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I gave you a link so you could look it up. He’s had eight starts in Kinston, and they’ve been dominating. In 45 1/3 IP, he’s allowed 26 hits (6XB), 9 ER, 40/17 K/BB. That’s even better than his results over 25 IP in A ball. A little research would take you a long way. Perhaps there are good reasons why he should stay in A+ ball for the rest of the season, but saying he should because he’s only 22 (he’s a few months older than Alex White) or because Akron is crowded aren’t on the list.
Currently the Clippers roster only features Marson as catcher. I guess Gimenez could slot as the backup, but wouldn’t Toregas potentially fit in there if there were room?
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
I think the point is that he is best served with an everyday job, as are the Indians.
Tony — doing his usual one-sided, fringe-player advocacy schtick — totally glosses over the question of what exactly Toregas did in Akron to make the Indians think he needed to get his head and body back in the game. Tony also calls the situation “very unfair” while failing to explain what makes Toregas entitled to a better job, and he refers to the club’s broken “promises” without explaining what promises were made to Toregas — the real answer obviously being “none.”
Toregas has one move in that situation: be a great catcher and veteran leader for the Aeros while smacking the crap out of the ball. If he can do that, even in Double-A, he’s still one hot minute away from being a big-league catcher again. If he can’t perform that way, then he doesn’t have anything to complain about, because he’s not really big-league material.
by Jay on Jun 16, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I fully agree with this.
I said this on IPI as well, but when you’re so focused on certain players like Tony is, you sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture, or at the very least you become biased. I understand the sentiment, but baseball is a business and currently Toregas doesn’t present any value to make the company better. Maybe it’s a very simple comparison, however that’s the way it is imo.
I think Tony also loses sight of the upshot of what he’s reporting.
He identifies with the players, empathizing with their frustration. So he uses some very slanted language, occasionally venturing a little outright falsehood, to portray the situation from the player’s point of view.
As far as showing a player’s point of view, that’s fine as far as it goes. But in exaggerating or simply fabricating each player’s “victimhood,” he basically portrays the organization as heartless and unfair — possibly even unethical. When you say an organization has “broken its promises” to a player, you’re basically saying they’re a bunch of liars, that they’re in the habit of lying to players.
I’ve read a whole lot of reports about the Indians over the past decade, and one thing I feel pretty confident about is the fact that they communicate very clearly with each and every player. When a guy says, for example, that they promised to trade him (Toregas) or promised not to (Alomar), or that they never said anything about playing third base (Peralta), you can be pretty confident that this is a person who is simply hearing what he wants to hear, not what’s actually being said.
But not in Tony’s alternate universe, where a fringe 40-man talent can do no wrong, and is constantly beset by blockages, unfairness, and broken promises.
I don’t have a lot of light to shed on this situation, but I do find it odd. For one thing, the Indians have so often walked the extra mile on behalf of their players (case in point: Juan Lara). On the other hand, all the evidence up till now indicates that Toregas is a model citizen. So what’s going on here?
In late April, I attended an Aeros game in Bowie. The player who did the best job of engaging in happy pre-game conversation with the fans was Wyatt Toregas. I remember thinking at the time that he had a great attitude about being at the ballpark, even if it wasn’t the ballpark of his dreams. Then again, I remember that his body looked kind of wide and lumpy. Maybe the Indians were right to tell him to get in shape. Anyway, Jay, I agree that there’s no room for sentimentality in the Darwinian world that is minor league baseball.
by ken from alexandria on Jun 16, 2010 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t mean that the Indians are unusually ruthless, only that “survival of the fittest” is inherent in professional baseball. Wyatt Toregas and Tony Lastoria need to understand that.
by ken from alexandria on Jun 17, 2010 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions
No, just that many factors other than Darwinism are in play here. The Indians play Hafner because they have committed a lot of money to him. Perhaps this is a reflection of a time when Hafner was the strongest or fittest of players. Or perhaps you could view his present weakness as a temporary condition.
Teams sometimes play the less fit players or players who are unable to adapt simply because they are stuck with them.
If salaries were no object—or contracts were no object—would Hafner be playing as much?
I think his contract is inseparable from the possibility that Hafner may eventually be a real contributor, as we’ve seen over the past six weeks (930 OPS). That upside, in a way, is the reason he has that contract.
Every player move is dependent on the other options available. We haven’t had a roster-crunch or playing-time crunch that has forced the Indians to consider releasing Hafner. If they really think he definitely can’t come back next season and be a DH with 850 OPS, I do think they will release him.
Good points, but they don’t convince me we can view baseball solely in Darwinian terms. Dusty Baker might favor veterans over better, younger players. That’s not survival of the fittest. Baseball cannot be solely, strictly meritocratic, can it? Older players are kept around for intangible reasons (leadership, knowing how to win). Sometimes managers fall in love with certain players.
I thought Darwinism more about bizarre adaptations than heroic conquering. Despite the competitive side of sexual prosperity, I think survival of the fittest gets misconstrued.
Darwinism in baseball explains the unbroken lineage of knuckleballers and loogies and why Pedroia plays 2B and not 1B, right? Darwinism means that Hafner, who is a monolith of a player not very adaptable to change, is vulnerable to extinction.
This kind of logic applies to a team by Dusty Baker too, but maybe not quite as naturally.
So Darwinism doesn’t guarantee that Hafner and Toregas should already be gone. It just means that the half-donkey is vulnerable if he can’t adapt. Hafner, having proven that he can’t adapt, will be gone from baseball the moment it becomes obvious that he can’t do the one thing he is supposed to do well.
Toregas has the benefit of playing a position that, while it is arguable the most demanding of all, is more forgiving of lost seasons and developmental hiccups. As long as he can still play it, longevity will afford him new opportunities. But right now, Toregas needs to go somewhere and hit.
Sorry to prolong this exchange, but my original reference was to the Darwinian world of minor league baseball, because contracts get in the way of meritocratic evaluation at the major league level in precisely the way that odradek and others have suggested. The minors are more pure in that sense.
by ken from alexandria on Jun 17, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Once again, I agree. And it’s one of the reasons why I sometimes get into heated discussions over there. Not to badmouth Tony, because he does a very good job covering our farm system, but it’s definately a weakness from time to time that he perhaps gets too attached to some of the guys.
I also feel that the Indians are a very classy organization. Tons of big league coaches, managers and FO personnel started out their careers with the Tribe. Very rarely do you hear players complain about the way they’ve been treated during their stay with the club and the organization as a whole seems to be very well thought of within the baseball community (for what it’s worth).
As Ken pointed out below, there have been a couple of cases where the Indians really went out of their way to support a player. Knowing that, it makes it more probable to me that Toregas in this case is just a frustrated minor leaguer looking for blame in the wrong places.
I’ve also heard a lot of positive reports about the Indians and their truthfulness over the years, so I too find this a little surprising.
I’m thinking that Toregas is just frustrated over his situation. Consider:
- He was in the running to be on the ML roster during the past 1.5 years.
- Marson was acquired during the 2009 season.
- Redmond was signed in the 2009 offseason.
- This essentially leads to Toregas having little shot of making the ML roster.
- Add to that that Santana is ticketed to start the year in AAA, and Toregas knows that he will be no more than a AAA backup, which could still get him to the big leagues, but he won’t get regular playing time. Add to that that Gimenez is reasserting himself and is still catching, and that leads to Toregas having to go to AA to get regular playing time.
- While Toregas is known for having very good defense, it’s not likely he’ll get much of a ML opportunity, even as a back-up, by playing at AA, especially at his age.
- Admittedly, if he was tearing the cover off of the ball and was playing stellar defense, teams may keep him in mind and would inquire about acquiring him, perhaps in the offseason, but he’d have to really make some noise. He has shown that he can hit AA pitching, moreless, but I suspect that the rapidly changing circumstances here have frustrated him.
Still, he’ll need to seize the opportunity given to him to make it back to the MLs, even as a viable ML back-up catcher as he was expected to be.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
And while Toregas thinks he was sent to Arizona for five weeks so that he would get a message to tone down what he’s saying, he comes back and vents to Lastoria so his grievances can be in print. . . yeah, that’ll get you what you want, Wyatt!
by Deep South Ken on Jun 16, 2010 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed – that’s not going to sit well with the Indians, and probably will make other teams a little leery of signing him as well unless he has regular playing time at AAA or a ML backup job (and I doubt he’ll be handed that job off the bat – he’ll likely have to go to AAA first and prove himself capable of handing a ML backup job).
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Josh Rodriguez has 18 games in AAA under his belt; Constanza has 47. I’m betting they both get more.
This is a GB-inducing starting staff. It’s safe to say Luis Valbuena is an inappropriate infielder for them. This team has a lot of guys who can play shortstop egregiously; if foolishly entrusted with decision-making powers, I’d pick the best of the lot—which is probably Mr. Anderson Hernandez person—and put Donald at 2B. Next, I would decree that since Austin Kearns can play CF just as badly as that fellow who’s there right now, he would do so. And this would allow me to play a person in left field with a higher-than-600 OPS, like Shelley Duncan or, when he’s fully operational again, Gator MaTola.
by YoDaddyWags on Jun 16, 2010 2:40 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Hey… it’s one of those promo shots like my avatar. Where did you find this one? I’ve been asked a couple times where I got mine from.
Armando Galarraga gave up a 420-foot drive to Mark Frickin' Grudzielanik.
That’s Grudz on top of Grady, right? Either way, saved them both.
Armando Galarraga gave up a 420-foot drive to Mark Frickin' Grudzielanik.
I’d love to know. They just seem to sprout randomly around the web:
Maybe our mods have access to the full set?
I just found those 3 as well. Branyan and 2 Jason Donalds too. And a 2nd jake… and BRIAN BUSCHER!
Armando Galarraga gave up a 420-foot drive to Mark Frickin' Grudzielanik.
All (128!) of them … watermarked.
Armando Galarraga gave up a 420-foot drive to Mark Frickin' Grudzielanik.
by westbrook on Jun 16, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
OHHHHH YEAH
June 16 #indians lineup: Hernandez ss, Choo rf, Santana ca, Hafner dh, Kearns cf, Peralta 3b, Duncan lf, Marte 1b, Donald 2b, Talbot p
26 minutes ago via web
Armando Galarraga gave up a 420-foot drive to Mark Frickin' Grudzielanik.
It could be Akinori Iwamura.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on Jun 16, 2010 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Not just that it includes Hernandez, but he’s hitting leadoff. We have no leadoff hitter at all. Thus why I’d like to see Constanza soon.
I’d give Constanza a shot; he probably could do as well or better than Crowe offensively, and likely much better defensively. Plus, he fits the prototypical leadoff hitter role speedwise and strikeout wise (not much), though I’m not sure he walks enough.
Still, I’d be willing to give it a shot, especially since Crowe looks VERY uncomfortable in CF.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Plus, he fits the prototypical leadoff hitter role speedwise
In other words, he fits the protoypical leadoff hitter role for morons.
by Jay on Jun 16, 2010 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
duh, the prototypical leadoff hitter has a career OBP of .304 is 27 and his name rhymes with Mandering Seranchez.
Who would you rather have leadoff? In order of OBP, the current regulars on this team: Choo, Kearns, Hafner, Santana, Branyan, Peralta, Crowe, Valbuena, Donald.
Today’s lineup in order of OBP: Marte, Choo, Kearns, Hafner, Santana, Duncan, Hernandez, Peralta, Donald
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on Jun 16, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I really like how they’ve handled Santana so far — he’s playing every game as a catcher and he doesn’t get pulled in the 7th inning. The kid needs as many innings as he can physically handle even if he struggles at the plate or allows a stolen base. Nice job.
Must be the new post-LaPorta policy on important young prospects — look at how they’ve handled Crowe!
But, yes, it is nice to see them playing Santana and not burying him on the bench or at the bottom of the batting order.
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
“important young prospect” ≠ Crowe
I’m not sure he should be considered even ONE of those three things.
by Jay on Jun 16, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Crowe is neither young (26 b November 17, 1983), nor, at this point a prospect.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on Jun 16, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Joke, guys. I am completely in agreement that he is none of those things and should be banished to another dimension. I meant to draw attention to the fact that he is, quite incredibly, playing almost every day with predictably lousy results.
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
I’m not sure I understand why LaPorta isn’t playing regularly in Cleveland (Kearns can play center at least part of the time, and Crowe could spell him). I certainly haven’t heard an explanation (apart from the service time argument) that makes sense.
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
His hip injury might still be a problem for him (especially in the OF), but that’s mostly fan speculation.
Right now though, we don’t really have a solid option for CF and it isn’t a particular area of depth in the farm system either.
we don’t really have a solid option for CF and it isn’t a particular area of depth in the farm system either.
Why is that? Is it because the team drafted based on institutional need rather than best talent available?
Maybe this was a joke, but I think the reason is that the guys we’ve acquired have turned out to be weak hitters AND not particularly able to handle CF -→ Crowe, Brantley, Drennan. Fedroff isn’t hitting either (though he was a 7th round pick), and we’ll see how Henry does.
by dgcambridge on Jun 17, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Evan Longoria confirms he’s dating Playboy model Jaime Edmondson
- Matt Moore understands Rays promise him nothing
- Stan Musial or not, it’s time for Albert Pujols to finally accept the ‘El Hombre’ nickname
- The 10 best things about being a Giants fan
- Spring Swing: Joe Maddon and Co. welcoming big expectations for Rays
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.
