[lifting his]...numbers to .339/.420/.563 in 56 games...Are you positive that last year's No. 2 overall pick, Seattle's Dustin Ackley (also a college player new to second base) is a better prospect?
Goldstein via BP. There's a little more to the blurb for subscribers. Go look at Kipnis' numbers and then convince me we're not dealing with a mega prospect.
almost 2 years ago
afh4
337 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
i’ll reserve my judgement till next year while I gladly slide him up the Indians prospect ratings.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
Should we be worried about his BABIP? It’s .394 this year.
By month, it’s been .365, .388, .447, .354, .430
So what do we interpret from this?
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
We interpret that he’s been hitting the ball on the screws in every month and also probably enjoying a little good luck.
minorleaguesplits has an algorithm for trying to weed good/bad luck out the stats. If you run Kipnis’ Akron numbers through it, his BABIP gets knocked down from .394 to .352, and his OPS goes from 990 to 920, i.e., still awesome for a 2B prospect.
Thanks. Good info.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 16, 2010 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t the (very general) rule for hitters to glance at BABIP and not squint at it like we do for pitchers?
A better rule would be to recognize that hitters regress to their own “innate skill level” BABIP rather than to a league-wide mean. BABIP is the noisiest part of batting average, as it were, so it takes at least a few years to determine what that individual player mean is with any confidence, but there are indications, and you can make an estimate within a range with a confidence interval.
Great clarification. Appreciated.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 16, 2010 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Kipnis is definately a top 3 prospect for me (in our system). I wonder if the reason for his improved batting line the last couple of weeks/months has something to do with him starting to feel comfortable at 2nd base. Or it could just be a hot streak.
Just wondering, who are your other 2 top-3 prospects? Also do you mean by this statement he’s definitively #3 (so 2 are above him) or that you can’t decide but basically group him with 2 others in a “top 3” category?
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 16, 2010 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Personally, I’d go Chisenhall, White, Kipnis — in that order. However, I might bump Kipnis up to #2 if he continues this insane performance for the last couple of weeks.
I’m a Kipnis guy myself, but I guess Chisenhall is younger. Our biggest need over the next few years is probably pitching though. So White is the most important if not the best, IMO.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 17, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I think White is close to the number one spot, but I want to see more of him. Would also like to see him K rate go up a bit.
The Chiz really hasn’t done anything to hurt his stock imo.
Yeah, I think its got to be those 3, and I could see just about any order. Wegz seems like the clear cut #4. Though there’s a lot of guys that I don’t know what to do with: Phelps, Jeanmar, CC, etc.
by dgcambridge on Aug 17, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
For what it worth, my top 15:
1. Lonnie Chisenhall (3B)
2. Alex White (RHP)
3. Jason Kipnis (2B)
4. Nick Hagadone (LHP)
5. Drew Pomeranz (LHP)
6. Nick Weglarz (OF)
7. Jason Knapp (RHP)
8. Kelvin De La Cruz (LHP)
9. Carlos Carrasco (RHP)
10. Joseph Gardner (RHP)
11. TJ House (LHP)
12. LeVon Washington (OF)
13. Tony Wolters (SS)
14. Hector Rondon (RHP)
15. Scott Barnes (LHP)
I would quibble with your Rondon ranking, but this season seems like a lost one for him. I still think he gets to the bigs as a middle of the rotation guy.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play." -Lebron James
Pitching is so tough in terms of attrition, any prospect with a lost season should drop dramatically in the rankings.
If he were lower in the minors, I would have no problem removing him altogether or if the injury were something other than a forearm injury. I am probably too optimistic for him, but I don’t see a forearm injury derailing a guy that was quite close to being ML ready.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play." -Lebron James
I’ve got to say, it’s not a very impressive list. 3 new draftees, Rondon/Wegz/Knapp all injured or recently returned, and struggles from CC, KDLC, and Hagadone. But it’s also largely a reflection of our recent graduations.
At this moment, Tomlin and Gomez should still be on the list. Maybe one or two of our relievers as well? Jess Todd?
Not really a big Tomlin or Gomez fan. I also think they won’t be eligible after the season anyway.
I was thinking about our relievers namely Stowell, Judy, Todd and Bryson, but I wanted to give Barnes the benefit of the doubt as he’s pitching very well in AA.
I had Rondon #3 last year, so I dropped him quite a bit. Obviously the injury clouds his future somewhat, I still think he has more than enough potential to become a viable major league pitcher.
No Stowell?
I would think he’s ahead of hagadone, but I also know nothing.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 17, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
no way should Stowell be ahead of Hagadone, but I do think Frosty has Hagadone too high.
Yo tengo 619 OPS ... IN
It appears to me that Hagadone has a serious lack of control.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 17, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm kinda unsure about the other guys so limiting this to 13...
1. Lonnie Chisenhall (3B)
2. Alex White (RHP)
3. Jason Kipnis (2B)
4. Nick Weglarz (OF)
5. Drew Pomeranz (LHP)
6. Carlos Carrasco (RHP)
7. Joseph Gardner (RHP)
8. Nick Hagadone (LHP)
9. Jason Knapp (RHP)
10. Kelvin De La Cruz (LHP)
11. TJ House (LHP)
12. Bryce Stowell
13. LeVon Washington (OF)
Carrasco being our 6th best prospect makes me nervous but i really don’t know who else really deserves it.
Yo tengo 619 OPS ... IN
I can’t take White seriously as #1. Four-month track record (and yes, a draft pedigree). Unimpressive K rate, and TINSTAAPP. I guess he looks better in some respects than Rondon did two years ago, but Rondon was fringe-Top-5 in a weaker overall system.
(Looks like Jeanmar is four starts away from no longer being classified as a prospect, without ever having appeared in a Top 10. Funny how that works.)
At a glance, I’ve got Chisenhall and Kipnis as my top two. If White’s ahead of them, it’s because of hype and excitement, not talent and not age and certainly not performance — and by the way, Nick Weglarz is 22, already hitting decently in Triple-A, and due for a power surge.
Nick Weglarz is still on the shelf, yes? This durability thing, despite not being concentrate in one area, is beginning to concern me.
Yes, and somebody (Pluto?) was saying he wouldn’t be back this year. I love the guy, but when I was pushing for him in the offseason people kept countering with his durability. It’s pretty scary at this point.
6. Some fans wonder what happened to Nick Weglarz, hitting a combined .285 (.893 OPS) with 13 HRs in 312 at-bats between Class AA and Class AAA. He was hitting .412 in his past 10 games at the end of July when he injured his thumb diving for a ball. He probably won’t play the rest of the season. He is expected to be healthy for winter ball and spring training. At 22, he is a legitimate outfield prospect for sometime in 2011.
A what?
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 17, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
You had me at post-translational modifications.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 17, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Truth is, Adam covered a lot of PTM ground in his huge prospect roundup in the offseason, so in some ways it would be superfluous. Progress Score, which I still think needs some tweaking, crystallizes a lot of the PTM logic into a simple number, and Adam at this point is better at figuring Progress Score than I am.
Is 23 considered old for AA if its his first professional season? That seems like it would rule out most college players from the " mega prospect" conversation then.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 17, 2010 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I generally detest the “first pro season” argument, but this is the exact point where it becomes valid.
In order to be a mega-prospect, a college draftee has to kick ass in his first pro season and jump a couple of levels. Kipnis has done that.
Would Kipnis also potentially be in AAA if Phelps weren’t doing some damage of his own?
"I spoil a lot of people with my play." -Lebron James
If he continues to rake at AAA next year and his glove holds up, he could be in Cleveland after the All-Star break. At age 24.
"If Brown is the answer, then you’re asking the wrong question." - Ryan
by woodsmeister on Aug 17, 2010 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d say the perfect age is significantly lower. Robin Yount started in the bigs at the age of 18. Cal Ripken at 21. Pete Rose at 22. Chipper Jones at 23. Willie Mays at 20. Evan Longoria at 22 and Miguel Cabrera at 21. 24 is good but nothing special.
It seems that these days Longoria and Cabrera are more the exception than the rule. I have no idea what the average age for a first-time call-up is but I’ll bet it’s not far from 24.
My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
I think there’s a big difference between stars and average players, and there’s some hope here that he might be a plus player.
Of course, if he’s up in the earlier part of next year, that will mean he sped through the minor in just 1 year+. I guess it could have gone faster, but not much.
by dgcambridge on Aug 17, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Is it really fair to compare Kipnis to Hall of Famers?
To me it isn’t so much about age as it is about development. If he reaches the majors next year, he would’ve gone through the minors in less than 2 years. That’s pretty good especially when you factor in he changed positions.
Tell that to Andy Marte. The sole reason he was a top prospect was his age vs. league performance. That turned out great. Saying a player is a bust because he isn’t in the league winning MVPs by the time he’s 21 like Robin Yount is ridiculous.
by cursedcleveland on Aug 18, 2010 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
I never said a player is a bust if he isn’t winning MVPs at the age of 21. Just that he’s not going to be Robin Yount—e.g., a Hall of Famer—and therefore not a perfect player.
There are 292 players, coaches, and misc. baseball men in the hall of fame. Discounting a players stats and accomplishments because he may be a tad too old compared to a group of less than 2% (somebody else do the math if I’m off) of the greatest of all time seems a little nitpicky and not to mention a completely unrelated argument to bring up when discussing the players current day value to a team. You could probably make argument that a player isn’t perfect with EVERY single prospect in the minors aside from 4 or 5 players. Even then you’d probably be proven wrong at some point down the road…people were claiming Desmond Jennings was perfect months ago and that opinion has already changed.
by cursedcleveland on Aug 18, 2010 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Most Hall of Famers are up before 24, that is true. But most perennial All-Stars are not.
You are setting the bar too high. Nothing wrong with 24, and making the majors in your second full season as a pro is special at any age.
Are you suggesting we shouldn’t argue over this fine point for another 60 comments?
What kind of a site would that be?
a boring one.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 17, 2010 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Carlos Santana was 24 at the time of his call up. He’s nothing special though.
by cursedcleveland on Aug 18, 2010 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Good Lord, are we identifying another Old Persons Disease symptom here?
Yes, Hall of Famers are Hall of Famers. Duh.
Look you guys obsess over a 6 month difference in age between prospects. Here we’re talking about more than a 4 year difference in age.
Bottom line: Santana maybe a catching phenom, but not much of one.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
A few random catchers, skewed toward stars, and the ages at which they became regulars:
Bill Dickey, 22. Mike Piazza, 24. Ernie Lombardi, 24. Tony Pena, 25. Mickey Cochrane, 22. Benito Santiago, 22. Terry Steinbach, 25. Sandy Alomar Jr., 24. A.J. Pierzynski, 25. Terry Kennedy, 25. Johnny Roseboro, 25. Ramon Hernandez, 24. Tim McCarver, 21.
I would also argue that Santana’s bat was ready maybe a year earlier than we brought him up, but with increased focus on service time, especially by a cautious team like the Indians, his age at which he reached the majors may not be completely reflective of his talent.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
Are we all forgetting that he was not originally a catcher and had to learn the position on the fly as well? That certainly delayed his debut, did it not? I’m sure these other catchers such as McCarver and Bench were not drafted as third basemen. (And if they were, my entire point is destroyed).
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Service time is a good point. It certainly wasn’t a concern with Mickey Cochrane. But I’d say, generally speaking, there’s a difference between catchers who premiere at the age of 22 and those who become regulars at 25.
Look, we’re talking an over 4 years age difference. Bench and Pudge were 19 years old, while Santana was 24. It’s not 22 vs. 25 it’s 19 vs 24. I don’t give a damn how you spin it, even I think that’s highly significant.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Sure, I agree we’re probably overrating Santana. And it’s clear that a player in the bigs at the age of 19 is something special. That’s why I didn’t include Bench.
But Piazza—who Bill James said was “probably the best hitting catcher ever to play the game”—broke in at 24.
No one is calling him a future Hall of Famer though.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
They’re not?
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, me too
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 19, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
And to contend for a world series for a handful of years, we don’t really need Santana (or probably any of our young and key players) to be future hall of famers. It would certainly help, but that really is not the absolute necessity, nor is it a bar you can realistically set as a goal line for drafting and developing young talent.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 19, 2010 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Hell, Chuck, read The New Bill James Historical Abstract. It’s well written and not at all dogmatic or reductionist. James is one of the best baseball writers of the 20th century.
Put the crack pipe down oddie. Bill James isn’t even Joe Podnanski, let alone Bob August.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
And here I thought you were an Old School Cleveland guy. Here, this should refresh your memory.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
So far the only results we got from Santana is a mid-season trip to the DL.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Oh come on, man. You’re not at least a little impressed by Santana?
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I mean, I hear ya, but I’m just sayin… can’t say he didn’t produce good results while he was up.
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Is that like draft-and-follow for the shy?
by Logodaedalus on Aug 18, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Will be fun to see who gets to start at 2nd base next season when Kipnis comes up. Phelps, Kipnis, Donald and Valbuena are all in the mix most likely.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see one or even two of those guys traded near the deadline next year.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 17, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I was thinking about this myself this morning actually, but would be reluctant because it would be a sell low move.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play." -Lebron James
I hesitated at saying offseason because I thought they may want to take a couple months next season to make absolutely sure who is for real and who might have just had an incredible year. maybe Phelps/Kipnis can’t repeat their performance, donald starts to suck and valbuena turns it on.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 17, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Putting on my mauichuck hat for a moment, maybe we should trade Asdrubal.
I’m curious to hear the logic behind this
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 17, 2010 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s what Jay is – inaccurately – aiming at: we should target a period certain when we will compete for a WS ring. Not just get in the play-offs but be one of the favorites to win. You remember, like back in the 90s and for one, brief shinining moment in ‘07. So say we pick ’13-’16 for our run. We trade any and all of of our current roster who will be FAs or close to FAs in that time period. Guys like Choo, Asdrubal, Carmona, etc. for prospects that would, hopefully, mature in that time period.
It’s a little simplistic, but I could see this as one viable strategy for getting us a WS championship sometime in my lifetime.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
“we should target a period certain when we will compete for a WS ring.”
When is that ever certain? Especially when you are aiming 3-6 years in advance? This is simply ludicrous. You’ve taken the Tribe’s current model and made it more reliant on the miraculous by pushing it forward in time and closing the window of opportunity on the next set of ballplayers before it’s even opened and before we’ve waited for them. How do we gain from that? A few extra first round draft picks?
Next, after we follow this first step, you’ll decide in 2013 that the 2016 class is not going to be “WS-bound” and you’ll trade off some star young player in his pre-arbitration days to target the 2016-2019 era for success.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 17, 2010 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right on man. Sorry Chuck, but that strategy is nuts. If you ask me, the front office got us into this current mess by overplanning—having too much faith in its own farm system and ability to predict the maturation of its young talent. The credited strategy is to accumulate as much low-cost major league talent as possible and try to win ASAP, “competition windows” be damned.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 17, 2010 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Without trying to open the whole ’what’s wrong with the FO argument’ again, I guess I’m not sure what the overplanning was. 2008 stunk because Carmona, Hafner and Westbrook combined put up <1 WAR, and the latter two got almost 20 million, and the bullpen was mostly terrible. After Adam Miller, the Indians next best pitching prospect in the time leading up to the time when the mess occured was probably Lofgren, and then guys like Sipp, Laffey and de la Cruz were the 3rd highest ranked pitchers according to BA. I can’t believe the Indians had that much faith in the pitching. If you want to argue that they thought Scott Lewis was going to be a key contributor, then fine, go ahead.
Maybe you don’t agree with the statement about causality, but we should be able to agree that this last rebuilding plan was a bust. “Managing the cycles” failed for us on this go-round because, as you point out, players underperformed, were injured, prospects failed to develop, etc. Nobody can predict what a team will look like 3-4 seasons down the road with any kind of certainty—there are just too many variables. You also can’t predict what kind of talent will be available on the trade or free agent market in the meantime. That’s why I am largely skeptical of the “rebuilding” concept (except in certain cases—some teams have to be torn down) and favor a more ad-hoc approach to roster construction.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 18, 2010 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Which “last rebuilding plan” are we talking about?
I can’t see it as a bust given the 2005-2007 club. It may have underperformed expectations, but a bust would be failing utterly to contend, as, for example, the Mariners are doing right now.
True, I also do not consider it a bust. One of the points that cap’n made, that you can’t predict what a team will look like 3-4 seasons down the road with certainty is actually why I disagree with Chuck and disagree with Capn, but agree with the Tribe’s recent approach. You can’t predict with certainty but you give it your best shot, give it the best chance to succeed, and see how it turns out. That excludes Chuck’s approach because he assumes you can predict with certainty a world-series contender 6 years in advance.
The reason I’m disagreeing with Capn here is that with the market as it is, there is no way for this club to “assemble low-cost talent and win-now” – except in the manner that the tribe did for that last rebuilding plan, and how they are attempting to do now for the next one – It’s just win-later instead of win-now. You assemble low-cost talent through the minor leagues by trading, drafting, developing etc. Even if you can’t predict with certainty you will win. You hope you’ve built the system enough that they can.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Look you’re stating my position in such a way as to ensure you’ve got the most cogent argument. Here’s what I’m saying: optimize your chances, do not plan for medicority, plan for success.
The CC, Lee, Marinez trades all indicate that the FO at least partially agrees with this. I think they’ve haven’t/didn’t go far enough.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Well, if I’m misunderstanding your view, then please clarify: what constitutes “going far enough?” Or, what would have constituted that?
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Well for one thing we shouldda traded Grady back when he was worth something.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the trades they made, IF they do turn out positive, will have an impact in 3-5 years down the line, right? They are not expected/targeted to impact the team positively 6-10 years down the line. So players like Grady, Choo, and Asdrubal would need to be kept around in order to play with the positive outcome of these trades, no?
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I hate to back up Chuck, but he has a really viable point here. What good are the guys who are going to boost us from 72 to 75 wins really doing? We’re really just developing them for the Yankees. When they reach that perfect combination of established and still under team control, trade them for the best package of guys within our targeted development curve. There’s no point in being consistently mediocre when you can be miserable and then awesome.
The Marlins first eleven season winning percentages went .395-.443-.469-.494-.568-.333-.395-.491-.469-.488-.562. In both of those over-.500 seasons, they won the World Series. Would you take that? I probably would, and Chuck is pointing out that this is a reasonable option.
Come on, four billion!
But you really can’t count on how the Marlins pulled that off twice. It defies odds that your only 2 seasons over .500 you would win it all.
That’s not really much of a strategy when you think about it.
Of course you can’t count on it and of course it defies the odds. When the playing field is titled to your disadvantage, you are gunning for a low-probability event. Anything geared towards such an event is going to look like “not really much of a strategy.” To an extent, we already do this; the Marlins example/Chuck’s strategy is just a little more extreme than trading Victor et al. was. We’re 0 for our last 60 with all manner of strategies left in our wake; why is this one any worse than any of the others?
Come on, four billion!
If you think you have a 72-win team to start the season, then I agree that you shouldn’t take a win-now mentality. It doesn’t take a baseball savant to spot a complete non-starter, like this year’s team. I’m just saying that, especially in our division, you’re an idiot to trade a cheap, proven major league talent like Cabrera or Grady for prospects because it lines up better with your “competition window.” You just can’t plan that way because nobody’s that good at predicting what baseball players will do. It’s more likely that you’ll be able to put together a winning team around the talent you currently have on the roster than it is that you’ll be able to build a contender to win within some pre-set, arbitrary competition window.
I can understand why a club like the Marlins (on a total shoestring budget) or the Rays (have to topple either the Yankees or the Red Sox in order to make the playoffs) would find that to be the only viable strategy, but the odds aren’t nearly as stacked against the Indians.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 18, 2010 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
You’re an idiot to do it?
Really? We have to go that far with it?
There’s no conceivable way it’s a good idea? Only for idiots?
Didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings. What if I softened it to “ill-advised”?
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 18, 2010 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Incidentally, I’m well aware that I call things idiotic all the time, but not everything we disagree with is idiotic. Sometimes it’s just a difference of opinion between two or more relatively thoughtful and well informed people. It has happened before.
That’s idiotic.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 18, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But cheap, proven ML talent is going to do us any good for the rest of this year or for next year. If they’re gone in 2012, why keep them now? Use them as leverage for our next legitimate playoff run. We also have to get past the Red Sox and the Yankees to win the World Series.
Again, I’m not necessarily saying this is the only or best way, but I don’t think it’s an idea so bad that you reject it out of hand.
Come on, four billion!
If they’re gone in 2012, why keep them now?
This would be a great topic for a big-ass long post the likes of which I haven’t had time to make in the past 10 months or so. So I’ll spill a little bit of that post I’ll probably never make right now …
Two reasons to keep them even if you believe that’s the case.
(1) The ROI on the “extra” years you’re giving up of those players is relatively little. That is, 1.5 years of Cliff Lee vs. 1.0 years of Cliff Lee vs. 0.5 years of Cliff Lee … not much difference, not as much as there should be. For players with three arbitration years left, not nearly as much difference as there should be.
Part of the reason is leverage — the 0.5 years is a high-leverage deal, where the team getting the established player is expecting an above-average payoff by adding the player’s marginal value to its roster. Any extra service time the team gets is average leverage, which tends to be valued very little. Four-to-six year players are also not viewed as payroll bargains in quite the same way that they were 3-4 years ago. They’re good deals, but not big bargains.
My point ultimately is that you won’t get that much more for Asdrubal now than you will two years from now. It’s a market inefficiency where you’re on the losing end if you trade sooner.
(2) By trading certain players early, you potentially create holes in your lineup and significant depth problems that may have real, significant consequences for the development of your other assets, i.e., the young players who hypothetically will be part of your 2013-2016 run.
Related to this, you risk making your rebuilding team into a real laughingstock, rather than just a team that’s bad because it’s young and cheap. This may seem like a slim distinction from the 2009-2010 reality that we’ve been living through, but in truth, we’ve never been at much risk for being The Very Worst Most Pitiful Team In The World.
In a terrible, disappointing, rebuilding season, we still are nine games ahead of the Pirates, and (even after their recent surge) 7.5 ahead of the Orioles. In the last week of the 2009 season, the Nationals gained six games on the Indians — and we still finished 6.0 games ahead of them.
So that’s two or three reasons.
by Jay on Aug 18, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Why is it an advantage to not be the Very Worst Most Pitiful Team in the World?
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
For one thing, you can sign your entire draft class for $9.3 million instead of having to drop $9.9 million and a major league contract on one player.
"If Brown is the answer, then you’re asking the wrong question." - Ryan
by woodsmeister on Aug 18, 2010 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Very good point.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course then you’ve got a shot at signing a guy like Strasburg who is a major league talent and a potential future CY winner instead of a guy like Lowery.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Which has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. The Sowers Gambit doesn’t work here.
by Brad D on Aug 18, 2010 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Try to follow along here fwembt. Here’s the point: you’re much more likely to get a real, honest to God Major League prospect by tanking and getting one of the first three picks than you are by bouncing along on the Sea of Mediocrity and drafting stiffs Sowers with the seventeenth pick..
To summarize: you wanna actually win a WS with a small market club? Plan on peaking 4-6 years out, trade any and all players you have with any talent for prospects, stink for the next 2-3 years so you can draft high and hope everybody hits their career year at the same time. When players are closing in on their FA year, dump ’em, stink, draft high and repeat.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
For one thing, you can sign your entire draft class for $9.3 million instead of having to drop $9.9 million and a major league contract on one player.
This is talking to my daughter, who also tends to forget what was going on whenever something shiny catches her eye.
You talk results all the time and then you trot out a pitcher with 11 starts and an arm injury as your best argument. That doesn’t wash, hence the Prior comp. If you want to keep spending $10 million a year on TINSTAPP and juco catchers overhyped by the media, be my guest. But the real best way for a small market team to compete is to spend $9.3 million on a good draft class and keep the eggs separate.
It’s much more likely that a young, hard-throwing pitcher will come back from a fore-arm injury – even if it should require surgery – than a catcher will from a knee injury that does require surgery. Strasburg’s injury is most probably a bump in the road for him. Santana’s injury will at least shorten his career, and may require a position change.
You wanna say that they’re equivalent, go right ahead. But I can see Strasburg starting the 2013 All-Star game. I’m not too sure Santana will still be catching then.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
that knee injury has a very good chance of never bothering santana again.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 19, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I think there’s an equal chance that he’ll have that knee scoped and/or drained sometime in the next 7 years.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
He’s a catcher. That puts him at risk. He’s a catcher who has already had at least one knee surgery. That puts him at significant risk. An actuary would probably agree with Chuck.
That’s not what was said:
I think there’s an equal chance that he’ll have that knee scoped and/or drained sometime in the next 7 years.A catcher who has already had at least one major knee surgery at the age of 24—and a catcher who obviously isn’t good at blocking the plate—is a high risk for chronic knee problems.
by odradek on Aug 20, 2010 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Still not on topic. Carlos Santana has nothing to do with draft outlay.
by Brad D on Aug 19, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You’re right I did take this discussion off that rail, but I’m also including our young player acquisition strategy, be it draft, trade or Latin player signing.
So the bottom line is this: after trading all of your Casey Blakes, Jhonny Peraltas, Kerry Woods and assorted other ML flotsom and jetsom, and losing 102 games, your much more likely to get a potential HoFer than hanging on to those stiffs and losing “only” 92 games and drafting 6th and taking a “safe” pick like Jeremy Sowers. You’re guy might get hurt his first year up, but at least he’s got a much better shot at greatness.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
So we either build a worse ML club or openly tell our players to lose enough until they are dead last in baseball? I don’t think it’s as easy as you make it seem.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
I guess the question I pose is, who said we aren’t trying to field a really bad team this year and last such that we are getting these picks you speak of? Short of telling the players to lose, the front office can’t do much more to control the record unless you want them to sell really low on their few remaining assets that we might consider trading.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
That’s a straw-man. Who ever said to hold on to Jhonny Peralta, wood and casey blakes?
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 19, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Didn’t say Santana wouldn’t be in the 2013 AS game, just that I think/hope he won’t be catching.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The bar is a lot higher once you take him out of the skill position. Victor won’t ever make an All-Star team as a first baseman, although he is a good hitter even at that position.
Wasn’t Sowers a #6 pick?
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 19, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
The first part of what you say I agree with, about the trading.
But I’m not sure I understand this: “It’s more likely that you’ll be able to put together a winning team around the talent you currently have on the roster than it is that you’ll be able to build a contender to win within some pre-set, arbitrary competition window.”
This is sometimes true and sometimes not true.
For instance, it was true in 2005, but it’s no longer true come 2008/2009.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I think as a general rule it is true, for a number of reasons. First, as discussed above, there is so much uncertainty in prospect development. Fans and teams tend to overestimate their abilities in this area, probably because the alternative (honestly assessing how little can be predicted) is too damned frustrating. For this reason, I just don’t believe that you can plan for a franchise 3-4 seasons down the road. Second, especially over the last decade, it seems like teams have really started to overrate and overvalue farm talent (particularly their own). I think it’s much harder now than it was 8 years ago to get good value when trading veteran players. Sure, you’ll hit on a Santana once in awhile, but I think if you insist on playing this game you’ll almost always end up in the red.
In short, I really do think that it’s easier to “fluke” into a winning season by adding to the talent you already have on your roster than produce a winning season down the road through flipping the players on your roster for minor league talent.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Aug 18, 2010 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
So we’re going to rely on flukes as an organizational philosophy?
And who would classify as such a fluke? Surely not an Austin Kearns-type fluke.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 19, 2010 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions
But don’t they net you less in a trade when you trade them so early? They are “established” as major leaguers, sure, but doesn’t their value take a hit because they “could be a fluke/oneyear wonder” etc?
Using the Victor example hypothetically, (ie, we really did compete with Victor as established and under control, but pretending for a moment we couldn’t compete then) – We traded Victor with an established track record as an all star quality hitter. But if he had put up say his first season or first two seasons of solid numbers, wouldn’t the return have been less because he’s less known or less of a household name with less of a track record?
(Not to mention the Cliff Lee example, but he got better drastically over those years, which may not be common).
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think the return would have been LESS, as Victor was already spectacular, but the point is that Victor’s on-field value (and contractual value) was DRAMATICALLY HIGHER at that time, and we wouldn’t have gotten dramatically more for him. A little more, yes, maybe even Buchholz, but not dramatically more.
I don’t think we’re saying the same thing, but then again, I don’t think I understood fully what you were saying here.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s something even more ludicrous: thinking that the Indians have got a shot at the ALCS in 2011 or even 2012. Why would you hang on to any talented player who could be a FA in those years or 2013 even? Wouldn’t it be prudent to stock up on younger, cheaper talent by trading guys who won’t be around for the next run?
Here’s a certainty for you: Grady Sizemore will never play for a WS ring while wearing an Indians jersey. Choo has a chance – assuming he doesn’t spend 2 years on the DMZ in the ROK Army – but only a very slim one. Asdrubal is also unlikely to be playin’ baseball for the Tribe in late October.
I’m not sayin’ we should give these guys away, but if a contender comes around with the right prospect package, I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Here’s something even more ludicrous: thinking that the Indians have got a shot at the ALCS in 2011 or even 2012.
Nobody thought the Padres would contend for the playoffs this year, either. You never know what can happen, especially in the weak division that we play in. There is no reason to start trading players who we control for two more years.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 18, 2010 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Yep. Just like you can’t compare two players without taking into account positional value, you can’t think about the Indians’ potential for competitiveness without taking into account the Central Division.
And hey, doesn’t the Indians win percentage line since 2002 look like the Marlins? To wit: 457, 420, 494, 574, 481, 593, 500, 401, 412.
I’ll bet, despite the two WS championships, those other Marlins seasons have been accompanied by as much bitching and moaning as we see here (assuming anyone in FL cares about the Marlins).
by YoDaddyWags on Aug 18, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Logically it seems like trading a player who has more years of club control would result in a better return, but I don’t know if that has actually played out in recent trades (other than the ludicrous Dan Haren to Arizona trade a couple of years ago). That being the case, I don’t see a ton of benefit in trading Grady or Asdrubal now instead of closer to their free agency. Sure, the incoming prospect might mature a year earlier, but basing a trade based on an unknown prospect’s theoretical growth rate seems pretty buckshot to me. Why not take an off-chance that this bunch will come together and contend in 2012, when we can always trade them anyway if they fail?
In addition to that, there’s the fact that now is a pretty bad time to trade these guys. Grady’s value has to be about as low as it can possibly get right now. Astro is a guy with a 701 OPS right now, and I don’t think he receives quite the same reverence around the league that he gets here. You can equivocate with “if a contender comes around with the right prospect package,” but that’s meaningless. There’s a right prospect package for anybody. The fact is, I don’t think we’re going to get the right prospect package for these guys, at least not right now, and so there’s no way we should trade them.
I agree that we should stick to dealing guys who are less than 6 months from free agency.
Yo tengo 619 OPS ... IN
you have no idea how much I look forward to dealing away prospects at the deadline that other teams’ fans have never heard of and we’re all here saying “Ohh no, not him…. but CHAMPIONSHIP!”
Yo tengo 619 OPS ... IN
Kinda like we all said after when we pried Ricky Rincon away from the Pirates.
My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
People are acting like this is a video game… trade everyone now and we can just simulate the next three seasons until the prospects are ready. It doesn’t work that way since we still have to, ya know, watch the team play. I, for one, would rather watch a bad team with some potential than blowing it all up. I’ve never been a fan of Marlins-style strategies. I think it’s cheap and uncreative.
The Cavs are facing a similar, though much more drastic, situation this year. Still, I’d rather see them fight hard for a 7 or 8 seed than tank and hope they get a good draft pick which they hope can become a franchise cornerstone. Screw that. Play with the hand you’re dealt while doing your best to evolve and plan for the future. Tearing it all down at once is lazy.
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
You realize of course that “tanking” is what got us LeStunod in the first place.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Never said I agree with how we got him, plus I don’t really know the veracity of that claim. Admittedly, I wasn’t much of a basketball fan before him.
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
it’s true. it’s the only way to build a basketball team.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 18, 2010 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, my gut reaction is to disagree, but the more I learn about the NBA, the more I see that that may be the case. It’s a shame because that’s terrible risky. You’re not always gonna tank and be able to draft an LBJ or a Durant. Sometimes you tank and end up with Darko Milicic.
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Detroit actually had a playoff team and had the 2nd pick because of a trade they made with the Grizzlies. There was no tanking involved just an irrational exuberance for a foreign player when that was the big trend in the league.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
Point remains… a high draft pick is not a guarantee.
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course not, but no matter where you’re picking or who you’re trading for you need to be able to evaluate talent properly to be successful.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 18, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
The current Celtics didn’t build that way.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Or the, uh, Heat…
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe the NBA has been largely exposed as a charade. It’s like MLB but with a salary cap.
The Carmelo business certainly isn’t helping.
Yeah, but it seems weird to start complaining now about the economics of it all when we’ve been “haves” for so long. Kinda like us complaining about MLB now after consistently being among the highest spenders in the 90’s.
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
those are attractive free agent destinations. we’re cleveland.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 18, 2010 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Tearing it all down at once is what the OK City Thunder did. And what the Portland Trail Blazers did.
"If Brown is the answer, then you’re asking the wrong question." - Ryan
by woodsmeister on Aug 18, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
It is but, regardless, I’m not a fan of slash-and-burn roster tactics
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I just think this current Cavs roster is quite bad. Don’t even think they have a real shot at 7 or 8 seed.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
Yeah, I mean I’m probably being really optimistic, but who know? Are we really worse than some of last year’s low seeds? I’m fascinated to see if/how Mo and Jamison step up without LBJ. I’m also really eager to watch JJ develop.
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I think they could certainly get in to the playoffs as a 7 or 8 seed with the current roster. LeBron is a great player, but he’s not worth 25 wins all by himself. Other players will step up when he’s not there.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 18, 2010 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I tend to, maybe naively, agree. There are only so many points to go around in basketball, so in the absence of a 30 PPG scorer, it’s inevitable that someone else (probably multiple people) step it up.
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 18, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
That being said, if the Cavs want to be a title contendor again they can’t wallow in medoicrity for years. They need to trade their veterans and build through the draft by hoping to get lucky in the lottery.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 18, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
So whattya think will get for Valbuena? A light-hitting, Gold Glover CFer?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
He’s not light hitting. He’s no-hitting. They’re not going to be able to play Gutz at all, at this rate.
So, yeah, maybe we can get a late-inning OF defensive replacement.
In that stadium, they should and will continue to play Gootz every day.
Incidentally (more to Chuck), the Mariners are paying Gootz $17 million over the next three seasons. He’s a valuable player, but he’s no big bargain anymore. I don’t know that we could afford to keep him if that’s the price.
Since May 15, his OPS is 604. His OBP is .281. That’s 81 games, half a season.
On the season, he’s got the 6th highest K% of all CFs in baseball that qualify and doesn’t appear to to be any kind of impact baserunner. And, although I don’t know what the stats mean, none of the FanGraphs defensive stats, so taken with him a year ago, seem to think he walks on water anymore.
Defense is confusing and I know Gutz is very good but in order for him to overcome that sort of production doesn’t he need to be the greatest defender of all-time?
I’ve always rooted for Franklin but this kind of backsliding, in his age 27 season, spells the end for him, I suspect. Defense might be the new stats revolution but you’re going to take a lot of flack in order to keep playing a guy who hits this poorly and I’m not sure why the M’s, as much as defense bit them this season, would want to stomach that.
I think they would want to stomach it because of (1) good old “upside regression,” which we know for a fact works ALL THE TIME, (2) resources better spent upgrading in other areas.
In other words, if your entire lineup sucks, why start by benching the best outfield defender in the game? Especially in that park. They’re not going to turn over the entire lineup in one offseason.
I also don’t think you throw out an entire track record over 81 games. It’s a bad slump, but why assume that he’s hopeless? Gootz isn’t a good hitter, but I see little reason to conclude that he’s as bad as his most recent 81 games.
The problem was the extension not with playing him.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play." -Lebron James
Eh, it was basically just a lockup deal for his arbitration years. You take your chances with a deal like that, but it’s very small stakes gambling compared with any significant free agent move. Look at it another way, we lost more money on Guthrie’s signing bonus than on Peralta’s collapse at the plate.
(1) good old "upside regression," which we know for a fact works ALL THE TIME
Maybe I’m just conditioned, as we all are, to assume nobody important ever gets better. They only get worse or sign elsewhere.
He crushed lefties in 2009. He hasn’t in 2010. He’s been the same player against RHP in both seasons, with a few more walks.
But I’m not ready to give Franklin bonus points for a better batting eye. I’m not convinced that other teams just didn’t pitch around him to face Jose Lopez, Casey Kotchman, or whatever other warm body hit behind him.
I don’t know if half a season means the end for any player. All Gutz needs to do to get back to where he was last year is a hot September.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
Here’s my thinking: this is one of those trades were both sides are losers. Us for getting a horrible to awful middle infielder who has done little except hinder the development of a long term solution to our second base problems and the Mariners for acquiring a great defensive non-hitting CFer – Willie Mays without the bat – paying him way too much money and then repeatedly starting him dispite the obvious fact that he cannot now and likely will never be able to hit Major League pitching.
In short this deal shouldda been of little more significance than the Chuck Essegian for Dick Gray deal.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
hinder the development of a long term solution to our second base problems
how has he done that?
by Brick. on Aug 17, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
By leading the FO to think that he could actually be a ML second baseman.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
so, it hindered what?
i’m not thinking of a single thing they did or didn’t do as a direct result of having valbuena in the fold. not one. they’ve been stockpiling MI depth before and since the valbuena trade.
by Brick. on Aug 17, 2010 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So trying to follow a long here, do you think that Donald will be the Indians starting second baseman in the WS? Me neither. Then maybe Kipnis? Possibly but he’ll be up when? 2012, probably? And hammering ML pitching in what? 2013? Phelps maybe a year later?
So my reading is that we shouldn’t be planning on playing in mid-October until 2014-2015. I can see that. But not before.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I think that the FO felt/hoped that Valbuena was the long term solution at second base and he’s not. Just like the Mariners felt/hoped that Gutz was the CFer that could help propel them to the play-offs. Both we’re wrong.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Maybe they both thought that each player was worth a shot in their particular roster situation. Maybe both of them were worth a shot but neither of them was a sure thing. Maybe they were both right.
Exactly. Kinda like Adam Miller. We don’t need no stinkin’ future No.1 Starter – we got Adam Miller
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Why acquire any player since most are likely to fade into oblivion? Let’s just draft and do nothing else.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play." -Lebron James
You should have went the Mike Tyson route and said “fade into Bolivian.”
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 17, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that after they acquired Valbuena there was less concern about that position.
For example if the FO had the choice between a third baseman and a second baseman in the draft of equal talent they were more likely to draft the third baseman after they acquired Valbuena.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Except that, you know, they drafted a guy they planned to play at 2B about 6 months after acquiring Valbuena. And then acquired another middle infielder in a trade a month later. This year they drafted a guy, Wolters, that Keith Law said will probably end up as a 2B. Once they drafted Chisenhall, they haven’t done nearly as much with the 3B position. It seems like they’re far more confident in Chisenhall than Valbuena.
For example if the FO had the choice between a third baseman and a second baseman in the draft of equal talent they were more likely to draft the third baseman after they acquired Valbuena.
this is not football.
Yeah, I think you’re way off here, Chuck.
There is little if any evidence that the Indians (or just about any other club) considers present-day major league needs when drafting. The lone exception is that a team will occasionally go for some fireballing college pitcher that they think can jump into the bullpen within a year of the draft, but those are quite rare.
Six months after acquiring Valbuena, we drafted Cord Phelps in the second round, and a month after that, we acquired Jason Donald from the Phillies. A year later, we drafted Jason Kipnis in the second round and moved him from the outfield to second base. Those three moves were all significant resources allocated to second base, with only Donald serving double-duty as shortstop depth.
We picked up guys like Nix and Hernandez off waivers, signed Mark Grudzialanek, kept Josh Rodriguez kicking around after two years of looking like a non-prospect. We did everything short of reacquiring Ron Belliard.
In short, the Indians’ actions have been quite consistent with the beliefs that (a) we always could use more depth at shortstop, and (b) we don’t have a solid second base situation. It’s an interesting question to pose, did Valbuena cause the Indians to relax and not worry about second base for a while, but the facts very clearly say no.
by Jay on Aug 18, 2010 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Six months after acquiring Valbuena, we drafted Cord Phelps in the second round
Phelps was 3rd round in 2008, before we acquired Valbuena that off-season. Kipnis was 2nd round just last year, a month before acquiring Donald.
Doesn’t change your overall point much, except that we didn’t acquire Phelps post-Valbuena.
by Logodaedalus on Aug 18, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Slightly faulty memory. Should have looked it all up to be sure. Still, we added Kipnis and Donald despite having just added Phelps and Valbuena.
The Orlando Hudson signing attempt speaks volumes about what the FO thought about Valbuena’s readiness to be an everyday 2b at the beginning of the season.
"If Brown is the answer, then you’re asking the wrong question." - Ryan
by woodsmeister on Aug 18, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
The Indians drafting strategy has been to pick the player with most potential and talent regardless of position, rather than a model of filling positional needs.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Aug 18, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Valbuena’s career I’ll grant that he’s been far from impressive in the ML so far, but those aren’t the numbers of someone on whom to completely give up.
Willie Mays without the bat
No. He’s a good, possibly great, OF. He’s not an all-time great. No metric thinks as highly of him as before and no amount of punditry will annoint him the best in the league right now. That’s well short of Mays.
But he certainly can’t hit.
Screw the metrics. They do not convince.
by jhon on Aug 18, 2010 3:59 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Ok.
no amount of punditry will annoint him the best in the league right now.
How about that. Or don’t eyes count either?
That’s what counts. Think he has lost a step, or is it the expansive OF he’s in 1/2 the time?
by jhon on Aug 20, 2010 4:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The expansive outfield might allow him to get to more balls than other CF’ers which would theoretically help his plays converted into outs, but again the “math” behind the defensive stats is pretty unclear.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
current rosterbation thought in my head: REMEMBER WHEN WE THOUGHT BRANTLEY WAS A VERY SLIGHT 1B OPTION?
Yo tengo 619 OPS ... IN
As recently as 2008 he played 21 games at first base. I mean, he is listed at 6’2’’ so I guess it makes sense from the “first basemen are often tall” standpoint. But I think I remember someone on LGT saying that he was occasionally played at first base while nursing an injury. Or something?
My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
That’s right. Be played several games there over the course of both 2007 and 2008 in both A and AA. I remember reading PD or ABJ-type articles that described him and Gamel and whoever the other guy we were considering was, and it would say stuff like, “Brantley is considered an option at first, as well.” or something along those lines. I highly doubt that was ever the case.
My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
What might have been, but for a few trades and bad personnel decisions that tore the soul from this team:
1B: Brantley
2B: Crowe
3B: Branyan
SS: Peralta
LF: Garko*
CF: Grady
RF: Blake
C: Gimenez
P: Marte
*Garko can also catch.
My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
by Ockus_NYC on Aug 17, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not to be confused with phenomenally uniformed people.
by Logodaedalus on Aug 18, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This was about to get a rec until I saw it was Rick Manning. Sorry, can’t do.
Come on, four billion!
Yup – you should have gone with Boog
d
by stuart dean on Aug 18, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
“I feel,” said Mr. Powell, “like a massive blood clot.” Actual quote!
by YoDaddyWags on Aug 19, 2010 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wait a minute. That’s a Twins road uniform the catcher is wearing correct, circa 1975-1977?
The Indians wore their all-reds in each of those 3 seasons, but Dressed to the Nines has them listed as road uniforms, not home uniforms. I suppose Dressed is incorrect, and the Indians did wear the all-reds at home.
/UniWatch
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Giancarlo Stanton busts Marlins Park scoreboard with tape-measure grand slam (VIDEO)
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
