The Indians plan on being as creative as possible in their quest to upgrade their roster. That is...

The Indians plan on being as creative as possible in their quest to upgrade their roster. That is why Cleveland is considering giving outfielder Michael Brantley a trial run as a part-time first baseman this spring.

Bastian expands on this a bit over at MLB.com.

Seriously? Seriously? Hannahan, Duncan, Donald, and LaPorta all outhit Brantley last season. Is this to keep Ezequiel Carrera in the lineup? Or Trevor Crowe?

I can understand the logic, but that doesn't mean I find it compelling.

6 months ago afh4 49 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’m all for us using 1B as a leverage position, allowing us to either get another situational bat in the lineup (e.g. Duncan), get Santana time off catcher, or get Hannahan’s glove in at 3B without losing Chisenhall’s bat. Basically using firstbase the way we might use DH if Hafner wasn’t so alternative-less at the position. But giving us Brantley in the lineup seems the least appealing use of that flexibility.

by APV on Dec 9, 2011 6:00 PM EST reply actions

See, I get the logic of using it as a sort of flex slot. I do not understand why, of all people, Brantley is the one getting reps.

by afh4 on Dec 9, 2011 6:04 PM EST up reply actions

In case we, uh … okay, I have no idea.

Andruw Jones?

by Jay on Dec 9, 2011 9:39 PM EST up reply actions

profit!

by APV on Dec 9, 2011 10:08 PM EST up reply actions

Brantley’s top comp through age 24 is Hosken Powell. That is all.

by TheDanimal on Dec 9, 2011 6:01 PM EST reply actions

To be fair, Mr. Powell is tied with this guy

by APV on Dec 9, 2011 6:03 PM EST up reply actions

True. Man, those stats for Grissom are really surprising. I remember thinking he was awesome when I was growing up. Only 5 seasons in a 17-year career with above average OPS, and his defense is just meh.

This makes me want to curl up beside a fire with a print-out of Kenny Lofton’s career stats.

by TheDanimal on Dec 9, 2011 6:06 PM EST up reply actions

He was a clutchy post season player.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 12, 2011 10:29 AM EST up reply actions

No! No! God no!

as a first baseman, Brantley would be even more worthless than Laporta.

by westbrook on Dec 9, 2011 6:53 PM EST reply actions

Not true.

by Jay on Dec 9, 2011 9:39 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe they intend to make a splash in the OF market and aren’t wanting to bench him?

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 9, 2011 7:00 PM EST reply actions

Odd way to improve infield defense for ground ball staff.

by Brick. on Dec 9, 2011 7:13 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Brantley in line-up at 1B would mean LF and CF are in capable hands. That’s good. Brantley in line-up at 1B would mean a dire situation at 1B. That’s bad.

by playdoh on Dec 9, 2011 7:47 PM EST reply actions

Brantley not starting in April means Netti did his job in the offseason.

by mcrose on Dec 9, 2011 8:42 PM EST up reply actions

I am glad that I wasn’t the only one that saw the tweets about Brantley playing at 1B and immediately thought “that doesn’t work”. I would rather play Hannahan at 3B and Chiz at 1B. I think if Brantley plays significant time at any position this year then it means we aren’t going to have a strong year.

by roywhitby on Dec 9, 2011 10:14 PM EST reply actions

And I’d rather play Hannahan at 1B. As bad as his offensive numbers would look there, at least he’d be an impact defender potentially making the other three infielders better, and the rookie Chisenhall wouldn’t be pulled out of position.

by Jay on Dec 10, 2011 4:50 PM EST up reply actions

Yea, I would rather not move Chisenhall at all.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 12, 2011 10:30 AM EST up reply actions

This is dumb. First basemen are everywhere and we are going to move an underperforming LF there?

by Cols714 on Dec 9, 2011 10:36 PM EST reply actions

You guys are getting way too excited over this

“It’s dependent upon what other players we’re able to acquire,” Indians general manager Chris Antonetti said on Tuesday at the Winter Meetings. “But we have to be as flexible as we can in how we build the team.”

I read this as, the Indians are giving Brantley time at first to increase the number of roster options and NOT Brantley is their ideal solution for first base.

"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl

by world dictator on Dec 9, 2011 11:42 PM EST reply actions

The idea that it would even come up and not be laughed at immediately by everyone in the room concerns me.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 11, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions

Also interesting:

The Tribe has been linked to free-agents Derrek Lee, Josh Willingham, Andruw Jones, Mike Cameron and Mark DeRosa in various reports. It appears increasingly likely, however, that the Indians will pursue the trade route to solve its need. Two possible fits could be Miami’s Gaby Sanchez or San Diego’s Kyle Blanks.

"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl

by world dictator on Dec 9, 2011 11:44 PM EST reply actions

Gaby Sanchez will be available after the Pujols failure?

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 10, 2011 2:35 AM EST up reply actions

If so we should be all over him…Blanks is intriguing too, though I am have some reservations about him

by The Grimace on Dec 10, 2011 3:35 AM EST up reply actions

Petco isn’t his problem. His road/away splits are nearly identical.

by emd2k3 on Dec 10, 2011 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

This is a stupid report. I’m sorry for Mr. Bastian for reporting it.

by hans on Dec 10, 2011 1:11 AM EST reply actions

2 random questions for anybody who knows:

• Brett Anderson recovery timetable?
• Do we still have Nick Johnson lying around?

by westbrook on Dec 10, 2011 2:25 AM EST reply actions

• Do we still have Nick Johnson lying around?

Completely forgot about that guy

by APV on Dec 10, 2011 9:09 AM EST up reply actions

me too until I randomly saw his baseball card on google images last night

by westbrook on Dec 10, 2011 12:15 PM EST up reply actions

Hoynes reports that Johnson is a free agent and no longer with the club.

by Jeffrey R on Dec 10, 2011 10:59 AM EST up reply actions

And after looking at his Columbus line, .201/.316/.332, good luck to him

by APV on Dec 10, 2011 11:54 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, he never really turned the corner when he needed to last season. If I recall correctly he was further behind in his rehab than anticipated, but still had enough time to get his feet under him, just never happened.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 10, 2011 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

Tx, I’ll take your word for it. Can’t get anything besides the clecom logo to load.

by westbrook on Dec 10, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions

I’m wearing a Brett Anderson shirt right this moment. He’s on a completely normal post-TJ schedule. He should be back late 2012.

by ameliorate on Dec 11, 2011 1:14 AM EST up reply actions

How would you folks feel about bringing Manny Ramirez back as a RH bat?

If he’d settle for $2 mil or less, I’d fully support it.

He could spell Hafner against lefties & when he’s hurt. Play a little LF & possibly some 1B?

by selurnedo on Dec 10, 2011 1:43 PM EST reply actions

One of the challenges with Manny is you have to dedicate a roster spot to him for 50 games while he is suspended

by APV on Dec 10, 2011 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

40-man or active? If it’s a 40-man spot, I think it’d be worth the possible reward.

by selurnedo on Dec 10, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

My understanding was active, but I could be wrong. That said, he doesn’t seem like the kind of risk this team would take. I don’t feel like Antonetti would be very keen on bringing a personality like his into an extremely young clubhouse.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 10, 2011 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

It’s got to be 40-man. There’s no way they’re having teams play with 24 guys for potentially 100 days or more.

by Jay on Dec 10, 2011 4:51 PM EST up reply actions

I thought that as well, but I really thought I remembered reading somewhere it was active roster. I will defer to you.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 10, 2011 7:35 PM EST up reply actions

Aside from the obvious drawbacks, there’s no way he plays 1B.

by Jay on Dec 10, 2011 4:52 PM EST up reply actions

I hear you on the possible personality issues, but it does seem like a Tribe-style risk as far as bringing in a guy with some “issues” health or otherwise on a small contract that could generate a high reward & playing with something to prove to earn a bigger contract next year.

Nostalgic reasons aside, he fits the profile with what they need – RH bat, can play LF & as far as I’m concerned pretty much any non-invalid can play some 1B. Certainly a sub-par defender at any of those positions, but if he comes cheap I think it has to be a consideration.

And well, there are nostalgic reasons that push this one over the top for me :)

by selurnedo on Dec 10, 2011 2:15 PM EST reply actions

Nostalgic reasons aside, he fits the profile with what they need – RH bat, can play LF & as far as I’m concerned pretty much any non-invalid can play some 1B.

Given his suspension he would certainly have enough time to learn how to play 1B

"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl

by world dictator on Dec 10, 2011 4:35 PM EST up reply actions

as far as I’m concerned pretty much any non-invalid can play some 1B

Manny is kind of an invalid, though, in terms of learning things on defense.

by Jay on Dec 10, 2011 4:53 PM EST up reply actions

And I can already see him colliding with a pitcher in a failed double play turning.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 10, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions

While 1B doesn’t require outstanding athleticism, there are a lot of things to learn to play the position. It isn’t necessarily the easiest position mentally. In a way, it’s the opposite of a position Manny should switch to.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2011 11:13 AM EST up reply actions