Fifth starter poll
by APV on Feb 15, 2012 1:08 PM EST
Email
PrintAssuming the Tribe breaks camp with Masterson, Jimenez, Lowe and Tomlin in the first four rotation slots, who would you like to see (prior to the start of camp and any actual game action) earn the final starting rotation spot?
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Slowey already did the 2007 Lee turnaround, going from pretty good to crappy in one season. You’re looking for the 2008 version of Phifer.
by jefftribe on Feb 15, 2012 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think we should differentiate between who we’d like to be the 5th starter and who we think will be the 5th starter.
I’d like it if Huff or Gomez pitched well enough to be the fifth starter. But I don’t think they will. I think Slowey will end up as our fifth starter.
And voting other just seems so lame.
I think I was pretty clear in asking “who you would like to see earn it.” Obviously, I expect you to choose from a reasonable set of alternatives (the Indians aren’t going to trade for Lincecum to fill that spot), but I definitely want to know who you want to earn the spot, not who you think will earn it. That is a different question.
If the Indians could trade for Lincecum as their fifth starter all would be right with the world.
by Harry Doyle on Feb 16, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Not 100%. But given his performance last year (17 QS in 26 appearances), as long as he is healthy he probably has a fair amount of leeway.
As long as he keeps up his byrd/moyer/whatever, you can’t take away that spot. He earned a gig with what he did last year
by Brick. on Feb 15, 2012 8:52 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Slowey’s not a clubhouse guy, or whatever. Without an Uncle Orlando (or, dare I say, a Casey Blake!) to offset Slowey’s negative juju, I’d much prefer Garland.
The stages of Tribe fandom:
Optimism: “It’s February, and we’re tied for first.” “Duncan should be good for 260/340/500/840.”
This first stage of fandom is unlike most viruses in that the body generally doesn’t develop antibodies, and recurrences can be as devastating as the initial infection. Isolation and distraction are the suggested clinical responses.
Denial: “I’m not from Cleveland.” “I feel fine.” “This can’t be happening to me.”
Disorientation of this sort can be gently contravened with calendars featuring Lake Erie views through the seasons, and a daily Plain Dealer delivery. In extreme cases, Paul Hoynes can provide an outgoing answering machine message.
Anger: ’"Why did they let them past Ellis Island, anyway?" “Everybody else went to LA and my grandparents stopped here?”
Keep sharp implements under lock and key.
Bargaining: “Do you think the Giants will take Weglarz, Phelps, Crowe and McAllister for Lincecum?”
Pharmaceutical responses are strongly encouraged.
Depression: “LaPorta?”
Art therapy and pets, preferably bunnies, have shown promising results.
Sarcasm: “It’s going to be okay.” “I can’t fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”
Online blogging is the inevitable result.
by YoDaddyWags on Feb 16, 2012 8:25 AM EST up reply actions 11 recs
Also, OT but does anyone have access to ESPN insider? They’re unveiling their MLB future rankings and it’s insider only. Just wondering where the tribe stands. I can’t imagine they view us very highly, given our “weak” farm system and inability to retain the young talent we have
The Tribe is ranked 27th. One ahead of the White Sox (28th), 2 behind the Twins (25th). The Royals and Tigers are 11th and 12th.
They note Santana, Droobs, and then a lack of impact talents at other spots on the diamond, along with no one in the minors close to helping, and no money to sign anyone. Though it adds that if there were any certainty that Ubaldo will go back to his 2010 form, they would rank higher.
Finally, it says that aside from last year’s draft, the farm system has gone backwards, and without Ubaldo in top form, they can’t compete for a playoff spot.
Why I’m an ESPN insider is a much more difficult question to answer.
Man, I’m gonna be sad if we finish behind KC this season.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Feb 15, 2012 7:46 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
The wildcard is nothing to sneeze at.
by YoDaddyWags on Feb 15, 2012 8:25 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
Depth. Don’t care much about opening day, these guys will all get a crack, so whoever doesn’t have options and is on the 40, so I guess that’s Slowey.
by Brick. on Feb 15, 2012 6:33 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I’m surprised Garland is getting so much love. Looking at his numbers more closely, though, he has been something of a quality start machine even in his recent past. If he’s got the stuff, I have no objection to him filling the spot. My own preference would be for either Slowey or Huff to outcompete the others.
Voted for Huff but I really think Slowey will have a great chance to be the 5th guy. Huff had some good outings last year and hopefully he can keep it up this year and be a dependable back end guy who can at least throw a bunch of innings and keep us in the majority of games that he starts. Slowey is bound to continue on his past success and should at least provide stiff competition for the 5th spot.
By asking who I’d like it to be, I think i’m just going to go with my favorite guy out of the bunch. And now that Garland’s an Indian, I think he’s my favorite.
I think it will be Slowey though. I just can’t ever pick a guy who’s played his entire career with the Twins as my favorite anything.
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t think the Twins were very fond of Slowey. My enemy’s enemy…
slowey for me and it’s not really a contest
I like ex-Phillies prospects.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 16, 2012 1:16 AM EST reply actions
I don’t know, there’s certainly a cost control benefit to him spending some time in the minors with regards to his major league service time.
He’s set to be a free agent after the ‘13 season, what looks to be our last year of contention before another rebuild. What’s the benefit of securing his service time for the ’14 season?
I would guess this means at least 1 of 3 things:
1) You have more faith in our farm system quickly developing than most people. I’m not as confident
2) You don’t think the team will be all that good the next 2 years, anyway.
3) You expect this team to extend a number of current players
I’m not that confident our prospects from the lower levels will develop quickly enough to fill the void being left by Jimenez, Masterson, and Choo, not to mention some of the supplemental players we’re relying heavily on. Basically this team needs to develop at least 3 starting pitchers to supplement Carrasco and Tomlin, a DH, a 1B, a SS, a CF, and a RF in 2 years. Granted, these players can come from a variety of transactions, but that seems like a lot of holes to fill on a limited budget.
I fear the best shot of extending the window of opportunity is to struggle halfway through 2014 and restock through trades for the next window, which could start as soon as 2015 if they can trade Choo, Cabrera, and Sipp.
The two big holes that will open in 2014 are OF and front-end starting pitching. I think our depth in pitching arms in the upper part of the system, while not filling the front-end status of an assumed departure of Jimenez, will ease the loss and has the potential to surprise. The OF is a bigger hole, but I think the Indians can make moves in the next two years to fill that hole. But the infield should largely be in place, the bullpen should still be well-stocked. I just don’t think the pieces we lose in 2014 are as big as we think, and I think the young pieces we have right now will help compensate for their loss.
I don’t see a next wave of prospects being ready to make a difference on this club until 2016. Of course these factors are highly dynamic, but for the moment, the smart money is on a retrenching in 2014, and the major question is just how much of a retrenching it will be.
Kipnis and Chisenhall under contract through 2017, and if they establish themselves quickly, we’ll probably lock them up through 2018 or 2019. They’re good for two windows if we do things right.
I hope you’re right. I see a lot of holes coming up after 2013, including (but not limited to) the players that ranked 3rd (Cabrera), 7th (Carmona), 8th (Choo), 11th (Hafner), and 13th (Jimenez) in WAR last year on an 80 win team (8.8 total WAR). Zips projects this team to hover around .500 again next year with these guys.
With prospects, i guess anything can happen, but I see the next window being more around 2017 when some of the higher ceiling guys from the lower levels start debuting. I bet we have a much clearer picture by around the ASB. If they’re sellers, they could abandon the 2013 season and sell off quite a few players to move the window.
I don’t know where you are getting your WAR numbers from, but of the guys you mentioned, only Cabrera contributed a significant number of wins last year. I would hope/expect Choo and Jimenez to join him in that category this year. I see Cabrera, should he depart, getting a modest short-term replacement until one of the young shortstops are ready, but the majority of his production replaced by the development of Chisenhall and Kipnis. The outfield hold created by Choo is more significant, as I acknowledge above. It remains to be seen what kind of a hole Jimenez creates, but hopefully it will be a large one.
Sorry, I should’ve specified that the WAR numbers are from Fangraphs.
I can see Chisenhall and Kipnis picking up some slack left by Cabrera and Choo, but I’m also assuming they’ll adequately replace the production they contributed to a sub-.500 team. I’m just having a hard time seeing how they’re going to jump at least 10 wins from last year’s team while losing so many key guys.
I have a hard time believing we’ll do a repeat of 2009, tanking the current and next season all at the same time. I’d like to think that’s the exception and not the rule.
The other reason I don’t think it’ll happen is that the next window seems more than a couple years off. In 2009, we brought in guys like Masterson, Carrasco and LaPorta with the intent to contend within 2-3 years.
I’m not saying it’s likely, but it may be the best approach. If the team doesn’t look like a competing team next year, I find it hard to believe Chisenhall and the weak upper-level prospects will be the pieces that will get them over the hump and turn them into a competitive team for 2014. Selling off the team and restocking for 2015 and beyond may make the most sense rather than going all in with a mediocre roster because 2013 and 2014 are supposed to be competitive years.
What is Ray Lankford’s birthday?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 18, 2012 6:34 PM EST up reply actions
I was going to mention how even Ryan Garko netted us something via trade. Then, I remembered Garko could hit the ball occasionally. Matt LaPorta is worse than Ryan Garko. Sigh.
Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.
How did this pass a day and a half without a Nobody joke? I think we’re maturing.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 22, 2012 9:00 PM EST up reply actions
You’d think that, but why pay $2 million for him at some point when we could have paid 500K?
If he breaks out into an average player, we’ll want him cheap for a few years.
Sure, but if he’s ever going to become even an average player, next year is probably more likely than any year beyond that. If he pitches so poorly that it necessitates a demotion to AAA, they’ll probably just nontender him next year anyway.
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
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
