Hello Ryan,

Nice analysis. :-)

One question though:  Why do you think Luna is the better player over Inglett and deserves most of the playing time?

Is it because he is younger than Inglett by two years (baseballcube says he's 24, but MLB says he's 26, two years younger than Inglett) is it because he has more ML experience, is it because he has shown a bit more power, something else, or a combination of the above?

I'm not saying Inglett is a superstar by any means, but take a look at the last 10 games each player has played.

Inglett's last 10 games (roughly over a 2-week period):

1 game = 0 hits
4 games = 1 hit
3 games = 2 hits
2 games = 3 hits

He had 1 2B, 2 3B, 1 HR, 6 RS, 6 RBIs, 3 BB, 6 K, 2 SBs.

Luna's last 10 games (roughly over a 2-week period):

5 games = 0 hits
5 games = 1 hit

He had 3 2B, 2 RS, 3 RBIs, 5 BB, 6 Ks.

This isn't a perfect analysis because it doesn't take into account what kind of pitchers each were facing over the same period, but it can give you a rough idea of what you can expect from each player if they played on a regular basis.

I know the argument could be made that the pitchers don't know Inglett as well as Luna, but I don't think Inglett should be dismissed so easily.  Look at the great AB he had against the hard-throwing J.J. Putz today.

Outside of maybe Hafner, and the way he has been going, I'm not sure on him either, I'm not sure any other Indian on this roster puts together that at-bat and gets a base hit (even if it was ruled an out because of Belliard's baserunning mistake, it's still a hit in my book) in that situation.

If you're suggesting Inglett should return to the bench because of all the positions he can play and he shouldn't strictly be used in a 2B platoon, I can see that, but I think he should be starting in 5-6 games a week at multiple positions then, not sitting and only getting a few ABs a week - that almost certainly won't help his bat, which has been pretty good to this point over the last few weeks.

Plus, looking at the Minor League career of Luna, combined with his ML performance, I can't see where Luna is going to outperform Inglett by much, if at all.

Therefore, I'd rather either have the 2B platoon of Inglett/Luna or if you want to make Luna the regular 2B, have Inglett play all over the place, but give him 5-6 starts a week - I think his recent play, his approach at the plate, and his offensive contribution would be more useful if he played on a regular basis.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Hello everyone,

JRam - you make a very good point.  I was trying to show with those 10-game spans what type of production you might expect from these two over the course of a season, but like I said, it wasn't a "perfect analysis."

You're right - I think your statement makes my point much more strongly - thanks! :-)  And between the two, I would make Inglett the starter over Luna as well.

Ryan - I can understand your point about age and such, but no offense, too often, we are taking into account of what age they get to the MLs without taking into account the performance.

So Luna made it up to the MLs at age 24 - why was that?  Because he was a Rule 5 pick!  They couldn't have sent him down to the Minors even if they had wanted to (which they probably did because they sent him down to AAA the following year.)  Luna really did not have any business staying in the Majors at age 24 - his performance suggests as much - .249/.304/.364.

That was only in 173 ABs, then he was sent to AAA Memphis the following year at age 25, so it's not like he was a finished product at age 24!  

Inglett's performance, by most accounts, didn't hold him back - he performed at every level.  The Indians held him back for whatever reason - it's not his fault he didn't make it to the Majors until he was 27-28 years old.

Luna is already 26, so I'm not sure you can expect him to be the 2nd coming of Jhonny Peralta.  In limited ABs, he has performed no better than average, if not less.  

On the other hand, in far fewer ABs, Inglett has performed above-average, so unless Inglett really falls off, I see no reason why Luna should replace Inglett as the regular starter.  Just because Luna is 2 years younger than Inglett doesn't mean much to me if Luna can't outperform the older, but less experienced Inglett.

I'd be willing to give Luna a chance, but not at the cost of wasting Inglett on the bench, especially since he has consistently produced since he came up.  There's really no reason to take Inglett out of the lineup.  

Like I said, if you want to make Luna the regular 2nd baseman and have Inglett start all over the field, I could go for that, but in my opinion, Inglett should stay in the lineup.  Not only is he, in my opinion, the best choice to start at 2B based on what he has done so far, but he's earned the playing time as Wedge has stated on a few occasions.

Like I hinted in one of my earlier posts and Thommy directed stated, it's quite possible the two of them together would be better than either one alone.  Being that you will face more RHP, Inglett would get a higher share of the at-bats, and from what I have seen of him and of Luna at the ML level, I think that's not only fair, but also could be the best for both of them, and consequently, the Indians as well.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Looking at Luna's stats, he has 213 ABs, so he has played more often than in the past two years, so it seems the Cardinals were more confident in allowing him to play 5 times a week or so this year (he still wasn't playing everyday when you compare the number of ABs compared to the number of ABs by regulars.)  

In other words, he's ready to play in the Majors now, just like Joe Inglett is.  The only real difference is that Inglett is two years older than Luna, but both are under 30.  In my opinion, that's not a strong enough argument in my mind to just sit Inglett on the bench and let him get rusty for a guy who has improved this year, but is still not an everyday player.

Personally, I don't think he is an everyday player and I think a platoon of Inglett/Luna is better than either of them alone, and even though there is only a limited number of ABs for Inglett, Inglett has a .364 BA against RHP, versus a .200 BA against LHP, while Luna has a .271 BA against RHP, versus a .310 BA against LHP.

Of course, this could all be moot:  Shapiro said in an interview that Belliard would be considered as one of their 2B options next year and hopes Belliard will consider signing with Cleveland again.  So, maybe Inglett will be a super-utility guy and Luna will be an infield-utility guy next year if Belliard returns.  Only time will tell!

Just my 2 cents. :-)

On Belliard - I get the same impression - I'll be surprised if Belliard is back next year; I really think the team would be better off adding to the starting rotation, especially with a frontline starter, if possible.

Regarding Luna, I didn't think to ask that, probably because he has been in the Majors for a while, but that was because of his Rule 5 status, not because he used up all of his options.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Thanks for the info. - greatly appreciated!

According to this article

it sounds like Inglett, Luna, and Boone will all get starts at 2B.  It also sounds like Shapiro and company will really evaluate Luna's skills on a "regular basis" and consider him an "important part of the team."  I'm not sure if that's implying he will get a majority of the time at 2B or not, though.

One thing to keep in mind, though, according to the article:  The Cardinals tried him out as the regular 2nd baseman, but it didn't work out.  Perhaps he is better in a platoon role or utility role rather than as an everyday starter.

By the way, I did not realize that Luna played in the OF as well, so I guess both he and Inglett could be super-utility players, which probably means they both should be getting regular playing time somewhere on the field.  In essence, I think both of them might be very similar players, at least in terms of their roles on the team, but I'm not sure you can say that one is significantly better than the other at this point.  

Therefore, arguably the best move would seem to be for both of them to get a lot of playing time over the next two months.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Sorry - this post is a bit long - thanks for your understanding! :-)

That may be true - I think that is why Jay, myself, and some others here are looking more at 2008 as our real time to shine and contend.

That doesn't mean we have to say that 2007 is already a lost year - after all, anything can happen, but I think 2008 is more realistic to look at.

Like I said before, I really do not want to give up Miller or Lofgren (or Gutierrez, Crowe, or Marte) without knowing for sure that the player we get back will make us significantly better (not slightly better, significantly better.)

Regarding our 2007 roster, I think the Indians will try to put a good enough product on the field to contend next year, but without sacrificing the future.

I think one of Lee/Westbrook/Byrd will be traded before next April (right now, I think Lee might be the likeliest of the three at this point):  see if we can get a frontline starting pitching prospect in that deal without giving up our own top pitching prospects - won't be easy, but who knows?

If not, then try to get the best talent we can for Cliff Lee.

They'll either use some of the money they'll have to try to sign a frontline starter (Meche, Schmidt, Padilla) or a dependable starter (Williams) for 3-4 years and also try to upgrade the offense a bit - maybe a Sean Casey, who has always talked highly of Cleveland and may be willing to take a discount to return "home."  I'm not sure about Carlos Lee - he might be out of the price-range we'd probably want to spend for him.

Signing Mark Mulder on the cheap may also be a possibility, even if it's just a one-year deal, since I'm not sure he will get a huge contract, considering the year he has had.  The Indians may hope for "lightning in a bottle" with him.  I suppose Kerry Wood could be a possibility, though the deal will likely be loaded with many incentives, since he has not been consistently healthy for some time.  I still think Mulder is a better bet since his health is supposedly good.

They'll also use that money to sign the premium draft pick they should receive from this disappointing season - it likely will be a Top 10 pick, could very well be a Top 5 pick, and maybe even be a Top 3 pick.  That too should strengthen the farm system considerably to make the Indians more formidable by 2009-2010 (another frontline starter or outstanding hitter would be very nice! :-)

At the same time, I think the Indians will expect these prospects (whichever are on the team) to step up:

Bullpen:  Carmona, Cabrera, Brown, Davis, Guthrie, Perez, Mujica, Mastny (they all won't be in the bullpen, but those are the current candidates.)

Starters:  Carmona?, Guthrie?, Sowers, Stanford?,

1B:  Garko, Kouzmanoff?
2B:  Inglett, Luna
3B:  Marte, Kouzmanoff?
LF:  Francisco
RF:  Gutierrez, Choo

Realistically, I think our strongest teams will come in 2008 and 2009 - by that time, knock on wood, Miller should be up and contributing, and Lofgren either will be up as well or about ready to come up.  Those two will hopefully strengthen the rotation just like Liriano and Verlander have strengthened the Twins' and Tigers' rotations respectively.  Attempting to resign C.C. to a long-term contract could also be another use of the money we should have.

My expectations for 2007 are that the Indians will try their best to contend, but unless they have a repeat of their 2005 season, I think 2008 and beyond will really be the time for the Indians to have a more realistic chance of winning the Central and returning to the postseason.

Just my 5 cents. :-)

So you might as well get the best major league guy you can from the Cards, and try him out.  If he looks like a starter, great.  If he seems like a super utility guy, great.  We haven't given up anything to get a productive player, who is cheap and under our control.  

And if he is no better than what we already have, then whatever.  Nothing lost.  Package Luna or Inglett with a prospect for a middle reliever in the winter.  

The bottom line is that they did not give up a player who was going to be on the team next year, and they got a lottery ticket.  Sure, it's just a daily number instead of a powerball ticket, but you can still win beer money from the daily number (did I carry my metaphor too far?)

1. Determine Starter Next Year: Neither man will simply be given the job in the next few weeks to keep. They will each get their fair share of playing time to see not only who plays better offensively, but who plays better defensively.
2. Utility Man: If both Inglett does better than Luna, but only by a little bit, then Luna will probably win the job. Inglett will be saved for the utility guy. However, if the stretch between the two is significant, Luna should be the utlity man for the infield.
3. Trade Bait: I doubt this would happen, but if both men do well and a team wants to acquire one of them, we can make that choice next season if we are in contention.

RF: Choo
2B: Luna
CF: Sizemore
DH: Hafner
C: Martinez
SS: Peralta
3B: Marte
LF: Blake
1B: Garko/Kouz/someone

I know that it is an unconvential lineup with a RF leading off and a 1B hitting last but, at this point, I can't really see 1st being a position of strength for us. I have Luna in because he is superior (by far) defensively, has a solid, if not spectactular, obp and has some speed and hitting ability. So, that is how we will compete next year.

From what I have heard, Luna is inconsistent defensively - how do we know he's better defensively than Inglett?  Offensively, I'm not sure either will outdo the other by much.

Therefore, I think it makes more sense to have them both get playing time and see if one can outdo the other by a wide margin - if so, that one becomes the starter at 2B in 2007.  Otherwise, I think a platoon of Inglett/Luna at 2B in 2007 would make the most sense for both them and the Indians.

No offense, but I don't think because one player is 2 (not 4) years younger, he should automatically get the starting position if the other player outdoes him, even by a small margin.  Neither player is 30 years old - they still are approaching or just entering their primes.  

Plus, as I mentioned before, the main reason Luna beat Inglett to the big-leagues is because Luna had to play in the Majors at age 24 - otherwise, the Cardinals would have had to offer him back to us, which they didn't want to do.

Overall in Luna's career, he's had 1/4 to 1/3 the ABs that a regular would get during the season in both 2004 and 2005, and really hasn't put up eye-popping numbers - that's why I'm not convinced he should be the starter at 2B either.  Plus, I'm not sure how much more he will improve either.  Yes, he improved in 2006, but it's not like he improved so much so that he should automatically be labelled the starting 2nd baseman over Inglett.

Like I also said, I'd be willing to give Luna some playing time to find out if he should be the starting 2nd baseman in 2007, but not at the expense of Inglett sitting out 5-6 games a week - I think he should also get a good amount of playing time - to this point, there is no real reason to take him out of the lineup.  

Just my 2 cents. :-)

First, let's clear up this age "advantage" Luna has over Inglett:  According to MLB.com, ESPN.com, Yahoo Sports, and others, Luna is 26, NOT 24 like thebaseballcube mentions, so he's 2 years younger than Inglett, NOT 4!  He was born on 02/01/80, NOT 02/01/82.  Therefore, he was selected in the Rule 5 Draft when he was 23 and 24, still impressive, but not as impressive as if he was 20 and 21 years old as you state.

In other words, Luna is a decent prospect, but NOT a super prospect who deserves to be automatically declared the starting 2nd baseman over Inglett when he hasn't done that much in the Majors, nor was able to hold down the starting 2nd base job with the Cardinals this year.

Granted, that could have been due to Jocketty and La Russa's way of managing a roster, but still, if they were that comfortable with Luna as their starting second baseman, don't you think they wouldn't have rotated all these guys in and out of 2nd base the entire year?  

It's similar to your Joe Inglett argument; yes, it may not have been Luna's fault that he didn't get the 2nd base job, but it still says something about his ability to hold down a starting position - all the more reason why he needs to earn the starting position here, not just toss Inglett to the bench when Inglett's everyday performance hasn't called for him to sit on the bench.

My point is not that I think Inglett is better than Luna; my point is that I don't think Luna's being 2 years younger than Inglett and not excelling at the ML level is enough to convince me that he should have the 2B job over Inglett without them both auditioning for it.

Just because all 29 teams overlooked Inglett in the Rule 5 draft doesn't mean he can't start.  Sometimes, teams misjudge the value of a player - they're not always right.  Plus, in this day and age when we focus more on power and less on speed and contact ability, obviously, Inglett is going to be overlooked.  Yet, similar players like Podsednik, Figgins, Taveras, and others have helped their teams win.

Look at the MLB Draft - you don't expect starters to come from the late rounds of the draft; yet, Albert Pujols and Jim Thome weren't picked until the 13th round, not normally a round where you expect ML starters, and great ML starters at that, to be drafted.   How many teams passed on them (and how many times did each team pass on them before they were selected)?  Obviously, their value was misjudged when they were drafted.  

No, I'm not saying Inglett is another Pujols or Thome; my point is that you can't just presume because other teams pass on a player that he can't start for your ballclub without giving him a chance to compete for the job against a younger player who has had an undistinguished ML career so far, especially if Inglett hasn't done anything to make you bench him, and to this point, he hasn't.  He's put up good, even great at-bats, arguably better than probably most people thought he would do.  How do you bench him now for a guy who hasn't distinguished himself and is only 2 years younger than him?  I just don't see it.

Like I said, I'm willing to give Luna an opportunity to win the 2B job, but I'm not just going to hand it to him and just put Inglett on the bench, not after what he has shown to me, especially in his at-bat on Sunday against J.J. Putz, who throws 98 MPH, yet couldn't strike out Inglett.  Like I said, outside of maybe Hafner, I'm not sure anyone else on this roster puts together that type of quality at-bat against Putz.

Granted, one at-bat won't tell you everything, but take the last two weeks into account, along with that at-bat, and see if you still think Inglett should be put on the bench for a guy who has had a few undistinguished years in the Majors, is only 2 years younger than Inglett, and could not keep the starting 2nd base job for the Cardinals when he was given a chance to.

In my opinion, they both should be given an equal chance to win the 2B job - not only is it the fairest way (which Shapiro and company like to emphasize,) but it's also the smartest way to see which player or what combination works to make the Indians the strongest they can be in 2007.  Whether it's one of them starting at 2B full-time or having them platoon and share 2B, that's what an open audition will do, not by handing Luna the 2B job when he hasn't, in my mind, shown that it should just be given to him.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Hello Kos,

Strange - Inglett is proving to be a better prospect than most gave him credit for - that seems "decent" or at least "halfway-decent" to me.

He's more than just organizational filler - I think we can agree on that. :-)

Luna, meanwhile, has not really taken advantage of his prospect status until this year, so at best, he's still a "decent" prospect, but not a good, great, or super prospect, so is he really that much better than Inglett?  I don't think so.

According to a recent Indians.com article, Wedge says both will get playing time at 2B, with Luna expected to get a slight edge in the number of starts.  He also said that both players are not playing to audition themselves to be the starter at 2B in 2007, though either one of them could be the starter at 2B in 2007.

Here is the article

Just my 2 cents. :-)  

Glad you liked the piece, LOL! :-)

"Inglett is currently being given a chance, and we're all witnesses, but it's far from a foregone conclusion that he'll prove himself worthy of a full-time job."

I agree!  He hasn't won a full-time job, but in my opinion, neither has Luna.  That's my point, and from the Indians.com article link above, that seems to be Wedge's take as well.

No offense, but Luna was a minor part of the Cardinals' winning ways.  Did he contribute?  Sure.  Was it a major contribution?  I doubt it - he didn't play that much and didn't hit all that well when he did.  

In fact, here are some relevant stats:

2004.  .249/.304/.364
      
2005.  .285/.344/.409

No offense, but that's a weak argument for starting Luna on a regular basis over Inglett and not strong enough in my opinion to favor starting Luna over Inglett - let them play it out and let the winner take 2B full-time in 2007 (unless a FA is signed, of course.)

Just my 2 cents. :-)

That's because I just found that article before I was ready to submit that post and added it later.  I probably should have double-checked what I wrote above, LOL :-), but I thought it would emphasize my point.

I agree with you, in essence, that that article pretty much settles the matter, and I agree with their way of approaching it.  

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Why are we having an argument over how Luna or Inglett is going to project? No one needs to fight to the death that Inglett's .350 average is legitimate or that Luna's younger age and prospect status is the end all.

All we have to do is sit back and watch them both play and then, probably, someone will be chosen. If you think it's the wrong choice, argue about that then. But this argument over a choice that has not happened and may never happen is pretty absurd. Shapiro, Wedge, and whoever else is actually going to make the choice is not claiming one or the other is already a lock. Why are we acting like one has to be? It's an open competition.

Let's move the "argument" to 3B. I'm hoping that Kouzmanoff gets an opportunity to compete with Marte. Kouz is older and overlooked, just like Inglett, yet all he does is hit.

Meanwhile Kouz in 2005 was .339/.401/.591 at Kinston. This year at Akron/Buffalo he's at .449/.675/1.124. I'd call that way above normal progression. Plot that on graph and maybe it will help answer your question about 2007 :)

Kouz just turned 25 (he's a little more than two years older than Marte). So, in four years, he'll start the season at age 28 and Marte will start at 26 - not much difference.

It's very possible that the answer to all three of your questions is Kouz.  

One big difference though between those three:

Kouzmanoff, when healthy, can hit.

Aubrey can't stay healthy so that he can hit.

Whitney, even when healthy, by most accounts, can't hit.  I think he has two games of striking out 4 times(!) in the last week alone.

So, I'd still give Kouzmanoff the best shot of those three to make an impact in the Majors, even though he is the oldest of the three.

I'm not sure Whitney is healthy. He hit pretty well before his major leg injury, but not since. I agree that there is little chance of him making it to the majors.

John Farrell just mentioned on Indians' Warm-Up (the Prospects news,) that Kouzmanoff is seen as a legitimate 3B prospect and can provide competition for Marte.  Also, they did mention they have considered shifting him to 1B, so that is becoming more of a realistic possibility, which could make Garko a trading chip in the offseason or during the 2007 season.