Jordan Brown to be rostered

by **TonyIBI** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:29 am

Heard from a source that Jordan Brown will be rostered. No surprise for me, but I know some were not fans of rostering him.

Speaking of Brown, he was sent home from the DR because of a foot injury that the Indians did not want to see flare up so he is officially done playing this offseason.

by **indianinkslinger** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:34 am

Consigliere wrote:Heard from a source that Jordan Brown will be rostered. No surprise for me, but I know some were not fans of rostering him.

Speaking of Brown, he was sent home from the DR because of a foot injury that the Indians did not want to see flare up so he is officially done playing this offseason.

Hey Tony, do you know if this is the same foot that has caused the problems for the past two years?

by **dazindiansfanuk** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:30 am

I believe it's Browns knees that have been the problem... could be wrong.

I'm a little surprised that Brown is being rostered; not because of his ability as a player, but more due to the position he plays.

I personally didn't think there was enough room on the roster for any more 1B/DH types (Garko, Aubrey already there plus Hafner). Does this near enough guarantee that Stephen Head won't be rostered?? I know he has OF flexibility, but he is a hitter of similar ilk to Aubrey/Brown etc.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:56 am

Brown has a top 10 prospect last year in our organization. Still a top 15 really. He's worth keepign around if for nothing else insurance in case Hafner gets hurt again. Plus he's still got trade value even after his down year in 2008. Been compared to Lyle Overbay. Nothing spectacular at 1B, but a decent hitter. A solid 2009 and he'll likely see time in Cleveland (or another team) in 2009.

Head hasn't played above AA or put up an OPS over .800 yet in the minors (Brown has twice, and over .900 once).

Head just isn't anything special and can't see him sticking with a team if taken in the draft. A lot like Whitney last year.....but we'll see.

Wagner and Head would be two guys I'd eliminate quite quickly from the list of players to be protected (assuming no trade is made between now and the 20th).

Brown, Santana, Rondon, Crowe, and Newsom would be my 5 with Hermann as the 6th guy. Even Gimenez I'm not sold on protecting.....but he'll likely be. Tribe protected Santos last year because of his bullpen 'ability'....I think they'll suprise us with a similar move in protecting Newsom this year.....we'll know in about a week though....

by **TonyIBI** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:53 am

indianinkslinger wrote:Hey Tony, do you know if this is the same foot that has caused the problems for the past two years?

This is a new injury.

He has had a knee injury that plagued him the past few years.

I'm all for Brown being rostered as he brings an intangible at the plate most of the guys on the 40-man lack, which is the ability to hit the ball consistenty and not strikeout. He is highly under-rated mostly because he doesn't pile up the home runs and he struggled the first half last season. But, if he is healthy, I think he could factor into things with the Indians sometime next year at 1B or LF.

by **toledobuck** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:44 pm

If the Indians can protect 6, it would have to be:

Stevens, Rondon, Santana, Giminez, Crowe, & Brown.

I do not see any wiggle room with those 6 guys. If they only have 5 spots left, Giminez would be the most susceptible to getting left off the 40. However, I think they can protect 6 so we should be fine.

We may lose Head or a bullpen guy (Wagner, Martin, Newsome) but I think we can live with that.

by **TonyIBI** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:56 pm

toledobuck wrote:If the Indians can protect 6, it would have to be:

Stevens, Rondon, Santana, Giminez, Crowe, & Brown.

I do not see any wiggle room with those 6 guys. If they only have 5 spots left, Giminez would be the most susceptible to getting left off the 40. However, I think they can protect 6 so we should be fine.

We may lose Head or a bullpen guy (Wagner, Martin, Newsome) but I think we can live with that.

Yep, that is what I have felt all along. If they roster six, it will be those six. If they roster five, it comes down to choosing one of Gimenez or Rondon.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:59 pm

woops, yup I forgot about Stevens. He definately gets rostered. I think it's pretty easy on Rondon over Giminez. Gimenez does have versatility but won't be a major factor at the ML level ever. Rondon has the chance to be a solid ML starter. No point in risking losing him just to protect Gimenez. We already have Torregas to catch at AAA. Gimenez is a luxury at this point. I'd take Newsom over him even.

by **TonyIBI** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:09 pm

I really see no way Gimenez is left unprotected given his versatility and pop in his bat. I think all six get rostered, and Gimenez is ultimately rostered because one of Shoppach/Toregas is traded here in the next week.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:31 pm

Gimenez only put up 9 HRs last year. Did hit 26 in 2007 but I'm not convinced he'll be able to continue to do that. I would rather keep him than Toregas......and wouldn't rule out a trade here soon (hopefully of Shoppach for something nice). Though Toregas is the better defensive catcher between him and Gimenez.

I hope I'm wrong....but got a weird feeling Newsom gets rostered over Gimenez much like Santos was over Barton last year......but we'll see. Maybe the Tribe learned their lesson....

by **indianinkslinger** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:57 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Gimenez only put up 9 HRs last year. Did hit 26 in 2007 but I'm not convinced he'll be able to continue to do that. I would rather keep him than Toregas......and wouldn't rule out a trade here soon (hopefully of Shoppach for something nice). Though Toregas is the better defensive catcher between him and Gimenez.

I hope I'm wrong....but got a weird feeling Newsom gets rostered over Gimenez much like Santos was over Barton last year......but we'll see. Maybe the Tribe learned their lesson....

Was there a message in Barton? He was way too low on the OF totem pole to be of any use to the Indians and he had no value in a trade. All our corner OFs, even Dellucci, outperformed him. I think TL has it right about the trade and I suspect there might be an additional cut from the 40. We should consider what to do with the 7th and 8th spots if they become available because I think the top 6 are pretty well nailed down.

by **npc29** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:32 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:Gimenez only put up 9 HRs last year. Did hit 26 in 2007 but I'm not convinced he'll be able to continue to do that. I would rather keep him than Toregas......and wouldn't rule out a trade here soon (hopefully of Shoppach for something nice). Though Toregas is the better defensive catcher between him and Gimenez.

I hope I'm wrong....but got a weird feeling Newsom gets rostered over Gimenez much like Santos was over Barton last year......but we'll see. Maybe the Tribe learned their lesson....

Was there a message in Barton? He was way too low on the OF totem pole to be of any use to the Indians and he had no value in a trade. All our corner OFs, even Dellucci, outperformed him. I think TL has it right about the trade and I suspect there might be an additional cut from the 40. We should consider what to do with the 7th and 8th spots if they become available because I think the top 6 are pretty well nailed down.

Let's not forget that there are "additions" that we know nothing about right now.. Assuming we sign some people, we'll need those extra spots that are cleared up from any other cuts or trades we make.

I think six is the number. That's what we have right now..

by **Hermie13** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:33 am

indianinkslinger wrote:Was there a message in Barton? He was way too low on the OF totem pole to be of any use to the Indians and he had no value in a trade. All our corner OFs, even Dellucci, outperformed him. I think TL has it right about the trade and I suspect there might be an additional cut from the 40. We should consider what to do with the 7th and 8th spots if they become available because I think the top 6 are pretty well nailed down.

Barton had no trade value? He was a top 100 prospect in all of baseball in 2007 (ranked 86th by BA)! Not saying that we didn't have a lot of other options in the OF, but losing a guy like that still hurts some.

As far as later additions...the Tribe will cross that bridge when they come to it. The 40-man will be full going into the Rule-5 Draft. They'll cut guys later if need be (ala the Guthrie move in 2007).

by **MadThinker88** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:26 am

Unless removed sooner, I put Mujica and Mastny as two of the 1st to be cleared away for free agent signings.

by **TonyIBI** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:46 am

If they sign or trade for a reliever, I see that reliever taking Mujica's spot.

by **indianinkslinger** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:28 pm

Hi Hermie,

All of the major league teams, including the Cleveland Indians, could care less about Baseball America's assessment of any player, Brian Barton included. If there was a trade market for Barton, Cleveland would have traded him. If you know that $50,000 is the best you can get for him, you make him draft eligible. I don't know why that would hurt at all. It is practically a non-event to me. It is hard to say the Tribe is better off because better players got the playing time but I find it difficult to envision a serious rationale the the organization is worse off. This is baseball and that is what teams do.

by **MickS** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:33 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:Hi Hermie,

All of the major league teams, including the Cleveland Indians, could care less about Baseball America's assessment of any player, Brian Barton included. If there was a trade market for Barton, Cleveland would have traded him. If you know that $50,000 is the best you can get for him, you make him draft eligible. I don't know why that would hurt at all. It is practically a non-event to me. It is hard to say the Tribe is better off because better players got the playing time but I find it difficult to envision a serious rationale the the organization is worse off. This is baseball and that is what teams do.

You'll get no argument from but Nosco's going to have a heart attack. Challenging the sacred scriptures? OMG

by **Hermie13** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:47 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:Hi Hermie,

All of the major league teams, including the Cleveland Indians, could care less about Baseball America's assessment of any player, Brian Barton included. If there was a trade market for Barton, Cleveland would have traded him. If you know that $50,000 is the best you can get for him, you make him draft eligible. I don't know why that would hurt at all. It is practically a non-event to me. It is hard to say the Tribe is better off because better players got the playing time but I find it difficult to envision a serious rationale the the organization is worse off. This is baseball and that is what teams do.

I agree teams don't look at that....but teams also don't take a guy in the Rule 5 draft and leave him on their roster when he's not ready for the majors unless they think VERY highly of him. Barton is better than every OFer in our minor leagues (well not anymore after adding LaPorta and Brantley).

Tribe didn't trade Barton because they hoped he'd either make it through the draft or get sent back to them. Obviously that didn't work out though.

Not saying it's a detremental loss, but I'd MUCH rather have rostered Barton than Santos (even before the draft last year). Santos is now gone anyways as we dumped him to make room for this years players that are draft eligible. Not the best move by Shapiro and company (though everyone makes mistakes).

by **Duane Kuiper** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:16 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:All our corner OFs, even Dellucci, outperformed him (Barton).

He did? Dellucci 85 OPS+.
Barton 97 OPS+.

And Dellucci was only used as a platoon player.

by **TonyIBI** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:30 am

Just got an email from the source and according to him there is now a chance Brown is NOT rostered. A week or so ago he was a lock, but something changed. I am speculating here, but is it possibly his foot injury that had him prematurely end his winter league season in the DR?

Dunno.

But it looks like if in fact only five players are rostered that it is coming down to Gimenez, Rondon, and Brown for the final two spots.

by **indianinkslinger** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:41 am

Duane Kuiper wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:All our corner OFs, even Dellucci, outperformed him (Barton).

He did? Dellucci 85 OPS+.
Barton 97 OPS+.

And Dellucci was only used as a platoon player.

You really consider this to be evidence that Barton outperformed Dellucci? Not particularly persuasive, I'm afraid but if it floats your boat, be happy! :s_whiteflag

by **indianinkslinger** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:50 am

Hermie13 wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:Hi Hermie,

All of the major league teams, including the Cleveland Indians, could care less about Baseball America's assessment of any player, Brian Barton included. If there was a trade market for Barton, Cleveland would have traded him. If you know that $50,000 is the best you can get for him, you make him draft eligible. I don't know why that would hurt at all. It is practically a non-event to me. It is hard to say the Tribe is better off because better players got the playing time but I find it difficult to envision a serious rationale the the organization is worse off. This is baseball and that is what teams do.

I agree teams don't look at that....but teams also don't take a guy in the Rule 5 draft and leave him on their roster when he's not ready for the majors unless they think VERY highly of him. Barton is better than every OFer in our minor leagues (well not anymore after adding LaPorta and Brantley).

Tribe didn't trade Barton because they hoped he'd either make it through the draft or get sent back to them. Obviously that didn't work out though.

Not saying it's a detremental loss, but I'd MUCH rather have rostered Barton than Santos (even before the draft last year). Santos is now gone anyways as we dumped him to make room for this years players that are draft eligible. Not the best move by Shapiro and company (though everyone makes mistakes).

Are you from the planet "Keep saying the same thing until someone believes it"? Because you say these statements over and over does not make them any truer. You could try saying it louder! :s_shout

by **Hermie13** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:14 pm

And saying over and over that Barton had no value will make people believe you? Fact is, Tribe screwed up with Barton and Santos. But like I said, every team makes mistakes from time to time. Tribe doesn't really miss Barton in their system....but he did have value (clearly since St. Louis kept him). Remember also that Taveras had a terrible first year with the Astros then turned into a pretty decent player.

by **dazindiansfanuk** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:57 pm

Hermie13 wrote:And saying over and over that Barton had no value will make people believe you? Fact is, Tribe screwed up with Barton and Santos. But like I said, every team makes mistakes from time to time. Tribe doesn't really miss Barton in their system....but he did have value (clearly since St. Louis kept him). Remember also that Taveras had a terrible first year with the Astros then turned into a pretty decent player.

Taveras is a pretty decent player? You sure.....?

by **Hermie13** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:43 pm

Over 60 steals and had a great rookie year and 2007 campaign....so YES, he's a pretty decent player. Is a career .283 hitter as well (with a decent .331 OBP).

Never said he was a star, but I'd take him on this team over Francisco. We need more speed.

by **dazindiansfanuk** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:56 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Over 60 steals and had a great rookie year and 2007 campaign....so YES, he's a pretty decent player. Is a career .283 hitter as well (with a decent .331 OBP).

Never said he was a star, but I'd take him on this team over Francisco. We need more speed.

He's a great runner..... he's a terrible hitter. That combination does not = decent player.... it equals pinch runner.

He ranked 146th out of 147 players in MLB in OPS in 2008 - 135th in OBP and dead last (147th) in SLG.

Your definition of great is obviously a lot different than mine.... he had a .666OPS in his rookie year.... with a 4:1 K:BB ratio.

Like I said, he's a terrible hitter who had a decent partial season in 2007.... his 3 full seasons have been filled with putrid offense and terrible BB:K ratios. He should be nothing more than a pinch hitter.

by **Hermie13** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:59 pm

dazindiansfanuk wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:Over 60 steals and had a great rookie year and 2007 campaign....so YES, he's a pretty decent player. Is a career .283 hitter as well (with a decent .331 OBP).

Never said he was a star, but I'd take him on this team over Francisco. We need more speed.

He's a great runner..... he's a terrible hitter. That combination does not = decent player.... it equals pinch runner.

He ranked 146th out of 147 players in MLB in OPS in 2008 - 135th in OBP and dead last (147th) in SLG.

Your definition of great is obviously a lot different than mine.... he had a .666OPS in his rookie year.... with a 4:1 K:BB ratio.

Like I said, he's a terrible hitter who had a decent partial season in 2007.... his 3 full seasons have been filled with putrid offense and terrible BB:K ratios. He should be nothing more than a pinch hitter.

He's one year removed from an OBP over .360 and hitting .320. He's a decent player. Maybe a 4th OFer....but we have lots of those.

He finished 2nd in the rookie of the year voting.....guess a lot of people have a different definition of a great rookie year.

Never said Taveras was great. Just the point that you can't judge a guy taken in the Rule 5 Draft after 1 year. Taveras would be a great addition to our team, or most other teams (not coming to Cleveland since we've already got 5 OFers though).

by **dazindiansfanuk** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:47 pm

Hermie13 wrote:He's one year removed from an OBP over .360 and hitting .320. He's a decent player. Maybe a 4th OFer....but we have lots of those.

One good-ish year out of 4.... that's my point..... what production is the norm? the 3 bad years or the 1 good-ish?!

Rookie of the year voting was based on his SB numbers... like I said he's a great runner, but he should not be an everyday outfielder.

by **TonyIBI** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:49 pm

Ugh.

The whole Tavares thing happened so long ago, and was beaten to death. Right or wrong decision, it is history. Let's move on.

Let's fast forward to November 20, 2008. :s_yahoo

by **Hermie13** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:06 pm

dazindiansfanuk wrote:One good-ish year out of 4.... that's my point..... what production is the norm? the 3 bad years or the 1 good-ish?!

Rookie of the year voting was based on his SB numbers... like I said he's a great runner, but he should not be an everyday outfielder.

The rookie of the year wasn't just based on his SB numbers. He scored 82 runs that year. When he gets on base, he's a threat to score all the time thanks to his speed and not just SB numbers. Great all around baserunner.

And his OBP is on par or better than Francisco and Gutierrez. Don't recall EVER saying Taveras should be an everyday outfielder....in fact I called him a 4th outfielder. But he's still a decent player.

ha, just bringing it up to compare with Barton.....and likely whomever we lose in this year's draft.....

by **TonyIBI** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:18 pm

Odd. Lots of other teams have already submitted their 40-man lists.

by **TonyIBI** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:36 pm

40's set: Astros, Brewers, A's, Blue Jays, Cardinals, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Mariners, Marlins, Nationals, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Pirates, Rays, Red Sox, Rockies, Royals, Tigers, Twins, White Sox,

Not set: Indians, Braves, Dodgers, Mets, Rangers, Reds, Yankees.

Wonder if there are some potential deals in the works.

by **MadThinker88** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:43 pm

Consigliere wrote:40's set: Astros, Brewers, A's, Blue Jays, Cardinals, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Mariners, Marlins, Nationals, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Pirates, Rays, Red Sox, Rockies, Royals, Tigers, Twins, White Sox,

Not set: Indians, Braves, Dodgers, Mets, Rangers, Reds, Yankees.

Wonder if there are some potential deals in the works.

Have you checked those 40s to see if there are any potential names on them from this organization??

by **TonyIBI** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:53 pm

Angels, Braves and Yankees are set now too.

Just the Indians, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Rangers, and Reds who have yet to set theirs.

by **jellis** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:12 pm

Consigliere wrote:Angels, Braves and Yankees are set now too.

Just the Indians, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Rangers, and Reds who have yet to set theirs.

so if we dig and look too much into this lets consider the trade assets

LAD - not sure maybe the SS/2B Hu

SFG - Cain and sanchez have been rumored about along with winn and rowand

NYM - Maybe Murphy if they think he cant play 2B

Tex maybe a pen guy like Wilson or Loe

cin - keppenger, EE, maybe even votto

Still I doubt I see a trade happening these teams just dont have what the indians seem to need

by **carnegie44115** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:13 pm

jellis wrote:
Consigliere wrote:Angels, Braves and Yankees are set now too.

Just the Indians, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Rangers, and Reds who have yet to set theirs.

so if we dig and look too much into this lets consider the trade assets

LAD - not sure maybe the SS/2B Hu

SFG - Cain and sanchez have been rumored about along with winn and rowand

NYM - Maybe Murphy if they think he cant play 2B

Tex maybe a pen guy like Wilson or Loe

cin - keppenger, EE, maybe even votto

Still I doubt I see a trade happening these teams just dont have what the indians seem to need

Loe was sold to a Japanese team today.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/11/rangers-sell-lo.html

by **GhostofTedCox** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:15 pm

Dodgers, Indians could be doing something. The Dodgers are not happy with Martins skills behind the plate and inquired about Varitek. Maybe Shoppach & a prospect for a SP like Billingsly. It might also free up some $'s for an offer to C.C.

by **jellis** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:16 pm

GhostofTedCox wrote:Dodgers, Indians could be doing something. The Dodgers are not happy with Martins skills behind the plate and inquired about Varitek. Maybe Shoppach & a prospect for a SP like Billingsly.

the martin talk has been a bit over blown Colleti has come ot and said he will nto be traded and Billingsley would cost a lot more than Shopp and a spec

by **JP_Frost** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:32 pm

The Dodgers would be stupid to trade away Billingsley who was arguably their best starter last year and still very young (24-years old). Obviously, from our perspective, getting Billingsley would be huge ... depending on the cost of course.

by **jellis** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:41 pm

JP_Frost wrote:The Dodgers would be stupid to trade away Billingsley who was arguably their best starter last year and still very young (24-years old). Obviously, from our perspective, getting Billingsley would be huge ... depending on the cost of course.

i agree I think if they trade any player it would be kemp

by **TonyIBI** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:11 pm

Edit 9:08pm: The Rangers and Phillies completed a trade tonight that looks like a deal for 40-man purposes. Also, the Reds 40-man has been set. That leaves four teams, the Indians, Dodgers, Mets and Giants yet to finalize or publish their 40-man by the deadline.

by **TonyIBI** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:14 pm

Boy, this is strange. Nothing may happen, but it is clear to me the Indians are talking trade. Could be a minor trade to clear roster space, could be something a little bigger. May or may not go down, but I have to believe they are in serious talks on a trade.

by **jellis** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:24 pm

Consigliere wrote:Boy, this is strange. Nothing may happen, but it is clear to me the Indians are talking trade. Could be a minor trade to clear roster space, could be something a little bigger. May or may not go down, but I have to believe they are in serious talks on a trade.

I think they just want to keep us thinking and wondering, for there own sick amusement

I mean something has to be up

by **MadThinker88** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:28 pm

Definitely something is up. The question is what.

by **MickS** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:36 pm

The Mets have about 7 or 8 slots open on their 40 man. I just don't see a match though.

by **npc29** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:47 pm

I guess they wouldn't wait this long to cut Mujica.

Oh well..

by **MadThinker88** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:51 pm

npc29 wrote:I guess they wouldn't wait this long to cut Mujica.

Oh well..

Don't get my hopes up. Losing anyone in the Rule 5 so we can still have Eddie Moo on the roster is a waste.
:s_devil

by **Jake Taylor** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:01 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:
npc29 wrote:I guess they wouldn't wait this long to cut Mujica.

Oh well..

Don't get my hopes up. Losing anyone in the Rule 5 so we can still have Eddie Moo on the roster is a waste.

Don't worry, having Dellucci on the roster will make you feel so much better.

The fact that he's one of the higher-paid players will make you even more happy.

I'm thinking of throwing a DD party this year... you in?

by **MickS** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 pm

Rumor has Jordan Brown as the odd man out. I'm surprised.

by **jellis** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:03 pm

MickS wrote:Rumor has Jordan Brown as the odd man out. I'm surprised.

I guess the hope is his lack of power at 1B plus a down year means he would not get selected

Who is online