RSS Twitter Facebook YouTube
Expand Menu

Rule 5

Talk shop about the various prospects and teams that make up the Cleveland Indians organization.

Re: Rule 5

Postby petes999 » Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:07 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:So let's go shuffling through other people's garbage instead. :s_thumbsup


If they're garbage is better than ours? Absolutely.


Again, what does Goedert bring that Nix doesn't? Have yet to see a good answer to this....only one being given really is he is "our" guy....yeah, that's a good reason :rolleyes:


Let's be honest, this is a one-year testing of garbage. One reason you test "our" guy is morale. If we have to rely on our farm system, you want to be known as a team that let's it's young talent succeed. It gives them an extra boost knowing that next spring they have a legit chance of making the biggs - as everyone has a shot. I know people don't get this. But, if you are passed over for a promotion at work ... when you believe that you deserve a shot, how would you feel? How did Toregas feel? Alternatively, seeing that your company promotes from within, would you have a better attitude going into a long season - knowing even though you don't have a great shot you do have a legit shot?

Now, because everyone bashes me about developing a culture that makes young people want to play for the Indians by treating all young players right, the other reason you give Goedert a shot ahead of Nix is .... potential. It's great that we gave Nix another shot. One season at .230 BA is bad ... Two seasons is worse. We gave Marte three or four chances without it working out. But, long-term who has a better shot of making it long-term .... someone who has had 2 bad seasons (14 HRs is good ... but not from a .230 hitter) or someone who has hit .280 - .300 in minors when healthy? Yes, Nix did as well ... but has had 2 shots while Goedert has had none. I agree they look about the same average defense and some power. But, how many chances does a guy get?

Honestly, neither should be with the team long term with Phelps, Kipnis and Chisenhall about ready. But, why not give Goedert a shot now? If he doesn't get in next spring (and having Nix and Phelps go to winterball at 3B) suggest that's the case, he will be quickly passed by Chisenhall. And, yes Nix can be a better utility guy than Goedhert and Valbuena. But, who is our utility guy going forward? I would say Donald. It sucks that people like Sutton are up trying to play SS instead of trying Rodriquez who would be a better long-term utility guy as he can play a good SS. What is the point of having a bad hitting 2b-3b utility guy? Go with Donald and Rodriquez and even ... Valbuena (if he gets it turned around which is doubtful). And, then a decent hitting 1b/3b guy with some power (which is lacking).

But, really what does Nix give us when we have Chisenhall/Bellows and Phelps/Kipnis coming up? He is a short-term solution. Might as well test everyone in a losing season to see if there is a surprise in our garbage then testing "other" garbage over and over again and expecting a different result.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Chiefroy » Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:49 pm

homerawayfromhome wrote:Would the Tribe be best suited in packaging some of these guys and going for another vet arm maybe swing a JRod, Connor Graham, Matt Langwell and maybe another guy like Corey Kluber for someone like Paul Maholm and Ryan Doumit for example?


We could use a lefty starter and another bat but Maholm/Doumit is not a combo I would look to for help. Doumit's a switch-hitter who has been lousy vs lefties this year and we need someone who can hit lefties. Maholm seems not much better than some of our lefties of the recent past and present. And together, they'll cost about 11 million dollars next year. I say let the Pirates pay 'em. If we package some prospects for a trade, I'd hope we'd get an impact righty bat and/or a front-of-the-rotation type pitcher.

I'd seriously consider spending some money in the free agent market and offering Jorge de la Rosa a 2-3 yr. deal. He's a lefty with serious K numbers and the ability to dominate a game....something we don't have with our current lefty options. We could plug him in as #2 starter between sinkerballers Fausto and Masterson with Carrasco and Tomlin/Talbot/Gomez/Huff to follow. de la Rosa should draw considerable interest in the off-season, but we should have payroll flexibilty if we don't piddle it away.
Chiefroy
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby theshow » Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:23 pm

petes999 wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:So let's go shuffling through other people's garbage instead. :s_thumbsup


If they're garbage is better than ours? Absolutely.


Again, what does Goedert bring that Nix doesn't? Have yet to see a good answer to this....only one being given really is he is "our" guy....yeah, that's a good reason :rolleyes:


Let's be honest, this is a one-year testing of garbage. One reason you test "our" guy is morale. If we have to rely on our farm system, you want to be known as a team that let's it's young talent succeed. It gives them an extra boost knowing that next spring they have a legit chance of making the biggs - as everyone has a shot. I know people don't get this. But, if you are passed over for a promotion at work ... when you believe that you deserve a shot, how would you feel? How did Toregas feel? Alternatively, seeing that your company promotes from within, would you have a better attitude going into a long season - knowing even though you don't have a great shot you do have a legit shot?

Now, because everyone bashes me about developing a culture that makes young people want to play for the Indians by treating all young players right, the other reason you give Goedert a shot ahead of Nix is .... potential. It's great that we gave Nix another shot. One season at .230 BA is bad ... Two seasons is worse. We gave Marte three or four chances without it working out. But, long-term who has a better shot of making it long-term .... someone who has had 2 bad seasons (14 HRs is good ... but not from a .230 hitter) or someone who has hit .280 - .300 in minors when healthy? Yes, Nix did as well ... but has had 2 shots while Goedert has had none. I agree they look about the same average defense and some power. But, how many chances does a guy get?

Honestly, neither should be with the team long term with Phelps, Kipnis and Chisenhall about ready. But, why not give Goedert a shot now? If he doesn't get in next spring (and having Nix and Phelps go to winterball at 3B) suggest that's the case, he will be quickly passed by Chisenhall. And, yes Nix can be a better utility guy than Goedhert and Valbuena. But, who is our utility guy going forward? I would say Donald. It sucks that people like Sutton are up trying to play SS instead of trying Rodriquez who would be a better long-term utility guy as he can play a good SS. What is the point of having a bad hitting 2b-3b utility guy? Go with Donald and Rodriquez and even ... Valbuena (if he gets it turned around which is doubtful). And, then a decent hitting 1b/3b guy with some power (which is lacking).

But, really what does Nix give us when we have Chisenhall/Bellows and Phelps/Kipnis coming up? He is a short-term solution. Might as well test everyone in a losing season to see if there is a surprise in our garbage then testing "other" garbage over and over again and expecting a different result.


If Kyle Bellows becomes 1/10th of the player Jayson Nix is, I would be dumbfounded. This again is a case of a person being egotystical about our own prospect. I hope Chis, Phelps, Kipnis, and Bellows all make it, but if 1 of the 4 becomes an above average major league player I would take that (although I get this feeling Chisenhall will be an average major leaguer, Kipnis will be above average, and the other 2 wont make it)
theshow
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:00 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby Chiefroy » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:08 pm

theshow wrote:
petes999 wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:So let's go shuffling through other people's garbage instead. :s_thumbsup


If they're garbage is better than ours? Absolutely.


Again, what does Goedert bring that Nix doesn't? Have yet to see a good answer to this....only one being given really is he is "our" guy....yeah, that's a good reason :rolleyes:


Let's be honest, this is a one-year testing of garbage. One reason you test "our" guy is morale. If we have to rely on our farm system, you want to be known as a team that let's it's young talent succeed. It gives them an extra boost knowing that next spring they have a legit chance of making the biggs - as everyone has a shot. I know people don't get this. But, if you are passed over for a promotion at work ... when you believe that you deserve a shot, how would you feel? How did Toregas feel? Alternatively, seeing that your company promotes from within, would you have a better attitude going into a long season - knowing even though you don't have a great shot you do have a legit shot?

Now, because everyone bashes me about developing a culture that makes young people want to play for the Indians by treating all young players right, the other reason you give Goedert a shot ahead of Nix is .... potential. It's great that we gave Nix another shot. One season at .230 BA is bad ... Two seasons is worse. We gave Marte three or four chances without it working out. But, long-term who has a better shot of making it long-term .... someone who has had 2 bad seasons (14 HRs is good ... but not from a .230 hitter) or someone who has hit .280 - .300 in minors when healthy? Yes, Nix did as well ... but has had 2 shots while Goedert has had none. I agree they look about the same average defense and some power. But, how many chances does a guy get?

Honestly, neither should be with the team long term with Phelps, Kipnis and Chisenhall about ready. But, why not give Goedert a shot now? If he doesn't get in next spring (and having Nix and Phelps go to winterball at 3B) suggest that's the case, he will be quickly passed by Chisenhall. And, yes Nix can be a better utility guy than Goedhert and Valbuena. But, who is our utility guy going forward? I would say Donald. It sucks that people like Sutton are up trying to play SS instead of trying Rodriquez who would be a better long-term utility guy as he can play a good SS. What is the point of having a bad hitting 2b-3b utility guy? Go with Donald and Rodriquez and even ... Valbuena (if he gets it turned around which is doubtful). And, then a decent hitting 1b/3b guy with some power (which is lacking).

But, really what does Nix give us when we have Chisenhall/Bellows and Phelps/Kipnis coming up? He is a short-term solution. Might as well test everyone in a losing season to see if there is a surprise in our garbage then testing "other" garbage over and over again and expecting a different result.


If Kyle Bellows becomes 1/10th of the player Jayson Nix is, I would be dumbfounded. This again is a case of a person being egotystical about our own prospect. I hope Chis, Phelps, Kipnis, and Bellows all make it, but if 1 of the 4 becomes an above average major league player I would take that (although I get this feeling Chisenhall will be an average major leaguer, Kipnis will be above average, and the other 2 wont make it)


I may be wrong, but I don't think a person can be "egotistical" about another person. I believe it is pretty much a "self" thing.
Chiefroy
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:29 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Again, what does Goedert bring that Nix doesn't? Have yet to see a good answer to this....only one being given really is he is "our" guy....yeah, that's a good reason :rolleyes:


What does Jason Kipnis bring that Nix doesn't? We don't know because Kipnis has not played in the bigs. Though the point is exaggerated, that's the point. How do we know what Goedert or JRod can do unless you give them a shot? Is a guy like Sutton, Nix, etc THAT much better that you can't take a look? How do you know? You don't. That's the point. When you are dealing with marginal talent (which Nix very much is), I'll side with the young kids every day. May be right or wrong, but this obsessing with scraping the bargain bins for some reclamation project is old and is an Achilles heel for this franchise if you ask me. I don't see the Twins doing much of this...that org fills in mostly from within and doesn't loot trash thrown to the curb to find the next great reclamation project.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby artgold » Sun Sep 26, 2010 1:17 am

TonyIPI wrote:When you are dealing with marginal talent (which Nix very much is), I'll side with the young kids every day. May be right or wrong, but this obsessing with scraping the bargain bins for some reclamation project is old and is an Achilles heel for this franchise if you ask me. I don't see the Twins doing much of this...that org fills in mostly from within and doesn't loot trash thrown to the curb to find the next great reclamation project.


Exactly Tony, it is my single biggest objection to the current direction of the Tribe. Nix is marginal, he may seem wonderful based on a comparison with some of our recent disappointments, but he still is a marginal major league player. He shouldn't be blocking anyone from getting a good look.
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:32 am

artgold wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:When you are dealing with marginal talent (which Nix very much is), I'll side with the young kids every day. May be right or wrong, but this obsessing with scraping the bargain bins for some reclamation project is old and is an Achilles heel for this franchise if you ask me. I don't see the Twins doing much of this...that org fills in mostly from within and doesn't loot trash thrown to the curb to find the next great reclamation project.


Exactly Tony, it is my single biggest objection to the current direction of the Tribe. Nix is marginal, he may seem wonderful based on a comparison with some of our recent disappointments, but he still is a marginal major league player. He shouldn't be blocking anyone from getting a good look.

That might be true if Goedert was remotely close to being a ML player but he isn't and the Indians know it. Who needs to see him in the majors to know that he cannot hit or defend at the ML level? Nix is 100 times the ballplayer that Goedert is! A simple task is to compare Nix's stats at the ML level to Goedert's at AAA since the Indians claimed Nix and decide which you would rather have. Goedert is nothing more that a guy who got hot for a couple of months. Everyone wants to promote from within based on a hot streak that never lasts. Your flavor of the month last year was Jordan Brown and look how he has turned out. He is nothing more than a minor league slap hitter who can do nothing else. My biggest objection to the current direction of the Tribe is listening to how these "flash-in-the-pans" have suddenly become ML players overnight and deserve space in the majors because of some lucky performance. Come back to me and whine when they have proven themselves over more than a few months. Until then, give me Nix who is actually an ML ballplayer, albeit a fringe one. Thank heaven we will have some ballplayers who will be arriving during 2011 that will put an end to the constant whining about these career minor leaguers until they have proven that they have the talent to play in the majors. :s_crazy
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby petes999 » Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:06 am

indianinkslinger wrote:Nix is 100 times the ballplayer that Goedert is! A simple task is to compare Nix's stats at the ML level to Goedert's at AAA since the Indians claimed Nix and decide which you would rather have. .... Until then, give me Nix who is actually an ML ballplayer, albeit a fringe one.


No one is saying that Goedert is the next Santana .... All people are saying is that he may be the 40th guy on the roster ... if that. But, let's give him a shot.

And, if Nix is a "fringe ML player", why even invest in him anymore. Nix had some upside when we signed him. Maybe he could turn it around. Yet, why keep him around if this is all that he's got. So, we sign another utility guy who may only hit 4 hrs instead of 14 like Nix but can play a better SS and 3B than Nix and hit maybe for .250 instead of .229. Is that a big difference? Yes you lose 10-20 runs on HR but gain some in defense and better average. Not, like it will be the difference in the playoffs next year.

And let's compare stats ....

Goedert ... even just partial year at AAA - .261 with 20 HRs at age 25

Nix at ML - .229 with 14 HRs at age 27
at AAA - .251 with 2 HRs at age 23
at AAA - .303 with 17 HRs at age 25 (full season - 3rd year at AAA - best season)

Probable case is they are both fringe players with Goedert not making the bigs due to not having the bat at 3B. But, Goedert was injured for 2 years with his other 2 years having some really good months at the plate. Like Tony said, there may just be a bit of potential. Can't say that about Nix anymore.

theshow wrote:If Kyle Bellows becomes 1/10th of the player is, I would be dumbfounded.


The key here is "IF" ... that's why we visit this site when the Tribe tank ... potential. Even at the end of the year, we have hope for the future. Nix is not the future. My point was that we have a good stable of 2b and 3b prospects (didn't include Ushela). Where does a finge Nix fit in? When we aren't going to compete for 2 years, get rid of the garbage on the top and see who rises up to the challenge. Maybe no one. But, at least you clear the weeds to allow grass to grow.

And at this point, I would probably keep Rodriquez ahead of Goedert because our SS position is a bit thinner than 2b/3b. And, with Phelps getting a shot at AFL, see if he can fill in a bit until Chisenhall is ready. But, I rather see Goedert have a shot over Nix even if Nix is a potential utility guy and Goedert becomes the next Marte.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby artgold » Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:22 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:That might be true if Goedert was remotely close to being a ML player but he isn't and the Indians know it. Who needs to see him in the majors to know that he cannot hit or defend at the ML level? Nix is 100 times the ballplayer that Goedert is! A simple task is to compare Nix's stats at the ML level to Goedert's at AAA since the Indians claimed Nix and decide which you would rather have. Goedert is nothing more that a guy who got hot for a couple of months. Everyone wants to promote from within based on a hot streak that never lasts. Your flavor of the month last year was Jordan Brown and look how he has turned out. He is nothing more than a minor league slap hitter who can do nothing else. My biggest objection to the current direction of the Tribe is listening to how these "flash-in-the-pans" have suddenly become ML players overnight and deserve space in the majors because of some lucky performance. Come back to me and whine when they have proven themselves over more than a few months. Until then, give me Nix who is actually an ML ballplayer, albeit a fringe one. Thank heaven we will have some ballplayers who will be arriving during 2011 that will put an end to the constant whining about these career minor leaguers until they have proven that they have the talent to play in the majors. :s_crazy


Care to show me where I have ever championed Goedert? My statement was a general comment on the Tribe player management process.

However, Jayson Nix is a borderline major league player and my comment stands.

If you have a club like the Giants or Phillies and have a hole on your roster due to severe non-performance or injury, then I can see picking up a guy like Nix and plugging them in and hope to temporarily somewhat solidify your roster. However, for a rebuilding club I don't see the gain, and have been stating this for some time now.

By the way, Nix has a 13/73 BB/K split, at age 27. Also, after a decent August he has hit only .186 in September with little power. Goedert and JRod may never be major league players, but Nix isn't someone to block their getting a look.
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:40 pm

artgold wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:That might be true if Goedert was remotely close to being a ML player but he isn't and the Indians know it. Who needs to see him in the majors to know that he cannot hit or defend at the ML level? Nix is 100 times the ballplayer that Goedert is! A simple task is to compare Nix's stats at the ML level to Goedert's at AAA since the Indians claimed Nix and decide which you would rather have. Goedert is nothing more that a guy who got hot for a couple of months. Everyone wants to promote from within based on a hot streak that never lasts. Your flavor of the month last year was Jordan Brown and look how he has turned out. He is nothing more than a minor league slap hitter who can do nothing else. My biggest objection to the current direction of the Tribe is listening to how these "flash-in-the-pans" have suddenly become ML players overnight and deserve space in the majors because of some lucky performance. Come back to me and whine when they have proven themselves over more than a few months. Until then, give me Nix who is actually an ML ballplayer, albeit a fringe one. Thank heaven we will have some ballplayers who will be arriving during 2011 that will put an end to the constant whining about these career minor leaguers until they have proven that they have the talent to play in the majors. :s_crazy


Care to show me where I have ever championed Goedert? My statement was a general comment on the Tribe player management process.

However, Jayson Nix is a borderline major league player and my comment stands.

If you have a club like the Giants or Phillies and have a hole on your roster due to severe non-performance or injury, then I can see picking up a guy like Nix and plugging them in and hope to temporarily somewhat solidify your roster. However, for a rebuilding club I don't see the gain, and have been stating this for some time now.

By the way, Nix has a 13/73 BB/K split, at age 27. Also, after a decent August he has hit only .186 in September with little power. Goedert and JRod may never be major league players, but Nix isn't someone to block their getting a look.

BTW Art, Goedert hit .130 for September with an OPS of .374. Goedert hit .217 with an OPS of .708 after the All Star break which was the bulk of his time in Columbus. Before that he had a one month hot streak, just as I said. You can stand on your comment. I could care less. But there is nothing in the statistics that support you in any way. Without stats to support you, your arguments are meaningless about Goedert being an example of a problem with the Indians promotion of its farmhands. The Indians promoted freely from Columbus all season and the Indians roster shows it. But you promote the players who have proven they can play and are real prospects or fill a necessary void. Why you insist everyone has to be promoted is beyond me? I do not like ridiculing the position that you and Tony have taken but it is unsupported by facts. Even JROD, who actually has ML talent IMO, needs to show that he can hit for more than one year and correct the defensive lapses that have plagued him his entire career. Right now you have shown me nothing but random facts that are totally extraneous to the offense of Nix/Goedert and hoped that would pass muster as support for a silly position. Tony might make an argument about watching them play and coming to a different conclusion, although I doubt he will, but you do not have that option. Give me some real facts to support your position because nothing sofar shows that Goedert is a ML ballplayer. JROD just isn't ready and Nix is not blocking him in any way. Stand your groud. He who shall not be named always did. :pardon:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:48 pm

TonyIPI wrote:What does Jason Kipnis bring that Nix doesn't? We don't know because Kipnis has not played in the bigs. Though the point is exaggerated, that's the point. How do we know what Goedert or JRod can do unless you give them a shot? Is a guy like Sutton, Nix, etc THAT much better that you can't take a look? How do you know? You don't. That's the point. When you are dealing with marginal talent (which Nix very much is), I'll side with the young kids every day. May be right or wrong, but this obsessing with scraping the bargain bins for some reclamation project is old and is an Achilles heel for this franchise if you ask me. I don't see the Twins doing much of this...that org fills in mostly from within and doesn't loot trash thrown to the curb to find the next great reclamation project.


Nix has an OPS+ (bad stat) of 102. He'd basically been Michael Cuddyer this year. And the Twins grab some scraps every year too, Jason Repko for example. All teams do it, even the Yankees.

Nix has proven at worst he's a solid utility man. WHY screw with that just to see if J-Rod and Goedert "may" be at best equal to that? Makes zero sense. And J-Rod and Goedert are 25, Nix is 27. Would'nt really call any of them "young guys".

I mean, the Indians could be like the Twins and trade for their utility/spot starting infielder like they did with Punto (at the age of 26). But instead, they chose to grab a guy like Nix off waivers. No problem with that, especially with how he's played.

I'd love to have Nix around for the next 2-3 years as our utility infielder. :drinks:



I do agree on Sutton, though I'm thinking the Tribe is planning on not rostering either J-Rod or Goedert, so why bring them up? See Sutton getting DFAed after the season, but we'll see I guess. Hope we don't lose Goedert or J-Rod....but if we're not gonna move Goedert to the OF, he really has no future here.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby MadThinker88 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Heads up, the date of the Rule 5 draft is possibly moving up (currently unconfirmed)

See: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/09/o ... ed-up.html
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:01 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Nix has proven at worst he's a solid utility man. WHY screw with that just to see if J-Rod and Goedert "may" be at best equal to that? Makes zero sense. And J-Rod and Goedert are 25, Nix is 27. Would'nt really call any of them "young guys".


They are in the exact same position Nix was two years ago. A low valued 4A guy hanging around in AAA for several years. I guess you wouldn't have given him a chance then two years ago if he were with the Tribe. He needed a chance, and got one. Same goes for the other guys.

I'll pass on Nix. It looks likely that he will stick with the club next year, but color me extremely unimpressed with him or the move in general. YMMV.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:06 pm

TonyIPI wrote:They are in the exact same position Nix was two years ago. A low valued 4A guy hanging around in AAA for several years. I guess you wouldn't have given him a chance then two years ago if he were with the Tribe. He needed a chance, and got one. Same goes for the other guys.

I'll pass on Nix. It looks likely that he will stick with the club next year, but color me extremely unimpressed with him or the move in general. YMMV.


Don't see a similarity in a guy that spent more than a year at AAA vs two guys who have barely spent a year there combined. Nor do I see the similarity with the horrific defense of Goedert vs the league leading defense that Nix put up in the PCL when he was there.


I really hope Nix isn't the starting 3B next year....but we can't open with Goedert there. Biggest flaw in this organization is their refusal to put high value on DEFENSE. We need to grab a Punto, Omar, Bill Hall, or Inge to give our young pitchers a chance. A better 3B may even help AC improve defensely. Goedert? If we didn't have Hafner I'd say maybe give him a shot at DH (still say not moving him to LF/RF is a mistake but whatever), but 3B? Not even close to ML ready. Maybe another full year at AAA will help him improve, but saw nothing there that I didn't see in Hodges last year defensively.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby artgold » Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:53 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Don't see a similarity in a guy that spent more than a year at AAA vs two guys who have barely spent a year there combined. Nor do I see the similarity with the horrific defense of Goedert vs the league leading defense that Nix put up in the PCL when he was there.


Just a couple points though, Nix's defense in the minors was at 2nd base, not 3rd. He rarely played 3rd base in the minors.

As a major league 3rd baseman, Nix has a fielding % of .897, with a range factor of 2.55.

In the minors as a 3rd baseman, Goedert has had a fielding % of .929, with a range factor of 2.60.

In the minors as a 3rd baseman, Hodges has had a fielding % of .899, with a range factor of 2.06.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... ja01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minor ... eder001jar
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minor ... dges001wes
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:31 am

Art, is your point that Nix needs more time at 3B to see if he can be capable there? The Indians already recognize that and are sending him to winter ball to see if he can make the adjustments. After all, Goedert has spent about 5 years there and still cannot play worth a damn. Matter of fact, I have not seen any persuasive statistic from you that would convince anyone that Goedert is a ML ballplayer. And since the Indians promosted 16 other players from Columbus, it is really difficult to criticize them for not promoting the worst of the lot IMO. :rolleyes:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Edible14 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:32 am

indianinkslinger wrote:Art, is your point that Nix needs more time at 3B to see if he can be capable there? The Indians already recognize that and are sending him to winter ball to see if he can make the adjustments. After all, Goedert has spent about 5 years there and still cannot play worth a damn. Matter of fact, I have not seen any persuasive statistic from you that would convince anyone that Goedert is a ML ballplayer. And since the Indians promoted 16 other players from Columbus, it is really difficult to criticize them for not promoting the worst of the lot IMO. :rolleyes:


I don't know about worst of the lot. Especially when Goedert was putting up eye-popping numbers in his first month, there were quite a few worse guys to potentially call up. Hodges, Jerad Head, Bixler, etc.

At this point, I think you have to accept that Goedert is a guy that's going to have to thoroughly prove himself to get into the bigs. If he continues to hit, he'll eventually get that call, like Jordan Brown did. If he doesn't, he probably won't be rostered and will end up like Hodges - in limbo. Unless he starts playing decent defense, any call-ups he gets will be with quite a few reservations.

I'm okay with Nix being 3B/utility guy next year. Mostly because I think you have to approach next year with the mentality that you're going to be competitive. I know that seems like a long-shot, but if things go right and we aren't hamstrung by injuries, an optimistic projection could have us winning the division or at least being close. If you think that Nix is a better option that Goedert/JRod for 2011, then him being here makes sense.

Again though, wait and see. Just as I wouldn't judge trade returns too quickly, judging any sort of pickup too hastily could be foolish. Maybe the scouts see something that we don't.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby artgold » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:37 am

indianinkslinger wrote:Art, is your point that Nix needs more time at 3B to see if he can be capable there? The Indians already recognize that and are sending him to winter ball to see if he can make the adjustments. After all, Goedert has spent about 5 years there and still cannot play worth a damn. Matter of fact, I have not seen any persuasive statistic from you that would convince anyone that Goedert is a ML ballplayer. And since the Indians promosted 16 other players from Columbus, it is really difficult to criticize them for not promoting the worst of the lot IMO. :rolleyes:


Since I haven't been touting Goedert at all this season you wouldn't see any stats from me supporting his promotion. You can make up what you think I've supported and straw man this to your heart's content, but the fact remains that statistically Nix is a poor fielder at 3rd and a poor hitter.

My comment earlier in this thread had to do with having marginal major leaguers being used on a daily basis, and not taking a look at your own guys.

Statistically speaking, Nix is a poor 3rd baseman so far this year, and after my stats posting he made another error, and went 0 for 4 (lowering his BA to .224, and OBP to .284).

Statistically speaking, Goedert's fielding % and chances per 9 innings at Columbus were better than Hodges has been in the minors. So, he doesn't seem to be as inept at 3rd as Hodges.
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:46 pm

artgold wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:Don't see a similarity in a guy that spent more than a year at AAA vs two guys who have barely spent a year there combined. Nor do I see the similarity with the horrific defense of Goedert vs the league leading defense that Nix put up in the PCL when he was there.


Just a couple points though, Nix's defense in the minors was at 2nd base, not 3rd. He rarely played 3rd base in the minors.

As a major league 3rd baseman, Nix has a fielding % of .897, with a range factor of 2.55.

In the minors as a 3rd baseman, Goedert has had a fielding % of .929, with a range factor of 2.60.

In the minors as a 3rd baseman, Hodges has had a fielding % of .899, with a range factor of 2.06.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... ja01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minor ... eder001jar
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minor ... dges001wes


Range factor is a stat that's even more useless than batting average. Jhonny Peralta lead the league in 2006 at SS....


I do agree that Nix is very subpar at 3B, my point was that Nix is above average at A position (I was referring to 2B in my post), unlike Goedert.

You can't be a utility infielder playing 1 position....and playing it poorly (like Goedert). If the Tribe wanted to convert him into a 3B/1B guy (still say the OF is where he belongs) and then give him Marte's at-bats, I'm fine with that. But I'd really rather see Nix starting at 3B than Goedert.


I'm hoping the Tribe signs a guy like Punto, Hall, or Inge to a 1 year deal (maybe an option), something similar to Branyan (or even double). think Inge would be the best guy, but don't think he's to the point where he'd take a 1 year deal for cheap to come to Cleveland.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby artgold » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:18 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Range factor is a stat that's even more useless than batting average. Jhonny Peralta lead the league in 2006 at SS....


I do agree that Nix is very subpar at 3B, my point was that Nix is above average at A position (I was referring to 2B in my post), unlike Goedert.

You can't be a utility infielder playing 1 position....and playing it poorly (like Goedert). If the Tribe wanted to convert him into a 3B/1B guy (still say the OF is where he belongs) and then give him Marte's at-bats, I'm fine with that. But I'd really rather see Nix starting at 3B than Goedert.


Range factor and errors are the fielding stats available for minor leaguers on the major websites, so you can't use "more advanced" stats.

Nix is already 28, and based on his established bat, I don't see giving him 3rd base at all. Adding in his defensive play, I agree with you that signing someone else this offseason probably is a top priority.
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby TitoFrancona » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:34 pm

artgold wrote:
Range factor and errors are the fielding stats available for minor leaguers on the major websites, so you can't use "more advanced" stats.

Nix is already 28, and based on his established bat, I don't see giving him 3rd base at all. Adding in his defensive play, I agree with you that signing someone else this offseason probably is a top priority.


Why? Are you expecting this team to be in any race? You know yourself that based on the past, any player they sign will be a 38 year old veteran who's already 2 years in decline? Some things never change and apparently, this philosophy is one of them.

Honestly, be it Marte, Nix, Goedert, Rivera, Phelps or whomever is already on the roster, I'd far rather go that route than to sign yet another useless free agent who has absolutely no chance of making this team one iota better. Chisenhall's ML career is right around the corner, I personally, prefer to bridge the gap from within.
TitoFrancona
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:18 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby criznit2009 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:55 pm

TitoFrancona wrote:
artgold wrote:
Range factor and errors are the fielding stats available for minor leaguers on the major websites, so you can't use "more advanced" stats.

Nix is already 28, and based on his established bat, I don't see giving him 3rd base at all. Adding in his defensive play, I agree with you that signing someone else this offseason probably is a top priority.


Why? Are you expecting this team to be in any race? You know yourself that based on the past, any player they sign will be a 38 year old veteran who's already 2 years in decline? Some things never change and apparently, this philosophy is one of them.

Honestly, be it Marte, Nix, Goedert, Rivera, Phelps or whomever is already on the roster, I'd far rather go that route than to sign yet another useless free agent who has absolutely no chance of making this team one iota better. Chisenhall's ML career is right around the corner, I personally, prefer to bridge the gap from within.



Lets not count our chickens before they hatch (cough Adam Miller) not to mention Chisenhall hasn't even swung at a AAA pitch yet. There are alot of possibilties that could happen that would result in Chiz not seeing a single day in the majors next year and beyond....I'm in no hurry to rush Chiz to the show. Also, with LaPortas bad performance this year, we need to make sure we don't squander any of our possible bats no matter how "short term" they may be. Where does Goedert play next year 1B at Columbus maybe? Where does Phelps, Donald, Jrod, Nix, Valbuena(enter AAAA 1b/3B retread here) or maybe a Branyan+ if there is such a thing play?

Really the only thing that makes sense for the tribe right now is to try to trade and clear up some room. A lot of AAA guys deserve looks early next year IMO (Goedert, Weglarz, McBride, Jrod, Phelps...) especially if LaPorta continues along his current course. Why not trade a couple of our "prospects" and see if we can fill in our LHP hole? Also, the more I think about (I know wrong thread) I could see another veteran catcher signing...Especially one that plays 3B (Inge?)
Last edited by criznit2009 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
criznit2009
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:59 pm

TitoFrancona wrote:Why? Are you expecting this team to be in any race? You know yourself that based on the past, any player they sign will be a 38 year old veteran who's already 2 years in decline? Some things never change and apparently, this philosophy is one of them.

Honestly, be it Marte, Nix, Goedert, Rivera, Phelps or whomever is already on the roster, I'd far rather go that route than to sign yet another useless free agent who has absolutely no chance of making this team one iota better. Chisenhall's ML career is right around the corner, I personally, prefer to bridge the gap from within.


At some point, you HAVE to give some attention to the defense for the sake of the pitchers. You're hurting their development. Giving teams extra outs and forcing the young guys to throw 10 extra pitches an inning at times just can't happen.

3B has been the worst area, sign someone.....unless they feel Phelps is worthy of starting right away and shows above average defense. But considering he has almost no experience there....doubt that happens.

Also need some kind of vet in the field and on this team. Hafner...ok, but beyond that you don't have much.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:18 am

Hermie13 wrote:
TitoFrancona wrote:Why? Are you expecting this team to be in any race? You know yourself that based on the past, any player they sign will be a 38 year old veteran who's already 2 years in decline? Some things never change and apparently, this philosophy is one of them.

Honestly, be it Marte, Nix, Goedert, Rivera, Phelps or whomever is already on the roster, I'd far rather go that route than to sign yet another useless free agent who has absolutely no chance of making this team one iota better. Chisenhall's ML career is right around the corner, I personally, prefer to bridge the gap from within.


At some point, you HAVE to give some attention to the defense for the sake of the pitchers. You're hurting their development. Giving teams extra outs and forcing the young guys to throw 10 extra pitches an inning at times just can't happen.

3B has been the worst area, sign someone.....unless they feel Phelps is worthy of starting right away and shows above average defense. But considering he has almost no experience there....doubt that happens.

Also need some kind of vet in the field and on this team. Hafner...ok, but beyond that you don't have much.

I am not usually wishy-washy about this stuff but I think it is one of the cases where you are both right. To me, it is a combination of practicality and timing. No quality FA is going to want to come to Cleveland for a 2 month stint at 3B unless the tribe overpays big time. The Indians really need to improve IF defense but they are limited in what they can do. It looks to me as if they hope Nix can become a passable imitation, which he is not now, until Chis arrives. We have little choice but to watch the rest of the IF play out as well. There is no repalcement anywhere in this organization for LaPorta. He has improved and we can only hope for further imporvemant. Donald is a decent 2B but we all know he is a more likely candidate to be a utility player by the end of next year. He has some defensive skills but the game looks too fast for him at SS to play there full time. JRod really has no more range than Cabrera and is prone to walkabout defensively. We are stuck with Cabrera. I think he is a bit better than Hermie does and hope he proves it when healthy next year. The point is, our options are limited at this time.

Maybe it is time to consider trades but I see that as a long term solution to short term problems. I just don't see any answer in FA or the scrap heap that is going to do much good. :pleasantry:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Upper Box Woodchuck » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:34 am

Do the Tribe have to repatriate the 60-day DL guys to the 40-man immediately after the season (Monday) or does that come along with the other Rule 5 rostering decisions?
Upper Box Woodchuck
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 799
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:47 am

Upper Box Woodchuck wrote:Do the Tribe have to repatriate the 60-day DL guys to the 40-man immediately after the season (Monday) or does that come along with the other Rule 5 rostering decisions?


Doesn't have to be done until the roster deadline, which in years past was November 20/21. This year though it is expected that it is to move up to the beginning of November.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby rsamak » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:37 pm

If the Tribe had a good defensive ss it might not be so bad to go with someone like Nix at 3rd. Doubt they would go with Nix as the regular 3rd baseman unless he shows a lot better D in Winter ball.
rsamak
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:58 pm

rsamak wrote:If the Tribe had a good defensive ss it might not be so bad to go with someone like Nix at 3rd. Doubt they would go with Nix as the regular 3rd baseman unless he shows a lot better D in Winter ball.


I realize people are down on Cabrera this year, but he has always been viewed as a plus defender. I need to wait and see on him. Obviously he disappointed with his defense this year, but I wonder how much of that was injury related and being out of shape? The injury aside, he looked like he added some weight this year....I would not be surprised if a hot topic in the offseason is to get he and LaPorta in better shape next year as both looked terrible from a physical standpoint. He lacked that quickness he had when he first came up and was known around the league as an up-and-coming defensive specialist.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:22 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
rsamak wrote:If the Tribe had a good defensive ss it might not be so bad to go with someone like Nix at 3rd. Doubt they would go with Nix as the regular 3rd baseman unless he shows a lot better D in Winter ball.


I realize people are down on Cabrera this year, but he has always been viewed as a plus defender. I need to wait and see on him. Obviously he disappointed with his defense this year, but I wonder how much of that was injury related and being out of shape? The injury aside, he looked like he added some weight this year....I would not be surprised if a hot topic in the offseason is to get he and LaPorta in better shape next year as both looked terrible from a physical standpoint. He lacked that quickness he had when he first came up and was known around the league as an up-and-coming defensive specialist.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Cabrera sent down early in his career because he was out of shape? While this looks more injury related to me, that is sometimes a sign of continuing problems. Maybe it's my old eyes but i thought LaPorta looked better as the year went on. Anyone know for sure? :pleasantry:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:27 pm

TonyIPI wrote: realize people are down on Cabrera this year, but he has always been viewed as a plus defender. I need to wait and see on him. Obviously he disappointed with his defense this year, but I wonder how much of that was injury related and being out of shape? The injury aside, he looked like he added some weight this year....I would not be surprised if a hot topic in the offseason is to get he and LaPorta in better shape next year as both looked terrible from a physical standpoint. He lacked that quickness he had when he first came up and was known around the league as an up-and-coming defensive specialist.


Should be noted that not all scouts were sold on him as a SS, several felt that when the Marines moved him to 2B for a while that it was the best move for him going forward defensively.

I think with work he could be adequate at SS...but he'll never be above average. Doesn't have the range. Didn't show it last year even nor in April when healthy.


He is still very young (youngest infielder we have I believe).....so we will see. Definitely no better options in the minors.


Agree too on LaPorta. Wonder how much of that is just him being him, or if he just wasn't able to do enough due to the two surgeries? :dunno:
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:29 pm

More Rule 5 related.....


How great are the chances that Ambriz gets DFAed now that he's having TJ surgery and will miss all of 2011? Lock? No chance? 50-50?

Tribe DFAed Reyes last year (though brought him back in February). They did it with Miller too....


And if a team does claim Ambriz, is it really that big a deal with Pestano, Putnam, Judy, Stowell, and Bryson coming up?
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby petes999 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:45 pm

It will all depend on if they want to add some of the other prospects like J. Rod, Goedert, Mc Bride ... In my initial thought process before the injury, I would have thought about releasing him anyways with our waves of arms. Yet, thought Shapiro wouldn't as we stashed him in the bigs all year with little to show for it. So they would keep him and try to save face on one of their projects (because they see something no one else does). Yet, now he is injured, I would think it is 50/50 (would have said 25/75 that he stays if it weren't for just being drafted).

Remember someone would need to stash them on the 40-man roster until spring training when they could transfer him to the 60-day DL. So, it is easier to drop him now and keep him.

Right now in addition to Pestano who is already on 40man ... we will probably add
Klubler
McAllister
Judy
Bryson
Hagadone

Also need to get back from 60-day DL
Santana
Sizemore

Most Likely Cuts
Carlin
Huffman
Sutton
Valbuena (or Marte)
Duncan
Germano
Hodges

So, the decision on Ambriz, is to cut him and resign him to a minor league contract or cut one of the next wave of Brown, Giminez, Lewis or Marte.

We also need to consider to a point of adding - McBride, J. Rod, Goedert, Graham and Drennen. But, due to space, none will probably be added unless we get rid of Lewis or Marte.

This also assumes Reyes is just dropped from 40-man again.

Am I missing something? Probably that we would like to add one or two free agents (SP and 3B). Yet, with Nix, Phelps and Goedert, we will probably wait for Chisenhall.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby danh8 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:00 pm

petes999 wrote:It will all depend on if they want to add some of the other prospects like J. Rod, Goedert, Mc Bride ... In my initial thought process before the injury, I would have thought about releasing him anyways with our waves of arms. Yet, thought Shapiro wouldn't as we stashed him in the bigs all year with little to show for it. So they would keep him and try to save face on one of their projects (because they see something no one else does). Yet, now he is injured, I would think it is 50/50 (would have said 25/75 that he stays if it weren't for just being drafted).

Remember someone would need to stash them on the 40-man roster until spring training when they could transfer him to the 60-day DL. So, it is easier to drop him now and keep him.

Right now in addition to Pestano who is already on 40man ... we will probably add
Klubler
McAllister
Judy
Bryson

Also need to get back from 60-day DL
Santana
Sizemore

Most Likely Cuts
Carlin
Huffman
Sutton
Valbuena (or Marte)
Duncan
Germano

So, the decision on Ambriz, is to cut him and resign him to a minor league contract or cut one of the next wave of Brown, Giminez, Lewis or Marte.

We also need to consider to a point of adding - McBride, J. Rod, Goedert, Graham and Drennen. But, due to space, none will probably be added unless we get rid of Lewis or Marte.

This also assumes Reyes is just dropped from 40-man again.

Am I missing something? Probably that we would like to add one or two free agents (SP and 3B). Yet, with Nix, Phelps and Goedert, we will probably wait for Chisenhall.


Gotta remove Reyes, Ambriz, Marte, Carlin, Sutton, one of Duncan/Brown, and Huffman. The tough line comes after those, and some excruciatingly tough calls need to be made which will have us losingsomething that will hurt more than a few of us. But, with depth comes these delemmas. It's better than the other way around. But, this I can say for certain... teams around the league will be making a careful note of our list of available talents that will be exposed. Of that I have no doubts.

This is where I'm hoping we see the 1st signs of a clear departure from the Shapiro type decision making, and the new Antonetti thought process. It will be shown with the determinations of the type players that Shapiro always had the tendencies to hang on to to try and continually justify a past decision or action that failed to meet up to our expectations. We'll see.
danh8
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 12:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:33 pm

danh8 wrote:
petes999 wrote:It will all depend on if they want to add some of the other prospects like J. Rod, Goedert, Mc Bride ... In my initial thought process before the injury, I would have thought about releasing him anyways with our waves of arms. Yet, thought Shapiro wouldn't as we stashed him in the bigs all year with little to show for it. So they would keep him and try to save face on one of their projects (because they see something no one else does). Yet, now he is injured, I would think it is 50/50 (would have said 25/75 that he stays if it weren't for just being drafted).

Remember someone would need to stash them on the 40-man roster until spring training when they could transfer him to the 60-day DL. So, it is easier to drop him now and keep him.

Right now in addition to Pestano who is already on 40man ... we will probably add
Klubler
McAllister
Judy
Bryson

Also need to get back from 60-day DL
Santana
Sizemore

Most Likely Cuts
Carlin
Huffman
Sutton
Valbuena (or Marte)
Duncan
Germano

So, the decision on Ambriz, is to cut him and resign him to a minor league contract or cut one of the next wave of Brown, Giminez, Lewis or Marte.

We also need to consider to a point of adding - McBride, J. Rod, Goedert, Graham and Drennen. But, due to space, none will probably be added unless we get rid of Lewis or Marte.

This also assumes Reyes is just dropped from 40-man again.

Am I missing something? Probably that we would like to add one or two free agents (SP and 3B). Yet, with Nix, Phelps and Goedert, we will probably wait for Chisenhall.


Gotta remove Reyes, Ambriz, Marte, Carlin, Sutton, one of Duncan/Brown, and Huffman. The tough line comes after those, and some excruciatingly tough calls need to be made which will have us losingsomething that will hurt more than a few of us. But, with depth comes these delemmas. It's better than the other way around. But, this I can say for certain... teams around the league will be making a careful note of our list of available talents that will be exposed. Of that I have no doubts.

This is where I'm hoping we see the 1st signs of a clear departure from the Shapiro type decision making, and the new Antonetti thought process. It will be shown with the determinations of the type players that Shapiro always had the tendencies to hang on to to try and continually justify a past decision or action that failed to meet up to our expectations. We'll see.


Why do you "have" to remove Carlin though? Could remove Gimenez and let Carlin be that 3rd catcher on the roster. Doubt they do that, but Carlin has played more than Gimenez of late...
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby MadThinker88 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:42 pm

Does the Tribe really need to have 3 catchers on the 40 man during the off-season? I think not and the space is needed for other things.

Carlin has impressed me with his D and handling of the staff so if the Tribe could be sure to get Giminez or Carlin on a minor league deal and invite to camp, then i would be ok protecting 2 (Santana and Marson) on the 40 man and getting strategic for next season.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule 5

Postby Pork Chop Pough » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:48 pm

I'll be pretty disgusted if they waste an off-season 40-man roster spot on a third catcher. I'd be fine with them bringing back either Carlin or Gimenez on a minor league deal next year, but there will be another two dozen or so guys floating around out there over the winter who are completely capable of filling that type of role if they leave or are lost. The only way I'd consider carrying another catcher in the winter is if Antonetti is dead set on trading Marson, and I doubt that's the case.

If Santana comes back at full health, the 2nd catcher isn't really even a high priority gig... the 3rd catcher should not be a priority whatsoever in making roster decisions. Marson is a more than capable 2nd string catcher, and there's no young/lower level catcher in the system who requires being rostered yet. Why risk losing any legitimate prospect just to have Carlin or Gimenez in Columbus?
User avatar
Pork Chop Pough
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby martyinnewyork » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:57 pm

Luke Carlin does not get rostered...
martyinnewyork
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Edible14 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:57 pm

Pork Chop Pough wrote:I'll be pretty disgusted if they waste an off-season 40-man roster spot on a third catcher. I'd be fine with them bringing back either Carlin or Gimenez on a minor league deal next year, but there will be another two dozen or so guys floating around out there over the winter who are completely capable of filling that type of role if they leave or are lost. The only way I'd consider carrying another catcher in the winter is if Antonetti is dead set on trading Marson, and I doubt that's the case.

If Santana comes back at full health, the 2nd catcher isn't really even a high priority gig... the 3rd catcher should not be a priority whatsoever in making roster decisions. Marson is a more than capable 2nd string catcher, and there's no young/lower level catcher in the system who requires being rostered yet. Why risk losing any legitimate prospect just to have Carlin or Gimenez in Columbus?


At this point, I figure that Marson is starting next year in CBus. We'll end up needing a backup C in Cleveland, so... why is it a bad thing to have one on the 40 man roster?
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby martyinnewyork » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:11 pm

its only a bad thing if its someone like Carlin... there are plenty of Carlin types around...no need to reserve a roster spot for him... bring him back as spring invitee.
martyinnewyork
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:49 pm

martyinnewyork wrote:its only a bad thing if its someone like Carlin... there are plenty of Carlin types around...no need to reserve a roster spot for him... bring him back as spring invitee.


Agree.

I could see Carlin or someone like him, maybe even Toregas if he finds the grass is not greener elsewhere, being signed to a NRI deal sometime this offseason.

I actually think next year the plan is to go with Santana and Marson as the big league catchers. The "3rd" catcher likely will not be on the 40-man roster....or just may be Gimenez, a role he filled most of this season as well. Though I am not sure Gimenez survives the 40-man cut again, and if he is cut, he becomes a FA since it is his second outright.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Pork Chop Pough » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:19 pm

Edible14 wrote:At this point, I figure that Marson is starting next year in CBus. We'll end up needing a backup C in Cleveland, so... why is it a bad thing to have one on the 40 man roster?

I agree with others that Marson will be the backup in Cleveland, and even if he's not, he'll still be more valuable than the guy who is the backup in Cleveland. As for why it's a bad thing to have a third catcher on the roster... if it's during the season and there's no roster crunch, it's not a bad thing. However, during the off-season there is no reason to carry a Gimenez or Carlin. There are a couple dozen AAAA catchers who make their living rotating around the minors or 25th spot on a MLB roster. Any of them can do what Cleveland would be asking from Gimenez or Carlin in that role next year. The question is why would anyone want to jeopardize losing a relief prospect or even guys like Matt McBride, Josh Rodriguez or Jared Goedert (or dare I say Adam Miller?), just so the team can specifically retain Gimenez or Carlin over one of the many other guys who can be picked up next spring and handle their minimum priority role just as well? October/November - when you need to decide who to protect or expose to the Rule 5 draft - is the time to trim and rebuild the 40-man roster to reflect those who could have value for the foreseeable future, not bloat it with the most replaceable players in the system.
User avatar
Pork Chop Pough
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby homerawayfromhome » Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:15 am

@ Pork Chop sounds like wisdom. I don't think we should load down the roster with these AAAA players like Sutton, Carlin, Brown, Gimenez, Marte, Huffman. We have actuall prospects who could inpact this team this coming season like Bryson, Putnam, Price, Kluber, McAlister. Why chance the future with some of these guys with these others. :good:

I'm guessing Ambriz gets the axe and then is resigned like Reyes and Miller this past yr. I cant see the Tribe wasting a spot on their project pk over live arms next season who could potentially become real assets in the very near future.

I've also thrown out the suggestion to trade a small package deal for a reasonable vet. that way we maximize the 40, but thats what every team would be doing so it would be difficult.
homerawayfromhome
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Chiefroy » Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:56 am

Pork Chop Pough wrote:
Edible14 wrote:At this point, I figure that Marson is starting next year in CBus. We'll end up needing a backup C in Cleveland, so... why is it a bad thing to have one on the 40 man roster?

I agree with others that Marson will be the backup in Cleveland, and even if he's not, he'll still be more valuable than the guy who is the backup in Cleveland. As for why it's a bad thing to have a third catcher on the roster... if it's during the season and there's no roster crunch, it's not a bad thing. However, during the off-season there is no reason to carry a Gimenez or Carlin. There are a couple dozen AAAA catchers who make their living rotating around the minors or 25th spot on a MLB roster. Any of them can do what Cleveland would be asking from Gimenez or Carlin in that role next year. The question is why would anyone want to jeopardize losing a relief prospect or even guys like Matt McBride, Josh Rodriguez or Jared Goedert (or dare I say Adam Miller?), just so the team can specifically retain Gimenez or Carlin over one of the many other guys who can be picked up next spring and handle their minimum priority role just as well? October/November - when you need to decide who to protect or expose to the Rule 5 draft - is the time to trim and rebuild the 40-man roster to reflect those who could have value for the foreseeable future, not bloat it with the most replaceable players in the system.


I agree with this Pork Chop post 100%.

FWIW, here's my opinion on who we roster....

Drops: 1) Ambriz 2) Germano 3) Laffey 4) Reyes 5) Smith 6) Carlin 7) Gimenez 8) Marte 9) Sutton 10) Rivero 11) Huffman 12) Hodges 13) Brown

Adds: 1) Sizemore 2) Santana 3) McAllister 4) Kluber 5) Bryson 6) Hagadone 7) Judy 8) JRod
9) Goedert(or McBride)

If they feel that Adam Miller is progressing and can be an option at some point next year, I would take no chances with losing him in the Rule 5 draft. I would find a roster spot for him.

If we sign a FA SP or 3B(or if I've forgotten an obvious keeper), I would remove Jensen Lewis and/or Nix, Duncan, JRod, Goedert, Valbuena.

Edit - I think I mis-counted and actually have two spots available for FAs, Miller, McBride, Conner Graham, Hodges, Laffey, or Jordan Brown.
Chiefroy
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Oct 01, 2010 8:30 am

FYI, if we DFA Ambriz, we don't have to resign him. As a first time outright, he has to accept his assignment to the minors if he clears waivers. Just like Adam Miller last year. Miller was not a FA last year, nor would Ambriz.

In the case of Reyes, he was a FA because he had over 3 years service time....so he resigned. Gimenez would be a FA if he chooses not to accept the outright since it would be his second time being outrighted off the 40-man.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:07 pm

TonyIPI wrote:FYI, if we DFA Ambriz, we don't have to resign him. As a first time outright, he has to accept his assignment to the minors if he clears waivers. Just like Adam Miller last year. Miller was not a FA last year, nor would Ambriz.

In the case of Reyes, he was a FA because he had over 3 years service time....so he resigned. Gimenez would be a FA if he chooses not to accept the outright since it would be his second time being outrighted off the 40-man.


Same thing applies to Wes Hodges now right?
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:13 pm

Pork Chop Pough wrote:I'll be pretty disgusted if they waste an off-season 40-man roster spot on a third catcher. I'd be fine with them bringing back either Carlin or Gimenez on a minor league deal next year, but there will be another two dozen or so guys floating around out there over the winter who are completely capable of filling that type of role if they leave or are lost. The only way I'd consider carrying another catcher in the winter is if Antonetti is dead set on trading Marson, and I doubt that's the case.

If Santana comes back at full health, the 2nd catcher isn't really even a high priority gig... the 3rd catcher should not be a priority whatsoever in making roster decisions. Marson is a more than capable 2nd string catcher, and there's no young/lower level catcher in the system who requires being rostered yet. Why risk losing any legitimate prospect just to have Carlin or Gimenez in Columbus?


Who said anything about risking "legitimate" prospects?

There's only 4-5 legitimate prospects that need rostering...and that's being generous. Could argue there's only 1, Hagadone.

I'm not keeping Carlin over Hagadone, Bryson, Judy, McAllister, or Kluber. But Goedert, Graham, J-Rod, etc.....aren't real prospects IMO.


Another reason I consider keeping Carlin around is that he's a guy you could then live with DFAing in January or February should we sign a FA and need the 40-man spot then.

Yes, we could just DFA him right after the season and leave an open 40-man spot throughout the winter to sign someone....but the Tribe kept Gimenez around last winter til they signed Branyan.


Personally I start Marson in AAA. I think he's got too much potential to waste on the bench 5-6 days a week. Be it Carlin or another Redmond so be it, but I'd prefer a different backup at least to start the year. Just my opinion though.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:13 pm

Chiefroy wrote:
Pork Chop Pough wrote:
Edible14 wrote:At this point, I figure that Marson is starting next year in CBus. We'll end up needing a backup C in Cleveland, so... why is it a bad thing to have one on the 40 man roster?

I agree with others that Marson will be the backup in Cleveland, and even if he's not, he'll still be more valuable than the guy who is the backup in Cleveland. As for why it's a bad thing to have a third catcher on the roster... if it's during the season and there's no roster crunch, it's not a bad thing. However, during the off-season there is no reason to carry a Gimenez or Carlin. There are a couple dozen AAAA catchers who make their living rotating around the minors or 25th spot on a MLB roster. Any of them can do what Cleveland would be asking from Gimenez or Carlin in that role next year. The question is why would anyone want to jeopardize losing a relief prospect or even guys like Matt McBride, Josh Rodriguez or Jared Goedert (or dare I say Adam Miller?), just so the team can specifically retain Gimenez or Carlin over one of the many other guys who can be picked up next spring and handle their minimum priority role just as well? October/November - when you need to decide who to protect or expose to the Rule 5 draft - is the time to trim and rebuild the 40-man roster to reflect those who could have value for the foreseeable future, not bloat it with the most replaceable players in the system.


I agree with this Pork Chop post 100%.

FWIW, here's my opinion on who we roster....

Drops: 1) Ambriz 2) Germano 3) Laffey 4) Reyes 5) Smith 6) Carlin 7) Gimenez 8) Marte 9) Sutton 10) Rivero 11) Huffman 12) Hodges 13) Brown

Adds: 1) Sizemore 2) Santana 3) McAllister 4) Kluber 5) Bryson 6) Hagadone 7) Judy 8) JRod
9) Goedert(or McBride)

If they feel that Adam Miller is progressing and can be an option at some point next year, I would take no chances with losing him in the Rule 5 draft. I would find a roster spot for him.

If we sign a FA SP or 3B(or if I've forgotten an obvious keeper), I would remove Jensen Lewis and/or Nix, Duncan, JRod, Goedert, Valbuena.

Edit - I think I mis-counted and actually have two spots available for FAs, Miller, McBride, Conner Graham, Hodges, Laffey, or Jordan Brown.


Why would we drop one of our best relievers this year?
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:27 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:FYI, if we DFA Ambriz, we don't have to resign him. As a first time outright, he has to accept his assignment to the minors if he clears waivers. Just like Adam Miller last year. Miller was not a FA last year, nor would Ambriz.

In the case of Reyes, he was a FA because he had over 3 years service time....so he resigned. Gimenez would be a FA if he chooses not to accept the outright since it would be his second time being outrighted off the 40-man.


Same thing applies to Wes Hodges now right?


No. While Hodges was DFAed, he was claimed both times. So he was never outrighted to the minors. So, if the Indians DFA him and he clears waivers, they can outright him to the minors. He is not a FA and there is nothing he can do about it as he would remain an Indian.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Edible14 » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:43 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
Why would we drop one of our best relievers (Joe Smith) this year?


Well, because he's really not THAT good, being basically a ROOGY at this point. He's arby eligible, and he's a guy that's never posted a WAR above .5. He, like Jensen Lewis, is a replacement player. He's not a guy that we should be worried about keeping around, especially if you're going to have to pay them anything above league minimum. And if you can drop him to create space for a prospect who might be better... do it.

Herrman, Pestano and Todd can be our right-handed middle relievers next year.

Porkchop, I see your point, and I'll tentatively agree. Disagree about DFAing Laffey and Brown, though. Laffey is important depth next year, as he'll essentially be the team's only major-league ready LH relief option if Sipp or Perez get hurt. Brown, IMO, hasn't really had enough time yet and would almost certainly be claimed.

Here's what I think should happen

Drops: 1) Ambriz 2) Germano 3) Valbuena* 4) Reyes 5) Smith 6) Carlin 7) Gimenez 8) Marte 9) Sutton* 10) Rivero 11) Huffman 12) Hodges 13) Jensen Lewis 14) Duncan

Adds: 1) Sizemore 2) Santana 3) McAllister 4) Kluber 5) Bryson 6) Hagadone 7) Judy 8) JRod* 9) Miller 10)?

*Okay, so one of these 3 (Sutton, Valbuena and JRod) should end up the backup IF for the Tribe next year, assuming they don't sign a 3B and make it Nix (And considering Nix is playing 3B in winter ball, I assume they're grooming him to do just that). That being said, whoever doesn't make that role would likely be the backup IF at AAA... maybe the starting SS. That's a role that doesn't warrant a 40 man spot. Personally, I think Valbuena will easily clear waivers, so he's got to go. Then it's just a choice between JRod and Sutton.

Of the guys being DFA'd/let go, I can see a few of them possibly being claimed, but mostly I think they'll be fine. And if they are claimed, it just means more opportunities for guys who are in need of promotion.

Of the guys not protected, Pino, Constanza and McBride are probably the only ones I would think might be taken, so they could get slot 10 in this scenario. Pino I'm not worried about, and I think he'd end up being offered back anyway much like Lofgren. Constanza, I think, will only be put on the roster at the expense of Crowe. McBride, as I noted before, might be attractive to a GM that sees him in just the right way as a utility guy. No way Goedert is taken due to his D. Graham is too wild. Slot 10 could also go to a veteran 3B, a veteran SP, or a backup C (or Giminez/Carlin). Slot 10 could also go to a right-handed bat a la Kearns.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:59 pm

I'm not sure Smith is "dropped"....I think traded is the operative word.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron