Indians Prospect Insider - Covering the Cleveland Indians from the Minors to the Big Leagues

Rule 5

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

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Oct 01, 2010 4:37 pm

TonyIPI wrote:I'm not sure Smith is "dropped"....I think traded is the operative word.

I think Smith makes the cut if not traded. But he doesn't throw strikes and that is the kiss of death for a RP, especially a specialty one. Laffey doesn't throw stikes either, starting or relief. Gone soon, if not now. Jordan Brown cannot play ML baseball. No one needs to see more of him, even 611 if he thinks about it. His ceiling is 700 OPS, generously, and cannot defend anywhere. Where is he going to play?

There probably is no need to cut all the players listed by Ed. Some will serve a limited purpose until the middle of next year. I would not be surprised to see five to ten places on the 40 changeover by midseason. I think this is much ado about nothing. Lots of players that can go and not much needs to be added. :drinks:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby jellis » Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:25 pm

Rule 5 is almost always much you do about nothing

Kluber/Mcalllister/ Judy/Hagadone

Are the guys the Indians will add

Miller won't be added, its not like a Hamilton where he messed up. No one is going to take Miller because you know you can't keep him. He is not ready and wont be ready for awhile after this lay off and the concerns. To me one of the Doges/Brown group is cut they are filling the same role. Bryson is on the fence as is Graham. Jrod is a no, he will pass through it no reason to add him then take him off later.

I still expect Smith and Perez to be traded, we need to check out all the young arms and I think they are the only arb eligible. People though have to realize 60 percent of all players taken in the rule 5 are MR, that where MR the previous year. Next 25 are Sp that will be converted. 12 percent are guys who are C/util/can play all 3 OF spots. 3 percent are the rest of the hitters. Everyone has in house options no one really wants Goedert or Mcbride cause their minors have very similar ceiling players why pay the cash
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:36 pm

jellis wrote:Miller won't be added, its not like a Hamilton where he messed up. No one is going to take Miller because you know you can't keep him. He is not ready and wont be ready for awhile after this lay off and the concerns. To me one of the Doges/Brown group is cut they are filling the same role. Bryson is on the fence as is Graham. Jrod is a no, he will pass through it no reason to add him then take him off later.


Not sure about that.

What if I told you the Indians felt he was in the pitching mix for next year right out of spring training (so long as he has no setbacks). Does this change your view?
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby jellis » Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:26 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
jellis wrote:Miller won't be added, its not like a Hamilton where he messed up. No one is going to take Miller because you know you can't keep him. He is not ready and wont be ready for awhile after this lay off and the concerns. To me one of the Doges/Brown group is cut they are filling the same role. Bryson is on the fence as is Graham. Jrod is a no, he will pass through it no reason to add him then take him off later.


Not sure about that.

What if I told you the Indians felt he was in the pitching mix for next year right out of spring training (so long as he has no setbacks). Does this change your view?



It does to a degree about him being added, I still doesn't change my view. I got no faith in the kids body, I have 100% faith in him as a person and his work ethic. But the last time we talked him up like this he pitched 2 months then missed 2 years. At that point he had shifted to the pen, and wasn't as rusty. Maybe he will be like Z and stop getting hurt and have a long career, or maybe he will just never manage to stay healthy. Either way I have pretty much moved on from Adam Miller, he has to show he can be healthy before I take any news of his with more than a grain of salt. I hope he can stay, healthy and with the way he refuses to quit and works hard, he might, but to me who is going to add a MR who hasn't touched a baseball for what almost 2 years till recently and has the injury log he has.
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:49 pm

TonyIPI wrote:I'm not sure Smith is "dropped"....I think traded is the operative word.


So Smith is a guy to trade....but not Huff? Same kind of theory applies. Selling low.

Personally feel Smith is one of the bigger locks to be in Tribe uni of all the guys on the team. Shapiro loved the guy. so did many in the Tribe FO as they followed him since he was in school. Acta likes him. Been a lot better since his recall.

Yes, he did struggle with strikes this year....then again, so did nearly everyone in the bullpen. His WHIP was still 1.33....only Chris Perez and Hermann were lower (well Germano and Pestano were lower but small samples).

Since June 23rd Smith's BAA is .186....Hermann's is .303.

And as far as not throwing enough strikes....since his June 23rd recall, Smith has walked 18 guys in 32 innings (too high)....Chris Perez in the same time has walked 17 in 36 innings. Better....but saying Smith walks too many guys like like saying Peralta struck out too much. Yes, he did....so too did 90% of our hitters.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:59 pm

jellis wrote:Rule 5 is almost always much you do about nothing

Kluber/Mcalllister/ Judy/Hagadone


Are the guys the Indians will add

Miller won't be added, its not like a Hamilton where he messed up. No one is going to take Miller because you know you can't keep him. He is not ready and wont be ready for awhile after this lay off and the concerns. To me one of the Doges/Brown group is cut they are filling the same role. Bryson is on the fence as is Graham. Jrod is a no, he will pass through it no reason to add him then take him off later.

I still expect Smith and Perez to be traded, we need to check out all the young arms and I think they are the only arb eligible. People though have to realize 60 percent of all players taken in the rule 5 are MR, that where MR the previous year. Next 25 are Sp that will be converted. 12 percent are guys who are C/util/can play all 3 OF spots. 3 percent are the rest of the hitters. Everyone has in house options no one really wants Goedert or Mcbride cause their minors have very similar ceiling players why pay the cash


Agree....though I still say Bryson is (or should be) a lock to be added. Those 5....with Goedert as a possible depending on who the Tribe decides to cut bait with.


The list of guys that are candidates to be DFAed is long IMO.

in no particular order, guys I think should be considered:

1. Marte
2. Duncan
3. Ambriz
4. Sutton
5. Giminez
6. Rivero
7. Hodges
8. Brown
9. Carrera
10. Germano
11. Todd
12. Lewis
13. Reyes
14. Carlin
15. Laffey
16. Valbuena


16 guys a at least. Need to clear up 3 spots for Sizemore/Santana/Reyes (2 if you just cut Reyes obviously)....and I say at least 5 for rule 5. The rest? Well can decide if it's worth adding a J-Rod or Goedert vs keeping one of the above guys around.

The 8 I'd cut would be Reyes, Marte, Duncan, Hodges, Ambriz, Sutton, Germano (very, very reluntantly), and one of Gimenez/Carlin.

That gets you Sizemore/Santana back and frees up 5 spots for Rule 5 guys (Hagadone, Bryson, McAllister, Kluber, and Judy).

Can then decide if trying to get Rivero through is worth it to add Goedert (if he looks ok in the OF in winter ball, maybe this becomes a possibility). Or if they still like Rivero, a guy like Brown. Is Valbuena worth keeping around? Or do you consider swapping J-rod for him?

But the above 8 are guys I'd consider first...but just my opinion.


Reason I think Goedert still is a possibility is because of the Hodges add last year......
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby homerawayfromhome » Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:25 pm

What about David Huff? I would think is a dump candidate or possibly a package trade.

Joe Smith has pitched much better since his return from Columbus and didnt allow a ER in Sept. I cant see him getting DFA but maybe traded.

Adam Miller will take a while for a team to get ready is it possible for a team to pick him in the rule 5 draft and then place him on their 60 day DL at the start of the season?
homerawayfromhome
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby jellis » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm

homerawayfromhome wrote:What about David Huff? I would think is a dump candidate or possibly a package trade.

Joe Smith has pitched much better since his return from Columbus and didnt allow a ER in Sept. I cant see him getting DFA but maybe traded.

Adam Miller will take a while for a team to get ready is it possible for a team to pick him in the rule 5 draft and then place him on their 60 day DL at the start of the season?



sure, but he cant pitch or do anything and if a team tried to do that and he was health they would be in deep trouble
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby martyinnewyork » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:13 pm

Huff is a guy I'm not ready to give up on just yet. I think he could have a significant bounce-back next year.

I agree Joe Smith will be kept.

Adam Miler... man, I would hate like hell to lose him... but still say the odds of him staying healthy are steep. I'd protect him anyway.
martyinnewyork
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby jellis » Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:04 am

martyinnewyork wrote:Huff is a guy I'm not ready to give up on just yet. I think he could have a significant bounce-back next year.

I agree Joe Smith will be kept.

Adam Miler... man, I would hate like hell to lose him... but still say the odds of him staying healthy are steep. I'd protect him anyway.



You have to keep both, their is a ton of dead weight on the roster so its not like either needs to be let go. With Miller I just dont think you can bank on him at this point, that was a cursed draft with both him and aubrey in round 1.
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby MadThinker88 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:20 am

Consider the following: what type of return is possible from a package of Huff & Jensen Lewis or Talbot & Joe Smth??

I realize these type of groupings will NOT yield top level returns, but they might bring back other pieces/ parts needed by this organization - say better than current prospects to plug into the spots otherwise lacking agt the High-A level next season.

Clearing out these tandems would in effect open needed roster spots for many prospects that the organization is still sorting thru. Additionally it also opens the opportunity in the Cleveland 2011 bullpen for guys like Adam Miller, Josh Judy, Vinnie Pestano etc (Putnam, Bryson et al) to grab hold and demonstrate their abilities or shortcomings.

(In another move) In many ways I would prefer the Tribe to pick up an experienced/ veteran RH setup guy (someone that would be a FA after 2011) that could start 2011 as the primary RH pitcher in the pen to bridge to closer Chris Perez. This would give Pestano or another (Judy, etc) the opportunity to grow into the role during the season and if our prospects prove to be up to it, that 'vet' can be July trade deadline piece.

If I can come up with a name - I'll edit it in later.....
Last edited by MadThinker88 on Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:32 am

martyinnewyork wrote:Huff is a guy I'm not ready to give up on just yet. I think he could have a significant bounce-back next year.

I agree Joe Smith will be kept.

Adam Miler... man, I would hate like hell to lose him... but still say the odds of him staying healthy are steep. I'd protect him anyway.


Yeah, no way I give up on a lefty starter like Huff. Former 1st rounder, one of top prospects in minors, and still young and adapting to ML pitching. Would be against the Tribe's way of operating if they dumped him now. I mean, how long have we held onto Jeremy Sowers and Andy Marte? 'Nuff said. Not that Huff is those guys, just they have an extremely long leash on their high profile prospects they picked up in the draft or trade.

Joe Smith has some value, and he likely will be with the team next year. But with all the young, better bullpen arms to mix in at the start of the year or throughout next season, his time in the org is limited and likely won't be here through the end of next season. I don't expect him to be dealt in a stand along deal, but I think you could see him included in a package deal.

Adam Miller...to me, no matter how unlikely he is to stay healthy, you have to roster him. He has already been tabbed by the Indians as in the mix next year out of spring training. You don't think other clubs know that too? Or that other clubs will be watching him pitch this fall in the AZPL or possibly in winter ball if he is sent somewhere once the AZPL finishes? All he has to do is show he is healthy the next 6-8 weeks, because that is all the time the Indians will have before the Nov 20th roster deadline.

It would be a shame to have another team select him Rule 5 and then do one of three things: 1.) 60-day DL him to start next season to continue rehabbing and then activate him later in the year to get his 90 required days of service, 2.) 60-day DL him all of next season and then play him in 2012 to get the required 90 days of service, .3) or he plays with that team from the start of 2011 and pitches all season for them.

Another team has almost no risk....just need a roster spot to take a look. Indians should adopt the same approach. Even if there is just a 30-50% chance he can get back and stay healthy, the Indians HAVE to gamble on that and not risk losing him. If healthy he could bring so much to the table for this team going forward. Would be an absolute shame to see him in another uniform and get to the bigs and pitch well, even if for just a 3-5 year career.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Pork Chop Pough » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:58 am

Edible14 wrote:
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)?


You're confusing my posts with Chiefroy's. He agreed with me on only rostering 2 catchers, but the cut/add list you're referencing was his.

Personally, I remove:
1. Ambriz
2. Hodges
3. Rivero
4. Germano
5. Reyes
6. Carlin
7. Gimenez
8. Duncan
9. Sutton
10. Huffman
11. Marte

Add:
1. Hagadone
2. McAllister
3. Bryson
4. Judy
5. Kluber
6. Miller
7. Rodriguez

If I'm not mistaken, the first three on my cut list would remain in the organization if not claimed off waivers. #4 thru #8 or 9 I'd offer minor league contracts/NRIs to for next year. If they want to offer the same to Huffman, so be it, but I'm not sure what to make of him since he's bounced around a few organizations now and spent so much time in hitters' leagues. Marte will certainly look for an opportunity elsewhere.

It seems most people are in agreement on the ones I have as my first 5 additions. I also add Miller because you simply don't invest that much time and effort (and even money) into a major league talent and then risk the chance that some other team comes by and cherry-picks him just when he's finally ready. That's not to say I'm counting on Miller again, but it's just not a gamble worth taking when there aren't that many prospects who must be rostered. I prefer Josh Rodriguez over Jared Goedert because of defense and position flexibility. As my 40-man roster would be constructed, the utility job would go to Valbuena or a NRI, so Rodriguez is insurance there. I just don't see Goedert getting selected in the Rule 5 either. If he can clearly outperform Nix or a NRI for the third base job next March, I'll worry about the roster move then.

I wouldn't worry about keeping guys on the 40 just as a placeholder to remove in the future. In most all cases, that question answers itself with who needs to be added... Phelps, Kipnis or Chisenhall is ready? Remove the worst of Nix/Valbuena... Stowell or another reliever is ready? Remove the worst reliever. I don't see a MLB free agent being signed unless it's a third baseman on a 1-yr deal. In which case, see the previous comment on Nix/Valbuena. The one hole in that theory could be an injury-induced need for a backup catcher, when I'm only carrying two, but I still have bubble guys hanging around like Jordan Brown, Valbuena, etc. What are the odds that a third catcher emergency arises before someone else on the 40 starts looking like a disappointment next season? My only real reason for keeping Brown around is that is that I've removed Marte, Hodges, Duncan and Gimenez, so I need a backup at first base. I'd be okay with rostering Duncan over Rodriguez. Bringing in a first baseman on a minor league deal would be a priority for me, since there's not much to choose from behind LaPorta. There are always a few former first base prospects with a smattering of MLB experience and power available.

Finally, on Joe Smith... I'd roster him but actively seek out a trade. I don't think he offers anything that Vinnie Pestano can't do (and do for less money). That also opens a spot for a NRI winner out of spring training. Otherwise I designate Aaron Laffey for the least desirable pitching role until I need to designate him for assignment. You could also basically replace Smith and Laffey in this paragraph with Jensen Lewis and Jess Todd.
User avatar
Pork Chop Pough
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby petes999 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:36 am

TonyIPI wrote:Adam Miller...to me, no matter how unlikely he is to stay healthy, you have to roster him. He has already been tabbed by the Indians as in the mix next year out of spring training. You don't think other clubs know that too? Or that other clubs will be watching him pitch this fall in the AZPL or possibly in winter ball if he is sent somewhere once the AZPL finishes? All he has to do is show he is healthy the next 6-8 weeks, because that is all the time the Indians will have before the Nov 20th roster deadline.

It would be a shame to have another team select him Rule 5 and then do one of three things: 1.) 60-day DL him to start next season to continue rehabbing and then activate him later in the year to get his 90 required days of service, 2.) 60-day DL him all of next season and then play him in 2012 to get the required 90 days of service, .3) or he plays with that team from the start of 2011 and pitches all season for them.



Kind of shocked that Indians are already considering him an option at the start of the year. Maybe a bit optimistic and we will see in the next few weeks. But, if he does pitch without injury, I agree on rostering him.

However, why is it that players coming off TJ are thought to struggle coming back with command and Miller who hasn't pitched in 2 years+ is considered for a bullpen spot? Guess he only needs to focus on a FB and secondary pitch.

And, someone would try to DL him if selected in Rule 5 to get his strength and command back. There is always the tired arm syndrome even if there is nothing really wrong.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby criznit2009 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:00 pm

I think rostering Miller is a lock, with Ambriz late season TJ surgery - no way you don't DFA him - that is now Millers spot, a swap. So with that said.... In no particular order after the 1st few...
I'm gonna borrow another posters list.
1. Ambriz
2. Hodges
3. Rivero
4. Germano
5. Reyes
6. Carlin
7. Gimenez
8. Duncan
9. Sutton
10. Huffman
11. Marte
Agree with all of these - might keep Duncan but that is quite a stretch.
Also I would consider dropping (in no particular order)
12. Valbuena (way to many interesting in-house options to keep him IMO)
13. J. Lewis (could be dropped in a pinch)
14. Brown
15. Crowe or Carrera.
16. Todd - once again quite a stretch - but if a spot was desperately needed.

I would add:
Sizemore and Santana of course then...

1. Hagadone
2. McAllister
3. Bryson - tough call - if the space is open.
4. Judy
5. Kluber
6. Miller
7. Rodriguez - Sutton/Valbuenas spot.
8. McBride - RH hitting options in house and FA are not looking good.
9. Pino - a stretch for sure.
10. FA or traded for 3B, LH starting pitcher or even back-up catcher. (think Marson should play every day in AAA to start the year)
11. Goedert

Just my thoughts. Thanks for everyones work (pork chop/cheifroy) in making my post easier to contsruct. :s_wink
criznit2009
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Rule 5

Postby hoof32 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:34 pm

criznit2009 wrote:1. Ambriz
2. Hodges
3. Rivero
4. Germano
5. Reyes
6. Carlin
7. Gimenez
8. Duncan
9. Sutton
10. Huffman
11. Marte
12. Valbuena
13. J. Lewis
14. Brown
15. Crowe or Carrera.
16. Todd


Okay, two questions:

Which player above would likely be taken in the Rule 5 draft?
If you had 3.5 minutes to add any one player from this list, who would that be?

:dirol:
hoof32
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:35 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby Chiefroy » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:06 pm

hoof32 wrote:
criznit2009 wrote:1. Ambriz
2. Hodges
3. Rivero
4. Germano
5. Reyes
6. Carlin
7. Gimenez
8. Duncan
9. Sutton
10. Huffman
11. Marte
12. Valbuena
13. J. Lewis
14. Brown
15. Crowe or Carrera.
16. Todd


Okay, two questions:

Which player above would likely be taken in the Rule 5 draft?
If you had 3.5 minutes to add any one player from this list, who would that be?

:dirol:



Crowe or Carrera
Chiefroy
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby hoof32 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:15 pm

Chiefroy wrote:Crowe or Carrera

Eeesh. :bad:
hoof32
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:35 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:47 pm

petes999 wrote:Kind of shocked that Indians are already considering him an option at the start of the year. Maybe a bit optimistic and we will see in the next few weeks. But, if he does pitch without injury, I agree on rostering him.

However, why is it that players coming off TJ are thought to struggle coming back with command and Miller who hasn't pitched in 2 years+ is considered for a bullpen spot? Guess he only needs to focus on a FB and secondary pitch.


Yeah, I have it on pretty good authority that the org definitely considers him as someone in the mix to start next year. Obviously, he has to remain healthy, but again, after Novemeber 20th we can't control that anymore and have to make a decision by then.

The thing with Miller and why it is different from most long-term injury rehab guys, is the Indians are going to be more aggressive with him. Not waiting around. If he can pitch and is effective, he is going to get a chance. Because you never know when that finger is going to go again.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:57 pm

Didn't want to start another thread, but anyone else catch the comments by Antonetti about Goedert in the paper the other day? Said he's a guy that can not only play 3B, but RF, LF, and 1B as well.....


Adds another wrinkle to him being added IMO. If other teams view him as a super utility guy at worst, could be snagged (though still 50-50 at best probably).


Also brings up another troubling issue with the Tribe IMO. Tony comes in saying that Atkins told him that the Tribe had no intention of using Goedert in the OF.....yet Antonetti says he can play there?

http://www.ohio.com/sports/indians/104325754.html

''Goedert had a great year offensively,'' Antonetti said. ''He is working on his defense [his weakness], so he'll be an alternative. But he can also play left, right and first base.''

Reminds me of when Mirabelli said the Tribe viewed White as a reliever.....then Shapiro and company said no, he's a starter. Or when the FO reportedly said they intended Brantley to start the 2010 season in LF.....only to "change" their mind a couple months later by signing Branyan (though injury did in fact get Brantley to the MLs...though clearly before he was ready).


Very troubling IMO. This organization needs to get on the same page.


As Cool Hand Luke (and the captin) said: "What we've got here is... failure to communicate."
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:26 pm

Goedert has shown some versatility where he has played 2B and OF in the past, and may be an option at 1B down the road. But for now, the plan is to keep him a 3B because they feel there is some development left there and it is clearly his best position. I won't doubt he gets a handful of time at another position or two next year, but they are still committed to him at 3B (for now). That's what Atkins was getting at.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby danh8 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:54 pm

TonyIPI wrote:Goedert has shown some versatility where he has played 2B and OF in the past, and may be an option at 1B down the road. But for now, the plan is to keep him a 3B because they feel there is some development left there and it is clearly his best position. I won't doubt he gets a handful of time at another position or two next year, but they are still committed to him at 3B (for now). That's what Atkins was getting at.


I was talking to Lee May after one game this past season, and we talked at length about Goedert because at that particular time he was red hot and really opening eyes. He has a very high high opinion of his power potential, and just overall hitting ability. Before this talk Ia had with him I really didn't think of him as much more than a very fringe prospect, but he stressed just how negatively he had been effected by nagging injuries the past few seasons, and that when healthy he had as pure a swing and approach as anyone, and that if he could put two solid seasons behind him he should be ready to make an impact at the major league level.

He felt that really lost about two full seasons of development even though he played through most of those injury issues. Would not be shocked to see him land as a DH/1b/LF guy much like Duncan was utilized this past season. They are holding out hope for development at 3rd to an acceptable level, but my doubts are very strong that he will achieve anough of an uptick to ever play their for more than spot duty in the majors.
danh8
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 12:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:12 pm

danh8 wrote:He felt that really lost about two full seasons of development even though he played through most of those injury issues. Would not be shocked to see him land as a DH/1b/LF guy much like Duncan was utilized this past season. They are holding out hope for development at 3rd to an acceptable level, but my doubts are very strong that he will achieve anough of an uptick to ever play their for more than spot duty in the majors.


I very much agree with you on his future role, as I feel he eventually becomes one of those DH types without a position who plays some LF and 1B and fills in at 3B when needed. When I approached them with this at the end of the season, the Indians maintain that he will still be developed at 3B next year and no position change will be made. I think eventually they will make one, but it appears right or wrong they are intent on using him primarily at 3B. I think at some point though he will morph into the role you, me and some others have suggested of late as a corner utility guy....the only question will be how soon next year? You'd have to think with Chisenhall at Columbus that there will be a lack of time at 3B for Goedert, unless he is in Cleveland.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:35 pm

TonyIPI wrote:I very much agree with you on his future role, as I feel he eventually becomes one of those DH types without a position who plays some LF and 1B and fills in at 3B when needed. When I approached them with this at the end of the season, the Indians maintain that he will still be developed at 3B next year and no position change will be made. I think eventually they will make one, but it appears right or wrong they are intent on using him primarily at 3B. I think at some point though he will morph into the role you, me and some others have suggested of late as a corner utility guy....the only question will be how soon next year? You'd have to think with Chisenhall at Columbus that there will be a lack of time at 3B for Goedert, unless he is in Cleveland.


Even if Chiz isn't.....Phelps and kipnis in Columbus....with Phelps learning more 3B. I just see virtually no time at 3B for Goedert next year in AAA.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:39 pm

TonyIPI wrote:Goedert has shown some versatility where he has played 2B and OF in the past, and may be an option at 1B down the road. But for now, the plan is to keep him a 3B because they feel there is some development left there and it is clearly his best position. I won't doubt he gets a handful of time at another position or two next year, but they are still committed to him at 3B (for now). That's what Atkins was getting at.


Fair enough. I stated I'd use him as a bit of a super utility guy though, and your response was that the according to Acta the Tribe had no intention of making him a super utility guy. Now you don't doubt he will get a handful of games at other positions...

Unless goedert opens in Cleveland or is DHing a LOT in Columbus, he'll have to be playing the OF...or be sitting on the bench.

Tribe doesn't send guys to winter ball to play a new position (or near new) if they have "no" inention of something. Goedert is according to reports playing some OF in winter ball. Tribe has a clear intent to see how he does and if he can play there in AAA. :drinks:
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:11 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Fair enough. I stated I'd use him as a bit of a super utility guy though, and your response was that the according to Acta the Tribe had no intention of making him a super utility guy. Now you don't doubt he will get a handful of games at other positions...

Unless goedert opens in Cleveland or is DHing a LOT in Columbus, he'll have to be playing the OF...or be sitting on the bench.

Tribe doesn't send guys to winter ball to play a new position (or near new) if they have "no" inention of something. Goedert is according to reports playing some OF in winter ball. Tribe has a clear intent to see how he does and if he can play there in AAA. :drinks:


Um, no one ever said that Goedert was not being made a super utility player.

The original comment I made a week or so back was something along the lines of "I asked Atkins about a move to the OF next year, and he said no." He even went on record with a quote in the wrapup that they still felt he was a 3B and that was what they were going with for now. Nowhere did anyone deny he would possibly be a utility guy. It would be quite niave not to think he becomes a corner utility guy in Columbus next year.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby csowlfan26 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:00 pm

Tony, is there a current list of Rule 5 players at the end of next season. Wondering what will happen to all of the pitchers we have.
csowlfan26
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:50 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:57 pm

TonyIPI wrote:Um, no one ever said that Goedert was not being made a super utility player.

The original comment I made a week or so back was something along the lines of "I asked Atkins about a move to the OF next year, and he said no." He even went on record with a quote in the wrapup that they still felt he was a 3B and that was what they were going with for now. Nowhere did anyone deny he would possibly be a utility guy. It would be quite niave not to think he becomes a corner utility guy in Columbus next year.


Actually, someone did say this...and thought it was you (but maybe that's a mistake and apologize if it is).

Exactly. And yet he WILL be playing the OF next year. I bet money on it. So again, I trust virtually NOTHING the Tribe says about how they "view" a player.

These are likely the same people that told you brantley was the most ML ready prospect we had and was definitely starting in Cleveland.....then they sign Branyan. Mirabelli was on record to you saying there was "no chance" Rondon would be moved to the pen in 2009....yet a week later he was in fact moved to the pen for a short stint.


Antonetti's comments were clear. You don't come out and say a guy can play the OF and 1B (when he's never played 1B and didn't play the OF at all in Columbus) unless you have some real intentions to play him there a decent amount (at least) in 2011.

Again, how many games can Goedert possibly play at 3B next year if Phelps, Chiz, and Kipnis are in Columbus?

Tribe woudl be stupid to DH Chiz or Kipnis (need to get them ready for 3B and 2B, respectively) more than a handful of times. Honestly....if those 3 are in Columbus, I don't see Goedert ever playing 3B next year if he's on the team. Even if 1 of them isn't in Columbus, I'll be shocked if Goedert gets 50 games at 3B.


Tribe has looked into that Japanese OFer because he's a righty.....they brought in Kearns and Duncan. Antonetti brings up Goedert's "ability" to play the OF.....not too hard to put 2-and-2 together.

And if the Tribe does view Goedert as a 3B as Atkins told you....why send him to winter ball to play the OF? Why not have him focus on his 3B defense like Nix is this winter?

Nothing Antonetti is saying nor what the Tribe is doing with guys like Nix, Phelps, Kipnis, and Chiz jives with this notion that the Tribe still views Goedert as a 3B next year.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:04 pm

Hermie13 wrote:And if the Tribe does view Goedert as a 3B as Atkins told you....why send him to winter ball to play the OF? Why not have him focus on his 3B defense like Nix is this winter?


Everything I have heard says he will play 3B in winter ball. Likely some outfield, but the plan at the moment is mostly 3B.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:23 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:And if the Tribe does view Goedert as a 3B as Atkins told you....why send him to winter ball to play the OF? Why not have him focus on his 3B defense like Nix is this winter?


Everything I have heard says he will play 3B in winter ball. Likely some outfield, but the plan at the moment is mostly 3B.


We'll see. First reports said he was gonna be in the OF with Weglarz, though suppose that was a typo. Still willing to bet he plays more OF in 2011 than 3B and is a super utility guy (like Jerad Head) by the all-star game.


Just do not see the at-bats at 3B unless they start Chiz in AAA, which I suppose is possible...but dont' see why he needs that.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:31 pm

Hermie13 wrote:We'll see. First reports said he was gonna be in the OF with Weglarz, though suppose that was a typo.


What report?
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:28 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:We'll see. First reports said he was gonna be in the OF with Weglarz, though suppose that was a typo.


What report?


From a spanish baseball site...so possible it was bad translating, but it said joining Weglarz in the OF, not joining him on the team.

Like i said, maybe it was a typo but still makes way, way, way, way more sense to play Goedert in the OF this winter. There is simply zero at-bats at 3B for Goedert unless he's on the Indians opening day roster.....and for Masterson's sake, I really really hope the Tribe doesn't do that.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:58 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:We'll see. First reports said he was gonna be in the OF with Weglarz, though suppose that was a typo.


What report?


From a spanish baseball site...so possible it was bad translating, but it said joining Weglarz in the OF, not joining him on the team.

Like i said, maybe it was a typo but still makes way, way, way, way more sense to play Goedert in the OF this winter. There is simply zero at-bats at 3B for Goedert unless he's on the Indians opening day roster.....and for Masterson's sake, I really really hope the Tribe doesn't do that.


We get it man. There appears to be zero at bats at 3B next year for Goedert.

We'll see what happens. I do believe he will transition to a corner utility role, but at this point it doesnt look like it will happen until spring training or the start of the season. Let's see how the offseason plays out and what he actually does in Venezuela.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:56 pm

TonyIPI wrote:We get it man. There appears to be zero at bats at 3B next year for Goedert.

We'll see what happens. I do believe he will transition to a corner utility role, but at this point it doesnt look like it will happen until spring training or the start of the season. Let's see how the offseason plays out and what he actually does in Venezuela.


Honestly don't think you (or Atkins) do though. If you did get it, then you and the Tribe wouldn't even be hinting that Goedert will play 3B. You wouldn't have said I was wrong earlier. You wouldn't be backtracking on Goedert in the OF (at all). But as I said, we'll see. :drinks:
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby MattM » Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:03 am

I'm not going to say anyone here is right or wrong, but the Indians may be trying to devalue Goedert's ability to play multiple positions NOW. They could do this for the benefit of any other team that may have some intern to monitor websites like this one or any other. After the rule five, if asked the same question, they may give a different answer.

I'm not saying they will not roster Goedert. I'm just offering a possibility that when that answer was given they were not 100% going to do it so they gave a safe answer.
MattM
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:56 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Jake Taylor » Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:51 am

Hermie13 wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:We get it man. There appears to be zero at bats at 3B next year for Goedert.

We'll see what happens. I do believe he will transition to a corner utility role, but at this point it doesnt look like it will happen until spring training or the start of the season. Let's see how the offseason plays out and what he actually does in Venezuela.


Honestly don't think you (or Atkins) do though. If you did get it, then you and the Tribe wouldn't even be hinting that Goedert will play 3B. You wouldn't have said I was wrong earlier. You wouldn't be backtracking on Goedert in the OF (at all). But as I said, we'll see. :drinks:


All hail King Hermie! Seriously, dude, get off your high horse. Putting a little emoticon at the end of your statement doesn't mean it's ok you're acting like a narcissist and everyone else's opinion couldn't possibly have any merit . Agree to disagree, and move on. It's getting pretty annoying with you posting so many messages patting yourself on the back.
Jake Taylor
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby A.Zajac » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:01 am

Jake Taylor wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:We get it man. There appears to be zero at bats at 3B next year for Goedert.

We'll see what happens. I do believe he will transition to a corner utility role, but at this point it doesnt look like it will happen until spring training or the start of the season. Let's see how the offseason plays out and what he actually does in Venezuela.


Honestly don't think you (or Atkins) do though. If you did get it, then you and the Tribe wouldn't even be hinting that Goedert will play 3B. You wouldn't have said I was wrong earlier. You wouldn't be backtracking on Goedert in the OF (at all). But as I said, we'll see. :drinks:


All hail King Hermie! Seriously, dude, get off your high horse. Putting a little emoticon at the end of your statement doesn't mean it's ok you're acting like a narcissist and everyone else's opinion couldn't possibly have any merit . Agree to disagree, and move on. It's getting pretty annoying with you posting so many messages patting yourself on the back.


Agreed.
Follow me on Twitter!
@AndrewIPI
User avatar
A.Zajac
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:31 am
Location: Struthers, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:02 am

Hermie13 wrote:Honestly don't think you (or Atkins) do though. If you did get it, then you and the Tribe wouldn't even be hinting that Goedert will play 3B. You wouldn't have said I was wrong earlier. You wouldn't be backtracking on Goedert in the OF (at all). But as I said, we'll see. :drinks:


Dude, you may be the biggest hair splitter I have ever seen. :drinks:

Who is backtracking? My first comment was that Geodert would not be making a position switch to the outfield this offseason. That's absolutely correct.

A role switch? yes, most likely. But a flat out position switch? Not very likely.

Again, expect to see him in a corner utility role next year playing LF/1B/3B/DH at Columbus or Cleveland.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:05 am

MattM wrote:I'm not going to say anyone here is right or wrong, but the Indians may be trying to devalue Goedert's ability to play multiple positions NOW. They could do this for the benefit of any other team that may have some intern to monitor websites like this one or any other. After the rule five, if asked the same question, they may give a different answer.

I'm not saying they will not roster Goedert. I'm just offering a possibility that when that answer was given they were not 100% going to do it so they gave a safe answer.


Ding, ding, ding.

And I know of three scouts for other orgs who read this site daily, and the Indians do too (many of the front office people and staffers/scouts too). So, yeah, this is not exactly the time of year you want to publicly talk about role changes and how some guys are doing in fall/winter ball (i.e. Adam Miller) with roster decisions and Rule 5 looming.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby danh8 » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:44 am

TonyIPI wrote:
MattM wrote:I'm not going to say anyone here is right or wrong, but the Indians may be trying to devalue Goedert's ability to play multiple positions NOW. They could do this for the benefit of any other team that may have some intern to monitor websites like this one or any other. After the rule five, if asked the same question, they may give a different answer.

I'm not saying they will not roster Goedert. I'm just offering a possibility that when that answer was given they were not 100% going to do it so they gave a safe answer.


Ding, ding, ding.

And I know of three scouts for other orgs who read this site daily, and the Indians do too (many of the front office people and staffers/scouts too). So, yeah, this is not exactly the time of year you want to publicly talk about role changes and how some guys are doing in fall/winter ball (i.e. Adam Miller) with roster decisions and Rule 5 looming.


And in effect, the curtain has come up exposing the mighty wizard. That expalins the level of ambiguity ...nuff said.
danh8
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 12:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby danh8 » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:49 am

TonyIPI wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:Honestly don't think you (or Atkins) do though. If you did get it, then you and the Tribe wouldn't even be hinting that Goedert will play 3B. You wouldn't have said I was wrong earlier. You wouldn't be backtracking on Goedert in the OF (at all). But as I said, we'll see. :drinks:


Dude, you may be the biggest hair splitter I have ever seen. :drinks:

Who is backtracking? My first comment was that Geodert would not be making a position switch to the outfield this offseason. That's absolutely correct.

A role switch? yes, most likely. But a flat out position switch? Not very likely.

Again, expect to see him in a corner utility role next year playing LF/1B/3B/DH at Columbus or Cleveland.



To me, the organization is hadging their bets to a degree. They see, due to injury, some hope for improvement defensively at this late stage ...and because of the weakness at that position at the major league level, aren't going to leave that stone unturned. On the other hand, they also have to prepare for other circumstances, and have that flexibility built into the long range plan. I don't see any issue here other than overkill analysis of statements. But, if you put yourself in their shoes, you can get a feel for where they are coming from.
danh8
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 12:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:36 pm

Goedert sure seems to bring up a lot of emotions on the site. Things can change and Goedert may prove to be a solid ballplayer with some improvements to defense and more selective hitting but he is hardly important in the rebuild. Chisenhall is important to the rebuild at 3B. LaPorta is important at 1B with little discernable backup so he is a backup option there. Unless I miss my guess, Weglarz is important to the rebuild but he hits LH and there could be room for a RH bat off the bench. To me, Goedert has a potential for similar skills that JRod has now, even with his occasional walkabouts. JRod can play more positions already and is a far better athlete. He also played effectively for a complete season and Goedert did not. It was the heighth of hubris to name Goedert over JRod as the comeback IMO but that is why Tony makes the big bucks. I just cannot understand what all the fuss is about for a player who does not likely fit in the plans as a core player in the rebuilt Indians but to each their own. :pleasantry:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby elrod enchilada » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:39 pm

Let me ask you this: who would you rather have in 2011 and 20912, Jared Goedert or Jayson Nix?

If the answer is Nix, and it is for me, that suggests Goedert is barely a legitimate prospect.
elrod enchilada
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby A.Zajac » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:58 pm

elrod enchilada wrote:Let me ask you this: who would you rather have in 2011 and 20912, Jared Goedert or Jayson Nix?

If the answer is Nix, and it is for me, that suggests Goedert is barely a legitimate prospect.


I choose c) none of the above. Mid-2011, bring up Chisenhall, and we'll call it a day. But, if I had to choose, I'd say Nix. At least we know what we're getting from him.
Follow me on Twitter!
@AndrewIPI
User avatar
A.Zajac
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:31 am
Location: Struthers, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby GhostofTedCox » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:20 pm

elrod enchilada wrote:Let me ask you this: who would you rather have in 2011 and 20912, Jared Goedert or Jayson Nix?

If the answer is Nix, and it is for me, that suggests Goedert is barely a legitimate prospect.


In 20912 they would be about 19,000 years old, but still might have better range than Andy Marte. Seriously though, if the Indians want to be a .500 team next year the infield defense has to improve. Those 2 might not be the answer.
User avatar
GhostofTedCox
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:24 pm

GhostofTedCox wrote:
elrod enchilada wrote:Let me ask you this: who would you rather have in 2011 and 20912, Jared Goedert or Jayson Nix?

If the answer is Nix, and it is for me, that suggests Goedert is barely a legitimate prospect.


In 20912 they would be about 19,000 years old, but still might have better range than Andy Marte. Seriously though, if the Indians want to be a .500 team next year the infield defense has to improve. Those 2 might not be the answer.

Too funny, Ghost! But I am not sure we can improve 3B until Chisenhall gets there without spending limited resources. To me, it seems to come down to two weak options. The answer might be who has more value as a RH DH/UT after two months of watching misplays at 3B. Looks like Nix from what i see but fringe is fringe. :pleasantry:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby elrod enchilada » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:17 am

Let me be clear: I was not touting Jayson Nix. To the contrary, I was simply using him as a "Mendoza line" for a legitimate MLB player. If Goedert cannot equal Nix, then we should not be wasting time on him. He is not an answer.

Now I have never seen Goedert play. Maybe the scouts think his bat has a chance to exceed Nix. If so, then he is worthy of consideration. But looking at his age and career numbers and inability to play defense, he seems like a longshot.
elrod enchilada
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:07 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:Honestly don't think you (or Atkins) do though. If you did get it, then you and the Tribe wouldn't even be hinting that Goedert will play 3B. You wouldn't have said I was wrong earlier. You wouldn't be backtracking on Goedert in the OF (at all). But as I said, we'll see. :drinks:


Dude, you may be the biggest hair splitter I have ever seen. :drinks:

Who is backtracking? My first comment was that Geodert would not be making a position switch to the outfield this offseason. That's absolutely correct.

A role switch? yes, most likely. But a flat out position switch? Not very likely.

Again, expect to see him in a corner utility role next year playing LF/1B/3B/DH at Columbus or Cleveland.


You are backtracking. I said the Tribe should try Goedert as a utiltiy guy and move him around, playing him in the OF. You said the Tribe had no plans to do that. NOW you are saying that you do expect him to be playing multiple positions. I said in August to make him that OF (more RF though), 1B, 3B guy....I compared him to a Blake/DeRosa was told it wasn't happening. So sorry for getting lashing out.


Splitting hairs? Maybe. But you have never "seen" me so I'm definitely not the biggest hair splitter you've ever seen :s_tongue (lol, sorry had to)
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:13 pm

I've mentioned this before but the idea was shot down......but I'm bringing it up again.


Why not play Donald some at 3B in spring training? With how Kipnis has played, can Donald really hold him off at 2B? I don't think any of us think he will in the end.

The Phillies had pegged Donald as a possible 3B of the future with Rollins and Utley manning SS and 2B. Amaro praised his versatility and felt he'd play well there (believe that's where he played in the AFL a couple years ago? or am I mistaken?).


Why do I bring this up again? Well Antonetti has been stressing infield defense as one of the biggest things that needs improving (and for good reason).

Donald was below average at 2B this year. Yes, first year playing there and got moved aroudn too much due to AC's injury. I do think he will improve with more play and become average or near average.

BUT....if you're not going to use him as your starting 2B in the future....do we need him playing there everyday?

My solution to fixing the infield defense......Nix at 2B and Donald at 3B. Nix IS an above average defensive 2B. Always has been. Donald doesn't have the bat for 3B but I think defensively he would fit well.


And......what happens if Kipnis makes it to Cleveland before Chisenhall (VERY possible considering Kipnis beat him to AAA and is 18 months older)? Do we move Donald on the fly to 3B? Do we bench Donald (or send him to AAA) and keep letting Nix start? If you started Donald at 3B and Chiz does beat Kipnis to Cleveland you could always move Donald back to 2B....which IMO would be easier for him since he did play it a lot this year.


I don't see the Tribe doing it.....but I think it should be considered.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:11 pm

Hermie13 wrote:You are backtracking. I said the Tribe should try Goedert as a utiltiy guy and move him around, playing him in the OF. You said the Tribe had no plans to do that. NOW you are saying that you do expect him to be playing multiple positions. I said in August to make him that OF (more RF though), 1B, 3B guy....I compared him to a Blake/DeRosa was told it wasn't happening. So sorry for getting lashing out.


Do me a favor, when you get a moment from trolling this thread and completely not comprehending what people wrote, go back to page three of this thread and you'll see what I actually did say about Goedert:

I asked about a Goedert move to the outfield in a long conversation with Atkins on Tuesday, and he said no.

Again, the original post was about a position switch off of third base to another position.

And for the record, I just talked to the Indians today and asked what the plan is for Goedert in winter ball and the email I got back was "He will be playing 3B but may get at bats in the OF. He’s played there before."

Carry on if you wish. Original point still stands: he is not being moved permanently off of 3B, but a transition to a corner utility option certainly is possible (hell someone else in the org told me this weekend they think he could handle LF/1B). Just 3B is not being abandoned at this time.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
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 1 guest