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 TonyIBI » Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:24 am

Yes, Mills is eligible....but he's not getting picked as jellis said.

Also, from what I am hearing, you may see the Phillies DFA Rivero before the Rule 5 and he would likely get through (unless the Indians claimed him back, sorta a Hodges thing again). Indians were suprised he did not clear, though he just about did.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby MickS » Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:38 am

Miller, Hagadone, Bryson, Judy & Kluber is the way I see it which means we're 1 roster spot short and with no room to add a free agent. The free agent doesn't worry me because there's always someone who can be jettisoned to make room when the need arises but I think it's essential to keep all 5 of the above. Guys who seem to be easily replaceable are Germano, Duncan, Crowe, Nix, Marte, Todd. I wouldn't lose sleep over any of them.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby Edible14 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:54 am

Hoynes is reporting that Sutton is now eligible to be a free agent, and was not outrighted to the minors. Looking at his B-R page, last year was his 6th full season in the minors. My guess is that he's probably not going to be brought back. Right now, assuming Marte or a FA is our 3B next year with Nix as the backup IF, Valbuena will probably split time at SS with JRod. Adding Sutton to that mix wouldn't really be necessary in my opinion, even if someone gets hurt.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby GeronimoSon » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:15 am

...Germano, Valbuena, Duncan, Marte, Todd Crowe & Nix... versus Miller, Hagadone, Kluber, and Z-mac..
When determining which guys could possibly be DFA'd.. You have to assume the other teams have close to, but not necessarily, the same amount of information about a guy that you do. So...for example, the list of potential "next ups" for 40 man roster removal will come down to who is most likely to be claimed (who woulda thunk Rivero was?).. not an easy criteria to determine..Who is a first time DFA (for retention purposes)..Who has space on their 25 man active roster to hold onto a guy for an entire year..

For the seven listed above.. the first five are clearly fringy enough that they are unlikely to be claimed.. and/or if they are, who cares? For what it's worth, those five and possbly Jensen Lewis could be the targets for the next round of roster adjustments for the Sons of Geronimo. While Crowe remains an interesting player, on the 40 man, as he can play all three OF positions (average to slightly above average), switch hits and can pinch run.. Nix factors into the "interesting" side of the equation simply because he has a spot on the roster whether he's a starting infielder or takes on the utility role. At the end of the day, there are usually no more than a dozen guys in both the NL and AL that actually get claimed via rule v.. and almost NEVER more than one player from any team.. Perhaps it's because guys like Duncan and Germano aren't protected while guys with significant upside like Hector Rondon (recovering from Tommy John Surgery) are..
GeronimoSon
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 3947
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:31 am

Edible14 wrote:Hoynes is reporting that Sutton is now eligible to be a free agent, and was not outrighted to the minors. Looking at his B-R page, last year was his 6th full season in the minors. My guess is that he's probably not going to be brought back. Right now, assuming Marte or a FA is our 3B next year with Nix as the backup IF, Valbuena will probably split time at SS with JRod. Adding Sutton to that mix wouldn't really be necessary in my opinion, even if someone gets hurt.


The actual transaction is correct in that Sutton has been outrighted to Columbus, but as a second time removal from the 40-man roster he is a free agent.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:35 am

toledobuck wrote:I was thinking that the Tribe would be clearing more than four spots on the 40. I would hate to lose Bryson, Judy, or A. Miller by keeping the likes of Germano, Marte/Nix, Brown, and even Carrera/Crowe. I think that they can pick up another IF similar to Marte/Nix through a minor league invitee if necessary. I also would look at taking off Todd as he has not really produced when given the chance as I definitely like Judy as a relief prospect better. The Tribe has been very good at maneuvering through the rule 5 draft over the past several years so lets hope they know what they are doing this year.


Problem is, you just can't clear the roster of all the "trash". You need to keep around 2-4 guys as filler so when a need comes to add someone not on the 40-man be it a free agent, trade or a minor leaguer, you have a low value player you can remove. Otherwise, if you load the entire 40-man up with valued guys, then when the time comes to make room you are going to lose someone you may not want to since there are no sacrificial lambs. This is why Marte, Duncan, and maybe even Germano will stay on for now.

I think at this point the only lock to be added is Hagadone. Everyone else is a question mark, and I think the Tribe roles the dice on a few arms because they have so many guys that are very alike that if they lose one or two it is worth the risk.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:59 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
Edible14 wrote:I'm guessing a large part of the reason that Huffman was DFA'd instead of Duncan is that they still retain the rights to Huffman, where Duncan would have become a FA.


Excellent point, and one I will surely expand upon in my weekend notebook.


Still don't like this....so....we're gonna have Crowe and Carrera in AAA next year? Cause we don't need 5 OFers on the big league club with Nix there as well.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:39 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Still don't like this....so....we're gonna have Crowe and Carrera in AAA next year? Cause we don't need 5 OFers on the big league club with Nix there as well.


No, Crowe or Carrera will surely get a chance to be the 4th outfielder in Cleveland next year. They simply want a RH outfielder at Columbus (or Cleveland) on the roster.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:41 pm

How about this....I just learned that Rob Bryson is actually NOT eligible for Rule 5 this year. Reason being, as a 2006 Draft pick he is grandfathered under the old eligibility rules because he was a draft and follow signing. So, he will not be Rule 5 eligible until next year! This is confirmed by both Bryson's reps and the Indians.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby GoTribe028 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:08 pm

TonyIPI wrote:How about this....I just learned that Rob Bryson is actually NOT eligible for Rule 5 this year. Reason being, as a 2006 Draft pick he is grandfathered under the old eligibility rules because he was a draft and follow signing. So, he will not be Rule 5 eligible until next year! This is confirmed by both Bryson's reps and the Indians.

.
:yahoo:
Follow me on Twitter @GoTribe028 for useless and random tweets.
GoTribe028
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby MadThinker88 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:58 pm

TonyIPI wrote:How about this....I just learned that Rob Bryson is actually NOT eligible for Rule 5 this year. Reason being, as a 2006 Draft pick he is grandfathered under the old eligibility rules because he was a draft and follow signing. So, he will not be Rule 5 eligible until next year! This is confirmed by both Bryson's reps and the Indians.


:clapping: :good: :drinks:
Best news I've heard this week
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule 5

Postby jellis » Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:32 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
toledobuck wrote:I was thinking that the Tribe would be clearing more than four spots on the 40. I would hate to lose Bryson, Judy, or A. Miller by keeping the likes of Germano, Marte/Nix, Brown, and even Carrera/Crowe. I think that they can pick up another IF similar to Marte/Nix through a minor league invitee if necessary. I also would look at taking off Todd as he has not really produced when given the chance as I definitely like Judy as a relief prospect better. The Tribe has been very good at maneuvering through the rule 5 draft over the past several years so lets hope they know what they are doing this year.


Problem is, you just can't clear the roster of all the "trash". You need to keep around 2-4 guys as filler so when a need comes to add someone not on the 40-man be it a free agent, trade or a minor leaguer, you have a low value player you can remove. Otherwise, if you load the entire 40-man up with valued guys, then when the time comes to make room you are going to lose someone you may not want to since there are no sacrificial lambs. This is why Marte, Duncan, and maybe even Germano will stay on for now.

I think at this point the only lock to be added is Hagadone. Everyone else is a question mark, and I think the Tribe roles the dice on a few arms because they have so many guys that are very alike that if they lose one or two it is worth the risk.


This is a great point you have made before people over look. Think back 2 years ago where everyone wanted Brown to be added even when there was little doubt he might be taken, by keeping him off the roster you save flexibility. For a deep minors like the Indians flexibility has to be a major concern and something that gets way over looked. 4A guys have use as they are the guys you can cut with no worries, they hold a spot and give you depth rather than give up the flexibility
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby petes999 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:32 pm

jellis wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:
toledobuck wrote:I was thinking that the Tribe would be clearing more than four spots on the 40. I would hate to lose Bryson, Judy, or A. Miller by keeping the likes of Germano, Marte/Nix, Brown, and even Carrera/Crowe. I think that they can pick up another IF similar to Marte/Nix through a minor league invitee if necessary. I also would look at taking off Todd as he has not really produced when given the chance as I definitely like Judy as a relief prospect better. The Tribe has been very good at maneuvering through the rule 5 draft over the past several years so lets hope they know what they are doing this year.


Problem is, you just can't clear the roster of all the "trash". You need to keep around 2-4 guys as filler so when a need comes to add someone not on the 40-man be it a free agent, trade or a minor leaguer, you have a low value player you can remove. Otherwise, if you load the entire 40-man up with valued guys, then when the time comes to make room you are going to lose someone you may not want to since there are no sacrificial lambs. This is why Marte, Duncan, and maybe even Germano will stay on for now.

I think at this point the only lock to be added is Hagadone. Everyone else is a question mark, and I think the Tribe roles the dice on a few arms because they have so many guys that are very alike that if they lose one or two it is worth the risk.


This is a great point you have made before people over look. Think back 2 years ago where everyone wanted Brown to be added even when there was little doubt he might be taken, by keeping him off the roster you save flexibility. For a deep minors like the Indians flexibility has to be a major concern and something that gets way over looked. 4A guys have use as they are the guys you can cut with no worries, they hold a spot and give you depth rather than give up the flexibility


The problem is not keeping people like Brown off the 40-man two years ago with a deep farm system but rather not pushing them a bit quicker up to the majors like in late-Summer/fall of 2009. What I mean with a deep system, our problem is that we don't have many for sure fire stars. Thus, we got to take a look at what we have to see if they are going to be an everyday player or a AAAA player. And as we fight for the cellar there is no reason not to push them.

It's too early to tell about Brown as he has only been up a year as we supposedly had no room for him in 2009. But we have seen that Giminez never figured it out and now he is AAAA and off the 40-man. If Brown had two seasons like Giminez to have enough time to get rid of the nerves and see what he can do on a daily basis, we could have removed him this year. We have a lot of people coming up. We need to get them on the 40-man and up to the majors to see if they have what it takes before we have too many players in AAA and AA to even hold them all.

It's not about keeping Germano, Valbuena and Marte on the roster to hold a space for a need. It's starting to stack the players and say we will give them a shot this year. What I mean is don't keep Marte, Valbuena and Nix to play 3B. But, rather know that your 1st shot is Nix, 2nd shot is Phelps (after 2 months of playing to get a glove in order) and 3rd shot is Chisenhall. Why even keep Marte even more? Yeah, you want one or two people to cut but have 3 or 4 and lose Rivero or someone you may not add to the 40 man if you keep a Miller or Judy off?

What position do we need to add next year?
OF -- Sizemore, Choo, Brantley, Crowe, Brown, Duncan, Carbrera, Weglarz
SP -- Carmona, Talbot, Carrasco, Gomez, Talbot, Masterson, Huff, White, De La Cruz, Barnes, Berger ...
RP -- Please we are stacked
C/3b/SS -- are our weak area and we lost Rivero and won't add Rodriquez or Goedert who may be lost on the 40 man. Now adding Rivero looks like a mistake last year. But, dropping him when he has the slight potential to be a star over Nix, Valbuena and Marte is a joke.

We need to look at the minors before we keep this AAAA folder around because we think they will play a key part of our season (even if it is just to cut). Every year, we need to add someone to the 60 day DL early on and we look to AAAA to add while overlooking at these 40-man players who need a shot like a Brown (over Romero) or Giminez (over Carlin - even though both played) or Rodriquez or Goedert (over Sutton). If we didn't hold onto this yearly look at AAAA folder, we would be looking at our people in the minors and start to weed out the Giminezs and Browns earlier leaving enough room to add the Phelps, Chisenhall, and others when the time comes. The added value we get by keeping our AAAA folder is minimal compared to not getting a Scott, Church or Kuzmanoff a chance because we didn't want to push them too early and kept the AAAA folder around as protection.

How many people do we need around next year to cut to add someone? Germano - SP, Crowe/Brown - OF, Valbuena - infielder ... are we going to add 4 people without adding someone to the 60 day DL? Yeah, if we want a Sutton, Carlin, or AAAA pitcher to fill in ... rather than calling up a Weglarz, Todd or others who need a shot or one last shot before throwing to the curb...
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Edible14 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:19 pm

While I understand that keeping Marte, Duncan and co around seems to clog the pipeline so to speak, you have to remember this:

The Indians probably will and SHOULD approach next year with the intention of trying to be competitive. This roster, if most things go right and some things go better than expected, could compete for the AL Central. Given that, the Indians need to (within reasonable budget considerations) give their club the tools to succeed. If that means that Andy Marte is truly the best option at 3B... I guess he stays (any word on how Nix is looking defensively in winter ball?). If Duncan is truly the best option as a right-handed DH/PH/OF... then he needs to stay, too. If Jensen Lewis is truly one of the 7 best bullpen options for next year... then he needs to stay.

As injuries take their toll, and perhaps as the Indians fade out of contention, other guys will get their shot. We saw this in 2009, as Gomez, Tomlin, Pestano, Herrman, Crowe, Giminez and Duncan all were called up and got a legit MLB tryout. All of those guys are fringe-types, types who aren't high-caliber prospects but who could be useful to the team on some level. A fair amount of them weren't even on the 40 man roster to start. Same goes for guys like McBride, Goedert, and JRod. Getting left off the 40 man isn't a death sentence for those guys by any means.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby petes999 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:39 pm

If we are in contention next year, we will have someone other than Valbuena and Marte at 3B .... either Nix hit his grove or Chisenhall comes up and plays well early. Also, we won't have Germano on as a relief pitcher ... rather a Miller, Stowell or Bryson will come up and be the 7th inning guy with Sipp or R. Perez in the 8th.

To clarify my post above, I was a little miffed that we put Rivero through waivers. He was borderline for me after we cut someone like Marte, Valbuena, Germano, Todd or Lewis. I know everyone is saying that we need someone to cut when we sign a FA or need to call up a pitcher, C or 3B as no one is working out in ST. I guess I see one or two slots for this but not 3-4 slots that we still have left. Really, if we are going to need that many players without putting someone on 60 day DL, we will not be in contention as we need everything to go well to compete.

And, we should be giving our younger players one last ST to turn things around. If they did, Todd and Lewis could have been called up first relief fill in before a Stowell or Bryson or Germano without needing to cut someone. AND, if they didn't do well in ST, then cut them and fill their slots with a Stowell, Bryson (the next wave) or AAAA folder that we get off the scrap heap (who can't be much worse than Germano). If Rivero played well, he could have been the 3rd/4th option at 3B/SS after Nix, Goedert/Phelps, Chisenhall. If he didn't have a good ST, then cut him ... he would have had a better chance of stinking around after a 2nd off year than this winter as his potential would have been cut down even more than after this bad season.

It's just when we keep so many of the AAAA players around .... it just seems like we use them more as we have them around than be willing for a marginal prospect to have a chance even if it is sitting on the bench. Rivero has potential .... however small. Germano is nothing more than AAAA scrap heap potential. To keep someone like that around while cutting potential is foolish. It almost worked. But, I hope they saw something in Rivero that will keep in stuck at AA rather than cross their fingers and hope that some of their marginal major league players will be on the 25 man next year in Germano, Duncan, ....

To sum it up as I am rambling.... Rivero shouldn't have been added last year to 40 man even though I promoted it as he was suppose to have a glove that was ML ready (fill in as utility ... as that and RP are the type 5 picks). But, if you keep players around, keep potential (a SS with bat) in positions that we lack (SS) than a slew of relief pitchers who are nothing special and if we lost wouldn't have been replaced easily. If we had to cut Rivero because we added a SP who could be the next Pavano, fine. Do it in January. If you cut him to keep Germano to cut in January for someone we may or may not add or in April because we need to sign a 3B, you cut someone with a 5% chance of being great for a bunch of WHAT IFs. What if, 3-4 pitchers like Todd, Lewis, Sipp blow out their elbows in ST, you just created a slew of 40 man roster spots. Keep Rivero and potentially Todd and Lewis around until ST and if they bomb, drop them from 40 man .... and get rid of Germano now as you can always resign him or someone like him in April if needed.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:49 pm

I think the other part of the 40-man that is missed is teams generally need about 35 of the players to be major league options the next season. Not major league options by season's end, but major league options at the start of the season or close to it.

With that in mind, it's why you'll see more emphasis on keeping some of those retreads around like Lewis, Marte, Todd, Germano, etc as they are usable major league options next year. Most of those can also be cut without much loss, so they not only fill a major league role but also as fodder to remove when a Chisenahll has to be added to the roster, or a Phelps is added to the roster in say April, or a Putnam/White/etc is added early in the year. There are a lot of non-Rule 5 eligible guys who will be on the roster by midseason next year, so that has to be taken into account as well.

The Indians are not worried about the roster protects this year as they don't feel like they are in anywhere near the same roster crunch as they have been in years past. They strongly believe that they will be able to protect the right guys. We'll see.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby martyinnewyork » Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:01 pm

Carlos Rivero is young. That's the only thing in his favor. He has never lived up to his rankings. He was pretty horrible this year in his 2nd attempt at AA. He may turn into a star elsewhere. I may win the lottery. Neither is likely.
martyinnewyork
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Edible14 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:15 pm

martyinnewyork wrote:Carlos Rivero is young. That's the only thing in his favor. He has never lived up to his rankings. He was pretty horrible this year in his 2nd attempt at AA. He may turn into a star elsewhere. I may win the lottery. Neither is likely.


I do see this potentially being another Brandon Phillips/Franklin Guttierez thing, where hindsight might deem this a bad move. But when it was made, it was a good decision. This is a guy who has a 0% chance of contributing at the big league level next year. He'll be starting off next year at AA, and with the advancement of Diaz... he might not even be the best SS prospect at that level. There's no reason to believe that a team will claim a guy that hasn't even earned a trip to AAA yet. DFAing him was the right call, and you then hope that he takes it as a wake-up call and earns his way back. It is surprising that the Phillies claimed him, and that's the truth.

Hindsight often fails to take into account what should be reasonably expected by someone at the time. There's no reason Antonetti should EXPECT that anyone would claim Rivero. Just as there's no reason that Shapiro should have EXPECTED Travis Hafner to regress the way he did after he signed that contract.

If, in 3 years time, Rivero is out of baseball and this proves to have been the correct call, then nobody will be give the move credit. But you can bet if Rivero turns it around miraculously, there will be plenty of armchair GMs claiming that "they saw this coming"... this despite the fact that this site, ostensibly a site FULL of armchair GMs, was pretty much in agreement that Rivero needed to be one of these cuts.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby GoTribe028 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:43 am

[quote="Edible14"]I do see this potentially being another Franklin Guttierez quote]

Yeah, not so much. For Gutz speed and defensive value maybe. Maybe for the negative value that both Joe Smith and Luis Valbuena have brought to the club. But Seattle can keep putting him and the nice little .666 OPS he posted in their lineup.
Last edited by GoTribe028 on Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Follow me on Twitter @GoTribe028 for useless and random tweets.
GoTribe028
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby GoTribe028 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 am

Well it's official. Andy Marte is a free agent, was outrighted to C-Bus
Follow me on Twitter @GoTribe028 for useless and random tweets.
GoTribe028
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:50 am

GoTribe028 wrote:
Edible14 wrote:I do see this potentially being another Franklin Guttierez quote]

Yeah, not so much. For Gutz speed and defensive value maybe. Maybe for the negative value that both Joe Smith and Luis Valbuena have brought to the club. But Seattle can keep putting him and the nice little .666 OPS he posted in their lineup.


I actually see it more as an Ivan Ochoa situation. A young, over-rated shortstop prospect rostered at a young age because he plays a premium position who never amounted to anything.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:11 am

Marte move to me signals that a position player or two are coming on.

Also, one thing to consider, they already have 19 pitchers on the 40-man. Last year they rostered 20, and the year before 21. You typically want a 50-50 split or around there on the 40-man between pitchers-hitters. Looks to me that only 2 pitchers may end up rostered at most....3 would be a stretch but possible. I think Hagadone for sure, Kluber also very likely....McAllister I am not so sure on. Looks like one of JRod-Goedert may in fact get rostered.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby petes999 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:46 am

Tony, I agree that we may want to add a pitcher or two ... but come on if you are not going to roster Miller, potentially Judy and Klubler and McAllister because you only want 20 to 21 pitchers. This goes back to my point of who is more valuable long-term ... a AAAA/major league back-up or a potential back of the bullpen/#3-4 starter. If they wanted to do the 50/50 split, then get rid of Germano and potentially Lewis. I think we all said Lewis is a 5th-6th inning guy at best. Why keep them around past ST? And, if you got to drop them to keep a Miller from someone else's Rule 5 pick, then do it. Miller may not have it. But, if he does, you want to gamble on the upside and not on mediocrity.

And, don't keep Germano around just so that you can cut him later. If so, why not cut him now and sign a Miller or keep a Rivero. If either Miller or Rivero bombs in ST, you could have cut Rivero then and kept him in our system as teams would have been even frighten to put him on their 40 man roster after a bad ST or you put Miller on the 60-day DL when ST starts to free up that room for a non-roster free agent invitee making it and needing a 40 man slot. There are other options.

I think right now, you go 22-23 pitchers and hope that Rod or Goedert both slip through Rule 5. I at one point wanted them on the 40 man roster. But, not at the expense of a Klubler or McAllister who could be starters. Goedert had a 2-3 month window before Chisenhall is called up. Cleveland has blocked him with Nix and Phelps and by not calling him up in September even if he went 0 for 20. At least the time up would have calmed his nerves and showed him what he had to work on in ST to earn that 3B slot in April. But, his future in Cleveland rests on Chisenhall getting injured or slumping next spring as he won't be called up before June with Nix/Phelps around (even if neither can field as good as he can which isn't saying much). And Rodriquez, I would only roster him if you cut Valbuena. You don't need 3 utility guys on the roster in Donald, Rod and Valbuena - assuming 2B is Phelps and Kipnis long-term. But, I do see Rod being ahead of Valbuena long-term due to being able to play a better SS. But, again, don't add him just to lose a Miller or even Judy just because you need 20/20 on your position/pitcher rosters.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:24 pm

Would you like to see the Indians have Zach McAllister in the rotation or bullpen all year?

Me neither. And not being much of a hard thrower or anything, I think he goes undrafted. Therefore is not rostered.

Reminds me of the Pino situation last year, almost the same kind of pitcher (stuff-wise).
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby petes999 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:48 pm

For me, I rather see McAllister and Klubler up next year just to see what we have rather than Germano and Lewis. If we don't see him next year, then yes McAllister is another Pino stuck in the minors behind our depth (yet I see McAllister closer to Tomlin than Pino). If they think he can sneak through, then so be it ... I didn't actually see him pitch so I may have had a bias based on him being thought of so highly before a bad season.

And, with the depth coming up, I rather call McAllister up to see if he can step up like Tomlin and Gomez did this year come August as the door is closing for some people. Just think in 2012 ST, we have Barnes, Gomez (after he does a year of seasoning on a 3rd pitch in AAA), Rondon, White, DeLaCruz fighting for 2 SP slots. Not bad..... and that doesn't include Pom, House and Knapp in 2013. So to my point over the last day ... push the rookies instead of AAAA players we are keeping just in case we need room -- even if it means you put them on the 40 now and drop them in a year or two if they don't make it. In a deep system, start pushing players up before they get passed up.

At least then you took a look under the hood rather than wasting him as depth in AAA all year. And, if he does well like a Gomez but gets beat out by a White in 2012, you have just increased his trade value as a 10-30 type prospect to a potential #5 starter for a mid-level team who has shown that he can stick it out. Think of the increased value in Gomez. He went from being a marginal trading chip to competing for our #5 slot next year. I know that isn't saying much but he probably doubled his value in a trade by actually pitching in some meaningful games and holding his own - versus being an unknown commodity (mediocre potential only).
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:00 pm

TonyIPI wrote:Would you like to see the Indians have Zach McAllister in the rotation or bullpen all year?

Me neither. And not being much of a hard thrower or anything, I think he goes undrafted. Therefore is not rostered.

Reminds me of the Pino situation last year, almost the same kind of pitcher (stuff-wise).


McAllister is younger than Pino though and just this past winter was a top 5 prospect (and top 6 the year before that). He had a bad year....but with the state of pitching with some teams, he'd be a great addition as a #5 starter opening day. He is a must add in my book. In all lilkihood will have a better career than Tomlin or even Gomez.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby Edible14 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:53 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
GoTribe028 wrote:
Edible14 wrote:I do see this potentially being another Franklin Guttierez quote]

Yeah, not so much. For Gutz speed and defensive value maybe. Maybe for the negative value that both Joe Smith and Luis Valbuena have brought to the club. But Seattle can keep putting him and the nice little .666 OPS he posted in their lineup.


I actually see it more as an Ivan Ochoa situation. A young, over-rated shortstop prospect rostered at a young age because he plays a premium position who never amounted to anything.


To be clear, I meant "potentially" as in "has the potential to be", not as in "likely". I tend to agree with you Tony, I'm just noting that a Phillips/Gutz comparison is the WORSE case scenario, and even that scenario shouldn't be looked on too unfavorably.

As for McAllister, I think that he's far more likely to be taken in the Rule V than, say.. Goedert, JRod, McBride or Pino. Reason being that a team could stash him as the 7th man in the bullpen like the Indians did with Ambriz. So ask yourself: who's more worth taking in the Rule V draft... Hector Ambriz in 2009 or Zach McAllister in 2010? So, I think McAllister is a logical choice to be added.

With 5 spots, why wouldn't you? Even if you leave one open for acquiring someone in the Rule V draft, you'd have to name 4 people more worthy of protection than McAllister. After Hagadone, Kluber and maybe Miller... who else? Judy? JRod? And if you're going to fill 5 spots, then you'd have to argue that McAllister is less likely to be taken than both JRod and Judy.

To be honest, I don't even see why the Indians would leave a spot open. Guys available in Rule V are fringe players, which the Indians undoubtedly have enough of. I can see the argument of "more talent is always better", but what position on the major league roster can you honestly see the Indians upgrading via the Rule V draft? It's not going to be a positional player, as they have so many options in OF and IF. It can't be the rotation, given that the rotation already isn't that strong. And if it's the bullpen... then why keep Germano and Lewis around? If you're going to give the 7th bullpen spot to a Rule V guy, where do those guys fit into the bullpen? Even if you send Pestano back to AAA, you've got Perez, Perez, Sipp, Smith and Herrman. They'd be fighting for the 6th spot with Laffey, Judy, Stowell, Miller, Pestano, Todd and whoever gets a ST invite. If you're just having them battle for a position in ST, why not DFA them and bring them back with an invite/minor league deal?
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:14 am

McAllister doesn't profile as a Rule 5 pick though. Teams don't just pick up Rule 5 guys because they were once highly ranked. His stuff is pretty orginary and he doesn't possess that power fastball most teams look for in Rule 5 picks. The guy will barely be in the Indians Top 20 listing this year, and likely barely in the Top 20 for most other org's. What is so valuable when many teams have 3-5 Zach mcAllister's already in their system?

That's the thing I think a lot of people forget with this, that yeah, guys like Goedert, JRod, McAllister, etc all are perceived to have value, but a lot of it to just the Indians. Reason being, many other teams have their own versions of Goedert, JRod, McAllister, etc already in their orgs too.

In the end, I think the chances are greater than 50-50 that he gets rostered, especially after some of the recent roster moves. But at this time of year we all tend to over value our own guys because of our fear of losing him. I mean, last year at this time people were worried we'd lose Tomlin, Wright, McBride, and others. :angel:
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:06 am

TonyIPI wrote:McAllister doesn't profile as a Rule 5 pick though. Teams don't just pick up Rule 5 guys because they were once highly ranked. His stuff is pretty orginary and he doesn't possess that power fastball most teams look for in Rule 5 picks. The guy will barely be in the Indians Top 20 listing this year, and likely barely in the Top 20 for most other org's. What is so valuable when many teams have 3-5 Zach mcAllister's already in their system?

That's the thing I think a lot of people forget with this, that yeah, guys like Goedert, JRod, McAllister, etc all are perceived to have value, but a lot of it to just the Indians. Reason being, many other teams have their own versions of Goedert, JRod, McAllister, etc already in their orgs too.

In the end, I think the chances are greater than 50-50 that he gets rostered, especially after some of the recent roster moves. But at this time of year we all tend to over value our own guys because of our fear of losing him. I mean, last year at this time people were worried we'd lose Tomlin, Wright, McBride, and others. :angel:

Hey Tony, I have been following the cuts and the timing has been interesting. I would not be too surprised to see one more cut and maybe two. The Tribe is still holding onto many marginal players. It looks to me like they are allowing for 6-8 promotions during the season in the absence of any material FA moves. That will be decided quickly unless there are last minute trades.

McAlistair is interesting to me from the perspective that his upside has always depended upon command of 3-4 average to above average pitches. Last year, the Yankees messed with his mechanics in an effort to provide another foot or two on his fastball and improve the depth of his breaking ball. These changes should have been made before AAA but were probably delayed in the hope he would add naturally with growth like Gomez. Although I have never been a big booster of McAlistair, I would not be so quick to cast him aside. He is a much younger version of Tomlin and actually has better stuff across the board. He has shown better command of all his pitches at lower levels than Tomlin. Last year just might have been a bump in the road where none had existed previously. I would hope they protect him over some of the others but, like you, will not lose any sleep if they do not protect him. :friends:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:24 pm

TonyIPI wrote:McAllister doesn't profile as a Rule 5 pick though. Teams don't just pick up Rule 5 guys because they were once highly ranked. His stuff is pretty orginary and he doesn't possess that power fastball most teams look for in Rule 5 picks. The guy will barely be in the Indians Top 20 listing this year, and likely barely in the Top 20 for most other org's. What is so valuable when many teams have 3-5 Zach mcAllister's already in their system?

That's the thing I think a lot of people forget with this, that yeah, guys like Goedert, JRod, McAllister, etc all are perceived to have value, but a lot of it to just the Indians. Reason being, many other teams have their own versions of Goedert, JRod, McAllister, etc already in their orgs too.

In the end, I think the chances are greater than 50-50 that he gets rostered, especially after some of the recent roster moves. But at this time of year we all tend to over value our own guys because of our fear of losing him. I mean, last year at this time people were worried we'd lose Tomlin, Wright, McBride, and others. :angel:


Well we'll have to agree to disagree on McAllister then. Top 10 in most systems without question. Only 22 the entire year at AAA. His HR-rate was 2009 Tomlin-like. This kid still has #3/4 potential. He's way more Gomez-like than Pino-like IMO, and Gomez was rostered last winter.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:16 pm

These should be the only guys who will get consideration for roster protection:

Nick Hagadone
Josh Judy
Corey Kluber
Zach McAllister
Adam Miller
Jared Goedert
Matt McBride
Josh Rodriguez

I believe four of the pitchers will get rostered and one position player.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:26 pm

Hi tony, I like your list and the thinking although I think McBride is a real stretch and I would not include Goedert. If Miller is healthy, I would like to cut one more and keep all five pitchers. If the odd man out is Judy, so be it. There are at least two RPs on the 40 which have lower value IMO.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:49 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:Hi tony, I like your list and the thinking although I think McBride is a real stretch and I would not include Goedert. If Miller is healthy, I would like to cut one more and keep all five pitchers. If the odd man out is Judy, so be it. There are at least two RPs on the 40 which have lower value IMO.


Yeah, I just included Mcbride in order to appease the masses. I personally think he has no shot to be rostered. Goedert has a chance as a RH bat that plays 1B/LF/3B.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby npc29 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:42 pm

TonyIPI wrote:These should be the only guys who will get consideration for roster protection:

Nick Hagadone
Josh Judy
Corey Kluber
Zach McAllister
Adam Miller
Jared Goedert
Matt McBride
Josh Rodriguez

I believe four of the pitchers will get rostered and one position player.


Have to agree with that.

Wouldn't shock me to see them pick Rodriguez as that position player. If your talking about having someone to call up in a pinch as depth, Rodriguez fits that role a lot better than Goedert does.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby MadThinker88 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:06 pm

TonyIPI wrote:These should be the only guys who will get consideration for roster protection:

Nick Hagadone
Josh Judy
Corey Kluber
Zach McAllister
Adam Miller
Jared Goedert
Matt McBride
Josh Rodriguez

I believe four of the pitchers will get rostered and one position player.


At the expense of either Germano or J Lewis (who got super 2 status BTW), I'd rather protect all 5 of those pitchers listed and 1 of the position guys.

Even if my wish came true, there is still "expendible" pieces so other people can be added to the 40 man thru other means.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule 5

Postby GhostofTedCox » Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:06 pm

What about 40 mans for other teams. Any suggestions as to people in the Rule 5 Draft that we might have an interest in picking up?
User avatar
GhostofTedCox
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:06 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:At the expense of either Germano or J Lewis (who got super 2 status BTW), I'd rather protect all 5 of those pitchers listed and 1 of the position guys.


I agree on Germano, though I believe he is just 40-man fodder being kept around. As for Lewis, I disagree. He is a proven major league reliever, something that guys like Judy, Pestano, etc are not. Most of those guys will be lucky to become what Jensen Lewis has been, and that is a lot coming from me as I am not a big fan of Lewis. You have to keep around major league options, and while Lewis is out of options and will cost $600-800K next year after arbitration, I still keep him around rather than roster Kluber and McAllister, two guys who wouldn't exactly be for sure Rule 5 picks.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby petes999 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:38 pm

If it comes down to it, I rather keep a starter than a reliever. Right now, we have a bunch of relievers coming up in the system where depth shouldn't be a problem even if most don't work out. But, the main difference is that while relievers are key in building a successful season, they are still behind the need to have productive starters. And, to the difference between a Lewis and someone we can pick up, isn't as dramatic of a drop off in wins/losses as say a Talbot (4/5 type starter) to a FA/unproven rookie.

If you look at our relievers we have a solid 3 in Perez, Perez, Sipp with decent relievers in Smith, Lewis and Laffey and a bunch of reliever prospects in Hermann, Perstano, Stowell and Judy who can contribute next season. Then you have a bunch of question marks in Miller, Todd, Putnam. Then you have the swing guys in Tomlin, Espino, Gomez, Barnes, Hagadone and Berger with Lee and Bryson coming up.

Yeah, there are a lot of ifs there. But, I feel more confident in losing a Judy, Graham, Lewis or other to protect our starters as we have more questions after Carmona.

If you were to rank the top 10 pitchers for majors next year (factoring in injuries and fatigue issues) - you would have Carmona, Carrasco, Masterson, Talbot, Tomlin, Gomez, Huff, Laffey (if injuries push him back to starter) -- but after this first 8 then who do we have to start? All you have Espino, McAllister, Kluber and maybe White, Barnes, Berger and De La Cruz. So again, I rather go stronger on starters as some of them can be flipped to relievers, out of necessity or development. And, replacing Lewis is easier than trying to find that starter after injuries as Rondon is out.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby MadThinker88 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:45 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
MadThinker88 wrote:At the expense of either Germano or J Lewis (who got super 2 status BTW), I'd rather protect all 5 of those pitchers listed and 1 of the position guys.


I agree on Germano, though I believe he is just 40-man fodder being kept around. As for Lewis, I disagree. He is a proven major league reliever, something that guys like Judy, Pestano, etc are not. Most of those guys will be lucky to become what Jensen Lewis has been, and that is a lot coming from me as I am not a big fan of Lewis. You have to keep around major league options, and while Lewis is out of options and will cost $600-800K next year after arbitration, I still keep him around rather than roster Kluber and McAllister, two guys who wouldn't exactly be for sure Rule 5 picks.


Would you put JLewis ahead of Jess Todd or Frank Herrmann in your right-handed pecking order? I didn't due to cost and his being out of options.

While I understand and agree we can't go only with the kids, just how many 'vets' do you need. The more 'vets' we have, the less space there is for a kid to get a chance & see what he can or can't do.

Among the righties, beyond Germano and JLewis, there is still Chris Perez & Joe Smith. I think they have as much or more experience then JLewis. Additionally, how come the bullpen vets can't be on the left handed side? Raffy Perez and Aaron Laffey aren't gray beards but neither of them still classify as a rookie. I also believe that Scott Radinsky as bullpen coach will continue to have a major impact and development influence on the group (like Wettland in Seattle).
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:
TonyIPI wrote:
MadThinker88 wrote:At the expense of either Germano or J Lewis (who got super 2 status BTW), I'd rather protect all 5 of those pitchers listed and 1 of the position guys.


I agree on Germano, though I believe he is just 40-man fodder being kept around. As for Lewis, I disagree. He is a proven major league reliever, something that guys like Judy, Pestano, etc are not. Most of those guys will be lucky to become what Jensen Lewis has been, and that is a lot coming from me as I am not a big fan of Lewis. You have to keep around major league options, and while Lewis is out of options and will cost $600-800K next year after arbitration, I still keep him around rather than roster Kluber and McAllister, two guys who wouldn't exactly be for sure Rule 5 picks.


Would you put JLewis ahead of Jess Todd or Frank Herrmann in your right-handed pecking order? I didn't due to cost and his being out of options.

While I understand and agree we can't go only with the kids, just how many 'vets' do you need. The more 'vets' we have, the less space there is for a kid to get a chance & see what he can or can't do.

Among the righties, beyond Germano and JLewis, there is still Chris Perez & Joe Smith. I think they have as much or more experience then JLewis. Additionally, how come the bullpen vets can't be on the left handed side? Raffy Perez and Aaron Laffey aren't gray beards but neither of them still classify as a rookie. I also believe that Scott Radinsky as bullpen coach will continue to have a major impact and development influence on the group (like Wettland in Seattle).



I would deifnitely put Lewis ahead of Todd. Todd has had 2 stints and been pretty bad in both....even struggled at Columbus last year. Lewis has his faults, but has had some nice stints with the Tribe at least. He deserves (and likely will get) the Raffy Perez treatment. Sign early for around $700K or so then be on a short leash. If he shows improvement in the first half he sticks around....if he struggles, you can replace him with a guy like Stowell or Putnam (2 guys who don't need rostering).

Hermann? meh, is he any better than Lewis? Good first year....then again, so too did Lewis. I'd put Hermann slightly ahead of Lewis, but think both will end up in the bullpen so kind of a moot point.


As far as Germano....agree, probably won't last....but I get a Steve Karsay vibe out of him (same age as when Karsay broke out as a reliever). I think he may have found his niche in the pen. Hard to ingore a K/BB ratio over 3.5, a K-rate over 7, and a WHIP of 0.991 in over 35 innings of work.

Then again....very likely was just a flash in the pan (his BABIP was only .229 and HR rate was 1.5). But personally I think he should be kept around over a guy like Duncan, regardless of the position player/pitcher split.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby GeronimoSon » Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:41 pm

When Jensen Lewis has his fastball velocity at or slightly above 90.. he is usually effective, moreso when he's down and out of the middle of the plate. When his fastball is sitting in the 86-88 range, regardless of location.. he seems to get hammered.. He doesn't have an array of pitches to rely on.. patient hitters (like you see with a veteran club like the Yankees) wait him out and pick a pitch they can handle. Is he a reasonable & effective member of the bullpen in the future?.. not really.. for this reason.. whatever 'treatment' he gets w/r to his contract, he won't be long for the club..
GeronimoSon
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 3947
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby MickS » Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:47 am

LGT has a review of Center Field. Crowe's numbers are dismal. I would remove him from the roster because I think there's a good chance he clears waivers and, if he doesn't and an emergency CF is needed, could E. Carrera be any worse?
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby Edible14 » Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:00 pm

MickS wrote:LGT has a review of Center Field. Crowe's numbers are dismal. I would remove him from the roster because I think there's a good chance he clears waivers and, if he doesn't and an emergency CF is needed, could E. Carrera be any worse?


No new news there. Because of his slow reaction time (but good speed), Crowe isn't a good defensive CF, but pretty good as a corner defensive OF. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the bat to play the corners. At this point, we all know what he is: a 4th OF. He still provides a decent running option and glove off the bench, so it's not like he's worthless.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Rule 5

Postby GeronimoSon » Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:12 pm

There are things to like and dislike about Trevor Crowe.. He's got speed. He's a great clubhouse guy.. he hits in clutch situations.. etc.. on the down side.. Crowe recently underwent elbow surgery.. so his once average to slightly above average arm will most likely be degraded to some extent.. being a switch hitter only matters if he can hit.. As a fourth outfielder.. it's clear the Indians could do worse.. For the short term..he should continue in that role..
GeronimoSon
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 3947
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:45 pm

MickS wrote:LGT has a review of Center Field. Crowe's numbers are dismal. I would remove him from the roster because I think there's a good chance he clears waivers and, if he doesn't and an emergency CF is needed, could E. Carrera be any worse?


Sure he could. He's a much worse base runner for one, who knows if he can even hit ML pitching.

And yeah, nothing new on Crowe's defense in CF. He's a LFer (actually very much above average there). A lot like Carl Crawford in that sense. Has speed, but doesn't translate to being a CFer. As said, he's a 4th outfielder. His good arm, plus speed, and ability to play all 3 OF positions (2 above average) make him an asset. Now should the Tribe decide to give Carrera a shot, so be it. Don't see him being any better but in the long run, probably not a huge deal.

Should be noted that with Grady back and Brantley being given a full-time shot.....Crowe's lack of CF defense is kind of a moot point. And let's not forget that Brantley was nearly as bad there this past year (believe they were 2 of the 3 worst CFers defensively last year).
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:11 pm

Edible14 wrote:
MickS wrote:LGT has a review of Center Field. Crowe's numbers are dismal. I would remove him from the roster because I think there's a good chance he clears waivers and, if he doesn't and an emergency CF is needed, could E. Carrera be any worse?


No new news there. Because of his slow reaction time (but good speed), Crowe isn't a good defensive CF, but pretty good as a corner defensive OF. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the bat to play the corners. At this point, we all know what he is: a 4th OF. He still provides a decent running option and glove off the bench, so it's not like he's worthless.

I am with you guys. Backup corner OFs who cannot hit are a DFA waiting until the appropriate time. Carrera is far superior defensively at all OF positions and is far more age advanced than Crowe. If Crowe hit LHP at all, maybe you could justify him but he is a disaster in CF. :pleasantry:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:52 am

Crowe is another one of those guys just hanging around the roster. At this time next year I don't expect him to be on the 40-man. In my eyes, the only thing that has saved his ass is that he is a former 1st round pick with a large signing bonus.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby indianinkslinger » Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:49 am

TonyIPI wrote:Crowe is another one of those guys just hanging around the roster. At this time next year I don't expect him to be on the 40-man. In my eyes, the only thing that has saved his ass is that he is a former 1st round pick with a large signing bonus.

You could well be right about that Tony but when Sizemore turned to a basket case medically there was not a lot of options IMO until Brantley was ready. Now, the organization has a lot of CFs, the best of which could well be ready by the time Sizemore hits the open market. :pleasantry:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Rule 5

Postby criznit2009 » Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:50 am

I think Miller is a 100% lock to be rostered. If the indians were to lose him in the Rule V draft after everything he has gone through it would be a real shame for the fans. A few years ago everyone in Cleveland knew about this stud Adam Miller then he gets hurt - looks bad, real bad. But now if he can stay healthy, has a real shot to be in cleveland at some point this year... Thats an awesome story for a fan and I can't wait to see Adam pitching in a tribe uni this coming season. If I see him in a Pirates, tigers, diamond backs etc. jersey though - I will be pissed.

1. Hagadone
2. Miller
3. Kluber
4. Judy
5. McAllister/Goedert
criznit2009
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Rule 5

Postby Edible14 » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:55 pm

criznit2009 wrote:I think Miller is a 100% lock to be rostered. If the indians were to lose him in the Rule V draft after everything he has gone through it would be a real shame for the fans. A few years ago everyone in Cleveland knew about this stud Adam Miller then he gets hurt - looks bad, real bad. But now if he can stay healthy, has a real shot to be in cleveland at some point this year... Thats an awesome story for a fan and I can't wait to see Adam pitching in a tribe uni this coming season. If I see him in a Pirates, tigers, diamond backs etc. jersey though - I will be pissed.

1. Hagadone
2. Miller
3. Kluber
4. Judy
5. McAllister/Goedert



I kinda think Judy won't be rostered at this point. I know he was considered a "lock" at various points in time, but without the team DFA'ing Lewis, Todd or Germano... I think that shows that the Indians think they like their existing bullpen. I don't think you add a reliever to the 40 unless you're planning on calling him up at some point. As of right now, there are 10 relievers on the roster and 11 if Miller is added. I know that there's always turnover at the position, but I think that you don't add a guy to the 40 if he's the 5th in line to just be called up, not unless he's an awesome prospect like Hagadone (who I don't consider a RP prospect for next year... but I digress).

If they thought he was more worthy of a roster spot over Lewis, Germano, Todd or even Joe Smith, then they would have DFA'd one of them. So I see it as Kluber, McAllister, Hagadone, Miller and JRod being added. Goedert gets by the Rule V. Maybe Judy doesn't. Less likely is that McBride or Pino get picked... but both would likely be returned if drafted.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests