RSS Twitter Facebook YouTube
Expand Menu

Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Talk about the Cleveland Indians, Major League Baseball, and other sports.

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby carnegie44115 » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:09 pm

cardiackidz wrote:also did anyone tell paul hoynes this trade went down?



His story went down at 1:30 PM, about a half-hour after AC, keep up the good work Hoynsie!!! Would it be a bigger deal for AC to work for the PD or just stay at his current position?
carnegie44115
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:12 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:13 pm

:s_omg WOW.

Unplug for a day to actually work and you miss a ton.
I'll need some time to absorb all this before going :s_yes or :s_no
I will say this though: At least Shapiro is trying......

For the record on my prospect listing I had Stevens #11,Gaub #19 and Archer unrated (but he was eliminated as I reduced from 40 down to 30).
Last edited by MadThinker88 on Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby Duane Kuiper » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:18 pm

cardiackidz wrote:also did anyone tell paul hoynes this trade went down?

Not that I want to defend him, but Hoynes was one of the first ones to report the trade. Had it on the website at 1:30pm today.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:42 pm

I think the Indians paid a fair price for DeRosa. I do not think the Indians have made any decision about DeRosa's position. He is a decent, but not great fielder, who can play several positions. His primary position has been 2B but I believe the key to this deal is his flexibility. It gives the organization time to evaluate 2B/3B options in the minors and even the OF potentially. DeRosa hits LH pitching better than Francisco at this time. Unfortunately, he makes Dellucci even more redundant.

This move, whatever your assessment of the players, would seem to bear out Shapiro and Dolan's comments that they are serious about 2009. I don't know how they can put a #3 pitcher in their payroll but I think they will try.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:04 pm

FYI, as noted in my article Stevens was to be ranked #15, Archer #28 and Gaub #50 in my upcoming prospect rankings. Full scouting reports for all have been posted:

http://www.indiansprospectinsider.com/2 ... erosa.html

I need more time to analyze the trade and will do so over the next few days when I have more time. Just too hectic to really put much thought into it other than what I already have until I have more time and don't have to worry about getting ready for a big New Year's Ever party here at the house tonight. :s_gamer :s_inlove :s_yahoo
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby jellis » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:22 pm

at first I was iffy then I thought about the deal and loved it. Stevens after the valbuena deal I had ranked 14 or 15 and archer was in the late 20's. I know Guab has talent but his age made me leery on him. The indians trade 2 relief specs and got a veteran bat. On top of that he can play just about anywhere, got to love how he can play all over and give players a rest. On top of that he makes 5.5 which isnt bad at all, and I would imagine we offer him arb at the end of the year and he was a type A this year, next year he walks and either hodges or valbuena steps up

Plus this leaves us with the pen and IF fixed, and our biggest chips are still in tow to land a number 3 pitcher. We still have all the extra SP and Shoppach. The Minors in my mind have improved this offseason Vabuena imporved a weakness and we traded from strength and we also improved the majors. I think SHapiro has really done an amazing job this off season
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:05 pm

Consigliere wrote:FYI, as noted in my article Stevens was to be ranked #15, Archer #28 and Gaub #50 in my upcoming prospect rankings. Full scouting reports for all have been posted:

http://www.indiansprospectinsider.com/2 ... erosa.html

I need more time to analyze the trade and will do so over the next few days when I have more time. Just too hectic to really put much thought into it other than what I already have until I have more time and don't have to worry about getting ready for a big New Year's Ever party here at the house tonight. :s_gamer :s_inlove :s_yahoo


Have a good party! You have earned it, this year. However, don't look toward San Diego for bail money!!! :s_thumbsup
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby npc29 » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:16 pm

This helps us out and give us someone who can hit in the two spot as well. We've had issues there and here comes a high OBP guy that we can slot in there behind Grady. It would be nice to get some stability.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:26 pm

cardiackidz wrote:dennis argument makes no sense because this deal isnt about the future. this deal was to win and win big this year. if cleveland was going to win and go deep into october shapiro needed another infielder and he got him. hes not worrying about 3 years from now it's 09 and thats it. so if you llok at the trade from that standpoint its a deal he had to make and he did. plus i dont think hes done yet, he still has to go get a reliable starter and i think he'll do it.


The Shapiro is a freakin' idiot. This is Cleveland for gosh sakes. You can't buy your way back into contention if you trade away your prospects and count on aging veterans.

Now, if you want to argue that the guys we gave away are worthless then you have an argument that only time will tell. Of course, Shapiro stinks at prospect for veteran trades and they always blow up in his face and almost from the day he makes them.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby osueddy » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:38 pm

Shapiro needed to do something and take a chance. If he sat around and didn't make a move and went with Marte again at 3rd base....I and many other Indians fans may have hurt themselves. If they want to sell tickets (and make a profit), then they need to show their fan base that they are trying to win now, even if that means giving up prospects who MIGHT be major league players.

If you want to stand pat and do nothing or trade your proven and best players for players who MIGHT be quality major leaguers....then root for the Pirates.
osueddy
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:08 pm
Location: Carrollton, OH

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby cardiackidz » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:51 pm

i agree completely osueddy you hit it right on the nose. this deal tells his fan base were going for it. O-H?
cardiackidz
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:57 pm

I O
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby GhostofTedCox » Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:47 pm

I think this deal is a no-brainer. Here's how I see it. :s_roses

What we gave up: :|
Stevens -potentially a fine RH relief pitcher. Just like a dozen others we have.
Archer - a fine young arm, with the emphasis on young. So much can happen to pitchers from 19 to 24 years old. But not much of it will happen in the ML.
Gaub - could surprise, but the odds are against it.

What we get: :s_thumbsup
Mark DeRosa - A fine veteran IF that knows how to play the game. Many similarities to Casey Blake. Both play multiple positions. ( I was never a big fan of Casey's IF defense, though). Both provide some power. DeRosa has a better OBP. In reporting the trade Harold Reynolds said DeRosa was a big reason the Cub's were in the playoffs this year. That's good enough for me.

Remember, if you want to contend, you need veterans. Not somebody like Valbueno to hold down a regular spot.

I'm not sold on why they immedeatly named him at 3B. Him at 2B give us our best defense. He also could be our best 4th OF.

Let's go to Goodyear! Happy New Year Everybody!!!! :s_drinks Don't leave your party before you have :s_coffee
User avatar
GhostofTedCox
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:10 pm

npc29 wrote:This helps us out and give us someone who can hit in the two spot as well. We've had issues there and here comes a high OBP guy that we can slot in there behind Grady. It would be nice to get some stability.


You know, the guy had all of 14 AB batting #2 last year. I think about 140 in the last 3 years combined out of over 1500 AB. What in the world makes people think he can bat second? The #2 hitter is a good bat control guy. In his career he strikes out roughly half the time at 0-2 or 1-2 and struck out 106 times overall last year, one in less than every 5 ABs. In 2006/2007 he grounded into 30 double plays (only 9 last year). In comparison, in 2006/7 Hafner grounded into 25 and Victor Martinez grounded into 42. In his career Derosa has 2 sacrifice hits out of 400 PA when battting #2. He probably has, at best, average speed and doesn't steal a lot of bases.

The only positive about him in the #2 hole, besides his walks, is that he appears not to be a first pitch hitter.

If the Indians are really considering him at #2 then they can't be that smart. He is a #6-8 hitter in the AL and, considering his 2008 was a career year, probably more like a #8 hitter.

I think this deal is a no-brainer. Here's how I see it.

What we gave up:
Stevens -potentially a fine RH relief pitcher. Just like a dozen others we have.
Archer - a fine young arm, with the emphasis on young. So much can happen to pitchers from 19 to 24 years old. But not much of it will happen in the ML.
Gaub - could surprise, but the odds are against it.

What we get:
Mark DeRosa - A fine veteran IF that knows how to play the game. Many similarities to Casey Blake. Both play multiple positions. ( I was never a big fan of Casey's IF defense, though). Both provide some power. DeRosa has a better OBP. In reporting the trade Harold Reynolds said DeRosa was a big reason the Cub's were in the playoffs this year. That's good enough for me.

Remember, if you want to contend, you need veterans. Not somebody like Valbueno to hold down a regular spot.

I'm not sold on why they immedeatly named him at 3B. Him at 2B give us our best defense. He also could be our best 4th OF.


The two bolded statements say it all. We had Oldberto, we had Dellucci, we have used that philosophy ("if you want to contend you need veterans") unsuccessfully in the recent past.

Regarding "the dozen others" name a dozen legitimate relief prospects we have or even cheat and use all the relievers on the major league roster and name 5 more. I mean, you have to invoke guys like Rundles and Jackson to come even close, and then I don't see it.

I mean, like the trade if you want but don't make things up, people, just to justify the trade.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:21 pm

osueddy wrote:Shapiro needed to do something and take a chance. If he sat around and didn't make a move and went with Marte again at 3rd base....I and many other Indians fans may have hurt themselves. If they want to sell tickets (and make a profit), then they need to show their fan base that they are trying to win now, even if that means giving up prospects who MIGHT be major league players.

If you want to stand pat and do nothing or trade your proven and best players for players who MIGHT be quality major leaguers....then root for the Pirates.


Again, while I agree that something needed to be done you don't take any gambles, you trade strength for strength with another team. That is why people were suggesting using Shoppach in a trade. Using Stevens is fine enough as he is excess and our bullpen, for the most part, is relatively young. Use those guys (and other duplicates) to get a solid #3 starter or a solid infielder.

You don't gamble just to gamble. You make a fair trade. Shapiro has gambled before (Scott Stewart, Jeriome Robertson and others) and it has never paid off. Before that Hart gambled with Giles for Rincon and, to a large extent but with slightly better results, Casey for Burba. A lot of times those gambles backfire or don't nearly have the expected results.

And, do you really think having Mark Derosa will sell that many tickets? Hey, if you want to sell tickets include Carroll in a trade for a #3 starter and sign Omar. THAT will sell you tickets.

Again, I am OK with this trade. It would not be the way I would have gone but I understand the logic and acknowledge, unless it goes really south really fast, that it will make us stronger next year.

Just let's not make things up. Now, if he uses Shoppach to get more than a one year rental as a starter and the guy we get is quality, then I understand this move more as Shapiro had already allocated his 'bullets' in another trade that was still in the works when the Derosa trade went down.

I just don't think we need to oversell this trade. It is what it is. Shapiro trading young guys before they have proven anything and, for all three, not nearly at their value maximum, for Derosa. Time will tell if this works out. Let's hope it is better than Scott Stewart and Jeriome Robertson.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:34 pm

dnosco wrote:
npc29 wrote:This helps us out and give us someone who can hit in the two spot as well. We've had issues there and here comes a high OBP guy that we can slot in there behind Grady. It would be nice to get some stability.


You know, the guy had all of 14 AB batting #2 last year. I think about 140 in the last 3 years combined out of over 1500 AB. What in the world makes people think he can bat second? The #2 hitter is a good bat control guy. In his career he strikes out roughly half the time at 0-2 or 1-2 and struck out 106 times overall last year, one in less than every 5 ABs. In 2006/2007 he grounded into 30 double plays (only 9 last year). In comparison, in 2006/7 Hafner grounded into 25 and Victor Martinez grounded into 42. In his career Derosa has 2 sacrifice hits out of 400 PA when battting #2. He probably has, at best, average speed and doesn't steal a lot of bases.

The only positive about him in the #2 hole, besides his walks, is that he appears not to be a first pitch hitter.

If the Indians are really considering him at #2 then they can't be that smart. He is a #6-8 hitter in the AL and, considering his 2008 was a career year, probably more like a #8 hitter.

I think this deal is a no-brainer. Here's how I see it.

What we gave up:
Stevens -potentially a fine RH relief pitcher. Just like a dozen others we have.
Archer - a fine young arm, with the emphasis on young. So much can happen to pitchers from 19 to 24 years old. But not much of it will happen in the ML.
Gaub - could surprise, but the odds are against it.

What we get:
Mark DeRosa - A fine veteran IF that knows how to play the game. Many similarities to Casey Blake. Both play multiple positions. ( I was never a big fan of Casey's IF defense, though). Both provide some power. DeRosa has a better OBP. In reporting the trade Harold Reynolds said DeRosa was a big reason the Cub's were in the playoffs this year. That's good enough for me.

Remember, if you want to contend, you need veterans. Not somebody like Valbueno to hold down a regular spot.

I'm not sold on why they immedeatly named him at 3B. Him at 2B give us our best defense. He also could be our best 4th OF.


The two bolded statements say it all. We had Oldberto, we had Dellucci, we have used that philosophy ("if you want to contend you need veterans") unsuccessfully in the recent past.

Regarding "the dozen others" name a dozen legitimate relief prospects we have or even cheat and use all the relievers on the major league roster and name 5 more. I mean, you have to invoke guys like Rundles and Jackson to come even close, and then I don't see it.

I mean, like the trade if you want but don't make things up, people, just to justify the trade.


Dennis, you are always willing to point out negatives when it benefits your argument but you neglect any positives. I would remind you of these veterans that the Indians signed that have proven to be of benefit. I believe you have overlooked Howry, Byrd, Millwood and Blake. Again, bad philosophy analysis often leads to misjudged conclusions. As you so aptly pointed out, you do not have to make things up or oneside your analysis just to justify the trade.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby jellis » Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:16 am

we gave up Mr prospects and get a MI who was argued by many to be the cubs MVP, he can play anywhere on the diamond and brings stability to the IF. Stevens could be nice but I wonder if the indian's viewed him as replaceable by the meloan addition


End of the day we filled a weakness using strength thats how deals should work
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:27 am

"Dennis, you are always willing to point out negatives when it benefits your argument but you neglect any positives. I would remind you of these veterans that the Indians signed that have proven to be of benefit. I believe you have overlooked Howry, Byrd, Millwood and Blake. Again, bad philosophy analysis often leads to misjudged conclusions. As you so aptly pointed out, you do not have to make things up or oneside your analysis just to justify the trade."

Howry was, as I remember, a scrap heap injury signing after having been released by the Red Sox. He cost us nothing and may have actually been a minor league signing, although I am not sure of it.

Byrd, as essentially a 5th starter, cost us our first round pick the year we signed him

Millwood we got when other teams backed off him because of his arm injury which he has continued to pitch through and, as a result, we got him on a one-year deal for a reasonable price and no loss of draft picks.

Blake was a major find but, again, was pulled from the minor league scrap pile and cost us nothing.

Oldberto and Dellucci cost us a lot of cash and draft picks, Fultz lasted a couple of weeks and Stewart and Robertson cost us big time when you think about their production and what we gave up to get them (the former two being high draft picks). One of the things Shapiro has done well is pick the scrap heap (including Borowski, BTW) in moves that don't cost us much in relative dollars and have some high reward capability.

Maybe selective in my choice of examples but the ones that seemed to fit best for what we have here.

Again, not a bad trade but one that is not the kind I would make given that we are talking Cleveland here and not the Yankees who can simply buy their way back if they lose prospects and make a mistake on a veteran obtained in trade or free agency.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:35 am

BTW, not knowing exactly how the Elias rankings work but my first thought on Derosa may have been incorrect. I doubt he will be a type A free agent next winter because he will probably be classified as a thirdbaseman. The reason he BARELY scraped in last year was because he was listed with the secondbasemen/shortstops. Not so if he is listed with the corner infielders/DH guys. He will be lucky if he is a Type B. (I will try to check on this)

So, this may truly be a one-year rental with no draft choices coming for the three pitchers we gave up.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby MickS » Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:01 pm

I feel even better now. Nosco hates the deal. That proves that it was brilliant.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby JP_Frost » Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:47 pm

I doubt that DeRosa won't be a type B free agent after next year. Type A is also a possibility. The Elias Rankings suck anyway and I find it strange that such an incompetent rankings system determines draft compensation.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby petes999 » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:34 pm

dnosco wrote:BTW, not knowing exactly how the Elias rankings work but my first thought on Derosa may have been incorrect. I doubt he will be a type A free agent next winter because he will probably be classified as a thirdbaseman. The reason he BARELY scraped in last year was because he was listed with the secondbasemen/shortstops. Not so if he is listed with the corner infielders/DH guys. He will be lucky if he is a Type B. (I will try to check on this)

So, this may truly be a one-year rental with no draft choices coming for the three pitchers we gave up.


Dennis, 2nd/ss/3b are always grouped together. Thus, it doesn't matter really where we use him (2nd/3b) as his grade wouldn't change. He is borderline A. Even if he takes a small step back from his career year and does (.280 and 15HR) he could very well be an A as it would still be better than 2007 year. It would take a huge drop off not to be at least a B player.

Thus, if we offer arbitration, we should get at least a sandwich pick which would be equivalent or better than Stevens in potential. Thus, it could be a great return if all that it cost us was Gaub and Archer for a 1-year rental, IF we get compensation in return. Even better if we can get a deal 1/2 as good as Blake if we drop out of the playoff race.

Comparing this to the Blake trade, I would say Meloan and Stevens are a wash. Thus, comparing Santana and cash to Archer and Gaub is no comparison.

If DeRosa has an equivalent season to last year, we did well. However, DeRosa only hit .254 away from Wrigley last year which worries me and good easily backfire (especially if 20+ HR is due to the friendly confines of Chicago).
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:35 pm

petes999 wrote:
dnosco wrote:BTW, not knowing exactly how the Elias rankings work but my first thought on Derosa may have been incorrect. I doubt he will be a type A free agent next winter because he will probably be classified as a thirdbaseman. The reason he BARELY scraped in last year was because he was listed with the secondbasemen/shortstops. Not so if he is listed with the corner infielders/DH guys. He will be lucky if he is a Type B. (I will try to check on this)

So, this may truly be a one-year rental with no draft choices coming for the three pitchers we gave up.


Dennis, 2nd/ss/3b are always grouped together. Thus, it doesn't matter really where we use him (2nd/3b) as his grade wouldn't change. He is borderline A. Even if he takes a small step back from his career year and does (.280 and 15HR) he could very well be an A as it would still be better than 2007 year. It would take a huge drop off not to be at least a B player.

Thus, if we offer arbitration, we should get at least a sandwich pick which would be equivalent or better than Stevens in potential. Thus, it could be a great return if all that it cost us was Gaub and Archer for a 1-year rental, IF we get compensation in return. Even better if we can get a deal 1/2 as good as Blake if we drop out of the playoff race.

Comparing this to the Blake trade, I would say Meloan and Stevens are a wash. Thus, comparing Santana and cash to Archer and Gaub is no comparison.

If DeRosa has an equivalent season to last year, we did well. However, DeRosa only hit .254 away from Wrigley last year which worries me and good easily backfire (especially if 20+ HR is due to the friendly confines of Chicago).


Thanks, you are right. It is 2B/SS/3B and 1B/OF/DH and then catchers, SP and RP. I agree about the Blake trade. I was thinking of that at the time. We did MUCH better than the Dodgers did when they got Blake although it did give them a leg up on signing him.

As far as DeRosa's year last year, it is generally acknowledged as a career year. How much of a dropoff he has will determine what kind of deal it is for us...as well as the long-term development of the pitchers, of course. There are the intangibles, however, and I think we gained significantly there, as well. However, we thought that with Dellucci, too, and then found out what a real clubhouse presence is when we got Trot Nixon. Let's hope we do as well with DeRosa.
Last edited by dnosco on Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 pm

MickS wrote:I feel even better now. Nosco hates the deal. That proves that it was brilliant.


Never said that. Actually said multiple times I was OK with it. Just pointed out the potential issues with it. Stop twisting things. Geez, when will you ever tell the truth?
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby indianinkslinger » Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:37 pm

BA has spoken on the trade. To avoid confusing me further Dennis, is this a case where BA is right or one where they are wrong?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/ma ... 67390.html
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:35 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:BA has spoken on the trade. To avoid confusing me further Dennis, is this a case where BA is right or one where they are wrong?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/ma ... 67390.html


Let's see:

a) they said he was one of the top secondbasemen in the game, well, one of the top 10 and that he would likely put up a .780 OPS this season and, essentially, approaches being an average fielder ("around average" (one of the funniest appraisals I have ever heard)).

b) they said, given those stats, that he was worth $11 million a year based on his production which they acknowledged would degrade moving away from Wrigley this year and being a year older (he hit .254 away from it last year, a point they didn't even address).

You know, normally I give BA the nod and, even when they are wrong, they at least have some sense in their postings. However, in this case, this piece is so one-sided, ignoring the balancing facts, overhyping stats and making wild claims about what he is worth ($11 million, really?) which, of course, they say is true BECAUSE he is a secondbaseman, not even acknowledging that he will be playing third base in Cleveland which changes the complexion of their argment, doesn't it?

I have already acknowledged that (a) this was an OK trade and (b) personally, trading three legitimate prospects for a one-year rental is not the way I would do it.

Any other questions?
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby JP_Frost » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 pm

except we didn't trade away 3 legitimate prospects
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:33 pm

JP_Frost wrote:except we didn't trade away 3 legitimate prospects


I don't know how you can say Stevens and Archer are not legitimate and a guy who struck out 100 in 64 innings coming off a pretty bad arm injury is, to me, also a prospect.

None of them were top 10 but all of them are legitimate.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby JP_Frost » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:51 pm

Stevens just cracked the top 20 in a very deep Indians system as a 25-year old relief prospect. Gaub came out of nowhere putting up gaudy strikeout numbers, but is old for his league, has injury troubles, decent but not overpowering stuff and is also a relief prospect (#29 according to BA). Archer has upside, but also a ton of question marks and isn't in BA's top 30.

I'd say that's not 3 legitimate prospects. Stevens might qualify, but the other 2 are fringe and can't really be called legit (not yet anyway). To me someone like Rondon, Rivero, Chisenhall and De La Cruz are legit -- with 1 through 5 of our system being top prospects.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby twdelaney34 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:04 am

dnosco wrote:
JP_Frost wrote:except we didn't trade away 3 legitimate prospects


I don't know how you can say Stevens and Archer are not legitimate and a guy who struck out 100 in 64 innings coming off a pretty bad arm injury is, to me, also a prospect.

None of them were top 10 but all of them are legitimate.


What about the first round and sandwich pick we get as part of the deal? As I understand it, those have to be factored in. And yes, I know it may decrease to just the sandwich pick, but a top 45 pick is worth Gaub/Archer, per the BA point you ignored.
twdelaney34
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:24 am

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby MadThinker88 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:42 am

twdelaney34 wrote:What about the first round and sandwich pick we get as part of the deal? As I understand it, those have to be factored in. And yes, I know it may decrease to just the sandwich pick, but a top 45 pick is worth Gaub/Archer, per the BA point you ignored.


I have a hard time trying to factor that into the equation at this point. It is dependent upon DeRosa maintaining some sort of decent performance level as well as his getting signed by someone else next off-season. No signing means no draft picks.

The fact we are trying to include draft pick compensation right now into the equation frightens me and makes me wonder if the trade will be able to turn out as good as some have speculated.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby twdelaney34 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:20 am

MadThinker88 wrote:
twdelaney34 wrote:What about the first round and sandwich pick we get as part of the deal? As I understand it, those have to be factored in. And yes, I know it may decrease to just the sandwich pick, but a top 45 pick is worth Gaub/Archer, per the BA point you ignored.


I have a hard time trying to factor that into the equation at this point. It is dependent upon DeRosa maintaining some sort of decent performance level as well as his getting signed by someone else next off-season. No signing means no draft picks.

The fact we are trying to include draft pick compensation right now into the equation frightens me and makes me wonder if the trade will be able to turn out as good as some have speculated.


I was being facetious. Given Nosco's incessant insistence on including the two picks for CC when discussing that trade, I found it interesting that he was neglecting that here.

I agree, they don't need to be an issue as they are a complete unknown (see: Milwaukee not getting a #1 for CC).
twdelaney34
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:24 am

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:25 am

dnosco wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:BA has spoken on the trade. To avoid confusing me further Dennis, is this a case where BA is right or one where they are wrong?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/ma ... 67390.html


Let's see:

a) they said he was one of the top secondbasemen in the game, well, one of the top 10 and that he would likely put up a .780 OPS this season and, essentially, approaches being an average fielder ("around average" (one of the funniest appraisals I have ever heard)).

b) they said, given those stats, that he was worth $11 million a year based on his production which they acknowledged would degrade moving away from Wrigley this year and being a year older (he hit .254 away from it last year, a point they didn't even address).

You know, normally I give BA the nod and, even when they are wrong, they at least have some sense in their postings. However, in this case, this piece is so one-sided, ignoring the balancing facts, overhyping stats and making wild claims about what he is worth ($11 million, really?) which, of course, they say is true BECAUSE he is a secondbaseman, not even acknowledging that he will be playing third base in Cleveland which changes the complexion of their argment, doesn't it?

I have already acknowledged that (a) this was an OK trade and (b) personally, trading three legitimate prospects for a one-year rental is not the way I would do it.

Any other questions?


Dennis, I only asked one question. Is there a definitive answer to that question included in your conjecture? A simple right or wrong would have sufficed. :s_whiteflag
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:37 am

dnosco wrote:"Dennis, you are always willing to point out negatives when it benefits your argument but you neglect any positives. I would remind you of these veterans that the Indians signed that have proven to be of benefit. I believe you have overlooked Howry, Byrd, Millwood and Blake. Again, bad philosophy analysis often leads to misjudged conclusions. As you so aptly pointed out, you do not have to make things up or oneside your analysis just to justify the trade."

Howry was, as I remember, a scrap heap injury signing after having been released by the Red Sox. He cost us nothing and may have actually been a minor league signing, although I am not sure of it.

Byrd, as essentially a 5th starter, cost us our first round pick the year we signed him

Millwood we got when other teams backed off him because of his arm injury which he has continued to pitch through and, as a result, we got him on a one-year deal for a reasonable price and no loss of draft picks.

Blake was a major find but, again, was pulled from the minor league scrap pile and cost us nothing.

Oldberto and Dellucci cost us a lot of cash and draft picks, Fultz lasted a couple of weeks and Stewart and Robertson cost us big time when you think about their production and what we gave up to get them (the former two being high draft picks). One of the things Shapiro has done well is pick the scrap heap (including Borowski, BTW) in moves that don't cost us much in relative dollars and have some high reward capability.

Maybe selective in my choice of examples but the ones that seemed to fit best for what we have here.

Again, not a bad trade but one that is not the kind I would make given that we are talking Cleveland here and not the Yankees who can simply buy their way back if they lose prospects and make a mistake on a veteran obtained in trade or free agency.


Dennis, you seem to be saying that my example of veterans is inferior to yours because you can rationalize that in your mind. Your original comment said nothing about special circumstances precluded using any example which interfered with your hypothesis. Frankly, it is distressing that you cannot admit when your theory just is not accurate. Further, to same subject of veteran acquisitions, you have been having this recurring wet dream about the Indians reacquiring three really old former players for money and prospects. You have even intimated that even our attendance problem would be solved by a 42 YO SS who flirts with the Mendoza line. I need to understand, without all of the rationalizations how I can simply tell which is a good veteran transaction and which is a bad one? :?
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby jhonny » Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:21 am

dnosco wrote:
I have already acknowledged that (a) this was an OK trade and (b) personally, trading three legitimate prospects for a one-year rental is not the way I would do it.

Any other questions?


It sounds to me like you're trying to have your cake ("OK trade") and eat it too ("not the way I would do it"). Are you just setting yourself up to say I told you so no matter what happens at any point in time? If you are in the room, and Shapiro asks you would you do the trade or not, what answer would you give? All these posts and we still don't know!

I share your concerns, but I think the upside greatly outweighs the downside. You call them "legitimate" prospects as if there were some other kind of prospects. They're not high ranked, so you call them legitimate to group them in with the high ranked ones?
jhonny
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby MickS » Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:31 am

You guys are making this way too complicated. You need to learn "Nosco Logic". Here, I'll help you:

1. Whatever Shapiro does is bad and stupid. Emphasis on "whatever" because I'm smarter and would have done something different, emphasis on "different". I'll throw the front office a bone now and then so I can appear to be objective but I'll always find a flaw or two anyway so I can maintain my reputation of maverick independence.

2. B.A. is perfect and "all knowing"...except when they are not. I get to decide.

3. Never trade prospects, no matter how marginal, for veterans. Also never miss out on acquiring a marginal veteran for prospects especially if he's a washed up former Tribe hand from the '90's glory days.. Contradictory? Not at all. Remember, I'm the "decider".

4. When defending an indefensible assertion, always resort to a flurry of words. People will get bored and frustrated, stopped reading and resort to attacks. Then I can claim a "conspiracy". People are always conspiring agains me.

5. You can forget the previous 4. I'm a genius and if you'd just follow me all would be right with the world.

Just remember Dennis "the Decider" Nosco gets to do the deciding.
Last edited by MickS on Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:39 am

twdelaney34 wrote:
dnosco wrote:
JP_Frost wrote:except we didn't trade away 3 legitimate prospects


I don't know how you can say Stevens and Archer are not legitimate and a guy who struck out 100 in 64 innings coming off a pretty bad arm injury is, to me, also a prospect.

None of them were top 10 but all of them are legitimate.


What about the first round and sandwich pick we get as part of the deal? As I understand it, those have to be factored in. And yes, I know it may decrease to just the sandwich pick, but a top 45 pick is worth Gaub/Archer, per the BA point you ignored.


Before you speak you should read. I was the one who mentioned the draft picks first. If you are going to be a smartass it is best not to show your stupidity at the same time.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:01 am

indianinkslinger wrote:
dnosco wrote:"Dennis, you are always willing to point out negatives when it benefits your argument but you neglect any positives. I would remind you of these veterans that the Indians signed that have proven to be of benefit. I believe you have overlooked Howry, Byrd, Millwood and Blake. Again, bad philosophy analysis often leads to misjudged conclusions. As you so aptly pointed out, you do not have to make things up or oneside your analysis just to justify the trade."

Howry was, as I remember, a scrap heap injury signing after having been released by the Red Sox. He cost us nothing and may have actually been a minor league signing, although I am not sure of it.

Byrd, as essentially a 5th starter, cost us our first round pick the year we signed him

Millwood we got when other teams backed off him because of his arm injury which he has continued to pitch through and, as a result, we got him on a one-year deal for a reasonable price and no loss of draft picks.

Blake was a major find but, again, was pulled from the minor league scrap pile and cost us nothing.

Oldberto and Dellucci cost us a lot of cash and draft picks, Fultz lasted a couple of weeks and Stewart and Robertson cost us big time when you think about their production and what we gave up to get them (the former two being high draft picks). One of the things Shapiro has done well is pick the scrap heap (including Borowski, BTW) in moves that don't cost us much in relative dollars and have some high reward capability.

Maybe selective in my choice of examples but the ones that seemed to fit best for what we have here.

Again, not a bad trade but one that is not the kind I would make given that we are talking Cleveland here and not the Yankees who can simply buy their way back if they lose prospects and make a mistake on a veteran obtained in trade or free agency.


Dennis, you seem to be saying that my example of veterans is inferior to yours because you can rationalize that in your mind. Your original comment said nothing about special circumstances precluded using any example which interfered with your hypothesis. Frankly, it is distressing that you cannot admit when your theory just is not accurate. Further, to same subject of veteran acquisitions, you have been having this recurring wet dream about the Indians reacquiring three really old former players for money and prospects. You have even intimated that even our attendance problem would be solved by a 42 YO SS who flirts with the Mendoza line. I need to understand, without all of the rationalizations how I can simply tell which is a good veteran transaction and which is a bad one? :?


My examples were trades or cases where we lost something besides money. Yours seemed to include anything you could find, even if not relevant to this trade. So, continue to be distressed. To your point, a good veteran acquisition is one that doesn't cost us prospects or draft picks. An OK one is, as in this case, one that costs us prospects of the type we lost. A bad trade is one in which we lose prospects or draft picks to address a need that could have easily been addressed with our current, in-house guys or through a minor league free agent.

What is distressing to me is that you can't see what is a quality article vs a good article or you choose not to just to make your point which, of course, is severely lessened by you tieing yourself to the credibility of this article. This is clearly a low quality article.

Regarding the veterans that I am suggesting, first, it was Hermie who first suggested the attendance thing, I only chimed in, but I agree with his point and that point is NOT how you twisted it. No one said that it would solve our attendance problems or even intimated that, that is totally your contrivance to try to put words in my mouth, but, whatever, not the first time that has been tried.

Second, utility infielders are worth close to zero win shares. If Carroll (or Vizquel) has to start a bunch of games this team is in trouble. That is why they are utility infielders. So, let me see, a guy who will make the HOF who has been a Cleveland Indian who fans can relate to who can do, essentially, the same job vs a utility infielder who is paid over $2.3 million, putting him near or at the top of all utility infielders in baseball and who has had all of one year in Cleveland. Wow, that is a tough choice.

Third, as I said, I am suggesting these acquisitions BECAUSE we have a spot for these guys and they are not displacing youngsters who can do the job. I have already indicated they don't all make financial sense, that Manny displaces Francisco to a 4th outfielder. Vizquel displaces Carroll who, in my opinion, is no big loss. Thome, who I already acknowledged is the biggest stretch, would only be acquired if Hafner is toast and if the cost is minimal.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:03 am

dnosco wrote:Again, while I agree that something needed to be done you don't take any gambles, you trade strength for strength with another team. That is why people were suggesting using Shoppach in a trade. Using Stevens is fine enough as he is excess and our bullpen, for the most part, is relatively young. Use those guys (and other duplicates) to get a solid #3 starter or a solid infielder.

You don't gamble just to gamble. You make a fair trade. Shapiro has gambled before (Scott Stewart, Jeriome Robertson and others) and it has never paid off. Before that Hart gambled with Giles for Rincon and, to a large extent but with slightly better results, Casey for Burba. A lot of times those gambles backfire or don't nearly have the expected results.

And, do you really think having Mark Derosa will sell that many tickets? Hey, if you want to sell tickets include Carroll in a trade for a #3 starter and sign Omar. THAT will sell you tickets.
Again, I am OK with this trade. It would not be the way I would have gone but I understand the logic and acknowledge, unless it goes really south really fast, that it will make us stronger next year.

Just let's not make things up. Now, if he uses Shoppach to get more than a one year rental as a starter and the guy we get is quality, then I understand this move more as Shapiro had already allocated his 'bullets' in another trade that was still in the works when the Derosa trade went down.

I just don't think we need to oversell this trade. It is what it is. Shapiro trading young guys before they have proven anything and, for all three, not nearly at their value maximum, for Derosa. Time will tell if this works out. Let's hope it is better than Scott Stewart and Jeriome Robertson.


Really hope that was a joke. Carroll won't sniff you a #3....


Not really sure how this deal can be looked at as a negative. DeRosa isn't a star by any means....but has put up OPS's HIGHER than Peralta's each of the last 3 seasons......

He'll be a gret guy to hit 2nd (or could bat at the bottom like Blake if you want to move Choo or Cabrera up). The flexibilty he gives can't be ignored. Should Francisco or Choo struggle he could move to the OF (with either Carroll steppign in or Marte/Valbuena/Barfield).

This also makes Barfield or Valbuena or even Hodges very expendable. Barfield's value is way down, but it's still there. Coupled with the right players could really help the team land a pitcher.


Also don't get how this is a gamble at all. If anyone is gambling it's the Cubs on trading DeRosa and signing Miles.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:09 am

MickS wrote:You guys are making this way too complicated. You need to learn "Nosco Logic". Here, I'll help you:

1. Whatever Shapiro does is bad and stupid. Emphasis on "whatever" because I'm smarter and would have done something different, emphasis on "different". I'll throw the front office a bone now and then so I can appear to be objective but I'll always find a flaw or too anyway so I can maintain my reputation of maverick independence.

2. B.A. is perfect and "all knowing"...except when they are not. I get to decide.

3. Never trade prospects, no matter how marginal, for veterans. Also never miss out on acquiring a marginal veteran for prospects especially if he's a washed up former Tribe hand from the '90's glory days.. Contradictory? Not at all. Remember, I'm the "decider".

4. When defending an indefensible assertion, always resort to a flurry of words. People will get bored and frustrated, stopped reading and resort to attacks. Then I can claim a "conspiracy". People are always conspiring agains me.

5. You can forget the previous 4. I'm a genius and if you'd just follow me all would be right with the world.

Just remember Dennis "the Decider" Nosco gets to do the deciding.


:s_yahoo :s_rofl

First, never said that. I liked the Blake trade. I am OK with getting DeRosa. I am OK with Wood although I would have put the vesting option in the second year (not OK with the way he was characterized by people on this site, but that is a different argument). I have actually liked many of Shapiro's moves, mostly in his area of strength: trading veterans for prospects. So you need to amend your statement to say "Whatever Shapiro does when he trades prospects for veterans or signs free agents who costs us draft picks is stupid" because that, buddy, is, at this point, really incontrovertible.

Second, I have always said I use BA as a general guide.

Third, the acquistion of the veterans you allude to would cost us our second round pick for Manny, nothing for Omar and, for Thome, would have to be a salary dump by Chicago costing us less than DeRosa and only if Hafner is toast.

Fourth, I don't even know how to address a trash and ridiculous statement like this one, so I won't waste the words. How does that work for you?

Fifth, given that you are the one who has to write a ridiculous post like the above, it is obvious that you are the genius around here. I defer to your wisdom.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:23 am

Hermie13 wrote:
dnosco wrote:Again, while I agree that something needed to be done you don't take any gambles, you trade strength for strength with another team. That is why people were suggesting using Shoppach in a trade. Using Stevens is fine enough as he is excess and our bullpen, for the most part, is relatively young. Use those guys (and other duplicates) to get a solid #3 starter or a solid infielder.

You don't gamble just to gamble. You make a fair trade. Shapiro has gambled before (Scott Stewart, Jeriome Robertson and others) and it has never paid off. Before that Hart gambled with Giles for Rincon and, to a large extent but with slightly better results, Casey for Burba. A lot of times those gambles backfire or don't nearly have the expected results.

And, do you really think having Mark Derosa will sell that many tickets? Hey, if you want to sell tickets include Carroll in a trade for a #3 starter and sign Omar. THAT will sell you tickets.
Again, I am OK with this trade. It would not be the way I would have gone but I understand the logic and acknowledge, unless it goes really south really fast, that it will make us stronger next year.

Just let's not make things up. Now, if he uses Shoppach to get more than a one year rental as a starter and the guy we get is quality, then I understand this move more as Shapiro had already allocated his 'bullets' in another trade that was still in the works when the Derosa trade went down.

I just don't think we need to oversell this trade. It is what it is. Shapiro trading young guys before they have proven anything and, for all three, not nearly at their value maximum, for Derosa. Time will tell if this works out. Let's hope it is better than Scott Stewart and Jeriome Robertson.


Really hope that was a joke. Carroll won't sniff you a #3....


Not really sure how this deal can be looked at as a negative. DeRosa isn't a star by any means....but has put up OPS's HIGHER than Peralta's each of the last 3 seasons......

He'll be a gret guy to hit 2nd (or could bat at the bottom like Blake if you want to move Choo or Cabrera up). The flexibilty he gives can't be ignored. Should Francisco or Choo struggle he could move to the OF (with either Carroll steppign in or Marte/Valbuena/Barfield).

This also makes Barfield or Valbuena or even Hodges very expendable. Barfield's value is way down, but it's still there. Coupled with the right players could really help the team land a pitcher.


Also don't get how this is a gamble at all. If anyone is gambling it's the Cubs on trading DeRosa and signing Miles.


First, Carroll would be a small piece to the kind of trade I am suggesting. Maybe a Shoppach, Carroll and prospect for a #3 starter is what I was talking about. It would depend on the starter but Carroll is more than a throw-in but significantly less than the central piece. I would have hoped you would have gotten that without me going into detail.

Second, didn't say it was a negative. Said it was an OK move, just one I would not make (prospects for veteran) and one of the ilk that Shapiro has overwhelmingly been unsuccessful at. We CAN continue to rate each trade on the surface and forget about all the other trades of this type that Shapiro has bombed on, if you like. I don't think that is wise but, whatever.

Third, I have already debunked the "He is a great guy to hit second" argument with statistics. He is NOT a great guy to hit second and could be considered a bad guy to hit second at this point in his career depending on how much you believe the trends in his stats. Agreed about his flexibility, and I have already said that in caps earlier.

Given your comment about Carroll, how important is it to make Barfield expendable? He is worthless from a trade POV, being only a throw-in, at best, to seal the deal (whatever deal that is). Also, DeRosa is a one-year rental. I don't see how guys like Valbuena and Hodges who will be playing their first full AAA season next year are expendable when they will be ready for the majors when DeRosa's contract runs out...unless you are considering re-signing the then 35-year old to a multiple year extension?

Finally, it has already been pointed out that this is most likely a salary dump for the Cubs. They are not taking any gamble at all because their goal was to get the best deal for him they could find. Interestingly, these 'marginal' prospects that people are talking about is the best deal. So, people, which is it? Is DeRosa really good AND the prospects are really good, is DeRosa really bad and the prospects are really bad, is it a salary dump by the Cubs and, therefore, not a gamble at all or did we just steal DeRosa from the Cubs?
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:32 am

jhonny wrote:
dnosco wrote:
I have already acknowledged that (a) this was an OK trade and (b) personally, trading three legitimate prospects for a one-year rental is not the way I would do it.

Any other questions?


It sounds to me like you're trying to have your cake ("OK trade") and eat it too ("not the way I would do it"). Are you just setting yourself up to say I told you so no matter what happens at any point in time? If you are in the room, and Shapiro asks you would you do the trade or not, what answer would you give? All these posts and we still don't know!

I share your concerns, but I think the upside greatly outweighs the downside. You call them "legitimate" prospects as if there were some other kind of prospects. They're not high ranked, so you call them legitimate to group them in with the high ranked ones?


Sorry, not trying to have my cake and eat it, too. That's why I say an OK trade. I just don't feel we should be trading away prospects in the current economy and not for a one-year rental. However, I see the positives for this team and acknowledge that this will help us in 2009 while, on paper, it should not hurt as that much going forward because these guys are not projected to be that great. Still, that is what was said about Church, Izturis, Luke Scott and Taveras at the time of those trades so I am just trying to bring in those points, as well.

So, the put a ribbon on this, this is one possible trade that helps the Indians in 2009. Don't know if it was the best trade but it was certainly a trade that should not hurt us for a few years to come. Whether it will turn out to be a good long-term trade will depend SOLELY on how the prospects turn out, as, unless disaster strikes, DeRosa's performance (although less than it was in Chicago last year) is a pretty solid given and we should get a draft pick or two for him next winter. However, I don't do many prospect for veteran trades if I am Cleveland's GM. This one is one of the best, on the surface, I can imagine, but I still do them very rarely, if at all, if I am the Cleveland GM.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:41 am

dnosco wrote:First, Carroll would be a small piece to the kind of trade I am suggesting. Maybe a Shoppach, Carroll and prospect for a #3 starter is what I was talking about. It would depend on the starter but Carroll is more than a throw-in but significantly less than the central piece. I would have hoped you would have gotten that without me going into detail.

Second, didn't say it was a negative. Said it was an OK move, just one I would not make (prospects for veteran) and one of the ilk that Shapiro has overwhelmingly been unsuccessful at. We CAN continue to rate each trade on the surface and forget about all the other trades of this type that Shapiro has bombed on, if you like. I don't think that is wise but, whatever.

Third, I have already debunked the "He is a great guy to hit second" argument with statistics. He is NOT a great guy to hit second and could be considered a bad guy to hit second at this point in his career depending on how much you believe the trends in his stats. Agreed about his flexibility, and I have already said that in caps earlier.

Given your comment about Carroll, how important is it to make Barfield expendable. Also, DeRosa is a one-year rental. I don't see how guys like Valbuena and Hodges who will be playing their first full AAA season next year are expendable when they will be ready for the majors when DeRosa's contract runs out...unless you are considering re-signing the then 35-year old to a multiple year extension?

Finally, it has already been pointed out that this is most likely a salary dump for the Cubs. They are not taking any gamble at all because their goal was to get the best deal for him they could find. Interestingly, these 'marginal' prospects that people are talking about is the best deal. So, people, which is it? Is DeRosa really good AND the prospects are really good, is DeRosa really bad and the prospects are really bad, is it a salary dump by the Cubs and, therefore, not a gamble at all or did we just steal DeRosa from the Cubs?


ha, gotcha. I agree with that first part. Carroll definately woulnd't be a throwin. Just the way you originally worded it sounded like you thought he'd get a #3 on his own.

I agree a bit....but it's also not wise for Shapiro to just stop making trades for vets because a few haven't worked. Carroll worked out well last year (traded Smith for him). We gave up a bit more for DeRosa....who has been better the last 3 years....and of Type A status.....not too shabby really.

Actually you haven't at all proven that DeRosa is a bad #2 hitter. By your logic Grady is a bad leadoff guy because he strikes out too much. Bottom line is DeRosa can draw walks and has had an OPB over .370 each of the last 2 seasons. He'll get on base and set up the heart of the order, which is exactly what we need. Plus lets Choo and Cabrera hit at the bottom of the order to limit the pressure put on them. And you brought up his career stats....he's hit all over the lineup. Hasn't really hit anywhere that much more (though #6 is tops). He's hit nearly as much in the 2-hole as the other spots (not including 6th). Does strike out more than you'd like, but makes up for it with his walks and solid OBP.


In 2010 we'll likely only have 1 open IF spot.....THAT makes ONE of Barfield, Valbuena, or Hodges expendable. Never said they have to be traded, but you can part with one and still be fine moving forward if you improve another area of the club in the process. Not sure how this wasn't clear....


It may be a bit of a salary dump.....but they only were giving up aboug $5M. They are taking a risk by opening up a hole at 2B. Will Miles play there or will Fontenot step up? They also seem to be freeing up money to land Bradley for RF......that is a big risk as well.

DeRosa is good (not great)....the prospects we gave up are ok...but far from stellar. We did kina steal him from the Cubs. In the end could work out for both clubs....but I think the Cubs are gonna kinda regret this deal later in the year.....too soon to say though....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:44 am

dnosco wrote:
jhonny wrote:
dnosco wrote:
I have already acknowledged that (a) this was an OK trade and (b) personally, trading three legitimate prospects for a one-year rental is not the way I would do it.

Any other questions?


It sounds to me like you're trying to have your cake ("OK trade") and eat it too ("not the way I would do it"). Are you just setting yourself up to say I told you so no matter what happens at any point in time? If you are in the room, and Shapiro asks you would you do the trade or not, what answer would you give? All these posts and we still don't know!

I share your concerns, but I think the upside greatly outweighs the downside. You call them "legitimate" prospects as if there were some other kind of prospects. They're not high ranked, so you call them legitimate to group them in with the high ranked ones?


Sorry, not trying to have my cake and eat it, too. That's why I say an OK trade. I just don't feel we should be trading away prospects in the current economy and not for a one-year rental. However, I see the positives for this team and acknowledge that this will help us in 2009 while, on paper, it should not hurt as that much going forward because these guys are not projected to be that great. Still, that is what was said about Church, Izturis, Luke Scott and Taveras at the time of those trades so I am just trying to bring in those points, as well.

So, the put a ribbon on this, this is one possible trade that helps the Indians in 2009. Don't know if it was the best trade but it was certainly a trade that should not hurt us for a few years to come. Whether it will turn out to be a good long-term trade will depend SOLELY on how the prospects turn out, as, unless disaster strikes, DeRosa's performance (although less than it was in Chicago last year) is a pretty solid given and we should get a draft pick or two for him next winter. However, I don't do many prospect for veteran trades if I am Cleveland's GM. This one is one of the best, on the surface, I can imagine, but I still do them very rarely, if at all, if I am the Cleveland GM.


Totally disagree here. If the Tribe wins the WS (which I'm not saying will happen) then I don't care all 3 prospects go on to be Hall of Famers, the deal will have been worth it in the long run.

Tribe does appear to be the clear favorites in the division......anything is possible in the playoffs then. If Carmona gets close to his 2007 self this team could beat anyone in the playoffs......or could lose to anyone.

Point is though it's not all on the prospects. It's how the Tribe does in 2009.
Last edited by Hermie13 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby jellis » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:33 pm

Sources on the union side expect Bradley's deal with the Cubs to approach $10 million per season, for perhaps three seasons, which explains why Chicago has had to work to find financial wriggle room. The Cubs saved some money by trading Jason Marquis to the Rockies, and then scraped together more by swapping DeRosa to the Indians for three young pitchers -- each of whom has a chance to pitch in the big leagues, rival talent evaluators say, but the same evaluators say none of the pitchers is a Grade A prospect.

And one of those evaluators made the argument that DeRosa may have been the Cubs' best player last season. He finished third among the everyday players in on-base percentage, at .376, and was fourth in slugging percentage, at .481. He finished the season with a club-high 103 runs scored, partly because he's such a good baserunner. What he may have done best, however, was provide the Cubs average-to-above average defense at four different positions: second base, third base, left field and right field (he also played a game at first base and another at shortstop). If Aramis Ramirez came up sore, DeRosa could step in, and when Alfonso Soriano got hurt, DeRosa provided Lou Piniella flexibility to better cope with the problem, allowing him to shift DeRosa to the outfield and play somebody else in the infield. The Cubs are going to miss DeRosa in a big way next season.

from olney about the deal basically saying he thinks the cubs made a mistake
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:47 pm

DeRosa also hit .322 last year with RISP......

Is a career .282 hitter with RISP as well. And another intersting stat....with a man on 3B and less than two outs he's hit .434 in his career (.462 OBP). He's a very good situational hitter to have.

If I had a choice between Bradley or DeRosa, I'd take DeRosa.....don't truly see the logic behind the Cubs wanting Bradley so much and being willing to part with DeRosa to fit him onto their team....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:24 pm

Hermie,

I think DeRosa hit second a lot earlier in his career but, as I pointed out, not much lately. His Ks are only part of the story, his GIDP are also part of it. The reason Grady is a good leadoff hitter is because of his speed, stolen bases AND his OBP. I wasn't able to find how often he hits to RF (I guess an idea of how well he handles the bat).

Regarding winning the WS, I disagree, but that is one place I disagree with most fans. Don't want to be the 1997 Florida Marlins. I want to be competitive every year even if we never win it all. As you can tell, I value guys going into the HOF as Indians more than winning a single title and paying for it for years to come. Not saying the DeRosa deal will make us pay for years to come, just the philosophy tends to make teams give up the future for the present. I just don't like that. I would rather make the playoffs or barely miss the playoffs every year rather than win it one time. Just me, I guess.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby JP_Frost » Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:58 pm

You contradict yourself Nosco, because your earlier suggestion about adding Vizquel, Thome and Manny to the team is also focused on winning now instead of being competitve for years to come.

I also think you value the players we gave up for DeRosa way too much. Losing them has basically no effect on being competitive in the future. DeRosa is very valuable player and fits this team perfectly. Even if he regresses somewhat next season (which is to be expected), it's well worth the price we paid. Another thing I saw mentioned on LGT is that DeRosa is a "young 34-year old" since he's been mostly a part time player. The last three season in which he had 500+ AB's have been the best in his career and maybe he has a late peak. I don't think he'll put up a .850+ OPS, but anywhere between .800 and .850 is perfectly reasonable.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:58 pm

dnosco wrote:Hermie,

I think DeRosa hit second a lot earlier in his career but, as I pointed out, not much lately. His Ks are only part of the story, his GIDP are also part of it. The reason Grady is a good leadoff hitter is because of his speed, stolen bases AND his OBP. I wasn't able to find how often he hits to RF (I guess an idea of how well he handles the bat).

Regarding winning the WS, I disagree, but that is one place I disagree with most fans. Don't want to be the 1997 Florida Marlins. I want to be competitive every year even if we never win it all. As you can tell, I value guys going into the HOF as Indians more than winning a single title and paying for it for years to come. Not saying the DeRosa deal will make us pay for years to come, just the philosophy tends to make teams give up the future for the present. I just don't like that. I would rather make the playoffs or barely miss the playoffs every year rather than win it one time. Just me, I guess.


You also have to look at team he's been playing for. He wasn't needed in the 2-hole with the Cubs. DeRosa is a career .340 hitter in GDP situations as well. He puts the bat on the ball. With Grady hitting in front of him, expect to see lots of hit and runs (or you should at least). He gets the bat on the ball a lot and is a better #2 hitter than anything we have on the roster right now really. Choo strikes out more. Cabrera is still raw and should hit 9th. Dellucci does ok there....but he's not gonna start so doesn't really matter.


hmm, don't see the logic there (and terrible example)....the Marlins have won 2 WS titles in the last 15 years......only the Yanks and Red Sox have done that.......

It's definately just you. Don't know a single other person that feels that way.....but it's your right, lol.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby dnosco » Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:42 pm

I'll take that on me. I want to be competitive every year. Look at the Marlins record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Marlins_seasons

Two winning seasons in their first 11 season and, except for 1997 and 2003, they never finished more than 4 games above .500 in any season except 2008, when they finished 7 games over .500. In their first 16 seasons they had 5 winning seasons.

So, yeah, if I were to have the Braves run or the Indians run, I would take it in a heartbeat over what the Marlins have produced, and that is all I am saying here.

His hitting chart appears unexceptional

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/individual_pla ... statType=1

Your point about his BA in DP situations is a good one although, as you said, when you are hitting down in the lineup you are really trying to power the ball instead of playing hit and run. If you notice, although his hits are relatively spread out, almost all of his groundballs are to the left side.

Also, I think his approach may have changed a little as he got older as he appears to pull the ball more now, with the associated power increase. Asking him to go back to use the entire field is really a question mark to me.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Beyond The Minors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Prosecutor and 0 guests