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 Hermie13 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:50 pm

ha, well I think you're crazy....but o well. I'd take 2 championships and a bunch of losing seasons over a few good runs and no championships. I'm sure most Braves' fans would agree too.


Why do you have to ask DeRosa to change? He's not really 'powering' the ball. Not a HR guy. Can still pull the ball on hit and runs (though the hole on the right side is always preferred). He doesn't 'need' to use the whole field to be a good #2 hitter. Getting on base is getting on base, no matter where you put the ball or how you get on. Grady being the baserunner he is should have no troubles going from 1st to 3rd even if he isn't taking the ball to RF all the time.

Also don't think his DP numbers are that bad. Grounded into 9 last year.....consider that in his Indian career Omar only did that 4 times....2 were the 94 and 95 then in 1999 (his best offensive year) and 2002. 9 double plays for a #2 hitter isn't bad. He may see it go up by hitting in the 2-hole more, but very likely won't.
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 6:42 pm

The Indians didn't quite get Mark DeRosa for free, but they got him on clearance in a post-Christmas sale. I wasn't a fan of the DeRosa signing after the 2006 season, but he increased his walk rate in Chicago, setting two consecutive career highs in both walks drawn and OBP. The power surge in 2008 is likely a mirage, but a .285/.365/.440 line is well within reason, and would make him a significant asset at second base. He's average at best defensively there, but allows Cleveland to move Asdrubal Cabrera to shortstop (his natural position, where he was a defensive wizard in the minors) and Jhonny Peralta to third base (getting him out of harm's way). The net improvement should be two wins, perhaps more if Cabrera turns out to be a plus glove at short once he's playing it every day.

None of the three arms going back to Chicago is anyone for Cleveland fans to worry about. Jeff Stevens will pitch in the majors as a middle reliever, but despite high minor league strikeout rates, his stuff is average (he'll touch 93 mph, but sits 89-92) and he doesn't have a pitch that projects to miss bats in the majors. John Gaub looked like a potential first-round pick during his sophomore year in college, but hurt his shoulder before his junior season, after which he had trouble getting on the mound and showed a marked decrease in velocity when he did pitch. He hurt his shoulder again after 2006 and his stuff is fringe-average; the high strikeout rate he showed in Lake County was as much a product of the competition, as he was three or four years older than most of the hitters he faced. Chris Archer has youth on his side, but not stuff and definitely not control. It's a package of bulk, not upside or clear big-league value, making this appear to be a salary dump for the Cubs.

I know some one wanted law's take
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby jhonny » Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Law makes me feel a lot better about the deal than I did an hour ago.

FWIW, link: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/ind ... =law_keith
jhonny
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

Postby indianinkslinger » Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:11 am

dnosco wrote:
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.


Dennis, again you go with rationalizations and parse words like a politician or lawyer. I didn't make this up. I am actually trying to figure out what your position is on BA and veteran acquisitions. I cannot tell a good BA article from a bad one. To me, these guys are nothing but writers who parrot words instilled in their minds by others. None of them scout and evaluate players on their own. To you, they obviously mean much more. However, you consistently quibble with some of their evaluations which is a contradiction. I am not trying to do a hatchet job on you. Others are doing that. I am just trying to understand if your position on BA is consistent and is logically defensible in view of the contradictions. You know that I only opine on players that I actually have seen play the game. I view players as a scout. That is how I was trained. I read BA for amusement, not intellectual content. You also know I prefer Sickels and Tony who happen to be hybrids between the scouting and statistical approaches. Simply put, I am no closer to an answer on the issue of BA.

I am, however, inclined to give you much less slack on the veterans acquisitions issue. You have not provided any evidence of differentiation on some logical basis between different veterans that I can determine. I was amused, but not greatly impressed, by your Hermie did it first defense. You must have read enough of my posts by now to conclude that I would be unlikely to be persuaded in a positive manner by the Hermie defense. I am not trying to twist words. You have failed to convince me that you have rational thought progression to arrive at a stated conclusion from the facts that you provided. You may see it but you have not been able to articulate it well enough so that I can see any defining concept.

Just sorry that we didn't get closer to my objectives. :s_drinks
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 » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:57 am

You speak of contradictions but haven't named them, quoting exactly what I said and not out of context. Please do.
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 » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:18 pm

dnosco wrote:You speak of contradictions but haven't named them, quoting exactly what I said and not out of context. Please do.


Dennis, I have a life and it doesn't include looking through all your posts so that you can parse words and rationalize each and every one. I will provide a single topic where you are known to disagree with BA. If I find your response informative, I will then give you a second topic. If not, the exercise will be terminated. I suggest brevity over volume.

The topic is the 2008 Cleveland Indians draft.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Previous

Return to Beyond The Minors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron