Indians trade Stevens and others for Mark DeRosa

[reppination7]

every time i read fans comments about this trade (most are cub fans) they hate it cub fans are relly upset about this trade

[Toxicadam]

I like the trade, but I was a big Stevens backer and would have liked to see him pitch in a Tribe uniform once. Oh well .. he definitely hit some resistance when he came to AAA .. wasn't nearly as dominating as he had been in AA or the AFL of 07. Maybe Shap was trading high on him before he really became exposed in the Bigs. Although, I think his velocity and nasty curve will make him a decent middle reliever down the road. He will just have a few rough years.

[davemanddd]

Jeff Stevens and Chris Archer and left-hander John Gaub.

Love that part of the deal

BUT HATE THIS PART!!!!------"Though the 33-year-old DeRosa played primarily at second base for the Cubs, the Indians will probably move him to third to avoid disrupting their infield."

DISRUPTING THIS INFIELD WOULD BE A GOOD THING!!!! They cant ever do somthing right all the way through. They always have to screw it up somehow.

I got this from Castrovinces blog. Link to his blog is on indians.com

yeah the dude played 97 games at 2nd base for the cubs and hit 21 home runs and the indians want to move him to 3rd??? yep, makes sense to me. the smart thing to do would be to just leave derosa at 2nd base and move asdrubal cabrera to short and jhonny peralta to 3rd. then again, if the tribe "braintrust" truly was "smart", they wouldn't have made the barfield and marte deals over the last couple of seasons. just putting derosa at 3rd is simply bringing back a 2-years younger version of casey "blank". no thanx!!!

[dazindiansfanuk]

I'm a little torn on this one...... I like DeRosa and he does fit very well on this team for 2009. That said, they gave up some talent to get him, albeit very raw talent outside of Stevens.

This is one of those deals that could look terrible in a few years time if Archer and Gaub iron out their flaws and reach their ceilings. However, with as far away as they are from the major leagues, their control/health (in Gaubs case) issues and the Indians having a hole in the infield this is a move that really has to be judged on the here and now..... and right now, it looks like a good gamble to take.

Personally, I'd play DeRosa at 2B, but I guess if/when they finally move Peralta they want to do it for good. As DeRosa is only here for 2009 then the Indians would be backing themselves into a corner of finding another 2Bman for 2010 - which would mean essentially leaving them in the position that they'd need Valbuena to be ready.

If they keep Jhonny at SS for 2009 then they leave themselves two internal development options (Hodges and Valbuena) to fill the vacant spot in 2010. If Valbuena is ready they can move Jhonny then, if not then Hodges might be ready to step right in at 3B.

[Prosecutor]

If they keep Jhonny at SS for 2009 then they leave themselves two internal development options (Hodges and Valbuena) to fill the vacant spot in 2010. If Valbuena is ready they can move Jhonny then, if not then Hodges might be ready to step right in at 3B.

I think you may have nailed it there. If DeRosa has a good year in '09 he may become too expensive to keep, especially if they need to free up some money to extend Cliff Lee. And they don't want to be in a position of playing Jhonny at 3rd in '09 and then having to move him back to shortstop in '10. So until they find a long term solution at either 2nd or 3rd, they want to keep things as is.

Ideally, Valbuena has a great season and proves he's ready to take over at 2nd in '10, which enables the Tribe to make the switch at that time. As for now, they have Peralta and DeRosa playing the positions they are most comfortable at, so that's not too bad.

It's a shame Marte didn't pan out; it would have saved the Tribe a lot of money this year.

I always hate to see the Tribe trade prospects with live arms for a 33-year-old, but Tony has these guys rated 15th, 28th, and 50th, so we have a lot of better prospects still on board. I'm not worried about giving up the lefty (Gaud) because we already have Raffie Perez and Sipp is on the way, assuming his arm is OK. As for Stevens, I'd rather lose him than Adam Miller or Meloan.

[Stu]

These conversations are getting ridiculous.



Peralta's best position: SS

Cabrera's best position: SS

DeRosa's best position: 2nd



Can someone PLEASE tell me how it makes MORE sense to play 2 guys at a weaker position, rather than just 1?

[Stu]

And they don't want to be in a position of playing Jhonny at 3rd in '09 and then having to move him back to shortstop in '10.

Why? Why is this such a bad thing? He's not going to forget how to play short in 1 year. Heck, odds are he'll end up at 1st base sometime eventually anyway. If no AAA 1B candidate comes around, and if Victor stays behind the plate, and if Garko continues to suck, we'll need a 1b.

[British_Pharaoh]

DeRosa has played a full season in the AL before with Texas

and put up really good numbers (admittedly he was playing half his games in Arlington)

.296AVG .357OBP 40 doubles and 74 ribbies
his K/BB ratio seems to improve every year.

if he can hit 280+ and have a .345+ on base average I'm happy

[British_Pharaoh]

.350 batting AVG in the playoffs as well as a 1.022OPS

[Mcreek]

Beau Mills will be the firstbaseman come 2010-11 in all likelyhood.

[Jennifer]

And they don't want to be in a position of playing Jhonny at 3rd in '09 and then having to move him back to shortstop in '10.

Why? Why is this such a bad thing? He's not going to forget how to play short in 1 year. Heck, odds are he'll end up at 1st base sometime eventually anyway. If no AAA 1B candidate comes around, and if Victor stays behind the plate, and if Garko continues to suck, we'll need a 1b.

It isn't that Peralta suddenly will forget to play short. Much of what I have read in the past has suggested that as Peralta ages he will be moved away from short. If you put Peralta at third in 2009, someone establishes himself both defensively and offensively at short in 2009, if the Tribe really wants to move him off of third in 2010 is it really going to be back to short then moving the newly established shortstop elsewhere.

Obviously not. Playing Peralta at third only makes sense if it is contemplated that is where he'll play in 2010. Why? Many of those wanting him to play third are projecting his level of skill and not his skill level on opening day. There is bound to be a learning curve at least until mid-season and probably longer. For DeRosa there is no learning curve. Does anyone doubt that on opening day that DeRosa won't be better defensively than Peralta at third. Indeed, are there many of you who believe Peralta will ever be better than DeRosa at third?

There is also a second consideration that I believe hasn't been raised. Second basemen and shortstops have to learn each other and how to work with each other on double plays. Peralta and Cabrera work well with each other. There will be a learning curve between a Cabrera and DeRosa combination. If DeRosa lasts only one season than there is another learning that will be needed in 2010.

By putting DeRosa at second the defense is weakened at second. By moving Cabrera to shortstop defense is improved. In moving Peralta to third the position is weaker than if DeRosa was playing there. In other words, while DeRosa at second, Cabrera at short and Peralta at third might have each player at his best defensive position (ignoring the questionable assumption that Peralta will be better at third than he is at short) does that really mean overall defense would be better than putting DeRosa at third?

Frankly, while I think DeRosa should play third if the decision is made to play him at second and move Peralta to third I'll just shrug because where they play is just not a big enough issue to get worked-up over.

[MadThinker88]

Beau Mills will be the firstbaseman come 2010-11 in all likelyhood.

You see Mills being ahead of LaPorta or something else happening with Matt??

[slegend]

1: I like the trade as we sent players that we can replace - two pitchers in the low system, one relief pitcher ready for a MLB career. I guess do like a player that you can control for years in the pen in Stevens more than a one year rental of a 2b/3b. We finally traded from our strength to fill a hole. Nice move by the staff. If the players traded turn out to be MLB studs, Shapiro and company have time to replace them and develop alternative arms in 2-3 years.

2: I just hope that DeRosa is "Casey Blake" - a guy that becomes a starter at the end of their prime AND posts legit numbers. We need a bat in the lineup that can hit for average and a guy to get on base. I would like to see him bat #5/#6 in the lineup behind our combo of Hafner and Martinez. We could force them to pitch to Hafner and Martinez with a veteran that can handle the bat anchoring them in the lineup.

3: Some picked up the starting pitcher topic - we still have the cash to bring a guy in - but it is going to be a veteran retread #5 type starter and not a FOR player. That means we might as well put Laffey and Sowers in the rotation at the #4 and #5 spots. Looking at the roster, the two injuries to Adam Miller and Jake Westbrook are HUGE on the rotation!

[WiscTribeFan]

Beau Mills will be the firstbaseman come 2010-11 in all likelyhood.

I see him as our potential DH with LaPorta playing 1B by then....

[Mcreek]

From what I have heard/read Mills is superior defensively to Laporta at first base but they could easily flip flop between DH/1B. This is how I see the lineup in 2010-11

Sizemore-CF
Cabrera-SS
Choo-RF
Peralta-3B
Laporta-DH
Mills-1B
Weglarz or Brantley-LF
Santanna-C
Valbuena-2b

Alot of upside here with a good mix of vets and youngsters.

[Stu]

Beau Mills will be the firstbaseman come 2010-11 in all likelyhood.

im not comfortable penciling players into major league positions who have only A ball experience.

[Mcreek]

Yea, but pencils have erasers

[Stu]

It isn't that Peralta suddenly will forget to play short. Much of what I have read in the past has suggested that as Peralta ages he will be moved away from short. If you put Peralta at third in 2009, someone establishes himself both defensively and offensively at short in 2009, if the Tribe really wants to move him off of third in 2010 is it really going to be back to short then moving the newly established shortstop elsewhere.

And if we keep him at Short, and Hodges and Valbuena are ready in 2010, then we still have 4 guys for 3 positions.

Obviously not. Playing Peralta at third only makes sense if it is contemplated that is where he'll play in 2010. Why? Many of those wanting him to play third are projecting his level of skill and not his skill level on opening day. There is bound to be a learning curve at least until mid-season and probably longer. For DeRosa there is no learning curve. Does anyone doubt that on opening day that DeRosa won't be better defensively than Peralta at third. Indeed, are there many of you who believe Peralta will ever be better than DeRosa at third?

Learning curve? He's played there in the minors. He'll play there in spring training. Hes a major league ball player, I think he can handle it.

There is also a second consideration that I believe hasn't been raised. Second basemen and shortstops have to learn each other and how to work with each other on double plays. Peralta and Cabrera work well with each other. There will be a learning curve between a Cabrera and DeRosa combination. If DeRosa lasts only one season than there is another learning that will be needed in 2010.

Is this benefit worth it if you are playing people out of position, just because its familiar who they have to their left and right?

By putting DeRosa at second the defense is weakened at second. By moving Cabrera to shortstop defense is improved. In moving Peralta to third the position is weaker than if DeRosa was playing there. In other words, while DeRosa at second, Cabrera at short and Peralta at third might have each player at his best defensive position (ignoring the questionable assumption that Peralta will be better at third than he is at short) does that really mean overall defense would be better than putting DeRosa at third?

Please explain this again. Did you just say that putting players in their BEST defensive position might not mean having a better defensive infield than if you played them out of position?

Frankly, while I think DeRosa should play third if the decision is made to play him at second and move Peralta to third I'll just shrug because where they play is just not a big enough issue to get worked-up over.[/quote]

I know errors are a pretty bad stat to base fielding performance on. However, I just can't get over the fact that DeRosa has 2 more errors in 30% fewer innings at 3rd compared to 2nd. What is the justification that DeRosa is better at 3rd than 2nd.

[ZenToasty1]

From what I have heard/read Mills is superior defensively to Laporta at first base but they could easily flip flop between DH/1B. This is how I see the lineup in 2010-11

Sizemore-CF
Cabrera-SS
Choo-RF
Peralta-3B
Laporta-DH
Mills-1B
Weglarz or Brantley-LF
Santanna-C
Valbuena-2b

Alot of upside here with a good mix of vets and youngsters.

You think VMart's going away after one more season? My wife will give up on baseball...

[MadThinker88]

I think Mcreek is only focused on a lineup where current players do not remain beyond their current contracts.

Unfortunately, with the game of baseball, we have to think in those terms from time to time.

[consigliere]

If they keep Jhonny at SS for 2009 then they leave themselves two internal development options (Hodges and Valbuena) to fill the vacant spot in 2010. If Valbuena is ready they can move Jhonny then, if not then Hodges might be ready to step right in at 3B.

That is an excellent point Daz. And if I mention it in a follow up article this weekend I will certainly credit it to you. Spot on.

[Mcreek]

Problem with that scenario is a Peralta/Hodges left side of the infield would be a disaster defensively. The FO is at least considering the possibilty that Peralta is growing out of the SS position. That combo would be a nightmare for pitchers like Carmona, Westbrook and Laffey all three groundball pitchers

[consigliere]

Problem with that scenario is a Peralta/Hodges left side of the infield would be a disaster defensively. The FO is at least considering the possibilty that Peralta is growing out of the SS position. That combo would be a nightmare for pitchers like Carmona, Westbrook and Laffey all three groundball pitchers

Said it before, and will say it again, the crap Hodges takes about his defense is way overblown. He's a solid defender. Not great, but not garbage as some keep saying. It is something he is really working on improving, and like Valbuena last year who was not liked because of what many considered average at best defender, if you give him a full year in 2009 to work on it we at least could see some improvements to where he is a steady major league performer there.

[MadThinker88]

Problem with that scenario is a Peralta/Hodges left side of the infield would be a disaster defensively. The FO is at least considering the possibilty that Peralta is growing out of the SS position. That combo would be a nightmare for pitchers like Carmona, Westbrook and Laffey all three groundball pitchers

You suggesting its possibly worse than Marte and Peralta on that side of infield??

Just checking and trying to get perspective....

[Mcreek]

Marte is superior defensively to Hodges and is about the same age. Even if Hodges becomes a fringe average defensive thirdbaseman the left side of the infield will be a disaster with Peraltas shortcomings. If you have 3/4ths of your rotation filled with sinkerball pitchers a defensive challenged Wes Hodges and the limited range of Peralta is a formula for failure.

[Mcreek]

More on Hodges Glove:

Ben from Ohio asks:
Did Wes Hodges have a shot at the top 10 or has his stock fallen a bit.

A: Ben Badler: He was close but ended up on the periphery of the 10. It's questionable whether Hodges will stick at third base, and if he does stick there, he's probably going to be among the worst fielders at his position in the game, probably a -10 to -15 runs guy each year, and it's not like he's getting any younger or more agile. He came into the season in better condition than usual, but if he has to move to first base or if he's that far below average third base, then his value takes a huge hit.

[Jennifer]

It isn't that Peralta suddenly will forget to play short. Much of what I have read in the past has suggested that as Peralta ages he will be moved away from short. If you put Peralta at third in 2009, someone establishes himself both defensively and offensively at short in 2009, if the Tribe really wants to move him off of third in 2010 is it really going to be back to short then moving the newly established shortstop elsewhere.

And if we keep him at Short, and Hodges and Valbuena are ready in 2010, then we still have 4 guys for 3 positions.

Obviously not. Playing Peralta at third only makes sense if it is contemplated that is where he'll play in 2010. Why? Many of those wanting him to play third are projecting his level of skill and not his skill level on opening day. There is bound to be a learning curve at least until mid-season and probably longer. For DeRosa there is no learning curve. Does anyone doubt that on opening day that DeRosa won't be better defensively than Peralta at third. Indeed, are there many of you who believe Peralta will ever be better than DeRosa at third?

Learning curve? He's played there in the minors. He'll play there in spring training. Hes a major league ball player, I think he can handle it.

There is also a second consideration that I believe hasn't been raised. Second basemen and shortstops have to learn each other and how to work with each other on double plays. Peralta and Cabrera work well with each other. There will be a learning curve between a Cabrera and DeRosa combination. If DeRosa lasts only one season than there is another learning that will be needed in 2010.

Is this benefit worth it if you are playing people out of position, just because its familiar who they have to their left and right?

By putting DeRosa at second the defense is weakened at second. By moving Cabrera to shortstop defense is improved. In moving Peralta to third the position is weaker than if DeRosa was playing there. In other words, while DeRosa at second, Cabrera at short and Peralta at third might have each player at his best defensive position (ignoring the questionable assumption that Peralta will be better at third than he is at short) does that really mean overall defense would be better than putting DeRosa at third?

Please explain this again. Did you just say that putting players in their BEST defensive position might not mean having a better defensive infield than if you played them out of position?

Frankly, while I think DeRosa should play third if the decision is made to play him at second and move Peralta to third I'll just shrug because where they play is just not a big enough issue to get worked-up over.

I know errors are a pretty bad stat to base fielding performance on. However, I just can't get over the fact that DeRosa has 2 more errors in 30% fewer innings at 3rd compared to 2nd. What is the justification that DeRosa is better at 3rd than 2nd.[/quote]I suggest that you read my earlier post, reread the post you quote and then ask me any questions you have.

[TitoFrancona]

Marte is superior defensively to Hodges and is about the same age. Even if Hodges becomes a fringe average defensive thirdbaseman the left side of the infield will be a disaster with Peraltas shortcomings. If you have 3/4ths of your rotation filled with sinkerball pitchers a defensive challenged Wes Hodges and the limited range of Peralta is a formula for failure.

Marte is also a 5'5" 110lb weakling with a bat in his hand. The guy has 0 power. Which might not be so bad if he actually hit for an adequate avg. But he has done neither.

[Stu]

I suggest that you read my earlier post, reread the post you quote and then ask me any questions you have.

Not likely.

[Rocky55]

Marte is superior defensively to Hodges and is about the same age. Even if Hodges becomes a fringe average defensive thirdbaseman the left side of the infield will be a disaster with Peraltas shortcomings. If you have 3/4ths of your rotation filled with sinkerball pitchers a defensive challenged Wes Hodges and the limited range of Peralta is a formula for failure.

Marte is also a 5'5" 110lb weakling with a bat in his hand. The guy has 0 power. Which might not be so bad if he actually hit for an adequate avg. But he has done neither.

Not trying to nitpick Tito, because I agree that Marte can't hit period, but "0 power"?

Marte won the AAA HR Derby in ('06?) in my hometown of Toledo and was hitting them on to Monroe Street. Some were hitting the buildings on the other side of the street.

I know it's just batting practice but I'd have trouble hitting a seven iron that far.

[Mcreek]

Marte is also a 5'5" 110lb weakling with a bat in his hand. The guy has 0 power. Which might not be so bad if he actually hit for an adequate avg. But he has done neither

That wasn't MadThinkers question. This was:

You suggesting its(The Hodges/Peralta combo ) possibly worse than Marte and Peralta on that side of infield??

Just checking and trying to get perspective

It would be much worse defensively. Hodges actually made 8 more errors in the AZFL in only 21 games. The guy is a butcher and he is no kid. He will turn 25 later this year

[Jennifer]

I suggest that you read my earlier post, reread the post you quote and then ask me any questions you have.

Not likely.

Guess you didn't really want the answers to the questions I already answered.

[noles1]

I suggest that you read my earlier post, reread the post you quote and then ask me any questions you have.

Not likely.

Guess you didn't really want the answers to the questions I already answered.

Don't worry he seems to do that quite a bit. Actually reading and comprehending others' points seems to be too much work. He'd much rather prefer to think what he wants and put words in posters' comments.

[Stu]

I suggest that you read my earlier post, reread the post you quote and then ask me any questions you have.

Not likely.

Guess you didn't really want the answers to the questions I already answered.

Fine I'll bite. I reread them, and neither of your 2 posts in this thread address 3 of my 4 responses to you:

1. Peralta's learning curve at 3rd and if one actually exists.

2. How playing guys out of their best position is better than playing them where they would likely be most effective.

3. Why DeRosa should play 3rd when he has more errors there in 30% fewer innings than at 2nd.

[Stu]

Don't worry he seems to do that quite a bit. Actually reading and comprehending others' points seems to be too much work. He'd much rather prefer to think what he wants and put words in posters' comments.

If you have an issue with me because of the Rooney rule discussion, leave it in the Browns forum.

[Jennifer]

I suggest that you read my earlier post, reread the post you quote and then ask me any questions you have.

Not likely.

Guess you didn't really want the answers to the questions I already answered.

Fine I'll bite. I reread them, and neither of your 2 posts in this thread address my 2 responses to you:

1. Peralta's learning curve at 3rd and if one actually exists.

2. How playing guys out of their best position is better than playing them where they would likely be most effective.

Stu -- I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I asked you to reread and restate your questions I had not already answered. Your latest post seems to have done that.

As to your first question I'm not at sure how to answer that because frankly it boggles my mind to think that anyone believes that a player who played a limited amount of third at the major league and minor league levels -- and not since 2004 -- and by the start of the season willl only have added only winter league and spring training games will be at his fielding mean. Garko at the end of his second season at first was still improving. Cabrera no doubt is still improving at second. If Sizemore was switched to a corner outfield position while he might play it well from the start would still show improvement the more he plays.

So much of both hitting and fielding is "muscle memory." "Muscle memory" is a function of repetition.

As to your second question I do feel I answered it but I'll supplement it. We are discussing total infield defense (with first included) and marginal increase or decrease in moving players around. DeRosa's best position might be second (but see below) but having him at second weakens defense at second because he is not as good as Cabrera at second. The move would, therefore, second base defense.

Cabrera at short increases defense at short.

While Peralta might be better at third he is not better than DeRosa at third.

So the question becomes would the improvement of defense at shortstop exceed the the weaker defense at second and third.

DeRosa, 33, spent most of time last year at second base, but he packs light. He played six different positions last year, including 95 games at second, 38 in right field, 27 in left, 22 at third and 10 each at first and shortstop. A source close to the Cubs said third base is his best defensive position

(Emphasis added).

http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/

[TitoFrancona]

Not trying to nitpick Tito, because I agree that Marte can't hit period, but "0 power"?

Marte won the AAA HR Derby in ('06?) in my hometown of Toledo and was hitting them on to Monroe Street. Some were hitting the buildings on the other side of the street.

I know it's just batting practice but I'd have trouble hitting a seven iron that far.

Yeah, I well remember the HR derby he won and all the reports of his tape measure power.

Unfortunately, he has never shown even a little power in the majors. And he's not showing any now in winter ball. I seriously doubt any hitting instructor would take someone who had 25+ hr potential and purposely turn him into a singles hitter. If they did, they shouldn't be hitting coaches.

[bookelly]

If DeRosa hits half as good as his wife looks , we're fine.

[TribeNut]

These conversations are getting ridiculous.



Peralta's best position: SS

Cabrera's best position: SS

DeRosa's best position: 2nd



Can someone PLEASE tell me how it makes MORE sense to play 2 guys at a weaker position, rather than just 1?

Exactly who is it that feels that DeRosa's best defensive position is 2B? It certainly isn't the Cubs, who frequently would move DeRosa to the OF late in games and bring Fontenot in to play 2B. Also isn't the Cubs, who feel that they can replace DeRosa with a Miles/Fontenot platoon.

Shapiro has already said that he feels that DeRosa's best defensive position is 3B. If such is the case, then I don't see the harm in leaving Jhonny and Cabrera where they are at. DeRosa will be gone after 2009 anyway- he will either play like the super utility guy that he is and find a multiyear deal elsewhere, or finally get off the sauce, be a disappointment and slink away.


bookelly: pictures of DeRosa's wife are necessary to fully understand your post.

[Ziner]

bookelly: pictures of DeRosa's wife are necessary to fully understand your post.

Ill help you out bookelly, good enough for you tribe nut?

[tribefan333]

Ohhhhh, that explains it.

THAT'S why Cubs fans are pissed.

[Jhonny]

DeRosa's best position: 2nd

This is debatable, and unclear. His bat profiles better at second, but with the Indians that is not the issue. There's been some reports that he's better at 3b. I'd rather move Jhonny to third myself, but I see what the Indians are doing.

[Mcreek]

Shapiro has already said that he feels that DeRosa's best defensive position is 3B

Oh, Shapiro said. If you are putting stock into what Shapiro says then Alex Escobar is an impact five tool player, Both Andy Marte and Josh Barfield are core prospects, Dave Dellucci is now playing like the player we thought we were getting when we signed him (Comments made last season), Ramon Vazquez is a better fit than Brandon Phillips. If we have learned anything its not to trust anything coming out of Shapiros mouth.

I have yet to see any evidence that Derosa is a better thirdbaseman with the bat or glove then his natural position playing secondbase. Shapiros opinion is meanigless too me.

[Stu]

Shapiro has already said that he feels that DeRosa's best defensive position is 3B

Oh, Shapiro said. If you are putting stock into what Shapiro says then Alex Escobar is an impact five tool player, Both Andy Marte and Josh Barfield are core prospects, Dave Dellucci is now playing like the player we thought we were getting when we signed him (Comments made last season), Ramon Vazquez is a better fit than Brandon Phillips. If we have learned anything its not to trust anything coming out of Shapiros mouth.

I have yet to see any evidence that Derosa is a better thirdbaseman with the bat or glove then his natural position playing secondbase. Shapiros opinion is meanigless too me.

Sadly I agree with this. Not a lot of stock in it.

[Stu]

Exactly who is it that feels that DeRosa's best defensive position is 2B? It certainly isn't the Cubs, who frequently would move DeRosa to the OF late in games and bring Fontenot in to play 2B. Also isn't the Cubs, who feel that they can replace DeRosa with a Miles/Fontenot platoon

Just because Fontenot is better than DeRosa at 2nd, doesnt mean that DeRosa is better at 3rd than 2nd. It means Fontenot is better at 2nd.

[Stu]

Ohhhhh, that explains it.

THAT'S why Cubs fans are pissed.

Thats why we are here!

[Stu]

As to your first question I'm not at sure how to answer that because frankly it boggles my mind to think that anyone believes that a player who played a limited amount of third at the major league and minor league levels -- and not since 2004 -- and by the start of the season willl only have added only winter league and spring training games will be at his fielding mean. Garko at the end of his second season at first was still improving. Cabrera no doubt is still improving at second. If Sizemore was switched to a corner outfield position while he might play it well from the start would still show improvement the more he plays.

I'm not sure you can compare the learning curves of moving a short stop to third and a stocky, slow footed catcher to first base.

So much of both hitting and fielding is "muscle memory." "Muscle memory" is a function of repetition.

While its a different angle and speed, repetition is still similar. Plus many agree Jhonny already has the arm for 3rd.

As to your second question I do feel I answered it but I'll supplement it. We are discussing total infield defense (with first included) and marginal increase or decrease in moving players around. DeRosa's best position might be second (but see below) but having him at second weakens defense at second because he is not as good as Cabrera at second. The move would, therefore, second base defense.

Cabrera at short increases defense at short.

While Peralta might be better at third he is not better than DeRosa at third.

So the question becomes would the improvement of defense at shortstop exceed the the weaker defense at second and third.

The disagreement we have boils down to whether or not DeRosa really is better than Peralta at 3rd. I think Peralta can be a good defensive 3rd baseman, even with a learning curve. If thats the case, then we have improvement at SS, decline at 2nd, no change or maybe improvement at 3rd in my scenario. You disagree about Peralta's fielding. Until we see for ourselves, oh well.

Lastly, I was not trying to pick a fight with you either. But most people wouldn't appreciate receiving a reply that simply says, reread this, that, and the other and then you can talk to me.

[IronMike]

Regarding Hodges being inadequate as a third baseman at this stage of his career.

This scenerio might apply.

When the Indians obtained Craig Nettles from the Twins he was awful as a third baseman. Nettles with the help of the coaching staff and pure desire ... fielded 100 ground balls per day over an extended period of time and made himself into not only a good third baseman but later became a Gold Glover with the Yankees.

If Hodges can hit, and he will and has desire he can make himself a good third baseman and that is probably what will happen.

[chitownmike]

Peralta to 3B may be inevitable, but I get the logic of keeping him at SS in 2009:
1. Improving the left side of the IF means Garko/DeRosa on the right side. Yikes.
2. If Hodges proves ready for prime time and Valbuena not so much, where does he play?
Shapiro is just keeping his options open.
Mike

[TitoFrancona]

Peralta to 3B may be inevitable, but I get the logic of keeping him at SS in 2009:
1. Improving the left side of the IF means Garko/DeRosa on the right side. Yikes.
2. If Hodges proves ready for prime time and Valbuena not so much, where does he play?
Shapiro is just keeping his options open.Mike

IF Shapiro makes out the lineups then why is Wedge here?