Lansing signed...

[brianp]

This is what came to mind for me when I heard about the signing. What if Lansing is just protection at 3rd for Fryman so that Branyan can be moved? Moving Branyan for a left fielder (Kapler?), and keeping Lansing for insurance at 3rd would be an ok move by me. I would rather have Lansing on this team than Brady Anderson. At least Lansing won't try to hit leadoff.

------------------

[The Genius]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *TR:
Still kind of scary to think they might let this guy make this team or (gulp) as suggested above, trade Omar shift Guttierez and start Lansing at 2nd (AHHHHHHH!!!). I would be much happier if he wasn't around at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's the problem with him?
Lifetime averages: Omar .274, Lansing .271, Ricky G .267. Lansing has more pop and costs a helluva lot less.


------------------

[Swanny]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Genius:
to a minor league deal. Good pickup. This means Omar can be traded for prospects while he still has value, Ricky G can stay at short, and we can all live happily ever after.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't believe I'm knocked for some of my posts and then you come up with this brilliant idea??? I don't think you are much of a genius anymore!

------------------

[The Genius]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Swanny:
I can't believe I'm knocked for some of my posts and then you come up with this brilliant idea??? I don't think you are much of a genius anymore!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't think you are much of a Swanny either!
Seiously, I don't have a problem with trading Omar if we get a couple good infield prospects for him. We aren't going to win anything for at least a couple of years anyway, so let Ricky G and Mike Lansing anchor the middle. We save money and build for a real future. Sounds like the corporate plan.



------------------

[Swanny]

Let Ricky G and Lansing anchor the middle????? That is an unbelievable statement. I would trade Omar also for a couple of decent prospects but I sure wouldn't feel comfortable with these 2 "anchoring" the middle. I'm sure even some of your pals on this forum will agree with me on this one. I would seriously like you to take the time to think about that statement and think about deleting it before you are laughed off this forum. Lansing??????

------------------

[*TR]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Genius:
What's the problem with him?
Lifetime averages: Omar .274, Lansing .271, Ricky G .267. Lansing has more pop and costs a helluva lot less.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With a .292 OBP in 2000 and .294 OBP in 2001, Mike Lansing has has the lowest OBP for any MLB 2b with 350 AB's in a season for two straight years. The worst of ANY 2b in either league with 350+ AB's. 2000 & 2001 he was the worst for both leagues at 2b. How else can I say it? Now if you're unconcerned about this abysmal on-base-percentage then perhaps you've been mis-monikered. It's pretty hard to be the worst at anything two years running and keep a job.
And don't even mention his defense. He's a no-range short-armed middle infielder. Who says? Take your pick; me, Scouting Notebook 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, Baseball Propectus 2001, or any reputable publication or scouting service, the consensus is that defense isn't even close to his forte (and that's being nice).
A lot more pop? Not lately. Ricky G slg. pct. in 2001 was .402, Lansing .384. Actually since coming over to the AL from inflated stats Colorado mid-season in 2000 Lansing's slg pct is around .350. That's Omar territory, but even Omar manages to get on base at a much higher pct. (.323 in a bad 2001).
Repeat it again...Mike Lansing can't play...at any price. ANY alternative is better, short and long term.

------------------




[This message has been edited by *TR (edited February 02, 2002).]

[The Genius]

I checked in at FanHome to see if anybody else shares my views on the Lansing signing.
Here are three samples (none of them from me): Now, can we have a little tolerance of other people's views?

"not a bad pickup... no $$$ basically and we
have an option if we deal Omar or Mcdonald or
have and injury...
like Say Fryman can't... now we don't have to
move Branyan to 3B and play
Anderson/Cordero...
a no risk move... and a good one"

"Lansing was signed so Shapiro could openly
shop Omar. Lansing could play second base,
Guitierrez would play SS and we would get
young prospects for Omar. Sounds good to me."

"Lansing also has a little time at third so he gives us insurance in case Fryman can't go
out of ST.
Not a bad insurance signing, he was solidly
mediocre after the All-Star break last year."


------------------

[Swanny]

All this shows me is that there are some very dumb Tribe fans out there.

------------------

[the teacher]

Lansing is Cabrera insurance, plain and simple. He's a potential fill-in for a utility man. Nothing more.

------------------
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est

[The Crank]

Lansing is not much more than Buffalo fodder, perhaps making the team as an utility infielder. He is not going to play on the Indians on a regular basis. Besides, its too late to trade Omar now - if that happens you might as well strip the team and completely write the season off.

------------------


[This message has been edited by The Crank (edited February 03, 2002).]