Printable View
I'm a bit nervous about this trade.
Could Kouz be a perennial .330 hitter with some pop? If there is any mystery surrounding Kouz is if the day in and day out of playing a field position affects his health.
Other than that the guy has hit everywhere he's been.
San Diego seems to love Barfield. Barfield reminds me of Brandon Phillips. Ouch! (ouch because we basically gave Brandon away and to get a Brandon type back we may have given up a real pure hitter.
Remind me where Kouz was going to play again? 3b? Andy Marte. 1b? Hopefully Ryan Garko. DH? Travis Hafner.
You can eliminate the OF as Kouz wouldn't be able to hold up in LF. And you can eliminate 2b as Kouz is not a 2bman.
Kouz had no position, and the Indians (for whatever reason) needed a second baseman.
Its a great trade for the Indians - could turn out to be a good trade for San Diego, but right now the Indians won this trade as they traded two players they weren't going to use for a player at a position of need.
Kouz can play either 3rd or first, so rotating the big three over those two positions would have resulted in all three playing 108 games, aka over 400 at bats each.
Perhaps the problem with this concept is that it greatly reduces additional playing options for Vic and Casey. A case of the new talent overlapping our existing veteran players was probably the underlying reason this trade was made.
And I'm not against getting Barfield, just pointing out that Kouz may turn out to be a George Brett type of hitter, a high batting average with extra base hit power even if his home run totals don't surpass 30 in most years.
Another way to approach this situation, of the three players we had for two positions, (Garko, Marte and Kouz), which one would you have traded for Barfield?
Kouz has back problems, he plays through the pain. (akron beacon)
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Kouz.Quote:
Originally posted by Alex:
Another way to approach this situation, of the three players we had for two positions, (Garko, Marte and Kouz), which one would you have traded for Barfield?
Less upside of "the big three" more injury issues.
Ok, so now Garko is left.
Is it worth it to trade Garko to accomodate additional playing time for FIVE other players, or is Garko "good enough" to force those other five players into less playing time?
If Garko plays first, then Blake, Vic, Shoppach, Choo and Gutz ALL see less playing time next season, 32 games less for each one if Garko were to play full time at first.
I think it's safe to say that whichever way the Indians choose to go, if they retain Garko and cut into the at bat opportunities for up to five other players, or they trade Garko for pitching help, an equally effective argument could be made for or against doing either.
If Garko is traded, then Casey becomes the super-sub, perhaps playing 30 games at third, 30 games at first, 30 games in right, and 30 games in left.
This opens up enough playing time for Choo, Gutz, Vic at first, and Shoppach catching whenever Vic is at first.
On the other hand, Garko looked comfortable from the get go as a hitter, and his fielding will eventually be very acceptable.
Then again, in limited playing time at first, Vic did hit .350 in 21 games at first.
If Blake becomes the super sub, and Inglett is kept as the utility guy, we manage to keep both Choo and Gutz on the team, along with Inglett, and this is a huge infusion of team speed over last year.
I actually think Michaels is an OK player, but I just don't see him fitting onto our team for next season, not at the expense of lost at bats for both Choo and Gutz.
Inglet won't make the team unless he can learn to play shortstop all of a sudden...
w/ Kouz gone Garko almost needs to stay unless Shapiro is overwhelmed in a trade (& any reliever not named Street from the A's is not going to do it)
Vic will get plenty of PT between 1b and Catcher [ Choo and Blake will work into the OF rotation depending on what happens in LF - and Michaels might not even be back next year...