News
Inbox: What does Tribe see in Peralta?
Beat reporter Anthony Castrovince answers fans' questions
By Anthony Castrovince / MLB.com
11/30/09 10:00 AM EST
It's the holiday season, money's a little tight, and I've got Bath & Body Works gift cards to buy for all my relatives. So I've decided to win the lottery. Now, while I've known about the lottery's existence for many years, I've never actively participated all that often. But it's my understanding that for $1, I can win several million dollars, and this seems to me to be a reasonable trade. Trouble is, the lottery, from what I've gathered, has rather unreasonable odds. Only like one out of every 10 people who buy a Mega Millions ticket wins the jackpot. I haven't looked this up, obviously, but the odds might be even worse than that. I can only imagine what it must be like to live in a tiny state like Rhode Island, where every resident wins the lottery at least once every six months. You ever meet somebody from Rhode Island? Me neither. They don't leave the state. They just stay there counting their cash. Before I go buy that winning ticket, I figured I'd answer a few Tribe-related questions. And if you know any winning numbers, please submit those, as well. Rhode Island submissions are especially appreciated. Why does the Tribe hold on to Jhonny Peralta?-- Bill G., Land O' Lakes, Fla. Peralta isn't going anywhere this winter. This much is clear. If it wasn't clear already, it was made abundantly clear when manager Manny Acta told reporters about the discussion he had with Peralta recently. In that discussion, Acta told Peralta how important he is to this team and how much the Tribe will be counting on him in 2010. Can Peralta be counted on? That's the $4.6 million question. Peralta has already established that he is not a leader on this ballclub. It's simply not in his personality to be vocal or to show much emotion, win or lose. What the Indians want is for him to play solid defense on the hot corner and be a productive bat in the middle of the order. Former manager Eric Wedge tried various tactics with Peralta -- ripping him one day, praising him the next -- and nothing clicked with any real consistency. Peralta has yet to reach what the Indians deem to be his true potential. Miffed by the move from shortstop to third base -- a move that was handled in head-scratching fashion by Wedge -- last year, Peralta had another up-and-down season. He apparently told Acta that the position switch affected him. It's fashionable to say that Peralta starts slow, has his spurts here and there and generally finishes with the same numbers. But his numbers took a tumble in nearly every category in '09 -- most notably his homers dipping from 23 to 11, his batting average dipping from .276 to .254 and his slugging percentage dipping from .473 to .375. And that's the meat of the issue. The Indians couldn't trade Peralta right now for a worthwhile return, even if they tried. And given that they have no immediate options to replace him at third (yes, I'm familiar with the work of Andy Marte), they're going to stick with him for the final guaranteed year of his contract and wait for Lonnie Chisenhall or Wes Hodges to emerge from the Minors.
|
Have a question about the Indians?
 E-mail your query to MLB.com Indians beat reporter Anthony Castrovince for possible inclusion in a future Inbox column. Letters may be edited for brevity, length and/or content.
|
||||||||
In September, we discussed the non-callup of Jordan Brown because of his supposed defensive liabilities. If they really continue to be a problem, does he have a career as a designated hitter, perhaps replacing Travis Hafner, if Pronk continues to have shoulder problems?
-- Michael H., Bethesda, Md.
-- Mandy M., Cleveland Acta seconded the opinion of Wedge and said he views Masterson as a starter, going into next year. It was obvious in August and September that the transition from relieving to starting won't be a seamless one for Masterson. But if he can make his changeup an effective pitch against left-handers, he has a chance to succeed in the starting role. Is there any way the new coaches and young arms for 2010 could result in Tim Belcher assessing individual pitchers' repertoires and experimenting by adding a new pitch for more control and effectiveness?
-- Drew M., Phoenix I'd say that's certainly a possibility. Not for every guy on the staff, of course, but any time a pitcher works with a new coach, the opportunity is there for a little creativity and trial and error. While I wouldn't expect any major changes to the young pitchers' repertoires, there is bound to be the occasional tweak in delivery and/or approach. Do you think money was the reason Bobby Valentine didn't get the job as manager?
-- Dave D., Prescott, Ariz. I'm still not convinced Valentine was serious about managing here. While I do think he is interested in managing in the big leagues again, it seems he used the opportunity with the Indians as a means of dipping his toes back into the Major League waters to let other clubs know his intentions. Money probably wasn't an issue -- yet -- because the discussion never really reached that point (though you could certainly speculate that Valentine might have been looking for a bigger pay day than the Indians could afford). In Acta, the Indians had a guy they liked who sincerely wanted the job, and they had to move quickly to keep him from going to the Astros. Is it completely out of the question for Kerry Wood to return to being a starter? This is what he established himself as, and he was very good at it. At $10 million per year, I'd rather see him pitch a game every five days instead of sitting in the 'pen and getting a shot at a save every fifth game.
-- Sky, Coshocton, Ohio Interestingly (or not so interestingly), this was a topic broached by several different readers this week. Suffice to say the Indians have no plans whatsoever to convert Wood back to starting. Guys get converted to relief work for a reason, and Wood is no exception. He has grown to love relief work, which has prolonged his Major League career, and his arsenal probably isn't deep or dependable enough to go back to starting. Toss in his injury history, and I'd say he's right where he belongs in the bullpen. Would you be able to help me understand something? You wrote, "The Indians won't have the payroll freedom to be in on anything more than low-rung free agents in the open market." I'm confused. We've traded away almost every big salary we've had over the last year, so how are we so restricted? If we can't afford a free agent with a team completely stocked with Triple-A talent, I'm frightened. Thanks for helping me get a grip on this.
-- Rod D., Saint Michael, Minn. I'd be happy to help, Rod. The Indians saved about $16 million in 2010 salary by trading away the Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez option years. Meanwhile, ownership was expecting to lose $16 million in 2009 because of payroll committed to a club that neither played well on the field nor drew well at the box office. See where I'm going with this? While nothing in life (or baseball) is simple, that's the simplest way to break down this situation. The Indians are going to go with a leaner payroll in 2010. They are attempting to climb out of the hole they dug themselves with back-to-back subpar seasons by initiating a "reloading" period in which youth will prevail next year. The plan is to make a more earnest effort to contend in 2011, though it's too early to speculate whether a legitimate payroll increase will be made at that time. In the meantime, I'd expect a quiet Winter Meetings for the Tribe next week. And because of those Winter Meetings, the Inbox will be on hiatus next Monday. But keep those questions coming, and I'll get to them in December.
Anthony Castrovince is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.
