Aaron Laffey and the devolopment of role players

[Lando12]

It is conceivable that in an absolute sense, Laffey is more valuable in the pen. If his performance is better in the pen, he pitches enough innings, and he's properly leveraged, I don't find the idea to be too out there. It is also tough to imagine that Laffey is more valuable in the pen on the 2010 Indians. The needs in the rotation are simply too great and the potential replacements are less than stellar.

My question is: where should a team in the Indians position put Laffey? Should they push forward with the pen idea if they believe it is his best long term spot? How willing should the organization be to make these kinds of decisions. The infield is due to get crowded with Donald, Chisenhall, and Rivero on the way. How quickly should an infielder get tossed into the utility role? If it comes down to a choice between Brantley and Weglarz for the LF spot, how is that distinction made?

With the depth in the organization, the Indians are going to be faced with a lot of decisions like the Laffey to bullpen decision. How do these choices get made? How big of a MLB tryout should someone get and how willing should the team be to throw a less talented youngster out of the way?

[FordPrefect]

Good question. I wish I had answer. I guess if they think he's a 4/5 guy what they did makes sense - Carrasco and Rondon are going to be needed in the rotation eventually, and there's more coming.

I think Laffey could be more than that, but that's not really my call.



Btw, Lando, I'm GIH.

[DavidMcGr]

I think that moving Laffey to the pen makes logical sense given our ample depth of (not so great) starters and our need for a solid long-reliever but I wonder if Talbot wasn't the better choice. Simply put I think Laffey is a better pitcher and I tend to want the better pitchers in the rotation.

With that said, this could be more a long-term move than a short-term one. With Masterson and Carmona (unless he's traded) as locks in the rotation for the foreseeable future that only leaves 3 spots for the rest of our young starters. Huff and Talbot will likely be underwhelming it's fair to assume that at least one will turn out to be a reliable BOR starter, meanwhile we will be having a steady flow of fellow BOR starters to fill in when needed and amply higher potential arms get their shot. This year we are expecting Carrasco and Rondon to get their shots and in the following couple of seasons we'll be seeing Hagadone, Putnam, White, De La Cruz, Knapp, TJ House among others. While I think it's typically foolish to make moves that are iffy projections what is our rotation primed to look like in the next following seasons? Namely, would Laffey be in bullpen anyway?

Middle-to-end of 2010:
Masterson
Carmona
Carrasco
Rondon
Huff
Talbot
Gomez
Putnam
Pino
Graham
and more...

start-to-middle of 2011:
Masterson
Carmona
Carrasco
Rondon
Hagadone
Perez
White
Putnam
Huff
Graham
De La Cruz
Gomez
Talbot
Pino
and more...

end of 2011 to start of 2012:
Masterson
Carmona
Hagadone
Carrasco
Rondon
White
Knapp
Perez
De La Cruz
House
Putnam
Huff
Graham
Gomez
Talbot
Pino
and more...

Oh yeah, Laffey also has some killer platoon splits. I'm not a believer in them but I wouldn't be surprised if the FO was.

[Lando12]

I like the move of Laffey to the pen for two reasons.

First, I think he's capable of performing in an odd bullpen role. If he truly is going to be used as a leveraged long man, curiosity demands that I like the move.

The second reason relates to the other decisions I danced around. With the tremendous depth you just listed, I think the worst thing the Indians could do is get attached to a guy with a 4.90 ERA. Tampa gave up on Sonnanstine pretty quickly and traded Kazmir. I really hope the Indians have the guts to make those kinds of moves. I hope that the willingness to move Laffey, who may be the second best starter on the team right now, shows that they are willing to get guys out of the way. I really don't want roles handed out on a first come, first serve basis.

[ericturner29]

I dream of a day when the Indians can say that a guy like Laffey isn't one of their 5 best starters, and when that day comes, I'd move him to the pen with a smile on my face.

Until then, I'd take the additional 130 innings he can provide in the rotation.

[DavidMcGr]

I agree in concept but in this exact scenario I do know if that is necessarily the best choice. The problem with keeping Laffey in the rotation until better players replace him is that if he's in the rotation then when do those other players get a chance? We're in this odd situation right now where we have no solid, proven, FOR (or even high MOR) starters yet ample potential. My point being that if Laffey is giving us some solid innings in the rotation that means that one of Carrasco, Rondon, Hagadone etc... will not be getting their chance to prove their increased value. I think the logical objection to this is that Huff and Talbot are likely worse than Laffey so they should be ones moved to the pen (ie: put your worst starter there) but it could be that they feel Laffey was the suited for the pen due to being a LHP with some rather serious platoon splits (again, I think this is more of a sample size issue but perhaps not). It's also plausible that they feel Laffey could be even more valuable in the pen this year due to the large degree of inconsistency with our starters and certain need for long-relievers in fairly high-leverage situations.

Personally I would've left Laffey in the rotation and moved Talbot to the rotation, but I'm playing Devil's advocate on this one.


Also, slightly on-topic, I wonder when a 6-man rotation is going to be coming out. Assuming that we're out of contention sometime this summer, Westbrook will be moved and we'll be in a full evaluation stage with all eyes on 2011 and onward. Given the innings limitations on virtually all of our starers and the desire to get a look-see on almost anyone that we can (ie: we'll want to set the 2011 rotation as best we can right off the gate) I feel like a 6-man rotation is almost inevitable (pending injuries of course). In a perfect world who is going to be in it though?

Masterson
Carmona
Carrasco
Rondon
Huff
Talbot
Gomez
Pino
??? (at one of Putnam/White/Hagadone/Graham etc... has a decent chance of accelerating quickly)

It seems like there is likely room for Huff/Talbot as that list will surely take some injuries so it isn't as if Laffey needed to be preemptively moved to the pen because he would be there by the end of the season anyway.

[Lando12]

If I'm remembering correctly, Laffey originally went to the pen because he warms up quickly. Something about being a good athlete. It isn't necessary in the long term, as I believe that they worked on warming up quicker with Rafael Perez, but it was necessary with the odd circumstances surrounding Laffey's first trip to the pen. I would guess that Laffey has remained a pen option simply because he showed some success in the role the first time. If I had to guess, I would say that if Laffey hadn't succeeded in the pen last year, he would be in the rotation right now.

I also have to wonder if the organization's new found love of velocity plays into things. I would doubt it, but I think it could be a part of the decision. There seemed to be an abrupt shift from not minding soft tossing lefties to acquiring a bunch of power arms. Laffey could be a relic of a now abandoned philosophy.

As far as the 6 man rotation goes, it would make sense. They would probably have to sacrifice an extra pen arm, but that wouldn't be too big of a problem. I would guess that a 6 man rotation wouldn't be implemented until the second half, and a good bit of that is September. They wouldn't have to do without the spare arm for long. As far as who gets the first shot, it would almost have to be Carrasco. Good springs seem to stick with the organization, and Carrasco gave them a few warm fuzzies this year. After that it's Rondon, and then it is a free for all. I would have guessed Gomez, but Pino was solid this spring and probably isn't a bad bet to put up better numbers at AAA. I would rather put Pino in the pen for all of the same reasons I don't mind Laffey in the pen, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

[FordPrefect]

It's not going to happen, but I think in a world where Masterson and Laffey were both 100 inning relievers, with Perez around also that it would be one of the best pens ever.

Unfortunately, the Indians are about 5 pitchers short of that reality.

[FordPrefect]

You know what I would love for this organization to value? Command. Cripes, the pitching staff can't throw a strike right now.

I prefer guys with velocity, but there's no point in it unless they can throw strikes.

[Lando12]

I have a soft spot for alternative bullpen construction, so the idea of a Laffey/Masterson team appeals to me. I doubt that Masterson would be better served in the pen, but the general idea of several top notch, multi-inning relievers seems like it could work.

It would be interesting if such an idea was possible even without Masterson. The pitching depth in the organization does seem a bit excessive. They won't all be in the rotation. It has always been assumed that trading the surplus would be the right move, and it may be, but this does present another alternative. What if guys like Berger and Barnes fill those kinds of bullpen roles in the future? Sending former starters to the pen is hardly groundbreaking, but I don't know how many capable starters get sent. We're a ways away from declaring those guys capable MLB starters, but one would figure that some of the depth will emerge.

It's a fun plan, and the Indians just may have the horses to try it.

As a bit of an aside, what if Rondon had succeeded in the pen? Would he be in Laffey's shoes in the near future?

[DavidMcGr]

I don't think that Masterson should be anywhere near bullpen talks. He's our best starter right now and has pretty significant upside. Essentially he's a Jake Westbrook who can strike guys out, meaning that he'll likely be a safe MOR starter but has the potential to go as high as a Brandon Webb-type starter if he can cut back on the walks.