Does moving Lawrie to 2B pave the way for a move for a 3B??

[galacticos2]

If no move were to be made, that would mean Izzy would be at third or even Edwin, but obviously Lawrie would be the logically choice because of his range and better arm.

IMO, this may lead to a deal for Chase Headly who was a revelation last year posting up career numbers, but has struggled this year, and will be arbitration eligible in the offseason.

I'll also like the Jays to see if Martin Prado is available as he is also struggling, but the Dbacks are also in first, and probably won't deal him.

[dagger]

Short term, I think it means little. I'd guess it's more about possibilities this winter to plug a hole in the infield. It might also influence who gets ditched as our rehab pitchers begin to return at the end of July and into August. It gives AA a little more flexibility. But Lawrie is not going to get in a whole lot of innings at 2B before he is recalled.

[Schad]

Trying Lawrie at second is likely to open up the option of playing Bautista at third, with Davis/Melky manning the corners...or potentially DFAing Boni and calling up Pillar, should he keep hitting.

[Exar Kun]

Trying Lawrie at second is likely to open up the option of playing Bautista at third, with Davis/Melky manning the corners...or potentially DFAing Boni and calling up Pillar, should he keep hitting.

Could also move EE to 3rd, keep Lind at 1st. Melky can be our DH if he's not suspended 50 more games.

[galacticos2]

Trying Lawrie at second is likely to open up the option of playing Bautista at third, with Davis/Melky manning the corners...or potentially DFAing Boni and calling up Pillar, should he keep hitting.

Why waste his arm at third plus his back injury earlier from playing third pretty much cements that he isn't gonna play 3B unless it's an emergency situation.

[galacticos2]

Short term, I think it means little. I'd guess it's more about possibilities this winter to plug a hole in the infield. It might also influence who gets ditched as our rehab pitchers begin to return at the end of July and into August. It gives AA a little more flexibility. But Lawrie is not going to get in a whole lot of innings at 2B before he is recalled.

Source?

[Schad]

Trying Lawrie at second is likely to open up the option of playing Bautista at third, with Davis/Melky manning the corners...or potentially DFAing Boni and calling up Pillar, should he keep hitting.

Why waste his arm at third plus his back injury earlier from playing third pretty much cements that he isn't gonna play 3B unless it's an emergency situation.

No one's arm is ever wasted at third.

[galacticos2]

Trying Lawrie at second is likely to open up the option of playing Bautista at third, with Davis/Melky manning the corners...or potentially DFAing Boni and calling up Pillar, should he keep hitting.

Why waste his arm at third plus his back injury earlier from playing third pretty much cements that he isn't gonna play 3B unless it's an emergency situation.

No one's arm is ever wasted at third.

Rather have his cannon of an arm in the outfield than at third. What about his injury concerns?

[Randle McMurphy]

It better because otherwise moving Lawrie off third makes little sense.

[dagger]

Trying Lawrie at second is likely to open up the option of playing Bautista at third, with Davis/Melky manning the corners...or potentially DFAing Boni and calling up Pillar, should he keep hitting.

Actually, Gibbons surprised me with his comments this afternoon that he won't be using Bautista at 3B and will use EE there only sparingly. If we take that at face value, it means DeRosa and Izturis will be our 3B which sounds like we're punting the problem down field. Gibbons nattered on about Lawrie's great athleticism and a desire to pair that with Reyes's athleticism and range.

Frankly, I find it all hard to believe. These conditions have existed since we signed Reyes and no move has been made to try it until now, when the possible DFA or trade for Bonifacio and/or Kawasaki looms large. Alsom one game in Lansing and one in Buffalo at 2B doesn't seem like much preparation for a guy they felt couldn't handle second in the past.

[Schad]

Trying Lawrie at second is likely to open up the option of playing Bautista at third, with Davis/Melky manning the corners...or potentially DFAing Boni and calling up Pillar, should he keep hitting.

Actually, Gibbons surprised me with his comments this afternoon that he won't be using Bautista at 3B and will use EE there only sparingly. If we take that at face value, it means DeRosa and Izturis will be our 3B which sounds like we're punting the problem down field.

Which is really no reason to be trying Lawrie at second. He's a better third baseman than second baseman, that we know; Izturis is a better second baseman than third baseman. Flip-flopping them makes no sense.

[Avenger]

Do Gibbons and AA know that in terms of positional scarcity 3B is on part with 2B? The era of playing slow footed sluggers at 3b is over and it probably never existed, in todays MLB 3B is considered a premium defensive position on par with 2B and its only behind C, SS and CF.

I definitely blame Gibby for this, we didn't have any of this lets move Lawrie to 2B nonsense before he came here. Again this is further evidence that outside of decent reliever usage he is as bad of a manager as Farrell. Moving Lawrie to 2B would be unbelievably stupid thing to do, its completely indefensible.

[galacticos2]

Trying Lawrie at second is likely to open up the option of playing Bautista at third, with Davis/Melky manning the corners...or potentially DFAing Boni and calling up Pillar, should he keep hitting.

Actually, Gibbons surprised me with his comments this afternoon that he won't be using Bautista at 3B and will use EE there only sparingly. If we take that at face value, it means DeRosa and Izturis will be our 3B which sounds like we're punting the problem down field.

Which is really no reason to be trying Lawrie at second. He's a better third baseman than second baseman, that we know; Izturis is a better second baseman than third baseman. Flip-flopping them makes no sense.

Or may be because a trade is in the works? lol

[There There]

Do Gibbons and AA know that in terms of positional scarcity 3B is on part with 2B? The era of playing slow footed sluggers at 3b is over and it probably never existed, in todays MLB 3B is considered a premium defensive position on par with 2B and its only behind C, SS and CF.

I definitely blame Gibby for this, we didn't have any of this lets move Lawrie to 2B nonsense before he came here. Again this is further evidence that outside of decent reliever usage he is as bad of a manager as Farrell. Moving Lawrie to 2B would be unbelievably stupid thing to do, its completely indefensible.

Or, you know, they're looking at external options which include third base, and as usual, Anthopoulos is trying to keep things close to the vest.

Why does everything have to be spelled out ?

Here's what we actually know

They've tried Lawrie at second a few times.
Switching Lawrie and DeRosa/Izturis would be incredibly stupid.
There are plenty of third basemen who could be available, such as Headly or Ramirez

Why not just wait to see what happens before making such ridiculous claims and assume that they are going to naturally do the absolutely most pointless move they could make ( the aforementioned Lawrie for DeRosa/Izturis switch ).

For crying out loud, they've already admitted to rushing Lawrie back early specifically just to get his defense at third.
Now we're to assume that they've done a 180 and are suddenly ok with DeRosa/Izturis at third ?

[galacticos2]

It better because otherwise moving Lawrie off third makes little sense.

That's what i'm saying, I got a feeling Izzy + a reliever + plus a B level prospect would be good enough to pry a martin prado or headly.

[Santoki]

I think it makes more sense to leave Lawrie at 3B and shore up 2B through external options. They've already been through this experiment before and it didn't work. At this point, we just need someone to play solid D at 2B and give us some decent OBP. I'm more concerned with Lawrie turning back into an elite hitter than focusing on what he can do defensively at 2B. We already know he's an above-average 3B defensively, so why mess with that?

[galacticos2]

Well the Philies have made Ruiz and Young available, Jays need a catcher and a third basemen. Sounds interesting...

[Avenger]

Do Gibbons and AA know that in terms of positional scarcity 3B is on part with 2B? The era of playing slow footed sluggers at 3b is over and it probably never existed, in todays MLB 3B is considered a premium defensive position on par with 2B and its only behind C, SS and CF.

I definitely blame Gibby for this, we didn't have any of this lets move Lawrie to 2B nonsense before he came here. Again this is further evidence that outside of decent reliever usage he is as bad of a manager as Farrell. Moving Lawrie to 2B would be unbelievably stupid thing to do, its completely indefensible.

Or, you know, they're looking at external options which include third base, and as usual, Anthopoulos is trying to keep things close to the vest.

Why does everything have to be spelled out ?

Here's what we actually know

They've tried Lawrie at second a few times.
Switching Lawrie and DeRosa/Izturis would be incredibly stupid.
There are plenty of third basemen who could be available, such as Headly or Ramirez

Why not just wait to see what happens before making such ridiculous claims and assume that they are going to naturally do the absolutely most pointless move they could make ( the aforementioned Lawrie for DeRosa/Izturis switch ).

For crying out loud, they've already admitted to rushing Lawrie back early specifically just to get his defense at third.
Now we're to assume that they've done a 180 and are suddenly ok with DeRosa/Izturis at third ?

What does difference does that make? Trading for a third basemen(unless we're moving him in a 3 way) and moving Lawrie to 2nd is just as bad as playing Maicer/DeRosa at 3rd and moving Lawrie to second. Besides, based on what Chisholm is reporting Gibby seems to be very comfortable with maicer/Derosa to 3B and Lawrie to 2B idea.

Any move that sends Lawrie to 2nd is a bad move and an indefensible move, what's the point of moving him to a position that is equivalent to 3B on a positional scarcity scale and one that Lawrie might not succeed at? Even if a guy like Headley is an offensive upgrade you're giving up a ton of value by moving Lawrie at 3B. It makes more sense to trade Lawrie if you want an upgrade at 3B.

You obviously have a bug up your ass when it comes my posts, not a single thing i said could be considered a "ridiculous claim"

[Avenger]

Well the Philies have made Ruiz and Young available, Jays need a catcher and a third basemen. Sounds interesting...

How the hell do the Jays need a 3B? What an outrageous thing to say, very few players in Baseball can play that position better than Lawrie.

[There There]

What does difference does that make? Trading for a third basemen(unless we're moving him in a 3 way) and moving Lawrie to 2nd is just as bad as playing Maicer/DeRosa at 3rd and moving Lawrie to second. Besides, based on what Chisholm is reporting Gibby seems to be very comfortable with maicer/Derosa to 3B and Lawrie to 2B idea.

Any move that sends Lawrie to 2nd is a bad move and an indefensible move, what's the point of moving him to a position that is equivalent to 3B on a positional scarcity scale and one that Lawrie might not succeed at? Even if a guy like Headley is an offensive upgrade you're giving up a ton of value by moving Lawrie at 3B. It makes more sense to trade Lawrie if you want an upgrade at 3B.

You obviously have a bug up your ass when it comes my posts, not a single thing i said could be considered a "ridiculous claim"

How is moving Lawrie to second indefensible if you are in parallel adding a significant upgrade offensively into your lineup ?

You're again assuming that Lawrie will be Bonifacio at second. Without seeing him play there with my own eyes, I sure as hell ain't going to make such an assumption and i'm not sure why you would.

If Lawrie can provide similar defense to Izturis at second ( which is no miraculous feat in itself given Izturis' piss poor range now ), and the guy you put in at third is a serious upgrade offensively, like a Headley, who can also field his position relatively well, I don't see how it's indefensible at all.

While starting pitching has been the primary culprit this year, adding another legitimate bat to the everyday lineup would certainly help, because once you get past Rasmus, this lineup has generally been putrid (outside of Izturis' recent play)

If moving Lawrie to second helps to accomodate that, and he doesn't actually fall flat on his face, which there is no reason to believe that he will, then so be it.

As for your ridiculous claim, did you not suggest that Gibby was somehow masterminding this and it was another reason why he was no better than Farrell with the exception of bullpen management ? I don't have a bug up my ass in regards to your posts specifically, just in general to posts which are full of ignorant ranting.