What do you think of pitcher Kelvin De La Cruz? Does he have what it takes to make it to the bigs? He’s 23 and has some good stuff but seems very inconsistent.
And, are the Indians running out of options with him since he’s on the 40-man roster but can’t get out of Double-A?
At one time, De La Cruz was one of the brightest pitching prospects in the Tribe farm system, but he has not been the same since suffering an elbow injury that cost him most of the 2009 season.
He actually won’t be 23 for another week, but certainly his stock has fallen. On the other hand, the Indians are not inclined to give up on him.
Options have nothing to do with De La Cruz, because he hasn’t been to the big leagues. However, he will soon be a minor-league free agent, able to walk away if he chooses.
1. I have two questions that I hope you can share some insight about:
When Michael Brantley, Travis Buck and Grady Sizemore were unavailable last week, why didn’t Acta put Matt LaPorta in the outfield? He certainly has far more experience in the outfield than Luis Valbuena. Lou Marson can catch, and Carlos Santana can play first.
2. It seems to be open season on beaning Tribe batters. Lonnie Chisenhall, Shin-Soo Choo and Buck all suffered injuries because of being hit.
The day after Chisenhall was hit, Austin Kearns was hit in the back. Yet, not once, do I recall an Indians pitcher retaliating. I suspect that none of these (except Kearns, perhaps) were intentional. However, while I am not an advocate of “You hit one of ours, we’ll two of yours”), these hit batters are a significant reason that the Tribe is in danger of falling by the wayside, and Acta did nothing to discourage it.
LaPorta is not an accomplished outfielder, even though he might have slightly more experience than Valbuena. Moreover, it would affect three positions if Acta made that move, shifting Santana to first and Marson to catcher.
Probably none of the injured Tribe hitters was struck purposely. However, you make a valid argument. At some point, a team has to retaliate, if only to remind opposing pitchers to take more care when they throw inside, and that there are consequences when players end up on the disabled list.
The White Sox manager bunts to move a runner to third base with one out. The runner scores on a groundout in the first inning. Manny Acta said he despises asking one of his players to bunt, especially early in a game. A run in the first inning is just as valuable as a run in the ninth inning.
Acta said he was petrified to pitch to Detroit’s Miguel Cabrera. Gee, the guy is only batting slightly more than 300. What kind of confidence does this install in Indians pitchers?
Then he says he doesn’t care how many times he gets shut out as long as he wins. HUH? The truth is, Manny Acta is a loser, fired from Washington, and he manages with a losing mentality.
If you answer this, I know it will be something smart to put me down. I think that is your way of escaping the truth.
Manny Acta never said he “despises” asking a player to bunt. Not only does he use the sacrifice to move a runner to second, he has employed the squeeze play more in 1½ seasons than Eric Wedge did in seven years.
Cabrera’s batting average had nothing to do with Acta’s concern. He wanted to avoid Cabrera’s power swing, and I seriously doubt that his pitchers took it personally. Is he the first manager to walk an impact hitter intentionally?
He was trying to make a point with his remark about being shut out — “If we win 100 games, I don’t care if we lose the other 62 by shutout” — that a loss is a loss, no matter how many runs your team scores.
There was nothing in his statement that would indicate he enjoys being shut out or that shutouts are a positive event for his team.
If you’re looking for an answer that “puts you down,” you came to the right place. I’m not sure what a losing mentality is, but I’m certain you could fill me in from your own experience.