Shake-Up: Guillen to Left, Inge to Third

by Ian Casselberry on Sep 28, 2008 10:45 AM EDT in News Comment 9 comments

The mysteries of which positions Brandon Inge and Carlos Guillen will be playing next season have already been solved. Jim Leyland is getting a head start on the 2009 edition of the Detroit Tigers, announcing a couple of position changes before last night's game.

Inge will be moving back to third base, where he reminded everyone over the past two weeks just how much of a difference his defense can make. And that pushes Guillen out to left field, where he played two games back in early June.

Why make the moves now, Jimmy?

"I'm not going to discuss the reasons," Leyland said prior to the game. "But this is best for the team."

Does this mean Dusty Ryan will be the Tigers' starting catcher next year? Judging from the reports, Leyland didn't say. But he was certainly impressive in his 13-game tryout this month.

This also looks like disappointing news for Matt Joyce, who looked for much of the season like he was staking a claim on left field, but didn't make much of an impression during September. Joyce hadn't posted a home run or RBI since August 25, with his batting average steadily declining, as well.

Does this also end the Marcus Thames era in Detroit? It sure seems likely.

One more note: Kenny Rogers says that if pitches anywhere next year, it will be with the Tigers. Does that mean he'll be back with the team?

We'll have more on these developments later, as information and quotes become available. But for now, what do you think of these moves? Disappointed? Excited? Were they simply inevitable? Does the Tigers' defense already look better for next year?

0 recs | Comment 9 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I really don't see how...

we can win in the AL with Inge as an everday third baseman hitting at his 07 and 08 levels. He is simply an automatic out for the most part. If we are willing to sacrifice that for the outs he saves at third, okay, but he is a major liability offensively, as not only does he strike out a ton but he doesn’t move runners along, bunt, etc. You can’t have a .210 third baseman who swings for the fences and hits 20 bombs.

In terms of catcher, we must have someone in mind on the trade market, probably Laird. I like Ryan but no way is he ready to be the full-time guy.

Guillen in left? I am beginning to wonder if Guillen won’t be moved. That move does not make much sense with Joyce and Clete knocking at the door, unless those guys are not in high esteem.

Country Strong may be gone,although that depends on Magglio’s status. I realize all the writers are saying Magglio is trade bait, but in baseball’s economic climate, I really do not see anyone taking that contract, as productive as Maggs is.

The team is a mess, tons of question marks. Do not understand these moves being announced now.

by rook34 on Sep 28, 2008 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Stonewall = Trade?

I think this is a sign that DomBro found a suitor for Magglio. Joyce moves to RF (his natural position) and Guillen to LF. Thames’s role is reduced or he is moved as well.

One could argue that this takes a hit on our offense, but it’s not like Pudge was an offensive powerhouse either. This basically amounts to the same lineup we had between July 30 and Aug 25 (when Guillen got hurt). Plus if we learned one thing this year it’s that having a powerhouse lineup means nothing without decent pitching.

Sure Maggs’s contract is big but someone will take him if we share some of that burden and for the sake of paying $51m on our own I think the front office would be willing to do that.

by MacRae on Sep 28, 2008 12:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If our lineup includes...

Joyce, Inge, whoever the new SS and catcher are, we can forget about being competitive in the division next year.

Pitching and defense are paramount, but in the AL you have to be able to score, unless you are the Twins. And we are not the Twins.

Trading Magglio=surrendering 2009. IF we are ready to accept that, let’s go ahead.

by rook34 on Sep 28, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude,

Since Maggs has been on the team we’re made the playoffs once. And we very well may finish last this year…last. His contract is structured so that if he plays just 125 games next season his options for 2010 and 2011 are guaranteed.

Does that mean he’s valueless? Of course not. But without better pitching it won’t matter if he’s on the team or not and while it would have to be the pitching that would make-up for Maggs’s absence it won’t be impossible to make up for the 4+ wins that Maggs is worth.

Plus, we have no idea what Maggs will bring in. What if it’s a good young starter or SS who can hit?

Hanging onto a 35 year old RF who is owed $51m over the next three seasons is not the answer for the club’s future especially when what we really, really need is pitching.

by MacRae on Sep 28, 2008 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Understood.

But when we are trying to get rid of a contract, other teams know that, and we will not be able to get anything close to market value for a guy who is still very productive. I do not want to see us give away this kind of run producer for a bag of hit or miss prospects. And I really think that is all we will get because everyone knows we have payroll problems.

And without him in the lineup, yeesh. What kind of impact will that have on the pitches Cabrera will see, even if Maggs is hitting ahead of him? Joyce cannot hit a breaking pitch to save his life.

Although we did not make the playoffs last year, we were right there into September. Unless we can get a lot for him, I think moving him is a really bad move. To strictly dump payroll with no proven replacement is foolish.

by rook34 on Sep 28, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But 2009 is not the only issue.

Maggs’s 2010 and 2011 options are guaranteed at $18 and $15 million respectively if he starts in just 124 games or makes 465 PA’s next season which is sure to happen unless he’s injured. That’s over $30m committed to a – by then – 36 year old outfielder.

While I hope that trading Maggs doesn’t result in a straight salary dump I think that unloading him now, particularly if quality prospects come in return, is important for the club’s future.

by MacRae on Sep 28, 2008 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't support a trade for prospects under any circumstance.

As we’ve seen a million times, prospects, even great ones, are a crapshoot. Have to get at least one everyday player or front line starter. I wish DD luck, but I don’t see it.

by rook34 on Sep 28, 2008 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That can be said about pretty much anyone. Look how many guys were supposed to be surefire performers this year. Sheffield, Renteria, Rogers, T. Jones, J. Jones, even Verlander. None of them produced well.

Is there inherent risk in dealing Magglio? Of course. But keeping him and hoping that he stays healthy and productive in his age 36 and 37 seasons is just as risky as almost any other scenario you can come up with.

No one is saying trade the guy just because we can. Keeping him has an obvious upside. But guaranteeing him two seasons at that price this late in his career is not a surefire proposition.

by MacRae on Sep 28, 2008 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rod and Mario are talking about the move on FSN right now...

Mario said that when Leyland talked about the move, he was asked about Ryan possibly being a starter next year. His response was that they could probably get away with Ryan as the starter, but that it probably wouldn’t be the best for the team. Rod cited Ryan’s inexperience handling the pitching staff as the reason for Leyland’s skepticism.

by Grant E. on Sep 28, 2008 1:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs