Utley asked Amaro about possibly moving to 3b, apparently took grounders there today. Very interesting. I know he played there some in college but had problems because of his arm.
Utley asked Amaro about possibly moving to 3b, apparently took grounders there today. Very interesting. I know he played there some in college but had problems because of his arm.
Utley said he went to Reuben and asked if he could take some grounders. I mentioned this a couple weeks ago and to my surprise it might happen. This would be best for the organization going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYguy3911
Rollins is not sitting on the bench after the contract he signed for a .220 hitter. Galvis is probably going to be a utility infielder for the foreseeable future. Utley and Rollins as they get older are going to need more days off. Polanco has some kind of option after this year, so if he's back you know he'll get hurt. There's another spot for him. If Polanco isn't back, I guess Frandsen steps in at third(although he's not the ideal profile for a 3rd baseman). Personally, I would move Utley to third. That would take away some of the physical demands of playing second base and he also fits the third base profile. Rollins and Galvis would be my middle infield and Frandsen would be my utility guy (would also try him in the OF). I doubt they move Utley, but we'll see. Galvis is going to be playing winter ball so I guess he will get some time at third to see what he can do.
I've debated this inside my head multiple times. I like Frandsen and what he has done this season. I wouldn't mind keeping him next season as long as the OF is fixed.
Yeah. He doesn't have a cannon, but neither does Polanco. It's not like they're asking the guy to field a ball in the hole at SS. With a whole offseason to prepare for it, I think he would be alright.
I feel like I'm missing something here. The Phils need a 3B. If Utley moves to 3B, wouldn't they just have the same problem except swapping positions? And if they plan on plugging Galvis in at 2nd and thus not creating a hole by moving Utley...why not just throw Galvis at 3B?
I feel like I'm missing something here. The Phils need a 3B. If Utley moves to 3B, wouldn't they just have the same problem except swapping positions? And if they plan on plugging Galvis in at 2nd and thus not creating a hole by moving Utley...why not just throw Galvis at 3B?
I don't get it.
Because, from what I can tell, Galvis can't play 3B--I suppose because of his lack of arm strength?
Utley moving to 3B sets up, at least on paper, a more traditional line-up.
The problem, I think, is two-fold:
1) Can Utley effectively play 3B (I think they said he had 28 errors in AAA a few years back)?
2) Can he stay healthy enough to produce offensively? If he doesn't, the line-up has a huge hole.
I think this can work, if there is some other significant move to address the outfield.
I feel like I'm missing something here. The Phils need a 3B. If Utley moves to 3B, wouldn't they just have the same problem except swapping positions? And if they plan on plugging Galvis in at 2nd and thus not creating a hole by moving Utley...why not just throw Galvis at 3B?
I don't get it.
Playing 3rd might cause less wear and tear on his knees, that's the only reason. I still think LF would be a better place than 3rd if the goal is to keep his knees healthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82
Because, from what I can tell, Galvis can't play 3B--I suppose because of his lack of arm strength?
Utley moving to 3B sets up, at least on paper, a more traditional line-up.
The problem, I think, is two-fold:
1) Can Utley effectively play 3B (I think they said he had 28 errors in AAA a few years back)?
2) Can he stay healthy enough to produce offensively? If he doesn't, the line-up has a huge hole.
I think this can work, if there is some other significant move to address the outfield.
He can play 3rd. He's a SS, and he has a strong arm.
Maybe they aren't confident in his abilities at the plate (or even in the field) post steroids. That's just a shot in the dark though, I don't know how teams react to positive steroids tests.
Maybe they aren't confident in his abilities at the plate (or even in the field) post steroids. That's just a shot in the dark though, I don't know how teams react to positive steroids tests.
Could well be.
The way they were analyzing it yesterday on CSN, it seemed to be a way to preserve some flexibility--both in the offseason, and going into next year.
Even if they did win both of those games they would be 6 games out with about 4 teams still ahead of them. I just dont see all 4of those teams collapsing.
I guess Charlie doesnt believe this team still has a shot, if they win today they most likely will be 7 back (St. Louis is losing). But Chuck is starting Martinez in RF.
I have to ask, why isn't Ruf up playing with the Phils yet?
He plays 1B. Kinda got a guy there already that's got power. Now, if you want to say that he should be up here w/ the expanded rosters and whatnot okay, but he gets more ABs down in Reading than he probably would here.
Supposedly they're going to look into seeing how well he'll do if they put him in LF. However, I've no idea on the timetable for that.
