Mark Derosa: Second Base Option for the Indians?

The Indians made some moves this offseason that should really help the club in '09, not least the acquisition of third baseman Mark Derosa via trade.

When the Indians signed Derosa, they did so with intent to play him at third base.

The question is, with more experience at second base, should the Tribe consider playing him there instead?

Derosa has only played 206 career games at third, while he's played most of his career—last season with the Cubs included—at second.

With that said, wouldn't it be a good idea to at least let him compete for the spot?

The current Indians second baseman is Asdrubel Cabrera, a natural shortstop. He can play either postion, but he is a better shortstop, and he has been quoted as saying he feels more comfortable there.

Peralta isn't the best defender in the world (a complete understatement, no offense to Jhonny), and played third base in the Dominican leagues this offseason. Not to mention, he has the power of a corner infielder . His power supports that statement: 24 homers in 2005; 21 in 2007; 23 last year.

Last season, Derosa had a carrer-high 21 home runs. Besides 21 in 2008, 13 homers is the most he has had in a season (2006 with Rangers). So offensively, Derosa hits like a second baseman, and Peralta hits with power, like a third baseman.

And it's obvious Cabrera is a shortstop. He is Vizquel all over again.

So should the Indians consider playing Derosa at second base, even when it causes Cabrera to move to short and Peralta to third?

The answer is yes, especially with third baseman Wes Hodges and second baseman Luis Valbuena looking to make big league contributions in the Tribe's future. Derosa and Peralta won't be with the Tribe forever; both players will be dispensable once these prospects enter the equation.

Cabrera is part of the future, so moving him to short and setting the team up for their prospects (Hodges and Valbuena) would be a VERY smart move on Cleveland's part.