Writing off (or alternatively, reloading in) '07 would be a horrendous mistake. Who says that they would not be in the same position this time next year and then they could write off 08 also. There is talent here now, and no guarantee that it will be here in the future.

The psychology of the team needs to be changed, not the core players. It is easy to recognize now how much the Tigers were chafing under Trammell, and the White Sox under Manuel. The rest of the year should be a test if Wedge can change this, if not, why would things be better next year?

Technically, Lee makes the most sense.

But is he viewed as a building block by the FO or not?

I would entertain offers for a lefty former 18-game winner if the Indians could get the right stuff in return. How about to the Mets? I bet they're still kicking themselves over that Kazmir deal (especially now).

I would be okay with moving Westbrook instead of Lee, but we're not going to get what we need in return.

I wouldn't trade Byrd until I had to -- next year.

Great post.

BTW -- I don't think you give up on 2007 now. You see what happens. Detroit has suprised everyone this year. My a youth-oriented Tribe can do the same next. Who knows?

I agree that Lee would return the most relative value in a July trade.  However, it would have
to be a really good deal to do it now.

Next year, one of the three will be gone (Lee,
Westbrook, Byrd), but I think it is too soon
to make the call now.  The rest of this season
will be important in making this evaluation.

If we do not unload Lee or Westbrook by 7/31 or 8/31, I have to assume we will lose one of them in the offseason. (I don't think Byrd is going anywhere unless next season tanks like this one).

I honestly think Shapiro will listen to offers for anyone but Sabathia at this point but would have to be bowled over to trade any of the starters midseason. But in the offseason he'll have a better chance to acquire what he wants for either Lee or Westbrook, 2B/OF help.

By the way, I still advocate trading some of our AAAA pitchers (Davis, Guthrie, Stanford) to someone else for A players. I don't think any of them will succeed here, but if they succeed elsewhere, more power to them.

I do think they could extend Westbrook, and he's young enough (28) where it would make sense for the team. That being said, he's the most valuable of the starters sans Sabathia. He's (a) a groundball pitcher, (b) an AL pitcher, and (c) extremely affordable.

But I'll still say the Indians keep their rotation intact for next season, extending Westbrook and signing Lee to a one-year deal.

Hello Jay,

Very nice analysis! :-)

I have a lot of thoughts on your analysis, so I will break this down into at least 2 posts (maybe more! :-)

To be honest, as I've been looking at this team and realizing the innate problems that we have with fundamentals, defense, etc., combined with the fact that we are going to have introduce Garko, Gutierrez, Marte, etc. to the Majors and allow them to get fully adjusted, I've also come to the realization that our chances of reaching the playoffs in 2007 are not as likely as people would like to believe.

As you stated, the Tigers will likely spend this offseason because they will likely have a very good year, and quite possibly, reach the playoffs for the first time since the early 90s (I think, or was it the mid- to late-80s - not even sure.)  The White Sox will probably take another crack at it since they will still have several veterans on that team.  The Twins will look to improve upon their team; if not for the disappointing production from veterans like Tony Batista, Rondell White, Brad Radke, and Carlos Silva, they'd probably be right up there, so you can almost bet they'll make the adjustments and go for it next year.

With all that against us, combined with the fact that we will probably have 2-3 rookies (Garko, Gutierrez, and Marte) at least, playing significant roles next year, our chances of reaching the playoffs are not great.  

I think it makes great sense to look more at 2008 than at 2007.  I know many fans will not be thrilled to hear that, especially after coming so close in 2005, but to be honest, I think this team played over its head and had many things break right for them.  That's why the dropoff in 2006 has been so steep - we probably weren't THAT good in 2005, but played well enough to appear like we were.

My thoughts about your trade analysis will be in my next post - stay tuned! :-)

Hello everyone,

Jay, I agree with your assessment that Cliff Lee is probably the best choice of the starters to be traded, even moreso than Westbrook (my 2nd choice,) because Lee did not agree to a contract before the season started, and is a bit overrated (projected to be a #2 starter who threw in the low-90s; instead, he's more of a #3-4 starter who throws in the high-80s.)

I would be very open to trading Lee for a front-of-the-rotation starter like Scott Elbert, Jason Hirsh, Mike Pelfrey, or Phillip Hughes.  I'd also take guys like Lastings Milledge, etc., but I think we need more front-of-the-rotation pitching like Sabathia is and Miller will hopefully become to really compete in this tough division, make the playoffs, and be a true WS contender, especially if we don't have a stellar defense.  We need more pitchers who can dominate on their own and/or are fly ball pitchers, rather than groundball pitchers, which really exposes our weak defense (it would still have to be upgraded if we kept Westbrook, though.)

Regarding Westbrook, I heard Arizona is interested in him, probably because of their success with Brandon Webb and their defense.  I wonder, would we be able to pry Scott Hairston, Carlos Quentin, or Carlos Gonzalez away from them if we did give up Westbrook?

However, like Jay suggested, it's likelier Westbrook would sign an under-value contract than Lee would, and based on Lee's overratedness, it might not be the best way to use our limited financial resources to resign Lee to a long-term deal, since it will likely cost quite a bit.

I definitely don't see Sabathia being traded because it would send the wrong message.  As for Byrd, if we were absolutely bowled over with an offer, I'd certainly consider it, but being that you probably would need and want a veteran presence who can be an innings-eater, I don't know if you could get a better one than Byrd at that price.  Therefore, unless I'm bowled over, I wouldn't trade him by the deadline.

Sowers - unless it was a deal for Hirsh or a front-of-the-rotation starter, I would keep him - you will need some of your own pitching to compete, and while he may not have Guthrie's stuff, I'm not sure if Guthrie will actually outdo him in the rotation, especially considering Guthrie's recent struggles at AAA again.  Sowers didn't struggle at AAA all year, which leads me to believe that once he makes adjustments at the ML level, he can survive and even thrive here like a Jamie Moyer.

Therefore, my choice would be to either trade Lee or Westbrook, and being that Lee may not sign a long-term deal and is a bit overrated (due to his loss of velocity and bouts of inconsistency with his command,) I would think he might be the most logical to trade.  

But, I certainly hope Shapiro does make a few more trades before the trading deadline ends, involving any and/or all of the following

Bob Wickman
Guillermo Mota (doubtful, but see if it's possible.)
Ben Broussard
Ronnie Belliard
Aaron Boone (remote possiblity, but again see if there is a market for him.)
Todd Hollandsworth

Possibly:
1/3 of Lee/Westbrook/Byrd

Again, I think there are several decent trading chips and maybe a few good ones (Wickman, Broussard, and possibly Belliard,) and I would be a bit disappointed if all Shapiro does between now and then is trade Perez for Cabrera since I think he could acquire a few more pieces, at least, for players who likely won't be here next year anyway.

Just my 5 cents. :-)

Hello rick57,

Please excuse this post; it will be a bit long - thanks! :-)

Admittedly, the fans will likely see 2006 as a step back and will probably find "building for the future again" as a hard pill to swallow.

The problem is though, can you really see this team, as presently constituted, being strong enough to win in 2007?  Doubtful.  It's bad enough we have several holes we must fill, but with our weak fundamentals, lack of execution, poor adjustments, questionable managing and coaching, etc., I think even with a great trading deadline and offseason by Shapiro (certainly hope he still has a great trading deadline and offseason,) I still don't see where this team will be strong enough to compete in 2007 if the Twins, White Sox, and Tigers continue to play good baseball, which seems likely at this point.

Therefore, which would be the better course of action - sell the fans on the idea we will be competing for the playoffs in 2007, with little realistic chance of doing so, then hope to dump some of our players for prospects, or to do so now when their trade value is likely higher and you increase your chances of competing in 2008, by which time, both the Tigers and White Sox probably will weaken, and even the Twins might as well?  (When does Santana's contract run out?  I'm not sure if he will pull a Radke and sign again with the Twins at a discounted price, even with a new stadium on the horizon.)

I agree that Shapiro needs to get maximum value out of the players he deals, especially Lee/Westbrook, Wickman, Broussard, Belliard (anything he can get for Boone, Hollandsworth, and/or Mota would be a bonus in my opinion.)

It's possible that the Indians could have gotten more from the Red Sox if they had kept Howry, though I can see why they didn't sign him (in hindsight, the move obviously doesn't look very good.)  I wonder how much more we would have gotten though - maybe Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester, Hanley Ramirez, or Anibal Sanchez?  (Were Ramirez and Sanchez still there or had they already been traded to the Marlins in the Beckett deal?  I don't remember off the top of my head.)

With our core guys, I think Hafner's option runs through 2008 and C.C.'s is through 2008 or 2009, so it would be cutting it close with them, but I think Victor is here through 2009 or 2010, and I know Grady is here through at least 2010, so they would still be here unless the Indians decide to trade them (doubtful at this point.)  Same with Peralta as well (here until 2010 or later.)  

Therefore, while it's probably not the news they want to hear, if Shapiro convinces them that he made a mistake and underestimated how strong this division would get (understandable; who expected those three teams, especially the White Sox and Tigers, to get that good that quickly?) that Shapiro has to tweak the timeline of his plan a bit.  

I don't think you can fault Shapiro too much for that - I don't think anyone foreseen how strong the AL Central would get, and that quickly at that.  Plus, not every laid-out plan works out perfectly (very few plans do); if Shapiro admits to his mistake and explains what he is trying to do to counteract the strength of the AL Central and the weakness of the Indians, it may convince the players and the fans that Shapiro still knows what he is doing and that the Indians can still compete for a playoff berth sooner rather than later.

And, as I've said before, if the Indians win, the fans will come back.  They always have (look at the 70s & 80s, then look at the 90s,) and chances are, they always will.  Shapiro just has to build toward it in the best way he sees fit, and if it takes stepping back in 2007 to really make us strong for 2008, then I think that is the best course of action to take.

Besides, what is the alternative?  Try to overspend like Toronto did this year and hope you are in the race so that you can maybe make a trade for someone you need, gutting the farm system, and hope that you win it all in within a 1-2 year window.  If you don't, then you spend another 5 years rebuilding the farm system and rebuilding the core, hoping to compete for another playoff run within another 7 years or so?  

No offense, but I think stepping back in 2007 and preparing for a strong run in 2008 is the better course of action, especially in our small to mid-market economy.

Just my 5 cents. :-)

they 90s (as shapiro has stated himself) was a special situation. You won't see that again. The city isn't booming anymore than at that time, The Cavs have the best player in the league, and the Browns are back. If they do not make a "conscession" to the fans by doing what it takes to contend in 2007, you can pretty much write off the tribe as being third on the radar screens of clevelanders. Do not underestimate the cinicsm of the city. That being said, I agree with some of the points that it would be easier competing in say 3 years than next year, but I caution against anyone drawing conclusions on what will be happening in the league in 3 years, there are just too many variables, There is no gaurentee that teams like Chicago and Detroit just play it out and burn out in a year or two, If Chicago is going to spend the money they are spending, there is no reason to think they can't be another Yankee's (granted at a lesser extent). Also I caution against over-valuing our FO, I think Shapiro is an above average GM, but I am hesitent to say that the difference between his abilities and the "avg." GM are that great.

sorry should say "The 90s".

if they win, no matter what the circumstances are!

Hello hans, welcome if you're new! :-)

I agree the dynamics of the Cleveland Sports Scene have changed since the 90s, but at the same time, look back from the 60s to the 80s - most of those teams were extremely weak, and often, pitiful to watch.  

Yet, in the 90s, after 3 decades of pitiful baseball, the fans still came back.  Plus, recall that the Cavaliers will still revered after just missing the NBA Finals in 1992 and losing in the East. Conf. SemiFinals to Jordan and the Bulls in 1993, so it's not like the Cavaliers weren't on people's radar screens in 1994 and 1995 when the Indians captured the attention of the fans; if anyone was missing, it was the Browns (and personally, I don't see why they should be a problem for the Indians - quite honestly, they have been worse than the Indians over the last 7 years and can't seem to stick to one plan; at least Shapiro has one plan in mind and sticking to it.)

While I'm not saying that Shapiro is the best GM in the game, I still think he is Top 5 to Top 10 - keep in mind the market and financial restrictions he works in, plus recall the situation he entered when John Hart left - there was no Hafner, Sizemore, Lee, Sowers, etc.

Plus, this is the first real disappointment in Shapiro's plan; as I said before, very few plans work out perfectly; look at how many times White Sox GM Ken Williams had to make trades before he finally came up with a combination that worked.  Besides that, he had Jerry Manuel at the helm before he turned to Ozzie Guillen, so it's not like Williams has done everything perfectly either.

And while you make a good point about Chicago and Detroit not automatically falling after 3 years, with Boston, New York, and LA being able to outspend the White Sox and Tigers, it will still be difficult for them to keep every player they want to keep.  Plus, while the Tigers' farm system has improved, it arguably still does not have great depth.  As for the White Sox, in my opinion, their farm system depth is not deep, and on top of that, Sickels' entry on his MinorLeagueBall.com site today shows that most of the White Sox's Top 20 prospects have faltered this year, arguably making that system even weaker than when the year started.

So, while it's possible those two teams could still be strong in another three years, I think the chances are just as, if not more, likely that they will have weakened, at least somewhat, by then, giving the Indians a better chance to compete, presuming that their young prospects are seasoned enough to carry the ballclub, much like Hafner, Martinez, and Sizemore are doing now, but that Sizemore wasn't doing last year and Hafner and Martinez weren't doing 3 years ago.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

These observations from Ken Rosenthal today

"Indians right-hander Jake Westbrook, owner of the majors' fifth-best groundball-to-flyball ratio, is as logical a target for the Diamondbacks as he was for the Rangers, but the only way the Tribe will move him is if a trade partner overpays. The Indians plan to exercise Westbrook's $5.6 million option for next season, figuring they can't get a comparable pitcher on the free-agent market for a similar price."

"More on the Indians: The team will get what it can for reliever Guillermo Mota and third baseman Aaron Boone but drive harder bargains for closer Bob Wickman and second baseman Ronnie Belliard. Right-hander Fausto Carmona likely would close if the Indians traded Wickman."