Shapiro discusses the offseason agenda

Castrovince has posted an article about Shapiro's annual postseason session with reporters, in which he discusses the need "to execute an offseason plan"; speaking of executing, there is mention of Marte, by Castrovince if not Shapiro.

8 months ago InfiniteMonkeyTypists Comment 170 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It is strange to hear Shapiro emphasizing top of the rotation starting pitching. Not that I don’t see that as a need, but I just can’t see the Indians being a player in the free-agent market for a top-3 starter, where 4/$48M would seem to be the entry level version.

by APV on Oct 8, 2008 7:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I was surprised but glad to hear Shapiro say we need better top-3 pitching. I like the possibilities we have at the back end, but with questions surrounding Carmona and Lee (his ability to cont to pitch at high levels) I’d feel much better about having another reliable arm.

I think we’ll sign a pitcher looking to build up his value to a one year deal “ala Millwood” or trade for a decent number 3ish starter.

by world dictator on Oct 8, 2008 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thinking about trading: I’m overly protective, of course, but if you were to list “guys we can’t afford to move,” and “guys other teams would want, for value,” I think they’d be almost exactly the same list. (And I’d have Kelly Shoppach on them.)

by fleerdon on Oct 8, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely disagree.

I think Victor’s need to play first are completely blown out of proportion. While I’m mildly persuaded by Jay’s argument that his numbers could improve if he moved to 1st, I think the emphasis should be placed on could with an underlying question of “by how much.”

I don;t think we should trade Shoppach for a bag of balls, but can’t afford to move? Hardly. Not even close, IMO. I’m further tempted to move Shoppach because I believe opening up first for either Mills, Weglarz, or LaPorta within a two year period is inevitable. I’d rather trade Shoppach while his value is high/near its peak. Particularly if this will help us net a front of the rotation starter.

But as far as a trade is concerned, I think its more than likely going to focus on our prospects rather than anyone on our major league roster. (Though Shoppach, Ben Fran, and Gutz are probably up for grabs as part of any trade.)

by world dictator on Oct 8, 2008 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

142 – 133 – 121 – 55. Those are Victor’s games at C since 2005. The days when he could be counted on to catch everyday are ending. That doesn’t mean a full-time shift to 1B, but it means Sal Fasano can’t be your primary backup. Once this sort of reduction starts, it tends to continue – look at Piazza, who also started to reduce his catching load in his late 20s.

Another number: 0. That’s the number of games Weglarz! has played other than OF and DH.

by FredOx on Oct 8, 2008 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pointing to his number of games played is hardly evidence, nor an argument, for why

1. Martinez HAS to play most or half of his games at first
2. why Shoppach is a player we can’t afford to lose.

If the Indians trade Shoppach to land a top of the order pitcher or fill the INF hole does our team fall apart? Not even close.

by world dictator on Oct 8, 2008 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Martinez’ games played at C have declined every year for the last 4, and there’s no evidence that this trend is likely to reverse. He doesn’t have to play first, but he’s not going to catch 140 games (probably not even 120). That means someone else has to catch, and it’s better to have Shoppach around than a traditional backup like Fasano, who is there mostly for the Sunday day games that follow a Saturday night. That’s the theory. Shoppach’s not going to land you a front of the rotation pitcher.

None of the minor leaguers are likely to play many (if any) games at 1B in 2009.

by FredOx on Oct 8, 2008 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even if I concede your premise (Vic can’t catch a full season) you’re still not showing me way we can’t afford to lose Shoppach.

I know it’d be nice to have Shoppach around, but “it would be nice” is not even in the same ballpark as “we can’t afford to lose him.”

But you’re losing sight of the original point I made. If Shoppach can be part of a package to net an everyday INF or a top of the order Pitcher you have to include him and its not even close.

Starting Player/Top of the rotation pitcher outweighs backup catcher no matter how you slice it. And since you’re only arguing that Victor can’t catch an entire season, not that he can’t catch the majority of games, that’s what Shoppach is, a backup.

by world dictator on Oct 8, 2008 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or…we could include Vic in a package. That would arguably give us a strong haul than including Shoppach.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Oct 9, 2008 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We could also include Grady. Imagine that package

by world dictator on Oct 9, 2008 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

“Package.” Heh.

by fleerdon on Oct 9, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh. He said “package”.

by jhon on Oct 9, 2008 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why are we discussing Grady’s package?

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 10, 2008 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Martinez’ games played at C have declined every year for the last 4, and there’s no evidence that this trend is likely to reverse.

You think he’ll catch less than 55 games in 2009? I’ll bet you a sarsaparilla.

by SuddenSam on Oct 9, 2008 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

At the time he went on the DL, he was on pace to catch 108 games this year, continuing the trend. I think it’s fair to say that your “backup” catcher will play at least 50 games next year, so unless a trade involving Shoppach nets a top of the rotation starter (and I’m not sure what package we’re putting together from current assets that gets you a front line guy) or a significant upgrade in the infield, you’re better off keeping Shoppach. He’s not untouchable, it’s just that what you’re likely to get in a deal may diminish the team in the grand scheme of things. You can’t evaluate whether to trade the guy without acknowledging that a trade means 50 games of whoever you get to be your backup catcher .

by FredOx on Oct 9, 2008 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Starting inf or front end pitcher = more value than 50 game catcher

by world dictator on Oct 9, 2008 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Fred is acknowledging that:

so unless a trade … nets a top of the rotation starter … or a significant upgrade in the infield

(not to make him sound like William Shatner there)

You can’t just take the value of a starting infielder compared to a 50 game catcher in a void — you have to compare the upgrade in starting infielder to the downgrade in 50 game catcher. Even VORP wouldn’t quite be fair in this case, since presumably we still have a better-than-replacement-level infielder by keeping Shoppach.

Sorry if I’m stating obvious things…

by Logodaedalus on Oct 9, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is actually a very good point, so I don’t think you’re being too obvious.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The math could not possibly work out for keeping Shoppach as a backup catcher.

Meaning: It can’t be the case that he’s worth more to us for 50 games than he is to some other team for 125 games.

We don’t have the luxury of deliberately squandering a resource like that. It’s been nice having a guy of his potential as the backup, but it’s just too expensive at this point.

by Jay on Oct 10, 2008 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Expensive in term of what we’re not getting back in trade, right?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 10, 2008 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right.

by Jay on Oct 10, 2008 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Especially with Shoppach up for a big raise during arbitration/a new deal to avoid arbitration.

Like I originally said, I’m not saying we should just give Shoppach away, but if he’s not going to start at Catcher , with Vic moving to 1st, it seems pretty foolish to not try to trade him especially if we can fill one of the holes in our starting lineup.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shoppach’s salary won’t be the driver, he’ll still be a great deal for us.

by Jay on Oct 11, 2008 5:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s probably right… if we’re confident that Shoppach would only catch 50 games, then the infield upgrade only has to be roughly 1/3 the magnitude of the backup catcher downgrade to break even (assuming the infielder can play just about every day). So perhaps it’s overstating things to say we need a significant upgrade in the infield to justify dealing Stoppin’ Shop.

by Logodaedalus on Oct 10, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right.

by Jay on Oct 11, 2008 5:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, even if Weglarz! is capable of playing OF but not 1B that still leaves Mills who right now can only play 1B or DH.

Though of course in my dreams his shoulder strength returns and he can resume playing 3B full time. :-)

by world dictator on Oct 8, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever, let’s just field a team of 9 1Bs who can mash. Defense won’t matter if we score 2000 runs.

MONEYBALL

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

THEY TOOK ER JOBS!

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is this intended as a quote from future Gonk after LaPorta and Weglarz come up?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sounds like a quote from Coach Z… minus a couple "R"s

by Logodaedalus on Oct 9, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s South Park.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just thought we were shouting things.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know. I was attempting to be funny in response tp your comment. And failing.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read it as Shapiro doublespeak of a type he’s used before: calling players returning from injury “acquisitions.”

I think Westbrook is going to be the top of the rotation starter we “acquire.” I’m not sure they’ll be any noise besides that.

by afh4 on Oct 8, 2008 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree to an extent. I think Shapiro has had his “safe” offseason last year, but I would not be surprised one bit to see Shapiro shock all of us with a trade we weren’t expecting

by Roger Dorn on Oct 8, 2008 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Benfran for Pelfrey!

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Oct 9, 2008 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be clear I meant noise at the front of the rotation.

Something else will happen but I don’t think it’s going to be a top starter. We’re still pretty deep there, I think.

by afh4 on Oct 9, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see lots of depth at the 4-5 spots, but little up front. Right now, Reyes (with the obligatory “if healthy”) projects as #3, which doesn’t make me overflow with confidence. Add to that the uncertainty about Fausto.

Huff may break out and Jake may come back strong and early, but neither of these should be expected. The rotation, I think, is the biggest question mark facing the 2009 Tribe.

by SuddenSam on Oct 9, 2008 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Tribe has, arguably, two #1 starters. I can’t imagine a team with much more depth than that.

by afh4 on Oct 9, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you’re banking on a near-repeat performance from Lee and a return to 2007 for from Fausto? That’s a thin limb, there.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lee doesn’t even need a near repeat to be a front of the rotation starter. I expect him to be quite good next year. I also do expect a bounce back from Fausto who has the kind of stuff to win a Cy

by Roger Dorn on Oct 9, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Expectation is not the same as likliehood. I’ll buy a good argument that Lee has fundamentally changed his approach and that 2007 was the anomaly, but couldn’t we make the same argument about Fausto?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am saying both are talented from a pure “stuff” standpoint. Fausto has some of the nastiest pitches in MLB. This is conjecture, but there are numerous accounts of catchers and opposing batters agreeing. It doesn’t make a pitcher great, but given his minor league track record and success in the bigs both as a reliever and first year start, there is enough evidence to suggest Fausto’s problems might have been related to his injury this year and that he will come out and revert to that dominant pitcher.

Lee’s season was an anamoly only in the sense that he was outstanding this year. Prior to last year though, there was enough evidence to consider him a 1 or 2 starter, and like Fausto, his issues last year also coincided with an injury.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 9, 2008 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have to prioritize need. You don’t have to get a near-repeat performance from either of those guys to have an OK front of the rotation.

If you can get two guys with ERA+ around 120 out of Westbrook, Fausto, Huff, Laffey, and Lee you’ve got an Ok front of the rotation. The likelihood of that is much higher than getting any production out of the current 3B situation. 1B is a larger problem as well.

This is all moot anyway. I can’t imagine many, if any, scenarios where we actually land a top of the rotation starter. We might get a guy who ends up there, a la Millwood, but we’re not going to pay the cash or prospects to get a Sabathia or a Peavy. Mark it down.

by afh4 on Oct 9, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can’t imagine many, if any, scenarios where we actually land a top of the rotation starter. We might get a guy who ends up there, a la Millwood,

This is what I’ve been hoping for. Getting an actual front-of-the-rotation guy would be too costly either way. I just want performance.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think we’re going to get Jon Garland, Randy Wolf, somebody like that. Upside coupled with downside.

We might have a very outside shot at Sheets. Also at Burnett.

by afh4 on Oct 9, 2008 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What are your feelings on Derek Lowe? He certainly fits the mold of what Shapiro has stockpiled…sinkerballers. I am hesitant given the ballpark and the league he has pitched in to assume he can come over and put up similar numbers, but I think he might be a guy that would fit in well

by Roger Dorn on Oct 9, 2008 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, pitchers coming out of the playoffs get paid. I think he’s going to get at least 3 years and that seems like a lot for Derek Lowe at age 35.

I guess I’d go as high as 2/25 maybe? But that doesn’t even buy you Carlos Silva.

by afh4 on Oct 9, 2008 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Derek Lowe is probably going to be a very solid investment, despite his age. Unfortunately, his strong pitching down the stretch – especially in the playoffs – will likely take him out of the equation.

I think the Indians may be willing to pay somewhat more for Lowe, however, because his talent – getting ground balls – fits in nicely with what is shaping up to be a solid infield defense.

Especially if we sign Mark Ellis :)

by Peter Bendix on Oct 10, 2008 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

“Solid investment” is defined as much by cost as by his performance. And as you alluded to, the cost is going to be high.

by afh4 on Oct 10, 2008 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sheets would be an interesting pick up on a one year deal.

I wonder how much that would set a team back.

by world dictator on Oct 9, 2008 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

12-15M?

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Oct 10, 2008 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For a pitcher with a dodgy elbow.

by odradek on Oct 11, 2008 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I woulda said more if he didn’t have that issue.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Oct 11, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know. That’s amazing.

by odradek on Oct 11, 2008 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since 2000, the Twins have had 6 (of 9) years in which they exceeded their win expectancies, for an accumulative +25.

Minnesota is the “luckiest” team in the AL Central in both number of better-than-expected seasons and in accumulative wins.

by odradek on Oct 11, 2008 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that neither of those values (6 of 9 or +25 over 9 seasons) are lie outside of the expected norm of variation in pythagorean/actual win totals. I could spend an hour figuring it out for sure, but I’m pretty confident that’s not necessary.

by APV on Oct 11, 2008 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever. The facts are still valid, normal variation or not. I presume that’s what luck means, anyways.

by odradek on Oct 11, 2008 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I don’t think anyone who wants a front end pitcher is asking for a Cy Young candidate. But a Jon Garland, Lowe type of pitcher isn’t out of the realm of possibility.

by world dictator on Oct 9, 2008 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess it’s semantics. Shapiro seems to be implying pitchers as good or better than Westbrook, which is certainly better than Garland or Lowe (when you consider age/league).

by afh4 on Oct 9, 2008 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you’re underrating Lowe. Garland, however, I wouldn’t touch unless he agreed to pay us.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 10, 2008 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, Lowe is being a bit underated. His xFIP in the past three seasons’ has been 3.80, 3.50, 3.43 in successive years. In that same time span Westbrook’s hasn’t dipped below 4.

by hans on Oct 10, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NLNLNL

by afh4 on Oct 10, 2008 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

groundballsgroundballsgroundballs

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Oct 11, 2008 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded. FIP was invented by Tangotiger.

by hans on Oct 13, 2008 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

pitchers as good or better than Westbrook

that’s a short list of like 4 guys

:-)

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Oct 10, 2008 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I agree with everything you said here, 100%. It just sounded above like you were banking on stellar seasons from both Lee and Fausto. Miscommunication on my part, probably.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

First, we have the resources to sign a top starter if that’s what we want to do. If C.C. is not in play, it’s going to be more because of his desire to play in the NL or to be based closer to his home than because of money.

I’m surprised nobody else has come up with the obvious candidate: Ben Sheets.

The other route would be a trade. What do you think Bedard is worth at this point?

by Jay on Oct 10, 2008 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did anyone save the bone chips they took out of Victor’s elbow?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 10, 2008 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think we sign Sheets to a multiyear deal or a one year rebuild your value deal?

How much is he worth considering his injuries?

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is were we get screwed. The smart choice is to sign him to a one year deal or a deal with an option for the second year. But some other team will be willing to go two years, and possibly an option for a third Or some idiot GM might offer him 4 years guaranteed.

by hans on Oct 10, 2008 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or possibly our GM.

by Jay on Oct 11, 2008 5:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

possibly

by hans on Oct 13, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to signing Sheets, but he’ll ask for a multi-year deal worth about 15+ million per season. I’d love to give him a 2 year 32-35 million dollar contract with some option years, but he probably won’t take that. There’s just too much risk signing him to a deal longer than that (same goes for Burnett).

One thing I’ve been thinking about is the possibility of trading for either Josh Johnson or Ricky Nolasco from the Marlins. Not sure how interested they would be, but a package of Shoppach, Gutz/Crowe/BenFran and one of our lefties not named Huff or a prospect would fill some holes they have with cheap players. Obviously there’s risk involved with Johnson, and Nolasco only really had one good season, but they both fit our need for a middle of the rotation arm. We could even go for something bigger and package one of those pitchers with either Willingham or Hermida (we’d be buying low on them as well). This is all speculation though, but I think it would make for an interesting scenario.

by JP_Frost on Oct 10, 2008 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nolasco was absolutely incredible last season. The only pitcher who had a better stretch – in terms of K/BB ratio – was Johan Santana in 2004.

Obviously, he’s not that good, but he and Johnson are both studs. Why, exactly, would the Marlins want to deal them?

Their outfield has Willingham, Hermida, and Cody Ross (who was surprisingly good last year), with Cameron Maybin knocking on the door. They have a tremendous amount of young pitching – nearly all of which is better than our young pitchers not named Huff. They do lack a catcher, but they’re not going to pay arbitration-eligible Kelly Shoppach.

Also, I think Crowe and BenFran has virtually zero value on the trade market.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 10, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t Josh Johnson sort of crazy? I don’t think he has enough character for ShapCo.

They might think they’re selling high on him, though, with the injury deal.

by afh4 on Oct 10, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d take him, without a doubt. Search my comments and you’ll find that I really really like him.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Oct 10, 2008 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I brought up Sheets. He scares me quite a bit because the comp, to me, is AJ Burnett. Burnett got a 5 year deal though it was a much different crop of pitchers.

I think Sheets will be able to get at least 3 years at something like 16 and I don’t have the guts for that. I wouldn’t mind if Shap does but it makes me frightened.

What’s Bedard worth? Hmmm. How insane is the new Mariners’ GM? Do we have a rating on that?

I would think something like a B+/A- prospect and some low-A filler, a couple of guys. So maybe Mills +Richard Martinez and Josh Judy.

I don’t really have any idea.

by afh4 on Oct 10, 2008 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would take Sheets at 3 years 16 mil per year in a heartbeat

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would absolutely not, if I was the Indians GM.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 11, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello WD,

Too risky, in my opinion. If you could insure the contract, maybe, but I don’t think the whole value of the contract can be insured, can it? (Not sure).

While Sheets has a high ceiling, he’s injury-prone, and to me, it seems he falters when the “game is on the line” (i.e. doesn’t come up big when you need to. Whether that’s due to injury or that he’s not that elite pitcher, I’m not sure.)

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 13, 2008 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indiansfan

While its true that Sheets has a history of minor injuries, adding him substantially improves our team. A pitching rotation headed by Lee, Carmona, and Sheets, gives us three potential Cy Young candidates and arguably one of the top 1-2-3 pitchers in the AL.

More importantly adding another solid pitcher like Sheets is a great way to solidify our rotation and move our more questionable pitchers into better slots (4-5) rather than 3-4.

I think anytime you sign a pitcher to a big contract there’s a lot of question marks surrounding them. Any long and/or huge financial investment is a question mark IMO. And in the rare occasion you find a player without a lot of question marks they’re going to be way out of our league in terms of cost.

At 3/16 Sheets is a relatively cheap gamble particularly considering his upside. Plus, I get the feeling that we could definitely find a suitor for Sheets if he’s simply mediocre and we’d like to trade him.

by world dictator on Oct 13, 2008 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

While its true that Sheets has a history of minor injuries

No, Ben Sheets has a history of shoulder and arm injuries. It’s not like he’s stubbed his toe consistently.

More importantly adding another solid pitcher like Sheets is a great way to solidify our rotation

Ben Sheets might improve our rotation (if healthy), but he definitely does not solidify it. In fact, his injury risk is even more risky for a team like the Indians, who already have two front-of-the-rotation pitchers but could use a solid innings-eater in the middle.

I think anytime you sign a pitcher to a big contract there’s a lot of question marks surrounding them.

And this is why it’s hardly EVER a good idea to sign a free agent pitcher for big money. Let alone someone with such an extensive (and recent!) injury history as Sheets.

At 3/16 Sheets is a relatively cheap gamble particularly considering his upside.

$16 million a season for three years is NOT “relatively cheap” – especially for the Indians. This contract would severely restrict our ability to make other moves.

Plus, I get the feeling that we could definitely find a suitor for Sheets if he’s simply mediocre and we’d like to trade him.

Sheets is unlikely to be mediocre. Rather, he’s likely to be pretty good or very hurt. If he’s pretty good, we want him. If he’s very hurt, no one else will want him. Plus, “I think we could always trade him later” is a terrible reason to spend $16 million on a free agent.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 14, 2008 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

re: Sheets, Victor Wang at THT had a story about what Sheets might get paid this off-season a couple days ago. You can certainly argue with the values he comes up with, but I do think it is a nice clear approach to think about assessing contract value.

And if you don’t want to read it, he predicts Sheets get something in the neighborhood of a 4-5 year deal at $55-65M.

by APV on Oct 14, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the link, I’m a big fan of Victor.

I’m not saying that he won’t get that money. I’m saying that it makes no sense for US to pay him that money. Or even 3/48.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 14, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree. On a 1-2 year contract I really don’t care how much money we’d pay him, but I don’t see him signing a 1 or 2-year deal.

by APV on Oct 14, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you’d do 1 or 2 but not 3?

by world dictator on Oct 14, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes

by APV on Oct 14, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This offers a perspective from someone who watched Sheets pitch during his career with the Brewers.

Full post:

Ben Sheets has had an interesting career from a number of vantage points. That a pitcher of his talent should have a career high in victories of 13 after being in the major leagues for eight seasons is interesting. Even accounting for injury one would think that given the ability to strike guys out and prevent runs would have led to at least one season in the 15-20 range. Ben’s career is interesting from the “How Do You Handle a Young Pitcher” perspective. The Brewers worked to monitor his workload/pitch count until Ben hit age 25. After being in the rotation for three seasons with nary an issue the determination was made to push Sheets deeper into games. Sheets innings pitched total went up all of 17 innings. But his pitches per game and the games where he had pitch counts in excess of 110 went up significantly. On a superficial basis one could point to that season as the turning point. But the OTHER interesting part of Ben’s career is the TYPE of injuries. A hangnail? An inner ear infection leading to dizziness? What do those have to do with excessive pitch counts?? There was no rotator cuff. There was no major arm surgery. Just a bit of this and a bit of that where a fan never knew not just from season to season but from game to GAME whether Ben was going to be able to answer the bell. Oh, and let’s not forget that Ben is a first half pitcher. If it’s May or June Ben is the guy you want on the mound. But if it’s August? Run for the hills. Ben’s career ERA in August is something like 4.75.

Well, I won’t bore everyone with the various and sundry details surrounding Ben’s time in Milwaukee. But I do think it’s important for his next team to understand that Ben is NOT an unknown quantity as some have described him in the press referring to the injury history. Just the opposite. Ben is a very clearly defined quantity.

If a team can work around Ben’s limits he can be a positive contributor.

Middle relievers are getting umpteen millions a year for a decent 70 innings. Don’t know why Ben shouldn’t get the same if not more for a good 160ish. Just have to know that once August 10th rolls around you better have a backup plan. ‘Cause he’s either going to the DL or gonna stink for a while.

Ben always rebounds in September. If he’s still pitching that is. But he always rebounds……

He does overlook that Sheets had a problem in 2003 (long time ago) with a bulging disc in his back and a hamstring issue in 2007 (not so long ago). But if I’m not mistaken most of his injuries are not related. Inner ear infections, hurt fingers, etc.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 14, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Injuries aside, it seems like Sheets was a victim of the Brewers tendency to overuse their No 1 starters

by world dictator on Oct 14, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to admit. Part of me likes the fact that Sheets is an amazing pitcher early on in the season. I’m not looking at any numbers, but we always seem to get off to a slow start and pick it up in the 2nd half

by world dictator on Oct 14, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sheets has a 3.50 career ERA in the first half, and 4.04 in the second half. That’s within the realm of random variation.

In other words, there’s no reason to expect that a fully-healthy Sheets would be any better in April than August.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 14, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Problem is, his most recent injury IS related to his other injuries. He simply has chronic arm/shoulder issues (in addition to the few traumatic injuries he’s experienced).

Sheets makes sense for some teams – but not the Indians.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 14, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree on all points except the 3/16 not being cheap. That’s pretty affordable now.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Oct 14, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to agree.

by Jay on Oct 15, 2008 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cheaper than Byrd last year for one.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Oct 15, 2008 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I meant 3 years at $16 million PER season, not $16 million total.

So I guess it’d be 3/48.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 15, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can see that now within your post. But I think WD meant 3/$16mil, or ~5 mil per.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Oct 15, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If that’s what he originally meant, he was way off. $16M per is much closer to what he’ll get. Probably a little over.

I always read it as 3/48.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 15, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I meant 16 Mill PER year

by world dictator on Oct 15, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, we’re on the same page then.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 15, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alright then, it’s me that misread the statement.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Oct 15, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe everyone understood the discussion to be about 3 @ 16, not 3 for 16. We’ll let world dictator confirm this for himself.

by Jay on Oct 15, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That last sentence sounds pretty funny when using his handle.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 15, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My favorite is when Indiansfan responds to him.

“Hello world dictator”

by Peter Bendix on Oct 15, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I never get much past the “hello world” part. That’s the computer geek taking over my nerd system.

by FredOx on Oct 15, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had the same thought

by Logodaedalus on Oct 15, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello Peter,

I’m glad you like it! :-)

Lately, though, I’ve been going with “Hello WD” – I guess for increased speed and to give my fingers a rest. :-)

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 15, 2008 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its because I look so presidential

by world dictator on Oct 15, 2008 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you look like presidents, or do presidents look like you?

by Jay on Oct 16, 2008 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I look like Presidents that look like me.

by world dictator on Oct 16, 2008 2:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really good answer.

by Jay on Oct 16, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I heard you look like Pete Incaviglia

by Roger Dorn on Oct 16, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

More like Seth Rogen.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Oct 16, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Insurance is not really worth considering in contract decisions anymore. When it is available, it is at a high enough price that it’s essentially a break-even in terms of the cost-risk status of a proposed contract.

In other words, since insurance is assigned an appropriate cost, and since teams generally are not at risk for bankruptcy, insurance does not really affect whether any given contract is a good value or a good idea.

by Jay on Oct 13, 2008 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

mariners are interviewing new gm candidates starting this week, including old friend tony bernazard.

by macasson on Oct 10, 2008 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the past has blasted me

by Voltaire on Oct 11, 2008 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Depth is great, but if all you have is like, 8 no. 5 starters, who cares?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh, disregard. SS put it much more eloquently above.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope so, but he’s cautious by nature, so I don’t see him turning into Kenny Williams.

by odradek on Oct 9, 2008 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d really be happy with another starter, so I was encouraged by this. I’d like a trade just because I value youth.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 8, 2008 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh? I take it you mean that a trade would get us a younger pitcher than if we signed a free agent… fair enough, but we’d presumably be giving up youth to get him, so at best it would be a wash, youth-wise…

by Logodaedalus on Oct 8, 2008 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like youthful pitching, sorry. Oh, and talented.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 8, 2008 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like shiny things

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is my favorite analysis of the Indians’ season:

Why should I buy season tickets for next year when you quit on us? You quit on your players!!! I understand C.C., I understand Blakser,….
but, you sold Byrd!!! SOLD!!!! Are we the Tribe of the 70’s? Keep Byrd and we may be in the playoffs

by SuddenSam on Oct 8, 2008 8:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I saw that. My first thought was that it was a particularly committed satire…but that’s probably being too charitable.

by Logodaedalus on Oct 8, 2008 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Either way – satiric or sincere – it’s brilliant.

by SuddenSam on Oct 9, 2008 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see what’s erroneous about this statement. If only we could rec those comments.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 8, 2008 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WHAT!?

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Oct 9, 2008 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But he’s a good Tribe fan — he said he loves “Shipirio”.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 9, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any mention of bringing beer prices back below 6 dollars? That’s the real issue facing us going into 2009.

by Toxicadam on Oct 8, 2008 10:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Hey, gas is down to around $3 a gallon where I live, so anything’s possible!

by peter m on Oct 8, 2008 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or freakin onions for the hot dogs!

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They need to pay for the “Betancourt is in session” video package somehow, Adam.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

“What we won’t do,” Shapiro said, “is add an inferior player because he fits a position…”

This was my favorite quote, re: the infield situation. Get the best player(s) we can and use our flexibility to find a place for him to play after.

On the starting pitcher situation: I"m encouraged. Yes, we have nice depth for the rotation, but this wasn’t what Shapiro was talking about. He specifically said someone that would start in a playoff series, not a back-end guy.

I’m expecting some creativity and some money to be thrown around this off-season, and I’m excited about that.

by DaytonDogg on Oct 9, 2008 10:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I really don’t think he’s adding a starter. This quote, while incredibly confusing because of all the conditional clauses, paints Westbrook as the addition:

“I don’t see us allocating a lot of dollars to a fifth starter,” Shapiro said. “Our goal would be to acquire a guy who would pitch in the first three games of a playoff series. Our hope is that guy would be Jake Westbrook, who would be coming back in June or July if he doesn’t have any setbacks.”

by afh4 on Oct 9, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

I listened to the conference and you need to listen to each segment where he talks about a front of the rotation pitcher in order to understand “the confusion conditional clauses”

It roughly translated as “I’m not very comfortable with our front end pitching, but we haven’t made a priority list yet. We’ll examine what we can get in terms of quality and cost and then line that up against our priority list but ideally would I like to get another front end veteran, absolutely. I hope that it would be Jake but its too early to tell who it’ll be.”

by world dictator on Oct 9, 2008 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would find it hard for us to compete with our current roster in 2009, or even a slightly modified roster. Sure we had a great second half, but once other teams adjusted to our callups we went 16-14 over the last 30 games. Playing .533 baseball won’t get us into the playoffs…unless somehow we can switch into the National League West. They need to make enough moves to get us to 95 wins.

The obvious solution here is to buy a time machine so that we can accelerate Westrbook and Hafner’s recoveries. We could also develop Marte for another 6 years so we can have an average third baseman. Or better yet, maybe I could just go to the date where we finally win the whole fricken thing.

by ShawnK on Oct 9, 2008 10:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Our run differential was only 40 less than the Sox and Twins. We’re not that far behind them, and that was with the terrible start. Over the last 2.5 months we were the best team in the Central. I’m not saying we should stand pat, but we don’t need a major adjustment. If we can add 2 or 3 quality players (infielder, closer, starter) then we’ll be just fine.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 9, 2008 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said, Brad. And if you look at third-order wins we were an 85-win team (the White Sox were an 87-win team, the Twins were an 82-win team). We will also have a full season of the Choo train, more production from V-Mart, and a better bullpen (it almost certainly can’t get worse).

If we upgrade around the margins, we could be looking at a 90-win team, with the possibility for more if some breaks go our way.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 9, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed with Shawn. I don’t think 90 wins is gonna cut it. I mean, I’m optimistic we can gain roughly 4 or five wins just by virtue of return to form from some guys, but even that good go the other way (i.e. we find out Lee’s 2008 was a fluke). We need to look to add 5-6 wins, if that’s possible.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dpn’t think the Indians can win by just upgrading around the margins. And since when do breaks go the way of Indians teams? I don’t see the White Sox improving much, even though Kenny Williams will try, because they’re getting old (Dye, Thome, Konerko) and with little to replace them in the minors. But I do expect the Twins to get better.

by odradek on Oct 9, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The breaks went the Indians way in 2007.

We can find five win around the margins if we’re smart, taking us to a 90-or-so win team. That’s pretty darn good.

The Twins hit .305 with RISP this year – that’s 18 points higher than the second place team, and one of the highest marks in the last nine years. That’s not going to continue, and they’re going to lose a lot of runs when it regresses.

The division is there for the taking, and I think some marginal upgrades would make us the best team in the division. Of course, substantial upgrades would be nice, but perhaps not feasible.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 9, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Twins will also replace an almost-full season of Livan Hernandez with a full season of Francisco Liriano.

This is all depending on what actions every team takes during the offseason, but just on sight alone I’d say this division goes to the Twins or Indians in 2009.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Young pitchers like Blackburn and Slowey and Perkins should get better. In terms of hitters, Delmon Young should improve, along with Span, Casilla and Gomez. Kubel possibly. And no reason to expect declines from Mauer, Morneau or Cuddyer.

by odradek on Oct 9, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Delmon Young must improve. Good lord.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s 23. I’d take him. (I’m not saying the tribe should trade for him but in general I’d trade for him if I had a hole in OF)

by world dictator on Oct 9, 2008 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh sure. He’s still got years and years to improve. But I did not expect him to be this bad at this point.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He had an okay second half.

by odradek on Oct 10, 2008 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And he’s still meeting expectations better than Marte

/ducks

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 10, 2008 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you have any justification for why Blackburn, Slowey, and Perkins should get better, other than that they are young? These guys had good seasons, and they don’t really have the stuff or the peripherals to expect them to improve. I can see Slowey, maybe, but not the other two.

by ClarkM on Oct 9, 2008 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, I’ll grant you that, though Blackburn hit a wall by August.

My point is there is the possibility of an upside for the Twins. Some people here speak confidently and assuredly of the upside of Indians players (for example: Garko will have to get better in 2009 because he’s a good player, Ben Fran will miraculously get better, Gutierrez showed his real stuff in September), as if it is granted they will improve next year. This assumption, in a way, was a fallacy after 2007. The Twins also have a reasonable, plausible chance of being better. Though their RISP bodes ill for them.

by odradek on Oct 10, 2008 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is upside for the Twins, yes, but wasn’t this year their upside? ALL of their young players not named Delmon performed well – most, in fact, outperfromed expectations. While they will have a solid team – and a full season of Liriano should help a lot – they seem to have players who are prime candidates for the “sophomore slump” (which is really just regression to the mean).

I also think that their hitting with RISP is being underrated. They hit .305 with RISP, despite hitting .279 as a team. That’s a huge, huge difference. If they hit .279 with RISP they would have have had 39 fewer hits with RISP. If you assume that each hit with RISP scores 1.2 runs, that’s 46.8 runs. That’s between four and five additional wins that occurred simply because the Twins hit preposterously well when it mattered most.

If their BA with RISP regresses to the mean, they’d have to find 47 runs of improvement elsewhere just to maintain their standard from this year.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 10, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope this year was their upside, but there is still the possibility of improvement. Gomez kind of sucked, and should get better.

The Twins are the best team this decade in exceeding their pythagorean projections. Year after year they outperform expectations.

by odradek on Oct 11, 2008 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Twins are the best team this decade in exceeding their pythagorean projections. Year after year they outperform expectations.

soooo true

by world dictator on Oct 11, 2008 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hang on.

In terms of pythagorean projections, the Twins underperformed by one game this year. And one game last year. They were +3 in 2006, -1 in 2005.

Expectations and pythagorean projections are not the same thing.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 11, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since 2000, the Twins have had 6 (of 9) years in which they exceeded their win expectancies, for an accumulative +25.

Minnesota is the “luckiest” team in the AL Central in both number of better-than-expected seasons and in accumulative wins.

by odradek on Oct 11, 2008 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

rechecked the numbers for Twins:

Actual wins/Pythagorean wins

2000: 69/69 even
2001: 85/81 +4
2002: 94/86 +8
2003: 90/85 +5
2004: 92/87 +5
2005: 83/84 -1
2006: 96/93 +3
2007: 79/80 -1
2008: 88/89 -1

by odradek on Oct 11, 2008 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I contend that this does not suggest that they are any more likely to be “lucky” (or "unlucky") next season than any other team in baseball.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 14, 2008 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course it doesn’t.

by odradek on Oct 16, 2008 8:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello odradek,

Arguably, I think you could make the same argument about the Indians’ young players:

Scott Lewis
Jeremy Sowers
Aaron Laffey
Jensen Lewis
Rafael Perez
Shin-Soo Choo
Ben Francisco
Franklin Gutierrez (though he fell off in 2008, which goes to say that those young players on the Twins are no lock to do better in 2009. In time, perhaps, but they could just as easily fall back a step or two in 2009, just as Gutz did in 2008).

Hafner’s injury certainly doesn’t help, but I think you can expect solid production from Martinez, Peralta, and Sizemore, so again, I don’t see where the Twins have much of an advantage over the Indians for 2009 at this point. Essentially, the Twins were healthier than the Indians were – they lost Neshek, but had few other major injuries – we had Carmona, Westbrook, Hafner, and Martinez out for good chunks of the season.

That’s why I agree with Nick in that I think the Indians and Twins both have solid chances to win the division in 2009 as of right now, presuming there’s good health on both sides. Of course, moves made by them and by the Tigers/White Sox/Royals will also influence the probabilities of who wins the division next year.

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 9, 2008 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blackburn will get worse, I think.

Baker is probably going to get even better though.

by afh4 on Oct 9, 2008 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I expect declines from Mauer (playing time) and Morneau (performance). Cuddyer had a terrible year and if he’s healthy probably will bounce back somewhat.

by Jay on Oct 10, 2008 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think two teams with 88 wins playing off for the Central will not happen again next year. If you look at the winners for the past five years, you need about 94+ to make the playoffs:

2004: Minnesota, 92 wins
2005: Chicago, 99 wins
2006: Minnesota, 96 wins, Detroit 95 wins
2007: Cleveland, 96 wins
2008: Chicago, 88 wins

You can also guarantee that the Sox will not be standing still in the off-season, so you have to target the 95 win number. To get there, I don’t think you need a major adjustment, but you do need 2-3 impact players to emerge. Whether they come from our roster or somewhere else is Shap’s challange this offseason. But I don’t think minor player improvements will work.

by ShawnK on Oct 9, 2008 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The way to get there is by having the best team. I wouldn’t try to estimate win total and then abstract playoff chances in reverse. Every season is unique. Besides luck (and who knows which AL Central team will be the luckiest), the key to winning is having a better team than the ones you’re competing against.

I don’t know what you guys are doing in trying to predict wins, or what’s “going to cut it”.

by jhon on Oct 9, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

every year the whitesox are least lucky. just ask hawk.

by Brick. on Oct 9, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see what you’re saying, jhon, but by arguing that “90 wins isn’t going to cut it,” we’re simply saying that something fairly big has to happen. I agree that every season is unique, but you don’t just accept that and approach each season fatalistically.

the key to winning is having a better team than the ones you’re competing against.

Agreed 100%, and that’s why we’ve gotta make some moves. Maybe I’m just speaking for myself, but I wasn’t using number of wins needed as a hard target but rather a low-end goal. You’re right, who knows, maybe the Central will be won by an 83 win team next year, but you can’t just go to war with an 81 win team and hope that happens.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 9, 2008 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It can be hard to tell the difference between an 81 win team and a 93 win team in a season. I don’t even bother to pretend I can tell in advance. That said, I gotta hand it to the BPRO guys for pegging the AL Central as one that would produce a sub-90 win champion (despite missing on the rank of the clubs, like everybody else).

by jhon on Oct 9, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs