Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Big 12 Football: Beyond The Boxscore Bar-right-arrows

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.

Link about 1 month ago Imt_tiny InfiniteMonkeyTypists Comment 170 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

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   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

We could also include Grady. Imagine that package

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

“Package.” Heh.

by fleerdon on Oct 9, 2008 11:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Heh. He said “package”.

by jhon on Oct 9, 2008 9:40 PM EDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

Right.

by Jay on Oct 10, 2008 10:19 AM EDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

Right.

by Jay on Oct 11, 2008 5:14 AM EDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

THEY TOOK ER JOBS!

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 12:39 PM EDT to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

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

by Logodaedalus on Oct 9, 2008 1:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It’s South Park.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 6:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I just thought we were shouting things.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 9, 2008 6:01 PM EDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

For a pitcher with a dodgy elbow.

by odradek on Oct 11, 2008 12:14 AM EDT to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

I know. That’s amazing.

by odradek on Oct 11, 2008 7:56 PM EDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

NLNLNL

by afh4 on Oct 10, 2008 8:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

groundballsgroundballsgroundballs

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Oct 11, 2008 12:07 PM EDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

Or possibly our GM.

by Jay on Oct 11, 2008 5:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

possibly

by hans on Oct 13, 2008 11:59 AM EDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs