Injuries. If Victor Martinez and Travis Hafner (and many others) weren't hurt and/or ineffective...

Injuries. If Victor Martinez and Travis Hafner (and many others) weren't hurt and/or ineffective this year, there's a chance they would have been in the race this summer. If they were, would they really have traded Sabathia and, in turn, received Matt LaPorta? Would they have realized that Kelly Shoppach could be an everyday catcher if given the chance, thus allowing Victor Martinez to move to first base or DH, thus displacing black holes like Hafner and Garko? No, the stars didn't align for the Indians in 2008, but things look pretty darn bright for 2009.

ShysterBall on what the Indians have to be thankful for this year

7 months ago Buckeye Brad Comment 24 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I know some people (myself included) were arguing that you trade Sabathia no matter where we were at in the standings. It was pretty evident by Mid-May that this was not a team that was going to deep into the playoffs, even if they did make it. Sabathia represents a once-in-a-generation pitcher .. and for a mid-sized team like the Indians to let him walk away for nothing would be a sin.

by Toxicadam on Dec 3, 2008 12:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If I’m the GM and I have my team in line to get into the playoffs, I’d take my chances with a 1-2-3 of Sabathia, Lee, and Carmona/Byrd/Lewis/whoever was throwing hot at the time. When August rolled around, Sizemore, Choo, Peralta, Vic, Shoppach, and Asdrubal were clicking. You can’t project all that in mid-May, but if the Indians had a nice first 1/3 of the season there would have been no reason to break it up. In one sense, a team like the Indians is perpetually rebuilding. But on the other hand, you have to go for it at some point in time.

Losing Sabathia for “nothing” would have been unfortunate, but I wouldn’t describe a soul wrenching October losing effort that comes with the opportunity of a soul fulfilling October championship as “nothing.” Short-circuiting a pennant run just to say you got something in return for your star player is too empty a solution for my liking. The extra playoff revenue, making consecutive playoff appearances, and the two draft picks might not be a sufficient a consolation if the Indians didn’t win the World Series, but something about that scenario is just as satisfying as is Matt LaPorta in an Indians uniform.

by xrickx on Dec 3, 2008 3:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, for a team that hasn’t won a championship in SIXTY years, you don’t trade away your best pitcher if your team is in contention for a playoff spot. Of course, by early summer it was evident that wasn’t going to happen this year. But if the Indians were winning there is NO WAY they could have traded Sabathia, especially after coming within one game of the World Series the previous year. You don’t trade a chance at a championship a couple players who might be great one day.

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

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2008 7:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We also go without Carlos Santana and Jon Meloan.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d trade those guys for a championship in a heartbeat.

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

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2008 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh nonononono that’s not what I meant. I’m just talking about the much more realistic scenario in which we’re in a gray area of contention, don’t make those trades, and fall short of October.

Then we’ve got draft picks which are nice but not entirely necessary for a team that thinks it can bounce back. I imagine the two draft picks from CC and the second rounder from Casey are < LaPorta, Brantley, Santana, and Meloan.

Let’s all remember where we were when CC was traded. Like ShysterBall said, it’s fortunate the decision was easy.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course I agree completely with that. My point was in response to the theory that we should have traded CC no matter where we were in the standings. If we were in first place and looked like we had a good shot of making it to and possibly winning the World Series, then there is no way we should trade CC. The goal is to win a championship, and in that scenario we would have had a good shot of winning one.

Yes, looking back now, it was much better that we were out of contention early and could make those trades than to keep CC and Casey to fight for the division only to lose it in the final week.

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

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2008 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. I was and am 100% on board with the way things played out, only because the Indians were so far back. But like you I would not have dealt CC no matter where the Indians were in the standings. If they were close, I’m going all in.

by xrickx on Dec 3, 2008 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s be real clear about this … either LaPorta or Santana, by himself, is more valuable than all three compensation draft picks combined.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2008 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. But a Division Title and/or a playoff appearance is more valuable than LaPorta and Santana combined.

by DaytonDogg on Dec 4, 2008 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not if it doesn’t pay off.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe, maybe not. But given the unpredictability of the playoffs, I’ll take the excitement of October baseball and the 12% chance of winning the whole thing over a couple of (awesome) prospects.

by DaytonDogg on Dec 5, 2008 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Grudgingly agree.

by Jay on Dec 4, 2008 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno, I would rather be a fan of a team like Atlanta (pretend they never won a WS) than the Marlins.

by Toxicadam on Dec 5, 2008 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Me too. Marlins — yuck.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 5, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. The Marlins are gross.

by Jay on Dec 5, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And people were angry when some of us were rooting for this ship to crash and burn in June.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2008 2:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I certainly wouldn’t have said anything of the sort if we had started even a little hotter, but anybody who believed we had so much as a double-digit probability of making the post-season after that L streak was off his rocker. Just another thing that sucks about the Rockies’ streak in 2007. Now the fanbase of every mid-market team that’s out of it in June will call out its team’s FO for responsibly giving up the ghost in June. “What if the Rockies had said that in 2007?”

I disagree with the premise of this FanShot link, though. I think our acquisitions are primarily next-wave kind of guys — part of the 2010+ squads. If any of them, even Matt “Legitimate Corner Outfielder” LaPorta, are viable big leaguers in 2009, that’s just gravy to me.

Look, I expect 2009 to be exciting. I’m not wildly optimistic. We’ll have lost the benefit of low expectations. And I shudder to think about who gets shaken loose if we faceplant out of the gate again next year. (Imagine the idiot forums when we trade Cy Young winners in back-to-back seasons.) But exciting, with a lot to look forward to, that much I think we’ve got.

by fleerdon on Dec 3, 2008 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“And I shudder to think about who gets shaken loose if we faceplant out of the gate again next year.”

Upon closer inspection, that’s quite possibly the worst sentence I have ever written on this site. It sounds like a clinically paranoid gymnast took a double-dose of amphetamines and tried to work out on a greyhound track during a race.

by fleerdon on Dec 3, 2008 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs