A few thoughts and questions on recent ESPN articles!
by indiansfan on Dec 3, 2008 11:08 PM EST
Email
PrintHello everyone, I hope everyone has a great holiday season!
Amidst this busy time, I had a chance to read a couple of recent ESPN articles and think they could have relevance to the Indians for next season.
The first one, located here, is from Buster Olney's blog. It talks mostly about Sabathia getting a large amount of money at some point, but the downtrodden economy is slowing down any moves by all teams from being made. It also goes on to mention that guys like Bobby Abreu and K-Rod will likely not get as much as was expected just a few months ago.
Therefore, my question is, would it seem more realistic that we could pick up a guy like Fuentes, Abreu, or even K-Rod, being that the dollar amount mentioned for K-Rod is now "only" $10-$11 million/year, something that the Indians could probably afford if they really wanted to go that route (though I question whether K-Rod can remain healthy with that violent delivery of his and whether he can maintain good enough command with such a delivery long-term)?
Granted, those dollar amounts may not turn out to be true, but they seem more realistic than just a few short months ago, and if K-Rod will only get that much, Fuentes probably would be under $10 million/season - would he be the better option over Hoffman or would it be better to try instead for Hoffman, even if he is only here for one season?
And it seems Abreu might only get $8 million/season - again, the Indians could come up with that amount of cash if they wanted to - would you want Abreu for that or do you think he wouldn't be the best way to spend our money?
The other ESPN article involves the Mariners signing Russell Branyan to a 1-year, $1.4 M contract (so much for him coming here). However, that article also mentions that there are GMs inquiring about both Putz and Beltre - my question is, could the Indians be one of those teams, and if so, what would be a reasonable package to acquire both of them, and would you do it?
82 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why does everyone forget about Wood?
Our favorite disembodied skull went to Lookout Landing and proposed a deal for Beltre. I know Jeff doesn’t represent the FO but considering he’s as near as we have to someone in the know he thinks this is a close offer.
Steel Nick
Oh its you Nick. I didn’t recognize you without all the SUBJECT LINES!!!
…for shame sir, for shame.
by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
It’s been awhile since I’ve jumped in and said anything stupid; so, let me get back into practice.
I do not want Abreu at all at virtually any price. He is a great contact hitter. He has great plate discipline. But, watching him play in Philly was painful and maddening. I mean way beyond just frustrating. He never wanted to dirty his uniform in the field. Despite the accolades, he was not a good fielder. He had a tendency to pad his stats when it didn’t matter. He never carried the Phillies thourgh a rough patch when he had the talent to. When the team needed him to put the ball in play, he’d take a walk. When the opposing pitcher had thrown one strike in 10 pitches and had walked 2, he’d swing at the first pitch and pop out to 2nd. And on, and on, and on…
All that being said, I would like to just add, I hate making nebulous comments like this. I prefer to have comments based on hard numbers and facts. Before Abreu left Philly, he did something nearly every week that caused a legitimate complaint from the fanbase. I am sure he was not as bad as he seemed. I am sure that these maddening acts happened much less frequently than it seemed. But he frustrated the hell out of me and I don’t even like the Phillies.
proverbial "moron in a hurry"
Not that the PD is much of a source on what’s going on behind the scenes, but several things in today’s paper struck me. They report that the Indians are talking to Blake’s agent, but that they have been less aggressive than LA or Minnesota. They also report that the Indians had an interest in Howry (who signed with the Giants), but that they’ not interested in or able to spend their money on players like him because they’re going to spend most of it on a reliever. That adds up to a consistent strategy, I think. That is, the priority may be to grab one of the better closers (spending significant money as a result), with the result that they’re passing on decent set up guys like Affeldt or Howry and aren’t willing to commit money to a player they actually like (Blake) at this point because a position player isn’t the top of their list.
If all that’s right, Shapiro may actually be looking at Fuentes/Wood/Hoffman et al and/or exploring a trade (like the Seattle one that has been talked about here) that would involve a significant commitment of resources.
I think Putz/Beltre is a long shot, but to play along, I think it would require us to give up core players (or near core players): perhaps Peralta, for example, and significant prospects. It would be expensive, but not crazy expensive, I think, because we’d be taking over salary and those players are not signed for the long term. To be honest, I’m skeptical the Indians would go for Beltre alone because it ties up most of their salary flexibility for next year and doesn’t help with the pitching. If Putz were part of the deal, it becomes a little more plausible, but even then…
I doubt we would have to or agree to give up a core player for one year of beltre or two years of Putz. That trade doesn’t make sense for either team.
And that’s way way too much value for Beltre. If we were going to trade away our core players itd be in a blockbuster deal.
by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think Seattle would settle for prospects for two of their best players, even if they’re leaving. But, you’re right that we won’t trade away our core players for Beltre. That’s another reason why I think that deal won’t happen.
They expect to sell high on Putz and they need to sell high on Beltre. I doubt they will even consider packaging both together unless it’s a blockbuster with proven Major League talent.
by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 4, 2008 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
Why would a team trade proven major league talent, for one year of Beltre? I’d imagine that any player that’s considered “proven major league talent” on a contending team is unlikely to be moved unless its for salary cap reasons our depth at the position. You also have to keep in mind that Seattle is rebuilding and part of their motivation to trading Beltre is to dump payroll.
The only proven major league talent that would fit those two parameters is a young productive player signed for multiple years. Doubt that demand’s going to be met, especially in this economy and this free agent market.
I agree with Jeff from Lookout Landing, when he says the M’s probably want a major league ready prospect to headline the deal, or at least one who will start in AAA next year.
by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
Seattle can pay him more than any other team, because of the Larry Bird exception.
But seriously, I agree, who gives up a proven major leaguer, or much of anything of value, for Beltre.
$12 M for one year of Beltre seems like a wash to me. I don’t know why you’d have to give up player talent as well, except for a token lower level prospect.
Beltre’s career OPS+ is 107, Blake’s is 105. Sure, I’d rather have Beltre for the year, but I’m not digging a hole elsewhere to do it.
I can see the difference to be easily 2 wins/year. 6 mil for 2 wins is a good deal. But you have to pay talent also.
OK, so what if this is the choice:
Beltre, for 2009 only, at $12M, and it costs us Scott Lewis and Meloan.
of
Blake, for 2009-10, at $7 M per year.
Not presenting this as an obvious choice, but actually asking, which do you want? And how much would the prospect package have to change for you to switch?
Is the Scott Lewis/Meloan trade proposal a joke? I’m really asking.
If I’m Cleveland I take that trade and hire a good grand larceny lawyer.
by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that strikes me as not enough to get Beltre, unless Seattle is really motivated to dump payroll and somehow no one else is offering…
If it’s that package, I do it, but I think it’s not going to take much pot sweetening to get me to switch. I’d rather save up our tradeable players to get a #3 starter, if at all possible. The rotation worries me significantly more than the infield next year, and I’d really be content with Blake. Not actively excited, but content.
Not a joke. You and I just have vastly different opinions of Beltre’s awesomeness, and maybe of Lewis too.
If we were the two GMs fighting over Beltre, I’d be preparing to tell the beat writers how the “pieces just don’t match up for us” and you would be introducing Beltre. I’m fine with that.
I still might do the above trade, but in no way is it a slam dunk for me. But what do I know? I would not have predicted the Blake trade either.
Sorry, I like to pretend baseball is a sport where the Yankees don’t exist.
But still, you get my point.
by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know. I’m not saying it’s a good idea to trade a proven MLB player for Beltre. I’m just saying that may be what they’re asking at this point. The acquisition of Branyan has a few Mariners fans I know biting their fingernails with the expectation of Beltre being shipped out soon. Considering the Ms record last year, it may behoove them to deal Beltre before the season starts. Considering the “power” Branyan adds maybe they will settle for top prospects.
by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 4, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
I’m sure the Baltimore asked for Asdrubal and Carmona for Roberts. Doesn’t mean they’re going to get them.
by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
That’s just the point. Roberts is still in Baltimore. Beltre may very well stay in Seattle unless someone offers them what they consider to be a good return. The original discussion was about Beltre AND Putz — I do believe that would take a major league player of quality (rightly or wrongly). Beltre alone is more complicated (high salary, only one year left). Would you trade a top tier AAA prospect (Miller? LaPorta? Huff) for Beltre for one year? I’m not persuaded it makes sense. You still need to fix the bullpen and address starting pitching and you’ve just spent most of your cash.
Also, maybe I’m an optomist but I think Dolan could be persuaded to up slightly up payroll for one year to allow us to acquire Beltre and sign Hoffman/another closer. Both of which could be done for about $20 mil.
However, I’m also reluctant to trade good prospects for one year of Beltre. Though in the end I probably would agree to a deal similar to the one Adam posted on Lookout Landing. One year of Beltre plus two draft picks ain’t such a bad thing.
Besides, I have faith in Shapiro’s ability to get something good in return for Shoppach which would lessen the sting of losing Mills.
by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
Hello Peter,
I was curious to know what the length of the current contracts were for Beltre and Putz – that would make me drop the value I’d be willing to give up for both of them. I could see 1-2 significant prospects at most (and that’s only if Putz is included and is healthy by all accounts – see below), but beyond that, I’d pass.
And, to be honest, I’m not even that fond of the idea of trading for both. Of the two, I’d go for Putz first; I’m not sure what I think of Beltre – at times, he looks like the player he was reported to become when he had that great year (2004, I think), but that did come during a FA-to-be season, then he fell off, though with still decent to solid numbers. But being that we’d only be getting him for one year, I wouldn’t be willing to pay that much to acquire him.
At least with Putz, he’d be here for two years, though I’d want to make sure about his health first (as I’m sure the Indians will do if they did go that route).
I too think I’d rather go the Fuentes/Wood/Hoffman route and perhaps resign Blake (LAD would get two draft picks, but I’d think we’d only lose our 2nd-rounder – not sure – and besides that, we did get Meloan and Santana, plus keep our 1st-rounder, so I don’t think it’s too high a cost to resign Blake. Plus, Hodges isn’t ready, and he might only be the next Blake at best in the long-run; at least Blake is proven at the ML level right now, when we still have Lee, Sizemore, Peralta, etc.).
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
You keep saying Beltre/Putz would require a major league player but you still haven’t provided a warrant.
I don’t doubt Beltre’s talent, but as I said above, trading Beltre, or even Beltre/Putz, for a major league player doesn’t make much sense for M’s or the team trading for Beltre/Putz.
Of course if the team trading for Beltre had Ranger like catching depth at a certain postion or a Delmon Young, then Seattle might get lucky. But teams willing to part with young cheap talent under team control for multiple years is few and far between. This is twice as true when you consider the team is trading for one year of Beltre and two years for Putz who is just a reliever.
That’s just a baseball reality.
Well, I’m thinking of what happened with Huston Street. He was traded, with prospects, for Matt Holliday, a very good major league hitter. Putz is just a reliever, as was Street, but Street plus good prospects was considered equivalent to Holliday. If you think Putz plus Beltre (assuming, i think reasonably, that Putz is not radically different than Street) will command only prospects, I think you won’t get that deal done. I would imagine that Seattle will try to get some significant return for that package. Those are two of their better players, and Putz, in particular, is attractive since he’s under contract for two years at a price that’s not outrageous. Again, if it’s Beltre on his own, that’s a different story (and I don’t want Beltre for one year at inflated prices, to be frank). But, I can’t see Seattle settling for prospects for the pair of them, unless the prospects are really stellar.
That comparision doesn’t hold up for a few reasons.
First, Streets is a reliever. There’s a big difference between trading a young cheap, productive everyday player and trading someone who pitches 71 innings per year. Relievers are a volitile commodity who are good one year and bad another.
Teams also have multiple relievers and several players who can fill in the void created by losing one. If Cleveland traded Asdrubal we wouldn’t go from 5 Asdrubals to 4. We also wouldn’t have a couple of Asdrubals with “live arms” in AAA we could call up.
I’m not saying relievers are unimportant, but ask yourself would it hurt us more if we traded Asdrubal or Perez?
Second point. I think you can make a very compelling argument that Street wasn’t the centerpiece of that trade. Was he important? Sure, but did the trade center on him? No. I also don’t think relievers are generally considered proven major league talent. That’s more of a semantics debate, but I don’t think most GM’s would say “I want proven major league talent” when asking for a reliever. Maybe if it was a premium closer, but still probably not.
Third point. The Oakland-Colorado deal was unique in that it seems both teams want to win. I’m not saying Colorado or Oakland are going to make the playoffs this year, but Colorado is one year removed from the NLCS and plays in the weakest division in baseball and Billy Beane seems to think Oakland can compete this year. Plus, in Billy Beane’s universe the normal rules of logic don’t apply.
Seattle on the other hand isn’t going anywhere in 2009 and the front office seems resigned to that fact. Seattle’s not exactly a small market team, if they thought they were going to be competitive I doubt they’d be dumping payroll and trading their starting 3B and their closer.
Fourth point. I still don’t get why Seattle wants a proven major league player who will probably be leaving the team just as they get ready to compete. Will Seattle get a player like Jorge Cantu who’s a “proven major league talent” I’m sure they could get a “meh” player like that, but I doubt he’d be integral to the trade.
I think the problem with your argument is that it assumes quality = proven major league talent. I think that’s hardly guaranteed to be the case. See the CC trade
by world dictator on Dec 4, 2008 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
I think the comparison was more Street/Putz rather than Street/Beltre.
But granted, this line:
Putz is just a reliever, as was Street, but Street plus good prospects was considered equivalent to Holliday
is greatly marginalizing the role the prospects played in the value of that deal.
As far as the “proven major league talent” debate I think Seattle would more want the kinds of players the Marlins are asking for, but we should subtract cost efficiency from the equation. These would be players fresh into or on the verge of the majors with a better than decent shot at having major league careers (with high talent ceilings a bonus). The kind of players who will be playing when Seattle is competitive again, realizing that this could be anywhere from 2010 to 2013.
Who are those players on the Indians? With no separation of value, I’d say:
Shoppach
Perez
Meloan
Sipp
Miller
Laffey
Sowers
Reyes
S. Lewis
J. Lewis
Z. Jackson
Cabrera
Garko
Marte
Gutierrez
Choo
Francisco
LaPorta
Huff
(Of course also Carmona, Peralta, Sizemore, etc, but I mean come on)
What lands Beltre, what lands Putz, what lands Beltre+Putz I have no idea. Certainly some of the names on this list (Huff, LaPorta) aren’t going anywhere for either player but I can see something workable coming out here. Especially if instead of two of these players we can substitute a pair of multiple-years-away types that don’t match the top prospect profile.
I would add that in my opinion a loss of any two relievers, Cabrera, or Laffey would significantly decrease our own odds of competing in 2009. But then I’m a Laffey guy. It would also be hard to part with either of Choo or Gutierrez but I’m trying to keep an open mind here.
(But really, I don’t want to part with Choo or Gutierrez.)
Steel Nick
Yup.
The only thing I’d add is that asdrubal is in the “oh come on class” considering his upside, cheapness, and the thin middle infielder market. If Shap wouldn’t include Asdrubal in a a Dan Haren deal he’s not going to include him in a Beltre deal. Besides Shapiro wouldn’t undermine one his amazing robberies by giving him back to Seattle.
by world dictator on Dec 5, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions
Also because moving Peralta or Cabrera would totally defeat Shapiro’s purpose in acquiring an infielder. He’s not acquiring Beltre so he can play Barfield at 2B.
by Jay on Dec 5, 2008 2:14 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think what nobody’s brought up yet is the fact that Putz/Beltre is an anagram for Pretzel Tub.
I’m thinking we offer Seattle a package something like:
1) a tub of pretzels
2) a lifetime supply of Bertman’s Mustard AND Stadium Mustard
4) Dellucci
by cleveland teamer on Dec 4, 2008 4:14 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
The question is, which of those three is the most valuable?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
Clearly the lifetime supply of mustard. I mean, it’s a lifetime supply! How can one tub of pretzels even compete with that, let alone the other thing?
I dunno. Mustard is cool and all, but it’s not like you tear through it. Lifetime supply of mustard is like a lifetime supply of WD-40. No one ever buys it, but it’s always in your garage.
Hello Cleveland teamer,
Just curious, but what was #3? :-) Perhaps that’s the most valuable of the package and you decided against including it. :-)
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Haha, I just noticed that myself. I had the two types of mustard listed separately at first, but decided they were interchangeable, much like Sowers/Laffey/Huff/Slewis/etc.
by cleveland teamer on Dec 4, 2008 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
Hello Cleveland teamer,
I see – I can see the similarity, though I think, at this point, I’d put Huff as a “higher grade of mustard” than the others. Perhaps Laffey is a “special edition”, but Huff seems like a higher grade, like “Grey Poupon,” at this point.
Sowers and Scott Lewis would seem more like the interchangeables, just like the mustards (good, old reliable traditions – perhaps that says that these two pitchers will be more of a throwback type that doesn’t rely on pure stuff, but guile and control? :-)
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
The M’s just signed Russell Branyan - maybe he’ll hold down 3B for them after they trade Beltre to us?
That’s part of the original post.
Time to put my Branyan jersey back in the closet for another year.
You could speculate that, yes, but they also have needs at 1B and DH. For a team like that Branyan is a great fit.
Steel Nick
I think that’s a smokescreen. I think they’ll have him roam around a little, but I red it as a pretty clear indication that they’re trying to trade Beltre.
There’s a part of me that would rather have Branyan than anyone. Good move for the Ms
Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF
You know what would make me happy? An actual rumor. Not a made up trade by commenters (no offense to any of you) but an honest to God rumor.
Or, you know, some sort of actual decision.
The fact that there are no rumors from this FO makes me happy. All of the recent transactions have come out of the blue. Except for, of course, when dealing with Boston (Crisp) and Milwaukee (Sabathia). Those guys are leak centrals.
This is somewhat random, but does anyone know for sure what the eight teams on Beltre’s no-trade clause are? I’ve tried to hunt down the exact teams, but I can’t find it listed. Just curious, since that’s kind of an odd thing to have on a long-term contract like that (maybe he really wanted to stay on the west coast or something, I dunno).
Guys … seriously … we are not trading for Adrian Beltre.
There is nothing in seven years of moves to suggest that Shapiro would even be a serious bidder for a player at the end of an expensive contract, let alone actually the top bidder.
Please stop driving yourselves crazy. It isn’t about Beltre’s no-trade clause, it’s about Shapiro’s wouldn’t-do-it clause.
Is there a reason Lowell seems to always have such a low BaBIP?
by world dictator on Dec 6, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
About 21%. Is that low? What’s the average/a good rate.
by world dictator on Dec 7, 2008 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
I liked DreamWeaver, but hasn’t everyone switched to GoLive at this point? No? Nothing?
by Jay on Dec 7, 2008 8:28 PM EST up reply actions
The Rangers said they’re open to trading Hank Blalock who says he’s willing to play at third. I don’t think they’d want to much for him since they’re trying to trim payroll, allegedly.
Last year Blalock OPS’ed .846 with a .508 slugging and a .287 avg. Might be worth taking a chance on him going into his contract year by playing him at 1st/3rd.
Not bad for 6.5 million.
by world dictator on Dec 7, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
I would definately be down with that. He’s down pretty good the past two years in part-time play (after really falling off in 05 and 06). His SLG has been above .500 and his OBP above .330 each of the past two years, although he’s played in less than half of the games. I wonder if he can keep that up with full-time duties; I don’t see any reason he couldn’t. And he’ll only be 28 next year.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
Yeah depending on the cost in prospects, I have to see him as a better alternative than Blake for third base. Neither is very good defensively, yet Blalock, as you mention, is only 28 next season. The benifit of course is saving money to spend on a closer (or heck maybe two closers!, remember this wouldn’t be a new thing for Shapiro)
I think the primary reason for Blalock’s “part time” playing time the last few years is injury. I know that’s a strike against him, but unless they were big or reoccuring injuries then I still think he’s worth It, especially going into his contract year. (The time where everyone’s a superman.)
I wonder if we could even recoup a type B draft pick for Blalock?
by world dictator on Dec 7, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
Random thought: any chance of prying an infielder away from the Angels? I’m not the world’s biggest Aybar fan, but Caliheimgeles would be dealing from a position of strength.
by fleerdon on Dec 6, 2008 6:15 PM EST reply actions
Or that little Pedroia lite they’ve got running around at second, if Sean Rodriguez is such a big deal.
by fleerdon on Dec 6, 2008 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
