Hello, ESPN Optimism

"He transcends our prior experiences at closer since I've been here," Shapiro said. "We've had capable guys at the end of games, but they got by on toughness, and playing the odds. Now we have a strikeout guy, with a fear factor. And we have support for him."

6 months ago westbrook Comment 41 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

They spent most of their money on Wood. But if he can be the healthy closer he was in Chicago all last year (the last pitch he threw was clocked at 97 mph), Carmona has a bounce-back season, they find another infielder and another starting pitcher, corner outfielders Ben Francisco and Shin-Soo Choo continue to progress and Martinez and Hafner produce like they’re supposed to, that hot finish by the Indians last season could be followed by a hot start in 2009.

I sometimes forget how many ifs there are. Thank goodness its an odd year.

by TheDanimal on Dec 30, 2008 3:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

there are a lot of ifs. Don’t forget, we had none of those ifs (except maybe Choo) and we were amongst the best team in baseball the last 2 months.

We don’t need Carmona, Lee, Francisco, Wood, Choo, Martinez, AND Hafner to all be All Stars. They just can’t all flop.

by DaytonDogg on Dec 31, 2008 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Without quoting a whole section, Kurkjian also mentions that currently Peralta would be the third baseman, Cabrera at short and Barfield, Carroll and Valgood at second. Although I don’t think it’s legal to play three second basemen at once.

He goes on to say that the Tribe plans on adding another infielder but nothing significant because they’re almost out of money.

Look, I know I’ve been this guy like 10 times since the end of the season but how can they be out of money? Sabathia’s a Yankee and they’ve only added 10ish million in payroll. Shouldn’t they have another 7-10 million?

by NickFantana on Dec 30, 2008 3:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A question I’m always asking myself: How can I be out of money? I had $300 in my pocket yesterday.

by odradek on Dec 30, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You carry that much cash around?

I get nervous with more than a $100 and never leave twenties in my wallet when i go to the gym.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 30, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I always carry a $100 bill, so in case I am held up I have something to give the perp. It’s cheaper than getting shot.

by odradek on Dec 30, 2008 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Where, exactly, do you live?

by fwembt on Dec 30, 2008 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chicago. But I started doing it while living in NY. I walk a lot, so I’m on the street a fair amount.

by odradek on Dec 31, 2008 2:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well since you keep being the how can they be out of money I’ll keep being the “pessimist”. :-)

At the beginning of the offseason various sources guessed the Indians would have around $20 million to spend this offseason. As the offseason progressed that number became $15 million.

So we have somewhere between $5 and $10 million left to spend. But considering the tone of Shapiro’s quotes and the articles written about the Indians post Wood signing I’d put that number closer to $5 than $10.

by world dictator on Dec 30, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now can we officially put to rest the silly “you don’t know FOR SURE that we can’t sign Dunn/Lowe/etc” argument?

by world dictator on Dec 30, 2008 4:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What do you think? While I won’t take up the argument (although I agree Shap’s could be very creative), Dunn/Lowe/etc. haven’t signed anywhere yet…

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that Gutz will succeed in Seattle.

by mjmarble on Dec 30, 2008 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Manny and Bradley haven’t signed yet either. Maybe Shap will “get creative” and sign them too!

All snark aside, in the most literal sense of the word possible, its possible that we sign either Lowe or Dunn. Its also possible that a giant asteroid hits the earth and we all die tomorrow.

Are any of these scenario’s likely? No.

Sure Shap could “get creative” if by creative you mean he sheds payroll somehow. Or maybe, just maybe, the Dolans will increase payroll despite the poor economic climate and several teams cutting their budget.

by world dictator on Dec 30, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess it depends if you believe we have $10 mil left as was originally indicated at the end of the season or if that number is closer to $5 mil that is being currently bantered about. It can be argued that if the team’s expenditure hasn’t decreased, then the dip in the market could allow the signing of someone like Lowe or Dunn who would otherwise be too expensive.

Maybe, just maybe the Tribe has allocated X dollars for 2009. That amount is not affected by a downturn in the economy. Given the fixed contracts and income from the various media outlets, this is not completely unreasonable. Just because other teams are tightening their belts doesn’t meant that Tribe is doing likewise. I’m not saying that they’re increasing payroll, just that the budget from Oct might still be the budget. If so, that $7-10 mil might still be sitting there.

And finally – a winning team puts butts in the seats, after all.

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that Gutz will succeed in Seattle.

by mjmarble on Dec 30, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the quick and easy response to your hypothetical:

Various news outlets including, several Hoynes articles and this espn story, state that the Indians can’t afford another “Wood like signing” and will be shopping for “bargin bin” type players. Wood signed at $10 mil per year which seriously suggests the Indians don’t have $10 million.

As for Lowe:

The Mets opened bidding with Lowe at 3yrs/$36 million ($12 million per) The Red Sox are also interested. Not to mention Lowe made $10 million last year and is a Scott Boras client. Yeah, no chance we sign him.

Dunn:

As much as people laugh at the Phillies for the Ibanez contract its still sets the market at 3yrs/$30 mil for OF/DH types. As someone stated last time, there certainly is a glut of OF/DH type guys but Dunn with his 40 hrs and high OBP is clearly at the top of that glut.

It takes a real act of faith to think that Dunn will sign for the same amount as Raul Ibanez. Perhaps Dunn will settle for $10 mil per if he gets a longer contract, but that runs contrary to everything we know about Shapiro. Not to mention signing Dunn to a long term deal would create a logjam at 1st/OF.

Thus, signing Dunn looks unlikely as much for payroll reasons as roster reasons.

Of course everything I’ve said is based on our current roster. If Shapiro moves payroll, this is a whole new discussion. But even still, despite the surplus of corner bats on the free agent market and falling prices, the front office has maintained their priorities as a non 1B infielder and a SP. This makes me think if we did wind up with $10 in budget room we’d go after one of those positions.

by world dictator on Dec 30, 2008 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

See you’re using WAAAAAY too much logic.

Basically, we’re all on the outside looking in… current market forces, dip in payrolls, etc. are all beyond our knowledge. My point basically is that we don’t know… Is it highly unlikely that we’ll sign someone of true note? Of course. And you’ll have the satisfaction of saying “I told you so…” when pitchers and catchers report. But this is the Hot Stove and I, at least, enjoying trying to put pieces together.

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that Gutz will succeed in Seattle.

by mjmarble on Dec 30, 2008 10:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would much rather be proven wrong when Dunn reports to spring training for the Indians!

by world dictator on Dec 30, 2008 11:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i have never had a LGT mini-thread like this about baseball

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 31, 2008 12:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the thing. Do you think Manny is going to play next year? At the 15-20M he wants per? Do you think Burrell is going to get that 10M per also? Abreau is coming off some absurd contract, will he get into the 15M range again? Milton Bradley was one of the top 5 hitters in the AL last year, does he get 10-12M next year? Giambi? With Dunn that is 6 sluggers. Are there really six teams that are going to pay over 12 M? One or more of these guys are going to be left out there. Maybe Manny doesn’t play. Maybe its Giambi and nobody cares.

I just think there are more of these OF/DH/1B slugging guys than there are teams that will pay way over what the Indians could. That doesn’t even get to the second rate OF/1B/DH guys like: Griffey, Cliff Floyd, Garrett Anderson, Frank Thomas or even guys like Emil Brown and Brad Wilkerson that someone could take a flier on.

There is just so much supply of this type of player. I can really see Shapiro looking at this and seeing an opportunity to stretch the budget in a smart way. If its Dunn, I’d do it.

by DaytonDogg on Dec 31, 2008 1:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not saying the Indians won’t sign a OF/1B, my only point is that I can say with a high amount of certainty that it won’t be Dunn.
And saying “you can’t be 100% certain” or “but maybe” doesn’t cut it in light of the mounting evidence.

Maybe x Maybe x Maybe x Maybe = highly unlikely.

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

I’m suggesting there is evidence that Dunn is affordable. Questions about his desire to play, his low AVG, his bad defense will all decrease his value. The market doesn’t favor him. He still is unemployed. There are 5 guys with similar skills, so its hard to see a team breaking the bank for him.

by DaytonDogg on Dec 31, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Non responsive.

And with the DeRosa trade we absolutely don’t have the money to sign Dunn now. Let’s move on.

by world dictator on Dec 31, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Regarding how much we have to spend, I found this on the interwebs. Feel free to comment.

http://www.reclinergm.com/are-the-phillies-really-cheap/

by piersall on Dec 30, 2008 4:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Um, is this accurate? If so, I am significantly less satisfied with current ownership than previously.

/looking furiously for source data

by NickFantana on Dec 30, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know. I was hoping one of you could figure it out and tell me whether I should be annoyed. I’m a little lazy.

by piersall on Dec 30, 2008 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not buying the numbers. The reference is the Forbes Business of Baseball article:

This is the same article that says the Yankees lost $47M in operating income and the Red Sox lost $19M in operating income. The Indians certainly sit new the top as far as operating income, but I don’t know what we can make of any of these financial numbers.

Yankees and Red Sox - MLB's Axis of Evil
(And ESPN is right in the middle)

by Spidey on Dec 30, 2008 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“There are four types of lies: lies, d*** lies, statistics and Forbes Business of Baseball articles.” – Mark Twain

by lenred on Dec 30, 2008 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

I thought the losses for both of those teams are legit, in that they do not include the money made off of the tv networks like YES for the Yanks.

by hans on Dec 31, 2008 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is why the Forbes numbers are pretty much worthless. Teams who have their own tv station or have a tv station with a common owner (TBS, WGN) have been cooking the books for years by hiding the profits in the tv branch of the business.

by jds16 on Jan 1, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Only a Philles fan would bitch about ownership three months after winning the World Series.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 1, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs

What’s his definition of “spent on players” ? It seems he’s only refering to payroll, which of course has many problems.

A team could easily move up this list by signing an overpriced player to a bad contract.

This also would fail to include money used on player development and scouting.

by world dictator on Dec 30, 2008 4:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think your last line is huge.

by DaytonDogg on Dec 31, 2008 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He seems pretty positive about the Peralta shift. Wonder if he’s just speculating or if a decision has actually been set in stone. It would seem contradictory, then, to say that we’re looking for the “best infielder available” since, as we’ve discussed before, it wouldn’t make much sense to have had Jhonny play 3B all winter just to move him back to SS.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 30, 2008 5:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i don’t agree.

…The rest of the infield isn’t clear. The Indians missed out on signing free-agent third baseman Casey Blake, who signed a three-year deal with the Dodgers instead. So, for now, shortstop Jhonny Peralta will play third…

…They are looking for the best infielder available, be it a third baseman, shortstop or second baseman — and who they acquire will determine where Peralta and Cabrera play. Count on the Indians signing or trading for someone else

by Brick. on Dec 30, 2008 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah… reading comprehension is my friend…

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 30, 2008 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Having Jhonny play 3rd in winterball was to give him more practice 3rd if he did make the move. Considering he’s not going to forget how to play SS, and he’s not going to become a gold glover playing SS during winter league, the move makes perfect sense.

by world dictator on Dec 30, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s what we know.

(1) There is no particularly good 3B becoming available, as far as we can tell.

(2) The team has shown a lot more interest in Peralta playing 3B than in Marte playing 3B, or even being alive.

(3) Aside from Asdrubal, Valbuena in many ways is the best player in the organization to start at 2B, at least against RHP.

(4) We have two really good options to back up Valbuena at 2B.

I don’t know who this supposed mystery infielder to come is supposed to be — any guesses? — at the moment, it looks to me like Valbuena’s job to lose. They haven’t come out and said that, but then again, they wouldn’t.

by Jay on Dec 31, 2008 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By “mystery infielder” do you mean the one that supposedly could be signed and change your above analysis?

If so, just looking at the free agents, I don’t know: Crede, Hudson, O. Cabrera all have flaws. I think they could be had without breaking the bank. Question is, how much of an upgrade are they over Valbuena/Barfield/Carroll? Hudson would be, but there have been a few reports saying we’re not interested.

I guess a trade is possible.

by DaytonDogg on Dec 31, 2008 1:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs