The best outfielders...what would it take?

by Tribe Fan Matt on May 14, 2008 11:20 AM EDT Comment 109 comments

I know there has been some discussion of this topic but I wanted to get more specific in what options are seriously available to the Tribe and what it would cost to get them here in time to make a real difference. So, with apologies to my fellow LGT bloggers who have forgotten more statistics than I will ever know, I selected these three names through no real scientific process other than it seems they would fit the bill as the power hitting corner outfielder the Tribe lacks...

Carlos Lee

Carl Crawford

Adam Dunn

...And wondered the following:

Are these the most likely (or even the correct) targets Shapiro would seek?

If not them, then who?

And if it is them, or someone else I haven't named, what would it take? For my side, I assume Laffey or Sowers would have to go in any package and probably include another major league player like Gutz or Francisco.

And when is the best time to get one of them? Can the Tribe afford to wait another month for Tampa to come back to earth and make Crawford available?

And one more question. With a proven hitter in this lineup, the Central seems to be there for the taking for anyone who can get on a roll. In the playoffs, the Tribe's pitching would be hard to beat. I know the price will be high, but is the time ever more right than right now to mortgage the future (sort of, because the cupboard won't exactly be empty even with a move of Laffey/Sowers and Gutz/Francisco or others) to win this year?

0 recs | Comment 109 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

In order for Carlos Lee to become an Indian, the Astros would have to agree to pay about 78 million dollars of the remaining 86 million dollars on his deal.

And I know this isn’t what you asked but Carl Crawford isn’t playing very well at all, nor do we really have much to offer the Rays that they need. They’re the only team in the majors with more pitching depth than us.

by afh4 on May 14, 2008 12:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

nor is crawford a power hitter …

Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on May 14, 2008 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, understand that ever-present money issue regarding Lee. But maybe Crawford would beneft from a change of scenery…I just get the feeling this lineup needs just a little kick and some real consistency from just another hitter or two to get everyone (or at least someone) else going. Maybe that’s not worth the sacrifice of Laffey, etc.

by Tribe Fan Matt on May 14, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

don’t forget jason bay and ken griffey jr.

by Brick. on May 14, 2008 12:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m trying. Quite hard.

by peter m on May 14, 2008 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why not revive the Jason Bay interest? Obviously, Cliff Lee is off the table. But the reason for caution on our side over the winter is that we didn’t know which Jason Bay we would be getting. The 2005-06 one was very good, but the 2007 version fell off a cliff. Judging by his start this year, it doesn’t look like he’s used up.

Would Laffey and a A or AA prospect get Bay? Or since the Bucs are rebuilding (and have like 3 prospects in the entire system, all in AAA) , would two or three good prospects not named Miller get him?

by Buzz on May 15, 2008 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, they’d be good additions. But would they command as much in return as those on my list?

by Tribe Fan Matt on May 14, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to me none of any of the guys mentioned represent a good fit for us – especially in terms of what they should cost as compared to what they would cost. for example, if it’s a high-salary rental, we shouldn’t give up a guy like sowers or laffey, but it’s probably what they other GM would be asking for, so no deal will go down – especially if the trading team expects the indians to pick up the entire tab.

by Brick. on May 14, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Adam Dunn would be a good fit. I want Adam Dunn. I also find it pretty rediculous for anyone to shoot down making a trade because of the ole “its going to cost us too much”. Shapiro has made trades before, he knows how to make a trade, the value going both ways is at most going to be fairly even. Its not like we’re the Seattle Mariners man.

by hans on May 14, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it’s not my job to shoot down deals. it’s shapiro’s. and i think the asking price will be more than to his liking and thus, will. haren, quentin, etc. etc.

by Brick. on May 14, 2008 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why do you think that?

by hans on May 14, 2008 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

because he did walk away from those deals. presumably, becasue they were asking for something he wasn’t willing to give up. since those players eventually did get dealt to someone, you have to assume it was shapiro who didn’t find the asking price (in indians player currency) too high.

and these midseason deals almost always seem to cost more than the recieved player is worth. teams that are selling hold out for the best offer from the most desperate buyer. shapiro walks away from those too. gutz for dotel.

by Brick. on May 15, 2008 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

also let me point out Nick Swisher. The White sox got the better end of that trade. Haren for what he was traded for was also a fair trade.

by hans on May 14, 2008 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

who cares who got the better end of what deals. the astros made out on the jeff bagwell deal too. what does that have to do with the fact that i think the asking price for adam dunn (in players given up and what we have to pay of his salary) will be too high for the return of what we could get out of having dunn on the roster for a few months. and the swisher deal was done in the offseason which is completely different.

by Brick. on May 15, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Swisher is brought up because you brought up Haren, quentin, etc. in the “etc.” lies Swisher. If Shapiro had to give up what Chicago gave up than Shapiro should have gave it up. Secondly I bring this up because fair deals do exist and they occur more often than not. An irrational fear of making a trade because “we might get burned on it” is a good way to persist mediocrity. There is nothing wrong for the Indians to be looking to trade away from a position of depth to improve a position of weakness. These trades occur and do exist out there, why is it so unfathomable for us to imagine that Shapiro couldn’t do this?

by hans on May 15, 2008 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

all i’m saying is i don’t think it will happen, based on his pattern of behavior in (almost) trades up to now – not whether what he’s done or will do is right or wrong, just that i bet that no deals like that will happen.

by Brick. on May 15, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you really think about it, there aren’t that many significant trades anymore, in part because the vets-for-prospects well has dried up as more teams figure out that they’d rather have the prospects.

Trades also have similar “winner’s curse” problems to free agent deals. All it takes for a good, fair trade to go south is for some GM to be willing to overpay one side or the other for whatever was included in the deal. So for every two GM’s trying to make a fair deal, there are 28 others who potentially could step in to distract them.

by Jay on May 15, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is certainly true, and the number of deals do seem to have gone down in the past few years, but they do exist. I think its more of the context of the trade that is ignored. If making a trade that brings in a good bat (like Teixeira last season) can result in a few more wins (both from the individual performance and any improvement it has on the quantity of hittable pitches made to whoever hits before the added player) in a year where a team like the Indians are certainly in the pennant contention, the reward of making the playoffs and having a chance at the championship needs to be considered.

by hans on May 15, 2008 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it might not be possible for the Indians to take advantage of this trend (popularity of prospects) because of the our financial position where cheap talent is of supreme value to us more so than the NY’s of this world, but theres something to be said about taking advantage of a “prospect hungry” team looking to rebuild. As our prospects become overvalued by other teams in a league where the value of prospects has grown, we could really make a play for an established player if we can take the salary hit, and not give up as much in actual value.

by hans on May 15, 2008 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I should have said “percieved value of prospects has grown”

by hans on May 15, 2008 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This isn’t relevant to the issue you’re discussing, but Swisher is not having a good season for the Sox (OPS around .650) and was apparently the ringleader of the inflatable doll thing. Meanwhile, Ryan Sweeney looked like he might be a pretty good left-handed hitter (against Byrd, anyway) and Gio Gonzalez remains a highly regarded pitching prospect. There was a third player involved; don’t know much about him. But, that doesn’t seem like a slam dunk for the Sox at all, at least up to this point.

by peter m on May 15, 2008 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah but I think we’ll see over the course of Swisher’s relatively cheap contract that he will be more (and likely better since he’s in his prime and in a better hitters park) like his years in Oakland.

Also I’m talking more about when the deal was made, as opposed to a few arbitrary months into the season. Plus Swisher’s BABIP is .245, his LD% is up and HR/FB % is down, may be an indication of the switch to the leadoff spot (an attempt to fit the role of table-setter) or may just be a mini slump where he isn’t getting the lift on the ball yet. Over the season we’ll likely see the guy who’s a .830 OPS or better hitter.

by hans on May 15, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe this offense needs an inflatable doll.

In inflatable doll who can bunt and grind out wins and be gritty.

That would be a pretty sweet doll.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on May 15, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve been meaning to go on record about this for a while. I am pro-inflatable doll. It shouldn’t surprise or scandalize anyone to encounter a locker-room environment in a locker room.

by Jay on May 15, 2008 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually agree, but on the other hand, don’t they have some notice of when the press arrives? They should’ve removed it before that happened.

Then again, this is much like most of the Jay Mariotti vs. Ozzie Guillen stories, insofar as I just want to wash my hands of everyone involved.

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on May 15, 2008 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, and I am also pro-washing-my-hands-of-everyone-involved.

by Jay on May 15, 2008 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damn it, I keep forgetting to add “No suggesting we trade for Carl Crawford” to the Ground Rules.

For that reason and many others, I suggest building the discussion around the leaders in PrOPS — to filter out some of the luck nonsense — and look only at LF and RF in the NL.

Here they are.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 1:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

www.letsgoformertribeplayersnamedryan.com

by emd2k3 on May 14, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We should probably look at first basemen, too — here.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

trade for that pujols guy.

problem solved.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on May 14, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love Garko and all, but I’ll settle for Berkman.

Give Marte a Chance.

by westbrook on May 14, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would love to have James Loney but it ain’t going to happen.

by odradek on May 14, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like Derreck Lee.

by Tribe Fan Matt on May 14, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

is it stupid of me to only be interested in 2 of the top 6 on that list?

Give Marte a Chance.

by westbrook on May 14, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow. A rule created in response to my first post. That’s got to be a record.

Seems like Pat Burrell or Jason Bay would fit the bill. But the price would still be as high??

by Tribe Fan Matt on May 14, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe we could get Scott Hairston for Laffey, Lewis and Gutierrez. Realistically, we wouldn’t get anybody on this list without giving up a ton. Why keep thinking we’re going to land Alex Gordon or Mark Teahen?

by odradek on May 14, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt that Crawford would be available. Lee is a disastrous fielder, if memory serves, and has a huge contract ($12 million this year, with several years to go). You’d have to DH him, I suspect, which he doesn’t like, and that would give you two DH’s with big salaries and no real position. Dunn is probably available, but he makes big money and is a free agent this Fall. So, it would be a rental. The Reds allegedly are trying to win this year (it’s not working), so might not be satisfied with prospects from the lower minor leagues. If we could get him without giving up the store, that would be an option.

I looked at the list Jay suggests: some of these names are there. I’m not a Jason Bay fan, but I know others are. I imagine he won’t be cheap. Brian Giles could be had, I think. I don’t think Colorado would trade Brad Hawpe (they just signed him to a 3-year deal). You could probably get Austin Kearns, but he always seems to disappoint. Wouldn’t it be funny if the Mets were willing to trade Church?

Except for Giles, I suspect most of these guys would cost the Indians major prospects, so caution is in order.

I agree about 1B. The list doesn’t inspire. Lance Berkman might be nice, but it’s hard to imagine the Astros would trade him now (and he’d cost us major prospects too, at age 32).

A silly thought (I think). Anyone interested in Dmitri Young? He’s supposedly on rehab and they don’t have a spot for him on the Nationals, really. He could probably be had cheap; not sure as you’d want him, though.

My conclusion: short of trading for a real front-line guy (which would certainly cost us Laffey or Cabrera plus more), I’d say the realistic option is someone like Brian Giles.

by peter m on May 14, 2008 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

P.S. I’m not saying we SHOULD trade for Giles, just that that’s the kind of player we could get.

by peter m on May 14, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it’s seems to me like the Tribe already has a number of “proven hitters” in the lineup, and none of them have hit as well as they’re capable this season.

doesn’t it seem more likely that the problem is systematic rather than individual?

by still ill on May 14, 2008 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Fair point about the proven hitters, and no one says that another proven hitter might not come here and stink it up too. Which leads us back to Derek Shelton, et al as a likely root problem.

by Tribe Fan Matt on May 14, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does this suggest it’s the batting coach’s problem? Systematic, as in explaining why no one hits in Buffalo, either? The Indians are telling players to take pitches, and this messes up their minds at the plate?

by odradek on May 14, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i wish i knew enough about baseball to answer that. i just think when an entire team of reasonably good hitters is drastically underperforming 1/4 of the way through the season, it’s reasonable to suspect something other than deficiencies in each player’s individual effort.

by still ill on May 14, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You really could make the argument that some of the hitters have underperformed for more than a year, at least in Hafner’s case specifically. I agree that I, like you, don’t know enough about baseball or enough about what’s truly going on behind the scenes that Shelton is trying to do, but I do know this: in the business world, if a department underperforms to a dramatic extent, the head of the department is often to blame. And certainly he or she is most often the one that takes the fall, whether they are actually to blame or not. In the end, I truly don’t care if Shelton is fired or not. But if he is fired, just make sure the next person that comes in is very experienced and gets people’s attention.

by Tribe Fan Matt on May 14, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the thing about this – it implies the entire team is almost cripplingly dependent on constant nurturing from the hitting coach for their entire careers, no matter what stage of those they’re in. I don’t buy it.

by Voltaire on May 15, 2008 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t like to nitpick, but you guys actually mean “systemic,” not “systematic.”

by Jay on May 14, 2008 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed. my bad.

by still ill on May 14, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You love to nitpick. Maybe Mattingly still has a good year left in him.

by Fredward on May 14, 2008 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t mean systemic, as in affecting the entire organization. Victor leads the AL in BA, after all. I meant proceeding from a hitting philosophy of taking a lot of pitches, encouraging P/PA, encouraging batters to think at the plate. Derek Shelton would seem to tell hitters to be disciplined, to wait for their pitches, etc. Is this why we aren’t hitting?

by odradek on May 14, 2008 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right. That’s a systemic problem, a problem with our system of developing and coaching hitters. You can have a systemic problem without every aspect of every part of the organization being impacted negatively.

Systematic just means something else.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forgive me. I’m being a pedant.

Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate:

systemic: of, relating to, or common to a system: as a: affecting the body generally b: supplying those parts of the body that receive blood through the aorta rather than through the pulomnary artery.

systematic: 1: relating to or consisting of a system 2: presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles 3a: methodical in procedure or plan b: marked by thoroughness and regularity 4: of, relating to, or concerned with classification.

I was using the word in the sense of meaning 2 above. Perhaps you are referring to meaning 3a and 3b.

Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993):
Systematic is the general adjective describing anything "characterized by or consisting of a system": They made a systematic effort to destroy his reputation. Systemic refers only to "physiological systems": A systemic infection may affect any or all parts of, say, the cardiovascular system. Systemic is also used figuratively, usually applied to organizations or institutions: The ills of the Pentagon are systemic. The related adverbs are respectively systematically and systemically.

by odradek on May 14, 2008 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

literal OMG.

i was just pulling words out of my noun. had i bothered to look them up, i’d have probably gone with systemic, but either one conveys the meaning well enough within the context, i think.

can we talk about baseball? :)

by still ill on May 14, 2008 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My apologies. I don’t think it’s either systemic or systematic. We always try to see patterns in coincidence, and it’s hard to believe almost all of our batters suck at the same time. Do you think Shelton—presumably under orders from Shapiro—has messed up all the hitters with his hitting philosophy? Or are we just suffering another run of Cleveland luck?

by odradek on May 14, 2008 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

HIRE RYAN LUDWICK!

Wait, we already did that once. Sort of.

by emd2k3 on May 14, 2008 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

... the Andy Marte of Yesteryear.

by ken from alexandria on May 14, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with trading is that trade partners always seem to clamor for the talent at the Major League level when Cleveland is looking to make a deal. Yet the Tigers managed to trade for Cabrera/Willis without giving up any talent pivotal to their big league roster (Andrew Miller was only up because he signed a MLB contract from the draft; there’s no way this guy was ready, and he’s proving it this year.)

Pay for Dunn so he can leave as a free agent? Hrm…I’m not sure the Reds are going to be reasonable in their demands on that one. But the guy has hit 40 homeruns 4 years in a row.

I think reasonable targets are:

1) Moises Alou for Paul Byrd.
Both players are at similar stages in their careers, similar contractual situations, and both are good when in the game, but not in the game as often as a “core” player would be. The Mets may need another outfielder to cover for Alou, and that happens to be something the Indians can provide if the Mets include the right player.

2) Corey Hart
If I’m giving up talent, get talent in return. The Brewers haven’t committed long-term to Hart. He murders lefties. He’s only 26. He doesn’t walk much, but he didn’t strike out 100 times playing full time last year either. He’s got some pop and speed on the bases. To get him, it’d probably require a true CF to take the place of Mike Cameron-think Gutierrez-plus a legit arm, which is what the upper levels of the system seem to have right now (Lofgren, Huff, Sowers). It’s not that the Brewers want to move him. It’s just that they may be forced to make a move to make room for…

3) Matt LaPorta
Back to the Brewers, but this time to AA. This would be taking a real chance. A Miguel Cabrera circa-2003 chance. It’d probably take Major League talent to grab somebody like LaPorta, but the Brewers are blocked in LF/RF by Ryan Bruan and Corey Hart for the foreseeable future. Neither is a CF, though some suggest Hart may be. But Braun just learned LF. I don’t see him moving to RF for LaPorta, who is merely passable in LF with the glove. Some big guy named Prince Fielder occupies first base, so LaPorta really is blocked a la Sean Casey/Richie Sexson/Brian Giles/Jeremy Burnitz from the Cleveland 90s’ teams.

4) Brian Giles
Probably the most realistic target. He’s no longer a star. He’s not really the same player who earned his 3 year, $30M contract. But he’s the guy Trot Nixon was supposed to be last year. The same kind of guy who is a professional hitter. What is that, anyway? He doesn’t give away at-bats. His numbers are depressed by playing in Petco. He’s the #2 hitter Wedge has been seeking all year. He’s an .800OPS in right field when he’s not playing half his games in SD. It won’t take big talent to get him. I can’t see this getting much beyond Sowers territory (who’s a perfect fit for that ballpark) if the Indians even want to go that far. Giles does have a $9M option for next year with a $3M buyout, so there’s some money issues involved.

5) Raul Ibanez
Impending free agent. Not a star. Defensively challenged. Can play some 1B. When the Mariners finally realize they aren’t going anywhere, even with Eric Bedard, this guy should be available. And usually, trading with Seattle ends up a “winning” trade. See: All Recent History.

by xrickx on May 14, 2008 2:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

oh….and Jason Bay. But only if the Pirates can be convinced to eat what’s left of Cliff Lee’s contract. :P

by xrickx on May 14, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All good suggestions. But no one of them (except Dunn) really jumps out at me as a difference maker. If Dunn comes here and the Tribe wins a title, who cares if he leaves next year? Sooner or later that line of thinking has to stop in order to get the guy who’s going to be a difference maker, whether it’s Dunn or someone else.

by Tribe Fan Matt on May 14, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It really depends on what you have to give up to get him. We’ve not had very good trading history with Cincinnati - remember Sean Casey for John Smiley (wasn’t that the deal?). But, it’s certainly worth exploring.

by peter m on May 14, 2008 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dave burba

by macasson on May 14, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK. Who did they trade for Smiley?

by peter m on May 14, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll answer my own question. Danny Graves, Damian Jackson and others. The Burba for Casey deal could be defended, I think. This one really didn’t work out (unlucky, though). Maybe our record with Cincy isn’t as bad as all that.

by peter m on May 14, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Broussard for Branyan?

by dgcambridge on May 14, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some edge to the Indians on that one. I’m warming to the Dunn scenario all the time!

by peter m on May 14, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t want Alou - old and broken down (and Byrd is actually pretty valuable, as Jay keeps noting). Hart makes some sense - although one has to worry about the lack of walks (see J. Barfield, admittedly a lesser player). LaPorta doesn’t make sense for a team trying to contend right now. I agree about Giles and (I think) Ibanez, but only if they don’t cost significant prospects (even Sowers might be a lot to give up for those guys, given their age).

by peter m on May 14, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Byrd is valuable. But that’s why I think he’s capable of fetching Moises Alou, who is still a ridiculous hitter. He’s Victor Martinez with more pop. And the Indians have the outfield alternatives so Alou need only play 4+ times a week.

Yes, he was injured. It was a hernia. I’m not going to hold that against a guy’s “durability.” He has other bangs and bruises, but that’s baseball.

He’s a complete hack in the outfield, but, again, the Indians have bountiful stocks of late-inning defensive replacements, many of which are not named Jason Tyner.

by xrickx on May 14, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree about Alou. No way does he compare with Victor. No way is he better than Jason Michaels. There’s a good chance Alou’s career is over. There’s not a general manager in the game who wouldn’t jump at the chance to gain Paul Byrd at so little cost.

by odradek on May 14, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Alou is not better than Jason Michaels, I’m done watching baseball. Not even close.

by xrickx on May 14, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to agree. He’s old, he’s been injured, but he’s been popping up that 918 OPS like clockwork, five seasons in a row.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alou would be instantly our best hitter. Michaels was cut as our worst. No comparison there.

by DaytonDogg on May 14, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Victor is our best hitter. I exaggerate about Michaels, but, man, Alou will be 42 years old this July. He hasn’t played in more than 98 games since 2005. He’s 42 years old! Why not hire Tim Salmon, or Julio Franco, or Kenny Lofton?

by odradek on May 14, 2008 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because none of those guys have OPS+’d at 130 or better when they were 37, 38, 39, and 40 years old. Last season he hit at a nice .341/.392/.524 clip. Victor is our best hitter, but Alou is a better hitter. Victor has never had a season over a OPS of 130, never. Sure he isn’t incredibly durable, but I’ll take his bat in our lineup for 75 games for sure.

by DaytonDogg on May 14, 2008 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think his injury problems are such that 75 games are questionable. Earlier this season there was speculation he was through, finished.

by odradek on May 14, 2008 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was a hernia. Absolutely no connection to his baseball activity, unless he was injured lifting weights to stay in shape.

Byrd is 37 and will be 38 after this season. He’s not the stalwart of the Indians rotation, sure to crumble if Byrd is removed. He’s the most replaceable pitcher on the staff. Aaron Laffey appears poised to outpitch him.

I value what Byrd does. He’s decent enough in 20 starts per year to give his team a chance to win. But if you can get that from a guy in-house, not compromise any future talent, AND bring in a hitter who would instantly be the best on the team, you do it. Hafner rebound or Sizemore improvement aside, Alou would be the best hitter on the team. That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

Alou is not the traditional slugger. He’s a contact hitter who happens to hit for power. And that power is still legitimate. And if he loses power, he’s still a contact hitter. He’ll put up an .800OPS without blinking, a level of production the Indians only hope to see in their corner outfield.

by xrickx on May 14, 2008 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As much as I dislike it, I have to defer to the facts. But he would look good against the lefties in the AL Central.

by odradek on May 14, 2008 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would take Hart in the right deal.

by emd2k3 on May 14, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question: Would a change of scenery help Todd Helton or is he done?

by emd2k3 on May 14, 2008 4:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t say done-done, I’d say semi-done.

He’s also owed $70 million for this season and the next three.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, there’s that terrible contract thing I forgot about when thinking of him.

by emd2k3 on May 15, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shapiro is unlikely to either mortage our future by trading away young affordable talent, or agree to pay a bunch of money for a short term rental hitter. Plus, there is already plenty of young hitting talent on this team that is underperforming for whatever reason. We can debate why this underperformance, but it doesn’t result in a major trade that makes sense for Cleveland’s business model. The least expensive solution is to find a new voice in the dugout in the form of a hitting coach. Even if Shelton is a top notch coach, sometimes a new voice can create an atmosphere that results in a short term improvement. We could even fire the new guy at the end of the year, but we need offense in this, CC’s final year.

by elsandito on May 14, 2008 5:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m not entirely sure of that.

Keep in mind, we were already coming off what was considered a down offensive year in 2007, and there were lots of lofty predictions (mine among them) of bounce-backs and breakouts across as much as half the lineup. Lemme see if I can dig up an incriminating quote on myself …

Our roster is younger, less injury prone, and full of guys who could take small or large steps forward. Garko or even Peralta could hit 30 home runs, and Sizemore could make a run at an MVP … Victor put up downballot-MVP type numbers despite hitting into some of the worst luck on either team. It would be hard to bet on him improving on 2007, but his luck probably will … then again, Sizemore’s high-looking .333 BABIP is actually below his career average, meaning he too was slightly unlucky, and Hafner also is a good bet to improve at least somewhat on 2007.
...
Our youngest and least experienced key players will start at 2B and RF this season. Any risk there is strongly mitigated by the fact that for both players, much of their value is in their exceptional defense, which is far more predictable. And besides, the bar is incredibly low for each – the chance that we’ll get less production out of those two positions in 2008 than we did in 2007 is practically nil.

Yeah, I know — what a dumbass, right?

Here’s what I’m getting at. As 2008 deep slumps get added on to 2007 down-years, we’re reaching a point where we may have to seriously reassess how much talent we really have among our position players. The front office’s understanding of the talent store is evolving — slowly, yes, but at this point surely. Their evaluations led to a fairly inactive offseason, but clearly that would not have been as sanguine about their lineup had they anticipated a continued regression from Hafner and major struggles from Garko and Peralta, among others. Maybe Asdrubal won’t be ready for another year, maybe Gutierrez isn’t an everyday player unless he’s a CF in the NL. Maybe Peralta and Hafner aren’t going to be much better than average major leaguers, if that, and maybe Garko isn’t going to look much like a regular anymore by the time he finishes his second year of service time in July.

By the way, it looks like we’ll win the division anyway. Most of the lineup will turn it around and be productive from here on out — they’ll regress to expectations more than the pitchers, the rest of the division will be a little more meh, and we’ll be trying to figure out how an 89-win team can run the table in the postseason.

Still, the fact remains that the overall picture has changed. Since our team isn’t what we thought it would be, don’t be surprised if we make some trades we didn’t think we’d be making.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Sizemore could make a run at MVP?

by odradek on May 14, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s about the only prediction still in play. Sizemore is 4th in the AL in runs created and is the kind of player voters love. He will take the MVP just about any year he decides to have a monster second half. Or first half, for that matter.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any truly sophisticated observer will understand that an MVP pick is not even a serious question deserving a serious answer.

I’m willing to bet Grady never gets MVP. That way, if I lose, I’ll be glad he has a bust-out year. Hope says Grady will take it to the next level, but Pecota says, “Hey, Ray Lankford.”

by odradek on May 14, 2008 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I stand by that quote, and I hope to have it haunt me for years to come.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that the only player evidently capable of a large step forward this year is Grady.

Garko or Peralta could still hit 30 homers, right? They’re not that far off the pace. They haven’t played in Baltimore yet.

by odradek on May 15, 2008 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Denver.

by Jay on May 15, 2008 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still can’t see them trading the pitching. That’s the strategy. I could see them moving Gutierrez or Peralta or one of the guys they thought would be “core” guys—if one or more of them starts to hit better, they may cut bait. But, I really think Shapiro is committed to building around a deep, high-quality pitching staff. He’s got that. If he thinks it’s deep enough, he might trade one guy (like Sowers or Miller). But, I don’t think he’s going to make more than one major deal – especially since, as you say, they’re likely to win the division even if they do little or nothing at all.

by peter m on May 14, 2008 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Much though I want to agree with you, you’ve got to ask yourself: In the place of another team, trading with the Indians, in a deal to move young, solid bats - which are, as we note elsewhere in the thread, at a premium this year - what would you ask for? Peralta and Gutierrez could be a part of a package, but from somebody else’s perspective, I’d be holding out for Laffey, Sowers, Perez, Huff. I hate to say it, but compared to the Indians’ pitching talent, Guti would be a secondary consideration.

by fleerdon on May 15, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right, of course. But, would Shapiro bite on a deal that involved his young pitchers. I think he’ll hang on as long as he can and will try to keep as many of those guys as he can. Like I said, one (Sowers?) maybe.

by peter m on May 15, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do I have to be the one to tell you that you sell yourself short on these assessmens? It’s not possible that with only an additional 6 weeks of baseball, your assessments could be so drastically changed. Even if the Hafner thing doesn’t work out, why damn Peralta and Garko? These guys are hitters. Let’s not expect the Indians of the mid 90’s here. We just want a normal degree of run production.

by elsandito on May 14, 2008 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think you need to lose any sleep over my self-esteem, but thanks for the vote of confidence.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think some reassessing some talent will happen, but it’s also worth noting that not only are Tribe bats down, the whole league is down in run production. I’m too lazy to look up the data, but I know that my fantasy league stats are jarring. We have one team in our AL league that’s hitting above .270. That would be good enough for 8th in past years. I also heard that MLB as a whole is on pace to have 1000 fewer homers than 2000 (?), I believe.

One other factor could be the weather. It’s been unseasonably cold in the northern climes, and the Indians are playing as many (or more) home games than most every team.

So while reassessing how good our talent is, we need to do so in the context of what has happened with the weather and what the new “normal” might be.

by TribeJay on May 14, 2008 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Garko – 90
AbaCab – 58
Blake – 81
J-Honey – 71
Gootz – 74
Hafner – 85

Those are park- and league-adjusted, and the situation is still pretty stark.

Here’s some VORP:

1 Grady Sizemore 12.6
2 Victor Martinez 8.2
3 David Dellucci 2.2
4 Travis Hafner 0.7
5 Ryan Garko 0.6
6 Jason Tyner -0.3
7 Jhonny Peralta -0.5
8 Casey Blake -0.6
9 Ben Francisco -0.7
10 Kelly Shoppach -0.8
11 Jamey Carroll -1.4
12 Franklin Gutierrez -2.2
13 Asdrubal Cabrera -3.9
14 Andy Marte -4.2
15 Jason Michaels -4.4

Keep in mind, VORP is (a) measured in Runs, not Wins, and (b) relative to replacement level, not average level. So that’s Hafner, Garko, Peralta and Blake all more or less right at replacement level, with Gootz and AbaCab a bit behind.

It’s true that scoring is down across the league, but we’ve got way more than our fair share of the downturn.

by Jay on May 15, 2008 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. We’ve gone further off the deep end then the rest of the league.

by TribeJay on May 15, 2008 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

imagine if we had to face our own pitchers.

by Brick. on May 15, 2008 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A frightening thought.

by Jay on May 15, 2008 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In Baseball Prospectus a few days ago William Burke and Joe Sheehan wrote about the decline of offensive numbers in the AL. Here are a few quotes:

“Through May 10, there is a massive disparity between the league in terms of the direction of change as compared to 2007. Offense is up in the NL, and way down in the AL. By runs per game, offense is down nearly 13 percent over two seasons in the American League.”

“The AL hasn’t seen run levels like this in 16 seasons.”

Rates through May 10, AL only
AVG OBP SLG
2008 .257 .328 .392
2007 .258 .330 .407
2006 .269 .337 .432
2005 .261 .334 .415

“You should immediately notice the drop in slugging. From 2007 to 2008, batting average has dropped by one point, but slugging has dropped by 15. This is in an environment with no new ballparks, and no radical changes to the existing ones. Over two years, slugging is off by 40 points, isolated power by 28 points. At least OBP is moving in line with changes to batting average, which indicates that walk rates aren’t the culprit for this cold spell at the plate. They’ve actually risen slightly, from 8.1 percent of PA in 2005 to 8.9 percent this year.”

“Fly-ball rates have dropped to a four-year low, and when batters do hit the ball in the air, they aren’t getting as much bang for their buck. The rate of HR/FB is at a four-year low, and XBH/FB a three-year low; the drop from 2007 to 2008 ranges from five to 10 percent in both cases. American League batters are hitting fewer fly balls, and when they hit them, they’re not getting as much production out of them. That’s why slugging and home-run rates are way down, and with them, run scoring.”

“It has to be said that the change in run scoring and fly-ball outcomes could just be a blip. I haven’t controlled for schedules or weather, and while I have not perceived a notable cold snap this spring, it is possible that balls are not flying as far because the conditions have not allowed for power. It could also be that we’ve had a distribution of games, more in pitchers’ parks, that has skewed the numbers.”

They also mention the ascendance of “pitch to contact” pitchers as a possible reason.

by odradek on May 15, 2008 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have been wondering the same thing. At what point do we say that some of the guys we are playing just aren’t as good as we thought?

by Roger Dorn on May 15, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or, are having bad years? That happens too.

by peter m on May 15, 2008 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, not all at once. I mean I’m not saying it’s the case with the Tribe, as I’m sure we’ll bounce back, but it’s pretty unlikely that your entire lineup has a down year at the same time.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on May 16, 2008 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No. But, it’s hard to separate the guys who are overrated (Gutierrez? Garko?) from the guys who are in a slump (Peralta?). I think when the team goes poorly, we tend to say “everyone stinks,” when it’s more likely true that only “some of them stink.”

by peter m on May 16, 2008 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pass.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on May 14, 2008 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Crawford – Not available, fan favorite in Tampa, doesn’t cost them much, under contract until 2012 I believe

Lee – Not available, just signed in Houston, if we could’ve we would’ve when he was a FA

Dunn – Possible but not much more than a rental if we’re going to get a rental it would be more like Lofton last year.

by rockemsockem on May 14, 2008 11:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

While I agree the hitting is down throughout the AL this year (and us especially so), I think a lot has to do with the pitching in the league these days.

Between us, Toronto, Tampa, the Angels, and Red Sox, those are some elite rotations. And most of the other staffs have 1-2 studs or more (not counting Detroit or Texas). Pitching is just darn good, all the way around the league.

Doesn’t excuse how poor we’ve hit, but it is a factor in it.

by talonk on May 16, 2008 1:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I keep thinking, with Lee’s resurgence and the stellar pitching depth, that CC becomes a valuable trade chip, and the only guy we could deal that would truly improve our offense. And, of course, “we’re going to lose him anyhow”.

CC, Garko, Gutierrez to LA for Kemp and Loney.

by mcrose on May 16, 2008 11:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs