I guess I’m confused what everyone is so worked up about here. This is so common. The knowledgeable fan knows better and hangs out in a good community forum like LGT. And snickers over idiots not smart enough to know better.

I get the feeling it’s blogger envy or sumtin. You know where a coupla guys who have a readership of 12 think they’re defending the First Amendment.

Anyway it’s fun to watch the kids fight once and awhile, don’t ya think?

i went on a long diatribe about this down below.

This is exactly the point. Olney’s speculation is ridiculous. An astute fan recognizes Laffey is worth way more than Atkins, and no sober GM would trade a good (perhaps exceptional) 23-year-old lefthanded pitcher for a 28-year-old third baseman with a one-year contract.

That’s not speculation, at least not reasonable speculation. It’s not even worth reprinting. The talk-radio stuff is to be expected. But Olney and MLBTR should know more about baseball.

+1, but I do not think it is nor should be a big deal, at all. Like, not even slightly.

i screwed up the jeter analogy, but you get the idea….

ru·mor (rmr)
n.

1. A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.
2. Unverified information received from another; hearsay.

I don’t see exactly why you believe a rumor even has to have a speckle of truth in it. Truth is not in the definition of rumor.

can I join your ihatetheyankees.com site?

yeah, but we’re getting matt holliday.

It’s true—it’s possible Atkins comes in and does great, and Laffey falls back to earth. But it’s also possible Atkins comes over and joins the club, and hits .232 the rest of the season.

The problem probably arises from Olney’s choice of the word "speculation" from the get go. It’s one of those fuzzy words that can imply that there is some hazy information out there to support an action. In this case, it’s not precise. Olney should know that. It easily can be taken to mean "I heard something" which in this case is flat out wrong. If he wanted to clearly express his idea, he should have clearly stated …

I just don’t see how you can infer that Olney’s “speculation” means that he’s “heard something.” He goes out of his way to make that clear. Here’s what he said:

Down the road, one possible move that might make some sense (and to be clear, this is pure speculation): If Colorado eventually turns the page on 2008, the Indians and the Rockies could match up well in a deal built around Garrett Atkins. The Rockies have a third baseman waiting in the wings, in Ian Stewart - although he is not faring well so far - and the Indians, as they look for ways to improve their offense, are flexible at first and third base.

His commentary is awfully similar to the commentary you suggest he make:

If he wanted to clearly express his idea, he should have clearly stated "I think a it would be good trade for the Indians to look at Garret Atkins to solve their immediate/medium term needs at third base. Colorado would probably want pitching and some infield help, young and under their control for awhile. To do this would probably cost the Indians someone like an Aaron Laffey/Josh Barfield combination." There, problem solved. It’s not a rumor. It’s just floating an idea that might help both sides.

Frankly, I think the Tigers got fleeced on that deal and we’re only beginning to see how big a mistake that will be in the long run. Shapiro never makes that deal. And we know that at this point. I think you need to remember that you’re among a fairly intellectual group of tribe fans here, the anger that you’ve met with not withstanding. We study this organization, including our general manager. He surprises us sometimes, but no way would he find Atkins = Laffey. We can’t expect you to know that, you’re not a Tribe fan. It does seem to me that you could incorporate some way of labeling or rating “rumors” as to their legitimacy.

I will admit I’m not at all unbiased. Guys like Laffey don’t miss enough bats to get higher prospect ratings.

The Tejada, Sheffield and Renteria trades were all clearly imbalanced, and regretted almost the same year they were made. As Erik says, Shapiro is too smart to make that kind of trade.

I dig Kershaw as much as the next guy. I’d rather have him than Laffey, for sure. But he’s still a prospect. He’s three years younger than Laffey (I think). Laffey has 13 starts, 76 IP, 72 H, 17 BB, 39 K, a 1.17 WHIP, .252 BAA and a 3.43 career ERA, pitching in the American League. Laffey is a league-ready starting pitcher. There are 150 starting pitchers in the big leagues. This makes a 23-year-old lefthander much more valuable than all but a few position players.

I don’t think anyone is talking about banning people discussing “reasonable trade scenarios” (I think you and I differ on what is reasonable, but alas I digress) for enjoyment. Nothing in what Jay wrote is attempting to enact some sort of ban. It seems like he touched on a nerve of yours in his criticism of what you added to the Olney piece in suggesting “Would Aaron Laffey and Josh Barfield be enough?” . Jay, free as you are to speculate trade possibilities, is able to criticize these trade speculations. Like I said, apparently you didn’t like his criticism and have offered up this retort, which seems to me to be simply defensive posturing on your part, and really off target. If you would like to defend your reasoning behind why you think Aaron Laffey and Josh Barfield may be enough to net Atkins and that this is something the Indians should consider, I’d like to hear it.

Jay is also free to offer criticism of how a suggestion made by Olney, was passed along, added too, and finally resulted in misguided talking heads on tv and radio stating that a deal is imminent (a little exaggeration here, but you get the point), and to the degree that your mentioning of Aaron Laffey as a possible trading chip in a deal for Atkins (once again assuming that its a terrible idea, which is what Jay argues) has contributed to this idiotic rumor circulated on local radio and print.

Pardon my ignorance, but are you really equating Atkins to Tejada and Renteria? Really? I must have missed something. For one these players play different positions (a good SS is worth more than a good 3B). And two, both of those players are veterans with known contracts, not throw some numbers at a wall and see what sticks during arbitration.

FYI Atkins is a career 112 OPS+ with no All Star appearances while Tejada is 114 (as a SS) with 4 all star appearances and Renteria is 97 (as a SS) with 5 All star appearance and 2 gold gloves. Both have accumulated Silver Sluggers as well.

If you truly followed the Indians, and specifically the front office manuevers, you would notice that Shapiro has yet (rarely?) to make a trade for a guy entering his arbitration years. He is usually trading those types of players away or signing them to team friendly extensions.

No Laffey is not ranked as high as Kershaw. Nor should he be. But if you think a starter whose made 13 starts with a 3.43 ERA (see odradek’s response) and does not have a full year of service time isn’t valuable, you will have lost some more credibility. A more likely comparison for Laffey might be Ian Kennedy and you saw how valuable he was in this past offseason.

And I will reitierate from above, if you knew our roster, you’d know that we will more than likely have two openings in our rotation next year, CC and Byrd. If we trade Laffey or Sowers, that means our rotation next year is Carmona, Lee, Westbrook, Laffey/Sowers, and ???. Adam Miller probably wil not be ready for next season, and we don’t have another arm ready just yet (although we have some strong candidates in AA/A+). So it is not so simple in trading Laffey.

Even if it was just Laffey for Atkins, that affects the Indians payroll. As you know the Indians are not one of the rich teams, and have to watch their payroll. If Laffey is dealt, not only would they be paying $6-8M/year for Atkins, but they would more than likely have to sign a free agent pitcher at another cool $10M. So again, why would Shapiro sacrifice the teams future in that way. Have you honestly considered any of this when you just start throwing names together at the end of a specualtion?

While what you did wasn’t wrong, what Jay was getting at was essentially this:

Olney decides the the Rockies and Indians make a good match because colorado wants to move Atkins so Stewart can play and the Indians are a solid 7 deep in rotation starters right now.

As your site is well publicized and well read, when you provide a speculation as well (Laffey/Barfield enough?) on top of Olney’s speculation, it will get lumped into one larger speculation. Once that happens it really starts going, downhill, real fast. Doesn’t matter how many qualifiers you put in there.

Your speculation that Laffey was available was based on a March 16th report. That is two months old. Unless you had more information that he was still available (which I strongly believe he is not based on my argument above, and if he was it more than likely would be for a larger package for a better player than Atkins), that is not current enough to keep that speculation as valid.