More Tribe Trade Speculation from Olney
by TheDanimal on Jun 11, 2008 1:22 PM EDT
Email
PrintC.C. Sabathia made pitching look easy Tuesday night, writes Jim Ingraham. The Indians have reportedly been scouting the Red Sox farm system, presumably in preparation for the possibility of trade talks with Boston about Sabathia. Let's play this scenario out a bit.
Here's how the Red Sox could rationalize a deal for Sabathia: They have a whole lot of depth in their farm system, and by adding Sabathia for the last two months and the postseason, they could strengthen an already deep rotation and apply a 6-foot-7, 300-pound hammer as they pursued their third championship in five years. They have the talent depth in their farm system to tell the Indians: Look, you can't have Justin Masterson, Jon Lester or Clay Buchholz, but we can make a deal built around others. Double-A pitcher Michael Bowden could be an interesting conversation piece, given his dominant showing for Portland.
And at the end of the year, the Red Sox could just offer Sabathia arbitration and let him walk away as a free agent and recoup two draft picks for the 2007 Cy Young Award winner. To repeat: All of that is pure speculation, and probably won't happen.
Some folks within the industry think that if Sabathia is traded, the Cubs will be the most aggressive in bidding for him. "They're going for it this year," said one GM. "Other teams are laying back and might not want to trade prospects, but the Cubs will."
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster
I'm still naive enough to not want to consider trading C.C. yet.
But if we did trade him to the Red Sox, I would hope we would at least get a bat and an arm. Would Lowrie and Bowden be too much for half a season of C.C.?
The Cubs would seem to be more interesting. Maybe we could get Pie and a promising arm, like Gallagher . Is Vitters too far away to be of use for the Tribe?
We should really be focusing on trading with the Giants. It's been about five year's since Sabean's last great trade. Time to offer him Victor for Cain, Lincecum and Angel Villalona.
215 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting comments about the Red Sox. They have done so abnormally well with recent compensation picks that (a) they can well afford to trade advanced prospects for a couple more picks, and (b) they may somewhat over-value those picks, believing they can keep getting players like that without much difficulty.
I also don’t see why Buchholz would be off-limits, struggling a bit and just a few months from turning 24. I don’t see that he’s any more valuable than Sowers, and nobody’s saying he’s untouchable.
I agree with you Jay…I dont see why we couldnt get him. I would rate him a little higher than Sowers but what is so special?
While I don’t put a ton of stock in it, Buchholz was the 4th best prospect in the game according to BA. Sowers, obviously, isn’t on that list.
I don’t disagree that they’re similar. But, the shine is off of Sowers. It’s not off of Buchholz yet. That matters to other GMs who will pay more for Buchholz.
Really?
I’m not asking this in a “get out of your basement you stat-headed nerd” way, but have you actually seen him pitch? The vision test puts him way above Sowers. I don’t mind admitting I have a prospect-crush on him.
Steel Nick
I’m as much a professional scout as E was a kinesiologist.
But I’m open to the discussion. Especially looking at your own projection, what you’ve seen, and what their ceilings are, what do you see in Buchholz (or Sowers) that makes you rank them so equal?
Steel Nick
Me personally, I don’t see how we can make a deal with Boston (nevermind what happened last postseason – I guess) and not get Lester or Buchholz in return. Masterson is not the caliber of those other two, IMO. He seems to be pitching out of his mind right now, and should struggle to come close to maintaining his #s for the rest of the season.
As for Buchholz and Sowers, you aren’t serious, are you?
The 2008 Cleveland Indians: Home of the Triple Steal, Unassisted Triple Play, and not a heck of a lot more.
Clay Buchholz is more valuable than Sowers by any measure. You can base that off his past track record, scouting reports, and PECOTA.
I feel like I’m watching ESPN here — what with all the overhype of Boston prospects.
I’ll take Buchholz over Sowers, purely based on the 15-month difference in age. The other differences, however, are pretty tiny.
PECOTA is heavily influenced by last season but knows nothing about the current season, where Sowers on balance has out-performed Buchholz. Buchholz dazzled in 2007, but not as much as Sowers did in 2006. Go look it up.
Buccholz entered 2007 as BA’s #51 prospect. Sowers entered 2006 at #53. Again … not really seeing the big difference here. Had Sowers stayed in the minors a little longer and not exhausted his rookie status, he clearly would have been ranked higher than Buccholz to start 2007.
“But but but,” you’re about to say, “that was at the start of 2007! After that Buccholz was a lot better.” Yes, things can change in just a few months. Starting 2007, Sowers was signficantly ahead. Mid-2007, it’s basically a tie as Sowers struggles in the majors while Buccholz is kicking butt two levels lower. By the end of 2007, and entering 2008, Buccholz is clearly ahead. Mid-2008, right now, it’s a dead heat again, as Buccholz has struggled in the majors while Sowers has dominated in Triple-A.
The peak value for either player was Sowers at the start of 2007. If you think they’re that far apart, you’re just mistaken. Let’s not forget, Sowers was a #6 overall pick, and it’s not like he’s been a letdown!
Clay seems to be suffering from a serious BABIP problem this year. He’s still missing bats and he’s still not giving up homers.
Sowers has not looked sharp in his fourteen innings in the majors, but at one level lower he had a great ERA in 60 innings desipte decent peripherals. Sowers has only “dazzled” at the big league level because of nice BABIP luck.
So where does Laffey fall into this because a couple weeks ago, you told me how much better Laffey was than Sowers?
They’re not just far apart. They’re centuries apart. Eons perhaps. Instead of just falling back on the “hey it’s a Boston/Yankee prospetc, he must be overratedt” because we know that line of thinking makes you a hero over here (even though it’s the same exact thing as overhyping a big market prospect, just in reverse), let’s actually take an objective look at these two prospects.
Judging their BA rankings without further explaining their different paths to the ranking they achieved disregards precisely what makes these two prospects so different from each other. Sowers’s ranking in 2006 in many ways of actually an insult. It spoke to how little scouts thought of his stuff and it’s projectablity in the major leagues. Think about it: He started the year in high A and finished in AAA. He was absolutely dominant in all three levels, although he only had one start in AAA. A prospect with that kind of an ascension in one year is guaranteed to crack BA’s top 50 and very likely to break their top 20. Contrastingly, Joba Chamberlain’s meteoric rise through the minors earned him a top 10 spot this year after not even being ranked the previous year.
Clay Buchholz, on the other hand, didn’t even get past High A when he earned his ranking in 2007 so that ranking was the complete opposite of Sowers’s ranking. It was nearly entirely determined by projectability and how highly scouts thought of his stuff. This is evidenced by Buchholz being in the top 10 in 2008 after he enjoyed a similar fast track season in 07 to Sowers’s 06. So if you’re going to compare BA rankings, those are the ones you need to show if you’re going to actually fairly compare the two players.
In addition, if you’re going to trust BA to not overrate Boston prospects with their 2007 ranking of Buchholz, why are you thinking it’s the ESPN hype machine that earned him his 2008 ranking? Because it was really high?
Finally I’ll challenge the notion that Sowers was more dominant in 06 than Buchholz was in 07. They were similarly dominant in AA but Buchholz reached AAA and pitched 38 innings there of complete dominance. Sowers has yet to dominate peripherally in AAA or MLB for that matter.
Sowers never has had and never will have the ace potential Buchholz has.
Joe, I did take an objective look at the two. You’re speculating about the motivations behind rankings that are based on a subjective sense of the consensus of a bunch of scouts’ subjective evaluations — and somehow I’m the one not being objective?
Everything I cited was objective. So you can take back all that BS about who’s making assumptions and what makes someone a hero. I’m calling it like I see it, you’re calling it as you’ve been instructed.
The fact is, Buchholz is a little old and under-accomplished to be talking about his ace-dom. With stuff that good, he should be mowing down major leaguers by now, pitching okay-to-great in every game, and he isn’t. He’s a few months older than Adam Miller, and hasn’t been injured, and hasn’t really done anything more. Pitchers don’t get better stuff after age 23, and he’ll be 24 in a couple months. Miller was as good two years ago as Buchholz is now, and if healthy, we’d be profoundly disappointed if he were only as effective as Buchholz has been.
His stuff is really tough to hit, he gets the K’s, but he doesn’t have the control. You’re drooling over a pile of K’s in eight Triple-A starts, but it’s only eight starts — before Sowers turned 23, he already had 24 Triple-A starts with an ERA under 1.50 and only one HR allowed — what did Buchholz do at 22? Sowers followed this up with 14 starts in the majors at an ERA of 3.57 — this, by the way, is better than Buchholz has ever managed in Triple-A.
K rates are the most important thing, but they're not so important as to outweigh that degree of run-suppressing dominance. Your position is essentially, great stuff counts, control and pitchability don't count. And if that were true, then these two would be miles apart. Had Buchholz not thrown the no-hitter, and were he not property of Boston, he would not be discussed in the same breath with guys like Chamberlain.If the two guys had swapped organizations in the offseason, Sowers would still be in the majors right now — and would have been all season — and Buchholz would still be in the minors. Does that not basically tell you all you need to know?
Why does the sentence starting with “K rates are the most” read in a courier font for me and get cut off?
Also, I think the problem with all this is that we’re talking about Jeremy Sowers. Jeremy Sowers is an odd, odd duck. It’s hard to compare him to anyone and not get a lot of people angry one way or the other.
Once, at Burger King, I got up to get more ketchup, and while I was gone Jeremy Sowers ate like half of my onion rings.
by fleerdon on Jun 13, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I think my anger against Jeremy Sowers is justified but not irrational. If he actually starts getting some peripherally sound results in AAA or MLB, I’ll have no problem getting excited about him again.
I’m angry at Jeremy Sowers because in his prospect career he has conned me twice. Once with his A and AA stats into thinking a guy with his stuff was actually going to rack up K’s (I’m not asking for a K/9 13 here but 7?) and keep his walks down in AAA and MLB. After that, he conned me with his AAA stats into thinking he was Neo from the Matrix and that that would or even could translate at the big league level for a prolonged period. Each time I ended up wanting to slap myself for buying into something that my instincts knew was just too good to be logically true.
this reminds me when i asked if there was a chance hughes was overrated.
remember everyone, TINSTAPP.
Not to bring that up again since you took my comment personally then (which I did not intend) but I only took issue when you asked because you solely asked based on the fact that he was a Yankee prospect.
TINSTAPP means nothing here. We all know how flukey pitchers are but if we are grading them as prospects (which is all we can do), Hughes had in the past and still has very high chances of becoming at least an above average MLB pitcher.
As a fan of niether team
And generally a distaste for the hype the Red Sox prospects get, Buchholz is a far far better pitcher than Sowers.
by groundingout on Jun 16, 2008 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
You mean today, right this very second? If that’s what you mean, I don’t think so. If you mean that Buchholz has more potential than Sowers, you may have a case. If you mean that Buchholz is going to be a better pitcher, sometime in the future – sure why not? And I think that Laffey’s gonna win the Cy Young Award someday – so what?
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
I’m confused by this statement. First off, I’d like you to try to explain how Anderson is half as good as Weglarz. I think that’s going to be a pretty tough task. I think the reason most “prospect gurus” like Anderson better is that, unlike Weglarz he supposedly projects to hit for a high average and like Weglarz projects to hit for power and patience. They are both 20 and they both play non-skill defensive positions.
As for the hype part, I just don’t buy this. I mean, who is doing the hyping and who is buying into it and why? Do you really think so little of Jim Callis, Keith Law, Kevin Goldstein, and John Sickels that you think they are incapable of filtering out the hype? Who else talks about these people or maybe I missed the Baseball Tonight segment where Kruk proclaimed Lars Anderson to be a future hall of famer.
I think we would need some luck to go our way to make the playoffs. I think it would take a miracle to get by the Red Sox in a seven game series. That’s why I think you trade CC regardless of where we stand in late July. Prefrebly to the NL.
I think the backlash from trading CC will be far less than what Shapiro got for trading Colon or Alomar. Fans understand our position and the type of value CC represents in a trade.
Hear hear. But imagine if we traded CC for prospects in July, then managed to sneak past the White Sox in September, only to have to face CC pitching for Boston in the playoffs. Anything can happen in a short series, but why would we want to do that to ourselves?
Pie is struggling mightily in AAA. Gallagher looks pretty good, but that doesn’t address our dire need for bats. What else have the Cubs got?
by ken from alexandria on Jun 11, 2008 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
then managed to sneak past the White Sox in September, only to have to face CC pitching for Boston in the playoffs
I’d salivate at the possibility.
by SuddenSam on Jun 11, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. If you think he was hyped up and struggling with control last year, yikes! Shapiro IS a genius. – Beastie Boys, Sabotage -
“Fans understand our position and the type of value CC represents in a trade.”
Yeah, 10% of our fans know enough about the subject to comprehend all this. The other 90% will see this as yet another local star sent packing for the sake of saving money.
I think that a lot of “common fans” recognize that we aren’t going to stand a chance at re-signing CC. Most would want to get something for him.
the problem is, those same “fans” would think Atkins and Holliday in return would be fair and reasonable for both sides, and would accept nothing less or whine about it on cleveland.com
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
I just checked cleveland.com to find out about Bentley’s release. The lowest type of people go there. After reading about 10 people wishing that he blows his knee out I left.
That really bums me out. LeCharles was a high school classmate of mine, and I know how thrilled he was to be back in Cleveland. He did a ton for St. I during his time back in Cleveland, as well as for the rest of the community. No one is more disappointed than he is at the string of freak incidents that left him so injured (and his life threatened). I don’t think he blames the Browns at all for moving on, and just wants the chance to keep playing, and the Browns respected him enough to give him that. People so full of anger about it are ridiculous.
Il faut d'abord durer.
I’ll be completely honest. I have zero respect for LeCharles Bentley. It has nothing to do with this situation, but some “things” that happened while he was at Ohio State. I don’t feel it is appropriate to speak of them here, but I wouldn’t want him anywhere near my team.
I would never hope that he blows his knee out, but this further confirms my thoughts on LeCharles Bentley. He is all business, all of the time.
I’m not saying a person can’t change (for better or for worse), but like Adam, I was a classmate of his. I won’t lie and say we were buddies or that he’d even remember my name if I walked up and shook his hand, but I got to know him a bit more than most in having a group of classes with him during sophomore year. And while he didn’t have bags of cash sitting underneath his desk at the time, he did have some hype around him and he remained down to earth and approachable.
So he may have changed, and if so, that’s too bad. It would be nice of the people who speak badly of him have dealt with him firsthand, and not just from stories in the media or any other secondhand stories heard around campus.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
LeCharles is not a bad person. However, he is the definiton of selsfish. I don’t like players who are more concerned with making money than honoring the commitment that they have made to their university.
he is the definiton of selsfish
Unlike big-time football universities that pimp their football players out like crack whores.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
Universities benefit greatly from their players services while they are there. There is obviously no denying that. But a player receives a free education for his commitment and is generally revered by fans. It’s a nice trade off that works well.
no they don’t. athletic departments benefit, not universities.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe in Ohio, but at Nebraska the economic hit this university and city would take if the Huskers struggle is enormous.
well, i’m in Iowa City, and I can tell you that the university – that is, the higher education mission it tries to fulfill – is in no way helped by our athletics department. modern collegiate athletics have nothing to do with education, which is what universities are about.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh really? Cause here enrollment numbers would go down. The student body is about as actively engaged in athletics as you will find any where else in the country. Again does the Athletic Department give directly to the University? No, but they do indirectly like gahnki points out.
if enrollment went down here, that would probably be a good thing. money has nothing to do with this argument.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve now seen this a little bit from the administrative end of a University. And I’ll say I was surprised how much schools, non-flagship public Universities in particular, are obsessed with enrollment numbers. It’s important.
but is that obsession important in a good way?
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s important in the, “if we don’t get this enrollment you don’t have a job and your classes don’t get taught” kind of way. Which I think is important.
it’s totally my fault, sorry everyone.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
No…if anything it’s my fault for introducing the topic that has went in a hundred directions.
And what APV is saying is correct. Just think about why universities advertise so much on TV during sporting events. Now, notice when the university is doing it..it’s going to be in one of two situations: a)a big time game that is nationally televised. A national championship or Final Four type of thing. B) When they are facing vastly inferior competition. The advertising university’s team will look good and thus the university will look good.
i’m fairly certain those spots aren’t paid for. they’re a sort of PSA that was probably negotiated into the network’s deal with the ncaa
When it’s on national tv it is a gift from the network to the university. Sometimes, the university will buy extra slots up. I know Ohio State has done this in the past.
Another possible situation, for example, is if a game between the University of Florida and LSU is on CBS. The universities will often receive reduced rates for an advertisement.
and what i’ve been trying to say is, universities are not fulfilling their roles in society, and the focus on athletics is detracting from the greater question of, “what is our purpose, and how can we best fulfill it?”
because more money, even if it ‘helps’ the current structure, may not ultimately serve the values the university is intended to advance across society.
so this is sort of removed from the whole argument. sorry.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with this to a certain extent. However, I think you are undervaluing the amount of money that can be brought in by sports. Often, these can lead to improvements to the university itself.
money really has little to do with the universities’ purpose. and i would declare that the problem is not tuition – as that has steadily gone up and yet still universities are facing dramatic cutbacks. it’s the lack of support from state and federal governments that have put universities in their financial plights.
furthermore, the university system in this country is much too corporate (in the sense that universities should not strive to make money but provide an atmosphere for engagement with the broader world and contexts not usually discussed). but i’m veering waaaay off topic here so i’ll stop.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok…money may not have much to do with the theoretical purpose of a University. But it has a HUGE impact on the actual day to day practical purpose of a University. There’s a reason Harvard’s endowment is larger than the GDP of sub-Saharan Africa…and it does have something to do with what Harvard can offer as a University.
Whoa whoa whoa. Money has nothing to do with helping universities teach? How about research? Like, science and junk. And facilities?
sorry, i was unclear and arguing two separate things at the same time.
1) money from athletics does not help academics.
2) universities are looking at money as an ends rather than a means to an ends.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s true that money from athletics has very little direct impact on the mission of Universities. However, it does have an indirect and important impact via alumni giving in certain instances. School’s like Michigan, for example, that have a real athletic tradition, I think benefit tremendously from maintaining that tradition.
Colorado’s enrollment and applications took major hits because of the scandals that surrounded the football team a few years ago—much more than the academic scandals that also took place at CU with Ward Churchill.
I think there are some universities that benefit from their athletic programs, but not all “big” football schools do. Notre Dame is an example; love them or hate them, they use the football team for the betterment of the University as a whole, and not just the athletic department.
Il faut d'abord durer.
No, universities benefit by a ton. University owned restaurants and shops make a killing from food/merchandise sales. Parking owned by the university makes a fair amount of money as well. Not to mention that a strong sports presence draws prospective students to become interested in the university thus bringing tuition money. I could really provide more examples but you get the picture. Ticket sales are not the only way that money is generated by sports.
I think the word you are looking for here is “professional” not “selfish”. LeCharles has been on the professional athlete track since he left Ignatius (count me as his 3rd classmate, though I was older by a year or two and never took a class with him). And guess what…professional athletes prioritize their personal careers more than that of their town, team, or teammates. There are exceptions, but that kind of selfishness is the norm. And it’s the norm everywhere. Do you think an investment banker at Bear Stearns a year ago would have passed on the opportunity to join up with a competing firm because they felt loyalty to BS? No. I’m pretty sure LeCharles (and his agent) realizes he has one shot left at the NFL, and being a possible backup in Cleveland isn’t the best chance at that. And that’s what being a professional athlete is about…not putting your own personal wishes (which I’m pretty sure were and are to be a star in Cleveland) ahead of your career goals.
An you are mixing up why I don’t have respect for him. I don’t disagree with his decision to leave at all. I’ve noted that in a few places. He has a chance to make money and be a starter elsewhere.
It is how we handled himself at Ohio State that I have a problem with.
I guess I was assuming, based on your comments, your opinion had something to do with prioritizing self over team/teammates.
At this point, I think even the “common” Indians fan is aware of our status in the economic pecking order of MLB. It’s not like this is our first (or second, or third, or fourth) time losing an upper-tier player to FA, and with Shaprio’s track record with the Colon deal (Phillips notwithstanding), I think it would make for an easy sell (as easy a sell as it can be trading the reigning Cy Young winner).
by millionairesrow on Jun 11, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Quite a few rank-and-file fans are seem to get more bitter about “letting a player go for nothing” than about trading a guy. It’s like this big, horrible thing they’ve been dreading, and they’re just waiting for it — almost eager to piss and moan about it for the rest of their lives. I think on balance, even if we were contending, as many fans would rather see us trade C.C. than to let him walk at the end of the year, and if we’re not contending, that number goes up enormously.
Some people feel there is nothing worse in the world that you can do than carry a star player to the brink of free agency, fail to make the playoffs, and then let him walk. We did exactly that trifecta with Manny and Thome, and if you want you can add Omar and Kevin Millwood to the list, too.
If only we wouldda done the same with you know who.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on Jun 11, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions -2 recs
I can see we’re going to need a new Ground Rule for this.
Your material has gotten to be less fresh than Royals Review’s, let me put it that way.
Hey, Hafner’s the new LeBron.
And I guess that self-parody is just as boring and self-indugent as heartfelt sincerity.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
What’s boring and self-indulgent is the same comment/joke 100 times, when it wasn’t that astute/funny the first time. Add in that it’s centered around a sore subject for all Indians fans, and what kind of response do you expect?
by Jay on Jun 11, 2008 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
A negative response of course. When the groupthink orthodoxy is parodied the author is often attacked.
Here try this: try to tell the guy who wants to “punch Cliff Lee in the face” that Cliff Lee is a gifted athlete and will be better in 2008 than he was in 2006. See how warm a reception you get. Or try to defend playing Blake at third when your teams still in the pennant race instead of a shaky rookie. See if that works.
We on this site have managed to caricaturize many of the players on this club. Cliff Lee was no-talent punk not too long ago. Why? Because his ERA ballooned and he tipped his cap to a derisive crowd. Not much more than that. Blake’s a bum because his BARISP is below the Mendoza line which is brought up last year at least as often as my bellowing for a Hafner trade. And this, of course is a vital statistic. Why? Because it feeds the orthodoxy. But now that he’s hitting over .400 with RISP it’s an "idiot" stat, the result of "SSS" and isn’t worthy of consideration for keeping him in the line-up.
Now try to convince the worshipping faithful that their paradigm of baseball sluggery is done – finished and has flimflammed the “best GM in baseball” outta the biggest contract in the history of the club. Of course you’re gonna get ridiculed. As every Indian fan knows, the truth hurts. But eventually, if you follow the Indians long enough, you’ll learn to face the truth and embrace it. You know, "learn to love the pain". Your stars collapse, or get traded or go to another club for a bigger paycheck. It’s inevitable, just like Thome, Manny and Belle leaving. But that’s what makes runs like last year so joyously rhapsodic.
Look, Hafner knew he was de-laminating in June of 2007 and took the money and ran. I’d probably do the same. But what I cannot excuse is a FO that was bamboozled into signing him to that contract. So along with all of the many good things they’ve done – and make no mistake, I understand the handicaps Shapiro et al operate under – I will remember this inexcusable gaffe.
So in sum: Hafner’s my Blake/Lee. The true villain who’s robbed my club of their scarcest commodity: money.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on Jun 12, 2008 7:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Chuck, I’m struggling with this one. I’ll repeat back to you what I think I just read, and you tell me if I’ve got it right.
Hafner “took the money and ran,” for which you don’t blame him. Rather, you blame Shapiro. But you make out Hafner to be your antagonist so as to parody the way that our arbitrary caricatures of players cloud our objective analysis of their performance. Eventually, we realize the error of our ways, thereby learning to see things the way they really are – to kill our heroes, as it were – and to embrace the resulting pain.
How’d I do?
by fleerdon on Jun 12, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Now I’m confused.
Look, I don’t blame Thome or Manny or Belle for gabbing the money and running – they’re businessmen. Of course they took the best offer. But do I boo Thome and Manny when they come to town? Damn skippy I do. But that’s the adolescent fan in me, not the cold-blooded businessman.
I don’t blame Hafner the businessman for selling Shapiro damaged goods. I’d do and have done – the same. But the fan in me is angry. The same with Shapiro. The fan in me can understand why his emotions got the better of him. The business side of me says, “what a maroon.”
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
I have not done and would not do the same — sell someone damaged goods, not even with that much at stake. It crosses a line.
There is no reason to think that Hafner did, or would do, what you suggest. There is no reason to think he believed he was damaged goods, particularly with the Indians’ coaches and medical staff implicitly telling him he’s not by virtue of the contract in front of him.
I am confident the Indians did their due diligence, and there is simply ZERO evidence that Hafner acted in bad faith. Sometimes you do everything right and it still comes out wrong.
So much wrong with this post …
When the groupthink orthodoxy is parodied the author is often attacked.
I’m sorry, I thought you said it was self-parody. Now it’s groupthink orthodoxy parody?
What exactly is the groupthink orthodoxy you think you’re parodying? Everyone already knows that the Hafner deal has turned out to be terrible. You thought it was terrible from day one — congratulations. It’s been covered. We’ve had the discussion many times, and many folks disagreed with you. Is disagreeing with you equivalent to groupthink?
I don’t remember anybody chasing you down an alley and pummeling you, like we did to that Yankees fan.
Here try this: try to tell the guy who wants to "punch Cliff Lee in the face" that Cliff Lee is a gifted athlete and will be better in 2008 than he was in 2006. See how warm a reception you get.
I don’t think you’ve been subjected to ridicule for any of your ideas (other than trading Carmona perhaps). What’s irritating is when you beat a dead horse on a subject that was already irritating even before you ever even commented on it.
It isn’t groupthink opposition to talk about how the Hafner contract is really horrible now. It’s obvious, everybody already knows it. So STFU already, we heard it the first 100 times, and everybody knew it before you said anything about it.
Or try to defend playing Blake at third when your teams still in the pennant race instead of a shaky rookie. See if that works.
Go ahead, defend it. Plenty have, including Ryan — hell, I’ve defended it myself. There’s an argument for it.
Here’s what’s funny about this: your contention that playing the veteran is a radical idea. The reality is that in this case, playing the rookie is considered a radical and even stupid idea, absolutely everywhere but on this site. Marte is widely considered a bust and a bum, and arguing that he should be the everyday 3B — while his direct competition for the job is leading the majors in BA/RISP — is twice as radical as anything you’ve ever suggested.
In fact, I deliberately posted that while Casey’s numbers were still surging, just to press the point that small samples didn’t make any difference, whether it was a two-week surge or a RISP split. Smarter decisions are made with a broader view.
We on this site have managed to caricaturize many of the players on this club. Cliff Lee was no-talent punk not too long ago. Why? Because his ERA ballooned and he tipped his cap to a derisive crowd.
I agree that we caricature players, as all fans do, but the devil is in the details, and you’ve got the details wrong. Plenty of us said he was a punk, but few ever said he had no talent. It was in fact the presumption that he did have the talent (as scouts had claimed) that made him more of a punk.
Blake’s a bum because his BARISP is below the Mendoza line which is brought up last year at least as often as my bellowing for a Hafner trade. And this, of course is a vital statistic. Why? Because it feeds the orthodoxy.
No, Blake is only marginally a bum, and it’s mainly because of his overall performance. The RISP thing has been a further aggravation, but it took an 0-for-27 run with RISP before people really started taking it seriously. (I believe you were there with me for the last game of that streak.)
But now that he’s hitting over .400 with RISP it’s an “idiot” stat, the result of “SSS” and isn’t worthy of consideration for keeping him in the line-up.
There is a real difference in both sample size and statistical significance that you’re overlooking in the two cases here, but the main point remains that the case for/against Blake mainly is waged on his overall numbers.
Now try to convince the worshipping faithful that their paradigm of baseball sluggery is done – finished and has flimflammed the "best GM in baseball" outta the biggest contract in the history of the club. Of course you’re gonna get ridiculed.
Chuck, this martyr act is tiresome and a load of crap. People strongly disagreed with you, but you were never ridiculed until you started saying things that didn’t make any sense — like, we should give away a 24-year-old starter who nearly won a Cy Young last year just to be rid of Hafner’s contract.
What would the guys back in the neighborhood say about a guy who accused someone of being a cheat and a fraud with nothing to back it up? I had plenty of evidence for accusing Cliff Lee of being a dick, but that’s also a far lesser charge than deliberately bilking the team out of $56 million.
It may be that we have a different sense of responsibilities between my role primarily as blogger and yours primarily as commenter, but I simply would never make a charge like that without real evidence to back it up. I think it’s reprehensible. What I know is that it’s not astute, it’s not parody, and it’s not funny.
Obviously I haven’t made myself clear. And please let’s not get melodramatic here: No I don’t feel like a martyr. Christ I don’t even feel remotely like E5 or Brandini. Mostly cuz I don’t take any of this stuff seriously. After all we’re just talking about baseball, nothing important.
Here’s what I’ve been driving at: exactly how much damage did Hafner’s contract do to the team’s future? We’ve gone back and forth on whether it cost us the chance to sign a high level free agent, discussed whether that money could be used to extend some of our up and coming young players like Garko or Laffey or Lee even or whether it impacts the club’s future at all..
In my business I’m occasionally called on to sit through a "Root Cause Analysis" drill after something horrendous has happened inside the company and the first question we ask is, "exactly how much will this cost us?" sometimes, "how much damage has been done?" And our job is to answer those questions. But no one, as far as I can tell, has properly gauged what the operational costs of the Hafner debacle could be to the Cleveland Indians. I was trying to put a price tag on it by asking the rhetorical question: “What could we get for Hafner today?” Clearly you couldn’t trade him for a bag of used Mail Pouch. So what would you have to kick in to actually make it attractive? Money? I’m pretty sure that you could throw $50M towards his $57M contract – and even allowing for the time value of money and roster spot – nobody would pick him up. Even the clubs like the Yankees and BoSox, let alone clubs with similar economic conditions as the Indians, like the Rays and Royals. So the real hit this club has taken is almost incalculable. But when I take a guess at the cost it – and I think that it just might be an up and coming pitcher like Carmona – it makes me angry – very angry.
And yes at the very least I think that Hafner knew he was on the down side of his career. Now do I think that he knew his shoulder or wrist or whatever was damaged beyond repair? No, of course not. In fact, I doubt that he had any symptomatic injury at all. But I do believe that he at least suspicioned that he was losing his mojo or whatever you wanna call that sliver of skill that separates the All-Star from the has been . And I also believe that suspicion led him to sign a less than optimum contract early on in the negotiations. But I don’t think that he knew the unknowable. That is “how good a player am I going to be in five years”. So were his intentions dishonest? No, not really. But he knew something wasn’t right – he knew.
So let me retract "flimflammed" and "bamboozled". Those are loaded words that imply larceny. Shouldn’t even have implied that. Maybe "dazzled" wouldda been better. But the fact is that Shapiro and Antonnetti didn’t believe their lyin’ eyes. They didn’t even allow that what they were seeing for almost ten weeks was real. Few on this site believed it. But it was there and apparent. But the FO didn’t believe Hafner’s early season results and believed (hoped) it was just a slump. But it wasn’t and isn’t. And those boys are paid huge money to know this. And they either didn’t or didn’t act on it. Either way they screwed up big time.
But is Hafner a bad human being? That’s another silly question. How the hell should I know? Seems like a decent sort. By what I read in the newspapers any way. But I’ve learned to distrust the newspapers. They rarely know, let alone report, the whole story. So to me Hafner’s just a ball player, no different from Lee or Blake or Sizemore or Pierzinski or Bonds. He may be good to kids and little old ladies or he may beat his dog or all three, I dunno. But I wouldn’t call him, or Lee, or Peralta, or Garko, or any other professional athlete anything pejorative based on what little I know about the man personally. I’m just going on what I see and not what anyone tells me. To me Hafner’s just a baseball player who can’t play baseball as well as he used to. That’s all.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
“But I do believe that he at least suspicioned that he was losing his mojo or whatever you wanna call that sliver of skill that separates the All-Star from the has been. “
If we’re going to be omniscient here, my sense is that professional athletes rarely ever recognize—or acknowledge—decline or loss of mojo. Such self-doubt isn’t typically in their repertoires. Maybe they have their fears or dark-night-of-the-soul moments, but they can’t even accept the possibility of decline. I’d say Hafner believes his diminished skills are attributable to injury or whatever, and that he will soon return to his offensive glory. Isn’t that how successful athletes think?
C’mon Chuck. It’s hard to even listen anymore when you contradict yourself like you’re in some sort of contest to shoot down your own argument.
First you say the following:
Hafter “took the money and ran.”
Hafner is a “true villain.”
Hafner “bamboozled” the FO.
And then:
“Obviously I haven’t made myself clear.” No? I think you’re perfectly clear, and it turns out that your clarity is the problem. It reveals your ignorance.
And of course THEN:
“Now do I think that he knew his shoulder or wrist or whatever was damaged beyond repair? No, of course not.”
Oh. But then AGAIN:
“He knew something wasn’t right – he knew.” As if anyone didn’t know that, at the time, something wasn’t right. Your implication is that - regardless of your statement immediately prior - he DID know that something was beyond repair.
It’s as if athletes are not allowed to encounter adversity and work their damnedest to overcome it. It’s as if athletes should recognize the first sign that they’re fading and just fork as much cash as they can back over to their team.
Hey, Chuck: Travis Hafner has never had a career decline before! Even if he did suspect something was amiss, he’s going to do everything he can to return to his peak level of performance! That’s what you would WANT a player to do! Unless, of course, you’d rather he just give up and turn down a contract.
Oh, but I’m sorry, you pre-clarified in the preceding sentence: “So were his intentions dishonest? No, not really. “ They were, in your words, just villainous and bamboozling.
I realize you later retracted “bamboozled.” But in so doing you nearly reaffirmed your commitment to the term.
I like your noble attempt to not make this personal: “But I wouldn’t call him, or Lee, or Peralta, or Garko, or any other professional athlete anything pejorative based on what little I know about the man personally. “ I suppose calling someone a Villain doesn’t qualify.
It’s pretty clear what’s happened. You made an analysis of the contract at the time. Based on your reasoning, the analysis sucked, as Jay and others have pointed out. When the results bore out your feeling that the contract was a boondoggle you decided to pound your chest about it, probably because you felt so attacked about your position in the first place. When a fresh analysis showed that you were still crazy to say the things you had said - results be damned - you dug in further.
And regardless of what you declare, this has become personal to you. You attack Hafner’s motives and ethics. You plainly state the ability to read his mind at the time he signed the contract. You call him a villain.
When it comes to LGT, you comfort yourself by explaining the scenario thusly: you’re just a contrarian not afraid to go against the masses. You’re just a determined myth debunker, but the masses are slow to come around. It doesn’t occur to you that this might not be group-think; this might be a collection of people who have thought about this and analyzed this and decided that your position is crap.
I like you, but I am way beyond tired of this whole thing. It’s transparent.
by tabler84 on Jun 13, 2008 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I started to write a much longer post but decided against it. But here’s my opinion in a nutshell:
1. Hafner’s done and he’s not ever again going to be anywhere near the player he once was.
2. Shapiro grossly overpaid for what’s left of Hafner’s career
We’ll be able to judge the correctness of this position in time. We’ll talk more at the end of the season.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
No, Chuck, we will not talk more at the end of the season.
You did not need to restate your opinion in a nutshell. There cannot be a regular reader here who hasn’t read your same opinion ten times — I would estimate that I’ve read it 40-45 times myself.
You don’t have an answer to what I wrote or what tabler84 wrote. Re-stating your opinion of Hafner is not an answer, because nobody is criticizing your opinion of Hafner. Your opinion of Hafner and his contract are fine, it’s the wild, hostile conclusions that you’ve drawn from those opinions, and your insistence on irritating everyone here for no purpose, that are not fine.
by Jay on Jun 14, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Clearly you couldn’t trade him for a bag of used Mail Pouch. So what would you have to kick in to actually make it attractive? Money? I’m pretty sure that you could throw $50M towards his $57M contract – and even allowing for the time value of money and roster spot – nobody would pick him up.Well the Mariners are paying 8.5 million this year to play a 34 year old career middle infielder at DH (who has comparable OPS to Hafner’s this year). So for them, getting Hafner for, say, 5 million a year (and hoping that he heals or figures things out) would be a bargain.
I’m annoyed with the amount of money that we’re paying Hafner, but A.) if he had performed at 2004-06 levels, it would have been a good deal; B.) it’s not like a Zito/Giambi/Belle deal… not even for this franchise which has a smaller margin for error; and C.) New revenue sources (STO, MLBAM, naming rights) mitigate the damage. Also, I can’t see the Indians would have never signed a “big name” free agent regardless of Hafner’s contract.
What annoys me more, and this is not simply a Hafner thing, and this is not simply an LGT thing, is how the steroid era (and now the supposedly steroid-free era) has made me question the usefulness of statistics in projecting the future effectiveness of players. I realize that’s tough to talk about because it ends up slouching to areas of wild speculation (what’s wrong with Ortiz? Why can’t Victor hit a homer? etc.), but nonetheless it’s there, it bugs me, I said it, I’m done, and I won’t bring it up again.
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on Jun 15, 2008 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Now, if you want to take a position and defend it then fine. I don’t have a problem with you sticking to your irrational hatred even if it annoys me. Please, however, don’t be hypocritical.
We on this site have managed to caricaturize many of the players on this club. Cliff Lee was no-talent punk not too long ago. Why? Because his ERA ballooned and he tipped his cap to a derisive crowd.
That is exactly what you are doing to Hafner right now. I agree with you on the actual point, though. We have done that on here and it probably is wrong. I just don’t understand how you can criticize people for doing that when you’re doing the same thing now.
It’s not parody if you actually believe it, and since you never post anything to the contrary, I think you actually believe it.
Now see that’s great parody. Will Farrell would be green with envy.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
And the newscaster movie – yeah that one.
Jay just wants to argue.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
Never ceases to amaze me how little typical fans know about their team or the economics of baseball. They typically expect Dolan to pay for whateve it costs to retain/acquire the talent to win a pennant. This has been my personal experience out on the street.
In fairness to the stupid masses, they have become accustomed to level playing fields in the NFL and the NBA, where there are stringent caps that, while complicated, are much less complicated than baseball’s economics. There is a natural presumption that if the team isn’t spending, it’s the ownership’s fault. That’s the way it is in other sports, and that’s the way it should be in baseball.
There is a natural presumption that if the team isn’t spending, it’s the ownership’s fault. That’s the way it is in other sports, and that’s the way it should be in baseball.
Well, in a way, I agree with that. It’s just that the Indians spent in different ways than some people were accustomed to. Most notably in building up the minor league system.
I think a lot of this boils down to an assessment of the next few years. Until this season, I think most of us were optimistic that we had a nice group of core players locked down and that playoff contention would be the norm for the near future.
Now it looks like the core players may have peaked, the supporting cast may not be what we expected, and the farm system is less than exciting. Depth, sure, but that is often a synonym for mediocrity.
So based on what we know now, do we have a better chance to win the division in 2008 or in, say, 2010? Or, to put it another way, do we want CC this year or what he can fetch for 2010?
by SuddenSam on Jun 11, 2008 4:02 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think this states the dilemma: Where will this team be in 2009 and 2010? In 2006 we all thought there was a bright future, with core players locked up for years to come. But as so often happens in baseball—remember the Mets’ Generation K big three of Isringhausen, Pulsipher and Paul Wilson? Remember 2003 Rookie of the Year Angel Berroa?—expectations prove dodgy. If what we see is what we get from Grady, Jhonny, Garko, etc.—not bad at all but not “the next level,” as we had reason to hope a few seasons ago—then what does the team look like in 2010? Lord Kelvin!
Back together after all these years: Lord Kelvin and Absolute Zero (the bats).
by ken from alexandria on Jun 12, 2008 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions
I have no qualms with dealing C.C. if the Indians are still 8 games out at the deadline. Honestly, can they make up 8 games? Sure. But is it likely…not really.
I’d rather grab a piece or two of talent closer to the major league level than surf the gamble that is the June amateur draft. And I wouldn’t care to whom the Indians dealt C.C., but I think my top targets are Tampa Bay, the Dodgers, Milwaukee, and Boston.
The Indians won’t be getting Colon-esque return, but I think the Devil Rays, if still contending for the first time, have the incentive to make a splash much like the Expos did when they acquired Colon.
If we’re eight games behind on June 30, I would expect Sabathia to be dealt within the next few days. That is Shapiro’s pattern, and with good reason, since the other team gets more value out of our player and is thus willing to pay more to get him.
I can’t see any downside to trading C.C. Given his past actions, it’s clear that our exclusive negotiating window is worth little or nothing. Whatever chance we have of signing him at the end of the year — Shapiro has claimed it’s still doable — I don’t think it’s significantly reduced by trading him.
If we’re eight games behind on June 30, I would expect Sabathia to be dealt within the next few days.
Between now and June 30, we’ve got 15 games against the NL, 12 against the NL West. The month ends in Chicago with a three game set June 30-July 2.
Point being, I worry a little that our record will improve just enough over the next two-three weeks and, if we can take 2 of 3 from the Sox, we could be 4 games out. What do we do then? It’s hard for me to imagine we’ll be standing pat, as Shapiro’s had some quotes about our quality not quite being championship-caliber. So if we’re 4 out with 77 games to go, do we mortgage a little future and go for it?
I could see that happening but I wouldn’t want it to, as I don’t think we’re as close to being playoff-competitive as we might appear after this stretch. Of course, now that I think about it, the Sox are playing the NL West too so maybe it’s a wash.
A lot depends on what you mean by “mortgage a little future”. If we are 5 games out with 77 to play, we definitely have a realistic chance to take the division. And a lot depends on how we got to be 5 games out as to whether mgmt thinks this could be our year. We could back into it by playing slightly better than .500 and the WS go through a rough streak. If we continue to look like we have, it’s hard to think we’ll be viewed as a team with a chance to win the pennant.
If I can project my own deep-seated concerns onto Nick’s comment, it’s something to the effect that we need an infusion of ML-ready or near-ML-ready talent. We know it’s not coming by free agency, and except for Huff, our best prospects are mostly too young to have much real value at the moment. If we accept the (not necessarily true) premise that the only way we’re going to win in 2008 is by the division sucking its way back down to our level, then I don’t see a good reason not to shop our current major leaguers.
by fleerdon on Jun 12, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly. Every article I read, Shapiro himself makes the observation “It’s not like we’re only missing one piece.”
As far as the rest of the division goes, I think we proved last year that it’s possible to have an exceptionally healthy year and outperform your expectations for a season. I don’t see why I should expect the Sox, who added significant talent in the offseason, to regress. Furthermore, as Tyler states, I certainly don’t want to miss an opportunity to improve in for 09-11 by not trading current major leaguers.
Which reminds me, I was looking at the Cubs system and there’s not too terribly much other than Soto (too valuable to the Cubs) and Vitters (too young to make an impact in our current window and Pie (a lot like our current OF’ers.) However, if we could somehow wrangle Soto away from the Cubs, it’d certainly allow us to move Martinez to first permanently (or Soto, I suppose) and deal Garko.
why not? Barring some sort of uber turnaround in our Pythag record by that time where we sit somewhere around a +5 or something (a 9 Pwin swing) I don’t think there’s any reason to subjectively decide that despite being only four games out we aren’t “playoff competitive”. “Playoff competitive” for the 2008 Cleveland Indians means able to win the 2008 Central Division, nothing else nothing more. Its a mediocre division and I fully expect the White Sox to fall on hard times once their pitching regressess. If we are four games out, and it appears that we are in the race, then we are in the race and we are only four games out.
There’s the rub. If we are good enough to beat a struggling division, but not good enough to win a pennant, is it worth the gamble to sell future and hope to become competitive against other playoff teams? I bet this could be its own huge thread.
Didn’t Shapiro indicate this yesterday? The Indians could win the Central but probably aren’t a championship team. But I’d take that. There are many examples of lesser teams winning the Series—the Cardinals most recently. There seems something foolish about the notion that a team succeeds only if it wins the World Series. If the Indians were to get to the postseason—with a handful of profitable ALDS gates—that would be sufficient.
This is where I usually scratch my head and observe that fans can’t tell the difference between us and the major market teams. When the Yankees sell future, they know it can be papered over with FA money. When we sell future, what do we do next? Do we discover some secret untapped well of talent in remote corners of South America or Asia? We sell the team to an owner who wants to spend more money than he takes in?
There is an insipid Cleveland.com-type belief that a local-boy-made-good would piss away his family legacy signing free agents, running the team ata a deficit so he could bring a Winner to the home-town fans. He would own the team until all the money is gone.
I would say Detroit’s ride on that train is almost over, in fact, and they haven’t achieved anything more than the Indians in so doing. I mean, the guy may be worth $1.5 billion, but that doesn’t mean that he’ll be amused by pissing away $60 million every year on his ballclub forever. He sure didn’t get rich that way.
There isn’t a difference. Statistical analysis has proven (thus far) that the playoffs are a crapshoot. If you are good enough to make it in then you are good enough to have a shot at winning it all.
There’s a perception that this isn’t the case, but perception is wrong. In a short series 5-7 games anything can happen.
I subscribe to this view. In fact, I’d say this view is not just right, but correct.
I believe that any entrance to the playoffs short of a full-on stumble is a good one.
We’re unlikely to make the postseason without winning close to 60% of our games in the second half. If we can do that, we certainly have something close to an average chance to prevail. If anything, teams that surge in the second half probably have a slightly better chance than those who play consistently for the full season.
And I’ll take the opposed view on this. Boston won its second WS in three years. They swept their opponents the first time and went 12-3 the second. This happened because the cards fell the right way (no pun)?
There is a wide gulf between the notion that every horse in a race CAN win and that every horse in a race has the same chance of winning. Major upsets occur every day. It has nothing to do with whether the chance of it happening had improved, only that some part of the time, the favorite must lose.
Now, I know that the better teams usually split their games and crush the weaklings to get to the playoffs. But, when you come out of a weakened division and look bad doing it, you go into the post season having to know you probably will get beat. This isn’t the time to push all your chips into the middle. (note multiple gambling references) And I mean by that, selling future hoping to improve.
Which I attended! What a letdown, although I high fived Shaq which was cool. Broken bathrooms…..not so cool.
But risk takers make decisions on what is likely to happen. That’s why the surviving risk takers have the money to do so, because they weren’t stupid enough to blow their wad on every longshot thing that may happen.
Respectfully, other guys have already done the math on this. Baseball games simply have a lot more variation than you’re recognizing here.
In any given season, generally the best team will win about 60% of its games, and the worst team 40%. This is against average competition — that is, we can assume that if the best team plays the 15th best team, it will tend to win about 60% of the time.
Of course the typical postseason matchup is much more even than that — typically, 4th vs. 5th, or in an extreme case, 1st vs. 10th. (The best eight aren’t always in the playoffs.) Even that extreme postseason matchup, however, is less of a mismatch than the regular season 1st-vs.-15th, meaning that the best team in baseball can’t expect to win even 60% of its games against the worst playoff team.
But even assuming the too-high 60%, you’re going to see a lot of upsets in a five-game series — the best team in baseball will get swept in three games by the worst playoff team almost 8% of the time.
BP’s full math for last season: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/postseasonodds.php
Scroll down near the bottom, the October 3 section. The best team’s chance is 14.99%, the worst team’s is 9.44%. Nobody has better than a 56% chance of winning the first round, and nobody has a 30% chance of making the World Series.
I think people are having trouble seeing the justification because they’re envisioning this current team in the playoffs, which would have perhaps a 5% chance at a ring. But if we make the playoffs, it won’t seem like the same team anymore. It’ll seem like a good team.
I think a lot is dependent on the health of Fausto, Hafner and Vic. If Shapiro has low hopes that any of these three will be at full strength, he may think we don’t have the artillery to make a run at it this year. If this is his belief, I believe he will be a lot more inclined to move CC and before July 31.
Yes and no. I also agree with Terry Pluto’s argument in this morning’s paper—i.e., that the bullpen is the key variable. The hitting isn’t good, but, that’s not really new (it’s just worse than it has been, with some hopeful signs like Garko’s resurgence). The starting pitching is still good, even with two guys down. But, what’s really different, this year, is the bullpen, which is what did us in in 2006 as much as anything else. So, if Betancourt, Borowski, Masa et al continue to be unreliable, that will likely tip the scales towards “sell.”
I can agree with all of that, but if our best hitters aren’t healthy, we don’t have much hope of getting a 180 from an offense that basically didn’t hit for two months. Our huge offensive bounce-back in 2005 could not have happened if our best guys weren’t healthy.
This was essentially my point and before Vic was announced to be on the DL. I just can’t see Shapiro holding out for a major offensive comeback with our best hitter and former best hitter not playing
Victor may as well be out, because in the last 10 games his BA has gone down 11 points. I by no means imply that we are better with him out, but his absence or presence will not make this offensive funk better or worse.
Dellucci will take out Venezuelan citizenship, thereby compensating for the loss of the team’s 3 and 4 hitters.
I can’t help but think this will hurt any chance we had of an offensive resurgence. Vic is, hands down, our best hitter; if he’s not there, it’s hard to see how the offense can get back to league average.
I think this is exactly the perception, that somehow this team today will luck its way and/or other central teams will just roll over and die allowing us to squeak into the playoffs where the mighty Boston Red Sox or whoever makes it will crush us in a three game sweep…. but as you said, if they make the playoffs then they’ll be good enough to be in the playoffs and its a crapshoot at that point.
What sticks out in my memory about our series against the Red Sox last year was how much of an impact umpire Dana Demuth may have had on the outcome of the series, when he was behind the plate for Carmona’s game 6 start. The Hardball times did an article about umpire calling tendencies (linked here) and this part gets me every time:
As I was watching the playoffs and tinkering with this data, I was amazed at how consistent each umpire’s tendencies were. Remember when Victor Martinez started yelling at the home plate umpire over calls to Fausto Carmona? No wonder: Dana Demuth has the fourth smallest zone in the league where those pitches were called, on the left side of the plate.
With another umpire, Carmona may have gotten those calls that he typically had received during the season, but because he didn’t get ‘em with Demuth behind the plate that alters his gameplan and forces Carmona to adjust to a new tatic that he did not prepare for…. A little thing that is not controlled by either team, like which umpire is behind the plate for a specific pitcher can have a gigantic impact on a single game, and a single game in a 7 game series can have a gigantic impact on who wins the series.
See, I don’t see why Tampa would be interested in giving us anything significant for C.C. They have very little chance of carrying any earned goodwill towards signing C.C. long-term (unlike, say the Cubs, Red Sox and Yankees), and aren’t in any sort of “win-now” position with the young talent they have. He’s a pure rental to them, in a season in which they don’t need to expend all their assets to try to win a ring.
by millionairesrow on Jun 11, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Because if they’re winning for the first time and within striking distance, crazier notions than “go for it” have unfolded. The Indians aren’t getting Matt Kemp or BJ Upton or Scott Kazmir for Sabathia. Just look at the Mets haul with Santana. And even mid-season, I’m not sure a team would be THAT crazy to top the Santana return.
That being said, pretty good prospects still trade hands in exchange for a 3 month rental (see Max Ramirez last year). Tampa Bay can give up one or two legit prospects without mortgaging its future, AND Kazmir, Sabathia, and Shields is saying something, even if it’s only for Tampa’s first stretch-run in franchise history. I’m sure Andrew Friedman has taken note of even a team like Cleveland…when you’re close, you gotta go for it. For while 2007 may bring 96 wins, 2008 may bring…a lot less.
by xrickx on Jun 11, 2008 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t believe that any team will see C.C. as anything but a rental player — certainly no smart team will.
There is no reason for C.C. to agree to talk to a team about a long-term deal, unless they’re willing to come close to Santana’s terms. Otherwise, C.C. might as well wait for free agency — he’s waited this long.
I don’t believe I’ve made any indication that I think the Rays nor any other team on my short list were acquiring Sabathia thinking that he was anything more than a rental.
My point is just that decent prospects-like Max Ramirez-get traded in deadline deals for players-Kenny Lofton-worth a lot less than C.C. Sabathia.
My comment was more on the point that there is some value in the exclusive negotiating period that an acquiring team would have with C.C. Is it a tremendous value? No, but, I don’t think it’s a toss-away either; I don’t think it would be unforeseeable for one of these teams to make the trade and get a deal done with C.C. in the Santana range. And to your point xrickx, I see where you’re coming from, I just don’t think this is the year that the Rays make this kind of move. Time will tell.
by millionairesrow on Jun 11, 2008 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Every GM in the game knows he cannot outbid the Yankees for CC. CC and his agent know that no team can outbid the Yankees. Exclusive negotiating rights have no value in this particular case. The CC rental concept is the most open and shut rental case ever. Let’s get on with the debate about his rental value, which may be considerable.
by the way, I want an Upton. somehow.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 11, 2008 4:36 PM EDT reply actions
Who the hell wants a white Upton?
The 2008 Cleveland Indians: Home of the Triple Steal, Unassisted Triple Play, and not a heck of a lot more.
by westbrook on Jun 11, 2008 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hey, word to the wise, Mr. two-out-of-three-posts-include-LOL guy … we don’t do much LOL’ing here. That is, we don’t do the knee-jerk LOL. If you write LOL, it should be because you are actually laughing out loud at something — literally, you’re sitting there, at the computer, in your underwear, in your mother’s basement, laughing out loud.
Just trying to help you acclimate.
Wyoming has made its offer for CC.
The 2008 Cleveland Indians: Home of the Triple Steal, Unassisted Triple Play, and not a heck of a lot more.
Keith Law threw a little cold water on Olney’s speculation in his chat today:
Jason (Boston): Buster suggested that the Indians are scouting the Sox minor league players in preparation for a CC trade. Any legs to this rumor?
Keith Law: No. People don’t seem to get how scouting works – teams are always scouting other teams’ systems. You read how “the Orioles had a scout in to see so-and-so play” – that’s just regular coverage. Every team has a staff of pro scouts, and those guys have assigned coverage that, in total, includes all major-league teams and typically all AAA and AA teams. Then area scouts on the amateur side will supplement this with coverage of full-season A-ball leagues and AA coverage where needed. So in all likelihood, Cleveland just had its pro scouts out doing their jobs, covering Boston’s system.
I hate Law a little less now. Buster however continues to fall down the rankings.
by supermarioelia on Jun 11, 2008 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Law is outstanding, you just need to be able to stomach a whole lot of arrogance
by Roger Dorn on Jun 11, 2008 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
My dad and I are both huge Indian fans and I told him before the Twins series that the Tribe needs to go 12-6 over the next 18 games (the 18 games before the Chicago series). If they go 12-6 it would put them at .500 for that series.
Playing .600 ball over the next 2 or 3 weeks is very possible…they play thems that all have under .500 records. This stretch alone should prove whether or not we are legit enough to contend or make a run. We probably wont have an easier stretch all year.
Wait, why did you tell your dad this?
by supermarioelia on Jun 12, 2008 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually yes. It was a pure guestimate.
I was excited to see what all the hubbub was about the Olney speculations, and deflated when it was more of the same ol’ same ol’.
. The only thing I can easily find on this (youtube just has a bunch of no-hitter reactions). I think Buchholz will be a pretty damn good pitcher, and I don’t take Sowers over him in some kind of fantasy world, but Jay’s point is a good one. It’s not a landslide. Buchholz will be 24 in under 2 months. Sowers was-matter of fact-more accomplished at 23. Buchholz is just another highly polished pitching prospect, his minor league numbers inflated by age. The presses (except for Steve Phillips belatedly in a memorable BBTN moment) didn’t go gaga over Cliff when he was up-and-coming, and his “stuff”-including the “hand of God” curveball-has always been every bit as good. Yet in stuff or in results, very little separates Buchholz’ track from Lee’s (Lee has a very nice career going for him, and he should be an all-star this year, but we all know that he hasn’t persistently set the world aflame). Is Buchholz a waiting ace? I honestly can’t tell, but it’s by no means an accomplished fact.
I’m highly envious of Yovani Gallardo. Now he’s a pitching prospect.
I’ve always been a Sowers doubter, but don’t even agree that Buchholz has vastly more potential because Sowers’ Moyeresque idiosyncrasies are by now pretty apparent.
I’ll add that it is my opinion that among the super-hyped east coast pitchers, Hughes (only just about to turn 22!) and Joba (23 in September) are the more credible prospects by a longshot.
Also! Lester isn’t a prospect, but a good major leaguer. Masterson, already 23, is charitably a competent young pitcher. Solid numbers all around, but his very nice HR rate isn’t going to survive against major leaguers. He hardly deserves mentioning. Actually, it feels wrong to include him in this discussion. It’d be crazy to regard him as an untouchable.
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.
