The idea that the Indians have to trade Sabathia and plan for the future is yet another example of a significant negative trend within baseball: judging teams too quickly. We’ve developed this NFL mindset in which a three-game losing streak, or a bad month, leads to rumors and firings and chaos. Baseball is wired differently. Baseball needs time. There’s nothing unusual about a very good team playing around .500 for a month or three, or for that matter, a bad one doing the same. There’s nothing insurmountable about a 6 ½-game deficit, and if the Indians aren’t in trouble, then the same can be said for the Mets, or the Yankees, or the Braves, or any of a number of other teams around whom there’s an air of panic.
Baseball doesn’t reward panic. It rewards perspective and patience, and those two traits are in ample supply in Cleveland. The Indians are perfectly capable of not just making their season interesting, but extending it well into October. They should hold on to C.C. Sabathia because doing so helps them reach their goal: a championship in 2008."
over 3 years ago
Peter Bendix
39 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
In this picture, the Indians are winning big.
by elsandito on Jun 23, 2008 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Whom is the quote from?
The Indians, like the Tigers, do have the ability to make the race interesting. But, that will require them to play well, consistently, for a significant period of time. It’s unlikely that they can emulate the Tigers and club their opponents to death. Unless Hafner and/or Martinez return and hit well, their offense is likely to be what it’s been - inconsistent and at times unable to score, like on this road trip, for the most part. I still think relying on rookies like Choo and Francisco, and hoping that Garko and Peralta can be middle of the order hitters right away, is asking an awful lot. The bullpen is an obvious problem (I won’t beat that one to death). The starting pitching is good, but weakened by the loss of Westbrook and Carmona - If Carmona returns and is effective, that will help. Their primary trading chip (extra starting pitching) has been taken away by the pitching injuries.
If the Indians feel that Carmona will return soon, that Betancourt will turn it around, and that Martinez will come back and hit, then they may have a chance to contend, so keeping CC is a worthwhile gamble. Otherwise, I don’t see it. I don’t see how they can be “buyers” and acquire a significant asset (maybe trading Byrd, but would that bring a significant hitter or a reliable reliever, preferably a closer, for this year?), so the question to me really is whether they can heal their wounds enough, soon enough to contend. If not, then exploring trades for CC is the logical conclusion.
The quote is from Joe Sheehan, the author of the article on Baseball Prospectus.
by Peter Bendix on Jun 23, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Again…I disagree with this. I would agree with it if the Indians didn’t have Martinez, Hafner, Westbrook and Carmona sidelined indefinitely. If that was the case, yeah, I’d be expecting a huge and long overdue turnaround for the Tribe. But it’s not. The reality is the true talent level, regardless of their performances this season, of the guys we have replacing the four players above, is not as good as those they are replacing. In short, this is not as good a team as it was April 1st and is unlikely to perform as well as our expectations for that April 1st team for the indefinite future. Some patience is in order (like waiting to hear Carmona’s update today and seeing what Travis is like in a week), but the argument for extended patience I believe reflects an ignorance to the actual events in the Indians season.
As an organization, the Indians future is still very bright. The team on the field right now, however, has big holes which likely could only be filled by an unexpected amount of good luck over the next month. Selling now (or soon) would be a recognition of both of these facts and could place the team in a much better situation to contend in 2009 and 2010.
Victor is hitting .278/.332/.333. Hafner .217/.326/.350. Westbrook only pitched 34 innings. Carmona has only pitched 58 innings. Garko, Cabrera, Gutierrez have all been terrible, much worse than their career lines and what was expected of them going into this season. Betancourt has been really bad (although I wager that most of it is bad luck). No one, save Ben Francisco and Cliff Lee, has exceeded expectations.
And yet, we are 6.5 games out of first. We are one of only two in the division to have outscored its opponents.
I agree that this is not the same team as it was on April 1, but I argue that this has been a decent team this season, even with everything that has gone wrong. Based on pythagorean win/loss record, we “should” be 40-36, which would put us 5 games out of the division and 1.5 games out of the wildcard. Even though so much has gone wrong, and so little has gone right.
That being said, it’s quite possible (even likely, based on some arguments that at least some of the underperforming players have experienced bad luck on balls in play and will regress to the mean) that some of the things that have gone wrong so far can turn themselves around. In which case we go from being a 40-36 team that is 1.5 games out of a playoff spot to an even better team, in an even better position.
by Peter Bendix on Jun 23, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t disagree with the idea that the Indians “should” be better than they are. Looking at the team at the beginning of the season it would have been pretty reasonable to expect them to put up 92-94 wins. Now we’ve removed from our lineup a guy with a career OPS+ of 144 (Hafner) and a guy with a career OPS+ of 119 (Martinez). Replacing Hafner’s ABs are some combination of Francisco (minor league OPS: 814), Choo (minor league OPS: 836) , and Dellucci (OPS+ 100). Replacing Martinez is more ABs from Shoppach (OPS+ 84) and Sal Fasano (OPS+ 75). Carmona has average 3.31 PRC/start over the past two seasons. Westbrook has average 2.32 PRC/start over the past four seasons. In their major league careers, their replacements, Laffey and Sowers, have averaged 2.31 and 1.90, respectively.
In other words, the team on the field now is worse than the expected 92-95 win team we began with. Even if the lineup were all to simultaneously return to their career norms, we’d probably be an 86-88 win team. If we played at that level for the rest of the season we could expect to finish with about 83 wins. If you think 83 wins gives us a good chance at winning the division, then yes, patience should be the first.
These are all just back of a napkin estimates, but hopefully they illustrate the difficult position the realities of the season thus far (underperformance and injury) have placed the team into.
Judging by expected record, we “should” be 40-36 at the moment. If we extend that to a full season, that’s an 85-win team.
The thing is, even though I don’t disagree with your back-of-the-napkin calculations, if we now understand the current team to be an 85-win team (despite everything that’s gone wrong with injuries and underperformance), we can reasonably expect this team to play at a level even higher than that during the rest of the season (due to likely improvement from several players, and the likely return of Carmona and Martinez, as well as perhaps Hafner).
by Peter Bendix on Jun 23, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
ok, this is my last effort. Yes, we “should” be a 40-36 team right now (sadly, we are 35-41). If were to maintain our level of play and start winning the number of games we should, that puts us on pace to win 80-81 games. Stellar. If, as you say, we are currently underperforming not just in terms of wins but in production, than yes, maybe we could expect to win a few more than that (maybe 85-87 with a real optimistic outlook). The thing is, I still don’t by the argument that our current team, the guys on our 25-man roster right now, are dramatically underperforming. If we still had the three all-stars on the DL, maybe. But we don’t. We have an average first-baseman. An over-performing back-up middle infielder at 2B with a 0 as his backup. An unlucky shortstop with mediocre defense. An average offensive 3B with terrible defense. A decent catcher with contact problems. An all-star centerfielder, inconsistent and young corner OFers prone to striking out, a bullpen with trust issues, and a starting rotation with two great pichers (CC and Lee), two question marks (Byrd and Sowers) and an impressive but uncertain rookie (Laffey). That is not a great team.
I think we just fundamentally disagree in evaluating the current roster. Which is okay, makes it more fun to discuss. Part of my assessment comes from a belief that the Indians offense is underperforming. Here are some players, their expected BABIP (using line-drive percentage), and their actual BABIP:
Hafner: .370/.268
Martinez: .352/.311
Blake: .333/.309
Cabrera: .324/.237
Gutierrez: .311/.293
Garko: .308/.281
Peralta: .300/.270
That’s a lot of lost hits. If those hits come back, the offense will improve a lot.
by Peter Bendix on Jun 23, 2008 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions
The dice have no memory. Those lost hits are gone forever. The Indians should be 40-36, but they ain’t. Perhaps the Tribe should have performed to that level, but it didn’t, and that’s water under the bridge. To mix metaphors, they’ve dug themselves a deep hole. There is no reason to expect superhuman performance to compensate for this deficiency.
Choo’s sample size is tiny. I didn’t mention Andy Marte, but he’s severely underperforming too.
Francisco and Sizemore are the only two over-performing. Out of nine guys who have received a lot of at bats.
Your point about three of the main guys being no longer on the roster is well taken; however, Cabrera is dominating triple-A and should be back soon, while hopefully at least one of Victor/Hafner can return relatively soon.
by Peter Bendix on Jun 24, 2008 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
“Choo’s sample size is tiny.”
Shin Soo Choo has 61 PA.
“Cabrera is dominating triple-A”
55 PA at AAA.
One of these statements is correct.
It is worth noting that Shin Soo Choo, with 61 PA has more than Andy Marte.
Free Andy Marte!
by woodsmeister on Jun 26, 2008 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Boy, that dead horse is really being beaten, isn’t he? :)
by Peter Bendix on Jun 23, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the most spurious contention in Sheehan’s article is that the team is built to contend this year alone. He managed to name all of the oldest core players in his example and completely ignored the fact that Cabrera, Guttierez, J Lewis, Perez, Laffey, and Sowers should all be better next year. By and large, we’re one of the youngest teams in the league with a competitive window that’s open through 2010.
To me, that means trading Sabathia for talent under control for 09 and 10 is of much more value than trading pieces this year that are currently under cheap control through 10 for more expensive, less controlled players with a view to winning it all this year specifically. By closing, at least partially, the window on this season, I believe we open it wider for the next two at least, possibly extending into 11. Isn’t that better?
by NickFantana on Jun 23, 2008 3:25 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
This is true. The root of this article and discussion isn’t whether we will end up contending. It’s about the CC trade decision. The argument for retaining CC is seen as hinging on whether the Indians may contend this year. A number of us believe that the argument should be unhinged. I believe that no amount of postive projecting of the balance of this season, justifies accepting 2 draft picks for CC. It doesnt matter if we are the same team with CC or not. It doesnt matter if we contend or not. Every single non signable FA that leaves Cleveland should result in obtaining top flight prospects. I cannot imagine smaller market teams competing without this. We need affordable talent.
You make a very sound point, and I don’t disagree with you. In fact, the only way the Indians can sustain long-term success is to have young (read: cheap) talent.
Although, making the playoffs also helps sustain long-term success because of the boost in revenue it can provide.
I guess it comes down to what we could get for CC. And I have nothing to go on other than what Johan Santana was exchanged for. And I know many people on this forum believe that CC has more value than Johan did because of Johan’s no-trade clause (although, incidentally, various analysts I have read – Law, Perotto, Sheehan – believe that CC has less value than Johan did).
by Peter Bendix on Jun 23, 2008 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
“He managed to name all of the oldest core players in his example and completely ignored the fact that Cabrera, Guttierez, J Lewis, Perez, Laffey, and Sowers should all be better next year.”
These guys, with the exception of Laffey, aren’t core players, and probably aren’t likely to become core players. That’s why Joe didn’t mention them. The problem, though, as APV pointed out, is that a lot of the core is hurt, and unlikely to contribute much this year, so even if the team is built for this year, a lot of those parts are missing.
I don’t know how Cabrera isn’t a core player.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 23, 2008 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I view a core player as being a consistent above-average players at their position. I am not sure any of these guys are going to be that, though I think they’re all good bets to be league average. I do think Perez will be above-average set up guy, but relievers are subjected to a much stiffer test, as they are the leas valuable. You need to really dominate to become a core player. Upon further review, I think Asdrubal probably is a good bet to be better than average.
Problem is…
We stink.
At the moment.
And in all prior moments labeled “2008”.
The 2008 Cleveland Indians: Home of the Triple Steal, Unassisted Triple Play, and not a heck of a lot more.
I don’t see distinction between buying and selling as so great. CC should probably be traded regardless – we have so many current holes that the trade won’t be a bail of the current season anyway (see Toxicadam). And as for buying, there’s no way it’s going to involve losing any of our core young players or prospects anyway. The most expensive it would be is probably Max Ramirez level (who wasn’t necessarily cheap).
Instead, it’s at the edges, with a guy like Byrd. And at that point, the decision is about value exchange, not choosing between whether we want to compete now or in 2012.
Sure, there may be some lower level prospect changing hands, but I think any move will be about improving this team for 2009-2010, and thus likely to also help for the remainder of this year. We will NOT be going after 2008 rental players, just like we will NOT be tearing down this team with an eye toward 2012. And I’m on board.
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.
