Looking Back on the Offseason

The DiaTriber has an excellant article looking back on the offseason and the front office's decision to "stand pat" (with the exception of Kobayashi and Carroll), and analyzing what could have been done differently, if anything. He does a good job of looking at things from the perspective of what was known in the offseason, not what we know now (as many fans do when they second-guess decisions). This is the third part in his "Things Falling Apart" series about what went wrong this year for the Indians. The first two parts can be found here (the bullpen) and here (injuries).

There has been much discussion already on this site about why this team has underperformed expections, most of it centering on injuries, the regression of the bullpen, and the lack of a "corner bat." I thought that this article described the situation in the offseason well and looked at what moves were possible for the Indians and which ones weren't.

The biggest problem to me was not making more of a push for Carlos Quentin. That may seem like second-guessing, but my buddy and I were talking last year that we should try to get him. As you know, I wasn't around in the offseason so I'm not sure how much discussion there was on this site about Quentin, but he would have certainly filled a big hole for this team and the White Sox didn't seem to give up much (at least in comparison to what the Rangers gave up for Josh Hamilton). Of course, with all the problems that this team has, I doubt even Quentin would make the Indians a playoff team this year.

16 days ago Buckeye Brad Comment 31 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

There were a few posters that thought we should pursue Quentin in the offseason. I admittingly didn’t know much about him prior to this year

by Roger Dorn on Aug 5, 2008 11:35 AM EDT 0 recs

I thought that Quentin would be a good pickup, but not a good fit for our roster as of spring 2008. We already had commitments to Gutierrez and Choo, plus Francisco looking for a job as fourth outfielder. Why give up someone like Mills/Weglarz to add to our logjam of outfielders? We would have just Marte’d one or more of them.

by jds16 on Aug 5, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think most of the discussions were like,

“Wouldn’t it be nice if we could get Quentin from the D’Backs? He’d probably be an improvement over Dellichaels.”

Not, “OMG We need to get Quentin because he’ll probably OPS 950 in the AL OMG OMG OMG.”

If you need me, I'll be senselessly rooting for Sizemore 40/40 for the remainder of 2008.

by gte619n on Aug 5, 2008 12:18 PM EDT 0 recs

Of course I didn’t think he would be this great, either. I doubt anybody did. But he would certainly have been an improvement over Dellichaels, as you said.

The Shin-Soo Choo of LGT.

by Buckeye Brad on Aug 5, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

The White Sox gave up Chris Carter, who is pretty comparable to Mills and Weglarz. It was a nice move by KW, but he needs to get Quentin into the DH slot, as he has been about the worst defensive left fielder in baseball.

by ClarkM on Aug 5, 2008 12:33 PM EDT 0 recs

This would be a fun game to play if we finished the season 4-5 games out of a playoff spot. But with the bullpen being so bad and the offense being so anemic at the end of games … all of it is moot. Those two factors demolish any “what ifs” that acquiring a certain player brings to the table.

Even if we traded for CQ, he probably would have started the season in AAA, since they would have played Dellucci and Michaels there to begin with. There would be no way they would dump those two in the offseason for the chance that CQ would finally figure it out.

by Toxicadam on Aug 5, 2008 12:51 PM EDT 0 recs

And Lee probably would have gone the other way. Imagine the rotation without Cliff.

by JK in CBus on Aug 5, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

That’s exactly the trade I wanted to make, good thing I don’t run the Indians’ front office.

by Cols714 on Aug 5, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

I too was strongly considering trading Lee – I certainly was wrong about that one and am glad the Indians did not trade him.

I remember hearing analysts saying not long ago that the Angels and Indians were both smart about not trading Ervin Santana and Cliff Lee, as they have certainly performed far better than most thought when the season started.

Kudos to Shapiro and company for holding onto Lee – smart move! :-)

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Aug 5, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

I have to agree.

by Jay on Aug 5, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

Of course that one move wouldn’t “fix” this season—I even stated that above. The article discussed many possible moves; I just wrote about Carlos Quentin in my post.

The Shin-Soo Choo of LGT.

by Buckeye Brad on Aug 5, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think the article was very instructive for another reason. Diatriber does a great job of listing the basically 3-4 possibilities for both bullpen and outfield help that the tribe could have pursued. In either case, 1 of the 3-4 would have been a good pickup, the other 2-3 would have been bad. There was no way to know going in which was the correct deal. I think Shapiro did the right thing by not playing roulette when you have only a 33% chance of success.

Also Shapiro definitely deserves props for not trading Lee. Everyone and their sister wanted Lee traded. Not trading Lee was better than any possible acquisition. Even with this great “acquisition” (Lee), Toxicadam correctly points out the season was lost for other reasons.

I am not a Shapiro syncophant, I’m on the record for hating certain trades. This season is incredibly ugly. But in my mind, Shapiro had a great offseason.

by oxforddave on Aug 5, 2008 2:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

Interesting take. So basically … Cliff Lee was an better acquisition than Carlos Quentin, and as good as any GM made this year.

The temptation to sell low on him must have been absolutely enormous, but here’s one case where Shapiro’s soft spot for “his guys” really paid off for the club.

by Jay on Aug 5, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

One underrated player who is not mentioned: Alexei Ramirez. I thought the Indians were in play on him, but the White Sox prevailed. He has 10 homers so far, hitting .308/.328/.467. Plays second, short and center. The Sox signed him to a four-year deal, which could hurt down the line, but Ramirez would have been a nice addition to the Indians.

by odradek on Aug 6, 2008 12:09 AM EDT 0 recs

The contract is no big deal, only about $5 million total. But his defense has been atrocious — worst range of all 2B. He’s been better than what we had, but he hasn’t been good.

by Jay on Aug 6, 2008 11:18 AM EDT up 0 recs

It’s a nice pickup for the cost. I’m not sure why you think the four year deal could hurt down the line as it is a very team friendly deal. He’s mostly played second, where according to THT, he’s been plain awful. And as I’m typing this, Jay beats me to it. Never mind.

by ClarkM on Aug 6, 2008 11:21 AM EDT up 0 recs

Didn’t know the terms of his deal. His defense sucks, but he gives a team options. I think the league can and will adjust to him, but he would be better than Jamey Carroll, wouldn’t he? Wouldn’t he have value in the outfield?

by odradek on Aug 7, 2008 12:29 AM EDT up 0 recs

don’t we have enough 4th OF types already?

by talonk on Aug 7, 2008 12:34 AM EDT up 0 recs

Apparently, fourth outfielders are extraordinarily valuable, especially if they can hit lefthanded pitching.

by odradek on Aug 7, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up 0 recs

My point here is that we are such apologists for an amazingly disappointing team. We look for the slightest signs of hope from players who may not have any reason to reward such hope. If a player such as Ramirez, as flawed as he is in the field, played on the Indians we would be talking about how good he is. Ditto Denard Span. Here it is, August 6, and the Indians have 49 wins. This team isn’t good. There are many misfortunes attendant to their record, but madre dios this team sucks. Are we prepared to rely on the unrealized potential of players who may never deliver? Ramirez would have been a nice addition to the Indians. A minor one, but he would be pretty sweet. He sure isn’t hitting like any of the Indians’ fourth outfielders.

by odradek on Aug 7, 2008 12:55 AM EDT up 0 recs

I don’t think anyone is being an apologist for the team. They suck, we all know they suck, no one denies that they suck. The question, however, is knowing only what we knew at the time and being purposefully ignorant of everything that has happened since, would Ramirez have been a good pickup? It was perfectly reasonable to assume that Carroll would not have played in 76 games by August.

by FredOx on Aug 7, 2008 9:59 AM EDT up 0 recs

Okay, that’s reasonable. But I think we are biased, as Indians fans, toward Indians players. That’s part of the nature of being fans. We admit they suck, but we hold out hope that next year they will revive and play as we had once hoped they would. This was called, for many years, being a Chicago Cubs fan.

I was looking at Ramirez in the context of hindsight, as DiaTriber says below. What reasonably could we have done that we didn’t do? Carlos Quentin maybe, more bullpen (that is primarily hindsight, I think). Earlier this season I suggested the team could have signed Scott Linebrink, who is now hurt, I think. So that wouldn’t have been a wise move. But the Indians were not flawless, nor were they victims of fickle fate. I think, considering their thin bench, they could have—and should have—taken a flier on Ramirez. I thought so in December.

by odradek on Aug 7, 2008 10:34 AM EDT up 0 recs

Actually my point was relevant to the your “

wouldn’t he have value in the outfield

”. If we had picked up Ramirez, who’s spot would hew have taken? Michaels, Gutz?

As the season started, we had Grady, Gutz, Dellucci, Michaels (and Blake as 5th) already on the roster. We had Choo on the 60 day DL (rady to come off in May) and Francisco in AAA.

Signing Ramirez would have bumped one of them.

by talonk on Aug 7, 2008 10:35 AM EDT up 0 recs

He’s also played shortstop and second base, though he hasn’t been a good fielder. I suppose he could play third—he has the arm. Is it reasonable to suggest the Indians might have taken some protection in case neither Michaels or Dellucci rebounded from substandard 2007s? I realize the Indians figured it was likely one of Gutierrez, Michaels, Dellucci, Choo and Francisco would play to expected levels (or even exceed), so it’s not fair to say they should have foreseen a collapse as monumental as what happened. But—and it’s a minor move, it’s not signing Frankie Rodriguez—I’d say in hindsight the only thing I might have expected them to do that they didn’t do was sign Ramirez. I’m agreeing with you in that there wasn’t a lot to be done.

by odradek on Aug 7, 2008 10:46 AM EDT up 0 recs

Looking forward to the offseason

How does the FO turn this team around, Two starting pitchers, poor bullben, no 3rd or 1st basemen. Big question in Travis Hafner, four 4th outfielders. A good minors, but most are at AA or A ball. 30M in dumped salary to spend on FA but looking at the available 2009 FA list it is etiher 15m player or crap.

Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Aug 6, 2008 11:48 AM EDT 0 recs

If Quentin had been brought in, the usual suspects would’ve decried it as picking up someone young and cheap instead of spending money on a “name.”

Remember too, there was a chorus on the various Tribe boards about trading for Crawford. How’s that looking now?

by spreidel on Aug 6, 2008 12:34 PM EDT 0 recs

I really don’t care what the “usual suspects” think, and I’m sure that Shapiro doesn’t either. If we traded for Quentin and he hit like he’s doing now, the fans would love him. Shapiro doesn’t make moves based on what the fans think or he wouldn’t have traded Colon or CC.

The Shin-Soo Choo of LGT.

by Buckeye Brad on Aug 6, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

I would certainly hope Shapiro doesn’t care, since so much of the local “wisdom” is misguided if not downright inimical to building a contending team.

Regardless, the point of The DiaTribe post was to compare and contrast what were hypothetical acquisitions during the offseason with what we know now in an attempt to address the 20/20 hindsight so rampant around the team currently.

IMHO, a significant portion (but not all) of that hindsight comes from the “Dolan is cheap/Shapiro is an idiot/I hate Wedge” dogmatists. In hammering their square peg into their round hole, acquiring Sizemore was “lucky,” Carmona just learned how to pitch last season, the ridiculous Westbrook/Hafner contracts simply don’t exist, and the team would significantly benefit from bringing back players like Vizquel or Crisp.

In that context then, a dismissal of Quentin as a cheap alternative seems plausible. If he has his current season in a Tribe uni, we got lucky on a guy who “had never done it before.” If he flops, “what do you expect from a career minor leaguer?”

Do I know this for sure? No. But this whole discussion is about hypothetical situations.

by spreidel on Aug 6, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think we know it for sure.

by Jay on Aug 6, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

Regardless, the point of The DiaTribe post was to compare and contrast what were hypothetical acquisitions during the offseason with what we know now in an attempt to address the 20/20 hindsight so rampant around the team currently.

That was the point exactly, as well as to point out that no one move was going to be the “cure all” to make a profound enough impact on this team that we’ve been forced to endure.

by The DiaTriber on Aug 6, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’m still catching up after being away, and just read your column on the front office’s non-moves. Basically, I agree that their strategy was reasoned and that there’s not much they could have done differently that would have made a significant difference. I do, think, though, that the bullpen merited more attention and that they could have improved it without giving away the store. They had experience in 2006 with a good bullpen going bad (although, in that case, they moved a bunch of guys who had been important parts in 2005), so they clearly knew bullpens were volatile. Betancourt’s drop-off was predictable (although not that BIG of a drop-off) as was Borowski’s (as you note). They really only had four guys they were bringing back on whom they were counting (Perez, Lewis, JoBo and Betancourt), so adding some depth made sense. They added Masa, which was logical. But, otherwise they brought in the equivalent of Danny Graves and Jose (was that his name?) Jimenez, with predictable results. They’d be much less open to criticism if they’d gone after someone like Lidge aggressively, or anted up for someone like Linebrink. There’s a lot of luck involved, obviously—how did the Rays resurrect Troy Percival? But, that’s the one area where I think they were too cautious and where more aggressive moves would have really made a difference to the team’s overall performance.

by peter m on Aug 7, 2008 10:49 AM EDT up 0 recs