If Brewers make the playoffs, Tribe chooses PTBNL

If the Brewers make the playoffs, the Indians get to choose the "player to be named" to complete the Sabathia deal. If the Brewers don't make the postseason, they get to choose the player they'll send the Indians.
...
The player to be named could come from a list of four players. Outfielder Michael Brantley and third baseman Taylor Green are the most talented players on the list.

about 1 year ago TheDanimal 34 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i’m surprised they didn’t tie it more to C.C.‘s performance more specifically. if they don’t make the playoffs, it certianly won’t be because they didn’t get what they traded for.

by Brick. on Sep 8, 2008 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For some reason, I just don’t believe this news. But I guess if the Indians don’t deny it .. it must be true.

by Toxicadam on Sep 8, 2008 1:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I still don’t believe it. This has been linked twice before, but I do think it deserves its own fanshot b/c it’s a pretty big piece of news, I think.

by kwoog on Sep 8, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hoynes may be an idiot but he does have sources and there must be some basis for this. Still…….

Why would the Indians make a deal that could diminish in value if CC does well and the rest of the team tanks, especially given Sheets’ injury history? And would the Brewers be able to pawn off an injured player?

If what Hoynes is reporting is accurate, maybe the list is smaller than four, maybe two as initially reported. If Shap knew he was getting Green or Brantley no matter what (possibly with an injury clause), then I can see agreeing to this condition. If it’s four players, the spread is potentially greater and the Indians would be losing a great deal of control over the outcome.

by SuddenSam on Sep 8, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would the Indians make a deal that could diminish in value if CC does well and the rest of the team tanks, especially given Sheets’ injury history?

We’ll probably never know, but consider that it may have been a sticking point in the negotiations and Shapiro said “eff it, it’s illogical but a small concession”.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Sep 8, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn’t Shapiro tout the PTBNL, and the “later” part of him as a benefit for the Tribe in the negotiations? I was under the impression the entire time that we negotiated the “named later” status as a way to increase the value we were getting back, since we could scout these guys more thoroughly (and the Brewers could get CC asap). I thought this was explicitly stated in the press conference, but this new report completely underminds that.

by kwoog on Sep 8, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, it only undermines that if the Brewers lose their wild-card lead. If they make the playoffs, it goes down exactly as you just described.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 8, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’ll undermine your face!

by Brick. on Sep 8, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and Shapiro said "eff it, it’s illogical but a small concession".

There were other potential bidders and nearly a month to go before the deadline. Shap was dealing from strength at that time.

by SuddenSam on Sep 8, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WTF?

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Sep 8, 2008 5:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

http://39ontheline.blogspot.com/2008/09/friend-in-need-is-friend-indeed.html

Also pretty sure about the PTBNL in the CC trade, so much so I informed the player today. Wont be announced until after the world series, or at least that is my understanding.

Dunno what to make of that…

by Toxicadam on Sep 8, 2008 6:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This guy has no credibility any more.

by Voltaire on Sep 8, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Hoynes has no credibility. I think its roughly 50/50…

by Fundamentals on Sep 9, 2008 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s gotta be Brantley.

by jhon on Sep 8, 2008 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m surprised no one has pointed out that this could work out in our favor. Everyone assumes that this scenario pits a mediocre player ( if the Brewers pick) versus a good player (if the tribe picks) when it could easily be a good player if the Brewers pick versus a REALLY good player if the Indians pick.

Or, the Indians might like all the players on the PTBNL list, in which case their might not be a significant difference in terms of the talent.

by world dictator on Sep 8, 2008 7:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and how do we not know there are two separate lists? like, if the brewers don’t make the playoffs, they pick from a list that shapiro likes anyway – say brantley or green. but if they DO make the playoffs, the list expands to include people like Gamel et all.

by Gradyforpresident on Sep 8, 2008 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Melvin says, you can’t have two stud prospects. I can give you a couple other quality guys, but I can’t give up two studs for a rental, Cy Young or no Cy Young.

Shapiro, says, well, I might settle for that, but I do have other offers, and I know you want to get this done quickly. What if you give us one stud and one other quality guy, and the level of the third guy is based on whether you make the playoffs? If you make it, then you have to give us a second stud, or close to it, otherwise, just a second quality guy. That would be a lot easier for the organization and fans to swallow if you actually make the playoffs, wouldn’t it? And you’d be getting extra revenue in that situation.

It does not make sense in the reverse case.

by Jay on Sep 8, 2008 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello world dictator and Jay,

I was wondering about two separate lists, depending on whether MIL makes the postseason or not, but that idea between a good, solid prospect and a great, potential-high-impact prospect makes more sense.

Would there be any difference in quality of prospect in regards to how far the Brewers advance in the postseason or how Sabathia himself fares in the postseason or would that be too extreme and it’s likely just the Brewers making the postseason or not that would strictly determine the level of prospect we receive?

Presuming the level of prospect will be determined by whether the Brewers make the postseason or not, who do you think the additional prospect could be if the Brewers do make the postseason? Could Gamel, Escobar, or Salome be a realistic possibility or is that too high and it would be a notch below that, and if so, who would be some likely targets – Jeffress, perhaps?

Just my 2 cents.

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

by indiansfan on Sep 9, 2008 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I sounds redundant to say hello world dictator AND Jay.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 9, 2008 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s Brantley, according to Gammons, according to some dude on Brewerfan. I’m not an Insider, so I can’t confirm.

BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"

by battlekow on Sep 8, 2008 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Gammons asks the question if the Twins would’ve been better off holding on to Santana either for the full year or keeping him and trading him “for Matt LaPorta and Michael Brantley”. He may have just used Brantley as an example of what the Indians may get? I don’t know. He definitely didn’t explicity state that was the final deal.

by TribeJay on Sep 8, 2008 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This “PTBLN” is one of the most exciting events of the season.

by Voltaire on Sep 8, 2008 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought it was PLTBN?

by Jay on Sep 8, 2008 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I prefer Player Whose Name We Do Not Yet Know But Whose Identity Provides Much Joy In This Lost Season, but PWNWDNYKBWIPMJITLS doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

by FredOx on Sep 9, 2008 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think PTBNL seems to roll off the tongue better, or at least, off my tongue better. :-)

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

by indiansfan on Sep 9, 2008 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ah crap. My bad.

by Voltaire on Sep 9, 2008 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You were close – just that switcheroo between the last two letters. :-)

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

by indiansfan on Sep 9, 2008 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

here’s maybe my problem with the twins: even had they waited they’d trade him for the same sort of package. and i have no idea if that sentence has any basis in reality.

BUT JESUS MINNESOTA GET SOME YOUNG POWER HITTERS. or don’t, rather.

by Gradyforpresident on Sep 8, 2008 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn’t Santana have a limited no trade clause though? That was the whole crux of the problem for the Twins they weren’t dealing with an open market for the guy

by hans on Sep 9, 2008 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

right right right

by Voltaire on Sep 9, 2008 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, stop it. You’re an insider to us, Raging Bovine.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 8, 2008 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

According to Castrovince, Shapiro will neither confirm nor deny Hoynes’ report. Yawn. Can we get this over with already?

BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"

by battlekow on Sep 9, 2008 7:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

no kidding. at this point, i don’t know if people even care who the player is. i can see it now: “Tribe gets Brantley”…… “Yeah, yeah. That’s nice, but HOW did it go down?”

by Brick. on Sep 9, 2008 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs