2002 All-Star Team Available in Free Agency
I was going to write a comment in response to APV in that other thread. Then, I went looking for a list of remaining free agents and found this article.
So my question is this:
Is the usual resolution to a sluggish free agent market that a lot of players sign one-year, incentive-laden deals (like Garland just did) and then hope for better times?
If so, isn't there a good argument to be made for the Indians capitalizing on this rare occurrence and try to get another outfielder and a starting pitcher for cheap? Does anyone think this has a chance of happening?
over 3 years ago
NickFantana
100 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
now that the other one is gone, i feel safe to comment here.
it’s obviously up to the budget. if it truly is maxed out, it won’t happen. i’ve got to think shaponetti is wanting to take advantage of this though.
On this topic, but less realistic, how many posts do you think there would be on LGT on the day the news broke that we signed Manny?
I can say that I would personally be responsible for somewhere in the 40 post neighborhood.
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
i’d crack 75 easy
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Jan 30, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
About 5% of the number of posts that would be on cleveland.com.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 30, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
I think Ryan and Jay would have to temporarily deputive a few additional moderators for rule enforcement if that happened
Until he pulled a hamstring in his first AB
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 30, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
The ironic thing about our extremely tight budget is that we don’t even have enough money tied up in bad contracts to unload in favor of a bargain free agent. (And no Hafner doesn’t count.)
Even unloading Dellucci in a Shoppach deal would more or less be a lateral move. Unless you’re just not sold on Shoppach and/or we could get a good prospect in return, despite our trading partners eating $4 million in payroll.
I made the comment elsewhere, but the only move that would truly give us some room inside our budget would be to trade Victor for prospects.
Well, I agree. I think 98% of the fanbase would be up in arms.
But from a value perspective, his ability to be replaced (defensively), his age and how close he is to the end of his contract … he makes the most sense.
I just don’t think there is a FA out there that would be worth all the grief that trading Victor would cause.
I don’t like your logic (and logic is the deduction of facts), but we’re trying to build a championship team here. At some point we have to say our time is now and this year is the year! I love it when some one chimes in that we’re going to win the whole thing and for this to happen, we need to have Victor (and others) to have a career year. Otherwise, do we keep building for when? We have a good team (at least on paper), every slot in the lineup is relatively proven, our reserves are potent, the bullpen has been re-made (again). We need to pitch, hit, and field effectively; that’s called playing the game. Our division is mediocre, the playoffs are a crap shoot, I’ve been to Reno and put my bets down (to win the whole thing!). Bring on the season!
I love the idea of getting a bargain on a good player while other teams are getting cold feet. Is there any chance Dolan spends more than he originally planned? (Not trying to re-open the Dunn can of worms, just curious.)
by cleveland teamer on Jan 30, 2009 3:00 PM EST reply actions
You could make the argument that there is hidden money created from ad revenue of STO, but when you consider that (economically) the bottom has fallen out in the advertising world, its hard to imagine it would be enough to justify the expense.
what people aren’t getting cable? It’s pretty stacked that a good chunk of people who didn’t have cable before are going to get it to avoid the digital switch problems and simply have……cable. I don’t think the Indians are hurting that much due to STO taking a plunge. I’m pretty sure they are doing well having their own cable network. Not an excuse for not spending more money (not that there are other good excuses).
Isn’t that solution only available if you already have cable?
by Logodaedalus on Jan 31, 2009 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
No. If you have cable, then you don’t need a converter.
The converter box receives over-the-air digital signal and converts them for analog TVs.
Analog TV = tv with antennae, receives its signal as an actual wave form instead of information through a wire (cable tvs).
No. Analog refers to the signal itself, not the transmission of it. When you connect a VCR to a TV — if you’re old enough to know what a VCR is — that’s an analog signal, it’s a waveform and not a bunch of zeros and ones. Pretty sure most video connections are still analog — coax, component RCA, S-Video, etc. I believe DVI and HDMI are the only digital connections. That means that almost everyone using digital cable is still connecting to their TV via analog — which makes sense, because until very recently, TV’s only had analog connections.
Well, I connect my cable to my TV via HDMI, but it’s still copper coax coming in, so it’s analog somewhere along the line, at least until FiOS…
I have no idea what the impact will be, but there is still potentially a “DTV problem” in areas where reception via antenna is marginal. My in-laws get weak analog signals that are still watchable. The digital signals are below the threshold at which the digital tuner in the converter gives up, so most of the time they get no picture at all (the so-called “cliff effect” that has nothing to do with the 2008 AL CYA winner). A better antenna might solve the problem, but it is possible that the terrain and distance to the source mean that they have to get cable (or just use hulu).
Will DirecTV come to my neighborhood in the middle of the night and surreptitiously remove the large trees in my neighbor’s yard that prevent a clear line of sight to the satellite? I’d pay a lot if they would.
If you live in Youngstown, you can get the mafia to do that for you, but I don’t remember there being many trees in Youngstown.
There’s not much of anything in Younstown any more.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 3, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
I think digital cable can go over copper coax if the quality is up to a certain standard.
by Jay on Feb 2, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
Isn’t that exactly what is going to happen during the switch? We’re all keeping our existing copper coax and it’s just transmitting info now.
No, the switch only has to do with over-the-air broadcasting. The analog broadcasts will stop, so that analog antennas and tuners will get nothing. Digital broadcasts will replace analog, but you need a digital receiver and/or tuner — or a digital receiver with a digital-to-analog adapter for your analog tuner — in order to receive it.
If you’re getting your signals from a cable company or a satellite, however, nothing will change at all, because they’ll keep sending you the same signal they always have, and they’ve probably been getting the local stations digitally for years.
by Jay on Feb 3, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
Right, okay, the copper coax is probably not capable of transmitting digital anyway, and the signal is staying purely analog. Got twisted around for a sec.
No, copper coax can transmit digital if it’s good enough. My digital cable is coming into the house over copper.
by Jay on Feb 4, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions
I really don’t see why this is necessary. They’ve been advertising this switch on TV nonstop for TWO YEARS. The mention it on the news every day. If you haven’t prepared for it yet, what is a few more months going to do?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 31, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
Some people don’t have a spare 40 dollars for a converter, I think.
by NickFantana on Jan 31, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Those people by definition couldn’t afford to buy cable then either….
by Logodaedalus on Jan 31, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
Right, but hans was saying that some people would get cable to avoid the digital switch problem. I was pointing out that not being able to afford a converter box wasn’t a case where that would make sense, because then they couldn’t afford cable either.
So I was agreeing with you.
Makes sense, given my initial misunderstanding about what a converter box was for (I’d been under the impression that you needed a converter box for cable, but wasn’t aware that you could get one for over the air signals…. though it seems obvious now that such a device would come about eventually if it hadn’t already)
The problem isn’t ratings or number of people getting cable or STO. Its that, in this economy, companies can’t afford to spend as much on advertising.
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 31, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
I can give you that, but its still a avenue of revenue (whoa I kinda like that phrase) that the organization did not have prior to starting STO.
but the cracker barrel’s obsolete, obsolete!
by Logodaedalus on Jan 31, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
Just to toss something out into the “When Hades Freezes Over” category, try this scenario:
The Dodgers get sick and tired of waiting on Manny, they go ahead and sign Dunn at a discounted rate. Manny gets upset and fires Boras once Training Camp enters the 3rd week and he’s still unsigned. With a new agent in tow, the Indians swoop in and offer 2 yrs @ $40 Mil with payments of roughly $4 Mil/per year over 10 years. Oh, and the patented Shapiro 3rd Year Club Option based upon the same $20 Mil per year formula. Manny gets to ride out the economic storm in the comfy confines of Cleveland and in two years, at 38, decides if he wants to continue playing or retire directly to the HOF (wearing a Tribe Cap and another WS ring).
Hey, can you blame me – it’s not like there’s any baseball to watch. Imagination runs wild… and there’s only so much Bennyhillifier and Snuggie commercials one can watch.
Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that there's still a lot of Pronk in Hafner. Oh, and for all the love of Cliffy, there's still a Sleepy Kitten inside.
A more likely scenario would be the one-year Juan Gonzalez deal, 2000 version.
Dolan would conceivably invest $10 million of his own personal cash in one year of Manny. He would not do a $20 million deal under any conceivable circumstances.
How much in ticket sales would all these not-as-educated-as-LGT and fair-weather fans add to our revenue bc of Manny? Offer him 75% of that #, and make money on the deal — if he takes it.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
Oh, I think ticket sales would improve among us “educated” and “dedicated” folk as well. But I don’t know how much it boosts ticket sales in this economy.
This. Paying Manny $10M probably, even in this economy, would probably be a really good investment if you consider what a sucker Clevelanders are for Former Tribe.
I like the use of “Former Tribe” without the definite article and capitalized
by APV on Feb 1, 2009 8:40 AM EST up reply actions
I understand the face of this new “No one is getting signed” discussion is Manny, but I’m thinking Dunn and Sheets.
OH MY GOD Sheets would be awesome.
Steel Nick
OH MY GOD Healthy Sheets would be awesome.
fixed.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
I’m going to captain the S.S. Good Health For Any Player In a Tribe Uniform Would Generally Be Considered a Good Thing and Therefore Should Be Understood.
Steel Nick
Then the Dellucci Torpedo is coming your way.
by JRontherim on Jan 31, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
At this point any likely Sheets deal is going to be a good pickup.
The way I see it is Sheets is probably going to sign a one year deal for $8- $10 million. Maybe a vesting option for a second year.
That’s great cost benefit analysis anyway you look at it, injuries and all. One of the latest fangraph articles explains it well when they say a half season of a Sheets/Johnson is better than a full season of a pitcher like Garland.
by world dictator on Jan 31, 2009 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
Am I the only one who’d like to acquire Rich Hill?
I’m a sucker for buying extremely low on players.
i’m prepping for my annual “grady sizemore season’s dream”
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 1, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
- The Ron Washington puppet is watching you while you sleep — and has possibly jinxed the Rangers
