What Could Have Been...

I don't put a lot of stock in these retroactive, after-the-fact articles. But I figured it would be worth pointing this out.

The reported package for Hernandez can be found here.

4 months ago gorilla_baller 15 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The drama here rests on the reporting by the Seattle Times here. Felix is only under contract through 2011. I do not believe that Boston was ready to give up all five of Buchholz, Bowden, Bard, Masterson and Hagadone to get those 2.4 seasons of Felix. It’s just not credible, even if Felix is the best pitcher in the majors.

by Jay on Oct 12, 2009 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

As I read the article I had a thought:

Would it be conceivable, financially and logically, for the Indians to sign a small handful of veterans this offseason for the sole purpose of flipping them midseason for more bullets in 2011 and beyond? And not just flotsam and jetsam, but someone who might actually cost a few million before incentives. Are we willing to pick up that type of salary, knowing that the potential return on a trade can be worth a lot more?

John Smoltz announced that he would like to pitch next year. There’s money to be saved by the contracts of Peralta and Shoppach, players we already think might be on their way out this offseason.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 12, 2009 4:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I used to do this in Madden. I’d sign the free agents I had no intention of using then trade them for high draft picks.

In all seriousness, I think you’d have to look ahead and try to anticipate market trends and also take into account the Indians resources. It’s a no-brainer that the Indians are not exactly the most financially stable team right now. Can they afford to take on the contract of a John Smoltz, assuming he performs well and incentives kick in and no one wants him? That’s fine if it coincides with the Indians winning. But if (substitute veteran of choice) pitches well but no one touches him because of age, injury potential, or simply lack of interest, can his contract be absorbed without crippling the team?

Also, look at what Pavano net the Indians. Pavano pitched better than anybody thought he would. He was a stable back of the rotation guy who threw a few front of rotation games from time to time. Trading him got the Indians Yohan Pino, an older guy with a bit of upside. He’s intriguing, but he’s not the kind of guy I’d want to build my farm system around. Teams are more reticent to trade upper-level prospects than ever.

It seems like an exercise in risk analysis, something I’m not very good at.

My uncle says you've got a screw loose.
Your uncle molests collies.

by gorilla_baller on Oct 12, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

More to the point, Pino isn’t the kind of guy you’d pay $3 million to acquire the rights to.

by Jay on Oct 12, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly. Pavano made sense in that the Indians thought they would contend this season and a productive Pavano would help them in that light. To do a signing just to trade a guy away during the season (and assumingly not eat up the rest of the contract) would not be worth the investment (adjusting for the risk of course, if we get the Millwood thing all over again thats another story).

by hans on Oct 12, 2009 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This would be outsmarting yourself, in my opinion. If you sign veterans, they have to be on the roster — that means you have to dump someone you might want to keep on the 40-man. It also means a kid sits at AAA instead of being called up and given major-league experience. We have a ton of AAAA guys at this point — especially on the pitching side. Seems to me we have to figure out if any of them is a viable major leaguer. We won’t find that out by parking them in Columbus while Jamie Moyer or John Smoltz or someone similar staggers towards the end of their career.

Now, if you want to hire an actual major league starter to stabilize our rotation, and if that starter is older and is a bit of a risk, I could go for that if the terms were like what we did with Pavano. It would be consistent with the idea that the team can be remade into a contender within 2-3 years. Flipping veterans won’t help much in that time frame.

by peter m on Oct 12, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m always trying to outsmart myself, and finding I lack the smarts to do so.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 12, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I’m assuming this may annoy other teams to the point that they would be content to let the Indians be stuck with their ill-gotten gains.

by fwembt on Oct 13, 2009 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And spite themselves in the process? No. There’s no crying in baseball.

by Jay on Oct 13, 2009 5:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Were talking about John Smoltz here though. If the Indians bid high to get him and then try to flip him I think that will engender some ill-will. Teams would have to pay both the higher salary and a price in prospects.

I can’t really envision this happening though.

by fwembt on Oct 14, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In that scenario, the issue wouldn’t be ill-will but rather too high of a price.

by Jay on Oct 14, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True. Don’t you think that doing something like that would engender ill-will? Am I looking too hard for a problem that wouldn’t be there?

by fwembt on Oct 14, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think teams question one another’s motivations when they get out-bid for a player. If another GM pays more for the player than you were willing to play, from your perspective, it means one of three things. Either (a) that player is more valuable on that other roster than on yours, or (b) they have more money to blow, or (c) they’ve made a mistake and overvalued that player.

by Jay on Oct 14, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs