The Indians, that's what they do all the time. They get good players that are doing good and they trade them every time.
I don't think they like to spend a lot money and stuff. They like to try and work in the young players.
4 months ago
col323
100 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
All in all, it’s a pretty accurate statement.
by Ryan on Oct 5, 2009 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
is he then implying that he realizes he is not one of those ‘good’ players? or just that he is not ‘doing good’?
by Brick. on Oct 5, 2009 3:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was wishing upon a star they would trade him this year! I am a fan of Agent M!
by ssg_schuler on Oct 5, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know, I’m always happy to hear Jhonny in his own words, but would it kill the press to hire their own translator every once in a while? Even in Spanish, I guess, it’s possible that Jhonny isn’t all that articulate, but I’m really interested to know whether he intends to be as terse as he comes across.
In any event, yeah, he’s pretty much got the program, hasn’t he?
by fleerdon on Oct 5, 2009 4:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Victor made some similar statements this past weekend.
‘’I thought I was going to stay in Cleveland,’’ Martinez said Friday. ‘’I made it clear I would stay, but the owner [Larry and Paul Dolan] was thinking something different. It wasn’t my fault. It wasn’t Mark Shapiro’s fault or Eric Wedge’s fault. But the owner wanted to take a different route.’’
‘’If you want to compete in the big leagues you have to put a really good team together,’’ he said. ‘’If you don’t keep that team together — I guess that’s their [ownership’s] choice.’’
by Roger Dorn on Oct 5, 2009 4:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is nonsense, especially the second quote, and all it’s doing is feeding the trolls.
You know what you have to do to compete in the big leagues, Vic? You have to win games. That’s in fact the entire definition of competing. And, when faced with the opportunity to do so, in 2006, 2008 and in 2009, you and your compatriots failed to win games-you failed to compete, even when your team was kept entirely intact.
So, what is the really good team we’re talking about? The one that featured you, Blake, Sabathia, Lee and couldn’t even stay in contention through the All-Star Break? That’s not a good team, Victor.
In fact, there’s a preponderance of evidence that the Indians are and have been, with the exception of one brilliant exception, a sincerely bad team since 2006. I get that it was your team but perhaps you and the rest of the players that were run out of town, or however you imagine it, might reflect on how poorly you played as a group when the chips were down.
by afh4 on Oct 5, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 8 recs
Concur. I do find it interesting that quotes are surfacing from the players directing some hostility toward ownership.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 5, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We tend to assume that the players, being intimately involved in the situation, have some understanding of it. I think the quotes of Cliff, Vic, and Jhonny show that they don’t.
by fwembt on Oct 5, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think it’s fairly natural to lament in the direction of the highest man on the totem pole and/or whoever signs the checks. plus, you know shapiro is having that heart to heart with victor where he’s telling him he’s been traded saying things like “i wish i could keep you forever, but my hands are tied.” the union isn’t telling them ways they can fix the system to keep big market disparity in check…
by Brick. on Oct 5, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t know. I mean, they are asked what they think about the Indians’ situation. Something didn’t go right- they are being asked to blame the Manager, GM, or Ownership.
In Vic’s case, he had pretty good things to say about Wedge. Him and Shap seemed to have a love fest- who else do you take your anger out on? Dolan has the easy target. I don’t blame them for failing to make the next logical step that its not really his fault either, that is the structure of the MLB. And even if a player makes that step in his head, the union doesn’t want their players going after a structure that has been very good to them and one that is likely to get them paid in the near future.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 5, 2009 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The prevailing attitude is “What did that guy get? And what do I deserve relative to what he got?” Even those (few) players that consider the faults in the competitive landscape suspend that judgment when it’s their turn to get theirs.
I don’t blame them for that. They system always looks different to a dissociated third party than it does to the actors in the system. And even if the players recognized what’s up, they have the right to cash in as would the rest of us. Since Jim Thome left, I’ve believed that there’s no such thing as loyalty.
But I question what the players really understand—- are they aware of the economic structure of the game and the motivations behind their organization’s decision-making? The way managers and coaches vote on gold glove awards tells you all you need to know on whether the actors inside the system have a clue.
by xrickx on Oct 5, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I question what the players really understand—- are they aware of the economic structure of the game and the motivations behind their organization’s decision-making?
It’s about point-of-view. From where they sit, they are looking at things very personally. It is their money, their relationships, their teammates, their coaches, their life that we are talking about. Even if they tried and studied the more macro parts of the game that we do, it wouldn’t look the same to them, I don’t think we should expect it to.
Victor (or Cliff or Jhonny) saw a great team in 2007. He saw injuries ruin the start of 2008 and then arguably the best pitcher on that team traded away. I wouldn’t be surprised if Shap has said things like, “I would have kept him if I could, but it wasn’t my choice”. We take that information and blame the inequities of MLB. They take that information and say, ownership wouldn’t allow Shap to consider signing him. Are they really that far off? Especially from their point-of-view.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 5, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loyalty, for most baseball players, is a fluid concept. It means: pay me $80 million and I will stay here with you forever. Those are pretty steep terms to honor. Although the union probably wouldn’t permit it, Victor could have told his agent to sign a deal with Cleveland to allow him to finish his career with the Indians. Kind of like what Andre Dawson did with the Cubs during one of the previous eras of collusion: I’ll sign it; you fill in the amount.
by odradek on Oct 5, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i assure you— the union has a say, but does not have “the” say. victor could have re-signed for a cheap deal. it just so happens that the one player (victor) who may have been willing to do so (who knows when actual numbers are discussed) was a soon-to-be 31 year old catcher.
but don’t underestimate the fact that the indians felt they lacked enough quality pitching prospects to rebound. the only way to infuse that talent in the grady/choo/asdrubal/laporta era of indians baseball was to trade for it. and the only players available to trade that would net a decent return were cliff and victor.
i really think it comes down mostly to the fact that the indians needed pitching, and they needed it now. and santana is not that far off. and shoppach/marson aren’t offensive black holes. why spend $10M (is that a cheap victor deal?) annually when you don’t need to?
by xrickx on Oct 5, 2009 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We tend to assume that the former players, being intimately involvedin the situationwith baseball, have some understanding of it. I think the quotes ofCliff, Vic, and JhonnyTim McCarver and Joe Morgan show that they don’t.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Oct 6, 2009 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He talks as though they broke up the 2007 squad. They didn’t, until the 2008 squad tanked. And by the time they traded C.C., Lee had become a reasonable replacement for him. The real issue is that the 2007 squad did not perform and/or stay healthy in subsequent seasons.
by Jay on Oct 5, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. Had this team shown any capacity to contend, Lee, et.al. would never have been traded.
by jdudas on Oct 5, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Victor wasn’t even healthy last year. He played injured for over 2 months and then was out for a month before we traded Sabathia.
by Joe. on Oct 5, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what? He’s talking about a team and injuries contribute to team success or failure. It doesn’t matter if they’d all gotten hurt-when you follow up 2007 with the last two seasons, regardless of the reason, it’s highly unlikely you’re going to be kept together because of your self-recognized brilliance.
by afh4 on Oct 5, 2009 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ooh, I luv it when the former idolizers turn on their idols.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 6, 2009 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some of us are capable of feeling more than one way, even at the same time. Startling, I know.
by afh4 on Oct 6, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is a huge blow to the sabermetricians-as-robots meme.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 6, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I only think whatever Bill James tells me to think.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 6, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This line of thinking, the one that “feeds the trolls”, falls in line with the notion that all of these former Indians are in the playoffs and…sigh…wouldn’t it be great if they were all still here. Like Andrew says, they’re not here because they didn’t win, particularly early in the season, and changes were made to a team that wasn’t winning.
The 2007 team was brought back nearly entirely intact for 2008, and they were 12 games out by the 4th of July. The 2009 team had all of these “good” players, but they were 12 games out again by the 4th of July.
It may be tough to see these guys all playing in the post-season this year, but when they had two chances to win eminently winnable divisions in 2008 and 2009…they didn’t.
No amount of hindsight or sorrow is going to change that.
Why they weren’t winning is the more important question…not why they’re no longer here, because we know the answer to that.
by The DiaTriber on Oct 6, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like labor doesn’t understand management. It would be nice if Shapiro – accompanied by Korean/Spanish translators – could clarify to his players exactly why the FO does what it does. Maybe he does explain himself to the group – or maybe it’s only on an individual level – but honestly, a good 5 minute discussion is really all it takes for even an average blog-follower to understand how these decisions work.
by joeee on Oct 5, 2009 6:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
accompanied by Korean/Spanish translators
If I were Choo, I’d be pretty satisfied with whatever is happening, as long as I’m not back home fighting Kim Jong Il
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 5, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They trade all the good players? What about Hafner? Westbrook?
I don’t expect the labor to understand management’s perspective (to phrase it as joeee did so above). But they can at least acknowledge it. I want just one player to say “They Indians spent heavily on Hafner and Westbrook, and look how that turned out. I understand it’s a risk for them, too.”
Also, I’d take less commentary on strategic management from the most disappointing player on 2009’s most disappointing team. Let Shapiro worry about contract offers, and you worry about that .375 SLG.
by xrickx on Oct 5, 2009 8:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hafner? Westbrook?
OK, so they didn’t trade the untradable players.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 6, 2009 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he meant trade them before they hit free agency/sign an extension.
by hans on Oct 6, 2009 1:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do UAW line assembly people know why GM is struggling? Do airline maintanance crew people know why American Airlines is struggling?
by elsandito on Oct 5, 2009 9:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the GM guys do anyway. It’s cuz management was/is more interested in profits than quality.
You knew everything you needed to know when Ford decided to move the gastank in the Pinto 9 inches forward to save ~26 bucks a car. That’s when it was clear to me that the accounts had succeeded the engineers in running that business.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 6, 2009 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My dad and both brothers worked at ford and all three of them agreed that the Auto Companies would someday fail if the union and management did not change there way of thinking. The UAW would demand more money/time off and other benefits that did not fit in with the norm that other factory workers received. What the Auto Co would do was just cave in and adds what it would cost to the price of the next years car or cut the quality. This is the same thing that is happening in sports world.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Oct 12, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I understand it, the current Work Rules Contract of the UAW with a company like GM resembles the United States Tax Code.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Oct 14, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
… and this conversation is teetering on the brink of politics, and therefore, it’s over.
by Jay on Oct 14, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
peralta should be happy wedge is gone, he never got along with wedge anyways
by johnf34 on Oct 5, 2009 9:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is easily my favorite image from the season.
by Jeffrey R on Oct 6, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I’m gonna run with it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 6, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i understand the non-level playing field that is mlb but how different is detroit from cleveland? how are the tigers able to spend so much more than the indians? isn’t the economy hitting them just as hard, if not worse, than it is cleveland? inquiring minds want to know.
by hyphens on Oct 5, 2009 11:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
1) the tigers’ stadium is newer and they more recently benefited from the new-park interest in comerica
2) the tigers resurgence after the 119 loss season is more recent — they’re still riding the benefit of that resurgence much like the indians did in the late 90s despite some years not having a truly top-level team
3) the tigers are owned by mike illitch, who also owns the detroit red wings. they are the yankees of the NHL. apparently, illitch doesn’t run the tigers as a for profit enterprise (per the recent SI article) he just wants to win. i’m not sure if the tigers are in the red or if he’s using NHL proceeds to subsidize the tigers, but that’s his business even if he is.
4) lebron doesn’t play for the pistons.
5) i don’t follow football, but the lions are worse than the browns.
by xrickx on Oct 5, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but the lions are worse than the browns
Nope, sorry, they’re not.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 6, 2009 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
A month ago I would have laughed at you for this… now I really wish I could.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 6, 2009 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Though I think the point he is really trying to make is that the city of Detroit is not in a love affair with the Lions in the way that Cleveland is with the Browns.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 6, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They really are. We’ve still won more games over the last two seasons and we’ll win more this year. One win doesn’t end a slump any more than one hit does.
by fwembt on Oct 6, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again you’re talking history. I’m talkin’ about today and today – if it weren’t for the Raiders – the Browns could be the worst team in the NFL.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 6, 2009 3:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They play each other this season, so we will have the opportunity to find out. Let’s wait until then.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 6, 2009 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, the Rams are by far the worst team in the NFL.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 6, 2009 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhh Brad ……..tell me, who plays the Mike Back for the Rams?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 7, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s your point? Are they better than the Browns because they have a former Buckeye playing middle linebacker?
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 7, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just shocked that a Ohio chauvanist would consider any pro team with a former Buckeye on it the worst in the NFL is all.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 7, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Chiefs (0-4) have Donald Washington on their roster.
The Browns (0-4) have Brian Robiskie on their roster.
The Raiders (0-4) have Jay Richardson on their roster.
The Titans (0-4) have Doug Datish on their roster.
The Buccaneers (0-4) have Will Allen on their roster.
The Panthers (0-3) have Chris Gamble on their roster.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Oct 7, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN (sucks) has Robert Smith on their roster.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 7, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You see a pattern here?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 8, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to do the same thing for the undefeated teams, but the first team I pulled up (Giants) had no Ohio St. players. You win, Chuck.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 8, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, you’re right. If you have a former Buckeye on your team them then you’re doomed to failure in the NFL.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 8, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That might be a bit much.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 7, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What else would you expect from Chuck?
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 8, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An Ohio chauvanist? Really, Chuck?
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 8, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I should be more specific. An Ohio State chauvinist. And yeah, really.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 8, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So are we all Tribe chauvinists?
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 9, 2009 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I probably am an Ohio chauvinist then, at least for all areas besides Cincy.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 9, 2009 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Cincinnati was in Kentucky?
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Oct 11, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True that.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 11, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I AM A CLEVELAND INDIANS CHAUVINIST AND PROUD OF IT!
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Oct 12, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by “chauvinist” you mean “fan”, then yes. I’m not any more of an Ohio State chauvinist than I am a Indians chauvinist or a Browns chauvinist or a Cavs chauvinist.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 9, 2009 7:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but from a $ perspective, most tickets for the 2009 season were already sold before the first game. So I think rick’s point stands that less people are paying to see the Lions, even if they look better right now. I could be wrong. I don’t really give a crap about the economics of the NFL because they roll in it either way.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 6, 2009 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Significantly larger market, Detroit is. Metro area is 4.4 million, compared with 2.1 million for Cleveland.
by odradek on Oct 5, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t blame Jhonny or Vic for not understanding how small-to-mid market MLB franchises have to be run in the current economic structure. I do blame them for not shutting the hell up. Again, there is no rule that every thought that enters your head has to come out of your mouth.
by FredOx on Oct 6, 2009 12:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Eh, they are asked about a lot. Especially once Wedge was fired. “No comment” isn’t a natural response. And besides, like I said above, this is a very personal issue for them. Of course they are going to have things they want to say about it.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 6, 2009 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you don’t blame them for not understanding it, you can hardly blame them for saying something. From their perspective, it’s blatantly wrong or stupid and needs to be spoken out about. Either blame them for having that perspective or don’t blame them for saying something.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Oct 6, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There also isn’t any rule that what you say hasta make sense – see Beck, Glenn. Let the discriminating reader make up his own mind if Jhonny knows what he’s talking about or not.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 6, 2009 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I really wish I could know if he did, because there would be something to “The Indians, thats what they do” instead of “The Indians, thats what we do”.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 6, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The pronoun is correct, given what he’s talking about. When he talks about the players on the field he uses “we.” They are the people who make the decisions: Shapiro, Wedge and Dolan. I also think this is indicative of his alienation from the Tribe, possibly because of Wedge’s handling of him.
by odradek on Oct 6, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I think you’re right, I just feel like if I were him and I said first “the Indians”, I would then use the word “we”. But good Lord, look at what I’m saying. I need a life.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 6, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jhonny has lost his position and just about every player he grew up playing with. I think he should be allowed to vent a little bit in the media. People aren’t made of stone.
by Toxicadam on Oct 6, 2009 7:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
he’s going to get, what, $4.6M next year. Seems like he could use some of that to buy a way to learn how to deal.
by Brick. on Oct 6, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Money doesn’t make people bottle up emotions. Usually it has the opposite effect.
by Toxicadam on Oct 6, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish I knew what that was like.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 6, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. I’m willing to try this out for a decade or two.
--
Force quit and move to trash.
by vbc3 on Oct 6, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see both sides of the arguments on this thread, and I tend towards the more liberal, let them say what they will attitude, but to this point I say: if my company fired all of my friends and relocated me to Detroit, for instance, I would criticize management. If my company, however, paid me millions of dollars to throw a ball around in front of 40,000 (or, in our case, 15,000) adoring fans, I probably wouldn’t.
by jakesinger777 on Oct 8, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If my company, however, paid me millions of dollars to throw a ball around in front of 40,000 (or, in our case, 15,000) adoring fans, I probably wouldn’t
That’s not exactly fair. The analogy you made first is more accurate, because if you lost that job you’d look for one similar, most likely. Whereas, if talented, the baseball player is not limited to having just one team that would pay him millions to throw a ball. Of the 30 teams, probably 5 or more would be interested in his services. And I don’t know about you, but even in my situation I don’t have that much opportunity to be choosey. All that said, I don’t really like when these things happen, but I do understand it.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 8, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I come down on the side of, it’s understandable that the players are upset. God, I hope they are upset.
by Jay on Oct 8, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think they like to spend a lot money and stuff. They like to try and work in the young players.
Says a guy who is here because of that strategy.
by fwembt on Oct 9, 2009 12:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Says a guy whoiswon’t be here for long because of that strategy.
by Jay on Oct 9, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Oct 9, 2009 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe!
Related FanShots on Let's Go Tribe!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
