Tribe chain ranked #5 by BA/SI
Seems they prioritize "star power" in this ranking.
Funny that HOU gets dinged for not having a winning major-league club since all the way back in '07.
9 months ago
JulioBernazard
92 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Re: Houston, I don’t he really made clear what he meant.
Every single one of the Astros’ minor-league affiliates had a losing record in 2009, and also in 2008.
Ah, that makes much more sense. Thanks.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 4, 2009 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
What are the odds that Shapiro and company can keep the farm system anywhere near as deep as the farm system graduates talents or natural selection takes care of the rest with injuries/regression?
Chiz. White. Drafts have looked ok recently.
by afh4 on Dec 4, 2009 8:26 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
That’s because Brad grant took over from Mirabelli as scouting director in Nov 07.
The last 2 drafts were Grant’s.
Kind of a bummer that the Phillies write-up features Taylor, Brown, and Drabek—the guys we didn’t get in the Cliff Lee trade.
by ken from alexandria on Dec 4, 2009 7:38 PM EST reply actions
made me think of this:
Mark Thomas (Salisbury, MA): Keith, do you do it? If so, why from the Jays and Sox point of views?Dice-K (Far East interest in Seattle), Daniel Bard, Michael Bowden, Josh Reddick, and Jed Lowrie for Felix Hernandez.
Klaw (1:13 PM): Pretty sure Felix plays for the Mariners, not the Jays. But here’s the problem with this and 90% of the trade-for-a-stud ideas I see here: You are saying that to get Felix Hernandez, one of the top 10 pitchers in the game (and thus someone in the top 6% at his role/position), you’re going to trade five guys, none of whom projects to be among the top 6% at his role/position in the future. Only Bard has star potential on that list, and it’s as a short reliever, and he showed a significant platoon split in the majors this year. You can’t trade your second-tier guys en masse to get an ace. OK, maybe the Phillies just did it, but in general those deals don’t work, especially not in the offseason.
You are reading my signature.
Is it just me or does Law go out of his way to dump on the Indians return in the Lee trade any chance he gets?
busy weekend, haven’t had a chance to formulate a full reply. I’ll tackle the two easier parts of our return.
Donald: with Valbuena being our starting second baseman, AsCab our starting SS and Peralta our starting 3B, Donald is nothing more than a utility guy. If we play him at 1b, he’s easily well below average. So Donald is a utility guy unless someone gets hurt.
Marson: decent contributing part, but not a long-term building-block piece. He might be a solid catcher, call a solid game, etc. but it doesn’t seem like he will hit enough to bat any higher than 8th in the lineup. He pretty much seems to be Brad Ausmus with a slightly better bat.
So for 50% of the return for our Cy Young winner, we got a fringe starter at catcher and a utility guy. Sorry if I’m not gushing with love and willing to put blind faith in our GM.
Don’t get me wrong, I think we were in a position where we had to trade Lee, but I don’t think we got nearly enough in return. Time will tell for Knapp, but an arm injury for a power pitcher before he turns 20 isn’t a real promising start. I liked Carrasco and think he’ll be a decent #3 for us, but that’s still such a small return for a shut-down left-handed Cy Young signed to below-market dollars with another year on his contract.
I think you might be underrating Donald. No idea why you even brought up first base.
You apparently are not underrating Marson when you say he’s “Brad Ausmus with a slightly better bat.” However, you seem to have no clue how immensely valuable that is, for six more seasons at very low to reasonable dollars.
Same for Carrasco.
While you seem aware of contract situations, it seems you can’t let go of the baseball card swapping paradigm of evaluating baseball trades.
Donald: I brought up first base b/c it would seem to be the only position where he has a chance to be the starter. The other 3 are being manned by starters from this past season. Since I don’t think he’s a viable option at 1b, he’s a backup utility guy.
you seem to have no clue how immensely valuable that is
Sure I do. But considering he’s holding the catcher position until Carlos Santana is the everyday starter, it lessens Marson’s value. Once Santana is up, you are now looking at 2 backups for Cliff Lee. That’s not great value.
It doesn’t reduce Marson’s value as an asset, it just reduces his value on our roster. If we have two quality starting catchers who are both considered good defenders or better, we will trade one and get value for him at some point.
by Jay on Dec 7, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
So you are calling “Brad Ausmus with a slightly better bat” a fringe starter at catcher? You do realize Brad Ausmus played in nearly 2000 games in the majors and was a full-time starter for something like twelve straight seasons.
by APV on Dec 7, 2009 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
Yes I am, and sure I do. The Astros are my second-favorite team and I follow them almost as closely as I do the Indians.
Ausmus got away with being a 12-year starter because he was playing in the NL. There’s no way Ausmus’s bat would carry him in an AL lineup. He had an OPS+ of 90 or higher only 3 times in his career.
The only time the Astros have made it to the LCS or WS in the past 20 years coincides with the additions of Pettite and Clemens to the roster, not Ausmus. As good as he is behind the plate, calling a good game is only so much – the pitchers are truly the ones in control.
I’d take 1.5 seasons of Pujols over 6 years of Ausmus, a backup IF and a #3 any day. Personal opinion.
Well, yeah, but the former option was a) not anywhere near being on the table and b) not a reasonable return for Cliff Lee. Strawman.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 7, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
never said Pujols for Ausmus and a #3 (or straigh-up for Lee) was on the table. Just saying that I’d rather have 1.5 years of Pujols than the other guys.
Your opinion is pretty shaky. Cliff Lee was an MVP-caliber player for 1.5 years, and the club achieved absolutely nothing.
And I need I remind you of the Seattle trio of Hall of Famers who accomplished absolutely nothing as a team.
It’s a 25-man roster.
by Jay on Dec 7, 2009 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
He’s a True Yankee now that he’s won the World Series. All those years in Seattle really don’t matter that much any more.
(ducking quickly)
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 8, 2009 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
It’s gonna be tough for a career DH to make it in the Hall without mega-numbers.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 8, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
Ryan, can you jump in here and rip my post? I’m not sure anyone has ever had 4 of 5 posts be moderator criticism.
Just joking around here guys.
Nothing gets us fired up like Brad Ausmus. I think that’s why the Astros liked him so much.
by APV on Dec 7, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
I think the Martinez trade was worse. I see three relievers in that deal, for a better player and one likely to remain in the organization long-term.
Release the hounds!
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Dec 6, 2009 12:13 AM EST up reply actions
Likely to remain in what organization long-term?
The Red Sox will have to pay market value to keep Victor. The Indians would have been unwise to pay under-market for him.
Teams trade player contracts — period. Victor’s ends in a year.
Also! He’s more like Lyle Overbay now than Victor Martinez. Especially at first base.
Wait 'til next millennium!
Wrote this two days before Victor was traded:
Moving forward into his 30’s, however, he becomes one of two things: Either an aging catcher, when we know that catchers don’t age at all well, or good-not-great hitter in slow decline at a non-skill position. I can’t see how the Indians can invest even $40 million in either one of those assets, and while I could be “clever” and devise a hybrid role that makes it look like a good value — squinting through rose-colored eyelashes — it would only be a rationalizing for keeping a player who has been extremely productive and beyond likable.
by Jay on Dec 7, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
You and I disagree on his long-term value (ed: as a full-time first baseman), and I don’t think it’s necessary to argue about it.
The point about trading contracts is well-taken, but it goes both ways. He had 1.5 years left. This is not enough return.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Dec 7, 2009 8:20 PM EST up reply actions
All nine of the other profiles feature guys we didn’t get in that trade.
Those three guys are the Phillies prospects everybody likes to talk about. That’s why people thought we should have gotten them, and that’s why they’re in this article. That has little to do with whether they were the best guys to get.
by Jay on Dec 4, 2009 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
Anyone could make a case over Drabek, but I still believe the Indians did good for themselves with Carrasco and Knapp, but thats not what bugs me…
…I understand the upside that Taylor and Brown have, but did we really want to trade for another outfielder?
It’s not even that.
Maybe the Indians liked Donald better than the outfielders. Yes, he had a bad 2009. But what about 2006-2008? They won’t come out and say it, but I’m not going to be surprised if Valbuena ends 2009 as a utility guy and Donald is the starting 2B.
And I’m not a scout. But Carrasco has four pitches. He throws hard. He gives up under a hit an inning. He strikes people out. He has a major league changeup. And guess what – he’s only a bit more than 8 months older than Drabek. He just doesn’t have the shine of being a fancy first round pick or his dad being a former major league player. Maybe the Indians liked Carrasco more than Drabek?
I don’t care if Marson doesn’t hit homeruns. Positions matters. He’ll hit two homeruns in 2009 and he’ll still be more productive than Bengie Molina.
And who knows on Knapp. And I’m not saying that in the “he’s injured, so who knows” manner. I’m saying it in the “here’s a guy in A-ball, who knows what he’ll become.” You know..the same thing we said about Grady Sizemore. Because that’s all you can say about guys at that level.
by xrickx on Dec 4, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Good post, I agree about Carrasco, and said the whole Drabek/Carrasco doesn’t bother me as much as it does others. What I was trying to say is that the Indians obviously felt that they had a bigger need for Donald and Marson and an infielder and a catcher, more than they did another outfielder…..although a certain collection of Tribe followers like to spin that into “Cheapiro just took their first offer when he saw how much money those minor league bums were making”
Shapiro did just acquire two outfielders in LaPorta and Brantley (granted, LaPorta probably will be long term at first base) for that other guy…can’t remember who, I think he went to they Yanks…
i trust them in this kind of deal, but look. . . it just doesn’t look that great right now. that’s all anyone is saying.
that said, even though i wasn’t a fan of the deal, i’m kind of glad the FO at least put guys like knapp and hagadone at the centers of those deals. even though i wasn’t thrilled with either return, i think they took the right approach.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 5, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions
Bartolo Colon was traded June 27, 2002. Two and half years later, at the end of the 2004 season:
Cliff Lee, age 25, just pitched 179 innings, gave up more hits than innings pitched, served up 30 bombs, and walked 81 batters for an unimpressive 1BB:2K ratio.
Brandon Phillips spent nearly the entire season at AAA, except gathering 22 ABs in Cleveland in 2004. This came after his horrible 300ABs in Cleveland the previous year.
Grady Sizemore posted a .798OPS in Columbus and a .739OPS in 136ABs in Cleveland. He was the hope of salvaging the trade.
We’re three months into the Cliff Lee trade. Save the reflections, as tempting as it is to take stock of the deal from Cleveland’s perspective in light of Cliff’s NLDS performance.
When someone can refute this, then I’ll listen to all this whining about the Lee trade. Until then, it’s just whining.
by Jay on Dec 5, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
hey, i’m not going to sit around and criticize the deal for that exact reason. i was disappointed that we didn’t get a real blue chipper like laporta or santana (although, even at the time of the blake deal i’m not sure that santana was considered a true blue chipper), but your point is well taken. should shapiro & co. receive the benefit of the doubt on this one? yeah, i’d say they’ve definitely earned it in this area. . . but i think that there is a legitimate argument that says when you give up cliff lee, you should get at least one guy in return who is a consensus sure-fire future major league regular, and we didn’t get that. i think that’s all law was saying, and that’s kind of been my feeling as well.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 5, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
Santana was a blue-chipper when the deal happened. He was a catcher with a 993 OPS in 99 games. Yes, not that young, and yes, in a hitters’ league, but those factors weren’t enough to dampen the evaluation.
by Jay on Dec 5, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure Carrasco and Marson aren’t as solid as LaPorta was a year ago. They’re done with Triple-A, and LaPorta wasn’t done with Double-A.
Carrasco is chronically underrated because his numbers haven’t popped, but just look at his age. He’s the best guy in this deal, right now, and he’s better than everybody thinks.
by Jay on Dec 5, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
i do agree about carrasco. people forget his age or don’t understand its significance.
not sure about marson being as solid as laporta but i wouldn’t be totally surprised if marson turned out to be the best player in the lee deal.
and obviously i’m not going to say anything but good things about that santana deal. . . haha. the fact that we flipped 3 months of blake for that dude is nothing short of miraculous.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 5, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Regarding (3): When was the last time the Indians had their hat handed to them in a trade? Brian Giles? I know I’m forgetting something, but it’s been a long time since the Indians have been bested in a trade.
The Brandon Phillips and Kevin Kouzmanoff trades didn’t really pan out in the Tribe’s favor with Jeff Stevens (later packaged for DeRosa) and Josh Barfield. Hold your breath for the results of the Gutz/Smith trade. We should have a better read on that one this year the the prognosis isn’t looking good.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 5, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
Good catch. I still feel like Gutz is gonna shine again this year. Hopefully Valbuena proves me wrong and gives Acta reason enough not to platoon him.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 5, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
I’ll always wonder what the Dodgers put up in exchange. Colletti has said he put up a package equal to what the Phillies offered.
I trust Colletti’s evaluation of his own offer relative to what Cleveland got as far as I can throw Albert Belle. Colletti absolutely has to say that to appease his own fans regardless of whether it is true. If it had been a better offer, Shapiro would have accepted it.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 7, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
Willy Taveras and Luke Scott for Jeriome Robertson didn’t exactly work out for Cleveland.
Scott and Taveras haven’t exactly become All Stars, but did Robertson ever win a game for Cleveland? Is he even in baseball anymore?
Although Alomar quickly regressed and flamed out in New York, his trade at the time was considered one of those “we’re going to rebuild and contend at the same time” deals. Alex Escobar was supposed to be a “five tool” guy and a future star who never panned out. Lawton hung around for a few disappointing years and Jerrod Riggan was out of baseball a year after the trade. On the strength of Shapiro’s perceived fleecing of the Mets at the time of that deal I’d put that one into the “didn’t work out for Cleveland/Shapiro” category. Although that one didn’t really work out for anybody.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
I don’t remember anyone saying the Mets got fleeced at the time.
Escobar wasn’t just some random washout, he broke his leg! Riggan was a throw-in guy like Zach Jackson.
The issue with Lawton was that we were trading for a guy in his walk-year, which led to our overpaying him on an extension. We haven’t seen Shapiro do anything remotely like that since.
Even in his super-prospect days, before the broken leg, he was an extreme hacker. In hindsight, I’m really suprised Shapiro targeted him. It looks to me like a washout trade for both sides, that was exacerbated by the Lawton extension and the Gutierrez signing.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Dec 6, 2009 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
The Lawton extension never looked good, but it was exacerbated by injuries.
Gutierrez — I seem to have to remind everyone of this on a monthly basis — had a freak spinal column injury which severely reduced his mobility just two months into a three-year deal — remember that spate of GIDP? We can safely assume that deal looks a lot less dumb if he’s healthy.
Both deals suffered from the fact that the salary market imploded right after they were done, not unlike Kerry Wood’s contract. Shapiro feels that striking early is generally the smart strategy. While I don’t doubt that he’s right as a rule, it has prevented us from capitalizing on buyer’s markets, which takes a lot more patience.
by Jay on Dec 6, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions
Jay, he had a career OPS+ of 83. He was always a bad player. And they moved him the wrong way on the defensive spectrum.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Dec 7, 2009 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
Wow, you must really hate this guy.
When Ricky signed in Cleveland, he was coming off two seasons at 98 OPS+, and six seasons at 89 OPS+. He was, not unlike Vizquel or DeRosa, a player who started off as a pretty bad hitter but found his stroke in his late 20s and early 30s. He also often played hurt, but when healthy, he was productive. Note that while he had an 89 OPS+ in the middle six years of his career, it was 73 in his first three and last three seasons.
He was a full-time shortstop with a fine defensive reputation, who had to be recruited by Omar to come play 2B with Cleveland. This is the right way to move a player on the defensive spectrum.
Scott, Izturis, and Church were definitely included in bad trades, but put those in context— as a result of the fire sale, the Indians had a bounty of players worthy of being rostered and only 40 spots. They dealt quantity that they didn’t have room for anyway. Taveras was a rule 5 guy, wasn’t he?
It’d be like the Indians dealing McBride and Josh Rodriguez for, say, a depth starter already at the major league level. Probably not going to get much back in return, but then again, you’re probably not going to ever get much, ever, at the major league level from McBride and Rodriguez.
Still, not very good trades. But I understand how it happened.
I call BS on the Giants ahead of the Indians. Bumgarner is widely praised, but Posey vs. Santana is pretty close to a wash, and Villalona may never see a major league field for reasons unrelated to his baseball skills. Santana, Chisenhall, Rondon, and Carrasco at the top of the Indians list probably beat out just Bumgarner and Posey, and that’s without getting into the second tier of prospects.
Just clicked again to see what the SF one said and there’s a second page that has a one-liner we’re sure to appreciate.
Worst of the rest (16-25 range)
Mariners: Still reeling, especially on the mound, from years of Bill Bavasi’s management.
Also in 16-25 relevant to us:
Tigers: Top arms are green, and organization overall lacks athleticism.
White Sox: Decent talent, but system was thinned by graduations, trades.
As to the Gutierrez trade, we also got Joe Smith in that deal who should have been a good and much needed reliever, if not for health problems. And Gutierrez despite having a few great months, his OBP was only .322 in the second half, and he struggles mightily against right handed pitchers. Yeah, he’s great in center field, but we already have a guy there. I don’t see that trade as a bad one. Looking forward to seeing Valbuena improve.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- BIG Series: Padres and Giants set to battle for control of NL West
- The Grandstand: Crunch time in September arrives again
- Hello, Bourjos: Angels rookie plays it fast on both sides of ball
- An off-the-wall take on why the Twins will make the World Series
- John Lindsey couldn't have come any closer to his first at-bat
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.
