"The Indians are informing teams that Cliff Lee is indeed available."
Those words this morning from Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports. The language is a little stronger than prior reports, which suggested that the Indians were willing to listen to offers but would have to be overwhelmed. Of course, the Indians are always wiling to listen to offers — literally on any player — and of course, they will still need to be overwhelmed in order to trade Cliff Lee.
So what's different about this report? The suggestion that the Indians essentially have put the other 29 clubs "on notice" — we really might trade this guy, so if you were thinking about trying to overwhelm us, better get on it right now before some other club does.
The Colon/Sabathia bonus: Act now, and you can have him for three months in this year's pennant race, not just two. And the only-Colon bonus: You also get a very reasonable 2010 option, which means (best case) he can be part of your pennant race next year as well, or (worst case) you can re-flip him a year from now if you're out of it.
Rosenthal reports that the Rangers potentially make a good fit, if they can figure out a way to fit in his salary, and if they're willing to let go of an advanced prospect who's a potential ace. Rosenthal reported just four days ago that the Dodger have an interest, and that the Phillies inquired but weren't yet prepared to overwhelm.
In today's report, Rosenthal quotes a source as saying that Lee is set on becoming a free agent after 2010. This is not entirely news, and the then-age-32 pitcher is unlikely to be a good value signing for any club. It does reflect the reality that with another disappointing season under our belts, we're losing whatever shine we had with respect to signing or re-signing veterans who want to win.
Lee's sentiment may be giving the Indians a little push here, although they certainly are in a position to do nothing and not feel stupid about it. Much moreso than in prior years, however, money may be a real factor — not for 2009, but for 2010. The economic situation combined with a disappointing season could lead to truly massive shortfalls in ticket revenue, both for 2009 walkups and 2010 season tickets. A highly touted rookie may not be able to match Lee's performance in 2010, but he might not be that far off, and he'll definitely be $8 million cheaper.
Even beyond all that, the simple reality is that there likely will never be a better time to sell high on Cliff Lee. He is the reigning AL Cy Young winner, and he's got a 2.23 ERA over his last 14 starts. Over his last 47 starts, he has a 2.67 ERA, and he's allowed only 19 home runs in that span while averaging more than 7 IP per start.
over 2 years ago
Jay
197 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I hate this. I know it might make sense financially and from a team development standpoint, but I still hate this.
by Cols714 on Jun 28, 2009 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Can we swear in this thread?
Also: Hafner on the bench vs. a RHP to make room for MORE BENFRAN!!! Yay!
FE WEE
As much as I’d love for Jake to be an opening-day starter, not even I can be comfortable with that.
FE WEE
Wasn’t he for a few years?
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 28, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you’re thinking of Dennis Martinez.
by RD74 on Jun 28, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t like this one bit. I am not ready to give up on 2010. I hate sports.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 28, 2009 12:58 PM EDT reply actions
Could a team without (or not wanting to part with) top-shelf prospects “overwhelm” us by taking Hafner as part of a package?
That would be a stupid trade, and dare I say bad for our competitive successes
by world dictator on Jun 28, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m also not willing to include a player with a .407 wOBA and a .959 OPS as merely a throw in. I know its only 108 AB so far but still
by world dictator on Jun 28, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Knew that Lee would want to walk after we declined to work out an extension with him this offseason. It blows, but it was a foregone conclusion.
I hate this front office. I really do.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 1:35 PM EDT reply actions
But did you want to sign Lee right after a Cy Young season when his value was at its peak? Lee would have wanted to get paid like an elite pitcher but was there reason to think that he’d continue to pitch like one? I know that he has so far this season but we didn’t know that back in January.
If we signed Lee to a big extension last winter then he pitched this season like in ‘07 fans would be complaining about another Hafner signing. I like Lee but I didn’t want to give him an extension because it would have likely cost too much and I wasn’t sure if he could continue his great pitching.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 28, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
YES. I did want to sign one of the best pitchers in baseball when he is good. To hell with talking about players like they are freaking corn futures. Lee is an awesome left handed starter. That was fairly apparent by the end of 2008. It’s definitely apparent now. I’d rather overpay for him than I would for a closer or DH, like this front office has already done.
Believe it or not, some front offices could have determined that Lee was likely to continue his success into 2009. Many blog folks/online analysts broke down the numbers and the change in Lee’s actual delivery from 2007 to 2008 and believed this was the case. I don’t think anyone knew he was going to be a sub-3.00 ERA pitcher, but a LOT of people thought he would continue to be a good front-end starter. Factor in that he’s never had arm troubles, and he’s thought to have some of the best mechanics in baseball, and to me it was a no-brainer. This is the job of a MLB front office—to figure out which players are likely to have success in the future based not only on their statistics, but also on mechanics, scouting data, etc.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Indians front office lacked the foresight that you seem to assume they lack, then why did we put him back in the rotation after 2007. If you were to believe the rumors, we could have flipped Cliff and Shoppach for Jason Bay (a mighty fine player.) The Indians front office resisted and held on to Cliff. That seems like good foresight to me, better than anything I’ve seen from the armchair GMs.
Step away from the ledge
by Roger Dorn on Jun 28, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Lee is an awesome left handed starter. That was fairly apparent by the end of 2008
But it was also fairly apparent by the end of 2007 that Lee was an awful starter, so which Cliff are you going get 3 or 4 years down the road?
I know a lot of people thought Cliff was going to be a good front-end starter — and I was one of those — but coming off a Cy Young year he wasn’t going to want to be paid like a good front-end starter, he was going to want to be paid like an elite starter. And even if the Indians could afford to pay that (a big if), how could they be certain that he would continue to pitch that way?
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 28, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Alright, this is my POV:
Think of the thing from Lee’s perspective. You’ve just come off an awesome 2008. You don’t know what kind of adjustments the hitters are going to make next season, and although you really are confident that you’ve turned a corner, you don’t know whether you are going to be more of a 3.00 ERA pitcher or a 3.90 ERA pitcher, or even a 4.30 ERA pitcher. You have two years until free agency hits—a lot can happen between now and then. In other words, you know your value is high, but there is a substantial amount of risk involved—if you continue to pitch well, your value goes up, but it also is possible that your performance falls off a bit and you lose money. If Lee’s uncertain, he’s going to be more likely to take the sure thing and extend for less money than a pitcher who put up similar numbers would make on the open market. This is the trade off for the club who signs him absorbing some of that risk. Basically, I don’t see why you assume that Lee was going to ask to be paid like an “elite” starter when he’s two years away from free agency.
Now if the Indians’ FO is confident in their ability to evaluate a guy like Lee (and they’ve done just OK at evaluating potential free agents), they might have a better grasp of the risk that he falls off vs. the potential for him to stay awesome than the rest of the market has. Assuming that their FO did have some idea that Lee had “arrived”, they were in a good position to sign him to an under-market deal in exchange for absorbing some of the perceived risk. Of course, this all turns on the Indians’ confidence in their own assessment, and as I said, they’ve done just OK in this area before. A better front office makes the move, I think.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I think a front office with more resources makes the move. A team on a limited budget probably doesn’t extend key free agents a couple years in advance
I find this payroll excuse sickening. We’re not on a shoestring budget here. We opened up the year with the 14th highest payroll in baseball—we can’t throw money around like Los Angeles or Philadelphia can, but Shapiro can’t really cry poor either.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
You can close your eyes and pretend the payroll limits don’t exist, but we are beyond capacity this year. Shapiro convinced Dolan we were on the verge of contending which allowed him to sign Wood and get DeRosa. Dolan himself said the org is going to lose something like 20 million dollars this year. You will not see payroll go higher than it is currently in the next couple years. It’s not making excuses for the team struggling, but it is reality when it comes to extending our players. Somehow I knew you would try to ignore the payroll factor
Not that I doubt it, but I’d love to see the source for the Dolan quote on losing money.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’d love to be able to lose money 1 year out of 10 while owning a freaking major league baseball team.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
What you wouldn’t love is seeing the team value shrink slightly, when the average investment ROI is that that money otherwise would have more than doubled.
What you wouldn’t love is never making any significant amount of money.
What you wouldn’t love is fans always calling you cheap and lamenting publicly that you’re the owner, even though all you do is break even or lose money, every year, while letting the baseball people do their jobs without significant interference.
I would love to own the Indians, but I don’t think Dolan’s bed is made of roses by any means.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 28, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Roger Dorn, let’s not fight. The world has seen enough sadness already today with the passing of Billy Mays.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course, which is why it sucks to be a fan of a team with a budget. This sort of thing makes it really difficult to be an Indians fan. Sabathia turns into a pretty good pitcher, and then he’s traded. Lee becomes a pretty good pitcher and then he is going to be traded. It goes back even to Thome, Belle, and Ramirez leaving.
I’m not saying that trading and letting these players go aren’t the right moves, it just makes being an Indians fan a little bit difficult.
Sabathia turns into a pretty good pitcher, and then he’s traded.
Yes … after pitching for us for eight years.
Lee becomes a pretty good pitcher and then he is going to be traded.
Yes … after pitching for us for six or seven years.
I’m not saying that trading and letting these players go aren’t the right moves, it just makes being an Indians fan a little bit difficult.
Most teams have to go through this just as much as I do. When those players are retained, it usually ends up even worse than losing them, however. As we ourselves know from Hafner and Westbrook.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Whatever. Like I said, I’m not debating letting them go. I am saying that it is pretty sucky as a fan to develop some pretty good players only to watch them leave while they are still in their prime. You can argue that it isn’t sucky, and maybe it isn’t for you, but for me I think it sucks.
I agree that when they leave while actually still in their primes, it is sucky. That was the case for Sabathia, and if Lee leaves now, obviously it is the case.
Incidentally, this is why it’s appropriate that we worry about service time for our very best prospects.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
If it didn’t suck, it wouldn’t be selling high.
Theory I’ve been thinkin on: The whole sell-high thing is a lot less relevant if we’re not talking about a talent that’s exceptional in some regard. By and large, major league front offices, even the old-schoolers, are not complete dolts. For example, we can regret that Shapiro failed to “sell high” on Garko, but a dispassionate eye — or, rather, the dispassionate eyes of the rest of baseball — may have seen a guy whose power was too flukey and whose defensive value was too limited. Perhaps — as may also have been the case with Shoppach this last off-season — the sell-high price isn’t high enough for some guys to matter.
Point being, selling high is going to suck by definition. It’s going to be “pretty good players” in their “prime.”
by fleerdon on Jun 28, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Had that thought while I was writing, and decided to address it only if anybody else cared to. Basic idea being, we probably hadn’t oughta treat those as meaningful precedent. In any event, just because Bavasi wanted Perez and Broussard doesn’t mean that he would have wanted Garko.
If we’re going to do the Cliff thing, I think we should do it this season, because it would cause me the most emotional trauma.
by fleerdon on Jun 29, 2009 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions
If they make the playoffs next year, and he walks, I will have no trauma at all.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 29, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Dude. We weren’t going to sign Cliff. We can’t afford it. At 32, signing Cliff to what I presume will be at least a 4 year contract is not smart money.
Even if we agreed to negotiate this past offseason, I am confident that there would not have been middle ground
I disagree. Westbrook’s deal is coming off the books after 2010. We can opt out of Wood’s and Peralta’s deals then as well. The money was there.
I would have offered 4 years/$52 million. That’s comparable to what Dan Haren got—it’s slightly more. I’ll take Cliff Lee’s age 34-35 season for that kind of deal. Remember, Lee had a pretty strong incentive to sign this offseason as well—he would have probably settled for slightly less than he wanted in exchange for us bearing some of the risk that he wouldn’t live up to 2008. Now the uncertainty isn’t there, and of course he’s going to want AJ Burnett money or better. The fact that we completely refused to negotiate pissed me off then, and it still pisses me off.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know the full details of the Dan Haren deal, but I believe part of that was a buyout of arb years which makes any extension for Cliff not comparable. I also do not think 4/52 would get a Cliff deal done
There was no buyout of arb years in Haren’s deal. They bought out the final guaranteed year of his prior contract + an option year. It was the exact same situation as Lee, except Haren is slightly younger and had a somewhat better track record.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, there was a buyout of arb years. The final guaranteed year of his prior contract (this year) and the 2010 option year which the extension bought out would have been his last 2 arb years had he not signed that first extension while in Oakland.
So the DBacks were giving him a sizable raise on his last 2 arb years, and then buying out 3 years of FA. Quintessentially giving him a 3/32.5MM extension, if you take out the money he would’ve been paid in ‘09 and the ’10 option on the previous contract. That won’t happen with Lee.
"You end up with a name like ‘Outman,’" he said last week. "What else are you going to do? You’re going to get people out, man." ~ Dallas Braden
More like a three-year extension for $39 million. The 2010 option is moved back to a 2013 option, while three more guaranteed years (2010-2012) are added. The guarantee goes from 5.75M (’09 salary + ’10 buyout) to 44.75M.
However, this was an extension granted 2+ seasons prior to the end of club control, so it’s comparable to if we had extended Lee last August, not this August. In that intervening year, the player absorbs much of the team’s risk for the whole contract — I’ve sometimes used PECOTA attrition rates to estimate the risk and assign it a dollar value. Bottom line, that factor is a big part of the reason why it’s only 13M in AAV.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
There was no buyout of arb years in Haren’s deal. They bought out the final guaranteed year of his prior contract + an option year. It was the exact same situation as Lee, except Haren is slightly younger and had a somewhat better track record.
Those are pretty important factors to consider
by world dictator on Jun 28, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, what was Cliff’s “pretty strong incentive” to sign this offseason? He would sign an extension if he got paid like an ace/Cy Young player
Right, I don’t get that. Lee was in a position to demand Cy Young money, not settle for less money.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 28, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Read my above post, re: the Indians’ absorbing some of the perceived risk that Lee’s performance would decline, for my answer.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I would have offered 4 years/$52 million.
And I don’t think there would’ve been a chance in hell that would’ve gotten it done. In fact, it might have alienated him more than deciding not to negotiate.
He won’t get what C.C. got, but I bet he’s looking for a Zambrano-like contract. Five years, $90M. Not saying he’ll get it in these economic times, but I won’t be surprised if he does.
It must be fun to argue using hindsight. Oops, there I go again being a jerk.
But seriously:
I disagree. Westbrook’s deal is coming off the books after 2010. We can opt out of Wood’s and Peralta’s deals then as well. The money was there.
Why would the Indians make financial decisions based on the assumption that Peralta, who had OPS’ed .808 in 2008, would suck or Wood, their recent free agent acquisition, would be a bust?
I would have offered 4 years/$52 million. That’s comparable to what Dan Haren got—it’s slightly more. I’ll take Cliff Lee’s age 34-35 season for that kind of deal. Remember, Lee had a pretty strong incentive to sign this offseason as well—he would have probably settled for slightly less than he wanted in exchange for us bearing some of the risk that he wouldn’t live up to 2008.
Kind of like the Travis Hafner deal?
I’m more than willing to be convinced that signing Lee last season was a good idea. But you don’t seem to have any proof whatsoever that the front office should have no for certain that Lee was going to repeat his performance. Just like there is still enough doubt to believe that Lee will pitch well during his extension years where he would have Imade the biggest amount of money.
Remember, its not like Lee is going to be a free agent after this year. The Indians still have him for another year at bargain price. I completely understand why the front office wouldn’t want to assume the high amount of risk involved in signing a pitcher to an extension, let alone a pitcher close to the wrong side of 30, when he’s still under contract for two more years. (from their standpoint this offseason )
by world dictator on Jun 28, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions
CRAP I just typed out a whole big reply to that and accidentally deleted the whole thing. UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I just wanted to express my frustration.
It must be fun to argue using hindsight.
Just curious: where was hindsight involved in my argument? Throughout the offseason, I advocated signing Lee to an extension. It’s not a situation where nobody knew what was going to happen with Lee, and now that he’s tearing up the league again, I’m using that knowledge to go back and criticize the FO’s decision. Lots of knowledgeable people—knowledgeable amateurs (and I don’t include myself in this category)—made a pretty good case this offseason that Lee was going to be a very good pitcher going forward.
Why would the Indians make financial decisions based on the assumption that Peralta, who had OPS’ed .808 in 2008, would suck or Wood, their recent free agent acquisition, would be a bust?
Nope, you missed my point. I was trying to show that we didn’t have any money committed to those players beyond 2010. The point was that we have some payroll flexibility in the near future; we can pick up those options, or we can choose to allocate resources elsewhere. I wasn’t saying anything either way about Wood’s or Peralta’s performance this year or going forward. You added that.
Kind of like the Travis Hafner deal?
Well, in absolute terms, I guess so. But left handed ace starters are a lot less common than DHs, and I’m of the opinion that when a guy like Sabathia or Lee comes along, you should lock them up if at all possible (and I do realize that with Sabathia, it wasn’t possible).
I’m more than willing to be convinced that signing Lee last season was a good idea. But you don’t seem to have any proof whatsoever that the front office should have no for certain that Lee was going to repeat his performance. Just like there is still enough doubt to believe that Lee will pitch well during his extension years where he would have Imade the biggest amount of money.
That’s missing the point. I don’t think that the front office should have known FOR CERTAIN that Lee was going to repeat his performance. Nobody could have known that, and if that knowledge was available, you can be sure as hell that Lee wouldn’t have signed anything because we wouldn’t have been able to afford him.
My point is that the uncertainty surrounding Lee’s future performance is exactly what made an extension the option in the first place. If the Indians are confident in their player evaluation abilities and feel comfortable making a smart wager that Lee will be a very good pitcher going forward, they take on some of the perceived risk that Lee will falter and in exchange for having the security of guaranteed money, Lee signs a more reasonable deal. We’ve already got a leg up in bargaining power since we hold a club option for his 2010 season—if Lee chooses not to sign an extension, his best case scenario is that he still has to wait a full two years to hit the market.
Also, I’d just like to point out that pitchers aren’t generally on the same timetable, age-wise, as position players. I’d much rather have a good pitcher locked up through his age 34 season than a good position player.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you would find that Hafner’s 2004-2006 is a performance as exceptionally rare as anything that any of our pitchers have done over a three-year period, at least since Gaylord Perry. Lee isn’t more special than Hafner was at the time, and he does have more of an injury history, and his being a pitcher makes him more injury-prone regardless. So don’t kid yourself, if a Lee contract isn’t just as risky, it’s more risky.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
CRAP I just typed out a whole big reply to that and accidentally deleted the whole thing. UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I just wanted to express my frustration.
I hate when that happens. My sympathies
Okay here we go:
Nope, you missed my point. I was trying to show that we didn’t have any money committed to those players beyond 2010. The point was that we have some payroll flexibility in the near future; we can pick up those options, or we can choose to allocate resources elsewhere. I wasn’t saying anything either way about Wood’s or Peralta’s performance this year or going forward. You added that.
First of all Wood’s option can be vested based on certain incentives during the first two years of the contract. At the very least it becomes a team option. Still, it seems pretty foolish to allocate money that might not be there. After all we’re not talking about a $1 million bonus for making the All-Star team we’re talking about $11 million.
Second, I didn’t miss your point, I’m just saying I disagree. It’s called payroll flexibility because it gives the team options. Signing Lee in the manner you speak of removes the flexibility and puts the Indians in a position where they have turn down Wood and Peralta’s options. That’s not smart .
Why would you ever allocate resources based on the assumption that you want to turn down a player’s option. I suppose of a player completely sucks or is grossly overpaid you would, but that wasn’t the case for Peralta or Wood. Going into this season there was much more reason to believe that Wood and Peralta would be more likely to contribute in 2011 versus Lee.
On that point
My point is that the uncertainty surrounding Lee’s future performance is exactly what made an extension the option in the first place. If the Indians are confident in their player evaluation abilities and feel comfortable making a smart wager that Lee will be a very good pitcher going forward, they take on some of the perceived risk that Lee will falter and in exchange for having the security of guaranteed money,
Basically your point comes down to “The Indians should’ve gambled on Lee” because it might have paid off. Small problem though. You can’t minimize the risk of a high risk/high reward scenario by focusing only on the reward side of the equation. Can you imagine how badly our team would’ve been crippled if Lee reverted back to pre 2008 form or even worse, got injured?
You say “well the Indians should’ve trusted their player evaluations” as if player evaluations are a science. Even the best organizations are wrong about player evaluation far more than they are right. Its kind of like batting averages, you can miss 7 out of 10 times and still be considered very good. Not to mention the thousands of unaccountable factors that might come into play: injury, personal problems, poor conditioning, etc
Lee signs a more reasonable deal. We’ve already got a leg up in bargaining power since we hold a club option for his 2010 season—if Lee chooses not to sign an extension, his best case scenario is that he still has to wait a full two years to hit the market.
Reasonable isn’t the same as affordable.
by world dictator on Jun 29, 2009 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Just curious: where was hindsight involved in my argument? Throughout the offseason, I advocated signing Lee to an extension. It’s not a situation where nobody knew what was going to happen with Lee, and now that he’s tearing up the league again, I’m using that knowledge to go back and criticize the FO’s decision. Lots of knowledgeable people—knowledgeable amateurs (and I don’t include myself in this category)—made a pretty good case this offseason that Lee was going to be a very good pitcher going forward.
What was your supporting evidence that proved Lee was going to have another great year? From what I can tell, your argument in favor of signing Lee was based more on ideal circumstance and not perfomance indicators pointing to another All Star performance.
In fact, re-reading your arguments above the only support you provide for the “we knew Lee was going to be good” argument is “the Indians should’ve trusted in their player evaluation” and “we’ll plenty of folks said he was going to be good”.
That’s not exactly hard evidence. In fact I find it hard to believe that any front office can look at one year’s performance and determine that a player is going to be a great.
by world dictator on Jun 29, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions
What was your supporting evidence that proved Lee was going to have another great year?
That would be hard enough to find, but it’s worse than that. At the end of 2008, if Lee is going to have another great year, the overwhelming likelihood is that it’s in 2010 or 2011 — for injury reasons alone. The attrition rates of pitchers in their 30’s speak for themselves.
Yet what the Cap’n is stating here — forcefully — is that the Indians should have gone ahead and committed to Lee for 2012 through 2014 — again, doing so at the end of 2008. And that frankly is just nutty. It’s dicey even if he isn’t a significant performance or injury risk (i.e., 2008 was totally an outlier season in his career), but given that he was a significant risk in terms of both injury and performance, it rises to the level of pretty damned nutty.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
quick response re: supporting evidence that Lee was going to be good going forward:
his baseball prospectus write-up for the 2009 edition also predicted that he’d be one of the “better starters in the american league” going forward, even if he didn’t replicate his 2009
these are just the sources I could dig up in a few minutes’ worth of searching. my supporting evidence, as I stated above, is basically the analysis of others’ whose opinion I respect. I’ll try to reply more fully tonight when I have time.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 29, 2009 7:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Right. And here are his PECOTA attrition rates for 2011-2014:
29%, 45%, 52%, 64%
And here are the PECOTA drop rates for 2011-2014:
8%, 12%, 27%, 37%
For those who don’t know the “drop rate” is the chance a player will be out of baseball entirely. The “attrition rate” is the chance that his playing time will be cut in half, due to poor performance or injury.
So you can make the argument that “he was going to be good in 2009,” and that’s fine — I myself made the same projection — but that’s immaterial. He already was under contract through 2010. Your argument is that they should have known he’d be good in 2009, therefore sign him for 2011-2014. That argument doesn’t fly in the least.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
i wasn’t trying to advocate signing him thru 2014. if i made it sound that way, that wasn’t at all my intention.
i was advocating a buyout of 2009 and/or 2010, and offering him guaranteed money through 2012. if i got the terminology wrong or was unclear, that’s my bad. i guess when i used the term “extension” i should have been more clear.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 29, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s very unlikely Lee would have accepted only a two- or three-year extension after winning the Cy Young.
It’s a great position to be in, with a pitcher coming off a great season, under contract for one more year with a club option for a second year. It would be hard to be in a better position than that with any pitcher.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I agree with Jay
But besides that, the two posts above don’t even prove Lee was going to be good in 2009. The first article is from August 2008, explaining why he should win the Cy Young award. The second article just explains that he has clean mechanics.
by world dictator on Jun 29, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
the article about his mechanics outlines probably the best reason to try to sign him to an extension. you want to talk about risk? one of the best ways a team can evaluate risk in pitchers is to have a thorough understanding of pitching mechanics.
as jay said, of course neither article “proves” lee was going to be baller in 2009. the fangraphs article just supports the proposition that what lee had accomplished in 2008 went far beyond luck—the numbers pointed to an actual advance in his underlying skill set. that’s why i cited it.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 29, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll take Cliff Lee’s age 34-35 season for that kind of deal.
There’s also another assumption underlying your argument. Namely that Lee’s value is maximized by signing him to an extension instead of trading him. Considering he’s probably not going to be an ace for the next four years, its something that must be addressed.
by world dictator on Jun 28, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
the point about value potentially being maximized via trade is crucial. cliff lee has been great for about 18 months, but for all of the reasons cited above, it’s pretty tricky to predict the next 18 months, much less the next 42…from both a lee perspective and an indians perspective.
if we’re honest with ourselves, which i believe the front office typically is, the indians are not perennial contenders, if for no other reason than economic constraints. as such, is it really maximizing value to tie up $13mm/year in a front-line starter for a team that may or may not be any good? the other deals all lined up to make 09-10 (maybe 11) the years we contend.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 29, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I really don’t mind this. I like sweepstakes and I’ve never been all that fond of Lee. I just sort of look at his resurgence and cock my head and go “hmmm.”
Not meant to disparage him, he’s just not one of my guys as a fan.
by afh4 on Jun 28, 2009 1:57 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
No, I’m serious.
As I’ve communicated pretty often here, my connection to baseball is largely emotional. I enjoy the analytics a great deal but when it comes to players coming and going, the types of decisions teams make, I don’t get mad just because we’re losing a great player.
In other words, I can’t pretend like I care about Lee leaving the way I did CC, even though Lee is probably better.
My emotions are related to having good players.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 29, 2009 8:10 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s true in some regards but I don’t think it’s arguable that we have favorite players. Obviously we all like the good players because they’re good but, just as one example, I’d posit that there are a lot of people here who like Jake a lot more than they like Cliff.
Probably more obviously, we like Victor more than just about anyone. Trading Victor would matter to me more as a fan than trading Cliff.
Groundballs are more democratic.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 1, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
if you’re serious then I sort of agree with you. I’d hate to give up on the 2010 season, but it looks like this team might be ready to go full force in 2011, when hopefully guys like Rondon, Santana, Weglarz and maybe De La Cruz, The Chiz and Gomez can step in as full time major leaguers. Perhaps Shapiro looked at the holes that need to be filled for next year and realized he couldn’t do it, but he might be able to get it done for 2011 because there are more internal options.
We all knew Lee wouldn’t stay beyond 2010 and I know I’m not the only one who is surprised he’s still extremely close to his ‘08 level of performance. That said, I still have the feeling that it won’t last and perhaps that’s pessimistic or flat out wrong, but it could be that some people in the FO feel the same way. Money is an issue, though I can’t see that as the sole reason why they want to move Lee, so they want to sell high on him. I don’t think he’ll be traded for whatever is offered for him, but if it’s a package that helps the team from 2011 into the future, I can definately see the logic in that.
It might seem like a vicious cycle and it’s frustrating that this team is in a never ending state of rebuilding, but I still have confidence in our FO and I do feel that 2011 will be the year. I know it sounds naive and maybe even a little stupid because we all thought this team would be contending since 05 and definately after 07, but looking at the club — current major leaguers and the guys down on the farm — 2011 is probably the most realistic shot we have at contending (obviously in the weak AL Central you could be in it next year as well, but that has more to do with the competition’s weakness than our own strength).
Hasn’t this year taught us that you can’t count on Rondon, Santana, Weglarz, De la Cruz, Chisenhall and Gomez to step in as fulltime major leaguers and take the Tribe to the postseason? If 2010 isn’t the year, then you have to seriously question viability in 2011. Age starts to become an issue for Sizemore (28 in 2011), Martinez (32), Peralta (29), Hafner (34).
30/30, Silver Slugger, All Star and Gold Glove don’t mean much here, I take it.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Apparently not.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jun 29, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes Grady did in fact win the Gold Glove last year. And the year before that.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
The point he was making is that the Gold Glove award has become a sham rarely going to the most deserving players
I suppose but I still think Grady had to be pretty high on the list to get it. He may not be the best center fielder in the world but he’s still pretty darn good in my opinion.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
This is true. I think Crisp deserved it two years ago IIRC. I don’t know about last year.
Steel Nick
I’m a fan of the Fielding Bible
According to the vote tallies, Grady was the second best AL CF last year. He did not do well in the 2007 voting
Crisp in 2007 was the second best AL CF. Last year he did not do well in the voting
I think I was remembering UZR rankings. Crisp was far and away the leading outfielder in 2007. Grady was 9th, but there were several players in between that played far less innings in the OF than Grady did.
In 2008 Alex Rios was the best. Then Franklin Gutierrez. Grady stayed consistent at 11.
So far this year Franklin is still the best. Grady isn’t on the list, I’m sure because he hasn’t played enough to qualify. Choo is somewhere around 20.
Steel Nick
Yea, these guys look at all the stats and try to vote based on collective information. I can’t remember all of the voters, but it includes Bill James, Joe Poz, Rob Neyer
This is almost my entire feeling to a tee.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 28, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
If we trade cliff, that seems like a pretty clear white flag for 2010. And if we are running up the white flag on 2010, shouldn’t we be trying to move Victor too?
It seems like finances are the only excuse for doing this. Otherwise its madness. This team should contend in 2010, not be ripped apart. Not if we can help it anyway
I wouldn’t necessarily see it as a white flag. As we’ve been saying for a week or so now, if they move Lee, it will be to increase the total talent in the organization, and specifically at the major league level for 2010. If they can do that while creating a little breathing room for payroll, more power to them. If they can’t do that, they won’t move him.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
you are probably right, and this may be my inner fan talking, but I am already looking at next year’s starting rotation with trepidation. Laffy, Westbrook, Huff…with Cliff at the top, this is a rotation that might contend if everything goes right. With cliff gone and say, two generic ML ready starters in his place…I really don’t know. And would we even get that for cliff? We might get awesome prospects, but prospects who will be ready to run next year? oy.
Well, Texas would certainly be the team to deal with, as was Milwaukee last year. A system stocked with talent, ready to make a rare run at the playoffs, etc.
I’m very reluctant to trade Cliff before next year, but if the Rangers offer a package that blows you away, I’d say you have to do it. Trades like this has, for this org, been the only way to consistently improve the talent level of the system.
Crazy idea: Lee, Wood and Mills to Texas for Feliz, Holland and Smoak. We pay Wood’s salary for this year as he goes back to his home state, they load up for a two year run, we take their top three prospects, all near ML ready go into 2010 with low pressure but huge talent.
like you said, crazy idea. There’s no way they’d trade their top 3 prospects. IF we deal with the Rangers we’d probably have a choice to get one of the three, sort of like the Brewers did with CC.
Not too much different than what the Braves gave to Texas for Texeira (Feliz included).. I’m assuming Wood would have a lot of value for them as well, with us paying the 09 contract.
But certainly unlikely. I agree that Feliz would probably be the centerpiece in a straight up trade for Lee, with at least one other prospect below their top tier, someone like Blake Beavan.
Is he a super extreme groundballer? His home run rates are obscenely low.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 28, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow, look at that. If he’s an extreme groundballer, he has an awfully high k/9.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
Meantime, Jon Heyman says:
While the Dodgers, Phillies, Mets and Brewers are believed to have inquired about Cliff Lee, the Indians still are not anxious to trade Lee, whose value is enhanced by a reasonable $6-million 2009 salary and $9-million team option for 2010. The Rangers are a team that has the type of young pitchers who could make a deal, led by lefthander Derek Holland and rightander Neftali Feliz.
I have nightmares of the things Cliff Lee will say/the attitude he’ll have with us if traded.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
I’m just afraid of holding a grudge over 2007 and sending him to the minors then making him compete for a spot on the team. But maybe it’s just cuz he can be pretty fiery. Or maybe we’ll at least finally know what happened between him and Vic.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Better trade him to the NL Central, then.
Just was thinking about this today, every time we trade a guy to the NL Central, we’re screwing Brandon Phillips a little. That’s nice.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 28, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
“YEAH! YA SHOULDA TRIED TO BUNT THAT ONE, GARKO! HAAAA HA!”
--
Force quit and move to trash.
by vbc3 on Jun 28, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’m a little more skeptical of Cliff than most around here. I’m pleasantly surprised by what he’s done this year. I just can’t get it out of my head that 18 months ago, most (if not all) on this board would have traded him for a bag of balls and a six pack. Trade high – trade him now. I would’ve traded him during the offseason, but understand the ramifications of trading a Cy Young winner with the fan base and the team. The fact that the team has had a collective (albeit not necessarily individual) meltdown allows them to move him and get replacement talent (SP hopefully) at the AAA level. Trade high, trade now – do it all in one painful swift move.
I wish they would’ve traded Peralta last fall when his value was highest. I wish they’d done the same with Shoppach. The Blake deal made Shoppach a luxury and a valuable trading piece. After getting Asdrubal and Valbuena it was obvious that this team was set in the MI and Jhonny was expendable.
Who are the long term pieces for the team? Who is expendable. What will the team look like in 2011? Is it sacrilege to say that our OF should be RF Choo, CF Brantley and LF Sizemore. Yes LF. And that he should hit #2 for the next year or so before moving him down in the order? Is Huff a long term option for us? I’d say yes, but we need to see more from him. Heck, I’d say extend Westbrook now while his price is lowest. Is Carmona in the long term plans? Most are low on him, but could he be another Lee?
Overall, trade Lee. It’s not the end of the world or a return to the 60’s – 80’s Tribe. Trade Peralta if he has any real value right now. Put Marte back on the 40 man and bring him up for a real try out at 3B at the ML level. Trade Shoppach if he can bring some real value and bring up Toregas for a tryout at backup. Flip Pavano if he can muster another 2 good outings. Put LaPorta in the every day lineup. Give Brantley a taste of the bigs after the AS break. Fire Wedge already (I couldn’t go an entire post without bringing that up). Move on and get onto the business of 2010 and 2011.
I just wanted to believe.
It’s funny, we (or least I) tend to give Shapiro a free pass on certain issues, because he did the unbelievably ballsy thing and blatantly blew up the team in his own rookie season in 2002. I wonder now, however, if it isn’t a lot harder to decide to blow up a team you yourself built, rather than the team your predecessor built.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think it’s infinitely more difficult to blow up something you have sunk your time, effort and heart into. I think the mark of whether Shapiro is a good, exceptionable or great GM will be what happens over the next year or so and how he deals with the unraveling of The Plan. We have a ton of great parts and a number of parts that have not met expectations. Can he remold them and the team into that championship caliber contender he states as the organizations single goal.
And I say all this as someone who believes Shapiro & Co. are one of the finest FO in the league. I hope they’re great and that we rise up like the proverbial phoenix over the next couple seasons. I don’t believe we’re as far away as some would believe.
I just wanted to believe.
That’s a lot of truth in this. But I feel like a lot of us have been spooked by this season. Our projected 2010 team looks more than strong enough to compete with a few minor repairs. Improved bullpen, ideally another starting pitcher. (Ironic because these are the same needs as last year.)
If we play our cards right, Shap should be able to turn a Lee trade into a benefit to our 2010 team. Though its always rough to trade your ace, especially when starting pitching is one of your teams weaknesses.
by world dictator on Jun 28, 2009 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I think part of what has us spooked (and condemning our player development) is that we’ve lost track of just how much talent is on the DL, particularly in the rotation. We started the season with some ten guys slated to contribute at some point, and the three starters on the DL are among the most talented of those ten.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I completely agree Jay.
Which is why I can’t stand hearing people argue that we didn’t have pitching depth. No realistic amount of depth can overcome a wave of injuries and under performance.
by world dictator on Jun 28, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Except that when 3/5 of your opening day rotation is Pavano, Reyes, and Lewis, and one of the guys waiting in the wings is Adam Miller, the injury excuse is a copout. It was completely foreseeable that at least two of those guys were going to go down at some point. Hell, I don’t think that anyone even expected Pavano to make more than half a season’s worth of starts in the BEST case scenario.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 28, 2009 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Have to agree about Pavano. I had my fingers crossed for a couple months of non-disasters.
by fleerdon on Jun 28, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but as we have learned with the Indians, the guys that start the season in the rotation are not always the best bets performance-wise
Except that when 3/5 of your opening day rotation is Pavano, Reyes, and Lewis, and one of the guys waiting in the wings is Adam Miller, the injury excuse is a copout.
Strongly disagree with this. We had a unique situation this year, where the best way to optimize our rotation depth was to leave at least one and probably two of our best starters (Laffey and Huff) in the minors to start the season, in addition to Westbrook opening on the DL but expected to return mid-year. So when people (whether you or Shapiro himself) whine about losing 3/5 of our season-opening rotation, it’s just BS.
There was never an expectation that those guys would last in the rotation, there was only a sensible desire to give each of them a try.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’d advocate trading Lee with a look towards late 2010 and 2011 as the target for the rewards. In the interim, I’d sign Sheets and start rehabing the bejebus out of him. I’d be ok with a 2010 Opening Day rotation of Sheets, Westbrook, Carmona, Lafey and Huff with the players from the Lee trade as depth (plus the perpetual Sowers/Lewis adding additional “depth”). The key is to get multiple front line (future) starters for Lee.
I just wanted to believe.
I think there’s some revisionism here. Shapiro didn’t blow it up, he tried to rebuild while remaining competitive, and he has acknowledged this as one of his mistakes (citing Matt Lawton as evidence of the folly of trying to do both at the same time).
I just can’t get it out of my head that 18 months ago, most (if not all) on this board would have traded him for a bag of balls and a six pack.
I wasn’t here then, but he won 18 games before that. He was always a very good pitcher, just struggled with his pitchcount and throwing his fastball too much. When he learned to refine his approach, this is what happened. But if this means anything, it means that Shapiro isn’t going to trade him off of just this year and last year, he’ll trade him like a mini-CC, if he does. At least I hope so.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
And to add, because I forgot, I felt 18 months ago that Lee should have been traded but only because I thought he would regain form to a 2-3 starter, and we could still get something good out of him. Honestly we’re all a little surprised that he has morphed into this, but it’s not that far fetched.
I mean, at the beginning of 2007 I remember 3 baseball analysts projecting who the best lefties in the AL were, one said Johan, one said CC and the other said Cliff. He was right, just a year a off.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
I actually felt the same way – that he’d be a great 2-3 starter, but most likely for a NL team. I never dreamed he’d have the type of season he had last season. I’m happy for him and appreciate the excellent player we have, but I think the best thing he can do for the Tribe at this point is to pitch somewhere else and net us a number of future players who can help up win it all in 2011 when he wouldn’t be here anyways.
I just wanted to believe.
I mean, at the beginning of 2007 I remember 3 baseball analysts projecting who the best lefties in the AL were, one said Johan, one said CC and the other said Cliff. He was right, just a year a off.
Yeah, and we’ve all made fun of Steve Phillips the past two years for saying that. Cliff Lee was a good pitcher at the start of ‘07 but he certainly wasn’t in CC’s or Johan’s class. Of course, then Cliff has the worst season of his career and makes him look like even more of an idiot. He’s turned it around, for sure, but he’s still not Johan Santana.
And Steve Phillips only said that because he won 18 games in ’05, which of course is the wrong way to measure a pitcher. By that measure Cliff is having a terrible year because he only has 4 wins.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 28, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions
This article, the last portion, kind of expresses what I was trying to get at (with poor reference points I’ll admit). Which I think everyone here already knows.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/perplexed-about-lee
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
I really like the optimism of those commenters, and I can’t disagree with them.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
Bonus points to the commenter who mentioned that this numbers would probably be even better in the NL. I would think, too, that he might get pulled slightly earlier in the games there as well for a pinch hitter, thereby not allowing any obligatory stranded runners in the last inning for a horrid bullpen to give up.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
In defense of Philips (duck), I always thought too much was made of that. If I had to guess, the three analysts were told to pick one lefty, and they couldn’t pick the same one. Sure, they all could have said Santana, but that’s not terribly interesting. I would bet that Phillips drew the short straw and had to pick the third lefty. Now, he still chose Lee over C.C., if I remember. So I still disagreed with him, but I don’t think he deserved the level of vitriol he got. At least over that comment.
he won 18 games before that
The “win” stat is not a credible part of any argument.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I slipped up, but it still was a pretty good year (wins or no wins).
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
It was a pretty good year — and oxforddave often points out that what he lacked in ERA, he didn’t lack in FIP — but it wasn’t a great year, and he was significantly worse in 2006 and of course a disaster in 2007. He did not appear poised for a comeback, except in the nowhere-to-go-but-up sense.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
As much as everyone, including Lee I assume, wants to see him in a Tribe uni next year, bottom line is it’s kinda silly NOT to actively see(k) what kind of offers might get put on the table for him right now. His value is undeniably higher now than next year, and if some other team makes an incredible offer, it could be very well be worth it to pull the trigger. If not, no harm done.
I for one wouldn’t consider it a surrender, blow up or rebuild. It’s just not the same situation as with Colon. The current talent level in the organization is much higher, and in this division we could still be competitive in 2010 with very high expectations beyond that.
That’s where I’m at. This has been a dispiriting 5-year plan, but it could be a pretty brilliant 10-year plan.
by fleerdon on Jun 28, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I think as the discussion of Lee comes up, some credit has to be given to Shapiro for not getting ready of Lee anytime before 2008. Maybe this is misplaced credit, but there were certainly many calls from many places to get ready of this guy, who was after all battling for the 5th slot in the rotation coming into last year, for whatever value we could. Deciding not to, that was a good decision.
I often wonder if through the first month of the season, if his line was just average, would Shapiro have shipped him off? You know, once he showed that he could at least be a #3 starter.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Doubtful. What’s more interesting is the fact that he probably kept Lee for the same reason we started the season with Pavano and Reyes in the rotation — simple depth. He may not have expected much out of Lee, but he preferred to give him a chance, letting Laffey and Sowers wait in the wings.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
How much of a better chance would we have had in the 07 ALCS if we traded Lee after 2005?
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
Neyer blogs today about his thoughts on the Lee trade rumors. He doesn’t see the Indians trading Lee if they think they can compete next year:
For the Indians, though, it comes down to this: Do they expect to win at least 85 games next season, with Lee in the fold? If so, it would be foolish to trade him for almost anything they might get, because they’d have a real tough time replacing his immediate contributions. If they do not expect to win 85 games, though? Then they might as well deal him now, when his value is as high as it will ever be.
I don’t think they will trade him, because I think they think they’re not really so far away from contending again. Are they right about that? I don’t have any idea. I’m the idiot who picked them to win their division this season.
You can count me as the same kind of idiot as Neyer who picked the Indians to win the division this year.
I don’t think it makes much sense to trade Lee unless we get someone who can replace next year. Or unless like Neyer says here they’ve given up on 2010 too. Personally I haven’t given up on 2010 so I think we keep him. I really hope I’m right too.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
I haven’t given up on 2010 yet, but I stay trade ‘em. Long term reward is too great for the team. The one thing that the FO is exceptionally good at is maximizing the return on trades. Would you trade Lee for a future #1-#2 starter and a solid middle of the order starter? Given what this season has shown of our pitching depth, you have to make that move. Trade him while his value is the highest and hope that Westbrook, a rehab’d Carmona, Laffey, Huff and whatever reclamation project we sign is good enough to win 85 games. Don’t forget we went to the ALCS a couple years ago without Lee.
I just wanted to believe.
If these idiots would stop picking us every year, I wouldn’t be as crushed every time we fall on our face
If these idiots stopped picking us every year, I’d say, “Who are these idiots that don’t realize how great the Indians are going to be?”, and then be just as crushed when we faceplant.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 30, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Neyer is overthinking this. Antonetti has given us the exact formula for trading Lee or anyone else: If they think (based on the return) that they can improve the club, they’ll make the trade. So if it’s Kershaw and some other useful piece, you definitely do it. A little less, you probably don’t. Significantly less, you definitely don’t. It doesn’t really have anything to do with 85 games or any other purely arbitrary number.
I also think, in terms of PR, this is actually the best time to do something “awful” like trade Cliff Lee. Expectations are already in the toilet anyway, both short-term and long-term.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I agree with all of this and have actually been thinking for the past few days that it’s better than 50-50 they trade him. It’s the easiest way for them to add significant pieces for 10-12.
by NickFantana on Jun 30, 2009 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Kershaw’s closest comp as per B-Ref?
Laffey.
by The DiaTriber on Jul 1, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s good news for Laffey.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 3, 2009 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions
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
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
