ESPN's Crasnick Overview of Shapiro & Tribe
Not a bad write up examining Pythagorean problems over the years, our poor draft history, perceptions of the FO, etc.
7 months ago
mjmarble
83 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
This quote alone makes me want to drive down to Progressive Field, lift Shapiro up, and shake him.
Although, I give Crasnick big ups for not continuing the Shapiro lovefest that the national media seems to have.
“I truly believe in my heart that we’re going to be back in the playoffs again in the next three years,” Shapiro said. “As much as I feel [the fans’] pain, I can’t get caught up in the emotion of the history here. I don’t believe we’re going to be a bad team. I don’t believe this is the beginning of another 40 years of losing. I believe this is a bad season. That’s what it is.”
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 29, 2009 1:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
three years well that is better than 20 – 40 yrs I guess.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Jun 29, 2009 1:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, true.
But, why not “next year?”
I think this quote opens up a HUGE can of worms in the “read between the lines” department.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 29, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he says next year, he puts his job on the line, in effect. Could anyone honestly say that the Indians are highly likely to be in the playoffs next year, given their pitching situation? They have a chance, if Lee stays, if Westbrook is healthy, if Carmona comes back strong, if someone from Huff/Sowers/Lackey becomes consistent, if the bullpen is fixed. But, that’s an awful lot of ‘ifs." I think Shapiro is saying "we’re not THIS bad, but we do have problems that need addressing; we’re also in a weak division, so the chances of making the playoffs without a huge, long-term overhaul are good."
by peter m on Jun 29, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could be.
I just don’t like couching competitiveness over a “3 year” timespan.
It feels like a “plan” … and it feels like something is up.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 29, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he knows from the past few seasons that succes in baseball any given season is very much dependent on luck; the health of your players, fluctuations in performance, and the quality of other teams in your division. You can build a good roster but you don’t know how it will turn out in a given season. But, if you have quality players in your system, then you should expect for things to fall your way once every few years. That’s what he means. The Indians don’t have the resources to just buy reinforcements every year like NY and Boston teams so it’s very difficult to be consistantly in playoff contention.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 29, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In all seriousness, you think that if Shapiro really had come to the conclusion that there’s no way this organization can contend before 2012 that he would divulge that in an on-the-record interview with an ESPN columnist?
by fleerdon on Jun 29, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, but here’s my point .
He’s not saying, “Hey, I think this team can be right back in it next year.”
He’s not saying, “Hey, I think this team should be able to contend the next few years.”
He’s saying “Sometime in the next 3 years, I truly believe, deep down, that this team will make the playoffs.”
What happened to the idea of sustained contention?
Look, I understand the market inequalities as much as anyone. Yes, we can’t go out and buy the big-name FA’s every year.
But saying something like this, to me, reeks of the following:
They’re putting Lee on the market, and if they can get a gangbuster return for him, they will.
That return will likely be high-minor propsects, who can join the roster in the next 12-18 months.
I think Shapiro is preparing this team to take a conscious step backwards in 2010, in order to try to get back in it in 2011 and 2012 … before Sizemore walks.
It’s no coincidence that that guy they just acquired is under team control through 2013, either.
I’m sure everyone here will disagree .. but I see him trying to a quick teardown/rebuild to coincide with the development of Rondon, Weglarz, Mills, Brantley and LaPorta.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 29, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure I disagree at all with any of those assertions taken alone. The open question is whether making those moves with an eye toward the 2010s might help us in 2010 itself as well.
by fleerdon on Jun 29, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also agree with the fact that I see Shapiro being open to making trades that would coincide with the upcoming talent (Rondon, et al.), but that they’re still keeping the door open to competing in 2010, depending on how we start off the 2010 season, what trade possibilities come up between now and then (i.e. does someone blow us away in a trade offer for Lee, Martinez, or Peralta, etc.), and how the rest of the AL Central begins the 2010 season.
In other words, Shapiro doesn’t want to close the door on 2010 at this point, but he’s also likely open to getting quality, not too-far-away prospects that can be added to the upcoming talent that is not far away, and if that includes trading guys like Lee, Martinez, and Peralta in deals that enable him to realize that goal (i.e. someone is willing to give up the “farm” for one of them), then he very likely will be open to it.
That is what I take his comments to mean, since I’m not sure how likely it will be for us to retain Lee and/or Martinez beyond 2010 and Peralta beyond 2011 (and in Jhonny’s case, we’d probably be less likely to want to keep him based on the other internal INF options that are here now or expected to be here within the next 2 years), so his saying “contend within the next three years” might mean that he’s thinking beyond having Lee, Martinez, and/or Peralta here, since I don’t know how likely it will be to keep those guys beyond their current contracts. I could maybe see Martinez being here beyond 2010, with Lee being a less likely, and Peralta being doubtful – therefore, I think Shapiro is approaching the upcoming seasons as I mentioned above.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Jun 29, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they need to do everything in their power to retain the services of Vic. I’d argue that it was more important then keeping around CC or any other FA in the most recent grouping of players. In many ways, he is the heart and soul of this club. I hope that they manage to work something out during the offseason.
As for Peralta and Lee, I’ve stated elsewhere the increased value that comesby that 2010 club option should be used to net us better prospects. Lee would go gang-busters in Dodger Stadium (or with just about any other NL team). The same goes for Jhonny. I’m sure he’s a much better player in the NL. Regardless, a change of scenery would probably do him well.
Trading both Lee and Peralta (Shoppach too) wouldn’t doom this team to the gutter in 2010. There are plenty of other important players to build upon.
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Jun 29, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’re mis-reading the “three years” comment.
He’s saying, going to the playoffs at some point in the next three years. That is congruent with contending in all three seasons, or at least attempting to contend.
I think he’s just recognizing the reality that this is a competitive division now, and not only will we not be good every year that we plan to be good — painfully clear at this point — but we won’t advance to the playoffs every single year that we’re good, either. As in 2005.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 29, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could be.
You interpret one way, I another.
I just think its time for a new way of thinking in town …
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 29, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your biases against Shapiro probably explain why you’re more likely to interpret his comments in a negative light.
by world dictator on Jun 29, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And maybe your pro-Shapiro bias leads you to rationalize away statements like the one Shapiro made in the article.
Man, most of us don’t have an agenda either way here. We just want to have a winning baseball team.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 29, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. I read and quote. You misquote.
He said get to the playoffs, not contend.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 29, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone keeps laying out the rotation for next year – but I have to think we’re adding another starter. He’ll have his own “if’s,” of course, but one more would make a huge difference, in my opinion.
And we’ll know more about everyone, but specifically Carmona and Rondon and the kids, by the end of the year.
You did make me look up to see if we got Lackey. Lofgren?
by dgcambridge on Jun 29, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops. of course. I assumed he was listing them downhill.
by dgcambridge on Jun 29, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I want another starter for next year.
by world dictator on Jun 29, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. And given Shapiro’s tendency to look for depth, I’m guessing we’ll have something even if its some reclamation project.
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Jun 29, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know. I know resources are tight and all, but I really think our main priority should be on improving the rotation with a quality starter at this point. You know the infamous middle of the rotation starter we’ve lacked.
by world dictator on Jun 29, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel like we have quite a few MOR starters.
by Roger Dorn on Jun 29, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we “read between the lines” a bit, it could mean that Shapiro is gearing up to “retool” for 2011-2012, which would explain Rosenthal saying Lee is available.
by bewwolv on Jun 29, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i really think all this is is shapiro saying:
Hey stupids. If you want to give me Lee, Sizemore and Phillips, I’ll give you Colon.
by Brick. on Jun 29, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. In fact I think it would be irresponsible for Shapiro to NOT listen to offers on Lee considering his talent, reasonable contract, and the very very very poor trade market.
by world dictator on Jun 29, 2009 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s exactly how I’m reading it.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 29, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the difference is that I am OK with the idea.
by bewwolv on Jun 29, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it just means that he’s not putting all his eggs in the 2010 basket, not that he’s not going to try to contend next season. And I’m still not sure there aren’t Lee deals out there that even help the team’s 2010 chances, especially if more than one pitcher comes back who could be solid starters. Probably no single pitcher will be as good as Lee, but if we get two options that are just a couple notches below, that could be a net upgrade — or at least some injury insurance.
Given Victor’s and Jake’s situations, it doesn’t seem sensible to throw in the towel for 2010, but with guys like Santana, Weglarz, Rondon, etc. figuring to come up after 2010 (or at least not by the beginning of the year), you want to keep options open to trades that will improve the club for 2011 and 2012 while hopefully at least breaking even on 2010.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 29, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s also not putting his eggs in a towel, or throwing a basket. I think.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 29, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if he wraps his eggs in a towel, puts them in a basket and throws it? Then do we contend in 2010?
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 29, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on the basket construction….
by Logodaedalus on Jun 29, 2009 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since no team can be so unlucky that often
by Brick. on Jun 29, 2009 1:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to Cleveland Sports.
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Jun 29, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree, this a pretty good write-up from a national writer.
by dgcambridge on Jun 29, 2009 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with: really good job. It hits on many of our favorite subjects, and is even-handed. The evaluation process this season will probably hit many of the same points, I’d imagine, though it would probably also have lots more data involved.
by MTF on Jun 29, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I thought the same thing, he really seems to know Cleveland sports. Especially with this part:
In Cleveland, the measuring stick for the Indians remains the great John Hart-Mike Hargrove-Charlie Manuel teams of the late ’90s. The Indians averaged 93 wins a year from 1995 through 2001, made the playoffs six times, and featured the likes of Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez and Albert Belle.
During that span, the Tribe made history with 455 straight sellouts at Jacobs Field. But those days are long gone. The Indians finished 12th in the majors in attendance in 2002. They haven’t ranked higher than 21st since, and this season, they’re 27th with 22,557 a game. The reality is, Cleveland is an economically depressed town, and it’s a grind for the Indians to sell tickets, win or lose.
“Everything we do now is compared to what we accomplished then,” Shapiro said. "If you’re around our team, that’s what you feel. It’s not 2007. It’s ’94 to ’01.
That’s exactly right; nothing Shapiro ever does (short of winning a World Series) will be good enough for many Indians fans because it won’t compare to the 90’s. But most fans don’t realize how unique that situation was and it will never be repeated here. And he’s right about 2007; that is looked upon as a ‘failure’, not a success for him even though it was a great season. Fans look back at playoff losses in the 90’s with fond memories but they look at that season with bad memories, which really isn’t fair.
I wish every Indians fan would read that article and realize how hard it is for a team like Cleveland to win consistantly. Winning 90+ games twice in five years is a success, not a failure.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 29, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crasnick was beat writer for the Reds during the Marge Schott era, a time when even a championship didn’t ameliorate longing for the Big Red Machine, so I think he probably understands the psychology pretty well.
by FredOx on Jun 29, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, I wasn’t aware of his background, but that does make sense.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 29, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Winning 90+ games twice in five years is a success, not a failure.
See, I don’t go this far. I like the process that Shapiro has developed and followed. I understand the injuries, the non-luck, etc. But let’s be real here- 2 90 win seasons, 1 division title in 5 years is just ok. 2 90 win seasons and 1 division title in 7 years is not good at all. Of course the Red Sox and Yankees have done better. But so have the Twins. And the A’s. And the White Sox. And the Angels.
by Ryan Kelsey on Jul 1, 2009 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s the Twins and the A’s doing it that is the real indictment.
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Jul 1, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re just expanding it to include Shap’s first two years to fit your point. There’s a reason we don’t include those years. And Brad’s quote was the last five years.
Oakland A’s, last five years – 2 90 win season, 1 division title, 0 wild cards. And last place this year. Sound familiar?
They had a run before that which mirrored the Tribe’s run in the late 90’s. But honestly, on Brad’s quote, you couldn’t find a better comparison to the Indians than the A’s.
by dgcambridge on Jul 1, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shap’s 1st two years get a discount, but I don’t think they should be totally ignored. We accept that there is two years of total rebuild, but we do so because we thought that we would be contenders from 05 and beyond. The rebuild strategy was a good one, but it hasn’t brought us the same level of success as we hoped. And therefore, I think the entire era of Shapiro needs to be critiqued.
by Ryan Kelsey on Jul 1, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but before we go assaulting Shapiro and praising Terry Ryan, recall that Ryan’s first seven years on the job included just two 70-win seasons and zero division titles.
by FredOx on Jul 1, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
And, also, that the “success” in question was the Twins, who are scum.
by fleerdon on Jul 1, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we thought the Indians were going to be contenders from 2005-09 but realistically that’s just not possible. It’s very difficult for a mid-market team like Cleveland to be in playoff contention for five straight years. There are just too many variables that we can’t account for over that long of a time period and we don’t have the money to reload every year like some teams do.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 1, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get it. Other teams are never involved in rebuilds, just Cleveland.
by elsandito on Jul 1, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s fair to include all 7 years when comparing to the performance of other staffs instead of ignoring the first 2 years because other other teams experience rebuilding seasons as well.
by elsandito on Jul 1, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But do the seven-year samples of the A’s or Twins or whoever include the blow-up years? You can’t just compare Shapiro’s first seven years to Beane or Ryan’s last seven.
by FredOx on Jul 1, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are several teams who appear to rebuild for five to ten years in a row, so it would be hard to draw direct comparisons.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 1, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, sure. It is, however, not the defenders of Shapiro who are drawing the comparisons. I’d argue that direct comparisons are unlikely to ever be particularly valid, but if you insist on making one, you need to show that the situations are comparable.
by FredOx on Jul 2, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. As mentioned above, Ryan’s first seven seasons weren’t very good, so he spend a lot longer rebuilding than Shapiro did.
Nobody said other teams don’t rebuild, but it’s not really fair to include Shapiro’s first two seasons when he inherited a team that was old and expensive which he didn’t build.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 2, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s fair to question moves like extending Matt Lawton
by Roger Dorn on Jul 2, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s certainly true. I don’t think anyone is saying that none of Shapiro’s move his first two years can be questioned, only that you can’t judge his performance by the team’s record because he didn’t build that team and the team was going through a rebuilding mode.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 2, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re comparing the Indians to the Angels and White Sox? The Los Angeles Angels and Chicago White Sox? How can you compare Cleveland to the second and third largest cities in the country?
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 1, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, for a national writer it is good.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
by westbrook on Jun 29, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on, for a local writer or, gasp, a LGT writer, that was a pretty good article.
by Cols714 on Jun 29, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is that national writers often just drop in and pick up one or two incomplete angles, while missing the larger context. Crasnick was much more thorough here.
At least, that was what I was saying.
by dgcambridge on Jun 29, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know, but the bashing of national writers sometimes gets old. When they do a good job, it’s OK to say they did a good job without hedging it with the words “for a…it was good”.
by Cols714 on Jun 29, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s okay to say it either way.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 29, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he just means that most national writes don’t understand Cleveland that well. He hit the feelings of Indians fans right on the nose, and I was impressed
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 29, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not just Cleveland or the Indians, but any specific team that they don’t have a lot of prior knowledge about.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 29, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think personal history and experience matters a lot when considering national writers. Crasnick, as I noted above, got his big break covering the Reds, so he understands Cleveland more than others might. He also grew up in pre-douchebag New England, and thus was exposed to suffering fans. Luckily for him, he left Maine before he had a chance to become a full-fledged douchebag himself, and thus isn’t any more predisposed to celebrating Faux Nation any more than any other ESPN writer.
This is also why, for example, that Pat Forde is most in his element covering college sports, particularly basketball. Years writing for the Louisville Courier-Journal will impart college knowledge, if only by osmosis.
by FredOx on Jun 30, 2009 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This team came back from the dead when Vic moved into the cleanup spot and became the anchor of our lineup. But now my sense is that Shapiro would be willing to do the unthinkable to fans and exchange him for the right prospects.
I think this because Shapiro has historically used a planning horizon of this and next season when he spoke. His reference to 3 seasons represents a seismic shift in his language showing a planning horizon that transcends Vic’s contract. And if Vic is available, everyone is available.
by elsandito on Jun 29, 2009 11:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If Vic gets traded, I will light myself on fire
by Roger Dorn on Jun 29, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m with you. We’ll meet at Herald Square.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 29, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m with both of you. If Vic gets traded, I’m lighting Dorn and MTF on fire.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 30, 2009 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Haha, awesome.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jun 30, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with lighting yourself on fire in Manhattan is that no one would even think twice
by Roger Dorn on Jun 30, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure they would! If you block the box, they would definitely take notice. Intersection traffic is tough enough without some frustrated Indians fan taking the opportunity to make it tougher by lighting themselves on fire.
by MTF on Jun 30, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’d have to get over their initial confusion that someone could possibly root for the Indians
by Roger Dorn on Jun 30, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You see everything sooner or later in the city- even an Indians fan
by MTF on Jun 30, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They might conclude the guy wearing the Indians hat is one of the Knicks. They’d probably be happy he’s on fire.
by peter m on Jun 30, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what if you really really like the prospects we got in exchange?
by elsandito on Jun 29, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A littler fire. Just his feet, say.
by fleerdon on Jun 29, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone is always available.
As a rule, what helps us contend in 2010 greatly overlaps with what helps us contend in 2011-2012. We sacrifice little in terms of potential moves by keeping 2010 in focus, rather than emphasizing 2011-2012, because history shows that you get about as much for a walk-year guy in July as you do in January.
Shapiro did not say that he only expected to compete for the playoffs one or two times in the next three years. He said he expects us to get to the playoffs — i.e., to contend and prevail — at some point in the next three years. Those who are claiming otherwise are not simply interpreting him differently, they are flat-out misquoting him.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 29, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, I’m there too. I really think I’d have a hard time following this team for at least a year without Vic.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jun 30, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
