I'd like to retire as an Indian.
over 2 years ago
nickjs21
411 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
man, Vic makes me wanna cry. I wonder how serious he is? Would he leave money on the table if we tried to extend him? the unthinking fan boy in me (that is—most of me) is swooning. Someone ought tape Vic’s press clippings on Cliff’s locker.
I’m pretty ure I read somewhere in the offseason that Cliff said something similar to this. Now he appears to be changing his mind but I know I read it.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 14, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
sure. he said it when he was talking about signing a long term extenstion coming on the heels of his break-out cy young season which came on the heels of his break-down bed-crap season.
cliff lee
is still fantastic this year… all his peripherals are good (6.59 K/9, 2.34 BB/9, and he’s only allowed 8 HR… all good for a 3.27 FIP (12th in all of baseball))… the problem is that he has the equivalent of a HS defense backing him up, the bullpen won’t protect a lead for him, and he hasn’t received much offensive support… as a result his sterling W-L record from last is tarnished, but he’s not too far off from last year… and he’s progressed light years from 2004-2007, when he was coughing up HR’s at a high rate and walking more guys… he’s a FB first pitcher who’s throwing well
by gorilla_baller on Jul 15, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
my bad
i read your previous post incorrectly… thought you called ’09 “break-down bed-crap”…
by gorilla_baller on Jul 15, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
VIc cried when we lost in ‘07. I think he’s serious, but it’s still a business.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 14, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
But he’s not a business man, he’s simply earning a living. Plenty of professionals take less money for positions with other advantages (location, work environment, finishing a long attempted task [read “championship”]). Sports itself is a (very, very protectionist, anti-free market) business, but the players are no different than educators or doctors or lawyers or whatever (excepting the incredible salary).
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
very protectionist, anti-free market
For the owners, yes. For the players absolutely not. You OPS 1.050 and win a gold glove and they’ll pay you a king’s ransom – provided your name isn’t Barry Bonds.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It would certainly put my mind at ease if he let Alan Nero in on this sentiment. Preferably within the next two weeks.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 14, 2009 8:04 AM EDT reply actions
I’d be willing to bet Nero is not trying to hear that right now.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 14, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Money talks in the end. Always does.
Vic is 31 after his deal expires in 2010 … question would be … how much does the team want to sign him for … and for how long?
Do you give him 4 years as a 1B … in hopes that you squeeze more productivity out of him before the “new decline” age of 35 sets in?
This question would be so much easier without that Hafner contract locked in at DH.
This question would be so much easier without that Hafner contract locked in at DH. if Vic weren’t primed to make big money as a 31 year old catcher
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions
That too.
But that Hafner contract prevents a lot of flexibility for the next few years.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 14, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions
You assume that the biggest obstacle to the Indians resigning Vic is payroll flexibility. That’s almost like saying the Indians didn’t resign CC because of the Hafner contract. I know Hafner is the highest paid player on our team but its not like his contract is the second coming of Barry Zito.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Um, no.
You’re making assumptions about my assumptions. It’s a combination of payroll flexibility and POSITION flexibility.
Vic is an C/1B/DH.
DH is gone with Hafner locked in there.
C is Carlos Santana’s to hold down soon. In fact, he was likely acquired because of Victor walking or getting out from behind the plate.
1B is where LaPorta is now spending most of his time. With Brantley your likely LF, and Wegz hot on his tail.
Not to mention Mills, who is in no way a sure thing. Neither is Brantley really.
The plain and simple fact is that the Indians will only have so many guys north of $10 million on their roster, so they’ll need to fill the team with guys like Santana, LaPorta, Brantley and Wegz.
Those guys all play the same positions as Vic.
That’s why it’s a combo … Hafner fills one of those +$10 million spots … and by being a DH- only, he completely reduces the positional flexibility of the team.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 14, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
The context of your comments dealt exclusively with payroll issues. Hence my comment.
That being said, I agree with most of your points. However, the FO has consistently said that they’re very very confident in LaPorta ability to play OF. Kevin Goldstein has also stated LaPorta is underrated as an OF. So I think we can believe Shap and Co when they say they’re just teaching him 1B for versatility.
But we definitely have a lot of depth in the 1B/OF position. But that’s a good thing. Aside from injuries, this is depth that we can flip for other area’s of need. If the Indians think that Vic can produce, at an affordable price, then Shapiro will just flip someone.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Let’s hope … and while I’d like to keep Vic … I think I’d rather keep Cliff.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 14, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Really?
I’m a firm believer that bats can be replaced … but FOR starters are much harder to come by.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 14, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Well its not crazy per se, but I think the majority of arguments point to trading Lee, especially in comparison to Victor.
For starters, Victor has a longer track record of success, is more of a fan favorite, and stands a much higher probability of resigning. On top of all this, Lee would garner more in return.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
yes, Lee would garner more return because he is a more valuable player. This is why—if allowed to choose—I would keep Lee. That doesn’t seem very likely now, unfortunately.
keeping Lee isn’t going to make our overall rotation better though.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
i would think it highly likely that keeping Lee would make for a stronger rotation next year. The benefits for trading Lee would be the following years.
One pitcher can’t turn a weak rotation into a strong rotation. Hence the rotation’s performance this year.
If Lee can be flipped for a high quality pre arb or major league ready player and the subsequent available funds used to sign a Pavano/Penny type player I think the overall health of the rotation can be better.
This is twice as true if we get another high quality pre arb/major league ready player for Victor in a trade.
I;m not disparaging Lee’s value to the rotation but considering our current issues I’d rather have two good quality pitchers instead of one great quality pitcher,
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
No doubt…especially when our offense doesn’t give the great pitcher any run support….at that point you might as well have two good-sub great pitchers.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I hear you. I’m not sure I believe it.
It would be
Lee + our other options at the 5th spot
versus
Young Arm #1 from trade + Young Arm #2 from trade .
Do we really think we’d get someone like Kershaw and a second ML ready arm? That seems unlikely to me. I just think it would be a huge dropoff from Lee, and no guarantee that we would make it up on the other end.
I guess my problem is that I think we’re only going to get one guy (at most) back who’s better than the Huff/Laffey/Carmona set. I’ll all for adding more guys from the Huff/Laffey/Carmona group this offseason, but not at the expense of Cliff.
I think you misunderstood me.
The scenario’s are
1. Lee + current options
vs
2. Young Arm #1 from trade + veteran free agent signing ala Penny, Pavano, etc
vs
3. Young Arm #1 from Lee trade + Young Arm #2 from Victor trade + veteran free agent signing ala Penny, Pavano, etc
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
that depends on whether you slot him in at 1B or C
.850 OPS catchers are nearly impossible to replace, as are pitchers of cliff’s caliber
.850 OPS first basemen are pretty common
that said, vic is my favorite indian, and i’d rather see him stay than cliff.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 14, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Common and easy to acquire are two different things.
Looking at the numbers, Vic is in the middle as far as wOBA. But almost every player above him is either an extremely high value player either in terms of FA salary or prospects used to acquire them.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Common and easy to acquire are two different things.
they’re also expensive, possibly the highest paid position depending on what kind of bastardized way you look at it.
You are reading my signature.
Agreed….they’re are plenty of high OPS firstbaseman because that is a position that is meant to have a high OPS….but most teams must develop that kind of player from within b/c like you said…they’re expensive to buy.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Bats can be replaced…but the true leader of your team (and catcher—who should always be a teams captain) cannot be replaced. Pitching comes and goes, and can always be bought in the market…but it takes time to develop a cleanup hitter and captain of your team.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
There are a lot of different ways to argue Lee vs. Martinez. It’s a fact that Martinez has been more productive in every year of their careers except 2008.
I would suggest that Lee has more short-term value, where you can do a high-leverage July trade, but Martinez is still the guy you want to hold onto long-term — or even just for 2010.
Pitchers carry more long-term risk, and the difference between Lee’s short-term performance and his long-term track record is simply gigantic.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
A lot of it depends on where the Indians see LaPorta. If they think he can be a decent left fielder, then there’s a spot for Martinez even with Carlos Santana.
But then there’s not a spot for Brantley, and a bit further down the line Wegz. Of course all this assumes none of those prospects falter. But hey, if everyone is playing well that’s a good problem to have.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
except we’re talking about next year not three years down the line
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think Brantley would be able to supplant LaPorta if Matt comes up and gets his bat going in left. It takes an awful lot of singles and stolen bases to make up for slugging 300, and we don’t as yet have reason to believe Brantley would be better than that.
I’m very impressed by Brantley and everything; I’m just not going to worry about him seeing time topside unless and until a) we need a fourth outfielder and don’t have a better option, or b) he’s OPSing 950.
by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not saying he’d supplant LaPorta. But Brantley is a good prospects who projects to be a good major league player, at least in the view of our front office. I’m just saying you have to play him somewhere.
Like I said, depth is good, I’m just saying freeing up a spot isn’t as simple as moving one player around
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Happily, LaPorta can play either outfield corner or first, and I don’t think they’ll jeopardize his development by getting him work at all three positions. I just meant to point out that we’re probably more than a year away from stressing over finding ABs for Mike Brantley in Cleveland.
by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree,. But we’re talking about a scenario in which we resign victor. That’d be 2011 and Brantley should be ready by then. But hell, like I said the more the merrier.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Doesn’t Westbrook’s deal (was something in the neighborhood of being 2nd highest player on the team) end after next year? With him gone, we can use part of that money to increase Martinez’s salary to something around $9-10mil a year, and thus keep him?
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
You make some good points, but at the same time, I really want Victor to play at least most of his career with the Indians. No rational reason for it.
What’s irrational about this? The Indians are a source of entertainment for me. Although winning adds a great deal to that entertainment value, if the only thing I found entertaining about baseball the relentless pursuit of winning, I sure as hell wouldn’t be an Indians fan. I want Victor playing for the Indians because I enjoy watching him play.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 14, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
So the front office should put out a team that maximizes the most entertainment instead of highest chances of winning?
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
According to what I’ve read, the 1962 Mets was probably the most entertaining team in baseball history.
"Actual versatility is a good thing. Imagined versatility is a bad thing."
Jay Levin
by woodsmeister on Jul 14, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not what I said. I’m a customer, not an executive. Ryan said:
I really want Victor to play at least most of his career with the Indians. No rational reason for it.
That’s not an irrational sentiment for a fan. If all we enjoyed out of baseball was winning, why are we still posting on a messageboard about this awful team?
For the record, if they were the Indians or I were a Mets fan—I would have loved the ’62 Mets. I would have loved the ’86 Mets. Different reasons, different emotions, still fun.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 14, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think anyone is saying winning is all that matters. But it does matter, a lot. If it didn’t we wouldn’t have so many pissed of fans right now.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it is pretty clear that while the fans find many different things entertaining — lots of home runs, sensational defense, stolen bases, dazzling personalities — fans find winning to be more entertaining than all of those things put together.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
True, but losing doesn’t necessarily alienate most fans.
I’m proof positive of this since 1975.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
I don’t think the commentators on this site are proof positive of anything about the general population.
by dgcambridge on Jul 16, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
I kind of gotta figure with Santana coming up and supposed to be the next big thing….even if they don’t get the same kind of production out of him…he’s worth at least a four year deal at $8.5mil a year. He’s the team leader and someone that the Tribe needs around to help Santana up here. Even if he only catches one day a week…they have to keep Martinez or we’re looking at another 7 years of rebuilding (or however long it takes).
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I get the feeling that Vic is going to get a better deal than 8.5 mil a year
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
wishful thinking that he’ll take a nice hometown discount and pressure the FO to go out and use the rest of the money that they would have had to give him and sign some decent players.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, fine, I’ll take the bullet. This talk about how we can’t win without Vic around is ridiculous. Is he more valuable because of his leadership? Sure, absolutely. But there are plenty of teams winning without Victor. He probably helps the other players on this team, but let’s not overstate it. It’s one thing to add a few more dollars to an offer, and another thing to say that we need him.
(Do I need to go down the path that says that he’s the clear cut leader of one of the worst teams…no, that’s too far. But you’re pushing me, Mooney.)
Why do you hate freedom so much?
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 14, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not saying Victor is the answer…I’m saying between at trade away of Lee and Victor right now, I’m leaning toward keeping Victor and resigning him to a few years. Santana could really learn from a three time All Star in Victor. He probably ain’t gunna learn a thing from Lee. That’s my point. I might have gone overboard a bit with the rebuilding thing.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Glad you got to that last sentence.
Trading one or even both guys doesn’t mean we’re tanking 2010. We could simply be reloading differently.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
If trading two of your three best players doesn’t signify throwing up the white flag, I dunno what does.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 14, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Again … Randy Johnson leaves … Ken Griffey Jr. leaves … A-Rod leaves … Mariners win 116 games.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
well, we’d need to have valbuena see bret boone’s “dentist”
by Brick. on Jul 15, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Haha, nice.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 15, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t really want to rain on the Santana love, because I think he’s dynamite, but Sackmann doesn’t think he could crack a 700 OPS as a big-leaguer.
He’s got an 890 OPS as a 23-year-old catcher in AA. That’s great, but it’s not 1090.
Again, I love Santana, but I if he’s playing in the majors next year, or to some extent in early 2011, then he’s moving even faster than he is already, no?
by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Wyatt Toregas/Shoppach become our catchers if we move Vic.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Santana is 3-4 months younger than Victor was in Double-A. The numbers aren’t quite as good, but they’re not far off, and the defensive skills may be stronger.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Which is awesome. But Victor didn’t see significant time in the majors till he was 25, right? I only meant to point out that I don’t think Santana’s a huge factor in the Victor discussion.
by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
As a big leaguer today, I assume? Wow, way to go out on a limb, he’s got an MLE below 700.
Who sets these standards? The EL isn’t easy. There are 4 (four) players with a higher OPS than Santana in the EL, and they are all at least a year older, and three of the four are 1B/LF. He’s pretty clearly the top position prospect in the EL. Sorry for not hitting 1090.
Yeah, well, Vic ain’t everybody’s role model. Two years ago the ’08 CY winner wanna kick his ass. Another reason I love Cliffy.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Absolutely.
Lee, in the midst of possibly his worst season ever gets irritated by something Vic said. Martinez is the most popular kid in class, all the cool kids wanna sit at his lunch table in the cafeteria. Nobody but his Momma loves him but still Cliff doesn’t give a hot damn, you piss him off you’re gonna get your ass kicked – BMOC or not. I luv this.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t think Victor got his ass kicked. Don’t know if you’ll get the reference, but I’m thinking Lee is more like Judd Nelson in The Breakfast Club.
Cliff moves to throw a punch. Victor quickly puts him in a headlock.
CLIFF: I don’t want to get into this with you man …
VICTOR: Why not?
CLIFF: Cuz I’d kill you.
Victor releases Cliff, recognizing the tacit surrender.
CLIFF: It’s real simple. I’d kill you and the f***ing front office would sue me and it would be a big mess and I don’t care enough about you to bother.
Victor shakes head, walks away without comment.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
That’s cuz you guyz can’t identify a truly crazy, self-destructive hill-billy. Like I’ve said before, I’ve met some guys from Arkansas who know Cliff. You guys bet on Vic, my money’s on Mr. Lee.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Or we can assume that the irritable ass got over it and realized that Vic is in fact nice and popular.
I hate “nice and popular”. That’s why my favorite ’90s Indian is Joey Belle.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yeah, nice people are sooooo terrible. I hate being around them. Vic should really act like more of an a-hole, that would make him much more likeable.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 14, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I especially hate that he has a different handshake with each of his teammates. I’d rather he have a different punch in the face for each of his teammates.
by Roger Dorn on Jul 14, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
No moreso than the 2007 squad, which got no help from Lee.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
“when it counted” = “I’m a lousy fan”
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 15, 2009 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Hafner’s 12th inning game-winning single in Game 2 of the ALDS begs to differ
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d say that was one of three psychologically significant moments in the ALCS.
Why does the game two hit count and the game five failure not?
Because a) hitters fail more often than they succeed, even when they are great, and b) a bases loaded single in the 11th inning of a tied game has a lot more direct of an impact than what happens in the first inning. The Indians lost 7-1 anyway, so a DP there vs. something else probably wouldn’t have made an enormous difference. I know, I know, “but CC could have been pitching with a lead”… but that’s just speculation.
And one of three psychologically significant moments? Just about every moment was psychologically significant in that series.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 15, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I realize these are subjective judgments, but you’re being relativist.
Are you seriously saying it was as psychologically significant when Coco flew out to center for the first out in the bottom of the fifth in game one, with the Red Sox up 8-1?
Because baseball is a game defined by failure and selecting one or even a small handful of them to point out is never statistically significant or rhetorically meaningfully?
Mr. Junkballer,
Of course it is rhetorically meaningful. But I didn’t start the trouble here. Turk was the one who cited one event as significant.
Respectfully yours,
Odradek
Turk cited a success, which are less frequent in baseball, not a failure, which are the norm. That’s the point.
Absolutely. You’re right. But I didn’t think Hafner’s game-winner was that high-leverage. It was cited as evidence of Hafner’s being there “when it counted.” It won the game, but I was pretty confident before Hafner got into the batter’s box that the Tribe was going to win. There were quite a few positive outcomes available to him in that situation. Grounding into a double play with runners on first and third was, to me, quite deflating.
Is Mike Koplove either nice or popular?
by odradek on Jul 15, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Lou Merloni rocked Bannedini’s world.
"Actual versatility is a good thing. Imagined versatility is a bad thing."
Jay Levin
by woodsmeister on Jul 15, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that was Chagrin Rick, right?
That’s going way back, but you definitely would’ve been around.
I got it, that was mikehudson who always had Lou’s back. Apologies to Chagrin Rick. I had the right idea.
I remember the mikehudson days.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
You guys remember a lot of that better than I do. I dug up some of his threads from 2006 — you were making an argument that Grady should be a platoon player.
I often wonder what happens to guys who are pretty regular contributors and then just vanish without a trace. Based on one of his last comments, maybe he’s dead.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
indiansfan loved him some J-Rod.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 16, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I remember lots of things in a fuzzy way, and with concentration the details start to come back to me.
Several years ago I read a newspaper article about mikehudson once that really had me sympathizing with him. He had led a hard lifestyle, according to that account. I think he was in a punk band of some sort that actually had some success. In ten minutes I’ll probably remember the source.
Hey might not be—I think he’s one of the good guys. I don’t have the time to do any sleuthing. As far as I can tell he’s still writing.
He was in a group known as The Pagans.
Great Cle punk band. “What’s This Shit Called Love?” and “Street Where Nobody Lives.”
He also was on the Styrenes’ album All the Wrong People Are Dying.
You spell like Chuck a little more every day.
Punk bands aren’t known for their strong sense of sonic aesthetic, other than loud/chaotic. Our shop does very detailed work, the staff are all engineers’ engineers. I think it’s great to have a phenomenally detailed, pristine recording of a really intense band totally shredding things up — a painfully real sound. But that’s just me.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Not really. From a sonic standpoint, our recordings are probably more accurate and detailed, as are many other studios who deal with more than just guitar rock. Beyond that Albini abdicates any creative role in shaping even the sonic signature of the record, let alone influencing the actual music.
Albini insists on recording what a rock band “really sounds like” — the problem being that that isn’t what any of the rock-band records any of us grew up with sound like, which is why Nirvana fired him. I actually like what Albini does a lot, and obviously some of what we do is fairly naturalist, but I see no reason to insist on it religiously.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
You’re right, it was mikehudson. I thought it was bannedini because he was always talking about how great various players in Buffalo were performing because he was going to see them on a regular basis.
"Actual versatility is a good thing. Imagined versatility is a bad thing."
Jay Levin
by woodsmeister on Jul 16, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Or maybe you can’t help but put Lee in some box based on one incident that you weren’t even a party to. You bet on Cliff, I’ll keep assuming that he’s a rational human being and not the redneck moron you paint him to be.
Again, for the twentieth time, you are speaking completely from hearsay and conjecture. There is no public evidence that Clifton Phifer Lee is anything other than a nice family man who occasionally struggles to control his temper. This is more or less the same schtick as the “true Clevelander” garbage. You can’t just pigeionhole people, declare you have them figured out, and then preach it as gospel.
And I’m ranting. I hate the All-Star Break.
by Brad D on Jul 14, 2009 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
See, now you’re doing what you accuse me of – leaping to conclusions based on limited facts.
No, I don’t ever think I said Cliff was a moron. Far from it. What I said – or at least meant to imply – is that Cliff Lee is the most honest guy in a Tribe uni. No false teammate – “it’s hard to win when you don’t score” – no pretense – “I don’t have a favorite book since I don’t read much” and certainly no BS about team loyalty – unlike our good buddy CC. Was he worried about drawing the ire of Indians fans by going after one of the annointed. Hell no, he was pissed – that’s it.
If you want quotes from a PR machine, talk to Vic. Better do it soon, cuz, one way or another, he’s gonna be gone in less than 18 months.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Ok, so he’s honest, how does that make him a “a truly crazy, self-destructive hill-billy?” I don’t want a PR machine, I really don’t care, but it’s nothing more than naive to turn Cliff into something he isn’t.
He’s a good pitcher on a bad team, he’s a family guy with a little bit of a problem with his temper. Why does it have to be one or other? He’s not Leave it to Beaver and he’s not the bad boy you want him to be. He, like most of us, falls somewhere in the middle.
I don’t think so. Do you really think that Shoppach is Lee’s catcher cuz he calls And I’ll bet that Cliff’s not scoring any points with the FO by carrying this grudge either. I also believe that Cliff couldn’t give a damn less.
As to the “crazy, self-destructive hill-billy” part – Cliff probably would bristle at that discription, since he’s a red-neck and not a hillbilly – but yeah, I’ll stand by that one too. After all ‘billys are my peeps – I can spot ’em from cross town. But I’ll give you this: I also believe that having a family – and growing up some – have taken some of the edge offa Cliff. But not all of it. I still believe that public perception is not high on his list of concerns. I’m sure that the Indian’s PR guys find making Cliff cuddly a real challenge.
So do I think he’s Milton Bradley? No, I don’t. But he’s no FO sock-puppet either. In the end – and it’s coming soon – you won’t hear any of this “wanting to spend the rest of my career in Cleveland” BS from Cliff. He’ll say that he’ll miss his team mates – some of ‘em anyhow – but you won’t get any false crocodile tears from Mr. Lee. If it plays out like this, I’ll have a great deal more respect for Cliff Lee than I’ve ever had for Thome, or CC or, yes even Victor Martinez.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Or maybe Kelly catches for Cliff so Vic can have a scheduled day off from behind the plate so his body doesn’t suffer the wear and tear that is natural to the position of catcher, thereby extending the productive portion of his season and the productive seasons of his career. But no, you could be right too; it could all stem from one incident two years ago that you sticks out as a red flag to only you because you are an experienced redneck/hillbilly spotter. Thank God we have your expert input to drag us from the intellectual mire of our ignorant ways. I swear, until your light dawned in the hopeless darkness that was the way I experienced baseball, I was a mere serf on the fiefdom of the Cleveland front office. This is the end of my personal dark ages; the age of enlightenment is upon me.
this whole thread has been immensely entertaining, but i have to say that the whole “vic-lee feud” is stupid and completely overblown.
they got pissed off at each other. they had it out in the dugout. so what? my experience in playing and watching sports is that that kind of thing happens all the time—tempers flare, guys get in each others’ faces, and then the moment passes and everybody is cool again.
i’ve also read a number of quotes from both vic and lee this year indicating that they have a friendly relationship. i swear i read a story saying that they played RBI baseball against each other.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 15, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
If you want quotes from a PR machine, talk to Vic.
I’m sorry, but you half to be some kind of truly jaded to not like Victor Martinez.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I second that motion. All in favor say Aye….“Aye”.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d donate to this cause.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 14, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Ever see the statue of Garko in LF?
by elsandito on Jul 14, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 29 recs
11 recs in 2 hours and 22 minutes…. not bad.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 14, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
22 recs so far … that’s almost three per word! Might be a record.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
http://www.letsgotribe.com/2008/11/18/664525/bbwaa-awards-al-mvp-to-tra#10111100
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
I thought you meant something on the page you were linking to, and I couldn’t figure out what it was. But you mean the link itself.
It’s 188, I’m neurologically obligated to calculate….
by Logodaedalus on Jul 14, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Aim high are not those 2 words.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
I recall vanillagorilla doing awfully well with a “Yess!!! BARFIELD!” in the LaPorta callup thread.
by fleerdon on Jul 16, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Let’s hope that he’d say this with Wedge not around, too.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
Hard to say, Vic seems to have a genuine fondness for Wedge.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 14, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with Jay that he probably just has a fondness for the laundry.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 14, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I also agree with myself about this.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I, too, would like to retire as an Indian.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Jul 14, 2009 1:13 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Rec. This is slightly less realistic than my other dream job, general counsel for Pearl Jam.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Nice sediment, only problem is it’s not realistic. Not realistic for Vic and not realistic for the Indians either.
First off Vic’s gonna command at least $10M a year for 3+ years on his next contract. And he’ll be worth every penny to a contender – something we won’t be for at least two years. Second, we need pitching – lots of pitching – lots of good, cheap pitching. Starters, relievers, middle inning pitchers – we need ‘em all. As we all know the best way to acquire good cheap pitching is to acquire pre-arbitration pitchers – boat loads of ‘em cuz we all know TNSTAPP. And that’s what Vic represents: 2 or 3 good to great pitching prospects and a bat. The Indians can’t afford to pay him and we can’t afford to keep him around in lieu of pitching prospects. He’s gotta go.
Same with Cliff – without the sentimentality. Cliff’s gonna demand big bucks when his time comes and would be a crucial component on any contender’s – that’s contender’s – pitching staff. Only difference is you won’t get this "I’d like to finish as a (fill in the blank) BS from Cliff. Cuz Cliff learned early on – remember the hat tip? – that, in the end, this is all about bidnez and what have you done for me lately. The same fans who cheered you wildly when you were working hard to win the CY and the same fans that booed you mercilessly when you were working your ass off and getting shelled. The only thing that’s palpable and real is the money.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jul 14, 2009 2:45 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I could never enjoy sports if I had this outlook, Chuck. Not saying you’re wrong, just that I like my little delusional bubble and that being disappointed when a player leaves for more money is less emotionally traumatic to me than operating under these assumptions.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 14, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Chuck isn’t writing about sports, he’s writing about the insane financial reality that is MLB. MLB can make all this crap go away if they level the playing field.
I think about this at least once a week and I swear it raises my blood pressure. In fact, I’ve been thinking about how I feel about baseball in the abstract after this season of disappointment and I’ve concluded that I’m a lot less interested in baseball specifically because of this issue. The sport is noticeably, but not in its entirety, repugnant because of its absurd financial realities.
by NickFantana on Jul 14, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And he’ll be worth every penny to a contender – something we won’t be for at least two years.
I see absolutely no reason to believe this.
The Indians had the talent to compete this year they just underperformed, along with the bad luck of a few key injuries. There’s no reason to believe that next year with even more talent on the team we have no chance of winning the division.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s why you should believe it: Shap’s stringing the det cord around this team even as we come to grips with Vic’s eminent departure. If Shapiro’s half as smart as we think he is, he knows that he has no other choice.
And our hometown club’s gonna be swimming in red ink come October. You think that Dolan’s gonna give the green light to Shap so that he can acquire the kinda vets we’d need to contend next year? I don’t, mostly because he just won’t have the money.
BTW, you seen Blake’s stats lately? On the team with the best record in baseball he’s a very valuable part. To us, today, he’d be just another guy standing in the field while our “relief” corps gives up four runs in the eigth. This Santana kid better be good – real good.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Right, but even without the addition of veterans the talent that’s currently on this team or almost ready in the minors is more than enough to contend.
Hell, our high powered offense alone should keep us competitive.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
All our guys would be more valuable
in
the
NL
West.
I do agree that fans here and elsewhere have not really come to terms with what this year’s failure means to the team economically, coming on the heals of last year’s disappointment and a massive sinkhole in the rest of the economy. I don’t think it’s at all a given that we can spend $80 million next year on player salaries.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Don’t know if this was posted anywhere:
When it comes to setting next year’s payroll, the Indians will look to cut corners because of the economy. It’s one reason Rafael Betancourt’s name has been mentioned in trade rumors. Betancourt will be a free agent after this season, and the Indians hold a pricey $5.4 million club option on him.
by world dictator on Jul 14, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d be more amenable to trading Lee and Victor if it were explicitly financially motivated. I’m opposed to both, as I’ve made known, but I don’t expect the Dolans to hemorrhage money.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 14, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
BTW, you seen Blake’s stats lately? On the team with the best record in baseball he’s a very valuable part. To us, today, he’d be just another guy standing in the field while our "relief" corps gives up four runs in the eigth.
Actually, he’d be the guy booting easy grounders at third base and forcing our “relief” corp to get four outs in that eighth inning.
"Actual versatility is a good thing. Imagined versatility is a bad thing."
Jay Levin
by woodsmeister on Jul 15, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t Westbrook’s contract coming off the books after 2010? As well as Kerry Wood’s contract (unless that vesting option kicks in, but if he continues his current level of performance it probably won’t). That’s over $20M available. Obviously, there are other costs added in free agency perhaps and arbitration eligible players, but a 3-year deal for Victor at a reasonable price is doable I think. That’s only if he doesn’t ask for $13-16M annually and more than 3 or 4-year contract, which he’d probably get on the open market.
I really hope we can keep him though beyond next year. He’s a great guy, definately the leader of this team and the man can hit. I’d take his usual production as a catcher at first base.
Makes no difference. Yep we got about $20M coming off a contender‘s payroll. We could afford this assuming we had a contender’s income. We’re not a contender and we won’t have the kind of income a 90 Win Indians team can/could generate. We need to scale back payroll by – oh, I dunno – about $20M.
Nope sorry, if anything we should have learned from the Hafner debacle it’s that we cannot afford to pay good to great players what they’re worth on the open market in their post-arbitration years. Just can’t take the risk.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Gotta wonder if the FO has talked with Haf about spreading salary over future years beyond the end of his contract?
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
If they did I could probably hear his agent’s laugh here in Maui.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
my point…and if this team wants to contend in the next few years (seeing as how the economy is probably still going to be down) its going to take some of these kind of deals to be able to bring in some help for this team.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 14, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions
My memory’s getting a little fuzzy in my old age. Remind me: who was the last guy to cut his price so that he could remain an Indian?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Jake’s deal was the most noticeably below-market, but Hafner probably left the most (hypothetical) dollars on the table when he signed. For the 40th time … take a look at the Carlos Lee contract and his numbers prior to that.
I won’t go over the many cheapie arbitration deals, as they fall into a separate category, except to note that Sizemore and Carmona both cut significnantly into their free agent years at bargain prices.
Sabathia signed a well-under-market extension at the start of 2005, which paid off very handsomely for the club. Paul Byrd sacrificed a third guranteed year at $8 million to re-join the Indians organization after years away.
But I wasn’t even talking about the Indians. I was just saying, several major stars with gigantic contracts have done restructuring to help the team be more competitive in the short-term. It actually has nothing to do with being wanting “to remain an Indian.” It has to do with being tied to a team for a very long time and wanting that team to be competitive.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 14, 2009 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Mets are still paying Bobby Bonilla.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
Really I think this thread should be more about coming to terms with losing him instead of thinking of ways to keep him. I’m not saying we can’t. I just don’t think we will.
Steel Nick
Yep, he’s had a great run. I can’t even begin to convince myself that the money is best spent on Vic. Either we’ll have him for one more year, or we’ll get a nice group of talent for him. And rather than get worked up over it, let’s just appreciate his time.
This is the most depressing thought I’ve had in weeks, and I just got rejected by my drem girl on Saturday. Thanks, buddy.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 14, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve started to think that the minute you anoint some young lady your “dream girl,” you’ve totally boned your chances with her and may as well move on.
It’s a theory in early development. On the other hand, I snagged a 30-pack of High Life Light for $16 today; I have since anointed High Life Light my dream light domestic macro-lager, and that doesn’t seem to have negatively affected its attainability.
by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Should mention, as I did that, I was wondering if it was the light beer you and I could agree on.
by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
God, I can relate to that. But not the beer. What the hell are you doing buying beer right now? Get your act together, man!
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 14, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I can’t drink at all during bar prep? Next, you’re going to tell me I can’t hook up with clients.
by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree completely. I’ve only admitted the dream girl status since the rejection.
And I can get down with some High Life, but High Life Light? I’m not sure… never had it actually.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 14, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions
And by the way I’d be more than willing to help flesh out that theory, preferably over many beers.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 14, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I always saw each one as a potential dream girl. She didn’t become an actual dream girl until she was actually hooking up with me.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
That phrase has real versatility.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 16, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
That sounds tasty
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 16, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I think this is what they say in Norway when you sneeze…
by Logodaedalus on Jul 16, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m lucky. I married my dream girl.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
Coming from our backgrounds, money wasn’t an issue.
There was none.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
Knew exactly what it was, and clicked on it anyway. And I don’t regret it one bit.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 16, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m sorry, High Life is awful. I thought it would be good, but it wasn’t.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
No. At 54 cents a beer, she was just my type.
by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
What League are you referring to? Turk’s under 60, hetero-sexual and has a job. The boy’s a MVP caliber player in DC.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jul 14, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ha, you should tell her that. Guess it wouldn’t help much since she works with me.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 14, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
See, what you need to do is date someone who works for you.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
This will have to wait until I get my master’s.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Depending on my GRE score, I may end up a butler. It’s basically what I do now.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
You must be like the guy in those freecreditreport.com commercials. He always looks like he’s having fun, whatever he’s doing. He doesn’t need good credit!
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, but the lyrics to those songs belie a deep self-loathing and penchant for self-destructive behavior
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I think this theory is right.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 14, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Saturday night? Try a Sunday afternoon, or something. Basically any other time is better, unless you’re only looking for one time.
Trust me, the day that I asked her out had nothing to do with the rejection. Just a standard case of “she’s not that into me.”
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s the truth, man. I’m fine with it. Got more imprtant things to work on right now… there will be others.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
You might want to sort out the impotent things before getting back into the game…
by Logodaedalus on Jul 15, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Wrong misspelling, guy
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I am quite honestly probably going to shed a few tears if Victor is traded.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 14, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s an appreciation of him
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 15, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I love that picture. That’s what I looked like.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 15, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Vic loves the Indians so much he’s ramping up his price on the open market.
“Well, that would be a good enough package to net Victor on paper, Sabean, but he’s just so attached to his teammates…”
by fleerdon on Jul 14, 2009 5:17 PM EDT reply actions
15th of the year. That seems like a lot. Pretty similar numbers to Alvarez, and 18 months younger.
Time to move up?
Defense has been atrocious at 3B … but the bat certainly seems ready.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 14, 2009 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmm, which raises an interesting question: if a guy’s bat is ready for the next minor league level, shouldn’t you promote him regardless of his D? It’s not like the Eastern League hits harder grounders. They probably have better fields.
I did a quick search, and here’s what a recent David Hall article says (WARNING: ERROR-BASED DEFENSE CONTENT):
Third baseman Lonnie Chisenhall has been a major part of the climb. The Newport native and 2008 first-round draft pick committed a team-high 16 errors through the season’s first two months, but he’s had just three miscues in June and entered Tuesday with a 17-game errorless streak.
“I think that’s a product of his work and, also, his ability,” K-Tribe manager Chris Tremie said of his All-Star at the hot corner. “He’s playing now defensively like he’s going to the rest of his career, I believe.”
That was from July 1, and he’s still on that errorless streak.
The scouting reports i’ve seen seem to suggest that while the numbers don’t look good, his fundamentals and therefore his projection to 3B are still looking good. Obviously at some point you want a little more tangible evidence of that, but maybe that is what we are getting now.
by APV on Jul 15, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’d promote him. There’s a learning curve to everything…hitting and defending. It just took him two months to adjust. Let’s see what he does at the next level.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 15, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Tony has an article up on the streak today, with a hat tip to Jay.
by dgcambridge on Jul 15, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
So Chuck thinks the Tribe is out of the picture until 2012. Jay, I think, cites the Mariners. The big question is, can this team contend in 2010 with Victor and Phifer? Without, I’d guess not.
In a way, I think their chances of contending next year are not really much different than in 2012. The offense is decent and there’s reason to believe it might actually get better (with LaPorta basically ready, Bradley and Santana in the pipeline, Valbuena likely to improve, etc.); even if Vic were to leave, they can still hit adequately (see 2008 for evidence). I think they’ll hit okay in both 2010 and 2012.
The pitching’s another matter. If things go incredibly right, next year they have a rotation of Lee, a recovered Westbrook, a resurrected Carmona, and two other guys (Laffey? free agent?). Then, there’s the bullpen — who knows? In 2012, what’s the pitching look like? Lee’s gone, Westbrook may be too, so you have Carmona (maybe), Laffey (maybe), Huff (maybe), Rondon (maybe) … see my point? In some ways, it’s just as reasonable to think they’ll contend next year as in 2012 — the pitching questions are there for both years.
Without picking on anything else you said, do you remember 2008??
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 15, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I remember parts of it. For example, the part that says the Indians were sixth in the AL in runs scored, 6th in OPS without Victor Martinez for much of the season (and, for that matter, with a useless version of Travis Hafner for quite a lot of it.). They weren’t a great offensive club, but they were better than average in most areas, with their best player gone.
You would be within your rights to pick on me for saying Bradley, instead of Brantley.
We’ve fallen prey to this optimism, unwarranted optimism, it turns out. LaPorta basically ready means if you’re lucky you get a .700 OPS. How about a bit of regression for Valbuena (who isn’t exactly a great hitter this year—even though he looks promising)? Brantley and Santana can be on the ML roster, but are they going to hit as well in their rookie seasons as Clete Thomas does in 2009?
Throw in a few injuries—maybe Victor, or Hafner relapses, or Jhonny—and questions about Sizemore—I don’t see how you can automatically presume 300+ total bases for him in 2010—and you have a bleak picture. And we haven’t even addressed the pitching staff.
A lot can still go wrong there. Fausto maybe never regains velocity or control. I haven’t seen Laffey look as sharp as he did against the Yankees in 2008. Jake is still a question mark. What free agent “project” pitchers are going to ride to the rescue? The pen will be better with Smith, Perez II and Sipp (maybe with that last name), but it’s not going to be Rob Dibble, Norm Charlton and Randy Myers.
I agree that 2010 is as likely as 2012, because the longterm future is so volatile and unknowable (again, see Baseball America’s lineups of 2015). But that’s just saying our chances aren’t good in 2010. Which is quite shocking, really.
And when was the last season things went incredibly right for the Cleveland Indians? Maybe 1948?
LaPorta basically ready means if you’re lucky you get a .700 OPS. How about a bit of regression for Valbuena (who isn’t exactly a great hitter this year—even though he looks promising)?
I assume you’re exaggerating to make a point. LaPorta ready means better than a 700 OPS is expected, not just hoped-for. Valbuena’s regression has been this season, as he adjusts to the higher level. Based on his prior achievement, you don’t expect regression from a player under 25.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Based on his prior achievement, you don’t expect regression from a player under 25.
Asdrubal was really messed up first half of last season. In 2007 he had a .775 OPS in limited appearances. He had a .713 OPS for 2008, with a pre-All Star break OPS of .529.
Even that is only really a regression if you ignore his minor league numbers. Asdrubal overperformed in his six-week callup in 2007, and that artificially inflated expectations for 2008. I think his 2008 numbers ended up right where they should have been expected to be.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
That’s reasonable. And we expect Valbuena not to suffer similar adjustment because of his minor league numbers? Which are pretty good: .761 OPS in 2,007 plate appearances.
I think you have it backwards. You’ve fallen prey to pessimism, perhaps justifiably so. But even still, bad things could happen isn’t really an argument for why we might not contend. Looking at their track record its much more likely Jhonny rebounds, Grady stays healthy, and Victor doesn’t get injured.
Plus next year is another year Hafner is removed from his shoulder surgery.
All things considered, if the Indians had even a major league average bullpen chances are we’re in the run for the AL Central title.
by world dictator on Jul 15, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Agree. Everything has been sidetracked to point out every little flaw with the team. The huge massive error we need to fix is the pen and maybe the defense.
Gotta figure that’s why Shapiro needs to get the boot. What wins championships? Pitching and Defense. What has he given us? Mediocre defense and horrible pitching of historical proportions. I know this topic has been beaten to death. But there is a reason for the saying.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 15, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
the last several world champions also scored runs. i haven’t looked up the data and compiled it here, but if you go to b-ref and sort by “not trite” you should see the results.
by Brick. on Jul 15, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
What wins championships? Pitching and Defense.
Cliche. It’s never been proven that good pitching teams are better in the postseason than good hitting teams.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 15, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Well of course not, how could you prove something like that? More than cliche, I think this is probably just common sense.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
How could you prove that? If better pitching teams almost always beat better hitting teams then it could be “proven.” I’m sure someone has studied it before, but I haven’t seen anything which shows that preventing runs is more important than scoring runs.
That’s just another stupid cliche people repeat without knowing if there’s any truth in the statement. Why would you say it’s “common sense”?
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 15, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Why would you say it’s "common sense"?
Because a 99mph fastball with movement on the outside corner is harder to hit, even for A-Rod, than and 89mph "fast"ball over the middle of the plate.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 15, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Which team is full of guys throwing 99 with movement while nailing the outside corner? Because if such a team exists, I’m betting on them. Conversely, if there is a team of ARods out there, I’ll bet on them too, assuming only one of these squads actually exists.
I would be willing to wager that, rather than any overarching rule applying, an objective study of postseason success would show that the team that got “hot” at the right time, caught a couple of lucky breaks, had some unlikely guy have a couple of really good weeks, and won a couple of games that could have gone either way is most often the team with the highest level of success. By the time you’re down to the best eight teams in the league, the gap in skill isn’t really that large.
A TEAM OF A-RODS WOULD LOAD THE BASES EVERY INNING AND NEVER SCORE.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
So a team full of A-Rods, but then Jeter at shortstop.
by fleerdon on Jul 15, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
So what you’d want is a team full of A-Rods with Jeter at shortstop.
by fleerdon on Jul 15, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course. But I could go to the other way and say that A-Rod is much harder to get out than Yuniesky Betancourt. So what’s your point? Great pitchers are harder to hit than average pitchers, but great hitters are harder to get out than average hitters. How does your example show that it’s “common sense” that great pitching beats great hitting?
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 15, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure if this is here nor there, but the pitchers win the majority of the time in any at-bat. So I think the phrase should be “above average pitching beats great hitting.”
Steel Nick
Huh, I thought that was the Old Perfesser. How about that.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 16, 2009 7:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, yeah, pitching always wins. Even average pitching usually beats great hitting. What people mean when they say “great pitching beats great hitting” is really great pitching beats great hitting more often than you would normally expect. That’s what I’m arguing against.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 16, 2009 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Average pitching does not unusually beat great hitting, unless by “usually beats” you mean that the batting average is under .500.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what he means.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 16, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not that preventing runs is more important than scoring them… the argument would have to be that when the best pitchers and fielders face the best hitters, games tend to have scores below average. I suppose the All Star Game supports this, to the extent that the best hitters and pitchers are really selected. Of course, they aren’t, because the people selecting the pitchers have more expertise than the people selecting the hitters, and defense doesn’t seem to factor in all that much. So I don’t know.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 15, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
The people selecting the pitchers are bound by more stupid rules, however.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think it would be much better to look at all playoff games instead of only All-Star games. Playoff teams are better than the average team so they should have better than average hitting and pitching. Not all of them, of course, but most of them will over a long period of time. All-Star games are too small of a sample and managed so stupidly that I don’t see what good information you’d gather from them.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 15, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I was thinking the other night about how I’d manage an All-Star Game. Here’s what I came up with:
1. Start the game with the starters as required.
2. Move to what I consider to be my best lineup in the 3rd inning. Don’t worry about taking someone out of the game you might want to use later, because you probably have one or three other guys just like him on the bench anyway. And don’t worry that the fans voted in a guy and you only played him for two innings — Cal Ripken. Screw him.
3. Keep best lineup in the game through the 7th inning, but feel free to pinch-hit in a critical moment.
4. Lefty-righty the opposing manager to death from the 7th on. Don’t be afraid to send up a player as a pinch-hitter and then pull him for another pinch-hitter.
Hadn’t really figured out pitchers, but that part’s easier, I think.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Sounds good, but you’d have to give a starter at least one at-bat or he’s going to be pissed.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 15, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
What wins championships? Pitching and Defense
Getting hot at the right time wins Championships. Its unscientific I know but…I mean the Cardinals and Rockies have proven this pretty conclusively in my mind.
by world dictator on Jul 15, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, You have to be good enough to get to the playoffs then hope to get lucky.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 15, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the one semi-controllable factor is depth, for example, to the extent that it may be more useful to have lots of decent pitching than to have any single pitcher. If you’re the 97 Marlins, and Kevin Brown spits the bit, Al Leiter’s suddenly a lot more important.
by fleerdon on Jul 15, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
You can’t forget the not having Jose Mesa factor
by world dictator on Jul 16, 2009 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions
As a Clevelander, I believe pessimism to be synonymous with realism. I will grant you that the possibility of bad things happening isn’t an argument. But I think even if nothing bad happens—simply neutral—the Tribe still doesn’t contend. Good things have to happen, and pixie dust is in short supply in Cuyahoga County. And bad things do happen. That should be a lesson from this season: hope is not a business model.
In my Glass Half Empty perspective, Hafner is another year older, with old man skills.
Do you mean old player skills? Or he is just really good at eating bran and repeating the same stories over and over?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 15, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, sorry. Old Player skills. Tom Brunansky. But I’m not sure Hafner fits the definition, because his BA is typically too high.
Here’s what I think: we’ll go as far as our pitching takes us and our pitching future doesn’t look good. Carmona is a real puzzle. He was arguably the best pitcher in the AL in ’07 and then just seemed to de-laminate starting in Game 6 of the ’07 ALCS. Westbrook is an unknowable, but I do expect a return to his early ’07 form. Then we’ve got our inter-changeable soft-tossing lefties. One of those guys – first I thought it was Sowers, then I thought it was Laffey, maybe Lewis, now it’s Huff – might, if we’re lucky, turn into a serviceable 3 or 4. Pavano’s gone, Reyes may never pitch again. Our five will probably be another Ohka look-alike. Which leaves Cliff and I just can’t see Shapiro hanging onto such a valuable trading chip when he needs to both cut payroll and acquire cheap pitching. Cliff would be a huge asset to a contender – think Tampa, Boston, LA, the Cubs or – heaven forbid – the Yankees. For us he’s just a guy who holds the opposition to three runs while we score one. As to the BP, I’ve given up on trying to figure out what the hell is going on there. I wish I had Luis Isaac’s phone number.
And I agree with the Donald: we’re no worse than the middle of the pack when it comes to runs scored. But, as we’re seeing this year, being able to score runs with the other clubs does not preclude you from approaching a 100 loss season.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
My gut tells me this is right, but that’s probably just because losing the lead in the 8th is so much more hurtful than losing it in the 2nd and never getting it back. Both are losses, but only one makes you want to crawl into the bottle. More likely, a good pen is meaningless without good starters, and vice versa.
maybe if he’d hyphenated: “the pen is a far-and-away bigger” ….
by Logodaedalus on Jul 15, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
by westbrook on Jul 15, 2009 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let’s consider this question from the acquiring teams’ viewpoint. You manage the Red Sox or Yankees or Dodgers, etc.
Knowing you are going to get an excellent shot at signing Vic or Cliff in another season and a half anyway, how deeply would you gut your prospect list to acquire either of them 1.5 seasons sooner? And if you intended to hang on to them, you wouldn’t even get that 1.5 seasons at a reduced rate because you would rework their current contracts.
I think that works for Victor more than Cliff. Cliff, what evidence do you have that he’s still going to be good in 1.5 seasons anyway?
by fleerdon on Jul 15, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that works for Victor more than Cliff. Cliff, what evidence do you have that he’s still going to be good in 1.5 seasons anyway?
by fleerdon on Jul 15, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that works for Victor more than Cliff. Cliff, what evidence do you have that he’s still going to be good in 1.5 seasons anyway?
by fleerdon on Jul 15, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, exactly what evidence do you have that Vic’s gonna be good after 1.5 seasons?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Echoing what fleerdon said and said and said … 1.5 seasons is a long time to have a player, and a long time for that player to turn into something else. We had C.C. for 2007 and half of 2008. Was he not a very significant asset over that time? Did his value not change from the start of 2007 to the middle of 2008?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Let’s keep CC out of this discussion as he was an exceptionally young FA.
I think our leverage here is more about the old Spy vs Spy mentality (if you recall Mad Magazine). Teams with more money than sense, worry more about the balance of power among large market teams than whether any given available player is worth as much as they are offering. A team like the Red Sox might worry that the Yankees could get Vic if they don’t act first to trade for him. I think the same mentality applies to teams like Dodgers vs Giants or Cards vs Cubs or, this season, Rangers vs Angels.
I’m not talking about their value as a free agent. We’re talking about how valuable a player can be for “only” 1.5 seasons. I would submit to you that most clubs don’t have that much idea what their needs will be more than two seasons from any given moment in time, nor can any club say how valuable a given pitcher will be in two seasons.
In other words, 1.5 seasons is a reasonably optimal amount of time for which to purchase the services of a pitcher — neither all that long nor all that short.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It all depends on the team. To the ‘07 Indians adding a guy like Cliff ’08 would mean the difference between going to the WS and not. Adding Cliff to the ’54 Indians doesn’t do much. Who ya gonna replace? Lemon? Garcia? Wynn? Feller – maybe Feller. You put Vic on that team and they’re a better team – maybe not a WS Champ but still better.
It all depends on where the soft spots are on your roster.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t see how even Cliff ‘08 would have helped get us to the World Series. Our problem was that our #1 and #2 starters couldn’t perform. Our #3 and #4 guys were fine.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Cliff could have shut out the Red Sox potentially in game 7 as opposed to Westbrook giving up a couple runs (Westbrook’s performance was heroic that game in my opinion, after looking shaky early)
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
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
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.
