The Indians should trade for Roy Halladay...
by NickFantana on Jul 16, 2009 3:38 PM EDT
Email
Print
It occurred to me recently that the Indians should trade for Roy Halladay OR they should trade Cliff Lee and others to re-stock for 2011-2012.
Right now, it would seem the Indians are in between for 2010. One can make a persuasive argument that with Carmona coming back strong in the minors plus Huff and Rondon, the Indians rotation will be stronger in 2010. As for the bullpen, it can be argued that luck alone will provide improvement over 08 and 09. The offense has been impressive this season and there's few reasons to expect less for next year with LaPorta and Brantley close at hand and further improvement expected from Valbuena and Cabrera.
On the other hand, pessimists can say that the rotation is suspect and lacks depth, the bullpen will never improve without a change in front office philosophy that will require both asubstantial investment of money and several years of prospect development. Further, a pessimist could claim that regardless of the offensive talent, the Indians will not be contenders with the prospective roster they look to field in 2010.
With that in mind, I submit that the Indians should make a dramatic move in one direction or the other. To contend in 2010, the Indians will need more pitching and the easiest way to make a dramatic improvement to their pitching staff would be to add another front of the line starter. Roy Halladay fits that bill and is available. Dave Cameron offered his estimate of Halladay's value and my translation for the Indians is something like Hector Rondon (a given), Lonnie Chisenhall and Beau Mills (or Weglarz). Such a trade would strengthen the Indians rotation for 2010 without significantly weakening the ballclub for 2010. Ultimately, this scenario is most likely if Halladay isn't traded now but is traded after the season. In that case, the cost probably goes down marginally.
If this is too steep a price or Halladay doesn't want to waive his no-trade to come to Cleveland, the Indians should trade Cliff Lee and focus on contending in 2011 and 2012. As currently constructed, the Indians are a mediocre team that can be argued in or out of contention. Given the economic realities the team faces, it's unclear to me how the Indians will add significant talent from outside of the organization without making additional trades and I believe the bigger those trades, the better.
272 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Separately from one’s outlook, think about the size of this gamble to acquire Halladay. Think of the size of the 2010 payroll knowing the Dolans have to pay for any shortfall, which could run into tens of millions. Think of the number of good prospects that Shapiro would need to part with. Is this the kind of risk/reward proposition that successful people pursue?
I suggested this semi jokingly when it was first announced Halladay was on the block. I actually would be more open to the idea if Halladay were more affordable and the Indians were still in contention.
That being said, I’d love all the media coverage we’d get if we had Lee and Halladay as potential trading chips
i’ve gotten to the point where i just wonder if “re-stocking” or “reloading” or whatever you want to call it isn’t just an exercise in futility. there’s just so much unpredictable crap that happens in baseball, i wonder if the best philosophy isn’t just to get value, all the time, regardless of what your “window” for winning is supposed to be. so yeah, play for 2010. . . unless a better option presents itself.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 16, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Hector Rondon (a given), Lonnie Chisenhall and Beau Mills (or Weglarz).
Not nearly enough.
Think LaPorta, Rondon, Mills, Intriguing A prospect
You’d think, but that’s more than the Mets paid for Santana. He’s going nowhere for that expensive a price, I guarantee.
Steel Nick
1. Halladay >Santana
2. 1.5 years of Halladay > 1 year of Santana (Granted they were given a chance to sign him long term)
3.Trade Deadline deals > Off season deals
4. Market for Halladay > Market for Santana
5. Pressure to deal Santana > “Pressure” to deal Holliday
That being said, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable deal for arguably the best most consistent pitcher in baseball. I’m not saying I’d make the trade but its the Indians #2 and probably #3 prospect plus a good prospect in mills who’s having a bad year. Plus a decent A prospect, with an emphasis on prospect considering the level.
I guess a lot of it depends on how you project Rondon. Some people say he’s a front of the rotation starter and others put him at a #3…possibly a #2. Projecting pitchers isn’t my area of expertise so I tend to take a bit more conservative view. If we could really get Halladay for Rondon, Wegz, and Chisenhall I’d do it in a heartbeat.
by world dictator on Jul 17, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions
1. Halladay >Santana
Oh, come on.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 17, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
4. Market for Halladay > Market for Santana
Can’t see this one. An ace is always in high demand. Moreover, teams are holding high-level prospects a lot closer to the vest than they used to.
5. Pressure to deal Santana > "Pressure" to deal Holliday
Not buying this one either. The Twins were perfectly free to keep Santana for his walk year, as we did with Sabathia. In fact, once the blue-chip offers from the Yankees and Red Sox were pulled off the table, they almost certainly should have done just that.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Santana had set a deadline by which he wanted to be traded by.
That date came, and Smith called around and both the Yanks and Sox had pulled their more lucrative offers off the table. The Mets’ package was the best on the table.
Sure the Twins could have kept Santana, but they’d have a disgruntled ace on their hands, who’s value would be less by the trade deadline.
me so cool
It actually isn’t clear that you get less for a player in July than you do the prior December. There is less time for his services, yes, but the risk is also cut, the salary is cut, and — by far most important — in July you know for sure that you need that player, that year, and that you expect to use him in the postseason.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 18, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not buying this one either. The Twins were perfectly free to keep Santana for his walk year, as we did with Sabathia. In fact, once the blue-chip offers from the Yankees and Red Sox were pulled off the table, they almost certainly should have done just that.
Yes the Twin’s probably should’ve just kept Santana but they thought they could get more by trading Santana. But here’s the big factor you’re leaving out. Santana had a full no trade clause in his contract that he would only lift if the receiving team had a shot at the world series AND compensated him with a long term deal. vis a via big market teams.
But as you said, even among the big market teams only the two NY teams and Boston were interested. Hence the Twins relatively weak trading position.
Cleveland is in so such position and Shapiro is a smarter GM.
One thing that shouldn’t be overlooked is Lee’s team friendly contract. It’s true teams are holding prospects closer to their vest but its also true that teams are strapped for cash and extremely reluctant to give up top prospects AND pay a huge amount in salary.
by world dictator on Jul 18, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
If the trade deadline is approaching and the Twins are out of it, it’s unlikely Santana refuses to be traded to a contender. In that sense, the Twins allowed themselves to be pushed around by Santana, costing themselves leverage and return value on that trade.
We see in this case the economic value of a no-trade clause, and why GMs that give them out are weak and foolish.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I agree
But that’s my point. The Santana deal isn’t a good barometer of fair trade value for an ace because of the specific situations. Santana’s demand, his no trade clause, and the mis steps by the Twins front office make it a unique situation.
The CC trade and the Beckett deal are much better comparisons.
by world dictator on Jul 18, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions
why GMs that give them out are weak and foolish.
Recommended for allusion.
by NickFantana on Jul 18, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
LaPorta, Rondon, Mills, and someone along the lines of a House or Abreu? That’s a ton. And the Rondon, Wegz!, Chisenhall package is just as hefty.
I think the Jays have a good chance of someone who will “overpay” for Halladay, but I don’t think the Indians are that kind of team. Remember Dan Haren.
Steel Nick
I don’t know about you (and putting aside major issues of cost or whether the Jays would take such an offer) but I haven’t seen one thing that would indicate Halladay would waive his no trade clause to come to the Indians. All reports indicate he is focused on the NL or a large market AL team and may involve a contract extension.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Lead singer and driver of the Winnebago.
Actually i’ve read he’s focused on joining a contender. But same difference
by world dictator on Jul 16, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Think about this — last year we HAD Halladay (actually CC, but it’s close) and we stunk anyway. Yes, CC was horrible at first, but after that he was lights out and it didn’t really help.
I’d love to have Halladay on my team, too, but he alone isn’t the solution, and having him (and his salary) may actually prevent the team from solving its other problems.
I agree with this. Halladay is a longshot fix. He’s like putting all your money on the pass line on a craps table. All your money.
If an Indians championship were won in the middle of an empty forest……
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 17, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s definitely an intriguing idea given that our offense, while inconsistent, is pretty strong this year. The flaw in your strategy is that even if our rotation looks like this — Lee, Halladay, Carmona, Westbrook, Laffey, Huff — they’d each have to pitch a complete game every time out.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 16, 2009 5:13 PM EDT reply actions
I can defend this all except for one critical piece … there is no way we are going to outbid teams who have a stake in the 2009 season and postseason. Just no way. He is simply, vastly more valuable to those teams than he is to us.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
To be honest, I’m very happy that my half-baked scenario hasn’t drawn more criticism here. Do you agree though that if Halladay isn’t traded before the deadline we could be at the top of the list as far as potential matches in the offseason?
I’m not willing to pay the price for the future.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 17, 2009 1:55 AM EDT up reply actions
No. We’re going to have to reduce payroll. It’s not clear to me we can afford to keep Lee, let alone add Halladay.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
If we can’t afford to keep Lee then we really ought to trade him now rather than during the offseason. I know that sounds obvious.
by NickFantana on Jul 17, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
$15.75 million for 2010. Can’t do it.
Trade Lee and we still have a shot at 2010. You present a good case that it’s either/or, but that doesn’t mean we can’t contend next year without Lee.
Steel Nick
I agree, but we need more than Lee to contend next year, so we’d have to replace him in a trade plus adding a piece or two.
I agree, but we need more than Lee to contend next year,
If by more than Lee you mean a better bullpen, then I agree.
by world dictator on Jul 17, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
another starter with a sub-24.68 ERA wouldn’t hurt.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 22, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
There is no world in which “Beau Mills (or Weglarz)” is a statement I can get down with. Trading Weglarz is trading arguably (and I’ll argue it) our best prospect. Trading Mills is not even trading Kevin Kouzmanoff. It’s (gulp) not that far from trading Trevor Crowe.
Surely Mills has more worth than an outfielder that cannot effectively run, field or hit at any level.
It was poorly worded. I left out some words. Should read (or if that’s not enough, Weglarz) But I would disagree strongly that Weglarz is a better prospect right now than Hector Rondon or even Michael Brantley.
Wow, Weglarz < Brantley? And you feel strongly about that?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I can’t think of anyone who would give their legz for Brantley.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
by emd2k3 on Jul 17, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What can I say, I like Net.
In addition, Brantley is only seven months older playing at a higher level, he has significantly more defensive value, in that I think he should be our starting center fielder next year and (this is kind of redundant) he’s extremely valuable on the basepaths which is a dimension the Indians have completely neglected for the past 8 years.
An outfield of Sizemore, Brantley, Choo could probably steal 100 bases and SLG .500. That’s pretty awesome. Weglarz, to me, is our next DH. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled to have him but I believe Brantley will be the more valuable player over their careers.
by NickFantana on Jul 17, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Brantley a better defender than Grady? I’m not saying it isn’t true, but how do you make the assertion?
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 17, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, there’s no basis for that. Lots of folks think he’s quite fringy in CF — no better than Choo — despite his speed.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Everything I have read indicates that he has the athletic ability and speed to play in center and all he needs to improve are his recognition skills. I’m making the assumption that he’s made at least some improvement as he’s stayed in CF all season for Columbus. I would expect Brantley will continue to improve as a centerfielder. Meanwhile, Grady isn’t getting any younger.
Following up on this, Grady’s UZR looks like this:
2006: +14.8
2007: +3.5
2008: +1.5
2009: -3.7
Meanwhile, Brantley had a TotalZone rating of +16 for last year, and that’s the year everyone was saying he wasn’t making great reads.
Grady actually doesn’t age. So you are correct, he is not getting younger. However he is also not getting older which is what you were trying to imply I believe.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 17, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Brantley at CF? Come on man, this is just lol territory. First I’m seeing afh4 say that Wegz is a better prospect than Santana, now I’m seeing you say that Grady should be anything other than CF???
1st, at least until Wedge heeds the call of cleveland.com to hit him 3rd.
You are reading my signature.
I was afraid you’d say that – too reductionist, IMO. They’re the same level and Santana is two years older. But it’s still not even close. Wegz is probably our fourth best hitting prospect.
I just fundamentally disagree. Weglarz is 9th in the league in homeruns and every player in front of him is substantially, much, much older than him. The next younger leader is Santana (an ’86 birthday) and the rest of the list is populated by guys approaching their mid to late 20s.
I think Weglarz’ power potential is immense and could conceivably make him an MVP candidate. I like Santana a great deal (obviously) but Weglarz’ homerun stroke is, in my opinion, the single best thing in our farm system. Santana might be Victor, which is obviously a great player but Weglarz might be something in the mold of Thome (although his minor league trajectory is not the same), which is a whole other level.
+1. Looking at Weglarz from a total perspective, age, level, power, discipline…it becomes clear he is a special talent
Maybe Adam will jump in with a preliminary 2010 progress score for both guys?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Looking at Adam Dunn’s 21 y/o season in AAA, dude was smacking homeruns every 10 abs. Lots of guys think he sucks now. Hell, Grady was slugging .400 in the majors at age 21 and he hasn’t even cracked top 10 for MVP yet! It’s a tough crowd out there. At the same age at Kinston, The Chiz is slugging 70 points better.
I have always liked Weglarz because he is not only a guy with impressive numbers, he’s a guy who scouts have always pointed to as a prodigious power hitter waiting to happen.
Look, there’s no guarantee here and I’m not trying to make one. There are literally a hundred or more “close comparisons” for every single notable minor leaguer that make the player look like a potential MVP or like a potential bum.
I’m just saying, if you made me pick out of all our guys, I think I’d take Wegz. It’s not clear cut among him, LaPorta, and Santana but Wegz is my choice. Chiz is an interesting new face but I’m going to wait till he’s in AA before he’d make the list.
Why has Grady become the sacred cow here? His defense, like it or not, is slipping for some reason. If he moves to left and Brantley plays an above average center (a big if, I know), why is that a bad thing?
Well, if Brantley is better in center, he should play there. But we don’t know he is, and really have no reason right now to believe so.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 18, 2009 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions
This, and also keep in mind this isn’t fantasy baseball. If a rookie is a few runs better than Grady, why screw around with the human element for a small upgrade? As long as Grady is youngish and playing a good center field, I’m sure it’s his job.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 18, 2009 7:47 AM EDT up reply actions
This was already the issue with Gutierrez and with Peralta-Asdrubal as well. We already knew they were better defensively, but we didn’t know if/when they would be good enough at the plate to stick in the lineup. You certainly won’t see Sizemore move until it’s crystal clear that Brantley (a) will stick in the lineup, and (b) is definitively the better defender. Those two things won’t happen any time in the next two years and probably not ever.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m as big a Grady fan as anybody but he really can’t play center forever. Do I know if Brantley is the answer? No and he certainly isn’t right now. I don’t think Grady needs to be moved yet but he will need to be moved eventually.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 18, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Who has suggested that Grady should play CF forever?
This is a giant conversation about nothing. When we have a better long term solution in CF we’ll play them.
by world dictator on Jul 18, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Wasn’t a better long term solution in CF. He’s hit better this year but I suspect his .400 BABIP at home is helping a bit. Considering our OF situation, in both the majors and minors, made him even less valuable.
Can we please stop romancing Gutz. You guys forget his horrible inability to hit while he was in Cleveland, not to mention the very good player we received for him in return.
by world dictator on Jul 18, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s the basic sentiment I got from joeee’s post. Maybe not forever, but I think for at least for a very long time and I just don’t see Grady there for too much longer. Also “forever” was a figure of speech.
And I agree with you that this conversation is pointless right now but I responded because joeee’s post made it seem to me like he thought he should be there too long.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 18, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s funny, I think Grady will still be a center fielder five years from now, possibly eight.
I think people have lost sight of his overall quality, just because there are a few guys flitting around who (at least so far) can’t hit. There are probably 25 minor leaguers who can out-defend Grady in center field, but so what? Grady is still a very good CF even in an off-year, and good luck getting one of those 25 — or Brantley or Gutierrez — to give you a 30-30 season.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 18, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well I do think he’ll be there awhile. I just don’t know how long. I want him to be there for a really long time I just don’t know how realistic that is.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
It’s totally realistic. It’s a bizarre overreaction for people to be saying he’ll have to move at some point. I mean, hey, even Griffey eventually moved, but he was well over 35 at the time.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Mike Cameron is still playing CF at age 36.
by cleveland teamer on Jul 20, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah there are a lot of people who are old and still play center but a lot of times that because they’re stubborn (not saying that’s Cameron) and I don’t think Grady’s really that stubborn.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
Brantley might want to actually hit for a couple of months before everyone jumps back on that bandwagon.
I figure Weglarz took a whole month off, Brantley has a little bit of time to chill out in Columbus.
Eh, I am seeing guys like Brett Gardner and Jacoby Ellsbury get everyday playing time based on their speed and defense. Brantley strikes me as a similar player, and has the potential to get on base more than both.
Except that, again, Brantley hasn’t yet demonstrated superior defensive instincts, and while he’ll probably improve, if he was going to be an elite defender, he probably would have looked like one by last season already.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Is there reliable defensive evidence for minor leaguers though besides a few secondary reports? I mean I didn’t even realize Gutierrez was an elite OF until last season.
Not really, I guess, when you put it that way, but if you read scouting reports over the years, you start to pick up on what elements are repeated consistently. Gutierrez and Snyder were each expected to be Sizemore’s equal in terms of range, but with better arms, especially Gutierrez. Had all of them made it, the talk was that Snyder would be in CF, flanked by Grady and Gootz.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
The other thing that I think shortchanges Brantley a little here is that he had been moved between center and left by the Brewers. I would imagine that makes really capitalizing on defensive instinct that much harder.
by NickFantana on Jul 18, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions
If there’s no reliable data then how can you conclude he’s a quality defensive player?
by world dictator on Jul 17, 2009 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions
We don’t need one or even two pieces to contend next year. We need four or five. Only way to do that is to trade Lee and Martinez for a boatload of A+ prospects and hope that we get Colon-lucky again.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
i don’t think that was lucky. As has been said many times, that was a really unusual situation, with the Expos thinking purely short-term and willing to give up can’t miss prospects. A better comparison would be the CC trade — can we turn Lee or Martinez into the equivalent of LaPorta/Brantley, with the additional complication that the prospects need to be pitchers.
Whatever happens, it would sort of funny if they traded Lee and Martinez to the same team. I guess they’d have to throw Shoppach into the deal to make it work!
Jon Heyman tweets:
#dodgers are looking at relief first. but they’ll aim high on starters. rotation wish list: 1) halladay, 2) cliff lee.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Not sure if they have the pitching Shapiro’s looking for. I don’t think Billingsley or Kershaw is available and McDonald, Martin and Elbert aren’t really good enough imo.
If only we could entice the Rangers to bit and give us Neftali Feliz.
Doesn’t that seem like it would be digging one hole to fill another, from their perspective?
by Logodaedalus on Jul 17, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Yea, I can’t see them moving Kershaw. He is almost the ideal for what we would want back for Lee, though.
he would be perfect in a lee trade scenario…but the radio in LA says that kershaw is officially unavailable (as of yesterday)
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 22, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m on my blackberry right now so I can’t look this up right now but I believe the Dodgers have a decent rotation 1-5, they’re just looking for an upgrade. (Who wouldn’t want to add an ace if they could) So including Kershaw in a deal for Lee wouldn’t create a hole.
But even if the Dodgers are worried about creating a hole in their rotation by dealing Kershaw, the Indians could also include Carl Pavano in any deal.
Not as a throw in per se, but if including Pavano convinces the Dodgers to send us Kershaw, as well as up the quality of the rest of the prospects in the trade, I think it might be worth it.
I would give them Pavano, Lee, and Betancourt even if it means we could get Kershaw as the centerpiece of a prospect package
I actually think the Dodgers would take that trade if Shapiro offered it to them. At least I think the Dodgers should take it if offered.
On the other hand, I honestly don’t know if that’s a good trade for us. Like I said, It would depend on how much the other prospects improve after including Pavano and Betancourt.
I’d love to acquire Kershaw, but I think Pavano and Betancourt are more than just throw ins, especially when you consider the scarcity that goes along with their position. Package boosters yes.
That and its Cliff “freaking” Lee people. That should be enticing enough.
by world dictator on Jul 17, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Lee, Pavano, Betancourt for Kershaw, McDonald, Player X.
I don’t think the Dodgers would bite but I would. I guess this depends on how people view McDonald.
Steel Nick
Pavano is already really good. Of course he’s not an ace or anything but he’s 10th in the AL in FIP and 21st in the MLB
FIP
Lee- 3.26
Pavano- 3.60
In fact his FIP is better than: CC, Zambrano, Lowe, Gavin Floyd, Cain, Hamels, Oswalt and a lot of better pitchers.
Granted, FIP isn’t everything but damn…
by world dictator on Jul 17, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
other interesting Pavano stat’s
4th in the AL in BB/9
6th in the AL K/9
both of these stat’s higher than Lee
by world dictator on Jul 17, 2009 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
pavano is 21st in the AL among qualified starters in K/9, according to fangraphs
still, better than shields, and right behind lee and sabathia.
pavano has to have the biggest difference between his actual ERA and his FIP in recent memory. i’m not totally sold on FIP, but yeah, that pavano picked up has really worked out a lot better than anticipated. kudos to shapiro on that one—i never thought in a million years that he’d be giving us this kind of a performance.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 18, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
So, time to bring back the NL jokes?
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 18, 2009 2:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I am sorry, but no. Records don’t indicate best. Casey Blake, at age 35, has a career best OPS fairly easily
So one guy having an OPS .7 and .11 points higher in his age 35 season than he had in his age 30 and 32 seasons is definitive of the quality of the division but W-L records are not?
The evidence suggests that the American League is still the superior league so I’ve got not problem picking on the league as a whole, I just don’t think it makes a whole of sense to single out the West, especially when the East appears to be decidedly worse.
So far, the West has the team with the best record, the wild card leader, and the team second in the wild card race.
The East has only one team above .500 and one team with a .289 winning percentage.
NL Easter high teams vs high caliber teams
NL West low caliber teams vs low caliber teams
I’d also like to point out that half a seasons worth of data is a sss when it comes to a discussion about “power realignment” amongst divisions.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Clark has a point. Any division with Washington in it deserves to be in the discussion.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 19, 2009 7:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the annual strength of the Braves, Mets, Phillies, and young talent of the Marlins make up for Washington’s weakness.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way you’re telling me that the NL East is a weaker division then the NL West
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Well sure, they get to play the NL West all the time.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jul 18, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Lee, Pavano, Betancourt for Kershaw, McDonald, Player X.
I don’t think the Dodgers would bite but I would. I guess this depends on how people view McDonald.
I don’t think the Dodgers want to part with two current ML pitchers. I looked around the dodgers system which is slim at the top. Nonetheless I think this trade would work:
Dodgers get- Lee, Pavano, and Betancourt
Indians get- Kershaw, Josh Lindblom, Nathan Eovaldi, other A- ball prospect/relief pitcher
by world dictator on Jul 18, 2009 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Well Kershaw seems to really load this trade in talent, and without him Lindblom seems pretty nice and Eovaldi just OK.
I wonder if we could just do Pavano for Lindblom.
Steel Nick
He’s appeared in 11 games and has been hit hard in three of them while being yanked back and forth between starting and relieving.
…yep sounds like someone we’d go after. For the record I’d be irritated if we got him and turned him into a reliever.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
he’s also a former college closer. I seriously think we’re trading for this guy.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Eovaldi just OK.
He’s a 19 year old that can hit 96. I’ll gladly take him.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
In all honesty this is about 15 seconds of scouting from me. Do you have anything for me to look at other than the stats?
Steel Nick
not much. Here’s something from Sickles talking about NL Sleepers.
BA also ranks him 10th in the Dodgers system. Granted they have a weak system but for higher schooler that was an 2008 11th round pick he seems decent. Especially if it’s for Pavano or Betancourt. He’s probably more than they’d be willing to give up actually
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t Player X really Speed Racer’s brother?
"Actual versatility is a good thing. Imagined versatility is a bad thing."
Jay Levin
by woodsmeister on Jul 19, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Texas – that’s a team with the hole and the prospects. And I think that Lee’s Ryan’s kinda guy.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
A nice deal from Texas would be huge for the Indians considering their system. Of course there’s no can’t-misses, but assuming we can’t get Kershaw (we can’t), Texas will give us the best haul.
And you’re right. Ryan is the kind of guy that seems… well he seems like you, Chuck. “He doesn’t like to read? Just wants to pitch and spit? GET THIS MAN.”
Steel Nick
chuck’s imagined cliff lee character is awesome. he’s basically the baseball equivalent of stone cold steve austin.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 18, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
He’s an Ozarks crystal meth dealer in a cowboy hat and a silver belt buckle.
The Silver Fox, Charlie Rich, is also from Benton, Arkansas.
Hahaha, that was a legit LOL
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 19, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Greetings. New poster here. I can’t see Kershaw being available. Even the Dodgers wouldn’t deal him. They don’t match up well, being short on available young ML-ready pitchers which is what Shap said they were looking for. Betancourt and/or Pavano for lower grade/level prospects is more likely.
Welcome, good first post.
I’m afraid you’re right on all counts. A good matchup for a Lee deal would start with someone not quite as established as Kershaw but better than any of their most advanced prospects, and that person just does not exist in the Dodgers organization. As for Betancourt or Pavano, well, the bidding is open.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Lindblom’s been promoted to AAA. It’s not out of the question that he could pitch in the big leagues next year. Or at the very least pull a Huff and start in AAA and eventually be called up permentately.
Of course Lindblom is nowhere near an the elite prospect you’d trade Lee for.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I completely agree with you there. I really think Kershaw is completely out of the question.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 19, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions
So I notice the Rangers have moved Neftali to the bullpen so he can help them this year. Interesting.
Throw Grady in the pot and see what we get out of it… OH wait, if we do that, there goes the park attendance, merchandise revenue, television revenue…screaming, obnoxious fangirls.
Clone Grady 25 times and we will win the World Serious in 2040
by biscuitsandgrady on Jul 21, 2009 10:11 AM EDT reply actions
screaming, obnoxious fangirls.
You aren’t screaming.
by NickFantana on Jul 21, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
not an obnoxious fangirl, tho i think i did hear Clemsongirl quietly shriek
Clone Grady 25 times and we will win the World Serious in 2040
by biscuitsandgrady on Jul 21, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously though, that’s a dumb move. Why would you trade your best player when he’s still in his prime when you have other people you can trade that will get you a very good return already. Throwing in Grady probably isn’t getting you much more than you’re already going to get, especially this year.
I am hoping you were being sarcastic.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
i was just being facetious lol at everyone getting their panties in a bunch.
but now i now that even the thought will make every grady female fan go bonkers
Clone Grady 25 times and we will win the World Serious in 2040
by biscuitsandgrady on Jul 22, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Just seems like you’re awfully presumptuous with the ladies around here. Calm down a little bit, act like you’ve been in a room with a woman before.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
You’re the one who directly came after Clemson, and frankly, that gets tired. She’s asked people to stop. She’s a woman, we get it. Knock it off.
I didn’t take offense since it isn’t really my fault. I swear they see “Girl” and freak out.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 22, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
We don’t get many gurlz round these here parts
by Roger Dorn on Jul 22, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Talking about your mom’s basement, the whole internet, what?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I am a big fan of the ironic “gurlz”
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 22, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I recced this out of pity.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 22, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll own up to it and unrec.
I laughed at the usage of the word “fangirl” not at the comment itself nor was I supporting it.
Holy CRAP unrec’ing really works. Worth it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jul 21, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hello everyone,
I’ve actually thought about this off and on for the last 1-2 weeks – personally, I’m more in the pessimistic camp in regards to our chances for the 2010 season, EVEN IF we keep Lee and Martinez (personally, I’d trade Lee now, maybe see if Martinez wants to resign, though if a good enough offer came for him, I might trade him as well).
Here’s why I’m pessimistic about 2010:
1. You’re going to need probably both Carmona and Westbrook to be above-average to outstanding with Lee in order to make a serious run. After all, you’ll have a combination of Huff/Sowers/Laffey/Lewis/Jackson/Rondon manning the other two spots – based on inconsistency, inexperience, and lack of ceiling (that more applies to Sowers/Lewis/Jackson than it does to Huff/Laffey/Rondon), the last two spots in the rotation will likely be big question marks that one cannot rely on. The question is, can we reasonably expect Carmona, who’s had one great year as a starter for a starter’s track record, to be above-average to outstanding? The question is, can we reasonably expect Westbrook, coming off TJ surgery and who is a very good #3/fringe #2, to put up an above-average to outstanding season in his first full season back from TJ surgery? I have doubts on both questions, and being that the youngsters provided won’t be able to give you more than slightly above-average production out of the last two spots, I think you’d need more definite answers about Carmona and Westbrook to really feel good about the rotation going into 2010.
2. The bullpen is arguably even more of a question mark than the rotation is (and there’s enough question about that too), being that our best, most consistent reliever (Betancourt – yes, it is Betancourt) is no longer here, our closer (Wood) has been more inconsistent than expected, and the fact that his two primary setup men can’t consistently get people out at the ML level (Lewis and Perez). Tony Sipp has probably been the most consistent after Betancourt, and he’s a rookie, so to expect him to be the setup man for 2010 might be a lot to ask, though possible with his stuff and his aptitude. Still, even if Sipp can be a setup man this early, you’ll still need one more setup man and the makings of the rest of a quality bullpen to really contend in 2010.
The problem is, the rest of the bullpen is in flux – Joe Smith has been disappointing and unreliable, Abreu and Veras are unlikely to be here in 2010, Kobayashi is likely a non-factor as well, Perez is still in development and probably can’t be counted on fully in 2010 without some growing pains, etc. Additionally, some of our more promising relief prospects will likely also experience some growing pains if they are part of the 2010 Indians – Herrmann, Stiller, Wagner, Meyer, etc. – so it’s likely their won’t be consistency there either, probably not enough to make a sustainable run in the AL Central, not without the other teams falling back.
3. The offense has been maddeningly inconsistent – yes, we’re 5th or whatever in RS, but do you realize we’ve also had over 40 games where we’ve scored 3 runs or less? Yes, we’ve been shut down by some great pitchers (Verlander, Halladay, etc.), but we’ve also been shut down by pitchers not near that same level (Bannister, Owings, Bailey – yes, he was a great prospect at one time and is still a solid one, but is NOT a #1 starter) on more than one occasion.
This team that only hits a moderate number of HRs is among the leaders in strikeouts – some of that is due to players who are likely not to have prominent roles in the future – Francisco (4th OFer), Shoppach (backup catcher for now, but will likely be replaced by Toregas in the not-too-distant future), but is also due to some of our “core players,” like Sizemore (who’s always struck out too much, even when he’s going well), Peralta (who’s prone to these prolonged slumps), and even by some of our most fundamentally-sound hitter (Martinez, Cabrera, Choo, and Hafner). Our future efforts need to focus on staying on the ball, not pulling off everything, and being more fundamentally sound (and yes, that includes executing small ball and the little things) more consistently in order to not be so erratic offensively.
However, it’s likely that our offense will have some inconsistencies in 2010 as well if you add prospects such as LaPorta, Brantley, Brown, Hodges, etc. Let’s face it – young hitters, even highly-touted ones like LaPorta, highly-skilled ones like Brantley, and highly-sound ones like Brown, are going to need adjustment periods to the MLs in order to realize their potential or close to it. That’s why it would be beneficial for them to get some meaningful time now in 2009 to hopefully lessen the adjustment period for them in 2010. Like it or not, these guys will likely need to contribute consistently on an average level for us to truly contend in 2010 unless all of our core hitters have above-average to outstanding years for us, being that we have several question marks or “black holes” currently in our lineup (LF – Francisco, C – Shoppach, 3B – Peralta, 2B – Valbuena, 1B when Martinez isn’t there, DH if Hafner isn’t consistently playing and performing).
What complicates matters for us is, in our market, we aren’t likely to gain FAs that will significantly improve the area of the ballclub that we target (Wood was a rarity amongst signing a premium FA, and he hasn’t turned out as expected to this point, so even if we did sign a premium FA, that doesn’t guarantee improvement anyway). We could trade, but how many prospects do you want to give up, especially notable prospects who could be up by late 2010 and make an impact by 2011-2012.
This is why I think Shapiro mentioned that “3-year window” in where he feels we will contend again. That is why I think he’ll be more likely to trade Lee and/or Martinez by July 31. This concern over, “We don’t want to give up on 2010 yet,” is pretty much unfounded in my opinion for two main reasons:
1. As mentioned above, we have serious question marks about our team even if we keep Lee and/or Martinez for 2010 – about 5-6 good things have to happen for us, I believe, in order for us to contend in the AL Central in 2010.
2. This worry about the fanbase is unfounded because, the Indians have already lost the fanbase outside of the extreme diehards. Let’s face it – are people going to be more willing to buy tickets to see the 2010 Indians if Lee and/or Martinez stay than they are if they leave? I doubt the difference would be THAT great, if there is a difference – fans are so confused and disappointed with the current team as is with Lee and Martinez on it that I can’t see where they’re going to be enamored with getting tickets just because the Indians kept Lee and/or Martinez for the 2010 season – the Indians need much more improvement than just keeping those two, and as mentioned above, how are they going to improve? They can’t sign premium FAs that are likely to make a significant difference, they can’t trade away half the farm to take a shot at 2010 and possibly make this rebuilding process last 5-7 years instead of 2-3, and the prospects that are close to the Majors are going need time to adapt and can’t be counted on immediately to perform at consistent, high levels.
Therefore, is there really any meaningful difference between keeping Lee and Martinez for 2010 and trading them now in terms of our truly being able to contend in the AL Central in 2010? Personally, I don’t think there is. I am pretty sure though that Lee and Martinez are worth more now than they will be this offseason and at this time in 2010. Particularly with Lee, the fact that Toronto is considering Roy Halladay could help the Indians get even more for Lee, either if Toronto decides at the last moment not to trade Halladay and a contender really wants to upgrade their rotation with a frontline starter (there aren’t any notable ones beside Halladay and Lee) or if Toronto does trade Halladay to a contender and another contender wants to make a countermove to bolster their own chances.
That’s why reports are suggesting the Indians are listening to offers for Lee and why it seems that the Indians are reevaluating their decision to keep Lee, at least according to SI’s Jon Heyman. The Indians need considerable help in all three areas (offense, starting pitching, relief pitching), and Lee could bring back impactful and relatively close help that could blend in with the impactful prospects that appear to be on track for late 2010, early 2011. That’s why I think Shapiro mentioned “3-year period” in those comments he made a few weeks back and why I don’t think we will really contend in 2010 even if Lee and/or Martinez are still here, sorry to say.
I personally want Shapiro to do what is best for the short and long-term success of this franchise, and personally, I think trading Lee and/or Martinez is probably the best bet to achieving those aims. If you keep Lee and/or Martinez, what will you have to show for it when either or both (Lee likely will leave, Martinez is less certain) leave? Draft picks who could maybe help around 2015 or 2016, 6 to 7 years from now, maybe 2013-2014 if they advance quickly; they almost certainly won’t help out by 2011 or 2012 like the prospects we’d get from trading Lee and/or Martinez.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I’m going to reply to this post one sentence at a time, one sentence per day.
Hello everyone,
Hey, Joe.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Oh here we go.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 23, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
This is going to be good. And this might come in handy: http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/icons_of_invention/technology/1968-2000/IC.106/
Will there be any schedule to your posts?
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Jul 24, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
The offense has been maddeningly inconsistent – yes, we’re 5th or whatever in RS, but do you realize we’ve also had over 40 games where we’ve scored 3 runs or less?
I hear this complaint all the time, and you know what? It’s just wrong. I want to say ENTIRELY INCORRECT, but it’s not quite there. The Tribe has scored three runs or less 39 times, which is 8th in the AL. Every AL team has been held to three runs or less at least 35 times except for the Yankees (who play in a pretend ballpark) and the Angels. Those 39 games are fewer than the Twins, fewer than the Rays, fewer than the Tigers. It’s only one more than the Rangers, four more than either of the Soxes.
My new standard response to complaining about inconsistent offense is “Happens to every team”
by Roger Dorn on Jul 24, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think this complaint comes from a naive reliance on averages. The average runs scored is up somewhere around 5, and so most people’s sense is to assume that games should be above that about half the time, and below that about half the time. This is true in many kinds of distributions, but is wildly inappropriate for runs scored. Run distributions are really skewed, because of the simple fact that there’s no upper limit, but there is a lower limit. Any time you have a skew, the average will be pulled away from the median, toward the unbounded end (in this case upward). It’s really the median that (by definition) you expect to be above half the time and below half the time.
I know you know all this already, Fred, but I think it’s something that the people who complain about this need to keep in mind.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 24, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Also! We strike out too much, we pull the ball too much, our catcher’s batting average is too low, and there has to be somebody better out there than our fifth starter!
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 24, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’ve actually thought about this off and on for the last 1-2 weeks – personally, I’m more in the pessimistic camp in regards to our chances for the 2010 season, EVEN IF we keep Lee and Martinez (personally, I’d trade Lee now, maybe see if Martinez wants to resign, though if a good enough offer came for him, I might trade him as well).
I agree that some pessimism is warranted after the twin train-wrecks of 2008 and 2009, regardless of the reasons. Realistically, we can’t have much confidence that Shapiro can put together a league-average bullpen, and at least this season, even that massive upgrade wouldn’t have made us a good team.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Here’s why I’m pessimistic about 2010: 1. You’re going to need probably both Carmona and Westbrook to be above-average to outstanding with Lee in order to make a serious run.
Can’t say I agree with you here. Take our miserable 2009 season, and correct for an average bullpen — hell, make it replacement level. Now take Carmona and make him solidly above-average. Aren’t we right in the thick of the race in that case?
Call my crazy optimistic, but I see our lineup being the same or better next year. I see our other rotation pieces also being the same or better, as Laffey and SLewis possibly enjoy better health and they and Huff all gain experience and savvy in the majors. So if we can only manage to have a non-historically bad bullpen, I don’t think we need an outstanding threesome at the top of the rotation — though of course it couldn’t hurt.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I agree with this. I don’t think you need three outstanding guys. If you can manage to have one outstanding, one very good, and then the average of the other three being about average, I think that could play, with this lineup, and an averageish bullpen. This year the bullpen was, as you say, historically bad, and the rotation featured one outstanding, one above average (but not “very good”), and then revolving doors of below-average-overall.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 26, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve seen worse talent than what the Indians have assembled make the postseason. Baseball takes a number of things coming together including injuries, but if it happens, we should compete. We are not that far away from contending. Writing off 2010 doesn’t make sense to me, and that includes going in either direction on Vic and Cliff
You’re leaving out the manager part of the equation.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
Are you concerned that canning Eric might stuff up next season for us?
I'm not from round 'ere...
by RasenFridge on Jul 27, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
which bit do you need clarifying chap?
I’m happy to help. It beats working.
I'm not from round 'ere...
by RasenFridge on Jul 27, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Ah.
Probably should have said something like:
send next season down the toilet
or:
ruin another fine opportunity for a run at the pennant next year.
or:
disadvantage our brave boys in their attempt to win more games than they lose before the All Star Break in 2010.
I'm not from round 'ere...
by RasenFridge on Jul 27, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
He’s not being that crazy. When we dominated back in the day it wasn’t because our pitching was lights out, it was because it was good enough to kee us in games that our hitters could win.
Not saying our lineups as good as it was then obviously, but it’s not bad.
I'm not from round 'ere...
by RasenFridge on Jul 27, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually, when we have dominated, good-to-great pitching was always part of the package. We had the best pitching in the AL in 95 and 96, even if it wasn’t as terrifying as our hitting was. From 97 through 01, we didn’t have the pitching, and we were no longer a dominant team, but rather a decent team in a terrible division.
We also had a great pitching staff top-to-bottom in ’05, which was our best team since ’96, and we had two lights-out starters and two lights-out relievers in ’07, when we had the best record in the game. So you see, we never really have had a truly impressive team without great pitching.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
2. This worry about the fanbase is unfounded because, the Indians have already lost the fanbase outside of the extreme diehards.
True. I think this is a great time to do fan-alienating stuff, because you can’t really do worse than we’ve already done this year.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Although trading Cliff would bring in some great players I think he is too good to trade right now. Maybe in 3 or 4 years
I will politely point out that the Indians retain control of Mr. Lee for approximately 1.5 more years. Therefore, in 3 to 4 years, it is highly likely that Cliff Lee will already be pitching for another team who signs him as a free agent if he is not traded prior to August 2010.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
Hey, at least he knows how to read and follow the rules.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
“Mr. McGillicutty, I’m afraid you’ve come down with some mild sarcasm. I recommend bed rest, a diet of folk music, and here, swallow this packet of indiansfan comments.”
by Logodaedalus on Jul 24, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Is it really worth it though? Sock Puppeting as a newbie to post 1 comment with sarcasm?
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
Okay. But I thought that’s what the suggestion above said.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
That’s what I thought, the mildest, lamest sock puppet post ever. Just seemed strange that someone would register, read this far, and comment on the topic with such a clear error.
by dgcambridge on Jul 26, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I think at this point, we’re better off if Halladay is moved sooner rather than later. We need for teams to have time to get panicky about not having upgraded.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Agreed
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 25, 2009 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions
The indians should restock
but if they were to buy, they would have no farm in 4 years
Carlos Guillen, the Latino Punto
he meant the subject lines
We don’t use them here
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 26, 2009 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions
what….
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 26, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- 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.
