Cliff Lee interview.
Probably the most candid he has ever been. Cliff also touches on his demotion to AAA and being left off of the playoff roster and how he felt about it
-- ---
DW: After the trades, Indians President Paul Dolan said you were not going to re-sign with the Indians after 2010. Did Dolan present it accurately?
CL: They told my agent that when we got to spring training this year, we'll talk about an extension. We get there, the first half of spring goes by...nothing. We get down toward the end, they call me in the office and tell me, 'Never mind. We've changed our minds.'
At that point, I told them: 'For me, now's the time. After this year, I'm going to be one year from free agency, and you're going to have to pick up my option if I'm pitching well. Otherwise, I'm a free agent. It doesn't make sense to do it one year out when I just watched what CC did.'
over 2 years ago
Toxicadam
229 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I’m starting to feel bad for Shapiro. Granted, some of his moves were what put us in this position, but the wiggle room is just non-existent. As long as this team can’t spend any more money than it is, we are always one bad contract away from disaster, just like over half the league.
Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009
Thought this was interesting:
DW: Do you feel bad for the fans who see the core of their team traded, fans who wonder, ‘Why can’t Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez still be around in 2010, to try to make another run at it?’
CL: Uh, it would help if the fans showed up and came to the games. That’s why the team didn’t make money, because the fans weren’t there, supporting the team. That’s what happens when the fans don’t support —
I thought the follow-up was a good question, but it raises a few issues in my mind. Should fans support a team that is not winning? I think yes, but you also need to factor in the poor economy’s effect on attendance.
I’m starting to subscribe to Castro’s (it was him right?) opinion that the city can’t support 3 major teams.
The browns will sell out every game no matter their record, and the Cav’s have Lebron James.
The follow up question was good, but I don’t recall 2008’s early season numbers being all that great.
Fans weren’t showing up in mid-September of 2007. We routinely only had 20-23k fans for weekday game. Not that we should have had sellouts, but we couldn’t even attract 30k people during a pennant race for weekday games?
Things might change if the Indians put together 3 successive playoff runs .. but I’m beginning to even doubt that.
why? it take a couple of good year to build the interest, yes the real baseball fan will come to games when the team is as bad as this one is, but that is the 1.5 mill we are getting now. To get the other 1.5m they need to build something that is worth spending entertainment money on, and can you tell me with a straight face that is team is that much fun to watch.
Fan in Texas
I just don’t think it’s fair to complain about the payroll and then not show up for games. If you want the team to spend more money, support the cause, even if it means watching a team that isn’t always good. The fans can help the situation.
I agree with you about it not being fair, I’m a tribe fan for over fifty years and drive/fly from Dallas every year for the past 28 yr. to watch the tribe, but I’m a fan and alway will be, to get the fair weather fans to the game will take putting a good product there.
Fan in Texas
This lacks in nuance. I’m as big an Indians fan as anyone I know, live only 40 minutes from the Jake, and haven’t been to a game all year. I can’t even remember how many I attended the two years prior, but it was a lot.
I, however, am being impacted the same economic problems as a lot of people up here. That doesn’t make me any less of a fan, it just means I have no disposable income. I think the economy is a bigger problem then the product.
This was no insult to you or anyone else that can not afford to go the games. I know what poor is and it is not fun, but don’t get down, thing will change, I worked in Youngstown when things went to hell lost my job and my house, had to move to Amarillo to start over, then the oil Co. in Amarilo went under and had to move to Dallas but things got better they always do.
Fan in Texas
I just think the economic realities of Cleveland are much different. The manufacturing/financial base has seen rapid decline and most likely is not coming back.
You combine that with the fact that tickets, concessions and gasoline are still high (and in some cases going even higher) it further erodes the disposable income of the casual fan.
I’m not exacty sure where you are getting your attendence figures here, I"m guessing you are pulling these out of your ass.
Here’s a link to B-Ref that shows the attendence numbers for all of the September games. There was a nine game homestand in the middle of Septemeber where the lowest number we drew was 28,825, and there were three times during that homestand where we drew over 40,000.
Boy, I should have looked it up. I just remember it being a major topic of discussion back here in 2007 for most of the year (even into August). I believe Paul Byrd commented on (the lack of fan support) mid-way through the season.
Those figures are a good sign then that some sustained success could bring up back up.
There is something there though. I moved back here in Sept 2005 when the Indians were making a serious move on the CHI-sox and the Browns were expected to be, well, the Browns. Everywhere you turned, however, nobody was talking Indians and everybody was talking Browns, Browns, Browns.
There is a great need for a sarcasm font
by stuart dean on Aug 27, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s a football town deep down. That will never change. I have seen high school football games outdraw the Cavs and Indians in down seasons.
Exactly. Cleveland = football. The Indians are competing for the non-football entertainment dollars, and right now there are less of those dollars to be spent. Combine with a inconsistent team from year to year (if not down right bad) and an elite NBA team, and you gotta expect under 2 million for the season.
I agree, if we had the 1995 – 2000 team on the field we would have drawn 3 mill fans. one year wonders will not do it.
Fan in Texas
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the money people were saving on Browns tickets was a huge factor in Indians attendance during that span of time.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
It wasn’t just saving money on Browns tickets, it was the way the Indians dominated local culture with the Browns gone and the Cavs dormant. It was all Indians, all the time.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
And it was glorious!
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Aug 27, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Whoever had the idea to invent baseball in 1994 was a smart man.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 27, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And it’s not fair to describe the 2007 Indians as one-year wonders. The 2005 team was in a pennant race, and the 2007 team missed the World Series by this much. That the fans weren’t turning out in droves to start 2008 says a lot. On May 14, 2008, the Indians were in first place and 18,188 people turned up to watch CC pitch. Heck, on May 9th they couldn’t even get 30,000 for a Friday night game featuring Sabathia and Halladay.
It’s the Friday night thing that bothers me more than the pitching match-up. Honestly, while that had the chance to be a phenomenal game, I doubt the average fan realizes that when they’re buying tickets. I’m hoping to head to Saturday’s game in Baltimore, but I honestly couldn’t tell you who was going to pitch. If there were a better match-up on Sunday, it wouldn’t change my going on Saturday.
I just wanted to believe.
no it is not, but look at the record since 1995
1995 100-44,1996 99-62,1997 86-75,1998 89-73,1999 97-65, 2000 90-72
2001 91-71, The rebuilding starts 2002 74-88, 2003 68-94, 2004 80-82, 2005 93-69, 2006 78-84, 2007 96-66, 2008 81-81 and 2009 56-70.Just saying it is hard to build a fan base if you do not put season back to back.
Fan in Texas
And I’m telling you …
1997 86-75
1998 89-73
1999 97-65
2000 90-72
2001 91-71
… against the AL Central 2005-2009, those four teams make the playoffs maybe one time. Knock off maybe three wins per season for strength of schedule, and realize that probably not one of those five clubs were as good as the 2005 and 2007 clubs.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
that’s your opinion, and that is ok with me, but since 2002 we are 626-634 and that is not good.
Fan in Texas
Do you expect the Indians to have fifteen years of sustained excellence? They were great from 1994 to 2001 — that’s a heck of a long time. The only team which can match that run this decade is the Yankees, and maybe the Red Sox, and of course they both have massive financial advantages. You would expect that after a run of success like the Indians had in the 90’s there would be a few years of rebuilding, and that’s what happened in 2002. So it’s not really fair to look at our record since 2002 and compare that to the record in the 90’s.
And Jay is right — look at the record of those five teams above. 1999 was great but the other years were good but nothing special; we just benefited from a weak division. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. The ’05 and ’07 clubs were most definitely better than all those teams except the ’99 team.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the ’05 and ’07 teams clearly were better than the 99 team. The ’99 team had no divisional rivals over .500, and two that finished under .400. It was a bad, bad division.
Two good/great years out of eight is not good, please do not tell me you are going to be happy with a good team every four years? But that was not my point anyways. What I was trying to get at was that the Indian can not hope to build a 2mill plus fan base if we can not put together good years back to back to back. I’m not talking about win the division but putting a team that contends more than twice every eight years. If thing do not turn around this could end up like the past, were every year we lose more and more of our young fan base. Do I see it get as bad as the 70-80, no, our Owner/FO is smarter and better financed, but I do see a bad trend happening.
Fan in Texas
please do not tell me you are going to be happy with a good team every four years?
i hate to say it, but going forward i’m not sure we should expect a whole lot better than that, realistically. the financial realities of baseball are such that an organization with the indians’ limited resources can’t expect to be competitive but every few years…injuries, underperformance, adding second- and third-tier free agents…whatever it may be, there is unlikely to be an extended run of excellence with this team in the near future…
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think we can hope to build the kind of fan base you seem to be hoping for at all. The sequence of events that led to the 94-01 run was necessary for that kind of fan support and will never be replicated. That was a lightning in a bottle kind of thing, which is what makes not winning the series during those years all the more painful.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
You need to understand that the Indians’ run from 94-01 will never happen again. That was a rare intersection of many events which catipulted the Indians in to the forefront of Cleveland sports. If you expect the Indians to return to that level of success then your expectations are severly flawed. It just isn’t possible in this market with the way baseball is currently financed. It will never happen again. You need to realize that and set your expectation accordingly.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 28, 2009 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions
but being a fan, I want my team to be good every year, Reality sucks and has nothing to do with what I want.
Fan in Texas
Reality sucks and has nothing to do with what I want.
This is clearly the reason that the entire Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens rosters have not been stricken with swine flu.
A steaming pile of scrappiness
by woodsmeister on Aug 28, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
It was not just local, they got as much coverage on espn as NY, and I think the movie Major League helped the 1995 Indians to be fan favorite across the country, I was traveling to a different east coast city every week in 94 -99 and seen alot of indian jerseys at every ball park even when they were not play there that night.
Fan in Texas
even if you were to pick up the 95-00 indians and place them in 05-10, i don’t think you get 455 sellouts in a row, nor do you get 3mm fans. that’s the reality of the economics, as well as the return of the browns and the emergence of LeBron.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 27, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
If you were to pick up the 95-00 indians and place them in 05-10, I don’t think you get five division titles.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Because all the players are 10 years older now?
[cymbal crash]
by JulioBernazard on Aug 27, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
maybe, we were short on pitching but we sure had hitting just a few names from the 1995 – 2000
Albert Belle, Jim Thome, Roberto Alomar, Omar Vizquel, Travis Fryman, David Justice, Kenny Lofton, Manny Ramirez, Sandy Alomar, Carlos Baerga,
Eddie Murray, Matt Williams, Brian Giles, Richie Sexson
Fan in Texas
And we got excited by listing the names on this roster at one point, too.
Some of those names owe a little of their stature to the poor quality of the division.
Does this mean as an Indians fan who doesn’t care much about basketball, I should want Lebron to go elsewhere?
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
Not if you want the city of Cleveland to have any chance at a championship in the next few years.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I would rather the Indians win in the next ten years than the Cavs next year, but that is personal preference.
I dunno, at this point, beggars can’t be choosers. I’d certainly rather see the Indians than anyone else, but Id be extremely happy with the Cavs, too. I’d be happy about the Browns, but wouldn’t necessarily like the ramifications of a Browns Super Bowl win.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 27, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
The Cavs winning would be of marginal interest to me, kind of a “well, how about that.” The Indians, on the other hand…
If I still lived in Ohio, I’m sure I would feel differently. I still see the Tribe play in person every year, after all. I could drive to DC to see LeBron, I suppose, but that I’ve never done so while seeing the Indians play in Pittsburgh, in Cleveland, in Baltimore is telling. And I like basketball.
I live here, and I can tell you when the Cavs went on that run last year it felt so good. Getting behind a team that you watched when they sucked and seeing them dominate opponents… awesome. If any one of the Cavs, Browns, or Indians win it all I will be ecstatic. If the Indians do it… man, it isn’t getting any better.
Steel Nick
I know, most people here aren’t big basketball fans. I’m not really that big of a basketball fan (although the Cavs are soooooo damn fun to watch with LeBron). But, need I remind you, Cleveland hasn’t won a championship in 45 years, so I think most people will take whatever they can get. I don’t think we’re in the position to be choosy about which team we’d like to see win the most.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. It’s always been more about the city than the specific sport to me. The Indians just happen to combine my favorite city with my favorite sport. But in general, anything that brings glory and good vibes to the city is something I can get behind.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 27, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
In order, for me, it’s the sport, the team, then the city. I mean, I love Cleveland, but the whole championship drought overall means nothing to me. I guess I’d be happy for other Clevelanders if the Cavs/Browns won, but I wouldn’t feel any different.
I mean, I love Cleveland, but the whole championship drought overall means nothing to me.
Really? That’s really hard for me to believe.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 30, 2009 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Then I’m weird, I guess. I mean, although I’ve lived in the “region” my entire life, I’ve lived in the city for two+ years. Maybe it just hasn’t sunk in yet. But I have no idea who the Browns QB is, and I have no idea when basketball season starts again.
But I have no idea who the Browns QB is
That’s okay, neither do Browns fans.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 31, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, yeah, I know — the NBA sucks, the players don’t care, they don’t play defense, there’s too much showboating, they’re all overpaid whiners. The NBA is no different from any other professional sports league.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
i have a hard time understanding this line of thought … if you’re a big basketball fan, how is it that you don’t like the league where the best basketball on the planet is played by the best basketbal players on the planet? i’m not trying to be obnoxious, i’ve just never understood that.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
In my opinion, it’s not the basketball on the planet. That’s why it and the Cavs take a backseat to college ball and Xavier for me.
Of course, you asked Roger.
no, but i appreciate you answering, too. you don’t think that the basketball being played in the nba is the best basketball on the planet? i guess you’re saying the way in which the game is played, strategically, is less…uh…sophisticated (? i’m honestly searching for the word) than the college game? or maybe it’s just a matter of preference?
to me, it’s clear that it’s the world’s best basketball.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions
It clearly has the highest level of talent, but many feel that they are not playing their best basketball, and that they’d rather see lesser talents playing a better game.
to me, this boils down to some perception of “hard” play. as far as the quality of the hoops, it’s clearly better talent, playing for clearly better coaches, running clearly more expansive/nuanced/comples sets in the nba.
do they coast at times in an 82 game sched? yeah, and nor is there the same overt passion in reg season nba ball as in the ncaa. i guess i can see those points, but as far as basketball quality, it gets no better than the nba, in my estimation.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Really I feel as though they coast every GAME, until the second half at the earliest.
I love basketball, and I don’t like playing the curmudgeon, but until they make the guys take the ball off their hip and start calling some travels and carries and push-offs, the NBA is just going to be rugby with jumping to me. Hell, I was THERE for D-Wade’s 2002-2003 run, and I’m here to tell you he isn’t half as much fun as he was in college when they actually made him dribble.
But maybe the fans just demand, and the advertisers pay for, 200-point games. What do I know.
by fleerdon on Aug 28, 2009 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions
That may be the main argument about pro basketball. Clearly that’s where the best individual talents are, but since the players play for money (vs. college players playing for school pride), there’s rarely a full game where each player is going all out. Of course some college players only do this to get the best contract available after the amateurs, but it’s still fun to watch.
but since the players play for money (vs. college players playing for school pride)
I’m sorry, but that’s complete bullcrap. Professionals play “only for the money” but college kids play for “school pride”? Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe this?
Sure NBA players play for the money, but so do MLB and NFL and NHL players. But they also play because they love the game, because nobody would put in the amount of work and dedication required to play professionally if they didn’t love playing. Of course, there are always a few who don’t give their best efforts, but you can find those players in every sport and they’re the minority.
And the idea that college players play only for “school pride” is a fairy tale. Maybe in D-II or D-III hoops, but players in the major college hoops are in their program to make it in the NBA or some other pro league. That’s why players flock to wherever Calipari and Pitino and Williams and all the other big-time coaches go. Do you think the kids who left their commitment to Memphis to follow Calipari to Kentucky give a damn about their school? Of course not — they’re following the coaches to get them to the NBA. And there’s nothing wrong with this, I might add, but to suggest that college player are only in it for school pride is ridiculous. And even kids who aren’t at the big-time programs still want to make a career out of playing basketball.
This is what bothers me about the college v. pro arguments, all these stereotypical comments from fans which just aren’t true. I love college sports and I love pro sports, but if you think college athletes are somehow more “pure” than pro athletes because they’re not playing for money then you’re living in a fantasy world.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 28, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll give you better players, but I think coaching is a bit hard to measure on a completely objective level.
I can’t agree with the more expansive sets being run in the NBA. The basic high school set contains about five variations to be run at various times and usually sent in by the coach. In college we had a playbook binder that every player on the team had to know by heart for offenses called on the fly by the point. (We were my no means the exception to the rule).
In the NBA the sets are actually simplified for the sake of the 24 second clock, no need to work around a zone, and the preference for less motion related offenses. So, while the players are probably capable of executing a more precise offense, they are never asked to.
Also, a lot of plays in the NBA boil down to waiting for LeBron/DWade/Kobe/AI/whoever to dribble-drive from the perimeter, get the call that they know they’re going to get whenever they attempt a lay-up, and then heading to the line for a couple of free throws. I’d much rather watch the Wisconsin Swing for 32 seconds.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Is this a joke? I didn’t want to enter this, but do you really like watching a bunch of unathletic white guys pass the ball around the outside of the 3 point line for 30 seconds in some coach-choked “offense” until the shot clock winds down and they have to hoist up a three or drive into the zone and toss up a wild shot? Love the 62-52 score game? Have you seen LeBron’s assist numbers? Have you seen Paul or Deron Williams? I think a lot of the comments here are way behind the current NBA game.
I think the isolation dribble-drive gets stuck in people’s mind because it often is used at the end of close games. I agree that it’s weak.
I also agree that college players get whipped up into a frenzy for the whole game more than NBA players, because the coach demands it. Actually, it can be a frenzy unlike anyone of the major team sports (except maybe hockey with its 1 minute shifts). Most sports are bursts of speed and energy, with long times of positioning/resting in between. I’ve seen plenty of college games where the players are slapping the floor for every second. I don’t think it makes for a better game. That’s my opinon.
by dgcambridge on Aug 28, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
This is a gross over-simplification of the college game. There are a ton of different styles used both offensively and defensively because the rules allow them to do. I find Bo Ryan ball excruciating as well, so don’t feel like you are alone.
If you want dribble drive offense in college, watch John Calipari. If you want up-tempo full court offense, watch Roy Williams or Bill Self. There is a little bit of everything.
you short change the nba here. while there are certainly several styles amongst the 14,681 schools in the ncaa, it’s actually largely a copycat game. look at the proliferation of the dribble drive motion since memphis made it mainstream (certainly didn’t invent it).
the nba, on the other hand, has 32 teams, and showcases such disparate styles as: 7 seconds or less, larry brown (walk it up, play defense), the triangle, pick and roll, traditional motion and flex, and that’s just off the top of my head.
as i say below, though, i’m not really trying to convince anyone of anything. personal preference is just that … but i love talking hoops.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Those who prefer the NBA seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince those who don’t that their personal preference is wrong. There are things to like about the NBA. There are things not to like. The same is true of college. Where you fall on that continuum is neither right nor wrong.
as i say, i’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. i actually find the discussion interesting … the heart of my question was how can you say you like basketball but you DISlike the nba. if you prefer college, that’s fine, but it’s hard for me to see DISliking the nba if you like hoops.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Those who prefer the NBA seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince those who don’t that their personal preference is wrong.
Well I would say that’s because I hardly every hear anyone bash college basketball while people regularly bash the NBA, so I suppose NBA fans feel like they need to defend the league against attack from others.
It is perfectly fine to prefer college hoops over the NBA. Heck, you can prefer watching seventh grade girls basketball if that’s what you like. But what I don’t like is people who dislike the NBA for stereotypical reasons which don’t really exist. Or for reasons which are also prevelent in other sports yet those sports don’t receive the same criticisms (i.e. the players don’t try hard all the time — do you think baseball players run as hard as they can on every ground ball in every game?).
I remember a year or two ago someone on this board commenting (don’t think it was any of the regulars) about how awful the NBA was and all the problems with the game, and then they admitted that they hadn’t watched an NBA game in years. That’s the kind of criticism which isn’t fair at all. It’s perfectly fine to not like the NBA or any other sport league, but at least have a legitimate reason for it.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 28, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Let’s be fair about throwing around the stereotypes, Brad. This conversation started with this statement:
I am actually a massive basketball fan, I just don’t like the NBA very much.There’s no bashing there, just a statement of personal preference. No “NBA players are thugs who don’t play defense.” The first person to bring up the tired old tropes about the NBA was someone defending the NBA. And when you say things like
Heck, you can prefer watching seventh grade girls basketball if that’s what you like.the implication is clear that you are putting people who prefer college basketball into the same category as those who prefer 7th grade girls hoops. Maybe it’s just that NBA fans are defensive about the attacks on the league over the past few years, but as someone who prefers college basketball, I’m kind of sick of being told that my preference is just because I don’t know “real basketball” when I see it.
I wasn’t implying that college basketball was like 7th grade girls basketball, I was merely stating that people have the right to like whatever they want no matter what others think of it and I was trying to use an extreme example. So if you want to like college basketball more than NBA that’s perfectly fine. I have nothing against college basketball, and in fact I enjoy watching it immensely during the tournament. I’m not bashing college basketball in the slightest. It’s the people who don’t like the NBA that are bashing that game (maybe not people here, but that’s the usual response).
It’s not about right or wrong because when you’re talking about personal preference there is no right and wrong. You can say that you like the college game better and that’s fine. But if you’re going to say that the college game is better, when it’s full of vastly inferior players, then that’s where you’re going to get some arguments.
It’s the college fans who said that the NBA doesn’t play “real basketball”, not the other way around, so you must have misread this discussion. The NBA obviously has the superior players, so that’s the reason college fans give for not liking the league, becaue it’s not “real basketball”. I’ve never heard someone say that about the college game. It’s the NBA that gets bashed all the time, not the college game, which is why NBA fans get defensive about it as you said.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 28, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s the college fans who said that the NBA doesn’t play "real basketball"
Yeah, I’ll take that bait. Call some stinkin’ moving violations. I don’t deny that what NBA players are doing takes phenomenal athleticism; I just don’t think it’s anything like rule-book basketball.
by fleerdon on Aug 29, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
My suspicion is that this conversation would not be happening at all if the Cavs were anything like the Cavs of the 90’s.
If you’re implying that people are following the Cavs more now than in the 90’s because the best basketball player on the planet plays for that team then, yes, of course that’s true. Not only does he make the team better but they’re a heck of a lot more fun to watch.
Of course, there were many, many more Indians fans in Cleveland in the 90’s than in the 80’s so I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make. Great teams always attract more fans.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 28, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
The Wisconsin Swing in a man-to-man offense so it wouldn’t be run against a zone, and the whole point of the offense is so that you don’t end up hoisting a wild three or forcing your way into the lane. I’ve seen the NBA and I’ve seen college, and I prefer to watch the “five unathletic white guys” of the NCAA. I’m not saying that I’m right or wrong, just that what goes on in college appeals to the way I like to watch basketball. You clearly prefer the NBA, and that’s fine by me.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
the nuance here is that a lot of possessions boil down to a superstar dribble-drive, not necessarily plays. i think you’d find that plays are run on virtually every NBA possession, and many of those are discrete plays, but whether the superstar decides to freestyle or not is an unknown.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
You agree that there is an obvious difference between an offensive play in the NBA and an offensive play in college though.
I admire what NBA players are capable of, it is truly astounding how good the majority of the league is. Ultimately, its a style preference when deciding between college and pro.
i mean, i would say that the nba play is more sophisticated, quite frankly.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
on the coaching point, it’s certainly a tough proof, but looking at the recent empirical evidence, all of: pitino, calipari, floyd, montgomery, hamilton, kruger, have failed and failed big at the pro level after having large collegiate success. this doesn’t make the case definitively, but i’m hard pressed to think these college guys washed out of the nba b/c the nba was easier.
as far as sets…i’ll concede that the offense is more play, as opposed to system, based, and in any event not necessarily clearly more expansive than college. defensively, though, i think you’ll find that the pros ask a lot more than college. i can’t find it now, but i remember an article from this past season in which mario chalmers said that at ku there were, like, 5 defensive “calls”…whereas the heat had as many as 15.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Jay encapsulates it rather nicely. I prefer a somewhat more pure form of the game of basketball. I appreciate a good zone defense, off the ball screens, and boxing out. I don’t see a lot of that in the NBA. I don’t deny that the NBA style of ball is just as basketball as college, I just don’t enjoy it as much.
i’ve been looking for a susie mcconnell-serio jersey for about 10 years.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions
as a matter of personal preference, i of course won’t argue with you. you prefer to watch college more, and that’s fine and, frankly, understandable in many respects. and while i would disagree with some of the details of what you’ve said here if we were going to get deep into this conversation, my ultimate question was how one can say they like basketball, but don’t like the nba. if i’m hearing you correctly, you’re merely saying you like college MORE, as opposed to DISliking the nba.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m don’t get it. If you want the best basketball on the planet, why Xavier??
Just poking fun.
Steel Nick
I don’t really want to get too into it, but I hate the style of play in the NBA. A lot of it has to do with certain rules that are in place to make sure that scoring reaches a certain acceptable mark of 90-100 points/game.
Rules that bother me:
1. 24 second shot clock – A real offensive set is almost impossible to run in that span of time.
2. Continuation rules – A lot of the hard fouls and technicals are a result of players having to wrap a player up just to prevent him from some ridiculous and 1 play that occurs 3 seconds after he got fouled.
3. Zone rules – My favorite styles of play in basketball involve zone trapping defenses and full court press. You don’t get that in the NBA partially because the players are too good and partially because the rules really only allow for man to man defense to be truly effective. They do it so that the effect of the big man isn’t taken away.
I have more quibbles but those are the main ones, ultimately it’s a style of play preference.
Additionally, there is more uncertainty in college basketball. The better NBA team will win in a 7 game series by my rough estimation about 90% of the time or more.
But isn’t that what you want — the best team to win? This is more of an argument of the NCAA tournament v. NBA playoffs. Yes, the tournament is more exciting because it’s only one game so there are often upsets and everybody can fill out a bracket and all the games on at one time. It’s very fan-friendly and I love it too. But when you’re talking about winning a championship, I want the best team (or one of the best) to win the championship, not some barely-good team that just got hot at the right time. I hated seeing the Cardinals with the ‘06 World Series because they weren’t anywhere close to the best team in baseball. So I like the 7-game series format of the NBA playoffs because it’s better at crowning a true champion.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 28, 2009 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
No. I don’t really care actually if it’s the best team or not. I love the randomness of sports sometimes, and I love seeing teams win that normally don’t.
In college sports, I always root for the program that has never won the title before. Same goes for pro.
1. come on…there are plenty of sets that can be run in a 24 second clock. the triangle, classic pick and roll, you can run a full motion offense…and are you really telling me that 35 seconds is a more magic number?
2. you won’t get much argument from me on the current state of continuation, as well as physical play, in the nba.
3. i think it’s much more to do with the fact that the players are too good (and coaches too good, too) than it does the rules that zones and presses don’t work in the nba.
i’m not trying to convince you, though … stylistic preference is certainly an acceptable reason to prefer one to the other.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 28, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
1. yes, I think 11 seconds makes a big difference.
3. I agree, but this is again why I stated that it is personal preference and not a fault of the NBA, which you acknowledged with your last sentence.
I am a big fan of a Big Ten school, and as such watch a lot of Big Ten basketball, and there isn’t a school in our conference that runs a decent offensive set. I mean, Michigan State occasionally looks good, Purdue can be pretty when they get on a roll, but good lord am I sick of missed leaners as the shot clock expires. And I consider myself a huge Big Ten apologist!
I think people prefer the college game because they have a vested interest in a school, or because they love the tournament, or they like the atmosphere of college — which are all valid reasons, and they all apply to me. I don’t really buy the “purer game” arguments though. I mean, zone traps work because college players are just not very good.
Incidentally, the best offense I ever saw run was the 2005 Illinois team that made it to the NCAA championship game. I have never seen a team move better off the ball or work more in sync with one another. And they basically lost to a team of NBA players playing NBA basketball at UNC.
This wasn’t really directed at you, Roger, just at the whole argument in general.
Very good arguments. As I’ve said before, I think the whole college v. pro arguments is based stereotypes which don’t really exist.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 29, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Guys … told you once already … move this elsewhere. Post a FanPost on the Cavs site and link to it, whatever.
Not to be rude, but I’m just curious . . . why is it okay to have a long conversation about Pam and Karen from The Office or some other random topic on here but it’s not okay to have a discussion about basketball? What’s the difference?
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 29, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
if you’re a fan of the city of cleveland, then you should definitely not want LeBron to go anywhere else. if you’re purely a tribe fan and don’t care about cleveland, the calculus is clearly different.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 27, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
The people who made those videos should be slapped
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 30, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, it does. And those idiots are help spread Cleveland’s already poor reputation rather than do something to help the city.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 30, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Person. He used to have a sketch comedy show on public access, I remember.
Clevelanders are allowed to make fun of Cleveland as much as they want. If the guy was from New York, I would agree.
Steel Nick
But isn’t the guy just opening it up for New Yorkers, and anyone else, to make fun of Cleveland? Is that really any better?
Like New Yorkers actually need this to make fun of Cleveland.
Self deprecating humor is always appreciated. (At least by me.)
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
Says the guy who just admitted not caring about the city upthread
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 31, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I may have misinterpreted. I believe if you care about one, you kind of have to care about the other. But apologies for misinterpreting your feelings about the city. Thinking about it, I doubt you’d be going to school and loving living there if you didn’t care.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
No because Cleveland already did it. If you make of fun of yourself it takes the sting out of anyone else making fun of you. Then they just look like a fool.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Aug 31, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I can say from experience that when that video comes up with friends who are not from Cleveland, they aren’t the ones feeling like a fool.
Absolutely
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 31, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we just have differing opinions about how to view these videos. I’m not from Cleveland so I guess y’all will say I don’t have room to talk. But if someone made a video like that about St. Louis (which they definitely could because St. Louis is a strange place) I would think it was hilarious and wouldn’t be offended at all. I’m not saying you shouldnt be offended because obviously we just have different views of them.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Aug 31, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a group of friends here in school who are all from the Cleveland area. They have a “Cleveland” room in their house, complete with a giant map of the city and original paintings of the city done in the 1960s by a resident of Little Italy. Two of them are diehard Tribe fans.
And they ****ing loved that video.
I love this idea. I’m starting to collect enough Erie paraphernalia to do something similar… yep, I’m stealing it.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 1, 2009 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I have sort of a Cleveland room too, or at least had, but I really don’t appreciate these videos.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
I find the second one to be absolutely hilarious and mostly true. The knocks on Cleveland are usually about downtown Cleveland, but the dirty little secret that I hope Chuck doesn’t read is that the outside of Cleveland proper is awesome.
I honestly think the downtown has some pretty cool, somewhat-hidden gems.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Sep 2, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
No offense, but you can’t compare St. Louis to Cleveland in the least bit in terms of being the butt of jokes for the past 50 years.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
I’m not comparing the two. I’m just saying that if somene made a similar video about St. Louis I would think it was hilarious. I, personally, like Cleveland more than St. Louis and I like St. Louis a lot. And you can probably compare East St. Louis.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
Well then you are being foolish, because you should already know these things. And anyone who knows anything about Cleveland should already know these things. And—just like the guy who made this video—still recognizes the good stuff in the city and is still proud to be from here. Listen, if this video is going to shame you from being a Clevelander in front of non-Cleveland friends, move and tell people you grew up in Columbus.
I feel like the people proud to be from here should actually appreciate the truth and humor.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 1, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This isn’t meant to be harsh. But man.. Be proud of your city and still have a sense of humor about it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 1, 2009 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, of course I know these things. But what does the video do besides throw it back in my face? Sure, its kinda funny sometimes. The first term under googling “define: appreciate”: ‘recognize with gratitude; be grateful for’. Appreciate the humor? Sure. appreciate the truth? Nope. I’m not grateful that our city has more problems than most.
Couldn’t disagree more. I think if you’d ask my friends, they wouldn’t know anyone more proud to be from Cleveland. I still think those videos are a disgrace. All the time and energy put into ridiculing the city would be better served trying to do something about the problems the video attacks.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Sep 2, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
It appears to be a chicken and egg problem with tickets sales and team salary. The most recent past indicates that a low-payroll team needs to win to establish interest, and once interest is established, then the payroll increases.
What if the Indians reversed the process and went public with it. Much like a campaign drive…if we get X season ticket holders our payroll will be Y – make the fans feel responsbile. Throw up a giant billboard that tracks the progress.
It’s not a chicken/egg situation though. A team can put a winning (and therefore ostensibly attractive) product on the field without expanding the payroll. This is, in effect, what Mark Shapiro has been trying to do by trading all our good guys for a larger number of young guys over the past couple of years. Once the young guys develop into good guys, we win without having to spend lots of money on payroll. Or at least, that’s the plan. Then ticket sales spike, money pours in, and we sign Grienke on our way to the mountaintop.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Cliff also did an interview with MLB Network. Now maybe I’m reading too much into this, but when asked if it was hard to leave Cleveland, he said it was a mixed bag. Reasons it was “hard” for him:
Been there a while.
He was comfortable with the situation.
His family was comfortable with the situation.
“I knew my way around.”
Comfortable environment for him… the trainers, the strength coaches… “obviously my teammates.”
He mentions his teammates last, after knowing his way around the city. I don’t know, it doesn’t seem like he was crying behind sunglasses or anything. I don’t blame him, but that’s just what I picked up.
Steel Nick
In that comment and elsewhere, what strikes me is just how focused Cliff is on doing his job. Everything he talks about and emphasizes is something that relates to his being prepared to perform well. Being friends with your teammates is not really on that list.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
So his new nickname is The Professional?
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
by mjschaefer on Aug 27, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
I’m not a GM, I’m not a coach. I don’t make any of those decisions. I play the game. I was an Indian until I was told I was a Phillie, and now I’m here and I’ve got to help this team win.
That’s just cold. Not necessarily bad. Just cold. A killer. A professional. I agree with mj- this is new nickname material.
I don’t think it’s cold, I think he’s just careful not to get wrapped up in things that are beyond his control. He’s got it right — it’s not his decision whether he’s an Indian or a Phillie. Hell, it wasn’t his decision to be an Indian or an Expo or a National, either.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think that many professional athletes—out of necessity—detach themselves from the current situation. some. I would too in the same situation. Unless you’re with the Yankees and a super-star, one knows you will be traded or leave upon free agency. He was put into a good situation. I agree with your analysis.
Throughout this article, I kept reflecting about how much of a non-factor Lee was the entire 2007 season. Most of us had completely written him off and would go on to lament not trading him for Carlos Quentin before the 2008 season. Considering how well he pitched last year, it’s amazing this team, with CC still in tow, wasn’t better last year. I am starting to understand how the Dolan’s felt 2008 should have been a winner, went out and spent on Wood thinking that 2009 could be. In the end, whatever is causing this team to play poorly the first half, needs to be isolated and eliminated.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Aug 27, 2009 11:12 AM EDT reply actions
Bullpen looks better. Wedge needs to go.
by Roger Dorn on Aug 27, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That might just be a Wedge joke, but of course there’s not one (or two or three) things to isolate. Make a list of every player that has been either crappy or significantly injured for the first half of 2008 or 2009. It’s crazy.
by dgcambridge on Aug 27, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Fire Soloff!
I'm not really into Song of Hiawatha.
by sarcasmdave on Aug 27, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I commented on this awhile back somewhere. If Lee had been able to contribute anything to that 2007 staff, even if just out of the bullpen, the season might have had a very different ending. An interesting sub-plot in the 5-act Grecian tragedy of 2005-2009.
The evidence for that is tenuous at best. We won 96 games without Cliff contributing anything. So with his contributions we would have… what, won 100 games? No way we could say him being good would help us any more that having two legit Cy Young candidates in the rotation.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 27, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s no way Lee would have displaced Carmona, Sabathia, or Westbrook from our playoff rotation. Had he been even a fraction of the pitcher he became in 2008, he might possibly have replaced Byrd (but we won that game against Boston, anyway). I seem to remember the team experimenting with Lee in the bullpen late in 2007, though. Imagine if Lee had shown some effectiveness as a reliever. In the Boston series we used Betancourt (6.75 ERA) and Lewis (6.35 ERA) five times apiece, Borowski (4.50) four times, and Mastny (0.00) and Perez (45.00) three times a piece. After riding Borowski, Betancourt, Lewis and Perez hard the final three months of the season, one more reliably effective arm in the form of Lee might have made an impact.
And might have allowed us to use the big three guys a little less in September.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Meh. The two biggest factors were Sabathia was gassed and Carmona was gassed. Lee at that time would not have assuaged that issue. If we had drafted some more high ceilinged pitching prospects in 2000 it would not have been a problem. That was a joke. One more decent pitching prospect from anywhere probably would have lessened the strain on those two. Am I saying that that is foreseeable and avoidable flaw? No. But it does point to the current change in strategy of being very proactive in acquiring a true “waves of arms.” Not blaming, but that’s how I see it.
This is one of the most random things I’ve ever seen here. We won 96 games and beat the Yankees, but we lose one series to the Red Sox and it’s right back to the damned draft strategy? Seriously?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’d be thinner and better looking with a different draft strategy.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I prefraced my comment with, “that was a joke.” I’m just saying that it would have been nice to have an extra arm to take some of load off of of the 2007 staff at the end. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. In perfect world, the Indians never stress their starting rotation, but they did, and having an extra arm may have made a difference. Not something that could have been factored out, but any GM wants those extra quality pitchers to supliment an always thin major league staff.
You can get those extra arms from anywhere: trades, draft, minor league free agency, posting, international signings… I was making a joke about the draft.
Somehow I mis-read your “joke” disclaimer … I thought you meant, our pathetic drafting was a joke.
I don’t see that the Indians stressed their rotation. If you’re going to make it to the postseason, that’s what your innings are going to look like. In any event, I think the case for Sabathia being gassed isn’t quite as good as for Perez.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Ironically, we wouldn’t have won the division without the minor league pitchers brought up to fill in our bullpen that season.
Laffey, Lewis and Perez all played instrumental parts in our stretch run that year. All players drafted by the Tribe.
and before anyone says he would have made a good long reliever, I give you Aaron F. Laffey.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
I still think Laffey should’ve started an ALCS game, but I’m not going to argue the point.
by fleerdon on Aug 28, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
He pitched 5.2 innings in 4 relief appearances. Interestingly, he started to show signs of what he would become in those games. He threw 70% strikes and only walked 1 batter. Were it not for a single to Thome and HR to Konerko (accounting for 2 of the 3 runs he allowed), maybe he makes the playoff roster.
Eh, I’m not convinced that bad playoff ERAs by out big three bullpen guys could have been assuaged by an effective Lee in the bullpen. It wouldn’t have hurt, but I think it’s kind of a silly exercise to try to imagine how much Lee could have helped. The big three weren’t overtired, they just crapped the bed.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 27, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Eh, maybe. But he didn’t pitch all that many more innings than he did in ‘06. And he’s young. I think he just crapped the bed.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 27, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you’re conveniently ignoring the actual performances.
ALDS G1: groundout, strikeout, strikeout, strikeout, lineout, strikeout
ALDS G2: popup, lineout, popup, flyout, groundout, strikeout
ALDS G4: groundout, single, single, GIDP, strikeout, home run, groundout, walk, groundout
ALCS G2: groundout, home run, home run, single
ALCS G5: walk, flyout, ROE grounder, bunt single
ALCS G6: flyout, single, double, walk, single
Your theory is that after dominating the whole league for several months, and totally crushing the Yankees in the ALDS … he suddenly switched into “crap the bed” mode … in three different games … consecutively.
The other theory is that as he hit a career high in innings, he continued to dominate against the Yankees in the ALDS, but he notably was a little less dominant in each of his three ALDS appearances successively. First game, he strikeouts out four out of six, and only one ball even threatens to leave the infield. Second game, not as totally dominant but still very effective. Third game, effective and still getting groundballs, but definitely hittable. And then, burnt out from both the build-up of innings and the intensity of his ALDS performances … he just flat-out lost it.
That other theory is conjecture and based on a handful of PA. Your theory, however, doesn’t make any sense at all.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I didn’t even think I had a theory until you said mine was stupid. Nowhere in any of my posts did I say he totally crushed the Yankees and then switched into crap the bed mode. My only real point is I don’t necessarily buy the fact that the number of innings he pitched led to his poor performance in the playoffs. He pitched a similar number of innings in ‘06, so I don’t buy that the few extra innings destroyed a strong, young pitcher. Point being, no matter how much having Cliff Lee in the bullpen would have relieved his workload, it may or may not have positively affected Perez’s performance.
Bullpens being as volatile as they are, it’s very difficult to pinpoint a direct cause for why a reliever has a bad out. Sure, he could have been tired. Would pitching 15 fewer innings in the regular seasons have affected his playoff performance positively? Maybe. And maybe he just crapped the bed. The exercise is futile.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 27, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Backing up, it looks like I did have a theory… unequivocal bed-crapping. So I’ll refine that to saying that may or may not have been the case but a) I don’t think overuse was a factor and b) it’s an unanswerable hypothetical.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 27, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s certainly an unanswerable hypothetical. But it seems to me there’s a difference between 94 innings in the minors + 12 meaningless September innings for an also-ran on the one hand, and 46 minor league innings + 60 innings as a major component of a big-league bullpen in a pennant race on the other.
I’m sure there’s a difference, but I’m not convinced it’s a physical difference. It’s possible that the psychology of it played a large part, by which I mean it’s possible his physically ability was still at full strength but he just lost his mind.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 27, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Total innings for a reliever can be important, but I think more important is how much successively they are pitching. Meaning, Perez likely was pitching more in a smaller span of time than he was used to, because we needed him more in the playoffs.
That’s a good point.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Aug 27, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Seems like it, but not really, because of all the off-days.
He pitched on Sunday, the final day of the season. He next pitched on Thursday and Friday, four innings total, yes, but he faced the minimum 12 batters, 31 + 23 pitches. Then he pitched the following Monday, and then the following Saturday, then the following Thursday and Saturday.
So other than ALDS Games 1 and 2, there were lots of off-days. After the final game of the regular season, he pitched six times in 20 days.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
To me, this is not very controversial; the club communicated with him when the situation changed (which it had because of the economic realities of baseball and America in 2009), and Cliff rightly understood his true standing and situation. We traded him to a good situation from which he he will win a Championship (IMO), and we potentially build something for the near-term.
Agreed. The “plan” basically involves locking up young performing guys with the goal of keeping them at a somewhat reasonable rate through their first 1 or 2 free agent years (given the club 7-8 years of control). “Re-up” contracts aren’t really imaginable at this stage, especially given what has happened with Hafner and Westbrook.
I think under the old merely lousy economy, Shapiro demonstrated that he could run the club at peak efficiency, based on young under-control players alone, and still come in $20 million under budget. After that point, you decide what to spend that $20 million on — you can extend your favorite players who are willing to do the hometown discount, or you can buy Delluccis and Borowskis and Carrols and Woods. Those are your options. Any expenditure beyond the core youngsters is a huge crapshoot.
I mention this only to point out that it doesn’t really matter what happened with Westbrook and Hafner. Under the old model, we could afford to blow $25 million in a somewhat risky way. Under the new model, we probably can’t even do that.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
This is probably deserving of full-article treatment, if you’re so moved.
by fleerdon on Aug 28, 2009 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions
After reading the interview a second time, I’m glad we traded Cliff when we did. I don’t think we got enough for him, but I wasn’t privvy to the trade proposals Shapiro got, so I have no idea if we got the best deal offered.
But it seems that Cliff did his job of saying what the fans want to hear that make them think he’ll stay with them once he hits free agency. Beyond that, he clearly had no interest in sticking around. His emphasis several times on baseball being a business (which, duh, it is) showed the “real” Cliff. He is going to get his money. Good for him, he’s earned it. But his comments lead me to believe that we had no real chance at signing him to a long contract extension for reasonable / fair dollars.
I’m not begruding the guy. He’ll be in a position to cash in on all of his hard work and success, and deservedly so. But it just makes me glad we got something for him instead of letting him pull a Manny, Jim or Albert and walk away leaving us empty-handed. I just wish that “something” included a can’t-miss prospect.
I agree. He made it a point that he was never offered an extension. The reality is that he was never offered an extension to turn down immediately.
I don’t think there’s any way for us to know that, really. He must have known the parameters C.C. got offered, and he seemed to make a point of saying, “make me an offer, now, when it makes sense.” That’s not to say that they would have come to terms, but why make a point of mentioning it, more than one time, if he wasn’t genuinely interested? My sense is that Cliff had a good understanding of the concept of buying out risk and an appreciation of stability, maybe more than C.C. ever had. Think about how much he talks here about the resources the Indians gave him, that he viewed as the essential pieces of doing his job.
Think too about how the last time he signed a lockup deal, he ended up with an serious injury and a horrible season that massively devalued him. There was a point when Lee was on the DL and then pitching terribly and then in the minors, with no way to know for sure if he would ever get back to the majors. But he knew he had that $15 million in the bank regardless.
This is all very true.
But, if Cliff loved it here and had such an appreciation for the team, city, fans, etc. and really valued the security of a contract extension, he would have approached the front office with an offer. “Hey, I know it’ll be tight for the team for the next few years, but I’m looking for a 5 year extension for $80mm, can you make that work? No? Ok. At least I tried.” The way Cliff talks, it sounds like that never happened. Doesn’t mean it didn’t.
The onus isn’t always on the team to make the first offer.
I think that basically happened, actually. Even if the numbers were not specific, both sides knew what parameters the other likely was looking for. I don’t know which specific formalities were done and which ones weren’t, but the fact is that Lee showed a real interest in talking about, and the Indians shut it down.
Keep in mind, the Indians are well aware that from their perspective, buying out free agent years in a contract extension is damned risky and costly even under the best of circumstances, e.g., Jake Westbrook. So it would never really take that much of a change in circumstances to knock that kind of a deal out of the running for them entirely. What I’m getting at ultimately is, don’t underestimate how much incentive the Indians have not to extend any contract
Manoloff really spent a lot of that interview goading Cliff into saying something negative about the organization or the fans. The last two questions (if I recall correctly) are especially bad. I think Cliff tried to be as politic as possible and just get it done. God knows he’s not going to read it anyway.
I liked it. I thought he did a good job of probing, doing what he could to make sure he was getting a straight answer rather than just diplomacy. I think those last two questions were actually the rare example of a Cleveland sportswriter trying to get the real answer.
Sorry, I read the print version, which ended after the string of ax grinding questions. That, to me, is what smacked of lazy journalism. He appears to be fishing for that anti-FO quote from Cliff that he can turn into a good story.
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
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
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.
