Jim Ingraham Angers You.
Grady on imaginary block.
about 2 years ago
afh4
107 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I could have sworn that the Indians held a club option on Sizemore, since when can a player decline a club option?
Was I mistaken or is this Ingraham character related to Paul Hoynes?
You are correct, Ingraham’s whole article is based on a misconception.
The contract includes a club option for 2012. If Sizemore is traded, the club option becomes a player option (and the buyout is eliminated). See original AP report.
I’ve asked Bob DiBiasio to clarify this, and I imagine he’ll confirm it by Monday morning. It’s possible that the original reports were wrong and Ingraham is right, but my guess is that he mis-read the listing on Cot’s, which reads a little ambiguously.
I almost posted that same article in response to my own post. It’s not the only place I’ve read that exact same thing regarding his contract.
Anyway, I have my doubts that this guy has the scoop regarding a deal that would have been reported completely wrong now for nearly 4 years. The whole article screams of Paul Hoynes and his whole PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!
Just got the official word from the Indians … Ingraham is wrong.
Sizemore cannot decline the 2012 option if he hasn’t been traded.
Ironically, he wrote much the same article five months ago and didn’t make this mistake.
I think he also drastically mis-states the probable value of Sizemore’s next value as being between $50 million and $100 million. I think that even if he stays with the Indians, his next deal will be worth $100 million or more, unless he agrees to an extension of four years or less.
Sizemore is the one player that the Dolan’s need to extend if they ever extend anybody. And sadly I can’t ever see them offering that much to him.
Maybe I’m wrong though.
I believe they offered close to $100 million Sabathia, or at least they would have by the end of negotiations. Sizemore is much less risky.
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
Possibly, I guess I’m not allowing myself to believe that we’ll sign anyone to that type of deal after this past season. Not that I’m butt hurt over the trades, I actually tried defending them at the time. It just makes me wonder if anyone, even Grady, will be an exception and a deal actually reached.
There are all kinds of reasons not to sign that kind of deal. Sizemore may be the guy for whom none of those reasons apply. Indeed, he may be the only such guy.
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
And with both Hafner and Westbrook’s contracts off the books … and it’s a better use resigning our own top guys at value than paying market or market+ for mid-level free agent talent.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
The Indians have multiple times offered a contract that would have made you feel rather uncomfortable. Manny Ramirez. Jim Thome. C.C. Sabathia. The player just didn’t accept.
I was reading a quote from Albert Pujols, who commented on his future with the Cardinals. He’s as thoughtless and displaced as the rest of them. His quote, “It’s out of my control.” No, Albert, actually, you have ALL the control. Any team can sign any player if the player is willing to commit to something less than the top offer. It’s 100% in the player’s control.
Just like it’s in Joe Mauer’s control. Let’s see the final numbers on that contract with the Twins. Mauer doesn’t need the ego boost. Just as it will be in Grady’s control. If he wants the biggest contract, he’ll have to go elsewhere. If can take $15M annually over a six year period, he’ll be an Indian. If he has the perspective to realize that such a contract qualifies as breaking the bank, the Indians are in good shape. If he wants eight years and $20M per season, it’s going to happen elsewhere. And not because some other team is in control — because Grady demanded it and decided that the contract is what he needed.
After reading that article from 5 months ago, it’s almost like he got it in his head that since the Indians traded Lee and Martinez while still controlling their rights with a club option the following year, than that’s what’s going to happen to Sizemore and then………POOF….. that somehow means that the Indians don’t control Sizemore in 2012 anymore!
No, I think he just mis-read the trade clause as applying to the option generally.
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
Complaints.
He’s the crystal chandelier hanging over a pile of shattered dreams and broken bricks.
You couldn’t torture a metaphor any worse in an Iranian secret prison, but what really steams me is that, by making the last object standing a chandelier (?) and not a staircase, Ingraham missed a perfect opportunity to name-check Graham Greene’s “The Destructors.” Not that it makes any difference, though, because Ingraham takes us from the vacant lot to “barren tundra” in the next paragraph, and then to Jupiter. Evidently demolition in Jim’s neighborhood is performed by a violent but curiously small-minded Norse deity.
Sizemore, when he reports to training camp in Goodyear, Ariz. later this month, will get acquainted with his newest teammates, Hector Ambriz, Mitch Talbot, and Saul Rivera.
The Rule 5 draft pick, the consolation prize from a salary dump, and the non-roster invitee reliever. I feel safe in asserting that Ingraham has misrepresented the Indians’ off-season by choosing these players as examples. Much safer than I feel in figuring out the point of all this. Is Ingraham contending that the Indians ought to have extended the guys they traded? Okay, but they were on the team at the same time, and those guys lost, too. What were we talking about again?
Given their tattered pitching staff, and lack of financial resources to improve it, the Indians, who lost 97 games last year, with a Cy Young Award winner on the team for half the season, may struggle to avoid losing 100 this year.
Wait wait wait. If Ingraham’s conceding that the Indians didn’t actually have the financial resources to extend Sabathia or Lee or Martinez, then why all the bombast about not extending Sizemore? In any event, I think he’s forgotten that those players, under contract, were themselves “financial resources” used to improve the pitching. Will it be sufficiently improved during Sizemore’s window of opportunity? Who knows? But rather than take that as given, Ingraham might have, I dunno, written about it.
The Indians, like most teams, almost never are able to re-sign their players once they become free agents, or are within a year of free agency.
Which means that Sizemore will either be interesting in an extension, or he won’t. Scintillating.
by fleerdon on Feb 6, 2010 1:00 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
There’s something to consider: maybe trading Sizemore this summer could be a good move for the Indians. It all depends on what we can get back in return.
Given where we’re at and where we need to be to win a WS, I’d be on the horn all summer taking bids on Sizemore.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You might sell me on it. I admit I’d like to see the offers. (“Shapiro trades Sizemore for Jed Lowrie and 8 PTBNL!”) Curious about whether Grady’s reached the point at which another team could afford him — the party line to date having been that nobody could feasibly offer his worth.
With Grady, Jhonny, and Westy all gone by season’s end, the only guys making big money left on the roster would be Travis and Fausto. Not arguing a position there, just thinking out loud.
by fleerdon on Feb 6, 2010 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
I can’t see why we’d trade him, unless we’re getting back a younger position player of similar (near-elite) talent in return. And who would do that, unless they had crazy-young depth at a position and money to blow and a gaping hole in CF?
It’s a tough fit. We’re not trading him for “merely” an Asdrubal Cabrera type guy.
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
It would have to be a haul of multiple top shelf pitching prospects. Way more so than anything we have seen yet.
I don’t think so. We got two position prospects and a pitching prospect for Colon. I don’t see Sizemore netting anything like that. We’ll see.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Trading Sizemore now would have to require more just because of how many years he has left on his deal.
As noted above, he’s got until 2012 with us and only 2011 with whoever we trade him to.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
See Chuck’s point below, and also, the return on veterans is simply not what it used to be, and even when it used to be, the Colon return was an outlier.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2010 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
It would take three guys to block a stud outfielder… that would be a good problem to have.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 8, 2010 6:23 AM EST up reply actions
If Sizemore is blocking a prospect any time soon, then his game has fallen off a cliff. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 8, 2010 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
I feel safe in asserting that Ingraham has misrepresented the Indians’ off-season by choosing these players as examples.
here, here. and what’s even more cynical (on ingraham’s part) is the use of one of the oldest stabs at humor in the book: make some sort of disparaging remark, finish your sentence, then, using parentheses and a question mark, insert the name of an obscure player that most of your dolt readers won’t know. then wait for laughter. in the case of this column (saul rivera?).
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
Decided to Wiki it.
“Hear, hear is an expression used as a short repeated form of hear him, hear him. It represents a listener’s agreement with the point being made by a speaker.
It was originally an imperative for directing attention to speakers, and has since been used, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as “the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons”, with many purposes depending on the intonation of its user.1 Its use in British Parliament is linked to the fact that applause is normally (though not always) verboten in the chambers of the House of Commons and House of Lords.2
It is often incorrectly spelled “here here”, especially on websites3 and IM.4
The phrase hear him, hear him! was used in Parliament since the late 1600s, and had been reduced to hear! or hear, hear! by the late 1700s. The verb hear had earlier been used in the King James Bible as a command for others to listen.1
Other phrases have been derived from hear, hear, such as a hear, hear (a cheer), to hear-hear (to shout the expression), and hear-hearer (a person who does the same).1"
I like beer, beer better though.
by MickS on Feb 6, 2010 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
for all intensive purposes, your right.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
I think “spitting image” is correct and “splitting image” is a malaprop.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2010 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
Well, here’s the thing. A credible person in my life once told me that the saying is “So-and-so is the spit and image of his father” – I think using “spit” is an example (warning: SAT vocab word lolz sorry) of synecdoche – like DNA. Image is, well, image. But as I’ve said, I’ve never heard anyone say it this way, so maybe all those old people who once said it differently are just 200 years dead.
I’m sure I could’ve looked this up in 2 seconds.
That actually would make more sense… though I’ve never heard it either.
by Logodaedalus on Feb 12, 2010 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
Hey. If it weren’t for tired comic conventions, I’d have nothing.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 6, 2010 6:55 PM EST up reply actions
If you want to get really angered, realize this was re-reported as fact on the ESPN Insider Rumor Mill.
Par the course for all news organizations these days, and not just sports.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
While I have tons of better things to do… had to create a user ID for the Lake County News Herald to post a scathing comment. I’d consider that a fire-able offense if I was his editor.
Ingraham wrote another column recently spreading gloom about the Browns. He claimed, incorrectly, that the Browns and Lions were teams with the longest record of failing to play in the Super Bowl. I think it’s more than coincidence that he has tried to paint pictures that are bleaker than reality, using incorrect assumptions.
Many people confuse the franchise now playing in Baltimore with the current expansion franchise in Cleveland. I expect more from Ingraham.
You need to drop that thought. The is only one Browns franchise. It has played in one city. It had a 3 year “inactive” period.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Hey, so they’re three years behind Detroit’s record.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 7, 2010 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
There are those who prefer to say “undefeated”.
by mcrose on Feb 7, 2010 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
As a raw news outlet, I think I recall preferring Ingraham to Hoynes or Justice B. Hill, way back when. I’d say it speaks well of Castrovince that you really don’t have to follow anybody else to keep pace, anymore.
I can’t remember the last time I purposefully sought out an Old Media analysis piece, though.
by fleerdon on Feb 6, 2010 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
I feel like something awful must have happened in Ingraham’s life maybe five years ago. He didn’t used to be such a crackpot hack from what I could tell.
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
I didn’t realize that having something bad happen in your life gave you an excuse to suck at your job. Should have looked into that.
by Brad D on Feb 6, 2010 8:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah he’s been terrible for at least a few years now. And yet the Yahoo Indians team site seems to link exclusively to his stuff.
by supermarioelia on Feb 8, 2010 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
you really don’t have to follow anybody else to keep pace, anymore.
Indeed, following anyone else might do more harm than good.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2010 8:19 AM EST up reply actions
AC clears up any confusion on the matter in the latest Inbox, with the “question” coming from a likely source.
by The DiaTriber on Feb 8, 2010 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
Well done.
And did anyone click on the “Around the Minors” video? Who is Lisa Winston? I was under the impression Castrovince was the only mlb.com guy covering the Indians. I like that she couldn’t hold back a chuckle when she mentioned that we got Santana in return for Blake.
And for anyone wondering, no, you cannot get “The Room” on Netflix Instant. Damn it.
Steel Nick
Just to bring the thing full circle, here is Hoynes weighing in on the topic in the comments section of his Brantley piece today:
Posted by Paul Hoynes, The Plain Dealer
February 09, 2010, 6:50AM
I don’t think the Indians will trade Grady this year. If you at the recent past, Lee and Martinez weren’t traded until they were in their final year with the Indians holding a club option for 2010. Sizemore is signed through 2011 with a club option for 2012.
So unless ownership has a change of heart, or the Indians start playing better, Sizemore could be traded sometime in 2011.
paul hoynes
This despite the option turning into a player option if he’s dealt during the 2011 season Hoynes?
What was that about doing “more harm than good”?
by The DiaTriber on Feb 9, 2010 8:11 AM EST up reply actions
And there you have it.
I will say this, the trade-deleting club option does make it more likely that he’s traded in 2010, but only because of the strong disincentive to trade him in 2011. I’m of the view that the overall contract points the club’s incentives heavily toward keeping him at least until mid-2012. They could, technically, pick up the option at the end of 2011 and then trade him — as far as we know — but I don’t believe they would do that.
by Jay on Feb 9, 2010 8:17 AM EST up reply actions
I think that’s about right, in that the mid-2012 window is about as early as I can see a Sizemore trade being entertained. The idea, of course, would be that the team would be contending in 2012 and if the team’s not close to contending in July of 2012, Sizemore’s not the only one who’s going to be leaving Cleveland.
by The DiaTriber on Feb 9, 2010 8:34 AM EST up reply actions
Did the newspaper or Ingraham write a retraction yet?
by cheech99 on Feb 7, 2010 6:02 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Angeraham!
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 7, 2010 9:10 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Am I the only one who thinks that “Hey Moron” might not be the most productive way to request a correction? It reminds me of the time (circa 1981) I indignantly wrote a letter to Commodore International about some perceived flaw in their advertising and started it “Dear Asinine Liars.” Unlike cheech99, who I doubt will ever receive a reply from Mr. Ingraham, I actually received a reply (from Jack Tramiel, founder of the company), which scared me more than a little bit.
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.
