Read Em and Weep
by odradek on May 22, 2010 3:25 AM EDT
Email
Print
A quarter of the way through the season is a traditional time to assess what a baseball team has. And what this baseball team has is not good.
So far, we are enjoying yet another season of dashed hopes and inexplicably underwhelming performances. By my count that’s five out of the past six seasons, which makes it hard to believe it’s just bad luck.
Let’s start with an appallingly bad offense. The Tribe is 27th in the majors in runs scored; 29th in home runs; 24th in doubles; 26th in slugging—and that was with Asdrubal Cabrera and Grady Sizemore in the lineup. I thought there were troubling signs with this offense in 2009, and I expected the offense to sputter, but I didn’t anticipate anything anywhere near this bad. This team is on a pace to score 604 runs.
It’s easier to list the hitters who have played up to or beyond expectations: S.S. Choo and Austin Kearns (riding a .420 BABIP). Virtually every young player—from Valbuena to LaPorta to Marson to (dare I say it?) Donald—has been a profound disappointment. The other remaining irregulars (Peralta, Hafner, Grudz, Redmond) have not exactly set the world afire. It’s odd that so few players met or exceeded expectations, but results are results.
I’m reminded of the joke about the restaurant where the food is bad but the portions are small. The Indians can’t score, but they can’t pitch, either. Pitchers have thrown the fewest strikeouts in the majors (and are sixth in the majors in issuing walks). Only the Brewers have a worst on-base percentage against.
It’s hard to find a positive with the pen. Tony Sipp has been impressive, though I’m now convinced it’s just random, and if his performances ever matter he will suck. Chris Perez has been promising. But Jensen Lewis, Zombie Perez, Joe Smiff, Kerry Wood, Aaron Laffey—need I go on? Hard to believe, but the FO has built yet another disaster pen.
Starting pitching has been about where I expected it to be. Westbrook looks good, Fausto shows promise, Masterson remains an uncertainty. Huff is a stiff and Talbot has been pretty good as a fifth starter. But this team does not seem to have even a replacement level starting rotation yet, and that bodes ill for 2011.
Say what you will about the talent in the minors. I’ve become dubious of the whole lot of them. Remember: Jhonny Peralta once tore up the International League. The Indians have had quite a few players who looked great in Akron or Buffalo only to founder in Cleveland.
Another area of failure, one less often considered, has been the front office. Mark Shapiro seems to have gone into hiding. Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan. It would be admirable if Shapiro had the courage to address the fans about this sorry state of affairs.
Right now, this is a team of historically bad proportions. If matters do not dramatically improve—and it’s hard to imagine where such improvement would come from—we’re looking at a 100-loss season.
278 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yeah, I really find it funny how some fans have latched onto this idea that our starting pitching has been good so far (I guess with the offense being so anemic and the bullpen so, well, typical, fans need some source of optimism). The best thing you can say about our rotation is that it features two guys, in Jake and Fausto, who have pitched like actual mid-rotation starters for a competitive team.
It would be nice if one of our AAA starters would step up and outperform expectations like Jaime Garcia has in St. Louis, but those guys aren’t exactly forcing themselves into the rotation. Old man Pino’s been the best of that group, with his 2.71 K/BB ratio (1.423 WHIP though). Gomez has been disappointing, but he’s still really young for the level. Rondon’s and Carrassco’s struggles are well-documented. Hard to get excited about anything going on in Columbus not named Santana.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 22, 2010 4:42 AM EDT reply actions
Even in April the “good” performances were fluky. These guys’ peripherals have been in the gutter all season.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 22, 2010 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Peralta is not much of an example of a guy who foundered in the majors. He has played like a real star at times and has been replacement-level at other times. He generally has been worth two marginal wins per season. He also never “tore up” the IL — not like Santana — though he was a very good hitter there. His real star turn was very much in the majors, in 2005, which rather deflates his use as an example for what you’re talking about.
This seems to be nit-picking. There are plenty of other examples and it doesn’t change the fact that aside from Santana, we don’t have any young players on the current roster or in AAA who are terribly exciting. Coco Crisp, whose 2003 International League season exceeds anything any of our young players/prospects (Donald, Valbuena, LaPorta) have accomplished at that age. So, lacking a prospect of even that caliber (or, if we’re being generous, a bunch of guys who approach that level), it is hard to be optimistic.
Yeah, and setting aside Weglarz, we don’t even have anyone at Akron who is hitting better than Ryan Goleski’s 2006. So lacking even a Ryan Goleski talent, it is damn hard to be optimistic.
by dgcambridge on May 22, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, we disagree about that. I find plenty exciting about Sizemore, Choo, Cabrera, Donald and Santana, and a few other guys like Marson and LaPorta look like they will be serviceable and useful at worst. LaPorta is going to be a better player than Ryan Garko eventually, I’m still pretty confident of that.
Do you think he’s at full strength?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 22, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, I recognize the perils of citing Peralta, because he’s been quite good. I had higher hopes for him, though. I thought he was going to become a star.
In 2004, as a 22-year-old shortstop in AAA, he hit .326/.384/.493 for an OPS of .876, not far off Santana’s pace. Jhonny was International League Player of the Year.
Jhonny had a great season that year, but Carlos is hitting home runs more than twice as often, and he’s a catcher. His slugging is almost 100 points higher, and he’s crushing Peralta’s 2004 walk rate. Carlos’ MLE is 847, which is almost as high as Peralta’s unadjusted OPS in Triple-A.
The scouts weigh in even more heavily — Santana is now the #2 prospect in the world, behind only Strasburg, per Keith Law. Granted, Peralta was not eligible for prospect lists by 2004, owing to a lengthy fill-in for Vizquel in 2003. But even after his arguably more impressive 2002 season with the Aeros, he failed to crack anyone’s Top 100.
He’s simply not a great example of an elite prospect, nor of a big-league bust. He’s done better than most analysts ever expected him to.
I didn’t intend to get into a comparison of Peralta and Santana, because everyone knows who wins that one. I cited Peralta because of my emotional attachment to him. I thought he could become a significantly better player than he has become. Hell, he’s second on this team in doubles, with 10. I’d take 40 doubles any year.
It’s just more than a little odd to cry “our prospects never work out” considering how many prospects worked out, some of them big-time, from 2005 to 2007. Peralta, Sizemore, Lee, Carmona, Hafner, Martinez, even Bard and Shoppach were okay.
I needn’t bore you with a list of Sowersian failures. I can’t even remember the names of most of them. Who was the guy who broke his leg on a lawn sprinkler?
You’re always looking on the bright side, Jay. I was hoping for better than eight guys over five years. And a quarter of those came in the Bartolo trade. I’m weary of hearing about the Bartolo trade, especially when He Who Shall Not Be Named hit another homerun against his former team last night.
Not mentioned above … Westbrook, Bradley, Gutierrez, Crisp, Betancourt, Perez … Gerut, Garko, Francisco and Broussard to some extent … Ferd Cabrera and both Lewises at least briefly …
It’s a lot more than eight in five years. This is a silly point to attempt to make.
I said I’m dubious about the whole lot of them. If one tenet of my faith involved Ferd Cabrera I’d have to reconsider if I was being delusional. If success means generating players like Ryan Garko, well, I guess we have different definitions of success.
Great clubs aren’t built out of stars. It’s critical to have cheap, complementary players to fill in the gaps. Obviously, Garko doesn’t make the Top 10 in the larger list of successfully produced prospects.
I agree that the Indians have for the most part been able to field a team of nine ballplayers, but if all you have is cheap, complementary gap-fillers, you’ll succeed only in having a cheap team.
Sorry, I don’t want to appear to be difficult. I’m trying to point out that even if the team has been successful in producing decent role players—which I’m willing to admit—they haven’t hit many homeruns (metaphorically), and even when they do those players are more often to not diminished by injury (Hafner, Miller, Sizemore). I’m just trying to explain why I’ve lost faith.
I have trouble getting a read on just how poor our luck has been in this area. I think we’ve produced plenty of stars and role players, but it does seem like we’ve had too many guys peak in their early 20s or mid 20s, and hardly any keep getting better and better.
Maybe that’s normal regression. Maybe we don’t notice when this happens to other teams’ budding stars — a lot of NL fans have no idea who Jhonny Peralta is, and some only vaguely know Hafner, who was one of the best hitters in the world for three years.
I am just saying, we have produced lots of quality players. That has not been the problem.
My sense is that the Indians are probably not significantly more unfortunate than any other team when it comes to budding stars. It just seems that way because we know the players better and we are emotionally invested in their success.
Even if I concede that Shapiro has done an awesome job producing talent, where are we now? There doesn’t seem to be a lot of talent on the farm.
How do you square that with the unanimous consensus view of experts on that subject? I am more concerned that our youngest layer of talent in the majors isn’t substantial enough to bridge the gap from Sizemore/Choo/Cabrera to the next wave, substantiating a contender for 2011-2013. The wave before looks good, although it’s pretty beat up at the moment. The next couple of waves look really good. But it’s the “David Huff” group that doesn’t seem to have any impact players in it.
Added to which, I am also concerned that we don’t know how to build a competent bullpen, without which you need 100-win talent in order to win 93 games.
There’s something positive. Wait until 2013! I’m down with that. It means the next couple of seasons will be good. But I don’t pay attention to players at Kinston or Lake County, so what do I know?
I’m starting to think Shapiro’s Big Mistake will be the belief that bullpens are random and mostly fungible and thus you don’t need to piss away money there. I don’t know if he actually believes that or not, but the bullpen still poisons everything, and still sabotages the teams.
I’m not sure Shapiro doesn’t think bullpens are worthy of big money investments. How would you explain Wood if he thought the ’pen was the place to save?
Come on, four billion!
It’s critical to have cheap, complementary players to fill in the gaps.
It’s more critical to have cheap – and pre-arb – stars too. Like we did when we had Manny and Thome and Belle etal.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Except that it didn’t actually happen that way. Belle, Lofton, Baerga and Vizquel all reached arbitration by 1993, and Manny and Thome in 1996. That team was about to get too expensive, and had we not started to win big in 1995 and sell out entire seasons in advance in 1996, we’d have had to break that team up. As it is, we lost Belle after 1996.
by Jay on May 23, 2010 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Didn’t we kick the attendance thing off in like ’95, before Manny and Thome reached maturity?
Still gotta have those cheap over-achieving kids in the line up. You know, like Choo and Asdrubal. We could use 5 or 6 more of those kids now.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The new stadium probably helped attendance as well.
by Buckeye Brad on May 23, 2010 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Incidentally, we had a Top 6 payroll for that entire run, I’m pretty sure, and sometimes Top 2.
The cheap-but-awesome roster is Shapiro’s trick, most notably 2005, 93 wins for $40 million and change. Hart never pulled out a winner with a below-average payroll. Far from it.
From 1995 to 2002, Tribe payroll rankings: 7-4-3-8-7-5-9-27.
by YoDaddyWags on May 23, 2010 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
27th in 2002? That doesn’t sound right.
I do know that we totally overspent our budget in 2001, the Juan-Gone year, and yet the spending of other clubs had gone up so much that we went way down in the rankings.
And you’re right, it was 9 in ’02 and 25 in ’03. Tried to read it in the small print.
by YoDaddyWags on May 23, 2010 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s the correct run from ‘95-’03: 7-4-3-8-6-7-5-9-25.
by YoDaddyWags on May 23, 2010 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Wait, how can you constantly run down Garko, Crisp, Francisco and Brouddard and then mention them as prospects that worked out?
This is the team that Shapiro built – the crutch of “Hart didn’t leave him much” should be long gone. This is what happens when you bring a guy in who’s an astute businessman but limited in his baseball knowledge.
Don’t you think that Shapiro should give those “GM of theYear Awards” back?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The “limited baseball knowledge” line is ridiculous. Shapiro has worked in baseball his entire adult life. Do you have “limited knowledge” of your profession?
OK then, Shapiro’s a goddam baseball genius. Now how the hell did manage to field sorry bunch after 8 years in charge?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Awful strawman. He doesn’t have limited knowledge? Obviously, that means he’s a genius!
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
That’s what Chuck does. There never is a middle ground — everyone is either an idiot or a genius, terrible or a Hall of Famer.
by Buckeye Brad on May 23, 2010 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Shapiro has worked in baseball his entire adult life
I’m sure he has. My sainted mother drove a car for over 30 years and she never got the hang of that either..
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yeah, that’s almost the same thing.
People have to hire — and promote — Shapiro in order for him to have a job, so obviously people think he has baseball knowledge. Your mom is allowed to keep driving no matter how bad she may be at that.
by Buckeye Brad on May 23, 2010 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I liked Garko, and for that matter Crisp and even Francisco a little. They were all useful. My criticisms were only against the context of certain people significantly overrating them, e.g., massive upset over trading Crisp. In fact, I’m annoyed that people like you made me run Garko down all the time. I liked the guy and appreciated him as a player for what really he was.
Garko’s career clearly is way beyond the average fourth-round draft pick, so how can he not be considered a success as far as the baseball operation goes? Same for Crisp — he was off everybody’s radar, they acquired him on the cheap, developed him, and sold high on him. His whole career as an Indian is a string of little successes for Shapiro and his people.
I’d have trouble coming up with a GM who performed more impressively in creating a 2005 or 2007 ballclub, so no, I don’t think he should give either award back. I think he would gladly and quickly trade them both for a 2009 season that didn’t force him to trade Lee and Martinez.
by Jay on May 22, 2010 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Chuck — Jay is a guy that wrote a piece arguing for the firing of Mark Shapiro (I know it was just an argument, but still). And yet you are so bizarrely, irrationally anti-Shapiro that you’re forcing Jay to defend the guy on an almost daily basis.
A lot of us are frustrated by this team and pessimistic (perhaps overly pessimistic) about our future prospects. But jeez, you go so over the top with this nonsense that you make the rest of us look like optimists.
Shapiro did a Q&A for BP not two weeks ago. In general, he does seem to be letting Antonetti do more of the talking, as part of his transition to the GM role.
Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan
odradek has this right too. Shapiro’s running away as fast as he can before somebody demands DNA testing. This bastards Shapiro’s pure and simple.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t think anybody is denying this, including Shapiro. You guys are just mindlessly axe-grinding, arguing with nobody about nothing.
by Jay on May 22, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Well at least the two of us have been relatively consistant. Neither odradek nor myself bought into the Shapiro mystic. Can you say the same?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
And the real answer presents itself. They just want to be "right’’ about Shapiro more than anything else.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
by Joe. on May 23, 2010 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So Shapiro is not a god — is that what you want to hear? That doesn’t take away from the success he’s had in the past. You seem to be arguing that since this team is bad that means he hasn’t done anything well in his entire career, which is ridiculous. I don’t know why you keep acting like this 2010 season is a referendum on Shapiro’s entire career with the Indians.
by Buckeye Brad on May 23, 2010 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions
You want a medal?
You take any small market GM, no matter how gifted, and bet against their ever winning a ring. You are very likely that bet, every time, regardless of whether it’s Shapiro, Beane, Melvin or Bill Smith. Then they have a couple of bad years, and you declare yourself a genius. “HAHA! I knew they didn’t have it! Never bought into the mystique!”
Well, whoop-de-do, Chuck.
by Jay on May 23, 2010 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Look, on another thread I railed against the financial inequities of major league baseball while you – to some extend – down-played them. I’m angry at Selig for allowing this charade to continue – you less so. So I understand that Shapiro has a damn near insrumountable handicap to over come. I’ve said on more than one occasion that it will take a near flawless GM to get us our WS ring. Someone more gifted than Beane or Melvin or Smith. I get that. Hart/Peters came close but still no cigar. Shapiro/Antonetti were supposed to be that near flawless combination. It is now clear to me they are not. I’m ready for the next contestants.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
They had us one game away from the WS. You need to be more appreciative of that.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
I have immense, visceral anger over the financial inequities of the game, just as much as you if not more. I just think it’s important to get the facts right, that’s all.
I never thought Shapiro was near flawless, only that he did an awful lot of things well and was ahead of the curve on a few things. The proof is always in the pudding.
I must confess there was a time, when the Aeros were winning Eastern League titles, and we were told of waves of arms, and Hafner was hitting, when I did succumb to magical thinking about the brain trust. They were surely smarter than Bavasi or countless other moronic GMs, and if they had figured out ways to exploit various market opportunities through their enlightened management, I was ready to buy in. I perceived a certain arrogance, but I was willing to overlook that. When Shapiro talked he inspired confidence. Only in hindsight have I come to understand that Shapiro seemed to believe much of what he was saying. Pride goeth before a fall.
A Q&A for BP is not what I’m talking about. That’s an extremely favorable venue for him to be in, and it’s not a public one. He ought to stand on the back of a flatbed truck near the Tom L. Johnson statue on Public Square and weep for what he hath wrought, and hand out free sandwiches to the indigent.
I actually think Shapiro’s been extremely generous to his predecessor and successor. He’s allowed himself to be the guy holding the bag both for the sad aftermath of the Hart regime and in the sad prelude to Antonetti’s turn at the plate. He’s taking the heat on both sides, all guts and little glory, and it’s not like he hasn’t done a few good things.
by Jay on May 22, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Donald has not been a disappointment. The “dare I say it” doesn’t save this from being a foolish indulgence to include.
by Jay on May 22, 2010 7:42 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
That was intentionally over the top. I base it on his May stats in Columbus, and on the sort of player he appears to be (overachiever, hustles, dirty uniform). Jerry Dybzinski minus the awesome talent.
I know the Dybber reference is just more over-the-topitude, but I will make you a little bet. Jerry Dybzinski collected 21 extra-base hits in his three seasons with the Tribe. I bet you that if Donald stays in the majors the rest of the year, he tops that number.
Dybzinski had only 21 XBH in three years? Man, that’s funny. I wouldn’t take your bet. I’m sure Donald can hit 16 doubles, three triples and three homers. That still wouldn’t make him, like, good. How about XBH, I’ll take Marson and you have Donald?
I think you have to give Fausto a little more praise than, “shows promise.” He has looked pretty filthy at times. His K:BB numbers don’t show it yet, though I’m expecting them to keep getting better – but for the first time since 2007 he is keeping his hits down and preventing HRs along with it. I think Fausto is one of the unusual guys for whom we can say this isn’t a matter of “getting lucky” on where balls are landing. I think when his pitches are working he gets a lot of weak contact.
by APV on May 22, 2010 7:57 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
one of the unusual guys for whom we can say this isn’t a matter of "getting lucky" on where balls are landing
Do these guys really exist? I mean, are there any other examples in baseball right now, outside of maybe Tim Wakefield? Greg Maddux maybe fits into this category as well, but I’m not in a hurry to put Fausto in the same league as that guy. I think our wishful thinking sometimes leads us to believe that our guys will be the “exception” to the sabermetric dogma that’s been, unfortunately, overwhelmingly reliable. While Fausto probably still qualifies as an extreme groundballer, his GB/FB ratio is way down from his ridiculous 2007 and 2008 numbers, and the strikeouts still aren’t coming. He’s pitching like a solid mid-rotation starter—well short of what we hoped he’d be in 2007, but still a valuable asset. I guess I just don’t buy the argument that Fausto is somehow “different,” and that his stuff is so nasty that he can escape the wild fluctuations in performance that usually befall pitchers who rely on putting the ball in play.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 22, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
overwhelmingly reliable
Overwhelmingly reliable on average…not always a great predictor for individual performance, though.
Right, but I fail to see why Fausto is the exception to the rule. What’s the evidence, other than wishful thinking? He’s actually giving up more fly balls and inducing fewer grounders this season than he has at any point since 2006.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 22, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
There are a handful of players who are truly successful as true outliers, and as I noted a couple weeks ago, Fausto has always looked like a statistical outlier, in terms of how his stuff translated to strikeouts vs. groundouts vs. flyballs. So maybe, yeah.
I guess I would be more convinced if his GB numbers hadn’t fallen every year since 2007. I mean, he’s only been the third-best sinkerballer on our staff this year, and he’s hardly been blowing away the competition like he did in 2007 and 2008. I feel like everyone in baseball watched that Red Sox lineup figure him out in the ALCS that year, and he’s never really been as effective since then.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 22, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
But the thing is as he has converted to allowing more flyballs his HR-rate has actually gone down. I think he is getting fewer grounders and more weak flys and popups.
I still blame Dana Demuth.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 22, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, you’re probably right. If we had been told in December that Fausto would be where he is at the end of May, we would have gladly taken it. And I do believe he is the peculiar sort of pitcher who defies a lot of rules about pitching (low K rate, for example). I could see Fausto being a number one pitcher, and he’s only 26. I didn’t mean to diminish the accomplishments of Fausto and Jake, I just wanted to point out there isn’t enough there for a rotation.
Weep I shall. It’s a very bad team right now.
I don’t really see the need to exaggerate everything to paint it all in the worst light, but perhaps its therapeutic.
Where’s the exaggeration? We’re next to last in win percentage and closing on last fast, we can’t pitch and we can’t score. We’ve pinned our hopes on some folks saying that we’ve got one of the top 5 minor league systems. But as ordradek has pointed out, that may not be enough to put us back into contention in 2013 and certainly is not enough to make us competitive in 2011.
You can nitpik all you want, and that 100 lose prediction maybe a long shot, but we’re certainly one of the favorites this year to accomplish it.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Things will get worse with 2 of our best players on the DL, no question. I don’t know what hopes you were referring to, hope of a .500 season? That isn’t exactly putting ourselves on the line. If you didn’t expect something like this for 2010, then you were being unrealistic.
It also strikes me as a little bit funny to say that we’re going to be worse than last month because we now don’t even have Sizemore. Our offense has been sucking because of Grady (in part, of course), not in spite of him. He’s been replacement level or worse.
I’ve been bearish on Sizemore since 2008, but I thought he would become Ray Lankford, not a poor man’s version of Carlos Gomez. Did you ever expect to say Trevor Crowe would be an improvement over Sizemore? That’s a rhetorical question, because I think I know the answer.
All too true. I really don’t know what to say anymore. It’s not a matter of optimists saying this guy is “A” and pessimists saying he’s a “B” or a “C.” It’s not a matter of our players being a bit overrated in my mind, or Shapiro’s. It’s not a matter of paying Wood $10 M per instead of $ 6 M per.
It’s a matter of the vast majority being are Ds and Fs, broken and/or outright horrible.
And we keep seeing it over and over. If we were foolish to think that Grady Frickin’ Sizemore might be above replacement-value, where do we go next? What possible player would we seek? A-Rod? Pujols? Strasburg?
We should take bets on whether Choo will collapse or get hurt first.
I have been realistic about the prospects for this team. I expected to see a few signs of promise from some of the young players. Maybe Carrasco looks sharp in AAA. Did you expect a pathetic offense? Did you think the bullpen would suck yet again? Did you think there would be virtually no sign of promise among the young starting pitching? I am by nature a pessimist, and this team has surprised me in its failure. You can cherry-pick things here and there and point out errors in my assumptions, but when you have a team at the bottom of the barrel in offense and pitching, and when you have a team that doesn’t have a lot in the minor leagues, then you have a bleak present and a less hopeful future.
I don’t think the problem is that we don’t have much in the minor leagues. We actually do have a pretty strong farm system; it’s just that having a strong farm system isn’t even close to being enough to get this organization back on track. That’s going to take time, new management, and lots of good luck.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 22, 2010 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
This is overly negative for no particular reason at all. This team wasn’t supposed to be good this year.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
While I definitely agree, there was a reason to hope that some of our young guys might produce and give us hope for the future.Huff, Brantley, Masterson, LaPorta, Marson, etc etc. All have looked pretty poor thus far.
It’s one thing to be bad with a bunch of great young talent that is producing it’s quite another when all those prospects are struggling too.
And yet, we also have the best positional prospect in baseball. The kind of guy Shapiro haters antagonize for not getting. But of course, the blue chip guy we do have gets a bizzare comparison to a guy who was a non-prospect like Peralta. I’m all for being critical of Shapiro’s mistakes if it’s intelligent criticism. Stuff like saying Sipp’s success is random isn’t intelligent.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
Peralta was hardly a non-prospect, he just didn’t come up with a big pedigree from the scouts or an elite ranking.
We’ll see how Tony Sipp develops. It’s possible that turns out to be a dumb statement on my part, but maybe not.
As I said above, you aren’t going to go far with only “the best positional prospect in baseball.” You won’t go far if all you had was Albert Pujols, and he’s simply the best player in baseball. Prospects aren’t players, remember. They’re potential players.
Again, the actual data suggests that Santana is as much of an actual player as more than half of the current big-league catchers. That is, yes, there’s no guarantee that he will hit well in the majors next year, but you could say the same about many major leaguers, with absolutely equal confidence.
I kind of veered off my point there, which is that even if you have the best positional player in baseball—even if you added Albert Pujols to the 2010 Cleveland Indians—you’d still have a problem with the other 24 players.
OT
If both Pujols and Choo were FAs after this season, would you take Choo at 500K or Pujols at 15MM?
Pretend we have a 10% chance of winning the division.
"I call myself common sense" —Manny Acta
What are you backing up your Sipp criticism with? Nothing. It doesn’t matter how he turns out from here on out. You’re not actually presenting an argument, so you lose automatically.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
I base my skepticism of Sipp on the extreme volatility of bullpen pitchers, and his selection in the 45th round of the draft.
Not that you were being serious, but Sipp obviously was a “flier pick” — I don’t know why nobody else selected him, but the Indians gave him 6th round bonus money, 130K. Presumably, other clubs thought he was committed to college or something. His success out of the 45th round is not a Piazza-esque fluke.
by Jay on May 23, 2010 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Also, none of our pitching prospects will ever become anything. See: Adam Miller.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
I guess I just don’t understand where the outrage or surprise is coming from. Shaprio has articulated, maybe not directly but certainly through GM speak, that the plan was to suck, contend, blow it up, suck, contend, etc… It’s unfortunate that our window on the ‘06/’07 team closed so quickly (and in such heartbreaking, CLE-like fashion), but there are a number of teams that never even got that close.
Also, the “never generated any good players” argument is ridiculous. What exactly is a “good” player? OPS+ above 115? All-Star appearance (Bob Wickman, JelliBelli)? Cy Young Awards? Yeah, our prospects are suckin’, but it’s really disingenuous to unequivocally declare Shapiro terrible when you’re completely ignoring all he has accomplished.
What has Mark Shapiro accomplished? 2007, sure. 2005, even. He’s been dining out on the Bartolo Colon trade for years. He snookered Seattle on a couple of great trades. Has he come up with the caliber of prospects that Billy Beane has? I don’t think so. And where do we stand now? If you’re able to assert the Indians have a bright future, you’re an optimist of the first order.
If you’re able to assert the Indians have a bright future, you’re an optimist of the first order.
If you’re not an optimist of the first order and you’re an Indians fan, you must be a severe masochist. Your ultimate happiness as a fan hinges on something ridiculously unlikely coming to pass. If sticking around for that doesn’t make you an optimist, what does?
Come on, four billion!
Your ultimate happiness as a fan hinges on something ridiculously unlikely coming to pass
Ha, right on. This is why I feel sorry for people who allow their emotional state to be dictated by their sports teams’ performance. There are far too many of those in Cleveland.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 23, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know where you’re trying to take this man. You, Chuck, and I are probably the biggest Shapiro detractors on this board, but it seems like the vast majority of posters think he’s been disappointing and middling at best. Most casual fans hate him even more. Disagreement usually stems over the extent of his failure, as opposed to whether or not he’s failed at all. I think there’s value in taking down the idea that our farm system is going to get the whole ship turned around, because that hope is just completely unrealistic. But arguing over Shapiro’s legacy as a GM seems like beating a dead horse at this point—he’s stepping down after this season, and although I think it’s completely f’in ridiculous that Antonetti is getting the job handed to him, I think we all should be willing to give the new guy a shot to see if he departs from his predecessor. In other words, we Shap-bashers have (mostly) gotten what we wanted—regime change, and an honest reevaluation of Shapiro’s tenure.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 23, 2010 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Look Cap’n I appreciate Shapiro. I think that he’d do well in a different market where drafting and signing weren’t as critical, cuz Shapiro certainly has shown great skill in trading for AA and AAA talent and managing contracts. That’s not my point. My point is this: he’s the wrong guy with the wrong skill set for Cleveland.
I’m willing to give Antonetti a chance, but I’m less optomistic about his perfromance than I was about Shapiro’s in 2003. I hope I’m wrong.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I probably agree. I’ve always felt that Shapiro’s failure to acquire and develop pitching through the draft is essentially what torpedoed his hopes of fielding a contender. Aside from the fact that he just missed out on a great opportunity to acquire talent, that failure indirectly forced him to sort through the bargain bin for guys to fill out a bullpen, and now that CC and Cliff are gone it’s at the root of why we don’t have a rotation. Look at the best bullpens—most feature at least one or two crucial home-grown arms, usually budding starters who can pitch in high leverage situations. David Price for the Rays’ run in 2008. Papelbon, Bard, Delcarmen, and Masterson for the Red Sox. Hughes and Joba for the Yanks. Obviously this isn’t the only way to put together a bullpen, but it’s a hell of a lot more effective than trying to pick another Howry or Betancourt off the scrap heap, or (in hindsight) paying a bunch of money to a broken-down phenom like Kerry Wood.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 23, 2010 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions
For two of those three teams, a big reason they have those budding starters in the pen is because they can afford to go buy another SP in the offseason if they need one. If the Indians had NY or Boston money, they could still have CC and Lee, and then be able to throw much better arms in the pen. The third team has done the best job in baseball at amassing starting pitching, with their highest starter’s ERA at 3.35 this year. 20 something teams out there don’t have much better plans than to pick up a Howry or Betancourt, or, when they want to splurge, Kerry Wood.
OK, I picked those three teams off the top of my head, but there are a ton more. Manny Corpas with the Rockies (not technically a draftee, I know, but he was signed as a 16 year old). Brian Wilson with the Giants. Zumaya with the Tigers. Adam Wainwright with the Cardinals in 2006. Basically look at any of the playoff teams in any given season, and you will find a number of these guys. Having several good, home-grown pitching prospects on standby is one of the best ways of stabilizing a bullpen, and we never had that advantage.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 23, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, are we looking at the teams with, and likely to maintain, the best bullpens, or are we looking at a couple good relievers on teams that I’m not confident will maintain a good pen? Having several good home-grown prospects on standby is one of the best ways of having a great team. I don’t think we need to point out a specific area of the team. Yes, I would agree that playoff teams have good home-grown relievers. But, in 2007, I also thought that Betancourt, Perez, Lewis, Laffey, and some of the guys in Buffalo would continue to make up a stabilized pen.
I’m talking about successful ‘pens on good teams more than anything else. This bullpen stuff is more art than science, and I don’t think you can tease out anything other than very broad principles of bullpen construction by looking at bullpens systematically. That’s why I limited my assertion to this: Having good home grown pitching prospects is one of the best ways to stabilize a bullpen. Not the only way, and it doesn’t work 100% of the time, but you give yourself a good chance if you have some of those guys waiting to be called up. The bullpen observation is part of the reason that I think that the top priority of a small market GM should be drafting and developing high-ceiling, home-grown pitching prospect—collecting power arms like Knapp, White, Hagadone, and the like. Those are the guys who really have a disproportionately high impact on your ability to win championships.
And yes, the assertion that having good pitching prospects on standby is one of the best ways to build a great team is also true, period. I was just trying to illustrate several ways in which Shap’s most significant failure continues to manifest itself.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 23, 2010 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
And I realize that by mentioning white, Knapp, and hagadone , I risk sounding self contradictory. Shap has the right idea with that group but I fear that it’s too little, too late.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 24, 2010 12:06 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
We’ve hashed out every last inch of the ‘draft high-ceiling guys’ and ‘Shapiro needed to draft better’ discussions, so I’ll just let it go.
by 7foot3 on May 24, 2010 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I loved the Kerry Wood signing, so I clearly couldn’t build a good pen. If it were up to me, I’d just find 7 guys who k 9 per 9 at or near the majors each year and see what happens.
Does anyone know of a more compelling theory about building bullpens?
What about scrap heap (Howry and Betancourt) signings do you not agree with? Don’t most relievers shuttle to and from the heap?
I loved the Wood signing too, so I’m another idiot. You made me curious, so I checked where the ’95 pen came from, just for fun:
Tavarez was signed by CLE as a 17-year-old FA in 1990;
Mesa was drafted by TOR in 1981 and was acquired from BAL for Kyle Washington, who never played above AA, as a starter in 1992; converted to the pen in ’94 and made closer in ’95;
Plunk was a NYY pick in 1981, and after having been released by NY and TOR was a 1992 FA signing;
Jim Poole was a LAD pick in 1988, granted FA status in 1994 and signed by CLE in Mar ’95;
Paul Assenmacher was drafted by ATL in 1983 and bounced around, signing with CLE as a FA in Apr ’95.
80% Scrap Heap City, essentially.
It’s amazing that those 5 guys made virtually all of our relief appearances that season.
Next to Mesa, Embree had the best arm of all of them.
He had a lot of good years; I was sorry to see him go. And we then traded him to the Brewers for Doug Jones! (Just not the first, best era of Jonesness).
by YoDaddyWags on May 23, 2010 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Completely forgot that fact. The first era of Jonesness was so good.
From Plunk’s Wikipedia entry:
“Kknown [sic] for his bookish looks and thick glasses, Plunk threw a mid-to-upper 90s fastball and emerged with the Indians as a reliable set-up man in one of the American League’s best bullpens.”
I don’t recall an upper 90s fastball—more of a solidly middle 90s pitch—but it always seemed like he could be called upon to get any crucial strikeout. It was like we had two standout closers throughout those years.
I can’t recall if Ryan ever did a study of Indians’ relievers in his top-10 seasons category, but probably half of the list comes from our 90s closers, and maybe Plunk’s ’96 fits in there too.
I don’t mind the scrap-heap guys. I love the scrap-heap treasures that work out, actually. It’s just hard to build a good bullpen with them.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 23, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
One of the many more astute members here can correct my memory, but it seems to me that Hart made one of his biggest blunders when he targeted Ricardo Rincon as a possible closer and gave up Brian Giles to get him. Rincon is probably available much more cheaply now, by the way, sporting a 6.59 ERA in 12 starts for the Petroleros de Minatitlan back in the Mexican League, which is where the Pirates got him in the first place. Got racked for 9 hits and 6 runs in 3.1 IP just today, in fact, losing 7-1 to Puebla.
by YoDaddyWags on May 23, 2010 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I used to have this elaborate theory that blamed all our late-90s problems (problems!) on the decision to expose Brian Anderson to the expansion draft (rather than Chuck Nagy, who may not have ever been picked). We spent the next five years scrambling for left-handed pitching, overpaying in three or four different instances, none of which in theory would have been necessary had we just held onto Anderson.
Also, I’m not trying to pretend I didn’t like the Kerry Wood signing at the time. I loved it.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 23, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Which Oakland prospects are we talking about? Cliff Pennington? Rajai Davis? Ryan Sweeney?
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
You mean that dude who has never pitched over 140 IP in a season and is a number 3 at best? Far from a guy I’d spend too much time envying.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
Oakland has seven more wins than the Indians, so they must be doing something better than the Indians.
Joe, instead of splitting hairs and engaging in all sorts of aggro nonsense, why don’t you address the issue at hand, which isn’t really the potential of Tony Sipp or Peralta or whether the Athletics have more prospects than the Indians? It’s where is a starting rotation going to come from? Where is the offense that will make this team at least a middle of the pack team?
Nothing is wrong with criticizing the team, but I think it’s important to point out that a lot of what you wrote up there was completely unreasonable.
And again you make another out there point. How can you judge GM’s like that? So Shapiro was a top 3 GM in 2007, but is now inferior to every GM that has a superior record. You really can’t see how these points aren’t silly?
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
Yeah, they’re doing a better job at winning games in April and May of a season in which they won’t be making the playoffs.
"I call myself common sense" —Manny Acta
by westbrook on May 23, 2010 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You can find a weak spot in what I’ve written, but it doesn’t detract from the overall point. For all this petulance about Shapiro’s having developed talent—he has! he has!—and whether or not Jhonny Peralta was a prospect or not, nobody mentions the possibility that this team will regress a bit more, that this assessment was written from the darkness of a six-game losing streak, that even the Cleveland Indians can not be this unlucky or this terrible at the plate, that the team will improve in the second half because it is the youngest team in the majors, that at least one of these players has to show a sign of life.
Well, you shot yourself in the foot on that score. If you want to make a compelling argument, you have to acknowledge the other side and deal with it. You weaken your argument by exaggeration, which suggests that exaggeration was needed, which is a weakness. I don’t have to tell you that. Do better next time.
You view this as science, and I view it as rhetoric. I’m trying to persuade. Why help the other side?
Well, we just differ on that. When I “fired” Willis and later Shapiro rhetorically late last season, I started both pieces with a litany of their successes. To me, laying out the other side just made the argument that much more devastating when I laid out their failures.
This ganging up and declaring sides is tedious.
by Roger Dorn on May 23, 2010 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Actually, you’re just using what Aristotle referred to as nonartistic persuasion.
It’s not as if, when I wrote this fanpost, I had these arguments on the desk but decided to push them aside because they were inconvenient and detracted from my point. It was only in the light of day when, surprised by the idiocy of some of these responses, I sought to ponder how a person might reasonably disagree with what I’d written.
Why do we feel the need to malign a team no one thought was going to be any good? This is the sports equivalent of making fun of the chess club guys when they can’t get cheerleaders to date them.
Six with momentum, eh? There’s no good, and then there’s black despair. There’s no good with signs of progress, line drives, knee-buckling sliders, late-inning scoring and speed on the basepaths. And then there’s no good with popups, strikeouts and walking in runs. I expected bad with a few signs of brightness. Ain’t much of that.
What we need this season is a balkoff.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on May 24, 2010 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure why anyone expected signs of brightness. This is, and always was going to be, a very bad, very youthful team. Strikeouts, popups, and walking in runs is a part of that. The “six and momentum” movement was utterly absurd. Bad teams play bad baseball, development or not.
There is unremitting bleakness, which offers no hope of improvement, and there is developmental bleakness, in which you see signs—baby steps—of someone figuring it out. Incremental improvement, surprising incidents of ability versus flat-out despair as far as the eye can see. Guess which one the 2010 Cleveland Indians are?
Is this a spirited young, athletic team? Is this a team with heart, with hope? The soul of this team is personified with Rafael Perez wandering around the mound before he is forced through a pitch.
See here’s the problem with your post. You don’t like it when we point out your little mistakes and exaggerations. Which would be fine if your goal was to convince us that this team is bad right now. But we already think that.
But you want, need, to convince everybody that it’s all bad, that there’s no hope, no brightness, no chance for LaPorta and Cabrera and Sizemore and Choo and Santana and Hafner to form a decent offense in 2011, only a chance for current successes to fail. I’m not convinced.
by dgcambridge on May 24, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
You know, Dave, I don’t need to convince everybody it’s all bad. I wanted to do my take on the team at the 40-game mark. I don’t expect to persuade many people this team sucks, because most people here are just temperamentally opposed to bad news, and tend to think it’s always better to look on the bright side. I get that. There is a prima facie denial of negativity, just because.
That’s part of what’s fun about LGT: the free and robust exchange of ideas. In order to have such exchange you have to disagree sometimes. I’m beginning to think people are losing their ability to disagree in a civil fashion. I’m not looking for unanimity. Nor am I looking for consensus. It’s a free country and you’re allowed to think whatever you want, even if it’s wrong. And I can think what I want, etc. Maybe the truth is somewhere between us.
I have no problem with criticism. I make many mistakes, large and small, and I don’t mind them being pointed out, at all. But the presence of mistakes here—as represented by all the nonsense about whether Peralta’s International League—does not detract from my major concern. That’s what I took exception to. It would be like me saying, well, your spelling was pretty bad.
The problem with my post, apparently, isn’t that I made “little mistakes”" or that I said the team was bad (of course it is! We already know that, you idiot!). It’s that I have been unable to get across just how bad it is. The Indians aren’t just bad “right now.” They’re going to be bad for a long time, apparently. That’s hard to stomach, but that’s the way it is.
I agree that LaPorta will be better when he heals. Cabrera looks good (though he will take a while to get his swing back), as does Santana. Not so sure about Hafner or Sizemore.
To complete the thought: No, I do not think there is much of a chance of those six players forming the core of a decent offense in 2011. Too many things have to break the right way for that to happen (I don’t see Cabrera turning into Robbie Alomar, for example).
Roberto Alomar, Age 23: OPS+ 115
Asdrubal Cabrera, Age 23: OPS+ 115
by gte619n on May 25, 2010 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bottom line, 115 OPS+ is more impressive than it seems at first glance, if the batter is also a skilled middle infielder.
Could be worse. We could crash on an island and spend six years in purgatory and alternate realities.
Whatever, that show was horrible and ultimately not even all that popular.
by Jay on May 26, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
I get frustrated from time to time, but still enjoy these exchanges. Here I’m justy saying that if you want us to see the team as 100% bad, you have to get the little things right too. And it’s not just Peralta. Each time you had to admit a positive performance above, you dismissed it some way. You didn’t do that for the negative performances. It’s the overall approach, but I guess that’s consistent if you’re advocating, not evaluating.
But why are you advocating?
by dgcambridge on May 24, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Because I’m an advocating fool, that’s why. And I’m from Cleveland, which means I enjoy a good argument. And if you think I’m being too negative, you should watch the Tribe play a bit more.
Okay, for Peralta (who apparently was not a top prospect), consider the Akron Aeros. In 2002 the Aeros had the third-highest winning percentage in the Eastern League in 50 years. They won two league championships in 2003 and 2005 and had the best regular-season record in 2006. The team played in the ELCS from 2005 to 2008.
My question is: What happened to all that talent? Did it turn into Jared Head?
Clearly the Eastern League opponents were overvaluing the talent on those teams. Had you been around to instruct the various Rock Cats and Baysox otherwise, we wouldn’t have seen those records.
Setting aside team example, again I’m forced to tell you that yes, talented young players can turn into failures. Also, successes. I’m not sure where you think success at the majors comes from? Do they not exist? Can they only be bought like Teixeira and ARod?
Jhonny Peralta is now mediocre. Therefore, any young player with a profile similar to (or worse than) young Jhonny will turn out as bad or worse. Do you not see how absurd that is? We have so much more data.
by dgcambridge on May 24, 2010 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I never said any young player with a profile similar to Jhonny will turn to mush. I cited Jhonny’s failure as part of the reason why I am dubious, skeptical, wary, uncertain, cynical about future prospects. If you want to believe the Tribe will be good in 2013, more power to you.
This is, to me, a reasonable response to such disappointment. It is not offered as evidence or categorical proof that all prospects become failures. It is simply offered by way of explaining why a person could have a certain unpopular mindset. And why such a mindset might in fact be reasonable or in line with observed realities.
And if you think I’m being too negative, you should watch the Tribe play a bit more.
And of course, I watch this team a lot. It is a very negative experience. But I’m continuously interested in why you want us to feel more negative.
There is no synthesis. His glass will never be half full or half empty. It will only ever contain a few drops of tequila.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 24, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
A dialectician without synthesis is a contrarian, and a drag at parties.
by FredOx on May 24, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Depends on how good the tequila is.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 24, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
This is nothing but self-fulfilling prophecy. You want to see a team that is hapless and apathetic, so you say R-Perez, a nearly useless bit player, personifies the organization. You ignore the hustle of Choo, the pathos and arrogance of Chris Perez, and the constant drive of Asdrubal. Where does that figure?
Choo has a .905 OPS, Jhonny has scraped his OPS+ back over 100, Fausto has an ERA+ of 115. How does that fit into a picture of unremitting gloom? Are we bad? Absolutely. But the things you mention are just the struggles of a developing team. Watch Tony Sipp if you want to see a good slider, watch Kearns, Branyan, or Choo if you want a line drive, and remember the Royals if want late inning scoring.
Otherwise, wallow away in a bad team doing what bad teams do. All of the railing on about it only betrays that there was some misplaced sense of hope here. That’s on you, not on the collection of mediocre to bad players we all knew we had.
Good points. I’m hopelessly devoted / addicted to baseball, but there’s enough going on to keep me at least mildly interested. Also, many posters here did a good job of preemptively beating back irrational expectations going in to the year, so things aren’t entirely awful. The situation is no more bleak now than it was at nearly any point last year, at the very least.
That said, Raffy does seem to personify something about the organization, but I can’t put my finger on it.
Oh, we all knew this already! Why even bother bringing it up?
You guys mistake criticism for dislike. I still like this team, just as I liked teams that employed Dan Spillner and Toby Harrah. I like Chris Perez. I’d like to see Luis Valbuena hit more line drives rather than Russell Branyan. I still watch every game. I’m still an Indians fan.
Oh, we all knew this already! Why even bother bringing it up?
I know you’re being sarcastic, but, yes, we did. So why did you?
You said it was 100% bleak unending doom. Then Fwembt pointed out a bunch of good things that were happening. Then you said “we all knew this already!” Well, clearly you didn’t.
As I mentioned to Chuck earlier, I don’t think this site is as rosy as you think. We’re all disappointed in Shapiro, and I don’t think anybody here would tell you with a straight face that we’re definitely contending in 2013. There’s reason for hope, that’s all. But when you are completely irrational about things, and flat-out wrong so many times, you make people look like optimists when they correct you.
Line drives, knee-buckling sliders, late-inning scoring don’t really add up to ‘no good’. If you expected ‘no good’ then be realistic about it.
Sure they do. These events can happen sporadically, to lend hope, but in the end the team is young and just can’t put it all together. The result is losses, which means no good.
It all comes down to how often ‘sporadically’ means to you. And how often you need to see signs of progress. I’m still not sure what you expected and why. Baby steps just 40 games into the season?
Yes. A quarter of the way in, traditionally, is considered sufficient time. This team will probably be better in September, though, as the young players improve.
A quarter of the way in may traditionally be considered sufficient time, but traditionally you didn’t have to look past AVG and RBI to judge a hitter. Not that I’m saying its wrong, I’m saying we just don’t know if 40 games is an appropriate timeframe. And I would guess that the veterans, the guys we already have a pretty good measure of at the ML level, are where that 40 game mark applies, while the youngsters, the guys we want taking the baby steps, are more likely to need a bit more time.
The big difference is that we all know this … you’re not pointing out anything that we can’t already see with our own eyes. Thus, we can either spends our hours lamenting what we see, or try to expand upon things that register as improvements.
Or, rather than discuss the team, we talk about individual players that , win or lose, might be improving because THAT IS ALL WE HAVE. (Besides Carlos Santana)
This team sucks. Now, we’ve established that. But we knew that 2010 would be a difficult year filled with many losses. Most prognostications were in the 60-70 win range. A few went out on a positivity limb, but a majority of us are fairly realistic in our expectations.
If anything, this forum is not guided by naivety. Quite the contrary.
If you really want your dire POV confirmed, just tune into a game thread anytime the Indians are losing.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
Most prognostications were in the 60-70 win range.
Go back and look again (I can’t find the damn thing). Even discounting the daffodil optimism of April, people were off their rockers.
I’m not so concerned about this year. It’s 2011 and 2012 I’m worried about. You don’t “all” know this.
Who has asked us to lament our fate? I’m asking for discussion about how to get power hitters, and how to develop a starting rotation. Hope is not a business plan.
Don’t move the goalposts. You followed nine paragraphs of “we suck” with this:
Right now, this is a team of historically bad proportions. If matters do not dramatically improve—and it’s hard to imagine where such improvement would come from—we’re looking at a 100-loss season.That’s not a request for a discussion about how to make the team better, it’s you looking for additional members for your Doom and Gloom Club.
I read em and wept last year after Lee and Martinez were traded. From that point on, everyone knew that 2011 would be a terrible team. In fact, this will likely be a terrible team next year and perhaps nothing better than an average team in 2012. 2013 is likely the next window for something grander – and that’s only if enough prospects mature at exactly the same time. And then in 2014 we can look forward to replacing key pieces of the team again (Sizemore gone in 2013?, Choo and Cabera gone in 2014?). My only relief has been to emotionally detach myself from the team and look at baseball for what it is – entertainment, a distraction, a reason to sit in the sun and enjoy beer (or something else if your prefer).
Of course you do; he agrees with you.
Come on, four billion!
by Joel D on May 24, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So we got that going for us, which is nice.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 24, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks odradek, this was cathartic, as were the comments. This season is like going through chemo, a drastic, necessary treatment that may eventually save the team, but the adverse side effects we’re experiencing suck.
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
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’
- 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.
