The Possibility of Hope: June 1
by bentausig on Jun 1, 2010 10:28 AM EDT
Email
Print
Reposted here from yesterday's post-game summary, per Jay's suggestion:
I’m writing this post in order to figure out what it was about this series [the Yankees series] that made me feel, against all odds, OPTIMISTIC. None of this should be mistaken for educated guessing. It’s just gut reaction, and certainly colored by low expectations as well as the need for something to cling to. Still.
Given what I expected at the beginning of the year, combined with injuries that gutted the top of the lineup, I think we could have done worse than to have the 7th inning be our bogeyman on the road against the Yankees. The reason Masterson looked like he was on the verge of tears in the dugout in game three was because he’d been in line for the win, and what would have been a pretty great first win of the season at that. I have no idea whether this single outing portends long-term improvement in Masterson’s ability to retire lefties and keep his control, but it sure felt good to watch.
Other glimmers included LaPorta getting on base 4 times in 9 PAs against top-tier pitching, Jason Donald’s effort, and Lou Marson’s defense. Yes, these are minuscule samples, and yes, we did more than enough wrong to drop three of four. On the other hand, we did enough right to have kept all three losses competitive before late bullpen implosions. That was primarily a testament to not-awful starting pitching, but that’s not nothing, especially against a good team that’s already in a pennant race.
Also, having long abandoned interest in whether we win or lose, it’s easy to watch for discrete successes. During a booted year, I’m fine with that. This series transported me to somewhere between 1991 and 1992, on the cusp of the cusp, where good signs are like flickering fermions caught on grainy film, perhaps mechanical imperfections anyway.
Could these be hallucinations from rock-bottom? That is the risk. That is always the risk. To insulate ourselves from such risk (a purely hypothetical condition, to be sure, for anyone reading this) would be to doom ourselves to a paranoiac hell – Yankee fandom – characterized by a domination of the Other that reaches its apotheosis in the abrogation of the self.
And so I submit myself, not just willingly but enthusiastically, to a renewed excitement for this team’s prospects, with nothing more than casual observations (and a fantasy where Mike Redmond morphs into Carlos Santana) as evidence. Join me or don’t.
158 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Eloquent, but not necessarily convincing for me. I think it’s a stretch to say that Marson is part of the set of players that we are going to ride to a few years of contention. Laporta is still more goddawful than not, and I feel much better about Talbot than I do Masterson going forward in the rotation.
We’ve learned recently that Marson can actually play good defense. His bat is only getting better, and if he never improved he’s still a big league backup. He’s 24. Things are starting to look good for Lou.
LaPorta is no more promising than Dubois or Ludwick were years ago, but one of those two guys put together some good years. I’m not hopeful, however.
I like Talbot and Masterson. For the time being they’re healthy, and that’s very good.
The only young payer on the big league club about whom I’m downright pessimistic is Valbuena. I’m optimistic or hopeful about pretty much all the other young players on the team, including Marson and Masterson. Valbuena bothers me not mostly because his defense looks bad, and even when a prospect can’t hit they should at least be able to play big-league defense. But right now Valbuena really looks overmatched: his range is small, he’s slow, and his arm looks only average.
I wouldn’t give up on Valbuena yet. He looked good at times last year. He could use a few months in AAA to get his act together—and that’s where he’d be if the Tribe had another middle infielder—but he still can be a good player. In addition to the persistent outfield and bullpen issues, the Tribe still hasn’t resolved the second base problems created by the departure of Robbie Alomar in December 2001.
Of all the young players—we don’t consider Rafael Perez or Grady Sizemore young, do we?—the only one I am near to assigning to the Sowers bin is David Huff.
Don’t act like the Sowers bin is a worse place to be than the Barfield bin, which is probably where Valbuena is headed.
Valbuena is our worst player, but Zombie is awfully close.
Sowers himself might contribute something out of the bullpen, and if Huff stays healthy there’s no reason to give up on him.
I can’t quite buy into the idea that Robbie’s departure is the problem.
Ricky Gutierrez probably would have been just fine had he not had a spinal injury almost right at the start of his disastrous tenure as an Indian.
Ron Belliard did a fine job for a couple of years there.
So did Asdrubal.
All in all, second base hasn’t been a major problem area for us. You could argue we’ve had better production at 2B, relatively speaking, than at 1B or 3B.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe so. Belliard was good, for a while. But to say Gutierrez would have been good had he not been injured seems a reach. Gutierrez had two semi-good years with the Cubs, and was 32 when he came to Cleveland. Trevor Crowe would have been good, too, if he had only been good. But, you’re right, first and third have also been problems. It surprises me how teams can have black-hole positions that endure for years (Cubs at third base, for example).
Gutierrez and Lawton never get the benefit of the doubt with Indians fans, because they disappointed so quickly and completely. Gutierrez’s injury was at the start of his tenure here but wasn’t really detected for a while, other than the mountains of GIDP. When they figured out what it was, finally, the doctors said it was a miracle he didn’t die on the field, playing with that injury. He was converting from shortstop, and it’s reasonable to assume he would have been a good second baseman.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions
This series transported me to somewhere between 1991 and 1992
It transported me back to 1960 and 1985 – twenty-five years of unending ass-whoopings.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m with you, Chuck. In 1991 there was a sense that something was coming—even if we were wary of admitting it. I don’t think the 2010 Cleveland Indians are on the cusp of greatness. To paraphrase Rick Manning during the bottom of the seventh (or was it the eighth?) inning yesterday: This team has a long way to go.
Keep in mind though that that 1991 team (that went 57-105) still struggled for 2 more years at 76-86 before breaking through in the strike-shortened 1994 season at 66-48 (or 66-49 – don’t remember for sure), so, essentially, that “cusp of greatness” or “something was coming” didn’t happen immediately afterwards, so, in that sense, I’m not sure this 2010 team is that much different from that 1991 team.
What may be different from your perspective is the fact that we have no really big stars (outside of perhaps Choo, and whether he’s here for that next contending incarnation is up for debate) here yet, whereas I believe Belle, Baerga, and Alomar were here. However, during that 1991 season, we still had no Lofton, no Thome, no Ramirez, and I’m not sure if Nagy was here during 1991 either off the top of my head, so again, I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that this 2010 team is at a different point of development from that 1991 team.
It’s likely we’ll see Santana, Brantley, and Carrasco in the second half, and probably guys like Hodges, Brown, Tomlin, Pestano, Herrmann, with possibly guys like Rondon (if healthy and progressing), Gomez, Weglarz, and others also making appearances in the second half.
Then, if you add guys like Chisenhall, Price, De La Cruz, Hagadone, Berger, Goedert, McBride, Drennen during the 2011 season, that reminds me quite a bit of the period of 1992 when you added more guys like Nagy, Thome, etc., with more coming up during 1993 and 1994 (Olin, etc.), which would correspond to our 2012-2013. In case you’re thinking, “Yeah, but we have a lot of guys like Brown, Tomlin, Herrmann, etc. coming up who don’t project to be that useful,” those early to mid-90s teams also had guys who came up who didn’t project to be that useful either (such as OF Alex Ramirez and RHP Willie Martinez – remember them?), and while some of them fell by the wayside, a few proved useful (can’t recall any specific names, though I don’t believe RHP Chad Ogea was considered to be a great prospect, yet he proved quite useful, especially during the 1997 season; and for that matter, RHP Charles Nagy wasn’t mentioned in the same breath as Jaret Wright or Bartolo Colon, but Nagy was quite useful and effective for a number of years, so again, the similarities between 1991 and 2010 do exist in my opinion).
Personally, I can see the similarities – what is frustrating right now and why you may be doubting the comparisons is the fact that our bullpen has been in major flux – at times, it goes through periods where they don’t allow runs for a period of 4-5 games, then it implodes and gives up 8-9 runs a game for 2-3 games, etc. The bullpen has probably accounted for 3-5 losses of games that we likely would have won, which would put us around .500, 3rd place, and even close to the 2nd place Tigers right now if those losses had been wins). The bullpen has potential, but is very erratic, but that’s understandable given the young, projectable, but erratic arms in that pen (outside of guys like Wright and Wood, who aren’t long-term fixtures).
Keep in mind that the 1991 club you speak of lost 105 games, so that team wasn’t as close to greatness as you are implying, and with more consistency in the coming months, this 2010 team probably will not reach that mark (hopefully), so I think remaining hopeful and seeing some positive similarities isn’t unrealistic in my opinion.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
You may be right, Joe, and my impression of 1991 is influenced by hindsight. Coming out of years of wilderness, season after season of suck, we were always looking for positive signs. Perhaps I now just believe it was there, but I was certainly hopeful about Joey Belle. The other side of this coin is that, if we’re in 1991 redux—the Tribe is currently on a pace for a 62-100 season—there’s no compelling reason to believe we’re three years removed from greatness. We could be in 1987.
I too felt that Joey Belle had the goods, although when he got sent home from the SkySox for “lack of hustle” I had lost some hope about him too. I thought Thome was a player too- but his play at third base had me worried. I thought that Alex Cole could be our next Brett Butler, and that Carlos Martinez would make us all forget about Buddy Bell.
My problem is this: every year from 1960 til ‘92 we had guys in the minors with potential – every year. And most of ’em looked like the guys we’ve got down in Akron and Columbus now. Some of ‘em,turned into players – Sonny Siebert, Luis Tiant, Joe Carter, Jim Kern, Dennis Eckersley – many more didn’t. There just never was enough of the at the right time.
I guess I’m just a little too jaded to buy into the “potential” thing again. Maybe you younger guys are willing – since you haven’t seen much else – I just need to get usta this again.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
We had Mark Lewis and Bud Black too along with mainstays in Jones in Swindell. The early 90s were very exciting*. And who could forget the electrifying Alex Cole?
*I was 8 years old
You can be hopeful about a Joey Belle all day long, but if you can’t build a complete roster around him, he’s just another star on a bad team. What I’m getting at is, the ability to build a good team ultimately doesn’t have much to do with enthusiasm over one player. This was something that probably none of us really understood as well 20 years ago.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s what I was trying to say. We’ve always had at least one player to get excited about. Hell, when we had Eckersley, Manning and Kuiper we thought that we had the best young “core” in all of baseball.
Like I said before, it wasn’t the 2 or 3 All-Star quality guys we had coming up in the 90s – it was the avalanche that was impressive.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yes, but though we didn’t realize it at the time, it’s not the avalanche that gets you over the top … it’s the tight ship with almost no holes.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions
In 1991 there was a sense that something was coming—even if we were wary of admitting it.
And this couldn’t possibly be rosy-colored hindsight
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jun 3, 2010 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I can’t agree enough. That sense did not come around till ‘93 in my view. It wasn’t until ’93 that we had a “core” of players to project around. Belle, Baerga and Lofton were the beginning.
Moving the fences back wasn’t to your liking that year?
by APV on Jun 3, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I think there are a few more wins lurking inside this club, down below. With our best 25 uninjured players (ie Santana), a couple more wins might’ve tilted our way by now. The same is less true for other clubs in our position, I feel. In a year when we decide to contend, we throw everything we’ve got into the race. We have an uphill battle ahead, but it will be somewhat less bad than our final record will indicate.
I guess that’s why this time is different, but I admit that I should never say that “this time is different.”
In a year when we decide to contend, we throw everything we’ve got into the race.
In such years, we have basically played marginal veteran pickups over nominally ready prospects, just as we’re doing now.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
The lesson being, I think, that we can’t hope to sustain a competitive club through the chain of incremental graduation and polishing. Incremental building suits us in the meantime, but when we are ready again, I hope we do as the Marlins do and throw everything we’ve got into the next fight. Veterans have their purpose, but I want us to have every last one of the best 25 on deck at the next opportunity, regardless if they’re rookies or Vets. We can stingily manage service time in the lost years, but our next shot could come and go in a moment.
The lesson may be that we haven’t had the kind of talent on the cusp that the Marlins had. Maybe the Indians philosophy wasn’t all that different, but they know that Ben Francisco really doesn’t need to be in the majors that bad.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Well then, this year (and every year, really) is especially critical to us in acquiring future talents, hopefully at a faster rate than our rivals. We have the rule IV draft and a trade deadline coming up; we have fewer assets to deal than we have in the last years, but possibly better opportunities through more eager trading partners.
There also seems to me to be a great supply of foundering prospects in other systems who we can try to salvage. We have to make the most of every small opportunity—season after season—between now and the next phase of contention.
Now I wonder how Pino’s doing.
Oh, damn! I musta learned that from here, but it is the rule 4… pretentious to call it that anyway. Ima call it “the draft” from now on.
Apparently I learned it from fleerdon on Jul 1, 2009 10:37 PM EDT. I vaguely remember an earlier discussion about it, but the search engine won’t return it.
Hey, where is Tyler?
Tyler or the team?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 5, 2010 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions
What does he want, a parade? If fleerdon wants a parade, by God Joe Inglett will give him a parade.
But if it’s a career in federal law enforcement that he’s after, I doubt Joe Inglett can do much about that.
But really, if there actually is a career or life imperative behind his departure, these are perfectly valid to leave. ’Don was a helluva writer though. A pity.
You know how some us bemoaned the “front runners” that crowded us “real fans” outta the Jake back when we were good? Well some of them “front runners” is us.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Roster limits of various types means that we can’t just take a flier on every failed prospect, or perhaps any. The limit on acquiring cheap talent these days is that teams don’t just give it away anymore, except in rare cases like Santana.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Why do you see 25 years of wilderness, other than that has happened before?
I don’t see that, mostly because this isn’t a buffoonish FO. You acknowledge the scale and cycle of a team – surely you believe that the painful blow-up of the ‘07 squad couldn’t have resulted in anything other than something like four years of suckitude. We got the Chizz and Santana anchoring the diamond. We got White in the rotation and Hagadone closing. We can pencil in our 2010 draft pick right now as a number 1 starter. Throw in some combination of a arms outta Kinston and Akron and we’ll probably land another starter and definitely something in the ’pen. Why worry?
We got the Chizz and Santana anchoring the diamond. We got White in the rotation and Hagadone closing. We can pencil in our 2010 draft pick right now as a number 1 starter.
Oh man, tell me you aren’t serious. Have we learned nothing from Adam Miller, Beau Mills, and the like? Please don’t start penciling these guys in. With the exception of Santana, they’re still lottery tickets at this point.
Anyways, I tend to agree with Chuck, mainly because mediocrity with a few years of success peppered in here and there is the modus operandi for most small market teams.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 2, 2010 7:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Who’s Adam Miller?
Yes, I was writing with mock-certainty, but that wasn’t my point. There is reason to think that, like other bad teams whose FO isn’t Bavasi, there is an interesting quantity of talent coming through the pipeline that has been augmented by losing and trading stars.
The exiting news is that nearly all of our former talent is already gone, and many of them have one foot out the door (eg. Hafner, Westbrook, Wood, R Perez, Peralta, Matola, probably Choo and Carmona, and obviously Redmond, Branyan, Kearns, Grudz, during or after the end of this season). All of these dudes will be gone.
Each of these players—Choo and possibly Westbrook—is easy enough to replace. If in the meantime we acquire more talent than we lose (I believe we will, since we’re scheduled to lose anyone of significance), then we should improve in the next couple years, possibly enough to compete again.
complete with vocal whinny old curmudgeon fans proud to point out how bad the indians suck.
1-888-723-WTAM
by Brick. on Jun 2, 2010 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Here’s the bottom line: I believe that despite the current economic situation in baseball and all our other handicaps it is possible to for us to compete and even win a WS (see the Toronto Constantly Scouting Fausto thread). I just don’t think that Shapiro or Antonetti have the skills needed to get us from where we’re at to where we need to be.
And the Indians teams I’ve seen before are the products of flawed management. Not just buffoons like Segui and Lane but guys like Gabe Paul – a guy who was successful in Cincinnati and New York, but just not here. Shapiro, and I suspect Antonetti too, are similar flawed leaders.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’ve always thought Gabe Paul did well in NYC because he had the money to recover from signing mistakes, while not so much with us. That’s obviously the main advantage Brian Cashman has over Mark Shapiro. If we had the ability to just eat a Pronk contract or a Kerry Woods deal, and replace them with new people earning the same or more, Shapiro would look pretty good.
Shapiro/Anotonetti have to be pretty near perfect, in other words, to compete when measured against GM’s for big budget teams. And in fact they have been darn good in trades and in developing several good major leaguers. That makes them good in my mind, even if they haven’t been perfect. Signing Pronk and Kerry Wood were gambles, but necessary gambles. Both had to work out and neither has.
That doesn’t necessarily make them “flawed leaders”. What makes them flawed (if they are flawed) is what I see as their unreasonable devotion to failed subordinates. Who paid the price for poor drafting? Who paid the price for ongoig and continuing rotten evaluation of relievers? Most of the rest of our issues I can understand and ascribe to our economic situation; the losses of Cliff, CC and Victor are understandable and predictable. The repeated and poor decision making seemingly without accountability in some of our low cost decisions- where we ought to be outstanding- I just do not understand.
And in fact they have been darn good in trades…
Have they been “darn good”? I don’t mean to open this up again, but the early results on the Victor trade and the Cliff trade—too soon, probably—are not overwhelming. The Valbuena trade isn’t looking good. Nor Barfield or LaPorta/Brantley. The Ben Broussard and Eduardo Perez deals look great. Mitch Talbot and Carlos Santana. Bartolo Colon we hear about every week. Who else could these be compared to? The Twins?
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on Jun 2, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Even if you want to argue over the results of the most recent trades, and I don’t want to (because I don’t expect to know how good or bad those trades were until a couple of years have passed), you and I could probably agree that the results of older trades suggest this isn’t our most pressing front-office problem. If we only argue about whether trades have been consistently excellent or just pretty darn good over time, we’re still saying we have bigger problems- like reliever evaluation.
by MTF on Jun 2, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
A. Look at the stats of Phillips, Sizemore and Lee through the end of the 2004 season. This was 2.5 years after the Colon deal.
B. Now look at their stats through the end of the 2008 season.
C. Resolve firmly to reserve judgment on deals for prospects for at least four seasons, which in the case of Martinez and Lee means the end of the 2013 season.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
The frustrating thing about the Shapiro Administration is the apparent inability to consistently build a competitive bullpen. Everything else, and I do mean everything else, including all the jerking around of Andy Marte, takes a very distant back seat for me.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on Jun 2, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I couldn’t agree more. I can find the same reasons for optimism as bentausig (non-hopeless starting pitching, a couple of young hitters showing signs) but the bullpen continues to be dismal. Even if everything goes right in other areas, it’s hard to imagine the Indians winning anything if they can’t develop some kind of consistency in the bullpen. I can’t say I see any signs of that happening.
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
That’s a pretty NY-centric view. Here’s some more of Paul’s history:
In 1951, when Giles was elected president of the National League, Paul took his old mentor’s job as Cincinnati general manager. The Reds were then a losing outfit with a weak farm system. Paul rebuilt the minor league department and began to scout and sign African-American and Latin American players. In 1956 at age 20, Frank Robinson, the club’s first black superstar, had the best rookie season in NL history, hitting 38 home runs, scoring a league-leading 122 runs, and compiling an OPS of .936. In 1958, Cincinnati unveiled another star rookie outfielder, Vada Pinson, who would enjoy a long MLB career and, with Robinson, help lead the 1961 Reds to the National League pennant. Paul also signed a working agreement with the Havana Sugar Kings of the Triple-A International League, giving the team access to top Cuban talent such as shortstop Leo Cardenas and future “Big Red Machine” icon Tony Pérez. In addition, the Reds produced Cuban stars such as outfielder Tony González, second baseman Cookie Rojas, and pitcher Mike Cuellar — among many others — who made their mark with other MLB clubs.
The Cincinnati team of the mid-1950s — then temporarily nicknamed the Redlegs because of the anti-communism of the time — captured the country’s imagination as a team of sluggers. With a lineup that included Robinson, Ted Kluszewski, Gus Bell, Wally Post and Ed Bailey, the 1956 Redlegs hit 221 home runs and won 91 games to finish third, only two games behind the pennant-winning Brooklyn Dodgers. Paul was named Executive of the Year. The following year, Baseball Commissioner Ford Frick had to intervene when Cincinnati fans “stuffed” the ballot box and elected a virtually all-Redleg starting lineup to the National League All-Star team.
The Reds failed to improve upon their 1956 mark during Paul’s tenure, however, and after a disappointing 1960 season, Paul resigned to become the first general manager of the expansion Houston Colt .45s.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Here’s the bottom line: I believe that despite the current economic situation in baseball and all our other handicaps it is possible to for us to compete and even win a WS (see the Toronto Constantly Scouting Fausto thread).
This isn’t revolutionary, considering everyone on this board had their hearts ripped out game 7… in 2007.
It’s also no longer astute to say that this team is unbelievably bad. Yes, it is. If you accept that we had to rebuild after ‘08, then you have to accept that we’re going to suck for some period of time. This isn’t cutting analysis. A better question might be: what is Shapiro doing right now that isn’t good enough?
If you accept that we had to rebuild after ‘08, then you have to accept that we’re going to suck for some period of time.
Yes to this. But again I will quibble with what “some period of time” is. The consensus around here was a down year and the possibility of contention in 2011. That prognosis has since been downgraded, but only under objections.
What does it really matter if we on this site disagree when the comeback year will take place? What matters is if the team being put in place and the foundation being built is in the direction of an eventual WS winner.
I think there’s a significant difference between reloading and rebuilding. Many here have labored under the belief that we are reloading and will be ready to contend in 2011 or at the latest 2012. But we actually are rebuilding, and Choo and Sizemore will only be a part of our next contending club if the rebuilding goes very well, and quickly.
A 2012 arrival would be a quick rebuild, that’s the reality, and a rebuild is what we need. Why? Because the reload isn’t going to work.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Which raises an issue I was wondering about today, and that is: should we trade Choo this summer? Grady probably needs to prove he’s healthy and still Grady, but Choo has pretty outstanding value right now.
by MTF on Jun 2, 2010 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I honestly think you keep Choo around until you’re ready to tank 2012. That could be this summer, or it could be in the summer of 2012.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, what I meant to say was you don’t want to sell absurdly low on Grady, so don’t trade him this season, unless you don’t think the 60 day DL is atypical for him going forward.
by MTF on Jun 3, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
what is Shapiro doing right now that isn’t good enough?
I
I don’t know about right now, but he hasn’t drafted worth a damn and acquiring good to great players through the draft, bringing them up quickly through the minors and having on the big club during their cheap pre-FA years is critical to this franchise. Shapiro hasn’t done any where near enough of that.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It would be interesting to do a study on Gabe Paul’s tenure and see if he comes off looking like a genius or an idiot.
All these guys have faults. Hart put together much better bullpens, but he certainly seemed to lose his touch toward the end of his tenure. Shapiro generally has put together better rotations than Hart. And let’s not forget that we got exactly one significant major leaguer (Sabathia) out of Hart’s last six drafts as the GM — lest we think our amateur signing and development problems started with Shapiro — which was the main reason we had nothing left in the system with which to reload for 2002.
by Jay on Jun 2, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, whether this team is any good in 2011 or 2012 or not, we’ll thank you guys for your contribution in making the rebuild as whiny and negative as possible.
by dgcambridge on Jun 5, 2010 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m surprised that you see it as whiny and negative.
Here’s my bitch: I don’t think that our management is up to the task and admittedly it’s a very, very difficult task. Damn few teams in our situation have had much success in overcoming the economic obstacles we face. Certainly not KC, or Pittsburgh, or Baltimore, but then again some have. But it’s gonna take an almost super-human effort – as well as an awful lot of baseball savvy – to get us where we need to go.
I don’t see that as being either whiny or negative – just realistic.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
While I recognize that chirpy and Pollyannish is preferred here to whiny and negative, sometimes you have to play the cards you’re dealt. I’m sure any realistic negativity here will be more than balanced by witless optimism.
by odradek on Jun 5, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Quit using “here” and “consensus” like that. It’s inaccurate and unnecessary. It’s more effective to just present your views on the team, and what should be done, without always comparing it to some vague site-wide viewpoint. Or respond to a particular person.
And it is possible to fold too often.
Of course you know that every now and then we gather some data, like here.
Looks like the "consensus" – over 70% – opinion “here” on this site was that the Indians would contend by 2012. Seems a little “chirpy” and “Pollyannish” to me.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I was simply being polite, Dave. I didn’t want to call you a witless optimist.
Where I come from we make fun of optimism for its own sake. So I don’t understand this attitude—I think I’m safe to assign it to you rather to some vague huddled mass—that we should always look on the bright side. Why is optimism inherently preferable to pessimism, for its own sake?
I don’t see the word consensus, because I prefer prevailing view or majority opinion. Fortunately there is little consensus here. Otherwise it would be quite boring.
My views on this team are in the minority, obviously. Unpopular opinions are often met with derision. I’m okay with that, but I’m not going to just roll over.
What is wrong with you? Nobody here thinks we’re any good. I don’t think hoping for a small chance at contention in two years qualifies as witless optimism. You’re arguing with nobody here, and you’re still doing a terrible job of it.
I don’t know what’s wrong with me, Chemo. That’s a good question.
For an argument with nobody, there sure are a lot of people telling me I’m doing a terrible job. If the consensus is the Tribe isn’t any good, what’s the problem with saying so?
I would be long gone if everything here was uncontroversial and nice all of the time.
Is Cliff Lee again the best left handed pitcher in baseball?
Is Steve Phillips a genius?
I would say your problem is that, in saying that the Tribe is terrible, you’ve backed it up with many incorrect statements. Some of the good citizens here feel obliged to correct you even if they agree with the overall consensus that the Tribe is terrible (remember, Jay — the leader of the prevailing view! — wrote a piece before the season that was all about how terrible we would be).
You seem to be taking those specific disagreements as evidence of unbridled optimism, and I’m not sure why.
I think you’re being disingenuous. If the “overall consensus [is] that the Tribe is terrible,” why did half of the respondents to Chuck’s poll (linked above) predict the Indians would contend by next year?
I don’t believe it was a matter of everyone here agreeing, but helpfully pointing out errors in my “logic.”
Maybe we have different definitions of contend. Maybe people vote in that poll that don’t comment on this blog.
I’ll be honest too, I probably voted yes that we would contend. Not necessarily because I thought it to be true, but because I wanted it to happen. If you had real stakes for voting in the poll, my vote would probably have been different.
Ah, I see. I don’t mind being called out personally. I’m still enjoying these exchanges. The problem with characterizing the group is that it’s too slippery. You’re chasing a moving target.
There’s a wide range of possibilities moving forward, and I (and yes others) like to think about what might happen at the top end (What if Chen keeps progressing? What if Hagadone does the same?). Like Chemo says.
I have no problem with you discussing the bottom. What gets me worked up is when you characterize it as the most likely outcome, yet stretch it here and there in a negative way. It’s depressing enough to think our division odds will not be over 20% until 2012. If you prefer to think there’s no way in hell that we are in the mix until 2014, fine, but pessimism does not necessary equal realism (insert Cleveland joke here/realize its not a joke/sob).
So my problem is not with pessimism, I just think you’re wrong sometimes. Pessimism can be witless too.
Wait—are you calling me a witless pessimist?
I’m having fun, too. I’ll be the first to admit I’m often wrong. I may be wrong in my optimism about Marson, for example. I think it’s too soon to get worked up about Chen, or Hagadone.
As to the likely outcome, I offer Damon Runyon’s quote: "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet."
Fans are supposed to be optomistic. It’s the natural state for fans. I understand that. But odradek, Sudden Sam, elsandito, tribefanintexas, Lefty Catcher and many of us older Tribe fans have had much of that inherent Tribe fan optimism beaten out of us. I regained some of that wild optimism in the late-90s early oughts, but the current state of the Tribe is all too familar to me and probably the others as well.
My message here – and I think the other “Old Timers” will agree – is don’t get your hopes up just yet. There’s reason to be optimistic, but guardedly so.
BTW, if you have time read the post I sited up thread – illuminating.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
but the current state of the Tribe is all too familar [sic]to me and probably the others as well
I think this is what people have a problem with. We all agree that the Tribe sucks now, but to compare right now to 1973 or whatever your favorite hopeless year was is probably not accurate. We know without a shadow of a doubt that we were more than two decades from our next playoff appearance at that time; can you make the same assertion with the same confidence now? I submit that you cannot.
Come on, four billion!
We know without a shadow of a doubt that we were more than two decades from our next playoff appearance at that time; can you make the same assertion with the same confidence now?
I don’t think I can. But perhaps that says more about human nature and the way we all think about the future than it does about the 2019 Tribe (managed by Jhonny Peralta).
Here’s why pessimism sucks.
Pessimists have the benefit of being right the majority of the time, and most of us know it. That one rare time the optimists are right, the pessimists get to enjoy it just as much because despite their pessimism they still love their team just as much, if not more than the optimists. It’s a win-win scenario for the pessimists, they are either right and expectations were fulfilled or they were wrong, but heck they win anyway because their team won! It feels cheap, I can’t explain why.
It is cheap intellectually to be a knee-jerk pessimist, but I wonder if you really aren’t giving some of the pessimists credit for thinking clearly about things. That is, knee-jerk pessimism is cheap, but well considered pessimism is not cheap.
Now we could have a guy known for knee-jerk pessimism, and then one day it looks like he may be right about some things. Is it fair to assume he’s only being a knee-jerk pessimist now, correct only because a stopped clock occasionally is?
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I do give some of the pessimists a lot of credit, because I don’t think their pessimism is knee jerk. The older fans have been through a lot worse with these teams than I ever have and may ever will, and they deserve a lot of credit for being around still. It’s not like I don’t want these guys to enjoy a title just as much as I would, but it feels like an attempt to bring everyone down to your level of misery with some of the pessimism even if well-reasoned.
As to your question, think it’s fair to ask and consider. A pessimist will probably end up being right more often than not in his predictions because of the nature of this game. It doesn’t make their understanding of the game any better.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this subject today. First the elephant in the room: What’s happened to all of the posters? Where’s Tabs? Turk? fleerden? What this, only one thread per game? But the answer to this is easy. It’s hard to get enthusiastic about a losing team. I get that.
And the corollary: have I added to this ennui by being overly pessimistic? Could be. But I honestly am troubled by the direction this club is – or seems to me anyway – headed. Am I a "knee-jerk pessimist"? Don’t think so. If anybody was around here for the Yankees play-off series they’ll tell you I was over the top confident that we’d not just beat ‘em but kick their sorry asses right up between their shoulder blades. So I’m not a "knee-jerk pessimist" by nature.
But here’s the thing: I’m afraid I’ve seen this pattern before. Glib, urbane, New Age manager that’s actually the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. Yep they say all the right things – didn’t Phil Savage sound a lot like this guy? – but in the end they’re great salesmen without the baseball insight needed to pull off the next-to-impossible task of putting us back in the play-offs.
So if I seem to you to be a "knee-jerk pessimist" recognize that this is just my prevailing attitude now. I have a lot more fun following baseball when my Indians are winning. I’m anxious to get back to being a "knee-jerk optimist" just give a coupla good reasons to be optimistic.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
But here’s the thing: I’m afraid I’ve seen this pattern before. Glib, urbane, New Age manager that’s actually the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. Yep they say all the right things – didn’t Phil Savage sound a lot like this guy? – but in the end they’re great salesmen without the baseball insight needed to pull off the next-to-impossible task of putting us back in the play-offs.
This is right on the mark.
I’m here. I’ll shamefully admit that I haven’t followed the Tribe much outside of reading the site. It has less to do with the team being bad than it does with not having cable and being too busy with other things, but I’m not gonna lie and say being bad has nothing to do with it. I do’t mind bad… I followed the 2006 team passionately from Uzbekistan even when I was there. Spent tons of cash on Extra Innings in 08. Paid a good amount of attention last year. Bad is one thing, but hopelessly bad is another. I don’t care if we lose 161 games, I’d still watch as long as the kids were playing well and there was hope for the future.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jun 10, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve explained this before.
Well considered optimism is not preferable to well considered pessimism.
However, knee-jerk optimism is strongly preferable to knee-jerk pessimism.
The reason for this is because there is little to nothing to distinguish the knee-jerk pessimist from a troll, and little to nothing to distinguish the knee-jerk optimist from a diehard fan. Even Chuck gets into big, irrational rooting fervors with some frequency.
Here at LGT, we enthusiastically welcome the diehard fan and no use for trolls. There may be diehard fans who are knee-jerk pessimists, but since it’s hard to distinguish them from trolls, they are no fun at any social gathering, including this one.
Hence, all things considered, it is true that optimism is preferred systemically to pessimism. Well-considered pessimism, however, should always be welcomed warmly, or at least accommodated respectfully.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
If you accept Merriam-Webster’s definition of knee-jerk as automatic, then I’m a diehard fan who is a knee-jerk pessimist. Which is to say my default think is to assume always the worst. I see nothing wrong with this way of thinking, and can find many precedents for doing so in the wisdom of the ancients. I’ve been an Indians fan since the days of Woody Held, so I’ve come to this way of thinking through personal experience. A posteriori, not a priori.
My question was why, automatically, is automatic optimism to be preferred to automatic pessimism? Because it’s more fun at parties? Would you rather party with Ned Flanders or Stiv Bators?
I don’t know Stiv, but my question back to you is, these are our only choices?
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not for me or anyone else to judge the way you think. In a community, it’s the way you conduct yourself that counts. Your instincts and your comments are not the same thing.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I’m just expanding on the general construct of how optimists vs. pessimists are received here.
by Jay on Jun 6, 2010 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions
“The main reason why misfortune falls less heavily upon us, if we have looked upon its occurrence as not impossible, and, as the saying is, prepared ourselves for it, may be this: if, before the misfortune comes, we have quietly thought over it as something which may or may not happen, the whole of its extent and range is known to us, and we can, at least, determine how far it will affect us; so that, if it really arrives, it does not depress us unduly—its weight is not felt to be greater than it actually is. But if no preparation has been made to meet it, and it comes unexpectedly, the mind is in a state of terror for the moment and unable to measure the full state of the calamity; it seems so far-reaching in its effects that the victim might well think there was no limit to them; in any case, its range is exaggerated. In the same way, darkness and uncertainty always increase the sense of danger. And, of course, if we have thought over the possibility of misfortune, we have also at the same time considered the sources to which we shall look for help and consolation; or, at any rate, we have accustomed ourselves to the idea of it.”—Joe Charboneau
Maybe for some, but not others. The reason I enjoy being a baseball fan is because, in 1995, I can enjoy 1995, and in 2010, I can fantasize about the next 1995, and the paths that might lead from now til then. I don’t see much harm in this. I’m from Akron: I can defer the fantasy as long as necessary. My dreams can no longer be crushed.
Such an approach may not be universal, but it certainly makes rooting satisfying (for me). I’m OK with a bit of naivete, and in fact don’t even think such a posture is mutually exclusive with analysis. I choose to hope because the only thing at stake in that choice is my own constitution.
I’ve spent the last several months amidst awful violence, the rhetoric of arch-nationalism, and the specter of terror. This experience has lent a certain clarity to my fandom. I don’t yet have enough distance from these days and weeks to speak conclusively, but I can say that I’ve grown a lot as an Indians fan. I haven’t missed a pitch in weeks. I watch Justin Masterson like his mother.
From, Ben
by bentausig on Jun 6, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
This calls to mind a conversation I had recently with Chuck. I said, it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s 2007 or 2010, I would enjoy going to an Indians game with friends exactly the same. He said he would, too.
I can’t speak for all so-called Indians pessimists, but I suspect many feel the way that Chuck and I do. That is, that by fixating on dreams of contending in the not-too-distant future, many fans are robbing themselves of the pure enjoyment of Indians baseball, immediately in the here and now.
If it’s all or mostly about 2011 and 2012, then this 2010 club is going to break your heart. Love them for who they really are, accept that future contention is, at best, both uncertain and impossible to pinpoint, and you might just accidentally enjoy being a Cleveland Indians fan.
by Jay on Jun 6, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
Despite everything, the Indians are still the best team in baseball.
You nailed this one. Thank you.
by odradek on Jun 6, 2010 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There’s a difference between (1) acknowledging that the future is uncertain and appreciating the present for what it is and (2) loudly proclaiming that the pitching sucks, the hitting sucks, the management sucks, there is no clear path to not sucking, and anyone that dreams of not sucking is an unrealistic pollyanna.
I try to appreciate the 2010 Indians for what they are, but I’ll go into 2011 with high hopes. Heck, I went into 1977 with high hopes. 1987, too.
And there is also a difference between having high hopes as a fan and having high hopes from an analytical point of view. There is a double-standard being a applied here. Most of the folks who are defending the “high hopes” point of view, at this point, ordinarily would be saying that you can’t expect opinions not to be scrutinized here.
Has that prevailing view about the quality of discourse here changed, just because the team sucks now?
The future is uncertain, but not without conditions. It’s possible we will see incremental improvements from some players—say Brantley starts to show power, or Jordan Brown actually has a career—but it is not likely that Jhonny Peralta suddenly turns into Mike Schmidt or Mike Redmond out of the blue develops into a good hitter. It is possible—as we have been unfortunate to see with Hafner, Sizemore and Miller—for good players to turn into not-so-good players. But bad players don’t become good. Jeremy Sowers is not going to turn into Randy Johnson, but it is possible for Randy Johnson to turn into Jeremy Sowers. All systems tend toward disorder. Gravity is on the side of decline. Things are more likely to get worse than better.
Forgive me if I’ve been proclaiming this too loudly. I’ve been dismayed by the belief expressed by some people here—excuse me for not providing names—that success is, if not inevitable, likely or probable. I understand that is how some people view the world. It’s not the only way, though.
that success is, if not inevitable, likely or probable.
No one really thinks that. Not that I’ve noticed.
Yes, we should never fail to require analytical rigor. But “this is exactly like 1973, all is lost, was you there, sonny?” isn’t any better.
Hopefully, the team will fail to suck someday, and we won’t have to keep arguing about optimist and pessimist strawmen.
Look, these are the issues we have to grapple with as we figure out how to be a community of diehard fans during this period.
Granted that chuck & odie are given to hyperbole, preachiness and the occasional straw man. Having said that, there does come a point where I feel they’ve been kind of goaded into the condescending attitude. Just imagine how condescending I’ll be in another 20 years.
by Jay on Jun 7, 2010 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I was going to respond to the “given to hyperbole” etc. charge but thought the better of it. I’ll just say that I’ve taken more than the occasional unpopular viewpoint and have been right on more than one occasion.
Whatever. The central point here is that we being reduced to the “hard core” of baseball fans. Not fans of winning or fans of the popular, but fans of baseball. Whether one argument is better founded or another is mostly irrelevent. What’s relevent is the game. Pure and simple.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
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.
