Chuck, I was not referring to your comment…I was just building on DaddyWags reply to Rick’s take. As if we’ve heard Rick’s exact argument before.

However, now that you called me out, I’ll supply a rebuttal to you. It’s fair to be critical of Shapiro’s reign, but when you start criticizing something like DiamondVision, you come across as someone who is criticizing something solely because he doesn’t understand it. I certainly don’t know what is involved in it, but that’s the point – you don’t either.

The way I look at it, the Indians returned to contention by 2005, which was much earlier than reasonably expected. After an awful bullpen killed 2006, the Indians were one of the best teams in baseball the following year. So up through 2007, it’s reasonable to say that the Indians organization under Shapiro’s reign was quite successful. So now after the last 2 years, he’s not a baseball man? OK – I guess that’s your argument.

My main criticism in the Shapiro era is that the Indians have not fully committed to some of their hitting prospects, particularly in years when they were expected to contend. Mediocre veterans have been brought in to protect the prospects, and they seem to have gotten in the way more often than not. Sometimes that’s ok, but if minor league data and scout’s opinions suggest that the player is a starting position player, then they should be a little more willing to commit to that prospect. Perhaps be a little more like the Braves in that respect.

Who came up with the name Diamond View? They should have asked YoDaddywags for a better project name.

Man I wish I could put the Band back together. Hank Peters, Al Campanis, Cy Slapnik – we’d run circles around these whipper snappers.

This is why fact-checking is important, kids. So someone doesn’t embarrass you.

I was younger then.

A GM is supposed to be a prophet?

That’s exactly what a $4M a year GM is supposed to be. He’s supposed to be able to predict who’s gonna succeed and who’s gonna fail. It’s a very, very hard job. But that’s why they pay him $4M a year.

Here were my thoughts – I pulled a few punches so as not to rile the natives too much – on the Hafner signing.

And just for the record, I thought Garko would OPS >.850 in ‘08. I thought Beau Alred was gonna be an superior ML player. I also think that Sizemore’s days as an everyday CFer are over. I think that Herrman and not C.Perez is our closer of the future.

I’ve been wrong before. But then again I ain’t makin’ some I X a megabuck a year at this either.

Had to be a prophet not to throw $60 million at a 30 year old DH?

Yes.

Fair enough.

You forgot Alomar.

Franco was never an All-Star at 1B, so that’s kind of cheating.

I don’t know – Jason Johnson might be the inverse of Cliff Lee.

Josh Barfield — Mitch Talbot

Bullpen.

But I think you would honestly need to evaluate not what Shaprio landed vs. what he let get away, but what every other GM at the time was getting vs. giving, too — relative to market size, of course.

July 21, 2010 last place a game behind KC. KC for God’s sake!

THIS THIS

the point is, you didn’t bother. you just drop in, pop of a “our record sucks” and leave it to everyone else to counter that. stop trolling.

the problem with the ‘all you have to look at is results’ is that it has to circle all the way back to the initial discussion where you have to consider the market factors that he’s handcuffed by as well. and that’s what’s been discussed ad nauseum over the last few years.

that’s what feels like trolling. it feels like trolling when chuck compares our record to the royals and says “bam, the proof is in the pudding.” it’s one step away from “count da ringz” in my opinion. you can talk all day about things like the third paragraph here – i think that’s really interesting, in fact. but an over simplistic post dismissing his “supposedly exemplary talent evaluation” with the counter point of simply the fact that their record sucks feels pretty disingenuous. it ignores too many factors and provides one broad-sweeping conclusion. if you really feel that talent evaluation is the culprit, than let’s have some back-up, not just a jab. but clearly, as you intimate your thinking here, it’s something beyond just that factor that’s currently being discussed.

None of what’s been offered here is very deep. You point out successes, someone else points out failures, back and forth.

I believe the exact point of this little exercise was to point out that just listing a few failures in isolation isn’t at all deep.

This is a deliberately shallow exercise.

It has to be. Why are we entitled to a winner against all odds?

Oh, really?

I think we’ve both made our points.

Ludwick was drafted by Oakland and traded to Texas and didn’t go to Detroit (Toledo, actually) until after he left Cleveland. The Tribe got him in a trade with the Rangers. Ludwick had only 247 plate appearances with the Indians over three years—well below the 500 PAs deemed sufficient for Marte. As I remember his playing time was severely restricted because he fractured his hip the year before he came to the Tribe. I’d actually say Ludwick was a Shapiro win, because the Tribe saw his value early on.

Look, let’s not reduce this to absurdity. There’s a whole spectrum of "success". Back in the day – when there was just the American League and the National League, with eight teams in each – Cleveland’s idea of "success" was getting into the "first division" – one of the top four clubs. Even as a kid, I thought this was pretty lame. Later when they split the leagues into East and West, getting to the play-offs seemed a long way for our team to progress. But when the "Miracle" happened and we actually got in the play-offs our definition of "success" changed – mine did any way. And all of a sudden and Indian’s fan could think the unthinkable and dream the impossible – an Indians World Series pennant. No longer was making into the "first division" a success or even making it to the play-offs. What every old time an Indian’s fan dreams of is a World Championship.

So, do I know the difference between a competitive club and one that loses 100 games? Damn skippy I do. Do I understand that finishing one game outta the play-offs is better than fading at the finish dumping you out of the money? Yeah, I get that too. But I won’t pretend that finishing dead last in a bad division – like we did last year – is any kinda omen for better things ahead or that the guy running the organization is some kinda baseball genius, cuz baseball geniuses never, ever, finish dead last in bad divisions.

So, yeah I’m a big believer in results – both good and bad. When they’re good I’ll revel in them, when they’re bad – like the last few – I’ll piss and moan. But don’t try to paint me into this "if we don’t win the WS we ain’t sh*t" corner. Don’t believe that and I’m pretty sure I never said it.

But it’s not you now is it, Brick?