Game 96: Indians 3, Rays 1 (7 Innings)
by Ryan on Jul 24, 2010 6:45 AM EDT
in Game Recaps
111 comments
The Rays haven't won in Cleveland since they took two out of the three in the last week of the 2005 season; the Indians would finish one game behind Boston for the Wild Card. The Rays were horrible that season, and would finish last in the AL East the next three years, so you could understand sweeping the home portion of the series, but since 2008, the Rays have been among the best teams in baseball, and the Indians have been bottom-feeders. In 2008, the Indians swept a four-game series after ending a ten-game losing streak. That sweep also ended the first half of the season; the team would rally from 16 games below .500 before the Rays series to make it back to .500 at the end of the season. Last season, the Indians swept the Rays in four-game series again; recall that it took the Indians 19 years between four-game sweeps of the Tigers, a team the Indians have played at least twice as often since the unblanace schedule began.
So it seemed appropriate that, in the midst of this bizarre streak, the Indians would win a rain-shortened game, though it look like the game was under control when the game was called in the bottom of the seventh. Fausto Carmona was brilliant, striking out seven and giving up only a walk and an infield hit before the first rain delay. The Rays scored an unearned run in the second thanks to throwing errors; Jason Donald, who was playing in right field as part of a shift against Carlos Pena, couldn't make the throw after fielding a sharp grounder hit right at him, and Carlos Santana made rare poor throw to second and Pena attempted a steal. Pena ended up at third, and scored on a ground ball. After that blip, Carmona was in charge, ending his evening by striking out Carl Crawford.
On the other side of the ledger, Jeff Niemann started for the Rays. Niemann is a big dude, listed at 6'9" and 260 pounds but looks bigger than that on TV, and I'm sure he's a very uncomfortable guy to face, especially if you're right-handed. The Indians did well against him, though, and could have scored another couple of runs if Hafner delivers in the third or the fifth. Michael Brantley started the game with a walk, setting up the rest of the inning. Asdrubal Cabrera then singled smartly through the hole between first and second; Brantley would have made it to third, but stopped short so the line drive didn't knock him down. Shin-Soo Choo, playing in his first game since the thumb injury, then hit a line drive to right field, allowing Brantley to go to third easily. Carlos Santana hit a rocket to first that Carlos Pena couldn't cleanly field, and he beat out the attempted double play, allowing the run to score. What was a very rather pathetic top of the order just a month is a dynamic group of players, all with good plate discipline and all with at least decent speed.
After the first rain delay, Trevor Crowe ended the scoring with a home run to right field, getting around on a ball waist-high. Then, after Tony Sipp pitched his second scoreless inning in relief after play resumed, play was stopped one batter into the bottom of the seventh, and didn't let up, ending the game. Tony Sipp got his first major-league save thanks to the timing of the delays.
| Highest WPA | Lowest WPA | ||
| Asdrubal Cabrera | .262 | Travis Hafner | .129 |
| Fausto Carmona | .185 | Jhonny Peralta | -.091 |
| Tony Sipp | .153 | Matt LaPorta | -.054 |
0 recs |
111 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It was 2 years ago here in Chicago (the Saturday anyway) when I was planning on attending the Taste of Lincoln street festival as the Blake/Santana deal went down early that day. It’s 2 years later, I’m attending the Taste of Lincoln… Let’s do another hiest!
No debate that Santana is likely to be a much more productive player than Blake in the long run, but we had to wait 2 years to even begin to see some payoff.
Meanwhile, Blake was a competent everyday player with decent, not earth shattering, stats and we sat through Marte, DeRosa (not so bad) and now Peralta. Does that still count as a heist?
I for one don’t want to wait another 2 years before we begin to see the upside, life is only so long.
Hopefully, if we can move some people, there is someone waiting to step up right away (like Peralta and Goedert). That way if we have to wait 2 years or more, we aren’t constantly asking ourselves if the trade was worth it. To be fair, it did always kind of seem like Marte would be able to step up too, so obviously there is no sure thing.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Does that still count as a heist?
Yes, yes it does.
I think that you need to put this trade into perspective. When was it we traded Blake? Why, July of 2008. Were we headed to the play-offs? No we were on our descend into the bowels of the AL Central, the worst division in all of baseball. Did we need Blake to somehow put us in the play-offs? No Casey Blake would not be the difference between humiliation and a championship. But Santana, quite possibly the best catching prospect I’ve ever seen – and yes I’m including Marinez, Alomar, and Johnny Romano – will, one day, be the piece that gets us to the Promise Land.
Gotta give Shapiro his props when he hits one out, cuz this time we’re on the other side of the Bruce Ellingsen/Pedro Guerrero deal – only I think this heist will be even better.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yes it does.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 24, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Meanwhile, Blake was a competent everyday player with decent, not earth shattering, stats and we sat through Marte, DeRosa (not so bad) and now Peralta. Does that still count as a heist?
unequivocally yes.
And this is before you factor in the very relevant point, that A. Blake was a pending free agent and B. Even if he wasn’t keeping him around wouldn’t have increased the likelihood of making the playoffs.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 24, 2010 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
There you have it evereye3, this is now the official LGT party-line.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Almost.
The LGT party line also notes that the Dodgers will pay Blake $17 million for 2009-2011, which is TEN TIMES what the Indians will pay Santana for 2009-2013. Come on, Chuck, you’re supposed to be our deficit hawk!
Interesting how the LGT party line is filled up with facts and omits all opinions and statements of position. Not much of a party line, really, unless it’s for the Reality Party.
Somebody should develop a “I Analyze Baseball Like” program for this site. There’s a nice spectrum of styles incorporated in this mini-subthread. Terse – manhattan tribe fan; explaining it to an 8 y.o. coupled with a dash of nostalgia – me; combative and fact driven – world dictator (but then what would you expect from a guy who calls himself “world dictator”?); new-fangled stats based – YoDaddyWags(although I think it wouldda been better if he put it in the form of a poem) and finally the pronouncement from on high with the accent on money from you.
Yep, if we had our own little “I Analyze Baseball Like” program we could run evereye3’s post through it and get what? E5? cleveland.com? Suggestions?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jul 24, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think you are really doing evereye3 a disservice with these comparisons. His thoughts were perfectly coherent. I don’t think he’s thought all the ideas through as much as other may have, but he seems like a smart enough guy. The people you’re talking about are largely borderline personalities, some of whom are definitively stupid and nearly illiterate.
Thanks. But a second ago you had a kid who wasn’t alive at the time explaining the trade to me. So I am not sure how I feel about you yet.
I hope my longer post better explained the thought process.
I guess I just don’t want to wait on a couple more 2 year long heists.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
When you’re sure about your feelings for me, you be sure to let me know.
The heists are almost always going to require a two-year wait. It’s the nature of the beast. It’s the children and the elderly who can’t stand to wait. The rest of us should be patient, and drink deep of the rewards.
Was 2007 worth the wait? Despite the disappointing ending, I think it definitely was worth the wait. Even 2005 was. And those seasons were the fruits of heists made 3-5 years before.
I like a challenge, so I like you already.
You are a little hard to read though. I can’t figure out if this back and forth is actually making you angry, or if testiness with sarcastic newbies is just part of your general demeanor.
I agree that 2005 and 7 included some great baseball and were worth the wait. My concern is that if we need a round or two of watching prospects develop before we compete again, that it won’t have been worth it, as it seemed at least possible that the 2007 team could have been worked into a contender without a complete blowup and rebuild had the right decisions have been made.
I will turn 36 this year, I watched a lot of baseball and read a lot of articles in the last 25 of them. I firmly believe that in a division as weak as ours, we can continually reload rather than rebuild. I am not talking about winning the division each year but at least being in the hunt, if the right decisions are made with drafting, development, free agents etc.
My impatience may not be justified. I may have made just as many regrettable decisions as the Tribe management did, but this is my hobby, not my job. I fear that constantly trading away everyone out of fear and forever waiting for Godot will give us a perpetual rebuild like that of the Royals, (17 years and counting with no sign of letting up).
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
I can’t figure out if this back and forth is actually making you angry, or if testiness with sarcastic newbies is just part of your general demeanor.
What is confusing you is “rigor.” That is, your comments are being held to a standard of conforming to the facts and basic logic and reason. It’s not even a super-high standard, but on a web forum, it can be disorienting to be held to any standard.
Basically, if your comments don’t make sense, you’re going to hear about it. If I step back and stop responding to you, eventually a dozen or more other guys and gals are going to let you have it.
This is not to say that there isn’t room for disagreement. Two rules basically apply. First, the mauichuck rule: Don’t say anything here that you wouldn’t say to a guy or gal in a bar. Second, everyone is entitled to their own opinion — but not their own facts.
I wouldn’t spend any time worrying about the moderators’ demeanor if I were you. If and when we are actually annoyed by you, there won’t be any ambiguity about it.
What is confusing you is "rigor." That is, your comments are being held to a standard of conforming to the facts and basic logic and reason.
This type of comment is what has me confused. Do you really think what I am posting is bereft of fact, basic logic or reason? Some of your earlier comments lead me to believe that you recognize my approach as sensible, but then you post the above suggesting that I don’t know how to conduct an intelligent argument and what I have said thus far has been “donuts”.
I didn’t come here to anger anyone, post non sequiturs, break either of the above rules, or waste time worrying about anyone’s demeanor. I came to talk baseball.
I don’t believe that my position that while the Santana for Blake trade turned out to be a good one, more trades with a minimum two year wait for payoff aren’t the kind of moves we should be hoping for now, given a weak division. Since we ought to be able to compete soon, these only seem like the right kind of moves to me if we have a comparable or better talent laying in wait to replace who we lose.
In a nutshell, I am saying that at this point we should be looking for the finishing pieces, not making start from scratch type moves.
Your opinion may differ, but I’d wager that it isn’t that far removed. What I don’t see is how my position fails a test of logical rigor.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Sorry for jumping in here 3 but here’s where I see the disconnect. We aren’t going to compete in ‘10 – that’s obvious – it’s unlikely that we’ll compete in ‘11 – less obvious – but that’s irrelevant. Let’s keep our eye on the prize – the WS ring.
I note that you’re much more active on the Cavs site – boy it must be bleak over there – so you know that getting to the prom and being prom queen are not the same thing. Sure we can put a team together that could possibly win the lame-ass AL Central in two years. But then what? Swept in three by the AL East WC team? That ain’t gonna cut it. We want to re-build a ‘90s style juggernaut – at least I do. And the only way to do that is to time the development of our younger players so that they all mature in sync. That is: we want these guys to peak at more or less the same time a year or two before they hit the FA market. As you’ve already “witnessed” having a CY winner surrounded by stiffs wins you oogatz.
So trading a yeoman for a squire makes sense. Cuz yeoman are not gonna win the tourney – knights are. We need to wait until all our squires are knights.
So we’re back to should we have patience with the FO while they try to sync these signings (look who’s defending Shapiro here) and my answer is not only yes, but hell yes.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I agree that the WS ring is the main thing.
I just think the reason we were so close in 95 and 97 and close enough in the rest of the Hart era was that because we were winning and the money was rolling in, we had it to spend.
I also agree that the only way to build that sort of juggernaut again is to try to get young guys to mature at the same time. But that is because of the path dependence of the decisions that have already been made.
The big difference between basketball and baseball player development is the roster size and the lack of a coherent minor league system. Basketball teams, often do need to blow up and rebuild. Good baseball organizations should not.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Basketball teams, often do need to blow up and rebuild. Good baseball organizations should not.
Well, this is simply untrue. The only organizations that don’t rebuild in baseball are (1) really bad ones, and (2) ones that can afford to spend over $150 million in player salaries.
If you can show me a counter-example, then we’ll have something to talk about.
Obviously this is time dependent, so you probably aren’t going to like any answer I would give. Owners change, front offices change, on-field management can be more or less effective, etc., so nothing is perpetual, as too much depends on luck and unforeseeable events. Even the Yankees were disappointing for the entire 1980s, despite having pockets deep enough to get whoever they wanted.
The point is that good organizations can ride out the bad years without losing their fan base. The Cubs seem to have no problem keeping the money machine rolling, despite a mediocre history and having to compete with a much more successful organization across town.
If pressed though, I don’t think we have to look too far away. The Hart blueprint worked. We won with our younger guys fresh off the farm, then we rotated in solid acquisitions through trades and free agency, it could have kept going with minor maintenance. Dolan just spent too much to get the team, and didn’t factor in what it would entail to keep it going.
The Twins are working well now. This is their decade. I am sure that their luck will run out and that a down turn is inevitable, but we won’t know until then how well they can ride it out.
Both the nature of basketball, where one or two guys can make a tremendous difference, and the salary cap, do make it a different animal.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
The Hart model didn’t quite work the way you think it did. First, the kids weren’t fresh off the farm, as they were in 2005 and 2007. Lofton, Vizquel, Alomar, Thome, Belle, and Baerga all debuted between 1989 and 1991, and they didn’t win anything until 1995 — that is, their 5th, 6th or 7th seasons in the majors.
As for “refreshing” with free agents, the Indians at that time had the income to maintain a Top 5 payroll, and more to the point, they were within 10% of the having the largest payroll (the Yankees of course).
We are largely following the same model today, but the main difference is that the Yankees now have a payroll that’s 300% higher than the Indians, and another half-dozen teams have payrolls 100% higher. This is a completely different environment than when the top team spent only 10% more, and there isn’t a damned thing John Hart or anybody else could do about it.
I don’t know what the Cubs have to do with any of this. We weren’t talking about who can maintain their fan base, we were talking about whether good organizations have to rebuild. The Cubs haven’t rebuilt and pretty obviously are not a good organization. It’s hard to come up with a front office that has accomplished less than they have, considering their huge resources.
As for the Twins, I could swear they were terrible for a good ten years in a row. If that isn’t a rebuild, I don’t know what is.
Do you really think what I am posting is bereft of fact, basic logic or reason?
Yes, on a few specific, very key points.
Mainly, you act like when we’re trading a guy in his walk year, one of the main considerations is who’s going to replace that specific player. This isn’t a consideration at all, because regardless of whether we trade him, he’s not coming back.
Let me be more specific. Anybody who’s worth bringing back is probably going to be more expensive than he used to be. We have a constrained budget, and the market rate for free agents (evidently some $5 million per win-value added) is way, way, way more than we can afford to pay. Thus, we avoid paying market rate whenever it’s at all possible.
So if we fail to trade the player, not only do we not add talent back into the system, but we probably don’t keep that player anyway, because we’re unlikely to be the highest bidder. And even if we do re-sign him, he’s going to be one of the worst values on the club, because we’re paying something close to his market rate, which is not what we’re paying for 15 of the best 18 players on the roster.
Finally, even if we do trade him, there is still a possibility of bringing him back — and if we’re being realistic, that possibility is actually not much lower than if we didn’t trade him.
So in sum, the trade option has a negligible impact on our ability to re-sign a player. We’re probably not going to re-sign him either way. If we do re-sign him, it’s almost certainly going to be a particularly good value, i.e., it’s really no great loss if we don’t do it.
Therefore … when you insist on discussing who is coming back — and comparing him to the player we’re trading, who also is not coming back — there is a basic lack of reason at work.
Teams don’t trade players, they trade contracts. The contract with Blake was a two-month contract. We traded that two-month contract for roughly an eight-year contract with Santana. That is the beginning, middle and end of the discussion.
And when the question is liberated from your how-will-we-replace-this-guy fallacy, the answer becomes thuddingly obvious, i.e., appropriate to my seven-year-old nephew as mentioned earlier.
One again, if you can’t let go of this fallacy, you literally cannot have an intelligent discussion about trades.
by Jay on Jul 25, 2010 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
If you want more food for thought, check this out.
Something else funny about this is that Blake is a particularly good example of what I’m talking about. Despite having traded Blake, the Indians were still very much in the hunt for his services. And despite having acquired Blake, the Dodgers couldn’t get him to re-sign without making the highest bid. Finally, It was marginal for the Indians even to offer Blake as much as they did.
Any one of those observations suggests powerfully that the will-we-re-sign-him question is irrelevant to the trade decision. Taken all together, it ought to be a no-brainer.
I read it and I don’t disagree with anything that you said there. I would only add that the further context of what happens on the field needs to be considered as it obviously matters in the direct monetary sense. Clearly Dolan is not willing to lose money on being a baseball fan, therefore we have to keep an eye on incoming revenue. Nothing contributes more towards that than wins and playoff appearances.
We can’t only look at costs, we must also look at revenues.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Clearly Dolan is not willing to lose money on being a baseball fan, therefore we have to keep an eye on incoming revenue.
Also untrue. Dolan has been willing to lose far more money than Jacobs or Steinbrenner ever did. Those guys constantly made profits; Dolan has absorbed ten-figure losses at least twice this decade, possibly four times, specifically because of payroll extravagances.
As for the revenue side, I agree with your main premise. The Indians pretty clearly have their expenditures aimed squarely at maximizing wins and playoff appearances, it just hasn’t gone that well lately.
I never said he hasn’t lost any money, I said he is not willing to lose money just to sit in his luxury box and watch quality baseball.
He spent 325 million for the team. I doubt he would get that back now. Given that Shapiro is Hart’s protege and yet has taken an approach somewhat different than his predecessor in its willingness to purge, without ever binging terribly, I have to assume that those orders were handed down to him from on high. To me this suggests an attempt to bring back a contender, thereby raising revenues, on the cheap have you, and thereby hopefully maximizing profit and return on investment. He might even try to sell high at that point.
The Dolan team could have chosen “Plan A”: the you have got to spend to win, hopefully the revenue will outpace the costs approach. But they chose “Plan B”: minimize costs so that any profit ends up being a larger return on minimized investment. Likely they chose this because of how much he paid to get in the game. The result though has been that 5 out of the last 10 seasons have been disappointing and the incoming revenue is now less than expected, requiring even more cost cutting. Blowing up the team twice in a decade seems too frequent to be following any other plan.
I can sympathize with Dolan. I am sitting on a house right now that I don’t want to sell at the going rate. I also don’t want to do any more home improvement on it, as that would dig the hole deeper. Lucky for me, it’s a house, not a baseball team…I can still live with(in) it.
Lucky for Dolan, that he had 325 million to spend on a baseball team in the first place, so my sympathy does have limits.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
I don’t think Shapiro’s approach is much different from Hart’s at all. Hart had a huge amount of praise for Shapiro’s moves (as did practically every other executive, hence the awards).
Hart never found himself in a position where he had to purge. When Dolan took ownership in 2000, the team probably should have been blown up already. Dolan, however, was “willing to lose money just to sit in his luxury box and watch quality baseball” — yes, exactly the thing you said he wasn’t. So as a result, he let Hart deficit spend on the 2001 club rather than rebuild.
Again … you really need to start focusing on the facts, rather than this little fantasy history of the team you seem to have constructed in your imagination.
Of course, that strategy was only going to work for so long, and the minute a tear-down was absolutely necessary, Hart turned the reins over to Shapiro. I’m not blaming Hart for this, mind you, I’m just saying that he never found himself in the position of having to rebuild.
Hart guided the team to great success, yes, but he also had the luxury of riding that success at a time when the rest of the AL Central was terrible and the Indians had among the highest revenues in the game. Hart never had to deal with a more challenging circumstance, and it’s likely he’d have pursued a similar course to Shapiro if he had.
This is my favorite post you’ve ever made.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 25, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
My Closing Argument
Sorry for the slow response. I had to write this in small bits over time as my wife is going to leave me if I keep ignoring her and my son to argue on the internet.
you act like when we’re trading a guy in his walk year, one of the main considerations is who’s going to replace that specific player. This isn’t a consideration at all
I willing to accept that this is not always the top priority, but not that it shouldn’t be considered at all. More or less so depending on the player, the position, and the replacement, but on-field performance depends on how well the replacement performs. TV contracts, season ticket sales etc. are locked in early, but the on-field performance of the team is the principle variable for revenue for the remainder of the season as well as next year’s season ticket sales. Every lost game has a consequence, obviously some more so than others, but they all count.
regardless of whether we trade him, he’s not coming back
You cannot possibly think that this is always true. You said yourself that we might get a traded guy back in free agency. Long-term guys have families, community ties, friends on the team etc. that they do consider. Yes the player’s association wants everyone in every case to take the highest bid, but players are people. Money is not the only factor. In most cases, unless there is something specifically wrong in the clubhouse, a matching offer will keep a guy. More importantly, we might not have to match the highest offer, which as you correctly point out, is often out of the reach of this team.
Anybody who’s worth bringing back is probably going to be more expensive than he used to be.
This is not usually true of guys over 30. Lots of guys can still contribute meaningfully in their declining years, especially if there is no one waiting to replace them. Many, obviously not all, of these people and their agents are willing to sign contracts for less than they made in their peak. Westbrook wants to stay, the team says they want him to stay, no way does he expect as much as he got in his last contract, no way will we offer him as much.
I agree that the worst case scenario of letting the deadline pass, getting nothing, watching the player walk and then having to go get someone at the market price needs to be avoided whenever possible. But you probably agree that there are cases in which this is more or less urgent, depending on the effect it has on winning percentage, and the availability and cost of replacement guys for next year.
Blake was a two-month contract. We traded that two-month contract for roughly an eight-year contract with Santana.
I want to be clear that I am pleased with the Blake/Santana trade. Thus far it has worked out quite well. I clearly recognize that Santana’s contract is much more favorable for the organization than Blake’s was. Also at the time, most observers, myself included, thought Marte was ready and needed a shot, so it would meet my "don’t trade ’em unless you can replace ’em concern. I am not sure I can consider it a “heist” given the amount of time required before positive on-field payoff, but all signs point to it being a very wise trade in the long run.
Therefore … when you insist on discussing who is coming back — and comparing him to the player we’re trading, who also is not coming back — there is a basic lack of reason at work.
However, I also recognize that Marte’s performance forced us to run out and get DeRosa for 5.5 million when Blake signed for 5 million the following year and might have even signed for less with us, especially had he not been traded. I don’t think losing Blake cost us too many victories that year, (the real damage, athletically and psychologically, was done when Sabathia was traded, which was probably unavoidable given that they couldn’t get Sabathia signed before the season started), but since DeRosa was also traded we have certainly had a net negative impact there (although it was at least for someone who has already contributed).
We traded that two-month contract for roughly an eight-year contract with Santana. That is the beginning, middle and end of the discussion.
Whether a trade makes sense to the intellectual fan or not, watching a team dispose of its highest regarded pieces, replace them with people who don’t perform, and tally up loss after loss, affects the box office and souvenir stand receipts. This money matters. It is what makes the team able to go out and pay market price or more for a free agent, or offer a contract to a younger guy that will keep him off of the market for a long time. You cannot tell me that a 10 win/loss swing earlier this season, and the additional revenue that would have entailed, would not have made the prospect of negotiating with Boras for Choo less intimidating.
Teams don’t trade players, they trade contracts.
Yes, teams trade contracts of players, but they do so not because those contracts have some value in and of themselves. They are not putting together a sticker book of contracts. They have value insofar as they make it more or less costly to put together a particular performance on the field as evidenced by the win-loss record, playoff appearances, and what have you. It wasn’t just a good set of contracts that allowed us to arguably be the best team in baseball during the 1990s, it was that the good performances of the players under those contracts begat more good performances, because during that time we had 455 straight sellouts, a huge TV contract, and merchandise flying off the shelves. All of this provided the money to keep the team winning, by being able to keep the talent pool deep.
when the question is liberated from your how-will-we-replace-this-guy fallacy, the answer becomes thuddingly obvious…if you can’t let go of this fallacy, you literally cannot have an intelligent discussion about trades
Shapiro made at least one great trade in the Colon deal, but the team went into the toilet. He is currently trying this approach again. Now, we are looking at setting a record for lowest attendance, and greatest amount of fan apathy since at least 1994. As a direct result, we find ourselves regretting existing contracts and unable to even consider finding players at market price.
I do not deny that after a 2 year wait, 6 years of low priced contracts for the performances we might get from a guy like Santana sure seem like they will be a bargain for what might have turned out to be only two months of Blake’s services. However, that is not the beginning, middle and end of the discussion, as what has already happened on the field, at the ticket gates, and in the souvenir shops, has impacted our ability to go out and get the pieces we would need, if our plan had been to compete immediately. As a result “Who is going to replace this guy?” does not amount to being a fallacious question.
I await a response from your 7 year old nephew.
The last part was a joke, if you are not at all convinced by anything that I said, then let’s push the “agree to disagree” button.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
I may or may not take the time to reply at length. Mainly I would say that the points you’re making about the effect of players on winning, winning on revenue, revenue on further winning … those points are at once self-evident and yet oddly beside the point.
If you really do the math on this, what you find out is that the Indians have lost some $60-70 million in revenue … because they failed to ante up for $250-$300 million in player contracts. That fundamental disconnect is the heart of the problem with the MLB system at this point.
So if you break down any one player’s part in that, the imbalance is still nutty. Obviously the loss of Casey Blake did not by itself cost us $17 million in revenue or even $7 million.
You make an interesting point about DeRosa, but it seems to prove my point more than yours. Of course we need to consider who is going to replace a player that we trade, but (1) if that player is in his walk year, we need to consider that in any event, (2) that current player is only one of many options to fill that role on the club, not to mention the team could try to get those runs back in some other area instead, and (3) none of these considerations — once again! — change based on the outcome of the trade-or-don’t-trade decision.
You took umbrage at my “Donuts!” reference, but this is it in a nutshell. Considering who will replace a guy, of course that is important. But it’s also a non sequitir. The decision to trade Casey Blake in 2008 is one topic. The decision about what to do in 2009 for third base is another topic, and one in which Casey Blake is only one factor of many, and the 2008 trade decision does not really affect the 2009 decision.
It seems like it does, but in the grown-up world where it’s contracts and not baseball cards, it really doesn’t.
Awooga Awooga
That is the sound of me pushing the “agree to disagree” button.
Surprisingly, it really sounds more like a Model T car horn than a boxing ring bell.
Also, I really kind of liked the “donuts” thing. What I sort of take umbrage at is the me not living in the grown-up world stuff.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
it seemed at least possible that the 2007 team could have been worked into a contender without a complete blowup and rebuild had the right decisions have been made.
No doubt. But it’s instructive to ask the question, which decisions exactly were wrong? It’s easy to sit back at a certain remove, in hindsight, and say that it should have been possible. It’s tougher to put yourself back in that moment, in the post-2007 offseason, and say what the Indians should have done differently or should have known better.
I have heaped criticism on the front office on a few fronts, most notably in the area of bullpen construction. Still, there’s no way any front office could have anticipated that Carmona, Westbrook and Adam Miller would combine for less than two marginal wins over all of 2008 and 2009 — just for one example.
How can you anticipate that and create depth for that contingency on a small-market payroll? You really can’t. Can you get better coaches and medical staff? Perhaps — and we explored those topics in depth here last September. (See “Fire Everyone!” in the sidebar links.) But it’s by no means clear.
I fear that constantly trading away everyone out of fear and forever waiting for Godot will give us a perpetual rebuild like that of the Royals
It is fascinating how the Shapiro front office is compared to the Royals — a front office that has never accomplished anything and has no defenders. Shapiro’s finest achievement in fact was an almost unnaturally fast rebuild, producing a team that went from the basement in 2003 to being maybe 4th in MLB in wins 2005-2007.
So Shapiro has done this before, successfully, and the Royals guys have never done anything. Is it not kind of insane to compare them, if not once, then incessantly, as some here do?
There are plenty of current GMs who have no real success on their resumes. Shapiro inarguably is not one of them.
Let me put it to you another way: We haven’t had an un-successful rebuild in 20 years. Since 1990, every time we have taken a step back in the hopes of taking a step forward a few years later, it has worked out pretty well. This dates back to Hank Peters, who begot Hart, who begot Shapiro, who begot Antonetti.
This primal fear of a 17-year rebuild, it comes from a time before Antonetti, before Shapiro, before Hart, before Peters. It’s time to let it go.
I read “Fire Everyone” last fall, and enjoyed it. The conscientious effort put into thinking through the issues is what has kept me reading along.
I’d love for the two of us to talk about what should have happened in 2007, but somehow I don’t think the Game 96 thread is the place to do it.
I have no trouble with giving Shapiro one in the win column for 2003 to 2007. I will also agree that since 1990 things have gone fairly well. Mostly though, this is because 93-02 was the best Cleveland baseball era in my lifetime.
The roller coaster ride worked once, but being triggerhappy with the rebuild button isn’t the route to filling seats. Maybe it is a little hyperbolic to compare it the Royals, but it just isn’t as pleasant as the Hart era. Worst case scenario it prevents us from ever repeating 93-02.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
So you think we should have tried to build a contender atop the massive failure of the 2009 club, rather than tearing down and infusing some new talent?
Seriously, that’s what you think?
Add back Cliff and Victor, subtract Masterson and Donald, and this team would have been a contender?
Well, actually… If you swap out Masterson’s stats from May 1 with Cliff’s, Cleveland adds 6 wins. Suppose Victor turns a couple of losses into wins before he gets hurt, and voila! 49-49, 4.5 GB. Contention!
The methodology is crude, but it does point out the complexity of what goes into those GM decisions. So you have Cliff and Victor, but only for the rest of 2010, with a .500 team that’s not out of it, but not exactly awe-inspiring. And the trade deadline coming up! Do you trade the two now, which would surely rip the heart out of any 2010 hopes? Or play out the season, and see at least Cliff walk, with only a draft pick in return?
by YoDaddyWags on Jul 25, 2010 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just realized you’re using “pitcher Wins,” and you know we can’t allow that. Masterson has 1.8 WAR, Lee has 4.3. The difference is 2.5.
No, I’m being even more basic: as I said, I just swapped out Masterson’s game-by-game lines for Cliff’s. Which turns an 8-4 loss to KC on May 19 into a 4-2 win; 7-6 Mets loss on 6/15 to a 6-3 win; 5-3 Pitt loss on 6/20 to a 3-0 win; a 6-4 Cincy loss on 6/26 to a 4-1 win. Then there are 4 games where Cliffy went into either the 8th or 9th innings and would have left a tie game; I’m supposing the Indians ultimately win 2 of those. So: 6 more wins.
Obviously crude, crude, crude! But in this little theoretical sample, no reason to think it couldn’t have happened thus: you would, after all, be swapping out a bottom rung starter for a guy arguably on pace for his 2nd Cy Young award.
This exercise was prompted by your dismissing the idea of this team contending just by hanging on to these two guys—an idea which at first sounded ludicrous to me, too.
If there is any value in this whimsy, it might be to remind us that competing in the AL Central is, unless you’re the Royals, hey, not so hard! And that maybe trading contracts that have another year+ on them might be not such a good idea.
Emphasis on if and might in the preceing two sentences.
by YoDaddyWags on Jul 26, 2010 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think that. To me, Sabathia was the lynch pin. Once that horse was out of the barn, there was a need for new talent. I just think that it ought to be possible to add talent without getting rid of everything that you have that is of value.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Cleveland.com? Really?
I’ll have you know I write like Cory Doctorow/Stephen King.
Yes, I have been lurking here for awhile.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Sorry, but I was at a loss to come up with a comp. I imagine you’ll be a great addition to our motley crew.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Thanks. I had to look up E5. If that is what it takes to qualify as a great addition, then it doesn’t seem like too high a hurdle to jump over.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
That was a low blow. E5 was the resident lunatic back in the day – the role I currently occupy. Actually it’s a rather high standard. E5 was so outta whack it’d be damn near impossible to duplicate
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I knew E5 and you’re no E5. I know this because.
by stuart dean on Jul 24, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Tribe was 11 under when Blake was traded, 12.5 GB. Without Blake, they finished up 36-25, despite Marte’s underwhelming performance. Blake might rack up about 2 WAR for the next four years, if he’s lucky; Santana’s got 2.2 WAR to show for his first 37 big league games.
That way if we have to wait 2 years or more, we aren’t constantly asking ourselves if the trade was worth it.
I’m sorry, but are there really Indians fans out there who have been asking themselves if the Blake-Santana was worth it? Because my seven-year-old nephew will be happy to explain it to them, and if that doesn’t work, my 14-month-old son can give it a shot.
by Jay on Jul 24, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’m glad to get a lot of immediate feedback. You have made the new guy feel noticed, if not welcomed.
On the basis of 37 games, I also feel the trade was way worth it. Santana was as close to a can’t miss as they come, and the team was clearly going no where when they traded Blake. A lot can happen in 2 years though, if we have to sit here through some guys’ Adam Miller like injury situation, while a Westbrook could have been held on to, we would probably start questioning the trade’s value pretty quickly.
More importantly, I just wonder how waiting 2 years for anything can still be a heist. Is it a heist if it is in slow motion?
I have been following the Tribe near religiously for 25 years, and would love as many can’t miss prospects in the organization as possible. Assuming that we are a Santana sized piece or two away from being a contender, but we have to wait 2 years or more to see any production at all and a year or two more for the gelling to take place that makes the magic work, we will have been in rebuilding mode for 6 years +/- a couple of months.
Call me impatient, and I don’t mean to quibble semantics, but I would see a heist as something that turned this group into possible division winners next year, and definite playoff participants by the year after at least. Otherwise some of the good pieces we have now are likely to have moved on.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Actually we need at least four Santana sized pieces. At least one corner outfielder, a thirdbaseman and a coupla pitchers. Might even need a Phillips/Kinsler/Cano type secondbase man.
Shapiro better get his gat and ski-mask out, cuz he’s gonna hafta pull off a couppla more of these deals if we’re gonna take down the Yankees.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I was thinking about 2nd as well, but I went with the Westbrook example because of the lack of a current veteran possibly being traded now. Also, Donald might turn out to be alright.
I imagine either Goedert or Chisenhall will work out.
If Choo dodges the draft, we should be fine there for a few years. Brantly = ?, and even if he works out, he is probably Grady’s replacement anyway. So I guess I could have used Kearns as an example, but I don’t think he has been solid long enough.
God, I hate the Yankees. Their fans never have to sit around and think this way.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
At the risk of being cocky, it does look like we have the position player pieces pretty well settled. Choo will be around through 2013, and Weglarz offers some hope beyond that. Third base is Chisenhall, whom the scouterazzi universally adore.
As for quality options at second base, we now have an embarrassment of riches. Donald looks like a credible major league starter, as does Phelps, as does Kipnis. It’s possible that all of this goes wrong, but it looks about as good as it can look for the moment.
I always told you guys, we don’t have to worry about the lineup. This organization knows how to amass a group of young, talented position players. We’ll probably figure out a rotation, too, but the bullpen is always going to be our bogeyman. You’d think Hart could explain how to Shapiro how the bullpen is done.
You are probably right about the bullpen. I would guess the problem with picking out good bullpen help is that so many of them come from starters who didn’t really pan out. I think that guys who show some promise on other teams are exactly the type of guys that you trade for.
Which brings me back to my original thought, only now in the context of a reliever. Was it worth getting rid of Betancourt for Connor Graham. I don’t know. We probably won’t know for years.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
You seem smart, but you really don’t get the basics of this, do you?
Betancourt was going to be a free agent anyway. We were not going to be the top bidder for his services.
Teams don’t trade players, they trade contracts with players.
And finally, you don’t pay a guy $6 million to be your best middle reliever when you don’t even expect to finish above .500.
Agree on basically everything here except me not getting the basics of this.
With guys like Betancourt and Westbrook who have been on the team a while, fulfill a role, and are getting a little long in the tooth, I think you have to weigh the risk that they might leave as a free agent against whether there is someone waiting to step in when they leave. I think you do pay a guy ~6 million if it means that we can do a partial rebuild and not fall completely out of contention and have a stabilizing, veteran influence in bullpen, rather than looking at empty seats because the team can’t hold a lead.
I don’t know Betancourt personally, but my guess is that since he had only been with one team his entire professional career, that you might be able to get him to stick around for slightly less than he would have received elsewhere.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
It’s not a “risk” that they will leave as a free agent. It’s a Certainty. And the front office operates on that certainty.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Jul 25, 2010 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
The certainty is that we do not have the player under contract beyond the current season. He may re-sign with us, and he may not, but that’s just a distraction.
evereye3, I’m going to keep repeating this until it sinks in. Teams do not trade players like baseball cards; teams trade contracts. Period. If you can’t get your head around that basic truth, then it literally will be impossible for you to discuss trades intelligently.
Right, I meant “become a free agent” rather than “leave” as a free agent, because of course we can technically resign the player to a free agent contract. That is usually not likely, but always possible. But in any case, we should trade such a player in a down year regardless of what team will sign him as a free agent.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Jul 25, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
I get it. At least I think I do.
What I don’t get is how that changes the issue that I am raising of the difference between say Westbrook’s contract and Hafner’s contract. Both are about to end. Hafner’s role on the team would be easy to replace with someone who has a favorable contract (indeed we could probably fill that spot in the line-up by rotating guys we already have), Westbrook’s would be less so. Prospects for Hafner – ok, prospects for Westbrook – not ok. That is my point.
Also I think the real threat with free agency is not that some useful role player that we have will leave, but that we would have to pay more than the going rate to replace said role player with a comparable talent. Agreed?
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Indians have Hafner under contract for 2011, at $13 million (cheap!) and 2012 for $13 million (a bargain!). Also an option to have him play here in 2013 for $13 million (what a steal!). They will probably, the cheapskates, choose the $2.75 million buyout then, however.
Why do you always say “hafta?”
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Jul 24, 2010 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
What’s a schoolmarm?
If I qualify as one, then yes, it’s working.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Jul 25, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Call me impatient, and I don’t mean to quibble semantics, but I would see a heist as something that turned this group into possible division winners next year, and definite playoff participants by the year after at least.
There are two main problems with this — that is, two problems other than the fact that you pulled it out of thin air with no basis for thinking it’s a sound standard.
The first problem is that a “heist” is a characterization of a single move, and no one move in baseball has the power to transform a team’s playoff chances. So it’s sort of a category error. No trade could ever be a heist by this definition, because no team ever acquires more than 2-3 major league players in a trade. The vast majority of trades involve exactly one major leaguer changing teams.
The second problem is that the Indians believe that when it comes to vets-for-prospects trades, the best overall value comes from mining talents at the Double-A level, or players who are dominating in A-ball. I think they’re right about this. It is simply too tough to pry loose from a team a talent who has already reached Triple-A, and far easier to pry loose a player in Double-A. You can think of this as a perceptual inefficiency; a team is likelier to overvalue a prospect in Triple-A and undervalue the same guy in Double-A.
You might even be able to get two of the Double-A guys easier than you could get one of the Triple-A guys. Same talent, one year further removed, so you tell me, which is more of a heist?
Speaking of stealing undervalued AA talent Trayvon Robinson looks like exactly the type of player we’d target and exactly the type of player the Dodgers might undervalue considering their outfield depth.
Man, I REALLY want to trade with the Dodgers. Can you tell?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 24, 2010 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I appreciate it when people over think things, because I often do the same thing, but I don’t see the point of trotting out category errors and what not.
Simply put, what I would take to be a heist is a trade so one-sidedly good for us that we give up virtually nothing, and add a couple of guys that would turn out to be crucial to competing within a year or two.
If your other posts are correct, and we are pretty well solid enough on the position players for the next few years and at least a couple of the top starting prospects turn out to be reliable rotation guys, then it would seem like a trade or two that netted us some fairly immediate bullpen help for the likes of Peralta, Hafner, and/or Wood could be considered a heist, no?
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
You seem to be confusing “over-thinking” with “thinking.”
When you give up a guy two months from free agency, you are, by definition, giving up very little, something close to “virtually nothing.”
The point of trotting out category errors is to explain why your point doesn’t make the least bit of sense. When someone asks, “Should we bunt in this situation?” the right answer isn’t “Donuts!” And so forth.
So what’s it going to be, evereye3? Are you going to be one of those pretty smart guys who gets angry that there are other smart people who know a lot more about certain things? Or are you going to take some time to get a little wise to at least the basics of how to build a baseball team? I’ve seen it go both ways.
I feel like I am rushing a fraternity or something. But having read most of what goes on here for about 18 months before finally taking the plunge and posting something, I suppose I had better not slink away now.
We Cleveland fans have gotten so used to losing big name guys, that we just assume that we will lose everybody who becomes a free agent. You are certainly giving up something to dispatch a productive player, whose services you would probably not need to overbid for, when there is no obvious, ready replacement for them. Westbrook to me would fit this category, whereas Hafner, Wood, and Peralta would be giving up virtually nothing (because they are easily replaced and despite the fact that they probably won’t command a huge price).
I am well aware of what a category error is. My BA was in Philosophy. Nothing that I have said is akin to donuts. I just assumed that we were all on roughly the same page as to what a “heist” was and further travel down that road was not going to get us anywhere. I stand by my assertion that if by trading the guys listed above we were to get the kind of bullpen help we need to be in the hunt for a division title next year and an AL Pennant the following one, we will have successfully pulled off a heist. While trading Westbrook and getting someone who won’t do us any good for at least 2 years, while we have to sit through 2-3 bad starts every rotation in the meantime, would not qualify as a heist.
Thanks for putting me in the pretty smart category, coming from an fellow over-thinker like yourself, I consider it a compliment. I only decided to join in here because there are other smart people around that I can learn a few things from, but I am looking for more than just the basics, as I am reasonably confident I have those down. So, to answer your ultimatum, I choose the latter.
Thank you sir. May I have another?
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Even if you think they will miraculously sign these players in free agency afterwards, doesn’t it still make the most sense to try to get value out of them in the meantime when not having the player won’t matter for 2 more months of a losing season, and a prospect can be acquired for their services? This is irregardless of what team signs the player in free agency after the season ends. (Which won’t be us anyway)…
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Jul 25, 2010 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
I hope that I am following your logic.
If we are certain that a player is not going to be back next year, if for no other reason that we wouldn’t want to re-sign him anyway, say Peralta, then yes by all means, let’s get a prospect or two out of him. We have a couple of guys waiting in the wings that need some at bats eventually, and Marte who will do until one of those guys is ready. This change can’t amount to more than a handful of games lost that would have been won otherwise in the worst case scenario, especially with the season winding down.
On the other hand, if we are talking about a guy like Westbrook, who would have value through the rest of the season, (perhaps every fifth day win or lose value), who would still be worth having around for another year or two on a team that might contend (in the same way Byrd was worth having around), and the only risk is that he might not accept the offer we give him making us have to overpay to get someone of similar stature, then I say no, trading him for prospects is not worth it.
The real issue is how likely a player being replaced is to cause a decline in walk-up ticket and merchandise sales. Season tickets have already been paid for, but fewer discretionary butts in seats would only make paying for that external free agent that much more of a burden.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
“If we are certain that a player is not going to be back next year, if for no other reason that we wouldn’t want to re-sign him anyway,”
No, actually, it is irrelevant whether or not the player will be back. Even if they are willing to resign the player, the chances of doing so are not impacted by trading him two to three months beforehand. The player is certain to become a free agent. When a player becomes a free agent, every team has equal chances of signing him (finances aside). That chance does not change if a team rented said player to a contender for a few months the year before in order to receive value in return and/or save money.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Jul 26, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Call me crazy, but I think it does. Obviously, not every guy is Mauer. However, if I have a home, friends etc. in one place, then I don’t want to move. If you were to uproot me for a 2 to 6 month stint someplace else, I start to figure out that it might be easy to live elsewhere.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
I also don’t understand what you mean about Westbrook having “value” for the rest of the season. Value to do what? Sabotage the position of our draft pick by improving our losing record by a couple of games? The 2010 season is already over. Jake Westbrook will not make the difference between us making the playoffs and not doing so.
If you’re speaking about ticket sales and attendance, people do not show up for a terrible Indians team with or without Jake Westbrook. It seems they barely show up even for a competitive team.
Westbrook’s contract ends. That happens regardless of whether Jake is traded, held onto, given a pat on the back, etc. Having him around a couple more years or not has nothing to do with what happens in July and August/Sept 2010.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Jul 26, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think that we are going to lose much value in a draft pick by falling from 5 to 10, maybe from 1 to 10, but half these guys go nowhere anyway.
The value I perceive is that of replacing Westbrook with Huff. We get a few more wins, people are a little more optimistic about next year. We sell a lot more tickets. We have more money to spend on someone we need, maybe we are even less afraid to draft a guy that is demanding too high of a signing bonus.
Every pessimist thinks himself a realist. In the case of Cleveland sports fans, they are probably right.
Why do you always hafta say “irregardless”?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jul 25, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think I only said it once. (I hope).
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Jul 26, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Great to see Jeanmar flash his big league abilities against Pawtucket: 8 IP, 6 H, 1 R, 0 BB, 7 K. Though Stowell had an awful appearance.
That debut must have done wonders for his confidence! Go Jennmar!
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Jul 24, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Crowe, in his last 10 games batting .382. 13 for 34, 6 RBIs. Just sayin’
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
TRADE VALUE!
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 24, 2010 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t the dodgers need another outfielder?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 24, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but Crowe doesn’t make enough money to be seen as an upgrade by Colletti. He’s looking for a guy making $5 million or more.
Yeah, how’s he gonna have someone eat a salary that doesn’t exist?
Must not be here for baseball either. Because that isn't what we're playing.
By this standard, then, would giving Kearns a big undeserved raise make him more a more compelling trade candidate?
by MTF on Jul 24, 2010 4:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
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
- Padres just scratch their heads as losing streak reaches 10
- The Juice: Marlins get off the deck, stun Braves in extras
- Papelbon's implosion, comment, make Red Sox want to scream
- Rangers fall after Young gets touchy feely with third base coach
- Tony La Russa vs. Colby Rasmus: Who ya throwing overboard?
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
