Can we lift the swearing ban for the day?  CC has really broken my heart with this.

Like I said before, $20M per year is just too damn much money for anyone on the Tribe's payroll - and CC will get every nickel of that as a free agent.  But it's not too much for half a dozen other ML teams. Here's all you really need to know.  Cleveland's the 24th largest market in America and shrinking.  There's no way in hell the Indians can generate the same revenue as the top five metro areas.  Simple economics.

Like Michael Corleone usta say,"it's just business".

Unfortunately, the Santana trade screwed things up on a second front as well, setting a poor precedent for what the Tribe would get back in a trade (not Hughes).  That really bothers me and was my biggest fear once NY and Boston took their initial offers off the table for Santana.  

It's not that the front office moved too late in negotiations (I think they did as much as possible, both in terms of the contract and the timing), but I think the Santana trade may have thrown a wrench in their plans.    

Before Santana, I would have traded Sabathia, but now I say hold on to him and go for it in 2008.

If it's simple economics, as many of you say, then C.C.'s decision is not reprehensible. I know I will always be rooting for him.

CC's value rises as he continues to stay healthy.  He made it through 2007 without injury, so his asking price goes up.  If he gets injured in '08, he will not get $20M.  It does not mean the Tribe will still be able to afford him (our top offer will go down, just like with every other team).  So, CC might get $15M on the open market (while the Tribe would only offer $12M), but that's the risk CC is taking.

I don't want to lose CC either, but the Indians pitching is still decent without him (and might be better than that if the younger guys -- Miller, Sowers, Laffey -- develop as we had hoped they would.

I think this is the best reason to trade CC.  2009 comes around and obviously our rotation is significantly worse.  The question is if we have enough internal talent to replace Sabathia+Byrd and I don't believe we do.  I will grant that Sowers, Lee, Laffey and Miller (I'd also probably add Lofgren) could replace some, or most, of the production but I am skeptical about depending on that to replace production.

I would assume we're not going to be playing in a free agent market where all prices will be inflated thanks to the big man so we're probably running out there what we've got on hand organizationally.  Therefore, the best way to increase our odds of replacing his production is to use his value to bring in cheap, productive talent that increases our odds of replacing his value.

A year ago we had:  Sabathia, Westbrook, Lee, Sowers, Byrd, Carmona, Miller

And people felt pretty damned good about it, and national analysts said the rotation was underrated and damned good and really deep -- not having any idea how good Carmona really could be.

A year from now, it could be:  Carmona, Westbrook, Lee, Sowers, Miller, Laffey, Lofgren

And depending on whether some of those guys bounce back, we rightly could feel pretty damned good about that rotation.

It's not happening, but it may be the likeliest way that he could stay.

Besides, I think you have to keep CC on the team for this year because we have a completely legit shot of winning the World Series.  If we won a World Series, I'd be okay with the team devolving the way the White Sox have, for crying out loud.  But we wouldn't -- CC would be the only core player we'd lose.  It'd be a tough loss, but not one that would be insurmountable.

I guess it's a risk/reward analysis.  Watching the Tribe win the World Series is worth a lot of risks in my mind, and CC this year makes that a lot more likely than it would be without him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Combined_Statistical_Areas

Yes.

It seems like this is all we can afford and all we are willing to spend on.

Willing to spend, or can spend?  The Indians barely broke even last season, while the Yankees made well over $50 million in real profits.  That is not a problem of "willingness," it's a problem with the system.  There is no owner in baseball -- none -- who has been willing to tolerate sustained losses of tens of millions of dollars in order to contend.

We havent brought in a significant free agent in this decade.

And yet we had the best record in baseball last year, and we got to 93-plus wins two years out of three.  What is your point?

We have acquired significant talent.  Free agent talent is the most expensive and least effective kind.  And by the way, Westbrook is not average.

what are we cheering for...CC to be traded for a young pitcher who becomes as good as CC and then walks also because we dont have the money for him?  Or do we trade for average talent so we can keep them for 10 years

I think you're losing count of the years.  We'll have had eight years of C.C., and we've got Grady locked up for his first eight years plus.  Yes, that is all we're going to get in most cases.  Eight years is a long time for any player to be with any team, so let's not act like it's a really short tenure.

My point being, we can have superior talent for 6-8 years, and that's pretty damned good -- and it's a lot better than the leftovers other teams get.  Did we not get the best part of Belle's career, Thome's career, even Manny's career?  Of course we did.  That's how it works.

Westbrooke's $33 million contract is the second-richest ever by the Indians, surpassed only a few months later by Hafner's $57 million.  I believe the Indians were willing to go to $80 million for Sabathia, so they essentially agree with your statement, "they do need to spend on guys like this."

But there are limits.  Do you really think they should spend $120 million to keep Sabathia?

I don't think your negativity is rational.

The truth is that only four or five big-$$$$$$ teams such as the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. are capable of retaining a significant number of their superstars once they are eligible for free agency.  

When Yankees fans point to their "home-grown" guys like Captain Choke, Rivera, and Posada to try to persuade people they haven't bought their team, it actually proves that they have, because if any of those guys had come up with a poor team, let's say the Royals, they'd be long gone by now.

Many teams can retain 1 or 2 potential superstars and they have to make the absolute right call or they'll pay for years.  Do you think the A's would have liked right about now to have kept Miguel Tejada and let Eric Chavez walk?  And how about the last few years of Mike Sweeney with the Royals?

The Tribe is at least innovative enough to extend the period before that first big free agency check from 6 to 7 or 8 years by buying out a couple years of potential free agency at a bargain price.   Many teams are unable to do even that and get only 5 or 5.5 years out of their potential superstars.

You can say that the Indians are cheap if you want.  It does put you in a class with the Triv-listening blame Dolan first crowd.  It is more realistic to say that the Tribe is in touch with the economic realities of the game that the vast majority of teams operate, and while they've identified strategies to mitigate some of the pain while they work within those constraints, they cannot function as if those constraints don't exist.

C.C. thinks he'll get his 6 to 7 years guaranteed based on Zito and Santana while the Indians (based on the success, or lack thereof of contracts that long) rightly balked on guaranteeing the 6th year.

I had surmised that anything past a 4-year, $89M extension (which gives him 5 years of $20M per and was probably a stretch in terms of dollars) was foolish for the Tribe to do.

Knowing that C.C. WILL get more than that from someone after 2008, I don't think anyone's surprised.
Disappointed?  Probably in that Sabathia will exercise his right to test the market that surely won't include the Indians' offer, but not surprised.

www.dictionary.com......u-n-i-l-a-t-e-r-a-l-l-y.

cc:  "Huh?"

You are looking for a "strike while the iron is hot" type of deal? What do you think holding on to a Cy Young caliber pitcher for 1 year is? Shapiro could easily get more talent that we will in the draft (especially considering Shapiro's drafting skills), but he won't to that.

Shapiro is in WIN NOW mode. He will not mortgage the future to do it with bad contracts, but he will surely hold on to a Cy Young winning ace on a 1 year below market deal. He would have to get blown away to let go of CC and for good reason. We are going to be an excellent team in 2008 and have as good a chance as anyone to win it all.

"a smear campaign to make CC look like the bad guy"

"Why put the guy in a bind like this and force him to reject your pathetic offer."

"Now is the time to start rebuilding for the future"

"especially since Shapiro does not seem to draft particularly well."

Edgar, none of these things are true and you can't prove any of them.  Please refrain from blatantly mischaracterizing the work of our Front Office and our current level of talent.  The Cleveland Indians won as many games as your favorite team last year and they are well-positioned to do the same this year.

Your boyz just barely got by us last year - and we're gonna be even stronger this year - with no change in the line-up whatsoever.  I'm looking forward to slapping those whiney bitches from Boston around this year - almost as much as beating the crap outta those douche nozzles from New Yawk.