RSS Twitter Facebook YouTube
Expand Menu

Hindsight on the Indian trades

Talk about the Cleveland Indians, Major League Baseball, and other sports.

Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby indianinkslinger » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:07 pm

As we get ready to embark on the 2009 season, I thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at the trades beginning last July, many of which were controversial on this site.

Let's begin with big trade of CC, a 1st round supplemental and 2nd round pick in the 2009 draft for Matt LaPorta, a PTBNL which turned out to be Michael Brantley, a former 1st round pick Zach Jackson and a young, high upside reliever, Rob Bryson. Certainly, if this trade were for a year or more of CC, then it might be questionable. But it was only for 3 months of CC and the Indians had no hope to re-sign CC. So we start at the "throw-ins" Jackson and Bryson. Jackson looks to be a marginal ML pitcher who figures to be a #5/long reliever type pitcher for several years. My personal judgment is that he is a helpful addition in the short term but hardly justification for the trade. Bryson came to us with lots of projection but promptly had a serious arm injury. Although his recovery is going well, there is no guarantee. I don't fault the choice, just the fortune. His value is now unknown! Now, we have the cruxt of the transaction. Are the Indians better off with LaPorta and Brantley versus the draft picks? We will never know for sure but I consider the likelihood that the two draft choices will be as good as LaPorta/Brantley to be quite small. When you further consider ML readiness, it is even more unlikely. Brantley is the key. Until I watched him in ST, I did not realize how much our posters had been "BA'd". The mistake was reading their crap and thinking it had substance. Brantley is not a slap hitter! He is not weak defensively and has at least an average arm. He has incredible bat speed and pitch recognition/plate discipline. He has gap power and is capable of turning on the ball. He is damn close to 80 on speed but has to learn to be a great base stealer. He may become Sizemore Jr but both Art and I feel it more likely he will be 10-15 HRs in the bigs. But I don't know what he will become! So gifted he can take his talent in many directions. I do know this! He is a CF who is unlikely to play that position in Cleveland. He could be a 4th OF even with his skills.

Two months of Blake for Santana and Meloan. Two players who have the potential to be the best catcher in Cleveland history and a closer or top late inning reliever. Tough choice tribe fans. Let's move on!

Byrd for Bay! Salary dump who is out of baseball for a AA organizational player. Advantage Cleveland.

Smith and Valbuena for Frankie G. This could be close if Gutz ever lives up to hs offensive potential but i think Cleveland gets high marks for replacing a position of strength with two needed players.

Atkins for Stevens, Gaub and Archer. Although we let some talent go who we may wish we had in the future, DeRosa has certainly been as advertised and a comparative bargain. The full impact cannot be measured right now but only Gaub really bothers me.

All in all, it is easy to criticise deals that did not happen but the deals that did occur look pretty decent when it comes to achieving tribe objectives. It is a simple proposition to say we should have gotten more for any of the traded players but the reality is pretty good. Maybe no prospect turns out to be worth anything and the players that moved on become increasingly valuable but this does not look like too bad a haul in this writer's opinion. :s_drinks
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby artgold » Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:34 pm

Can't disagree with anything you stated, but I'm always a little careful with the sentiment. I recall when I was posting on another popular baseball message board that the posters were downright giddy with the Milton Bradley for Franklin Gutierrez and Andrew Brown deal. They were saying that Gut might be the second coming of Juan Gonzalez, and that Brown might be a #2 or #3 starting pitcher.

At that time, those projections were a bit optimistic but not totally unreasonable. Gut had a great Florida State year in 2003, and added some confirmation with his performance in the Southern League the last few weeks of the season. Considering he was only 20 at the time, and how tough the Florida League is on batting, there was reason to be a bit hopeful. Similarly, Brown had a great start to his career in 2001 and 2002, and the month the Indians had to look him over at the start of 2004 (40 innings with 58 K's in the Southern League) seemed to validate that his injury problems causing him to miss 2003 were over.

Not trying to thrown cold water over your observations, at this moment they appear pretty valid. Just trying to add some historical perspective on how these sometimes turn out.

To me, the best thing these deals really did was add redundant talent to our mix, allowing for the disappointment in some prospects to not necessarily tank the team.
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby indianinkslinger » Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:06 am

artgold wrote:Can't disagree with anything you stated, but I'm always a little careful with the sentiment. I recall when I was posting on another popular baseball message board that the posters were downright giddy with the Milton Bradley for Franklin Gutierrez and Andrew Brown deal. They were saying that Gut might be the second coming of Juan Gonzalez, and that Brown might be a #2 or #3 starting pitcher.

At that time, those projections were a bit optimistic but not totally unreasonable. Gut had a great Florida State year in 2003, and added some confirmation with his performance in the Southern League the last few weeks of the season. Considering he was only 20 at the time, and how tough the Florida League is on batting, there was reason to be a bit hopeful. Similarly, Brown had a great start to his career in 2001 and 2002, and the month the Indians had to look him over at the start of 2004 (40 innings with 58 K's in the Southern League) seemed to validate that his injury problems causing him to miss 2003 were over.

Not trying to thrown cold water over your observations, at this moment they appear pretty valid. Just trying to add some historical perspective on how these sometimes turn out.


To me, the best thing these deals really did was add redundant talent to our mix, allowing for the disappointment in some prospects to not necessarily tank the team.



Duly noted! Time wounds all heels!
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:30 am

Good summary......just curious.....did you intentionally mess up some of those names? Atkins? Bay?


Should include that we paid all of Blake's salary.....but we still have made out in that deal. Would have gotten a draft pick for him too as he was a Type B free agent.....but Santana for an aging vet that we didn't really want the next year is a great deal. meloan was just icing on the cake, and I think he can have a year like raffy perez did for us in 2007 this year. I'm very high on this kid.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby indianinkslinger » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:17 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Good summary......just curious.....did you intentionally mess up some of those names? Atkins? Bay?


Should include that we paid all of Blake's salary.....but we still have made out in that deal. Would have gotten a draft pick for him too as he was a Type B free agent.....but Santana for an aging vet that we didn't really want the next year is a great deal. meloan was just icing on the cake, and I think he can have a year like raffy perez did for us in 2007 this year. I'm very high on this kid.

Afraid it is a case of late night brain farts! Who knew senility would show itself this quickly? Help me Art!

I think I mentioned that I talked with Meloan's fiance while he pitched. She said they were working on a few things regarding his movement to the plate. The change was interesting since his delivery was less violent. :s_blush
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby artgold » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm

Inky, Byrd's return doesn't matter, "player to be named later" is all we need to know. Mickey Hall isn't going to be a major leaguer, no chance. He has an overall BA of .239 in five full minor league seasons, with modest power. He didn't even look that good in batting practice.

Not to be a bit of a trouble maker here, but one of the things I found really interesting in your discussion with Meloan's fiance, and Tony's write up about players acquired by the Indians, is the contrast in the communication processes that appear to exist internally. Take a look at the article Tony wrote about McBride, and how little they communicate in advance with him about his fielding position changes.

Looking at this from a management perspective, it appears that the Indians have more comprehensive discussions with recently acquired players than the players who have been in the system.
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby dnosco » Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:21 am

indianinkslinger wrote:As we get ready to embark on the 2009 season, I thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at the trades beginning last July, many of which were controversial on this site.

Let's begin with big trade of CC, a 1st round supplemental and 2nd round pick in the 2009 draft for Matt LaPorta, a PTBNL which turned out to be Michael Brantley, a former 1st round pick Zach Jackson and a young, high upside reliever, Rob Bryson. Certainly, if this trade were for a year or more of CC, then it might be questionable. But it was only for 3 months of CC and the Indians had no hope to re-sign CC. So we start at the "throw-ins" Jackson and Bryson. Jackson looks to be a marginal ML pitcher who figures to be a #5/long reliever type pitcher for several years. My personal judgment is that he is a helpful addition in the short term but hardly justification for the trade. Bryson came to us with lots of projection but promptly had a serious arm injury. Although his recovery is going well, there is no guarantee. I don't fault the choice, just the fortune. His value is now unknown! Now, we have the cruxt of the transaction. Are the Indians better off with LaPorta and Brantley versus the draft picks? We will never know for sure but I consider the likelihood that the two draft choices will be as good as LaPorta/Brantley to be quite small. When you further consider ML readiness, it is even more unlikely. Brantley is the key. Until I watched him in ST, I did not realize how much our posters had been "BA'd". The mistake was reading their crap and thinking it had substance. Brantley is not a slap hitter! He is not weak defensively and has at least an average arm. He has incredible bat speed and pitch recognition/plate discipline. He has gap power and is capable of turning on the ball. He is damn close to 80 on speed but has to learn to be a great base stealer. He may become Sizemore Jr but both Art and I feel it more likely he will be 10-15 HRs in the bigs. But I don't know what he will become! So gifted he can take his talent in many directions. I do know this! He is a CF who is unlikely to play that position in Cleveland. He could be a 4th OF even with his skills.

Two months of Blake for Santana and Meloan. Two players who have the potential to be the best catcher in Cleveland history and a closer or top late inning reliever. Tough choice tribe fans. Let's move on!

Byrd for Bay! Salary dump who is out of baseball for a AA organizational player. Advantage Cleveland.

Smith and Valbuena for Frankie G. This could be close if Gutz ever lives up to hs offensive potential but i think Cleveland gets high marks for replacing a position of strength with two needed players.

Atkins for Stevens, Gaub and Archer. Although we let some talent go who we may wish we had in the future, DeRosa has certainly been as advertised and a comparative bargain. The full impact cannot be measured right now but only Gaub really bothers me.

All in all, it is easy to criticise deals that did not happen but the deals that did occur look pretty decent when it comes to achieving tribe objectives. It is a simple proposition to say we should have gotten more for any of the traded players but the reality is pretty good. Maybe no prospect turns out to be worth anything and the players that moved on become increasingly valuable but this does not look like too bad a haul in this writer's opinion. :s_drinks


1. At the time it was almost a sure first round pick and supplemental pick (which would have been higher for the Indians than it is for the Brewers, BTW). It had to be a perfect storm for it to be a second rounder and, at the time, no one could have predicted that perfect storm. You overrate Jackson for the purposes of your argument. Bryson was a low class A reliever. I have already documented that low class A relievers hardly ever make the majors, let alone contribute. Frankly, I would rather have LaPorta and Brantley rather than the draft picks but that is not the issue. It was a July trade and people give up a lot in July trades when they are 'going for it'. The Indians should have done better. Period. The fact that you took so many words to justify the trade says it all. We should have held out and would have gotten LaPorta and Gamel if we would have thrown in someone like Stevens.

2. The Dodgers' GM has to be an idiot. If Santana is really this good, they traded him and Meloan, a serviceable setup man, for two months of Casey Blake and the potential of two draft picks. That is overpaying but, even more, it shows that what we got for Sabathia, in a July trading market, was substandard. Not substandard for 3 months of CC, substandard for what a Cy Young pitcher should bring on the open market at trade deadline time. Nevertheless, the Blake trade is a steal even if, as in your whole post, you continue to overrate players (Meloan in this case and Santana, in your ridiculous comment about maybe being the best catcher in Cleveland history) just to make your point.

3. DeRosa (not Atkins) - great trade, if even for just one year. Limited potential for one year of solid ML service. On a contending team, I take that any time. In fact, that would have been a reasonable trade for two months of DeRosa, IMHO.

4. Gutz trade - Good trade. I am betting on him not progressing. That being said, did we need a ROOGY in the bullpen? Probably not. Still, a good haul just not, IMHO, the right haul.

5. It is Hall for Byrd. The fact that Byrd is out of baseball is irrelevant, actually. It was a good trade because it was tied to signing draft picks. I don't think those two SHOULD be connected in any organization but for those who want to justify it that way, I see the point. Still, anyone who thinks that selling players is EVER a good thing really needs to rethink that logic.

Look, you can make your points without exagerating, in some cases beyond belief. The trades all look like they may produce tangible assets. The big question is, especially with the CC trade and, to a lesser extent, the Gutz trade, did they produce the best assets or the most needed assets they could have.

As an FYI, right now would you rather have James McDonald of the Dodgers (and maybe one other pitcher) instead of LaPorta and Brantley. While I like LaPorta I would really have to think about that as McDonald is a ML-ready hard throwing starting pitcher and LaPorta is probably a DH in waiting, given our 1B situation here. Brantley continues, despite his physical size, to prove he is a slap hitter and that his BB will drop and his Ks will increase if he tries to be anything else.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby indianinkslinger » Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:39 am

artgold wrote:Inky, Byrd's return doesn't matter, "player to be named later" is all we need to know. Mickey Hall isn't going to be a major leaguer, no chance. He has an overall BA of .239 in five full minor league seasons, with modest power. He didn't even look that good in batting practice.

Not to be a bit of a trouble maker here, but one of the things I found really interesting in your discussion with Meloan's fiance, and Tony's write up about players acquired by the Indians, is the contrast in the communication processes that appear to exist internally. Take a look at the article Tony wrote about McBride, and how little they communicate in advance with him about his fielding position changes.
Looking at this from a management perspective, it appears that the Indians have more comprehensive discussions with recently acquired players than the players who have been in the system.

Noticed that myself, Art. I chalked it up as an aberration but it might be more than that.

There is an even bigger screw-up on my part. I inadvertently omitted the most one sided trade of all. When it comes to something for nothing, it is hard to beat the acquisition of Reyes. Yeah, he has injury issues and is out of options but it is clear he was mishandled by the Cards. He has been far more value already than our throwaway. He may help this year, or not, but to get an ML starter for free should have been posted. There was an article in the local rag where Towers said that his biggest regret was not upping the Indians offer on Reyes because he thought Reyes was a great risk.

The real sad thing about Hall is that he may be better than any Akron OF not named Weglarz. You're right, though. My subconscious even had his name wrong! :s_blush
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby Hermie13 » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:11 am

dnosco wrote:1. At the time it was almost a sure first round pick and supplemental pick (which would have been higher for the Indians than it is for the Brewers, BTW). It had to be a perfect storm for it to be a second rounder and, at the time, no one could have predicted that perfect storm. You overrate Jackson for the purposes of your argument. Bryson was a low class A reliever. I have already documented that low class A relievers hardly ever make the majors, let alone contribute. Frankly, I would rather have LaPorta and Brantley rather than the draft picks but that is not the issue. It was a July trade and people give up a lot in July trades when they are 'going for it'. The Indians should have done better. Period. The fact that you took so many words to justify the trade says it all. We should have held out and would have gotten LaPorta and Gamel if we would have thrown in someone like Stevens.

2. The Dodgers' GM has to be an idiot. If Santana is really this good, they traded him and Meloan, a serviceable setup man, for two months of Casey Blake and the potential of two draft picks. That is overpaying but, even more, it shows that what we got for Sabathia, in a July trading market, was substandard. Not substandard for 3 months of CC, substandard for what a Cy Young pitcher should bring on the open market at trade deadline time. Nevertheless, the Blake trade is a steal even if, as in your whole post, you continue to overrate players (Meloan in this case and Santana, in your ridiculous comment about maybe being the best catcher in Cleveland history) just to make your point.

3. DeRosa (not Atkins) - great trade, if even for just one year. Limited potential for one year of solid ML service. On a contending team, I take that any time. In fact, that would have been a reasonable trade for two months of DeRosa, IMHO.

4. Gutz trade - Good trade. I am betting on him not progressing. That being said, did we need a ROOGY in the bullpen? Probably not. Still, a good haul just not, IMHO, the right haul.

5. It is Hall for Byrd. The fact that Byrd is out of baseball is irrelevant, actually. It was a good trade because it was tied to signing draft picks. I don't think those two SHOULD be connected in any organization but for those who want to justify it that way, I see the point. Still, anyone who thinks that selling players is EVER a good thing really needs to rethink that logic.

Look, you can make your points without exagerating, in some cases beyond belief. The trades all look like they may produce tangible assets. The big question is, especially with the CC trade and, to a lesser extent, the Gutz trade, did they produce the best assets or the most needed assets they could have.

As an FYI, right now would you rather have James McDonald of the Dodgers (and maybe one other pitcher) instead of LaPorta and Brantley. While I like LaPorta I would really have to think about that as McDonald is a ML-ready hard throwing starting pitcher and LaPorta is probably a DH in waiting, given our 1B situation here. Brantley continues, despite his physical size, to prove he is a slap hitter and that his BB will drop and his Ks will increase if he tries to be anything else.


1. The Indians could NOT have done better, period. You can continue to say we shold have gotten Gamel (who makes Hodges look like a gold glove 3B) and LaPorta all you want but that was NEVER going to happen. There wasn't a better offer on the table and really only 3 teams that were ever seriously in any talks for CC (Phillies, Dodgers, and Brewers). The Phillies didn't have the big bat to offer and were refusing to part with Carrasco. Without him, no deal made sense or could come close to what we got from the Brewers, period. The Dodgers? They had the pieces to get a deal done....but Santana would have been included in a CC deal.....but what else? Maybe McDonald, Meloan, and another prospect.

And what if we'd have waited til the deadline to make the deal? You always assume we'd have gotten more...I totally disagree. I think we'd have been absolutely screwed had we. The Brewers likely would have backed out....leaving only the Phillies and Dodgers. Again, the Phillies didn't really have what we wanted/needed other than Carrasco and there's still no guarantee that we'd get him. And the Dodgers? We may have been stuck with CC as they turned there attention to Manny (which was a bigger need than pitching) and got him for almost nothing. They wouldn't have shelled out big time prospects for CC, Blake, and Manny in a matter of 3 days.

no, the Tribe made the best deal possible. You can argue that we didn't get enough, but it was pretty much this or keep him, which could have been done. I also think Bryson is getting a bit too much of a bad rap here. He did start a few games in A-ball. He was moved to the pen each year cause coaches and scouts realized that's where his stuff would play out best. You always complain that the Indians leave guys at positions that they won't play at the ML level and wait too long to move them.......yet now when they move a guy to the pen it means that he can't make the MLs? Bryson was a top 10 prospect by BP in the Brewers organization last year, and several people thought he'd be the 'Neftali Perez' of the deal. Reports are he's coming back pretty strong from his injury. Had he not been hurt (which at the time of the deal he wasn't) he'd be in Kinston now and likely AA by season's end. He would have been just behind Meloan as far as righty relievers (and Miller I guess since he's there now).

The fact that you took so many words (and posts) to knock this deal says it all....


2. Well....he did give Andruw Jones and Juan Pierre those big deals, lol. But that said, just becuase this deal looks great doesn't make the CC deal any less so. I agree about the Santana comment though, even hinting that he may be the best catcher in Indians history is a bit much...

3. Yeah I still am a bit baffled by why the Cubs made this deal. I figured it was to clear money to get Peavy.....but that hasn't happened. I guess it did allow them to get Milton Bradley....but I still wonder how good he'll do in the OF for a full season this year. In any case, great move by the Tribe. I liked Stevens.....but he wasn't really 'all' that special.

4. The answer to that question is a YES. With Betancourt a bit of a mystery still (and an impending free agent), we really could use a ML caliber righty, even if he's a ROOGY (which with Wedge he likely won't be but that's another story). I actually think Smith is now our 2nd best right handed reliever on the team behind only Wood. I was a bit sad to see Gut go, and I fully expect him to have a good year. I will bet he makes an All-Star game or two done the line. He should end up in the NL eventually and be able to fully utilize all his skills as well. The addition of Valbuena was what pushed this deal in the Tribe's favor though. He needs to have a good year at AAA obviously though.

5. hmm....are you saying that it would have been better for the Tribe to just hang on to Byrd all year? Cause that's what the last sentence here sounds like.



So did these trades produce the best needed assets? I fully believe that is a YES. We needed a big time power hitter and got one in LaPorta. We really could use a speedy leadoff guy that can allow Sizemore to move down (though not a neccessity) and got one in Brantley. We really needed hard throwing/strikeout guys in the pen and got one in Bryson and also a decent one in Meloan. We really needed a 3B that can play decent D and hit for some power and got one in DeRosa. We really needed a future infielder either at 2B, SS, or 3B and got a potential one in Valbuena.

Could we really have used Escobar from the brewers (NOT gamel)? Yes....but we really could have used a lot of guys, but just because we think CC is worth the moon doesn't mean any team would part with him. Why did the Mets give up a lot for Santana? Because they were gonna get him for 6 more years. Why did the Expos give up more for Colon? Cause they thought they were gonna get contracted. Why did Tex get more in 2007? Cause he had another year and a half left.

Why did Tex get LESS than CC last summer? Cause the team waited and not as many teams were in need of a 1B.

Tribe made out this past summer. The market has changed. Teams are putting WAY more value on prospects and aren't as willing to deal high ones.....it's just how things are gonna be for a while with the economy the way it is.....I mean, look at the Matt Holliday deal this winter. yeah, he's got a whole year left....but the Rockies really didn't do any better than the Tribe for CC, and they should have.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby indianinkslinger » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:20 am

Dennis, I don't believe there is an exaggeration on my part. While you may disagree, IMO, you have chosen to infuse your fantasies about the draft choices in 1 and 2 to reduce the consequences of your previous questionable assessments of those trades. I chose the specific facts in 1 but you want alter the reality. Doesn't work. I inadvertently overlooked the supplemental B pick in the Blake trade and you want to make it much more.

BTW, do you live in a world where it does not require more space to explain a four player trade involving a Cy Young pitcher than a single player trade of a lesser player?

You also have tried to apply a generality about A pitchers to a specific pitcher, Bryson. All in all, I would have hoped you could have dealt dealt with the realities of the trades as they exist today rather use hyperbole to justify your mistakes in the past. Get over it!
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby dnosco » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:31 pm

"1. The Indians could NOT have done better, period. You can continue to say we shold have gotten Gamel (who makes Hodges look like a gold glove 3B) and LaPorta all you want but that was NEVER going to happen. There wasn't a better offer on the table and really only 3 teams that were ever seriously in any talks for CC (Phillies, Dodgers, and Brewers). The Phillies didn't have the big bat to offer and were refusing to part with Carrasco. Without him, no deal made sense or could come close to what we got from the Brewers, period. The Dodgers? They had the pieces to get a deal done....but Santana would have been included in a CC deal.....but what else? Maybe McDonald, Meloan, and another prospect."


Sorry, the nicest thing I can say is that we will have to agree to disagree. First, it was early, very early in the process. Hank Steinbrenner has already indicated that his dad wanted to get Santana. I think they would have been convinced to trade for CC getting us Hughes and others, at least. Any projections on your part as to who would have been available later are moot. Point is that, historically, premium guys get premium returns at deadline time. When you add what we got for Blake and that only one other reigning Cy Young award winner has been traded at the deadline IN HISTORY, I think your point of this was the best we could get for CC becomes indefensible. But that is just my opinion. But, please, stop stating it as if it is a fact which it ISN'T and is hardly even acceptable as a remote possibility of being true, given how early in the process we traded him. Hey, if people want to use the Colon trade as an example of how it is advantageous to strike early all I can say to that is it is only advantageous to strike early if some moron wants to give up the farm (literally!) for a rental and you should make that deal before the guy comes to his senses. Great deals have been had AT the deadline and MANY times, so there is ample history, even 2008 Indians history, to suggest you are absolutely wrong in your absolute statement. Plus, we haven't even addressed what we could have gotten in addition if we had eaten some or all of CC's salary. Again, ample, recent evidence that the haul could have been much greater. Nor have we addressed us throwing in someone else, as that could make the haul greater.

"hmm....are you saying that it would have been better for the Tribe to just hang on to Byrd all year? Cause that's what the last sentence here sounds like."

No, I didn't say that. However, I do believe that, unless the money is used immediately, you don't just sell players to save money. That is stupid. If you don't have enough money to run the team right then sell it to someone with that money. So, SELLING Byrd to Boston (please, Hall was just a booby prize in this deal, better than nothing but just a booby prize, nonetheless) is acceptable behavior because it has been tied to signing draft choices even though, for the life of me, I don't know why spending money on draft choices should be tied to saving money by selling your players to the highest bidder. But, if that is what got it done, I am OK with it. Now, where did the money we saved on CC go to?

"You also have tried to apply a generality about A pitchers to a specific pitcher, Bryson. All in all, I would have hoped you could have dealt dealt with the realities of the trades as they exist today rather use hyperbole to justify your mistakes in the past. Get over it! "

Don't know where you are going with that but I have no idea what in the heck you are talking about here when you won't even use a trade involving the Indians in the same summer as the Sabathia trade to acknowledge that we could have gotten more instead of going into excruciating detail to try to justify a trade where we didn't get enough and, believe me, I know about excrutiating detail! :-)
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby Hermie13 » Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:27 pm

hmm....historically premium games get premium talent at the deadline.....except Texiera and Ramirez I guess.....

Tex got a guy that's really not that much better than Garko at 1B (Kotchman who's career high is 14 HRs) and a AA pitcher. That's all! That's what we'd have likely been looking at for CC at the deadline (though you're right, maybe CC would have been different). Tribe got a much, much better deal for CC IMHO than what the Braves got for Tex.....but I admit, I'm not a big Kotchman fan. Assuming you aren't either since he's a 1B that can't hit for power (ie, your reason for not being sold on Mills).


Though the Ramirez deal really shouldn't be used as a comparison as it was a 3-team deal, and Boston pretty much had to get rid of Ramirez.....


Could the Tribe have thrown in someone else? Yes...there were talks of a CC, Blake, and Carroll deal to the Dodgers (though who knows how realistic it was). But they said we were NOT getting Kemp in the deal. So unless we were getting about Santana, Meloan, McDonald, Lambo, and Ivan DeJesus, then that deal wasn't better than what we got for Blake and CC separately, at least IMO.

The Yankees had chances at several players over the summer including CC early, harden, and Tex. They chose to stand pat and I'd be willing to bet they still would have had we waited longer to deal CC. They didn't make a trade for Santana for a reason. They still like Hughes and weren't gonna give him up. After Hughes....there's nothing in the Yankees system that would equal what we got from the Brewers. 'maybe' Kennedy and Jackson as a start....but I'm really not all that sold on Jackson.


Again, you claim all this 'at the deadline' stuff....yet totally ignore the Tex deal. If you want to believe that the Tribe could have gotten more for CC then that's fine. Heck, I agree that we 'should' have been able to get more....but not that we 'could' have.


As far as 'where did the CC money go?'......I believe I was the ONLY person that said the Tribe's payroll would not only increase from what it was at the end of last season (around $75M), but would be even more than last year's opening day payroll of around $79M. I was told I was an idiot and there was no way we'd increase the payroll this winter because of the economy and whatnot...

Well, the opening day payroll was around $80-81M with the possiblility of going up even more if Pavano reaches his incentives (will be around $85M which is what I said it could be at). That is where the CC money likely went. Without it, we may not have one of DeRosa or Wood right now (though we still may). Nearly half the teams shrunk their payrolls since last year....yet Cleveland, a small-market team in one of the worst economic cities in the country, INCREASED their payroll (even if only slightly). I don't believe that could have fully been done had CC not been traded.....but technically I don't have any proof of that.....however, I did sight the CC trade as a reason I fully believed we would have a payroll over $80M this year and push close to $85M.


Alright, I didn't think that's what you were trying to say about byrd/selling players...but kind of came off that way (my bad). I agree, you shouldn't sell players just to save money, and I agree that Mickey Hall is next to nothing....but he is still something. I actually think he'll have a pretty solid year at Akron. Not saying he's all of sudden gonna be an impact player for the Tribe, but he does show some decent power. And not like we really could have gotten anything more for Byrd. Yeah he was gonna be a Type B....but we weren't gonna offer arbitration and he didn't sign with anyone anyways (not that it matters). ha, and not to open another can of worms....but if Hall was in the Tribe organization to start, I wonder what you'd think of him then though?......he's the classic organizational guy that does decently well at the levels he's at and keeps slowly moving up the system...... :P




I believe Ink was getting at that your generalization about Bryson. You said something long the lines of 'A-ball relievers almost never become MLers' when referring to Bryson. So he's right you were generalizing.....but I'm all argued out for now and don't feel like going into whether that's a valid assumption with Bryson at this moment, lol.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby petes999 » Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:24 pm

I think it is too early to grade the trades ... as other said, we thought Gut and Marte were great prospects and Stevens was a nobody.

I like what Shapiro has done. I would have liked to have added a better prospect than Brantley to the CC trade (Escobar or Jeffries), yet it did look like the trade market was down last year (as many analyst said). If we added a reliever, we could have increased the return. Yet, would Brewers have taken Kobi or Bentancourt for anything significant. Would we wanted to trade Perez the only reliever at the time with value?

As said above, if Tex got Atl. Kotchman with a career best 12 HRs (and injured in prior years) and a reliever who doesn't repeat his delivery or have the concentration to be a starter (per BA), that's not much more than 2 draft picks ... I would have help into the picks. So we got a decent return for the market. If it was 2007, we probably have gotten more.

For the LA trade, I wouldn't have traded CC + Blake + Carroll for McDonald, Wade, Santana and Hu (what some projected) because CC would be for McDonald and Hu as we got Meloan (a step down from Wade) and Santana for Blake. For me, McDonald seemed to be a #3 starter which we had in groves with Huff, Laffey and others. I would have help out for a lower #1 or #2 projected starter in high A or something. I think McDonald improved like Santana did in the 2nd half with projection on what they can become. Yet, I wanted a #1 prospect for CC which LaPorta was. McDonald was #2 behind Lambo for BA list for LA this year. And, at then end of last year, BA Southern league was #4 Laporta, #14 McDonald, #15 Dejesus (who people in LA thought more highly of than Hu), #19 Brantley. So BA had Laporta + Brantley as higher value than McDonald and Hu/Dejesus.

It will be interesting who pans out LaPorta + Brantley or McDonald + Hu as all of them had good springs. Time will tell. Looking at how Laffey, Miller, Sowers,.... all had set backs. McDonald looks better and better. Yet, it's all hindsight. Yet, per the sacred BA list, Laporta is still #27 after a bad 2nd half (drop from #7 in a mid-season list) and McDonald was #56.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby jellis » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:12 pm

call me crazy but I think I like Brantley more than jeffries who has major character issues and Escobar who reminds me a lot of Rey Ordenez not sold on him. Everyone who sees Brantley loves him, many people who doubt him then see him and realize just how good he is. Only negative comments on Brantley are people who have never seen them
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby artgold » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:17 pm

I too would have liked to have upgraded a little on the Sabathia return, with my own preference being Lucroy. I thought he might be available due to the fact that Milwaukee already had top tier prospect Angel Salome ahead of him, and highly regarded Brett Lawrie as a new 1st round draft pick.

I was looking at what Oakland had gotten from the Diamondbacks for Danny Haren, and they received Carlos Gonzalez (DBacks #1 prospect per BA in 2008), Brett Anderson (#3), Aaron Cunningham (#7), Greg Smith (#13) and major league pitcher Dana Eveland, who was the Brewers #7 prospect in 2006, and then was rushed to the majors before he was ready.

However, Haren had a more attractive contract situation, so the comps are a bit limited.

However, the bottom line to me is the question "would you do the deal as it was finally completed?" In my case, I would.
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby indianinkslinger » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:54 pm

[quote="artgold"]I too would have liked to have upgraded a little on the Sabathia return, with my own preference being Lucroy. I thought he might be available due to the fact that Milwaukee already had top tier prospect Angel Salome ahead of him, and highly regarded Brett Lawrie as a new 1st round draft pick.

I was looking at what Oakland had gotten from the Diamondbacks for Danny Haren, and they received Carlos Gonzalez (DBacks #1 prospect per BA in 2008), Brett Anderson (#3), Aaron Cunningham (#7), Greg Smith (#13) and major league pitcher Dana Eveland, who was the Brewers #7 prospect in 2006, and then was rushed to the majors before he was ready.

However, Haren had a more attractive contract situation, so the comps are a bit limited.

However, the bottom line to me is the question "would you do the deal as it was finally completed?" In my case, I would.[/quote]

How come it is so easy for you to pick up the essence of the thread? I know I made some name screw-ups, inadvertently omitted a draft choice and overlooked a trade. But I just wanted to look at all these trades at the beginning of 2009 and opine whether the trade was good or bad for the 2009 Indians organization. Instead, we wander aimlessly to fantasyland. What IF land? Are these trades so difficult to comprehend that we have to turn the thread from facts to random speculation that has nothing to do with reality? Apparently it is for some posters! Thank you for getting it, Art!!!! :s_yahoo
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby martyinnewyork » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:14 pm

Art - scrolling through this thread, I just have to say that the best part of the Milton Bradley trade was that it rid us of Milton Bradley...
martyinnewyork
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby artgold » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:46 pm

martyinnewyork wrote:Art - scrolling through this thread, I just have to say that the best part of the Milton Bradley trade was that it rid us of Milton Bradley...


Yeah, part of many trades is that you add by subtracting...
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:10 am

martyinnewyork wrote:Art - scrolling through this thread, I just have to say that the best part of the Milton Bradley trade was that it rid us of Milton Bradley...


If only we'd have sent them Wedge along with Bradley though :s_empathy
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:29 am

indianinkslinger wrote:How come it is so easy for you to pick up the essence of the thread? I know I made some name screw-ups, inadvertently omitted a draft choice and overlooked a trade. But I just wanted to look at all these trades at the beginning of 2009 and opine whether the trade was good or bad for the 2009 Indians organization. Instead, we wander aimlessly to fantasyland. What IF land? Are these trades so difficult to comprehend that we have to turn the thread from facts to random speculation that has nothing to do with reality? Apparently it is for some posters! Thank you for getting it, Art!!!! :s_yahoo


Part of what dnosco was getting at is that he doesn't feel these deals were the best for the 2009 team (at least that's what I was picking up). There's a legit chance that both LaPorta and Brantley struggle at AAA and make almost no contribution to the club in 2009 (I think LaPorta will though). Believe this is why he wanted Gamel who does appear to be a legit hitter. I just question where he'd fit on the Indians. He makes Braun look good at 3B. 1B is his likely destination....though the Brewers may leave him at 3B. Gamel would still look nice at 1B in Columbus......and may make a bigger impact in 2009 than LaPorta does.....but we'll see (I think LaPorta will, but it's a legit arguement that Gamel will be better in 2009).

Valbuena will only come up if Cabrera struggles.....but after his lackluster spring training, who knows if he's fully ready yet either. And then Smith could struggle (though had a great spring and looked very good). This trade could turn into the new version of the Giles for Rincon deal.....I highly doubt it though, but possible.

I don't think anyone really has a big beef with the DeRosa trade.....though Stevens likely would have contributed to this club at some point in 2009, so that was a loss. But our pen was strengthed so shouldn't hurt too much.

And again, the Blake deal.....well even if Santana totally falls apart, this deal still looks pretty good. Meloan looks better than a draft pick we may have gotten (though I doubt we'd have even offered Blake arbitration). I'm a big fan of Meloan and think he'll make a solid contribution to this club in 2009.


So have the trades helped the club for 2009? Yes......but maybe not as much as we are hoping.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby artgold » Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:07 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Part of what dnosco was getting at is that he doesn't feel these deals were the best for the 2009 team (at least that's what I was picking up). There's a legit chance that both LaPorta and Brantley struggle at AAA and make almost no contribution to the club in 2009 (I think LaPorta will though). Believe this is why he wanted Gamel who does appear to be a legit hitter. I just question where he'd fit on the Indians. He makes Braun look good at 3B. 1B is his likely destination....though the Brewers may leave him at 3B. Gamel would still look nice at 1B in Columbus......and may make a bigger impact in 2009 than LaPorta does.....but we'll see (I think LaPorta will, but it's a legit arguement that Gamel will be better in 2009).

Valbuena will only come up if Cabrera struggles.....but after his lackluster spring training, who knows if he's fully ready yet either. And then Smith could struggle (though had a great spring and looked very good). This trade could turn into the new version of the Giles for Rincon deal.....I highly doubt it though, but possible.

I don't think anyone really has a big beef with the DeRosa trade.....though Stevens likely would have contributed to this club at some point in 2009, so that was a loss. But our pen was strengthed so shouldn't hurt too much.

And again, the Blake deal.....well even if Santana totally falls apart, this deal still looks pretty good. Meloan looks better than a draft pick we may have gotten (though I doubt we'd have even offered Blake arbitration). I'm a big fan of Meloan and think he'll make a solid contribution to this club in 2009.


So have the trades helped the club for 2009? Yes......but maybe not as much as we are hoping.....



I'll let Dennis speak for himself, he and I have been involved in prospect discussions going all the way back to EZ Board. Generally, I have found that he likes to manage assets and depth, figuring that maximizing your talent base gives you more options and trading chips for the future. I think he just thinks we didn't acquire enough talent for our traded asset, regardless of being major league ready.

I kind of like to acquire a lot of lower placed high risk/reward talent myself, but in the case of the Sabathia trade I'm OK with what we ended up with.
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:04 pm

artgold wrote:I'll let Dennis speak for himself, he and I have been involved in prospect discussions going all the way back to EZ Board. Generally, I have found that he likes to manage assets and depth, figuring that maximizing your talent base gives you more options and trading chips for the future. I think he just thinks we didn't acquire enough talent for our traded asset, regardless of being major league ready.

I kind of like to acquire a lot of lower placed high risk/reward talent myself, but in the case of the Sabathia trade I'm OK with what we ended up with.



True....he just seems really high on Gamel and thinks we should have him to help out this year was the main point I was getting at.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby dnosco » Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:15 pm

Art hits the nail on the head. For me, Gamel fits in RF. He has a strong arm, is a good athlete and I think all this plays well in RF.

I have used this analogy before but will use it again here: this is not addition. An "A" prospect, two "B" prospects (Brantley is still a slap hitter to me and Bryson is a low A reliever) and a "C" prospect does not equal two "A" prospects. Given that LaPorta and Gamel have some warts in their defensive games, I think we could have shaken them loose from Milwaukee, maybe by throwing in Jeff Stevens...if we had waited.

Finally, I am not all about help in 2009. Quite the opposite. I am about long-term help AND flexibility.

Santana exemplies long-term help at a premium position IF he can handle it.

LaPorta, on the other hand, exemplifies limited potential. For those of you who remember I suggested trading Hafner when he was going well and was shouted down. But, even healthy, he can only DH. If he isn't 100% he is almost worthless as his bat drops off and he has no other assets to bring. LaPorta, IMHO, is DH in the making. A HS catcher who played 1B in college is NOT a good bet to be an acceptable MLer in the OF. Hey, like Harmon Killebrew or, more aptly, like Pat Burrell or Adam Dunn, his bat may allow him to play LF but with brutal OF defense and ONLY if an even more brutal defender needs the DH role to keep playing. That is, LaPorta becomes the lesser of two evils in the field.

I see Gamel as a top prospect and a ballplayer, albeit one without a position because he is brutal at 3B so far in his career. I find an OF spot for him because I believe he is more athletic than LaPorta and LaPorta goes back to 1B or to DH. He would more be part of the group of flexible prospects than LaPorta, which is why I favored him in the first place even over LaPorta.

Like Art said, though, I like prospect depth where we can trade duplicates at a position for needs (hopefully other prospects) at positions of need. That defines me. Get prospects, keep the ones you want and turn the others into PROSPECTS at positions you need. Shapiro, to some extent, appears to share that philosophy which meets his strength, which has been trading veterans for prospects.

One more thing: Indianinkslinger you amaze me. You start a thread where you totally exagerate and make the trades look better than they are and you try to call BS on people's speculation. That is about as funny a comment as I have ever read here.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:29 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
artgold wrote:I'll let Dennis speak for himself, he and I have been involved in prospect discussions going all the way back to EZ Board. Generally, I have found that he likes to manage assets and depth, figuring that maximizing your talent base gives you more options and trading chips for the future. I think he just thinks we didn't acquire enough talent for our traded asset, regardless of being major league ready.

I kind of like to acquire a lot of lower placed high risk/reward talent myself, but in the case of the Sabathia trade I'm OK with what we ended up with.



True....he just seems really high on Gamel and thinks we should have him to help out this year was the main point I was getting at.

Who cares! Not me, for sure! You guys can do this masturbation exercise all you want and it doesn't change a thing! Completely meaningless speculation that is impossible to prove or disprove. What is true is that any change in the deal could have lead to a deal that was not done and you would be left with the asset you started with and any thought to the contrary is pure BSing. There are six trades! Are we better off with the players we received or not making the deal? I would have liked to have Pujols included with Reyes in the Perdomo trade. I wanted Escobar and Braun included for Sabathia. I wanted Lester included with Hall for Byrd. So what? It didn't happen, did it? Makes as much sense as the crap that has been posted. TFL!!!!!!
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:36 pm

dnosco wrote:Art hits the nail on the head. For me, Gamel fits in RF. He has a strong arm, is a good athlete and I think all this plays well in RF.

I have used this analogy before but will use it again here: this is not addition. An "A" prospect, two "B" prospects (Brantley is still a slap hitter to me and Bryson is a low A reliever) and a "C" prospect does not equal two "A" prospects. Given that LaPorta and Gamel have some warts in their defensive games, I think we could have shaken them loose from Milwaukee, maybe by throwing in Jeff Stevens...if we had waited.

Finally, I am not all about help in 2009. Quite the opposite. I am about long-term help AND flexibility.

Santana exemplies long-term help at a premium position IF he can handle it.

LaPorta, on the other hand, exemplifies limited potential. For those of you who remember I suggested trading Hafner when he was going well and was shouted down. But, even healthy, he can only DH. If he isn't 100% he is almost worthless as his bat drops off and he has no other assets to bring. LaPorta, IMHO, is DH in the making. A HS catcher who played 1B in college is NOT a good bet to be an acceptable MLer in the OF. Hey, like Harmon Killebrew or, more aptly, like Pat Burrell or Adam Dunn, his bat may allow him to play LF but with brutal OF defense and ONLY if an even more brutal defender needs the DH role to keep playing. That is, LaPorta becomes the lesser of two evils in the field.

I see Gamel as a top prospect and a ballplayer, albeit one without a position because he is brutal at 3B so far in his career. I find an OF spot for him because I believe he is more athletic than LaPorta and LaPorta goes back to 1B or to DH. He would more be part of the group of flexible prospects than LaPorta, which is why I favored him in the first place even over LaPorta.

Like Art said, though, I like prospect depth where we can trade duplicates at a position for needs (hopefully other prospects) at positions of need. That defines me. Get prospects, keep the ones you want and turn the others into PROSPECTS at positions you need. Shapiro, to some extent, appears to share that philosophy which meets his strength, which has been trading veterans for prospects.

One more thing: Indianinkslinger you amaze me. You start a thread where you totally exagerate and make the trades look better than they are and you try to call BS on people's speculation. That is about as funny a comment as I have ever read here.

Then you must have missed the raging guffaws of laughter when BA told you how stupid you were to criticise the Indians 2008 draft!!!!!!!! :s_rofl
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:37 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:Who cares! Not me, for sure! You guys can do this masturbation exercise all you want and it doesn't change a thing! Completely meaningless speculation that is impossible to prove or disprove. What is true is that any change in the deal could have lead to a deal that was not done and you would be left with the asset you started with and any thought to the contrary is pure BSing. There are six trades! Are we better off with the players we received or not making the deal? I would have liked to have Pujols included with Reyes in the Perdomo trade. I wanted Escobar and Braun included for Sabathia. I wanted Lester included with Hall for Byrd. So what? It didn't happen, did it? Makes as much sense as the crap that has been posted. TFL!!!!!!


Who cares? Seems like a few people actually. And yes, we got that you don't care. But some people don't care what you think about these trades. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't express your opinion about them though.


For someone that loved to rip on me for how I worded threads....this thread is titled "Hindsight on the Indian trades"......in HINDSIGHT, people wish/think the Tribe should have gotten more in the deal. So these arguements are perfectly valid for THIS THREAD.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:07 pm

dnosco wrote:Art hits the nail on the head. For me, Gamel fits in RF. He has a strong arm, is a good athlete and I think all this plays well in RF.

I have used this analogy before but will use it again here: this is not addition. An "A" prospect, two "B" prospects (Brantley is still a slap hitter to me and Bryson is a low A reliever) and a "C" prospect does not equal two "A" prospects. Given that LaPorta and Gamel have some warts in their defensive games, I think we could have shaken them loose from Milwaukee, maybe by throwing in Jeff Stevens...if we had waited.

Finally, I am not all about help in 2009. Quite the opposite. I am about long-term help AND flexibility.

Santana exemplies long-term help at a premium position IF he can handle it.

LaPorta, on the other hand, exemplifies limited potential. For those of you who remember I suggested trading Hafner when he was going well and was shouted down. But, even healthy, he can only DH. If he isn't 100% he is almost worthless as his bat drops off and he has no other assets to bring. LaPorta, IMHO, is DH in the making. A HS catcher who played 1B in college is NOT a good bet to be an acceptable MLer in the OF. Hey, like Harmon Killebrew or, more aptly, like Pat Burrell or Adam Dunn, his bat may allow him to play LF but with brutal OF defense and ONLY if an even more brutal defender needs the DH role to keep playing. That is, LaPorta becomes the lesser of two evils in the field.

I see Gamel as a top prospect and a ballplayer, albeit one without a position because he is brutal at 3B so far in his career. I find an OF spot for him because I believe he is more athletic than LaPorta and LaPorta goes back to 1B or to DH. He would more be part of the group of flexible prospects than LaPorta, which is why I favored him in the first place even over LaPorta.

Like Art said, though, I like prospect depth where we can trade duplicates at a position for needs (hopefully other prospects) at positions of need. That defines me. Get prospects, keep the ones you want and turn the others into PROSPECTS at positions you need. Shapiro, to some extent, appears to share that philosophy which meets his strength, which has been trading veterans for prospects.

One more thing: Indianinkslinger you amaze me. You start a thread where you totally exagerate and make the trades look better than they are and you try to call BS on people's speculation. That is about as funny a comment as I have ever read here.


Well as you pointed out earlier....I guess we should agree to disagree. While I can see Gamel in RF one day...you are still greatly underestimating LaPorta in the OF. Having seen him out in LF last year, I FULLY believe he can stay in the OF for the next 10-12 years at least. He's much more athletic than given credit for. He wasn't moved to 1B because of how 'bad' he was behind the plate in college, it was because the team had another option there. LaPorta's arm is also not that bad (though Gamel's looks better), so even RF can be a legit spot for LaPorta (think Manny Ramirez style play out there but minus the bone-headed plays). LaPorta's bat appears to be a better fit in the OF too than Gamel's. Gamel did come on very strong last year, but some scouts questioned if he'd hit for enough power to play 1B (where most thought he'd end up evntually).

Again, not saying having Gamel wouldn't have been nice (I totally agree with your 'addition' point), but if I had to choose between Gamel or LaPorta, I'd take LaPorta hands down. LaPorta has over 100 games in the OF already and hasn't disappointed any coaches out there yet. There's not guarantee Gamel would make as easy of a transition out there.


I did only see LaPorta a hand full of times....but he looks pretty athletic for his size. Maybe I need more looks, but I do not see him being forced to the DH role anytime soon. I actually think Weglarz is the prospect that will be a DH sooner rather than later.....but he's still young so maybe not.


I also don't believe we coudl have shaken both Gamel and LaPorta loose simply by waiting and/or adding Stevens. One, I don't think Stevens is that good. And two, the Brewers knew they had no real shot at keeping CC, so I doubt they would ever have given up their two best slugging prospects. I mean, obviously anything is possible.....but I just don't see it. Seemed like every report said that was the firm line that Melvin drew: we weren't gonna get two of LaPorta/Gamel/Escobar.

We could have waited them out putting our foot down.....but I could easily have seen the Brewers turn their attention towards Harden then, who was not a free agent at the end of the year and has (when healthy) as good of stuff really. They could have easily beat the Cubs offer by giving up less than they gave us. Would the Cubs have turned to us for CC then? Maybe.....but they'd have been hardpressed to make an offer better than what we got from the Brewers. Vitters would of had to be included.....Smardziaijaiaiai (yeah I can't spell his name, lol) probably.....maybe Gallagher. But they really didn't have a great deal to offer....which is what has hurt them in the Peavy talks.



I also love versatility and athletic prospects that can move around and give you options for the future (which is one reason I'm a bit puzzled with your negatives views towards the versatile Santana, but o well). But I don't think that should be a main thing to consider when making a big trade. Get the guy you think will be the best hitter (since neither Gamel nor LaPorta will win a gold glove). Tribe felt it was LaPorta....and I agree.....but we're all entitled to our opinions and Gamel could be better than LaPorta rather easily I suppose.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby dnosco » Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:15 pm

Again, would have to see LaPorta repeatedly to know but if you are a catcher in HS and a first baseman in college it goes against all logic that you would be an acceptable ML outfielder. Hey, might happen, but c'mon. At low level (HS) and mid-level (college) you are not good enough to play a premium position and yet you can play the OF in the majors? Not likely. Regarding not playing catcher in college, I don't think I commented on that. But, since you mentioned, Ryan Garko was the Bench award winner as the top college catcher his last year and we know how defensively challenged he is...even at catcher.

Regarding the Brewers and CC, Melvin was absolutely counting on getting those two draft picks as part of his equation for CC. You can tell that by his whining when he didn't get NY's first round pick. He didn't have to keep CC nor did keeping CC even factor into the equation. Historically, great deals (for the team trading the veteran) have happened a lot of times at the deadline. You can't talk Tex without talking Blake and, then, the history before 2008. It was probably much more likely that their return would have actually gone up the longer they waited. I mean, look at the Blake trade for heaven's sake.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby dnosco » Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:02 pm

"Then you must have missed the raging guffaws of laughter when BA told you how stupid you were to criticise the Indians 2008 draft!!!!!!!!"


Wrong again. Although you don't know this the question below was a personal one to Callis that he asked to use in the column. Without knowing his answer I agreed to let him use it.

At the signing deadline, the Indians spent heavily to sign Trey Haley($1.25 million), Zach Putnam ($600,000), Tim Fedroff ($725,000), T.J. House ($750,000) and Bryce Stowell ($725,000). While signing draft picks beats the heck out of not signing them, are they even close to worth what Cleveland paid for them? It would seem that if the Indians wanted to spend a lot of money in the draft, they would have been better served drafting guys like Tim Melville, Brandon Crawford and other high-profile players in the early rounds rather than Cord Phelps and David Roberts (and, for that matter, Haley). Do you see this as panic investing by just signing, at whatever cost, the unsigned draft choices they had left? Or was it a smart and well thought out use of available funds?
Dennis Nosco
St. Louis
Haley's bonus caught me a little off guard, as that's first-round money for a player we rated as more of a third- to fifth-round pick. However, Haley flashed first-round stuff at times during the spring and had extra negotiating leverage because he had committed to Rice, which rarely loses players out of high school.

The other bonuses weren't out of line. Putnam went in the fifth round, but we ranked him 50th on our Top 200 list and MLB's slot recommendation for No. 50 was $784,000. House ranked No. 100 and commanded a premium because he had committed to Tulane. There weren't many lefthanders in the draft with better stuff.

Fedroff and Stowell were draft-eligible sophomores, which gave them extra leverage and also caused teams to shy away from them in the draft. Neither made our Top 200, though Fedroff is an advanced hitter who batted .404 with 12 homers as a sophomore at North Carolina and Stowell boosted his stock with an all-star summer in the Cape Cod League.

Will they all pan out? Probably not, because the draft doesn't work that way. But there was some sound rationale behind the way the Indians played the draft.

It's difficult to take highly touted and high-priced players in the early rounds, because if something goes wrong, a team can be left with a bunch of unsigned picks. The Red Sox have been as aggressive in the draft as any club, and they typically start off by taking players who will sign for slot or close to it, then gambling in the later rounds.


First, you know, had BA agreed completely with me you would have blown it off so let's be honest here. If people were laughing it was out of relief as those who are FO shills didn't have to be subject to another source saying how the draft could have not been the best. For someone like you, who disses BA at every turn, to use them in your argument is, well, disingenuous, to say the least. Plus, you totally ignore that BA rated Chisenall like 79th and didn't really like Cleveland's pick in the first round, calling it as one of the most surprising picks.

Second, I was on record as liking the Putnam pick at the time, just saying he probably wouldn't sign for any reasonable amount. Ditto on the House pick which I called, I think, at the time the only high talent pick on the second day.

Third, BA said that guys weren't rated highly and then justified high bonuses based on them being sophomores AND performances that were not apparent at draft time, both of which drove up the bonuses. They NEVER said that they were fair for their talent and, as much said the opposite by saying they weren't top 200 (top 7 round) talents.

Fourth, in a separate e-mail to me Callis said that Roberts was a reasonable pick in the 4th round. As our local guru has now called it a reach as a 4th round pick, something I said at the time, you can take BA's position above with a grain of salt.

Fifth, something you fail to acknowledge at all, BA dissed the Haley pick at the time and in this answer indicating that the bonus was not what he deserved based on his talent but what it took to sign him. They rationalized the bonus but, in fact, said he wasnt' worth the money, talent-wise, something I said at the time. So they actually agreed with me...again.

Sixth, the logic of this answer suffers significantly when they say to draft guys who will sign for slot early and then make the comments they make rationalizing the Haley bonus. I will go on record as saying this may be the worst allocation of bonus the Indians have ever made to a pitcher as even million dollar babies like Smith, Pesco and Denham made it to AA or AAA before flaming out. You, on the other hand, have covered yourself by saying how raw Haley is and how it will take a long time for him to develop. Great strategy. By the time he flames out in low A, going the route of Cody Bunkelman, you will be singing the 'That's ancient history. Move on' mantra. I have also gone on record as saying, had the Indians planned for the windfall from Byrd's salary, they could have easily done much better in terms of talent.

Seventh, Crawford signed for slot when he was drafted and Mehlville signed for what Haley signed for. They were much better selections, at the time, than Phelps and Haley, respectively, were. I am starting to warm to Phelps but, c'mon, a college secondbaseman who hit no HRs in his freshman and sophomore years, then hit double digits in his junior year and, except for his last pro game last year, hit NONE in about 200 ABs in his pro debut? I take my chances on Crawford who fell on draft day, and on Mehlville who I go on record as saying will have an infinitely better career than Haley as any number divided by zero is infinity. I will put those second and third round picks up against Haley and Phelps any day. THAT is what I was talking about. Considering both Haley and Mehlville signed for about the same amount and Crawford signed for about what Phelps signed for, I think it is fair to compare them going forward.

Eighth, BA is wrong on a nubmer of points. Boston drafted Kelly in the first round and signed him for $3 million. Not exactly a slot signing that they talked about in this response. Additionally, the new draft system was set up for teams to go big in early rounds as you get, with the Indians' draft slot, essentially the same pick back the next year. Heck, the Indians think so little of second and third round picks they gladly gave them up to sign Oldberto and Dellucci so it is not like they value those picks and could have taken a shot.

So, read what you want into the Q&A above. While they didn't say agree with me I am OK with their opinion, something I can 100% guarantee, knowing you and your MO, that you wouldn't have been had they agreed with me. In that case you would have gone back to your tried and true monologue about how BA is not really very good and how you can't take stock in what they say, relying more on others who you liberally quote on this and other sites.

Regarding people laughing at me, you presume I think my opinion is worth anything more than my opinion, which I don't. If I ever give that impression, it is only after reading stuff like your post above.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:12 pm

dnosco wrote:Again, would have to see LaPorta repeatedly to know but if you are a catcher in HS and a first baseman in college it goes against all logic that you would be an acceptable ML outfielder. Hey, might happen, but c'mon. At low level (HS) and mid-level (college) you are not good enough to play a premium position and yet you can play the OF in the majors? Not likely. Regarding not playing catcher in college, I don't think I commented on that. But, since you mentioned, Ryan Garko was the Bench award winner as the top college catcher his last year and we know how defensively challenged he is...even at catcher.

Regarding the Brewers and CC, Melvin was absolutely counting on getting those two draft picks as part of his equation for CC. You can tell that by his whining when he didn't get NY's first round pick. He didn't have to keep CC nor did keeping CC even factor into the equation. Historically, great deals (for the team trading the veteran) have happened a lot of times at the deadline. You can't talk Tex without talking Blake and, then, the history before 2008. It was probably much more likely that their return would have actually gone up the longer they waited. I mean, look at the Blake trade for heaven's sake.


Again, maybe your high school team was different, but I've seen MANY teams where the catcher in high school was in fact the most athletic player on the team. My own high school was this way at one point (state runner ups that year), where our most athletic player was our catcher. Went on to play 4 years of D-I baseball; however, never made it in pro ball (though played some semi-pro ball). There are other examples. I saw Eric Fryer play at both Reynoldsburg High School outside of Columbus and at Ohio State. Easily the most athletic kid on his high school team yet was the starting catcher. Caught at Ohio State as well before being drafted by the brewers. Was moved from catcher to the OF this past year down at their low-A club as well. I mean...how could this be since he was a catcher? Yes, he has more speed, but til last year (when moved to the OF) never stole more than 7 bases in a season. But the point is, just cause you caught in high school, doesn't mean you are too unathletic to play the OF.


So saying that a HS catcher can't play the OF is more illogical (wow, that sounded really dorky, lol) than saying he can't play the OF because of it. Yes, he moved from behind the plate to 1B and never really caught in college, but it wasn't due to lack of athletism. Florida had an open spot at 1B, plain and simple. It wasn't that he 'wasn't good enough' to play the OF. He didn't catch because of Brian Jeroloman who was just as highly recruited as LaPorta and put up a .448 OBP their freshman year (both are the same class). The OF was full too with Ben Harrison and CJ Smith (both had OPS's over 1.000 and were incumbents) at the corners....and NO ONE is saying anyone should put LaPorta in CF. They also had Brian LeClerc playing LF who put up some good numbers their freshman year. So again, 1B was open and LaPorta came out mashing his freshman year and never relinquished that position. Harrison and Smith stuck around for a few more years so LaPorta settled in to 1B. Didn't make sense for Florida as a club to move LaPorta to the OF then as they don't really care what position he'd be drafted as. That's up to the team that picks him to decide and work with him.


Not sure exactly what the point of bringing up Garko here was......and Garko was always underrated as a catcher IMO. If there was no Martinez in Cleveland, Garko would have caught at the ML level. Would never have won a gold glove but was no worse than a few guys that have caught at the ML level. Don't get me wrong here...not saying Garko was ever a good catcher (or that LaPorta was). Bench award reminds me of Gold Glove awards.....hitting makes up for poor defense (see Michael Young last season).


ha, yeah Melvin did whine a lot....but I think he was also upset cause he was hoping to have FIVE first round picks this year and will only end up with 2 (his and one from CC). He was hoping for 2 from sheets as well and realized around the time of the Tex signing that Sheets was unlikely to sign with anyone before the draft.

And also, Melvin did not know for certain that he'd get 2 first round picks for CC at the time of the deal. Most likely he would have....but at the time of the deal, the Dodgers were in the bottom 15 and if not for a historic 2nd half by Ramirez, likely would have remained there. Obviously the Dodgers didn't sign CC.....but they were always considered one of the favorites with the Yankees. And it wasn't at all out of the question to think they could have signed him and only lost a 2nd round pick as well......

Though I do agree, he was probably banking on getting 2 for him.....but I still feel he had a limit set in his mind on what he was willing to give up for him......but o well.....


On a side note, I was really hoping that Eric Fryer was going to be included in the CC deal before it happened. A bit like McBride but without all the injury issues. O well though.... :s_drinks
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby petes999 » Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:34 pm

Dennis,

There are a few factors to consider when looking at CC, Tex and Blake trade. All that I said before ... sorry for piling it on ...

1) Mid-season trades have a minimum value of the 1-2 draft picks depending on projecting out what group they are in -- then the extra value is based on supply and demand. The demand went down last year as many clubs started to see they had to develop within and held back on trading the farm for 1/2 year help.

Pitching demand was down because NY, Boston, Angles and Rays basically had their starters and weren't going to go hog wild to get extra pitching at the expense of depleting their youth. LA also didn't want to trade Kershaw, Kemp or others for 1/2 year rental. Yet, did open up their second tier - McDonald, Hu, Santana and others .... So the market was Mil., LA and Phili ... not a whole lot of teams to market to. Yes, NY would have gotten in, yet would they give up a Hughes or JoBa?? Would we have been happy to get Hughes when he is starting in AAA this year again.

You also had CC toughness question which brought up questions if he was going to tank in the playoffs. An owner didn't want to give up the farm for someone who had questions about handling the playoff pressure. Then you also had Blaton and Harden traded around the deadline last year which depleted the value of CC by increasing the supply (less talent yet longer contracts).

2) The value for Blake is significantly less than CC, yet he had 3 things going (1) he was Type B players with an outside chance of being Type A (fall 2-3 points short) - go figure --- (2) we paid his contract which was worth a decent prospect and (3) a draft pick is a pick .... doesn't matter if the pick was for CC or Blake .... the return for the other team would have been the same at the end of the year. Thus, Blake had a floor that bumped him closer to CC and CC ceiling was only as good as being an ace in the playoff which was in question.

3) The value of Laporta and Brantley and Bryson was significantly better than Meloan and Santana (note I don't include Jackson as he is a throw in).

Meloan > than Bryson -- yet as you said, relievers are a dime a dozen as many don't live up to their hype. Meloan had more value yet he had a down year which tarnished his image while Bryson had a great year (until the lybrum issue) -- let's for simplicity assume Meloan less Byron was the value of the cash that went with Blake's contract

Then -- Laporta + Brantley > Santana at midseason by a mile and 1/2 .... we have argued back and forth the value of Santana ... Now, he is a 2a/b type prospect behind/ahead of Laporta. Yet, at mid-season, NO ONE would have had him in our top 5 behind LaPorta, Huff, Weglarz, Miller, ... He didn't even make the Top 4 catchers on BA mid-season list. Now, he is #3 catcher behind Weiters and Posey on their top 100 list. No one would have ranked him that high after just 1/2 season in a hitters league.

So - Santana for Blake + FA pick was a good trade ... I am sure LA is kicking themselves as we have from time to time when we see a prospect flourish with a team. So Santana in high-A with 1/2 good year, would have been rated in 5-7 area of a good farm system ... just a bit higher than a low-first round draft pick would be rated.

LaPorta + Brantley for CC + 2 picks is an o.k. trade. Yet, this is a trade that I would do again as even your beloved BA midseason prospect list had LaPorta at #7 or so. Yes, I rather have Kershaw, Price or others rated just as high on BA list, yet these pitchers weren't available. To get top 10 prospect made the Tribe drool. Could we have had more if we waited? Maybe ... maybe not. Yet Milwaukee was the only team willing to give up such a highly regarded prospect and they threatened to back out. Sure Shapiro could have gotten more 2nd tier prospects like Brantley, Santana, Meloan if he wanted. Yet, I have always said, the thing that Indians lack in their system was top rated guys (especially after Miller fell due to injuries). He got that. LaPorta unfortunately had a bad 1/2 season that makes us all question. Yet, if we can turn into Thome, Ramirez or other high profile hitter, we won't be complaining about his defense.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:24 pm

dnosco wrote:
"Then you must have missed the raging guffaws of laughter when BA told you how stupid you were to criticise the Indians 2008 draft!!!!!!!!"


Wrong again. Although you don't know this the question below was a personal one to Callis that he asked to use in the column. Without knowing his answer I agreed to let him use it.

At the signing deadline, the Indians spent heavily to sign Trey Haley($1.25 million), Zach Putnam ($600,000), Tim Fedroff ($725,000), T.J. House ($750,000) and Bryce Stowell ($725,000). While signing draft picks beats the heck out of not signing them, are they even close to worth what Cleveland paid for them? It would seem that if the Indians wanted to spend a lot of money in the draft, they would have been better served drafting guys like Tim Melville, Brandon Crawford and other high-profile players in the early rounds rather than Cord Phelps and David Roberts (and, for that matter, Haley). Do you see this as panic investing by just signing, at whatever cost, the unsigned draft choices they had left? Or was it a smart and well thought out use of available funds?
Dennis Nosco
St. Louis
Haley's bonus caught me a little off guard, as that's first-round money for a player we rated as more of a third- to fifth-round pick. However, Haley flashed first-round stuff at times during the spring and had extra negotiating leverage because he had committed to Rice, which rarely loses players out of high school.

The other bonuses weren't out of line. Putnam went in the fifth round, but we ranked him 50th on our Top 200 list and MLB's slot recommendation for No. 50 was $784,000. House ranked No. 100 and commanded a premium because he had committed to Tulane. There weren't many lefthanders in the draft with better stuff.

Fedroff and Stowell were draft-eligible sophomores, which gave them extra leverage and also caused teams to shy away from them in the draft. Neither made our Top 200, though Fedroff is an advanced hitter who batted .404 with 12 homers as a sophomore at North Carolina and Stowell boosted his stock with an all-star summer in the Cape Cod League.

Will they all pan out? Probably not, because the draft doesn't work that way. But there was some sound rationale behind the way the Indians played the draft.

It's difficult to take highly touted and high-priced players in the early rounds, because if something goes wrong, a team can be left with a bunch of unsigned picks. The Red Sox have been as aggressive in the draft as any club, and they typically start off by taking players who will sign for slot or close to it, then gambling in the later rounds.


First, you know, had BA agreed completely with me you would have blown it off so let's be honest here. If people were laughing it was out of relief as those who are FO shills didn't have to be subject to another source saying how the draft could have not been the best. For someone like you, who disses BA at every turn, to use them in your argument is, well, disingenuous, to say the least. Plus, you totally ignore that BA rated Chisenall like 79th and didn't really like Cleveland's pick in the first round, calling it as one of the most surprising picks.

Second, I was on record as liking the Putnam pick at the time, just saying he probably wouldn't sign for any reasonable amount. Ditto on the House pick which I called, I think, at the time the only high talent pick on the second day.

Third, BA said that guys weren't rated highly and then justified high bonuses based on them being sophomores AND performances that were not apparent at draft time, both of which drove up the bonuses. They NEVER said that they were fair for their talent and, as much said the opposite by saying they weren't top 200 (top 7 round) talents.

Fourth, in a separate e-mail to me Callis said that Roberts was a reasonable pick in the 4th round. As our local guru has now called it a reach as a 4th round pick, something I said at the time, you can take BA's position above with a grain of salt.

Fifth, something you fail to acknowledge at all, BA dissed the Haley pick at the time and in this answer indicating that the bonus was not what he deserved based on his talent but what it took to sign him. They rationalized the bonus but, in fact, said he wasnt' worth the money, talent-wise, something I said at the time. So they actually agreed with me...again.

Sixth, the logic of this answer suffers significantly when they say to draft guys who will sign for slot early and then make the comments they make rationalizing the Haley bonus. I will go on record as saying this may be the worst allocation of bonus the Indians have ever made to a pitcher as even million dollar babies like Smith, Pesco and Denham made it to AA or AAA before flaming out. You, on the other hand, have covered yourself by saying how raw Haley is and how it will take a long time for him to develop. Great strategy. By the time he flames out in low A, going the route of Cody Bunkelman, you will be singing the 'That's ancient history. Move on' mantra. I have also gone on record as saying, had the Indians planned for the windfall from Byrd's salary, they could have easily done much better in terms of talent.

Seventh, Crawford signed for slot when he was drafted and Mehlville signed for what Haley signed for. They were much better selections, at the time, than Phelps and Haley, respectively, were. I am starting to warm to Phelps but, c'mon, a college secondbaseman who hit no HRs in his freshman and sophomore years, then hit double digits in his junior year and, except for his last pro game last year, hit NONE in about 200 ABs in his pro debut? I take my chances on Crawford who fell on draft day, and on Mehlville who I go on record as saying will have an infinitely better career than Haley as any number divided by zero is infinity. I will put those second and third round picks up against Haley and Phelps any day. THAT is what I was talking about. Considering both Haley and Mehlville signed for about the same amount and Crawford signed for about what Phelps signed for, I think it is fair to compare them going forward.

Eighth, BA is wrong on a nubmer of points. Boston drafted Kelly in the first round and signed him for $3 million. Not exactly a slot signing that they talked about in this response. Additionally, the new draft system was set up for teams to go big in early rounds as you get, with the Indians' draft slot, essentially the same pick back the next year. Heck, the Indians think so little of second and third round picks they gladly gave them up to sign Oldberto and Dellucci so it is not like they value those picks and could have taken a shot.

So, read what you want into the Q&A above. While they didn't say agree with me I am OK with their opinion, something I can 100% guarantee, knowing you and your MO, that you wouldn't have been had they agreed with me. In that case you would have gone back to your tried and true monologue about how BA is not really very good and how you can't take stock in what they say, relying more on others who you liberally quote on this and other sites.

Regarding people laughing at me, you presume I think my opinion is worth anything more than my opinion, which I don't. If I ever give that impression, it is only after reading stuff like your post above.

Sorry about the lack of charity, Dennis. But it is really funny and all your wordsmithing only makes it worse. In the future, you may want to pay attention to the old fish adage. I apologize for the fun at your expense. I promised myself I would not respond in kind and I failed this time. My bad! I will overlook your attempt to save face in your last remark. :s_whiteflag
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Hindsight on the Indian trades

Postby dnosco » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Don't worry, there was no fun at my expense. You give yourself too much credit to think you can make that happen. But, whatever. Your MO is now well-known by all on this site...including the intention of this thread, given your complete exageration to open it. Just another bait job...appropriate since you are talking about fish.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm


Return to Beyond The Minors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron