Indians Prospect Insider - Covering the Cleveland Indians from the Minors to the Big Leagues

Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

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

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby homerawayfromhome » Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:06 am

Personally, I don't think I'd include McAllister in any deal unless it brought back a controllable arm like Matt Garza. Not that I have disillusions of McAllister as a FOR starter but he does seem to be developing into a very solid option and probably remains in the starting rotation for the Tribe the remainder of this yr unless a veteran arm s brought in a deal.

As for getting Chase Headley, I'd have no problem pkg 4 prospects to do it. Headley is a top 5-10 3rd baseman according to some, adds a solid SH option, that is controllable and affordable. I don't see Hafner on this team next season, so the possibility to play both Headley and Chisenhall at various positions is a viable option. I believe at one time I had heard there was even thought about playing Chisenhall in LF. Between Headley and Chisenhall there would be enough at bats in LF, 3b, 1b, and DH for both guys to get everyday at bats.
homerawayfromhome
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby MadThinker88 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:30 am

If Terry Pluto has it right and Boston wanted Josh Tomlin in any package from Cleveland to send us Youkalis, then I am happy that no deal was made. To shore up one area of need, the Tribe would have been weakening another area & taking a huge risk with the rotation.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby indians1 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:57 pm

If Scott Barnes was able to pitch out of the rotation and be effective, then that trade would have been easier to make.

Youkilus would have helped this team because he gets on base and is still only 32-33 years old. He isn't old.

Tomlin is a 5th starter on a winning team. He is a paul byrd type guy that has to win with control.
indians1
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:00 am

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby MadThinker88 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:56 pm

indians1 wrote:If Scott Barnes was able to pitch out of the rotation and be effective, then that trade would have been easier to make.

Youkilus would have helped this team because he gets on base and is still only 32-33 years old. He isn't old.

Tomlin is a 5th starter on a winning team. He is a paul byrd type guy that has to win with control.


I understand your point but we all know that Barnes is a pen lefty this season, especially now with the Hagadone injury. Slowey has been injured and less than effective so we are down to Gomez ( working to get his game back on track), Huff & Kluber as depth starters, unless a guy like Soto or Wright gets a chance.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:00 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:If Terry Pluto has it right and Boston wanted Josh Tomlin in any package from Cleveland to send us Youkalis, then I am happy that no deal was made. To shore up one area of need, the Tribe would have been weakening another area & taking a huge risk with the rotation.


Agree it was probably smart to hold on to Tomlin in leiu of Youk. Though, I don't think Tomlin has much value at all on the trade market anymore so don't think it was that crazy a demand by the Sox. Think they may have done better with the guys they got from the ChiSox actually. Since June 1st of last year til now Tomlin has been downright terrible, and I still question whether he can last in this rotation til the end of the year. Gomez lost his job with similar overall numbers. I'd try convincing the Padres that a guy like Tomlin would be perfect for them (big park, NL) and prospect(s) to try and get Headley and/or Quentin.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7096
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby GhostofTedCox » Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:53 pm

I'm out. I'm officially on the side to "sell". :sad

I know that technically we are still not that far out of the wild card race. But this is a flawed team. The other contenders are more complete. We have a set-up man and a closer. Otherwise this looks like a AAAA team. I'm sorry.

This team is even hard for me to watch and follow.

We don't have the ammunition to trade for a player that would truly make a difference in the race. We could improve the roster, but only marginally, and not long term.

I would explore what value people like Choo, Perez, Gomez, and maybe even Hafner have right now. We might be able to add to the roster and truly contend next season. (Like the valuable PTBNL).
User avatar
GhostofTedCox
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby Edible14 » Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:04 pm

I don't understand everyone's rush to trade Choo. I get that he's likely gone after next season, but he's the best hitter on this team (team-leading .377 wOBA. Kipnis, Hafner and Asdrubal all are around .345). As bad as this team's offensive problems may be, you aren't solving anything by getting rid of your best offensive weapon. If the goal is to contend next year, then trading Choo is absolutely antithetical to that unless you get back, say, Josh Hamilton. There are only six outfielders in the AL who are better hitters than Choo. SIX! And unless you're thinking that you'd like Choo for Willingham straight up, there seems to be zero chance of getting any of the guys that are better than him.

If the Indians decide to sell on this year, I think you'd want to look at Lowe, Hafner and Chris Perez. Lowe is the type of middle-rotation starter that is guaranteed to have some playoff teams interested. He won't fetch much, but those are the kind of moves that Shapiro would occasionally hit homeruns on. Hafner's market is limited because he's a DH only. Really, I can't think of a team in the hunt right now that would need him, but injuries may change that. Personally I'd rather keep him and see if you can resign him for half-price or lower next season, because it's not like the Indians will be bursting at the seams with better offensive options. Perez has been discussed many times. It's theoretically smart to trade him if another GM wildly overvalues a closer, as there are replacements here and he's getting more expensive. But it's hard to imagine that actually happening.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby homerawayfromhome » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:22 am

I don't think there's a chance Choo resigns and fact is neither does just about anyone else. I think thats a large part of it. Choo is healthy, and performing well that's a cpl good reasons. Choos max value is now, and trading him for current MLB talent has to be on the table if the player coming back would be controllable beyond 2013. Choo would be the classic addition by subtraction.
I'm not out in this club, but I do feel like they have fade potential. I believe the club should still aggressively look to make moves, but if they continue to slide, they don't have the ammo to make up significant ground. If this club can stay close and add a starter and a bat though they should make things interesting down the stretch, it seems like everyone is in a hold pattern right now. Until a few trades happen to break things loose, it seems any trade may come down to the deadline when a flurry of moves could happen.
I'd love to see the Tribe add Matt Garza or Clayton Richards, and take some pressure off of Jimenez, and Masterson.
The Tribe has to be out there in any bat that is available. How good would have Willingham looked out in LF this yr. I've heard the Royals have been trying to entice the Tribe with Francouer but his $7.5 mil next yr wouldn't be worth it. Francouer has a nice arm, but has left a lot to be desired for that kind of contract.
homerawayfromhome
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby GhostofTedCox » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:48 am

The time to obtain players the level of a Trumbo, Trout, Kipnis, isn't now. They are establishing MLB careers now. It was a year ago.

If Perez can bring a talented starting OF, that is controllable for the next 5 years, then vaya con dios CP. I would rather be stronger over the next few seasons, than make an ill-fated attempt at the playoffs with this years roster.

Ask the Rockies if they are happy with Pom.
Ask the Rangers if Andrus and Feliz have helped when they "sold" Teixeira to the Braves.

The key is this: How good are your talent evaluators?
We need more trades like ACab, and less LaPorta.
User avatar
GhostofTedCox
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby homerawayfromhome » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:01 pm

@ GhostofTedCox...
I'm with you on the Rangers selling Tex.
I put this out there in another post format, but I believe the Tribe over achieved last yr. CA responded instead of developing the talent it had trying to add to the talent to make it qkly competitive. I don't believe in qk fixes and was highly critical of the big trade last yr. honestly, for teams to develop I believe they have to sometimes go through these tough yrs where they realize they are close but not quite there.
I'm in for the Tribe trying to add the right pieces if they can control them for more than a yr. and by so doing extending the 'window of contention'. The key is the Tribe should be looking for now talent in any deal, there is enough talent to compete for the division this yr and beyond. Unless this team falls flat in the next 2 wks...then I say sell Lowe, Kotchman, Damon, and maybe trade CPerez, and Choo for now talent.
homerawayfromhome
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby OhioBaseball » Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:20 pm

Just for the sake of reference, Keith Law stated today in a chat what he felt these comp picks are worth; "I think those picks do have value, probably equivalent to a good-not-great single-A prospect."

I guess that's about a Luigi Rodriguez kind of trade value. The 2nd round comp pick is presumably less.

It'll be interesting to see if any of these are traded. I'd like the Indians to see acquire one or two of these picks. I'm guessing some GM's don't value them all that much b/c their job is on the line.
OhioBaseball
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby ClevelandBlues » Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:04 pm

I am of the opinion that the best move may be to do nothing. I don't think it is a good idea to give away the farm for a rental player, but I think a firesale may be a bit premature. The White Sox and Tigers are't exactly juggernauts this year, so we still have a good chance to win the division. Even if we don't catch them, Choo is a player we are going to need next year if we hope to compete. I would listen to offers for Perez, because a lot of teams often overpay for closers, but I wouldn't trade him just to trade him. Why trade Gomez? He is young, cheap and has options left. If we are out if it in August, we could always trade Hafner and Lowe in a waiver trade to a team trying to stay in the wildcard race. There is also the off chance that we get Sizemore and Hernandez back before the end of the season. I doubt we will see both this season, but there is a chance that at least one of the two return.
ClevelandBlues
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:49 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby GeronimoSon » Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:23 pm

OhioBaseball wrote:Just for the sake of reference, Keith Law stated today in a chat what he felt these comp picks are worth; "I think those picks do have value, probably equivalent to a good-not-great single-A prospect."

I guess that's about a Luigi Rodriguez kind of trade value. The 2nd round comp pick is presumably less.

It'll be interesting to see if any of these are traded. I'd like the Indians to see acquire one or two of these picks. I'm guessing some GM's don't value them all that much b/c their job is on the line.


While having more picks is never a back thing... having more guys that won't ever amount to anything doesn't create a lot of buzz.. When you go back into the recent drafts (to around 2008).. the approximate 70 - 75th selections don't really inspire too much in the way of impact players.. In that group..perhaps, only, Andrellton Simmons stands out as a player who has made it to the ML's and has performed, albeit in small sampling..

btw.. Andrellton Simmons >> Luigi Rodriguez...
GeronimoSon
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby indians1 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:42 pm

The indians are not contenders. They may be 3 games out but they don't have a recipe for success. They don't have one pitcher that they can consistently count on. Tomlin, lowe, masterson, and ubaldo have been wildly inconsistent. What is sad is that mccalister seems like the best bet to do well right now.

Masterson has his moments, but he loses his control very easily. In 2005 and 2007, the indians had amazing pitching. This year's staff does not resemble those teams at all. We have holes at catcher, 1B, 3B, and LF and no middle of the order hitter.that anchors the lineup.

The indians were wrong on the ubaldo trade and they would be wrong if they make a trade this year mortgaging whatever few prospects ( referring to lindor) they have left.

This is an organization with no impact players other than Lindor in the minors. We have garbage in akron and columbus with overrated prospects in A+ ball.

We are a team that are stuck right now. We are not fielding an underachieving team like in 2006, 2008, and 2009 under shapiro and wedge. Those teams had talent and we blew it. this team is overachieving with average talent that has a ceiling .

This team is stuck for the next few years unless we get some impact players from the minors somehow or we make some shrewd trades.
indians1
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:00 am

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby Prosecutor » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:19 am

I agree with indians1. This team has way too many holes to go anywhere in the playoffs, even if they can slip in. Keep developing the farm system, it's their only option. When possible, make small deals for guys like Niles Rogers, who has turned into a very good reliever at no cost to the Indians. Hannahan turned out to be a worthwhile signing. The Joe Smith deal added an important piece. Lopez, Kotchman, Damon...not so much. Keep up the bargain hunting for valuable role players.

Continue to extend the contracts of players like Asdrubal and Santana as much as possible. Brantley should be the next target. He's developed into a .300 hitter, he plays a solid centerfield, and his lack of home run power is not an issue as a centerfielder.

The biggest problem is starting pitching. Lowe is toast. Tomlin has not pitched well in over a year and it's not looking promising. Gomez has not shown the consistency to merit a spot in the rotation - yet. I'm not sold on Kluber or anybody else at Columbus. The burnouts of Adam Miller and Jason Knapp really hurt.

The Indians have a good young nucleus with Brantley, Asdrubal, Chisenhall, Kipnis, Santana, Marson, Masterson, McAlister, Chris Perez, and Vinnie. Rogers looks like a keeper. They need a couple of their prospects to emerge and they need to find some starting pitching to replace Lowe and Tomlin. Hopefully Carrasco can fill one of those spots and Gomez or McFarland can take the other.

Choo can be moved at the trade deadline next year if the Tribe is out of contention, unless they get an offer they can't refuse in the next couple of weeks. Still, how can you throw in the towel on this season when you're a game out of the wild card?
Prosecutor
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby GoTribe028 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:47 pm

Prosecutor wrote:Choo can be moved at the trade deadline next year if the Tribe is out of contention, unless they get an offer they can't refuse in the next couple of weeks. Still, how can you throw in the towel on this season when you're a game out of the wild card?


You can't. You're telling the fanbase what they already "know" (believe), that you're "not in it to win it" if you do. Might as well just deal Pestano/Kipnis/Chisenhall/Masterson/Carrasco/Santana/Brantley and tell the fanbase "we hope to contend again in 2017".

Yeah...that would go over really well, especially for all the "WE'RE LAST IN ATTENDENCE!!! AAGGGHHHHH!!!!!" crowd.
GoTribe028
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby GhostofTedCox » Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:28 pm

GoTribe028 wrote:
Prosecutor wrote:Choo can be moved at the trade deadline next year if the Tribe is out of contention, unless they get an offer they can't refuse in the next couple of weeks. Still, how can you throw in the towel on this season when you're a game out of the wild card?


You can't. You're telling the fanbase what they already "know" (believe), that you're "not in it to win it" if you do. Might as well just deal Pestano/Kipnis/Chisenhall/Masterson/Carrasco/Santana/Brantley and tell the fanbase "we hope to contend again in 2017".

Yeah...that would go over really well, especially for all the "WE'RE LAST IN ATTENDENCE!!! AAGGGHHHHH!!!!!" crowd.


Sorry guys, I gotta disagree.
Trading prospects to try to fix this years team is like taking an old junker to the carwash. It may look better, but it still runs like hell. The price in prospects would be heavy.

Everybody agrees our best prospect is Lindor. He should be MLB ready around 2015. By coincidence, Asdrubal is signed through 2014, and should be wearing pinstripes in 2015. I think the 2015 team, adding Lindor, Aguilar, Naquin to vets like Kipnis, Santana, Chisenhall will be a helluva team.
Or the 2015 team could be crap if you trade those guys now.
User avatar
GhostofTedCox
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby criznit2009 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:16 pm

I know everyone here thinks Lindor is our best prospect - I believe he is too BUT he hasn't "exceeded" expectations IMO so far. Also, we have 3 other SS prospects as well. Most notably Dorssys Paulino and to a lesser extent Ronny Rod (considered by most a top 10 or even a top 5 prospect by some in our system). I have my doubts with Ronny Rod's ability to stick at SS though but with that interesting power bat for now he still gets to try. Oh yeah and another guy, Mr.Tony Wolters. Then there is Diaz who hasnt much of a shot but he is still young-ish.

I am not saying any of these guys are as "good" as Lindor but as deep as we are at SS and the encouraging performance of Paulino (who is younger!!)! and really only 1 level behind - Lindor is NOT UNTOUCHABLE. The right deal gets him. Too bad we can't trade ourselves for Ubaldo - HA!

The real issue is, the joke that is our FO and our cheap-ass owner (yes I am most certainly Dolan bashing right now) - did almost nothing to truly improve our team in the off-season. And now??????? We have already watched 2 players that would have most certainly been upgrades go to other teams. Why we passed on Youkalis is beyond me.... When the offensive juggernauts known as Casey Kotchman and Jack Hannahan are your daily starters and lefties, your DH is penciled in the DL as often as the starting line up and isnt having a good year..... Yeah - lets pass on Youk.... Seriously was a terrible move - just like not signing Willingham (having a career year) because he wants a 3 yr deal. Wait lets re-sign our busted CF for 5mil guaranteed + incentives for 1 year - and for what? To go through the exact same thing next year???? Oh and Cody Ross signed the same deal (1yr 3million) we gave Kotchman.

I havent posted in awhile mainly because I have become so disgusted with how this team is run. Imagine how much better this team could have been with I don't know----- a little COMMITMENT????? A few more bucks? Better managment? 8 mil wasted on Kotch and Sizemore alone - those were 1 year deals and people on here exclaim WE DONT NEED A RENTAL... 1 year, half a year whatever. Oh and Cunningham, is somehow better then EZ? It is no wonder attendence is so low, the FO/Owner has done NOTHING to entice the fans come out for a ball game. No commitment from the owner = no commitment from the fans, except the diehards...



Wanna know why St. Louis is such a great baseball town? Review the history, they are ran nothing like the indians.
criznit2009
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby dazindiansfanuk » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:53 pm

criznit2009 wrote:I know everyone here thinks Lindor is our best prospect - I believe he is too BUT he hasn't "exceeded" expectations IMO so far.


I disagree.

He's a 19 year old in his first season playing in full season ball and carrying a line of .270/.364/.390/.754 with 20 2B, 5HR and 19 SB.

On the surface, they're not "sexy" numbers but I think they are far exceeding offensive expectations for him, to the point that at seasons end he's gonna rank in or close to the top 15 in MILB amongst most rankings.
dazindiansfanuk
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby JP_Frost » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:33 pm

his BB/K numbers are great. For any player really, but especially one this young and inexperienced. If he becomes a .750 - .800 OPS shortstop with excellent defense, we'd have one helluva player on our team.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby homerawayfromhome » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:35 pm

Agreed Lindor will be a top 15 prospect next season.

I'm not convinced RRod will be forced off SS by his defense. Honestly, I don't see him sticking bc of Lindor, Wolters and Paulino. RRod would probably be the first to be moved away from SS.
homerawayfromhome
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby MadThinker88 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:04 pm

homerawayfromhome wrote:Agreed Lindor will be a top 15 prospect next season.

I'm not convinced RRod will be forced off SS by his defense. Honestly, I don't see him sticking bc of Lindor, Wolters and Paulino. RRod would probably be the first to be moved away from SS.


I agree that RRod will likely be moved to another spot. The question becomes: is he better moved to another infield spot or to the outfield?? If he is having defensive issues now, I rather he move sooner than later in order to learn the little things and improve so all aspects of his game are in place when (IF) he makes the bigs.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby JP_Frost » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:42 pm

Is he Ronny having defensive issues though? He's making errors in A ball, that's not a big deal. I've seen nothing stating that he has lost range or anything like that.

However, I do think he will be moved because his bat can play at other positions (3rd base, outfield corners).
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby homerawayfromhome » Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:13 pm

I think RRod could end up in any of those positions, if he's not traded.
homerawayfromhome
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby Edible14 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:45 pm

Re: Criznit (didn't want to copy/paste that wall of text)

To say that there have been mistakes is correct. I think, if given access to a time machine, that certainly we would've passed on Grady, tried to sign Willingham instead, and traded for Youkilis to replace Kotchman. Maybe with the same time machine we could take back the Ubaldo trade. But I find it hard to say that the front office is entirely at fault in any of those scenarios.

It's not clear as day that Youkilis should have been traded for. He was at the time a non-hitting, injury prone mess of a player before being traded to Chicago. Similarly, to pretend that there wasn't some reason to be interested in Ubaldo Jiminez would be misguided. Those are mistakes, and surely they hurt, but let's not pretend like they're the only thing that hurt. Carlos Beltran spurning us for St. Louis hurt way more than Willingham going elsewhere. Trading for Youkilis wouldn't even have been a discussion if Carlos Pena signed here instead of going to the Rays for (reportedly) less. To suggest that there are failed moves is probably correct. To then assert that these failed moves adds up to a front office that is incompetent and in need of replacing... is a leap of logic that needs more foundation. It's not like the front office didn't make some good moves to get to where they are... to demand perfection out of any team's front office is too much to ask.

Furthermore, it's weird to me for you to assert that the Dolans are cheap and then turn around to bemoan about wasted money on Sizemore, Kotchman, and Damon. Even if that money doesn't turn out to be well spent, is that not spent money?
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby indians1 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:26 pm

I am tired of hearing the "dolan is cheap" line.

First, he is not operating any different than dick jacobs did. Last time i checked dick jacobs let albert belle walk away in 96 and go to chicago when the indians were selling out every game.

Maybe we would have won a world series with albert, manny, and thome in the lineup for a few more years. But jacobs had to makes sure he made a profit on this team.

You can argue that dolan has not hired the right people to run this team, but they aren't cheap. Does anybody think larry and paul dolan said, "no! spend the money on grady and kotchman instead of willingham"? That is on shapiro and antonetti who have been doing this garbage for years.

They try to spread the money around and try to hit on a few players instead of focusing on some guys that can help this team.
We are flawed organization that cannot develop our own players on a consistent basis and we can't keep anyones that we do healthy.

That is a problem in a small market.
indians1
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:00 am

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby Bearcatbob » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:50 am

The problem is simple. The farm system is a waste land. The inability to produce an outfielder is simply damning evidence of how bad it is/has been.

We were told the focus would be on pitching and that we could easily trade surplus pitching for position players. Well - the pitching is starting to stink as well.

IMO the Chisenhall injury now appears far more impactful than I thought as we could sure use his bat. I do not know if platooning guys like Hannahan is hurting them or not. Players need to play almost everyday to perform.

Bob
Bearcatbob
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:10 am

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby ironmike » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:28 am

Indians1, when Albert left, the difference between Jacobs team and the Dolan team is the Indians replaced Belle with an somewhat equal talent (David Justice, Matt Williams and a bunck of other guys, including Robbie a few years later) and got back to the WS in '97. Plus, no comparision in the talent evaluations skills of Shapiro versus Hart, just look at their respective track record. Hope you all enjoy Brandon Phillips having an MVP year for the Reds and Wedge is on his way to another losing season, both Mark Shapiro productions. Cleveland was THEE place to play, not any more. Jacobs took one of the worst teams in baseball and generated real monetary value with the franchise.

When Indian fans think of our great teams in the 90's they think of the hitters, but in reality we led the league in pitching a few times too.

Right now, Shapiro, as President, is trying to sell sizzle without the steak, which in marketing principles is a scam. Their marketing machine has put so much pressure on Carlos Santana, a player who would hit 9th in our 90's team line up, but would never beat out Sandy for the position. Why do I compare the 90's with now? Simple, it is and remains the formula for winning in Cleveland. Cleveland is right NOW an excellent opportunity for an owner with a vision and great business skills. Buy low, like we are and then sell high. Get good people with winning track records and rebuild this thing. Simply, repeat the process. The best thing that could happen to the Indians is if John Hart would put together a group to buy the team and operate the team.

Tony Lastoria calls the Browns a mess, he will live to regret those words. More like jealousy, kinda like a parent today who blames the teacher when their kid screws up. Instead of discipling the kid, they stick up for them. The Browns are doing it the right way. Most of you should listen to Hargrove's interview yesterday on STO and learn about how the Indians had a 5 year plan, but did not publicize it. It worked, it REALLY worked. So what Shapiro and Dolan have torn apart, now becomes an excellent opportunity for the right buyer.

Best thing you can do as an Indians fan right now? DON'T attend games. Make Dolan surrender, your paying for a dimished product being offered by ownership that is under-financed and lacks real competitive professional sports franchise skills and executives. They'll keep feeding you more propoganda. We could have had Thome as our DH this year, instead its Hafner why? Why? Talent? No, money, the BIG money mistake Hafner, giving a limited, restricted DH type only $60 million dollars for 5 years who might have been on steroids at one time. A HUGE, crippling evaluation error. Here is a team that won't cut their losses at the expense of winning more games.

What the Indians should be trying to selll is WINNING. Winning starts with talent. Right now they are covering up, trying to buy time to right things that Shapiro and the farm system executives blew up during their tenure. Not a good situation. What proves this? Just look at the attendance, the won-loss record over time and the lack of talent developed. Not sold on their farm system, same people running it who have not performed in the past.

Until we get back to building with OUR own core players, we will continue to have problems. We need to find ways to accelerate finding core players or it is 5 years of waiting to this so called new crop develops. All I see at the moment is a long jam of future shortstops and no Manny's, Albert's or Thome.

Not being critical, just realistic.

Picked the Indians to win 76-78 games, going to be dam close. This is NOT a playoff caliber team.

Not a question of the Indians buying or selling, they must be commited to winning at all cost, adding talent even when they know they can't win. You won't get core players for guys like Duncan, Lowe, Cunningham, Damon, Hannahan, and even Santana. Who did we get for Carl Pavano? Ditto, Derek Lowe. Would not be surprised if they bring Lowe back next year. Agree with Mike Hargrove, Lowe will bounce back strong after his two lousy starts.

Keep adding to the pile whenever they can and hope for the best. Francisco Liriano's name was mentioned by Jon Moroski as a potential acquisition.

Things aren't going to change much until Dolan and Shapiro leave. In the meantime, my entertainment dollars will be spent elsewhere, refuse to be scammed.

With the trading deadline looming, if the Indians need to sweeten any deal to get it done, they can always add Geronimo ... that will get the deal done.
User avatar
ironmike
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:28 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby elrod enchilada » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:06 am

Idiot teams do two things: they trade their best future prospects for veterans to make mediocre teams slightly less mediocre; they grotesquely exaggerate the quality and impact of the veterans they have mortgaged the future for.

They are idiot teams because they make themselves permanently mediocre.

recent exhibit: Ubaldo Jimenez

The 2012 Tribe has no business in the playoffs or contention. It is at best a mediocre team. The middle of the batting order is a joke. The starting pitching makes you cringe more often than not. The talent is woeful. Nothing should be done on the trade front that might compromise our ability to be truly competitive in future years, after 2013.

Sure, we have a number of promising middle infielders: Lindor, Paulino, Ronny Rod, Wolters. Give them all another season or two to percolate. If we are blessed with having an embarrassment of riches they will have vastly greater trade value in one or two years than they do today.
elrod enchilada
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby daingean » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:02 pm

elrod enchilada wrote:Idiot teams do two things: they trade their best future prospects for veterans to make mediocre teams slightly less mediocre; they grotesquely exaggerate the quality and impact of the veterans they have mortgaged the future for.

They are idiot teams because they make themselves permanently mediocre.

recent exhibit: Ubaldo Jimenez

The 2012 Tribe has no business in the playoffs or contention. It is at best a mediocre team. The middle of the batting order is a joke. The starting pitching makes you cringe more often than not. The talent is woeful. Nothing should be done on the trade front that might compromise our ability to be truly competitive in future years, after 2013.

Sure, we have a number of promising middle infielders: Lindor, Paulino, Ronny Rod, Wolters. Give them all another season or two to percolate. If we are blessed with having an embarrassment of riches they will have vastly greater trade value in one or two years than they do today.


I tend to disagree with much (but not all of what you are saying). Most of the prospects in the minors will fall by the wayside and wash out somewhere going up the ladder. While saying that, yes there are a few I'd hold onto if I can (Lindor and Paulino are 2) but for the most part if I can get a piece that I can control for some time, I'd give up a Wolters or a R-Rod. You also have to look at what is going on and the Indians have a chance in the AL Central right now (despite all of our warts) and to give up would be criminal. I'd make a move but it has to be the right move. The difference between good teams and average teams is more trades like the B.Colon deal and less of the Ubaldo deals. The lack depth in this org at both OF and 1B should be setting off alarms. Getting someone that can produce now (and for a few years) has to be a priority.

The Ubaldo thing had red flags before we bought him which would have made me not do that trade. The loss of velocity is still there and it is what is separating him from being an average pitcher from being a good pitcher. Most guys like Ubaldo and F-Bob that are sinker guys will have control issues especially if their balls move the way they do. Velocity makes hitters have to pull the trigger just fractions of a second earlier but that earlier can be the difference. Ubaldo is what he is and to expect him to regain what he was 2 years ago maybe a dream (dreams do come true but you don't trade the farm for a dream).
daingean
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1533
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby elrod enchilada » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:43 pm

If I had confidence in our front office to make a trade with RRod or Wolters that returned a serious OF or 1B who could play at a quality major league level, sure. But right now I do not. The taste of the Ubaldo deal is in my mouth. I suspect the other GMs in MLB all have the Tribe management down as the new Horace Stoneham. Back in the 60s GMs raced at the winter meetings to be the first team to get Horace Stoneham alone in a hotel room with a bottle of bourbon. The guy traded away countless studs--Cepeda, the Alous, Perry, Flood, Bill White, the list goes on and on--for trash.

The Tribe is far better at making deals of veterans for kids than kids for veterans. I think we should stick with what we do well.

Yes, I know we are technically in contention. But we really do suck. I watch almost every game and I admire Manny and what the players get out of their limited talent, but to trade away potential players to try to tweak this team is a short-sighted exercise.

Plus RRod and Wolters will possibly have greater value in a year or two. Then we might actually get something of real value for them...if we have a GM whose head is not you know where.
elrod enchilada
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby homerawayfromhome » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:42 pm

I don't think we can fault CA for striking on Jimenez. Maybe he gets things somewhat straight and is able to act as a serviceable 2/3 over the next season and a half. Who knows maybe he gets moved for prospects at some point, which would mean the Tribe had hit a real low. What did the Tribe really lose? Pomeranz a big possible stud LH, White probably ends up a middle reliever / bullpen arm (remember: Whites finger injury??? I think that drastically affected how the club viewed him, and maybe rightfully so), McBride a career minor leaguer, and Joe Gardner whom I'm not convinced is much more than a bullpen arm at best, many here viewed him as a top 15 prospect, I had him in the 25-30 range.

Those who believe this team is void of talent are wrong. It's funny the Tribe graduates so many players from the farm to the big league club and also trades away several last yr. and suddenly there is a huge void of talent. It's simply not the case. The Tribe utilized a different stagedy than in the past in the draft going for young talent with high upside than middling talent close to the bigs. Truthfully there is a gap in talent, but not a void. There are numerous prospects in the system at multiple positions that will be pushing their way up or become expendable.
homerawayfromhome
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby Chiefroy » Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:25 pm

Truthfully, there is a gap in talent on our ML roster.
Chiefroy
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby homerawayfromhome » Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:56 pm

@ chiefroy...
Agreed, there are flat out holes on the big club. I was referring to the system being void of talent. I actually believe there's a tremendous amount of high upside talent...but it's all at (A) Carolina and lower. There's the gap, but not void of talent.
homerawayfromhome
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby ironmike » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:30 pm

Gap or void it really doesn't matter, what matters is -- the product at the MLB is not promotable to enough fans and advertisers to make it viable. It all starts there at the ML level, the core of the revenue stream and profitability and it needs to get fixed in a hurry.
User avatar
ironmike
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:28 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby criznit2009 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:44 pm

Edible14 wrote:Re: Criznit (didn't want to copy/paste that wall of text)

To say that there have been mistakes is correct. I think, if given access to a time machine, that certainly we would've passed on Grady, tried to sign Willingham instead, and traded for Youkilis to replace Kotchman. Maybe with the same time machine we could take back the Ubaldo trade. But I find it hard to say that the front office is entirely at fault in any of those scenarios.

It's not clear as day that Youkilis should have been traded for. He was at the time a non-hitting, injury prone mess of a player before being traded to Chicago. Similarly, to pretend that there wasn't some reason to be interested in Ubaldo Jiminez would be misguided. Those are mistakes, and surely they hurt, but let's not pretend like they're the only thing that hurt. Carlos Beltran spurning us for St. Louis hurt way more than Willingham going elsewhere. Trading for Youkilis wouldn't even have been a discussion if Carlos Pena signed here instead of going to the Rays for (reportedly) less. To suggest that there are failed moves is probably correct. To then assert that these failed moves adds up to a front office that is incompetent and in need of replacing... is a leap of logic that needs more foundation. It's not like the front office didn't make some good moves to get to where they are... to demand perfection out of any team's front office is too much to ask.

Furthermore, it's weird to me for you to assert that the Dolans are cheap and then turn around to bemoan about wasted money on Sizemore, Kotchman, and Damon. Even if that money doesn't turn out to be well spent, is that not spent money?


Hey there - I am glad my post has provoked discussion because quite frankly I believe it is needed....

Quick reply to the whole time machine motif. That was not my point. My point was the list of mistakes made in recent times has grown from a pile into a mountain. Could add Slowey and his 1.5 million and losing Putnam to the list, losing both Burns and Judy to bring in Cunningham, not to mention all the 4A hacks we signed in spring training - Lewis,Pie, Spilborghs.. though not unusual to bring in potential types - the indians of recent have turned it into an art form.

My point was the indians FO/Owner failed to "fix" the team mainly in the off-season. A little Q and A.

Q:You say the Dolans are cheap but they spent money on Sizemore, Kotchman and Damon is this not spending money?
A: Of course it is spending money but it is penny pinching at its finest. Allow me to elaborate. Bringing back Sizemore was a result of not wanting to give Willingham a 3 yr deal - money was not the issue the length of the contract was - at least as reported on this site by Tony. Also he wasnt brought in despite his "perfect fit offensively but didnt fit defensively" - not an exact quote but close to what some FO talking head said. Willingham would have been our everyday starter in LF this year.Instead it has been Duncan, Damon and Cuningham - what was that about defense????? Also given Hafners history Willingham would have seen sizeable time at DH this year and even going into 2013 and beyond as Hafner will not be back next year for anything more than a 3 million if at all. Sizemore was brought back simply because I feel the Indians believed (especially once Beltran said shove off) they had no chance to sign/trade for any other CF. Clearly they were not going to go for Cepedes (who makes that decision?) Ignoring Grady's injury and even to some extent performance history they brought him back. I hated this when it happened and I wasn't alone - I felt that if Brantley had any future value on this team it was a CF and oddly enough that is where he has been playing the whole season. Not signing Grady = 5mil saved. If we can't compete with the A's or Twins when it comes to player contracts who is responsible that?
Q: And Kotchman?
A: Was the last 1B left on the market, and arguably the cheapest. Lets not forget a couple of trades where we saw hot shot 1B prospects go to other teams. No matter how you slice it, the indians FAILED to properly address the 1B in the off-season. And its even worse now as both Carlos Lee (How many of you moaned and pegged him as an ideal trade target?) and Youkalis have been traded to other teams.
Q: Damon?
A: Oh you mean the guy considered to be so washed up not a single team invited him to Spring training?
Between Sizemore, Kotchman, Slowey and Damon not to mention Pie. That well over 9 million (10 million?????) spent that has resulted in what? I will tell you - THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM WE WILL HAVE FACING US IN 2013 and that we have had since roughly 2011.

I liked the ballsyness of the Ubaldo trade even though it hasn't worked out. Pence was the guy honestly that would have helped last year. Considering the trades of Vmart,Lee and Sabathia and the net result of said trades those are failures too.

Bottomline - the managment/owners of this team have failed. Failed in trades, failed in bringing in FA's (I know Hanny) and depleted the top end (AA-AAA) of our farm system in the process. Sure we have graduated a few guys, but not enough to call it a success IMO. And I am left to ask you now - Who's fault is that?????? It is NOT the fans.
criznit2009
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby go_tribe » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:10 pm

people on here complain about the lack of talent on the big league club yet are looking for us to trade Choo, it makes no sense.
go_tribe
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:49 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby ironmike » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:06 pm

Criznit2009, well said, your post is right on target.
User avatar
ironmike
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:28 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby indians1 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:32 pm

ironmike wrote:Indians1, when Albert left, the difference between Jacobs team and the Dolan team is the Indians replaced Belle with an somewhat equal talent (David Justice, Matt Williams and a bunck of other guys, including Robbie a few years later) and got back to the WS in '97. Plus, no comparision in the talent evaluations skills of Shapiro versus Hart, just look at their respective track record. Hope you all enjoy Brandon Phillips having an MVP year for the Reds and Wedge is on his way to another losing season, both Mark Shapiro productions. Cleveland was THEE place to play, not any more. Jacobs took one of the worst teams in baseball and generated real monetary value with the franchise.

When Indian fans think of our great teams in the 90's they think of the hitters, but in reality we led the league in pitching a few times too.

Right now, Shapiro, as President, is trying to sell sizzle without the steak, which in marketing principles is a scam. Their marketing machine has put so much pressure on Carlos Santana, a player who would hit 9th in our 90's team line up, but would never beat out Sandy for the position. Why do I compare the 90's with now? Simple, it is and remains the formula for winning in Cleveland. Cleveland is right NOW an excellent opportunity for an owner with a vision and great business skills. Buy low, like we are and then sell high. Get good people with winning track records and rebuild this thing. Simply, repeat the process. The best thing that could happen to the Indians is if John Hart would put together a group to buy the team and operate the team.

Tony Lastoria calls the Browns a mess, he will live to regret those words. More like jealousy, kinda like a parent today who blames the teacher when their kid screws up. Instead of discipling the kid, they stick up for them. The Browns are doing it the right way. Most of you should listen to Hargrove's interview yesterday on STO and learn about how the Indians had a 5 year plan, but did not publicize it. It worked, it REALLY worked. So what Shapiro and Dolan have torn apart, now becomes an excellent opportunity for the right buyer.

Best thing you can do as an Indians fan right now? DON'T attend games. Make Dolan surrender, your paying for a dimished product being offered by ownership that is under-financed and lacks real competitive professional sports franchise skills and executives. They'll keep feeding you more propoganda. We could have had Thome as our DH this year, instead its Hafner why? Why? Talent? No, money, the BIG money mistake Hafner, giving a limited, restricted DH type only $60 million dollars for 5 years who might have been on steroids at one time. A HUGE, crippling evaluation error. Here is a team that won't cut their losses at the expense of winning more games.

What the Indians should be trying to selll is WINNING. Winning starts with talent. Right now they are covering up, trying to buy time to right things that Shapiro and the farm system executives blew up during their tenure. Not a good situation. What proves this? Just look at the attendance, the won-loss record over time and the lack of talent developed. Not sold on their farm system, same people running it who have not performed in the past.

Until we get back to building with OUR own core players, we will continue to have problems. We need to find ways to accelerate finding core players or it is 5 years of waiting to this so called new crop develops. All I see at the moment is a long jam of future shortstops and no Manny's, Albert's or Thome.

Not being critical, just realistic.

Picked the Indians to win 76-78 games, going to be dam close. This is NOT a playoff caliber team.

Not a question of the Indians buying or selling, they must be commited to winning at all cost, adding talent even when they know they can't win. You won't get core players for guys like Duncan, Lowe, Cunningham, Damon, Hannahan, and even Santana. Who did we get for Carl Pavano? Ditto, Derek Lowe. Would not be surprised if they bring Lowe back next year. Agree with Mike Hargrove, Lowe will bounce back strong after his two lousy starts.

Keep adding to the pile whenever they can and hope for the best. Francisco Liriano's name was mentioned by Jon Moroski as a potential acquisition.

Things aren't going to change much until Dolan and Shapiro leave. In the meantime, my entertainment dollars will be spent elsewhere, refuse to be scammed.

With the trading deadline looming, if the Indians need to sweeten any deal to get it done, they can always add Geronimo ... that will get the deal done.


I don't think anybody can defend the play of the indians. The FO has screwed up and they are still below average in talent evaluation. Just because guys are getting to the majors doesn't make them successful. We have hit on jason kipnis and that is about it.

For all the failures of john mirabelli, brad grant is clearly better. But the question remains, are we going from an F to a C now in our drafts. It is pretty pathetic that with the trades of pomeranz and white that our farm system is garbage.

I think the dolans want to win and have stepped up with the money. They gave long term deals to sizemore, hafner, carmona, victor,. The problem is these guys for the most part have not played up to their contracts. The problem remains with talent evaluation.

Dick jacobs never overspent on players and never broke the bank to win a world series at a time when the AL central was a given on day 1. Remember, the indians didn't have to deal with detroit, chicago (for the most part), minnesota (in most of the 2000's), like they have to now.

The indians making the playoffs in the 90's was not a big achievement (especially after 95') The point is after 97, they stopped drafting and developing guys through the farm system and it has gotten worse under shapiro.

and by the way, the browns are still a mess. they are coming off a 4-12 season and 5-11 season previously. When they start to actually compete with pittsburgh and baltimore, i will give some credit.

I am amazed how people give the browns the benefit of the doubt before playing one game., yet won't support the indians when they were actually winning.
indians1
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:00 am

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby criznit2009 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:42 pm

I want to add this thought in regards to player scouting and development from within the indians system. This is the list of players who started their professional careers with the indians and are currently rostered. Only 2 stand-outs (so far) really.... Read on.

Of the players the indians signed and rostered only one has not seen any ML time - Salazar. Currently on the 40 man only 12 players were developed from the start as indians. That includes 9 pitchers, 4 starters and 5 relievers. Lets list them.

Starters
JGomez (possibly the best of the bunch), David Huff, Danny Salazar (in A ball and not anywhere close to the ML team) and Josh Tomlin who is hanging on by a thread IMO.... Thats not good.

Relievers (this list isn't so bad - but bullpen pitchers should not be your bread and butter)
Cody Allen, Frank Herrmann, Raffy Perez (currently on the 60 day DL), Vinny Pestano (arguably the BEST pitcher developed recently) and Tony Sipp.

Currently on the active roster - 4 total. 1 SP Tomlin (days are looking numbered) RP 3 - Sipp, Allen (brand new) and of course Vinny Pestano.

Infielders - 3 total on the 40 man.
KIPNIS - the best player developed by the tribe in recent times. Chisenhall - hard to tell how he will end up, but looks to have enough stuff I am rooting for him. He is also on the DL and his season looks to be over. And finally, Cord Phelps.

On the 25 man only 1. KIPNIS, though Chiz might be if he wasn't injured.

Outfielders....
On the 40... 0, none, nada, zip. How is that even possible?
On the 25 man - see above.

DH - none.

So there you have it. All of you who are fans of player development here is your final tally:

40 man
12 players - Pestano and Kipnis lead the pack. 9 pitchers, 3 IF and 0 OF.

Active (25 man) roster
5 players - Yes 5 - 3 RP's, 1 SP and 1 IF.

Not sure what league averages are, but those numbers don't look very good to me, and a lot of posters don't feel there is much hope in AAA let alone AA. I know there have been injuries and trades that have drastically shaped the roster but when your current active roster only has 1 SP, 1 position player and 3 relief pitchers on it that were developed in your system from start to finish(?) it well, kinda says something doesn't it?
criznit2009
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby Edible14 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:13 pm

criznit2009 wrote: Bottomline - the managment/owners of this team have failed. Failed in trades, failed in bringing in FA's (I know Hanny) and depleted the top end (AA-AAA) of our farm system in the process. Sure we have graduated a few guys, but not enough to call it a success IMO. And I am left to ask you now - Who's fault is that?????? It is NOT the fans.


I guess I disagree with the notion that one person or one group needs to be blamed here. It's not JUST the fault of Antonetti/Shapiro. Again, I won't dispute that LF and 1B are glaring holes that needed to be fixed and didn't end up being fixed adequately. But to pin that entirely on the front office is overly simplistic. There's a lot of things that went into those failings that the front office had little to no control of. Carlos Beltran deciding he'd rather be in St. Louis, or Carlos Pena preferring Tampa despite reportedly equitable contract offers, is not in their control. Prince Fielder being well out of their price range is not in their control. Grady Sizemore getting hurt almost immediately after getting to Arizona, while likely forseeable, is not in their control. Johnny Damon was awful, but don't forget that the Indians pretty much knew that and were exploring every other option first. It's not like that's a failing in scouting. They knew that Damon was not going to be great, but would be a better option than Aaron Cunningham. And that's been pretty much dead on. Sad, but dead on. Similarly, Kotchman was close to the last choice. And unless you think that Matt LaPorta would be better, that's still an upgrade.

But again, it's not all bad. There are still plenty of good moves that have been made. Nearly this entire roster is built on trades and free agents, and the roster isn't awful. It's still a contending team, if not a favorite. And they're contending despite complete unpredictability from their top starters coming into the season (Ubaldo, Tomlin and Masterson have all underwhelmed), and their best hitter being in a monumental slump (Santana). I don't think you can blame the front office for good players underperforming... especially when they have established track records of performing well. Realistically, I think if Santana played up to last year's numbers offensively right now, there's a chance we're still in first place. Same could be said of Justin Masterson.

And I really don't see what more you could ask of the owners. More money is easy to say, but on who? They reportedly offered Beltran $15M/year... I don't think that's penny-pinching. They apparently offered Carlos Lee more money, it just didn't matter to him. And honestly I think the Sizemore deal came way to early in the offseason to say that it had anything to do with the availability and demands of Josh Willingham. I think Sizemore signed before free agency technically started, so I doubt the Indians even knew what Willingham wanted. I don't see any time in this offseason where the reason the Indians didn't get someone was because the owners were too penny-pinching, unless you're of the opinion that they should have been in on Fielder, Pujols, CJ Wilson or Jose Reyes.

The point is that there's blame to go around. But the situation is not that grim. This team is not going to be a juggernaut, and to expect that out of a mid-market team is absurd to begin with. They are still a winning team, and they're still contending. This isn't armageddon. This isn't a huge failure that needs to result in ownership changes and Antonetti/Shapiro being fired. This is mid-market baseball. Have some patience.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby criznit2009 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:29 am

@Edible14

I agree you can't blame the FO/Owner for EVERYTHING... But I refuse to believe that because we are a small market with a fickle fan base who feels cheated by the owner right or wrong that no one is accountable. Time to sack up and realize we have been duped, we have been had and the main reason behind all of it? To ensure the teams ability to turn a profit above all else. Period. Who makes that call?

Just because the attempts at spending have resulted in bad results, (again who's fault is that?) Does not mean "OK we messed up in who decided to give money to a few year back, so now we are not going to risk spending any large amount of money on anything even remotely close to a long term contract". Sure you can point to Beltran who would have made a fine addition, or Pena who both decided they didn't want to come here, but those are only 2 players. And why didn't they want to come here? Though simplistic - is the root of the issue the fans or the brass? As a fan I say B-R-A-S-S. Beltran wanted to go to a winner and obviously felt like Cleveland was a loser and ownership would have no problem ditching him for prospects/salary relief once it became advantageous. No Loyalty - just ask any number of former Cleveland players. And that drives fans nuts. Baseball teams are businesses but once you try to squeeze every last cent out of them you can, fans turn on you and rightfully so... It is a vicious cycle. Owners need money from fans and fans need players from owners. Once fans feel betrayed right or wrong the onus is on the owners/FO fix the problem because they are the only ones who can. The fans are their customers and how does that silly yet often true saying go???
The customer is always right.
Sometimes players can save the BRASS's Asses with above board play and sometimes players feel cheated/betrayed by their bosses. The vicious cycle repeats. ONLY THE OWNER/FO CAN FIX THIS.

Also if (once) the team gets sold I will be SHOCKED if anyone says "oh no now that Dolan is gone this team is doomed". Really if Dolan sold the team, unless the new owners managed to move out of Cleveland why or how could anyone object to that?
criznit2009
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby ironmike » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:58 am

Edible good post but you are in denial, this is not a playoff team, not even close. We have three position players who are above average Brantley, Cabrera and Choo. One third of a ML line up. The other 6 are pure journeyman who catch on with teams with low payrolls.

How can that be a contending team?

Here is the line up of a WS contender ...

Alomar Jr.
Robbie Alomar
Omar Vizquel
Matt Williams / Travis Fryman
Paul Sorrento
Albert Belle
Kenny Lofton
Manny Ramirez
Eddie Murray

That's a contending line up, an offensive that can score 830+ runs easily. An offense with speed, power and BALANCE. Plus an organization that understands when one of these high profile players leave, they go out a get another.

Now go ahead and look at the current Detroit and CWS line ups and compare.

Are we a contender?

NO.

When your team can't produce runs it puts a tremendous strain on the starting pitchers to be perfect and ... they can't sustain that. Is that not where we are at the moment with the 2012 Indians?
User avatar
ironmike
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:28 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby Tondo » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:02 am

Just to play devil's advocate here:

Don't you think the FO has shown "loyalty" to Grady, a fan fav? So, I guess that was the wrong kind of loyalty because the move failed? While I agree with some of what you said, your argument is FAR from consistent and is a lot of hindsight rah rah

While not a great offseason I understood the moves...my biggest knock with the FO has been the Youk non-move and letting him go to a Div rival for next to nothing....Kluber and J.Lopez (or Donald) were the equivalent of what the WSox gave up...even if Youk failed completely, it's not like we were losing much

I also don't like the "up the middle" fixation when it comes to drafting talent...this FO seems to think that that's where the value is and up the middle guys are always good enough to move to a corner spot....while that is an admirable and understandable philosophy, there are instances where they exagerate it and let talent value go bye for the sake of this philosophy. Your typical middle of the order bat often isn't a up the middle guy. Last draft was a pretty good example when they took Naquin over tools specs...and I undestand that Naquin was a "budget money" move, but I would have preferred a guy like B.Barnes...would have accomplished the same budget wise but at least he has some speed/pop tools...Naquin already looks like the next Fedroff, while Barnes looks to have some L.Washington-like upside at least
Tondo
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:17 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby GoTribe028 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:43 am

Well, I'm still interested to see if the Indians can make a move, but only if it's a move that can help long term (Pete Borjous types come to mind).

Seeing the efforts the rotation is putting out, while not all terrible, aren't really inspiring either. I still feel Masterson is a good guy to pair with someone at the FOR. Really like McAllister's progress, and even though some still view him as a back end guy, he's still something Tomlin is not. Big, durable, and still improving to a degree.

I think I'm now of the mind that the Indians would be better without Lowe, Damon/Duncan/Cunningham and Kotchman. Wouldn't exactly be "selling" since their value is basically dog shit. I'm also not a big fan of Matt LaPorta or Corey Kluber, but feel the efforts the Indians would receive from them could actually be marginal improvements over what the formers have provided. At least for the remainder of the season. If Chiz wasn't hurt, I wouldn't hesitate to put Jack Hannahan out there too.

Even though I doubt the Indians FO has interest in it and will contend that they still feel "he cant improve enough to helpp this team" but Ubaldo Jiminez needs to go. I don't see how he's worth keeping outside they need to justify dealing Pomeranz. I don't know, maybe I've just soured on him too much I'm hoping to see him gone.
GoTribe028
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby GhostofTedCox » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:23 am

Here's another reason to be sellers, and build for 2013 - and beyond.

The Indians presently have the 12th worst record in MLB. That means, if they hold form, they will have a protected 1st round pick in next years draft. They will not have to surrender it by signing a top FA in the off season. (Keep in mind they will have the money from Hafner's and Sizemore's contracts to use next year.)

In addition, The Indians get that supplemental 2nd round pick in the draft next year from the competitive balance lottery.
User avatar
GhostofTedCox
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby GoTribe028 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:38 am

For what it's worth Ken Rosenthal wrote about the Indians possibly turning into sellers after "after several weeks of trying to add a starting pitcher and right-handed hitter" and dealing Chris Perez and Shin Soo Choo. He says the Indians are not really shopping players, but are always gauging interest...but I wonder if he is getting indications the Indians are more willing to deal from the ML team now.

I recall a few years back he did a story similar to this one very early in the season. I didn't buy into it then, but before it was over, the Indians traded Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez.

http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbb ... s/11277334

The San Francisco Giants, seeking late-inning help, are interested in Perez, according to major-league sources. The Indians could entertain moving Perez for two reasons – they are deep in relievers, and Perez likely will earn about $7 million next season in his second year of arbitration.

Choo would be more difficult to replace than Perez – he ranks fourth in the majors with a .928 OPS out of the leadoff spot. But he is eligible for free agency after next season, and the Indians’ chances of signing him to an extension are slim. Choo is represented by Scott Boras, who generally prefers his clients to establish their values on the open market.

If the Indians trade players such as Perez and Choo – players under control beyond this season – they would not want prospects in return, but players who would strengthen their current club, sources said.
GoTribe028
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby Magneticnorth451 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:45 am

If the Indians trade Chris Perez for Brandon Belt, I'll do backflips. The 1B issue will finally be solved.
Magneticnorth451
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:21 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby A.Zajac » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:53 am

ironmike wrote:Edible good post but you are in denial, this is not a playoff team, not even close. We have three position players who are above average Brantley, Cabrera and Choo. One third of a ML line up. The other 6 are pure journeyman who catch on with teams with low payrolls.

How can that be a contending team?

Here is the line up of a WS contender ...

Alomar Jr.
Robbie Alomar
Omar Vizquel
Matt Williams / Travis Fryman
Paul Sorrento
Albert Belle
Kenny Lofton
Manny Ramirez
Eddie Murray

That's a contending line up, an offensive that can score 830+ runs easily. An offense with speed, power and BALANCE. Plus an organization that understands when one of these high profile players leave, they go out a get another.

Now go ahead and look at the current Detroit and CWS line ups and compare.

Are we a contender?

NO.

When your team can't produce runs it puts a tremendous strain on the starting pitchers to be perfect and ... they can't sustain that. Is that not where we are at the moment with the 2012 Indians?


What about Kipnis....?
User avatar
A.Zajac
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3112
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:31 am
Location: Struthers, OH

Re: Should the Indians be buyers or sellers ?

Postby ironmike » Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:03 pm

Yeah, Kipnis should be on the list for sure.
User avatar
ironmike
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Beyond The Minors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron