Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

The One Big Question

Avatar

Posted: 10/8/2013 4:57 PM

The One Big Question 


In my opinion there is a single question the Tribe should be asking first each time it considers whether to move a player.  The question is will it make the the 2014 edition of the Tribe better or worse.

If you think what I am saying that the team should be concentrating on the short term over the long term you would be right/

Certainly as fans we would all love the Tribe to be 2014 be World Series Champions. Many, including myself, recognize that no matter how good a team is that going all the way in the playoffs is no certain thing.

Many of us over the years, most definitely myself included, don't like a strategy of gambling away too much of the future for a single season; no we prefer a strategy of building a team that can sustain success over multiple years.

If the Tribe is able to win 90+ games again in 2014 and go deep into the playoffs, a big if, the revenue boost in 2014 and 2015 will be huge.

As Tribe fans over recent years we have become accustomed to players in their free agency years that the financial sources are unavailable to extend being traded for prospects.

Consider the implications of being able to substantially boost revenues.  For example, suppose the Tribe is unable to extend Masterson.  Many have already expressed the opinion that under this situation he should be traded even though it is likely that any such trade would not improve the 2014 Tribe.  The thinking seems to be that it is better to get something for him then to get nothing.

There is no reason to disagree with the premise that getting something for an asset is better than nothing.  However, I think many of us have become too accustomed to thinking this way instead of thinking about what a player will bring for another player or players without thinking about how keeping the player will help grow revenues.

While the Tribe might or might not be able to extend Masterson this offseason if the Tribe is able to grow revenues in 2014 they might be able to be able to afford to extend him after the 2014 season and, if not, will have more money to find a replacement for him.

Similar analyses need to be done for Cabrera and, yes, even Perez.  This is also true of players locked up for the long term such as Santana.

Understand that I am only suggesting the first question that should be asked.  After answering the question there are a plethora of questions that need to be asked and answered.  For example, with Masterson if you traded him besides anyone you got in return for him that would improve the 2014 and/or 2015. . . teams what other moves could the Tribe make to compensate for the loss of Masterson.

In other words, after deciding how much a loss of Masterson is considered it has to be integrated with all the other moves.

Cabrera is an excellent example of this.  Is the Tribe likely to be better in keeping him or getting for him whatever they can get for him?  If you trade him who plays short?  Aviles?  Is Aviles really an everyday shortstop?  What about the loss of the backup third baseman, shortstop and second baseman?  Is Ramiruez an adequate replacement for Aviles as the backup?  Etc,

Note the above is a framework that I have pretty recently formulated and am not at all certain will hold up after I hear your criticisms.  So don't hesitate to criticize because it will help me crystallize my own thinking.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/8/2013 5:53 PM

RE: The One Big Question 


You bring up an interesting point. Venerating multitudes praise the prudent stewardship of the Tampa Bay front office, which leads its teams to the playoffs despite having a minuscule payroll. Their tiny payroll means that they can't keep their players, so they trade them away at their peak in exchange for better players - thus, they build a faceless contender whose games no one shows up for.

Which is the cause? Is it the fact that their fanbase is disinterested? Or is their fanbase disinterested because it's impossible to connect to the team because they trade away their best players at their peak values, their peak fan attachments? I do wonder.

I fear, for the Indians' sake, that winning is a necessary but insufficient condition for fan support - you need to win, but you also need to keep the players that help you win. Maybe someone has studied the Rays and determined a clear cause-effect relationship - this does seem like the sort of thing that a baseball historian/journalist could ascertain concretely, rather than merely throwing probable explanations at the wall.

EDIT: Oh, right, we were talking about the Indians.

Last edited 10/8/2013 5:54 PM by RHMVNovus

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/8/2013 8:58 PM

Re: The One Big Question 


RHMVNovus wrote: -snip for brevity-

I think you can cut and paste Oakland into your post. Accolades to the front office, good teams, bad ballparks in bad locations, trade away talent, poor attendence.

 

Back to Jen, I haven't seen a study on it, but I have liked rooting for particular players as much as rooting for a team.

 

It's not just about managing/increasing revenues.  It's a matter of managing the roster so as to ensure that revenues and expenses stay within tolerable distances.  To date, the fan base hasn't shown that they will come back with regularity.  Although, a lengthy playoff run will generate sellouts. 

 

Shedding players in relation to revenue may also involve if a player is more unpopular than good.  Not many fans will miss Cabrara and Perez if the team has a replacement  - and they do.  I would include Bourn in your list, as Stubbs can be moved over and Raburn/Swisher can play right field.  Even more so if Naquin can get on a fast track. 

Bourn could also be cast off in exchange for some power on the corners.

Is your point to lock up Masterson and deciding when/who to jetison to make that happen?  Masterson will be 30 years old at the start of his new contract.  figure a 5 year $80mil takes him until he's 34.  In his career, he's had one very good, two good (one as a releiver/spot starter) and four bad seasons.

At times he has shown everything needed for a FOR pitcher. 

At the moment, I don't think they have a replacement for him if Jimenez leaves.

 

 

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/9/2013 9:25 AM

Re: The One Big Question 


I do not believe the organization can lock into the kind of short term thinking you are proposing.

Teams like the Tribe, Oakland, Tampa, etc, do no the luxury of such a narrow focus as they cannot outspend their mistakes.

The Tribe must focus on getting maximum value out of their assets. This is not an organization that has drafted particularly well the last decade and has little depth in their farm system.

Sometimes maximum value will be the on the field performance, while other times, it will be moving the asset.

TB moved James Shields last year. Oakland moved Gio Gonzales a few years ago.

Both have shown it is possible to move a front of the order pitcher and receive more than enough value in return to not miss a beat the following year.

Depending on what could be obtained for Masterson, I would certainly move him in the right deal.

To me, a guy like Cabrera is an easy decision in terms of maximizing the value of this particular asset.

You are unlikely to get anything of real value in return for him based on his performance the last 1 1/2 and the money he is owed next year, so you ride him out knowing it is his contract year and guys in contract years always seem to re-discover their passion for the game and it is usually reflected in their on the field performance.

What really complicates the Tribe's decision making moving forward is the contracts of Bourn/Swisher.

The team is locked into some big money the next few years for a couple of guys on the wrong side of 30 so the pressure to think short term is much greater.




Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/9/2013 9:57 AM

Re: The One Big Question 


i agree with littleguy. you have to balance short-term and long-term thinking. locking into short-term over long-term would likely have a devastating effect on the future.

Better work to contend every year than to "gear up" for a single year or even two when nothing is guaranteed except the money you'll be paying players.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/9/2013 12:17 PM

Re: The One Big Question 



buddy34 wrote: i agree with littleguy. you have to balance short-term and long-term thinking. locking into short-term over long-term would likely have a devastating effect on the future.

Better work to contend every year than to "gear up" for a single year or even two when nothing is guaranteed except the money you'll be paying players.
According to Litta I proposed locking into the kind of short term thinking. I suppose one arguably can read what I wrote that way,

I started with a premise that the Tribe needs to field the best possible team in 2014 because if the team can substantially enhance revenue that will allow them the opportunity to be competitive in succeeding years.  In other words, I offered a short term course of action to reach potentially sustainable long term competitiveness

You are right nothing is guaranteed but one can also increase the possibility of success depending on one's actions.

The critical need the Tribe has for long term competitiveness is a reasonable level of revenues.  Wait you say the Rays are doing it without such revenues.  What you and others seem to overlook is that the Tribe is not currently in the situation the Rays were in a few years ago.

The Rays were a very bad team and received a bunch of high draft picks.  Through good drafting they were able to obtain a lot of good players.  They have been able to successfully supplement with free agents and have reached the position where they can trade talent that is becoming too costly to improve the team now and in the future.

Back in 2000 before the Dolans sold the team I had some long talks with my uncle and he explained to me why the Tribe would likely not sustain success much longer.  The Tribe to remain competitive as long as they did focused on the short to nearly total disregard of the future (they did try signing young players to long term deals); bad drafts did not help,  The consequences were the Tribe had a team payroll at the maximum it could afford, was aging and could not be replaced internally nor via free agency because of rising salaries.  Once the team became less competitive revenues took a nosedive.

The Rays's model is one of attempting to maintain long term competitiveness by trying to control payroll.  This is definitely the type of model most  small and smaller market teams like Cleveland should attempt to pursue.

The Tribe found itself after the 2012 season in a situation where revenues were insufficient to vastly improve the team.  The rights agreement with Fox Sports and the infusion of cash gave them more money to spend; and the National rights contract has given them beginning in 2014 that allowed them to pursue fairly high cost free agents and long term contracts.

Even with the increased revenue the Tribe succeeded in large part because they made moves that ultimately proved to be good ones primarily picking up Jimene's option and the acquisition of Aviles, Gomes, Kazmir and Rauburn.

So is the Tribe in the position currently of that of the Rays now or even the Rays of a couple of years ago?

What has been driving much of the discussion on this board regarding the 2014 payroll is player salaries and not player value.  Well yeah maybe the getting rid of this player or that player will make the team less competitive but think of all the great prospects the Tribe can receive that will make the Tribe better next year (a small exaggeration of what some are arguing).

So this brings us back to your guarantee argument. Exactly where did I say the team should "gear up" for next season and ,as you implied, at the expense of the future?  I suggested that the first question, not the only one, the Tribe should as themselves before moving a player is whether the move would improve the team in 2014 even when related moves were considered.  Nowhere did I even hint the Tribe should be  trading players like Brantley, Gomes and Kipnis for veterans;  Nor, did I suggest the Tribe should be signing high priced agents at the expense of keeping talented young players on the roster.

The Tribe cannot afford many more seasons of 1.5 million in attendance (unless ownership continues to infuse cash) unless the Tribe continues to make shrewd offseason acquisitions.  Lack of money resulted in the moves that gave us Your 2012 Tribe,

The influx of cash in 2013 and coming in 2014 has allowed the team to dig itself out of the cycle of not enough revenue to improve the team but not a good enough team to improve revenues.

This offseason presents the opportunity to break the cycle for the long term. This is a long way from mortgaging the future for 2014.  Instead, its primary purpose is to improve the chances of success beyond the 2014 season.



 

Last edited 10/9/2013 12:18 PM by JenniferMarie

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/9/2013 12:31 PM

RE: The One Big Question 



RHMVNovus wrote: You bring up an interesting point. Venerating multitudes praise the prudent stewardship of the Tampa Bay front office, which leads its teams to the playoffs despite having a minuscule payroll. Their tiny payroll means that they can't keep their players, so they trade them away at their peak in exchange for better players - thus, they build a faceless contender whose games no one shows up for.

Which is the cause? Is it the fact that their fanbase is disinterested? Or is their fanbase disinterested because it's impossible to connect to the team because they trade away their best players at their peak values, their peak fan attachments? I do wonder.

I fear, for the Indians' sake, that winning is a necessary but insufficient condition for fan support - you need to win, but you also need to keep the players that help you win. Maybe someone has studied the Rays and determined a clear cause-effect relationship - this does seem like the sort of thing that a baseball historian/journalist could ascertain concretely, rather than merely throwing probable explanations at the wall.

EDIT: Oh, right, we were talking about the Indians.
I agree with you about Tribe attendance.  I am not at all certain that a winning team next year and even the year after will result in 2.5 million.  

As I discussed in an earlier post, the Rays are able to maintain a relatively modest payroll because they were bad for so long they were able to implement a model that is less revenue dependent.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/9/2013 1:04 PM

Re: The One Big Question 



milojbloom wrote:
RHMVNovus wrote: -snip for brevity-

I think you can cut and paste Oakland into your post. Accolades to the front office, good teams, bad ballparks in bad locations, trade away talent, poor attendence.

 

Back to Jen, I haven't seen a study on it, but I have liked rooting for particular players as much as rooting for a team.

 

It's not just about managing/increasing revenues.  It's a matter of managing the roster so as to ensure that revenues and expenses stay within tolerable distances.  To date, the fan base hasn't shown that they will come back with regularity.  Although, a lengthy playoff run will generate sellouts. 

 

Shedding players in relation to revenue may also involve if a player is more unpopular than good.  Not many fans will miss Cabrara and Perez if the team has a replacement  - and they do.  I would include Bourn in your list, as Stubbs can be moved over and Raburn/Swisher can play right field.  Even more so if Naquin can get on a fast track. 

Bourn could also be cast off in exchange for some power on the corners.

Is your point to lock up Masterson and deciding when/who to jetison to make that happen?  Masterson will be 30 years old at the start of his new contract.  figure a 5 year $80mil takes him until he's 34.  In his career, he's had one very good, two good (one as a releiver/spot starter) and four bad seasons.

At times he has shown everything needed for a FOR pitcher. 

At the moment, I don't think they have a replacement for him if Jimenez leaves.

 

 

 

While I'm dubious about how much a player is liked or disliked (unless it is because of his contribution to winning or losing) nothing on that point is inconsistent with what I wrote.

My point was winning was to i(hopefully) increase revenues.  If, for example, if getting rid of player outweighs his contribution to winning in terms of revenue it makes sense.

My point was definitely not about extending, or even not extending Masterson,; it related to that not extending him this year didn't mean it couldn't be done next year and increased revenues next year would make it more possible.

When I write about whether moving a player will improve or lessen the chances of winning in 2014 should be the first question asked this question includes both accounting for his replacement and the financial cost of keeping him as opposed to the alternative way the money could be spent.

What I understand to be your main point is that even if keeping a player for 2014 is the best move this is not necessarily true if the player is under a multi-year contrast, or needs to be extended beyond 2014,  That is a good question that I hadn't given thought to.  It certainly suggests that my formulation was at best too broad and at worst pretty worthless.

I could tap dance in give you an answer but my purpose in this thread was to receive a critical examination of what I posted.  So I'm going to take some time, possibly even a few days, to think about how much of my formulation should be modified or even possibly abandoned.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/9/2013 1:12 PM

Re: The One Big Question 


I think substantial weight should be given to the question of whether or not the team gets better or worse in 2014. I think that trading a guy like Masterson should require more return than if we were at the end of the 2010 offseason and had him for only one more year.

This is because we are a better team now (and his 3-4 projected WAR could very, very easily be the difference between the postseason and not making it) and it is also because baseball has created an incentive to keep the player until the bitter end with the way they have restructured the draft.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/9/2013 1:12 PM

Re: The One Big Question 



JenniferMarie wrote:
This offseason presents the opportunity to break the cycle for the long term. This is a long way from mortgaging the future for 2014.  Instead, its primary purpose is to improve the chances of success beyond the 2014 season.



 

Jen, 

You are arguing with yourself.

No one said you stated the team should gear up for next year at the expense of the future. 
 
Rather, you stated "If you think what I am saying that the team should be concentrating on the short term over the long term you would be right". 

My contention was a team like the Tribe is better served employing an organizational thought process that focuses on maximizing their assets as opposed to concentrating on the short term over the long term. 

That type of philosophy does not mean you are abandoning the short term.

Both Oakland and Tampa Bay have shown you can trade higher level existing ML talent and still be successful if you make the right deals.

Do those deals always exist? No. However, no one can be off the table because the team's focus is on the short term and that includes Justin Masterson.  

Smaller market clubs do not have the luxury of concentrating on next year over the longer haul. They have to maximize the value of their assets at all times.

How would letting Justin Masterson walk after 2014 via free agency help break the cycle long term?

No one is saying you move Masterson for a couple of A ball, high ceiling prospects who are 2-3 years away from being ML ready, but if you can move him for a young quality arm, that you will control for 4-5 more years and who is close to being ML ready, it is a different discussion.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/9/2013 1:45 PM

Re: The One Big Question 



LittaGuy714 wrote:
JenniferMarie wrote:
This offseason presents the opportunity to break the cycle for the long term. This is a long way from mortgaging the future for 2014.  Instead, its primary purpose is to improve the chances of success beyond the 2014 season.



 

Jen, 

You are arguing with yourself.

No one said you stated the team should gear up for next year at the expense of the future. 
 
Rather, you stated "If you think what I am saying that the team should be concentrating on the short term over the long term you would be right". 


Buddy wrote:

Better work to contend every year than to "gear up" for a single year.

So if Buddy was disagreeing with me why did he raise the issue of "gearing up" for a single year.  In any event, explaining that I was not proposing on gearing up should be helpful to anyone trying to understand what I have posted.

Interesting that you would contend I'm arguing against myself by quoting from the first sentence of my initial post and totally ignoring my explanation in my later post. 

In that later post I wrote:

According to Litta I proposed locking into the kind of short term thinking. I suppose one arguably can read what I wrote that way,

I started with a premise that the Tribe needs to field the best possible team in 2014 because if the team can substantially enhance revenue that will allow them the opportunity to be competitive in succeeding years.  In other words, I offered a short term course of action to reach potentially sustainable long term competitiveness

You are right nothing is guaranteed but one can also increase the possibility of success depending on one's actions.

The critical need the Tribe has for long term competitiveness is a reasonable level of revenues.  Wait you say the Rays are doing it without such revenues.  What you and others seem to overlook is that the Tribe is not currently in the situation the Rays were in a few years ago.


 
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/12/2013 9:49 PM

Re: The One Big Question 


Part I

Milo – Let me start my response to you and to a lesser extent Litta and Buddy, by reviewing portions of my earlier posts, clarifying them and expanding on them.

 

The premise I offered in my initial post was that there “is a single question the Tribe should be asking first each time it considers whether to move a player.  The question is will it make the 2014 edition of the Tribe better or worse.”

 

I further explained that I was not talking about trying to win a World Series in 2014 but to try to win 90+ games and try to go deep into the playoffs.

 

The reason I focused on winning in 2014 and the playoffs were my belief that the Tribe needed increased revenues to achieve sustainable competition over the long term.  The increased revenues would come from increased attendance and attendance related revenue in 2014 and even if the 2014 bump in revenues wasn’t huge it would create sufficient anticipation of 2.3 to 2.5 million in attendance in 2015 to merit revenues at this level to be used in the 2015 budget.  Moreover, continuing to contend should result in revenues continuing at least beyond the 2015 revenue level.

 

Wanting to go deep in the playoffs is about a bump to 2015 attendance and attendance related revenues but it also about the revenues received in 2014 for being in the playoffs.  According to the Tribe’s 1998 SEC 10K filing (dated but the best available numbers) the Tribe in 1996 (they lost in the ALDS) received $1.933 million in revenues incurred, incurred $1.309 million in expenses for a net of $624,000.  In 1998 when the Tribe went deep into the playoffs, lost in the ALCS, they grossed $8.710 million in revenues, incurred $3.653 million in expenses and netted $5.057 million.

 

In other words, my premise about winning in 2014 is driven by the belief that winning will increase revenues and the increased revenues will improve the chances of being competitive in future years; winning in 2014 is not the end result I’m interested in but the means to the end result sustainable competitiveness.  If the Tribe could adopt a strategy where winning in 2014 was unimportant to future competitiveness I would have no problem with that.

 

The thing is that based on where the Tribe is player wise and their financial situation I believe increased revenues is very important to future Tribe success.

 

Now both Tampa Bay and Oakland are raised as teams that have sustained compositeness over the last few years with relatively low player payrolls but both teams currently are in attempting to sustain competitiveness mode, one on a year-by-year basis while the other can focus on longer term efforts.

 

The Tribe is in the situation where it must be completive next season to have the ability to go to a model of sustainable competition in the long term instead of resorting to the model of trying to be competitive on a season by season basis – one that the Tribe has largely followed since the 2003 rebuild ended.

 

The Tribe roster in 2013 was built on increased STO broadcast rights fees, ownership capital infusion and 2014 and beyond National Broadcast rights fees.  This increased cash made it possible to break out of the not generating enough revenue because the Tribe wasn’t winning but not being able to win because enough revenues were generated cycle If anyone believes the Tribe can break that cycle again I would love to hear why you think that is true.

 

Returning to my initial post question if you reread it you will see that it really no more than an assertion that the starting point is a player evaluation of controlled players and players eligible for free agency projected individual contribution to winning in 2014 and does not go to the issue of financial cost of keeping the player or moving the player; nor does it consider the issue of whether moving a player can increase the chances of winning in 2014.  These later questions are all additional questions to be considered in building the 2014 roster.

 

Now having some idea of how many wins the Tribe can likely expect to win with the players currently in the organization we can set a target number of wins and determine if we need to try to add to the number of wins.  Perhaps more importantly we know what any change such as moving a player and obtaining one will have on our overall target.

 

The other thing we need to know is our budget – how much will we have to achieve our target (the size of our budget might be the driver of the target set).

 

Here I’ll jump directly to questions raised by Milo, Litta and Buddy and use Milo’s example of Masterson

 

To make things simple let’s assume that what Masterson would get in arbitration is reasonably commensurate with our judgment as to his 2014 value. Trade or keep?  To determine this we need to figure out the loss in value involved in moving him and the offsetting factors such as how much of the lost 2014 value can be offset internally, the value received in a trade and the money (net the cost of players obtained in a trade) that becomes available by shedding his contract available to take on additional payroll in the form of free agents or players obtained in a trade.

 

What about receiving some prospects in the trade, or in other words what about balancing 2014 needs with those of the future?  I’ve already made clear and that the predominant consideration must be on 2014 (and to be clear I’m not saying the answer for 2015 would be or should be the same – success in 2014 definitely shifts the Tribe to a more forward looking model).

 

Having said that I’m not saying a package for Masterson should automatically exclude prospects because I’m not.  The extent prospects are to included we need to consider how much net value for 2014 is gained or lost (this includes the other consideration mentioned above) in the proposed package Small loss in net value shouldn’t be a reason to reject such a package.

 

Obviously, the projection of how good a prospect and how soon he will be ready must also enter into our consideration but we must also remember that there are very few can’t miss prospects made available that will truly turn out to be can’t miss (e.g., Marte, LaPorte and Bauer still to be determined).  Players that are labeled as can’t miss are often deemed flawed in some way by their organizations unless a huge return is demanded.  Also the lower a prospect in a team’s organization the more his evaluation is based on projected improvement.

 

Suppose an actual can’t miss is obtainable.  We must then go back and consider our ultimate goal –sustained competitiveness after the 2014 season.  So we need to balance how much obtaining the prospect affect our goal.  The more the chances of the Tribe to be successful in 2014 decrease the harder our goal becomes but obtaining the player enhances our chances.  In other words, does not winning now lessen the chances of giving the prospect a good enough supporting cast?

By way of example, consider if the Tribe had a true number one starter in 2011 instead of whomever you consider to have been the fifth starter.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/12/2013 9:51 PM

Re: The One Big Question 


Part II

Note too that my formulation was a using a target number of wins so that as long as we don’t have to stray too far from our target obtaining the prospect should definitely be obtained.  Also note this same type of analysis applies to considering lesser prospects and the moving of our own prospects.

 

As an aside bear in mind while each team is trying to extract the most it can from the other team the net value each actually receives inevitably will not be the same.

 

This brings us to whether to extend Masterson and at what cost.  Basically the analysis already offered provides the answer.  We have determined his value in winning and somewhere along the line determined what he would get paid in 2014 if he is neither traded nor extended.  So the first question is how much additional amount of money is required to pay him in 2014 to extend him and then whether this amount outweighs the use of this money in some other way in terms on the impact on our target. The next thing to do is consider how any decrease in our target, much like with prospects, helps us achieve our ultimate goal of sustainable competitiveness.  Here the amount and length of the contract must be considered.

 

Finally, the above represents a formulation of a possible comprehensive approach to analyzing moves; there is no doubt  there are probably other reasonable comprehensive approaches and/or which further scrutiny mine is full of holes and is incomplete. Consequently, I look forward to any constructive criticisms and disagreements.  However, please no nitpicking such as whether LaPorta was considered a can’t miss prospect or based on the fact that I failed to spend enough time editing.

Last edited 10/12/2013 10:00 PM by JenniferMarie

Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/13/2013 1:45 AM

RE: The One Big Question 


Unfortunately there is not a single question...I think your are dead on that first and foremost should be 2014 and I think that is what they well do. They will, however, be looking both at the salary budget (bye bye Ubaldo and Kazmir even though they would make us better) and at keeping the window open past 2014. I don't think you will see things like a Aviles traded for a high prospect like we saw a lot of in the past. You might see Cabrera for a prospect but only to make room for Lindor and to avoid losing him for nothing, will that make us better in 2014? Maybe and maybe not.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/13/2013 2:47 AM

RE: The One Big Question 



jameseboy wrote: Unfortunately there is not a single question...I think your are dead on that first and foremost should be 2014 and I think that is what they well do. They will, however, be looking both at the salary budget (bye bye Ubaldo and Kazmir even though they would make us better) and at keeping the window open past 2014. I don't think you will see things like a Aviles traded for a high prospect like we saw a lot of in the past. You might see Cabrera for a prospect but only to make room for Lindor and to avoid losing him for nothing, will that make us better in 2014? Maybe and maybe not.
Of course there isn't a single question but there is always a first question that has to be asked.  I suggested that before moving a player that it be how does the move contribute to winning in 2014. 

The budget can be the first question asked, a subsequent or combined with a first question such as "Given the size of the budget how do we achieve. . .?"  I chose to start with asking the goal and then raise the budget.

You've offered an opinion of how you expect the Tribe to act in the offseason which is fine but are they part of an integrated plan to achieve a goal or is just just discrete decisions unconnected to any larger goal.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/13/2013 9:33 PM

RE: The One Big Question 


Jen: Can I get a Cliff Notes version of your comments. Sorry but the numerous posts are quite long and I am multi-tasking at the moment.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/13/2013 10:04 PM

RE: The One Big Question 



DCTribefan wrote: Jen: Can I get a Cliff Notes version of your comments. Sorry but the numerous posts are quite long and I am multi-tasking at the moment.
That is an abbreviated version.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/14/2013 1:09 AM

Re: The One Big Question 


This is something that I think the Indians are asking themselves now. Trading Masterson to me is very possible and I don't think it would hurt us as much as some might thing. Under the condition that they are able to bring back Ubaldo and Kazmir. The rotation would be ok
1. Ubaldo
2. Zach Mac
3 Kluber
4 Salazar
5. Carrasco/ Kazmir/ Bauer
Whoever wins the spot in the spring

That's not a bad rotation And they could get some nice pitching prospects for sure or they could get a MLB ready bat that they need that's missing maybe at 3rd if they can
find one. Not sure who that would be.
The other two listed I think the Indians need to trade

Look I will admit I don't like Perez at all. So maybe my thoughts on this aren't really fair. But I think it would be a case of addition by subtraction. He brings a lot of baggage with him. That he got himself into. He has turned of a good part of the fan base. Moving him would be best for the team and Perez it's time to file for a divorce

Cabrera isn't in a must be moved spot but I think it would help. He has just never taken that next step and to me he has regressed both at the plate and in the field. Just go back and look at the Marlins game. The 2011 Cabrera would never have let that happen. Although I wouldn't say he's bad in the field at all he's just not where he once was. He's still very good but he has regressed some IMO. Trading him would leave a gap but I think Aviles who I believe has anther year and a
utility guy can be brought in this year can be a stop gap until Lindor is ready that it wouldn't hurt much.
The only problem I see with any of these moves is that it might turn off the
fan base. I don't think there would be any problem at all trading a Perez. But the Cabrera and Masterson trades would have to bring in someone who fans can get excited about. If they brought in some minor league guys who they felt were ready and could make the team better but no one has ever heard of them then it could be received as here we go again from some and it wouldn't help boost their revenue. All the trades could defiantly be made and the team could be made better but I think there would have to be at least 1 big name involved not to turn off the fan base yet again and they would have the same problem drawing crowds early on that they did last year. But if the guys that they brought in show that they were worth it later in the season you might not see the under 10,000 crowds. I guess it's as simple as they would have to be right.

Myself I'm already looking forward and trying to find some dates that I can once again make the LONG drive from Illinois to see the tribe in person had a blast this past season and despite that fact that I don't even want to step foot in a car for 3 weeks after getting back from that trip I love it non the less

Last edited 10/14/2013 1:10 AM by mstribe

Reply | Quote