Posted: 10/8/2013 4:57 PM
Posted: 10/8/2013 5:53 PM
Last edited 10/8/2013 5:54 PM by RHMVNovus
Posted: 10/8/2013 8:58 PM
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.
Posted: 10/9/2013 9:25 AM
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.
Posted: 10/9/2013 9:57 AM
Posted: 10/9/2013 12:17 PM
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.
Last edited 10/9/2013 12:18 PM by JenniferMarie
Posted: 10/9/2013 12:31 PM
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.
Posted: 10/9/2013 1:04 PM
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.
Posted: 10/9/2013 1:12 PM
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.
Posted: 10/9/2013 1:45 PM
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".
Posted: 10/12/2013 9:49 PM
Part IMilo – 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.
Posted: 10/12/2013 9:51 PM
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
Posted: 10/13/2013 1:45 AM
Posted: 10/13/2013 2:47 AM
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.
Posted: 10/13/2013 9:33 PM
Posted: 10/13/2013 10:04 PM
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.
Posted: 10/14/2013 1:09 AM
Last edited 10/14/2013 1:10 AM by mstribe
Copyright © 2013
and Scout.com. All rights reserved. This website is an unofficial independent source of news and information, and is not affiliated with any school, team, or league.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2012 Microsoft|