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)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 9  Next >

Let's see if I have this straight

Posted: 7/31/2014 6:38 AM

Let's see if I have this straight 


For last years top three starters, Masterson, Jiminez, and Kazmir all the prsospects the Indians received are Papi and Ramsey.    This is despite the fact that Masterson was an All Star last year, Kazmir an All Star this year, and Jiminez led the American league in ERa the last two months of the season.

Is their any wonder why the fans don't come out and support the team or why the Indians only have a small window of opportunity every five years.

My definition of a minor league operation is one that consistently gives away their veterans when they become eligible for FA.   

To me it doesn't matter what Masterson or Jiminez did this year; the fact that they got little in return speaks volumes for what's wrong with the operation.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 7:02 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


Let me get this straight.  You think Masterson is worth more than what we got for him?  Jiminez is worth more than we got for him?  

Hell, we are lucky Baltimore was stupid enough to give him that contract while he turned down the QO, and that Masterson thinks he is an Ace and needs to be paid like one.

Wake up greg, just because they have a good season every now and then does not mean they are worth anything.  Seriously.  Wake up.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 7:13 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


Yes I do.

\My issue with trading Masterson was when and not the actual trade.  Once we reached an impasse in spring training that was the time to make the deal not while he is on the DL.  

I would have perferred giving him a QO .

He will pitch well again but it won't be for the Indians,  I agree with poster that labeled this trade as a salary dump.
Craplanta wrote: Let me get this straight.  You think Masterson is worth more than what we got for him?  Jiminez is worth more than we got for him?  

Hell, we are lucky Baltimore was stupid enough to give him that contract while he turned down the QO, and that Masterson thinks he is an Ace and needs to be paid like one.

Wake up greg, just because they have a good season every now and then does not mean they are worth anything.  Seriously.  Wake up.

Last edited 7/31/2014 7:18 AM by greggleeb

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 7:28 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 



greggleeb wrote: Yes I do.

\My issue with trading Masterson was when and not the actual trade.  Once we reached an impasse in spring training that was the time to make the deal not while he is on the DL.  

I would have perferred giving him a QO .

He will pitch well again but it won't be for the Indians,  I agree with poster that labeled this trade as a salary dump.
So trade him before the season starts when we are trying to compete?  Our, at that time, by default number 1 starter?  What team was opening up the farm at that time for us?  Come on, think it through.

Bank on a QO?  Ok, he does not accept.  No team wants to roll the dice on him and no one signs him until after they do not lose their draft pick.  Now we get nothing.  Again, think it through.

The only logical thing for the team to do is dump him and get the best they can get for him.

Last edited 7/31/2014 7:28 AM by Craplanta

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 7:34 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


Oh, and really?  You'd of offered Masterson the QO being a better option than trading him now, yet are calling the Indians out on doing just that with Jiminez?  Really?  Come on.

Last edited 7/31/2014 8:00 AM by Craplanta

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/31/2014 8:55 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


keep all 3 and they cost almost $40 million - half the budget. and for that, what would you get? one good pitcher and two duds.

yea, that makes a ton of sense.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/31/2014 9:21 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 



greggleeb wrote:  My issue with trading Masterson was when and not the actual trade.  Once we reached an impasse in spring training that was the time to make the deal not while he is on the DL.  

I agree.  I like the return we got yesterday, considering the circumstances, but I think they could've gotten much more had they tried to trade Masty when contract negotiations stalled.  The FO evidently felt the team could contend, so they hung on to Masty.

I don't blame them for letting Ubaldo walk.  He was asking for far too much $ for his mediocre performance as a whole.

I think not signing Kaz was a bad move & said so at the time.  22M for 2 years is peanuts in this day & time.  Problem is, they blew much of their future signing $ on Bourn & Swisher.  2 moves that will continue to haunt them until 2017.

And yes, this org. has turned into a AAAA feeder.  I don't see it changing in the future & neither do many of the fans.  No coincidence that they're near the bottom in attendance.  That won't change either.  Dolan's lost them & many won't be coming back unless we see new ownership.  It is what it is.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 9:30 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 



buddy34 wrote: keep all 3 and they cost almost $40 million - half the budget. and for that, what would you get? one good pitcher and two duds.

yea, that makes a ton of sense.

It doesn't matter how many times you are wrong, it only matters how many times you are right. Amazing the crowing going on given some of the comments in THIS thread.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 10:18 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 



WahooinAtlanta wrote:
greggleeb wrote:  My issue with trading Masterson was when and not the actual trade.  Once we reached an impasse in spring training that was the time to make the deal not while he is on the DL.  

I agree.  I like the return we got yesterday, considering the circumstances, but I think they could've gotten much more had they tried to trade Masty when contract negotiations stalled.  The FO evidently felt the team could contend, so they hung on to Masty.

I don't blame them for letting Ubaldo walk.  He was asking for far too much $ for his mediocre performance as a whole.

I think not signing Kaz was a bad move & said so at the time.  22M for 2 years is peanuts in this day & time.  Problem is, they blew much of their future signing $ on Bourn & Swisher.  2 moves that will continue to haunt them until 2017.

And yes, this org. has turned into a AAAA feeder.  I don't see it changing in the future & neither do many of the fans.  No coincidence that they're near the bottom in attendance.  That won't change either.  Dolan's lost them & many won't be coming back unless we see new ownership.  It is what it is.
Lots of flawed logic.  

1) You are assuming that the Indians could have traded Masterson then.  There is no evidence a team was willing to trade for him at that point, let alone if there was that the return was worth it.  Especially when you had players still not signed that would not have cost a single prospect from the farm, only a future draft pick.

2) This has been pointed out repeatedly to you, but you will continue to ignore it.  I will once again point it out and hope you stop using confirmation bias like you always do.  The Indians, nor every team other than the A's, could of signed Kaz for 2 years, $22 million.  Any other team that makes an offer at that point drives the price up as now you have at least two teams bidding on him.  That $22 million is where all teams but the A's were willing to go.  We have no idea how high the A's would have gone, we have no idea who else was bidding it up to the $22 million.  All we know is the Indians had no chance to sign him at $22 million for 2 years.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 10:36 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


I think we should have traded them for Delmon Young and Brennan Boesch when we had the chance.

I say it's time to officially give up on the Tribe and go route for Detroit!


---------------------------------------------
--- greggleeb wrote:

For last years top three starters, Masterson, Jiminez, and Kazmir all the prsospects the Indians received are Papi and Ramsey.    This is despite the fact that Masterson was an All Star last year, Kazmir an All Star this year, and Jiminez led the American league in ERa the last two months of the season.

Is their any wonder why the fans don't come out and support the team or why the Indians only have a small window of opportunity every five years.

My definition of a minor league operation is one that consistently gives away their veterans when they become eligible for FA.   

To me it doesn't matter what Masterson or Jiminez did this year; the fact that they got little in return speaks volumes for what's wrong with the operation.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 10:38 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


They got a lot for Jimenez. He pitched them into the playoffs last year.

Sometimes players leave teams after their contracts are up. It happens all the time. They are not indentured servants there to provide value in perpetuity.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/31/2014 11:01 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 



Craplanta wrote: This has been pointed out repeatedly to you, but you will continue to ignore it.  I will once again point it out and hope you stop using confirmation bias like you always do.   All we know is the Indians had no chance to sign him at $22 million for 2 years.
LOL!  I continue to ignore it because you have no idea if it's true or not, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 11:03 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 



WahooinAtlanta wrote:
Craplanta wrote: This has been pointed out repeatedly to you, but you will continue to ignore it.  I will once again point it out and hope you stop using confirmation bias like you always do.   All we know is the Indians had no chance to sign him at $22 million for 2 years.
LOL!  I continue to ignore it because you have no idea if it's true or not, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Never been to an auction, eh?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/31/2014 11:43 AM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


If the critics are being consistent, the same logic that insists the Indians should have traded Masterson at the height of his value (presumably, this winter) would be to say Masterson should have signed for whatever he could get this winter.

Why? Because neither side had any idea what was going to happen, and both sides had reasonable rationale (and lots of upside, and downside to avoid) by doing what they did instead. Anything now is just second-guessing.

The Tribe would have been roasted on a stick for trading Masterson with a shaky rotation after making the playoffs last year. I personally would have preferred trading him myself, but do I think the Tribe did anything stupid with Masterson? No way, no how. They are extraordinarily fortunate they did not sign the guy, and have yet another millstone contract on the books. They had every reason to expect they had an athlete with a high incentive to maximize his value this summer, that they would contend on the shoulders of that athlete, and that they would get something out of him at the end of the year (or mid-year if he pitched well and we fell out of it)...that Justin rolled snake eyes is in no way the front office's fault. If anything, they should be lauded for seeing Masterson crapping out as a strong possibility and resisting the clarion call that "you just gotta do what it takes to sign the guy and prove you're not cheap."

Once again, in Cleveland, the athlete fails with high expectations. Only this time the Indians aren't left holding the bag. Do they not have the riches they may have had had they dealt him or had he come through with a Cy Young type season and been a pennant contender? Sure. But not having another contract choking them and a decent prospect to boot is at least a step in the right direction. If I'm the Tribe, I'm not regretting a darn thing, just wiping my brow in relief at the trainwreck that was avoided.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/31/2014 12:34 PM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


I find it interesting so many find the Masterson trade a primarily a "salary dump" instead of an incidental "salary dump."

Can anyone of you offer any reasons why Masterson should have been kept?

The trade even before considering what the Tribe received was an addition by subtraction. There was no rational reason to believe that Masterson would rebound into a FOR stater in his next few starts   However, suppose he did.  So?  The Tribe still would not catch the Tigers and and a wild card spot is pretty worthless especially this year to the Tribe.

In a wild card game the Tribe likely would have to get by Oakland or LA  -- possible.  They likely would have to face the other in the ALDS, hmmm.  If they got past them it is likely they would face the Tigers.  The depth of the Tribe rotation is not likely to allow them to go deep in the playoffs.

At this point the Tribe can pencil in the name of Kluber into next year's rotation.  The remainder of the season will determine how many more of those currently with the Tribe can be penciled in.

Masterson's absence from the roster creates another spot in the rotation allowing the Tribe to get a better look of what they have and what they will need,

I'd note too if the Tribe kept Masterson and if he was ineffective he would have either been doing nothing more than taking up a roster spot

As to trading him before the start of the season we had a very lengthy discussion in the offseason so I'll be brief.

First, some of you really should get over the notion that every time the Tribe has a player it might not be able to re-sign he should be traded effectively trading the present for the future.  This is particularly true when the player is good enough to be offered a QF; at the start of the season Masterson looked like such a player.

Second, Masterson would not likely have brought in the haul many of you think.  In 2012 he frequently struggled his mechanics and only occasionally last year.  Whether he could put together back to back years of solid mechanics was an open question.

Third, a 2013 Masterson this year would have resulted in a lot wins thus generating potentially a lot of additional revenue.  

In other words, a 2013 Masterson plus a draft compensation was worth more than what the Tribe potentially would have gotten in a trade.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 12:45 PM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 



JenniferMarie wrote:

In other words, a 2013 Masterson plus a draft compensation was worth more than what the Tribe potentially would have gotten in a trade.

Right. They had reason to believe they were a playoff contender (they still kind of are!).

It's insanely twisted logic here. When they trade guys from teams that have no chance of contending they are cheap. When they fail to trade guys from teams that have a reasonable chance to contend, they are stupid.

Can't win for losing.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 2:22 PM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


I completely disagree.  

What do you think Boston would have received for Lackey if they had traded him right after he had Tommy John surgery( somewhat similiar to waiting to trade Masterson when he on the DL.)

I would venture to say at best Lackey was worth approximately the same last winter. Don't forget Lackey is six years older and a pain in the neck.

The Red Sox who run a major league operation got a 300 hitter who having an off year and has been the object of the Indians bucket list for years and a pitcher who has an exceptional fast ball for Lackey.   This was accomplished by trading him at the right time.

The Indians who run a minor league operation waited until Masterson was on the DL before trading him and received a 24 year old often injured outfield prospect who no particulary overwhelming skill.

For a two month rental the Red Sox received an All Star outfielder..  
JenniferMarie wrote: I find it interesting so many find the Masterson trade a primarily a "salary dump" instead of an incidental "salary dump."

Can anyone of you offer any reasons why Masterson should have been kept?

The trade even before considering what the Tribe received was an addition by subtraction. There was no rational reason to believe that Masterson would rebound into a FOR stater in his next few starts   However, suppose he did.  So?  The Tribe still would not catch the Tigers and and a wild card spot is pretty worthless especially this year to the Tribe.

In a wild card game the Tribe likely would have to get by Oakland or LA  -- possible.  They likely would have to face the other in the ALDS, hmmm.  If they got past them it is likely they would face the Tigers.  The depth of the Tribe rotation is not likely to allow them to go deep in the playoffs.

At this point the Tribe can pencil in the name of Kluber into next year's rotation.  The remainder of the season will determine how many more of those currently with the Tribe can be penciled in.

Masterson's absence from the roster creates another spot in the rotation allowing the Tribe to get a better look of what they have and what they will need,

I'd note too if the Tribe kept Masterson and if he was ineffective he would have either been doing nothing more than taking up a roster spot

As to trading him before the start of the season we had a very lengthy discussion in the offseason so I'll be brief.

First, some of you really should get over the notion that every time the Tribe has a player it might not be able to re-sign he should be traded effectively trading the present for the future.  This is particularly true when the player is good enough to be offered a QF; at the start of the season Masterson looked like such a player.

Second, Masterson would not likely have brought in the haul many of you think.  In 2012 he frequently struggled his mechanics and only occasionally last year.  Whether he could put together back to back years of solid mechanics was an open question.

Third, a 2013 Masterson this year would have resulted in a lot wins thus generating potentially a lot of additional revenue.  

In other words, a 2013 Masterson plus a draft compensation was worth more than what the Tribe potentially would have gotten in a trade.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/31/2014 2:25 PM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


lackey is under cardinal control through 2015
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 2:27 PM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 


What are you even talking about?

You understand that Lackey is under control for next year at a league minimum salary, right? That makes him eligible for two postseasons at very little money. He is way more valuable now than Masterson was in the offseason.

And you understand that the Indians were trying to contend this year, right? And that the Indians would have been dealing him at a time when other players were available to be signed for only money and not other players.

You act like they knew he would hit the DL right before the deadline.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 2:39 PM

Re: Let's see if I have this straight 



WahooinAtlanta wrote:
Craplanta wrote: This has been pointed out repeatedly to you, but you will continue to ignore it.  I will once again point it out and hope you stop using confirmation bias like you always do.   All we know is the Indians had no chance to sign him at $22 million for 2 years.
LOL!  I continue to ignore it because you have no idea if it's true or not, no matter how many times you repeat it.
The least likely scenario is that the Indians just had to match $22 million and he would not ask for more money from another team and would sign right there with us.  That is what your entire theory hinges on.

Its pathetic you even try to defend it.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 9  Next >