Choo traded for Stubbs, Bauer, Albers and Shaw

[Huber.]

Marte, LaPorta and the Lee trade. Those are the bad ones.

Guys they acquired via trade:

Asdrubal
Choo
Perez
Masterson
Santana
Hafner
Lee
Sizemore
McAllister

I'm not defending the Lee trade. It was awful. As was the Ubaldo trade.

But they've hit a lot more than they've missed to have this attitude. Specifically when the guy they are trading was ACQUIRED IN A TRADE.

prove it.

 

[Nom]

The Indians are so terrible at trades they just turned Ben Broussard into Trevor Bauer while getting Choo's prime in between.

 

[The Oi]

Marte, LaPorta and the Lee trade. Those are the bad ones.

Guys they acquired via trade:

Asdrubal
Choo
Perez
Masterson
Santana
Hafner
Lee
Sizemore
McAllister

I'm not defending the Lee trade. It was awful. As was the Ubaldo trade.

But they've hit a lot more than they've missed to have this attitude. Specifically when the guy they are trading was ACQUIRED IN A TRADE.

I'd say trading Cliff Lee AND CC Sabathia for essentially nothing ALONE constitutes a bad track record.

Hafner, Grady and Lee were traded for right around a decade ago. Does the front office get a 10 year benefit of the doubt bump for those? What's the cut off for total amount of years before we're allowed to not trust a front office that hasn't pulled an impact player out of a trade for a decade?

Hafner, Lee and Grady were obviously part of fantastic trades. But frankly, it's been too long since they happened and there's been so many more misses than hits with player transactions since that time, that I'm gonna need some kind of parameters for when a front office can stop resting on their laurels before I'm allowed to say they suck.

Masterson, Choo and Asdrubal all fit into the same category...above average guys (most of the time) who nobody would ever dream of calling impact players.

Santana I'm willing to be optimistic with, especially because they landed him for Casey Blake.

Other than that...sorry...if they can't pull ANY impact players out of the trades over the last decade, they have a bad track record.

 

[Nom]

I will grave dig this in 3 years and then give my answer. Grading trades right after they happen is like grading drafts right after it happened.

I understand your point that you can't evaluate a trade until you know how each part has turned out - but I think the thought process behind this deal is great.

Anytime you can acquire a top prospect while not giving up much in assets it is a solid deal, even if that player doesn't pan out. I'd still say the Andy Marte deal was a steal. I'd go so far as to say the Sabathia deal was a good deal at the time. These guys are all widely regarded as top prospects. Sometimes top prospects don't pan out - but I struggle to come down hard on the FO when pretty much everyone in baseball is on the same page about a guy.

 

[The Oi]

The Indians are so terrible at trades they just turned Ben Broussard into Trevor Bauer while getting Choo's prime in between.

Trevor Bauer has done less than Broussard at this point. I commend you for being able to get excited about prospects that the Indians trade for, but I'm not there with you. Getting Choo out of Broussard is obviously a win, but again...Choo is nothing special. He's a 6th or 7th hitter if he's on a decent team.

 

[AZ_]

It's nice that two time All Stars can't be considered impact players.

Jigo's gonna Jigo

 

[Nom]

I'd say trading Cliff Lee AND CC Sabathia for essentially nothing ALONE constitutes a bad track record.

Hafner, Grady and Lee were traded for right around a decade ago. Does the front office get a 10 year benefit of the doubt bump for those? What's the cut off for total amount of years before we're allowed to not trust a front office that hasn't pulled an impact player out of a trade for a decade?

Hafner, Lee and Grady were obviously part of fantastic trades. But frankly, it's been too long since they happened and there's been so many more misses than hits with player transactions since that time, that I'm gonna need some kind of parameters for when a front office can stop resting on their laurels before I'm allowed to say they suck.

Masterson, Choo and Asdrubal all fit into the same category...above average guys (most of the time) who nobody would ever dream of calling impact players.

Santana I'm willing to be optimistic with, especially because they landed him for Casey Blake.

Other than that...sorry...if they can't pull ANY impact players out of the trades they've made, they have a bad track record.

I mean, ACAb and Perez are back-to-back All-Stars. They were acquired for Eduardo Perez and Mark Derosa. It takes some strong downers to act like those were just moderately decent trades.

And if Choo isn't an impact player, then I'm not sure how you could be down on this trade at all. It seems in your view we didn't give up much of anything, so if it doesn't pan out to be much, how could it be a bad trade?

As for the Sabathia trade - it's easy to look back at that being a bad trade now, but nearly everyone in the game had him as an impact player. I understand a FO is evaluated on results, but to not allow for the fact that sometimes prospects just don't pan out isn't really living in reality.

 

[The Oi]

I understand your point that you can't evaluate a trade until you know how each part has turned out - but I think the thought process behind this deal is great.

Anytime you can acquire a top prospect while not giving up much in assets it is a solid deal, even if that player doesn't pan out. I'd still say the Andy Marte deal was a steal. I'd go so far as to say the Sabathia deal was a good deal at the time. These guys are all widely regarded as top prospects. Sometimes top prospects don't pan out - but I struggle to come down hard on the FO when pretty much everyone in baseball is on the same page about a guy.

Wow.

This is like the reverse angle that Huber is going for and I actually agree with his stance. You're calling trades that netted awful players steals and good deals based on projections about the players before the deals were made.

No wonder we disagree on the quality of the FO.

 

[Nom]

Trevor Bauer has done less than Broussard at this point. I commend you for being able to get excited about prospects that the Indians trade for, but I'm not there with you. Getting Choo out of Broussard is obviously a win, but again...Choo is nothing special. He's a 6th or 7th hitter if he's on a decent team.

He literally just got traded to a 97 win team to hit leadoff.

 

[Nom]

Wow.

This is like the reverse angle that Huber is going for and I actually agree with his stance. You're calling trades that netted awful players steals and good deals based on projections about the players before the deals were made.

No wonder we disagree on the quality of the FO.

Your theory is pretty much that if two guys buy lottery tickets, the guy who won made a great decision and the guy who lost made a terrible one.

 

[cdt]

Given that Choo's agent is Scott Boras and he was beyond gone at season's end I definitely like this trade. Top 3 selection from 2011, seems to be close to or ready to pitch at the major league level hopefully. It's about all you can ask for especially since Choo will likely be a 1 year rental for the Reds anyway.

Interested to see if we grab Swisher and trade Cabrera and Chris Perez next.

 

[Pyro]

Figures Jigo would be along to shit all over this, trolling all the way. We could sign Hamilton tomorrow and he'll figure out a way to shit all over that too.

 

[BMAN]

He talks out of his ass when he comes into Indians threads.

 

[The Oi]

I mean, ACAb and Perez are back-to-back All-Stars.

I'm not sure I'd call Perez a prospect when the Indians traded for him. He'd already player a season and a half in the pros. Obviously, he's a good player. If my qualification was "trades of any kind," sure...Perez was a great get. But I said trades involving prospects.

And if Choo isn't an impact player, then I'm not sure how you could be down on this trade at all.

Who says I'm down on the trade? I said if it was another team with a good track record, I'd give it a B+. Jeez... :chuckles:

It seems in your view we didn't give up much of anything, so if it doesn't pan out to be much, how could it be a bad trade?

Could be a good trade. I gave it a B+ if it had been made my a team with a good track record. It better be a good trade, because the cupboard is getting bare on the offensive side of the ball for guys with any kind of value around the league.

As for the Sabathia trade - it's easy to look back at that being a bad trade now, but nearly everyone in the game had him as an impact player.

Who cares what nearly everyone in the game had him as? I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to grade a trade based on what nearly everyone in the game thought of a player before they didn't pan out. The one thing I'll give you actually, is that perhaps the blame should lie on player development more because they're a common denominator in not developing guys who were projected as impact players.

I understand a FO is evaluated on results

End of story.

to not allow for the fact that sometimes prospects just don't pan out isn't really living in reality.

Of course you have to acknowledge that. These guys aren't perfect. But if they can't draft and they can't trade CC Sabathia and Cliff friggin Lee for SOME kind of impact players AND they whiff on Ubaldo...at a certain point, when is criticizing them allowed to be part of "living in reality?"

 

[The Oi]

Your theory is pretty much that if two guys buy lottery tickets, the guy who won made a great decision and the guy who lost made a terrible one.

Are we calling prospects lottery tickets now? Do you really think I'm arguing that?

Figures Jigo would be along to shit all over this, trolling all the way. We could sign Hamilton tomorrow and he'll figure out a way to shit all over that too.

Bullshit. Hamilton is a proven impact player. If the Indians could just once pull a Josh Hamilton out of a trade, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt for a couple years when they trade for prospects though. At this point, it certainly seems they're not capable of doing it.

And who's shitting on anything? My position is this:

I like the theory of the trade. But until the guy either pans out or doesn't...it's all in theory. I don't like the Indians track record in trading for prospects and thus...I'm not willing to get excited about it until the guy proves he can play AT LEAST as well as Choo did at his position.