• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Hot Garbage and Pyrite

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
CATS44 said:
Mathematically, 70% of our highly thought of prospects...pick any favorite name, Jones for most, Freeman for me...will fail. But they are sure things on the trade market.
Click to expand...
I get the argument but here is a list off the top of my head of minor league players with no or in some cases very little major league experience the Indians acquired by giving up "sure things", i.e. proven major league players.

Cliff Lee
Grady Sizemore
Sandy Alomar
Carlos Baerga
Joe Carter
Kenny Lofton
Asdrubal Cabrera
Shin-Soo Choo
Carlos Santana
Michael Brantley
Justin Masterson
Carlos Carrasco
Mike Clevinger

How much success would the Indians have had over the last 25 years without these guys? And in some cases the Indians traded one player for four or five but only one of the prospects they traded for paid off. The Cliff Lee to the Phillies for Carrasco and three other guys is an example. Carrasco had a good career in Cleveland whereas Marson et al never amounted to anything. So 75% of the prospects we received flamed out but the one that came through made the trade a big success.

Add in the guys in our system now that we acquired for Carrasco and Clevinger, some of whom will turn out to be long term starters based on the law of averages.

Also factor in that after these prospects we trade for become very good players we can trade them for more prospects after getting years of production out of them. An example would be the Colon for Lee trade. Lee becomes an All-Star and then we trade him for Carrasco. Cookie has a good career and then we trade him along with Lindor for four prospects. We'll still be getting value from Bartolo years into the future and it's been 19 years since the deal.

The problem with trading prospects for a "sure thing" is that it increases payroll, which is something the Indians won't be doing for a while if you believe they took a financial bath last year like they claim. The Clevinger and Lindor/Carrasco trades prove the Indians are sticking with the plan that has worked in the past as opposed to taking the opposite approach and trading prospects for proven players.

There is a time for that. The Clint Frazier/Sheffield for Andrew Miller trade is an example. But for every one of those deals the Indians are going to do five the other way, which is the only way a small market team can compete.
 
Wham...

What you say is all true, but there are huge differences between now and then.

The two biggest are that prospects were not as highly valued then as they are now. In all probability, not any of the trades that were made to acquire these guys could be made today. The only possible exceptions are the two that brought in Lofton and Clevinger.

No team would make those kind of trades today.

Secondly, everyone of these guys were acquired when we were in full rebuild, not while we were trying to contend.

Now, lets look at these vet for multiple prospect trades for a moment, the ones in which we traded CC, Lee, Colon, and VMart.

The Colon trade return was spectacular. All three kids provided MLB value within three years.

The CC trade brought value in Brantley, but that value didn't kick in for six years. Great if you are in rebuild, not so good if you are contending. The other three kids flopped.

The Lee trade brought us Carrasco. Cookie brought some value fairly quickly. The other three didn't produce at the MLB level.

The VMart trade brought us Masterson and two prospects, neither of which provided much value. Masterson was exactly the kind of player we are bringing in now, kid with some MLB experience.

In sum, all four trades were good to outstanding for the Tribe in rebuild, but out of the twelve prospects we got, only five produced at the MLB level, and only four brought much value within five years.

Now, look at your list again.

Sandy, Carter, Lofton, Choo, and Masterson had some MLB experience when we acquired them. They all brought nearly instant value. 100% vs 25%.

Those four are the type of players that we are, and should continue to be, acquiring.

Our present roster is full of them.

Bauers
Luplow
Naylor
Reyes
Allen
Quantrill
Clase
Gimenez
Rosario
Maton
Wittgren

I would trade prospects for those kind every day of the week.

They generally don't raise payroll significantly for years to come.

The kicker is that if we don't trade several of our better prospects, we will lose them. At least seven have to be added to the 40 man by the end of November.
 
Wham with the Right Hand said:
I get the argument but here is a list off the top of my head of minor league players with no or in some cases very little major league experience the Indians acquired by giving up "sure things", i.e. proven major league players.

Cliff Lee
Grady Sizemore
Sandy Alomar
Carlos Baerga
Joe Carter
Kenny Lofton
Asdrubal Cabrera
Shin-Soo Choo
Carlos Santana
Michael Brantley
Justin Masterson
Carlos Carrasco
Mike Clevinger

How much success would the Indians have had over the last 25 years without these guys? And in some cases the Indians traded one player for four or five but only one of the prospects they traded for paid off. The Cliff Lee to the Phillies for Carrasco and three other guys is an example. Carrasco had a good career in Cleveland whereas Marson et al never amounted to anything. So 75% of the prospects we received flamed out but the one that came through made the trade a big success.

Add in the guys in our system now that we acquired for Carrasco and Clevinger, some of whom will turn out to be long term starters based on the law of averages.

Also factor in that after these prospects we trade for become very good players we can trade them for more prospects after getting years of production out of them. An example would be the Colon for Lee trade. Lee becomes an All-Star and then we trade him for Carrasco. Cookie has a good career and then we trade him along with Lindor for four prospects. We'll still be getting value from Bartolo years into the future and it's been 19 years since the deal.

The problem with trading prospects for a "sure thing" is that it increases payroll, which is something the Indians won't be doing for a while if you believe they took a financial bath last year like they claim. The Clevinger and Lindor/Carrasco trades prove the Indians are sticking with the plan that has worked in the past as opposed to taking the opposite approach and trading prospects for proven players.

There is a time for that. The Clint Frazier/Sheffield for Andrew Miller trade is an example. But for every one of those deals the Indians are going to do five the other way, which is the only way a small market team can compete.
Click to expand...
And I find this method much more interesting then spending hundreds of millions of dollars on FA that don't provide that value over the course of their contract. There needs to be a salary cap so desperately that it's not even funny. The MLBPA and overly wealthy owners have ruined this league.
 
CATS44 said:
Wham...

What you say is all true, but there are huge differences between now and then.

The two biggest are that prospects were not as highly valued then as they are now. In all probability, not any of the trades that were made to acquire these guys could be made today....

Now, look at your list again.

Sandy, Carter, Lofton, Choo, and Masterson had some MLB experience when we acquired them. They all brought nearly instant value. 100% vs 25%.

Those four are the type of players that we are, and should continue to be, acquiring.

Our present roster is full of them.

Bauers
Luplow
Naylor
Reyes
Allen
Quantrill
Clase
Gimenez
Rosario
Maton
Wittgren

I would trade prospects for those kind every day of the week.
Click to expand...
1. The statement that prospects are more highly valued now than they were when we made those trades and therefore those trades are no longer possible is a true statement. The argument that was originally presented, however, is that since most prospects fail we should trade them for proven major league talent. So which is it? Are prospects valuable, or are they easily expendable?

2. You want to trade prospects for players like the ones listed, players who are not proven major leaguers but are right on the cusp and even had some major league experience like Clase, Masterson, etc. Sure, who wouldn't trade three guys in A ball for a major league ready player? The problem is getting another organization to do it.

Look at that list again. How many of those guys were acquired for longshot prospects in the low minors?

We gave up Yandy Diaz to get Bauers. Reyes and Allen came in the Trevor Bauer deal. Naylor and Quantrill came in the Clevinger deal. We got Clase for Corey Kluber. Rosario and Gimenez were acquired for Lindor and Carrasco. We got Maton for international bonus money. We got Luplow for Erik Gonzalez. Wittgren was the only guy obtained for a prospect; Jordan Milbrath.

You said, "I would trade prospects for those kind every day of the week". Yep, so would I, but we're not going to get those guys for prospects. You have to give up players like Lindor, Carrasco, Clevinger, Yandy, and Bauer to get them.

What we need are more deals like the Milbrath for Wittgren trade. Milbrath is now 29 and out of baseball. But good luck with that.
 
Wham with the Right Hand said:
1. The statement that prospects are more highly valued now than they were when we made those trades and therefore those trades are no longer possible is a true statement. The argument that was originally presented, however, is that since most prospects fail we should trade them for proven major league talent. So which is it? Are prospects valuable, or are they easily expendable?

2. You want to trade prospects for players like the ones listed, players who are not proven major leaguers but are right on the cusp and even had some major league experience like Clase, Masterson, etc. Sure, who wouldn't trade three guys in A ball for a major league ready player? The problem is getting another organization to do it.

Look at that list again. How many of those guys were acquired for longshot prospects in the low minors?

We gave up Yandy Diaz to get Bauers. Reyes and Allen came in the Trevor Bauer deal. Naylor and Quantrill came in the Clevinger deal. We got Clase for Corey Kluber. Rosario and Gimenez were acquired for Lindor and Carrasco. We got Maton for international bonus money. We got Luplow for Erik Gonzalez. Wittgren was the only guy obtained for a prospect; Jordan Milbrath.

You said, "I would trade prospects for those kind every day of the week". Yep, so would I, but we're not going to get those guys for prospects. You have to give up players like Lindor, Carrasco, Clevinger, Yandy, and Bauer to get them.

What we need are more deals like the Milbrath for Wittgren trade. Milbrath is now 29 and out of baseball. But good luck with that.
Click to expand...
yea, the facts presented dont do anything close to back the poster's thesis
 
Difficult, but not impossible, Wham.

Find teams with poor minor league systems, without much of the most valued asset in baseball...prospects.

There are about a dozen of them.

Out of those dozen, find the ones rebuilding and/or under significant financial pressure, in which even looming arby is a problem. Also, look for those teams that have excess at positions we need, and/or have an organizational need for which we have excess.

There are probably twenty teams that need SP prospects alone. There are five or six that have excess younger outfielders.

Now, look at what the Cubs got for Darvish and Caratini. Outside of a short term MOR, they received four prospects, three of which have never played an inning of pro ball. The other has 41 pro games under his belt.

The Cubs are also going to either dump Bryant or lose him at the end of the season. Their contending days are over with the present core.

And we can't put a package together for Ian Happ, who has three years of control left?

A few other teams that in some way fit the parameters are Texas, Toronto, Cincinnati, Colorado, and even the Mets.
 
Again, if we don't trade them, we are gonna lose them.

So, since you don't want to trade them, which of these do you want to lose?

Chang
Gimenez
Jones
Freeman
Clement
Arias
Miller
Rocchio
Bracho
Palacios
Kwan
Valera
Scott
Cantillo

I'd be willing to package a bunch of them for a solid under control upgrade, because its better than watching them get picked off in Rule Five.

Besides, how many do you think will be productive MLB players while they are still under control?

Statistically, the number is four.
 
CATS44 said:
Again, if we don't trade them, we are gonna lose them.

So, since you don't want to trade them, which of these do you want to lose?

Chang
Gimenez
Jones
Freeman
Clement
Arias
Miller
Rocchio
Bracho
Palacios
Kwan
Valera
Scott
Cantillo

'''''
Click to expand...
I'm okay with losing Chang and Kwan.. I want to keep everyone else.. and understand I'm going to lose eight more of them..
 
CATS44 said:
Again, if we don't trade them, we are gonna lose them.

So, since you don't want to trade them, which of these do you want to lose?

Chang
Gimenez
Jones
Freeman
Clement
Arias
Miller
Rocchio
Bracho
Palacios
Kwan
Valera
Scott
Cantillo

I'd be willing to package a bunch of them for a solid under control upgrade, because its better than watching them get picked off in Rule Five.

Besides, how many do you think will be productive MLB players while they are still under control?

Statistically, the number is four.
Click to expand...
When are we going to lose these guys? The Rule 5 draft was in December and we only lost Tom and Oviedo. Will some of them be exposed next December if they're not rostered?

My general feeling is that teams will not give you much for guys who are about to be exposed to the Rule 5 draft. Why would they? And if they're not going to be exposed for a few years you have plenty of time to evaluate them and roster them if they show promise.

Players exposed to Rule 5 have been in the system for quite a while and are not near the top of the prospect rankings. Ka'ai Tom, who just got "picked off in Rule Five" has been in the Indians system since 2015. He will be 27 in May. I'm not too concerned about losing him. Considering how bad our outfield was last year you'd think Tom would have been protected if the organization had any hope at all that he would turn out to be a solid major league player. We've had Oviedo since 2016.

Valera just turned 20. When is he eligible for Rule 5?

Hey, I'm all in favor of trading guys that will eventually be exposed for guys like Sandy Alomar when they're at AAA, but I don't see it happening. You're saying it's difficult but doable with certain organizations. OK, if that's the case I'm sure Antonetti will find those deals.
 
Wham with the Right Hand said:
When are we going to lose these guys? The Rule 5 draft was in December and we only lost Tom and Oviedo. Will some of them be exposed next December if they're not rostered?

My general feeling is that teams will not give you much for guys who are about to be exposed to the Rule 5 draft. Why would they? And if they're not going to be exposed for a few years you have plenty of time to evaluate them and roster them if they show promise.

Players exposed to Rule 5 have been in the system for quite a while and are not near the top of the prospect rankings. Ka'ai Tom, who just got "picked off in Rule Five" has been in the Indians system since 2015. He will be 27 in May. I'm not too concerned about losing him. Considering how bad our outfield was last year you'd think Tom would have been protected if the organization had any hope at all that he would turn out to be a solid major league player. We've had Oviedo since 2016.

Valera just turned 20. When is he eligible for Rule 5?

Hey, I'm all in favor of trading guys that will eventually be exposed for guys like Sandy Alomar when they're at AAA, but I don't see it happening. You're saying it's difficult but doable with certain organizations. OK, if that's the case I'm sure Antonetti will find those deals.
Click to expand...
This link should help you Wham.. There is a column which indicates when each player is eligible for the Rule 5 draft. Short note: There is a deadline each November when players need to be on the 40 man roster or they could be taken in the upcoming R5.. That gives each club roughly 2 or 3 weeks to know who is out there in order to be ready for making draft selections.

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/depth-charts/indians

Valera, Tyler Freeman, Rocchio, Bracho, O Miller, A. Planez, S Kwan, Lavastida, Palacios, Tena, Cody Morris, Joey Cantillo, Sandlin & R Broom are just some of those eligible for the Rule 5 for the 1st time in December 2021...
 
Gson said:
I'm okay with losing Chang and Kwan.. I want to keep everyone else.. and understand I'm going to lose eight more of them..
Click to expand...
In addition to the names you listed Ernie Clement would be on my 'ok to lose' list.
Depending on how other things go, Adam Scott could be among my list too..
 
Chang, Jones, Clement, Arias, and Gimenez are already on the 40 man.

According to Roster Resource, all the others are Rule Five eligible this coming off season.

Unless we want to get backed into a corner and lose our leverage, some of these kids have to be traded fairly soon.

Most of these kids are not Tom, but real prospects. There are several top prospects lists on the Minor League thread. Pick whichever one you like best.

Although nobody would like to see it, it would be better to overpay in prospects for a major upgrade to our lineup...that is under control for years...than to just lose them to Rule Five.

Sometime soon we need to make a four for one trade.
 
So, fans are willing to lose Chang, Clement, Scott, and Kwan for nothing. We are gonna lose others, too.

Why not package them in trades now for something?

A trade might go down something like this.

We want player X, who would be a big upgrade to our present lineup. Pick whatever reasonable name you want.

We offer them three from the list above. They pick one. We pull back four. They pick another. We pick the third one.

Obviously, the numbers change with the quality of player we are talking about.

A Happ or Smith would likely cost more than a Santander.
 
Santander is a name that many folks seem to want. (I'm not a big fan)

But the Orioles fit one profile of a team that might be willing to trade.

The Orioles are in the midst of a never ending rebuild and are still years away.. Santander is in his first year of arby.

Baltimore has built up a decent farm system, although its not as good as ours. The one thing they lack? A good, near ready SS prospect. All their present kids at SS project to 3B or util.

We have a ton of what they might be looking for.
 
The bottom of the soup pot.. is what the CLEFO may be scouring.. looking for that guy that is on a club that isn't going to contend and he's getting might expensive.. a guy who needs a chance that won't be coming because the club has decided to go with a youth movement.. or a guy who is being passed over for a youngster the club has invested in so whatever he does wouldn't matter anyway. He could be a guy that is hugely in need of a chance of scenary.. There are a few out there.. These are the guys that the CLEFO has uncovered in the past.. They're not cheap.. or may not be cheap.. but what he is, is available.. guys like:

Boston: Andrew Benintendi,
who could be the headline for a Jarren Duran &/or Jay Groome trade
Baltimore: Anthony Santander
Texas: literally, no body
Seattle: Mitch Haniger
Cincinnati: Reece Hinds
who could be the headline for an Austin Hendrick deal
Pittsburgh: literally no one worth discussing..
Colorado: Yonathan Daza
San Francisco: Mauricio Dubon

These minor deals take prospects and a "glut" of riches and transforms them into production players for the Tribe..

Thoughts?..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top