I'm quoting this specific line first because it frames the rest of your post.
We can all agree on this. The MLBPA has far too much control, and the lack of an aggressive salary cap has made the financial playing field in the sport uneven. However, under that financial restraint, the Indians have been one of the most innovative organizations in baseball. From the way our front office has identified MLB-level talent, all the way down to the way we're currently investing in Latin America, we have been one of the most progressive and forward-thinking organizations in the sport when it comes to identifying ways to acquire talent that isn't valued properly by the market.
That being said, let's get into the rest of the pile:
- Since you understand the economics of baseball, you do obviously understand that the Indians would not have been able to re-sign CC Sabathia when he hit free agency. Correct? Based upon that knowledge, you're claiming the optimal choice is to lose him for nothing, rather than trade him and get value in return. Can you defend this line of reasoning?
- The exact same line of questioning for Cliff Lee. Why do you feel the correct choice is to lose the player for nothing, rather than getting value in return?
- Why do you feel the need to sling mud and name call in your opening? When you open by calling owners "cheapsakes" (you did mean "cheapskates," right?) you look like an overly emotional child.
Either you're inflicting self-harm (denying yourself something you enjoy--going to a baseball game) or you never enjoyed going to a baseball game to begin with. Which one is it?
Since you're stating that these things are facts, can you provide examples? Current ownership has spent more money than the previous owners. I wouldn't call a $140 million payroll in this market "cheap," and the fact that Progressive Field has incredibly affordable tickets with fantastic amenities doesn't sound like "nickle and diming."
You understand this is just untrue--right? To say that ownership "will stop at nothing" is just being disingenuous. In the modern era, we have tried to aggressively extend every player we could. It kept around MVP and Cy Young-level talents like Kluber and Jose Ramirez. It's kept Cookie here. I'm hard pressed to find a time where we actively wanted a valued player to "walk."
I really like this point. Do you remember 2002? The Indians traded their best pitcher, Bartolo Colon, away because he was going to be an impending free agent. We traded him for PROSPECTS of all things! Oh the humanity! Do you know who we received? Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips... and Cliff Lee. If we hadn't established a mold of trading top-level players for value rather than letting them walk, we wouldn't have the top-level players that you're upset we traded.
Oh, and the Cliff Lee trade netted us, among others, Carlos Carrasco. We turned a few months of Bartolo Colon into Cliff Lee and Carlos Carrasco. That's amazing, and definitely a strategy that we should continue to employ--not ridicule.
I'm going to even give you the part where "you know they won't support financially" (which is false). A person should spend time and money doing things they enjoy. If you don't enjoy going to a baseball game, then don't. It's really that simple. I am not really one for labeling things, but I guess if you don't enjoy going to baseball games, it would be fair to question the "fan" label.
The financial situations are completely different. No owner would have refused to give LeBron a max contract. His value was far, far greater than the maximum contract the NBA allowed.
(Just to keep context, this was in reference to the financial situation of baseball that I moved to the front of this response)
The financial situation in baseball is everyone's problem (if you view it as a problem). If fans voice concern about the product, that's a great way to effect positive change. Also, are you trying to say that the Indians ownership is responsible for the economic climate in baseball? Because, they are just one of 30 MLB ownership groups, and also have no control over the MLBPA, who is the larger problem here.
Can you clarify the precedent for"it" here? What do you expect Indians ownership to figure out? Also, no, it's not "as simple as that" ultimatum you provided. That's silly.
Again, I would recommend taking a more rational approach rather than throwing an emotional tantrum.
I would argue that our ability to put a quality front office together has allowed the Indians to compete for championships in this era. There aren't many markets as small as ours that can say they've had the same continued success we've had. But, can you elaborate on specifically how ownership has cost the team multiple championships? Unless your spelling was intentional and you mean they don't allow chips in the clubhouse or something, in which case that's news to me.
We've had 7 winning seasons in a row, and over the last 4 years, only the Dodgers and Astros have won more games than we have.
Is there anything coherent here, or is it just the end of your tantrum? If there's a point to be made, let me know and I'll address it.
