This team will be fun to watch

[CATS44]

...and the truth is clear... trading one of the veteran players a year too soon or when they are at the high point of their value is vastly superior to trading him a year too late..

Hardly.

CC was a rental.
Lee was traded with 1.5 years left.
Choo was traded with a year left.
Victor with 1.5 years left.
Bauer with 1.5 left.
Kluber with two left...and unless you KNEW that he was gonna get hit with a line drive....

Only Clev with three years left and Cookie with three were traded with a lot of control left.

And we don't have a clue about the production we will get from the fifteen remaining players we got from the last four trades. I also haven't included the signings we have made with money saved in those trades.

But you did make my point that fans are never satisfied.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Hardly.

CC was a rental.
Lee was traded with 1.5 years left.
Choo was traded with a year left.
Victor with 1.5 years left.
Bauer with 1.5 left.
Kluber with two left...and unless you KNEW that he was gonna get hit with a line drive....

Only Clev with three years left and Cookie with three were traded with a lot of control left.

And we don't have a clue about the production we will get from the fifteen remaining players we got from the last four trades. I also haven't included the signings we have made with money saved in those trades.

But you did make my point that fans are never satisfied.

Maybe I missed something, but I thought @Gson was either agreeing with your point, or at least not disagreeing.

I personally agree both with your prior post, and with the very general point made by @Gson that it is better to trade a guy a year too soon than a year too late.

Or do you disagree with that?

 

[Gson]

Hardly.

CC was a rental.
Lee was traded with 1.5 years left.
Choo was traded with a year left.
Victor with 1.5 years left.
Bauer with 1.5 left.
Kluber with two left...and unless you KNEW that he was gonna get hit with a line drive....

Only Clev with three years left and Cookie with three were traded with a lot of control left.

And we don't have a clue about the production we will get from the fifteen remaining players we got from the last four trades. I also haven't included the signings we have made with money saved in those trades.

But you did make my point that fans are never satisfied.

If you would actually read what's written instead of deciding what you think someone else means.. you might find that your posting was agreed to.. your point making aside.

 

[CATS44]

Gson has been a leading proponent of trading our best players early....not allowing them to help us try to actually win games.

His well stated point of view is that we should trade them at their highest contract value, not wait until they are no longer under multiple years of control.

Basically, Lindor and Kluber should have been traded at least a year earlier and Jose should go soon, if not immediately.

My post explained that this is not the Indians modus operandi, and they have been very successful doing it their way.

It was also in answer to a previous post that questioned how long before the FO starts trading away our present young players...and also in answer to the general feeling that Cleveland always seems to trade away its better players.

If gson, who has long been a knowledgeable poster that I've enjoyed for years, has suddenly reversed his opinion on when the FO should move our best players, please accept my apologies.

 

[Gson]

Gson has been a leading proponent of trading our best players early....not allowing them to help us try to actually win games.

His well stated point of view is that we should trade them at their highest contract value, not wait until they are no longer under multiple years of control.

Basically, Lindor and Kluber should have been traded at least a year earlier and Jose should go soon, if not immediately.

My post explained that this is not the Indians modus operandi, and they have been very successful doing it their way.

It was also in answer to a previous post that questioned how long before the FO starts trading away our present young players...and also in answer to the general feeling that Cleveland always seems to trade away its better players.

If gson, who has long been a knowledgeable poster that I've enjoyed for years, has suddenly reversed his opinion on when the FO should move our best players, please accept my apologies.

Every chance to win games have been advocated.. any other narrative is just false.. moving a veteran player that is clearly going to become a FA (yes.. this includes JRam) at their highest value to acquire three to four Blue Chip guys who, in the aggregate make the team better is the MO.. that's what the FO has done and continues to do.. there is no reversal.. and this includes ALL of our best players.. It seems as if not one single star player has retired as a Cleveland Indian by playing his last games here in the last forty years.. They all finish elsewhere for reasons we all know..

The trades presented regarding JRam are mostly by other posters.. one in ten to twenty at most were from me..

The MO you're supporting is just a copy of mine.. having an inventory of two or three near ML ready MiLB guys for every ML'er is the optimal situation. With the additions presented in the too late Lindor Deal.. The Indians now havr three stud OF'ers along with six stud IF'er and ten SP's candidates to take the place of the current MLB roster. This makes the Indians dangerous today and into the future.. the real MO with CLEFO. Even with the presented trades, the only area the club is currently not fully stocked with three back ups.. is at catcher.. of course.. there are only two..

So, if or when the Indians do not trade Jose Ramirez by the trading deadline in just over five months or hang onto JRam going into and through the 2022 season.. then we'll get to hear all about what the Tribe could have been/received by watching the prospects defined by the many trades submitted by many posters, including me, perform on other teams.. btw.. we'll also get to watch JRam performing on one of those other teams, as well..

No worries.. the foibles and follies of JRam's play will be dissected and displayed, ad nauseum.. how many RBI's were there to get w/ RISP that the player failed to get.. Doesn't make that player the worst possible guy that we're glad is gone?..

Hmmm...?

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

...and the truth is clear... trading one of the veteran players a year too soon or when they are at the high point of their value is vastly superior to trading him a year too late..

Unless it's a guy like Andrew Miller and you're going for the World Series.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

In hindsight they would have done a lot better trading Brantley, Kluber, and Lindor with two years remaining, but you can't critisize them because they could not have foreseen the injuries to Brantley and Kluber and the short season last year.

What I'm wondering is if these experiences make them more willing to trade earlier when they can a) get a bigger return, b) save more money, and c) reduce the risk of the player's value dropping substantially in his second-to-last year like what happened with Brantley and Kluber.

They elected to trade Clevinger at mid-season rather than waiting until the end and it was very fortunate they did. I wonder if they're adopting a more cautious "get while the getting is good" philosophy and if that might result in Hosey getting moved with 1.5 - 2.5 years left instead of waiting until he's going into his final season like Lindor this year.

They waited until Lindor had just his last year left and got nowhere near the haul that some of us were expecting. We didn't get any of the Mets' top five prospects if I'm not mistaken.

 

[WhoAzcue]

...and the truth is clear... trading one of the veteran players a year too soon or when they are at the high point of their value is vastly superior to trading him a year too late..

If it's a truth at all, it's a half-truth, because it doesn't take into account teams circumstances at the time.

I was in complete favor of the Tribe playing out Lindor and taking draft compensation once he walked because (1) I figured he'd only get better and (2) the Tribe would be a contender. I didn't give a rat's ass if we could precisely pinpoint his "peak" in order to trade him at his maximum value, as long as he was going to be the fulcrum on a contender for the championship, and perform like a hall of fame shortstop, for he'd be worth whatever he was being paid AND foregoing whatever value he might fetch back in future players.

The Cleveland Indians front office precisely balances the PRESENT as well as the future. We concentrate so much on the future (and I'm in favor of it being a large factor, by the way; I never want to be the Royals or Tigers) but I will never, ever criticize the Indians for trading a player "one year too late" because their calculations tell them the present should be valued over the future.

That's surely what happened with Lindor and Kluber. Critics who insist the team "waited too long" miss the point. The offers clearly did not make the present team better than retaining those guys and expecting to get their typical seasons. AND OUR TEAMS WERE GOOD. And would have been better had those players been able to contribute in ways we figured they would. But they didn't, and the team suffered. And the critics come out of the woodwork with knowing looks, citing aphorisms like "its better to trade a guy one year too early..."

Well, that's an easy calculation when your team sucks, perhaps. But when your team is damn good, it ain't so easy...and yeah, you look really look bad when the guy sucks or gets hurt. Things work out sometimes and sometimes they don't but foretelling the future is a challenge...so looking at the array of decisions and their timing that CATS laid out, yeah, overall, I think our guys do a good job calculating the odds and placing their bets in such a way that this team remains competitive both today and tomorrow.

 

[MadThinker88]

In hindsight they would have done a lot better trading Brantley, Kluber, and Lindor with two years remaining, but you can't critisize them because they could not have foreseen the injuries to Brantley and Kluber and the short season last year.

What I'm wondering is if these experiences make them more willing to trade earlier when they can a) get a bigger return, b) save more money, and c) reduce the risk of the player's value dropping substantially in his second-to-last year like what happened with Brantley and Kluber.

They elected to trade Clevinger at mid-season rather than waiting until the end and it was very fortunate they did. I wonder if they're adopting a more cautious "get while the getting is good" philosophy and if that might result in Hosey getting moved with 1.5 - 2.5 years left instead of waiting until he's going into his final season like Lindor this year.

They waited until Lindor had just his last year left and got nowhere near the haul that some of us were expecting. We didn't get any of the Mets' top five prospects if I'm not mistaken.

@Wham with the Right Hand
I think your missing a couple key differences between Clevinger and the other group of players you listed (Brantley/ Kluber). You can even add Lindor & Bauer to the overall listing opposite Clevinger..

Items pushing for an earlier deal with Clevinger include the injury history of the player & issues with player impacting clubhouse. Like it or not Sunshine had those things working against him. I'm not suggesting the other 4 were always in perfect health but as a fan I always had a sense that another injury was lurking around the corner with Sunshine (it seemed he always had one thing after another). Not so with the rest of the group.

The issue of breaking the bubble in Chicago last summer was big deal, perhaps bigger then the fan-base realizes. In the case of Sunshine it was worse as he hide his involvement while discussing/ defending Plesac that Sunday at the park to the rest of the team. When the rest of the story came out I had the sense that the trust of others (players/ leadership/ management/ FO) in Clevinger was completely gone. Did not have that sense at any point with the other 4 players..

Finally, a factor in play with trading any player is having something else ready to step into the void left behind.. I'm unsure what player the Tribe had ready to step in & replace Brantley (if he was dealt away before his contract ended) or to take over for Kluber ahead of the 2019 season. The Kluber injury (& other issues to starting pitchers in 2019) opened the door for Plesac/ Civale to get a chance & prove there was ready pitching depth that simply needed a MLB chance. As 2020 progressed, TMac was now available & Carassco was showing a good return to form thus allowing for Clevinger to be moved..

The "get while the getting is good" likely more to do with the Clevinger case/ set of circumstances then a change in organizational philosophy

 

[WhoAzcue]

I think your missing a couple key differences between Clevinger and the other group of players you listed (Brantley/ Kluber).

Items pushing for an earlier deal with Clevinger include the injury history of the player & issues with player impacting clubhouse. Like it or not Sunshine had those things working against him.

Finally, a factor in play with trading any player is having something else ready to step into the void left behind..

The "get while the getting is good" likely more to do with the Clevinger case/ set of circumstances then a change in organizational philosophy

Excellent points. It's not just a matter of where the player is in his career or contract, or whether or not the team is good or not, it matters whether there is depth at the position to allow trading to be a consideration. NOT, we have Nolan Jones, we can trade Jose. That doesn't work, but in Clevinger's case, given the questions with durability, trust, and expense, combined with the team's depth, all helped to offset (to a large degree really) any concerns that the team was sacrificing the present for the future. As it turned out, the present really wasn't disturbed at all by the deal, and the future was enhanced. It was a bold move at the time, and now looks brilliant, but it didn't stray far--if at all--from the organization's overarching philosophy.

 

[Gson]

Excellent points. It's not just a matter of where the player is in his career or contract, or whether or not the team is good or not, it matters whether there is depth at the position to allow trading to be a consideration. NOT, we have Nolan Jones, we can trade Jose. That doesn't work, but in Clevinger's case, given the questions with durability, trust, and expense, combined with the team's depth, all helped to offset (to a large degree really) any concerns that the team was sacrificing the present for the future. As it turned out, the present really wasn't disturbed at all by the deal, and the future was enhanced. It was a bold move at the time, and now looks brilliant, but it didn't stray far--if at all--from the organization's overarching philosophy.

Injuries are unavoidable <=== this is a wrong statement..
The present was disturbed <== perhaps for the better..

There has to be a ready or near ready replacement in the minor league system, as part of the trade and / or, as a long shot, another deal that has yet to be completed (this is the least likely/most infrequent part of any trade).. Preparing the team for both now and into the future is the only way the club can remain competitive. The loss of Frankie was replaced with the immediate ability (if the anywhere but Citi Field numbers hold true) replacement: Amed Rosario.. While Amed only has three years of control remaining, the second part of the deal included a near ML ready slick defensive SS: Andres Gimenez. Gimenez is every bit as capable as Frankie with the glove.. There are damn few SS's with Frankie's offensive profile.. but either/both of these guys should be able to achieve the majority of Frankie's numbers.. especially if the 2020 season is considered (and it should only be partially considered).

What this trade and any trade comes down to is answering in the affirmative:

Does the club remain as competitive after the trade as they were before the trade?

W/ the Lindor trade.. coupled with the massive reduction in payroll corresponding to the loss of four veteran players.. the tribe is and remains slotted as the 3rd place club in the AL Central.. with an outside chance at a wildcard. This was the same appraisal as before the Lindor trade was made..

Does the return from the trade improve the club in the future..

Gimenez's addition to the future of the club is nearly immediate. In the Omar Vizquel era of Cleveland Indians baseball.. having one of the slickest fielding SS's in the world was a source of pride as well as a strong benefit to the competitiveness of the team. W/ Isaiah Greene, the A/A- or lower OF'er depth is clearly improved & this might be one of the two areas the tribe did not have the "goods" to fill the talent pipeline. The addition of Josh Wolf, another mid 90's FB/CB command and control artist at the ripe old age of 20.. could grow to replace Carlos Carrasco or complimenting the future of the tribe pitching staff. The continual replenishing of the pitching staff in virtually any deal should be trademarked by CLEFO..

 

[CATS44]

First of all, we don't know yet what we got for Lindor, Cookie, Bauer, Kluber, and Clevinger.

And while it is assumed that we would have gotten more by trading them earlier, we have no way of knowing that, either.

**************

The advocates that insist that we should trade our players at their peak...

This would mean trading Bieber now. It would also mean never having our better players playing for us while they can help us contend.

I have no interest...none, nada, zip, zilch...in becoming the baseball version of an oyster farm...always having the best young oysters, but never being able to eat them.

Frankly, we don't need any more prospects. We can't use all the ones we have now. And so much of our roster is filled with long controllable contracts, that by the time many of them are due to leave, we will have developed a whole new wave.

What we do need is more affordable impact now players....and we have the wherewithal to acquire them.
.

 

[CATS44]

Just a word on Gimenez' slick fielding rep as the surefire next Omar or Lindor.

We have a guy on our roster that is three years older, and at Gimenez' age had an even slicker fielding rep. More arm, more speed, more everything.

Now, folks insist he can't play shortstop.

 

[mrWalrus]

This won't be popular, but I'm all for trading JRam. He's never going to be worth more than he is now and, frankly, I still think the Tribe will be moved in the next 4-5 years.

To that point, I've enjoyed the act of watching prospects blossom. We'll never see a late 90's style Tribe again.

 

[Gson]

This won't be popular, but I'm all for trading JRam. He's never going to be worth more than he is now and, frankly, I still think the Tribe will be moved in the next 4-5 years.

To that point, I've enjoyed the act of watching prospects blossom. We'll never see a late 90's style Tribe again.

It's not about popular.. it's about what might happen.. how does it affect the ability of the club to compete.. and, most importantly.. will they be entertaining to watch..

The 93- 02 run was fueled by a wave of talent that all arrived vitually the same time.. more than half were the results of trades, mostly veterans for prospects and other veterans that filled needs.. Others that created those teams were draftees and surprising signings..

The pitching staff has almost completely turned over in the last two years.. the position players.. are still in flux.. Jose and Bebo remain..

We'll see..