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

This team will be fun to watch

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
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.
I fail to see why you care what they do with Ramirez if you think the team is moving. Good grief. If I knew the team was moving, I'd start following the Professional Bowlers Tour more closely. That Jason Belmonte has a great personality and all, but is it just me...I can't get used to this two-handed approach...
 
A few thoughts...

The 90s team was fun to watch. They won a bunch of games, mostly while playing in a bad division. They were a winning team for seven years. Then they went thud.

They beat up teams with their bats and usually had an above average pitching staff. Its nostalgic to look back.

The Francona Tribe has won a bunch of games, mostly playing in a bad division. They have been a winning team for seven years. The organization is in far better shape now than at the end of the 90s era....and its not even close.

They beat up teams with pitching and usually have had a better than average offense.

Only two position players from this era could have started in the 90s...Lindor and Jose. Berto may have played when Sandy was hurt.

Looking at the 90s overall rotation vs this era's...Kluber, Cookie, Bauer, Bieber, and Clevinger...maybe Colon could have made the Francona rotation.

Look back all you want. Look ahead all you want. But this group has been just as good and is far better set up for the future than the 90s Indians.

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

This team has a far better chance to win the division than finish last.
 
Look back all you want. Look ahead all you want. But this group has been just as good and is far better set up for the future than the 90s Indians.
***************
This team has a far better chance to win the division than finish last.
Anyone who wants to argue those observations is simply not paying attention. It's not a matter of being positive or negative, just dispassionate, objective reality.
 
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.
.
For the love of baby Jesus. Nobody is advocating trading every player at their peak. Where do you come up with this nonsense. It's about timing and there are numerous factors when deciding to trade a player. You praise the team for being in a position to win going forward. Well, why in the hell do you think that is?

If you think that trading Lindor or Kluber a year earlier wouldn't have reaped more/better benefits then you're just not paying attention. One thing is for damn sure, we wouldn't have had to include Carrasco to get a deal done, and if his salary would still have needed removed from payroll then the package for him would have been significant too.

We do need some more prospects while at the same time needing fewer prospects. It depends on what kind of prospects you're talking about. You can't look at a farm system with blinders on.
 
This team could be fun to watch or it could be very disappointing to watch. They have a large number of young players who are either right on the verge of starting their major league careers (Bradley, Daniel Johnson) or who are into their careers but with limited experience (McKenzie, Mercado). Here's the list of emerging, unproven but potentially good players as I see it:

Pitchers

Plesac
Civale
McKenzie
Quantrill
Clase
Karinchak
Maton

Position players

Bradley
Gimenez
Mercado
Luplow
Naylor
Johnson
Chang

Then you have the established veterans you are counting on to produce at a high level:

Bieber
Wittgren
Hernandez
Ramirez
Perez (Roberto)
Rosario
Reyes

So I'm seeing 14 emerging players whose performance is not predictable. The one exception might be Plesac, whose performance has been consistent (29 starts, 12-8, 3.32 ERA), but it's still only 29 starts - one full season. Others, such as Mercado have been inconsistent or barely played at all (Chang, Bradley, Johnson).

Fourteen young, hopefully emerging players against seven established performers. This team could be fun to watch. Or not.
 
For the love of baby Jesus. Nobody is advocating trading every player at their peak. Where do you come up with this nonsense. It's about timing and there are numerous factors when deciding to trade a player. You praise the team for being in a position to win going forward. Well, why in the hell do you think that is?

If you think that trading Lindor or Kluber a year earlier wouldn't have reaped more/better benefits then you're just not paying attention. One thing is for damn sure, we wouldn't have had to include Carrasco to get a deal done, and if his salary would still have needed removed from payroll then the package for him would have been significant too.

We do need some more prospects while at the same time needing fewer prospects. It depends on what kind of prospects you're talking about. You can't look at a farm system with blinders on.

Where do I get the idea that many posters are advocating trading away our best players way too early? Try reading thru the thread about trading JRam now, or at the deadline. Notice references to trading Bieber and even Plesac in that thread.

Its totally ridiculous.

Many are saying that we should have traded Kluber and Lindor earlier, because we would have gotten more for them.

Doh!

Of course we probably would have gotten more. Kluber would have had three years of control left and Lindor two. After this season Biebs will have three years of control left and JRam two. Those wishing that we had traded Kluber and Lindor earlier, using the same logic, must be insisting that we trade Biebs and JRam no later than next winter.

And, in hindsight, EVERYBODY must have known that Kluber was gonna have his arm shattered and that Covid was gonna hit America.

At the time so many wished (now) that we had traded Kluber, he was coming off a 20 win season in which he was 3rd in CY voting. Lindor was coming off a GG season in which he was the fifth best SS in baseball by fWAR, and the best over the last three seasons.

It seems like many fans never want to compete. They never ever want to put the best team possible on the field. They'd rather amass prospects...and shrug off the fact that we are gonna lose a ton of good looking youngsters next winter, if we don't trade a bunch of them very soon. For an org that depends almost exclusively on the acquisition of young players by any means imaginable, the 40 man situation is a huge problem, but many fans want to make it worse.

A lot of folks want to channel their inner Branch Rickey, but Rickey...maybe the greatest GM in history...did not operate without a reserve clause. Back then, contracts didn't matter, service time concerns didn't exist, the 40 man didn't exist, and there was no automatic free agency. For Rickey, the clock never ran.

This org needs to squeeze the most BASEBALL value (production) out if its players. Trade value is the secondary consideration, because production wins games, which trade value does not.

If our FO is correct in its evaluations...and their track record is excellent...this team is a contender right now, and is set up to continue to contend. This doesn't mean that it WILL contend this year, because track records are not always linear. Nobody bats 1.000.

But a wise investor always bets with the long term track record. If Warren Buffett was a baseball buff, and applied his theories to making long term baseball evaluations, at or near the top of the list would be the Cleveland Indians.

Find market inequities. Find an org with a well defined strategy for targeting those inequities by evaluating and acquiring talent successfully for a long time, and has been able to develop that talent into production....and then bet on that franchise.

The bottom line theory behind calls to trade our best players early in their careers is that this team is never very good, and therefore never a real contender...so why even try to contend when we could perpetually turn over talent so that other teams can contend?

Its a perpetual motion strategy for mediocrity.

I like Warren Buffett and our FO a lot better.
 
Last edited:
What you have to figure out how to do, and until you can do this there will be unending pain, is trade every player at their peak.
 
There is a confluence of many items that come into play w/r to when to trade a star player.. both externally as well as internally..

...clearly, shades of gray apply.. in spite of the absolutes being bandied about.. We'll see..
 
There is a confluence of many items that come into play w/r to when to trade a star player.. both externally as well as internally..

...clearly, shades of gray apply.. in spite of the absolutes being bandied about.. We'll see..
totally agree....we commenters tend to coalesce to absolutes and refuse the gray areas.....

With that said, and referring to your first sentence, THAT is why I was surprised to see Carlos Carrasco traded. Some may quibble at the 'star player', and I'm not going to argue at whether he has or not, but he seemed like a player that had internal factors that would have weighed against trading him. BUT, at the same time, there is a rather obvious order from the top to dump salary, so those internal factors were overridden.

There was a fairly strong voice on the 247 site in favor of trading Kluber after 2018, due to underlying performance data points that indicated decline. I think they traded him a year late.
 
totally agree....we commenters tend to coalesce to absolutes and refuse the gray areas.....

With that said, and referring to your first sentence, THAT is why I was surprised to see Carlos Carrasco traded. Some may quibble at the 'star player', and I'm not going to argue at whether he has or not, but he seemed like a player that had internal factors that would have weighed against trading him. BUT, at the same time, there is a rather obvious order from the top to dump salary, so those internal factors were overridden.

There was a fairly strong voice on the 247 site in favor of trading Kluber after 2018, due to underlying performance data points that indicated decline. I think they traded him a year late.
I root for Carlos Carrasco the player and for his good health beyond the diamond...reading the public info, he seems like a good guy, too. Obviously money was a big factor in moving him to the Mets, but I also guess that it was more than the raw $. I wondered out loud last season about his stamina, and wondered if he could hold up in a regular season and perform a good level. I still believe there is a decent chance he ends up in the bullpen this season for the Mets (where he might be quite effective). @jup and I discussed this around the trade, and (I paraphrase) he thought that was a possibility, too, but that the Mets had the financial wherewithal to withstand such a move....not here.
 
I root for Carlos Carrasco the player and for his good health beyond the diamond...reading the public info, he seems like a good guy, too. Obviously money was a big factor in moving him to the Mets, but I also guess that it was more than the raw $. I wondered out loud last season about his stamina, and wondered if he could hold up in a regular season and perform a good level. I still believe there is a decent chance he ends up in the bullpen this season for the Mets (where he might be quite effective). @jup discussed this around the trade, and (I paraphrase) he thought that was a possibility, too, but that the Mets had the financial wherewithal to withstand such a move....not here.
to add to your insightful comment...

..with the shortened season in 2020, the ability to assist these hard throwing hounds in staying healthy may be the impetus for some bull pen time.. especially with someone who throws as hard and, at least historically, as many innings as Cookie..

:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: LL3
Where do I get the idea that many posters are advocating trading away our best players way too early? Try reading thru the thread about trading JRam now, or at the deadline. Notice references to trading Bieber and even Plesac in that thread.

Its totally ridiculous.

Many are saying that we should have traded Kluber and Lindor earlier, because we would have gotten more for them.

Doh!

Of course we probably would have gotten more. Kluber would have had three years of control left and Lindor two. After this season Biebs will have three years of control left and JRam two. Those wishing that we had traded Kluber and Lindor earlier, using the same logic, must be insisting that we trade Biebs and JRam no later than next winter.

And, in hindsight, EVERYBODY must have known that Kluber was gonna have his arm shattered and that Covid was gonna hit America.

At the time so many wished (now) that we had traded Kluber, he was coming off a 20 win season in which he was 3rd in CY voting. Lindor was coming off a GG season in which he was the fifth best SS in baseball by fWAR, and the best over the last three seasons.

It seems like many fans never want to compete. They never ever want to put the best team possible on the field. They'd rather amass prospects...and shrug off the fact that we are gonna lose a ton of good looking youngsters next winter, if we don't trade a bunch of them very soon. For an org that depends almost exclusively on the acquisition of young players by any means imaginable, the 40 man situation is a huge problem, but many fans want to make it worse.

A lot of folks want to channel their inner Branch Rickey, but Rickey...maybe the greatest GM in history...did not operate without a reserve clause. Back then, contracts didn't matter, service time concerns didn't exist, the 40 man didn't exist, and there was no automatic free agency. For Rickey, the clock never ran.

This org needs to squeeze the most BASEBALL value (production) out if its players. Trade value is the secondary consideration, because production wins games, which trade value does not.

If our FO is correct in its evaluations...and their track record is excellent...this team is a contender right now, and is set up to continue to contend. This doesn't mean that it WILL contend this year, because track records are not always linear. Nobody bats 1.000.

But a wise investor always bets with the long term track record. If Warren Buffett was a baseball buff, and applied his theories to making long term baseball evaluations, at or near the top of the list would be the Cleveland Indians.

Find market inequities. Find an org with a well defined strategy for targeting those inequities by evaluating and acquiring talent successfully for a long time, and has been able to develop that talent into production....and then bet on that franchise.

The bottom line theory behind calls to trade our best players early in their careers is that this team is never very good, and therefore never a real contender...so why even try to contend when we could perpetually turn over talent so that other teams can contend?

Its a perpetual motion strategy for mediocrity.

I like Warren Buffett and our FO a lot better.
I'm not going to speak for "many", only myself. I advocated trading Kluber the year before for a couple of reasons. The main reason being the quality of SP depth wouldn't allow his departure to cripple this team. In fact, I mentioned that at that time more quality SP depth could be added. They could shed his payroll and possibly use it to address a need or extend a player. Clearly, Kluber was at his peak and extremely valuable with an extra year of control. Lastly, there is inherent risk of injury or underperformance from year to year. They rolled the dice and lost. It was a mistake, but not a total loss.

I advocating trading Lindor for pretty much the same reasons minus SS depth, but if the return could have strengthened other areas and freed up a wad of cash then the chances of the team immediately improving were decent. They were certainly almost guaranteed within a year or 2. They rolled the dice again and it bit them in the ass. Not only was the return less, we had to move a valuable player with a team friendly contract in order to get what we got. It was a mistake that I'm sure they regret.

There is a place and time for everything. Trading Ramirez makes incredible sense if they are not competitive with him. So should they be out of the race by the AS break with a great offer on the table then they would be fools not to take it. The sum is greater than the parts for this franchise. Right now, I'm more in favor of using prospect assets to get another bat. If that don't happen then finishing above 3rd place in the division will be a pleasant surprise.

Trade value can certainly lead to production and you can't look at trades in a tunnel. Not trading Lindor and Kluber saw their production either dip or disappear altogether which in turn destroyed their values. The only way it doesn't make sense is if the return is unsatisfactory. This FO doesn't make trades to deliberately weaken this team, even if the focus is on a year or 2 down the road. Sometimes that needs to happen.

Hanging on to valuable players long enough to see their value lessen is what has lead to mediocrity. If this team is competitive, it's for the exact reasons you're lobbying against. Without the Clevinger and Bauer trades this team is between a rock and a hard place. Then again, they could just call Napoli or Giambi out of retirement and win with their "intangibles".
 
I'm not going to speak for "many", only myself. I advocated trading Kluber the year before for a couple of reasons. The main reason being the quality of SP depth wouldn't allow his departure to cripple this team. In fact, I mentioned that at that time more quality SP depth could be added. They could shed his payroll and possibly use it to address a need or extend a player. Clearly, Kluber was at his peak and extremely valuable with an extra year of control. Lastly, there is inherent risk of injury or underperformance from year to year. They rolled the dice and lost. It was a mistake, but not a total loss.

I advocating trading Lindor for pretty much the same reasons minus SS depth, but if the return could have strengthened other areas and freed up a wad of cash then the chances of the team immediately improving were decent. They were certainly almost guaranteed within a year or 2. They rolled the dice again and it bit them in the ass. Not only was the return less, we had to move a valuable player with a team friendly contract in order to get what we got. It was a mistake that I'm sure they regret.

There is a place and time for everything. Trading Ramirez makes incredible sense if they are not competitive with him. So should they be out of the race by the AS break with a great offer on the table then they would be fools not to take it. The sum is greater than the parts for this franchise. Right now, I'm more in favor of using prospect assets to get another bat. If that don't happen then finishing above 3rd place in the division will be a pleasant surprise.

Trade value can certainly lead to production and you can't look at trades in a tunnel. Not trading Lindor and Kluber saw their production either dip or disappear altogether which in turn destroyed their values. The only way it doesn't make sense is if the return is unsatisfactory. This FO doesn't make trades to deliberately weaken this team, even if the focus is on a year or 2 down the road. Sometimes that needs to happen.

Hanging on to valuable players long enough to see their value lessen is what has lead to mediocrity. If this team is competitive, it's for the exact reasons you're lobbying against. Without the Clevinger and Bauer trades this team is between a rock and a hard place. Then again, they could just call Napoli or Giambi out of retirement and win with their "intangibles".
Agree with most of this.. especially the part where you see the tribe finishing above 3rd place in the division as a pleasant surprise.. Your logic is unassailable / right on the money... It dove tails into the Jose Ramirez tete^a^tete.. To trade or not to trade.. that is the question.. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune i.e. the return ?

Btw.. The evaluation for JRam = at the trading deadline ? Do you believe "more or better" can be achieved by trading a couple weeks earlier, i.e. the AS Break?
 
Agree with most of this.. especially the part where you see the tribe finishing above 3rd place in the division as a pleasant surprise.. Your logic is unassailable / right on the money... It dove tails into the Jose Ramirez tete^a^tete.. To trade or not to trade.. that is the question.. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune i.e. the return ?

Btw.. The evaluation for JRam = at the trading deadline ? Do you believe "more or better" can be achieved by trading a couple weeks earlier, i.e. the AS Break?
I think we need time to evaluate this team, and I'm not certain they're done trying to improve it. If it appears that they are not competitive by or before the AS break then I'm all for trading him if, and only if the return is exceptional.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top