This team will be fun to watch

[CATS44]

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.

No no no.

The idea is to PLAY every player at his peak...as long as the idea is to win as many games as possible.

A team can never be a contender if none of their players are producing at the peak of their careers.

We aren't talking about selling antiques or collectibles.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

No no no.

The idea is to PLAY every player at his peak...as long as the idea is to win as many games as possible.

A team can never be a contender if none of their players are producing at the peak of their careers.

We aren't talking about selling antiques or collectibles.

I suppose one could argue that it's better to have 10 players producing close to their career peaks than five players producing AT their career peaks.

Last year we had arguably five players producing at their career peaks; Bieber, Hand, Carrasco, Ramirez, and Hernandez. But we had so many other positions underperforming, especially on offense; Lindor, Santana, Perez, and the entire outfield. We also had some middle relief problems; Leone made 12 appearances with a 8.38 ERA, Hill made 18 appearnaces at 4.91, Cimber 14 appearances at 3.97, Maton 23 appearances at 4.57, and Plutko 10 appearances including four starts at 4.88.

We squeaked into the playoffs but were quickly eliminated without winning a game.

What if the five guys who produced at career peak levels were off a bit, for example, Bieber with a 3.00 ERA instead of 1.63, but we got solid offensive production from catcher, IB, and all three OF positions plus consistently decent middle relief?

I guess it's a question of whether you're better off with five great players and everybody else average or below, or no great players but everybody above average.

The argument for trading Hosey now would be to add even more blue chip prospects to the farm system that I've seen ranked as high as second so that we create a wave of young, inexpensive, controllable talent arriving in the same 2-3 year period, at which point you have 15-20 above average players on the team at the same time plus additional blocked players who can be traded for whatever is missing. For example, if both Gimenez and Arias are above average major league shortstops in two years we could trade one of them to fill a hole.

It's kind of like the college basketball coach with 12 scholarships. Normally he gives out three per year but he never wins the conference because half the team is freshmen or sophomores. So he decides to not give any scholarships for two years and then recruit a class of eight freshman that he can coach as a unit in hopes of them all maturing at the same time as a super team when they're juniors and seniors. He's willing to lose for a couple of years in order to concentrate all the talent in the same time frame. The Browns did that and they got to the playoffs for the first time in 17 years.

 

[The Oi]

No no no.

The idea is to PLAY every player at his peak...as long as the idea is to win as many games as possible.

A team can never be a contender if none of their players are producing at the peak of their careers.

We aren't talking about selling antiques or collectibles.

We’re on the same page here.

You’re 100% right.

Figure out when guys will peak, get some of that production, then trade them just as they start for max value.

Best of both worlds.

 

[CATS44]

A good analysis, but not the point I was trying to make.

WE want to get their max production, even if it means losing a prospect by waiting a year.

If we are in the race at the deadline, everybody would be eager to trade prospects for an impactful upgrade. There is no more impactful upgrade than Jose. Why trade him early in order to gain an extra prospect, if we expect to spend a prospect to get a lesser Jose at the deadline? Look at it this way. Jose IS our deadline pick up.

The earliest I would trade Jose would be right before his walk year. Would we get less in return? Probably. But we also would get one or two years of one of the very best players, the likes of which we haven't seen in 20 years.

The trade players early, rather than late, crowd would keep trading the better players before they reached their peak, or just at their peak...meaning we never have a peak performer for more than a year or two..and with three years of control he'd be gone.

Right now, we DO have an elite farm system, and we DO have Arias and Gimenez....plus Freeman, Miller, ARosa, Rocchio, Bracho, Clement, Polacio, and Chang (if you still look at Chang as a prospect).

All of them cannot be on the 40 man at once, but all of them HAVE to be after the season. Plus a whole bunch of other highly thought of youngsters.

We obviously can wait until after the WS to trade them, but why would another team give us anything of value in return if they knew a bunch of them will be either designated or exposed to the Rule Five?

We've already seen in the last months from posters that seem to know wow reports on Arias, Gimenez, Freeman, and Miller. 'He's really filled out. You won't recognize him. The FO is really excited. Yada yada.'

If all this is true...and there is no reason to think otherwise...we could trade two of them, without missing a beat.

We are holding a gold mine full of what at the moment is the most highly valued (way overvalued IMO) commodity in baseball...young, well regarded prospects. If you want to talk about trading at peak value, look at these guys.

Or, we can try to hang onto as many as possible, even though we can only play two of them at a time...and allow them to become the next Zimmer, Greg Allen, Chang, Erik Haase. We keep them around until they have no value and no options left.

 

[CDAV45]

A good analysis, but not the point I was trying to make.

WE want to get their max production, even if it means losing a prospect by waiting a year.

If we are in the race at the deadline, everybody would be eager to trade prospects for an impactful upgrade. There is no more impactful upgrade than Jose. Why trade him early in order to gain an extra prospect, if we expect to spend a prospect to get a lesser Jose at the deadline? Look at it this way. Jose IS our deadline pick up.

The earliest I would trade Jose would be right before his walk year. Would we get less in return? Probably. But we also would get one or two years of one of the very best players, the likes of which we haven't seen in 20 years.

The trade players early, rather than late, crowd would keep trading the better players before they reached their peak, or just at their peak...meaning we never have a peak performer for more than a year or two..and with three years of control he'd be gone.

Right now, we DO have an elite farm system, and we DO have Arias and Gimenez....plus Freeman, Miller, ARosa, Rocchio, Bracho, Clement, Polacio, and Chang (if you still look at Chang as a prospect).

All of them cannot be on the 40 man at once, but all of them HAVE to be after the season. Plus a whole bunch of other highly thought of youngsters.

We obviously can wait until after the WS to trade them, but why would another team give us anything of value in return if they knew a bunch of them will be either designated or exposed to the Rule Five?

We've already seen in the last months from posters that seem to know wow reports on Arias, Gimenez, Freeman, and Miller. 'He's really filled out. You won't recognize him. The FO is really excited. Yada yada.'

If all this is true...and there is no reason to think otherwise...we could trade two of them, without missing a beat.

We are holding a gold mine full of what at the moment is the most highly valued (way overvalued IMO) commodity in baseball...young, well regarded prospects. If you want to talk about trading at peak value, look at these guys.

Or, we can try to hang onto as many as possible, even though we can only play two of them at a time...and allow them to become the next Zimmer, Greg Allen, Chang, Erik Haase. We keep them around until they have no value and no options left.

If you're looking for an argument then we have to know what we're arguing against. We don't know what trading Ramirez would look like and neither do you. I think we can all agree that he doesn't "have" to be traded which gives all the leverage to MC and CA in a deal.

I've told you several times now that a cookie cutter approach to trading players isn't what's done nor should it be. Each scenario has to be evaluated individually. The reasons for trading or not trading a player doesn't apply to all players.

There's enough roster fodder that the 40 man won't be an issue.

We clearly agree that using prospect assets to address an area of need is ideal. I think they should do that prior to the season starting in order to give this team the best opportunity for a good start. Everything doesn't need to be done in a vacuum. Addressing a need doesn't mean that Ramirez can't be dealt if they aren't in contention or the offer is just too good to refuse. Conversely, he can be kept if they aren't in contention and try to improve this team in other ways. The only thing that is certain is Ramirez's current value, and that value is likely at it's peak.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

As for trading Ramirez, there may be other players who have something to say about the timing.

After this season JRam will have two years left with club options for $12 million and $14 million. Let's say Bradley and Naylor emerge as solid regulars this season and nail down first base and right field for the next few years. Let's say Eddie Rosario hits in this ballpark for the Tribe the way he hit in this ballpark for the Twins and we sign him to a two-year extension.

That leaves nowhere for our #1 prospect, Nolan Jones to play. Let's say he tears it up in Columbus this year. In that case we could save $12 million, replace Hosey with Jones at third, and pick up a passel of top prospects, guys who are much better than Chang, Miller, Clement, etc., none of whom will I lose sleep over if they are taken in Rule 5.

That might be a better course of action then hanging onto him for one more year, not having a spot for Jones on the 2022 team, and ending up with less in return plus running the risk of something happening to him in 2022 that hurts his trade value like what happened to Brantley.

But we have to see how this season plays out. Maybe Rosario leaves after one season and Jones is installed permanently in left or right field. Maybe Bauer and Bradley flame out and they decide to move Jones to first base. But right now Hosey isn't going anywhere unless the Indians are out of contention by July and somebody blows them away with an offer.

 

[CATS44]

And Joses production for THIS team is probably at its peak for the next three years.

I know it seems like novel idea, but why not try to actually win as many games as possible over the next three years with the best player we have...who is better than anybody we can get or develop in the next three years.

If you think that is an exaggeration, ask your self these two questions...

1) How many position players has the Indians used over the last twenty years?

2) How many of those have been as good as Jose?

I dont know the answer to the first question, but the second is easy.

ONE.

For four years Grady was as good as Jose.

Guys like Jose don't grow on trees...they are once in a decade players.

 

[Benway]

Hey, trade his ass. Just be sure you get a superstar in return, otherwise no go.
I'd like my superstar to play the outfield,
Preferably CF.

I'll take Mike Trout.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

Hey, trade his ass. Just be sure you get a superstar in return, otherwise no go.
I'd like my superstar to play the outfield,
Preferably CF.

I'll take Mike Trout.

The Indians couldn't afford Trout's left leg much less the whole player.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

And Joses production for THIS team is probably at its peak for the next three years.

I know it seems like novel idea, but why not try to actually win as many games as possible over the next three years with the best player we have...who is better than anybody we can get or develop in the next three years.

I guess it depends on whether the organization's goal is to win as many games as possible over the next three years or as many games as possible over the next seven. Or put another way, would they accept a few less wins over the next three years in exchange for many more wins the following four?

 

[CATS44]

Its the bird in the hand vs the two in the bush. I tend to like the bird in the hand.

If was running the Indians, my SOP would be to offer an extension to a player (if I wanted to) as soon as the season was over before his walk year. If they took it, fine. If they didn't, fine. That player would be traded by the middle of January at the latest.

Its a business, and everybody understands how it works.. owners, FO, agents and players. As the owner, I would assume that no player, however loyal, is gonna sign with us after reaching free agency. (See Thome, Jim.)

Jose and Biebs should understand that now. No hard feelings. If they want to be here, and we want them to be here, let the talks begin now, with the understanding that eventually they will end on ownerships part .

John Hart did it perfectly with Lofton. KLove was in shock when he was traded. He never wanted to leave, but he wouldn't agree to an extention.

But the Indians did it wrong with Thome and Manny.

Brantley was an exception, because with a year to go nobody had an idea whether he would hold up or not.

When you live on the margins, a few wins here or there is the difference between fighting for a WC winning a division title. I'd much rather have the division title.

 

[The Oi]

A good analysis, but not the point I was trying to make.

WE want to get their max production, even if it means losing a prospect by waiting a year.

If we are in the race at the deadline, everybody would be eager to trade prospects for an impactful upgrade. There is no more impactful upgrade than Jose. Why trade him early in order to gain an extra prospect, if we expect to spend a prospect to get a lesser Jose at the deadline? Look at it this way. Jose IS our deadline pick up.

The earliest I would trade Jose would be right before his walk year. Would we get less in return? Probably. But we also would get one or two years of one of the very best players, the likes of which we haven't seen in 20 years.

The trade players early, rather than late, crowd would keep trading the better players before they reached their peak, or just at their peak...meaning we never have a peak performer for more than a year or two..and with three years of control he'd be gone.

Right now, we DO have an elite farm system, and we DO have Arias and Gimenez....plus Freeman, Miller, ARosa, Rocchio, Bracho, Clement, Polacio, and Chang (if you still look at Chang as a prospect).

All of them cannot be on the 40 man at once, but all of them HAVE to be after the season. Plus a whole bunch of other highly thought of youngsters.

We obviously can wait until after the WS to trade them, but why would another team give us anything of value in return if they knew a bunch of them will be either designated or exposed to the Rule Five?

We've already seen in the last months from posters that seem to know wow reports on Arias, Gimenez, Freeman, and Miller. 'He's really filled out. You won't recognize him. The FO is really excited. Yada yada.'

If all this is true...and there is no reason to think otherwise...we could trade two of them, without missing a beat.

We are holding a gold mine full of what at the moment is the most highly valued (way overvalued IMO) commodity in baseball...young, well regarded prospects. If you want to talk about trading at peak value, look at these guys.

Or, we can try to hang onto as many as possible, even though we can only play two of them at a time...and allow them to become the next Zimmer, Greg Allen, Chang, Erik Haase. We keep them around until they have no value and no options left.

We’re 100% in agreement. Appreciate the clarification.

If you have a 5 year peak from each of these guys, you want to get at least 2 of them and move on.

 

[WhoAzcue]

If was running the Indians, my SOP would be to offer an extension to a player (if I wanted to) as soon as the season was over before his walk year. If they took it, fine. If they didn't, fine. That player would be traded by the middle of January at the latest.

I find it humorous that the deadline for keeping Jose is THIS All-Star break. If we aren't serious contenders with this young club within three months, out goes Jose. Never mind that "contention" is amorphous, or that young, talented teams often come together AFTER the All-Star break, and either make a late run to get in or demonstrate they are poised for contention in 2022 (anchored by a guy like Jose)...nope we gotta shop the guy at he All-Star break this year if we're not quite where we need to be at the time. Hoo-boy.

I'd even go farther than you go, CATS...yes, I'd offer extensions to guys in their walk years, but no way do I preclude playing out the string with guys who are as productive as ever and we are strong contenders. I'm never worried about trading guys too late or just letting them fulfill a contract in a walk year. What year do guys usually play better than in a walk year anyway? Not everyone is a Francisco Lindor who starts declining when the pot at the end of the rainbow is becoming clearer. It's usually the opposite. Focus usually increases when the scent of cash is in the air. I couldn't care less if a guy is leaving us if he helps take us deep in the playoffs on the way out.

 

[CDAV45]

I find it humorous that the deadline for keeping Jose is THIS All-Star break. If we aren't serious contenders with this young club within three months, out goes Jose. Never mind that "contention" is amorphous, or that young, talented teams often come together AFTER the All-Star break, and either make a late run to get in or demonstrate they are poised for contention in 2022 (anchored by a guy like Jose)...nope we gotta shop the guy at he All-Star break this year if we're not quite where we need to be at the time. Hoo-boy.

I'd even go farther than you go, CATS...yes, I'd offer extensions to guys in their walk years, but no way do I preclude playing out the string with guys who are as productive as ever and we are strong contenders. I'm never worried about trading guys too late or just letting them fulfill a contract in a walk year. What year do guys usually play better than in a walk year anyway? Not everyone is a Francisco Lindor who starts declining when the pot at the end of the rainbow is becoming clearer. It's usually the opposite. Focus usually increases when the scent of cash is in the air. I couldn't care less if a guy is leaving us if he helps take us deep in the playoffs on the way out.

I have no idea what you're talking about because I haven't seen a single post stating that he needs to be gone by "this All-Star break". There have been many that have said that would be the earliest he should be made available and that's contingent on where the Indians are in the standings and what offer is on the table. Big difference in that and what your stating above.

Every single poster here would prefer to see Jose extended. If he can't be then watching such a value dissipate would do nothing but damage to this organization. Every player is capable, and usually does have a down year compared to his career norms. Why you insist on singling out Lindor's 2020 season as what he is going to be is fascinating to me.

Well guess what, I don't care if a guy is traded before he hits FA if it helps this team stay competitive for years.

 

[Obscured By Clouds]

I have no idea what you're talking about because I haven't seen a single post stating that he needs to be gone by "this All-Star break". There have been many that have said that would be the earliest he should be made available and that's contingent on where the Indians are in the standings and what offer is on the table. Big difference in that and what your stating above.

Every single poster here would prefer to see Jose extended. If he can't be then watching such a value dissipate would do nothing but damage to this organization. Every player is capable, and usually does have a down year compared to his career norms. Why you insist on singling out Lindor's 2020 season as what he is going to be is fascinating to me.

Well guess what, I don't care if a guy is traded before he hits FA if it helps this team stay competitive for years.

I am wondering, do you have Gson on ignore or something? I see you constantly making posts with "haven't seen one post,' 'there isn't a single poster' or 'no one here is saying' to multiple posters here, but if you saw Gson's posts, you would understand where they are coming from.