I find the whole "trade Ramirez while he has three years left!" advocacy bewildering.
As if we have some sort of wasting asset that we just HAVE to move.
No we don't. We don't have to trade him at all. Just like we didn't HAVE to trade Corey Kluber or Francisco Lindor. Or Trevor Bauer or Mike Clevinger.
The Tribe doesn't have to trade anyone just because the team's loss of contractual control is on the horizon. That's a myth. The whole "trade him for something before we lose him!" mantra is so tiring. And so wrong.
Why even go to the trouble of drafting, signing, or developing excellent players--players who you only control for six or seven years at the major league level--if you only intend to have them for a portion of that time? It's ridiculous, really. You have an MVP quality player for three more years, and some of you feel an actual URGENCY to move him. What the hell? Why even have a team?
You consider trading a player of Ramirez's stature (or Lindor or Kluber or Clevenger) ONLY if one or more of the following conditions apply, without any ambiguity:
1. The team is completely non-competitive for a playoff spot.
2. The player is making more than he is worth, either because he just is, or because you have reasonable alternatives who can provide a substantial portion of that player's expected production for a fraction of the cost and reallocating resources would be immediately beneficial.
3. You have reason to believe the player is at a major risk for decline, either because of age or potential injury.
4. You are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY overwhelmed by an offer by another team for that player's services. Not an even trade, but one where you'd be nuts not to make that deal.
That's it. There's no other reason to make a trade. None whatsoever. And right now, there is no reasonable reason to trade Ramirez. We are competitive, he's easily worth what he's being paid, he's durable, it's reasonable to expect he'll continue to be productive, and there's no reason to believe any team is going to wildly overpay for him.
I read a lot here and elsewhere the moans and groans that we "traded Lindor and Kluber a year too late" and we shouldn't make the same mistake with Ramirez. That's nonsense. Unless you can tell me you foresaw Kluber's injury in early 2019 or the advent of Covid in the spring of 2020. Both players were anticipated to be part of competitive, contending teams. You don't trade guys like that when you expect to be good. I don't care if you play guys like that out right to the end of their contracts; as long as you are contending and you have reason to believe those players will be productive in line with their pay, you keep them and play it out. I'll never, ever criticize an organization for doing that. I will, however, be furious if we trade Ramirez just because of some perception that the clock is ticking on player control. That's just stupid.
No one could predict Covid or that Lindor would extend the offensive decline he started in 2019. It was his performance in 2020 that made it absolutely clear that he wouldn't be anywhere near worth the $22.3m he would be paid in 2020. That severely limited what he could be dealt for this winter, much like Kluber's health history limited offers the team received in the winters of 2018 and 2019. That's not a function of "waiting too long." It was simply a matter of circumstances beyond the team's control. You only settle for what you can get when forced to...there was no way to predict that all of a sudden, Lindor and Kluber would be making so much more than they were worth that neither we nor anyone else would want them for much of anything at all in return.
I'm willing to gamble that Ramirez will be worth keeping on the team for the next three years because I expect the Tribe--and Jose--to be quite good throughout that time. If the dynamic changes, than we can adjust. But I will never condemn a team for keeping good players when the team is good, otherwise, what's the point?
