Moderators: peeker643, swerb, pup, paulcousineau
by Erie Warrior » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:07 am


by swerb » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:17 am
by Erie Warrior » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:37 am
swerb wrote: Not gonna take much to get him


by redneckofsc » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:58 am
by WiscTribeFan » Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:04 am
by Pressrunnr » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:10 am
by WiscTribeFan » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:22 am
Pressrunnr wrote:I'd be fine with that ... but as I posted about a month or so ago, with the Dodgers over a barrel financially and the Tribe with a contending team and a low payroll (that in theory could sustain a bump assuming attendance blossoms assuming team stays in contention) I wonder if they could also pry one of their young starters, Billingsley or Kershaw, away from them as part of a deal to take Blake and maybe another bad contract off their hands. The model I would use is how the Red Sox had to "take" Lowell as part of their deal to get Beckett -- and then Lowell ended up giving them a couple pretty good years. It would mean, obviously, giving outside of our comfort zones in terms of the level of prospects Tribe would have to give up, but again, this much like the Colon/Expos trade -- only in reverse -- this would truly be a unique opportunity made possible by a unique set of circumstances (i.e. Expos' contention/possible contraction in '02 and Dodgers' financial mess now). It would fill a hole now AND provide an ace for the rotation now and a couple more years.
by cozmeesah » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:24 am
swerb wrote:He's a grinder.
Even at his advanced age, > Hannahan as a 1b/3b option.
Not gonna take much to get him, he's not really playing at all in LA.
Why not.
by Pressrunnr » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:40 am
Exactly.
Tribe fans need to get rid of their sometimes (most of the time, actually) irrational hatred for the guy. He'd be an upgrade from Hannahan and would probably help us. What, exactly, would be wrong with that? Other than "I hate Casey Blake because Eric Wedge liked him a lot and he's a grinder" ?
by dazindiansfanuk » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:42 pm
by Commodore Perry » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:54 pm
by peeker643 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:36 pm
Commodore Perry wrote:So what's the timeline for Chisenhall? Cause I feel like if you plug casey blake in at third, he's kinda there for the season.
by gotribe31 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:25 pm
Pressrunnr wrote:I'd be fine with Blake ... but as I posted about a month or so ago, with the Dodgers over a barrel financially and the Tribe with a contending team and a low payroll (that in theory could sustain a bump assuming attendance blossoms assuming team stays in contention) I wonder if they could also pry one of their young starters, Billingsley or Kershaw, away from them as part of a deal to take Blake and maybe another bad contract off their hands. The model I would use is how the Red Sox had to "take" Lowell as part of their deal to get Beckett -- and then Lowell ended up giving them a couple pretty good years. It would mean, obviously, going outside of our comfort zones in terms of the level of prospects Tribe would have to give up, but again, this much like the Colon/Expos trade -- only in reverse -- this would truly be a unique opportunity made possible by a unique set of circumstances (i.e. Expos' contention/possible contraction in '02 and Dodgers' financial mess now). It would fill a hole now AND provide an ace for the rotation now and a couple more years.

by gotribe31 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:28 pm
Commodore Perry wrote:So what's the timeline for Chisenhall? Cause I feel like if you plug casey blake in at third, he's kinda there for the season.

by TribeNut » Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:33 pm
by Pressrunnr » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:37 pm
1) Kershaw and Bills are cheap, young and talented. Pitchers like Kershaw don't get traded. We could probably not come up with an offer in our system that's worth a true #1 lefthanded starter like him.
2) We are not and will never be in a position to trade young talent for young talent plus bad contracts. The Red Sox can pull off deals like this, we can't. If Kershaw could be had for prospects plus $$$, someone else would come along and offer to take way more money than we ever could. Nothing about this idea is possible.
by Symbolic47 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:32 pm
by Dnthateonthepronk » Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:43 pm
Erie Warrior wrote:Tweet from JimBowdenESPNxm:
"The Indians could not be reached for comment on report that they have reached out to the Dodgers regarding possibly reacquring Casey Blake"
All kinds of awesome there.
.246/.330/.390 so far this season.
by googleeph2 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:10 pm
Erie Warrior wrote:swerb wrote: Not gonna take much to get him
I believe a paycheck that won't bounce would do it.
by leadpipe » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:32 pm
dazindiansfanuk wrote:I'd love to have Blake back.
Nothing special but he hits from the right side, is an improvement over what we have and I happen to like the guy.
by Symbolic47 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:37 pm
by Dnthateonthepronk » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:03 pm
googleeph2 wrote:
That's moneyball, right?
Return to Cleveland Indians & MLB
Users browsing this forum: British_Pharaoh, dazindiansfanuk, gbot and 2 guests
