Text Size

Cleveland Indians & MLB

M's, Tribe leaders for Willingham?

Talk Tribe, talk baseball in this forum.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, pup, paulcousineau

Re: M's, Tribe leaders for Willingham?

Unread postby Adverb Harry » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:04 pm

Now that some of the dominoes have fallen (Cuddyer and Willingham are off the table), the talk on the articles and sources I've read seems to suggest that, at this point, our internal options (Duncan, etc.) are pretty comparable to what's left. That, and with the trade market demands apparently insanely high, good external options are apparently drying up, as well. So, they may actually just hold off and re-evaluate the trading market after next season unfolds. As painful as it sounds, that may be our only real option at this point. Can't trade for someone if the other teams aren't receptive or reasonable, no matter how much you want to get it done.

Still, it's early enough that things could change, but I really expected the winter meetings and subsequent signings would build some momentum toward a move or two, and that doesn't appear to be the case at all.

Bottom line: when a team this flawed only has 3 million bucks to spend without shedding an existing contract, you're already up shit creek without a paddle.
User avatar
Adverb Harry
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:30 pm
Location: Souvenir City
Favorite Player: Jason Kipnis
Least Favorite Player: Ubaldo, Bud Selig

Re: M's, Tribe leaders for Willingham?

Unread postby e0y2e3 » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:09 pm

No, as a policy I don't post things the board eats.
“Irony is wasted on the stupid” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
e0y2e3
Et Tu, Brute?
 
Posts: 13982
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:41 pm
Favorite Player: Prosecutor
Least Favorite Player: motherscratcher

Re: M's, Tribe leaders for Willingham?

Unread postby motherscratcher » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:11 pm

That kind of a weird pointless policy but OK.
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: M's, Tribe leaders for Willingham?

Unread postby pup » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:13 pm

Adverb Harry wrote:Now that some of the dominoes have fallen (Cuddyer and Willingham are off the table), the talk on the articles and sources I've read seems to suggest that, at this point, our internal options (Duncan, etc.) are pretty comparable to what's left. That, and with the trade market demands apparently insanely high, good external options are apparently drying up, as well. So, they may actually just hold off and re-evaluate the trading market after next season unfolds. As painful as it sounds, that may be our only real option at this point. Can't trade for someone if the other teams aren't receptive or reasonable, no matter how much you want to get it done.

Still, it's early enough that things could change, but I really expected the winter meetings and subsequent signings would build some momentum toward a move or two, and that doesn't appear to be the case at all.

Bottom line: when a team this flawed only has 3 million bucks to spend without shedding an existing contract, you're already up shit creek without a paddle.


Then that team probably should be selling and not buying...

They mortgaged 2015 to strengthen 2011, 2012, and 2013. But they sure as hell did not strengthen them enough. So if you were out of resources with one move, that was a pretty GD stupid move. A move, BTW, which I was 100% in favor for as a direction for this team. I was in favor of it because it showed a new direction and the continuance of that direction was to add the necessary pieces to augment it. NOT TO DECIDE AGAINST IT BECAUSE A GUY THAT ADDS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NEED OF THE TEAM MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD DEFENSIVE LF OR BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO GET A THIRD YEAR. Well, no shit. If they did not think Willingham/Cuddyer were going to get longer than 1 year deals, they are as stupid as I portray them to be.
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: M's, Tribe leaders for Willingham?

Unread postby motherscratcher » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:25 pm

^^^^this

I agree with Tony, but the fact remains that they opened a window with the Ubaldo trade that will be closing in a few years. If they weren't taking a shot, then they should not have made that trade. And I too was all for it.

I don't know what trades or improvements could have been/could be made. But I'm not the GM of the Cleveland Indians, a team that apparently went all in before the flop and is now folding before the river.

There's only one thing I know. This team, right now, is not good enough.
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: M's, Tribe leaders for Willingham?

Unread postby Kingpin74 » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:29 pm

pup wrote:
Adverb Harry wrote:Now that some of the dominoes have fallen (Cuddyer and Willingham are off the table), the talk on the articles and sources I've read seems to suggest that, at this point, our internal options (Duncan, etc.) are pretty comparable to what's left. That, and with the trade market demands apparently insanely high, good external options are apparently drying up, as well. So, they may actually just hold off and re-evaluate the trading market after next season unfolds. As painful as it sounds, that may be our only real option at this point. Can't trade for someone if the other teams aren't receptive or reasonable, no matter how much you want to get it done.

Still, it's early enough that things could change, but I really expected the winter meetings and subsequent signings would build some momentum toward a move or two, and that doesn't appear to be the case at all.

Bottom line: when a team this flawed only has 3 million bucks to spend without shedding an existing contract, you're already up shit creek without a paddle.


Then that team probably should be selling and not buying...

They mortgaged 2015 to strengthen 2011, 2012, and 2013. But they sure as hell did not strengthen them enough. So if you were out of resources with one move, that was a pretty GD stupid move. A move, BTW, which I was 100% in favor for as a direction for this team. I was in favor of it because it showed a new direction and the continuance of that direction was to add the necessary pieces to augment it. NOT TO DECIDE AGAINST IT BECAUSE A GUY THAT ADDS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NEED OF THE TEAM MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD DEFENSIVE LF OR BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO GET A THIRD YEAR. Well, no shit. If they did not think Willingham/Cuddyer were going to get longer than 1 year deals, they are as stupid as I portray them to be.


Yep, and now we have to hope they can tread water with Duncan and LaPorta until the midseason market gets going. And count on Sizemore and Hafner to be healthy with no reinforcements on hand. Good times.
"Well then I guess there's only one thing left to do...win the whole, f***in', thing."- Jake Taylor
User avatar
Kingpin74
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:11 pm
Favorite Player: Mario Lemieux
Least Favorite Player: Dwight Howard

Re: M's, Tribe leaders for Willingham?

Unread postby Adverb Harry » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:48 pm

motherscratcher wrote:^^^^this

I agree with Tony, but the fact remains that they opened a window with the Ubaldo trade that will be closing in a few years. If they weren't taking a shot, then they should not have made that trade. And I too was all for it.

I don't know what trades or improvements could have been/could be made. But I'm not the GM of the Cleveland Indians, a team that apparently went all in before the flop and is now folding before the river.

There's only one thing I know. This team, right now, is not good enough.


Agree with you and Pup, and I was firmly AGAINST the trade at the time, and I'm still maybe only 50-50, in light of the giant shits he took on the mound every time he pitched a crucial game.

It's looking less like a "building block" move for a window of contention, and more of a shot in the dark move to see where it lead. When they made that trade, they committed themselves to winning now, but they're showing a definite lack of following through on that commitment. Blame economics or an indecisive front office, but the result is the same...our outlook for 2012 is shaky, at best.

You use up your top two trade chips (one of whom is the best pitching prospect since CC), you've got to have a game plan that doesn't involve platooning a 32 year old journeyman at first base and bargain bin diving for additional help. That does nothing to plug the gaping hole, and you've given up your best trade chips for nothing.
User avatar
Adverb Harry
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:30 pm
Location: Souvenir City
Favorite Player: Jason Kipnis
Least Favorite Player: Ubaldo, Bud Selig

Previous

Return to Cleveland Indians & MLB

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Prosecutor and 2 guests

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: Prosecutor and 2 guests