Great Q&A With Shapiro

[skatingtripods]

There's a ton here. It's a lengthy read, but it's definitely an interesting one.

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/10/24/12/A ... eedID=3724

Please save the "Shapiro's full of shit" yadda, yadda kind of stuff. I think there's a lot to legitimately discuss in here.

[pup]

[Bigfist]

Read the whole thing yesterday. I didn't find much of interest. McMannamon, or however you spell his name, did the interview, and it seemed more like a friend interviewing a friend.

[jerryroche]

Shapiro has a future in politics. What a spinmeister!

Q: Are you satisfied with the way player evaluation has gone, for the past five years, let's say.
A: You know, the context for evaluating those things is very difficult. It's very hard to do in one moment in time. You've almost got to take a business look. And you can't ask that question so broadly.

Sounds like something Romney would say when asked about his time at Bain, or Obama would say when asked about his first four years.

[skatingtripods]

Shapiro has a future in politics. What a spinmeister!

Q: Are you satisfied with the way player evaluation has gone, for the past five years, let's say.
A: You know, the context for evaluating those things is very difficult. It's very hard to do in one moment in time. You've almost got to take a business look. And you can't ask that question so broadly.

Sounds like something Romney would say when asked about his time at Bain, or Obama would say when asked about his first four years.

Yes, and then he broke down everything individually. Discussed drafts, trades, international signings.

Rest of answer:

For example, I think the last three years, our drafts based on the expected value of our picks have been very good. The prior five to six years before that, certainly we did not have good drafts. And we're suffering for that now to some extent.

Yet you evaluate our trades compared to other trades, we were very successful in our trades. Among the more successful teams. Internationally we've done well.

We need to do very well on every side of player acquisition. We can't do well in two out of three.

I think we've made adjustments to the way we draft, the way we strategize. And I think we've had more successful drafts the last three years. If our drafts continue to be as successful and productive and we get players from those drafts playing in the big leagues as quick as the guys we have right now contributing, and we continue to do that, then we'll be in much better shape going forward.

He clearly knows people have critiqued the drafts and he outright said that they weren't good and that's part of the reason why they're having so many problems now.

[pup]

Shapiro has a future in politics. What a spinmeister!

Q: Are you satisfied with the way player evaluation has gone, for the past five years, let's say.
A: You know, the context for evaluating those things is very difficult. It's very hard to do in one moment in time. You've almost got to take a business look. And you can't ask that question so broadly.

Sounds like something Romney would say when asked about his time at Bain, or Obama would say when asked about his first four years.

Yes, and then he broke down everything individually. Discussed drafts, trades, international signings.

Rest of answer:

For example, I think the last three years, our drafts based on the expected value of our picks have been very good. The prior five to six years before that, certainly we did not have good drafts. And we're suffering for that now to some extent.

Yet you evaluate our trades compared to other trades, we were very successful in our trades. Among the more successful teams. Internationally we've done well.

We need to do very well on every side of player acquisition. We can't do well in two out of three.

I think we've made adjustments to the way we draft, the way we strategize. And I think we've had more successful drafts the last three years. If our drafts continue to be as successful and productive and we get players from those drafts playing in the big leagues as quick as the guys we have right now contributing, and we continue to do that, then we'll be in much better shape going forward.

He clearly knows people have critiqued the drafts and he outright said that they weren't good and that's part of the reason why they're having so many problems now.

I am going to stay out of this thread as much as I can.

But.

You think 3 years ago he might have said we are drafting better the last couple of years and the previous 5-6 drafts were poor which is why we are having some of the problems we are having now?

[skatingtripods]

I am going to stay out of this thread as much as I can.

But.

You think 3 years ago he might have said we are drafting better the last couple of years and the previous 5-6 drafts were poor which is why we are having some of the problems we are having now?

Certainly possible. I do like the things they're doing in the draft. Going with high upside high school arms that throw hard. Drafting more athletes.

Look, I'm not telling anybody to stay out of this thread. I didn't post this to support or defend Shapiro. I just think there are some interesting discussion points in this article and they should generate meaningful discussion, something more than the dislike of Shapiro.

Two that stick out to me are the $9M per win in free agency and the parts about ownership. I was also intrigued by his thoughts on fan perception. He sounds genuinely frustrated with how the organization is perceived because he can't explain things in a way that will soar right over people's heads (i.e.: the cost of wins in free agency, sabremetric player analysis, etc.). Instead, he has to dumb it down and that's the stuff that people pick apart.

It was a pretty candid piece, IMO. Far more candid than Shapiro usually is.

[gotribe31]

Shapiro has a future in politics. What a spinmeister!

Q: Are you satisfied with the way player evaluation has gone, for the past five years, let's say.
A: You know, the context for evaluating those things is very difficult. It's very hard to do in one moment in time. You've almost got to take a business look. And you can't ask that question so broadly.

Sounds like something Romney would say when asked about his time at Bain, or Obama would say when asked about his first four years.

And selectively taking that one question and partial answer is something that MSNBC would do to Romney, or Fox News would do to Obama.

[pup]

I am going to stay out of this thread as much as I can.

But.

You think 3 years ago he might have said we are drafting better the last couple of years and the previous 5-6 drafts were poor which is why we are having some of the problems we are having now?

Certainly possible. I do like the things they're doing in the draft. Going with high upside high school arms that throw hard. Drafting more athletes.

Look, I'm not telling anybody to stay out of this thread. I didn't post this to support or defend Shapiro. I just think there are some interesting discussion points in this article and they should generate meaningful discussion, something more than the dislike of Shapiro.

Two that stick out to me are the $9M per win in free agency and the parts about ownership. I was also intrigued by his thoughts on fan perception. He sounds genuinely frustrated with how the organization is perceived because he can't explain things in a way that will soar right over people's heads (i.e.: the cost of wins in free agency, sabremetric player analysis, etc.). Instead, he has to dumb it down and that's the stuff that people pick apart.

It was a pretty candid piece, IMO. Far more candid than Shapiro usually is.

$9M per win in free agency. Makes no sense to me. Is he really trying to tell me that the difference between Casey Kotchman and Albert Pujols is only worth 2 wins across 162 games? Is that what they believe, or what he wants us to believe?

He only has to dumb down the things he goes out of his way to act like he is one of 10 people in the city that could possibly comprehend.

The part about CC, he says as a SP in the second half of the season he was traded would have only gained them 1, maybe 2 more wins. Because of all of the advanced statistics and WAR type of crap (sorry, could not help myself).

I will be the first to admit how difficult it is for me to read that piece objectively and with an open mind. What I read was the same old excuses and braniac mumbo jumbo he spouts of on a regular basis.

The only thing that I found "new" and "open" was the fact that our attendance doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of payroll. Now I don't feel bad for not going.

[Bigfist]

Things McManamon could have asked, but didn't:

1. Break down the Ubaldo trade. What went wrong?

2. Our three year window of opportunity. Explain to me why it is still open. Or is it?

3. Where is the next generation of arms for the starting rotation? How do we get some to compete? How does Detroit get a Scherzer, Fister and Sanchez in trades, and we get Ubaldo? Is someone asleep at the switch?

4. How big does the payroll need to be to compete? Will we always have to be looking for lightning in a bottle?

C'mon..it was a fluff interview. Shapiro talking about 2006 and 2008 were good years because, before the season, the experts said we would be good. I guess that means Oakland sucked this year because all the experts, before the season, said they would. If that was so, as McManamonn should have asked, if those 2006 and 2008 teams really underperformed, but were actually pretty good, why was Wedge still here in 2009 (which was another year we were supposed to be good according to the experts)?

Sorry...I found little of interest in the interview.

[jerryroche]

^^^Agree with pup and Bigfist.

I think we also agree that a major part of the problem is the economic inequality among MLB franchises, which is intrinsic in this kind of conversation. The same problem doesn't hardly exist in the NFL and does not have such a huge impact in the NBA, either. One of these days, MLB will realize it has to do something about the situation.

But part of the problem lies with Shapiro himself. The FO has been drastically wrong on personnel evaluations much more than it's been right, so there has to be something wrong with the process itself. F'rinstance, how can anybody putting together a major-league product not draft, trade for, or sign JUST ONE potential slugger to anchor a line-up? How can any franchise field an everyday lineup with virtually no right-handed hitters?

On the pitching front, Shapiro and Antonetti do deserve a break. Pitchers are such weird ducks that this same pitching staff could have a combined ERA of 5.00 one year and come back the next year with a combo ERA of 4.00.

Bottom line, no matter what the FO's excuses are, is one playoff appearance in Shapiro's 10-11 seasons.

[skatingtripods]

$9M per win in free agency. Makes no sense to me. Is he really trying to tell me that the difference between Casey Kotchman and Albert Pujols is only worth 2 wins across 162 games? Is that what they believe, or what he wants us to believe?

I'm not totally sure how he means it. I'm not sure if he means 9M per win for duration of contract or 9M per win per season. There are a lot of very average pitchers making 10M+ to be worth 1 win above replacement player. The Phillies paid Papelbon over 11M this season and he was worth just 1.6 WAR.

Where the issue lies in what he said is that he's taking a VERY large sample size and averaging it out. 9M isn't out of the realm of possibility. Carlos Pena signed for 7.25M and was worth .5 WAR. Which means he would have cost 15M per win. Carl Crawford made 19.5M this year and was worth .4 WAR. That means he would have cost 48.75M per win. I think that's what they're going by. Granted, there are also Josh Willinghams (2.41M per win) out there.

What he's saying is the cost for acquiring wins is very high. This season, Pujols cost 2.6M per win. But, if this was 2017, when he makes 26M, his 4.6 WAR costs 5.65M per win.

The part about CC, he says as a SP in the second half of the season he was traded would have only gained them 1, maybe 2 more wins. Because of all of the advanced statistics and WAR type of crap (sorry, could not help myself).

They have to use advanced statistics. It's all they can do in this market. The CC part is correct. 100% correct. For his career, CC is worth .133 WAR per start. If that average holds true, and he makes 14 second half starts, he's worth 1.86 wins. Obviously, that number can vary, but it'll rarely be higher than 2 or 3. 2 or 3 WAR only makes a difference if you have other contributors that are doing something similar. The 2008 Indians didn't have that.

They're not looking at it from a pitcher wins standpoint. In fact, most people in the sabermetric community think pitching wins are a horrible statistic. (Personally, I think there's a skill to keeping your team in the game enough to win...) They were looking at it as "We have to pay Sabathia 20M per season and we can't afford that. For what it's worth, in four seasons with the Yankees, CC has been worth 20.6 wins and has been paid $86,857,142. Slightly over 4.2M per win. Worth it? Yes. Worth it for the Indians? Probably, but not exactly feasible with their payroll.


Consider Casey Kotchman. In 2011, Kotchman made $750,000 for the Rays. He was worth 3.4 WAR. For the Indians, they know he's not a 3.4 WAR player year in and year out. But if he does even 40% of his 2011 production, the Indians paid about 1.75M per win with him. Well below market value. Unfortunately, he was horrible. But, you can see how it's a justifiable decision that simply didn't work out. Shapiro/Antonetti's job is to get them the player at the right cost. The player's job is to produce to that level.

Their knock on Willingham was his defense. They weren't wrong. He was worth -2.2 WAR defensively. What they didn't anticipate was that he would completely outhit his defense and was 4.4 WAR offensively (after being 2.2 in 2011 and 2.9 in 2010). Again, a justifiable decision. Nobody expected a career year from Willingham.


I feel like I'm just wasting my time.

[skatingtripods]

1. Break down the Ubaldo trade. What went wrong?

Fair question. Of course, who knows what their plans are with Ubaldo? Does anybody have interest in him? Are they considering passing on his option? The only player directly mentioned was Choo, and he's technically not under contract. Seemed pretty clear that Shapiro did not want to comment on a lot of players by name. Can't blame him for that.

2. Our three year window of opportunity. Explain to me why it is still open. Or is it?

We all know that it isn't. They didn't have a single starting pitcher above replacement level. Contention isn't even on their minds right now. Would have been a pointless question to ask.

3. Where is the next generation of arms for the starting rotation? How do we get some to compete? How does Detroit get a Scherzer, Fister and Sanchez in trades, and we get Ubaldo? Is someone asleep at the switch?

Not getting Fister was a major swing and a miss, no doubt. This also would have been a reasonable question to ask.

Regarding Scherzer, there were some huge names in that deal. Granderson, Edwin Jackson, Ian Kennedy (who has become a strong SP), Austin Jackson. That was just one of those deals. I think that's about the answer you would have gotten.

The next generation of arms is reasonable, but, he would have just rattled off the guys we've recently drafted. Like I said, if you read through the entire interview, there is very little mention of individual players.

C'mon..it was a fluff interview.

Guess we have different definitions of fluff.

[jerryroche]

Good Lord! Your grasp of players and their statistics is incredible! Way beyond 99.9% of baseball fans. I'm semi-retired and love the game, but my knowledge of statistics goes no further than OPS and WHIP. I stand in awe. Seriously.

[Dnthateonthepronk]

And selectively taking that one question and partial answer is something that MSNBC would do to Romney, or Fox News would do to Obama.

Hey Hey....Screw You, FAIR AND BALANCED!!!!!.........



It is definitely more candid than he has been in the past, I think the frustration has kinda of gotten to him in a way. Which is fine, I like controlled emotional venting......cough cough....Perez.

I have always liked him as a person and thought he was incredibly intelligent, so-so as a Gm, drafting was terrible under his tenure, however in regards to all the other parts its tough to do your job with one hand tied behind your back, but always seemed to be a smart guy who was definitely holding back when answering questions.

I still don't buy all of what he was saying, mostly the stuff in regards to the returns on the CC and Lee trades. Just admit it, you got it wrong, In the end it doesnt matter if at the time that was the best deal being offered, In the end you were wrong on the players. Yeah you were able to get a blue chip player, but he sucked. In the end that isnt a good trade. Not all trades are going to work out, thats fine but don't try and sugar coat it.

[motherscratcher]

I thought it was a very interesting interview. I've always liked Shapiro and his approach. Felt like I've been out on an island with Tripods and Al around here.

Tripods is right (and his posts have been fantastic) that there is a lot to potentially idscuss. I hope some of the guys like Pup and LP, who obviously have different views, do stick around and don't let themselves get too damn frustrated with the thread. Because it does have potential.

[motherscratcher]

I still don't buy all of what he was saying, mostly the stuff in regards to the returns on the CC and Lee trades. Just admit it, you got it wrong, In the end it doesnt matter if at the time that was the best deal being offered, In the end you were wrong on the players. Yeah you were able to get a blue chip player, but he sucked. In the end that isnt a good trade. Not all trades are going to work out, thats fine but don't try and sugar coat it.

I think he's right about those trades. Al has broken down those trades in threads around here a few times. The Indians didn't make out terribly in the Lee trade considering what the exact same player brought other teams in trades. Just because we don't think we got enough doesn't mean that there was something better available or something better WOULD BECOME available at some point.

I think he has a good point with the CC trade. You might not love Brantley, but he is a legit major league player and likely better than the player we would have gotten with compensitory pick. I think the problem is in the perception that anyone could be assured of getting a player of CC's caliber in return for a trade. There is a certain amount of luck involved in that kind of thing, and being unlucky is different than being incomitant. The problem comes from us thinking it's either ALL luck or ALL incompitance. It's somewhere in the middle. It always is.

And he did own up to shitting the bed with Knapp. I'm not sure where all of the "sugar coating" was

[gotribe31]

I think it was a great look at "The Process"(tm), a better one than I've seen in Shapiro interviews in the past. Whether you agree with "The Process"(tm) or not, it's useful to hear straight from the President's mouth how the team has been and will continue to operate for the foreseeable future. I think there were some really interesting quotes in there, and he was incredibly honest as to what we can expect from the front office going forward.

[leadpipe]

If you don't draft well, and don't get return on the stars you trade, you don't win.

The Marlins were doing just fine until they missed on ten straight number ones and traded a triple Crown winner for Maybin, Badenhop and Miller.

The Tribe didn't draft well and got little for Lee and Sabathia.

Amazing how similiar the organizations have been last 10. Tight budgeted (save for the Marlins this year because of the stadium splash), fans dislike the owners and don't trust the GMs.

But seriously, a smaller market loser simply hasn't drafted well. That's where your resources are, and that's your ability to get resources. Crapshoot to a degree, but you've gotta do better over a decade long stretch.

So, we can talk about liking or not liking Shappy's approach, and I'm sure there's validity on either side, but he, or we, can chirp all we want, but it's 2012, we all know the state of the game - so if you don't get people in here that can spot you some playas, you'll continue to be in deep.

[gotribe31]

If you don't draft well, and don't get return on the stars you trade, you don't win.

The Marlins were doing just fine until they missed on ten straight number ones and traded a triple Crown winner for Maybin, Badenhop and Miller.

The Tribe didn't draft well and got little for Lee and Sabathia.

Amazing how similiar the organizations have been last 10. Tight budgeted (save for the Marlins this year because of the stadium splash), fans dislike the owners and don't trust the GMs.

But seriously, a smaller market loser simply hasn't drafted well. That's where your resources are, and that's your ability to get resources. Crapshoot to a degree, but you've gotta do better over a decade long stretch.

So, we can talk about liking or not liking Shappy's approach, and I'm sure there's validity on either side, but he, or we, can chirp all we want, but it's 2012, we all know the state of the game - so if you don't get people in here that can spot you some playas, you'll continue to be in deep.

And that's the crux of the issue, and something Shapiro discusses as well. When they weren't drafting well, they were trading well (Choo, Asdrubal, Santana etc). Now that they're drafting better, they arent trading good enough (CC, Lee, Ubaldo). Their international market has been solid for a while now. But like he says, with a small-market team you can't get by on doing two of those three things well, you have to hit on all of them.

I really do think Brad Grant is head and shoulders above the disaster that Doug Mirabelli was when it comes to amatuer talent acquisition. But they're still playing catch-up from Mirabelli's drafts, and the bullets they did have in their gun that could have jump-started the rebuild (Lee and CC) misfired.

[motherscratcher]

^^^ And compounding it is that in baseball far more than in any other sport you just don't know how well you've drafted for a few years. Sure, there are guys that are on the fast track and hightail it to the majors but they are more of the rare exception.

It sucks that it seems like no team in Cleveland is able to hit on all cylinders at the same time.

[skatingtripods]

I really do think Brad Grant is head and shoulders above the disaster that Doug Mirabelli was when it comes to amatuer talent acquisition. But they're still playing catch-up from Mirabelli's drafts, and the bullets they did have in their gun that could have jump-started the rebuild (Lee and CC) misfired.

Right, and as we've said hundreds of times since, few of the names thrown about in the Lee or CC deals, or even the Halladay deal, have really turned out to be a whole lot of anything. The Brewers and Phillies had widely-regarded farm systems and the majority of those kids haven't made the jump to impact players in MLB.

One of the hardest things to do in sports has to be projecting kids from high school or college to the Major Leagues. In other sports, it's so much easier and the jumps from college or the amateur ranks to the pros is much smaller. Really, I think draft success is a matter of ideology. The Indians wanted to draft control pitchers that projected easier than hard throwers with command issues under Mirabelli. They wanted guys who were already accustomed to walking and playing corner positions than athletes and raw players.

In a market like this, you have to take gambles. You have to take kids with insane athletic ability and hope they catch on. The Michael Aubreys and Beau Millses of the world don't get it done anymore. You can't take Jeremy Sowers or David Huff when kids nearing triple digits are available. You can't shy away from injury risk with a hard thrower. Seems like a prerequisite to pitching in The Show is having Tommy John beforehand. You might lose a year of development, but you also have a higher chance of getting a dynamic player.

That's where I think Grant excels. He gets it.

[pup]

The disdain about the stats world, which is a large part of my disdain for Shapiro, is wrapped up pretty well in Tripod's post.

For what it's worth, in four seasons with the Yankees, CC has been worth 20.6 wins and has been paid $86,857,142. Slightly over 4.2M per win.

For a guy that has:

1. Won 75 games in those four years
2. Goes deep into games consistently, giving the bullpen a night off to have them available for the rest of the starters who are not as good.

So sure, in the stats world he might be worth 5 wins per season. But I can assure you, baseball people would more than likely value him at a higher win total than his actual wins.

Advanced stats are good for widgets. They are not so good for humans.

[leadpipe]

The disdain about the stats world, which is a large part of my disdain for Shapiro, is wrapped up pretty well in Tripod's post.

For what it's worth, in four seasons with the Yankees, CC has been worth 20.6 wins and has been paid $86,857,142. Slightly over 4.2M per win.

For a guy that has:

1. Won 75 games in those four years
2. Goes deep into games consistently, giving the bullpen a night off to have them available for the rest of the starters who are not as good.

So sure, in the stats world he might be worth 5 wins per season. But I can assure you, baseball people would more than likely value him at a higher win total than his actual wins.

Advanced stats are good for widgets. They are not so good for humans.

This is a good example of Shapiro irking me.

Yes, in a vaccumm, ststs guy can get out his advance calculator and attempt to tell me CC's exact value.

Never mind you may not be able to quantify many things, including ones Pup brings up here. Having a horse at the front end means much more than his, or anyone else's advance numbers whould show.

And it ignores the fact that I would argue the dollars they didn't give CC wound up in a DH's pocket.

Got any advanced stats on Hafners injuries or world record for fisting the ball off the handle?

Here's the thing. There's no tricks. You do the job, or you don't. Shapiro seems to want to have us believe we are going to "Billy Beane our way into some sort of championship, when the reality is, the onus is on player analysis, period. And, you can't win them all, I understand that, but if and when you do miss, don't try to act like it's anything more than that.

Billy Beane had his playoff run on the backs of Hudson, Mulder and Zito. And he had a playoff appearance this year on the backs of young 20's arms as well. Not some OBP revelation, not some Scott Hatteberg acquisitions....he got there on the backs of playas. That's how the Tribe is gonna get back there to. Duping teams into trading you the latest "advanced stat" guy ain't gonna get you nowhere.

Remember three years ago when Seattle discovered the latest great "undervalued player." that was, building the team to take away runs on defense? That's goin' real well. I'd assume shitty defense, another guy to help Felix out and Justin Smoak developing into a playa might help them out a little more.

So, again, leaving all other feelings aside about Shapiro, I think he's had just about enough time to get some guys here. They currently sit in about as bad a position a major league baseball team can be in - they blow, and they have little help on the horizon. Like him or not, this happened on his watch - and it's nothing you can talk your way around, it is what it is.

[motherscratcher]

So, if I'm following, the only players that Beane used advanced stats to evaluate and acquire are the bad ones. For all of the young arms that they rode to the playoffs this year he decided not to turn his computer on when evaluating them.

Makes sense

[skatingtripods]

The disdain about the stats world, which is a large part of my disdain for Shapiro, is wrapped up pretty well in Tripod's post.

For what it's worth, in four seasons with the Yankees, CC has been worth 20.6 wins and has been paid $86,857,142. Slightly over 4.2M per win.

For a guy that has:

1. Won 75 games in those four years
2. Goes deep into games consistently, giving the bullpen a night off to have them available for the rest of the starters who are not as good.

So sure, in the stats world he might be worth 5 wins per season. But I can assure you, baseball people would more than likely value him at a higher win total than his actual wins.

Advanced stats are good for widgets. They are not so good for humans.

Obviously WAR is not the be-all, end-all, Shapiro said that as much himself. They also look at character and other intangibles. Yes, a horse at the front of your rotation helps to save the bullpen, keeps lesser quality starters from having bigger roles, and other things. There's no question about that.

(By the way, Sabathia's WAR with the Brewers after we traded him was 4.7. So, Shapiro may have been underestimating what Sabathia could have meant to the '08 Indians in the second half.)

I was just illustrating a point. Clearly, there's more to it than just Sabathia's WAR.

Also, as I said, though I don't necessarily subscribe to the thought, pitching wins are considered a useless, archaic stat by sabermetricians. Hell, the bare bones definition of a quality start is a 4.50 ERA for that outing. Nobody considers that overly impressive. You can get a win by going five innings and allowing six runs, which is a terrible start. So, to some extent, I get it. But, yes, there are intangibles in play with a FOR starter that are not quantified by things like WAR.

For what it's worth, I took Baseball-Reference's WAR calculation for Sabathia. Fangraphs, which seems to embrace sabermetrics more than B-R, has 61.6, which is probably much closer.

[pup]

So, if I'm following, the only players that Beane used advanced stats to evaluate and acquire are the bad ones. For all of the young arms that they rode to the playoffs this year he decided not to turn his computer on when evaluating them.

Makes sense

Don't think that is even close to what Lead Said.

He may use him computer to evaluate everyone. At the end of the day when his computer found him guys that played great, it worked. When the computer spit out players that did not play great, it did not.

The "Moneyball Mantra" portrays Beane as being a genius for finding guys like Scott Hatteberg. EOD, Scott Hattebergs won the A's pretty close to nothing.

I don't care HOW they identify players. IMO, you are better off using your eyes than a CPU. If their opinion is the CPU is better than their eyes...fine. But fer fricks sake, the results are the results. And they blow because the players their CPU identified, and the players their scouts eyes identified, and the combination of their CPU and their scouts eyes have resulted in more players that suck than that are good. Which is why they currently suck and have very little on the horizon to make them not suck.

[swerb]

That was, to me, by far the most honest and revealing look inside this ownership group and their management team. I thought the interview was excellent, and that Shapiro was candid, if not 100% truthful. McManamon is one of my favorites.

Shapiro said at one point in the interview "I don't think the bigger perception here is that we're hiding something. I think the bigger perception is that we've got challenges."

Yet to me I think he really believes the exact opposite. That most people wouldn't be able to understand the reality (I still believe they're making profits close to Forbes #'s) behind the economics. I've always said Shapiro should spend more time explaining it to people. Do that same interview on TV. Find other ways to create better PR around the team. Because the perception clearly is that they're hiding something.

I think Shapiro's frustration with the limitations of the org have caused him to embrace the business side more. He clearly has passion for that piece of it, which I will say, I think they do a great job with. PR side, not good. Core business side, they have made a number of positive changes there.

My stance on player evaluation is kinda right in the middle of the eyes guys and the stat guys. I think Shapiro believes he is right in the middle with me, but is really more of a stat guy. Some of his comments were scary. Some were depressing. Especially the piece about Willingham. The just clear reluctance to give a 29 year old power hitter a third year. The comment where he said “If you start making moves just to feed that need for blood, that thirst for blood, that thirst is never quenched. Never.”, when asked about feeling more obligated to spend $ with Francona here. And the comment about going from 1.6mm to 2.2mm in attendance meaning “10-15 million in payroll, with one win in free agency costing 9 mill”. And 15mm in payroll only equating to 1.5 wins. That’s where he loses me. A true player personnel man would be insulted by that allegation.

Shappie = also very defensive on the CC & Cliffie trades.

At the end of the day, I think they over-rely on statistics over the eye test while claiming to use both equally. I do feel like they’ve done a much better job these last three years drafting guys that can throw it hard, run fast, and hit it far than in the first 10 years of the Shapiro Era.

Because that is one thing this organization CLEARLY needs: guys that can throw it hard, run fast, and hit it far.

I’m still not confident they can be consistent winners here, but would be loved to be proved wrong.

[1Perry]

I've said from day one that Shapiro knows stats, he does not know baseball. Beane has done a really good job of finding arms. How he does that doesn't really matter, he has indeed found good arms which is why they have been better than the Indians.

Shapiro thinks that the computer can build him a team. It can't. I'm not arguing that stats are not important. You have to have someone that knows things a computer does not and the Indians have not had one of those guys making decisions.

Shapiro is qualified to be an accountant, nothing more.

[motherscratcher]

I've said from day one that Shapiro knows stats, he does not know baseball. Beane has done a really good job of finding arms. How he does that doesn't really matter, he has indeed found good arms which is why they have been better than the Indians.

Shapiro thinks that the computer can build him a team. It can't. I'm not arguing that stats are not important. You have to have someone that knows things a computer does not and the Indians have not had one of those guys making decisions.

Shapiro is qualified to be an accountant, nothing more.

And here's 1Perry right on cue with his epically stupid rehash of his "Shapiro doesn't know baseball" argument.

See LP and Pup, I told you you guys where on the wrong side of this thing.

[leadpipe]

So, if I'm following, the only players that Beane used advanced stats to evaluate and acquire are the bad ones. For all of the young arms that they rode to the playoffs this year he decided not to turn his computer on when evaluating them.

Makes sense

Not even close.

What I'm saying is Beane, or anyone else for that matter, are gonna win primarily with players that don't need specialized stats to evaluate.

I'm not against advanced stats. But finding Scott Hatteberg over a similiar player with worse secondary stats ain't making a whole lot of difference. Having a Cy Young winning Barry Zito in the rotation over any hump the Tribe is running out there will. And I'm not sure how deep you need to dig to see the difference between a real young pitchers out there, and the Jeremy Laffey Tomlin types the Tribe has uncovered.

Again, biases aside. I understand I've been on record as one who thinks Shappy thinks he's "the smartest guy in the room" at times, as well as a bit snake oily. Completely setting pro and con feelings aside - someone has gotten the Tribe in the worst position in the big leagues.

You are in Shaps corner. Fine. You may be right, he may have what it takes. But make no mistake about it, he's had a horrid stretch to find the Tribe in this position.

[1Perry]

I've said from day one that Shapiro knows stats, he does not know baseball. Beane has done a really good job of finding arms. How he does that doesn't really matter, he has indeed found good arms which is why they have been better than the Indians.

Shapiro thinks that the computer can build him a team. It can't. I'm not arguing that stats are not important. You have to have someone that knows things a computer does not and the Indians have not had one of those guys making decisions.

Shapiro is qualified to be an accountant, nothing more.

And here's 1Perry right on cue with his epically stupid rehash of his "Shapiro doesn't know baseball" argument.

See LP and Pup, I told you you guys where on the wrong side of this thing.

Problem is, the vast majority of people now realize this. All of those who defended him all those years are now left with stupid lame attacks on those who pointed out the obvious for so many bad moves over so many years.

[motherscratcher]

I'll bet you didn't even read the interview, did you?

[motherscratcher]

So, if I'm following, the only players that Beane used advanced stats to evaluate and acquire are the bad ones. For all of the young arms that they rode to the playoffs this year he decided not to turn his computer on when evaluating them.

Makes sense

Not even close.

What I'm saying is Beane, or anyone else for that matter, are gonna win primarily with players that don't need specialized stats to evaluate.

I'm not against advanced stats. But finding Scott Hatteberg over a similiar player with worse secondary stats ain't making a whole lot of difference. Having a Cy Young winning Barry Zito in the rotation over any hump the Tribe is running out there will. And I'm not sure how deep you need to dig to see the difference between a real young pitchers out there, and the Jeremy Laffey Tomlin types the Tribe has uncovered.

Again, biases aside. I understand I've been on record as one who thinks Shappy thinks he's "the smartest guy in the room" at times, as well as a bit snake oily. Completely setting pro and con feelings aside - someone has gotten the Tribe in the worst position in the big leagues.

You are in Shaps corner. Fine. You may be right, he may have what it takes. But make no mistake about it, he's had a horrid stretch to find the Tribe in this position.

OK, then I guess I wasn't following. lol.

A few things. First, I guess I'm in Shapiro's corner. I know I definitely come off that way on here, but that's more reactionary than anything. Obviously there is a lot to criticize him about. But it seem like a lot of the criticism is either unfounded or unfair that I read about on here. And then you get mouth breathers coming here throwing around asinine bullshit about Shap "not knowing baseball". It's fucking ludicrous. So I always end up defending him.

But it's also true that I like the approach and the ideas. And it pains me to no end that it hasn't worked I think there are many reasons that it hasn't worked, not the least of which are execution and luck. But the philosophy on team building is sound IMO, and what's more, I'm not sure how else to do it in this market. The philosophy has worked in Boston, Tampa Bay, Oakland, and others. Then again there's a completely different philosophy that is working in Texas where Nolan Ryan seems to run shit more old school. There's more than one way to skin a cat, or whatever that fucking saying is.

And this season has broken me. I've never been more depressed as a Tribe fan. And I was on board for a change in management and approach. Shapiro et al had their chance and they failed. Bottom line. I was all for getting a fresh set of eyes on this thing. It seemed like time. And I was disappointed when it didn't happen, to be honest. But, because I do believe that the approach CAN work if properly EXECUTED (like has been done elsewhere) I'm not standing on the ledge because Shapiro and company are still at that corner the way I will be if the Browns enter next season with Pat Shurmer wearing a headset.

I have some more about Oakland and Hatteberg but this is already too long winded. Bottom line for that is that I don't necessarily disagree with what you think in regard to stats and such.

[1Perry]

I'll bet you didn't even read the interview, did you?

Like where he notes that he believes he is qualified to be a baseball exec because his dad was a players agent?

That he can judge talent because of all the games where he sat and watched Brooks Robinson from the stands?

Does that mean Steve Bartman would make a good GM?

The Indians are in the midst of one of the worst runs in their history. That falls directly into Shapiro's lap. His good character individuals many times simply couldn't play.

It's funny, he notes that the drafts were bad and what did he do with the person who couldn't even do one thing well? He promotes him to run the entire team.

[motherscratcher]

I'll bet you didn't even read the interview, did you?

Like where he notes that he believes he is qualified to be a baseball exec because his dad was a players agent?

That he can judge talent because of all the games where he sat and watched Brooks Robinson from the stands?

Does that mean Steve Bartman would make a good GM?

The Indians are in the midst of one of the worst runs in their history. That falls directly into Shapiro's lap. His good character individuals many times simply couldn't play.

It's funny, he notes that the drafts were bad and what did he do with the person who couldn't even do one thing well? He promotes him to run the entire team.

Glad you got around to reading it.

Yeah, exactly. Because of all of the Orioles games he went to growing up. Because of the fact that his dad was an agent and he was constantly around players. Because he's spent over 20 years working at and literally running a major league baseball organization. Yes, those are the reasons I think a guy might "know baseball". It would be impossible for a guy how has lived Mark Shapiro's life to NOT know the game of baseball. He literally spends his life thinking about baseball. I mean, are fucking for real? Mark Shapiro has probably watched, talked about, and thought about more baseball in the past year than you have in your whole life. When Mark Shapiro takes a shit, he loses more baseball knowledge than you've been able to store up in that broken brain of yours during the entire duration of your existence.

Mark Shapiro doesn't know baseball. Do you know how fucking stupid that is?

I like Pup and LP because, despite our obvious and well documented differences of opinion when it comes to the practical application of advanced metrics, those guys know what they are talking about, can craft an argument, and can and often do cause me to step back and rethink a thing, and more often than I would admit maybe change one of my own opinions. Because isn't that what we're here for?

You...the next post you make with the slightest bit of illumination will be your first.

Steve Bartman?

Fucking Christ

[googleeph2]

The Indians are in the midst of one of the worst runs in their history.

I was around for the 70s and 80s, and when I came here out of procrastination of something else I should be doing, and read this, I snorted loudly enough for the dog to raise her head at me. They should have made the playoffs in 2005 I think, and did in 2007.

But when you think about it, wow. Over a 5yr stretch, yeah, the pro player acquisition has been rough. They haven't even been able to have any success with career-rehab guys like in the not-so-distant past. And they have been on the short end when trading stars, a la the bad old days. But we've seen this movie thru the years.

But (until recently, hopefully) the drafting problems maybe have been historically bad. At least in the mid 70s, they had a pipeline of the Eckersley/Manning/Kuiper variety of player. And just prior to that, Nettles/Chambliss/B Bell.

Hm. The Tribe writers here would do a great job in analyzing and comparing their drafts. This regime would really stand out as being terrible, imo- in a time and place where it is the main thing they need to get right.

(In all 'fairness', they did draft Tim Lincecum in the 2005 draft. )

[1Perry]

The Indians are in the midst of one of the worst runs in their history.

I was around for the 70s and 80s, and when I came here out of procrastination of something else I should be doing, and read this, I snorted loudly enough for the dog to raise her head at me. They should have made the playoffs in 2005 I think, and did in 2007.

I was around then also but they have lost over 90 games 3 of the last 4 years. Had their first 0-9 road trip ever. They had one of the worse months ever in baseball.

Yes, one of their worse runs in their history.

But when you think about it, wow. Over a 5yr stretch, yeah, the pro player acquisition has been rough. They haven't even been able to have any success with career-rehab guys like in the not-so-distant past. And they have been on the short end when trading stars, a la the bad old days. But we've seen this movie thru the years.

But (until recently, hopefully) the drafting problems maybe have been historically bad. At least in the mid 70s, they had a pipeline of the Eckersley/Manning/Kuiper variety of player. And just prior to that, Nettles/Chambliss/B Bell.

I hope drafting has improved but with every change it's been noted that drafting has been better than before and well, it wasn't.

I mentioned this above, (but it wasn't addressed) how does one promote someone to run the team when they had failed so miserably at doing their previous job?

This is something I simply do not understand.....Shapiro notes that drafting was really bad so you promote the guy who put you in this position? This is what a brilliant guy does?

[1Perry]

I'll bet you didn't even read the interview, did you?

Like where he notes that he believes he is qualified to be a baseball exec because his dad was a players agent?

That he can judge talent because of all the games where he sat and watched Brooks Robinson from the stands?

Does that mean Steve Bartman would make a good GM?

The Indians are in the midst of one of the worst runs in their history. That falls directly into Shapiro's lap. His good character individuals many times simply couldn't play.

It's funny, he notes that the drafts were bad and what did he do with the person who couldn't even do one thing well? He promotes him to run the entire team.

Glad you got around to reading it.

Yeah, exactly. Because of all of the Orioles games he went to growing up. Because of the fact that his dad was an agent and he was constantly around players. Because he's spent over 20 years working at and literally running a major league baseball organization. Yes, those are the reasons I think a guy might "know baseball". It would be impossible for a guy how has lived Mark Shapiro's life to NOT know the game of baseball. He literally spends his life thinking about baseball. I mean, are fucking for real? Mark Shapiro has probably watched, talked about, and thought about more baseball in the past year than you have in your whole life. When Mark Shapiro takes a shit, he loses more baseball knowledge than you've been able to store up in that broken brain of yours during the entire duration of your existence.

Mark Shapiro doesn't know baseball. Do you know how fucking stupid that is?

I like Pup and LP because, despite our obvious and well documented differences of opinion when it comes to the practical application of advanced metrics, those guys know what they are talking about, can craft an argument, and can and often do cause me to step back and rethink a thing, and more often than I would admit maybe change one of my own opinions. Because isn't that what we're here for?

You...the next post you make with the slightest bit of illumination will be your first.

Steve Bartman?

Fucking Christ

Yes, your advanced metrics said these were good moves and when they weren't you really don't much like people pointing out that making these decisions takes more than advanced metrics.

I have nothing against those who get into figuring every little stat, many people enjoy that.

It takes more than that though and many who enjoy breaking down every stat imaginable understand that but the Indians front office does not seem to be among them.

[motherscratcher]

Yes, your advanced metrics said these were good moves and when they weren't you really don't much like people pointing out that making these decisions takes more than advanced metrics.

I have nothing against those who get into figuring every little stat, many people enjoy that.

It takes more than that though and many who enjoy breaking down every stat imaginable understand that but the Indians front office does not seem to be among them.

You really just never get what anyone is talking about, do you?

It's not your fault.

[mattvan1]

But it's also true that I like the approach and the ideas. And it pains me to no end that it hasn't worked I think there are many reasons that it hasn't worked, not the least of which are execution and luck. But the philosophy on team building is sound IMO, and what's more, I'm not sure how else to do it in this market. The philosophy has worked in Boston, Tampa Bay, Oakland, and others. Then again there's a completely different philosophy that is working in Texas where Nolan Ryan seems to run shit more old school. There's more than one way to skin a cat, or whatever that fucking saying is.

I am an idiot for wandering in here, but I'm genuinely curious as to how you define "the approach." Because I see far more similarities (especially now) than I do differences. I mean aren't the following 3 things the major contributors to a team's sustained success? - player evaluation, player development, and the draft? I guess you should tie player evaluation to the success of the draft in some regards, but I can't see how stats can help determine which 18 year HS kid to select.

And so aren't we really talking about differences in the player evaluation aspect - using advanced statistical theory more heavily than using the traditional scouting system? Attempting to find undervalued players because you can’t afford to compete in FA? And so even if you nail that for existing major league guys and players in other teams farm systems, you still have to draft well and really focus on player development to hope to achieve any chance of success.

So to me the whole “moneyball” philosophy, while interesting, attempts to solve just one piece of the challenge. I don’t see it as an overall approach, but more of a supporting part.

Or should I just start power drinking now?

[swerb]

Just start drinking. You're safe either way.

[1Perry]

Yes, your advanced metrics said these were good moves and when they weren't you really don't much like people pointing out that making these decisions takes more than advanced metrics.

I have nothing against those who get into figuring every little stat, many people enjoy that.

It takes more than that though and many who enjoy breaking down every stat imaginable understand that but the Indians front office does not seem to be among them.

You really just never get what anyone is talking about, do you?

It's not your fault.

So tell me. Why would a person that admits that the team did a poor job in the draft, promote the one responsible for those drafts?

[justmebd]

The interview showed a guy who can't see the forest for the trees.

Cliff Lee Trade: Indefensible on just about every level. Cy Young talent needs to be traded for proven major league talent, not prospects. This is what I believe and is not a debatable point to me. Couple this with the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach, and it's just exasperating to hear him (again) try and defend it. By trading two Cy Young award winners away in two years, it told the fanbase "Fuck you, we quit."

The fans no longer trust this front office or the owners, which in turn translates to lost revenue and, as Shapiro puts it, "Challenges."

Roster-building: The results speak for themselves. Shapiro and Antonetti have consistently failed in the draft and free agency. Yeah, Hafner and Sizemore got hurt, but if you make good decisions elsewhere, you can overcome stuff like this, even with a smaller salary scale.

Everything else is just noise.

[Bigfist]

I'm not sure why any of this babble from Shapiro even makes any difference. We suck and we're gonna suck for years to come. We have no immediate help on the way, and if we trade our tradeable pieces, I am certain we will get fleeced. Can't wait till Francona has to fill out the lineup and has Canzler batting cleanup. And then has to come up with a starting five...he will never stop vomiting. Wonder how long before Perez opens his trap? Two weeks?

Maybe we should just be contracted or moved, like e0y2e3 said months ago (although for different reasons). Would anyone really care at this point?

[leadpipe]

The interview showed a guy who can't see the forest for the trees.

Cliff Lee Trade: Indefensible on just about every level. Cy Young talent needs to be traded for proven major league talent, not prospects. This is what I believe and is not a debatable point to me. Couple this with the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach, and it's just exasperating to hear him (again) try and defend it. By trading two Cy Young award winners away in two years, it told the fanbase "Fuck you, we quit."

The fans no longer trust this front office or the owners, which in turn translates to lost revenue and, as Shapiro puts it, "Challenges."

Roster-building: The results speak for themselves. Shapiro and Antonetti have consistently failed in the draft and free agency. Yeah, Hafner and Sizemore got hurt, but if you make good decisions elsewhere, you can overcome stuff like this, even with a smaller salary scale.

Everything else is just noise.

Well, now your broachning a subject which I don't think he has all that much control over now, that is, the days are over where a small market team is gonna get a haul for a future high salaried player that everyone knows that small market team is gonna have to jettison.

True, you'd like to de better than utility infielders like Jason Donald and total hacks like LaPorta - but really, if you trade Cliff Lee for an established player, you've got the same problem - you gotta pay the guy. Which is why these markets went for young players/prospects - but the jig is up.

Things like seemingly choosing Hafner over Sabathia is the problem at his feet - not necessarily what they got for Sabathia. The Ubaldo trade is incomprehensible on many levels, and it is even if the young pitchers they traded fall off a cliff today.

[motherscratcher]

The interview showed a guy who can't see the forest for the trees.

Cliff Lee Trade: Indefensible on just about every level. Cy Young talent needs to be traded for proven major league talent, not prospects. This is what I believe and is not a debatable point to me. Couple this with the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach, and it's just exasperating to hear him (again) try and defend it. By trading two Cy Young award winners away in two years, it told the fanbase "Fuck you, we quit."

The fans no longer trust this front office or the owners, which in turn translates to lost revenue and, as Shapiro puts it, "Challenges."

Roster-building: The results speak for themselves. Shapiro and Antonetti have consistently failed in the draft and free agency. Yeah, Hafner and Sizemore got hurt, but if you make good decisions elsewhere, you can overcome stuff like this, even with a smaller salary scale.

Everything else is just noise.

Well, now your broachning a subject which I don't think he has all that much control over now, that is, the days are over where a small market team is gonna get a haul for a future high salaried player that everyone knows that small market team is gonna have to jettison.

True, you'd like to de better than utility infielders like Jason Donald and total hacks like LaPorta - but really, if you trade Cliff Lee for an established player, you've got the same problem - you gotta pay the guy. Which is why these markets went for young players/prospects - but the jig is up.

Things like seemingly choosing Hafner over Sabathia is the problem at his feet - not necessarily what they got for Sabathia. The Ubaldo trade is incomprehensible on many levels, and it is even if the young pitchers they traded fall off a cliff today.

This. Agree 100%. Tis isn't the first time that Justmebd has beat the " we need to get establish MLers" drum, but there is just no room for that argument in MLB 2012. It's been a long time since it ever was the case, and I have trouble thnking of a good example of that anyway.

LP is right. The main fuckup of the last 6 years was the signing of Westbrook and Hafner over CC. Bu problem is I don't see any way they were signing CC anyway. Big difference between those contracts. Now, in hindsight, the CC contract as far as money and length turnsnout to be justified, but that was hardly clear at the time, so I dont think it was either/or JakeTravis/CC. CC was gone regardless. Got what was csidered a good haul at the time and LaPorta turned out to be...well, you know.

The decision was bad, but only in hindsight. The problem with the Indians is that so many of those decisions that seemed good in real time blew up in their faces.

We complain about them spending money and sigh ing free agents, but like LP says, they have to be the right ones, especially in Cleveland. How much better of a position would the Indians have been in the last 5 years if they hadn't signed ANY of their own free agents?

[motherscratcher]

But it's also true that I like the approach and the ideas. And it pains me to no end that it hasn't worked I think there are many reasons that it hasn't worked, not the least of which are execution and luck. But the philosophy on team building is sound IMO, and what's more, I'm not sure how else to do it in this market. The philosophy has worked in Boston, Tampa Bay, Oakland, and others. Then again there's a completely different philosophy that is working in Texas where Nolan Ryan seems to run shit more old school. There's more than one way to skin a cat, or whatever that fucking saying is.

I am an idiot for wandering in here, but I'm genuinely curious as to how you define "the approach." Because I see far more similarities (especially now) than I do differences. I mean aren't the following 3 things the major contributors to a team's sustained success? - player evaluation, player development, and the draft? I guess you should tie player evaluation to the success of the draft in some regards, but I can't see how stats can help determine which 18 year HS kid to select.

And so aren't we really talking about differences in the player evaluation aspect - using advanced statistical theory more heavily than using the traditional scouting system? Attempting to find undervalued players because you can’t afford to compete in FA? And so even if you nail that for existing major league guys and players in other teams farm systems, you still have to draft well and really focus on player development to hope to achieve any chance of success.

So to me the whole “moneyball” philosophy, while interesting, attempts to solve just one piece of the challenge. I don’t see it as an overall approach, but more of a supporting part.

Or should I just start power drinking now?

But you're talking more about results than approach. I agree with everything you say here, but philosophy/approach are not the same as results if not executed properly. What I mean by approach is for Shapiro and the Indians to use every bit of information at hand to make their decisions, to make a plan and stick to it. Ot not try to buy their way out of a hole the way the Yankee/Sox do. Because that can't possibly work or be sustainable in this market.

The onlymway to build here is to build a solid young core through the draft and trades, and try to supplement that core with FA when it makes sense to do so. I believe that to be the right approach and I believe that's what they are trying to do. The fact that they have obviously been unsuccessful in executing the play doesn't make it thhe wrong plan, because honestly I don't see a better alternative. And like you said it is a failure in player evaluation at the core of it.

So I understand the frustration with this FO for their failure to execute and evaluate, and it has been a long enough failure and the organization is in a bad enough state for me to support a change. But that change isn't coming, obviously, os once again I find myself hoping that this time they will be better/luckier implementing a plan to build a winning team here.

Because whatever you think of Mark Shapiro, I believe he is a smart man who understands baseball who has a vision. And it must kill him that the vision is so far completely unfulfilled and the org such a sorry sac of shit right now.

It's rough, though.

[motherscratcher]

I wish I was drunk right now.

I feel like I can explain what I think better when I'm drunk. My last 2 posts I don't think I've been able to articulate well.

I see no alternative but to start drinking immediately.

[justmebd]

The interview showed a guy who can't see the forest for the trees.

Cliff Lee Trade: Indefensible on just about every level. Cy Young talent needs to be traded for proven major league talent, not prospects. This is what I believe and is not a debatable point to me. Couple this with the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach, and it's just exasperating to hear him (again) try and defend it. By trading two Cy Young award winners away in two years, it told the fanbase "Fuck you, we quit."

The fans no longer trust this front office or the owners, which in turn translates to lost revenue and, as Shapiro puts it, "Challenges."

Roster-building: The results speak for themselves. Shapiro and Antonetti have consistently failed in the draft and free agency. Yeah, Hafner and Sizemore got hurt, but if you make good decisions elsewhere, you can overcome stuff like this, even with a smaller salary scale.

Everything else is just noise.

Well, now your broachning a subject which I don't think he has all that much control over now, that is, the days are over where a small market team is gonna get a haul for a future high salaried player that everyone knows that small market team is gonna have to jettison.

True, you'd like to de better than utility infielders like Jason Donald and total hacks like LaPorta - but really, if you trade Cliff Lee for an established player, you've got the same problem - you gotta pay the guy. Which is why these markets went for young players/prospects - but the jig is up.

Things like seemingly choosing Hafner over Sabathia is the problem at his feet - not necessarily what they got for Sabathia. The Ubaldo trade is incomprehensible on many levels, and it is even if the young pitchers they traded fall off a cliff today.

This. Agree 100%. Tis isn't the first time that Justmebd has beat the " we need to get establish MLers" drum, but there is just no room for that argument in MLB 2012. It's been a long time since it ever was the case, and I have trouble thnking of a good example of that anyway.

LP is right. The main fuckup of the last 6 years was the signing of Westbrook and Hafner over CC. Bu problem is I don't see any way they were signing CC anyway. Big difference between those contracts. Now, in hindsight, the CC contract as far as money and length turnsnout to be justified, but that was hardly clear at the time, so I dont think it was either/or JakeTravis/CC. CC was gone regardless. Got what was csidered a good haul at the time and LaPorta turned out to be...well, you know.

The decision was bad, but only in hindsight. The problem with the Indians is that so many of those decisions that seemed good in real time blew up in their faces.

We complain about them spending money and sigh ing free agents, but like LP says, they have to be the right ones, especially in Cleveland. How much better of a position would the Indians have been in the last 5 years if they hadn't signed ANY of their own free agents?

I get your argument, but it goes back to my original theory, that being this team lost more money by trading Cliff Lee away than they would have if they just would have paid him.

The Lee trade was the tipping point for this organization under the Dolans and the Shapiro-led front office. NO ONE trusts these guys anymore, and as a result, there are a lot fewer butts in the seats, translating to real lost revenue at the gate, and an even bigger question mark of lost revenue in other areas as casual fans lost interest and stopped paying money for jerseys, caps, etc.

If Lee had been traded for proven talent, such as a big stick to play in the outfield, maybe that guy doesn't cost as much as Lee, it's all hypothetical.

Bottom line is the trade should not have happened, and a good GM would have talked the Dolans out of the idea, taking the long view instead of the short view.

CC is a whole different animal. CC never was going stay here for the money the Indians would have paid, I put him in the same boat as when Manny left. Nothing you can do about it.

The Lee situation could've been worked, but this FO/Ownership was too chickenshit and cheap to do it. Even if Lee ended up leaving anyway, the fact they TRIED would've spoken volumes and done a lot more for potential revenue streams, and eliminated a lot of Shapiro's "challenges" in perception and Pr as the team moved forward.

Being cheap AND chickenshit has brought us to the current situation.

NOTE ON INJURIES: The Hafner deal was a dumb move and another example of just how big a failure Shapiro has been. Guys like Hafner get back injuries, it's a common thing around MLB. I couldn't believe the deal when I saw it.

I still scratch my head with Sizemore, that's just plain bad luck. There's no way anyone could have predicted his body would completely fall apart in a two-year span before he even turned 30.

But again, staying smart and drafting better would have helped cover these mistakes up.