Bleacher Report - Articles by Samantha Bunten

Manny Acta: Keys To Success for the Cleveland Indians' New Manager

Samantha Bunten — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:36:51 -0400

This past Sunday, the Indians hired Manny Acta as their new manager. Former Washington Nationals skipper Acta was signed to a three-year contract with a club option for 2013.

The Acta hiring has received a mix of cheers and jeers. Some say Acta's reputation as an excellent handler of young players makes him a perfect fit, while others question the ability of a manager whose team lost more games than the Tribe did last year.

The truth of the matter is perhaps somewhere in between. Acta does seem to have the potential to guide the Indians to better performance than they have displayed in recent years, but his unsuccessful track record in Washington cannot be ignored.

As always, the trouble with hiring a manager is that the best guy for the job is never, ever available, because he's already managing somewhere else. The best we can hope for is that the team has hired the best candidate available, and that he can help the team to achieve the most they are capable of achieving given what they have to work with.

Thus looking ahead to 2010 and thereafter, we will have to judge Acta on what he can do with what he has been given. Following are what I think are the three key objectives Acta must focus on in order to help the Indians be the best baseball team that they are capable of being.

***

1. Get the highest possible return from the talent available

Acta's detractors have expressed some worry over how he will fare in Cleveland because his team in Washington was essentially a failure. This concern is certainly not without merit, but the situation is not quite that simple.

Prevailing opinion among experts states that the Indians have more talent available than the Nationals did. The key for Acta will be utilizing the resources he has at his disposal to generate the greatest possible return.

Acta inherits a talented outfield that includes the proven competitor Shin Soo Choo, a hopefully healed Grady Sizemore, who should bounce back to his standard form in 2010, and the intriguing Michael Brantley, who made a splash in his major league debut at the close of 2009.

He also has potential power threat Matt LaPorta, proven up and comer Asdrubal Cabrera, and wild card Luis Valbeuna in the infield.

Pitchers David Huff, Aaron Laffey, Justin Masterson, and Carlos Carrasco struggled in 2009, but have shown potentially high upsides for the future. Tony Sipp looks to be a gem coming out of the bullpen, and the optimistic among Tribe fans still have hope for the resurgence of floundering sinkerballers Fausto Carmona and Jake Westbrook.

The test for Acta will be to take all these good-quality individual parts, and find a way to make them work together as one well-functioning machine.

2. Develop young players for the future while getting the most out of them in the present

Another boon for Acta going into 2010 is the wealth of up-and-coming talent which the organization has waiting in the wings. In addition to the youngsters already given a taste of major league action in 2009, the team holds a slew of potential talent still in the minor leagues, most notably pitcher Hector Rondon and potential star catcher Carlos Santana.

Acta already has the reputation of a manager who handles and develops young players well.

The trick will be getting these kids to hone their skills and learn the game at a big league level in order to build a competitive team for the future, while still playing high-quality fundamental baseball on a day-to-day basis in order to keep the team's proverbial head above water and net the Indians a respectable finish for the 2010 season.

3. Temper expectations while keeping the team, the fans, and the city motivated and enthusiastic.

When Acta took this job, he knew he wasn't inheriting a 2010 World Series contender. Every new manager who takes over a young and inexperienced team dreams of bringing the plot of Major League to life, but must keep his expectations realistic if he expects to succeed at his job and keep it for years to come.

Acta must be reasonable about what he can expect out of his squad, but at the same time, must keep them motivated and driven, giving the fans and the players themselves a reason to keep showing up every day, even if the season doesn't promise to end in a playoff run.

Failure to live up to expectations cost the Indians mightily in 2009, alienating fans and leaving players disappointed and apathetic. We all learned our lesson, and I believe we are all now more aware of what we truly have at our disposal.

Acta's job will be to keep expectations reasonable, while still giving players a reason to give 100 percent every day on the field, and still giving fans a reason to have hope for this team in the future and enough enthusiasm to keep watching this team in the present.

***

Obviously, Mr. Acta has his work cut out for him. There are hundreds of things that Acta will need to do to right the Indians' proverbial ship and set it on a successful course above and beyond the aforementioned key expectations.

It will be a long and arduous journey, but I believe Mr Acta is up to the challenge.

Please feel free to leave your suggestions as to how Acta can see that the goals mentioned above are achieved in the comment section below, as well as your ideas for other key objectives Acta needs to meet to put this team on the path to success.

Cleveland Indians' End Of Season Survey

Samantha Bunten — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:22:16 -0400

At various points throughout the season, we try to take a bit of a step back and objectively review what has come to pass and what the future might hold for our Cleveland Indians.

We conducted a survey of Indians fans and experts at the beginning of the season, the All-Star break, and one last time when the 2009 season came to a close. Below, you will find our final conclusions on the Indians' 2009 season, based on the results of our last survey.

Part One of the article compares how our panelists voted on a set of questions at the beginning of the year versus at the end of the year, and also includes poll results on end-of-season issues. Part Two of the article is comprised of a selection of responses from our panelists to a few final short answer questions.

This article was a project shared by my fellow Indians Featured Columnist Nino Colla and I. A huge thanks to Nino, who organized and wrote Part One of this article, sorted through our data until it turned into something that made sense, and honestly did most of the work on this endeavor.

Thanks are also in order for our dedicated, hard-working panelists, who have stuck it out through surveys and Tribe Talk questions throughout this disappointing Indians' season when it would have been so much easier to just give up. So a big thanks goes to Dale Thomas, The Coop, Jeff Poore, Joyce Quayle, Matt Swope, and Kanka for their participation.

Part One: The Numbers

At the beginning of the season, we asked the Cleveland Indians community at Bleacher Report to answer a few questions for the end of the season.

The basic things were asked such as MVP of the team, if the Tribe would make the postseason, and the final starting rotation. Also explored were a few different kinds of questions such as over-unders and if some of the players would match specific statistical goals.

Further proving that baseball is a game where you never know what to expect, half the team ended up gone and most of these questions became ridiculously sad looking. However there is no shame in looking back to see what we thought and just how bad things went.

However, this wouldn’t be a season wrap-up without going back and seeing who everyone thought was the real MVP when all was said and done, so we did that as well.

MVP

Preseason
Sizemore - 5
Martinez – 1

Postseason

Asdrubal Cabrera – 5

Victor Martinez – 2

Shin-Soo Choo - 1

Cy Young

Preseason
Carmona - 3
Lee - 2
Pavano - 1

Postseason

Cliff Lee - 4

Aaron Laffey - 2

David Huff - 1

Carl Pavano - 1

Reliever
Preseason

Wood - 3
R. Perez - 2
Lewis - 1

Postseason

Tony Sipp - 5

Chris Perez - 2

Rafael Betancourt - 1

Rookie

Preseason
Trevor Crowe - 4
David Huff - 1
Matt LaPorta – 1

Postseason

David Huff - 3

Tony Sipp - 2

Luis Valbuena - 2

Michael Brantley - 1

Win Total
95 - 2
93
91
90
89

Al Central
Yes - 6
No - 0

Rotation
6/6 Cliff Lee
5/6 Aaron Laffey
5/6 Fausto Carmona
5/6 Carl Pavano
4/6 Anthony Reyes
3/6 Jake Westbrook
2/6 Scott Lewis

Actual: Fausto Carmona, Aaron Laffey, Justin Masterson, David Huff, Jeremy Sowers, Carlos Carrasco

Left Fielder
Trevor Crowe - 3
Ben Francisco – 3

Actual: Trevor Crowe

Kerry Wood Saves
Actual: 20
Average: 38
High: 40
Low: 32

Fausto Carmona Strikeouts
Actual: 79
Average: 116
High: 170
Low: 17

Rafael Perez Innings Pitched
Actual: 48
Average: 73
High: 90
Low: 65

Jhonny Peralta Walks
Actual: 51
Average: 56
High: 60
Low: 45

Team Runs Scored
Actual:
Average: 857
High: 920
Low: 820

Date David Dellucci is Released
Actual: May 29
Average: June 6
High: July 14
Low: May 1

Jensen Lewis Saves: 10
Actual: 1
Over: 0
Under: 6

Rafael Betancourt HR: 8
Actual: 3 (W/CLE)
Over: 2
Under: 4

Carl Pavano Starts: 12
Actual: 21 (W/CLE)
Over: 6
Under: 0

Ryan Garko Doubles: 25
Actual: 10 (W/CLE)
Over: 5
Under: 1

Grady Sizemore HR/SB Total: 80
Actual: 31
Over: 3
Under: 3

Travis Hafner Home Runs: 14
Actual: 16
Over: 4
Under: 2

Shin-Soo Choo RBI: 79
Actual: 86
Over: 6
Under: 0

Kelly Shoppach Strikeouts: 150
Actual: 98
Over: 1
Under: 5

Mark DeRosa OBP%: .375
Actual: .342 (W/CLE)

Over: 4
Under: 2

Most Costly Injury – Grady Sizemore

Sizemore – 6, Westbrook – 2

Biggest Off-season Need – Starting Pitching

Starting Pitching – 7, Manager – 1

First Player to be Traded – Jhonny Peralta

Peralta – 3, Shoppach - 2, None – 2, Wood – 1

Breakout Player in 2010 – Michael Brantley

Brantley – 5, Marson – 1, Valbuena – 1

Player with the Most to Prove – Fausto Carmona

Carmona – 3, Peralta – 2, Sizemore – 2, LaPorta – 1

Player to Stumble in 2010 – Justin Masterson and Fausto Carmona

Carmona/Masters – 2, Sipp, Hafner, Peralta, Everyone – 1

Prospect Most Excited to See – Carlos Santana

Santana – 4 , Rondon – 2, Putnam – 1, Chisenhall – 1

Cleveland Indians Season out of 5 Stars – 1.3

Part Two: Short Answer

In addition to compiling the numbers from our survey results in the questions above, we thought it was important to include a few final thoughts from our Indians' fans and experts which they submitted in the short answer form of our survey.

In the interest of keeping this article at a reasonable length, the following is just a small selection of the responses we received to our short answer questions.

1.What are your final words to Eric Wedge?

Nino Colla: Good luck. Seriously, good luck. Eric, wherever you may go, I'll support you. A class act and great man. Not the best manager, but no doubt not the worst. I wish there was a better fate for him here in Cleveland, but it is nice to see that some of the fans realize it wasn't all his fault.

Dale Thomas: Thanks very much for very little. In seven years: Three times in 4th place, two times in 3rd, one time in 2nd, one time in 1st, then we blow a three-game lead to Boston in the ALCS. Overall .495, with four seasons under .500.

Samantha Bunten: Don't let the door hit you on the way out, good riddance, but yet, thank you for your years of service. Despite struggling at a major league level, you are an outstanding Triple-A manager and I wish you great success in such a job that is more suited to your skill set. And thank you for always, always, always being a class act, no matter how tough things got. That's worth a lot in my book.

2. Now that the season has finally come to an end, how would you sum up what went wrong for the Tribe this year?

Kanka: It was just the perfect storm of injuries, under-performing, and gambles that didn't pay off.

Jeff Poore: The team's insistence to throw retread veterans in the bullpen and the field instead of letting the young talent prove themselves on the field and in the bullpen came back to bite the Indians again.

The Coop: The slew of injuries and devastating trades certainly did not help, but the Indians were extremely inadequate when it came to objectively evaluating their roster and addressing their needs coming into the season, such as in their holes in the bullpen and in left field and third base.

I also think one of the biggest issues the Indians faced this past season—one which will continue to be an issue in the years to come—is their inability to develop their young players. I see prospect after prospect being called up and given a shot, but hardly any of them have truly "wowed" me to the point where I believe they will be cornerstone players for the Indians in the future. With such little organizational depth and delayed prospect development, injuries and trades of star players will consume any team.

3. What, if anything, do you feel actually went RIGHT for the Tribe this season?

Nino Colla: I think the bright spots of this team are the ones they're going to focus on for the future. I'm talking mainly about two players, Shin-Soo Choo and Asdrubal Cabrera.

I called the Cabrera draw-back in 2008 unfortunately. But it was something that was bound to happen for a young player that the league was now aware about. However Cabrera did what he had to do, went down to Triple-A, fixed things and he's now a better player. I never expected him to be the hitter he was this season, I really didn't. I'd have been happy with a .260-.270 hitter that just plays stellar defense and makes a good 8-9 hole hitter. But Cabrera is doing more and he's going to be a superstar.

Shin-Soo Choo on the other hand, we expected greatness from him and he was great. He's a 20-20 man and he's only getting better. He's got a great arm in right field and he's that corner outfielder the Indians have needed for a long time. There were high expectations for Choo to do well this year and he did just that. He'll be a cornerstone of this franchise going forward.

Dale Thomas: This is a really tough one ... I mean they gave out Victor Martinez bobble heads at the game on the same day they traded him after he begged not to be traded? How wrong is that? That said, here's some things that went right: 1. We escaped having the worst record in the AL. 2. Peralta doesn't play shortstop anymore. 3. Wedge was fired.

Samantha Bunten: Amid the rubble that was the 2009 season, the Indians did do a few things right: drafting and signing the first solid class of draft picks in years, repositioning players like Matt LaPorta, Asdrubal Cabrera, and Jhonny Peralta to maximize their potential (or lack of Potential in Peralta's case), and working toward fielding a team with improved speed and defense for the future.

I would also like to call out Asdrubal Cabrera, Shin Soo Choo, Tony Sipp, and Michael Brantley for their excellent play despite a disappointing season overall for the team, and the fans, for hanging in there and staying loyal to the Tribe even when the Tribe let them down.

The Coop: I suppose that, even if none of the Indians' young guys really stood out and impressed, they did get valuable experience which will hopefully be the basis for growth and development. With a few more seasons under their belt, guys like David Huff, Justin Masterson, Luis Valbuena, and Matt LaPorta might grow into decent major leaguers.

Jeff Poore: They finally let the young guys like Matt LaPorta, Michael Brantley, Tony Sipp and Chris Perez play and develop in the major leagues. It has been long overdue for some time and it will help the Tribe reload sooner than later.

4. What are your expectations for the Indians in 2010?

Nino Colla: I'm expecting a lot. I'm not expecting a ton of wins though. However I'm not giving up hope that next year is going to be totally horrible like everyone thinks.

For one, I think whatever manager that is brought in will want to win now. That's just the mentality you take. That won't effect how he manages, but I think it effects how he motivates. I'd have these guys hungry. Young players for the most part could be dumb and young. If they start playing well, there's no telling what they'll do, especially in this horrid division.

It would not shock me if things started to click for a few players, Aaron Laffey, David Huff, Justin Masterson on the pitching side, LaPorta, Brantley, Valbuena on the offensive side and this team hangs around. But if it doesn't, I won't be disappointed, because I know it's young.

However I will be disappointed if strides aren't made. I think it will be an individual basis. The coaching staff, each player, Mark Shapiro. That's how I think 2010 should ultimately be evaluated at this time next year. Did players make the strides they were supposed to make? I'll set expectations and ideas for where I want Matt LaPorta. And if he doesn't meet them, then I'll be pretty disappointed.

That's basically how I want to look at 2010. No one thinks we'll contend, not even some of the most optimistic Cleveland fan. But I expect this team to play hard and reach individual efforts I expect.

The Coop: It's not going to be pretty. I have been living in Pittsburgh for several years now and have seen this movie many times. First of all, the Indians have major issues with pitching, both in the rotation and in the bullpen. Seriously, who can they really count on? The way it looks right now, they don't have one starter who would even be a No. 3 on a contender. And everyone knows how awful their bullpen is.

Their lineup is going to be mediocre as well. You've got to hope that Sizemore will rebound and get fully healthy. If he does, that will be a start. With a healthy Sizemore and Cabrera, along with Choo, they'll have a decent top third of the order. But they've got to get rid of some of the dead weight. I'm talking to you, Travis Hafner and Jhonny Peralta. Other than that, you've just got to hope you see some good things from the young guys who will get a shot. I don't know if you can really count on any of that either.

I expect a truly uninspiring choice for manager. Rather than get someone with a proven track record, Dolan and Shapiro will get someone who is just happy to have a job as a manager and will be a Yes Man.

Finally, I expect Dolan and Shapiro to trim payroll even more (if that's even possible) and trade anyone who is doing well at the All-Star break, for a handful of prospects. I expect the Indians to lose at least 90 games next year. If they finish .500, there should be a parade.

Jeff Poore: I expect them to develop into a solid offensive ball club that plays hard. Until we know who is the manager is it is hard to be specific. I do NOT expect them to contend, however, because of the lack of major league starting pitching in the system.

Kanka: The Tribe will finish in the top three in the AL Central, surprising a lot of people and giving Cleveland fans hope for the future.

Dale Thomas: My expectations for 2010 are pretty much the same as they are each and every year.

I expect the players to pay attention during the game and not let people steal third because nobody was looking. I expect our management to totally enforce a winning attitude, and a strong work ethic.

I expect ownership to settle their debt with the city of Cleveland by fielding a solid if not formidable baseball team at a small market price from tapping a good minor league system, making prudent off season acquisitions and by retaining those talented players that we already have.

I expect refinement in our pitching staff, improved plate discipline from our hitters and better game time decision making from our coaches. I expect a team with something to prove, and maybe most importantly, I expect a stop sign to be erected at third base.

Tribe Talk: Farewell, 2009 Indians

Samantha Bunten — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:01:36 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

Here in the final days of the regular season and our final installment of Tribe Talk for the year, we discuss how much a come-from-behind victory is worth, our playoff picks, and our final thoughts on the disappointments of the 2009 season and our hopes for the 2010 season.

I would like to thank this week's participants Nino Colla, Scott Miles, and Jeff Poore for their contributions here and throughout the season. My greatest thanks to these contributors for their dedication to this project throughout this difficult year for the Tribe faithful. I could not have done it without them.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. As much as the Tribe is slammed for looking lethargic and apathetic (by us at Tribe Talk as much as anyone), 32 of their 63 wins were actually come-from-behind victories.

Does this mean we aren't giving the Indians enough credit for displaying a "never say die" attitude, or is this just one more meaningless number that falls under the old saying "you can make statistics say anything you want"?

Samantha Bunten: There would be nothing I would like more than to be able to look at a stat like this, smack myself on the forehead, and exclaim, "I KNEW we weren't really that bad!"

Unfortunately, what I think it boils down to is that it doesn't matter how many of your victories turn out to be of a come-from-behind variety when your winning percentage is a mere .404.

Much as I wish this weren't true, I also can't say I believe that this indicates the Tribe had some sort of never-say-die attitude that we all just merely didn't notice while we were calling them lazy and unmotivated.

Sure, the come-from-behind victories are nice, but look at it this way: If a team is always behind, from the start of each and every game, then any victory they might get will always be of the come-from-behind sort.

Don't get me wrong, this team has plenty of guys who deserve credit for not dogging it despite this bleak situation. But when Jhonny Peralta stands out there looking bored, lethargic, and apathetic, there isn't a stat in the world that can make him look anything but lazy.

Nino Colla: Uh yeah, I think it speaks to what they were playing like before the month of September. They had that attitude prior, but now it's just not there. I think the starting pitching has something to do with it as well.

In the end though, it doesn't really matter. You can make statistics say what you want, but in this case, this sort of "achievement" isn't really worth anything given the disappointment this season.

Scott Miles: Thanks to my friends at baseball-reference.com, I can tell you that through the first two innings of games, the Indians have been outscored 188-126, and 14 of those runs the Tribe scored came in one inning against the Yankees (that seems like 40 years ago.)

For comparison’s sake, the Yankees have outscored their opponents 198-168, and the Nationals have been outscored 187-149. So you want to get out to a lead early. And yes, our deficit in the early innings is worse than the Nationals’.

Basically, we’ve had a combination of poor pitching and even worse offensive production early in games. No wonder we had so many comeback wins, because we were always losing. But give credit to the steady hand of Eric Wedge—may his managerial career rest in peace—for never panicking when facing those early deficits. His steady nature probably had a big part in those comebacks.

Jeff Poore: The latter. If a team has a winning record then those come from behind wins MEAN something. When you have 90+ losses it just means you have a bad team that gets behind early and often.

2. The 2010 Tribe outfield appears to be pretty much set: Choo in right, Brantley in left, and Sizemore in center.

The infield picture, however, is a little less clear. How do you envision the infield shaping up next year, at each position as well as in utility roles?

Samantha Bunten: Jason Donald and Chris Gimenez can handle the utility roles. LaPorta at first, Valbuena at second, and Cabrera at short all look like virtual locks on their respective positions and have the potential to be a pretty decent infield. Unfortunately for the Indians, someone will still have to play third base.

Right now, the options appear to be Peralta and Marte. which anymore sounds about as promising as leaving the position completely vacant. I don't see the Indians acquiring a third baseman before next season—it's not as though they can afford to bring in a truly high quality hot corner guy, and they've already got two mediocre, utility type third basemen in Peralta and Marte so i can't imagine they would want to acquire another.

There isn't much promise in the system at third either. Lonnie Chisenhall should be an outstanding third baseman some day, but he isn't ready yet. Other than that, the system doesn't have much to offer in terms of players who could be big league ready any time soon.

Nino Colla: 1B LaPorta, 2B Valbuena, SS Cabrera, 3B Peralta/Marte.

I've yet to be able to peg what the Indians are going to do with Jhonny Peralta. If he stays he's a lock for third and Marte moves to the bench. If not it's Marte's job to lose.

I think the Indians are going to give Luis Valbuena every shot in the world to win the second base job. If he does, they'll be happy. If he flutters around, they'll probably be disappointed but they'll give him the job anyway. I think Jason Donald will be the same way for the middle infield utility spot.

Now, he may be Valbuena's biggest competitor for the second base job, but they'll find a way to get him there.

Marte would backup first and third, Donald short and second. The issue comes in with Chris Gimenez. I really like the kid, though some don't and think he's garbage. I'd keep him on the bench as a guy who can play any position you ask him to in a pinch. He's got outfield, infield, and catcher flexibility.

If you got Wyatt Toregas as the primary backup to Lou Marson (at least that's my hope and guess in what the Indians should and will do), Gimenez can be rover.

Scott Miles: I think the infield will look the same as it was at the end of this season—Jhonny Peralta at third, Asdrubal Cabrera at short (still the only big leaguer with the first name “Asdrubal”), Luis Valbuena at second and Matt LaPorta at first.

If Peralta can hit like he did in 2005 or 2008, this can be one of the best infields in baseball.

(By the way, I’ve long held that Peralta has been the true catalyst to this offense. In 2005, his splits were .292/.366/.520, with 24 HRs and 35 2Bs, and we scored the seventh-most runs in baseball. In 2008, it was .276/.331/.473, with 23 HRs and career-highs 89 RBI and 104 runs, and we scored the seventh-most runs in baseball.

This year? Just .259/.319/.382, with just 11 HRs and 56 runs scored, though he does have 81 RBI.)

The utility positions will be Andy Marte and/or Jason Donald. I think Marte will be given plenty of opportunities to prove himself in spring training, though I wouldn’t be surprised to see him traded at the end of camp to some team in desperate need of depth for a bucket of balls.

Neither will factor in much to the future plans, as the current starting infield could be in place for a long time.

Jeff Poore: Three of four is easy. LaPorta at first, Valbuena at second, and Cabrera at short.

Third base is an unknown. I have a feeling they will shop Peralta over the offseason but he still may be here. I have seen enough of Andy Marte...no mas por favor!

Nick Welgarz and Lonnis Chisenhall are not ready. They have some money to spend so it will be interesting if they do play Peralta. I see Jason Donald and Chris Gimenez as your utility guys.

3. Last week we discussed possible free agent signings for the Tribe this offseason, and there was a lot of support for signing a guy like Aaron Boone as a utility player/clubhouse guy.

Aside from Boone, are there other journeyman/veterans you would like to see join the Tribe for 2010? Who are your favorite candidates, and why?

Omar Vizquel has expressed interest in playing again in 2010 at age 42. He has spent 11 of his 21 seasons with the Tribe already. What do you think the chances are that Vizquel ends up being the veteran player the Tribe signs?

Samantha Bunten: If we're going to give away a roster spot to a veteran who is really only kept around for their off-field contributions, then I'm going to be pretty picky about who it is.

Aside from Boone, Vizquel is probably the only guy I would consider for this role. We know Vizquel has a good clubhouse presence, is good with young players, and perhaps most important, a huge fan favorite who might win back a few frustrated Tribe fans and sell a few tickets.

Sounds like a great idea on paper, but as always, there's a hitch in this plan, too.

First, can the money be used to get a younger player who can help this team to a winning record? Because if so, it's absolutely certain that fielding a competitive team will bring back more fans than Omar will, no matter how much we love him.

Second, signing Vizquel is not without huge risks. For one thing, he's 42 years old. If his knee fails, and at his age there is a good chance of that, then we're just paying one more injured guy to ride the pine.

Worse, if Vizquel does not get injured but can no longer play competitively, the Indians will be in a proverbial catch-22. Leave him on the 25-man roster and an ineffective player eats up a roster spot.

Demote him to triple-A or cut him, and you've just screwed over Omar Vizquel. Fans will mutiny whether that's the smartest decision or not.

That being said, if we do decide to sign this sort of player, I can't think of a single guy I'd rather see in that role than Vizquel.

Nino Colla: I think the chances are slim, but it all depends on what is going on in Mark Shapiro's brain. There isn't a bad aspect to this idea first off. For one, it will put fans in the seats, even if the team sucks. Ken Griffey Jr. generated some buzz, and hey, the team didn't do so bad either.

Now, attendance went down, but I think it's safe to say that attendance sort of went down for just about every team not located in Boston, Los Angeles, or New York, or a team that is now winning. The economy has produced that.

But what could it hurt? You'll generate a ton of money off merchandise because A) Cabrera will have to change his number and you'll sell off that, or B) Omar will change his number and people will WANT Omar gear. That's the financial aspect of it. It makes loads of sense.

On the field, it makes equally as much sense. He can play second, he can play third, we KNOW he can play short. He can do what he did in Texas and the Rangers beat reporter said the day Omar started at third, he automatically became the best third baseman in Rangers history, adding it to the best second baseman as well. It makes all the sense in the world on the field as well, you can't script a better situation.

Here is where I start to get bleary about it though. If this club really likes Jason Donald and they WANT him to be the utility man...He's going to be the utility man. I'd love for them to not take that attitude, but with Shapiro back there and whoever the manager is going to be, I have no clue.

You sign Omar to a minor league deal. He doesn't do enough or Jason Donald does and you have to cut Omar...THIS CITY WILL GO NUTS! Shapiro will be crucified the minute he makes the decision. I would understand, if the reason was justified, I understand the concepts and ideas and goals.

But there are way too many irrational fans that will go absolutely ballistic if their idol is cut. So would I love to see it happen? Absolutely I would, but I fear the worst case scenario.

Scott Miles: I’m not exactly sure why we’d need to sign any veterans. With all due respect to Aaron Boone and all that he has endured, why should he be on the team and take away a roster spot from one of our 812 rookies/young veterans who need playing time and experience? Not to mention that as of this writing, Boone is hitless in a mere 10 at-bats this season.

Shapiro wants to roll the dice with the youngsters. Well, let’s do it then. Give them all the at-bats. Let them learn on the job. We have veterans with Grady Sizemore and Travis Hafner and Peralta who can emerge as leaders.

Now, if Omar is serious about returning, I might soften my stance a bit...but only if he’s in a role like Jake Taylor mentoring Rube Baker in Major League 2. And maybe Omar can take over the team when Lou Brown has a midseason heart attack, too.

Jeff Poore: No veterans. Play the young guys. You have good young talent that goes deep right now and other than at third base, you really don't need a placeholder. I'd love to see Omar Vizquel back but really Jason Donald will be in that spot unless Omar takes a HUGE pay cut and someone gets injured.

4. This is the last week of the regular season, and thus the last week for the Tribe Talk column until next year. Please take this opportunity to briefly share your final thoughts on the 2009 Cleveland Indians.

Samantha Bunten: This question can truly only be answered with either a 10-page long rant or with one sentence along the lines of, "who sent this horrible team here to torture me and what awful thing could I possibly have done to deserve this?"

But this is Cleveland. We hope to win but we expect to lose. We expected a little more winning than we got this year, but we weren't all that surprised when the team failed to meet our expectations.

Still, the beauty of baseball is that no matter how it ends each season, we know it will be back again next spring. Let's close the books on this one, and believe, like always, that we'll get em next year.

Nino Colla: Aww, do I have to?

My final thought can be summed up in one phrase: "Blargh." Just blargh...What the hell happened?

This is painful to go through every year. I'm almost glad the expectations next year are for us to suck. Maybe now we'll play above that suck line and feel good. I know I will.

This year is one I want to remember but also forget. I want to remember the mistakes that were made, but not the pain that came with it. Okay maybe if I remember the pain...no, Shapiro should, it would better to motivate him.

I'm in no control of this club, nothing is going to change if I remember the pain. So, I want to forget the pain and remember the mistakes, so I can point them out if we ever do this again.

End O' Story, good bye 2009 Cleveland Indians, all 50 of you.

Scott Miles: Briefly? Is “train-wreck” brief enough? How about “crippling disappointment” or “bigger flops than every Eddie Murphy movie since 1990?*” Is that brief enough? * - Another 48 Hours came out in 1990. Since then, he has had one good movie – Life, in 1999. That movie is like the Tribe’s ALCS run in 2007, an aberration in a long period of ineptitude.

Jeff Poore: The guys ain't too bleeping good. Team had the pieces to be a contender but derailed with the failure of Fausto Carmona to be a second cog in the rotation and the bullpen imploding three separate times.

Hopefully, this is the year that Mark Shapiro finally learned his lesson.

5. Fun Question of the Week: Several months ago, we talked about what teams we would back down the end-of-season stretch, since the Tribe wasn't going to be in the running for a playoff spot.

Now that the playoff picture has become a little clearer, who are you backing for the playoffs in both the NL and the AL?

Samantha Bunten: I'm backing St. Louis both in the NL and all the way. They are my third favorite team behind the Indians and Milwaukee, one of the best run organizations in baseball, and are the team with arguably baseball's best fans.

The AL is tougher. I was hoping to see the Rangers get in, but since that didn't happen, my AL vote will depend on what happens in the final day of the season in the Central Division pennant race.

If Minnesota overtakes Detroit, I'm happy to back the Twins as my AL representative. If Detroit takes the Central title, then I guess I'll be rooting for the Angels as simply the lesser of four evils.

Nino Colla: Well I haven't decided if my picks are going to be the teams I back, or not. Okay, I haven't quite decided my picks either.

Right now in the AL, I think I'm pulling for the Angels, for two reasons: I picked them to win it all in the start of the year, and I'd like to be right so my ego feels good. Second, the story of Nick Adenhart is compelling and to see what the Angels would do if they won it all would be something.

In the NL, I think I'd love to see the Cardinals do it. They are just sort of likable. I often root for my picks, but in large part I'm rooting for stories.

Unless of course it's Yankees and Red Sox, then you can gag me.

Scott Miles: I don’t know how much of the playoffs I will watch. I’m just not overly supportive of any of these teams. I have great respect for the Cardinals organization, so I wouldn’t mind seeing them win. And the Rockies are an interesting story, but I just don’t know if I can handle another team that’s been around for less years than we have winning a World Series.

And in the AL, as much as we make fun of the overexposure of these teams...wouldn’t a Yankees-Red Sox ALCS be fun? The games will be competitive and intense. How many league championship series do you remember?

Outside of the ones the Indians played in, I can think of two—2003 and 2004 ALCS. Aaron Boone’s Game Seven homer in 2003, the Red Sox rally from being down 3-0 in 2004...it makes for entertaining and fun baseball.

Jeff Poore: The Angels and the the Phillies. The Angels are the only AL team left I don't detest and I'd love Cliff Lee to get a ring. But I think it will be the Red Sox and Dodgers. The Sox have the Yanks and Angels number and I have a feeling that Manny will see his old pals...

The Axe Finally Falls On Eric Wedge

Samantha Bunten — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:50:06 -0400

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Eric Wedge will reportedly be fired as the manager of the Cleveland Indians today.

There are few who would dispute that Wedge needed to go, but just how much of what went so wrong for the 2009 Indians was his fault? Perhaps not as much as he has been blamed for, but certainly enough to merit his dismissal.

Many have argued that after the trades that sent CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee, and Victor Martinez (as well as other big players) packing, Wedge was left to fight a war he couldn’t win, armed only with sticks and rocks against an enemy packing heavy artillery.

There is no doubt some truth to this assertion, but the fact remains that if Wedge had been able to manage the team successfully back when he had such talent at his disposal, most of those players would never have been traded away.

The Dolans promised to put money into the team if the team did well, and for a time, both parties held up their end of the bargain. In the end though, Wedge couldn’t continue to honor his part of the agreement, and ownership responded in kind by cutting back on payroll for a bad team, arguably a correct and proportionate response.

What the ownership giveth, the ownership may take away.

Of course, Wedge cannot be blamed for injuries, for the epic demise of Fausto Carmona, or for young pitching that failed to produce simply because the staff wasn’t ready to compete at a major league level.

The blame lies not only with bad management courtesy of Eric Wedge, but with poor personnel decisions made by Mark Shapiro, with a group of players who appeared to have given up at the first sign of trouble, and with just plain old bad luck.

Still, Wedge was well aware of what failure, no matter how the blame was divided up, would cost him personally. The proverbial Sword of Damocles has been hanging above Wedge's head for quite some time now. He, as much as anyone else involved, had the opportunity to stop the blade from falling.

Certainly there is some accuracy in the claim that Wedge was just the sacrificial lamb made to pay for the 2009 season, just as Louis Issacs was when the bullpen failed in 2008. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t deserve to be shown the door.

If Wedge was merely the whipping boy meant to stand before the world and take all the lashes that a whole cast of characters had earned, then I can’t think of a better candidate to take the fall.

Tribe Talk: Reflections from the AL Central Cellar

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:28:16 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week, as the Indians sit firmly in the AL Central cellar, we ponder whether the Tribe or the Royals are the worst team in the division, think ahead about long-term contracts we would like to see sewn up for some of our young players this winter, and wonder if things have gotten so bad this season that we just want to be put out of our collective misery.

I would like to thank this week's participant Dale Thomas for his contribution.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. After a brief period of improvement in late July/early August, the Indians seem to have reverted back to their blundering, first half form, losing 19 of their last 22.

The recent losing streak has landed the Tribe back in the AL Central cellar, in last place behind even Kansas City.

Can the Indians get out of the cellar before the season ends? Right now, who is the better team, the Indians or the Royals? When things are this bad, does it really not even matter?

And is there any chance the Indians don't even win two of the remaining 13 games, and thus suffer their first 100-loss season since 1991?

Dale Thomas: Since Kansas City has 12 wins in their last 20 games, I guess I have to say that for the moment, the Royals are the better team.

Then again, there was that run after the break where the Indians were the better team.

Wait! Kansas City has only scored 638 runs to Cleveland's 721. Cleveland is better. We have more home runs, too! Better. The Tribe has been hit by waaay more pitches! Better?

Let's see...what else? We dumped a Cy Young pitcher and the hottest hitting catcher in the league...better...better...ah...who am I kidding? Does it matter? Nah.

I think the Indians can win two more. We'll squeak in under the 100-loss wire, but I'm not sure that matters either.

Being better than the Royals is like...well, it's like that age-old expression: "It's better than nothing." The sad thing is that we are clearly not better than nothing. We may be the nothing that everybody else is better than.

Samantha Bunten: It's tough to say who the better of the two teams is when both are so incredibly bad compared to the rest of the league, so perhaps I should have phrased this question, "Which team is worse?"

There may be no joy in Mudville, but there is absolute misery in Cleveland and Kansas City. So I figure we can argue about who is in more pain or we can just suck it up and use our time in the dungeons of the AL Central to "sit and think about what we've done."

I suppose I'll say that Kansas City is the weaker of the two teams. Despite the fact that they are now one-and-a-half games ahead of the Indians in the standings, the Tribe took the head-to-head season series 10 games to eight.

The Indians will find a way to eek out two more wins and avoid the dreaded 100-loss tag, though they may very well lose 98 or 99.

As for getting out of the cellar, well, your guess is as good as mine. I don't think it really matters anyway. There's no prize for being the second-worst in the division, and at the end of the day, both Cleveland and Kansas City are still two really bad teams.

The real question is, who has a better shot of bouncing back next year? I'll put my money on the Tribe.

2. With a group of young players filling out most of the roster and the team in a rebuilding phase of sorts, it seems unlikely that the Indians will be very active in the free agent market this winter. However, the team will surely make some small moves to plug a few holes as best they can.

Relieving themselves of the salaries of Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez through midseason trades has freed up at least a little room to maneuver in the payroll. What do you see the Indians going after in the free agent market this winter?

Dale Thomas: Hey! David Dellucci is available! Let's do that again! Or maybe we can find a free agent GM?

I do have one serious entry though, and I'm seriously serious about the seriousness of this entry: Aaron Boone.

Yes, I said Aaron Boone.

His value might not be such that he fills a team need backed up by statistical reference, but let's face the fact that somebody has to turn this jumble of wanna-be's into a team that lives and dies together come hell or high water.

Someone has to be a good dad and teach these guys concepts like picking each other up when they fall. How to feed off of another player's energy. How to support a pitching staff with small ball run support and good defense, or how to support an offense with solid relief pitching—when to swing for the fences and when to just get that bat on a ball.

When to high five your teammate and when to let him know he needs to shut up or step up. Someone to have a cookout now and then and share his life. Someone to help a troubled player deal with whatever, or someone to craft a player-driven plan necessitated by a sudden tailspin.

Our manager has proved over and over that he can't do this, his coaches can't do this, and the front office can't do this.

I also think Boone still has a few things to offer coming off the bench, and I think he would come in cheap. This way that money we are saving would go towards NOT dumping the players that we do sign instead of bringing in payroll to be traded or dumped midway through the season.

Intangible value is still value, and as I look at the long list of 30-somethings and what they would bring to the team for the money they command, this is the guy that stands out.

Okay, time for my meds...

Samantha Bunten: The joke, as always, is, will we re-sign Carl Pavano and do the whole thing over again? I'm guessing not, since most of us, the front office included, are beginning to lose our sense of humor given the way the season has gone.

Still, I think the sentiment behind the joke is correct—the few dollars the Indians can afford to allocate to free agent signings this winter will likely go to a one-year, incentive-laden contract for a veteran pitcher with something to prove. A pitcher who, like the Indians, has little to lose and everything to gain.

I think this is a good move. The Pavano signing last offseason, in my opinion, was a smart one, and a similar move this offseason could be just as helpful.

Aside from that, I do think there is a possibility that we will see the front office bring in a veteran catcher to help out the young backstops and eat up some innings behind the plate as well.

Mostly though, the Indians should use the money that was freed up by letting Martinez and Lee go to lock up their young talent with long-term contracts.

3. On a related note, the extra money made available when Lee and Martinez were traded might be used, at least in part, to lock up long-term deals for some of the Tribe's promising young players.

Of players who would be in a position to work out this sort of deal, who do you think the Indians should prioritize and focus on signing to long-term contracts?

Dale Thomas: It seems that about 90 percent of this group of guys we currently call a "team" have contracts that expire after this year. I guess that's cool though, since we really don't know these guys well enough to miss them if they disappear next year.

Whether this is because they came in under a minor league contract or not, it brings into perspective the fact that we play like a group of strangers that had to go to the corporate picnic the day before the layoffs.

Maybe we should just forget contracts in favor of a low cost temporary work force who serve their probationary year in Cleveland to determine their worthiness for a full-time spot on a team that has accounted for the fact that players tend to want paychecks and fans tend to buy tickets if they know who they are coming to see.

I mean, let's think about a rock concert with this billing: Random Band Playing. Singer to be named later. Tickets $100.00...okay, okay...I'll answer the question.

Laffey has to be locked up and so does Asdrubal Cabrera. We need Choo, so add him to the list along with Sowers (I continue my blind faith in Jeremy). Brantley is a "must do." He has made an airtight case for himself in a very short time...reminds me of how Victor looked initially, except better.

Valbuena is on my list along with Huff and a couple of Perezes. So as you can see, I'm still trying to figure out how to prioritize an entire team's roster since I figure there is no way we'll go out and bring in veterans.

Samantha Bunten: The first person the Indians should sit down and work out a deal with is Asdrubal Cabrera. I can see him getting a deal similar to the one Grady Sizemore got. His age, talent, and experience are perfect for the sort of low-risk, high reward deal that we see so frequently these days between small market clubs and young talent with great potential.

I would prioritize signing David Huff to a long term deal, too, though I wouldn't afford him the same caliber of offer I would give to Cabrera. I wouldn't mind locking up Laffey in a modest, multi-year deal as well.

Guys like Brantley and LaPorta will probably be in a position to command this sort of deal eventually, but they will need at least another year of convincing performance to prove they're worth it, and the Tribe doesn't need to be in a hurry given that they control both players for several years to come.

4. Now that he is getting regular playing time, Matt LaPorta appears to finally be living up to advance billing. While he is still batting just .235/.278/.426 on the season, over the last seven days, he has posted an impressive .370/.414/.667.

Do you think this is just a fluke, or has LaPorta finally found his stride? How much credit for his improvement do you give to the fact that he is finally getting consistent playing time?

Finally, do you like LaPorta at first base rather than in the outfield, especially given that the team has a crowded outfield and arguably no other viable candidates at first base?

Dale Thomas: I think LaPorta's stride is exactly the .235 hitter that he has been over the course of the season. I do think he's had a good week though, and I'm thrilled that he has seven good games under his belt.

He's hitting only .196 at home though. I mean what's up with that? He hits .299 on the road, so maybe we need to arrange for him to live in Toledo so that he travels to all games.

I do think that consistent playing time is important, since his average tends to creep upward towards the end of those months that he played.

A huge concern for me is that he seems to struggle when he has runners on base. So, trouble when runners are on, trouble at home games, trouble when he is first called up...this may indicate he has a case of nerves, but once he settles down, he can hit okay.

I don't really see him as a .300 hitter over an entire season. I see him hovering around .260, and being that guy who let's the pressures of baseball get into his head and affect his performance at the plate.

He swings better when he's relaxed, so maybe he will prove me totally wrong once he has an established position and a full time job.

I would rather see LaPorta at first base than in the outfield for the same reasons you state above. We really don't have a first baseman, and first base keeps you involved one way or another in pretty much every play. This might keep his nerves in check...you know...stay busy and trust your reflexes.

Samantha Bunten: September stats are very difficult to judge. Any baseball fan will tell you, "weird stuff happens in September," and they're right.

Solid performers choke and underachievers soar, highly touted prospects fall flat in their first turn in the majors, while young guys called up only as afterthoughts establish a convincing presence. And none of that is necessarily any indication of how any of those players will perform next April or throughout their career.

So I guess it's a little premature to say LaPorta has truly figured this whole big league thing out and hit his stride.

However, I am truly impressed by the amount of progress he has made. Back in July I had some serious misgivings about LaPorta—maybe Milwaukee took us for a ride in the Sabathia trade (Oh, the horror)—but he has proved that he has a very solid skill set and the potential to be an excellent player in the future.

His average over the past week is certainly deceptively high, more an indication that he is locked in right now than that he's suddenly become a .300-plus hitter. The .235 overall average still looms very, very large. Ultimately, I see LaPorta as a solid .260-.270 hitter with good power.

I'm in favor of the first base move. While LaPorta still looks more comfortable in the outfield, he will adjust to playing first with relative ease, and that's a good thing for the team because we need a solid first baseman badly, whereas outfielders we have in spades.

5. Fun (sort of) Question of the Week: There is no denying that this has been a very rough season. As much as we love our Tribe, there have been many moments when all of us have covered our eyes during a game and wailed "Make it stop!"

Yet we're also still watching, no matter how bad things have become. With the end of the season coming in a few short weeks, are you sad to see the Tribe's 2009 effort coming to a close, or has this season been so painful that you'll mostly just be relieved when it's over?

Dale Thomas: I like baseball. I feel pretty good just watching a couple of neighborhood kids playing a game of catch, so yes, I'll miss watching the games. Of course, I'd rather be watching a knuckle-biter that determines a division crown or a wild card slot or...(slaps self twice) maybe even a shot at the world championship.

Still, I'm perfectly okay with watching players play, even when they're on a struggling team.

I can get excited about a given player's approach to positioning himself on the field, like a shortstop edging towards second in a 2-1 count with a runner on first, or playing at the cut of the grass, or a hitter swinging freely in an 0-2 count, or having the ability to get his bat on the ball when the pitch is tailing in and sinking out of the zone.

I might just count how many signs my pitcher shakes off or take note of whether or not the closer is just throwing heat. It's all those little things that make the game fun and interesting to watch in a losing season.

Baseball is a team sport that inspires loyalty through familiarity. I can live with a team that isn't doing well, but it's hard to love a team when you don't know who's on it, and even harder when you know who's on it one day, but don't the next. I'm actually more upset by the organization's "strategic" moves than I am from watching the players play.

I like seeing the effort and enthusiasm of a cohesive unit that calls themselves a team, and I even like listening to Rick Manning and...ummm...yeah, that other guy trying to convince us that everything will be okay, when clearly, they don't believe it themselves.

Winning teams spark conversation and interest, so it gives us all something to talk about. Losing teams provide the same thing: Something to talk about and a forum from which we can tap into our armchair management skills.

However, when you don't know any of the players and don't have at least a little bit of history with them, people stop talking altogether. They just don't bring up the Indians anymore. Even the announcers seem defeated and aloof.

So after that lengthy ramble, I guess I'm neither sad nor relieved at this season's end, because the Tribe's season really ended quite a while ago and we have just been watching a bunch of guys going through the motions without noticeable purpose. I've rarely, possibly never, seen such apathy in players, media, management and fans all at the same time.

So, as this season of horrors comes to a close, I feel duty-bound to throw kudos towards the good folks at Bleacher Report for keeping Tribe Talk going.

Moreover, huge credit goes out to Samantha for keeping this season alive and enlightening through her unrelenting support for the Cleveland Indians, her impressive depth of knowledge...and maybe above all...for those snappy headlines! Go Tribe!!

Samantha Bunten: The great baseball writer Roger Kahn once said, "You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."

This is indisputably true when your team loses the World Series by one game. Not so much when your team enters a season with great potential, only to completely go off the rails by May and appear so incompetent by September that you spend more time banging your head off a wall than cheering and have to consider the possibility that you may lose 100 games right around the time of year you thought you would be in a pennant race.

But no matter how incredibly not in love with the Indians I am at the moment, that doesn't mean I love baseball any less than I always have. It also doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching the Tribe play, however badly, because every game left on the schedule is one more baseball game I get to watch before the 2009 season ends.

This is not to say I won't be relieved in a way when the season is over, given how painful the Tribe has been to watch and how painful it must be for them to play it out in this futile march toward inevitable doom. I'll still miss baseball this off-season, just like I always do, but I will in a way, be relieved to see the Cleveland season end.

The Indians and I, well, we could both use a break.

Tribe Talk: Think the 2009 Indians Are Bad? We've Seen Worse

Samantha Bunten — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:43:44 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we weigh in on the worst Indians' team in recent memory, mull over why Andy Marte is still around, and debate who the bigger mess is: Indians or Browns.

I would like to thank this week's participants Nino Colla, Jeff Poore, and Scott Miles for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. Three weeks left to go in the season, three months since we gave the season up for lost. Time to start reflecting back on 2009, even if most of us would prefer to forget it.

Is this the absolute worst Indians team in your recent memory? Or at least the most disappointing? At what point did you realize that the season was a lost cause? Do you expect things to get better next year?

Samantha Bunten: This team can't even begin to touch the 2003 squad when it comes to claiming the "Worst Team In Recent Memory" title. Bill Selby, anyone?

I think I've blocked out most of the rest of the 2003 roster, it was so bad. This team, however, was more disappointing.

We've said it a million times over the course of the season: Part of the reason watching this team has been so upsetting is not because they've been so bad, but because we expected them to be good and never saw it coming.

Subconsciously, I threw in the towel after the Milwaukee series in June but refused to officially hang it up until the All-Star break. Even after the break in August, fellow contributor Scott Miles and I entertained hopes of a Major League-like comeback from 11 games back in the central. We know, we know: silly us.

Still, I do think things will get better next year. MUCH better. Whether or not this is an accurate prediction or a foolish hope will remain a mystery until next April, but it would be hard for things to get worse.

Nino Colla: Has it been three months since we've given up? Damn, time flies when you're sorrowful.

They aren't the worst, not by a long shot, but certainly one of the most disappointing teams, right up there with last year's squad. However, I think I'd go with last year's squad as more disappointing. They had starting pitching and not as many injuries. This one had a lot of injuries and starting pitching that was suspect from the start.

I think expectations of a bounce-back, plus the addition of two higher priced veterans in Wood and DeRosa gave this team even more expectations.

I'm highly disappointed in them, but I'd actually go with last year as more of a disappointment the way they started out of the gate and the way they finished, even without Hafner, Sabathia, a healthy Martinez and everything else.

Things will get better next year because expectations aren't to win. I can already feel a better start or season next year because no one is expecting the Indians to do anything. Yet they've got talent as we've seen and they'll probably do what they did in the second half all of next year.

They won't completely suck, but they won't be world-beaters by any means. Expectations won't be high, so they'll play above them and everyone will feel good.

Jeff Poore: Worst team was 2003 after the sell-off of 2002. It ended the Jacobs Field Era of Champions and ended it hard.

The most disappointing was 2008 as many of the core pieces (especially starting pitching) were in place for a run and the team flopped big time. After the first month when it was apparent that Cliff Lee was the only pitcher you could count on, I started to worry. The Interleague debacles versus the Cubs and Brewers sealed their fate.

Scott Miles: It's a toss-up between this team and the 2003 team (68-94).

For me, it boils down to this: which scrubs were the worst? 2003 featured legends like Shane Spencer, Tim Laker, Ricky Gutierrez, Bill Selby (Granny off Mariano Rivera!), Jason Boyd, Ricardo Rodriguez, Nick Bierbrodt...essentially, the 1927 Yankees.

In five or 10 years, we'll look back at the 2009 Tribe and see a roster littered with Chris Gimenez, Niuman Romaro, Tony Graffanino, Tomo Ohko, Jess Todd, Jose Veras, Masa Kobayashi and also shake our heads. So it's a toss-up for which team is worse, but the '09 version is certainly more disappointing.

I had a bad feeling about this season from the get-go, after Cliff Lee got shelled on opening day and realizing that (at the time) we were relying on him, Fausto, Pavano, Scott Lewis and Jeremy Sowers to carry the pitching staff. Yikes.

Will it get better next year? Well, can't get much worse, can it?

2. No matter who is to blame, no one can deny that Tribe pitching, on the whole, has been awful.

How much do you blame pitching coach Carl Willis for this? Was Willis simply not provided enough talent to build an effective staff, or should he shoulder much of the blame for failing to get a productive season out of what staff he had?

When viewing the situation independently of what happens to Eric Wedge, would you fire Carl Willis? Who would you like to see replace him?

Samantha Bunten: The sad band of has-beens and greenhorns that made up this season's pitching staff could not have been turned into anything other than what they were (a mess), by any pitching coach.

I don't care if you're Leo Mazzone, guys like Jose Veras won't be any great shakes whether they've had good instruction or not.

That being said, Willis still needs to go. While I don't blame him for what has happened this season, I will hold him accountable for failing to put together a halfway decent bullpen EVER over his entire career (save once, in 2007, when I believe he just got lucky).

Truth be told, Willis is probably the first guy I would fire. A pitching coach, especially one no one will miss, is infinitely more replaceable than a manager or a General Manager. There are a million former pitchers out there who couldn't do a whole lot worse than Willis has, and perhaps a fresh perspective could change a lot.

Nino Colla: I can blame Willis all I want, but really it's on the players for the most part. You can nit-pick on Willis for players, but when you've got Rafael Perez stinking up the joint and completely baffling us as to what is wrong, I can't blame Willis. Not even Columbus figured him out and people regard Scott Radinksky (Columbus pitching coach) as better than Willis because they are that anti-Wedge regime.

So there is nothing you can say towards Willis on that matter, no one has fixed Perez, he's baffling.

There wasn't much starting pitching here to work with. I hold him accountable for the young arms though. David Huff, Aaron Laffey, Jeremy Sowers, Carlos Carrasco. He needs to be responsible for those guys now and in the future.

The Indians have done what they could with Fausto Carmona and it seems to be having some effect, but the move is for the long-term, not the short-term. They want him to be a pitcher, and in that regard, I tip my hat to Willis.

You can say the guy coached two Cy Young Award winners in a row just as much as you can say he lucked into that. It doesn't matter. He's largely responsible for the Cliff Lee turnaround just by showing Lee he had faith in him.

Sometimes that's all you have to do. Anthony Reyes didn't see eye-to-eye with Dave Duncan. That guy might be a miracle worker, bu Willis' style is different and was something Reyes warmed up to.

Carl Willis isn't the greatest pitching coach in the world and he isn't everyone's favorite, but you could do a far worse. I don't think I can view the situation independently. If there is another guy out there that you can assure me is better, that would be cheaper, then sure.

But if Eric Wedge goes, Willis staying has to be up to the guy coming in. If the Indians solution to this year's problems is to fire Willis, you better have a damn good replacement and you better be sure of it.

Jeff Poore: The entire coaching staff needs to go. Players play and coaches coach and the players have played poorly, however, the coaching staff has never "fixed" any of their players, ever. Especially on the pitching staff.

For example, Fernando Cabrera, Jason Davis, Fausto Carmona, Jensen Lewis, Rafael Perez and many others. It's all about accountability and being able to reach the players. Carl Willis' voice has run stale.

Scott Miles: Do I need to repeat the names of the starters that I listed above? Or mention Ohka or Kobayashi or Veras again? The fact that the organization brought in approximately 429 pitchers this summer through trades should indicate the talent (or lack thereof) in the system as a whole.

No one will confuse Willis for Dave Duncan in St. Louis, but he hasn't been bad as a pitching coach. He must be doing something right to have two straight Cy Young winners.

All that being said, it would be interesting if the Indians could lure John Farrell from Boston back to Cleveland.

Farrell, the longtime Red Sox pitching coach who pitched for the Indians (and whose family still lives in Cleveland...I got to know his son Shane through collegiate summer baseball) has long been rumored to be a managerial candidate, and his vast experience handling staffs could only help. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out with the coaching staff.

3. While the future of much of the Tribe's roster is, at best, uncertain, one player whose future is even more of a mystery than his the rest of his current teammates is the ever-struggling, oft-maligned Andy Marte.

What do you think the future holds for Marte? Will he still be in the organization next Spring?

Did you see the Indians' move to convert Matt LaPorta to a first baseman as a clear signal that Marte should start packing his bags? Would you be sorry to see him go, or relieved?

Samantha Bunten: Marte is, was, and always will be the same guy he was when he first came to the Indians' organization: an excellent triple-A player, and a colossal failure as a major leaguer.

Truth be told, I can't stand seeing Marte out there. He's been given too many chances, has consistently squandered them all, and then every year his bat gets hot in triple-A and we all have to hear a bunch of people clamoring to know why Marte hasn't been called up "despite hitting so well."

All of this of course goes back to the Brandon Phillips situation, a little thank you gift left behind by the departed Phillips that will forever have our organization terrified of giving up on a young player who failed to reach expectations.

The Indians need to cut bait and realize that Andy Marte is not Brandon Phillips. The upside of that is that Marte will never be the whining, excuse-making jerk that Phillips still is today. The downside is that he will also never be the productive player Phillips has turned into either. Let Marte weigh down someone else's roster. It's time to let go.

Nino Colla: It's beginning to look a lot more like Marte will be with this club next year in one way or another. Be it as a backup corner infielder, with Jason Donald being the backup middle infielder, or as the starting THIRD baseman, the probability is growing.

They could make it easy and trade Peralta to save some cash and more importantly, the headache that is he is because of his pouting and resistance. Or they could keep Marte around. I think the move to first base for LaPorta was before Marte even was called up.

That has no bearing on Marte. The only reason Marte is playing first base right now is because that's the only spot to get him playing time at. If he's here next year, he'll be a backup at the corner infielder, or he'll be at third with Peralta gone.

LaPorta will probably make the move to first permanently next year as Michael Brantley and Trevor Crowe are both better outfielders and they both figure to play a part in the outfield battle, probably with both ending up on the roster as LF and backup OF.

I'd be sorry to see Marte go, especially after what he's accomplished. There is no better story this year for the Tribe than Marte's resurrection from obscurity. Everyone left him for dead and he went from being a little-used backup in Columbus, to starting at first in Cleveland.

I think the turnaround is for real and while he might not be the top prospect we all thought he was going to be, he's serviceable for a year or two, especially since he's still young.

Jeff Poore: Marte is of no value and should not be here. He is what he is. He'll hit under .250 with a giant hole in his swing and play average defense. He is only here because the Dolans and Shapiro are afraid of another Brandon Phillips situation. That being said, he could still be here if the Tribe brass tries to cut more money and trade Jhonny Peralta.

Scott Miles: I have long maintained that the Brandon Phillips trade has crippled the team's evaluation of young players. They have no idea how long to leave someone in the lineup when they're struggling, when to call someone up to the big leagues, etc.

To put it simply, the team has stunk in developing talent from the minor leagues. Marte is caught in that same rut, as he just can't seem to make that transition from AAA to big leagues.

But with the team going nowhere next year, I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the big league roster at the start, probably splitting at bats between third and first. But I have no idea what his future holds, only that he better start hitting—and quickly—if he wants to stick.

4. Speaking of Andy Marte, he's a perfect example of the criticism that many foist on the Indians for giving certain players far too many chances while not giving others nearly enough.

Jordan Brown has been the poster child for the flip side of that argument lately, as many believe Brown isn't getting the opportunities he deserves.

Do you think Brown is being shafted by the organization because he has not been promoted, or do you see the logic in keeping Brown in AAA because he is not on the 40-man roster and because the Tribe has other players they need to look at more than him?

Which other Tribe players, in your opinion, have been given too many chances? Which other players haven't been given enough of a shot?

Samantha Bunten: No matter what the reason, Jordan Brown got a bad deal. It pains me to watch Andy Marte and Trevor Crowe blunder around the ball field as thought they've never seen one before while Brown has never even gotten the opportunity to prove himself at a major league level.

Maybe he won't be any better, but he sure can't be any worse.

We complain about Brandon Phillips still squawking about the Indians years after he left the organization. When Brown takes his leave, he'll be a guy who will have good reason to bash the Indians for years to come.

The list of players given too many chances is far from short: Veras, Crowe, Kobayashi, Marte, the (thankfully) departed David Dellucci, all given too many chances, while Ryan Garko never got his due and was eventually traded and Brown sits in Columbus, held back for reasons the team has never truly bothered to explain satisfactorily.

Nino Colla: I don't think they gave Andy Marte too many chances. I think they misused him gravely and waited too long to give him one this year. But that's another story for another day. They give veterans like David Dellucci and Jason Michaels too many chances.

Jordan Brown is completely getting the shaft here and this is something I haven't quit on in the past few weeks. While I understand the logic they've used here, I don't fully agree with it. I think there are ways around their reasoning, but again, this is a business and they're going to run it how they see fit.

If they feel their best interests and Jordan Brown's best interests for remaining with this club is by not calling him up, I'm not going to argue.

I think we've given too many chances to the likes of Jose Veras and the retreads of the world. I'm sick of it. Call up Frank Herrmann and let's see what he's got. Some don't regard him as much of a major leaguer, but those are the guys that always surprise you. Why not give him a shot and why not do it now?

Jose Veras, Mike Gosling, really? Those are the guys you are going to depend on next year? No you aren't, so if Frank Herrmann is given a shot and it works out, you found yourself a relief pitcher, a younger one at that.

In the past, they've given too many chances to the David Dellucci's of the world, Masa Kobayashi, Jason Johnson, and Ramon Vazquez. While they didn't really give any shots to the likes of Jeremy Guthrie. It's sick, but whatever, it happens. You win some, you lose some.

Jeff Poore: Brown should have been promoted regardless whether there were at bats for him here. It sets a bad precedent in the organization that if you play at that level you do not get rewarded.

Niuman Romero is only here because Jason Donald got injured, but Eric Wedge threw the front office under the bus by playing Romero and Chris Gimenez at first base in consecutive games. All the veteran retread relievers that are here (I'm looking at you Jose Veras) instead of the young arms shouldn't be here.

Scott Miles: Chris Gimenez and Niuman Romero have, between them, 112 big league at bats (through Tuesday evening). If you want to lump Marte in there, that's 244 at-bats that Jordan Brown could have had.

And, at least with Gimenez and Romero, they have nowhere NEAR the accolades that Brown has in the minors. So that is extremely, extremely puzzling to me. Why the Indians want to take more looks at those two, I have no idea.

Other players with too many chances: Jose Veras, Jess Todd, Kobayashi, Trevor Crowe. Not enough: Matt LaPorta, Matt Herges (where have you gone, Matty?), Michael Brantley.

5. Fun Question of the Week: The Browns lost their opening game on Sunday, 34-20, confirming for many of us that the football season in Cleveland is shaping up to possibly be as disastrous as the baseball season.

Make your call: At the end of their respective 2009 seasons, who will look like the bigger mess, the Browns or the Indians? And which team gets back to the playoffs first?

Samantha Bunten: In some ways this question is like asking which of two goldfish is the dumber one. Once your team is a "disaster", it's hard to know, or care, whose mess is the biggest.

It's tempting, if you're of the "beer bottle is half full" persuasion, to say the Browns will be less of a mess, because, well, they still have 15 of 16 games remaining to prove that. The Indians cemented their status as a colossal mess three months ago. Dare to dream, Browns fans.

You also have to assume that the Browns will get back to the playoffs first, if for no other reason than that NFL parity rules make things much more democratic in terms of the chance each and every team in the league has to succeed every year than the system baseball uses.

However, the Indians do play in a far less competitive division than the Browns do, so they will not need to be as comparatively strong to have a shot at claiming their respective division crown.

Nino Colla: This is a loaded question for a Steeler fan. I don't think either team is a "mess", though I know I might sound crazy for saying that.

I think the chances for getting back to the playoffs are higher in the NFL. That doesn't mean I think the Browns are the better team at this point in time. But it's so easy to go from worst to first in the NFL with the draft and the turnover, that the Browns could be sitting there next year and we wouldn't have known how. They need to pull the right strings.

I think Mangini was a good hire and he'll whip that team up into shape, get his guys in there, and put together some successful seasons soon enough.

I don't think the Indians are that far behind as far as putting together a team that can contend for a playoff spot, especially when you are dealing with the AL Central.

I'd say it's easier for the Browns to get back to the playoffs first just because of their situation, but the Indians have the luxury of playing in a crud division, so the playing field is sort of level, while the Browns have more spots open up for them, the Indians probably have an easier way of getting there.

It's going to take some hard work and good bounces for them both though.

Jeff Poore: The Indians will be a bigger mess just due to the fact that they were expected to be contenders and have taken some self-inflicted steps backwards.

The Browns will start slow but show improvement and leave the fan base with a better taste in their mouths.

With NFL parity the Browns have a better chance to make the playoffs at some point and until the Tribe gets a starting pitching staff they will not contend.

Scott Miles: Right now, the Browns are like a child scribbling in crayon all over the wall, and the Indians are a dog knocking over the garbage can in the kitchen. You're not happy with either one of them, but only one of them stinks.

The Indians are a bigger mess, while at least with the new coaches with the Browns, they have something positive going. Which team gets back to the playoffs first? Likely the Indians, if for the very fact that the AL Central has never been overly strong, whereas the Browns have to contend with the Ravens and the Stillers every year.

Tribe Talk: The Slow Death of Grady Sizemore's 2009 Season

Samantha Bunten — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:03:34 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we discuss the woes of Grady Sizemore, what Michael Brantley and Tony Sipp bring to the table, and the ramifications, both legal and ethical, of failing to disclose an injury during a trade.

I would like to thank this week's participant Dale Thomas for his contribution.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. After stubbornly refusing to shut down Grady Sizemore since it first became evident that he was injured, the Indians have finally pulled the plug and ended Sizemore's season.

Sizemore is scheduled to undergo surgery on both his inflamed elbow and on his injured abdomen over the next two weeks.

Fans have lambasted the Indians' brass for allowing Sizemore to continue to play hurt for so long. What do you think?

Should the Indians have shut down Sizemore back when it first became evident that he needed surgery? Would your opinion be different if the team were in a pennant race?

How much say do you really think Sizemore had in the matter, and if the decision WAS mostly his, do you think he was foolish to lobby to finish the season?

Dale Thomas: This is kind of a hot button with me. I think they should have shut him down much, much earlier. The decision to keep him out there hurt Grady's play and so goes the team's play on whole. They gambled with this guy's future and present. They lost the bet with the present, and I can only hope we haven't lost a bet with his future.

There's a part of me that says my answer might be different if we were contending, but it's only a small thought. He couldn't hit, struggled with throwing, and couldn't really make those classic Grady diving catches, so how would he have helped the team even if they were in a pennant race?

There are rumors around that this was largely Grady's own decision, but that's just so weird that I can't fully believe it. If it was indeed his own decision, then someone should have stepped in to help him with that decision.

Players want to play, so I understand the emotions that may have gone into the decision, but hey, he didn't finish the season anyway, his stats are trashed, and any additional damage done is unknown to me, but I have to believe there was additional damage done. Yes, I think it was foolish...or at least misdirected thinking.

Samantha Bunten: This situation should NEVER have happened. The Indians should have shut Sizemore down way back when they first learned he would need elbow surgery.

It's a tough call in a pennant race, but in a lost season like the Tribe is having, it's the easiest call in the world. Shame on the organization for not only leaving Sizemore out there to possibly aggravate the injury, but also to take the heat for possibly being part of the decision making process that has kept him on the field while injured for far longer than he should have been.

Nobody should be jumping on Sizemore for this. Did he WANT to keep playing? Of course. Did he think he was tough enough to play through it? Of course. Whether he knew if he really SHOULD be playing isn't known to the public, but that is irrelevant.

There is no way this was truly his decision. Here's how a baseball team works: you, the player, are allowed to make all of your own decisions, so long as your decisions are the same ones the team has already made for you.

2. As frustrating as the situation with Sizemore has been, on September first, some small good finally came of it. Tribe fans were given a first look at young outfielder Michael Brantley, who has been impressive in his debut, hitting in each of his first six games, batting .391 with two RBIs and four runs and even escaping a run-down last Sunday.

What do you think of Brantley thus far? Has his success merely been beginners' luck, or do you think he can keep up this caliber of play?

Do you see Brantley as part of the Tribe's outfield in 2010? Has Matt LaPorta's possible move to first freed up a starting job in the outfield for Brantley next year?

How important is Brantley's speed to his value, especially given that this is a team that could certainly stand to be faster and smarter on the base paths as a group?

Dale Thomas: Let me start by saying this to the last part of the question... I sure do miss seeing Manny Ramirez on those base paths... he was like having a new puppy on a leash...walking along fine, then hears a siren or something and bolts off randomly, smack into a tree... or in Manny's case, into the second baseman, or the ball itself... or the grounds keepers' entrance... or just going the wrong direction period. All at the speed of glue.

Oh! But this is about Brantley!

First, I'm happy to know that Brantley isn't his first name. I'm impressed by that. I'm also very impressed with his play thus far. By all appearances, I wouldn't count this as luck. He looks very comfortable at the plate as well as in the field. He has connected with some sick pitches, staying on the ball well and just making contact in some tough situations.

His speed is sorely needed and very important to his overall value... for example, he can turn an out into an infield single with speed, or he can create opportunities for runs by sneaking (or jetting) into scoring position.

We may see some doubles turn into triples, or take doubles away from the opposition by running down a scorcher to the wall.

Speed is huge. Speed with intuition is even better.

As with all players, Brantley will need to earn his spot in the outfield, but he certainly is off to a good start.

Samantha Bunten: I can't say enough good things about Brantley. He's the most exciting young player I have seen with the Tribe in a long time.

So far Brantley has looked sharp in the field, sharper at the plate, and still sharper on the base paths.

The play on Sunday where he got out of the run-down is tougher for the base runner than it looks. Brantley was able to not only keep the run down going long enough to allow the runner to score from third, but also to then managed to avoid a tag and scamper safely back to the bag.

I do think Brantley can keep this up. I think he will be a key player for the Indians next year, part of a very solid outfield with Sizemore and Choo.

Perhaps most important, the speed that Brantley brings to the lineup is incredible. Brantley is also the "smart" sort of fast...the kind of guy who has the speed, the instincts, and the brains to be an excellent strategic base runner. The Indians don't have many of those. Brantley is worth a lot for that skill alone.

3. For the most part, Indians pitching in 2009 has been abominable, but one definite bright spot has been reliever Tony Sipp.

Sipp has allowed just one run and five hits in his last 15 appearances, striking out 17. He is 2-0 with a 3.30 ERA on the season in 36 appearances. What do you think the future holds for Sipp? Can he continue to be as dominant as he has been for the rest of the season and for the foreseeable future?

Have any other Tribe pitchers greatly impressed you as the season is winding down?

Dale Thomas: Sipp has been lights out, and he has been put in some really horrible situations. His presence on the mound extends confidence to the rest of the bullpen too. Most of our relievers have done well following Sipp. It's always amazing to me how an entire team can feed off of one man's command of his position. Yet another reason why Grady should have been shut down earlier... heh... but I digress.

I like what Laffey has done even though he really blew up in his last outing. I think he has a great attitude, and works very hard to understand his mistakes and weaknesses.

That said, and since the question says 'greatly impressed', nobody comes to mind... If it were 'slightly impressed', or even 'not horrendously bad', I'd add Huff and Sowers, as long as each was pulled after five innings.

Samantha Bunten: Sipp, along with Chris Perez, has been a bright spot for Indians pitching this season, and I don't think there is any reason to think Sipp won't continue to be an effective relief pitcher down the road as well.

His command has been excellent and he has a knack for getting out of the types of situations that give relief pitchers nightmares - bases loaded, one out, opponent's best hitter coming to the plate, and such. Sitting at 92-93 with a wicked slider, he could be the Indians' closer someday.

The only red flag is the injury history. However, despite having missed all of 2007 and half of 2008 recovering from Tommy John surgery, Sipp has been healthy - and effective - for the most part since then.

Still, his arm should be monitored closely, and someone should probably be working on his mechanics (he still lands with a slightly closed front foot after delivery, which is likely to lead to hip problems).

Chris Perez has done an excellent job stabilizing the bullpen, and I also think very highly of David Huff.

Huff has done a tremendous job of stepping up and assuming a role that no one knew he would need to embrace so quickly. Huff will still have his growing pains, to be sure, and as we discussed last week, he is coming close to the point where he needs to be shut down for fear of overuse. He has even started to look tired on the mound.

I am pretty pleased with Aaron Laffey as well, who has done a great job stepping up to the challenge and holding his own as a starter. As of right now, he has earned the right to start on Opening Day in 2010.

4. So far the Cliff Lee trade has produced mixed results and a lot of question marks. As we discussed last week, Carrasco's value remains to be determined, but what of golden boy Jason Knapp, who has been shut down for the season?

The Indians have not directly laid any accusations, but whispers persist that Knapp may have been damaged goods upon his arrival from Philadelphia. Do you think this is true? If so, were you the Indians, would you file a complaint with the league against the Phillies?

How do you feel about filing such grievances in general? How much responsibility should the player's previous owner assume if he shows signs of some sort of existing injury condition within his first few months with his new team?

Dale Thomas: Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough to know if the damaged goods rumors are true or not. However, if the player is not as advertised due to a kept secret on the part of the Phillies, then filing a complaint seems reasonable.

In general, I'm not a big fan of filing grievances since we are supposed to be able to assess players ourselves, but at the same time, Philly had a zoomed in view of this guy, and certainly made decisions and assessments of this player's capabilities.

I do think there is an obligation for previous owners to inform potential buyers of known problems, same as if you are buying a house, which is also a complicated system of framework, skin and functionality just like a player.

It's very difficult to just walk in and "see" all the problems or problems in the making. If this damaged goods thing is true, then it was bad form on the part of the Phillies and they should be marooned on a landfill in Cleveland to think about what they've done.

Samantha Bunten: At this point, I don't believe we can draw any definite conclusions about how seriously Knapp's current injury is all, let alone whether the condition was pre-existing before he arrived in Cleveland.

When Knapp was first traded to the Indians, I expressed my concern about putting so much stock in a pitcher who is only 18 and already has a history of arm problems. I stand by that now.

To some degree, it is impossible to tell just exactly what the Phillies knew about Knapp before they traded him to the Indians. Also, we may never know what the Indians knew before they accepted the trade.

The Tribe has made no indication thus far that they plan to file a grievance. To me, this says that the injury is likely not the result of anything pre-existing that was kept a secret by the Phillies. The real question is whether there was a pre-existing issue that the Phillies DID disclose, yet the Indians took a flyer on him anyway.

In general, I'm on the fence about such grievances. On one hand, to hide an injury is dishonest and underhanded and smacks of cheating. On the other, well, think about it like this: if you were about to trade a hitter who you knew had slightly changed his swing and would be the worse for it, would you inform the team you were planning to trade him to that he had messed with his mechanics so they should probably give you less for him? Of course not. Nor would you be obligated to by any rule or moral code. When you look at it that way, it isn't so different from not disclosing an injury.

5. Fun Question of the Week: As the end of the 2009 season draws near, it's time to start giving out some awards. Who do you see as your 2009 MVP for the Tribe? How about the Tribe's CY Young for the season?

Regardless of performance on the field, who is your favorite player or players on the 2009 Indians' roster? How about your least favorite(s)?

Dale Thomas: Grady Sizemore continues to be my favorite Indian. His enthusiasm and work ethic are awesome. He always gives 100% of all of his working parts and gives a lot back to the city.

My least favorite player is Jhonny Peralta. Just reverse everything I said about Grady.

Cy Young? I'd give the Cy Young to a reliever this year. Yes, Tony Sipp. Can I do that?

As for MVP, I'd toss that over to Asdrubal & hope he catches it.

Samantha Bunten: The team lacks a true MVP, so I'll give it to Choo by default. If I were able to bend the rules a little, I would mail it to Boston for Victor Martinez, the man who truly deserves it, despite the fact that he was traded in July.

I would give the Cy Young to Sipp, again for lack of a better alternative.

My least favorite is Jhonny Peralta by far. His lazy, bratty, complacent attitude and total lack of productivity on the field make him useless as a player and extremely unappealing as a person. And you all know I hate Trevor Crowe, for reasons both rational and not.

My favorites for a while have been Sizemore, Choo, and the departed Martinez and Ben Francisco. With two of the four now gone from the roster, I am hoping that Brantley and Sipp can fill the vacancies in the future.

Tribe Talk: Impact of the 2009 September Call-Ups

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:03:57 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we discuss the potential impact of the Indians’ 2009 September call-ups, overpaid players, and the current and former Indians we love to hate.

I would like to thank this week's participants, Nino Colla, Jeff Poore, and Scott Miles for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. This past Tuesday was September 1st, the day major league rosters expanded to 40. Which predicted September call-ups for the Tribe are you most excited about seeing?

Are there any players being called up who you feel are not ready and should not be exposed to the majors yet?

Samantha Bunten: I would have said I wanted to see Carlos Carrasco called up, but now I'm sorry I got my wish. File that one under "needs improvement."

I’m definitely excited to see what Michael Brantley can do. He brings much needed speed and defense to a team that is sorely lacking in both categories. Most importantly, the promotion of Brantley allows the Tribe to shut down Grady Sizemore, get him into surgery earlier, and thus allow him to begin his recovery that much sooner.

Brantley certainly isn’t going to take Sizemore’s job while he’s out, but he is an acceptable replacement in centerfield and could be a critical part of the Indians’ outfield in 2010.

Given the Indians' position in the standings, there doesn’t seem to be much harm in calling up any player I can think of, except perhaps Hector Rondon. While I’m really excited to see what Rondon can do, he may not be truly ready (due to a pitching logjam in the minors slowing his progress to AAA and just plain lack of experience).

I think he has tremendous potential, and I wouldn’t want to jeopardize that in any way by exposing him to major league hitters who will tee off on his fastball before he’s really ready to face them.

Nino Colla: Carrasco, but we'll get to him in the next question.

I can't wait to see Jordan Brown up here only because he deserves it. I don't know if he'll bottom out and be nothing or be a starting caliber hitter. Who knows, but he's earned the right to prove it either way. It's time to get him up to the major league level.

I'm excited about Hector Rondon, but we will not see him and I think it might actually be for the better.

Past that, there isn't much. I think Michael Brantley will probably be "up" here but not on the roster or added to the 40-man until the offseason.

Frank Herrmann is a relief pitcher I'd like to see get the call, as he's earned it in my eyes and at this point, he has nowhere left to go but up, so why not get him up here and see what he's got?

Scott Miles: I was intrigued by Carlos Carrasco, but I think he just gave up another home run. My enthusiasm has since tempered.

I think Michael Brantley will be the most exciting prospect on the roster. He brings a skill set that we haven't seen since the days of Kenny Lofton, in that he's a pure speedster who can swing the stick a little. With Grady Sizemore's eventual trip to the operating table, Brantley will have a tremendous opportunity to display his potential.

Jose Veras (6.52 ERA) should never have been exposed to the majors at any point this season, and his existence in the organization bothers me to no end. Where the heck is Matt Herges when you need him?

Jeff Poore: It will be interesting to see Carlos Carrasco go on Tuesday. He will be the first guy from the Cliff Lee trade we will get to see.

I'd like to see Lou Marson to see if he can hold down the catcher spot until Carlos Santana is ready (I don't see Kelly Shoppach on the 2010 roster). I'd like to give Jordan Brown a look, as they need to make a decision on whether or not to keep him on the 40-man roster in 2010 and he has torn up AAA this year.

Everyone else is here. I'd like to see Hector Rondon, but they have already said he is not being recalled.

2. Speaking of September call-ups: By the time this article goes to press, Carlos Carrasco will have made his big league debut with the Tribe (scheduled for Tuesday).

Do you think Carrasco is ready for the majors, despite reports that he still leans too heavily on his curve ball and can't confidently command his fastball? If not, are you in favor of allowing the start anyway just to see what he can do?

Samantha Bunten: I might have said "yes" before I saw him pitch on Tuesday. Now it’s a very emphatic "no."

His performance Tuesday isn’t anything to be concerned about in the long run. Carrasco has plenty of talent, he just wasn’t ready to face major league hitters. I don’t really blame the Tribe for giving it a shot, but I think that based on what we saw earlier this week, it should be clear that Carrasco does in fact need to get better command of his fastball before he will truly be ready to be in the big leagues.

Detroit hitters sat on his fastball on Tuesday, and he doesn’t have the well-honed repertoire of pitches to go along with it to work around the problem. He will be fine ultimately, but his mechanics still require some fine tuning in AAA before he can be effective in the majors, evidenced by what we saw on Tuesday.

Nino Colla: I think he's ready. He's going to have to hone his skills at the major league level, but from the numbers and the reports that have come out of Columbus, his stuff is there. He's got stuff like no other, it's just about commanding it and not losing his emotions.

So far the reports have been positive and the Indians probably will start working on that "relying on his curve ball" at some point, starting now. Point blank, I want to see him, regardless of whether he's totally ready. Expose him to the majors and see what he's got.

Scott Miles: You might as well give him a shot now to get his feet wet. Of course, his three innings against Detroit looked like he got thrown in the deep end without learning how to swim.

And it looked like those reports you mention about his fastball command are correct, as Carrasco learned the formula (pitch + insufficient speed + insufficient location = bombs away.)

But yeah, let's toss him out there and see what he can do. Heck, we know what Cliff Lee is capable of in Philly.

Jeff Poore: Ready or not here he comes. The Tribe has a very thin group available for the 2010 rotation. They need to see if Carrasco is major league ready or needs more time in the minors. This is what September is for. Let's see what he is made of.

3. Carrasco's aforementioned start is happening so that the Indians can skip David Huff in the rotation. They say they aren't shutting Huff down, but will keep both pitchers in the mix and go with a six-man rotation in September.

What do you think of this idea? Should Huff be shut down because his total innings (140 and 2/3 between the majors and triple-A) have raised concerns of overuse, or should he continue to be part of the rotation for the time being?

(Note that he is absolutely expected to be capped at between 160 and 170 innings).

Samantha Bunten: Tentatively, I would stick with a five-man rotation in September: Laffey, Masterson, Carmona, Sowers, and Carrasco.

Laffey has earned the right to be there, no questions asked. Let’s give Sowers one final chance to prove he belongs here, allow Masterson and Carmona to continue to work out their problems, and as for Carrasco, well, he’s already here, and things can only get better.

As far as Huff is concerned, I am in favor of shutting him down around 160 innings. He’s done a nice job of stepping up and handling the role he was given earlier than expected, and I believe his recent struggles have a lot to do with fatigue.

In a season that no longer matters in the record books, let’s give Huff a break and hope that he can come back stronger next year. With the way our rotation projects right now, we’re going to need him.

Nino Colla: I think this idea is fine. Huff will be pushed to Thursday and they'll basically give him a few more days, no skipping here. They'll shut him down at 160ish, which is probably about three to five more starts, which if he makes at least one every week, puts us at the end of the season.

No problem with this. Continue to get him his experience, let's address his innings limit when he gets to it, and get another guy up here to ease that. I'm all fine with this move.

Scott Miles: I'm wavering between options on what the Indians need to do. Part of me is leaning toward a 7-man rotation, with Laffey, Carmona, Masterson, Huff, Carrasco, Rondon and Sowers. Instead of spring training auditions, let's do them now in September!

Part of me would also just like to see a 4-man rotation with Laffey, Carmona, Masterson and Rondon, because I think they will be the key group for our success (or failure) in 2010 and they need as much experience as they can get.

Of course, the odds of that happening are the same as a Dolan being elected mayor of Cleveland this November.

Jeff Poore: He should be shut down because he pitches like crap every other time. In all seriousness, he has had arm problems, has struggled at times and it would be nice to see what Carrasco has got so I have no issue with him being slowed down rather than shut down.

4. Last week we discussed Kerry Wood's disastrously large contract and how an alarming percentage of the Indians' payroll was eaten up by it.

Another player whose contract is comparably larger than other players on the Tribe payroll is Travis Hafner, who may be sidelined by shoulder issues indefinitely yet again.

Do you feel Hafner is being overpaid? If so, is that really anyone's fault, or is there really no way the Indians could have foreseen his decline in production when the contract was inked initially in 2007?

Who else (if anyone) on the roster do you feel is being significantly overpaid for what they're really contributing to the team?

Samantha Bunten: I don't think you can look at Hafner's contract the same way you look at Kerry Wood's. Wood came in as a question mark, a guy with lights out stuff who had been unstable over the years and had serious injury concerns. When Pronk inked his extension in 2007, he was one of the most productive hitters in the league and completely in his prime, and healthy as a horse (or a donkey if you prefer).

The club did perhaps overestimate his ability to duplicate his tremendous performance of 2006, but that is a risk that is attached to every single young, unproven player who ever picked up a bat. The Indians don't take many chances, and this didn't even look like a particularly risky one—it was just bad luck that their willingness to make the unusual leap backfired on them.

After the "this is not a salary dump" salary dump in July and August, there aren’t too many people left on the roster who are overpaid.

Jake Westbrook is a good candidate for this distinction though. In a way it is similar to the Hafner situation in that it was impossible to predict his injury, but unlike in Hafner’s case, I believe the fact that he was offered the contract he got at all (regardless of the ensuing injury) was, to put it kindly, a bit overgenerous on the part of the Indians' brass.

The fact that the Indians are still paying David Dellucci is appalling, as was the contract they signed him to in the first place. Regarding those who are still around, the team is certainly overpaying Kobayashi and Ohka, and I personally would argue that whatever they pay Trevor Crowe, even if it's a dollar, is far too much.

Nino Colla: Does anyone see injury coming? No? It's no one’s fault. For people to maybe suggest Hafner is at fault for taking what was offered, you need to seek counseling. For people to suggest Shapiro is an idiot, sure go ahead. But how could you not extend an MVP candidate in the middle of his prime? Also, this goes against Dolan-hater for being cheap.

Hafner got hurt. It happens in baseball. There are people with contracts they don't deserve based on their production, but based on what he did do, the contract was actually pretty solid. The problem is he isn't doing it because of an unforeseen injury. It happens, deal with it.

As for anyone else being overpaid, I can't see it after all the trades. Masa Kobayashi and David Dellucci still getting paid for nothing is a travesty, but whatever. You could get a utility player a lot cheaper than Jamey Carroll, but that doesn't mean he is overpaid and if he is, it's very little.

Scott Miles: Travis Hafner is being paid the appropriate market value for his production from 2004-06. Of course, no one could predict the debilitating shoulder injuries that have hampered his production the last two years. So you can't really fault the Indians for this contract—it's just one of those unfortunate things that small-to-mid market teams can't afford.

Who is getting overpaid? Wood (only has 22 save opportunities); Veras (he's awful); Tomo Ohka (ditto); Rafael Perez (7.17 ERA...seriously?); Shoppach (.206 batting average, can't throw my grandma out); and Mark Shapiro, for assembling this squad.

Jeff Poore: When he was re-signed, despite his slow start in 2007, everyone thought he was going to be the Pronk of 2004-2006 and anchor the Indians lineup for 5-6 years. Then injuries struck.

So, yes, of course he is ridiculously overpaid but at the time it was done everyone lauded the Dolans for "locking up their young star" and now we are having some revisionist history. It's no one’s fault, it just was a move that did not work out.

For injury reasons, Jake Westbrook is also overpaid but once again, at the time of his deal, it looked good on paper. No one’s fault again.

5. Fun Question of the Week: In the last installment of Tribe Talk, we weighed in on our five all-time favorite Indians. Now it's time to talk about the ones we love to hate.

Who are you five least favorite Indians and why?

Samantha Bunten: 1. Brandon Phillips: Phillips was unbelievably bad during his time with the Indians, and it’s great for him that he has since improved and has found a way to succeed in Cincinnati.

But Phillips is a jerk of epic proportions, a guy who blamed the Indians for his struggles and still, so many years later, just can’t resist stooping to the lowest level and taking a shot at the Tribe every time we play the Reds. His attitude was a problem in Cleveland, and clearly it’s still a problem now. His play may have improved, but his professionalism hasn’t. Good riddance.

2. Milton Bradley: I imagine this guy makes a list like this for every team he has ever played for. Fans will forgive a lot of bad behavior if you can produce on the field, but Milton was never nearly good enough as a player to come even close to balancing out the unpleasantness of his presence on the field, in the club house, or driving down a Cleveland freeway and mouthing off to a cop while earning himself an arrest for disorderly conduct.

Albert Belle may have been a jerk, but at least that jerk played like an MVP. Bradley spent his time in Cleveland rivaling Belle in the jerk department, and rivaling no one with his mediocre play.

3. Jhonny Peralta: I guess Peralta didn’t get the memo that no one likes a whiner, and that you’re not a victim if whatever misfortune you’re bemoaning was brought on by none other than the guy in the mirror.

For all Peralta’s sniveling about being moved to third, or about Eric Wedge somehow slighting him by suggesting he wasn't playing hard enough, he did absolutely nothing to prove that Wedge was wrong on either count.

Peralta was too busy fussing about the injustice of it all when he should have been improving his range at shortstop and running out ground balls. I hate lazy players, especially those who don’t hit or field well enough to force me to overlook their lollygagging.

4. Jaret Wright: He started off alright, but before we knew it, it was like flushing money down the toilet. His reputation as a head hunter didn’t help his cause either, particularly once he became largely ineffective on the mound.

His excellence in 1997 followed by his painfully slow decline from the end of 1998 through 2002 has always served as a symbol, at least for me, of the slow death of the late 1990s Indians dynasty.

I know, I know, he was injured, and far from deserving to shoulder (pun intended) all the blame, but I maintain that the guy just had a bad look about him and someone had to play the scapegoat after Mesa left.

5. Jose Mesa: My arch-nemesis for life, for reasons I’m sure I don’t need to explain.

Nino Colla: Oh man this was the wrong question to ask me, because I won't stop. Let me get right into it. It was hard to come up with five, but I did. I'd rather count Milton Bradley and Matt Lawton twice each. All these players are in the Shapiro-era, because it's the one I'm most familiar with on a more day-to-day level. Albert Belle might be a jerk, but I don't remember much of it because I was too young to understand.

5. Jeremy Sowers: I threw a current one in here for fun. Jeremy rubs me the wrong way.

Good kid, smart kid, can't argue about him as far as being a bad person. He's not in the realm of Milton Bradley or anything. But his attitude to me isn't one that gets me excited that he's on my team. He's very laid back and nonchalant about everything. No emotion whatsoever, just that same blank look on his face. Even when the Indians win a game, he's meh.

If someone in a post-game interview congratulates him, he just shrugs it off. My point is illustrated quite beautifully in this picture.

I genuinely dislike the next four people, Jeremy on the other hand is just someone I'd rather not have on my team, due to his indifferent attitude. Not even one blip of excitement, ever.

4. Jason Davis: The Indians have very rarely in the past few years, at least under the Shapiro era when I've been involved the deepest, brought in a player who is, at least in my opinion, not very dedicated. Not saying Jason Davis wasn't dedicated, but how many chances did this guy get?

No one pulled harder for Jason than me, because of his ability with the fastball. He threw harder than anyone to ever come through this system in the past ten years and he wasted so much of that talent time after time. He got chances to be a top of the line rotation starter, a closer, a setup man, everything. And it took forever for the Indians to give up on him.

So really, I have problems with Davis and for the time invested in him and the return he gave. He was dedicated, but I feel Jason Davis could have done way more than what he did. He's probably in the Pirates organization right now, doing the same thing, so maybe that talent I thought he had was a bit overrated, but seriously, he failed too many times.

3. Brandon Phillips: The BP era coming to an end in Cleveland wasn't all BP's fault, but he didn't help matters in anyway. What a Grade-A jerk Brandon is. He still mouths off every year when the Indians face the Reds and how seeing Wedge in the other dugout motivates him. Great for him for finding motivation, but shut up. Plain and simple. He just needs to shut up.

2. Matt Lawton: You have to do a whole hell of a lot to displace Milton Bradley as my number one least favorite Indian, but he's close. First of all it comes down to one comment. I don't know the situation, but I remember the words "My child's bike is better than your child's bike," coming out of his mouth before.

He was the definition of contract player and you know he never really was a guy I could tolerate when he was with this team. I'm not even sure if he had any real talent. If he did, he sure did a good job of not displaying it as well as he could have.

1. Milton Bradley: Is this guy liked by anyone? I mean really, when you go to fifteen different teams and leave hated from fourteen of them, you are doing something wrong and you must be a total dork. He called the Indians a sinking ship awhile after he got traded to Los Angeles, and some of his most famous moments didn't even come in an Indians uniform.

The Indians had the foresight to drop this malcontent before he did any permanent damage. Quite frankly, if he isn't on every other list, I'll be shocked. It would be the biggest upset since the Miracle on Ice.

Scott Miles: Just five? Sheesh. Here goes...

1. Brandon Phillips - I worked at a sports facility in Twinsburg and he came to work out there several times. An absolute primadonna. I despise him.

2. Milton Bradley - I sat in right field when he came back to Cleveland with Texas and responded to fan taunts with inappropriate hand gestures.

3. Masa Kobayashi - He was stellar. Reeeeeeeal stellar.

4. Todd Hollandsworth/Jason Michaels/Trot Nixon/David Dellucci - Collectively known as "Mark Shapiro's fetish for overpaying aging corner outfielders with diminished skills."

5. Everyone in the bullpen in 2006, 2008 and 2009 - For making great contributions to the situation the team is in now.

Jeff Poore: Hate is a strong word I reserve for bad people in life. But a few Indians I dislike are Keith Hernandez who stole money, Roberto Alomar because I can never forget him spitting as an Oriole and not hustling as an Indian and Jose Mesa, of course, for not being able to come through when it mattered the most.

Tribe Talk: Kerry Wood Robs the Indians Blind

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:16:00 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we discuss how Kerry Wood inadvertently took the Indians for a ride with his laughably bloated contract, how Chris Gimenez, by contrast, isn’t really fooling anyone, and reminisce about our favorite ghosts of Indians past.

I would like to thank this week's participant, Dale Thomas, for his contribution.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. There is little dispute over whether Kerry Wood has been worth the $10 million contract he was signed to before the season started, but has he really been as bad as he's often made out to be?

Wood has had just 20 save opportunities this season and has converted 15 of them.

While Wood's 4.70 ERA is certainly nothing to brag about, it doesn't look so bad when compared to that of, for example, Brad Lidge, who has blown eight save opportunities, owns a very bloated 6.90 ERA, and for the record, is actually more expensive than Wood at $12 million.

So how bad (or good) is Kerry Wood? And how much is he to blame for the fact that his contract looks absurd now?

Is there any chance that perhaps the contract turned out to be a huge dud not because Wood has pitched all THAT poorly, but because the team has given him so few opportunities to earn his paycheck by providing just 20 save chances over the course of the season?

Samantha Bunten: I want to go to Vegas with Kerry Wood: He's either the luckiest guy on earth or he figured out how to beat the house. His contract is absurd. $10 million for a projected 34 save opportunities. Nice work if you can get it.

Perhaps instead of incessantly harping on the Dolans for the Indians' payroll, which is in fact very average, we should go after Mark Shapiro for making this boneheaded deal with Wood, which has sucked up such a huge percentage of said payroll.

But then again, maybe not. Who is really to blame for this is open to debate. Like so many other things that have gone wrong for the Indians this season, who would have ever guessed that Wood's ERA would be so bad, or that the team as a whole would give him so few opportunities to earn his money?

Depending on how you look at it, Wood's absurd contract is either everyone's fault or no one's.

Personally, I blame about a fourth of it on Wood, a fourth on the front office for making a deal this ridiculous, and the remaining half on the rest of the team for failing to create save situations for Wood.

If the offense can't score or the rest of the pitchers can't hold the game to within three, Wood never even gets a shot.

Take it a step further, and you have to consider that if Wood can't use the arm, it's going to get a little rusty, so even when he does get the opportunities, he won't be nearly as sharp as he would presumably have been, had he been able to keep the arm loose by closing on a consistent basis.

In the end though, no matter whose fault it is, Wood is being grossly overpaid.

Comparing him to Brad Lidge doesn't really make him look any better or the Indians look any wiser, it just makes both the Indians and the Phillies look like they fell victim to the classic "Eric Gagne Syndrome" of overpaying for a closer based on the somewhat mythical construct of the inflated value of closers that pervades the entire league.

Dale Thomas: He's posting the worst ERA of his career this year and posted about half the saves he had in 2008. I think he's a better pitcher than he's been able to show here in Cleveland, but hey! I live in Cleveland.

It's almost like his head is somewhere else when he's on the mound...like maybe in Chicago.

He has not earned his money at all in my opinion. In fact, he should give some back.

Yes, some of this can be attributed to team performance and coaching decisions, but at the end of the day he's paid to get people out.

The 15 saves in 20 opportunities become less positive when you factor in the disasters that were not save opportunities.

2. Good news for Tribe fans: It appears Fausto Carmona may have finally found his way back from catastrophe after almost two years of control problems.

Last Sunday, he got his first win since May 14, striking out eight and allowing just one run over seven innings. Based on what we've seen recently, do you think Fausto is finally back to being the Fausto we all saw so much potential in when he splashed onto the scene in 2007?

Could the fact that Carmona surrendered just one walk while striking out eight indicate that he has finally kicked his control problems? If so, what do you think is, after all this time, the reason for Carmona's marked improvement?

Samantha Bunten: Carmona still has great stuff, there's no doubt about that. The sinker that Victor Martinez once called "the nastiest stuff I've ever seen" is still in Carmona's arsenal, he just can't command it the way he once did.

I'm not sure we will ever see that sort of dominance from Carmona again, but based on his performance since his return from Arizona, I would say he is far closer to it than he has been in a very long time.

I still think walks are going to be a problem for him, but he seems to have harnessed his control at least to a degree.

I think the reason for his improvement is largely confidence. Pitching is a head game, and Carmona was pretty rattled for a very long time.

Now that he's got his head on straight again and can keep his control relatively steady, the deceptive sink on his pitches and flashes of plus-movement on his fastball have become valuable weapons for him once again.

I'm not totally sold on Fausto: The Sequel just yet, but I certainly believe there is a very good chance he's shaken whatever demons were plaguing him on the mound.

Dale Thomas: I don't think Carmona has proven himself trustworthy yet, but at least he's turned towards the plate now. I still see him as a guy with an ERA under three for 2010.

It may be 2.9999, but he's got great natural movement, which he didn't show in his earlier outings this year. Maybe the injury put a hitch in that fluidity.

Right now, he seems to have rediscovered his arm slot and delivery of 2007, so I'm going to give the pitching coach a little credit, since we saw Cliff Lee experience similar nose dives and come back and umm...dominate.

3. The Indians organization was heavily criticized during the first half of the season for allowing Luis Valbuena to languish at second base while racking up a pathetic .195 average from the time he was called up in early May to the beginning of July.

Things look a little different now though, with Valbuena hitting .303 with an .851 OPS since July 1. Even his defense has improved.

How impressed are you with Valbuena? Do you now agree with manager Eric Wedge's decision to stick it out with the youngster at second base, or are you still skeptical of what Valbuena brings to the table?

Samantha Bunten: Valbuena is essentially doing exactly what the entire team has done in 2009: stink it up in the first half, and then proceed to come on in the second half after it really no longer matters, at least for this season.

So given that, we'll award Wedge points for consistency, since by sticking with Valbuena, he essentially treated him exactly the same way he treated the rest of the team when they performed about the same way Valbuena did.

That said, Valbuena is a more extreme case than most of the Indians, hitting .195 for the first half. I'm not sure the fact that he followed that up with hitting .303 for less than two months is any indication that he's a whole new player. Consider me very skeptical.

Still, his defense has improved noticeably, and I'll ask this of anyone who thinks he shouldn't have held the second base job: Exactly who else were you going to put there every day?

The bottom line is that Valbuena was the best option the Indians possessed for an everyday second baseman. Whether he can truly hold onto the job from season to season remains to be seen.

Dale Thomas: When a guy steps up and wins games for the Tribe as Valbuena has done recently, I get pretty impressed.

That said, I'm still holding at about 50-50 in confidence level as he's spent about half his time being truly horrible, and the other half showing some flash.

I think Wedge really wants to pair up Luis and Asdrubal to create a double-play machine for Fausto and the ground balls he gets.

I also think that Wedge sticking it out with this guy is part of creating a defense that Wedge thinks will work well together as a team, instead of being a tossed salad.

At the plate, I'd say he has average skills. He can't really bunt, and shows very little in his ability to hit situationally. His power seems to be whacked pretty good by legitimate ball parks and major league pitching.

4. I've been hearing a slew of complaints about Chris Gimenez remaining on the Indians big league roster while Matt LaPorta waited in AAA. LaPorta has been called up now, but what of Gimenez?

The Indians seem to want to mold him into a Mark DeRosa/Jamey Carroll type utility player, but does Gimenez have the bat (or the glove, for that matter) to hold up even as a second-stringer on a major league roster?

Considering his .161 average and .542 OPS through 35 games, are you frustrated that Gimenez continues to get playing time?

Do you truly think he can fill the role of the Tribe's go-to utility player for the future? Does it help his case at all that he can play the catcher's position?

Samantha Bunten: Gimenez's biggest problem is that he's decent at everything but he's not particularly good at anything. I like his versatility on defense, but I'm not particularly impressed with his fielding at any one of the positions he plays.

As far as catching goes, I would rather re-sign Kelly Shoppach. Sadly, as bad as Shop has been at the plate this year, he's still a better hitter than Gimenez overall and he's definitely a better catcher.

As far as Gimenez's hitting is concerned, I think he will get better. Unfortunately, I don't think he has a high enough upside for his hitting to improve enough to even hold down a utility role.

He's young and cheap though, so the Indians will surely let him stick around to try to work it out. As for whether that decision will pay off someday, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Dale Thomas: Hey, he'd be close to .300 if we were measuring strikeouts! I don't see him as a go-to guy ever...He's shown nothing.

I see him as a catcher only after catchers one and two go down with season ending injuries, and catcher No. 3 is on the mound closing a game for the give-back money from Kerry Wood.

5. Fun question of the week: As much as we still love the Tribe despite their many faults this season, it's tough to form attachments to players who are, for the most part, performing very poorly.

Thus, it might be a good time to allow ourselves to indulge in a bit of nostalgia. Who are your five all-time favorite Indians players and why?

Samantha Bunten: 1. Kenny Lofton: he was the best centerfielder of his time aside from Ken Griffey Jr., and his speed, scrappiness, and the zeal with which he played the game are what made me fall in love with baseball.

2. Omar Vizquel: absolutely the best defensive shortstop of all time, an underrated hitter, and the first guy I'd want in my clubhouse.

3. Tris Speaker: without a doubt one of the best defensive centerfielders in the history of baseball, and impressive at the plate too. .345 lifetime average and 3,514 hits, not too shabby for a guy who played a good part of his career in the Deadball Era.

4. Charlie Nagy/Dave Burba: a nod to everyone who has ever been average at anything. These guys made the most of what they had, and the Indians benefited from it immensely.

5. Manny Ramirez: yes, I've completely lost respect for him, but the Manny who played for the Indians, the bumbling kid affectionately known as "Baby Bull", was a very different person than today's juiced up ManRam, and one I'll always think of fondly.

Dale Thomas: 1. Omar Vizquel because he's the best defensive shortstop ever, and because of his clutch hitting and love for Cleveland.

2. Manny Ramirez: pure hitter and hilarious on the base paths.

3. Bob Feller is the franchise leader in wins, innings (3,827), strikeouts (2,581), complete games (279), starts (484) and walks (1,764). He's second in shutouts (44), games (570) and losses (162). He holds single-season records for strikeouts, innings, shutouts, complete games and walks.

4. Kenny Lofton: he was good to the fans, good for the city, a solid leadoff hitter.

5. Jim Thome: maybe a stretch but the guy hit 40 home runs every year!

6. Sam McDowell: Best lefty Cleveland ever had...and the guy could party!

Tribe Talk: Are The Indians a Better Team When The Pressure Is Off?

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:51:24 -0400

Welcome toTribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we attempt to figure out why the Indians play better when the pressure is off, point fingers at who we think is to blame for the organization’s financial situation, and predict how the playoff picture will shape up.

I would like to thank this week's participants, Nino Colla, Scott Miles, and Jeff Poore for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. The Indians, a veritable catastrophe for most of the season, have now won nine of their last 16 (as of Sunday) and are 16-12 since the All-Star break, seeming to come on in the second half after the season has been written off.

This is the second year in a row we have seen the Tribe play far better baseball than they had all season once they had nothing to lose. What do you see as the cause of these apparent late season turnarounds? Is the Tribe really improving and solving problems, or do they just perform better when the pressure is off?

Samantha Bunten: For more than a few years, the Indians have been a second-half team. Even though they’ve struggled mightily this season, that fact hasn’t changed. They start off slowly every April, and finish strong every September. They will probably finish just under .500, and the record books will show this team as about average and not as the disaster we think of it as now.

High expectations led to high pressure this past April, so I can’t help but wonder if that contributed heavily to the Indians' implosion in the spring, especially given that now, when the pressure is off, they are actually playing pretty respectable baseball.

I don’t have an easy solution for fixing this problem, but I do think it starts with coaching. If the talent is there, then it’s on the coach to figure out how to get his team to keep it together under pressure and start off the season well despite the weight of expectations. Until this gets fixed, the team will never be any better than the very average product that results from the combination of a horrendous start and a strong finish.

The bottom line is that no matter what, this team simply has to learn to perform under pressure. If they can’t handle the pressure of April, how on earth could they ever handle the pressure of the playoffs? If they ever make it there again, someone is going to have to teach this team how to deliver when the heat is on.

Nino Colla: I shrugged off the idea last year, because of what they did in 2007, but I'm starting to get a little skeptical. I really don't know what to make out of this to be quite honest. Maybe it is because the pressure is off. Who knows?

What I do know is that this team can't continue to start out slow. Even next year, if there is no pressure (what would it tell you if the Indians got off to a blazing start because there is no pressure?), the Indians need to get off to a better start. Not record wise, but consistency wise. Better fundamental baseball. Not the crap that we saw earlier this year.

Scott Miles: I think that what it shows is that the Indians are simply an average team.

The offense is better than the MLB average (eighth in runs scored, ninth OPS, sixth OBP). The pitching is worse than the MLB average (29th ERA, 28th OBP, 29th save percentage). That translates to a team that should slightly finish below .500, which is where the Wahoos will be at the end of the year. (Baseball-reference.com's Pythagorean winning percentage, which estimates a team's won-loss record based on runs scored versus runs allowed, has the Indians at four games under .500).

Over a 162-game season, these things all balance out, and it might not be more than a coincidence that the team is awful to start and good at the end. However you shake them, when you look at the numbers, the team is destined to be...mediocre.

Jeff Poore: Sadly the latter. This team for some reason, when the pressure is on, is wound tighter than I can cleanly describe without being banned from the internet. When all hope is lost they just "play baseball" and perform up to their potential.

This is a reflection of how they are developed in the minors and by the major league coaching staff. A good hierarchy would be able to harness the talent on a night-to-night basis regardless of the situation.

2. With yet another setback for Jake Westbrook in his rehabilitation and Justin Masterson's implosion last Friday, next season's starting rotation looks more and more uncertain all the time.

However, Aaron Laffey's recent performance has been a pleasant surprise that has indicated he might be a candidate for one of the top rotation spots next year. Laffey won't be our next Cy Young winner, certainly, but he has posted very respectable numbers (4-1, 2.03ERA) in his last 5 starts.

What do you think about Laffey's recent performance? Is this a sign he's turning into a better pitcher than most folks once thought, or do you see this as a short-lived spell of success?

If 2010 opening day was tomorrow, where do you see Laffey fitting into the rotation?

Samantha Bunten: I like Laffey a lot as a middle of the rotation starter on any team, and probably as the number one guy in the Indians’ sub-par rotation. I have some concerns that his success is somewhat of an illusion because major league hitters just haven’t seen enough of him to figure him out just yet, but it may be unfair to Laffey to say that.

After all, his average against actually is far better after his 30th pitch in a game than it is for his first 30 offerings, indicating that he’s the one making the adjustments and “figuring out” the hitters rather than the other way around.

He has limited lefties to a very respectable .211 average against and rarely serves up a long ball, unlike his fellow lefty cohort Jeremy Sowers, who has fared worse against lefties that righties and implodes right around the third inning of every game like clockwork.

I see Laffey fitting nicely into the top half of the Indians’ 2010 rotation. In fact, he may be the only possible component of next year’s rotation that doesn’t absolutely terrify me.

Nino Colla: Hey, Laffey has always been pitching well. He had a little dip there after his injury and people sort of just wrote him off. I've always had him in my rotation and for next year, I put him right into the number three spot behind Fausto Carmona and Jake Westbrook, provided Westbrook is healthy.

Laffey had a lot of success last year before he got injured. A big reason for his drop off in production was that injury he suffered. He was sent down, and then it became apparent that he was hurt. So really, I trust Laffey, a hell of a lot more than I do Sowers. Laffey has stuff and relies on it. Sowers needs to rely on command and he doesn't always do it.

Scott Miles: I'll answer the last question first: Aaron Laffey will be the Indians' number one pitcher next year. Yes, Jake Westbrook may get the Opening Day nod if he doesn't suffer a 900th setback in his Tommy John rehab (he's currently at 659, for those tracking at home), but Laffey will be the team's best pitcher next season.

I think that Laffey has the capability to be like Cliff Lee, circa 2005-06, in that he can win 12-15 games and have an ERA in the high threes to low fours. He's starting to show some consistency, keep his pitch count down and get into the sixth and seventh inning.

He's pitched in 17 games and only had two poor performances—a start against the Tigers May 2 (5 ER in 3.1 IP) and recently against the Angels, who have arguably the best offense in baseball, in which he gave up seven runs (four earned) in four innings.

So yes, I think Laffey is definitely an above average pitcher who in an ideal situation should be a team's second or third starter. Still, his re-emergence in the rotation has been pleasant this summer.

Jeff Poore: I think Laffey is a good middle of the rotation starter on the high side and a late inning bullpen arm, worst case scenario. His stuff is above average but he is one the the few players on this team that can focus his talents on a nightly basis. He will be an asset for this team. It's up to the organization to determine where in the pitching rotation he fits best.

3. The Indians have a tremendous amount of talent at the catcher's position in their system. Whether any of it is truly major-league ready is a different story.

Now that Martinez is gone and Shoppach has failed to live up to expectations, who do you see as the Indians starting catcher to open next season? Do you see Shoppach and Marson splitting time behind the plate almost equally, or will one of the two have enough to truly claim the starting job?

And what of blue chip prospect Carlos Santana? His bat is rumored to be major league ready, but how long do you think he'll need to hone his skills behind the plate before we will see him catching full time for the Indians?

Samantha Bunten: I like Shoppach, so it pains me to say that I don’t think he’ll be part of the equation at catcher next year. I don’t even think he’ll be part of the Indians at all by the time the 2010 season starts. The Indians likely won’t offer him arbitration because they won’t want to pay what the proceedings will say he’s worth.

Marson should get the starting job with Toregas as backup. I don’t really see the Indians carrying a third catcher, but Gimenez can fill in behind the plate if need be.

Santana should really spend the whole year in Triple-A. There’s no need for him to join the ballclub earlier than that with Marson on the roster, and he can only benefit from more time in Columbus improving his ability to call a game and field his position. He could use some work in both areas but should be able to get it down by the end of next season. His bat will be ready any time.

He should join the Indians in September 2010 when the rosters are expanded so he can get a taste of major league ball, and so we can all get a glimpse of our backstop for 2011 and beyond.

Nino Colla: I see the catching position working out this way: Lou Marson was obviously acquired to be a part of this team next year, since they didn't flip him and Carlos Santana is on the verge. Marson is going to be the starter with Wyatt Toregas as the primary backup and Chris Gimenez as a utility slash catcher player for this team.

Carlos Santana will start the year in Columbus and I figure he'll be in the MLB by the end of the year and the starter by 2011. Marson at that point would be traded if he garners enough value and if not, he'd be the backup.

Shoppach will not be an Indian next year. I'm pretty convinced of that. He's going to make too much money for his production. He'll be shipped off somewhere else.

Scott Miles: I'd be surprised to see Shoppach on the roster next year. He is eligible for arbitration after the season, and I don't think the Indians will want to pay him what the arbitrator thinks he's worth.

I think it will be Marson and Toregas on the Opening Day roster, until it is determined that Carlos Santana's defense and pitch-calling is "major league ready." That might be a mistake, in my eyes.

After all, I'd rather have Santana learn on the job in 2010 when there's nothing on the line, as opposed to 2011 or 2012 when the team might be ready to make a run. Until then, Toregas will get first crack at being the starter, though if he falters, Marson will be right there.

Jeff Poore: Shoppach will be shopped to a team that thinks they can fix the giant hole in his swing. He will make too much money next year to justify his remaining on the Indians.

Marson will get a look with Torregas backing up with Gimenez being the new Jamey Carroll with the ability to be a third catcher. Santana will be up by the All Star break in 2010 unless he is injured or derails next year.

4. Last week Paul Dolan came out and said the Indians were looking at a $16 million loss for the season. During the discussion, he mentioned that ticket sales falling far short of the projected totals contributed significantly to this loss.

Do you have any sympathy for the Dolans? Do you see the mention of poor ticket sales as a passive-aggressive attempt to tell fans it was "their fault" that their favorite players may have been traded, as a justifiable statement from an organization that is struggling financially, or just simply one more excuse to avoid spending money on the team?

Samantha Bunten: I’m not sure I truly think Dolan was trying to imply that the fans should share in the blame because they weren’t buying tickets, but the problem is that it sure SOUNDED like that was what he was saying. I don’t care if only three people show up to a game—you do not do anything to further alienate your fan base by laying blame on them when the product you put on the field isn’t good enough to make people want to buy tickets at all.

That said, fans should be supporting the team anyway. You’ll all be back when the team is good again, and you owe it to the team to stick around even when the going gets tough.

Overall though, Mr. Dolan should keep his financial woes to himself. In this economy, no one wants to hear someone whining about losing $16 million dollars when at the end of the day that person still owns a baseball team. When all the people who are out of work find jobs and can afford to buy even a single game ticket again, we can all be in this together. Until then, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw baseballs.

Nino Colla: Well it's the truth. That's the thing. I'd rather the Indians flat out tell me what's going on rather than sugar coat things.

I don't think the Dolans are saying it's the fans fault. I think they are merely saying, "Look...We cannot financially compete with other teams, not only because of this economy, but because of market, and one of the reasons for that is the ticket sales. We simply aren't getting as many fans as we thought we would. A lot of that has to do with the product we've put out on the field, which is our fault when it boils down to it."

This ownership spends money on the team. Their payroll is average. It isn't abnormally low like the Marlins or Rays, and it isn't astronomically high like the Yankees or Red Sox. People want to complain, but in reality, the Indians are just like a vast majority of the teams in the entire game. Most of the teams in the MLB spend around where the Indians spend.

I have sympathy for them because of the unnecessary abuse they take for being what most people call "cheap" because they don't re-sign CC Sabathia. This is millions and millions of dollars we are talking about. Nothing about it is cheap.

Scott Miles: This is a "chicken or the egg" type deal. The team can't spend to get competitive if the fans don't show up, buy tickets and spend money in the park. The fans don't want to show up if the team isn't competitive. Who's right and who's wrong? Answer—neither.

I can understand where the fans are coming from, especially with the way the economy is and so many Clevelanders in tough financial times. I also understand where the Dolans come from—this is a business, and any business that loses $16 million has to make changes. For the Tribe, that means trading away high-priced veterans.

I will say this—most fans are ignoring the fact that the Indians HAVE spent money this year. They brought in veterans Mark DeRosa and Kerry Wood, which were deemed good moves. The team's payroll of $81.63 million was 15th in the league, right in the middle (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries). So the Dolans were no cheaper (or less so) than any other owners in baseball.

Jeff Poore: No. No sympathy at all. Dick Jacobs, RIP, bought low and sold high. The Dolans bought high and are paying the price. Jacobs had the perfect storm of a thriving economy, no Browns, an irrelevant Cavs team and a brand new ballpark.

The Dolans did not realize what they were getting in to. They have a good "plan" but have failed to hire people to implement it properly. Now they are paying the price, literally.

They also fail to realize that you need to spend money to make money. Their mantra of "if the fans come out and we raise attendance we can raise payroll" is ass backwards. I say again, they didn't know what they were getting into and have failed to explain themselves effectively, and it has turned the fan base off big time.

5. Fun Question of the Week: Last week we discussed how we saw the race for the AL Central title shaking out. How do you see the rest of the playoff picture shaping up?

Please list your picks for the rest of MLB's division winners (AL and NL), as well as your picks for the Wild Card in both leagues.

Samantha Bunten: AL: Yankees, Tigers, Angels, Rangers (Wild Card). NL: Phillies, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants (Wild Card).

Only three of these are consistent with what I picked before the season started. Clearly I do not have a future as an oracle.

Nino Colla: AL: Yankees, White Sox, Angels, Red Sox. NL: Phillies, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants.

So my picks earlier this year were rather silly and out of the box. I wish I had fully committed to the Cardinals, but didn't go bold. I did pick the Marlins, but that is looking sketchy. I'm not losing faith in the Red Sox despite the recent play, I think they are very much in it, but my wild card pick of the Rays is no longer looking very good.

Scott Miles: AL East—The Yankees are scorching everyone right now, finally playing up to the payroll and talent.

AL Central—Detroit's rotation is too good to blow their lead over the Sox, no matter how slim it is.

AL West—The Angels know how to do one thing: win AL West titles. This year is no different.

AL Wild Card—My heart is pulling for either Texas or Tampa. My head tells me it’s the Red Sox. 2005's wild card race sways me: Boston.

NL East—Florida is making it interesting, but the Phillies are just too good.

NL Central—St. Louis has been and continues to be the class of this division.

NL West—The Rockies are making another surge and the Dodgers seem disinterested. Still, LA won't completely fold.

NL Wild Card—Like the AL Wild Card, this will probably come down to the final day or two. The Rockies squeak by and squeak in to the playoffs again.

Jeff Poore: AL East: Yankees, AL Central: Tigers, AL West: Angels, AL Wildcard:Red Sox.

NL East: Phillies, NL Central: Cardinals, NL West: Dodgers, NL Wildcard: Rockies.

Because of stupid wildcard rules we're looking at a NYY/DET and LAA/BOS playoff matchup. New York owns Detroit and the Red Sox own the Angels, so it's armageddon once again. Unless the rest of the NL contenders find more pitching, no one is beating the Phillies in the NL.

Tribe Talk: Out with the Old Guys, in with the New

Samantha Bunten — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:49:19 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we examine the fates of the older players on the Tribe’s roster, from the recent trade of Carl Pavano to the uncertain future of Jamey Carroll. We also discuss the ethical implications of trading within one’s own division, weigh-in on what we’ve seen from the newly-acquired Justin Masterson thus far, and take our best guess at who the 2009 AL Central Division Champions will be.

I would like to thank this week's participants Dave Wiley, Dale Thomas, and The Coop for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. We would all like to know what the value of the Pavano trade will be for the Indians, but that question cannot be answered until the Tribe receives the promised player to be named later from Minnesota sometime between now and Sept. 1.

The other question sparked by this deal is regarding where one should draw the line on who one makes trades with. Do you have a problem with the Indians trading a player to an AL Central rival, especially one who is in the race for the division title?

Would your opinion be different if the Indians were still in the race, or if the Twins were not?

The Coop: I don’t know how you could expect very much. The Indians pretty much took a flyer on him last offseason and he ended up being pretty mediocre. I mean, I certainly didn’t count on him for nine wins (now 10), but he hasn’t exactly been untouchable. It’s not like another team is going to mortgage their future for him.

He is playing on a one-year contract and is certain to make more money next year, assuming he finishes out well this season. Meanwhile, he’s 33 and has spent more time on the DL than on the field in his career.

Someone will pick him up, but it won’t be the Tribe. Their move was consistent with what they’ve been doing all along, exchanging million-dollar contracts with low-level prospects.

I don’t have a problem with the Tribe trading to a division rival now that they’re finished, regardless of where Minnesota is in the standings. If both teams were in the race, I think it would depend on what the Indians got in return. Obviously, a starting player for a prospect would not seem to make sense.

Dave Wiley: The Indians end up with some beads and other trinkets, and Minnesota and Pavano go on to win the AL Central Division crown. The Indians receive casino building rights in Cleveland on the next ballot.

Samantha Bunten: The idea of trading with a division rival just doesn't sit right with me whether the Indians are out of the race or not, but mostly it just seems like bad business to ever trade within one's own division to a team in contention.

In other words, cutting a deal with the Twins like this is more offensive than the situation would have been if the Indians and the Royals swapped a few players.

The one thing that lessens the blow is that Pavano's contract only runs through the end of the year. He can only help the Twins until the end of a season that is a lost cause for the Indians anyway, so at the very least they have not given a player to a division rival who might help that team down the road when the Indians would truly stand to be hurt by it.

For the Twins, it’s a win/win trade for three reasons:

1. What they will have to give up in the form of the player to be named later will likely be minimal;

2. Pavano's contract will become pricier soon when his incentive clauses kick in ($1.75M plus the $500k remaining owed on his base salary), but he won't be so expensive that he isn't worth taking bit of a gamble on, and;

3. Perhaps most important (and the single reason I'm willing to forgive this inter-division trade just a little), is that Pavano is 3-0 vs. the Tigers this year. This is a good reason for Minnesota to acquire him, and good reason for those of us who don't care much for Detroit to be glad they did.

Dale Thomas: Nostradamus predicts the end of the world as we know it in 2012. NostroTHOMAS predicts that 2012 is the year before we will likely see any value from this trade, presuming it follows the prophetic plan of wild guesses we've seen thus far into this fire sale/giveaway.

Trading with division rivals is just flat-out annoying. That's a bit different than being a totally bad thing or a good family picnic type of thing. It's more like when somebody offers a handshake, only to find out they have one of those buzzer things in their palm. I wouldn't see it any differently if the Tribe were the ones with the buzzer.

2. Jamey Carroll had a couple of clutch hits for the Tribe on Sunday, perhaps putting on a show for would-be trade suitors.

Do you think he will last the season with the Indians, or will he be moved before the waiver trade deadline on Aug. 31? Where do you think he might end up?

Do you think it is better for the Tribe to move Carroll now while they can get something in return? Could he perhaps be valuable enough to the Indians that it would be worth trying to re-sign him as a free agent this offseason, or will his services just be too expensive for the Tribe's meager budget?

The Coop: The Indians are really in the same situation here as they were with Pavano. They’ve got an old guy (Carroll will be 36 next year) who’s not making much ($2.5 million) but could have some above-average value to a team in contention.

I suppose the Indians could try and trade him for a low-level prospect, and they probably will, but that would be boring. Besides, why trade a guy who can play six positions and busts his tail every single day?

At the very least, he can fill in when needed and mentor young players. Hey, if they re-sign him, that’s less money that they have to spend on other utility players!

Dave Wiley: Man, this is a tough question. Jamey Carroll is the Casey Blake of two seasons ago.

I hoped then they'd re-sign Blake, but no such luck. Blake has gone on to be a regular third baseman for the Dodgers and a major contributor to their success. Carroll is also an all around player that adds a lot of value just because of his versatility. They'll trade him, and he'll end up being a large part of someone else's future.

I don't think Carroll will command big dollars in the free agent market, but I also don't think the Indians will resign him.

Samantha Bunten: The rumor mill has been quiet with regard to Carroll lately, perhaps indicating that he could remain an Indian for the rest of the 2009 season after all. There are certainly plenty of teams still in the mix who could use Carroll, but it appears that as of right now, he’s staying put.

While I would certainly consider re-signing Carroll before the 2010 season a worthwhile investment, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to seeing him traded prior to the end of 2009 either—as long as the Indians got something in return.

That said, I would still prefer that the Indians hang onto him, as there is really very little reason to trade him. Not only would he fetch very little in return, but his contract is a modest $2.5 million, he’s the most versatile player on our roster, and he provides a veteran presence that is important to what the Tribe should be focusing on for the remainder of 2009, which is helping this whole litter of youngsters get acclimated to playing in the major leagues.

Dale Thomas: I think the Tribe might like keeping Jamey Carroll through this year since they could probably only get a promising 18-year-old city league ace for him right now.

Would-be trade suitors need guys who step up for post season play...and I think Carroll's career post season average is exactly .000. So I ask myself who would want him?

Jamey has played pretty well this year, hitting .295 with the bulk of his hits going opposite field, but he hasn't been able to string seasons like this back to back. He's 35 and makes enough money to violate the Tribe's temporary employment services’ minimum wage guidelines, so I don't see them re-signing him as a free agent.

3. Justin Masterson turned in a solid performance in his first start for the Indians on Saturday (4.0IP, 4H, 1ER, 1BB, 4K) before the bullpen blew his lead and cost him his first victory in a Tribe uniform.

How happy are you with the acquisition of Masterson so far? Has his performance lessened the blow of losing Martinez at all? Do you prefer him in a starting role or coming out of the pen?

The Coop: It would be hard not to be happy with what he’s done so far, but I’ve seen far too many Indians prospects start well—only to sharply regress—to be sold on him.

Sadly, I think the only thing that would take the sting out of the Martinez trade would be a Cy Young award for Masterson or an eventual World Series Championship for the Tribe.

I can’t say whether I prefer Masterson as a starter or reliever, but I hope that when the Indians decide—hopefully before next season—that they make their decision and stick with it. I definitely do not believe in repeatedly yanking a guy back-and-forth between the starting rotation and bullpen.

Dave Wiley: Martinez has been a great pickup for Boston. Tribe gets the short end of the stick yet again for this year. Masterson will be part of the starting rotation next year and hopefully a valuable contributor in the Tribe's future.

In the long run, trading a catcher for a starter should be a sound trade, but Martinez was a fan favorite and I don't think Cleveland fans will ever see this one as a good acquisition, or even an even-steven.

Samantha Bunten: So far, Masterson is the only piece of the two major trades (Lee and Martinez) who we have actually seen enough of to begin to evaluate. While I still don't predict the trade results will be all flowers and rainbows and wins for the Tribe down the road. At least Masterson looks like a guy we want on our team.

I think Masterson will have to pitch a lot better than he has thus far to make up for the loss of fan favorite Martinez, but he has definitely impressed me to a degree, pitching better than I had expected and solid enough to keep trade critics at least somewhat at bay for the time being.

I prefer Masterson as a starter simply because the Indians desperately, desperately need starting pitching for next season.

I think he would be a waste in the pen in general, but I do agree with the suggestion made by a few scouts that, upon witnessing him hitting between 93 and 97 on the radar gun in his first outing with the Indians, he looks like he might make a pretty decent closer someday.

Dale Thomas: He's the closest thing to a real player we've seen so far, but it doesn't really lessen the blow of losing Martinez because it's still trading down.

Although I'm not impressed at all with his four-plus ERA, I'd really like to see Masterson get a chance to be a starter for the Indians. Call it blind faith, or call it the best we have.

4. Speaking of Masterson, do you see him as a vital part of the Indians' rotation next season?

As of right now, who do you predict will be the five pitchers who make up the Tribe's starting staff in 2010?

The Coop: I think four of the five spots are pretty much set. I’ve got to believe it will be something like: 1. Laffey, 2. Huff, 3. Carmona, 4. Sowers.

I hate to say it, but I don’t believe Jake Westbrook will ever pitch for the Indians again. I really hope I’m wrong, but I certainly don’t see him being with the big-league club next April.

Laffey is a lock to be the Opening Day starter. As far as the other three, I doubt the order will matter too much. I think it will depend on how they finish out this season and how they look next spring. In my eyes, they’re all pretty much the same at this point.

The battle for the fifth spot will be interesting—or at least, as interesting as a battle for the fifth spot can be. I would imagine it will be between Hector Rondon and Justin Masterson, but I have no idea what the front office’s plans are for either guy (starter vs. bullpen).

I say, let the “loser” go to the ‘pen. The Indians can use them both. As an alternative, I could see the Tribe picking up a cheap, veteran, Pavano-esque arm to give the young arms more time to develop.

Dave Wiley: Westbrook, Carmona, Sowers, Huff, and Masterson?

Westbrook and Carmona battle it out for opening day. Sowers slides into a solid three hole, and Huff, Masterson, Sipp and Laffey are questionable for the fourth and fifth spots based on how they close out this year and how they do in spring training.

Hopefully Wedge is no more and the staff fore-goes the spring "dig yourself into a hole" antics of the past two seasons and gives fans hope through the All-Star break.

Samantha Bunten: Absolutely. Masterson ultimately profiles as a fourth starter (maybe third if he really surpasses expectations). In the Indians world, this third or fourth starter label translates to: He will be either our ace or our No. 2 guy. Ah, life with a small market team saddled with a penny-pinching owner.

The rotation likely looks like this: Laffey, Carmona, Masterson, Huff, and a great big ol' question mark occupying the fifth slot in the rotation. Or maybe the first slot. With this group, who really knows?

That last guy could be Westbrook if he's healthy (which is starting to look unlikely given his latest setback), it could be Jeremy Sowers (which is very likely, but also might make me suicidal because I'm sick of watching this guy get hundreds of chances to prove he still sucks), it could be a guy like Hector Rondon or Tony Sipp if either is truly ready, or it could be some poor guy we sign in the offseason on the cheap who will have NO idea what he's in for.

Dale Thomas: Looking at our current active roster, I see Masterson as a key hopeful for next season's rotation. I think a good pitching coach will be more vital than any individual pitcher we currently have.

There is plenty of potential, very little proven worth, but most importantly, it's become clear that the path from the mound to home plate is located smack down the middle of a fault line.

This is why our tectonic home plate keeps shifting and moving creating such an evasive strike zone; after all, it already swallowed up all of our Cy Young winners and spit back the rocks from which our team will grow in a mere few thousand years.

With that understood, here's 2010:

1. Carmona—yes, look for an ERA under three.

2. Huff—he's gonna get a lot of run support because his name is Huff

3. Masterson—Maybe he'll throw 100 pitches?

4. Laffey—umm... yeah.

5. Some guy we've never heard of or maybe several guys we've never heard of since numbers one through four above are all standing smack in the center of that fault line.

5. Fun Question of the Week: We know, we know—you've all seen Major League and still believe the Indians can come back and win the AL Central this season, despite being more than 10 games out.

Let's just, um, assume that won't happen. Given that, who do you think will actually take the AL Central this year? Why?

Who do you actually WANT to win the division?

The Coop: My money would be on the Tigers, but I wouldn’t bet more than a stick of gum. They appear to have the deepest pitching and a quite a few “tough outs” in their lineup.

The White Sox just seem too old and play too streaky for me, and the Twins don’t really seem to have the pitching, as they’ve been hit by the injury bug. Really, it’s a complete toss-up between the three, but Detroit has a three-game lead, so I’ll take them.

However, I would prefer—and love—to see the Twins represent the AL Central. Guys like Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer are just awesome to watch. And, call me crazy, but there’s just something cool about watching playoff baseball in a loud-as-hell dome with waving white towels and a garbage bag for an outfield wall.

Dave Wiley: I think the three horse race sounds something like this:

And they're off! TheSputteringRoyals jump out to an early lead. ImaybeaTigerbutIfogotMyCornflakes follows out front. ILikeWearingWhiteSox tucks in along the rail in third, and HerecometheTwins ride along neatly in forth.

IndiansattheGateway forget to set a wake-up call for Wedge and don't break out of the gate until everyone reaches the first turn.

Around the far turn it’s...IMaybeaTigerbutIfogotMyCornflakes, ILikeWearingWhiteSox, HerecometheTwins, IndiansattheGateway, and bringing up the rear, TheSputteringRoyals.

Down the stretch it’s…HereCometheTwins, ILikeWearingWhiteSox, IMaybeaTigerbutIfogotMyCornflakes...it’s HERECOMETHETWINS!

HereCometheTwins lose their next race by four lengths, and the entire AL Central is turned into glue.

Samantha Bunten: The odds are strongly with Detroit, as they've held onto the lead consistently and don't look like they'll be overthrown any time soon.

No one has had any luck doing that so far, so I can't imagine why that would change much halfway through August, especially considering Chicago and Minnesota haven't shown any signs they're making much progress at all in chipping away at the Tigers.

Chicago certainly is making a herculean effort to change this, making two very bold, very high risk moves in trading for Jake Peavy (whose upside is tremendous but is still rehabbing from injury) and claiming Alex Rios off waivers from the Blue Jays (who arrives in Chicago with a hugely back-loaded contract that has $60 million left on it and runs through at least 2014).

If these risks pay off and Chicago can dethrone Detroit, the gamble will have been well worth it, but history has taught us that big moves at or after the trade deadline rarely have a large impact on the ultimate success or failure or a team in the end.

As for who I want to win, uh, can I pick Kansas City?

I guess if I have to pick one of the three contenders, Minnesota gets my vote. They're by far the least offensive of the three teams. While I can't exactly say I like them, I have tremendous respect for the outstanding way they run their organization from top to bottom and I have great admiration for Ron Gardenhire.

So, "Go Twins!"...I guess.

Dale Thomas: I think Detroit will take the division because nobody has shown that they can take the lead away from them, plus my boss insists this will be true.

Since the Tribe has no shot at this, I guess I would pick the Twins as the team I would like to see win it. I like Gardenhire.

Outsiders' View: FCs From Around the League Weigh-In on the Indians

Samantha Bunten — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:23:37 -0400

Over the years, Cleveland sports fans have been subjected to some spectacularly bad teams.

The Browns have had exactly one good season since their reincarnation in 1999. They have never won a Super Bowl. Their biggest moments were "The Drive" and "The Fumble", both of which serve as reminders of failure rather than success.

The Cavs were pathetic B.L. (Before LeBron). People outside the state of Ohio seemed largely unaware that Cleveland even had a basketball team. Their only other successful stretch was a few playoff runs in the early 1990s that are remembered more for the buzzer shots by Michael Jordan that took them down, than the team itself. They have never won an NBA Championship.

The Indians, of course, were epically bad for 20 years in the 1970s and 1980s. In two decades they produced the inspiration for Major League, provoked the infamous "10 Cent Beer Night" riot, and secured exactly zero playoff berths. They have not won a World Series since 1948, a championship draught second only to that of the Cubs.

Suffice it to say that we Cleveland fans have a lot of experience with bad teams. We know how to love a loser, or at least have a good time heckling one.

We spend a lot of seasons expecting to lose and are trained to be okay with it. Given that, you would think we would be able to accept the 2009 Indians with, at the very least, a sense of resigned detachment. Unfortunately, it seems that we can't.

The problem is that we didn't expect this team to lose. They were supposed to be contenders. We had every reason to expect great things from this team before the season began, so instead of being resigned to their incompetence, we were shocked, disappointed, and can't stop trying to figure out what went wrong.

Most of us are pretty sure we are more qualified to evaluate the team than its own front office, but we've spent the whole season trying to determine what went wrong, and how to fix the mess. And we can't figure it out either.

Eventually, it occurred to me that maybe we were just too close to it to see things clearly.

Were we all perhaps clinging to expectations for players who would never meet them, when we should have been cutting the cord and searching for replacements? Were we waiting for the team to turn it around long after we should have seen that it would never happen?

Worst of all, had we perhaps overestimated our chances in the first place, believing we had a team with potential to contend, when in fact, there was little chance of this in reality?

By the midpoint of the season I deemed myself (as well as my fellow Indians' fans and the organization itself) to be too biased and too bewildered to answer these questions accurately. The only way to determine the truth seemed to be to seek outside opinion from an objective party.

It was thus with the hope of seeking the truth about the 2009 Indians from an unbiased source that I decided to poll my fellow featured columnists on Bleacher Report about the my beleaguered team.

I would like to thank the following 40 Bleacher Report MLB Featured Columnists who participated in the survey:

From the AL: Nathan Stoltz (Athletics), Casey Greer (Mariners), Bo Reed (Rangers), Lawrence Barecca (Orioles), Isaac Barrow (Orioles), Sean Kennedy (Red Sox), Todd Civin (Red Sox), Joseph DelGrippo (Yankees), Stephen “Heartbeat of the Bronx” Meyer (Yankees), J.C. De La Torre (Rays), David Allan (Blue Jays), Geoff Zochodne (Blue Jays), Joe Slowik (White Sox), Dave Hampton (Tigers), Greg Eno (Tigers), Clark Fosler (Royals), Marty Andrade (Twins), Andrew Kneeland (Twins), and Jeremiah Graves (Twins).

From the NL: Anthony Masterson (Rockies), Tyler Thompson (Rockies), J.C. Ayvazi (Dodgers), Leroy Watson (Dodgers), M.T. Robinson (Padres), Andrew Nuschler (Giants), Kevin O’Brien (Giants), Cameron Britt (Braves), Brett Kettyle (Braves), Lou Cappetta (Mets), Christian Karcole (Phillies), Scott Eisenlohr (Phillies), Dave Nichols (Nationals), Farid Rushdi (Nationals), Tab Bamford (Cubs), Cliff Eastham (Reds), Ilya Harrell (Reds), Jesse Motiff (Brewers), Tom Au (Pirates), Andrew Mease (Pirates), and Greg Jergens (Cardinals).

The following is the product of the survey results and demonstrates what I now believe to be the objective truth about the 2009 Indians, based on my interpretation of the answers the aforementioned writers provided.

In addition to the quantitative conclusions I deduced from the survey results, a selection of the survey respondents' insightful thoughts is included as direct quotes. I regret that I did not have the space to include all of their comments, as every one of them impressed me with their enlightened, thought-provoking answers.

***

1. before the start of the 2009 season, did you see the Indians as a contender to win the AL Central? If so, did you see them as a contender to win the AL Pennant or even the World Series?

As it turns out, the Cleveland faithful weren’t the only ones who were wrong about the Indians’ chances in the AL Central this season. Sixty-eight percent of the Featured Columnists (FCs) polled thought the Indians had a good shot at winning the division at the start of the season.

The NL FCs seemed more inclined to believe this than the AL FCs: Almost 80 percent of those representing NL teams responded “yes.” Still, the same answer prevailed among AL FCs, though the percentage was decidedly smaller. Four of six respondents representing teams in the Indians' division thought the Indians would take the AL Central as well.

That Indians' fans were not alone in overestimating the Tribe's chance to contend before the start of the season did not particularly surprise me. What was more interesting were the reasons given as to why the Indians looked like they had a shot to win the division.

Those of us in the Indians' camp spent the offseason seeking out every possible justification for believing we could win the division, but mostly, we believed we could do it because we simply thought we had a great team. The view from outside turned out to be very different.

Of those survey respondents who thought the Indians would win the division, very few indicated that they made this choice because they thought the Indians were a particularly good team.

Rather, most saw the Indians as a possible division winner because they believed the competition in the central was either weak or impossible to predict.

In fact, many of those who answered "yes" added that they did not mean they were certain the Indians would come out on top, but rather that they thought the Indians had as good a chance as anyone because the division was wide open “Unless you’re Kansas City,” noted Blue Jays' FC Geoff Zochodne.

Said Giants’ FC Kevin O’Brien, “I expected them to be a contender in the AL Central due to overall unpredictability of the other teams in the Central. The Tigers were coming off a bad year, the White Sox had lost two key cogs from their playoff team a season ago (Nick Swisher and Orlando Cabrera), the Royals were still unproven, and there were a lot of question marks with the Twins' rotation.”

Several FCs from struggling teams even liked the Indians' chances because their own teams were so bad that the Tribe looked great by comparison. Take it from Padres FC M.T. Robinson, “Compared to the Padres, the Indians are the equivalent of the 1927 Yankees.”

Just two of the respondents said they guessed how bad the Indians would be from the start, predicting they would finish last in the division. Had I conducted this survey before the season started, I would have thought they were complete fools. Now I’m more inclined to believe that they are actually way smarter than the rest of us.

No one liked the Tribe for the AL Pennant or the World Series much. Four respondents saw the Tribe as a possible dark horse in the World Series, but most everyone else who thought the Tribe would win the AL Central went on to predict that they would fizzle out early in the playoffs.

2. Please BRIEFLY describe what you think went wrong for the Indians this season.

It should come as no shock to anyone what the most frequently cited reason for the Indians' demise was: 60 percent of the FCs polled believed pitching (whether relating to the rotation, the bullpen, or the whole staff) was to blame.

Said Tampa Bay FC J.C. De La Torre, “The Indians starting pitchers are dead last in the majors in ERA. Look at the teams near them—San Diego, Baltimore, Washington…they are all at the bottom of their respective divisions.”

The fact that Carl Pavano was the team’s No. 2 starter was an indicator of just how bad the starting pitching was according to several FCs. “Maybe Carl Pavano as the No. 2 starter should have been a red flag”, said Detroit FC Greg Eno. According to Rockies FC Tyler Thompson, “There is no way you can cover for a rotation that awful.”

The bullpen was mentioned specifically in most responses, described as (among other things) “a dumpster fire” by Toronto FC David Allan.

The dismal performances of Fausto Carmona and Grady Sizemore also came up frequently as huge contributing factors to the Indians’ disappointing season. A number of respondents thought the Indians were relying heavily on the hope that Carmona would return to his 2007 form, a foolish move because they had no backup plan and no proof that he was headed in that direction.

A few FCs felt that the drop in the numbers that Sizemore put up this year was severe enough to play a big role in the team's failure. Yankees FC Joseph DelGrippo had this to say about Sizemore: “His decline is very troubling. He appears to want to be a home run guy, but his job is to get on base and set the table.”

Many focused their attention on Eric Wedge’s shortcomings as a manger. Said Cardinals FC Greg Jergens: “(Wedge’s) pitching decisions and constant lineup changes made it very hard to get any continuity.”

Perhaps more damning than the manager’s ability (or lack thereof) was a string of poor decisions by the front office. Cubs FC Tab Bamford said “They shouldn’t have moved prospects for DeRosa because he was a Band-Aid. They shouldn’t have moved Casey Blake last year. They’re effectively the same player. They also need to cut their losses with Hafner and invest in an everyday DH.”

The signing of Kerry Wood was specifically designated as one of the aforementioned poor front office decisions. GM Mark Shapiro’s trades over the past two seasons were viewed as equally damaging. Said Phillies FC Scott Eisenlohr: “How can you trade back-to-back Cy Young Award Winners (Sabathia and Lee) and still charge full price at the ballpark?”

Frequent team-wide hitting slumps, poor team chemistry, and an overrated lineup were also cited as reasons for the Tribe’s awful season, as well as the fact that they got off to such a bad start in April. Rangers' FC Bo Reed said “Had the Indians gotten off to a better start, things would have been much different, but the hole dug in April was too much to overcome.”

There was even one mention of a possible curse at work: Giants' FC Andrew Nuschler worried that the baseball gods had it out for him this year and thus, perhaps he jinxed the Tribe by picking them as a World Series dark horse. This forced me to consider that he might be Jose Mesa operating under an alias, but the rest of his answers indicated he knew too much about pitching for that to be the case.

At the end of the day though, the answer that best sums up what went wrong for the 2009 Indians may be that of Toronto FC Geoff Zochodne: “The season started.”

3. What Indians' player(s) have been the most disappointing in their performance this season?

The overwhelming choice for the most disappointing player for the Indians in 2009 was Grady Sizemore, who received more than half the votes. “If he’s supposed to be 'untouchable' (for trades), somebody needs to tell him to play like it,” said Dodgers' FC Leroy Watson.

Fausto Carmona had the second-highest vote total for this question. “Remember when he was unhittable?” mused Twins' FC Marty Andrade.

Kerry Wood was next on the list, usually accompanied by a comment about how severely the Indians' overpaid for him, followed by Jhonny Peralta and interestingly, Cliff Lee.

Every single player in the regular lineup or on the pitching staff got at least one vote to receive this dubious distinction, except for three players: Victor Martinez and Asdrubal Cabrera, who deserved to be left off the list, and Trevor Crowe, who I can only assume wasn't mentioned because he was so bad to begin with that no one was particularly disappointed when he failed to perform.

Four votes went to the bullpen collectively, and Atlanta FC Brett Kettyle cast his vote for “every pitcher not named Cliff Lee”.

4. Despite the Indians' failure to perform as a team, which Indians' player(s), if any, have performed well this year as individuals?

Shin Soo Choo and Victor Martinez were tied for the most votes in this category. Atlanta FC Cameron Britt said, “If not for (Martinez), this team might be as bad as the Nationals.” Now that he has been traded away, perhaps they will be.

Asdrubal Cabrera was next in the vote totals, and finishing in a surprisingly distant fourth place was Cliff Lee. Ryan Garko and Travis Hafner also received a few votes each, with several FCs commenting on how nicely Hafner had bounced back from injury.

Mark DeRosa received a few votes as well, despite the fact that he was traded in June. Said Stephen “Heartbeat of the Bronx” Meyer: “Arguably your best performer was traded for a reliever who wasn’t ready for the majors.”

What is truly alarming is that the Indians actually traded away FOUR of their best performers, according to the results of this survey. This means that only three players who respondents thought performed well this season remain with the team.

For those keeping score at home, that would be 12 percent of a 25-man roster. Any sabermetricians out there know if there is a formula to determine the number of expected wins if only 12 percent of your roster is remotely decent? Or should we just assume that a percentage this low means we should start casting for a remake of Major League?

5. Other than Grady Sizemore (who the Indians have designated as their lone untouchable), which Indians' player(s), if any, would you like to see your team make a trade for?

This question was meant to be hypothetical, as it was posed before the Indians traded Garko, Lee, and Martinez, and before I had even considered a trade of Lee or Martinez as real possibility.

As it turned out, there was nothing hypothetical about it for the FCs from Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco. Both the Boston FCs, Todd Civin and Sean Kennedy, submitted their answers before the Martinez trade, but I imagine they're both happy since they both listed Martinez in their answers.

Phillies FC Christian Karcole included Cliff Lee in his answer, which was submitted before the trade. Phillies FC Scott Eisenlohr answered after the trade by simply saying, "We already got him."

So four respondents got their wish, but since Lee was the top vote-getter for this question and Martinez a close second, it appears many others did not.

A significant number of FCs also expressed interest in Garko, Choo, Peralta, and Cabrera. Mets' FC Lou Cappetta felt his team could benefit from acquiring Peralta. He said, “Peralta is a solid bat who could fill in at shortstop until Jose Reyes returns. After that, Peralta could be moved to first base, where he’s sure to be better defensively than anyone the Mets currently have.”

I was surprised that only one person expressed an interest in Jamey Carroll, and equally surprised that there were people out there who wanted Wood, Pavano, and Westbrook.

San Diego FC M.T. Robinson said he would be happy to take any of the Indians to help his troubled Padres. Conversely, four FCs said they didn’t want ANYONE from the Indians' roster despite the fact that the team appears to be having a clearance sale.

It is unlikely that those who wanted to trade for Choo or Cabrera will get their wish, but there appears to be no guarantees anymore. Boston FC Todd Civin also pointed out that even the supposedly untouchable Sizemore likely “could be had for the right price.”

6. Do you think the Indians will contend in 2010?

The verdict, sadly, was an overwhelming “no.” Many of those polled felt the Indians would go into rebuilding mode. Giants' FC Andrew Nuschler said “Too much young talent has walked out the door for youngsters who won’t be ready by next season.”

Twins' FC Jeremiah Graves said “Without (Martinez and Lee), the team doesn’t look like contenders in the AL Central.”

White Sox' FC Joe Slowik said it was doubtful because “they would need to acquire/develop two or more legitimate starters,” which would be difficult to do in just one year.

As was the case with the 2009 predictions, the NL contingent was more inclined to believe the Indians had a shot in 2010—though this time there were far fewer who had any hope for the Tribe.

A few FCs cast their vote as “maybe,” depending on whether Sizemore can rebound from injury and a terrible season all-around, whether then-Indians can acquire adequate pitching through trade or promotion, and whether the players who remain on the roster can improve.

Said Mariners FC Casey Greer, “Their division is as deep as it is mediocre, so it’s possible if the right players progress, but not a given.”

A few also saw the Indians’ chances in 2010 as dependent on how the rest of the division looks. Dodgers' FC J.C. Ayvazi said, “Anything is possible in the AL Central, but it will be difficult.”

Even though they were far outnumbered, 11 brave souls did vote that yes, the Indians could contend in 2010. Colorado FC Anthony Masterson said “Yes, the upper levels of their minor league system are stocked with big time prospects who will make a serious impact in 2010.”

It should be noted, however, that all of the "yes" votes were cast before Lee and Martinez were traded.

***

In conclusion, it seems my fellow Indians supporters and I were not as far off base as I had feared. The majority of the FCs polled shared our mistaken belief that the Indians would win the AL Central this year, and the majority also agreed that unfortunately for us, the Indians will not contend next year.

They agreed almost entirely with me (and I venture most Indians' fans) on which players performed well, despite the team's struggle as a whole.

Regarding players who disappointed this season, I wholly agree with the FCs polled on Fausto Carmona and Kerry Wood. Initially, I was surprised Peralta didn't receive more votes, but then I realized it is difficult to be disappointed in a player you don't really expect anything from.

I was also surprised to see Pavano mentioned, not because he's been particularly good, but because he's been far better than I expected and thus, far from disappointing.

Other players I would have included are Trevor Crowe, Jeremy Sowers, and even though he was released in May, David Dellucci.

I thought the severity of the criticism of Sizemore was a bit harsh. I agree that he has been disappointing, but I believe it is largely due to injury. However, because the whole point of the survey was to gain insight from soliciting objective opinions, I will concede that my reluctance to agree with the survey results on this subject may be the result of my inability to consider it from an unbiased position.

We all agree that pitching played the largest role in the Tribe's demise, and that injuries certainly didn't help. I blame moronic front office decisions and poor team chemistry more than the survey participants did, and I was shocked that no one mentioned lack of leadership as a contributing factor.

Unfortunately, none of this changes the fact that the Indians are just really, really bad, and probably won't be getting better any time soon. Still, this project afforded me a lot of valuable insight about my team from an objective, well-informed panel of sources.

My biased opinion may yet affect my ability to be completely objective when assessing my own team, but it did not prevent me from coming to terms with many things pointed out by the FCs I surveyed that I had previously been unable to see through the haze of my affection for my team.

To all the FCs who participated in the project, I wish the best of luck to you and your respective teams for the remainder of the season.

Since 2009 won’t be the Indians' year, I don’t mind supporting your teams’ successes.

We'll get you next year.

Well, maybe in two years.

Tribe Talk: Clearance Sale! Clearance Sale!

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we’re kind of cranky, so we vent about the trades of Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez, lament the state of the team in general, and lastly, attempt to seek solace in the few positive experiences that watching the Indians afforded us this season.

I would like to thank this week's participants Nino Colla, Jeff Smirnoff, Scott Miles, and guest star M.T. Robinson, B/R Featured Columnist for the Padres, for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. The Cleveland media absolutely crucified the Indians for the deal they made with the Phillies for Cliff Lee and Ben Francisco. Do you agree with this assessment, and if so, was there ANY redeeming factor in the trade?

Additionally, please share your thoughts on the inclusion of Ben Francisco in the deal. Did this further tip the trade in the Phillies' favor? Were you at all sorry to see Francisco leave?

Nino Colla: I think there were plenty of redeeming factors in this trade.

Not just the media, but the fans, our future children, the dog next door, and the cast and crew from the hit show NCIS all crucified the Indians for this deal. Let's be honest though, about 75 percent of those harsh reactions came at first glance.

I won't lie, I screamed at people, (maybe a little violently) about how Jason Donald didn't make any sense. To a certain extent I don't get why they'd want a single position player in the deal, but given Shapiro's plan, I can go with it.

Look, the deal isn't bad. The Indians got the second, third, fourth, and 10th rated prospects according to Baseball America. While I don't take them by the book, the book on Knapp is that he can be really special.

Carrasco can be very good if he harnesses his stuff, and both Marson and Donald made Team USA's bronze medal winner last year in the Olympics and both contributed. Not to mention, they too are rated highly by scouts.

So three of the prospects we acquired aren't having spectacular years. Stop looking at numbers and look at the talent that is there. They've got it; let's see if we can make it work.

I don't think inclusion of Francisco was much. I loved Benny and all, but he was nothing more than a fourth outfielder and that's what he'll be in Philadelphia.

If there is someone who wants to cry about giving away an outfielder, cry about Franklin Gutierrez, who had more talent than Francisco. Francisco's a streaky hitter that is above average defensively, but not a stud.

Samantha Bunten: Mark Shapiro must throw the best parties. Come on over, trash the house, eat all the food, drink all the beer, maybe steal a few pieces of furniture on your way out.

All Shapiro asks in return is that you "blow him away," by which he means leave a few bucks on the table on your way out. Don't worry, he doesn't expect applause.

Shapiro is no doubt considered a very generous man in Philadelphia.

If Knapp turns into a Cy Young winner in four years and all the other players the Indians received become solid major leaguers eventually, then I'll be the first person to say I was mistaken when I said Shapiro all but gave Lee away.

If the outcome is in anyway different than that though, this trade will hold up as one of the worst in recent history.

Knapp is supposed to be the crown jewel in the package the Indians received, but I would never allow so much to ride on an 18-year-old with a 2-7 record in A-ball who already has arm issues. Clearly, this organization has learned nothing from the never-ending Adam Miller saga.

I'm not saying there weren’t any redeeming factors in the whole mess, just that despite any potential redemptive value in the deal, it's still a bad trade.

I'm sorry to see Francisco leave, but only because I just liked him and not because he was any good. His potential tops out at fourth outfielder, whether in Cleveland, Philadelphia, or anywhere else.

He's exactly the kind of player that becomes an 11th hour "toss-in" in deals like this. Francisco isn't a player with enough impact to further tip the trade in the Phillies favor, and they were already the clear winners in the deal anyway.

Jeff Smirnoff: It's the timing that is unforgivable. Whereas the CC Sabathia trade gave up on one lost year in 2008, the Cliff Lee trade gives up on 2009, 2010, and possibly 2011. So the Indians are giving up on seasons in the future, not just one crappy one mid-season.

Plus, they have NO starting pitching depth at the minor league level. They could have gotten a similar haul by trying to win in a crappy 2010 AL Central and dumping him next year if possible.

Ben Francisco is blocking Matt LaPorta, Michael Brantley and Jordan Brown. His inclusion is irrelevant.

M.T. Robinson: The problem for all the have-not teams in baseball is that the clubs who have the money can determine who plays where.

Philadelphia had no reason to give away their best prospects in the Cliff Lee deal, because they knew that in the long run, the Indians would not be able to keep Lee anyways. That basically destroys any bargaining position the Indians might have had.

Francisco was added because he has had a down season, but I think in the long run, the Indians will regret letting him go so cheaply.

Triple-A right-hander Carlos Carrasco, Class A pitcher Jason Knapp, catcher Lou Marson, and shortstop Jason Donald are decent prospects, and Donald may well be the best of the bunch.

Indians general manager Mark Shapiro postulated after the trade, "At the root of this deal was balancing the conviction of our ability to compete in 2010 with the opportunity to impact the team's construction for years to come, without the sense of confidence in the team's ultimate competitiveness, we acted aggressively to add players that will impact the organization in 2010 and beyond." In other words, no refunds for this season, and you had better renew for next season....

Scott Miles: I'd give the trade about a "C".

We couldn't get any of the Phillies' top prospects (like Kyle Drabek or Dominic Brown). Instead, we get a catcher, a position where we have organizational depth (Santana, Toregas, Gimenez and even Shoppach); a utility-type infielder; a young pitcher with great "upside" but who is four years away from helping and already has a bum shoulder; and a highly touted pitcher who has hit a speed bump in AAA.

So I'm a bit mixed on the haul. It could have been better, it could have been worse. Carrasco and Knapp are the keys; if they can help the rotation, then the trade will be OK.

Losing Francisco really has little impact on us. With LaPorta and Brantley looming, he was expendable, plain and simple.

2. The Victor Martinez trade provoked less criticism in terms of how smart the trade was strategically than the Cliff Lee deal, but at the same time produced a far angrier response in terms of the emotional impact.

How angry are you at the Indians for trading Martinez? Does this trade bother you more than the Lee trade?

Putting aside the emotional damage the Indians did by trading a hometown favorite, consider the trade purely from a baseball standpoint: was the move a good one for the Indians?

Nino Colla: I'm angry that the Indians were in a position to trade Victor Martinez. If we weren't in this position, then Victor Martinez doesn't get traded. Emotionally, this trade bothers me than any other trade the Indians have ever made.

But this trade makes all the sense in the world to make when you boil down the numbers. He's an aging catcher who is probably at a nice value to get something for him, so why not?

There are things working against the trade, though. The first is that he's the leader and face of this franchise. You can talk about Grady Sizemore all you want, but Martinez is the guy who fans could identify with and tell their kids, "Yeah, that's how you play the game."

The next would be that his contract lines up perfectly with the arrival of Carlos Santana. Plus Santana looks up to Martinez like an idol and for him to learn from Vic would be great.

Okay look, there are some pros and cons of this deal. A lot of the cons are emotional investment into the team. I don't like trading Victor Martinez as much as the next guy, but this team has committed to their plan of investing in 2011 and beyond with the hopes of making a decent contender in 2010.

That's the plan we've been given and for the situation they are in and the plan they've laid out, I think the trade they made with Martinez was very good.

Samantha Bunten: It's difficult to get past the negative impact of this trade with regard to off-field issues: the fans lost their favorite player, the clubhouse lost its leader, and the guy who was traded was shipped out even though he practically begged to stay.

Still, at least we can all take some comfort in the fact that unlike the Lee trade, this actually looks like it may not have been a completely disastrous deal for the Indians.

So far Masterson looks like he can contribute in the bullpen this year, and perhaps as a member of the rotation next year, which is very fortunate for a team desperate for even adequate starting pitching.

Hagadone and Price aren't truly far enough along to judge their value, but both have decent potential and the Indians need all the arms, unproven or not, that they can get.

I am by no means implying that I think this was a good deal; I don't see Clay Buchholz on my roster, so I am forced to conclude that Mark Shapiro sold low yet again. Rather, I would say that I don't think it was a bad deal, either.

Which side emerges as the eventual victor in the deal will be determined by the success of Masterson's transition to a starting role in 2010 and how long Martinez can keep putting up offensive numbers at his current pace.

Jeff Smirnoff: Angry because he was my favorite player, but catching is a position of depth in the minors so the trade does make sense.

But once again, they traded him a year and a half before he could leave. A bad trend to see arise. It's good in the fact they got a lot of pitching in return bad in the message it sends the fans.

M.T. Robinson: Having just seen the Padres’ Jake Peavy dealt away for a bag of beans, against Padre fans' wishes, I fully understand how Indians' fans feel about losing their best player. Pissed. Losing V-Mart will gut the Tribe for the foreseeable future.

The players the Indians got in the deal, Justin Masterson, Nick Hagadone and Bryan Price, may well provide eventual help. But, not today. None of these guys are even remotely top prospects in comparison to Martinez.

The common position of a seller team like the Indians, is that "We are building for the future." Isn't every team building for the future, every day? At what point does 2015 become more important than tomorrow?

I always feel like I am getting sold down the river when the Padres do that. I have, at the most, 100 baseball seasons to watch in my life, and that is an optimistic number. Waiting for next year gets old, when next year might never come.

Scott Miles: Victor Martinez has been my favorite player for several years now, and it's not just because of his performance on the field. It's his leadership. It's the way he defends his pitchers. It's gutting it out through injuries and still playing at an All-Star level.

I don't care about his age, or his injury history, or his contract, or what we got back for him: Victor Martinez is the type of player you just can't get rid of.

3. Perhaps the only thing more devastating to a fan than seeing their favorite player(s) traded is being forced to consider the thought that maybe the player was happy to leave.

While Victor Martinez appeared to be as sad to leave the Indians as Indians fans were to see him go, Cliff Lee looked like he couldn't get out of town fast enough.

Do you think Lee is happy he was traded? Would it bother you if he was?

Nino Colla: I don't think he was happy he was traded from Cleveland. I think he was happy he had a new team to go to, though, if that makes any sense.

I think Lee felt a little sting that the team wasn't interested in a contract extension on his terms after they sent him to the minors in 2007. I'd be a little miffed too.

You have to remember that this a team game and had that situation happened to Victor Martinez, I guarantee you that Martinez would understand it, given it being warranted.

Lee looks very happy in Philadelphia and I don't think he was planning on sticking around in Cleveland when his contract is up.

That being said, I don't think he was itching to get out of Cleveland. If Lee was happy to get out Cleveland, good for him, he got his wish.

It bothers me, but there's nothing I can do about it. At least he wasn't vocal about it and that's all we can ask of him as fans: For Lee to be respectful about, which he was.

I can deal with it. However if he was happy, it does show what kind of person he is and why he's had the blowups and incidents he has had in the past.

Samantha Bunten: I think Lee was thrilled, and I can't say I blame him. Lee was still smarting, two years after the fact, from his unceremonious demotion in 2007 that ultimately led to his being left off the playoff roster that season.

He rebounded by winning the Cy Young the following year, for which the Tribe rewarded him by saddling him with an offense that provided a paltry amount of run support and a bullpen that blew his leads and cost him wins on a regular basis.

Lee now has the opportunity to be the ace of a staff that gets excellent run support, has a reliable bullpen backing it up, and a supportive, enthusiastic fan base.

And of course the most important factor, Lee now has the opportunity to pitch for a team that has a legitimate shot to not only reach the playoffs, but perhaps win the World Series.

I bet Lee couldn't get out the clubhouse door fast enough after the trade was completed. I would have been sprinting for the exit, too.

Jeff Smirnoff: I think that this organization has treated Cliff Lee (and other players) very poorly. Some they have treated well, some they have not.

He still carries a chip on his should after being sent to AAA in 2007 and being left off the playoff roster and he harnessed that into the pitcher he is today.

His agents did approach the Indians about an extension before the season and the Tribe said no. I think it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I have no ill will towards Cliff Lee and look forward to seeing him tear up the inferior NL for years to come.

M.T. Robinson: Some players just are not cut out for the city they play in, and Lee might well be one of those. Cleveland is an acquired taste, you either get it, or you don't.

Lee stated his desire to pitch for a winner: "Obviously the Phillies are the defending world champions, they're a good team and they're in first place. Honestly, it's an honor and I look at it as a good thing.

"If other teams are wanting me and are willing to trade some of their key players and future players for me, it's a compliment." Yeah, I think he wanted out of Cleveland.

Scott Miles: Cliff Lee is absolutely happy he was traded. You can tell that he still holds it against the organization for demoting him to the minors in 2007 (when he was AWFUL) and not including him on the playoff roster.

I look at it this way: I'm sad once every five days that Lee was traded, but nothing more.

4. With two high-profile trades made by the Indians last week, the trade of Ryan Garko a few days before kind of got swept under the proverbial rug.

What did you think of this move? Were the Indians smart to move Garko while he was swinging a hot bat, or do you think his excellent recent performance should have prompted the Tribe to keep him?

Nino Colla: I think the trade was a move that had to be made and just like with Martinez, I'm emotionally distraught over it.

The reason he needed to be dealt was as simple as one player, Matt LaPorta. The Indians have been playing last year's big acquisition at first base and have made it plainly clear that with Mike Brantley, Grady Sizemore, Nick Weglarz, and Shin-Soo Choo all in the outfield, LaPorta's future is at first.

Thus, it makes all the sense in the world to let Garko go and get something for him so they could see what Marte has and then eventually move on to LaPorta.

All that being said, I hate how this went down and I hate how Garko was treated. Ryan was a class act and one guy who didn't get a fair shake here with Eric Wedge and even with the fans to an extent.

Garko had potential to be and even displayed at times the ability to be a run-producing first baseman on a contending team.

He was there in 2007, last year he led the team in RBI despite being in what most called a "down year," and whenever he played CONSISTENTLY this year, he was good.

However Wedge would bench him for stretches at a time to get him rusty in favor of the strikeout master, Kelly Shoppach. It was a total lack of respect if you ask me.

For all Garko did for this organization, from moving to first base and taking all the knocks about being a bad defender...the guy turned himself into a serviceable first baseman.

When Garko was asked to play the outfield, he was the laughing stock of the entire spring training time period. I was even laughing. But Garko did it and he did it for the team.

Garko's tenure here was one filled with dedication to the team and the organization and Wedge's treatment of him was low and disrespectful. I hope he has a better situation in San Francisco, because he certainly deserves it.

Samantha Bunten: I'm sorry to see Garko leave, but the move was inevitable as he is clearly not part of the team's long-term plans.

Garko had to be moved when he was hitting well; he's not worth all that much on the market even with his bat on fire, and wouldn't be worth anything at all if he weren't at the top of his game. The Indians were smart to sell high on Garko.

Yet I still worry that the Indians may have, once again, sold themselves short in this deal. Barnes is clearly a player the Giants weren’t too busted up about getting rid of, and no one parts with a pitcher that willingly if they think he has much to offer.

Aside from that, Barnes’ numbers at A-ball are reasonably good, and c’mon…how much did anyone really think the Indians could get back for Garko?

Ultimately I view this deal from the perspective that Garko ultimately meant nothing to the Indians in the long run, so they weren't really giving up anything they needed by letting him go. Perhaps if they get anything out of Barnes at all, we can consider this deal a victory.

Jeff Smirnoff: Garko is an average fielder with average power and poor speed who hits for a high average. He was blocking Matt LaPorta and Jordan Brown. He was not and should not be in the long term plans for the team.

His departure is inconsequential but I wish him well in SF. A class act and a great guy, but an average MLB player.

M.T. Robinson: Garko will help the Giants, who are still looking for someone to replace Will Clark at first base. Garko was probably never going to be worth more than he was at that moment. Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger on a deal.

The Indians received Single A left-hander Scott Barnes, who was 12-3 down on the farm, sporting a 2.85 ERA, and 99 strikeouts in 18 starts through 98.0 innings.

Sadly, that's the best the Indians could probably get for Garko, who will help the Giants this season. Barnes is at least a year or three away from contributing at the MLB level, so Indians fans basically get no return at the moment.

Were the Indians smart? Hard to tell.

Scott Miles: We have another Ryan Garko in Columbus in the form of Jordan Brown (although it was Andy Marte, not Brown, who got called up).

Garko has showed that he can swing a hot bat but not with any consistency, and most of his damage comes against lefties (coincidentally, his hot streak and trade came in the midst of the Indians facing about a dozen left-handed starters in a row).

So, good trade. Picked up another promising young pitcher and have enough options to plug into Garko's place.

5. Fun Question: It has been a tough, tough week for the Tribe faithful, and we could all use a bit of levity in the midst of all this sadness and frustration.

Please share a brief story about a game you attended (or just watched on TV) this season where something happened that actually made you happy.

Nino Colla: I laughed at Paul Hoynes ducking when Bart Swain caught that foul ball the other night. I find things very amusing when I watch every single Indians game possible. And when I mean possible, I mean every time I'm home when they play, which is almost always.

I went to a few games this year and both trips were successful. I must share my story about the game I went with co-workers. The story is long so I'll cut it short and get to the part involving me.

I took satisfaction in our group telling a bunch of old-timers off after they told a few us to sit down.

It angers me that the comment, "They aren't any good anyway," was thrown out at one point. Thankfully someone next to me said, "Why did you even come to the game then?"

That made me joyful. I dislike fans who take that type of attitude and to have one of them get shot down like that made my night. It was a crappy situation with the group behind us that turned good by the end of the game.

Also, I enjoyed seeing the man with the beer belly and no shirt dancing like a fool that night because it was throwback retro night. I didn't enjoy the shirtless part, but I enjoyed the laughing part, because everyone was.

Samantha Bunten: My dad and I went to the game the night after Victor Martinez was traded. At first it felt wrong to be there, like we were somehow betraying Victor by patronizing the very establishment that sold him down the river.

Then we walked in and they handed us the promotional giveaway for the night, which turned out to be, ironically, a Victor Martinez bobblehead. At that point it all just became funny, and that was reason enough to enjoy watching after all.

At one point we left the bobbleheads under our seats unattended for several innings, hoping someone would steal them because we were sick of carrying around a poorly rendered effigy of one of our favorite, now-former Indians that would only serve as a reminder that the man running our front office has all the competence of a preschooler.

When we returned to our seats, we discovered there had been no takers. I suppose it didn’t help that the way the bobblehead was positioned in the box made it look like Victor was lying in a coffin.

The game eventually went into extra innings, and was effectively ended in the 12th inning, in the rain, when Jose Veras balked with a runner on third. Amazing.

Turns out watching the team completely implode is the next best thing to watching them win. It’s the slow struggle to avoid demise that is painful; this complete train wreck is actually pretty fun to watch.

Jeff Smirnoff: My Dad needed someone to go to a Tribe game with him this year. It turned out to be Cliff Lee's last game as an Indian at home. He pitched a complete game win and was incredible to watch. I'm glad I got to see it. Even better that I saw it with my Dad.

M.T. Robinson: Easter Sunday 2009, Petco Park. I get a call with free tickets and a press pass out of the blue. Excellent. A day at the ballpark is always a good thing.

The Pads are off to a decent start, and the crowd is in their Sunday best for the Easter holiday. As I head into the Press Box, Longtime Padre Announcer Jerry Coleman is striding toward me. "Hey Colonel." "Hello young man." When you are Jerry's age, everyone is a young man.

I head off to my seat, and realize there is a 25 mile an hour wind blowing in off the bay. BRRRRR. San Diego has its cold days, no matter what the legend says. I froze my butt off for the length of the game. No worries, I have been through much worse, at Charger games in January.

Afterwards, I hung out on press row, while waiting for my friend Jack to finish with his official scorer duties. After filing the official box score, he takes me into the Giants visiting dugout. Many, many people would pay top dollar for the pleasure of kicking around the Giant players used Gatorade cups and snagging a tin of official chaw that was left behind.

While standing on the edge of the infield, i thought that the grass at Petco was being MANICURED, not mowed. My hair should get such exacting care. The baseball day ended with a stroll through the tunnels leading back to the street. All in all, a great afternoon at the ballpark.

Scott Miles: This is the easiest question on the board!

April 18. Yankee Stadium. Myself and a group of about 20 Indians fans sitting in the upper deck in left field, watching the 22-4 demolition of the Yankees, going absolutely NUTS in the 14-run second inning and nearly getting in multiple fights with Yankee fans. Heck, even Kobayashi pitched well in that game.

Unreal experience, likely one that will never be matched.

Tribe Talk: Trade Deadline Special

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:52:09 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we’ve put together a trade deadline special where we discuss the success of the trades made by the Indians thus far, debate what it would take to convince us to sell Victor Martinez or Cliff Lee (oops! We were a little behind on the latter part of that), and have a little fun proposing imaginary trades of managers, general managers, and owners.

I would like to thank this week's participants Dave Wiley and The Coop for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. Back on June 29th, the Indians traded Mark DeRosa to the Cardinals for relief pitcher Chris Perez and a player to be named later (which turned out to be pitching prospect Jess Todd).

Now that nearly a month has passed since the trade was made, do you think it was a good move? Who do you think got the better end of the deal, Cleveland or St. Louis?

The Coop: I really like Mark DeRosa for the way he plays. He seems very professional and reliable and his versatility makes him an asset to any team he plays for. The Indians’ acquisition of DeRosa this past offseason was a good move, and if the Indians were in a pennant chase, he would definitely have an important role. So for those reasons, I was personally disappointed to see DeRosa go.

However, in the best interests of the Indians organization, I didn’t really have a problem with it. Given his salary and age and the Indians’ position in the standings, there was no reason to keep him on the roster for any length of time.

I do think the Indians got the better end of the deal with the Cardinals. The Cardinals filled a hole in their lineup, and when teams do that, they generally give up too much. Since I’ve stopped laughing at the irony after Perez got rocked in his Tribe debut, I’ve seen the guy be pretty consistent. I think he’ll be a good fit in the Indians ‘pen down the road (hey, he can’t do any worse!).

I think it’s still way too early for anyone to know anything about Jess Todd, but I like what I’ve read. And, I am relying on the reputation of Cardinals organization as being one of the best scouting organizations in the majors. If they liked him, he’s probably got a chance to be pretty good.

Dave Wiley: Beats me. You say tomato, I say tomato, but neither of us likes vegetables? I don't think either team benefited any more than the other and I don't think either was hurt by the trade. Can you say non-issue?

Give it a year and ask me again. I'll probably say Who? What? DeRosa played for the Indians? Jess Todd plays baseball? This trade was a zit on the face of baseball trades. It was noticeable for about three days.

Samantha Bunten: In the end, it probably shakes out as a pretty fair deal for both sides. Both teams got something small that they needed for a relatively low cost.

You might argue that the Cardinals got the better end of the deal, since DeRosa will likely be more helpful to their team than Perez will be for the Indians. However, in terms of the actual value of the individual players over the long haul, the Indians may have gotten the best of St. Louis, depending how Jess Todd pans out.

St. Louis is a contender and they had a vacancy to fill, so like all other contenders before them, they were bound to overpay for what they needed: in this case a player like Mark DeRosa. Being the seller in this situation means the Indians probably got more than a fair deal when you examine the bigger picture.

Either way, things look better for the Indians than they did the day after this deal went through. At that point it practically looked like a laugher when Perez blew up in his first outing in a Tribe uniform. Luckily, he has since settled into his bullpen role with the Indians nicely and put to rest the worry that the Tribe may have gotten robbed in the deal.

2. Last week the Indians made what may be the first of many pre-trade deadline moves, sending RHP Rafael Betancourt to the Rockies for pitching prospect Connor Graham.

Do you think the move was a good one? Were you happy to see Betancourt go, and do you think Graham will be a significant contributor to the Indians' organization in the future?

The Coop: This one is a little bit of a head-scratcher for me. Now, you might say, “Well, I saw it coming because Rafi-Right had a $5.4 million option next year.” And, of course, you would be right.

However, consider the following: Betancourt was already making $3.35 million this year. So, to keep their best reliever currently on the roster (and, I would argue, the team’s best reliever since 2003), it would have cost them another paltry $2 million?

Meanwhile, the Tribe is paying Travis Hafner around $11 million per year to be a designated hitter??? That’s what is mystifying to me. It just doesn’t compute.

The acquisition of Connor Graham does nothing for me. He’s been pretty average—in Single-A ball. So does anyone really expect him to light it up and make a difference in the near future? I sure don’t.

Incidentally, I have heard that the Indians would be interested in re-signing Betancourt in the offseason, and I would fully support this move.

Dave Wiley: Betancourt could do with a change of scenery. I think he has worn thin on most Indians fans, and generally speaking, it was a political move for the fans. Overall, this season is over. Getting a potential contributor for someone who's future in Cleveland looked like a dead end is a good move even if Mr. Graham does not pan out.

Samantha Bunten: The true winner in this deal wasn't the Indians or the Rockies, but Rafael Betancourt himself. Cleveland was no longer working out for Raffy. He needed a change of venue, which is one of those things that shouldn't make a difference in performance but very frequently does just that.

As someone who has never been fond of Betancourt, I wasn’t too broken up when I heard he was traded, and given his recent decline in effectiveness, I can’t imagine anyone else was either.

As for Graham, he has all the makings of an average pitcher who might someday make it to the show as a mediocre but passable reliever. He's nothing special, but then Betancourt wasn't really pitching such as to command a high price.

I actually think Graham will ultimately be alright and can find a way to contribute. He's a hard thrower and despite some control problems and issuing far too many walks, he is mostly effective and gives up very few long balls.

3. One of the most intriguing deadline rumors in all of MLB involves the possible trade of Victor Martinez. Word on the street is that the Indians rejected an offer from the Red Sox for a trade of Martinez for pitcher Clay Buchholz. Tampa Bay and San Francisco are also rumored to be talking to the Indians about a possible trade for Martinez.

Imagine you are the GM of one of the above-mentioned teams interested in acquiring Victor Martinez. What does your team have to offer that you would you be willing to give up to get him?

The Coop: If I needed another bat, I’d look at Victor Martinez and I’d offer something reasonable. By reasonable, I mean that I would avoid overpaying for Martinez like the Indians’ bullpen avoids getting outs. I certainly wouldn’t pay the Indians’ asking price because that would be extremely too high.

Let me explain. The thing fans need to understand is that the tight-wad Tribe probably won’t pick up Victor’s option at the end of this year, and even if they do, they probably won’t sign him to a long-term deal when his contract is up after 2010. That being the case, the Indians will be in this exact same spot 365 days from now. This makes it a buyer’s market. If the Indians don’t plan on resigning him, they have to trade Martinez eventually, or else they risk losing him to free agency and getting nothing in return. Opposing teams and GMs know that.

Martinez is a very good player, and I’d love for the Indians to hang onto him. But from the viewpoint of someone looking to acquire him, I see a guy who is 30 years old and whose skills behind the plate—not to mention his knees—are deteriorating. Meanwhile, he doesn’t really produce the same amount of offense as the elite first basemen in the majors. Guys like this can be found, and so it’s not worth it to mortgage the future for him—especially since you might only be “renting” him for the next several months.

Dave Wiley: I'm not giving up Martinez, sorry. Martinez, assuming he wants to, has earned the right to a Tribe jersey for the duration of his career. He is a consummate team player.

If I'm the GM, I talk to Martinez one on one and find out what HE wants. If he wants to stay in Cleveland, then he does. He's the true face of the franchise, even if the marketing department keeps covering his face up with Grady Sizemore's.

Samantha Bunten: When I look at Martinez, I see a guy who is an above average singles hitter, a player with mediocre power, a liability on the base paths, an abysmal defensive catcher, and a great guy who is a pleasure to root for, a joy to manage, and a privilege to share a clubhouse with.

What does that all mean? Just that Martinez has been overvalued on the market because he is valuable specifically to the Indians. People see how popular he is in Cleveland and overlook (at least to a degree) the reality of the situation: He is a weak-fielding catcher about to be on the wrong side of 30 whose only truly superior talents are hitting singles and being a likable guy.

Thus he is worth more in Cleveland than elsewhere, where the rapport he has built up with fans, management, and teammates over the years has made him valuable in ways that won't show up on a stat sheet or a scouting report.

To me, this means he's unlikely to be moved because there is a discrepancy between the value he holds for the Indians and the value he would hold for another team and if he is moved.

The only way I see Martinez being traded before the deadline is if Cliff Lee is moved first. Should the dreaded fire sale come to fruition, someone desperate for a bat will no doubt overpay for Martinez. It could easily be Boston that does this, but I don’t believe Buchholz, Manny Delcarmen, Daniel Bard, or any of the Red Sox’ other top prospects will be part of the deal.

4. The other big trade rumor involving the Indians is, of course, the possibility of Cliff Lee being moved. Alleged interested parties include the Brewers, Phillies, Yankees, and Angels.

Now imagine you're a GM for one of the above-mentioned teams and looking to make a trade to get Lee. Who would you be willing to give up to get him?

Further, would your interest in Lee be dependent on what becomes of Roy Halladay? Would you only be interested in Lee if you were unable to acquire Halladay, or do you have reason to believe that going after Lee rather than Halladay in the first place might be the smarter move?

Author’s Note: This question was completed by our panelists before Lee was traded to the Phillies on Wednesday afternoon. The question is now moot of course, but I’ve included the answers anyway so you can see how we fared in our predictions.

The Coop: I view this question quite similarly to the previous one regarding Victor Martinez. However, the exception in this case, obviously, is that Cliff Lee is a dominant left-handed pitcher. That changes everything.

I would still be careful to not overpay for Lee because of the Indians’ “must-sell” situation. Still, Lee would be an excellent addition to any team’s starting rotation and could be just the guy a team would need to push them over the hump. If I really believed Lee would help my team win it all, I might go the extra mile to get him. I might even try to lock him up to a long-term contract as soon as he arrives in my city.

The question of how Roy Halladay figures in to the equation is quite intriguing. Obviously, Lee is not quite in Halladay’s class. Then again, Lee won’t command the same money in the free agent market as Halladay, so a team that trades for him might have a better chance to sign him long-term. If I had the opportunity to either get Lee without giving up my top minor league prospect or Halladay by giving up my top minor league prospect, well….That’s why GMs are paid the big bucks.

Dave Wiley: If I have my choice between trading for Lee or Halladay, I'm going with Halladay. He is more of a proven commodity over time than Lee. So my first move as a GM is Halladay. Lee is definitely a gem of a pitcher, and should be pursued with similar gusto to Halladay, but with just a smidgen less.

Franchises are built around solid pitching. I think GMs are loopy to give up solid number ones for anything. You just don't get those guys that easily.

As for the teams thinking about the trade, Brewers proved picking up pitching can push you to the next level. They are in this thing for real. Phillies in my opinion do not need to make the trade and it could even backfire. If I'm the Phillies, I like my cards and I stick with them.

The Yankees and Angels each have the payroll depth to trade for Lee and keep him, so hurt or help the team, it would probably benefit both in the grand scheme. If Lee goes, my guess is it’s to the Brewers.

Samantha Bunten: If I'm the Phillies, I see Lee as the solution to all of the problems that have cropped up during the quest for Roy Halladay.

While Lee won't come a whole lot cheaper than Halladay, the Phillies could probably avoid including both Kyle Drabek and JA Happ in the deal, which would not have been the case in a trade for Halladay.

They would still have to give up Jason Knapp plus two or three other top-shelf prospects like Dominic Brown, Michael Taylor, Lou Marson, or Carlos Carrasco, but the cost would still be less than it would be for Halladay, who surely would have gone for no less than both Drabek and Happ PLUS the supplementary players.

Further, there is definitely a reason for the Phillies (or anyone else, for that matter) to pursue Lee instead of Halladay in the first place, rather than just as a consolation prize if they don't land Halladay. That would be because (in addition to the lower price he would command both financially and in terms of prospects), Lee should be easier to keep going forward. While both Halladay and Lee will be expensive free agents, Lee will likely be significantly cheaper, making him a better bet in the long run than Halladay.

5. Fun Question of the Week: Imagine a scenario where you had the power to trade away the Eric Wedge, Mark Shapiro, and Larry Dolan.

Which MLB manager would you most like to swap Eric Wedge for? Which organization's GM would you like to acquire in exchange for Mark Shapiro? And which team's owner would you like to trade for to replace Larry Dolan?

The Coop: I guess it’s assumed in the question that trading the Indians manager, GM, and owner would mean some other team would be getting a horrible deal, but here goes…

Manager: I’d love to trade for Mike Scioscia, Joe Maddon, or Tony LaRussa. These guys strike me as no-nonsense managers who are not outspoken but command respect from their players. They are excellent “baseball men” who treat their players fairly. They don’t come with the glitz and glamour of guys like Lou Piniella, Joe Torre, Ozzie Guillen, etc., but they still win all the same, and really, what’s more important than that?

General Manager: I’ve always had a tremendous amount of respect for Billy Beane. While he might not have the hardware that some other guys have, very few GMs have done more with less than Beane. He also revolutionized the way player productivity and potential are analyzed and assessed. A lot of people might hold Theo Epstein in high regard, but he is actually a Beane-disciple and his checkbook is infinite. He hasn’t had the restrictions of Beane. Other honorable mentions would go to Walt Jocketty and Andrew Friedman.

Owner: Without question, the best owner of all time is George Steinbrenner. I must qualify that statement by letting you know that I absolutely hate the New York Yankees. Still, there is no owner in history that has demanded excellence—and shelled out the cash to get it. People might hate the concept of the Yankees always out-spending everyone, and I agree that that inequity hurts baseball tremendously. Still, don’t blame the Yankees—they aren’t cheating or breaking any rules. They’re doing exactly what they think it takes to win.

Would you rather have a cheap, indifferent-to-winning owner like Peter Angelos, Ted Lerner, Bob Nutting, or...dare I say it...Larry Dolan? Of course, now that King George has handed over the reins to his sons, I would love to see Arte Moreno if was available. He has spent the money it takes to put a winner on the field, while also taking a truly “fan-friendly” approach off the field and in the stands.

Dave Wiley: Eric Wedge for Joe Torre. This is similar to swapping Rafael Betancourt for Roy Halladay, but hey, this is a fun question so I can do whatever I want. I would love to see Joe Torre in a small/mid-market setting to see what he can do. He certainly has the Los Angeles Dodgers firing on all cylinders even with Manny being Woman Manny.

Mark Shapiro for Gord Ash of the Milwaukee Brewers. I like the "live for today” mentality of the Milwaukee Brewers organization. Anyone who'd go after Sabathia the way the Brewers did is okay in my book. The entire goal of playing in professional sports is to win it all. Gord Ash goes all or nothing. That gamblers attitude is something I would appreciate in Cleveland.

Larry Dolan for Tom Hicks. You have to admit, Hicks is an entertaining owner. The things he does to get Texas to the top is again a gambler’s attitude. Combine him and Ash, my team is either in last place or winning the World Series. I bet on the latter.

Samantha Bunten: My top choice for manager would be Bobby Valentine, so ideally I would be sending Wedge abroad. My apologies to the entire country of Japan for what would be a very, very bad deal for their end.

Domestically, I would love to trade Wedge for Ken Macha, Mike Scioscia, Ron Gardenhire, or Joe Madden. I wouldn’t mind getting Don Wakamatsu either, as the job he’s done in Seattle makes him worthy of the Manager of the Year Award in my book, or Lou Piniella, purely for entertainment value.

Jon Daniels, Andrew Friedman, Doug Melvin, and Bill Smith are at the top of my list for GMs because they have all been able to innovatively skirt the money issues that plague their teams and put together excellent rosters in spite of payroll, rather than because of it.

Mark Attanasio of the Brewers is, in my opinion, the best owner in baseball and thus the one I would most like to trade for. He’s a risk taker who isn’t afraid to bet it all, one of the few owners left in baseball today who truly cares more about winning than about money. Like George Steinbrenner before him, he makes a great owner because he is first and foremost, his team’s biggest fan.

Cleveland Indians in 2010: The Case For Bobby Valentine

Samantha Bunten — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:37:31 -0400

Raise your hand if you think Eric Wedge will still have a job managing the Indians in 2010.

No one?

Didn't think so.

Thus the million (or maybe four million) dollar question is: Who will take Wedge's place at the helm of this struggling franchise? Who will take on a team that was supposed to go so far in 2009 but instead failed to such a spectacular degree that no one saw it coming? Who would take a disorganized, underachieving team with a lack of both motivation and direction and turn it into something vaguely resembling the potential champion that it was supposed to be?

I doubt anyone will be surprised when no one is beating down the Indians' door begging for the job.

So where on earth will we find someone who would relish this sort of challenge? Whose greatest skill is in turning a loser into a winner? Who knows how to guide a team to greatness that is saddled with a roster rife with young, inexperienced players and fading veterans?

With such a daunting set of requirements we truly might not find such a person anywhere, but I know where I would start looking: Chiba City, Japan, home of the Chiba Lotte Marines, current employer of the soon to be out-of-work Bobby Valentine.

Allow me to be the first to admit that luring Mr. Valentine to Cleveland to fix our crippled franchise is highly, highly unlikely. But baseball is a game of hope, where we perpetually "wait until next year", and thus we can indulge in the optimal, if unlikely, possibilities.

Valentine, a major league ballplayer with a 10 year long entertaining, if lackluster, career, got his start as a manager in Texas in 1985 with the Rangers.

While Valentine ultimately failed in his nearly eight year long stint at the Rangers helm and never produced a team that finished any higher than second place and never reached the playoffs, his promise as a manager was evident.

After being fired by the Rangers in 1992, Valentine resurfaced in 1995 as the manager of Japan's Chiba Lotte Marines in what was to be the first of two stints with the team. There he guided a team that had not won a pennant since 1974 to a second place finish.

He was fired at the end of the season, but only because of a personal conflict with the team's GM and certainly not because his performance was inadequate. Here was the first indication that Mr. Valentine had a gift for turning a struggling franchise into a winning entity.

Valentine then returned to the states and took a job managing the Norfolk Tides, the Mets AAA affiliate. At the end of the 1996 season, he took over as the Mets manager, a job he would hold until 2002.

He immediately began to resurrect the flat-lining Mets, taking them to a finish 14 games over .500 in 1997 and 1998, and producing a wild card berth in 1999 where the Mets made it all the way to the NLCS before being eliminated by the Braves in six games.

A year later his Mets made it to the World Series, and though they were defeated in the big show, it was clear that in little more than four seasons, Valentine had taken a franchise with seemingly no prospect of success in the near future and turned them into a team that made it to the highest level of competition offered by Major League Baseball.

If this reads like an admiring biography of Valentine, it is only because I wish to show how he is capable of taking a team which has little hope for success and morphing them into a winner.

The Indians are in need of someone with just this ability. Someone who can take a team in the throes of failure and efficiently mold them into a real contender.

Valentine knows how to mature youngsters whose talent is raw and unhoned and help them evolve into viable professionals. He knows how to take B-grade veterans and turn them into productive players who make the most of what they've got.

Take a look at the Indians roster. It is stocked with exactly the types of players from which Valentine, unlike many others, is capable of extracting greatness.

It is also no secret that Valentine relishes a challenge. The Rangers, the Marines, and the Mets were all struggling desperately when he assented to be their leader.

After being fired by the Mets in 2002, Valentine returned to Japan for a second turn as the Chiba Lotte Marines manager, where he once again took a struggling team and turned them into a winner.

After taking over the Marines in 2004, Valentine made them a Japan Series' champion in 2005 after just one year there, and also went on to manage his team to victory in the Asia series later that fall.

Valentine was also reportedly offered the manager's job with the Dodgers and the Rays during the time he was in Japan. While he accepted neither offer, he was reportedly closer to taking the job in Tampa Bay, proving once again that the man craves a challenge.

For reasons that appear to be mostly financial, Valentine will not be returning to the Marines in 2010. Fortuitous timing for the Indians, who will likely be needing a new manger next season. There is no doubt that their current situation would provide the requisite challenge that Valentine seems to thrive on.

Further, Valentine has a little something more that would be especially beneficial to a team like the Indians: he is a charismatic, spark plug of a man.

Think of the infamous incident in 1999, when Valentine was so incensed after being ejected from a game that he returned to the dugout sporting a disguise comprised of glasses, a change of clothes, and a fake mustache scribbled on with eye black.

Bobby Valentine: character, non-conformist, spark plug, the antidote to the the passivity and stagnation that is characterized by Eric Wedge.

Seven years under Wedge has caused his team to grow up to be just like him. They appear disinterested, unmotivated, and generally disengaged with the game they are paid to play. Someone like Bobby Valentine could change that.

Ironically, this last quality possessed by Valentine may ultimately be the very reason he will never take the Cleveland job. A man as vivacious and charismatic as Valentine needs a big stage, and Cleveland is a secondary market team with a small payroll and little appeal for someone who seems to be predisposed to be a star.

Columnists have alluded to Valentine taking over the Nationals next year or even returning to the Mets. New York and Washington DC both seem more likely destinations for the effervescent Valentine.

And yet, Cleveland offers the enigmatic appeal of the type of challenge on which Valentine feeds, the opportunity to manage a team that is seemingly lost and downtrodden but has potential and eagerly awaits its savior.

Will Mr. Valentine perhaps accept this challenge despite its humble origins?

We can only hope and wait until next year, which in Cleveland is what we do best.

Tribe Talk: Will 2009 Be the Indians' Sixth 100-Loss Season?

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:56:58 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we discuss the Tribe’s chances of losing 100 games this year (and whether that even matters), a potential position change for prospect Matt LaPorta, and intra-division rivalries.

I would like to thank this week's participants, Jeff Smirnoff, Dale Thomas, and Scott Miles, for their participation.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. The Indians' extremely poor win-loss record in 2009 has people talking about the team reaching a certain negative benchmark this season: the sixth 100-loss season in franchise history.

Do you think the Indians will lose 100 games this season? Given that they are clearly not going to the postseason anyway, does it really matter if they do?

Jeff Smirnoff: Yes, they will lose 100 games. You have a solid chance to win one out of every five games: when Cliff Lee pitches. I am assuming Carl Pavano will be traded and Jake Westbrook is not coming back. With one starting pitcher and no bullpen, this team is well on its way to 100 losses.

It does matter because maybe it will make this organization wake up and realize it has some serious problems despite some talent in the system and make the appropriate changes.

Samantha Bunten: I can easily see the Tribe finishing the season with 100-plus in the loss column. Yet I half expect them to finish the season with 99 losses for one final twist of cruel irony; after suffering through this season, they will ultimately deprive the fans of even the right to mourn an epically bad 100-loss season and instead leave us with an embarrassing and forgettable loss total that tops out in the 90s.

Of course, the final record doesn't truly matter because last place is last place. I suppose when you're this far down, a greater number of losses actually becomes an advantage—the closer to the very bottom of the heap in 2009, the higher the draft position in 2010.

Dale Thomas: I tried the advanced probability calculations on this but got lost. Then I applied the Pythagorean formula and got lost yet again. Next I decided to throw a dart, but I missed the board, so in a last ditch effort I consulted my blue gnome that has a magic 8-ball inside it who is very wise and forthcoming when difficult questions are presented.

Gnomes tend to live well over 100 years, and my gnome predicts that the Indians' losses will follow accordingly. When asked if this really matters, this gnome wryly said he is "gnot" telling, but quickly followed up with this: "I predict Rain."

Scott Miles: I never thought that the Indians would have trouble matching the Cavs' regular season win total (66), but that certainly seems to be the case.

I have a theory when it comes to blowouts and horrible seasons like this: Why not just be epically bad? I made this point to my friend Dan, who is from Maryland and an Orioles fan, after they lost to the Rangers 30-3. Who remembers a game you lost 10-2 or 15-5? You got hammered anyway. You might as well just go get your doors blown off and make it something to remember—such as losing a major league baseball game by TWENTY-SEVEN RUNS.

So sure, why not Tribe? Let's lose 100! No one will remember a 70-92 season. But 62-100? That's something to look back on for a looooong time.

2. The Indians are making a concerted effort to teach Matt LaPorta to play first base at AAA Columbus. Why do you think the Indians want to convert him from a left fielder to a first baseman?

Do you think this has to do with where LaPorta profiles best, or is this really just about finding a player to fill a position where the team currently has a weakness?

Jeff Smirnoff: I think they are looking to have the option to move him to first base with the abundance of outfielders in the system. Grady Sizemore and Shin-Soo Choo are firmly entrenched in the majors, with Michael Brantley, Trevor Crowe, Ben Francisco, and even Jordan Brown in the minor league system.

With Ryan Garko and Victor Martinez being shopped, it gives them an option to not just play LaPorta but Brantley and/or Brown as well.

Samantha Bunten: Using the parameters of a traditional scouting report, LaPorta does profile better as a first baseman than as a left fielder. LaPorta also didn't have a "true position" when he was drafted in 2007 or when he was traded to the Indians in 2008, so a position change early in his career shouldn't be all that surprising.

Still, moving LaPorta is probably more about what the team needs than it is about the individual. He won't be a defensive standout at either position, so the strategy is about getting his bat in the lineup without blocking the path of other players with potential.

The Indians see great things in Akron’s Nick Welgarz, a corner outfield prospect whose path would have been blocked by LaPorta were he in left field. Conversely, they don’t seem too high on other first base prospects like Jordan Brown and have made it no secret that they don’t see a future with the team for Ryan Garko in the long run.

Simply put, LaPorta will play first because the Indians need a first baseman far more than they need yet another corner outfielder.

Dale Thomas: LaPorta profiles well as a first baseman and seems to be position-flexible thus far. The Indians also need to fill that hole, so I have to say it has to do with both. The Indians need a power hitter who can hit to all fields, and first base has been nothing more than a watering hole for the Tribe's many nomadic position players.

Let's face it, the guy is pretty slow, so he seems suited to a position where he can just hang out and chat with base runners and coaches about the good ol' days between at bats.

He's obviously a force to be reckoned with in the minor leagues, and if his rediscovery of plate discipline translates to something better than .190 in the majors, he'll be a good fit at first. At the plate he'll likely go long, strike out, or walk, so this should translate to a locked spot in the batting order and maybe...just maybe result in one less need to constantly tinker with the lineup.

Scott Miles: This makes little sense to me. It tells me about five things: The Indians still like Francisco in left; they will try to trade Garko; they might trade Martinez (our other regular first baseman); they don't trust Jordan Brown (who has been tearing up AAA); and they think LaPorta flat-out stinks in the outfield. So, what that all translates to at this point is that I can honestly say I have no clue what they're trying to do. None at all.

3. While there is still almost a month until the Aug. 17 deadline for a team to sign its picks from the amateur draft, it has become a little concerning that the Indians have yet to get a deal done with first round pick Alex White.

The front office stated that they saw White projecting as a reliever, and White's reaction to this ("I'm a starter in my mind") clearly indicated that he disagreed. Did the front office make a mistake in publicizing these views before signing White? Has it possibly created a stumbling block in negotiations?

If the Indians fail to sign White, would you see that as a huge disappointment, or would you be content to take the compensation pick for it in next year's draft?

Jeff Smirnoff: No, it always comes down to one thing...money. I have faith they will get the deal done. A large number of the first round picks are still unsigned due to the economy and Bud Selig asking clubs to offer less. It would be disappointing if White did not sign, but the compensation pick is there for these situations.

Samantha Bunten: I don't think there is any reason to panic just yet—there is still plenty of time for the Indians to sign White before the deadline, and there has been no indication yet from either side that negotiations have derailed completely.

If White signs, the comments from the front office about him projecting about a reliever are of no consequence, but if he doesn't, then the Tribe brass will need to answer for this stunning display of buffoonery and tactlessness. Holding the opinion that White projects as a reliever may be the smart assessment, but there was nothing smart about actually saying that publicly before he was signed.

The Indians need to tread carefully because White has the upper hand. While any draft pick could choose not to sign, White has even more incentive to walk away than many. Going unsigned won't force him into a year in the independent leagues because he still has another year of eligibility at UNC. If things don't work out, he can enjoy another season of college ball and try his luck in the next draft.

The Indians need to get White signed, as the compensation pick doesn't truly provide a replacement equivalent to what was lost. It's more of a vague gesture of apology than actual “compensation,” like if your pet horse died and to replace it your parents got you a goldfish.

Dale Thomas: White seems to be one of those guys who just gets the job done, so yes, I'd be disappointed if the Tribe doesn't get him signed.

I do think it's a mistake to flat-out say he will be coming to the Tribe as a reliever now and forever. It's not like our scouts have been spot-on with their assessments, and the guy certainly has potential as a starter.

Obviously he'll need more than two pitches, and he'll need to keep that flashy fastball down in the zone, but it seems like this is a case of the Indians playing a little poker with their No. 1 pick. White isn't showing his cards, which could be something like a full house, where the Indians turned all of their cards face-up with "back end relief/we hope we'll get a closer" written in permanent marker.

And, by the way, I don't like the term "compensation pick"...it sounds like a runner-up in a Miss Idaho talent show. I would take the meat over the potato.

Scott Miles: Failing to sign White would be a huge disappointment. The organization is in desperate need of pitching, and by all accounts White was as talented as it came in this draft (so too were Jeremy Sowers and David Huff, but still...).

I can't blame a guy for being ticked with the team telling him that he will be a reliever before they even bring him into the organization, and I wouldn't be shocked to see him return to UNC for another season and hope that a major league team doesn't tell him the same thing next year. Why the Indians refuse to give him a shot as a starter is beyond me.

4. Most Indians fans agree that they have seen enough of manager Eric Wedge, but what about the other coaches? How do you feel about the performance of hitting coach Derek Shelton, pitching coach Carl Willis, and bench coach Jeff Datz?

If Wedge is fired at the end of the season, his successor as manager will likely want to bring in his own staff. But what if you were the new manager? Would you consider keeping any of his subordinates on board, or do you think it is best to completely clean house?

Jeff Smirnoff: Everyone needs to go. This organization has failed to develop players or have them improve on a regular basis. You have five of Franklin Gutierrez, Jeremy Guthrie, and Brandon Phillips for every Victor Martinez. All other young talent they have acquired from other clubs. This team needs a new, alternative take and a change from the "plan" of the past seven years.

Samantha Bunten: I've seen more than enough of this whole group, so I say send 'em all packing.

I liked Shelton at first, but it has been years since his efforts have appeared to produce anything positive. If anything, many of the hitters are actually regressing. I have never been impressed with Willis and would have fired him several times over by now. Datz is the only one of the three whose presence hasn't been detrimental to the team, but he hasn't had much positive effect either and is infinitely replaceable.

Wedge might have even saved his own job if he had canned his subordinates who weren't getting the job done, but he stubbornly hung on to them despite their shortcomings, just like Mark Shapiro has done with him.

When the team was forced to make a move last year, they fired only former bullpen coach Luis Isaac, who was probably the least responsible for the team's problems of the whole group. Firing Isaac while keeping Willis just proves the staff is a mess from top to bottom and that the whole group needs to go.

Dale Thomas: Well now, let's just think about this for a minute...is our hitting good? Is our pitching good? Is our manager thriving from the ingenious advice cascading down from the guy sitting next to him? There used to be a show on TV about these three guys... Remember it? Larry, Curly, Moe...

Scott Miles: For me, evaluating coaches at this level is so difficult because the guys they work with are professional athletes who make millions and millions of dollars. At this stage, it's not like the coaches are laying the foundation or doing much teaching.

My biggest concern is the regression of so many players. Francisco, Jhonny Peralta, and Kelly Shoppach are all decidedly worse than earlier in their careers. To an extent, even a player like Sizemore hasn't quite developed into the type of hitter he can be (lower strikeouts, higher average, etc.). And the pitching staff...well, outside of Cliff Lee, it has just been an absolute disaster.

I think a clean house is what's in order. Lack of improvement or regression of skills in so many players might be the sign that it's time to move on.

5. Fun Question of the week: It is hard to cultivate (or even continue) a division rivalry when your team is playing poorly, but every Tribe fan still has that team in the AL Central they hate losing to and relish beating the most. Who do you consider the Indians' chief rival in the division? Why?

Jeff Smirnoff: Detroit is probably the closest thing, as they are an old AL East rival from the pre-Wild Card days. Throw in the Ohio-Michigan connection, and it makes even more sense. The White Sox are a close second as long as Ozzie Guillen and his choke sign are around.

Samantha Bunten: At various points in recent history the Indians have had a rivalry going with every team in the division except Kansas City.

There has been a strong case for Detroit as chief rival in recent years, headlined by the Fausto Carmona-Gary Sheffield boxing match of 2008. Early in the decade the Twins were the Indians’ prime competition, and a rivalry fueled by trash talk ensued. Remember Torii Hunter trashing the Indians on Best Damn Sports Show and CC Sabathia retaliating by telling the media, "I HATE the Twins?”

Overall, though, the White Sox win for consistency. They were the Tribe's rival during the late '90s. In 2005 the two teams were vying for the Central Division title once again, and the rivalry was renewed and even deepened, thanks to several ugly incidents including Mark Buehrle's infamous beaning of Travis Hafner (and subsequent shocking lack of remorse) and Ozzie Guillen's notorious "choke" gesture.

Dale Thomas: Perhaps Chicago, because like Cleveland they are located on a lake, and their lake's name is already a state, so this is copying. But then again, Detroit is on a lake. Come to think of it, Minnesota has 10,000 lakes, and Kansas City has a lake of sorts in their ballpark. This may be why the division is considered to be so watered down.

In 2009, the Indians clearly relish beating themselves, so as a fan, I would have to say that I hate losing to our own team the most, followed by Chicago since they are inherently evil, then Detroit because, after all, any team that puts Gary Sheffield on their payroll even for short stints should be considered the enemy.

The Twins are next due to their years of trying to grow fake grass in that indoor space station, and everybody likes Kansas City (probably because of Toto), so they just don't count as a rival.

Scott Miles: We've had a stretch where everyone (save Kansas City) has been easy to hate. The White Sox were the chief opponent in the late '90s; then the Twins started to make a run earlier this decade (those were some great ballgames...who can forget Jason Davis going after Torii Hunter?); and recently the Tigers have made a surge, along with the White Sox being very good of late as well.

For me, it's both the White Sox and Tigers. I don't know what it is about the Sox, but I just can't stand them. I hate hate hate hate hate the White Sox. As for the Tigers, it's mostly a Cleveland-Detroit thing, battling to see which town is the second worst in the Midwest and which is third worst (both are better than Pittsburgh, let's be serious).

Tribe Talk: At the Season's Midpoint, the Indians Are Halfway to Nowhere

Samantha Bunten — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:42:57 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

Before the start of this season, some of us took a survey conducted by Bleacher Report Indians Community Leader Nino Colla for a season preview article. To say we didn't do too well with our predictions would be an understatement.

Many of us predicted great things for Trevor Crowe. Half of us predicted Fausto Carmona would be the team's Cy Young winner. I doubt I need to tell you how our predictions relating to Grady Sizemore are panning out.

And perhaps the thing that looks the most absurd now, every one of us picked the Tribe to win the division.

We at Tribe Talk like to think we know a little something about baseball, so since the results of the preseason poll now make us look incompetent, we decided to give it another shot.

Thus it is with the hope of redeeming ourselves that I present to you the results of our new poll, in which we make another attempt at predicting the outcome of 2009 for the Indians, as well as share our thoughts on the first half of the season.

I would like to thank survey participants Nino Colla, Jeff Smirnoff, Joyce Quayle, Matt Swope, Cari Winterich, Daniel Wolf, and The Coop for sharing their thoughts.

Next week Tribe Talk will return to the usual format, but as always, this discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on what we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. Team MVP, First Half of the 2009 season

Shin-Soo Choo received the most votes, though several panelists voted that he share the honor with Victor Martinez. Cliff Lee got two votes, and Joyce cast her vote for "the fans, for putting up with this crap."

2. Player Who Has Been the Biggest Disappointment, First Half of the 2009 Season

Grady Sizemore, Ben Francisco, and "the entire bullpen" all received votes, but Fausto Carmona was the clear winner. Daniel wisely suggested, "Mark Shapiro should find a retired veteran pitcher and throw some money his way to help Carmona get through his pitching problems."

3. High Point of the First Half of the 2009 Season

The game on Memorial Day weekend where the Tribe staged a 10-run comeback against the Devil Rays got the most votes. As Nino noted, "I think we all thought that was the point where things would turn around."

Coming in second were answers relating to the Tribe's performance in the opening series at New Yankee Stadium, which referenced ruining the Yankees' home opener in their new stadium, beating CC Sabathia the first time the Tribe faced him as a Yankee, and winning 22-4.

Proving how dismal the season has been, half the panelists didn't vote for any accomplishment by the Tribe on the field as their high point. Samantha and Daniel both decided the high point of this season was the day before it started. The seagulls were mentioned several times.

Coop had the most interesting answer, as follows: "I went to the Indians-Pirates game on June 25 with 50 or so of my closest friends, also known as the Pittsburgh Browns Backers. We owned the left field bleachers of PNC Park, much to the dismay of confused Yinzers.

"We also played a riveting game of 'Pass the Cup.' For those of you not familiar, this is a gambling game where you lose money when hitters make outs and win money when hitters get hits. A home run entitles the 'cup holder' to the proceeds of the entire cup. Victor Martinez’ solo shot to lead off the sixth inning won me $33.

"Incidentally, Cliff Lee pitched a gem and the bullpen blew it. And yes, folks, that has been my high point of this Indians season."

4. Low Point of the 2009 Season

Most of the panelists seemed to agree that the low point was either all of June or the second half of June. Half the panelists honed in on the Milwaukee series, pointing out that the Tribe allowed the Brewers to score 30 runs, blew a seven-run lead in the series opener, and got swept in this series and the following one in Wrigley.

Several panelists eschewed specifics and declared that the low point occurred every time the bullpen blew a lead.

Samantha saw the Pittsburgh series as the low point because it was then that she finally had to completely give up on the season: "As I watched the Tribe get pummeled by the Pirates, I realized that at this point hoping for a miraculous turnaround wasn't optimistic; it was just idiotic."

Daniel may have put it best though: "The lowest point of the first half cannot be distinguished as one specific point. The entire first half of 2009 is a low point for not only the team, but the city of Cleveland and its baseball fans too."

5. Items you have broken or damaged out of frustration with the Indians this season

The panelists seem to have remarkable restraint, as the only things actually declared broken were Daniel and Coop's hearts and Joyce's bobbleheads (which worked out okay because she hates bobbleheads anyway).

Other panelists found alternative ways to let out their frustration: Jeff took it out on the treadmill, so he's in really good shape now. Thanks to the Indians, Samantha has gotten her money's worth out of the punching bag she got before the season started and is taking comfort in the fact that now she will at least be better in a fight.

Cari and Matt copped to drinking more, and Nino said he's pretty even tempered but added the caveat that "one more year of this and I might take up being violent."

6. Player(s) who will be traded before the end of the season

Jamey Carroll got three votes, Carl Pavano, Cliff Lee, and Victor Martinez got two, Jhonny Peralta got one vote, and one panelist thought even Grady Sizemore was a possibility.

Three panelists also felt compelled to assert that Martinez would NOT be traded, citing reasons such as, "the Indians can't get enough back for him to justify the PR nightmare it would create" (Samantha), "there would be riots on the corner of Carnegie and Ontario" (Coop), and "he's the closest thing they have to a manager" (Matt).

7. Describe the Bullpen in One Word

The Panelists described the bullpen as: incompetent, depressing, embarrassing, a disaster, 2009's Edsel, "No Comment," lemmings, and Voldemort.

8. Final Standings in 2009 for the AL Central

All the panelists had Minnesota, Detroit, and Chicago in the top three spots, though the order varied. Four people picked Minnesota to win the division and three picked Detroit. One person abstained on the grounds that since it wouldn't be the Indians, it didn't matter.

Cleveland and Kansas City occupied everyone's four and five spots, with four panelists predicting the Indians will finish the season in the cellar and three predicting it will be the Royals who finish last.

After tallying up all the votes, the Tribe Talk panel's prediction as a group is:

1. Minnesota

2. Detroit

3. Chicago

4. Kansas City

5. Cleveland

9. One sentence summing up your thoughts on the first half of the 2009 season

Two panelists' answers conveyed a mixture of disappointment and disgust:

"This team has made me the most frustrated I've ever been in my entire life, and I want to know what I did to deserve this." (Nino)

"I thought the Indians would contend, and I knew they had a chance to be so-so, but I never thought they could be this putrid and inept." (Jeff)

Two others expressed their displeasure with Eric Wedge and Mark Shapiro:

"Can I get a chance to try to run this team better?" (Daniel)

"The performance over the last season and a half should have proven to everyone that Eric Wedge is a terrible manager and Mark Shapiro is an awful general manager and talent evaluator, and both need to be replaced as quickly as possible." (Coop)

Two more panelists had harsh words for owner Larry Dolan:

"I left my heart in JACOBS Field." (Joyce)

"Ultimately I blame Dolan—he is unfairly attacked for the payroll issues, but the real problem is that he doesn't know enough about baseball to own a baseball team." (Matt)

The last two panelists dismissed the season as business as usual for Cleveland sports:

"Completely, utterly disappointing, but not that surprising considering it's Cleveland." (Cari)

"In the lifelong series of battles between me and the Cleveland Curse, the Curse remains undefeated." (Samantha)

Tribe Talk: Eagerly Awaiting Fausto Carmona's Return, Or Dreading It?

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:06:35 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we fret over whether Fausto Carmona truly got himself straightened out during his banishment to Arizona, discuss the role the Indians’ top prospects will play in the remainder of the 2009 season, and wonder if the Indians could successfully adopt a small ball approach.

I would like to thank this week's participants Nino Colla, Dave Wiley, and The Coop for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. After being banished to the Arizona desert to get his head straight, Fausto Carmona is finally back in Columbus and making a few minor league starts before rejoining the Tribe following the All-Star break.

Do you think Carmona has had enough time to work out the issues he had that earned him the demotion from the Tribe earlier this season? Is there a chance that Carmona has recovered his control and can improve the Tribe's struggling rotation in the second half of the season?

Nino Colla: I think he has. He seems to have straightened his head out at least. Whether he's going to automatically revert to what he was in 2007 in one start is another story. He might have a few more growing pains, but I think he's at least back to being a reliable major league pitcher. From what I've read, Carmona has gotten his control back for the most part.

I have some concerns about one scout saying that Carmona isn't attacking hitters like he used to. The biggest key for Fausto is to throw that splitting/slurve pitch that runs in on hitter’s hands, and throw it a lot. That's how he gets the majority of his ground balls and strikeouts. That pitch is so devastating because he can throw it for a strike but hitters can't do a damn thing about it.

I think he'll be better in the second half though and that will be a welcome sight for this rotation. His latest start in Columbus makes me think he should have one more go-round, but the important thing is that he got his head straight courtesy of the fine folks down in Arizona.

Samantha Bunten: From what I have heard, Carmona seems to have regained his control and is doing a much better job commanding his pitches. I think the real test will come with his first bad outing after he returns to the Indians’ rotation, when Carmona will have to demonstrate that he can bounce back after a bad start and not completely lose his ability to command his pitches all over again at the first sign of a stumbling block.

Carmona, like every other pitcher in baseball, is going to have bad outings. The trick for Fausto will be learning to leave those bad starts in the past and not allowing himself to be rattled by them going forward. He doesn’t need to return to his 2007 form overnight. He just needs to show that the guy who had that monster season still exists in some form.

In a way, Carmona has been given the perfect opportunity for redemption. The season is a lost cause, so the pressure to win at all costs will be lessened tremendously, allowing Carmona to concentrate on making good quality starts for the rest of 2009, thus paving the way for a return to form in 2010.

Dave Wiley: Tough question. Carmona has spent enough time in the desert to get his head straight. The real question is, IS his head straight? Having enough time for a straight head and actually having a straight head are two different things.

A one armed midget that has his right arm but used to be a lefty would improve the Tribes' rotation at this point. Slider in a tutu would improve the Tribes' rotation at this point. Put Carmona back in the lineup.

Fausto Carmona, come on down! You are the next contestant on "Help the Indians Struggling Rotation".

The Coop: I don’t know if he’s had “enough” time to work everything out, but I have been pleased with what I’ve read. Clearly, he has the raw ability to dominate minor league hitters. But what I have been happy to see is that he seems to have regained his control, command, and confidence. It would be nice for him to get a few more starts in Columbus, but I can’t say I’m unhappy with the decision to call him back.

It’s important to understand that there are still going to be some rough outings in Fausto’s future. Fans and management have to be patient with Carmona and not expect him to immediately return to his 2007 form. I don’t think anyone should hope that he helps the starting rotation. That ship has sailed for this year.

I don’t even care about wins and losses and even ERA. I want to see Carmona get ahead in the count, locate his fastball, and have the right mental approach. The wins and losses and ERA aren’t important this year, but those intangibles that I mentioned could be huge building blocks for 2010 and beyond.

2. It has recently been suggested that Matt LaPorta deserves a promotion to rejoin the Tribe, as he is hitting .300 on the year in AAA with 10HRs, 38 RBIs, and a .909 OPS. Do you think it is foolish for the Tribe to leave an effective LaPorta in the minors while Ben Francisco struggles in the majors?

Given that 2009 is shaping up to be a lost season for the Indians, should the team consider shutting down injured Grady Sizemore for the year and bringing up LaPorta to fill in while Sizemore has surgery and recuperates?

Nino Colla: I think right now, you can't really make a move. Ben Francisco seems to be getting hot, and until he cools off I'd keep him there. I would have been all for it a week ago. Either way I don't think it will be long before LaPorta is up here and starting every day in left field. Shapiro and Wedge will want to play him every day this time around, so they want to make sure they call him up when that possibility is open.

If the Indians get to the point where they actually wave the white flag, they better sit Grady Sizemore and have him undergo his surgery. Since they know it needs to be done, do it now and have him 100 percent for not just the 2010 season, but 2010 Spring Training. There is no reason for him to keep playing if they give up on the season, especially with three guys in the minors that need an extended look.

Samantha Bunten: While I will be happy to see LaPorta promoted when the September call-ups occur, I don’t think there is any sense in speeding up the process and bringing him up now for two reasons:

First, if his last trip to the majors told us anything, it is that he isn’t ready. I’m glad to see that he is hitting so well in AAA, but a .190 average with one HR and a .286 OBP tells me he’s not prepared to face down major league pitching just yet.

LaPorta has had 699 at-bats in the minors, and conventional baseball wisdom says most players need about 1500 at-bats in the minors before they are ready to play in the big leagues. The bottom line is that LaPorta just isn’t prepared yet.

Second, I’m not ready to give up on Francisco. He has improved significantly over the last few weeks, and I expect he will continue to improve as long as he is given regular playing time going forward.

The roster spot should be Francisco’s to lose, and right now he is making an excellent case for his right to keep it. This won’t hurt LaPorta, as he isn’t ready yet anyway, and will give Francisco a chance to turn things around—for good this time.

The only real reasons I can see for promoting LaPorta now are to pare down the overcrowded outfield in AAA-Columbus, or to fill Sizemore’s roster spot if the team were to decide to shut him down early since the season is all but lost.

Personally, I am in favor of shutting down Sizemore now because the earlier he can get the surgery over with, the more time he will have to recover completely before the 2010 season, but I do not see the Indians choosing to pursue this course of action.

Dave Wiley: I don't think the Tribe should shut down Francisco. I do think it might be a good idea for LaPorta to fill in for Grady Sizemore and give him a chance to "get himself right." LaPorta deserves another shot. If that is considered foolish, I'd say it fits right in with letting Wedge hang around the rest of the year. Let's just hope another movie isn't made about the Indians.

The Coop: I’m not going to call it “foolish.” I can really see both sides of the argument. I think Ben Francisco still has the potential to have a solid major league career. But unfortunately, like many of the Indians’ big prospects over the last several years, his development has not been nearly as quick as one would hope.

Still, I’m not sure sending him back to Columbus is going to do any good at this point in his career. Francisco’s days in Cleveland are numbered if he doesn’t start producing consistently, and if he doesn’t know that, then he is not too bright.

This could be putting some undue pressure on him, but the reality of the situation is that Matt LaPorta is going to get plenty of shots with the Indians with the hope that it will justify the CC Sabathia trade. And presuming the Tribe hangs onto Shin-Soo Choo and Sizemore for the foreseeable future, there won’t be too much playing time up for grabs down the road.

Bringing up LaPorta won’t help the Indians make a playoff push (although it might help sell some tickets!), so having him stay in AAA and polish his game is fine with me. I’m sure he’ll be a September call-up and he’ll get more experience during the last few agonizing weeks of the season.

Shutting down Sizemore makes a lot of sense, but the front office will probably let Grady make the decision, which means surgery won’t happen until after the season. If Sizemore does call it a year, I’d just as soon have Ryan Garko replace him (Garko to left, Francisco to center).

3. One of the biggest problems for the Indians' offense this season has been the inability to move runners in an efficient, consistent manner. Small ball is a much more common strategy among NL teams, but has proven to be successful in AL baseball for teams like the Angels and the Twins.

The Indians are not traditionally a "small ball team", but do you think this approach could work for them to help solve the problem? Do the Indians have the type of players and sense of strategic play to render them capable of executing this approach successfully?

Nino Colla: No, no, and no. Small ball doesn't work for this team. The Angels are the only team in the American League that really use this method anyway. This talent is not set to do it.

I'd like to see a little more running and putting the runners in motion with guys like Choo on base because he's a smart base-runner. The same goes for Cabrera and for Francisco when he plays. I think the running game will also improve whenever Brantley arrives. But no small ball tactics.

The occasional hit-and-run and base stealing is fine, as this team has some fast players, but they don't have many burners. They've got a pair of smart base-runners in Grady Sizemore and Choo, and that leads me to favor occasional stolen base attempts.

The problem with the offense isn't the lack of small ball. The problem is their approach. You know how a team takes on the personality of their manager? Well a team's hitting approach takes on the personality of their hitting coach’s approach, and his approach is to draw walks and work counts.

Sometimes, against pitchers who have bad control or try to go for the strikeout, that works beautifully. Other times, when a Justin Verlander or Brian Bannister (two completely different pitchers, mind you), throw strikes and throw them effectively on the corners and early in the count, it is a disaster.

This team needs to be a little more aggressive in certain situations. That's Derek Shelton's downside as a hitting instructor; the fact that he doesn't know when to tell these guys to be aggressive. He's got great ideas and sometimes, maybe even most of the time, his strategy works. Other times it doesn't, and when it doesn't, it usually creates a failure for the team of a far greater significance than the success it creates when it does work.

Samantha Bunten: In theory this is a worthy solution to a problem the Indians seem unable to solve. But in reality, a small ball approach does not make sense for this team.

I am of the opinion that small ball is an excellent strategy even in the American League, and from a philosophical standpoint I like the way it uses the lineup more democratically than an approach that relies on the team’s power hitters does.

Unfortunately, I do not think the Indians are a team that is built for this style of play. With the exception of Choo and Sizemore, their lineup does not have much to offer in terms of successful base-stealers or even smart base runners.

Cabrera and Francisco both have the speed to fit into this category, but at this point do not yet have the savvy required to be considered truly smart base runners at the major league level. At the plate, the team as a group posts too many strike outs and makes too little contact to produce the number of base runners needed to successfully run a small ball offense.

Also, far more important to the case against the Indians adopting a small ball strategy than the player’s ability to execute such an approach on the field is the fact that manager Eric Wedge is not even close to possessing the level of strategic ability required of a manager to run a small ball style of offense.

Wedge has always been a manager who shied away from aggression in his approach and who reacts to events on the field as passively as possible. Just look at his approach to handling the pitching game: leaving pitchers on the mound for far too long and being sharply reluctant to pull the trigger in yanking them out of a game betrays a sense of hesitancy that would make him a guaranteed failure if he tried to run a small ball offense.

Given that Wedge is, for all intents and purposes, already a failure, perhaps there is no harm in trying. Still, as much as I respect the small ball style and would like to see the Indians be more aggressive on the base paths and utilize the hit-and-run more often, I don’t think small ball is in any way the right approach for them.

Dave Wiley: Sure, the Indians have a lot of speed at the top of the order and could play small ball. That strategy might even help the likes of Sizemore and Francisco, who are always trying to clobber the ball.

Base hits and OBP should not be sacrificed in order for a bunch of 1-run homers. There are enough slow dudes at the bottom of the line-up to swing for the fences. The work of the hitting coach has not been an Indians’ strong suit for two years now.

The Coop: Being a fan of an American League team my whole life, I have never really been a big fan of “small ball,” although I do see its merits. Mostly, I’ve always been content to wait for the 3-run homer. However, incorporating a few elements of small ball would probably help the team, at least in theory.

Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any evidence that the Tribe could do it! Seriously, think about how many horrible bunt attempts you’ve seen. How about stolen bases or hit-and-runs? The team never runs, so who knows which players would be best suited for this type of offense?

Then, to make matters worse, I don’t believe Eric Wedge has the stones to manage this way over the long-haul for 162 games. He’s not a grind-it-out kind of guy. He’s also content to wait for the homer. So, while I would not be opposed to trying some small ball, I think the team is lacking the players and manager to pull it off.

4. The promotion of some of the Tribe's top prospects this season (Matt LaPorta, David Huff, Trevor Crowe, etc.) has produced mixed results. Are there other players currently in the minor league system who you would like to see promoted to the Indians in the second half of the season?

Other than the players who have already made an appearance at the big league level this year, what current Indians minor leaguer do you think would have the most positive impact if called up to the Tribe?

Nino Colla: There are two in my mind, and there would have been three if the Indians didn’t just trade John Meloan for a journeyman reliever. The first one may sound crazy, but ever think of giving Andy Marte one more shot? I'm not sure there is a place to play him, but there is an interesting predicament going on with Marte in AAA.

With Crowe, Brantley, and LaPorta all in the outfield, Jordan Brown and Stephen Head also being able to play the outfield, be the DH, or play first, and Wes Hodges back at third, there are simply no at-bats for Marte.

The guy is a Triple-A All-Star who's been hitting the cover off the ball, not home run wise, but average wise. He still has a few flaws, but he's improved and sort of matured from what I can tell. Maybe it's time for him to get one last shot and see if there is anything there.

If you call him up and he bombs or rides the bench, all the value you built up in him is gone and you are back where you started earlier this year, only this time at the end of the season and he's just going to walk and sign on with another minor league team.

You could trade him now at the highest value you will ever have on him, unless he gets to the majors and explodes, or you can take a chance and see if that potential he has is still there. It's an interesting position that Shapiro is in and I think in the next week or so it will be resolved one way or another.

The one guy who definitely deserves a call-up is Jordan Brown. Like Marte, his position is sort of locked up, but he can play the outfield and you could give him some of Ben Francisco's time in left if you want to wait on LaPorta.

Brown is lower in the pecking order though and honestly, the Indians wasted their shot to see what Brown has earlier in the year. Brown is a motivated guy after not being rostered in the 2008 offseason.

There was a point this year when Hafner was on the DL that there were open spots, and the Indians could have given Brown a short audition at first, designated hitter, and the outfield with the opportunity to play 4-5 times a week. That isn't something they did though.

I think Brown is a professional hitter that deserves a shot. They traded Michael Aubrey away, which tells me they still have some faith in Brown, but them not giving him a call tells me they don't have as much faith in him as I do.

Samantha Bunten: I wouldn’t mind seeing David Huff stick around for the second half, as I think he has done a very solid job of stepping up to a challenge he never should have had to face at this stage of his career.

I would prefer that Trevor Crowe stay in AAA, as he looks consistently helpless facing major league pitching and could benefit from a chance to further hone his skills in Columbus for at least the rest of this season.

I wouldn’t mind seeing Jordan Brown get a call-up in the second half, as I think he has earned the right to an audition and he has less to lose by being promoted (potentially) too early at this point than a guy like LaPorta, whose career would greatly benefit from more time in the minors.

The player who I think would have the most positive impact if called up is, without question, pitcher Hector Rondon. However, I am absolutely not in favor of making that move.

If the Indians were in the playoff race, I would be all for calling up a pitcher who might not be truly ready if I thought he could help the team. In that scenario, the Tribe could justify calling up Rondon in a move similar to what the Rays did with David Price last year.

Alas, there will be no playoff hunt for the Tribe this year, and therefore no reason to fast track a player who began the season in AA ball to the majors when he isn’t fully formed as a pitcher. The Indians’ winning percentage is under .400; this means there is absolutely no way to justify making a move that could damage a player’s whole career in order to potentially eke out three or four additional wins.

Dave Wiley: I'd like to see the mascot for the Lake County Captains promoted to the bigs. Additionally, they have a clown that makes the best balloon animals I have ever seen. You promote those two guys, I'm thinking the rest of the balloon world/mascot population would have to take the Indians seriously. It’s an opportune time anyhow with the San Diego Chicken considering retirement.

As far as players, things like their number of remaining options are more the determining factors in who goes up and down than actual ability in a lot of cases. If the Indians farm system is as stacked as it has always claimed to be, just move the Indians down to AAA and move the AAA team up. See who does better.

The Coop: I don’t really think I’m qualified to give an opinion on which minor leaguers I’d like to see called up to the bigs. I don’t have much time to follow the affiliates other than to check out an occasional headline or two. That being said, I really feel like it’s important for the guys who are currently on the major league roster—and the guys who will be soon—to just take the bull by the horns and step it up.

It seems like none of the guys who have gotten a chance with the big league club have done anything to warrant staying. Over the years, guys like Shoppach, Francisco, Crowe, Barfield, Marte, and Huff have been boring and uninspiring, if not just bad.

I’m looking for young guys who are going to play hard and consistently produce when they have the chance. I’m sick of chalking up certain players’ performances to “he’s young” or “he needs experience.” I want guys who are going to man up and get the job done, no excuses. The rest of them can stay in the minors.

5. Fun Question of the week: The 2009 season has gone so badly in Cleveland that even the most blindly optimistic Tribe fans have given up hope for a miraculous comeback that lands the Indians in the playoffs.

That said, what team or teams will you be pulling for down the stretch and in the post season and why?

Who would you never, ever root for?

Nino Colla: Well I'm still following the Indians and will do so every day of the year. But as the Indians drop farther and farther away from first place and any hope at making the playoffs, I find myself more and more interested in the rest of baseball.

One team whose bandwagon I’ve been on since the start of the year is the Florida Marlins, my pick to win the NL East.

Some people thought I was crazy, and still did when they were leading the NL East to start the year. Then I got laughed at when they fell down to earth, but now they are healthy, pitching wise, and right back in the thick of it. Who's laughing now?

I think the Marlins got staying power and they are my own little underdog that I'm pulling for, even if they are the same team that ripped our hearts out in 1997. It's okay since none of those players are still on that team.

I would never root for the Yankees as long as I live. Let's just leave it at that. You couldn't pay me their payroll to do so either.

Samantha Bunten: I like the Brewers because they have the best owner in baseball, a brilliant manager in Ken Macha, and a charismatic, hard-working young team that plays with a lot of heart.

I would also back St. Louis out of respect for their outstanding fan base and well-run organization, the Phillies on behalf of Jamie Moyer, and the Mariners for the sake of giving the incomparable Ken Griffey Junior one last chance to win it all. I also like the Dodgers and the Rangers because they’re so much fun to watch.

I would never root for the Yankees, Mets, Blue Jays, Cubs, or Tigers.

Dave Wiley: Never, ever root for the Yankees. That is just a rule. You are either a Yankees fan, or you hate them.

Never root for Boston either, unless Boston is playing the Yankees. Always root for the Central Division Champion unless it’s the White Sox, because that is counter-productive to rooting for the Cubbies.

If it wasn't for Manny Ramirez being a part of the Dodgers, I'd take them hands down. You have the history, the shunning of the current coach by the hated Yankees, and Casey Blake, an ex-Indian everyone hated see go, playing third base. You have a group of guys playing small ball. On top of that, you have the history. Tommy Lasorda is one of the coolest guys in baseball.

Also, I always root for the Cubs. Ownership will be changing hands is a guarantee that the Cubs will win the World Series. After all, that is how the Cleveland Browns broke their Super Bowl Curse. They changed owners and moved to Baltimore. (Writer disclaimer—I am not implying the Cubs are headed to Baltimore).

The Coop: Being a Clevelander, it should come as no surprise that I am a big supporter of the underdog. I also love to cheer for teams who have not had a lot of recent success. For these reasons, I’m rooting for the Texas Rangers and Minnesota Twins in the American League and San Francisco in the National League. I’ve also always admired St. Louis for being such a great baseball town and having a well-run franchise.

I would never, ever, EVER root for the New York Yankees, for obvious reasons…UNLESS, they’re playing the Boston Red Sox. The Red Sox and their fans are the most obnoxious, annoying, rude, arrogant, and loathsome people in all of sports. They do not deserve any of the World Series championships they’ve won, and I hope that someday a Biblical plague wipes Fenway Park off the map forever.

Tribe Talk: Shapiro's Frankenstein Of A Team Comes Back To Haunt Him

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:36:13 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we debate how to divvy up the blame for the season between Mark Shapiro and Eric Wedge, how Shapiro’s strategy of cobbling together a team from spare parts has backfired, and what players should and shouldn’t say to the media.

I would like to thank this week's participants Dale Thomas, Scott Miles, and Jeff Smirnoff for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. The chances of Eric Wedge being fired have been discussed ad nauseum over the course of the season. A notably less popular topic is the fate of Mark Shapiro.

Most everyone agrees Wedge should be held accountable for the team's terrible performance, but is it fair that Wedge has been saddled with nearly all of the blame while Shapiro is rarely criticized?

Who do you think is more to blame, Shapiro or Wedge? If you were in charge, who would you fire: Wedge, Shapiro, or both?

Dale Thomas: Well, it was Shapiro that hired Wedge in the first place, so Shapiro is on auto-blame in my opinion. Shapiro seems to happily seek out the mediocre, whether it is players or staff, then makes small moves that have small effects. Each season, it's hard to believe (and hard to stomach) what "didn't" happen to fill the team's needs.

This is not to say that Shapiro hasn't done a few significant things, but those things tend to be outgoing moves of contributing players (Casey Blake, CC Sabathia, etc.). Then the team just moves guys around the field and plays a lot of yo-yo between the Major and Minor Leagues.

The Indians are stuck on a hamster wheel, and BOTH guys in charge share equal dizziness. That said, the big guy should go first, then the rest follow on out the door like rats to the Shapiro'd Piper.

Samantha Bunten: Shapiro's mostly futile maneuvers to tweak the team over the years have done as much, if not more, damage to the franchise as Eric Wedge's bumbling managerial stint. He is to blame at least as much as Wedge is, and Wedge has been taking nearly all the heat for it despite the fact that he’s no more than 50 percent of the problem.

While Shapiro has made a number of slick trades with very positive outcomes for players like Sizemore, Lee, Choo, and Hafner, the drafts he has overseen have been appallingly bad and disasters outnumber successes among his free agent acquisitions.

Further, Shapiro's relentless defending of Wedge has left the two inextricably linked. Shapiro has tied his own fate to Wedge's by defending his beleaguered manager when he should not have done so. Shapiro essentially made Wedge and himself into a package deal, which means whoever goes first will likely take the other down with him.

If it were up to me I would fire them both, but the first guy I would send packing would be Shapiro. His mistakes, in my opinion, have cost the team more dearly than Wedge's, highlighted by the fact that in hiring and refusing to fire wedge, Wedge's mistakes are also in a way his own.

Scott Miles: It would have to be Mark Shapiro without a doubt. The only credit one can give to Shapiro is that he picks up a lot of these "highly touted" prospects from other teams when the Indians are going south and trading away the veterans. Players such as Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore, Travis Hafner, Asdrubal Cabrera and Shin-Soo Choo have all come in trades.

But Shapiro has, frankly, been dismal in signing free agents and in the draft, the two areas where small-to-mid market teams must excel. Numerous first round picks have turned into busts (if they've even reached the big leagues), as have acquisitions such as David Dellucci, Jason Michaels and (to a lesser extent because at least the team was good in 2007) Trot Nixon.

At this point both should go, but Wedge can only play the guys he's been given. That's directly caused by the GM.

Jeff Smirnoff: Both are equally culpable. Wedge starts slow every year and always chokes/falters/fails when there are expectations or the Indians are in a superior position. It has happened too many times to be coincidence.

It is not all his fault that some players have performed horribly but he has continued, for almost seven years, to put certain players in bad spots again and again. We see the same poor fundamentals and mistakes over and over again, and that falls on the manager.

Shapiro is responsible for the awful drafts from when he took over until 2007 that have left the minors low on talent, especially in pitching. But he has acknowledged this is a problem and they are re-evaluating how to draft and develop players.

He is also at fault for signing sub-par veteran talent time and time again (partially because of the poor drafting) ever since he struck gold with Bob Howry. That needs to stop this offseason, and he has admitted his faults and said that.

He also is great at acquiring talent from other teams (Hafner, Choo, Cabrera, et al), which has helped stop some of the bleeding. So, I think he deserves a second chance as long as he realizes the team needs a new voice on the field. Eric Wedge's time has come but Shapiro deserves to stay if he realizes this.

2. In all fairness, Shapiro can't really be blamed for the way this season started - no one could have predicted such a disaster. However, it is still Shapiro's job to fix it, and it hasn't been fixed.

The recent Mark DeRosa for Chris Perez trade exemplifies Shapiro's strategy thus far of making small adjustments with the hope of improving the team through fine tuning. Do you think this is a solid strategy, or do you think that a mess this big calls for a big move to fix it?

Now put yourself in Mark Shapiro's place: How big of a move would you be willing to make? Would you trade a high-value player now to get pitching, or would your big move be to start the fire sale?

Dale Thomas: Why can't we blame Shapiro? Hey, if there are seven blown cylinders and three flat tires on this Yugo of a team, then a new spark plug ain't gonna help.

If you allow zero runs in every game, then it only takes a small offense to win. Trade the bats, keep the defense and get good pitching. The problem with this approach is that we have very little to work with. Right now a fire sale would be more like a single match in a strong wind.

This situation is squarely on the shoulders of Shapiro, as he has let the valuable or even semi-valuable guys trickle off to other teams while getting nothing in return. Those players that had some potential and did sign with us have been wasting away under the "Wedge anti-development program."

Samantha Bunten: Shapiro's allergy to making the “big move” is what has sunk this team in the long run. The little, fine tuning moves he makes are the type that should belong to a team which is already performing well and needs to be tweaked to reach its optimal potential—not those of a franchise that is falling apart at the seams.

Shapiro's only big moves of late have been those where his hand was forced (the trade of Sabathia, for example), and those moves were geared toward acquiring prospects for use years down the road.

Bolstering the farm system is always necessary, but moves that serve only the future and not the present aren’t appropriate for a team in the Indians’ current situation. This would be fine if the team was rebuilding, but this is a team that is supposed to be a contender, so acquisitions should be largely geared toward improving the product on the field right now.

Were I in Shapiro's place, I would have been willing to make a pretty serious move to save the season—in May. Now, 2009 has become a season which is not worth trading the future for. Any trade of a major player now would just worsen a team that is already really, really terrible.

The big moves should be made in the offseason, when the Indians can start over and try to put a winner on the field for 2010.

Scott Miles: Any team willing to offer talented young pitching in a trade should be heard. Just in case fans forget, our two through five starters are Carl Pavano, Tomo Ohka, Jeremy Sowers and David Huff. Yikes, yikes, yikes!

I would look to unload Jamey Carroll and Ryan Garko first. I love Carroll but he is not a key piece right now. Garko can drive in runs, but he's never going to be a .300 hitter and he's never going to hit 25-plus HRs.

Players like Carroll and Garko won't yield big returns, but we need as much depth as we can get in the pitching staff. I don't think the team needs a complete overhaul, just more than one or two pitchers whom you can depend on to get outs.

Jeff Smirnoff: Being in the AL Central every year makes it easier to address. The big problem is that Shapiro has never adhered to his promise of "waves of arms" to support the big league level.

Most of the draft choices from when he took over until 2007 have bombed. They have only developed two relievers in Rafael Perez and Jensen Lewis. They have no impact arms; only soft tossing lefties like Jeremy Sowers, Scott Lewis and Aaron Laffey.

He has started after the first bullpen blow-up this season and has stated that they will change the way they draft and cultivate pitching, which they have begun to do with the draft in 2009 and trading for Chris Perez.

A big move is not needed—just tactical ones. You need a No. 1 starter and No. 3 hitter, so if Cliff Lee or Victor Martinez are moved the Indians are not only giving up on 2009 but 2010 and 2011 as well and the fanbase should riot.

Trade your expiring assets like Carroll and Pavano, and actively shop pieces like Garko and Shoppach that can help contending teams but shouldn't be in the Indians' long term plans.

Get the young talent (LaPorta, Brantley, Meloan, Torregas, et al) up here and see if they are part of the solution. It's obvious that Garko, Shoppach, and Francisco are not.

3. Carl Pavano looked great in May, going 5-1 with a .259 batting average against. June has been a different story, where Pavano has gone 1-2 with a .351 batting average against.

So which is the real Pavano—the guy who showed up in May and looked like the Pavano who won 18 games for the Marlins in 2004, or the guy who showed up in June and looked like a train wreck as he surrendered eight runs to a normally anemic Pirates offense in 3.1 innings?

Do you think Pavano's recent struggles are just poor performance, the product of an injury, or arm fatigue resulting from resuming a full work load after not pitching for two years?

Dale Thomas: To begin with, Pavano's career record is under .500. So since he’s gone 6-3 for the Tribe in May and June, he's already better than he is, so to say. He also has not gone down in a heap or been in any rib-breaking car wrecks (that we know of)....yet.

He's had two excellent seasons out of nine, so somewhere in the next 4.5 years, he should have another one. Let's save it for next year (if the Tribe re-sign him) and hope we have a bullpen that can hold a seven-run lead.

I would rest him a lot this year and feed him vitamin-rich milk or something so he doesn't succumb to the disabled list like he did in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. I think his recent struggles are actually ongoing struggles that he has experienced for the majority of his major-league life.

Samantha Bunten: Neither extreme is the real Pavano. They are merely the phases that are symptomatic of a very average pitcher. Like every other mediocre starting MLB pitcher, Pavano will have good years and bad years, and good months or weeks and bad months or weeks within them.

Perhaps we are all disappointed in Pavano because we had begun expecting too much out of him. The Indians signed him as a big question mark who, if healthy, could bolster the back end of the rotation. He wasn’t brought in to be one of the team’s best starters—that expectation was only foisted on him because of how poorly everyone else in the rotation (other than Cliff Lee) has pitched.

Pavano’s struggles in June might also be linked specifically to a standard case of arm fatigue. Pavano threw a total of 45.2 innings in 2007 and 2008. Less than halfway through the 2009 season, he has already thrown 92.1 innings.

Essentially he’s thrown twice as many pitches in half a season as he did over the previous two years. The fact that this might be more wear and tear than his arm can endure after so much idleness should not surprise anyone.

Scott Miles: I think we're seeing what Carl Pavano, at 33-years old, is going to offer us. Some starts he will have flashes back to what gave him the huge contract with the Yankees. Other starts will remind us of why he only pitched in 26 games in three years in New York.

I think Pavano, at this stage of his career, is going to need that extra day or two of rest every several starts. The June starts proved that you can't just keep throwing a guy out there every five days at that age and with that injury history.

So keep his innings in check and give him that extra rest every so often and he will return to being a decent, yet not spectacular, pitcher.

Jeff Smirnoff: Carl Pavano is who we thought he was! He is an average MLB pitcher who will have ups and downs. He had a great May and is struggling in June. Anyone who didn't expect that was fooling themselves.

However, it does look like he was battling some sort of injury the last few times out (also expected) and it is definitely affecting him. This is part of being an average pitcher and part of working through injury.

4. It takes a lot for a manager to publicly call out a player (especially a 'player's manager' like Eric Wedge), yet Wedge has done this to Jhonny Peralta on multiple occasions. In the most recent instance about a week ago, Peralta fired back.

While it is not uncommon for a player to defend himself in such a situation, Peralta's comments went beyond arguing his case when he not only undermined his manager, but alluded to an eagerness to play for another team.

Do you think Peralta's comments were out of line? Is it ever OK for a player to publicly question his coach?

Dale Thomas: Spats between players and coaches should always remain between the two. Each simply uses the media because they can't sell their arguments on their own.

I know if I had a professional writer listening to only me, I'd probably win more arguments...then again, if I were Jhonny Peralta, it might take a lot more than a professional writer to locate any merit in my energy-exempt performance with the Tribe.

Of course one could say the same thing about Wedge. Maybe these two should be on an Indians deadpan debate team since yapping about each other is the only time we see them eager for anything.

Samantha Bunten: I’m of the opinion that you solve your own problems in your own house, so I cannot condone Peralta whining to the media about Wedge, or Wedge calling Peralta out in a public forum in the first place.

While this is likely a product of frustration that has begun to boil over on both their parts, lashing out at one another publicly does not do Peralta, Wedge, or the team as a whole any favors.

Other team members don’t need the extra headache this brings on, and fans don’t want to watch players or managers point fingers at each other in an attempt to dump the blame on someone else for ruining the season. No one wants to hear your excuses, and no one wants to see your dirty laundry.

To address this situation specifically, I do not actually have a problem with Peralta defending himself even if it means taking a shot at Wedge. Normally, I would see this as disrespectful, but under the current circumstances it just provides more proof that Wedge has lost the respect of his players.

What I do have a problem with is Peralta’s thinly-veiled reference to wanting to play for another team. Players should never publicly declare to their fans that they just can’t wait to run off and abandon them.

This comment was classless, unprofessional, and apathetic, which, sadly, is exactly what I expect from Jhonny Peralta. If he wants to play for another team, I say good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Scott Miles: I just think it is pent-up frustration. Peralta, right or wrong, has been in Wedge's doghouse more than any other player not named Brandon Phillips or Josh Barfield.

While I don't agree with calling out a coach or manager publicly, I think a bit too much can be made of it (especially a player of Peralta's caliber—if you have someone like Derek Jeter or Albert Pujols calling out a manager, then I'd take notice.)

In a season like this, I don't think Peralta calling out Wedge is that big of a deal.

Jeff Smirnoff: No I do not. If Wedge is going to publicly call out Peralta, then turnabout is fair play.

Jhonny Peralta is a very frustrating player to watch play. When he is "on" he is great but when he is not he can look pretty bad, especially because of his demeanor.

I think Peralta is a talented player. I think he would benefit from a change in leadership. The Indians do not have a ton of top talent on the roster right now and need Peralta. I think he is one of many players who could benefit from a new managerial voice.

5. Fun Question of the Week: The All-Star game is fast approaching, and a team as bad as the Indians typically only gets one player onto the roster for the summer classic. In your opinion, who is more deserving of the nod: Cliff Lee or Victor Martinez? Why?

Dale Thomas: Cliff Lee all the way. Cliff has thrown well, even in his losses. Also to his credit, he hasn't broken any bones punching stuff when our bullpen kills his leads.

Victor is a great hitter, but he still can't play defense with any authority whatsoever. In a game of darts, Victor couldn't even hit the dart board, much less hit the bulls-eye. In a ballgame, he can't hit the second or third baseman even with a pitch-out and a runner that trips a couple of times. We've actually seen this.

Since this is a “fun” question, I'll say we get one "player" and one DH on the roster and Victor gets the DH spot for being really good at HALF the game.

Samantha Bunten: Both Lee and Martinez deserve to go, but the worst team in the American League is not likely to get two roster spots at the All-Star game.

If the All-Star game were truly about choosing the best player, then the nod would go to Lee. Martinez has an impressive average at .313, but his offensive numbers across the board are not nearly good enough to make up for his absolutely horrendous defense, so Lee is the better player because he isn't failing at 50 percent of his job.

However, whether it is right or wrong, the All-Star game isn't really about showcasing the "best" players, it is about showcasing the fan favorites. Lee wins the skill contest, but by All-Star game standards, Martinez should represent the Tribe. This game is for the fans, and I think the fans would rather see Martinez.

Scott Miles: Personally I think both will make the team. But if I had to choose just one, I would have to go with Victor Martinez.

Though his offensive production has cooled considerably, he's still the most dangerous hitter in the lineup now. Not only that, he's playing two positions, and he's the only one who actually seems to care about the team's performance night in and night out. He's the true definition of a leader, he's played well—it would have to be Victor Martinez.

Jeff Smirnoff: Victor Martinez. He has been consistent all season minus a small interleague stretch. Cliff Lee also deserves to go but will not because of his poor win-loss record and slow start in April.

Tribe Talk: Indians Finally Firing Wedge, Or Just Shooting Blanks?

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:33:35 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we revisit our past discussion on the fate of manager Eric Wedge, ponder the value of a manager calling out a player in a public forum, and address a few more of the Tribe’s many pitching woes.

I would like to thank this week's participants Nino Colla, Dave Wiley, and The Coop for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. After posting an encouraging 6-4 record in 10 games, the Indians promptly followed that up with a dismal 3-7 streak. Thus, after yet another stunning example of the team's inconsistency, it is hardly surprising that talk of Eric Wedge being fired has come to the forefront once again.

Given that, it may be time to revisit a discussion we had earlier this season: Is Eric Wedge going to get axed before the season is over? Further, it has been noted that Wedge has looked especially defeated in recent days. Has Wedge perhaps finally resigned himself and his team to failure?

Nino Colla: Is Eric Wedge getting fired before the season is over? A week ago I would have told you no. After hearing some of the uncertainty of owner Larry Dolan, I will say there is a slight opportunity.

It won't come from Mark Shapiro, though, as I think he's going to fight to the end to keep Eric around.

Now, should he be fired before the season is over? It depends on what you want to do this year.

If you want to make a run at it, you can still do it, but you need to fire him now if you want to have a shot. This team needs a spark and as we've seen with Colorado, changing the skipper is one way to do that.

If you don't have any interest in competing, I don't think it matters. Fire him now, fire him later, but I'm now coming over to the side that his time with the Tribe is over.

I've been one of his biggest supporters, especially this season, but I think he does look defeated.

Some of his players are starting to look defeated also and the little mistakes and how he manages have added up for me. It's time to make a move.

Samantha Bunten: I don't think we need to go over whether Wedge SHOULD be fired yet again, but I think it is worth revisiting the discussion on whether he WILL be fired, given recent events.

The team's performance appeared to get better for about a week, only to take a nosedive shortly thereafter and look perhaps even worse than it has all year.

Because we're talking about a move that would be made by the Indians’ big-decision-phobic front office, I wouldn't necessarily say that the team’s recent poor performance would be enough to get Wedge fired.

However, for the first time ever, there seem to be some indications that the tide has turned against Mr. Wedge among the opinions of those whose opinions matter, perhaps suggesting that even they have had enough.

Dolan's trip to Chicago last weekend and his vague comments about "not wanting to lie" when asked if Wedge was going to be canned were a noticeable departure from the usual "we're standing by Eric Wedge" broken record response from ownership and the front office. Yikes.

As to why Wedge looks defeated, I would say it is because he's noticed the same thing the rest of us did: There's finally a change coming, and it doesn’t bode well for him.

I still wouldn't be surprised if the Indians allow Wedge to finish out the year, but if they do, I think it is safe to say that he will be doing so as a lame duck.

Dave Wiley: Consider this: Eric Wedge went through his entire adolescence with a last name consistent with a giant tug on underpants.

Personally, I'm thinking if you can withstand that, then what is going on with the Tribe and the possibility of getting fired is a walk in the park.

Getting fired and having to coach the Washington Nationals next would probably be the equivalent of the mega-Wedge.

The Coop: Do I want Wedge to be fired? Heck yes! Do I think he will be fired? No way!

In all fairness, I have to look at the situation objectively. Are the injuries his fault? No. Are the repeated bullpen meltdowns his fault? No. Is the lack of timely, clutch hitting his fault? No.

So this is why he looks so dejected and defeated. Too bad. Someone needs to be held accountable. After all, they are the worst team in the American League.

Most nights, they look like amateurs, and to me, this is a direct reflection of the manager.

The bigger problem is that this isn’t the first season that they’ve been a huge disappointment. So blame 2008 on injuries and the bullpen all you want: It’s just another lost season under Wedge’s watch.

Personally, I think both Wedge and Shapiro should be canned immediately. Unfortunately, this won’t happen.

A few weeks ago, I said the reason was because the Indians were just a hot-streak away from moving up the standings in the terrible AL Central. Now, it’s more likely that management will use the injuries and other excuses as a reason to keep Wedge.

Wedge and Shapiro are tight; remember, Shapiro fired Charlie Manuel (you know, the World Series Champion) and hand-picked Wedge. He’s not going anywhere. It makes me sick.

2. Last week Kelly Shoppach became the most recent player to be publicly chastised by Eric Wedge for his play this season. While it is hard to find much fault with Shop's performance behind the plate, his performance in the batter's box has been truly awful.

Do you think Wedge was right to call Shoppach out in a public forum for his disappointing hitting? What do you think is wrong with Shoppach that has caused his offensive production to decline so sharply this season?

Nino Colla: If I can, Shop has been pretty awful behind the plate as well. His defense has fallen off the track since his first year with the Tribe.

Wedge has no right to call out a player's performance in my opinion.

I fully support him calling out a Jhonny Peralta for not playing hard or being a jerk for not wanting to play third. I do not support him calling out Shoppach though, because as much as I'm disappointed in him, he always plays hard.

Nothing is wrong with Shoppach. This is him. He's a back-up catcher for a reason and he's proving it.

Last year, he hit a lot of home runs because he got a lot of fastballs. He's a fastball pull hitter who has bigger power than anyone else on this team.

But he has no eye and no plate discipline. Now that the opposition is aware of his game, they will not give him the fastball to pound. The solution is to not play him as much as Wedge has been, but don't tell that to Eric.

Samantha Bunten: While I readily acknowledge that Shoppach's performance this year has been sub par, I'm not sure I agree with Wedge's decision to publicly go after him.

Jhonny Peralta has spent years being lazy and indifferent and had the audacity to whine about a position change, so I fully support Wedge each and every time he calls out Peralta because what he is addressing is Peralta’s lack of effort.

But going after Shoppach, a guy who gives 150 percent every day? That doesn't sit right with me.

As for what might be wrong with Shop, I think it is pretty obvious he's pressing. Who wouldn't, after fighting for and perhaps arguably winning the starting catcher's position last year, only to arrive this year to find himself once again in the midst of one of Eric Wedge’s ever-present platoon schemes?

Add the trade rumors to that, and it becomes pretty clear why a player might press so hard that his performance suffers noticeably.

Dave Wiley: No. I don't think it is ever the correct call to place someone in the public forum like that. Bad move by the Wedge-meister.

If I were Shoppach, I would respond publicly by saying "Well, at least I've never worn a 'Porn-stache'".

One thing I've always admired about Wedge was the fact he didn't publicly challenge players like a five-year old. Let me cross that bit of father-figurehood off my list of "Reasons to keep Wedge".

Hmm...after crossing that off, there is nothing left on my list.

The Coop: This episode by Wedge is exactly why I despise him. Going after the backup catcher? Are you serious?

I looked up Shop’s career statistics. The guy has never hit above .261.

In 2008, he struck out 133 times in 352 at-bats (38%). This year (through Monday), he’s struck out 49 times in 132 at-bats (37%).

My point is, we’re not exactly talking about Mike Piazza or Johnny Bench here, folks. And he’s still on pace to have close to the same HRs and RBIs as last year.

Has Shoppach stunk it up this year at the plate? Definitely. He's pressing, just like everyone else. But for Wedge to call him out is bush league.

The fact that he’s hitting poorly this year is about 99th on the list of 100 reasons why the Indians are terrible this year.

3. At a time when the Indians are desperate for any shred of good news about pitching they can get, they have instead been dealt another staggering blow: Jake Westbrook has had a setback in his rehabilitation yet again and his return date has been pushed from late June/early July to late July/early August.

Do you see this as an indication that Westbrook will never make it back to being the pitcher he once was, or is it merely a delay in Westbrook's return and just another stroke of bad luck for the Indians?

Nino Colla: Jake Westbrook had hit no snags in his comeback trail up until this one. I call it his luck running out.

I can't think of a Tommy John surgery that didn't take at least a year plus to come back from, so really the set-back is disappointing, but it should have been expected.

Honestly, at one point last season and in the off-season, I wasn't even expecting Westbrook to be back this year at all.

But Jake is a fighter and he's going to do his best to get back as quickly as possible. I don't see this as anything much. It's his first set-back, and I was quite shocked he didn't really have one until now.

It sucks that it happened so close to his return, but if it happened a few months ago, you would have just looked over it.

Samantha Bunten: Ultimately I think Westbrook will be OK. The setback isn't the kind that indicates anything serious, at least at this point.

The greater problem is that the Indians have been hanging a great deal of their hopes on the "Much Anticipated Return of Jake Westbrook.", which has reached nearly mythic proportions.

If anyone truly believes that Westbrook is going to rescue this team, I would have to wonder if they have ever actually seen the guy pitch. Westbrook is a number three starter on a good day. Most days he's a number four or five guy who is now also coming back from major surgery.

In other words, he’s a solid back-end starter, not the franchise’s potential savior. With no disrespect to Westbrook, if the club is hanging our last hopes on the likes of him, then Tribe fans have every reason to start Waiting Til Next Year right now.

Dave Wiley: I still think Westbrook has a chance of coming back. I don't see any reason to rush a guy back to a team that can't hold a 7-0 lead.

I say rent him a condo in Disney World and tell him not to hurt his arm hoisting brewski's while he's there and we'll see him next year.

The Coop: I like Jake Westbrook, and for his sake, I hope he makes it back and finishes his career in an Indians uniform. That would truly make me happy.

But again, what are we talking about here? The guy has a career record right around .500 and an ERA over 4.00. He’s possibly a No. 3 guy in the rotation for the Indians right now, but no more than a No. 4 guy for teams that are contending.

To me, Jake is a very average pitcher whose prospects of ever being average again just took another hit. It would be great if he could come back, but I’m not counting on it.

He’s a 32 year-old guy who has had major arm surgery. The odds are certainly against him. The Indians had better start developing their young arms, and quick.

4. David Huff was a much-ballyhooed prospect for some time before he was called up to the majors, one who many predicted to be The Next Big Thing for the Indians as early as this year. After getting the call, Huff is 2-2 with a 7.09 ERA.

What do you think the future holds for Huff? Are his poor stats simply a reflection of being called up before he was truly ready to help a desperate ball club, or is he simply not turning out to be the pitcher many predicted he would be?

Nino Colla: I think it's just him being a rookie. It's early for him. I went to the best game he pitched against St. Louis and I was really impressed.

He is Cliff Lee-like to a T. Once he figures himself out at the big league level and adjusts, he's going to be good.

He has great command of his pitches and, while I think the "The Next Big Thing" tag is a little much, he's going to be a solid MLB pitcher.

Samantha Bunten: Like every other pitcher called up to bail out a failing big league club, Huff got a bit of a raw deal. He was probably called up before he was ready. Some players rise to this challenge. Others, like Huff, do not. But that doesn't mean he isn't capable of being a solid starter down the road.

Ironically, at this point it would be hard to explain sending Huff back down to AAA, since as much as he has struggled on the mound, he has actually fared better than most of the Indians' other options.

Still, the Indians aren't doing Huff any favors by keeping him in the majors when he isn’t ready, and in the long run this won't be doing the team any favors either.

Dave Wiley: David Huff's stats remind me of the statistics of a much-maligned Detroit Tigers squad a couple years ago.

When things are bad, they are bad for everyone. Last year, the Indians caught fire after the All-Star break, ending up at .500 for the year. I don’t see that same thing happening this year.

Huff finishes with a winning record. Indians don't make .500.

The Coop: David Huff is a great example of why Tribe fans should not be so eager to buy into the hype surrounding their prospects.

Understandably, we all hope that we’ve got the Next Big Thing on our hands. But lately, it seems like the Indians have tons of “Next Big Things” in their farm system that end up being very mediocre ballplayers at the next level: (Kelly Shoppach) or those who cannot sustain their success (Fausto Carmona).

Specifically regarding David Huff, I do think that he has a chance to be a reliable No. 3 or No. 4 starter for the Indians.

Even though his stuff is far from overpowering, and he works behind in the count way too much to be successful. He was definitely called up too soon for my liking, but the Indians' hands were tied.

For a 25-year old rookie, he has shown flashes of brilliance that lead me to believe that with the proper coaching, development, and experience, he could be a solid back-end of the rotation type guy (The next Jake Westbrook?).

5. On Monday, Grady Sizemore stated that he would be rejoining the Indians Tuesday at PNC Park to face the Pirates rather than going on a rehab assignment first.

Sizemore says the Indians left the decision of whether to rehab or come straight back to big league action up to him. Do you support Sizemore's decision to jump right back into things, or do you think it was foolish of the Indians not to insist on a rehab assignment first?

Nino Colla: Nope. Rehabbing is going to do nothing for Grady Sizemore. Either he's ready to go or he's not, there is no sense in going on a minor league trip. I'm fully with Grady on his decision.

Samantha Bunten: I know the front office hasn't exactly dazzled anyone with their brilliance lately, but I am surprised they were foolish enough to truly leave this up to the player, and especially a player like Grady.

Sizemore is one of the hardest working, toughest players in the game. If one of his legs fell off, he'd shrug and say he was alright to play, which is exactly why the decision should not have been left up to him. While Sizemore's toughness is rare and admirable in a baseball player, it also makes him unqualified to make such a decision.

Lucky for all involved, Sizemore's first day back left no cause for further concern and showed Grady might truly be back to being Grady. However, this should have the front office heaving a huge sigh of relief rather than patting themselves on the back. They should count themselves very lucky that Sizemore's call turned out to be the right one.

Dave Wiley: Jump on in! Who needs rehab? Rehab is over-rated. Rehab is for players to work themselves back into competitiveness.

Playing for the Indians is similar to going to the minors anyhow, so why not just head on back? The downside of skipping rehab is for Grady is that he has to report back to the Indians.

The Coop: When I read that the Indians left this decision up to Sizemore, I almost fainted. I thought it was a joke. You’re talking about the face of the franchise here. Exactly what medical expertise does Grady have that would qualify him to make this decision on his own?

Of course, I don’t blame Sizemore at all. Dude is a gamer and just wants to be out there and help his team.

But the Indians front office should be ashamed. If this ends up making his injury worse, Tribe fans should immediately storm The Pro and call for Mark Shapiro’s resignation. I cannot believe they’re letting this happen.

That said, he looked great in his first game back vs. Pittsburgh. But the Indians should be looking at this situation and what is best for the team and player in the long-term.

Tribe Talk: Indians Engage In A Brief Flirtation With Improvement

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:40:37 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we discuss the Tribe’s brief flirtation with improvement, analyze the team’s actions in the amateur draft, and ponder who really has the advantage in interleague play.

I would like to thank this week's participants Scott Miles and Dale Thomas for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. For a few blissful days, the Tribe finally seemed to be getting things on track, winning six of 10. Though things have since gone downhill yet again, what, if anything, has changed that brought about this positive streak, arguably the Tribe's longest stretch of consistently positive performance all season?

Samantha Bunten: There doesn't seem to be any one dramatic change, which is a very, very good thing because that means that the team is simply improving their play across the board.

If anything, what has been noticeable is a marked improvement in the performance of the bullpen, particularly thanks to Matt Herges and Kerry Wood.

As for the offense, they have done a much, much better job of answering immediately when the opponent scores. This has allowed them to stay in almost every game of late.

Still, I just can't get that excited about a 6-4 stretch when the team is still well below .500 and solidly in last place in the division. The Indians should not be having this much trouble moving up in the standings, as performance across the division has been notably unspectacular.

I'm glad things are going in a more positive direction, but I don’t think the Indians have any business being satisfied with their performance just yet.

Dale Thomas: Although the current lineup is in desperate need of a healthy Grady Sizemore, Mark DeRosa has stepped up big. The 1-2 punch of Martinez and Choo has paid big dividends.

We've seen some decent pitching and decent relief as well over the course of the past couple of weeks.

That said, both pitching and hitting remain inconsistent overall.

Scott Miles: Despite Monday's meltdown, I can point my finger to one area in particular—the bullpen.

Matt Herges (2-0, 1.93 ERA entering Tuesday) has been a Godsend. He's having a Bob Howry-esque (circa 2007) season for us. Luis Vizcaino (1-2, 4.50) and Greg Aquino (1-1, 4.20) haven't exactly set the world on fire, but they're not terrible either.

Joe Smith is back off the DL and pitched well in three outings. And don't look now, but Kerry Wood hasn't given up a run since getting blasted for four on May 19 against the Royals.

The offense is going about as well as could be expected considering the injuries. The starting pitching is only going to give you so much, as it now looks like Cliff Lee and a cast of thousands out there.

The bullpen has slowly started to improve, which is why it's no surprise the team has started to win some games.

2. Last week, the Indians drafted RHP Alex White (UNC) with their first pick in the amateur draft. What do you think of White as their first round choice? What do you think of their selections in subsequent rounds and overall?

Samantha Bunten: Generally speaking, I like the Alex White pick. The fact that the Indians needed to draft pitching was obvious, and it was a smart move to take a seasoned college player since the Tribe needs pitching NOW. I think they were correct to focus on someone who could help the team sooner rather than later.

That being said, I do not agree with the Indians' immediate declaration that they plan to convert White into a reliever. If White ultimately proves better suited to that role, so be it, but I would be very hesitant to take a guy who has the tools to be a potential starter and shove him into a bullpen role before he has even signed a contract.

Overall, I think the Indians did a nice job. They stuck with college players for the most part (as they usually do) and made good selections in the second and third rounds.

Second-round pick Jason Kipnis has good makeup, a good glove, and pretty good bat speed, though he can be a little pull-happy.

Right-hander Joe Gardner, the Indians' third round pick, is a little more of a wild card, but still a solid selection for a third rounder. His delivery and motion are raw and awkward, but he has good enough stuff that it may very well be worth the extra work required to refine him.

Dale Thomas: Alex White brings a critical attribute to the Tribe in that he says his favorite movie is Bull Durham. This alone might justify the pick.

If he gets command of his fastball, I think he can help the team. Overall, I like the strategy of bringing in a lot of pitching in this year's draft.

Scott Miles: I like the pick a lot, which pains me a bit to say because I'm a Dukie at heart and despise all things Carolina. But in Alex White, the Indians selected a pitcher who was regarded to be one of the three or four best in the draft, so you gotta love that.

By all accounts he has a real good arm and good "stuff," and I was impressed watching his outing against Arizona State on Sunday.

What I don't like is the organization coming out and saying that he's being converted to a reliever. Why? I'd rather see him try to develop as a starter and if it doesn't work out, shift him to the bullpen in a few years. I don't understand why the team won't even try him as a starter.

Beyond White, it's kind of tough to say. You just have no idea who will turn into what with the draft. But I do like the volume of collegiate players, because those appear to be "safer" selections and more likely to develop into solid pros.

3. Cliff Lee continued to be the lone bright spot amid the Indians otherwise-disastrous pitching, taking a no hitter into the eighth inning last Sunday. What stands out to you as the reason for Lee's great performance?

It is worth mentioning that Lee only surrendered the three hits he gave up after he started shaking off catcher Kelly Shoppach in the eighth and ninth innings. In light of that, how much credit would you give to Shoppach for Lee's performance?

Samantha Bunten: The true beauty in a performance such as this is that there is no one thing that stands out as the sole reason it was so successful. There was no "trick" Lee relied on—he just, quite frankly, pitched one hell of a game. Specifically, if I had to choose something that stood out, it would be that Lee seemed to have almost flawless command of his fastball.

A good deal of the credit for every great pitching performance belongs to the catcher. Shoppach calls a good game in general, and he called an especially good one last Sunday. Neither Shop nor Lee could have produced these results without each other.

I was surprised to see Lee shake off Shoppach at the end, as he typically only shakes off the catcher when he's doing poorly, not when he's doing well. In this situation, he started making mistakes because he shook off the catcher for no particular reason rather than shaking off the catcher because he had already been making mistakes.

Still, it is probably best not to look too deep for a flaw here, and call this what it was - a great day on the mound for Cliff Lee and a great victory for the Tribe.

Dale Thomas: After a rough start with his first couple of batters, Cliff was totally hitting his spots using a game plan calling mostly for high fastballs.

Certainly much credit is owed to Shoppach for calling a brilliant game. Calling the right pitches, to a pitcher who was in a good high-cheese zone, provided the confidence for Lee to go the distance.

Scott Miles: Cliff Lee has, the past two seasons, reminded me of one pitcher: Greg Maddux. Or maybe Tom Glavine, if you want a southpaw comparison.

Just look at how effortless the performance was—what did he throw, like 65 pitches? Or how great his command was, and how weakly the Cardinals were hitting the ball. It was a masterpiece reminiscent of what Maddux used to author.

I didn't notice Lee shaking off Shoppach late in the game. But a catcher should always get a large amount of credit for a pitcher's performance.

The catcher is the true leader of any ball club. And I'll tell you something—I was a pitcher in high school and a bit in college, and it seemed like every time I shook off my catcher, I was guaranteed to give up a hit. So I learned quickly to trust my catcher and throw whatever he wanted me to throw.

4. Love it or hate it, this season's stretch of interleague play is upon us, creating a situation where hitters frequently face pitchers they have never seen before.

In baseball the advantage lies with the pitcher, but do the match ups created by interleague play give the pitcher an even greater advantage, or is this actually more helpful to the hitter? What do you think the best strategy is for Tribe hitters when it comes to handling the NL pitchers they will be facing over the course of the next few weeks?

Samantha Bunten: The greatest advantage would seem to go to the pitchers who have played in both leagues or the hitters who have played in both leagues.

The few who have seen what will be an unknown to most others will have the greatest advantage, whether they're the hurler or the batter.

As for the Tribe, there isn't much they can do other than prepare for the unknown as best they can via the obvious methods (film, scouting reports), and make good use of home field advantage when they have it, as home field counts more in interleague than it does during games against other AL teams.

Dale Thomas: Based upon the Tribe's interleague performance thus far, I have to say the advantage is clearly skewed towards the opposition's pitching...and hitting. Conversely, I could say it was a huge disadvantage to Tribe pitching...and hitting.

As for Tribe’s strategy for handling NL pitching, just put the bat on the ball early, as always. After you've seen his stuff, swing freely.

Scott Miles: To me, it seems pretty basic: The pitchers will have the advantage in the NL ballparks, and the hitters will in the AL parks. Especially NL pitchers.

I don't have the numbers to back this up, but I would imagine that the comfort level for an NL pitcher would be enormous at home, where he faces an AL lineup way out of its comfort zone without the DH. Then, conversely, I would imagine he would be at a similar disadvantage in the AL parks where the team can play its normal way.

As for the Tribe hitters, they just need to stick to their plan. I'm typing this while watching the team work Yovani Gallardo to over 60 pitches through two innings. Stay patient, work the count, get into the bullpen—that's their plan and it generally works, so stay with it.

5. The most recent MRI of Grady Sizemore's elbow revealed a marked decrease in inflammation, prompting assessments that he could return in as little as 7-10 days and thus avoid surgery. While ideally everyone wants to see Sizemore back on the field as soon as possible, was avoiding surgery really the best choice for him?

Sizemore himself has said this past week that still, "there is a chance it could get worse". Do you think it is best to bring him back as soon as possible at all costs, or are you of the opinion that it would be better to opt for surgery to insure that the problem is completely eliminated?

Samantha Bunten: Obviously, everyone involved would prefer to avoid surgery for Sizemore at all costs. However, sometimes it is better to pay a little more up front in order to pay a lot less at the end.

Sizemore says he's feeling better, but that may just because he hasn't been putting any strain on the elbow at all since he first went on the DL. There is a good chance the problem will go right back to what it was as soon as he starts playing every day again.

It isn't too hard to envision Sizemore ending up right back on the DL in a few weeks and ultimately ending up on a surgeon's table anyway.

If he just had surgery now, it would be that much less time wasted and that much less time the Tribe would have to do without him.

I will be ecstatic if Sizemore comes back in a week or two and looks like his old self, but I wouldn't lay any money on it. I won't fault the Indians for putting off the surgery option for now, but that wouldn't be my choice.

Dale Thomas: Not being a medical professional, I might attribute the decrease in inflammation to resting the elbow.

This doesn't represent a cure to me. Put that arm back in motion full time and I suspect the problem will be back with a vengeance. If surgery truly repairs the problem, I say fix it and be done. I worry that without the surgery, the inflammation may become chronic.

Scott Miles: Kind of tough to say. I would think that you want to avoid surgery at all costs, and if it's healing on it's own, then great. But the Indians just need to make sure they err on the side of caution here.

When Grady says he's 100 percent ready, great. But I'd prefer not to see a timetable set one way or another and have him think that he NEEDS to be back in 7-10 days because that's when everyone says he should be back.

Just take your time, Grady, and get yourself better.

Tribe Talk: The Perils of Playing In The Worst Division In Baseball

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:16:29 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we discuss whether the AL Central is the worst division in baseball and what that means for the Indians, assess the value of defensive skills, and pay tribute to the late former Tribe owner Dick Jacobs.

I would like to thank this week's participants Nino Colla, Dave Wiley, and The Coop for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. 1. Despite posting a winning percentage of just .424 as of Monday, the Indians are still only 7 games back in the AL Central. This gives Tribe fans a reason to keep believing, but what does it say about the rest of the division? Rumor has it that the AL Central is the weakest division in baseball - do you think this is true?

Nino Colla: This division might be worse than the NL West was a few years ago and that was pretty bad. It isn't out of the realm of possibilities that the division winner is below or at the .500 mark or 83 games wins the thing. It is that bad. It isn't competitiveness either, it's just the division’s inability to beat the other teams in the game consistently.

There is talent here. Hell, you can look at the Indians as the poster boy for the division. A lot of talent to be good, but a grave disappointment. Look at Minnesota as a team people expected to be a little better. Chicago is competing but it is the same thing with them. Everyone thought the Tribe would be in it and I think some people believed Detroit would at least be a little better than last year, and they are. Kansas City even had something going.

It isn't that this division is like, awful in terms of what they have. It's just awful in terms of the fact that they are all playing below what they are capable of.

Samantha Bunten: As much as I hate to say it, the AL Central really does look like the worst division in baseball. Only one team in the division is over .500 (Detroit), and they are tied with Milwaukee for the worst winning percentage for a division leader. You also have to consider that their winning percentage would likely be even worse if they didn't have the advantage of facing other weak AL Central teams regularly in divisional play. This division reminds me of 2008’s NL West, where until the Dodgers came to life in the 11^th hour, it looked like a team might claim the division with a .500 record.

For the Indians, being in a weak division looks like it would be helpful on the surface, since it lets them stay in the race despite how poorly they have played. However, it ultimately does them no real favors. Even if they play well enough to take over the division, they will still be a mediocre team that will exit early at the hands of far stronger opponents in the playoffs.

Dave Wiley: Yes, I'd have to say its true. Fourteen teams are above the .500 mark in baseball. Every other division has at least two teams over that mark. Only the Detroit Tigers sit above .500 in the AL Central. Put the Tigers in any other division, they are in second place at best. Throw them in the AL East, and they are in FOURTH!!! Yes, the AL Central is bad.

The Coop: If the AL Central isn’t the worst division in baseball, it’s definitely the most mediocre. This is highlighted by the fact that the team that is currently in first place, Detroit, has the lowest winning percentage of all current division leaders.

The AL Central also happens to be the only division that has only one team above .500 at the moment. Still, the division isn’t horrible. The last place team, Kansas City, is only 7 ½ games behind the Tigers. And really, outside of the Royals, who ironically led the division in the early weeks of the season, I wouldn’t be shocked to see any of teams in the division get hot and make a run up the standings and ultimately win the division.

Nonetheless, this represents sort of a Catch-22 for the Indians: the mediocrity of the division means that the Tribe is never really “out of it,” which seemingly perpetuates the Indians desire to stand pat and accept the very average play we’ve seen over the last year and a half.

2. 2. While defense is far from the Tribe's biggest problem, their shortcomings in the field cost them dearly last Saturday in Chicago, and it wasn't the first time defensive miscues hurt this team. How would you rate the Indians' defense overall?

On a related philosophical note, defense is an often undervalued component of the game; do you think teams need to stress good defense more during player development and show more respect for great defensive players, or are you of the opinion that defensive skills are negligible if a player is an excellent hitter?

Nino Colla: Sub-par. I think losing Asdrubal Cabrera and Grady Sizemore, a gold-glove caliber infielder and a gold-glove outfielder hurt in a big way. The team's best defensive alignment though is with Peralta at third, Cabrera at short, and DeRosa at second or in the outfield and I'm glad Wedge finally started going with that. That basic alignment is one that makes it above-average if you ask me.

I think Peralta benefits big time from the move to third and goes from a below-average shortstop to an average third baseman with a good arm with the potential to be more. Ben Francisco and Grady Sizemore have good speed and while Francisco and Choo need to learn to take better routes and not over-shoot cut-off men, they're better than most.

Defensive skills have definitely gone by the wayside in terms of where they come from. I know the Indians are big on defense in terms of stressing it in player development. It's the only reason the Tribe went out and got Mark DeRosa for third instead of pushing Wes Hodges harder. Hodges' bat is probably ready, but his defense is not. It's also the thing that is holding Beau Mills back. His bat should have had him in Double-A last year at some point and probably fast-tracked to Columbus this year, but his defense isn't there.

Defensive skills are not negligible if a player is a good hitter. However, I'll use Ryan Garko for an example. If you are willing to work hard and try your best to improve, but still aren't fantastic, I'll take you on my team. Garko isn't the greatest first baseman, but he's miles ahead of where he was years ago when he first switched. Take in mind that as well, he's a converted catcher, so he had to learn the position at the major league level. But still, he worked hard, always puts in the extra effort an time to get better, and shows steady improvement. You don't have to be amazing, but if you are a good hitter and not great at defense, all I would require from you is hard work to get better. To me hard-work trumps all because you eventually will get what you deserve.

Samantha Bunten: Currently the Indians rank 8th in errors and 6th in fielding percentage in the AL and 17th in errors and 13th in fielding percentage in all of MLB. I think this is a pretty accurate representation of how the Indians defense measures up: very mediocre. Good enough not to draw too much criticism, bad enough to cost the Indians a not insignificant number of wins. Also, at the moment, the Indians' defense is actually far worse than the numbers indicate, as the team is without their two best defenders, Grady Sizemore and Asdrubal Cabrera.

I absolutely think that defense is undervalued in baseball, and is perhaps the single most undervalued skill a player can possess. Defense is under-appreciated because it rarely wins ballgames in notable fashion, and tends to be noticed and remembered only when it is done poorly.

In other words, there are a lot more memorable miscues a la Bill Buckner that we can all recall than there are great catches a la Willie Mays that are still being talked about. This leads to an under-appreciation of good defense, because good defense is invisible. Only bad defense is apparent enough to be noteworthy.

I don't think defensive skills are EVER negligible unless you are a consistent 40+ home run first baseman, and that combined with poor defensive skills should really make you a DH anyway.

Dave Wiley: I'd give the current Indians defense a B-. Saturday's Chicago game isn't the only one they've given away this year because of lousy defense, but injuries are killing the continuity.

For the second part of the question, Mr. Prosecutor, I present : Exhibit A: Carlos Baerga. Great clutch hitter, lousy on defense. If you are giving away a run and helping score a run, you are a wash. Offense and defense go hand in hand. You can't give good teams more than 27 outs in a game. As far as the Tribe's defensive woes go, I'd say injuries and lineup tinkering have combined to add to the poor defensive showing. People are in different positions with regularity and not playing every day. It is not easy to get into offensive or defensive rhythm under those conditions.

The Coop: See my answer to the last question. The Tribe’s defense is not the worst I’ve ever seen, but it’s not exactly the team’s long suit. Errors are a part of a game, but so are fundamentals. I’ve seen the Indians miss cut-off men, not be aware of how many outs there are, forget to cover bases…

To me, this is indicative of more of a lack of focus and preparation rather than poor skill. I’m talking to you, Eric Wedge!

There is definitely less of a premium put on defense these days compared with the past. Gone are the days of slick shortstops with crazy range and hard-nosed, dependable catchers that hit .220. Nowadays, as long as a guy is a threat to go deep, consistently drive in runs, and isn’t a total liability in the field, he’ll be in the lineup.

It’s a sad commentary on how the game is played in the “Steroid Era.” I mean, would you rather have the greatest defensive left fielder in the history of baseball who is a singles-hitter, or Manny Ramirez? I am a huge proponent of fielding a fundamentally-sound team, but no one can tell me ManRam hurts his team with his glove more than he helps with his bat. In the end, I guess it’s just important for teams to know the make-up of their club. If you have trouble scoring runs, you’d better have a damn good defense.

3. 3. With Grady Sizemore and Asdrubal Cabrera both on the DL, how do you feel about Ben Francisco filling in as the Indians' lead-off hitter? Is there someone else you would rather see at the top of the order?

If you were the Indians' manager, how would you change the batting order to adjust to the loss of injured players? (Keep in mind that Hafner's lingering injury keeps him from playing every day).

Nino Colla: I think Ben Francisco has done as good of a job as you could ask of him filling in. There really is no one else that you can put in there unless you take someone like Choo out of the middle of the order. Jamey Carroll is a nice option for the two-hole when he plays as well, but he isn't an everyday player, especially with his injury.

I'm keeping Francisco in the one and going as follows: 3B/2B Jamey Carroll, C/1B Victor Martinez, RF Shin-Soo Choo, DH Travis Hafner, SS Jhonny Peralta, 2B/LF Mark DeRosa, 1B Ryan Garko, Whoever Plays.

Obviously, there are days Kelly Shoppach catches, which would bump Garko out of the first base spot, and he'd just slide in where Garko is. I'd try and get Garko those DH at-bats when Hafner sits though. I'm playing Jamey Carroll a majority of the time at third and second, sharing second with Josh Barfield and maybe Mark DeRosa, while DeRosa plays mostly left. I think Luis Valbuena needs to get sent down to get regular playing time at Columbus, his bat is still not where it needs to be.

Samantha Bunten: I really like Francisco even though he isn't doing the best job of justifying the faith I have in him. I like him in the lead-off spot because he's got speed and is a smart baserunner. Of course, he does need to do a better job of getting himself on base in the first place; currently he’s hitting .212 in 33 at-bats in the lead-off spot. Still, Francisco remains my pick to bat lead-off until Sizemore and/or Cabrera returns.

For the batting order under current conditions, I would like to see: 1. Francisco. 2. Carroll. 3. Choo 4. Martinez 5. Hafner 6. Derosa 7. Garko 8. Peralta 9. Crowe, with Derosa moved to 5th and Shoppach 6th when Hafner doesn't play.

Dave Wiley: Francisco has smokin' speed, so why not? Jamey Carroll is probably the best fit for lead-off since he doesn't have the power numbers of Francisco, but he isn't playing every day. I'd go with five regulars in the first five slots, so Francisco wins the leadoff position.

The Coop: I’m not really sure what qualifies Ben Francisco as a leadoff hitter. I like the guy, but he’s been far from consistent during his career and he has no experience hitting in the 1-hole. But, if I started trying to figure out why Eric Wedge does the things he does, I’d end up in the mental asylum.

I would be interested in seeing Choo or DeRosa at the top. Choo has a great on-base percentage and DeRosa is a polished hitter. Obviously, none would be as good of a choice as Sizemore or even Cabrera, but you’ve got to play the hand you’re dealt. More than anything, I’m just glad David Dellucci is no longer an option!

Once we can figure out who is best suited to bat first, the rest of the lineup card pretty much fills itself out. I’d do it like this: 1. DeRosa-LF 2. Carroll-2B 3. Martinez-C 4. Choo-RF 5. Hafner-DH 6. Garko-1B 7. Francisco-CF 8. Peralta-3B 9. Valbuena-SS.

4. 4. Mark Shapiro has stated that it is still too early to tell what role the Tribe will play in the trade market this season, but in the event that the Tribe plays well enough to be "buyers" in trade talks, it is a given that they will be shopping for pitching.

Players like Mark DeRosa and Jamey Carroll would certainly be made available, but they may not be enough. Thus, the question no one wants to have to answer: Would you trade Victor Martinez for pitching? Would the Indians?

Nino Colla: No, no no no no no. And I don't think they would. I'd trade Mark DeRosa, Jamey Carroll as well considering I think Josh Barfield is a cheaper utility option, and as much as I think we need veteran leadership next year, that shouldn't be too hard to find.

Even Carl Pavano and maybe someone like Kelly Shoppach. But not Victor Martinez. With an option left on his contract and Carlos Santana still a year or two away, holding onto Victor is going to be key. I think he even may be worth re-signing as a first-baseman/backup catcher when his contract is up.

I don't think the Indians are going to trade Victor. I think they realize he is the heart and soul of this team and they want to compete next year if this year is out of the question. They don't compete next year without Victor Martinez, point-blank. I'd much rather take the two draft picks as compensation if he walks as well and get an extra year out of Victor than trade him for pitching. There is only one team that really needs a catcher and they aren't exactly pressing for one, so the return wouldn't be as good as you would think.

Samantha Bunten: Absolutely not, no, never, not in a million years. The value the Indians would lose both on and off the field in trading Martinez could never be replaced in a mid-season trade, no matter who the Indians received in return. Also, trading Martinez would be suicide from a marketing standpoint, and would be viewed as a sin second only to trading Grady Sizemore.

I don't think the Indians would make the trade either. As blundering as the Indians' front office can be, they're not THAT foolish. They know Martinez's value is even greater than what he puts out on the field, and that alone should be enough to make him an untouchable.

I like both DeRosa and Carroll, but I would trade either if I thought it could help the team down the stretch. I would hate to lose Shoppach, but I would be willing to part with him if the Tribe was poised to make a run at the division and they were able to get starting pitching in exchange.

Dave Wiley: Man, I hope not, but I can see it happening. Shoppach is a good catcher and can take on that role. The Indians don't need Martinez in the first base platoon necessarily. I have no idea how you'd replace his hitting though. I guess you'd have to take a look at the pile of other guys at first and possibly shop them if people are interested.

Martinez and Sizemore are the face of the team. Ultimately Sizemore will command a premium and most likely Cleveland won't be able to pay it, similar to what happened with Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, and C.C. Sabathia. I'd say they have a higher likelihood of holding onto Martinez for the balance of his career. I vote keep Victor in house.

The Coop: Trust me, if the Indians trade Victor, there will be a riot. I live in Pittsburgh and you should see the reaction of Pirates fans simply because the team traded Nate McClouth, and McClouth isn’t close to being even half the player Martinez is.

I think that trading Martinez would mean that the Indians are in a seller’s position, not a buyer’s position. There is no way that they would get equal value for Martinez which would get them over the top and still fill the void left by Victor’s absence. So, in a seller’s position, the Tribe would be getting nothing more than prospects with unknown value. Trading Martinez would officially make them the American League’s version of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

If the best way to get pitching is by trading the team’s best player, then Mark Shapiro and the entire scouting department should be fired on the spot. Why aren’t the Indians drafting and developing solid pitchers in our farm system? Why aren’t the Indians trying to make moves in the free agent market? And why do the Indians even draft/sign guys if they just plan on trading them once they have some trade value? Trading Martinez would be nothing more than a cop-out.

5. 5. The death of former Indians owner Dick Jacobs last week was a tremendously sad loss for the Indians organization, Tribe fans, and the city of Cleveland as a whole. We are all indebted to Mr. Jacobs for what he did for our team and our city. Please briefly share your thoughts on this topic.

Nino Colla: If you don't know what Mr. Jacobs did for the Cleveland Indians, my advice is to go pick up Dealing by Terry Pluto, and do it like, tomorrow. While the book is about the more recent Tribe, Pluto doesn't skip over the Dick Jacobs regime and what he did to bring the Indians back to being a respectable franchise. The man pretty much saved the team from being moved to Florida.

He is basically a savior to the franchise. Not only in that that he oversaw the run the Indians made and allowed it to happen, but also because we have a brand new stadium that is still getting kept up to date that will last us for a long time for which he is responsible. Words cannot do justice to how much Dick Jacobs did for this franchise. It only sucks that we couldn't get him the World Series trophy that he truly deserved.

Samantha Bunten: Cleveland, the Indians organization, and Indians fans were all tremendously fortunate to have Dick Jacobs as the team's owner. He possessed that rare, invaluable combination that makes the best owners: the ability to make decisions about the team based purely on business and the ability to also do the opposite and make decisions that are purely about baseball.

Jacobs cared enough about baseball to invest in a team and a ball park that would bring in fans and wins, but was enough of a business man to never allow sentimental leanings to cloud his judgment as to what was really best for the team, whether people got riled up about it or not.

I am sad that the team wasn't able to bring a world series’ victory to the man who did everything in his power to make that possible. R.I.P. Mr. Jacobs.

Dave Wiley: The Jacobs brothers saved the Indians’ bacon. I'm not sure we'd even have a pro baseball team without them. Did the Jacobs brothers’ save the Indians or did the new field save the Indians? You could declare it a toss-up, but my vote goes to the Jacobs’ brothers.

They went out and got quality players, signed key pieces long term, and made the Indians into a winner. New stadium / Old stadium, when teams win, people come to watch. The Jacobs built a winner and the people came to see it. The Jacobs pulled off such fundraisers as selling stock in the team, keeping it financially viable so they could sign big-names.

Additionally, Jacobs Field was the classiest baseball park name in baseball. Too bad it had to change. It would be nice to see the name return in some fashion, even it if were as ‘Jacobs Field sponsored by Progressive’. Sitting in the stands watching the Indians play the Atlanta Braves at Jacobs field in the World Series will go down as a high point in my spectating life. I have Mr. Jacobs to thank for that.

The Coop: I was very young when Mr. Jacobs bought the team. I can’t say that I have any specific memories of the man. But the imprint that he left on the organization and city will remain in my memory forever.

He bought a team that practically couldn’t be given away. And through persistence and dedication, he eventually built a winner (2 AL Pennants), a new home (The Jake), and a new, loyal fan base. Jacobs Field (and the amazingly entertaining team that played in it) was the first brick in the foundation that has turned Cleveland’s horrible national image as a Rust Belt ghost town into one of America’s most vibrant, up-and-coming cities.

I guess my fondest memory of Dick Jacobs is the fact that I really have no specific memories of the man. Indeed, Richard Jacobs saved the team, worked to make the Indians relevant once again, and rejuvenated the city – all behind the scenes. Tribe fans didn’t have to put up with an egomaniacal owner but were blessed with a humble, genuine leader whose accomplishments are only now being appreciated the way they should. RIP.

Tribe Talk: Adding Insult to Injury...after Injury...after Injury...

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:05:50 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we discuss the impact of the Indians’ injury epidemic, ponder the uncertain future of Fausto Carmona and play make-believe General Manager.

I would like to thank this week's participants Scott Miles and Jeff Smirnoff for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. Just when the Tribe was starting to look better, the team was hit hard by the injury bug. Even the seemingly indestructible Grady Sizemore is now on the DL.

Should we be worried all the injuries will push management toward a sell-off? Do you think the Indians have the depth to keep their season from suffering further from the injury plague?

Samantha Bunten: Whether this is realistic or not, I will be following my usual plan of refusing to give up on the season until the Tribe is statistically eliminated. The fact that the AL Central is so bad and the Tribe is only seven games out and very much in the mix means I can justify this sort of blind hope.

However, given the spate of injuries the team is suffering, it may be time to face the music. We have nine players on the DL. Nine. GOOD teams can't recover from losing over a third of their roster to injury. Why on earth would the Indians be able to do it?

As for the sell-off, I think it may have been inevitable anyway, though this may speed up the process.

For what it is worth, I think a sell-off would be foolish at this point. The last thing the front office should be doing right now is alienating the seven people left who actually go to games.

Scott Miles: As I started typing my response to this question, I actually felt something pop in my elbow. Eric Wedge isn't going to play me in the field, but he's going to let me continue to be an unproductive part of the lineup for the next two to three weeks before finally putting me on the DL.

A sell-off seems inevitable. DeRosa will be gone soon. Pavano will too, provided he keeps pitching well. These players are safe: Grady, Victor, Cliff, Choo, and Asdrubal. Everyone else is fair game.

And no, nothing I have seen from the bench or farm system leads me to believe that the season will get any better without all of the guys on the DL. Although I suppose it can't get much worse than having the worst record in arguably the worst division in baseball.

Jeff Smirnoff: I do not think that the injuries will push the front office towards a "sell-off", but the injuries definitely hamper the Indians' ability to get back into the AL Central race. If anything it may provide an excuse to not make a changes in the management (front office and field) that are direly needed.

2. Let's play make-believe General Manager: What two moves that are realistic (no, you may not trade Jeremy Sowers for Roy Halladay) would you make to try to save the season? And what player would you acquire if reality were no object?

Samantha Bunten: Realistically, I would be focused purely on relief pitching. As appealing as it is to go after a starter, one starter can't save us. We need long relief and set-up men, pitchers who can preserve a lead when we actually get one.

I would send DeRosa to the Braves (since they're rumored to be interested) for some bullpen help, and I'd consider sending mid-level prospects to a team like the Orioles since they have a surplus of decent pitching they might be willing to deal.

If reality were no object, my first instinct would of course be to go after a marquee starting pitcher. Halladay or Santana, or even Roy Oswalt if he would waive his no-trade clause. However, one pitcher won't save the season, as we need to do more than win one out of five games.

Thus, I'm going after someone with a HUGE bat—maybe if we get a player who can knock in four or five a game, we can put enough on the board to just out-slug somebody.

I would also focus on someone young and resilient who might actually last a few seasons. Since reality is no object here, I’d like to get Evan Longoria, Ryan Braun, or Chase Utley. I would be happy to exchange Andy Marte for any of these players.

Scott Miles: I'm going to cheat here and just go with my ideal everyday lineup: Garko at first, DeRosa at second, Asdrubal at short, and Peralta at third. The outfield will be LaPorta in left, Francisco in center and Choo in right. Victor catches and rotates with Shoppach and Carroll at DH.

This way the offense stays pretty balanced and you give LaPorta a chance to develop in a season that has no hope anyway. The pitching staff is just an absolute mess.

If reality was no object, I'm getting Roy Halladay for Jeremy Sowers. And Johan Santana for Masa Kobayashi, while we're at it. That'll help.

Jeff Smirnoff: With all the injuries that have occurred, two is not enough. In hindsight, signing Adam Dunn and Orlando Hudson would have been nice. Selling high on Kelly Shoppach would have also been a smart move.

3. Fausto Carmona looked like an ace in the making during his splashy 2007 debut. Since then, he doesn’t seem to be able to buy a win. Is it time to throw in the towel on Carmona? Is there any chance he can still be the pitcher we once thought he would be?

Samantha Bunten: If Fausto wants to have any chance of re-establishing himself as a pitcher to be reckoned with, he should follow the sage advice of Crash Davis: "Quit trying to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are fascist, plus they're boring."

Truer words have never been spoken, especially for the likes of Fausto, who can't strike out anyone at all with the stuff he's throwing right now. Carmona needs to gain control of his entire repertoire of pitches and stop relying solely on his sinker.

Instead of trying to overpower every hitter he faces, Carmona would do well to just pitch to them. He might discover he can get people out that way.

Scott Miles: There is definitely time for Fausto to regain the form he had in 2007. He needs to have the revelation that CC had when he was developing into the ace: sometimes it's best to back off a little. You don't need to throw that fastball 95-97 mph to have success.

Slow it down a bit, hit your spots, and don't worry about overpowering hitters. That's not his style—he needs to let hitters beat that sinker into the ground, and not try to be perfect with that pitch or try to rack up a ton of strikeouts.

Jeff Smirnoff: There is, but he has to trust his stuff and develop some complementary pitches to accentuate his sinker. Hitters can lay off of it now because he can not control it, and he has no supplementary pitch to keep them honest. Hence a lot of walks and a lot of balls up in the zone.

I question whether he can mentally overcome the past two years.

4. The amateur draft is fast approaching, and the Tribe has the 15th overall pick in the first round. What should the Indians focus on acquiring with their first (and subsequent) draft picks?

Samantha Bunten: Fortunately for the Tribe, the 2009 draft is heavily populated by pitchers at both the prep and collegiate level. The Indians need to go after a college pitcher (ideally a lefty) with their first pick—in other words, someone who can be ready, like, yesterday.

Subsequent picks should be spent on prep pitchers with a high upside that the Tribe can develop for the future, and possibly a middle infielder or two to increase the organization's depth in that area.

Scott Miles: This is so tough to say because the MLB Draft is unlike the ones in the NBA or NFL, where guys are ready to contribute right away. Let's say a team has a glaring need for a shortstop. Well, by the time you draft one, it will be three or four years before he's major league ready. And by then you have plenty of other problems.

I would say the biggest need in the organization is power arms (yes, I know what I just said about Fausto, but let me explain). Right now, we have one pitcher who can overpower hitters: Kerry Wood. Every other pitcher is in the 88-92 mph range.

This is fine when your pitches have a ton of movement (like Fausto) or you can command the strike zone (like Cliff). But if you're not really good at either one (like the rest of the staff), you're really SOL, to be honest.

The Indians used to bring some flamethrowers out of the 'pen in the 90's. Right now, the Tigers have Rodney and Zumaya; the White Sox have Jenks; the Twins have Nathan. You want to turn around the bullpen? Have some guys with howitzers attached to their shoulders come in. Couldn't be much worse.

Jeff Smirnoff: Pitching, pitching, pitching. The Indians have a glut of position players in the minors. They needs to develop and cultivate impact talent on their pitching staff. Both in the rotation and bullpen. CC Sabathia is the last homegrown pitcher they have developed, and Julian Tavarez is the last reliever before Raffy Perez. Yikes!

5. Fun Question of the Week: What is your best idea for a fun, creative promotional item the Tribe could hand out in the future?

Samantha Bunten: Since the Indians are (unsurprisingly) having trouble putting butts in the seats, I would run a promotion that allowed fans to buy any seat in the house, and then upgrade to the best available seat (free of charge) upon arrival. No one should be sitting in the nosebleeds and looking down on 20,000 empty chairs.

Scott Miles: Die Hard Night...free admission to anyone who is still alive and can remember when the Jake was rocking during the 455-game sellout streak.

Seriously, though—cheap tickets. You want to bring fans to the stadium even when the team stinks? Lower ticket prices. How much revenue could the team be raising off ticket prices when you're at 50 percent capacity?

Get fans back in the stadium. Let them blow their money on concessions and merchandise that they wouldn't be spending in the stadium anyway.

Jeff Smirnoff: I am a big hat and t-shirt guy. I think free hat/t-shirt day where you can pick a hat or t-shirt of your liking would be cool and go over well with fans.

Tribe Talk: As Grady Sizemore Goes, So Go the Cleveland Indians

Samantha Bunten — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:32:56 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we consider whether the Tribe’s fortunes are inextricably linked with those of Grady Sizemore, the dangers of incessantly tinkering with a lineup, and the chances of seeing Pedro Martinez don an Indians uniform.

I would like to thank this week's participants Nino Colla and Dave Wiley for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. 1. Nothing symbolizes the Tribe's disappointing season like the struggles of the face of the franchise, Grady Sizemore. Can Sizemore turn it around this season, and is there a chance that this might help turn around the fortunes of the whole team? Do you see any benefit thus far from Sizemore being dropped to second in the batting order?

Nino Colla: I think Grady is starting to turn it around already. He had that injury that kept him out of the outfield, but since he came back to starting there last Friday, he seems to be hitting very well.

The thing that jumped out at me the other night was seeing him hit a ball up the middle by staying on it and not trying to pull it. I don’t know why he got a little pull-happy, but maybe the injury got him to get out of it, as I think he's starting to stay on the ball better and has stopped trying to yank everything.

With that, he will start hitting more and probably get himself back into the lead-off spot when Cabrera starts to cool off a bit. And as we know, when Grady goes, so does this lineup.

Samantha Bunten: Thankfully, Sizemore has finally shown some signs of life over the past week. While there is nothing good about hitting .222, batting average is a bit of a misleading statistic and I don't think Sizemore is really quite as bad as the numbers indicate.

Right now what really concerns me is the elbow injury that seems to be hindering the normally super-resilient Sizemore.

As much as I would hate to lose him to the DL, better he has a chance to heal and return to typical form, since it appears the injury may be a big part of what is hampering his productivity. Sizemore also appears to be pressing at the plate, and this is something he needs to work on regardless of injury.

I do think that a healthy, productive Sizemore could serve as a catalyst for the team's improvement in the near future. However, this team needs to figure out how to win even when their franchise player is hurt or struggling.

As far as moving Sizemore in the batting order, I don't think this has been particularly helpful to him thus far, but it does help the team in that it allows Asdrubal Cabrera to bat lead-off where he belongs.

Dave Wiley: Sizemore should have been dropped in the batting order, oh, let's see...so many moons ago that Chief Wahoo stopped counting them. Do I think it helps Sizemore any? Nope. But it helps the team more.

Get Sizemore a personal hitting coach. Make sure his name isn't Conti. Hitting is contagious. The whole team (with the exception of only a few) needs to get out of their slump, not just Sizemore. This was the same ole' same ole' we saw last year. Feast or famine at the plate, no in- between.

222. It was easy to understand why the Indians' brass began the season with a platoon at several positions and a lineup that wasn't set in stone: they wanted to allow unproven players to each have a chance to win a starting job and they needed more time to determine how best to use players capable of playing in different spots.

Two months into the season though, the platoons and the ever-changing lineup just look like more evidence of a team that simply can't get it together. Are you in favor of a regular batting order featuring the same players in the same positions every day, or do you see some value in tinkering with the lineup until the team improves?

Nino Colla: Yes, there needs to be a set lineup, or at least a set defense, because while the versatility is nice, too much versatility can screw with a team. I also disapprove of the way Ryan Garko is being treated and I think that needs to change.

I'm in favor of a semi-platoon, which I'll explain after I give you my lineup: SS Asdrubal Cabrera, RF Shin-Soo Choo, C Victor Martinez, DH Travis Hafner, CF Grady Sizemore, 3B Jhonny Peralta, 2B Mark DeRosa, 1B Ryan Garko, LF Matt LaPorta

Only on the days when Cliff Lee pitches, Shoppach can catch and Martinez can play first. Whenever Hafner comes back, he still won't play more than four days in a row, so that will give the Indians plenty of chances to shuffle in Ben Francisco into situations between left, right, and the DH. That was the ideal situation if you would have asked me a week ago.

But since Luis Valbuena has started to hit, this isn't going to happen. Valbuena is starting to give Wedge a reason to keep him in the lineup, and that complicates things. I'm not a fan of Mark DeRosa at first base. I love seeing him at second and Peralta at third.

The defense is so much better. Sure, it's even better when DeRosa is at first and Valbuena is at second, but Garko hasn't gotten a fair shake, and to me that is just stupidity on Wedge's part. It is the one big error that I think he has made so far that I would really criticize.

Samantha Bunten: I have never been a fan of ongoing platoons, because I've never seen one that truly worked. A platoon should be used only in the early part of the season to allow a favorite to emerge among players competing for the same position, or as a brief, temporary fix to fill in for an injured player.

Tinkering with the lineup is a little different. I'm all for moving things around until you get it right, but using a different lineup every day will never really tell us anything, and the defense should be virtually set with the exception of off-days to spell tired players.

Changing the lineup is fine, but the order needs to stay constant for at least a week in order to tell if it is actually working. Players work off of each other in a lineup, and they can't do that if they're batting before or behind a different person every day.

Dave Wiley: Tinkering is not necessarily bad. On the other hand, throwing a tinker tantrum for two months whilst the team goes down in flames is, in the words of Geppetto as he tried to get Pinocchio going, "Too much Tinkering".

Tinker rhymes with stinker, and stinker describes the team. It is an obvious mathematical progression.

3. 3. Rumors are flying about a possible trade of Mark DeRosa that would allow the Indians to acquire pitching without increasing payroll. Do you think trading DeRosa would be a smart move for the Tribe?

Is there someone else you would rather see traded, either because they are less valuable to the team at present or because they would fetch more in trade?

Nino Colla: Trading Mark DeRosa would only make sense if the Indians fell out of contention. Right now, it doesn't. They would obviously do this to get pitching and free up the everyday job for Luis Valbuena.

However, this team refuses to give Matt LaPorta an everyday job because they are still lugging around David Dellucci, so why do it for Valbuena by trading a guy that is actually worth a damn?

I wouldn't make any trades for any of the pieces on the major league roster, unless it was a throw-away like Jeremy Sowers, whose value is decreasing by the pitch. No question this team needs some arms, but not at the expense of another position on this team.

I think we learned that after taking Aaron Laffey out of the rotation to fix the bullpen. It helped out the pen, but also weakened the rotation.

Samantha Bunten: Aside from Cliff Lee, Victor Martinez, Asdrubal Cabrera, and Grady Sizemore, I would be willing to consider trading anyone on the roster who might be able to fetch half-decent pitching in trade. That absolutely includes Mark DeRosa.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure DeRosa is a strong enough candidate to bring in the kind of pitching help the Indians need. Teams with a surplus of arms are few and far between. In other words, this is a seller's market.

I don't foresee any team with extra pitching being willing to part with a top tier pitcher for the likes of DeRosa when there will no doubt be a better offer on the table at some point from another team.

Dave Wiley: Well, considering the fact we have David Dellucci as commanding veteran leadership, do we really need Mark DeRosa? Wait, what is that smell? One moment while I shovel up that pile of crap statement…Can't we trade for a hitting coach, or a manager? Maybe if they just tinkered a little bit...

4. 4. In addition to acquiring pitching through a trade, there exists a small possibility that the Tribe might seek help from a currently unsigned player. One name seems to come up over and over again: Pedro Martinez.

Do you think Martinez really has enough gas left in the tank to make a difference for the Tribe? Given the price tag and risk factor, do you think the notoriously conservative Cleveland front office would even be willing to try to sign him?

Nino Colla: I would rather sign Paul Byrd for half of a season at this point. With Jake Westbrook coming back in a month or so, the Indians don't need to invest in a guy like Pedro Martinez who has been sitting around since the WBC ended.

Byrd has probably been sitting around longer, so I suppose I still wouldn't sign either one, but if I had to pick, I would go for the cheaper option.

I could always stick Byrd in middle-relief. Pedro would be a nice addition to the bullpen, but he would never do that. He is stubborn enough to hold out this long for more money, could you imagine his reaction to a bullpen job?

Samantha Bunten: Five years ago, I would have happily given up half our roster to put Pedro Martinez in an Indians uniform. Unfortunately Pedro: Version 2009 is not the same pitcher as the guy who won back to back CY Young awards in 1999 and 2000 and helped Boston to a World Series title in 2004.

There is a reason why Pedro is still available: the asking price makes this a high risk-low reward endeavor, and thus a chance the Tribe front office will never take. At some point this season, some team desperate for pitching will sign Martinez, but it won't be the Indians.

Dave Wiley: Pedro in a Tribe uniform. I have my eyes closed...the picture is hazy...nope, it is just not coming into view. So is it time to replace my contacts, or will this just never happen? Could be the first one, but I'm going with option B: no Martinez in a Tribe uniform because of the price tag.

5. 5. Fun Question of the Week: We can't all be Jeffrey Meier or Steve Bartman, but every time one attends a game as a fan, one has a chance to impact what happens on the field.

Have you ever been to a game where, as a fan, something you did in the stands had even the slightest impact on what was happening on the field?

Nino Colla: While I didn't directly impact the game on the field (I don't think shouting "I LOVE YOU BIG SAL!" had any real impact), I did once sit in front of a guy who directly annoyed the living crap out of one Jacque Jones.

Jones was with the Twins at the time and playing right field. This heckler decided to call Jones by the name of "Jackie" because well, that's what his bright idea was for the pronunciation of Jacque.

“JACKIE!”, he would scream and his friend would follow, “JONES!”. It would be repeated several times. “JACKIE! JONES! JACKIE! JONES! JACKIE! JONES!”

There was another time someone called Brad Wilkerson a scrub or something like that. Wilkerson air-mailed a throw to home plate. Then later that inning, he booted another ball hit to him and made a shaky throw after he recovered.

Samantha Bunten: My dad seems to have a special talent for this, once startling Albert Belle with a well-timed “Jo-ey!”, but most evident in a situation we now refer to as 'The Dead Spot Incident'.

In the late 1990s, we used to remark on the patch of dead grass in left field that never seemed to go away. During an Indians-Mariners game, for no particular reason, my dad shouted from the home run porch at Randy Winn (then playing left field for Seattle), "Stand ON the dead spot!"

Winn looked up, confused, and then promptly moved about 10 feet to the right so that he was standing directly on the dead patch of grass.

Dave Wiley: True story: I was sitting down the first base line with my two 11 year old nephews right after the “thong sticking out of your pants” became a popular fashion statement among girls who thought it a grand gesture to just show men their undies.

This woman shows up, crouches down near the aisle to talk to someone, and has an orange thong so far up her back she could have used the waistband portion to tie her hair in a pony tail. The nephews thought this was the coolest thing ever, and commentary persisted throughout the section about the thong.

As it turns out, thongs and baseball don't mix. The thong was so distracting that when a foul ball was ripped into our section, it hit an old man in the head (no, not me) because he was too ogling the woman's thong. What was that we were watching? Oh yeah, baseball.

His wife stood over him as the paramedics woke him up and said "See what staring at young girls underwear gets you?!" Oof…double whammy. Always remember: Baseball is dangerous. Keep your underwear tucked in at all times. And, the rose goes in the front.

Tribe Talk: The Eric Wedge Death Watch

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 21 May 2009 10:30:40 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week we ponder the future of much-maligned Tribe skipper Eric Wedge, the upside of bench-clearing brawls, and the possible downside of plate discipline.

I would like to thank this week's participants Jeff Smirnoff, Scott Miles, and The Coop for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. A little friendly wager: Let's call it the Eric Wedge Death Watch. Do you think the Indians will fire Wedge this season? When? Who do you think will be his replacement?

Samantha Bunten: I think Wedge is coaching on borrowed time, and when Mark Shapiro finally pulls the trigger, I won't be sorry to see Wedge go. However, I'm not sure firing Wedge mid-season will be of any help to this team.

Firing a manager mid-season tends to cause an already struggling team to descend even further into chaos and failure. This is especially true if the team has no true heir apparent to take over as manager.

Joel Skinner's aggressive, gutsy coaching style is appealing, but there is a reason he didn't get the job after his first stint as interim manager.

Torey Lovullo has had great success in the minors, but so did Eric Wedge. Minor league success for a manager doesn't necessarily translate into big league success, and I worry that Lovullo, like Wedge, possesses the qualities which make for a good minor league manager, but lacks those which are vital to leading a major league team.

Jeff Smirnoff: I was "Wedge Neutral" for six years until this year. I think there comes a time when a manager's message runs stale, and I think it has come. Plus, the same tendencies that the Tribe has shown over the last six-plus years continue to be there: slow starts, poor fundamentals, bad bullpen management, and giving playing time to aging veterans while young talent sits.

I do not think Mark Shapiro fires Wedge in season. It is not his M.O. to do something like that in season. Plus, if he does, it signals the season is over and ticket sales will plummet even more than they have due to the economy, and that could spell trouble for the Tribe financially.

I think the move will happen after the season so the front office can evaluate replacements. It needs to be someone with a proven track record of success managing in MLB—no one who needs on-the-job training.

Scott Miles: I'm thinking there's about a 10 percent chance of Eric Wedge "dying" this year.

First of all, the bullpen has just been horrendous, and a manager can't be responsible for not having anyone to depend on to throw in the seventh or eighth innings. Second, you can't anticipate Grady Sizemore or Travis Hafner—two of your three biggest offensive weapons—struggling/being hurt.

Third, the Indians, as cash-strapped as they are, aren't going to pay Wedge to not manage this year.

So while Wedge has been far from perfect (I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out who the hell he's playing in the infield and why), firing him is not going to answer any of our problems.

The Coop: If Indians management was "watching" Wedge's performance and product, he'd already be dead. But no, for some reason their heads are turned, and mediocrity is just fine with everyone.

Seriously, Wedge's career record, as of this week, is literally about 10 games over .500. Hey, maybe Wedge is blackmailing Larry Dolan, or maybe he has a "special" friendship with Mark Shapiro. Maybe it's even all-around apathy.

Whatever it is, Eric Wedge will not be fired this year. The best thing going for Wedge is that the rest of the AL Central is equally mediocre.

As badly as the Indians have played, they are only 7.5 games out of first place. Assuming no team runs away with the division, the Tribe will theoretically always be "in it." And if they're "in it," why fire the manager? Pathetic, isn't it?

2. The Tribe got into a bench-clearing brawl last Sunday with the Rays. While this was no doubt precipitated by the "purpose pitches" thrown by J.P. Howell and Kerry Wood, getting into a scrap might have had greater meaning for the Indians.

Do you view the brawl as a good thing because the team finally showed some spark, or a bad thing demonstrating that the team's frustration is out of control?

Samantha Bunten: While the brawl turned out to be more of a minor scuffle, I absolutely think was a good sign. Fights are one of the best ways a team can re-energize and create a sense of unity, two things the Indians sorely needed.

The Tribe needed to show a little bit of fighting spirit, especially given their tendency to back down and give up. This team leads the AL in HBPs, yet is one of the least likely squads to retaliate.

I'm not advocating the Tribe go head hunting, but it was about time this team learned to pull together and fight back. A big thanks to Kerry Wood for being the player to finally get the ball rolling.

Jeff Smirnoff: Hopefully it is a good thing and this team will wake up and play with a little fire, but with this team you don't know. The Shapiro/Wedge regime preaches "playing the game the right way" and that retaliation is above them. Sticking up for your teammates and playing the game the right way go hand in hand.

B.J. Upton apologized for stealing two bases when down 9-0 after Thursday's game. Now that wasn't as bad as if they were ahead 9-0, but the fact that Upton apologized leads me to believe he knew did something wrong.

You can play the game the right way while sticking up for your teammates and not get anyone hurt. MLB makes it more difficult with its stupid warning, but it still can be done. It isn’t about retaliation or being a hard guy in the end.

It is about standing up for what is right, protecting your teammates, and showing the other team that you are a man and are not going to lie down even when you are losing, which is something this team has lacked for over six years.

Scott Miles: I love baseball brawls. Nothing beats four or five guys screaming obscenities at each other, 30 guys milling around aimlessly, and 10 other guys chatting with buddies on the other team.

Is this a bad thing? No. Will it be a good thing? Who knows with these guys this year, but at least it was more entertaining than watching a pitcher in the three hole hit an RBI double against us.

The Coop: Well, I wouldn’t exactly call what happened on Sunday a brawl, being that no punches were thrown. Nonetheless, I would have been angry if Kerry Wood didn’t try to drill B.J. Upton.

Even though the Indians have serious problems on the field right now, they need to send a message that they will not be taking any crap from anyone. I would expect nothing less from fierce competitors such as Wood and Victor Martinez.

The confrontation was not a result of bubbling frustration and will not provide any spark that will carry forward. They still lost the game, and hopefully they’ve moved on.

3. There has been talk of bringing up hot prospect Hector Rondon to help out the ailing bullpen. Do you think accelerating Rondon's path to the majors to help bolster the pitching staff is a good idea, or do you think it is a mistake to rush him based on desperation?

Samantha Bunten: I am completely against this. Teams too frequently rush players (especially pitchers) to the majors when they are doing poorly and have become desperate, which is actually the situation in which it is the most foolish to do this.

I can see the merit of accelerating a player's promotion to the majors or even moving a starter to the bullpen if it is to help a good big league club in a pennant race or in the playoffs.

I cannot, however, condone doing this to try to plug holes in a team that is a sinking ship. Rushing a player can ruin his development such that it may damage his career permanently, which is unfair to the player and also far worse for the team in the long run.

Jeff Smirnoff: If it can help them salvage the season, which is not quite lost yet, then I do not see much of an issue with it. Jake Westbrook, Fausto Carmona, and now Aaron Laffey have all done time in the pen and don't seem to be any worse for it.

My question is, with the lack of depth on the back end of the starting rotation, is it the right move? Rondon seems to be that power arm they sorely need to develop.

Scott Miles: There is absolutely nothing I hate more than yanking a young pitcher back and forth between the bullpen and the starting rotation. He has enough to worry about besides wondering if he's going to be starting or coming out of the pen in relief.

Let's just leave him where he is, see how he develops, and not force anything. Plus, we might be seeing him as a No. 4 or 5 starter here soon with the way those clowns (Anthony Reyes, Jeremy Sowers, David Huff) have been going.

The Coop: I’ll admit, I don’t follow the farm system as much as I’d like, but I am all for bringing up anyone who can get people out. Losing games the way they do in the late innings is something that just eats at me constantly.

Clearly, the guys they have now aren’t getting the job done. And they sign a stiff like Luis Vizcaino? I don’t see what the hold-up is. Are we afraid of hurting someone’s feelings by sending them down?

Afraid of ruining the psyche of a young guy? When exactly is “the right time”? Right now, the Indians need guys who will simply get the job done.

4. Like the Red Sox and the Athletics, the Indians are known for stressing plate discipline at every level of their system, from rookie ball to the majors. While no one can deny the value of hitters working the count, have the Indians perhaps pushed this approach too much, such that their hitters aren't aggressive enough at the plate?

Samantha Bunten: It certainly looks that way. The Indians’ dedication to teaching plate discipline seems like a good idea in theory, but they seem to have taken it too far. As a result of this, the Indians are a team of hitters who will wait for “their pitch” forever, all the while watching perfectly hittable pitches go by.

They also don’t know how to take “smart” aggressive at-bats, and thus they only become aggressive once they are in a bad hitter's count and get desperate. This is not the situation in which to be aggressive, and as Tribe hitters have demonstrated, it only results in strikeouts.

Jeff Smirnoff: Yes. There is a fine line between working the count and being disciplined and being too passive. The Indians hitters, for the most part, have been in the majors for a few years and should know pitchers' tendencies and what certain counts dictate in certain situations.

If you know you are going to get a fastball early in a count, there is nothing wrong with attacking the pitch. The Red Sox and A's have great plate discipline, but they still attack opposing pitchers. The Indians do not.

Scott Miles: An interesting point. It is very difficult for me to pinpoint what the heck their problem is, to be honest. One night it looks like they're the 1927 Yankees, the next it looks like we dug up the players from the 1927 Yankees and stuck them in the lineup.

While it can be frustrating to see the hitters not swing at a pitch that seems drivable, I can't fault an approach that a lot of times knocks the other team's starter out in the fifth or sixth inning.

Really, the biggest thing is that any lineup is going to be as good as its star players are, so if Grady and Hafner never step up this season, it doesn't matter how aggressive or passive they are.

The Coop: It’s a great philosophical question. To me, if you have good discipline, you’re not afraid to be aggressive. I know I’m probably in the minority, but follow me for a second: Think about it.

What is repeatedly hammered into pitchers’ heads from the time they pick up a baseball? Get ahead in the count. First pitch strike.

Well, a well-disciplined hitter knows his strike zone. The pitcher is trying to throw a strike. Look for your pitch and crush it.

I do understand the value in working counts, but I think that it is entirely overrated in the Indians organization.

5. Fun Question of the Week: Where is your favorite place in the ballpark to sit when you go to a game at Progressive Field?

Samantha Bunten: Third row back on the third base line behind the dugout and lower reserve in right-center next to the visitor's bullpen are my favorite, and I also have a strange attachment to spending the entire game standing at the rail of the home run porch in left, perhaps out of sentimental value that harks back to the late 1990s, when it was almost impossible to get any seat at all.

Jeff Smirnoff: Behind home plate. Whether it is in the lower box seats or the upper deck, I enjoy watching pitching and tracking the ball off the bat.

Scott Miles: For me, it really doesn't matter. I just want to be inside and hear John Adams bang the drum and listen for the "BEEEEEEEEER GUY" going around and just kick back, relax, and enjoy an afternoon or evening of baseball. There isn't a seat in the house I would turn down.

The Coop: I love sitting in dead center field, lower deck. My family used to have season tickets out there, and if you were lucky enough to have the end seat, you could look over the wall into the bullpen. Sitting straightaway helps me see the strike zone and pitches.

It’s also a popular spot for homers, except in the days of Kenny Lofton...I got to see him take a few away in my day. However, I’ve seen World Series games in the nosebleeds, and I’d be more than happy to sit up there again if it meant the Tribe was in the Fall Classic.

TribeTalk: Are the Cleveland Indians Really the Worst Team in Baseball?

Samantha Bunten — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:17:33 -0400

Welcome to Tribe Talk, where Bleacher Report's Tribe fans weigh in on the ups and downs of the Indians each week throughout the season.

This week, we take a closer look at the Indians' disappointing start to 2009 and wonder, is the Tribe really baseball's worst team?

I would like to thank this week's participants, NinoColla and Dave Wiley, for their contributions.

This discussion is open to all, so please feel free to comment below and pitch in your thoughts on the questions we're addressing this week.

Go Tribe!

1. As of Monday, the Indians had the worst winning percentage in baseball. There is no question that the team is severely under-performing, but is the Tribe really the worst team in baseball? Does any member of this team deserve to be exempt from criticism for disappointing performance?

Nino Colla: No... this is clearly not the worst team in baseball given the talent they have. I don't think anyone was wrong about what they are capable of. It's just not clicking right now. There is no one that is above criticism.

Not even Victor Martinez, who said there is a lack of "fire" and "energy" on the team. Well he's the source of fire and energy and even though he's hitting better than anyone in baseball, he could step up a little in the leadership role.

Samantha Bunten: As bad as they've been, I don't think this team is anywhere close to being the worst team in baseball. I realize that winning percentages would say otherwise, but the talent present on this team is too great for them to remain in the league cellar for long.

If anyone deserves to be exempted from this criticism it would be Victor Martinez, but only in terms of his performance on the field. Since a big part of this team's problem is a lack of leadership and energy, Martinez is as guilty as the other 24 guys on the roster of falling short of expectations.

Dave Wiley: Personally, I do not think the Tribe is the worst team in baseball, despite the winning percentage. After watching them get red hot last year, and seeing some of the moves they made, I told myself, all they have to do is not dig themselves too deep a hole at the beginning of the season.

Well, the hole is getting deeper. I don't think they can go through May without some sort of a run, or the hole will basically measure six feet deep, and they'll be buried for 2009.

2. Of all the problems facing the Indians this year, the disaster that is the bullpen appears to be both the most damaging and the toughest to fix.

Other than throwing out the whole thing and starting over, what is the single best move the Tribe can make at this point to fix the bullpen?

Nino Colla: They can't make any more moves other than the ones they are making. They just need Rafael Perez and Jensen Lewis to right themselves. They can only do that by putting them in that position to be able to do that. Lewis needs to stay up and work through his problems, because for him it's all mental and makeup.

Perez meanwhile will benefit from going down to Columbus and fixing what he needs to fix by just pitching. He can't go out there and just pitch in the majors, it won't work.

Samantha Bunten:As much as he may not have cared for it, moving Laffey to the pen was probably a good move. Laffey has pitched pretty well so far this season, and the bullpen was sorely in need of another lefty.

Additionally, the Indians are expected to announce the acquisition of Luis Vizcaino, who was designated for assignment by the Cubs, as soon as May 14. This should be a tremendous help to our relief squad as well.

Dave Wiley: Not a clue. The bullpen will probably fix itself, but it will be a matter of too little too late. Starting pitching going deeper into games is the first type of hamburger helper I'd be buying for the bullpen. Now that I think about it, I'm a lefty...hmmmm...Open tryouts? Sitting on the couch eating Cheetos, I'm always saying...I COULD PITCH BETTER THAN THAT!

3. With a almost a month and a half of the 2009 season in the rear-view mirror, we can begin to evaluate the Tribe's major offseason moves. Thus far, what is your opinion of the Indians' acquisitions of Kerry Wood, Mark DeRosa, and Carl Pavano?

Nino Colla: Well Carl Pavano believe it or not has probably been the best addition so far. That isn't a knock on Kerry Wood, he just hasn't had a shot to be used all that much. He can stabilize the back end of a pen, but if the guys leading up to him aren't any good, that isn't his fault.

DeRosa, on the other hand, has been a little inconsistent, although he does seem to be knocking in some runs. Pavano on the other hand has really settled down and has given the Indians a chance to win every time out aside from that disaster in Texas.

Samantha Bunten: Surprisingly, the Indians' best pickup of this offseason appears to be Carl Pavano at this point. Pavano is better than his 6.45 ERA indicates—WAY better—and looks to be a solid middle of the rotation guy.

DeRosa has been the biggest disappointment. His .239 average is almost 40 points below his career mark, and he looks like he's pressing every time he comes to the plate.

As much as his overall performance has been a disappointment though, he has shown flashes of solid hitting, so I believe he will get better. As for Wood, I don't think we've seen enough of him to say for certain, save opportunities having been few and far between.

Dave Wiley: I liked the Kerry Wood pickup, but would have loved seeing Lewis remain at closer. He had the "IT" factor, I think. Carl who? DeRosa should still work out.

Sure he's only batting .238, but that just means there is nowhere to go but up. That or Travis Fryman puts a whammy on all who take over third base since his departure.

4. The team held a players-only meeting last Saturday following a 4-0 loss to Detroit. Do you think this indicates that the men on the field, who have looked flat and lost for most of the season, are going to do a better job of stepping up and taking responsibility?

Do you think David Dellucci's comment that "no one is more frustrated than the 25 guys in here" rings true?

Nino Colla:They better, or else nothing more will happen. I think Dellucci is correct, because that's how all 25 men on the roster should feel. I believe it. But they are the ones that can actually do something about it.

Kerry Wood, David Dellucci, Mark DeRosa, Victor Martinez, Travis Hafner when he's there, same with Jake Westbrook, and at least on the field Grady Sizemore, all have to step up and lead more. Casey Blake, Joe Borowski, Paul Byrd, CC Sabathia, they are all gone.

Samantha Bunten: Let's hope so. This team has a lack of leadership and a lack of charisma, and that shows on the field and in the win column. I would like to believe this meeting was a sign that the players want to step up and save themselves, but the fact is that Wedge MADE them have the meeting.

That doesn't indicate the individual players are taking on any ownership of this themselves.

I certainly believe they're unhappy with their performance, and I believe David Dellucci meant what he said, but if they're truly more frustrated than for example, me, they aren't doing a very good job of showing it.

Dave Wiley:Uhhhhh...No. The owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers is probably more frustrated than the 25 guys on the Indians. Frankly, they should be frustrated. After all, we are getting David Dellucci quotes? YIKES!! A guy who should have been gone last year is our fearless quotation leader?

If you gave me the choice of 1) Putting Dellucci in charge of the team from a player perspective, 2) Sliding into second base through an ant colony of red fire ants wearing only a speedo and covered in some kind of food related item that attracts said red fire ants, or 3) Catching swine flu from losing a game of poker where the bet was kissing a pig on her little piggy lips...I'd have to say... what was that second one again?

5. Fun Question of the Week: Where is your favorite place to travel to see the Tribe play on the road? What opponents' stadium would you like to visit for a Tribe road game that you have not been to yet?

Nino Colla: I've only seen the Tribe play on the road in the old Three-Rivers stadium against the Pirates. I've seen the Pirates at PNC and I've been to Miller Stadium in Milwaukee. I'd really love to see PETCO Park in person and if the Tribe were playing, all the better.

Samantha Bunten: I like Fenway for the history and the electric atmosphere. Camden Yards is a great place to see a game as well.

I would like to see every major league park eventually (I've hit about a third of them so far). Right now I'm especially interested in going to Busch Stadium in St. Louis because the Cardinals have such a great fan base, and I would also like to make a trip to Safeco Field in Seattle soon.

Dave Wiley: This question couldn't be any easier. Yankee Stadium. The old one was great. I watched from behind home plate in old Yankee Stadium as the Tribe got blasted 22-1, then headed over to watch the Cubs play the Mets the following afternoon and saw Sosa blast a home run trying to keep pace with McGwire.

So I would say new Yankee Stadium hands down. No, I will not be sporting any Indians attire, nor will I don Yankees gear. "Live to see another day" and hopefully someday the Indians win the World Series.

Man Without a Team: Barry Bonds Is Finally Where He Belongs

Samantha Bunten — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:37:50 -0400

Just when you get tired of hating Barry Bonds because, well, it’s just become so pedestrian, he does something new to put his face back in the center of the proverbial dart board.

It would seem the disgraced, former crown prince of baseball cannot find a job. Imagine: no one wants a whiny, self-indulgent charlatan who is past his prime, if his prime ever even existed.

The emperor has no clothes, and only Donald Fehr is following Barry around chirping "Ooh, what a pretty robe Your Highness!"

So Barry, ever the self-proclaimed victim, now seems to think he cannot get a job because he was exposed as a cheat and a liar.

Is Barry truly being discriminated against? OF COURSE he is! I just can’t imagine why no one wants to hire the over-the-hill guy with the bum knee and the attitude problem who cheated his way to a home run record and is now facing criminal charges for perjury.

Why, wonders Barry (while displaying his best deer-in-headlights expression), will no one pay me millions to play the game I’ve made into a mockery? Well sunshine, it’s like applying for a job at a store where you got caught shoplifting six months ago.

Who could say no to this resume?

Barry Bonds

Work Experience: Liar, cheater, misanthrope, criminal

Shall we check his references? His agent Jeff Borris, seems to think he’s can’t get a job because of all this Mitchell Hoopla (a.k.a. the truth got out), which prompted the ever-misguided MLBPA to launch an investigation into the supposed persecution of Barry.

Note: it’s not a "witch hunt” if you actually find Hansel and Gretel in the oven.

So what’s a union to do? Should they find Bonds has been “wronged” somehow and cannot get a job because everyone thinks his abuse of PEDs is bad for baseball? I mean, who are they going to sue, D.A.R.E.?

Or are they just going to MAKE someone take him? We’re sorry, Tampa Bay, we know you decided you didn’t want him because he wasn’t worth the asking price/trouble/legal fees, but you have to take him. I’m sure the clean player whose job Donald Fehr demands he hand over to Barry will be thrilled to see Bonds the human blowup doll arrive.

The problem with all this is that you just can't force anyone to actually want him.

With 50-plus dingers, GMs could ignore their consciences. For the 28 homers Barry hit last year (yeah, he was injured. Merely another red flag.), most baseball execs prefer two cheap platoon guys and the ability to sleep at night.

For years, Bonds has claimed he just wanted to be left alone. Looks like he'll finally get his wish.

Super Bowl XLII: Brought to You by the Ringling Brothers

Samantha Bunten — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:52:42 -0500

The circus is in town.

On the eve of the Super Bowl, we dutiful followers of actual football close our eyes and brace for the carnival sideshow we know is coming, yet are powerless to stop.

The Super Bowl, once the gritty, hard-nosed grudge match between the NFL's most elite teams, is now under the control of dark forces: the three ring circus of public relations, advertising and the media.

I assume the University of Phoenix stadium, come Sunday, will be revealed to actually be a large circus tent. Will it pack up and move next year? Is Dumbo in a cage out back? How do you explain advertisers scraping their coffers to fund a 30-second ad spot that will make or break their product for the next year? Will Super Bowl commercials really influence the brand of beer you drink this year? A gazillion dollars in advertising revenue for Fox says you bet they will. Scared? Don't worry, it gets worse.

Ladies and Gentlemen, beware the halftime show.

During this frightful break in the game, glittery, sinfully excessive spectacle appears on the field to thrill and delight football fans who don't like football, and to horrify those real fans who waited all year to see the season's biggest game but didn't know the contest was being played in Disney World. Or maybe in the case of the Janet Jackson incident, somewhere on the Las Vegas strip.

Football ignorants sit next to us on the couch they haven't used on a Sunday since July, drinking frozen drinks, wearing I heart Tom Brady shirts, and scolding "shhhh....you have to be quiet for the next 2 minutes, or we'll miss the commercials!". Then post-commercial break, right back on the cell phone. All of this leads in to the crowning moment of sponsored idiocy blanketed in rhinestones and pleather: That infernal mid-game torture session that is halftime.

I don't blame the faux-fans who are only watching the game for the Us Weekly elements between actual play for their lack of interest in the game. I blame the diabolical media and advertising ringmasters that have them watching this circus in the first place. Or maybe this is just God's way of punishing me for drinking on a Sunday. Regardless, I have stopped watching halftime shows on principle. Its bad for the sport. It's like steroids filled with confetti. If performance-enhancing drugs are destroying baseball, clown suits and monkeys in tiaras are destroying football.

The program is predictable: some poor musician, usually of marginal talent, sacrifices him or herself to the cause. Want to perform? Only if you peaked in the 80's or are a reality show veteran. It would help if you look good in spandex and sequins, but your chances are even better if you looked good in spandex and sequins 20 years ago, but now don your costume and look more like a linebacker in a swarovski-studded wetsuit.

While this poor sap sings some slightly off-key medley, scores of random people who have inexplicably been allowed onto the field crowd the stage and demonstrate that the only instructions they have been given are "dance poorly".

Then each seat-holder raises a colored card. Visible only via blimp-cam, somehow this results in a mosaic of cuddly forest animals, smiley faces, or block lettering of something really profound and original like "peace on earth". You know, because football is so peaceful. Let's all join hands, bow our heads, and then beat the crap out of eachother for another 30 minutes while fighting over a ball. I just can't believe UNICEF isn't begging to sponsor this.

I'm not by any means saying I am against any sort of entertainment elements being included in the Super Bowl and I accept that advertising has its place in the world of sports. I always liked the Bud Bowl. I abhor strict celebration penalties. Spectacle does have its merit. But the Super Bowl is starting to look like a bad Christmas pageant.

So, because Roger Goodell hasn't consulted me on this matter, I'll offer my best idea here: if you're going to do it, for god sakes do it right. More is more. Let's see the biggest, most excessive display ever. And then let's end it. Know when to quit. Its kind of like Coney Island: Everyone should go once. No one should go twice.

In the interest of picking my battles, I'll let the commercials go, and I propose we do the halftime to end all halftimes, and then let's bury it forever. In the future, let's move to a halftime show of video highlights of the season. Or even blooper videos. I'm ok with punt, pass and kick contests. Maybe nap time? Football fans are like kindergartners with beer. A little doze might makes us all more agreeable during the second half and less likely to beat up opposing fans in the parking lot after the game. I'm open to anything at all that doesn't involve shameless product placement coupled with lip-synching, tutus, or trained animals wearing costumes.

But for our last hurrah in 2008, I proposed we do it up like the carnival it is. Halftime Apocalypse. Whoever manufactures bibles can sponsor it. Acrobatics! I'm sure you could easily set up a trapeze act using the goal posts. Fortune Tellers! Apparently there is a camel in New Jersey named Princess who makes picks with a great track record who chose the Giants. No, I didn't make that up. Think of the carnival games we could play for small stuffed likenesses of that creepy Patriots mascot! Each team gets a station.

Just a few of the possibilities: In the Patriots booth, kick a field goal with Tom Brady's boot. Bonus if the people in the Jets booth get it on video. The Giants will sponsor a hall of mirrors: can you find Jeremy Shockey?

The Steelers invite you to ride your dirt bike in a halfpipe with no helmet. If you want to lay down and take a nap, stop by the Seahawks tent. They've been sleeping there since week 17. In the Colts section, try the oreo licking faceoff with Peyton Manning, then pretend to retire with Tony Dungy.

The Titans and Redskins still can't figure out why anyone gave them a booth, but they're pretty sure it was a gift from the Colts and the Cowboys, personally delivered by their starters, who had plenty of time to do favors since their coaches removed them from the field during week 17. Oh, and if you'd like to coach the Redskins, feel free to stop by for an interview. Everyone else is doing it. The igloo belongs to Green Bay. Yes, Brett Favre's been in there since Media Day. Don't worry, he's fine.

Hey, it could happen. After all, the Giants won three playoff games which they theoretically should have lost. Green Bay lost at Lambeau in the playoffs for only the third time. Ever. Somebody let Carson Palmer play an entire season. But assuming no one cares what I think (which is a good bet), and the halftime madness comes back next year, take heart football fans—it could be worse.

The Super Bowl was not in fact home to the worst halftime spectacle on record.

That honor belongs to a regular-season game I attended back in 1993, a Monday night matchup of the the Belechick-helmed Browns and the dynasty-hangover-era 49ers. The game went in favor of the Browns, 23-13. The score is not relevant in any way, because no one in the 86,000 strong, filled-to-capacity Cleveland Stadium saw the second half of the game. Why, you ask? Satan, thy name is halftime.

The halftime show was the oh-so-generous donation of a car company looking to promote a new redesign of one of its models. Disclaimer: In the unlikely event that I become a famous writer whose works are one day published in some sort of anthology, I must be covert about the identity of the offending party. I don't wish to be sued for libel over a game I attended when I was 13. The Browns did enough damage to my childhood as it is. So let us call this car the Tord Faurus.

This debacle masquerading as entertainment consisted of several Fauruses driving around destroying the field in the midst of what turned out to be a shower of defective fireworks. The result? Aside from giving 86,000 people a sudden urge to go buy a Chevy, no one saw the second half of the game because the whole stadium was filled with thick, visually impenetrable smoke that wouldn't clear. I assume they actually did play the second half. I couldn't tell.

Back then, especially in the regular season, a scene such as this was an anomaly. The Super Bowl commercials and the halftime circus were indeed already seeking inspiration from the icecapades, but the gross excess was still in its infancy and provoked more of an eye roll than the urge to shoot flaming arrows at the Nike logo.

Techincally, this mess was worse than the for-profit song and dance disasters seen now. We had no idea we were buying a ticket to half a football game. At least this Sunday during the Super Bowl you can hide in the bathroom during the halftime musical number with the comfort of knowing you still have another 2 quarters of football to watch.

However, should there be a surprise Tord Faurus-funded redux this Sunday of the 1993 pyrotechnic malfunctions, I suppose it could 1) prove relevant to our carnival theme: A magic show! Watch the game disappear before your very eyes!, and 2) preserve the dignity of one team in the event that the game shapes up to be a virtual blow-out before the end of the first half: If I can't see it happening, then it isn't happening! Why not? It worked for baseball. What steroids? I didn't see any steroids!

So who will win that pesky game that's always interrupting the media and advertising circus? Odds support the undefeated Patriots. Chaos Theory supports the Giants. The Manning formerly known as the red-headed step child led a team that looked hopeless at the beginning of the season to an almost perfect road record and a chance to win the Super Bowl. The aforementioned camel who picked the Giants apparently has nearly as good a rate of success making picks as Dave Goldberg, the guy who makes picks for the Associated Press. Clearly, the circus has made its prediction.

But the Patriots are at present still The Greatest Show On Earth. People are whispering things like "best ever" about their quarterback. They have the best group of receivers in the NFL according to everyone but Plaxico Burress. Their defense is nearly impenetrable. They had a perfect season, for god sakes.

It will be a tough go for the Giants. Still, if I'm going to see a circus, I expect to be amazed. The Patriots may look destined to be champions, but the Giants are fighters. The Giants stuck their collective head in the lion's mouth again and again, and they haven't been eaten yet.

The Giants just keep pulling rabbits out of a helmet. Illusion, stroke of luck, or magic? Maybe I've stayed too long at the fair, or maybe I've just seen too many halftime shows, but I'll go with the underdog. Let's hope the Giants can conjure one more rabbit.

Best of 2007: Triumph of the Little Guy

Samantha Bunten — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:05:47 -0500

Because my plastic beer bottle is always half full, and because I'm from Cleveland, where blind optimism and hope are the only things that allow a person to continue watching sports, I refuse to see the Mitchell Report as the biggest sports moment of 2007.

Maybe it was, but I'd like to end the year smiling though, and not just because I've had 9 drinks to lessen the pain this coming Sunday when the Browns will surely find a way to not make the playoffs.

Thinking back on going to Browns games as a kid, I now understand why everyone else in the stands was completely, unapologetically wasted by halftime.

So I'll remember 2007s Biggest Moment, or rather collection of moments, as the Triumph of The Little Guy.

Yes, this is a baseball-centric piece. Apologies to those of you who feel that the juicing and all that accompanies that has destroyed its right to be called a sport and has turned it into some sort of Frankenstein held together by duct tape and ace bandages comprised of a circus side show, the WWF, and a bad reality show. I would agree with you, but that foolish optimism ingrained in this Clevelander means I can easily sweep this under the same rug I where I'm keeping Ernest Byner.

Yes, this is also a Cleveland-centric piece. Apologies to those of you who forgot we existed. I would be mad, but I'm used to it (Does Cleveland have a basketball team? No dummy, Lebron exists in a basketball vacuum, and we just keep him inside the arena and watch him run around by himself. The Indians don't have any real stars! Yeah, you'll not do well in the trivia game where they ask who won the Cy Young in 2007. In 20 years when Sizemore gets inducted to the Hall of Fame, ask someone to define "5 tool player" for you. Why don't the browns have a mascot? They do. Maybe they don't want the dog on their helmet because then you opposing fans would realize who threw all those beer bottles at you from the end zone.). Give Pittsburgh some credit, at least they hate us enough to know we're there. But I digress.

The Little Guy who had his day in 2007 was not confined to Cleveland, to be fair. And I support all underdogs and dark horses. I must mention the Mitchell report, so that I can explain why the Little Guy of 2007 was to me something bigger than your average specimen. I'm sorry for those who were excited by my first paragraph at the prospect that I would be the first person talking about sports in the last 3 months not to say "steroids". However, the report itself is not my focus. Rather, 2007 is the first year in I can't tell you how long that I felt like the underdogs, the scrappers, and the Little Guys had their day.

So the big oafs on steroids got busted. Or maybe just embarrassed. It didn't matter. The last few seasons have been dominated by monster home runs and power pitching. Not so this year. Before George Mitchell outed the Inflatables and presented hard evidence for the branding of Bonds and Clemens with the Scarlett Letter of the asterisk, the little guy was already running the show. This season's big moment was 162 games of virtually undetectable moments in which games were finally being won by slap singles, steals, legging out the triple, diving catches, and pitchers hitting their spots, occasionally punctuated with a line drive barely-cleared-the-wall home run by some scrawny little outfielder or second baseman that elicits the typical response from the booth of "I wonder what HE ate for breakfast?" The satisfaction of being able to respond with "Not Steroids" affords me a little smile thanking the universe for giving back to those who haven't violated its principles, the same little smile that goes with "Bonds indicted for perjury" scrolling across the bottom of my TV screen.

Sure, every season has its little guy. I'll never forget little Don Beebe vs. Leon Lett. Or the 2004 Red Sox stunning the smug and detrimentally complacent Yankees. Unfortunately, Boston's credibility in the Little Guy department has been severely damaged by the fact that whatever they were the day they beat the Yankees in 2004, they no longer are. Now they ARE the Yankees. Evil Empire, meet your clone. Go easy on it, New York. It spent so many years blaming you for its troubles that it isn't ready to admit that it has usurped your title as the Monster. Never thought I'd say this, but in the next go round I may root for the Yankees, as they may now be the lesser of two evils. But in 2007, at least for this Clevelander, backstage behind the curtain while the Yankees and the Red Sox took center stage and put on their usual game show spectacle of Who can spend more money?, the little stray dog in Cleveland was having his day over and over again.

My team, as the ignorant AL East fan will tell you, has no stars. Perhaps if we define stars as media darlings and nationwide fan favorites, this is true. But our little band of unknowns, groomed by our farm system rather than bought for a king's ransom after they were already proven playmakers, came together to form a team that wasn't propelled to the playoffs by one guy, or by a fat wallet, or by the allure of past success. No one stood out because no one wanted to. And the little guys who formed the little team, captured the division title no one outside Cleveland even remotely considered they might win. I'm pretty sure Detroit was the only place where they even entertained the possibility, and that's only because they had to consider how scared they should be of every team in their division (well, except Kansas City. Duh.).

Detroit's assessment clearly failed them because they weren't scared enough. Or maybe they were terrified and we were just better. But my money is on door number one. No one is scared of The Little Guy. So our secret weapon of being ourselves let us take the central playing their little game, in front of their little loyal crowd of fans. The Little Guy played by his own rules. The Little Guy was calling the shots. No one heard him because no one bothered to listen.

The little Tribe did it with diving catches in the outfield and heroic snares of infield grounders, fittingly dubbed more "democratic" than strike outs by the fictional god of Little Guys, Crash Davis. The Tribe did it with headfirst dives into second and working the count, rather than giant home runs clubbed by a giant multi-million dollar power hitter knocking in other big money hulks waiting on the bases after receiving their fear-motivated intentional walks. They did it with a bullpen that held tight leads for 4+ innings 162 times, each guy doing his little part, rather than relying on big ticket fireballers ringing up complete games. Or their steroids ringing up complete games. Still a little fuzzy on how the credit is divided up.

Finally the little Tribe slammed the door with a closer who scared us to death every time he threw by loading the bases as the potential winning run approached the plate, rather than with a flashy ringer paid millions to throw no more than 10 pitches which would blast past bewildered hitters at 100 miles an hour. They did it with smart baserunning and strategic sacrifices to move runners and procure one run at a time rather than collecting runs in heaps of 3 and 4 courtesy of clean up hitters going yard 40 or 50 times a season. Ironic that our season ended on a baserunning mistake. But, that’s Cleveland for you. Our heartache is always served up with a big side of shock, usually at first attributed to some nameless curse, ultimately shouldered by some player singled out as the goat extraordinaire so that we have someone whose picture we can throw darts at in the off-season.

So of course as you know, my little guys ultimately did not triumph. I see the rebuttals to my whole argument now, the ultimate failure of our underdog squad in the face of the Boston Colossus. Our little ball didn't just get systematically beaten. The little guys had it in their mitts, and they choked in a way that only Cleveland teams can. And then they choked again. And again. Am I up to 3 yet? Who blows a 3-1 game lead in the ALCS? Maybe the 2004 Yankees would like to join my support group? Nah, I'm sure they don't want to cavort with us little guys. The logistics alone are a problem. What state is Cleveland in? Gotham is its own universe in which Cleveland is not even on the map. Besides, they don't need us. We cry in our beer and try to find someone who was actually alive a million years ago to tell us what it was like the last time Cleveland won a world series while they stare at all their championship rings. Their 3-1 choke was a mistake, an embarrassment. Ours was The End of The World for at least a week, and when the anger subsided, it just made us shake our heads and admit that even though We Believed, more foolishly yet deeply than anyone else when the odds were stacked against us, in the back of our minds, we kind of knew this would happen.

So I guess you can say that my memory of 2007 as the year of the triumph of the little guy is woefully inaccurate, as the little guy resumed his usual little guy routine. We fade back into the shadows at the end of the season, eclipsed by the Red Sox efforts to establish themselves as a dynasty, Scott Boras and A-Rod making a mockery of free agency, and the Clemens and Mitchell did-too, did-not finger pointing circus.

But that’s the thing about little guys. They appreciate little victories. 2007 was the year of the little guy on our little guy scale. The little Indians took the division. They dominated the heavily favored Yankees . With a little help from the bugs. At least that was the consensus in New York. I guess a gazillion dollar payroll comes with a free bag of sour grapes. I'm pretty sure those bugs didn't discriminate between teams, but if they did, well, consider them the avengers of Jeffrey Meier.

The Tribe scared the daylights out of a Red Sox team that never gave the littlest thought to the possibility of being backed into a corner by our little team. Our little ace (albeit inhabiting a big body) beat out golden boy Josh Beckett for the Cy Young. Our little centerfielder who gets about a quarter of the credit he deserves as a baseball tour-de-force won a gold glove.

So the little guys had some big moments. In their quiet little way, of course. No one will remember any of it outside of Cleveland. We don't mind. The biggest sports moment for me and my fellow Indians fans was all the little moments when our little team had their little triumphs. And for little guys all over MLB, if no one else noticed, know that we did. Cinderella Colorado, we were pulling for you. Jim Leyland, while your Tigers have big guns, they also are sustained by little guy power. I hate you because you're our biggest rival, but know that my hate is accompanied by respect. Hey over there in the NFL, for the Biggest Little Guy of them all, Brett Favre, there are no words. I guess when people are calling you washed up, you return to Little Guy status no matter your accomplishments. We Little Guys are honored to have you among us.

So Cleveland fans, and other little guys out there, 2007 gave us our moment, even if no one else noticed. Doesn't bother me. Us little guys prefer to keep our little moment to our little selves. Maybe next year we'll win the World Series, and all you big guns will want to be Little Guys too. Bad news though. You can't buy Little Guy. Maybe if you look in Cleveland, you'll find some of your own. Quick, go now before you forget we exist again. For your reference we are not, as Eastern Seaboard myth would have it, located in the middle of a cornfield. We are also not directly next to Cincinnati. Additionally, we took geography in elementary school. Our geography class required us to learn of the existence and even location of states regardless of whether we might someday buy a vacation home there. Don't worry, we'll send you directions.

Bleacher Report - Articles by Samantha Bunten

Manny Acta: Keys To Success for the Cleveland Indians' New Manager

Cleveland Indians' End Of Season Survey

Tribe Talk: Farewell, 2009 Indians

The Axe Finally Falls On Eric Wedge

Tribe Talk: Reflections from the AL Central Cellar

Tribe Talk: Think the 2009 Indians Are Bad? We've Seen Worse

Tribe Talk: The Slow Death of Grady Sizemore's 2009 Season

Tribe Talk: Impact of the 2009 September Call-Ups

1. This past Tuesday was September 1st, the day major league rosters expanded to 40. Which predicted September call-ups for the Tribe are you most excited about seeing? Are there any players being called up who you feel are not ready and should not be exposed to the majors yet?

(Note that he is absolutely expected to be capped at between 160 and 170 innings).

5. Fun Question of the Week: In the last installment of Tribe Talk, we weighed in on our five all-time favorite Indians. Now it's time to talk about the ones we love to hate. Who are you five least favorite Indians and why?

Tribe Talk: Kerry Wood Robs the Indians Blind

How impressed are you with Valbuena? Do you now agree with manager Eric Wedge's decision to stick it out with the youngster at second base, or are you still skeptical of what Valbuena brings to the table?

Tribe Talk: Are The Indians a Better Team When The Pressure Is Off?

Tribe Talk: Out with the Old Guys, in with the New

Outsiders' View: FCs From Around the League Weigh-In on the Indians

Tribe Talk: Clearance Sale! Clearance Sale!

Tribe Talk: Trade Deadline Special

Cleveland Indians in 2010: The Case For Bobby Valentine

Tribe Talk: Will 2009 Be the Indians' Sixth 100-Loss Season?

Tribe Talk: At the Season's Midpoint, the Indians Are Halfway to Nowhere

Tribe Talk: Eagerly Awaiting Fausto Carmona's Return, Or Dreading It?

Tribe Talk: Shapiro's Frankenstein Of A Team Comes Back To Haunt Him

Tribe Talk: Indians Finally Firing Wedge, Or Just Shooting Blanks?

Tribe Talk: Indians Engage In A Brief Flirtation With Improvement

Tribe Talk: The Perils of Playing In The Worst Division In Baseball

Tribe Talk: Adding Insult to Injury...after Injury...after Injury...

Tribe Talk: As Grady Sizemore Goes, So Go the Cleveland Indians

Tribe Talk: The Eric Wedge Death Watch

TribeTalk: Are the Cleveland Indians Really the Worst Team in Baseball?

Man Without a Team: Barry Bonds Is Finally Where He Belongs

Super Bowl XLII: Brought to You by the Ringling Brothers

Best of 2007: Triumph of the Little Guy

1. This past Tuesday was September 1st, the day major league rosters expanded to 40. Which predicted September call-ups for the Tribe are you most excited about seeing?

Are there any players being called up who you feel are not ready and should not be exposed to the majors yet?

5. Fun Question of the Week: In the last installment of Tribe Talk, we weighed in on our five all-time favorite Indians. Now it's time to talk about the ones we love to hate.

Who are you five least favorite Indians and why?