Tribe Talk: Will 2009 Be the Indians' Sixth 100-Loss Season?

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).