Monday, February 04, 2008

How I Spent My Winter Vacation

What seems like many moons ago, after Coco Crisp squeezed the 27th out of Game 7 in the ALCS, I made a vow to myself (after some notable brooding and catharsis) that I would make an effort to take advantage of the time that presented itself to me in lieu of spending night after night engrossed in the Tribe. Excited by the prospect of having time on my hands, it was time to enrich myself in things not related to the Indians.

Obviously, if you’ve checked this site at all in the past 3 months, you are acutely aware that the Indians never stay far from my thought processes as I’ve attempted multiple times to wrap my head around c.c.ontract negotiations and what 2008 holds for our beloved Erie Warriors. But, for now, it’s time for a bit of a digression from the things that are normally discussed in this space to fire up the synapses in ways that don’t involve OPS, Andy Marte’s batting average in the Winter Leagues, or what Jake Peavy’s contract extension means to the Indians.

As another winter settled on the North Coast, delusions of grandeur set in as I compiled a list of things to do in the time that had previously been devoted to the Indians – read a few books on my list of “Great American Novels”, fire through my Netflix queue with movies I’ve always wanted to see, and (most importantly) immerse myself in the development of the DiaperTribe as he navigated his way through the pitfalls of walking, new teeth, and solid foods. The last thing on the list was obviously the easiest thing to accomplish (and I won’t bore you with any “you gotta see the baaaabeee” moments), so with Spring Training inching closer and the sports world in a deep hibernation for a while, I’ll rehash that old favorite essay of mine assigned to me by the nuns of St. Margaret Mary ever September with a bit of a twist, regarding the desire to form myself into some sort of better, more well-rounded person – a Renaissance man…in three short months.

Of course, as the temperature dropped and sleep became less of a known commodity around the house, I started my “Winter Vacation” the way that so many people end up settling into…I watched TV. Sure, I dabbled in my weekly fix of SI (the final bastion of worthwhile sports coverage in the print media) but while being enthralled by the brilliance of the exploits of Michael Scott and Jack Donaghy and modestly amused by the “How I Met Your Mother” episodes, I fell into the familiar trap of watching essentially whatever was on. Regardless of how ridiculously bad network (and now cable) TV has become, I would sit and watch what Giada De Laurentiis was up to, try to decide who the hottest girl on TV is (by the way, it’s Blake Lively of “Gossip Girl”…don’t ask) or try to get into shows that I thought would amuse (or, at the very least, entertain me) like “Chuck” or “Life”.

As I was settling back into that mindless routine that traps the best of us, watching an inordinate amount of TV in my free time…something happened. The writers guild started talking about striking and, suddenly, the talking heads in my TV were discussing what the networks would do when the TV shows that they had in the can had all been broadcast. Actual conversations about what people would watch with nothing new on TV (oh, the humanity) jarred me from my intellectual slumber.

What had happened to the Renaissance man I was striving to be?
Why had the books that had been given as Christmas gifts as my family embraced my “Great American Novels” list remained on the dining room table?
Why was I setting up my Netflix queue to send me “Talladega Nights” and the like?

It was time to get back on track and enrich myself before they started packing the trucks for Winter Haven (which they have) and my free time would be spoken for. I started the odyssey with “Catcher in the Rye”, immediately remembering how much I enjoyed reading excellent prose and how revolutionary the content of this book was at the time that it was published (though it would barely so much as raise an eyebrow if it came out tomorrow). As the pages turned, the juices started flowing again – I was watching PBS documentaries on Andrew Jackson and eschewing the offerings of “normal” TV to enjoy shows (when the TV was even on) that didn’t just allow me to sit there and zone out for 30 to 60 minutes. I was rolling through the offerings of the Coen brothers, some for the first time (“Miller’s Crossing”), some seemingly for the 500th time (“The Big Lebowski”) while busting myths on the Discovery Channel and learning about “Lost Worlds” on the History Channel – all while sipping my gin drinks.
Quickly, “Catcher in the Rye” was done and the next book was waiting…I was on my way.

Ah, the next book. On my dresser sat the next hurdle to clear on the way to keeping my mind sharp in the off-season – the great White Whale…”Moby Dick”.
Forcing myself, day after day, to read pages upon pages about what a quilt looked like or what the air smelled like, describing the minutia of every little detail started to wear me down. While the descriptions were superb and the writing was perfectly crafted as it painted a picture, I felt like the picture was being created by Monet – one, slow, meticulous, painstakingly long page at a time. Sure, the dots would all add up to a beautiful picture; but my patience and interest were waning quickly.

About a 1/3 of the way into the book (which means about 200 pages), I decided that I needed some fresh blood. Scared that if I started the “Grapes of Wrath” only to get bogged down again (essentially sabotaging the plan to finish these books), I thought that some lighter fare might whet my appetite a little more. And by “lighter fare”, let me clarify that I had no intention of immersing myself in the popcorn novels of John Grisham or Clive Cussler that entertained me in younger days.

I needed something that was well-written, but relevant…not just escapist writing to keep me interested and entertained. Remembering how much I enjoyed “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius” prior to my son’s birth, I had a discussion with my friend Sara (who often travels for work and is always up on good books) because we essentially share the same taste in books. Understanding my dilemma, she asked me if I had ever read pop culture critic (if that “label” even works) Chuck Klosterman, whom I mainly had read through his association with ESPN and, more notably, his give-and-take with Bill Simmons from a few years ago.

Armed with a new purpose, The DiaBride and I headed to the East Side to Joseph-Beth Booksellers (because…well, honestly because Crate & Barrel is next door and my wife loves her some C&B), debunking the myth that it is impossible to cross the Cuyahoga without a passport and proper documentation. We arrived at JB and set off to find new and exciting literary adventures…OK, that’s a bit of a hard sell – we were trying to find the section that would contain books by the aforementioned Klosterman. After a bit of a search, we found his works in the “Sociology” section because…what category does his writing really fall under?

After perusing the titles, I settled on “Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs” and headed back to the West Side, ready to snuggle in for a long winter’s nap full of witticisms. Reading Klosterman, it immediately became apparent that these essays I was reading about…whose topic was really nothing at all…echoed my feeling and thoughts on everything addressed. I found myself so in tune and in agreement with nearly all of his observational writings and conclusions that I realized that this book represented more than just witty observations on life and commentary on popular culture, as inane as the subjects (like an exhaustive breakdown of the cultural significance of “The Real World”) seemed to be.

Devouring the book, I realized that I would recommend this book to nearly ALL of my friends, as they would find humor and truth in the book as much as I did. How could a book, with no real plot or trajectory as the book evolves, be so universally true to me and (I assumed) people like me? How did it so eloquently define what I deem to be a generation of guys – my friends and otherwise, in my age bracket – where wit and sarcasm are valued commodities as is ability to put into prose (or scene) the feelings that we all have and the situations that we all live through define what (and who) we read, what we watch, and how we live?

This culture of sarcasm, self-examination, and intelligently dark humor based on the dissection of life events and the people that experience them that Klosterman was capturing was (for most) created to perfection by the genius of Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David with the comedic stylings of Dennis Miller (to keep our brains tuned in to what we all learned in all of those AP English classes in High School) continued in the brilliant, sprawling works of Dave Eggers and J.R. Moehringer, leading us to the utter bliss that is “Arrested Development”, “The Office” and “Extras”, combined with the occasional guilty pleasures contained in “The Soup”.

Chapter after chapter, I felt that the voice of the male, aged 25 to 50-something was finally defined. Suddenly, we had no need for the vapid comedies that we were told that we should like or were we forced to endure the monstrosity of a culture gone wild with no discernible outlet or social commentator. It was starting to be broken down, intelligently, openly, and (most importantly) hilariously.

For those of us somewhat obsessed by sports, the good news continues that this current of social commentary extended into a sports world that had become tired, antiquated, and essentially a contest to see who could yell the loudest. For years, the “traditional” media, like the sports department at the Plain Dealer or the likes of Chris Berman and Mike Lupica were our filter for how we should think about sports and what opinions prevailed. And these weren’t even the lowest form of the “traditional” sports media, an honor tightly held by the insanity of sports talk radio. The ill-informed reactionaries that litter the airwaves spout poorly-formed arguments and generally hold their finger over the volume to drown out any logical thought.

In all of the years of following sports, I have never called (or even wanted to call) any sports talk show. Really, why would anyone? The only person that I ever knew who called one of these shows was my buddy C-Badd, who once called Kenny Roda completely fed up with the mindless assertions and unoriginal thoughts that the host was piling onto the listeners. In a 15-second rant, C-Badd completely destroyed and humiliated Roda by lobbing incendiary truths on the bewildered target. How perfect was the rant? A day later, WKNR was actually airing C-Badd’s 15 seconds of inflammatory remarks as an ADVERTISEMENT, followed by the WKNR voice over saying something like, “Wanna tell Kenny what you really think of him?” The episode encapsulated everything that had become wrong with the way that sports forums were presented to their fans, talked down to and summarily dismissed by these “all-knowing” members of the media…and how the fans could truly find their voice above the din of mediocrity.

Of course as we all know, in the past few years, a funny thing has happened in the realm of sports media. A forum had been created on the Internet to become a place for people to share ideas, independent of what they were told to think or instructed what was right or wrong. Columnists like Bill Simmons emerged with his hilariously pointed (though increasingly repetitive) thoughts on the sports world and how out-of-whack it had become. Simmons cut through the white noise of sugarcoating events or creating a story where none existed as he simply wrote as a fan, with little to no access to the teams or the players that he followed. He adroitly pointed out the things that nobody, to that point, would say or write without fear of repercussion from the organization or from an individual. He called it like he saw it, in language that everybody that I knew understood and could easily relate to. Seamlessly bobbing and weaving through “The Karate Kid” or “Teen Wolf” and how it somehow related to the things that were relevant in the sports world. Despite Simmons’ employment by ESPN, it seems to remain something that he is constantly battling…that is, how to be an outsider at the center of the insider’s universe in Bristol. With Simmons, a new voice in the sports world had been created, that of the fan espousing his intelligent thoughts and opinions outside of the establishment.

That movement, then, was furthered by Will Leitch, the editor of Deadspin who, despite what your overall feelings are on Deadspin, has revolutionized this new media in a way that even Simmons could never have dreamed. Leitch was the true outsider, a talented essayist (for anyone who has not yet picked up his new book “God Save the Fan”, go get it now…no, seriously…now) that was played the role of sports sniper, sitting on his computer picking off the absurdity of sports and sports figures. He recognized that sports had been taken away from the fans, that it had been assumed by these giant corporations, who told us (through their substandard mouthpieces like Shannon Sharpe and John Kruk) what we were supposed to think. He pointed out that the disconnect between fans and the players that they rooted for had changed intrinsically to the point that it is unlikely that any average fan will ever be able to fully relate to the modern athlete again as the players that we root for live on a completely different plane, with a completely different set of rules than we could ever comprehend. Conversely, he pointed out that few athletes truly care or care to relate to the fans that, ultimately, afford them their luxurious lifestyles. Sports had reached a crossroads and Leitch was ready to explain it and ultimately mock how this crossroads had emerged, one smart comment at a time.

Where is this all going?
I have no idea. Most people my age (I’m 30, by the by) don’t read (much less even subscribe to) the newspaper, except for out of some perceived civic duty that we should read what’s happening in our region, regardless of how slanted, underwhelming, or heavy-handed the coverage seems to be. Outside of that absurd gnawing that the local paper (or some paper) should be part of our daily routine, we seek out information sources that speak to us or stimulate our minds. Those resources are certainly not being found in what many would describe as the “traditional” media.

Has the first volley been fired in this convoluted revolution? Is the establishment of everything that we have ever assumed to be the best way of obtaining information under attack in some of sort of offensive reminiscent of Fort Sumter? I happen to think so, though perhaps I’m examining this far too closely or giving too much thought and weight to an unrelated group of isolated writers, TV shows, movies, and insights – but it seems to me that the mindset of my generation of guys is finally developing an identity and a voice. “The Greatest Generation”, we are not – but, finally, we are not being asked to absorb the shallowness that we are told that we SHOULD like or being force-fed our opinions or sports by the likes of ESPN and major motion picture studios. Those corporations can’t define what we think and who we are, and finally we are beginning to revolt against it, through the “new” media of the Internet and otherwise.

We are independent thinkers, quick to call out what we feel is an inaccuracy or an injustice…of course, generally relying on lobbing sarcastic insults from afar and forming our witty comebacks based on observations based in reality. While it doesn’t exactly evoke memories of the “Chicago Seven” or civil disobedience, at least it’s a start. Maybe we’re not the idiotic slackers that we are portrayed to be, happy to plunk $10 bucks for a Michael Bay film or just thumb through “Maxim” and play video games with our free time. Perhaps, behind all of those walls of sarcasm and feigned indifference, there is something to us…it may not be deep or earth-shattering, but I suppose it’s still something.

What the hell do I know, though, I’m just a sleep-deprived first time father that’s been living in what seems like the inside of a dirty milk carton for the last few months. I’m just trying to use my “winter vacation”, in the time that I don’t get to see baseball on a regular basis to sort out some thoughts and didn’t mean to devolve into some great sociological essay. If this meandering stream of consciousness babbled a few too many times, let me be the first to ask a very important question:
How long, exactly, does it take the trucks to get to Winter Haven?

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Copycat Lazy Sunday

If imitation truly is the sincerest form of flattery, color me flattered this morning as the newspaper that arrived on my doorstep this morning was full of ideas and notions explored (in much greater detail) previously in this space.

Certainly my modesty prevents me from truly believing that the local sportswriters are simply adapting my ideas into their columns (as…really, they and I simply report on what is happening), but it is eerie:
For starters, Paul Hoynes (after embarrassing himself with this – check out that opening line dripping with negativity – cursory look at the Santana-Sabathia relationship earlier in the week) comes with more of the same, “examining” contracts for pitchers in comparable situations to Sabathia, something that was explored back in October here! Regardless of where he cherry picks his information to compile, Hoynes’ on-the-surface offering provides little insight, if any at all…this for a reporter with obvious access to the Indians’ front office, quoting Chris Antonetti in the piece.

Further back in the paper, Terry Pluto, after touching on the issue of the length of a pitcher’s contract (wasn’t this same notion thoroughly examined about two weeks ago in some detail) asserts that Sabathia’s future will have an effect on the Indians’ pitching staff going forward as, if he doesn’t extend his contract, both he and Paul Byrd will be exiting the rotation after 2008 with the hope that Atom Miller, Jeremy Sowers, Aaron Laffey, or even Chuck Lofgren can fill the void. What he fails to mention is that, if Sabathia does not re-up with the Tribe, his $11.25M salary comes off the books with Byrd’s $8M salary, leaving the Indians almost $20M to spend as they see most fit…all while not drastically affecting the payroll landscape for 2009. While the Indians would love to simply promote from within, don’t you think the Indians could peruse this list and find some value at that point, if it comes to that?
Maybe like…I don’t know a Brad Penny or a Ben Sheets or a Joe Nathan or maybe even a Vlad Guerrero?

Obviously, this is putting the cart before the horse and the ideal conclusion to the dilemma is to ink C.C. to another deal, but this stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If Sabathia doesn’t stay in Cleveland, is the Front Office going to look at their feet and bemoan the loss of C.C.?
Not bloody likely.
With the salaries of the majority of the core essentially spoken for through 2010, you don’t think that Cleveland would be an attractive destination for Free Agents? And you don’t think that some staffer at the corner of Carnegie and Ontario is already working on contingency plans?

Now, does the Santana deal affect C.C.’s negotiations? No question as it provides another point of reference for the two sides to consider. But just because the Mets painted themselves into a corner by essentially having to acquiesce to Santana’s contract demands (they didn’t want to offer the 6th guaranteed year, but what could they do…walk away?) doesn’t mean that the Indians should make the same mistake with Sabathia.

By the way, did anyone notice that Santana’s deal is really a 5-year extension with a bump in salary for his 2008?
2008:$19M
2009:$20M
2010:$21M
2011:$22.5M
2012:$24M
2013:$25.5M
2014:$25M club option ($5.5M buyout)
Seeing as how Santana was scheduled to earn $13.25M in 2008, it represents a $5.75M bump in salary for next year, $113M in guaranteed salary through 2013 and a $5.5M buyout for 2014. So, in reality, Santana’s contract is a 5-year, $124.25M extension. Take out the final year of the contract to see what the Mets wanted to sign him for and it could be ascertained that a 4-year, $98.75M extension was as far as they wanted to extend themselves (even less if the buyout money is omitted) before realizing what a PR nightmare they would have on their hands after much of the heavy lifting for the deal was already done.

Santana’s agents, obviously, wanted to rip up his old contract to trumpet that they got a 6-year deal (in the crazy world of sports representation, this is actually important) worth a guaranteed $137.5M. But, depending how the contract is viewed, it is a 5-year extension.

And isn't this what we thought all along?
The debate has always been whether that 2013 year is guaranteed or is an option. Knowing that guaranteed money and an extra year are a big deal, outside of that 6th year guaranteed, how does this look much different than what was suggested here last Tuesday? The Mets, thoroughly backed into a corner, gave Santana the 6th guaranteed year. Truly, nothing has changed as we all know that handing C.C. a deal that guarantees 6 or 7 years is imprudent and that Santana’s contract certainly serves notice that Sabathia can get that on the open market. As always, the answer will come down to what C.C. wants to do, as any potential new team won’t offer him any greater opportunity to win, with the Indians poised to contend with all of the same pieces and parts for the next 3 years, at least. Is one more guaranteed year (theTribe is on record for a 4-year extension offer), the dealbreaker for the Crooked Cap to stay or go?
Ultimately, it comes down to C.C.

One of the best takes on the Santana deal, how it came about, and what it means, is offered by Ken Rosenthal as dissects it. Additionally, if you want a terrific read on what the Santana deal means, in the greater sense of how it affects baseball and the landscape of contracts as a whole, Jayson Stark’s piece sums it up very nicely.

Outside of all things C.C., the Indians avoided arbitration with Casey Blake, settling on a $6.1M contract, which is more of an indication of how contracts work in MLB based on service time and how arbitration is set up to work. The real news with the Blake deal is not the dollars connected to it, but the fact that the Indians only inked Blake for one year, meaning that the Indians didn’t want to impede the progress of one of their young 3B by throwing up a multiyear roadblock in Blake. Blake is a nice piece to have for the Indians as they continue to flesh out their roster going forward, but his usefulness has an inverse relationship to the number of years and dollars committed to him.

Also, the Indians signed Jorge Julio to a minor league deal, inviting him to Spring Training. The only surprising news with this deal (Julio will essentially be given a chance to beat out Nasty Boy Tom Mastny for the 7th spot in the bullpen) is that Jorge Julio is only 28 years old! What, was he saving games in Baltimore as a 13-year-old?

Finally, as a devoted admirer of the exhaustive coverage that Tony Lastoria provides of the Indians’ farm system, here is the link if you’re interested in Tony’s “Top 50” prospect rankings in book form that Tony’s putting together…basically because people (like me) asked him to do it.

Knowing that there is some sort of restriction on calling today’s football game by name and that The DiaBride is attempting to boycott it because she’s “sick of all the Boston and New York sports hype”, I’ll be enjoying a nice, quiet Lazy Sunday curled up with a book…until about 6:17 PM.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Johan and Carsten

With the news that Johan Santana is headed to Flushing for (as ESPN calls it) the 4th best offer on the table, Santana thankfully seems to be on his way out of the AL. The deal is obviously contingent on the Mets and Santana reaching a contract extension, as Santana is reportedly looking for a 6-year, $150 deal.

The obvious corollary to this (outside of that the Twins are really no longer a threat in the AL Central) is how it affects negotiations with another certain LHP who also calls the division his home. Much has been made and written (admittedly here) about the wisdom of awarding a contract to Sabathia rich in years, given the track record of long-term contracts to pitchers, regardless of their pedigree. So the question that is often posed is what a fair deal to Sabathia would be, if Sabathia would accept it, and how much risk the Indians should expose themselves to.

Knowing about the success (or lack thereof) of pitchers working under long-term contracts, I'd offer Sabathia a contract long on dollars, but perhaps shorter on years than the one that Santana is reportedly demanding. I would offer a 4 year, $89M extension with a vesting player option for a 5th year. That would give the Indians 5 more guaranteed years of Sabathia (and bump up his 2008 salary) and keep some flexibility to make sure that Sabathia’s 5th year option (which is really 6 years from now) is triggered by something like the Cy Young vote or innings pitched.
His contract would break down like this:
2008 - $20M (currently under contract for $11M, so $9M additional)
2009 - $20M
2010 - $20M
2011 - $20M
2012 - $20M
2013 - $20M vesting player option
Would all those numbers look like that?
Probably not as there would be some progression of earnings, but you get the idea…it’s a giant deal.

Some could say that the Indians, small-market team that they are, couldn’t afford such an annual salary…until you consider that C.C. and Paul Byrd will be paid a combined $19M in 2008 with Byrd coming off the books after this year, likely to be replaced by a suitable youngster earning a minimum salary in the rotation. The framework of the Tribe’s salary structure affords them the luxury of signing a few big-ticket players (like Hafner and Westbrook, to date) as the majority of the roster is designed to be filled with young, talented players earning well below fair value unless the Indians see a player that they feel is special enough to lock up (see Sizemore, Grady).

It remains entirely possible that Sabathia’s people would demand a 5th year guaranteed with a 6th year option (which would really give Sabathia 6 years of guaranteed money due to him, being under contract already for 2008) likely giving the Indians pause as Sabathia represents everything that they have strived to do as an organization – to build strong starting pitching from within. Realizing that Sabathia is essentially the poster child for “The Plan” is the moment that would force the Indians to consider the risks associated with guaranteeing the years and associated money to Sabathia versus the reward of (ideally) penciling him in at the top of the rotation until 2013 or 2014.

If he agrees to the 4 guaranteed years and the option, he’s already signed; but if he demands more than the 5th year guaranteed and adamantly sticks to that demand, I would let him walk…as much as it would pain me to see the Hefty Lefty walk away.

The 5th year guaranteed with a 6th year option, however, remains the gray area. If the Indians are willing to extend themselves beyond what they call their “comfort zone” and Sabathia’s agents are willing to point to the contracts signed by Carlos Zambrano and Roy Oswalt instead of the deal that Johan seems to be in line for, a happy medium could be reached and the Crooked Cap could be a fixture on the North Coast for years to come.

However, if C.C. sees the Santana deal as the harbinger of “what he deserves”, the Indians will rightfully let him walk after the year…for better or worse.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Lazy Sunday Inside Terry's Head

In the downtime of the Sports world, unless you enjoy complete overanalysis of a game another week away (the only compelling article on anything Super Bowl related comes from the wildly entertaining Chuck Klosterman), let the Lazy Sunday commence as the official “Countdown to Spring Training” Clock thankfully ticks away:

As usual, Terry Pluto hits the nail on the head with one of his famous “talking to myself…” sections about the Indians. Pluto correctly asserts that the Indians remain built on pitching and pitching depth, which will again be the reason that they will stay in contention for 2008 and beyond.

Among the juiciest tidbits from Pluto?
On the bullpen:
Before I get to Joe Borowski, there's Rafael Betancourt. He's one of the premier setup men in baseball. In the last five years, his ERAs are 2.13, 3.92, 2.79, 3.81 and 1.47 in 2007. Last year, he allowed only three of 33 inherited runners to score. Lefty Raffy Perez had a 1.78 ERA, allowed only six of 37 runners to score and lefties batted .145 against him. I believe Jensen Lewis (1-1, 2.15 ERA with 34 Ks in 29 innings) could be the next Betancourt. He throws strikes and is effective against lefties and righties.
That, ladies and gentleman, is finally (hopefully) depth in the bullpen on the North Coast.

As an aside, it has been suggested by serial poster Tyler that the Two Rafaels should heretofore be called Fist of Iron and Fist of Steel in a reference to the Coal Mining ballad “16 Tons”:
If you see me comin', better step aside
A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don't a-get you, then the left one will

Get it…right one…left one?
With proper credit where credit is due (let us never forget that serial poster rodells is responsible for the BLC) I believe that Tyler’s suggestion makes Senor Slo-Mo (the right one) the Fist of Iron and The Scarecrow (the left one) the Fist of Steel, so I’m on board with the addition to the Tribe bullpen’s burgeoning amount of nicknames.

Back to Pluto, on Sowers:
I really believe Jeremy Sowers will bounce back. He had a tired arm early last season, was hit hard and sent to the minors. They gave him a new workout program and by midseason, his middle-80s fastball was topping 90 mph. He was 4-1 with a 2.95 ERA in his last nine starts at Class AAA Buffalo. He pitched twice for Class AA Akron in the playoffs and allowed one run in 13 innings. He threw five scoreless innings with the Tribe in September. He began to look like the lefty who was 7-4 with a 3.57 for the Tribe in 2006.
What the what?
Jeremy Sowers…topping 90 MPH?!?
And…my day is made.

Finally, an interesting take on the young OF:
Odds are that either Franklin Gutierrez or Ben Francisco will become a good player, but probably not both. Keep in mind that Gutierrez hit only .233 vs. righties, but crushed lefties (.330). Francisco won the International League batting title (.318), and showed promise in 62 at-bats (.274, three HR) with the Tribe.
It certainly doesn’t sound like Pluto’s sold on Frank the Tank, notably due to his extreme platoon split. On the Frisco Kid, it shall be interesting to see how the Indians approach to him will play out in 2008 as it could be argued that Francisco can provide the Indians the same production that they figure to get from Jason Michaels (at a lesser price, with a higher ceiling); but, fairly or not, The Ben Francisco Treat seems inexorably blocked by those ahead of him in the system, with more talent (perhaps most notably Jordan Brown) on his tail.

A couple of cubicles away (I would guess), Hoynsie put together his Baseball Insider (no link provided as it was not available online as of 10AM as the PD continues to show their understanding of the Digital Age and how they are really embracing this “InterWeb”), which includes this from Mark Shapiro on Andy Marte:
The reasons we acquired Marte were solid – scouting, analytically, everything. We want to give it time and be patient to see if we will be rewarded and he will be the player we think we will be. In the case of Brandon Phillips, we didn’t play it out quite long enough. He did become the player we thought he would when we acquired him, even though we didn’t always see indications of that when we had him.
There is not a hotter-button topic than “The Franchise” (Phillips) on the North Coast and it is interesting to hear Shapiro mention (for the first time, I think) that the Indians mishandled him in terms of time and opportunities. The B-Phil Saga is the reason that Marte is almost certain to see consistent AB this year (how, I don’t know yet) and, as a corollary, Marte’s long-term prospects are likely having a bearing on how the Indians approach the Casey Blake arbitration case in terms of how many years they are willing to commit to Blake with Marte (and others) in the pipeline.

Outside of that, not too much on this football-less Sunday as I’m not going to get into where a certain LHP feels his “second home” is or the rhetoric coming out of both camps as it doesn’t amount to more than prepackaged sound bytes.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Relief Package

As news that Rafael Betancourt and the Indians have avoided the ugly process of “exchanging numbers” and the ensuing negotiations by buying out Senor Slo-Mo’s arbitration years, to the tune of a 2 year deal worth $5.4M, as well as the Indians holding a club option ($5M) for what would have been Betancourt’s first year of Free Agency (2010), the Indians have further cemented their roster going forward by ensuring that Betancourt remains in the fold for at least another 2 years.

In light of the recent deals meted out to relievers on the Free Agent market (and realizing that a the situation of a player like Betancourt, who was under the club’s control for two more years even before this deal due to his Major League service time, is completely different than a player on the open market), the real coup in the deal is the CLUB option for the 3rd year for only $5M. The protection that the Indians retain in the chance that Betancourt’s effectiveness wanes in the first or second year (knocking firmly on wood) is something that cannot be undervalued in the highly volatile world of relievers, much less elite set-up men.

To wit, realizing that the “Hold” is a fairly new statistic (wherefore art thou, GW RBI), it does measure the ability of a reliever to “hold” a lead and transfer to a closer. While better, more complicated, measures of relievers exist; for our purposes, consider the top hold leaders from just the last few years:
2007
Brandon Lyon – ARI – 35
Heath Bell – SD – 34
Derrick Turnbow – MIL – 33
Jon Rauch – WAS – 33
Jonathon Broxton – LAD – 33
Rafael Betancourt – CLE – 31

2006
Scott Linebrink – SD – 36
Scot Shields – LAA – 31
Joel Zumaya – DET – 30
Aaron Heilman – NYM – 27
Juan Rincon – MIN – 26
Scott Proctor – NYY – 26

2005
Scot Shields – ANA – 33
Tom Gordon – NYY – 33
Scott Eyre – SF – 32
Ryan Madsen – PHI – 32
Julian Tavarez – StL – 32
Bob Howry – CLE – 29

2004
Tom Gordon – NYY – 36
Akinori Otsuka – SD – 34
Ray King – StL – 31
Chris Reitsma – ATL – 31
Salomon Torres – PIT – 30
Guillermo Mota – LAD/FLA - 30

2003
Octavio Dotel – HOU – 33
Brendan Donnelly – ANA – 29
Jason Grimsley – KC – 28
Paul Quantrill – LAD – 28
LaTroy Hawkins – MIN – 28
Tom Martin – LAD – 28

The lists, which contain few of the same names from year to year, illustrate how relievers remain a volatile commodity and one that really can’t be counted on from one year to the next. The problem with giving these players long-term deals (which is what they’re demanding now on the open market…even the marginal ones) is that if they do regress, they are virtually unmovable and simply take up a spot in the bullpen that could be filled by a more promising youngster cashing a much smaller paycheck. It speaks to the importance of developing your own players (whether they be relievers or otherwise) into MLB players, as opposed to potentially overpaying for an extremely unstable commodity.

Overpaying, you say?
How about the fact that the Brewers committed a combined $23M to Eric Gagne and David Riske, while the South Siders gave Scott Linebrink a 4-year deal for $19M and Octavio Dotel a 2-year deal for $11M this off-season in an attempt to fortify their bullpens. All are decent pitchers, but none jump out as legitimate closers or even are would be guaranteed to be viable set-up men for THIS season. However, with the Brewers and White Sox bullpens being major question marks, with no internal alternatives to exhaust, Milwaukee and Chicago simply obtained the pitchers that they felt would best help their team, regardless of cost.

Conversely, with the Indians boasting the likes of Rafael Perez, Jensen Lewis, and Tom Mastny (with more young arms on the way), it would seem that the Tribe will finally see some permanent help for their bullpen coming up from the farm to stay, which puts them in the enviable position of not having to explore the FA market as they have in years past with…shall we say…mixed results. Having those youngsters fill the pipeline at known salary numbers and with options remaining in case of a regression is a luxury that cannot be underestimated for a team that knows all too well what a Jose Jimenez or Roberto Hernandez can (or more accurately, cannot) do.

But back to the impetus for the discussion, the deal for our presiding judge of the bullpen (you know, because “Betancourt is in Session”) and the importance of the length of the deal. Some may argue that the Indians should have included another option year or guaranteed the 3rd year with a 4th year club option. However, it is important to remember that Betancourt is no spring chicken due to his career starting as an infielder (he was a 21-year-old SS for the Michigan Battle Cats), spending some time in the Pacific Rim, and overcoming arm injuries before finally settling in with the Tribe.

Betancourt will be 33 this year and 35 in the club option year, meaning that the Indians would have been guaranteeing that 4th year to a 36-year-old in 2011. To give that some proper perspective, consider that everyone’s favorite whipping boy, that “washed up, over-the-hill” closer of ours, The Big Borowski, turned 36 this past May. Given the volatility of relievers and the variables that seem to affect relievers more than most, the 4th year is simply unnecessary.

But don’t let that explanation of why including the 4th year in the contract overwhelm the fact that the Indians re-signed (arguably) the most effective reliever in the AL last year, locking in a set salary for his two arbitration years and possibly buying out his first year of Free Agency. The deal further solidifies the bullpen, as well as the whole roster, for the short-term and the long-term as the Indians lock in another piece to the puzzle for the foreseeable future…and at a very reasonable price.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

A Flurry of Inactivity

Much has been made of the Indians’ activity this off-season, or lack thereof, since coming so close to the World Series, before dropping 3 straight to the Red Sox in the ALCS. Even more has been made of the additions to their AL Central rival Detroit Tigers and the continued merry-go-round of players that fill out the White Sox roster. The dreadful feeling that the Indians are running in place as the rest of the American League is passing them by and that somehow the “window is rapidly closing” due to their inactivity has pervaded many Tribe fans’ minds as Spring Training draws closer. The sense that the Indians didn’t do anything to improve their team, by way of adding outside players, while the Tigers added a huge bat and a back-of-the-rotation starter to augment their roster, has led some to believe that the Indians have already been passed by as favorites in the AL Central due to their inactivity.

But, outside of the movement in Motown, it has been a relatively quiet off-season for the rest of the bona fide contenders in the AL as most “experts” feel that the Red Sox, Yankees, Indians, Tigers, and Angels enter Spring Training with the best teams in the AL. Knowing what the Tigers have done, how active have those other teams been this winter? Examining the transaction logs for each of those teams, the movement of players and additions can be broken down as “Retained”, “Lost”, “Added”, or “In Limbo”.

“Retained” meaning that the players either had options picked up or signed new contracts with their former teams, “Lost” meaning that a member of the 2007 roster has signed elsewhere, “Added” meaning a player not on the 2007 roster who has joined the club since the end of the 2007 season, and “In Limbo” referring to players on the club’s 2007 roster who became Free Agents and have not yet signed with another team.

Boston
Retained – Javier Lopez, Mike Lowell, Doug Mirabelli, Curt Schilling, Mike Timlin, Julian Tavarez, Tim Wakefield
Lost – Matt Clement, Eric Gagne
Added
In Limbo – Bobby Kielty, Eric Hinske, Kevin Cash
Truly, some excellent retentions (Lowell, Schilling), but nothing added to Boston to augment their notoriously shaky middle relief or lineup. Of course, they’re looking at full years out of their young 2B (Pedroia) and young OF (Ellsbury) to go with the maturation of their young arms (Lester, Buchholz, Delcarmen, etc.) for improvement – but where does that fortification from the development of young talent sound familiar? All told, the Red Sox…the defending World Series Champion…will be coming back with no big additions or truly new faces as they keep essentially the roster mostly intact from their championship run of a year ago in the hopes of attaining a similar result.

New York
Retained – Jose Molina, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada, Darrell Rasner, Mariano Rivera, Alex Rodriguez
Lost – Luis Vizcaino, Tyler Clippard
Added – LaTroy Hawkins, Jonathan Albaladejo
In Limbo – Roger Clemens, Doug Mientkiewicz, Ron Villone
Again, like Boston, the Yankees retained a number of their stalwarts from the 2007 season (notably Pettitte, Posada, Rivera, and A-Rod), but haven’t added much outside of a few bullpen arms. For all of the talk at the end of 2007 about how the Yankees simply didn’t have the pitching to match up with the Tribe (much less the Sawx) in the playoffs, nothing has been done to date to strengthen their rotation via FA or trade. Pending any Santana deal, the Yankees seem to be content to allow their young talent (Chamberlain, Hughes, etc.) to help their own team, rather than flipping them for established players. While far from a novel concept, it represents a decided shift in thinking in the Bronx most likely spearheaded by GM Brian Cashman, who has allegedly wrested some influence away from Big Stein’s Inner Circle in Tampa. The new strategy – fortifying from within rather than continually making the big splash in Free Agency to fill holes – is one that Cashman is banking on it panning out. If you think the off-season has been relatively quiet in little ol’ Cleveland, imagine how the New Yorkers, accustomed to using the annual FA list as their personal grocery list, are reacting to their winter of discontent, when even an ALCS appearance was denied by one of their “feeder teams”.

Los Angeles
Retained
Lost – Orlando Cabrera
Added – Torii Hunter, Jon Garland
In Limbo – Bartolo Colon, Dallas McPherson
Outside of the Hunter addition, which theoretically gives their lineup some pop (for a few years at least) and depth, the Angels also seem to be subscribing to the method of letting their young talent emerge and contend simultaneously and letting their undoubtedly deep and talented farm system bear some fruit in California. The youth movement is personified by a projected infield consisting of C Mike Napoli (26), 1B Casey Kotchman (24), 2B Howie Kendrick (24), and SS Erick Aybar (24) who have combined for 1,485 career AB – which is about 576 fewer AB than Grady Sizemore (25) has amassed in 3-plus MLB seasons. They still have some very-well-known quantities on their roster in Hunter, Vlad, and Lackey, but the subtraction of Cabrera essentially amounts to another move of the Angels trusting their farm system as stud SS prospect Brandon Wood is not too far removed from Anaheim. In short, you knew that the Halos were not going to stand pat, if only for owner Arte Moreno to try to lure more LA Dodger fans into Orange County, but the addition of a athletic CF to help out Guerrero in the lineup sounds like a song I’ve heard before.

Meanwhile, back on the North Coast, we all know about the Tribe’s moves:
Cleveland
Retained – Joe Borowski, Paul Byrd, Aaron Fultz
Lost – Chris Gomez
Added – Masahide Kobayashi, Jamey Carroll
In Limbo – Kenny Lofton, Trot Nixon
The Indians had a hole in LF (which is almost universally acknowledged by anyone who doesn’t own a Dellichaels jersey) and needed bullpen depth. One of the needs was checked off by the retention of JoeBo and Fultz combined with the importation of Kobayashi. Outside of that, the Indians have replaced Chris Gomez with Jamey Carroll and have, apparently, decided to go with David Dellucci and Jason Michaels in LF. The latter decision didn’t exactly set the AL on fire last year, and I have a feeling that something will still happen before the team breaks camp to remedy (or at least modify) the LF situation, even if only with the possibility that Ben Francisco and, later, Jordan Brown somehow enter the fray in 2008.

But for all of the hand-wringing about Shapiro sitting on his hands and doing nothing to improve the Indians, outside of the enormity of Miggy Cabrera (pun intended) arriving in the AL, have any of the other assumed AL contenders done THAT much to improve their teams? Due to a dreadful FA market, where a lot of bad (and by that I mean putrid) money was spent, and the trade market essentially consisting of teams looking for their Bartolo Colon deal to jumpstart their player development and stock their cupboard, the winter has been generally quiet.

For as much talk as there was about Johan Santana and others, the only real earth-mover was Cabrera heading to Detroit this off-season in the AL. If the lack of activity this winter in light of the Detroit trade comes back to haunt the Indians, they won’t be alone among AL contenders.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Prospecting on a Lazy Sunday

The temperature has dropped precipitously outside and, frankly, I don’t feel much like shoveling 1 or 2 inches in single digit weather – so let us warm ourselves around the Hot Stove on a Lazy Sunday:

As the “Top Prospect” lists continue to roll off the conveyor belt in various forms, Baseball America’s highly-anticipated list was released this week. The list was compiled by Chris Kline who, prior to working for Baseball America as a national writer, was the beat writer for the Kinston Free Press, covering the Class A Kinston Indians. So, needless to say, Kline has an understanding of the Indians’ organizational philosophies and has likely retained the contacts that he had within the organization while covering the K-Tribe.

While the “ranking” of prospects will always remain (to me, at least) a bit of an extremely objective crapshoot and serves more of a purpose of seeing which names are on the list and which are not – a fascinating part of the annual BA write-up is the “Projected Roster” four full seasons from now. This year’s edition is no exception as Kline has some interesting assumptions in his 2011 Projected Roster:
- Victor is still a catcher and has signed an extension (current contract expires in 2010)
- Ryan Garko has held off Jordan Brown at 1B
- Jhonny is still at SS (with his 2011 option picked up), Asdrubal is still at 2B
- Beau Mills is the 3B, not Andy Marte or Wes Hodges
- Nick Weglarz emerges from the cluttered OF mix to claim LF
- The Tank remains in RF
- C.C. has re-signed
- Jake does not sign another extension after his current deal expires after the 2010 season
- Atom Miller (shown above) still projects as a starter
- Jeremy Sowers has been passed up by other LHP in the organization (Laffey, Lofgren)
- Rafael Perez is the closer

Obviously, I’m looking far too into something that merely takes up a portion of the write-up, but it certainly is interesting to see the continuity and stability that Kline predicts for the Tribe going forward. If you’re counting at home, that would be 2 new faces in the lineup 4 years from now (one of which, Nick Weglarz, who just turned 20 a month ago, is shown here with a sweet LH stroke) and that the young arms (Miller, Laffey, and Lofgren) are thought to fill out the middle to back of the rotation.

Speaking of Prospect lists, here is the list from Minor-League Guru John Sickels, who must have Brad Snyder and Jordan Brown confused. Also, a wrap on Tony Lastoria’s phenomenal, and phenomenally exhaustive, 1 to 50 list.

Around the horn, here is the latest Big League Choo update and a nice piece on Jordan Brown, who has won two consecutive MVP’s playing in Kinston and Akron and has the aforementioned Chris Kline predicting (in an online chat) that he could win another one in Buffalo, something Dennis Manoloff makes light of in the linked article.

Hoynsie reports that the Indians’ interest in Bartolo Colon has dimmed but that the Tribe continues to follow Mr. Anna Benson.

Anyone else find it interesting that the Indians, who at first (and second) glance seem to be extremely deep in starting pitching, are scouting these players who could possibly pitch at some point, and MAYBE contribute, in 2008? Does this mean that the Indians are simply hedging their bet in case Cliff Lee’s freefall continues and NONE of the youngsters step up? Or could the interest indicate that one of the young arms is being shopped (in addition to Lee, who certainly is being shopped) and a pitcher like Benson would refortify the depth?

Finally, Indians’ Veep Bob DiBiasio is projecting that the salary base for the Tribe’s 40-man roster in 2008 should be around $90M, with $75M of that committed to the 25-man-roster.

Seeing as how the dollars committed to the 40-man, right now, totals a little over $73M with another $6M likely going to Casey Blake and $2M going to Rocky Betancourt (both approximately) in arbitration or deals reached outside of arbitration, that takes the total to $81M with every member of the 40-man spoken for.

As everyone here should know, I’m no math genius, but where does the extra $9M or so get paid out to if the Indians’ roster and payroll to that roster is essentially set to hit the projected $90M?
Perhaps an extra $8M or so on the contract of a certain big-boned LHP (a strategy utilized in the Westbrook and Hafner deals) to make his 2008 salary closer to $19M?

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Caveat Emptor

A troubling line of thinking has emerged as news that the Indians have made an initial contract extension offer to their reigning Cy Young Award winner C.C. Sabathia was recently reported. As most know, with Sabathia’s contract expiring at the end of the 2008 season, this off-season (though negotiations can continue throughout the season) represents the Tribe’s last chance to hold exclusive negotiations with The Hefty Lefty, meaning that Sabathia’s agents are simply not able to weigh offers on the table as the Tribe remains the sole bidder for Sabathia…for now.

The movement that seems to be gaining steam among a number of Tribe fans is that Sabathia should be signed “at all costs”, that his importance to the team outweighs any perceived overpayment (in terms of years or money) by the Indians because the Tribe NEED him on this team going forward and he’ll likely get a groundbreaking offer in Free Agency from a team that doesn’t play its home games on the corner of Carnegie and Ontario if he hits the open market after the 2008 season.

Now, despite the fact that he is not a Free Agent on that open market and the contracts signed by similar pitchers to Sabathia in similar situations has already been addressed here (not included in the linked article is Jake Peavy’s 3-year, $52M extension signed December 12th), many fans seem to be subscribing to the Blank Check mentality to “give C.C. what he wants” to keep him on the team, regardless of the long-term effect on the team or how relevant contracts provide a road map for negotiations.

The argument goes that “if he wants 6 years guaranteed…give him 6, if he wants 7 guaranteed…give him 7” and so on and so on to the point that Sabathia enters Wayne Garland territory. Seeing as how Sabathia is only 27 years old (he’ll be 28 in July) and has matured to the point that he is a legitimate top-of-the-rotation starter (in a Tribe uniform, which hasn’t happened since…well…) with the hardware to prove it, without a pattern of injury or ineffectiveness in his career, the argument is not without some merit. That is, of course, until the contracts of those lengths are examined to determine exactly how successful the long-term contracts (namely 5 years or more) for pitchers have worked out in the past 10 years in MLB.

As we all know, those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, so what can the history of long-term contracts signed by pitchers tell us about the wisdom of inking Sabathia, or any other pitcher for that matter, to a long-term deal? Taking into consideration that a contract of 4 years is generally thought of as the “comfortable” period of time for starting pitchers, how have the pitchers signed to longer contracts performed over the course of those contracts?

With all of the talk of 6 and 7 year contracts fluttering around in some people’s heads in regards to C.C., please consider the longest MLB contracts (with some help from Jeff Euston of Cot’s Baseball Contracts) signed by Starting Pitchers in the last 10 years, the annual salaries associated with the contract, and the pitcher’s performance over those years:

Mike Hampton – 8 years, $121M
2001 - $8M, 14-13, 5.41 ERA, 1.58 WHIP
2002 - $8.5M, 7-15, 6.15 ERA, 1.78 WHIP
2003 - $11M, 14-8, 3.84 ERA, 1.39 WHIP
2004 - $12M, 13-9, 4.28 ERA, 1.52 WHIP
2005 - $12.5M, 5-3, 3.50 ERA, 1.33 WHIP
2006 - $13M, did not pitch
2007 - $14.5M, did not pitch
2008 - $15M
2009 - $6M buyout or $20M option
Every GM should keep a copy of this contract on his refrigerator to remind him to exert some fiscal responsibility when negotiating a contract as, no matter how well a player has performed or how young said player is (Hampton was 27 with 6 straight seasons with an ERA below 3.60 in each of those years when he signed this deal), past results do not guarantee future success.

The deal Hampton signed with the Rockies, which included a $20M signing bonus (of which $19M will be paid to him from 2009-2018 at 3% interest), remains the great cautionary tale that baseball players are human beings and not above prolonged slumps, significant drop-offs, or injury. No matter how bad this contract looked at the time, it looks worse in hindsight. So bad, in fact, that three teams paid Hampton’s 2005 salary (Colorado - $2.5M, Florida - $8.5M, Atlanta - $1.5M) when he threw all of 69 1/3 innings and earned 5 wins for the combined $12.5M paid to him. With Hampton having a slight possibility of making the Atlanta rotation out of Spring Training, there is a very real chance that the $121M that will be paid to him when all of the checks will be cashed essentially netted 53 MLB wins or more than $2.25M a win.

As numbers like 7 and 8 are so irresponsibly thrown out there in regards to the Crooked Cap and others, it is important to remember the Lesson of Mike Hampton.

Barry Zito – 7 years, $126M
2007 - $10M, 11-13, 4.53 ERA, 1.35 WHIP
2008 - $14.5M
2009 - $18.5M
2010 - $18.5M
2011 - $18.5M
2012 - $19M
2013 - $20M
Giants’ GM Brian Sabean, apparently blissfully unaware of the Hampton debacle, went out to “make a splash” last off-season, despite an aging lineup and a farm system flush with young, talented arms. That “big splash” came in the form of Zito heading across the Bay from Oakland to San Francisco, with the $126M likely covering the BART fare (one way fare of $3.55) to get him to AT&T Park (raise your hand if you knew that was where the Giants played their home games).

Prior to signing the deal, Zito posted an ERA under 4.00 in 6 of his first 7 seasons with a Cy Young Award in 2002 (at the age of 24) on his impressive resume. Zito signed the deal as a 28-year-old, seemingly poised to enter the prime of his career. He rewarded the Giants in the 1st year of the deal by posting the worst ERA among their 5 main starters and coming up short of 200 innings pitched. After his dubious 2007, the Giants must really be looking forward to 6 more guaranteed years and Zito cashing $116M more of their money, praying that Zito will post better results than he did in 2007. Although it is a bit early to categorize the deal as historically terrible after only one year, the first year did not exactly invoke the names of Sandy Koufax or Warren Spahn.

With the stark regression by Zito in 2007, a consistent pitcher if there was one in MLB, the deal is startling in the lesson that starting pitching is rarely a given. While some point to Zito’s deal as the harbinger of the direction of contracts for starting pitchers, I can only hope that it comes to represent something of the Hampton deal redux, the aberration to the trend that ultimately serves as a lesson. For if Zito’s contract is the guideline for new deals and represents “A Brave New World” in terms of pitchers’ contracts, I’m going to need a dose of soma to get to a happier place.

Kevin Brown – 7 years, $105M
1999 - $10M, 18-9, 3.00 ERA, 1.06 WHIP
2000 - $15M, 13-6, 2.58 ERA, 0.99 WHIP
2001 - $15M, 10-4, 2.65 ERA, 1.14 WHIP
2002 - $15M, 3-4, 4.81 ERA, 1.42 WHIP
2003 - $15M, 14-9, 2.39 ERA, 1.14 WHIP
2004 - $15M, 10-6, 4.09 ERA, 1.27 WHIP
2005 - $15M, 4-7, 6.50 ERA, 1.72 WHIP
Not a great comparison to Sabathia’s situation as this contract was signed when Brown was 34 (with a $5M signing bonus) and while Brown put up great numbers when healthy, he rarely was throughout the contract. After 3 straight seasons of more than 230 IP prior to the deal, Brown logged 200 innings only 3 times over the course of the 7 year contract, twice pitching less than 75 innings.

When healthy, Brown was certainly worth the annual salary, but age and injury caught up with him as the advanced age at which he signed the deal eventually made the contract about two years too long. In the final year of the deal, which he played in New York, Brown was a shell of the pitcher that he was when the deal was signed – injured and ineffective.

Mike Mussina – 6 years, $88.5M
2001 - $8M, 17-11, 3.15 ERA, 1.07 WHIP
2002 - $9M, 18-10, 4.05 ERA, 1.19 WHIP
2003 - $10M, 17-8, 4.05 ERA, 1.19 WHIP
2004 - $14M, 12-9, 4.59 ERA, 1.32 WHIP
2005 - $17M, 13-8, 4.41 ERA, 1.36 WHIP
2006 - $17M, 15-7, 3.51 ERA, 1.11 WHIP
Perhaps the first example of a long-term deal proving to be a prudent move of the ones examined thus far, as the Moose stayed startlingly consistent throughout the life of the contract, pitching between 164 and 228 innings in each year. Of course, outside of his terrific 2006 campaign (the last year of the deal which earned him another 2-year contract worth $23M), Mussina was definitely trending in the wrong direction as the contract wore on.

The contract was signed when Mussina was 32 and his reputation as an innings-eater that was earned in Baltimore stood up in the Bronx, though it is interesting that Mussina finished in the top 5 of Cy Young voting only once in all of the years of the contract. As arbitrary and ridiculous as that voting can be (see Cliff Lee, circa 2005), the fact that he was viewed as one of the top 5 pitchers in the AL only once over the course of the 6 years while being a steady contributor speaks only to the consistency, and not brilliance, of Mussina.

Pedro Martinez – 6 years, $75M
1998 - $7M, 19-7, 2.89 ERA, 1.09 WHIP
1999 - $10.5M, 23-4, 2.07 ERA, 0.92 WHIP
2000 - $11M, 18-6, 1.74 ERA, 0.74 WHIP
2001 - $12.5M, 7-3, 2.39 ERA, 0.93 WHIP
2002 - $13.5M, 20-4, 2.26 ERA, 0.92 WHIP
2003 - $15M, 14-4, 2.22 ERA, 1.04 WHIP
2004 - $17.5M, 16-9, 3.90 ERA, 1.17 WHIP
If you’re wondering how Mussina didn’t get many Cy Young votes all those years, look at this oil on canvas painted by Sweet Pete in Boston. If ever there could be an argument that a pitcher can not only perform, but excel, over a long-term deal, these numbers present a pretty convincing case. Missing the 185 inning pitch mark only once in the 7 years, winning two Cy Youngs (with two 2nd place finishes, a 3rd place, and a 4th place), and posting sub-1.00 WHIPs for four straight years gives the idea of what type of results a contract bestowed on an “ace” should reap.

The final two years represent club options that were picked up, which stretched the deal to 7 years and $87M in total; so the performance of Pedro has to be the report pulled out of any agent’s folio to show that a pitcher can excel over the course of a 7-year deal.
That, ladies and gentleman, is an example of best case scenario…and how.

Daisuke Matsuzaka – 6 years, $52M
2007 - $6M, 15-12, 4.40 ERA, 1.33 WHIP
2008 - $8M
2009- $8M
2010 - $8M
2011 - $10M
2012 - $12M
The Japanese import’s first year in MLB was solid, but certainly not spectacular, though the Red Sox almost HAD to make sure that he was signed to a deal after posting over $51M just to get exclusive negotiating rights with him. The Red Sox, while being the only team able to negotiate with Dice-K, found themselves in the unenviable position of trying to project Matsuzaka to MLB and finding a comparable contract to use as a basis, when little was known about how Dice-K would translate.

After last year’s performance, 6 years looks excessive until you consider that Dice-K earned a reputation as an innings-eating horse in Japan and his salary numbers (as long as you don’t include the posting fee, which did not get paid to Matsuzaka) really aren’t that atrocious for a #3 starter, compared to the salaries being paid to lesser middle-of-the rotation starters.

Carlos Zambrano – 5 years, $91M
2008 - $15M
2009 - $17.75M
2010 - $17.875M
2011 - $17.875M
2012 - $18M
Obviously, Big Z has yet to throw a pitch under this contract, but the deal (which includes a vesting player option for $19.25M) will always be an interesting point of comparison for whatever happens with Sabathia. Both were in similar situations (though a year apart), with comparable success at comparable ages. Zambrano decided to eschew the FA market after receiving what he felt was a fair-market deal from the only team he had ever known.

Had he passed on the Cubs’ offer, he would have inarguably been the biggest prize on the FA market this off-season for starting pitching (just a tick above Carlos Silva and Kyle Lohse…right?) and surely could have commanded more on the open market. Zambrano didn’t though, perhaps paving the way for other pitchers (like, maybe a big LH who wears his hat slightly cockeyed) to do the same.

Roy Oswalt – 5 years, $73M
2007 - $13M, 14-7, 3.18 ERA, 1.33 WHIP
2008 - $13M
2009 - $14M
2010 - $15M
2011 - $16M
Speaking of similar situations and possible paths, Oswalt set the standard for pitchers re-upping with their current club before hitting FA when he signed this deal, which includes a $16M club option for 2012. Again, like Zambrano, Oswalt found himself in a similar situation to Sabathia and decided to take what was likely less money to stay with his current employer.

Again, like Zambrano (and, truly, to be fair Zito), it is extremely early to judge how this contract stacks up based on such a short timeframe. But, if 2007 is any indication, it looks like more of the same consistent excellence for Oswalt that they’ve grown accustomed to in Houston.

Chan Ho Park – 5 years, $65M
2002 - $11M, 9-8, 5.75 ERA, 1.59 WHIP
2003 - $12M, 1-3, 7.58 ERA, 1.99 WHIP
2004 - $13M, 4-7, 5.46 ERA, 1.44 WHIP
2005 - $14M, 12-8, 5.74 ERA, 1.67 WHIP
2006 - $15M, 7-7, 4.81 ERA, 1.39 WHIP
If the Mike Hampton deal taught everyone a lesson, GM’s should take a semester’s worth of classes examining the atrocious results of this deal. Chan Ho Park, inked by the Rangers after the 2001 season, proceeded to pitch more than 150 innings only once (2005) and pitched less than 100 innings twice in the 5 years over the course of this deal. Considering that the most productive year of the deal included him posting a 4.81 ERA (while “earning” $15M) in Petco Park, this is arguably the most horrific deal that’s ever been handed out to an MLB player.

Whether Park succumbed to injuries or was simply unable to adjust to the AL or the launching pad that the Rangers call home, the deal was ill-conceived from the beginning and should serve as a reminder that the seemingly simple solution of throwing money at a problem often solves very little.

Chris Carpenter – 5 years, $63.5M
2007 - $8.5M, 0-1, 7.50 ERA, 1.67 WHIP
2008 - $10.5M
2009 - $14M
2010 - $14.5M
2011 - $15M
2012 - $15M club option
Now we get to the sad, sad tale of Chris Carpenter, who pitched only 6 IP in 2007, after singing this deal based off of two straight seasons with over 220 IP and WHIPs under 1.07, and is not expected to pitch until late in the 2008 season…at the earliest. Prior to Carpenter signing the deal, he posted three phenomenal seasons with St. Louis, finishing in the Top 10 in wins in the NL and finishing in the Top 5 in the NL in ERA for 2005 (Cy Young winner) and 2006 (3rd in Cy Young voting).

But, as we all know, unforeseen injuries remain the worst case scenario for teams after these types of deals are done and, early in the 2007 season, Carpenter’s elbow acted up, causing him to have surgery to correct a ligament in his right elbow, calling into question whether he will ever be the dominant pitcher that he was just prior to the contract being signed, much less when he will even be coming back at all.

Kevin Millwood – 5 years, $60M
2006 - $6M, 16-12, 4.52 ERA, 1.31 WHIP
2007 - $7.5M, 10-14, 5.16 ERA, 1.62 WHIP
2008 - $8.5M
2009 - $11M
2010 - $12M
Somehow this seems very relevant to discuss the length of Millwood’s deal in comparison to C.C.’s deal as most Tribe fans are acutely aware of the background that the Indians, after the 2005 season, were not willing to give Millwood the 4th and 5th years on a contract proposal, allowing Millwood to explore the open market, eventually inking this deal (that also has a $15M signing bonus that will continue to pay him $3M annually from 2011 to 2015) a year after winning the ERA title in Cleveland. The Indians, meanwhile, used the money set aside for Millwood to sign Paul Byrd to less years and comparable money.

In hindsight, it is a hard strategy to argue with as Millwood has certainly not done much in his first two years in Texas, performing below league average while Byrd (while not much better) is at least a Free Agent after this year, even after the Tribe picked up a club option, and will come off the books after 2008. In contrast, Millwood is still slated to earn $31.5M guaranteed over the next 3 years, doing nothing thus far to justify the monies owed to him over that timeframe.

Greg Maddux – 5 years, $57.5M
1998 - $9M, 18-9, 2.22 ERA, 0.98 WHIP
1999 - $10M, 19-9, 3.57 ERA, 1.35 WHIP
2000 - $10.5M, 19-9, 3.00 ERA, 1.07 WHIP
2001 - $12.5M, 17-11, 3.05 ERA, 1.06 WHIP
2002 - $12.5M, 16-6, 2.62 ERA, 1.20 WHIP
Consistency, thy name is Maddux. Over the course of this contract, Maddux was a veritable machine – logging more than 199 IP in all five seasons, posting ERAs under 3.60, and walking a total of 196 batters in the 1,152 innings that he logged over the 5 years of the contract. By any measure, the results are nothing short of astounding, particularly considering that this contract was signed when he was 32 (on the heels of the expiration of the first contract with the Braves for 5 years and $28M) and ended when he was 37.

While the numbers are consistent and consistently tremendous, they pale in comparison to what he put down for the first 5-year contract (4 times posting an ERA of 3.00 or lower, never having a WHIP over 1.05, and winning 3 straight Cy Young Awards), which compare to Pedro Martinez’s performance as how a pitcher, just hitting his prime and staying healthy, can thrive throughout the life of a contract…much less two.

For those willing to anoint anyone but this man as the “Greatest Pitcher of His Generation”, please consider these statistics and realize that the consistency that he Maddux achieved is something that we may never enjoy again. Maddux is a unique pitcher and any young pitcher who even comes close to replicating what he has accomplished, in terms of overall performance and consistency, will likely be ticketed to join him one day in Cooperstown.

A.J. Burnett – 5 years, $55M
2006 - $7M, 10-8, 3.98 ERA, 1.31 WHIP
2007 - $12M, 10-8, 3.75 ERA, 1.19 WHIP
2008 - $12M
2009 - $12M
2010 - $12M
Illustrating the classic case of a pitcher being signed on potential, as opposed to achievement, Burnett was offered this deal from Toronto despite pitching more than 200 innings only twice in the previous 5 years and never winning more than 12 games in a season. While wins are a somewhat arbitrary way to judge pitchers as a certain amount of factors lie outside of their control (run support, bullpen, etc.), Burnett looked to be a talented pitcher who had never been able to stay healthy in his time in Florida.

After the deal was signed, the reputation proved to be true as he has battled through two injury-riddled seasons (135 IP in 2006 and 165 IP in 2007) flashing the same intermittent brilliance (1.19 WHIP in 2007) that caused the Blue Jays to open their checkbook, hoping that he could stay healthy. Alas, he has not to this point and even holds an opt-out clause after the 2008 season; so if he is able to stay healthy and produce over the course of a whole season, he will have the opportunity to rip up his Blue Jays’ contract and capitalize on his potential again. If his 2008 follows the pattern of his career and injuries prevent an opt-out performance, he can still sleep well knowing that he will be receiving $24M more in guaranteed dollars from Toronto.

Gil Meche – 5 years, $55M
2007 - $7M, 9-13, 3.67 ERA, 1.27 WHIP
2008 - $11M
2009 - $11M
2010 - $12M
2011 - $12M
The contract signed last off-season that trumpeted that the wheels were off the starting pitching market, Meche had never pitched more than 185 innings in a season and hadn’t posted an ERA under 4.40 in any of the previous 4 seasons, not to mention topping the 1.40 WHIP mark in the previous 3 seasons. Unbelievably, the Royals inked the 27-year-old who (surprising virtually everyone not in the Kansas City Front Office) posted career highs in innings pitched, ERA, WHIP, and tied his 2006 season strikeout total in his first year in KC.

While Meche’s 2007 constituted a pleasant surprise for Royals fans (desperate for one), Meche remains vastly overpaid in terms of dollars and years. When it’s all said and done, is it possible that his 2007 could be the year that Meche figured it out and will only improve from here, justifying this contract by the end of the 2011? In a word – no.

Darren Dreifort - 5 years, $55M
2001 - $9M, 4-7, 5.13 ERA, 1.44 WHIP
2002 - $9M, did not pitch
2003 - $11M, 4-4, 4.03 ERA, 1.38 WHIP
2004 - $11M, 1-4, 4.44 ERA, 1.56 WHIP
2005 - $13M, did not pitch
See Park, Chan Ho…but worse.
That would be 9 wins and 205 2/3 innings pitched over 5 years and $55M, which includes the $2M signing bonus.
Not much more to say here except, of course, “did anyone get the license number on the getaway car?”

Denny Neagle – 5 years, $51M
2001 - $7M, 9-8, 5.38 ERA, 1.48 WHIP
2002 - $7M, 8-11 ERA, 5.26 ERA, 1.42 WHIP
2003 - $9M, 2-4, 7.90 ERA, 1.67 WHIP
2004 - $9M, did not pitch
2005 - $10M, did not pitch (contract terminated)
2006 - $12.5M club option ($9M buyout)
Neagle’s first two years, when he pitched 170 innings and 164 innings while posting WHIPs over 1.40 were, sadly, the best years of this contract that ended unceremoniously as Neagle’s 2005 and 2006 salaries were settled by an arbitrator after the Rockies terminated his contract after he was issued a citation for soliciting sex from a prostitute.

After writing that I feel a little dirty and…just…want to move on.

Kei Igawa – 5 years, $20M
2007 - $4M, 2-3, 6.25 ERA, 1.67 WHIP
2008 - $4M
2009 - $4M
2010 - $4M
2011 - $4M
Though not outrageous in terms of annual salary, the fact that the Yankees are paying a player that simply couldn’t help the team in his first year of the deal shows how risky it can be to sign a player to a long-term deal in that if the player proves to be ineffective early in the deal, it becomes nearly impossible to move his contract as the committed (and guaranteed) years are just too much to pawn off on anyone.

That’s it!
Those seventeen are the only contracts that have been signed by starting pitchers for 5 years or more in the last 10 years, only six for 6 years or more, and merely three for 7 years or more.

Regardless of the rhetoric coming out of the Johan Santana camp regarding contract demands, it is important to know that the likes of Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, David Wells, Jaime Moyer, Andy Pettitte, Bartolo Colon, and Roger Clemens never worked under contracts longer than 4 years…EVER in their careers. Even some of the most dreadful contracts in recent memory, like those handed out to Russ Ortiz and Carl Pavano were “only” inked for 4 forgettable years. Perhaps there’s something to that which has been ignored by GM’s interested in locking up pitchers “at all costs”.

Now, will C.C. suddenly become ineffective after years of success? Not likely.
Will he get injured and become unavailable or have diminished skills upon his return? Lord knows that nobody wishes that upon him…but it is a possibility as risk needs to be weighed against reward for any contract.

Of course, for every Pedro Martinez, who sparkles throughout the life of a contract, continuing the success that merited that contract, there are the Mike Hamptons (who, prior to signing his deal had won 85 career games and just turned 27) or Chris Carpenters (who won 51 games with WHIPs under 1.13 in the 3 years leading up to his deal, only to see his arm blow up) that serve as the reminders that sometimes even the best-laid plans can quickly go awry.

Also, from the consistency standpoint and the idea that Sabathia’s history of staying healthy and effective portends future health and excellence, it is important to remember that for every Greg Maddux, there are pitchers like Dan Petry, Larry Dierker, and Dave McNally (all 4 being comparable pitchers to Sabathia at this point in his career) who have broken down in their early 30’s due to injury or simple ineffectiveness. While it is fun to think that Sabathia’s career arc will follow that of Maddux, with consistently excellent seasons with tremendous health, it is unfortunately more likely (history tells us) that Maddux is the exception to the rule and few pitchers will ever be able to match his health and results.

Could Sabathia be an exception, like Martinez or Maddux?
Certainly, but just playing the percentages, it is more likely that he’s not. So, if past is truly prologue, the debate regarding Sabathia’s signability falls to the wisdom, or lack thereof, of signing a pitcher to more than 4 or 5 years of guaranteed money, not the money. Given what is known about the long-term contracts handed out to starting pitchers and the performances of those pitchers, is the potential reward that C.C. is headed for 6 or 7 full years of health and success worth the risk of carrying an injured or ineffective pitcher on the roster for a substantial amount of money for an extended period of time?

Those guaranteed years and the expected performance over those years, not the annual salary associated with the contract, is the question that the Tribe brass (and Indians’ fans) should be asking instead of simply ascribing to the belief that Sabathia MUST be signed to a contract extension this off-season.

Unfortunately for the Indians, there will be a team willing to take on the risks associated with giving a 6 or 7 year deal to Sabathia on the open market, with a GM happy to ignore the lessons of the past to ink the aCCe. If it gets to that point (and C.C.’s agents stick to a hard line of ignoring the frameworks established by the Zambrano, Oswalt, and Peavy deals, demanding a 6 or 7 year deal) – that GM, fortunately or unfortunately for Tribe fans depending on where you fall in the debate, isn’t likely to be Mark Shapiro.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Lazy Sunday With Mr. Glass Half Empty

With the DiaBride’s Pack in the NFC Championship, things are bright and sunny at the Reservation and the time has come for a brief, albeit long overdue, Lazy Sunday to address what has been happening in the Sports Department at “Ohio’s Largest”:

While I generally try to avoid including Mr. Sunshine (Bill Livingston) in Lazy Sunday, I would be remiss if I didn’t provide a link to this, which perhaps best represents proof that Livy has officially gone off the deep end in terms of negativism. In the past, Livingston at least attempted to sound rational in his arguments of negativity (even if he was unsuccessful, you could at least see some effort), but today’s piece shows that Livingston has foregone any rational thought in his blatant attempts to continually see the glass as half-empty. The article states that, despite OSU going to the BCS Championship twice in 2 years, the Cavs going to the Finals, the Browns just missing the playoffs, and the Tribe being one game away from the World Series, he’s seen this all before in the 70s, and the future of the current sports teams will simply show history repeating itself as ALL of these teams are destined to never take the next step or steps to give the city a championship. So says this soothsayer that we are all supposed to believe, based on his “experience” as an observer of sports for many, many years.

The whole article comes off as so disjointed and dripping with “trust me on this, I’ve seen it all before” that you can’t help but wonder who in town killed Livy’s cat. His bitterness has always prevented him from actually having people enjoy his columns, but now he seems to be embracing these ridiculously negative views, perhaps because he feels that the paper needs a balance from their new columnist, the generally optimistic but always superb Terry Pluto.

There has to be some jealousy in the Sports Department as Pluto, since coming north from the ABJ, has been featured on the Front Page, numerous PD advertisements, and on free standing newspaper stands around town. In fact, the other day, a telemarketer called me to “upgrade” my PD service from the weekends only to the whole week. Their main selling point…“you know we got Terry Pluto back, right?” I can’t imagine that it all sits very well with Livingston, who likely regarded himself as the tenured columnist at the PD, suddenly thrust into covering mainly OSU. Which, regardless of how big of a fan of OSU you are, you have to admit is not nearly as popular in Cleveland as the pro sports teams are. Livingston, not surprisingly in his new assignment, immediately found an ax to grind with Jim Tressel.

One can only hope that Livingston is simply greasing his way out of the PD Sports Department with all of this blatant and irrational negativity and heavy-handedness. For about 4 years, I’ve avoided reading his columns, but since Pluto’s arrival they’ve been like a car wreck – so awful that you simply can’t look away.

However, today’s piece by Livy is the last straw…I’m simply going back to looking away.
__________

Of course, on the other side of the ledger (and back to Indians’ talk), Terry Pluto takes a quick look at how Garko, Victor, and Shoppach figure to lend stability to 1B and C for 2008. While it is not often said (as the easier, and probably more interesting, thing to discuss is what’s wrong), the Indians are very solid at 4 to 5 positions (C, 1B, CF, DH, and SS…depending upon Peralta’s defense) with hope that 2 positions will be fortified by youngsters (2B, RF) and that veterans can hold down the fort at 2 positions (LF, 3B) or that youngsters can step as they did in 2008.

While it certainly makes for more interesting discussion and debate to talk about LF, 3B, and C.C.’s contract situation (which I should have something on this week), shouldn’t there be a point that we simply express some thanks that the roster isn’t a complete work in progress and that the Indians aren’t going to Spring Training with a roster full of question marks? Sure there are some areas that we’d all like to see upgraded, but the Indians are bringing back essentially the same team that was a good performance by either C.C. or Carmona away from a World Series, with more promise at 2B, RF, and the bullpen with a full season for the talented youngsters that emerged last year.

Maybe I’m being overly optimistic in light of Livingston trying to put a dark cloud over my Sunday…but the sky isn’t falling for the Tribe and things are looking pretty good these days.
__________

Also on the topic of good writing, if you missed Tony Lastoria’s amazingly in-depth Top 50 (yes…50) prospects with write-ups for everyone, here is the link to his site. However, be warned, don’t click until you have about an hour or two to properly digest all of the information.
__________

Finally, as you may have guessed, the 2007 Retrospective has been put on the backburner as (while it is fun to walk down memory lane) it is EXTREMELY time-consuming and I think more people to look forward than look back…especially with Spring Training merely a month away.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Sign of the Times

To quickly peruse the Saturday morning edition of the Plain Dealer, one (unaware of the announcement from the Indians yesterday) could come to one of two conclusions – either that the Plain Dealer (who committed the ENTIRE above-the-fold portion of the Front Page to the name change) has very little to report on a Saturday morning or that Jacobs Field has been scheduled for demolition. Since the former is obviously the true statement, the news about Jacobs Field is that the structure, under a different name, will continue to operate and serve as the home to the Cleveland Indians.

Never has a move like this caused such consternation and hand-wringing among fans, who called into radio stations all of Friday, calling for a “boycott” or a “way to fight this” change. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I don’t remember this public outcry when Gund Arena was essentially given a one-letter name by the new owner (who removed the name of the previous owner from the facility). I think that the reason for the difference between the reactions between the two name changes gets to the heart of the matter regarding the “end of the Jake”. Whereas few good memories exist from the building when it was known as Gund Arena (unless your Wesley Person jersey is still in heavy rotation in your wardrobe), the 14 years that the Indians called Jacobs Field home is full of happy moments, magical memories, and favorite players.

It could easily be argued that the 14 years of the franchise, since moving into the ballpark at the corner of Carnegie and Ontario represent the “Golden Age” of Indians’ baseball. With unprecedented success and playoff appearances, the Indians of the mid-to-late 90’s and, more recently 2005 and 2007, The Jake became THE place to be…the place to see and to be seen. The fact that it had a cute nickname (probably one never envisioned by the Jacobs’ brothers when they bought the naming rights in 1994) added to the ballpark’s cache.

Yesterday, news that Jacobs Field would heretofore be known as Progressive Field was received by many as a supposed “End of An Era”, when you could no longer tell friends to “meet at the Jake” to catch a Tribe game. And, while it certainly was a convenient and catchy name that Clevelanders could identify as their own, along the same lines as “The Garden” in Boston or “Candlestick” in San Francisco, times have changed in professional sports as the naming rights to a sports facility is another revenue stream utilized by most owners (quick, where do the Celtics and 49ers play now?) to assist in the upkeep of those facilities.

The Indians, like so many teams before them, sold the naming rights to their stadium…to a Cleveland company with ties to the community for 16 years to coincide when the Indians’ 30-year lease with Gateway expires. When the Tribe re-ups with Gateway, Progressive (one of the few Fortune 500 companies remaining with local ties) will get the first crack at renewing the naming rights. Regardless of what you think of the catchiness of Progressive Field, it is simply a by-product of the changing face of American sports.

As for what we can all call the ballpark (for those not among the outraged, who will continue to call it The Jake, “no matter what”), why do we need some cutesy, monosyllabic nickname for our ballpark? Has the culture of Bennifer and Brangelina pervaded our sports world that we can’t simply say that “we’re going to the Indians’ game” or “we’ll see you at the Tribe game” or “meet you at the ballpark”?

I’ll miss calling the ballpark the Jake more than many and it’s not fun or convenient to lose the Jake moniker; but, again, wasn’t the familiarity and love for the structure at East 9th more of a by-product of the superb product that was put on the field and not the sign that was posted outside the stadium? As long as the product remains viable and successful, does it really matter what the name of the stadium is?

The naming rights announcement is only a sign of the times of the changing world of professional sports and to those who feel that the Indians are “selling out”, I can only hope that they’re right…that they’ll be “selling out” World Series games at whatever they decide to call their home.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Farewell, O Jake

Though this has never been the forum that reports “breaking news” or items “hot off the wire”, instead content to simply comment on happenings on the Reservation when all information has been gathered and pored over, I would be remiss if I didn’t pass along news that Jacobs Field is no more.

No, the structure at the corner of Carnegie and Ontario is still standing, but will heretofore be known as Progressive Field, as Peter Lewis’ enormous insurance company in Mayfield has bought the naming rights for the Indians’ home ballpark.

While, the news simply changes the name of a building of steel and stone, there will be much more on this in the coming days in terms of gut reaction and what this means to the Indians (long-term); but for now, let us allow the Jake to RIP and remember the good times.

Memories…
Like the corners of my mind…
Misty water-colored memories…