A pair of Indians links for you Tribe followers who are still up, courtesy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Paul Hoynes and MLB.com's Jordan Bastian:
- Hoynes examines how the Indians have backed off their philosophy of extending young players in recent years and wonders if the pitfalls of the Travis Hafner and Jake Westbrook contracts have made them wary.
- Hoynes quotes one agent who thinks that at this point, the Indians think it'd be too expensive to offer Asdrubal Cabrera a multiyear extension.
- GM Chris Antonetti says there are no black and white rules in the organization for signing pre-arbitration players to extensions; each case is handled on an individual basis.
- In his piece, Bastian writes that Antonetti told reporters on Tuesday at the Winter Meetings that he was discussing a trade "that would be very surprising if it came to fruition."
- The Indians are looking to improve their offense, and teams have come calling about Chris Perez. The Tribe isn't actively shopping their closer, but Bastian says they're willing to listen because of the depth they have in their bullpen, though the number of available arms doesn't give them much leverage in any potential deal. Plus, with an eye on contending in 2012, depleting their bullpen depth may not be the best strategy.
Weary of long contracts… Not like the Yankees or Boston have all short contracts. Thats why they are successful. Apart from having the money they lock players in to longer contracts so the successful players are their longer.
The point is that if the big revenue clubs make a mistake on one of those long term contracts, a la Travis Hafner, it is not a big deal because they bring in lots of revenue. The Indians become terribly handcuffed if they blow even one contract, so there is a terrific disincentive to offer long term contracts. Does this affect the quality of the club? You bet. But the economic conditions in the town and in the league have to be just right for the Indians to keep their players.
This fact has me depressed about the team’s future. I, as a multi-decade tribe fan, am wondering if it is worth it to support this team.
The point is that if the big revenue clubs make a mistake on one of those long term contracts, a la Travis Hafner, it is not a big deal because they bring in lots of revenue. The Indians become terribly handcuffed if they blow even one contract, so there is a terrific disincentive to offer long term contracts. Does this affect the quality of the club? You bet. But the economic conditions in the town and in the league have to be just right for the Indians to keep their players.
This fact has me depressed about the team’s future. I, as a multi-decade tribe fan, am wondering if it is worth it to support this team.
It’s definitely tougher being a small market team, but that’s why you have to get the young guys up early and sign them to early deals (like what we used to do in the 90’s and what the Rays did with Longoria)
Buy out a year or two AFTER arbitration and then see where that takes you. If it doesn’t work out, they are still “young enough” to trade.
With regard to our bullpen, we have SO MUCH depth that we can afford one or two trades, try and help our upper minor leagues/get a RH bat. Guys like Lee and Putnam and Hagadone can fill in for very good relievers like Smith, R and C Perez in case we can trade them.