Yea those two trades where brilliant, still remember when we traded Finley, Caminiti and others to SD, which did get us Derek Bell(Operation Shutdown), it was a blow to me as I was a huge fan of those guys. Finley and Biggio at the top of the order was a joy to watch in the Dome days!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P7t_y6I4vKA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P7t_y6I4vKA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> I wanted to find the actual obtuse comment from Shawshank, but wasn't having any luck.
The Indians have had little to show for it as of late. It worked out great for them in the 90s when they traded for some young talent, and some great drafting and FA pickups, but since they traded away all that talent after 2001 they have only made the playoffs once. And it isn't like they haven't made good deals because they have, but they have suffered a bit from inconsistent players and dissappointing prospects as well as being in constant tear down and rebuild. I'd love to be the Indians of the mid 90s(actually not that different then the Astros of the late 90s), but I'd hate to be the Indians of today. Really I think you build great organizations through great drafts, and undrafted FAs. That is how you will win consistently without the big dollars.
Pretty cool Q & A with one of the best color men in the game..Jimmy D. http://blogs.chron.com/fanblogastros/
That one playoff appearance was just 2 seasons ago and they had the best record in baseball that year. Just making the playoffs in the AL is a much bigger accomplishment than doing the same in the NL. You're right, they haven't had as much success as they did during that dominant run of the 90s but the key and relevant point is that they are better off today than they would have been if they didn't move players for prospects as often as they did when they were clearly out of the race. My guess is that when the next organizational rankings come out, the Indians will be ranked right with the Rangers at the top. They were ranked 5th before the Lee, Martinez and DeRosa trades which brought in a bunch of new talent to an already deep system. Meanwhile, the Astros will still be near the bottom. The Indians are calling up guys like LaPorta and Brantley in September while the Astros are calling up Wesley Wright and Doug Brocail. Again, my belief is not that the Astros need to sell off as often and as aggressively as the Indians. I stated as much in a previous post (#117). As you said, drafting is important. I agree, as is developing players and moving them through the system properly. At the same time, I think there are times when you need to let go of big name players to add to your pipeline of talent. It's a combination of drafting, developing and selling high at the right time that benefits mid-market teams and below the most in the long run. I'm not sure that the Astros are doing any of those things particularly well. If not for getting discounts on Clemens and Pettite, 2005 probably didn't happen and we are still one of only a few teams to never see a WS, unlike the Indians.
You also have to look at what the Indians already have in the minors to understand some of the moves like the recent Martinez and Lee deals. They have a catching prospect (Carlos Santana) that has the potential to be even better than Martinez and he's only a year away from the bigs. They have several excellent pitching prospects (Huff, Rondon, etc...) not far away to replace guys like Lee, Sabathia and a struggling Carmona. Sure, they would have loved to keep a guy like Sabathia but the Indians don't have $250 mil to spend on payroll like some other teams. DeRosa was merely a stopgap. Once their season was going bad, they smartly got something for him instead of the alternative, getting nothing. They've moved Peralta to 3rd and are deep on infield prospects like pretty much every other position. Again, the point is that by already having a strong farm, the Indians have very good and possibly better replacements waiting in the wings. On top of that, they get even more top prospects to add to their pipeline. They sold high on Lee and Martinez, who will both be nearly 32 next season, making room for their young talent while also bringing in additional talent.
I wouldn't mind trades, but don't count me in on wanting to move players like Oswalt/Berkman. I believe you need a face of the organization to really succeed. The Astros return to prominence after the awful 2000 was based on great draft picks and their dominance in Venezuela and they had built one of the best systems in baseball. What happened to their system was one of the fastest falls a farm system has ever gone through. Astros big problems this season was largely locking up half their payroll in four players, and having nobody in the minors due to poor drafts, and not having much of a presence internationally. If you were to make a trade who would you trade away? Lee is the obvious answer, but you won't be able to move him. Do you trade Lance, Roy, or Wandy? I'd live with moving Wandy, but I think you keep Lance/Roy unless they ask to move.
Lofton was one of my favorite players on those killer Indians teams. As far as Lee, I believe his NTC expires after this coming season. As far as trading for prospects, arguably our best player this season, Bourn, came through trade. So did arguably the best player in franchise history. I think mid-market teams and below need to look at it from a wholisitic approach for best results. Scouting, drafting, developing, knowing when to be buyers vs sellers, etc... Managing your assets wisely is increasingly important the less you have to spend on payroll. I think the best organizations in the mid to lower spending brackets do all of those things well.
This is the key. People always think the goal is to maximize talent and that you don't trade top talent - but unless you have an unlimited payroll, the goal has to be to maximize value. A team is much better off with a #2 pitcher under club control than a #1 ace that they pay $15MM to. Same with offensive players - a team is much better off with a $2MM mediocre SS than $7MM slightly-above-mediocre SS. This is seen in the teams that have sprouted up recently like Tampa Bay and Colorado and San Fran - they don't have huge payrolls or superstar talents (for the most part - especially with Colorado), but they have a ton of cheap players mixed in, so they can afford to pay to fill holes as needed.
