Cleveland Sports Forum

he Cleveland Indians have designated Chris Johnson for assignment, the team confirmed on Twitter. Johnson’s roster spot was needed once recently acquired outfielder Rajai Davis completed his physical and was added to the 40-man roster, which happened earlier today.

Johnson was brought over in the 2015 season as part of a deal that sent Nick Swisher and Michael Bourn to Atlanta Braves. He was little more than a way for the Braves to balance out their own budget while taking on Swisher and Bourn's contracts, and never had much of a future in Cleveland anyway. It is very surprising, however, to see him designated for assignment before someone like outfielder Jerry Sands.

The Indians will remain on the hook for Johnson’s contract over the next two years: $7.5 million in 2016, $9 million in 2017, and $10 million in 2018. The final year also contains a $1 million buyout, which the Indians will surely take.

Johnson played in only 27 games for the Tribe, with his time mostly cut short by a mysterious spider bite injury that became infected while the team was in Minnesota for a game against the Twins. He slashed .289/.312/.367 with one home run for the Indians.

As Tony Lastoria of Indians Baseball Insider points out, Johnson has the option of declining his assignment to the minor leagues and he could become a free agent, which would let the Indians off the hook for his contract if someone else signs him. If he does not, he should easily clear waivers and be assigned to Triple-A, where the Indians will be paying him more than $15 million over the next two years to help the Columbus Clippers win another championship.

Well that is a pretty aggressive move from a financial perspective! I guess it's cheaper than it would have been to DFA both Bourn and Swisher. Interesting!

TERRY PLUTO:
on December 19, 2015 at 9:31 AM, updated December 19, 2015 at 9:38 AM

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- From what I've learned, here is what happened between the Indians and Cincinnati in their trade talks for Reds third baseman Todd Frazier.

Here is how the Indians viewed the situation:

1. The Reds started with a request for Danny Salazar. And they stayed on Salazar for at least a month. The Indians had no intention of trading Salazar in a Frazier deal.

2. The issue is Frazier's contract. He will be paid $7.5 million in 2016. In 2017, he is arbitration eligible. That could mean a $12 million deal. If the Indians traded for him, it would be a two-year proposition. Frazier will hit free agency at the age of 32. He turns 30 in February. If Frazier keeps hitting 25-to-30 HR, his price tag will be massive.

3. Salazar can't be a free agent until after the 2020 season. He was 14-10 with a 3.25 ERA. He will be 26 on January 11 and is a very valuable commodity in a sport starving for effective starting pitchers under reasonable contracts.

4. The Reds then wanted closer Cody Allen and some prospects. The idea of adding Frazier is to contend for the playoffs. Trading Salazar or Allen would prevent that. Allen is the team's closer (34-of-38 in saved, 90 percent). He led the Majors with seven saves of more than one inning. The Tribe has no one on the roster to replace him as a closer. The Reds also wanted more than the 27-year-old Allen, who can't be a free agent until 2019.

5. The Indians preferred to trade prospects for Frazier. The Reds wanted to start with Brad Zimmer or Clint Frazier, the Tribe's top two outfield prospects. And then they wanted to dip into the pool of pitchers Mike Clevinger, Justus Sheffield and first baseman Bobby Bradley. They wanted Zimmer or Clint Frazier, along with two others.

6. The Indians were willing to talk about Jose Ramirez (the Reds wanted a middle infielder) and some of those other prospects -- but not Zimmer or Clint Frazier. The Tribe has been looking for outfielders so long, they didn't want to give up their two best outfield prospects for Todd Frazier. That's because Frazier would not likely to be with the team for more than two years.

7. The talks stalled over Zimmer/Clint Frazier. In the end, the Reds made a three-way deal with the Dodgers and the White Sox, with Frazier going to Chicago. The Indians thought Ramirez would be attractive to the Reds. He is only 23, a career .304 hitter in the minors who can play second base and shortstop.

8. The Reds really wanted second baseman Jose Peraza, a 21-year-old with the Dodgers. He batted .293 (.694 OPS) with 4 HR and 42 RBI in Class AAA last season. The Reds also picked up Class AAA outfielder Scott Schebler (.241, .732 OPS, 13 HR, 50 RBI) and Class AA infielder Brandon Nixon (.249, .647 OPS, 8 HR and 38 RBI). All those prospects came from the Dodgers. The Indians tried to get a three-team deal going for Frazier, but were unable to do so.

ABOUT THE REDS DEAL

Peraza was the key player in the deal for the Reds. He actually was with the Braves at the start of 2014, then was traded to the Dodgers in the middle of the season.

Baseball America's Ben Badler wrote:

"Peraza relies on two tools: hitting and speed. He has a short swing, quick hands and strong wrists, with the hand-eye coordination to put the barrel to the ball at a high rate. He hits to all fields and is adept at going the opposite way. Peraza's double-plus speed makes him a threat to steal 30 or more bases.

"(Peraza) He probably won't hit many home runs. Peraza swings at too many pitches, hurting his on-base percentage. The Braves shifted Peraza from shortstop to second base in 2014. He has above-average range and an average arm, but a funky throwing stroke ... Peraza lacks a high ceiling, but his bat-to-ball skills and wheels should make him a steady player in the middle of the diamond."

ESPN's David Schoenfield wrote:

"(Peraza) has a .302 career average in the minors, but doesn't walk and has no power... He stole 33 bases, but his value is going to rest in his ability to hit for average and defense. He's still very young -- doesn't turn 22 until April -- but I'm not sure the bat is ever going to provide much value at the major league level. The Reds could also move him back to shortstop, where he played earlier in his minor-league career, although the Reds will probably slot him at second.

"Schebler is a 25-year-old left-handed hitter who hit .241/.322/.410 at Oklahoma City... he's a backup outfielder at best. Dixon is a 24-year-old who hit well at Rancho Cucamonga, but everyone hits well there. He struggled after a promotion to Class AA and finished with 144 strikeouts and 28 walks. He didn't rank in MLB.com's top 30 Dodgers prospects. So from the Reds' perspective, Peraza has to develop to make this deal work for them."

ABOUT MIKE NAPOLI AND RAJAI DAVIS

1. Unless something changes, Mike Napoli and Rajai Davis may be the last significant additions to the Tribe in the off-season. They are talking about a few other things, but I have heard they are not major.

2. Napoli is 34 and an above average first baseman. He was one of three finalists for a Gold Glove. Not sure he's that good, based on some fielding ratings. But he is a major upgrade from Carlos Santana at first base. In

a fangraphs story praising the Indians for signing Napoli to a one-year, $7 million contract, Matthew Kory wrote: "One of the advantages of signing Napoli is that it removes Santana from first base. Santana is a fine hitter who has the bat and glove for DH, by which I mean that he's a butcher in the field."

3. Not sure about Santana being a "fine hitter" because he is so streaky, though he does have some power. But the point on the defense is true. The Tribe was shocked how Santana regressed at first base after playing at least at the big league average there in 2014. Santana doesn't like being the DH, but his decline in the field has led him to that job.

4. Napoli had a strange season. In 98 games with Boston, he batted .207 (.693 OPS) with 13 HR and 40 RBI. He was traded to Texas, then batted .295 (.908 OPS) with 5 HR and 10 RBI in the final 35 games of the season. Most of the year, he looked done at the age of 33. Then he got hot and teams became interested in the former catcher turned first baseman.

5. Texas let him go because they have Prince Fielder and Keith Moreland at first. They tried Naopoli in the outfield. Not a good idea.

6. In 2014, Napoli batted .248 (.789 OPS) with 17 HR and 55 RBI for Boston. That probably is the kind of production the Indians can expect from him. He hit 18 HR in 2015. Santana (19 HR) led the Tribe. Then came Michael Brantley (15). So Napoli is a power upgrade, especially as the Indians traded no one to sign him.

7. A big issue will be if the righty batter can hit right-handed pitching. In the last two seasons, he batted .191 (2015) and .230 (2014) vs. righties. He's a .285 hitter vs. lefties in those years.

8. I'm like many Tribe fans hoping the team would have added Todd Frazier or another veteran hitter of that caliber. Perhaps that still will happen. By signing Napoli and Davis, the Indians wanted to have some talent available in case these are the last meaningful moves of the off-season.

9. I've always liked Rajai Davis as an extra outfielder. He can run, play all three positions and he hits lefties (.296 career). He is 35, but coming off a decent season with Detroit (.258, .746 OPS, 8 HR, 30 RBI). He can still run as he had 11 triples and stole 18 bases.

10. Right now, the Tribe starting outfield (with Brantley recovering from shoulder surgery) is Lonnie Chisenhall in right, Abraham Almonte in center and Davis in left field. The extra outfielders are newly acquired Joey Butler and Collin Cowgill. Prospect Tyler Naquin will be given a shot to make the team. I plan to deal with the outfield in depth next weekend.

ABOUT CHRIS JOHNSON

I give the Indians credit for cutting Chris Johnson. They didn't think he could help them. Rather than try to squeeze something out of the $17.5 million left on his salary for the next two years, they let him go.

Things to know about Chris Johnson:

1. The Tribe had to take Johnson (and his contract) from the Braves in the trade for Nick Swisher and Michael Bourn. This was a combination of two teams wanting to dump bad contracts. The August deal saved the Tribe about $4 million in the long-run,

as I wrote when the trade

was made.

2. The Indians needed to add $15 million to that deal to make it work for Atlanta. They sent a $7.5 million check at the time of the trade, and they will send the Braves another $7.5 million check at some point in 2016.

3. The Indians saved some money because Bourn and Swisher had $38 million left on their contracts. It gets complicated, but the bottom line was the Indians wanted out ... out from under Bourn and Swisher ... and out from under Johnson, whose bat was very soft with a long, slow swing.

4. In 2013, Johnson batted .321 (.816 OPS) with 12 HR and 68 RBI for the Braves. That led to his big contract. Next came some injuries. He stopped hitting. His defense was never good at third base, and it deteriorated.

5. Between the Tribe and Braves, Johnson batted .255 (.624 OPS) with 3 HR and 18 RBI in 255 plate appearances. He walked only 10 times. He's 31 and perhaps he can bounce back. In 255 plate appearances with the Braves/Tribe, Johnson had only 11 doubles and 3 HR. His lack of power and run production combined with being mostly a first baseman/DH made the Tribe doubt he could help them.

6. I appreciate the fact that the front office of Chris Antonetii/Mike Chernoff decided not to keep Johnson on the roster simply because they have to pay him. I'd rather look at Jesus Aguilar than Johnson as an extra first baseman. The 25-year-old Aguilar did lead the Class AAA International League with 93 RBI. He batted .267 (.771 OPS) with 19 HR. He has struggled in brief trials with the Tribe (.192 in 52 at bats), but it's too soon to just write him off.

I understand the small market thing, but you certainly have to think back to a rival executive saying that the Tribe "valued their prospects too highly".

I get not dealing Salazar. But those other deals?

In fact, I would have traded Cody Allen. Relievers can be found.

POSTING ADVISORY - JUST A DRIVE BY TO DROP A FEW OPINIONS - DON'T GO AWAY HILLBILLY

UNDER THE "WHAT'S NEW-FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY-NO GUTS-NO GLORY" CATEGORY

It took about 5 hours or so to skim through all the posts. WoW! I just wanted to share a few thoughts starting with a couple of old articles from 2011 that I believe still applies today. Also, a recent article that probably defines my disappointment with this organization. I guess "disappointment" is a kind offering for what I really feel.

The first article really leads to the second both from "The Business of Sports"website:

13 Jul

Is Winning Everything?Posted by Russell Scibetti Published in Baseball, Ticket Sales

Today’s post is courtesy of guest blogger Dr. Kirk Wakefield and was originally published in Volume 7, Issue 1 of the Migala Report. The Migala Report was launched in October 2003 to create an educational and idea-sharing resource for sports executives pursuing revenue-generating concepts. For more information or to subscribe, visit http://www.MigalaReport.com.

Is winning everything? When it comes to fan attendance and setting ticket prices, how much does winning matter? There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence and exceptions people like to throw out to prove the point one way or the other. That’s what you do when you don’t really know. At least that’s what I do. But, since this is a research column, we thought we’d look at some data. And, who has more data than they know what to do with? Major League Baseball.

The real question isn’t really just about winning. We cannot look at winning and losing in isolation, because context matters. What about the economy? What if the team has a new stadium? What if the team has a star player approaching a career milestone? What if there are other franchises in the same area?

Within the context of the factors listed below, which do you think has had the most influence on a team’s attendance for the past decade (2000-2009) in Major League Baseball? Even though they mirror the previous decade, the results might surprise you.

Influence on Attendance------- Data Available
Winning-------- Current and previous season’s winning percentage
Star players------- Payroll of players for each team
Stadium quality------- Age of stadium
Ticket and concession prices----- Fan Cost Index (http://www.teammarketing.com)
The economy------- Annual per capita income for each MLB city
City population------- Population of Standard Metropolitan Area (SMA)
Direct competition------- Number of MLB and other pro franchises in SMA

When we include all of these factors together to predict annual attendance in MLB, we find that the stadium has the strongest effect, followed by star players, and then the winning percentage in the current season. Last season’s performance also has an influence on this year’s attendance. Statistical analysis shows that the order of the size of the effect on predicting attendance is as follows:

Stadium quality
Star players
Current season’s winning percentage
Last season’s winning percentage
Population-related factors (SMA population, number of MLB and other professional franchises)
Ticket and concession prices
The economy (per capita income)

The surprise may be that winning has less influence on attendance than the stadium and players, but also interesting is the fact that population-related factors and ticket/concession prices are positively related to attendance. Other economic studies have previously suggested that larger populations with more pro franchises hurt, not help, attendance in MLB. Further, because professional sports are more of a prestige good, higher ticket prices are associated with higher attendance. Also interesting is the fact that as much as we hear people blaming the economy, reduced earnings of consumers across MLB cities has a very minor effect. We’ll discuss each of these shortly, but let’s start with the strongest influence on attendance.

The Stadium. When analyzing the effect of the stadium, it’s important to account for the fact that vintage stadiums such as Fenway Park and Wrigley Field attract just as well as new stadiums. One of the reasons that the stadium is so important to baseball is the length of the season. With 81 home games, the potential amount of time spent at the game for season ticket holders is far greater than for basketball or hockey (41 home games), soccer, and, certainly, for football. Other research shows that the facility is still important for those sports, but not as much as for baseball.

The advantage of investing in the sportscape is that it has a known, certain effect on attendance for at least ten years. Investing in players and managers, while obviously important, produce less certain outcomes. Investing in individual star players, however, may be worth it.

Star players. The reason that star players have such a strong effect on attendance is because fans identify with individual players on the team as much as with the team. Fans build psychological bonds with star players that positively reinforce their own self images. From management’s perspective, this suggests that signing key players with attractive leadership qualities is a critical part of building attendance.

Winning. For those that thought that winning now is everything, apparently it comes in third. The results show that winning during the current season should attendance. However, winning is unlikely to have a lasting effect without a good stadium and star players. The Florida Marlins proved this twice following World Series wins in 1997 and 2003. Fellow Floridians in Tampa Bay have witnessed similar problems.

The results from the MLB data show that last season’s performance has almost as much influence on attendance as the current year’s performance. Season tickets are sold primarily on the basis of the hope offered by last year’s performance on the field. So, teams that win from year to year are likely to sustain or maintain attendance.

Taken together, putting together a string of winning seasons should increase attendance. The problem is that compared to investing in the stadium and star players, winning is uncontrollable. Of course, signing star players may help winning, but that’s also hard to predict. From a marketer’s perspective, you are better off promoting what you can control and deliver—and winning is not one of them. If you’d like to read about some classic collapses by teams that thought they’d be big winners, see David Schoenfield’s article on ESPN.com.

Population and competition. Economists have studied these same factors in multiple studies dating prior to this past decade and have always shown that larger populations in cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and the Bay area with multiple teams have negative effects on attendance. Theoretically, teams located in these cities face more indirect and direct competition that might lure fan spending from MLB attendance. I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but almost all of the teams in those cities (Yankees/Mets, Dodgers/ Angels, Cubs/White Sox, and Giants) have strong attendance. The only exception is Oakland. The stadium and lack of star players and winning explain why.

The reason these previous studies showed different results are likely due to two reasons. First, the introduction of AT&T Park in San Francisco and the repeated renovations to improve Cellular Field in Chicago have boosted attendance. It didn’t hurt that the White Sox won the World Series in 2005. Further, the new Citi Field will continue to help attendance for the Mets. Second, prior economic studies did not account for the fact that population size is correlated with having competing franchises in the same city and having multiple pro franchises across all sports. Statistically speaking, this causes errors in estimating attendance models that can produce misleading results.

Ticket and concession prices. The results show that teams with higher attendance have higher ticket and concession prices. We also conducted additional analysis that shows that you can closely predict next year’s prices with this year’s attendance in MLB. Increased demand for tickets of teams with good stadiums, star players, and winning teams in strong markets means higher prices. Put differently, teams with poor stadiums, no-name players, and losing teams are the ones that are forced to cut ticket prices.

The economy. For all the hand-wringing about the effects of the economy, we find that lower per capita income levels across MLB cities affect attendance, but much less so than the other factors we’ve discussed. In the end, the fan’s objection is not so much to price, but to the value offered by the team in terms of the stadium experience, the players on the team, and the performance on the field.

Dr. Kirk Wakefield is the Executive Director at Baylor University’s Center for Sports Sponsorship & Sales, and serves as editor of The Migala Report published by the Center.

<
<

Leading me to the second article from "The Business of Sports"website:

<
<

22 Jun

Interview with Ken Stefanov, CFO for the Indians Posted by Guest Blogger Published in Baseball, Economics and Finance

Today’s post is an excerpt from an interview with Ken Stefanov, CFO for the Indians, conducted by Peter Alpern from BusinessFinance (businessfinancemag.com).

Anguish isn’t just part of the Cleveland sports fan’s culture; it becomes part of its very identity, seemingly embedded in the city’s very DNA. It is this tidal force that franchises such as the Cleveland Indians, Browns and Cavaliers come up against each season.

Ken Stefanov, CFO for the Indians, has to combat this on two ends: providing the financial and organizational foundation to build a winning team on the field while addressing the sober economic reality of competing in a market that draws roughly a fifth of the annual revenue of the New York Yankees.

As the calendar turned to June in this, the Indians 111th season in the American League, the Indians have become baseball’s biggest secret, racing to the top of the Central Division. But that success hasn’t equated to the turnstiles: Less than half of the seats at Cleveland’s Progressive Field are full and season-ticket sales are at their lowest since the Indians moved into their current stadium in 1994.

Stefanov discussed with Business Finance how the Indians, with all the organization’s small-market challenges, is really not unlike any other corporation: financial rigor and strategic insight need to be tightly linked; uncertainty demands flexible strategies and the development of alternatives for growth.

Business Finance: From a financial perspective, tell me a little bit about the economic landscape you’re working with and how that translates on the field and running the business?

Ken Stefanov: The local economy, obviously, is quite different from the one we were operating in during the 1990s and it’s quite different from even five to 10 years ago. The competition isn’t just with the local sports teams, like the Cavs and Browns. We’re an entertainment business and people have options.

We work based off where the team is in relation to the business cycle. You ramp up, develop players and hopefully make a charge on top of the business cycle for competitiveness on the field. Then, the way the economics of baseball work is that you’ve got to be fiscally responsible and maybe take it down because players leave for bigger contracts you can’t afford. So you learn to deal with the business cycle, and you learn to budget accordingly.

BF: Where is the team within that business cycle right now?

KS: The state of the [Indians] franchise is good. I say that in light of the whole Dodgers situation. We have to be very realistic about where the team is at and what the market will bear. While it appears we may be in the midst of a recovery economically, we have some very serious concerns about the Northeast Ohio economy and where it’s going. Statistically, we’ve seen unemployment is down. It’s dropped to 9.3% in Northeast Ohio. Last year, it was up 1.5%. So there are some glimmers of hope. But it’s my job to be realistic and take the emotion out of the baseball side of things.

BF: Where do you see the role of finance contributing to the success of a ballclub?

KS: Well, for us, the big picture here is, as an organization, to win a World Series. We’re also here to make the fans—the focus of our attention—entertained. We want to reinvest in our ballpark, and we want to have a positive impact on our community. Those are our four goals.

To do that, though, we have to be creative, especially in finance. There may be very little difference between the finance departments at the Indians and the Yankees and a Fortune 500 company. But I think it’s my charge to make sure that the little difference that there is counts for a significant influence on the operations of the company.

BF: Within the confines of the finance department, how do you overcome that competitive disadvantage?

KS: We have to be that much sharper in our decision-making process day to day. We have to spend wisely. And it’s that pressure to be smarter that I think will make a smaller-market team successful or not successful.

One of the things we have made an investment in as a small-market team is in my IT department—which I oversee—we have developed our own proprietary software applications. We do not share these with other teams. One [application] focuses on scouting, another identifies metrics and trends and then another is a video coaching system for adjusting mechanics for the players.

This is where small-market teams really have to separate themselves. Maybe the Yankees have a comparable system, and maybe they don’t. But because our margin is so thin, we have to excel in other areas because we’ll never win the outbidding game.

To continue reading the full interview, visit http://www.businessfinancemag.com. Thanks again to Peter Alpern for sharing this interview with us!

<
<

This is where small-market teams really have to separate themselves. Maybe the Yankees have a comparable system, and maybe they don’t. But because our margin is so thin, we have to excel in other areas because we’ll never win the outbidding game.

[Sorry Ken! I have to strongly disagree on this one.

You can sign Nick Swisher to a four-year, $56 million contract that reportedly included a fifth year vesting option worth $14 million, making the total contract worth $70 million ($17.5 mil/yr) but you can't outbid Oakland for Yoenis Cespedes who signed a 4 year deal for $36 mil ($9 mil/yr) ?!?!?!

You can sign Michael Bourn to a four-yea, $48 million contract that reportedly included a vesting option worth $12 million for the 2017 season worth $60 million ($15.0 mil/yr) but you can't outbid the Dodgers for Yasiel Puig who signed a 7 year deal for $42 mil ($6.0 mil/yr) ?!?!?!

Now you are tentatively negotiating with the Cubs on dealing one of our top 4 rotation pitchers for a package that includes Jorge Soler who signed a 9 year contract worth $30 million ($3.5mil/yr). Are you kidding me? We couldn't outbid the Cubs on a $3 mil/yr deal ?!?!?!

I use Cespedes, Puig, and Soler as examples.

I spent a lot of time in the winter ball folder "scouting" Cuban baseball players. Why? Because these players compete in international tournaments, the classic, the Olympics (when baseball was still a sport), and their own Series Nationale (their Professional Baseball League) as well as the Series del Caribe ( they were re-instated in 2014). When these player come to America, they are major league ready. Those that are not spend 1-2 years at the minor league level. These players are "investments" !!!! I did the same for players along the Pacific Rim. I considered them "investments" also.

We can afford to pay players like Johnson to not play !! Things within the organization have to change. It seems that no matter how things change, they still remain the same.]

<
<

Finally, an article on Todd Frazier which I whole heartedly agree with. I think Graydon Fox hit the nail right square on the head !
Should the Cleveland Indians have bitten the bullet on Todd Frazier?

Graydon Fox

The IBI's Graydon Fox ponders whether the Indians should have gone the extra mile and paid the price to trade for Todd Frazier.

There is no question that Mike Napoli and Rajai Davis make the Cleveland Indians a better team in 2016. These are helpful additions to the teams’ current roster but I only see them as marginal improvements. At ages 34 and 35 respectively, Napoli and Davis cannot be seen as major impact players. The Indians smartly signed each of these players to only one year deals.

Napoli is coming off a season where he hit just .224 with 20 doubles, 18 home runs, 50 RBI and a .734 OPS. He struck out in over a fourth of his plate appearances in 2015. Davis hit .258 with 16 doubles, 11 triples, 8 home runs, and a .746 OPS. He walked only 22 times in 370 plate appearances. Davis, known for his speed, stole 18 bases in 2015 and were his lowest total since 2007. Both players hit left-handed pitching very well and grade out as plus defenders at their respective positions.

Without any additional major acquisitions are the Indians really built to win a World Series in 2016?

I’m still holding out hope that the Indians’ front office has at least one major move up their sleeve. The Indians were known to have been heavily courting Cincinnati Reds all-star third baseman Todd Frazier for weeks. Frazier was seemingly the perfect fit for the Tribe: A right-handed power bat with a modest salary capable of anchoring the middle of a lineup. On Wednesday afternoon Frazier was dealt to AL Central rival Chicago in a three team trade.

According to longtime Indians beat writer Paul Hoynes, the Reds wanted either Danny Salazar or one of Bradley Zimmer/Clint Frazier plus two of Bobby Bradley, Justus Sheffield, Mike Clevinger or Juan Hillman in return for Frazier. That would certainly be an extremely steep price to pay potentially mortgaging the future for just two years of Todd Frazier.

The question becomes, “Should the Indians have bitten the bullet and paid the steep price that Cincinnati was demanding?”

Indians fans are quick to remember the likes of Andy Marte, Matt Laporta, Trevor Crowe and many others who were once regarded as highly touted prospects. For every Francisco Lindor there are ten first round picks that didn’t make it.

Many of the Indians best core players are signed to long term deals but most of them are in their prime right now. I would argue that the Indians best opportunity to win is within the next three years.

Michael Brantley is under contract through 2018 then will become an unrestricted free agent. If Brantley continues his excellent performance he will easily command over $100 million on the open market. Many fans want to rag on Carlos Santana, but along with Brantley, he’s been one of the Indians’ best run producers for the last five seasons. Santana will be an unrestricted free agent after the 2017 season. So three years from now the Indians will likely be without their top two run producers.

Going into the offseason, Tribe second baseman Jason Kipnis was quoted as saying, “We're not far away. We've definitely got a good foundation here, we've definitely got good players and now, we could be just one piece away, one bat away, one pitcher away and I think it'll be important for us to go out and get it."

To land somewhere in last year’s $85 million payroll range it was estimated that the Indians had about $15 million to spend this offseason to improve the roster. Barring any major trades, the Napoli and Davis signings have eaten up the large majority of that. Are the Indians now good enough as is to win a World Series in 2016? I don’t believe so.

ersonally, I would have had no problem parting with one of Zimmer/Frazier in any deal with the Reds. I think both are excellent prospects and have the potential to be all-stars in the major leagues. With the Indians stellar pitching staff, they are built to win in 2016. They still lack that proven power hitting run producer in the middle of the lineup. I believe Todd Frazier could have turned the Indians into legitimate title contenders for the next two seasons under which he would have been controlled.

Even with the addition of Napoli, I still don’t see anybody on the current roster capable of hitting in the cleanup spot. I think this will continue to be a glaring weakness for the team until the front office addresses it or one of their star prospects eventually grows into the role.

I certainly hope that Bradley Zimmer and Clint Frazier evolve into excellent players for years to come, but did the Indians make the right move trusting in the strength of their farm system? Only time will tell.

<
<

WoW! I guess I got my monies worth for being MIA these past months.

As usual, Joe lives in a fantasy world where every free agent signs with the team that offers one more dollar or an additional million dollars.

Does not work that way.

As to you scouting Winter Ball ? Really.........................

Hello joez and welcome back.

Thanks for posting all the articles.

AS I posted above, I agree with the Frazier article. To start, I totally understand them not trading Salazar for Frazier.

But any of those other options, the Cody Allen one, the prospects one etc I would have done.

I really think they are overvaluing their prospects, as they have been accused of.

Let me end by saying it's still December 19 so the story is not over yet. They obviously may have other plans for Salazar as far as trades go. And in the end, I may end up PREFERRING what they do to the Frazier option.

So we'll see. But based on current conditions, I wish they had traded for Frazier.

Great to see you posting after such a long absence, JOE!
Hope you will rekindle your interest in the Tribe, and become more than a "drive-by" poster!
As I've said, I also wish the Indians had dealt those suspect prospects for Frazier.

All propects are suspects.

Like the article said, for every Lindor there's a ton of Alex Whites and Drew Pomeranz's and Andy Martes.

But then again, it's the scouting dept. job to sort that out. You can't tell me they think all those guys are Lindors.

Not all prospects are Lindor. Right now only position player in our system I would equate to Lindor is Zimmer. Not sure what his ceiling is but I'm pretty darn sure his floor is an every day solid major leaguer. So I would not trade him, cause we need help in the OF. But every other guy should have been available for Frazier or other current major league stars.

The Frazier we already have is more of an unknown than Zimmer, certainly; could become a bigger star than Brad or could flop. Bradley is the other position player with a very ceiling, but Class A power hitters have a lot to prove before they hit the bigs. I still like Francisco Mejia as a solid catcher in a few years, but again highly uncertain.

he Cleveland Indians have signed left-handed relief pitcher Tom Gorzelanny to a minor league deal, as confirmed through Twitter. This is the second lefty specialist the Indian shave signed in the past week as they attempt to even out their bullpen, which currently lacks a dominant southpaw. Last Thursday, the Indians also agreed to a minor league deal with Joe Thatcher. Both signings were made official today.

Gorzelanny is a 33-year-old reliever who has some experience is as a starter, but has not done so since 2013. His role on the Indians, should he make the roster out of Spring Training, will be a veteran lefty presence out of the pen. Over a whopping 880.2 career innings, Gorzelanny carries a 4.34 ERA, a 4.36 FIP, and an 18.4 percent strikeout rate.

With the additions of Gorzelanny and Thatcher, the Indians will have a legitimate battle coming out of Spring Training to take the place of ex-Indians reliever Nick Hagadone, who recently joined the Milwaukee Brewers organization with a minor league contract. Unless the Tribe makes some kind of trade or other signing, one of these two should make the roster out of Spring Training to shore up the bullpen.

This is old, old news but just ran across it while searching to see if the Braves have had the guts to do with Swisher what we did with Johnson. But it's kind of funny and its the dead of winter here in Northern Ohio [55 degrees and sunny for the climate-change deniers]


A number of Cleveland Indians players weren't broken up seeing Nick Swisher traded away. No one is quoted on the record, but Swisher having worn out his welcome to some extent is one of many interesting bits of information in a piece by Cleveland.com's Zack Meisel who writes, "(Swisher's) relentless enthusiasm wore on members of the clubhouse..."

Swisher spent most of this season on the DL (and hit just .198 with 2 home runs in 11 plate appearances when he was active), and was away from the team for stretches, including the last couple weeks before he was dealt to Atlanta, but he was with the team a lot, going on a number of road trips in addition to being there for most games in Cleveland.

When Swisher and Michael Bourn signed with the Tribe ahead of the 2013 season, their large paychecks and veteran status may have given them something of a different position on the team. Swisher certainly embraced the idea of being a leader, and coming off a terrible 2012 season, his energy may have provided a boost. Certainly he deserves credit for having had a great September that year, playing a huge part in the team's charge to the postseason.

His production collapsed in 2014 though, and at some point his ceaseless enthusiasm and efforts to motivate may have transformed into an irritant to at least some of his teammates. That isn't to say that leadership can only come from productive players, but Swisher's particular brand of leadership may have been abrasive coming from a guy who wasn't pulling his own weight.

Maybe a little too cheerful for someone whiffing all the time.



Or injured.

Does this change things and how? When we DFA'd him we were paying him to play in the minors , Now with outright release we pay him for doing nothing? If someone signs him do we get off the hook or does he get 2 salaries? Anybody know?

Indians Release Chris Johnson

By Zach Links | December 22, 2015 at 2:59pm CST


The Indians have released Chris Johnson, per the club’s transactions page at MLB.com. Johnson was designated for assignment earlier this month.

Johnson, 31, has a career slash line of .280/.316/.411 across seven big league seasons. He first arrived in Atlanta prior to the 2013 season as a part of the Justin Upton deal. This year, he was shipped to the Indians in a waiver trade that saw Michael Bourn,Nick Swisher, and cash considerations go to the Braves.

Johnson signed a three-year, $23.5MM contract prior to the 2014 season. Then 29 years old, Johnson was coming off a career year in which he batted .321/.358/.457 with 12 homers. However, much of that production was the result of a .394 batting average on balls in play, and his overall numbers have come back down to Earth as his BABIP regressed to his career norm. He hasn’t looked like an ~$8MM player as of late, but he could be a useful platoon bat given his success against lefties.

With Johnson out of DFA limbo, there are now only five players left hanging, according to the DFA Tracker: Rey Navarro (Orioles), Yoervis Medina (Cubs), Danny Reynolds (Dodgers), Johnny Monell (Mets), and Josmil Pinto (Padres).