The Unfinished Compendium

Please read the comments: Part 1

Background

As of February 27, there are no comments on any cleveland.com (the web home of The Cleveland Plain Dealer) article, ending a feature that’s been there for at least 20 years. It may surprise you to hear this, but I view this as a horrible move for both the site itself and Northeast Ohio readers.

Before I get into any further commentary, here’s how Chris Quinn, editor of cleveland.com, justified the move (emphasis added):

 In cleveland.com’s 20-plus year history, comments have been our biggest flashpoint. Screening comments for personal attacks, profanity or off-topic remarks has become an increasing drain on newsroom resources. Despite the invested time, money and effort, we have failed to dampen pervasive meanness. It’s such a shame. We genuinely wanted the platform to work, because people have so few places to meet others with different viewpoints who want to discuss the topics we cover.

As a result, beginning Thursday, we will eliminate the ability to freely comment on every story on cleveland.com and will remove comments from old posts. We want our site to contribute to the greater good. It’s why we’ve cut way back on using mug shots that perpetuate racial stereotypes. It’s why we have been a leader with our Right to be Forgotten policy, in which we remove names from dated stories about embarrassing things people have done. Not hosting a place where a tiny number of people spew caustic nonsense is our latest step to make for a better Greater Cleveland community. 

Add this example to a growing number of businesses that clothe what should be a simple cost-savings move behind a robe of piety: despite the other moralistic reasons thrown in, I think that this was done purely to save money by the company that owns cleveland.com, especially given that the archived comments are going away as well. Don’t believe me? Look at this article from another Advance Publications property (al.com) posted on the same day (February 25):

 Beginning Thursday, Feb. 27, 2020 at 5 a.m. CST, we’ll eliminate website comments, as have many other sites in our company and as have other news sites over the past decade.

Website comments have been replaced by better, more constructive spaces for meaningful engagement. And we want to continue conversations with you in those places. 

How about this one, from mlive.com (February 18)…

 I’m writing today to announce a significant change to the MLive.com website experience: At 6 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 20, we will permanently close the comment sections on our articles.

We’re not doing this lightly. Comment sections have been a fixture at the end of articles on MLive since the early 2000s, and there was a time that they were a vital part of our efforts to engage you in the work we are doing. 

[snip]

 But comment sections leave an out-sized impression. Conversations routinely go off-topic, the tone can get uncivil or even nasty, and our moderators (and a vendor our company hires) [emphasis added - Ryan] stay busy around the clock policing the conversations, addressing flagged comments and even going so far as to ban some users. 

and this one, from nj.com (February 25)…

 On Thursday morning, NJ.com will remove comments from the site. Archived stories also will have comments eliminated. We understand this will be upsetting to some of the people who read and post comments, but our editors will continue working to find the best ways to engage and hear your voice. 

syracuse.com (February 25)….

 On Thursday morning, we are joining many other media outlets in retiring our comments section. 

silive.com (February 17)….

 The Advance and SILive will stop hosting comments on our website’s articles Thursday. The move is in response to our readers’ steadily growing preference to engage with our content on social media; the proliferation of other communication options; and an increase in personal-attack comments that required around-the-clock moderation. 

…and I could go on. Every Advance Publication that I checked has closed its comments section as well, which looked to be a plugin from a third-party vendor. Perhaps the contract with that vendor was up, and that prompted the move. I should also mention that Advance Publications is the majority shareholder of Reddit, which is going to be one of the places readers are going to go to express their opinions on a news article. In fact, while searching for the various announcements, I came across a new subreddit, r/ Syracuse_Comments, set up explicitly to comment on syracuse.com articles now that you can’t do so on the site itself.

Commentary

I have a special insight into comments sections, as I was the managing editor and later moderator at Let’s Go Tribe, SB Nation’s Indians blog, for over a decade, a platform that grew into what it is today precisely because of the user community. And before that, I spent many hours on various message boards such as the ESPN.com Indians board, so I’ve also seen many examples of what not to do when allowing reader commentary. Those bad experiences on other boards influenced how I moderated Let’s Go Tribe.

So when I read the article explaining why comments were being shut down, I shook my head in disgust. Yes, the cleveland.com comments sections have been a running joke for decades now, but is that the fault of the trolls and bad actors or the people running the site? Let me address the various justifications separately.

Argument 1: Moderating comments was costly in terms of both time and money. This is the one that makes the most sense, so let’s start here. I will readily admit that adequately moderating comments is not a quick or an easy job, but it is possible. Let me walk you through how we did it at LGT:

Not many people commented at Let’s Go Tribe in the beginning, so it was easy to manage. However, once the site began to get some traction (thanks in part, ironically, to the state of the cleveland.com Tribe page), we got the same issues that many other sites have: comment spam, off-topic content (especially politics), name-calling, general trolling (“your team sucks, haha”). So Jay and I put together a list of ground rules; in other words, these were the categories of user comments or actions that would be moderated (original version, 1-25-2006):

1. Political talk. This is a baseball blog, not a political one. Fans who read this blog come from all points in the political spectrum, but have one thing in common: they are Indians fans. That's the community we want to cultivate here at Let's Go Tribe: a group of diverse individuals who love talking to each other about the Indians and baseball. Political debate is not something we want to bring into this community. 
2.Personal attacks. In other words, steer clear of "you're an idiot" or "you suck." A good rule of thumb: attack a poster's ideas, not the poster himself/herself. We want this place to be somewhere where people can debate various topics with civility, not a demolition derby.
3.Trolling/flame-baiting. Trolling shouldn't be too much of an issue now that registration is required, but I wish to avoid flame-baiting as well. Posting incendiary content in order to get a reaction out of other posters will not be tolerated. 
4. Profanity. Avoid the Seven Dirty Words, and you'll be fine.
5. Snobbery. Users are not required to like Arrested Development — neither the TV show nor the hip hop group — and should not be badgered about it.
6. Comment Spam. This is dumping a bunch of links into a comment in order to boost a site's search engine ranking. First offense: banishment.
7. Sock Puppets. These are users with multiple accounts. This hasn't happened all that often, but we'd like to nip this in the bud before it becomes a bigger problem. If you've forgotten your password, e-mail us and we'll send you a reminder. Don't create a new account.
8. Blatant Site Pimping. Don't miscontrue the title; we have absolutely no problem with users mentioning their sites/blogs here, and in particular posting a FanShot with a link to one of your articles. The larger the Indians blogoshere, the better for all involved. But please do not post content verbatim from your website or blog.  Post a proper FanShot link, and you'll get traffic. If you've started a new blog and would like to be added to our Indians Blogroll, please e-mail either of us.  Provided the blog (a) is relevant, (b) has original content, and (c) is updated regularly, we'll be happy to include it.
9. Please do not make your first contribution a FanPost. 
We feel that it is best to start commenting before posting original content, if only to get a better idea as to what this site is about. 

Other than the somewhat nebulous term “trolling/flame-baiting”, which makes sense in terms of a baseball site, the rest of the rules are clear and understandable to any reader. We were specific to the point where in most cases the decision to moderate was cut and dry, no matter who was doing the moderation. There were, as always, a few cases that skirted the line (those were the calls that ultimately I had to make), but the line didn’t move. I ended up banning perhaps two or three regular readers over the decade-plus I moderated LGT, which I think is indicative of how clear the rules were. We had tools, even in the infancy of the site, to get rid of troublemakers, especially those who would try to get around banishment.

In contrast, some of the community rules at cleveland.com are broad and mean different things to different people:

(1) Differences of opinion make for great discussion, but please do not abuse other users through name calling or ad hominem attacks. 

(2) Do not post dehumanizing material. This means content that is racist, obscene, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic or bigoted against individuals or groups. Please help the community by flagging such content. 

(3) Please use common sense. Do not violate anyone's privacy by posting identifying information or encouraging anyone else to do so. Do not encourage violence or criminal activity. 

(4) Please stay on topic. Posts that criticize moderation or distract from the article's topic by introducing unrelated hot-button topics may be removed. 

(5) Please be thoughtful. Comments that negatively characterize broad groups of people may be removed. Such assertions, which may feel satisfying to write, are unlikely to change anyone's mind and make it significantly more difficult to have a productive discussion. 

(6) Ask: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? 

I can now see why it was difficult to moderate the site with these guidelines. Numbers 1, 3, and 4 are straight-forward, but Numbers 2, 5, and 6 make practically any comment eligible for moderation, depending on the point of view of the moderator. In today’s society we are not only communicating with different vocabularies, but are using different definitions of the words that we do share. I think one of the major factors in the failure of modern sites (including social media sites) to moderate content without getting one group or another angry is that the terminology is too broad and open to interpretation. What’s “obscene” or “thoughtful” or an “ism” to one person may not have the same connotation to another.

However, putting together a list of rules is the easy part; it’s the enforcement of them that takes most of the effort. That means consistent and prompt moderation. To get more specific, that means reading (not just scanning for problems) as many comments as you can every single day, not only so you can anticipate any issues but also so you get a sense of the individual commenters as well as much-needed feedback on the original content (more on this in a later post). If you understand the interpersonal dynamics between individual commenters, you will be better able to address potential issues before they flare up into actual moderation (as in deleting a comment or banning a commenter). I’d often defuse a situation in the comments section before I had to delete a comment. Creating a “comments culture” is a slow and at times painful process, but once you get some momentum going the site began to police itself without much need for action from me.

Now, I understand that there’s a difference in scale between moderating a niche sports site and regional news site, both in terms of volume and in terms of content. I addressed political comments (which are usually the most heated in any type of forum) at LGT by simply deleting them, while a decent portion of cleveland.com’s content is purely political in nature, so they couldn’t do that. But even the non-political sections of cleveland.com had issues, so it wasn’t just the type of content.

With a better approach and a different understanding of the relationship between the publisher and the readers, it could have worked out. It seems, based on some references in the cleveland.com article and the comments (which unfortunately were deleted along with the rest of the comment archives), as if all the moderation was the responsibility of one person, with some automated assistance from the third-party comments platform. If instead, for instance, there was a Local News moderator, a Sports moderator, etc, and that moderator interacted with the commenters, being available to answer questions in a transparent way, and meanwhile providing his/her content manager with feedback from the readers, then it could have justified the expense of having those employees on staff. Paul Hoynes, the Indians beat reporter, would regularly interact in the comments section in his articles to answer a question or acknowledge a correction, and that was the type of interaction that should have been the norm in the other sections of the site.

“But,” you might say, “the newspaper/web news industry is contracting, so they just can’t afford to have all those section moderators on staff.” Which I agree with, in the present state of the industry. But comments on cleveland.com have been around in one form or another since at least the turn of the century, well before any appreciable decline had started to become apparent. The comments section has been mismanaged from the beginning; if it had been, it would have been much easier to maintain, as a good commenter culture, once it is established, can often on its own enforce the rules before a moderator even has to act, much like the players in the baseball clubhouse can diffuse a problem before the manager has to intervene.

Argument 2: Only a small number of readers actually commented.

This was a consistent point in almost every one of the announcements, but that’s missing the larger picture. A small number of people will comment on any platform, including well-run ones. There are always going to be way more lurkers than participants, for a number of reasons. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t an interest in the comments section. Let’s Go Tribe is the only comments section I participate in, but I do read the comments (if there is one) on practically every other site I visit. In fact, an active comments section will draw more readers to your site, and more often. Readers may be drawn to a site initially by the articles, but they’ll stick out to read the reactions to the articles. One of the running jokes at LGT was that no one read the articles, and there’s a kernel of truth in there.

Most articles have a specific point of view, whether you are talking about baseball, movies, or politics, and often a comment will take the other point of view in response. Or perhaps it will point out an incorrect fact that a reader should know about, or provide some interesting content on its own. When done correctly, a comments section can be just as valuable to the site as the original article, and all the site has to do is to make it available. I think, as a result of this move, all the Advanced Publishing sites are going to see a much larger drop in traffic than just the small percentage that actually commented.

One thing to keep in mind: those that do take the time and gather the courage to comment are the ones that care the most about that article. Now that may not represent the average opinion, but you can at least learn what a portion of the reader’s opinions are and tailor your future content to take into account the concerns raised, even if only to refute them. Speaking of which….

Argument 3: There are other venues to publicly express your opinion, like Twitter and Facebook

This argument is true on its face. But, if removing on-site comments is truly about saving money, I think that the Advance Publications network will give back those savings because of the lost revenue. You can’t monetize comments that are on other platforms. In other words, Facebook and Twitter are not going to pay cleveland.com for comments left on those platforms. And let’s face it, many people on those social media platforms never click through to the site, instead feeling content to comment solely based on the headline and snippet available on that social media platform. Assuming this site still continues to operate on an ad-based model, the best way to keep the lights on is to keep people viewing your site, and one way to do that is to entice people to come back multiple times to see what the public has to say about an article.

By pushing feedback away from the original site itself, it allows the site owners to better control the messaging. For example, if an opinion piece (and given the state of the media today, what isn’t an opinion piece) is responded to only on Twitter or Facebook or Reddit, only a small fraction of the readers will know about it. It ceases to become anything resembling a “conversation,” with the points quarantined away from any counter-points.

Yes, the traditional letters to the editor and a texting program are going to be used as feedback, but those either depend on the editors allowing them to be published or will never be published at all. Maybe the editors at cleveland.com think this is a feature, not a bug.

(As this post is already getting ridiculously long, I’m going to stop here for now.)

Indians Announce Hernandez signing, Designates Haase for Assignment

It’s official now: the Indians have signed free agent second baseman Cesar Hernandez to a one-year contract worth $6.25M:

 The Tribe officially announced on Sunday that it has signed César Hernández to a one-year deal. A source told MLB.com's Jon Paul Morosi earlier this week that Hernández's contract is worth $6.25 million, though the club has not confirmed the value. To make room on their 40-man roster, the Indians designated catcher Eric Haase for assignment. 

Hernandez was one of the better second base options available this winter; Fangraphs (Steamer) projects him to be worth 2.1 fWAR next year, though not significantly ahead of a number of other second sackers that were out there (Jonathan Villar, Brian Dozier, Jonathan Schoop, the list goes on). One of the reasons why I think the Indians got away with a one-year deal is that there were so many decent players available, and still are.

Hernandez has over five years of service time (the Phillies non-tendered him rather than pay him a projected $11M in his last year of arbitration), so he’s going to be a free agent after the 2020 season. That should suit the Indians just fine, as long as either Christian Arroyo or Yu Chang make some strides this season. At worst Hernandez gives the Indians a stable placeholder while they figure their future at the position; he’s appeared in at least 155 games in three of the last four seasons, and has been at least adequate offensively (for the position). 2019 was his worst season at the plate since becoming a full-time player, but repeating that campaign (91 OPS+) would be fine, assuming his glove remains in form.

I was somewhat surprised that the Indians designated Eric Haase this early in the offseason. Haase still has an option left, and after Kevin Plawecki was let go, was set to be the first catcher up in case of injury to either Roberto Perez or Sandy Leon. Maybe the Indians really liked Beau Taylor, the first minor-league signing of the winter, as their primary AAA catcher, and had soured on Haase’s future at the position, but I didn’t see the rush to make the call now. I had figured a more likely candidate for DFA would have been infielder Andrew Velazquez, who was lower on the depth chart (behind Arroyo, Chang, and even the re-signed Mike Freeman).

Now to address the elephant in the room: does this signing indicate that the Indians aren’t trading Francisco Lindor this winter? I would love to say yes, given that Ken Rosenthal was reporting the weekend before Christmas that the Indians were taking everyone’s last and best offers, but until I hear something definitive from the Cleveland front office, I’m still somewhat concerned. Not as concerned as before the Hernandez signing, though.

The other nagging question of the offseason remains as well: what exactly do the Indians have left to spend? Second base was the only spot the team was guaranteed to fill, but I see at least two more roles that the team can upgrade. Another outfielder would do wonders for the lineup, particularly with Tyler Naquin out until at least May. The Indians have been musing about using Franmil Reyes in the outfield regularly, but then that would leave the DH spot unmanned, and would weaken the overall defense. Better to grab a Marcel Ozuna, Starling Marte, or even bring back Yasiel Puig than placing your trust in Jake Bauers, Bradley Zimmer, or Daniel Johnson as everyday players. If any one of that trio breaks out, then that’s a great problem to have, but as we learned last year, banking on a breakout can also blow up in your face.

Link to live file (OneDrive)

An end is near

I guess my wish for clarity was granted:

According to Ken Rosenthal, the Indians have asked teams for their “best and final offers” for Francisco Lindor, and will presumably make a decision on whether to trade him this weekend.

The Indians have yet to make a significant addition this winter (beyond Sandy Leon), and free agents are being taken off the board rapidly. In my opinion that’s because of the Lindor trade discussions, as the roster needs after a Lindor trade may be completely different from the roster needs now. If, for instance, they receive a major-league infielder and outfielder for Lindor, then obviously that changes their free agent or trade targets over the rest of the winter.

This artificial deadline also helps on the public relations front. If the right offer doesn’t materialize, the Indians can then declare that Lindor will not be traded this winter, ending the speculation and uncertainty. In the Rosenthal video above, he mentions that one executive didn’t understand why the Indians wouldn’t just wait until later in the offseason to trade him. That may be true if the Indians were trying to just maximize the return on Lindor, but there are downsides to doing that. If the Indians did absolutely nothing except talk to teams about trading their franchise player until January, what do you think that would do to the season-ticket base, or more broadly, the fanbase’s opinion of the team?

I think the Indians should hold on to Lindor for another season, even if it means they don’t maximize their return on him. As I mentioned yesterday, the farm system is set up well for the post-Lindor era; this is not the same situation as in 2008 and 2009, in which the core was approaching free agency and there was nothing in the farm system to replace them. I actually wouldn’t have a problem with the Indians holding on to Lindor through the 2021 and just getting the compensatory draft pick after he leaves via free agency if it came to that.

That being said, I still have no idea what will happen. The Indians seem to be sticking to their high trade demands (the Mets apparently balked when the Indians demanded Jeff McNeil), but maybe someone will blink and give the Indians at least two core players for Lindor. Or maybe everyone stands their ground. Either way, we might know by the time the Browns take the field this Sunday.

Uncertain Times

An uncertain situation seems to bring out the worst in us. In a lot of cases it’s better to be dealing with a bad known than an unknown, because when you don’t know what’s going to happen, you can’t do anything except worry and fret.

In the aftermath of the Kluber trade, and with a different Lindor trade rumor seemingly popping up daily, it is easy to get caught up in the whirlwind of possibilities, especially the bad ones. The rumor ecosystem thrives on our need to have any kind of news, even if it’s garbled or obscure.

In these situations, the best you can hope for is to cling to the few pieces of hard evidence that we have. It’s obvious that the Indians have and are continuing to talk to teams about Lindor, both from reputable sources, and from Antonetti/Chernoff interviews. For example, in this post-Kluber trade interview, Chernoff reiterates that he expects Lindor to be in the Tribe lineup on Opening Day, but mentioned that teams were interested in him (2:05 on the video).

Lindor’s status puts the Indians in a quandry. On the one hand, keeping him is going to give the team the best chance to play for a championship this season, because a 6-win player at any position, never mind a shortstop, is a weapon that few teams have. On the other, this winter might be the last best chance to maximize the return on him. Lindor has made it crystal clear that he is going to become a free agent after the 2021 season, and if you have any sense of recent Indians history, you know what’s going to be the result of that. If the Indians wait until after the 2020 season, they’ll be in a similar situation that the Red Sox are in with Mookie Betts, as Ken Rosenthal notes:

Thus all the rumors of trade talks from several teams now, indicative of the Indians exploring their options. The more I think about the situation, the more I tend to believe that the Indians are going to see exactly what the trade market is for Lindor first before making any other moves, therefore the trade explorations have to have a finite ending soon. Based on what the Indians were demanding from the Dodgers (Gavin Lux, who made his MLB debut late last season), the Indians still fashion themselves a contender (the return for Corey Kluber was two major-league players rather than prospects seems to back this up), so if they wait too much longer, many of the targets in free agent will be off the board. But their needs may be different if they manage a blockbuster Lindor deal than if they just hang onto him.

This brings me to the other uncertainty: what exactly will the Indians be spending this winter? If the budget is last year’s ending payroll ($124M), they will have about $30M to spend, and could be a contender to sign an outfielder like Marcell Ozuna, along with a second baseman and a reliever. If it’s closer to $15M of room ($110M), they’ll just stick to the second baseman, maybe a reliever, and that’s it. What exactly is the payroll level that ownership is comfortable staying at? None of us knows.

The organization has done an admirable job in preparing for the next iteration of the Indians, the post-Lindor Era, if you will, as the strength of the farm system are players who will be ready in 2021-22. The Indians should not have to undergo the painful rebuilds that teams like the Tigers, Orioles, and Royals are enduring right now. They also do not have many long-term contracts that will hamper them. So there are ways they can add talent without jeopardizing either the farm system or future payrolls. The ghosts of the Swisher and Bourne contracts may haunt the dreams of Antonetti and Chernoff, but there are players out there who will not demand those type of deals (Ozuna, Puig), or even trade targets with higher but short-term contracts (Starling Marte).

But for now, we wait. I for one will try to busy myself doing other things* until there’s more clarity, because spending more time in this stew of uncertainty is going to drive me batty.

*Maybe not watching the Star Wars movie, if the initial reviews are anything to go by.

Transaction Analysis: Indians trade Corey Kluber

Traded RHP Corey Kluber to the Texas Rangers for RHP Emmanuel Clase and OF Delino DeShields

Designated IF Mike Freeman for Assignment

It is difficult to be objective about a trade involving Corey Kluber, regardless of the return. He’s one of the 10 best pitchers in franchise history, certainly the best since Sam McDowell (who last pitched for the Indians in 1971). He won 2 AL Cy Young Awards, and nearly pitched the Indians to a championship in 2016. His rise from obscurity in 2013 heralded the beginning of a seven-year run of competitiveness, including four playoff appearances.

2019 was a lost season for Kluber. He had started out poorly, which has happened in the past, but unlike previous years, he didn’t have a chance to warm up with the weather. On May 1st, a line drive caught him on his pitching arm, fracturing his ulna. He would make some rehab starts in late August, but an oblique strain ended any hope of him pitching the rest of the season.

The Indians would pick up his $17.5M option after the season, and it appeared that they would either try to trade him this winter or bank on him returning to form in 2020. The Indians had depth in the rotation, so it made sense to try to use that depth to improve other areas of the club.

When Gerrit Cole and Stephen Strasburg signed record-breaking contracts, both in terms of AAV (Average Annual Value) and length, I assumed that if anything the Indians would be in a position of strength. Kluber’s $18.5M salary (with a projected 3.4 fWAR) seemed downright reasonable compared to any of the starters left on the market, even considering his injury-marred 2019 campaign.

So when the news hit that Kluber was being traded to the Texas Rangers, my first thought was that the Indians had in fact extracted a great return. After all, Kluber had been mentioned in connection with several other teams in recent days (Dodgers and Angels, just to name the two most prominent), and I figured that the Indians had played all the contenders against each other. If the deal was anything like the Trevor Bauer trade last July, the Indians would be getting at least a couple “win-now” players plus several good prospects.

Then Ken Rosenthal tweeted this:

I thought: “huh, I guess the return is going to be mostly prospects.” Especially considering this next tweet:

But then even those hopes were dashed:

The trade ended up being RHP Emmanuel Clase and OF Delino DeShields for RHP Corey Kluber and $500,000. And of course the roughly $15M the Indians saved. Underwhelming, to say the least.

Now don’t get me wrong: both players the Indians received will help the team in 2020. Clase, who made his MLB debut this past season, is a much-needed power bullpen arm, and has the stuff to close games. Delino DeShields is a better fourth outfielder/pinch-runner than the Indians had on the roster. But neither of these players are what I’d term core players. Perhaps Clase could be the next Cody Allen if everything works out, but he’s way too young and inexperienced to know what he is right now. If you want to look at it from a purely WAR perspective, the Indians gave up 3.4 fWAR and got 1.1 fWAR back in return, plus $15M, and that’s assuming that the money will be spent.

With teams promising the moon and the stars to any half-way decent starting pitcher on the free agent market (as I write this, Madison Bumgarner just got 5/$85M from Arizona), to get this anemic a return is a major disappointment. Knowing what we know now, it’s obvious that the Indians picked up Kluber’s option merely in order to trade him this winter, and other teams called their bluff.

And this is not taking into account how the overall fanbase is going to take this trade. Corey Kluber was one of the faces of the franchise, and trading him for a fourth outfielder and an interesting but unproven bullpen arm is not going to sit well, especially after the events of last winter. So I certainly hope that the Indians already have a major move, or series of moves teed up to go. I don’t think anyone is expecting them to trade for Mookie Betts, but signing Marcell Ozuna or trading for Starling Marte would make this trade defensible. Oh yeah, it would also help to announce that Francisco Lindor is no longer available on the trade market.

Because the Indians acquired two players on the 40-man roster, they needed to clear a spot, so they designated Mike Freeman for assignment. I think the Indians will be signing a free agent second baseman, which meant that Freeman’s days on the 40-man were numbered, though I thought he might stick around through Spring Training.

Here’s what the roster looks like after the moves today:

Link to live file (OneDrive)

I penciled Adam Plutko in as the fifth starter because he’s out of options, but realistically you could have a number of other pitchers beat him out this spring (Plesac, Rodriguez, even Moss or Allen). The Indians still need at least one corner outfielder and either a second or third baseman, and theoretically now have anywhere from $25-30M to play with. Let’s hope they actually use it.

On the reported Lindor trade talks

This was originally a comment on Let’s Go Tribe a week or so ago, but I think it’s worth re-purposing today given this tweet/article:

My rule of thumb: if a rumor is not sourced to a specific quote or piece of reporting, it’s just made up garbage and should be treated with contempt and ignored. It also depends on the “hit rate” of the reporter, too. For example, if Ken Rosenthal reports that the Indians are looking to trade X player, you generally take it more seriously than if Jon Paul Morosi or Bob Nightengale reports it. You also need to understand who the source is so that you can understand the motivation for leaking the information. If the source is “front office of a rival team” or something like that, it’s probably chaff thrown out into the media to help negotiations with either the Indians or another team. Also remember that teams talk to each other all the time, and probably every single player on the roster will get mentioned, even if the team would never trade that player.

With that in mind, let’s turn to Nightengale’s article. This is the important bit:

Hoping to make a big splash as their World Series drought continues, the Los Angeles Dodgers are discussing a trade for shortstop Francisco Lindor with the Cleveland Indians, according to a person with direct knowledge of the talks.

The person spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because talks are ongoing.

Let’s think about what’s being said, or what’s not being said. That the Indians were going to explore a trade for Lindor is not exactly news, even if you hadn’t been plugged into your Twitter feed for the past couple of days. It’s an open secret that the Indians aren’t going to keep Lindor past the 2021 season, with acknowledgment from both Lindor and the Indians. The talented shortstop is going to command a contract along the lines of what Manny Machado (10/$300M) and Bryce Harper (13/$330M) received last winter, and the Indians aren’t going to match the length of contract that Lindor will command (at least 8 years), especially at the AAV (average annual value) of at least $35M.

But, for now, all Nightengale is reporting is that the teams are discussing a trade. Not “close to consummating” or anything along those lines. Chris Antonetti, Cleveland’s president of baseball operations, alluded to these “trade talks” yesterday:

“There’s nothing we need to do with any player,” Antonetti said. “Frankie has established himself as one of the best players in baseball and we’re fortunate to have him. Because he’s such a good player, a lot of teams call with interest.”

With the Dodgers losing out on Gerritt Cole yesterday, they are logically moving on to trade targets, with Lindor obviously at the top of the list. And from the Indians’ standpoint, the Dodgers have a lot of players that would be great fits, starting with top prospect Gavin Lux, who just so happens to be a middle infielder. If there’s any team that could entice the Indians to deal Lindor this winter, it’s the Dodgers.

As for who the source is, I lean towards it being a member of the Dodgers front office to let somebody else (another team? an agent?) know that they have another option. I don’t think there’s anything to gain from the Indians’ standpoint for this information to get out to the public. If the Cleveland front office wanted to use a leak to their negotiating advantage, they would have mentioned that the Indians were talking with several teams, not just the Dodgers.

In summary, I don’t think it’s quite time to panic or get excited yet, depending on your view. Now if Ken Rosenthal or Buster Olney starts tweeting about a deal being imminent, then it’s time to go nuts.

Offseason Journal: Prelude to the Winter Meetings

Teams have already made some major moves, but as yet the Indians haven’t been one of them. The only move made in the run-up to the Winter Meetings that will affect the Opening Day roster was the Non-Tender Day swap of backup catchers.

Link to live file (OneDrive)

Let’s back up a bit and take the various sets of roster moves one by one.

Rule 5 Roster Day (November 20th)

This was the final day that clubs could protect minor-league players from the Rule 5 Draft by adding them to the 40-man roster. The Indians came into the day with two open spots (38) and wanted to protect three players, so they needed to drop one.

Designated RHP Nick Goody for Assignment

Goody was fantastic in 2017, but missed a large portion of 2018 and wasn’t quite the same this past season. He did land on his feet, though, as the Texas Rangers claimed him off waivers 6 days later.

Purchased the contracts of LHP Scott Moss and OF Daniel Johnson from Columbus (AAA)

Purchased the contract of Triston McKenzie from Lynchburg (A+)

Johnson was acquired from Washington last winter (Yan Gomes), while Moss was one of the players received in the three-team Trevor Bauer trade last July. Both players will at some point contribute to the club next year, and Johnson has a decent shot at making the Opening Day roster, depending on what the Indians do this winter.

McKenzie, who at one time was among the best prospects in the system, has slipped in recent years due to injury and struggles on the field, but still has the upside to be in a major-league rotation. And given how starting pitching is valued, there’s no way the Indians could have gotten away with leaving him unprotected. If everything breaks right he would be in the mix for a late-season call up, but it’s more likely that he contributes in 2021 (or would be traded).

Traded 2B Mark Mathias (AAA) to the Milwaukee Brewers for C Andres Melendez

Mathias was eligible, and the Indians were not going to protect him, so the Brewers, rather than wait to select him in the Rule 5 Draft and deal with the restrictions that comes with it, traded for him and added him to their 40-man roster. That means the Brewers can option him to the minors. If they had selected him in the Rule 5 Draft, they would have had to keep him on their active roster (or Injured List) all season.

Non-Tender Day (December 2)

This is the day by which clubs must offer any player on their 40-man roster not already signed to a contract a contract tender. If they don’t tender a contract, the player immediately becomes a free agent and can sign with any team. Usually players that are non-tendered are in the last few years of arbitration (service times of 4-5 years), with their projected salaries not matching their projected production. The Indians had already released most of the players they were going to non-tender (Danny Salazar, for example), so expectations going into this day was that they would be quiet.

However, that didn’t happen.

Traded RHP Adenys Bautista (R-) to the Boston Red Sox for C Sandy Leon

Designated RHP James Hoyt for Assignment

Leon is a catcher that has a good reputations on defense and with pitching staffs, but has done almost nothing on offense since 2016. He has 5+ years of service time, and was projected to make $2.8M in arbitration (according to MLB Trade Rumors). Meanwhile the Indians’ backup catcher, Kevin Plawecki, was projected to make around $1.4M. The Indians obviously liked Leon’s skill set better than Plawecki’s but not $1.4M better, as we’ll see shortly. Bautista is not much of a prospect, a

Hoyt was not arbitration-eligible, but was designated just because he was #40 on the Tribe’s value board. He would be re-signed a couple days later, though.

Signed 2020 contract with C Sandy Leon ($2M), avoiding arbitration

That made the difference between Leon and Plawecki $500-600k.

Non-tendered RHP James Hoyt and C Kevin Plawecki

Hoyt had been designated for assignment earlier in the day, and this made him a free agent before he passed through waivers. It’s obvious in retrospect that the Indians and Hoyt had already talked, as he’d be re-signed to a major-league contract. As for Plawecki, the writing for him was on the wall when the Indians acquired Leon. He was out options, and the Indians weren’t going to be carrying three catchers on the active roster, even with a 26th spot available this year.

Signed free agent RHP James Hoyt to a major-league contract

Thus bringing the 40-man roster back up to 40. If the Indians want to make a selection in Thursday’s Rule 5 Draft, they’ll need to clear a spot, but I don’t see that happening, especially they will eventually need to clear at least a couple spots for acquisitions (2B/3B and OF).

A summary of the Houston Astros sign-stealing scandal

On November 12th, The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich released a bombshell piece of reporting (paywall): proof that Houston Astros, during 2017 home games, were stealing signs in real time and relaying them to the batter. Members of the team set up a monitor in the dugout tunnel that displayed a feed from center field in real time, and once they had deciphered the catcher’s signals, banged on a trash can to indicate an off-speed pitch; if a fastball was called, there was no banging. Because the banging was audible on TV broadcasts, and the article mentioned a particular incident, the allegation was easy to confirm by anyone with access to Youtube. In fact, just a couple of hours after the article appeared, Jomboy, a Internet baseball commentator, posted this fantastic breakdown on Twitter:

Before long numerous other examples were found throughout the season, and the pattern (bang for an off-speed pitch, no bang for a fastball) remained consistent throughout all the other incidents. Keep in mind also that the Astros won the 2017 World Series.

Before exploring the immediate fallout from this revelation, let’s take a step back in order to understand why these allegations are so damaging to the Astros in particular and MLB in general.

Sign Stealing: legal versus illegal

From the time signals began to be used in baseball, the other team has tried to decipher them, whether they were from the third base coach (for the batter) or the catcher (for the pitcher). The benefit of knowing for certain the type of pitch that is coming is immense for a major-league hitter. There are very few pitchers with the type of stuff that will miss bats if the batter knows the pitch ahead of time.

With that being said, it is not illegal in MLB for teams to use on-field personnel to decipher signs; for example, if a runner on second who has deciphered the pitch signs signals them to the batter and is discovered, he will not be thrown out by the umpire or even fined by the league. However, if the signals were deciphered by non-human methods or were relayed from someone who isn’t on-field personnel (a player or coach), that is illegal sign stealing. The use of a mechanical device to steal signs has been banned since 1961, and “electronic methods” were specifically banned in 2001.

The Arms Race

As video technology (particularly resolution) has gotten better, it has become much easier to see the catcher’s signs from the traditional center field feed. And so, in recent years teams have become more paranoid about having their signs being stolen, even when there’s no runners on base, or other analysis being done in real-time (such as looking at tiny differences in a pitcher’s glove between pitches to see if there’s any “tells”).

In 2014, MLB instituted the current form of instant replay, in which a manager has the ability to challenge certain calls on the field and have them reviewed by the MLB office. As part of the new process, teams now employ replay assistants whose job it is to phone the manager if he or she thinks the play is worth reviewing. The assistant is provided with real-time video feeds to make the determination to review.

“Ok,” you may be saying, “how the heck does instant replay relate to stealing signs?” The reason is that the first proven instance of electronic sign stealing came because of that replay assistant. In 2017, the New York Yankees filed a complaint against the Boston Red Sox alleging that their replay assistant was texting the pitch calls to an athletic trainer in the dugout, who would relay the calls to the batter. After reviewing the complaint, which was later publicized by the New York Times, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred issued his findings and punishment:

  September 15, 2017 (edit: remember this date!)

Baseball Commissioner Robert D. Manfred, Jr. issued the following statement today: 

"Several weeks ago, the New York Yankees filed a complaint with the Commissioner's Office alleging that the Boston Red Sox violated certain Major League Baseball Regulations by using electronic equipment to aid in the deciphering of signs being given by the Yankees' catcher. The Commissioner's Office has conducted a thorough investigation of the allegation. Today, I am prepared to disclose the results of that investigation.

"At the outset, it is important to understand that the attempt to decode signs being used by an opposing catcher is not a violation of any Major League Baseball Rule or Regulation. Major League Baseball Regulations do, however, prohibit the use of electronic equipment during games and state that no such equipment 'may be used for the purpose of stealing signs or conveying information designed to give a Club an advantage.' Despite this clear Regulation, the prevalence of technology, especially the technology used in the replay process, has made it increasingly difficult to monitor appropriate and inappropriate uses of electronic equipment. Based on the investigation by my office, I have nonetheless concluded that during the 2017 season the Boston Red Sox violated the Regulation quoted above by sending electronic communications from their video replay room to an athletic trainer in the dugout. 

[snip]

"Taking all of these factors as well as past precedent into account, I have decided to fine the Red Sox an undisclosed amount which in turn will be donated by my office to hurricane relief efforts in Florida. Moreover, all 30 Clubs have been notified that future violations of this type will be subject to more serious sanctions, including the possible loss of draft picks.

 

The punishment meted out to the Red Sox, an undisclosed fine, was in my opinion much too lenient for the severity of the violation. Knowing what pitch is coming is a massive advantage, particularly in a close game. Manfred, did, however, issue a warning that further violations would be met with more severe penalties.

Please note that Manfred’s statement was issued on September 15, 2017. The incident covered by Jomboy above happened a week later on September 22. So the Astros were violating the rule even after Manfred issued his warning.

Fast forward to the 2018 postseason. The Cleveland Indians were swept by the Astros in the ALDS, but after the series, Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports broke this story:

 HOUSTON – The Boston Red Sox were warned that a man credentialed by the Houston Astros might try to steal signs or information from their dugout after the Cleveland Indians caught him taking pictures of their dugout with a cellphone camera during Game 3 of the American League Division Series, sources with knowledge of the situation told Yahoo Sports.

A photograph obtained by Yahoo Sports showed a man named Kyle McLaughlin aiming a cell phone into Cleveland’s dugout during the Indians’ 11-3 loss that ended their season. McLaughlin was the same man caught taking pictures near the Red Sox’s dugout during Game 1 of the AL Championship Series, which was first reported by the Metro Times. McLaughlin was removed by security in Cleveland and Boston, sources said. 

Click through to the article to view the photograph. This incident again prompted an investigation by MLB, and once again there were no real consequences:

  "Before the postseason began, a number of Clubs called the Commissioner's Office about sign stealing and the inappropriate use of video equipment. The concerns expressed related to a number of Clubs, not any one specific Club. In response to these calls, the Commissioner's Office reinforced the existing rules with all playoff Clubs and undertook proactive measures, including instituting a new prohibition on the use of certain in-stadium cameras, increasing the presence of operations and security personnel from Major League Baseball at all Postseason games and instituting a program of monitoring Club video rooms.

"With respect to both incidents regarding a Houston Astros employee, security identified an issue, addressed it and turned the matter over to the Department of Investigations. A thorough investigation concluded that an Astros employee was monitoring the field to ensure that the opposing Club was not violating any rules. All Clubs remaining in the playoffs have been notified to refrain from these types of efforts and to direct complaints about any in-stadium rules violations to MLB staff for investigation and resolution. We consider the matter closed." 

The justification of “we were just seeing of the other guy was cheating” seems laughable on its face, but the commissioner somehow bought it. At least in the immediate aftermath, while the postseason was still ongoing.

After the season, MLB instituted several new rules regarding electronic devices. They included:

  • Banning all non-broadcast cameras from foul pole to foul pole
  • The only live game feed will be provided to the team’s replay booth, and a trained MLB employee will ensure there is no illegal communication between the replay booth and the dugout or field of play. All other game feeds will occur on an eight-second delay
  • No television monitors will be allowed between the clubhouse and the dugout.

In retrospect, these rules were designed to stop exactly the type of scheme the Astros were using in 2017. Houston installed a camera in center field (bullet point one), had installed a TV monitor between the clubhouse and the field (point three) and were giving the batter the signs in real time (point two). So I think MLB had some inkling that this type of cheating was going on: they perhaps just didn’t have any evidence.

Until last week.

Crime and Punishment

That brings us up to the Athletic report. After the article dropped, the Houston Astros announced that were cooperating with MLB on an investigation into the allegations, and would make no other comment (which is an improvement on how they handled the Brandon Taubman incident):

 Regarding the story posted by The Athletic earlier today, the Houston Astros organization has begun an investigation in cooperation with Major League Baseball. It would not be appropriate to comment further on this matter at this time. 

This placed the ball back in Manfred’s court. He had let the Red Sox off with a fine in 2017, then did nothing regarding the Astros employee in the 2018 postseason. This time his rhetoric was different:

 "Any allegations that relate to a rule violation that could affect the outcome of a game or games is the most serious matter," Manfred said. "It relates to the integrity of the sport. In terms of where we are, we have a very active -- what is going to be a really, really thorough investigation ongoing. But beyond that, I can't tell you how close we are to done." 

He also said that the Astros were the only team MLB was currently looking at, but later said:

 “We are going to investigate the Astros situation as thoroughly as humanly possible,” Manfred said after the conclusion of the owners’ meetings. “That investigation is going to encompass not only what we know about ’17, but also ’18 and ’19. We are talking to people all over the industry. Former employees, competitors, whatever. To the extent that we find other leads, we’re going to follow these leads. We will get to the bottom of what we have out there in terms of what went on to the extent that it’s humanly possible. I just can’t speculate beyond that.” 

So although this investigation may start with the Astros, it may not end there, which is as it should be. Even if it turns out that the Astros had the most sophisticated method, any team that utilized electronics should be punished. It is critical that fans have faith that the game they are watching is being played within the rules, and that one team does not have an unfair advantage over the other.

That takes us to the topic of punishment. Twice now (in the 2017 Red Sox statement and the pre-season rules in 2019) teams have warned that violation of the sign stealing rules could result in the loss of draft picks or similar punishment. Craig Edwards of Fangraphs looked at Manfred’s history of punishments for organizational violations and came away with these broad criteria:

  • Is this the first time a team has been penalized for breaking the rules?
  • Was the organization cooperative with MLB’s investigation?
  • How high up the organizational chain does the knowledge and activity go?

As an example, he examines MLB’s investigations into international signing violations. In 2016, the Red Sox were punished for violating the signing rules by not being able to sign any international free agents for a year and by having those players that were signed illegally declared free agents. A year later, the Atlanta Braves broke those same rules, and not only were they punished with a greater loss of international signing caps, but Braves general manager John Coppollela was banned for life and another member of the front office was suspended for a year.

So if it is found that the Astros front office participated in, or at least knew about the illegal sign stealing, I would expect a similar type of punishment that the Braves received, with the team losing multiple draft picks, and suspensions of front office personnel, coaches, and players involved in the scheme. If there is evidence that the Astros used this scheme (or something similar to it) in the 2017/2018/2019 playoffs, the punishments would escalate even further.

One of Manfred’s roles as commissioner is to protect the institution, and that means he should come down hard on any individual or organization that places the existence of the sport in any kind of danger. This sign stealing scandal does in my opinion rise to that level.

Offseason Journal: The Arithmetic

As this off-season gets going in earnest, the Indians would seem to be in a better position than they were at this time last year. I used the word “seem” because I am assuming that the Indians will start the season with a payroll around $120-124M, the same range as last year.

Link to live file (OneDrive)

In addition to the cost-cutting moves (or non-moves in the case of Michael Brantley) made last winter, the Indians saved about $18M for the 2020 season by trading Trevor Bauer last July. They also saved another $19M net by declining the options of or releasing Jason Kipnis, Dan Otero, and Danny Salazar. By my calculations, the Indians should have $18M to spend between now and the end of July if their budget remains the same, and that’s with them picking up Corey Kluber’s $17.5M option.

In other words, the Indians aren’t going to be dangling Kluber or Francisco Lindor on the trade market because they need to cut payroll. I don’t think the Indians will end up trading either player for any reason, though: Lindor, because it’s going to be downright impossible to get a team to give them the type of value a player of Lindor’s caliber/contract demands, and Kluber because I don’t think teams will give up that much for a pitcher coming off an injury-marred season, even with his pedigree.

But the Indians do need to fill some holes, as the projected 2020 lineup indicates. With Naquin’s injury, I think they have to acquire at least one corner outfielder, perhaps even bringing back Yasiel Puig if the market doesn’t take an interest (MLB Trade Rumors projects him getting 1/$8M, which I think would be a bargain). As for the infield, I see the Indians grabbing a short-term solution at second or third (most likely second), with the idea that one of their crop of youngish infielders (Arroyo, Chang, Clement) would be ready to take over in 2021. They will also poke around for a reliever or two, though it would be out of character for them to pay market value.

The Indians could also fill one of the holes mentioned above by trading a starting pitcher. Adam Plutko is out of options and not likely to make the Opening Day starting rotation, so now might be the best time to see what you can get for him on a market that seems devoid of much starting pitching help. And maybe a team loses out on the big free agent prizes (Cole, Strasburg, Wheeler) and gets desperate enough to bowl the Indians with their offer for Corey Kluber.

Transactions

The period following the end of the World Series is scripted such that all contract options and 40-man rosters are settled before the offseason moves can begin in earnest. This is done so that all teams are an equal footing as far as 40-man roster spots are concerned. For instance, when the season ended the Indians had 7 players on the 60-day Injured/Disabled List, therefore they had 47 players on the between the 40-man roster and the Injured Lists.

October 31, 2019 (day after the World Series)

Exercised the 2020 option of RHP Corey Kluber ($17.5M)

Declined the 2020 options of 2B Jason Kipnis ($16.5M/$2.5M) and RHP Dan Otero ($1.5M/$.1M)

(indians.com story)

3B Ryan Flaherty, RF Yasiel Puig, RHP Tyler Clippard, 2B Jason Kipnis, and RHP Dan Otero declared free agency

November 4, 2019

RHP Corey Kluber, OF Tyler Naquin, IF Christian Arroyo, RHP Danny Salazar, RHP Cody Anderson, LHP Tyler Olson, and RHP AJ Cole activated from the 60-day Injured List

RHP Danny Salazar, RHP Cody Anderson, LHP Tyler Olson, and RHP AJ Cole outrighted to AAA Columbus – all declared free agency

(indians.com story)

On Francisco Lindor, Success Cycles, and Rumor Laundering

Before diving in to the offseason, I want to re-expound on something that most people, especially on the national level, continue to not understand about how the Indians are making decisions.

The “success cycle” is the current paradigm for team building. At the start of the cycle, a team strips down their roster almost completely, trading off all their veteran players, and fielding a team that has no chance of winning for several years, with the side benefit of having an extremely low payroll. Then, assuming the front office made astute drafting and prospect evaluation decisions, the team begins to spend some money again, bringing in a couple key free agents. Then, when the young core is ready to compete for a championship, the wallet is opened wide and the minor-league system becomes only a vehicle for acquiring veteran players. Once the core gets old/expensive, the roster gets torn completely down and the cycle begins anew.

It is my belief that the Indians do not want to follow this cycle, having institutional memories about previous rebuilding eras. The 2002-2004 rebuild, short and necessary though it was, turned half the fanbase against the team, with attendance never recovering. The 2009-2012 rebuild wasn’t quite as devastating to attendance or fan perception, but nevertheless was not a fun period. In addition, the causes of those fallow periods haven’t been lost on the current front office, some of whom were there for them. Poor drafting, poor free agent decisions, and trading away prospects for short-term fixes were what sunk the team into the last two rebuilds, and many of the decisions since then have been made to avoid those previous mistakes.

With that in mind, consider the last year of decisions made by the Tribe front office. A typical team in the Indians’ place would have gorged itself in the free agent market, or at least traded some prospects to fill a hole. The Indians did neither, in fact they let go Michael Brantley via free agency, and suffered for it the following season. They traded Yan Gomes, their starting catcher, and shed payroll in several other moves. Yet they didn’t tear the roster apart, keeping the starting rotation together (at least to start the season) and the rest of the starting lineup. In other words, they didn’t commit to one path or the other that the success cycle demands of a team once the roster reached maturity. They did trade Trevor Bauer, but in return received a short-term rental (Yasiel Puig) and a medium-term solution (Franmil Reyes) in addition to some prospects.

So when the rumors about the Dodgers looking to trade for Francisco Lindor broke, I shook my head. The reporting by Jon Paul Morosi, as usual, is vague enough to be correct even if nothing happens:

 
Sources say the Dodgers are expected to pursue a trade for Indians shortstop Francisco Lindor as one possible addition to an offense that managed only a .303 on-base percentage during this month’s National League Division Series loss to the Nationals.

(snip)

The Indians have made no apparent progress on a long-term extension for Lindor, and many in the industry believe there is a good chance he will be dealt before next Opening Day.

Note that this reporting is that the Dodgers will be pursuing Lindor, not that the Indians are either looking to trade him or even listening. Just that some people in the industry (read: other front offices) think the Indians would deal him because they haven’t been able to make progress on a long-term deal. This of course led to this headline from Beyond the Boxscore, an SBN site (sigh):

This is clickbait. Oh sure, the headline/sub-headline is hedging its bets by using “it sure looks like” and “Lindor might be on the move” but ultimately it is using a rather typical Hot Stove League piece of reporting (X team is interested in X player) to give an excuse to wag the finger at the Indians for not ponying up to sign Lindor to a long-term deal:

While the Dodgers trying to make a move happen doesn’t mean that Cleveland will Lindorit’s clear that Cleveland’s ownership has little interest in extending Lindor or retaining him when he reaches free agency after the 2021 season. If Cleveland were to trade Lindor, it would be hard to view it as anything other than a purely cost-cutting move. We saw what their miserly approach following the 2018 season did to an assured division title, so such a move would be an admission that profits are more important than winning. 

Was it disappointing that the Indians let Michael Brantley go last year? Absolutely. But this analysis is ridiculously simplistic. The Indians have been a competitive team for seven straight years now, and are to the point in a typical success cycle where other teams in mid-tier and low-tier markets have thrown in the towel and tore the team completely down. The Royals were competitive for five seasons (2013-2017), then tore their roster completely apart. The Pirates also lasted five seasons (same time frame) before firing practically everyone and presumably starting over. But for all the Indians’ “miserly” ways, they still managed to field a team that until the last series of the season was in contention for a playoff spot. In other words, they have maintained the payroll of a contending team for longer than their peers, and at least will try to be competitive for an eighth year.

The author of the article is applying to the Indians a template that is not applicable. The Indians may eventually trade Lindor because it’s obvious that they aren’t going to give out an 8-year deal at $30M+ average annual value, but I do not think that they will trade him this winter, as Morosi is suggesting, nor would a Lindor trade be driven by cost-cutting for 2020. Lindor even at a projected $16M-18M salary is still a bargain for any team, including the Indians. The Indians want to compete again in 2020, and Lindor is inextricably linked to that goal. He will very likely be playing for someone else by the end of the 2021 season, and almost certainly will be by the start of the 2022 season, but that’s just how mid-market teams fare when it comes to superstars.

If team owner Paul Dolan had wanted to maximize profit, he would have done what the Houston Astros or Chicago Cubs or many other teams since then did: completely tank, a strategy that this author would undoubtedly condemn. In 2013, the Astros had a payroll of $35M despite residing in one of baseball’s largest markets, a payroll that the Indians hadn’t had since 2004. Cleveland ownership’s spending obviously isn’t going be confused with the late Mike Illitch of the Detroit Tigers anytime soon, but the Dolans have now presided over as long a competitive window as the Jacobs Field Era Indians of the mid-to-late 1990s, and are attempting to extend that window into 2020 and beyond. As an Indians fan, it has been a fun seven seasons, and although I’d love for the team to spend more, I can’t complain much about the results on the field.

The author then remarks that (1) MLB revenues are up and (2) references a Ringer article about how top prospects who are traded tend to underperform. Let’s take each argument separately.

That MLB revenues are up but payrolls have not increased at the same rate may be an issue for the MLBPA to key on in the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations (they expire after the 2021 season), but this is not relevant to the Indians re-signing Francisco Lindor. Free agency is a competition between MLB clubs, and the Indians are not going to fare well in this competition because they don’t have the revenue sources that other teams do, as alluded to in this sentence:

 
Forbes’ valuation of each baseball team put Cleveland as the sixth-least valuable team, but as a brand they’re still worth $1.1 billion.

Furthermore, a team’s valuation is not relevant to having more cash to throw around unless the team borrows against it. Or the owners sell the team, I guess, but that’s not helpful either for obvious reasons. Dolan did sell a piece of the club to John Sherman a couple of years ago, but Sherman is going to have to divest that by the time he officially takes over as owner of the Kansas City Royals.

The Indians may be able to deal with the short-term risk of allocating ~20% of their payroll ($30M AAV) to one player, but they simply can’t deal with the risk of allocating a significant portion of their payroll to one player 8-10 years from now, when Lindor would likely be on the downside of his career. Lindor will likely ask for that length of contract on the free agent market, and I don’t blame him for it, given that both Bryce Harper and Manny Machado got those types of deals last winter. Lindor bet on himself by not taking an earlier long-term extension (a la Jose Ramirez), and now he’s well within his rights to collect on that wager.

As for not trading Lindor because prospects don’t tend to work out, that’s not an argument that resonates with Indians fans. Of the high-profile players that the Indians have traded since Bartolo Colon in 2002, almost all those trades eventually worked out. And that’s not counting the many core players that the Indians got in what were considered minor trades (Shin-Soo Choo, Asdrubal Cabrera, Mike Clevinger, to name but a few). If the organization has been consistently good in one thing, it’s been getting good value when they do trade a core player.

In conclusion, I have no doubt that the Indians will eventually trade Francisco Lindor, but I don’t think it will be this winter, and that they will do so with a similar goal as they had in dealing Trevor Bauer: a return that balances the short-term (Puig) with the medium-term (Reyes) and a bit of the long-term (prospects).