Hello everyone,

The Red Sox don't really have a quality CF or a leadoff man (Loretta would fit, but will he be better or equal to Damon?  I don't think he's at Damon's level of the past few years)  The Indians know this and it's late in the offseason (there's only a few weeks until Spring Training.)

Therefore, it's logical and understandable that Boston will have to pay a higher price than if it was earlier in the offseason when there were more CF options available.  The demand is high, the supply is low - therefore, the price will be high (or higher than normal.)

Therefore, I don't think it's a stretch if it's Marte, Delcarmen, and Shoppach (Mota failed his physical - he won't be included in the deal) for Crisp, Bard, and Riske.  It would certainly be possible if Boston only received 2 players for 3 players because they are wanting an established CF who has proven he can play at the ML level.  

Marte, while a highly-rated prospect, is not guaranteed of succeeding at the ML level.  Brandon Phillips was highly touted as well, but has not made it (and probably won't in my opinion.)  Granted, Phillips and Marte are different types of players, but the same point applies - just because a prospect is highly-touted doesn't guarantee future success.  There have been many other highly-touted prospects who have also failed to make an impact at the ML level.

So, even if Marte's ceiling and overall value is higher than Crisp's, Crisp has proven himself at the ML level, whereas Marte has not.  

In fact, if you look at

Crisp/Bard/Riske for Marte/Delcarmen/Shoppach

2 of the 3 Indians are proven ML players (Crisp and Riske,) with Bard being a good backup and a possible starter on another team because he can do some things with the bat and has a good arm.  Therefore, all three have ML experience.

Meanwhile, the 3 Boston prospects, while highly-touted, have no or little ML experience (outside of September call-up baseball, I don't think they have any ML experience.)

While Marte is a highly-touted prospect, he's not guaranteed to succeed as mentioned above.  Delcarmen is an inexperienced bullpen pitcher with a good arm, while Shoppach was highly-touted at one time, but some question whether he's really a starter or a back-up because there have been questions about his defense and his ability to hit ML pitching.  In some ways, he reminds me of Bard, with more power in his bat, but  

Therefore, while it may look like the Red Sox are paying a high price for the 3 Indians' players, the Indians' players are more-less proven, whereas the 3 Boston players are still prospects, so the Indians inherit some risk as well.  Besides that, Boston is desperate to make this trade; Cleveland is not.  Therefore, Boston will likely have to pay a higher price in order to make this trade happen.  

Granted, I am biased, but I'm not fond of trading Crisp myself, as I'm not sure who will take over in the #2 hole and how the offense will react to the loss of Crisp (I'm not convinced Michaels can compensate for Crisp's loss; some are even saying he may only split time in LF with a player like Todd Hollandsworth, so I don't see Michaels being Crisp's equal at all.)  Therefore, I see the trade being fair if you consider all the players and their values and the inherent risk on both sides (Boston losing some prospects from their improved farm system; Cleveland hoping that the prospects develop as well as expected, which isn't a given.)

Klostrophobic - No offense, but Michaels has not done what Crisp has done and he's roughly 3 years older than Crisp - in fact, when I first seen his stats, I didn't see much to be impressed about - I didn't think he was worth Betancourt or even Rhodes.  After looking at his stats a little more closely, I see his OBP was very good and he has a very good BB/K ratio.  

The real reason the Indians want Michaels is not so much because they think he is an equal to Crisp - it's to get a cheap OFer who can fill the position for one year (possibly even platoon with a player like Todd Hollandsworth) until Gutierrez, Francisco, Snyder, Mulhern, Cooper, or someone else from the farm is ready to start full-time for the Indians in 2007.  Therefore, don't presume that just because the Indians are looking to replace Crisp with Michaels, makes Michaels an equal to Crisp.  With the maturation of the young Indians' offense, and better production from Blake, Boone, and Broussard/Perez, the Indians probably feel they can have less production from LF and still be productive offensively as a whole.

I've also heard that the Phillies wanted Betancourt for Michaels - the Indians refused.  The Indians offered Riske - the Phillies said they weren't interested.  It sounds like both sides compromised and agreed on Rhodes, who I would be more willing to trade than Betancourt, though I would prefer Riske to be traded because he has been unreliable (despite his good-looking stats in 2005) - he always seems to falter in a game-changing situation, giving up a big hit, walking a guy, giving up a HR, etc.  In my opinion, he doesn't have good enough command of his split-change to be able to consistently rely on it - too often, he leaves it in the middle of the plate and it gets hammered.  

RVachon - I heard that Michaels can play CF for a few games, but most managers/general managers would not want Michaels out in CF on a regular basis.

That leads me to believe that Crisp is the better CF - his arm is only average at best, but he has the range to play CF.  I don't know about Michaels' range, but it can't be better than Crisp's (and I'm not even sure it's as good as Crisp's,) and Crisp is roughly 3 years younger than Michaels.

I had not heard the Clement/Kearns/Crisp rumor; as I mentioned above, Delcarmen could replace Mota as the reliever and be included with Marte & Shoppach for Crisp, Bard, and Riske.

Brian38 - I agree with your point that Damon wasn't the entire Red Sox offense, though I think he scored more than 30 runs; the Red Sox can probably still score around 850 runs or so without Damon, provided they get adequate production out of the leadoff spot, which is the real reason why a lot of people are fretting over losing Damon - without a solid leadoff man, it's difficult to score runs.  

Therefore, if they can get adequate production out of the leadoff spot, then I still think the Red Sox can score 850 runs or so, but there aren't many quality CFers left, which is why the Red Sox will likely have to pay a higher price for Crisp.  

It's likely that the A's and Devil Rays would ask for similar high prices for Bradley and Baldelli because the Red Sox don't have much, if any leverage, in terms of trading for a CFer because they don't have any proven guys to handle CF and it's late in the offseason.    

And, like I've said before, Boston doesn't go through a rebuilding phase or year (like the Indians back in 2002); the fans won't accept that.  Therefore, they need a quality CFer now, and the guy they've targeted is Crisp.  That means a high price for him.

I can understand your frustration with the idea that Damon was the whole Boston offense; I've had similar frustrations when I hear the implications that Millwood and Howry were the reasons why the Indians led the AL in ERA in 2005 and that losing Millwood and Howry will kill the Indians' chances this year - in my mind, that is an exaggerated statement.

Did Millwood and Howry help give the Indians the best pitching staff in terms of lowest ERA in 2005?  No doubt.  Will they be missed?  Yes, but Cabrera, the likely addition to the bullpen for Howry, will arguably be better than Howry in the near future, if not in 2006.  Howry may fall back as he has done in the past - some think he had a career year in 2005 and was not worth what the Cubs gave him - the Indians likely would not have matched that contract even if the Cubs had waited to offer him that contract.

As for Millwood, it's likely he would have fallen back this year even if he were still an Indian - he escaped EVERY bases-loaded jam this year (about 15 chances.)  How likely would that have been next year if he was still in Cleveland?  Not very, in my opinion (law of averages indicates that it's likely he will give up some hits with the bases loaded in 2006 and his BAA with runners in scoring position will likely be higher in 2006 than it was in 2005 as well.)

Plus, Millwood has had injury problems in the past; plus, he's been inconsistent as well, so I don't think he would have matched what he did in 2005 even if he were still an Indian.  Again, most think that Millwood was not worth the amount Texas paid for him - even the Red Sox would not meet that price.

Byrd, essentially his replacement, may not have Millwood's stuff, but knows how to pitch - he's consistently had a 3.50-4.00 ERA in the AL for several years.  I wouldn't call that a fluke - one article I read a day or two ago compares him to Jamie Moyer - not overpowering, but will give you 6 quality innings virtually every time out and with few walks.  That sounds very much like Millwood, even if his stuff isn't as good as Millwood's.  Many posters here believe that Byrd was the best or one of the best free agent signings this offseason, not Burnett, Ryan, Millwood, etc.

Therefore, I know the frustration you are referring to when many people think that losing one person is automatically going to destroy the offense or destroy the pitching staff.  It takes 25 players to make a baseball team - losing one or two hurts, but if you get comparable players to replace them and get further development from your younger players, the chances of equalling or surpassing what a team did the past year are attainable.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Take care and have a great day!

design28 - thanks for the support - I greatly appreciate it! :-)

jpahk - I appreciate the constructive "nice" feedback - I try to keep my posts short whenever possible, but sometimes, I either have a lot to say or get carried away.

However, unlike a novel, you don't have to read all of it to gain important points (though the more you read, the more you'll gain. :-)  I try to section them off so that you don't have to read the whole post if you choose not to, yet still feel like you came away with something worth reading.

Also, I type fast - around 60 WPM or so - therefore, for me, it's not much to type these "long" posts.  No bragging intended.  I just sometimes get carried away in terms of what I am typing.  I will try to limit them in the future, when appropriate.  

jpahk, look on the bright side - I could have written it in one long paragraph. :-)  The longest paragraph I see is 4 lines and one word - that's not bad. :-)

Take care and have a great day!

sasquatch83 and cdamon - Thank you very much for the support - I greatly appreciate it!  It's nice to know that others consider my writing worthy enough to be read and considered.  Thanks! :-)

ultxmxpx - I double-space my posts not to make them longer, but to make them easier to read.  It's called "using white space" to make it easier for people to read longer sections of text - many internet marketers and websites use this techinique to encourage people to read what they have to say and to save on their eyes. :-)

Besides, would you prefer I write it all in one long paragraph?  :-)  I assure you, that would be much more difficult to read - trust me - I had to try to read a few myself (not on this site, but elsewhere,) and not only is it annoying, but it's also an eyestrain.  Trust me, including double-spaces makes posts easier to read, not harder.  

As for length, you're not "reading" the white-space; you're just seeing that the post is longer because of the spaces, but that doesn't mean the posts have more words than if the post was written in one long paragraph - if written in one long paragraph, the space may be shorter, but it would be much more difficult to read.

As I said before, you don't have to read the whole post - that's why I try to section it off - by addressing people, not only do I acknowledge them and their questions, I also try to refer people to a certain section of my post if they are in a hurry, yet can still see my response to certain posts if they are interested in those posts.

I'll try to make them shorter when appropriate, but please take into account how many words the post is, not how much space it takes up on the website.  Trust me, having "white space" makes a post easier to read, not harder or more tedious.  Your eyes will thank you in the future! :-)

Take care and have a great day!

Thanks for the support - it's greatly appreciated! :-)

When I write long posts, they will be spaced so that they are easier to read and less likely to cause eyestrain.  I know my eyes "yell at me" each time I have to read a long block of text (not on this site, but on other sites I am on.)  

That's why I try to make sure that other people can read my posts without straining their eyes - that way they can enjoy the information and my thoughts better! :-)

Take care and have a great day!

I agree with you - if you want an established ML player, you need to trade a quality prospect - Marte qualifies, Kearns doesn't anymore.  2-3 years ago, yes, he would have, but now, his chances are less than Marte's of making a significant impact in the MLs.

Besides that, why would the Indians trade for Kearns?   They have Gutierrez, Francisco, Snyder, Mulhern, and Cooper about to come up within the next two years - at most, there might be two OF spots open (Crisp and Blake) - the Indians have 5 options at AA or AAA, with Cooper and Gutierrez within a year at most of being ready, Francisco and Mulhern a year to a year-and-a-half at most of being ready, and Snyder, no more than two years, probably a year-and-a-half of being ready as well.  What would the Indians do with Kearns?  

I don't think it's readily apparent now that Kearns is significantly better than the five I mentioned above, with perhaps the exception of Cooper as I'm not sure he will get much better, but the other four seem to be at least equal to Kearns in terms of overall ceiling.

Kearns may hit for a better average than those five perhaps, but I think Mulhern can hit as many or more HRs as Kearns, and the other four should come reasonably close to Kearns as well as I've heard Kearns may hit 25-30 HRs at most (more of an average than Dunn, but less power.)  Plus, from what I've heard, Kearns is not a good OF - I think all five Indians' prospects can outdo him defensively (even Mulhern, who hasn't played the OF since his early college days.)

Plus, all five of them are younger than Kearns as well.

Therefore, I don't think Kearns is adequate compensation - Kearns is not equal to Marte, which was the original price for Crisp.  Just because the Red Sox are giving up Clement doesn't mean that the Indians should get a lesser prospect because Boston has to give up another player.  

As they say, "if you want quality, you have to give quality."  That's why Marte must be included in a Crisp deal if Boston is to acquire Crisp regardless if Cincinnati is involved or not.

And, as you mentioned, giving Marte is "a nice overpayment," which is likely necessary because Boston doesn't have an established CF, it's late in the offseason where most other options have been taken, and the Red Sox have targeted Crisp as their CF, a player who the Indians don't have to trade - they are happy with him.  

That adds up to overpayment in order to acquire Crisp and that means giving up a premium prospect like Marte - there is no getting around that in my opinion if the Red Sox want Crisp, no matter who else they involve in the deal (unless you are talking about the likes of prospects like a Liriano, a Hermida, a Cabrera, etc.  But Kearns doesn't qualify anymore in my opinion - both because his stock has dropped and the Indians have other OF options for 2007 and beyond.)

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Take care and have a great day!