Indians sign Paul Byrd...

Cranky bastard.

Sorry, I forgot my "closing," but even a "closer" can have an off-day. LOL! :-)

I hope you are having a nice day today and I hope you have a good day tomorrow.

Take care and have a great day! :-)  (Better? :-)

slurve is pointing out that I didn't finish off my post with a "have a good day" or "have a great day" like I usually do, so he wanted to call my attention to it.  In essence, he called me "rude" because I didn't include a nice closing like I usually do.

However, I think my post above certainly helped to alleviate the "rude" comment - LOL! :-)

By the way, slurve, I like the "cranky bastard" line.  Funny. :-)

Take care and have a good day!

I agree with those who think it's a good move.  He'll take the spot of Elarton (according to media reports) in the rotation - if he can give us what he gave us the Angels - solid starts and a chance for his team to win, I think the Indians will be very happy.

DrBGiantsfan - It would have been nice to get him for cheaper, but in this market, $7-$8 mill./yr. for a quality starting pitcher is almost cheap.  As goheels stated, I also like Byrd better than Loaiza - after his stellar season with the White Sox, he hasn't been the same pitcher since (not with the White Sox in his second year, not in his half-season with the Yankees, he was okay with the Nationals, but they play in a pretty good pitcher's park - that might carry over to Oakland, but I still like Byrd's consistency better than Loaiza's; Byrd seems to have better command of his stuff and better knowledge of how to use it than Loaiza does.  In some ways, Byrd reminds me of the pitching style of Greg Maddux (not in terms of stuff or reputation, but in terms of how he gets hitters out, especially in Maddux's later years when his velocity started to decrease.  He would paint the corners, change speeds, and keep hitters off-balance.  That's what Byrd does.  Just my opinion on the comparison.  :-))

Yes, I like the signing and am glad the Indians got him.  I hope he does good things for the Tribe like he did with the Angels.

Go Tribe! :-)

Take care and have a great day!

I mentioned the point you're making in your last sentence a few months ago.  The ticket prices are increasing and we are partly to blame.  If WE truly wanted a salary cap, lower ticket prices, and any other demands we felt would improve baseball, WE could make the owners and the Players Association agree to one by boycotting the games and not going out to the stadiums.

But, unfortunately, we won't do it because we aren't willing to commit being without baseball for so long.  Yet, we managed through the 1994 strike, and that was because the Players Association wanted that strike.

Therefore, if there are no games to be played, granted, with the amount some players are making, they probably wouldn't care, but for the rest of them, along with the Minor Leaguers coming up, the owners and Players' Union would have to agree to a salary cap and other demands WE wanted if WE were willing to hold out long enough.  After all, no ticket sales and no television contracts means no revenue, which means no salaries, which means no baseball careers.

Then, the players either find other jobs that pay less or they concede to the fans' demands.  Which do you think they'll choose?  :-)

Which validates your point:

"Well, I guess no one is holding a gun to our heads either."

Just my 2 cents.

Take care and have a good day!

Yes, I agree with you on your philosophy of spending - The Angels do it within reason; personally, I think their financial resources have changed over the last few years since Arte Moreno took over.  At one time, it seemed they would spend at most, $70-$80 mill. (call them a "higher-paying" version of Cleveland, or at one time, equal to spending with Cleveland - the Indians were spending $70-$90 million back in the 90s.)  Now, they seemed to have moved into a higher-paying threshold, not quite where the Yankees and Red Sox are, but closer to them (where they can spend a $100 mill or so - similar to what Atlanta did about 5 years ago when Ted Turner still owned the Braves.)  

However, as you pointed out, for the most part, they seem to have some fiscal sense in that they don't try to spend tremendous amounts of money just to spend it, like the Yankees, and to a lesser extent, the Red Sox do.

In fact, probably the Orioles and Rangers are more guilty of doing that in the last few years than the Red Sox have - they are at least trying to build through their farm system in addition to spending a lot of money.

Regarding the Indians, I agree and appreciate your opinion. :-)  Regarding it taking a little longer than expected, perhaps not making the playoffs last year when they probably should have might be considered "a little longer than anticipated."  But, if you had seen the farm system in 2000-2001, when arguably the best prospect they had was 3B Corey Smith (who's now in the San Diego system and didn't have a great season at AA for them either in 2005,) I think most knowledgeable fans probably thought it would take longer to establish a new team that had a legitimate shot of winning a World Series.

I think that's why the Cleveland fans aren't all that enthused with this team yet because they're still thinking about yesteryear with Lofton, Vizquel, Baerga, Belle, Thome, Ramirez, Murray, the Alomar brothers, etc.  Fans connected with that team so much and thought that team would win a World Series (which they probably should have in 1997,) that when that team started to decline, fans didn't want to face it and just thought that the Indians wouldn't appear in the postseason for decades because it had been 41 years between appearing in the postseason (mostly because management at that time made very questionable baseball decisions.)  

I think the fans here have a hard time being patient because this city hasn't had any type of championship since the Cleveland Browns in 1964 (3 years before the NFL Championship became the Super Bowl.)  (Our Indoor Soccer Team, the Cleveland Crunch, did win 3 championships in the 1990s, but most people don't consider Indoor Soccer to be a "big sport" like the NFL, NHL, NBA, or MLB.)  Therefore, many fans just automatically think "doom and gloom" if they can't purchase big names and small names don't seem to interest them, thinking that that isn't good enough.  Probably because the Yankees spend exorbitant amounts of money on everyone that fans here think we have to do the same to win a WS, which isn't the case.  The '02 Angels, '03 Marlins, and '05 White Sox have proven that.  

However, it seems that the fans are starting to give this team more of a second look because they start to realize, "hey, 93 wins isn't bad.  Maybe we should take a second look."  

So, hopefully, the Cleveland fans will start giving this team more consideration in terms of spending their hard-earned money on sports entertainment and support this team.  I think the over 1 million tickets sold for 2006 at this point is a good sign.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Take care and have a great day!