ImageImageImageImage

The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta

FordPrefect
Ballboy
Posts: 43
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#1 » by FordPrefect » Thu May 13, 2010 3:49 am

I'm getting the feeling he's gonna be lucky to get 400 ABs this year.
Lando12
Freshman
Posts: 62
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#2 » by Lando12 » Thu May 13, 2010 4:06 am

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll play against Grienke. His struggles versus an elite pitcher will then be used to justify his demotion.

I would buy the whole "mental holiday" thing if it was applied to anybody else. Grady has certainly struggled, but he doesn't need a mental holiday. Peralta has sucked out loud for a little over a year and he's gone without a mental holiday.

What's funny is that I think this crap can hurt ticket sales in the long run. What will the Indians sell to the public in 2011? An extra win thanks to Austin Kearns? Some solid scrapping from Mark Grudzielanek? No. They will sell hope due to young players. And they are managing in such a fashion that young players will not get the opportunity to provide that hope. Fans are mad about the trades of the past few years. Does anyone really think that Jhonny Peralta can fix that? LaPorta could fix the rage over the CC trade. But forget that. We need to make sure we've got the A team in for the Royals' 4 and 5 starters.

Long term, LaPorta will be fine. But man do I want to smack someone right now.
The lines are drawn, the orders are in, the Dance Commander's ready to sin. Radio message from HQ: Dance Commander, we love you
DavidMcGr
Freshman
Posts: 51
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#3 » by DavidMcGr » Thu May 13, 2010 4:13 am

It really is bad news. I've always had faith in the long term goals of the team but I just don't understand what is going on right now.
http://sabrtribe.blogspot.com - Someday I'll have more time and write something with substance again.
DavidMcGr
Freshman
Posts: 51
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#4 » by DavidMcGr » Thu May 13, 2010 4:16 am

Lando12 wrote:Don't worry, I'm sure he'll play against Grienke. His struggles versus an elite pitcher will then be used to justify his demotion.

I would buy the whole "mental holiday" thing if it was applied to anybody else. Grady has certainly struggled, but he doesn't need a mental holiday. Peralta has sucked out loud for a little over a year and he's gone without a mental holiday.

What's funny is that I think this crap can hurt ticket sales in the long run. What will the Indians sell to the public in 2011? An extra win thanks to Austin Kearns? Some solid scrapping from Mark Grudzielanek? No. They will sell hope due to young players. And they are managing in such a fashion that young players will not get the opportunity to provide that hope. Fans are mad about the trades of the past few years. Does anyone really think that Jhonny Peralta can fix that? LaPorta could fix the rage over the CC trade. But forget that. We need to make sure we've got the A team in for the Royals' 4 and 5 starters.

Long term, LaPorta will be fine. But man do I want to smack someone right now.


What I don't understand is why they think this is the A team. On what planet are Grudz and Redmond better options than Valbuena and Marson? What indicators are there that Kearns and Branyan are better than Laporta and Marte? I get that they're safer options, but that last thing we need is to safely secure our 75th win.

Re: Laporta specifically. They've handled him awfully from the get the go. Remember last season when his clocked was started only to ride the bench? I really worry that he'll be Andy Marte 2.0.
http://sabrtribe.blogspot.com - Someday I'll have more time and write something with substance again.
FordPrefect
Ballboy
Posts: 43
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#5 » by FordPrefect » Thu May 13, 2010 5:08 am

BTW, LaPorta last played Saturday. And he wasn't in the lineup on Friday.

So he's basically a twice a week guy now.
FordPrefect
Ballboy
Posts: 43
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#6 » by FordPrefect » Thu May 13, 2010 5:09 am

DavidMcGr wrote:Re: Laporta specifically. They've handled him awfully from the get the go. Remember last season when his clocked was started only to ride the bench? I really worry that he'll be Andy Marte 2.0.


I'd argue that he already is.
Lando12
Freshman
Posts: 62
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#7 » by Lando12 » Fri May 14, 2010 7:16 am

I don't think that LaPorta is very likely to go the way of Marte. That isn't a cliff I'm ready to dive off of just yet. I do think it is absolutely insane that the possibility is on the table. Does every prospect get the full Marte treatment? No. But some have, and the consequences are very serious. The two cases that stand out are Marte and Phillips. If Marte pans out or Phillips (and his 12.7 WAR over the past 4 seasons) is around, the Indians don't have a festering wound on the infield. That means no Gutierrez trade. Suddenly Trot Nixon was a big deal.

I honestly don't think the doomsday scenario is going to play out with LaPorta. But I do think we will see Marte and Valbuena have success in other uniforms. That will ultimately be the cost of these shenanigans. And so what if Marte gets shipped out. It will only make the 2011 Indians a little worse/more expensive. And who gives a crap about Valbuena, we've got tons of 2B. It's not like a solid mix of infielders is ever useful. Atlanta didn't get anything out of finding a home for Martin Prado despite the presence of Kelly Johnson. It will be fun watching Valbuena get the short end of the stick. Other guys getting the same treatment is what necessitated trading for Valbuena in the first place. Him getting the shaft is oddly appropriate.
The lines are drawn, the orders are in, the Dance Commander's ready to sin. Radio message from HQ: Dance Commander, we love you
Lando12
Freshman
Posts: 62
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#8 » by Lando12 » Wed May 19, 2010 6:00 am

I've tried to gather my thoughts on this issue and better define why this stuff bothers me so much. I think that these veteran based moves display an organizational thought process that I simply cannot agree with.

The way I see it, how prospects are used is determined by two factors. The first is the prospect themselves. The second is a combination of circumstances surrounding the MLB team. How good they are, who is currently occupying the position, etc. My biggest problem is that I think the second factor is given far too much weight. The need for cost controlled talent is too great. Some would consider constantly deferring to prospects as perpetual rebuilding, but I think that is what it takes. Focusing in on the MLB team once it is winning is going to result in the window of opportunity slamming shut very quickly.

There are a few standard arguments I see against this kind of behavior, and I don't find any of them to be too compelling.

But we can't play rookies everywhere!

Why not? Why should one prospect's playing time be tied to what is going on at a different position? Valbuena's playing time has absolutely nothing to do with how many PA Marson is getting. There is no quota for young players. You don't get a pass for horsing around with one prospect because you are giving another one a chance at a different position. This is the sort of thinking that led to losing Phillips. The Indians couldn't possibly go with young players at every position up the middle. Belliard was needed. If the Indians find themselves with nine rookies playing everyday, they should thank their lucky stars that they have nine cost controlled talents worth playing. Having a ton of young players is not a situation to be remedied. It is to be celebrated.

But the Indians need to try and win. The fans will revolt if they don't even try.

First of all, the fans revolted long ago. An extra retread in the lineup won't make a bit of difference. I can see the whole ticket sales angle going the other way. Would anyone rather be the Royals? Would you be more inclined to buy a ticket if you looked at a losing team and realized that it was old?

Anyhow, to the more important aspect of that argument. You can win with youth. The Braves played a rookie at 3B in 95. The Yankees had a rookie SS in 96. They both won a title and the young players worked out just fine. I realize those two cases paint far too rosy a picture. Sometimes things will blow up in your face. But let's not pretend that veterans don't carry risk. Hafner blew up in the team's face. Dellucci did the same. Veterans don't carry as much risk, but it would be wrong to describe one group as safe and the other risky. There is also the other side of that coin. Young players can surprise as well. Peralta's 05 season was one such surprise. Anyhow, back to the task at hand. Youth does not necessarily mean losing. The Rays won the AL in 08 with the second youngest lineup and the fourth youngest pitching staff.

But you can't just shove veteran X out of the way!

Why not? This comes with a host of exceptions, but generally shedding veterans is a good thing. They are expensive. There are certain established players that you don't shove aside for any old prospect. If the Indians had decided to dump Sizemore so Francisco could get more playing time, I would have marched on Progressive Field. But when a prospect projects to be more valuable in the future than the veteran in their way is now, it's probably time to move someone aside.

One thing that can complicate these matters is a veteran's contract. I believe that the Indians need to be more willing to declare a contract a sunk cost. The big example right now is Peralta. He's currently carrying a .728 OPS after a .691 mark last year. I would consider his contract a sunk cost and give Marte a shot. That wont maximize the value the team gets out of Peralta. But I think it is the best way to get value out of the situation. I saw Dave make a comparison to selling a house because you need to move. I think a similar comparison is apt for this kind of situation. You can hold out for your asking price. It may take a while and you will pay property tax and other expenses along the way. You will also lose the value in having money today versus down the road. Being willing to lower your asking price may make you more money in the long term, even if you didn't get what you thought the house was worth. Holding out hope that players will increase their value is penny wise and pound foolish.

Back to shoving veterans out of the way. I mentioned that veterans are expensive. I think an unwillingness to shove middling veterans out of the way leads to other problems. One of the big complaints about the Indians is that they spread money around. Rather than sign one good player, they sign 3 marginal players in his place. Keeping mediocre vets around leads to that much bemoaned situation. If you are willing to play young players all over, payroll space can be used to get a smaller number of superior players.

There is an underlying issue that I think drives all of these disagreements. Risk management. I don't think that the Indians can afford certainty. I would rather grab a bunch of young talent and risk it. If they fly too close to the sun, so be it. Granted, it's easy for me to suggest this. I can't get fired.
The lines are drawn, the orders are in, the Dance Commander's ready to sin. Radio message from HQ: Dance Commander, we love you
FordPrefect
Ballboy
Posts: 43
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#9 » by FordPrefect » Wed May 19, 2010 12:48 pm

Good points, but I don't think there's anything that serious going on - I don't think Shapiro is having these sorts of discussions with Antonetti and whoever.

It's not a decision as much as it is a presumption: it's a presumption that you need veteran leadership, a presumption that you should play whoever is the best at the given moment, a presumption that a young player who struggles is ruined forever.

Part of it is the clubhouse issues. But those clubhouse issues only reinforce the veteran presumption.

I don't think the discussion on any of the boards has touched the key issue: the lack of comittment to building with youth. Shapiro started his time at GM by dicking around with old players (Lawton) and he seems committed to ending it that way too. Compare the Indians to the Rockies. The Rockies aren't perfect (Iannetta is in AAA) but they've developed players across the diamond, and played them, to the point where they could probably run out two separate decent teams if they had to. They're just really deep - because they committed to building that way.

The Indians have better core players than the Rockies right now, but have had markedly less success lately. Part of that is injuries (Sizemore, Droobs) but a bigger point is the commitment to developing guys with positive impacts at cheap prices. The indians would like LaPorta to be an impact player ... but if he's not, who cares. The Indians want Valbuena or donald or Marte to be an impact plaer, but if they're not, dump them and don't play them.

The Rockies, by contrast, squeeze value out of those guy. Dexter Fowler isn't Sizemore but he's not bad either.

Part of this is the fans: they're outraged that LaPorta isn't putting up an 850 OPS already (I'm serious on that one).
Lando12
Freshman
Posts: 62
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#10 » by Lando12 » Wed May 19, 2010 5:27 pm

I think that the presumption that veterans are needed is a good idea. It's a bit easier to swallow than the crap I throw against the wall.

I don't think the Indians are committed to throwing a few old guys into the mix. I don't think they are that committed to anything. It seems like they are operating under the assumption that the cream will always rise to the top. If they throw a bunch of stuff together, the core will make itself known. More often than not, that will work. The big problem is that the Indians need a higher success rate than that. The organization may need a stronger hand in creating the outcome they want rather than the outcome chance gives them.

And the people complaining about LaPorta need to back off. They are the same people that screamed bloody murder about trading Victor, an 850 OPS hitter. If Victor's bat was worthy of big dollars at 1B, wouldn't LaPorta's failure to hit that standard in his first full season be expected?
The lines are drawn, the orders are in, the Dance Commander's ready to sin. Radio message from HQ: Dance Commander, we love you
DavidMcGr
Freshman
Posts: 51
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#11 » by DavidMcGr » Wed May 19, 2010 5:48 pm

Lando12 wrote:I think that the presumption that veterans are needed is a good idea. It's a bit easier to swallow than the crap I throw against the wall.

I don't think the Indians are committed to throwing a few old guys into the mix. I don't think they are that committed to anything. It seems like they are operating under the assumption that the cream will always rise to the top. If they throw a bunch of stuff together, the core will make itself known. More often than not, that will work. The big problem is that the Indians need a higher success rate than that. The organization may need a stronger hand in creating the outcome they want rather than the outcome chance gives them.

And the people complaining about LaPorta need to back off. They are the same people that screamed bloody murder about trading Victor, an 850 OPS hitter. If Victor's bat was worthy of big dollars at 1B, wouldn't LaPorta's failure to hit that standard in his first full season be expected?


I think this is generally true but my main concern is their lack of patience within the process. I fear that if that cream takes a bit longer than expected to rise that they put on the backburner (sometimes for good) while simultaneously putting too much weight into hot streaks that are from players with an extensive history of mediocre production. The bottom line is that they need to be more patient with young players and forgot about catching lightning in a bottle from time to time. I feel that this is particularly important at this point in time as our primary objective should be developing longerm talent for the near future. It should also be noted that if we continually delay extended auditions for our young players we are wasting our time our current core players (Grady, Choo, etc...) as well as delaying the promotion of multiple prospects deeper in our system (either that or simply never giving the lesser prospects any chance whatsoever).

At times it appears that our entire philosophy is to make generally smart moves but dumb ones within our team's context. It's smart to sign undervalued free agents and to trade them midseason for nice prospects, but it's stupid when doing so comes at the cost at developing young, potential impact, players and when those signings come at positions of relative depth for the team. A perfect example is Russel Branyan. Generally speaking he was a good value signing but we hardly needed a marginal upgrade (as a developmental team) and we happened to be overflowing with depth at 1B and LF (Laporta, Brantley, Kearns, Brown, Duncan, Weglarz, Hodges, Mills and more). Now you can look at moves like this individually and make excuses or exceptions for it but this is hardly an isolated incident and when these sort of mistakes are continually they can have a rather serious impact as a whole (for instance over time we may end up paying 5-10 million a year for a league average player while releasing an above average player [since they had never had an extended chance to play in the big leagues] that plays for league minimum).
http://sabrtribe.blogspot.com - Someday I'll have more time and write something with substance again.
Lando12
Freshman
Posts: 62
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#12 » by Lando12 » Thu May 20, 2010 1:46 am

Coming into tonight, LaPorta, Branyan, and Kearns had combined for 380 PA. I think that there is a way to split those PA that allows LaPorta to play everyday. I don't want to blur the line between an acquisition and how that player is used. I still don't have a problem with grabbing Branyan if the team thinks Brantley needs more AAA time. I do have a problem with how this whole mess has gone down.

With Grudzielanek established as the everyday 2B and the constant benching of LaPorta, I feel like I have to change my stance on these types of moves. The Indians cannot have nice things. I wouldn't have a problem with picking up a guy like Kearns, but this organization cannot be trusted with them.
The lines are drawn, the orders are in, the Dance Commander's ready to sin. Radio message from HQ: Dance Commander, we love you
FordPrefect
Ballboy
Posts: 43
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#13 » by FordPrefect » Thu May 20, 2010 3:05 pm

They had a hole for one veteran, and picked up two cheaply. Instead of choosing, they decided to play them both at the expense of the young player, and then to use the young player's struggles as an excuse to sit him some more.

It's an avalanche of bad player development.
Lando12
Freshman
Posts: 62
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#14 » by Lando12 » Thu May 20, 2010 6:50 pm

I'm starting to wonder if the CC trade was a mistake. I don't question the value of the return, but I do question how much the Indians value that return. LaPorta has ridden the bench for Dellucci and Kearns. LaPorta's role in this organization is a spare 1B/OF. Should they really have traded CC to fill a role that Jordan Brown can handle?
The lines are drawn, the orders are in, the Dance Commander's ready to sin. Radio message from HQ: Dance Commander, we love you
FordPrefect
Ballboy
Posts: 43
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#15 » by FordPrefect » Thu May 20, 2010 7:11 pm

Not to mention that they're playing Crowe in CF instead of Brantley.

They just seem to manage their prospects in such a way that they're guaranteed to get the minimal value possible from prospects. Sometimes those prospects come back from the grave (don't forget, Choo and Cabrera were written off at one point, and who know what would have happened if Juan Gonzalez stayed healthy for a month) ... but more often they make their prospects face so much adversity that they're doomed to failure.
Lando12
Freshman
Posts: 62
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#16 » by Lando12 » Thu May 20, 2010 8:21 pm

FordPrefect wrote:but more often they make their prospects face so much adversity that they're doomed to failure.


I think that this should be named "The Marte effect." Playing every day means playing well in part time duty first. If a player struggles in that environment, they are cast aside. For all of the nice things said about routine, the Indians demand that young players succeed without one. It's throwing up another hurdle for no good reason. It is also determining roles based upon how players perform in entirely different roles. Valbuena needs to be a starter through success on the bench. Crowe needs to show his value as a 4th OF by playing every day. It is madness.
The lines are drawn, the orders are in, the Dance Commander's ready to sin. Radio message from HQ: Dance Commander, we love you
FordPrefect
Ballboy
Posts: 43
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 08, 2010

Re: The long, slow death of Matt LaPorta 

Post#17 » by FordPrefect » Thu May 20, 2010 11:40 pm

Lando12 wrote:
FordPrefect wrote:but more often they make their prospects face so much adversity that they're doomed to failure.


I think that this should be named "The Marte effect." Playing every day means playing well in part time duty first. If a player struggles in that environment, they are cast aside. For all of the nice things said about routine, the Indians demand that young players succeed without one. It's throwing up another hurdle for no good reason. It is also determining roles based upon how players perform in entirely different roles. Valbuena needs to be a starter through success on the bench. Crowe needs to show his value as a 4th OF by playing every day. It is madness.


I think that's exactly right.

Return to Cleveland Indians