Some position players of interest Here are some more brief capsules on Indian players during spring training. We will explore more position players over the next couple of blogs.
Lonnie Chisenhall: I remain concerned about his long term future with the Indians. He is frustrating for devoted Indian fans to watch because of his immense promise. Way too much talent to give up on but way to much inconsistent performance to count on. He has tried to adjust to his repeated 1-2, 0-2 counts by swinging at the first pitch. That may work for awhile but most scouting reports will catch up to that and he will see breaking balls in the dirt on pitch one. He would be better off simply seeing the ball and hitting it instead of developing a tendency. I see the same over anxiousness this spring that we see during the season. He had a nice day at the plate yesterday but several poor days as well. His fielding remains inconsistent making him tough for Terry to count on. But Francona clearly has not given up on him. He had another nice double today as well but still doesn’t look comfortable at the plate. I wish I was as optimistic as Terry.
Francisco Lindor: As all Indian fans know, he has a major league glove right now. The Indians are trying to get him a good number of At Bats this spring. That is a good strategy. He was a DH yesterday, a position he will likely never play at the ML level. His swing is aggressive making him prone to off speed pitches down but that is also what results in extra base power. So his job going forward is balancing his aggressive swing with good plate discipline. Often those two don’t go together but, when they do, potential .300 hitters with gap power result. That is probably Lindor’s upside. But combine that with a fine defender and the Indians will have one heck of a player.
Jesus Agular: Do not be fooled by his long no-hit streak this spring. This young man brings a fairly nice discipline to the plate along with pure power. He does not seem to over swing. Even with this frustrating spring in his first big chance with the big club, he looks controlled and disciplined. Not easy when you are 0 for 16. I like his approach and I saw him hit some nice balls that were turned into outs. Certainly one to watch going forward. I think he has an excellent chance to emerge within two years. I was not able to see enough defensive plays to be sure there but he looks a bit stiff. Would like to see more but he is probably sent down by the time you read this.
Carlos Montcrief: I like what little I saw of him this spring. He has power and reasonable plate discipline. He has an aggressive swing and makes good contact. His fielding is not elegant looking but effective. He made some nice plays but I think he might have made them look harder than they were. A work in progress but he is a solid prospect.
I will have more available late tonight. Going to check out the Cavs now. Ttyl8r.
More pitching capsules Another sun-filled day in the books and we have some new observations for spring training with the Indians. Not all of these observations come from today’s game but they come from the last several days of spring training.
Cody Allen: Cody has dynamic stuff and today was no different. He did show some signs of rust in that his fastball command was still not what it will be eventually. His off speed pitches were solid and his ability to blow away Trumbo was impressive. He will end up right where he belongs in the eighth inning.
John Axford: Threw his fastball in the mid 90s and seemed to have reasonably good command. He did not throw his curveball hardly at all. It seems to me that he is preserving his curveball until later in the spring. I suspect that as he begins to mix in his off speed pitches he will look even more effective. At this point I am not concerned and I believe that he could be an effective closer. I do not believe that he will be a significant downgrade over Chris Perez.
Scott Barnes: Scott was throwing the ball fairly well in the two times that I have watched him. Unfortunately, he does not show any substantial improvement over where he looked to be last year. I still feel that he would be an extremely long shot to make the Indians team and I am not even certain if he could be effective if we need to call him up.
Preston Guilmet: He suffers from his main problem of having average stuff. It is not that his stuff has no major-league potential but is just not effective enough to consistently get major league hitters out. I do not have much confidence that he can be effective either now or in the future for the Indians.
T.J. House: Decent but not great fastball and fastball command. He can get hitters out with his off speed pitches, but not consistently enough. Still a prospect but approaching the point where that may no longer be true.
Justin Masterson: He looked sharp and will be ready to go on opening day. I just wish the Indians would sign him to a three or four year deal. He would be worth it in my view.
Bryan Shaw: Another dynamic late inning reliever that looked fine on the mound today. He will pair with Cody Allen to clean up the seventh and eighth innings. Looked good and he impressed me again with his mid 90’s fastball paired with a sharp breaking ball.
Blake Wood: He has a great chance to compete for a bullpen spot. I did not see the explosion I expected with his fastball but it is good enough. He was effective in his one inning.
More capsules tomorrow. I will include position players.
Rusty but an Ace in waiting.I’ve been in Goodyear Arizona since Saturday and will be here the rest of the week. Here are some early observations from my first couple of days.
Trevor Bauer: Here is a young man who is trying hard but will certainly be ticketed back to the minor leagues. The concern here is, despite changes in his delivery and approach, he has made no real progress with respect to commanding his fastball. It still appears to me that his arm drags behind his body when he is trying to throw at maximum velocity. The result of this is a fastball the consistently tails high to the hitters and it is quite easy for them to avoid swinging. There is still hope for him eventually but his lack of progress is certainly concerning.
Vinnie Pestano: I still have hope for Vinnie. He seems to have made progress with respect to his command especially of his off speed pitches. He is commanding his fastball fairly well but still has work to do there. His overall velocity is approaching where he needs to be but it is not there yet. He topped out at 92 mph and was able to throw consistently between 89 and 90. There is still a chance that he could be ready and look like the Vinnie of old by the start of the season. His off speed pitches were really nasty yesterday.
Danny Salazar: He looked rusty but otherwise was throwing very well. I am still encouraged by his overall potential and I believe he should be a solid starter for the Tribe this year. He has work to do in spring training to catch up, but I think that will be possible by about the fifth to seventh game of the season.
Nick Hagadone: I see no progress whatsoever. I really do not see any logical way that he makes the team out of spring training and will only be depth going forward. The overall outlook for Nick is still not very encouraging.
Josh Tomlin: He looks good and ready to compete for his spot on the team. I saw nothing in his delivery or in his command that would suggest he could not be ready by the start of the season. He is certainly a viable candidate for the fifth starter, but at the very least they will try to find a place for him somewhere. He looks good.
CC Lee: It is very easy to see why the Indians like this kid. He seems to have a good presence on the mound and commands his pitches fairly well. He still needs to work on his fastball command but his overall outlook is promising. I like him and see a future for him down the road. And down the road maybe as soon as this year.
I have many more players to report on, but I wanted to cover some of the pitching today. There’ll be much more down the road as we proceed through spring training.
Cavs will benefit from Hawes varied skillset For those Cavs fans who want to go a bit past the surface of any move the Cavs make, and I know there are many, you had better start listening carefully to our new GM. If you only go out and read press articles and national sports media pundits, you will get a very narrow view of any moves the Cavs make. I have found that to be especially true since the reaction to Grant being fired and the reaction to the latest Cavs trade. The views out there are very narrow and sometimes shallow. Right now, I only get reasonable depth from Jason Lloyd who has definitely gone below the surface to give us a feel for what has gone on behind the scenes. I don’t mean this article to be about the press. And I don’t mean this article to contrast myself against bloggers who are very different from the press and always go into more depth. That is part of the beauty of bloggers. But I do want to carry the theme I began with my last blog about Dan Gilbert making the exact right move by firing Grant. I also took a little heat because that was kind of long and I was too detailed with my explanations. I will correct that here.
The logic outside is that the Cavs are taking pot shots in the dark to try and make the playoffs this year because Dan Gilbert wants it that way. Then it follows in their logic that these moves have no positive long term effects and definite long term negatives because we are trading a bunch of second round picks and losing assets for expiring contracts. Further, some would say that by not “tanking” for the fourth straight year, the Cavs are missing a golden opportunity in a decent draft to get back in the high lottery. While all of these views have some merit, I believe they are over simplistic views of the depth behind the Cavs management’s thinking. I am personally very impressed. They have finally used assets to learn more about the current team that has underperformed terribly this year (and probably the past two years). This will be invaluable going forward and cannot be underestimated.
The neatest thing about all of this is that David Griffin has laid it all out there for you to see and, frankly, the rest of the league if they are paying attention. Grant was always so darned guarded that he rarely gave us even a peak at their real thinking. He may have been just as secret with his own players and that is a tragic mistake if true. Now Griffin is not spewing detailed strategy but is telling the truth in small tidbits. The rest of this blog is simply decoding those tidbits as it relates to this exact trade and the Cavs acquisition philosophy. All of this came from Griffin’s press conference.
The Hawes trade:
1) Hawes is a rare 7 footer that can stretch the floor effectively. Not even close to a perfect player (defense ugh) but only 25.
2) The Cavs have had no one over the past three years that can actually stretch the floor as a big. Most successful teams have a “stretch” big man.
3) With our team composition, we are losing valuable offensive opportunities because we allow teams to clog the paint and reduce the impact of our dynamic penetrators Kyrie and Dion.
4) Because of our team composition we are losing opportunities for our cutting, open floor type players like Deng, Miles, and even TT.
5) By adding Hawes they now have a chance to learn first hand if adding a stretch big and spacing the floor better improves the effectiveness of our dynamic drive and kick potential.
6) You don’t need to ask now whether or not they want to consider keeping Hawes because that will become apparent when you see what effect he has on our whole team going forward. If not much, bye bye. If fantastic improvement, stay, stay. If some measurable improvement, look for another one if you want.
7) Second round picks, despite the new CBA, are still just second round picks and should be used to acquire assets that can potentially advance your team.
8) No mention was made of what players we gave up so you can translate that easily…. nothing.
The Cavs philosophy:
1) We want to get better and making the playoffs might signify that but neither the Deng or the Hawes moves were intended to reach a playoffs or bust mandate that has been widely speculated because of Gilbert’s early expectations.
2) Both the Deng and Hawes acquisitions were actually to add a quality piece that has been missing from the Cavs for every year since LeBron left… A real small forward and a real stretch big (sorry Antwan Jamison… your shooting was not that good.)
3) The Cavs made a conscious decision to get assets that had been clearly missing over those years to see if they could elevate the Cavs awful play. When Deng worked out so poorly because his slashing game was negated by our bigs (except Andy), we added a stretch big.
4) By testing the way they did with quality expiring contracts, they have not really impacted the substantial cap flexibility we had worked so hard to gain. Still leaving the door open to sign one or both players again depending on their contributions on the court. Or simply letting them go knowing they had to fill that void with someone else soon.
5) In fact, if you add it up, we probably have gained a little cap flexibility (but not much)
6) Griffin talked to Deng and several Cavs players today before the moves were announced. He is trying to be more open and transparent and it is obvious. Grant never stated he talked to any player before a trade was made or immediately after (unless they were in the trade).
7) This team could not afford to draft 4 rookies next year by using three second round picks. So by keeping the best two and divesting the others, they have done little to hurt the team. If you think we could have moved up into the first round with those this year, I don’t think so.
GO CAVS !!!!! Here’s hoping this addition will work out. If for no other reason then seeing how the current team will respond with proper pieces, it was worth the cost.
Those questioning Gilbert need to rethink their analysis I have been frankly appalled by the simplistic analysis rendered by so many of the media after the recent decision by Dan Gilbert to fire Chris Grant. Although this type of criticism of a powerful figure sells “papers” and radio sound bites, it rings hollow when broken down with logic. I get the impression that the usually placid media in Cleveland have been reveling in the joy of second guessing struggling franchises. In most cases, I am right there with them. In this case, I can not add to the din of distrust they have spewed out.
Let’s first look at the decision itself and how it makes perfect sense. Then I will expand that by going into some specific criticisms and addressing them. I recognize that this is now “old news” but the media continues to maintain simplistic criticisms even as of last night on the radio with Bill Livingston. Not to throw Livingston under the bus as he is one of the most balanced commentators out there. It is just that the media “marvels” at the fact firing the GM might actually energize the players and allow them to play better. The GM does not coach them nor does he interact with them consistently (I will address my speculation on that later) so how could firing the GM possibly be the right move? To all of those media and fans in “wonderment”, I will do my best to explain it in a workable way.
Dan Gilbert is the CEO and majority owner of the Cavs. As a CEO and owner, you must think like an owner or CEO to make competent decisions. Most of us have never been placed in that position and are unaware of the proper way to publicly and privately portray tough decisions. It is clear that Gilbert was fed up with the status quo and felt he must step up to make a change. Most of the media felt that the obvious sacrificial lamb in this public execution needed to be the head coach. He was the one leading the team on the court and it was on the court that the Cavs had under performed and remained uninspired. The fans and media thinking that were, of course, correct about the play of the team on the court and the lack of clear and consistent effort by the players. Certainly it was not apparent that the General Manager was not performing up to expectations. so why make the GM the fall guy in this mess and not the head coach or demand that this under achieving team get broken up?
The difference here is that Dan Gilbert, no matter what you might think of him, is a very experienced and competent owner. He owns with his group dozens of companies and must find a way to navigate them to success. So, just like everyone is excited about the Indians finally getting an experienced and successful manager on the field, the Cavs have a very experienced and successful owner upon which to base their operations. As an owner, I think he saw the same on the court flaws that we all could see. Now, do you think those terrible performances were because the coach was not telling them the right things to do or because the players were not accepting the message from the coach? Or was it because they accepted the message and did not have the skill or intelligence to execute the game plans put before them? Gilbert knew Brown was a tireless worker. Many have commented on how no one outworks Mike Brown as a head coach. By all reports those who have spoken with Brown acknowledge how detailed and high level his knowledge is of the game of basketball. So Gilbert, after weighing all of those factors, decided that to fire the coach who had had less than a year to drive his message home was ill advised and would send exactly the wrong message to his players. Remember, he had seen Byron Scott preach many of the same things about heart and effort and desire for three years without any budge from the players.
So….. if it is the players that couldn’t receive the message of how to be a professional and how much effort it takes, then the message needed to be sent to the players when the ax came down. That can be done by breaking up the team and “selling low” to get the pieces rearranged. Even that may not work because if key pieces remain that don’t understand the importance of driving relentlessly at a goal, you will still fail even with some new pieces. Also, the other teams in the NBA would be perfectly happy to rip off the Cavs when they knew they had entered a “fire sale” just to change the culture of the players. That would have placed the Cavs in a terrible position of leverage and Grant would not be able to hold other teams for ransom as he had done in the past with trades. Also, Chris Grant’s reputation of “overvaluing” his players would be awful if the team needed to be broken up. Seeing all of that, Gilbert recognized that keeping the same management and breaking up the team would be messy and would devalue his team in the short and long term. That was a place that he decided he didn’t want to go.
The other way to send the message directly at the players is to fire the man who hired them. Anyone who has worked at a business knows that if the man that brought you there is terminated, you could be next. That situation is completely out of your control. In other words, you could be traded to another crappy team or a good team. If your role with the team increased compared with the Cavs, you probably got traded to a crappy team. If your role with the new team decreased substantially, it might be a good team but your standing as an individual player could drop. Since the Cavs have a ton of young players, they would have almost no say in what fate lies before them. So you need to decide, make a situation that you are already in better or keep screwing up and giving poor effort so you can suffer a completely unknown fate with a new team. You might say the veterans would see this as an opportunity to get out and that chance could be improved by playing with poor effort and going to a better team. The problem there is that the veterans on this team have matured to the point that this childish logic is not part of their DNA. Jack, Miles, Deng, and Andy simply can not bring themselves to take that coward’s way out. So, if Gilbert gauged his players maturity correctly, that result was highly unlikely.
Of course it was the GM that “hired” all of those players by trades, free agent signings and drafting. The players know this and can’t help but respect the man who “wanted” them on his team. Dion Waters said exactly that after the firing. Now they had a new GM who they didn’t know as well but were stuck with the SAME COACH. They didn’t know what the new GM thought of them and even what the owner thought of them after Grant was fired. That kind of uncertainty challenges people. They either decide to fight to make it better or sink further to the bottom. Sometimes it is this kind of a test that finally wakes talented young people up and they decide to take another path from the one they were taking. What decision the players took would become obvious fairly quickly and Gilbert was hoping that might clarify who they had to move, if anyone.
Firing the coach would have sent EXACTLY the wrong message. That would simply say that “you guys are fine” we just haven’t found the coach talented enough to lead you. We have kept all of you but fired the coach who was sending you the message about hustle and defense and effort and intensity. Gee, that was the same message sent to you from Byron Scott so it must be the wrong message. We will simply change the coach, change the message, and you guys will be just fine. We are on our way to the playoffs!! For all of you that favored firing the coach instead of the GM, can you see how that message would have been completely wrong and misguided? It is the players that needed the wake up call and not the coach! I am not a big Mike Brown fan and, in fact, was not particularly comfortable when they hired him. But I can certainly see the folly in firing him after less than one season and sending that message of acceptance to the players. It made infinitely more sense to fire the GM who brought all of those players to Cleveland and send them the message that this is not acceptable.
I can go on and on why this decision made so much sense. But I would be remiss if I didn’t address now the most illogical objection to the GM firing that has been repeated over and over and over again to the point of my nausea. It is like everyone just parroted the logic and accepted it as fact even though it is illogical itself. After the firing of the GM, Dan Gilbert said that he liked his coach (Mike Brown) and his players. That he BELIEVED in them and thought they could turn it around. That has been universally panned as illogical and a sign that Gilbert is out of touch. Again, you need to think like a CEO or owner to understand this logic. The common logic says “Well, if you like the players and the coach, why fire the man who put them together.” Here is why. After you make a dramatic decision as a CEO such as firing the man charged with running the basketball operations, you need to decide what message you want to send publicly next. If you imply that the coach might be next and you are not confident, the players continue to tune him out thinking he is a lame duck anyway. As the owner, you can’t afford to send that message or anything close to that message. So it would have made no sense to say anything negative on that topic. You want the players to know that “Mike Brown is going to be your coach so you had better get along and make the best of it.” Secondly, what sense in any way does it make to imply that you don’t like your players and that you think they will fail? What CEO does that? I can tell you that a smart CEO does not do that because the message has already been sent publicly by firing the head of basketball operations. Now you need to build up your troops and support them publicly. Privately, you will charge your new GM to do other things to send personal more individual messages to your players and coaching staff. Make no mistake about it, I am 100% certain those messages were sent. And I don’t mean all negative messages. I am sure that many of them were positive and productive.
So, while the press would have been overjoyed if the CEO took pot shots at everyone including the coach and the players in his press conference, he absolutely would have been a moron to do so. That approach would have been similar to the infamous “LeBron comic sans letter” that he wishes he had never sent. It makes for headlines but it undermines the fabric of the very organization he has spent so much money to grow and promote. As a fan, I might have liked him to challenge everyone in his presser but as a leader I realize it makes no sense at all.
Now that I hope I have debunked the most public objection to Dan Gilbert’s decision I want to talk about some of the subtleties that makes it the right first step toward placing the organization on solid footing. First of all about Grant. Most observers had no real objection to Gilbert firing Grant. It is just that they felt others were more deserving of the ax (eg Coach Brown). Grant had been with the organization longer and had placed his stamp on it more than any single individual. Despite that fact, other organizations had clearly leapfrogged the Cavs in their development with arguably fewer “assets” and certainly not as much luck. The Cavs won TWO draft lotteries under Grant’s tenure. Plus, most agree that Grant had garnered a reputation of overvaluing his players and trying to “outsmart” other GMs. Powerful people do not like to be made to look stupid and Grant, actually by accident to a degree, had done that a couple of times. Gilbert probably knows but we don’t know how many trades Grant did not make when put before him that might have propelled the Cavs forward. This is speculative but it is certainly plausible. What is less speculative is that Gilbert may have known that Grant’s reputation around the league could hinder his ability for future trades. Some GMs have been quoted as saying they would avoid talking trades with Grant. Finally, from a “culture” standpoint (something also panned by the media when Gilbert mentioned it with the firing), Gilbert probably saw it deteriorate under Grant this year. Even at his last press conference as GM, I thought Grant sounded smug, distant and detached from his and the team’s detractors. He almost acted like he was “above the crowd” on this and that he knew the way even if we didn’t. That detached attitude might have been privately manifest as well with less personal contact with the players and the coach. I think Grant had been distancing himself from this job for awhile based on what I could see. If true, Gilbert’s changing the culture comments may not have been as far off as some speculated after his press conference.
Gilbert had also gotten to know David Griffin through his several years with the organization. He knew that he was more of the “go out and touch” kind of guy in terms of his management style. I get the impression Gilbert is similar. That is a good fit. Also, Gilbert had undoubtedly asked around the league about the reputation of Griffin before making the switch. For those who think Gilbert has not been contemplating this move for awhile, I would beg to differ. He was just waiting for the proper time to pull the trigger where it would have the greatest impact. If the team had improved, he would have waited. When the team was embarrassed by a depleted Laker team, the time was right.
Griffin, who I hope Gilbert retains for the long haul, has the right approach to young players IMO. He will privately let them know what he expects of them and what might happen if they cannot produce results. I am also certain the same type conversation occurred with Mike Brown and his coaching staff. This is the “culture change” Gilbert was referring to based on what Griffin himself said about his “different” approach from Grant. He clearly distanced himself from the “hands off” approach, which implied that may have been Grant’s style. The often speculated conversations that he supposedly had with Kyrie and Dion makes perfect sense based on what we have seen since he took over. It is speculated that he took Kyrie and Dion aside separately or collectively and told them that the club had no intention of trading either one of them and he felt they BOTH were core pieces going forward. It is my opinion that Dion and Kyrie have wondered that ever since Dion was drafted. They can not help to have heard the incessant chatter in the background from ESPN and other media sources saying that they were a “bad fit” together and both needed the ball so they did not belong on the same team. Now it may turn out that it is entirely true that Dion and Kyrie can not coexist on the same roster, but Griffin sent the exact right message going forward to allow him to see if that is true. Similar to why Gilbert could not trash the coach or players after firing Grant, Griffin needs to see if Dion and Kyrie can coexist. So he told them, you WILL coexist so see if you both can make the best of it. If it fails, then one will be gone but we will all know why and can live with the result. So can Griffin and Gilbert if that happens. What has happened is a much more cohesive Kyrie and Dion on the court, a much more public display of support from each player for the other, and a private practice Friday before the All Star festivities. Those are all good first steps.
The Cavs needed to send a message of accountability throughout the organization and the clear leader of the company needed to emerge to make that happen. Gilbert did just that at the right time and sent the right message. This is just the beginning. My analysis of why Gilbert was right has no connection to the current 4 game win streak. Although welcomed, it can be just as short lived as many other signs of hope we have seen. I am absolutely certain that Griffin, Brown, and each player will be held accountable for the results. And, if the results don’t improve, then more definitive action will be taken. No one is safe. No one should be coddled. I think Gilbert sent that message loud and clear. Let’s hope he will follow-up with whatever is necessary to stabilize the ship going forward. Because the changes MIGHT have just begun.
