2012 Baseball Offseason Player Movement Thread

[Chris]

I'm just pointing out that that was the worst example of using the phrase "massive disappointment" I have ever seen. He has been far from a massive disappointment. In light of the Damage and boobie posts, troll on my friend.

He's one of the better players on one of the shittiest teams in the league. That's why he isn't a disappointment? Mmkay. My bad, I'll concede you Santana. In fact, I'll concede you the whole team. The Indians are so loaded with talent, it's a wonder they ever lose a game. I won't take up any more of your time.

[BimboColesHair]

Where are you getting this from? I never said the Indians were good or loaded with talent. I simply pointed out that your statement that Santana has been a "massive disappointment" was stupid and gave actual evidence as to why. End of story. Go argue with a wall or something.

[Chris]

He's one of the better players on one of the shittiest teams in the league. That's why he isn't a disappointment? Mmkay.

.

[BimboColesHair]

Keep going...

[SRStark20]

Santana will be fine.

Christ. You all need to quit your bitching. We're all a part of the same cause here.

[Chris]

I'll give you that. Santana is the least of the Indians' worries.

At least he's relatively productive.

[BimboColesHair]

I'll give you that. Santana is the least of the Indians' worries.

At least he's relatively productive.

Santana is a massive disappointment so far.

my god...

[RealKingofCleve]

I'll assume you're basing his mental issues off nothing, per the usual.

We'll never know, but when you limit pitchers to 75 pitches on a 4-man rotation...people are bound to not live up to potential.

Except for the fact he had an "extreme" dui and acted completely unprofessional and made immature comments when traded. But hey, you also argued Ubaldo did not have mental issues when they traded for him lololol.

[Chris]

my god...

Because being a decently productive player relative to the garbage team you play on and being a disappointing player are definitely mutually exclusive attributes.

That is sarcasm, by the way, just in case you missed it.

[BMAN]

Why the fuck do the Indians section get trolled all the time?

[Chris]

It's because of your definition of trolling.

Look at the Cavs and Browns sections, shit, even the OSU section. People call out the front office and administrative capacities of these teams on a daily basis and nobody bats an eye, nobody calls it trolling. Mods specifically change threads to degrading names about players in the Cavs section, nobody really cares much, nobody gets upset over it. Here, literally every negative comment about the Indians is perceived as "trolling." This leads to people who enjoy getting a rise out of others posting material as such. I don't claim to be one of those individuals ... I truly, genuinely do not like the track record of the Indians or the team they have assembled, I find it repulsive, frankly.

[JiggleIt]

The only thing I fault Chris for is failing to fight back after being attacked for his "stud players" comment. People bring up Choo, Asdrubal and Chris Perez to counter.

I'd define a stud player as a game-changing, top 20 or so in the league player. Miggy, McCutchen, Trout, Braun, Prince Fielder, Pujols, Josh Hamilton and probably no more than about 10-15 more.

By my definition of a stud....Choo and Asdrubal aren't even in the same stratosphere. They're not impact guys. They're slightly above average at their positions.

Chris Perez is arguable as a stud. If the standards of Cleveland baseball have dropped so far as to consider Choo and Asdrubal to be "studs," then grips need o be gotten.

I also wouldn't call Santana a "massive disappointment," and he looks to have some potential. But he hasn't exactly lit the world on fire either.

[OhioSlayer]

The only thing I fault Chris for is failing to fight back after being attacked for his "stud players" comment. People bring up Choo, Asdrubal and Chris Perez to counter.

I'd define a stud player as a game-changing, top 20 or so in the league player. Miggy, McCutchen, Trout, Braun, Prince Fielder, Pujols, Josh Hamilton and probably no more than about 10-15 more.

By my definition of a stud....Choo and Asdrubal aren't even in the same stratosphere. They're not impact guys. They're slightly above average at their positions.

Chris Perez is arguable as a stud. If the standards of Cleveland baseball have dropped so far as to consider Choo and Asdrubal to be "studs," then grips need o be gotten.

I also wouldn't call Santana a "massive disappointment," and he looks to have some potential. But he hasn't exactly lit the world on fire either.

I agree with the whole stud argument. Just because they are two of the better players on our team doesn't make Droobs and Choo studs. Both were on track a few years ago to be studs but they kinda just fell off that path, imo anyways.

Perez to me is one of the top closers in the league. Period. That would describe a stud player.

I don't know how anyone can call Santana a "massive disappointment" with a straight face. How many full years has he been playing? ......Exactly. He plays maybe the toughest position on the field. Albeit his playing days behind the plate could dwindle at a more rapid pace as the years go by. You can't call him a massive disappointment and then say he is a productive player. The only way you can justify calling Santana a massive disappointment is if you had your head up your ass and thought he would be hitting 40 bombs, 350 avg and so on, already. Not everyone comes out and is a top player in all of baseball right away, Trout did it this year, lets see if it was a fluke or not. I am fine with Santana and happy with his progress, just as long as he keeps going forward.

[Damage]

Jig knows a stud when he see's one.

[Chris]

The only thing I fault Chris for is failing to fight back after being attacked for his "stud players" comment. People bring up Choo, Asdrubal and Chris Perez to counter.

I'd define a stud player as a game-changing, top 20 or so in the league player. Miggy, McCutchen, Trout, Braun, Prince Fielder, Pujols, Josh Hamilton and probably no more than about 10-15 more.

By my definition of a stud....Choo and Asdrubal aren't even in the same stratosphere. They're not impact guys. They're slightly above average at their positions.

Chris Perez is arguable as a stud. If the standards of Cleveland baseball have dropped so far as to consider Choo and Asdrubal to be "studs," then grips need o be gotten.

I also wouldn't call Santana a "massive disappointment," and he looks to have some potential. But he hasn't exactly lit the world on fire either.

Take the "massive" out of my statement and I think it's pretty fair. I don't know why people were so caught up on that word anyway, the point is...Santana was supposed to be a pretty fucking huge piece for the Indians and he's been decent so far. Nothing great.

As for not fighting back, I agree 100% and was thinking the same thing but what the hell is the point of arguing that with these people? Choo and Cabrera are above average players but they are certainly not studs like the ones you listed nor are they game changers, but really, the argument is pointless because no matter what you say you will be labeled a troll and a misfit.

Somebody has to bring some reality to this board.

I don't know how anyone can call Santana a "massive disappointment" with a straight face. How many full years has he been playing? ......Exactly. He plays maybe the toughest position on the field. Albeit his playing days behind the plate could dwindle at a more rapid pace as the years go by. You can't call him a massive disappointment and then say he is a productive player. The only way you can justify calling Santana a massive disappointment is if you had your head up your ass and thought he would be hitting 40 bombs, 350 avg and so on, already. Not everyone comes out and is a top player in all of baseball right away, Trout did it this year, lets see if it was a fluke or not. I am fine with Santana and happy with his progress, just as long as he keeps going forward.

Disagree entirely.

The guy is 26 years old. I know it's only his third year in the majors coming up, but if you're just average at 26 years old after being a blue chip prospect that was supposed to be a big time impact player, you are disappointing. It really blows my mind how being relatively (key word in this phrase, I know it's a toughy guys) productive and a disappointment are suddenly mutually exclusive. It's also blowing my mind how suddenly if you are a disappointment, then you are terrible. It's like people who were disappointed with Batman and thus label it as one of the worst movies of the year. Stupid. Disappointing means he's not on the track to superstardom like I thought he would be. Trainwreck would be Matt LaPorta. The difference: see it? Would you rather the term underwhelming? Playing a difficult position is not an excuse, either. Doesn't fly with me, sorry. I'd love to go back to some of the game threads this season to all the people absolutely blasting Santana for not being that good, but I don't have the time or willpower to waste my time doing that for an Internet argument. People will simply create some cop out or excuse.

Where I will give CS credit is his first half was an inarguable disappointment; his second half certainly picked it up. Hopefully that bodes well for progression into 2013, but the Indians will need a lot more than Carlos Santana.