So Butch Davis spews meaningless drivel at press conferences. What's the big deal here? Every coach in every sport does this. I happen to like Campo and Robiskie.

Your comment about Butch channeling Charlie Manuel was spot on, though. I love Wedgie, but the fact remains, Charlie gave the most entertaining press conferences ever. Every sentence contained the phrase "but at the same time" at least once, usually separating two contradictory statements. And every couple of words, he'd interject "it's kind of like" (which usually just came out as "s kin'a like") Even more frequent was his use of "you know" (which usually just came out as "know"). An example: "Robbie can hit the ball real good, 'know, but at the same time, 'know, 's kin'a like, y'know sometimes he can't hit the ball real good." Manuel was also one of the great masters of messing up cliches. "We'll tackle that bridge when we get to it" and "That was the nail that broke the coffin's back" are my favorites.

Butch Davis is considerably more articulate than Charlie, though there are similarities. Unlike Manuel, Butch is always confident in the way he says things, even if it's wrong. And he really overuses the word "that". I don't know why this bothers me so much; it always seems to jump out at me. Many an actual quote will start something like: "The one thing that we felt like that we needed, was that..." and so on.

Paul Silas' press conferences are too straightforward for my tastes. Of all the Cleveland coaches in recent memory, he resorts to cliches the least. Of course, he also has the least to say. Meanwhile, much the way I miss Manuel's press conferences despite being happier overall with his replacement (Wedge), I really miss Coach Lucas, even though Silas is a much better coach. Coach Luc was very in-your-face in press conferences and interviews alike, even when the subject matter didn't call for it. He always spoke very loudly, and he always had something to say. The immortal pairing of Coach Luc and Austin Carr before each game was a treasure trove of hilarity.

Before I go, I'd like to extend an invitation to our readers/my sibling to share their favorite hilarious quotes from the likes of Charlie Manuel, John Lucas, Austin Carr, and the rest. Feel free to e-mail or use the comments.

All these quotes were lifted from a "clevelandbrowns.com exlusive", entitled "Staff's Experience is a Huge Plus" by Butch Davis:

As you approach a season, you look for different reasons to feel confident about your football team. And one of the biggest reasons I feel confident about what we have put together here is the vast experience of our coaching staff.

If you go across the board, you’d find that almost all of those guys, at one time during their career, held a position that’s more prestigious than the one they have now because they’ve climbed the ladder.

But doesn't that also mean they've all been fired too?

Both coordinators, Dave Campo and Terry Robiskie, are former head coaches in this league. Both have been former coordinators in this league -- Dave in Dallas and Terry in Oakland.

You look at all of their supporting cast and you see the same sort of background. George Edwards is the former defensive coordinator of the Washington Redskins. Rob Chudzinski is a former offensive coordinator at the University of Miami. Chuck Pagano is a former defensive coordinator at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. Steve Hagen was the offensive coordinator at Cal. Fred Graves was an assistant head coach at Utah. Andre Patterson was head coach at Cal-Poly-San Luis Obispo. There is a lot of trust and a lot of faith that I have in those guys as a head coach.

And we all know the awesome jobs they did while head coaches. Let's see, Dave Campo went 5-11 all three of his seasons (2000-2002) as head coach in Dallas. While the year after he was fired they went 10-6. Terry Robiskie went 1-2 as interim head coach in 2000 for the Redskins, so that's not much experience at all. The only other coach who has head coaching experience is Andre Patterson who went 15-16 during 1994-1996 at Cal-Poly-San Luis Obispo. The year after he left, the team went 10-1. Oh, and by the way, Butch Davis is 21-27 in Cleveland.

Their experience brings expertise and credibility to their coaching. Players tend to trust you more when they know you have that sort of background. It also helps the coaches with their organizational skills and creativity. It is especially helpful with the formulation of game plans. Having been coordinators and having been head coaches, they know the importance of simplicity from the standpoint that you can’t perfect a thousand ideas. You’ve got to find core beliefs that you can practice and execute under high periods of stress and pressure.

It's comforting to know that the Browns aren't like those other NFL teams that hire nobodies off the street. Our guys have experience!

Our assistant coaches are all really good teachers, which I think is the hallmark of all good coaches. When they get on the chalkboard, they have the ability to communicate and get things across in a variety of different ways. Some players get it from the chalkboard. Some players get it from video. Some players get it from the walk-throughs. Some players get it through repetition. Some guys get it verbally. Our coaches can find the way in which a player can give us his very best.

And they really care about the kids. They want the team to win as much as they want statistical glory for a particular positional group or for one side of the ball or the other.

You can see how this staff is coming together in the way that they’ve worked in planning training camp, the Buffalo scrimmages, the sharing of ideas. Why just this week in a meeting Terry was asking Dave, “What do you need to work on so that we’ll give you enough of that during camp?”

It is important that the Browns' coaches be good teachers, because we know that the players have a lot to learn about how to play football. Plus, I don't think their probation officers are willing to teach them football. HI-YOOOO!!!

You see cooperation and a legitimate concern for the growth and development of the other side of the ball. It manifested itself clearly on Draft Day. Literally, Dave argued just as hard for Kellen Winslow, an offensive guy, as Terry was arguing, “Hey, if it’s a defensive guy, take him.” It is much better to have that as opposed to, “Last year you got a defensive guy; this year it’s our turn to get a first-round pick.” There was never any of that stuff.

"Please Butch, can we waste the first round pick this year? Pretty, pretty please?"

All of these men are kind of similar, but at the same time you need to be kind of unique. You don’t want 15 clones of the head coach or 15 clones of each other. It takes a diverse kind of personality because you’re dealing with a variety of diverse personalities on your team. Each positional group -- the offensive line, the defensive line, the secondary -- has its own unique personality.

I see that the ghost of Charlie Manuel has taken over Davis's body.

A big part of the success of any football organization is having good chemistry, good working relationships, good teachers, and unselfish people on your coaching staff. That’s exactly the kind of group we have here.

However, the most important thing to any football team is talent. And we don't have that.

Perhaps he's training an apprentice?

Thanks to Max Abbott for his kick-ass photography skills.

Okay babies, I changed the title. So, note to the three people that link to us (Mike from Mike's Baseball Rants, David Baker from Ranting and Raving, and Gregi Gross from Der Denkpass) you should change the title of your link now. Oh, and our CIR ad is messed up now too.

Corey: you've inspired me, I'll finally talk about Ted Danson. While I consider myself completely immersed in sabermetric-nerdom, Russell Branyan is one of the few (perhaps only) players to make me almost wish for my uneducated days. Why? Because his statistics are so baffling. After watching Russell struggle at third base and left field mightily for the Indians in 2000-2002, it was even more painful to watch him bat. He has no batting eye whatsoever. He swung without abandon at anything above his waist. If handed a regular spot in the lineup, I believe Branyan would shatter Bobby Bonds' record of strikeouts in a season of 189. But then again, when he would make contact, it was a thing of beauty. Branyan could mash like no other when he made contact. But dear Lord, that was so infrequent.

Now that I am obsessed with baseball statistics though, if I had never seen Russell play I would consider giving him a shot. Sure, some numbers are awful: career .227 batting average, career .318 OBP, 3.18 K/BB, 18% worse than league average career range factor at 3B, and 25% worse than league average at LF. However, what about a guy who can post a career .472 slugging with such an awful batting average and OBP? Still, it is likely impossible to be able to teach a major leaguer a batting eye; so Russel remains just another bum who can't utilize his talent.

Also, let me say that Sportscenter now sucks beyond belief. ESPN is too over-the-top with their "let's celebrate how awesome we are! We're a cultural force!" sentiment. I wish Baseball Tonight wasn't home to such idiotic commentators, for I would rather watch that for baseball highlights any day. Last night, I saw some rapper performing on Sportscenter--why? Is Disney accepting payola from record companies? I actually miss CNN's sports highlight show--they had relatively few wacky antics.

I was at Miller Park for the Brewers-Cubs game tonight. All-time Indian great Russell Branyan, recently traded from the Indians to the Brewers for cash (yeah... just cash), made the start at third base. He went 1-for-4 with a strikeout and a 480-foot home run to dead center (the longest by a Brewer this year). Classic Russell.

In high school, a certain friend and I used to play "Guess what Russell Branyan's thinking". Those were the days.

Meanwhile, Indians legend Dave Burba pitched an inning and a third, giving up a single, two walks, and three earned runs. He sent a pickoff throw into center field. His fastball topped out at about 87 MPH. Classic Burba.

The sell-out crowd consisted of 40,000 drunken, idiotic, annoying Cubs fans who drove up from Chicago and a few thousand innocent, well-meaning, underprivileged Brewers fans. The crowd cheered almost exclusively for the Cubs, though I think the folks in the right field bleachers were a bit confused by the two random college kids shouting "Russ-ell Bran-yan!" and "Buuuuuuurbaaaaaaaa!!!!" during the game's quieter moments.

Incidentally, the Bratwurst totally got cheated in the sausage race. Loyal reader Aaron Wolf, also in attendance, suggested that the Italian sausage was doping. I say: makes perfect sense to me.

Two things. First, loyal reader "Anonymous" (possibly the same Anonymous who brought the Ryan Drese thing to my attention) asks: "Shouldn't it be 'Mistake BY the Lake [Sporting Times]'?" (instead of "Mistake ON the Lake", which is what you see above). I must confess, I had "by" in my mind the whole time, but Alex was the one who entered the name and designed the masthead. He chose "on" without consulting me. I must point out that I've heard both, though. So I googled "mistake on the lake" and got 783 results. Then I googled "mistake by the lake" and got 1,580 results. It would seem that "by" is more common, even if both are acceptable. We can change it; I'm just not sure if it's worth it. Readers?

Secondly, I watched "Major League" last night, which I hadn't seen in a number of years (any number of years, really). I have a few thoughts.

• I had no idea how much racism was involved in rooting for the Indians, pre-1990's. I was too young at the time to notice. Maybe it's just the movie industry's best guess at how a city with an inferiority complex might root for a team named the "Indians", but if any of it is based on fact, then I'm surprised. The radio announcer, Harry Doyle, uses loads and loads Native American references as baseball analogies. Like, "Get out your tomahawks, Cleveland, the Indians are emerging from the wigwam!" That's just a made up example; I don't remember any of the exact quotes. But there are lots. Also, the fans in the movie frequently do a war-cry dealie, in which they pat their hand on their mouth repeatedly while emitting a high-pitched noise. Often times they put their other hand behind their head to represent a feather. I vaguely remember seeing this at Indians games during my childhood. Also, the bleachers behind center field are referred to as "the reservation" on several occasions. Does anyone know if this nickname was just invented for the movie, or was it real? It sounds like it could have been real -- a baseball version of the Dawg Pound, basically. At any rate, I still understand how the logo and the team name could be offensive, and I'm not so married to the name or the tradition that I wouldn't mind a name change. But "Major League" reminded me that the team (and American culture) have gotten a lot better about using offensive racial references over the last 15 years.
• As I collect Cleveland sports jerseys, I find it's easy enough to get the jerseys of the players I want (who are usually the obscure players, whose jerseys you don't find in stores) because the online team shops let you customize your jerseys with any name and number. Thus, when I get around to it, it will be no trouble obtaining that #52 "Diop" jersey I've been mulling over. One thing that really frustrates me, however, (besides the fact that nfl.com only lets you fit 10 characters on the back of the jersey, dashing my hopes of a matching set of #87 "Andre Davis"/#54 "Andra Davis" jerseys for me and Alex to wear to games) is the fact that no jersey seller lets you customize a throwback. You can only customize a current team jersey. (If somebody out there knows a retailer who lets you do this, please let me know!) This bothers me the most when I think about what Indians jerseys I'd like to have. Most of my top choices would have to come in the pre-2002 style, with the red accents instead of the blue they use now. I'm picturing, say, a #45 "Assenmacher" jersey, circa 1995. I have to say, though, that after seeing "Major League", I'm extra pissed about the lack of customizable throwbacks, because, honestly, there are few jerseys I'd rather wear to Indians games than some of those 1980's-era ones featuring #13 "Cerrano", #00 "Hayes", #7 "Taylor" and #99 "Vaughn". I mean, seriously. That would be so sweet.
• I remember the movie being a lot funnier. While every single one of Bob Uecker's lines are still among the funniest movie lines of all time, the other jokes seemed dated to me (especially the wisecracks of the manager, Lou Brown). I was also distracted by a few of the haircuts, most notably Tom Berenger's jheri curl and Charlie Sheen's zigzag thingie (yes, I am aware that Sheen's hairdo was supposed to be a joke). But I digress. Among baseball movies, "Major League" is still probably my favorite, though I'm forced to admit that the reason is only because of the Cleveland connection. Objectively speaking, it's not the best baseball movie in the world. It may have a case for being the best baseball comedy. I don't know, do you count "Bull Durham" as a comedy?
• The use of Randy Newman's "Burn On" during the opening credits is brilliant. If you can, watch the movie again and listen to the words of the song while they "set the scene", so to speak, of downtown Cleveland. At the very least, go download the song right now. As Clevelanders, you owe it to yourselves. I love the way the song presents itself as a beautiful ode to Cleveland, until you get to a certain lyric (I won't give it away, for those of you who have never heard it), at which point you realize that the verses at the beginning were sarcasm. And yes, I do love Cleveland, just as much for its faults as for its attractions.
• Finally, "Major League" demonstrates pretty definitively, once and for all, what it takes to win ballgames in the big leagues. Team owner Rachel Phelps assumes that by signing nothing but over-the-hill bums and rookie nobodies who'd normally never make the majors, the team will be guaranteed to finish last. What she doesn't take into consideration, however, is the incredible mental toughness of the players she has signed, the clubhouse chemistry that will inevitably be built over the course of the season, and the uncanny ability to manufacture runs that will be provided by uninvited Spring Training tryout (and "smallballer" extraordinaire) Willie "Mays" Hayes. Of course, the Indians go on to win the pennant. I think this film proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that to win in the bigs, you don't need talent -- you need mental toughness, clubhouse chemistry, and the ability to play smallball. Thus the age-old debate between "stat-heads" and Joe Morgan can finally be laid to rest.

Finally listening to the fans, today the Cavaliers traded Battie and two second round draft choices (ie. crap) to the Orlando Magicians for Drew Gooden, Anderson Varejao, and Steven Hunter. I think the trade is good for Battie was our 2nd most expensive player behind Z. While he's surprisingly only 28, Drew "Don't Call Me Doc" Gooden is 22, cheaper, and has more potential. More potential unfortunately though means also less skills at the moment. But I do enjoy that the Cavs stole Gooden away because Orlando has Dwight Howard and believes he will need Battie's wonderful "veteran leadership".

Steven Hunter is essentially a nothing, just a big body to throw in during garbage time. Also, I've read that the Cavaliers are expected to waive Hunter due to salary cap restrictions, so who really cares? Anderson Varejao, also known as Justin Guarini, has potential is compared by NBADraft.net--ironically--to Drew Gooden. They also describe him as a "very creative offensive player, with soft touch". Unfortunately though, like most foreigners, he isn't "tough" and has an unpolished offensive game.

Most importantly, however, is that the Cavaliers will no longer be interested in Vin Baker. I think one drunk is enough for the Cavaliers.

While Corey's post is certainly thorough, he missed a few spots.

1. Shapiro traded Einar Diaz and Ryan Drese for Travis Hafner, as loyal reader "Anonymous" points out in the comments
2. Shapiro traded Russell Branyan to the Reds for Ben Broussard
3. Shapiro traded back for Branyan from the Braves for someone who'll never be good
4. Hart did draft David Riske too and John McDonald
   
5. Don't forget, when we traded Roberto Alomar, Shapiro liked to think that Ricky Gutierrez was "involved" in the deal because it cleared enough cash to pay his salary

I feel that these notes leave the argument where it was before. In just these few transactions above, both Hart and Shapiro got lucky and also failed. Ryan Drese is doing quite well in Texas now, but I still think 4 Drese's aren't worth Hafner; and Einar likely would have negative value--so the trade is still awesome. Essentially, Shapiro did obtain Broussard for next to nothing. But I am unsure whether still have Russell Branyan in your organization is a good thing. I know that us baseball-stat-nerds seem to obsess with power numbers alone, but I still can't stand Branyan with his .300 OBP despite his .450 slugging. Ricky Gutierrez sure didn't work out, he seemed lazier on defense than Jose Vizcaino. A player with a career 2.46 GB/FB ratio doesn't seem too appealing.

Hart did get extremely lucky with Riske. For David was a dreaded high school pitcher, and we got him in the 56th round. Obviously, he wasn't too high on scouts' lists. Maybe he was a little risky. HI-OOOOOOOOO! John McDonald shouldn't be considered a "good" player, but his baseball 'blog--back before he was forced to use a ghost writer--was pretty funny. And plus he used to be the ultimate September call-up from about 1999-2001. Some guys are needed on a team not for their skill but other intangibles--like Johnny Mac, "Tractor" Traylor, and Frisman Jackson.

That being said, I still heavily favor Shapiro over even the late-80's John Hart. I believe that we as Cleveland fans are extraordinarily lucky to have him running our team.

Well, I think I have internet access now.

Anyway, my comments the other day about Grady Sizemore solicited an interesting debate about John Hart vs. Mark Shapiro from one loyal reader. This is a topic on which Indians fans are clearly divided.

I think most fans, in their minds, equate Hart with winning and Shapiro with losing (or treading water), since the team won six division championships while under Hart, but started posting losing records as soon as Shapiro took over. The problem is that fans won't give Shapiro any credit until his plan comes to complete fruition, which, of course, is only fair. If Shapiro's Indians never amount to anything, I'll admit I was wrong - but trust me when I tell you that he's done nearly everything right so far, given his circumstances.

The losing which has occurred so far during Shapiro's tenure, by the way, is not Shapiro's fault. In many ways it was inevitable, given the front office's strategy from 1999 to 2001. But if you need to blame somebody, blame John Hart.

Hart clearly had the right idea during the period of 1991-1994, when he was building the eventual division champs, even though no one knew it at the time. I give him a lot of credit for that period of construction, during which he clearly did the best job of any GM in baseball. By the end of his tenure in Cleveland, however, he was promoting a completely different strategy - one which considerably shortened the team's window of opportunity, and ended up needlessly costing the organization a lot of money.

So, I'd like to compare the two men in a "tale of the tape" type dealie, considering the three major facets of a GM's job: drafting players, trading players, and organizational philosophy/strategy.

Drafts

John Hart did a good job of gathering young players in the early 90's, but most of them were not his own draft choices. The draft was never his specialty. For starters, Albert Belle and Charlie Nagy were not his picks; they were his predecessor's. Essentially, over a 13 year period, John Hart hit upon 6 good players in the draft (in order: Thome, Brian Giles, Manny, Sexson, Sean Casey and C.C.). After that, he hit upon a couple of borderline guys (in order: Ogea, Shuey, Jaret Wright, Danny Graves and Jason Davis). In addition, he signed two good players as amateur free agents out of Latin America (Bartolo and Victor Martinez) - three if you want to count Danys Baez - four if you want to count Einar. Even counting all the guys I just mentioned, that's 15 players in 13 years. Not a good track record.

The drafts from 1999 to 2001, in particular, are infamously horrible. It's almost as if Hart stopped preparing for the draft sometime around 1996, figuring that his chances at a championship were already tied up in the major league club, and that he'd be long gone before the "next wave" was supposed to come up. From 1996 on, he drafted C.C. Sabathia and a bunch of crap. From 1999 on, all he drafted was a bunch of crap.

As for his draft history with the Rangers, unfortunately I don't know nearly enough about the Rangers' farm system to evaluate the prospects he's drafted. It's worth noting that of the so-called "brilliant young Rangers talent" of Hank Blalock, Mark Teixeira, and Michael Young, none were drafted or acquired by Hart.

Luckily, I do know enough about the Indians' farm system to evaluate a few of the prospects drafted by Mark Shapiro. And while it's way too soon to say much about the 2004 draft class, the 2002 and 2003 draft classes are looking pretty good (especially Adam Miller, Michael Aubrey, Ryan Garko, Jeremy Guthrie, Brandon Pinckney, and others). Time will tell which of these guys make it to the majors, but only a few need to pan out for us to consider the 2002-2003 drafts successful.

Trades

John Hart's trades mostly fall into two categories: the ones that built the Indians in the early 90's (these trades were mostly good), and the ones in the late 90's, in which the Indians traded their so-called "excess" young talent for expensive veterans were weren't as good (these trades were mostly bad). Take a look:

• 1989 - Joe Carter for Sandy Alomar, Carlos Baerga and Chris James
• 1991 - Willie Blair and Eddie Taubensee for Kenny Lofton and Dave Rhode
• 1993 - Felix Fermin and Reggie Jefferson for Omar Vizquel

In these three trades, Hart basically turned the overrated, overpaid Joe Carter (and various non-essential pieces and parts) into Kenny, Omar, Sandy and Carlos Baerga, all of them still prospects at that point. Well done, John.

Next he went through what I call the "middling" phase. The highlights:

• 1996 - Carlos Baerga and Alvaro Espinoza for Jeff Kent and Jose Vizcaino
• 1996 - Jeff Kent, Jose Vizcaino and Julian Tavarez for Matt Williams
• 1997 - Kenny Lofton and Alan Embree for Marquis Grissom and David Justice
• 1997 - Matt Williams for Travis Fryman and Tom Martin

Hart basically turned Baerga into Fryman, and Lofton into Justice. He was mostly keeping house with these types of moves, juggling contracts and filling holes. Nonetheless, he gave up Jeff Kent, and we all know what happened to him.

Next, as I see it, Hart began his shift in strategy. He decided he no longer had time to wait for players to develop - he had to win now - so he began shipping off all the young talent in the farm system and on the Indians' bench for expensive veterans who, in the end, didn't really help the club very much.

• 1997 - Danny Graves, Jim Crowell, Damian Jackson and Scott Winchester for John Smiley and Jeff Branson
• 1998 - Brian Giles for Ricardo Rincon
• 1998 - Sean Casey for Dave Burba
• 2000 - Richie Sexson, Kane Davis, Marco Scutaro and Paul Rigdonfor Bob Wickman, Steve Woodard and Jason Bere

Looking back, would you rather have seen the 1999-2001 Indians with Giles, Sexson, Casey and Graves, or with Burba, Rincon, Woodard and Wickman? Considering that the first group was (a) a lot better during those three years and (b) paid less, I would have chosen to hold on to those guys. The problem was that the team perceived a kind of "excess" wherein they figured that having Richie Sexson was pointless if you had Jim Thome, or that having Brian Giles was pointless if you had Manny Ramirez/Juan Gonzalez. Hart never recognized that only by breeding Sexsons and Gileses to replace the Thomes and Ramirezes when they became expensive could the team have stayed competitive beyond the inevitable departure of the Thomes and Ramirezes. No army of Bob Wickmans will ever change that.

Since 2000, John Hart's trades have mostly been a mixed bag. He certainly hasn't shown evidence of having much of a "master plan". Getting a few prospects (Westbrook and Zach Day) for David Justice was wise. Getting Milton Bradley for Zach Day seems like a good trade in retrospect, though Day is getting better as we speak.

As the Rangers' GM, he's made some questionable moves. Trading Travis Hafner to us for Einar Diaz ended up being a disaster for Texas. All in all, the Texas Rangers don't owe their 2004 success (which may be a fluke, mind you - they're still the same team we all thought would finish last, and they still lack pitching, and it's still only July) to John Hart. He wasn't the one who brought in Blalock, Teixeira, and Young. In fact, he hasn't seemed to have done much of anything since taking over in Texas, short of swapping A-Rod for Soriano, which was probably dictated by the team owner.

Now, as for Mark Shapiro's trade history, I have very few complaints. Shapiro took over the Indians job knowing full well that he was going to have to turn the team's veterans into prospects in order to make up for the terrible drafts of the previous few years. Here's what he got to replenish the farm system:

• 2001 - Jacob Cruz for Jody Gerut and Josh Bard
• 2001 - Robbie Alomar, Danny Peoples and Mike Bascik for Matt Lawton, Alex Escobar, Billy Traber, Jerrod Riggan and Earl Snyder
• 2002 - Bartolo Colon and Tim Drew for Lee Stevens, Brandon Philips, Cliff Lee and Grady Sizemore
• 2002 - Chuck Finley for Coco Crisp and Luis Garcia
• 2002 - Paul Shuey for Ricardo Rodriguez, Francisco Cruceta and Terry Mulholland
• 2002 - Einar Diaz for Travis Hafner
• 2004 - Milton Bradley for Franklin Gutierrez and Andrew Brown

You could really only argue that one of these trades didn't work out beautifully, and that's the Alomar trade. And while the argument "Well, it's OK, because Alomar went on to be horrible in New York anyway" doesn't exactly exonerate the trade, it's worth noting that Shapiro definitely had the right idea with that trade. Turning Alomar into prospects was a controversial decision, but it was the right decision. Having kept Alomar (and, assumedly, also held onto the other veterans in an attempt to contend in 2002 and beyond), the Indians would have continued to operate a barren farm system, while the major league roster would just have gotten more and more expensive (meanwhile, the division title would have gotten harder and harder to win as the players got older and the rest of the division started pulling itself together). Not to mention the fact that Alomar's eventual trade value would only have gone down, like those of the other veterans. The fact that Alex Escobar (a classic "tools" guy, ugh) didn't pan out is indeed a knock against Shapiro in our little "tale of the tape", but it was the right strategy, and since the other "replenish the minors" trades worked out so well, it matters little. What's ironic about the Alomar trade is that, in the end, Matt Lawton was probably the most valuable player we got. Who would have thought?

The recent "Ryan Church and Maicer Izturis for Scott Stewart" fiasco has been the lone blow-up among Shapiro's trades. It was a decent idea - we had way too many outfielders in our system, and Ryan Church was very, very far down on our list - but the Indians ended up getting nothing in return for him, which is unacceptable. The whole episode, however, is not very important in the scheme of things. Church may be tearing it up now, but when we had him, he was just okay. Maicer Izturis, too, is nothing special. If nothing else, Shapiro gains back the stupidity of the Scott Stewart deal with the sheer brilliance of the 2001 Jacob Cruz deal, in which he totally hosed Dan O'Dowd six ways to Sunday.

To recap: Shapiro basically gave up Robbie, Bartolo, Finley, Shuey, Einar and Milton, while picking up Jody, Josh Bard, Matt Lawton, Traber, Sizemore, Cliff Lee, Brandon Philips, Coco, Hafner, Francisco Cruceta, Franklin Gutierrez, and Andrew Brown. The last three guys I mentioned are, at the moment, among the best prospects in baseball. All of the others have reached the majors for at least a game (most recently Grady); excusing Lawton, all of them look to have great futures and are cheap.

Shapiro's trade history reminds me a lot of John Hart's 1988-1994 period. The difference between the two GM's at this point in time, as far as I'm concerned, is that Shapiro doesn't have a period like John Hart's 1999-2001 marring his record, and that gives him the edge in my book.

Organizational philosophy/strategy

John Hart's original strategy for building the team was brilliant; today it is legendary, as evidenced by the fact that at least half the other GM's have tried to copy it in the last ten years. Here is an excellent (if a bit technical) article detailing the principles of Hart's Big Plan, from a blog called Management by Baseball. What's clear is that John Hart was able to gain a competitive advantage by doing something no one else had thought of yet. Once the plan started to show its rewards, however, that advantage was lost because the other teams were already trying to do it themselves.

Ultimately, I don't know if I consider John Hart a genius GM who "figured out" the right strategy for the Indians in the late 80's, or just a decent GM who "happened upon" the afforementioned "right strategy". Because, when the Indians' competitive advanatge started to expire sometime around 1997, John Hart didn't have a new "right strategy"; he just started acting like a typical, short-sighted GM: letting the team get expensive and old, without regard for any sort of self-sufficiecy (ie: the draft). The moves he made between 1997 and 2001 weren't Cam Bonifay awful, of course, but they sure weren't John Hart brilliant.

Mark Shapiro has done most things right since taking over, but he certainly didn't come up with a strategy of his own like John Hart did. If anything, he's trying to recreate John Hart's original strategy, using some quasi-sabermetric tools like "Diamond View" to give him his would-be competitive advantage (instead of simply having the best scouts, which is more or less how John Hart did it). I think the edge in this category might have to go to Hart, because what he accomplished in the early 90's was a lot harder and a lot more unexpected.

So, I think I've summarized all the important points about the two regimes. You can decide for yourself who's done the better job (or, perhaps even better: who you'd rather have as your GM right now). It's no secret that I'm a huge fan of Mark Shapiro. Most of the people over at Baseball Prospectus think he's doing as good a job as anybody in baseball right now. John Hart may simply have "gone out of date". His way of doing things was perfect for the early 90's but he's struggled to adapt.

Sorry this post wasn't funny. I promise to be more amusing next time.

Dear Mr. Gund,

I know that you feel personally responsible for the Cavaliers losing Carlos Boozer, but I am over that now. Now my rage is mostly directed towards Boozer because even if he didn't officially agree to anything, he at least knew what we were planning to do, and could have informed the team of his intention to listen to all offers. Instead, he remained quiet and stabbed all Cavalier fans in the back. I look forward to Lebron dunking on his face so viciously next season, that Boozer's chest hair immediately ignites and he soils himself.

This morning I read in the Plain Dealer that Vin Baker is considering signing with Cleveland. Please don't do this. I implore you not to sign Vin Baker. There is a reason he was released by the Celtics last year in the middle of the season. Let me repeat that: the Celtics, as in the team generally managed by Danny Ainge. Danny Ainge didn't think Vin Baker was Celtic material.

That is not to say, however, that I don't see the pros of a potential signing: Baker could be a serviceable replacement to Carlos at power forward if he were to find a time machine and transport back to 1996. But sadly, there are no time machines. So we'd be stuck with the 2004 version of Baker. Currently, Vin Baker is old, slow, and lazy; and chances are extremely high given Jim Paxson's history with free agent signings that he will be overpaid as well.

If a player is not worthy of Danny Ainge--man who essentially traded Rasheed Wallace and cap space for Chucky Atkins--then he ought not to be in professional basketball. Ainge would run an NBDL team into the ground. Not only was Baker not worthy to Ainge, but he is coming off of off-season heart surgery. Not a good sign of things to come.

Don't sign Vin Baker. If a free agent signing is necessary for a power forward, go with youth. Otherwise, I'd be willing to accept starting Battie.

Sincerely,
Alex Rubin

I had tickets to tonight's 14-0 ass-whuppin' of a game against the White Sox at Jacobs Field. Watching Cliff and Jeriome be pummelled wasn't exactly enjoyable. However, one notable thing did occur: the major league debut of the Indians' most highly touted prospect, Grady Sizemore. Along with Corey, I have no clue as to how he'll play. I envision him being not a power hitter, but a great contact hitter with a good eye--sort of like what everyone thinks Erstad is. Among his top PECOTA comps, though, are Norm Miller (he of a career .238/.323/.356), Oscar Gamble, and Chris Magruder. Although, he has very limited professional experience, so PECOTA comps give way to scouting in this case for judging Grady's merits.

Anyway, I witnessed from my seats behind home plate GSize's first major league at-bat: a wimpy pop-up to second baseman Willie Harris. That led to an awful career line of .000/.000/.000, among the worst of all-time. Can he recover? How did recent star centerfielders do in their first plate appearances?

• Kirby Puckett, 5/8/84 -- grounded out to short
• Ken Griffey Jr., 4/3/89 -- double to center
• Bernie Williams, 7/7/91 -- grounded out to third
• Kenny Lofton, 9/14/91 -- walked

Grady is clearly blazing a new trail for centerfielders as demonstrated by the extensive list above. Starting your career with the worst batting average possible scares me deeply. We should trade GSize immediately! He's no good. He can't even get on-base, or at least ground out like those other good players did.

OK, a few things. First of all, Alex has created some new graphics for the top of the blog. Each time you visit, you will see a different graphic, selected randomly. So far, he's got the blue "C.C. and Victor", the orange "Gardocki, Dawson and Pontbriand", the crimson "Lebron and Lebron", and the purple "Moondog, Slider, and indeterminate Browns mascot". The plan is, whenever we have some free time, we'll design more and throw them in the rotation - until there are, like, a million. Among my ideas for new ones are "late 80's Cavs", "Andre and Andra: together at last" and "Albert Belle pointing to his bicep and glaring into the opposing dugout that one time in the playoffs when they accused him of corking his bat and he hit a home run anyway". Needless to say, we're taking suggestions for others.

Secondly, Alex, I am shocked to see you write: "Only when the media heaps undeserving amounts of praise on a player for his defense will I concede that's he's an above-average defensive player". I mean, (a) you use the word undeserving yourself. And (b), we all know how accurate the media's player evaluations tend to be. For all I know, Ron Artest (your example) is an average defender. He probably is a great defender, but I'm not willing to make a decision on his defense based solely on what ESPN has to say. It's about time somebody started keeping sabermetric stats for the NBA.

Thirdly, I think we need to take a moment of silence to recognize Travis Hafner's performance of the last few weeks. As recently as spring training, people thought of Hafner and Broussard as interchangeable. What a joke. Let the record show that I always thought extremely highly of Hafner, that I never saw anything in Broussard, and that John Hart is an idiot. Heh. How's Einar Diaz doing these days, John? (By which I mean: Viva Shapiro!)

Finally, let me get to the most exciting news of the day. Grady's ready! (Viva Shapiro!) Hopefully, I will be able to find a spot here in Chicago where I can watch Grady's debut tonight vs. the White Sox (since my cable and internet are not hooked up yet).

I honestly don't know what to expect from Sizemore, career-wise. We're getting very conflicting reports about whether or not he'll actually hit for power and/or play defense well enough to remain a center fielder, but I'm extremely excited nonetheless. Who would have thought, when the Colon trade (in which the Expos got served and punk'd simultaneously... Viva Shapiro!) was announced, that we'd value Grady first, Cliff second, and Brandon third, instead of the reverse? Weird.

In a word: no. But hey, at least we don't have Kedrick Brown anymore. Why did he start at all last year? It was pretty funny that he went from starter to DNP-CD overnight. Although, when he started he would strangely only play the first quarter.

Interestingly, I've found that through a series of shrewd manuevers, the Cavaliers attained Eric Snow for merely Cliff Rozier. Who? I don't know either, but he was the 16th pick in the 1994 draft. Let me explain (Player A > Player B, means that the Cavaliers traded A and received B):

Cliff Rozier (then just a future first-round pick) > Tyrone Hill > Shawn Kemp > Chris Gatling > Ricky Davis > Kedrick Brown > Eric Snow

I did leave out some extra guys involved in some trades, the most important being Terrell Brandon being shipped along with Hill for Kemp. But since he was pretty much confined to a wheelchair after leaving the Cavs, we won't worry about it. What I find so surprising by this lineage is the "talent" we've received for some nobodies. Chris Gatling for Ricky Davis? Shawn Kemp for anyone? Seriously, why would anyone have taken Kemp's monstrous contract off our hands? Sure, he was really productive with the Blazers: $27,885.46 per point in 2001-2002. But he does have an impressive 40 pounds per illegitimate child.

Concerning Snow, though, I think he is a minimal improvement over Ollie while Brown was a non-factor. Both are 31, are overpaid, have terrible shooting percentages, and would likely earn their check with the Cavaliers new strategy, "Give it to Lebron". Apparently, Snow is a better defender, but those things seem so incredibly subjective I can never agree wholeheartedly. Only when the media heaps undeserving amounts of praise on a player for his defense (Ron Artest) will I concede that's he's an above-average defensive player. Other than that, I have no idea how to judge. Using stats like steals and blocks seems like the basketball equivalent of using RBI's and runs.

Hopefully, Snow will not start and McInnis will continue to play as he did at the end of last year. Why didn't we trade for a power forward instead of a point guard? I'm more concerned about Battie or Diop starting than Ollie getting time off the bench.

Regular reader Franklin Scott brought up an intriguing point recently in the comments to a previous post: what to do when Booz returns to Cleveland with the Jazzes? Obviously, booing wouldn't do justice to the hatred we all feel because we booed him as a Cavalier routinely. Maybe Boozer knew his immunity to such treatment and felt he could therefore stab us in the back. This problem is really perplexing me. What should we do?

I think the treatment of Carlos Boozer should be completely different than that which faced Albert Belle or Manny Ramirez. While they both left in ugly ways, neither matched Carlos' real dagger of surprise. No one ever expected things to turn as they did. We all knew we might not be able to afford Belle or Manny during their last seasons in Cleveland. If you have any creative, noteworthy ways to show our disdain as Clevelanders, leave it in the comments of this post or e-mail it to me. I'm very interested to find out what any of you might think.

I've been perusing the internet, and found some great opinions on Cleveland sports.

This was terrible. Why isn't anyone mentioning that Boozer didn't just stab the Cavs in the back, he did it to Gordon Gund, one of the nicest owners in any spot. The guy is BLIND for God's sake! He stabbed a blind guy in the back! And yes, it's easy to make the "Well, that's easy for you to say - you're not the one who would have passed up $28 million" argument. I just feel like the Karma Gods catch up with you for decisions like that.

In the words of Tony Montana, Boozer sold out one of the 2 things he has in life: his word. He also stabbed a blind guy in the back. And he gave up the chance to play with the Next Great Guy. I know he basically doubled his salary, but after you get over the $25 million mark, does it really even matter anymore? How big of a house can you buy? How many cars can you have? Arrrrrrrrrgh.

-- Bill Simmons, 15 July 2004

Simmons expresses my mentality almost completely. I always argue about the money, especially with guys like Jim Thome and Manny Ramirez. For Thome, how much of a difference does $18 million versus $16 million a year make, especially in the less expensive town of Cleveland? Bastards.

Indians manager Eric Wedge cites this one underrated development during the team's surprising first half: Several of the team's pitchers - particularly starters Jake Westbrook and Cliff Lee - have become mentally tougher, and aren't as likely to lose composure when they're struggling.

-- Roger Brown, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 16 July 2004

Dear lord. Please tell me that Eric Wedge isn't talking about "mental toughness". Maybe Roger Brown (or should I say "Roger Brown and his crack team of reporters"?) is just imagining things. I think this another underrated development about Lee and Westbrook is that they're so good because they really knows how to get a lot of run support.

The Cleveland Indians try to get back on the winning track this evening when they continue their four-game set against the Cleveland Indians at Safeco Field.

-- Sports Network, Cleveland Indians Team Report, 16 July 2004

According to court documents, former Browns defensive back Percy Ellsworth sued Boozer for $15,000 last November for what Ellsworth alleges is back rent. The case was supposed to go to a jury trial on Wednesday in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court before Judge Timothy McCormick.

On June 18, Boozer's lawyer, Kenneth Lewis, filed a motion for a continuance, because Boozer said he wasn't going to be available on July 7. At the same time, Boozer's agent, Rob Pelinka, was negotiating a deal with the Cavaliers for Boozer to be let out of his contract so he could begin talks for a new lucrative long-term contract with teams this week.

-- Brian Windhorst, Akron Beacon Jounral, 10 July 2004

Aha! Boozer signed for all that extra money because he needed to pay up Percy Ellsworth. Why didn't Gund just give him a $15 grand loan?

Hey, Blogger made their post-creating-dealie more user-friendly (meaning: less idiot-proof). I can now do lots of things that I didn't know how to do in HTML because I'm not Alex. I choose to complete this post in a new expression of wine and gold.

OK, not really.

That reminds me, though, at some point on a slow news day I have to post a rant about the Cavs' change of colors. Somebody remind me, like, a week from now. Alex, you remind me.

Anyway, I don't have anything useful or on-topic to say. I just wanted to inform you all -- since, as we recently hypothesized, we now have "regulars" (I feel like Sam Malone, or at the very least, Woody Boyd) -- that I am moving to my new apartment this weekend and will be without an internet connection for a while. So, Norm and Cliff, that means you'll have to make do with the comedy stylings of the insatiable Alex Rubin, Esq. for a few days.

Just humor him. I'll be back soon.

While I no longer believe Boozer is the scum I once did; I have come to a sort of agreement that both parties are at extreme fault now that it is final and Booz is gone. I think the two best arguments one can makeare either Gordon Gund's letter to Cavaliers fans and Branson Wright's article defending Carlos.

But enough about trivial matters such as the future of Cleveland basketball. Let's talk about the most bloated, boring, trivial, over-commercialized, phony event ever pressed upon fans--the 2004 All-Star Game! In it four out of the five Indians players selected as "All-Stars" actually played (Jake Westbrook being the exception), and none seemed to do anything spectacular. With the ridiculous notion that All-Star game performances mean anything (ahem... small sample size... TO THE EXTREME!) let's overanalyze!

           AVG  OBP  SLG  HR  RBI  SB  SO  BB  LOB

Belliard  .000 .000 .000   0    0   0   1   0    0

Lawton    .500 .500 .500   0    0   0   1   0    1

Martinez  .000 .000 .000   0    0   0   0   0    0



          IP  H  R  ER  BB  SO  HR  PC-ST   ERA

Sabathia   1  4  3   3   0   0   0  21-13 27.00

Clearly, the Indians base of young talent (like C.C. and Victor) are vastly overrated and in need of an overhaul. Plus, Matt Lawton is hitting an incredible .500/.500/.500 this year in All-Star situations! Add in his .500/.500/.500 with 1 RBI and 1 SB performance in the 2000 All-Star Game, and all should understand his clutch ability. Being a hitter that loves the spotlight in such big games definitely helps his Hall of Fame case. Only by the sheer magnitude of Joe Torre's brilliance did the AL finally secure the right to make more money off of overpriced concessions than the NL in the 2004 World Series. Joe Torre's superior managing tactics finally allowed him to out small-ball and defense his way past master strategist and team-builder, Jack McKeon. Without key hustle plays, the AL never would have been able to hit three homeruns and mash their way to a 9-4 victory.

In other news, Bob Feller is now the crotchetiest old man on the Earth. Taking up the cause from hard liners who quit about 30 years ago, Feller this week criticized the selection of Muhammad Ali to throw out a ceremonial first pitch at the All-Star game. Saying, "[Ali] is a man who changed his name and changed his religion so he wouldn't have to serve his country, and, to me, that's disgusting," Feller then cut a switch and beat five of his grandchildren.

Read this. Just read it. And note the final paragraph. I'd comment, but I'm too busy stabbing myself with a rusty blade.

Wow!

Apparently, by simply mentioning Football Outsiders in my post the other day (the defense of Andre Davis), I attracted the attention of Aaron Schatz, the editor-in-chief and creator of Football Outsiders.

I told you about the two stats they use to evaluate wide receivers, DPAR and DVOA, but said that I didn't really know the difference between them. Aaron sent me an e-mail explaining it. And I quote:

Thought I'd clarify the difference between DPAR/PAR and DVOA/VOA. DVOA is a rate stat, representing value divided by league average value in the same situations. DPAR is a total stat, representing value OVER league-REPLACEMENT value in the same situations.

We needed to solve the problem of WR and RB who came out as average in our numbers but have inherent value because they take up so many plays and thus so much attention from the defense. Examples: Jamal Lewis, Anquan Boldin. This also moved part-timers down our charts. Moe Williams, Bobby Engram, and your man Andre'.

This made things clear to me. If you're still lost, Aaron provided a link to the article in which DPAR was first introduced.

So, what does this mean for Andre Davis? Well, once again, he was 2nd in the NFL in DVOA and 15th in DPAR last year. This means that while he didn't contribute on as many plays as some of his peers, he was stellar on the plays he did get in on. I think this further backs up my claim that, if anything, Andre is underrated.

Two questions came to me after reading Aaron's kind e-mail. First, is it Andre, Andre', or André Davis? I usually see it written the second way in the papers. But I've seen plenty of each.

Second, what's your reaction to Aaron's comment, in which he refers to Jamal (or "Jamel" as Doug Dieken would say) Lewis as "average"? Football Outsiders' numbers show Lewis to be about average, as running backs go, but valuable because he gets in on so many plays. I, for one, got excited to see a reputable source confirm what we Browns fans have been thinking since last fall - that Jamal Lewis is just nothing special. I mean, weren't you getting awfully sick of seeing every NFL analyst on TV praise that damn Baltimoron as if he were the best player ever, when he so clearly wasn't?

Now here's something I never thought I'd do: watch "Cold Pizza", the morning show on ESPN2 (actually I didn't watch it so much as listen to it - the picture was scrambled because we don't technically get cable TV at the old apartment and I'm not moving to the new apartment until Saturday).

It would be too easy for me to let this post descend into a vicious rant about the crappiness of "Cold Pizza" so I'll cut right to the reason why I forced myself to watch such a crappy program at 6 AM (central time). After four months, today was the day they finally reached #1 on their list of the Most Tortured Sports Cities.

I don't mean to ruin the ending for you, but guess what? It's Cleveland.

First off, allow me to briefly recap Cold Pizza's coverage of this historic unveiling. Apparently one of the hosts, Jay Something, is a lifelong Cleveland fan. I can dig it. Anyway, he was broadcasting live from Cleveland, which was a nice touch.

He interviewed John Thompson, the "Big Dawg" and co-founder of the Dawg Pound, basically to ask him about The Drive and The Fumble. He told him they would play a word association game, but the only words he ended up giving him were "John Elway" and "Art Modell" - and both times they cut him off before John could give his answer, suggesting to him that he probably wouldn't have been able to say the words that came to mind on the air anyway.

He interviewed John Adams (the drum guy), basically to ask him about Jose M*** and the '97 Series. One thing I found interesting; Adams mentioned that he's used the same drum since the very beginning - that's just amazing to me.

He interviewed someone named Tony Schafer (spelling? - again, I could only hear the broadcast, not see it) who's apparently a Cavs "superfan", which immediately made me exclaim "Daaaaaaa Cavs" (the word "Cavs", of course, containing the beautiful /æ/ vowel that comes out so hilariously in a true Chicago accent). They didn't spend much time on Schafer; basically the host asked him about The Shot.

This is as good a time as any to throw this out there, but I was at The Shot. I was 6 years old. Not that I'm bragging. I'm just proud to say I was there. Alex had his photo-op rejected by The Chosen One? Well, I was at The Shot. But I digress...

Anyway, they went away from the Cleveland story for about an hour, during which time I doodled on a napkin; that is until, at one point, I heard them introduce Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus as a guest, which made me happy. Will was promoting his book, Saving the Pitcher.

Finally they sent the broadcast back to Cleveland where Jay Something interviewed Mayor Campbell. She spouted a lot of mayor quotes like "It just goes to show you what kind of determination the people of this city have" and "It just goes to show you what kind of heart the people of this city have".

At that point I'd had enough Cold Pizza for the next twelve months and I turned the TV off, despite their promise of an upcoming interview with Super Joe Charboneau. They also explained that they were, at some point later in the show, going to present a trophy to the City of Cleveland, which Big Dawg, John Adams, and the Cavs Superfan would drink Gatorade out of, which would (in their words) "break the curse". What?!

All in all, I have to credit Cold Pizza for getting Big Dawg and John Adams, who I think are more than qualified to speak for all of us. I've never heard of this Cavs guy, but hey, you can't win 'em all. Who were they supposed to get, Ricky's Renegades? Having the mayor was nice too. And while Super Joe is not qualified to talk about anything ever, I can't say I'm really complaining about their coverage of the Cleveland sports tragedy.

At any rate, you can definitely expect some Cleveland-related articles to appear on ESPN.com's Page 2 at around 12 PM this afternoon, since the whole "Tortured Cities" countdown is being done there as well. I don't know who the author of the inevitable "Cleveland is the most tortured sports town" article will be (since, for all the previous cities' articles, they were able to come up with an ESPN personality who had some kind of connection with that city - maybe for Cleveland it will be Mike Golic, which would make me throw up), but I can pretty much tell you what the article will say.

However - and more importantly than anything you'll find on The Ocho or Page 2 this afternoon - my own personal in-depth coverage of this topic is due to appear on the interweb within the next week. I have been planning a very long article about sports suffering for weeks now, and it's almost ready. Alex is going to host it at his website, Alex's Thing Place; I'll be sure to make another post in this space when it finally gets published there.

Sufficed to say, I have tried to look at sports suffering from a more objective standpoint. You'll see.

For now, stay tuned to the "Mistake on the Lake Sporting Times" for all your "Cleveland is the most tortured sports town" news!!!

Football Outsiders is more or less the Baseball Prospectus of football, except they don't have quite as large a following yet. They will be the first to tell you that they're in the very early stages of developing sabermetric football stats (they even compare themselves today to the "Bill James mimeographing 25 hand-stapled copies of the Baseball Abstract in his garage" stage of things). But they have some good, objective stats for evaluating players at each position.

Obviously, evaluating wide receivers simply based on yards and/or touchdowns will favor the players who get the most passes thrown their way (especially the ones who get the most passes thrown their way in so-called "touchdown situations"). It will also favor the players whose opponents' secondaries are the weakest.

Football Outsiders invented two stats for evaluating wide receivers. It's very important to note that both of these stats are adjusted for the quality of defenses faced. One stat is DPAR (Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement) which is similar to VORP. The other stat is DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) which is also similar to VORP. I am still trying to figure out the difference between the two, so don't bother asking me. What I can tell you is that these stats take into account a receiver's catch percentage (the percentage of balls thrown his way that are caught), the yards he gains per catch, and the percentage of the time he fumbles, in addition to the quality of the opposition.

In 2003, Andre Davis was 15th in the NFL in DPAR, and 2nd in the NFL in DVOA. He also had the 9th best catch percentage in the NFL. So if you want to put any stock in Football Outsiders' numbers, and I see no reason why we shouldn't, then you simply can't say Andre is overrated. If anything, he's underrated.

Now, this is only one season's worth of data, but then Andre's only played two seasons. We'll see if he keeps it up. I, for one, am very optimistic about his potential.

As for the Browns' total stockpile of young talent - I agree with you on Winslow, Andra, Pontbriand (who doesn't really count), and Suggs - and I think you have to throw in Faine and Andre Davis. I'd also like to throw Anthony Henry's name out there (his stock dropped fast... a little too fast if you ask me). And William Green is still a young talent with plenty of potential, whether he plays for us or not. And of course, you haven't seen any of the 2004 draft picks play a game yet, so you have to at least concede that there's potential in Sean Jones. For that matter, there's potential in Chaun Thompson and Chris Crocker, who really only played minor roles in their rookie years.

I don't think the Browns' future is as bleak as you think it is, Alex. In the NFL, the sum total of the talent on your roster matters less than in baseball (or even basketball). What matters the most is the system that's put in place by the coaching staff. I think that's borne out by every single team that's been successful in the last few years.

You forget that Dave Campo's defense was one of the best in the NFL last year. You also forget that the Browns' offense was one of the best in the NFL the year before, despite a dismal defense. Of course, the year before that, the defense was superb and the offense stunk.

I am not a big Butch Davis fan anymore. But anything can happen, and it's not hard to see the Browns being good again soon, even with Butch.

Well, to defend why I say that MoonDog makes no sense as a dog while the Phoenix Gorilla rules, I guess my opinion is tainted by the quality of the mascot. The Phoenix Gorilla was the first mascot I ever remember doing trampoline dunks in a giant mascot suit. I thought that was awesome, and his dunks were high quality. However, MoonDog's dunks are boring and unoriginal. Therefore, I like the Gorilla way more than MoonDog.

More importantly on that topic though, is that a dog is so uninteresting. On one hand, gorillas are cool, and you don't see other gorilla mascots. On the other hand, dogs are everywhere. Plus, if it wasn't for his name, I really would have believed that MoonDog was a mountain lion or kangaroo. In fact, he looks almost exactly like the Nuggets' mountain lion mascot, "Rocky" I think. His unoriginality and refusal to be an innovator turns me off.

I now have some short questions maybe Corey or a reader can answer in the comments (thanks again to Max for inspiring me):

• If Boozer does sign with the Jazzes, will Lebron use his magic powers to curse and punish him at the Olympics?
• I have a pseudo-theory that only one Cleveland team can be good at any time. Empirical evidence supports this in recent history. I thought that the Cavs were the team to be good next because of Lebron. But now that we have seen the Indians developing so quickly, is it bad karma for the Cavaliers and did it force them to lose Boozer?
• Do the Browns have any hope anymore? It appears as if they're descending into a Detroit Tigers-like downward spiral. Where an occassional fluke season (2004 Tigers) only masks the fact that their good players are old veterans and have no discernable young talent on the way. However, I do believe that Winslow will be good. Outside of him and Pontbriand, we have no young players worth crap. Okay, maybe Suggs or Andra. Andre Davis is overrated just because he gets lucky enough to catch more touchdowns.
• How long will it take until Kellen Winslow publicly insults any Browns quarterback because they can't get him the ball? My guess is Week 10.

I also think we're forgetting possibly the funniest mascot ever, Globie.

Alex, let me first say that I agree with you about Belliard. His post-April numbers are downright mediocre - Belliardian, even - and we should expect some more .270/.340/.390 from here on out. I would even go so far as to suggest that we should consider trading him, since his perceived value is so much higher now than it has any right to be. I wonder how Uncle George would feel about finally replacing Enrique Wilson... with the chance for an all-All-Star infield, no less?

That said, Ronnie deserves to be an All-Star. And not because of his amazing April, but because no one else in the American League is earning his keep. I know you and Joe Sheehan and all the rest would prefer the established star over the guy having the fluke month, but even under those criteria, you simply cannot choose the established star if he's having a year like Bret Boone's 2004. Aside from Soriano (who does deserve his spot as starter this year, despite everyone's griping), your choices for "established star" at 2B, in order of 2004 VORP, are: Belliard, Mark Bellhorn, Juan "mini-Belliard" Uribe, Frank Menechino, Omar Infante (!), Orlando "O-Dog" Hudson, Miguel Cairo, Brian Roberts, Adam Kennedy, Bret Boone (with an 8.2 VORP, compared to Belliard's 29.4), Jason Smith (WHO?!), Luis Rivas, Marco Scutaro, Willie Harris, Rey Sanchez, Nick Punto, and Tony Graffanino. Anyone I didn't list has a negative VORP. So who would you pick as Soriano's backup? (My choice? Michael Young.)

Anyway, on to the real topic at hand. Reading your mascot musings, I agree with almost everything. I just have a few thoughts to add.

1. I never went through any phase in which Slider annoyed me in any way. For me, he went straight from "I love him because I'm a child and that what he's there for - to distract me from having to pay attention to guys like Cory Snyder, Felix Fermin, Brook Jacoby, and the overrated Joe Carter" to "I cherish Slider because he has some history, and as an Indians fan I cling to every tiny piece of positive legacy I can in an attempt to make it seem like the Tribe's place in history is bigger than it really is". The change occurred somewhere around 1994.
2. You failed to mention a few patented Slider moves that are just as influential as the "belly swivel" dance and pulling his shirt over someone's head: the "slow clap that gradually gets faster" (which, used in the early innings, compliments John Adams' late-innings drum beat quite nicely), the stealing people's hats and putting them on his own head, and the line dance on top of the dugout (which reminds me, have you noticed that Slider has upgraded his backup dancers this year? - the two new ones are definitely hotter than their predecessors).
3. Are we sure Whammer was a polar bear? I guess I never thought about it much; I always just thought of him as a "white-colored thing". He acted more like a white dog or wolf than a polar bear. I'd have to see a picture; it's been so long. But I remember him being too svelte to be a polar bear anyway.
4. I agree that the Whammer era was a complete failure. It's hard to put my finger on it, but to me, he always seemed like a copycat mascot. In baseball, I think of Slider as being from a small group of "original" mascots like the Phillie Phanatic, the San Diego Chicken, Mr. Met, and the Pirates' parrot, whatever they call him. Whammer, today, would be like the basketball equivalent of the Texas Rangers' horse, or the White Sox' new "green thing", SouthPaw.
5. The Browns' "mascots" do have names! They are (and I had to look these up) Chomps, TD, CB, and Trapper. The leader, I am told, is the dark brown one, CB (which I presume must stand for "Cleveland Browns"; surely they wouldn't name a mascot "cornerback"), who, in his profile, says his favorite subject is "All of them, I love school!". Chomps, the light brown one, is apparently the "playful" one. His favorite foods are listed as "Puppy Chow and Bengal Tiger with stadium mustard", which, I am forced to admit, made me smile (both for the Bengals joke and the endorsement for stadium mustard, which, along with coconut bars, stands as Cleveland's entire culinary legacy). Anyway, TD, the black and brown one, is the "protective" one. And Trapper, the black one, is the "health and fitness" one. What?!
6. You are right that CB, Chomps, TD and Trapper are pointless. They don't patrol the stands, and once the game begins, you don't see them again. It may be that football is simply not conducive to having mascots (though I can think of a few - the Patriots' one and the Broncos' one... are they popular? Anyone?). I disagree, however, with your claim that football is not marketed to kids. I don't think the NFL does a whole lot to reach out to kids, but if you ask me, MLB and the NBA do about the same, leaving the kids to enjoy all three sports equally. You say "football is for men [instead of kids]" as if baseball and basketball aren't for men? Basketball has cheerleaders too (who, if anything, are more "present" throughout the course of the game).
7. That brings me to MoonDog. I have to say, most of what you said about MoonDog was spot on. When I found out about the historical significance of the word "Moondog" the other day, I, like you, gained slightly more respect for MoonDog, the mascot. But still: the drum is annoying; he has no good moves; his trampoline dunks are uninspiring at best. Unlike you, though, I don't have a problem with his being a dog. After all, the greatest mascot in all the NBA is the Phoenix Gorilla (is he still around? Anyone?). And Slider is a... well, a "thing". I don't think the mascots' species have to match up with the teams' names at all. I mean, isn't it kind of predictable and boring when you find out that the Florida Marlins' mascot is Billy the Marlin? On the other hand, a dog is awfully run-of-the-mill. Couldn't they have come up with a squid, or a milk carton, or at the very least a "thing"? I like Max's suggestion of a mascot who's a "burning Cuyahoga River". That would definitely make my day.

Corey, you stink. You keep beating me to good topics. Well, I was away from a computer for a while when Booz betrayed the city of Cleveland. Anyway, I do have to admit though, that the Indians do not deserve all the All-Stars they have in light of other players. I believe Belliard's high VORP is only due to a fantastic April. Since then he has hit only .266/.336/.386. I am not a big believer in rewarding a guy for a good first month. He isn't an all-star, hopefully the Orioles will sign him to a huge contract this off-season and the Indians could get a draft pick.

Since my views on Boozer have pretty much already been expressed by Corey, I'll discuss one of our favorites: mascots. For some reason I find them hypnotizing when done well, and laughably horrible when not so. Unfortunately, I'm not well-traveled enough to rate a lot, so I'll just stick to Cleveland mascot history.

Slider

The original is Slider. With his patented Slider Dance™, he wows 'em every time. For the uninformed, the Slider Dance™ involves clutching one's belly and slowly and rhythmically rotating it and thrusting your pelvis to accentuate the dance. It can be used in all situations, such as: greeting little kids, greeting adults, to pass the time around people since you're not allowed to talk. Slider, in my mind, has gone through three distinct stages:

1. Love and adoration (1990-1995)
2. Extreme annoyance (1995-2002)
3. Respect and acceptance (2002-)

The reason for all this was my age, obviously. As a kid, I loved Slider for baseball was boring to me. Once I actually got interested in the baseball, I was no longer concerned with "little kids' stuff" that got in the way--very uncool. Now, I see Slider as one of the best mascots around and he rarely gets on my nerves unlike almost all others. I have respect for his longevity and traditions, like the Slider Dance™, sticking his furry nose in little kids' faces, and pulling his shirt over a person's head.

Whammer

Next came the polar bear in sunglasses, Whammer. He sucked so much. Whammer never made sense. Slider, for example, makes no sense, but it's okay because he'd never make sense. He doesn't represent anything real. But a polar bear? Why? Why not a cavalier? Or something that has to do with the team, or Cleveland? Yes, Whammer tried hard, but he never won the hearts and minds of the Cavalier fan. Plus, I was too old to like mascots by then. Nothing set Whammer apart, he seemed like he ought to be a mascot for a minor league hockey team, not the NBA.

Whatever the hell those things at Browns games are

Seriously, why do they have like 12 different dogs that wander the field? For some reason they can't go into the stands and greet people. They don't have names, and don't do anything. I can't remember them ever trying to rile up the crowd or be entertaing. They're just there and it's creepy until you forget about them. Plus, there's no need for mascots at NFL games, it's not marketed to kids like other sports. Football is for men, and that's why they have cheerleaders not mascots. Therefore, kids aren't the games to begin with and these dogs are left to their own devices. Get rid of these dogs, please.

MoonDog

While I don't like MoonDog, I have compliment the DoubleCapital--possibly the most humorous movement in modern sports. It has been brought to my attention by a Maxwell Abbott (son of the 35th most powerful man in Cleveland), that the name "MoonDog" comes from Alan Freed's Moondog Coronation Ball. And that the original "Moondog" was Alan Freed. Still, though I hate MoonDog's drum. It drives me insane with it's piercing beat that never inspires anyone else to clap along. What I despise most is his scripted Cavaliers flag procedure:

1. Run around the court with flag
2. Stop at midcourt suddenly
3. Emphatically slam butt of flag pole into the court
4. Motion for the fans to make more noise, as if upset by their lack of enthusiasm

MoonDog does this too often, and I'm sick of it greatly. I hope this coming season will show new moves for him.

So, Slider is cool and continues to get better with every year. I thank God to this day that Whammer mysteriously disappeared. However, I do miss the period when the Cavaliers had no mascot. MoonDog only annoys me, plus he's a dog! Why is he a dog? Why not a CAVALIER?! Plus the Browns' mascots are just pointless.

In case you didn't know by now, dear readers, this "Cleveland sports" blog is written by two Cleveland boys who just happen to be attending college in other cities. Alex is in Cleveland now, but he'll be New York-bound before you can say "Hey buddy, Holland Tunnel!". I, on the other hand, am happily entrenched in Chicago, where, despite it being a pizza wasteland, life is pretty good.

Why am I telling you this? Because there has been an awful lot of Indians bashing going on here in the Windy City lately, and I've had just about enough of it.

The 10% of this city that actually cares about the White Sox is furious -- absolutely furious -- that no less than five Cleveland Indians were put on the board, yes! -- while such obvious choices as Paul Konerko, Frank Thomas, Mark Buehrle, Shingo Takatsu, and Juan Uribe were given a heartfelt "He gone!"

OK, terrible joke. But you see the argument: the White Sox and Twins are tied for first place, and they're each sending the league-minimum one guy to Houston, while the Indians, a team below .500, send five?

The biggest outcry came this morning, after Jake Westbrook had been announced as the replacement for the injured Curt Schilling. "How can Jake Westbrook be an All-Star", says your typical Sox fan, "if I've never heard of him?"

So I would like to take a moment to defend our five All-Stars against the so-called "snubbed" players from the South Side.

To begin with, Victor Martinez and C.C. Sabathia, I think, need no defending. They're in, hands down.

As for Matt Lawton: among AL outfielders, only one player has a higher VORP and was left off the team, and that's Jose Guillen (for those of you who've never heard of it, VORP is probably the best stat for measuring players overall - e-mail me or visit Baseball Prospectus if you want to know how it works). So, if you want Guillen on the team, fine, but there are poorer outfielders than Lawton for him to replace - most notably Hideki Matsui (and Carl Crawford, except that you need to have at least one Devil Ray).

Ronnie Belliard, meanwhile, leads all AL second basemen in VORP. He lacks the track record of most All-Stars, and he will probably fade into obscurity once more as soon as this season is over (signing the inevitable "one good year" monster contract with the Orioles), but he's still a better choice than anyone else. It's hard to make a case for Juan Uribe, White Sox fans, when Belliard has been better in every way. They both have no track record of success.

That leaves Westbrook. He has the edge over Buehrle in VORP, ERA (Jake's is almost a whole run better), WHIP, on-base percentage allowed, slugging percentage allowed, batting average allowed, and home runs allowed. Buehrle, on the other hands, strikes out slightly more batters, and walks slightly fewer.

Buehrle has a strong case - and I definitely think he should have made the team over Estaban Loaiza, the current White Sox representative, who, thus far, has been the Sox' fourth-best starting pitcher, but Westbrook has just as strong a case, if not stronger.

(Johan Santana would probably have made a better choice than either of them anyway.)

The point is, White Sox fans need to stop bashing the Indians. I'll listen to your arguments about how Thomas, Konerko, and Buehrle were snubbed, but it has nothing to do with the Indians' five, all of whom are entirely deserving.

Wait... you're telling me that the Cavs could have picked up Boozer's option for next year for $700,000 but, in order to be allowed to offer him a long-term contract, they made him a free agent? (Of course, the best contract they're even permitted to offer him in that situation is a mid-level exception worth $5 million per year - while other teams may offer him as much money as they want). Now they are "surprised and disappointed" that Boozer accepted a $10 million per year contract from Utah instead of the $5 million from the Cavs.

To quote an Alex classic, the Cavaliers just got served and punk'd simultaneously.

This really hurts. I mean it hurts me, personally. I am dizzy with anger and emptiness. It would be one thing if we lost Boozer in a good old-fashioned regular bidding war. But we could have had him for $700,000 - practically nothing! - for another year and then negotiated a long-term deal for as much as we like.

Now, the only way we get to keep him is by matching Utah's offer within the next few days. And according to ESPN.com, the Cavs don't have anywhere near the cap space required to do that. It would require the Cavs to "trade and/or renounce the rights to a number of players".

So now, the question is, do you want the Cavs to trade or renounce "a number of players" in order to keep Boozer in Cleveland? Here is an excellent article entitled "How the Cavaliers can Keep Carlos Boozer" which implies it can be done by releasing McInnis and Kedrick Brown, then re-signing McInnis. That sounds too easy if you ask me, but if that's all it will take, then Paxson damn well better do it. I obviously know less about NBA econmics than the author of the article, but I have to question how the Cavs could avoid major salary cap problems if they agreed to both the Boozer and McInnis contracts described.

No Boozer = No Happy

Hi, this is Alex. 'Mistake on the Lake' is my first foray in the world of weblogging, but I hope I don't come off really whiny. But then again, I'm really whiny in real life, so perhaps seeming whiny in writing would be fitting.

Corey, you left off rating possibly the worst of the Indians announcers--Mike Hegan.

First of all, MoonDog sucks. Anyone who has yet to come to a Cavaliers game at Gund Arena (now known as "Gund Arena version 2") since they drafted Adonai wouldn't understand. He randomly circles the crowd and starts bashing this mangled drum. It's suprisingly loud, but also stupid. At first we thought MoonDog was a kangaroo, but we soon realized he was MoonDog. Does that mean he is from the moon? This needs to be further discussed.

I met Andra Davis once, not Andre Davis, but Andra. I also met Lebron James at Cedar Point where he refused to take a picture with me. I'll cherish that memory forever.

Already I have a feeling that a majority of my posts will somehow mention Roger Brown, famed sports "insider" for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and sworn-enemy of every sports radio host in the city.

So here you are, at the birth of a 'blog, The 'Mistake by the Lake' Sporting Times. This will be your best source for commentary on sports in the beautiful city of Cleveland, OH.

This 'blog is run by the Rubin brothers, Corey and Alex. We both love sports (especially the Indians, Browns, and Cavaliers). I'm Corey. I like classical music and stuff. Alex will be along shortly. He likes computers and stuff. I give him all the credit for the design of this 'blog, which is sure to change over the first few weeks of its existence.

Here's what not to expect from us: recaps of last night's game; updates on trade rumors, draft rumors, or minor leaguers; or just about anything you could read in the Plain Dealer. But you can expect pretty much everything else.

So, to kick things off, I'd like to offer you a quick list of the Rubin brothers' opinions on several prominent Cleveland sports figure, team by team (I'll let Alex tell you what I missed, or point out if he disagrees with anything):

The Indians

(When it comes to baseball, we will pimp the "sabermetric" point of view. This will be a constant theme.)

1. C.C. Sabathia is amazing. Not just for his talent -- mainly for his style.
2. Slider is amazing too. He is old enough now that we can respect him as a tradition, instead of rolling our eyes at him as a children's diversion.
3. Eric Wedge is better than Mike Hargrove or Charlie Manuel.
4. The drum guy, John Adams, is our greatest treasure.
5. Jacobs Field gets no respect. It rocks, especially with the new scoreboard/concessions.
6. Coco Crisp and Brandon Phillips have so much potential for being insanely awesome. It's about style, see? Why oh why can't they get some talent?
7. Tom Hamilton is freaking sweet. Matt Underwood is okay; he can be a bit bumbleheaded at times. Jokes about "Mully" are great. John Sanders is pretty vanilla; Rick Manning is funny because he can't pronounce "Encarnacion".

The Cavaliers

1. LeBron James is God. In fact, we may have to start calling him by some other name, like how in the Jewish faith you can't speak or write the name "God" so you use a codename, "Adonai". Wow... I digress.
2. If LeBron James is God -- and he is -- then Carlos Boozer is, like, God #2. Or something.
3. Joe Tait rules. You should hear Alex's Joe Tait impression. It rules equally.
4. I could do without MoonDog. Especially when he starts banging that goddamn drum. I miss Whammer. Okay, not really.
5. Austin Carr is responsible for some of the funniest quotes of all time.
6. LeBron James is God.

The Browns

1. There are two Andre Davises. TWO. Well, one Andre Davis and one Andra Davis. And they are awesome. And not just because of the name. They are awesome players.
2. Butch Davis... not a big fan. Anymore.
3. Ryan Pontbriand is the single greatest long snapper in the history of the NFL (one of only two to even be drafted - and Ryan was drafted two rounds sooner than the other guy). And he's only played one season! I am giddy with excitement in anticipation of this amazing career. This is not a joke.
4. The Dawg Pound is not what it used to be.
5. I stopped caring about Tim Couch vs. Kelly Holcomb vs. Jeff Garcia vs. Luke McCown vs. Frisman Jackson vs. Some Guy vs. Blah blah blah. It just doesn't matter.
6. Jim Donovan is okay; it's Doug Dieken who really entertains. Can he pronounce anybody's name?

Anyway, there you have it, a little sneak preview. Thanks for visiting . Check back often.

The Honorable Corey LeKevin Rubin IV was found by wealthy industrialist P. Cornwallis Brownstone in the alleyway behind Alice Cooper'stown on Bolivar in 1959 as an infant. Brownstone raised the boy like a son, enrolling him in the finest institutions. Upon graduation of high school, Rubin discovered his awesome talent for trick shots and fancy dribbling and thus began to barnstorm the countryside with the Harlem Globetrotters. Notably from this time, Rubin wrote his first of an eventual eighteen autobiographies, entitled Alley-oop!: The Life and Times of the Whitest Globetrotter, for which he won the 1975 Cleveland Jewish News Book Award for Non-Fiction.

Rubin parlayed the money he earned of his next four autobiographies into enough to buy the Cleveland High-Flyin'ers of the now defunct ABA. For six seasons, Rubin ruled over the High-Flyin'ers with an iron fist. Although, his methods did bring results—the team won the championship three times in his six seasons as owner. Rubin then sold the franchise in 1983 to the Hathaway Brown School, where it has since become their fast-pitch softball team.

Following the sale of the High-Flyin'ers, Rubin disappeared from public eye except to occassionally release one of the remaining thirteen autobiographies. He has since vowed that he has completed his last of his autobiographies with new content, but is vague when asked about possible future anthologies like 2003's Corey—One Man, 6,429 Pages. Instead, Rubin will concentrate his amazing output of writing on the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times, the official weblog of time and space. He also spends time writing orchestral scores out of classic video games soundtracks.

J. Prescott "Alex" Rubin was born in a newspaper stand at the corner of Euclid and East 9th in downtown Cleveland in July of 1962, the son of a local radio personality and a prominent Cleveland mustard magnate. At an early age, he demonstrated a talent for sportswriting, covering the 1964 Cleveland Browns championship victory as the 2-year-old senior sports editor of the now-defunct Cleveland Times, the Sporting Press, and the American Football Register.

In 1978, as a 16-year-old sportswriter/astronaut, Rubin bought the Cleveland Indians from then-owner Charles Haley "Dippin" Dotz, ushering in a new era of fortune and prosperity for the hapless franchise. Appointing himself general manager in 1979, team manager in 1980, and finally, in 1981, inserting himself as the starting center fielder, he became the first man in baseball history to fulfill the quadruple role of owner-GM-player-manager. Under Rubin, the Indians won their now-legendary 12 consecutive World Series titles from 1980-1991.

Today, Rubin splits his time between working with his most recent basketball protégé, LeBron James, his charity work with the "Meals for Gerard Warren Foundation", and his Pulitzer prize-winning commentary on the online weblog Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times.