How psyched am I about Matt LaPorta?

His middle name is Vincent.

That makes him "M. V. La P."

More to the point, he's about as good a prospect as the Indians could have possibly hoped to get in a C.C. Sabathia trade package. He was #31 on Baseball Prospectus's Top 100 Prospects last winter (#20 among position players), but has only strengthened that reputation with a great 2008 (so far). He's a power hitter—a real base-clogger! I'm pumped.

When news like this breaks, some fans come down against the trade, for obvious reasons: the Indians gave up a known [great] commodity, and received only unknown [hit-or-miss] commodities in return. Other fans support trades like this one, but only because they see them as "necessary evils": the Indians are financially disadvantaged compared to their competition, so they have no choice but to hedge bets and minimize costs. I'm in a third category, however. I support this trade and see it as a good instead of a necessary evil (if you will).

The Indians have a lot of talent on their roster, and have had (more or less) a lot of talent for about 15 years now. In general, a talented player starts his career with a low salary, reaches his peak while still earning a low salary, then suddenly becomes extremely expensive, continuing to retain some value but declining each year. At the very end of his career, he is still about as expensive as he ever was, but his value is at an all-time low.

That's an oversimplification, and not meant as an indictment of any individual player, least of all C.C. Sabathia, but it's generally true. And it means that any team—rich or poor—has a hugely important decision to make each time an A-list player approaches the point of suddenly becoming really expensive. There are three choices: (a) trade the player right before he reaches that point, (b) let him leave via free agency and get compensatory draft picks in return, or (c) spend the money to keep him.

A couple of teams (literally, a couple) can afford Option C without worrying too much about the possible negative consequences. But the Indians are not one of those teams, nor should we hold it against them that they aren't. The negative consequences of Option C are real, and significant. Compile a list of the most expensive free agent signings of the last 10 years or so. In general, did the teams signing the players get a good return on their investments? A few times, yes. But most of the time, I would argue, no. C.C. Sabathia may be the best pitcher in baseball right now (it's arguable, at least). But his value as a commodity goes down as his salary goes up. Compounding the problem, his value as a commodity goes down as his age goes up, too. I grant that he's about as durable a starting pitcher as any, but make no mistake: the team that signs him in 2009 is taking a gamble, even though their new player is a "known commodity". To most people, the "gamble" is trading for the unknown commodity (such as M. V. La P.), but the risk of trading for an underpaid Matt LaPorta is arguably less than the risk of signing an overpaid C.C. Sabathia.

So I laud the teams that eschew Option C, and it has nothing to do with whether they are rich or poor teams. (Though I can't think of a "rich" team that doesn't sign big ticket free agents, because if they didn't, who would think to call them rich?) At any rate (and whatever the reason), the Indians have clearly shown a preference to stay away from Option C. That leaves them with Options A and B. Those being the choices, Option A (trade the player) is usually preferable to Option B (let him leave via free agency) though of course it depends on what's available on the market, not to mention how likely it is your team will reach the playoffs.

In other words, trading C.C. Sabathia is not just some regrettable backup plan the Indians were forced into (though they will tell you it was). It is the best thing for the Indians' long term health. Sure, if they were in the running for the 2008 playoffs, they wouldn't dream of trading their ace, because doing so would damage their chances at a 2008 title. But that doesn't change the fact that this trade is the best thing in the long term.

In conclusion, please know that I don't support this trade for lack of love for C.C. Sabathia. He was the best Indians pitcher of my lifetime. He gave the Indians so many incredible performances and he gave us so many amazing memories, how could one not love him? I'm going to miss him. Seeing him pitch for Milwaukee (or whoever, next year) is probably going to make me really sad for a while. Heck, seeing him hit for Milwaukee is going to inspire in me a weird combination of joy, bitterness, and jealousy. But you can't have your emotional attachments and eat them too. There will still be an Indians team to root for, and they will almost certainly be better in 2009 than they are/were in 2008.

In further conclusion:

M! V! La P!
M! V! La P!