clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Should the Indians hold a players-only meeting?

New, 46 comments

These guys already know that candlesticks make a nice gift, right?

Caylor Arnold-USA TODAY Sports

Things could be worse for the Indians than they are right now, because things could always be worse, but they couldn't be a whole lot worse. When things are running bad in sports, there's often a call for a players-only meeting. I suspect this is really just a way to clear out the locker room so the guys (or gals) can sit around in their underwear without anyone hassling them with questions or instructions. Thee guys I bet most players are goofing around on their cellphone or tablet... I don't know what the hell they did in olden times. Pinochle, maybe?

If the meetings really do serve some sort of purpose beyond a respite from the prying eyes and probing words of others, what would even be said in the Tribe clubhouse right now?

"Boy, we sure are playing like crap right now."

"You know, maybe if we didn't play like crap, we'd win some more games."

"Whoa, that's a really good idea, let's not play like crap anymore."

"I guess I just had tunnel vision for playing like crap, and forgot there were other options."

Do Corey Kluber, Trevor Bauer, Carlos Carrasco, and Danny Salazar get to skip the meeting, or do they lead it? Does the team turn to Brett Hayes for advice, or are they too embarrassed to talk to him because they haven't learned his name yet? Do the players try to convince Michael Bourn and Nick Swisher to give back some of their money, so other players can be signed to help? Does Terry Francona put on a fake moustache and sneak into the meeting to find out if anyone is badmouthing his decisions?

If the Indians hold a players-only meeting this afternoon, what do you expect will go on in it?