That's what bugged me. Apparently not catching everyday was going to hurt his value. How? That makes no sense. It's not like he was going to forget how to catch playing some games at firstbase. I think if anything it would increase his value if he could show the versatility to play another position not to mention he would save some wear on his body by not catching as much which would probably extend his career and therefore his earning potential. I really don't care if he didn't care about winning, the vast majority of professional athletes don't give a rip about the final score as long as the check clears. The Indians didn't win the World Series that season so by this logic I guess he should have been lobbying to be traded to the Cubs and only the Cubs. The Rangers literally finished with the best record in the AL that season. Anything can happen in the playoffs. A guy can want to play for a winner AND prefer a more desirable situation for his career at the same time. He got both. Lucroy was a catcher, his free agent value was as a catcher, the Indians wouldn't commit to giving him playing time as a catcher and told him straight out that he'd have to compete with Yan Gomes to be the #1 catcher going into the next season. Again, not great news for a guy that needed to log a full season as a starting catcher to establish his value in free agency. Gomes had been fairly unremarkable in his career up to that point, especially compared to Lucroy's career, and went on to post a .708 OPS in 2017 for the Indians. This feels really, really simple. I guess it's not real simple for everyone. All this. I'm guessing that for most people, relocating their livelihood and families to another area of the United States for the next couple years would be a fairly big decision and they might want control over the destination. Yet for these guys we look down on them if they don't jump on the first place we try to send them even if their contract specifically says they don't have to go.