PDA

View Full Version : Reds sign Wilson



Pages : 1 [2]

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 11:54 AM
Would I?
Yes, I would..... if any player on the Reds is due for a fall it's WMP.
Of course that's only opinion.
That's an opinion too.

Dude, I respect your opinion.. Obviously this is a subjective issue, and I enjoy talking with you. I should've said that Graves had the best bullpenner season last year. I agree, Wagner has potential to be better than Graves. Reidling has potential to bounce back strong (at least to respectablity). There's some reasonable hope that some of the returning guys will improve.

IMO, Wily Mo, even with his OBP warts, is the best young project we have.
Meaning, I think he's a better bet than Wagner, Lopez or Claussen to be a major contributor. Now, I'm sure many disagree. But I think it's a bad idea to give away Wily Mo simply to get rid of Graves at this point. BUT, if you are assuming DanO could spend Graves' 6 million the next day on a good pitcher, it may be worth it... I will concede that point. I just don't think that's realistic. I don't think DanO can move fast enough to spend that payflex, and if he does spend it, he won't spend it wisely.. He'd buy two Lidles instead.

If the Reds are commited to moving Kearns to 3b (and it looks like he'll get an extended look there), Pena is going to get a lot of playing time.

westofyou
12-01-2004, 11:59 AM
They'd be getting something back for WMP, they wouldn't trade him just to dump Graves contract... if that's what you think I think.

WMP has OB warts, major warts.

That is something that needs to be fixed.

maniem
12-01-2004, 12:04 PM
I'm not sure if i'm for this signing or not. I like him as a #2 or #3 starter. If he is our big signing, i will be upset. But if we sign Clement or Perez in addition, then i really don't mind that much. Is 3.6 mil too much? I guess we'll find out next year. I noticed that his ERA had dropped every year the last 4 years. If he follows this trend, hopefully it will go down more next year. So let's say that Wilson ends up going 13-8 with 3.90 ERA next year. Is he worth $3.6 million? I think he's capable of having this type of season, although it might be the best he'll ever do.

Redmachine2003
12-01-2004, 12:21 PM
How does Wilson stack up against the Cards Rotation. I don't think any of them pitched that much better than Wilson did they? The Cards had one of the best Defense's in the league to help the rotation too.

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 12:44 PM
They'd be getting something back for WMP, .

Ok, then I understand. I thought the premise was to include WMP and get nothing back. In other words, include WMP to make the deal palatable.

It's still going to be a tall order to get anything good back at this point in a deal that includes Graves. He's a negative.

M2
12-01-2004, 01:06 PM
How does Wilson stack up against the Cards Rotation. I don't think any of them pitched that much better than Wilson did they? The Cards had one of the best Defense's in the league to help the rotation too.

He'd probably have been their #6 starter. You can make an argument that Wilson was better than Matt Morris. He had a better ERA, even in relative terms. Yet Morris chewed up 18.1 more innings, had just as many quality starts and an identical OPS against (Morris with the lower OB, Wilson the lower SLG). All things considered, I'd take the better innings eater.

Plus the Cards have Dan Haren and Al Reyes poised to leapfrog Wilson.

djeternal
12-01-2004, 01:30 PM
Are the Reds actually done?
---------------------------
My question is are the Reds done with the FA market? It seems highly unlikely we will make a trade to improve the team NOW, and most likely for later, if that happens.

I heard on the radio (1360) this morning that the Reds might get a reliever and that would be the end of any new transactions before the season starts. Knowing how slow DanO goes, the reliever might be a pipe dream as well.

I would hope we get someone to replace Castro, and have some depth at infield/off-the-bench types as well. Another good starter sounds good, but knowing our direction, it's not gonna happen.

Anyone's take?

RedsBaron
12-01-2004, 01:49 PM
I noticed that his ERA had dropped every year the last 4 years.
While Wilson's ERA has dropped each of the last four years, so has the NL's ERA. BaseballReference.Com includes ERAs adjusted for playing conditions. In each of the last four seasons, Wilson's ERA was higher than the adjusted NL average: 4.88 to 4.48, 4.83 to 4.47, 4.64 to 4.29 and 4.36 to 4.01.
BaseballReference.Com also has an adjusted ERA for pitchers, where the higher the score the better, as it measures a pitcher against the league norm. For example, in 2004 Randy Johnson had an ERA of 2.60-matched against a league norm of 100, Johnson's score was 171. Wilson has been remarkably consistent by that measure-each of the last four seasons he has had a score of 92 versus a league average of 100. I'm sure WOY or Steel could explain this better, but as I understand it, this means that in all four seasons Wilson was mediocre, just below the average.

Redmachine2003
12-01-2004, 01:55 PM
He'd probably have been their #6 starter. You can make an argument that Wilson was better than Matt Morris. He had a better ERA, even in relative terms. Yet Morris chewed up 18.1 more innings, had just as many quality starts and an identical OPS against (Morris with the lower OB, Wilson the lower SLG). All things considered, I'd take the better innings eater.

Plus the Cards have Dan Haren and Al Reyes poised to leapfrog Wilson.
So you would take Wilson over Suppan and Williams since Wilson had pitched more innings per start and the Stats are very close.

princeton
12-01-2004, 01:58 PM
devil's advocate: if Paul Wilson stays healthy for all of August, then maybe he posts a 3.45 ERA, and scratches out 200 innings.

I'm sure that the Reds FO is harboring such thoughts.

westofyou
12-01-2004, 02:02 PM
He's a negative.

Then I guess he's not the best arm in the BP then eh?

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 02:11 PM
Then I guess he's not the best arm in the BP then eh?

Only a negative because of his salary.. Performance-wise, he was the best.

Obviously, if Graves was only making 2 million/year, there'd be no problem trading him.

M2
12-01-2004, 02:28 PM
So you would take Wilson over Suppan and Williams since Wilson had pitched more innings per start and the Stats are very close.

Suppan and Williams threw more total innings and that's what I care about. Suppan's thrown more innings every year of his career. Williams has thrown more innings all but once. Both have been well above 200 IP mulitple times.

Both pitchers have also had better relative ERAs, either at or slightly above average in both cases, than Wilson every season.

So, no, I wouldn't consider Wilson in front of either one of those two guys. In fact I've been thinking Williams might wind up in a Reds uniform as the Reds nominal "ace" this season. IMO, he'd be more likely to pitch decent than Lidle was, though Williams is nothing to get excited over.



devil's advocate: if Paul Wilson stays healthy for all of August, then maybe he posts a 3.45 ERA, and scratches out 200 innings.

I'm sure that the Reds FO is harboring such thoughts.

I'm sure you're right, but Wilson's entire career can be viewed as a collection of unrealized what-ifs that always land him in the exact same unappetizing spot. He can have his runs (most pitchers can), but he's only good for a QS half the time when you get to the end of a season and he breaks down when the inning load starts to mount.

My working set of assumptions, and I've never wavered on these, is that Wilson is incapable of pitching 200 IP in a season and he's never going to qualify for an ERA title with a sub-4.00 ERA.

SteelSD
12-01-2004, 02:43 PM
While Wilson's ERA has dropped each of the last four years, so has the NL's ERA. BaseballReference.Com includes ERAs adjusted for playing conditions. In each of the last four seasons, Wilson's ERA was higher than the adjusted NL average: 4.88 to 4.48, 4.83 to 4.47, 4.64 to 4.29 and 4.36 to 4.01.

BaseballReference.Com also has an adjusted ERA for pitchers, where the higher the score the better, as it measures a pitcher against the league norm. For example, in 2004 Randy Johnson had an ERA of 2.60-matched against a league norm of 100, Johnson's score was 171. Wilson has been remarkably consistent by that measure-each of the last four seasons he has had a score of 92 versus a league average of 100. I'm sure WOY or Steel could explain this better, but as I understand it, this means that in all four seasons Wilson was mediocre, just below the average.

Nah. You did fine. You're speaking about ERA+, which is also park and league normalized.

Basically, when a pitcher hits the same ERA+ three seasons in a row (i.e. Wilson's 92 ERA+), it means that the pitcher's individual effort hasn't really changed. It might appear so, but only because factors beyond his control make it appear so.

Furthermore, Wilson's OPS Against and ERA drop in 2004 was generated primarily by a 10-point reduction in BABIP versus 2002 and 2003. We can either attribute that to luck or to the fact that the groundscrew turned the infield into a shrubbery nightmare.

If we believe in the luck explanation, then we know Wilson's going to revert back to previous OPS-Against form (read- over .800). If we trust the shrubbery explanation (take a look at his home/road splits), then Wilson's 2004 numbers (including ERA) were an environmental mirage. That's a scary thing considering that his numbers were below average even with the help of Miracle-Gro.

Either way, he's not worth what he's now being paid nor is he as good as he appeared to be in 2004, nor did anything improve due to his own performance versus previous seasons, nor does he project numbers as good as his 2004 end result.

And yet we still have folks who think that Wilson's last three years show a true pattern of "improvment" and are projecting that improvement for 2005. Smells a lot like the discussions circa last offseason.

westofyou
12-01-2004, 03:27 PM
Last season the A's inked Redman to a 3 year 11 million dollar contract, it was back loaded, 2.2 million last year and 4.25, 4.95 the next 2.

The A's will be paying the Pirates 1 million each year.

Mark Redman is going to get 9.2 million bucks in the next 2 seasons.

He has 807 IP and an ERA that screams Paul Wilson.

SteelSD
12-01-2004, 04:22 PM
Last season the A's inked Redman to a 3 year 11 million dollar contract, it was back loaded, 2.2 million last year and 4.25, 4.95 the next 2.

The A's will be paying the Pirates 1 million each year.

Mark Redman is going to get 9.2 million bucks in the next 2 seasons.

He has 807 IP and an ERA that screams Paul Wilson.

The club option is 4.95 M. If the Pirates choose not to use their option in 2006, Redman will get 4.5 M using his player option, according to reports.

And is the 1M payment tied directly to Redman or was it involved in the deal as a whole to counter some of the contracts of both Redman and Rhodes?

In any case, Redman's three-year OPS Against (even including a nasty 2004) is .736. Wilson's is .801. They don't appear to be the same pitcher.

westofyou
12-04-2004, 11:52 AM
BP Weighs in

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3653#CIN

Re-signed RHP Paul Wilson to a two-year, $8.2 million contract, with a club option for 2007. [11/30]

I can see this as a need-driven signing, but there are echoes of this deal that make me think this is like the team's unfortunate tendency to re-commit to Pete Harnisch not so very long ago. Yes, Wilson has been useful relative to the team's alternatives the last two years. Yes, he's not irreparably broken by his run-in with Dallas Green's Shred-O-Matic Decision Tree of Manly Machismo. But it's also worth noting he wasn't really that great last year, or the year before. He was useful, yes, and in a world that's paying Brian Anderson $6.5 million over a couple of seasons to be pretty awful, I think we can all accept the case that Wilson's worth this sort of price on the open market. My question is whether you can contend in the NL Central when you can afford one "name" pitcher, and the name you've got is Paul Wilson at this sort of price. It's up to Dan O'Brien to conjure up a bit more than this if the Reds want to keep up with the front three in the division.