PDA

View Full Version : Majewski vs Wickman



REDREAD
07-21-2006, 08:34 AM
I thought I'd compare Wickman vs Majewski. The two are very similiar

Wickman had a 4.18 ERA and Whip of 1.43 and gave up a 734 OPS to opposing batters.
He's not closer material (neither is Majewski), but if you look deeper, you can see that vs RH hitters,
he only gave up a 618 OPS (290 OBP). That gives you a potential advantage to use the guy
in certain situations (like a stack of 3 RH hitters in a row).

Now look at Majewski. He has a 4.24 ERA and a Whip of 1.43 and gave up a 723 OPS to opposing
hitters. His splits vs RH and LH are pretty similiar (gives up a 739 OPs to LH, and a 709 OPS to RH).
I guess it's a matter of opinion whether you'd rather have a guy that is even against both RH and LH
or more extremely favored against RH. I think with a deeper pen, it's a nice advantage to have a guy
with an extreme advantage against RH and use him in spots. However, since the Reds don't have a lot of
depth, a balanced guy is probably slightly better. In any event, the raw numbers are very similiar.

The big difference is the price paid to get them. Kearns vs a single A catcher.
Wickman has a higher salary (but Supposedly Cast said he'd open up the pocket book this year, let's hold him
to that). Majewski has potential to help in future years (if his arm doesn't fall off from heavy use), but
I'd much rather worry about 2007 in this offseason, and have Kearns as a trading chip still on the team.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 08:34 AM
I'd also like to add that Majewski had the advantage of pitching in a pitcher's park. I don't know how to normalize the numbers for that. Maybe someone else here does.

oneupper
07-21-2006, 08:44 AM
The big difference is the price paid to get them. Kearns vs a single A catcher.
Wickman has a higher salary (but Supposedly Cast said he'd open up the pocket book this year, let's hold him
to that). Majewski has potential to help in future years (if his arm doesn't fall off from heavy use), but
I'd much rather worry about 2007 in this offseason, and have Kearns as a trading chip still on the team.

I prefer the Kearns chip in the pocket, too...but...

Wickman may have been a better choice. However:
1) He's a FA after the season, IIRC
2) His salary THIS YEAR is $5 MM (so braves owe him like $2 MM)
3) He could veto a trade to Cincy (maybe he didn't want to come to the Queen city).

Indians are dumping salary. So were the Reds in their deal.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 08:56 AM
I prefer the Kearns chip in the pocket, too...but...

Wickman may have been a better choice. However:
1) He's a FA after the season, IIRC
2) His salary THIS YEAR is $5 MM (so braves owe him like $2 MM)
3) He could veto a trade to Cincy (maybe he didn't want to come to the Queen city).

Indians are dumping salary. So were the Reds in their deal.

Neither of those bother me. I worry about 2007 in the offseason, and I let Cast eat the 2 million. He said he'd pony up money if we were close, so let's hold him to that.

Maybe he'd veto a trade to the Reds, you never know. I've got a feeling he knew he wore out his welcome in Cleveland and would welcome a trade to Cincy.

smith288
07-21-2006, 09:01 AM
Wickmans older than dirt.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 09:19 AM
Wickmans older than dirt.

As long as he maintains those numbers until the end of the year, who cares?
This is a pure "for now" move. You let him walk at the end of the year.

IMO, both Wickman and Majewski have a chance of breaking down before the end of the year that is a little bit scary. Wickman due to his age and weight; Majewski due to being rode hard this year.

Johnny Footstool
07-21-2006, 09:28 AM
Majewski's 5.8 K/9 is only slightly higher than Wickman's 5.4.

The only major difference is that Wickman's GB/FB ratio has dropped each of the past two seasons -- significantly this season -- while Majewski's has been very consistent over the past two years.

Of the two, I'd much rather have Majewski. Unfortunately, Kearns is simply too much to pay for a middling bullpen arm.

Danny Serafini
07-21-2006, 09:31 AM
To be fair, at the time of the trade Majewski's ERA was 3.58, not 4.24. It's just shot up because he's gotten blooped to death since he came to Cincinnati.

registerthis
07-21-2006, 09:32 AM
Of the two, I'd much rather have Majewski. Unfortunately, Kearns is simply too much to pay for a middling bullpen arm.

Yep, although not a great comparison, looking at what the Braves paid vs. what the Reds paid is night and day.

If Bob Wickman could have been had for a Single-A catcher, that simply reinforces my belief that the Reds drastically overpaid for Bray and Majewski.

I do like Bray, though. I think he could become a prominent member of this pen for the next several years.

dabvu2498
07-21-2006, 09:32 AM
Of the two, I'd much rather have Majewski. Unfortunately, Kearns is simply too much to pay for a middling bullpen arm.
And that's the bottom line. Bullpen help could have been found for less than the price that the Reds paid.

smith288
07-21-2006, 09:34 AM
Yep, although not a great comparison, looking at what the Braves paid vs. what the Reds paid is night and day.

If Bob Wickman could have been had for a Single-A catcher, that simply reinforces my belief that the Reds drastically overpaid for Bray and Majewski.

I do like Bray, though. I think he could become a prominent member of this pen for the next several years.
Its not even the right comparison... The comparison is Guardado vs. Wickman.

NoColonBoy
07-21-2006, 09:56 AM
Part of Krivsky's rationale for the trade (putting aside whether the Reds got value, whether they gave up too much, whether they made the "right" trade etc.) is that he got a righty and a lefty around whom he could build a bullpen. Wickman at 86 years old doesn't give you that from the right side.

I don't think it's a fair criticism of Krivsky to compare the value given up in the two deals.

registerthis
07-21-2006, 09:57 AM
Its not even the right comparison... The comparison is Guardado vs. Wickman.
Which is equally befuddling. If Guardado could have been had for travis Chick, and Wickman for this Single A guy, why on Earth pull the trigger on a deal for two middle relievers that costs you two of your starting 8 position players?

registerthis
07-21-2006, 09:58 AM
Part of Krivsky's rationale for the trade (putting aside whether the Reds got value, whether they gave up too much, whether they made the "right" trade etc.)

Well, sure, if you put that aside, the deal's A-OK with me.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 10:09 AM
Neither of those bother me. I worry about 2007 in the offseason, That's easy when it's not your job in 2007.

smith288
07-21-2006, 10:22 AM
Which is equally befuddling. If Guardado could have been had for travis Chick, and Wickman for this Single A guy, why on Earth pull the trigger on a deal for two middle relievers that costs you two of your starting 8 position players?
Because its apples and oranges. We got two younger relivers who have been thoroughly scouted by Krivsky and the gang and are locked up for the long haul.

Im really not getting why there are still people thinking its the same situation here.

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 10:24 AM
To be fair, at the time of the trade Majewski's ERA was 3.58, not 4.24. It's just shot up because he's gotten blooped to death since he came to Cincinnati.
But who's to say some of Wickman's ERA isn't caused by being "blooped to death"?

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 10:26 AM
Because its apples and oranges. We got two younger relivers who have been thoroughly scouted by Krivsky and the gang and are locked up for the long haul.

Im really not getting why there are still people thinking its the same situation here.
B/c I don't think that there has ever been a deal like that for middle relief help. Kriv sailed into uncharted territory when he accepted that trade.

Johnny Footstool
07-21-2006, 10:39 AM
Its not even the right comparison... The comparison is Guardado vs. Wickman.

The point of the thread is that in terms of performance, Wickman and Majewski are shockingly similar. Guardado is a whole other story -- fly ball pitcher with a very good K rate and a chronic shoulder problem.

registerthis
07-21-2006, 10:40 AM
B/c I don't think that there has ever been a deal like that for middle relief help. Kriv sailed into uncharted territory when he accepted that trade.

Yep.

Meanwhile equally competent relievers are being had for a mere pittance.

But that's OK, we've got our two middle relievers locked up for awhile, hope they pan out...

westofyou
07-21-2006, 10:42 AM
Meanwhile equally competent relievers are being had for a mere pittance.They also had a veto, make 2 million bucks more this year and have pitched a whole 13 innings since May.

Yeah... let's hitch our wagon to that!!

Danny Serafini
07-21-2006, 10:48 AM
But who's to say some of Wickman's ERA isn't caused by being "blooped to death"?

That's not really the point. The point is that the Reds traded for a 3.58 pitcher, not a 4.24 pitcher, and the trade should be looked at from that standpoint. If you're comparing pitchers being traded for, it's not fair to say Wickman had a 4.18 ERA and Majewski a 4.24 ERA and try to make the comaprison that way.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 10:51 AM
To be fair, at the time of the trade Majewski's ERA was 3.58, not 4.24. It's just shot up because he's gotten blooped to death since he came to Cincinnati.

Ok.. that was not intentionally done to be deceptive. Yet, I think the comparison is still valid.

My big beef is the relative cost for these two acquisions, when their numbers are pretty darn close. Maj is only marginally better.

Johnny Footstool
07-21-2006, 10:52 AM
They also had a veto, make 2 million bucks more this year and have pitched a whole 13 innings since May.

Yeah... let's hitch our wagon to that!!

I'm not saying I wanted the Reds to get Wickman, but if all it takes is some cash and a prospect in A-ball, it's not that bad of a deal.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 10:58 AM
That's easy when it's not your job in 2007.

No, the point is that people justify the Kearns/Lopez trade by saying that it's July and the market for relief pitching went through the roof.

The way to respond to that market condition is not to overpay. Get stopgaps like Guarado and Wickman (since the Reds were only 1 game over 500 anyhow). Then in the winter, reload the bullpen when it's cheaper to get relief pitching. Heck, in the winter, Kearns/Lopez are worth a lot more than what Wayne sold them for.

I like that Cast wants to go for it, even though this team is very flawed. I like that attitude from ownership. I think Wayne blew the execution though.

Why give up Kearns for Majewski when a similiar guy (Wickman) could be had for a fraction of the cost? Then in the offseason, you assemble your 2007 bullpen.

IMO, giving away Kearns and Lopez for pennies on the dollar is going to hurt us a lot more in 2007 than having to fill in the bullpen in the offseason. It's a lot harder to find a quality middle infielder than it is to find a quality reliever.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 11:03 AM
They also had a veto, make 2 million bucks more this year and have pitched a whole 13 innings since May.

Yeah... let's hitch our wagon to that!!

As opposed to Majewski, who has been rode hard all year?

Cast said he'd up payroll.. 2 million is not unreasonable. Don't be trapped into Lindner thinking.

I know Wickman is not a good physical specimen, but we'd only need him to hold together for 12 more weeks or so.

And then you flip Kearns or Lopez for a starting pitcher or another asset.

If Wickman vetoes, you talk to another team that wants to save a million or two dollars because they're out of the race.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 11:07 AM
you talk to another team that wants to save a million or two dollars because they're out of the race.

Really... who would that be?

On BBT they said that the middle relief market was dry due to the amount of teams that "think" they have a chance.

As for riding GM hard.. that's what Middle Relief is for, the Reds have a long history of quality middle relief.. Bowden didn't pursue it, O'Brien didn't pursue it... some had to.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 11:16 AM
Really... who would that be?.

I bet before the deadline, another reliever gets dealt for a lot less than the Reds paid. But even if that doesn't happen, that's not proof that the Reds HAD to do the Nats deal. What you're asking is impossible to prove either way, becuase we can't call up the GMs and see what's really available and what's not.




On BBT they said that the middle relief market was dry due to the amount of teams that "think" they have a chance.

Aren't these the same "experts" that people are discrediting because they said the Reds got ripped off? Maybe you didn't say that, but a lot of people did.




As for riding GM hard.. that's what Middle Relief is for, the Reds have a long history of quality middle relief.. Bowden didn't pursue it, O'Brien didn't pursue it... some had to.

I don't know what you mean here. Bowden did pursue middle relief while he was here. DanO did somewhat (Mercker and Weathers were solid last year, Todd Jones was a good pickup). Basically, the bullpen never recovered from the 2003 firesale. When you give away your entire bullpen for nothing, and the farm is barren, it takes years to recover.

Majewski had tendonitis from overuse. I remember you beating the drum that Sullivan for Hummel was a good trade because Sully's arm was about to fall off. Don't you have a similiar concern for Majewski? Also, riding the pen hard helped end the careers of Graves, Reyes, and Williamson prematurely, IMO.
It was understandable in the 1999 pennant race, but there is a price when you do that. I'm a bit concerned that Majewski is supposed to be a long term help, but he's been used very hard, which might shorten his shelf life.

pedro
07-21-2006, 11:23 AM
What you're asking is impossible to prove either way, becuase we can't call up the GMs and see what's really available and what's not.



and what you're saying isn't equally as hard to prove?

registerthis
07-21-2006, 11:24 AM
They also had a veto, make 2 million bucks more this year and have pitched a whole 13 innings since May.

Yeah... let's hitch our wagon to that!!

I'm not necessarily arguing that the reds should have pursued Wickman, but I do believe that deals like Wickman's and Guardado's show that relief pitching could be had without mortgaging the farm.

And I'm not convinced that Majewski is anything more than an average reliever whose ERA will sit somewehere in the 4.25-4.75 range.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 11:25 AM
Aren't these the same "experts" that people are discrediting because they said the Reds got ripped off? Maybe you didn't say that, but a lot of people did.Actually I don't rip BBT... but the report was from Tim K on the GM's he has talked to.


I don't know what you mean here.
Old relievers are what you're talking about, I'm talkingabout getting guys who are in their mid 20's guys with a contract ceiling that has yet to be grown in, guys with heat... not the same type of guy inning after inning.. I'm talking about The Sully's, Abernathy's, Charleton's, etc.

Don't you have a similiar concern for Majewski?

Prior to this year he faced 471 batters, when the Reds traded Sulliven he had faced 2815 batters over nine seasons and was 32 years old. he faced 231 more and retired the next season.

Aside from them both being RH pitchers the comparison seems a stretch.

registerthis
07-21-2006, 11:25 AM
That's not really the point. The point is that the Reds traded for a 3.58 pitcher, not a 4.24 pitcher, and the trade should be looked at from that standpoint. If you're comparing pitchers being traded for, it's not fair to say Wickman had a 4.18 ERA and Majewski a 4.24 ERA and try to make the comaprison that way.

As posters on here have shown, though, Majewski's rise in ERA was predictable upon coming to the team.

terminator
07-21-2006, 12:07 PM
As for riding GM hard.. that's what Middle Relief is for, the Reds have a long history of quality middle relief.. Bowden didn't pursue it, O'Brien didn't pursue it... some had to.
In fairness, O'Brien pursued it and made some lousy veteran choices with Weber, Mercker, Weathers, White, Hammond. If they had performed as they did in the years before we signed them, they would have formed a decent bullpen along with a couple younger guys (such as Coffey). Obviously, along with Williams and Milton, most of O'Brien's pitching trades did not work out.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 12:17 PM
In fairness, O'Brien pursued it and made some lousy veteran choices with Weber, Mercker, Weathers, White, Hammond. If they had performed as they did in the years before we signed them, they would have formed a decent bullpen along with a couple younger guys (such as Coffey). Obviously, along with Williams and Milton, most of O'Brien's pitching trades did not work out.
All old guys though, work horse releivers of teh 100 inning variety are usually young and strong.. the Reds used to make those guys yearly.

dougdirt
07-21-2006, 12:26 PM
Which is equally befuddling. If Guardado could have been had for travis Chick, and Wickman for this Single A guy, why on Earth pull the trigger on a deal for two middle relievers that costs you two of your starting 8 position players?

Does everyone forget that we got 3 other players in that deal? If we just traded Kearns and Lopez for Bray and Majewski, then yeah the deal looks a lot worse. Now I am not saying Clayton, Harris and Thompson(who I like btw) are anything special, but they were a part of the trade and no one seems to be talking about them like they just magically appeared and werent a part of that trade.

M2
07-21-2006, 12:29 PM
No, the point is that people justify the Kearns/Lopez trade by saying that it's July and the market for relief pitching went through the roof.

The way to respond to that market condition is not to overpay. Get stopgaps like Guarado and Wickman (since the Reds were only 1 game over 500 anyhow). Then in the winter, reload the bullpen when it's cheaper to get relief pitching. Heck, in the winter, Kearns/Lopez are worth a lot more than what Wayne sold them for.

I like that Cast wants to go for it, even though this team is very flawed. I like that attitude from ownership. I think Wayne blew the execution though.

Why give up Kearns for Majewski when a similiar guy (Wickman) could be had for a fraction of the cost? Then in the offseason, you assemble your 2007 bullpen.

IMO, giving away Kearns and Lopez for pennies on the dollar is going to hurt us a lot more in 2007 than having to fill in the bullpen in the offseason. It's a lot harder to find a quality middle infielder than it is to find a quality reliever.

I couldn't agree more.

I'll add that not having a Wickman/Majewski on the hook after 2006 can also be construed as a good thing.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 01:25 PM
and what you're saying isn't equally as hard to prove?

Well, Let's look at all the other trades in MLB since June 1




1. Wickman
2. Guarado.
3. Yan
4. Weaver for OF Terry Evans
5. Huff to the Stros
6. LA: Acquired pitcher Mark Hendrickson and catcher Toby Hall from the Tampa Bay Devil Rays
for pitcher Jae Seo and catcher Dioner Navarro.
7. Boston: Acquired pitcher Jason Johnson from the Cleveland Indians for a player to be named
or cash considerations
8. White Sox: Acquired pitcher David Riske from the Boston Red Sox for pitcher Javier Lopez;
9. Reds: Traded pitcher Jeff Stevens to the Cleveland Indians to complete
the April 7 deal in which the Reds acquired second baseman Brandon Phillips.
10. Royals: Acquired pitcher Brandon Duckworth from the Pittsburgh Pirates
for cash considerations
11. Mets: Acquired catcher-outfielder Eli Marrero from the Colorado Rockies
for second baseman Kaz Matsui
12. Cubs: Acquired infielder Phil Nevin and cash considerations
from the Texas Rangers for infielder Jerry Hairston Jr.



Is there any trade here where a contender paid through the nose? I know it's not the end of July yet, but I don't see the trend where it's a huge sellers market. Maybe I will be proved wrong at the end of July, but I doubt it. The only reason the Bray/Maj trade seems big is because we gave up so much to get it. Had we paid a more approrpriate amount for them, it would've probably been just a little more exciting than the Guarado trade.

I think with Wickman and Guarado, there's at least 2 data points saying that we grossly overpaid.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 01:37 PM
Does everyone forget that we got 3 other players in that deal? If we just traded Kearns and Lopez for Bray and Majewski, then yeah the deal looks a lot worse. Now I am not saying Clayton, Harris and Thompson(who I like btw) are anything special, but they were a part of the trade and no one seems to be talking about them like they just magically appeared and werent a part of that trade.

I think those additional three guys just aren't worth getting excited about. Maybe Thompson helps us way off in the future, but I can't get excited about a A ball pitcher that Doc K has already cut up. Harris looks to be another in a long line of utility infielders that this club likes to hoarde.

After all, the Reds sold us that Maj and Bray were solid setup guys. That was the sales pitch. This was a win now move.

registerthis
07-21-2006, 01:40 PM
Does everyone forget that we got 3 other players in that deal?

No, but it would be unlikely if any of those players ever make an impact of any significance. Clayton is an offensive black hole and mere roster fodder, Harris is a mid-20s prospect who projects to be, at best, a decent utility/backup player, and Thompson is a roulette wheel.

IMO, all of those players are negligible when discussing this trade. And if we're going to talk about players thrown in in this deal, don't forget that the Reds sent Wagner to the nats--a player who, despite his troubles, still has a higher likelihood of success in the majors than does Thompson.