PDA

View Full Version : what to do with Milton



Will M
10-17-2006, 09:41 PM
The 2007 Reds starters I want
1. Arroyo
2. Harang
3. Free agent ( Ohka, Padilla,Lilly,etc ) or trade
4. Milton or Lohse
5. EZ Ramirez, Claussen or Belisle
6. Bailey in AAA then joins the Reds ~6/1 if he does well in AAA

what I don't want is:
1. Arroyo
2. Harang
3. Lohse
4. Milton
5. EZ Ramirez, Claussen or Belisle
6. Bailey in AAA then joins the Reds ~6/1 if he does well in AAA

I just can't see the Reds competing with both Milton and Lohse in the rotation.

I would prefer Lohse since I think he has more upside & is more likely to give us 200 IP.

Options for Milton:

A. keep him & Lohse :thumbdown

B. let Lohse go and use Milton as our 4th starter ( saving the $4M plus Lohse will make in 2007 )

c. Keeping Lohse & finding a trade partner for Milton. ( my preference )
Eating most of Milton's salary and trading him for a prospect is not enticing. I would prefer to find a match. The type of trade that seems possible is our overpriced player traded for your overpriced player where the salaries wash but each team gets a player that fits their needs better than the player they had.

One that seems possible is Milton for Geoff Jenkins. Here's why:
The Brewers want to move Jenkins, they have younger OFs they want to play. Jenkins is owed $7M next year ( the last year on his contract ). Both Ohka & Doug Davis are free agents so the Brewers could have an interest in Milton. Jenkins plays a decent RF. Still hits righties well ( .300 average with 17 HR ). Could be used in a RF platoon with Deno/Freel if Griffey stays in CF OR Griffey or Dunn is traded ( and the other plays LF ). They only scenario where the Reds couldn't use Jenkins is if we keep Dunn and move Griffey to RF.

I am sure there are other players out there that we could trade Milton or LaRue for.

What do other posters think?

- Will

mth123
10-17-2006, 09:48 PM
Kyle Farnsworth is an overpriced player who could help the Reds. Larue and Lohse?

Tom Servo
10-17-2006, 09:48 PM
Ridiculous salary aside, I actually trust Milton more on the mound than Lohse. Atleast you can pencil Milty in for about 6 innings and 3 runs per start, you never know what the Lohse-ster is up to.

Will M
10-17-2006, 10:01 PM
Farnsworth is someone the Reds could target. He is OK just not worth the money he is making. Milton for Farnsworth I would do.

Look at Lohse this way ( if rotation is Arroyo/Harang/#3/Lohse/EZ ) - if Lohse fails then Bailey takes his place.
If Lohse & EZ fail well then we are screwed

Unassisted
10-17-2006, 10:16 PM
While it would be nice to unload Milty, it just doesn't seem realistic without shipping him off with cash or taking on some other team's burdensome contract.

Will M
10-17-2006, 10:21 PM
Milty is a bad fit for the Reds and has a bad contract.
Jenkins would be a better fit for the Reds.

Jenkins is a bad fit for the Brewers and has a bad contract.
Milton would be a better fit for the Brewers.

mth123
10-17-2006, 10:31 PM
Why is Jenkins a bad fit for the Brewers? if the Reds trade Dunn, I could see a Jenkins, but the Reds traded Kearns, partially to open RF for Griffey IMO. Trading Milton for Jenkins leaves Griffey in CF. I'd rather have 5 Miltons in the rotation than 1 Griffey in CF.

Patrick Bateman
10-17-2006, 10:51 PM
I think we could trade him while eating 5M and he would have some value. Some team would be willing to take Milton at 4M.

That way we could keep Lohse as the #4 and have enough money to get a Lilly type of pitcher.

graveyard
10-17-2006, 11:14 PM
Why not try Milton as closer? He seems to pitch good for a few innings. this may work out.

Patrick Bateman
10-17-2006, 11:24 PM
Why not try Milton as closer? He seems to pitch good for a few innings. this may work out.

Because he stinks?

Usually you move a guy with only 1 or 2 good pitches (and that's it) to relief. Milton has a full selection of bad pitches.

Slyder
10-17-2006, 11:29 PM
Why not try Milton as closer? He seems to pitch good for a few innings. this may work out.

See Lidge this year? You wouldnt even get THAT good out of Milton with his Homeritis. If he still had the good fastball he had coming up MAYBE think about it. But now it would be worse than bringing Danny "one foot in the" Graves back.

tbball10
10-17-2006, 11:38 PM
i hope griffey gets traded but it wont happen so i'm gonna hope dunn gets traded instead...

paulrichjr
10-17-2006, 11:40 PM
I think we could trade him while eating 5M and he would have some value. Some team would be willing to take Milton at 4M.

That way we could keep Lohse as the #4 and have enough money to get a Lilly type of pitcher.


Milton is a good number 4 pitcher and those cost more than 4 million per year. One more year of Milton as our number 4 is fine with me but I don't really care about paying $5 million for Milton and then another $5 for his replacement who want be a whole lot better.

Will M
10-17-2006, 11:49 PM
Why is Jenkins a bad fit for the Brewers? because they have several younger OFs that they want to play. they are looking to trade him

Patrick Bateman
10-17-2006, 11:49 PM
Milton is a good number 4 pitcher and those cost more than 4 million per year. One more year of Milton as our number 4 is fine with me but I don't really care about paying $5 million for Milton and then another $5 for his replacement who want be a whole lot better.

It's basically spending an extra 3-4M on an upgrade from Milton to someone decent. To me, it's worth it, and we may actually get a decent player in return for eating 5M of Milton's contract.

Kc61
10-17-2006, 11:59 PM
Milton is a good number 4 pitcher and those cost more than 4 million per year. One more year of Milton as our number 4 is fine with me but I don't really care about paying $5 million for Milton and then another $5 for his replacement who want be a whole lot better.

Another pitcher might be better suited to GABP. Milton is not well suited to the Reds' stadium, as his numbers reflect. A different type of pitcher, even of equal quality, would make more sense for the Reds.

mth123
10-18-2006, 06:53 AM
Milton is a good number 4 pitcher and those cost more than 4 million per year. One more year of Milton as our number 4 is fine with me but I don't really care about paying $5 million for Milton and then another $5 for his replacement who want be a whole lot better.

I agree here. The Reds can keep Milton for half a year, still move $4 to $5 Million off the payroll and get a better player in return w/o eating any of the contract. I go into the season planning for Milton/Bailey holding down the #5 spot in the rotation and I budget as though this will cost me $4.5 to $5 Million. I use that savings and the money I won't be paying Lohse to get the upgrade for the top part of the rotation and no contract needs to be eaten. If Bailey is ready sooner, they can just trade him sooner.

Right now teams are optimistic about their own prospects and have the Free Agency option for filling any pitching needs and won't be willing to take much of Milton's contract or give up talent for him. During next season, when these things haven't panned out or some one goes down with an injury, the options will be very limited (Joe Mays anyone?). Teams will take on Milton's contract and give up decent talent (not just fodder) to get him and plug him into a hole that they will now know that they have. The Reds are paying him anyway. May as well use him to buy the 10 Starts or so that they want Bailey to get at AAA. The team needs to add as much talent as possible for a real run in a couple of years cutting Milton loose or trading him now, seems to be getting less than optimum return for him.

As far as the earlier comment about Milton not being suited for GABP. While true, I'm not sure how that helps the Reds get anything for him. The problem with this is, the big parks where a guy like Milton would be better are pretty much better for all pitchers. I can't see teams with big parks being willing to give more for Milton than anyone else. As a matter of fact, they are the very teams that can use cheap type roster fillers in those parks and get away with it because the park is so forgiving. Why would they want a guy with a $9 Million contract when so many options exist that would thrive there for almost nothing?

Jpup
10-18-2006, 07:06 AM
Why is Jenkins a bad fit for the Brewers? if the Reds trade Dunn, I could see a Jenkins, but the Reds traded Kearns, partially to open RF for Griffey IMO. Trading Milton for Jenkins leaves Griffey in CF. I'd rather have 5 Miltons in the rotation than 1 Griffey in CF.

What leads you to believe trading Kearns had anything to do with Ken Griffey Jr.? It had everything to do with getting Gary Majewski and Bill Bray. That's it.

I highly doubt Jr. will ever move out of CF as long as he is a Red.

mth123
10-18-2006, 07:15 AM
What leads you to believe trading Kearns had anything to do with Ken Griffey Jr.? It had everything to do with getting Gary Majewski and Bill Bray. That's it.

I highly doubt Jr. will ever move out of CF as long as he is a Red.

You may be right.

It just seems logical that when the GM says we are trying to improve our defense up the middle, and we are trading him to open a spot for Deno (I think he said his time has come or something like that), and Deno was a highly regarded CF in AAA, and Griffey has pretty much stunk in CF since 2001, that the logic was implied. But you are correct that it has never been said.

If it wasn't part of the plan, then the trade is even worse.

15fan
10-18-2006, 08:52 AM
Milton's numbers as a Red:

2005 - 34 starts, 186.1 IP, 134 ER, 6.47 ERA

2006 - 26 starts, 152.2 IP, 88 ER, 5.19 ERA

That comes out to...

60 starts, 339 IP, 222 ER, and a 5.89 ERA.

(Edit: In round numbers, that's 5 & 2/3 IP and 3.92 earned runs per start.)

To answer the original question in the thread -

You pretty much do anything you can to get rid of him.

Or you consider moving the OF fences back about 50 feet and petitioning MLB to let the Reds employ an extra fielder (a la softball) on days that Milton pitches.

redsmetz
10-18-2006, 09:23 AM
Milton's numbers as a Red:

2005 - 34 starts, 186.1 IP, 134 ER, 6.47 ERA

2006 - 26 starts, 152.2 IP, 88 ER, 5.19 ERA

That comes out to...

60 starts, 339 IP, 222 ER, and a 5.89 ERA.

(Edit: In round numbers, that's 5 & 2/3 IP and 3.92 earned runs per start.)

To answer the original question in the thread -

You pretty much do anything you can to get rid of him.

Or you consider moving the OF fences back about 50 feet and petitioning MLB to let the Reds employ an extra fielder (a la softball) on days that Milton pitches.

Many of us have noted that Milton's numbers this year are deceiving. When he was healthy (and I'd say that was about 2/3 of his actual season), he was on. Of course, the question is, will he be healthy next year. And I don't know the answer to that. I'm not adverse to moving him, but he was not the stinker in 2006 when he was healthy as he was in 2005. And if we can't move him, I want him to succeed.

15fan
10-18-2006, 09:32 AM
he was not the stinker in 2006 when he was healthy as he was in 2005. And if we can't move him, I want him to succeed.

Few pitchers in the history of baseball have been as rotten as Milton was in 2005.

Tell you what - you tell me when you think Milton was healthy in 2006, I'll cull his numbers from the game logs for that period and we'll see what the data says.

Edit: Here's a link to his 2006 game log:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=3783

SultanOfSwing
10-18-2006, 09:40 AM
Few pitchers in the history of baseball have been as rotten as Milton was in 2005.

Tell you what - you tell me when you think Milton was healthy in 2006, I'll cull his numbers from the game logs for that period and we'll see what the data says.

Edit: Here's a link to his 2006 game log:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=3783
How about 14 quality starts (3 behind Harang's 17) He did that with 9 fewer starts than Harang and Arroyo and 2 major injuries during the year. Seems as though he was the definition of consistency in 2006.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but when subtracting the four starts around his injuries Milton's ERA drops more than a point.

Raisor
10-18-2006, 09:45 AM
Is there anyway to ship Milton to the same island all those LOST people are on?

Maybe he can help them fight the polarbear or something.

15fan
10-18-2006, 10:09 AM
I don't remember the exact numbers, but when subtracting the four starts around his injuries Milton's ERA drops more than a point.

I'll gladly agree that if you throw my worst days out at the office / at home / at school, then I look like a much better employee / husband/dad / student.

If you view his 4 starts around his injuries as statistical outliers, then you also have to toss his 4 best starts, too. Maybe the team he was facing was riddled with injuries or suspensions that week, was playing the day after an extra inning marathon, played a night game a couple of time zones away before flying to Cincy for the next game, etc.

Toss out his 4 best starts...

5/26 - 8.0 IP, 1 ER
6/6 - 7.0 IP, 0 ER
8/3 - 7.0 IP, 2 ER
9/3 - 6.0 IP, 0 ER

and his 2006 ERA climbs from 5.19 to 6.13.

So maybe the 5.19 ERA really is a pretty accurate reflection of what kind of pitcher Milton is. 4 outings were really really bad. 4 were really really good. The rest, all 18 of 'em, saw him give up a little over 5 earned runs per every 9 innings pitched.

paulrichjr
10-18-2006, 10:27 AM
Unless Krivs is a magician Milton is sunk cost and going to be here next year. I cannot see how this team can pay someone $5 million to take him and then pay someone else $4 or $5 million to replace him who probably will not be a lot better. I agree with many on here that say that Milton was good when he was healthy but very bad when not. Hopefully the healthy Milton shows up next year.

Raisor
10-18-2006, 10:36 AM
Unless Krivs is a magician Milton is sunk cost and going to be here next year.



Since he's a sunk cost, he should be released. He's going to be paid no matter what.

Just say "no" to Milton.

mound_patrol
10-18-2006, 11:09 AM
I think the Reds should hold onto Milton until the trade deadline. If Milton is healthy and pitching with some consistency, he could bring in a pretty decent prospect or two. I just dont see a good trade coming our way before the start of the season. We need to wait until a playoff team is in strong need for a starter.

M2
10-18-2006, 11:18 AM
Since he's a sunk cost, he should be released. He's going to be paid no matter what.

Just say "no" to Milton.

Exactly. What to do with Milton is do better than Milton.

Highlifeman21
10-18-2006, 02:17 PM
We should make him our most expensive bullpen arm. He has no place in this rotation unless he can stay consistently healthy.

Just make him a mop up guy, get him out of Cincy after that contract expires.

No team in their right mind would want him unless he was 100% free.

camisadelgolf
10-18-2006, 02:20 PM
Milton's numbers as a Red:

2005 - 34 starts, 186.1 IP, 134 ER, 6.47 ERA

2006 - 26 starts, 152.2 IP, 88 ER, 5.19 ERA

That comes out to...

60 starts, 339 IP, 222 ER, and a 5.89 ERA.

(Edit: In round numbers, that's 5 & 2/3 IP and 3.92 earned runs per start.)

To answer the original question in the thread -

You pretty much do anything you can to get rid of him.

Or you consider moving the OF fences back about 50 feet and petitioning MLB to let the Reds employ an extra fielder (a la softball) on days that Milton pitches.


. . . but if that trend continues, he'll have a 4.11 ERA over 18 starts and 119 innings. It's not worth $9 million, but it's above average!

paulrichjr
10-18-2006, 02:24 PM
Since he's a sunk cost, he should be released. He's going to be paid no matter what.

Just say "no" to Milton.

Milton is here because paying $8 million for a guy (if we release him) to pitch for someone else would be foolish. Milton would be picked up quickly by virtually every team in baseball if we were paying his entire salary. Why? Because he would make almost every team in baseball a good number 4 or 5 pitcher. Look at every team in baseball including the Cards and Mets and you find a lot of pitchers who are not even as good as Milton. (The Mets even used a Reds discard as a starter- a REDS THROWAWAY!!!!) Even the Yanks would probably pay Milton the league minimum to be their number 5 guy. The Reds are not going to eat his contract so you might as well get ready to keep harping on him for just 1 more year (thank goodness only 1).

redsmetz
10-18-2006, 02:28 PM
Milton is here because paying $8 million for a guy (if we release him) to pitch for someone else would be foolish. Milton would be picked up quickly by virtually every team in baseball if we were paying his entire salary. Why? Because he would make almost every team in baseball a good number 4 or 5 pitcher. Look at every team in baseball including the Cards and Mets and you find a lot of pitchers who are not even as good as Milton. (The Mets even used a Reds discard as a starter- a REDS THROWAWAY!!!!) Even the Yanks would probably pay Milton the league minimum to be their number 5 guy. The Reds are not going to eat his contract so you might as well get ready to keep harping on him for just 1 more year (thank goodness only 1).

Perfectly put! The goal should be that our staff is good enough that Milton is the #4 or #5 guy. If we've got that, we're doing well. Right now, assuming he's healthy, he's our #3. I'd like to see that be lower on the ladder.

15fan
10-18-2006, 03:06 PM
. . . but if that trend continues, he'll have a 4.11 ERA over 18 starts and 119 innings. It's not worth $9 million, but it's above average!

In 259 career MLB starts, Eric Milton has a career ERA of 5.01.

[In his last 4 full seasons in the majors, Milton's ERA has been 4.84 ('02 Min), 4.75 (Philly '04), 6.47 (Cin '05) and 5.19 (Cin '06).]

Thus, if Eric Milton performs at his career average in 2007, it would mean that he gives up approximately 1 less run per 50 innings pitched when compared to 2006. In my book, that's close enough to project a 2007 that looks eerily like 2006.

If the Reds can't find any takers for Milton this off-season (and I'd set the bar even lower than the Casey for Dave Williams deal), the smart thing to do is pay Milton to go away. By simply giving the ball on a regular basis to just about any other pitcher not named Eric Milton, the Reds will be increasing their odds of winning in 2007.

M2
10-18-2006, 04:36 PM
Milton is here because paying $8 million for a guy (if we release him) to pitch for someone else would be foolish.

Why wouldn't the Reds want to make other teams worse?

As a rule, I'm all for the bad pitchers being on the other teams. Paying Eric Milton $8 million a year to sabotage you, now that sounds crazy to me.

Highlifeman21
10-18-2006, 04:44 PM
Why wouldn't the Reds want to make other teams worse?

As a rule, I'm all for the bad pitchers being on the other teams. Paying Eric Milton $8 million a year to sabotage you, now that sounds crazy to me.


That being said, we should pay $8 Mil to Milton to play for another team and make them bad.

Bold strategy. It just might work.

dfs
10-18-2006, 04:50 PM
By simply giving the ball on a regular basis to just about any other pitcher not named Eric Milton, the Reds will be increasing their odds of winning in 2007.

How many starts did the reds give to pitchers that where worse than Milton last year?

Claussen had 14. The Lizard had 19. Williams had 8. Mays had 4.

That's 45 starts to pitchers worse than Milton and that's counting Lohse and Michalak as better than Milton.

While I understand your frustration with Milton and his contract, I think this is the flip side of the rage some folks feel with Adam Dunn...Look at that big contract and how little we get from it....well, that may be, but the reds DO NOT have a lineup of pitchers better than Milton, pencil him in as your #4 and get over it.

Highlifeman21
10-18-2006, 05:34 PM
How many starts did the reds give to pitchers that where worse than Milton last year?

Claussen had 14. The Lizard had 19. Williams had 8. Mays had 4.

That's 45 starts to pitchers worse than Milton and that's counting Lohse and Michalak as better than Milton.

While I understand your frustration with Milton and his contract, I think this is the flip side of the rage some folks feel with Adam Dunn...Look at that big contract and how little we get from it....well, that may be, but the reds DO NOT have a lineup of pitchers better than Milton, pencil him in as your #4 and get over it.


Let's not forget Michalak in that equation as worse than Milton. Saying Michalak is better than Milton is like saying that $10 is more money than $20.

Claussen seems to have duration issues, as he only got thru 5 IP in only 8 of his 14 starts. Had he been able to get out that extra inning of work with 0 ER, he would have had more QS, as he had 4 starts of between 5 and 5.2 IP and 3 ER. Add 4 more QS to his total, and that puts him at 8 out of 14, IIRC.

Elizardo had 10 out of 19 QS. This is a HIGHLY misleading stat b/c Ramirez was either very sharp, or horribly awful. There was no inbetween. In his 9 non QS, he gave up 40 ER, IIRC. While some people might be ok with about 4.5 ER per start, this is the clear cut definition of a #5 starter at best to me.

As for Williams and Mays, they are just horrible, and I don't think anyone will dispute that.


Milton seems to be in a similar class with Claussen. Durability and longevity issues. They have both often been injured, and haven't gone deep into games.

Maybe they're both better suited out of the bullpen.

As for the Lizard, he's best suited on another ballclub.

IslandRed
10-18-2006, 05:46 PM
Easy enough decision to me, being a sunk cost and all -- dump him or stash him in long relief if we have five guys who are better, keep him in the rotation if we don't.

At least, that's the decision to make after we spend the offseason trying to move him for whatever we can get.

Will M
10-18-2006, 05:59 PM
EZ wore out. Young pitchers can't be expected to throw 220 IP just because they are in the bigs. Now as to why the coaches didn't this figure out sooner...
I think EZ is fine as a 4th or 5th starter going into 2007.

We have:
1. Arroyo
2. Harang
3. ???
4. & 5. - Lohse, Milton,EZ

Bailey starts in AAA and comes up ~6/1 if he pitches well and one of the 4th or 5th starters falters.

So...

A. We need a 3rd starter

B. We have 3 bottom of the rotation starters for 2 spots

What to do?

vaticanplum
10-18-2006, 06:35 PM
A. We need a 3rd starter

B. We have 3 bottom of the rotation starters for 2 spots

What to do?

Ah, problematically, this organization saw simple math as the answer to your above question this season. And, to the surprise of no one who is remotely familiar with what defines a starting pitcher, this failed spectacularly.