PDA

View Full Version : Mike Stanton a Red



TOBTTReds
11-19-2006, 01:09 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2668306


The Reds focused on improving their bullpen at last year's trading deadline. Apparently there's still work to be done.



Stanton
ESPN's Peter Gammons is reporting that Cincinnati and left-handed reliever Mike Stanton have agreed to a two-year contract.

ESPN.com's Jayson Stark reports that the contract also contains a vesting option for a third season.

The 39-year-old Stanton was 7-7 with eight saves and a 3.99 ERA in 82 appearances with the Nationals and Giants last season.

The Reds' closer situation is unsettled with Eddie Guardado out for next season following elbow surgery and club saves leader David Weathers a free agent. Stanton is a possibility to fill that role.

Edskin
11-19-2006, 01:12 PM
Meh........

captainmorgan07
11-19-2006, 01:16 PM
very intersting move here veteran prescense in then pen decent numbers with teh nationals but who's wouldn't be if they played in that grand canyon

NJReds
11-19-2006, 01:20 PM
very intersting move here veteran prescense in then pen decent numbers with teh nationals but who's wouldn't be if they played in that grand canyon

Actually. His numbers weren't great in Washington. He had success last year after being dealt to San Francisco.



26 g, 4-2, 8 saves, 23.1 IP, 23 H, 8 ER, 1 HR, 6 BB, 18 K, 3.09 ERA, 1.24 WHIP.

wheels
11-19-2006, 01:21 PM
How old is he?

Sixty?

PuffyPig
11-19-2006, 01:22 PM
His DIPS ERA has actually been great for a number of years.

I rememeber what Guardado's presence did for the whole bullpen last year, with everyone having a more defining role.

Stanton could be like Todd Jones. Not great stuff, but enough to get by for an inning, and gives us better overall depth in the bullpen. He would certainly be a stabilizing influence for guys like Bray, Coffey and Majewski.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 01:23 PM
Great.

MrCinatit
11-19-2006, 01:23 PM
How old is he?
Sixty?

No, you're way off.
He's 59 years, 12 months.

Patrick Bateman
11-19-2006, 01:24 PM
Hard to say if it's a good signing since we don't know the money yet, but the guy has been a good pitcher the last 3 seasons.

He keeps the ball in the park and has been pretty unlucky the last couple years. he's a better pitcher than his ERA indicates. Since he's 39 and we gave him a 2-year deal, I'm guessing we didn't have to pay a ton of money. If that's the case, this signing shouldn't be too bad.

He's also not really a true LOOGY, as he's a pretty similar pitcher vs. both sides of the plate.

He's not a great pitcher, but he should be pretty decent, which is better than most of the guys trotted out last season. He's an improvement. This signing will come down to the $$$$ for me.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 01:26 PM
Hard to say if it's a good signing since we don't know the money yet, but the guy has been a good pitcher the last 3 seasons.

He keeps the ball in the park and has been pretty unlucky the last couple years. he's a better pitcher than his ERA indicates. Since he's 39 and we gave him a 2-year deal, I'm guessing we didn't have to pay a ton of money. If that's the case, this signing shouldn't be too bad.

He's also not really a true LOOGY, as he's a pretty similar pitcher vs. both sides of the plate.

He's not a great pitcher, but he should be pretty decent, which is better than most of the guys trotted out last season. He's an improvement. This signing will come down to the $$$$ for me.

Expect the money to not be too low...WK has shown a great ability to outbid all, even himself, when it comes to Stanton like players.

UKFlounder
11-19-2006, 01:32 PM
Expect the money to not be too low...WK has shown a great ability to outbid all, even himself, when it comes to Stanton like players.

Such as....?

OnBaseMachine
11-19-2006, 01:36 PM
Great. The Reds signed another senior citizen reliever. When will they ever learn?

Justin Speier please.

vaticanplum
11-19-2006, 01:38 PM
I saw a lot of Stanton during his years with the Yankees. He never instilled total faith when he came to the mound but he did noticeably improve during his tenure with them so that's a point in his favor. I just looked up his stats and he has a 3.81 career ERA which is not bad. It's important to note though that he started playing major league baseball when I was in elementary school.

Could be a good pickup depending on the money.

Krusty
11-19-2006, 01:56 PM
Still waiting for the Reds to sign RHP Eric Gagne to be the closer.

Mario-Rijo
11-19-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by OnBaseMachine
Justin Speier please.

Signed with the Angels per ESPN.

savafan
11-19-2006, 02:15 PM
I would have loved to have had Stanton 10 years ago.

Kc61
11-19-2006, 02:23 PM
I wonder if this means Schoenweis is not returning.

Over his career, Stanton has been a better pitcher than Schoesnweis, but Stanton is 39 and you have to wonder which of the two is the better bet for the next couple of years.

Reds still collecting lefty relievers. Cormier, Bray, and Stanton all on the roster.

NDRed
11-19-2006, 02:29 PM
Pretty decent signing, no doubt he is an upgrade in the pen. I don't know how anyone can not like this before they know the dollars involved.

RBA
11-19-2006, 02:29 PM
I'm not really liking Wayne K's move since the Kearns/Lopez fiasco.

Scrap Irony
11-19-2006, 02:32 PM
Does this make other bullpenners available? If Santon is the set-up guy (and he probably will be), then at least four the following is sure to be sitting on warmer seats today:

Coffey-- CLoser of the future has to step it up at least two notches. A viable alternative as a middle reliever or set-up guy, he's cheap, and fairly effective. Trade bait? It's possible.

Bray-- The arm with the most promise of the bunch. He's cheap and LH. Plus stuff may mean he's a possible closer in waiting, but how many pens have a lefty set-up guy and a lefty closer? Looks to be the odd man out and a middle reliever at best this year.

Majewski-- Has to bounce back strong or he's useless. Many on the board assume he's toast, but they've been wrong before. Likely negative trade value at this point, so he's here until he's better. A middle reliever.

Belisle-- Promises about starting seem empty. Plus stuff, but a troublesome back keeps him from being ultra solid. He's a long reliever at this point, but could blossom. Does he have trade value? Not much. An intriguing throw-in-- nothing more.

Lohse-- Pitched decently for Cincinnati last season. Still young at 27 and has experience (albeit limited) in the pen. Could become an outstanding closer, with plus/ plus stuff. But he's expensive. Could Lohse be lost due to arbitration? If so, look for a deal sooner.

Claussen-- Pitched horribly last season, but fairly effectively the year before. If he's right, Claussen is the best of the fifth starter candidates. Of course, he's supposed to be a fourth or third starter, so that's not good. Still, as a lefty, he'll get every chance. Arbitration eligible, but shouldn't break the bank. At this point, little trade value, but that could rise quickly. A keeper, IMO.

Ramirez-- Cheap, young, and doesn't walk anyone. I think a transformation to the pen would be ideal, with an eye toward closer. He's got decent stuff. Let's hope that's the Red's plan as well, as he's overmatched (at this point) as a starter.

Cormier-- Signed for two more years. Ugh. Rheal bad. Rheal, rheal bad. But he's here for a reason.

Standridge-- Solid last year, in spurts. The biggest odds against making the team, IMO, as he's been unheralded and unknown largely thorughout his career. Still, he's had a couple cups of coffee and knows a bit about the role as mop-up man. Little trade value.

pedro
11-19-2006, 02:37 PM
Not a bad move IMO.

Patrick Bateman
11-19-2006, 02:37 PM
Standridge-- Solid last year, in spurts. The biggest odds against making the team, IMO, as he's been unheralded and unknown largely thorughout his career. Still, he's had a couple cups of coffee and knows a bit about the role as mop-up man. Little trade value.

The Mets already picked him up off of waivers.

Ltlabner
11-19-2006, 02:40 PM
Just got back and glanced over this and the same thread in Reds Live. Has it been reported yet as to whether this is a 1 year deal or 2 ? Seems like there are some conflicting reports.

Kc61
11-19-2006, 02:43 PM
Does this make other bullpenners available? If Santon is the set-up guy (and he probably will be), then at least four the following is sure to be sitting on warmer seats today:

Standridge-- Solid last year, in spurts. The biggest odds against making the team, IMO, as he's been unheralded and unknown largely thorughout his career. Still, he's had a couple cups of coffee and knows a bit about the role as mop-up man. Little trade value.

Standridge was cut and picked up by the Mets.

Scrap Irony
11-19-2006, 02:49 PM
I meant Shackleford, but typed Standridge. His ERA was horrid, but Shackleford was used incorrectly. In fact, he's really the only true LOOGY in the bunch. That makes four LH, not counting Schowenweis (who's probably gone), Guardado (who will take time), and Mercker (who's almost 99% retired, at this point).

Lots of options and a probable spot where a deal can be made.

M2
11-19-2006, 02:50 PM
With Cormier and Bray, why spend money on Stanton? Are the Reds going to carry seven relievers again next year? That's something I'd really hoped would get put into mothballs.

reds44
11-19-2006, 02:52 PM
I'll wait to see what the money is, but I don't mind this move at all. Stanton is a solid pitcher.

harangatang
11-19-2006, 02:53 PM
With Cormier and Bray, why spend money on Stanton? Are the Reds going to carry seven relievers again next year? That's something I'd really hoped would get put into mothballs.7 relievers and 3 catchers, same old story.

reds44
11-19-2006, 02:54 PM
7 relievers and 3 catchers, same old story.
It's November.

westofyou
11-19-2006, 02:56 PM
With Cormier and Bray, why spend money on Stanton? Are the Reds going to carry seven relievers again next year? That's something I'd really hoped would get put into mothballs.

Fetish Night

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 03:07 PM
I would have loved to have had Stanton 10 years ago.

Yep.

The_jbh
11-19-2006, 03:08 PM
Hey Kent Merker hows it goin

pedro
11-19-2006, 03:10 PM
7 relievers and 3 catchers, same old story.


I don't mind the three catchers since Valentin is the #1 LH PH.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 03:12 PM
I'm not really liking Wayne K's move .

Do you mean "bowel movement?"

reds44
11-19-2006, 03:13 PM
Great. The Reds signed another senior citizen reliever. When will they ever learn?

Justin Speier please.
You want to spend 4.25 million per year for 4 years on a middle relief pitcher? Finding a good middle reliever is too much of a crap shoot to do that.

Ltlabner
11-19-2006, 03:14 PM
Do you mean "bowel movement?"

You and the potty humor....geez.

Oh wait....that's one of the reasons I think you are not so bad. :beerme:

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 03:15 PM
You want to spend 4.25 million per years for 4 years on a middle relief pitcher? Finding a good middle reliever is too much of a crap shoot to do that.

They may be expensive, but it doesn't mean you should spend less on ancient pitchers. It doesn't work that way. There's no value in "bad."

reds44
11-19-2006, 03:17 PM
They may be expensive, but it doesn't mean you should spend less on ancient pitchers. It doesn't work that way. There's no value in "bad."
I don't know if I would call Stanton "bad". He's average, and average is an upgrade over what we had last year.

M2
11-19-2006, 03:17 PM
I don't mind the three catchers since Valentin is the #1 LH PH.

I mind that he's the #1 LH PH.

I'm for making that Scott Hatteberg's job.

reds44
11-19-2006, 03:18 PM
I mind that he's the #1 LH PH.

I'm for making that Scott Hatteberg's job.
I agree.

I am praying Votto takes his job.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 03:22 PM
I mind that he's the #1 LH PH.

I'm for making that Scott Hatteberg's job.

Another good point--this team's bench sucks.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 03:23 PM
I don't know if I would call Stanton "bad". He's average, and average is an upgrade over what we had last year.

The bullpen had its share of "average" last year. Why not "good" for once?

reds44
11-19-2006, 03:25 PM
The bullpen had its share of "average" last year. Why not "good" for once?
The bullpen had it's share of bad last year.

All you need for a bullpen is alot of "average" and a good closer. Problem is we don't haev a good closer.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 03:26 PM
The bullpen had it's share of bad last year.

All you need for a bullpen is alot of "average" and a good closer. Problem is we don't haev a good closer.

You need lots of good. Or at least two very good pitchers in the pen to contend.

reds44
11-19-2006, 03:26 PM
You need lots of good. Or at least two very good pitchers in the pen to contend.
You can patch a bullpen together if you have a good closer.

See: the Cardinals in the 2006 playoffs.

Gallen5862
11-19-2006, 03:30 PM
Espn Insider listed Stanton as the 30th best free agent.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 03:32 PM
You can patch a bullpen together if you have a good closer.

See: the Cardinals in the 2006 playoffs.

Tyler Johnson and Brad Thompson were on the rise; the Reds currently have exactly NO pitchers of that caliber, much less the caliber of a Wainwright.

Hell, the Reds don't even possess a Braden Looper in their current bullpen.

reds44
11-19-2006, 03:34 PM
Tyler Johnson and Brad Thompson were on the rise; the Reds currently have exactly NO pitchers of that caliber, much less the caliber of a Wainwright.

Hell, the Reds don't even possess a Braden Looper in their current bullpen.
They were on the rise because they were used correctly.

Like I said, if you have good closer, you can patchwork your bullpen. Wainwright was a good closer.

jnwohio
11-19-2006, 03:35 PM
Does this make other bullpenners available? If Santon is the set-up guy (and he probably will be), then at least four the following is sure to be sitting on warmer seats today:



Standridge-- Solid last year, in spurts. The biggest odds against making the team, IMO, as he's been unheralded and unknown largely thorughout his career. Still, he's had a couple cups of coffee and knows a bit about the role as mop-up man. Little trade value.



It was reorted on Marc's blog last week that Standridge had been lost on a waiver claim to the Mets. My guess would be they were trying to sneak him through and got burned.

M2
11-19-2006, 03:35 PM
Tyler Johnson and Brad Thompson were on the rise; the Reds currently have exactly NO pitchers of that caliber, much less the caliber of a Wainwright.

Hell, the Reds don't even possess a Braden Looper in their current bullpen.

The Reds did have some interesting bullpen arms in AA this year. That doesn't mean they'll pan out, but there's some talent there.

I'm glad you've come to like Wainwright.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 03:37 PM
Like I said, if you have good closer, you can patchwork your bullpen..

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

I think the greater imperative is not to spend decent-sized chunks of your payroll on 40 year old relief pitchers.

pedro
11-19-2006, 03:38 PM
I mind that he's the #1 LH PH.

I'm for making that Scott Hatteberg's job.

hard to argue with that M2.

I'd like to see the Reds sign a corner OF, move Dunn to 1B, and put Denorfia in CF.

vaticanplum
11-19-2006, 03:41 PM
I think the greater imperative is not to spend decent-sized chunks of your payroll on 40 year old relief pitchers.

Ahem. 39.

Really though, if the deal is really $1 million as reported, that is not a huge chunk of payroll. I see your point if it starts to add up, but we're losing some relievers and their salaries too.

gm
11-19-2006, 03:42 PM
Here's hoping Stanton will have more left in the tank than Chris Hammond did

Spring~Fields
11-19-2006, 04:01 PM
Ahem. 39.



Age before beauty. But I heard pitching was an art. :)

Spring~Fields
11-19-2006, 04:06 PM
Here's hoping Stanton will have more left in the tank than Chris Hammond did

Appears that Krivsky is consistent, he had similiar pickups for his bullpen and utility players last year.

Caveat Emperor
11-19-2006, 04:10 PM
hard to argue with that M2.

I'd like to see the Reds sign a corner OF, move Dunn to 1B, and put Denorfia in CF.

A move like that could also potentially free the Reds to package Votto with another player to try and bring some pitching help.

Jpup
11-19-2006, 04:54 PM
I am jumping off the Krivsky bandwagon until further notice. The Reds didn't need this. Isn't this why they went and got Bray and Cormier? Stanton is washed up and will get killed in GABP.

Gallen5862
11-19-2006, 05:18 PM
This was on the Free weekend preview.
Click here: ESPN.com - MLB - Law: Top 40 free agents (21-30)
30
Mike Stanton

POSITION: Relief Pitcher
AGE: 39 | BATS: L | THROWS: L
2006 TEAM: San Francisco Giants
STATUS: Unsigned
2006 SEASON STATISTICS
GM IP W L BB K ERA
82 67.2 7 7 27 48 3.99


Stanton may have done more for his market value this fall than any other non-Cardinals pitcher in baseball. While it's unlikely that any team will see those eight saves and think of Stanton as a closer -- unlikely, but not impossible -- Stanton showed that not only is he still relevant, but he has value as a setup man rather than as only a lefty specialist.

Stanton's pitching plan is simple: get ahead with the fastball and/or cutter, then finish hitters off with the curve middle-out or down (for lefties) or changeup middle-out to outside (for righties). He cuts most of his fastballs, throwing them at 85-86 mph and touching 88, trying to stay away from solid contact while getting ahead in the count. His curve is slow and has a big break, at 69-71 mph, with good depth; he controls that pitch better than any of his other pitches, and will go for the swing and miss on a curve down when he's ahead of a left-handed hitter. His changeup is a little easier to pick up as he slows his arm, but it has some late fade, and makes him more effective against right-handed batters than a lot of lefty relievers today.

Of course, Stanton turns 40 in June, so this could all go south quickly, but a short-term commitment here should pay off nicely.

PuffyPig
11-19-2006, 05:32 PM
Another good point--this team's bench sucks.


In November most teams bench sucks.

They are generally filled by FA signing of the fringe players and AAAA guys.

Right now we have Denorfia, Ross, Valentin, Castro and ???

That's not a bad start. Getting a Craig Wilson type player to platoon with Hatteberg would make it look much better.

StillFunkyB
11-19-2006, 05:32 PM
Great. The Reds signed another senior citizen reliever. When will they ever learn?

I agree. I am tired of all these OTH guys.

Gallen5862
11-19-2006, 05:56 PM
Mike Stanton was a type B free agent. The Giants get a supplemental first round pick but it does not cost the Reds a pick. Gonzalez was also a type B free agent.

Aronchis
11-19-2006, 06:09 PM
Very unimpressive with Wayne. Though this may mean some other deals are coming(Bray moving again?), but old lefties in the bullpen make me ache. The way the Reds are going about it, he has to about 2008 to get it turned around and he isn't off to a great start. If he thinks the best middle defense since 1999 and Bailey/Votto(I really believe he feels both these guys are going to push the Reds over the top, I really really do.....) is going to do it, in the mortal words of Judas Priest: "You got another thing comin".

OnBaseMachine
11-19-2006, 06:23 PM
You want to spend 4.25 million per year for 4 years on a middle relief pitcher? Finding a good middle reliever is too much of a crap shoot to do that.

I would rather do that than spend 14 million on a shortstop with a .299 OBP.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 06:26 PM
I would rather do that than spend 14 million on a shortstop with a .299 OBP.

I'll second that. For what it's worth, Speier would be the closer in Cincy. Not a middle reliever.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 06:26 PM
I would rather do that than spend 14 million on a shortstop with a .299 OBP.

Excellent point. I would too.

reds44
11-19-2006, 06:28 PM
I would rather do that than spend 14 million on a shortstop with a .299 OBP.
There is more then baseball then OBP. There is this thing called defense.

He'll be batting 8th in the NL, so OBP really doesn't mean much. If he can bring decent pop along with his glove then it's a solid signing.

We've already seen where tons of offense got us, nowhere.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 06:29 PM
There is more then baseball then OBP. There is this thing called defense.

He'll be batting 8th in the NL, so OBP really doesn't mean much. If he can bring decent pop along with his glove then it's a solid signing.

We've already seen where tons of offense got us, nowhere.

Except he's arguing in this thread for better pitching, not better hitting.

mth123
11-19-2006, 06:31 PM
With Cormier and Bray, why spend money on Stanton? Are the Reds going to carry seven relievers again next year? That's something I'd really hoped would get put into mothballs.

My question as well. Don't forget Shack, Coutlangus, Claussen and Pelland.

It could mean hoarding LH to play the match-up game, but if that's the case the best guy for the role is Shack and he won't make the team now.

It could mean Cormier is trade bait. I hope so. As much as I don't really like him, I think he could bring something in this market (maybe as part of a package).

It could mean that Bray is going to be the closer and they are backfilling his role in the middle innings.

I think its very curious. He's not really an upgrade anymore over anyone they already have.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 06:32 PM
The Reds did have some interesting bullpen arms in AA this year.

Reds' pitching prospects are like Confederate money--just hope and pray the soda machine will be faked out and accept it.

Spring~Fields
11-19-2006, 06:32 PM
Very unimpressive with Wayne. Though this may mean some other deals are coming(Bray moving again?), but old lefties in the bullpen make me ache. The way the Reds are going about it, he has to about 2008 to get it turned around and he isn't off to a great start.

Are Harang and Arroyo signed past 2008? I think they will leave for greener grass when they have the chance, so I think that you are right looking into the near future.

reds44
11-19-2006, 06:32 PM
Except he's arguing in this thread for better pitching, not better hitting.
Better defensive will make your pitching better. The SS we signed is one of the best.

Sorry but a 30 some year old who has saved a total of 17 games doesn't seem to be the answer at closer.

Spring~Fields
11-19-2006, 06:33 PM
Reds' pitching prospects are like Confederate money--just hope and pray the soda machine will be faked out and accept it.


:laugh: :laugh:

mth123
11-19-2006, 06:36 PM
I mind that he's the #1 LH PH.

I'm for making that Scott Hatteberg's job.

Me too!

WVRedsFan
11-19-2006, 06:38 PM
There is more then baseball then OBP. There is this thing called defense.

He'll be batting 8th in the NL, so OBP really doesn't mean much. If he can bring decent pop along with his glove then it's a solid signing.

We've already seen where tons of offense got us, nowhere.

But the idea is to add pitching while not giving up tons of offense. I always thought the equation was good hitting + good pitching = wins. Or am I mistaken? Another bullpen arm and still not a move for a starter or a badly needed bat. Maybe it's coming. To sum it up, our direct competition, the Cubs get Soriano and we get Gonzo and Stanton. Fourth place, anyone?

WVRedsFan
11-19-2006, 06:40 PM
My question as well. Don't forget Shack, Coutlangus, Claussen and Pelland.

It could mean hoarding LH to play the match-up game, but if that's the case the best guy for the role is Shack and he won't make the team now.

It could mean Cormier is trade bait. I hope so. As much as I don't really like him, I think he could bring something in this market (maybe as part of a package).

It could mean that Bray is going to be the closer and they are backfilling his role in the middle innings.

I think its very curious. He's not really an upgrade anymore over anyone they already have.

Not too many pitchers on the edge of 40 are trade bait. Wayne got fleeced there as has been the rule lately.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 06:40 PM
Better defensive will make your pitching better. The SS we signed is one of the best.

Sorry but a 30 some year old who has saved a total of 17 games doesn't seem to be the answer at closer.

The way the staff is lined up right now, I don't know if Olerud, Pokey Reese, Ozzie Smith and Brooks Robby around the horn would help that much.

And Speier had an ERA under 3 last year...in the AL East. I'm sure he would have been just fine at closer.

reds44
11-19-2006, 06:41 PM
But the idea is to add pitching while not giving up tons of offense. I always thought the equation was good hitting + good pitching = wins. Or am I mistaken? Another bullpen arm and still not a move for a starter or a badly needed bat. Maybe it's coming. To sum it up, our direct competition, the Cubs get Soriano and we get Gonzo and Stanton. Fourth place, anyone?
You want to give Soriano 136 mil? I know I don't.

The Cubs STILL have no pitching.

We need another SP and another outfield bat, but it's only November. Plenty of time to get something done.

reds44
11-19-2006, 06:42 PM
The way the staff is lined up right now, I don't know if Olerud, Pokey Reese, Ozzie Smith and Brooks Robby around the horn would help that much.

And Speier had an ERA under 3 last year...in the AL East. I'm sure he would have been just fine at closer.
He's never done it before. Some people just can't close games. Look at what happend to LaTroy Hawkins when he tried to, or Coffey.

traderumor
11-19-2006, 06:53 PM
He's never done it before. Some people just can't close games. Look at what happend to LaTroy Hawkins when he tried to, or Coffey.I don't know that I'd say Coffey "can't close games." He wasn't really given much of a chance. They threw him out there a couple of times. I remember one of them distinctly as a case of being BABIP unlucky as the other team came back with a few forty two hoppers through the infield. Just one of the many cases where you see the Reds panic with young guys. They'll keep on throwing Ryan Franklin out there in key situations, yet remove Coffey from a legit shot at closer because he didn't have immediate success. Poor developers of talent.

deltachi8
11-19-2006, 06:53 PM
Great move for the 1996 season.

reds44
11-19-2006, 06:59 PM
I don't know that I'd say Coffey "can't close games." He wasn't really given much of a chance. They threw him out there a couple of times. I remember one of them distinctly as a case of being BABIP unlucky as the other team came back with a few forty two hoppers through the infield. Just one of the many cases where you see the Reds panic with young guys. They'll keep on throwing Ryan Franklin out there in key situations, yet remove Coffey from a legit shot at closer because he didn't have immediate success. Poor developers of talent.
And that is one of the reasons we signed Seabass.

PuffyPig
11-19-2006, 07:01 PM
And Speier had an ERA under 3 last year...in the AL East. I'm sure he would have been just fine at closer.

ERA?????

His DIPS ERA was 3.50 last year, above 4 the year before.

Stanton's has been just as good. And give up quite a bit less HR's.

Speier would be a fine aquistion, but certainly his performance doesn't justify a 4 year deal.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 07:13 PM
ERA?????

His DIPS ERA was 3.50 last year, above 4 the year before.

Stanton's has been just as good. And give up quite a bit less HR's.

Speier would be a fine aquistion, but certainly his performance doesn't justify a 4 year deal.

No, his actual ERA. The one that takes place on the field. It was 2.98 last year and 2.56 the year before. Not too bad.

PuffyPig
11-19-2006, 07:16 PM
No, his actual ERA. The one that takes place on the field. It was 2.98 last year and 2.56 the year before. Not too bad.

His Dips tells us that Mr. Speier has been pretty lucky the last few years.

Using ERA to judge a relief pitcher is much like using fielding % to judge fielding prowess. It's only accurate some of the time. You need to look behind it to determine it's accuracy.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 07:34 PM
His Dips tells us that Mr. Speier has been pretty lucky the last few years.

Using ERA to judge a relief pitcher is much like using fielding % to judge fielding prowess. It's only accurate some of the time. You need to look behind it to determine it's accuracy.

Of course. The theoretical ERA. But I'll take him over anyone in the Reds bullpen anyway.

IslandRed
11-19-2006, 10:50 PM
Of course. The theoretical ERA. But I'll take him over anyone in the Reds bullpen anyway.

For what it's worth, BP's stats show Speier was less valuable than either Coffey or Weathers in 2006, primarily because he had a bad year with respect to allowing inherited runners to score. Didn't show up on his ERA but it did on the scoreboard. Now, that's the sort of thing that can fluctuate a lot from year-to-year, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it. Speier's still a guy I'd like to have signed. But four years for a middle reliever? That's a certified "whaaat?"

mth123
11-20-2006, 07:59 AM
Not too many pitchers on the edge of 40 are trade bait. Wayne got fleeced there as has been the rule lately.

I think in this market teams may give something to get a LH for the pen for 1 year at $2.25 Million. It may be more attractive than Jamie Walker for 3 years at $10 Million.

I'm not talking about getting A-Rod for him. But maybe a faded prospect to take a shot with, a middling prospect than can be included in a deal later, or some one undervalued that could play a role in Cincy. Maybe even in exchange for the last year of some ones bad contract that could fill a spot in Cincy.

For example, with Walker gone the Tigers may want him. They don't seem to be too shy about old guys and they are smart enough to know that their window is now in spite of the young pitching. A lot of the main guys there are really old. He'd help there. Not sure what you'd get, but he can be moved.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 12:01 PM
No, his actual ERA. The one that takes place on the field. It was 2.98 last year and 2.56 the year before. Not too bad.Truth shuts mouths, as it did mine when we acquired Cormier with his 1 something ERA. I cannot recall who it was, probably Cyclone, but he provided his DIPS ERA and predicted problems. Well, add in Narron's misuse of Cormier when he first got him, and balls were bouncing off the fence or going over it. I knew better than to look at ERA for a reliever, but this one time I was tempted and was reminded again why you do not look at straight ERA, esp. for relievers. DIPS ERA is a really good stat, esp. for relievers. And inherited runners, as has already been pointed out. Don't have access to DIPS ERA or inherited runs numbers? Try K/9 and WHIP, they will always do better with relievers than simple ERA will.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 12:40 PM
Truth shuts mouths, as it did mine when we acquired Cormier with his 1 something ERA. I cannot recall who it was, probably Cyclone, but he provided his DIPS ERA and predicted problems. Well, add in Narron's misuse of Cormier when he first got him, and balls were bouncing off the fence or going over it. I knew better than to look at ERA for a reliever, but this one time I was tempted and was reminded again why you do not look at straight ERA, esp. for relievers. DIPS ERA is a really good stat, esp. for relievers. And inherited runners, as has already been pointed out. Don't have access to DIPS ERA or inherited runs numbers? Try K/9 and WHIP, they will always do better with relievers than simple ERA will.

His WHIP was under 1 two years ago and I believe his K rate is around one per inning. But I think there is a big enough sample size over 2 years to say his ERA has been pretty good.

Heath
11-20-2006, 12:41 PM
For what it's worth, BP's stats show Speier was less valuable than either Coffey or Weathers in 2006, primarily because he had a bad year with respect to allowing inherited runners to score. Didn't show up on his ERA but it did on the scoreboard. Now, that's the sort of thing that can fluctuate a lot from year-to-year, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it. Speier's still a guy I'd like to have signed. But four years for a middle reliever? That's a certified "whaaat?"

So, for comparison's sake, the Neal Cotts on a one-year deal the Cubs got could be the "steal" of the year.

And, if I am not mistaken (and goodness knows I don't have the time to crunch the numbers) most RP flame out over 3-4 years and are really a crap shoot anyway? (Unless you are a closer.)

Heath
11-20-2006, 12:43 PM
I think in this market teams may give something to get a LH for the pen for 1 year at $2.25 Million.

Scott Boras is claiming that some team is getting 4 years for Scott Schoenweis.

:eek:

hide the women and children

traderumor
11-20-2006, 12:50 PM
His WHIP was under 1 two years ago and I believe his K rate is around one per inning. But I think there is a big enough sample size over 2 years to say his ERA has been pretty good.So you entirely missed the point. A reliever's ERA isn't about sample size, it is about timing. It doesn't necessarily follow that a reliever with a good ERA will have the WHIP and K rate to match. I'll put it this way--if a decision maker is targeting relievers primarily based on ERA, they will make some bad decisions and be wondering why certain guys are not performing as well for them as they did elsewhere.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 12:58 PM
So you entirely missed the point. A reliever's ERA isn't about sample size, it is about timing. It doesn't necessarily follow that a reliever with a good ERA will have the WHIP and K rate to match. I'll put it this way--if a decision maker is targeting relievers primarily based on ERA, they will make some bad decisions and be wondering why certain guys are not performing as well for them as they did elsewhere.

OK. I can't figure out how, over 2 years, when you have an ERA well under 3, that it isn't good. I don't have his inherited runs let up in front of me, but that can me misleading. Bases loaded and no outs, it would be tough not to let up runs. Same with many other situations. I definitely agree that inherited runners is important, but how can't ERA be a factor? Over 2 years? So would you rather have had someone with a better DIPS ERA than ERA over the past two years? Saying, "Well, he didn't perform as we thought he would have. But his DIPS ERA was good. Even though it doesn't track what actually happened over his tenure with us."

What was Speier's DIPS for 2005? How did it do in a prediction of his 2006 season? I have no idea where to find these stats or else I would do it myself.

GAC
11-20-2006, 01:01 PM
Maybe this should be my new avatar? :lol:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/STANTON.jpg

M2
11-20-2006, 01:04 PM
Scott Boras is claiming that some team is getting 4 years for Scott Schoenweis.

:eek:

hide the women and children

And thanks for the supplemental draft pick.

One thing about Stanton is you never know what you'll get from him. Some years he's much better against RHBs (2001, 2004), some years he's much better against LHBs (2003, 2005), some years he's steady Eddie (2002, 2006). On the bright side, he was majorly BABIP unlucky last season (.332).

Heath
11-20-2006, 01:08 PM
Maybe this should be my new avatar? :lol:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/STANTON.jpg

What's the sentence above it? Future Reds Closer?

:D

IslandRed
11-20-2006, 01:39 PM
OK. I can't figure out how, over 2 years, when you have an ERA well under 3, that it isn't good. I don't have his inherited runs let up in front of me, but that can me misleading. Bases loaded and no outs, it would be tough not to let up runs. Same with many other situations. I definitely agree that inherited runners is important, but how can't ERA be a factor? Over 2 years? So would you rather have had someone with a better DIPS ERA than ERA over the past two years? Saying, "Well, he didn't perform as we thought he would have. But his DIPS ERA was good. Even though it doesn't track what actually happened over his tenure with us."

What was Speier's DIPS for 2005? How did it do in a prediction of his 2006 season? I have no idea where to find these stats or else I would do it myself.

ERA isn't a great predictor of future success for relievers just because so much of a reliever's value is "off the chart" of ERA -- what he does with inherited runners, and what happens to runners he puts on base and some other guy inherits. Add in luck and leverage, and there's a lot of noise in the stats. DIPS strips out some of the noise and gets down to the basics, and as such tends to be a little better future predictor.

What I really like are the stats BP comes up with for relievers, that try to quantify those variables -- adjusting for the success in preventing inherited runners to score versus what the average guy would have allowed given the same situations, accounting for leverage (i.e. to what degree the game is on the line when he's on the hill), basically everything they can think of. The all-in-one number they come up with is WXRL, which is basically "expected wins added." Take the leverage of the situation when a reliever came in, and the state of the game when he came in, and the state of the game as he left it, and sum it across all his performances... based on what he could control, how many "expected wins" (or losses) should he get credit for?

traderumor
11-20-2006, 02:38 PM
ERA?????

His DIPS ERA was 3.50 last year, above 4 the year before.

Stanton's has been just as good. And give up quite a bit less HR's.

Speier would be a fine aquistion, but certainly his performance doesn't justify a 4 year deal.


There is Speier's DIPS ERA.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 02:49 PM
There is Speier's DIPS ERA.

So looking at his 2005 season, he had a DIPS ERA of over 4. The following year, he had a sub-3.00 real ERA and a DIPS ERA of 3.50.

So what we are saying is that his ERA this year should go up since his DIPS last year was 3.50? Didn't happen last year.

And I think the change from the hitting heavy AL East to the NL Central would have negated any DIPS changes anyway.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 02:59 PM
So looking at his 2005 season, he had a DIPS ERA of over 4. The following year, he had a sub-3.00 real ERA and a DIPS ERA of 3.50.

So what we are saying is that his ERA this year should go up since his DIPS last year was 3.50? Didn't happen last year.

And I think the change from the hitting heavy AL East to the NL Central would have negated any DIPS changes anyway.No, its really saying proceed with caution and don't be fooled by an traditional ERA in the 2s, that what you are really getting is a reliever, who, if all other things were equal, would post an ERA in the 3.50 to 4.00 range. So, don't overpay and don't sign him to do something like be your closer.

Redsland
11-20-2006, 03:01 PM
OK. I can't figure out how, over 2 years, when you have an ERA well under 3, that it isn't good.
Because, if you're a reliever, it doesn't tell anyone how effective you've been at stranding inherited runners, which is one of the more important jobs a reliever has.

I don't have his inherited runs let up in front of me, but that can me misleading. Bases loaded and no outs, it would be tough not to let up runs.
Sure, but those runs would be charged to the pitcher who put the runners on base, not to the reliever who let them in. Therefore, you can let in as many inherited runners as you want and still have a glittering ERA. Your team could have lost a lot of games along the way, though.

I definitely agree that inherited runners is important, but how can't ERA be a factor?
That's a big reason right there. Your job is to come into a game with runners on and to strand them there. But ERA doesn't tell us if you did that.

So would you rather have had someone with a better DIPS ERA than ERA over the past two years?
Absolutely. DIPS stands for (forgive me if you already know this) "defense-independant ERA." That means it lets you compare individual pitchers' numbers without wondering what kind of defenders this guy or that guy had behind him. DIPS is going to give you a truer understanding of what this particular pitcher did.

Saying, "Well, he didn't perform as we thought he would have. But his DIPS ERA was good. Even though it doesn't track what actually happened over his tenure with us."
I don't follow. His DIPS ERA is what it is. If it tells you his 15 wins were a mirage or that his 4.80 ERA would have been in the low 4's with better gloves behind him, then at least you know whether the pitcher is as good (or bad) as he looks.

What was Speier's DIPS for 2005? How did it do in a prediction of his 2006 season?
You tell me.

What I really like are the stats BP comes up with for relievers, that try to quantify those variables -- adjusting for the success in preventing inherited runners to score versus what the average guy would have allowed given the same situations, accounting for leverage (i.e. to what degree the game is on the line when he's on the hill), basically everything they can think of.
That's the kind of info I want to know about my relievers. Not how many runs he allows per nine innings, when it would take him six or seven games over a couple of weeks in several parks against several teams just to throw that many.

IslandRed
11-20-2006, 03:07 PM
So looking at his 2005 season, he had a DIPS ERA of over 4. The following year, he had a sub-3.00 real ERA and a DIPS ERA of 3.50.

So what we are saying is that his ERA this year should go up since his DIPS last year was 3.50? Didn't happen last year.


It's not so cut and dried as to say that a 4.00 this year means a 4.00 next year; it's just trying to get a better picture of the true performance. The DIPS ERA of 3.50 last year suggests he pitched better than he did the year before. Granted. The fact that his real ERA was under 3.00, but he had a significant negative inherited-runners factor, suggests that he probably pitched at around a 3.50 level but some of his rightful ERA was billed to other accounts.

So I'm suggesting that a more reasonable projection of next year's ERA is 3.50, not sub-3.00. Not that there's anything wrong with 3.50, especially on the Reds, I'm just not sure it's worth a four-year contract.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 03:18 PM
It's not so cut and dried as to say that a 4.00 this year means a 4.00 next year; it's just trying to get a better picture of the true performance. The DIPS ERA of 3.50 last year suggests he pitched better than he did the year before. Granted. The fact that his real ERA was under 3.00, but he had a significant negative inherited-runners factor, suggests that he probably pitched at around a 3.50 level but some of his rightful ERA was billed to other accounts.

So I'm suggesting that a more reasonable projection of next year's ERA is 3.50, not sub-3.00. Not that there's anything wrong with 3.50, especially on the Reds, I'm just not sure it's worth a four-year contract.With the volatility of relievers, doing more than two years with a reliever not named Mariano Rivera doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Do you think the Astros are glad they don't have a LTC on Brad Lidge?

Mutaman
11-20-2006, 05:48 PM
Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on WFAN really knows baseball and is a hugh Giants fan. (Thats all he knows). Russo said Stanton was solid last year and still has something left. But he was flabergasted at the amount of money the Reds spent for him. He said it was rediculous. He also feels that Sorriano was overpaid but that the Cubs needed to make a statement. He likes the Mets picking up Alou. He thinks its clear that every team is rolling in money and have a lot to spend.

NJReds
11-20-2006, 05:53 PM
Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on WFAN really knows baseball and is a hugh Giants fan. (Thats all he knows). Russo said Stanton was solid last year and still has something left. But he was flabergasted at the amount of money the Reds spent for him. He said it was rediculous. He also feels that Sorriano was overpaid but that the Cubs needed to make a statement. He likes the Mets picking up Alou. He thinks its clear that every team is rolling in money and have a lot to spend.

Chris chirps about a lot of things. How is $5.5M over 2 years a lot of money. That's practically the league minimum in this market.

Redsland
11-20-2006, 06:03 PM
Chris chirps about a lot of things. How is $5.5M over 2 years a lot of money.
Agreed.

According to CBS Sportline, the MLB average salary for 2006 was $2,866,544.

That figure will rise this year.

At $5.5 million over two years, Stanton will average $2,750,000 per year.

So if Staton is a little below average, we'll be paying the going rate.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 06:27 PM
Agreed.

According to CBS Sportline, the MLB average salary for 2006 was $2,866,544.

That figure will rise this year.

At $5.5 million over two years, Stanton will average $2,750,000 per year.

So if Staton is a little below average, we'll be paying the going rate.

Average salary for what? Middle relief? $2.75 million is a lot for a 39 yr old reliever. I think other positions raise that average up just a tad.

I'm not liking this signing at all.

Mutaman
11-20-2006, 06:33 PM
Chris chirps about a lot of things. How is $5.5M over 2 years a lot of money. That's practically the league minimum in this market.

You're right. Russo reported that it was 8 mill. for two years. Typical.

oneupper
11-20-2006, 06:37 PM
Average salary for what? Middle relief? $2.75 million is a lot for a 39 yr old reliever. I think other positions raise that average up just a tad.

I'm not liking this signing at all.

Me neither. This is what we got Cormier for. The cash goes quick buying and tossing RPs at over $2 mm a pop.

(Yeah, I know Cormier isn't good...but then why'd we get him...contract extension and all).