PDA

View Full Version : Who are we to judge pitching salaries?



edabbs44
12-10-2006, 09:53 PM
You know what cracks me up? On all the RZ threads related to pitching salaries, posters shred the FOs offering all this money.

Meche, that contract is crazy.
Eaton, are you kidding me?
Marquis, that's nuts.
Lilly, his contract is outrageous.
Ditto Padilla.

Does anyone realize that this is now the market? If there are one or two contracts like this, then fire away. But the era of the high priced pitcher is here. Revenue streams are like never before and teams (most of them, at least ;) ) are choosing to spend their new found fortunes in pitching. Can you blame them? When gas prices skyrocketed across the US, was anyone holding out for lower prices, saying "The next station will be lower, that guy is insane wanting $3 per gallon!" That is how baseball is nowadays. Pretty soon, the pitching staff will be stranded on the side of the road and WK will be walking to the Bowden gas station with an empty can and a fist full of prospects.

There is also a lot of popularity of the "Wait until you see how that contract looks in a few years!" post. Who's to say that Bob (or the owner of the year in 2009) is going to take advantage of those contracts? What if we're sitting here in a few years saying "Wow, I can't believe we just signed Weathers again" or "Eaton would have been better....3 years ago."

For all of the ridicule taking place on the contracts being signed, I am stunned that very few of the fans on here aren't abusing this staff.

1) Harang: Legit ace in the making

2) Arroyo: Very good year last year, but before he is anointed we should hope there is no regression to the proverbial mean in '07.

3) Milton: Does anything need to be said? Got his ERA down a run and a quarter...but still over 5 in 2006.

4) Lohse: Not looking good. Not sure why everyone is feeling comfy with this guy. ERA over 7 when acquired last season. ERA over 4.50 in the NL. I have a bad feeling about this one, especially when we see how much WK has to pay in arbitration. I really hope WK doesn't lock him up for a few before the arb hearing. That would make me nauseous.

5) Mr. X: Could be good, but probably going to be bad. Not much on the mkt. If you ask me, I have a feeling that Homer is in Cincy no later than May 15th.

Is anyone happy here? Especially with the state of the lineup? There are a lot of "WK will do something" posts, but how can we be sure? Because he stole Arroyo last season? Don't hold your breath on another of those acquisitions, because there isn't much more to give up without decimating the lineup.

Falls City Beer
12-10-2006, 09:59 PM
You know what cracks me up? On all the RZ threads related to pitching salaries, posters shred the FOs offering all this money.

Meche, that contract is crazy.
Eaton, are you kidding me?
Marquis, that's nuts.
Lilly, his contract is outrageous.
Ditto Padilla.

Does anyone realize that this is now the market? If there are one or two contracts like this, then fire away. But the era of the high priced pitcher is here. Revenue streams are like never before and teams (most of them, at least ;) ) are choosing to spend their new found fortunes in pitching. Can you blame them? When gas prices skyrocketed across the US, was anyone holding out for lower prices, saying "The next station will be lower, that guy is insane wanting $3 per gallon!" That is how baseball is nowadays. Pretty soon, the pitching staff will be stranded on the side of the road and WK will be walking to the Bowden gas station with an empty can and a fist full of prospects.

There is also a lot of popularity of the "Wait until you see how that contract looks in a few years!" post. Who's to say that Bob (or the owner of the year in 2009) is going to take advantage of those contracts? What if we're sitting here in a few years saying "Wow, I can't believe we just signed Weathers again" or "Eaton would have been better....3 years ago."

For all of the ridicule taking place on the contracts being signed, I am stunned that very few of the fans on here aren't abusing this staff.

1) Harang: Legit ace in the making

2) Arroyo: Very good year last year, but before he is anointed we should hope there is no regression to the proverbial mean in '07.

3) Milton: Does anything need to be said? Got his ERA down a run and a quarter...but still over 5 in 2006.

4) Lohse: Not looking good. Not sure why everyone is feeling comfy with this guy. ERA over 7 when acquired last season. ERA over 4.50 in the NL. I have a bad feeling about this one, especially when we see how much WK has to pay in arbitration. I really hope WK doesn't lock him up for a few before the arb hearing. That would make me nauseous.

5) Mr. X: Could be good, but probably going to be bad. Not much on the mkt. If you ask me, I have a feeling that Homer is in Cincy no later than May 15th.

Is anyone happy here? Especially with the state of the lineup? There are a lot of "WK will do something" posts, but how can we be sure? Because he stole Arroyo last season? Don't hold your breath on another of those acquisitions, because there isn't much more to give up without decimating the lineup.


There's no question that Krivsky's in a hell of a corner of his own creating. It's why I want the FO to "go for it." Because when I think of Krivsky trying to rebuild this club, my blood turns to ice. Regardless, we fans are just going to have to wait around for Castellini to get frustrated with his nuttiness/learning on the job and hire someone else. I'm going to guess that John Allen won't have his ear the next time, though. So that's good.

Jpup
12-10-2006, 10:01 PM
The Reds just aren't going to spend 10+ million on one of the available FA starters. Milton taught them a valuable lesson. Who in the world is out there that you would want that the Reds could get? Would you like Jeff Weaver for about 12 million? Not me.

Tom Servo
12-10-2006, 10:03 PM
5) Mr. X: Could be good, but probably going to be bad. Not much on the mkt. If you ask me, I have a feeling that Homer is in Cincy no later than May 15th.

http://www.mrxswebpage.com/images/mr_x.gif

Redhook
12-10-2006, 10:03 PM
You know what cracks me up? On all the RZ threads related to pitching salaries, posters shred the FOs offering all this money.

Meche, that contract is crazy.
Eaton, are you kidding me?
Marquis, that's nuts.
Lilly, his contract is outrageous.
Ditto Padilla.

Does anyone realize that this is now the market? If there are one or two contracts like this, then fire away. But the era of the high priced pitcher is here. Revenue streams are like never before and teams (most of them, at least ;) ) are choosing to spend their new found fortunes in pitching. Can you blame them? When gas prices skyrocketed across the US, was anyone holding out for lower prices, saying "The next station will be lower, that guy is insane wanting $3 per gallon!" That is how baseball is nowadays. Pretty soon, the pitching staff will be stranded on the side of the road and WK will be walking to the Bowden gas station with an empty can and a fist full of prospects.

There is also a lot of popularity of the "Wait until you see how that contract looks in a few years!" post. Who's to say that Bob (or the owner of the year in 2009) is going to take advantage of those contracts? What if we're sitting here in a few years saying "Wow, I can't believe we just signed Weathers again" or "Eaton would have been better....3 years ago."

For all of the ridicule taking place on the contracts being signed, I am stunned that very few of the fans on here aren't abusing this staff.

1) Harang: Legit ace in the making

2) Arroyo: Very good year last year, but before he is anointed we should hope there is no regression to the proverbial mean in '07.

3) Milton: Does anything need to be said? Got his ERA down a run and a quarter...but still over 5 in 2006.

4) Lohse: Not looking good. Not sure why everyone is feeling comfy with this guy. ERA over 7 when acquired last season. ERA over 4.50 in the NL. I have a bad feeling about this one, especially when we see how much WK has to pay in arbitration. I really hope WK doesn't lock him up for a few before the arb hearing. That would make me nauseous.

5) Mr. X: Could be good, but probably going to be bad. Not much on the mkt. If you ask me, I have a feeling that Homer is in Cincy no later than May 15th.

Is anyone happy here? Especially with the state of the lineup? There are a lot of "WK will do something" posts, but how can we be sure? Because he stole Arroyo last season? Don't hold your breath on another of those acquisitions, because there isn't much more to give up without decimating the lineup.

I thought he already took care of that in July.

Somehow WK has to get a legit #3 or better for this team to have any chance this year. Even then, we still might not have enough hitting, especially when you factor in the injuries that will inevitably come. However, getting one more good pitcher and locking him along with Harang for multiple years could do wonders for 2008-2010. IMO, 2007 is going to be very painful, but I'm very optimistic after next year.

RedsManRick
12-10-2006, 10:16 PM
This is a good point about this being the new market. Holding out with the idea that there will be some big correction is probably not smart. However, I think we need to be careful. When I see gas at 3 bucks a gallon, I don't say "oh well" and pull out my credit card. I take a step back and ask "why am I buying gasoline and given that, is it worth 3 bucks a gallon to me?". Maybe I can take public transportation. Maybe there's alternate fuel systems. Maybe I just be extra judicious with my use of it. Or maybe I just pony up the cash and go on my merry way. You get the idea.

I'm not saying we only need to carry 8 pitchers. But we don't have to pay these market prices for FA pitching. We can trade for pitching. We can develop our own. We can decide that, relative to contributions towards winning baseball, offense is more bang for the buck. Maybe it isn't, I don't know. But I do know that the answer isn't necessarily going out and giving 10 million bucks to a player just because everybody else is.

Take that step back, evaluate all your costs and all the pieces necessary to build a winning team. Then decide in signing pitchers in free agency is the best way to accomplish that.

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 10:17 PM
The Reds just aren't going to spend 10+ million on one of the available FA starters. Milton taught them a valuable lesson. Who in the world is out there that you would want that the Reds could get? Would you like Jeff Weaver for about 12 million? Not me.

Without being able to do that, then this team is cooked until further notice without an overhaul. I am still waiting for the promises of making this team into a contender to come true. Without spending money on pitching (whether it is completely overpaying for Zito or getting a second tier pitcher) then we can forget about the postseason. 2006 was a fluke.

And your response, while reasonable and legit, is the reason for the thread. We can sit here and laugh at how much people will sign Suppan and Weaver for but, money aside, would you have issues with them pitching in Cincy this year? Or do you think WK will get someone better without damaging the franchise in some way?

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 10:20 PM
This is a good point about this being the new market. However, I think we need to be careful of buying in completely. When I see gas at 3 bucks a gallon, I don't say "oh well" and pull out my credit card. I take a step back and ask "why am I buying gasoline?". Maybe I can take public transportation. Maybe there's alternate fuel systems. You get the idea.

I'm not saying we only need to carry 8 pitchers. But we don't have to pay these market prices for FA pitching. We can trade for pitching. We can develop our own. We can decide that, relative to contributions towards winning baseball, offense is more bang for you buck. Maybe it isn't. I don't know. But I do know that the answer isn't necessarily going out and giving 10 million bucks to a player just because everybody else is.

Take that step back, evaluate all your costs and all the pieces necessary to build a winning team. Then decide in signing pitchers in free agency is what you need to do to accomplish that.

I completely agree, 100%. But when we are the only ones on the bus while everyone else is filling up their Porsches with premium, I kind of get worried about the future of this franchise.

This is why I have been so vocal about the 2006 draft and my fears of the 2007 draft. Pitching should be first and foremost on WK's list. Load up. Drafting pitchers is extremely risky...that's why you have to draft a lot of them. And if you have 3 or 4 legit ones in the minors...trade your riskiest pitcher (injury, lowest ceiling, etc) for some hitting. Last year killed me.

Ltlabner
12-10-2006, 10:22 PM
I don't have an iota of problem with giving out a big contract LTC contact(s). (or a big short-term contract for that matter). I'd like to see Harrang locked up, for example. You are right, the mere fact that the money is being spent means the market price of pitching is going up.

But I do have a problem jumping into a stupid LTC. A stupid LTC now is just as bad for the orginization as the stupid Milton LTC was a couple of years ago. As RMR said, we have to use caution and make smart moves to avoid getting locked into something that we'll be bemoning in 3 years. And it's easy to make mistakes (1) making rash moves (2) trying to keep up with the jones.

I just don't buy the idea that spending a bunch of money means we'll magically be competitive. Spending money wisely will, however.

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 10:26 PM
I just don't buy the idea that spending a bunch of money means we'll magically be competitive. Spending money wisely will, however.
That isn't the point of the post. The point is that there are a lot of teams dropping millions on pitching. This is not one of them. Spending $10 mil per year on Lilly might be dumb, but he will make their team better. WK isn't improving the rotation at all, whether by over or under spending. And don't say "Wait, there are 4 months until opening day." I'd be willing to wager that this pitching staff will still be horror movie quality by April.

marcshoe
12-10-2006, 10:30 PM
Maybe it's too early to judge the salaries, but it isn't too early to judge the quality of some of the pitchers receiving these salaries. When less-than-mediocre players like Meche receive these kinds of contracts, something is amiss. It's not hard to see that some teams are doing things just so they won't be left out. It's Milton redux.

And the Reds, btw, aren't the only ones holding back. Like I said on the thread about Fay's article, whether or not they're behaving wisely depends on what they do between now and the start of the season. But spending money on the best of several bad options is never behaving wisely, no matter the market.

jimbo
12-10-2006, 10:35 PM
That isn't the point of the post. The point is that there are a lot of teams dropping millions on pitching.

True, but they are dropping those millions on mediocre to average pitching, and in my opinion the majority of those pitchers are not of the quality to say they have already made their team better.

Jpup
12-10-2006, 10:36 PM
Without being able to do that, then this team is cooked until further notice without an overhaul. I am still waiting for the promises of making this team into a contender to come true. Without spending money on pitching (whether it is completely overpaying for Zito or getting a second tier pitcher) then we can forget about the postseason. 2006 was a fluke.

And your response, while reasonable and legit, is the reason for the thread. We can sit here and laugh at how much people will sign Suppan and Weaver for but, money aside, would you have issues with them pitching in Cincy this year? Or do you think WK will get someone better without damaging the franchise in some way?

I would have issues with them pitching in Cincinnati if the Reds are going to pay them what they are expected to get. Moves like that can and will cripple the organization for many years. You can't just throw the money aside. If money wasn't an object then they would be able to go throw it at guys much better than Suppan or Weaver. Do I think that Krivsky will get someone better this year? Well, it might be too early to say, but no I wouldn't bet on it. The first half of last year was just another mirage and most of us knew that and I am assuming you did too.

IMO, the best thing for the orgainization would be to trade away about everyone and start from scratch. I would rather seem them acquire some young guys and prospects instead of acting like they can compete. It is just not going to happen. Sure I will cheer like crazy if they do, but it's just not likely. Is Wayne Krivsky the guy for the job? That remains to be seen in my eyes. Those judging him already are a little too impatient IMO. Sure the Kearns trade looks absolutely horrible right now and may always look like that, but we don't really know what Bray is going to turn into or what Majewski will pitch like this season.

The only way the 2007 Reds make the post season is they make some very, very lucky trades and the rest of the central is just horrible, much like last season. Jeff Weaver and Jeff Suppan are surely not going to get it done. I am more interested in the Reds building a winner that will last for a decade, not just 1 season. Sure I would love for them to sign Zito, but the reality is that he's not available to Reds.

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 10:38 PM
IMO, the best thing for the orgainization would be to trade away about everyone and start from scratch. I would rather seem them acquire some young guys and prospects instead of acting like they can compete. It is just not going to happen. Sure I will cheer like crazy if they do, but it's just not likely. Is Wayne Krivsky the guy for the job? That remains to be seen in my eyes. Those judging him already are a little too impatient IMO. Sure the Kearns trade looks absolutely horrible right now and may always look like that, but we don't really know what Bray is going to turn into or what Majewski will pitch like this season.

AMEN! Burn it to the ground and use the first 5 picks on starters this June. This team will get better faster that way than straddling the fence the way they are now.

Ltlabner
12-10-2006, 10:44 PM
That isn't the point of the post. The point is that there are a lot of teams dropping millions on pitching. This is not one of them. Spending $10 mil per year on Lilly might be dumb, but he will make their team better. WK isn't improving the rotation at all, whether by over or under spending. And don't say "Wait, there are 4 months until opening day." I'd be willing to wager that this pitching staff will still be horror movie quality by April.

I think it's arguable how much Ted Lilly would "help" the Reds. I know you are talking in general terms, but lets look at Teddy's numbers. Ted Lilly's 936 innings pitched has resulted in 144 homers, 908 hits and 4.60ERA. Loshe (and I'm not real fan of his) has pitcher 971 IP, 135 HR, 1095 hits and 4.86 ERA. Why spend $10 million, and be locked into do so for several years in the future, when you can get nearly the same medicore production for $4m less?

A mediocre pitcher is still mediocre when his price tag doubles.

All of the angst over "improving" despite the costs ignores the fact that this is a business with real implications for how money is spent. Fans can stomp their feet and demand action no matter how "dumb" the move might be now. But will those same fans be so forgiving in a few years if we make a bad move and it's a fiasco a year or two down the line? I'd wager not.

RedsManRick
12-10-2006, 10:46 PM
I completely agree, 100%. But when we are the only ones on the bus while everyone else is filling up their Porsches with premium, I kind of get worried about the future of this franchise.

This is why I have been so vocal about the 2006 draft and my fears of the 2007 draft. Pitching should be first and foremost on WK's list. Load up. Drafting pitchers is extremely risky...that's why you have to draft a lot of them. And if you have 3 or 4 legit ones in the minors...trade your riskiest pitcher (injury, lowest ceiling, etc) for some hitting. Last year killed me.

But what exactly is your objective? It is it to get where you're going or to look good along the way? Sure, those people sitting in their fully fueled porsches might laugh, but if the bus drops you off at the same place, who cares?

I agree, with the market growing as it is, there should be greater emphasis on developing your own talent than ever before. Simply spending the most money on available free agents doesn't win championships. It never has. The fact of the matter is that the best talent isn't always available in FA and astute organizational and player decisions have trumped money.

Sure, maybe the Cubs, Angels, Red Sox, Yankees and Co. have some advantage in terms of what options are available to them. But that doesn't mean they're immune to bad decisions and management. Ted Lilly 10MM is still Ted Lilly. Regardless of the scale, the Reds will never able to regularly outbid teams from the larger markets without risking fiscal stability.

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 10:48 PM
I think it's arguable how much Ted Lilly would "help" the Reds. I know you are talking in general terms, but lets look at Teddy's numbers. Ted Lilly's 936 innings pitched has resulted in 144 homers, 908 hits and 4.60ERA. Loshe (and I'm not real fan of his) has pitcher 971 IP, 135 HR, 1095 hits and 4.86 ERA. Why spend $10 million, and be locked into do so for several years in the future, when you can get nearly the same medicore production for $4m less?

All of the angst over "improving" despite the costs ignores the fact that this is a business with real implications for how money is spent. Fans can stomp their feet and demand action no matter how "dumb" the move might be now. But will those same fans be so forgiving in a few years if we make a bad move and it's a fiasco a year or two down the line? I'd wager not.

Lilly's ERA in the AL was 2.69 runs lower than Lohse's was in 2006.

Lilly isn't a bad pitcher, so it doesn't really matter how much you spend on him if you are the Cubs. He would be the 3rd best in Cincy and would improve the staff.

Ltlabner
12-10-2006, 10:55 PM
Lilly's ERA in the AL was 2.69 runs lower than Lohse's was in 2006.

Lilly isn't a bad pitcher, so it doesn't really matter how much you spend on him if you are the Cubs. He would be the 3rd best in Cincy and would improve the staff.

Espn's website is showing Lilly's lifetime era as 4.60. Maybe I am reading something incorrectly? http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6223

Funny that when Yan, Mayes et al were brought to town last year in an attempt to eek out ERA improvements over the suck that was Mike Burns, Rick White, et al Krivsky was hammered. Now he's being hammered because he hasn't spent lots and lots of money to eek out ERA improvements over what is already available.

Don't get me wrong. If a legit starting pitcher is available for the right combination of price and contract length I'd be willing to "overpay" for his services. What I'm not willing to do is offer stupid money just so we can "improve" for 2007 and have action for actions sake.

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 10:55 PM
But what exactly is your objective? It is it to get where you're going or to look good along the way? Sure, those people sitting in their fully fueled porsches might laugh, but if the bus drops you off at the same place, who cares?

I agree with you. My only problem is this: We mock these contracts, but these teams are improving while the Reds are not. $10 million potentially wasted by the Cubs on Lilly will not hurt as much as if it happened to the Reds. So as there is laughter regarding his salary, he still could be beneficial to their team, therefore being a negative for the Reds.

And do you really think the Cincy bus will be dropping them off at the same place as some of the Ferraris?

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 10:56 PM
Espn's website is showing Lilly's lifetime era as 4.60. Maybe I am reading something incorrectly? http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6223

2006 ERA, not lifetime.

marcshoe
12-10-2006, 10:58 PM
Paying Ferrari price for a Pinto doesn't make the Pinto a Ferrari.

Falls City Beer
12-10-2006, 10:58 PM
I'd say giving ancient guys like Cormier and Stanton $5.5 million over two years does as much damage to contract inflation as Lilly or Padilla for 10 million a season.

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 11:03 PM
Paying Ferrari price for a Pinto doesn't make the Pinto a Ferrari.

I wouldn't consider some of these guys Pintos.

And I am not saying that WK should be paying high prices for Pintos. I am saying we are mocking other teams paying these prices for middle tier cars while there are 3 Pintos in Wayne's garage.

Here is the crux of my argument:

Money aside, would you rather have Harang, Arroyo, Lilly, Padilla and Eaton or Harang, Arroyo, Milton, Lohse and someone else?

Forget about the money when we judge the contracts and let's take a look at the teams being built around us. No matter what the contracts look like, some of these teams are improving.

Ltlabner
12-10-2006, 11:05 PM
I'd say giving ancient guys like Cormier and Stanton $5.5 million over two years does as much damage to contract inflation as Lilly or Padilla for 10 million a season.

So Krivsky is a creep for sinking loads of cash into mediocre guys like them, and we've got them for multipule years.....but he's also a creep for not going out and spending money on other mediocre guys for long term contracts.

The bad deals for Cormier and Stanton ought to be evidence of why the hue and cry for "just do something!" is a terrible idea.

Falls City Beer
12-10-2006, 11:08 PM
So Krivsky is a creep for sinking loads of cash into mediocre guys like them, and we've got them for multipule years.....but he's also a creep for not going out and spending money on other mediocre guys for long term contracts.

The bad deals for Cormier and Stanton ought to be evidence of why the hue and cry for "just do something!" is a terrible idea.

I've never endorsed doing something for the sake of something. That's part of the problem with this site: people misconstruing other's arguments. And I'm guilty of this I suspect as much as the next guy. I guess I've just been noticing it more lately.

Ltlabner
12-10-2006, 11:12 PM
Money aside, would you rather have Harang, Arroyo, Lilly, Padilla and Eaton or Harang, Arroyo, Milton, Lohse and someone else?

Forget about the money when we judge the contracts and let's take a look at the teams being built around us. No matter what the contracts look like, some of these teams are improving.

Money aside I'd like to have a rotation of Zito, Santana, Carpender, Harang and Arroyo with Zambrano and a (health aside) Everyday Eddie in the wings just in case.

Edabbs, I understand where you are comming from, but you just can't "forget" about the money. The real issue, as you touch on, is improving. I think Wayne can improve the team with wise FA contracts, smart trades and good draft picks, not knee-jerk reactions to the wild (and generally stupid) FA contracts that were given out early on.

mth123
12-10-2006, 11:13 PM
So Krivsky is a creep for sinking loads of cash into mediocre guys like them, and we've got them for multipule years.....but he's also a creep for not going out and spending money on other mediocre guys for long term contracts.

The bad deals for Cormier and Stanton ought to be evidence of why the hue and cry for "just do something!" is a terrible idea.

But there are other comparable options for LH relief. There are not decent options for a number 3 starter.

RedsManRick
12-10-2006, 11:13 PM
I agree with you. My only problem is this: We mock these contracts, but these teams are improving while the Reds are not. $10 million potentially wasted by the Cubs on Lilly will not hurt as much as if it happened to the Reds. So as there is laughter regarding his salary, he still could be beneficial to their team, therefore being a negative for the Reds.

And do you really think the Cincy bus will be dropping them off at the same place as some of the Ferraris?

I agree -- regardless of price, talent is talent. If you can sign a guy for 10MM and it doesn't affect your ability to build through the draft and trades, etc., more power to you. But what if the Cubs can't sign Carlos Zambrano to a long term deal because they just gave 17MM to Lilly and Marquis? Maybe it won't be an issue, we'll see. What if they keep Matt Murton and his .360 OBP out of the lineup because they're paying Cliff Floyd too much to bench him?

Do I think everybody on the bus is going to get off at the same stop as the Ferraris? Heck no. But the A's and Twins have been riding the bus for years and seem to make it there just fine. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Cubs keep crashing their Ferraris filled with 3 buck a gallon gas. Neither way is a guarantee of any outcome.

Ltlabner
12-10-2006, 11:17 PM
But there are other comparable options for LH relief. There are not decent options for a number 3 starter.

Then why the heck would you pay lots of money to a "non-decent" #3 option. Especially when you have plenty of "non-decent" options laying around? Milton is essentially on a "one year deal" and Loshe is in the same league as Lilly for less money. I don't really relish starting the season with those guys, but I also don't relish starting the season with a Suppan or Weaver type of guy for even more money and longer contracts. Bagging a Zito or Zito-esque guy is a different story. Then I'd say full steam ahead.

mth123
12-10-2006, 11:28 PM
Then why the heck would you pay lots of money to a "non-decent" #3 option. Especially when you have plenty of "non-decent" options laying around?

I meant there are not decent options for a number 3 on the reds and outside talent is needed to fill the void. The pen was filled with guys similarly suited for the 7th inning before Stanton and Weathers were signed.

I'm not saying they should have gone crazy for a starter. I haven't been real crazy about the options out there. I probably wouldn't want Gil Meche if he was free. But if the Reds, who now project to about a $70 to $75 Million payroll, no longer have the resources to offer an Ohka or Armas $6 Million to upgrade the rotation or take on a guy in a trade, then the Weathers and Stanton signings have been costly as well.

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 11:36 PM
Money aside I'd like to have a rotation of Zito, Santana, Carpender, Harang and Arroyo with Zambrano and a (health aside) Everyday Eddie in the wings just in case.

Edabbs, I understand where you are comming from, but you just can't "forget" about the money. The real issue, as you touch on, is improving. I think Wayne can improve the team with wise FA contracts, smart trades and good draft picks, not knee-jerk reactions to the wild (and generally stupid) FA contracts that were given out early on.

I am speaking about pure performance on the field. Forget about money in that sense. Bottom line is, if we say "Cincy finished only 8 games behind the Cubs and they had $50 million in payroll more than the Reds did", will it really matter? Moral victories don't count in the standings.

edabbs44
12-10-2006, 11:39 PM
I meant there are not decent options for a number 3 on the reds and outside talent is needed to fill the void. The pen was filled with guys similarly suited for the 7th inning before Stanton and Weathers were signed.

I'm not saying they should have gone crazy for a starter. I haven't been real crazy about the options out there. I probably wouldn't want Gil Meche if he was free. But if the Reds, who now project to about a $70 to $75 Million payroll, no longer have the resources to offer an Ohka or Armas $6 Million to upgrade the rotation or take on a guy in a trade, then the Weathers and Stanton signings have been costly as well.

Mth, I'm with you. But I don't think adding Armas and subtracting DW and Stanton would make a difference. They need a whole lot of help, a lot more than what Armas brings to the table.

My view is that they should have not signed either of them as well as Gonzalez. And they should have taken that money and thrown it into the draft and intl signings. Let Jr and Milton play out their contracts. Trade Dunn when they get a good offer. They'd be playoff worthy again before we know it.

Chip R
12-11-2006, 12:20 AM
You know what cracks me up? On all the RZ threads related to pitching salaries, posters shred the FOs offering all this money.

Meche, that contract is crazy.
Eaton, are you kidding me?
Marquis, that's nuts.
Lilly, his contract is outrageous.
Ditto Padilla.

Does anyone realize that this is now the market? If there are one or two contracts like this, then fire away. But the era of the high priced pitcher is here. Revenue streams are like never before and teams (most of them, at least ;) ) are choosing to spend their new found fortunes in pitching. Can you blame them? When gas prices skyrocketed across the US, was anyone holding out for lower prices, saying "The next station will be lower, that guy is insane wanting $3 per gallon!" That is how baseball is nowadays. Pretty soon, the pitching staff will be stranded on the side of the road and WK will be walking to the Bowden gas station with an empty can and a fist full of prospects.



Interesting analogy. The problem with it is that even at $3 a gallon, whether I get gas from Shell or BP or Exxon or Marathon, I know it's going to make my car start and run and it won't wreck my engine. Now if I go out and get Jason Marquis gas or Gil Meche gas, I'm still paying $3 a gallon for it but it's got water in it or it has antifreeze. It fills up my car just fine but in a few minutes either my car won't start or I'm going to be stranded along the road with a blown engine. Look what happened a couple of years ago when we got Eric Milton gas. The guy who got us that gas has been fired but we're stll running on that gas every 4th day.
Just because something is at the market price I'm not going to buy it if it's a piece of crap.

edabbs44
12-11-2006, 06:59 AM
Interesting analogy. The problem with it is that even at $3 a gallon, whether I get gas from Shell or BP or Exxon or Marathon, I know it's going to make my car start and run and it won't wreck my engine. Now if I go out and get Jason Marquis gas or Gil Meche gas, I'm still paying $3 a gallon for it but it's got water in it or it has antifreeze. It fills up my car just fine but in a few minutes either my car won't start or I'm going to be stranded along the road with a blown engine. Look what happened a couple of years ago when we got Eric Milton gas. The guy who got us that gas has been fired but we're stll running on that gas every 4th day.
Just because something is at the market price I'm not going to buy it if it's a piece of crap.

But what if prices never fall? Is it time to start walking?

Ltlabner
12-11-2006, 07:50 AM
I am speaking about pure performance on the field. Forget about money in that sense. Bottom line is, if we say "Cincy finished only 8 games behind the Cubs and they had $50 million in payroll more than the Reds did", will it really matter? Moral victories don't count in the standings.

Hum....thats a very interesting question.

$70,000,000 devided by 90 wins (that's assuming $70mil payroll and 90 wins total) = $777,777 per win. Now, $120,000,000 (that's our $70mil + the $50mil additional the cubs have spent in this scenario) devided by 98 wins = $1.2mil per win. That's $446,712 additional dollars per win. In that case I'd say it's very tempting to spend all that extra money to close the gap. 1/2 a million dollars is very small change in the baseball world.

BUT, also consider this......that $50,000,000 extra payroll devided by 8 additional wins from your example = $6,250,000 per win. That's alot of jack IMO for those 8 additional games and the division title.

I know those who want to win (to enjoy the games) will puke when they read this, but shelling out $6.2 million dollars per game to get 8 additional wins is mind boggling. It seems to be a poor use of resourses to get a incremental improvement. Are there other ways to acquire 8 more wins without all that money (trades, FA, drafts, smart line ups, etc)? I don't know...perhaps not. Perhaps this is the dawning of a new era in baseball where spending really does determine the winners (allthough I suspect that has been said many times throughout baseball history).

Maybe that's just the way life is going to be (as you pointed out) but that just seems like a rediculas amount to have to invest. Especially when other teams have been successfull on far less than $120,000,000 payroll.

That's a very good question edabbs. I don't know my answer as yet.

edabbs44
12-11-2006, 09:23 AM
Hum....thats a very interesting question.

$70,000,000 devided by 90 wins (that's assuming $70mil payroll and 90 wins total) = $777,777 per win. Now, $120,000,000 (that's our $70mil + the $50mil additional the cubs have spent in this scenario) devided by 98 wins = $1.2mil per win. That's $446,712 additional dollars per win. In that case I'd say it's very tempting to spend all that extra money to close the gap. 1/2 a million dollars is very small change in the baseball world.

BUT, also consider this......that $50,000,000 extra payroll devided by 8 additional wins from your example = $6,250,000 per win. That's alot of jack IMO for those 8 additional games and the division title.

I know those who want to win (to enjoy the games) will puke when they read this, but shelling out $6.2 million dollars per game to get 8 additional wins is mind boggling. It seems to be a poor use of resourses to get a incremental improvement. Are there other ways to acquire 8 more wins without all that money (trades, FA, drafts, smart line ups, etc)? I don't know...perhaps not. Perhaps this is the dawning of a new era in baseball where spending really does determine the winners (allthough I suspect that has been said many times throughout baseball history).

Maybe that's just the way life is going to be (as you pointed out) but that just seems like a rediculas amount to have to invest. Especially when other teams have been successfull on far less than $120,000,000 payroll.

That's a very good question edabbs. I don't know my answer as yet.

See, this is more of a business question than a fan question, because fans really just want to win. I don't think Cincy will get to those payroll levels anytime soon. That's why WK needs to begin the rebuild from the bottom up. When's the last time they signed a player from the Dominican or Argentina who made the big club? Where's the Miguel Cabreras, the Edwin Encarncaions, Francisco Lirianos and the Johan Santanas? Where's even the attempt? I've written to BA a few times asking for an analysis of how much teams invest in the international market. I would be curious to see how muh money is being dumped into the international market by certain teams. Where's the full committment in the draft? Where's the drafting of players who fall b/c of contract demands?

My whole argument is if pitching is this expensive, then Cincy needs to re-prioritize it's scouting. If they cannot afford even Gil Meche, then how the hell are they going to compete? Teams will be even stingier with their young pitching now...it will be nearly impossible to get any minor league pitching worth noting unless you give up the farm.

Ltlabner
12-11-2006, 09:33 AM
See, this is more of a business question than a fan question, because fans really just want to win. I don't think Cincy will get to those payroll levels anytime soon. That's why WK needs to begin the rebuild from the bottom up. When's the last time they signed a player from the Dominican or Argentina who made the big club?

I think we are more on the same page than we might realize. You are dead on. I'd love to know how much time and money has gone into pumping up the scouting department, international efforts, etc. Realitive to big, wacky FA contracts, that is a far more cost effective route to acquiring players. Of course, it's also slower, and less sexy. If the Reds are persuing building up scouting and interntational development, it would pay for them to communicate that to the fans. Maybe that would help take some of the edge off for some folks.

I've posted a few times now that it's quite a ballencing act to compete now and build for the future at the same time. I can see why folks who want all of the eggs in one basket or the other can get frustrated. Sometimes that ballencing act makes for some head-scratching moves.

Chip R
12-11-2006, 10:06 AM
But what if prices never fall? Is it time to start walking?

Course not. But crap is still crap no matter what the price is. If you're going to spend that much money, shouldn't you go after something that gives you a return on your investment? Doesn't make me feel one bit better that the Reds spent $25M on Milton. Royals fans may like the fact that ownership finally decided to spend some money but when Meche goes out and has Miltonesque outings, that's going to be cold comfort for them.

edabbs44
12-11-2006, 10:32 AM
Course not. But crap is still crap no matter what the price is. If you're going to spend that much money, shouldn't you go after something that gives you a return on your investment? Doesn't make me feel one bit better that the Reds spent $25M on Milton. Royals fans may like the fact that ownership finally decided to spend some money but when Meche goes out and has Miltonesque outings, that's going to be cold comfort for them.

Then what is the solution...if they can't afford mid-tier guys they surely can't afford top tier.

marcshoe
12-11-2006, 10:38 AM
Then what is the solution...if they can't afford mid-tier guys they surely can't afford top tier.


I'm not sure that's the case. If you're running on a tight budget, paying 16 million for a top-of-the-rotation pitcher is more cost-conscious than paying 11 million for a marginal major-league starter. A team that's operating on a more limited budget needs to maximize the budget they have and spend money on pieces that actually will help rather than dropping down to the overpriced dregs. What the Reds can't afford to do is to take a chance on spending too much money on a bad player. Only Yankee-class teams can really afford to do that. The Reds have to be sure that the money they do spend helps the club.

edabbs44
12-11-2006, 10:55 AM
I'm not sure that's the case. If you're running on a tight budget, paying 16 million for a top-of-the-rotation pitcher is more cost-conscious than paying 11 million for a marginal major-league starter. A team that's operating on a more limited budget needs to maximize the budget they have and spend money on pieces that actually will help rather than dropping down to the overpriced dregs. What the Reds can't afford to do is to take a chance on spending too much money on a bad player. Only Yankee-class teams can really afford to do that. The Reds have to be sure that the money they do spend helps the club.

I can't see that happening for 2 reasons:

1) I can't see the Reds affording that
2) Can they lure that person to Ohio?

marcshoe
12-11-2006, 10:59 AM
I don't think it will happen either, mostly because the only pitcher that fits that description is Zito. I do believe, however, that it is more budget-conscious to sign the 16 mil guy than the 11 mil guy.

Right now, I think the way to go is to trade for another pitcher rather than sign (or have signed) the 11 mil guy.

Ltlabner
12-11-2006, 11:06 AM
I'm not sure that's the case. If you're running on a tight budget, paying 16 million for a top-of-the-rotation pitcher is more cost-conscious than paying 11 million for a marginal major-league starter.

This is a much better way of saying what I've been trying to babble on about for days. Thanks!

I'll pay topshelf money for a topshelf, impact player. And I'd be willing to do so for a few more years that I'd normally be comfortable with.

I woln't pay topshelf money for a medicore guy. And it would be a huge mistake to lock said run-of-the-mill guy in for many years.

Will BCast shell out the big bucks for a big name player? Not sure. He's made overatures that he might, but he's also made comments that indicate he wouldn't. Time will tell.

westofyou
12-11-2006, 11:10 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6259574



Enough fawning over the Yankees' signing of free-agent left-hander Andy Pettitte. From the size of the contract to the condition of Pettitte's elbow to the decline in his 2006 performance, the deal is not as attractive as it appears.

First, the contract.

It's not a one-year, $16 million deal, as has been widely reported. The Yankees gave Pettitte a $16 million player option for 2008, effectively awarding him $32 million for two years.

While the shorter term is appealing, the Yankees aren't exactly getting a bargain. The team faces a 40 percent luxury tax on payroll over $148 million. In other words, the real price for Pettitte will be $22.4 million — a rather hefty sum for a pitcher who turns 35 on June 15.

Next, the elbow.

It was an issue for the Yankees when they failed to outbid the Astros for Pettitte after the ‘03 season. It was an issue last September when Pettitte lost velocity, skipped a turn and received a cortisone shot, though he still tied for the National League lead with 35 starts. It's likely to be an issue again next season.

Finally, the performance.

Pettitte's ERA rose from 2.39 in 2005 to 4.20 in '06, an increase largely attributable to his poor first half. When adjusting his ERA for park and league effects, he was only 8 percent better than the league average. And now he's moving back to the mighty AL East.

No question, Pettitte is a quality pitcher who has proven that he can succeed in the New York crucible. But, aside from right-hander Chien-Ming Wang, 26, th

mth123
12-11-2006, 09:54 PM
Hum....thats a very interesting question.

$70,000,000 devided by 90 wins (that's assuming $70mil payroll and 90 wins total) = $777,777 per win. Now, $120,000,000 (that's our $70mil + the $50mil additional the cubs have spent in this scenario) devided by 98 wins = $1.2mil per win. That's $446,712 additional dollars per win. In that case I'd say it's very tempting to spend all that extra money to close the gap. 1/2 a million dollars is very small change in the baseball world.

BUT, also consider this......that $50,000,000 extra payroll devided by 8 additional wins from your example = $6,250,000 per win. That's alot of jack IMO for those 8 additional games and the division title.

I know those who want to win (to enjoy the games) will puke when they read this, but shelling out $6.2 million dollars per game to get 8 additional wins is mind boggling. It seems to be a poor use of resourses to get a incremental improvement. Are there other ways to acquire 8 more wins without all that money (trades, FA, drafts, smart line ups, etc)? I don't know...perhaps not. Perhaps this is the dawning of a new era in baseball where spending really does determine the winners (allthough I suspect that has been said many times throughout baseball history).

Maybe that's just the way life is going to be (as you pointed out) but that just seems like a rediculas amount to have to invest. Especially when other teams have been successfull on far less than $120,000,000 payroll.

That's a very good question edabbs. I don't know my answer as yet.

That's an interesting take but there are some flaws in the logic IMO. First the $70 Million payroll on the Reds is only going to net about 70 Wins as things stand now. Since even the worst teams win about 60 games, you could probably win that many with a team of guys making $400K each. That would be a $10 Million Payroll. So the difference of $60 Million adds just 10 Wins. Very similar to the $50 Million for 8 Wins in your example. Being competitive costs a lot these days. With very few exceptions, every team is going to win at least 55 or so and lose that many as well. Its the other 50 that separate good from bad. When viewed that way, the incremental cost of every win will always seem a big number.

Ltlabner
12-11-2006, 10:19 PM
When viewed that way, the incremental cost of every win will always seem a big number.

I just used the 90 games because it was in edabbs example, but your point is correct. It's the wins that sperate a team from the pack that will cost the most. If you plan to seperate yourself only by spending big, you gotta spend BIG! And these days those paychecks are getting bigger as we've seen.

Can Wayne find a forumla that mixes money, trades, scouting, player development, etc to get those extra wins both in the short term and long term? He's got a big task ahead of him.

IslandRed
12-11-2006, 10:29 PM
That's an interesting take but there are some flaws in the logic IMO. First the $70 Million payroll on the Reds is only going to net about 70 Wins as things stand now. Since even the worst teams win about 60 games, you could probably win that many with a team of guys making $400K each. That would be a $10 Million Payroll. So the difference of $60 Million adds just 10 Wins. Very similar to the $50 Million for 8 Wins in your example. Being competitive costs a lot these days. With very few exceptions, every team is going to win at least 55 or so and lose that many as well. Its the other 50 that separate good from bad. When viewed that way, the incremental cost of every win will always seem a big number.

The numbers are a little different, but you just described the late Doug Pappas' famed "Marginal Dollars per Marginal Win" framework. He had figured a team of minimum-salaried replacement-level players could be fielded for about $8 million in payroll and would win about 49 games (.300 winning percentage), so he would figure how much each team spent above $8 million for each win above the 49th. Other than the Tigers breaking the system in 2003 by being even worse than replacement level, it was an eye-opener as to which teams always seemed to get good bang for the buck and which ones were all checkbook, no brains.

mth123
12-11-2006, 11:01 PM
The numbers are a little different, but you just described the late Doug Pappas' famed "Marginal Dollars per Marginal Win" framework. He had figured a team of minimum-salaried replacement-level players could be fielded for about $8 million in payroll and would win about 49 games (.300 winning percentage), so he would figure how much each team spent above $8 million for each win above the 49th. Other than the Tigers breaking the system in 2003 by being even worse than replacement level, it was an eye-opener as to which teams always seemed to get good bang for the buck and which ones were all checkbook, no brains.

Thanks. I've honestly never heard of Doug Pappas or his theory, but this seems very logical to me. Is it viewed as a "crazy" theory or is it accepted as credible?

IslandRed
12-11-2006, 11:35 PM
Thanks. I've honestly never heard of Doug Pappas or his theory, but this seems very logical to me. Is it viewed as a "crazy" theory or is it accepted as credible?

Among the analysts, it has credibility because it was part of the early work in understanding replacement level. (Pappas himself is still a revered figure; he was one of the few who could write about the business side of baseball and actually know what he was talking about.) Otherwise, it doesn't really prove anything, it's just a fun way to measure how effectively teams are spending their money.

The one obvious flaw -- and it's been alluded to in this thread -- is that not all so-called marginal wins are equal. Paying an extra $10 million to get from 65 to 70 wins doesn't do much for anyone; if it gets a team from 90 to 95 wins and over the playoff threshold, the money was very well spent indeed. One of the BP guys did a workup of that in the "Baseball By The Numbers" book released last year, trying to figure out how much each marginal win was "worth" based on the perceived starting point.

Spring~Fields
12-12-2006, 04:00 PM
That's an interesting take but there are some flaws in the logic IMO. First the $70 Million payroll on the Reds is only going to net about 70 Wins as things stand now.

70 wins, is that what this team projects to win next season if they don't upgrade this team over what it is now? I had no idea.

edabbs44
12-12-2006, 04:02 PM
70 wins, is that what this team projects to win next season if they don't upgrade this team over what it is now? I had no idea.

I can see it.

westofyou
12-12-2006, 04:03 PM
Thanks. I've honestly never heard of Doug Pappas or his theory, but this seems very logical to me. Is it viewed as a "crazy" theory or is it accepted as credible?

Doug was a great writer, he really had a way of approaching the business side of the game that was neither clinical or bright eyed. Plus he answered his email, a good writer who is missed. Check out his site.

http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/bbblog.htm

mth123
12-12-2006, 09:29 PM
Doug was a great writer, he really had a way of approaching the business side of the game that was neither clinical or bright eyed. Plus he answered his email, a good writer who is missed. Check out his site.

http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/bbblog.htm

Thanks