PDA

View Full Version : Cliff Lee Discussion (Acquired by TEX)



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

edabbs44
08-02-2010, 03:23 PM
That's a great question Ed, the biggest issue I had with trying to trade for a big gun relief pitcher is that in such a small sample size of innings, it's impossible to take the random statistical uncertainty out of the equation.
Starting pitching is the same way in that in the 10 starts a guy is going to make in August/September, there's just so much randomness that the pitcher can't control for, that it's hard to correlate with an improved won-loss record.

While it's true that Cliff Lee hasn't pitched poorly in the games he's lost, the losses are the same. Whether Cliff Lee was pitching and they lost 2-0 or some AAA scrub was pitching and they lost 5-0, it's still a loss. Over the course of a season or certainly many seasons Cliff Lee is going to out produce the AAA scrub, and the team is likely to win many more games. But over the course of 10 starts, there just isn't that much of an improvement in the chances at winning IMO.

but the relievers can be leveraged during less random games. If you get a hired gun RP, you can pitch him in 8th inning with meaning. The randomness would be if you had to pre-pick which games you pitched him in.

TRF
08-02-2010, 03:40 PM
I can't buy this. I understand the argument but a pitcher can only influence one game every 3-4-5 days. A position player can influence every game plays in. It may not be the kind of impact that a pitcher can have on his one game, but a position player who gets hot can carry an offense over the course of a couple of weeks.

But... Lee takes CJ Wilson's spot as the ace of the staff, moving Wilson down to #2 stater, Lewis to #3 and Hunter is the #4. They eliminate their worst starter, a guy that might lose 70% of his starts, and replace him with a guy that might be a .500 pitcher. Lee eats innings and wins, lessening the load on the bullpen, saving them for the #4-5 starters making their starts more effective. The effect of acquiring a TOR starter is cumulative. A position player is like dropping rocks in a pond. In essence he eliminates your worst position player... maybe. It has to be a fit. For the Reds that's one of three positions LF, CF or SS. Upgrade SS and that's all you do. It doesn't have the same ripple effect. Upgrade the OF and you can adjust a bit more, as there are three positions which can be affected. bigger ripples than just SS, bu small compared to a TOR starter like Cliff Lee.

bucksfan2
08-02-2010, 04:01 PM
But... Lee takes CJ Wilson's spot as the ace of the staff, moving Wilson down to #2 stater, Lewis to #3 and Hunter is the #4. They eliminate their worst starter, a guy that might lose 70% of his starts, and replace him with a guy that might be a .500 pitcher. Lee eats innings and wins, lessening the load on the bullpen, saving them for the #4-5 starters making their starts more effective. The effect of acquiring a TOR starter is cumulative. A position player is like dropping rocks in a pond. In essence he eliminates your worst position player... maybe. It has to be a fit. For the Reds that's one of three positions LF, CF or SS. Upgrade SS and that's all you do. It doesn't have the same ripple effect. Upgrade the OF and you can adjust a bit more, as there are three positions which can be affected. bigger ripples than just SS, bu small compared to a TOR starter like Cliff Lee.

I get this but Lee only directly impacts one out of every 5 games. Sure he is an upgrade over the guy who got the boot from the rotation, but he does not have much of an impact in the games he doesn't pitch. Lets look at a guy like Josh Hamilton, granted he wasn't traded for but he is the type of impact bat I am talking about. Josh Hamilton has a chance to impact directly the 4 games that Lee doesn't.

I know its hypothetical but if I have one bullet I am going to use that on a player who plays every day of the week as opposed to a player who plays every 5th.

TRF
08-02-2010, 04:06 PM
I get this but Lee only directly impacts one out of every 5 games. Sure he is an upgrade over the guy who got the boot from the rotation, but he does not have much of an impact in the games he doesn't pitch. Lets look at a guy like Josh Hamilton, granted he wasn't traded for but he is the type of impact bat I am talking about. Josh Hamilton has a chance to impact directly the 4 games that Lee doesn't.

I know its hypothetical but if I have one bullet I am going to use that on a player who plays every day of the week as opposed to a player who plays every 5th.

If Hamilton goes 4-4, 3 RBI that's a good game right? and if the rest of the team is only average it could mean that the Rangers score 5-6 runs. That's good too.

Unless their starter goes 2 2/3 and give up 7-8 runs. Now the pen is burned and the next day that starter has to go 7+. So if the Ranger don't have Lee the back of their rotation is 2 $5 starters. Or rookies. The indirect benefit of Lee outweighs the benefit of say the Rangers adding a Votto or Fielder, for example.

membengal
08-20-2010, 02:56 PM
A bump to highlight a post by Jamie Ramsey on his blog:


On July 9, Cliff Lee was dealt from the Mariners to the Rangers. It was written that the Reds were among the suitors for Lee and nearly had a deal with Seattle. Would Cincinnati have traded multiple players, including Travis Wood to acquire Lee?

Baseball gurus say that sometimes the best trades are the ones you don't make.

Let's compare Cliff Lee's numbers with Travis Wood's since the Seattle/Texas trade (7/9):

Lee: 8 starts, 2-3, 3.44era, 65.1ip, 58h, 26r/25er, 4bb, 58k, 4hr

Wood: 7 starts, 4-1, 2.17era, 45.2ip, 28h, 12r/11er, 10bb, 37k, 4hr

http://ramsey.mlblogs.com/

1. That puts in perspective how much of a shot in the arm Wood has been.

2. As much as I liked the idea of Cliff Lee, I remain convinced that the price it would have taken to get him as a rental of Alonso/Mes/Wood would have have been WAY too high.

At any rate, interesting to note. I remain thrilled that Lee and Wood are friends and hope Wood keeps working with Lee this off-season as well. Great person to learn from.

bucksfan2
08-20-2010, 03:04 PM
Lee is averaging over 8 IP/start. That is the one huge difference between the two right now.

I haven't seen Lee pitch a lot but there are times when I see Wood pitch and say "wow that reminds me of Lee!"

membengal
08-20-2010, 03:06 PM
To be clear, I am not saying that Wood is better than Lee, nor do I think Jamie Ramsey is. But the numbers do offer some context for just what we have gotten out of Wood, and how valuable he might be to this club going forward.

VR
08-20-2010, 03:07 PM
I'm loving what I see in Wood. His stuff is great, solid composure. Should be a stud for years to come.


I'd rather see Lee be the #1 starter in the playoffs 10 out of 10 times, and it's not even close.

RedLegSuperStar
08-20-2010, 03:25 PM
The way Alonso and Mesoraco are playing as of late is beyond belief! Let only comparing the numbers of Wood and Lee. Could of very well hindered the team in the near future. Alonso isn't going to reach the bigs as a Red in my opinion and is as good as gone this winter but throw in Mes and Wood and Seattle would of made away with probably the beat deal in franchise history had that deal went down.

RedLegSuperStar
08-20-2010, 03:26 PM
By the way.. How's Smoak doing for Tacoma?

18 games / 4HRs / .235AVG / .800OPS

lollipopcurve
08-20-2010, 03:33 PM
By the way.. How's Smoak doing for Tacoma?

Not all that well. Meanwhile, Jesus Montero is on fire at AAA, and the pitcher Seattle would have received from the Yanks for Lee, Adam Warren, just struck out 15 in his first AA start, and was ranked #1 on Baseball America's Hot Sheet. Beavan, the pitcher they got from Texas, is pitching well, too, so at least there's that.

Overall, I think Seattle chose the wrong partner in that deal, but time will tell.

jojo
08-20-2010, 03:48 PM
Not all that well. Meanwhile, Jesus Montero is on fire at AAA, and the pitcher Seattle would have received from the Yanks for Lee, Adam Warren, just struck out 15 in his first AA start, and was ranked #1 on Baseball America's Hot Sheet. Beavan, the pitcher they got from Texas, is pitching well, too, so at least there's that.

Overall, I think Seattle chose the wrong partner in that deal, but time will tell.

Jesus Montero bats from the wrong side for a guy in Safeco who will derive alot of value from his SLG. The Lee trade pretty much comes down to that.

dougdirt
08-20-2010, 03:53 PM
Jesus Montero bats from the wrong side for a guy in Safeco who will derive alot of value from his SLG. The Lee trade pretty much comes down to that.

Safeco or not, Montero would have been the better bat. I like Smoak quite a bit, but he isn't carrying Montero's bat.

jojo
08-20-2010, 03:58 PM
Safeco or not, Montero would have been the better bat. I like Smoak quite a bit, but he isn't carrying Montero's bat.

Montero's glove is most likely to be a significant negative too. Smoak should at least be a neutral defender.

In the aggregate, it's easy to see why the Ms preferred Smoak.

lollipopcurve
08-20-2010, 04:17 PM
Montero's glove is most likely to be a significant negative too.

Certainly not at DH, and he'd probably be OK at 1st.

The key to the trade is Smoak hitting. He's had his introduction to Safeco, and it went rudely. The best thing they could do is get a couple of legitimate bats in the middle of that lineup to take any pressure/expectations off him. He's going to need time to gain confidence out there.

Brutus
08-20-2010, 04:28 PM
Montero's glove is most likely to be a significant negative too. Smoak should at least be a neutral defender.

In the aggregate, it's easy to see why the Ms preferred Smoak.

Do we know that they did for sure, though? I mean I assume so... but it can be debated that the Mariners were about to pull off a trade with the Yankees first, even when it was reported Smoak was being offered to them, and the only reason (reportedly) that trade didn't go down was because of some alleged shenanigans in the health report of one of the other prospects.

In this case, I'm not positive we can say for sure Smoak was their first or biggest target.

jojo
08-20-2010, 05:27 PM
Do we know that they did for sure, though? I mean I assume so... but it can be debated that the Mariners were about to pull off a trade with the Yankees first, even when it was reported Smoak was being offered to them, and the only reason (reportedly) that trade didn't go down was because of some alleged shenanigans in the health report of one of the other prospects.

In this case, I'm not positive we can say for sure Smoak was their first or biggest target.

Based upon things the Ms FO have said either through the media or at private gatherings like the USSM events, the organization prefers their power to be lefthanded and clearly they value defense as well.

Smoak fits the profile of the type of player they value better than Montero does. While Montero's bat projects to be better by most accounts than Smoak's, there aren't really any questions concerning Smoak's bat and the player each projects to be isn't that dissimilar in the aggregate from a value standpoint.

Whether Smoak was the intended target all along or not probably doesn't matter. Once he became available, the calculus would've changed. Based upon the little detail we know about the Lee trade negotiations, my guess is that the Ms were likely giddy to take Montero for Lee until Smoak was offered up.

Whether either player actually becomes the major leaguer that each is projected to be or not, in my view, the Ms philosophy/rationale for why they took the Rangers' offer over the Yanks' is pretty easy to defend.

Sometimes it just comes down to philosophy much like the Hamilton/Volquez trade. Maybe the Reds should've went with less risk by keeping the position player. Maybe the Ms should've went with less risk by simply taking the better bat. I'm sure it was debated within the FO.

dougdirt
08-20-2010, 05:54 PM
Montero's glove is most likely to be a significant negative too. Smoak should at least be a neutral defender.

In the aggregate, it's easy to see why the Ms preferred Smoak.

Montero has a better bat than Smoak. Smoak has a better glove than Montero, though how much is arguable. At first base, its not likely to be huge between Montero and a guy who is probably neutral.

Nothing in that makes it easy to see why one would be preferred over the other.

jojo
08-20-2010, 06:04 PM
Montero has a better bat than Smoak. Smoak has a better glove than Montero, though how much is arguable. At first base, its not likely to be huge between Montero and a guy who is probably neutral.

Nothing in that makes it easy to see why one would be preferred over the other.

Smoak is left-handed and he will play homes games in a venue that will play to his strength.

Montero is right-handed and he would've played in a venue that severely penalizes his strength. I haven't heard anyone suggest they think Montero would be anything other than a minus defender at first. If he's Howard/Glaus/Konerko bad (circa 2010), that could be 10 runs.

dougdirt
08-20-2010, 06:09 PM
Smoak is left-handed and he will play homes games in a venue that will play to his strength.

Montero is right-handed and he would've played in a venue that severely penalizes his strength. I haven't heard anyone suggest they think Montero would be anything other than a minus defender at first. If he's Howard/Glaus/Konerko bad (circa 2010), that could be 10 runs.
Even in Safeco, I take Montero's bat over Smoak's. Montero just has special written all of his bat. Even if Montero is -5/-10 on defense, his bat is making up for most if not all of it compared to Smoak starting very soon.

jojo
08-20-2010, 06:21 PM
Even in Safeco, I take Montero's bat over Smoak's. Montero just has special written all of his bat. Even if Montero is -5/-10 on defense, his bat is making up for most if not all of it compared to Smoak starting very soon.

Lets do a little rough justice to put some numbers to it...

Edgar Martinez, who was a very special right-handed bat IMHO lost about 40 pts worth of wOBA in Safeco versus on the road.

That's 12 runs over 81 games. Lets say he's (Montero) only a -5 defender and Smoak is a neutral glove. That's 17 runs in the aggregate.

That's probably something like the calculus the Ms were using.... Montero's bat would have to be really, really special for this to be an obviously easy decision in his favor.

Scrap Irony
08-20-2010, 06:22 PM
Montero's glove is most likely to be a significant negative too. Smoak should at least be a neutral defender.

In the aggregate, it's easy to see why the Ms preferred Smoak.

Why move Montero off catcher? He wants to play there and, by all accounts, has improved enough to be only below average rather than putrid. With a little more work and some more age, he'll likely end up decent.

As a catcher, he's Mike Piazza. As a 1B, he's Fred McGriff.

Smoak, too, profiles as a Fred McGriff guy. At best.

Would anyone (aside from jojo) prefer Smoak to Montero? Would anyone explain to me why Smoak is the better choice? Is it really that he's the better glove man?

Montero plays the more demanding position, his minor league numbers are just as good (in leagues with less offense), his scouting report is better, and he's three years younger.

jojo
08-20-2010, 06:26 PM
Why move Montero off catcher? He wants to play there and, by all accounts, has improved enough to be only below average rather than putrid. With a little more work and some more age, he'll likely end up decent.

I haven't heard anyone argue that he's passable and thus stickable at the position.


Is it really that he's the better glove man?

The argument is that in the aggregate, Smoak is a better fit for the home park.

Scrap Irony
08-20-2010, 06:37 PM
I haven't heard anyone argue that he's passable and thus stickable at the position.

From Frankie Piliere, former mlb scout:
[QUOTE]Until he's firmly entrenched in the big leagues, there will continue to be questions about Jesus Montero's ability behind the plate. I've said it before, but Montero still looks like he has enough ability to stick behind the dish. He's made some strong throws and has a good working relationship with his pitchers. Footwork, however, is definitely still an issue. He tends to open up on his throws to second, and he needs to improve on shifting to his backhand side to block pitches. Overall, though, his hands have looked soft, and the arm is strong enough to indicate he has the core skills to stick as a big-league catcher. He'll always need to put in extra work defensively, but the talent is there.

lollipopcurve
08-20-2010, 06:40 PM
Montero isn't considered viable at the big level as a catcher, from everything I've read. The Yanks are letting the experiment play out, and perhaps helping other teams to misevaluate him, by playing him there.

If he plays in NY, it's as a DH, most likely. And he very well may be a good one.

dougdirt
08-20-2010, 07:39 PM
Lets do a little rough justice to put some numbers to it...

Edgar Martinez, who was a very special right-handed bat IMHO lost about 40 pts worth of wOBA in Safeco versus on the road.

That's 12 runs over 81 games. Lets say he's (Montero) only a -5 defender and Smoak is a neutral glove. That's 17 runs in the aggregate.

That's probably something like the calculus the Ms were using.... Montero's bat would have to be really, really special for this to be an obviously easy decision in his favor.
I never said it was an easy decision. I said it wasn't one.

As for Edgar, he suffered from a lack of doubles in Safeco, not a lack of HR's. Montero's power would have played plenty fine in Safeco.

jojo
08-20-2010, 08:19 PM
I never said it was an easy decision. I said it wasn't one.

As for Edgar, he suffered from a lack of doubles in Safeco, not a lack of HR's. Montero's power would have played plenty fine in Safeco.

Montero's SLG (or if one prefers OPS) would've been decreased. There's mounds of data to suggest that's a reasonable expectation.

membengal
08-21-2010, 07:08 PM
A bump to highlight a post by Jamie Ramsey on his blog:



http://ramsey.mlblogs.com/

1. That puts in perspective how much of a shot in the arm Wood has been.

2. As much as I liked the idea of Cliff Lee, I remain convinced that the price it would have taken to get him as a rental of Alonso/Mes/Wood would have have been WAY too high.

At any rate, interesting to note. I remain thrilled that Lee and Wood are friends and hope Wood keeps working with Lee this off-season as well. Great person to learn from.

Bumping up my post that bumped this thread to get around the M's squabbling.

Lee got lit today by Baltimore. 10 hits 7 runs, four of the hits homeruns. He's been good for Texas, but not impossibly good. It bumps his ERA since coming to Texas above 4.00.

He'd still be a nice hammer to have to start a playoff game, obviously, but the price to get him as a rental still seems like it would have been scary high for this team.

And Wood has been so darn good instead.

CTA513
08-21-2010, 07:15 PM
Bumping up my post that bumped this thread to get around the M's squabbling.

Lee got lit today by Baltimore. 10 hits 7 runs, four of the hits homeruns. He's been good for Texas, but not impossibly good. It bumps his ERA since coming to Texas above 4.00.

He'd still be a nice hammer to have to start a playoff game, obviously, but the price to get him as a rental still seems like it would have been scary high for this team.

And Wood has been so darn good instead.


4 HRs allowed in 103.2 innings for the Mariners and now 8 HRs allowed in 71 innings with the Rangers.

TheNext44
08-21-2010, 07:36 PM
4 HRs allowed in 103.2 innings for the Mariners and now 8 HRs allowed in 71 innings with the Rangers.

From one of the hardest parks to hit a home run in, to one of the easiest. And one really bad game.

Brutus
08-21-2010, 07:59 PM
Prior to today, Lee had almost identical peripherals as his stint in Seattle.

Better K-rate, same walk rate, same HR rate, same BABIP, only very small difference in FIP and nearly exact xFIP.

The only difference, really, is the ERA and today's poor outing. That's been it.

membengal
08-21-2010, 08:24 PM
Right. Like I said, he's been good, but not impossibly good since he went to Texas.

And the price to get him still feels prohibitive to have gotten him to Cincy.

jojo
08-21-2010, 08:29 PM
Right. Like I said, he's been good, but not impossibly good since he went to Texas.

And the price to get him still feels prohibitive to have gotten him to Cincy.

He's pretty much been inhuman as a Ranger and hasn't pitched any different than he did as a Mariner with the exception of this afternoon.

membengal
08-21-2010, 08:31 PM
Right. Except for that 3.44 ERA coming into today's game as Ranger.

Which is kinda human.

Brutus
08-21-2010, 08:34 PM
Right. Except for that 3.44 ERA coming into today's game as Ranger.

Which is kinda human.

The point was he's pitching just as effectively as he was in Seattle. The ERA is extremely misleading considering all of his other numbers are up to par with what he was doing all year.

Considering his strikeout rate (even in Texas) has been real good, his home run rate excellent and walk rate otherwordly, I would say his ERA is not too indicative of his pitching--even since landing in Arlington.

membengal
08-21-2010, 08:43 PM
I get that he was pitching about as well. And my point remained, which a lot of you are not responding too, that the price for that was one that I still am glad they DID NOT PAY.

And, "about as well", is not "as well", and I am not comfortable writing off bad performances like today and pretending they didn't happen to make a point, which seems to be happening.

Even before today, his ERA was up in Texas. Probably because of the park, but, hey, GABP would have been an issue then too.

Brutus
08-21-2010, 08:47 PM
I get that he was pitching about as well. And my point remained, which a lot of you are not responding too, that the price for that was one that I still am glad they DID NOT PAY.

And, "about as well", is not "as well", and I am not comfortable writing off bad performances like today and pretending they didn't happen to make a point, which seems to be happening.

Even before today, this ERA was up in Texas. Probably because of the park, but, hey, GABP would have been an issue then too.

I personally don't believe the price was as it was suggested (with all due respect to Doug). But if that were really the offer, I'm not heartbroken about it not getting done.

I do wonder if/when Travis Wood goes through a rough patch and we see Cliff Lee throwing gems in October, if we'd change our minds a bit on that.

membengal
08-21-2010, 08:48 PM
Not me.

Not for a rental.

Brutus
08-21-2010, 08:50 PM
Not me.

Not for a rental.

As a philosophy, I agree. But Cliff Lee is the one thing the Reds don't have: a true, bonafide ace. He's the type of pitcher that gets teams deep in the postseason.

I like the Reds' staff, but their 3-man playoff rotation would look much, much better with Lee manning it.

jojo
08-21-2010, 09:45 PM
I get that he was pitching about as well. And my point remained, which a lot of you are not responding too, that the price for that was one that I still am glad they DID NOT PAY.

And, "about as well", is not "as well", and I am not comfortable writing off bad performances like today and pretending they didn't happen to make a point, which seems to be happening.

Even before today, his ERA was up in Texas. Probably because of the park, but, hey, GABP would have been an issue then too.

He had a bad start today. That's not really a tell of any kind.

Up to today he's been the exact same pitcher he was as an M...in other words, he's been exactly as advertised and exactly the pitcher the Rangers had hoped he'd be...

There are arguments to be made about why the Reds shouldn't have traded for Lee but his performance is not one of them.

There is absolutely no cherry picking going on to make a point. An argument can be made for Lee being the best starter in baseball. While that's certainly debatable, I doubt many would argue there's a better lefty or that Lee doesn't belong in the conversation of who is in the top 5 pitchers in the world.

membengal
08-21-2010, 10:06 PM
Edited to not escalate things

jojo
08-21-2010, 10:09 PM
There are arguments for why the Reds shouldn't have traded for Lee but 5 innings really can't speak to them.

Sea Ray
08-23-2010, 10:36 AM
Edited to not escalate things

I agree with you and I said so at the time of the trade. No way I'd include Wood or Mes and I'd argue the M's did not get a player of that caliber from the Rangers either. If either player was a must from the M's then it was a no brainer.

Our Reds are now set up to contend for the next five yrs. That wouldn't happen with a lot of the "RZ" trades. There were a bunch who wanted Votto included in a trade for Bedard saying that 1B can always be found but niot ace LH pitching and that was for two yrs, not a two mo rental.

I know it's not a good trade for the Reds to make. If the Rangers bow out in the first rd of the playoffs we will all know it was a bad trade for them as well

membengal
08-23-2010, 10:39 AM
There are arguments for why the Reds shouldn't have traded for Lee but 5 innings really can't speak to them.

Here's what frustrates me. I wasn't making it based on five innings. Heck, I wasn't even saying they should not have traded for Lee under any circumstances. You insisted on reading that into my bump. It's why discussing things with you is so infuriating. Too often you shade what is said to suit your purposes.

The simple thing I bumped with was Jamie Ramsey's stats that showed, since the deal, Wood has been at least as good as Lee, if not better. I thought that was a rather neat point. And it got killed, first by a two page digression into the deal from the M's perspective on what they could have gotten, and then by another set of posts explaining away Lee's bad outing last weekend. None of which changes the point of my initial bump, which was the Reds have gotten at least as good a work out of Wood (if not better) than Lee since the deal. Which I still think is kinda neat, since Cincy also retains all of its trade chips. Then again, you were of the decided opinion that Wood was, at best a "#5" in the majors, so I am not surprised you are working so hard to mutilate the simple reason for the bump.

I am sure Lee would be better to have in the playoffs than Wood. But I am also very glad that Wood is going to be a part of this team going forward, and that Walt looked farther down the road. Lee was an expensive rental, and, oddly, Wood has been at least as good as him to this point since the deal.

PuffyPig
08-23-2010, 10:50 AM
There were a bunch who wanted Votto included in a trade for Bedard saying that 1B can always be found but niot ace LH pitching and that was for two yrs, not a two mo rental.



There were a couple of posters who wanted to trade Votto and Bailey for Garko. One even felt that wouldn't be enough to get it done.

This was at the end of May, 2007, when a hot first two months had Garko OPS'ing in the .900's and many felt the Reds needed a RH hitter to hit between Griffey and Dunn.

nemesis
08-23-2010, 10:52 AM
When it comes down to it, what the Rangers are getting from Lee, the actual results, not the paper ones like his real xFIP, FIP, or BABIP hasn't been worth the price. He would have been a bust of a trade for what the Reds were have rumored to be willing to give up. Alonso, Mesoraco and Wood. Wood has out performed him so far on the mound, Alonso has found his stroke since the trade to the tune of a .900+ OPS, Mesoraco has continued to hit like he has all year. When it comes down to brass tax, Lee would have not improved this club at the current point.

Sea Ray
08-23-2010, 11:13 AM
When it comes down to it, what the Rangers are getting from Lee, the actual results, not the paper ones like his real xFIP, FIP, or BABIP hasn't been worth the price. He would have been a bust of a trade for what the Reds were have rumored to be willing to give up. Alonso, Mesoraco and Wood. Wood has out performed him so far on the mound, Alonso has found his stroke since the trade to the tune of a .900+ OPS, Mesoraco has continued to hit like he has all year. When it comes down to brass tax, Lee would have not improved this club at the current point.

I wonder if these rumors are true. A deal of Wood, Mes and Alonzo sound so far superior to what they actually got. At this point it'd be worth discussing whether Smoak is superior to Alonzo.

A 2 mo rental of Lee was worth Alonzo and a AA pitcher. That's about it.

Wood and Mes represent the best LH pitching and catching prospect this organization has had in a generation, two very rare commodities. It's amazing to me that some fans would be willing to trade them for a 2 mo rental of anyone

jojo
08-23-2010, 11:17 AM
Alonso, Mesoraco and Wood.

Based upon the parameters of the Yanks and the Rangers deals, it doesn't seem likely that Alonso, Mesoraco and Woods formed the basis of actual negotiations.

nemesis
08-23-2010, 11:31 AM
Based upon the parameters of the Yanks and the Rangers deals, it doesn't seem likely that Alonso, Mesoraco and Woods formed the basis of actual negotiations.

I am going of what Doug said. From his source they said it was 100% Alonso and Mesoraco plus a pitcher.

lollipopcurve
08-23-2010, 11:39 AM
I am going of what Doug said. From his source they said it was 100% Alonso and Mesoraco plus a pitcher.

I tend to agree with jojo here. That offer appears well beyond the other deals offered to Seattle.

If the Reds made it, they're lucky it wasn't taken. Very lucky.

Brutus
08-23-2010, 03:32 PM
When it comes down to it, what the Rangers are getting from Lee, the actual results, not the paper ones like his real xFIP, FIP, or BABIP hasn't been worth the price. He would have been a bust of a trade for what the Reds were have rumored to be willing to give up. Alonso, Mesoraco and Wood. Wood has out performed him so far on the mound, Alonso has found his stroke since the trade to the tune of a .900+ OPS, Mesoraco has continued to hit like he has all year. When it comes down to brass tax, Lee would have not improved this club at the current point.

The results that you are basing it on--mostly ERA--are dependent both on pitcher and defense together. A defense that is making more plays than an average or below average group of fielders will make a pitcher look like he's getting those 'results.'

I won't completely dismiss the importance of actual bottom-line results. After all, the runs that do and don't score are what wins (and loses) ballgames. However, his 'paper' numbers, placed on another defense would probably seem to be right in line with the actual aforementioned results.

I promise you the Rangers are not regretting anything, nor should they. They're getting some terrific performances out of him and are not the slightest bit concerned by his (misleading) ERA. Most clubs do not have such a narrow view.

Sea Ray
08-23-2010, 03:39 PM
I promise you the Rangers are not regretting anything, nor should they. They're getting some terrific performances out of him and are not the slightest bit concerned by his (misleading) ERA. Most clubs do not have such a narrow view.

It's too early for them to be regretting anything. They didn't get him to win the West. They got him for a playoff run.

Smoak also is struggling. If he was hitting like Mesoraco they'd be getting a little uncomfortable

edabbs44
08-23-2010, 03:42 PM
The results that you are basing it on--mostly ERA--are dependent both on pitcher and defense together. A defense that is making more plays than an average or below average group of fielders will make a pitcher look like he's getting those 'results.'

I won't completely dismiss the importance of actual bottom-line results. After all, the runs that do and don't score are what wins (and loses) ballgames. However, his 'paper' numbers, placed on another defense would probably seem to be right in line with the actual aforementioned results.

I promise you the Rangers are not regretting anything, nor should they. They're getting some terrific performances out of him and are not the slightest bit concerned by his (misleading) ERA. Most clubs do not have such a narrow view.

since they got him for the playoffs and not to win the division (that's pretty
much locked up), reg season performance is probably secondary right now. But my guess is that they aren't thrilled with him letting up 4 ER in his last 5 starts when he only did that in 3 of his previous 17.

jojo
08-23-2010, 03:43 PM
since they got him for the playoffs and not to win the division (that's pretty
much locked up), reg season performance is probably secondary right now. But my guess is that they aren't thrilled with him letting up 4 ER in his last 5 starts when he only did that in 3 of his previous 17.

Smoak is heating up actually (OPS=.885 in his last 10 games).

kaldaniels
08-23-2010, 03:47 PM
I agree with those who say his playoff performance is what matters. When/if he shuts down the Yankess facing C.C. or the like, thats when we can determine if this move paid off.

Sea Ray
08-23-2010, 03:53 PM
Smoak is heating up actually (OPS=.885 in his last 10 games).

In the interest of full disclosure it's important to note that those numbers are not in the major leagues

jojo
08-23-2010, 04:01 PM
In the interest of full disclosure it's important to note that those numbers are not in the major leagues

It's a tangential point but didn't everyone already know that?

Screwball
08-23-2010, 04:07 PM
A 2 mo rental of Lee was worth Alonzo and a AA pitcher. That's about it.


That sounds about right. Alonso, Mesoraco and Wood is ludicrous, and if the Reds actually offered that I don't know how the M's could possibly turn it down for, essentially, Justin Smoak.

BTW, I hate to be 'that guy', but it's Alonso with an "s", not a "z".

Sea Ray
08-23-2010, 04:33 PM
That sounds about right. Alonso, Mesoraco and Wood is ludicrous, and if the Reds actually offered that I don't know how the M's could possibly turn it down for, essentially, Justin Smoak.

BTW, I hate to be 'that guy', but it's Alonso with an "s", not a "z".

Thanks for the correction! Don't worry about being that guy. Hopefully I'm not an idiot and continue the same same mistake...

Chip R
08-26-2010, 09:54 PM
Lee's getting rocked again tonight by the Twins. And he's actually walked a batter.

nemesis
08-27-2010, 06:15 AM
Agreed that Texas got him for the playoff run, but the Reds were trying to acquire him to help solidify the rotation to help us get to the playoffs. After another dreadful start tonight I am for one thankful for trades never made.

edabbs44
08-27-2010, 07:03 AM
Agreed that Texas got him for the playoff run, but the Reds were trying to acquire him to help solidify the rotation to help us get to the playoffs. After another dreadful start tonight I am for one thankful for trades never made.

Agreed, though we cannot say that this is exactly how he would have pitched in Cincy. But if he was on the roster and was getting knocked around like this, it would be horrendous.

fearofpopvol1
08-27-2010, 03:52 PM
Agreed, though we cannot say that this is exactly how he would have pitched in Cincy. But if he was on the roster and was getting knocked around like this, it would be horrendous.

I agree with this. And to be honest, I would rather see Lee starting game 1 of a playoff series over anyone currently in the Reds rotation, even with his recent struggles.

blumj
08-27-2010, 04:01 PM
I agree with this. And to be honest, I would rather see Lee starting game 1 of a playoff series over anyone currently in the Reds rotation, even with his recent struggles.
A lot of Rangers fans probably feel that way even now, too. A lot of fans of some of the other contending teams probably do, too.

nate
08-27-2010, 04:23 PM
Instead of being a world-beater, Lee is simply excellent. If he were on the Reds, he'd lead the staff in K/9, BB/9 and HR/9. Since going to Texas, batters are hitting .259 off of him. His HR/9 has increased a bit but he's largely the same pitcher that he was in Seattle.

I wouldn't be disappointed if I were a Rangers fan.

blumj
08-27-2010, 04:49 PM
It hadn't really occurred to me until now, but I think I'd take their rotation 1-4 over all the other AL contenders' rotations.

sabometrics
08-28-2010, 01:55 AM
Colby Lewis, Cliff Lee, C.J. Wilson, and whoever their 4th is very formidable. I've been waiting all year for Wilson to run out of steam but he's just gotten better since he's been able to work with Lee.

And to think Neftali Feliz could have been a starter this year for them too. Now THAT 1-4 would be hands down the best in the AL imo.

CTA513
08-31-2010, 11:26 PM
4.2 Innings, 10 Hits, 7 Runs (4 Earned), 0 BB, 5 K - 1 HR

nemesis
09-01-2010, 01:31 AM
4.2 Innings, 10 Hits, 7 Runs (4 Earned), 0 BB, 5 K - 1 HR

Something has to be wrong. I am soooo thankful that the Reds didn't Alonso and Mez for him.

Keep in mind how many on here litterlly gave up on the season when the team failed to trade for anyone at the deadline.

19-9. Repeat 19-9. BEST RECORD IN BASEBALL since the trade deadline. Without aquiring Lee, Oswalt or anyone else moved. We got our cake and get to eat it too... The chemistry is to good to mess with.

I love the FO as much as I love this team.

membengal
09-01-2010, 02:50 PM
from espn.com:


The Texas Rangers have won each of C.J. Wilson's last five starts. Cliff Lee has started immediately following Wilson in that span, and the Rangers have lost all five of those games.

Playadlc
09-01-2010, 03:50 PM
The Adverb’s looking Ugh Lee in Texas.

Sorry...couldn't resist.

jojo
09-01-2010, 04:17 PM
It's the curse of the Reds... EVERYTHING is turning out roses for them.... the planets are aligning people, they are aligning.

edabbs44
09-01-2010, 11:23 PM
Something has to be wrong. I am soooo thankful that the Reds didn't Alonso and Mez for him.

Keep in mind how many on here litterlly gave up on the season when the team failed to trade for anyone at the deadline.

19-9. Repeat 19-9. BEST RECORD IN BASEBALL since the trade deadline. Without aquiring Lee, Oswalt or anyone else moved. We got our cake and get to eat it too... The chemistry is to good to mess with.

I love the FO as much as I love this team.

The FO has the midas touch this season. It's been pretty amazing, they are killing it.

Chip R
09-02-2010, 11:09 AM
Cliffy is complaining of lower back pains now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/mlb/news/story?id=5521151

lollipopcurve
09-02-2010, 11:20 AM
It's the curse of the Reds... EVERYTHING is turning out roses for them.... the planets are aligning people, they are aligning.

You make your luck.

jojo
09-02-2010, 11:28 AM
You make your luck.

And sometimes luck makes you.

lollipopcurve
09-02-2010, 11:31 AM
And sometimes luck makes you.

Classic losers line: "You got lucky."

RedEye
09-02-2010, 11:32 AM
Classic losers line: "You got lucky."

Isn't it true sometimes though?

jojo
09-02-2010, 11:46 AM
Isn't it true sometimes though?

Of course it is.

lollipopcurve
09-02-2010, 11:51 AM
Isn't it true sometimes though?

There is always an element of luck. However, attributing wins/losses to luck is a vast generalization often made by someone who has lost and refuses to give credit to the winner.

Sea Ray
09-02-2010, 11:55 AM
The Reds are not lucky to be 23 games over .500 but I don't think they can take credit for the Cardinals losing 8 of 10 to bottom feeders either

bucksfan2
09-02-2010, 11:56 AM
There is always an element of luck. However, attributing wins/losses to luck is a vast generalization often made by someone who has lost and refuses to give credit to the winner.

You make your luck. Claiming that you were "unlucky" is a loser's way of justifying the outcome.

I still would love to have Cliff Lee on this pitching staff. I wouldn't have given up Wood, Mes, and Alonso but I highly doubt that was the package offered to the Mariners. Often the smart decision is to just lay down you hand.

lollipopcurve
09-02-2010, 12:01 PM
The Reds are not lucky to be 23 games over .500 but I don't think they can take credit for the Cardinals losing 8 of 10 to bottom feeders either

Maybe the Cards had been playing over their heads. Maybe those other teams were due to "get hot." Maybe Cards players are worn out or low on morale because of various decisions made within the team/organization over the course of the year.

You get what's coming to you.

NJReds
09-02-2010, 12:11 PM
I'd rather be lucky and in first place than unlucky and in second place.

Call it what you will, but after 11 years it feels good to be looking down at the rest of the NL Central.

lollipopcurve
09-02-2010, 12:16 PM
I'd rather be lucky and in first place than unlucky and in second place.

Call it what you will, but after 11 years it feels good to be looking down at the rest of the NL Central.

Amen to feeling good.

medford
09-02-2010, 12:34 PM
Maybe the Cards had been playing over their heads. Maybe those other teams were due to "get hot." Maybe Cards players are worn out or low on morale because of various decisions made within the team/organization over the course of the year.

You get what's coming to you.

There may be some truth to that. Certainly Pujols & Holliday are great, as are Priss & Wainwright and Garcia, however the rest of that team is pretty blah. The infield defense is terrible and has been all year, they have Molina batting 5th many nights. If you look up defensive catcher ideally suited for the 7th or 8th spot in the NL you see a picture of Molina (all 3 of them actually). Their bullpen is average at best. That have little depth at the upper reaches of the minors.

the have the pieces to be dominate at times, a lineup built w/ league average players w/ Pujols & Holliday batting 3-4 is going to score a bunch of runs to begin with. They've had some injuries for sure but but when a guy like Pujols as an off series like he did in Houston (0-10?) there isn't a ton to pick up the rest of the team.

Conversley, since late april the Reds starters 1-5 have been solid, though not always specatular, the bullpen has been mostly nails, the defense has been significantly better than anything we've seen the last few years, every time there's a tweak or a twinge theirs someone fully capable of filling in for a few days on the bench or in the minors. From Cairo to Nix, to heisey to Travis wood, Lecure, ondrusek, Valaika, etc... the Reds have a ton of depth.

The cards are seemingly built for october, if Pujols & co are on top of their game, combined w/ their frontline starters, they're the type of team that is lethal in a short series or over the course of a couple of weeks. However, over the marathon of a full season they have more kinks in their armor than I think many Cards fans would like to admit. Today is their last day off this season baring a rain out. Sure they scare me this weekend, as they should scare any team over a short time frame. But as the last couple of weeks have shown, over the next 28 days its more about what the Reds can do than the fear of the Cards going on a Rockies like run to the world series.

anyhoo, I don't know what this has to do with Cliff Lee, it certainly looks good for the Reds right now, but all that matters is October, at least to Texas at the point they acquired him. It was a different conversation for the Reds (the Reds needed him just to get there), so it may never matter, though w/ the cards slumping it doesn't look like that would have hurt too much at this point aside from the lost prospects.

jojo
09-02-2010, 12:35 PM
There is always an element of luck.

Yep. The planets are aligning people, they are aligning.

Brutus
10-06-2010, 05:59 PM
Today was a primo example why Cliff Lee was acquired by the Rangers.

7 innings, 10 Ks and 1 run.

deltachi8
10-06-2010, 06:57 PM
Today was a primo example why Cliff Lee was acquired by the Rangers.

7 innings, 10 Ks and 1 run.

Yep, and why you over pay for him if need be.

I(heart)Freel
10-07-2010, 01:00 PM
Yep, and why you over pay for him if need be.

Cliff Lee loses the game if he goes against Halladay yesterday.

Should the Reds have overpaid for that?

I know this is pretty myopic. But if the Reds would have given up several really good trading chips (ie Alonso, Heisey, Wood) for Lee, I would have been pretty bummed last night and all this off-season.

As it stands, we have those chips for this offseason to address some holes. Like left field.

Brutus
10-07-2010, 02:13 PM
Cliff Lee loses the game if he goes against Halladay yesterday.

Should the Reds have overpaid for that?

I know this is pretty myopic. But if the Reds would have given up several really good trading chips (ie Alonso, Heisey, Wood) for Lee, I would have been pretty bummed last night and all this off-season.

As it stands, we have those chips for this offseason to address some holes. Like left field.

Overpaid for what? Given what Seattle ultimately received, do you really call it overpaying for what Texas gave up? They now have a true postseason ace, something that Cincinnati lacks.

Are you telling me that game couldn't have gone totally different if it was scoreless through 6 innings or the Reds were only down 1-0? No one knows what would have happened, but the dynamic changes. Perhaps Halladay doesn't throw a no-hitter in a tight game.

But absolutely, positively the Reds should have acquired Lee if they had a chance. And make no mistake, it sounds like they tried. But he's the missing piece the Reds could use right now.

Instead of someone like Volquez going out and giving them a quality 1 2/3 innings in Game 1 of the playoffs, they could have had Lee out there.

Oxilon
10-07-2010, 02:15 PM
Cliff Lee loses the game if he goes against Halladay yesterday.

Should the Reds have overpaid for that?

I know this is pretty myopic. But if the Reds would have given up several really good trading chips (ie Alonso, Heisey, Wood) for Lee, I would have been pretty bummed last night and all this off-season.

As it stands, we have those chips for this offseason to address some holes. Like left field.

LF isn't nearly as big of an issue as finding a legit #1 this offseason. Heck, the problem solves itself since Gomes' contract is up.

VR
10-13-2010, 12:01 AM
Still sick about this one.

The Operator
10-13-2010, 12:04 AM
Still sick about this one.I kinda am too.

A guy like Lee can carry a team through the postseason.

The Reds need to at least inquire about his services this winter. They may get laughed at, but they need to try. A guy like Cliff Lee is what separates this Reds team from being a division winner to a serious World Series contender.

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 12:06 AM
I kinda am too.

A guy like Lee can carry a team through the postseason.

The Reds need to at least inquire about his services this winter. They may get laughed at, but they need to try. A guy like Cliff Lee is what separates this Reds team from being a division winner to a serious World Series contender.

The Reds staff is built for the long season. If they don't acquire a #1 this offseason, they can always try again in July. You don't really need that #1 until October.

The Operator
10-13-2010, 12:13 AM
The Reds staff is built for the long season. If they don't acquire a #1 this offseason, they can always try again in July. You don't really need that #1 until October.Who are some candidates that might be available at the deadline? I can't think of any but I also haven't looked into it like past seasons, since our games have been meaningful the entire way. :)

VR
10-13-2010, 12:13 AM
The Reds staff is built for the long season. If they don't acquire a #1 this offseason, they can always try again in July. You don't really need that #1 until October.

No kidding. Let's just hope they get another chance like this next year, and are able to pull something together.

He's bona fide.

Tony Cloninger
10-13-2010, 12:17 AM
According to reports he is already being talked to by CC to sign with the Yankees. He already has one foot over there and the Yankees will always be able to outbid and overpay when needed.

Brutus
10-13-2010, 12:18 AM
According to reports he is already being talked to by CC to sign with the Yankees. He already has one foot over there and the Yankees will always be able to outbid and overpay when needed.

Tampering!!

:D

Matt700wlw
10-13-2010, 12:27 AM
Lee could have changed the whole landscape...

Tony Cloninger
10-13-2010, 12:54 AM
Tampering!!

:D


Yeah....kinda like when Andy P told Berkman to turn down a deal to the White Sox......since he had the right to do so....and then the Yankee trade for him.
I swear that team just takes all the fun out of watching post season baseball.

Patrick Bateman
10-13-2010, 01:08 AM
Wegot no hit in the only game Lee could have pitched.

The Operator
10-13-2010, 01:20 AM
We got no hit in the only game Lee could have pitched.I'm not convinced we would have been no-hit had a guy like Lee been pitching.

When Volquez went up in flames, The Phils rode that momentum and The Reds probably panicked and started pressing.

A guy like Lee on the mound allows The Reds to play a little more relaxed both on offense and defense and it could have also caused Halladay to press a little bit on his own part.

Matt700wlw
10-13-2010, 01:27 AM
I'm not convinced we would have been no-hit had a guy like Lee been pitching.

When Volquez went up in flames, The Phils rode that momentum and The Reds probably panicked and started pressing.

A guy like Lee on the mound allows The Reds to play a little more relaxed both on offense and defense and it could have also caused Halladay to press a little bit on his own part.

If Lee were here after the deadline, there's no way to know how the rest of the season would have played out....Hindsight is 20/20, obviously, but it would have been nice to find out

TheNext44
10-13-2010, 01:41 AM
The price for Lee was more than Alonso and Meseraco. According to many reports, that was the offer that the Rangers turned down. So those who wanted the Reds to acquire Lee, would you have been willing to offer more than that to get him?

This is what you would have gotten for Alonso and Meseraco + others...

a 4-6 WL and 3.98 ERA in the regular season.

A chance to be 0-0 at the end of 9 in one game of the NLDS. So basically a 50-50 chance of winning game one of a series in which the Reds lost the next two games.

And I don't think for a minute that the Reds would have had a better chance in game two if they had won game one. They were up 4-0 after 5 and blew it. That had nothing to do with them losing game one.

Maybe he would have made a difference, but I am not trading more than a teams top two offensive prospects, both of whom are likely top 100 in MLB prospects, for maybe's.

Homer Bailey
10-13-2010, 01:50 AM
If we would have gotten Lee, we might not have been playing Philly...

Brutus
10-13-2010, 02:00 AM
The price for Lee was more than Alonso and Meseraco. According to many reports, that was the offer that the Rangers turned down. So those who wanted the Reds to acquire Lee, would you have been willing to offer more than that to get him?

This is what you would have gotten for Alonso and Meseraco + others...

a 4-6 WL and 3.98 ERA in the regular season.

A chance to be 0-0 at the end of 9 in one game of the NLDS. So basically a 50-50 chance of winning game one of a series in which the Reds lost the next two games.

And I don't think for a minute that the Reds would have had a better chance in game two if they had won game one. They were up 4-0 after 5 and blew it. That had nothing to do with them losing game one.

Maybe he would have made a difference, but I am not trading more than a teams top two offensive prospects, both of whom are likely top 100 in MLB prospects, for maybe's.

I don't believe that's true at all. In fact, it was reported that the Yankees had a deal first and that got nixed because of an injury issue that popped up. In that particular deal, the reported prospects sure didn't seem to be something that would have been as good or greater than both Alonso and Mesoraco.

Then, not only did the Mariners wind up receiving a package by the Rangers that included (again) arguably less than Alonso and Mesoraco, they threw in a lot of money to finalize the deal.

I actually believe the package was Alonso and some other prospects. I don't believe, from what I've seen, Mesoraco was also included.

TheNext44
10-13-2010, 02:10 AM
If we would have gotten Lee, we might not have been playing Philly...

Maybe not in the first round... but the road to the World Series goes through Philly this year. No way the Braves or Giants beat them in a 5 game series.

And remember he went 4-6 with a 3.98 ERA. He was a #3-4 starter for the Rangers during the regular season. He was slightly better than Volquez, and worse than Bailey.

TheNext44
10-13-2010, 02:12 AM
I don't believe that's true at all. In fact, it was reported that the Yankees had a deal first and that got nixed because of an injury issue that popped up. In that particular deal, the reported prospects sure didn't seem to be something that would have been as good or greater than both Alonso and Mesoraco.

Then, not only did the Mariners wind up receiving a package by the Rangers that included (again) arguably less than Alonso and Mesoraco, they threw in a lot of money to finalize the deal.

I actually believe the package was Alonso and some other prospects. I don't believe, from what I've seen, Mesoraco was also included.

Believe what you wish. But I still wouldn't trade Alonso + others for maybe a chance to win one game that probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Brutus
10-13-2010, 03:11 AM
Believe what you wish. But I still wouldn't trade Alonso + others for maybe a chance to win one game that probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.

If the Reds had acquired Lee, who's to say they wouldn't have hosted Atlanta in the first round? Who's to say they wouldn't have played San Francisco? If they did play Philadelphia, who's to say that the first game doesn't go completely different and the Reds don't win the series?

I think it's fair to argue whether or not the Reds should have traded too much for a rental, but I think it's very hard to suggest the Reds' season may not have gone much, much better with an ace like Lee to finish the last 8 weeks of the year plus the playoffs.

jojo
10-13-2010, 08:24 AM
Maybe not in the first round... but the road to the World Series goes through Philly this year. No way the Braves or Giants beat them in a 5 game series.

And remember he went 4-6 with a 3.98 ERA. He was a #3-4 starter for the Rangers during the regular season. He was slightly better than Volquez, and worse than Bailey.

He had a FIP under 3, and xFIP barely over 3 and was greater than a 3 WAR pitcher while averaging 7.1 IP/start for the Rangers in less than a half season. The Reds didn't have a single 3 WAR pitcher. Lee produced more WAR as a Ranger this season than Cueto posted the entire season.

This isn't an argument about whether the Reds should or should not have traded for Lee. It's simply demonstrating just how good Lee actually was...

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 09:27 AM
Who are some candidates that might be available at the deadline? I can't think of any but I also haven't looked into it like past seasons, since our games have been meaningful the entire way. :)

Greinke.

Sea Ray
10-13-2010, 10:59 AM
If the Mariners had accepted a deal from us similar to what they got from the Rangers, then I'm all for acquiring Lee. But if we have to add the likes of Mes and/or Wood then it's no way.

As it turns out it was a great deal for the Rangers. I don't think they lament losing Smoak

Homer Bailey
10-13-2010, 11:01 AM
Greinke.

It's been reported that the Royals probably aren't interested in trading Greinke this season, as much as I'd like him.

blumj
10-13-2010, 11:25 AM
If the Mariners had accepted a deal from us similar to what they got from the Rangers, then I'm all for acquiring Lee. But if we have to add the likes of Mes and/or Wood then it's no way.

As it turns out it was a great deal for the Rangers. I don't think they lament losing Smoak
Because they won 1 postseason series or because Smoak struggled? I'm sure they're not lamenting anything now, but there's a lot of future they won't know yet for a while. Was it worth it if they get bounced by NYY and Smoak turns into a really good player?

bucksfan2
10-13-2010, 11:34 AM
Because they won 1 postseason series or because Smoak struggled? I'm sure they're not lamenting anything now, but there's a lot of future they won't know yet for a while. Was it worth it if they get bounced by NYY and Smoak turns into a really good player?

When you haven't won a playoff series in the history of your franchise I think the trade was well worth it.

jojo
10-13-2010, 11:50 AM
If the Mariners had accepted a deal from us similar to what they got from the Rangers, then I'm all for acquiring Lee. But if we have to add the likes of Mes and/or Wood then it's no way.

As it turns out it was a great deal for the Rangers. I don't think they lament losing Smoak

They still have a huge hole looming at first. But they've decided to tackle first things first given their more pressing issues.

I bet they wish they still had Smoak. BTW, he finished September and October on a .325/.400/.525 tear....

bucksfan2
10-13-2010, 11:59 AM
They still have a huge hole looming at first. But they've decided to tackle first things first given their more pressing issues.

I bet they wish they still had Smoak. BTW, he finished September and October on a .325/.400/.525 tear....

I bet they are perfectly happy sitting right now with Cliff Lee in their rotation and a legit chance at making it to the WS.

blumj
10-13-2010, 12:18 PM
When you haven't won a playoff series in the history of your franchise I think the trade was well worth it.

Yeah, probably. But you never know when having that one more really good player is the thing that gives you a better chance to win a lot more than one playoff series in the future.

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 12:22 PM
It's been reported that the Royals probably aren't interested in trading Greinke this season, as much as I'd like him.


The Royals will listen to offers for righthander Zack Greinke this offseason, but a team source told the Kansas City Star that "we'd need to be blown away" to deal the 2009 A.L. Cy Young award winner.

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2010-10-05/royals-unlikely-to-deal-ace-zack-greinke-this-offseason

1) Things might be different come July.
2) It sounds like they have left the door open this offseason.

You never know, but he is one who may become available in July.

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 12:27 PM
They still have a huge hole looming at first. But they've decided to tackle first things first given their more pressing issues.

I bet they wish they still had Smoak. BTW, he finished September and October on a .325/.400/.525 tear....

Pretty weird that the bulk of that production took place in a 3 game series in Texas.

Sea Ray
10-13-2010, 12:56 PM
Because they won 1 postseason series or because Smoak struggled? I'm sure they're not lamenting anything now, but there's a lot of future they won't know yet for a while. Was it worth it if they get bounced by NYY and Smoak turns into a really good player?

First of all Smoak, like Alonso, is a 1B or DH. These guys are very replaceable; much moreso than a catcher or LHP. Unless Smoak turns into Joey Votto, he's an easy piece to lose regardless of what Lee does in the post season. Most likely Smoak will turn into Sean Casey rather than Albert Pujols. So the fact that Smoak has struggled so far has little to do with it.

Lee's success in the post season is also a factor without a doubt. At the time of the trade Texas was comfortably in first so his acquisition was definitely for the post season.

Sea Ray
10-13-2010, 12:59 PM
I bet they wish they still had Smoak. BTW, he finished September and October on a .325/.400/.525 tear....

You mean they wish they hadn't traded him for Lee? I doubt that

jojo
10-13-2010, 01:09 PM
Pretty weird that the bulk of that production took place in a 3 game series in Texas.

Here's a breakdown of him over August and September/October:

AAA/mlb: 205 AB; .307/.425/.512;

AAA: 155 AB; .297/.426/.490;

mlb: 50 AB; .340/.421/.580;

mlb cherrypicking (removing a 3 game series): .308/.386/.385;

It seems pretty clear that those are the numbers of a guy who can hit and who wasn't "struggling". That's an very encouraging finish.

I'm not sure what is weird about that?

jojo
10-13-2010, 01:10 PM
You mean they wish they hadn't traded him for Lee? I doubt that

It's pretty clear that's not what I was arguing. Again- I bet they wish they didn't have to trade Smoak.

bucksfan2
10-13-2010, 01:21 PM
It's pretty clear that's not what I was arguing. Again- I bet they wish they didn't have to trade Smoak.

You always wish you didn't have to trade talent. The issue is you have to trade something in order to get talent in return. The Rangers got the most dominant post season pitcher over the past 3-4 years. I am sure they are fine having to part with Smoak realizing what situation they have put themselves into.

blumj
10-13-2010, 01:34 PM
First of all Smoak, like Alonso, is a 1B or DH. These guys are very replaceable; much moreso than a catcher or LHP. Unless Smoak turns into Joey Votto, he's an easy piece to lose regardless of what Lee does in the post season. Most likely Smoak will turn into Sean Casey rather than Albert Pujols. So the fact that Smoak has struggled so far has little to do with it.

Lee's success in the post season is also a factor without a doubt. At the time of the trade Texas was comfortably in first so his acquisition was definitely for the post season.

Nobody knows if Smoak will turn into a Votto or a Casey or something else yet, the only thing we know right now is that Lee made a big difference in them winning ONE postseason series, and, if he doesn't win them another and Smoak turns into a Votto, this trade suddenly looks a whole lot different. You don't get rings or pennants for an ALDS win, all you get are a few more home playoff games.

REDREAD
10-13-2010, 01:35 PM
In hindsight now, I don't think picking up Lee would've made a difference.

The Phillies totally dominated us. Lee would've made game 1 closer, but we would've still lost the NLDS.

Maybe Lee on the team gives us a different first round opponent, but as I recall, we had a losing record against all playoff teams.

I am really proud of the Reds this season for being relevant again, but we have to keep in mind that the unbalanced schedule and the weak Central helped us win a division title. If we were in the East or West, we probably wouldn't have made the playoffs. Still, a huge step forward for the Reds this season..

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 01:45 PM
Here's a breakdown of him over August and September/October:

AAA/mlb: 205 AB; .307/.425/.512;

AAA: 155 AB; .297/.426/.490;

mlb: 50 AB; .340/.421/.580;

mlb cherrypicking (removing a 3 game series): .308/.386/.385;

It seems pretty clear that those are the numbers of a guy who can hit and who wasn't "struggling". That's an very encouraging finish.

I'm not sure what is weird about that?

Don't be so defensive. Ironic? Coincidental that he had such a huge series vs his old team?

TheNext44
10-13-2010, 02:19 PM
He had a FIP under 3, and xFIP barely over 3 and was greater than a 3 WAR pitcher while averaging 7.1 IP/start for the Rangers in less than a half season. The Reds didn't have a single 3 WAR pitcher. Lee produced more WAR as a Ranger this season than Cueto posted the entire season.

This isn't an argument about whether the Reds should or should not have traded for Lee. It's simply demonstrating just how good Lee actually was...

To me. that just shows how inaccurate WAR can be for a pitcher.

In his 15 games as a Ranger, Lee had 8 games in which he gave up 4 or more runs, in half of those, he didn't get out of the 5th inning, in 5 of those, he gave up 5 or more runs.

Yes, he had an amazing K/BB (although not as amazing as it was with Seattle) but he got hit hard in some games, giving up 7 or more hits in 8 games, and gave up 68 hits in 59 IP in those games. He averaged almost a HR a game. He got knocked around in 5 straight games (he gave up 4,5,6,7 and 8 runs respectively in each) in which the Rangers scored at least 4 runs (averaged 5.8) and they still lost. I know, you don't think hits or runs matter, but I do, and we will never agree on that.

He did pitch okay, but not great.

TheNext44
10-13-2010, 02:26 PM
When you haven't won a playoff series in the history of your franchise I think the trade was well worth it.

I agree. This postseason could turn the entire franchise around. But Smoak still is a very special hitter. He will be missed.

VR
10-13-2010, 02:28 PM
Could he have been had for Alonso....that's the big question that we'll never know the answer for. The Reds had plenty of minor league talent to dangle for Lee...much more than what the M's got.

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 02:34 PM
To me. that just shows how inaccurate WAR can be for a pitcher.

In his 15 games as a Ranger, Lee had 8 games in which he gave up 4 or more runs, in half of those, he didn't get out of the 5th inning, in 5 of those, he gave up 5 or more runs.

Yes, he had an amazing K/BB (although not as amazing as it was with Seattle) but he got hit hard in some games, giving up 7 or more hits in 8 games, and gave up 68 hits in 59 IP in those games. He averaged almost a HR a game. He got knocked around in 5 straight games (he gave up 4,5,6,7 and 8 runs respectively in each) in which the Rangers scored at least 4 runs (averaged 5.8) and they still lost. I know, you don't think hits or runs matter, but I do, and we will never agree on that.

He did pitch okay, but not great.

Kind of agree, but from a different angle. I'm no WAR expert but here is my thought process. Feel free to correct me where I am wrong.

WAR is wins above replacement, measuring a player's on the field production. So Cliff Lee's WAR would be how many more wins the team had due to him compared to a replacement pitcher.

Lee started 15 games for Texas and they went 6-9 in those games. So we would expect the Rangers to have gone 3-12 in Lee's 15 starts if a replacement pitcher took his spot. Is that correct, since WAR is supposed to be specifically tied to wins on the field?

If so, doesn't that look kind of weird? Lee wasn't losing a ton of games Felix style. He was letting up hits and runs in those games at a replacement level. That doesn't add up.

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 02:34 PM
Could he have been had for Alonso....that's the big question that we'll never know the answer for. The Reds had plenty of minor league talent to dangle for Lee...much more than what the M's got.

I thought I read that the M's liked Smoak more.

jojo
10-13-2010, 02:35 PM
I know, you don't think hits or runs matter, but I do, and we will never agree on that.

I think hits and runs matter. We just disagree about who should get all of the blame for them.

bucksfan2
10-13-2010, 03:16 PM
I agree. This postseason could turn the entire franchise around. But Smoak still is a very special hitter. He will be missed.

There have been plenty of very special hitters who haven't amounted to much, if anything. Its not a knock on Smoak, just a dose of reality. Unless Smoak becomes a Votto type there will always be quality 1b available for a price. The issue I see are you going to be upset about losing a Sean Casey type player if you put your team in WS contention?

Sea Ray
10-13-2010, 03:42 PM
It's pretty clear that's not what I was arguing. Again- I bet they wish they didn't have to trade Smoak.

I'm sure they didn't expect to get Lee for free. My bet is they are fine with the trade

jojo
10-13-2010, 03:46 PM
I'm sure they didn't expect to get Lee for free. My bet is they are fine with the trade

My bet is they wish they could've traded something else and still had a young, good, cheap first baseman locked up for the next six years.

Sea Ray
10-13-2010, 03:49 PM
Could he have been had for Alonso....that's the big question that we'll never know the answer for. The Reds had plenty of minor league talent to dangle for Lee...much more than what the M's got.

Who knows?

What we should not do as fans is offer up a lot more than what it took to get Lee. For example I am sure the Reds did not offer up a package of Alonso, Mesorasco and/or Wood

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 03:55 PM
My bet is they wish they could've traded something else and still had a young, good, cheap first baseman locked up for the next six years.

I'm sure they wish that they could have gotten Lee for nothing, but wasn't Smoak was the key to the trade?

bucksfan2
10-13-2010, 03:57 PM
My bet is they wish they could've traded something else and still had a young, good, cheap first baseman locked up for the next six years.

I doubt it. You can call Smoak young and cheap but good is debatable especially when the guy been pretty lackluster over the course of 397 major league at bats.

Sea Ray
10-13-2010, 03:57 PM
My bet is they wish they could've traded something else and still had a young, good, cheap first baseman locked up for the next six years.

Sure, they probably would have preferred to trade Mitch Moreland instead but so what? They knew they had to trade Smoak to make the deal and I'm sure they're thrilled they did

jojo
10-13-2010, 04:13 PM
I doubt it. You can call Smoak young and cheap but good is debatable especially when the guy been pretty lackluster over the course of 397 major league at bats.

You do realize that's not even 2/3 of a season and that's after barely getting 600 ABs in his minor league career?

bucksfan2
10-13-2010, 04:17 PM
You do realize that's not even 2/3 of a season and that's after barely getting 600 ABs in his minor league career?

Absolutely. But Smoak is hardly a sure thing. If past years have taught you anything its that Lee is about as sure of a thing as you can get in the playoffs.

Sea Ray
10-13-2010, 04:44 PM
Absolutely. But Smoak is hardly a sure thing. If past years have taught you anything its that Lee is about as sure of a thing as you can get in the playoffs.

Smoak certainly is not a sure thing. He could be the next Travis Lee

jojo
10-13-2010, 04:57 PM
Smoak certainly is not a sure thing. He could be the next Travis Lee

Nobody is arguing that Smoak is a sure thing. But Texas paid a premium for Lee. The Yanks were willing to part with a package that many teams might consider better (clearly the Ms had valid reasons for preferring a lefty with defensive skills over a better pure hitting right-handed prospect).

The Reds would've had to beat a steep price. That's kind of the point.

The Operator
10-13-2010, 06:13 PM
Didn't it come out that the supposed Yankees offer was never real?

Because if I recall, the Yanks offer was a lot more than what The M's got for Lee.

jojo
10-13-2010, 08:16 PM
Supposedly the Ms pulled out of the deal due to injury concerns with one of the second tier prospects the Yanks offered. It's generally thought that they leveraged the Yanks' deal to get the Rangers to pony up Smoak though that's mostly supposition.

KoryMac5
10-13-2010, 08:53 PM
Didn't it come out that the supposed Yankees offer was never real?

Because if I recall, the Yanks offer was a lot more than what The M's got for Lee.

The Yankee deal was very real and was reported on YES as being done until Seattle went back to Texas.

Cashman has stated that he was pretty peeved with Seattle as he thought he had a deal in place. Looks like Texas jumped in and gave Seattle what they wanted at the last minute, which was Smoak.

jojo
10-14-2010, 06:34 PM
Didn't it come out that the supposed Yankees offer was never real?

Because if I recall, the Yanks offer was a lot more than what The M's got for Lee.

Here's a timely piece offering a bit of a glimpse into the process:

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/yankees/cliff_hanger_how_texas_hours_ace_1CjDkv2xphbm7q4bn BiLDK

Brutus
10-14-2010, 06:42 PM
Here's a timely piece offering a bit of a glimpse into the process:

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/yankees/cliff_hanger_how_texas_hours_ace_1CjDkv2xphbm7q4bn BiLDK

God bless Sherman for reading Redszone and going out of his way to clear that up for us :D

savafan
10-14-2010, 06:58 PM
Who are some candidates that might be available at the deadline? I can't think of any but I also haven't looked into it like past seasons, since our games have been meaningful the entire way. :)

Mark Buehrle CWS
Chris Carpenter STL
Aaron Cook COL
Kyle Davies KC
Zach Duke PIT
Edwin Jackson CWS
Scott Kazmir LAA
Brandon McCarthy TEX
John Maine NYM
Paul Maholm PIT
Jason Marquis WAS
Gil Meche KC
Scott Olsen WAS
Roy Oswalt PHI
Oliver Perez NYM
Joel Pineiro LAA
Wandy Rodriguez HOU
Brian Tallet TOR
Tim Wakefield BOS
Chien-Ming Wang WAS
C.J. Wilson TEX

The Operator
10-14-2010, 08:59 PM
Mark Buehrle CWS
Chris Carpenter STL
Aaron Cook COL
Kyle Davies KC
Zach Duke PIT
Edwin Jackson CWS
Scott Kazmir LAA
Brandon McCarthy TEX
John Maine NYM
Paul Maholm PIT
Jason Marquis WAS
Gil Meche KC
Scott Olsen WAS
Roy Oswalt PHI
Oliver Perez NYM
Joel Pineiro LAA
Wandy Rodriguez HOU
Brian Tallet TOR
Tim Wakefield BOS
Chien-Ming Wang WAS
C.J. Wilson TEXThe thing is, only a few guys on that list are anywhere close to being like Lee, a guy who can carry a team through the playoffs on his back.

Some nice pitchers, yes. But The Reds have 6-7 nice pitchers already. Which is why I hope they'd at least call up Lee's agent and find out the asking price. Obviously it's a long shot, but you don't get anywhere by not trying.

fearofpopvol1
10-14-2010, 11:24 PM
Such a tough call.

If the Reds had acquired Lee, there is a decent chance that the Reds would have been at least the #2 seed, which likely means they don't face Philly in Round 1. Assuming they skated through the ALDS, would they have beaten Philly with Lee? I don't know to be quite honest.

The claims were though the M's were going to get Mesoraco AND Wood. That is a hefty price for 1 season. I'm just not sure Lee alone would have been enough to get through Philly.

redsfandan
10-15-2010, 09:45 AM
The Rangers and Mariners both could regret this trade in a few years.

As for the Reds, if the price was that high then I'm glad they passed. And I'd pass on Lee as a FA too.

edabbs44
10-15-2010, 12:34 PM
The Rangers and Mariners both could regret this trade in a few years.

As for the Reds, if the price was that high then I'm glad they passed. And I'd pass on Lee as a FA too.

I think Lee would pass on the Reds before the Reds would have a chance to pass. If Burnett could get 5 years 82.5MM during the middle of the biggest financial crisis since the depression, how many years and millions is this guy going to score?

Dom Heffner
10-16-2010, 11:12 PM
The Rangers and Mariners both could regret this trade in a few years.

As for the Reds, if the price was that high then I'm glad they passed. And I'd pass on Lee as a FA too.

And you're cheering on another team than the Reds right now...

Brutus
10-16-2010, 11:28 PM
And you're cheering on another team than the Reds right now...

Yessir. I can't figure out why people haven't figured out that No. 1 starters win postseason games for you.

It's unfortunate that baseball is set up to allow skirting by on one or two pitchers, but that's exactly the way it is.

I don't like the idea of giving up several big prospects for a 3-month rental. But that's probably what separated Cincinnati and advancement.

Dom Heffner
10-16-2010, 11:34 PM
Yessir. I can't figure out why people haven't figured out that No. 1 starters win postseason games for you.

It's unfortunate that baseball is set up to allow skirting by on one or two pitchers, but that's exactly the way it is.

I don't like the idea of giving up several big prospects for a 3-month rental. But that's probably what separated Cincinnati and advancement.

The Rays as well.

Think about that swap, and they are facing the Yankees. With Cliff Lee.

I keep hearing about the steep price of Lee, yet all Seattle got for him was Justin Smoak (!)...

Brutus
10-16-2010, 11:37 PM
The Rays as well.

Think about that swap, and they are facing the Yankees. With Cliff Lee.

I keep hearing about the steep price of Lee, yet Seattle (!) got him for Justin Smoak...

It's all based on an unverified report that the asking price was Mesoraco & Alonso, which hasn't come from any published reports. I'm not even sure where it came from.

But as you said, the fact that the Mariners threw in $3 million to get Smoak and a few fringe guys, I don't believe that Alonso & Mesoraco was really the asking price--or at least that it was what was necessary to get the deal done. For that matter, Jocketty made it sound like they were willing to give up whatever it was that the two teams were discussing. He was openly saying they felt good about their offer, but the Ms just went with another one.

Dom Heffner
10-16-2010, 11:48 PM
It's all based on an unverified report that the asking price was Mesoraco & Alonso, which hasn't come from any published reports. I'm not even sure where it came from.

But as you said, the fact that the Mariners threw in $3 million to get Smoak and a few fringe guys, I don't believe that Alonso & Mesoraco was really the asking price--or at least that it was what was necessary to get the deal done. For that matter, Jocketty made it sound like they were willing to give up whatever it was that the two teams were discussing. He was openly saying they felt good about their offer, but the Ms just went with another one.

You have to know when to pounce on deals like this, and I would have went all in on Cliff Lee. I don't even mind overpaying if it means I got a much better chance of winning it all.

We all looked at this rotation and knew we weren't going very far. There isn't a stopper in the bunch.

corkedbat
10-17-2010, 12:05 AM
Mark Buehrle CWS
Chris Carpenter STL
Aaron Cook COL
Kyle Davies KC
Zach Duke PIT
Edwin Jackson CWS
Scott Kazmir LAA
Brandon McCarthy TEX
John Maine NYM
Paul Maholm PIT
Jason Marquis WAS
Gil Meche KC
Scott Olsen WAS
Roy Oswalt PHI
Oliver Perez NYM
Joel Pineiro LAA
Wandy Rodriguez HOU
Brian Tallet TOR
Tim Wakefield BOS
Chien-Ming Wang WAS
C.J. Wilson TEX

Wandy intrigues me most of that list, but I don't consider him a TOR starter.

HokieRed
10-17-2010, 12:10 AM
I'd like to have Wandy but there's only one guy on that list who can go toe-to-toe with Hallady or Lincecum and Cincinnati would be the last place he'd come.

kaldaniels
10-17-2010, 12:12 AM
I'd like to have Wandy but there's only one guy on that list who can go toe-to-toe with Hallady or Lincecum and Cincinnati would be the last place he'd come.

I was about to say the same, but was trying to come up with a clever way to put it. :D

corkedbat
10-17-2010, 12:16 AM
Missed Carper & Oswalt somehow.

Tony Cloninger
10-17-2010, 07:32 AM
You have to know when to pounce on deals like this, and I would have went all in on Cliff Lee. I don't even mind overpaying if it means I got a much better chance of winning it all.

We all looked at this rotation and knew we weren't going very far. There isn't a stopper in the bunch.

Would not have made a difference based on the sloppy fielding and bad hitting by the Reds.

Dom Heffner
10-17-2010, 08:23 AM
Would not have made a difference based on the sloppy fielding and bad hitting by the Reds.

In hindsight, they should have benched Votto- he didn't do a thing in the series.

TheNext44
10-17-2010, 08:49 AM
The Rays as well.

Think about that swap, and they are facing the Yankees. With Cliff Lee.

I keep hearing about the steep price of Lee, yet all Seattle got for him was Justin Smoak (!)...

That's just not accurate. The Mariners package, would be similar to approx...

Alonso, Klinker, Valaika and Fisher. Or around there. Those other guys that were in the Lee deal may not end up being much, but they have a lot of value to a rebuilding team. They weren't chaff.

Plus the $3M that is being referred to, will be mostly eaten up by the Rangers acquisition of Mark Lowe, who is injured, earned $1.5M last season and is arb eligable next season. It had more to do with him being included than Lee's contract.

Most importantly, the Reds had to top that deal, and when you consider that Smoak is considered a better prospect than Alonso, that means the other guys would have to be significantly better than the ones that the Mariners included.

People act like the Reds fell asleep at the wheel in the Lee negotiations. They were in it till the end and made what they considered to be the best offer they could make. In the end, it simply wasn't what Seattle wanted.

TheNext44
10-17-2010, 08:50 AM
In hindsight, they should have benched Votto- he didn't do a thing in the series.

If we shouldn't use hindsight to cast judgements, then we can't complain about not getting Lee.

Big Klu
10-17-2010, 10:17 AM
I'd like to have Wandy but there's only one guy on that list who can go toe-to-toe with Hallady or Lincecum and Cincinnati would be the last place he'd come.

How would he explain it to his son? :D

PuffyPig
10-17-2010, 11:00 AM
Some nice pitchers, yes. But The Reds have 6-7 nice pitchers already. Which is why I hope they'd at least call up Lee's agent and find out the asking price. Obviously it's a long shot, but you don't get anywhere by not trying.

And what makes you think that the Reds won't at least "call up and find out the asking price".......

And what makes you think the Reds are not trying?

Dom Heffner
10-17-2010, 11:47 AM
If we shouldn't use hindsight to cast judgements, then we can't complain about not getting Lee.

Yes we can when we were saying it beforehand.

Tony Cloninger
10-17-2010, 11:54 AM
In hindsight, they should have benched Votto- he didn't do a thing in the series.

So your using my hindsight to disprove my point while using hindsight to prove that Lee would have made a difference...for certain.

Dom Heffner
10-17-2010, 12:40 PM
So your using my hindsight to disprove my point while using hindsight to prove that Lee would have made a difference...for certain.

I'm actually saying that in spite of how it turned out, going for a guy like Lee is a chance worth taking.

Think we're going to be in the playoffs again anytime soon?

Those stupid Texas Rangers giving up all those guys who haven't done anything to be 3 wins from a World Series.

dougdirt
10-17-2010, 12:48 PM
Think we're going to be in the playoffs again anytime soon?

Those stupid Texas Rangers giving up all those guys who haven't done anything to be 3 wins from a World Series.

Absolutely I think we will be in the playoffs again soon. Like next season type of soon.

And those stupid Reds for not trading for Cliff Lee and being only 7 wins away from the world series.... those fools!

Dom Heffner
10-17-2010, 12:52 PM
Absolutely I think we will be in the playoffs again soon. Like next season type of soon.

And those stupid Reds for not trading for Cliff Lee and being only 7 wins away from the world series.... those fools!

Yeah, without him they're sitting home, with him, who knows?

You can't say with a straight face they wouldn't have been better with Lee.

I remember 1999 and we were going to the playoffs next year.

Not sure if you've checked, but the Reds don't scare anybody.

dougdirt
10-17-2010, 12:58 PM
Yeah, without him they're sitting home, with him, who knows?

You can't say with a straight face they wouldn't have been better with Lee.

I remember 1999 and we were going to the playoffs next year.

Not sure if you've checked, but the Reds don't scare anybody.

Who knows what would have happened if they did get him though? It is all speculation, but given that we didn't get a single hit in game 1, we were going to lose that one. Given that we were shutout in game 3, we were going to lose that one. I feel pretty confident that even with Cliff Lee, the Reds are still sitting at home right now looking forward to 2011.

Well you probably shouldn't have given how much nearly everyone on that team played over their heads.... The 2010 Reds really didn't have ever day guys do that outside of Rolen. Several players should actually be better next season.

And frankly I don't care who they scare in 2010. The Rangers probably weren't scaring anyone either.

Dom Heffner
10-17-2010, 01:01 PM
The Rangers weren't scaring anyone? Are you serious?

This is small sample size baseball with a team that has 3 terrific starters and stacked lineup.

Teams like the Reds do not go to the playoffs year after year. Everything has to go right and to expect it to happen next year and forego Lee was the wrong way to go.

Truthfully they most likely wouldn't have played Philly right out of the chute anyway.

dougdirt
10-17-2010, 01:04 PM
The Rangers weren't scaring anyone? Are you serious?

As a heart attack. They were so scary that of the 27 ESPN writers to vote on who they thought would do what, that one writer picked them to win the World Series and only 5 picked them to even beat the Rays in the first round.

Dom Heffner
10-17-2010, 01:07 PM
ESPN writers say no more.

Living in Tampa I can tell you nobody wanted Texas.

Dom Heffner
10-17-2010, 01:08 PM
And anybody watching baseball the last month of the season knew the Rays were toast.

dougdirt
10-17-2010, 01:20 PM
And anybody watching baseball the last month of the season knew the Rays were toast.

And yet the Rangers had to go all 5 games with them....

dougdirt
10-17-2010, 01:22 PM
ESPN writers say no more.

Living in Tampa I can tell you nobody wanted Texas.

Well that is because the other option was the Twins and Tampa didn't have to worry about drawing the Yankees. That point means absolutely nothing about how 'feared' Texas is. It has to do with the fact that they just happened to be better than the Twins, who was the only other team that Tampa could have drawn.

Dom Heffner
10-17-2010, 07:24 PM
The Rangers are as good as the Yanks and Rays. End of story.

traderumor
10-17-2010, 07:58 PM
Yeah, without him they're sitting home, with him, who knows?

You can't say with a straight face they wouldn't have been better with Lee.

I remember 1999 and we were going to the playoffs next year.

Not sure if you've checked, but the Reds don't scare anybody.

I remember 1999, also. Steve Parris was the #2 starter. Steve Parris. While the current Reds still need a hammer to step forward (Chapman?) from the deep rotation, there really is little to compare other than hopes were high in the offseason after a great season with young guys playing some key roles. The state of the franchise at that time was much different, from ownership, to management, to the organizational depth. Plus, there is some very good young pitching that just wasn't around back then.

Dom Heffner
10-18-2010, 07:48 PM
I remember 1999, also. Steve Parris was the #2 starter. Steve Parris. While the current Reds still need a hammer to step forward (Chapman?) from the deep rotation, there really is little to compare other than hopes were high in the offseason after a great season with young guys playing some key roles. The state of the franchise at that time was much different, from ownership, to management, to the organizational depth. Plus, there is some very good young pitching that just wasn't around back then.

I would say this year will be the anomaly...I honestly doubt they'll win 90 games next year or come too close to it.

Dom Heffner
10-18-2010, 07:50 PM
And yet the Rangers had to go all 5 games with them....

They won.

TheNext44
10-18-2010, 08:50 PM
I would say this year will be the anomaly...I honestly doubt they'll win 90 games next year or come too close to it.

Who knows how many wins the Reds will have next year, but I think it's difficult to argue that the team will not be competitive for most of the next five years or longer.

Votto/Bruce/Stubbs + deep, young, starting pitching + solid farm = a competitive team for awhile.

Brutus
10-18-2010, 11:47 PM
Pull the trigger on Lee, Walt.

Oh, wait.

The Operator
10-18-2010, 11:51 PM
Pull the trigger on Lee, Walt.

Oh, wait.I don't see how anyone, at this point, can say he wouldn't have made a difference.

But at least we still have our prospects!

kaldaniels
10-18-2010, 11:57 PM
In multiple threads throughout August and September, the point was driven home that Lee was performing mediocre and how foolish it would have been for the Reds to have traded some good chips for him...

And every chance I got I responded with the fact that the trade was made with the playoffs in mind, not the regular season.

This is what I was talking about. (And I'm sure many were with me on that point...not like it was an original thought)

That said, hard to tell where we would be with him right now. I would guess in the NLCS myself.

fearofpopvol1
10-19-2010, 12:33 AM
I don't see how anyone, at this point, can say he wouldn't have made a difference.

This

edabbs44
10-19-2010, 01:32 AM
In multiple threads throughout August and September, the point was driven home that Lee was performing mediocre and how foolish it would have been for the Reds to have traded some good chips for him...

And every chance I got I responded with the fact that the trade was made with the playoffs in mind, not the regular season.

This is what I was talking about. (And I'm sure many were with me on that point...not like it was an original thought)

That said, hard to tell where we would be with him right now. I would guess in the NLCS myself.

The only difference was that Cincy, in July, did not have a 9 game lead like Texas did. But I agree with you from Texas' POV.

kaldaniels
10-19-2010, 01:50 AM
The only difference was that Cincy, in July, did not have a 9 game lead like Texas did. But I agree with you from Texas' POV.

Even so, if you are going to pay a hefty price for a starting pitcher rental, the payoff in mind has to be playoff performance.

Giving up good prospects for a rental, but to then be dismissed in the first round would be disheartening to say the least.

I know what you are saying about the differences between the Reds and Rangers at the deadline though.

TheNext44
10-19-2010, 03:28 AM
I don't see how anyone, at this point, can say he wouldn't have made a difference.

But at least we still have our prospects!

Of course he would have made a difference. If the Reds traded for Bud Norris, he would have made a difference. The question is how much of a difference, and at what cost?

He didn't pitch better than the pitchers he would have replaced during the regular season, so you really can't argue that the Reds would have won more games in the regular season. Obviously, we have no idea how he would have done as a Reds, but that works both ways, he could have been even worse in GABP.

As for the playoffs, maybe he would have made enough of a difference in game one, but again, that is pure conjecture. Odds are, the Reds still would have lost game one even with Lee pitching. He did give up a run in both of his starts in the ALDS.

But lets say the Reds did win game one with him. They still would have lost game 2. No way anyone can argue that losing game one lead to the loss in game two. The Reds were leading 4-0 and blew it with errors and bad relief work. They were clearly not overwhelmed by being no hit, they clearly just choked. And then they got shutout in game three. I think at best, adding Lee would have meant that the Reds lose the series 3-2 instead of 3-0.

I don't understand how anyone could have watched the NLDS against the Phillies and not conclude that the Reds simply were not ready for prime time. They choked, they blew it, they screwed up. I am more confident that they would have made an error behind Lee in game one to blow it, than I am that he would have lead them to victory.

And even if you think the might have lead them to victory in the series, you have to admit that the odds were small, very small. And would it have been worth it to lose valuable players just for a very small chance of advancing one more round? It's not even close for me.

Boss-Hog
10-19-2010, 07:31 AM
Of course he would have made a difference. If the Reds traded for Bud Norris, he would have made a difference. The question is how much of a difference, and at what cost?

He didn't pitch better than the pitchers he would have replaced during the regular season, so you really can't argue that the Reds would have won more games in the regular season. Obviously, we have no idea how he would have done as a Reds, but that works both ways, he could have been even worse in GABP.

As for the playoffs, maybe he would have made enough of a difference in game one, but again, that is pure conjecture. Odds are, the Reds still would have lost game one even with Lee pitching. He did give up a run in both of his starts in the ALDS.

But lets say the Reds did win game one with him. They still would have lost game 2. No way anyone can argue that losing game one lead to the loss in game two. The Reds were leading 4-0 and blew it with errors and bad relief work. They were clearly not overwhelmed by being no hit, they clearly just choked. And then they got shutout in game three. I think at best, adding Lee would have meant that the Reds lose the series 3-2 instead of 3-0.

I don't understand how anyone could have watched the NLDS against the Phillies and not conclude that the Reds simply were not ready for prime time. They choked, they blew it, they screwed up. I am more confident that they would have made an error behind Lee in game one to blow it, than I am that he would have lead them to victory.

And even if you think the might have lead them to victory in the series, you have to admit that the odds were small, very small. And would it have been worth it to lose valuable players just for a very small chance of advancing one more round? It's not even close for me.
When analyzing 'what would have happened had the trade been made', let's not forget that the Reds are very, very likely to be playing someone other than Philly (and with the homefield advantage) in the first round if they trade for Cliff Lee back in July.

bucksfan2
10-19-2010, 10:07 AM
Of course he would have made a difference. If the Reds traded for Bud Norris, he would have made a difference. The question is how much of a difference, and at what cost?

He didn't pitch better than the pitchers he would have replaced during the regular season, so you really can't argue that the Reds would have won more games in the regular season. Obviously, we have no idea how he would have done as a Reds, but that works both ways, he could have been even worse in GABP.

As for the playoffs, maybe he would have made enough of a difference in game one, but again, that is pure conjecture. Odds are, the Reds still would have lost game one even with Lee pitching. He did give up a run in both of his starts in the ALDS.

But lets say the Reds did win game one with him. They still would have lost game 2. No way anyone can argue that losing game one lead to the loss in game two. The Reds were leading 4-0 and blew it with errors and bad relief work. They were clearly not overwhelmed by being no hit, they clearly just choked. And then they got shutout in game three. I think at best, adding Lee would have meant that the Reds lose the series 3-2 instead of 3-0.

I don't understand how anyone could have watched the NLDS against the Phillies and not conclude that the Reds simply were not ready for prime time. They choked, they blew it, they screwed up. I am more confident that they would have made an error behind Lee in game one to blow it, than I am that he would have lead them to victory.

And even if you think the might have lead them to victory in the series, you have to admit that the odds were small, very small. And would it have been worth it to lose valuable players just for a very small chance of advancing one more round? It's not even close for me.

You can't analyze the series if the Reds had gotten Cliff Lee because it would have been different. What if the first game of the series is 0-0 into the 6th instead of 4-0? What if Lee is throwing up zero's at the same rate Halladay was? You would assume that the pressure would be a little more intense if the game was tied late instead of a 4 run margin. And you would also expect to see the Reds hitters playing a little more relaxed instead of pressing.

Its nice to say the outcome would have been the same because it is convenient. Look at the way the Rangers are playing with Lee and look at the prevalent reaction across baseball. With Lee on the mound fans and even more importantly the Rangers expect to win. They expect for Lee to go out there and post zero's. It makes the game, and series completely different with Lee on the Reds as opposed to Lee on the Rangers.

TheNext44
10-19-2010, 01:12 PM
When analyzing 'what would have happened had the trade been made', let's not forget that the Reds are very, very likely to be playing someone other than Philly (and with the homefield advantage) in the first round if they trade for Cliff Lee back in July.

Lee really didn't pitch any better for the Rangers in the regular season, than the guys he would have replaced in the Reds rotation. In fact, Wood pitched better than him. Lee was 4-6 with close to a 4.00 ERA, and he got hit hard in close to half his starts.

And even if the Reds avoid the Phillies in the first round, they definitely would see them in the second round. And even if not, they just didn't play very well in the playoffs, so I doubt it really mattered who they played, the Reds were not ready for prime time this year, and having Cliff Lee would not have changed that.

TheNext44
10-19-2010, 01:21 PM
You can't analyze the series if the Reds had gotten Cliff Lee because it would have been different. What if the first game of the series is 0-0 into the 6th instead of 4-0? What if Lee is throwing up zero's at the same rate Halladay was? You would assume that the pressure would be a little more intense if the game was tied late instead of a 4 run margin. And you would also expect to see the Reds hitters playing a little more relaxed instead of pressing.

Its nice to say the outcome would have been the same because it is convenient. Look at the way the Rangers are playing with Lee and look at the prevalent reaction across baseball. With Lee on the mound fans and even more importantly the Rangers expect to win. They expect for Lee to go out there and post zero's. It makes the game, and series completely different with Lee on the Reds as opposed to Lee on the Rangers.

Even if the Reds win game one because of Lee, they still played terribly the rest of the series, and losing game one had nothing to do with it. They blew a 4-0 lead in game two with a lot of errors and bad middle relief. Having Lee, and having won the first game was not going to change that.

As I said, getting Lee at best means that Reds lose the series 3-2 instead of 3-0.

I will say that having Lee would have increased the Reds chances of winning the series, but only by a very small amount. There are a lot if's in that scenerio. Maybe by 10%, 20% at the very most. So we need to ask ourselves, is a package that is bigger than Alonso, Valaika, Valiquette, and Fisher (which is about what the Rangers gave up for Lee) worth a 20% increase in the chance that the Reds advance one more round in the playoffs?

Captain Hook
10-19-2010, 01:26 PM
Lee really didn't pitch any better for the Rangers in the regular season, than the guys he would have replaced in the Reds rotation. In fact, Wood pitched better than him. Lee was 4-6 with close to a 4.00 ERA, and he got hit hard in close to half his starts.

And even if the Reds avoid the Phillies in the first round, they definitely would see them in the second round. And even if not, they just didn't play very well in the playoffs, so I doubt it really mattered who they played, the Reds were not ready for prime time this year, and having Cliff Lee would not have changed that.

The Reds pitching down the stretch was pretty good but I think Lee would've made a difference.We only missed out getting home field by a game or two.Even if all things were the same and the Reds still had to face the Phillies on the road, I'd have rather had Lee going up against Holladay in game 1 then Volquez.That would've been fun.

bucksfan2
10-19-2010, 01:29 PM
Even if the Reds win game one because of Lee, they still played terribly the rest of the series, and losing game one had nothing to do with it. They blew a 4-0 lead in game two with a lot of errors and bad middle relief. Having Lee, and having won the first game was not going to change that.

As I said, getting Lee at best means that Reds lose the series 3-2 instead of 3-0.

I will say that having Lee would have increased the Reds chances of winning the series, but only by a very small amount. There are a lot if's in that scenerio. Maybe by 10%, 20% at the very most. So we need to ask ourselves, is a package that is bigger than Alonso, Valaika, Valiquette, and Fisher (which is about what the Rangers gave up for Lee) worth a 20% increase in the chance that the Reds advance one more round in the playoffs?

Having Lee on the team changes the series. Lets pretend that the Reds behind Lee win game 1 of the series. That guarantees that Lee will get one more start in the LDS and with his track record that looks like a win for the Reds. Now the Reds jump out to a 4-0 lead in game 2 and you don't think all of a sudden the pressure intensifies for the Phillies? You don't think the Reds are playing looser in the field and looser at the plate. Now lets say Philly wins game 2 and travels to Cincy for game 3. They now MUST win that game because they know if they lose they will have Lee in a knock out game in Cincy. The pressure cooker intensifies even more.

Sure having Lee isn't a sure thing. But having the best post season pitcher of this generation is a huge boost to the team even in the games he doesn't pitch. Look at the Yankees for example, they now sit down 2-1 with AJ Burnett going tonight. You don't think Yankee nation is on edge right now? You think they want to see Lee again? Burnett would have pitched under pressure tonight regardless of the situation, but now with Lee looming in game 7 Burnett is pitching in a must win game tonight.

Roy Tucker
10-19-2010, 02:36 PM
I don't think you can predict the effects of plugging Lee into the Reds starting rotation by just doing a strat-o-matic exchanging of stats and numbers.

I do think acquiring him would have had an effect on the mind-set of the ball club and affect the dynamics of the Phillies (and subseqent) series.

But its all conjecture and we can argue it till the cows come home but nobody will ever really know unless we can slip into a nearby parallel universe where the trade did happen.

Brutus
10-19-2010, 04:43 PM
Lee really didn't pitch any better for the Rangers in the regular season, than the guys he would have replaced in the Reds rotation. In fact, Wood pitched better than him. Lee was 4-6 with close to a 4.00 ERA, and he got hit hard in close to half his starts.

Lee's numbers with Texas (excluding playoffs):

118.1 IP
11 HR (7 of which were in two games, meaning he gave up 4 homers in his other 13 starts)
99 Ks
12 BBs
3.65 ERA
3.02 FIP

Those are some pretty good numbers. Not indicative of a guy that got hit hard too often (as looking solely at ERA). He had 15 starts for the Rangers, had 7 quality starts and 4 more starts where he gave up 4 earned runs.

It's hard to say what he would have done interacting with the best defense in the league (the Reds, at least until they decided they didn't want that title when the playoffs began), but I'd take that production.

TheNext44
10-19-2010, 05:08 PM
Lee's numbers with Texas (excluding playoffs):

118.1 IP
11 HR (7 of which were in two games, meaning he gave up 4 homers in his other 13 starts)
99 Ks
12 BBs
3.65 ERA
3.02 FIP

Those are some pretty good numbers. Not indicative of a guy that got hit hard too often (as looking solely at ERA). He had 15 starts for the Rangers, had 7 quality starts and 4 more starts where he gave up 4 earned runs.

It's hard to say what he would have done interacting with the best defense in the league (the Reds, at least until they decided they didn't want that title when the playoffs began), but I'd take that production.

Those numbers are not any better, in fact, they might even be worse, that what Volquez and Bailey did after the break. Lee was good, but he wasn't better than what the Reds got from the guys he would have replaced.

bucksfan2
10-19-2010, 05:14 PM
Those numbers are not any better, in fact, they might even be worse, that what Volquez and Bailey did after the break. Lee was good, but he wasn't better than what the Reds got from the guys he would have replaced.

Cliff Lee was acquired with the post season fully in focus. He did struggle in the regular season season but it was noted that he had a sore back and had treatment for that.

Here is what Cliff Lee was acquired for 7-0, 1.26 ERA. Even if he wasn't markedly better than Homer or Volquez he wouldn't have hurt the team down the stretch. Even if he was one game worse the Reds win the division by 4 games? 7-0, 1.26 ERA, most dominant post season pitcher of his generation.

Brutus
10-19-2010, 05:21 PM
Those numbers are not any better, in fact, they might even be worse, that what Volquez and Bailey did after the break. Lee was good, but he wasn't better than what the Reds got from the guys he would have replaced.

In the same timeframe:

Volquez: 62 IP, 67 Ks, 35 BBs, 6 HRs, 4.31 ERA, 3.89 FIP
Bailey: 58.1 IP, 59 Ks, 19 BBs, 4 HRs, 3.54 ERA, 2.95 FIP

You could make a good case for Bailey, but it's hard to argue that Lee couldn't have been an overall better replacement for Volquez.

But again, the Reds only needed to win two more games and they would have been in a position to host the Braves in the first round. Given 3 months of Cliff Lee, I have a hard time believing that wouldn't have been done. Cliff Lee is in another league of pitcher the Reds don't have. His mere presence could have been a big shot in the arm.

redsfandan
10-19-2010, 05:56 PM
And you're cheering on another team than the Reds right now...
That's news to me.

You have to know when to pounce on deals like this, and I would have went all in on Cliff Lee. I don't even mind overpaying if it means I got a much better chance of winning it all.
Nothing wrong with overpaying but how much is acceptable? Whatever it takes?? No, if that's what you think then that's where we disagree.

westofyou
10-19-2010, 06:00 PM
Cliff Lee is my pick for the Kevin Brown award.

He'll get too much money and then break down.

jojo
10-19-2010, 06:58 PM
Those numbers are not any better, in fact, they might even be worse, that what Volquez and Bailey did after the break. Lee was good, but he wasn't better than what the Reds got from the guys he would have replaced.

Really that statement only holds for Homer's numbers in 50+ innings in August/September....


He had a FIP under 3, and xFIP barely over 3 and was greater than a 3 WAR pitcher while averaging 7.1 IP/start for the Rangers in less than a half season. The Reds didn't have a single 3 WAR pitcher. Lee produced more WAR as a Ranger this season than Cueto posted the entire season.

This isn't an argument about whether the Reds should or should not have traded for Lee. It's simply demonstrating just how good Lee actually was...

Boss-Hog
10-19-2010, 09:23 PM
I just saw several responses to TheNext44's posts, and suffice to say, anything I had to add has already been covered. We'll never know if we would have beaten the Phillies with Lee had we indeed met up them, but regardless, I like our chances a lot better with him than without him.

PuffyPig
10-20-2010, 12:39 AM
. They expect for Lee to go out there and post zero's.

Then they will usually be disappointed.

I don't need to look at any stats to know that Lee (like every other pitcher in the majors) seldolm pitches zero's.

TheNext44
10-20-2010, 01:10 AM
Really that statement only holds for Homer's numbers in 50+ innings in August/September....

In 15 starts, Lee only had one more quality start than Volquez had in 12 starts (7-6). Volquez had 4 games in which he gave up 4 or more runs. Lee had 8.

Looking only at his K/BB and HR/9 ratios, which is mostly that WAR does, Lee was outstanding. Looking at how many hits and runs he gave up, he was average at best. The truth lies somewhere in between, imo.

Brutus
10-20-2010, 01:39 AM
In 15 starts, Lee only had one more quality start than Volquez had in 12 starts (7-6). Volquez had 4 games in which he gave up 4 or more runs. Lee had 8.

Looking only at his K/BB and HR/9 ratios, which is mostly that WAR does, Lee was outstanding. Looking at how many hits and runs he gave up, he was average at best. The truth lies somewhere in between, imo.

He had a 3.18 ERA this year. Even looking at the big picture, which is tainted by what was effected by persons not in his control, he still didn't give up many runs. Even looking at his time in Texas, his 3.65 ERA was indicative of a guy that pitched remarkably well.

To me, hits allowed is the only thing, in a short sample, that doesn't flatter his performance. It's probably not prudent to focus on that when his control, ability to miss bats, largely prevent runs and keep the ball in the ballpark all paint a pretty picture of him.

Sea Ray
07-19-2012, 12:10 PM
I wonder if these rumors are true. A deal of Wood, Mes and Alonzo sound so far superior to what they actually got. At this point it'd be worth discussing whether Smoak is superior to Alonzo.

A 2 mo rental of Lee was worth Alonso and a AA pitcher. That's about it.





Of course this story is still being written but two years later I think a case can be made that Alonso would have been a better choice than Smoak.

I do think that there's something about Safeco that spooks hitters. Perhaps that's got something to do with Smoak's problems but he looks lost right now with his long swings and constantly going for the fences while Alonso seems to have found his niche in the middle of the SD lineup hitting balls into the gaps.

What do the rest of you think?

Tom Servo
07-19-2012, 01:22 PM
Yep, Seattle should have taken our deal.

traderumor
07-19-2012, 01:25 PM
Of course this story is still being written but two years later I think a case can be made that Alonso would have been a better choice than Smoak.

I do think that there's something about Safeco that spooks hitters. Perhaps that's got something to do with Smoak's problems but he looks lost right now with his long swings and constantly going for the fences while Alonso seems to have found his niche in the middle of the SD lineup hitting balls into the gaps.

What do the rest of you think?I don't know Smoak, but Alonso has always been viewed as a gap to gap type slugger with home runs being more incidental than the slugger type, which is why many thought he would be a good fit for Petco. Casey is my comp, except he may have a little more pop than Casey. Heck, he might even get a few triples a year there ;)

Big Klu
07-19-2012, 02:59 PM
I like Alonso better than Smoak. I liked Alonso better in 2010, too. But the important thing is that the Mariners liked Smoak better.

Blitz Dorsey
07-19-2012, 03:12 PM
The Mariners are racking up underachieving offensive players. They might lead the league in that category. How in the world is a light-hitting second-baseman like Dustin Ackley the No. 2 overall pick of a draft? Jesus Montero might be good one day, but he's not yet. And Smoak has been a complete bust.

Then you have Ichiro who's playing like he's close to 50, not just close to 40.

jojo
07-19-2012, 03:40 PM
The Mariners are racking up underachieving offensive players. They might lead the league in that category. How in the world is a light-hitting second-baseman like Dustin Ackley the No. 2 overall pick of a draft? Jesus Montero might be good one day, but he's not yet. And Smoak has been a complete bust.

Then you have Ichiro who's playing like he's close to 50, not just close to 40.

Ackley is going to be an above average major league hitter. Right now he is struggling with making an adjustment and opposing pitchers are pounding him on it. This will get solved. Montero likewise is going to be an above average hitter. Saunders is starting to look like he is going to be a legitimte everyday player and Seager has been a positive too. Also FG looks like his bat is going to be back now that he is healthy and gained back most of his weight.

I'm not so sure on Smoak's long term outlook at this point. That said, turning the clocks back to the trade, Smoak projected as a better fit for Safeco than Alonzo.

It should be pointed out as well that for some reason Safeco has demolished offense this year. At home the Ms hitters are .196/.275/.288 (OPS=.563). But on the road they've been basically average for an AL team with a line of: .260/.310/.425 (OPS=.735) which incidentally is better than the Reds overall performance to date.

Things aren't as bad as a quick look might suggest. They're a young team with alot of near ready talent in the pipeline as well. There will be growing pains and some misses but there is considerable space between the head and ceiling with their team.

Brutus
07-19-2012, 05:29 PM
The Mariners are racking up underachieving offensive players. They might lead the league in that category. How in the world is a light-hitting second-baseman like Dustin Ackley the No. 2 overall pick of a draft? Jesus Montero might be good one day, but he's not yet. And Smoak has been a complete bust.

Then you have Ichiro who's playing like he's close to 50, not just close to 40.

None of them have come close to living up to their billing, that's for certain.

They've been pretty mediocre, flat-out. Hard to describe it any other way.

OPS+

Smoak (70)
Ichiro (83)
Ackley (84)
Montero (92)

And since OPS+ takes park factors into account, it can't really be argued that Safeco is the root cause of the extreme suckitude.

dougdirt
07-19-2012, 05:30 PM
Dustin Ackley had a 120 OPS+ last season Blitz. Brandon Phillips has never had an offensive season that good. The best he has had was 118.

jojo
07-19-2012, 08:19 PM
Dustin Ackley had a 120 OPS+ last season Blitz. Brandon Phillips has never had an offensive season that good. The best he has had was 118.

Right. There is talent there. Below are Home/Away splits. If these were normalized for 600 PAs (i.e. a full season for each split), Ackley would be 3.4 WAR better on the road than at home, Ichiro would be 3.7 WAR better, Montero would be 4.2 WAR better and Smoak would be 5.5 WAR better on the road than at home (roughly the same difference as the league is performing in Safeco versus everywhere else).

Discounting the effect of Safeco this season leads to incorrect conclusions.



Player Split BA OBP SLG OPS wOBA
Ackley Home 0.210 0.292 0.266 0.558 0.250
Away 0.249 0.321 0.386 0.707 0.313

Player Split BA OBP SLG OPS wOBA
Ichiro Home 0.214 0.255 0.289 0.544 0.240
Away 0.305 0.330 0.405 0.724 0.311

Player Split BA OBP SLG OPS wOBA
Montero Home 0.206 0.247 0.333 0.580 0.250
Away 0.301 0.339 0.431 0.771 0.330

Player Split BA OBP SLG OPS wOBA
Smoak Home 0.160 0.224 0.229 0.454 0.206
Away 0.228 0.296 0.422 0.719 0.311

Player Split BA OBP SLG OPS wOBA
AL Safeco 0.202 0.272 0.305 0.577 0.246
Total 0.256 0.323 0.413 0.735 0.320

Tom Servo
07-19-2012, 08:24 PM
Good points jojo, and I think Ackley and Montero will be fine, but it still doesn't justify Smoak.

jojo
07-19-2012, 08:25 PM
Good points jojo, and I think Ackley and Montero will be fine, but it still doesn't justify Smoak.

I'm starting to readjust my expectations for Smoak. He plays a position that has a higher bar for his bat.

edabbs44
07-19-2012, 09:36 PM
Dustin Ackley had a 120 OPS+ last season Blitz. Brandon Phillips has never had an offensive season that good. The best he has had was 118.

Ackley only played 90 games last year, started off hot as hell and then plummeted back to earth. Not sure we should be using 2011 as his baseline.

Brutus
07-19-2012, 09:42 PM
Ackley only played 90 games last year, started off hot as hell and then plummeted back to earth. Not sure we should be using 2011 as his baseline.

True. In fact, he actually has a few more plate appearances already this year than he did last year.

dougdirt
07-19-2012, 09:52 PM
Ackley only played 90 games last year, started off hot as hell and then plummeted back to earth. Not sure we should be using 2011 as his baseline.

Not really using it as his baseline, just saying that he hit pretty darn well last year.

RedEye
07-19-2012, 10:05 PM
Why is this thread entitled "Cliff Lee Discussion"? I'm confused.

edabbs44
07-19-2012, 10:11 PM
Not really using it as his baseline, just saying that he hit pretty darn well last year.

I'm sure we can find a bunch of guys who got off to hot starts in their careers who then fell back to earth after a few months. It is kind of difficult to get behind any sort of comparison of Ackley and Phillips and, to be honest, it is pretty ridiculous to even compare them at this stage.

dougdirt
07-19-2012, 10:22 PM
I'm sure we can find a bunch of guys who got off to hot starts in their careers who then fell back to earth after a few months. It is kind of difficult to get behind any sort of comparison of Ackley and Phillips and, to be honest, it is pretty ridiculous to even compare them at this stage.

Well it is. When Phillips was Ackleys age he was a malcontent flop of a prospect about to be moved for Jeff Stevens. The next year Phillips posted an 88 OPS+, all of 4 points better than that of Ackley right now.

You are right though, it could be like many other stories where a guy started off hot and never does anything again. I just don't exactly expect it with a guy who was a top prospect, with a good pedigree and solid peripherals in 177 career MLB games.

Nathan
07-20-2012, 12:36 AM
Why is this thread entitled "Cliff Lee Discussion"? I'm confused.

It's a zombie thread.