Good that means we both like two pitchers? I like both of these guys better than any pitcher the Reds had coming through the system in years. I also like What Basham did until he said that the reason he made such big strides was that the Reds completely redid his delivery and you knew him and Doc Hollywood spend plenty of time together. I also like this years draft of pitchers. The top 3 of 4 HS pitchers will be good pitchers. Bailey, Gonzalez, and ValiquetteOriginally Posted by guernsey
Last edited by Redmachine2003; 11-30-2004 at 09:56 PM.
Only three of those games the "bullpen lost" were quality starts for Wilson, so it' not like he didn't ever tax the pen by going short in games or needed the offense to pick him up.I don't care what the OPS of the two were. You can look at that stat all day long and quote it but anyone who kept up with this team at all last year knows that Paul Wilson pitched much much better than Lidle did. Sure Lidle would go through streaks of 2-3 games were he pitched wonderful but Wilson was fairly solid all year and kept us in a lot of games that the bullpen later lost.
I kept up with this team all last year, and I'll be the first to say (and was last year) that Wilson's smoke-and-mirror job isn't something a team should hang their hat on. There isn't a metric out there that shows Wilson to project anything resembling a 4.34 ERA (OPS Against is one of those) in 2005. He's the same pitcher he was three years ago and pretty much the same pitcher Cory Lidle was in 2004...well, except that Lidle pitched more Innings.
"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer
"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
Having Wilson on your staff isn't bad, but having him as your number one starter is.
Here's a good historical comparison.
30 years ago yhe Reds inked a new starterand the the Reds just inked a guy who has pitched over 870 innings and started over 110 games, he walks a little more than average thus he allows a small percentage more of baserunners. Therefore his ERA is a bit above average for his career.
Then he'd give you this.
Now imagine Fred Norman as your number one starter.Code:FRED NORMAN 1975-1976 YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA 1975 Reds 32 12 4 .750 34 26 2 0 1 188 163 85 78 84 119 3.73 0 1976 Reds 33 12 7 .632 33 24 8 0 2 180.1 153 71 62 70 126 3.09 10 TOTALS 24 11 .686 67 50 10 0 3 368.1 316 156 140 154 245 3.42 10 LG AVERAGE 20 20 .500 11 1 368.1 356 166 146 137 205 3.57 0 YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL 1975 Reds 23 7.80 11.82 5.70 4.02 1.42 0 9 5 0 795 1 8 8 1976 Reds 10 7.64 11.28 6.29 3.49 1.80 3 6 5 3 745 0 11 8 TOTALS 33 7.72 11.56 5.99 3.76 1.59 3 15 10 3 1540 1 19 16 LG AVERAGE 25 8.71 12.23 5.00 3.35 1.49 3 12 16 7 1569 3
Not in late August, and that's a lot closer to the finish line than any point when the Reds were in 1st place in the past four seasons.And the Reds were in first place at some point each of the past four seasons.
Same argument gets made every offseason and during the season, sometimes by you. New crap replaces the old crap on the crap conveyor.
Yeah, that's how you use data to gain advantage. Ignore what it's telling you and the problem will go away. Wilson did not have an all right ERA and WHIP. He was below average on both counts. That's what the data would tell you if you gave it a careful look.
Wilson also got superlative run support last season (roughly the same amount the Cards scored on average and better than what the Astros scored) and he only won 11 games. So I don't see where the notion that he'd be a 15-game winner elsewhere holds much water. Not to mention that his pitching stats would have suffered in a more close-cropped park.
Though I get the distinct sense guernsey was driving at something in the sarcastic vein when he answered this question for me, he got the general facts of it right. I like Pauly and Gardner, though I don't think they'll be able to offer immediate help. 2007 is a sensible timeline for both. Some people run on the theory that if a kid's a "prospect" he's got to be ready tomorrow. It doesn't work that way.
Dustin Moseley's shown flashes, but they've only been brief. Bubba Nelson has talent, but he's got to get back on track this season. Steve Kelly could be a sleeper, but no way would I bank on that. IMO, everyone else is too young to put them on the visible horizon.
Anyway, my take is whatever starting pitching help the farm can provide isn't coming anytime soon.
And that's not the point. The Reds need to pay money to pitchers who can elevate the staff. Wilson, at his best, only manages to keep the team from constantly scraping bottom. The Reds just spent $3.6M on what they don't need. I have no issue with them spending more to get what they do need. I'm all for them spending more to get what they do need.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Thank you for the vote of confidence in me, but here's the definitive statement.I don't recall the Reds saying anything definitive on the matter, but I'll take your word it as I was paying next to no attention to these things for a few months.
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/11/11/reds11-11-2004.htmlReds' payroll, prices going up
By Marc Lancaster
Post staff reporter
Trying his best to mine the good news from an inherently unpleasant public-relations situation, John Allen said Wednesday the Reds' payroll will increase for 2005.
The club's chief operating officer wouldn't say how much the budget for player salaries might rise, but he did say it was one of the reasons behind a significant bump in single-game ticket prices for next season.
Nope, not this time.Though I get the distinct sense guernsey was driving at something in the sarcastic vein when he answered this question for me ...
Sorry.
Hair meet axe. If you're a free agent sitting down listening to pitches from sub-.500 teams it all translates to "We have some talent and we've been able to compete to a degree, but we need you to put us over the top."
Well, that leaves me less than filled with confidence. That could mean they spend $48M next season. I'll wait for a definitive number or a significant addition before I get enthusiastic about that.Trying his best to mine the good news from an inherently unpleasant public-relations situation, John Allen said Wednesday the Reds' payroll will increase for 2005.
The club's chief operating officer wouldn't say how much the budget for player salaries might rise, but he did say it was one of the reasons behind a significant bump in single-game ticket prices for next season.
Last edited by M2; 11-30-2004 at 10:19 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
The point is that the Reds paid market value for Wilson, maybe a little less.And that's not the point. The Reds need to pay money to pitchers who can elevate the staff. Wilson, at his best, only manages to keep the team from constantly scraping bottom. The Reds just spent $3.6M on what they don't need. I have no issue with them spending more to get what they do need. I'm all for them spending more to get what they do need.
The next point is that of the NL FA pitchers with Win Shares equal to or greater than Wilson will all be significantly more costly than him, and quite possibly for not a lot of added production. Folks salivate over Matt Clement and his three additional Win Shares. Why is Clement worth $5M (or more) a season more than Wilson for three extra WS?
I'm willing to bet right here, right now, that the Reds don't log 324 innings next year from pitchers with ERAs over 6.00.Same argument gets made every offseason and during the season, sometimes by you. New crap replaces the old crap on the crap conveyor.
Any takers?
Archive this sucker.
Well, if they have $9M to spend after arbitration, using $3M to beef up the 'pen leaves $6M for a starter. That could land a Milton or Perez or Leiber. Maybe Millwood, if Boras gets too greedy and he's not signed on Groundhog Day.That leaves you with $9M left to spend on additional pitching (though it could be $4M less if the team's using that higher salary estimation). DanO's been pretty vocal about chasing bullpen help, so that's probably $1M-$3M out of the pie. Dunn may cost more if the team wants to sign him to an extension, based on the principle that you pay a little more up front in order to keep his salary reasonable down the road.
All tolled, that might leave you enough for a flyer on Matt Morris or Woody Williams -- better options than Lidle was last year, but essentially you've got the same club as in 2004. Again that's if the club uses your $43M starting point in getting to $50M and not the higher figure they traditionally use. Either way, I'm not seeing a lot of room for two quality pitchers in there.
As for the starter acquired through trade, I'm looking for it to be about an even swap of salaries. Position player for pitcher of roughly equal service time and $$, so the budget impact is minimal.
Well you could have made this bet after 2003, claiming the Reds wouldn't get 382 such innings from such horrid pitchers again in 2004 and I suppose you'd have been right, but the team ERA went up anyway.
I'll bet you this. The 2005 Reds get lots of work from lots of bad pitchers.
And, as has been stated too many times in this thread and in previous months, others will pay far less for better. The Reds bid against themselves for a pitcher they didn't need.
The point with Clement is he can get you 15+ WS, while Wilson's ceiling is just about 8. You're paying for his coming seasons and, IMO, Clement's been dogged by some bad luck his past two years, his peripherals are better than his outcomes. That worm turns (or just flattens out) and you've got yourself a heck of a pitcher.
Milton, no thanks. Lieber, maybe but I wouldn't pay more than $4M for him and I'd be real nervous about it. Millwood maybe, but only for a cheap one-year deal. Basically Perez is the only guy on your list who does anything for me. And you haven't allocated any extra cash toward Dunn's LTC, which may be necessary.
As for the trade, if that's your plan, you'd better hope someone LOVES D'Angelo Jiminez. Or you could trade Dunn, which strikes me as a thoroughly horrid idea. The best way to work the trade market is to do it with some cash in your pocket so you can ease someone else's financial pain. Costs you less in talent, and the Reds need to horde talent, plus teams don't tend to trade good pitchers they can afford, which is what you've assumed with your plan.
Last edited by M2; 11-30-2004 at 11:30 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Now that's definitive!!The 2005 get lots of work from lots of bad pitchers.
:MandJ: :MandJ:
Good night.
Because it's not three extra Win Shares.
(BTW, the best Pitchers are consistently worth fewer Win Shares than their offensive counterparts. Just an FYI. Win Shares, although I like THT's numbers better, are fairly nebulous when applied to pitchers. Wish we had the formula but oh well.)
Over the past three seasons, Clement is worth 18 more Earned Runs (or about 20 total Runs) than Wilson per 200 IP (as if Wilson will ever SEE 200 IP in a single season). That's just about the Run Value difference between an .750 OPS hitter and a .850 OPS hitter. Basically, that's about two standard performance deviations and the upper level is worth geometrically more than the lower.
But you're pimping the Wilson deal as being worth "market value". Problem is that you can only cite teams being stupid as the "market". Because smart teams understand that you don't pay as much for smoke and mirrors.
"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer
"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
Steel, stop making sense.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
