Reds trade for A's pitcher Saarloos

[Cyclone792]

Given Saarloos' ground ball tendencies, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this ...

• Saarloos career at home: 0.75 HR/9
• Saarloos career at Network Associates: 0.85 HR/9
• Saarloos career on the road: 1.30 HR/9

He'll get a boost from the AL/NL switch, but he's also moving out of a home park park that suppresses home runs and moving into GABP. Also, as has been mentioned previously, the NL Central road parks where Saarloos will log a decent chunk of road innings are also HR friendly.

If Kirk Saarloos walks as many guys as he strikes out in 2007, which he's done the past three seasons, and puts up a HR/9 in the 1.30 range in 2007, which he's done for his career on the road, then there won't be many people satisfied one bit with his performance come summer.

[Eric_Davis]

I'd take EZ's 2006 over Saarloos 2005 in GAB any day of the week.

EZ K's more batters, walks fewer batters, has better overall control and is four years younger.

EZ is better than Saarloos.

That makes no sense. Ramirez' 2006 was horrible. It was worse than Milton's and worse than Lohse'.

[Kc61]

I like the trade, but I can understand the criticism of Saarloos. What I don't understand is the expectations for certain pitchers who are not highly rated prospects and have had, at most, limited success to date. Please show me the basis for the upbeat expectations for 2007 for guys like Ramirez, Belisle, Shafer and Salmon.

On top of everything, keep in mind that Ramirez, who I like as a young pitcher, and Belisle, about whom I am less positive, both had injury plagued 2006 seasons. Do we have info that they are both over their physical problems and are ready to throw 180 innings?

Krivsky can't count on the maybes presented by these guys and so he went out and got a decent experienced starter -- and got him cheaply. Hard for me to understand what better in-house options he had.

[TRF]

That makes no sense. Ramirez' 2006 was horrible. It was worse than Milton's and worse than Lohse'.

the overall results were worse. But it ain't all W's and L's

in 2006, EZ had a K/9 of 5.97 in Cincinnati, and 8.55 in AAA. His HR/9 was 1.21, and .90 at AAA. He had a 2.51 BB/9, and a .90 BB/9 in AAA.

In 2005 in 159 IP Sarloos K'd 53 guys.
In 2006 in 104 IP EZ k'd 69 guys.

It really isn't even close. BTW, EZ had a better K rate than Milton too. Now Lohse did have a better year (half year really) than all three. but really, he isn't much of a K pitcher either, and his numbers will fall back to his career norms.

[lollipopcurve]

On top of everything, keep in mind that Ramirez, who I like as a young pitcher, and Belisle, about whom I am less positive, both had injury plagued 2006 seasons. Do we have info that they are both over their physical problems and are ready to throw 180 innings?

Krivsky can't count on the maybes presented by these guys and so he went out and got a decent experienced starter -- and got him cheaply. Hard for me to understand what better in-house options he had.

Exactly. EZ and Belisle need to show they can stay healthy.

[TRF]

On top of everything, keep in mind that Ramirez, who I like as a young pitcher, and Belisle, about whom I am less positive, both had injury plagued 2006 seasons. Do we have info that they are both over their physical problems and are ready to throw 180 innings?

Injury plagued is a phrase I would not use to describe EZ's 2006. "Came down with an injury due to the complete inept handling of his manager" is a little better.

Belisle has back issues. He will always have back issues. But his stuff is light years ahead of Saarloos'.

So Salmon is unproven, but half the board has Bailey as the #3 starter by June?

[jojo]

Absolutely ridiculous. Saarloos in not junk. Don't use adjectives so loosely.

I posted this in another thread but it is on target here too:

Here' a comparison of guys on the Reds roster based upon Pecota projections for '07:

Belisle: GB%: 53% ; PERA: 4.60;
E. Ramirez: GB%: 46% ; PERA: 5.06;
Lohse: GB%: 45%; PERA: 5.05;
Saarloos: GB%: 53%; PERA: 5.15;
Livingston: GB%: 46%; PERA: 5.16;
Milton: GB%: 37%; PERA: 5.50;

Saarloos is roster fodder projected to give innings at below league average quality. He basically fits right in with the back end guys adding depth to the dregs fighting it out for the #5 slot/mop up guy role. I really don't mean to be beating him up like it probably appears that I am... but really Saarloos doesn't bring a ton to the team. It was a trade of spare parts by both GM's where each get to spend less on the new part than they would've had to have spent on the alternative. It's a move with no real downside for either team but it's also one with not a lot of upside. The Reds didn't acquire a #3. They got competition for the #5 spot/bullpen.

[Kc61]

Injury plagued is a phrase I would not use to describe EZ's 2006. "Came down with an injury due to the complete inept handling of his manager" is a little better.

Belisle has back issues. He will always have back issues. But his stuff is light years ahead of Saarloos'.

So Salmon is unproven, but half the board has Bailey as the #3 starter by June?

I like EZ. But he had an ERA over 5.3 last year. He was very inconsistent, although he did have some good outings. Given his injury -- however you categorize it -- the Reds just can't count on him this year. Frankly, I'd like to see him, if healthy, as a long reliever for awhile, before he is awarded a starting slot.

Belisle may have stuff, and he certainly throws harder than Saarloos, but his back is a major problem. The guy only pitched 40 innings last year. There is nothing in his performance post-back surgery to indicate that Belisle can be a major league starter.

Don't see how you can compare Salmon to Bailey. Based on everything I've read, Salmon is an ordinary prospect, who did have success last year but at age 26 (he is now 27) in AA and AAA. I hope he found something and has a great year, but again you can't count on him to be a contributor at the big league level.

[gonelong]

I posted this in another thread but it is on target here too:

Here' a comparison of guys on the Reds roster based upon Pecota projections for '07:

Belisle: GB%: 53% ; PERA: 4.60;
E. Ramirez: GB%: 46% ; PERA: 5.06;
Lohse: GB%: 45%; PERA: 5.05;
Saarloos: GB%: 53%; PERA: 5.15;
Livingston: GB%: 46%; PERA: 5.16;
Milton: GB%: 37%; PERA: 5.50;

Saarloos is roster fodder projected to give innings at below league average quality. He basically fits right in with the back end guys adding depth to the dregs fighting it out for the #5 slot/mop up guy role. I really don't mean to be beating him up like it probably appears that I am... but really Saarloos doesn't bring a ton to the team. It was a trade of spare parts by both GM's where each get to spend less on the new part than they would've had to have spent on the alternative. It's a move with no real downside for either team but it's also one with not a lot of upside. The Reds didn't acquire a #3. They got competition for the #5 spot/bullpen.

Just wondering, what is the breakout and regression chances of those same pitchers per PECOTA.

GL

[pedro]

I posted this in another thread but it is on target here too:

[B][U]..... The Reds didn't acquire a #3. They got competition for the #5 spot/bullpen.

I agree. It's just filler depth as they don't have any ML starters other than Bailey that are even close to contributing

[Eric_Davis]

TRF, there's numbers that can go for and against Ramirez having a better or worse 2006 than Milton or Lohse. That vast array of numbers I use leave him having worse numbers, but Saarloos' 2005 was head and shoulders better than all three. Saarloos' 2005 numbers would make him a solid #3 starter on this team. Ramirez gets the age factor, but I'm only looking at numbers.

Pitcher's are strange ducks. It's difficult to predict what you'll get from any of these four in 2007, but I think that Saarloos' has a greater chance of putting up the best numbers of the four. Whether that translates to wins or losses in 2007 is out of his control as that has as much to do with run support and bullpen help.

There's so much need for improved talent on this team and Saarloos offers that for 2007 at a good price.

[TRF]

I like EZ. But he had an ERA over 5.3 last year. He was very inconsistent, although he did have some good outings. Given his injury -- however you categorize it -- the Reds just can't count on him this year. Frankly, I'd like to see him, if healthy, as a long reliever for awhile, before he is awarded a starting slot.

Belisle may have stuff, and he certainly throws harder than Saarloos, but his back is a major problem. The guy only pitched 40 innings last year. There is nothing in his performance post-back surgery to indicate that Belisle can be a major league starter.

Don't see how you can compare Salmon to Bailey. Based on everything I've read, Salmon is an ordinary prospect, who did have success last year but at age 26 (he is now 27) in AA and AAA. I hope he found something and has a great year, but again you can't count on him to be a contributor at the big league level.

Salmon just took a while to develop. He turned a corner at age 25. He's a converted starter that took a little while to adjust to relief. I'd say he is about as unproven in the Majors as Bailey.

Since we haven't heard a word about EZ, I'd say only the Reds and EZ know what his status is.

gonelong does PECOTA have projections for Santos?

[TRF]

TRF, there's numbers that can go for and against Ramirez having a better or worse 2006 than Milton or Lohse. That vast array of numbers I use leave him having worse numbers, but Saarloos' 2005 was head and shoulders better than all three. Saarloos' 2005 numbers would make him a solid #3 starter on this team. Ramirez gets the age factor, but I'm only looking at numbers.

Pitcher's are strange ducks. It's difficult to predict what you'll get from any of these four in 2007, but I think that Saarloos' has a greater chance of putting up the best numbers of the four. Whether that translates to wins or losses in 2007 is out of his control as that has as much to do with run support and bullpen help.

There's so much need for improved talent on this team and Saarloos offers that for 2007 at a good price.

What numbers? name one thing Sarrloos did in 2005 better than EZ did in 2006? Other than ERA and W's (the first is deceiving, the second is a team dependent stat) name one thing he did better.

[Bill]

To receive a player of Saarloos' age with the number of innings he's pitched in the Majors so far, the ONLY scenario for making the trade if you're giving away younger talent is that the upside of the younger player must be better than the Major Leaguer, and the upside must be progressively better the younger the player is as his chances of reaching the Majors diminishes the further away that he is from being there.

ED, I am quite aware of trade dynamics. My point was that the A's liked Neu as well, a similar soft-tosser that got results as a minor leaguer. Neu put up fairly good numbers for the A's- for one year- and then fell off the face of the earth. The very same could happen with Shafer or he could have a longer go at it.

Regardless, Saarloos will not improve the Reds rotation but rather improve its depth at mediocrity. Is that worth the potential higher upside you speak of in the player traded. Yes, if Shafer is Mike Neu, but either way Saarloos is not the pitcher the Reds needed to add to the rotation to make any difference in the upcoming season.

[Eric_Davis]

Let's make some predictions, but let's keep it simple. I don't care about walks, strikeouts, HR's...

How many innings pitched, quality starts, OPS, and where will his ERA finish (I know, ERA is not that important)?

Is there a way to bookmark this thread to come back to it in October?

Here's mine:

181 innings pitched

15 quality starts (6+ innings with 3 or fewer earned runs)

752 OPS

3.92 ERA