2006 Redzone mock Draftee's- 1(st) Daniel Bard(redsox), 1(st sup)( Jordan Walden (Angels), 2(nd) rd.- Zach Britton(Orioles), 3(rd) Blair Erickson(Cardinals), 3(rd) Tim Norton( Yankees),(cuz its a Tim Hortons thing
Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever.
One advantage of trading with Cleveland is that they might accept prospects which have a longer timeline to the majors.
As someone else said, they are so loaded, that they are one of the few teams willing to trade a guy like Lee without expecting ML ready talent in return.
I don't expect the Indians to give Lee away. Shapiro is a smart GM and knows about the shortage of pitching.
It's worth pursuing, IMO. I will keep beating the drum that as of now, we only have 3 starting pitchers. That's a recipe for disaster if the team wants to contend next year.
Thank you Walt and Bob for bringing winning baseball back to Cincy
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
We've discussed Lee 3-4 times already. Look at his stats. There are certain trends that are not encouraging. He also was not that good after being sent down to AAA, gave up quite a few walks if memory serves. He also has about 11 million left on his deal. It is also widely understood in Cleveland that Lee is not the brightest bulb in the pack. Did not take well to coaches tinkering with his delivery (in spite of his numbers dropping).
That all said, he is a lefty, has had success in the past and is relatively inexpensive to someof the deal being handed out. That and the dearth of decent pitching is why Shapiro won't give him away for nothing though the price is muchlower than it would have been a couple years ago.
I do like Sowers and Laffey though as left-handers.
I wouldn't trade anyone of real value for him
Cliff Lee is not this good. He's either the best pitcher pitcher in major league history or he's about to be introduced to the phrase "correction to the mean."
A .212 BAPIP is simply not sustainable. It's called luck and I don't want to trade for players who are lucky.
I think the lesson here is that a player's career isn't a "narrative." Meaning it doesn't follow a Freytag pyramid of inevitable rise and collapse.
There are more things in heaven and earth.... Or something.
(Incidentally, I *seriously* doubt that most of Lee's success is "luck." I think most of it is skill).
The SABR people never rule out luck. Luck can last an entire season. Stats can indicate one thing and for a period of time a player can outplay his past.Yep, which makes it all the more interesting that old-school READREAD nailed this one while the SABR-guys on the board whiffed. Just an observation.
But the reason I love stats, the law of large numbers, and all that jazz is that when you look at a large sample size (5 weeks of Cliff Lee's magical singing road show is not a large sample size) Cliff Lee will be Clliff Lee. It can't be otherwise. One poster said it best: there's was nothing to ever suggest he was this good, meaning pretty much just that. He isn't.
I guess he could have developed some new pitching style, but a 19.5 KK/BB ratio is not sustainable (in fact it's already fallen from that, I believe).
5 weeks of box scores do not anoint him as Cy Young.
FCB- his peripherals indicate luck. They do.
A pitcher cannot expect only 21 percent of the balls put in play against to fall in as hits when much, much better pitchers aren't having the same type of success.
I will bet anyone on here an opening day ticket to next year's game a GABP that Cliff Lee does not sustain a .212 BAPIP the entire season.