If new ownership is really serious about winning, then we shouldn't have to worry about him walking away a free agent before he's 27Originally Posted by M2
If new ownership is really serious about winning, then we shouldn't have to worry about him walking away a free agent before he's 27
Agreed on that, especially the first part.
I've seen you compare Bonderman a couple times with Bailey. It may be a fair comp age-wise, but IIRC, Bonderman had major league command of 2 pitches (fastball, slider) when he was brought up to the majors. He also had a changeup and a curve that was an average - above average pitch, but he had trouble commanding them. Still, if he was having problems locating his fastball, he had his slider to go to. Also, he would have lost 20 games that first year had they not skipped his starts at the end of the year. He finished with 19 L's, a 5.56 ERA, a 1.55 WHIP, allowed 23 HR's.
'When I'm not longer rapping, I want to open up an ice cream parlor and call myself Scoop Dogg.'
-Snoop on his retirement
Your Mom is happy.
Define 'nowhere near'.... because I take that as within a full run of ERA and I think Homer Bailey could easily post a 5.89 ERA or lower right now in the NL.... if he just threw fastballs.
I seriously, seriously doubt he'd have a 5.89 ERA as a starter just throwing fastballs.
And, of course, performance is more than ERA: K/9, OPSA, HRs surrendered, BB totals--all far more important.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
Red Leader, I was dead serious that I would not flinch if Bailey had a rough go of it in Cincy, and am fully aware of what Bonderman's first year was. I am also aware of the success it has laid the groundwork for.
Again, it's simply a philosophical difference at this point, and neither side, frankly, is wrong. Or right. There are no guarantees that whatever they do is the right thing to do. Or not do.
But if it were me, I would bring him up in June about 24 hours after the window closes to start his Super 2 stuff early. That's me.
Ok... maybe not, but I bet it would be close. Although I would bet he would easily be close to what Bonderman did in 2004 in terms of ERA, K/9 and HR allowed. He probably would have a higher walk rate, but still within half a walk/9 in my estimation.
I don't doubt that Bailey could post and ERA under 6 right now... I just don't see who that would help anyone....
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
That's the trouble with walking a lot of people and having command of only one MLB pitch--you won't stick around long enough to put up the kind of K totals that Bonderman put up in 2004. It's a delicate balance; in a lot of ways, it's crucial for a young pitcher to start well because if he doesn't then he's buried beneath a bunch of grotesque numbers (high ERA, low Ks, high BBs) that he may not bounce back from.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
He wont stick around to match those totals anyways.... Bonderman threw 180 innings that year, Bailey wont get close to that, even if they called him up today.
I understand that. You're missing my point--I was speaking hypothetically about Bailey starting the season in MLB and replicating Bonderman's 2004 numbers.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
Hypothetically he could be having the exact same season he is having in AAA.
Which would make him the Reds, and a legitimate, ace.
I'd put up with one year like Bonderman's 2004. The Tigers paid for two, plus that dog JB put on in 2003. Had he been a rookie in 2005, he'd right now be a plus pitcher staring at arbitration starting next season instead of on a four-year, $38M contract at age 24. Basically what I'm saying here is don't pay for a 21-and-under pitcher unless he's Dwight Gooden (a full grown man with a a full grown man's stuff). I'd trade Homer at 21 for Homer at 27.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
But would Bonderman have still gone through an adjustment upon getting up in 2005? I say yes. Perhaps it would not have been like 2003, but he also would not have gone straight to his 2005 numbers I don't imagine. The work he did in Detroit in 2003 and 2004 paved the way for his 2005...
Exactly my question--that presupposes adjustments made at AAA would transfer to MLB success.
I'd pay 5-7 million for Bonderman's 2004--it was a better season than what Harang's putting up currently, in a much tougher offensive division.
Bonderman's career arc has been about all you can ask for. Plus he looks like Powder combined with Michael Chiklis--which is rad.
Last edited by Falls City Beer; 05-29-2007 at 06:08 PM.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
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. |
Reply With Quote