-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KronoRed
We'll remember him anchoring the 2016 rotation.
I don't see at all why they don't kick the tires on him for next year. He's going to get $4.5MM buyout from the D-Backs, so presumably he won't cost too much, and why not try to revitalize his career in a place where he's comfortable already and a place that is going to need pitching. I actually fully expect to see Bronson in red next year.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
How about he and Harang team back up, I always liked Harang better :D
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
I think Junkhead might be Beetlejuise
Let's say his name three times and find out
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Arroyo will go down in history as completely forgettable.
Not everybody's a Hall of Famer ya know.
There's nothing wrong with the hall of very good, Bronson qualifies for it, and very few guys are even eligible for that. Furthermore, there is something to be said for longevity, consistency, and health.I'll take a Bronson over say, a Homer Bailey, every time.
Also he will always at the very least be remembered for that leg kick.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Servo
By my count Arroyo made just around $70 million total with the Reds for 8 years (with 265 games started and 1,690 innings thrown) and 21.5 total WAR. Seems pretty reasonable.
That includes the years when he was young and cheap. In this conversation we are talking about contract extensions that don't work out well. When I commented on the Arroyo extension I was talking about the 2 year $28 million extension for 2012 and 2013 that they gave him at the same time they picked up his 2011 option. Essentially the Reds gave Arroyo a 3 year deal for $36 million for 5.1 bWAR from 2011-13, an average of $12 million and 1.7 WAR per season. I think most neutral observers would call that a bad contract extension. Not only that, the Reds will still be paying deferred money on that contract through the year 2021.
I also haven't forgotten that Arroyo admitted to using PEDs. From Wikipedia: "A day after reports claimed former Red Sox teammate David Ortiz was among 104 Major League players to have failed drug tests in 2003, Arroyo revealed he had used androstenedione and amphetamines in his career. Bronson Arroyo remarked that he would not be surprised if he was among the 104 players that failed tests, as he suspected the androstenedione he was taking may have been tainted with steroids."
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
That includes the years when he was young and cheap. In this conversation we are talking about contract extensions that don't work out well. When I commented on the Arroyo extension I was talking about the 2 year $28 million extension for 2012 and 2013 that they gave him at the same time they picked up his 2011 option. Essentially the Reds gave Arroyo a 3 year deal for $36 million for 5.1 bWAR from 2011-13, an average of $12 million and 1.7 WAR per season. I think most neutral observers would call that a bad contract extension. Not only that, the Reds will still be paying deferred money on that contract through the year 2021.
I'm taking the long view. The fact that Arroyo was paid more in the seasons where he was worse and less in his first few seasons doesn't mean a damn thing to me.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Servo
I'm taking the long view. The fact that Arroyo was paid more in the seasons where he was worse and less in his first few seasons doesn't mean a damn thing to me.
Then why reply to my post about contract extensions in a thread devoted to bad free agent contracts? No wonder the thread got hijacked into a Bronson Arroyo thread rather than the original topic discussing Shin Soo Choo's contract and Walt Jocketty's bad contract extensions.
Arroyo was a fine pitcher for a long time. He was cheap at first and then overpaid in his decline years, eventually getting hurt while being paid a lot of money by the Diamondbacks. He is the microcosmic argument for not signing pitchers to long term contracts.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
Then why reply to my post about contract extensions in a thread devoted to bad free agent contracts? No wonder the thread got hijacked into a Bronson Arroyo thread rather than the original topic discussing Shin Soo Choo's contract and Walt Jocketty's bad contract extensions.
Arroyo was a fine pitcher for a long time. He was cheap at first and then overpaid in his decline years, eventually getting hurt while being paid a lot of money by the Diamondbacks. He is the microcosmic argument for not signing pitchers to long term contracts.
I'm at fault for this thread going from Choo to being about Walt Jocketty?
I'm just saying you are honestly the first person I have heard say that Arroyo was "drastically overpaid for his mediocre production", which is why I replied to your comment. Everyone knows his 2011 sucked, but outside of that, his salary was never much of a concern nor should it have been.
And I reaaaaaaally don't see how a pitcher who started 32+ games every year for 8 straight years is the microcosmic argument for not signing pitchers to long term contracts. I'd say pitchers who have Tommy John, return, and then undergo another Tommy John are much better arguments.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Servo
I'm at fault for this thread going from Choo to being about Walt Jocketty?
I'm just saying you are honestly the first person I have heard say that Arroyo was "drastically overpaid for his mediocre production", which is why I replied to your comment. Everyone knows his 2011 sucked, but outside of that, his salary was never much of a concern nor should it have been.
And I reaaaaaaally don't see how a pitcher who started 32+ games every year for 8 straight years is the microcosmic argument for not signing pitchers to long term contracts. I'd say pitchers who have Tommy John, return, and then undergo another Tommy John are much better arguments.
There are several on this board that made up their minds about Arroyo a long time ago, and nothing he could have ever done would have changed that. His xFIP and WPIX indicated he wasn't worth the money he made, so for some it's an open and shut case. Others realize he ate a ton of quality innings, was a great clubhouse leader, and pitched (and won) some of the biggest games in the renaissance of this franchise. He dominated the Giants in Game 2 of 2012, but that's lost to history due to us choking the series away.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cincrazy
There are several on this board that made up their minds about Arroyo a long time ago, and nothing he could have ever done would have changed that. His xFIP and WPIX indicated he wasn't worth the money he made, so for some it's an open and shut case. Others realize he ate a ton of quality innings, was a great clubhouse leader, and pitched (and won) some of the biggest games in the renaissance of this franchise. He dominated the Giants in Game 2 of 2012, but that's lost to history due to us choking the series away.
Bronson provided real life production, not hypothetical, and that threatens many people's dogmatic understanding of baseball.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crumbley
Bronson provided real life production, not hypothetical, and that threatens many people's dogmatic understanding of baseball.
The Slim Sallee effect
http://www.thedeadballera.com/Photos...eeSlim1919.jpg
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
Not only that, the Reds will still be paying deferred money on that contract through the year 2021.
That actually decreases the value of the $12M annual sum. You act as if its a bad thing for the Reds???
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crumbley
Bronson provided real life production, not hypothetical, and that threatens many people's dogmatic understanding of baseball.
That Arroyo didn't actually provide as much real life production and wasn't nearly as valuable as some assume threatens many people's dogmatic understanding of baseball.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
I checked back in to this thread hoping for more jokes about humiliation.
I am profoundly disappointed.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
That Arroyo didn't actually provide as much real life production and wasn't nearly as valuable as some assume threatens many people's dogmatic understanding of baseball.
I'm not sure why you would choose to engage in an argument about a solid 8 year starting pitcher for the Reds, a rarity in this town, one who was an interesting character, got the most out of his abilities, and was a part of the Reds turnaround. Fond memories.
I mean, I agree completely with your evaluation of him, but you know where many's opinions on the guy are, and you know you aren't going to chance them. It's kind of a tasteless argument to push on this board IMO.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
This thread was going so well too.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Bronson Arroyo = Tom Browning. Solid middle of the rotation guy who was very dependable. I don't know if that's dogmatic or not. But I know what it was. Very similar to Mike Leake. Who I, would for one, resign in a heartbeat.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Patrick Bateman
I'm not sure why you would choose to engage in an argument about a solid 8 year starting pitcher for the Reds, a rarity in this town, one who was an interesting character, got the most out of his abilities, and was a part of the Reds turnaround. Fond memories.
I mean, I agree completely with your evaluation of him, but you know where many's opinions on the guy are, and you know you aren't going to chance them. It's kind of a tasteless argument to push on this board IMO.
No it's not IMO. Unless this isn't a place to discuss things.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
That Arroyo didn't actually provide as much real life production and wasn't nearly as valuable as some assume threatens many people's dogmatic understanding of baseball.
You're wrong.
In 265 career starts with the Reds, Arroyo went 7 innings or more and allowed 3 earned or less in 106 of them. That's 40%.
The overall MLB average for its definition of a quality start (6 IP or more, 3 earned or less) during the time that Arroyo pitched for the Reds was somewhere around 47-48%. If you go by the MLB definition of a quality start, Arroyo had 163 of them in his 265 Reds starts. That's 62%. (Rounded)
To say that Arroyo "didn't provide much production" is absurd. He had far more good starts than bad, took every turn he was called on to make, and overall was a good, not a great pitcher for the Reds.
All things considered, above average for a pretty long period of time.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tracy Jones
You're wrong.
In 265 career starts with the Reds, Arroyo went 7 innings or more and allowed 3 earned or less in 106 of them. That's 40%.
The overall MLB average for its definition of a quality start (6 IP or more, 3 earned or less) during the time that Arroyo pitched for the Reds was somewhere around 47-48%. If you go by the MLB definition of a quality start, Arroyo had 163 of them in his 265 Reds starts. That's 62%. (Rounded)
To say that Arroyo "didn't provide much production" is absurd. He had far more good starts than bad, took every turn he was called on to make, and overall was a good, not a great pitcher for the Reds.
All things considered, above average for a pretty long period of time.
It's not very metricy, but Arroyo gave the Reds a chance to win most times he took the ball. He is basically the first move in my mind that helped to get the Reds out of the lost decade. His performance or memory on the Reds won't be forgotten by fans of my generation. Imo the dude deserves a plaque in the Reds HOF.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
No it's not IMO. Unless this isn't a place to discuss things.
Ya it is. It's just another BAPIP, team independent stats debate thinly veiled through Bronson Arroyo.
Its an argument where those on either side of the fence tend not to change their mind, and will be even more difficult to sway when the crux at the argument is stemmed at one of the more decent tenured Reds pitchers of the last 25+ years.
I'm just not sure what quality discussion you expect to stem from that.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Old school 1983
It's not very metricy, but Arroyo gave the Reds a chance to win most times he took the ball. He is basically the first move in my mind that helped to get the Reds out of the lost decade. His performance or memory on the Reds won't be forgotten by fans of my generation. Imo the dude deserves a plaque in the Reds HOF.
He definitely did. I don't think anyone will argue that Arroyo was a great pitcher. He wasn't. But he absolutely was a good pitcher. Above the league averages in ERA, WHIP, innings pitched, and quality starts.
He's a shoe-in for the Reds HOF because of his popularity, but he has a strong case based on his performance as well.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tracy Jones
You're wrong.
In 265 career starts with the Reds, Arroyo went 7 innings or more and allowed 3 earned or less in 106 of them. That's 40%.
The overall MLB average for its definition of a quality start (6 IP or more, 3 earned or less) during the time that Arroyo pitched for the Reds was somewhere around 47-48%. If you go by the MLB definition of a quality start, Arroyo had 163 of them in his 265 Reds starts. That's 62%. (Rounded)
To say that Arroyo "didn't provide much production" is absurd. He had far more good starts than bad, took every turn he was called on to make, and overall was a good, not a great pitcher for the Reds.
All things considered, above average for a pretty long period of time.
Actually, I'm right.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Actually, I'm right.
Well thought out and researched.
Good work.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tracy Jones
Well thought out and researched.
Good work.
You're like three years late to the party so really, you're position is showing an utter lack of time spent in the archives. So, really it could use more thought and alot more research.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Right. Super high quality discussion there. Proved me wrong.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Arroyo for me will forever be linked to the end of the lost decade. He arrived, and the team went from the worst pitching in the league, to around average. The team went from too many outfielders/sluggers and not enough pitching and defense, to an actual, respectable, somewhat well balanced team.
It obviously wasn't all because of Arroyo, but the trade of Wily Mo for him marks in my mind when the team started to turn into a team I enjoyed watching again.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Servo
I'm at fault for this thread going from Choo to being about Walt Jocketty?
I'm just saying you are honestly the first person I have heard say that Arroyo was "drastically overpaid for his mediocre production", which is why I replied to your comment. Everyone knows his 2011 sucked, but outside of that, his salary was never much of a concern nor should it have been.
And I reaaaaaaally don't see how a pitcher who started 32+ games every year for 8 straight years is the microcosmic argument for not signing pitchers to long term contracts. I'd say pitchers who have Tommy John, return, and then undergo another Tommy John are much better arguments.
The thread was about Choo, Jocketty and bad contracts from the very first post. Go back and read it. Honestly, it is like facts don't mean anything to you. You hijacked it into a Bronson Arroyo thread.
My comment about Arroyo being "drastically overpaid for his mediocre production" was very clearly directed at the 3-year contract extension, not his entire career as you misconstrued it. The facts show that Bronson Arroyo did not return value equal to the money he was paid with that final three year contract. It is indisputable. His good years prior to 2011 are irrelevant to that discussion. Arroyo was quite valuable as a league-average innings-eater before that, but after that he was clearly overpaid.
Again, the contract extensions and free agent contracts for pitchers around baseball over the last 20 years have overwhelmingly turned out poorly for the teams who signed them. The Arroyo and Bailey extensions were examples from recent Reds history. Just because a pitcher was healthy before the new contract does not justify signing him. Almost every pitcher is going to get hurt eventually, and history shows us very clearly that free agent pitchers who sign long contracts either get hurt or underperform their salary approximately 90% of the time. So if you advocate signing a pitcher to a big money, long-term contract you are making a reeeeeaaaaaaalllly stupid decision. The facts of history are very clear on this issue.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
You're like three years late to the party so really, you're position is showing an utter lack of time spent in the archives. So, really it could use more thought and alot more research.
lol
Some charleton has ripped off a Ziggy and passed it off as his own! And I can prove it!
Quick Elaine...to my archives.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tracy Jones
lol
Some charleton has ripped off a Ziggy and passed it off as his own! And I can prove it!
Quick Elaine...to my archives.
In other words, you've got nothing and aren't able to do the thing you wrongly accused me of not doing.... uh huh. A simple search is all you'd have to perform. How about a little thought and some research? It seems to be the thing youre craving...why not actually do it then?
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
The thread was about Choo, Jocketty and bad contracts from the very first post. Go back and read it. Honestly, it is like facts don't mean anything to you. You hijacked it into a Bronson Arroyo thread.
My comment about Arroyo being "drastically overpaid for his mediocre production" was very clearly directed at the 3-year contract extension, not his entire career as you misconstrued it. The facts show that Bronson Arroyo did not return value equal to the money he was paid with that final three year contract. It is indisputable. His good years prior to 2011 are irrelevant to that discussion. Arroyo was quite valuable as a league-average innings-eater before that, but after that he was clearly overpaid.
Again, the contract extensions and free agent contracts for pitchers around baseball over the last 20 years have overwhelmingly turned out poorly for the teams who signed them. The Arroyo and Bailey extensions were examples from recent Reds history. Just because a pitcher was healthy before the new contract does not justify signing him. Almost every pitcher is going to get hurt eventually, and history shows us very clearly that free agent pitchers who sign long contracts either get hurt or underperform their salary approximately 90% of the time. So if you advocate signing a pitcher to a big money, long-term contract you are making a reeeeeaaaaaaalllly stupid decision. The facts of history are very clear on this issue.
I don't like to look at a free agent signing strictly from a WAR/salary perspective. It leaves out a bunch of context.
You need to consider many factors, such as:
How valuable was the players production to the team?
How replaceable was that production?
What would be the cost of that replacement?
How would the money spent on their player be better spent?
Would the savings from signing a cheaper replacement be enough to improve the team?
Was the players contract preventing the team from making other improvements to the team?
And so on.
I don't like paying older pitchers market value, and I wasn't happy with the extensions at the time. But I think a more detailed analysis of the extensions and their context is needed before calling them a bust.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
I brought s'mores, but the fire is out and the camp smells funny.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
In other words, you've got nothing and aren't able to do the thing you wrongly accused me of not doing.... uh huh. A simple search is all you'd have to perform. How about a little thought and some research? It seems to be the thing youre craving...why not actually do it then?
I just showed you, and you don't have to go to the archives to look for it.
He was an above average pitcher overall for 8 years. That's indisputable.
"Not much production"
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wheels
I brought s'mores, but the fire is out and the camp smells funny.
Waft the stench of humiliation. How old are you again?
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tracy Jones
I just showed you, and you don't have to go to the archives to look for it.
He was an above average pitcher overall for 8 years. That's indisputable.
"Not much production"
He was average to backend as arms go and your opinion of him was totally dependent upon the defense behind him. Yay! He threw alot of below average innings.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
He was average to backend as arms go and your opinion of him was totally dependent upon the defense behind him. Yay! He threw alot of below average innings.
lol
A guy with a Reagan era fastball had to rely the fielders behind him? You don't say!!!!
There's no art to that or anything. Yep. All about the K's. And xFIP. Gotta have xFIP.
"No production"
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tracy Jones
lol
A guy with a Reagan era fastball had to rely the fielders behind him? You don't say!!!!
There's no art to that or anything. Yep. All about the K's. And xFIP. Gotta have xFIP.
"No production"
The problem with the argument that Arroyo was a product of the Reds defense, is that it can't explain why Harang, Bailey, Belisle, Wood, and for a few years, even Cueto didn't benefit similarly from that same defense. And that's not even looking at relievers.
Arroyo was the only one, until Leake, to figure out how to take advantage of the team'a defense. He deserves some credit for that. If you do of looking at the archives, you will see this point being made by numerous others posters, over and over again.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
I don't like to look at a free agent signing strictly from a WAR/salary perspective. It leaves out a bunch of context.
You need to consider many factors, such as:
How valuable was the players production to the team?
How replaceable was that production?
What would be the cost of that replacement?
How would the money spent on their player be better spent?
Would the savings from signing a cheaper replacement be enough to improve the team?
Was the players contract preventing the team from making other improvements to the team?
And so on.
I don't like paying older pitchers market value, and I wasn't happy with the extensions at the time. But I think a more detailed analysis of the extensions and their context is needed before calling them a bust.
Those are all good points. The team certainly has to weigh all those factors when making their decision. It is a lot easier to look back on it with 20/20 hindsight and make a ruling on whether the team made a good decision or not. We have that advantage on the Arroyo decision because we already know it turned out poorly.
I think the biggest factor with the 3 year $36 million extension for Arroyo was that the Reds did not have to make that decision when they did. They still had an option to keep Arroyo for $7.5 million in 2011, but they opted to turn it into a 3 year extension instead. They should have exercised the low cost one year option. If they had done that they certainly would not have given Arroyo the extra $29 million for two more years after his diastrous 2011 season. They could have extended him at that point for a tiny fraction of that cost or let him walk. The lesson to take away from that fiasco is to not give pitchers a contract extension a year early, especially if he is coming off a career year. It is best to wait and make a decision until as late as possible so you have the latest, most accurate information available regarding his health and performance.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tracy Jones
lol
A guy with a Reagan era fastball had to rely the fielders behind him? You don't say!!!!
There's no art to that or anything. Yep. All about the K's. And xFIP. Gotta have xFIP.
"No production"
Give me an E! Give me an R! Give me an A! ERA! ERA! ERA aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l the waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!! Talk about evoking Reagan.
Now I post this realizing that it would be completely unfair to have expected you to have read this because it was in the archives and it's completely unfair to expect anyone who accuses others of not having done research while acting like a current thread exists completely in a vacuum to have actually done research. But here goes anyway (and again, I know this is voodoo magic):
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...=1#post3067384
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
Arroyo was the only one, until Leake, to figure out how to take advantage of the team'a defense. He deserves some credit for that. If you do of looking at the archives, you will see this point being made by numerous others posters, over and over again.
And even more importantly you'll see some of those posters ignoring over and over again the compelling reasons, in posts like below, for why that position doesn't fly:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...=1#post3067384