|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2013 21:45:33 GMT -5
Boagie -- After Hughes last 3 seasons I'm surprised anyone thinks he's worthy of a three year contract. That's a big time gamble. ---boly says--- Boagie, you summed up my thoughts exactly! 3 years? 8 million? 3 years? ? Rog -- Scott Kazmir is signing for 2/$22, and Hughes has pitched better on the road than Kazmir and is two years younger. Essentially, Hughes got only $2 million more than Kazmir for one more year. Let's not forget that the market for pitchers is pretty darn high. It's actually come in a little lower than I expected, although the crop is pretty poor. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#ixzz2mNMrMCR5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 2, 2013 22:58:04 GMT -5
The arrogance. You're now going to tell me what I've seen, even though you haven't seen it. You thought Hughes pitched for another team prior to pitching for the Yankees. Doesn't really reflect well on you as an authority.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 2, 2013 23:00:17 GMT -5
Hughes might do better pitching under the radarin a big ballpark in the hinterlands. Would I spend $24 million over three years to find out? Emphatic no.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2013 2:46:56 GMT -5
Allen- I would venture that I've seen at least 75% of Phil's major league outings. I didn't become a Yankee fan two years ago. Look, Phil may pitch better once he gets away from NY. Then again, he may not. What I've seen is that he gets hit, and hit hard. Rog -- What you're seen is Phil hit very hard in Yankee Stadium (4.96 ERA) and moderately on the road (4.10). Phil's road WHIP is 1.26, which certainly isn't being hit hard. He's allowed 8.4 hits per nine innings, which is below league average. Allen -- The arrogance. You're now going to tell me what I've seen, even though you haven't seen it. Rog -- I was telling you what you SHOULD have seen, Allen. I stated some relevant facts, and if you have seen 75% of Phil's outings as you say, you should have seen them. So, you're right that I don't know what you have seen. I know only what was there FOR you to see. Hopefully you didn't miss a good game. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2066&page=4#ixzz2mOaICnFfRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2066&page=3#ixzz2mOZvuzTC
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2013 3:10:34 GMT -5
Allen -- Hughes might do better pitching under the radarin a big ballpark in the hinterlands. Would I spend $24 million over three years to find out? Emphatic no. Rog -- I don't doubt that you wouldn't spend that kind of money on Phil. I would be surprised if you did. There are four areas of risk I see with Phil: . His road performance might not translate in the future. . The only season he pitched really WELL, he pitched mostly in relief. Two of his last three seasons have been poor. . He hasn't been able to stay very healthy. . He hasn't lasted far into games. On the plus side: . He has pitched well in the neutral environment of the road. Quite a bit better than Ervin Santana, in fact. Other than the two Tim's, I doubt there are many starters on the free agent market who have pitched better in a neutral environment that Phil has. . At 27, he's young enough to still at least approach his once-vast potential. One could even say he might become a poor man's Phil Hughes, if you understand what I'm saying here. Here's what bugs me about this, Allen. Clearly I can see many of the risks you are seeing in Phil. I just cited four of them. But I just don't see your expressing his positives, which leads me to wonder if you have considered the full spectrum that exists here. The other issue I have is that I think you significantly under-estimate the market for pitchers. I think the key is to look for value. Phil's above-average performance outside Yankee Stadium seems to indicate he could be a good candidate to provide that value. Another key -- especially with pitchers -- is not to get locked into too long a contract, especially if the pitcher is past his prime years. Phil's three seasons is less than others in comparable situations are getting. Ricky Nolasco is about to turn 31, and he got four years. Jason Vargas is 30 and also got four seasons. Hughes is just 27, meaning his new contract won't last beyond age 30 unless he is extended. Is there any other free agent starter whose new contract doesn't last beyond age 30? Very, very few, if any. Phil Kazmir isn't quite 30 yet, and he received only two years. But even though he hasn't pitched as well on the road as Hughes, he is receiving only $2 million less than Hughes -- for one year fewer. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=4#ixzz2mObcoecq
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 3, 2013 11:06:18 GMT -5
First of all, it's Scott Kazmir. Second, that to me was a HUGE overpay. HUGE. Kazmir was just barely OK last year. He was one game over .500 with an ERA of 4.04. Before that he was pretty much on the scrap heap since 2009. You're going to risk two years/$22 million on that?! I was suprised that Beane would do that. He absolutely stole Jim Johnson from the Orioles though. Honestly, I haven't seen alot of positives in Phil over the years. He's more than a bit of a headcase, often injured, and seemed to have a big problem performing under pressure. The guy has ability, no doubt about that, though due to injury, it's probably not what it once was, but he seems to have a good deal of trouble accessing it on a consistent basis. He was kind of the Yankees' Jonathan Sanchez, though obviously not to that extreme. The Yankees tried everything to make Phil a success, but none of it really worked. Maybe a change of scenery will help. It often does, though it didn't do much for Jonathan. I don't know if I underestimate the market as much as the guys doling out the money are making stupid decisions. Maybe they have more money to throw away than I would be willing to spend. Maybe they feel they have to do something to justify their job, or maybe they're getting owner pressure and input. Do you think Hughes and Nolasco are going to put Minnesota over the top? In that division? What do you think Kazmir is going to do for the A's that a much cheaper pitcher couldn't have done? Perhaps teams want to do something to get the fans excited as well. Part of the deal is selling tickets. I could see this with Minnesota. Their starting pitching stunk last year. If they run the same crew out there this season, the fans won't want to come out. Signing guys like Hughes and Nolasco will at least pique their interest, and give the fans the illusion that the team is at least trying to be competitive. IMO, the market was thin this year, and it would be better to wait until there's someone available that can really help you. But I can see where these teams feel they have to at least appear to be doing something.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2013 16:13:03 GMT -5
Allen -- First of all, it's Scott Kazmir. Second, that to me was a HUGE overpay. HUGE. Kazmir was just barely OK last year. He was one game over .500 with an ERA of 4.04. Before that he was pretty much on the scrap heap since 2009. You're going to risk two years/$22 million on that?! I was suprised that Beane would do that. Rog -- Billy makes mistakes just like all GM's, but overall he has done a very nice job with very little to spend. I wasn't enamored of the signing either, but I wouldn't pit my knowledge and judgment against Billy's. What the signing of Kazmir reinforced was how costly the market for pitching is these days. The supply is weak, and the demand for starting pitchers is almost always strong. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=4#17255#ixzz2mRs0BlD7
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2013 16:14:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2013 16:24:39 GMT -5
Allen -- IMO, the market was thin this year, and it would be better to wait until there's someone available that can really help you. Rog -- In addition to the signing of a free agent pitcher next season's not helping a team THIS season, what makes you believe the market for free agent starting pitchers will be any stronger next season? I like your idea here; I'm just not sure it's practical. If someone who can really help a team does become available, the price tag will almost certainly be astronomical. Think if Tim Lincecum had became a free agent two years ago. I don't think it is unreasonable to speculate that he would have received the biggest free agent of any pitcher in history. And we can see how he would have performed the first two years of the contract. Even with a pitcher like Tim who was viewed two years ago as a top 5 or so starter in the game, there is plenty of risk. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=4#ixzz2mRsyi9R0
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2013 16:25:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 3, 2013 18:43:41 GMT -5
Yes Rog, I've already said that selling tickets has to be a concern. But at the same time, I don't think that obligates a team to make bad decisions. I might try being honest with the fans, noting that the market was rather thin this year, and saying that we didn't really see anyone out there who could help us substantially, so we continue to build from within, while constantly being vigilant for opportunities to garner help from outside the current organization. Problem is people are so impatient and have such short attention spans, that they expect things to be turned around in the next half hour. Of course, at the prices teams are now charging for tickets, who wants to pay to watch a team build.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 3, 2013 18:53:24 GMT -5
[ I like your idea here; I'm just not sure it's practical. If someone who can really help a team does become available, the price tag will almost certainly be astronomical.
Allen- Not always. Look at Vogey. I'm not saying that kind of success can be repeated with any consistency, but one can pick and choose his spots with alot more care than many teams exercise. Being on a tight budget like Minnesota certainly makes it harder. You almost can't afford mistakes. I'm not saying Hughes or Nolasco will be huge busts. They just won't be difference makers. Basically expensive place holders until the Twins can develop their own pitching.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2013 22:02:20 GMT -5
Allen -- Yes Rog, I've already said that selling tickets has to be a concern. But at the same time, I don't think that obligates a team to make bad decisions. Rog -- It can be a tough call. If a player costs $15 million per season but generates a similar amount of added revenue, that can make what otherwise would be a bad signing a decent one. In fact, if that player can keep interest at a level that makes it easier to generate higher interest in the future, that play may earn his keep even if he doesn't contribute quite as much revenue as he costs. As to how much added revenue a player can add through added team performance and image, I don't know. For the most part, highly paid free agents make more sense for contending teams, but I wonder how much added revenue a player might be able to contribute in say Minnesota. Probably not enough to earn his keep, but enough to at least keep his net cost down a bit. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=4#17282#ixzz2mTHIZdOp
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2013 22:05:58 GMT -5
Rog -- I like your idea here; I'm just not sure it's practical. If someone who can really help a team does become available, the price tag will almost certainly be astronomical. Allen- Not always. Look at Vogey. Rog -- When I posted, I should have been more specific. Found nuggets such as Ryan can be VERY valuable to a team. But almost always if it is reasonable to PROJECT that a player is likely to be a difference-maker, he's going to cost a ton. The best way is to have great scouting and/or get lucky in order to get high value from the lesser-priced free agents. But that approach can also leave a team holding an empty bag. Not that the higher-priced free agents also can't create that situation, but the odds are less likely. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=4#ixzz2mTIVtPQY
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 3, 2013 22:29:05 GMT -5
But the bag can be alot bigger.
Hughes/Nolasco may be good, may be bad, but either way I think it's a waste of time and money for the Twins, at least baseball-wise.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 4, 2013 16:03:59 GMT -5
Allen -- I would agree that Woody wasn't 15-10 on merit, any more than Hughes was 18-8 on merit in 2010, or 16-13 on merit in 2012. What in the world does Woody have to do with any of this? Rog -- The point is that many factors can enter into a pitcher's won-loss record, many of them beyond the pitcher's control. You have agreed that on the positive winning side, Reuter at least once and Hughes at least twice didn't "earn" their record. Allen -- Last year, Hughes just got hammered. Rog -- And pitchers don't always "earn" their record on the negative side, either. Contrary to what you have said, Hughes didn't "earn" his 4-14 record. Yes, he pitched very poorly -- but not 4-14 poorly. Hughes' 5.19 ERA last season was almost identical to Tim Lincecum's 5.18 in 2012. Yet Tim somehow went not 4-14, but 10-15. There's quite a difference in those two records. At least one of those two guys didn't "earn" his. The two starters who bracketed Hughes' 5.19 ERA were Hellickson at 5.17 and Saunders at 5.26. That pair wound up the season with a combined 23-26 record. At least one out of that trio didn't "earn" his record, either. The one common pitcher in that group with similar ERA's was none other than Phil Hughes. It is just possible he didn't "earn" that 4-14 record. Or if we want to look in another direction, there were four pitchers last season with more losses than Phil. Edwin Jackson went 8-18 with a 4.98 ERA. Similar ERA's; clearly better record for Jackson. Harrell went 6-17 despite a 5.86 ERA. Far worse pitching than Hughes, but once again, a clearly better record. The aforementioned Saunders had the closest ERA to Hughes of anyone in this group, yet he went 11-16. That's WAY better than Hughes' 4-14. Peralta lost 15 games, but his 11-15 record was more reflective of a much lower ERA. Once again, Hughes is the outlier record-wise. The evidence is strongly building that he didn't truly "earn" that horrible 4-14 record. Certainly he "earned" a record well below .500 -- but NOT a winning percentage of just .222. Even Harrell with his 5.86 ERA won over a quarter of his games. Even Diamond of Minnesota with a 5.43 ERA won nearly a third of his decisions. Hughes' own teammate CC Sabathia had an ERA nearly as high as Hughes. CC actually had a winning record (14-13) despite a 4.78 ERA. Of course, he also had more than a run more support than Hughes did. Phil Hughes didn't "earn" his 4-14 record. In four of those 14 losses, he yielded three runs or less. Seven times he yielded two or fewer earned runs and was awarded only with a no-decision. You saw a lot of Hughes' games, Allen, but I'm not sure you evaluated very accurately. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the preposterous statement that he "earned" his 4-14 record. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2066#ixzz2mXaN7tEP
|
|