loose ZIPS
by lboros on Dec 11, 2006 5:16 AM EST
in St. Louis Cardinals News
Email
Printdan szymborski's ZIPS projection system isn't as well regarded as nate silver's PECOTA, but it's still pretty good. it also has this virtue: every time there's a trade or free-agent signing, szymborski immediately runs the ZIPS figures for the player(s) involved in the transaction. we won't get the new PECOTA output for about another month.
so without further ado, here are the ZIPS projections for the big-name free-agent pitchers who've signed to date this off-season:
| w-l | era | whip | bb/9 | k/9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| maddux | 15-11 | 3.72 | 1.19 | 1.7 | 5.2 |
| schmidt | 12-8 | 3.94 | 1.30 | 3.6 | 8.6 |
| pettitte | 15-9 | 4.10 | 1.32 | 2.3 | 6.5 |
| lilly | 12-12 | 4.26 | 1.38 | 4.2 | 7.9 |
| garcia | 13-11 | 4.33 | 1.26 | 2.5 | 7.0 |
| woody | 8-9 | 4.56 | 1.36 | 2.6 | 6.0 |
| eaton | 9-9 | 4.72 | 1.38 | 2.8 | 6.6 |
| wolf | 4-5 | 4.89 | 1.46 | 3.4 | 6.1 |
| meche | 8-10 | 4.90 | 1.47 | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| wells | 6-9 | 4.98 | 1.55 | 5.0 | 6.8 |
i included freddy garcia at the end of the table, even though he was acquired by trade rather than via free agency; the ZIPS projections for vicente padilla haven't appeared yet, for some reason. perhaps these numbers take some of the sting out of the cardinals' failure to land a pricey free-agent pitcher; most of these guys project to be pretty bad, even without factoring in the exorbitant salaries they'll make. kind of interesting that the old pros occupy the head of the class; ZIPS isn't bullish on a single one of the so-called 2d-tier pitchers from this year's class of f.a. hurlers. note the so-so projection for jason schmidt; ZIPS has him as just a shade better than jeff suppan v2005-06. that squares up with Valatan's recent analysis showing that schmidt might be no better than a league-average pitcher over the next few seasons. ted lilly's era projection is adjusted for wrigley; i'd be interested to see how much better his numbers might look at busch III.
in any case, these numbers only reinforce my conviction (growing stronger by the hour) that reyes and wainwright are just as good as most of the free-agent pitchers on the market --- and carry infinitely less financial risk. i can't cite the ZIPS projections for those two, because szymborski hasn't gotten around to running the cardinals' figures yet. but in wainwright's case, anyway, we can safely assume a projected era somewhere in the low 4.00s, if not better; last off-season, based solely on his minor-league numbers, ZIPS projected him to a 4.50 era, and after a strong 2006 he's likely to project to a much lower figure this year. reyes, on the other hand, was significantly worse than his projection; ZIPS forecast an era of 3.72 for anthony in 2006. he'll prob'y be pegged at about 4.50 for 2007.
whenever i throw figures like these around, people want to know what ZIPS' track record is; how much credit can we give to its predictions? in anticipation of that question, i decided to look back at ZIPS' projections for the 2005-06 cohort of free-agent pitchers, and compare the projections to actual performance. actual pitching lines appear first, in black ink; projections occupy the subsequent line, in red:
| w-l | era | whip | bb/9 | k/9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| burnett | 10-8 | 3.98 | 1.30 | 2.6 | 7.8 |
| 13-7 | 3.59 | 1.22 | 3.0 | 7.6 | |
| millwood | 16-12 | 4.52 | 1.31 | 2.2 | 6.6 |
| 12-8 | 4.12 | 1.34 | 2.6 | 6.6 | |
| washburn | 8-14 | 4.67 | 1.35 | 2.6 | 5.0 |
| 9-10 | 4.55 | 1.33 | 2.6 | 5.2 | |
| morris | 10-15 | 4.98 | 1.35 | 2.7 | 5.1 |
| 11-12 | 4.31 | 1.27 | 2.0 | 5.8 | |
| byrd | 10-9 | 4.88 | 1.51 | 1.9 | 4.4 |
| 13-8 | 3.90 | 1.19 | 1.4 | 4.6 | |
| weaver | 8-14 | 5.76 | 1.51 | 2.5 | 5.6 |
| 12-12 | 4.19 | 1.28 | 2.3 | 6.3 | |
| ortiz | 11-16 | 5.57 | 1.54 | 3.0 | 4.9 |
| 7-13 | 4.94 | 1.41 | 3.0 | 5.2 | |
| tomko | 8-7 | 4.73 | 1.35 | 2.3 | 6.1 |
| 9-12 | 4.71 | 1.37 | 2.7 | 5.4 | |
| wright | 6-10 | 5.19 | 1.48 | 3.7 | 4.6 |
| 6-14 | 5.81 | 1.61 | 4.6 | 5.6 | |
| ponson | 4-4 | 5.24 | 1.62 | 3.8 | 4.3 |
| 11-12 | 4.57 | 1.38 | 2.9 | 5.2 |
that's a pretty worthy job of projecting, all in all. only paul byrd and jeff weaver can truly be characterized as "misses"; the rest turned in actual performance reasonably close to their ZIPS projection. perhaps more to the point, the system was very accurate in projecting the pitchers' performance relative to each other; the ZIPS era's, ranked top to bottom, correspond very closely to ordering of the actual era's (again, byrd and weaver excepted). also of note, ZIPS underestimated in almost every one of these cases; among these pitchers, only jamey wright beat his ZIPS-projected era.
you'll also note that most of last year's free-agent pitchers didn't contribute much in the first year of their contracts.
the same will be true for the 2006-07 free agents, according to ZIPS. again, i'll take my chances on reyes and wainwright over almost any of those guys.
138 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i think there might be further ado....
can you tell how familiar I am with ZIPS...
I would..
Someone yesterday mentioned the comments thread on the Marquis signing at BBTF, a couple more:
On days when we've got Derosa, Izturis, and Blanco in the lineup, a guy like Marquis or Zambrano could hit 6th.
and actually a good question here, that I would really like to know the answer to:
Who were the Cubs bidding against? Were they offering 3 years?
I am pretty curious to know how the Cards "spare parts," project, in some form or fashion for that fifth spot. Paying Supp or Batista $9mm++ in 2009 makes me sick to my stomach, how prohibitive. Especially with the "youth movement" among the staff.
Same here
I'm chomping at the bit to see Bipolar Betty's numbers. It was great spending this weekend reading all the various Cubbies bloggers' comments about that deal and giggling myself silly. I'm still aglow.
mgl
[code]mgl Posted: December 09, 2006 at 02:09 PM (#2256434)
Yes, between the Cards defense and offense (pumping up his win totals), this is the classic case of a horrible pitcher looking mediocre to a really stupid team. Marquis is a replacement level pitcher who has somehow managed to get lots of ML innings, similar to Estes and a few others in recent years. Don't let even his ERA+ in 04 and 05 fool you as that is heavily influenced by defense which is not accounted for of course in the ERA+ formula, not to mention the difference between FIP or DIPS ERA and regular ERA (which can be heavily influenced by luck - BABIP). Here are Marquis' NERC for the last 5 years. NERC is a component ERA adjusted for park, opponent, and defense, and then normalized to 4.00 (for that league only). It does not do a DIPS (BABIP) adjustment. The average starter has an NERC of around 4.20 (reliever around 3.90).
2002 5.29
2003 4.11
2004 4.80
2005 4.80
2006 5.07
He is he quintessential definition of a replacement pitcher. In fact, I use around 4.80 as replacement level as the true talent of the worst starters in baseball is around that (.6 runs per 9 innings worse than an average starter). His monetary value is next to nothing and I don't mean that figuratively or hyperbolicly.
So far and off the top of my head, this, Meche, and Carlos Lee are the worst signings of the off-season. This is the worst, by far, of the three. What makes Marquis such a bad pitcher, and which is unlikely to change (true-talent-wise of course), is that his HR rate is terrible, his walk rate is not even average, and his K rate is terrible as well. You can't get any worse than that and still have a job in the major leagues.
[/code]
Saw that this morning
while reading Bleed Cubbie Blue and giggling uncontrollably. I really, really, almost feel sorry for them for this one. Almost.
why?
yeah, i'm glad to be rid of him, but i don't think he's a cancer. i'm certainly not giggling at the cub's so-called offseason misfortune. it is a bad signing, but only by a few mil. and i think they might just have a lot of fun next year at wrigley if they get but average years out of lee, soriano, ramirez, barrett, and zambrano. if they get better than average or if prior comes back, you can take the bandages off. they'll be nasty. i mean the cubs just dumped dusty baker!! (i found nothing more disappointing). after that guy, marquis will be a pleasure. he'll be around .500 against the cards (and the rest of the league) next year, book it.
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
We obviously have some differences
I don't consider Bipolar Betty a cancer but rather Polonium-210. He's much worse than mere cancer. Why? Because he's a black hole of negative performance. Because of his potential to be not just bad but unbearably, embarrassingly, record-settingly awful in any given start, he is radioactive to his teammates and any momentum they may have built or that they are trying to build.
Yes, Dusty Baker was a bad manager, especially for a team like the Cubs. He gets along great in the clubhouse, but the Cubbies don't need a buddy. They need a hardass with a brain. There is no doubt in my mind that the most valuable acquisition the Cubbies made this year will be Piniella.
The Cubs face using Marquis in Wrigley field a great deal, and the thought makes me giddy. Marquis gives up the longball, and he rattles. He's a hardhead who doesn't want to be a sinkerballer (which is his natural ability if it weren't for his brain) but rather wants to be power pitcher with a standard breaking ball. Perhaps they'll let him try that at 1060 West Addison, and soon they'll discover he has a wickedly dull fastball with a breaking ball that doesn't break. Then they'll transfer him to the bullpen, and he'll literally throw himself on the floor and kick and scream and whine and moan like he has every single time previously in his career when his team deigned to relegate him to the bullpen, which he despises.
So, exactly what's not to like about that scenario?
you're blowing it out of proportion
what happened last year was a joke, and i think it was poorly handled by all sides. i don't see the same thing happening next year; he's on a new team, and things rarely get so rediculous in the first year of a relationship (rarely, anyway). and if marquis is so unbelievably bad, then why in the hell did walt (tony/dunc) bring him to stl in the first place? how could they be so foolish? i need someone to explain why you bring a nuclear device into your club.
the point is this: marquis stays healthy and has the ability to win 10 games. now, he may lose more than that and in a terrible fashion, but if any team (and fanbase) can handle losing in a terrible fashion, it is the cubs. they paid too much (i'm not really hip to the numbers, guessing it's somewhere like 6-9 million too much), but the money isn't a big problem for the cubs. they are obviously making a lot of it and will continue to do so.
now, i'm glad to see him go, but, as i said, i'm not giggling over the offseason moves the cubs have made. i look at their team and think it could be a good year in chicago--it will probably fall apart when 2 or 3 of their big guns get hurt, but eventually a cub team is gonna stay relatively healthy, could be next year. right now i think they look pretty strong in the central. i mean when i go through the cards and cubs rosters, i don't see us as having a big advantage anywhere, do you?
moreover, it is a perfect situation for marquis i believe. people think that wrigley is a great hitter's park, but it's not. someone around here must have the stats on this sort of thing? marquis, coming hated from the cardinals, only has to get a little something going early (a couple wins, maybe a big hit), and it could become a great place for him. or he could start off badly and get booed (j.jones).
anyway, we'll see how it plays out, but i don't see a big cub disaster looming with marquis, maybe a standard disaster but not a big one. i think he'll be right around .500 and will give them 200 or so innings--exactly what they want.
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
There are some key points
Marquis got superior run support in STL, which, in spite of the Cubbies' insanity this offseason, is not guaranteed in his new environs. He also played in a much more favorable ballpark and with far superior defense behind him. If you don't believe me, go read the Cubbies blogs, who concede all those very points.
What happened this year was a joke, and it was a joke on us because we believed we could work out the problems of a hardhead that the Braves considered uncoachable. I might point out that we traded our uncoachable player (ahem, J.D. Drew) to get Marquis (and Ray King [ack!] and Adam Wainwright [thank God there was some good out of this trade]), and I believe you'll find both we and the Braves are glad we're rid of the lot of them, save our dear Adam. THAT is why he was brought to STL: To GET RID OF J.D. DREW!!! And thank God for that.
Last year was not an anomaly as regards Marquis; it was the norm. He's poison. He's a fish who believes he can be a bird. He knows more than the coaches, the best coaches in the game, no less. He's petulant and stubborn. As time goes on, he asserts himself more and more in this regard, all while his physical ability (best evidenced by his decelerating fastball) decreases.
The illusions he holds about his ability are increasingly evident, and the Cubbies seem the ultimate dolts for not seeing this simple fact. Well, good riddance to him, and I cheer his joining the Cubs.
As for what Marquis the Tee is likely to face in stepping on the Wrigley mound, either you're not reading the Cubbie blogs or you're in denial that the irate Cubs fans are planning to berate and abuse Marquis sight unseen (certainly their wisest attitude towards any of their other offseason madness). He gets no honeymoon and deserves none. He will merely be ahem, penetrated, just as he deserves. I only regret that I won't be there to giggle.
The guy's a total loser, and even more so in Wrigley with the Cubbies who have other potential starters that can supplace him. It's a perfect storm of Cubs misfortune and stupidity under any circumstances. When considering it in the context of a 3 year, $20 million plus scenario, I may need to buy some adult diapers I'm laughing so much.
wrigley
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
#6/30 in runs scored above average, #5/30 in HR% above average, #6/30 in 2B and #7/30 in 3B. I'd say it's a pitchers worst nightmare.
Interestingly enough, dodgers stadium was #7 in HR% above average. I always thought it was a pitcher's park.
yeah, it's above average
anyway, i would say wrigley is a pitcher's worst nightmare from time to time, not always.
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, and I forgot to express
Basically with the signings they've made this offseason, the Cubbies have cemented their commitment to mediocrity for years to come. Their signings are not going to bring them into contention but will rather ensure that they remain merely not automatically in NL Central's basement. They're still going to suck.
Why else? Because their park sucks. And they love it. It's brutal on their team, not to mention its facilities are extremely subpar in this day and age.
They also have no commitment to the fundamentals of the game, e.g., defense. They believe that they don't need to worry about defense in spite of the fact that they play half of their games away from the Chewing Gum Pack. Perhaps next century they'll notice other tams have larger parks, and that their volatile weather conditions could be controlled if they built a state-of-the-art facility like every other sports team on the planet has done.
So, ruyehamrafte (an Iranian word that means on top of what has also passed, usually translated as "altogether"), I'm feeling rather comfortable shaking my bowl full of jelly in chuckling at the Cubbies' "bold moves" this Christmas season.
i thought
and, the cubs' infield defense at least is pretty solid. their outfield is bad, but they don't have anyone as inept as duncan.
most of the rest of what's above has little to do with marquis.
dig the iran bit.
serviam,
pax et bonam.
i'm a clean cut kid,
and i been to college too.
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
I'll put up the wrath of Pujols et al.
against the wrath of Marquis any second of the history or the future of the neverending universe. I don't fear being shut out by Marquis, although I acknowledge he has the talent, just not the brain (or lack thereof, whichever you prefer).
As regards the Cubs' outfield, may I point out they don't even have one yet. They have no center fielder, and no decent ones are left. Oops.
Ah, sweet Latin. I remember enough from 2 years' worth in high school (I never realized it at the time, but I think I was the only protestant in the class) to recognize something to the effect of "your servant, peace and goodness." Anyway, if yu percieved my Iranian (Farsi) reference to be snooty, I assure you it wasn't meant to be. I was merely being poetical insofar as I am able. In fact, my Arabic and Farsi knowledge dates back to my Army interrogator days, which to me were decidedly lacking in erudition.
I used to be a clean cut kid, but that was a long time ago.
I'd give Looper a shot
He only seems to get better the more he pitches. He certainly had some confidence issues after being booed out of New York, and he does have reasonable stuff.
Letting him try starting games in the rotation instead of protecting leads at the spur of the moment may be just the sort of adaptation that might be good for him. It's worth a shot, anyway. There's not much real downside.
eh...
I'll second.
by the red baron on Dec 11, 2006 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
I'm fine with it either way
and honestly, I'm no one to judge whether he can or can't mask his pitches. His repertoire (sp?) is limited, but that's not unheard of. If Tony and Dunc judge it worth a shot, so be it.
Or not.
Basically, I'm much more comfortable with where we are right now than I was at this time last year, i.e., right before we had signed Ponson. There are still some FAs out there to be had before we have to resort to the nontendered (read:desperation) market.
2007 FA
Starting Pitchers
Kris Benson * BAL
Mark Buerhle CWS
Paul Byrd * CLE
Shawn Chacon PIT
Matt Clement BOS
Bartolo Colon LAA
Scott Elarton KC
Josh Fogg COL
Casey Fossum * TB
Freddy Garcia CWS
Geremi Gonzalez TOR
Livan Hernandez ARZ
Jason Jennings COL
Randy Johnson NYY
Brian Lawrence WAS
Jon Lieber PHI
Kyle Lohse CIN
Wade Miller CHC
Eric Milton CIN
Odalis Perez * KC
Joel Pineiro SEA
Kenny Rogers DET
Curt Schilling BOS
Carlos Silva MIN
John Smoltz * ATL
Brett Tomko * LAD
Kip Wells STL
Jake Westbrook CLE
Randy Wolf * LAD
Jaret Wright BAL
Carlos Zambrano CHC
Victor Zambrano NYM
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2000/04/2007-free-agents.html
My guess is
The only other decent pitchers on the list are too old for consideration, IMO.
Brian Lawrence
ZiPS
He'd be ahead of Mulder by quite a ways in recovering from surgery—should be ready to go for spring. If he can somehow manage to pick up where he left off before injury, he'd be too good to be true. He ate innings at a 200IP per year clip and this old scouting report makes him sound like a perfect fit with Duncan. It'd be exciting to see whether he can follow Chris Carpenter from the land of the lost pitching souls to Baseball Heaven. That'd be a great story to follow.
what about shipping Looper
by perrone on Dec 11, 2006 8:51 AM EST reply actions
Burrell
by Futility Infielder on Dec 11, 2006 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
Burrell
by orlando card on Dec 11, 2006 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
Burrell is a very good player
Better than Carlos Lee the new 16 million dollar man and better than virtually everyone on our team outside of Albert (a healthy Jimmy and Rolen have good shots at posting those numbers as well). But we are looking at a guy that fits into the heart of the order. When you accumulate that many walks and slug that high, strikeouts aren't THAT big a deal. (He struck out 50 fewer times than this years MVP.)
Reyes projection
yeah, 4.50 is probably too high
CHONE
Reyes: 3.63 ERA - 139:44 K:BB - 149 IP
Wagonmaker: 3.56 - 74:26 - 78
Narvie: 4.36 - 81:58 - 118Marquis: 5.23 - 107:68 - 200
Hill: 3.89 - 181:68 - 167
Perrone
aw come on
by perrone on Dec 11, 2006 9:40 AM EST reply actions
yeah
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
I think perhaps...
no trade clause, but...
Wilkerson
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=1710
On the plus side, he's a low avg., high OBP guy with some pop that could be a real asset, especially as a platoon mate.
On the down side, he's a lefty and plays left field. Not the right combo to platoon with Dunc. If Jock is still considering including Duncan in a trade for pitching, then going after Wilkerson might make sense, but probably not otherwise. I suppose he could be signed to play LF, we could move Duncan to RF and find someone to take Encarnacion in a salary dump, but then we'd have an all lefty OF.
As has been discussed before
Did Wilkerson even have surgery? Anyone? Bueller?
out of curiosity
but....
Contract ends May of '08
To the Mets?
http://hotfoot.metsblog.com/blog/_archives/2006/12/11/2565193.html
I still believe
by El Birdo Rojo on Dec 11, 2006 10:28 AM EST reply actions
yup...
The question I have is: If I am Scott Boras, what do I do? I am asking for #1 pitcher (15mil/year) money and am being offered league average innings eater type money (7mil/year). If I don't take the innings eater money I get nothing.
Nice to see Boras in a sucky situation.
by BigJawnMize on Dec 11, 2006 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
Advanced Moneyball
By paying for exclusive negotiation rights, Boston prevented the potential disaster if the Yankees signed Matsuzaka. Then (with no one else bidding) Boston offered a contract that, if accepted, would be a decent deal for them even allocating the cost of negotiating rights over the term of the contract.
Boras can cash in this year only by giving the BoSox what looks like a cheap contract and maybe depressing the market for other pitchers.
Matsuzaka must be scratching his head and thinking - why do I need hotshot Boras to sign a cheap contract or stay in Japan?
The other side of the story
Boras isn't in a sucky situation
Finacially...
Posting him next year would be pointless
Personally, if I'm already making 3 mil in Japan and I'm offered under half my market value just a year before I become a FA, there's no way I take that deal. Boston would have to get to at least 12-13 for me to take that deal with the 110 million just over the horizon.
Boras has plenty of leverage...
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 12, 2006 12:56 AM EST up reply actions
disagree completely
Good business? Hardly. It's a disgrace and it violates the spirit of the agreement between MLB and the Japanese professional leagues. Teams are expected to operate in good faith; that is to say that, if they bid on a player, they're supposed to make a good faith effort to sign him. Boston had no intention of doing that. They've operated in bad faith and Bud should step in and, either reopen the posting, or award the bid to the 2nd highest posting team.
With a free agent, it's good business to bid up a player that one of your rivals is bidding on, to force them to pay more $$$. That's not what we're talking about here. Matsuzaka can't play in the US for 2 years as a free agent if Boston doesn't sign him. What they've done, essentially, is prevent the man from coming to the US to play. It threatens the posting system and the relationship between MLB and the Japanese professional leagues.
I don't think that Bud has the stones to step in, take charge, and award the bid to another team who plans to honor their bid and actually attempt to sign Matsuzaka. But that's exactly what he should do!
no batista
Boohoo
by BigJawnMize on Dec 11, 2006 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
So NOW...
by The Ol Goaler on Dec 11, 2006 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
Ohka dokey
Otherwise, they're looking at Pavano (slim chance, I expect) and maybe Lieber via trade.
I just can't see the Cards being willing to match what others will pay for Soup. Maybe they would for a shorter term, but not for 4 years, and rightly so. Weaver is a possibility, still, but he's also going to have to be willing to take probably a 2 year deal with a team option and it's not clear he'll do that.
I think Wainer is going to end up in the rotation.
Carp
Reyes
Wainwright
Wells
TBD (Ohka, Armas, Thompson, Narveson, Redman, Thomson)
plus
are you folks around here convinced that post-season weaver was real weaver?
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
Not convinced
however, if he were to stick around and continue to allow Dunc to sprinkle the magic dust on him, he might finish up with better-than-average career numbers.
If the Cards do not re-sign Weaver, I expect him to return to his old ways wherever he goes. If he stays, I expect somewhere between the World Series hero and the 5-inning roller-coaster ride he treated us to upon his arrival. In other words, 6-7 innings and 3-4 earned runs a start.
The reality is, though, that he doesn't have the track record to justify a four-year contract. Two, maybe; not four.
TSF
by TedSimmonsFan on Dec 11, 2006 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
Bernie Sez:
Tomo OhkaThey're talking.
Duncan wants him.
He's not the model of durability we've been looking for and was DL'ed with a partial tear in the right rotator cuff last May. There are some big-market teams courting him, as well.
I'd be happy enough with him.
the story
When I was a kid, the local shopping center (Warson Village) had a promotion that involved receiving mock dollars for every purchase you made over a certain period. They then held an auction at which the mock dollars could be used. The first item, if I recall, was a couch. It went for something like 600 mock dollars. People didn't bid higher because they were holding out for something else, like a stereo system. Problem was, as the auction went on, people realized that they needed to start bidding aggressively or they would end up with nothing but a bunch of useless mock dollars. By the time the stereo system came up for bid, it was going for something like 10,000 mock dollars. And by the very end of the auction, cheese trays and the like were going for almost that much.
Like the Warson Village auction, the MLB free-agent hunt seems to involve too many dollars chasing too few goods. And while the analogy isn't perfect -- Bill DeWitt's dollars are real and will still be worth something to him if not spent -- we're starting to see some ridulously expensive cheese trays. And if the team is going to spend that $100 million we keep hearing about, it may have no choice but to overpay for something.
Me Too
this is getting kinda scary
Perhaps the Cards are going to turn their sights
by Red in Chicago on Dec 11, 2006 10:50 AM EST reply actions
Indeed
"Big Game" Weaver: I can't sign this! It's only for $3M a year! Besides, it calls for my agent to commit hara-kiri in the Seibu team bathroom!
Jock: It's called a negotiation, kid. We come in with opposing offers and hammer out our differences. What's your counter?
"Big Game": Well, how about $7M per, plus performance incentives if I <stifles a laugh> outperform <giggles> Jason Marquis this year, plus Scott gets run over by a train in Boston instead?
Jock: Hey, I can live with that...
No Batista
Yup
I'm not crying over losing Batista, and I agree it's time to move on Weaver. I'd rather have Weaver back than Supp (although I certainly like Supp). Weaver's got that fire in his belly now that he knows he can compete, and I'd just like to see what he can do for a couple of years in STL.
I'm with you!
have you
You want to know the dream I had last night?
And at the end of the dream
Silly boy
As long as he's not a first baseman, I'll take him
Sheer brilliance
by orlando card on Dec 11, 2006 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
Two Horses and Spare Parts
lightning stike?
Is it time to panic yet?
pavano???
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Cards-looking-into-Pavano?urn=mlb,17311
Yeah
Interesting, but it seems like a longshot thing to me. But what do I know?
Here's what one Yankee fan said about Pavano...
(From the link above at Yahoo Sports.)
by Red in Chicago on Dec 11, 2006 12:39 PM EST reply actions
I'm a Yankees fan
Pavano's worthless. Only reason I take him is if Yankees eat his salary and deal him for a bag of balls.
man
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
it's not that unusual
that's
Walt, examine your ZIP pretty darn quick
Actually, the best thing would have been to made re-signing Suppan and Weaver along with working out the extension with Carpenter. The ZIPS indicate Wells is a No. 5 starter at best. I think most fans would be satisfied with Reyes and Wainwright at Nos. 3 & 4. Not having that servicable No. 2 guy really hurts and pushing Reyes or Wainwright in that role is too much too soon, imo.
Cards really have to come through with Suppan or Weaver--neither of which I'd have said was a No. 2, but will take in that spot now--or surprise/shock us all by bringing back both. I tend to think losing both pitchers will cause as much of an off-season uproar as last year's off-season's downer.
by Baily on Dec 11, 2006 12:41 PM EST reply actions
The Zips for Supps/Weav...
Does this change your opinion in light of the fact Supp wants 3 years at 10+/per and Weaver is looking for 4 years?
Not really
I certainly will not be pleased to see the Cards start next season with a pitching staff of Carp, Reyes, Wainwright, Wells and one of a handful of others on the present 40-man roster to round out the starting five.
To me, you either pick at least one to pay market rate. If no team is dealing a good starting pitcher, isn't the other option continue to bargain shop and hope to get lucky, or hope to get lucky via trade during the summer? Bargain shopping is good to fill a position or two here and there or bottom of rotation, but not at the top of the rotation. Otherwise, I tend to think the end result is an organization not too disimilar from Cincinnati, Florida, Milwuakee and Pittsburgh. And don't think that's what St. Louis fans want to see. I sure don't.
That's a long-winded way of saying I just think you have to pay the piper the rates of the day for your top two pitchers and at least core everyday players. Unless, of course, players like JuanE are billed as "core" players like last December.
by Baily on Dec 11, 2006 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
Here's my take
We now need to sign Weaver for like 2-3 years at $5-6 million each year (realistically, he'll get that if not more somewhere).
Our rotation:
Carp
Wainwright
Weaver
Reyes
Wells
My biggest problem with this is that it would be nice to have another veteran (i.e., SUPP) who isn't attending Duncan's school of rehabilitation on the staff with two rookies in the rotation.
It's not ideal, but it's more settling to me than a rotation including Ponson and that other guy whose name I refused to utter the last 6 months (but now will with glee at his new home), Marquis.
Also, I wouldn't want to "Dusty Baker"-ize Wainwright (or Reyes), so Thompson would be expected to make a start here and there. Oh, heck, we probably need to pick up one more starter off the scrapheap even with this bunch. In that case, take your pick, Dunc.
What is the projection for dollars/yrs
Suppan 3yrs/$39M ???
Weaver 4yrs/$45M ???
Am I close? If so, would you want either? I was a Weaver-hater last year, mostly due to his body language. Suppan has sentimental value, but he's not worth $13M per year. I would be okay with $10-11M for Weaver, but only 2 years with a vesting option for year 3 (I can't believe I just typed that!!). Other than, no thanks to either.
Yeah, I lowballing Weaver's price
Silly me. I should've said that's what he SHOULD get, not what that vampire Boras will get for him.
How about a heavily incentivized package for Weaver that will get him up to $9.5 over 4 years? The base could be something like 3 years @ $6 mill each with innings/wins/appearances/whatever incentives to boost him to an average $9.5? Oh, and an incentivized team option for a 4th year at say, $11 million (which by that time will be a steal, no doubt).
That all sounds a little high, but as long as Weaver is performing, he'd be making out pretty well. If he tanks, well, I am comfortable with the risk in those numbers considering today's reality.
Looking at the ZIPS
Totalling the remaining 7 up
Wins - Projected: 77, Actual: 73
Loss - Projected: 70, Actual: 88
The ERA also overestimate the pitchers ability (as noted).
So, at least going by this sample, you can take the ZIPS, subtract half a win and add 2.5 losses, oh and add about 0.7 to the ERA.
by redbird2006in on Dec 11, 2006 1:10 PM EST reply actions
You Get what You Pay For
I guess I am concerned that the Cards keep passing on FA pitcher after FA pitcher saying they are getting too much money. If we end up with the bottom of the barrel but don't overpay, the acquisitions may make fiscal sense, but do they actually help you win? Are the Cards really better off if they sign a bunch of league average pitchers but do so for a reasonable price? Yes, you then have "payroll flexibility" but to what end? The pitching market seems to be telling us that you have to pay a lot for a free agent starter. In my opinion the Cards need at least one more, preferably two more veteran starters. I think they should lock up some combination of Supps, Weaver, and Redman. Get them for as short of deal as possible, but even overpay if necessary.
I don't see how we can say that $10 million a year is too much for Suppan. As compared to what? As compared to Lilly, Meche, Eaton, Schmidt? At some point, you are not overpaying anymore.
At some point you need to sign some pitchers. I am by no means a historian, but can anyone think of a team that made the playoffs with 3 starting pitchers who starting the season had less than 200 ip at the major leagues? (maybe there is, but I have a feeling this is rare) I am assuming that you have Reyes (who actually is probably right around 200ip), Wainie and somebody else like Narveson/Thompson in the rotation. I don't know what quality starting pitching options there are available unless you sign one of the three above-mentioned starters.
Ultimately I guess I am just disappointed. We need another starter, in my opinion and we are getting down to some pretty unattractive options. Before I thought dealing Dunc made a lot of sense, but now I am concerned that if you do that the offense is going to suffer. Not a whole lot of bats available in this market either.
So end of rant... Sign Weaver, Suppan, or at worst Redman. Do it now, doesn't matter the price. We need a vet to help Carp.
Postscript - This should not be viewed as an attack on Reyes or Wainie. I like them both, but we just don't what we're going to get from them for a full season. I would like a little bit more of a veteran presence.
Price and value
You can't win the pennant, much less the series, in winter meetings; but you can commit too much payroll to players who don't help you very much (cough - Cubs - cough). I'd rather not do that.
we just won the ws.
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
The 1996 Yankees won the series with
In fact, the 2006 Padres made the playoffs with Chris Young (201 IP to start 2006), Clay Hensley (47 2/3) and Mike Thompson (rookie in '06) in their rotation (though BR lists six guys in their rotation for 2006). Regardless, I don't think it would be very hard to find an example of a team that fits this
Thanks
At least we didn't overpay for...
I want them to be competitive while Rolen, Pujols, and Carp are still in their primes and while Jimmy is still able to contribute.
But you guys are right. We should trust WJ. He has come through time and again.
they just each won a ws ring in their primes
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
"doesn't matter the price" if
My guess is that TLR is pushing for Suppan, and that we'll sign him for 3 years after all of the other insanity is done so that the market is done fluctuating.
TSF
by TedSimmonsFan on Dec 11, 2006 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
Salary Cap
Don't you wish these GM's had to play with a salary cap like good Fantasy auctioneers have to? It'd be the Cards against the A's every year for a Decade until these clubs started to finding General managers who knew more than how to throw crazy money at people.
the Twins
by dabirds on Dec 11, 2006 9:10 PM EST up reply actions
Pavano
by goanderson on Dec 11, 2006 2:53 PM EST reply actions
ZIP
He's 30 years old - he's owed 22.9 m for 2 more years - if the Yanks will eat all but 10 m (5 m a year) then it will be a deal.
by goanderson on Dec 11, 2006 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
But can he pitch?
He's been hurt a lot. Is he up to it? Do his style/mechanics lend themselves to his being able to pitch without new injuries? If so, then great.
I'm certainly all for gifted NYY reclamation projects. The Cardinals are the anti-Yankees when it comes to head games, media exposure, and the clubhouse environment. If he's healthy, I'm game to take him on as you have proposed or something similar.
Here's an interesting note, though. Even thought I'm more comfortable this offseason than I was last, this year we seem to be more willing to risk multiple years on riskier pitchers. Obviously, there's not enough pitching out there to meet demand. Or, rather, perhaps, there's not enough good scouts and pitching coaches out there to properly develop what is available.
On that subject, has there been an examination of the newly created cardinals minor league affiliate to be based in the Florida spring training facility that I've missed. I thought that was very interesting, but I haven't seen anything on it besides the announcement. Where are those prospects coming from?
if that's what he does
is pavano
Now that they have Pettite and are probably hoping to get Rocket back maybe this will become a reality.....
by dabirds on Dec 11, 2006 9:13 PM EST up reply actions
Another thing
I wouldn't mind at all seeing Mulder come back for an incentivized year. Mulder healthy is a great guy to have around. Heck, I'd even give him an incentivized 1 year with a solid team option for, say, $12 million for a second year.
So, incorporating Mulder into my above ramblings, I'm basically for signing 1 and more preferably 2 of our guys from this year: Supp, Mulder, and Weaver. We definitely need one of them back. If signing 2 is impossible, sign a reclamation project, but I'd still rather see Wainwright in the rotation even with a second signing. 150-200 innings of good pitching is better than 60 innings of good pitching.
Since Wainwright needs a tryout as a starter (and can't eat all those starting innings his first year), I'd say signing Mulder is perhaps the best deal so that Adam can try out the beginning of the season while Mark ramps up.
I prefer Weaver's drive (not that Supp isn't focused or anything), but I prefer Supp's ease with his teammates (not that Weaver is a bad fit or anything, but Supp is Supp). BAH! It's 6 of one, half a dozen of another.
Bring back 2 of the 3.
Wainwright
by Toddius396 on Dec 11, 2006 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
got some rest...
Mulder
by Baily on Dec 11, 2006 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
My Little Rant
Ok back to Redman the reason i think hes a likely signing for the Cardinals is WJ alot of times signs players noones talking about noone was talking about Kip Wells before we signed him perhaps Redman would sign on for 1 year 3 or 4 million? what do you guys think anyone hear what Redman is asking for?
Add
by Tarheel85 on Dec 11, 2006 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
discount???
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
the cliff floyd discount you know
by brock on Dec 11, 2006 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
Weaver
BLEEP...
juuuust kidding..
kinda
: )
Best weekend comment from Bleed Cubbie Blue
My goodness I miss baseball season...
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 11, 2006 7:02 PM EST reply actions
If it wasn't 100 degrees in Florida
by orlando card on Dec 11, 2006 7:38 PM EST up reply actions
there is no way
I'm not asking for the cardinals to win the world series next year, all I want is for them to make the playoffs.
ZiPS pitching projections 2005
In this case, I underestimated league offense by a pretty good margin (about a quarter of a run) so some of the ones that look too optimistic, like A.J. Burnett and Millwood, were actually pretty good projections while some of the ones that look pretty close, like Washburn and Tomko, were actually too pessimistic.
by DSzymborski on Dec 13, 2006 1:05 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
