Ted Lilly = This Year's Bronson Arroyo?

[goonys evil twin]

Why go after Lilly when the Cubs have two lefties already that COULD HAVE similar numbers for considerably less already on the roster? Lilly would make a decent Deadline deal pitcher, but I wouldn't sign him, unless it was a "last act."

 

 

"Could have" is not good enough. The Cubs need to start operating on a "what are they likely to do" basis, not "what could they do if everything goes well". I'm not a big Lilly guy, but you can't make decisions based on what might happen, you have to base it on what is most likely to happen.

 

Hill might contend for the Cy Young next year. He might have an ERA over 9.00. But neither is all that likely. Murton might outproduce Miguel Cabrera next year, but he's probably not going to. Pierre might have a .375 OBP next year, but he most likely won't.

[TruffleShuffle]

Why go after Lilly when the Cubs have two lefties already that COULD HAVE similar numbers for considerably less already on the roster? Lilly would make a decent Deadline deal pitcher, but I wouldn't sign him, unless it was a "last act."

 

 

"Could have" is not good enough. The Cubs need to start operating on a "what are they likely to do" basis, not "what could they do if everything goes well". I'm not a big Lilly guy, but you can't make decisions based on what might happen, you have to base it on what is most likely to happen.

 

Hill might contend for the Cy Young next year. He might have an ERA over 9.00. But neither is all that likely. Murton might outproduce Miguel Cabrera next year, but he's probably not going to. Pierre might have a .375 OBP next year, but he most likely won't.

 

No, there is zero chance that this happens.

[USSoccer]

Why go after Lilly when the Cubs have two lefties already that COULD HAVE similar numbers for considerably less already on the roster? Lilly would make a decent Deadline deal pitcher, but I wouldn't sign him, unless it was a "last act."

 

 

"Could have" is not good enough. The Cubs need to start operating on a "what are they likely to do" basis, not "what could they do if everything goes well". I'm not a big Lilly guy, but you can't make decisions based on what might happen, you have to base it on what is most likely to happen.

 

Hill might contend for the Cy Young next year. He might have an ERA over 9.00. But neither is all that likely. Murton might outproduce Miguel Cabrera next year, but he's probably not going to. Pierre might have a .375 OBP next year, but he most likely won't.

 

No, there is zero chance that this happens.

 

What if Miggy blows out his knee? :P

[JeffH]

What if Miggy blows out his knee? :P

 

He will have been traded to the Cubs one week earlier.

[baseball7897]

I have no interest in Ted Lilly.

[Rob]

I think Suppan is likely a better use of $$

 

The odds of Suppan being a value-buy this offseason is practically zero since he's channeling the ghost of Bob Gibson's career.

 

He might end up banking 8-10 million due to his "playoff experience" and "clutchness"... and that's for a league average, innings-eater sort of pitcher.

 

Not a good use of money.

 

The market is what it is for a #3 starter. An average pitcher in the current market that stays relatively healthy makes 7-8 million a year, usually on a 3-year contract. Suppan might get a bit more due to the 'playoff experience'.

 

I'm not sure if it is a poor use of money since you're not going to find much cheaper production from a veteran anyway.

 

Teams are probably better off running two high-priced top-end starters, one average veteran, and two cheap kids from the farm. Suppan and Lilly fit the role of that #3 and you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy cheaper than 7 million at that role.

 

Have we not learned our lesson yet about overpaying for guys that don't make a difference?

 

The team would be much better off picking up Matsuzaka and Schmidt and running them out there with Z, Hill, and Prior (or whoever is healthy). Yeah, we'd have to tear the overpriced, mediocre bullpen apart to get salary relief... but we'd have a good pitching staff.

 

There's nothing wrong with a league-average innings guy. They do have value. But that value is nowhere near what they will be making.

 

Personally, I'd just rather spend the extra money on guys who will make a difference than doll out the cash for league average guys. Because, in general, league average guys will lead to a league average team... and not a great one.

[goonys evil twin]

I think Suppan is likely a better use of $$

 

The odds of Suppan being a value-buy this offseason is practically zero since he's channeling the ghost of Bob Gibson's career.

 

He might end up banking 8-10 million due to his "playoff experience" and "clutchness"... and that's for a league average, innings-eater sort of pitcher.

 

Not a good use of money.

 

The market is what it is for a #3 starter. An average pitcher in the current market that stays relatively healthy makes 7-8 million a year, usually on a 3-year contract. Suppan might get a bit more due to the 'playoff experience'.

 

I'm not sure if it is a poor use of money since you're not going to find much cheaper production from a veteran anyway.

 

Teams are probably better off running two high-priced top-end starters, one average veteran, and two cheap kids from the farm. Suppan and Lilly fit the role of that #3 and you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy cheaper than 7 million at that role.

 

Have we not learned our lesson yet about overpaying for guys that don't make a difference?

 

The team would be much better off picking up Matsuzaka and Schmidt and running them out there with Z, Hill, and Prior (or whoever is healthy). Yeah, we'd have to tear the overpriced, mediocre bullpen apart to get salary relief... but we'd have a good pitching staff.

 

There's nothing wrong with a league-average innings guy. They do have value. But that value is nowhere near what they will be making.

 

Personally, I'd just rather spend the extra money on guys who will make a difference than doll out the cash for league average guys. Because, in general, league average guys will lead to a league average team... and not a great one.

 

Who are we talking about here. Suppan and Lilly are not going to get similar deals. I bet Suppan gets 3/33 or higher. Lilly might have to settle for 2/10-12, maybe 3/18.

[TheDude]

Have we not learned our lesson yet about overpaying for guys that don't make a difference?

 

The problem I have is your criticizing the Cubs (implied by the 'we' in your statement) when this is an MLB discussion. Numerous teams pay 7-8 million for average starting pitching because that is the market value.

 

If you re-read my post, you'll note I never advocated the Cubs specifically target these guys. My intent was to show the criticism being applied to the Cubs should very well apply everywhere, because all teams do this, including the heavily lauded GMs around the league.

 

Beane in Oakland signed Loaiza. Schuerholz in Atlanta traded for Hampton - note that Colorado and Florida do not pay out on 2007-2008 for Hampton...the Braves are paying 29.5 million for those two years.

 

Epstein in Boston signed Clement. Etc., and so forth.

 

The team would be much better off picking up Matsuzaka and Schmidt and running them out there with Z, Hill, and Prior (or whoever is healthy).

 

What you have advocated here is more or less in line with the formula I suggested, so I guess you are agreeing with me.

 

-I said 2 top-end starters (here you put Schmidt and Z).

-I said one average market value pitcher (here I put Prior, since we don't know what to expect for his expected 5+ million, or your suggestion of Matsukaza, who projects around 6-8 million with an unknown MLB production).

-I said two cheap solutions from the farm (Hill and whomever replaces the injured Prior).

 

While I would prefer to gamble on Matsukaza much the same as you, I think there is an earnest observation that Matsukaza could well equal the production of your average 7 million veteran starter, like Lilly. And settling on Lilly if you don't get Matsukaza isn't that great of difference IMO.

[kroth1342]

I think Suppan is likely a better use of $$

 

The odds of Suppan being a value-buy this offseason is practically zero since he's channeling the ghost of Bob Gibson's career.

 

He might end up banking 8-10 million due to his "playoff experience" and "clutchness"... and that's for a league average, innings-eater sort of pitcher.

 

Not a good use of money.

 

The market is what it is for a #3 starter. An average pitcher in the current market that stays relatively healthy makes 7-8 million a year, usually on a 3-year contract. Suppan might get a bit more due to the 'playoff experience'.

 

I'm not sure if it is a poor use of money since you're not going to find much cheaper production from a veteran anyway.

 

Teams are probably better off running two high-priced top-end starters, one average veteran, and two cheap kids from the farm. Suppan and Lilly fit the role of that #3 and you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy cheaper than 7 million at that role.

 

Have we not learned our lesson yet about overpaying for guys that don't make a difference?

 

The team would be much better off picking up Matsuzaka and Schmidt and running them out there with Z, Hill, and Prior (or whoever is healthy). Yeah, we'd have to tear the overpriced, mediocre bullpen apart to get salary relief... but we'd have a good pitching staff.

 

There's nothing wrong with a league-average innings guy. They do have value. But that value is nowhere near what they will be making.

 

Personally, I'd just rather spend the extra money on guys who will make a difference than doll out the cash for league average guys. Because, in general, league average guys will lead to a league average team... and not a great one.

 

I would love to get Matsuzaka and Schmidt but then I remember that teams would love to get just ONE of those guys and the Cubs' record at wooing top of the line free agents has been abysmal in the past. I proposed Ted Lilly as a realistic gamble who could pay off big for much less cost.

[Geech]

Who are we talking about here. Suppan and Lilly are not going to get similar deals. I bet Suppan gets 3/33 or higher. Lilly might have to settle for 2/10-12, maybe 3/18.

 

Why would Suppan get 5 or 6 million more per year? They're both pretty average pitchers.

[goonys evil twin]

Who are we talking about here. Suppan and Lilly are not going to get similar deals. I bet Suppan gets 3/33 or higher. Lilly might have to settle for 2/10-12, maybe 3/18.

 

Why would Suppan get 5 or 6 million more per year? They're both pretty average pitchers.

 

Have you not watched the playoffs? Pitchers can earn big bucks in the playoffs. Aside from Suppan's recent results, he's been a more stable good pitcher, while Lilly was absolutely terrible last season. Suppan has at least shown some 200 IP seasons, while Lilly has never accomplished that.

 

I believe Suppan will go into this offseason perceived as the more stable, more reliable, big game pitcher, while Lilly is just Ted Lilly.

 

I think Lilly would be the greater value, as they are somewhat similar pitchers, and could have identical 2007 seasons, with Lilly making considerably less money. Of course, he could also get involved in a bidding war and become way overpriced.

[TheDude]

Who are we talking about here. Suppan and Lilly are not going to get similar deals. I bet Suppan gets 3/33 or higher. Lilly might have to settle for 2/10-12, maybe 3/18.

 

Why would Suppan get 5 or 6 million more per year? They're both pretty average pitchers.

 

I'm not speaking for Goony, but I'm willing to bet anticipated GM post-season rose-colored glasses has to do with it.

 

[edit - guess I was too late in my response :)]

[neely crenshaw]

i won't pretend to know vereything there is about ted lilly but my question for you naysayers is have you every watched him pitch an entire game? or are you basing it on what highlights you have seen and stuff you have heard/read?

i watched himpitch against the sox and he was tough. he has great stuff-period! he throws much harder than hill or even zito. in the 3 games i watched he was topping out at 94. now not every fastball was 94 but i was shocked at how hard he threw! he's curve was nasty! i thought he was being possessed by steve carlton! lol..i don't know if he's worth the money. hopefully we had scouts out there watching him to see what he has but i can tell you if we sign him, i won't be too upset. i will be upset if he is the top pitcher we sign! he certainly is worth a look. the thing i really like is the last 4 years 32 starts, 25 starts,32 starts, 32 starts...if there's anything we need is starters who can actually make their starts...with our staff that can be invaluable! it would help if they could also pitch a litle

that brings me to my next thought...why does everyone feel schmidt is injury prone?

he is as reliable as anyone. he has not missed significant starts since 2000. that's 6 seasons worth! he has averaged 30 starts the last 5 seasons and still made 25 in 2001. he's fewest is 29 in the last 5 years!

before 1999, it was more of the same ..3 years of 32+ starts!

so except for 2000 he has gotten his 180-225 innings and around 30 starts!

maybe he'll wear out but i certainly don't see him as injury prone.

[goonys evil twin]

i won't pretend to know vereything there is about ted lilly but my question for you naysayers is have you every watched him pitch an entire game? or are you basing it on what highlights you have seen and stuff you have heard/read?

i watched himpitch against the sox and he was tough. he has great stuff-period! he throws much harder than hill or even zito. in the 3 games i watched he was topping out at 94. now not every fastball was 94 but i was shocked at how hard he threw! he's curve was nasty! i thought he was being possessed by steve carlton! lol..i don't know if he's worth the money. hopefully we had scouts out there watching him to see what he has but i can tell you if we sign him, i won't be too upset. i will be upset if he is the top pitcher we sign! he certainly is worth a look. the thing i really like is the last 4 years 32 starts, 25 starts,32 starts, 32 starts...if there's anything we need is starters who can actually make their starts...with our staff that can be invaluable! it would help if they could also pitch a litle

that brings me to my next thought...why does everyone feel schmidt is injury prone?

he is as reliable as anyone. he has not missed significant starts since 2000. that's 6 seasons worth! he has averaged 30 starts the last 5 seasons and still made 25 in 2001. he's fewest is 29 in the last 5 years!

before 1999, it was more of the same ..3 years of 32+ starts!

so except for 2000 he has gotten his 180-225 innings and around 30 starts!

maybe he'll wear out but i certainly don't see him as injury prone.

 

I base my Lilly comments on the numbers he's put up. I have seen the occasional Ted Lilly outing, but don't remember much.

 

I don't think Schmidt can be called injury prone. I do, however, think he's walking a very tight rope. He's had prior injuries, and has missed starts in 5 of the past 7 seasons. Every year you read or hear about something that is bothering Schmidt. He seems to tough it out, and only misses a start here and there. But he's not Greg Maddux in the durability department. He's not even Mike Mussina, as far as that is concerned. He's a nice pitcher, and should be pretty darn good. But he's had some nagging issues, and injuries in the past, and is at the age when stuff can catch up to you pretty fast.

[neely crenshaw]

i agree with the age thing...it's always scary. and a tight rope may be a good way to say it but our 2nd most starts was 24. schimidt has only started fewer than 25 once in his career. he may have had some aches but give me some nagging injuries nad his 32 starts and 213 innings last year!

free agency is a crap shoot we may go for it and fail but i would much rather go for it than sign gil meche and be safe!

[mg420]

i won't pretend to know vereything there is about ted lilly but my question for you naysayers is have you every watched him pitch an entire game? or are you basing it on what highlights you have seen and stuff you have heard/read?

i watched himpitch against the sox and he was tough. he has great stuff-period! he throws much harder than hill or even zito. in the 3 games i watched he was topping out at 94. now not every fastball was 94 but i was shocked at how hard he threw! he's curve was nasty! i thought he was being possessed by steve carlton! lol..i don't know if he's worth the money. hopefully we had scouts out there watching him to see what he has but i can tell you if we sign him, i won't be too upset. i will be upset if he is the top pitcher we sign! he certainly is worth a look. the thing i really like is the last 4 years 32 starts, 25 starts,32 starts, 32 starts...if there's anything we need is starters who can actually make their starts...with our staff that can be invaluable! it would help if they could also pitch a litle

that brings me to my next thought...why does everyone feel schmidt is injury prone?

he is as reliable as anyone. he has not missed significant starts since 2000. that's 6 seasons worth! he has averaged 30 starts the last 5 seasons and still made 25 in 2001. he's fewest is 29 in the last 5 years!

before 1999, it was more of the same ..3 years of 32+ starts!

so except for 2000 he has gotten his 180-225 innings and around 30 starts!

maybe he'll wear out but i certainly don't see him as injury prone.

 

hill was between 90 & 92 the last month + with the cubs and might have had a few 94's himself. how is lilly's occasional 94 "much harder" than hill's?

[baseball7897]

i won't pretend to know vereything there is about ted lilly but my question for you naysayers is have you every watched him pitch an entire game? or are you basing it on what highlights you have seen and stuff you have heard/read?

i watched himpitch against the sox and he was tough. he has great stuff-period! he throws much harder than hill or even zito. in the 3 games i watched he was topping out at 94. now not every fastball was 94 but i was shocked at how hard he threw! he's curve was nasty! i thought he was being possessed by steve carlton! lol..i don't know if he's worth the money. hopefully we had scouts out there watching him to see what he has but i can tell you if we sign him, i won't be too upset. i will be upset if he is the top pitcher we sign! he certainly is worth a look. the thing i really like is the last 4 years 32 starts, 25 starts,32 starts, 32 starts...if there's anything we need is starters who can actually make their starts...with our staff that can be invaluable! it would help if they could also pitch a litle

that brings me to my next thought...why does everyone feel schmidt is injury prone?

he is as reliable as anyone. he has not missed significant starts since 2000. that's 6 seasons worth! he has averaged 30 starts the last 5 seasons and still made 25 in 2001. he's fewest is 29 in the last 5 years!

before 1999, it was more of the same ..3 years of 32+ starts!

so except for 2000 he has gotten his 180-225 innings and around 30 starts!

maybe he'll wear out but i certainly don't see him as injury prone.

 

hill was between 90 & 92 the last month + with the cubs and might have had a few 94's himself. how is lilly's occasional 94 "much harder" than hill's?

 

Does it really matter? You dont need to have a 94mph fastball to have success in the big leagues.

[TruffleShuffle]

Personally, I'd just rather spend the extra money on guys who will make a difference than doll out the cash for league average guys. Because, in general, league average guys will lead to a league average team... and not a great one.

 

yeah the cardinals have pretty much been a league-average team the last three years with jeff suppan there... only 3 nlcs and 2 world series appearances

[NorthsideAvenger]

Why go after Lilly when the Cubs have two lefties already that COULD HAVE similar numbers for considerably less already on the roster? Lilly would make a decent Deadline deal pitcher, but I wouldn't sign him, unless it was a "last act."

Please name these two pitchers

 

Hill and either Marshall or Veal (who I think could see significant time in 2007).

[NorthsideAvenger]

"Could have" is not good enough. The Cubs need to start operating on a "what are they likely to do" basis, not "what could they do if everything goes well". I'm not a big Lilly guy, but you can't make decisions based on what might happen, you have to base it on what is most likely to happen.

 

"Could have" may not be good enough, but with the Cubs history of "wooing FAs", that may have to be good enough. Besides, I actually the young arms the Cubs have, and like to see them further developed. All I know is that when "big name FA' put on a Cubs uniforms, they go to crap..ie Hundley/Alou. So, pardon me, if I rather give the youngsters a chance, over veterans.

 

Hill might contend for the Cy Young next year. He might have an ERA over 9.00. But neither is all that likely. Murton might outproduce Miguel Cabrera next year, but he's probably not going to. Pierre might have a .375 OBP next year, but he most likely won't.

 

Little extreme aren't you, gooney?

[TruffleShuffle]

"Could have" may not be good enough, but with the Cubs history of "wooing FAs", that may have to be good enough. Besides, I actually the young arms the Cubs have, and like to see them further developed. All I know is that when "big name FA' put on a Cubs uniforms, they go to crap..ie Hundley/Alou. So, pardon me, if I rather give the youngsters a chance, over veterans.

 

OK, but the Cubs are going to stay bad that way.

[kroth1342]

"Could have" may not be good enough, but with the Cubs history of "wooing FAs", that may have to be good enough. Besides, I actually the young arms the Cubs have, and like to see them further developed. All I know is that when "big name FA' put on a Cubs uniforms, they go to crap..ie Hundley/Alou. So, pardon me, if I rather give the youngsters a chance, over veterans.

 

OK, but the Cubs are going to stay bad that way.

 

Just because the Cubs sign "big name FA" doesn't mean they're the RIGHT free agents. Something to keep in mind with Alou's rough start is the transition players make coming to Wrigley with all the home games - but all in all, I liked the Moises years (not the throwing or baserunning, but those are small complaints).

[TruffleShuffle]

"Could have" may not be good enough, but with the Cubs history of "wooing FAs", that may have to be good enough. Besides, I actually the young arms the Cubs have, and like to see them further developed. All I know is that when "big name FA' put on a Cubs uniforms, they go to crap..ie Hundley/Alou. So, pardon me, if I rather give the youngsters a chance, over veterans.

 

OK, but the Cubs are going to stay bad that way.

 

Just because the Cubs sign "big name FA" doesn't mean they're the RIGHT free agents. Something to keep in mind with Alou's rough start is the transition players make coming to Wrigley with all the home games - but all in all, I liked the Moises years (not the throwing or baserunning, but those are small complaints).

 

Yeah, but go with the young guys? That's pretty much how it turned out last year, and the Cubs were brutally bad. Teams in baseball strengthen themselves through free agency, trades, and their farm system. You need to be active in free agency to field a good time, as long as you make the right move rather than get mediocre has-beens like Steve Buechele. Sure, you can put in Sean Marshall rather than Ted Lilly, stick with Ronny Cedeno at second base, etc. But there are plenty of Kevin Ories, Gary Scotts, Mike Harkeys and Todd Wellemeyers that turn out to be nowhere close to major league average.

[NorthsideAvenger]

"Could have" may not be good enough, but with the Cubs history of "wooing FAs", that may have to be good enough. Besides, I actually the young arms the Cubs have, and like to see them further developed. All I know is that when "big name FA' put on a Cubs uniforms, they go to crap..ie Hundley/Alou. So, pardon me, if I rather give the youngsters a chance, over veterans.

 

OK, but the Cubs are going to stay bad that way.

 

Just because the Cubs sign "big name FA" doesn't mean they're the RIGHT free agents. Something to keep in mind with Alou's rough start is the transition players make coming to Wrigley with all the home games - but all in all, I liked the Moises years (not the throwing or baserunning, but those are small complaints).

 

Yeah, but go with the young guys? That's pretty much how it turned out last year, and the Cubs were brutally bad. Teams in baseball strengthen themselves through free agency, trades, and their farm system. You need to be active in free agency to field a good time, as long as you make the right move rather than get mediocre has-beens like Steve Buechele. Sure, you can put in Sean Marshall rather than Ted Lilly, stick with Ronny Cedeno at second base, etc. But there are plenty of Kevin Ories, Gary Scotts, Mike Harkeys and Todd Wellemeyers that turn out to be nowhere close to major league average.

 

You have to USE the right young players, not just ANY young players. The Marlins plan worked semi-decently, because they had kids like Willigham/Uggla/Ramirez/Jacobs, etc, that were talented enough to play.

 

If the Cubs improve themselves through FA, fine, but the Cubs don't have a good history of doing that. The Cubs have been burned through FA(Dawson was the last FA who wasn't a bust), hence the reason why they are better through the trades (Sandberg/Sosa/Lee/ARam/Sutcliffe). So if the Cubs are going to improve they have to look at all avenues, and use a combination of them all.

[goonys evil twin]

You have to USE the right young players, not just ANY young players. The Marlins plan worked semi-decently, because they had kids like Willigham/Uggla/Ramirez/Jacobs, etc, that were talented enough to play.

 

If the Cubs improve themselves through FA, fine, but the Cubs don't have a good history of doing that. The Cubs have been burned through FA(Dawson was the last FA who wasn't a bust), hence the reason why they are better through the trades (Sandberg/Sosa/Lee/ARam/Sutcliffe). So if the Cubs are going to improve they have to look at all avenues, and use a combination of them all.

 

Past failures in free agency doesn't mean it's a bad way to try to improve your team. It's pretty much the only way the Cubs can improve their team right now.