Westbrook

[Guest]

how are the cubs going to flip padilla if he wants 10 mil a year? unless he is outstanding, not many teams are going to want him for that price. other than carpenter, westbrook had a better year than any starter on the cards last year. he seems to compare favorably to suppan who has proven to be quite valuable btw.

How would the Cubs flip Padilla? Well, he'll have one less year on his deal, which will make him much more "moveable" at that time. Let's say the Cubs sign him to a 3/30 deal (which I don't believe it will take). After this year, he'll only be 2/20 and will be much more attractive when compared to next season's FA's. Kinda like Westbrook looks good to you now.

 

Umm...who cares how he compares to the Cards starters? They got damn lucky to have even made the playoffs with that team, let alone to have won anything.

 

Besides, that still doesn't argue for trading value for someone you can easily replace with a FA signing.

 

the point is that you dont need 4 or 5 stud pithcers to get to the post season. look at padilla's last 3 years and westbrook's and tell me who is the better pitcher?

I'm not really pumped on Padilla, either, as I didn't bring him into the conversation.

 

But if you don't need 4-5 stud pitchers to reach the postseason, why trade anything of value to get a guy who isn't a stud?

[Guest]

again, tell that to kenny rodgers and jeff suppan. they seem to function ok by pitching like westbrook.

Shall I start rattling off guys who pitch like Westbrook that get abysmal results? There's a whole lot more of them out there than there are successes, you know.

who cares? westbrook like rogers and suppan gets results.

Once again, Westbrook has been worse than league average in ERA more than he's been better. Are those really the results you want to give up talent to acquire?

[Guest]

He's mentioned in several threads as a target that people here are excited about. I just don't see the reason for excitement. But I'm willing to be convinced.

 

Anyone care to give it a go?

 

I dont know if I've seen anyone that thinks he's the 2nd ace we've been hoping for, but he's above average. With his groundballs he seems pretty well suited for Wrigley, he eats innings, and he's still fairly cheap. He was 16/39 in ERA for qualified AL SP with 4.17. I'd bet he could consistently have an ERA in the high 3's in the NL, which would put him at Glavine's level for this year. My biggest reason for wanting him is that the Indians seem to want relief pitchers and a backup ss, so it seems like an Izturis/Eyre deal could get him. And the way I see it, we have an ace, I'd bet that either Miller or Prior will put up above avg numbers, I bet Hill will put up above avg numbers, and I bet Westbrook would put up above avg numbers, that would give us a front four of:

 

Awesome

Above Avg

Above Avg

Above Avg

???

 

So its less about desperately wanting Westbrook and more about him being very good for our situation.

Again, if the cost of acquisition is low, then I'm all for it. But if we start to have to give up real talent to get him, then let's move on. I can't see the advantage of Westbrook over some of the FA guys being worth Murton or Wuertz to me.

[Neuby]

how are the cubs going to flip padilla if he wants 10 mil a year? unless he is outstanding, not many teams are going to want him for that price. other than carpenter, westbrook had a better year than any starter on the cards last year. he seems to compare favorably to suppan who has proven to be quite valuable btw.

How would the Cubs flip Padilla? Well, he'll have one less year on his deal, which will make him much more "moveable" at that time. Let's say the Cubs sign him to a 3/30 deal (which I don't believe it will take). After this year, he'll only be 2/20 and will be much more attractive when compared to next season's FA's. Kinda like Westbrook looks good to you now.

 

Umm...who cares how he compares to the Cards starters? They got damn lucky to have even made the playoffs with that team, let alone to have won anything.

 

Besides, that still doesn't argue for trading value for someone you can easily replace with a FA signing.

 

 

The Cardinials got Lucky? Wow for a guy who loves to through out numbers all the sudden the Cards are lucky

Like it or not Tim not every starter is gonna throw 95mph and strike a ton of guys out. Westbrook is a guy that can still improve on what he's done in the past and get helped out by moving to the NL like others have in recent past. If the Cubs can get Westbrook for Izzy or Eyre and fill there a hole that way it makes Westbrook even more attractive compared to trucks loads of money crappy pitchers are going to be getting on the open market this winter. Maybe we can get Juan Cruz back?

:roll:

 

What starters that have been talked about as trade bait this offseason do you recommend the Cubs go after instead of Westbrook.

[Mephistopheles]

Fair enough, then Suppan's walk rate is inflated by walking the 8 holes at an increased rate in order to get the pitcher. There's still a lot of data to suggest that the likelihood of him being better than average is low. There are a lot of GB pitchers who don't K a lot of batters. They get weeded out.

 

Westbrook is at best an average pitcher. Sure that's a huge upgrade over what we got out of the last two slots last season, but there are plenty of good options out there we can get, who have much higher upside.

[Soriano12]

Once again, Westbrook has been worse than league average in ERA more than he's been better. Are those really the results you want to give up talent to acquire?

 

You don't think Westbrook#'s have a good shot of getting better in the NL.

 

I wouldn't want to give up Murton though, I am a Matt Murton fan.

 

I'd gladly package Weurtz up in a deal for Westbrook however.

[Mephistopheles]

The league average is in the AL. We can take average pitchers from the AL and say they should improve in the NL and be better than average more so than Westbrook.

[Guest]

how are the cubs going to flip padilla if he wants 10 mil a year? unless he is outstanding, not many teams are going to want him for that price. other than carpenter, westbrook had a better year than any starter on the cards last year. he seems to compare favorably to suppan who has proven to be quite valuable btw.

How would the Cubs flip Padilla? Well, he'll have one less year on his deal, which will make him much more "moveable" at that time. Let's say the Cubs sign him to a 3/30 deal (which I don't believe it will take). After this year, he'll only be 2/20 and will be much more attractive when compared to next season's FA's. Kinda like Westbrook looks good to you now.

 

Umm...who cares how he compares to the Cards starters? They got damn lucky to have even made the playoffs with that team, let alone to have won anything.

 

Besides, that still doesn't argue for trading value for someone you can easily replace with a FA signing.

 

 

The Cardinials got Lucky? Wow for a guy who loves to through out numbers all the sudden the Cards are lucky

Like it or not Tim not every starter is gonna throw 95mph and strike a ton of guys out. Westbrook is a guy that can still improve on what he's done in the past and get helped out by moving to the NL like others have in recent past. If the Cubs can get Westbrook for Izzy or Eyre and fill there a hole that way it makes Westbrook even more attractive compared to trucks loads of money crappy pitchers are going to be getting on the open market this winter. Maybe we can get Juan Cruz back?

:roll:

 

What starters that have been talked about as trade bait this offseason do you recommend the Cubs go after instead of Westbrook.

Yes, any team that won 83 regular season games and makes the playoffs is lucky. You really feel otherwise?

 

Westbrook is 29 and has been in the league for parts of seven seasons - he pretty much is what he's going to be.

 

Jason Marquis pitches a lot like Westbrook (though a bit less so). He might be had for a spring training invite at this point. Not a person here is going to jump up and down if we get him.

 

All this ignores the fact that Westbrook also only has one year left on his deal. If we trade cheap young talent to get him we're doing so for a rental.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's not like Westbrook is completely immune to striking guys out. His HR allowed are at the bottom of the AL each of the last three years, he's pretty good at keeping the ball in the park. I don't think you're allowing much separation from "really good" starters and "bottom of the rotation" guys. Westbrook is a pretty solid 3.

You know what I notice from that? A pitcher who had a .340 OBP against last season. And he was 31st out of 39 in K/9, so yeah, he's pretty allergic to strikeouts.

 

(as a side note...I also noticed that only 39 pitchers qualified for the ERA title in the AL last year?!? Wow)

 

He also put up a .317 and .308 OBP against the previous two years.

 

Again, no one's saying Westbrook is amazing. Can you justify how Westbrook isn't a 3 caliber starter? By VORP he was the 42nd best pitcher in the game last year, and he had a terrible BABIP year. In 2004 he was 14th in baseball in VORP.

[VanceJergins]

He's mentioned in several threads as a target that people here are excited about. I just don't see the reason for excitement. But I'm willing to be convinced.

 

Anyone care to give it a go?

 

I dont know if I've seen anyone that thinks he's the 2nd ace we've been hoping for, but he's above average. With his groundballs he seems pretty well suited for Wrigley, he eats innings, and he's still fairly cheap. He was 16/39 in ERA for qualified AL SP with 4.17. I'd bet he could consistently have an ERA in the high 3's in the NL, which would put him at Glavine's level for this year. My biggest reason for wanting him is that the Indians seem to want relief pitchers and a backup ss, so it seems like an Izturis/Eyre deal could get him. And the way I see it, we have an ace, I'd bet that either Miller or Prior will put up above avg numbers, I bet Hill will put up above avg numbers, and I bet Westbrook would put up above avg numbers, that would give us a front four of:

 

Awesome

Above Avg

Above Avg

Above Avg

???

 

So its less about desperately wanting Westbrook and more about him being very good for our situation.

Again, if the cost of acquisition is low, then I'm all for it. But if we start to have to give up real talent to get him, then let's move on. I can't see the advantage of Westbrook over some of the FA guys being worth Murton or Wuertz to me.

 

 

I would rather have him than one of the FA guys because 1.) I think he's better than most of them, and 2.) Because they're all asking for around 10m, and getting Westbrook would leave us money for 2 big bats.

 

But I completely agree that would shouldnt give up a lot and I dont think there are many people that would disagree. Wuertz would be around where I would draw the line. I think I would give him up just because we have an overstocked pen and because starters are more valuable. I would definitely not consider giving up Murton.

[Guest]

Once again, Westbrook has been worse than league average in ERA more than he's been better. Are those really the results you want to give up talent to acquire?

 

You don't think Westbrook#'s have a good shot of getting better in the NL.

 

I wouldn't want to give up Murton though, I am a Matt Murton fan.

 

I'd gladly package Weurtz up in a deal for Westbrook however.

League average pitchers don't miraculously transform when they come to the NL into cy young contenders just because they move leagues. Yes, it's happened. It's also happened that they've gotten much worse. In general, a league average pitcher in the AL will be league average in the NL, but have a slightly better ERA because the league average ERA drops about a tenth of a point.

[Mephistopheles]

Break apart the OBP please. His BABIP should have been around .300. In 2004 it was .277, that's going to lower his OBP just on pure randomness. It does it to a lower extent in 2005.

[Guest]

It's not like Westbrook is completely immune to striking guys out. His HR allowed are at the bottom of the AL each of the last three years, he's pretty good at keeping the ball in the park. I don't think you're allowing much separation from "really good" starters and "bottom of the rotation" guys. Westbrook is a pretty solid 3.

You know what I notice from that? A pitcher who had a .340 OBP against last season. And he was 31st out of 39 in K/9, so yeah, he's pretty allergic to strikeouts.

 

(as a side note...I also noticed that only 39 pitchers qualified for the ERA title in the AL last year?!? Wow)

 

He also put up a .317 and .308 OBP against the previous two years.

 

Again, no one's saying Westbrook is amazing. Can you justify how Westbrook isn't a 3 caliber starter? By VORP he was the 42nd best pitcher in the game last year, and he had a terrible BABIP year. In 2004 he was 14th in baseball in VORP.

I'm not wild about VORP for pitchers as a measurement. I think they do a better job measuring hitters with that stat.

 

He's a three on many teams, yes. So are a bunch of the FA pitchers out there that we wouldn't have to give up talent to acquire.

[Soriano12]

Parsing through his game longs last season, he was usally either really good, or really bad. If he could somehow cut down on those "turd' games, he might

win 18 games.

[Mephistopheles]

League average pitchers don't miraculously transform when they come to the NL into cy young contenders just because they move leagues. Yes, it's happened. It's also happened that they've gotten much worse. In general, a league average pitcher in the AL will be league average in the NL, but have a slightly better ERA because the league average ERA drops about a tenth of a point.

 

From an empirical test I did I found that it was around half a run. From a theoretical test I did I found it was around .3 runs. That's usually the difference in ERA for the leagues, but the last couple of seasons it's been closer.

[craig]

I'm not very enthused about Westbrook. So I can't give the strong endorsement or the real enthusiasm.

 

But, I'd like to have him, because I think he's above average, somewhat, and is likely to remain so. With the Padilla/Lilly/Meche/Marquis FA's the Cubs are talking about, there is less likelihood of being even average.

 

Westbrook has been better than average in two of the last three years, using *ERA+. Dominant, no. But by keeping HR's and walks managable, he's probably a pretty consistent innings eater. I think there is value in that.

 

As a groundball guy, I think the Cub infield would convert some of the hits that get by Peralta etc. in Cleveland into outs. (I expect that Izturis and Lee could both be excellent defensively, and DeRosa OK...). So I think his WHIP would be a little lower.

 

I also think that he could be a non-dominant guy who might win a lot of games if the Cubs do get Soriano and put him in center. I think a Soriano, Murton, Jones, Aram, Lee, Barrett lineup could be quite strong offensively and score a lot of runs. And I think with a little bullpen luck, there's a chance the pen will be pretty good too. (Not certain, obviously...)

 

For a team with a good offense and a good infield defense and a good bullpen, a non-dominant groundball pitcher who doesn't walk a lot and doesn't allow many HR's can throw a lot of forgettable 6IP/3R, 7IP/3R, 6IP/2R type games. Not at all dominant. But the kind of "quality start" that while it excides nobody, enables the team to win pretty often if it has a good offense and a good bullpen.

[Guest]

I would rather have him than one of the FA guys because 1.) I think he's better than most of them, and 2.) Because they're all asking for around 10m, and getting Westbrook would leave us money for 2 big bats.

 

But I completely agree that would shouldnt give up a lot and I dont think there are many people that would disagree. Wuertz would be around where I would draw the line. I think I would give him up just because we have an overstocked pen and because starters are more valuable. I would definitely not consider giving up Murton.

They're asking for 10M, but they're not all going to get that much. In the end, I think Westbrook will cost less than a Neifi's worth of savings when compared to what nearly equivalent people on the FA market will get.

 

Now if we can dump Izzy's salary while acquiring him, it's an entirely different story!

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's not like Westbrook is completely immune to striking guys out. His HR allowed are at the bottom of the AL each of the last three years, he's pretty good at keeping the ball in the park. I don't think you're allowing much separation from "really good" starters and "bottom of the rotation" guys. Westbrook is a pretty solid 3.

You know what I notice from that? A pitcher who had a .340 OBP against last season. And he was 31st out of 39 in K/9, so yeah, he's pretty allergic to strikeouts.

 

(as a side note...I also noticed that only 39 pitchers qualified for the ERA title in the AL last year?!? Wow)

 

He also put up a .317 and .308 OBP against the previous two years.

 

Again, no one's saying Westbrook is amazing. Can you justify how Westbrook isn't a 3 caliber starter? By VORP he was the 42nd best pitcher in the game last year, and he had a terrible BABIP year. In 2004 he was 14th in baseball in VORP.

I'm not wild about VORP for pitchers as a measurement. I think they do a better job measuring hitters with that stat.

 

He's a three on many teams, yes. So are a bunch of the FA pitchers out there that we wouldn't have to give up talent to acquire.

 

Which FA pitchers? And at what point is it worth giving up the (marginal) talent needed to get him as opposed to giving an obscene contract to the FA?

[Guest]

Parsing through his game longs last season, he was usally either really good, or really bad. If he could somehow cut down on those "turd' games, he might

win 18 games.

Yeah, and if Guzman could throw more strikes and stay healthy he might win 25!

[Guest]

I'm not very enthused about Westbrook. So I can't give the strong endorsement or the real enthusiasm.

 

But, I'd like to have him, because I think he's above average, somewhat, and is likely to remain so. With the Padilla/Lilly/Meche/Marquis FA's the Cubs are talking about, there is less likelihood of being even average.

 

Westbrook has been better than average in two of the last three years, using *ERA+. Dominant, no. But by keeping HR's and walks managable, he's probably a pretty consistent innings eater. I think there is value in that.

 

As a groundball guy, I think the Cub infield would convert some of the hits that get by Peralta etc. in Cleveland into outs. (I expect that Izturis and Lee could both be excellent defensively, and DeRosa OK...). So I think his WHIP would be a little lower.

 

I also think that he could be a non-dominant guy who might win a lot of games if the Cubs do get Soriano and put him in center. I think a Soriano, Murton, Jones, Aram, Lee, Barrett lineup could be quite strong offensively and score a lot of runs. And I think with a little bullpen luck, there's a chance the pen will be pretty good too. (Not certain, obviously...)

 

For a team with a good offense and a good infield defense and a good bullpen, a non-dominant groundball pitcher who doesn't walk a lot and doesn't allow many HR's can throw a lot of forgettable 6IP/3R, 7IP/3R, 6IP/2R type games. Not at all dominant. But the kind of "quality start" that while it excides nobody, enables the team to win pretty often if it has a good offense and a good bullpen.

Which brings the difference between Westbrook and some of the FA pitchers to be how much we have to pay for a one year rental.

 

I'm not against getting him. I just wouldn't pay a lot for him.

[Mephistopheles]

]By VORP he was the 42nd best pitcher in the game last year, and he had a terrible BABIP year. In 2004 he was 14th in baseball in VORP.

 

No one's saying his 2004 production was bad, just expecting it to ever occur again or get close isn't a good idea. We shouldn't be concerned on what he has done, just what he will do. He didn't have a terrible BABIP last season. It was slightly worse than average. His 2004 and 2005 were bigger anamolies and helped him.

 

He had it coming.

[Soriano12]

Parsing through his game longs last season, he was usally either really good, or really bad. If he could somehow cut down on those "turd' games, he might

win 18 games.

Yeah, and if Guzman could throw more strikes and stay healthy he might win 25!

 

Westbrook did win 15 last season. On a bad Indians team. I don't think 3 extra wins is pushing the envelope. This is one dart I seriously woudn't mind seeing Hendry throw.

[Guest]

Which FA pitchers? And at what point is it worth giving up the (marginal) talent needed to get him as opposed to giving an obscene contract to the FA?

Heck, if you look at Marquis in 2004 and 2005, Westbrook wasn't much better. And Marquis is going to be dirt cheap. I'd say chances are good that Westbrook would outperform him, but we would pay less in dollars and in talent for him.

 

Kei Igawa could perform similarly and shouldn't demand an outrageous contract.

 

I don't think Lilly or Padilla will get the contracts they're looking for, so I'd have to see how much of an advantage there is there.

 

Basically, if Westbrook is so much better than the FA's and has such a better contract situation, then Shapiro is a good enough GM to get real talent back in return. I don't see the consistency in saying the FA market is going to be outrageously expensive for average starters but the trade market will be really cheap.

[Guest]

Parsing through his game longs last season, he was usally either really good, or really bad. If he could somehow cut down on those "turd' games, he might

win 18 games.

Yeah, and if Guzman could throw more strikes and stay healthy he might win 25!

 

Westbrook did win 15 last season. On a bad Indians team. I don't think 3 extra wins is pushing the envelope. This is one dart I seriously woudn't mind seeing Hendry throw.

You're really going to lean on wins for your argument?

 

Aren't we past the baseball dark ages yet?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

]By VORP he was the 42nd best pitcher in the game last year, and he had a terrible BABIP year. In 2004 he was 14th in baseball in VORP.

 

No one's saying his 2004 production was bad, just expecting it to ever occur again or get close isn't a good idea. We shouldn't be concerned on what he has done, just what he will do. He didn't have a terrible BABIP last season. It was slightly worse than average. His 2004 and 2005 were bigger anamolies and helped him.

 

He had it coming.

 

2004: 14.1 LD%, .272 BABIP against

2005: 18.0 LD%, .287 BABIP against

2006: 17.3 LD%, .322 BABIP against

 

I'd say that his 2006 is much more flukish, and I think you could make the argument that 2004 and 2005 aren't too out of whack either.