ESPN 1000 - Cubs are going after Schmidt next

[Uber]

Baseball7897 is a killer skateboarder...he can pull off multiple 180s in the blink of an eye!

 

HIGH FIVE!

[Rob]

 

Does he deserve 60-70 million at this point in his career? NO. Paying anything in the range of 70 million for a declining 34 year old pitcher is not a smart move. The only way I see him getting that much money is if some team has to offer him that much to get him out of the west coast.

 

I see Hendry offering him a contract, but I dont see him offering anything close to 70 million. Specially if he goes out at signs Lilly to a contract.

 

Does Lilly deserve 35 million? NO.

 

Does Batista deserve 20 million? NO.

 

Does Suppan deserve 35 million? NO.

 

Does Zito deserve 100 million? NO.

 

Does Meche deserve 30 million? NO.

 

 

 

None of the guys on the market deserve what they are going to get. Schmidt is closest to deserving his actual pricetag...

[jjgman21]

I dont understand the concept that Schmidt isnt worth 15 million when Lilly is being offered 10 million per. Thats insane. He's worth the extra five and then some.

 

because what can be done with the extra 5M could possibly improve the team more than just having Schmidt.

 

I also have seen nothing on Lilly being offered 10M, more in the 8-9 range. his agent is on the record as saying he wants Washburn money, ie 9M/year.

 

While in a normal offseason year i'd tend to agree with you, this year, the player talent available in free agency is pretty thin. The drop off between the A free agents and the B free agents is pretty steep. I also dont see where you'd make up for the talent difference between Lilly and Schmidt in free agency elsewhere.

 

you might not see it, but there are a myriad of ways to keep improving the team via free agents. it will come down to a matter of preference of course, but improvement is out there, even in this limited talent market.

 

you are also not seeing other ways the extra money could be used, ie. allowing you to release Izturis or using that extra money in getting a player from a team dumping salary. again, it's all each posters preference, but to close out the debate because you don't see a better way to improve the team is a little silly.

[jjgman21]

 

Does he deserve 60-70 million at this point in his career? NO. Paying anything in the range of 70 million for a declining 34 year old pitcher is not a smart move. The only way I see him getting that much money is if some team has to offer him that much to get him out of the west coast.

 

I see Hendry offering him a contract, but I dont see him offering anything close to 70 million. Specially if he goes out at signs Lilly to a contract.

 

Does Lilly deserve 35 million? NO.

 

Does Batista deserve 20 million? NO.

 

Does Suppan deserve 35 million? NO.

 

Does Zito deserve 100 million? NO.

 

Does Meche deserve 30 million? NO.

 

 

 

None of the guys on the market deserve what they are going to get. Schmidt is closest to deserving his actual pricetag...

 

I think "does deserve" improperly frames this discussion. the decision should be based on "will deserve." the answer to all is probably no, but the decision should be based on who will come closest to deserving the money he gets in the future. with that said, I don't think you can say hands down Schmidt is that guy because it all rests on seeing into the future.

[PrimeTime]

Lets hope Big Papa Spendry goes out and gets our man Schmidt

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/3867/801/1600/425951/papajim.jpg

[CubinNY]

 

I think "does deserve" improperly frames this discussion. the decision should be based on "will deserve." the answer to all is probably no, but the decision should be based on who will come closest to deserving the money he gets in the future. with that said, I don't think you can say hands down Schmidt is that guy because it all rests on seeing into the future.

 

I don't disagree, but I'd rather have the better talent for the money (within parameters). The inequalitiy of the talent is the key here.

[uppercase_D]

I dont understand the concept that Schmidt isnt worth 15 million when Lilly is being offered 10 million per. Thats insane. He's worth the extra five and then some.

 

because what can be done with the extra 5M could possibly improve the team more than just having Schmidt.

 

I also have seen nothing on Lilly being offered 10M, more in the 8-9 range. his agent is on the record as saying he wants Washburn money, ie 9M/year.

 

While in a normal offseason year i'd tend to agree with you, this year, the player talent available in free agency is pretty thin. The drop off between the A free agents and the B free agents is pretty steep. I also dont see where you'd make up for the talent difference between Lilly and Schmidt in free agency elsewhere.

 

you might not see it, but there are a myriad of ways to keep improving the team via free agents. it will come down to a matter of preference of course, but improvement is out there, even in this limited talent market.

 

you are also not seeing other ways the extra money could be used, ie. allowing you to release Izturis or using that extra money in getting a player from a team dumping salary. again, it's all each posters preference, but to close out the debate because you don't see a better way to improve the team is a little silly.

 

I was simply going on past practices, the "usual" way things get done around here would be that we go out and sign Lilly at 9m and go out and get more mediocre talent with the other 6m.(See Neifi Perez and Glendone Rusch) This team has a history of doing those sorts of things. I prefer the way they seem to be doing things now as with the Soriano signing. If you have the money sign the best.

I also was just talking about pitching and free agency, I am in no way talking about trades. I am not a fortune teller. If a number two pitcher is available through trades at a cheaper cost and allowed us to go out and sign Lugo through free agency, with the extra money, then I'd be all for that over signing Schmidt for 15M per.

[Rob]

I just have to point this out.

 

Schmidt's #3 comprable is Roger Clemens.

 

In Clemens' age 31 season he went 170.2 innings with an ERA at 2.85.

In Schmidt's age 31 season hew went 225 innings with an ERA at 3.20.

 

In Clemens' age 32 season he went 140 innings with an ERA at 4.18

In Schmidt's age 32 season he went 172 innings with an ERA at 4.40

 

In Clemens' age 33 season he went 242.2 innings with an ERA at 3.63

In Schmidt's age 33 season he went 213.3 innings with an ERA at 3.59

 

In Clemens' age 34 and 35 seasons he won the pitching triple crown.

 

Just something to chew on...

[jjgman21]

I just have to point this out.

 

Schmidt's #3 comprable is Roger Clemens.

 

In Clemens' age 31 season he went 170.2 innings with an ERA at 2.85.

In Schmidt's age 31 season hew went 225 innings with an ERA at 3.20.

 

In Clemens' age 32 season he went 140 innings with an ERA at 4.18

In Schmidt's age 32 season he went 172 innings with an ERA at 4.40

 

In Clemens' age 33 season he went 242.2 innings with an ERA at 3.63

In Schmidt's age 33 season he went 213.3 innings with an ERA at 3.59

 

In Clemens' age 34 and 35 seasons he won the pitching triple crown.

 

Just something to chew on...

 

and Schmidt's career up until 28 or 29 is indistiguishable from Padilla's career up until now. so which is more likely, Schmidt taking off and taking the triple crown, or Padilla stepping up and having three years like Schmidt did at Padilla's age?

 

and where are you getting your info? baseballreference has Schmidt's most similar by age as Jack McDowell, Ramon Martinez, and Bartolo Colon. not that I agree with that, but that's a large disparity in similarity rankings between those guys and Clemens.

 

but I think the comparison to Clemens is absurd in any regard. Clemens had 6 seasons of 154 or better ERA+ by the time he was Schmidt's age, and hoping that Schmidt will follow the same path as Clemens into the future is foolhearty. choosing one freak as a basis of comparison gets us nowhere.

[nilodnayr]

I just have to point this out.

 

Schmidt's #3 comprable is Roger Clemens.

 

In Clemens' age 31 season he went 170.2 innings with an ERA at 2.85.

In Schmidt's age 31 season hew went 225 innings with an ERA at 3.20.

 

In Clemens' age 32 season he went 140 innings with an ERA at 4.18

In Schmidt's age 32 season he went 172 innings with an ERA at 4.40

 

In Clemens' age 33 season he went 242.2 innings with an ERA at 3.63

In Schmidt's age 33 season he went 213.3 innings with an ERA at 3.59

 

In Clemens' age 34 and 35 seasons he won the pitching triple crown.

 

Just something to chew on...

 

and Schmidt's career up until 28 or 29 is indistiguishable from Padilla's career up until now. so which is more likely, Schmidt taking off and taking the triple crown, or Padilla stepping up and having three years like Schmidt did at Padilla's age?

 

and where are you getting your info? baseballreference has Schmidt's most similar by age as Jack McDowell, Ramon Martinez, and Bartolo Colon. not that I agree with that, but that's a large disparity in similarity rankings between those guys and Clemens.

 

but I think the comparison to Clemens is absurd in any regard. Clemens had 6 seasons of 154 or better ERA+ by the time he was Schmidt's age, and hoping that Schmidt will follow the same path as Clemens into the future is foolhearty. choosing one freak as a basis of comparison gets us nowhere.

 

I think the chance of Padilla becoming Schmidt is just as good as Shmidt becoming Clemens...poor. Banking on one player to take a miraculous leap because some one similar did at that age is very foolish. Thats why I would prefer Schmidt.

[Rob]

I just have to point this out.

 

Schmidt's #3 comprable is Roger Clemens.

 

In Clemens' age 31 season he went 170.2 innings with an ERA at 2.85.

In Schmidt's age 31 season hew went 225 innings with an ERA at 3.20.

 

In Clemens' age 32 season he went 140 innings with an ERA at 4.18

In Schmidt's age 32 season he went 172 innings with an ERA at 4.40

 

In Clemens' age 33 season he went 242.2 innings with an ERA at 3.63

In Schmidt's age 33 season he went 213.3 innings with an ERA at 3.59

 

In Clemens' age 34 and 35 seasons he won the pitching triple crown.

 

Just something to chew on...

 

and Schmidt's career up until 28 or 29 is indistiguishable from Padilla's career up until now. so which is more likely, Schmidt taking off and taking the triple crown, or Padilla stepping up and having three years like Schmidt did at Padilla's age?

 

and where are you getting your info? baseballreference has Schmidt's most similar by age as Jack McDowell, Ramon Martinez, and Bartolo Colon. not that I agree with that, but that's a large disparity in similarity rankings between those guys and Clemens.

 

but I think the comparison to Clemens is absurd in any regard. Clemens had 6 seasons of 154 or better ERA+ by the time he was Schmidt's age, and hoping that Schmidt will follow the same path as Clemens into the future is foolhearty. choosing one freak as a basis of comparison gets us nowhere.

 

Got the info from BP. I trust their list more than baseball-reference.

 

And personally, I don't think Schmidt getting the triple crown is likely, nor do I think Padilla stepping up to Schmidt's level is much more likely. I was only using the comparison to show that guys like Schmidt are able to pitch well fairly late into their careers.

 

Schmidt has a lot of interesting names on his list of comps...

 

Jack Morris

Mike Scott

Roger Clemens

Todd Stottlemyer

Early Wynn

Bob Gibson

Sonny Siebert

Mark Langston

Steve Carlton

Tom Seaver

 

Stottlemyer and Langston are the only ones who didn't pitch well after age 33. And Stottlemyer was never as good as Schmidt to begin with...

[jjgman21]

 

I think the chance of Padilla becoming Schmidt is just as good as Shmidt becoming Clemens...poor. Banking on one player to take a miraculous leap because some one similar did at that age is very foolish. Thats why I would prefer Schmidt.

 

I don't disagree that the chances of both are poor, but your ultimate preference doesn't necessarily follow. it goes back to 'who will deserve,' discussed above, so you have to look at the other side, which stands the better chance to be a complete disaster? age and changes in 'stuff' certainly suggests Schmidt may be more likely to be a disaster.

 

let's assume Schmidt at 15M, aka #1 money. the likelihood of him actually being a #1 is pretty poor. more likely a good 2 for a year and a 2-3 for the other years, a good chance of 3 throughout, and a chance of complete disaster.

 

let's assume Padilla at 9-10M, aka #3 money (in this market). the likelihood of him actually being a #1 or a #2 is not much farther behind the likelihood of Schmidt doing so. but most probably a solid #3, and probably a little lesser of a chance of complete disaster.

 

I want as good of a teams as possible from the git go, but I am not willing to let go of a lesson from Moneyball that almost everyone agrees on, the playoffs are a crap shoot and the key to getting to and winning the WS is multiple playoff appearances. the contract suggested for Schmidt, when combined with the backloaded contracts already on the books, really hurts the chances at the playoffs in 09-10.

[jjgman21]

 

Got the info from BP. I trust their list more than baseball-reference.

 

And personally, I don't think Schmidt getting the triple crown is likely, nor do I think Padilla stepping up to Schmidt's level is much more likely. I was only using the comparison to show that guys like Schmidt are able to pitch well fairly late into their careers.

 

Schmidt has a lot of interesting names on his list of comps...

 

Jack Morris

Mike Scott

Roger Clemens

Todd Stottlemyer

Early Wynn

Bob Gibson

Sonny Siebert

Mark Langston

Steve Carlton

Tom Seaver

 

Stottlemyer and Langston are the only ones who didn't pitch well after age 33. And Stottlemyer was never as good as Schmidt to begin with...

 

but Schmidt was never as good as Clemens, Morris, Wynn, Gibson, Carlton, or Seaver to begin with and Siebert and Scott both fell of the face of the earth at Schmidt's age

[nilodnayr]

 

I think the chance of Padilla becoming Schmidt is just as good as Shmidt becoming Clemens...poor. Banking on one player to take a miraculous leap because some one similar did at that age is very foolish. Thats why I would prefer Schmidt.

 

I don't disagree that the chances of both are poor, but your ultimate preference doesn't necessarily follow. it goes back to 'who will deserve,' discussed above, so you have to look at the other side, which stands the better chance to be a complete disaster? age and changes in 'stuff' certainly suggests Schmidt may be more likely to be a disaster.

 

let's assume Schmidt at 15M, aka #1 money. the likelihood of him actually being a #1 is pretty poor. more likely a good 2 for a year and a 2-3 for the other years, a good chance of 3 throughout, and a chance of complete disaster.

 

let's assume Padilla at 9-10M, aka #3 money (in this market). the likelihood of him actually being a #1 or a #2 is not much farther behind the likelihood of Schmidt doing so. but most probably a solid #3, and probably a little lesser of a chance of complete disaster.

 

I want as good of a teams as possible from the git go, but I am not willing to let go of a lesson from Moneyball that almost everyone agrees on, the playoffs are a crap shoot and the key to getting to and winning the WS is multiple playoff appearances. the contract suggested for Schmidt, when combined with the backloaded contracts already on the books, really hurts the chances at the playoffs in 09-10.

 

I don't think we really disagree much here, I think its more a matter of preference. Schmidt provides us with a little better chance the Padilla at making the playoffs. It all depends on if you think Padilla as our #2 can do that. I am more sure that Schmidt can do that than Padilla. I would sure love both though. It definitely all depends on what we would do with that extra 5M though. But it doesn't look like that gets you much in this market.

[jjgman21]

 

I think the chance of Padilla becoming Schmidt is just as good as Shmidt becoming Clemens...poor. Banking on one player to take a miraculous leap because some one similar did at that age is very foolish. Thats why I would prefer Schmidt.

 

I don't disagree that the chances of both are poor, but your ultimate preference doesn't necessarily follow. it goes back to 'who will deserve,' discussed above, so you have to look at the other side, which stands the better chance to be a complete disaster? age and changes in 'stuff' certainly suggests Schmidt may be more likely to be a disaster.

 

let's assume Schmidt at 15M, aka #1 money. the likelihood of him actually being a #1 is pretty poor. more likely a good 2 for a year and a 2-3 for the other years, a good chance of 3 throughout, and a chance of complete disaster.

 

let's assume Padilla at 9-10M, aka #3 money (in this market). the likelihood of him actually being a #1 or a #2 is not much farther behind the likelihood of Schmidt doing so. but most probably a solid #3, and probably a little lesser of a chance of complete disaster.

 

I want as good of a teams as possible from the git go, but I am not willing to let go of a lesson from Moneyball that almost everyone agrees on, the playoffs are a crap shoot and the key to getting to and winning the WS is multiple playoff appearances. the contract suggested for Schmidt, when combined with the backloaded contracts already on the books, really hurts the chances at the playoffs in 09-10.

 

I don't think we really disagree much here, I think its more a matter of preference. Schmidt provides us with a little better chance the Padilla at making the playoffs. It all depends on if you think Padilla as our #2 can do that. I am more sure that Schmidt can do that than Padilla. I would sure love both though. It definitely all depends on what we would do with that extra 5M though. But it doesn't look like that gets you much in this market.

 

that 5 M might mean the difference between say Izturis or Lugo. or the difference between Matteo/Marshal/Marmol and Tomo Ohka who we discussed last night.

[nilodnayr]

 

I think the chance of Padilla becoming Schmidt is just as good as Shmidt becoming Clemens...poor. Banking on one player to take a miraculous leap because some one similar did at that age is very foolish. Thats why I would prefer Schmidt.

 

I don't disagree that the chances of both are poor, but your ultimate preference doesn't necessarily follow. it goes back to 'who will deserve,' discussed above, so you have to look at the other side, which stands the better chance to be a complete disaster? age and changes in 'stuff' certainly suggests Schmidt may be more likely to be a disaster.

 

let's assume Schmidt at 15M, aka #1 money. the likelihood of him actually being a #1 is pretty poor. more likely a good 2 for a year and a 2-3 for the other years, a good chance of 3 throughout, and a chance of complete disaster.

 

let's assume Padilla at 9-10M, aka #3 money (in this market). the likelihood of him actually being a #1 or a #2 is not much farther behind the likelihood of Schmidt doing so. but most probably a solid #3, and probably a little lesser of a chance of complete disaster.

 

I want as good of a teams as possible from the git go, but I am not willing to let go of a lesson from Moneyball that almost everyone agrees on, the playoffs are a crap shoot and the key to getting to and winning the WS is multiple playoff appearances. the contract suggested for Schmidt, when combined with the backloaded contracts already on the books, really hurts the chances at the playoffs in 09-10.

 

I don't think we really disagree much here, I think its more a matter of preference. Schmidt provides us with a little better chance the Padilla at making the playoffs. It all depends on if you think Padilla as our #2 can do that. I am more sure that Schmidt can do that than Padilla. I would sure love both though. It definitely all depends on what we would do with that extra 5M though. But it doesn't look like that gets you much in this market.

 

that 5 M might mean the difference between say Izturis or Lugo. or the difference between Matteo/Marshal/Marmol and Tomo Ohka who we discussed last night.

 

Those would be good uses of the extra 5M that would be a bigger improvement than the difference between Schmidt and Padilla. Of course 5M is also the difference between DeRosa and Theriot. The cubs are keeping finances secret, so its all speculation on if that 5M would prohibit us from improving elsewhere.

[TheDude]

 

Got the info from BP. I trust their list more than baseball-reference.

 

And personally, I don't think Schmidt getting the triple crown is likely, nor do I think Padilla stepping up to Schmidt's level is much more likely. I was only using the comparison to show that guys like Schmidt are able to pitch well fairly late into their careers.

 

Schmidt has a lot of interesting names on his list of comps...

 

Jack Morris

Mike Scott

Roger Clemens

Todd Stottlemyer

Early Wynn

Bob Gibson

Sonny Siebert

Mark Langston

Steve Carlton

Tom Seaver

 

Stottlemyer and Langston are the only ones who didn't pitch well after age 33. And Stottlemyer was never as good as Schmidt to begin with...

 

but Schmidt was never as good as Clemens, Morris, Wynn, Gibson, Carlton, or Seaver to begin with...

 

These lists of comparables are based on performance, so how can you make this claim?

[Ivy Walls]

Getting 900 IP from your starters is critical. Zambrano 220, Hill 180, Cubs need 200 & 160 & 140 to get to 900.

 

Schmidt is a 200 and Lilly could be the 160-170 where then Prior/Miller need to be 140 IP. If the Cubs get more from the 5th spot, it places less strain on the relief core and represents that the Cubs are in games in the last 3 innings.

[wekse]

nice avatar.

[b_wiggy_66]

That avatar is pretty damn big, but funny

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Resize or delete that avatar, like, now. Ridiculous.

[jjgman21]

 

Got the info from BP. I trust their list more than baseball-reference.

 

And personally, I don't think Schmidt getting the triple crown is likely, nor do I think Padilla stepping up to Schmidt's level is much more likely. I was only using the comparison to show that guys like Schmidt are able to pitch well fairly late into their careers.

 

Schmidt has a lot of interesting names on his list of comps...

 

Jack Morris

Mike Scott

Roger Clemens

Todd Stottlemyer

Early Wynn

Bob Gibson

Sonny Siebert

Mark Langston

Steve Carlton

Tom Seaver

 

Stottlemyer and Langston are the only ones who didn't pitch well after age 33. And Stottlemyer was never as good as Schmidt to begin with...

 

but Schmidt was never as good as Clemens, Morris, Wynn, Gibson, Carlton, or Seaver to begin with...

 

These lists of comparables are based on performance, so how can you make this claim?

 

Wynn - I'll retract him, had no idea how overrated he was until now.

 

seven best seasons of ERA+ up to and including their 33rd year

 

Schmidt - 183, 139, 125, 110, 109, 106, 103

Clemens - 211, 177, 175, 169, 164, 154, 142

Morris - 133, 127, 126, 124, 122, 117, 109

Gibson - 258, 164, 149, 148, 136, 127, 126

Carlton - 182, 164, 151, 126, 117, 113, 111

Seaver - 193, 175, 166, 150, 145, 142, 137

 

aside from Morris, the appropriate question is how BP has Schmidt in the same class as these guys.

[Guancous]

I'll bite. What did the avatar say?

[baseball7897]

http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=325&p=2&c=596799

 

 

According to multiple executives, Schmidt currently has an offer on the table from a west coast team – believed to be Seattle – worth approximately $44 million over four years.

 

“You can take it to the bank that if the Cubs sign Jason, they will eliminate themselves from the race for Lilly.”

[Guest]

Getting 900 IP from your starters is critical. Zambrano 220, Hill 180, Cubs need 200 & 160 & 140 to get to 900.

 

Schmidt is a 200 and Lilly could be the 160-170 where then Prior/Miller need to be 140 IP. If the Cubs get more from the 5th spot, it places less strain on the relief core and represents that the Cubs are in games in the last 3 innings.

 

you live at the garden of the Gods?