Cubs Pursuing Lilly

[TheDude]

If that's true, that contract sucks.

 

$9.375MM/yr...... yeah, that's malarky. If that is true, and the Cubs are actually trying to get Schmidt, they're dooming themselves by driving up his price on their own by giving Lilly a contract like this.

 

It's not malarky - it's market value. If Lilly wanted 12+ then he would be overvalued. But as is, 7 million a year nets you a reliable #4 veteran starter, and 9-10 million a reliable #3 veteran starter in the current market.

[goonys evil twin]

If that's true, that contract sucks.

 

$9.375MM/yr...... yeah, that's malarky. If that is true, and the Cubs are actually trying to get Schmidt, they're dooming themselves by driving up his price on their own by giving Lilly a contract like this.

 

It's not malarky - it's market value. If Lilly wanted 12+ then he would be overvalued. But as is, 7 million a year nets you a reliable #4 veteran starter, and 9-10 million a reliable #3 veteran starter in the current market.

 

How is Lilly a reliable #3? He's an inconsistent, one year up, one year down, type of pitcher. He was atrocious as recently as 2005.

[Cubsmodano]

I was reading where Keith Law picked Ted Lilly as one of the best pitchers on the market. Basically saying that you'd get close to Zito value for a lot less money. Personally, he's been my top choice all along for starting pitchers, and signing him wouldn't affect a trade for Westbrook. I think Hendry (as much as he's hurt the team in the past) is improving the team for next season.

 

If the team gets sold, then the new owners will have to adjust to all these contracts and we'll get new leadership. If not, I have no problem with Hendry going out and spending money to get players that will help out for next year.

[YearofDaCubs]

I know it's pricey but if it's true I'm a happy camper. Lilly had some bad starts but overall I felt that he was very good. Let's hope it's true.

[Shilzzz]

not the best, not the worst = average cubs signing.

 

actually for some reason this reminds me of when we got matt clement, which wouldn't be so bad.

[killthegoat06]

Let's not forget that nothing's actually happened yet. This has A LOT less coverage than the Schmidt contract saga, and we all know how that ended up.

[Rob]

I know it's pricey but if it's true I'm a happy camper. Lilly had some bad starts but overall I felt that he was very good. Let's hope it's true.

 

No thank you.

 

I'd rather hope it's untrue. As if it were true, it would be a huge detriment towards attempting to sign Schmidt. Lilly should be nothing more than a fallback option.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Let's not forget that nothing's actually happened yet. This has A LOT less coverage than the Schmidt contract saga, and we all know how that ended up.

 

Quick, flash need the Bruce Signal! We need some sort of confirmation!

 

I hope it's true, I really like Lilly, and besides Schmidt, I think he's the best option out there.

[Iceblink]

Absolutely, positively not.

[USSoccer]

I'd sign Padilla or Schmidt before Lilly. He's just kind of meh.

[soapy]

That's why it's (generally) a bad idea to sign second-tier guys this early. I hope those numbers aren't accurate.

[TheDude]

If that's true, that contract sucks.

 

$9.375MM/yr...... yeah, that's malarky. If that is true, and the Cubs are actually trying to get Schmidt, they're dooming themselves by driving up his price on their own by giving Lilly a contract like this.

 

It's not malarky - it's market value. If Lilly wanted 12+ then he would be overvalued. But as is, 7 million a year nets you a reliable #4 veteran starter, and 9-10 million a reliable #3 veteran starter in the current market.

 

How is Lilly a reliable #3? He's an inconsistent, one year up, one year down, type of pitcher. He was atrocious as recently as 2005.

 

I think that's an exaggeration. Lilly's 2006, his 3-year splits, and career numbers are all similar and don't show great variation. That shows reliability when you're describing a guy with over 900 Innings pitched.

 

To your point, he had a bad year in 2005 and a slow start as a bullpen pitcher breaking into the league (1999-2001), but otherwise 2002-2004 and 2006 are all very consistent.

 

It is also worth noting that bad year in 2005 was an injury-shortened season, so perhaps the injury was affecting performance. I would rather judge 2005 an anamoly than to say Lilly is an up-and-down or inconcsistent pitcher.

[goonys evil twin]

I think that's an exaggeration. Lilly's 2006, his 3-year splits, and career numbers are all similar and don't show great variation. That shows reliability when you're describing a guy with over 900 Innings pitched.

 

To your point, he had a bad year in 2005 and a slow start as a bullpen pitcher breaking into the league (1999-2001), but otherwise 2002-2004 and 2006 are all very consistent.

 

It is also worth noting that bad year in 2005 was an injury-shortened season, so perhaps the injury was affecting performance. I would rather judge 2005 an anamoly than to say Lilly is an up-and-down or inconcsistent pitcher.

 

Of course you'd like to look at it like that, because it's the only way to make your case. But in reality he's bee inconsistent. He's got a fairly high walk rate, his ERA+ has been up and down and he's highly susceptible to the HR. I liked him as a guy who you'd slot at the end of your rotation and hope for 180 mediocre innings. But he's nowhere near a #3 pitcher, and clearly not consistent.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm finding nothing to confirm the rumor we've signed him. In fact articles posted as recently as thirty minutes ago speak of Lilly as a FA. I'm going to have to think the rumor is a bit premature if not completely inaccurate.

[soapy]

2005 really was his only bad season. He's been mediocre other than that. He's not worth $10 a year though (but who knows the way this off-season is going).

[Butterscup1679666578]

I think that's an exaggeration. Lilly's 2006, his 3-year splits, and career numbers are all similar and don't show great variation. That shows reliability when you're describing a guy with over 900 Innings pitched.

 

To your point, he had a bad year in 2005 and a slow start as a bullpen pitcher breaking into the league (1999-2001), but otherwise 2002-2004 and 2006 are all very consistent.

 

It is also worth noting that bad year in 2005 was an injury-shortened season, so perhaps the injury was affecting performance. I would rather judge 2005 an anamoly than to say Lilly is an up-and-down or inconcsistent pitcher.

 

Of course you'd like to look at it like that, because it's the only way to make your case. But in reality he's bee inconsistent. He's got a fairly high walk rate, his ERA+ has been up and down and he's highly susceptible to the HR. I liked him as a guy who you'd slot at the end of your rotation and hope for 180 mediocre innings. But he's nowhere near a #3 pitcher, and clearly not consistent.

 

He could very well be the #4 or #5 guy in our rotation though if we get Schmidt or Westbrook. If we get Schmidt I have Z/Schmidt/Hill/Lilly/Miller-Prior, and if we get Westbrook I have Z/Hill/Westbrook/Lilly/Miller-Prior. Miller and/or Prior could come back healthy and be strong, so Lilly could even get bumped down to #5. I think penciling Lilly into the 3 slot is very premature.

[inari]

I'm all for this signing, if it is indeed true. Lilly is just the kind of guy we need.

[CubColtPacer]

I think that's an exaggeration. Lilly's 2006, his 3-year splits, and career numbers are all similar and don't show great variation. That shows reliability when you're describing a guy with over 900 Innings pitched.

 

To your point, he had a bad year in 2005 and a slow start as a bullpen pitcher breaking into the league (1999-2001), but otherwise 2002-2004 and 2006 are all very consistent.

 

It is also worth noting that bad year in 2005 was an injury-shortened season, so perhaps the injury was affecting performance. I would rather judge 2005 an anamoly than to say Lilly is an up-and-down or inconcsistent pitcher.

 

Of course you'd like to look at it like that, because it's the only way to make your case. But in reality he's bee inconsistent. He's got a fairly high walk rate, his ERA+ has been up and down and he's highly susceptible to the HR. I liked him as a guy who you'd slot at the end of your rotation and hope for 180 mediocre innings. But he's nowhere near a #3 pitcher, and clearly not consistent.

 

His ERA+ has been up and down has been more of a function of the league being inconsistent than Lilly if you take out his 2005 year. Lilly has had 4 years under 4.35 ERA out of the last 5-that's pretty good consistency. The move to the NL would probably be good for him. I'd be fine with him for that contract as long as his medical information is all right.

[goonys evil twin]

He could very well be the #4 or #5 guy in our rotation though if we get Schmidt or Westbrook. If we get Schmidt I have Z/Schmidt/Hill/Lilly/Miller-Prior, and if we get Westbrook I have Z/Hill/Westbrook/Lilly/Miller-Prior. Miller and/or Prior could come back healthy and be strong, so Lilly could even get bumped down to #5. I think penciling Lilly into the 3 slot is very premature.

 

I'm fine with Lilly being the 2nd banana to whomever else they sign this year. I just think it's inaccurate to paint him as a reliable #3. He's never even thrown 200 innings in his career.

 

I do like that his name is Theodore Roosevelt though.

[CubColtPacer]

He could very well be the #4 or #5 guy in our rotation though if we get Schmidt or Westbrook. If we get Schmidt I have Z/Schmidt/Hill/Lilly/Miller-Prior, and if we get Westbrook I have Z/Hill/Westbrook/Lilly/Miller-Prior. Miller and/or Prior could come back healthy and be strong, so Lilly could even get bumped down to #5. I think penciling Lilly into the 3 slot is very premature.

 

I'm fine with Lilly being the 2nd banana to whomever else they sign this year. I just think it's inaccurate to paint him as a reliable #3. He's never even thrown 200 innings in his career.

 

I do like that his name is Theodore Roosevelt though.

 

I keep hearing that about him-doesn't his 2002 numbers add up to 200 innings exactly though?

[Butterscup1679666578]

He could very well be the #4 or #5 guy in our rotation though if we get Schmidt or Westbrook. If we get Schmidt I have Z/Schmidt/Hill/Lilly/Miller-Prior, and if we get Westbrook I have Z/Hill/Westbrook/Lilly/Miller-Prior. Miller and/or Prior could come back healthy and be strong, so Lilly could even get bumped down to #5. I think penciling Lilly into the 3 slot is very premature.

 

I'm fine with Lilly being the 2nd banana to whomever else they sign this year. I just think it's inaccurate to paint him as a reliable #3. He's never even thrown 200 innings in his career.

 

I do like that his name is Theodore Roosevelt though.

 

Oh, I see what you're saying now. I thought you were saying it's a bad sign for a #3 guy, while I don't consider him a 3rd starter. But I definitely agree, he's not a reliable 3 starter, a solid #4 guy IMO though.

[goonys evil twin]

He could very well be the #4 or #5 guy in our rotation though if we get Schmidt or Westbrook. If we get Schmidt I have Z/Schmidt/Hill/Lilly/Miller-Prior, and if we get Westbrook I have Z/Hill/Westbrook/Lilly/Miller-Prior. Miller and/or Prior could come back healthy and be strong, so Lilly could even get bumped down to #5. I think penciling Lilly into the 3 slot is very premature.

 

I'm fine with Lilly being the 2nd banana to whomever else they sign this year. I just think it's inaccurate to paint him as a reliable #3. He's never even thrown 200 innings in his career.

 

I do like that his name is Theodore Roosevelt though.

 

I keep hearing that about him-doesn't his 2002 numbers add up to 200 innings exactly though?

 

Only if you add up his innings with NY and OAK, and then add that total to his total (ie, doubling the actual total of 100)

[CubColtPacer]

He could very well be the #4 or #5 guy in our rotation though if we get Schmidt or Westbrook. If we get Schmidt I have Z/Schmidt/Hill/Lilly/Miller-Prior, and if we get Westbrook I have Z/Hill/Westbrook/Lilly/Miller-Prior. Miller and/or Prior could come back healthy and be strong, so Lilly could even get bumped down to #5. I think penciling Lilly into the 3 slot is very premature.

 

I'm fine with Lilly being the 2nd banana to whomever else they sign this year. I just think it's inaccurate to paint him as a reliable #3. He's never even thrown 200 innings in his career.

 

I do like that his name is Theodore Roosevelt though.

 

I keep hearing that about him-doesn't his 2002 numbers add up to 200 innings exactly though?

 

Only if you add up his innings with NY and OAK, and then add that total to his total (ie, doubling the actual total of 100)

 

I would think you would have to-I mean, it was 2002, and he did pitch those innings. So he has reached 200 innings once, and gotten within 3 innings another time. That's still not great, but it's not as bad.

[tkenm356]

It's not malarky - it's market value. If Lilly wanted 12+ then he would be overvalued. But as is, 7 million a year nets you a reliable #4 veteran starter, and 9-10 million a reliable #3 veteran starter in the current market.

 

And in my opinion, the current market value is malarky. But hey, if the clubs got the cash to toss around, then so be it. I'm not opposed to signing Lilly, I just think $9.375MM for his track record is outlandish. I think he'd be a respectable signing at $7-8MM, but a shade under $9.5MM is another case of useless overspending. We could probably sign Schmidt and trade for a #4 easily. Why overpay for a 3/4 and then try and sign a #2? If anything, sign the #2 first, then get the 3/4. Don't jack the #2 price up by overpaying for a #3 or #4.

[JeffH]

He could very well be the #4 or #5 guy in our rotation though if we get Schmidt or Westbrook. If we get Schmidt I have Z/Schmidt/Hill/Lilly/Miller-Prior, and if we get Westbrook I have Z/Hill/Westbrook/Lilly/Miller-Prior. Miller and/or Prior could come back healthy and be strong, so Lilly could even get bumped down to #5. I think penciling Lilly into the 3 slot is very premature.

 

I'm fine with Lilly being the 2nd banana to whomever else they sign this year. I just think it's inaccurate to paint him as a reliable #3. He's never even thrown 200 innings in his career.

 

I do like that his name is Theodore Roosevelt though.

 

I keep hearing that about him-doesn't his 2002 numbers add up to 200 innings exactly though?

 

Only if you add up his innings with NY and OAK, and then add that total to his total (ie, doubling the actual total of 100)

 

I would think you would have to-I mean, it was 2002, and he did pitch those innings. So he has reached 200 innings once, and gotten within 3 innings another time. That's still not great, but it's not as bad.

 

This is rock-solid American comedy.