Cubs Pursuing Lilly

[inari]

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.

 

I'm awful at math and I'm laughing at this.

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

I guess you don't get the humor.

 

He threw 76.66666666666666 innings for the Yankees, and 23.333333333333333 innings for the A's. Add that up and it equals 100. The only way you get to 200 is if you add those two numbers to the total, of 100.

 

You are double counting. I assume you are looking at his ESPN page. You see 3 categories of 2002. The first one is NYY, the 2nd is OAK, and the 3rd is his total for the year.

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

I guess you don't get the humor.

 

He threw 76.66666666666666 innings for the Yankees, and 23.333333333333333 innings for the A's. Add that up and it equals 100. The only way you get to 200 is if you add those two numbers to the total, of 100.

 

You are double counting. I assume you are looking at his ESPN page. You see 3 categories of 2002. The first one is NYY, the 2nd is OAK, and the 3rd is his total for the year.

 

Thanks for the correction (and thanks to all those who were laughing at me as well). I was looking at his baseball reference page-they have his total listed first, and for some reason I looked at TOT and saw TOR. I see now that it was only 100 even.

[Andy]

Rogers Centre isn't exactly a hitter's paradise, right? Because those nearly 30 homers give me pause. We don't need a lefty Maddux.

[Iceblink]

So to rebuild our rotation that has been plagued with talented guys who get hurt too much to depend on, we're going to spend a ton of money on a totally average pitcher who gets hurt too much to depend on?

[killthegoat06]

So to rebuild our rotation that has been plagued with talented guys who get hurt too much to depend on, we're going to spend a ton of money on a totally average pitcher who gets hurt too much to depend on?

 

Sounds logical to me.

[Chocolate Milk]

I do like that his name is Theodore Roosevelt though.

 

Theodore Roosevelt Lilly, guy. Theodore Roosevelt LILLY.

 

Stop leaving valuable information out when trying to prove your point.

[TheDude]

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.

 

We have different interpretations of a number 3 starter. If Lilly is your version of a back of the rotation starter, then you must be describing top 5 pitching staff in baseball, or a definitive playoff calibur team, and not with consideration of the entire league.

 

Lilly's 2006, 3-year splits, and career numbers paint him as slightly above average in most standard pitcher measurements. Being average, or a little above average is what a team should expect from a number 3 starter.

 

As an illustration, how many teams had 3 starters with a better 2006 than Lilly? Detroit, San Diego, Houston, Oakland, and the Angels would probably use Lilly as a 4th starter. And maybe Minnesota (although Radke and Lilly are probably interchangeable as 3s). For the rest of the league (from 2006), he would project as a likely 3rd starter.

 

If you view innings pitched as your measure of reliable, then yes, he hasn't hit 200 IP. If you use Games Started as the measure, Lilly has only missed 9-10 starts in 4 years (depending on how you round the fraction). He's not reliable for 7 innings, but he is consistent for taking his turn in the rotation.

[Derwood]

Am I the only one who can't wait for the season to start so we can stop talking about the same 5 stupid pitchers over and over and over again?

[Rob]

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.

 

We have different interpretations of a number 3 starter. If Lilly is your version of a back of the rotation starter, then you must be describing top 5 pitching staff in baseball, or a definitive playoff calibur team, and not with consideration of the entire league.

 

Lilly's 2006, 3-year splits, and career numbers paint him as slightly above average in most standard pitcher measurements. Being average, or a little above average is what a team should expect from a number 3 starter.

 

As an illustration, how many teams had 3 starters with a better 2006 than Lilly? Detroit, San Diego, Houston, Oakland, and the Angels would probably use Lilly as a 4th starter. And maybe Minnesota (although Radke and Lilly are probably interchangeable as 3s). For the rest of the league (from 2006), he would project as a likely 3rd starter.

 

If you view innings pitched as your measure of reliable, then yes, he hasn't hit 200 IP. If you use Games Started as the measure, Lilly has only missed 9-10 starts in 4 years (depending on how you round the fraction). He's not reliable for 7 innings, but he is consistent for taking his turn in the rotation.

 

Damn straight I am. We should be shooting for that each and every year. And this year, there's enough on the market to make it happen.

 

Schmidt and Westbrook can fit on the team for nearly the same salary as two guys like Lilly and Meche. Schmidt is obviously the best of the bunch, and I'd be inclined to take Westbrook over Meche (certainly) and Lilly (probably).

 

Signing Lilly this early can only tie up enough payroll to keep us from doing smart things.

[killthegoat06]

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.

 

We have different interpretations of a number 3 starter. If Lilly is your version of a back of the rotation starter, then you must be describing top 5 pitching staff in baseball, or a definitive playoff calibur team, and not with consideration of the entire league.

 

Lilly's 2006, 3-year splits, and career numbers paint him as slightly above average in most standard pitcher measurements. Being average, or a little above average is what a team should expect from a number 3 starter.

 

As an illustration, how many teams had 3 starters with a better 2006 than Lilly? Detroit, San Diego, Houston, Oakland, and the Angels would probably use Lilly as a 4th starter. And maybe Minnesota (although Radke and Lilly are probably interchangeable as 3s). For the rest of the league (from 2006), he would project as a likely 3rd starter.

 

If you view innings pitched as your measure of reliable, then yes, he hasn't hit 200 IP. If you use Games Started as the measure, Lilly has only missed 9-10 starts in 4 years (depending on how you round the fraction). He's not reliable for 7 innings, but he is consistent for taking his turn in the rotation.

 

Damn straight I am. We should be shooting for that each and every year. And this year, there's enough on the market to make it happen.

 

Schmidt and Westbrook can fit on the team for nearly the same salary as two guys like Lilly and Meche. Schmidt is obviously the best of the bunch, and I'd be inclined to take Westbrook over Meche (certainly) and Lilly (probably).

 

Signing Lilly this early can only tie up enough payroll to keep us from doing smart things.

 

I don't think you need to worry. It's already 3:00 and there have been no indications anywhere else that we have signed Lilly. In all likelihood this report is just as bogus as the supposed Schmidt offer.

[Guest]

I don't think the article said the cubs had signed lilly - I thought it just said they were close.

[TheDude]

Signing Lilly this early can only tie up enough payroll to keep us from doing smart things.

 

I'm as a big a Schmidt fan as anyone, and have promoted him as the top offseason priority for months. But "doing smart things" cannot be limited to strictly signing one pitcher, who might be a tough sell from the beginning. That's not smart, that narrow.

[Soul]

LOL, page 27 of some PDF file posted in Toronto.

 

Don't mean to disparage it, but I did get a laugh. I think it would be even funnier if it turned out to be true.

 

Most likely it's bunk. Lilly's agent is probably hoping a few GM's think it's true so he can get better dollars for his guy. And I don't blame him for that, certainly.

[goonys evil twin]

Lilly's agent is probably hoping a few GM's think it's true so he can get better dollars for his guy. And I don't blame him for that, certainly.

 

If you wanted to plant stories to drive up a guy's price, using the Cubs as the example is a pretty good idea, given the amuont of money they are rumored to be prepared to spend.

[tkenm356]

LOL, page 27 of some PDF file posted in Toronto.

 

Don't mean to disparage it, but I did get a laugh. I think it would be even funnier if it turned out to be true.

 

Most likely it's bunk. Lilly's agent is probably hoping a few GM's think it's true so he can get better dollars for his guy. And I don't blame him for that, certainly.

 

And it's true... this is part of a quote from someone who had seen it when I posted a link for shiggles on another forum. This guy is from Toronto, so...

 

The Metro is a subway newspaper. The sports reporter Marty York is the biggest laughing stock, he's akin to the national enquirer... Trust me, this guy has ZERO credibilty, he makes things up, and is never right. The fact that he would have this info before any other major source is laughable. He is probably guessing, so if he's right he looks good, and if not, he can say the reports were wrong, and its just the Metro anyway. Most of the things he says will be the opposoite anyway. I now have more confidence Lilly will sign with the Jays.

 

So, it appears it's untrue... very untrue

[PrimeTime]

Cubs Make offer to Lilly on Cubs.com

 

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061201&content_id=1749292&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

[daske17]

"One of Ted's biggest priorities is to get with a club that he thinks he can help get to the postseason and win a World Series," O'Brien said. "With what the Cubs have done, Ted thinks they're looking pretty good."

 

:shock: Has Ted really been paying attention? Or was he blinded by the moneybags that Hendry dumped at Soriano's doorstep?

[tkenm356]

okay, maybe not

[CheeseHead Cubs Fan]

Perhaps Schmidt really does want to stay on the west coast and pitch for Seattle or even the Dodgers. And if Zito is intent on going east or maybe Texas, Lilly is our next best option, no?

[Rob]

Perhaps Schmidt really does want to stay on the west coast and pitch for Seattle or even the Dodgers. And if Zito is intent on going east or maybe Texas, Lilly is our next best option, no?

 

Willis is available in a trade.

 

Petitte is still out there.

[E.J.]

Perhaps Schmidt really does want to stay on the west coast and pitch for Seattle or even the Dodgers. And if Zito is intent on going east or maybe Texas, Lilly is our next best option, no?

 

I don't think Hendry is really interested in Zito. He's going to get in the $100 million range which is insane. I haven't really seen the Cubs mentioned as suitors for Zito in any newspapers. I think it's either Schmidt and a cheaper 5th starter type, or two #4 starter types like Lilly and Westbrook.

[Cubsmodano]

Perhaps Schmidt really does want to stay on the west coast and pitch for Seattle or even the Dodgers. And if Zito is intent on going east or maybe Texas, Lilly is our next best option, no?

 

I like that logic. Lilly is a decent to slightly above average starter and would definitely help the team. Signing him now is a good thing, as it would eliminate one more concern and allow the team to focus on other areas (Lugo, bench help, one more starter...).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Perhaps Schmidt really does want to stay on the west coast and pitch for Seattle or even the Dodgers. And if Zito is intent on going east or maybe Texas, Lilly is our next best option, no?

 

Willis is available in a trade.

 

Petitte is still out there.

 

For cost/performance, I'll still take Lilly.

[PrimeTime]

Agent Larry O'Brien said the Cubs have offered free agent Ted Lilly a four-year deal.

 

"We've had an offer [from Chicago], and we're considering coming back with another counter offer," O'Brien told MLB.com on Friday. "I'm planning on meeting with [Cubs general manager] Jim Hendry down at the winter meetings in Orlando next week, but we're also going to be meeting with [Toronto general manager] J.P. Ricciardi." O'Brien also intends to discuss Lilly with the Yankees, Orioles, Rangers and Giants. Dec. 1 - 7:24 pm et

 

 

4 years...Wonder how much? Counter offer??? he better not want like 12 or 13 mil a year