Time to Move on Ryan Church

[rawaction]

Didn't really think this out that much but I wonder if Church could be used in a three way to get Jennings since Colorado wants a young CF.

 

Jennings is overrated on this board. He is not that good of a pitcher in my book. You could probably get the same production out of Jason Marquis. Marquis is very similiar to Jennings in his style of pitching.

 

Jennings is 28, was statistically the 7th best pitcher in the NL last year (better than Schmidt, btw), had a career year in allowing hits, hits for extra bases, walk rate, and K/BB. Marquis is not as likely to give you the same production. He's had similar years to Jennings 2006, but Jennings has never been as bad as Marquis in the other years.

[Danny82]

Didn't really think this out that much but I wonder if Church could be used in a three way to get Jennings since Colorado wants a young CF.

 

Jennings is overrated on this board. He is not that good of a pitcher in my book. You could probably get the same production out of Jason Marquis. Marquis is very similiar to Jennings in his style of pitching.

 

Jennings is 28, was statistically the 7th best pitcher in the NL last year (better than Schmidt, btw), had a career year in allowing hits, hits for extra bases, walk rate, and K/BB. Marquis is not as likely to give you the same production. He's had similar years to Jennings 2006, but Jennings has never been as bad as Marquis in the other years.

While I agree that Jennings certainly had a good year last year (and I would like it if the Cubs could acquire his services), he was quite bad in 2004 and 2005. Arguably just as bad as Marquis was this past year.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I like Ryan Church. Deport Jones and stick Church in CF.

 

While we're at it, sign Lugo and deal Izturis.

 

Soriano

Lugo

Lee

Ramirez

Murton

Barrett

Church

DeRosa

[Rob]

I find it interesting that between

 

a) how highly valued Church appears to be on this board, and

 

b) how little used he is by the Nationals

 

some team hasn't made a move to acquire him.

 

If he was truly as valuable as some on here seem to think, don't you think that at least ONE other GM would have made a move for him? It doesn't look like it would take much to pry him from the Nationals.

 

To assume GM's are that intelligent is a risky proposition. Have you met Ned Coletti?

 

I haven't but I would be interested in hearing about the times you have met him.

 

Perhaps another time. I'd like you to meet my friend humor first.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Didn't really think this out that much but I wonder if Church could be used in a three way to get Jennings since Colorado wants a young CF.

 

Jennings is overrated on this board. He is not that good of a pitcher in my book. You could probably get the same production out of Jason Marquis. Marquis is very similiar to Jennings in his style of pitching.

 

The style may be the same, but the results are much different.

[sethuel1]

Didn't really think this out that much but I wonder if Church could be used in a three way to get Jennings since Colorado wants a young CF.

 

Jennings is overrated on this board. He is not that good of a pitcher in my book. You could probably get the same production out of Jason Marquis. Marquis is very similiar to Jennings in his style of pitching.

 

The style may be the same, but the results are much different.

not possible. Style=results.

[Soriano12]

Jennings is overrated on this board. He is not that good of a pitcher in my book.

 

Says the guy with a pic of Bartolo Colon in his sig.... :?

[Rob]

I tend to agree with baseball7897 in the vein that Jennings is overrated and Marquis underrated (though only if he comes at a significant economic discount). However, I don't believe for a moment that Marquis is a safer bet than Jennings. All things being equal, if we can get Jennings for spare parts, I'd love to have him... if not, I'm not wanting to use things of real value to us for Jennings or more than a trivial amount of money on a minor league deal for Marquis.

[RammyFanny]

Jennings is overrated on this board. He is not that good of a pitcher in my book.

 

Says the guy with a pic of Bartolo Colon in his sig.... :?

:lol:

[jjgman21]

Didn't really think this out that much but I wonder if Church could be used in a three way to get Jennings since Colorado wants a young CF.

 

Jennings is overrated on this board. He is not that good of a pitcher in my book. You could probably get the same production out of Jason Marquis. Marquis is very similiar to Jennings in his style of pitching.

 

Jennings is 28, was statistically the 7th best pitcher in the NL last year (better than Schmidt, btw), had a career year in allowing hits, hits for extra bases, walk rate, and K/BB. Marquis is not as likely to give you the same production. He's had similar years to Jennings 2006, but Jennings has never been as bad as Marquis in the other years.

While I agree that Jennings certainly had a good year last year (and I would like it if the Cubs could acquire his services), he was quite bad in 2004 and 2005. Arguably just as bad as Marquis was this past year.

 

not really. actually not even close. going by ERA+, Jennings has never been more than slightly below average. Marquis put up a 'should not be in the major leagues' level last year, and its the third season he's done so.

[RammyFanny]

I tend to agree with baseball7897 in the vein that Jennings is overrated and Marquis underrated (though only if he comes at a significant economic discount). However, I don't believe for a moment that Marquis is a safer bet than Jennings. All things being equal, if we can get Jennings for spare parts, I'd love to have him... if not, I'm not wanting to use things of real value to us for Jennings or more than a trivial amount of money on a minor league deal for Marquis.

 

I don't really buy him overrated on this board. I still find it very amusing when people say Z,Jennings,Hill,Lilly,Miller/Prior wouldn't be a very good rotation(edit most people actually said it would be an "okay" rotation), but are quick to say Z, Schmidt, Hill, Lilly, Miller/Prior is a very good/great rotation. I'd take Schmidt over Jennings of course, but IMO the difference between the production of the two next year will be alot less then what some think.

[b_wiggy_66]

I think Church would be a great addition. Float his name to Jim for us Bruce. He is that lefty bat he is looking for, for the bench. He could start as well. Great but low candidate.

[sherwood921]

I will probably get a little grief for this...but what makes Church different than Jason Michaels and Brad Wilkerson? This board has wanted both in the past and Michaels put up a line of .267/.326/.391 last year while Wilkerson put up .222/.306/.422. Were those just bad seasons or what?

[VanceJergins]

I will probably get a little grief for this...but what makes Church different than Jason Michaels and Brad Wilkerson? This board has wanted both in the past and Michaels put up a line of .267/.326/.391 last year while Wilkerson put up .222/.306/.422. Were those just bad seasons or what?

 

Michaels, yes it was a bad year. Most stat sites give you the option of seeing career stats, you should check it out. Wilkerson has had injuries, though I never really wanted him.

 

My question is why would you bring those guys up in a discussion about Church? Look at his stats, Michaels and Wilkerson are not a factor in his stats.

[sherwood921]

I will probably get a little grief for this...but what makes Church different than Jason Michaels and Brad Wilkerson? This board has wanted both in the past and Michaels put up a line of .267/.326/.391 last year while Wilkerson put up .222/.306/.422. Were those just bad seasons or what?

 

Michaels, yes it was a bad year. Most stat sites give you the option of seeing career stats, you should check it out. Wilkerson has had injuries, though I never really wanted him.

 

My question is why would you bring those guys up in a discussion about Church? Look at his stats, Michaels and Wilkerson are not a factor in his stats.

 

I know what career stats are thanks.

 

The reason I brought them up is because they all fit the mold of guys who are entering their prime with decent power and high-OBP who are somewhat under the radar that this board falls in love with. However, both went out and stunk last year. I'm asking what makes Church different from those guys. Also, Michaels never had a full-time role for a whole season (never had 300 ABs even). Same with Church.

[VanceJergins]

I will probably get a little grief for this...but what makes Church different than Jason Michaels and Brad Wilkerson? This board has wanted both in the past and Michaels put up a line of .267/.326/.391 last year while Wilkerson put up .222/.306/.422. Were those just bad seasons or what?

 

Michaels, yes it was a bad year. Most stat sites give you the option of seeing career stats, you should check it out. Wilkerson has had injuries, though I never really wanted him.

 

My question is why would you bring those guys up in a discussion about Church? Look at his stats, Michaels and Wilkerson are not a factor in his stats.

 

I know what career stats are thanks.

 

The reason I brought them up is because they all fit the mold of guys who are entering their prime with decent power and high-OBP who are somewhat under the radar that this board falls in love with. However, both went out and stunk last year. I'm asking what makes Church different from those guys. Also, Michaels never had a full-time role for a whole season (never had 300 ABs even). Same with Church.

 

I apologize for getting catty, I just dont see the connection. A couple guys who have some similarities to Church that had bad years doesnt really mean much to me.

[Jehrico]

If the Cubs brought in Church, I'd probably play Soriano at 2B and platoon DeRosa in the OF with Jones and Church.

 

Yes!

 

No!

 

I don't understand how it's not clear as day that Soriano can not play 2nd base. He was absolutely horrible at it before, and now he's going to have the rust that comes with not playing it for a whole year. He'd be likely to commit 30 errors at 2b if you put him there.

 

Since we don't have a SS that can hit worth squat, why not move Barrett to SS? That would be on par with putting Soriano at 2nd (i.e. disregarding someone's ability to play a position because their offensive output far exceeds the value a replacement player at that position would provide).

 

Soriano played a pretty decent outfield last year, his first year after converting from 2nd. He'd played 2nd for years and was atrocious. He's obviously better suited to play the outfield.

[nilodnayr]

I will probably get a little grief for this...but what makes Church different than Jason Michaels and Brad Wilkerson? This board has wanted both in the past and Michaels put up a line of .267/.326/.391 last year while Wilkerson put up .222/.306/.422. Were those just bad seasons or what?

 

Michaels, yes it was a bad year. Most stat sites give you the option of seeing career stats, you should check it out. Wilkerson has had injuries, though I never really wanted him.

 

My question is why would you bring those guys up in a discussion about Church? Look at his stats, Michaels and Wilkerson are not a factor in his stats.

 

I know what career stats are thanks.

 

The reason I brought them up is because they all fit the mold of guys who are entering their prime with decent power and high-OBP who are somewhat under the radar that this board falls in love with. However, both went out and stunk last year. I'm asking what makes Church different from those guys. Also, Michaels never had a full-time role for a whole season (never had 300 ABs even). Same with Church.

 

I apologize for getting catty, I just dont see the connection. A couple guys who have some similarities to Church that had bad years doesnt really mean much to me.

 

Plus Wilkerson has been injured since 05. Part of the attraction in Church is also that he is cheap in terms of salary and talent that it would take to acquire.

[Mephistopheles]

The style [of Jennings and Marquis] may be the same, but the results are much different.

 

I've taken the liberty of rearranging the last three years of Marquis and Comparing them to Jennings.

 

Marquis is always first

 

ERA+

113 127

103 94

73 92

 

K:BB

1.97 1.67

1.45 1.21

1.28 1.32

[nilodnayr]

The style [of Jennings and Marquis] may be the same, but the results are much different.

 

I've taken the liberty of rearranging the last three years of Marquis and Comparing them to Jennings.

 

Marquis is always first

 

ERA+

113 127

103 94

73 92

 

K:BB

1.97 1.67

1.45 1.21

1.28 1.32

 

Not to mention the supposed error in Marquis mechanics that was found.

[Danny82]

Didn't really think this out that much but I wonder if Church could be used in a three way to get Jennings since Colorado wants a young CF.

 

Jennings is overrated on this board. He is not that good of a pitcher in my book. You could probably get the same production out of Jason Marquis. Marquis is very similiar to Jennings in his style of pitching.

 

Jennings is 28, was statistically the 7th best pitcher in the NL last year (better than Schmidt, btw), had a career year in allowing hits, hits for extra bases, walk rate, and K/BB. Marquis is not as likely to give you the same production. He's had similar years to Jennings 2006, but Jennings has never been as bad as Marquis in the other years.

While I agree that Jennings certainly had a good year last year (and I would like it if the Cubs could acquire his services), he was quite bad in 2004 and 2005. Arguably just as bad as Marquis was this past year.

 

not really. actually not even close. going by ERA+, Jennings has never been more than slightly below average. Marquis put up a 'should not be in the major leagues' level last year, and its the third season he's done so.

But why is ERA+ the only stat to consider? How are WHIPs of 1.70 and 1.56 anything but "bad"?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The Washington Post mentions the Cubs as a possible destination for Church.

 

Link.

 

But as baseball's winter meetings began Monday, the Nationals were trying to drum up a market for Church, hoping to find a team willing to part with a prospect -- preferably a pitcher -- in return for the 28-year-old who has only 527 major league at-bats. Potential suitors include Detroit, Pittsburgh, Houston and the Chicago Cubs.

 

 

If the Nationals only want a pitching prospect, would a deal involving Mateo or Marmol work? The Cubs might could toss someone like Bynum or Pagan or Negron back in the deal to sweeten the pot.

[goonys evil twin]

The Washington Post mentions the Cubs as a possible destination for Church.

 

Link.

 

But as baseball's winter meetings began Monday, the Nationals were trying to drum up a market for Church, hoping to find a team willing to part with a prospect -- preferably a pitcher -- in return for the 28-year-old who has only 527 major league at-bats. Potential suitors include Detroit, Pittsburgh, Houston and the Chicago Cubs.

 

 

If the Nationals only want a pitching prospect, would a deal involving Mateo or Marmol work? The Cubs might could toss someone like Bynum or Pagan or Negron back in the deal to sweeten the pot.

 

Do they just think the Cubs could be a suitor because they are looking for CF help, or do they think there is some actual interest?

[CubColtPacer]

The Washington Post mentions the Cubs as a possible destination for Church.

 

Link.

 

But as baseball's winter meetings began Monday, the Nationals were trying to drum up a market for Church, hoping to find a team willing to part with a prospect -- preferably a pitcher -- in return for the 28-year-old who has only 527 major league at-bats. Potential suitors include Detroit, Pittsburgh, Houston and the Chicago Cubs.

 

 

If the Nationals only want a pitching prospect, would a deal involving Mateo or Marmol work? The Cubs might could toss someone like Bynum or Pagan or Negron back in the deal to sweeten the pot.

 

From reading that snippet, I think the Nationals would happily take a guy like Mateo or Marmol for Church, and I would not be opposed to making that deal either.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Mateo or Marmol for Church would be ideal. While we are in the market for pitching, we could deal one of Mateo or Marmol and still have Guzman, Ryu, Marshall and the one of that pair not dealt for the lower end if needed.

 

Church might be able to take over CF full-time, and if not he'd be more valuable as a fourth OF than the pitcher would be for us. The Nats aren't going to contend, so they could be more patient with the pitcher as they struggle in the majors.

 

If the Nats would bite, this one appears to be a no-brainer.