FoxSports-Cubs ink Lilly to four-year deal

[CoolHandLuke]

Having Lilly keep you in games, usually giving you 6 innings is a huge improvement over running a rookie out there that loses you the game by the 2nd inning.

 

Ted Lilly pitched 4 or fewer innings/gave up 5 or more earned runs in a quarter of his starts last year. How many times do you really think the cubs' best assortment of rookies would do this?

 

Z did the same in roughly 18% of his starts last season. What's your point?

 

Z is a #1 starter. Lilly is a 3. I don't expect Lilly to be a world burner. All he has to do is not get blown out early, which happened only 3 times last season out of 32 starts. One of our rookies isn't going to do that for us. We'd be lucky to be in half the games they pitch.

 

We have some good young arms, but most of them are a year away from really establishing themselves in the rotation (excepting Hill of course).

 

I think I may have higher expectations from a third starter than you.

[nilodnayr]

I would like Ted Lilly of 2004 for this entire contract.

 

Thanks

 

Yeah, if BABIP stays consistenly 40 points below what it should be, we will be quite happy with this deal. If he isn't so lucky...well we can kiss a chance at the playoffs goodbye.

 

yes. all is riding on Ted Lilly equalling his best season. c'mon.

 

If you normalize for luck his opponents BA increases from 235 to 266. I don't know how to predict what affect that would have on his ERA, but for a guy who gave up 26 HRs and had an IsoD of .080, I'm guessing it would go up significantly. Anyone know how to adjust his ERA for this? I guess you'd probably have to look at game charts, which theres no way I'm doing. My guess is his 120 ERA+ drops to 107ish, but thats a complete guess.

 

So, my point is that Lilly does noto have to pitch as well as he did in his best season, he just needs to get as lucky as he did in his best season.

[Laura]

I hope he didn't get a no-trade clause.

[jjgman21]

I would like Ted Lilly of 2004 for this entire contract.

 

Thanks

 

Yeah, if BABIP stays consistenly 40 points below what it should be, we will be quite happy with this deal. If he isn't so lucky...well we can kiss a chance at the playoffs goodbye.

 

yes. all is riding on Ted Lilly equalling his best season. c'mon.

 

If you normalize for luck his opponents BA increases from 235 to 266. I don't know how to predict what affect that would have on his ERA, but for a guy who gave up 26 HRs and had an IsoD of .080, I'm guessing it would go up significantly. Anyone know how to adjust his ERA for this? I guess you'd probably have to look at game charts, which theres no way I'm doing. My guess is his 120 ERA+ drops to 107ish, but thats a complete guess.

 

So, my point is that Lilly does noto have to pitch as well as he did in his best season, he just needs to get as lucky as he did in his best season.

 

that's not my point. my point is that Ted Lilly not performing like a #2 starter does not equal missing the playoffs. no one players performance is enough to make that kind of a difference in baseball. you may not like the deal, I don't particularly either, but you take the consequences of Lilly failing to become a #2 way too far.

[CubsWin]

Clearly, I would have rather signed Padilla or Schmidt. But it was well known that Padilla wanted to stay in Texas and Schmidt wanted to stay on the west coast. We can blame Hendry for not wildly overpaying for them, but we don't know that if he did that they would have accepted the offers. But given that Padilla and Schmidt decided to go elsewhere, was signing Lilly really a bad move as some feel? It seems like the options people are seeing if the Cubs didn't sign Lilly are Suppan, Meche, some assortment of Cubs youngsters or possibly trading for a Dodger arm, probably Brad Penny.

 

The Penny thing is highly unlikely, at this point, meaning no one has really mentioned any rumors of him being available. So for the sake of reality, let's set him aside until such time that he becomes a viable, realistic option.

 

That leaves the rookies and the other FAs. I would rather have Suppan, but from what I've read, he seems set on either the Yanks or St. Louis. FA signings are a two way street afterall. If that is true, and I don't know if it is, Lilly is likely the next best FA option. Meche has some upside, but Lilly's ceiling, twice hit, of a 120 ERA+ is far more proven than anything Meche has accomplished to date.

 

So do people really think that counting on Angel Guzman or Juan Mateo or Carlos Marmol to be your 3rd starter all year long is a better idea than signing Ted Lilly? I mean, in reality, that is what it has come down to. Hendry either signs this guy or allows him to go someplace else and is left with...

 

Clearly, Lilly isn't our 1st choice. He's not ideal. He's not a top of the rotation guy. But given the reality of situation, should Hendry have done nothing?

[Guest]

Clearly, Lilly isn't our 1st choice. He's not ideal. He's not a top of the rotation guy. But given the reality of situation, should Hendry have done nothing?

Assuming the Cubs are as committed to moving Jones as they seem, I would have much preferred to invest this $10M per year into Drew and let the kids pitch. I think the marginal difference between Drew in CF and whatever else we come up is far greater than the difference between Lilly and the kids that would have replaced him.

[nilodnayr]

Having Lilly keep you in games, usually giving you 6 innings is a huge improvement over running a rookie out there that loses you the game by the 2nd inning.

 

Ted Lilly pitched 4 or fewer innings/gave up 5 or more earned runs in a quarter of his starts last year. How many times do you really think the cubs' best assortment of rookies would do this?

 

let's change the perameters slightly.

 

Carlos Zambrano gave up 5 or more runs in 9 of his 33 starts.

Ted Lilly gave up 5 or more runs in 8 of his 32 starts.

 

he's not going to shut an offense down completely like Z, but our "Ace" is just as likely to get blown out as Lilly.

 

I think RichHillIsABeast's original point was that Lilly will usually give you 6 innings and that will help us a lot. However, Lilly didn't go 6 innings in 13 of his 32 starts last year. While an improvement over our rookies for sure, hes not the poster child for going deep into games.

[A New Era]

Here's a pretty relevant and thorough run-down on Teddy since he's now a cub:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2006/10/2007_mlb_free_a_6.html

 

Injury points (since the FOX article mentioned his history of arm problems):

 

October 1999: Shoulder surgery

 

July 2002: Inflammation in shoulder

 

February 2005: tendinitis in shoulder

 

July 2005: tendinitis in biceps

 

September 2005 (obviously not a good year): discomfort in shoulder blade

 

March 2006: mild right shoulder "injury"

 

June 2006: shoulder tightness

 

 

 

Sensing a trend here? He has plenty of shoulder problems. So I think we should all be prepared for that. Also check this out (I didn't remember this):

 

August: Misses start with stiff neck. Later in month, has heated argument with manager John Gibbons after being pulled from awful start. Gibbons gets bloody nose.

October: Lilly files for free agency.

 

He's got spunk, I suppose that's something.

 

What pitchers don't have shoulder problems. Most pitch through them. Did you hear that PRIOR!!!! :wink:

 

You're right. Just thought I would point out the trend.

 

The fact that he beat the crap out of his manager after his desire was questioned is also interesting 8-)

 

Here's one for ya.

 

Stiff back

Stiff neck

back pain

side pain

stiff back

stiff back.

 

Can you guuuuuueeeees who that is? Do you want him in your rotation? :wink:

[nilodnayr]

Having Lilly keep you in games, usually giving you 6 innings is a huge improvement over running a rookie out there that loses you the game by the 2nd inning.

 

Ted Lilly pitched 4 or fewer innings/gave up 5 or more earned runs in a quarter of his starts last year. How many times do you really think the cubs' best assortment of rookies would do this?

 

Z did the same in roughly 18% of his starts last season. What's your point?

 

Z is a #1 starter. Lilly is a 3. I don't expect Lilly to be a world burner. All he has to do is not get blown out early, which happened only 3 times last season out of 32 starts. One of our rookies isn't going to do that for us. We'd be lucky to be in half the games they pitch.

 

We have some good young arms, but most of them are a year away from really establishing themselves in the rotation (excepting Hill of course).

 

I'm not sure what your definition of a getting blown out early is, but in the 33 starts by Guz/Marmol/Mateo, I think it only happened 5 times if I follow the starts you consider early blow out by Lilly. Again it all depends on what your cut off point is.

[tkenm356]

Here's one for ya.

 

Stiff back

Stiff neck

back pain

side pain

stiff back

stiff back.

 

Can you guuuuuueeeees who that is? Do you want him in your rotation? :wink:

 

J.D. Drew can't pitch! You're silly!

[nilodnayr]

I would like Ted Lilly of 2004 for this entire contract.

 

Thanks

 

Yeah, if BABIP stays consistenly 40 points below what it should be, we will be quite happy with this deal. If he isn't so lucky...well we can kiss a chance at the playoffs goodbye.

 

yes. all is riding on Ted Lilly equalling his best season. c'mon.

 

If you normalize for luck his opponents BA increases from 235 to 266. I don't know how to predict what affect that would have on his ERA, but for a guy who gave up 26 HRs and had an IsoD of .080, I'm guessing it would go up significantly. Anyone know how to adjust his ERA for this? I guess you'd probably have to look at game charts, which theres no way I'm doing. My guess is his 120 ERA+ drops to 107ish, but thats a complete guess.

 

So, my point is that Lilly does noto have to pitch as well as he did in his best season, he just needs to get as lucky as he did in his best season.

 

that's not my point. my point is that Ted Lilly not performing like a #2 starter does not equal missing the playoffs. no one players performance is enough to make that kind of a difference in baseball. you may not like the deal, I don't particularly either, but you take the consequences of Lilly failing to become a #2 way too far.

 

Isn't one way to talk about player's value by saying how many wins they are worth over a player they are replacing? So if we miss the playoffs by 3 games, wouldn't we have given ourselves a better chance of making the playoffs by acquiring a player who would have been greater than 3 wins marginally better than the player they would have replaced? If one player's performance is enough to make a few win difference in baseball, then why don't we sign a bunch of replacement players? For each of them you can say "ohh well, one player's performance can't make the difference between making the playoffs and not".

[jjgman21]

Having Lilly keep you in games, usually giving you 6 innings is a huge improvement over running a rookie out there that loses you the game by the 2nd inning.

 

Ted Lilly pitched 4 or fewer innings/gave up 5 or more earned runs in a quarter of his starts last year. How many times do you really think the cubs' best assortment of rookies would do this?

 

let's change the perameters slightly.

 

Carlos Zambrano gave up 5 or more runs in 9 of his 33 starts.

Ted Lilly gave up 5 or more runs in 8 of his 32 starts.

 

he's not going to shut an offense down completely like Z, but our "Ace" is just as likely to get blown out as Lilly.

 

I think RichHillIsABeast's original point was that Lilly will usually give you 6 innings and that will help us a lot. However, Lilly didn't go 6 innings in 13 of his 32 starts last year. While an improvement over our rookies for sure, hes not the poster child for going deep into games.

 

he's a 170-190 IP per year pitcher who will dominate 1/3, give you a chance in 1/3, and get hammered in 1/3 and more than likely have a league average ERA+. why the need to demonize him from all angles is beyond me. he is what he is, an #3 type starter with a chance to be a good #3 starter.

 

I don't like the contract. I didn't like Jones's contract either. but like I started saying in June, Jones came to the Cubs as a slightly below average outfielder and is being paid what slightly below league average outfielders make in free agency. Lilly is a league average starter being paid what league average starters make.

[jjgman21]

I would like Ted Lilly of 2004 for this entire contract.

 

Thanks

 

Yeah, if BABIP stays consistenly 40 points below what it should be, we will be quite happy with this deal. If he isn't so lucky...well we can kiss a chance at the playoffs goodbye.

 

yes. all is riding on Ted Lilly equalling his best season. c'mon.

 

If you normalize for luck his opponents BA increases from 235 to 266. I don't know how to predict what affect that would have on his ERA, but for a guy who gave up 26 HRs and had an IsoD of .080, I'm guessing it would go up significantly. Anyone know how to adjust his ERA for this? I guess you'd probably have to look at game charts, which theres no way I'm doing. My guess is his 120 ERA+ drops to 107ish, but thats a complete guess.

 

So, my point is that Lilly does noto have to pitch as well as he did in his best season, he just needs to get as lucky as he did in his best season.

 

that's not my point. my point is that Ted Lilly not performing like a #2 starter does not equal missing the playoffs. no one players performance is enough to make that kind of a difference in baseball. you may not like the deal, I don't particularly either, but you take the consequences of Lilly failing to become a #2 way too far.

 

Isn't one way to talk about player's value by saying how many wins they are worth over a player they are replacing? So if we miss the playoffs by 3 games, wouldn't we have given ourselves a better chance of making the playoffs by acquiring a player who would have been greater than 3 wins marginally better than the player they would have replaced? If one player's performance is enough to make a few win difference in baseball, then why don't we sign a bunch of replacement players? For each of them you can say "ohh well, one player's performance can't make the difference between making the playoffs and not".

 

and like we already discussed, can't the extra 6M saved by not signing Schmidt give you a player that can be 4 wins above replacement?

 

I also refer you to my previous post. he is what he is.

[A New Era]

just far too many unknowns to be absolutely certain of any type of success this year.

 

Yeah it's not like going into 2004, when we had 4 very good, healthy, young starting pitchers, a solid lineup and a good closer. We could be certain of success that year.

 

we were as certain of success as anybody's been in a while. the fact that it didn't happen to work out is irrelevant. if you could have that situation again, you'd be a fool to turn it down.

 

my point was that it's the cubs, the only thing you can be certain of is that there won't be success

 

No thanks. I wouldn't care to repeat that year, going back to having a coaching staff that doesn't WORK, and a manager that doesn't MANAGE. I'll take Piniella and THIS group of guys, thank you.

[tkenm356]

Apparently Lilly turned down a Blue Jays offer that would've given him $5MM more extra, not that I really give a crap...

 

Ted Lilly reportedly left $5 million on the table by choosing the Cubs' four-year offer over that of the Blue Jays.

Lilly took $40 million from the Cubs. The Jays are now focusing on signing Gil Meche, but Meche also has a substantial offer from the Cubs on the table.

 

Don't know if it has been posted, fwiw

[CubsWin]

Clearly, Lilly isn't our 1st choice. He's not ideal. He's not a top of the rotation guy. But given the reality of situation, should Hendry have done nothing?

Assuming the Cubs are as committed to moving Jones as they seem, I would have much preferred to invest this $10M per year into Drew and let the kids pitch. I think the marginal difference between Drew in CF and whatever else we come up is far greater than the difference between Lilly and the kids that would have replaced him.

An interesting idea. If Guzman hits and Prior can return in some capacity, then you've really got something.

 

Its difficult to know how realistic it is to think the Cubs could have beaten the BoSox's 5/70 offer. Plus, Pie is blocked. I wanted the Cubs to sign Drew over Soriano going off of stats alone. I might have changed my mind if I knew all the scouting reports. But since it was Soriano, signing Drew as well is problematic, but certainly interesting.

[nilodnayr]

 

Isn't one way to talk about player's value by saying how many wins they are worth over a player they are replacing? So if we miss the playoffs by 3 games, wouldn't we have given ourselves a better chance of making the playoffs by acquiring a player who would have been greater than 3 wins marginally better than the player they would have replaced? If one player's performance is enough to make a few win difference in baseball, then why don't we sign a bunch of replacement players? For each of them you can say "ohh well, one player's performance can't make the difference between making the playoffs and not".

 

and like we already discussed, can't the extra 6M saved by not signing Schmidt give you a player that can be 4 wins above replacement?

 

I also refer you to my previous post. he is what he is.

 

Other than Lugo at SS, I don't think an additional 6M could have netted us 4 additional wins (I totally pulled that out of my butt, I don't know the win difference between Schmidt and Lilly, some one help out here) over any other player we have.

[nilodnayr]

Per jjg's request, another way to normalize for luck other than BABIP is actual HRs vs expected HRs (assuming 10% of flyballs become HRs)

 

Actual vs Expected

 

02: 15 vs 14 Even

03: 24 vs 22 slightly unlucky

04: 23 vs 26 slightly lucky

05: 26 vs 17 very unlucky

06: 28 vs 23 unlucky

 

Does anyone know how many runs a HR is worth(including extending the inning)? I've seen value somewhere but can't it anywhere.

 

Once someone' posts the value I will finish the analysis of the HR luck factor's impact on Lilly's ERA.

[Guest]

Does anyone know how many runs a HR is worth(including extending the inning)? I've seen value somewhere but can't it anywhere.

Most regressions peg the typical value of a home run at about 1.44 runs.

[nilodnayr]

Per jjg's request, another way to normalize for luck other than BABIP is actual HRs vs expected HRs (assuming 10% of flyballs become HRs)

 

Actual vs Expected

 

02: 15 vs 14 Even

03: 24 vs 22 slightly unlucky

04: 23 vs 26 slightly lucky

05: 26 vs 17 very unlucky

06: 28 vs 23 unlucky

 

Does anyone know how many runs a HR is worth(including extending the inning)? I've seen value somewhere but can't it anywhere.

 

Once someone' posts the value I will finish the analysis of the HR luck factor's impact on Lilly's ERA.

 

Actual ERA vs Expected ERA *Adjusting for HRs only

 

02: 3.69 vs 3.56

03: 4.34 vs 4.19

04: 4.06 vs 4.26

05: 5.56 vs 4.63 (wow)

06: 4.31 vs 3.96

 

Someone less tired than me can do the analysis of his Actual vs Expected BABIP's affect on BA, but here is the lucky/unlucky analysis

 

Actual vs Expected

 

02: .241 vs .300 extremely lucky

03: .303 vs .497 outrageously lucky

04: .272 vs .309 very lucky

05: .301 vs .341 very lucky

06: .300 vs .313 slightly lucky

[nilodnayr]

Of course, I have to assume Riccardi (or rather his assistant) has done the analyses I've done, so the real question is...what are we missing to make the Jays want to retain him?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Meh.

[soapy]

ugh. please don't compound this by signing Meche also.

 

Don't you kind of want to see Hendry's "dream team" win 78 games?

The part of me that wants Hendry exposed as a poor GM does, but I'm worried that they may setting themselves up for failure beyond 2007, which is what really bothers me.

[Yeti]

lilly huh? i dunno what to say, im sure i'll figure something to say after i look at the stats a little more closely

 

EDIT: recent injuries?

[C.C.]

Where can I find the stat of the "average innings pitched per start" of Lilly?