Wade Miller

[Danny82]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location.

 

Now, that's just ridiculous to say.

[CubColtPacer]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball.

 

Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value.

 

He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

 

What was his problem at the end of last season besides control? He certainly wasn't a low strikeout pitcher-20 K's in 21.2 IP. He gave up 19 hits, which isn't awful, and the only huge problem was that he gave up 18 walks. Control the walks, and Wade becomes a very effective pitcher.

 

Put the hits and walks together and you get WHIP. To me WHIP is more important than ERA when projecting into the future.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=568&position=P&page=6&type=full

 

Edit: In additon checkout his BB/9 and K/BB

 

The thing was, he was still rehabbing. The thing that takes the longest to come back is control. He did prove that even with an under 90 fastball though that he was still able to strike people out at a high rate, so the speed of his pitches is not going to be the problem, but the command. The fact that he has not recovered his velocity then is not the problem, because his only problem was a lack of command that led to a high walk rate, which if he controls it better this season will lead to a much lower statistics of all those that you mention.

[CubinNY]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location.

 

Now, that's just ridiculous to say.

 

Please tell me more of your fascinating insight.

[98navigator]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

TJS is different than shoulder injuries. The Tigers semed to be willing to make that gamble and I didn't see them offer Miller more money to play for them. Also, their mechanics are a big piece of my decision along with past success. I was never really that thrilled with Miller when he was healthy so that's a big reason why I wouldn't have spent the money for him as a project. I just wouldn't do it nearly as often as Hendry does.

 

What makes Miller a better player throwing 85 than a young guy throwing 93+ and is able to change speeds? We differ on how we'd approach acquiring players because again, I'd allocate money differently than you would. I do understand whyyou feel this way it's just that I think the gamble on a young guy with talent is better than gambling on a severly injured talented vet.

 

You're right, they are different but the result was basically the same; he missed, at least, 7 starts in 2002 due to surgery and all of the 2003 season so it was definitely a risk to sign him.

 

The Tigers have to take those gambles (so did the Royals with Sisco). On the other hand, if the Cardinals had been willing to keep Mateo they would have had someone else to fill out their rotation. Either way it's a gamble. Teams choose the option that makes them most comfortable.

[CuseCubFan69]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball.

 

Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value.

 

He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

 

What was his problem at the end of last season besides control? He certainly wasn't a low strikeout pitcher-20 K's in 21.2 IP. He gave up 19 hits, which isn't awful, and the only huge problem was that he gave up 18 walks. Control the walks, and Wade becomes a very effective pitcher.

 

It isn't always black and white like that. IMO his game was nibbling and hitting spots and with that goes walking more guys than you'd like too. If he gets too much plate it's a hard hit ball so he has to locate and he hasn't ever proved he can do that.

[Danny82]

CubinNY: I appreciation the condescending attitude, I really do. I continue to find it amazing how certain people around here consistently get away with it.

 

Anyway, I don't care if a pitcher is reaching 85 mph with his fastball, if he can put it anywhere he wants to, whenever he wants to, and the same with his off-speed stuff, that pitcher has a good chance to be an effective major league pitcher. Excellent command can make up for a lot of other weaknesses.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Wade Miller in 2006:

 

A: 18.0, 2.50 ERA, 8.50 H/9, 0.00 HR/9, 2.50 BB/9, 7.50 K/9, 1.22 WHIP

AA: 6.0 IP, 1.50 ERA, 4.5 H/9, 0.00 HR/9, 1.50 BB/9, 6.00 K/9, 0.67 WHIP

AAA: 11.0 IP, 6.55 ERA, 14.73 H/9, 1.64 HR/9, 2.45 BB/9, 7.36 K/9, 1.91 WHIP

MLB: 21.2 IP, 4.57 ERA, 7.89 H/9, 1.66 HR/9, 7.48 BB/9, 8.31 K/9, 1.71 WHIP

 

Career ML numbers:

 

880.2 IP, 4.00 ERA, 8.32 H/9, 1.05 HR/9, 3.79 BB/9, 7.59 K/9, 1.35 WHIP

 

Like someone posted above, the only thing really out of line with his career was his walks allowed in 2006. That could have just been the effect of not having enough innings.

 

Miller's diminished velocity hurts him, but he's not crap.

[wolf stansson]

CubinNY: I appreciation the condescending attitude, I really do. I continue to find it amazing how certain people around here consistently get away with it.

 

Anyway, I don't care if a pitcher is reaching 85 mph with his fastball, if he can put it anywhere he wants to, whenever he wants to, and the same with his off-speed stuff, that pitcher has a good chance to be an effective major league pitcher. Excellent command can make up for a lot of other weaknesses.

Wade Miller isn't going to do this.

[CuseCubFan69]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

TJS is different than shoulder injuries. The Tigers semed to be willing to make that gamble and I didn't see them offer Miller more money to play for them. Also, their mechanics are a big piece of my decision along with past success. I was never really that thrilled with Miller when he was healthy so that's a big reason why I wouldn't have spent the money for him as a project. I just wouldn't do it nearly as often as Hendry does.

 

What makes Miller a better player throwing 85 than a young guy throwing 93+ and is able to change speeds? We differ on how we'd approach acquiring players because again, I'd allocate money differently than you would. I do understand whyyou feel this way it's just that I think the gamble on a young guy with talent is better than gambling on a severly injured talented vet.

 

You're right, they are different but the result was basically the same; he missed, at least, 7 starts in 2002 due to surgery and all of the 2003 season so it was definitely a risk to sign him.

 

The Tigers have to take those gambles (so did the Royals with Sisco). On the other hand, if the Cardinals had been willing to keep Mateo they would have had someone else to fill out their rotation. Either way it's a gamble. Teams choose the option that makes them most comfortable.

 

The option I would rather take is to keep those players and develop them. Honestly 98n....if I have 3 million to spend I'm going in a different with it than you are. I'm not going to take the chance of losing a Meteo or Campusano and use that cash for adding the amount of money I'd use to get a better overall player to help the team. I do understand your point and you just have a different philosophy than I do regarding this issue and I respect that.

[Danny82]

CubinNY: I appreciation the condescending attitude, I really do. I continue to find it amazing how certain people around here consistently get away with it.

 

Anyway, I don't care if a pitcher is reaching 85 mph with his fastball, if he can put it anywhere he wants to, whenever he wants to, and the same with his off-speed stuff, that pitcher has a good chance to be an effective major league pitcher. Excellent command can make up for a lot of other weaknesses.

Wade Miller isn't going to do this.

 

You are most likely correct.

 

I was simply responding to his statement that location of his pitches wouldn't matter if he was struggling to hit the mid-80s with his fastball. I disagreed. I still do.

[davearm]

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it.

 

From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward.

 

This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day.

 

The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M.

 

People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury.

 

I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

 

What is this supposed high upside? The first go around with Miller was fine. However, he ptiched last year at the end of the season and didn't show much of anything.

The supposed high upside is the ERA+'s of 134, 130, 107, and 129 that Miller put up from 2001 to 2004.

 

The guy put up a 101 in his 5 starts last year, so it's not so outrageous to believe that with some additional rehab and strength-building (not to mention the year-2 effect after TJS), he could improve upon that 101, and regain his status as a well above-average, #2 or #3 starter.

 

That's the supposed high upside.

 

A guy with that level of production gets paid something like $12M/yr (or more) on the open market. Say you think Miller's got a 25% chance of meeting that ceiling. You should be willing to pay him $3M (12x0.25). The Cubs are paying half that. That's smart business.

[98navigator]

CubinNY: I appreciation the condescending attitude, I really do. I continue to find it amazing how certain people around here consistently get away with it.

 

Anyway, I don't care if a pitcher is reaching 85 mph with his fastball, if he can put it anywhere he wants to, whenever he wants to, and the same with his off-speed stuff, that pitcher has a good chance to be an effective major league pitcher. Excellent command can make up for a lot of other weaknesses.

Wade Miller isn't going to do this.

 

He might not but it's still too early to say so definitively. He still has the ability to get out ML hitters. There's no reason to believe that he won't continue to improve with rehab... That's not to say that it will work out with he and the Cubs because I don't see a spot for him.

[CuseCubFan69]

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it.

 

From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward.

 

This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day.

 

The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M.

 

People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury.

 

I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

 

What is this supposed high upside? The first go around with Miller was fine. However, he ptiched last year at the end of the season and didn't show much of anything.

The supposed high upside is the ERA+'s of 134, 130, 107, and 129 that Miller put up from 2001 to 2004.

 

The guy put up a 101 in his 5 starts last year, so it's not so outrageous to believe that with some additional rehab and strength-building (not to mention the year-2 effect after TJS), he could improve upon that 101, and regain his status as a well above-average, #2 or #3 starter.

 

That's the supposed high upside.

 

A guy with that level of production gets paid something like $12M/yr (or more) on the open market. Say you think Miller's got a 25% chance of meeting that ceiling. You should be willing to pay him $3M (12x0.25). The Cubs are paying half that. That's smart business.

 

It isn't bad business when you look at the cost and you can afford to make a gamble like that but you have to add who's spot is he taking away. IMO when you add it up it isn't worth the cost.

Edited February 26, 2007 by CuseCubFan69

[CubColtPacer]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball.

 

Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value.

 

He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

 

What was his problem at the end of last season besides control? He certainly wasn't a low strikeout pitcher-20 K's in 21.2 IP. He gave up 19 hits, which isn't awful, and the only huge problem was that he gave up 18 walks. Control the walks, and Wade becomes a very effective pitcher.

 

It isn't always black and white like that. IMO his game was nibbling and hitting spots and with that goes walking more guys than you'd like too. If he gets too much plate it's a hard hit ball so he has to locate and he hasn't ever proved he can do that.

 

I didn't see him nibbling much at the end of last year. I saw a guy who had some great movement on his pitches, and he didn't seem to know where they were going. If he can control that movement though at least somewhat, that should be enough to make him a pretty good pitcher even with reduced velocity. After his first start, he had a 3.74 ERA over his last 4 starts, and his WHIP dropped to 1.44. If he can get his WHIP down a little more by dropping his walk rate by 1/3 this year (which his control should definitely be better with the extra time throwing), then he has a very good chance of being effective IMO.

[CubinNY]

Just to set the record straight. Miller didn't have TJS he had a torn labrum. In 2004 he had surgery. Since 2004 he's had two more surgerys.

 

Miller has worked hard and might have been worth a gamble when the Cubs orriginally signed him. I was really hoping he'd be able to make it back, but last year he didn't show much. I guess $1.5 isn't a lot of money in this market, but I don't think it was wise to resign him.

 

Finally, location is important for any pitcher. But for one who is throwing BP fastballs, location is low on the list of worries.

[wolf stansson]

CubinNY: I appreciation the condescending attitude, I really do. I continue to find it amazing how certain people around here consistently get away with it.

 

Anyway, I don't care if a pitcher is reaching 85 mph with his fastball, if he can put it anywhere he wants to, whenever he wants to, and the same with his off-speed stuff, that pitcher has a good chance to be an effective major league pitcher. Excellent command can make up for a lot of other weaknesses.

Wade Miller isn't going to do this.

 

He might not but it's still too early to say so definitively. He still has the ability to get out ML hitters. There's no reason to believe that he won't continue to improve with rehab... That's not to say that it will work out with he and the Cubs because I don't see a spot for him.

Fair enough.

[98navigator]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

TJS is different than shoulder injuries. The Tigers semed to be willing to make that gamble and I didn't see them offer Miller more money to play for them. Also, their mechanics are a big piece of my decision along with past success. I was never really that thrilled with Miller when he was healthy so that's a big reason why I wouldn't have spent the money for him as a project. I just wouldn't do it nearly as often as Hendry does.

 

What makes Miller a better player throwing 85 than a young guy throwing 93+ and is able to change speeds? We differ on how we'd approach acquiring players because again, I'd allocate money differently than you would. I do understand whyyou feel this way it's just that I think the gamble on a young guy with talent is better than gambling on a severly injured talented vet.

 

You're right, they are different but the result was basically the same; he missed, at least, 7 starts in 2002 due to surgery and all of the 2003 season so it was definitely a risk to sign him.

 

The Tigers have to take those gambles (so did the Royals with Sisco). On the other hand, if the Cardinals had been willing to keep Mateo they would have had someone else to fill out their rotation. Either way it's a gamble. Teams choose the option that makes them most comfortable.

 

The option I would rather take is to keep those players and develop them. Honestly 98n....if I have 3 million to spend I'm going in a different with it than you are. I'm not going to take the chance of losing a Meteo or Campusano and use that cash for adding the amount of money I'd use to get a better overall player to help the team. I do understand your point and you just have a different philosophy than I do regarding this issue and I respect that.

 

We agree to respectfully disagree.

[davearm]

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it.

 

From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward.

 

This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day.

 

The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M.

 

People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury.

 

I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

 

I disagree. You have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. Williamson hasn't done anything that a guy from the minors couldn't do with less cost. There are also other guys the Cubs have gone this route with that haven't panned out to do anything other than costing money and taking a roster spot away.

Obviously you have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. That goes without saying.

 

And almost by definition, you're going to have more misses than hits. Which is fine, and everybody should realize this going in.

 

Nonetheless, the general principle is a sound one, and successful teams follow it regularly.

[CuseCubFan69]

Just to set the record straight. Miller didn't have TJS he had a torn labrum. In 2004 he had surgery. Since 2004 he's had two more surgerys.

 

Miller has worked hard and might have been worth a gamble when the Cubs orriginally signed him. I was really hoping he'd be able to make it back, but last year he didn't show much. I guess $1.5 isn't a lot of money in this market, but I don't think it was wise to resign him.

 

Finally, location is important for any pitcher. But for one who is throwing BP fastballs, location is low on the list of worries.

 

What if 1.5 is the difference between scouting an area like Asia? Is it worth it then? maybe the money is alocated differently but it has to be included in the overall budget.

[CuseCubFan69]

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it.

 

From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward.

 

This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day.

 

The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M.

 

People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury.

 

I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

 

I disagree. You have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. Williamson hasn't done anything that a guy from the minors couldn't do with less cost. There are also other guys the Cubs have gone this route with that haven't panned out to do anything other than costing money and taking a roster spot away.

Obviously you have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. That goes without saying.

 

And almost by definition, you're going to have more misses than hits. Which is fine, and everybody should realize this going in.

 

Nonetheless, the general principle is a sound one, and successful teams follow it regularly.

 

As do some horrible ones.

[CubColtPacer]

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it.

 

From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward.

 

This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day.

 

The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M.

 

People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury.

 

I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

 

I disagree. You have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. Williamson hasn't done anything that a guy from the minors couldn't do with less cost. There are also other guys the Cubs have gone this route with that haven't panned out to do anything other than costing money and taking a roster spot away.

Obviously you have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. That goes without saying.

 

And almost by definition, you're going to have more misses than hits. Which is fine, and everybody should realize this going in.

 

Nonetheless, the general principle is a sound one, and successful teams follow it regularly.

 

Exactly-if 3 of 4 pitchers completely flame out and the other turns out to be a successful pitcher for even a couple of years, the team still has gotten back more than it has put in (especially with the pitching market the way it is right now).

 

I do agree with the poster a page or so ago that said that Miller may need to go to another team though-he was good insurance, but right now it looks like the Cubs hopefully won't need that insurance, and so they have an excess of pitchers without a true spot for Miller.

[CubinNY]

Just to set the record straight. Miller didn't have TJS he had a torn labrum. In 2004 he had surgery. Since 2004 he's had two more surgerys.

 

Miller has worked hard and might have been worth a gamble when the Cubs orriginally signed him. I was really hoping he'd be able to make it back, but last year he didn't show much. I guess $1.5 isn't a lot of money in this market, but I don't think it was wise to resign him.

 

Finally, location is important for any pitcher. But for one who is throwing BP fastballs, location is low on the list of worries.

 

What if 1.5 is the difference between scouting an area like Asia? Is it worth it then? maybe the money is alocated differently but it has to be included in the overall budget.

 

I'm hitting what you are pitching.

 

I'd take the money Hendry has spent on all the washed up players over the years and put it into scouting and player development.

 

Remember Chad Fox?

[davearm]

What is this supposed high upside? The first go around with Miller was fine. However, he ptiched last year at the end of the season and didn't show much of anything.

The supposed high upside is the ERA+'s of 134, 130, 107, and 129 that Miller put up from 2001 to 2004.

 

The guy put up a 101 in his 5 starts last year, so it's not so outrageous to believe that with some additional rehab and strength-building (not to mention the year-2 effect after TJS), he could improve upon that 101, and regain his status as a well above-average, #2 or #3 starter.

 

That's the supposed high upside.

 

A guy with that level of production gets paid something like $12M/yr (or more) on the open market. Say you think Miller's got a 25% chance of meeting that ceiling. You should be willing to pay him $3M (12x0.25). The Cubs are paying half that. That's smart business.

 

It isn't bad business when you look at the cost and you can afford to make a gamble like that but you have to add who's spot is he taking away. IMO when you add it up it isn't worth the cost.

I don't consider losing a marginal lefty reliever with no spot on the ML roster like Campusano a meaningful cost.

[davearm]

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it.

 

From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward.

 

This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day.

 

The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M.

 

People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury.

 

I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

 

I disagree. You have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. Williamson hasn't done anything that a guy from the minors couldn't do with less cost. There are also other guys the Cubs have gone this route with that haven't panned out to do anything other than costing money and taking a roster spot away.

Obviously you have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. That goes without saying.

 

And almost by definition, you're going to have more misses than hits. Which is fine, and everybody should realize this going in.

 

Nonetheless, the general principle is a sound one, and successful teams follow it regularly.

 

As do some horrible ones.

They didn't become horrible because of their good decisions though.

[CuseCubFan69]

What is this supposed high upside? The first go around with Miller was fine. However, he ptiched last year at the end of the season and didn't show much of anything.

The supposed high upside is the ERA+'s of 134, 130, 107, and 129 that Miller put up from 2001 to 2004.

 

The guy put up a 101 in his 5 starts last year, so it's not so outrageous to believe that with some additional rehab and strength-building (not to mention the year-2 effect after TJS), he could improve upon that 101, and regain his status as a well above-average, #2 or #3 starter.

 

That's the supposed high upside.

 

A guy with that level of production gets paid something like $12M/yr (or more) on the open market. Say you think Miller's got a 25% chance of meeting that ceiling. You should be willing to pay him $3M (12x0.25). The Cubs are paying half that. That's smart business.

 

It isn't bad business when you look at the cost and you can afford to make a gamble like that but you have to add who's spot is he taking away. IMO when you add it up it isn't worth the cost.

I don't consider losing a marginal lefty reliever with no spot on the ML roster like Campusano a meaningful cost.

 

I look at him as a better asset than Miller but again, that's my opinion.