Reds 75% sure they'll land Bedard

[rchap24]

when? his entire career...

but he hasn't been out because of it? people just think he's a risk? I really am confused sorry!

[Guest]

Ok I understand the ERA argument and agree with you, but I still can't say they are interchangeable he has been the work horse of the Orioles rotation over the last few years. I can't make a statement that a number 3 starter in his first year with a team is the same as putting the Ace of another team on a new team. Hill is no ace right now and maybe Bedard isn't an ace for half of the teams in the major leagues, but the guys put in the innings and has shown he can do it better than Hill has thus far. Don't get me wrong in the long run maybe, but right now I don't think you can make that statement.

 

Bedard is not a work horse. ERA and IP each year

 

2004 137.3 IP, 4.59 ERA

2005 141.7 IP, 4.00 ERA

2006 196.3 IP, 3.76 ERA

2007 182.0 IP, 3.16 ERA

Didn't we just say that his first two years he was injured? I pretty sure the last two were his healthy ones and thats not to shabby almost 200 the last two?

 

Bedard finished last season on the DL.

[USSoccer]

Ok I understand the ERA argument and agree with you, but I still can't say they are interchangeable he has been the work horse of the Orioles rotation over the last few years. I can't make a statement that a number 3 starter in his first year with a team is the same as putting the Ace of another team on a new team. Hill is no ace right now and maybe Bedard isn't an ace for half of the teams in the major leagues, but the guys put in the innings and has shown he can do it better than Hill has thus far. Don't get me wrong in the long run maybe, but right now I don't think you can make that statement.

 

He's put in more innings because he's been in the majors longer. He's also injury prone, coming off a career year, and in GAPB he's going to suffer even more.

[KingCubsFan]

all of my opinions are objective. what you're saying makes for a stupid argument.

 

"he's a good baseball player for reason A, B & C"

"that guy sucks."

"oh, i guess i overlooked something. better go see where i'm wrong."

"my work here is done."

 

that's lazy and presumptuous.

 

that's called the Socratic method. it's one of the most effective ways of teaching someone. it's smart.

 

1. That's not the Socratic method.

2. Are you a law professor? Because I think they're the only ones who still believe the Socratic method is effective.

 

I still don't know how you can be so definitive on Erik Bedard having a career year. He's a 28 year-old who was always thought to have a very high ceiling, and who has been pretty dominant now for over 1.5 years, so unless you're taking injuries into account I'm not sure it's a foregone conclusion he's going to regress to whatever you think he'll regress to.

[CubColtPacer]

Ok I understand the ERA argument and agree with you, but I still can't say they are interchangeable he has been the work horse of the Orioles rotation over the last few years. I can't make a statement that a number 3 starter in his first year with a team is the same as putting the Ace of another team on a new team. Hill is no ace right now and maybe Bedard isn't an ace for half of the teams in the major leagues, but the guys put in the innings and has shown he can do it better than Hill has thus far. Don't get me wrong in the long run maybe, but right now I don't think you can make that statement.

 

He's put in more innings because he's been in the majors longer. He's also injury prone, coming off a career year, and in GAPB he's going to suffer even more.

 

I agree mostly with your side of the Hill/Bedard debate, but Bedard moving to the National League from the AL East should help him, even if he's moving into GABP. He's been incredibly dominant against the NL, albeit in only 70 innings (1.93 ERA, 6.56 H/9, 87K/23BB). The fact that he is moving to a hitter's ballpark will negate at least most of the moving leagues positive effect though.

[Bluescale]

Once again the anecdotal memory fails. Erik Bedard's fastball averaged a whole 1 MPH faster than Rich Hill's, a difference but something that goes away due to Rich's better breaking ball. And Rich Hill actually threw changeups more often than Erik Bedard did (9% to 5%).

 

Where are you getting those changeup percentages from? I'd love to be able to look that up somewhere...

[Mephistopheles]

1. That's not the Socratic method.

 

okay not exactly but close enough

[photoguy9883]

1. That's not the Socratic method.

 

okay not exactly but close enough

 

Yeah, except that the idea of the Socratic method is to make the person your teaching feel like they're smarter than you and they're actually doing the teaching. What you're doing seems to come off as a pompus ass who is condecending to everyone else. That's not even close to the Socratic method.

[Clem Fandango]

I'd love to see the Reds trade away their future to get Bedard pitching on Dusty's team. Bedard is good, but he's not as good as people think he is. And he's worse in that ballpark. And he's even more likely to become injured pitching with Dusty as his manager.

 

In the long run, this would be a remarkable trade for the NL Central. in the short run, it really doesn't matter, because one pitcher isn't going to make the Reds invincible like some people seem to think it will

[Exile on Waveland]

1. That's not the Socratic method.

 

okay not exactly but close enough

 

Yeah, except that the idea of the Socratic method is to make the person your teaching feel like they're smarter than you and they're actually doing the teaching. What you're doing seems to come off as a pompus ass who is condecending to everyone else. That's not even close to the Socratic method.

 

Hmm...that seems an awful lot like what passes for the Socratic method at law schools.

[Clem Fandango]

1. That's not the Socratic method.

 

okay not exactly but close enough

 

Yeah, except that the idea of the Socratic method is to make the person your teaching feel like they're smarter than you and they're actually doing the teaching. What you're doing seems to come off as a pompus ass who is condecending to everyone else. That's not even close to the Socratic method.

 

Hmm...that seems an awful lot like what passes for the Socratic method at law schools.

 

True it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method#Law_school

 

The employment of the Socratic method has some uniform features but can also be heavily influenced by the temperament of the teacher. The method begins by calling on a student at random, and asking about a central argument put forth by one of the judges (typically on the side of the majority) in an assigned case. The first step is to ask the student to paraphrase the argument, in order to ensure that the student has read and has a basic understanding of the case. (Students who have not read the case, for whatever reason, must take the opportunity to "pass," which most professors allow as a matter of course a few times per term.) Assuming the student has read the case and can articulate the court's argument, the teacher then asks whether the student agrees with the argument. The teacher then typically plays Devil's advocate, trying to force the student to defend his or her position by rebutting arguments against it.

[reds44]

Excuse me while I set some things straight.

 

The Reds already said they won't give up Bruce to get Bedard.

Right now the deal being talked about is Bailey/Hamilton/Another prospect not named Cueto or Bruce.

Is Bedard an ace? Maybe. Look at his numbers, they've imrpoved every year over the last 3 years in the AL.

If you can get Bedard without giving up Bruce or Cueto it's a deal you make.

Talk about Bedard going into GABP and his numbers going up (didn't seem to do that for Arroyo), but you all forgot to mention the switch in the leagues.

If you don't think landing Bedard and Cordero makes them a contender in the piss poor NL Central then you have issues.

Edited December 11, 2007 by reds44

[abuck1220]

yeah, i'm not overwhelmed by cordero.

[reds44]

yeah, i'm not overwhelmed by cordero.

He was hands down the best pitcher on the market.

[Outshined_One]

The applicable legal phrase that works with Meph is that you have to take the bitter with the sweet.

 

Sure, his personality is about as enjoyable as a fart in a crowded elevator, but he knows how to back his stuff up.

 

As an FYI, Bedard was on the 60 Day DL this season for a strained oblique. He also had a knee problem in 2005 that caused him to miss a good amount of time.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

yeah, i'm not overwhelmed by cordero.

He was hands down the best pitcher on the market.

 

2007 Cordero? Or the rest of his career Cordero where he's pretty average?

[Clem Fandango]

yeah, i'm not overwhelmed by cordero.

He was hands down the best pitcher on the market.

 

2007 Cordero? Or the rest of his career Cordero where he's pretty average?

 

2007 Cordero was only good at Milwaukee, too. 2007 away Cordero was worse than average

[abuck1220]

yeah, i'm not overwhelmed by cordero.

He was hands down the best pitcher on the market.

good for him. still not impressed.

[Exile on Waveland]

1. That's not the Socratic method.

 

okay not exactly but close enough

 

Yeah, except that the idea of the Socratic method is to make the person your teaching feel like they're smarter than you and they're actually doing the teaching. What you're doing seems to come off as a pompus ass who is condecending to everyone else. That's not even close to the Socratic method.

 

Hmm...that seems an awful lot like what passes for the Socratic method at law schools.

 

True it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method#Law_school

 

The employment of the Socratic method has some uniform features but can also be heavily influenced by the temperament of the teacher. The method begins by calling on a student at random, and asking about a central argument put forth by one of the judges (typically on the side of the majority) in an assigned case. The first step is to ask the student to paraphrase the argument, in order to ensure that the student has read and has a basic understanding of the case. (Students who have not read the case, for whatever reason, must take the opportunity to "pass," which most professors allow as a matter of course a few times per term.) Assuming the student has read the case and can articulate the court's argument, the teacher then asks whether the student agrees with the argument. The teacher then typically plays Devil's advocate, trying to force the student to defend his or her position by rebutting arguments against it.

 

Yes, I know this well. I've become quite familiar over the past 2.5 years.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Excuse me while I set some things straight.

 

The Reds already said they won't give up Bruce to get Bedard.

Right now the deal being talked about is Bailey/Hamilton/Another prospect not named Cueto or Bruce.

Is Bedard an ace? Maybe. Look at his numbers, they've imrpoved every year over the last 3 years in the AL.

If you can get Bedard without giving up Bruce or Cueto it's a deal you make.

Talk about Bedard going into GABP and his numbers going up (didn't seem to do that for Arroyo), but you all forgot to mention the switch in the leagues.

If you don't think landing Bedard and Cordero makes them a contender in the piss poor NL Central then you have issues.

 

If the Reds best offer is Hamilton+Bailey+ another prospect not named Cueto or Bruce, I'm 75% sure that they probably won't get Bedard.

[Yestheydo]

Excuse me while I set some things straight.

 

The Reds already said they won't give up Bruce to get Bedard.

Right now the deal being talked about is Bailey/Hamilton/Another prospect not named Cueto or Bruce.

Is Bedard an ace? Maybe. Look at his numbers, they've imrpoved every year over the last 3 years in the AL.

If you can get Bedard without giving up Bruce or Cueto it's a deal you make.

Talk about Bedard going into GABP and his numbers going up (didn't seem to do that for Arroyo), but you all forgot to mention the switch in the leagues.

If you don't think landing Bedard and Cordero makes them a contender in the piss poor NL Central then you have issues.

 

Cub fans with issues? No way man

[moorecg]

1. That's not the Socratic method.

 

okay not exactly but close enough

 

Yeah, except that the idea of the Socratic method is to make the person your teaching feel like they're smarter than you and they're actually doing the teaching. What you're doing seems to come off as a pompus ass who is condecending to everyone else. That's not even close to the Socratic method.

 

Hmm...that seems an awful lot like what passes for the Socratic method at law schools.

 

True it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method#Law_school

 

The employment of the Socratic method has some uniform features but can also be heavily influenced by the temperament of the teacher. The method begins by calling on a student at random, and asking about a central argument put forth by one of the judges (typically on the side of the majority) in an assigned case. The first step is to ask the student to paraphrase the argument, in order to ensure that the student has read and has a basic understanding of the case. (Students who have not read the case, for whatever reason, must take the opportunity to "pass," which most professors allow as a matter of course a few times per term.) Assuming the student has read the case and can articulate the court's argument, the teacher then asks whether the student agrees with the argument. The teacher then typically plays Devil's advocate, trying to force the student to defend his or her position by rebutting arguments against it.

 

Yes, I know this well. I've become quite familiar over the past 2.5 years.

 

Unfortunatly it doesn't change once you start practicing....its just a different source....Judges, Partners...at the end of the day it never seems to end...(well, maybe once you become a partner and get to turn the tables).... :D

[SouthSideRyan]

Reds44, what if the 3rd prospect is Votto?

[Exile on Waveland]

1. That's not the Socratic method.

 

okay not exactly but close enough

 

Yeah, except that the idea of the Socratic method is to make the person your teaching feel like they're smarter than you and they're actually doing the teaching. What you're doing seems to come off as a pompus ass who is condecending to everyone else. That's not even close to the Socratic method.

 

Hmm...that seems an awful lot like what passes for the Socratic method at law schools.

 

True it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method#Law_school

 

The employment of the Socratic method has some uniform features but can also be heavily influenced by the temperament of the teacher. The method begins by calling on a student at random, and asking about a central argument put forth by one of the judges (typically on the side of the majority) in an assigned case. The first step is to ask the student to paraphrase the argument, in order to ensure that the student has read and has a basic understanding of the case. (Students who have not read the case, for whatever reason, must take the opportunity to "pass," which most professors allow as a matter of course a few times per term.) Assuming the student has read the case and can articulate the court's argument, the teacher then asks whether the student agrees with the argument. The teacher then typically plays Devil's advocate, trying to force the student to defend his or her position by rebutting arguments against it.

 

Yes, I know this well. I've become quite familiar over the past 2.5 years.

 

Unfortunatly it doesn't change once you start practicing....its just a different source....Judges, Partners...at the end of the day it never seems to end...(well, maybe once you become a partner and get to turn the tables).... :D

 

Thanks for that bit of uplifting news.

[SoonerCubFan]

Erik Bedard has three things going for him that Rich Hill doesn't. Velocity, an effective changeup and Leo Mazzone (until 10/07, at least). Hill will not be gaining velocity and so far Rothschild hasn't been known to develop changeups for his pitchers. Even when Rich Hill was soaking in all of Maddux's expertise, he still didn't develop a mastery for the pitch or become any more dominant. In fact, I've seen very few signs of dominance out of Hill. Bedard showed signs under his first year with Mazzone and perfected it this year. I saw a lot of Bedard's work last year on MLBTV (on my fantasy team), and I would love for Hill to have a similar ceiling. I just don't see it. His K/9 and BB/9 don't seem to be translating to MLB. He'll be good, but I don't think he'll be Cy Young Award good.

 

Everyone always projects better in retrospect. However, Bedard and Hill have shown a very similar pattern of progression at the same age. In fact, their age 27 seasons (including the one where Bedard "showed signs") are remarkably similar:

 

Bedard 2006 - 33 starts, 196.3 IP, 196 H, 171 K, 69 BB, 1.35 WHIP, 121 ERA+

Hill 2007 - 32 starts, 195 IP, 170 H, 183 K, 183 K, 63 BB, 1.20 WHIP, 119 ERA+

 

It would be hard to project Hill (or anyone) to explode like Bedard did this season, but he did dominate AAA on his way up, so it's not that much of a stretch to see him having a big run. After all, his arm has not been abused for his age, and he's got a much better physical makeup. I could easily see Hill outperforming Bedard for the next few years. A strong move by the Reds if they did nab him, but we should be glad we've kept Hill.