Cubs acquire Kevin Gregg for Jose Ceda

[craig]

Sorry for posting, since I haven't read all 20 pages in detail.

 

Ceda has a big arm, and a chance to be very good. But he's also awfully wild. He might be as good as Gregg fairly soon, and a lot better eventually. But I don't think he had any likelihood of being used immediately and contributing this year, given his wildness and inexperience and lack of a second pitch. And I'm not sure how great the odds are for him. Between wildman and body-fat, I'm uncertain how likely he'll ever be to have the stuff/control/brains/commitment to be a high-level major-leaguer.

 

I agree with meph that Howry 05-07 was very good. I also admit that I don't at all expect him to revisit that. He's 35, he's been worked hard, and he'd lost a lot of velocity this past year. If there was reason to think he'd have the arm strength and velocity (and with it the arm strength to make his slider work better than this past year), I'd prefer him over Gregg. For Bob's sake I hope I'm wrong, but I don't this this past year was just a random reliever thing. I think it was an arm thing, and I'm not in position to assume that at 35 his arm is going to be much stronger and healthier and faster next summer.

 

If Gregg can perform at or near the level that Howry did over 05-07, I'd be OK with that.

 

I agree with Tim, losing Ceda still leaves Guzman, Samardz, and Cashner as potential power relievers. So losing Ceda neither leaves the relief cupboard bare, nor costs us a 2009 contributor since I didn't expect him to pitch in the majors this upcoming year, at least not in any meaningful way.

 

The easiest way to make an "A" free agent is in relief. There are so many relievers that being in the "A" percentile is not difficult. So if Gregg performs at anything close to the Howry 05-07 level, he'll certainly classify as an "A" next winter.

 

It really stinks that despite his lousy year, that Howry still made A. Nobody is going to give up a draft pick to sign him, and obviously we aren't going to arb him. If he'd been a "B", anybody could have signed him at no cost, and we might have snagged a nice pick for him if somebody had signed him cheap before the arb deadline. O well.

 

This will probably sound really repulsive and brainless and non-analytical. But over the last several years, Cub management has made a number of scouting decisions that have been consistently panned on this board, but have sometimes turned out to be pretty justifiable. (Edmonds, Derosa, dempster-to-rotation, Lilly, Marquis, Theriot, signing Howry, signing Eyre...) I'm hoping that Gregg will end up being justifiable as well.

[The Other 15]

I have not sifted through the previous 20 pages so forgive me if someone posted something similar.

 

Gregg's last 2 years:

IP 68.2, 84

ERA 3.41, 3.54

SAVES 61 SV/OPPs 74 (83%)

WHIP 1.28, 1.23

SLG .271, .317

OBA .314, 310

BAA .203, 206

H9 6.68, 6.75

Pitches/IP 13.23, 13.32

 

His day game numbers:

2008 - 0.82 ERA, 1.00 WHIP, .149 BAA

2007 - 4.05 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, .202 BAA

 

His Road splits over last 2 years:

2008 - 3.48 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, .191 BAA

2007 - 3.11 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, .190 BAA

 

Granted, there are some numbers that make you cringe a bit (GO/AO ratio, BB9, decreasing K/9) but overall, just by his performance over the last two years he's not been bad. He doesn't give up many hits (H/9, BAA), when they hit it, they don't hit it far (SLG), and he doesn't let many get on base. I don't know how much their defense let him down, but I would have to imagine it didn't help.

[David]

It is also highly possible that his numbers this season were significantly impacted negatively during a stretch in which it's suspected he was pitching hurt.

 

Does that excuse them? No. Does it provide context for what we're looking at? Absolutely.

[Mephistopheles]

No one cares about ERA for starting pitchers, much less relief pitchers, of the course of a full season...so no one certainly cares about ERA for a relief pitcher sliced up into many useless splits of pure randomness. No one ought to care about his BAA either...and really WHIP isn't all that stable either.

[nick23]

No one cares about ERA for starting pitchers, much less relief pitchers, of the course of a full season...so no one certainly cares about ERA for a relief pitcher sliced up into many useless splits of pure randomness. No one ought to care about his BAA either...and really WHIP isn't all that stable either.

Just curious but why not BAA?

[Mephistopheles]

why not oba? and/or making slight adjustments for babip

[erik316wttn]

No one cares about ERA for starting pitchers, much less relief pitchers, of the course of a full season...so no one certainly cares about ERA for a relief pitcher sliced up into many useless splits of pure randomness. No one ought to care about his BAA either...and really WHIP isn't all that stable either.

 

Yeah. I agree. Stats are crap.

[The Other 15]

Everyone will use the information available in any way they see fit. But it doesn't change the fact that over the last 2 years Gregg has been difficult to reach base against, even tougher to get a hit against, and has given up a low SLG %. Somewhere in there has to be some positive information that is not just random pickings.

[Mephistopheles]

thats not important.

[The Other 15]

I don't know if this some kind of message board persona thing going on or what, but you've followed a couple of my posts with very vague arguments. Things like, "that's not important" really doesn't help me get your point.

 

In a previous thread about Fukudome/Iwamura you did the same thing, and it was only after a couple of regulars called you out for being rude that you posted a very compelling argument. Will it have to be like that every time?

[David]

I don't know if this some kind of message board persona thing going on or what, but you've followed a couple of my posts with very vague arguments. Things like, "that's not important" really doesn't help me get your point.

 

In a previous thread about Fukudome/Iwamura you did the same thing, and it was only after a couple of regulars called you out for being rude that you posted a very compelling argument. Will it have to be like that every time?

 

Bingo.

[anabiono]

I don't know if this some kind of message board persona thing going on or what, but you've followed a couple of my posts with very vague arguments. Things like, "that's not important" really doesn't help me get your point.

 

In a previous thread about Fukudome/Iwamura you did the same thing, and it was only after a couple of regulars called you out for being rude that you posted a very compelling argument. Will it have to be like that every time?

 

lol...welcome to the world of meph

[davearm2]

I don't know if this some kind of message board persona thing going on or what, but you've followed a couple of my posts with very vague arguments. Things like, "that's not important" really doesn't help me get your point.

 

In a previous thread about Fukudome/Iwamura you did the same thing, and it was only after a couple of regulars called you out for being rude that you posted a very compelling argument. Will it have to be like that every time?

It's just internet bravado schtick.

 

The guy's got a lot of knowledge and plenty of interesting ideas, but his insufferably arrogant attitude makes him borderline unreadable. It's a shame, but most here are resigned to it.

[imb]

I don't know if this some kind of message board persona thing going on or what, but you've followed a couple of my posts with very vague arguments. Things like, "that's not important" really doesn't help me get your point.

 

In a previous thread about Fukudome/Iwamura you did the same thing, and it was only after a couple of regulars called you out for being rude that you posted a very compelling argument. Will it have to be like that every time?

 

he hasnt had time yet to go to BP and copy/paste some of their arguments

[sneakypower]

tebow beckoned

[Tyrant]

thats not important.

 

Please enlighten us as to what is important.

 

Maybe it could be like that 4,000 word post claiming how awesome Khalil Greene is, months before he put up blistering sub-.600 OPS.

[The Other 15]

I want to make it clear that I'm not looking to start some thread consuming flame war between any posters here.

 

I'm also not looking to justify the trade. I know there are always many intangibles to consider when a vet and a AA prospect are involved that peoples opinions of these type of trades often get very polarized.

 

However, if a pitcher doesn't allow many runners to reach, doesn't allow many hits, and when he does, the hits often are not big ones, I find it hard to understand how that can be so easily dismissed unimportant. Afterall, besides allowing runs, that is the goal of any pitcher, isn't it?

[jersey cubs fan]

However, if a pitcher doesn't allow many runners to reach, doesn't allow many hits, and when he does, the hits often are not big ones, I find it hard how that can be so easily dismissed. Afterall, besides allowing runs, that is the goal of any pitcher, isn't it?

 

I don't understand your arguement in favor of Gregg, none of his numbers are exciting.

[Guest]

I want to make it clear that I'm not looking to start some thread consuming flame war between any posters here.

 

I'm also not looking to justify the trade. I know there are always many intangibles to consider when a vet and a AA prospect are involved that peoples opinions of these type of trades often get very polarized.

 

However, if a pitcher doesn't allow many runners to reach, doesn't allow many hits, and when he does, the hits often are not big ones, I find it hard to understand how that can be so easily dismissed unimportant. Afterall, besides allowing runs, that is the goal of any pitcher, isn't it?

The argument is based on which stats a pitcher has some measure of control over and those that are far more subject to random variation or other impacts. The items meph was picking on are implied to be those that fall into the latter category.

 

I can understand that repeating the same argument over and over can get tiresome...but meph does need to learn to either let the statement go unchallenged or say more than he does. I know I've been guilty of the same type of thing in the past, but he has a well deserved reputation for taking that shortcut way too often.

[Mephistopheles]

im sorry, i didnt respond because i was playing fallout 3.

 

i think thats a good enough excuse! sniping raiders just never gets old.

[The Other 15]

However, if a pitcher doesn't allow many runners to reach, doesn't allow many hits, and when he does, the hits often are not big ones, I find it hard how that can be so easily dismissed. Afterall, besides allowing runs, that is the goal of any pitcher, isn't it?

 

I don't understand your arguement in favor of Gregg, none of his numbers are exciting.

I'm really not making an argument in favor of Gregg, just stating some facts. However, BAA in the low .200's, OBP in the low .300's, and SLG in the low .300's is pretty decent, no?

[Mephistopheles]

as for when analyzing relievers we shouldnt look at things like era or baa or even hr rate because theyre unstable year two year - or even two years to two years. while he has been alright the last two years, and i emphasize alright, there is nothing to suggest that he is anything better than alright. when it comes to relievers, you can find alright relievers in the trash dump.

 

i think we literally found joe bo in the trashdump.

[Mephistopheles]

to clarify, gregg is not bad. hes not good. hes very meh and its not like hes young. he will be 31 next year and is only a year younger than woody. if you dont want to keep wood, fine, but you can get gregg type relievers for the same price without giving up ceda. Edited November 14, 2008 by Mephistopheles

[jersey cubs fan]

However, if a pitcher doesn't allow many runners to reach, doesn't allow many hits, and when he does, the hits often are not big ones, I find it hard how that can be so easily dismissed. Afterall, besides allowing runs, that is the goal of any pitcher, isn't it?

 

I don't understand your arguement in favor of Gregg, none of his numbers are exciting.

I'm really not making an argument in favor of Gregg, just stating some facts. However, BAA in the low .200's, OBP in the low .300's, and SLG in the low .300's is pretty decent, no?

 

pretty decent does not excite me. Mike Wuertz has been pretty decent for years and the Cubs keep screwing around with him.

[The Other 15]

I want to make it clear that I'm not looking to start some thread consuming flame war between any posters here.

 

I'm also not looking to justify the trade. I know there are always many intangibles to consider when a vet and a AA prospect are involved that peoples opinions of these type of trades often get very polarized.

 

However, if a pitcher doesn't allow many runners to reach, doesn't allow many hits, and when he does, the hits often are not big ones, I find it hard to understand how that can be so easily dismissed unimportant. Afterall, besides allowing runs, that is the goal of any pitcher, isn't it?

The argument is based on which stats a pitcher has some measure of control over and those that are far more subject to random variation or other impacts. The items meph was picking on are implied to be those that fall into the latter category.

 

I can understand that repeating the same argument over and over can get tiresome...but meph does need to learn to either let the statement go unchallenged or say more than he does. I know I've been guilty of the same type of thing in the past, but he has a well deserved reputation for taking that shortcut way too often.

 

Which, if any, of BAA, OBP, SLG can be found in the former?