Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[BigbadB]

Pitching Prospects from Cleveland (Which the cubs didn't need)

 

The Cubs definitely need pitching prospects, just that what they rec'd from Clev. wouldn't classify as anything elite or worth holding onto.

 

who cares? if it takes a minor league prospect to get a cy young winner, do it. vitters might be the next pie. its dumb to not acquire a cy young pitcher because of some kid that's never played at the major league level.

 

That type of thinking is what led the Yankees to where they've been for the last 5 years and not something the Cubs have the capacity to do. While I would have no problem in this case of Vitters being involved for Peavy, they should factor the state of the pipeline and what blue-chip guys are being included even if that player will help the Cubs. They trade Vitters and the cubs have maybe the worst farm in the game, espec. if Samardzija does spend the year in the Cubs' pen.

 

While I would agree with you on principle, unfortunately, that ship has already sailed. The talent pool on the farm has been getting downsized at an alarming pace. Vitters doesn't make or break the farm system. It's already broke.

 

And with the rather poor success rate of prospects reaching the major leagues, it's a pretty scary scenario where you put all of your eggs in the Josh Vitters basket. Especially considering he was a high school draftee.

 

While I'm not thrilled about giving up Vitters in a deal for Peavy, I wouldn't hesitate to do it. Honestly, I'm not even sure why San Diego would even want Vitters. If there is one position they are well stocked, it's 3b. If they hadn't traded Freese to St. Louis for Edmonds last offseason, Vitters would really be a head scratcher.

 

What's more interesting about the rumored trade for Peavy. I wouldn't ever consider making that trade if the shoe was on the other foot, and I wouldn't care if the amount of players the Cubs were sending to San Diego was 8. When Jake Peavy gets traded, season ticket sales will plummet like the Hindenberg. He's the one ray of hope that Padres fans might still be willing to sacrifice a night at home for a trip to the ballpark, even on the nights Peavy isn't scheduled to pitch. Trading Peavy will be the ultimate and final slap in the face to their fanbase.

 

Book it.

 

Now, let's take Stevens, Gaub, Archer, Olson, Williamson, Miles, Gathright, Vizcaino, Gregg and any other guy who the Cubs have picked up this offseason (excluding Bradley) and send them off to San Diego for Jake Peavy so I can hear him sing "Go Cubs Go" some more.

[UK1679666180]

So since you make a point like this you have to back up. What prospects exactly did the yankees give up that have turned out to be studs? You said this type of thinking have led to the yankees being where they are now. Thats kind of a weak argument because the Yankees are where they are now because they committed money to players who werent worth it. They overspent on players and yes they traded away prospect but did they trade away anything of worth and since you made this statement i'm wondering what stud prospects they gave up that have put them in this position.

 

 

It's not about player X, Y, or Z, it's about organizational philosophy. The Yankees in the early 90s invested in their farm as well as an increase in international scouting. Wang, Soriano, Jiminez, Rivera (Juan and Mariano), Cano etc.

 

They had that rebuilding phase and built from within, they allocated more towards international scouting than anyone while having a competitive payroll. That shifted earlier this decade when they allocated much more on their 25 man roster and neglected much of their international program as well still losing 1st rd. picks towards Type A FA.

 

If they have no one to come up the pipeline, they have to overspend on FA, espec. given their quality of living and expectations from ownership and their fans as well as an open pocketbook.

 

It appeared the Cubs did a similar thing as far as abandoning international scouting as well as some weak drafts and they're in a position to often spend via FA/trade for the majority of moves for starters rather than from within (Soto being the exception). It has cost the Cubs as far as having to overspend on players like Soriano, Marquis, Fukudome, etc. and put them in a financial crunch. Now (thankfully), they appear to be doing better with international scouting and hopefully they will have similar success with the amatuer draft and player development as a whole.

[cubbinalltheway]

Pitching Prospects from Cleveland (Which the cubs didn't need)

 

The Cubs definitely need pitching prospects, just that what they rec'd from Clev. wouldn't classify as anything elite or worth holding onto.

 

who cares? if it takes a minor league prospect to get a cy young winner, do it. vitters might be the next pie. its dumb to not acquire a cy young pitcher because of some kid that's never played at the major league level.

 

That type of thinking is what led the Yankees to where they've been for the last 5 years and not something the Cubs have the capacity to do. While I would have no problem in this case of Vitters being involved for Peavy, they should factor the state of the pipeline and what blue-chip guys are being included even if that player will help the Cubs. They trade Vitters and the cubs have maybe the worst farm in the game, espec. if Samardzija does spend the year in the Cubs' pen.

the playoffs? "that type of thinking" has put them in the playoffs 13 out of the last 14 years. if trading vitters leads up to that then i'm more in favor than ever.

[UK1679666180]

 

 

the playoffs? "that type of thinking" has put them in the playoffs 13 out of the last 14 years. if trading vitters leads up to that then i'm more in favor than ever.

 

The Yankees have regressed since the late 90s, they're definitely not as good as they were and part of the problem is how they have changed.

Edited January 19, 2009 by UK

[dew1679666265]

Pitching Prospects from Cleveland (Which the cubs didn't need)

 

The Cubs definitely need pitching prospects, just that what they rec'd from Clev. wouldn't classify as anything elite or worth holding onto.

 

who cares? if it takes a minor league prospect to get a cy young winner, do it. vitters might be the next pie. its dumb to not acquire a cy young pitcher because of some kid that's never played at the major league level.

 

That type of thinking is what led the Yankees to where they've been for the last 5 years and not something the Cubs have the capacity to do. While I would have no problem in this case of Vitters being involved for Peavy, they should factor the state of the pipeline and what blue-chip guys are being included even if that player will help the Cubs. They trade Vitters and the cubs have maybe the worst farm in the game, espec. if Samardzija does spend the year in the Cubs' pen.

the playoffs? "that type of thinking" has put them in the playoffs 13 out of the last 14 years. if trading vitters leads up to that then i'm more in favor than ever.

 

We don't have a $250 million payroll, though.

[cubbinalltheway]

 

 

the playoffs? "that type of thinking" has put them in the playoffs 13 out of the last 14 years. if trading vitters leads up to that then i'm more in favor than ever.

 

The Yankees have regressed since the late 90s, they're definitely not as good as they were and part of the problem is how they have changed.

so what? the fact is, they still make the playoffs every single year (aside from once in the last 14 years). it's a pretty poor analogy.

[dew1679666265]

 

 

the playoffs? "that type of thinking" has put them in the playoffs 13 out of the last 14 years. if trading vitters leads up to that then i'm more in favor than ever.

 

The Yankees have regressed since the late 90s, they're definitely not as good as they were and part of the problem is how they have changed.

 

I'm not seeing a huge difference - in results at least. They were only really good from '96-'99 in the '90s and in those years they had one 100 win season and three 90-win seasons.

 

From 2002 to 2004 they surged with three straight 100-win years and since have won 90 games three of the past four years. They've had two 80-win seasons since 1996.

 

I'll agree, though, that last year's 89-win campaign was pretty poor for the Yanks - both in record and talent level.

 

NOTE: I'm not arguing that we can abandon the farm and have anywhere near this success. We don't - and likely won't for a long time - have a $250 million payroll.

[UK1679666180]

 

 

the playoffs? "that type of thinking" has put them in the playoffs 13 out of the last 14 years. if trading vitters leads up to that then i'm more in favor than ever.

 

The Yankees have regressed since the late 90s, they're definitely not as good as they were and part of the problem is how they have changed.

so what? the fact is, they still make the playoffs every single year (aside from once in the last 14 years). it's a pretty poor analogy.

 

Playoffs don't mean everything as we've watched the Cubs get their asses handed to them two years in a row.

 

I can't believe that you don't see the parallel there or you're trying to put the teams on equal levels.

 

The Yankees have regressed b/c of a change in organizational philosophy, who cares they weren't as good as they once were despite spending much more.

 

Or that if the Cubs regress they would be able to maintain a similar level of regression as the Yankees.

 

1)The Cubs aren't as good as the Yankees right now (The Cubs would be the 4th best team in the AL East).

 

2)If the Cubs regress, their resources can't make up that difference like the Yankees can. we watched the Cubs regress in in '05 and '06 and couldn't get to .500. the Yankees struggle and they end at 85 wins.

[UK1679666180]

 

 

the playoffs? "that type of thinking" has put them in the playoffs 13 out of the last 14 years. if trading vitters leads up to that then i'm more in favor than ever.

 

The Yankees have regressed since the late 90s, they're definitely not as good as they were and part of the problem is how they have changed.

 

I'm not seeing a huge difference - in results at least. They were only really good from '96-'99 in the '90s and in those years they had one 100 win season and three 90-win seasons.

 

From 2002 to 2004 they surged with three straight 100-win years and since have won 90 games three of the past four years. They've had two 80-win seasons since 1996.

 

I'll agree, though, that last year's 89-win campaign was pretty poor for the Yanks - both in record and talent level.

 

NOTE: I'm not arguing that we can abandon the farm and have anywhere near this success. We don't - and likely won't for a long time - have a $250 million payroll.

 

That pitching regressed from where it was from say 97-01, the Yankees tried to outclub teams and that just don't work in the post-season, even in that era. Now that runs are becoming more of a premium, it'll prob. take on a greater importance.

[cubbinalltheway]

what are you talking about? i'm not arguing who is better, the cubs or the yankees.

 

youre right that the cubs have been embarrassed two straight years. but the mission of a gm is to field a team that can get you to the postseason, then hope that that team plays its best ball then.

 

let's go back to my original comment, that if the only hold up to getting a recent cy young winner is some kid who might be the next kevin orie then the cubs are fools not to make the trade. you replied saying that that type of thinking is what got the yankees to where they are today........ the yankees, where they are today, are a terrific organization that does not accept not making the playoffs. it was a very bad comparison.

[dew1679666265]

 

 

the playoffs? "that type of thinking" has put them in the playoffs 13 out of the last 14 years. if trading vitters leads up to that then i'm more in favor than ever.

 

The Yankees have regressed since the late 90s, they're definitely not as good as they were and part of the problem is how they have changed.

 

I'm not seeing a huge difference - in results at least. They were only really good from '96-'99 in the '90s and in those years they had one 100 win season and three 90-win seasons.

 

From 2002 to 2004 they surged with three straight 100-win years and since have won 90 games three of the past four years. They've had two 80-win seasons since 1996.

 

I'll agree, though, that last year's 89-win campaign was pretty poor for the Yanks - both in record and talent level.

 

NOTE: I'm not arguing that we can abandon the farm and have anywhere near this success. We don't - and likely won't for a long time - have a $250 million payroll.

 

That pitching regressed from where it was from say 97-01, the Yankees tried to outclub teams and that just don't work in the post-season, even in that era. Now that runs are becoming more of a premium, it'll prob. take on a greater importance.

 

It's very true the postseason success hasn't been there - and I agree much of that is poor pitching.

 

Hopefully we can go ahead and get that World Series championship under our belt so that Hendry will feel less pressure to win now.

[dew1679666265]

what are you talking about? i'm not arguing who is better, the cubs or the yankees.

 

youre right that the cubs have been embarrassed two straight years. but the mission of a gm is to field a team that can get you to the postseason, then hope that that team plays its best ball then.

 

let's go back to my original comment, that if the only hold up to getting a recent cy young winner is some kid who might be the next kevin orie then the cubs are fools not to make the trade. you replied saying that that type of thinking is what got the yankees to where they are today........ the yankees, where they are today, are a terrific organization that does not accept not making the playoffs. it was a very bad comparison.

 

The thing with Vitters, though, is that he could be the next Kevin Orie or he could be the next Aramis Ramirez/David Wright/etc.

 

That's the inherent risk you take when trading a youngster.

[UK1679666180]

what are you talking about? i'm not arguing who is better, the cubs or the yankees.

 

youre right that the cubs have been embarrassed two straight years. but the mission of a gm is to field a team that can get you to the postseason, then hope that that team plays its best ball then.

 

let's go back to my original comment, that if the only hold up to getting a recent cy young winner is some kid who might be the next kevin orie then the cubs are fools not to make the trade. you replied saying that that type of thinking is what got the yankees to where they are today........ the yankees, where they are today, are a terrific organization that does not accept not making the playoffs. it was a very bad comparison.

 

The goal of a GM is to build a team most capable of winning a WS with the resources that he has & not get to the post-season. This is why we are seeing the moves this off-season with more LH'ed bats and hopefully someone like Peavy (I still think is overrating this bullpen which is likely going to below avg. and needing of a July trade).

 

What I said was that when raiding the farm, the Cubs have to be very careful that do not put themselves in a position where they have to rely strictly on FAs or trying to trade for legit starters with a horrible farm system. While the Cubs can't be TB b/c they don't have nearly the drafting/development success, they have to find that medium with international players and an occasional draft pick.

 

Also, I have stated this numerous times that appears to continued to be overlooked....

 

I'm not comparing the Cubs to the Yankees, they're completely entities. I'm comparing the Yankees of not to the Yankees of the last 90s, when they were a more complete team.

 

Unless you think the current Yankees squad is as good as the one of 10 years ago, which would be incorrect.

Edited January 19, 2009 by UK

[cubbinalltheway]

what are you talking about? i'm not arguing who is better, the cubs or the yankees.

 

youre right that the cubs have been embarrassed two straight years. but the mission of a gm is to field a team that can get you to the postseason, then hope that that team plays its best ball then.

 

let's go back to my original comment, that if the only hold up to getting a recent cy young winner is some kid who might be the next kevin orie then the cubs are fools not to make the trade. you replied saying that that type of thinking is what got the yankees to where they are today........ the yankees, where they are today, are a terrific organization that does not accept not making the playoffs. it was a very bad comparison.

 

The thing with Vitters, though, is that he could be the next Kevin Orie or he could be the next Aramis Ramirez/David Wright/etc.

 

That's the inherent risk you take when trading a youngster.

i realize that.

 

my whole point is that you can't let a risk hold you back from acquiring a jake peavy. if we're talking about an average to above average pitcher, then maybe you don't trade vitters. but we're talking about one of the game's best. you absolutely take a risk to acquire him.

[cubbinalltheway]

Also, I have stated numerous that appears to continued to be overlooked....

 

I'm not comparing the Cubs to the Yankees, they're completely entities. I'm comparing the Yankees of not to the Yankees of the last 90s, when they were a more complete team.

this part certainly seemed otherwise, and is why i thought you were comparing them.........

 

1)The Cubs aren't as good as the Yankees right now (The Cubs would be the 4th best team in the AL East).

 

2)If the Cubs regress, their resources can't make up that difference like the Yankees can. we watched the Cubs regress in in '05 and '06 and couldn't get to .500. the Yankees struggle and they end at 85 wins.

[UK1679666180]

Also, I have stated numerous that appears to continued to be overlooked....

 

I'm not comparing the Cubs to the Yankees, they're completely entities. I'm comparing the Yankees of not to the Yankees of the last 90s, when they were a more complete team.

this part certainly seemed otherwise, and is why i thought you were comparing them.........

 

1)The Cubs aren't as good as the Yankees right now (The Cubs would be the 4th best team in the AL East).

 

2)If the Cubs regress, their resources can't make up that difference like the Yankees can. we watched the Cubs regress in in '05 and '06 and couldn't get to .500. the Yankees struggle and they end at 85 wins.

 

Yes, that shows that any future regression by the Cubs would likely be much more dramatic than ending up as an 89 win team like NY did. When the Cubs regress, they will likely end up like they did in '05 and '06 rather than the Yankees did last year b/c they don't have resources to quickly rebuild. Unlike the Yankees, the Cubs are fortunate enough to play in a terrible division though.

Edited January 19, 2009 by UK

[dew1679666265]

what are you talking about? i'm not arguing who is better, the cubs or the yankees.

 

youre right that the cubs have been embarrassed two straight years. but the mission of a gm is to field a team that can get you to the postseason, then hope that that team plays its best ball then.

 

let's go back to my original comment, that if the only hold up to getting a recent cy young winner is some kid who might be the next kevin orie then the cubs are fools not to make the trade. you replied saying that that type of thinking is what got the yankees to where they are today........ the yankees, where they are today, are a terrific organization that does not accept not making the playoffs. it was a very bad comparison.

 

The thing with Vitters, though, is that he could be the next Kevin Orie or he could be the next Aramis Ramirez/David Wright/etc.

 

That's the inherent risk you take when trading a youngster.

i realize that.

 

my whole point is that you can't let a risk hold you back from acquiring a jake peavy. if we're talking about an average to above average pitcher, then maybe you don't trade vitters. but we're talking about one of the game's best. you absolutely take a risk to acquire him.

 

I agree with that and would do the Peavy deal whether it included Vitters or not - like BBB said, Vitters isn't going to break the farm, it's already broken.

 

That said, though, you seemed to be erring too much on the side of him busting out. Vitters is still very young and has a good chance to be very good. I'm not sure he'll ever reach the Aramis/Wright level, but I'd say that's more likely than being Kevin Orie.

[cubbinalltheway]

That said, though, you seemed to be erring too much on the side of him busting out. Vitters is still very young and has a good chance to be very good. I'm not sure he'll ever reach the Aramis/Wright level, but I'd say that's more likely than being Kevin Orie.

the vast majority of prospects ultimately are busts though.

[dew1679666265]

That said, though, you seemed to be erring too much on the side of him busting out. Vitters is still very young and has a good chance to be very good. I'm not sure he'll ever reach the Aramis/Wright level, but I'd say that's more likely than being Kevin Orie.

the vast majority of prospects ultimately are busts though.

 

The vast majority aren't extremely well thought of.

 

Vitters is much more highly regarded than most prospects. That doesn't mean he'll necessarily turn into anything, but he still has a greater shot than most.

 

The vast majority of good to great teams out there get a strong aid from their minor league system. Unless you're the Yankees and can throw $250 million around, there are going to be spots that you must fill with cheap talent. That's where the farm system is most important.

[Jehrico]

Whats with this Kevin Gregg sucks stuff? Yeah he's not a great pitcher, but saying he hurts the team? People wanna pay part of his salary to go away? You guys haven't even seen him throw a pitch yet, and the guy allowed 2 more earned runs in 2 more innings then Kerry Wood did last year(teams hit just 203/314/582 against him). Hendry was just raving about Gregg saying we were lucky to get a guy like him, with closer experience for 4m(even though he cost Ceda). So there's no chance he goes anywere in a trade at this point.

Not people...just me. I think that lowly of Kevin Gregg. I think it was the worst move we've made this offseason. Closer experience/success doesn't mean squat. Want proof? Look at the last "closer" we acquired from FL. Alfonseca sucked for us after leaving Florida. Dolphin Stadium, other than 2007 which was a fluke, has always been a pitchers park. Gregg is 30, so it's probably not reasonable to expect any kind of improvement going forward, as he should now be on the downside of his peak. Kind of like Alfonseca when we got him. He very well may prove me wrong, (I hope so), but I'd be more than happy to see him offloaded in some sort of Peavy deal since the Pad's need a closer. It might be wishful thinking, but if we had to swallow 2 mil to help SD get a closer out of that deal, I wouldn't be upset in the least about it.

[cubbinalltheway]

That said, though, you seemed to be erring too much on the side of him busting out. Vitters is still very young and has a good chance to be very good. I'm not sure he'll ever reach the Aramis/Wright level, but I'd say that's more likely than being Kevin Orie.

the vast majority of prospects ultimately are busts though.

 

The vast majority aren't extremely well thought of.

 

Vitters is much more highly regarded than most prospects. That doesn't mean he'll necessarily turn into anything, but he still has a greater shot than most.

 

The vast majority of good to great teams out there get a strong aid from their minor league system. Unless you're the Yankees and can throw $250 million around, there are going to be spots that you must fill with cheap talent. That's where the farm system is most important.

i don't disagree with any of that. you dont have to try and convince me of the importance of producing talent from the farm. i'm already convinced. but again, you dont let a kid who's never been above A ball (and frankly wasnt overly impressive in A ball) be a deal breaker in a potential jake peavy acquisition.

[dew1679666265]

That said, though, you seemed to be erring too much on the side of him busting out. Vitters is still very young and has a good chance to be very good. I'm not sure he'll ever reach the Aramis/Wright level, but I'd say that's more likely than being Kevin Orie.

the vast majority of prospects ultimately are busts though.

 

The vast majority aren't extremely well thought of.

 

Vitters is much more highly regarded than most prospects. That doesn't mean he'll necessarily turn into anything, but he still has a greater shot than most.

 

The vast majority of good to great teams out there get a strong aid from their minor league system. Unless you're the Yankees and can throw $250 million around, there are going to be spots that you must fill with cheap talent. That's where the farm system is most important.

i don't disagree with any of that. you dont have to try and convince me of the importance of producing talent from the farm. i'm already convinced. but again, you dont let a kid who's never been above A ball (and frankly wasnt overly impressive in A ball) be a deal breaker in a potential jake peavy acquisition.

 

I guess the biggest problem I had was that you seemed to not give Vitters any chance of being great - hence the Kevin Orie reference.

 

The likelihood of busts is the reason you stack your farm as much as possible - in the event that a number of them bust.

[TheDude]

Not people...just me. I think that lowly of Kevin Gregg. I think it was the worst move we've made this offseason. Closer experience/success doesn't mean squat. Want proof? Look at the last "closer" we acquired from FL. Alfonseca sucked for us after leaving Florida. Dolphin Stadium, other than 2007 which was a fluke, has always been a pitchers park. Gregg is 30, so it's probably not reasonable to expect any kind of improvement going forward, as he should now be on the downside of his peak. Kind of like Alfonseca when we got him. He very well may prove me wrong, (I hope so), but I'd be more than happy to see him offloaded in some sort of Peavy deal since the Pad's need a closer. It might be wishful thinking, but if we had to swallow 2 mil to help SD get a closer out of that deal, I wouldn't be upset in the least about it.

 

Gregg doesn't need to improve. He needs to maintain. And pitchers do not adhere to the age 27/28 bell curve. The fact that Gregg is 30 is irrelevant for a relief pitcher needing to maintain prior years production.

 

Further, Alfonseca is a bad comparison and has nothing to do with Gregg.

[dew1679666265]

Whats with this Kevin Gregg sucks stuff? Yeah he's not a great pitcher, but saying he hurts the team? People wanna pay part of his salary to go away? You guys haven't even seen him throw a pitch yet, and the guy allowed 2 more earned runs in 2 more innings then Kerry Wood did last year(teams hit just 203/314/582 against him). Hendry was just raving about Gregg saying we were lucky to get a guy like him, with closer experience for 4m(even though he cost Ceda). So there's no chance he goes anywere in a trade at this point.

Not people...just me. I think that lowly of Kevin Gregg. I think it was the worst move we've made this offseason. Closer experience/success doesn't mean squat. Want proof? Look at the last "closer" we acquired from FL. Alfonseca sucked for us after leaving Florida. Dolphin Stadium, other than 2007 which was a fluke, has always been a pitchers park. Gregg is 30, so it's probably not reasonable to expect any kind of improvement going forward, as he should now be on the downside of his peak. Kind of like Alfonseca when we got him. He very well may prove me wrong, (I hope so), but I'd be more than happy to see him offloaded in some sort of Peavy deal since the Pad's need a closer. It might be wishful thinking, but if we had to swallow 2 mil to help SD get a closer out of that deal, I wouldn't be upset in the least about it.

 

Nah, replacing DeRo's production (or Dunn's if we traded DeRo and acquired a player who could stay healthy for 100 or more games) with a mix of Bradley/Gathright/Miles/Reed/Hoff was the worst move we made - and that's if Hendry does not acquire Peavy.

 

If Hendry does get Peavy, then Gregg might be the worst deal - but primarily only because we gave up Ceda, who I perceive to have more value than Gregg.

 

And Alf wasn't that good when we got him. He just saved a bunch of games (84 in three seasons with Fla).

[dew1679666265]

Not people...just me. I think that lowly of Kevin Gregg. I think it was the worst move we've made this offseason. Closer experience/success doesn't mean squat. Want proof? Look at the last "closer" we acquired from FL. Alfonseca sucked for us after leaving Florida. Dolphin Stadium, other than 2007 which was a fluke, has always been a pitchers park. Gregg is 30, so it's probably not reasonable to expect any kind of improvement going forward, as he should now be on the downside of his peak. Kind of like Alfonseca when we got him. He very well may prove me wrong, (I hope so), but I'd be more than happy to see him offloaded in some sort of Peavy deal since the Pad's need a closer. It might be wishful thinking, but if we had to swallow 2 mil to help SD get a closer out of that deal, I wouldn't be upset in the least about it.

 

Gregg doesn't need to improve. He needs to maintain. And pitchers do not adhere to the age 27/28 bell curve. The fact that Gregg is 30 is irrelevant for a relief pitcher needing to maintain prior years production.

 

Further, Alfonseca is a bad comparison and has nothing to do with Gregg.

 

If Gregg maintains what he's done the last two years, he'll be a slight downgrade from Wood.

 

Wood 2008 - 137 ERA+ 1.085 WHIP

Gregg 2008 - 125 ERA+ 1.282 WHIP