Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[cubsfan26]

Kevin Gregg, ERAs by year:

 

4.21

5.04

4.14

3.54

3.41

 

Michael Wuertz, ERAs by year:

 

3.81

2.66

3.48

3.63

 

Who is inconsistent?

 

Yes and those numbers don't tell the full truth. When you factor in Gregg was used as a starter, and how many more innings he's pitched in. Wuertz era was misleading in 06 and 08 due to small sample size. Even though he was very good in the second half of 06.

 

Gregg ERA as a reliever

08-3.41 era in 68.2 IP

07-3.54 era in 84 IP

06-3.45 era in 62.2 IP(in AL)

05-4.42 era in 57 IP(in AL)

04-4.21 era in 87.2 IP(in AL)

 

Wuertz

 

05-3.81 era in 75.2 IP(solid season)

06-2.66 era in 40.2 IP(Spent most of first half in minors)

07-3.48 era in 72.1 IP(Kevin Gregg like season)

08-3.63 era in 44.2 IP(3.60 era in 17 games in Triple A)

 

 

Gregg has pitched in 60 plus innings the last three seasons and had a mid 3 era each year as a reliever. While Wuertz, two of the last three years has been so bad at times he was sent to Triple A. If Wuertz pitched in 60-70 innings in 06 and 08, his era would have mostly likely been much higher with the way he was pitching when he got sent down to the minors.

Edited January 20, 2009 by cubsfan26

[SouthSideRyan]

Shows Wuertz has been as good as Gregg in the majors

 

So when Gregg has pitched in 60 plus innings the last three season and had a mid 3 era each year, shows he's been pretty consistent. While Wuertz two of the last three years has been so bad at times he got sent to Triple A.

[17 Seconds]

It's not really Wuertz's fault that Lou decided he was never ever going to use him

[cubsfan26]

It's not really Wuertz's fault that Lou decided he was never ever going to use him

 

 

Wuertz was used alot the first two months of the season, especially in April. In May he pitched in less games, but was used in the same amount of innings. Still 27 IP the first two months of the season was only a half inning less then Howry, and two innings less then Wood. June is when Lou started to lose faith in Wuertz, because Wuertz was sucking. His era says 2.08 and looks pretty impressive, but Wuertz was very lucky. In 6 of 12 games he pitched in he allowed more hits or walks then outs he got. He often let other pitchers base runners score, or was bailed out by other pitchers when he left runners on base. So maybe Lou did give up on him too soon, but lets not forget the same manager that let Wuertz pitch in 73 games a year ago. So maybe all the blame shouldn't go on Lou, and alot of it was due to Wuertz sucking. Plus there's more to pitching then what we see in the game, I'm sure Wuertz was struggling pretty bad in his side sessions as well. For Lou to lose faith in this guy so fast. It didn't help that when he got sent to Triple A he pitched kinda subpar, and thats why it took him until September to come back.

Edited January 20, 2009 by cubsfan26

[17 Seconds]

It's not really Wuertz's fault that Lou decided he was never ever going to use him

 

 

Wuertz was used alot the first two months of the season, especially in April. In May he pitched in less games, but was used in the same amount of innings. Still 27 IP the first two months of the season was only a half inning less then Howry, and two innings less then Wood. June is when Lou started to lose faith in Wuertz, because Wuertz was sucking. His era says 2.08 and looks pretty impressive, but Wuertz was very lucky. In 6 of 12 games he pitched in he allowed more hits or walks then outs he got. So he often let other pitchers base runners score, or was bailed out by other pitchers when he left runners on base. So maybe Lou did give up on him too soon, but lets not forget the same manager that let Wuertz pitch in 73 games a year ago. So maybe all the blame shouldn't go on Lou, and alot of it was due to Wuertz sucking. It didn't help that when he got sent to Triple A he pitched kinda subpar, and thats why it took him until September to come back.

 

i was just talking about the IP argument. wuertz would have as much work as gregg if he was actually used and lou didn't hate him.

[cubsfan26]

It's not really Wuertz's fault that Lou decided he was never ever going to use him

 

 

Wuertz was used alot the first two months of the season, especially in April. In May he pitched in less games, but was used in the same amount of innings. Still 27 IP the first two months of the season was only a half inning less then Howry, and two innings less then Wood. June is when Lou started to lose faith in Wuertz, because Wuertz was sucking. His era says 2.08 and looks pretty impressive, but Wuertz was very lucky. In 6 of 12 games he pitched in he allowed more hits or walks then outs he got. So he often let other pitchers base runners score, or was bailed out by other pitchers when he left runners on base. So maybe Lou did give up on him too soon, but lets not forget the same manager that let Wuertz pitch in 73 games a year ago. So maybe all the blame shouldn't go on Lou, and alot of it was due to Wuertz sucking. It didn't help that when he got sent to Triple A he pitched kinda subpar, and thats why it took him until September to come back.

 

i was just talking about the IP argument. wuertz would have as much work as gregg if he was actually used and lou didn't hate him.

 

 

And his era would have probably been much higher if Lou used him in more innings. Wuertz just wasn't good last year, there's a reason why he pitched 73 games in 07 and Lou lost faith in him last year. Wuertz just gets in these funks when he's horrible and can't get anybody out. We seen it in the past, and we saw it again last season. I'm a fan of Wuertz, and I really hope he pitches better next year. But I'm not gonna kid myself and say Wuertz wasn't good last year due to Lou. If anything Lou probably saved him from having a much higher era, by not pitching him much. The guy even had a 3.60 era in 20 innings at Triple A.

[17 Seconds]

It's not really Wuertz's fault that Lou decided he was never ever going to use him

 

 

Wuertz was used alot the first two months of the season, especially in April. In May he pitched in less games, but was used in the same amount of innings. Still 27 IP the first two months of the season was only a half inning less then Howry, and two innings less then Wood. June is when Lou started to lose faith in Wuertz, because Wuertz was sucking. His era says 2.08 and looks pretty impressive, but Wuertz was very lucky. In 6 of 12 games he pitched in he allowed more hits or walks then outs he got. So he often let other pitchers base runners score, or was bailed out by other pitchers when he left runners on base. So maybe Lou did give up on him too soon, but lets not forget the same manager that let Wuertz pitch in 73 games a year ago. So maybe all the blame shouldn't go on Lou, and alot of it was due to Wuertz sucking. It didn't help that when he got sent to Triple A he pitched kinda subpar, and thats why it took him until September to come back.

 

i was just talking about the IP argument. wuertz would have as much work as gregg if he was actually used and lou didn't hate him.

 

 

And his era would have probably been much higher if Lou used him in more innings. .

 

Why? His career ERA is 3.57 in 262.1 IP. I don't know why we're talking so much about ERA for relievers though.

[cubsfan26]

Wuertz wasn't good last year, he had a 1.43 WHIP, and even had a 1.35 WHIP in Triple A. If the guy pitches more he probably has a much higher era, and he was very lucky to have a 3.63 era as is. I can understand blaming Lou with situational LH pitchers like Eyre/Ohman. Because Lou expected those guys to come in games and to throw strikes and get one or two LH hitters out. They struggled to do that at times, and Lou gave up on them. But I don't blame him with Wuertz at all. He used Wuertz alot in 2007, and he pitched him alot in April/May. He just stopped pitching Wuertz, because the guy stopped pitching good. I'm sure it was more then just in game performance to, and Wuertz wasn't pitching well in side sessions either. If Wuertz can pitch like he did in 07, he could be as good as Gregg. But I don't think we can count on that right now.

[gocubs2118]

The last time I checked this is a Jake Peavy thread. Not one about Kevin Gregg or Michael Wuertz.

[RynoRules]

It's not really Wuertz's fault that Lou decided he was never ever going to use him

 

 

Wuertz was used alot the first two months of the season, especially in April. In May he pitched in less games, but was used in the same amount of innings. Still 27 IP the first two months of the season was only a half inning less then Howry, and two innings less then Wood. June is when Lou started to lose faith in Wuertz, because Wuertz was sucking. His era says 2.08 and looks pretty impressive, but Wuertz was very lucky. In 6 of 12 games he pitched in he allowed more hits or walks then outs he got. So he often let other pitchers base runners score, or was bailed out by other pitchers when he left runners on base. So maybe Lou did give up on him too soon, but lets not forget the same manager that let Wuertz pitch in 73 games a year ago. So maybe all the blame shouldn't go on Lou, and alot of it was due to Wuertz sucking. It didn't help that when he got sent to Triple A he pitched kinda subpar, and thats why it took him until September to come back.

 

i was just talking about the IP argument. wuertz would have as much work as gregg if he was actually used and lou didn't hate him.

 

 

And his era would have probably been much higher if Lou used him in more innings. .

 

Why? His career ERA is 3.57 in 262.1 IP. I don't know why we're talking so much about ERA for relievers though.

 

Right. As noted by CF26, his peripherals weren't very good either.

 

I like Wuertz, but to argue his struggles last year were because he was underutilized (not accurate) or because Lou hates him (completely made up) is baseless. IMO, stick to the facts.

[17 Seconds]

It's not really Wuertz's fault that Lou decided he was never ever going to use him

 

 

Wuertz was used alot the first two months of the season, especially in April. In May he pitched in less games, but was used in the same amount of innings. Still 27 IP the first two months of the season was only a half inning less then Howry, and two innings less then Wood. June is when Lou started to lose faith in Wuertz, because Wuertz was sucking. His era says 2.08 and looks pretty impressive, but Wuertz was very lucky. In 6 of 12 games he pitched in he allowed more hits or walks then outs he got. So he often let other pitchers base runners score, or was bailed out by other pitchers when he left runners on base. So maybe Lou did give up on him too soon, but lets not forget the same manager that let Wuertz pitch in 73 games a year ago. So maybe all the blame shouldn't go on Lou, and alot of it was due to Wuertz sucking. It didn't help that when he got sent to Triple A he pitched kinda subpar, and thats why it took him until September to come back.

 

i was just talking about the IP argument. wuertz would have as much work as gregg if he was actually used and lou didn't hate him.

 

 

And his era would have probably been much higher if Lou used him in more innings. .

 

Why? His career ERA is 3.57 in 262.1 IP. I don't know why we're talking so much about ERA for relievers though.

 

Right. As noted by CF26, his peripherals weren't very good either.

 

I like Wuertz, but to argue his struggles last year were because he was underutilized (not accurate) or because Lou hates him (completely made up) is baseless. IMO, stick to the facts.

 

Where did I ever say anything about his struggles being due to being underused last season? I'm not arguing any of that. I just didn't understand why he was talking about IP totals when they have nothing to do with anything really. I don't know what he was trying to say by that.

 

Oh, and it's obvious Lou wasn't a fan, but Lou is not a fan of any reliever who comes in and walks guys

[Electron Blue]

didn't see this posted yet:

 

Padres Projecting Over Budget

 

According to Tom Krasovic of the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Padres have a meager $40MM budget for players this year. They're projecting to be about $4-5MM over, and they'll probably have to trade Jake Peavy and/or Brian Giles at some point to meet the target. Both players have full no-trade rights.

 

It could be risky to wait on a Peavy trade, since an injury can happen anytime and he might pitch in the WBC. If the new Cubs ownership group will approve Peavy's addition to the 2010 budget, trade talks could reignite. I don't see why Opening Day has to be the arbitrary deadline to trade Peavy - maybe we'll see a rare April blockbuster if the Padres and Cubs' ownership situations necessitate it.

 

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/19/1s20padres-projected-payroll-over-target/?padres

[fromthestretch]

And his era would have probably been much higher if Lou used him in more innings.

 

Or he could have worked through his struggles with a little extra work. I don't think it's safe to assume that his ERA would have skyrocketed with more innings.

[cubbinalltheway]

19, but whatever.

 

i just dont consider an 860 OPS in A ball to be enough to be a deal breaker on a jake peavy trade.

 

but tht's not what you said. you said-

 

why should i give him any chance of being great?

 

so because of his good-but-not-great season last season at an extremely youn age you're not giving him a chance of being great? that makes no sense. i'm not pumping up vitters and of course i'd trade him for vitters. i just don't understand why you're not giving him a chance, especially considering he was pretty good last year.

 

and he didnt turn 19 until the end of the season

youre focusing on the wrong thing, which unless you merely just like to argue i dont know why. this all spiraled far away from the original point -- that vitters shouldn't be a deal breaker in acquiring jake peavy.

[17 Seconds]

19, but whatever.

 

i just dont consider an 860 OPS in A ball to be enough to be a deal breaker on a jake peavy trade.

 

but tht's not what you said. you said-

 

why should i give him any chance of being great?

 

so because of his good-but-not-great season last season at an extremely youn age you're not giving him a chance of being great? that makes no sense. i'm not pumping up vitters and of course i'd trade him for vitters. i just don't understand why you're not giving him a chance, especially considering he was pretty good last year.

 

and he didnt turn 19 until the end of the season

youre focusing on the wrong thing, which unless you merely just like to argue i dont know why. this all spiraled far away from the original point -- that vitters shouldn't be a deal breaker in acquiring jake peavy.

 

so i'm not allowed to reply to posts you make if they aren't the original point you made? isn't this a message board?

[cubbinalltheway]

19, but whatever.

 

i just dont consider an 860 OPS in A ball to be enough to be a deal breaker on a jake peavy trade.

 

but tht's not what you said. you said-

 

why should i give him any chance of being great?

 

so because of his good-but-not-great season last season at an extremely youn age you're not giving him a chance of being great? that makes no sense. i'm not pumping up vitters and of course i'd trade him for vitters. i just don't understand why you're not giving him a chance, especially considering he was pretty good last year.

 

and he didnt turn 19 until the end of the season

youre focusing on the wrong thing, which unless you merely just like to argue i dont know why. this all spiraled far away from the original point -- that vitters shouldn't be a deal breaker in acquiring jake peavy.

 

so i'm not allowed to reply to posts you make if they aren't the original point you made? isn't this a message board?

you can do whatever you want. just seems that youre looking for something to argue about. constantly.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

why would we want to trade our best prospect for a sub .500 pitcher?

[Sever82]

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/cubsrumors12009.php

 

Lots of good articles on ChicagoCubsonline.com

 

The best news i noticed is Lee Hamilton's report last night on mlb live late edition. He noted that cubs could have a package of all pitchers i believe it was Marshall, Stevens, Olson, Hart and maybe one more prospect for peavy. He said the cubs might not trade vitters and he also noted something that was new to me. He said the Cubs were reluctant to trade vitters the first time which is what cause an issue also. If that is the package i would do that in a hearbeat. Dont care what most of you say but the trades that hendry has made were not done just to get bradley. I mean you dont trade your 5th starter to get another thats similar which is what some of you are suggesting.

[17 Seconds]

19, but whatever.

 

i just dont consider an 860 OPS in A ball to be enough to be a deal breaker on a jake peavy trade.

 

but tht's not what you said. you said-

 

why should i give him any chance of being great?

 

so because of his good-but-not-great season last season at an extremely youn age you're not giving him a chance of being great? that makes no sense. i'm not pumping up vitters and of course i'd trade him for vitters. i just don't understand why you're not giving him a chance, especially considering he was pretty good last year.

 

and he didnt turn 19 until the end of the season

youre focusing on the wrong thing, which unless you merely just like to argue i dont know why. this all spiraled far away from the original point -- that vitters shouldn't be a deal breaker in acquiring jake peavy.

 

so i'm not allowed to reply to posts you make if they aren't the original point you made? isn't this a message board?

you can do whatever you want. just seems that youre looking for something to argue about. constantly.

 

If I'm arguing, then most internet message board stuff is arguing. You just need to stop getting so defensive because you're getting flustered at people questioning you.

[MixmastaMiguel]

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/cubsrumors12009.php

 

Lots of good articles on ChicagoCubsonline.com

 

The best news i noticed is Lee Hamilton's report last night on mlb live late edition. He noted that cubs could have a package of all pitchers i believe it was Marshall, Stevens, Olson, Hart and maybe one more prospect for peavy. He said the cubs might not trade vitters and he also noted something that was new to me. He said the Cubs were reluctant to trade vitters the first time which is what cause an issue also. If that is the package i would do that in a hearbeat. Dont care what most of you say but the trades that hendry has made were not done just to get bradley. I mean you dont trade your 5th starter to get another thats similar which is what some of you are suggesting.

 

I would love that trade too, but too bad it's not gonna happen. Even though trading Vitters over Marshall would benefit this team a lot more this year, I would still rather trade Marshall. I see it more as Olson, Vitters, Stevens, Hart, Cedeno, and maybe one more of the CLE prospects.

[cubbinalltheway]

If I'm arguing, then most internet message board stuff is arguing. You just need to stop getting so defensive because you're getting flustered at people questioning you.

i'm not getting defensive or flustered at all, what are you talking about?

[Sever82]

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/cubsrumors12009.php

 

Lots of good articles on ChicagoCubsonline.com

 

The best news i noticed is Lee Hamilton's report last night on mlb live late edition. He noted that cubs could have a package of all pitchers i believe it was Marshall, Stevens, Olson, Hart and maybe one more prospect for peavy. He said the cubs might not trade vitters and he also noted something that was new to me. He said the Cubs were reluctant to trade vitters the first time which is what cause an issue also. If that is the package i would do that in a hearbeat. Dont care what most of you say but the trades that hendry has made were not done just to get bradley. I mean you dont trade your 5th starter to get another thats similar which is what some of you are suggesting.

 

I would love that trade too, but too bad it's not gonna happen. Even though trading Vitters over Marshall would benefit this team a lot more this year, I would still rather trade Marshall. I see it more as Olson, Vitters, Stevens, Hart, Cedeno, and maybe one more of the CLE prospects.

 

I dont know, i could see the cubs not including vitter if they include 5 pitchers and cedeno. Cedeno makes sense for the padres since they lost out on Vizquel. I doubt the cubs would include 5 pitchers and their top prospect for peavy.

[17 Seconds]

If I'm arguing, then most internet message board stuff is arguing. You just need to stop getting so defensive because you're getting flustered at people questioning you.

i'm not getting defensive or flustered at all, what are you talking about?

 

We were just having a discussion and then you got all defensive and start talking about me just wanting to argue. Why? Becuase I replied to a post I didn't agree with? Isn't that what internet message boards are for? To discuss and debate things? Whatever, I don't even care. You'r right. Vitters has no chance to be great and he sucked ass last year.

[WilcoFan]

you can do whatever you want. just seems that youre looking for something to argue about. constantly.

 

 

 

And now you know why 75% of the board has him on ignore.

[abuck1220]

stop it you two...this is like watching two drunken bums fighting each other with trash can lids.