Hendry defends Derosa trade

[davearm2]

I didn't imply any such thing. I was merely trying to point out that the folks bemoaning the Dempster deal have conveniently forgotten to offer up a cheaper plan that would've put the Cubs in a better position to contend.

 

Seriously. Going with what we've got (minus Dempster) would've put the Cubs in worse shape. Hoping to find the next Kyle Lohse at the risk of finding the next Wade Miller or Adam Eaton or Jeff Weaver instead would've, too.

 

I didn't want Lower that much, but I would have much rather have had him at 4/60 than Dempster at 4/53.

 

Actually, I'd rather have saved the money and not had Dempster than just trhrow it away on him.

 

Seriously, you're saying that it's better to give out a horrible contract than it is to not give one out at all. You really don't see a problem with that?

 

What about when we're in need of a starter one offseason and Carlos Silva is the only guy avilable. Is it okay to give him 4/40? Hey, anything is better than what we have... right?

Here are Dempster's FIP numbers for the last four years: 3.38, 3.79, 4.54, 3.41.

 

Here are Lowe's: 4.16, 3.68, 3.97, 3.26.

 

Lowe's 4 years older than Dempster.

 

So remind me again why you'd be cool with giving Lowe more money than Dempster, but think Dempster got a "horrible contract".

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Here are Dempster's FIP numbers for the last four years: 3.38, 3.79, 4.54, 3.41.

 

Here are Lowe's: 4.16, 3.68, 3.97, 3.26.

 

Lowe's 4 years older than Dempster.

 

So remind me again why you'd be cool with giving Lowe more money than Dempster, but think Dempster got a "horrible contract".

 

ZOMG, numbers, evidence... I don't believe it!

 

Anyways, Lowe was a better pitcher three straight seasons. That's a good place to start.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Hairyducked Idiot

[17 Seconds]

I didn't imply any such thing. I was merely trying to point out that the folks bemoaning the Dempster deal have conveniently forgotten to offer up a cheaper plan that would've put the Cubs in a better position to contend.

 

Seriously. Going with what we've got (minus Dempster) would've put the Cubs in worse shape. Hoping to find the next Kyle Lohse at the risk of finding the next Wade Miller or Adam Eaton or Jeff Weaver instead would've, too.

 

I didn't want Lower that much, but I would have much rather have had him at 4/60 than Dempster at 4/53.

 

Actually, I'd rather have saved the money and not had Dempster than just trhrow it away on him.

 

Seriously, you're saying that it's better to give out a horrible contract than it is to not give one out at all. You really don't see a problem with that?

 

What about when we're in need of a starter one offseason and Carlos Silva is the only guy avilable. Is it okay to give him 4/40? Hey, anything is better than what we have... right?

Here are Dempster's FIP numbers for the last four years: 3.38, 3.79, 4.54, 3.41.

 

Here are Lowe's: 4.16, 3.68, 3.97, 3.26.

 

Lowe's 4 years older than Dempster.

 

So remind me again why you'd be cool with giving Lowe more money than Dempster, but think Dempster got a "horrible contract".

 

One guy was a reliever and the other was a starter, first of all

 

before 09....how many good years did lowe have as a starter. how many did dempster have?

[davearm2]

LOL, I knew I'd get the '06 Cardinals thrown in my face.

 

If your objective is to build an 83-win team and then pray for a miracle, then you've got the rotation you need. Good luck with that. You'll excuse those of us that would prefer to set the bar a bit higher than that.

 

So no comment on the 2008 Phillies, no interest in comparing the rotations, no interest in providing the slightest shred of evidence whatsoever?

 

Got it.

WTF kind of evidence do you want, exactly? Mediocre rotations CAN win in the playoffs. It happens sometimes -- not very often, but sometimes -- and I'll grant you that. Just don't throw out two anecdotal cases and expect that you've proven any sort of cogent point.

 

What we're talking about here is how best to construct a team, and far more evidence can be offered that shows building a championship-caliber team upon a mediocre rotation is not very often a successful approach. Heck didn't the Tigers finish in last place last year with a murderer's row offense and a rotation very similar to the one you're advocating? Or however many consecutive Rangers teams? Or last year's Yankees? And on and on.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

WTF kind of evidence do you want, exactly? Mediocre rotations CAN win in the playoffs. It happens sometimes -- not very often, but sometimes -- and I'll grant you that. Just don't throw out two anecdotal cases and expect that you've proven any sort of cogent point.

 

I want you to prove that rotation is mediocre. You've said it repeatedly, you are wrong, and I'd like for you to produce some sort of evidence that Zambrano, Harden, Lilly, Marquis, Marshall is a mediocre rotation.

[Gingerballs Lives]

WTF kind of evidence do you want, exactly? Mediocre rotations CAN win in the playoffs. It happens sometimes -- not very often, but sometimes -- and I'll grant you that. Just don't throw out two anecdotal cases and expect that you've proven any sort of cogent point.

 

I want you to prove that rotation is mediocre. You've said it repeatedly, you are wrong, and I'd like for you to produce some sort of evidence that Zambrano, Harden, Lilly, Marquis, Marshall is a mediocre rotation.

 

Yes. Plus, Dempster is proving himself to be the weak link so far. Randy Wells has eaten his lunch.

 

(and no I'm not saying we should be relying on guys like Wells but he has been pretty awesome)

[davearm2]

I didn't imply any such thing. I was merely trying to point out that the folks bemoaning the Dempster deal have conveniently forgotten to offer up a cheaper plan that would've put the Cubs in a better position to contend.

 

Seriously. Going with what we've got (minus Dempster) would've put the Cubs in worse shape. Hoping to find the next Kyle Lohse at the risk of finding the next Wade Miller or Adam Eaton or Jeff Weaver instead would've, too.

 

I didn't want Lower that much, but I would have much rather have had him at 4/60 than Dempster at 4/53.

 

Actually, I'd rather have saved the money and not had Dempster than just trhrow it away on him.

 

Seriously, you're saying that it's better to give out a horrible contract than it is to not give one out at all. You really don't see a problem with that?

 

What about when we're in need of a starter one offseason and Carlos Silva is the only guy avilable. Is it okay to give him 4/40? Hey, anything is better than what we have... right?

Here are Dempster's FIP numbers for the last four years: 3.38, 3.79, 4.54, 3.41.

 

Here are Lowe's: 4.16, 3.68, 3.97, 3.26.

 

Lowe's 4 years older than Dempster.

 

So remind me again why you'd be cool with giving Lowe more money than Dempster, but think Dempster got a "horrible contract".

 

One guy was a reliever and the other was a starter, first of all

 

before 09....how many good years did lowe have as a starter. how many did dempster have?

Pointing out that Dempster has been used as a closer and then following it up by asking how many good years he's had as a starter?

 

That's your counterpoint? Really?

 

How exactly was Dempster supposed to be good as a starter when he was busy being good as a reliever?

[A-Cal]

the dempster contract is terrible

 

next

[davearm2]

WTF kind of evidence do you want, exactly? Mediocre rotations CAN win in the playoffs. It happens sometimes -- not very often, but sometimes -- and I'll grant you that. Just don't throw out two anecdotal cases and expect that you've proven any sort of cogent point.

 

I want you to prove that rotation is mediocre. You've said it repeatedly, you are wrong, and I'd like for you to produce some sort of evidence that Zambrano, Harden, Lilly, Marquis, Marshall is a mediocre rotation.

Here's what those five guys' career ERAs as a starter are, and how many starts you can anticipate them making (based on history):

 

Zambrano 3.47 32

Lilly 4.34 28

Harden 3.38 17

Marquis 4.47 32

Marshall 4.67 17

 

That leaves 36 starts to be absorbed by other members of the pitching staff -- relievers, minor leaguers, whatever. We'll give that group of fillins a collective ERA of 5.00. Run the numbers and your starting rotation as a whole puts up an ERA of 4.27.

 

Here's how a 4.27 starters' ERA would rank amongst NL clubs in the last 5 years:

2008 8

2007 5

2006 4

2005 10

2004 10

 

That's an average ranking of 7.4 out of 16. Looks mediocre to me.

 

FWIW, Philly's starters' ERA in '08 ranked 7th in the NL; St. Louis's starters' ERA in '06 ranked 12th.

 

Hope this helps.

[A-Cal]

WTF kind of evidence do you want, exactly? Mediocre rotations CAN win in the playoffs. It happens sometimes -- not very often, but sometimes -- and I'll grant you that. Just don't throw out two anecdotal cases and expect that you've proven any sort of cogent point.

 

I want you to prove that rotation is mediocre. You've said it repeatedly, you are wrong, and I'd like for you to produce some sort of evidence that Zambrano, Harden, Lilly, Marquis, Marshall is a mediocre rotation.

Here's what those five guys' career ERAs as a starter are, and how many starts you can anticipate them making (based on history):

 

Zambrano 3.47 32

Lilly 4.34 28

Harden 3.38 17

Marquis 4.47 32

Marshall 4.67 17

 

That leaves 36 starts to be absorbed by other members of the pitching staff -- relievers, minor leaguers, whatever. We'll give that group of fillins a collective ERA of 5.00. Run the numbers and your starting rotation as a whole puts up an ERA of 4.27.

 

Here's how a 4.27 starters' ERA would rank amongst NL clubs in the last 5 years:

2008 8

2007 5

2006 4

2005 10

2004 10

 

That's an average ranking of 7.4 out of 16. Looks mediocre to me.

 

FWIW, Philly's starters' ERA in '08 ranked 7th in the NL; St. Louis's starters' ERA in '06 ranked 12th.

 

Hope this helps.

 

good job with the numbers, now you can impress the masses

[TruffleShuffle]

WTF kind of evidence do you want, exactly? Mediocre rotations CAN win in the playoffs. It happens sometimes -- not very often, but sometimes -- and I'll grant you that. Just don't throw out two anecdotal cases and expect that you've proven any sort of cogent point.

 

I want you to prove that rotation is mediocre. You've said it repeatedly, you are wrong, and I'd like for you to produce some sort of evidence that Zambrano, Harden, Lilly, Marquis, Marshall is a mediocre rotation.

 

it probably isn't, but in light of the health issues of zambrano and harden, you're leaving yourself quite thin in terms of front line pitching when they suffer their (somewhat) inevitable injuries.

[17 Seconds]

I didn't imply any such thing. I was merely trying to point out that the folks bemoaning the Dempster deal have conveniently forgotten to offer up a cheaper plan that would've put the Cubs in a better position to contend.

 

Seriously. Going with what we've got (minus Dempster) would've put the Cubs in worse shape. Hoping to find the next Kyle Lohse at the risk of finding the next Wade Miller or Adam Eaton or Jeff Weaver instead would've, too.

 

I didn't want Lower that much, but I would have much rather have had him at 4/60 than Dempster at 4/53.

 

Actually, I'd rather have saved the money and not had Dempster than just trhrow it away on him.

 

Seriously, you're saying that it's better to give out a horrible contract than it is to not give one out at all. You really don't see a problem with that?

 

What about when we're in need of a starter one offseason and Carlos Silva is the only guy avilable. Is it okay to give him 4/40? Hey, anything is better than what we have... right?

Here are Dempster's FIP numbers for the last four years: 3.38, 3.79, 4.54, 3.41.

 

Here are Lowe's: 4.16, 3.68, 3.97, 3.26.

 

Lowe's 4 years older than Dempster.

 

So remind me again why you'd be cool with giving Lowe more money than Dempster, but think Dempster got a "horrible contract".

 

One guy was a reliever and the other was a starter, first of all

 

before 09....how many good years did lowe have as a starter. how many did dempster have?

Pointing out that Dempster has been used as a closer and then following it up by asking how many good years he's had as a starter?

 

That's your counterpoint? Really?

 

How exactly was Dempster supposed to be good as a starter when he was busy being good as a reliever?

 

umm, no....that's my point. the 2 go together. you gave numbers that compared the 2. it's silly to compare the 2 when they had completely different roles.

 

lowe has has several good seasons as a starting pitcher. dempster has had one (maybe 2 if you consider that year with the marlins to be "good"). the point is that dempster is not proven as a starter like lowe is. lowe didn't get paid for one year like dempster did.

[Backtobanks]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

[17 Seconds]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

 

pretty much everybody who is complaining about the moves now were complaining about the moves when they were made. back then it was "give the moves a chance" and now it's "hindsight is 20/20"

[Tracer Bullet]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

 

Unfortunately, Hendry wasn't hired this off season, so we have a lot more than just 2 months of regular season games on which to judge him.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well, at least you tried. You failed, but you tried.

 

There's not really a good reason to use career ERAs, and you can't just throw the 5.00 in there for the fill-ins. And I'm trying to figure out why you penciled Ted Lilly in for 28 starts (30+ five of the last six seasons).

 

But doctored numbers are better than no attempt at numbers at all. Step in a positive direction, here.

[mul21]

WTF kind of evidence do you want, exactly? Mediocre rotations CAN win in the playoffs. It happens sometimes -- not very often, but sometimes -- and I'll grant you that. Just don't throw out two anecdotal cases and expect that you've proven any sort of cogent point.

 

I want you to prove that rotation is mediocre. You've said it repeatedly, you are wrong, and I'd like for you to produce some sort of evidence that Zambrano, Harden, Lilly, Marquis, Marshall is a mediocre rotation.

 

it probably isn't, but in light of the health issues of zambrano and harden, you're leaving yourself quite thin in terms of front line pitching when they suffer their (somewhat) inevitable injuries.

 

That added to the fact that relying on Marshall to be in the rotation all year when he's never pitched more than about 160 or so innings. You just have to have depth and only going into the season with 5 guys as starters doesn't make sense for any team, especially one with the so-so track record of this team in terms of going out there every 5th day.

[davearm2]

Well, at least you tried. You failed, but you tried.

 

There's not really a good reason to use career ERAs, and you can't just throw the 5.00 in there for the fill-ins. And I'm trying to figure out why you penciled Ted Lilly in for 28 starts (30+ five of the last six seasons).

 

But doctored numbers are better than no attempt at numbers at all. Step in a positive direction, here.

Puts me ahead of you, anyway.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well, at least you tried. You failed, but you tried.

 

There's not really a good reason to use career ERAs, and you can't just throw the 5.00 in there for the fill-ins. And I'm trying to figure out why you penciled Ted Lilly in for 28 starts (30+ five of the last six seasons).

 

But doctored numbers are better than no attempt at numbers at all. Step in a positive direction, here.

Puts me ahead of you, anyway.

 

I'm not the one making a positive assertion. I was simply denying yours. Burden of proof is on you.

 

You used career numbers for Lilly and Harden, both of whom spent significant time in the AL, then compared the average to the NL teams. That alone cost the theoretical rotation a couple of spots.

[Andy]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

Let's see.

 

- Everyone here knew signing Miles, especially as basically DeRosa's replacement, was a stupid idea.

 

- Everyone here knew that Bradley was injury-prone.

 

- Everyone here, for the most part, could see that Derrek Lee had been declining throughout most of 2008. (I'm glad he's on the uptick right now, but he's got a long way to go before having a productive full season.)

 

- Most here, while glad to be rid of Jason Marquis, thought it was iffy to bring in a nothing reliever for him.

 

- Everyone here was skeptical as to why we were shedding like 5M in bullpen pitchers for no apparent reason less than two weeks in when we weren't exactly loaded with great relievers.

 

- Most here were skeptical of Dempster's contract considering his career numbers.

 

This isn't hindsight. For the most part, these moves were bad even in foresight.

[Gingerballs Lives]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

Let's see.

 

- Everyone here knew signing Miles, especially as basically DeRosa's replacement, was a stupid idea.

 

- Everyone here knew that Bradley was injury-prone.

 

- Everyone here, for the most part, could see that Derrek Lee had been declining throughout most of 2008. (I'm glad he's on the uptick right now, but he's got a long way to go before having a productive full season.)

 

- Most here, while glad to be rid of Jason Marquis, thought it was iffy to bring in a nothing reliever for him.

 

- Everyone here was skeptical as to why we were shedding like 5M in bullpen pitchers for no apparent reason less than two weeks in when we weren't exactly loaded with great relievers.

 

- Most here were skeptical of Dempster's contract considering his career numbers.

 

This isn't hindsight. For the most part, these moves were bad even in foresight.

 

Exactly. Although I had no problem with the Lee contract at the time. I mean, he broke his arm like the next day. Still a good player though and I'm glad he seems to have found his way back on track this year. He has a NTC so he won't be getting moved.

 

It just sucks because it seems the Cubs have handcuffed themselves with so many bad contract and NTC that it's hard to see how we will effectively retool. We've got nearly $120 million committed to 10 players for next year. I think we're pretty much stuck with this aging team.

[dew1679666265]

It just sucks because it seems the Cubs have handcuffed themselves with so many bad contract and NTC that it's hard to see how we will effectively retool. We've got nearly $120 million committed to 10 players for next year. I think we're pretty much stuck with this aging team.

 

For what it's worth, Lee's NTC is pretty much nullified now because he has 10/5 rights. Even without the NTC he could veto a trade because of that.

[Arnold Layne]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

Let's see.

 

- Everyone here knew signing Miles, especially as basically DeRosa's replacement, was a stupid idea.

 

- Everyone here knew that Bradley was injury-prone.

 

- Everyone here, for the most part, could see that Derrek Lee had been declining throughout most of 2008. (I'm glad he's on the uptick right now, but he's got a long way to go before having a productive full season.)

 

- Most here, while glad to be rid of Jason Marquis, thought it was iffy to bring in a nothing reliever for him.

 

- Everyone here was skeptical as to why we were shedding like 5M in bullpen pitchers for no apparent reason less than two weeks in when we weren't exactly loaded with great relievers.

 

- Most here were skeptical of Dempster's contract considering his career numbers.

 

This isn't hindsight. For the most part, these moves were bad even in foresight.

 

 

Spot on.

[Electron Blue]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

Let's see.

 

- Everyone here knew signing Miles, especially as basically DeRosa's replacement, was a stupid idea.

Misleading. Mike Fontenot was more of the replacement in the lineup than Miles. Miles replaced Derosa's versatility, which means a good deal less.

 

- Everyone here knew that Bradley was injury-prone.

36 games played at this point isn't really a big deal. His production is, which nobody predicted.

 

- Everyone here, for the most part, could see that Derrek Lee had been declining throughout most of 2008. (I'm glad he's on the uptick right now, but he's got a long way to go before having a productive full season.)

 

- Most here, while glad to be rid of Jason Marquis, thought it was iffy to bring in a nothing reliever for him.

Sure not the way I remember it. "The board" seems to have been very aware of the reason for the deal: payroll money.

 

- Everyone here was skeptical as to why we were shedding like 5M in bullpen pitchers for no apparent reason less than two weeks in when we weren't exactly loaded with great relievers.

agreed. But doesn't have much to do with hindsight.

 

- Most here were skeptical of Dempster's contract considering his career numbers.

Even if Marquis hadn't been traded, try and imagine the rotation without Dempster. They would have had to have gone to FA to get at least one starter -- what better deal that Dempster's was out there?

 

This isn't hindsight. For the most part, these moves were bad even in foresight.

[davearm2]

Well, at least you tried. You failed, but you tried.

 

There's not really a good reason to use career ERAs, and you can't just throw the 5.00 in there for the fill-ins. And I'm trying to figure out why you penciled Ted Lilly in for 28 starts (30+ five of the last six seasons).

 

But doctored numbers are better than no attempt at numbers at all. Step in a positive direction, here.

Puts me ahead of you, anyway.

 

I'm not the one making a positive assertion. I was simply denying yours. Burden of proof is on you.

 

You used career numbers for Lilly and Harden, both of whom spent significant time in the AL, then compared the average to the NL teams. That alone cost the theoretical rotation a couple of spots.

So you don't like me using the career ERA numbers heh? Well then let's see what PECOTA projected for your rotation in 2009. I'll even bump up Lilly to 32 starts like you wanted.

 

Marshall 4.29 17

Lilly 4.26 32

Zambrano 4.12 32

Harden 3.04 17

Marquis 5.23 32

Fillin 5.00 32

That works out to a collective 4.45 ERA for the rotation.

 

Shall we examine where a 4.45 ERA ranks in the NL over the last 5 years?

2008 11th

2007 10th

2006 6th

2005 14th

2004 13th

That works out to an average ranking of 10.8 out of 16. Looks like maybe "mediocre" is being kind.

 

Let's take things a step further. Last year the Cubs' starters ranked 3rd in the NL with a 3.87 ERA in 1450.2 IP. That's 624 earned runs.

 

A 4.45 ERA in the same number of innings yields 717 earned runs, or a difference of 93.

 

Using the rule 10 runs = 1 win, your rotation has the Cubs roughly 9 games worse in the standings than they were last year.