CJ Wilson thread: Signed by Angels 5/$77.5 million pg 10

[dew1679666265]

Wilson might just be a better gamble at a lesser cost than Lee was.

 

He might be, but I happen to believe he is not. I think the things you are holding up as his best attributes are actually fairly scary.

 

A low total of MLB innings while being highly effective in almost all of them and improving peripherals are scary?

[jersey cubs fan]

Wilson might just be a better gamble at a lesser cost than Lee was.

 

He might be, but I happen to believe he is not. I think the things you are holding up as his best attributes are actually fairly scary.

 

A low total of MLB innings while being highly effective in almost all of them and improving peripherals are scary?

 

jumping from 50-70 ip per year to more than 200 2 years in a row.

 

Less than 300 IP over a 5 year stretch followed by nearly 500 IP in a 2 year stretch.

 

I don't like sudden jumps in workload.

[dew1679666265]

More power to them, then.

 

Give star money to star players. Don't give star money to guys who may be start players.

 

How long a track record do you require before you consider a guy a star player? I could understand if he had one random breakout year, but he's had two really good seasons and has shown considerable improvements in his peripherals from year one to year two in one of the best hitters parks in the majors.

 

And again, nobody's talking CC/Lee/Halladay money here. A 5/90 deal would be $30 million fewer total dollars than Lee got for having a resume that isn't much better, if any.

[dew1679666265]

jumping from 50-70 ip per year to more than 200 2 years in a row.

 

Less than 300 IP over a 5 year stretch followed by nearly 500 IP in a 2 year stretch.

 

I don't like sudden jumps in workload.

 

I feel better about them when they come under the watch of Mike Maddux, whose approach is to intelligently stretch out a pitcher's arm.

[jersey cubs fan]

jumping from 50-70 ip per year to more than 200 2 years in a row.

 

Less than 300 IP over a 5 year stretch followed by nearly 500 IP in a 2 year stretch.

 

I don't like sudden jumps in workload.

 

I feel better about them when they come under the watch of Mike Maddux, whose approach is to intelligently stretch out a pitcher's arm.

 

I feel slightly better about it, but it's still a very rare occurence to have such a jump in workload.

[dew1679666265]

I feel slightly better about it, but it's still a very rare occurence to have such a jump in workload.

 

Wilson's a rarity in many ways. I can understand being wary about Wilson, but there are really only two negatives to him - age and the jump in workload. The positives are two excellent seasons starting, improved peripherals from year one starting to year two, and very little wear on his arm.

 

Given the very strong positives in his favor and having seen his workload increase under Maddux, I'm willing to take a 5/90 with a vesting option for a 6th risk on him. Any more than that and I lose my interest.

[Exile on Waveland]

I feel slightly better about it, but it's still a very rare occurence to have such a jump in workload.

 

Wilson's a rarity in many ways. I can understand being wary about Wilson, but there are really only two negatives to him - age and the jump in workload. The positives are two excellent seasons starting, improved peripherals from year one starting to year two, and very little wear on his arm.

 

Given the very strong positives in his favor and having seen his workload increase under Maddux, I'm willing to take a 5/90 with a vesting option for a 6th risk on him. Any more than that and I lose my interest.

 

I'm glad you used the correct word; in my sickly, insomniac state I didn't realize I used "weary" incorrectly. I shall now correct that embarrassment.

[buckeye27]

More power to them, then.

 

Give star money to star players. Don't give star money to guys who may be start players.

 

How long a track record do you require before you consider a guy a star player? I could understand if he had one random breakout year, but he's had two really good seasons and has shown considerable improvements in his peripherals from year one to year two in one of the best hitters parks in the majors.

 

And again, nobody's talking CC/Lee/Halladay money here. A 5/90 deal would be $30 million fewer total dollars than Lee got for having a resume that isn't much better, if any.

 

i believe he was looking for a 6/120. thats probably too much for wilson. but who knows.

[dew1679666265]

i believe he was looking for a 6/120. thats probably too much for wilson. but who knows.

 

That was his camp's initial demands. If a team actually meets that and doesn't negotiate it down, then they've done a poor job of negotiating. It would be expected that Wilson and his agent would aim too high (6/120) and an offering team would aim too low (say, 4/60) and then they'll meet somewhere in the middle (5/90 perhaps).

[JeffH]

You might want to just slightly beware of signing to a huge deal a guy who blossomed under the tutelage of Mike Maddux when your own pitching coach is likely to be something south of Mike Maddux.

[dew1679666265]

You might want to just slightly beware of signing to a huge deal a guy who blossomed under the tutelage of Mike Maddux when your own pitching coach is likely to be something south of Mike Maddux.

 

He's pretty much always been a quality pitcher, though, he just broke out once they gave him the opportunity to start. I'm pretty confident in the Hoyer/Sveum tandem (mainly Hoyer) to find a quality pitching coach.

 

Speaking of which, what's Rick Peterson up to?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Now that guys like John Danks, Gio Gonzalez, Trevor Cahill, and to a lesser extent Gavin Floyd and Jair Jurrjens and possibly James Shields and Matt Garza are supposedly available for trade, I wonder if that could take Wilsons asking price down a notch. If the Yankees and Red Sox arent in the picture, it's going to be tough to start the bidding that high.

[Guest]

More power to them, then.

 

Give star money to star players. Don't give star money to guys who may be start players.

 

How long a track record do you require before you consider a guy a star player? I could understand if he had one random breakout year, but he's had two really good seasons and has shown considerable improvements in his peripherals from year one to year two in one of the best hitters parks in the majors.

 

And again, nobody's talking CC/Lee/Halladay money here. A 5/90 deal would be $30 million fewer total dollars than Lee got for having a resume that isn't much better, if any.

Cliff Lee's k-bb ratios his three years before free agency:

 

170-34

181-43

185-18

 

Wilson's k-bb ratios his two years before free agency:

 

170-93

206-74

 

IMO, there's a wide gulf between Cliff Lee and CJ Wilson as far as being star pitchers. I know the WAR values are pretty similar, but I find K/BB (along with k/9, bb/9, hr/9) to be more predictive of future performance. There's no doubt that Wilson has been very effective as a starter, particularly considering his home park, but Cliff Lee was pretty much otherworldly heading into free agency.

[Backtobanks]

I agree with you Tim. Wilson in the 5yr/$75-$85 million range would probably be something to get excited about, but getting into more years and $20 million per year is over the top.

[Guest]

I agree with you Tim. Wilson in the 5yr/$75-$85 million range would probably be something to get excited about, but getting into more years and $20 million per year is over the top.

I don't even like going five years at a high AAV for a pitcher contract. I'd probably live with it if it meant plugging the #2 gap in our rotation, but I'd be MUCH happier if the deal were four years.

[dew1679666265]

Cliff Lee's k-bb ratios his three years before free agency:

 

170-34

181-43

185-18

 

Wilson's k-bb ratios his two years before free agency:

 

170-93

206-74

 

IMO, there's a wide gulf between Cliff Lee and CJ Wilson as far as being star pitchers. I know the WAR values are pretty similar, but I find K/BB (along with k/9, bb/9, hr/9) to be more predictive of future performance. There's no doubt that Wilson has been very effective as a starter, particularly considering his home park, but Cliff Lee was pretty much otherworldly heading into free agency.

 

Here's the difference that you're ignoring, though - Lee signed for 5 years and 24 million AAV ($120 million total dollars). I'm advocating 5/90 tops with a 6th year vesting option for Wilson ($18 million AAV). Wilson's a star, but not at the level that Lee and CC are at.

[Guest]

Cliff Lee's k-bb ratios his three years before free agency:

 

170-34

181-43

185-18

 

Wilson's k-bb ratios his two years before free agency:

 

170-93

206-74

 

IMO, there's a wide gulf between Cliff Lee and CJ Wilson as far as being star pitchers. I know the WAR values are pretty similar, but I find K/BB (along with k/9, bb/9, hr/9) to be more predictive of future performance. There's no doubt that Wilson has been very effective as a starter, particularly considering his home park, but Cliff Lee was pretty much otherworldly heading into free agency.

 

Here's the difference that you're ignoring, though - Lee signed for 5 years and 24 million AAV ($120 million total dollars). I'm advocating 5/90 tops with a 6th year vesting option for Wilson ($18 million AAV). Wilson's a star, but not at the level that Lee and CC are at.

I'm not ignoring that. I've been consistently saying it's going the fifth year that bothers me. I understand you're proposing a lower AAV than Lee got.

[Rob]

I'd be willing to go 5 years if there was a Lackey-esque clause where spending x amount of time on the DL for certain injuries would give the team a league minimum option for an extra year.

[davearm2]

I'd be willing to go 5 years if there was a Lackey-esque clause where spending x amount of time on the DL for certain injuries would give the team a league minimum option for an extra year.

Never quite understood that one.

 

So a guy that becomes chronically and/or seriously injured as he hits his mid/late 30s, you want the option to keep around longer?

 

Wouldn't it make way more sense to start with a shorter deal, and add easily-obtainable vesting player options?

 

Something like 4 years guaranteed, with a string of player options that trigger with, say, 150IP the previous season.

[Guest]

I'd be willing to go 5 years if there was a Lackey-esque clause where spending x amount of time on the DL for certain injuries would give the team a league minimum option for an extra year.

Never quite understood that one.

 

So a guy that becomes chronically and/or seriously injured as he hits his mid/late 30s, you want the option to keep around longer?

It's the league minimum part of the clause that makes it attractive. Basically, if you're paying the guy for a year to spend on the DL, you get a year of basically free service in return.

 

However, I'm still not a fan of a five year deal for any but the most elite of pitchers.

[davearm2]

I'd be willing to go 5 years if there was a Lackey-esque clause where spending x amount of time on the DL for certain injuries would give the team a league minimum option for an extra year.

Never quite understood that one.

 

So a guy that becomes chronically and/or seriously injured as he hits his mid/late 30s, you want the option to keep around longer?

It's the league minimum part of the clause that makes it attractive. Basically, if you're paying the guy for a year to spend on the DL, you get a year of basically free service in return.

 

However, I'm still not a fan of a five year deal for any but the most elite of pitchers.

What you're getting in that "free" year sounds kinda dubious though, no? The guy's very likely coming off of surgery, and is certainly in his late 30s.

 

Sure there's no risk to the team, but the reward seems pretty sketchy. Go ahead and add the clause I suppose, I just wouldn't value it very highly if I'm the team.

[Guest]

I'd be willing to go 5 years if there was a Lackey-esque clause where spending x amount of time on the DL for certain injuries would give the team a league minimum option for an extra year.

Never quite understood that one.

 

So a guy that becomes chronically and/or seriously injured as he hits his mid/late 30s, you want the option to keep around longer?

It's the league minimum part of the clause that makes it attractive. Basically, if you're paying the guy for a year to spend on the DL, you get a year of basically free service in return.

 

However, I'm still not a fan of a five year deal for any but the most elite of pitchers.

What you're getting in that "free" year sounds kinda dubious though, no? The guy's very likely coming off of surgery, and is certainly in his late 30s.

 

Sure there's no risk to the team, but the reward seems pretty sketchy. Go ahead and add the clause I suppose, I just wouldn't value it very highly if I'm the team.

The value of it depends on when in the contract the injury occurs, but yeah. I'm not a huge fan of it, either.

[davearm2]

I'd be willing to go 5 years if there was a Lackey-esque clause where spending x amount of time on the DL for certain injuries would give the team a league minimum option for an extra year.

Never quite understood that one.

 

So a guy that becomes chronically and/or seriously injured as he hits his mid/late 30s, you want the option to keep around longer?

It's the league minimum part of the clause that makes it attractive. Basically, if you're paying the guy for a year to spend on the DL, you get a year of basically free service in return.

 

However, I'm still not a fan of a five year deal for any but the most elite of pitchers.

What you're getting in that "free" year sounds kinda dubious though, no? The guy's very likely coming off of surgery, and is certainly in his late 30s.

 

Sure there's no risk to the team, but the reward seems pretty sketchy. Go ahead and add the clause I suppose, I just wouldn't value it very highly if I'm the team.

The value of it depends on when in the contract the injury occurs, but yeah. I'm not a huge fan of it, either.

Well maybe, maybe not. I don't think you can look at this through the same lens you would a 21-yo kid having TJS. Medical technology being what it is, and with a young body, that kid probably still has a terrific outlook after a year of rehab.

 

But when a thirtysomething that's already logged ~15 years of professional pitching goes down with something serious, I'd imagine there's a pretty strong likelihood he's never the same guy again. Just a gut feeling though.

 

Naturally, that torpedoes the option's value regardless of when in the contract the injury occurs.

[Rob]

I'd be willing to go 5 years if there was a Lackey-esque clause where spending x amount of time on the DL for certain injuries would give the team a league minimum option for an extra year.

Never quite understood that one.

 

So a guy that becomes chronically and/or seriously injured as he hits his mid/late 30s, you want the option to keep around longer?

 

Wouldn't it make way more sense to start with a shorter deal, and add easily-obtainable vesting player options?

 

Something like 4 years guaranteed, with a string of player options that trigger with, say, 150IP the previous season.

 

If you can get them to agree to it, sure. They don't always sign for exactly what you want them to though.

 

Short contract > Short contract with easily vesting player options > Longer contract with league minimum club option based on injuries > Long contract

[dew1679666265]

I'm not ignoring that. I've been consistently saying it's going the fifth year that bothers me. I understand you're proposing a lower AAV than Lee got.

 

The question on the years, though, comes down to how pitchers decline. Do pitchers decline more slowly/get hurt less because they're elite? Or is a pitcher with fewer innings on his arm less likely to age rapidly?

 

Like you, I'm generally opposed to long contracts to pitchers - especially those in their 30s - but with just 700 innings on his arm to this point and having had the tutelage of Mike Maddux for 3 years, I think Wilson is a much better gamble to remain consistent than a better pitcher like Cliff Lee who has 1400 on his arm at the time of his new deal.

 

That was a really long sentence, and I apologize for that.