Levine: Eyre done deal. 3 years $11 million

[Blueheart05]

People cry when Hendry does something, people cry when he doesen't do something.

 

If you THINK you can do a better job, you're fooling yourself. The FA market is VERY thin, and the Cubs need to improve their bullpen. Our bullpen the last two seasons has absolutely sucked terribly. We've mostly had young pitchers, who can't even utter the phrase "big game." This gives us a BIG GAME PROVEN pitcher, with good stats. This is a move for desperation, and Hendry didn't want to banter back and forth with 3 other teams lobbying for the same guy.

 

Kerry Wood. Games 1 and 5, 2003 NLDS. Entire month of September 2003.

Carlos Zambrano. ERA below 3 after the ASB from 2004-5.

Mark Prior: Games 3 NLDS, Game 2 NLCS.

 

I think your hyperbole got ahead of the facts.

 

And actually, there are a few members here at NSBB I think could do an effective job at being a GM. Also, I'm not sure how Scott Eyre qualifies as a "big game proven pitcher". He's a reliever. He's not a closer. He's not a starter. He's a setup guy at best, Those guys don't win you divisions.

 

Unfortunately, I have to disagree on your last point. A good setup guy or guys can be the difference between winning and losing. Look no further than the Sox to see how valuable relievers like Politte (and to some extent Cotts) can be as a bridge to the closer.

 

But look what they signed for. You find bullpen guys on the cheap. They're not sound investments. I agree that stability and production are needed in the pen, but you cannot convince me that a middle reliever is going to be a difference maker to the point you have to overpay for one.

 

The cost issue isn't what I am debating. The value of the setup man on the team is my argument. Personally, I don't view a setup man as a typical middle reliever. Perhaps 2005 would have ended differently for the Cubs if Dempster had closed the entire season and Eyre setup for him (yes,I am well aware of the other problems on the team).

 

In reading Hendry's comments I think it's fair to say he's counting on Eyre to setup because he pointed out that Scott could pitch most everyday. Also, this may sound crazy but he does have the ability to close so Hendry may have gotten him as an insurance policy against Dempster faltering or being overworked.

[CubsWin]

Okay, disregarding any notion of performance, we just gave a 33 year old relief pitcher 3 years and 8 figures. That's pretty bad unless the person is lights out. Unfortunately for us, the only time he's really been above average is this year. At least Remlinger and Hawkins had more than one good season of good performance when they got long term deals.

And so has Eyre.

 

Lol, when? those 16 great innings in 2001? I guess you mean 2003, when he struck out 35 in 60+ innings.

No, this is what I mean...

 

Even though many on this board, myself included until I took a closer look, would consider that Eyre really has only had one good season, the stats would indicate otherwise.

 

From 2002-2004 (not including that supposedly one good season), Eyre allowed batters to hit .229/.308/.342 against him. Lefties hit .200/.264/.302 while righties were a bit better at .252/.343/.375. He was fairly consistent throughout the year except for the month of August for some reason. But in the stretch month of September in 2002-04, he posted an ERA of 1.17, a WHIP of 1.20 while striking out more than a batter per inning.

 

The numbers also show steady improvement since being diagnosed with attention deficit disorder in 2002 at the age of 30 indicating that with improved ability to focus, he is figuring out how to be more and more successful. His WHIP has steadily improved every year since the diagnosis.

 

In 2004, Eyre showed the ability to get righties out at a good enough rate to be used as more than just a loogy. That ability continued through last season when Scott shutdown lefty batters to tune of .182/.270/.242 while righties could only manage .213/.290/.319.

 

Eyre has also shown durability. He has appeared in 70, 74, 83 and 86 games over the last four seasons respectively. On a team that has been snake bit by injury the past couple of seasons, including in the bullpen (Remy, JoBo, etc.) his durability will be a valuable commodity and something a lot of posters on this board criticized Hendry for not having enough of on the roster last season.

 

Veteran players get paid more than younger ones, it is a fact of life. Eyre has paid his dues and steadily improved over the last three seasons. He is a lefty reliever who is more than just a loogy and has shown the ability to perform well under pressure (he faced over 160 batters in "close and late" conditions last year, and they batted .195 against him). Williamson is still a question mark and after him, the only veteran in the pen is Dempster. The Cubs needed a veteran presence in their bullpen and that is going to cost a few million a year to get.

 

So is Eyre a good signing at this price? If he performs at an average between his 2004 and 2005 performances then, yes. If he reverts to 2002, then no.

Sometimes, it pays to look a little deeper.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Okay, disregarding any notion of performance, we just gave a 33 year old relief pitcher 3 years and 8 figures. That's pretty bad unless the person is lights out. Unfortunately for us, the only time he's really been above average is this year. At least Remlinger and Hawkins had more than one good season of good performance when they got long term deals.

And so has Eyre.

 

3 years preceding their signings as Cubs:

 

Eyre

WHIP: 1.51, 1.30, 1.08

K/BB: 1.35, 1.82, 2.50

OPS: .697, .699, .569

 

Remlinger

WHIP: 1.24, 1.20, 1.11

K/BB: 1.95, 4.04, 2.46

OPS: .625, .672, .557

 

Hawkins

WHIP: 1.91, 0.97, 1.08

K/BB: 0.91, 4.20, 5.00

OPS: .783, .559, .596

[imb]

Okay, disregarding any notion of performance, we just gave a 33 year old relief pitcher 3 years and 8 figures. That's pretty bad unless the person is lights out. Unfortunately for us, the only time he's really been above average is this year. At least Remlinger and Hawkins had more than one good season of good performance when they got long term deals.

And so has Eyre.

 

Lol, when? those 16 great innings in 2001? I guess you mean 2003, when he struck out 35 in 60+ innings.

No, this is what I mean...

 

Even though many on this board, myself included until I took a closer look, would consider that Eyre really has only had one good season, the stats would indicate otherwise.

 

From 2002-2004 (not including that supposedly one good season), Eyre allowed batters to hit .229/.308/.342 against him. Lefties hit .200/.264/.302 while righties were a bit better at .252/.343/.375. He was fairly consistent throughout the year except for the month of August for some reason. But in the stretch month of September in 2002-04, he posted an ERA of 1.17, a WHIP of 1.20 while striking out more than a batter per inning.

 

The numbers also show steady improvement since being diagnosed with attention deficit disorder in 2002 at the age of 30 indicating that with improved ability to focus, he is figuring out how to be more and more successful. His WHIP has steadily improved every year since the diagnosis.

 

In 2004, Eyre showed the ability to get righties out at a good enough rate to be used as more than just a loogy. That ability continued through last season when Scott shutdown lefty batters to tune of .182/.270/.242 while righties could only manage .213/.290/.319.

 

Eyre has also shown durability. He has appeared in 70, 74, 83 and 86 games over the last four seasons respectively. On a team that has been snake bit by injury the past couple of seasons, including in the bullpen (Remy, JoBo, etc.) his durability will be a valuable commodity and something a lot of posters on this board criticized Hendry for not having enough of on the roster last season.

 

Veteran players get paid more than younger ones, it is a fact of life. Eyre has paid his dues and steadily improved over the last three seasons. He is a lefty reliever who is more than just a loogy and has shown the ability to perform well under pressure (he faced over 160 batters in "close and late" conditions last year, and they batted .195 against him). Williamson is still a question mark and after him, the only veteran in the pen is Dempster. The Cubs needed a veteran presence in their bullpen and that is going to cost a few million a year to get.

 

So is Eyre a good signing at this price? If he performs at an average between his 2004 and 2005 performances then, yes. If he reverts to 2002, then no.

Sometimes, it pays to look a little deeper.

 

Are you calling 2004 a good season? I'll give you 2003, since the end result was pretty decent, but hell, his 2004 was better than 2003, or, it would have been, had he not given up 8 homeruns. I know you arent calling 2002 a good season. Or 2001, since he only tossed 16 innings. We wont even get into 1997-2001, since he was either garbage or starting.

[Blueheart05]

People cry when Hendry does something, people cry when he doesen't do something.

 

If you THINK you can do a better job, you're fooling yourself. The FA market is VERY thin, and the Cubs need to improve their bullpen. Our bullpen the last two seasons has absolutely sucked terribly. We've mostly had young pitchers, who can't even utter the phrase "big game." This gives us a BIG GAME PROVEN pitcher, with good stats. This is a move for desperation, and Hendry didn't want to banter back and forth with 3 other teams lobbying for the same guy.

 

Kerry Wood. Games 1 and 5, 2003 NLDS. Entire month of September 2003.

Carlos Zambrano. ERA below 3 after the ASB from 2004-5.

Mark Prior: Games 3 NLDS, Game 2 NLCS.

 

I think your hyperbole got ahead of the facts.

 

And actually, there are a few members here at NSBB I think could do an effective job at being a GM. Also, I'm not sure how Scott Eyre qualifies as a "big game proven pitcher". He's a reliever. He's not a closer. He's not a starter. He's a setup guy at best, Those guys don't win you divisions.

 

Unfortunately, I have to disagree on your last point. A good setup guy or guys can be the difference between winning and losing. Look no further than the Sox to see how valuable relievers like Politte (and to some extent Cotts) can be as a bridge to the closer.

Politte was at best mediocre, at worst crappy in every single season of his career before 2005. Cotts's ERA went from 5.65 in 04 to 1.94 this year.

 

I'm not saying they weren't valuable in 2005, I'm just pointing out that neither of those guys should have been expected to be a bridge to anywhere except mediocrity.

 

One addendum to that:

 

Usually, teams that win have really good bullpens? Why? Because they aren't exposed as often as bad team's bullpens are, because winning teams almost always have starting pitching that gets you to the 7th inning. If a team can stay out of their middle relief, chances are they can win a lot of games.

 

Both points are valid but career numbers and having a solid starting rotation notwithstanding, middle relief/setup/closer are all valuable. The starters won't finish most games and even sparingly used relievers can be bad (either because they are just ineffective or rusty). A good setup man can be the difference between winning and losing. Unfortunately, with a starting staff like the Cubs (high strikeouts/high pitch counts and walks) middle relief in the 6th and 7th innings will be important.

[badger1679666666]

Okay, disregarding any notion of performance, we just gave a 33 year old relief pitcher 3 years and 8 figures. That's pretty bad unless the person is lights out. Unfortunately for us, the only time he's really been above average is this year. At least Remlinger and Hawkins had more than one good season of good performance when they got long term deals.

And so has Eyre.

 

Lol, when? those 16 great innings in 2001? I guess you mean 2003, when he struck out 35 in 60+ innings.

No, this is what I mean...

 

Even though many on this board, myself included until I took a closer look, would consider that Eyre really has only had one good season, the stats would indicate otherwise.

 

From 2002-2004 (not including that supposedly one good season), Eyre allowed batters to hit .229/.308/.342 against him. Lefties hit .200/.264/.302 while righties were a bit better at .252/.343/.375. He was fairly consistent throughout the year except for the month of August for some reason. But in the stretch month of September in 2002-04, he posted an ERA of 1.17, a WHIP of 1.20 while striking out more than a batter per inning.

 

The numbers also show steady improvement since being diagnosed with attention deficit disorder in 2002 at the age of 30 indicating that with improved ability to focus, he is figuring out how to be more and more successful. His WHIP has steadily improved every year since the diagnosis.

 

In 2004, Eyre showed the ability to get righties out at a good enough rate to be used as more than just a loogy. That ability continued through last season when Scott shutdown lefty batters to tune of .182/.270/.242 while righties could only manage .213/.290/.319.

 

Eyre has also shown durability. He has appeared in 70, 74, 83 and 86 games over the last four seasons respectively. On a team that has been snake bit by injury the past couple of seasons, including in the bullpen (Remy, JoBo, etc.) his durability will be a valuable commodity and something a lot of posters on this board criticized Hendry for not having enough of on the roster last season.

 

Veteran players get paid more than younger ones, it is a fact of life. Eyre has paid his dues and steadily improved over the last three seasons. He is a lefty reliever who is more than just a loogy and has shown the ability to perform well under pressure (he faced over 160 batters in "close and late" conditions last year, and they batted .195 against him). Williamson is still a question mark and after him, the only veteran in the pen is Dempster. The Cubs needed a veteran presence in their bullpen and that is going to cost a few million a year to get.

 

So is Eyre a good signing at this price? If he performs at an average between his 2004 and 2005 performances then, yes. If he reverts to 2002, then no.

Sometimes, it pays to look a little deeper.

 

Are you calling 2004 a good season? I'll give you 2003, since the end result was pretty decent, but hell, his 2004 was better than 2003, or, it would have been, had he not given up 8 homeruns. I know you arent calling 2002 a good season. Or 2001, since he only tossed 16 innings. We wont even get into 1997-2001, since he was either garbage or starting.

 

Why comment that he's garbage or starting if you aren't gonna get into a time period 5-8 years ago?

[imb]

Okay, disregarding any notion of performance, we just gave a 33 year old relief pitcher 3 years and 8 figures. That's pretty bad unless the person is lights out. Unfortunately for us, the only time he's really been above average is this year. At least Remlinger and Hawkins had more than one good season of good performance when they got long term deals.

And so has Eyre.

 

Lol, when? those 16 great innings in 2001? I guess you mean 2003, when he struck out 35 in 60+ innings.

No, this is what I mean...

 

Even though many on this board, myself included until I took a closer look, would consider that Eyre really has only had one good season, the stats would indicate otherwise.

 

From 2002-2004 (not including that supposedly one good season), Eyre allowed batters to hit .229/.308/.342 against him. Lefties hit .200/.264/.302 while righties were a bit better at .252/.343/.375. He was fairly consistent throughout the year except for the month of August for some reason. But in the stretch month of September in 2002-04, he posted an ERA of 1.17, a WHIP of 1.20 while striking out more than a batter per inning.

 

The numbers also show steady improvement since being diagnosed with attention deficit disorder in 2002 at the age of 30 indicating that with improved ability to focus, he is figuring out how to be more and more successful. His WHIP has steadily improved every year since the diagnosis.

 

In 2004, Eyre showed the ability to get righties out at a good enough rate to be used as more than just a loogy. That ability continued through last season when Scott shutdown lefty batters to tune of .182/.270/.242 while righties could only manage .213/.290/.319.

 

Eyre has also shown durability. He has appeared in 70, 74, 83 and 86 games over the last four seasons respectively. On a team that has been snake bit by injury the past couple of seasons, including in the bullpen (Remy, JoBo, etc.) his durability will be a valuable commodity and something a lot of posters on this board criticized Hendry for not having enough of on the roster last season.

 

Veteran players get paid more than younger ones, it is a fact of life. Eyre has paid his dues and steadily improved over the last three seasons. He is a lefty reliever who is more than just a loogy and has shown the ability to perform well under pressure (he faced over 160 batters in "close and late" conditions last year, and they batted .195 against him). Williamson is still a question mark and after him, the only veteran in the pen is Dempster. The Cubs needed a veteran presence in their bullpen and that is going to cost a few million a year to get.

 

So is Eyre a good signing at this price? If he performs at an average between his 2004 and 2005 performances then, yes. If he reverts to 2002, then no.

Sometimes, it pays to look a little deeper.

 

Are you calling 2004 a good season? I'll give you 2003, since the end result was pretty decent, but hell, his 2004 was better than 2003, or, it would have been, had he not given up 8 homeruns. I know you arent calling 2002 a good season. Or 2001, since he only tossed 16 innings. We wont even get into 1997-2001, since he was either garbage or starting.

 

Why comment that he's garbage or starting if you aren't gonna get into a time period 5-8 years ago?

 

Because he was garbage, or starting, and in neither case was he any good, so obviously CubsWin wasnt counting those seasons as anything positive.

[CubsWin]

Are you calling 2004 a good season? I'll give you 2003, since the end result was pretty decent, but hell, his 2004 was better than 2003, or, it would have been, had he not given up 8 homeruns.

The ERA in '04 wasn't great. Probably due in part to the 8 homeruns. But his periphal numbers weren't as bad as his ERA would suggest.

 

He had a 1.30 WHIP in '04. That's not bad. Batters didn't hit all that well against him. He started getting righties out better in '04 if memory serves. He has steadily improved since being diagnosed with ADD 3 years ago, so the numbers he put up in '02 and earlier need to be seen within the context that he was suffering from an inability to concentrate. His periphal numbers have gotten consistently better and he has maintained and increased durability over the last 3 years. He is more than just a loogy. He is a veteran with numbers that show he performs well under pressure. He isn't 37 like Remy was when the Cubs signed him.

 

I think all of the above refutes your original comment about Eyre. But I could be wrong.

[CubsWin]

Because he was garbage, or starting, and in neither case was he any good, so obviously CubsWin wasnt counting those seasons as anything positive.

He was also dealing with undiagnosed attention deficit disorder. He first started to get treatment for it when he was 30 years old and has steadily improved his ability to get batters out ever since.

 

So looking at everything prior to that diagnosis and subsequent treatment with the proper perspective would help in understanding Eyre's true worth as a reliever.

[CubfaninCA]

I love this site, I just feel there are double standards on the "nicknames" for players, and how regular posters get away with alot more than new ones. But I will admit my fault, I shouldn't have made that comment on this thread, we are talking about Eyre here.

 

Where else have ripped on how the site is run? :?:

A) I don't think I've seen anyone use "dumpster" in a derogatory way since 2004, which is well before the ban on such names.

B) there should be a double standard in a community this small between long time posters and newbies. The mods here know the people with thousands of posts. They know their general intentions and know if they can be trusted to reign it in if they're instructed to do so. There is a VERY GOOD REASON THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LAW. We have the sort of legal system ENTIRELY because we live in a society where most people do not know most other people they may run into. It's simply not a good idea to apply to this sort of community because the judges actually know everyone involved in the incidents they moderate.

 

shouldn't the long time posters set the example?? if someone w/ 10000 posts is constantly flaming, someone w/ 100 posts probably thinks it's ok to act up as well.

someone with 10k posts constantly flaming? If one of those 8 posters (6 of whom are mods/admin) is a constant flamer in a way that detracts from the board, you should say something. No one is going to get to 10k posts (or become a mod) if they spend their time sniping at people. They'll be told off at some point.

 

omg you looked it up. wow! that's hardcore. :) i'll just phrase it as "regulars."

 

Actually, if they want to gripe and snipe, that's cool. However, things should be called down the middle. Allowing double standards just ticks off people.

[Careless]

ritalin can make you pitch better?

 

 

Where's my minor league contract????

[CubsWin]

ritalin can make you pitch better?

 

 

Where's my minor league contract????

I know the league will be testing for amphetamines next season. Let's hope Ritalin isn't also on the list. :wink:

 

His treatment is a lot more than just drugs, though. I read an interesting article about it. Its a little dry, but for those interested in understanding more...

 

Link

[CaliforniaRaisin]

There's a lot of sniping and bickering going on in this thread, please drop it. If you have a problem with a poster or you think there are double standards, etc., please take it up with a mod by PMing one of us so we know.

[Careless]

ritalin can make you pitch better?

 

 

Where's my minor league contract????

I know the league will be testing for amphetamines next season. Let's hope Ritalin isn't also on the list. :wink:

 

His treatment is a lot more than just drugs, though. I read an interesting article about it. Its a little dry, but for those interested in understanding more...

 

Link

Well, ritalin=methamphetimine, I wouldn't be surprised

 

But really, where's my ritalin? it vanished on friday

[mhuber92211]

well, reading the first few pages before dinner and then coming back and seeing 16 more pages added, I can only guess at the content.

 

Would this be accurate to describe to general consenus?

Posters dislike the money & years spent. Posters don't understand the move when the team already has 2 LH pen options and people are calling for Hendry's head.

 

For all the head scratchers, I ask this question...

 

Will this signing prevent the team from making any future moves and is this player a worse option then what we currently have on the team?

 

I answer both questions no. Therefore, no matter the outcome of this signing, I will not call for the GM's head for signing relief help and I will not call other posters names.

[brinoch]

I love this site, I just feel there are double standards on the "nicknames" for players, and how regular posters get away with alot more than new ones. But I will admit my fault, I shouldn't have made that comment on this thread, we are talking about Eyre here.

 

Where else have ripped on how the site is run? :?:

A) I don't think I've seen anyone use "dumpster" in a derogatory way since 2004, which is well before the ban on such names.

B) there should be a double standard in a community this small between long time posters and newbies. The mods here know the people with thousands of posts. They know their general intentions and know if they can be trusted to reign it in if they're instructed to do so. There is a VERY GOOD REASON THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LAW. We have the sort of legal system ENTIRELY because we live in a society where most people do not know most other people they may run into. It's simply not a good idea to apply to this sort of community because the judges actually know everyone involved in the incidents they moderate.

 

shouldn't the long time posters set the example?? if someone w/ 10000 posts is constantly flaming, someone w/ 100 posts probably thinks it's ok to act up as well.

 

Again, if you think someone is flaming/being flamed, PM an online mod and point it out, or wait 'til we see it. We'll then take care of it. I doesn't matter if the poster has 100 or 10,000; we'll reign them in. And, for the record, the vast majority of warnings, cautions, and reminders take place via PM and the board-at-large doesn't see them. Just because it wasn't publicly stated doesn't mean it wasn't dealt with.

 

Additionally, we get testy in threads as well, though we try to be even-handed. We've all done it. We're human. If you feel a mod unjustly came down on you -- politely open a dialogue via PM with the mod. No one will bite your head off, and it can only help things. More communication is good.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

mhuber--

 

Since you don't want to read the thread....it would be inaccurate to say all posters are disappointed with the Eyre signing, and/or the terms of the deal. In fact, some are quite pleased with the signing and the attention Hendry is giving to the bullpen. And at least one poster hopes he isn't finished with bullpen changes.... :wink:

[NorthsideAvenger]

Scott Eyre will make $3 million next year and $4 million in 2007 under the terms of his three-year deal. His player option for 2008 is worth $4 million. Eyre will also receive annual bonuses of $100,000 for 70 appearances and an additional $200,000 if he pitches in 80 games. There is also wording that would give him additional money should he become the Cubs' closer, though there's no reason to expect that to happen. Also, a no-trade clause is included in the deal Nov. 18 - 2:35 am et

Source: The Associated Press

 

 

If the breakdown of Eyre contract has been posted, then I apologize, but the bolded area gave me :shock: ](*,) . When does a solid, but unspectular reliever get a "no-trade clause?" Something tells me, the Cubs were the only team to even offer a no trade clause.

[Bgbird68]

Scott Eyre will make $3 million next year and $4 million in 2007 under the terms of his three-year deal. His player option for 2008 is worth $4 million. Eyre will also receive annual bonuses of $100,000 for 70 appearances and an additional $200,000 if he pitches in 80 games. There is also wording that would give him additional money should he become the Cubs' closer, though there's no reason to expect that to happen. Also, a no-trade clause is included in the deal Nov. 18 - 2:35 am et

Source: The Associated Press

 

 

If the breakdown of Eyre contract has been posted, then I apologize, but the bolded area gave me :shock: ](*,) . When does a solid, but unspectular reliever get a "no-trade clause?" Something tells me, the Cubs were the only team to even offer a no trade clause.

 

No trade clause ?????????

 

Is that a common relief pitcher contract clause ???

[CuseCubFan69]

Scott Eyre will make $3 million next year and $4 million in 2007 under the terms of his three-year deal. His player option for 2008 is worth $4 million. Eyre will also receive annual bonuses of $100,000 for 70 appearances and an additional $200,000 if he pitches in 80 games. There is also wording that would give him additional money should he become the Cubs' closer, though there's no reason to expect that to happen. Also, a no-trade clause is included in the deal Nov. 18 - 2:35 am et

Source: The Associated Press

 

 

If the breakdown of Eyre contract has been posted, then I apologize, but the bolded area gave me :shock: ](*,) . When does a solid, but unspectular reliever get a "no-trade clause?" Something tells me, the Cubs were the only team to even offer a no trade clause.

 

No trade clause ?????????

 

Is that a common relief pitcher contract clause ???

 

I wonder if Perez has one too.

[Guest]

UK (among other posters) has pointed out that Eyre has given up fewer hits than inngings pitched over the last few years, making his BAA stats look impressive. While that's certainly true, A closer examination of Eyre's stats makes me even more wary of him.

 

First of all, while Eyre's H/9 is pretty good, he still walks quite a few people. His career BB/9 is over 4.5, and he's only had a BB/9 lower than 4.0 once in the past few years (2005). So he still allows his fair share of baserunners, though not a lot of them have ended up scoring. Why is that? Well, ignoring whatever effect subsequent Giants relievers may have had on the runners they inherited from Eyre, I think SBC itself may hold the answer. Eyre gives up a LOT of fly balls. His K rate is generally no better than average, though it was up last season. In addition, his GB/FB ratio shows a pronounced lean to the FB side, allowing 25-30% more balls in the air than on the ground over the past couple of years. Now this is a good and bad thing: Flyballs drop for hits less often than grounders, so that's a big reason why Eyre's BAA has been as good as it has. Unfortunately fly balls are also the ones that leave the park, so flyball pitchers also tend to give up HR.

 

What does this have to do with SBC? Well, SBC is a very forgiving ballpark towards pitchers, particularly to those pitchers who primarily face left-handed hitters. Right and right-center fields are absolutely cavernous, turning quite a few balls that would have been HR in smaller parks (such as Wrigley) into routine flyouts. Dodger stadium and later PetCo are also death to long flyballs, though I suppose the opposite could be said of Coors and the BOB. Still, I think parks are a big reason for Eyre's success (at least as far as ERA and BAA go) since coming to SF.

 

2005 was a very solid year all-round for him, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that he can continue that success over the life of this contract. I'm just not too convinced he will maintain that success. The list of players who enjoy prolonged success after first "figuring it out" in their mid-30s has got to be pretty small, I'd think. Furthermore, Eyre is a reliever who allows a lot of baserunners via the walk, doesn't strike out a particularly impressive number of batters, and one who appears as if he may be prone to allowing the longball if he were to move to a less forgiving stadium. I don't know about you, but that recipe doesn't sound too appealing to me. (Particularly after the waiter brings me the check.)

 

That being said: Prove me wrong Scott... prove me wrong. ;)

[CubinNY]

Eyre is a reliever who allows a lot of baserunners via the walk

 

He should fit right in.

[CuseCubFan69]

Eyre is a reliever who allows a lot of baserunners via the walk

 

He should fit right in.

 

I thinks it's ironic that Hendry is getting these guys that can catch the ball but yet gets a pitcher that walks them. As far as I know there is no defense for a walk.

[Guest]

Eyre is a reliever who allows a lot of baserunners via the walk

 

He should fit right in.

 

I thinks it's ironic that Hendry is getting these guys that can catch the ball but yet gets a pitcher that walks them. As far as I know there is no defense for a walk.

C'mon Cuse... hasn't Baker taught you anything? Allowing all those walks IS defense. With all those runners bottling up the basepaths how can anybody score?

 

I must apologize for going to that well again. Sorry.

[CubinNY]

I must apologize for going to that well again. Sorry.

 

The well is very deep and full of it, if you know what I mean.