Howry signs with Cubs (yes, it's official)

[CubsWin]

So you're a big fan of Eyre's 4.10 ERA in 2004? I'm glad you're happy spending that kind of money on peformance you can get at league minimum.

 

I'm not.

 

Scott Eyre, 3-year trend, ERA: 3.32, 4.10, 2.63; WHIP: 1.51, 1.33, 1.08; BAA: .268, .219, .200

 

And the splits are even better, since Dusty will likely use Eyre more against LH batters:

 

2003--WHIP 1.14, BAA .219; 2004--WHIP 0.95, BAA .200; 2005--WHIP 1.04, BAA .182.

 

Yup, looks terribly inconsistent and unpredictable to me.

He apparently started taking the meds in 2002. You forgot his 4.46 ERA from that year. Ooohhh. I'm all aquiver with excitement.

Treating ADHD takes time. It is more than just popping a pill and magically you are all better. There are lifestyle adjustments. Learning to manage this disease over time is a large part of the treatment (for those who aren't paying attention).

[nolanwood]

I don't consider the money we spent on Eyre or will spend on Howry as bad news at all. I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow it. I'd say throwing Howry and Eyre in the mix along with a complete season of Dempster closing will pick us up another 12-15 wins. And I'd rather spend that money on two proven veterans than dump it all and more on Wagner or Ryan. Now, if we pick up a legitimate lead off hitter with some speed, a solid bat for the OF, and a stud pitcher we should be looking really good.

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen.

 

 

Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent.

The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006.

 

 

Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd.

Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF.

 

 

I'm sorry, but Brian Giles alone isn't going to win the Cubs many games...he can hit 2 home runs in the first 6 innings, but when Novoa comes in and blows the lead, those Brian Giles homers means nothing. We have consisently been in the upper echelon of run scoring the last few years, and it doesn't get us anywhere. On the contrary, our bullpen has sucked big time and look where that got us.....

 

We need to protect that dominant pitching staff in the later innings, which is something we have failed to do the last couple years.

:-k

 

Cubs Rank in MLB:
                2002   2003   2004   2005
Runs Scored       22     20     16     20
Bullpen Runs      25     16     15     19

I'm not sure I can agree with your point...

 

Take a second to examine the overall pitching and offensive stats for the 4 contenders in the AL postseason this year, and you'll obtain a clearer picture of the value of offense/pitching.

 

Blowing over 1/3 of the money we have on one outfielder isn't going to solve the problem.

lol - If you look at the stats of the AL playoff teams in other years it tells a different story. So what?

 

Baseball is a simple game. You have to score more than the other team. Scoring runs = 50%, preventing runs = 50%. Preventing runs is split between pitching and defense. Pitching is split between starting (majority) and bullpen (minority). The bullpen is split between 6-7 guys (under Dusty).

 

Spending $3M on a single reliever isn't the answer, either.

 

The $10M on the OF will help a heck of a lot more.

 

LOL

Edited November 22, 2005 by nolanwood

[Tim]

So you're a big fan of Eyre's 4.10 ERA in 2004? I'm glad you're happy spending that kind of money on peformance you can get at league minimum.

 

I'm not.

 

Scott Eyre, 3-year trend, ERA: 3.32, 4.10, 2.63; WHIP: 1.51, 1.33, 1.08; BAA: .268, .219, .200

 

And the splits are even better, since Dusty will likely use Eyre more against LH batters:

 

2003--WHIP 1.14, BAA .219; 2004--WHIP 0.95, BAA .200; 2005--WHIP 1.04, BAA .182.

 

Yup, looks terribly inconsistent and unpredictable to me.

He apparently started taking the meds in 2002. You forgot his 4.46 ERA from that year. Ooohhh. I'm all aquiver with excitement.

Treating ADHD takes time. It is more than just popping a pill and magically you are all better. There are lifestyle adjustments. Learning to manage this disease over time is a large part of the treatment (for those who aren't paying attention).

And your explanation for this stud of a pitcher putting up a 4.1 ERA in 2004 is....

[CubsWin]

Good lord. 7 premium pages already without Howry even being signed. Must be some good arguing going on. :D

Or just a lot of bad arguing. :wink:

[NorthsideAvenger]

I don't care too much about having a statisical debate, to me that is a waste of time and effort, what I see is both Eyre and Howry are solid additons to a bullpen that the rotation would have love to lynched last yr. Overpaid, yes. Overvalued, no. I like the fact that Eyre and possibly Howry are going to be Cubs, and not Astro or the Cards.

[Tim]

I don't consider the money we spent on Eyre or will spend on Howry as bad news at all. I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow it. I'd say throwing Howry and Eyre in the mix along with a complete season of Dempster closing will pick us up another 12-15 wins. And I'd rather spend that money on two proven veterans than dump it all and more on Wagner or Ryan. Now, if we pick up a legitimate lead off hitter with some speed, a solid bat for the OF, and a stud pitcher we should be looking really good.

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen.

 

 

Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent.

The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006.

 

 

Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd.

Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF.

 

 

I'm sorry, but Brian Giles alone isn't going to win the Cubs many games...he can hit 2 home runs in the first 6 innings, but when Novoa comes in and blows the lead, those Brian Giles homers means nothing. We have consisently been in the upper echelon of run scoring the last few years, and it doesn't get us anywhere. On the contrary, our bullpen has sucked big time and look where that got us.....

 

We need to protect that dominant pitching staff in the later innings, which is something we have failed to do the last couple years.

:-k

 

Cubs Rank in MLB:
                2002   2003   2004   2005
Runs Scored       22     20     16     20
Bullpen Runs      25     16     15     19

I'm not sure I can agree with your point...

 

Take a second to examine the overall pitching and offensive stats for the 4 contenders in the AL postseason this year, and you'll obtain a clearer picture of the value of offense/pitching.

 

Blowing over 1/3 of the money we have on one outfielder isn't going to solve the problem.

lol - If you look at the stats of the AL playoff teams in other years it tells a different story. So what?

 

Baseball is a simple game. You have to score more than the other team. Scoring runs = 50%, preventing runs = 50%. Preventing runs is split between pitching and defense. Pitching is split between starting (majority) and bullpen (minority). The bullpen is split between 6-7 guys (under Dusty).

 

Spending $3M on a single reliever isn't the answer, either.

 

The $10M on the OF will help a heck of a lot more.

 

LOL

Nice argument. Very persuasive.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Its not like the Cubs are lacking money to spend on offense now that they "supposedly" signed Howry. The bullpen is shaping up quite nicely and Hendry still has roughly $20M and some nice trading chips to get some offense.

 

Yep. Even if Howry signs at $4MM/year, based on earlier analysis, we estimate Hendry would have anywhere from $21MM to $26MM in MORE money to spend. And he still has all of his trading chips. Walker, Williams, Hairston, Patterson, Novoa, and the youngsters in the minors.

 

There is nothing stopping the Cubs from doing this bullpen upgrade, AND signing Rafael Furcal for SS and leadoff, AND signing Brian Giles or trading for Bobby Abreu (as two examples), AND trading for a new CF.

 

The only thing that gets precluded is bringing in a big name starting pitcher, and if Hendry concluded he doesn't like Millwood or Burnett, and doesn't think he can put together a trade package for someone like Beckett or Barry Zito, then he goes with what he already has and focuses on the bullpen and offense. I can dig that.

 

Again, my only complaint so far is Rusch and especially, Neifi. I would really like to have Neifi's $2.5MM back to spend on two quality outfielders for my bench (for example), but there you are. Dusty <3 Neifi, can't do anything about that until he gets fired.

[sethuel1]

Just to make one additional point on the "how would signing Giles help the team that much" argument before I drop it.

 

Brain Giles had an MLVr of .302 last year. This means that, compared to a league average player, Giles contributed three tenths of a run more per game. Burnitz's MLVr:.012. Basically he was league average. So to have Giles over Burnitz gives an extra three runs over ten games. 49 runs a year. Significant.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Wow, it's great to have you back posting, Tim.

 

And like Eyre, I don't mind signing Howy, but not at 3 years or over at that sort of money. You could combine the money for Eyre and Howry and be more than halfway to Brian Giles or BJ Ryan.

 

And let's not forget Howry's injury past.

[nolanwood]

I don't consider the money we spent on Eyre or will spend on Howry as bad news at all. I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow it. I'd say throwing Howry and Eyre in the mix along with a complete season of Dempster closing will pick us up another 12-15 wins. And I'd rather spend that money on two proven veterans than dump it all and more on Wagner or Ryan. Now, if we pick up a legitimate lead off hitter with some speed, a solid bat for the OF, and a stud pitcher we should be looking really good.

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen.

 

 

Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent.

The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006.

 

 

Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd.

Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF.

 

 

I'm sorry, but Brian Giles alone isn't going to win the Cubs many games...he can hit 2 home runs in the first 6 innings, but when Novoa comes in and blows the lead, those Brian Giles homers means nothing. We have consisently been in the upper echelon of run scoring the last few years, and it doesn't get us anywhere. On the contrary, our bullpen has sucked big time and look where that got us.....

 

We need to protect that dominant pitching staff in the later innings, which is something we have failed to do the last couple years.

:-k

 

Cubs Rank in MLB:
                2002   2003   2004   2005
Runs Scored       22     20     16     20
Bullpen Runs      25     16     15     19

I'm not sure I can agree with your point...

 

Take a second to examine the overall pitching and offensive stats for the 4 contenders in the AL postseason this year, and you'll obtain a clearer picture of the value of offense/pitching.

 

Blowing over 1/3 of the money we have on one outfielder isn't going to solve the problem.

lol - If you look at the stats of the AL playoff teams in other years it tells a different story. So what?

 

Baseball is a simple game. You have to score more than the other team. Scoring runs = 50%, preventing runs = 50%. Preventing runs is split between pitching and defense. Pitching is split between starting (majority) and bullpen (minority). The bullpen is split between 6-7 guys (under Dusty).

 

Spending $3M on a single reliever isn't the answer, either.

 

The $10M on the OF will help a heck of a lot more.

 

LOL

Nice argument. Very persuasive.

 

There was obviously no attempt at further argument - no need for any smartass remarks pal. We're seeing this from difference sides, and it is apparent. I'm a cub fan, just like you, and we both want the same thing - a team that wins. There's no need to persue it any longer.... Thanks!

[Tim]

I don't consider the money we spent on Eyre or will spend on Howry as bad news at all. I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow it. I'd say throwing Howry and Eyre in the mix along with a complete season of Dempster closing will pick us up another 12-15 wins. And I'd rather spend that money on two proven veterans than dump it all and more on Wagner or Ryan. Now, if we pick up a legitimate lead off hitter with some speed, a solid bat for the OF, and a stud pitcher we should be looking really good.

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen.

 

 

Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent.

The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006.

 

 

Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd.

Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF.

 

 

I'm sorry, but Brian Giles alone isn't going to win the Cubs many games...he can hit 2 home runs in the first 6 innings, but when Novoa comes in and blows the lead, those Brian Giles homers means nothing. We have consisently been in the upper echelon of run scoring the last few years, and it doesn't get us anywhere. On the contrary, our bullpen has sucked big time and look where that got us.....

 

We need to protect that dominant pitching staff in the later innings, which is something we have failed to do the last couple years.

:-k

 

Cubs Rank in MLB:
                2002   2003   2004   2005
Runs Scored       22     20     16     20
Bullpen Runs      25     16     15     19

I'm not sure I can agree with your point...

 

Take a second to examine the overall pitching and offensive stats for the 4 contenders in the AL postseason this year, and you'll obtain a clearer picture of the value of offense/pitching.

 

Blowing over 1/3 of the money we have on one outfielder isn't going to solve the problem.

lol - If you look at the stats of the AL playoff teams in other years it tells a different story. So what?

 

Baseball is a simple game. You have to score more than the other team. Scoring runs = 50%, preventing runs = 50%. Preventing runs is split between pitching and defense. Pitching is split between starting (majority) and bullpen (minority). The bullpen is split between 6-7 guys (under Dusty).

 

Spending $3M on a single reliever isn't the answer, either.

 

The $10M on the OF will help a heck of a lot more.

 

LOL

Nice argument. Very persuasive.

 

There was obviously no attempt at further argument - no need for any smartass remarks pal. We're seeing this from difference sides, buddy, and it is apparent. I'm a cub fan, just like you, and we both want the same thing - a team that wins. There's no need to persue it any longer.... Thanks!

I see. So you can try to end the argument by using a belittling "LOL". But you get touchy when there's a comeback.

 

Gotcha. Noted for future conversations. Have a nice night!

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Just to make one additional point on the "how would signing Giles help the team that much" argument before I drop it.

 

Brain Giles had an MLVr of .302 last year. This means that, compared to a league average player, Giles contributed three tenths of a run more per game. Burnitz's MLVr:.012. Basically he was league average. So to have Giles over Burnitz gives an extra three runs over ten games. 49 runs a year. Significant.

 

I don't understand. Has anyone actually argued that they WOULDN'T want Giles on the Cubs? Hard to believe anyone feels that way. The choices I saw were signing Giles versus trading for Abreu, which to me, given our team needs for OBP and RF power production, is like being asked to choose between New York cheesecake and chocolate cheesecake, or in a more adult situation, between a blonde and a redhead. You know what? Either will do. :-)

[Tim]

Wow, it's great to have you back posting, Tim.

 

And like Eyre, I don't mind signing Howy, but not at 3 years or over at that sort of money. You could combine the money for Eyre and Howry and be more than halfway to Brian Giles or BJ Ryan.

 

And let's not forget Howry's injury past.

One week only for the posting. Of course, I'm also stuck up late at nights waiting to talk to the subcontractors in India.

 

fun days.

[nolanwood]

I don't consider the money we spent on Eyre or will spend on Howry as bad news at all. I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow it. I'd say throwing Howry and Eyre in the mix along with a complete season of Dempster closing will pick us up another 12-15 wins. And I'd rather spend that money on two proven veterans than dump it all and more on Wagner or Ryan. Now, if we pick up a legitimate lead off hitter with some speed, a solid bat for the OF, and a stud pitcher we should be looking really good.

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen.

 

 

Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent.

The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006.

 

 

Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd.

Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF.

 

 

I'm sorry, but Brian Giles alone isn't going to win the Cubs many games...he can hit 2 home runs in the first 6 innings, but when Novoa comes in and blows the lead, those Brian Giles homers means nothing. We have consisently been in the upper echelon of run scoring the last few years, and it doesn't get us anywhere. On the contrary, our bullpen has sucked big time and look where that got us.....

 

We need to protect that dominant pitching staff in the later innings, which is something we have failed to do the last couple years.

:-k

 

Cubs Rank in MLB:
                2002   2003   2004   2005
Runs Scored       22     20     16     20
Bullpen Runs      25     16     15     19

I'm not sure I can agree with your point...

 

Take a second to examine the overall pitching and offensive stats for the 4 contenders in the AL postseason this year, and you'll obtain a clearer picture of the value of offense/pitching.

 

Blowing over 1/3 of the money we have on one outfielder isn't going to solve the problem.

lol - If you look at the stats of the AL playoff teams in other years it tells a different story. So what?

 

Baseball is a simple game. You have to score more than the other team. Scoring runs = 50%, preventing runs = 50%. Preventing runs is split between pitching and defense. Pitching is split between starting (majority) and bullpen (minority). The bullpen is split between 6-7 guys (under Dusty).

 

Spending $3M on a single reliever isn't the answer, either.

 

The $10M on the OF will help a heck of a lot more.

 

LOL

Nice argument. Very persuasive.

 

There was obviously no attempt at further argument - no need for any smartass remarks pal. We're seeing this from difference sides, buddy, and it is apparent. I'm a cub fan, just like you, and we both want the same thing - a team that wins. There's no need to persue it any longer.... Thanks!

I see. So you can try to end the argument by using a belittling "LOL". But you get touchy when there's a comeback.

 

Gotcha. Noted for future conversations. Have a nice night!

 

No.....I just show up when there's some action around here and try to stir crap with fellow cub fans.....

[Tim]

Just to make one additional point on the "how would signing Giles help the team that much" argument before I drop it.

 

Brain Giles had an MLVr of .302 last year. This means that, compared to a league average player, Giles contributed three tenths of a run more per game. Burnitz's MLVr:.012. Basically he was league average. So to have Giles over Burnitz gives an extra three runs over ten games. 49 runs a year. Significant.

 

I don't understand. Has anyone actually argued that they WOULDN'T want Giles on the Cubs? Hard to believe anyone feels that way. The choices I saw were signing Giles versus trading for Abreu, which to me, given our team needs for OBP and RF power production, is like being asked to choose between New York cheesecake and chocolate cheesecake, or in a more adult situation, between a blonde and a redhead. You know what? Either will do. :-)

Actually, there was a poster in this thread that was saying Giles wasn't the answer, but Eyre/Howry are.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

It would be helpful if some posters would stop doing nested upon nested upon nested replies. Cut and delete the old inner posts please, as a courtesy to other readers? Thanks.

[Tim]

It would be helpful if some posters would stop doing nested upon nested upon nested replies. Cut and delete the old inner posts please, as a courtesy to other readers? Thanks.

Think high speed internet... :D

 

It also helps to turn off signatures.

[nolanwood]

Actually, there was a poster here that claimed that 10+ for Giles with nothing left to address the other team needs was money not as well spent as picking up 2 quality relievers for 5 mil......

[Mark_R]

Think high speed internet... :D

 

It also helps to turn off signatures.

 

I have both and it is still a major annoyance. Smart post Don.

[CubsWin]

So you're a big fan of Eyre's 4.10 ERA in 2004? I'm glad you're happy spending that kind of money on peformance you can get at league minimum.

 

I'm not.

 

Scott Eyre, 3-year trend, ERA: 3.32, 4.10, 2.63; WHIP: 1.51, 1.33, 1.08; BAA: .268, .219, .200

 

And the splits are even better, since Dusty will likely use Eyre more against LH batters:

 

2003--WHIP 1.14, BAA .219; 2004--WHIP 0.95, BAA .200; 2005--WHIP 1.04, BAA .182.

 

Yup, looks terribly inconsistent and unpredictable to me.

He apparently started taking the meds in 2002. You forgot his 4.46 ERA from that year. Ooohhh. I'm all aquiver with excitement.

Treating ADHD takes time. It is more than just popping a pill and magically you are all better. There are lifestyle adjustments. Learning to manage this disease over time is a large part of the treatment (for those who aren't paying attention).

And your explanation for this stud of a pitcher putting up a 4.1 ERA in 2004 is....

Okay, Mr. Sarcasm, I never called him a stud. If you have such good stats supporting your position there is no need to put words in anyone's mouth, is there?

 

My explanation is he gave up an inordinant amount of HRs that season (8 to a normal 3 or 4). Maybe there were men on base when he gave them up. Whatever the case, his ERA didn't match the batting averages and OPS he allowed in '04. Those seemed to improve a bit over the previous season, IIRC. So I took it as another year in a trend of improvement since receiving his diagnosis and treatment.

 

ERA is just one stat. One stat never shows a complete picture, you know that.

 

Also, you stated earlier that Eyre allowed a ridiculously low number of HRs last season when you were trying to prove that he was just lucky. He gave up 4 in '02 and '03 and gave up 3 in '05. That number isn't low, it appears to be normal, just one below his normal rate if you consider that '04 is the aberration which it appears to be.

 

Also, while I completely agree that Hendry appears to be spending quite a bit on relievers that aren't studs, you never addressed my point that no one knows what the Cubs payroll will be this coming season. With the bleacher expansion and the greater number of very popular tickets to be sold this year, can anyone say with any certainty just how much Hendry has been approved to spend on his players? The size of these contracts only matters if Hendry fails to spend on other positions because he tapped himself out on the bench and bullpen.

[WrigleyField 22]

lol - If you look at the stats of the AL playoff teams in other years it tells a different story. So what?

 

Baseball is a simple game. You have to score more than the other team. Scoring runs = 50%, preventing runs = 50%. Preventing runs is split between pitching and defense. Pitching is split between starting (majority) and bullpen (minority). The bullpen is split between 6-7 guys (under Dusty).

 

Spending $3M on a single reliever isn't the answer, either.

 

The $10M on the OF will help a heck of a lot more.

 

I'm not neccessarily saying signing these relievers is a good thing. And I do view an impact RF as a necessity.

 

But if you are gonna take away the importance of each bullpen by spreading his worth over the other 5-6 guys in the pen, you should do the same for RF.

 

hitting is 1/2, one player contributes 1/8 of that 1/2 or 1/16 to the team total. BP on the same type of rating would come out to about 1/36, depending on how much importance you place on the value of defense vs. pitching and starters vs. relievers.

 

Technically a RF also adds to run prevention, but lets be honest we aren't looking for that. If you really wanna add in defense their importance is maybe 1/12.

 

So a guy who contributes 1/12 to the team contributes 3times as much as the guy who contributes 1/36. So their salary should be 3 times as much. 3mil reliever x 3= 9mil RF.

 

Now actually using such a system to actually evaluate how much to give players is ridiculous. I think you would agree. Plus it would be much more complicated.

 

EDIT- kinda unrelated. But it helps the reading if you cut out quotes that occured 5 pages ago. It is usually pretty sufficent to have just the last thing you are quoting shown. It gets pretty annoying to scroll through all that. So for courtesy of poster trying to read, I request that everyone tries to do so. (At another site I visit, they automatically snip quotes. Any chance you could set something like that up Tim?)

Edited November 22, 2005 by WrigleyField 22

[David]

Some of you might want to show the admin of this site a little more respect. :?

 

He deserves it. :)

[Tim]

So you're a big fan of Eyre's 4.10 ERA in 2004? I'm glad you're happy spending that kind of money on peformance you can get at league minimum.

 

I'm not.

 

Scott Eyre, 3-year trend, ERA: 3.32, 4.10, 2.63; WHIP: 1.51, 1.33, 1.08; BAA: .268, .219, .200

 

And the splits are even better, since Dusty will likely use Eyre more against LH batters:

 

2003--WHIP 1.14, BAA .219; 2004--WHIP 0.95, BAA .200; 2005--WHIP 1.04, BAA .182.

 

Yup, looks terribly inconsistent and unpredictable to me.

He apparently started taking the meds in 2002. You forgot his 4.46 ERA from that year. Ooohhh. I'm all aquiver with excitement.

Treating ADHD takes time. It is more than just popping a pill and magically you are all better. There are lifestyle adjustments. Learning to manage this disease over time is a large part of the treatment (for those who aren't paying attention).

And your explanation for this stud of a pitcher putting up a 4.1 ERA in 2004 is....

Okay, Mr. Sarcasm, I never called him a stud. If you have such good stats supporting your position there is no need to put words in anyone's mouth, is there?

 

My explanation is he gave up an inordinant amount of HRs that season (8 to a normal 3 or 4). Maybe there were men on base when he gave them up. Whatever the case, his ERA didn't match the batting averages and OPS he allowed in '04. Those seemed to improve a bit over the previous season, IIRC. So I took it as another year in a trend of improvement since receiving his diagnosis and treatment.

 

ERA is just one stat. One stat never shows a complete picture, you know that.

 

Also, you stated earlier that Eyre allowed a ridiculously low number of HRs last season when you were trying to prove that he was just lucky. He gave up 4 in '02 and '03 and gave up 3 in '05. That number isn't low, it appears to be normal, just one below his normal rate if you consider that '04 is the aberration which it appears to be.

 

Also, while I completely agree that Hendry appears to be spending quite a bit on relievers that aren't studs, you never addressed my point that no one knows what the Cubs payroll will be this coming season. With the bleacher expansion and the greater number of very popular tickets to be sold this year, can anyone say with any certainty just how much Hendry has been approved to spend on his players? The size of these contracts only matters if Hendry fails to spend on other positions because he tapped himself out on the bench and bullpen.

I have no idea how much Hendry's gong to spend overall. But there's no sense whatsoever wasting large chunks of money and making long-term roster commitments to pitchers who are nothing more than a slight improvement over what we already have available whatever the budget is set at.

 

Now you're putting words in my mouth with the HR rate, now. I said he was well below his career norm (I resevered the word ridiculous for the BABIP rates of Howry and Eyre in 2005). And it was well below that rate. Keep in mind, he's pitching at SBC, too.

[nolanwood]

Some of you might want to show the admin of this site a little more respect. :?

 

He deserves it. :)

 

 

I believe you should get what you give....

[Tim]

Some of you might want to show the admin of this site a little more respect. :?

 

He deserves it. :)

Nah, I like the arguing. Haven't gotten much of it lately. :D

 

Besides, everyone is entitled to express their opinion. They're also welcome to defend it against criticism. I expressed my opinion and now I'm defending it.

 

Howry and Eyre don't suck. But they're not much better than what we have in house. And there's nothing that ticks me off faster than a GM spending a big chunk of payroll and committing roster spots over the next few years to guys as likely to tank as thrive.