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

[YearofDaCubs]

Per Bruce Levine ESPN 1000 the deal for Howry is done pending physical next week. 3 year $12mm. Will be announced next week. Now lets get some bats.

 

Hmm. $6m/yr locked up in 2 relievers?

Whatever, I was resigned to this a couple days ago. If Hendry signs/trades for an impact OF, all will be forgiven, in my eyes, anyway.

 

Lot of $ but heading into spring training you gotta like Eyre, Howry and Dempster a lot better that Remlinger, Hawkins and Borowski.

With Williamson healthy I believe we will have a very good bullpen.

[JeffH]

Was Williams added to SF's 40-man in 2002 or 2003? If it was 2003 he still has an option to burn, but if it was in 2002 he'd be out of options, as well.

 

I don't know if Williams has an option left, but it's possible that, even if he does, he has enough service time that you'd have to pass him through revocable waivers before optioning him to the minors.

 

Please refer to Corey Patterson, summer 2005.

 

I don't know if Williams is over whatever threshold that is, but it's something to keep in mind.

[CuseCubFan69]

IMO Hendry is paying a lot for the pen in order to move a lot of young pitching in a trade(s). I'm hoping among hope that he gets 2 impact bats.

 

Manny, Huff, Dunn, Kearns?????

 

That one is for us to guess and Hendry to know. He has to be setting himself up for something because he paid a lot of cash for these guys and seems intent on trying to Dusty proof the pen with Vets.

 

I'd like Abreu, Dunn, Giles or Manny. I consider Kearns and Huff as second tier OF's. I would also like one of those guys to be able to crush righties.

[JWCUB]

IMO Hendry is paying a lot for the pen in order to move a lot of young pitching in a trade(s). I'm hoping among hope that he gets 2 impact bats.

 

Manny, Huff, Dunn, Kearns?????

 

That one is for us to guess and Hendry to know. He has to be setting himself up for something because he paid a lot of cash for these guys and seems intent on trying to Dusty proof the pen with Vets.

 

I'd like Abreu, Dunn, Giles or Manny. I consider Kearns and Huff as second tier OF's. I would also like one of those guys to be able to crush righties.

 

IMO, the order I would go is Manny, Abreu, Dunn. I just have a gut feeling that one of those 3 will be in the outfield wearing a Cubbie uniform :D

[E.J.]

So is this a done deal now?

[JWCUB]

So is this a done deal now?

 

Yes, pending physical next week. Per Bruce Levine 3 years $12mm.

[craig]

Pitchers, on the other hand, don't have a lot of influence over balls in play -- once a hitter makes contact the play is pretty much out of the hurler's control. Strikeouts, therefore, about the only significant positive contribution they can make to the defense.A pitcher can be successful without a high K rate, but he needs to have really good control and be able to keep the ball in the park to do so.

 

Keeper, what have the studies shown about OPSBIP versus BABIP? We know that BABIP is tightly bunched given a decent sample size. But do groundball pitchers tend to allow more singles and fewer doubles than flyball pitchers? Just wondering.

 

K's are important, but as you noted they don't come in a vacuum. HR's-allowed and BB's are also key variables, as you noted. Howry has been great for his walks the last two years, and this past his HR's-allowed were excellent.

 

I don't think those three variables are independent. A nibbling approach, trying to make unhittable pitch is good for raising K's (good), but also correlates an increased number of walks allowed (bad). Keeping the ball down may be good for limiting HR's and walks, but throwing high 4-seamers may be good for K'ing people... but also may raise the HR-allowed. Throwing a lot of curveballs is good for K's... but may raise the walks (hard to control all the curves) and may also raise the HR's (some curveballs willl be hangers). A heavy diet of sinking fastballs and sliders (that aren't necessarily sharp untouchable sliders) may be poor for K's, but may be excellent for limiting walks and HR's allowed.

 

I'm not suggesting this is true for you, Keeper. But I think sometimes saber fans realize how important K's are, and get too preoccupied with the K's. If the K's are compromised by too many HR's (Dotel and Prior, for example), the guy may not be as good as you'd expect. If the K's are compromised by too many walks (classic Wood?), the guy may not be quite as great as you'd expect.

 

Howry's walks have been so low that is he can sustain that, he doesn't need high K's to remain effective. His BABIP last year was flukishly low, but even with normal rate he'd still be pretty good... as long as his walks stayed so low. I'm actually more concerned that his HR-allowed were so uncharacteristically low. (Same goes for Eyre and Dempster. All three of those cats have histories as HR-pitchers, but all three last year were strongly anti-HR. Will that repeat? Maybe yes, but maybe no...) If his BABIP and HR-allowed return to normal, Howry should still be a solid guy. But he may not be a sub-3 ERA guy.

[CubfaninCA]

IMO Hendry is paying a lot for the pen in order to move a lot of young pitching in a trade(s). I'm hoping among hope that he gets 2 impact bats.

 

Manny, Huff, Dunn, Kearns?????

 

That one is for us to guess and Hendry to know. He has to be setting himself up for something because he paid a lot of cash for these guys and seems intent on trying to Dusty proof the pen with Vets.

 

I'd like Abreu, Dunn, Giles or Manny. I consider Kearns and Huff as second tier OF's. I would also like one of those guys to be able to crush righties.

 

Seems like Floyd's an ideal guy for the Cubs. He has a 1 year left on his contract @ $6.5 mil. He's a LH bat who can bat between Lee and ARam. His health is a concern, but that makes him perfect for this organization.

[Diffusion]

Anyway, regarding the significance of strikeout rate...

 

Individual strikeout rate vs ERA, 1993-2002

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/images/2617_01.gif

Source: Baseball Prospectus

 

That's called correlation. Negative correlation, actually. Essentially, what that graph shows is that pitchers with lower ERAs on average strikeout more batters. It's not a co-incidence. More strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean fewer hits allowed. And fewer hits allowed mean fewer runs allowed. A strikeout is an out every single time. A ball in play, well, it could go just past the dive of your shortstop with lousy range.

 

I bet if they did the same study with other stats, they'd find the same correlation though. WHIP, hits, walks, would all have a similar correlation as strikeouts, perhaps with a slightly higher standard deviation.

 

Yes. Of course you'd find the exact same thing if you did it with walks allowed, or hits allowed. That's exactly the point. Not allowing hits and not allowing walks, and not allowing home runs above all else, all fantastic things to do if your goal is run prevention, and if you're a pitcher, it normally is. So if striking batters out produces the exact same correlation as not allowing hits and walks, and not allowing hits and walks is a good way to prevent runs, a tiny bit of logic leads you to the conclusion that striking batters out is a good way to prevent runs too, no?

 

I at no stage said that striking batters out was the only way to prevent runs, which would be necessary for your response to undermine my argument (as it is, as I've shown above, all it does is back it up). Quite obviously it's not the case that the only thing that matters is strikeout rate. Home runs, walks and batted ball types (groundballs/flyballs/line drives) are all also important, in that order. And for the most part, there's not a huge amount of correlation between strikeouts and those three other factors.

 

I agree that high K rates are a good predictor for future success, but pedestrian K rates isn't necessarily a good predictor of future mediocrity. Maddux was only putting up around 6-7 Ks/9IP during his cy young years. Phil Niekro is in the Hall of Fame with pedestrian K rates throughout his career. Baseball history is littered with examples of guys without the stellar K rates that excelled. Some guys don't have the ability to make guys miss all of the time, but they know how to get guys to take defensive swings and put the ball in play without getting good wood on it. That is a valuable skill set that some pitchers have, some don't.

 

Greg Maddux succeeded because he did a superb job of limiting home runs and walks. As a result, to score a run off him, you needed to put together multiple hits before he got three outs, which is harder to do than you might imagine, particularly against a groundball pitcher that can fall back on the double play. He didn't succeed because he had any particular skill at preventing hits on balls in play...

 

Greg Maddux, career

4406.1 IP, 4082 H, 298 HR, 907 BB, 3052 K, 3.02 ERA, 3.31 FIPS, 2.37 GB/FB, .284 BABIP

 

The major league average BABIP from 1986-2004 (I can't include 2005 since the Lahman database hasn't been updated yet as far as I know, but it's effect is likely to be extremely marginal, at the very most adding maybe a point, no more) was .290. Ahoy, matey, there's a great big hole in your argument: Greg Maddux was a whopping six points better than the league average at preventing hits on balls in play. So his success had nothing to do with no good wood on the ball, and nothing to do with defensive swings, but everything to do with the fact he prevented home runs, he prevented walks, and, as a groundball pitcher, he got his double plays. That very high groundball rate, incidentally, is almost certainly the biggest reason behind Maddux's ERA undercutting his FIPS by three tenths of a run even over such a massive sample size. The failure of FIPS to take into account batted ball types is its biggest flaw. And it's not that big.

 

One other thing, knuckleballers are a totally different kettle of fish, for completely obvious reasons.

Edited November 23, 2005 by Diffusion

[CuseCubFan69]

IMO Hendry is paying a lot for the pen in order to move a lot of young pitching in a trade(s). I'm hoping among hope that he gets 2 impact bats.

 

Manny, Huff, Dunn, Kearns?????

 

That one is for us to guess and Hendry to know. He has to be setting himself up for something because he paid a lot of cash for these guys and seems intent on trying to Dusty proof the pen with Vets.

 

I'd like Abreu, Dunn, Giles or Manny. I consider Kearns and Huff as second tier OF's. I would also like one of those guys to be able to crush righties.

 

Seems like Floyd's an ideal guy for the Cubs. He has a 1 year left on his contract @ $6.5 mil. He's a LH bat who can bat between Lee and ARam. His health is a concern, but that makes him perfect for this organization.

 

Do you consider Floyd an impact guy like the 4 I mentioned? His injury and lack of defense kind of worry me. I think that Manny and Dunn supply enough offense to make up for their lack of skills in the field while Giles and Abreu can play decent defense.

 

Do you think the Mets would want to move Floyd now that Cameron is gone? I agree that his bat would be nice in the Cub lineup.

[JWCUB]

IMO Hendry is paying a lot for the pen in order to move a lot of young pitching in a trade(s). I'm hoping among hope that he gets 2 impact bats.

 

Manny, Huff, Dunn, Kearns?????

 

That one is for us to guess and Hendry to know. He has to be setting himself up for something because he paid a lot of cash for these guys and seems intent on trying to Dusty proof the pen with Vets.

 

I'd like Abreu, Dunn, Giles or Manny. I consider Kearns and Huff as second tier OF's. I would also like one of those guys to be able to crush righties.

 

Seems like Floyd's an ideal guy for the Cubs. He has a 1 year left on his contract @ $6.5 mil. He's a LH bat who can bat between Lee and ARam. His health is a concern, but that makes him perfect for this organization.

I'm just not sold on Floyd. His numbers are decent, but everytime I see him he just doesn't impress me. Don't know why. Maybe I'm just really stuck on the Manny,Abreu,Dunn idea. When I think of an "impact bat", those 3 come to mind real fast and real often.

[YearofDaCubs]

IMO Hendry is paying a lot for the pen in order to move a lot of young pitching in a trade(s). I'm hoping among hope that he gets 2 impact bats.

 

Manny, Huff, Dunn, Kearns?????

 

That one is for us to guess and Hendry to know. He has to be setting himself up for something because he paid a lot of cash for these guys and seems intent on trying to Dusty proof the pen with Vets.

 

I'd like Abreu, Dunn, Giles or Manny. I consider Kearns and Huff as second tier OF's. I would also like one of those guys to be able to crush righties.

Floyd should be our backup plan. I'm not opposed to Floyd being here but his injury history is terrible. We still need to upgrade our 1-2 positions.

 

Seems like Floyd's an ideal guy for the Cubs. He has a 1 year left on his contract @ $6.5 mil. He's a LH bat who can bat between Lee and ARam. His health is a concern, but that makes him perfect for this organization.

I'm just not sold on Floyd. His numbers are decent, but everytime I see him he just doesn't impress me. Don't know why. Maybe I'm just really stuck on the Manny,Abreu,Dunn idea. When I think of an "impact bat", those 3 come to mind real fast and real often.

Floyd should be our backup plan. I'm not opposed to Floyd being here but his injury history is terrible. We still need to upgrade our 1-2 positions.

[WrigleyinEngland]

Judging by what the fish took off the Mets for Delgardo we should be able to get Floyd for a bag of nuts and a couple of Macias's!!!!

[Diffusion]

Anyway, regarding the significance of strikeout rate...

 

Individual strikeout rate vs ERA, 1993-2002

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/images/2617_01.gif

Source: Baseball Prospectus

 

That's called correlation. Negative correlation, actually. Essentially, what that graph shows is that pitchers with lower ERAs on average strikeout more batters. It's not a co-incidence. More strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean fewer hits allowed. And fewer hits allowed mean fewer runs allowed. A strikeout is an out every single time. A ball in play, well, it could go just past the dive of your shortstop with lousy range.

 

So why doesn't that hold true for hitters? Prospectus are the same people who believe that a strikeout for a hitter is the same as any other out, right?

 

I'm not trying to be contrarian ... I just want to know what the difference is.

 

A perfectly good question. And the first thing to say is that sadly Baseball Prospectus' thinking on this matter is very poorly explained. They take big logical steps, logical steps that for the most part are sound, but, because they don't explain them properly, they only confuse people.

 

The first thing to note is that the strikeout in itself is every bit as bad for a hitter as it's good for a pitcher. The reasoning is exactly the same. A strikeout is an out every time (well, incredibly rare passed balls and AJ Pierzynski not withstanding), and each and every time it fails to advance the runners. A ball in play, on the other hand, is not always turned into an out. As I explained before, that may because your shortstop has lousy range, your second baseman doesn't have good hands, your third baseman throws it away, your man in centre takes roundabout routes. It could be because it's just hit into a spot where your fielders aren't, and where no fielder could possibly be, and there's nothing you can do about it. It could dribble down the third base line, it could bloop just inbetween infield and outfield, or it could roll to your shortstop's right and third baseman's left, or wherever. And in a lot of those cases, it's normally the case that everyone has done their job, the pitcher's executed his pitch perfectly, the fielders were set up right and were on their toes, they did their best, no avail. It happens. Or the ball could just be smoked, and no-one even saw it before it landed in for a hit. Whatever. A strikeout is an out. A ball in play could be anything. Sometimes it's an out. Sometimes it's not. Who knows.

 

Therefore, as a hitter, overlooking for now home runs, which technically aren't a ball in play, in an at-bat (note a distinction between at-bat and plate appearance being made here), it's better every time to hit the ball, and to not strikeout. You hit .000 on a strikeout. You'll hit somewhere around .280-.320 these days on a ball in play. And you'll hit 1.000 on a home run. The more you strike out, the lower your batting average. And the lower your batting average, if everything else stays the same, the lower your all-important on-base percentage and the lower your slugging percentage. That's why the strikeout in itself is a bad thing for a hitter, always has been, is now, ever shall be.

 

The trouble is, the story doesn't end here. Whereas the strikeout for a pitcher is invariably the by-product of just flat out nasty unhittable stuff, for a hitter, the reasons behind the strikeout are very different. The strikeout is not always the product of sheer incompetence with the bat. Instead, it is often the by-product of certain approaches at the plate, approaches that, in spite of the damaging strikeouts, can, on the whole, result in a net positive. What approaches are these? Well, there are above all two main ones - 1) working deep into counts, being comfortable enough hitting with two strikes, being willing to take pitches, even if they're relatively close and 2) swinging hard, swinging with the intention of hitting for power, trying to pull the ball. Players that take one of, or both of, these approaches at the plate are a lot more susceptible to striking out. However, all of the bad of the strikeouts is often completely overwhelmed by the good of the walks and the extra-base hits and home runs. As a result, because of the same approaches to hitting that are causing them to strike out, hitters on the whole can be considerably more productive.

 

The Baseball Prospectus line on strikeouts leaves out a lot of this reasoning. Instead they've boiled it down to..."the strikeout doesn't matter at all/the strikeout isn't a bad thing because all the best players (ie. those that hit for power and display a lot of patience) tend to strike out a lot". This is very misleading. The strikeout does matter, and it is a bad thing, and it's no co-incidence that the very best hitters in the game, Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols etc. are able to combine all the power and patience you could possibly want while barely striking out at all. It's just that the bad strikeouts can be easily be compensated for, and more besides, by the good of walks and extra-base hits and home runs that owe their existence to the same style of hitting. And if changing a player's game to limit their strikeouts led to you compromising their power and patience, it wouldn't be worth it. As such, you are generally better off putting up with the strikeouts from your hitters.

[Diffusion]

Pitchers...don't have a lot of influence over balls in play -- once a hitter makes contact the play is pretty much out of the hurler's control.

 

I agree with the gist of your argument, but I wouldn't go quite that far. Pitchers do have quite considerable control over the types of batted balls that they allow - groundballs, flyballs, line drives etc. They have enough control over it that, for instance, your money is pretty safe if you bet on Carlos Zambrano having a higher GB/FB ratio that Mark Prior next year, or Glendon Rusch allowing the most line drives, or whatever.

[Diffusion]

If this signing happens, we have the following guaranteed in the bullpen:

 

Dempster, Williamson, Howry, and Eyre. (This is with Rusch in the rotation.)

 

If we go with a seven man pen, which I believe is a bad idea, we have three spots for the following candidates:

Ohman, Wuertz, Novoa, Williams, Hill, Wellemeyer, JVB, Mitre and Koronka. A trade of at least one, if not two or three of those guys, must be in the works. Mitre, Ohman, and Wellemeyer are all out of options. Hill and Williams could be used as starters at AAA however.

 

My guess is Ohman, Wuertz and Novoa round out the pen. Hill is likely at AAA and Welly and Mitre and likeluy Williams are on the trade block.

Was Williams added to SF's 40-man in 2002 or 2003? If it was 2003 he still has an option to burn, but if it was in 2002 he'd be out of options, as well.

 

Williams was added to the 40-man roster on November 20th 2002. He burned his first option year in 2003. However, he was not optioned to the minor leagues during the 2004 season, and so his demotion in 2005 only burnt his second option year. As a result, he has one option year remaining.

[jtownie]

Can someone help me out, sorry if this was addressed already....but don't the Cubs still have to make a roster move to add Eyre? If so, now 2 moves need to be made. Since the GM meetings are next week is it reasonable to think a trade is coming so taht we can add both guys and potentially Furcal?

[Guest]

Keeper, what have the studies shown about OPSBIP versus BABIP? We know that BABIP is tightly bunched given a decent sample size. But do groundball pitchers tend to allow more singles and fewer doubles than flyball pitchers? Just wondering.

Good question, but I'm not sure I can give you an answer. Historically, official stats haven't keep track of a pitcher's TB allowed, so computing a pitcher's SLG is a bit difficult for the masses of data you'd need to study the question properly.

 

I'm not suggesting this is true for you, Keeper. But I think sometimes saber fans realize how important K's are, and get too preoccupied with the K's.

Nah, it's probably me as well. I'd say I definitely have a K fetish. ;) Still, I don't think I'm too infatuated with the strikeout that I'm blind to other considerations. I remember I was apalled when the Cubs acquired Randolph last offseason, despite the fact that he had a decent K rate.

 

I'm actually more concerned that his HR-allowed were so uncharacteristically low. (Same goes for Eyre and Dempster. All three of those cats have histories as HR-pitchers, but all three last year were strongly anti-HR.

Dempstser's uncharacteristically low HR rate was probably my biggest concern when re re-signed him as well. It's possible some of that decrease was due to his role switch, but when you post a HR/9 that's a mere fraction of your career average chances are it's not going to last. I've also expressed concern over Eyre's GB/FB rate, and what effect it might have once he moves away from the pitcher-friendly parks of the NL West.

 

I won’t be furious with Howry’s signing if and when it happens. He’ll probably be a decent reliever, particularly if he can continue pitching like he has since his injury. I don’t think he’ll continue putting up ERA’s around 2.50, but it’s not so farfetched that he’ll be able to keep it down in the mid-3.00’s.

 

My biggest issue with the recent bullpen signings is an issue of funding and priority. We’d have about $13 million tied up in three relievers who aren’t exactly of the lights-out variety. They also leave us with a slew of young arms and not enough places to put them. Given the choice, I’d rather go with a cheaper, younger bullpen and spend the extra cash shoring up my everyday lineup and/or starting rotation. It’s possible that Hendry will still be able to address the offensive holes with his remaining funds, and if he does then I can live with a pricey bullpen. If it means we have an opening-day outfield of Murton-Lofton-Jones/Burnitz, however, I’ll consider the signings to be an ill-advised waste of precious resources.

[Magnetic Curses]

Pitchers...don't have a lot of influence over balls in play -- once a hitter makes contact the play is pretty much out of the hurler's control.

 

I agree with the gist of your argument, but I wouldn't go quite that far. Pitchers do have quite considerable control over the types of batted balls that they allow - groundballs, flyballs, line drives etc. They have enough control over it that, for instance, your money is pretty safe if you bet on Carlos Zambrano having a higher GB/FB ratio that Mark Prior next year, or Glendon Rusch allowing the most line drives, or whatever.

 

and why i predict ryan dempster to have a good year at closer.

[CubfaninCA]

IMO Hendry is paying a lot for the pen in order to move a lot of young pitching in a trade(s). I'm hoping among hope that he gets 2 impact bats.

 

Manny, Huff, Dunn, Kearns?????

 

That one is for us to guess and Hendry to know. He has to be setting himself up for something because he paid a lot of cash for these guys and seems intent on trying to Dusty proof the pen with Vets.

 

I'd like Abreu, Dunn, Giles or Manny. I consider Kearns and Huff as second tier OF's. I would also like one of those guys to be able to crush righties.

 

Seems like Floyd's an ideal guy for the Cubs. He has a 1 year left on his contract @ $6.5 mil. He's a LH bat who can bat between Lee and ARam. His health is a concern, but that makes him perfect for this organization.

 

Do you consider Floyd an impact guy like the 4 I mentioned? His injury and lack of defense kind of worry me. I think that Manny and Dunn supply enough offense to make up for their lack of skills in the field while Giles and Abreu can play decent defense.

 

Do you think the Mets would want to move Floyd now that Cameron is gone? I agree that his bat would be nice in the Cub lineup.

 

Floyd's on the next tier below Abreu, Manny, Dunn and Giles. Although his slugging was a little better than Giles. Floyd plays in a pitcher's park too...

 

Abreu, Manny, Giles and Dunn will come @ big prices, either money wise or prospect wise. Just have a feeling the Cubs will opt for the cheaper option and spread the money around to SS and a starting pitcher. However, I think they'll take a long look @ the top tier guys, so a deal for Floyd could come in January after all the dominos fall. Jmo but Manny's the top domino, and I think Anaheim gets either Manny or Giles.

 

This lineup would be pretty solid: Pierre, Furcal, Lee, Floyd, ARam, Barret, Murton, Neifi/Cedeno...

[Mike Aller]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

[NorthsideAvenger]

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

You're asking for Cubs fans to be "positive"? You're not asking for too much out of Cubs fans. :roll:

[Bruno7481]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

His OBP and OPS aren't high enough for most around here :P

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

Howry is a good reliever, and last year he had a career year. Unless you have an absolutely dominating reliever(Howry is not, there aren't many), it makes very little sense to give them 3 years and 12 million dollars, given the unpredictability of relief pitching.

[frostwyrm]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

You seem to think Howry has turned a corner in his career at age 32. No one here disputes that Howry had a career year, but do you actually believe that one year represents what he is likely to do in the future?