Yankees and Jays zeroing in on Giles: Jays offer 5/55

[goonys evil twin]

I agree with you in regards to Ryan - he's ahd quality #'s the last 3 years. However, it has been shown time and time again that regardless of the success a pitcher has had in the 7th and 8th innings, the transition to closer can be a whole different realm. Granted, Ryan definitely had success this year as a closer, but no moreso than Dempster did. AND, at this point in the game, both Dempster and Ryan have only been closing games for one season - compare their #'s. And one year as a closer shouldn't bring that kinda money. I also don't think the save is the most overrated aspect of the game either. If that 9th inning pitcher can't come in and hold the lead at the biggest pressure point in the game, those previous 8 innings are worthless. I think the only overrated aspect in regards to a closer is the amount of $ they bring.

 

Ryan was much better than Dempster. While you might think it's been shown time and time again that no matter how well you pitch in the 7th and 8th, the 9th is different, I will contend the exact opposite and say that most pitchers who are able to dominate with great peripherals in the 7th and 8th can adjust to do the same in the 9th. BJ has done just that, with far superior numbers to Dempster.

 

If a great pitcher comes in in the 9th and shuts down the heart of the opposition's lineup 1, 2, 3, it would be worthless if a second rate pitcher already gave up the lead in the 8th. Games can be won and lost in any inning. Ryan has been a great pitcher for 3 years, far superior to Dempster and there is no indication that he can't handle the supposed pressures of the closer's role.

[frostwyrm]

At 5/55 I think we can say the Cubs are officially out of the bidding.

[YearofDaCubs]

5 year offer to Giles is just crazy.

[CubinNY]

At 5/55 I think we can say the Cubs are officially out of the bidding.

 

I don't think the Cubs were ever "officially" in the bidding.

[CubfaninCA]

At 5/55 I think we can say the Cubs are officially out of the bidding.

 

Am glad that Jim has put his time elsewhere.

[CuseCubFan69]

At 5/55 I think we can say the Cubs are officially out of the bidding.

 

Am glad that Jim has put his time elsewhere.

 

I am too as it looks as it looks this has gotten a little out of hand. I guess it pays to be the only impact OF out there in the free agent market.

[nolanwood]

I agree with you in regards to Ryan - he's ahd quality #'s the last 3 years. However, it has been shown time and time again that regardless of the success a pitcher has had in the 7th and 8th innings, the transition to closer can be a whole different realm. Granted, Ryan definitely had success this year as a closer, but no moreso than Dempster did. AND, at this point in the game, both Dempster and Ryan have only been closing games for one season - compare their #'s. And one year as a closer shouldn't bring that kinda money. I also don't think the save is the most overrated aspect of the game either. If that 9th inning pitcher can't come in and hold the lead at the biggest pressure point in the game, those previous 8 innings are worthless. I think the only overrated aspect in regards to a closer is the amount of $ they bring.

 

Ryan was much better than Dempster. While you might think it's been shown time and time again that no matter how well you pitch in the 7th and 8th, the 9th is different, I will contend the exact opposite and say that most pitchers who are able to dominate with great peripherals in the 7th and 8th can adjust to do the same in the 9th. BJ has done just that, with far superior numbers to Dempster.

 

If a great pitcher comes in in the 9th and shuts down the heart of the opposition's lineup 1, 2, 3, it would be worthless if a second rate pitcher already gave up the lead in the 8th. Games can be won and lost in any inning. Ryan has been a great pitcher for 3 years, far superior to Dempster and there is no indication that he can't handle the supposed pressures of the closer's role.

 

Would you mind comparing Dempster's #'s as a closer in '05 to Ryan's.....

 

I could be misunderstood.....

 

I agree as well that games can be lost just as easily in the 7th and 8th innings as well, which is why I was very pleased with the signings of Eyre and Howry. However, I can probably name just as many successful set-up relievers that didnt have the stuff to handle the pressure in the 9th as you can name guys that made the transistion successfully. There is no denying that the pressure situation in the 9th is a whole different realm.

 

Again, I'm not claiming that Ryan doesnt have the makeup to get the job done for years to come (or for that matter that he wasnt successful), just that he was paid WAY to much money for the job he's done thus far.

[WrigleyinEngland]

Absolutely no way i give giles 5 years, don't like some romours i'm hearing about cardinals and abreu.

[cubbyvirus00]

Ive been saying all along, that Giles was gonna get a MEGA offer. Did anyone think he woulden't? Yanks, Red Sox, Jays, Mets, Cards.......all teams being powerhouses, with lots of money aval, and who needed an impact OF.

 

 

Moveon.org

[goonys evil twin]

Again, I'm not claiming that Ryan doesnt have the makeup to get the job done for years to come (or for that matter that he wasnt successful), just that he was paid WAY to much money for the job he's done thus far.

 

You don't pay a guy for the job he's done thus far, you pay him for what he's likely to do under the new contract. Ryan's peripherals suggest he'll have no trouble maintaining dominance over the next few years. He was not paid too much money. If you want to argue years, go ahead. I would have gone 3/30 on either Wagner or Ryan. Their numbers are great, and blow away Dempster.

[nolanwood]

Again, I'm not claiming that Ryan doesnt have the makeup to get the job done for years to come (or for that matter that he wasnt successful), just that he was paid WAY to much money for the job he's done thus far.

 

You don't pay a guy for the job he's done thus far, you pay him for what he's likely to do under the new contract. Ryan's peripherals suggest he'll have no trouble maintaining dominance over the next few years. He was not paid too much money. If you want to argue years, go ahead. I would have gone 3/30 on either Wagner or Ryan. Their numbers are great, and blow away Dempster.

 

I don't recall ever mentioning the sucess of Wagner, or arguing the terms of his contract, so that is ultimately irrelevant. Wagner has shown dominance as a closer over YEARS.

 

Yes, I've examined both Ryan's and Dempster's #'s as a closer, and I've still yet to determine how Ryan "blows away" Dempster in the closer category. Yes, I agree you pay somebody based upon the #'s they are likely to produce, I just think that another year under Ryan's belt as a closer would further signify that he's worthy of throwing up those numbers for years to come.

[RynoRules]

Fine with me...Get him out of the NL and not in a Cardinal uniform.

 

I am glad Hendry didn't throw that offer on the table for Giles... The BJ's will not like this deal in the long run.

 

Agreed. I can live with 3 for 33 or something near that number.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't recall ever mentioning the sucess of Wagner, or arguing the terms of his contract, so that is ultimately irrelevant. Wagner has shown dominance as a closer over YEARS.

 

Yes, I've examined both Ryan's and Dempster's #'s as a closer, and I've still yet to determine how Ryan "blows away" Dempster in the closer category. Yes, I agree you pay somebody based upon the #'s they are likely to produce, I just think that another year under Ryan's belt as a closer would further signify that he's worthy of throwing up those numbers for years to come.

 

It's irrelevent just because you didn't bring it up before? That doesn't make sense to me. Ryan is as good as Wagner, and younger.

 

Unfortunately for your scenario, Ryan was a free agent this year, not next year. Why does he need 1 more year? His peripherals are outstanding and they did not take a hit after moving to closer. He blows away hitters, keeps them off base and doesn't give up runs. He did it as a set-up man and as a closer. He doesn't have to prove anything. Dempster got the job done, but he was not dominant, often teetering on the edge because he walks more and lets more guys on base, without being able to dominate with the strikeout. He relies on his defense, and is far less proven than BY Ryan is. BJ can dominate on his own. He's better.

[nolanwood]

I don't recall ever mentioning the sucess of Wagner, or arguing the terms of his contract, so that is ultimately irrelevant. Wagner has shown dominance as a closer over YEARS.

 

Yes, I've examined both Ryan's and Dempster's #'s as a closer, and I've still yet to determine how Ryan "blows away" Dempster in the closer category. Yes, I agree you pay somebody based upon the #'s they are likely to produce, I just think that another year under Ryan's belt as a closer would further signify that he's worthy of throwing up those numbers for years to come.

 

It's irrelevent just because you didn't bring it up before? That doesn't make sense to me. Ryan is as good as Wagner, and younger.

 

Unfortunately for your scenario, Ryan was a free agent this year, not next year. Why does he need 1 more year? His peripherals are outstanding and they did not take a hit after moving to closer. He blows away hitters, keeps them off base and doesn't give up runs. He did it as a set-up man and as a closer. He doesn't have to prove anything. Dempster got the job done, but he was not dominant, often teetering on the edge because he walks more and lets more guys on base, without being able to dominate with the strikeout. He relies on his defense, and is far less proven than BY Ryan is. BJ can dominate on his own. He's better.

 

agree to disagree....cause this could go on all day long.....

 

 

I never maintained that Ryan wasn't a quality closer or that his stuff wasn't excellent.

 

It is irrelevAnt that you brought Wagner into the discussion - comparing a guy who's been closing for one year to somebody of Wagner's stature. Wagner's #'s this year were considerably better than Ryan's, and he has 284 career saves compared to Ryan's whopping 42.

Edited November 29, 2005 by nolanwood

[UMFan83]

5/55 for Giles when the Cubs will probably throw 5/60 at an inferior player (who might help in more areas, but I believe he won't help more performance wise)

 

Hendry is not my homeboy

[RockTheIvy]

5/55 for Giles when the Cubs will probably throw 5/60 at an inferior player (who might help in more areas, but I believe he won't help more performance wise)

 

Hendry is not my homeboy

 

At least the money will go to a player entering his prime. 5/55 for Giles is crazy, IMO. I love Giles, I would go 3 years though, maybe an option.

[CheeseHead Cubs Fan]

5/55 for Giles when the Cubs will probably throw 5/60 at an inferior player (who might help in more areas, but I believe he won't help more performance wise)

 

Hendry is not my homeboy

 

Hendry might not, but Furcal and his Rocket arm will be :)

[CubfaninCA]

At 5/55 I think we can say the Cubs are officially out of the bidding.

 

Am glad that Jim has put his time elsewhere.

 

I am too as it looks as it looks this has gotten a little out of hand. I guess it pays to be the only impact OF out there in the free agent market.

 

Perhaps Hendry learned his lesson w/ Ordonez. Should have figured something ridiculous would be offered to Giles considering the insane contract Ordonez got last year. I just figured NY would throw something outrageous at him. Still time I guess.

[CubfaninCA]

5/55 for Giles when the Cubs will probably throw 5/60 at an inferior player (who might help in more areas, but I believe he won't help more performance wise)

 

Hendry is not my homeboy

 

Who they throwing 5 and 60 at?? The Cubs have never given a 5 year contract btw.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs have never given a 5 year contract btw.

 

They've also never won a World Series since well before WWI.

 

At some point, they have to get over their supposedly responsible stance on contract length and actuallly acquire impact players.

[Balsa]

The Cubs have never given a 5 year contract btw.

 

They've also never won a World Series since well before WWI.

 

At some point, they have to get over their supposedly responsible stance on contract length and actuallly acquire impact players.

 

They've also never pitched an entire game with firstbasemen. Your response was illogical. There are a number of things the Cubs have never done since they won the World Series. I seriously doubt that not offering 5 year contracts had anything to do with that. Besides, it's only recently that the Cubs have become a big-market team.

[Balsa]

The Cubs have never given a 5 year contract btw.

 

They've also never won a World Series since well before WWI.

 

At some point, they have to get over their supposedly responsible stance on contract length and actuallly acquire impact players.

 

They've also never pitched an entire game with firstbasemen. Your response was illogical. There are a number of things the Cubs have never done since they won the World Series. I seriously doubt that not offering 5 year contracts had anything to do with that. Besides, it's only recently that the Cubs have become a big-market team.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs have never given a 5 year contract btw.

 

They've also never won a World Series since well before WWI.

 

At some point, they have to get over their supposedly responsible stance on contract length and actuallly acquire impact players.

 

They've also never pitched an entire game with firstbasemen. Your response was illogical. There are a number of things the Cubs have never done since they won the World Series. I seriously doubt that not offering 5 year contracts had anything to do with that. Besides, it's only recently that the Cubs have become a big-market team.

 

My response was illogical? In what way. The Cubs have a stance against longterm deals, going to arbitration and hitters who take walks. While it's fine to try to be responsible in contract deals, sometimes you have to be willing to go that extra year to get a real impact player. Their current methods have obviously not worked. Would it really be a bad thing to get in on talks for guys like Guerrero, Tejada and the like just because you have a rule against going over 4 years? There are a limited number of opportunities to get guys to sign for less than the biggest deal out there, and you can't field an entire team every year with only guys you lock up early to team friendly deals. Sometime you actually have to get in the bidding for studs. Of course you can try and get lucky from year to year with just the right mix of those cheaper players, but when you have a $100+ million payroll, there's no need to handicap yourself with such overzealous frugality. How can you be willing to overpay guys like Neifi and Rusch just because you can, and then not get in the bidding for guys who will make a difference?

[cjbucks]

The Cubs have never given a 5 year contract btw.

 

They've also never won a World Series since well before WWI.

 

At some point, they have to get over their supposedly responsible stance on contract length and actuallly acquire impact players.

 

They've also never pitched an entire game with firstbasemen. Your response was illogical. There are a number of things the Cubs have never done since they won the World Series. I seriously doubt that not offering 5 year contracts had anything to do with that. Besides, it's only recently that the Cubs have become a big-market team.

 

I'm pretty sure the 60 or so years immediatlely following 1908 they only offered 1 year deals - do you think that had something to do with them not winning in those years?

 

My response was illogical? In what way. The Cubs have a stance against longterm deals, going to arbitration and hitters who take walks. While it's fine to try to be responsible in contract deals, sometimes you have to be willing to go that extra year to get a real impact player. Their current methods have obviously not worked. Would it really be a bad thing to get in on talks for guys like Guerrero, Tejada and the like just because you have a rule against going over 4 years? There are a limited number of opportunities to get guys to sign for less than the biggest deal out there, and you can't field an entire team every year with only guys you lock up early to team friendly deals. Sometime you actually have to get in the bidding for studs. Of course you can try and get lucky from year to year with just the right mix of those cheaper players, but when you have a $100+ million payroll, there's no need to handicap yourself with such overzealous frugality. How can you be willing to overpay guys like Neifi and Rusch just because you can, and then not get in the bidding for guys who will make a difference?

[SouthSideRyan]

Goony, you keep saying Ryan has had 3 great years. His '03 is not what I'd qualify as great. First off he had way fewer innings than appearances, meaning he likely was more of a LOOGY than a regular reliever, and his ERA+ of 128 isn't even close to great from a LOOGY.