nilodnayr

Yeah, hes faced ~300-350 batters faced. According to Pizza Cutter, the r-squared reaches 0.5 at 150 BF for GB% and 200 BF for FB%. So, while not entirely stable, at 300-350, its not unstable. I'm sure meph could provide a rough r-squared at 300-350 batters faced, so we could see how much is due to variation.

If we got fuentes then why would we need Gregg...you talkin loco. Why do we need to replace Howry? He was no good last year and we were fine. So because we made the playoffs, we shouldn't replace a crappy reliever? Huh? Because we have adequate other internal options?

The Brewers had a few guys making around 5m as set-up guys. I think the Phillies also paid Tom Gordon around 5m, but he was on the DL. Plus nobody said that Gregg wouldn't end up being the closer next season. As for being a type A, Gregg just has be somewhat decent this year and he will. But after how he pitched the last two years, I don't know why we would suck next year at his age. Besides a two week stretch when Gregg was probably pitching hurt, he was pretty good last year. Riske? Who'd they trade for him? Actually, speaking of the brewers reminded me that the Torres trade is a pretty good comp...Ceda is much more highly thought of than either guy the Bucs got. They didn't trade him for anybody, but they signed him to a 3y, I believe 16m deal. I much rather trade a questionable prospect like Ceda for one year of Gregg at 4-5m, and draft picks next offseason. As long as Hendry doesn't resign Gregg at the end of the year(unless he's much better next year), I don't see how this is such a horrible trade. You use Gregg for a year, and you get draft picks at the end of the year to replace Ceda in your system. Exactly, the point is that its a bad decision to SIGN an average reliever for 5M, its an idiotic decision to trade one of your best prospects for one. People dont get that theres such a ridiculous attrition for non to 10-15 draft picks. If Ceda was in college he wouldnt last past the protected picks, you can bet that. So NO, comp picks do not replace Ceda. I think it's better to trade for a reliever for one year at 5m, then sign one for three years at 15m. I dunno maybe your higher on Ceda then me, but I don't see Ceda as a much better prospect then say Andrew Cashner once he has some success in the minors. You can get plenty of good players after the top 10-15 picks, and the Cubs might actually get a better prospect then Ceda. you say that so flippantly I was just using it as a example of a reliever/starter with good stuff, that we drafted in not the top 10-15 picks. Who knows if Cashner will be as good as Ceda was. But the point I was trying to make is, we have a decent chance of getting a good prospect out of the four picks we get for losing Wood/Gregg. Guys outside 10-15 look OK the year you draft them of course otherwise you wouldn't draft them, duh, its that their attrition rate is much higher (and Cashner at 19 was barely outside the range and we aren't going to get a 1st rounder for Gregg). Thats exactly the point, no one knows if Cashner is going to be as good as Ceda, but we DO know that Ceda will be as good as Ceda.

Only two guys on that list that were/still are available to the Cubs that I would want would be Street and Affeldt. Both would be upgrades over Gregg. Everybody else on that list are either unavailable (Madson), expensive to acquire (Rays relievers) or not an upgrade at all (Lyon, Oliver, Springer---who has said it's either St. Lou or retirement, unless that's changed). Heilman would be intriguing, but if a bullpen starved Mets team is willing to trade Heilman, what does that say to you? It says that 5 minutes worth of thinking proved that there are alternatives?

The Brewers had a few guys making around 5m as set-up guys. I think the Phillies also paid Tom Gordon around 5m, but he was on the DL. Plus nobody said that Gregg wouldn't end up being the closer next season. As for being a type A, Gregg just has be somewhat decent this year and he will. But after how he pitched the last two years, I don't know why we would suck next year at his age. Besides a two week stretch when Gregg was probably pitching hurt, he was pretty good last year. Riske? Who'd they trade for him? Actually, speaking of the brewers reminded me that the Torres trade is a pretty good comp...Ceda is much more highly thought of than either guy the Bucs got. They didn't trade him for anybody, but they signed him to a 3y, I believe 16m deal. I much rather trade a questionable prospect like Ceda for one year of Gregg at 4-5m, and draft picks next offseason. As long as Hendry doesn't resign Gregg at the end of the year(unless he's much better next year), I don't see how this is such a horrible trade. You use Gregg for a year, and you get draft picks at the end of the year to replace Ceda in your system. Exactly, the point is that its a bad decision to SIGN an average reliever for 5M, its an idiotic decision to trade one of your best prospects for one. People dont get that theres such a ridiculous attrition for non to 10-15 draft picks. If Ceda was in college he wouldnt last past the protected picks, you can bet that. So NO, comp picks do not replace Ceda. I think it's better to trade for a reliever for one year at 5m, then sign one for three years at 15m. I dunno maybe your higher on Ceda then me, but I don't see Ceda as a much better prospect then say Andrew Cashner once he has some success in the minors. You can get plenty of good players after the top 10-15 picks, and the Cubs might actually get a better prospect then Ceda. you say that so flippantly

thats not a comment on the cubs trade its a comment on the nats trade

The Brewers had a few guys making around 5m as set-up guys. I think the Phillies also paid Tom Gordon around 5m, but he was on the DL. Plus nobody said that Gregg wouldn't end up being the closer next season. As for being a type A, Gregg just has be somewhat decent this year and he will. But after how he pitched the last two years, I don't know why we would suck next year at his age. Besides a two week stretch when Gregg was probably pitching hurt, he was pretty good last year. Riske? Who'd they trade for him? Actually, speaking of the brewers reminded me that the Torres trade is a pretty good comp...Ceda is much more highly thought of than either guy the Bucs got. I think Torres is an ok comp, but not nearly close enough to get much true value out of the comparison. Torres was 5 years older, was coming off an absolutely awful season (5.47 ERA, 1.405 WHIP..advanced statistics show he was rather unlucky in 2007, but we know how much that actually factors into trade value). Plus there was no possibility of free agent compensation down the line because it was known that he was starting to get the itch to possibly retire. Plus, the highest number of games Torres had ever saved in a season was 12, and he was traded purely to be the setup man he had been for most of his career. Essentially, Torres last year would be Bob Howry this year if Howry was still under contract. That's opposed to Gregg who is 5 years younger, is coming off 2 good years, has those back to back 29+ save campaigns which inflates his value, and is a good bet for compensation after the season. Those are quite a bit of differences for trade value, enough to make it really hard to be worthwhile to figure out exactly how much more trade value did Gregg have than Torres. All we know is that it was a significant amount. ERA? Seriously? 2007 torres k/bb: 1.57 2008 gregg k/bb: 2.91 Torres had a babip 20 points over expected and a flukey hr/fb greggs babip is 60 points under expected and the lowest hr/fb of his career

The Brewers had a few guys making around 5m as set-up guys. I think the Phillies also paid Tom Gordon around 5m, but he was on the DL. Plus nobody said that Gregg wouldn't end up being the closer next season. As for being a type A, Gregg just has be somewhat decent this year and he will. But after how he pitched the last two years, I don't know why we would suck next year at his age. Besides a two week stretch when Gregg was probably pitching hurt, he was pretty good last year. Riske? Who'd they trade for him? Actually, speaking of the brewers reminded me that the Torres trade is a pretty good comp...Ceda is much more highly thought of than either guy the Bucs got. They didn't trade him for anybody, but they signed him to a 3y, I believe 16m deal. I much rather trade a questionable prospect like Ceda for one year of Gregg at 4-5m, and draft picks next offseason. As long as Hendry doesn't resign Gregg at the end of the year(unless he's much better next year), I don't see how this is such a horrible trade. You use Gregg for a year, and you get draft picks at the end of the year to replace Ceda in your system. Exactly, the point is that its a bad decision to SIGN an average reliever for 5M, its an idiotic decision to trade one of your best prospects for one. People dont get that theres such a ridiculous attrition for non to 10-15 draft picks. If Ceda was in college he wouldnt last past the protected picks, you can bet that. So NO, comp picks do not replace Ceda.

If we got fuentes then why would we need Gregg...you talkin loco. Why do we need to replace Howry? He was no good last year and we were fine.

Ohhh, its just that easy?

The Brewers had a few guys making around 5m as set-up guys. I think the Phillies also paid Tom Gordon around 5m, but he was on the DL. Plus nobody said that Gregg wouldn't end up being the closer next season. As for being a type A, Gregg just has be somewhat decent this year and he will. But after how he pitched the last two years, I don't know why we would suck next year at his age. Besides a two week stretch when Gregg was probably pitching hurt, he was pretty good last year. Riske? Who'd they trade for him? Actually, speaking of the brewers reminded me that the Torres trade is a pretty good comp...Ceda is much more highly thought of than either guy the Bucs got.

Uh...........the White Sox? Dotel at $5 million and Linebrink at $4 million, perhaps? And who did they trade for those guys? OHHHHH right...

What are some realistic alternatives that can be had? Perhaps comparing them will be helpful. We're not in contact with other GMs so there is no way we could possibly know who is available. That's kind of a silly thing to ask. Then it is kind of silly to say that there are better alternatives. A) He never said there were better alternatives B) Just because you can't give examples of something doesn't mean it's not true A) He said there are alternatives. He wishes they explored those alternatives. Can one not assume that he is referring to a better alternative then? B) When backing up words and statements, thus making them meaningful, there should be something there to back it up. Otherwise, they are just empty words. It might be what you believe, but it certainly does not make it fact. That is the beauty of stats and baseball. You can find stats to back up your arguments. When someone wants to know who is the best player, you can prove it rather than just saying it. Alternatives: Trading someone other than Ceda for Gregg Signing Affeldt Signing Springer Signing Oliver Signing Cruz Signing Hoffman Signing Farns Signing Lyon Trading for Street Trading for Heilman Trading for a Rays reliever Trading for Madson umpteen bagillion other serviceable relievers Do you really think it was Gregg or bust? Do you really think they wouldnt have traded for anyone but Ceda? Are you really that uncreative?

Meaning probably more in $ and less in years? Thats kinda the opposite of what the Cubs are doing with all their other players with the blackloaded contracts (because of the impeding sale).

Then state it as the deal is: Gregg for Ceda + Wood and a 4 year guaranteed high dollar contract. How about: 1 year of Gregg as closer four first round draft picks $35M to spend elsewhere over 4 years vs Ceda + Wood Does that make anyone feel any better? No. Trading Ceda for Gregg wasn't the only alternative to not signing Wood.

And I see a very short career.

"Dude, he's black, he just needs to run in warmer weather"--Dusty Baker. Well, Bridgeport is south of Wrigleyville, so there goes that theory.

It may sound that I think Gregg is garbage and I think Ceda is God, but I don't. Let me sum up my thoughts on the trade. Gregg is decent. Hes fine. Hes OK. Hes not any noticeably better than most of our non-Marmol relievers. He has a decent K rate, but has a pretty big issue with control. Hes been able to hold it together and has experience closing (if thats worth anything). Ceda is a decent prospect. Hes not great, or a sure thing, or about to come up and dominate. Hes a pretty good prospect (4 star, or B or whatever you want to call him) in a system that doesn't have many of those. Hes got the upside of Jenks/Marmol, and the downside of being a bust and never being able to maintain enough contol to help in the majors. BUT, hes shown signs of progress against advanced AA batters. I understand the desire to get certainty in the bullpen (if there really is such a thing), but if Kevin Gregg is the guy you can get for a player with the upside of Ceda, then why do you make the trade?

Hes a FA after 2009. Assuming we don't sign him long term and offer him arbitration (which we'd be fools not to), we would receive a sandwhich pick and possibly the signing teams 1st rounder. If the signing team picks in the top 15 (which means they are in the lower half of the standings...the type of team to sign a mediocre closer) then their pick is protected and we'd get their 2nd rounder. If that team signes a "beter" (as in higher points) Type A FA, then we'd get their 3rd rounder (probably most likely scenario). So we are probably looking at a back end of the sandwhich round pick and a 3rd rounder. Its nice to have some more picks, but really after the first 15 or so, the talent drops way off. And the fact that Ceda dominated at AA means puts A TON of room inbetween what hes shown us and what a draft pick has to do to get to that level. Theres a lot more uncertainty there.

And yeah, Gregg's pretty comfortably in the middle of the Type A pack, so as long as hes fairly decent again next year we should get nice draft pick compensation for him...silver lining.

Someone said something about trading Gregg next year...we can't he'll be a FA.

The numbers aren't valid for comparison as they were not facing even remotely the same talent pool. It is highly unlikely that Jose Ceda is major league ready next year, and to the point that he is ready to be an above average major league reliever. Those are not his actual numbers, those are his MLE (major league equivalents). Most players make the jump from AA to the majors. It is not highly unlikely that Ceda will pitch in the majors next year by any stretch of the imagination.

95% of relievers or pitchers or whomever do not regularly sit in the 94-97 range and often reach 100 and absolutely dominate hitters with a knockout fastball/power slider combo. Starting this year helped him turn a corner as evidenced by his second half of the season in the pen in AA with a respectable 3 BB/9. Its not an "if" Ceda can harness his control, its "if" Ceda can maintain his control or somewhere around it he'll be a dominant closer. "If" he doesn't, he'll be a set up guy. If you are really concerned about his control, then man, I hate to show you Kevin Gregg's (or even Carlos Marmol's) BB rates. And thats my whole point. If you don't like Ceda, then you shouldn't like Gregg. True, not all pitchers can hit that. But there are a lot of bad pitchers that can do that and never make it quite like they should have because they never could learn how to control it. I am not saying that Ceda WILL NOT. I am just not going to go around and talk like he is going to do it for sure. That is what this board is reacting with. And it is ridiculous. No one is going to do anything "for sure". It's not even a high enough percentage to say it is likely. Yet this is a move that is worthy calling Hendry an idiot? A minor league RP that may or may not be good? We're going to pretend that we could have gotten so much more for him? There is no real market for Jose Ceda. There is no justification to come out and say that next year, he would be able to outperform Kevin Gregg. Sample size alert, but... Ceda's MLE for his 2008 relief stats: FIP=3.68 Average against: 261 BABIP: 346 BB/9: 3.67 K/9: 9.17 Gregg's 2008 stats FIP=3.80 Average against: 208 BABIP: 261 BB/9: 4.85 K/9: 7.60 Its not out of the realm of possibility. You act as if I'm saying Larry Suarez could be better than Kevin Gregg next year.

Figure what out? How to be older or how to be more expensive?? And to only be under control for one more year.....then maybe he'll be...ohh I don't know Kevin Gregg?

95% of relievers or pitchers or whomever do not regularly sit in the 94-97 range and often reach 100 and absolutely dominate hitters with a knockout fastball/power slider combo. Starting this year helped him turn a corner as evidenced by his second half of the season in the pen in AA with a respectable 3 BB/9. Its not an "if" Ceda can harness his control, its "if" Ceda can maintain his control or somewhere around it he'll be a dominant closer. "If" he doesn't, he'll be a set up guy. If you are really concerned about his control, then man, I hate to show you Kevin Gregg's (or even Carlos Marmol's) BB rates. And thats my whole point. If you don't like Ceda, then you shouldn't like Gregg. True, not all pitchers can hit that. But there are a lot of bad pitchers that can do that and never make it quite like they should have because they never could learn how to control it. I am not saying that Ceda WILL NOT. I am just not going to go around and talk like he is going to do it for sure. That is what this board is reacting with. And it is ridiculous. No one is going to do anything "for sure".