dew1679666265

Explain to me, if you would, what numbers you're focusing on in evaluating the pitchers. I don't see a lot of difference between Bell in 08 and Gregg the past two seasons (07-08). I don't know if I'm looking at something different than you or what, but I'm curious to know what stats you're using. That's heartening that he's done so well on the road. I'm still very concerned the Padres would demand way too much for him, though.

Reed doesn't need to start against righties. His season stats are still worse than Kosuke's even after Fuku's slump, and then you add in the fact that Reed hits .267/.326/.385/.711 against righties and he's not an option for full-time play.

Really? 30 year old Antonio Alfonseca threw 74 1/3 inning for the 2000 Chicago Cubs with a 4.00 ERA, 1.466 WHIP, 61 K, 36 BB and allowed 5 HR. Kevin Gregg is much better than that? Gregg is essentially what Alfonseca was before coming to the Cubs. A wholly unimpressive relief pitcher who had the fortune of being used at the end of games for the Marlins, thus earning the tag "proven closer" and therefore being a justifiable choice to finish games for the Cubs. Mel Rojas was actually a bit more effective reliever earlier in his career who had one partial season with the Cubs that was fairly similar to what Kevin Gregg has done in his partial season with the Cubs. Kevin Gregg is not "much better" than either guy, he might not even be any better. And if either guy is an indication, his unimpressive career is likely going to be imploding soon. Gregg put up in the last two seasons better numbers than Alf. Until last night's blown save, his numbers this year were better as well. He's also saved a better percentage of his chances than Alf did as a Cub. Much better may be overstating it, but Gregg is a better closer than Alfonseca. Rojas was also worse in his time as a Cub than Gregg has been as a closer.

Raw I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think there is much, if any benefit of having your RB be a 2nd year guy instead of a rookie. If anything, it just means more wear and tear on the body. Rookie RBs can produce out of the gate because it is such a physical/instinctive position, and not really a tactical position, like QB and WR. Frankly, after all the touches he had in college and his rookie year, I'm concerned about Forte's future. He was a sub 4.0ypc guy last year and doesn't have the "liveliest" of legs. He could improve on those numbers this year simply because of Cutler's presence, but I don't think it's a matter of becoming "established" as a veteran or anything. Strength and conditioning can be big differences from rookie year to 2nd year. College players work out, obviously, but it's nothing like an NFL weight training program. A 2nd year player going through his first full NFL offseason program can see a big difference. Not necessarily always, but that's the biggest difference for a RB.

I can see that point. Things may improve in the free agency market in the next few months, but DeRosa won't get a long-term deal from anyone. He also doesn't have injury issues and won't be seeking a long-term, $14-18 million deal (like Hudson and Abreu/Dunn, respectively), so he's likely to be more attractive. Even still, I don't know if Hendry would offer arbitration with the intent of getting picks. That's a good point. Which begs two questions, what would DeRo likely get via arbi and is he worth it seeing how it would only be for 1 year? I don't know what he'd get, but it'd likely be more than he's making this year.

Second base would definitely be the position to upgrade. If Sanchez is available I'd look into him. I'm just not a proponent of overpaying unless the piece you're overpaying for is a true difference maker. I don't see that with Bell when Gregg is pitching fine overall. At this rate Gregg is likely to repeat last year's performance, which will be fine if the offense can improve a bit and we get some actual leads. Gregg has been avg. at best though throughout his career, he's been nothing better than a 3rd or 4th option out of the pen in critical situations. Bell has been a #1 option out of the pen 2 of the last 3 years with him being a #2 option last year. Bell would be a difference maker, IMO. Right now, Bell has prevented almost 13 more runs from scoring than Gregg over an avg. reliever. That's significant and definitely a difference maker. Bell has been pretty awesome this year. Any idea why his numbers were down last year? It definitely looks like an anomaly as it's right between two awesome years, but it kinda sticks out. Also, how much is he affected by PetCo? I wouldn't think enough to make a radical difference in his numbers, but it'd be nice to know.

Second base would definitely be the position to upgrade. If Sanchez is available I'd look into him. I'm just not a proponent of overpaying unless the piece you're overpaying for is a true difference maker. I don't see that with Bell when Gregg is pitching fine overall. At this rate Gregg is likely to repeat last year's performance, which will be fine if the offense can improve a bit and we get some actual leads.

I'd love Cruz, but he may be pretty expensive.

Gregg isn't a bad closer. He's an average or so closer. Then I pose this question to you... who IS a bad closer? Guys with bad stats in that role. I can't call someone with good to decent stats a bad player. It just doesn't make sense. Mel Rojas was a bad closer for the Cubs, as was Alfonseca. Gregg is much better than either of those two.

Reliable enough, yes. I like how you bumped this as if people were saying Gregg would never blow another save for the rest of the season. Well it only took 2 days after all the talk about how he had been good lately. If it was a week or two weeks between us talking him up and him blowing a save, would that have been better? One bad game doesn't negate a month of being excellent and a season of being decent.

Dempster being due up definitely hurts the argument, I'll agree. I think that's the key here. If it was just choosing to let Dempster pitch over bringing in Hart, then I would understand Lou's choice. But the Cubs were down 1 after six innings with the pitcher's spot leading off. You know you need to score so it doesn't make any sense to let the pitcher bat. If the Cubs were up 1 and Lou had faith in Dempster, then sure, let him bat. But all things considered, I agree with you that it was a bad choice. I can see that.

It was only his 4th save opportunity during that time though. Maybe he just chokes in save situations? I'm just spitballing here. His best seasons have come when he's been a closer and not just a reliever.

It'd be worth a call, for sure, but I suspect they'd ask for well more than we should pay for that kind of upgrade. I wasn't aware of the shoulder injury last year. That makes me feel better about him. I wouldn't be against Sanchez at the right price. That'd be a very good pen, but what minor leaguers have we given up to get that pen? And if we can only upgrade one time, is the upgrade in the pen really that much more important? I tend to agree with Mojo here - improve the offense and the pen isn't in one run games every time they have a lead. That leads to fewer blown saves.

Except Gregg has had a great month, not just a week or two. Overall he's been decent this season, but he's been excellent for the past 4 weeks.

If the offensive players who should improve do (Bradley, Soto, Kosuke, Soriano), then I disagree with this. If the offense keeps giving the pen nothing but one run leads and tie games, then you may be right, but upgrading the pen won't help that much. I still don't know what the incentive San Diego would have to trade Bell. He's 31, so he's not young, but he's cheap ($1.225 million this year) and not likely to go up that much in arbitration next year. I don't know what to make of Sanchez. He's been good this year, but was awful last year and only decent the year before - but very good again three years ago. I wouldn't give a lot for Sanchez, but I'd be interested. I suspect they'd want more than he's worth, though.

I can see that point. Things may improve in the free agency market in the next few months, but DeRosa won't get a long-term deal from anyone. He also doesn't have injury issues and won't be seeking a long-term, $14-18 million deal (like Hudson and Abreu/Dunn, respectively), so he's likely to be more attractive. Even still, I don't know if Hendry would offer arbitration with the intent of getting picks. That's a good point.

I think it has a good chance to be above average now. If Marmol can get his control back, the he, Gregg, Ascanio and Guzman are pretty good - especially considering the low cost across the board. Would we have the prospects - and would the upgrade be worth the cost - to acquire a young, cheap pitcher like Soriano or Bell? They aren't young. Soriano is 29 and Bell is 31. Plus I don't see why the Braves would trade Soriano. They're only 4 games back in the division and even closer in the WC race. Their pitching looks really good. If they trade for a big bat they might be the best team in that division. Hmm, good point on their ages. I was going off memory on that and apparently was off. Soriano seems much younger than that, for some reason. And yes, the fact that the Braves are competitive in a bad division further decreases the reason they'd have to trade any key reliever.

I think it has a good chance to be above average now. If Marmol can get his control back, the he, Gregg, Ascanio and Guzman are pretty good - especially considering the low cost across the board. Would we have the prospects - and would the upgrade be worth the cost - to acquire a young, cheap pitcher like Soriano or Bell? Gregg hasn't been that good though, he's pitched better of late, but he's still too flaky to consistently use in close and late roles. Trying to rely on him and Marmol in late roles is asking too much from them on a team that has struggled to score runs and has been constantly been in low scoring close games. You definitely can't count on Guzman either given his injury history. Right now, the pen projects to slightly below avg. They have the prospects & if they feel they have a chance to win it all, then I think they have to look at upgrading what I mentioned. You have to consider the availability of good, young closers though. What's the incentive for the Padres to deal Bell? If we offer them a deal they can't refuse, maybe they'd have incentive, but is the upgrade worth it then? Can we afford what's left of Soriano's $6 million salary? If you look at the closers more likely to be available, they'll either be too expensive to take their salary or would cost more in prospects than they'd be worth. I just don't know who we could realistically target.

I think it has a good chance to be above average now. If Marmol can get his control back, the he, Gregg, Ascanio and Guzman are pretty good - especially considering the low cost across the board. Would we have the prospects - and would the upgrade be worth the cost - to acquire a young, cheap pitcher like Soriano or Bell?

If you expect much, much better than average, you better pay for much, much better than average. Gregg isn't being paid much, much better than average. If you want an elite closer anymore (which is much, much better than average), you have to be ready to pay $10+ million. Gregg will blow some saves because he allows guys to get on base, but many more times than not he won't allow them to score. Guzman, when healthy, would probably be better than Gregg, but like Marmol, Guzman would be better available to work out of jams instead of entering with nobody on base. That's the best time to bring Gregg into a game, conversely.

You don't want to use any of those stats on their own, but using them together tells you that he'll generally allow walks and hits, but many times won't allow them to score. You certainly don't want him in Marmol's fireman role, but probably his best role is coming into a game with the bases empty so he has some wiggle room.

He's not an elite closer, but he's not paid like one either. He's a decent closer who will get the job done, but he'll make it tougher than you'd like sometimes. Inevitably, that type of closer will blow a few. He's better than a random middle relief pitcher, though. I guess. He doesn't really have closer stuff, he gets behind a lot of hitters and is good for a couple of meatballs in most appearances. Sounds like a middle reliever to me but I could be wrong. I'm going out on a limb here and could be wrong, but would much really be different this year if Aaron Heilman was our closer all year instead of Gregg? No difference, IMO. I think you're right. He's a middle reliever that someone in Florida decided should close long ago. If you're talking about the Heilman of 2005-2007, he's better than Gregg. Last year and this year, though, Heilman hasn't been close to as good. So, Gregg is much better than the Heilman of the past couple years. But if you can get the Heilman of 05-07 back, he'd be probably our second best reliever.

He's not an elite closer, but he's not paid like one either. He's a decent closer who will get the job done, but he'll make it tougher than you'd like sometimes. Inevitably, that type of closer will blow a few. He's better than a random middle relief pitcher, though. I guess. He doesn't really have closer stuff, he gets behind a lot of hitters and is good for a couple of meatballs in most appearances. Sounds like a middle reliever to me but I could be wrong. I'm going out on a limb here and could be wrong, but would much really be different this year if Aaron Heilman was our closer all year instead of Gregg? ERA+s of 122, 125 and 121 aren't random middle reliever numbers. Those were Gregg's last three season (2007-2009 so far). He had a 110 ERA+ the year before. His biggest problem is walks. Outside of 2004 and 2006 he's never had better than a 2:1 K:BB ratio. He's also had some bad WHIPs in recent years. He'll fall behind guys and he'll walk some guys, but in his time as a closer he's saved 89% of games, 76% of games (hampered by injury that year) and 85% of games. He's generally successful, which is what is to be expected from a non-elite closer.

Gregg has been pretty lights out for the past month (before tonight, obviously). I posted this in another thread, but here are his numbers the past 28 days: 1.32 ERA .951 WHIP 11K:4BB 13.2 IP He's been really good since the middle of May.

He's not an elite closer, but he's not paid like one either. He's a decent closer who will get the job done, but he'll make it tougher than you'd like sometimes. Inevitably, that type of closer will blow a few. He's better than a random middle relief pitcher, though.