Transmogrified Tiger

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument... Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality. Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well. So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right? And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game. You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge. People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll: It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos. It's also about precieved value, there isn't a GM in baseball that would rather have Williams over Lidge. Besides guys like Lidge are A LOT harder to find than Williams. I thought you weren't in to VORP. Aren't rate stats your thing anyway? I wasn't talking about perceived value, obviously most teams would jump at the concept of trading someone like Williams for Lidge, although as Blueheart pointed out, it doesn't make sense with the current Cubs team. And yes, I'm a big rate stats guy. But when you're comparing a starter to a reliever, where the differennce in playing time can be 3x as many as the other player, cumulative stats are necessary to illustrate the actual value the reliever has. A difference between 200+ innings and 70+ innings is much different than Tejada playing 160 games and Ramirez playing 140, which was the topic earlier when I preferred rate stats. CP... I'm sorry... I just don't understand the mentality that Williams is more valuable because of the number of innings he may *potentially* pitch. How does an extra 100 innings of fewer K's, more base runners, and more earned runs benefit a team? I sincerely don't get it. Hey, you are entitled to your opinion. And, we may just have to agree to disagree. I just don't buy into the value of Williams. He's common, and if he were still a Giant, no one here would be clamoring for him. Check BK's reply on the previous page, it illustrates the point really well IMO.

You still have to consider how much value they're actually going to bring though. To use an extreme example, would you trade an average second baseman for a dominant pinch hitter(assuming you were forced to keep him on the bench)? That's the point I'm getting at.

and when it does, the mods are sure to chastise me publicly on the board, unlike others. that's the thing about the long time respecteds. they don't like to argue. THE POINT was that nobody thought the Astros were going anywhere in 2004 either. year after year there are teams far less talented than the 2005 Chicago Cubs that come out of nowhere. BUT I GUESS I CAN'T MAKE THAT POINT BECAUSE I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WITH THE LONG TIME RESPECTEDS. my entire point in this thread is that dialogue shouldn't be restricted because the consensus disagrees. what's your guys reaction? more attempts to restrict dialogue. pathetic. Yeah, it was pretty much only the "long time respecteds" that thought putting Wood in the pen was stupid. They did their best to stifle the numerous points to the contrary, or something.

I think Patterson being tendered has more to do with organizational philosophy than positional need. While it certainly helps that our OF is a nightmare, I think the bigger thing is that non-tendering Patterson would be perceived as giving up on him, getting nothing for all that work and investment into him. Whether that's the right decision or not, I see that playing a huge role in whether or not they non-tender Corey.

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument... Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality. Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well. So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right? And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game. You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge. People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll: It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos. It's also about precieved value, there isn't a GM in baseball that would rather have Williams over Lidge. Besides guys like Lidge are A LOT harder to find than Williams. I thought you weren't in to VORP. Aren't rate stats your thing anyway? I wasn't talking about perceived value, obviously most teams would jump at the concept of trading someone like Williams for Lidge, although as Blueheart pointed out, it doesn't make sense with the current Cubs team. And yes, I'm a big rate stats guy. But when you're comparing a starter to a reliever, where the differennce in playing time can be 3x as many as the other player, cumulative stats are necessary to illustrate the actual value the reliever has. A difference between 200+ innings and 70+ innings is much different than Tejada playing 160 games and Ramirez playing 140, which was the topic earlier when I preferred rate stats.

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument... Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality. Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well. So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right? And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game. You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge. People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll: It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos.

Easy, Jack Jones has a career OBP of .285, and plays a dead man's RF. Of course, he probably has a great contract playing in 1884... cpatterson20, always good for a laugh except this time. do you get it? you spelled his name wrong, so I found the REAL Jack Jones. it's brilliant I say, absolutely brilliant. hahahahaha

Easy, Jack Jones has a career OBP of .285, and plays a dead man's RF. Of course, he probably has a great contract playing in 1884...

There's a thread on it in Baseball discussions I believe.

I don't think too many people are surprised, just disgusted.

What class of FA is he? He won't cost anyone a draft pick. See the thread at the top of this forum about the Elias Rankings.

The pitching isn't the problem.

Otsuka wasn't stellar last year, and he'll be 34 next year. Sledge and Gonzalez is a great return for him and a prospect. Also, how many teams have great options after their setup men and closers? And how many of those options are just relievers happening to have good years that you cannot rely on?

nice deal for the rangers. I think it's the opposite. You can argue that Young is better than Eaton(as well as a year younger), and Sledge+Gonzalez is worth well more than Otsuka and a prospect. Towers fleeced them here. i'm not really impressed with either sledge or gonzalez. i don't know a lot about young but eaton's a good pitcher. Neither Sledge or Gonzalez are world beaters, but getting both for a middle reliever, especially one who put up a 1.46 WHIP at age 33 last year is a good deal. Young is better than Eaton. He's a year younger, further away from free agency(and therefore cheaper), he K's more guys, he walks fewer, he's harder to hit, he's harder to hit for power, and his arm doesn't have as many innings logged as eaton since he used to play basketball.

Would you trade Williams for Lidge? No.

How doesn't it make them better? Young is better than Eaton. I don't exactly know the OF and 1B situation out there, but Gonzalez and Sledge is getting more talent in return for Otsuka and a prospect.

You have no idea what Hendry will or won't do, unless you have some personal relationship with Jim that I'm unaware of? Dealing Pie in a package for a player like Abreu should be a no-brainer. I know I'm going to get killed for this, but so be it. Why are we anxious to trade a 20 year old centerfielder who scouts well and put up a .903 OPS in Double-A at age 20 for a 32 year old rightfielder who couldn't get his OPS over .900 last season playing in one of the best offensive parks in the National League, posted a .787 OPS after the All-Star break, and is due $30 million over the next two seasons? And not only him, but other valuable players, too? Goodness gracious. I'll bite. Because the .787 is likely an aberration stemming partly because of an off-field incident, and because there is a massive, massive, massive difference in plate discipline between the two.

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument... Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality. I undertsand your point but I think, if given the opportunity, the Phillies would like to replace Wagner before acquiring a middle of the rotation guy. Closers are much harder to acquire. They just gave Gordon 3/18, so it's a strong possibility that they see that hole filled.

Unless you consider the Phillies really need a closer. No more than they need a quality arm in their rotation. The difference between Madson and Lidge isn't so great as to sacrifice getting more value in the form of a good SP. EDIT: Forgot that they signed Gordon to a big deal to close, so they aren't hurting for a "closer".

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument... Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

nice deal for the rangers. I think it's the opposite. You can argue that Young is better than Eaton(as well as a year younger), and Sledge+Gonzalez is worth well more than Otsuka and a prospect. Towers fleeced them here.

I remember that too, and remember advocating him a bit for CF at the end of the year without checking to see how he finished the year. Whoops.

From what I've gathered on Prior's contract, I'm going to respectfully disagree with Mr. Miles and (who cares if it's respectfully) Mr. Sullivan. The language about his contract that's been available for several years indicates that Prior's only chance to opt out was if he qualified for super-two status. There's no indication that the option rolled over. That said, they are in a position to know more than I, so maybe the option can roll over. But given that this is the first we've heard of it, and other signs like the Vineline as JeffH pointed out, I think Sullivan's off the mark here.

I remember you writing something about it, how you haven't been as disappointed since Neyer's lineup book, or something to that extent.