Shoppach's Price?
Boston Globe saying Shoppach will only be moved for a young closer.
over 3 years ago
afh4
129 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I can’t see how that’s possible.
Masterson? ehhh… He’s a closer now? I thought they planned to use him as a starter, pretty much 100%?
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
Keep Shoppach
As Martinez has proven to be somewhat injury prone, keep your solid defensive catcher with some pop in his bat, unless a young pup with the name Francisco Cordero Lidge is offered.
Can we stop with the Victor can’t play catcher because he was injured meme. I mean really.
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions
So, we should have a meme retirement sidebar?
by woodsmeister on Nov 3, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
Is this equivalent to saying Shoppach won’t be moved? I don’t think Masterson would be enough.
by fleerdon on Nov 3, 2008 11:09 AM EST reply actions
This trade seems offbase. I doubt most teams with a young successful closer would be willing to move them. And chances are if they were, that player wouldn’t be much of an upgrade over JLewis.
I think you’ve gotta keep Shoppach until the “Infielder to be Acquired Later” is worked out. If the guy is an all-defense type, I think you have a hard time moving Shoppach if your 1B/DH rotation looks like Garko, Hafner, Looch, Martinez.
barf.
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
barf.
At least he’ll probably be in Buffalo Columbus…
by Peter Bendix on Nov 3, 2008 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
I sort of want to sell Shoppach pronto. He’s old and has bad plate discipline. I think he’s jumped the shark.
I’m looking at the list of guys with over 130 K’s, under 40 walks, and OPS+ over 120.
It’s not horrible but it’s definitely not making me brim with optimism:
Obviously, that’s a lot of criteria. Grain of salt.
Unfortunately, there is going to be at least one, and probably two, Rangers catchers on the market too.
That said, Shoppach has proven more at the ML level than most of the Rangers’ catchers.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 3, 2008 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
Kelly’s story has always been defense, home runs, and strikeouts. Even a lesser offensive performance and he’s still darn valuable if he can keep up the SLG. The argument against him is that he’s soon to be better compensated, and that his dropoff from a good year to a bad year is going to be very steep. I’m not swayed by that, necessarily, but I’m cognizant of the risks.
It’s the sort of decision in which I trust the Shaponetti Monster a great deal, let’s say that. I enjoy Kelly as a fan, and I’m more concerned about Martinez going forward than most, but I’m excited by the idea of what we can get for Kelly.
by fleerdon on Nov 3, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
Shoppach’s a pretty incredible hitter for a catcher, we must keep that in perspective. We can all tell that he’s fielding the position well.
Compared to the four Rangers (Jarrod, Laird, Teagarden, Ramirez), Shoppach’s probably the best defender of the group. (I have little idea about Teagarden though). The Jarrod and Ramirez have intriguing bats, but they aren’t so good at the receiving end. I’m surprised that Ramierz is still catching at all, based on what we’d heard about his catching abilities while we still had him.
What’s the story with Teagarden? I know basically nothing about him. He’s older than Ramirez and Salt—uhh—macchia. He any good?
Anyway, outside of Jarrod, who’s still quite young, I think Shoppach is the most valuable of the group.
From what I’ve read, Teagarden’s defense is supposed to be at least above average, and perhaps excellent.
I think that Shoppach may have peaked this year. Not that he won’t be good going forward, but he’s unlikely to be any better than he was and is far more likely to regress.
Additionally, Shoppach is arb-eligible, while Teagarden/Salty/Ramirez are not. In fact, I believe Teagarden and Ramirez don’t even have one year of service time, whereas Salty is close.
If I had to guess, I’d say that Teagarden and Shoppach have similar value, although for different reasons. Shoppach is probably more valuable than Laird, Salty, and (especially) Ramirez.
Disagree...
Salty is 23 and has already shown an above average eye at the plate. What kills him right now is his continued attempts at switch hitting. Look at his splits. His left handed OPS would rank 2nd in all of baseball behind McCann.
Teagarden is an above average receiver and defender at a minimum. Was called that in college at UT and this year at the Olympics. His question is staying healthy.
I would probably rank them on along the lines of Salty, Teagarden, Schoppach, then Laird then Ramirez. Thankfully Texas is going to keep one if Salty and Teagarden for themselves, so that makes Shoppach the 2nd best on the trade market.
I don’t know much about Teagarden, but I think Peter is right on Shoppach>Salty, if only for being a known quantity. While Salty’s OBP was good this past year, his SLG has yet to show up above A+ excepting a SSS showing with the Braves a few years back. Shop has some plate discipline issues, mostly with K’s, but his SLG has never been in question, nor have his defensive catching skills, which is more than can be said about Salty.
I think the main reason that Salty isn’t valued higher is that there are still significant question marks about whether he can be a catcher in the long-term. While there are some questions about his bat, the defense is the real question.
If Salty can be a somewhat-average defensive catcher, he’s the best bet of that group. But Teagarden’s defense is supposedly much better than Salty’s, whereas his offense isn’t that far behind.
Also, your point about Salty’s poor splits as a RH batter is a very valid one. However, I do wonder: would he be that much better if he was batting left-handed while facing left-handed pitchers?
by Peter Bendix on Nov 4, 2008 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
Shoppach, being our biggest trading chip, is our best hopeto fill a big hole. A closer would be nice, but it is not our biggest need. Our biggest need is a #3 starter.
I think that a team could be convinced to move a solid starter under club control for a few years for an everyday starting catcher.
is that the just the opinion of the writer, or did he actually talk to shapiro?
because i’m pretty sure it was the former. saying that we’ll only move shoppach for a young closer is basically saying that we’ll only move him for papelbon or soria (or maybe the guy from SF. . . whatever his name is). i mean, how many “young closers” can you really name? there are young relief pitchers who have closed, but i think it would take more than that to pry shoppach away.
now, i’d move shoppach for masterson + something, because i like masterson as a starter. he reminds me of derek lowe. . .
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Nov 3, 2008 11:50 AM EST reply actions
Is it just me, or does anyone else think we’d be thrilled to get Masterson for Shoppach?
by Peter Bendix on Nov 3, 2008 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
PB, I’m going with “just you.” I echo gte’s concern about Masterson’s BB/K. I’m not a big fan of groundball relievers, and I don’t think he’s better than bottom-of-rotation as a starter. He’s good and everything. But I’d like to do better.
by fleerdon on Nov 3, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
I may very well be overvaluing Masterson, I admit.
Although his K/BB ratio was mediocre (at best), it was also his first major league season. I’m infatuated with high-groundball pitchers who also have a decent amount of strikeouts (68 in 88 innings isn’t terribly low). Furthermore, he did manage to strike out a batter an inning in double-A this year and last year. Yes, I know, it’s double-A, but a K per inning is pretty darn good for a groundballer.
Furthemore, he induced swinging strikes on 9.8% of his pitches this year, according to statcorner. Average for a starter is 7.8, average for a reliever is 9.5. Masterson was both this year, so 9.8% is a very good number – especially, again, for a ground-ball pitcher.
Masterson’s biggest problem is with left-handed hitters. If he can somewhat neutralize them, he could be a #3 starter. Even if he doesn’t, he could be an 80-100 inning reliever. Either way, he has less than a year of service time. I’d say that’s worth Kelly Shoppach.
Also, I mean, .216 BA/bip. I’m not going to argue he’s trash, but I think Boston would have have to sweeten the pot a little.
by fleerdon on Nov 3, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I’m aware of the low BABIP, but I’m not basing my opinion of Masterson on his results in 08. Rather, I’m basing them on his track record and the process by which he achieves his results (his ability to induce swings-and-misses as well as grounders).
To be fair, I am higher on Masterson than most. And given the choice between “Peter” and “most,” the smart decision is probably with “most.”
I think its a stretch to pencil Masterson into the third spot of the rotation. While he has an interesting skill set, he’d be just as big of a question mark as our other “tweener” pitchers right now.
The point of getting another pitcher is to solidify the rotation with an established veteran who can be consistent, reliable, and eat up innings.
I think Shap would much prefer a decent consistent pitcher over a potentially good pitching prospect, emphasis on potentially good. (A great pitching prospect is unlikely)
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
There are very, very few “decent consistent pitchers” on the market. I’m not sure I see this as a realistic option, besides perhaps Derek Lowe.
That still doesn’t make Masterson a #3 starter, the type of pitcher we’re looking for, or worth a straight up trade for Shoppach.
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t mind acquiring Masterson but not straight up for Shoppach.
I doubt any closer with a realistic chance of being traded is worth a 1:1 trade for Shoppach.
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
If you go by the history of Shapiro deals, rarely does he trade guys at a 1:1 value. Usually he trades for multiple players, so he can cover his bases, in case the main proponent doesn’t pan out. So even if it were Shoppach for Masterson .. there would be other players involved to make the trade more equitable for us (in the future).
Although, we have went through a bunch of those types of deals .. so maybe Shap will seek a trade that is more of the 1:1 variety.
Also in that article:
One scout said [about the Red Sox], “…But think about it; they don’t have to do a whole lot. They came within a game of going to the World Series.”
Where have I heard that before?
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on Nov 3, 2008 11:51 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Red Sox will finish at .500 in 2009. You heard it from Harry Doyle first.
by fleerdon on Nov 3, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
That’s right!
within one game of WS = don’t have to do a whole lot
It works every time!
by Jay on Nov 3, 2008 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think we use Shoppach to trade for a relief pitcher because of the three main off-season needs (i.e. 1. starting pitcher 2. infielder 3. back-end relief pitcher), a back-end relief pitcher is probably the easiest to obtain from the free agent market. A Brandon Lyon or a Juan Cruz type are available and probably won’t be too expensive. Since Shoppach is our best trading chip, we would therefore need to use it to get either a SP or an IF. Of the teams, that need a catcher, I can’t think of any that have a very good SP or IF that is available in a trade so my conclusion is that Shapiro will have to concoct some sort of three team trade in which Shoppach is used to get nice prospects which go to another team to get a very good SP or an IF for us. Ironically—as this posting is based on an comment from a Boston Globe writer—the middle trade partner may be Boston. If they don’t overpay for Varitek, they’ll need a catcher, and Shoppach would be the perfect fit for their team. They would have any number of prospects they could send to a third team.
You’re assuming we’d be moving Kelly Shoppach in order to improve in 2009. The Crisp trade wasn’t an immediate improvement. Open question: Anybody else see some parallels there, or am I making this up?
by fleerdon on Nov 3, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
In one sense I think you on to something because both events would have been cases of selling high.
But I think that we are absolutely trying to contend in 2009. I don’t see Shapiro trying to stockpile more prospects after the number he got via trades in 2008.
I don’t think we use Shoppach to trade for a relief pitcher because of the three main off-season needs (i.e. 1. starting pitcher 2. infielder 3. back-end relief pitcher), a back-end relief pitcher is probably the easiest to obtain from the free agent market.
I think this really misses the bigger picture here. Assuming the report is correct, it’s telling us something about the way that Shapiro values different players — namely, that they’re not interested in flipping Shoppach for a well compensated one-year rental on a veteran like Beltre or Brian Roberts. What they value is getting multiple years of control at a reasonable cost.
So it isn’t about whether you can get a reliever on the free agent market, it’s about getting someone who is potentially an impact reliever for six or seven years — and for anything less than that, they’d just as soon hold onto Shoppach. Again, this assumes the report is correct.
by Jay on Nov 3, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
I could see something like that happening.
I’d love to try to get in on Peavy with that sort of trade.
Peavy is the longest of long shots, I think.
His actual value is less than his perceived value, thanks to PetCo Park. Thus, we’d be less likely to give up the value that the Padres hope to receive. Furthermore, we’d probably have to give Peavy some (monetary) incentive to waive his no-trade clause to come here. Considering his already-steep contract, this makes it even more unlikely.
Let alone the fact that young players are more valuable to us than to other teams with more financial flexibility.
I think that Peavy is going to be EX – SPEN – SIVE. Not only will you have to convience the Padres to trade him, but then you’ve gotta convince Jake himself to go. It’s almost like a doublely expensive FA situation, both talent and money.
I think Peavy is a fantastic pitcher, but let someone else pay that price. Hope for NL.
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
I don’t think anyone needs to convince the Padres to trade Peavy. Sure they won’t give him away, but Towers is actively and aggressively trying to trade Peavy.
I actually think Cleveland matches up well with the Padres especially considering Towers is looking for quality over quantity.
It won’t happen, but its nice to dream.
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
Adding Boston to the equation could really help.
CLE gets Peavy
BOS gets Shoppach
SDP gets BOS prospects + CLE Prospects.
I’d trade Shoppach + prospects for Peavy.
I think BOS would trade prospects for Shoppach.
I think there is potential for a match here.
“Prospects” would start with David Huff and extend probably to Weglarz/Mills/Santana.
Also, Peavy out of PetCo and in the AL may not be better than a 3.50 ERA pitcher. Which is great, yes, but not worth Shoppach, Huff, ++, and the money it’d take to get him to waive his no-trade.
You’re not suggesting that we’d have to part with all of Huff, Santana, Mills, Weglarz and Shoppach right? And if so are you saying it with a straight face?
Towers has said he’s looking for quality over quantity. I could see that trade going down with the Indians side of the deal being Shoppach, Huff, and one of Miller/Weglarz/Hodges
That would mean the trade would look like this.
Cle: Shoppach + two prospects for Peavy
Boston: A good prospect for Shoppach
SD: Peavy for Boston Prospect/Two Cleveland prospects.
The Indians could also sweeten the pot with Gutz since SD is allegedly looking for a young CF. Or Boston could throw in Crisp instead.
The key to the trade would be the prospect Boston gives up. Since they’d only have to give up one player it could be a higher level player instead of two decent players.
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
I think he was saying Wegz/Mills/Carlos as choice of three, where Huff is in the “LaPorta slot” and one of the other three is in the “Brantley slot.”
by Jay on Nov 3, 2008 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
Ah. That makes a lot more sense. Essentially Peter and I agree about the cost. But I’m unsure how you can argue Peavy isn’t worth Shoppach + two prospects.
I highly doubt Santana will be one of the prospects, because that would severly weaken our catching depth. But Shoppach + Huff and Wegz is easily worth it.
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
I’m just gonna throw this out there:
Would SD take Matt LaPorta and Matt LaPorta only, in exch for Peavy?
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
Hell no.
LaPorta doesn’t really fit their needs anyways. Besides, they’re looking for a good starting pitcher prospect in return.
by world dictator on Nov 4, 2008 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Jay is correct, I meant Huff + one of those three.
I’m very skeptical that Shoppach, Huff, and Weglarz is a worthwhile trade for Jake Peavy. I know that sounds weird to say, and I feel odd writing it. But there is a tremendous amount of risk – injury and performance – as well as a lot of money tied up in Peavy.
Meanwhile, there’s the cost of not having two potentially-productive players at the minimum salary for three years. This means that, in addition to losing Weglarz and Huff themselves, we lose the flexibility that is tied up in having (potentially) productive pre-arb players.
I know you have to give something to get something. I just don’t think it’s worth it. If we’re willing to pay Peavy-esque money, let’s sign Derek Lowe (who would actually cost less) and keep our prospects.
This would also allow us to trade Shoppach for something else.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 4, 2008 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with the basic premise, but I think much as we all love Wegz, it’s still quite premature to pencil him in for a few big pre-arb seasons. Huff is different, he’s probably better than a league average starter right now, as I type this. Wegz is still a significant risk, and if and when the payoff arrives, the best part will be in the range of 2012-2013. Just as with money investments, when you’re assigning a value to prospects, you have to consider both the risk, the reward and the time-based value of the rewards.
You’re right – I overstated the case on Wegz, given his age and his production to this point in his career.
I completely agree with you about Huff.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 4, 2008 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
Huff is better than a league average pitcher based on what?
I wouldn’t be so quick to call any pitcher who’s never pitched a single inning better than league average, especially when you’re evaluating him in a trade.
by world dictator on Nov 4, 2008 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
Oh yeah. The consequences could be disastrous.
by fleerdon on Nov 4, 2008 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Huff is better than a league average pitcher based on what?
Based on his track record, scouting, projectability, etc. His performance in Buffalo translated to a FIP of 4.08 in the majors.
I wouldn’t be so quick to call any pitcher who’s never pitched a single inning better than league average, especially when you’re evaluating him in a trade.
In general, I agree, but Huff’s performance last season was uniformly excellent in terms of both raw results and future indicators. I know it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but Bill James showed a long time ago that projecting performance based on minor league stats is almost exactly as reliable as using major league stats.
In other words, yes, we don’t know how he’ll do this season in the majors, but to nearly the same extent, we don’t know that about established major leaguers, either.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
If this is the case, than shouldn’t Huff be given a legit shot at making the rotation in spring training? If we are considering ourselves to be contenders for the playoffs that is. I think the situation is different for a team like KC, Baltimore, or Seattle.
We can go back to the Liriano situation for Minny last season. They kept him down in AAA for the service time issue, which saves them money, but considering that they were one game away from the playoffs, replacing their fifth starter (who was Livan I believe) with Liriano could have easily netted them an extra win.
We can give him a legitimate shot, but he’s got options remaining — possibly four — and that too is an asset not to be squandered. Lee and Carmona of course will not be optioned out of Spring Training. Reyes is out of options while Huff won’t even be on the 40-man roster. It makes sense that the Indians would give Reyes (for example) a leg up on Huff to start the season, but that benefit won’t last much past April.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
Also, there are decent arguments to be made that pitcher’s don’t follow the same kind of developmental curve as hitters. While pitchers might get better at “learning how to pitch”, a pitchers “stuff” is generally as good if not better at 21 than it is at 27. So in maximizing the value of a young pitcher, you kind of want to get them in the mix as soon as their up to it.
by APV on Nov 4, 2008 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
Definitely. But with pitchers who are under 24 (not Huff) or have an injury history (Huff), you’re also watching their total innings for the season. It’s a lot harder to keep pitchers on a low count in the majors, where the bullpen would be stressed, than in the minors, where who really cares anyway. For that reason, if you expect a prospect to end the season in the majors — ideally in October — it really does help for him to start off in the minors.
Bottom line, what you cite is a good reason not to hold him back until 2010 “just because,” but it’s not really a reason to have him start the season in Cleveland.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
Meanwhile, there’s the cost of not having two potentially-productive players at the minimum salary for three years.
Not picking on you specifically, PB, or even commenting on this particular trade, but just wondering. All of us around here value “productive” players at low salaries so much, but doesn’t it seem like, at some point, there should be an endpoint? Like, cash in those “productive,” low salary guys for a stud that will help us with instead of keeping those guys around for a few years and trading them for more “productive” guys? It’s like we’re leasing Honda Civics at market price and trading in for the new model each year rather than just sucking it up and springing once for the Ferrari (or hell, even the Prius for that matter) and working extra hard to maintain it.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
Totally agree with you. But the more productive pre-arb players we can have, the more money we can sink into fewer spots.
In other words, if we have 7 “productive” (at least average) pre-arb position players, we have X to spend on only one player. If we have only 4 productive pre-arb players, we still have to fill those other four spots, so we have less to spend on each.
I know that seems overly simplistic, and it is (overly simplistic). But we really can never have too many productive pre-arb players.
The presence of pre-arb productive players allowed us to sign Hafner and Westbrook without making our team worse. (Whether that money should have been spent on other players is debatable, and beside the point).
That’s how we cashed in our pre-arb players: by signing Westbrook and Hafner.
Fair enough, good points.
That’s how we cashed in our pre-arb players: by signing Westbrook and Hafner.
Ugh. Hindsight being what it is and all, looks like we cashed in on a couple of SUVs right before the gas crunch (weakly trying to maintain my car analogy).
Remember how doubtful we all thought it was that we’d sign even one of the “big three” potential FAs? Now we have 2/3 signed and we hate it.
I love baseball.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
Right.
It only seems like it should work that way — cashing in for the big stud at some point — but the numbers work out completely terribly for doing so.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 7:43 PM EST up reply actions
But that’s not the end of it. Once we convince Towers to trade Peavy to uswe’ve got to convince Peavy himself to accept the trade. He only has four teams on his No Trade list and Cleveland isn’t anywhere close to being one of him. Basically, any incremental value that we would receive from trade would be completely wiped out by the additional money we’d have to pay him.
I think that for the Indians we can either trade talent, or sign FA’s for reasonable lengths, but not both.
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
He has a full no trade clause in 2008-2009.
His contract is very reasonable. It is basically $61M/4 years + $18M 2013 club option.
Even if we pick up his option, thats $79M/5 years. Less than $16M/year. Not bad at all.
There is no way we could get a comparable FA to sign at that price.
Is Peavy worth $16 million + prospects to get him?
What about the fact that he has elbow issues, and relies on a slider? Or that his K rate was significantly lower this year than ever before?
What about the fact that his career ERA outside of PetCo Park is 3.80?
I’m not saying Peavy isn’t good. I am saying Peavy probably isn’t worth $16 mil + the prospects it’d take to get him.
The problem with your analysis is that it relies on the oversimplification of trades.
Peavy = good
Good = top five prospects in our system.
Reasonable contract and all, that’s not how trades work. Any trade.
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
The cost of acquisition should not be assumed to be worth zero to the team. It’s not a reasonable estimate in the market.
by Jay on Nov 3, 2008 8:15 PM EST up reply actions
Can you clarify please. I don’t get what you mean.
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
Went over this in a long piece a couple years ago. There are four factors you’re looking at for each player in a trade:
1. On-field value for the immediate season, including risk.
2. On-field value for future seasons, which generally includes a lot more risk.
3. Value of the contract, positive or negative, that is, how much more or less than his on-field value does the player have to be paid.
4. Cost of acquisition, which is, how value is it just to be able to acquire this player, which generally is based on the scarcity of a player of this specific type, age, caliber, contract, etc.
Looked at another way, free agents seem to cost the most because the cost of acquisition is included in their salary, it isn’t paid any other way. You don’t have to scout 100 people to sign just one, develop dozens to get just a few to the majors, or give up other talent in the form of players and prospects.
by Jay on Nov 3, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly right.
The choice is, in essence:
Peavy for Shoppach, Huff, Wegz, and $60 million
OR
Lowe for $60 million over 4 years, as well as value on the trade market for Shoppach as well as keeping Wegz and Huff.
I’d say the marginal loss in downgrading from Peavy to Lowe is not that much, especially considering injury/performance risk associated with Peavy more so than Lowe.
So to “downgrade” to Lowe (not that much of a downgrade), we improve our team by trading Shoppach for something else, AND keep the most important thing we could have: our close-to-the-majors prospects.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 4, 2008 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t know, you seem to be paying a lot more attention to Peavy’s park effects than to Lowe’s, and Lowe was in an ideal park for his particular skill set. I like Lowe a lot, always have, but how likely is it that signing a guy coming off a terrific but clearly outlier season is going to turn out to be a good value?
Perhaps I mis-stated by opinion: Peavy is better than Lowe. They’d both be worse in the AL than the NL, and they’d both be worse outside of their respective home parks.
In a vacuum, I’d rather have Lowe. I just think that the difference between Lowe and Peavy isn’t ENORMOUS – and doesn’t justify giving up the prospects we’d have to part with in order to get Peavy.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 4, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
What are you basing this theory on that Lowe is slightly below Peavy in value?
by world dictator on Nov 4, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
Hold on. I said the difference in their value isn’t enormous. Not that Peavy is “slightly” better.
Lowe’s average FIP over the last four years: 3.75
Peavy’s average FIP over the last four years: 3.17
That’s a difference, yes, but not enormous. Assuming 200 innings pitched, Peavy would prevent 10 more runs than Lowe – that’s one win.
But wait, there’s more. Check out their average xFIP (this normalizes home run rate) over the last four years:
Lowe average xFIP: 3.57
Peavy average xFIP: 3.58
Also, while Lowe is older, he’s showing no noticible signs of decline, in either results (grounders, strikeouts, walks) or velocity.
Meanwhile, Peavy’s K rate this year was under 1 per inning for the first time in 04. That, coupled with the fact that he was shut down for a month due to an elbow problem, is concerning.
All things being equal, give me Peavy. But their performance over the past four years hasn’t been that different. And while Peavy is younger, he also has a larger injury risk and saw his strikeouts drop by over a full batter per nine this year.
Even given the age difference? Kind of surprised.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
Really? I’ll believe it when I see it, I guess.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 4, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
They want Sabathia plus one more. The prices are going up.
All indications are we’re going to get priced out.
Javy Vazquez is on the market apparently.
You know, right at the end of that article, they mention that Pavano is on the market. That would be a weird one — if someone took a flyer on him and he had a good season.
We’ll see. That headline should’ve been “Cashman targets all biggest free agents.”
This is the same Brian Cashman who believes in his young pitchers, didn’t trade for Johan, and hasn’t signed a pitcher to a big-time deal since Carl Pavano, right?
I doubt we’ll get Lowe. But I don’t know as Lowe is going to get more than 4 years and $60 mil.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 4, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
Where is this frontline starter, let alone an ace, that is going to cost less than $16 mil?
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 6:34 PM EST up reply actions
I guess I don’t see him saying “OK” to any deal without getting a contract with $20m+/yr.
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
The word on the street is that Peavy wants his option year picked up and/or a full no trade close for the duration of his contract. That’s very reasonable.
by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 6:32 PM EST up reply actions
His option year is $22 million. For a pitcher. In 2013.
That’s a lot.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 4, 2008 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think it makes sense to worry about that one option year, because we’re not making a decision based on that one year. Our decision is based on the totality of the contract we’ll be getting, and if that includes guaranteeing the option year, then you evaluate the value of the whole contract including that year.
The overall contract looks fine to me, but the no-trade clause sucks. You look at the difference in what we got for Sabathia as compared with Thome, and that should tell you everything you need to know about the damage teams do to themselves with no-trade clauses.
There is a $4M buyout on that option year. You really need to consider that $4M as a sunk cost and spread it over the garunteed life of the contract.
After you factor in the buyout its really an $18M option. Which doesn’t sound horrible for 4 years from now, assuming he is still a very good pitcher.
time machine me to 27 hours from now please
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 3, 2008 2:14 PM EST reply actions
take refuge in hypothetical conversations about the Indians off-season.
by APV on Nov 3, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
i just blew 90 minutes looking up career stats on b-ref
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 3, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
B-Ref should get a running tally of time wasted
WSJ headline: “Sean Forman – responsible for the collapse of America’s economy?”
by APV on Nov 3, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
