Jump to content

Frobby

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    54,735
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    440

Everything posted by Frobby

  1. As you said, I'm just tossing the subject out for discussion. I certainly have not concluded that MacPhail has decided to tank the season. As you say it is premature to make that judgment.
  2. The only thing giving me pause is 1970's opinion on where Hendrickson is likely to come out. That seems very counterinstinctual to me, but I have a lot of respect for his opinion. I'm having a hard time getting worked up about anything at the moment. Whether or not MacPhail is "tanking" 2009, it's clear that the main point of this season is to get Wieters into the lineup and to set the table for the numerous pitchers who will begin coming out the pipeline in the latter part of the year.
  3. Now this is probably the way MacPhail is thinking.
  4. I think from here on out we should just update your format, since it's more useful.
  5. The hypothetical you posed was: Huff had a .779 OPS in 2007. That is what I was responding to. Put it this way, we are trying to analyze what we'd need to receive in exchange for Huff in order to trade him now instead of letting him play the season in 2009 and try to get draft comepensation for him. To do that analysis, my view is you take into consideration Huff's likely 2009 performance, not his 20th percentile possibility.
  6. The year before he came to Baltimore Huff had an .814 OPS, despite being injured part of the year. Look, you are entitled to your opinion of what Huff will do next year. I'll gladly acknowledge that he could have a season similar to 2007. But you seem to assume that's the likelihood. Well, I say it isn't. Bill James projects him for an .829 OPS, Marcel's projects him at .816. I'd say those are far more reasonabe mid-range projections than what you are spinning. I'm not really sure why we are even arguing about this, since I don't think we really disagree about what MacPhail should be trying to do with Huff.
  7. To me, it depends on how many years and how much money. As I've explained in other threads, I think our bullpen would benefit tremendously if we could ease their burden by 75 innings or so. If I've got two pitchers, one of whom averages 5.1 IP/start at a 5.00 ERA, and the other of whom averages 6 IP/start at a 5.00 ERA, the second guy is far more valuable IMO. If you don't want to see a 13-man pitching staff and a rash of injuries to the bullpen, you'd better improve on 5.48 IP/start. So far, with DCab gone (6 IP/start) we're headed in the wrong direction in that department. So get ready for a season where 4 days out of five we're seeing the bullpen in the 6th inning or sooner, and prepare to watch the team implode even before the all-star break this time.
  8. You are always the pessimist on Huff. I wouldn't count on him duplicating 2008, but I'd be very surprised if he regressed to anything near his 2007 level. To me it's pretty clear that he had a hard time adjusting when he first got to Baltimore, but by now he's very comfortable and Crowley is working well with him. If we ended up with another year of Huff at age 33 in 2010, that would be far from the worst thing in the world IMO considering we may need just a little more time for Snyder and/or Rowell to develop.
  9. I'm OK with the Izturis signing (in fact, I liked it), but "decent bat" is going a bit far. Of 25 shortstops with 400+ PA's, Izturis ranked 24th. He's better than the ridiculous group we had there in 2008, but he's still pretty bad offensively.
  10. No - guys like Looper, Garland and Byrd average 6 IP per start.
  11. Obviously if he is tanking it he needs to be shopping Roberts, Huff and others. However, if he can't get enough then he just holds them for the draft picks.
  12. I'm beginning to think that MacPhail's plan is to tank the 2009 season. Not that he's planning to lose 120 games, but he seems willing to lose 100 games so long as he can keep payroll low and avoid any long term commitments to players who ultimately aren't part of the rebuilding effort. The Izturis and (apparent) Hendrickson signings fit this approach. The jettisoning of Ramon Hernandez fits this approach. The overall lack of aggressiveness in pursuing free agents fits this approach. Perhaps in the long term that's the right thing to do. We have the no. 5 pick in the 2009 draft, and if this season goes as badly as I think it might, we'd have a top 3 pick in 2010, maybe even the top pick overall. We'll have a lot of money on hand to aggressively draft "signability" picks in the lower rounds. Meanwhile it seems extremely likely that we'll have several starting pitchers either get their feet wet in the 2nd half of 2009 or be ready to compete for a spot in 2010. So what do you think - is this what MacPhail is doing? Is that what he should be doing? All I know is, 2009 could be a long season.
  13. I'm going to repeat something I've said on several threads now - I don't want to sign a pitcher for our rotation if his track record shows he averages substantially under 6 innings per start. Hendrickson's been at 5.09 and 5.32 the last two years. Signing a pitcher like that for the rotation just ensures that our bullpen will continue to be overtaxed. If we go into 2009 with only one pitcher (Guthrie) who averages 6 IP per start, we'll be very, very sorry come July. So Hendrickson is adequate for long reliever/spot starter, but I'm completely against signing him if he's a substitute for somebody else who could reasonably be expected to average 6 IP per start.
  14. It's silly to debate this now. There are three seasons to play, and who knows what the state of the economy is in 2011? The bottom line, though, is that a lockout will never work unless most of the owners are losing money under the current system. That's far from the case right now.
  15. Well, we will see, the jury is still out. If Hendrickson is signed as a swing man, I think it's kind of silly, but it's not that terrible. If he's signed with the exepctation that he's in our Opening Day rotation, that's just insane. So we'll see which it turns out to be.
  16. He is marginally better than Brian Burres. That's not saying much.
  17. You are right, I should have said middle reliever. Just out of curiosity, who cares if a middle reliever is right-handed or left-handed? If he's going to pitch 2+ innings fairly often, it really doesn't matter if he's right-handed or left-handed, just whether he gets the job done. So right now we have the following: Guthrie Olson Liz Waters Bass Simon Sarfate Albers Penn Walker Baez Ray Sherrill Miller Bierd Mickolio McCrory Hoey Burres I don't see middle relief as an urgent priority. What I'd much prefer are a couple of starters who can obviate the need to use middle relievers 4 days out of every 5.
  18. The Dodgers are up now -- surprisingly, not that strong. The complete list: KCR -- 1 A-, 1 B+, 6 B, 1 B-, 10 C+, 1 C ----Top 10: 3.00 Top 20: 2.65 MIN -- 2 B+, 1 B, 5 B-, 12 C+ ------------- Top 10: 2.77 Top 20: 2.55 ATL -- 1 A-, 3 B+, 3 B, 6 B-, 7 C+ -------- Top 10: 3.07 Top 20: 2.75 PHI -- 3 B, 5 B-, 9 C+, 3 C --------------- Top 10: 2.70 Top 20: 2.47 TAM -- 1 A, 3 B+, 1 B, 4 B-, 11 C+ ------- Top 10: 3.00 Top 20: 2.67 ARI -- 1 B+, 1 B, 5 B-, 3 C+, 10 C -------- Top 10: 2.80 Top 20: 2.40 BAL -- 1 A, 3 B+, 1 B, 4 B-, 7 C+, 4 C ----Top 10: 3.00 Top 20: 2.60 WAS - 2 B+, 1 B, 3 B-, 11 C+, 2 C -------- Top 10: 2.70 Top 20: 2.48 CHC --1 B+, 2 B, 1 3 B-. 7 C+, 7 C --------Top 10: 2.66 Top 20: 2.38 BOS -- 1 A-, 1 B+, 3 B, 8 B-, 7 C+ --------Top 10: 2.93 Top 20: 2.68 CIN -- 1 B+, 3 B, 4 B-, 10 C+, 2 C ---------Top 10: 2.77 Top 20: 2.52 TOR -- 1 A-, 1 B+, 1 B, 3 B-, 7 C+, 7 C ----Top 10: 2.73 Top 20: 2.42 MIL -- 1 B+, 5 B, 2 B-, 9 C+, 3 C ----------Top 10: 2.83 Top 20: 2.53 OAK -- 2 A-, 6 B, 7 B-, 5 C+ --------------Top 10: 3.07 Top 20: 2.78 TEX -- 1 A, 2 A-, 1 B+, 5 B, 2 B-, 9 C+ ----Top 10: 3.23 Top 20: 2.80 COL -- 1 A-, 1 B+, 1 B, 2 B-, 7 C+, 8 C ----Top 10: 2.70 Top 20: 2.38 NYM -- 2 B+, 3 B, 12 C+, 3 C -------------Top 10: 2.73 Top 20: 2.48 CWS -- 2 B+,1 B, 2 B-, 7 C+ and 8 C ------Top 10: 2.67 Top 20: 2.37 SFG -- 1 A, 1 A-,1 B+,1 B, 3 B-, 12 C+, 1 C Top 10: 2.90 Top 20: 2.60 NYY -- 1 B+, 1 B, 5 B-, 13 C+ -------------Top 10: 2.67 Top 20: 2.50 LAD -- 1 B+, 3 B, 2 B-, 8 C+, 6 C ----------Top 10: 2.70 Top 20: 2.42 With 21 teams now complete, the O's Top 10 is still tied for 4th, and the Top 20 is tied for 7th. The teams remaining are CLE, DET, FLA, HOU, LAA, PIT, SDP, STL and SEA.
  19. Hendrickson's a terrible alternative as a starter. In his career as a starter, he's averaged 5.67 innings/start and a 5.27 ERA. In 2008, he averaged 5.32 IP/start and a 6.24 ERA. In 2007, it was 5.09 IP/start and a 6.13 ERA. He'll be 35 this season. Honestly, as a starter, he's just garbage. I really don't see the value in paying much money for a situational lefty reliever, which is the only role Henrdrickson can fill half-decently. We already have a ton of bullpen arms. As I said before, if this is a split minor league/major league deal I can make sense of it. If this guarantees him a spot on the major league roster I think it's nuts. Worst move of MacPhail's tenure so far IMO.
  20. You have a gift for overstatement. I expect Olson to be in the rotation, but when a pitcher has an ERA nearing 7.00 over 165 innings, I wouldn't say keeping him from the rotation is "mind boggling stupid." He'd better look a lot better this spring before we just hand him a spot.
  21. I'll say two things here: 1. At this point, this is just an unconfirmed rumor. Let's not forget that. 2. Assuming the rumor is true, the only way I want Hendrickson here is on a split minor league/major league contract where he as to make the team to be paid anything significant, like Rob Bell and Lance Cormier. In fact, I'd prefer Cormier to Hendrickson.
  22. MacPhail said he was making progress on all these fronts while the Tex negotiations were ongoing. I'll take him at his word. If nothing happens in the next 2 weeks I'll start worrying.
  23. You left out the Mets. 2 B+, 3 B, 12 C+, 3 C -------------Top 10: 2.73 Top 20: 2.48
  24. NYY -- 1 B+, 1 B, 5 B-, 13 C+ Top 10: 2.67 Top 20: 2.50 Not much at the top, but decent depth.
×
×
  • Create New...