Some stuff

[Sports Guy]

Well, I have no way to know what davearm may or may not be up to, but you don't have to be a troll to say that this year was Bedard's peak. Back when everybody was debating whether or not AM should try to trade him, there were tons of people who were saying exactly that, or at least things pretty close to that. People were saying stuff like that left and right. Don't you think so?

A player can peak but still be dominant after that.

[os1971]

I question the offensive issues of the Dodgers....I think they just need to watch some of their young guys get older and more mature.

Really, the Dodgers should be in good shape all around but they do have injury concerns in their staff...Penny has always had injury woes and Schmidt has his issues.

Maybe, just maybe, they are concerned by this???(just speculating here)

Guys like Gonzalez, Garciapparra, Furcal and Pierre were pretty bad last year. Kent is 40 and was on the verge of retiring, not sure if he can keep it up or not. The issue is, can they afford to give up a Kemp or Loney. I don't think they can afford to give up either one of those guys.

[srh523]

Just name another pitcher and compare them to Bedard and the other pitcher is definitely better.

Marquis or Bedard? Definitely Marquis!

No I want him to answer but I see he is researching it 1st! I ask because on June 17th of 2006 Beckett's ERA stood at hhmmmmmmmmm 5.09

[Lucky Jim]

A player can peak but still be dominant after that.

Exactly. Further, we just don't know WHAT Bedard's peak is. I'm pro- trading him. And have been since it became apparent we couldn't extend him. And I even had misgivings about extending him due to concerns about his durability.

That said, what we DO know is that Bedard's value is at its peak right now, in the context of his career. I.e., we can finally get enough in return for him that it makes trading him a prudent move. This does not mean that it's his peak career-wise.

Is it possible that it is? Sure. Is it likely? Maybe. But there's little reason to assume it is, other than the fact that it's tough to be much better than he was this year.

If Bedard continues to give up less than 8 hits per 9 innings and continues to K over a batter an inning then it doesn't matter if he's as good as this year. He's still going to be really, really good.

[RShack]

I was on a Cub board about an hour ago.

Someone there pointed out the fact that in mid-2006, Bedard had an ERA of over 5.

That's not too long ago. And it wasn't based on 1 or 2 bad starts early in the year.

Suffice it to say that I don't think my skepticism when it comes to Bedard is completely unwarranted and irrational.

It's not irrational. I think it mainly comes down to what you think his success since then is really about. Personally, I think his success since then is because he finally figured out his job. I think he's got it figured out now, and I think he's gonna stay top notch (with the inevitable ups and downs). But maybe you think he just got lucky? Or maybe you think he got into "the zone" of pitching great without knowing how he did it, so maybe he doesn't know how to get back in there?

[davearm]

Well, I have no way to know what davearm may or may not be up to, but you don't have to be a troll to say that this year was Bedard's peak. Back when everybody was debating whether or not AM should try to trade him, there were tons of people who were saying exactly that, or at least things pretty close to that. People were saying stuff like that left and right. Don't you think so? These days, we all like to think of him as Superman who the Dodgers should pay through the nose for. But that's not what everybody was saying before. Me, personally, I think he's special. But not everybody around here used to think that.

This is so true.

If I were to come out and say, "the O's would be nuts to trade Bedard!!! Extend him!!!!," the very same points I'm making now would be brought up to discredit that argument.

Folks may not like the delivery, but they know the message is on the mark. Bedard is a good or even very good pitcher, coming off of a great year.

[El Gordo]

I'm not talking about next year, Gord. I'm talking about over the course of their contracts, really. But also over the next two years.

You're right, Hu may not be up, and Kershaw may not be up either. But Laroche is likely to be. Further, year 3, 4, 5, etc. (when these guys will be cheap and potentially dominant) are no doubt being accounted for by the LA brass.

My point is, with Torre, Kent, Nomah, Pierre etc, they are a win now club, if they add Bedard they have a real shot they are only losing Kemp as a part time player. If they don't add more to their SP than Kuroda they can't compete with the D'Backs, now that they've added Haren. I wouldn't be counting that much on Schmidt.

[Lucky Jim]

This is so true.

If I were to come out and say, "the O's would be nuts to trade Bedard!!! Extend him!!!!," the very same points I'm making now would be brought up to discredit that argument.

Folks may not like the delivery, but they know the message is on the mark. Bedard is a good or even very good pitcher, coming off of a great year.

You haven't made any points. You said that his ERA as of mid-season last year was over 5.00. As if this outweighs out the fact that since then it's been under 3.50.

We're aware (most of us) of Bedard's flaws. We've voiced them. But you're simply underselling his value and his performance.

[srh523]

Sure, just overlook the fact that in his four starts between June 6 and 21 he struck out 30 with only 7 walks and 1 HRA in 25 IP while working to a 2.88 ERA.

Sure, just overlook the fact that his FIP ERA on June 21 was a respectable 4.30 - which was a pretty good indicator that he had pitched a heckuva lot better than his ERA indicated up to that point and was poised for a turnaround.

Sure, just overlook the fact that from June 6 to the end of 2007 he pitched to a 2.71 ERA with 133 Ks and only 42 BBs and 7 HRA in 133 IP.

Sure, just overlook the fact that from June 6, 2007 to the end of 2008, he has a 2.97 ERA with 315 Ks, 99 BBs, 26 HRA in 315 IP.

Another thing to consider. Using Park Factors, OPACY suppresses strikeouts by 9%, while Dodger Stadium increases strikeouts by 7%. That, coupled with a move to the NL, and it's hard to say how many batters he might strike out the next two seasons with the Dodgers.

The absolute only reason I'd be hesitant to trade for Erik Bedard if I were the Dodgers would be because I'd only presumably have him for two seasons (assuming he is hellbent on pitching in Toronto). Of course, if I thought he were going to help me to get to a World Series, I'd probably take that chance.

*cough cough* Who woke up 1970?

[Lucky Jim]

My point is, with Torre, Kent, Nomah, Pierre etc, they are a win now club, if they add Bedard they have a real shot they are only losing Kemp as a part time player. If they don't add more to their SP than Kuroda they can't compete with the D'Backs, now that they've added Haren. I wouldn't be counting that much on Schmidt.

I don't doubt that. But Colletti outweighs all of that. And it's the GMs job to know when to be strategically myopic and when to decide not to trade in future success for a high-risk near-term probability.

[davearm]

When you guys are done with me, you really need to get to work harassing the haters over at B-R and their piece of crap models.

Just look at the schmoes they've got on Bedard's comp list.

1. Donovan Osborne (976)

2. Bud Black (971)

3. Trevor Wilson (970)

4. Chris Nabholz (969)

5. Roy Parmelee (963)

6. Cal Eldred (962)

7. Justin Thompson (961)

8. Bill Hallahan (961)

9. Dick Stigman (959)

10. Marty Pattin (958)

[Sports Guy]

The only thing that would worry me about Bedard long term is will all the curve balls he throws put too much stress on his elbow and, as VaTech has pointed out, does the torque on his hips and back in his delivery lead to issues down the road???

For the next 2 years, I wouldn't worry too much about it but after that, I would.

Doubting his ability is a joke though.

[El Gordo]

Guys like Gonzalez, Garciapparra, Furcal and Pierre wre pretty bad last year. Kent is 40 and was on the verge of retiring, not sure if he can keep it up or not. The issue is, can they afford to give up a Kemp or Loney. I don't think they can afford to give up either one of those guys.

Why not give him up since they don't seem to want to play him.

[Sports Guy]

When you guys are done with me, you really need to get to work harassing the haters over at B-R and their piece of crap models.

Just look at the schmoes they've got on Bedard's comp list.

1. Donovan Osborne (976)

2. Bud Black (971)

3. Trevor Wilson (970)

4. Chris Nabholz (969)

5. Roy Parmelee (963)

6. Cal Eldred (962)

7. Justin Thompson (961)

8. Bill Hallahan (961)

9. Dick Stigman (959)

10. Marty Pattin (958)

It has been explained several times why this is a crappy list...They don't take into account what TYPE of pitcher he is.

Obviously comparing Bedard to Osborne is flat out dumb.

Let's see what PECOTA says when that is done.

[os1971]

Why not give him up since they don't seem to want to play him.

He (Kemp) played pretty regularly in the second half.