Regretting Not Signing Andrew Miller?

[Can_of_corn]

Almost no one is every unhittable for a year then is totally not worth a long term deal. Never. Ever, really.

It's not like Jose Mesa had 46 saves and an otherworldly 1.13 ERA in 1995, then followed it up with five years of a 4+ ERA. That never happened.

Tim Burke never went 7-0 with a 1.19 in 91 innings in '87, following that up with a replacement level season in '88.

BJ Ryan certainly didn't have a 1.37 one year and a 12.46 the next.

Armando Benitez may have had a 1.29 ERA with 47 saves in 2004, but no way did he have a 4.61 the rest of his career.

The Orioles stupidity goes back to '97-'98 when Randy Myers had a team record in saves and a 1.51 ERA, because he certainly didn't have a 4.92 ERA in '98 then retire.

Jim Kern might have pitched to a 1.57 in '79 in 143 innings with a ton of Ks, but it's a total lie that he had an almost 5.00 ERA in '80.

And there's no way Tug McGraw had 1+ ERA jumps following big years three separate times.

Bryan Harvey in no way had a 1.60 ERA followed up by an injury-shortened season, then a 1.70 followed up by, basically, retirement.

Ken Tatum never had a 1.36 ERA as a rookie for the Angels, followed up by run-and-a-half jumps each of the next two seasons.

None of that ever happened, you're right.

He said over a year, like a year and a half. So by his definition of year and a half you have to find guys that had a great year, followed by a great month of April.

[DrungoHazewood]

He said over a year, like a year and a half. So by his definition of year and a half you have to find guys that had a great year, followed by a great month of April.

Oh, sorry. Yea, that's never happened. Every reliever who had a great year followed by a great April went on to retire at the top of their games like 15 years later and is in the new Inner Circle annex at Cooperstown.

[ledzepp8]

Miller has been unhittable for about a year and a half. History is replete with guys that have had wonderful months, both as replacement players and bullpen guys. History is not replete with guys that have been unhittable for over a year. There always seems to be an excuse for this team NOT to spend money. Relief pitchers are fickle and injury prone. Guys are getting old and not worth the investment. I would like someone arguing against signing Markakis, Cruz, Miller, Kemp, etc. to tell me when IS a good time to spend money?

This is a false argument. It's been asked and answered. People on here will debate who should be signed in FA. No one on here claims no FAs should be signed, even though you and your cohorts like to argue that.

[weams]

This is a false argument. It's been asked and answered. People on here will debate who should be signed in FA. No one on here claims no FAs should be signed, even though you and your cohorts like to argue that.

I prefer to think of folks as individuals and not necessary group them. You and I like several of the same things, but I would hardly call us a group. Even though I think we would make a strong one.

[weams]

Oh, sorry. Yea, that's never happened. Every reliever who had a great year followed by a great April went on to retire at the top of their games like 15 years later and is in the new Inner Circle annex at Cooperstown.

Relievers are fickle and should not be paid big money. Even if they are lovely. Relievers are guys who could not hold it together well enough to start.

[Frobby]

Relievers are fickle and should not be paid big money. Even if they are lovely. Relievers are guys who could not hold it together well enough to start.

Miller is an interesting case because his K rate is so absurdly high -- 11.4 in 2012, 14.1 in 2013, 14.9 last year, 15.3 now. A guy like that is more likely to have consistent success than a guy whose K rate hovers around 9 or less. I actually think he's a very good sign for a team like the Yankees with a $200 mm budget. Let's not forget that they let Robertson go, who is getting significantly more money than Miller, and they got a comp pick out of it. I think the Yankees played their hand well in that regard.

For a team with a $120 mm budget, it's much tougher to spend $9 mm+ on a reliever. I'll be honest, though -- I don't think it's a no-brainer eithr way. It's actually a fairly tough call. But we have a lot of players who were due raises and Dan made his call accordingly. I'm satisfied with it no matter how well Miller does in NY. Who knows what it would have cost us to sign Miller anyways.

[Can_of_corn]

Miller is an interesting case because his K rate is so absurdly high -- 11.4 in 2012, 14.1 in 2013, 14.9 last year, 15.3 now. A guy like that is more likely to have consistent success than a guy whose K rate hovers around 9 or less. I actually think he's a very good sign for a team like the Yankees with a $200 mm budget. Let's not forget that they let Robertson go, who is getting significantly more money than Miller, and they got a comp pick out of it. I think the Yankees played their hand well in that regard.

For a team with a $120 mm budget, it's much tougher to spend $9 mm+ on a reliever. I'll be honest, though -- I don't think it's a no-brainer eithr way. It's actually a fairly tough call. But we have a lot of players who were due raises and Dan made his call accordingly. I'm satisfied with it no matter how well Miller does in NY. Who knows what it would have cost us to sign Miller anyways.

To me the main concerns with Miller are health related. Can he stay healthy and can he handle pitching 80+ innings a season?

I like his chances of staying successful for the length of the contract if you are simply looking at his stuff.

[Frobby]

To me the main concerns with Miller are health related. Can he stay healthy and can he handle pitching 80+ innings a season?

I like his chances of staying successful for the length of the contract if you are simply looking at his stuff.

I concur. And I'm not sure I'd expose him to 80+ innings, for that reason.

[Can_of_corn]

I concur. And I'm not sure I'd expose him to 80+ innings, for that reason.

Britton hit 80 last year and I thought that was a pretty reasonable workload.

I'd really like to use him for the occasional 4-5 out save.

[weams]

Miller is an interesting case because his K rate is so absurdly high -- 11.4 in 2012, 14.1 in 2013, 14.9 last year, 15.3 now. A guy like that is more likely to have consistent success than a guy whose K rate hovers around 9 or less. I actually think he's a very good sign for a team like the Yankees with a $200 mm budget. Let's not forget that they let Robertson go, who is getting significantly more money than Miller, and they got a comp pick out of it. I think the Yankees played their hand well in that regard.

For a team with a $120 mm budget, it's much tougher to spend $9 mm+ on a reliever. I'll be honest, though -- I don't think it's a no-brainer eithr way. It's actually a fairly tough call. But we have a lot of players who were due raises and Dan made his call accordingly. I'm satisfied with it no matter how well Miller does in NY. Who knows what it would have cost us to sign Miller anyways.

Since I can never look at these things from a 200 million dollar sustainable budget perspective, I refuse to believe they exist. I will never be a Yankees, Nationals, Red Sox, or Dodgers fan.

[spiritof66]

Now that Betances has regained his effectiveness, the Yankees seem to be moving toward a new approach, which I know I thought about and I (or others) may have speculated about when they acquired Miller, or maybe it was when Miller was pitching so well for the Orioles.

Instead of using his closer-quality guys in the same game, one in the 8th and one in the 9th, Girardi may begin alternating them -- using one of them to get 3-6 outs in a tight game and then giving him the next day off. Since neither Betances nor Miller has a history as a 3-out closer, each presumably can go more than one inning if the situation calls for it, as long as he's rested sufficiently.

It highlights the interesting situation the Yankees have put themselves in: they have serious weaknesses in the middle infield and SP depth, and an excess of of DH candidates and late-inning relief talent, and they seem to have no inclination to make any changes.

[BohKnowsBmore]

You can't pay a guy who pitches, even 80 innings, can't pay him 10% (9%) of our payroll. I don't care if he's Mariano Rivera. Babe Ruth in the 1914 WS. CAN'T.

Put another way. Paying a whole roster of 25 players $10m equates to a payroll of $250m, a payroll figure only held by the dodgers. Even the biggest proponents of the orioles spending more money have to understand that spending on miller would limit the roster elsewhere.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BohKnowsBmore]

Wrong thread.

[Bahama O's Fan]

As great as Miller has been, I still don't regret it. Even if he goes on to have a great four year career, HE'S A RELIEF PITCHER! It's not that hard to match his WAR with other pieces for a fraction of the cost. Look at Brach and O'day as examples. Are they as effective as Miller? Maybe not. How much do they cost compared to Miller? Alot less. When you are stuck on a budget (whether you think we should be or not, we are), that's money better spent elsewhere. I believe someone asked where and when do you spend money. Here are some ideas:

1. On your own young promising stars-Jones, Machado, Tillman, etc...

2. On an important piece that might be hard to replace-Hardy (although Cabrera isn't that terrible)

3. A place of severe weakness on your team where you have no viable options to fill it cheaper.

[weams]

Yes. Yes I am.