Guthrie for Hardy

[Ruzious]

Bingo. The reason you put Guthrie's name out there is because he's not as young as he appears to be. Most people think because he's only been around for a couple seasons he's got lots of career left, but in reality that's probably not the case. His trade value right now is much higher than his long term value to the team is, so if the deals are out there you have to pull the trigger.

Look at it this way: what's more valuable -- three years of Guthrie or eight/ten years of Hardy? That's a no brainer.

Thing is - we've got to field a major league team next year.

With Milwaukee now being a playoff team, maybe they look harder at keeping Hardy and trading Alcides Escobar. Big minor league trades rarely seem to happen, but that shouldn't be a reason to ignore the possibility. How boot trading our pitching phenom - Tillman (phenominal stats for 20 year old in AA, but does he project to be phenominal in the bigs?) for their blocked Escobar? Maybe we throw in a little extra.

[wickedwitch]

Guthrie is not a #1.

He is a #2....not an ace.

Yes he is. Before he was injured, he was top 10 in most pitching stats. That would put him as easily one of the top 14 pitchers in the league.

[mweb]

Guthrie is not a #1.

He is a #2....not an ace.

Again, I feel you are looking at this based on 2009.

I don't care about 2009 in this trade..If I did, i would agree that it wouldn't make sense.

Since you don't care about 2009, why not wait one more year after that, and then try to sign him in free agency? Now it's obviously possible he doesn't become a free agent, but I think that's much more likely than him agreeing to an extension with us at the time of the trade.

Then maybe while we are waiting for Hardy to become a free agent, we draft Green or another top SS, or are able to trade for Wood, Donald, or another SS prospect.

I also think we'd need to add to Guthrie anyway.

[Mackus]

Yes he is. Before he was injured, he was top 10 in most pitching stats. That would put him as easily one of the top 14 pitchers in the league.

To be an ace you've gotta be in the top 15-20 in all of MLB consistently. He hasn't done that yet. Maybe he will become one of those guys, but I think he's more likely to settle into the solid #2 category who occasionally has an ace-like season and also occasionally has a down year.

[wickedwitch]

To be an ace you've gotta be in the top 15-20 in all of MLB consistently. He hasn't done that yet. Maybe he will become one of those guys, but I think he's more likely to settle into the solid #2 category who occasionally has an ace-like season and also occasionally has a down year.

First, it's extremely difficult to compare AL stats to NL stats, even using OPS+. So I judge how good he is within his league.

Secondly, he had two seasons in the ML. One was very good, and one was great. Of all the pitchers in the AL who qualified for the ERA title, only Greinke had a better ERA in both seasons, although Halladay was very close. Using your criteria, who else is an ace?

[Stotle]

First, it's extremely difficult to compare AL stats to NL stats, even using OPS+. So I judge how good he is within his league.

Secondly, he had two seasons in the ML. One was very good, and one was great. Of all the pitchers in the AL who qualified for the ERA title, only Greinke had a better ERA in both seasons, although Halladay was very close. Using your criteria, who else is an ace?

"Ace" is less about stats and more about stuff/approach/command. Aces almost always have good stats, but good stats don't always indicate an ace.

[wickedwitch]

"Ace" is less about stats and more about stuff/approach/command. Aces almost always have good stats, but good stats don't always indicate an ace.

That's fair. What about Guthrie's stuff/approach/command does not make him an ace? As I pointed out, there have been very few pitchers in the AL with very good stats over the past two years, so if an ace has to have good stats, who qualifies under your standard? Are there any besides Halladay?

[YardBirds13]

That's fair. What about Guthrie's stuff/approach/command does not make him an ace? As I pointed out, there have been very few pitchers in the AL with very good stats over the past two years, so if an ace has to have good stats, who qualifies under your standard? Are there any besides Halladay?

Off the top of my head, both guys that pitched last night, Lester and Lackey, would count as "Aces" in my opinion. I think Beckett, when healthy, has to be in the discussion. Certainly Halladay.

I would think Felix Hernandez is in the discussion too.

[Stotle]

That's fair. What about Guthrie's stuff/approach/command does not make him an ace? As I pointed out, there have been very few pitchers in the AL with very good stats over the past two years, so if an ace has to have good stats, who qualifies under your standard? Are there any besides Halladay?

I don't think Guthrie misses enough bats, for one. He has a good fastball and a good slider to compliment. I wouldn't consider either a plus-plus pitch, but both are good. His changeup is solid. He generally commands his pitches and has a very good approach. He's a solid #2 for me. If his stuff played up a little more, and he could miss more bats, he'd be knocking on #1s door.

Examples of #1s for me would be Santana, Sabathia, Beckett, Lackey (though he's looked bad recently), Peavy, Harden, Webb. Those are a few.

[Sports Guy]

That's fair. What about Guthrie's stuff/approach/command does not make him an ace? As I pointed out, there have been very few pitchers in the AL with very good stats over the past two years, so if an ace has to have good stats, who qualifies under your standard? Are there any besides Halladay?

1) As Stotle said, he doesn't miss enough bats.

2) His secondary pitches aren't consistent enough.

3) Some of his peripherals aren't that strong...HR rate, K rate.

4) For all the slack Bedard took for not throwing enough complete games, Guthrie only has one. If that was a strike against Bedard, it is against Guthrie as well.

5) Hasn't shown he can make it through a season healthy.

[Genya]

Of the 8 playoff teams, only 3 had above-average production (OPS) from the SS position.

All 8 playoff teams had a team ERA that was better than league average. In fact, only 3 teams of the top 11 in team ERA didn't make the playoffs.

The point is that pitching will get you to the playoffs, not hitting (Rangers, anyone?). Trading our best starter to fill a hole at SS would be foolish, IMO.

[allstar1579]

The problem with this argument is that Guthrie has tired in both of his full seasons. An ace isn't a guy who pitches 180-195 innings.

Again, I love Guthrie, but we can't discount the arm/body fatigue late in the last two seasons from the discussion about whether he is a #1 or #2. This guy isn't dogging it either. He just legitimately has trouble standing up to the grind of a 162 game season. That isn't surprising based on his size, high effort motion, and heavy reliance on a 95ish mph 4 seam fastball.

He got tired his first season, but that was his first full ML season, this year he got hurt, not tired. They called it arm fatigue, but if it was, he wouldnt have come back for the last game.

If a #2 puts up his stats consistently for a couple seasons, he is suddenly referred to as a #1, that is just how it works most of the time. If he has another mid to low 3 ERA he will start getting the "is he an ace?" conversations.

[Sports Guy]

He got tired his first season, but that was his first full ML season, this year he got hurt, not tired. They called it arm fatigue, but if it was, he wouldnt have come back for the last game.

If a #2 puts up his stats consistently for a couple seasons, he is suddenly referred to as a #1, that is just how it works most of the time. If he has another mid to low 3 ERA he will start getting the "is he an ace?" conversations.

Palmer said he looked loke he was tired.

Either way, whether he got hurt or was tired, he still broke down at the end of the year for the second year in a row.

That isn't part of being an "ace".

[allstar1579]

Palmer said he looked loke he was tired.

Either way, whether he got hurt or was tired, he still broke down at the end of the year for the second year in a row.

That isn't part of being an "ace".

It's only his second full season, and I just don't think it's fair to say someone isn't an ace because they get hurt, we threw the ACE tag around on Bedard a lot, but he might as well have come in a box with a lamp shaped like a girlie leg, because he was FRAG-IL-LEY.

[Sports Guy]

It's only his second full season, and I just don't think it's fair to say someone isn't an ace because they get hurt, we threw the ACE tag around on Bedard a lot, but he might as well have come in a box with a lamp shaped like a girlie leg, because he was FRAG-IL-LEY.

Yea, it is his second full season...and he has yet to pitch a full season...Therefore, labeling him a true ace is completely wrong and that is the point.

Bedard is much more of an ace based on peripherals, performance and stuff.