Tigers are close to trading Edwin Jackson

[jdmyprez]

Assume + Twitter = Giving wrong information out at the speed of light

:laughlol: very true but they are at least giving us something to talk about.

[Stotle]

Since there were 127 pitchers with 100 IP or more, I'll have to assume that there were 64 with higher walks rates. That would make Jackson average amongst pitchers with 100 IP or more. The trend is improved with each year as well.

He didn't crash and burn. He was able to make every start, average more than 6 innings per start. His ERA was a shade over 5.00. While not good, it's not like he was completely worthless. I realize we are at the usual point when it just goes around in circles and you won't back down. I'll just reiterate my point. We have a 26 year old pitcher who has proven durable (increasing his innings by 50 over the last 3 years) while improving in almost all other areas. He also has plus stuff and his control is at least average. You would prefer to focus in on his last two months, but I'm not sure what conclusion that leads you to. As I said before, he finished up even worse in 2008 and yet came back even better in 2009. Why would you not expect a 26 year old pitcher who shows a progression, not to progress any further. On the contrary, you keep using his poor finish to predict the opposite. (shrug)

Why are you ignoring the fact that I've said I would take him as a mid-rotation starter if that were something BAL needed? That's pretty high praise -- mid-rotation starters are hard to come by.

I don't know what I am supposed to back down on? Further, is there something you are supposed to back down on? Shrug. It seems to me like we have different views on Jackson's talent. I've used his decline in stats over the course of a season, inconsistent/spotty control, proclivity to miss up in the zone and allow homeruns, etc. You've pointed to end-of-the-year stats as your argument.

Putting our "debate" into context, what would you give-up to get him, since it seems like you would like to kick the tires? Maybe we don't disagree at all -- I might think your package is reasonable. I think you're painting my view as obstuse and imovable, when really I just don't see his season stat line as reason to paint him in a front-end light (regardless of improvements in that stat line from his Dodger days). And you haven't given me anything other than "His numbers have gotten better, overall, over the past two seasons." Why will they continue to get better? It's the same issue I have with the way some speak about prospects -- aging does not automatically mean improvement in skill. Everyone has a ceiling, and no one is guaranteed to improve simply because they've gotten a year older.

What scouting/stat analysis indicates things are clicking and Jackson should be able to hold it all together consistently over a season or two, or three? I look at the game log and see an inconsistent starter that is sometimes lights-out and sometimes hittable and borderline wild.

[waroriole]

If their asking price was merely "high" I'd have lost all interest in Jackson. That it is "very, very high" makes me start actively hoping that we don't end up trading for him.

Not surprising right now. The Tigers are selling him as an All-Star SP who has had the lights come on. Other teams are seeing the 2nd half performance and passing until the price comes down.

[Stotle]

Sure seemed like you and SG were saying his season was a fluke. That's what I was responding to. Your posts continued to pretty much dismiss Jacksons's season pointing to his poor finish as proof that Jackson's final numbers weren't really indicitive of his real worth. I would consider Jackson's full season to be worthy of a #2 starter. I haven't considered what it would take to get Jackson and never even considered him a target. I'm surprised the Tigers would even deal him for most of the reasons I've already stated. He's still young and relatively inexpensive. I still find some humor in you calling 2.94 walks per 9 innings, SPOTTY CONTROL. I would be curious to know how many people out there agree with you on that one.

I trust you didn't bother to look at the game logs. I guess in the interest of defending myself against your slings, I'll take the time to post them here...sigh:

IP | BB | BB/9

7.1 | 1 | 1.23

6.0 | 3 | 4.50

7.2 | 1 | 1.17

5.0 | 2 | 3.60

6.0 | 1 | 1.50

6.0 | 2 | 3.00

7.0 | 1 | 1.29

7.0 | 0 | 0.00

8.0 | 5 | 5.63

6.1 | 1 | 1.42

8.0 | 1 | 1.13

9.0 | 1 | 1.00

5.0 | 4 | 7.20

6.0 | 2 | 3.00

7.0 | 4 | 5.14

7.0 | 0 | 0.00

6.1 | 4 | 5.68

7.0 | 2 | 2.57

7.0 | 5 | 6.43

7.0 | 4 | 5.14

4.0 | 1 | 2.25

8.0 | 2 | 2.25

4.0 | 2 | 4.50

6.0 | 2 | 3.00

6.0 | 1 | 1.50

6.1 | 4 | 5.90

5.0 | 2 | 3.60

8.0 | 3 | 3.38

7.0 | 1 | 1.29

5.0 | 1 | 1.80

7.0 | 3 | 3.86

7.0 | 1 | 1.29

5.0 | 3 | 5.40

To simply further, read the last column. Perhaps, to you, that stat line reads as consistent. To me, it's spotty...

And his poor finish is one of many things I point to. But don't let that stop you. I agree, the position you're claiming I'm holding onto is much easier to argue against than the position I'm actually explaining.

[rhall]

Sure seemed like you and SG were saying his season was a fluke. That's what I was responding to. Your posts continued to pretty much dismiss Jacksons's season pointing to his poor finish as proof that Jackson's final numbers weren't really indicitive of his real worth. I would consider Jackson's full season to be worthy of a #2 starter. I haven't considered what it would take to get Jackson and never even considered him a target. I'm surprised the Tigers would even deal him for most of the reasons I've already stated. He's still young and relatively inexpensive. I still find some humor in you calling 2.94 walks per 9 innings, SPOTTY CONTROL. I would be curious to know how many people out there agree with you on that one.

That's the issue for Detroit. They expect his salary to rise quickly in his arbitration years (which start now, if I'm not mistaken) and they probably see him in a similar light that Stotle does. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have significant value. It just means that he may soon be getting paid more than he is worth, or you could be more conservative and say that he soon won't be much of a bargain. If money is a big issue for Detroit, that could make now a good time to deal Jackson.

[Mackus]

I'm not arguing against anything you said here. I'm just saying that Jackson is pretty darn good and if he had been an Oriole this past year, we'd likely be doing cartwheels and predicting a CY Young in his future.

People aren't doing cartwheels and predicting CY awards for Bergesen. There are plenty of people warning of the potential for a step back with him for similar reasons.

I agree with you that its a stretch to say that Jackson has spotty control, but that doesn't make Stotle's conclusions, that Jackson is a mid-rotation starter, not a #1/2, inaccurate, IMO. He is a #3-4 in my mind, not a #1/2. The Tigers are looking for at least a "young #2 starter" type of offer for him, but you're only going to get "3-4 starter" production from him most likely. I don't think that would be a very wise guy to target, and the Tigers are rightfully trying to find someone who thinks they are getting a young guy who will get even better and become an ace when its far more likely that they are just trading away a middle of the rotation starter.

[scOtt]

I look at the game log and see an inconsistent starter that is sometimes lights-out and sometimes hittable and borderline wild.

Sounds a lot like Ponson*, a VERY great pitcher... sometimes. Then the next start his evil twin would show up.

*Minus Ponson's many issues.

[rhall]

I'm not arguing against anything you said here. I'm just saying that Jackson is pretty darn good and if he had been an Oriole this past year, we'd likely be doing cartwheels and predicting a CY Young in his future.

Do you think that would be partly due to some orange colored glasses?

Jackson does have good power stuff, but if he can't command that in the strike zone then he will forever be at the mercy or whether or not he has his best stuff that night. Otherwise, he'll be prone to big innings, high pitch counts, and early exits. You'll never win a CY award if that happens too often.

I'm not saying that Jackson is a talented guy, and I don't think Stotle is either. I just think that Jackson's asking price will likely be too much to make trading for him worthwhile.

[Mackus]

I believe you said you expect big things from Matusz. Yet, here you have a 26 year old pitcher who has proven himself for three years, show durability that Matusz hasn't shown yet, just finished a season in which his stats are very #2 like, whose stuff is arguably better than Matusz's, who has progressed each of the last two years, and you have him pegged as a #3-4. I think if he was an O you'd sing a different tune. I think Jackson pitched like a #2 overall last year. I think there's evidence to suggest that he's on the upswing as well. Tampa Bay was wrong when they traded Jackson. He hasn't been traded yet but I think the Tigers are about the repeat Tampa Bay's mistake.

I don't think I'd feel any differently if he were on the O's. I think my expectations would be just about the same.

I wouldn't trade Matusz for him, and don't think anybody else in the baseball industry would, either.

What has Jackson proven himself to be? Not a #1/2 that the Tigers are trying to get value for. I don't think he's going to be an All-Star pitcher every year, or even any years really. He had a really good ERA last year, but I think his true talent is closer to his 2008 numbers. His K-rate just isn't high enough to get away with his HR-rate, even with his good BB-rate. And if he's not in such a big flyball park, I think his numbers go up. He had a fairly low BABIP this year and a fairly high LOB%, additional factors which helped him that will be difficult to repeat consistently.

I think he's a guy who will be in the 4.25-4.50 range far more often than he's below 4.00. That's still a good pitcher, just not someone I'm giving up a ton of talent to get. Certainly not Matusz to get. I have little doubt that Matusz will be much better than Jackson over the next several years.

[Stotle]

What a nudnick! LOL

I can post Tim Lincecum's game logs and make it look like he has spotty control too. Don't be ridiculous. The guy averaged 2.94 walks per 9 innings and pitched 214 innings over the course of a season. You, and maybe a few close friends, are the only ones who could possibly define that as spotty control. I have never heard anyone with that walk rate described as spotty. You are trying to point to the fact that his walk rate wasn't consistent throughout every start which you could find with 99.9% of all pitchers. Furthermore, despite a poor finish, the guys finished top 30 in all of baseball in many major statistical categories including, IP, ERA, WHIP, and K's.

It has become clear to me that you just don't bother breaking down pitchers. You honestly believe that your Lincecum example if proving something...just, wow.

:eektf::eektf::eektf:

Are you missing the irony here? Please tell me your post was a tongue in cheek apology. No? Okay, I'll let you in on the worst kept secret for anyone who pays attention to the total picture of a player:

Lincecum actually does have control issues from start to start. It's one of the only chinks in his armor. He gets away with it, though, because of an ability to miss bats to the tune of 10.42 SO/9 and a HR/9 of 0.40. Would you like to guess the difference between Lincey walking 3 hitters over 5 IP and Jackson walking 3 hitters over 5 IP?

When you show me a Jackson line (I'll even give you a full season) of 10+ SO/9 and less than 0.5 HR/9 then I will repent and declare you the final arbitor of Jackson's future.

I have to love you, RZ. In an attempt to be flippant and dismissive, you've managed to select possibly the worst example possible to prove your point. Late night ahead of me at the office, but I'm fortunate to be able to laugh about this one for a while as I work. Thanks, buddy. I really appreciate it.

:laughlol::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol:

As an aside, might I suggest you either pay more attention to the skill sets of players or tread a little more softly when talking down the evaluative abilities of those people who do.

[Stotle]

I believe you said you expect big things from Matusz. Yet, here you have a 26 year old pitcher who has proven himself for three years, show durability that Matusz hasn't shown yet, just finished a season in which his stats are very #2 like, whose stuff is arguably better than Matusz's, who has progressed each of the last two years, and you have him pegged as a #3-4. I think if he was an O you'd sing a different tune. I think Jackson pitched like a #2 overall last year. I think there's evidence to suggest that he's on the upswing as well. Tampa Bay was wrong when they traded Jackson. He hasn't been traded yet but I think the Tigers are about the repeat Tampa Bay's mistake.

Please keep these coming. Thanks.

[RShack]

I don't know what Edwin Jackson is gonna do, but I don't see why people are saying he's just so-so. Now, the truth of the matter is that I never even noticed the guy until I was watching a SEA game because Erik was pitching, and Jackson sure made me sit up and notice in that one particular game. I was thinking "who is this guy?" Now, I fully realize that one game doesn't mean anything, except it did make me look him up...

The guy is 25 and has had 3 real ML seasons. Each year, he's added another 20 IP. Each year he's improved his H/9. Each year he's improved his BB/9. So, needless to say, each year his WHIP has gotten better and better. His K/9 has bounced around a little bit, but I don't think we know anything about why that would be. Each year, he's added another 2 Outs/GS (from 15.6 to 17.7 to 19.5) and last year was just half-an-out shy of 20 Outs/GS, which is hard to do. All in all, I think this guy is young enough that he's still a work in progress, and the trajectory of how he actually delivers is going in the right direction, season by season. Now, I'm sure people can nose around and find things they don't like but, silly me, I mainly care how a SP actually does, not how somebody else says he was supposed to do. So, to me, he looks good. I'm not saying we're supposed to make a trade for him, but I would be very happy to have him around. I think he's young, serious, and getting better. By my little OTE+ number he was one of only of 11 guys in the league to land in the #1 zone. So, I'm not saying you should necessarily bet on him turning out to be somebody, but I'm sure as hell not gonna bet against him. I think he just might turn out to be somebody...

[Stotle]

I would be pleasantly surprised if Matusz comes close to having the season Jackson did in 2009. I don't know who turns out better but I think the chances are better of Jackson repeating 2009 than of Matusz equalling it in his first year. People keep mentioning Jackson benefitting from pitching his home games in Detroit. It's true that it's a big park but his road numbers were even better than his home numbers and the HR's allowed were about equal. Matusz actually showed a higher flyball tendency in his short ML career.

Wow, we are in deep trouble if Matusz "coming close" to a 4.28 FIP (good for 52nd among starters) will be a pleasant surprise. I'd think Matusz has the potential to be below 4.00 with regularity, provided he stays healthy.

[Mackus]

I would be pleasantly surprised if Matusz comes close to having the season Jackson did in 2009. I don't know who turns out better but I think the chances are better of Jackson repeating 2009 than of Matusz equalling it in his first year. People keep mentioning Jackson benefitting from pitching his home games in Detroit. It's true that it's a big park but his road numbers were even better than his home numbers and the HR's allowed were about equal. Matusz actually showed a higher flyball tendency in his short ML career.

I didn't say this year. I said over the next several years. Matusz will be the better pitcher, IMO. Jackson might outpitch him this year, and a large part of that will be because we'll still monitor Matusz innings, where Jackson if he can stay healthy is looking like he'll be a very good innings eater.

Again, I'm not saying Jackson isn't a valuable guy, but I don't think its likely he sees many seasons with ERAs in the 3.50-3.75 range. He out-performed his peripherals by quite a bit, his FIP ERA was 4.34 and his xFIP was 4.58. Some guys can out-pitch their peripherals consistently, but not many. Maybe Jackson will be one of those guys, maybe not, we'll just have to see. But I'd be much higher on him if he had better strikeout numbers and not as rough HR rates.

I think he settles in as a guy who can give you 210-220 innings most years in the 4.25-4.50 ERA range. That's very valuable, but not quite a #1/2 starter, IMO. If that's the price tag Detroit is trying to get for him, and really coming off the 2009 he put up with the raw numbers and the ASG, they should try to get that from somebody, I'm passing.

For comparison, I think Matusz settles in as a guy who is consistently under 4.00 ERA. Maybe not every year, but most years. We'll have to wait and see how durable he ends up becoming, but I like his chances.

[Stotle]

I think I'm pretty clear on the skillset of one Edwin Jackson. Unfortunately, you think anyone who disagrees with your conclusions has zero evaluative abilities of their own. I almost forgot how condescending you are, so thanks for the reminder. Somehow, I knew your razor thin skin would somehow get bruised in this discussion. Debates with you can only end in two ways. You being right or crying. Need a tissue?

Haha. I am laughing, not crying. Not offended at all and haven't been this whole discussion. I love this discussion. How condescending I am? Really? Go back and read how this all unfolded -- you called my opinion humorous, basically stated no one would agree with my take on Jackson's command, called me a "something-nik" (I don't remember what, exactly), etc. What have I done other than point out that 1) you weren't supporting your stance with anything other than some season totals, and 2) that your Lincey argument was...flawed.

I'm more than okay with people having a different view on players. I didn't set out to change anyone's mind about Jackson -- you engaged me, asking me to defend my stance. The Lincecum example was just icing on the cake -- I'm sure you CAN find similar paterns with Lincecum. Bwaahahaha.

Seriously, no hard feelings. I know we go at it from time-to-time, but there's no malice from this side, regardless of how much you seem to enjoy trying to (and succeeding time-to-time) knock me and my views. It's all good. I'd like to think we can continue to go at it like men and tip our hats at the end of the day -- there's only one poster I've dealt with on here (mostly in the draft section) that let's his/her ego get in front of good discussion (and more importantly, his/her ability to kick his/her analysis up a notch). I know you knock me for being full of myself; please believe I am not. Particularly this past year I've spent a lot of time going out to the field and evaluating players all over the country -- I know my place is quite low on the pecking order, and I have lots to learn and improve upon.