O's nearing deal with reliever Gonzalez

[amateurfan]

But how will we ever find money to compete in two years, when Millwood is off the books and Gonzalez is a potential high-leverage guy in our bullpen?

Clearly what matters is how our moves stack up to Boston in 2010!

What? This doesn't even work sarcastically.

If we have to stack up against Boston in 2010 spend money to do so properly. If the team has determined that it can't, don't spend the money and save it. That 15-17 million the Orioles just spent could have been spent more wisely later.

Furthermore, it doesn't take into account that Lackey, or any other player signed long term, will not be worth the money in two years, thus relieving the need to spend money at that time. I don't know how anyone can say this is a good signing. Anyone who thinks Millwood and Gonzalez will be worth 4 wins this year is overly optimistic. If the Orioles really are only a 77 team, why spend to get to 81? I would think you, Mackus, Moose and others would be against such a signing.

[BaltimoreTerp]

What? This doesn't even work sarcastically.

Yes it does, since it just did.

[Jeff Spicoli]

Let's see how Lackey does pitching in a lunchbox, and in the toughest division in baseball.

I'm not saying Millwood is the better pitcher, but he is battled tested pitching in some of the most hitter-friendliest of places(Atlanta,Philly,Texas). If we get 12-15 wins and an ERA around 4.50 from Millwood, I'd be happy. I'd be willing to bet that Lackey's ERA won't be under 4.

[Lucky Jim]

That's a poor adjustment of stats. Millwood's career WAR is not worth looking at for next year. He's much more likely not to get to it, let alone last year's production. Lackey is much more likely to get 5 than Millwood 3.

Lackey has the potential to win more games for Boston than Millwood + Gonzalez do for the Orioles. I don't think that's all that up in the air. Millwood's K/9 was down, BB/9 was up and so too was his HR/9. I want him to pitch innings next year, but there's no way he's a value in comparison to Lackey (which I didn't even really support signing). I just think that if the Orioles announced "We plan on spending $20 million this winter", fans would have chosen different players.

Let me clear, in light of my prior sarcasm - I don't love this move. It's not the move I would make, but I prefer it to Rodney and a couple other moves, and I'm pretty sure the O's realized that they simply couldn't rely on Uehara or, say, Mickolio, for the role.

That said, Lackey has 3.9-4ish xFIPs over the last three years. Millwood between 4.2 - 4.8. Whether he wins more games, I think there's just as solid a chance that Lackey offers up only 3-4 WAR next year as there is that Millwood offers up less than 2.5 WAR.

After all, Lackey has been worth less than 4 wins a year the last two years. Even if he returns to 4+ WAR (and worrisome components and peripherals and other data say there's reason to doubt that) he'll likely only be doing it in the first year or two of a contract that's set to pay him $17m through an almost necessary decline.

The Sox clearly recognize that they're paying in years w/r/t Lackey for the help they get up front in contending. Indeed, he's a guy who's made just 51 starts, and pitched just 340 inning the last two years. It makes intuitive sense for them, because even w/ well less than 200 IP, those innings are likely to be above average and thus contain leverage value in a pennant race. The O's were going for exactly the opposite - and any comparable pitcher to Millwood would have been prohibitively expensive in years, which the O's clearly wanted to avoid. They'll gladly pay the extra $2m in salary to buy out the need for later years.

Thus, the comparison is almost literally apples and oranges: while the Redsox are being taxed in years for the help they get on the front end, the Orioles are paying salary above WAR because there's no leverage in 2010. They're paying $2-3m in order to avoid the yearly commitment. That's not a bad move, especially when the upside for Millwood (a not insignificant possibility) is squarely in the WAR range for Lackey's last two years.

Finally, I think the other problem with using WAR in this instance is the fact that it doesn't account for leverage, and thus likely underestimates closer value.

That aside, he really needs to be healthy in order for this to make sense. My guess - and this is just a guess - is that the O's think that, even if he was overused a bit last year, he'll be very good again in 2011 when they hope to contend. Fangraphs agrees, I think.

[Lucky Jim]

What? This doesn't even work sarcastically.

If we have to stack up against Boston in 2010 spend money to do so properly. If the team has determined that it can't, don't spend the money and save it. That 15-17 million the Orioles just spent could have been spent more wisely later.

Furthermore, it doesn't take into account that Lackey, or any other player signed long term, will not be worth the money in two years, thus relieving the need to spend money at that time. I don't know how anyone can say this is a good signing. Anyone who thinks Millwood and Gonzalez will be worth 4 wins this year is overly optimistic. If the Orioles really are only a 77 team, why spend to get to 81? I would think you, Mackus, Moose and others would be against such a signing.

I explained my position on this just after:

Let me clear, in light of my prior sarcasm - I don't love this move. It's not the move I would make, but I prefer it to Rodney and a couple other moves, and I'm pretty sure the O's realized that they simply couldn't rely on Uehara or, say, Mickolio, for the role.

That said, Lackey has 3.9-4ish xFIPs over the last three years. Millwood between 4.2 - 4.8. Whether he wins more games, I think there's just as solid a chance that Lackey offers up only 3-4 WAR next year as there is that Millwood offers up less than 2.5 WAR.

After all, Lackey has been worth less than 4 wins a year the last two years. Even if he returns to 4+ WAR (and worrisome components and peripherals and other data say there's reason to doubt that) he'll likely only be doing it in the first year or two of a contract that's set to pay him $17m through an almost necessary decline.

The Sox clearly recognize that they're paying in years w/r/t Lackey for the help they get up front in contending during the first two years. Indeed, he's a guy who's made just 51 starts, and pitched just 340 inning the last two years. It makes intuitive sense for them, nonetheless because even w/ well less than 200 IP, those innings are likely to be above average and thus contain leverage value in a pennant race. The O's were going for exactly the opposite - and any comparable pitcher to Millwood would have been prohibitively expensive in years, which the O's clearly wanted to avoid. They'll gladly pay the extra $2m in salary to buy out the need for later years.

Thus, the comparison is almost literally apples and oranges: while the Redsox are being taxed in years for the help they get on the front end, the Orioles are paying salary above WAR because there's no leverage in 2010. They're paying $2-3m in order to avoid the yearly commitment. That's not a bad move, especially when the upside for Millwood (a not insignificant possibility) is squarely in the WAR range for Lackey's last two years.

Finally, I think the other problem with using WAR in this instance is the fact that it doesn't account for leverage, and thus likely underestimates closer value.

That aside, he really needs to be healthy in order for this to make sense. My guess - and this is just a guess - is that the O's think that, even if he was underused a bit last year, he'll be very good again in 2011 when they hope to contend. Fangraphs agrees, I think.