Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 10:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Looks like there was an IBB of about .21 every game.    So teams don't mind doing it.   That certainly doesn't include the non-intentional intentional walk where the pitcher throws pitches that won't garner a swing by anyone with a decent eye. 

Crapshoot or no, pitchers control the game.   If we don't want to pitch to Mike Trout, Mike Trout sees nothing to hit.    Can't do that with a Clayton Kershaw.  You have to bat against him. 

Although, back to your original question, I'm not sure Trout gets the most money on a 1 year deal.   I think a pitcher would.   Several of them.   Turn it into a 5-6 year deal and I think you're right.   Long term deals to everyone, but moreso pitchers, have proven to be risky.    If I had to give 5/150 to someone, it's not a pitcher.   Or a 33 y/o firstbaseman. 

You're probably right. Take away the long term risk and a guy like Kershaw will get a huge one year deal. On the other hand, pitcher performance seems, at least anecdotally, to have more if a variance from year to year, so there is less certainty than with a hitter.

Also, the Red Sox showed that you can win a series without a stud starting pitcher. Lester is at least a level below Kershaw, Scherzer, and Wainwright.

Buckholz is the Sux's best starter.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 10:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Looks like there was an IBB of about .21 every game.    So teams don't mind doing it.   That certainly doesn't include the non-intentional intentional walk where the pitcher throws pitches that won't garner a swing by anyone with a decent eye. 

Crapshoot or no, pitchers control the game.   If we don't want to pitch to Mike Trout, Mike Trout sees nothing to hit.    Can't do that with a Clayton Kershaw.  You have to bat against him. 

Although, back to your original question, I'm not sure Trout gets the most money on a 1 year deal.   I think a pitcher would.   Several of them.   Turn it into a 5-6 year deal and I think you're right.   Long term deals to everyone, but moreso pitchers, have proven to be risky.    If I had to give 5/150 to someone, it's not a pitcher.   Or a 33 y/o firstbaseman. 

You're probably right. Take away the long term risk and a guy like Kershaw will get a huge one year deal. On the other hand, pitcher performance seems, at least anecdotally, to have more if a variance from year to year, so there is less certainty than with a hitter.

Also, the Red Sox showed that you can win a series without a stud starting pitcher. Lester is at least a level below Kershaw, Scherzer, and Wainwright.

Boston's bullpen was lights out.   Not saying I throw a bigger contract at a RP over a great hitter but it's still pitching.     Plus STL looked like they would have struggled against a High School #2 thru the playoffs.

It's crazy how lights out they were over a whole season. Reminded me of some of a The Eck led A's pens of the late 80's, early 90's

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 10:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Looks like there was an IBB of about .21 every game.    So teams don't mind doing it.   That certainly doesn't include the non-intentional intentional walk where the pitcher throws pitches that won't garner a swing by anyone with a decent eye. 

Crapshoot or no, pitchers control the game.   If we don't want to pitch to Mike Trout, Mike Trout sees nothing to hit.    Can't do that with a Clayton Kershaw.  You have to bat against him. 

Although, back to your original question, I'm not sure Trout gets the most money on a 1 year deal.   I think a pitcher would.   Several of them.   Turn it into a 5-6 year deal and I think you're right.   Long term deals to everyone, but moreso pitchers, have proven to be risky.    If I had to give 5/150 to someone, it's not a pitcher.   Or a 33 y/o firstbaseman. 

You're probably right. Take away the long term risk and a guy like Kershaw will get a huge one year deal. On the other hand, pitcher performance seems, at least anecdotally, to have more if a variance from year to year, so there is less certainty than with a hitter.

Also, the Red Sox showed that you can win a series without a stud starting pitcher. Lester is at least a level below Kershaw, Scherzer, and Wainwright.

Boston's bullpen was lights out.   Not saying I throw a bigger contract at a RP over a great hitter but it's still pitching.     Plus STL looked like they would have struggled against a High School #2 thru the playoffs.

Did they?

Do you think 215/281/315 is good?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Do you think 215/281/315 is good?

No, but it's the same as their opponents' triple slash line. Playoffs suppress offense for everyone. You only face your opponents top 2 or 3 starters and bullpens are fully rested because of all the days off.

This is one long pointless thread but I had some laughs.

WAR, ************!!! Lol.

Here's another take on things.  This was posted in one of Jayson Stark's latest columns - supposedly a quote from "Old Hoss Radbourn" from a long time ago...

"My criterion for valuable is the player whose kidnapping would net you the most ransom money."

Posted by ramonshaw on 11/22/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
This is one long pointless thread but I had some laughs.

WAR, ************!!! Lol.

INDEED!!! Any lefties named "Steve" wanna play second???

I just don't understand why the Tigers couldn't wait at least 1 more year.  When he gets another DWI next season this will look beyond dumb.  Make him prove to you a little more that he'll be worth this.  

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/28/2014 10:43:00 AM (view original):
I just don't understand why the Tigers couldn't wait at least 1 more year.  When he gets another DWI next season this will look beyond dumb.  Make him prove to you a little more that he'll be worth this.  

A horrible, horrible contract. The Tigers will regret it.

Cabrera's value can only go down in the next couple years. They bought high on a fat 31 year old that was already signed through his age 33 season. This is worse than the Ryan Howard extension.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/28/2014 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/28/2014 10:43:00 AM (view original):
I just don't understand why the Tigers couldn't wait at least 1 more year.  When he gets another DWI next season this will look beyond dumb.  Make him prove to you a little more that he'll be worth this.  

A horrible, horrible contract. The Tigers will regret it.

Cabrera's value can only go down in the next couple years. They bought high on a fat 31 year old that was already signed through his age 33 season. This is worse than the Ryan Howard extension.

No where near as bad as Ryan Howards.  

The price is one thing, I'm annoyed by the timing.  Why now?

I don't know. The phillies are only on the hook for another $85 million with Howard, and only through 2016. That's relatively short money on a guy who is still really good against right handers.

Cabrera can mash today, but when he's 37 (the age Howard's contract expires) the Tigers will still owe him something like $120 million.

no one on the radio today expressed this thought but what if the tigers really are saying were going to pay this 40+mil for 7 years and just spread it out for ten this keeps guys like trout from asking for 35mil a year  and keeps their team payroll down below the cap any thoughts on that