Comments on: ATD: James Demoted, Nolasco Returns, Rivalry Hype

By: jamie

jamie — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:22:30 +0000

both you guys, agreed. see it, and same: head v. heart…we shall see

By: jamie

jamie — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:12:29 +0000

and every team has a budget…wouldn’t you rather spend the extra 6 mil for reliever x on Santana?

By: jamie

jamie — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:10:20 +0000

VC, Chad was a mistake. No doubt. But then you say “It’s nonsense when some say that relief pitching is a crap shoot every year. It may be for most relievers, but not for all”…which is exactly what I said. For Most. I agree that chad was a mistake wholeheartedlty (and certainly Show). But signing relievers to long term contracts at any cost doesn’t make sense, unless they’re one of teh small group of consistent performers…and there’s competition for those guys’ services. Are you saying sign them at any cost, even if another club is offering ridiculous money? There are only a handful of guys in the league that are worth that gamble, or that are even available any given year.

By: VCarver

VCarver — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:24:44 +0000

Jamie, sure it works.

Here’s the philosophy —

1) Put the best relief arms in your bullpen every year that you can afford. If you’re a large market team like the Mets, don’t let money be a barrier. If you’re a smaller market team, of course you’re going to be restricted, but a club like the Mets shouldn’t be.

2) When you come across a consistent reliever snap him up, as long as you can afford him. It’s nonsense when some say that relief pitching is a crap shoot every year. It may be for most relievers, but not for all. One such consistent reliever is Bradford. The Mets had a chance to sign him but didn’t.

3. Don’t sign crappy relievers to multi-year contracts. That includes Show whose numbers have almost always been bad.

If you follow those principles, like the Cubs did, then you have a much better chance to build a strong bullpen.

By: buenosdiazfive

buenosdiazfive — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:20:57 +0000

Great point. I brought it up, and after reading I can see value in both riding it out for 100 ABs….as I write this, he just smacked a 1 out hit v the Brewers—NICE—at the same time, if it requires giving him up while his value is high to get something we may need a bit more, like bulpen help, then I would lean toward winning NOW!! It’s been too long for me since ’86. Tough call either way….easier for us GMs behind the keyboards to say, and I guess that’s why we arent in Omars chair. BTW, ball in the dirt—Pagan hustles to second! Gotta love it even if it only lasts 20 games!!!

By: 4JoeOrsulak

4JoeOrsulak — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:12:45 +0000

Point well taken. I’m wary of his history. The man has a .280 average and a .330 OBP in the minors and he’s almost 27 years old. He has never broken an .800 OPS in any full year he’s played.

However, if you look at his stats on the Baseball cube you find something interesting. Pagan, as soon as he’s promoted goes on a furious tear. When promoted to A+ he bats .400 for 12 games. Then over a full A+ season, he hits .240. Binghamton same story. He breaks .800 OPS over the first 12 games, then he regresses to his mean over a full season.

We’ve been here before with him.

My heart loves him, but my head tells me to shop him around. If we can get something nice for him, I’ll go for it. The odds still are on Pagan being Endy Chaviez minus the ++ defense.

By: jamie

jamie — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:51:38 +0000

I love what I’ve seen, and his youth. I have no problem at all riding this out, since Alou will be out til ??? Pagan has, according to PECOTA, the biggest breakout rate on teh team…I don’t mind giving him the time to at least check it out. I don’t want him going anywhere for, like I said, a couple hundred ABs. I don’t know who we could get that would equal his potential/value/cost/performance…I’d be pretty choosy, at this point, about who
i dealt him for. But I hope he is what he looks like, and that we keep him. Love how he works.

By: 4JoeOrsulak

4JoeOrsulak — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:39:23 +0000

“part with a part”…whoops…part with a piece maybe.

By: 4JoeOrsulak

4JoeOrsulak — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:38:28 +0000

Pagan might really be upping his trade value. Some team might part with a part we need to get him. It would be nice to be able to snag even a league-average 2nd baseman–or to steal a nice young 2B prospect–from a GM who is too easily swayed by small sample sizes and allows his decisions to hinge on vagaries like “fire” and “grit”.

Of course, this would be booting a player I like and who has done much to help us win after 20 games, which is rather cold-hearted. But if the purpose is for the organization to win than trading Angel high with a few more pieces might be the way to go, if any GM is foolish enough to take the bait.

Of course, Castillo’s contract has to be eaten, since the one GM dumb enough to sign him unfortunately happens to work for our team.

By: Necciai27

Necciai27 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:29:49 +0000

I agree about ESPN. They are a travesty. Why John Kruk (especially…you could also argue about Steve Phillips, too, of course) even has a job is beyond me. The last guy with any semblance of competence they still employ is Rob Neyer (he’d be one of my favorite baseball writers, Reyes comment aside; the guy made things that were alien to me like VORP, WARP-3, FRAA, and especially BABIP seem much easier to grasp)…and he writes an insider column on sabermetrics for them.