We may have overpaid for Eyre and Howry

by Whitebacon on Nov 30, 2005 2:10 AM CST Comment 47 comments

But at least we're not giving Kyle Farnsworth 15-17 million over three years.

The NY press is going to love him.

From the article:

One baseball official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Farnsworth will ink a three-year contract worth $15-17 million. The deal could be announced as early as Wednesday.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 47 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The NY press?

Just wait till those Yankee FANS get a hold of him.

by Al on Nov 30, 2005 4:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Remember, we have

Howry, Eyre, and Dempster all for the price of Billy Wagner.

Thats a good deal to me.

"You know what God told the cubs. Don't do anything until I get back!" Pete Rose

by Will71081 on Nov 30, 2005 8:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

... isn't the price for all three LESS than the price for Wagner? Or Ryan?

by Al on Nov 30, 2005 8:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was talking per year

Howry- 4 mil
Eyre- 3.67 mil
Dempster-5.17 mil

Total- 12.83 million per year

Wagner- 4 yrs. at 43 million

Total about 10.75 million a year

I guess over the life of the deals our 3 are less expensive.

"You know what God told the cubs. Don't do anything until I get back!" Pete Rose

by Will71081 on Nov 30, 2005 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your point is still taken...

... and don't forget, Howry has closer experience.

by Al on Nov 30, 2005 8:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The contrarian...

...points out that the 1994 Cubs added Jose Guzman, Candy Maldonado, and Randy Myers for the same dollars the saved on Greg Maddux.

Only Myers was any good.

Don't equate volume to quality. I'd trade Howry and Eyre for Ryan so fast you'd go Linda Blair on us.

A few exceptional players are better than a bunch of decent players.

by Ivychat on Nov 30, 2005 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Without The Benefit Of Hindsight....

....would you have any at all? 30 years old this coming year, B.J. Ryan has 42 career saves, 36 of which came last year. He's had decent ERAs the last two years, but overall, his career screams lefty specialist set up man. Nobody is claiming Eyre is anything more than that, and Howry has proven resilient enough to be at least a decent right handed set up man if not the occasional closer when Dempster needs a break. Ryan, Howry and Eyre are all roughly equal.

Go ahead and make your trade. The rest of us will still have another pitcher in the pen after Ryan pitches his one lousy inning.

by BeerCub on Nov 30, 2005 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

Hindsight or perspective?

Suggesting that Ryan is a better move than Eyre & Howry isn't hindsight.

How many saves does Ryan Dempster have? Why not Ryan to close with Demps and Kerry Wood as setup? Rich Hill as a $325,000 LOOGY. Wellmeyer as $500,000 mopup / long man.

Rusch, Prior, Zambrano, Maddux and Williams for starters.

There's 10 men.

by Ivychat on Nov 30, 2005 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, since you asked...

... Ryan has 42 career saves, 36 of them last year.

Dempster has 35 career saves, 33 of them last year.

Their numbers as closers were pretty close -- Ryan having the advantage in allowing fewer walks.

And about having a few, or one, great player rather than a group of good ones? When the Mariners decided to let Ken Griffey walk to free agency, they used the money to sign Ichiro and Bret Boone, among others. Won 116 games that year.

The Yankees have learned that just signing everyone in sight doesn't make you a team.

by Al on Nov 30, 2005 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So...

"signing everyone in sight doesn't make you a team."

...isn't signing two relievers instead of just one in the "signing everyone" mode more so than the course I suggest?

by Ivychat on Nov 30, 2005 4:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Al...

I have to call you on this... you've got your years, players and stories way mixed up on this one.

In 1998, they TRADED Randy Johnson to the Astros, so he could lead them to the playoffs. He would then go to the Diamondbacks and win multiple Cy Youngs and a World Series, while the Mariners would stink in 98 and 99.

Even though they built this ridiculously-expensive pitcher's park, majority financed with public money, they still tried to low-ball the best pitcher in baseball to the point where he would rather spit at the Mariners than sign a contract with them.

In 2000, they TRADED Ken Griffey to the Reds for Mike Cameron and a bunch of players they never got any use out of. They used the money they "saved" on not paying Griffey on Aaron Sele, John Olerud, Kaz Sasaki and Arthur Rhodes. These signings worked out just fine, but they didn't make the necessary adjustments during the season and the team failed to win the AL West or get past the Yankees in the playoffs.

They didn't trade Griffey because they couldn't afford him... they traded him because he asked to be traded for several bogus reasons. If they could have found a way to make him happy in Seattle, maybe impossible given the pitcher's park they built, they might have won a title in 2000.

In 2001, the Mariners let Alex Rodriguez go to free agency, but not before offering him huge sums of money, just not what Texas offered him.

The Mariners did not sign Bret Boone and Ichiro with this money... Like I've tried to get through to you before, Ichiro pays for himself and always has under the Mariners' budgeting. His posting money came out of a separate account the Mariners ownership setup just for foreign acquisitions (this applied to Sasaki as well). And they signed Bret Boone on the cheap that year and brought back Jeff Nelson...

They never came close to spending the Alex Rodriguez money on anything. They replaced him at shortstop with Carlos Guillen and Mark McLemore, and went with Al Martin in leftfield. It ended up dooming this team. Yes, they had that great record, but the Yankees beat them again in the playoffs because they spent more money on better players. The Diamondbacks then beat the Yankees because they did the same thing.

The Mariners have gone nowhere since then. They won 90 games in 2002, but they didn't make the playoffs because they still failed to make the team better when it counts... and doing so pissed off Manager Lou Piniella to the point where they had to trade him to Tampa Bay. Three years later, they're coming off of back-to-back, 90-loss seasons.

Letting Maddux go after 1992 is a pretty darn good comparison, except the Mariners did it times three.

by jameslcrockett on Nov 30, 2005 6:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, OK...

... point taken. I still think the Mariners were more of a TEAM without Griffey, and they proved it by winning 116 games in the regular season. Have they made bad choices since then? Sure they have.

Yes, I do know they traded both Johnson and Griffey, but they did so because it was clear that neither of them was going to stick around. Incidentally, the Mariners got Freddy Garcia in the Johnson deal -- that worked out pretty well for them, till they dumped him to the White Sox last year.

I still maintain that assembling a good TEAM, with good players who know their roles, rather than trying to mold a "supporting cast" around one superstar, is the way to go. Seems to me that this year's World Champions did just that.

by Al on Nov 30, 2005 7:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Point About Hindsight Went Over Your Head...

..as it was referring to your comments about Maddux v. Myers, Guzman and Maldonado.

As long as you brought Dempster into the mix, as I've pointed out before, Dempster, Eyre and Howry still come cheaper than Ryan. I'll take that deal every time. It gives me two more gives to go to after you hope Ryan finishes one, and maybe I've got an extra pinch hitter such as Mabry for the money too.

You're decrying Guzman and to a lesser extent Myers and yet you're satisfied with a 10 man staff that includes Wellemeyer, Hill, Williams and Rusch?

by BeerCub on Nov 30, 2005 4:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I understood

Myers, Guzman and Maldonado was PERSPECTIVE. It showed that multiple guys may not be as good as one superstar.

A 10 man staff that includes Wellemeyer, Hill, Williams and Rusch AND BJ Ryan is fine. If this team wins, that means Wellemeyer doesn't pitch that often. The bulk of your bullpen work would be Wood, Demps and BJ.

Cool by me.

by Ivychat on Nov 30, 2005 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I haven't seen...

... Wellemeyer mentioned as part of the 2006 bullpen at all -- those last couple of slots, the ones that Wellemeyer and Leicester stunk up most of last year, seem to be ticketed for Wuertz and Novoa.

And yes, SOME "multiple guys" migh tnot be as good as "one superstar".

But in other cases, it just might work.

Perspective. Right, Chuck?

by Al on Nov 30, 2005 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Unless

those multiple guys are 25 other guys, I'll take one future HoF-er versus two or three plus guys every time and twice on Hanukkah.

by Ivychat on Nov 30, 2005 5:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again...

... tell that to the Yankees of the last three or four years, vs. the years they won the WS. Are they better with A-Rod than they were then? I say not.

Were the Mariners better with the three guys they got instead of paying Griffey? Or the guys they got instead of paying Randy Johnson? I say yes.

by Al on Nov 30, 2005 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Matter Of Fact

Overall games and innings pitched-

Ryan- 405 games, 381.3 innings

Eyre- 408 games, 480 innings

Howry- 434 games, 460 innings

So keep pitching Ryan, but hope he even lasts the inning.

by BeerCub on Nov 30, 2005 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lifetime ERAs

Ryan- 3.54
Eyre- 4.52
Howry- 3.58

Nope, no "exceptionals" here. All roughly the same.

by BeerCub on Nov 30, 2005 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Except

that we only have to pay our two guys 7 million a year, instead of one guy 10 million plus a year

We get double the innings if not more, I say great move Jim Hendry show me more.

"You know what God told the cubs. Don't do anything until I get back!" Pete Rose

by Will71081 on Nov 30, 2005 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The last two years...

...Ryan's thrown more innings than games played.

Sounds like he was a LOOGY for a while. No longer.

People who spend more time on this than us think Ryan was not only a good signing, but priced properly.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/is-ryan-worth-it/

Key graf:

"So Ryan's comparables were actually worth about $12 million in their year similar to Ryan's 2005. But remember, the Jays are paying for future production, not what Ryan has done in the past. And over the next five years, we expect Ryan to be worth roughly $46 million, almost exactly equivalent to the contract he's getting from the Blue Jays. Unbelievably, this looks like a good deal, even with the declining innings and ERA and all."

by Ivychat on Nov 30, 2005 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Chuck,

you have to admit having 3 quality pitchers for the price of one is good from an economic standpoint.

Also it makes our bullpen that much deeper, in case of injury, which hit the top closer free agents last year. Benitez and Percival.

Finally, it frees up cash which although we may think it isn't limited for the Tribune, it is.

"You know what God told the cubs. Don't do anything until I get back!" Pete Rose

by Will71081 on Nov 30, 2005 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

By the time's he's thirty...

our Ryan may be worth as much as that other Ryan. I honestly thought B.J. was younger, I was a little surprised when I found out he turns thirty very soon.

Give Dempster a whole season. Would you have taken B.J. Ryan last year as a closer?

sPaRkLe Hendry sPaRkLe!

by sparkles721 on Nov 30, 2005 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

To answer the...

...contrarian. The Cubs already have a closer(who proved exceptional last year). The problem with the bullpen was late inning relief, Hendry adressed the problem with the signing of Howry and Eyre. The problem with your arguement (though it may be hypothetical) is Ryan would never have signed with the Cubs knowing he wouldn't be the closer.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on Nov 30, 2005 7:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

NOT the same thing

I was going to stay out of this but as with all things
Maddux I can't help myself. First of all it was 93 NOT 94
but it was a totally different situation. The Cubs PUSHED
Maddux away and he was ready and willing to sign with
them WITHOUT negotaiting with another team. It was not
at all like Ryan or Wagner who had multiple offers who would
have to be outbid. Maddux had been with the Cubs for six
years , he was in his absolute prime at 26 years old and while he was coming off his best season there was every reason to
believe he would continue to get better ( I don't think ANYONE
guessed how MUCH better).
I am not going to rehash Ryan's stats but I remain totally confused why you keep pushing him vs Howry & Eyre.
These guys HOLD leads, they don't SAVE games. The Cubs
were WRETCHED at holds last year. Who the hell would
be HOLDING a lead for Ryan if we had skipped Howry & Eyre?
Not TRYING to sign Ryan when they HAVE Dempster and getting
Howry and Eyre is not REMOTELY the same thing as lettting
Maddux go. In fact you just threw in Myers & Malonado
as they had nothing to do with any " Maddux " savings.
Our dear GM said at the time that for the cost
of Maddux they could get two good STARTING pitchers so
don't just pick any 3 guys that added up to his salary.

One the most painful parts of the whole debacle was when
they told Maddux they had SIGNED Guzman and he thought
at first it was a good thing as they NEEDED to improve the starting pitching, it was only after they told him that was part
of "his" money that he finally walked.

Chuck you want to find any reason to rip Hendry & the Trib
but comparing this to the Maddux debacle is ABSURD

by jessica on Nov 30, 2005 8:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wake up

Jes - Some perspective:

"Our dear GM said at the time that for the cost
of Maddux they could get two good STARTING pitchers"

But he didn't. He spent the money on Jose Guzman-Jose Guzman, closer Randy Myers, and Candy Maldonado.

"I am not going to rehash Ryan's stats but I remain totally confused why you keep pushing him vs Howry & Eyre."

Because he's a better pitcher. Having him as closer and Demps and Wood as setup is better than Demps, Eyre and Howry. And Wood will likely be in the pen before the year is out. My point is: Why spend on Eyre and Howry. Get Ryan instead.

Alas, Hendry spent $7mm per year on setup and $4mm per year on closer. I'd have spent $4mm per year on setup (Demps), thown Woods waste of a final $12mm where he'll have the highest effectiveness (clearing the rotation for Rusch, or Zito if I were in charge) and added Ryan.

"Chuck you want to find any reason to rip Hendry & the Trib"

Want to? They're staring us in the face sticking their middle fingers at us.

by Ivychat on Nov 30, 2005 10:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We signed only 3 players in 93?

I am on my lousy barely functional
home computer so someone will have to
check for me if Guzman, Myers and Maldonado were the only 3 players signed
by the Cubs in 1993. I think it remarkable Chuck that you can figure those 3 got
Maddux's 5.5 million for that year. Actually
Guzman and Myers "ate" Himes' "Maddux"
money , no need to bring in Maldonado

It is also amazing that you could get Dempster
for a million less and get him to be a set up
guy. ( he is getting 5 million per year not 4)
and that he and Wood neither of whom has ever spend signicant time as "8th" inning pitcher would be better than Howry & Eyre
who were among the top "hold" pitchers in
MLB this year
Chuck I know you hopelessly hate Hendry , the Trib etc and you may think they should have spent 44 million to top the Jays for Ryan but
to compare this with DELIBERATELY letting
Maddux leave in 92 shows that you lost any
sense of logic

by jessica on Nov 30, 2005 11:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What you don't know

"I know you hopelessly hate Hendry"

If that's what you think, you know jack about what I think of Hendry.

Hopeless hate is reserved for Korey! Severe disappointment is what Hendry gets from me.

And, once again, you've completely missed the Maddux point.

The issue is not that Greg Maddux was left to walk. The issue is that I would rather see the Cubs spend more dollars on fewer exceptional players than the same or slightly fewer dollars on a greater number of above average players.

Your logic here is as if I said: Swimming in Lake Michigan in January sucks because I hate cold water. You've interpreted my comment as anti-Lake Michigan instead of anti-cold water.

by Ivychat on Dec 1, 2005 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But....

The point of a bullpen is that you have to have MULTIPLE players that are effective to make it work - your one exceptional player cannot pitch in every game, and with the dirth of complete games in baseball anymore, odds are you're going to call on at least two bullpen pitchers per game to hold leads/ties. Eyre and Howry gives the Cubs two established pitchers and lefty/righty flexibility, and Dempster appears to be as solid a closer as Ryan (both have small sample sizes, so it's hardly clear that Ryan is EXCEPTIONALLY better than Dempster).

By spreading the money around in an area of the team where you need quantity in addition to quality, Hendry made a smart business decision. Building a bullpen is fundamentally different from building other parts of your team - such as starting pitchers or everyday players - were I would agree with you that fewer exceptional athletes might be better than many good but not great ones.

by Chadnudj on Dec 1, 2005 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Correct, but think

Erye and Howry gives the Cubs two in the pen to go with Demps.

So does Wood and Ryan.

Dempster does NOT appear to be as good as Ryan. As 2005 was Demps only year as a closer, we'll ignore taht his career OPS against is .180 worse than Ryan.

OPS against
Ryan: - .571
Demps: - .663 (total - as reliever was N/A)

OBP Against
Ryan - .283
Deps - .362 (as reliever only)

BB/K
Ryan - .260
Demps - .509

K/9 inn
Ryan - 12.85
Demps - 8.18

There's more. In every way, Ryan is a better pitcher. Demps is a decent pitcher with a great save total.

Demps is better suited to setup. Ryan to close.

Hendry made the mistake of quantity over quality.

by Ivychat on Dec 1, 2005 8:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

Your bullpen is the one area of the team you DON'T WANT TO USE.

You need the exceptional athletes for the WINS. Not for the 60 games you automatically use.

If I know that 70% of the time I have Wood, Demps and Ryan to follow my starters, Todd Wellemeyer can pitch the other games.

Those games are losses anyway.

by Ivychat on Dec 1, 2005 8:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the stats don't tell the story

Dempster was getting his feet wet as a closer and had some rocky outing in the beginning. As he grew more comfortable, he got better. What do you make out his last month as a closer? He was Eric Gagne in a Cubs uniform. And why did it take Ryan 4 years before becomming a good reliever?

You are just wrong to suggest Wood and Ryan. Wood may never see the bullpen in his life and We got 2 almost 3 guys for the price of Ryan.

Your suggestion of Wood going into a role with which he's unfamiliar is funny give how adamant you are about Nomar being unable to play 2B.

by socalbob on Dec 2, 2005 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Unbelievable

"Your suggestion of Wood going into a role with which he's unfamiliar is funny give how adamant you are about Nomar being unable to play 2B."

WHY do I say that Nomar can't play second and that Wood, who PITCHED IN THE ROLE I'M TALKING ABOUT FOR A MONTH LAST YEAR, is ideally suited for that role?

Could it be their INJURY HISTORY???

Sheesh

by Ivychat on Dec 2, 2005 11:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If your...

...going to use injury history as your argument, then wouldn't Nomar(because of his injury history)be more suitable at 2B?

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on Dec 2, 2005 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Because...

Nomar's groin injury makes the pivot on the double play more difficult than from short. 2B involves a twist where SS is just coming off the bag. For a guy with a sitched groin, 2B is too hard.

In my book, left field, DH or nothing for Nomar.

by Ivychat on Dec 2, 2005 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

WRONG!!

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on Dec 2, 2005 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so then

Nomar is a 3B because that's where he played returning from injury? That's B.S.

Answer the questions. You are famous at picking out one thing you can be negative about and hapring on it.

You are high if you think Wood is better suited for the bullpen and would actually pitch in the pen for a full year.

by socalbob on Dec 2, 2005 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Toke this

Yeah. Wood's not suited for a bullpen where his twice-surgically-repaired arm will be less stressed than as a starter.

And since when does Wood choose how he's used? In your world, I guess he does.

In the real world (if the Cubs had a real mananger), the players play where and when management tells them.

by Ivychat on Dec 2, 2005 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hittin' it hard

you must be inhaling. By your logic, we should sign Johhny Damon for 2B. Because we signed him and told him where to play. Doesn't matter where the guy has played or what role he's played his ENTIRE life. But we should dictate to him because WE ARE MANAGEMENT, dammit!

Whatever Mr. Dictator. What do Murton's kids have to say about that?

by socalbob on Dec 2, 2005 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs