Lannan available?
Wouldn't mind getting him. Two more years of arbitration eligibility, only 27 years old. Would definitely fit the type of offseason moves we've made thus far.
4 months ago
cubbieblue
120 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
The thing is
… the Nats are trying to dump salary so they can sign Edwin Jackson. I can’t see Theo & Jed taking on Lannan unless, say, they could send Marlon Byrd to DC.
That said, I’d love to get Lannan.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Money might be an issue for the Cubs.
But I think rotation spots would be the big stopping point. If you trade for Lannan, your first four rotation spots are pretty much set (Garza, Dempster, Maholm, Lannan) without getting to Volstad, Wood or Wells (to say nothing of Sonnestine, RoLo, Coleman, etc.). I know TheoJed have talked about loading up on starting pitching options, but Lannan would seem to be overkill. In essence, getting Lannan would make the Marshall trade look pretty dumb, because it would boot Wood from the rotation.
If the Cubs did want Lannan (and he’s a decent pitcher, no doubt) they could probably fit him under budget along with Garza, Byrd and Cespedes and stay under $130 million in 2012. That would probably require backloading multiyear deals for Garza and Cespedes, figuring their post-2012 money could come from the savings on Dempster/Byrd/Z. That’s $39 million or so right there.
And Al, why would the Nats take Byrd (who’s set to earn $6.5 million this season) in a trade for Lannan (who will earn $5 million) if their goal is to cut payroll to sign Edwin Jackson? Replacing Byrd with Lannan would be ADDING payroll.
Regardless, I don’t see the Cubs getting in on Lannan — but if they do, I bet they would end up sending Randy Wells or another young pitcher to DC.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
by elgato on Feb 2, 2012 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I had much the same reaction.
Are Theo & Jed really still in the market for modestly-successful-with-some-modicum-of-upside starting pitchers? Lannan is basically a lesser version of Paul Maholm – fantastic career ground ball and home run rates but, unlike Paul, he’s never been worth more than 1.4 fWAR in a season. And your point about Byrd is good, too — unless maybe the Cubs agree to eat some of Byrd’s salary, which wouldn’t make much sense.
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
I think we are all having the same thoughts.
If I’m not trading someone, this makes absolutely zero sense.
Lannan for Wells, straight up?
Hmmm. You save $2 million on Wells (IIRC, that’s what he got before arb), so this would really be a $3 million hit.
Meanwhile, the Cubs ensure they have three lefty starters in 2012 and two under team control for 2013. Wood could start 2012 in the minors, leaving the Cubs with Garza, Maholm, Dempster, Lannan, Volstad.
You know what? I’d do that. Lannan is an upgrade over Wells, and he’s actually younger. Washington might make the deal for cost savings, and Wells isn’t awful. I might even throw in a low-level prospect. But would Washington be interested?
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Actually, I bet Washington would pass.
Their rotation already consists of four right handers (and Gio Gonzalez). I doubt they’d want Wells. So, the Cubs would probably have to send prospects to get Lannan, which is a non-starter with me.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Good point, I guess.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Straight up...
You get the cost savings, I get the upside. That was exactly my thinking.
As for the Nats, hard to say. Most budgets are tapped out at this point in the off-season, so you’ve only got so many teams that can pull 3-5 million out of their butts right now. But I do love hearing the word “aggressively shopping”.
by Damen Jackson on Feb 2, 2012 2:56 PM CST up reply actions
My allegiance to Randy Wells...
…makes me want to argue that Lannan is, in fact, not an upgrade – aside from the fact that he’s two years younger. But, taking a step back and looking at their career numbers, it’s pretty close.
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
Pretty close, left handed and 2 years younger?
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
The thing is
… Washington’s rotation is overcrowded. If they trade Lannan, the last thing they are going to want in return is another starting pitcher.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
As opposed to our rotation.
Which is overcrowded, as well. And yet, you wanted to get Lannan.
Why are the Cubs the only team that would buy into the whole “you can never have too much starting pitching”?
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Lannan
… is better than RoLo. And a couple of the other choices.
The point is, the Nats just signed Edwin Jackson. They likely intend to move Lannan for some offensive help, not another pitcher.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
OMG, Al.
This is not about Lannan versus Rodrigo mother-bleeping Lopez. This is about Lannan versus Wells, Wood and Volstad.
Think of the Cubs starting pitchers in three groups (barring trades):
Guys guaranteed rotation spots: Garza, Dempster, Maholm
Guys who are good bets but will have to fight for the rotation: Volstad, Wood, Wells
Guys who will be backup options: Sonnestine, RoLo, Coleman, McNutt
If the Cubs get Lannan, he doesn’t replace RoLo as one of the starting pitchers Nos. 7-11. Lannan would get a guaranteed big-league contract, whereas Lopez got an invite to spring training and a split deal.
Yes, if Lannan is acquired, he would move RoLo from one of the guys in the 7-11 group to one of the guys in the 8-12 group. But SO WHAT? That does almost nothing as far as reducing RoLo’s chances of starting for the Cubs next year. It reduces the odds from 1 in 100 to about 1 in 150.
Is THAT why you want to get Lannan? To further reduce the extremely long odds that RoLo will start a game or two in 2012? Really?
You seem to really think RoLo has a shot at returning to the Cubs’ rotation in 2012 in a meaningful/non-emergency start way.
He won’t. Move on.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
by elgato on Feb 2, 2012 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
You said in the 7-11 range before Lannan.
Who is number 6 behind Wood? And I’m hoping you don’t say McNutt, he is not ready at this point. Samardzija? Russell? Heck no. Maybe Coleman, but I’d take RoLo over Coleman if I had to win any given game.
Pitchers:
1) Garza
2) Dempster
3) Maholm
4) Volstad
5) Wells
6) Wood
Clear enough? This is assuming we don’t deal Garza.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Geez, el.
All I was saying was that IF the Nats trade Lannan, they wouldn’t do it for Wells. They’re trying to parlay their extra pitching into some hitting.
And yes, Lannan is better than RoLo. If the Cubs want an upgrade, here’s a way to get one. Maybe they could ship Marlon Byrd to DC for Lannan.
That would make more sense than trading Randy Wells.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Al.
The Cubs would not acquire John Lannan to be the No. 7-11 starter. Would they?
You might be right about Randy Wells. But your apparent endorsement of getting Lannan so he could replace RoLo in the rotation mix makes no sense.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I'm sorry if I sound frustrated about this.
But, truth be told, I am frustrated. You seem to be really worried that RoLo will be in the rotation, despite the fact that he has no big-league contract and he’s several rungs down on the depth chart. You endorsed the Lannan signing earlier and then that Lannan is better than “RoLo and a couple other choices” as a reason to justify why the Cubs need pitching depth and the Nats don’t.
But that’s not at all what a Lannan acquisition would be about for the Cubs, other than bumping RoLo down one more spot — which doesn’t seem worth $5 million and whatever the Nats would want.
I’m not even (now) getting on your case about irrational dislike of a player. I’m just amazed that you think the player that you irrationally dislike so much will be enough of a factor that you endorse adding more mid-range pitching depth when the Cubs already have six proven big-league starters, Casey Coleman, Andy Sonnestine, the possible emergence of Trey McNutt and THEN … Rodrigo Lopez.
It just seems like you’re hoping for moves to prevent something (RoLo being a meaningful part of the rotation) that will almost certainly never happen.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I sense a "The Case for RoLo Making the Starting Rotation" post in the offing
I’m almost kinda serious. I mean, it would take some combination of trades and at least 3-4 injuries and no more SP moves by the Cubs to get RoLo in there. There’s gotta be at least 75 words worth there…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Or 50 words and:
75words75words75words75words75words75words75words75words75words75words75words75words75words75words75words
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
Wow, are you misreading what I said.
You went off on a huge rant because I mentioned RoLo.
My entire point — which you mentioned only in passing — was that IF the Nats trade Lannan, they would not do so for another pitcher. They’re trying to parlay their pitching excess into hitting.
That’s it. Nothing more. Let’s move on.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
My question:
Why are the Cubs the only team that would buy into the whole "you can never have too much starting pitching"?
Your answer:
Lannan… is better than RoLo. And a couple of the other choices.
I’m more than happy to move on. But don’t try to pin this on me going on a rant about something you didn’t really say.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
by elgato on Feb 3, 2012 8:09 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
I moved on.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Sorry to rile you up, apparently I had a brainfart.
Not sure who I forgot at the time.
No worries.
Sorry, if I jumped down your throat.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
We don't need another lefty, 2 years younger but 3 million more per year?
We’re talking about a #4 pitcher, it’s not like the 28 vs 30 is a major deal breaker… I don’t think we should expect either of those guys in our rotation in 3-4 more years regardless.
Hm, maybe I can argue.
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
Has Wells been a No. 4 pitcher the past two years?
I’d say that’s arguable.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Like I said below, I think he was pretty horribly mismanaged last year.
He had a 3.93 ERA in August and September, which is very solid. He has better peripherals than either Lannan or Niemann, is cheaper than either option,
He’s been worth 6.3 WAR in the last 3 years, including his 0.1 WAR last year. That’s more than Lannan has been worth in his CAREER, and 1 WAR above Niemann for the last 3 years.
I’d say Wells is an easy #4 if healthy.
And like I said below ...
on what are you basing the came-back-too-early/was mismanaged theory? Sure, it’s possible — but you shouldn’t build an entire argument around supposition. And if you have evidence, please provide it.
Two years is fairly significant in this case. Lannan could be entering his peak years and Wells could be on the tail end of his. Plus, Wells is right handed.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Discussed below..
The whole handedness thing is way overblown around here. We have 2 lefty starters, we don’t need a 3rd.
I also disagree that 2 years is significant… Wells doesn’t have a ton of mileage on his arm to concern me.
The importance of handedness isn't just a BCB thing.
And it’s true that Wells doesn’t have the mileage on his arm that Lannan has. But Lannan has more proven durability. So, from where we’re sitting, I’d say it’s about a wash.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I know it isn't just BCB, but it is overplayed EVERYWHERE.
I will give you durability with Lannan, but I just don’t think he’s as good as a pitcher as Wells, and we have the depth to take the risk of another injury.
This is an instance ...
where if a trade was made — if the Cubs swapped Wells for Lannan — I’d be behind the move because I would figure that TheoJed have access to enough info to know some sort of objective truth.
We really don’t.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
All in all, it isn't really worth it.
The difference between Wells and Lannan on the field and with the paycheck just doesn’t make me want to do this straight up. If there were ways to get Byrd over there, I’m happy.
I'd rather trade Byrd for a prospect at this point...
We just don’t need another #4 pitcher. I don’t care what hand he throws with.
by bdlugz on Feb 2, 2012 3:47 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
He was at least a No. 4 in 2010.
This past year was obviously a bit of a disaster. But, as bdlugz points out, Wells has been better than Lannan thus far results-wise. Lannan does have age, left-handedness, durability and ground ball rate on his side, though.
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
I'll say this:
If TheoJed traded Randy for Lannan, I’d guess that they thought that the age and handedness difference were significant and/or that Lannan has more upside.
And if such a trade didn’t happen, I wouldn’t be devastated because I do see that Wells has some value and that either the teams weren’t a match or the handedness and age differences aren’t big deals and that they think Lannan has minimal upside.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Especially now that the Nationals have signed Jackson
Apparently, it wasn’t contingent on trading Lannan. I wouldn’t mind having him, but we already have a stockpile of arms. I think Demp or Garza (or even Wells, to a certain extent) have to get moved in order for getting Lannan to end up making sense.
Might not exactly be contingent on trading Lannan ...
but the Nats might still want to do it.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
The MLBTR post mentioned
a report saying the move was “contingent” on moving Lannan. I agree in that I think they will though. With the young pitching they have, Lannan is good, but not great, and should fit less in their long term plans.
Here's the thing:
The Cubs have acquired three pitchers this offseason who are “good, but not great”, and they already had one on the roster in Randy Wells. The nice thing is that each of them is relatively inexpensive — we’re not spending $7 million on a No. 5 starter who needed a 3-year deal — but after a point, shouldn’t a team stop acquiring cheap fourth and fifth starters? It might not be a huge waste of money, but it’s still a waste of money, isn’t it?
Or, put another way, does Lannan have more upside than Volstad, Wood or Wells? Because, if he doesn’t, there really isn’t a point to the Cubs acquiring him.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I'm not arguing to trade for him, actually.
Just saying I wouldn’t necessarily mind it. For us, it doesn’t make near as much sense as other teams.
I might be down for it ...
if it got rid of Byrd and made it easier to get Cespedes. But I don’t see why the Nats would a Lannan for Byrd trade positively if they’re trying to save money.
Or, I might be down for it if the Cubs hadn’t acquired Paul Maholm.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I'd love to see Lannan here
but Garza would most likely be gone. Can’t see a taker for Dempster unless they eat half of his $$. Wells would bring just about nothing in return………..probably better off keeping him as insurance or 5 starter and hope he rebounds
Demp could always be moved if we ate money,
but I don’t see us doing that, nor do I think he really wants to leave Chicago at this point.
I don't think trading Garza has any bearing on Lannan.
One’s right handed, one’s left handed. One’s an ace or a No. 2, the other is a No. 3 at best.
If we traded Garza, the rotation would be Dempster, Maholm, Volstad, Wood and Wells. Maybe Lannan could move in and beat out one of the last three, but what would be the point?
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
well, technically...
what would be the point?
Replacing Garza with a haul of prospects that can help in our window of contention ( not that Garza can’t, but young studs could eventually outproduce him at a more competitive age for a more competitive team) and a capable number 3 pitcher that can pitch for a bad team and not cost as much as Garza. Theoretically, we can try and get a TOR starter next FA (assuming they don’t all get extended, a real possibility).
Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't trade Garza.
My point is we already have a bunch of No. 3-4 pitchers. I don’t see how trading Garza improves the argument to get Lannan. Isn’t Lannan just a younger version of Paul Maholm, or an older version of Travis Wood?
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Is Travis Wood 100% healthy? I thought he was pulled by the end of the season for some reason.
If he’s not 100%, does he have options to start in AAA to make sure, and then bring him back to the bigs when someone is traded at the deadline.
That still leaves Wells and Volstad.
Though, if Wood is injured/needs to go the minors, you’re getting warmer.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I'm always in favor of too much pitching.
They can always be trade chips later on. But, at least this year, the Cubs won’t have the problems they did last year with with the way things are developing.
There might always be room for too much pitching.
But there also might be a better way to spend $5 million — or a better way to use the pieces that would have to go to Washington.
Especially considering we already have some guys as good as Lannan on the team.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I agree with your point of a bunch of 3-4 pitchers.
I guess for now though, how much does it matter becomes the question if we can get more value for the future and run out a bunch of 3’s and 4’s out there. Maybe I’m more willing to take our lumps this coming year than most, but trading Garza (again, only if we get a solid overpay) makes room for Demp, Lannan, Maholm, Volstad and Wells/Wood (6 solid options feels good with other options behind them) and sets us up to plug in a potential FA TOR and our new TOR prospect in a year or two.
I just don't think trading Garza makes a more compelling argument for getting Lannan.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
So, if you were to trade Garza, and not get Lannan...
You are left with Dempster (Gone next year), Maholm, Volstad, Wells, Wood as your rotation. Wells has a big question mark by his name still, and Maholm won’t be here long either. Behind Wood you have, what, RoLo, Spellcheck, Coleman and Sonnanstine? That doesn’t look like the SP depth they want to me.
You sort of made my point.
In 2012, without Garza and Lannan, you have Dempster, Maholm, Volstad, Wells and Wood plus the secondary options (RoLo, Coleman, Sonnestine) and Trey McNutt. Now, I guess you could lose two starting pitchers in April again, but you have better options now than the Cubs had a year ago AND you’re clearly in a rebuilding year. Lannan could actually do harm because he could block someone like McNutt from getting valuable experience AND you’d lose whatever it took to get him from Washington.
In 2013, you’d be without (presumably) Dempster and Maholm, but you’d have Volstad, Wells and Wood and (most importantly) nearly $40 million coming off the books (money from Dempster, Z and Byrd) to go sign a TOR starter (Hamels? Cain?). Having Lannan around would essentially mean we’d lose several million of that ($8 million, maybe?) to ensure our rotation has a bunch of Nos. 4.
Getting Lannan given the current Cubs talent only makes sense if you figure that Lannan can be at least a No. 2 starter (is there any indication of that) or if you can move someone like Byrd in the process.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
You are counting on Wells for the next two years.
Assume he fizzles back to worse than mediocre (believe it or not, I like him and expect a good year, but I’m tempering expectations) or gets hurt. Then RoLo is our next best option. Does that really fly with you?
Another point, honestly, if we were to send Wells in the deal for Lannan, as I’m assuming they want a younger starter included, do we get better?
Again, I’m not advocating we do a deal to get him. Just don’t see the harm in stockpiling arms, even if they are only pretty good.
All moot point though, because we are going to trade for Brian Roberts and Theo’s groundhogs will destroy everyone else’s fields. So we win automatically. Right?
As I said above, I'd be down with this if the trade were Randy Wells for John Lannan.
But Washington has four right-handed starters and Gio Gonzalez. So my guess is they’re not so desperate to save $2 million that they’d make this lateral move that might be a net-negative move considering Wells’ handedness.
On your other point, you’re not factoring in the money the Cubs will have available if they don’t have Lannan and Garza in tandem with the cost savings from Z/Dempster/Byrd — or about $50 million. So, if the Volstad/Wells/Wood/McNutt et. al group isn’t doing enough to fill the rotation by 2013, the Cubs will be able to go out and spend.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I'm not sure RoLo would be first in line.
I could see them giving Coleman another try or maybe Sonnestine.
Oh, and PV.
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
And McNutt.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I'm not banking on McNutt contributing next year.
He needs to have a damn good year down in the minors to break into the rotation at all, IMO. Or you know, have all the guys in front of him get hurt. I guess we can’t leave that option out anymore.
Don't forget Cain, Greinke and Hamels are FAs for 2013
I’m not really for trading Garza, but a rotation for 2013 is much more open to addtion than for 2012.
Wow, I'm a little surprised...
…Jackson couldn’t get more than one year. I guess the rumors that he was mulling several three-year deals weren’t true. Or else the AAV of those deals were ridiculously low.
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
Lannan
would be in rotation. 3 straight years of 180+ innings and ERA under 4. I would guess this is not going to happen though. It’s be nice to move Byrd though and open up CF. Nats seem to need a CF
So with Lannan ...
what happens to Wood, Wells and Volstad?
And, again, would the Nats take on more money (Byrd’s $6.5 million versus Lannan’s $5 million) after they just signed Jackson?
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
"3 straight years of 180+ innings and ERA under 4."
Um, not true. He pitched only 143.1 innings in 2010 with a 4.65 ERA. Or were you counting his Double-A innings?
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
I believe he meant to reference the article
stating he’s gotten 180+ innings, ERA under 4 and 30 starts in 3 of the last 4 years.
Oh, right.
I should probably read the article we’re actually talking about.
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
I have no interest in Lannan as we currently stand...
He’s good for around 180 innings, but he doesn’t miss a ton of bats (career 4.17 K/9) and only a 1.39 K/BB ratio. His ERA is unimpressive, and his FIP has been above 4.50 for 3 of the last 5 years… that’s RoLo territory. In 4 years, he’s been worth 5 WAR… I’d rather have Volstad, Wells or Wood start for us every single time, especially at the cost of 5M plus a prospect(s).
I agree
There are only so many middling starters you can have. Lannan just doesn’t seem all that interesting.
I'd rather have Niemann if he becomes avaiable from the rays
I think he wins his arb case and they may look to move him.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
Everyone needs to look at the stats and realize they're literally arguing to trade for a clone of Randy Wells
Both Niemann and Lannan are a more expensive version of someone we already have. Randy Wells had an ERA of 3.93 in August and September last year, and I believe he was brought back from his injury too soon, hence the terrible middle of the year.
Wells gets crapped on a lot here, I’ve noticed, and a lot of pitchers that look identical to him stats wise we jump to get? I just don’t see it.
Exactly what ...
are you basing the theory that he came back from his injury to soon — other than hopefulness?
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
From the fact that...
When he came back, his K% hit career lows, his BB% hit career highs, his WHIP skyrocketed, his BAA rose and his HR/9 skyrocketed. Also, watching the games I got the impression that he should not be back pitching in the majors, and either needed more time off to build up strength or more time in rehab starts.
You're still making assumptions.
Randy Wells came back from injury. He wasn’t good. So you’re saying that has to mean that he came back too soon from an injury.
I could just as easily say Randy was being “too big for his britches” again and not focusing on pitching after his injury as a way to explain his ineffectiveness. We have the same amount of evidence.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I don't understand your side of the argument....
If you’re insinuating that I don’t have access to Cubs medical records… you’re correct. If you think that using advanced metrics to determine injury vs “too big for his britches” offers the same type of insight, we’ll agree to disagree.
It’s not uncommon for players coming back from a serious injury to see a major change in all peripherals such as Wells saw last year. It isn’t like one stat changed (ie: lost control of breaking pitches or fastballs, etc), it was EVERYTHING that was off. That kind of thing screams that he either wasn’t 100% healthy, or anywhere near game shape. Since his career outliers fall in the 2-3 months following his injury, I’m not sure why you can’t make a strong conclusion to my hypothesis.
If you’d like, I can pull stats of other players following major injuries that were brought back too soon to show a similar tendency.
I'm not actually arguing that Randy was too big for his britches again.
Nor am I insinuating this:
If you think that using advanced metrics to determine injury vs "too big for his britches" offers the same type of insight, we’ll agree to disagree.
Now, your second graph is compelling. But you really hadn’t made that point — or, maybe I hadn’t processed it. If the latter is the case, I apologize.
Still, I think you’re being a tad hopeful. I wouldn’t assert that any player came back from injury too soon unless I heard that from the player or from some pretty well respected analysts/scouts.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I don't think you'll ever hear a player complain about coming back from an injury too soon...
These guys are competitors like nothing we can comprehend. That’s why guys like Hayden Simpson pitch with a torn muscle in his elbow. Yikes.
Of course it can’t be proven, but there is enough evidence to at least support it as a viable possibility.
A viable possibility? Of course.
A certainty, as you seemed to assert? Not really.
And a player, after the fact, could own up to rushing back from an injury.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
I asserted it was a certainty???
I believe he was brought back from his injury too soon
I’m not sure why you can’t make a strong conclusion to my hypothesis.
there is enough evidence to at least support it as a viable possibility.
With all due respect, I never once said that was definitely the reason, or ever claimed anything other than an option backed up by stats of Wells and Wells vs. other previously injured pitchers thought to have returned too soon. It’s my belief this is what happened, you’re more than welcome to a differing opinion.
OK, fair enough.
I’m doing too many things at once.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
A drop in velocity?
-1.5mph slower fastball might indicate not being fully healthy. Wish they had monthly velocity numbers, then it might be easier to prove.
Niemann has more K/9, less BB/9, fewer H/9, better WHIP, and has done it in the AL East
I’m one who thinks that Wells gets undervalued quite often, but I’d still much rather have Niemann. My biggest concern with Niemann is that he hasn’t yet reached 200 IP and he’s about to be 29. Big fellers like him with back issues concern me.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
He does have slightly higher K/9, i misread, but you're incorrect on the BB/9.
But Wells has a better FIP and xFIP, and GB %, while costing less per year.
ah, you're correct. the bb/9 is the same, Still more K's, and less baserunners.
And while he’s done it with a better defense in a better pitchers park, he’s also done it against better competition, and in pennant races. I’d still pay a bit more for Niemann if they’re both healthy.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
And for me, you can literally flip a coin between them.
But as we already have Wells, why bother to pay more for practically the same thing?
You said alone, the WHIP differential can be explained simply by the better defense behind him. The league differences and defensive differences are accounted for in FIP and xFIP, which both like Wells more.
The only way I want John Lannan on the Cubs is...
…if we sign this guy to be his battery mate. A little old perhaps, but we could use some veteran leadership behind the plate.
btw – check out the last team he played for. Maybe we’ve judged that redneck Cardinals fan too harshly…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I think something died in here ...
and it’s not just RoLo’s arm.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
well, it was either that or start my comment off with "Imagine..."
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
That was gonna be my response at first!
But “Imagine” isn’t a Beatles song …
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
It is, however, a John LENNON song.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
And Vladamir LENIN would have liked it.
There will be no excuses for not doing something the right way. - Dale Sveum
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 2, 2012 5:37 PM CST up reply actions
"Back In The USSR" would be their theme song...
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Whatever gets you through the night.
Just keep your mind games to yourself.
John Grabow - Who will pay you $4.8 million in 2012?
Do we still need him?
Will we still feed him?
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
Then we could engineer a zombie virus...
…and add this guy to the bench. Hey, he slugged .526! For the Greenville Greenies. In 1948.
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
*Correction
It would appear based on that page that the gentleman in question is still alive. So no zombie virus needed. Maybe just that magical egg in “Cocoon.” Anyway, my apologies to his family.
"[The Cubs] have a very famous tradition in baseball, and it will be nice to be part of turning it around." ~ Jamie Quirk, Bench Coach
A modest proposal
Nats Get Byrd. Cubs get Lannan and flip him to Boston as compensation for Theo.
Thus opening a hole in CF…
The sun is up. They sky is blue. It's beautiful, and so are you. Dear Prudence, won't you come out to play? ~Lennon & McCartney
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
