Author Topic: #3-5 Starters (Read 12712 times)

Reuben · « **on:** July 26, 2009, 04:12:22 pm »

Hampton, Ortiz, and Moehler seem to have developed a pattern of 3 pretty good starts in a row, or all kind of having crappy starts, like this turn through. As noted in the GZ, they all can make very good cases for being a good #5 starter. But #3... not so much. #4... maybe. Bazardo had another good outing yesterday at RR. Is it time to finally bring him up, and if so who should he replace?

And yes, I realize this is a textbook right-after-a-loss reactionary post. FWIW, I think Moehler had some tough luck today.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #1 on:** July 26, 2009, 04:31:23 pm »

Quote from: Reuben on July 26, 2009, 04:12:22 pm

Hampton, Ortiz, and Moehler seem to have developed a pattern of 3 pretty good starts in a row, or all kind of having crappy starts, like this turn through. As noted in the GZ, they all can make very good cases for being a good #5 starter. But #3... not so much. #4... maybe. Bazardo had another good outing yesterday at RR. Is it time to finally bring him up, and if so who should he replace?

And yes, I realize this is a textbook right-after-a-loss reactionary post. FWIW, I think Moehler had some tough luck today.

I am absolutely against the Astros bringing up any inexperienced pitchers.

SaltyParker · « **Reply #2 on:** July 26, 2009, 04:41:49 pm »

Chances of an injury loom. Hampton has pitched more innings already this year then since 2004. My guess is that Paulino will get another look.

DVauthrin · « **Reply #3 on:** July 26, 2009, 05:02:05 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 26, 2009, 04:31:23 pm

I am absolutely against the Astros bringing up any inexperienced pitchers.

I wonder how expensive Doug Davis or Jon Garland in Arizona would be in terms of prospects. Both are free agents after the year, and Arizona is out of it this season.

In fact, Garland has been excellent on the road for the D-Backs, posting a 2.67 era in 10 starts. The Astros have been interested in him in the past as well.

Reuben · « **Reply #4 on:** July 26, 2009, 05:06:28 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 26, 2009, 04:31:23 pm

I am absolutely against the Astros bringing up any inexperienced pitchers.

Because of Cooper's treatment of Paulino?

Jacksonian · « **Reply #5 on:** July 26, 2009, 05:29:18 pm »

Quote from: Reuben on July 26, 2009, 05:06:28 pm

Because of Cooper's treatment of Paulino?

Cecil Cooper hates young people.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #6 on:** July 26, 2009, 05:33:22 pm »

Quote from: Reuben on July 26, 2009, 05:06:28 pm

Because of Cooper's treatment of Paulino?

Do we need any other reason? His treatment of Bourn last season too.

JimR · « **Reply #7 on:** July 26, 2009, 05:41:00 pm »

Hampton won his start Friday.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #8 on:** July 26, 2009, 08:29:18 pm »

Quote from: JimR on July 26, 2009, 05:41:00 pm

Hampton won his start Friday.

4.74 ERA is best of the 3 #5's. Moehler's is now over 5.

Reuben · « **Reply #9 on:** July 26, 2009, 10:35:45 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 26, 2009, 08:29:18 pm

4.74 ERA is best of the 3 #5's. Moehler's is now over 5.

Moehler's numbers have actually been pretty good if you take out his wretched first 2 starts before he went on the DL.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #10 on:** July 26, 2009, 10:41:02 pm »

Quote from: Reuben on July 26, 2009, 10:35:45 pm

Moehler's numbers have actually been pretty good if you take out his wretched first 2 starts before he went on the DL.

That's true. Moehler has been pretty good, especially for a number 5.

SaltyParker · « **Reply #11 on:** July 26, 2009, 10:44:57 pm »

Moehler = 5.1

Jacksonian · « **Reply #12 on:** July 26, 2009, 10:56:24 pm »

Quote from: Reuben on July 26, 2009, 10:35:45 pm

Moehler's numbers have actually been pretty good if you take out his wretched first 2 starts before he went on the DL.

4.06 after taking out the 2 April starts.

jaklewein · « **Reply #13 on:** July 27, 2009, 03:41:10 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 26, 2009, 10:56:24 pm

4.06 after taking out the 2 April starts.

The A's would likely accept a "modest prospect" for Justin Duchscherer, who's currently rehabbing. There's about $1.3MM remaining on the righty's contract before he hits free agency after the season.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/07/as-rumors-wuertz-duchscherer.html

Maybe an option for Wade-n-Co. Low cost, both in terms of cash and prospects. Might be worth a shot.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #14 on:** July 27, 2009, 03:53:56 pm »

Quote from: jaklewein on July 27, 2009, 03:41:10 pm

The A's would likely accept a "modest prospect" for Justin Duchscherer, who's currently rehabbing. There's about $1.3MM remaining on the righty's contract before he hits free agency after the season.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/07/as-rumors-wuertz-duchscherer.html

Maybe an option for Wade-n-Co. Low cost, both in terms of cash and prospects. Might be worth a shot.

I keep thinking Doug Davis will be this year's Randy Wolf.

MusicMan · « **Reply #15 on:** July 27, 2009, 03:55:37 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 27, 2009, 03:53:56 pm

I keep thinking Doug Davis will be this year's Randy Wolf.

I'd prefer Garland.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #16 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:00:02 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 27, 2009, 03:55:37 pm

I'd prefer Garland.

Why?

MusicMan · « **Reply #17 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:06:05 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 27, 2009, 04:00:02 pm

Why?

Garland away from their bandbox this year:

10 G, 64 IP, 2.67 ERA, .251/.312/.347 allowed,.276 BABIP (about average)

At 10 games at home, he's pitched 58 innings with a 6.33 ERA and a .327 BABIP. It looks to me like he could be in pretty good shape with a change of scenery.

jaklewein · « **Reply #18 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:09:48 pm »

Isn't Garland tied up in a fairly pick contract? And Davis...sure, but I was thinking even he might cost to much in the form of prospects.

Bench · « **Reply #19 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:10:01 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 27, 2009, 04:06:05 pm

Garland away from their bandbox this year:

10 G, 64 IP, 2.67 ERA, .251/.312/.347 allowed,.276 BABIP (about average)

At 10 games at home, he's pitched 58 innings with a 6.33 ERA and a .327 BABIP. It looks to me like he could be in pretty good shape with a change of scenery.

I've seen BABIP employed as a way to demonstrate that a particular hitter is "lucky" or "unlucky" that his hits aren't falling in. Is there any way to account for luck vs. skill in comparing BABIP?

MusicMan · « **Reply #20 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:14:20 pm »

I think the skill portion comes in when you look at them over their entire career. For example, Garland allows .289 BABIP over his career; so he might be slightly lucky on the road this year, but I think he's been (a) unlucky or (b) giving up a lot of cheap dingers in the home ballpark.

MusicMan · « **Reply #21 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:14:40 pm »

Quote from: jaklewein on July 27, 2009, 04:09:48 pm

Isn't Garland tied up in a fairly pick contract? And Davis...sure, but I was thinking even he might cost to much in the form of prospects.

$9M mutual option for 2010, IIRC.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #22 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:18:48 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 27, 2009, 04:06:05 pm

Garland away from their bandbox this year:

10 G, 64 IP, 2.67 ERA, .251/.312/.347 allowed,.276 BABIP (about average)

At 10 games at home, he's pitched 58 innings with a 6.33 ERA and a .327 BABIP. It looks to me like he could be in pretty good shape with a change of scenery.

I would guess Garland will cost more in prospects than Davis. Wade's acted stingy with the current prospects.

Garland's contract, from Cots;

Jon Garland rhp
1 year/$7.25M (2009), plus 2010 mutual option

* 1 year/$7.25M (2009)
o signed by Arizona as a free agent 1/29/09
o 09:$6.25M, 10:$10M mutual option ($2.5M buyout if club declines, $1M buyout if player declines)
o if traded in 2009, new club may not offer arbitration if Garland ranks as a Type A free agent

MusicMan · « **Reply #23 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:23:01 pm »

I was guessing they'd be about equal in prospect cost.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #24 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:26:14 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 27, 2009, 04:23:01 pm

I was guessing they'd be about equal in prospect cost.

Not if the trading team wants to and gets him to accept the option which I believe would be a good move for the team dealing for him.

GreatBagwellsBeard · « **Reply #25 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:27:25 pm »

Would it be worth one of the outfield prospects, given the bottleneck at the major league level?

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #26 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:29:07 pm »

Quote from: GreatBagwellsBeard on July 27, 2009, 04:27:25 pm

Would it be worth one of the outfield prospects, given the bottleneck at the major league level?

Hell, I'd send them Gunther today.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #27 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:31:13 pm »

Quote from: GreatBagwellsBeard on July 27, 2009, 04:27:25 pm

Would it be worth one of the outfield prospects, given the bottleneck at the major league level?

Yes, esp Bogusevic.

JackAstro · « **Reply #28 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:33:09 pm »

Quote from: GreatBagwellsBeard on July 27, 2009, 04:27:25 pm

Would it be worth one of the outfield prospects, given the bottleneck at the major league level?

If you have decent options in place at the major league level, I think trading OF prospects for a quality starter is a no-brainer, every time.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #29 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:34:07 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on July 27, 2009, 04:29:07 pm

Hell, I'd send them Gunther today.

Not for Davis or Garland.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #30 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:35:49 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 27, 2009, 04:34:07 pm

Not for Davis or Garland.

If we could sign the one we'd get, you still wouldn't make that deal?

VirtualBob · « **Reply #31 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:37:37 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 27, 2009, 04:34:07 pm

Not for Davis or Garland.

I agree ... the OF prospects seem to be more suspects to me. Windmill Abernathy is not going to improve facing ML pitching, and neither Yordany nor Buyavowel have really showed mastery at the AAA level. Yordany would at least be a defensive upgrade, but for now I think the overall drop-off if Pence is traded would be pretty steep.

MusicMan · « **Reply #32 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:38:12 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on July 27, 2009, 04:35:49 pm

If we could sign the one we'd get, you still wouldn't make that deal?

Say what you will about PENCE?!?!?!, but he's a solid contributor to the current team. You're only going after Davis or Garland to make a run this year, so why would you give him up? If next year's your concern, then sign them as a FA.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #33 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:40:37 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on July 27, 2009, 04:35:49 pm

If we could sign the one we'd get, you still wouldn't make that deal?

Right now Pence has much more value in the majors than either Davis or Garland. He's a goofball, but he's a legit mlb hitter.

VirtualBob · « **Reply #34 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:42:32 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 27, 2009, 04:40:37 pm

Right now Pence has much more value in the majors than either Davis or Garland. He's a goofball, but he's a legit mlb hitter.

Exactly. I don't expect perenniel all star performance, but adequate-to-good seems like a reasonable projection.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #35 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:44:53 pm »

Quote from: VirtualBob on July 27, 2009, 04:42:32 pm

Exactly. I don't expect perenniel all star performance, but adequate-to-good seems like a reasonable projection.

A middle of the order hitter under club control for several more years over a #3 at best pitcher in a contract year.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #36 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:50:33 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 27, 2009, 04:44:53 pm

A middle of the order hitter under club control for several more years over a #3 at best pitcher in a contract year.

I agree with you now. But I don't think that we can legitimately make a run without at least a real no. 3 guy, and we don't have him now.

MusicMan · « **Reply #37 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:52:35 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on July 27, 2009, 04:50:33 pm

I agree with you now. But I don't think that we can legitimately make a run without at least a real no. 3 guy, and we don't have him now.

Ask me again on Thursday if we should be buying.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #38 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:53:38 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 27, 2009, 04:52:35 pm

Ask me again on Thursday if we should be buying.

I hears ya.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #39 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:54:57 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on July 27, 2009, 04:50:33 pm

I agree with you now. But I don't think that we can legitimately make a run without at least a real no. 3 guy, and we don't have him now.

If Garland can be the kind of pitcher the rest of the way that he has been on the road for AZ, as MM described, I'd think he's your man.

Though Davis's ERA has been under 4 since mid-April, and that includes a beating at Coors last week. He's been remarkably consistent this year, in a good way.

DVauthrin · « **Reply #40 on:** July 27, 2009, 05:16:04 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on July 27, 2009, 04:54:57 pm

If Garland can be the kind of pitcher the rest of the way that he has been on the road for AZ, as MM described, I'd think he's your man.

Though Davis's ERA has been under 4 since mid-April, and that includes a beating at Coors last week. He's been remarkably consistent this year, in a good way.

I'd rather have garland and the mutual option for 2010, unless davis comes much cheaper. Also, while i'm not a big fan of Pence, I wouldn't move him for these types of pitchers. Cliff Lee is a totally different story, however.

juliogotay · « **Reply #41 on:** July 27, 2009, 05:59:59 pm »

Quote from: DVauthrin on July 27, 2009, 05:16:04 pm

I'd rather have garland and the mutual option for 2010, unless davis comes much cheaper. Also, while i'm not a big fan of Pence, I wouldn't move him for these types of pitchers. Cliff Lee is a totally different story, however.

Pence is going nowhere.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #42 on:** July 27, 2009, 06:12:20 pm »

Quote from: DVauthrin on July 27, 2009, 05:16:04 pm

I'd rather have garland and the mutual option for 2010, unless davis comes much cheaper. Also, while i'm not a big fan of Pence, I wouldn't move him for these types of pitchers. Cliff Lee is a totally different story, however.

Davis will cost the Astros just under $3mil for the rest of the season if AZ doesn't give cash. Then he's a FA. If the Astros offer arb and he declines then they could get comp if he's a type A or B.

Garland will cost the Astros just over $2mil for the rest of the season if AZ doesn't give cash. Then it's either $10mil next year if the mutual option gets picked up, or $2.5mil to buy out the option, or $1mil if Garland declines the option. Plus if the option doesn't get picked up the Astros cannot offer arb and therefore not get comp if Garland is a type A.

Garland's better but a deal for him will be more complicated.

DVauthrin · « **Reply #43 on:** July 27, 2009, 06:12:20 pm »

Quote from: juliogotay on July 27, 2009, 05:59:59 pm

Pence is going nowhere.

I'm well aware of that. I was saying what I would move him for if I were running the team.

BudGirl · « **Reply #44 on:** July 27, 2009, 06:46:30 pm »

Quote from: juliogotay on July 27, 2009, 05:59:59 pm

Pence is going nowhere.

he better be going to wrigley with his low and away swing.

Jose Cruz III · « **Reply #45 on:** July 28, 2009, 06:58:13 pm »

Quote from: DVauthrin on July 27, 2009, 05:16:04 pm

I'd rather have garland and the mutual option for 2010, unless davis comes much cheaper. Also, while i'm not a big fan of Pence, I wouldn't move him for these types of pitchers. Cliff Lee is a totally different story, however.

I don't think I would move him for Lee, either. Now Halladay is a different story.

JackAstro · « **Reply #46 on:** July 28, 2009, 08:36:26 pm »

Quote from: Jose Cruz III on July 28, 2009, 06:58:13 pm

I don't think I would move him for Lee, either. Now Halladay is a different story.

You would not move Pence for last year's Cy Young winner, who'd be under contract through next season for $9 million?

Duder · « **Reply #47 on:** July 28, 2009, 09:02:10 pm »

Quote from: JackAstro on July 28, 2009, 08:36:26 pm

You would not move Pence for last year's Cy Young winner, who'd be under contract through next season for $9 million?

I know I would in a heartbeat. A 1-2-3 punch of Roy, Lee, and Wandy would be hard to beat.

Jose Cruz III · « **Reply #48 on:** July 28, 2009, 09:33:19 pm »

Quote from: JackAstro on July 28, 2009, 08:36:26 pm

You would not move Pence for last year's Cy Young winner, who'd be under contract through next season for $9 million?

Probably not. Especially if they wanted good prospects along with Pence. I will admit I thought Lee was a FA after the year so that makes it a better deal.

Who would replace Pence?

JimR · « **Reply #49 on:** July 29, 2009, 09:04:48 am »

Quote from: Jose Cruz III on July 28, 2009, 09:33:19 pm

Probably not. Especially if they wanted good prospects along with Pence. I will admit I thought Lee was a FA after the year so that makes it a better deal.

Who would replace Pence?

who would replace Pence? doing what? he is fungible.

Gizzmonic · « **Reply #50 on:** July 29, 2009, 09:37:10 am »

Quote from: Duder on July 28, 2009, 09:02:10 pm

I know I would in a heartbeat. A 1-2-3 punch of Roy, Lee, and Wandy would be hard to beat.

So in this scenario, is Lee pitching, or have Roy and Wandy transformed into middle-of-the-order hitters?

Duder · « **Reply #51 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:35:03 am »

Quote from: Gizzmonic on July 29, 2009, 09:37:10 am

So in this scenario, is Lee pitching, or have Roy and Wandy transformed into middle-of-the-order hitters?

Obviously I'm referring to the front of our rotation, dipshit.

JackAstro · « **Reply #52 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:43:55 am »

Quote from: Gizzmonic on July 29, 2009, 09:37:10 am

So in this scenario, is Lee pitching, or have Roy and Wandy transformed into middle-of-the-order hitters?

[pssst]Cliff Lee[/pssst]

Andyzipp · « **Reply #53 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:54:24 am »

Quote from: JackAstro on July 29, 2009, 10:43:55 am

[pssst]Cliff Lee[/pssst]

See, in comic books you can go panel by panel and follow the story.

On an internet forum, you'd have to scroll up. Too much work.

Lurch · « **Reply #54 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:36:51 pm »

Quote from: Duder on July 29, 2009, 10:35:03 am

Obviously I'm referring to the front of our rotation, dipshit.

Obviously he was making a joke, dipshit.

Duder · « **Reply #55 on:** July 29, 2009, 01:30:41 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on July 29, 2009, 12:36:51 pm

Obviously he was making a joke, dipshit.

I thought jokes were supposed to be funny?

Lurch · « **Reply #56 on:** July 29, 2009, 01:34:13 pm »

Quote from: Duder on July 29, 2009, 01:30:41 pm

I thought jokes were supposed to be funny?

Setting pretty high standards, aren't you?

Noe · « **Reply #57 on:** July 29, 2009, 01:37:03 pm »

Quote from: Duder on July 29, 2009, 01:30:41 pm

I thought jokes were supposed to be funny?

Welcome to SpikesnStars.com!

chuck · « **Reply #58 on:** July 29, 2009, 01:47:08 pm »

Quote from: Duder on July 29, 2009, 01:30:41 pm

I thought jokes were supposed to be funny?

I thought a period was the correct punctuation for a declarative sentence.

MusicMan · « **Reply #59 on:** July 29, 2009, 01:47:53 pm »

Quote from: chuck on July 29, 2009, 01:47:08 pm

I thought a period was the correct punctuation for a declarative sentence.

It's an interrogative statement, used to test knowledge. But that's not important right now.

VirtualBob · « **Reply #60 on:** July 29, 2009, 01:49:45 pm »

Quote from: JimR on July 29, 2009, 09:04:48 am

who would replace Pence? doing what? he is fungible.

Yeah, but that can be treated with Lotrimin.

VirtualBob · « **Reply #61 on:** July 29, 2009, 01:50:54 pm »

Quote from: Duder on July 29, 2009, 10:35:03 am

Obviously I'm referring to the front of our rotation, dipshit.

As this was post number 100, I hearby move that we raise the bar on emerging from clarkhood to at least 150.

Gizzmonic · « **Reply #62 on:** July 29, 2009, 02:25:13 pm »

Quote from: Duder on July 29, 2009, 10:35:03 am

Obviously I'm referring to the front of our rotation, dipshit.

You're being very un-dude right now.

moriartp · « **Reply #63 on:** July 29, 2009, 02:28:06 pm »

Quote from: Gizzmonic on July 29, 2009, 02:25:13 pm

You're being very un-dude right now.

He does not abide.

Jose Cruz III · « **Reply #64 on:** July 29, 2009, 06:35:16 pm »

Quote from: JackAstro on July 28, 2009, 08:36:26 pm

You would not move Pence for last year's Cy Young winner, who'd be under contract through next season for $9 million?

Seeing how they added a pretty decent outfielder I would have done it. But seeing what they got for him I am not sure the Astros would have had to give them Pence.

das · « **Reply #65 on:** July 30, 2009, 08:25:21 am »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 29, 2009, 01:47:53 pm

It's an interrogative statement, used to test knowledge. But that's not important right now.

Nominated. I love this place.

Author Topic: #3-5 Starters (Read 12712 times)

Andyzipp

Noe