Brad lidge Boston-bound???

[CrespoBlows]

Speaking of smoking crack' date=' maybe smoking crack had something to do with Gooden's decline.[/quote']

 

Which lead to a decline in his quality of pitches, which lead to a decline in his strikeout rates.

 

Oswalt might not be doing drugs, but he's losing his stuff. The risk of him continuing to decline in a Red Sox uniform isn't worth Clay Bucholtz.

[a700hitter]

Which lead to a decline in his quality of pitches, which lead to a decline in his strikeout rates.

 

Oswalt might not be doing drugs, but he's losing his stuff. The risk of him continuing to decline in a Red Sox uniform isn't worth Clay Bucholtz.

...or maybe the his drugged up mind couldn't figure out how to adjust to less k's.

[CrespoBlows]

...or maybe the his drugged up mind couldn't figure out how to adjust to less k's.

 

Give me the names of pitchers who suffer this big of a decline in K/9 rates, a big spike in WHIP, and maintained their ERA's.

[a700hitter]

I never said that pitchers with declining k ratios would get better with age. I don't think it is necessarily a precursor of ineffectiveness. Many pitchers have had declining k rates and remained highly effective for a number of years. A few would be Tiant, Catfish Hunter, Palmer, Seaver, Sutton, Rick Reuschel. Also, you are pointing to half of a year as a trend in decreased k ratio and whip. Half of a year is hardly a trend.

[CrespoBlows]

I never said that pitchers with declining k ratios would get better with age. I don't think it is necessarily a precursor of ineffectiveness. Many pitchers have had declining k rates and remained highly effective for a number of years. A few would be Tiant' date=' Catfish Hunter, Palmer, Seaver, Sutton, Rick . [/quote']

 

They all got worse, and they all pitched in a completely different era.

 

Hunter was awful his last four years, Palmer was never a major strikeout pitcher, Seaver was much worse then his peak years.

 

 

Also, you are pointing to half of a year as a trend in decreased k ratio and whip. Half of a year is hardly a trend.

 

K/9 rates

 

2001 - 9.15

2002 - 8.03

2003 - 7.63

2004 - 7.82

2005 - 6.85

2006 - 6.77

2007 - 6.17

 

Seven years.

[a700hitter]

They all got worse, and they all pitched in a completely different era.

 

Hunter was awful his last four years, Palmer was never a major strikeout pitcher, Seaver was much worse then his peak years.

 

 

 

 

K/9 rates

 

2001 - 9.15

2002 - 8.03

2003 - 7.63

2004 - 7.82

2005 - 6.85

2006 - 6.77

2007 - 6.17

 

Seven years.

Hunter's k-rate fell precipitiously (more than 25%) after 1972. He had 4 excellent years after that winning 20 games 3 times. Tiant got better after his k-rate dipped from 9 to 5-6. Halladay has remained pretty effective despite a dramatic decline in k's. But it needs to be stressed that there is no pattern of decline for Oswalt. You are basing your conclusion on 1/2 of a year.

[CrespoBlows]

Hunter's k-rate fell precipitiously (more than 25%) after 1972. He had 4 excellent years after that winning 20 games 3 times.

 

Hunter's K/9 rate was 6.8 in his early years, he was never a power pitcher. You still totally forget to include his absolutely dreadful last four years of his career.

 

Oh, his ages in the seasons you include were: 27, 28, and 29.

 

Tiant got better after his k-rate dipped from 9 to 5-6.

 

Try again. His best year was in 1968, when he fanned over a batter an inning.

 

Both of these pitcher both pitched in a pro-pitching era, anyway.

 

Halladay has remained pretty effective despite a dramatic decline in k's.

 

About a batter per inning, but Halladay wasn't the strikeout pitcher that Oswalt was.

 

But it needs to be stressed that there is no pattern of decline for Oswalt. You are basing your conclusion on 1/2 of a year.

 

K/9 rates

 

2001 - 9.15

2002 - 8.03

2003 - 7.63

2004 - 7.82

2005 - 6.85

2006 - 6.77

2007 - 6.17

 

Seven years.

[a700hitter]

Hunter's K/9 rate was 6.8 in his early years, he was never a power pitcher. You still totally forget to include his absolutely dreadful last four years of his career.

 

Oh, his ages in the seasons you include were: 27, 28, and 29.

He had a full 8 ML seasons under his belt and still had 4 more great ones under his belt. If his last 4 were good, he'd never have retired. How many guys retire while they are still really good? Almost none. He'd have had more good years but they threw him 325 innings in 1975.

 

Try again. His best year was in 1968' date=' when he fanned over a batter an inning.[/quote']Tiants most consistently success was after his heater was gone.

 

About a batter per inning' date=' but Halladay wasn't the strikeout pitcher that Oswalt was. [/quote']Halladay is an AL pitcher. Oswalt an NLer.

[CrespoBlows]

He had a full 8 ML seasons under his belt and still had 4 more great ones under his belt.

 

Those were also in his prime years of his career. Oswalt's next four years will happen when he exiting his peak years.

 

He'd have had more good years but they threw him 325 innings in 1975.

 

Another concern for Oswalt. He's been pushed pretty hard with the Astros, has had some shoulder concerns, and isn't a very big guy. You add all of those three together, and you got a recipe for an early decline pitcher.

 

 

 

 

Halladay is an AL pitcher. Oswalt an NLer.

 

So, that's going to help Oswalt?

[a700hitter]

Those were also in his prime years of his career. Oswalt's next four years will happen when he exiting his peak years.

 

 

 

Another concern for Oswalt. He's been pushed pretty hard with the Astros, has had some shoulder concerns, and isn't a very big guy. You add all of those three together, and you got a recipe for an early decline pitcher.

He doesn't come close to throwing the innings that Catfish had under his belt.

[CrespoBlows]

No, but we've learned a thing or two about pitching since 1970. Pitching isn't dangerous, pitching while tired, most certaintly is.

 

Look at the leaderboard for PAP, (Pitcher Abuse Points) it's like reading an ER list for Tommy John surgery.

 

Oswalt PAP Rankings

 

2006 - 28th

2005 - 10th

2004 - 9th

2003 - injury

2002 - 39th

[example1]

Anyone who thinks Bucholz alone gets the deal done is smoking crack.

 

I started writing about how wrong you were, and how you were undervaluing Buchholz. Then I realized you were talking about Oswalt, not Lidge. Again, with the Astros-incest.

 

Buchholz would be the centerpiece of an Oswalt deal. He would be one of the best pitching prospects traded in quite awhile. Better than Jason Hirsh or Anibel Sanchez in my opinion. Not at the level of Liriano.

 

I could see Oswalt going to Boston. I imagine that a lot of pitchers wish they could pitch for the Sox and would gladly give up their current deal to go there, and Oswalt is one of them.

 

How would Ellsbury/Bowden compare to Ramirez/Sanchez? Better package, worse package?

[a700hitter]

I started writing about how wrong you were, and how you were undervaluing Buchholz. Then I realized you were talking about Oswalt, not Lidge. Again, with the Astros-incest.

 

Buchholz would be the centerpiece of an Oswalt deal. He would be one of the best pitching prospects traded in quite awhile. Better than Jason Hirsh or Anibel Sanchez in my opinion. Not at the level of Liriano.

 

I could see Oswalt going to Boston. I imagine that a lot of pitchers wish they could pitch for the Sox and would gladly give up their current deal to go there, and Oswalt is one of them.

 

How would Ellsbury/Bowden compare to Ramirez/Sanchez? Better package, worse package?

It seems like a comparable package.

[jacksonianmarch]

Not even close to the package. Hanley had way more tools than Ellsbury and played a tougher position. Sanchez at the time was younger and more accomplished at a higher level. The Hanley/Sanchez package was way more than Ells and Bowden.

[ORS]

No he wasn't. Sanchez was good in AA the year before the trade, but not dominant like Buchholz, and you keep overplaying the age thing with Clay. He didn't pitch for a year and a half. His age isn't relative. Despite his "tools" Hanley played like a tool that year.

 

Right now, at this time, an Buchholz/Ellsbury package is stronger than the Ramirez/Sanchez was at the time. Now, in terms of need, it's not a fit. Pence can do it all. He's their CF, and Ellsbury is not a COF.

[jacksonianmarch]

ORS, he said Bowden.

 

If it was Buchholz/Ellsbury, I'd agree with you.

[a700hitter]

Not even close to the package. Hanley had way more tools than Ellsbury and played a tougher position. Sanchez at the time was younger and more accomplished at a higher level. The Hanley/Sanchez package was way more than Ells and Bowden.

With regard to Hanley you may be engaging in some 20-20 hindsight. Although his talent level was never in question, he did have an up and down minor league career. Ellsbury has done nothing but tear through ever level of the minors and had some success at the ML for a very short stay.

[jacksonianmarch]

With regard to Hanley you may be engaging in some 20-20 hindsight. Although his talent level was never in question' date=' he did have an up and down minor league career. Ellsbury has done nothing but tear through ever level of the minors and had some success at the ML for a very short stay.[/quote']

 

right, but Ellsbury lacks the power potential as well as the arm of Hanley, 2 of the proclaimed 5 tools that Hanley possesses. Also, Hanley plays a tougher position.

[BSN07]

Houston's owner says Lidge is going nowhere. I'm glad he did this because I didn't want to see a top prospect head out of town for a RP.

[a700hitter]

right' date=' but Ellsbury lacks the power potential as well as the arm of Hanley, 2 of the proclaimed 5 tools that Hanley possesses. Also, Hanley plays a tougher position.[/quote']I think it is a comparable package, not clearly better or worse.

[ORS]

ORS, he said Bowden.

 

If it was Buchholz/Ellsbury, I'd agree with you.

Moops.

 

Although, I think they are closer that you think even with Bowden there.

[jacksonianmarch]

Moops.

 

Although, I think they are closer that you think even with Bowden there.

 

I liked Bowden's potential. At the beginning of the season, I said that I'd keep Bowden over Buchholz if I had to choose. But that was before Buchholz just decided to kill everything in his path in a Hughesian minor league season. I think Buchholz surged so far past Bowden that Bowden now becomes possible trade bait since Buchholz has ascended into untouchable status. I think Lester may be an untouchable as well simply because of his fight with cancer, how endeared RSN is to him, and the fact that his cancer drops his value too low for Theo to even consider including him in packages. If the sox make a big splash, I expect Bowden to be the one that has to change uni's.

[example1]

No he wasn't. Sanchez was good in AA the year before the trade, but not dominant like Buchholz, and you keep overplaying the age thing with Clay. He didn't pitch for a year and a half. His age isn't relative. Despite his "tools" Hanley played like a tool that year.

 

Right now, at this time, an Buchholz/Ellsbury package is stronger than the Ramirez/Sanchez was at the time. Now, in terms of need, it's not a fit. Pence can do it all. He's their CF, and Ellsbury is not a COF.

 

THe package I proposed was Bowden and Ellsbury though.

 

In either case, though, if I remember correctly, Hanley was a bit of a discipline concern and had a poor year for the Sox the year that they traded him (.271/.335/.385). Sanchez was an injury concern.

 

Ellsbury is NOT a discipline concern, and Bowden does not have injury problems.

 

The only thing that I see separating them is 1) Position (Hanley had extra value there) and 2) time. Bowden has a really nice upside, but he needs to show it at a higher level. If he continues his progression he will likely be a better prospect than Anibel (AAA) Sanchez.

[example1]

right' date=' but Ellsbury lacks the power potential as well as the arm of Hanley, 2 of the proclaimed 5 tools that Hanley possesses. Also, Hanley plays a tougher position.[/quote']

 

For a guy who lacks the power potential I sure hear a lot of scouts and read a lot about his 'upper cut' swing and how he may hit 10-15 hrs regularly. Ellsbury is still filling out his body and is spending his time (i.e., at bats) trying to get on base. he's not worrying about hitting homeruns. Those will come with time.

[example1]

right' date=' but Ellsbury lacks the power potential as well as the arm of Hanley, 2 of the proclaimed 5 tools that Hanley possesses. Also, Hanley plays a tougher position.[/quote']

 

His tougher position is about one tick harder on the ol' defensive spectrum. CF is not 1B here jacksonianmarch.

[CrespoBlows]

Houston's owner says Lidge is going nowhere. I'm glad he did this because I didn't want to see a top prospect head out of town for a RP.

 

If someone offers a top prospect for Lidge, this will change.

 

Quickly.

[example1]

I liked Bowden's potential. At the beginning of the season' date=' I said that I'd keep Bowden over Buchholz if I had to choose. But that was before Buchholz just decided to kill everything in his path in a Hughesian minor league season. I think Buchholz surged so far past Bowden that Bowden now becomes possible trade bait since Buchholz has ascended into untouchable status. I think Lester may be an untouchable as well simply because of his fight with cancer, how endeared RSN is to him, and the fact that his cancer drops his value too low for Theo to even consider including him in packages. If the sox make a big splash, I expect Bowden to be the one that has to change uni's.[/quote']

 

This is probably true. Bowden is the top available pitching prospect for the Sox at this point. I read in the globe (or Herald) that the Sox have put both Buchholz and Ellsbury on the can't touch list. Bowden would be a lose-able trading piece if the sox were to make a deal centered on WMP or Crisp or Lowell.

[jacksonianmarch]

His tougher position is about one tick harder on the ol' defensive spectrum. CF is not 1B here jacksonianmarch.

 

I know that. But at the same time, most of those same "scouts" changed their mind when they saw him in fenway. I saw one of the "scouts" say that he looks like a singles hitter with a good eye.

[example1]

I know that. But at the same time' date=' most of those same "scouts" changed their mind when they saw him in fenway. I saw one of the "scouts" say that he looks like a singles hitter with a good eye.[/quote']

 

Really? Most of the "scouts" changed their mind based on--what?--4 games? Time to find some new scouts jacksonian. I think Jacoby knows that he can play for the Sox if he can get on base, so that's what he is working on. It will get him a spot in the Show pretty soon and will earn him a nice paycheck down the road. My guess is that he doesn't think that trying to hit homeruns is the best way to use his ABs. If he hits them he hits them, but he is a more proficient singles and doubles hitter. Like Ichiro or Lofton.

 

I really think the Kenny Lofton comparison is pretty good for Ellsbury. Lofton had four seasons of .400+ OBP and spent much of his career in the .370-.400 range. I just remember thinking that that guy was one of the most terrifying offensive forces in baseball for a few years, when he headlined some of those amazing Cleveland teams, seemed to never make outs and seemingly spent 50% of his time crossing homeplate. He wasn't just a good leadoff hitter, he was a phenomenal leadoff hitter.

 

Given that Ellsbury is cost-controlled and currently has the tools necessary to be a great leadoff hitter, it is easy to see why the Sox would happily save money on a CF (which is often an expensive position) and leadoff hitter, in order to spend it on someone more expensive to drive him in. Every team needs table setters. Every team could use a gold glove caliber CF. Every team would LOVE to have one at a rookie's salary for a few years.