Indians Prospect Insider - Covering the Cleveland Indians from the Minors to the Big Leagues

Pavano?

Talk about the Cleveland Indians, Major League Baseball, and other sports.

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:26 am

MadThinker88 wrote:I have to wonder if Aubrey will get picked up on waivers or if the Tribe will find a trade partner.

Assuming Aubrey is gonzo, this helps to solidify Jordan Brown's and Stephen Head's roles/spots in Cbus and helps ensure the return of Garko to Cleveland.


It'll be interesting to see....the Yanks just designated Shelley Duncan as well to make room for Tex.....personally I like Aubrey better....but Duncan can play the OF and has had more successs at higher levels.....so we'll see. Not a lot of teams will have opening at the moment I'm guessing....but maybe both get taken (likely I suppose).....

And was Garko's return ever in doubt?
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby dnosco » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:19 am

Hermie13 wrote:Huff is better than Pavano?? Come on now, I get that you're upset about the deal, but there is NO WAY you can say that a guy that hasn't pitched above AAA is better than a guy that has had great success at the ML.

Saying that you 'THINK' Huff will become better this year is one thing, but until he proves he can get a ML hitter out, he's not better.


And what's the difference between Ohka and Pavano??? Really? Ohka has NEVER thrown 200 innings in any season at any level. He did have a nice 2 year run of 190 innings 02-03....but really hasn't done much since (decent 05 season). He's also NEVER pitched in the playoffs.....and didn't throw a single pitch in the MLs last year.....unlike Pavano.

Pavano is definately better. You can argue that he's too injury prone and wasn't needed (though I disagree on the latter).....but Ohka is a AAA filler and nothing more really. Pavano has a shot at being a legit #3 (and you laughing at Shapiro for basically agreeing with that doesn't change it). GREAT signing that could turn out to the be the difference between going deep in the playoffs and going home early.


I don't think that it is unreasonable to say that a guy who has never pitched in the majors is a better option then a guy like Pavano. I mean, all that is being said is that Huff gives you a better chance to win each time out on a major league mound than Pavano does. I am thinking that if we took a poll the majority would believe that this is the case. Doesn't mean it IS the case, just means that people intuit that it is more likely.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:24 am

Well I won't say Huff 'can't' be better.....he very likely may be......but Pavano did show some good signs late last year and if the Tribe says he's healthy, I believe them.....call me naive but I do, and a healthy Pavano is pretty darn good still (not great, but good).
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby dnosco » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:28 am

My thoughts on this deal have not changed but I will try to re-express:

1) The bonuses are a red herring. They are mostly longevity, not performance bonuses. Pavano doesn't have to be good, just not terrible in the early innings of games AND he has to be healthy. I could easily see a guy with a 4.9 ERA and a losing record who just isn't terrible in the early innings making a lot of these incentives.

2) The signing is odd. They give him huge bonuses based on longevity? Are they thinking that if he doesn't make it they don't have to pay him? Well, great, except that if he doesn't make it we DO have to pay him the $1.5 million. That is the beauty of the minor league deal...very little sunk costs. For a team who had to sell Paul Byrd last year in order to be able to sign draft picks, this is a very odd gamble, as that money could have been used, in my opinion, more effectively to gamble on a draft pick or two.

This should have been a depth signing. You know, I have little problem with this signing if we aren't so cheap in other areas. But when you have to sell a player (Byrd) to sign draft picks it tells me money is tight...Then you turn around and probably waste $1.5 million to sign Pavano? That just doesn't compute, at least to me.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby MickS » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:51 am

Other teams were looking at Pavano, including the White Sox, so I don't think a minor league deal was an option. Here's how I'm looking at it:

1. The reports are that Pavano is strong and healthy for the first time in years and he looked good down the stretch for the Yankees.
2. $1.5 m. is chump change, relatively speaking.
3. It's a 1 year, throw-away deal if it doesn't work out.
4. Pavano will be highly motivated to succeed, not just because of the incentives but, because if a healthy Pavano falls flat in '09 his career is over. He's pitching for '09 and beyond.
5. If Pavano IS healthy and effective and Westbrook arrives on schedule, the Indians have enviable depth to use as trade bait at the deadline.
6. Pavano may actually be a better bet than Sheets, whom many here covet. I didn't save the link but I read reports that teams were very concerned about Sheets, in particular his shoulder. Sheets is probably going to get a 3 year deal. If he goes down early it's a much bigger problem than the puny Pavano deal.
7. If Pavano pitches like a legit #3 and earns his incentives it means that we got him for half the market price.
8. Given the amount invested, this does not preclude a trade later on if a pitcher becomes available from a team that has fallen out of contention.
9. This could either be a waste of $1.5 mil or the best deal of the off-season or something in between. The upside is much greater than the downside.

I'm not a Pavano fan by any means but it seems like a reasonable risk given the circumstances. Nothing would make me happier than to see the Yankee fans reaction if Pavano winds up with more wins than A.J. Burnett.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:55 am

hmm....well $400K would be spent on whomever else made the rotation, at least......so really only 'wasting' about $1.1M......

And there's really no way Pavano gets to any of the incentives unless he's pitching well. Tribe won't let him get that many innings if he's not. They'll cut him....someone else will likely sign him to a league minimum deal (saving another $250-300K about)....so our sunk cost would really only be about $800-900k......I'd say that's worth the gamble of seeing what Pavano can do. Even if no one picks him up, still not much of a sunk cost all things considered, even for the Indians.

130-140 innings and a 4.50 ERA from Pavano isn't out of the question at all and definately worth the money they'd be paying him. Yeah, one or two of the 'other lefties' may be able to do that.....but having some more depth never hurt anyone. Plus could open up a trade of one should Pavano prove to be an asset.


Also, I don't recall ever seeing a 'bonus' that wasn't based on longevity for a pitcher that was coming off injury. It was the same way with Millwood. You never see one for stats....you do see All-Star and Cy Young incentives.....but other than that, they don't really exist....
Last edited by Hermie13 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:58 am

MickS wrote:Other teams were looking at Pavano, including the White Sox, so I don't think a minor league deal was an option. Here's how I'm looking at it:

1. The reports are that Pavano is strong and healthy for the first time in years and he looked good down the stretch for the Yankees.
2. $1.5 m. is chump change, relatively speaking.
3. It's a 1 year, throw-away deal if it doesn't work out.
4. Pavano will be highly motivated to succeed, not just because of the incentives but, because if a healthy Pavano falls flat in '09 his career is over. He's pitching for '09 and beyond.
5. If Pavano IS healthy and effective and Westbrook arrives on schedule, the Indians have enviable depth to use as trade bait at the deadline.
6. Pavano may actually be a better bet than Sheets, whom many here covet. I didn't save the link but I read reports that teams were very concerned about Sheets, in particular his shoulder. Sheets is probably going to get a 3 year deal. If he goes down early it's a much bigger problem than the puny Pavano deal.
7. If Pavano pitches like a legit #3 and earns his incentives it means that we got him for half the market price.
8. Given the amount invested, this does not preclude a trade later on if a pitcher becomes available from a team that has fallen out of contention.
9. This could either be a waste of $1.5 mil or the best deal of the off-season or something in between. The upside is much greater than the downside.

I'm not a Pavano fan by any means but it seems like a reasonable risk given the circumstances. Nothing would make me happier than to see the Yankee fans reaction if Pavano winds up with more wins than A.J. Burnett.


Very likely could happen considering Burnett has never been healthy for back-to-back seasons in his entire ML career.......something even Pavano can't make a claim to.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby cardiackidz » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:26 pm

a couple years back would carmona have been better then jason johnson? i agree completely tony.
cardiackidz
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby MickS » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:30 pm

cardiackidz wrote:a couple years back would carmona have been better then jason johnson? i agree completely tony.


A beautiful example of 20/20 hindsight. For every Johnson, there's a Millwood. You play the odds as you understand them and hope you win more often than you lose. Unless you've got a crystal ball that's ALL you can do.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Pavano?

Postby dazindiansfanuk » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:43 pm

The problem wasn't signing Johnson, the problem was holding onto him as long as they did.

Personally I feel the same way about Pavano. I don't care that they've signed him particularly, but if he doesn't perform and they keep running him out there, then I'll have a problem with it.

They set a prescident of sorts last spring when they cut Fultz' $1.5m contract when it quickly became evident that he had nothing left. If the same thing happens with Pavano and they cut him too, then I'd be fine with that on the basis that the Indians seem to have made the statement "we're gambling $1.5m knowing that there's a good chance we might lose that money, but we can fit that into the budget".

If that's the case.... not a problem in my view. If he shows that he's healthy and able to give them solid innings then he can continue to pitch. If he shows he's got nothing left and they cut him early (even in Spring) then "all" they lose is the money and they can go back to their in-house alternatives.
dazindiansfanuk
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:49 pm

cardiackidz wrote:a couple years back would carmona have been better then jason johnson? i agree completely tony.


um.....really? That was the year that Carmona went 1-10 (after winning his first career start in Detroit) and having a lousy ERA. Also was put in the pen AFTER johnson was traded......


Now Sowers? Yes, he could have done better.....and did......but Carmona was 22 and Sowers was only 23 at the time (with limited experience).....was a bad signing, but with how Carmona pitched that year, he didn't do any worse than he would have.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby MickS » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:55 pm

Reyes, S. Lewis, Miller and Laffey have had recent injury issues. Sowers has been wildly inconsistent. Huff has yet to throw a major league pitch. Jackson is, well, Jackson. Pavano's a really big question mark among a whole host of question marks. It's a numbers game. With depth there's hope.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Pavano?

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:58 pm

MickS wrote:
cardiackidz wrote:a couple years back would carmona have been better then jason johnson? i agree completely tony.


A beautiful example of 20/20 hindsight. For every Johnson, there's a Millwood. You play the odds as you understand them and hope you win more often than you lose. Unless you've got a crystal ball that's ALL you can do.

Mick, you are drinking the hermie kool aid. For every Millwood who has an unexpected mid career positive contribution , there are probably 10 Johnsons who cannot pitch in the majors. Those are your odds. Quality ML pitching is scarce so every GM wants to find "lightning in a bottle". The nature of the beast is to get something for nothing. Mostly, like Johnson, you get nothing. As I said, you have been reading way too much hermie. I don't know where you got the "report" that Pavano pitched well for the Yankees last year other than him. I saw him pitch last year and I can tell you his statistics are an accurate reflection of his pitching. Just because he is healthy does not mean he can pitch in the majors. But, if the Indians are counting on Pavano, the odds are against success. Hermie is like the parable abut the 1000 monkeys at typewriters who typed so long they typed the Magna Carta. That's about average for hermie as well.
Last edited by indianinkslinger on Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:58 pm

Don't forget too that Huff also has had some recent injury issues as well......
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:59 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Huff is better than Pavano?? Come on now, I get that you're upset about the deal, but there is NO WAY you can say that a guy that hasn't pitched above AAA is better than a guy that has had great success at the ML.


Great success? What, one gork season in 2004 and a good playoff in 2003 accounts for "great success at the ML level"? What about the other nine and a half seasons in the bigs where he had awful success at the ML level?

I get Huff is unproven.....but I'd feel very much more confident in him out there than Pavano. Pavano has a horrible injury history, and his upside is, what, Jason Johnson? Seriously. The guy had one very good season. The liklihood of that occurring again is very slim. I'd be happy to eat crow if I am wrong on that, but Pavano's upside is MAYBE his 2003 season which is VERY average. But if you compare the histories of Jason Johnson and Pavano, while Pavano has had the much better one season in 2004....Johnson has outpitched him and been more reliable in every other season.

At least Huff is healthy, has tremendous upside, and is considered major leaguer ready and projects to be a MOR guy. Hell, I may be more inclined to even go with Scott Lewis over Pavano.

Saying that you 'THINK' Huff will become better this year is one thing, but until he proves he can get a ML hitter out, he's not better.


And because a guy has yet to pitch above Triple-A automatically counts him out as no better than anyone else who has pitched in the majors? So a guy like CC Sabathia in 2001 when he debuted as a rookie would have been better off in the minors and instead the Indians signing some retread? So a guy like Tomo Ohka is better than Huff? Or, for any rookie pitcher for that matter this year in baseball? This is the problem I have with Shapiro, this inability to trust his system and avoid retread signings to put off the development and show faith in his own highly regarded players. Pavano makes absolutely no sense because even if he is healthy and does okay the payoff is still arguably right about where we would be with one of the other young starters.

And what's the difference between Ohka and Pavano??? Really? Ohka has NEVER thrown 200 innings in any season at any level. He did have a nice 2 year run of 190 innings 02-03....but really hasn't done much since (decent 05 season). He's also NEVER pitched in the playoffs.....and didn't throw a single pitch in the MLs last year.....unlike Pavano.

Pavano is definately better. You can argue that he's too injury prone and wasn't needed (though I disagree on the latter).....but Ohka is a AAA filler and nothing more really. Pavano has a shot at being a legit #3 (and you laughing at Shapiro for basically agreeing with that doesn't change it). GREAT signing that could turn out to the be the difference between going deep in the playoffs and going home early.


Pavano has thrown 200 innings twice in ten seasons. Bravo. You want to know his high water mark in the other eight seasons? 136 innings. In fact, in only six of his eleven seasons has he pitched over 100 innings. Bleh. In Ohka's ten professional seasons he has thrown over 100 innings eight times. In six seasons he has thrown 150 or more innings (Pavano has 150 or more innings thrown just twice). Ohka's 2002-2003 is VERY much like Pavano's 2003-2004. You take out those two years for both players and what do you got? Retread depth.

Heck, Ohka and Pavano are the same age. And Ohka has more recent success, whereas Pavano has barely pitched the last four years. Pavano did come back last year, but what in his seven starts did he show? Pavano's 2008 line in seven starts: 5.77 ERA, 3.93 K/9, .306 BAA, 0.68 G/F, .835 OPS. As a reference point in 2008, Jeremy Sowers in 22 starts: 5.58 ERA, 4.76 K/9, 1.64 K/BB, .291 BAA, 0.76 G/F, .825 OPS.

And Ohka has been better recently than Pavano. First off, he has no real injury issues. Secondaly, in 2005 he was 11-9 with a 4.04 ERA in 32 games and threw 180 innings. That same year in his first year in NY, Pavano threw 100 innings and came up lame and finished 4-6 with a 4.77 ERA in 17 games. 2006 and 2007 was a wash for Pavano and Oka, but while Pavano was hurt, at least Ohka was still throwing and splitting time in the bigs and minors. In 2008 Ohka threw 135 innings for the White Sox Triple-A affiliate.

Again, show me how Pavano is a better pitcher than Ohka. It certainly isn't stuff because both have marginal "stuff". As far as track record goes, they both are at least the same, with Ohka the more sustained success and better health record. So, how in the world is Pavano better than Ohka?

You want Pavano, then sign him to a non-gauranteed deal as an NRI. The $1.5 million is not the issue, the issue is they have already gauranteed him a rotation spot out of spring training if he is healthy. Which is absurd if you ask me, because what if guys like Huff, Ohka, Laffet, Sowers, Lewis, Jackson, etc outperform him? The gauranteed rotation spot irks the hell outta me. And if he was not able to be signed to an NRI, you pass. No loss at all. I'd have been much more happy going out and signing two or three more NRI vet pitchers to compete for a spot (but have no gauranteed roster spot) than doing what they did with Pavano. It would be one thing if he in fact did have a history of success like with Kevin Millwood when we got him, but Pavano is a far cry from that.

Crap, I've written enough on this to make it an article now. Ha.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:10 pm

Consigliere wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:Huff is better than Pavano?? Come on now, I get that you're upset about the deal, but there is NO WAY you can say that a guy that hasn't pitched above AAA is better than a guy that has had great success at the ML.


Great success? What, one gork season in 2004 and a good playoff in 2003 accounts for "great success at the ML level"? What about the other nine and a half seasons in the bigs where he had awful success at the ML level?

I get Huff is unproven.....but I'd feel very much more confident in him out there than Pavano. Pavano has a horrible injury history, and his upside is, what, Jason Johnson? Seriously. The guy had one very good season. The liklihood of that occurring again is very slim. I'd be happy to eat crow if I am wrong on that, but Pavano's upside is MAYBE his 2003 season which is VERY average. But if you compare the histories of Jason Johnson and Pavano, while Pavano has had the much better one season in 2004....Johnson has outpitched him and been more reliable in every other season.
It is great to read something intelligent on the subject after the endless drivel posted by hermie! Kudos to you for stating everything accurately. But if you think that Hermie won't be sending out several more argumentative posts, you got another think coming.

At least Huff is healthy, has tremendous upside, and is considered major leaguer ready and projects to be a MOR guy. Hell, I may be more inclined to even go with Scott Lewis over Pavano.

Saying that you 'THINK' Huff will become better this year is one thing, but until he proves he can get a ML hitter out, he's not better.


And because a guy has yet to pitch above Triple-A automatically counts him out as no better than anyone else who has pitched in the majors? So a guy like CC Sabathia in 2001 when he debuted as a rookie would have been better off in the minors and instead the Indians signing some retread? So a guy like Tomo Ohka is better than Huff? Or, for any rookie pitcher for that matter this year in baseball? This is the problem I have with Shapiro, this inability to trust his system and avoid retread signings to put off the development and show faith in his own highly regarded players. Pavano makes absolutely no sense because even if he is healthy and does okay the payoff is still arguably right about where we would be with one of the other young starters.

And what's the difference between Ohka and Pavano??? Really? Ohka has NEVER thrown 200 innings in any season at any level. He did have a nice 2 year run of 190 innings 02-03....but really hasn't done much since (decent 05 season). He's also NEVER pitched in the playoffs.....and didn't throw a single pitch in the MLs last year.....unlike Pavano.

Pavano is definately better. You can argue that he's too injury prone and wasn't needed (though I disagree on the latter).....but Ohka is a AAA filler and nothing more really. Pavano has a shot at being a legit #3 (and you laughing at Shapiro for basically agreeing with that doesn't change it). GREAT signing that could turn out to the be the difference between going deep in the playoffs and going home early.


Pavano has thrown 200 innings twice in ten seasons. Bravo. You want to know his high water mark in the other eight seasons? 136 innings. In fact, in only six of his eleven seasons has he pitched over 100 innings. Bleh. In Ohka's ten professional seasons he has thrown over 100 innings eight times. In six seasons he has thrown 150 or more innings (Pavano has 150 or more innings thrown just twice). Ohka's 2002-2003 is VERY much like Pavano's 2003-2004. You take out those two years for both players and what do you got? Retread depth.

Heck, Ohka and Pavano are the same age. And Ohka has more recent success, whereas Pavano has barely pitched the last four years. Pavano did come back last year, but what in his seven starts did he show? Pavano's 2008 line in seven starts: 5.77 ERA, 3.93 K/9, .306 BAA, 0.68 G/F, .835 OPS. As a reference point in 2008, Jeremy Sowers in 22 starts: 5.58 ERA, 4.76 K/9, 1.64 K/BB, .291 BAA, 0.76 G/F, .825 OPS.

And Ohka has been better recently than Pavano. First off, he has no real injury issues. Secondaly, in 2005 he was 11-9 with a 4.04 ERA in 32 games and threw 180 innings. That same year in his first year in NY, Pavano threw 100 innings and came up lame and finished 4-6 with a 4.77 ERA in 17 games. 2006 and 2007 was a wash for Pavano and Oka, but while Pavano was hurt, at least Ohka was still throwing and splitting time in the bigs and minors. In 2008 Ohka threw 135 innings for the White Sox Triple-A affiliate.

Again, show me how Pavano is a better pitcher than Ohka. It certainly isn't stuff because both have marginal "stuff". As far as track record goes, they both are at least the same, with Ohka the more sustained success and better health record. So, how in the world is Pavano better than Ohka?

You want Pavano, then sign him to a non-gauranteed deal as an NRI. The $1.5 million is not the issue, the issue is they have already gauranteed him a rotation spot out of spring training if he is healthy. Which is absurd if you ask me, because what if guys like Huff, Ohka, Laffet, Sowers, Lewis, Jackson, etc outperform him? The gauranteed rotation spot irks the hell outta me. And if he was not able to be signed to an NRI, you pass. No loss at all. I'd have been much more happy going out and signing two or three more NRI vet pitchers to compete for a spot (but have no gauranteed roster spot) than doing what they did with Pavano. It would be one thing if he in fact did have a history of success like with Kevin Millwood when we got him, but Pavano is a far cry from that.

Crap, I've written enough on this to make it an article now. Ha.

But this is so much better than reading hermie's endless crap. Don't think it will end because you posted something accurately reflecting the pitfalls and odds of success for this deal. You are dealing with hermie and intelligent thought rarely occurs in any of his posts. :s_drinks
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby cardiackidz » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:45 pm

thank you tony for backing me up on the great carl pavano. i'd just rather have shapiro go knock the dust off terry mullhollands old ass and give him a spot in the rotation.
cardiackidz
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:55 pm

Pavano had more than just a good playoff run in 2003. His whole second half was pretty solid (though I agree, not spectacular). Pavano is far from a superstar....but has proven he's a good 3-4 starter in this league. Pavano's upside is his last full healthy season....2004. You can NOT say he can't do that again. Will he? I don't think so, but it's definately possible. Even if his ERA is a full 1 run higher, I'd take a 4.00 ERA and 150-160 innings from my #3-4 starter.

And Pavano's highest inning total is other than the two 200 innings seasons is not 136 innings. He's thrown 185 and 161 before. I was talking about their Pro careers. Ohka even in the minors didn't throw many innings (ok, so talking about 10 years ago means nothing I know).

Never said Pavano had 'great' stuff.....but it's definately better than Ohka's. Pavano has a nice fastball and his slider and changeup are solid as well. Go back and watch how he pitched in Florida. It was far above how Ohka looked in his 'prime'.


I know Shapiro says Pavano is 'guranteed' a roster spot....but unless that's written in the contract (which I highly doubt) I put little to no stock in it, and neither should anyone else.

Fultz had his option picked up and guranteed $1.5M for 2008....yet the Tribe cut him right before the season to bring in Breslow. Tribe will do the same with Pavano if 2 of the young guys out perform him (which I don't see happening). Lewis and Huff had had arm injuries in recent years, as have Reyes and even Laffey. Tribe didn't 'need' to get Pavano, but it was a GREAT signing.


Through all the writings all you've done is show that Pavano isn't a great pitcher (which I never said....though agree, I may have overstated his strengths some). But nothing points to this signing being a bad one. Absolute worst case he loses 5-6 games to start the year and costs us a lil over $1M. Best case, he throws 160 innings and has a 3.50 ERA. I'd gamble those 5-6 games (3-4 we'd likely lose no matter WHO was the pitcher) and a lil over $1M for the shot at what Pavano can do.

With Reyes's health in question, the lack of progress by Sowers (who I still think is gonna have a breakout year as the #5 starter), Laffey's arm 'issue' (though don't put much into it), Huff's inexperience (and past arm issues.....not to mention less than overwhelming minor league numbers), and Lewis's lack of stuff (though did show me a lot in September)........getting Pavano is a can't lose situation for the price, plain and simple.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby dnosco » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:03 pm

hmm....well $400K would be spent on whomever else made the rotation, at least......so really only 'wasting' about $1.1M......


I agree...as long as we aren't selling guys in August just to get money to sign draft picks as we did in 2008.

And there's really no way Pavano gets to any of the incentives unless he's pitching well. Tribe won't let him get that many innings if he's not. They'll cut him....someone else will likely sign him to a league minimum deal (saving another $250-300K about)....so our sunk cost would really only be about $800-900k......I'd say that's worth the gamble of seeing what Pavano can do. Even if no one picks him up, still not much of a sunk cost all things considered, even for the Indians.130-140 innings and a 4.50 ERA from Pavano isn't out of the question at all and definately worth the money they'd be paying him. Yeah, one or two of the 'other lefties' may be able to do that.....but having some more depth never hurt anyone. Plus could open up a trade of one should Pavano prove to be an asset.


A quick check shows me there were 15 pitchers (roughly 20% of starters) in the American League who had more than 20 starts last year AND had ERAs over 5.00. Only one, Carmona (8-7) had a winning record. While most of those were on teams without a winning record, I don't think you could guarantee that the Indians wouldn't keep throwing Pavano out there if they are still in the race IF there weren't any lead pipe better options out there AND he wasn't getting bombed early in games. After looking at those numbers I could easily envision a 5.2 ERA being good enough to keep him in the rotation.

Also, I don't recall ever seeing a 'bonus' that was based on longevity for a pitcher that was coming off injury. It was the same way with Millwood. You never see one for stats....you do see All-Star and Cy Young incentives.....but other than that, they don't really exist....


Woods' contract is based on longevity (i.e., games or games finished, I forget). Is it my use of 'longevity' that is confusing to you or are you saying that bonuses for appearances are never done? I can understand if it is the former but, for starting pitchers, to some extent, longevity = number of starts since they are on a regular cycle. If you stay with the team as a starting pitcher you pitch every 5 days, roughly, meaning time on the team is roughly correlatable to number of starts. Maybe I am totally misreading your comment but the response is based on how I intrepret your comment. Sorry if I am misreading.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:06 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Pavano had more than just a good playoff run in 2003. His whole second half was pretty solid (though I agree, not spectacular). Pavano is far from a superstar....but has proven he's a good 3-4 starter in this league. Pavano's upside is his last full healthy season....2004. You can NOT say he can't do that again. Will he? I don't think so, but it's definately possible. Even if his ERA is a full 1 run higher, I'd take a 4.00 ERA and 150-160 innings from my #3-4 starter.


So, by the same token, Ohka's upside is his season in 2002 where he went 13-8 with a 3.18 ERA and threw 193 innings, no? As you said, "you can NOT say he can't do that again."

:s_biggrin

And this thing on Pavano "proving" he is a good 3-4 starter in the bigs. Again, how so? Because of one and a half good years that happend 5-6 years ago? What about the other nine and a half season he was, as my colleague Buffum would say, a fungus?
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:09 pm

dnosco wrote:A quick check shows me there were 15 pitchers (roughly 20% of starters) in the American League who had more than 20 starts last year AND had ERAs over 5.00. Only one, Carmona (8-7) had a winning record. While most of those were on teams without a winning record, I don't think you could guarantee that the Indians wouldn't keep throwing Pavano out there if they are still in the race IF there weren't any lead pipe better options out there AND he wasn't getting bombed early in games. After looking at those numbers I could easily envision a 5.2 ERA being good enough to keep him in the rotation.


Woods' contract is based on longevity (i.e., games or games finished, I forget). Is it my use of 'longevity' that is confusing to you or are you saying that bonuses for appearances are never done? I can understand if it is the former but, for starting pitchers, to some extent, longevity = number of starts since they are on a regular cycle. If you stay with the team as a starting pitcher you pitch every 5 days, roughly, meaning time on the team is roughly correlatable to number of starts. Maybe I am totally misreading your comment but the response is based on how I intrepret your comment. Sorry if I am misreading.



I don't. Tribe cut bait with Johnson a few years ago, and with Fultz last year in ST (costing them over $1M). With the depth behind him, I don't see anything over a 5 ERA keeping him with the team......but you never know.


That last part was a misprint on my part. It should have said 'wasn't' based on longevity.....my apologies. You didn't misread it....i mistyped it (though I did edit it now).
Last edited by Hermie13 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby dnosco » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm

Fultz had his option picked up and guranteed $1.5M for 2008....yet the Tribe cut him right before the season to bring in Breslow. Tribe will do the same with Pavano if 2 of the young guys out perform him (which I don't see happening). Lewis and Huff had had arm injuries in recent years, as have Reyes and even Laffey. Tribe didn't 'need' to get Pavano, but it was a GREAT signing.


And we had to sell Byrd in August to get money to sign draft picks AFTER we saved money by sending CC to the Brewers and, to a much less extent, shipping Michaels and Blake out of town. At the time I argued that it shouldn't be related as they should come out of different budgets but it appears all these budgets are related. So, had we NOT had to eat Fultz's salary do you think we would have had the money to sign some of these draft picks anyway? By the logic at the time of all budgets being interrelated, you would have to guess so, right? If that is the case than ANY money you waste hurts the organization, especially cutting Pavano after two starts.

No one questions depth starters signed to minor league contracts. People are just saying that depth starters SHOULD ONLY be signed to minor league contracts and that Pavano is not better (at least not to any statistical significance) than any of a number of depth starters we could have signed to minor league deals or even to major league deals for less than $1.5 million.

I know I am beating this to death but when you have to rob Peter to pay Paul in August it seems you could have saved money on James back in the winter so that you didn't have to pilfer Peter post-ST.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:21 pm

Consigliere wrote:So, by the same token, Ohka's upside is his season in 2002 where he went 13-8 with a 3.18 ERA and threw 193 innings, no? As you said, "you can NOT say he can't do that again."

:s_biggrin

And this thing on Pavano "proving" he is a good 3-4 starter in the bigs. Again, how so? Because of one and a half good years that happend 5-6 years ago? What about the other nine and a half season he was, as my colleague Buffum would say, a fungus?


Suppose if you want to say that you can.....but the big difference is 2004 was Pavano's last healthy season.......Ohka has been healthy (as you pointed out) pretty much his whole career......yet couldn't even make a ML roster last year.....

Even Pavano's other years show he's a decent 4-5 (ok, maybe 3 was pushing it). Wasn't a full-time starter til 2003....and since then has been a 3-4 starter when healthy.....which obviously hasn't been much of the time.

I guess I also see a lot of his time in NY as bad luck and bad place. Was called out by teammates and I think a fresh start in Cleveland with a better core of guys around him should help. Am I being too optimistic and even naive? Possibly.....but most of what's been written is being far too pessimistic. Much of what is said is probable....but not definitive as it's sounding. It's basically a non-gamble. It's like buying a $1 lottery ticket with a shot at half a million bucks.


Pointlesss. We'll see how he pitches, that's all that can really be said.

I see him having a good year, thought so before the Indians signed him (thought the NL would have been a better spot though). Most all of you feel differently....fair enough.....

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, and mine may very well be absolutely wrong in the end....but they are just that now, opinions. I see this as a great signing for a team that could not do any better. Feel diffierently? Fine, but other than Tony, it'd be nice for people to actually come up with something and not just say Pavano sucks for the sake of saying it.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:23 pm

Consigliere wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:Pavano had more than just a good playoff run in 2003. His whole second half was pretty solid (though I agree, not spectacular). Pavano is far from a superstar....but has proven he's a good 3-4 starter in this league. Pavano's upside is his last full healthy season....2004. You can NOT say he can't do that again. Will he? I don't think so, but it's definately possible. Even if his ERA is a full 1 run higher, I'd take a 4.00 ERA and 150-160 innings from my #3-4 starter.


So, by the same token, Ohka's upside is his season in 2002 where he went 13-8 with a 3.18 ERA and threw 193 innings, no? As you said, "you can NOT say he can't do that again."

:s_biggrin

And this thing on Pavano "proving" he is a good 3-4 starter in the bigs. Again, how so? Because of one and a half good years that happend 5-6 years ago? What about the other nine and a half season he was, as my colleague Buffum would say, a fungus?


I told you intelligent posting would not end the hermie BS parade. Try speaking like you would to an immature adolescent. :s_empathy
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:24 pm

dnosco wrote:And we had to sell Byrd in August to get money to sign draft picks AFTER we saved money by sending CC to the Brewers and, to a much less extent, shipping Michaels and Blake out of town. At the time I argued that it shouldn't be related as they should come out of different budgets but it appears all these budgets are related. So, had we NOT had to eat Fultz's salary do you think we would have had the money to sign some of these draft picks anyway? By the logic at the time of all budgets being interrelated, you would have to guess so, right? If that is the case than ANY money you waste hurts the organization, especially cutting Pavano after two starts.

No one questions depth starters signed to minor league contracts. People are just saying that depth starters SHOULD ONLY be signed to minor league contracts and that Pavano is not better (at least not to any statistical significance) than any of a number of depth starters we could have signed to minor league deals or even to major league deals for less than $1.5 million.

I know I am beating this to death but when you have to rob Peter to pay Paul in August it seems you could have saved money on James back in the winter so that you didn't have to pilfer Peter post-ST.


I love how Shapiro saying that the money we saved by trading Byrd turns into we 'had to trade him' or else we wouldn't have any draft picks.

That's not true. Yeah, it helped us overpay some of the guys to gurantee they signed, and we may have lost 1 or 2 had we not had that money.....but there was really no point in keeping Byrd around last year. If we wanted to re-sign him we still could have. Tribe knew they weren't bringing him back in 2009 and weren't winning the divison with him in 2008. That's why he was traded. The money we got was a bonus and thus so were the draft picks. It was basically us trading Byrd for draft picks....could have traded him for a low A-ball prospect or two if we wanted and paid his salary....but we chose the picks over that.

And stop bringing up Blake at all....that deal acutally COST us money. We still paid all of Blake's salary plus paid Meloan ML money when he was called up in September. The money we saved on CC probably came out of the lost money in the fans that weren't showing up to the park that were expected when the team raied it's payroll nearly $18M......

We also didn't 'ship' Michaels out of town. He was released and picked up by the Pirates. got less than the league minimum for him....so again didn't save any money as we had to pay Francisco the league minimum (or close to it) to take Michaels spot on the 25 man roster.

Difference is, Pavano isn't a 'depth' starter really. No 'depth' starter that would really help us in 2009 would agree to a minor league deal. Garcia 'may' but that would mean he's not healthy enough and would defeat the purpose of even signing him.

He's being counted on to be a 3-4 guy. Now maybe that's foolish....but that's what it is. After Hampton got $2M guranteed though from the Astros, the price for oft-injured pitchers went up....we actually got Pavano pretty cheap.....
Last edited by Hermie13 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:26 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
Consigliere wrote:So, by the same token, Ohka's upside is his season in 2002 where he went 13-8 with a 3.18 ERA and threw 193 innings, no? As you said, "you can NOT say he can't do that again."

:s_biggrin

And this thing on Pavano "proving" he is a good 3-4 starter in the bigs. Again, how so? Because of one and a half good years that happend 5-6 years ago? What about the other nine and a half season he was, as my colleague Buffum would say, a fungus?


Suppose if you want to say that you can.....but the big difference is 2004 was Pavano's last healthy season.......Ohka has been healthy (as you pointed out) pretty much his whole career......yet couldn't even make a ML roster last year.....

Even Pavano's other years show he's a decent 4-5 (ok, maybe 3 was pushing it). Wasn't a full-time starter til 2003....and since then has been a 3-4 starter when healthy.....which obviously hasn't been much of the time.

I guess I also see a lot of his time in NY as bad luck and bad place. Was called out by teammates and I think a fresh start in Cleveland with a better core of guys around him should help. Am I being too optimistic and even naive? Possibly.....but most of what's been written is being far too pessimistic. Much of what is said is probable....but not definitive as it's sounding. It's basically a non-gamble. It's like buying a $1 lottery ticket with a shot at half a million bucks.


Pointlesss. We'll see how he pitches, that's all that can really be said.

I see him having a good year, thought so before the Indians signed him (thought the NL would have been a better spot though). Most all of you feel differently....fair enough.....

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, and mine may very well be absolutely wrong in the end....but they are just that now, opinions. I see this as a great signing for a team that could not do any better. Feel diffierently? Fine, but other than Tony, it'd be nice for people to actually come up with something and not just say Pavano sucks for the sake of saying it.....


If we do that, we have more of your endless posts to read to get to the intelligent ones. You just want to argue, like every other adolescent.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby jellis » Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:17 pm

micheals was traded when he was DFA, but the indians picked up all his salary I think.

Huff had a an amazing year his WHIP was under 1, that is amazing. He has earned a spot in the rotation or at least an attempt for it

Pavano signing makes little sense unless it was a PR move which it might be typical fan thinks they signed a name starter yes its an expensive PR move, but I would not be suprised if that was part of the reason
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:24 pm

jellis wrote:micheals was traded when he was DFA, but the indians picked up all his salary I think.

Huff had a an amazing year his WHIP was under 1, that is amazing. He has earned a spot in the rotation or at least an attempt for it

Pavano signing makes little sense unless it was a PR move which it might be typical fan thinks they signed a name starter yes its an expensive PR move, but I would not be suprised if that was part of the reason


We didn't get any money or a player for Michaels......some trade......

Huff had a great year....but was split between Akron and Buffalo. At Buffalo he had a WHIP of 1.03 and ERA of 3.01 in 80.2 innings there. Still very good stats.....but consider Sowers in 60.2 innings in Buffalo had a 2.08 ERA (had a higher WHIP, 1.20 though).

So Huff earned a spot in the rotation over Sowers based on his minor league numbers last year? I don't think so. Huff may very well beat out Sowers (and Laffey) for the 5th spot, but it'll be based on how they all perform in ST, not what Huff did against AA and AAA opponents last year.

Sowers his last time in Buffalo before getting called up to the majors (in 2006, at the age of 23) threw 97 innings with a 1.39 ERA and 1.10 WHIP! His first (and only) stint in Akron (first pro season) in 2005 saw him throw 82 innings with a 2.08 ERA and 1.01 WHIP.....again, Sowers's numbers have been as good and better than Huff's in the minors. Huff does strike more people out so his stuff may very well play better at the next level......but again, he hasn't 'earned' anything yet......has earned a chance to compete for a job....but that's it.....



And I'm pretty certain the Pavano signing wasn't a PR move.....if it was they need to fire their PR guys. Everyone knows the name Pavano....but not in a good way. It'd be like hiring H.H. Holmes to be the team doctor....yeah he's got name recognition....but come on, not a smart PR move...
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby MickS » Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:17 pm

The Pavano signing is only a big deal if he bombs and they try to stick with him anyway. For the amount of money invested, he should be on a very short leash.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Pavano?

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:47 pm

MickS wrote:The Pavano signing is only a big deal if he bombs and they try to stick with him anyway. For the amount of money invested, he should be on a very short leash.

Maybe that will be easier said than done with his guaranteed rotation spot, especially if they want to give him work to see if he still has anything left. I'm with Tony on this one.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby dnosco » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:10 pm

"I love how Shapiro saying that the money we saved by trading Byrd turns into we 'had to trade him' or else we wouldn't have any draft picks.

That's not true. Yeah, it helped us overpay some of the guys to gurantee they signed, and we may have lost 1 or 2 had we not had that money.....but there was really no point in keeping Byrd around last year. If we wanted to re-sign him we still could have. Tribe knew they weren't bringing him back in 2009 and weren't winning the divison with him in 2008. That's why he was traded. The money we got was a bonus and thus so were the draft picks. It was basically us trading Byrd for draft picks....could have traded him for a low A-ball prospect or two if we wanted and paid his salary....but we chose the picks over that."

I think that it is pretty obvious that we signed the picks that we didn't have the budget to sign by creating budget from selling Byrd. In the end, Fultz's $1.5 million would have helped to sign those guys, too.

"And stop bringing up Blake at all....that deal acutally COST us money. We still paid all of Blake's salary plus paid Meloan ML money when he was called up in September. The money we saved on CC probably came out of the lost money in the fans that weren't showing up to the park that were expected when the team raied it's payroll nearly $18M......"

Sory about the Blake thing but your comment on CC is irrelevant. So, we used CC's money to make up a deficit and that has something to do with Byrd?

"We also didn't 'ship' Michaels out of town. He was released and picked up by the Pirates. got less than the league minimum for him....so again didn't save any money as we had to pay Francisco the league minimum (or close to it) to take Michaels spot on the 25 man roster."

First, we TRADED him, he was never released. Second, who knows how much we got for Michaels (probably a little more because we never got a PTBNL) AND we didn't pick up his salary which was more than league minimum so we did make out on that one.

"Difference is, Pavano isn't a 'depth' starter really. No 'depth' starter that would really help us in 2009 would agree to a minor league deal. Garcia 'may' but that would mean he's not healthy enough and would defeat the purpose of even signing him.

He's being counted on to be a 3-4 guy. Now maybe that's foolish....but that's what it is. After Hampton got $2M guranteed though from the Astros, the price for oft-injured pitchers went up....we actually got Pavano pretty cheap....."

Sounds like excuses to me.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:57 am

why do you have to continue to quote like that....


I was mistaken, we did trade Michaels....we traded him AND cash for PTBNL......CASH being the key here, we didn't save a nickel on this deal.

And how does the last part sound like an excuse? An excuse of what?
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby dnosco » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:34 am

Hampton gets a contract, therefore we have to pay Pavano this amount.

Sorry about the quoting. It is my problem. I don't always get the menu bar that allows me to quote SECTIONS of your post. Maybe it is my computer or just that I don't know this system well but, when you see me quote like this it is because I don't see any other options.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:17 am

That's not what I said. Just that compared to what the Astros paid for Hampton, we got a bit of a bargain on Pavano.

ha, fair enough. My browser messes up sometimes too so understandable.....but still annoying.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby Duane Kuiper » Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:13 pm

dazindiansfanuk wrote:The problem wasn't signing Johnson, the problem was holding onto him as long as they did.

Personally I feel the same way about Pavano. I don't care that they've signed him particularly, but if he doesn't perform and they keep running him out there, then I'll have a problem with it.

They set a prescident of sorts last spring when they cut Fultz' $1.5m contract when it quickly became evident that he had nothing left. If the same thing happens with Pavano and they cut him too, then I'd be fine with that on the basis that the Indians seem to have made the statement "we're gambling $1.5m knowing that there's a good chance we might lose that money, but we can fit that into the budget".

If that's the case.... not a problem in my view. If he shows that he's healthy and able to give them solid innings then he can continue to pitch. If he shows he's got nothing left and they cut him early (even in Spring) then "all" they lose is the money and they can go back to their in-house alternatives.

Excellent post. If Pavano is outpitched by the youngsters in ST and he still is put on the ML roster for April, then this is a mistake.

If he makes the team and then pitches like Johnson and stays as long as Johnson then it is a HUGE mistake.

If he is cut like Fultz was last year because he looked poor in ST, then this is an OK gamble.

The only worry I have is that the Indian's medical staff last year said that it was OK with picking up the options on Fultz and JoBo (I'm assuming that Shap asked them). That turned out to be wrong. Cost the team $5.5 mil because of the medical staff's mistake.

Let's see if the medical staff did better on Pavano.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:51 pm

Well Fultz's and Borowski's options were picked up back in November.....Borowski's arm didn't show signs of problems til middle of spring training. The Tribe knew there was a risk with JoeBo's arm (Philly had agreed to sign him before us but backed out cause they didn't think his arm would hold up for 2 years) when they signed him.....they gambled that it'd hold up for one more year.....they lost that one.

Did Fultz have an injury though? I thought he was just cut cause he had a terrible spring? After getting cut he went on to play for the Tigers, but asked for his release since he was getting called up (but was pitching in the minors). Then signed with the Rockies and pitched in the minors but was cut.....then even went to an independant league and pitched nearly 80 innings in that league......

Fultz was healthy and can't put that one on the medical staff at all. Now obviously picking up his option turned out to be a bad idea, just saying you're putting blame in the wrong area there.....


No medical staff is perfect....but I have faith in the Tribe's. The tend to get it right on 1 year deals (longer and you never know how a player will pan out).....but they could be wrong on Pavano...
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby jellis » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:20 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
jellis wrote:micheals was traded when he was DFA, but the indians picked up all his salary I think.

Huff had a an amazing year his WHIP was under 1, that is amazing. He has earned a spot in the rotation or at least an attempt for it

Pavano signing makes little sense unless it was a PR move which it might be typical fan thinks they signed a name starter yes its an expensive PR move, but I would not be suprised if that was part of the reason


We didn't get any money or a player for Michaels......some trade......

Huff had a great year....but was split between Akron and Buffalo. At Buffalo he had a WHIP of 1.03 and ERA of 3.01 in 80.2 innings there. Still very good stats.....but consider Sowers in 60.2 innings in Buffalo had a 2.08 ERA (had a higher WHIP, 1.20 though).

So Huff earned a spot in the rotation over Sowers based on his minor league numbers last year? I don't think so. Huff may very well beat out Sowers (and Laffey) for the 5th spot, but it'll be based on how they all perform in ST, not what Huff did against AA and AAA opponents last year.

Sowers his last time in Buffalo before getting called up to the majors (in 2006, at the age of 23) threw 97 innings with a 1.39 ERA and 1.10 WHIP! His first (and only) stint in Akron (first pro season) in 2005 saw him throw 82 innings with a 2.08 ERA and 1.01 WHIP.....again, Sowers's numbers have been as good and better than Huff's in the minors. Huff does strike more people out so his stuff may very well play better at the next level......but again, he hasn't 'earned' anything yet......has earned a chance to compete for a job....but that's it.....



And I'm pretty certain the Pavano signing wasn't a PR move.....if it was they need to fire their PR guys. Everyone knows the name Pavano....but not in a good way. It'd be like hiring H.H. Holmes to be the team doctor....yeah he's got name recognition....but come on, not a smart PR move...



you dont know a lot about PR there is no bad PR, name value is all that matters you can spin anything any way you want. Pavano is a former all star who was paid huge bucks by the yankees to be there ace then had a few injury problems but is healthy now and really rebounded the end of last year. I dont belive any of that crap, but that can be an easy spin. Name Recogintation which he has is the only that matters with a PR move. Wood is a name and Pavano is a name and people will bne excited because they know these names they dont know a Valbuena or Joe Smith so there is no excitement


Just a nonsensical move at some point you have to figure out if guys can pitch not sure why you waste 1.1 mil on pavano which coud be used on the draft since they tend to penny pinch on the draft.

Huff shouldnt be given a spot he has to earn it, but he has little left to prove. Laffey last year before his arm tired looked like a MOR starter and well Sowers looks like a fringy SP but can work as a 5. Reyes has to make the team and Lewis should be a back of the rotation guy but I think of any of the pitchers he needs the most time in the minors, why waste money and a spot on pavano who had fluke contract year and one other decent year
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Duane Kuiper » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:54 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Well Fultz's and Borowski's options were picked up back in November.....Borowski's arm didn't show signs of problems til middle of spring training. The Tribe knew there was a risk with JoeBo's arm (Philly had agreed to sign him before us but backed out cause they didn't think his arm would hold up for 2 years) when they signed him.....they gambled that it'd hold up for one more year.....they lost that one.

Did Fultz have an injury though? I thought he was just cut cause he had a terrible spring? After getting cut he went on to play for the Tigers, but asked for his release since he was getting called up (but was pitching in the minors). Then signed with the Rockies and pitched in the minors but was cut.....then even went to an independant league and pitched nearly 80 innings in that league......

Fultz was healthy and can't put that one on the medical staff at all. Now obviously picking up his option turned out to be a bad idea, just saying you're putting blame in the wrong area there.....


No medical staff is perfect....but I have faith in the Tribe's. The tend to get it right on 1 year deals (longer and you never know how a player will pan out).....but they could be wrong on Pavano...
I didn't know about the independent league innings. I thought he just pitched 6.2 IP. So he probably wasn't injured. My bad.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:07 am

jellis wrote:you dont know a lot about PR there is no bad PR, name value is all that matters you can spin anything any way you want. Pavano is a former all star who was paid huge bucks by the yankees to be there ace then had a few injury problems but is healthy now and really rebounded the end of last year. I dont belive any of that crap, but that can be an easy spin. Name Recogintation which he has is the only that matters with a PR move. Wood is a name and Pavano is a name and people will bne excited because they know these names they dont know a Valbuena or Joe Smith so there is no excitement


Just a nonsensical move at some point you have to figure out if guys can pitch not sure why you waste 1.1 mil on pavano which coud be used on the draft since they tend to penny pinch on the draft.

Huff shouldnt be given a spot he has to earn it, but he has little left to prove. Laffey last year before his arm tired looked like a MOR starter and well Sowers looks like a fringy SP but can work as a 5. Reyes has to make the team and Lewis should be a back of the rotation guy but I think of any of the pitchers he needs the most time in the minors, why waste money and a spot on pavano who had fluke contract year and one other decent year


ha, tell that to Tom Cruise and Oprah's couch, or any of the players named in the Mitchell Report...

There IS such a thing as bad PR. Signing Pavano was definately NOT a PR move and saying so is ridiculous.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby carnegie44115 » Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:25 pm

So what I don't get is everyone wants to knock on Pavano because of injury history and the fact he has only hit the 200 IP mark twice in his career.

Let us look at some things about his injury history, in 05 and 06, I believe he had bone chips removed from his elbow, something a lot of players have done, did our C just not have the same procedure performed this past season? He also had some freak injuries including one from a car accident. Then in 07, when he could have shown his worth, he ends up with TJ surgery, that is just pure bad luck. So with that fact in mind, everyone needs to take his 08 starts at the end of the season and throw them out the window, because this is the same thing we will deal with Jake Westbrook when he comes back from the same surgery. Also everyone says don't expect Jake to be Jake in 09, 2010 will be the return of the real Jake. So let's see Carl had surgery in 07, than made his return in 08, and look 2009 will be the return of the real Pavano as 2010 will be the return of the real Jake. Now I think Carl has the stuff to be the 03-04 guy and he simply got screwed because one he signed a 40 M contact and he played in New York City.

As for the IP mark, this is something that needs to be looked at a little more. From 98 to 2002, he got either flipped back and forth between AAA and the majors, I believe he was hurt in 2001, only made 15 total starts. 2002 he was with two different organizations and he was flipped back and forth between relieving and starting. So you really can not count his first 5 seasons when you're talking about IP marks, as he didn't play full seasons in those first 5. Then in 2003, he gets his first real chance to be a consistent member of a starting rotation. Then in 05 the injury bug hits him after 100 IP and signing a new contract.

I for one am happy with this signing and Shapiro wouldn't sign make this deal if he didn't think he was committed and healthy. Pavano is a better option than Laffey and Reyes right now because those two have health issues, Pavano is healthy, we just don't know what we will get out of him, which is what everyone is worried about and I get that. Newsflash though people, that is the same with everyone, CC gets the Cy in 07, and everyone expects great things out of him and he blows up the first month. Carmona expected to build on his 07, he loses his control and get hurts. That is just how it is.
carnegie44115
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:12 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby JP_Frost » Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:00 pm

I agree carnegie.

Another thing of note is that according to Fangraphs, his fastball averaged 90.7 MPH in 07 which was pre-TJ. It's possible he'll be back at that level next year. Hardly a flamethrower, but it makes a big difference if you top out at 91-92 instead of 88-89.

It's really anyone's guess how he'll perform. I for one am optimistic and can't fault Shapiro & Co for taking a chance on him.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby jellis » Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:30 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
jellis wrote:you dont know a lot about PR there is no bad PR, name value is all that matters you can spin anything any way you want. Pavano is a former all star who was paid huge bucks by the yankees to be there ace then had a few injury problems but is healthy now and really rebounded the end of last year. I dont belive any of that crap, but that can be an easy spin. Name Recogintation which he has is the only that matters with a PR move. Wood is a name and Pavano is a name and people will bne excited because they know these names they dont know a Valbuena or Joe Smith so there is no excitement


Just a nonsensical move at some point you have to figure out if guys can pitch not sure why you waste 1.1 mil on pavano which coud be used on the draft since they tend to penny pinch on the draft.

Huff shouldnt be given a spot he has to earn it, but he has little left to prove. Laffey last year before his arm tired looked like a MOR starter and well Sowers looks like a fringy SP but can work as a 5. Reyes has to make the team and Lewis should be a back of the rotation guy but I think of any of the pitchers he needs the most time in the minors, why waste money and a spot on pavano who had fluke contract year and one other decent year


ha, tell that to Tom Cruise and Oprah's couch, or any of the players named in the Mitchell Report...

There IS such a thing as bad PR. Signing Pavano was definately NOT a PR move and saying so is ridiculous.....


Yes but read what I said in sports its not a bad thing, Cruise wouldnt count and the mitchell reported seemed to have zero effect I mean nothing happened to bryd or anyoen else

I am not saying it was solely a PR move, but I feel like to a degree it was part of the thought process
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:46 am

I have been extremely hard on the Pavano signing.....but I know by the time pitchers and catchers report in five weeks (five weeks!!!) that I'll be tootin his horn for Cy Young. :s_yahoo
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:51 pm

jellis wrote:Yes but read what I said in sports its not a bad thing, Cruise wouldnt count and the mitchell reported seemed to have zero effect I mean nothing happened to bryd or anyoen else

I am not saying it was solely a PR move, but I feel like to a degree it was part of the thought process


In sports there still is plenty of bad PR. Mitchell report has hurt a lot of players. Did getting the HR record and having an OBP over .400 help Bonds at all last year? Definately not. Sosa? McGuire?


I gurantee this move had absolutely nothing to do with PR....if it did hte Tribe needs to clean house in the front office now.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby MickS » Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:55 pm

A little tidbit from The Hardball Times:

"Carl Pavano

The Indians plan to slot Pavano in the rotation behind Cliff Lee, Fausto Carmona and Anthony Reyes, though Reyes and Pavano could swap places. He could make his season debut at the new Yankee Stadium against his former team. Though his stats in 2008 were certainly not eye-popping (4-2, 5.77 ERA, 15 strikeouts in 34.1 innings), he had impressed enough teams with his physical attributes to draw some attention in the offseason. At least three other teams were interested in adding him, including Boston."
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:42 am

Consigliere wrote:I have been extremely hard on the Pavano signing.....but I know by the time pitchers and catchers report in five weeks (five weeks!!!) that I'll be tootin his horn for Cy Young. :s_yahoo


ha, think that's a bit optimistic..... :s_drinks
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby MickS » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:54 pm

Per castroturf

Aubrey clears waivers and is outrighted to Columbus. Told you so.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: Pavano?

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:30 pm

MickS wrote:Per castroturf

Aubrey clears waivers and is outrighted to Columbus. Told you so.


Told who so? Saying you think there's a decent chance that he clears waivers isn't a "told you so" kind of statement when no one said there was no shot of him clearing.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Pavano?

Postby dnosco » Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:50 am

So far the guy is looking very Pavano-like and a waste of whatever they are paying him.

Question: If he continues like this do they do a Jason Johnson and run him out there for two months and 7 ugly starts, probably all losses, or do the do the same thing with a guy who might have a future, like Laffey or Sowers? I mean, my guess is that, at worst, the result is the same.

Thoughts?
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: Pavano?

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:35 am

Personally, I am not paying attention to the stats. I am paying attention to the health and his actual pitching, and reportedly he is healthy and his stuff is there. As long as he is healthy, I give him a trial run for 7-10 starts.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Beyond The Minors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron