2010 Offseason Wheeling and Dealing

[PANatsFan]

If the Nats don't make some noise, well, Chief better ban me because I will become the most insufferable poster ever.  If you thought hammondsnats was irksome in "parrot mode," you ain't seen nothin yet. 

Impossible task. I almost look forward to Noisebox for Your Lack Of Money.

[Minty Fresh]

Wins are a useless stat to judge starters by.

Unlike the dorks, I actually care about "wins" and "losses."  I don't give a crap what Jon Garland's stats are, I want him to win.  Period.  He has shown, historically, that he is about a 12-15 game/year winner.  That's it.  I'm saying, we already have guys that could win 10 games if you actually gave them a full season to work with.  Plus they're younger, already under our control and have been to the big leagues before.  Why not avoid giving away their playing time by signing an average starter and work on geting them the work they need?

I don't see how signing Jarrod Washburn and Jon Garland is going to get us to anything more than borderline mediocrity.

[HalfSmokes]

Unlike the dorks, I actually care about "wins" and "losses."  I don't give a crap what Jon Garland's stats are, I want him to win.  Period.  He has shown, historically, that he is about a 12-15 game/year winner.  That's it.  I'm saying, we already have guys that could win 10 games if you actually gave them a full season to work with.  Plus they're younger, already under our control and have been to the big leagues before.  Why not avoid giving away their playing time by signing an average starter and work on geting them the work they need?

I don't see how signing Jarrod Washburn and Jon Garland is going to get us to anything more than borderline mediocrity.

historically he's played on teams capable of giving a mediocre starter 12-15 wins per year. That's why wins are a useles sstat for a starter- they are dependent on factors the pitcer can't control (unless you expect the pitcher to win with his bat too).

[blue911]

Unlike the dorks, I actually care about "wins" and "losses."  I don't give a crap what Jon Garland's stats are, I want him to win.  Period.  He has shown, historically, that he is about a 12-15 game/year winner.  That's it.  I'm saying, we already have guys that could win 10 games if you actually gave them a full season to work with.  Plus they're younger, already under our control and have been to the big leagues before.  Why not avoid giving away their playing time by signing an average starter and work on geting them the work they need?

I don't see how signing Jarrod Washburn and Jon Garland is going to get us to anything more than borderline mediocrity.

 

Manny Acta didn't get fired because the teams FIP/WHIP/VORP/RC/BA/ERA or any other stat was bad. He got fired because the didn't WIN enough.

[Evolution33]

historically he's played on teams capable of giving a mediocre starter 12-15 wins per year. That's why wins are a useles sstat for a starter- they are dependent on factors the pitcer can't control (unless you expect the pitcher to win with his bat too).

There are diffrent mentalities to pitchers that win and ones that just collect low stats. Wins as a stat doesn't really measure anything. It is a colmenation of a lot of stats some not the pitchers, but there are moments in a game where a pitcher and pitch to win or pitch to have a lower ERA. For instance with a runner on third and 1 out in a 1-0 game with the pitchers team leading he can choose to pitch to contact and give up the run to get the out or he can try and miss the bat. He might end up with a strikeout but raise his pitch count enough to the point where he has to exit the game earlier. I think a good pitcher that wants to win will pitch to contact to get the out and get the inning over quicker, and count on his offense to get the run back. Wins as a stat cannot really measure this mentality, but if a pitcher is consestantly a 12-15 game winner then he is doing something in those games. John Garland has pitched on teams that score a good amount of runs and have had other pitchers better than him to shut out the other team. But if the nationals can aquire a league average bullpen and have the same offensive production as last year there is no reason why a 200 inning a year pitcher can't win 12-15 games.

[HalfSmokes]

So when Wong was the winningest pitcher in baseball before last year it was because he was a winner not because he played for the Yankees?

Lincecum only had 15 wins last year, does that mean he didn't deserve the Cy Young, or he that played for a team with a terrible offense?

[tomterp]

Manny Acta didn't get fired because the teams FIP/WHIP/VORP/RC/BA/ERA or any other stat was bad. He got fired because the didn't WIN enough.

So, if those stats were good, the team would have lost anyway? 

[Minty Fresh]

So when Wong was the winningest pitcher in baseball before last year it was because he was a winner not because he played for the Yankees?

Lincecum only had 15 wins last year, does that mean he didn't deserve the Cy Young, or he that played for a team with a terrible offense?

I fail to see where those two names are relevant.  Tim Lincecum and Chien Ming Wang aren't available to the Nats.  We are talking about signing these pitchers and I fail to see how they help this team win amy more games than the probably would with Stammen, Balester and Detwiler in the rotation.

[DPMOmaha]

Wang's a FA isn't he? 

[Minty Fresh]

Wang's a FA isn't he? 

Even if he is, do we care?  He obviously doesn't want to run the bases and get hurt again, plus he doesn't even seem to be half the pitcher he used to be.

[The Chief]

Minty I'm not sure I agree that any of the three youngsters you mention would be 12-15 game winners.  But even if we assume they will be, that's only three pitchers.  We haven't acquired any new starters yet, last I checked.

[DPMOmaha]

Even if he is, do we care?  He obviously doesn't want to run the bases and get hurt again, plus he doesn't even seem to be half the pitcher he used to be.

Yeah, I think if he's available, you kick the tires on this guy. 

[Minty Fresh]

Minty I'm not sure I agree that any of the three youngsters you mention would be 12-15 game winners.  But even if we assume they will be, that's only three pitchers.  We haven't acquired any new starters yet, last I checked.

I still ask, how will we know what our kids can do for an entire season unless we give them the shot instead of continually signing "stop-gaps?"  What's the difference between 12 wins from Jon Garland or 9 wins from Collin Balester?  We might get to 98 losses instead of 101?

[The Chief]

I still ask, how will we know what our kids can do for an entire season unless we give them the shot instead of continually signing "stop-gaps?"  What's the difference between 12 wins from Jon Garland or 9 wins from Collin Balester?  We might get to 98 losses instead of 101?

Why can't they both play?

[HalfSmokes]

I fail to see where those two names are relevant.  Tim Lincecum and Chien Ming Wang aren't available to the Nats.  We are talking about signing these pitchers and I fail to see how they help this team win amy more games than the probably would with Stammen, Balester and Detwiler in the rotation.

they show how irrelevent wins are to evaluating a pitcher. If wins meant anything, Wang would be the most valuable free agent pitcher on the market

[cmdterps44]

Unlike the dorks, I actually care about "wins" and "losses."  I don't give a crap what Jon Garland's stats are, I want him to win.  Period.  He has shown, historically, that he is about a 12-15 game/year winner.  That's it.  I'm saying, we already have guys that could win 10 games if you actually gave them a full season to work with. Plus they're younger, already under our control and have been to the big leagues before.  Why not avoid giving away their playing time by signing an average starter and work on geting them the work they need?

I don't see how signing Jarrod Washburn and Jon Garland is going to get us to anything more than borderline mediocrity.

Proof? You want us to go through another season of what we currently have and see where it gets us? We did that last year with the bullpen and look how that went. Guys like Garland, Smoltz, Marquis, etc; have lasted this long because they have the stuff. They are pitchers who pitch every year and come out with the same stats. They have the capabilities to do it constantly whether they lose a game more or win a game more, or their ERA is higher. They have proven they should be in a Major League rotation.

With our young guys, they are still developing. I'm not saying don't let them pitch at all, but I'm with chief. Let them pitch every now and then, or switch them off. If they deserve to be pitching, they'll show something in ST. Balester, Stammen and Detwiler will get their chances next year and they will show something. But Id rather do it one by one then have to start them all again and risk having one of them blow to many games up at once.

[Evolution33]

they show how irrelevent wins are to evaluating a pitcher. If wins meant anything, Wang would be the most valuable free agent pitcher on the market

Wins don't mean a whole lot as a stat in evaluating a pitcher, but they still mean something. I don't think any player should be signed ever based on any one stat. I don't care how many advanced metrics people create there will never be a catch all. Wins should probably be used as a listing stat. If someone wins 19 games with a 5.30 ERA and a WHIP of 1.89 any rational person would think what the f and figure out why they won that many games with such crappy stats. I still think good pitchers win more games than bad pitchers so compiling a list of free agent pitchers based on wins would then provide a way to the compare other stats. 

[HalfSmokes]

Wins don't mean a whole lot as a stat in evaluating a pitcher, but they still mean something. I don't think any player should be signed ever based on any one stat. I don't care how many advanced metrics people create there will never be a catch all. Wins should probably be used as a listing stat. If someone wins 19 games with a 5.30 ERA and a WHIP of 1.89 any rational person would think what the f and figure out why they won that many games with such crappy stats. I still think good pitchers win more games than bad pitchers so compiling a list of free agent pitchers based on wins would then provide a way to the compare other stats. 

I agree that good pitchers win more, but I can't really think of a starter who has compiled good numbers over multiple seasons who I wouldn't call a good pitcher, whereas I can think of pitchers who put up wins who I don't consider good pitchers

[Minty Fresh]

Proof? You want us to go through another season of what we currently have and see where it gets us? We did that last year with the bullpen and look how that went. Guys like Garland, Smoltz, Marquis, etc; have lasted this long because they have the stuff. They are pitchers who pitch every year and come out with the same stats. They have the capabilities to do it constantly whether they lose a game more or win a game more, or their ERA is higher. They have proven they should be in a Major League rotation.

With our young guys, they are still developing. I'm not saying don't let them pitch at all, but I'm with chief. Let them pitch every now and then, or switch them off. If they deserve to be pitching, they'll show something in ST. Balester, Stammen and Detwiler will get their chances next year and they will show something. But Id rather do it one by one then have to start them all again and risk having one of them blow to many games up at once.

With Garland you have a 10 season sample size.  His full season average gives him 13 wins/year.  You honestly believe that if you give Balester or Detwiler 35 starts they can't win 10 games?  

So I ask, what's the difference really between three wins over the course of a full season on THIS TEAM?  Sure, I want to win, but signing the Garlands and the Washburns of the world this year - even if it's a short-term two-to-three year contract will doom us to mediocrity for that period of time.

Garland would be a great signing for someone like the Red Sox.  Someone to compliment Josh Beckett and Jon Lester.  If the Red Sox signed Garland and traded for Halladay they could be the favorites to win at least the wild-card and perhaps the division.

If the Nats sign Garland we'd ask him to be our #1 starter.  That's not Garland's forte.

Eventually, we are going to need to assess the Balesters, Stammens and Detwilers of this organization for when Strasburg is ready.  We know on a good staff, Lannan is probably a #3 or #4 type guy.  Someone's going to have to fill out those other spots.  This team is in a position to be able to assess what they have at the major league level.  We know what Garland gets us - approximately 13 wins/season.  I'm willing to take it on faith that we can get that sort of output from someone on our roster anyway.

Besides, without Garland and Washburn on the roster we can focus out energies on landing Halladay with a HUGE contract next year.

[Evolution33]

I agree that good pitchers win more, but I can't really think of a starter who has compiled good numbers over multiple seasons who I wouldn't call a good pitcher, whereas I can think of pitchers who put up wins who I don't consider good pitchers

Time catches up to everyone. On a long enough timeline even the luckiest person will be exposed for what they are.

[DPMOmaha]

Besides, without Garland and Washburn on the roster we can focus out energies on landing Halladay with a HUGE contract next year.

As much as I'd LOVE to see that happen.  Do you think he'll ever see the market?  I'd be intersted in making the trade for him like the Sox did for Peavy, though...

[Lintyfresh85]

The only major difference any of the FA pitchers would make on the Nats would be Lackey or Piniero. Since we're not signing Lackey, Piniero would be my target as the new 'ace' of the Nats.

If we don't get either... then I'm inclined to agree with Minty on this one. Let the kids pitch and sacrifice the 3-5 extra wins this 100 loss ballclub would pick up.

[The Chief]

I say again:

Do we have 5 "kids" that you two are confident will pitch a whole season?

I understand what you guys are saying, but I'm also tired of watching games with a 30% chance of victory.  I don't think our farm system is deep enough to plug in 5 guys all season.  To that end, I think yes, it would be worth signing a couple of durable 12-15 win starters.

[Nat of the Living Dead]

We are forgetting the most important thing here: Strasburg is God so any other pitcher is insignificant.

[hammondsnats]

LOL if you think the Nats are going after Halladay, you're nuts.  They have a hard time courting 2nd/3rd tier starting pitchers.