Stark on Verlander

[vannzee]

"It's Verlander's first arbitration roundup. He's coming off his first rough season. And the Tigers can afford him. But affordability might not be the big issue. "This is an interesting one for me, because this is a team that's kind of caught in between," one AL exec said. "They've got to still try to win. But if they don't, they've got to determine whether they want to keep him or use him to get back the other pieces they need. … You've got to remember, if you look at [GM Dave Dombrowski's] track record, is that he's is always going to time moving a guy to get the max in return. So if they find themselves in July, sitting there out of contention, it wouldn't surprise me if Verlander was out there at the [trading] deadline."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotsto...son&id=3834458

Stark was discussing the upcoming arbitration proceedings.

[vannzee]

I wouldnt trade Verlander. Maybe if he has another average type season but hes still young enough that we should be building around him.

[Shelton]

I would trade him for a high ceiling 3B and SP prospect.

[jake]

I'd trade him if he pitches decently and we aren't in contention. He's not going to develop into a true ace.

[Nolan]

I'd trade him if he pitches decently and we aren't in contention. He's not going to develop into a true ace.

Oh, really? Thanks for the prediction Nostradamus.

[thewave84]

The only way I can imagine trading Verlander is if the Tigers' financial situation becomes so dire that they can't afford him.

Look at it this way - if he pitches well this year then you don't want to trade him because he is young, talented, and a key piece of the future. If he doesn't pitch well then you don't want to trade him because his value is down and you want to give him a chance to regain the form of his first 2 years.

[Clancy]

Granderson, Miggy, and Verlander are the nucleus of the Tigers' future. Barring a mediocre year from Ver in '09, I just can't see DD dealing him away. If Bondo bounces back this year, I would add him to that nucleus list too.

EDIT: Of course, it all depends on what another GM is willing to give up in exchange.... doesn't it.

[ballmich]

We may someday trade Verlander, but it won't be in 2009. It's his first arbitration year and we control him through 2011. 2010 at the deadline is the first realistic point in which he would be traded (which I doubt, if he pitches the way we think he can).

[DrWho17]

Verlander is the guy they should build around, they keep messing with the guy, leave him alone he'll be fine. I don't blame him for last year, just let the guy go out there and strike people out, rather then stressing efficiency and pitching to contact, he's got enough to worry about with MLB hitters, without all the rest of the head games.

[catswithbats]

Ugh. I wouldn't trade Verlander for anything. (Well, just about anything. I'm pretty sure St. Louis won't be offering Pujols, and we probably don't need him anyway.)

[pyrotigers]

I'd trade him if he pitches decently and we aren't in contention. He's not going to develop into a true ace.

It's a lot more likely Verlander turns into an ace than some prospects they might get for trading him

Young, under team control, high potential...doesn't sound like the kind of guy you trade for prospects to me

[TigersFan81371]

I don't consider him untouchable, but I would like to think the price tag is pretty high!

[Bondo]

There is a chance he only becomes an A.J Burnett type pitcher. If they deem this to be the case, sure trade him for max value. To be honest he does have a few things to prove. I think he will bounce back though. If he doesn't your not getting great value for him until he proves he can bounce back, and at that point you prolly just keep him.

[Eric Cioe]

Even if he never becomes an ace, he eats innings, is young, cheap, and is at least a solid #2. Just because he isn't an ace doesn't mean he isn't useful. You don't see the Rays trading Kazmir because he's not as good as Shields, or vice versa, however you consider it.

[happydrifter]

Whether he becomes an ace is almost irrelevant right now -- he's the only consistently above average pitcher on our entire staff. There would be no point in trading him for anyone but another above average, high-upside pitcher, and what other team would make that trade (considering Verlander is now into arbitration)?

[jake]

Oh, really? Thanks for the prediction Nostradamus.

Not prediction, in baseball it's called projection. The thread asked, do you trade him? Why would you trade him if he's going to be a #1 starter? Nobody would, we already did that with Jurrjens. But Verlander is no Jurrjens. Verlander has a career 4.11 ERA. He's gotten worse every year. I don't think he has what it takes to improve enough to be the stud people think he is. I'm sure alot of people disagree and this is a message board so I guess my projection is appropriate for the thread. What are your thoughts on Verlander? Do you think his 4.84 ERA last year or what he's done over his career to merit him being untouchable or giving him a huge extension? If you do, this is the place to talk about it.

[jake]

It's a lot more likely Verlander turns into an ace than some prospects they might get for trading him

Young, under team control, high potential...doesn't sound like the kind of guy you trade for prospects to me

It basically comes down to whether the team thinks he's going to play up to the contract he's going to want. I doubt he will. Right now, he has alot of upside and value to trade if this team stinks.

[ToledoTigerFan]

I would trade him for a high ceiling 3B and SP prospect.

I'm glad you included "and". If he's pitching well and the team is tanking in mid-June, you might be able to put another "and" in there to include a high ceiling C.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I wouldn't even consider trading JV until he reaches FA eligibility,
unless some GM came along with a truly outrageous offer.

[tigerkid23]

Not prediction, in baseball it's called projection. The thread asked, do you trade him? Why would you trade him if he's going to be a #1 starter? Nobody would, we already did that with Jurrjens. But Verlander is no Jurrjens. Verlander has a career 4.11 ERA. He's gotten worse every year. I don't think he has what it takes to improve enough to be the stud people think he is. I'm sure alot of people disagree and this is a message board so I guess my projection is appropriate for the thread. What are your thoughts on Verlander? Do you think his 4.84 ERA last year or what he's done over his career to merit him being untouchable or giving him a huge extension? If you do, this is the place to talk about it.

This is wrong. His 2007 season was his best season. He's had two very good, ace quality seasons and one very bad one. We'll find out in '09 which was the anomaly.

[jake]

This is wrong. His 2007 season was his best season. He's had two very good, ace quality seasons and one very bad one. We'll find out in '09 which was the anomaly.

His ERA has gotten worse every year. That's factual. He's better without having done anything this offseason by just having Inge and Everett on the left side. His ERA dropped 1/2 run per game right there. What makes me question him getting better on his own is his absolute lack of command. He's all over the place and the league knows him now.

[happydrifter]

He's better without having done anything this offseason by just having Inge and Everett on the left side. His ERA dropped 1/2 run per game right there. What makes me question him getting better on his own is his absolute lack of command. He's all over the place and the league knows him now.

It's hardly exemplary, but I wouldn't call 163 K to 87 BB (his ratio last year) indicative of an "absolute" lack of command.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I bet the Indians are glad they never traded Cliff Lee.

[jake]

I bet the Indians are glad they never traded Cliff Lee.

That's for sure.

[tigerkid23]

His ERA has gotten worse every year. That's factual. He's better without having done anything this offseason by just having Inge and Everett on the left side. His ERA dropped 1/2 run per game right there. What makes me question him getting better on his own is his absolute lack of command. He's all over the place and the league knows him now.

He pitched 15 more innings, had a lower BAA, considerably higher K/9, lower BB/9, less HR/9 in 2007. His ERA was .03 points higher, but he had a much better 2007 season. I'm not going to debate the rest of your points, because I really don't know what the future has in store for him, but he has not gotten worse every season.

[tiger337]

He's gotten worse every year.

2007 was his best year. He wasn't as good as his record indicated in 2006. He benefited from a strong defense and bullpen that year. Give him the same support in 2008 and he probably would have had a similar ERA.

Verlander's FIP:

2006 4.35
2007 3.99
2008 4.18

[jake]

It's hardly exemplary, but I wouldn't call 163 K to 87 BB (his ratio last year) indicative of an "absolute" lack of command.

Not exactly ace type numbers, though either. Don't forget his ERA. For a guy with his stuff, it's pretty hard to pitch that poorly. I do put some of that on our GM for putting horrible defensive players behind him though so I do hold out some hope for the guy to make a big jump back.

[jake]

2007 was his best year. He wasn't as good as his record indicated in 2006. He benefited from a strong defense and bullpen that year. Give him the same support in 2008 and he probably would have had a similar ERA.

Verlander's FIP:

2006 4.35
2007 3.99
2008 4.18

Great point about the defense AND the bullpen. The defense AND bullpen allows a pitcher to get confidence. And for a young cocky guy like Verlander, a couple great plays behind him and a strong bullpen could be just what he needs to get his confidence back. But, the question in the thread was something like: If the Tigers aren't very good, would you consider trading him? Why wouldn't you??

[tiger337]

Great point about the defense AND the bullpen. The defense AND bullpen allows a pitcher to get confidence. And for a young cocky guy like Verlander, a couple great plays behind him and a strong bullpen could be just what he needs to get his confidence back.

It's not just confidence. A good defense and bullpen saves runs for the starting pitcher. I do understand the confidence factor though. A poor defense could be one of the reasons for all the walks last year. It must be hard for a pitcher to put the ball in play if he knows his fielders can't cover any ground.

[eastside billee]

I like Verlander. I'm thinking he's got a bit of a head problem thanks to the past pitching coaches. Hopefully the new guy will get him back on track.
He's got everything it takes to be a big time winner.

[Eric Cioe]

I think the whole assumption that a starter isn't worth paying unless he's a league ace is asinine. Justin Verlander, even if he pitches at only a 110 ERA+ every year for the next five years, is worth a whole lot because he eats up a ton of innings. So what if he isn't an ace? Every rotation needs four ... er, five guys, I guess, and even if Verlander isn't the best guy on the staff every year he's worth having around. 200 innings of above average ball has value, even if it's not ace-level ball.

[jake]

I think the whole assumption that a starter isn't worth paying unless he's a league ace is asinine. Justin Verlander, even if he pitches at only a 110 ERA+ every year for the next five years, is worth a whole lot because he eats up a ton of innings. So what if he isn't an ace? Every rotation needs four ... er, five guys, I guess, and even if Verlander isn't the best guy on the staff every year he's worth having around. 200 innings of above average ball has value, even if it's not ace-level ball.

Asinine? Thanks for that. Are you related to Sports4life? What do you think we'd have to pay a former #1 overall pick who's pitching like a #3 pitcher but he's your #1. $15 million a year for 5 years? Is Verlander worth 75 million in a couple years? The fact he's a former #1 overall pick and has all this unfulfilled potential will drive his price up. So basically you overpay. That's not how you build a team. But if you traded him before you had to pay him, like the Twins model, then you are a contender every year. I think trading a player you'll have to overpay for who underperforms isn't a bad idea.

[tigerkid23]

Asinine? Thanks for that. Are you related to Sports4life? What do you think we'd have to pay a former #1 overall pick who's pitching like a #3 pitcher but he's your #1. $15 million a year for 5 years? Is Verlander worth 75 million in a couple years? The fact he's a former #1 overall pick and has all this unfulfilled potential will drive his price up. So basically you overpay. That's not how you build a team. But if you traded him before you had to pay him, like the Twins model, then you are a contender every year. I think trading a player you'll have to overpay for who underperforms isn't a bad idea.

Not to nitpick, but he was the #2 overall pick. Matt Bush went #1. Your point still stands though.

[Eric Cioe]

Asinine? Thanks for that. Are you related to Sports4life? What do you think we'd have to pay a former #1 overall pick who's pitching like a #3 pitcher but he's your #1. $15 million a year for 5 years? Is Verlander worth 75 million in a couple years? The fact he's a former #1 overall pick and has all this unfulfilled potential will drive his price up. So basically you overpay. That's not how you build a team. But if you traded him before you had to pay him, like the Twins model, then you are a contender every year. I think trading a player you'll have to overpay for who underperforms isn't a bad idea.

I didn't call you asinine. I just think people overvalue aces and undervalue everyone else on a staff. It's not smart. Each pitcher is going to throw 33 games a year for the team. Each one is important. You can't just have Randy Johnson and then four scrubs. If you want to compete, you have to give the ball to five guys who can win for you. Verlander can do that.

I wouldn't have any problem with giving Verlander $12 million a year once he reaches free agency. Not even close. $15 million, even. He's healthy, makes all his starts, and usually gives the team a chance to win.

EDIT - We've all seen Verlander's potential, too. Last summer when he had that stretch of games where he didn't allow more than 2 ER. Summer before that, with the no-hitter capping it all off. It isn't like he's Edwin Jackson who can't pitch. Verlander isn't hot all year, but most pitchers aren't. When Verlander is terrible, he's still not all that bad. This isn't Carlos Silva. He's a fine pitcher, and even if he tops out as a #2 starter long term, that's fine. He's very useful because he eats up innings at better-than-average ERA.

[Eric Cioe]

There is a chance he only becomes an A.J Burnett type pitcher.

I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. Burnett is always injured, and JV starts every game he's supposed to. I think a good comparison for Verlander is Mark Buehrle, who isn't a league ace, but who pitches a lot of very good innings every year. He's getting $14 million a year. That seems about right.

[ToledoTigerFan]

Also, remember that the catching situation got a tad complicated as the season went along. All of the pitchers were throwing to a different catcher on a game-to-game basis. How many different catchers did the Tigers use last year? Five? Hopefully, the catching situation will be more settled this year. That should help the starters.

[tigermojo]

They would be buying out some of his arbitration years if they extend him right now. No way does he get a $75 million contract right now.

[diamondhead]

The guy is still pretty young but has had only one bad season, already pitched a no-hitter and has a Rookie of the Year award. I think the guy's weaknesses can be corrected as well. Not saying he's untradeable, but he's hardly a bum. Even if he's only going to be a #2 pitcher...like someone said...that's a role needed on every team.

[Walt]

Ugh. I wouldn't trade Verlander for anything. (Well, just about anything. I'm pretty sure St. Louis won't be offering Pujols, and we probably don't need him anyway.)

I bet he could still play third.

[Microline133]

I bet he couldn't considering he needs Tommy John surgery.....