Jump to content
eastside billee

Pelfrey to the Tigers

Recommended Posts

Fister/Young/Simon are all a step below Pelfrey at this point. Fister's completely out of gas. And Yong/Simon were worse last year.

Chris Young is not, and has never been, a step below Pelfrey; but rather has been 3 steps above him in the past, and is still 2 steps above him today. I think he's just signed with the Royals for 2 years, $10M total; which is my point.

Simon was significantly better than Pelfrey 2012-14; and if he was materially worse in 2015... I still think he'll end up being similar value this year (2016) and next, at less cost, and the ability to pitch very well out of the BP (as shown previously in the 2012-14 period...). Another point I've made which I believe is valid.

Fister struggled in 2015, but still put up the same/ similar #'s as Pelfrey. And was SIGNIFICANTLY better than Pelfrey in ALL previous years. I have a high degree of confidence that he'll be better than Pelfrey in 2016-17. Out of gas? I don't believe so...

And, just to be clear, Pelfrey was "in the aisle" that we were shopping. So I don't "HATE" signing him. But I think it was too early to sign him. I think we will end up paying him too much by $2-3M per year, compared to similar pitchers, which could have been avoided by waiting a bit. I think one of Greene or Boyd or Fulmer should be ready to take over the 5th starter spot sometime in the middle of 2016, making this signing less necessary than a set-up reliever. I think we'll end up signing a lesser set-up reliever due to budget restrictions, because we overpaid Pelfrey by a few $$$'s. I don't think this signing kills us, but I don't think it was the right move.

As I said just above, a 5th starter is not as critical as getting a set-up guy when you have (3) 5th starters (or more than that actually) waiting in the wings, on the verge of needing to be in MLB. Stability, and ability, is great for the 5th starter, don't get me wrong... But in THIS instance, when I believe we have fully capable 5th starters ready to push a free agent signing into the BP, there is more value to building a competent bullpen and getting a stop-gap 5th starter, then putting out for 2 years for a stop-gap 5th starter and potentially weakening our BP options in the process. So, sorry, not to reiterate my position but...

I'd much rather have O'Day/ Clippard/ Bastardo at whatever rate it takes to get 1 of them, and a cheaper 5th starter option like Fister/ Young/ Simon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

PS: Additionally, not to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion... but if 1 of our minor league guys is ready to push for an MLB spot in the rotation, I wonder if it's Sanchez that they'll be looking to move instead of Pelfrey, based on Budget considerations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what's so great about Chris Young. He's going to be 37 years old, is always getting hurt and has had three consecutive years with FIP above 4.50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris Young is not, and has never been, a step below Pelfrey; but rather has been 3 steps above him in the past, and is still 2 steps above him today. I think he's just signed with the Royals for 2 years, $10M total; which is my point.

Simon was significantly better than Pelfrey 2012-14; and if he was materially worse in 2015... I still think he'll end up being similar value this year (2016) and next, at less cost, and the ability to pitch very well out of the BP (as shown previously in the 2012-14 period...). Another point I've made which I believe is valid.

Fister struggled in 2015, but still put up the same/ similar #'s as Pelfrey. And was SIGNIFICANTLY better than Pelfrey in ALL previous years. I have a high degree of confidence that he'll be better than Pelfrey in 2016-17. Out of gas? I don't believe so...

And, just to be clear, Pelfrey was "in the aisle" that we were shopping. So I don't "HATE" signing him. But I think it was too early to sign him. I think we will end up paying him too much by $2-3M per year, compared to similar pitchers, which could have been avoided by waiting a bit. I think one of Greene or Boyd or Fulmer should be ready to take over the 5th starter spot sometime in the middle of 2016, making this signing less necessary than a set-up reliever. I think we'll end up signing a lesser set-up reliever due to budget restrictions, because we overpaid Pelfrey by a few $$$'s. I don't think this signing kills us, but I don't think it was the right move.

As I said just above, a 5th starter is not as critical as getting a set-up guy when you have (3) 5th starters (or more than that actually) waiting in the wings, on the verge of needing to be in MLB. Stability, and ability, is great for the 5th starter, don't get me wrong... But in THIS instance, when I believe we have fully capable 5th starters ready to push a free agent signing into the BP, there is more value to building a competent bullpen and getting a stop-gap 5th starter, then putting out for 2 years for a stop-gap 5th starter and potentially weakening our BP options in the process. So, sorry, not to reiterate my position but...

I'd much rather have O'Day/ Clippard/ Bastardo at whatever rate it takes to get 1 of them, and a cheaper 5th starter option like Fister/ Young/ Simon.

Fister could easily be done. Simon sucked in the AL and nobody liked him anyway. Chris Young will be 37 next year, 38 when the contract ends, and has horrible future predictors. All these guys, including Pelfrey, have their warts. The Tigers obviously like something about Pelfrey more than the others and made sure they got the guy they liked (and a guy that was willing to come). It might not pan out, but they are at least trusting their analysis.

Also, anybody who could have filled in at #5 can fill out the bullpen instead. I also think they still have money for another solid reliever (O'Day was never leaving the DC area). If they don't sign one, it will be because they don't think it's a good contract, not because they ran out of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS: Additionally, not to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion... but if 1 of our minor league guys is ready to push for an MLB spot in the rotation, I wonder if it's Sanchez that they'll be looking to move instead of Pelfrey, based on Budget considerations?

If Fulmer is ready he will move to the bullpen to protect his innings. Greene would be interesting to see what they do, but you can't count on him until he shows it in AAA.

Also, there is no such thing as too much pitching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see what's so great about Chris Young. He's going to be 37 years old, is always getting hurt and has had three consecutive years with FIP above 4.50.

I don't want to call him great... just a stop-gap 5th starter. But better, and cheaper, than Pelfrey. You can key on FIP if you want. But I prefer CY's better ERA and WHIP. I do hate all those base-runners that Pelfrey allows...

Didn't Pelfrey just pitch 20 & 24 innings in 2 of the past 4 years, BTW?

And even if you think Young is a lesser pitcher than Pelfrey, it ain't by a whole lot. And I've already stated why I wanted less $ spent on the 5th starter, and set-up reliever prioritized...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Also, there is no such thing as too much pitching.

I'm not arguing against getting a 5th starter so this is an invalid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fister could easily be done. Simon sucked in the AL and nobody liked him anyway. Chris Young will be 37 next year, 38 when the contract ends, and has horrible future predictors. All these guys, including Pelfrey, have their warts. The Tigers obviously like something about Pelfrey more than the others and made sure they got the guy they liked (and a guy that was willing to come). It might not pan out, but they are at least trusting their analysis.

Also, anybody who could have filled in at #5 can fill out the bullpen instead. I also think they still have money for another solid reliever (O'Day was never leaving the DC area). If they don't sign one, it will be because they don't think it's a good contract, not because they ran out of money.

Whatever.

You guys have your opinion and I have mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not arguing against getting a 5th starter so this is an invalid point.

Then let me be blunt: there's no way Sanchez is traded if he's pitching well and they are in a pennant race. They'll just use whatever young guys that might be pitching in the bullpen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever.

You guys have your opinion and I have mine.

I think the base of the disagreement is how much stock we put in ERA/WHIP. I don't think Young will be as good as he was in 2014/15, based on ballpark, defense behind him, and K/BB rates.

I also like guys who are younger and who have more velocity, but I can get past that. I just believe the FIP more than the ERA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to call him great... just a stop-gap 5th starter. But better, and cheaper, than Pelfrey. You can key on FIP if you want. But I prefer CY's better ERA and WHIP. I do hate all those base-runners that Pelfrey allows...

Didn't Pelfrey just pitch 20 & 24 innings in 2 of the past 4 years, BTW?

And even if you think Young is a lesser pitcher than Pelfrey, it ain't by a whole lot. And I've already stated why I wanted less $ spent on the 5th starter, and set-up reliever prioritized...

Young's ERA was helped substantially by great bullpens and fielding the the last two years. There is nothing there that tells me he is any better than Pelfrey. I realize Pelfrey has been hurt too, but I think he's a better bet to give them innings next year, now that his arm appears to be back at full strength.

I'm not worried much about the $3 million difference in contracts because they are way more than $3 million from becoming the leading contender in the AL Central. They aren't going to become significantly better if they get Soria instead of Tommy Hunter. The only way they are going to improve a lot at this point is if they go over the luxury tax limit. I also don't know if Young even wanted leave KC for the same money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then let me be blunt: there's no way Sanchez is traded if he's pitching well and they are in a pennant race. They'll just use whatever young guys that might be pitching in the bullpen.

That's also not a point I was making.

I put no timeline on a trade such as the 2016 deadline.

I agree with you. If we're in a race there's no way we trade anyone, we'll be trading FOR someone, if needed...

What I was intimating (without actually stating it...), is that when Greene/ Fulmer are ready to go into the MLB rotation (let's say the Tigers think they're ready by opening day 2017); that they might just trade Sanchez instead of Pelfrey, based on salary cost and injury history of Sanchez. I sort of took a left-turn when I was making that comment. Just thought I'd toss that oddball thought out there... but in no way was I attaching that to any pre-determined trading deadline...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Young's ERA was helped substantially by great bullpens and fielding the the last two years...

Well... I would love to hope that we could do the same thing the next two years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well... I would love to hope that we could do the same thing the next two years...

I hope so too - for Pelfrey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Young signs for 2 years $10 million doesn't mean he would sign in Detroit for that. Whenever a player signs somewhere else, it seems fans think their team should have signed the player for the same terms. Why would Young sign with Detroit who finished in last place instead of Kansas City who has played in the World Series the last two years for the same terms? Detroit would need to offer more annually or add a 3rd year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope so too - for Pelfrey.

Yeah... if there's an upside, that's it.

Since we have Pelfrey, I'm hoping we can take a few hits/ runs off of the board for him as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the base of the disagreement is how much stock we put in ERA/WHIP. I don't think Young will be as good as he was in 2014/15, based on ballpark, defense behind him, and K/BB rates... I just believe the FIP more than the ERA.

Oh... PS: There's one minor issue with CY and MP with regards to FIP, WHIP, and ERA:

CY has a career ERA of 3.69 and career WHIP of 1.21. He has almost ALWAYS kept runners off the bases and runs off the board. With a career FIP of 4.39

MP has a career ERA of 4.52 and career WHIP of 1.48. He has ALWAYS given up too many runners on base and too many runs. He's constantly getting his *** kicked. 9 of 30 starts last year were LESS than 5 innings (30%). I'm not certain that'll be very useful. With a career FIP of 4.21

So... at what point does FIP not really matter and WHIP/ERA become more important in evaluating a pitcher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh... PS: There's one minor issue with CY and MP with regards to FIP, WHIP, and ERA:

CY has a career ERA of 3.69 and career WHIP of 1.21. He has almost ALWAYS kept runners off the bases and runs off the board. With a career FIP of 4.39

MP has a career ERA of 4.52 and career WHIP of 1.48. He has ALWAYS given up too many runners on base and too many runs. He's constantly getting his *** kicked. 9 of 30 starts last year were LESS than 5 innings (30%). I'm not certain that'll be very useful. With a career FIP of 4.21

So... at what point does FIP not really matter and WHIP/ERA become more important in evaluating a pitcher?

I give Young credit for beating FIP, but not to the point where I think he's going to beat it by 1.50 again like he did that last 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh... PS: There's one minor issue with CY and MP with regards to FIP, WHIP, and ERA:

CY has a career ERA of 3.69 and career WHIP of 1.21. He has almost ALWAYS kept runners off the bases and runs off the board. With a career FIP of 4.39

MP has a career ERA of 4.52 and career WHIP of 1.48. He has ALWAYS given up too many runners on base and too many runs. He's constantly getting his *** kicked. 9 of 30 starts last year were LESS than 5 innings (30%). I'm not certain that'll be very useful. With a career FIP of 4.21

So... at what point does FIP not really matter and WHIP/ERA become more important in evaluating a pitcher?

You are right that there are some pitchers who consistently outperform their FIP and you have to look deeper in those cases. In Young's case, he was a different pitcher earlier in his career, so I don't think what he did with the Padres can be lumped together with what he's doing now.. Part of the reason for his low WHIP back then was he struck out a lot of batters. He was a good pitcher. Now, he's a finesse guy who doesn't get strikeouts, doesn't keep the ball in the park and doesn't have exceptional control. He also has played in front of great defenses and bullpens, so I have to believe that has helped him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FIP overrates people who don't walk guys and get lucky and don't give up HRs, so of course it likes Pelfrey

Walk rate is usually pretty stable and a low one is valuable. I don't think it biases FIP. Same for home runs, although home runs are less stable and a pitcher can get lucky more easily (which would also affect his ERA). The problem with FIP is that it does not take BABIP or sequencing into account and those are two things which could be skills for some pitchers. It is possible that Young has those skills, but it's hard to know as he doesn't have a lot of innings in the new version of his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walk rate is usually pretty stable and a low one is valuable. I don't think it biases FIP. Same for home runs, although home runs are less stable and a pitcher can get lucky more easily (which would also affect his ERA). The problem with FIP is that it does not take BABIP or sequencing into account and those are two things which could be skills for some pitchers. It is possible that Young has those skills, but it's hard to know as he doesn't have a lot of innings in the new version of his career.

Oh I don't care about Young particularly, I just don't like that FIP thinks Mike Pelfrey striking out 5 per 9 and walking 2 (for example) is exactly the same as someone striking out 10 and walking 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I don't care about Young particularly, I just don't like that FIP thinks Mike Pelfrey striking out 5 per 9 and walking 2 (for example) is exactly the same as someone striking out 10 and walking 4.

I hate walks and might take the guy 5/2 guy. Pelfrey has never had that kind of control though. I still think the biggest limitation of FIP is that it excludes hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely, and you can certainly make an argument either way on the walks/strikeouts thing, just weird limitations to the stat. I suppose that's why they came up with xFIP. Still not a perfect stat, but I like it more. Pelfrey goes from 4.21 FIP to 4.54 xFIP (career) and 4.00 to 4.45 (2015)

That seems more in line with the kind of performance I'd expect from him...although honestly if he was to actually post a 4.45 ERA next year I'd be pretty thrilled with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


×
×
  • Create New...