Beckett/Lowell trade

On Jul 9, 6:47 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:48:48 -0700, CalC <calcarpent....RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >First off Pedro was 10-3 pre all star game and 5-5 after. Not what we
> >needed especially for that money. I' m too lazy to look up Clement but
> >you'll find his split was very very poor too. Lowe's 3.61 ERA in the
> >NL West absoloutly would not even close to translate into the same
> >numbers in the AL East and likely would have given him similar to 2004
> >numbers for us. As for OC the 2005 bear it out, but with that said
> >he's the ONE guy I hated to see go.
>
> And your point is what? That a pitcher should be judged by part of a
> season rather than all of a season? That wins for part of a season is
> the best measure of pitching quality? If so, I guess we disagree. Here
> is the list of great pitching performances for 2005 in the NL:
>
> 2005 NL
> 1 Roger Clemens 1.87
> 2 Andy Pettitte 2.39
> 3 Dontrelle Willis 2.63
> 4 Pedro Martinez 2.82
> 5 Chris Carpenter 2.83
> 6 Jake Peavy 2.88
> 7 Roy Oswalt 2.94
> 8 John Smoltz 3.06
> 9 John Patterson 3.13
> 10 Carlos Zambrano 3.26

My point is they faded down the stretch exactly when Pedro faded.
Their staff was better earlier in the year. Would he have been a
better addition than Clement........sure but would it have been a huge
difference. Probably not. Would they have beat Chi? No way.
 >> Stay informed about: Beckett/Lowell trade 

"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gnd593t7qpbsmp7hvq52ui6qtr8mgitdis@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:56:04 -0400, Gary <golferace2.DeleteThis@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:33:41 -0400, McDuck
>><wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Your memory is slipping. Pedro had a terrific year in 2005. It may
>>>have been a good long term decision not to re-sign Pedro --- to offer
>>>him 3 years instead of the 4 offered by the Mets --- but there is
>>>absolutely no doubt that the RS would have been a significantly better
>>>team in 2005 if they had gotten the production that the mets got from
>>>Pedro that year.
>>
>>But they wouldn't have gotten the same production. He most likely
>>would have had an ERA around 4.50. The year before in the AL, his ERA
>>was 3.90 up from 2.22 the year before.
>
> You can make whatever guesses you want. But to assume some huge
> downward trajectory for Pedro seems pretty far fetched, given his
> great performance in 2005. Anyway, Pedro was actually much better than
> 3.90 ERA in 2004 until near the end of the season, when he apparently
> had some arm problems. For most of the year, he and Schilling (who
> also had a v. good year) were v. close, with the edge to Pedro.
>
> In any event. looking only at 2005, it is silly to say that the
> non-signing of Pedro was a good thing. Even if your wild guess of 4.50
> ERA were correct, he'd still have been the best pitcher on the RS that
> year, or very close (I've not looked up the numbers, but I can't think
> of anyone under 4.50 who was a starter for the full season).
>
> Pedro's 2.82 ERA in 2005 was almost exactly his career average (In NL
> and AL). By the way, when Pedro switch from the NL to the AL, his ERA
> ballooned up from 1.90 (1997) to 2.89 (1998).

I'm sorry, McD, but I think that the Pedro non-signing was a good decision.
And his break down last year and this year is the proof in the pudding, so
to speak. I feel rather certain that the Red Sox FO felt that he was due to
break down sooner than later and felt that signing him to anything more than
2-3 years was an unwarranted risk.
 >> Stay informed about: Beckett/Lowell trade 

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:28:14 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote:

>
>"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:gnd593t7qpbsmp7hvq52ui6qtr8mgitdis@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:56:04 -0400, Gary <golferace2 RemoveThis @comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:33:41 -0400, McDuck
>>><wallyDELETEMEMcDuck RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Your memory is slipping. Pedro had a terrific year in 2005. It may
>>>>have been a good long term decision not to re-sign Pedro --- to offer
>>>>him 3 years instead of the 4 offered by the Mets --- but there is
>>>>absolutely no doubt that the RS would have been a significantly better
>>>>team in 2005 if they had gotten the production that the mets got from
>>>>Pedro that year.
>>>
>>>But they wouldn't have gotten the same production. He most likely
>>>would have had an ERA around 4.50. The year before in the AL, his ERA
>>>was 3.90 up from 2.22 the year before.
>>
>> You can make whatever guesses you want. But to assume some huge
>> downward trajectory for Pedro seems pretty far fetched, given his
>> great performance in 2005. Anyway, Pedro was actually much better than
>> 3.90 ERA in 2004 until near the end of the season, when he apparently
>> had some arm problems. For most of the year, he and Schilling (who
>> also had a v. good year) were v. close, with the edge to Pedro.
>>
>> In any event. looking only at 2005, it is silly to say that the
>> non-signing of Pedro was a good thing. Even if your wild guess of 4.50
>> ERA were correct, he'd still have been the best pitcher on the RS that
>> year, or very close (I've not looked up the numbers, but I can't think
>> of anyone under 4.50 who was a starter for the full season).
>>
>> Pedro's 2.82 ERA in 2005 was almost exactly his career average (In NL
>> and AL). By the way, when Pedro switch from the NL to the AL, his ERA
>> ballooned up from 1.90 (1997) to 2.89 (1998).
>
>I'm sorry, McD, but I think that the Pedro non-signing was a good decision.
>And his break down last year and this year is the proof in the pudding, so
>to speak. I feel rather certain that the Red Sox FO felt that he was due to
>break down sooner than later and felt that signing him to anything more than
>2-3 years was an unwarranted risk.
>
No need to be sorry. The issue was whether the non-signing of Pedro
was good for 2005 only. So your being sorry is off point <g>.

As I indicated, there are decent arguements against the signing for
beyond 2005. Indeed, I opposed a 4-year contract back when the issue
was on the table. But I do not think that pedro's performance in 2005
provided ANY evidence that the RS were right not to sign him. He was
great in 2004 --- 4th best in the league by ERA (and a good winning
percentage).

And, as I previously noted, his injury in 2006 is not evidence that
giving him 4 years instead of 3 was a bad idea. We need to see how
pedro does in the 4th year (next year) to resolve that issue, since
the RS offered the same contract as the Mets for 3 years.

We can say, perhaps, that, in 2004, the risk for 2008 was too great
(that was the RS view and my view) to justify the 4th year. But we
don't know whether our estimate was right until 2008 comes and goes.
 >> Stay informed about: Beckett/Lowell trade 

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:48:41 -0700, CalC <calcarpenter1.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 9, 6:47 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:48:48 -0700, CalC <calcarpent....RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >First off Pedro was 10-3 pre all star game and 5-5 after. Not what we
>> >needed especially for that money. I' m too lazy to look up Clement but
>> >you'll find his split was very very poor too. Lowe's 3.61 ERA in the
>> >NL West absoloutly would not even close to translate into the same
>> >numbers in the AL East and likely would have given him similar to 2004
>> >numbers for us. As for OC the 2005 bear it out, but with that said
>> >he's the ONE guy I hated to see go.
>>
>> And your point is what? That a pitcher should be judged by part of a
>> season rather than all of a season? That wins for part of a season is
>> the best measure of pitching quality? If so, I guess we disagree. Here
>> is the list of great pitching performances for 2005 in the NL:
>>
<snip>
>
>My point is they faded down the stretch exactly when Pedro faded.
>Their staff was better earlier in the year. Would he have been a
>better addition than Clement........sure but would it have been a huge
>difference. Probably not. Would they have beat Chi? No way.

Of course, we do not know how the RS would have done against Chicago
with a frontline pitcher. We can guess that Pedro would not have given
away the game in the first inning and let Chicago get on a roll.
Chicago had great pitching for the series, but there hitting was
lousy, and one of their wins over the RS depended on the ball going
through the legs of our 2d baseman.
 >> Stay informed about: Beckett/Lowell trade 

On Jul 9, 11:54 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD....DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:28:14 -0400, "Fred Burton"
>
>
>
>
>
> <fbur....DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>
> >"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcD....DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:gnd593t7qpbsmp7hvq52ui6qtr8mgitdis@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:56:04 -0400, Gary <golfera....DeleteThis@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:33:41 -0400, McDuck
> >>><wallyDELETEMEMcD....DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>Your memory is slipping. Pedro had a terrific year in 2005. It may
> >>>>have been a good long term decision not to re-sign Pedro --- to offer
> >>>>him 3 years instead of the 4 offered by the Mets --- but there is
> >>>>absolutely no doubt that the RS would have been a significantly better
> >>>>team in 2005 if they had gotten the production that the mets got from
> >>>>Pedro that year.
>
> >>>But they wouldn't have gotten the same production. He most likely
> >>>would have had an ERA around 4.50. The year before in the AL, his ERA
> >>>was 3.90 up from 2.22 the year before.
>
> >> You can make whatever guesses you want. But to assume some huge
> >> downward trajectory for Pedro seems pretty far fetched, given his
> >> great performance in 2005. Anyway, Pedro was actually much better than
> >> 3.90 ERA in 2004 until near the end of the season, when he apparently
> >> had some arm problems. For most of the year, he and Schilling (who
> >> also had a v. good year) were v. close, with the edge to Pedro.
>
> >> In any event. looking only at 2005, it is silly to say that the
> >> non-signing of Pedro was a good thing. Even if your wild guess of 4.50
> >> ERA were correct, he'd still have been the best pitcher on the RS that
> >> year, or very close (I've not looked up the numbers, but I can't think
> >> of anyone under 4.50 who was a starter for the full season).
>
> >> Pedro's 2.82 ERA in 2005 was almost exactly his career average (In NL
> >> and AL). By the way, when Pedro switch from the NL to the AL, his ERA
> >> ballooned up from 1.90 (1997) to 2.89 (1998).
>
> >I'm sorry, McD, but I think that the Pedro non-signing was a good decision.
> >And his break down last year and this year is the proof in the pudding, so
> >to speak. I feel rather certain that the Red Sox FO felt that he was due to
> >break down sooner than later and felt that signing him to anything more than
> >2-3 years was an unwarranted risk.
>
> No need to be sorry. The issue was whether the non-signing of Pedro
> was good for 2005 only. So your being sorry is off point <g>.
>
> As I indicated, there are decent arguements against the signing for
> beyond 2005. Indeed, I opposed a 4-year contract back when the issue
> was on the table. But I do not think that pedro's performance in 2005
> provided ANY evidence that the RS were right not to sign him. He was
> great in 2004 --- 4th best in the league by ERA (and a good winning
> percentage).
>
> And, as I previously noted, his injury in 2006 is not evidence that
> giving him 4 years instead of 3 was a bad idea. We need to see how
> pedro does in the 4th year (next year) to resolve that issue, since
> the RS offered the same contract as the Mets for 3 years.
>
> We can say, perhaps, that, in 2004, the risk for 2008 was too great
> (that was the RS view and my view) to justify the 4th year. But we
> don't know whether our estimate was right until 2008 comes and goes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You'll have to look this one up. My point is he was 10-3 pre all star
break with ERA of 2.60 and 5-5 with a 3.00 after it. This in the NL so
do the adjustments. Clement If I recall was awesome in the first half
and then completely tanked in the second whether it was the line drive
or not who knows. So we can say maybe Pedro provided a little more
than Clement his split was the same timewise but maybe not to the same
extent. I have to assume if Pedro was here he would've started game 1
when we lost 14-2. Do we win that one? I have to say no. As for
Loretta and the groundball that is another point they did everything
humanly possible to let Bellhorn work his way out of a slump but he
couldn't was that a mistake?
 >> Stay informed about: Beckett/Lowell trade