Levine: Dempster to decide in next 48 hours

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by behindmydesk

And also, yes backloading probably would be best for this year and next year. You know why, because he's already backloaded to the hilt previously. If he hadn't done that he wouldn't need to do it now.

---

And if he hadn't done that we wouldn't be as good as we are now. It's a smart financial decision with the way baseball's grown lately, and looks like it's going to continue to grow. Yeah it's going to hurt some next year, but really that's the only year that's going to be all that bad. I'll take one winter where Hendry's hands are tied and he can't do anything, considering all the stuff we've done the past several winters. Not to mention, are we even really going to have a place to spend money next winter? We're apparently looking for a RFer right now, so that'll be full, and everywhere else but 2b and SS will be locked down as well. Resigning Derosa or finding another fix for 2b might be about the extent of things we need/want next winter

I guess this means no Peavy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redbird89

I guess this means no Peavy?

---

That'd be a bad assumption to make at this point.

Dempster seemed like a given, Peavy or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirel

What I meant is look at the years, not just the career numbers. His 2008(4.28 ERA away, 13 HR in 75 innings) and 2006(4.57 ERA away, 11 HR in 84 IP) numbers really cloud his career totals. In 2007 he had a 2.57 ERA away with 8 HR in 95 IP, in '05 2.97 ERA away and 5 HR in 87 IP, etc. The 3 year split is quite concerning since it happens to catch the very odd 2006 Jake Peavy.

Now, don't get me wrong, I expect his ERA to go up somewhat, but I fully expect a 3-3.4 ERA type performance.

And his contract concerns me, but not as badly as Zambrano's does to be honest. Or Sorianos. At this point, it doesn't matter as long as teh player looks liek they'll be useful throughout their contracts simply because the team is already tied down pretty tight, adding Peavy won't change that, it'll just change who gets the money.

---

The thing Peavy has going for him is that he's relatively young for his contract. At 27, he hasn't racked up large innings and pitches thrown cause problems for pitchers IMO. In that sense, the contract, while large, is less of a concern in terms of his ability to perform at a high level than say signing a pitcher in his mid 30's to a 4 year deal. You have to assume that at 27, his best years are in front of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirel

As it stands, Lilly is the only reliable arm in the rotation, Dempster or not.

I consider him as large a question mark as Zambrano or Harden or Samardzija. We just don't know what is going to happen.

The thing here is that I don't ever trust talent evaluators to make the right call on a player on the team. Far to likely to be positively biased. I could see Hendry doing this as much because he likes Dempster as becuase he thinks he'll succeed.

---

I expect Dempster to regress, I think everyone does. But I still expect him to be a good starter, and at the very least along the lines of Lilly, so I don't really have a problem with this deal. This deal is probably roughly Ted Lilly money plus inflation(baseball inflation, not real inflation), and I'm not sure there's going to be a better value out of the FA market. In a market where the typically stingy Cardinals are giving Kyle Lohse 4/41, getting Dempster at 4/52 isn't bad. We really need another reliable starter, and while we're not sure exactly what we'll get from Dempster, we can be fairly sure that he'll at the least be good, it's just exactly how good is the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by behindmydesk

Time value of money, is the biggest reason why. I guarantee you his first year is less then the 2nd year of the deal. Who knows maybe Backloading Jim stopped doing it, but if it is backloaded it'll be a pyarmid up, not a jump up then down then jump up.

---

I'll be honest, you're confusing the hell out of me. You're talking about TMV, meaning you fully understand that 15M this year is a lot more than 15M a few years from now, yet you're still acting like backloaded contracts killed your parents. I don't get it. I would think a firm grasp of TMV would make you more receptive to backloaded deals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jilly Bohnson

I expect Dempster to regress, I think everyone does. But I still expect him to be a good starter, and at the very least along the lines of Lilly, so I don't really have a problem with this deal. This deal is probably roughly Ted Lilly money plus inflation(baseball inflation, not real inflation), and I'm not sure there's going to be a better value out of the FA market. In a market where the typically stingy Cardinals are giving Kyle Lohse 4/41, getting Dempster at 4/52 isn't bad. We really need another reliable starter, and while we're not sure exactly what we'll get from Dempster, we can be fairly sure that he'll at the least be good, it's just exactly how good is the question.



I'll be honest, you're confusing the hell out of me. You're talking about TMV, meaning you fully understand that 15M this year is a lot more than 15M a few years from now, yet you're still acting like backloaded contracts killed your parents. I don't get it. I would think a firm grasp of TMV would make you more receptive to backloaded deals.

---

How can yo ube sure he'll be good?

He's no track record at all. No one would have dreamt of accepting this deal if he'd pitched like that for another team and you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jilly Bohnson

I expect Dempster to regress, I think everyone does. But I still expect him to be a good starter, and at the very least along the lines of Lilly, so I don't really have a problem with this deal. This deal is probably roughly Ted Lilly money plus inflation(baseball inflation, not real inflation), and I'm not sure there's going to be a better value out of the FA market. In a market where the typically stingy Cardinals are giving Kyle Lohse 4/41, getting Dempster at 4/52 isn't bad. We really need another reliable starter, and while we're not sure exactly what we'll get from Dempster, we can be fairly sure that he'll at the least be good, it's just exactly how good is the question.



I'll be honest, you're confusing the hell out of me. You're talking about TMV, meaning you fully understand that 15M this year is a lot more than 15M a few years from now, yet you're still acting like backloaded contracts killed your parents. I don't get it. I would think a firm grasp of TMV would make you more receptive to backloaded deals.

---

Time value of money for the player, not the team. Big difference. Players accept backloaded deals all the time. They never go 14 6 16 16. It's just not going to happen. And usually not always the teams pay a bit more for ht eright to backload it, and i've even heard pay interest on the deal. Teams doing it is robbing peter to pay paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirel

How can yo ube sure he'll be good?

He's no track record at all. No one would have dreamt of accepting this deal if he'd pitched like that for another team and you know it.

---

He was outstanding last year though. He got a lot of ground balls, he got a ton of K's, he had fairly good control(excellent control post ASB), he was ridiculously consistant, and he actually got stronger in the second half. I expect regression sure, but he'd have to really fall off the cliff to not still be at least good.

13 mil a year for this bum...wtf? One good year and management is buying into this crap. What a bunch of suckers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by behindmydesk

Time value of money for the player, not the team. Big difference. Players accept backloaded deals all the time. They never go 14 6 16 16. It's just not going to happen. And usually not always the teams pay a bit more for ht eright to backload it, and i've even heard pay interest on the deal. Teams doing it is robbing peter to pay paul.

---

Then do something a little less extreme than I did to make it up to him, 13 9 15 15, the point is that would make the most sense to pay him the least next year with our situation.

And I'd love to keep arguing boys, but I've got class..and attendance is graded :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jilly Bohnson

He was outstanding last year though. He got a lot of ground balls, he got a ton of K's, he had fairly good control(excellent control post ASB), he was ridiculously consistant, and he actually got stronger in the second half. I expect regression sure, but he'd have to really fall off the cliff to not still be at least good.

---

And it's been known to happen.

I very much worry he's getting 80-90% of his credit because of his uniform.

Maybe he'll stay good, but it's a tough league. Good to awful can happen extremely quickly. Dempster is a significant risk to regress to average. He certainly didn't maintain his performance while relieving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirel

How can yo ube sure he'll be good?

He's no track record at all. No one would have dreamt of accepting this deal if he'd pitched like that for another team and you know it.

---

How can you be so sure he will regress back to his days in Florida? He is a totally different pitcher than he was 6 years ago. He really developed his slider nicely last year and lost 20 pounds in the off season to make sure he was in the best shape of his life.

I don't think he will repeat the performance of last year but I don't see why a 3.5 ERA is out of the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gocubs2118

How can you be so sure he will regress back to his days in Florida? He is a totally different pitcher than he was 6 years ago. He really developed his slider nicely last year and lost 20 pounds in the off season to make sure he was in the best shape of his life.

I don't think he will repeat the performance of last year but I don't see why a 3.5 ERA is out of the question.

---

It's not.

But it's not a lock either. I'd give even odds to 3.5 and 5.0, honestly. That's never acceptable.