PDA

View Full Version : Randy Wells’ Sophomore Season



Yagyu+
06-20-2010, 03:31 PM
Dark red = positives. From fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/randy-wells-sophomore-season/):


In 2009, Randy Wells was a surprisingly effective cog in the Chicago Cubs’ rotation. The converted catcher and returned 2007 Rule V pick of the Blue Jays posted a 3.05 ERA in 165.1 innings pitched, placing 10th among qualified National League starters. This season, however, Wells has fallen to a 4.92 ERA in 78.2 frames. Has the 27-year-old righty regressed significantly, or are better days ahead?

While Wells’ ’09 performance was sturdy, it is important to note that his gaudy ERA overstated the extent of his dominance. With 5.66 K/9 and 2.5 BB/9, Wells had a more modest 4.24 xFIP. The ERA/xFIP dichotomy was the result of a fairly high 76% rate of stranding base runners (the MLB average is usually around 70-72%, though pitcher skill does play some role) and a home run/fly ball rate of eight percent (11% MLB average).

Extreme strand and HR/FB rates have a way of returning toward those big league averages, and we’ve seen that from Wells in 2010 — he’s leaving 67.8% of runners on base, and 9.2% of his fly balls are reaching the bleachers. While a reversal of fortune on those fronts should have been expected, Wells has seemingly gone to the other end of the luck spectrum this season. He’s got a .355 batting average on balls in play, compared to .294 in 2009. Among qualified starting pitchers, only Pittsburgh’s Zach Duke has a higher BABIP.

The first thing that sticks out regarding Wells’ performance on balls put in play is his line drive rate. It’s 25.1% this year, highest among starters and leaps and bounds above his 18.8% mark from last season. Line drives aren’t the most stable metric from season to season, but we know that bad things happen on batted balls classified as liners — line drives in the NL this season have a .975 slugging percentage and a .715 BABIP. Wells’ liners have a .965 SLG% and a .754 BABIP. That’s certainly a contributing factor to his inflated BABIP. But what makes this finding confusing is that just about every other performance measure suggests that Wells isn’t getting hit hard at all.

So far, he has 7.09 K/9. He’s whiffing 18 percent of batters faced this year, up from 15 percent in 2009. Wells’ swinging strike rate, 8.1% last season, has climbed to 10.9% (8-9% MLB average). His overall contact rate is 77.1% in 2010, compared to 81.8% last year (80-81% MLB average). Relative to the big league average, Randy’s outside swing percentage is up — he’s outpacing the MLB norm by 17 percent this year (33.1 O-Swing, 28.2 MLB average) after surpassing it by 11 percent last year (27.8 O-Swing, 25.1 MLB average).

Wells is getting swinging strikes when throwing a fastball 6.8 percent in 2010, compared to 4.3% last season (the MLB average is around six. His slider is getting slightly more whiffs (13.3% in ’10 to 12.8% in ’09, 13.6% MLB average) and his changeup has a 19.4% whiff rate, up considerably from last year’s 13.1% clip (12.6% MLB average). None of these numbers suggest he has gotten easier to hit.

In addition to getting more whiffs, Wells has actually lowered his walk rate slightly to 2.29 BB/9. He continues to get ahead in the count often, with a 61.6 first pitch strike percentage (61.4% last year, 58% MLB average).

Overall, Wells’ xFIP is a tidy 3.68 — over a half-run lower than his 2009 figure. That line drive rate bears watching, but there are many positives to be found in Wells’ “disappointing” follow-up to his celebrated rookie campaign. If he’s available in your league (and with a 51% Yahoo ownership rate, there’s a decent chance that he is), do your team a favor and scoop up a quality starter on the cheap.

LeoGetz
06-20-2010, 03:37 PM
Should have been dealt when value was high...see Jake Fox.

Jilly Bohnson
06-20-2010, 03:55 PM
Should have been dealt when value was high...see Jake Fox.

He wouldn't have gotten much over the winter because he was a guy who had an innocuous minor league career and then got very lucky last year. This year his luck is correcting itself and most front offices realize that.

Also, dealing a quality starting pitcher making the league minimum is a bad idea unless you're just blown away by an offer or your cup is running over with great young pitching.

Doogolas
06-20-2010, 04:07 PM
He wouldn't have gotten much over the winter because he was a guy who had an innocuous minor league career and then got very lucky last year. This year his luck is correcting itself and most front offices realize that.

Also, dealing a quality starting pitcher making the league minimum is a bad idea unless you're just blown away by an offer or your cup is running over with great young pitching.

Well... in theory we do fit this.

Jilly Bohnson
06-20-2010, 04:19 PM
Well... in theory we do fit this.

Not really, we have some nice young pitching, but not enough that I think we should be looking to move some of it unless we're blown away. When I say cup running over I mean like the Rays or the Orioles.

zambo4president
06-20-2010, 04:26 PM
I had that flukey feeling all last season about him, but I didn't wanna believe he was gonna come back down to earth this season. Looks like that's exactly what's happening.

Solid Snake
06-20-2010, 04:45 PM
I don't get how ppl are concluding that Randy Wells sucks now. That isn't even what the article was saying. In the end the author advises readers to pick Wells up.

The 25% LD rate is pretty bad, and its an easy number to look at and conclude he sucks. However, as the author mentions, and this has me really positive about Wells for the future, every other peripheral stat suggests he's improved. Maybe he's making mistakes more often, and that's something he has mentioned after those god-awful starts when he can't get out of the first inning, which I'm sure are driving that LD rate way up.

But overall, he's been better in every other facet other than mistake pitches. I'll take it, and I'm pretty excited that he's shown that he can pitch for two straight seasons when last year seemed pretty fluky good.

windycityD
06-20-2010, 05:33 PM
Other than Lilly, we have three other starters that this org needs to decide who is going to get moved, either this July or this winter- Silva, Wells, or Gorzo. If the idea is that Cashner will be in the rotation in 2011 as the 5th starter, then it's safe to say we'll have one too many potential starters. Of those three, Wells is the only one that could work in the pen imo. That said, we already have a new option in Jackson for the pen in 2011, plus guys like Stevens and Gray already in the mix from the right side.

My bets are on Wells being the odd man out & packaged this winter. Although I really hope we do the wise thing and move Silva at value he wont ever have again, I have a suspicion that Silva will end up being our #3 next season. The way I see this breaking out is Dempster, Z, Silva, Gorzo, and Cashner in the rotation in 2011, 1-5.

Mell413
06-20-2010, 05:53 PM
I'm encouraged by Wells' season. I hope he stays around. He's on pace to be around a 4 win pitcher.

Doogolas
06-20-2010, 07:43 PM
Not really, we have some nice young pitching, but not enough that I think we should be looking to move some of it unless we're blown away. When I say cup running over I mean like the Rays or the Orioles.

We certainly do have a wealth of it. I mean, they have a wealth of amazing young pitching. But both Wells and Gorzo are young, and Gorzo has been a totally different pitcher since coming to the Cubs. Add in Jackson, Cashner, Carpenter and Coleman. And I'd say we have a wealth of good pitching. We just only really have one great prospect in that group. But 6SP that are could be 4's or higher is certainly something I'd consider a wealth of. And 5 of those guys could be 3's or better. :shrug: That doesn't mean "Trade Wells immediately" I was just pointing out that, at least in theory, we do have a wealth of SP specs. And if Shark can ever figure out how to K people, well, he could possibly be a good one too. But I doubt that ever happens.

I guess it's kinda semantics though.

Kirel
06-20-2010, 08:33 PM
We certainly do have a wealth of it. I mean, they have a wealth of amazing young pitching. But both Wells and Gorzo are young, and Gorzo has been a totally different pitcher since coming to the Cubs. Add in Jackson, Cashner, Carpenter and Coleman. And I'd say we have a wealth of good pitching. We just only really have one great prospect in that group. But 6SP that are could be 4's or higher is certainly something I'd consider a wealth of. And 5 of those guys could be 3's or better. :shrug: That doesn't mean "Trade Wells immediately" I was just pointing out that, at least in theory, we do have a wealth of SP specs. And if Shark can ever figure out how to K people, well, he could possibly be a good one too. But I doubt that ever happens.

I guess it's kinda semantics though.
The Cubs have a wealth of good pitching at best. The cubs have no one legitimately on par with, for example, Brian Matsuz, Wade Davis, Chris Tillman, Jeremy Hellickson, etc the last few seasons. That's what amazing means to me.

The Cubs have *ONE* starter above A ball I think can potentially be more than a 3 starter, and that's Cashner. Everyone else is middle to back of the rotation or setup man right now. And none of them are really MLB proven. It just doesn't make sense to deal a cheap 3 starter cause you have a couple of potential 4 starters. The team is still better off keeping the cheap 3 starter and dealing off expensive veteran starters.

The issue is the modifier "great". None of the Cubs pitching is really great, so no the cubs do not fit the mold of a tema with an abundance of great young pitching. They are just a team with a lot of young pitching, and there is a difference there. It is semantics technically but it is a very broad semantic jump from "lots of pitching" to "lots of great pitching" unless your definition of great is akin to my definition of mediocre. Great to me implies two starters or higher, not 3-4 starters.

Jilly Bohnson
06-20-2010, 11:15 PM
We certainly do have a wealth of it. I mean, they have a wealth of amazing young pitching. But both Wells and Gorzo are young, and Gorzo has been a totally different pitcher since coming to the Cubs. Add in Jackson, Cashner, Carpenter and Coleman. And I'd say we have a wealth of good pitching. We just only really have one great prospect in that group. But 6SP that are could be 4's or higher is certainly something I'd consider a wealth of. And 5 of those guys could be 3's or better. :shrug: That doesn't mean "Trade Wells immediately" I was just pointing out that, at least in theory, we do have a wealth of SP specs. And if Shark can ever figure out how to K people, well, he could possibly be a good one too. But I doubt that ever happens.

I guess it's kinda semantics though.

Like Kirel said none of those guys except Cashner and maybe Gorz are likely to ever front a rotation or a bullpen though. And even then I think trading a #2 starter making peanuts like Wells has been to this point you need a hell of a lot more than what we've got backing him. The only way you deal is if A) You think how hittable he's been lately isn't correctable or B) You're blown away by the offer or C) Our pitching depth gets much better(for example, Archer and Dolis hit AA and don't miss a beat).

Because really, Randy Wells has about 1.3 years of service time and currently has been worth 3.8 wins per 200 IP. He's a year and a half from getting paid and considering his modest win and K totals he might not even get expensive once he does hit arbitration. You don't deal him unless you're blown away or you think he's about to fall off the cliff.

Doogolas
06-21-2010, 12:25 AM
Like Kirel said none of those guys except Cashner and maybe Gorz are likely to ever front a rotation or a bullpen though. And even then I think trading a #2 starter making peanuts like Wells has been to this point you need a hell of a lot more than what we've got backing him. The only way you deal is if A) You think how hittable he's been lately isn't correctable or B) You're blown away by the offer or C) Our pitching depth gets much better(for example, Archer and Dolis hit AA and don't miss a beat).

Because really, Randy Wells has about 1.3 years of service time and currently has been worth 3.8 wins per 200 IP. He's a year and a half from getting paid and considering his modest win and K totals he might not even get expensive once he does hit arbitration. You don't deal him unless you're blown away or you think he's about to fall off the cliff.

Ah but I don't think Wells is a #2. He's probably more of a #3. And the fact he's making peanuts raises his value. Which is why I'd be for trading him in the first place.

Kirel
06-21-2010, 01:30 AM
Ah but I don't think Wells is a #2. He's probably more of a #3. And the fact he's making peanuts raises his value. Which is why I'd be for trading him in the first place.
Well, then it comes down to a simple question:

Do you intend to contend now or in 4 seasons?

If you intend to contend before 4 seasons are up, trading Wells for anything short of a massive return is probably going to severely hurt that. The Cubs have 6 potential 3-4 starters sure, but I'd lay even odds no more than 2 actually make it. And that's not even really considering injury.

Dealing Wells and getting equivalent value back would be mindbogglingly difficult to do. At the moment, assuming Wells can stick around 4 WAR, his value money wise is somewhere in the, oh, 85 million dollars(back of the envelope estimation) or so range? That's what, two top 25 prospects? Maybe three?

The only way you deal Wells is in a Matt Garza\Delmon Young type deal. Anything else you probably lose really, really badly.

Jilly Bohnson
06-21-2010, 02:14 AM
Well, then it comes down to a simple question:

Do you intend to contend now or in 4 seasons?

If you intend to contend before 4 seasons are up, trading Wells for anything short of a massive return is probably going to severely hurt that. The Cubs have 6 potential 3-4 starters sure, but I'd lay even odds no more than 2 actually make it. And that's not even really considering injury.

Dealing Wells and getting equivalent value back would be mindbogglingly difficult to do. At the moment, assuming Wells can stick around 4 WAR, his value money wise is somewhere in the, oh, 85 million dollars(back of the envelope estimation) or so range? That's what, two top 25 prospects? Maybe three?

The only way you deal Wells is in a Matt Garza\Delmon Young type deal. Anything else you probably lose really, really badly.

This, pretty much spot on. The reason you deal guys is either for impact major league players or prospects who you think will give you good cost controlled production, well Wells is already giving us that production. So if you trade him you want a hitter in an equivalent situation, like a Nelson Cruz or something, or someone unexpectedly awesome that suddenly comes on the trade market or the prospect package to be great.

And even if he's only a 3 WAR guy, he's still worth what, 40 million assuming 5 million per win?

Being able to pencil Wells into the rotation for the next four seasons and being able to expect(as much as you can with a pitcher) quality pitching at low prices is a great asset. If Gorzelanny is the real deal and Cashner works out having those three for cheap for the next several seasons would be great not only for their straight up production but because the money saved can be used to go get the Carl Crawfords or Adrian Gonzalez's of the world through free agency.

ReJo
06-21-2010, 09:42 AM
His problems this year from what I've seen has been his location. Last year he was spot on with his game plan and where the catcher wanted it he got it. Wells doesn't have the stuff to get away with many mistakes if he makes a mistake and misses his location even by a little bit it will get hit hard more often than not. That and hitters know him better this year. Last year they had never seen him. He's a smart pitcher and a hard worker I have to believe he will make the proper adjustments and have a strong second half.

poodski
06-21-2010, 09:57 AM
Ah but I don't think Wells is a #2. He's probably more of a #3. And the fact he's making peanuts raises his value. Which is why I'd be for trading him in the first place.

Sure that raises his value, primarily to us. I wouldnt trade him unless I got a kings ransom for him.

Wells would probably be number three on the list of people on the 25 man it would take the most to get, behind only Cashner and Castro. Maybe fourth with Soto taking third. That's a big maybe though.

scrubs101
06-21-2010, 10:53 AM
Sure that raises his value, primarily to us. I wouldnt trade him unless I got a kings ransom for him.

Wells would probably be number three on the list of people on the 25 man it would take the most to get, behind only Cashner and Castro. Maybe fourth with Soto taking third. That's a big maybe though.

Yep. You don't trade away a cheap starting pitcher for nothing.

windycityD
06-21-2010, 11:23 AM
This, pretty much spot on. The reason you deal guys is either for impact major league players or prospects who you think will give you good cost controlled production, well Wells is already giving us that production. So if you trade him you want a hitter in an equivalent situation, like a Nelson Cruz or something, or someone unexpectedly awesome that suddenly comes on the trade market or the prospect package to be great.

And even if he's only a 3 WAR guy, he's still worth what, 40 million assuming 5 million per win?

Being able to pencil Wells into the rotation for the next four seasons and being able to expect(as much as you can with a pitcher) quality pitching at low prices is a great asset. If Gorzelanny is the real deal and Cashner works out having those three for cheap for the next several seasons would be great not only for their straight up production but because the money saved can be used to go get the Carl Crawfords or Adrian Gonzalez's of the world through free agency.

Considering we also have a history of signing pricey free agents (Lilly) and/ or giving pricey extensions (Dempster), there is a whole other argument to be made here: will the next GM make a big fa starter signing in either winter 2010 or 2011? If that answer is yes, then it makes the point that guys like Gorzo, Wells, Coleman, Archer, Dolis, etc wont ever eclipse being a #3 sorta moot. Zambrano could be here thr 2013 (if he vests). Dempster, 2012 (if he vests the player option). Silva (if kept and keeping this up), 2012 (mutual option). Right there, 1-3, you are potentially locked in already, with all three, for 2 more years.

The key is, after Cashner as the 5th, who is going to get the opportunity to be the 4th starter in 2011? My bets are on Gorzo b/c I feel we wont make a big fa starting pitcher signing this winter, wont re-up Lilly in-season, and we will need/ want a lefty in the 5 in 2011. Gorzo fits that bill, also on the cheap.

Wells is a goner if we can package him and another piece for a bat or bats. Whether that's RF, 2b, and/ or 3b, TBD. Even if the bat(s) is a high end spec, we really need something at all those positions by 2012. Looking organizationally, if Vitters works out & continues to progress, he likely wont be a 3b, but rather, 1b. We need to fill those three positions, and ideally, do it with youth. If we're flipping arms, we need bats back, period.

Kirel
06-21-2010, 12:07 PM
Considering we also have a history of signing pricey free agents (Lilly) and/ or giving pricey extensions (Dempster), there is a whole other argument to be made here: will the next GM make a big fa starter signing in either winter 2010 or 2011? If that answer is yes, then it makes the point that guys like Gorzo, Wells, Coleman, Archer, Dolis, etc wont ever eclipse being a #3 sorta moot. Zambrano could be here thr 2013 (if he vests). Dempster, 2012 (if he vests the player option). Silva (if kept and keeping this up), 2012 (mutual option). Right there, 1-3, you are potentially locked in already, with all three, for 2 more years.

The key is, after Cashner as the 5th, who is going to get the opportunity to be the 4th starter in 2011? My bets are on Gorzo b/c I feel we wont make a big fa starting pitcher signing this winter, wont re-up Lilly in-season, and we will need/ want a lefty in the 5 in 2011. Gorzo fits that bill, also on the cheap.

Wells is a goner if we can package him and another piece for a bat or bats. Whether that's RF, 2b, and/ or 3b, TBD. Even if the bat(s) is a high end spec, we really need something at all those positions by 2012. Looking organizationally, if Vitters works out & continues to progress, he likely wont be a 3b, but rather, 1b. We need to fill those three positions, and ideally, do it with youth. If we're flipping arms, we need bats back, period.

If that comes to be, the Cubs probalby have one of the worst GMs int he game and they are still a terrible team. Your bets are always incredibly gloomy, I wonder why.

You are basically describing text book bad management.

windycityD
06-21-2010, 12:50 PM
If that comes to be, the Cubs probalby have one of the worst GMs int he game and they are still a terrible team. Your bets are always incredibly gloomy, I wonder why.

You are basically describing text book bad management.

And as usual, your prognostications/ educated guesses are based on well, how other highly successful orgs do & have done business & drafted/ developed arms. We are not there yet and you know that. The sample size I'm dealing with is well, 15 years of porus organizational management (1990-2005) and 5 years of catch up (2006-present) via the draft, Wilken, etc.

Seems pretty clear to me that in order to "win" around here, we need bats at multiple position. Asap. You're always harping on what a real #2 is. Guess what, as you say, we don't have one- now, next year, or two years from now- coming up the chain, in house. Hell, it will take Cashner two years and 325-350 IP just to get to a #3. So what have we done- bought arms as well as brought them along. That really wont change, and you also know that.

Kirel
06-21-2010, 01:38 PM
And as usual, your prognostications/ educated guesses are based on well, how other highly successful orgs do & have done business & drafted/ developed arms. We are not there yet and you know that. The sample size I'm dealing with is well, 15 years of porus organizational management (1990-2005) and 5 years of catch up (2006-present) via the draft, Wilken, etc.

Seems pretty clear to me that in order to "win" around here, we need bats at multiple position. Asap. You're always harping on what a real #2 is. Guess what, as you say, we don't have one- now, next year, or two years from now- coming up the chain, in house. Hell, it will take Cashner two years and 325-350 IP just to get to a #3. So what have we done- bought arms as well as brought them along. That really wont change, and you also know that.
None of it is relevent though.

15 years of organizational management might be relevent if you weren't postulating a scenario where *NO ONE FROM THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS* would be involved. If a GM, and presumably a new front office staff is in place, the Cubs may as well be another team.

This is as effective and meaningful as citing the Cubs record vs the Phillies in the 70s as a reason why they should win a given game.

Now, buying arms is perfectly acceptable, but trading Wells to keep Silva or Zambrano is low quality management. I think you pay too much attention to money and too little to talent.

Solid Snake
06-21-2010, 02:04 PM
Yea, reading the convo on here, I'd much much rather trade Silva and Z and Lilly for anything we can get. None of them are much better than Wells or Gorzo.

ggross
06-21-2010, 02:29 PM
Despite the early bullpen woes, and despite how I always hear how great the starters have done, Wells' season typifies a problem with this team in that they get behind in the first inning too much. Opponents have outscored the Cubs by nearly 2 to 1 in the first inning this year, and Wells has been a key contributor to that problem (his ERA is over 10 and he's given up about twice as many runs than his next worst inning). If it's true that the team that scores first wins over 60% of the time... that kind of goes along with their current record.

windycityD
06-21-2010, 02:55 PM
Yea, reading the convo on here, I'd much much rather trade Silva and Z and Lilly for anything we can get. None of them are much better than Wells or Gorzo.

Whoa, not so fast on Lilly, though. If you're being totally fair, getting him for what we did from 2007-2009 was a huge plus, both in terms of his numbers and his value. Seriously, Hendry was looking hard at Gil Meche back in 2006/2007, right along with Marquis and Lilly. Lilly is arguably one of his best signings, and really, best stories regarding a free agent signing. Good for us and Jim that he was a Big Mac short of mortality.

Wells and Gorzo are both young and cheap and I like both. In an ideal world, I'd want to keep both of them if I'm the next GM. But, we are not in an ideal situation w/ needs all around the diamond and/ or RF come 2012 and sooner. Of the two, Wells is the one you try and package for offense imho. As a lefty, Gorzo has legitimate value for us- now, next year, and in 2012.

Silva and Lilly both have trade value come July. When I look at the rotations in Atlanta, Texas, Minnesota, and Detroit, I see teams that really should upgrade. Every one of these orgs has great, young talent to at least be trying to get back. Then you have big market/ money clubs like Anaheim & The Dodgers who might be willing to roll the dice to improve their respective lots. Lee and Oswalt are both 1 and 2 in my book for splash deadline starter arms. I'd put Lilly not far behind them.

Str1fe5
06-21-2010, 04:07 PM
Whoa, not so fast on Lilly, though. If you're being totally fair, getting him for what we did from 2007-2009 was a huge plus, both in terms of his numbers and his value. Seriously, Hendry was looking hard at Gil Meche back in 2006/2007, right along with Marquis and Lilly. Lilly is arguably one of his best signings, and really, best stories regarding a free agent signing. Good for us and Jim that he was a Big Mac short of mortality.

Wells and Gorzo are both young and cheap and I like both. In an ideal world, I'd want to keep both of them if I'm the next GM. But, we are not in an ideal situation w/ needs all around the diamond and/ or RF come 2012 and sooner. Of the two, Wells is the one you try and package for offense imho. As a lefty, Gorzo has legitimate value for us- now, next year, and in 2012.

Silva and Lilly both have trade value come July. When I look at the rotations in Atlanta, Texas, Minnesota, and Detroit, I see teams that really should upgrade. Every one of these orgs has great, young talent to at least be trying to get back. Then you have big market/ money clubs like Anaheim & The Dodgers who might be willing to roll the dice to improve their respective lots. Lee and Oswalt are both 1 and 2 in my book for splash deadline starter arms. I'd put Lilly not far behind them.

The bats just aint coming next year. Werth and Crawford are going to come with high price tags, and after that most of the big bat market is pretty thin. I don't see guys much better than a Marlon Byrd type being on the trade market either. The right move is to sit tight, offer Lilly arb / trade him @ the deadline, try to move Silva and D Lee at the deadline for whatever we can get, make Jackson the 6th starter for 2011, have a roto of Z/Demp/Wells/Gorzo/Cashner, let our young arms bolster the pen (including Jackson I guess) to begin the year, see where we are on June 1 and July 15 and use a more flexible payroll to get into the hunt if we can or hold onto the money for the big FA class in 2012.

I agree with Jilly and Kirel, Wells is too valuable a commodity - his xFIP numbers indicate he's a solid third starter on a decent rotation and a good 4th starter on a good rotation - I don't see any realistic way we get value back for him.

Yagyu+
06-21-2010, 05:36 PM
Been some mention of what our rotation might look like the next few. Brandon Webb's time might be up with Arizona next year. Pending on if/how he pitches the second half of this season, he might be a FA signing worth a gamble.

windycityD
06-22-2010, 10:12 AM
The bats just aint coming next year. Werth and Crawford are going to come with high price tags, and after that most of the big bat market is pretty thin. I don't see guys much better than a Marlon Byrd type being on the trade market either. The right move is to sit tight, offer Lilly arb / trade him @ the deadline, try to move Silva and D Lee at the deadline for whatever we can get, make Jackson the 6th starter for 2011, have a roto of Z/Demp/Wells/Gorzo/Cashner, let our young arms bolster the pen (including Jackson I guess) to begin the year, see where we are on June 1 and July 15 and use a more flexible payroll to get into the hunt if we can or hold onto the money for the big FA class in 2012.

I agree with Jilly and Kirel, Wells is too valuable a commodity - his xFIP numbers indicate he's a solid third starter on a decent rotation and a good 4th starter on a good rotation - I don't see any realistic way we get value back for him.

It's the fact that Wells is a good commodity that we might very well need to send him packing for a bat. I'm not for signing Dunn, Werth, Crawford, Berkman, etc. and I think in an ideal situation, we should keep Wells. Were not in one. I'm for finding the right trade fit where we're getting a young, high end spec back who plays either RF, 3b, or 2b. Colvin to me is at least a legitimate candidate for 1b in 2011, if not sooner, starting the second half of this season. By all means, we need to move Lee for certain this July. Silva as well. In the event we cannot or do not move Silva, there's always the winter to try and do so. Without question, pending what he does over the next month, his trade value likely could not get better than really, right now.

I also like Lilly, tons. It just seems to me that in order to re-tool, we will have to find a way to move what appears to be our best vet trade piece. His last outing was real poor. And yes, the guy has been Lilly Lite a bit this season, coming off injury, with three really good outings mixed in. From 2007-2009, he was right there in terms of mlb lefties and I feel several GMs would still see that arm and that guy. I'm not saying he'd bring back a king's ransom at all. What I'm saying is, for a team that needs bats, even if they are good specs, go for it and go younger.

IRNMN
06-22-2010, 10:53 AM
I don't think he is regressing he is trowing the ball about the same as last season. I mean Wells was never a "stud pitcher" we was your average guy who gets the job done. The fact that his ERA is up and down up and down is not suprising. Also Wells got a hell of a lot more runs support last sdason which always makes it easier to pitch.

This season in the early part of the year the Cubs were getting him eight or so runs to work with. Since may only about one or two. If you look at last season Wells would win when the Cubs gave him 4 or more runs pretty much every time, but thats also with most pitchers..

windycityD
06-22-2010, 01:13 PM
I don't think he is regressing he is trowing the ball about the same as last season. I mean Wells was never a "stud pitcher" we was your average guy who gets the job done. The fact that his ERA is up and down up and down is not suprising. Also Wells got a hell of a lot more runs support last sdason which always makes it easier to pitch.

This season in the early part of the year the Cubs were getting him eight or so runs to work with. Since may only about one or two. If you look at last season Wells would win when the Cubs gave him 4 or more runs pretty much every time, but thats also with most pitchers..

Hmm. Wells had plenty of scant run support last season, and really, should have had 3-4 more wins in '09.

The thing that I really like about him is that when his control is on, he can get you out in more than one spot on the plate/ in the zone and with more than just one pitch. At this very early juncture, he looks like a pitcher in the making, as opposed to some flame thrower who can get away with bad pitches b/c he can blaze it up there inning after inning. Minus the Oswalt blaze, he actually reminds me of a watered-down mix of vintage Maddux and Oswalt. Those two guys when on would use their control, location, and changing hitter's sight lines to the utter disadvantage of the hitters. The more I talk/ think about Wells, the less I want him gone. But then I look at what we don't have in the offing for 3b, 2b, and perhaps even RF in the not too distant future. The lack of offense has not been relegated to this season. Save 2008, we've had issues in 2007 and 2009 as well. I just feel we're at a crossroads where in order to up the ante and potential future options offensively, we'll need to part with some pitching.

Kirel
06-22-2010, 01:23 PM
Hmm. Wells had plenty of scant run support last season, and really, should have had 3-4 more wins in '09.

The thing that I really like about him is that when his control is on, he can get you out in more than one spot on the plate/ in the zone and with more than just one pitch. At this very early juncture, he looks like a pitcher in the making, as opposed to some flame thrower who can get away with bad pitches b/c he can blaze it up there inning after inning. Minus the Oswalt blaze, he actually reminds me of a watered-down mix of vintage Maddux and Oswalt. Those two guys when on would use their control, location, and changing hitter's sight lines to the utter disadvantage of the hitters. The more I talk/ think about Wells, the less I want him gone. But then I look at what we don't have in the offing for 3b, 2b, and perhaps even RF in the not too distant future. The lack of offense has not been relegated to this season. Save 2008, we've had issues in 2007 and 2009 as well. I just feel we're at a crossroads where in order to up the ante and potential future options offensively, we'll need to part with some pitching.
The problem with that is as soon as the Cubs part withp itching for bats, you're posts are going to 'magically' turn into:

"We need to trade Soto\Colvin\Jackson for pitching, we need pitching!"

Whats with thsi weird mutual exclusivity you subscribe to? Why is the only way to acquire bats gutting the starting staff? Why do you believe no non-MLB player is tradable? First Smoak is the only player the Rangers can dream of trading away for a pitcher and then Wells is the only guy who can get bats.

You are aware prospects exist and other organizations are interested in them, aren't you?

windycityD
06-22-2010, 01:39 PM
The problem with that is as soon as the Cubs part withp itching for bats, you're posts are going to 'magically' turn into:

"We need to trade Soto\Colvin\Jackson for pitching, we need pitching!"

Whats with thsi weird mutual exclusivity you subscribe to? Why is the only way to acquire bats gutting the starting staff? Why do you believe no non-MLB player is tradable? First Smoak is the only player the Rangers can dream of trading away for a pitcher and then Wells is the only guy who can get bats.

You are aware prospects exist and other organizations are interested in them, aren't you?

I'm also aware cheap, mlb established & experienced pitching talent is an even better commodity. Exhibits A + B, Randy Wells and Gorzo. Where you insist on the minors, I see options at this level. As do GMs, now and again (see Gorzo trade).

I also realize that we don't have the top-tier farm systems, arms, and bats of other orgs that you perpetually cite. What we do have & agree upon is that we do have quantity pitching depth with some potential for good quality in there. Would I rather we dealt Dolis or even perhaps Archer if push came to shove? Sure.

Tell me how we try to solve our offensive problems, at this level and organizationally, and do not do that via trading some of our pitching, Wells included.

Kirel
06-22-2010, 02:04 PM
I'm also aware cheap, mlb established & experienced pitching talent is an even better commodity. Exhibits A + B, Randy Wells and Gorzo. Where you insist on the minors, I see options at this level. As do GMs, now and again (see Gorzo trade).

I also realize that we don't have the top-tier farm systems, arms, and bats of other orgs that you perpetually cite. What we do have & agree upon is that we do have quantity pitching depth with some potential for good quality in there. Would I rather we dealt Dolis or even perhaps Archer if push came to shove? Sure.

Tell me how we try to solve our offensive problems, at this level and organizationally, and do not do that via trading some of our pitching, Wells included.
What farm systems do you see out there that are top tier? Apparently the Rangers werent' top tier enough for you given that you insisted Smoak had to go to return anything useful.

I don't think you ever look for options other than at the major leagues. How many deals like Wells have you seen happen? Gorz was returning from injury and it was the Pirates, not exactly a reliable franchise.

How many other franchises do you see making moves like that?

Dealing some pitching is reasonable, dealing your two of your three or four highest value pieces is mindlessly stupid. Refocusing on drafting useful bats instead of crappy MIFs would deal with the farm easily. The major leauges is not going to be so easy, but even your strategy of gutting the pitching staff for bats is probably not going to fix a damn thing. Most teams aren't so stupid as to trade their brilliant young hitters either.

A well run organization does not do what you are suggesting the Cubs do. What you are expousing is essentially "Drayton Moore and Neil Huntington's Guide to Major League Success!"

windycityD
06-22-2010, 03:33 PM
What farm systems do you see out there that are top tier? Apparently the Rangers werent' top tier enough for you given that you insisted Smoak had to go to return anything useful.

I don't think you ever look for options other than at the major leagues. How many deals like Wells have you seen happen? Gorz was returning from injury and it was the Pirates, not exactly a reliable franchise.

How many other franchises do you see making moves like that?

Dealing some pitching is reasonable, dealing your two of your three or four highest value pieces is mindlessly stupid. Refocusing on drafting useful bats instead of crappy MIFs would deal with the farm easily. The major leauges is not going to be so easy, but even your strategy of gutting the pitching staff for bats is probably not going to fix a damn thing. Most teams aren't so stupid as to trade their brilliant young hitters either.

A well run organization does not do what you are suggesting the Cubs do. What you are expousing is essentially "Drayton Moore and Neil Huntington's Guide to Major League Success!"

Let's put this in full and proper context, based on my previous posts:

1) Wells is the ONLY arm I'm talking about here IF we do NOT deal Silva, who would be priority #1 in my world in terms of flipping NOW, not next month. I'm not for "gutting" the pitching staff as you have very much interjected here. I am for getting a bat or bats back, via as high of ends specs as we can get, at one or more of the following positions: 2b, 3b, RF. I am not for Dunn, et al. this winter for 1b or any number of so so vet middle IF that would cost us payroll for little WAR. If Vitters is truly being projected/ seen for 1b, 2012 seems like a best and safe bet for him taking that position, whether it's a platoon with a vet or all by himself.

2) If this org & whoever that is or might be feels that Silva is a viable #3 next season and decides it wont go out and buy a vet arm to replace Lilly or re-up Lilly, then I feel Gorzo- as the only real lefty in the mix in-house- has more value for that 2011 rotation. Hence, making Wells expendable in what I would call the right deal. This is NOT a give way, just because situation, ok? Once again, Silva being dealt at his current value, AND shedding some payroll in the process, is waaaaaay better than dealing Wells.

3) If push comes to shove, moving Wells under the above scenario actually makes (more) room for Cashner, who you yourself has "projected" to be the only spec above A ball that could get to a #3 or #2, eventually. Do you really think if Hendry somehow survives another season here that Cashner is a lock for the rotation in 2011? He refused to answer that very question as of today. I'm conceding only this- the GM situation going into 2011 is as important as anything Ricketts will do as a young owner, even more than the next manager. It's how he'll set the tone organizationally. The stats guru hire tells me this much- that Jimbo is likely done, pending this season's end results. It's certainly not a lock that Hendry is done, though. For the record, I hope he is done. It's well time to move on.

4) This would be my 2011 rotation, which would get a kick start starting this summer: Dempster, Z, Wells, Gorzo, Cashner* (he would have to be sent back down to be stretched out as a starter, so he would be back in Aug and inserted in the rotation). Use Lilly and Silva to try and get the very spec bats & those positions I'm talking about. Not the emphasis on those vets for specs back.

Kirel
06-22-2010, 03:50 PM
Let's put this in full and proper context, based on my previous posts:

1) Wells is the ONLY arm I'm talking about here IF we do NOT deal Silva, who would be priority #1 in my world in terms of flipping NOW, not next month. I'm not for "gutting" the pitching staff as you have very much interjected here. I am for getting a bat or bats back, via as high of ends specs as we can get, at one or more of the following positions: 2b, 3b, RF. I am not for Dunn, et al. this winter for 1b or any number of so so vet middle IF that would cost us payroll for little WAR. If Vitters is truly being projected/ seen for 1b, 2012 seems like a best and safe bet for him taking that position, whether it's a platoon with a vet or all by himself.

2) If this org & whoever that is or might be feels that Silva is a viable #3 next season and decides it wont go out and buy a vet arm to replace Lilly or re-up Lilly, then I feel Gorzo- as the only real lefty in the mix in-house- has more value for that 2011 rotation. Hence, making Wells expendable in what I would call the right deal. This is NOT a give way, just because situation, ok? Once again, Silva being dealt at his current value, AND shedding some payroll in the process, is waaaaaay better than dealing Wells.

3) If push comes to shove, moving Wells under the above scenario actually makes (more) room for Cashner, who you yourself has "projected" to be the only spec above A ball that could get to a #3 or #2, eventually. Do you really think if Hendry somehow survives another season here that Cashner is a lock for the rotation in 2011? He refused to answer that very question as of today. I'm conceding only this- the GM situation going into 2011 is as important as anything Ricketts will do as a young owner, even more than the next manager. It's how he'll set the tone organizationally. The stats guru hire tells me this much- that Jimbo is likely done, pending this season's end results. It's certainly not a lock that Hendry is done, though. For the record, I hope he is done. It's well time to move on.

4) This would be my 2011 rotation, which would get a kick start starting this summer: Dempster, Z, Wells, Gorzo, Cashner* (he would have to be sent back down to be stretched out as a starter, so he would be back in Aug and inserted in the rotation). Use Lilly and Silva to try and get the very spec bats & those positions I'm talking about. Not the emphasis on those vets for specs back.
So, basically your entire point is:

"This isn't what I think, but I'm going to argue both ways so I can be right"

Literally points 1-3 only make sense to believe if you entirely forget that ownership changed and presume Hendry has had a recent lobotomy. You've got to stop treating this like it's the Tribune and Andy McPhail still steering the ship.

Point 4 is the only thing on this list that isn't exactly waht terrible organizations do, which was my point all along. If the team follows your ideas here(Keeping Silva, signing any starter) we may as well just give up and find new teams to root for. At that point it'll be clear Ricketts is aligning this team for long term failure.

But all of that said, pretending management sucks does not excuse you from arguing for bad ideas.

windycityD
06-23-2010, 09:40 AM
So, basically your entire point is:

"This isn't what I think, but I'm going to argue both ways so I can be right"

Literally points 1-3 only make sense to believe if you entirely forget that ownership changed and presume Hendry has had a recent lobotomy. You've got to stop treating this like it's the Tribune and Andy McPhail still steering the ship.

Point 4 is the only thing on this list that isn't exactly waht terrible organizations do, which was my point all along. If the team follows your ideas here(Keeping Silva, signing any starter) we may as well just give up and find new teams to root for. At that point it'll be clear Ricketts is aligning this team for long term failure.

But all of that said, pretending management sucks does not excuse you from arguing for bad ideas.

When Ricketts hires you- and really, seriously, no slam, send him a resume, we need good people- then let's talk when you are at a vantage point of full and total org knowledge as opposed to full and total informed opinion about it. Got news for ya- you are not talking from former, right along with the rest of us. And we're also not Arizona, Minnesota, Tampa, or the Marlins. There is some degree o' "big market" complex here.

I'm arguing from that very dual vantage point, yes. Tossing money around has not worked. Pending Colvin, no OF we have drafted and developed for forever now has "worked." We having nothing in our system even near ready at 3b or 1b, or hell, even 2b. What has "worked" is that we have built up a stable of young arms, Wells included, who some could be used for acquiring what we need- bats. This season's struggles is not a blip on the radar. We've had prolonged O/ RISP issues dating back to 2007 and had them again in 2009. See a trend here? Is that sample size big enough?

Trust me, I'm not advocating a glorious return to the 90s where we had no pitching and all hitting. And yes, you know that as well.

Kirel
06-23-2010, 10:32 AM
When Ricketts hires you- and really, seriously, no slam, send him a resume, we need good people- then let's talk when you are at a vantage point of full and total org knowledge as opposed to full and total informed opinion about it. Got news for ya- you are not talking from former, right along with the rest of us. And we're also not Arizona, Minnesota, Tampa, or the Marlins. There is some degree o' "big market" complex here.

I'm arguing from that very dual vantage point, yes. Tossing money around has not worked. Pending Colvin, no OF we have drafted and developed for forever now has "worked." We having nothing in our system even near ready at 3b or 1b, or hell, even 2b. What has "worked" is that we have built up a stable of young arms, Wells included, who some could be used for acquiring what we need- bats. This season's struggles is not a blip on the radar. We've had prolonged O/ RISP issues dating back to 2007 and had them again in 2009. See a trend here? Is that sample size big enough?

Trust me, I'm not advocating a glorious return to the 90s where we had no pitching and all hitting. And yes, you know that as well.
Don't require someone to have done something you havn't to take their point of view. You have zero information yet are secure in your stance, but expect othesr to have a perfect world view for theirs.

I'm done playing your game at this point. It's just not worth my time.