Monday a.m. things

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 10, 2008 9:39 AM CST

T.R. Sullivan has a rundown of free agent starting pitchers this offseason. The only group that likely matters for the Rangers, though, is the final group -- the guys who will be getting minor league deals with NRIs. The Rangers are, I think, very unlikely to go out there and spend money for a veteran free agent starting pitcher, particularly since most of them would require a multi-year commitment.

And given the guys the Rangers already have to sift through for the rotation next year, I don't think it makes a ton of sense to go spend money on a Jon Garland or a Ryan Dempster.

Over on the Tigers website, there's more talk of Detroit's interest in Gerald Laird and their lack of pitching necessary to make them a front-runner for him.

Tweet Comment 56 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What do the Tigers have in the way of positional prospects

Anything intriguing, like an OFer or something? Because after reading Ron Washington’s endorsement of Laird as the starting catcher next year in the ST, we really need to be rid of him this winter.

A Lonestar in California

Just say no to Scott Olsen.

by LSJ on Nov 10, 2008 9:44 AM CST reply actions

They have absolutely nothing beyone Porcello.

by octoberty on Nov 10, 2008 9:50 AM CST up reply actions

Tigers rebuilding

How shocking is it to click on that link and see “Rebuilding Tigers” about a team that was in the WS so recently and seemed to have a bright future ahead of them? Dombrowski was hailed as a genius and it was assumed the Tigers would walk away with the division this year. And now a denuded minor league system leaves the team without trade chips and a bloated payroll situation with several holes to fill.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Nov 10, 2008 11:36 AM CST up reply actions

Didn't they just waive Renteria?

"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst

by inactive lsb user on Nov 11, 2008 10:12 AM CST up reply actions

Declined

option.

by octoberty on Nov 11, 2008 1:32 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed...

if we trade with DET it will be for a major leaguer. I still don’t mind Laird and Poveda for Bonderman, but I’m not sure DET goes for that. If SS is a need and they feel Arias is an option I’d do that… possibly asking for a little more back.

Question: Does Dombrowski think his club is too close to contending to deal Verlander if the right package is sent his way? Because that’s an arm I would gladly part with Holland or Feliz for. That guy is electric. I realize it would take a ton… but imagine having that guy fronting our rotation.

"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.

by Haeger Champ on Nov 10, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions

Nothing excites mme more

than NRI’s!!!

I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles

by Dirk Diggler on Nov 10, 2008 9:46 AM CST reply actions

So excited I can't type!

I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles

by Dirk Diggler on Nov 10, 2008 9:46 AM CST up reply actions

Considering that NRIs

can often be as productive as $4 million players like Ben Broussard or Frank Catalanotto, I’d say they can be exciting.

Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.

"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky

by DJCahill on Nov 10, 2008 9:53 AM CST up reply actions

Sure

sign me up. We need to get some pitchin’ in here.

I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles

by Dirk Diggler on Nov 10, 2008 9:54 AM CST up reply actions

non resident indians?

Jindal '12

by Longhorn on Nov 10, 2008 9:54 AM CST up reply actions

+1

What does NRI mean? Other than non-resident Indians, of which I don’t think Prior is.

by BuckyB on Nov 10, 2008 10:44 AM CST up reply actions

Non-Roster Invite....

I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles

by Dirk Diggler on Nov 10, 2008 10:47 AM CST up reply actions

The list of potential NRIs looks slim.

The only few I’d be interested in are Prior and Pavano, as sort of reclamation projects.

Am I alone in wanting to take a flier on Pavano? I mean…he used to be pretty good.

"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer

by ghtd36 on Nov 10, 2008 9:52 AM CST reply actions

Pavano

Zero interest.

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 10, 2008 9:54 AM CST up reply actions

Too much risk on the injury front?

Or you just don’t think he’s that good to begin with?

"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer

by ghtd36 on Nov 10, 2008 10:00 AM CST up reply actions

Question

Why would you go with Pavano over, say, Jason Jennings, if you wanted to go the veteran who used to be good but has been hurt route?

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 10, 2008 10:00 AM CST up reply actions

but

Jason Jennings was never really that good.

by octoberty on Nov 10, 2008 10:04 AM CST up reply actions

Well

Jennings wasn’t ever as good as Pavano was.

by brettgardner on Nov 10, 2008 10:04 AM CST up reply actions

Jennings had 1 good year.

Pavano had 2.

by octoberty on Nov 10, 2008 10:05 AM CST up reply actions

weren't pavano's good years

only in Florida? Wasn’t Jennings good year in Colorado?

That has to count for something…

by clark on Nov 10, 2008 10:09 AM CST up reply actions

The irony in that is

in their respective best year, they posted reverse splits of what you would expect. Pavano was better on the road, and Jennings was better at home.

by octoberty on Nov 10, 2008 10:45 AM CST up reply actions

Really?

Pavano had one real good season, with a 137 ERA+. That was in 2004.

Jennings had one real good season, with a 130 ERA+. That was in 2006.

Jennings had some middling seasons mixed in. Pavano has basically been useless since 2004, and hasn’t been terribly useful before then.

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 10, 2008 10:18 AM CST up reply actions

Difference is,

To me, that (1) Pavano is just more talented and (2) Jennings has proven that he can no longer play. Pavano’s ~45 innings since his not that bad ’05 are indicative of injury, but not necessarily of complete loss of ability.

Like I said, I don’t want either of them, but I can’t really see how you could argue that Jennings was ever better than Pavano.

by brettgardner on Nov 10, 2008 10:27 AM CST up reply actions

Okay

How has Jennings proven that he can no longer play, but Pavano hasn’t?

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 10, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions

Well

That might have been a little unclear from how I phrased it. My point was that Jennings has played enough post-injury to prove—at least to me—that he no longer has the ability to pitch.

Pavano may no longer be able to play either, but he really hasn’t shown that. His injuries have stopped that. Now, his injuries might be the reason he can no longer play, but between a guy who has shown he can’t play when given an opportunity versus a guy who hasn’t been able to show much because of injuries, I’ll take the injured guy with a sliver of promise instead of the washed-up guy with a proven bag.

by brettgardner on Nov 10, 2008 11:12 AM CST up reply actions

Hell no to Pavano

He hasn’t pitched 50 innings the past 2 years. Not really a guy I want to waste time and money on.

I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.

by TheBZA on Nov 10, 2008 11:23 AM CST up reply actions

Neither do I.

I was just responding to the assertion that he and Jennings are or were the same guy. I don’t agree.

by brettgardner on Nov 10, 2008 11:24 AM CST up reply actions

Gotcha

I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.

by TheBZA on Nov 10, 2008 11:31 AM CST up reply actions

However...

…Jennings was apparently hurt in 2008. So I’m not sure how Jennings is a “washed up guy with a proven bag” but Pavano is the injured guy with the sliver of promise.

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 10, 2008 11:38 AM CST up reply actions

Well

I suppose we could carve out tiny chunks in our arguments all day, but the fact is that teams cleared Jennings to play a lot more than they did for Pavano.

by brettgardner on Nov 10, 2008 11:40 AM CST up reply actions

A big part of the knock on Pavano...

…is that he didn’t want to play, and was one of those who was reluctant to pitch if he didn’t think he was 100%.

So I don’t know that the argument that Jennings was more physically capable of pitching than Pavano really flies in this case.

In any case, Jennings has been as good as Pavano throughout their careers, is younger, and has been good more recently than Pavano, and doesn’t have a reputation for being a headcase crybaby.

Given all that, I’d rather see Jennings brought in on an NRI than Pavano.

As I said earlier, I suspect that if Jennings had been pitching for the Brewers or someone last year, rather than the Rangers, people wouldn’t be so down on him right now.

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 10, 2008 11:44 AM CST up reply actions

Again, though,

I just don’t see how you can claim that Jennings has been just as good. If you take out what I consider to be insignificant innings pitched seasons (less than 50 IP), Pavano’s ERA+ is 106 while Jennings’ is 97. Not a huge difference, obviously, but combined with Pavano’s superior stuff, I’m just not seeing the justification for placing them equally in the baseball universe, and certainly not for having Jennings ahead.

They’re both old and broken, and I wouldn’t want either of them here, but that’s about the extent of the similarities I see.

And I don’t understand your last point. Are you saying that if we hadn’t seen just how badly Jennings sucked last year that we wouldn’t be so down on him? We should be grateful that we did. No use for a second flier.

by brettgardner on Nov 10, 2008 11:56 AM CST up reply actions

x

I don’t get the “what was his ERA+ in seasons where he threw more than 50 innings” thing. Jennings has a career 97 ERA+. Pavano has a career 99 ERA+.

I’m also not sure about the superior stuff thing. Given that Pavano hasn’t really pitched in 2004, I don’t know that there’s any telling what sort of stuff he’s going to have.

Are you saying that if we hadn’t seen just how badly Jennings sucked last year that we wouldn’t be so down on him?

Yes. If he hadn’t been such a kick in the nuts in 2008 for our team, folks would be more likely to look at his whole body of work and say, he’s someone who could bounce back and be good in the future, after having had surgery.

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 10, 2008 12:27 PM CST up reply actions

x

I just don’t happen to think that 50 innings or less is a real indicator of anything significant. Personal taste, I suppose.

I’m also not sure about the superior stuff thing. Given that Pavano hasn’t really pitched in 2004, I don’t know that there’s any telling what sort of stuff he’s going to have.

I was talking pre-injury for both of them.

And as for your final point, everybody did do that. Last year. Don’t forget that he sucked in ‘07 as well. Now that he has two terrible seasons in a row, I don’t see why anybody would be more willing to give him a chance if he had sucked elsewhere.

by brettgardner on Nov 10, 2008 12:33 PM CST up reply actions

Yup - that's my problem

It seems like Pavano is 100% content collecting checks without ever pitching.

Nothing pithy here. Please move long.

by WyoRanger on Nov 10, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions

I'd make the argument that Pavano has a higher ceiling than Jennings.

And while Pavano’s a little bit older, he’s got a better career WHIP and ERA+. In the nitty gritty, Pavano is slightly more groundball-conducive (awkward phrase, but let’s go with it) than Jennings.

At the right price, I’d take Pavano over Jennings on a NRI.

"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer

by ghtd36 on Nov 10, 2008 10:10 AM CST up reply actions