Can We Trade Milly Now?

His value is still below his ability

I think we can get more for/from him next year, whether contributing to a stretch run here or gone to a contender for a cache of prospects.

Pretty clearly the first time he has ever looked at a web site. "And there are readers' comments at the bottom! And advertisements for products! And best of all, I won a free iPod!"
-Ken Tremendous on Mike Downey.

by BudLight on Aug 27, 2008 7:32 AM CDT 0 recs

Considering what we'd eat

on the contract, I think he has better value to just keep him back and cross your fingers.

We’ve seen unhealthy inconsistent Millwood, and now we’ve seen an extended flash of really good Millwood. True Millwood is somewhere in between and we won’t get equivalent value in a trade.

My problem with Milly is that despite all the “changed man” and “hey, this conditioning stuff is great” crap we’ve been fed, I don’t believe it. If I’m wrong, maybe all the cumulative benefits of maintaining good physical condition will start to pay off next year. It hasn’t yielded anything this year. I attribute the current good streak to the fact that he hasn’t accumulated a lot of wear and tear during various DL stints, and he’s a lot fresher at this point than usual.

by bhudson on Aug 27, 2008 7:49 AM CDT 0 recs

I think

you gotta stick with him as bad as our other pitching options look. You could eat some of his contract and get a minor prospect for him, but really, who is gonna pitch the innings next year?

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway, so not like they had a lot to lose. we can be 70% communist with McCain, 90% with HRC. or 100% communist with Obama, they probably figured it was worth the gamble for the extra 10% since they cant "lose" anyway."-Sharky

by DJCahill on Aug 27, 2008 8:26 AM CDT 0 recs

+1

Go Strangers.

by hightowersmith on Aug 27, 2008 9:37 AM CDT up 0 recs

Exactly

how I feel. This team really needs innings from someone who’s not a rookie next year, and his value will not allow for a decent return. Not time to trade him. Millwood has been one of the unluckiest pitchers in baseball this year, with a FIP and xFIP of 4.22 and 4.31 respectively. Probably more maligned here than he deserves.

Time you enjoy wasting was not wasted.

by t ball on Aug 27, 2008 10:05 AM CDT up 0 recs

Key point

It’s FIP.

Which is FIELDING-Independent Pitching.

As long as our Defensive Efficiency is at the bottom of the league, our pitchers will underperform their FIP.

R

by Requiem on Aug 27, 2008 8:05 PM CDT up 0 recs

True, but

it’s still better to have a pitcher with a good FIP who is unlucky than a pitcher whose true talent level is an ERA of 5.00.

O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.

by t ball on Aug 27, 2008 11:11 PM CDT up 0 recs

Millwood

Are we guaranteed to sign any FA pitchers this winter? No. If we traded Millwood right now could we get back a ML ready pitching prospect? Not one we would want. So I say keep him.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 8:39 AM CDT 0 recs

You're assuming someone would want him.

He’s got an ERA at 5. He’s been unhealthy and wholly unreliable and inconsistent. If you think you can get a worthwhile return based on two starts, I’ve got a bridge for sale if you’re interested.

Aikman and Bradshaw?

Please. They are in the same league as Trent Dilfer and Jim McMahon as QBs who were taken to the SB by great Defenses and great Running Games.
-DJCahill

by SarasotaRanger on Aug 27, 2008 8:43 AM CDT 0 recs

+ 1

I doubt 2 good starts is going to make that big of a differance. “So what’s going on with the rest of your resume sir?”

"California is the most liberal state in the union. No joke that place is probably going to slide into the ocean one of these days. California is a wasteland run by liberals"

-Sharky- what a nice guy huh? I guess he doesn't watch any TV shows or movies.. If California goes so goes the entertainment industry. What a nut job!!

by LAMuscleFag on Aug 27, 2008 9:01 AM CDT up 0 recs

What would the rotation look like in 09?

somebody should make a fanpost about it.

Call 1-800-DOCTORB. The B is for bargain!

by Panorama on Aug 27, 2008 9:17 AM CDT 0 recs

heh

good one.

Aikman and Bradshaw?

Please. They are in the same league as Trent Dilfer and Jim McMahon as QBs who were taken to the SB by great Defenses and great Running Games.
-DJCahill

by SarasotaRanger on Aug 27, 2008 9:22 AM CDT up 0 recs

lol

Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.

by tricer on Aug 27, 2008 9:32 AM CDT up 0 recs

Jon Garland

Do you think he’ll get a similar contract to what Millwood has now? If that’s a yes, I would rather go after Garland. Garland will be 29 at the start of next year while Millwood will be 34. Garland also gives up a lot less FB’s.

Three things have to happen though.

1. Garland is not a Type A or B
2. We can trade Millwood without paying a cent on his contract
3. We can sign Garland for no more than what Millwood is making now.

by Coolbean04 on Aug 27, 2008 9:56 AM CDT 0 recs

Garland

I really like the idea of adding him. He should get about what Padilla or Meche got in terms of dollars and I would say he probably could be had for a 4 year deal.

He may be a type B but most likely not an A so we wouldn’t lose any draft picks.

I think we can sign him regardless of if we get rid of Millwood. Now if we go after both Garland and Sheets then I think we need to move Millwood simply to open up a rotation spot.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 10:07 AM CDT up 0 recs

I'm much more interested

in Sheets or Lowe.

Time you enjoy wasting was not wasted.

by t ball on Aug 27, 2008 10:20 AM CDT up 0 recs

I like Ollie Perez

Lowe is getting a little long in the tooth.

Warner Madrigal makes Ezequiel Astacio look downright handsome.

by tricer on Aug 27, 2008 10:28 AM CDT up 0 recs

Perez or Garland

For me.

by brettgardner on Aug 27, 2008 10:33 AM CDT up 0 recs

Perez or Sheets IMO

"Either we need to re-calibrate our rectangle, or Alfonzo Marquez is not having a good night." - Josh Lewin

by utlonghorn24 on Aug 27, 2008 1:42 PM CDT up 0 recs

Sheets or Garland

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Aug 27, 2008 5:06 PM CDT up 0 recs

How about any of the three...

…and we’ll cal lit a draw?

"Either we need to re-calibrate our rectangle, or Alfonzo Marquez is not having a good night." - Josh Lewin

by utlonghorn24 on Aug 27, 2008 8:45 PM CDT up 0 recs

Lowe vs Garland

Lowe would be a great one year deal type signing. A 36 year old who has played well but in a very good pitchers park. If the rangers feel that our top young pitchers will be here by the start of 2010 and be here for good by then then I would agree to go after Lowe. Plus he could always bring in those draft picks for compensation or prospects in trade. However I don’t think he signs just a one year deal.

If the Rangers don’t want to rush their top prospects and let them come up when ready say mid 2010 for good then go with Garland. Even in 3-4 years he can still be a 32/33 year old pitcher giving you 30+ starts and 200 innings a year.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 10:31 AM CDT up 0 recs

Lowe

better value I think, as long as the contract is just a couple of years. Great ground ball rates, low walks, good for Arlington methinks.

O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.

by t ball on Aug 27, 2008 10:40 AM CDT up 0 recs

Open a rotation spot?

I never realized we were so crowded in the rotation.

I was under the impression we were shoving folks in there who were AA pitchers just to get innings from somewhere. I was under the impression that our entire rotation had ERAs over 5, and that anyone with an ERA under 5 was either injured, or has been kicked off the team.

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

by DJCahill on Aug 27, 2008 10:38 AM CDT up 0 recs

Next year

Right now we have Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy, and Feldman as essentially locks to start the year. Feldman simply because he is out of options and can’t be sent down plus he has been our most consistent starter this year. So if we don’t add a FA then we have Hurley, Harrison, and to a lesser extent Gabbard and Mendoza fighting for that last spot.

Say we sign Garland. Then that fills the rotation out.

If we sign two FA pitchers and don’t lose Millwood or Padilla then that pushes McCarthy back to the minors.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 10:44 AM CDT up 0 recs

I wouldn't count on signing 2 FA pitchers

I just don’t see the guys available who will be obvious upgrades over Millwood, and I put Garland in that boat.

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

by DJCahill on Aug 27, 2008 11:05 AM CDT up 0 recs

Why do you want Garland?

Why not ride out the last year on Millwood’s deal, and then decide if you want to exercise the 2010 option (or see if it vests), rather than go give Jon Garland 5 years, $60-70 million?

Have you looked at Garland’s stats? He’s a low K guy who is defense dependent and has put up FIPs and xFIPs in the mid to high-4s the last several years. That translates to around a 5.00 ERA in TBIA.

You are basically replacing Millwood with the same sort of pitcher, but committing yourself to him longer than Millwood is committed to. And in 2010, everyone will be pitching about how overpaid Garland is, and can’t we give him away to someone.

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 27, 2008 12:12 PM CDT up 0 recs

Garland

I wouldn’t be bringing him in here expecting him toi be an “ace” or to front our rotation now or in the future. Millwood was coming off a year where he led the league in ERA and the expectations were that he could come in and do that here. At least that is what was pitched when he signed. he is miscast as an “ace”. Over the course of the next 4-5 years we look to have at least a couple young top of the rotation pitchers being ready within that timeframe.

One of the things a good rotation needs is stability. Guys you know are going to be able to take the ball every 5 days. We haven’t had that the last few years. Garland is that type of guy. And being only 29 he is still in the prime of his career for the next couple years. I would be ok if he had a 4.5-5 ERA if he gave us 32/33 starts a year and 200+ innings each year. Those type of pitchers will win 13-17 games a year with our offense.

I just like a Millwood type pitcher which Garland seems to be only younger and over the next several years when this club should be contending for titles thats the type of pitcher a staff needs. Its hard to have 5 flamethrowers who strike out one an inning.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 12:20 PM CDT up 0 recs

Millwood > Garland

Millwood
2004 – 7.7 K/G, 3.1 BB/G, 0.86 HR/G = 3.59 FIP
2005 – 7.0 K/G, 2.5 BB/G, 0.96 HR/G = 3.75 FIP
2006 – 6.7 K/G, 2.3 BB/G, 0.98 HR/G = 3.93 FIP
2007 – 6.0 K/G, 3.3 BB/G, 0.93 HR/G = 4.65 FIP
2008 – 6.0 K/G, 2.7 BB/G, 0.96 HR/G = 4.22 FIP

Garland
2004 – 4.8 K/G, 3.2 BB/G, 1.44 HR/G = 5.23 FIP
2005 – 4.9 K/G, 2.0 BB/G, 1.10 HR/G = 4.22 FIP
2006 – 4.8 K/G, 1.8 BB/G, 1.11 HR/G = 4.41 FIP
2007 – 4.3 K/G, 2.5 BB/G, 0.83 HR/G = 4.46 FIP
2008 – 3.9 K/G, 2.7 BB/G, 1.09 HR/G = 4.87 FIP

R

by Requiem on Aug 27, 2008 8:16 PM CDT up 0 recs

I think it would be cheaper and better

to upgrade our pitching by getting a real Shortstop then getting someone like Garland. You get a real SS, and move MY to 3B, and I think all our pitchers start looking better.

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

by DJCahill on Aug 28, 2008 4:10 AM CDT up 0 recs

$12-14 million per year...

…for 5 years for a 29 year old innings-eater who, you hope, will give you a league-average ERA doesn’t seem like a good plan.

I don’t see the value in paying that sort of money for a non-star.

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 28, 2008 4:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

Danks Deal

I like the idea. Also. Since Garland was the original player considered in the Danks deal, it would be nice to end up with B-Mac and Garland. Why not?

by 3Bagger on Aug 27, 2008 12:22 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'm willing to bet

that Garland will post significantly worse numbers than Millwood has if we sign him.

If he’s looking for another contract after the next one (which he might not be), he should sign with someone like Oakland or Tampa Bay (assuming they even go after him), basically somewhere that his FB rates won’t hurt him and where there’s a good defense behind him.

R

by Requiem on Aug 27, 2008 8:19 PM CDT up 0 recs

x

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fywzpAP9guo

by brettgardner on Aug 27, 2008 10:01 AM CDT 0 recs

Lowe is the guy to target

He may be getting up there in years, but he has started 32 games or more every year since 2002 and he has a G/F ratio of 3.29 for his career. I could see him having some Moyer or Rogers esque longevity in this league. He already has 16 quality starts on the year, including each of his last four starts, so he is not one to falter as the year wears on.

He is as good of a bet as any of the other second tier options, and would probably come the cheapest.

by clark on Aug 27, 2008 10:39 AM CDT 0 recs

Lowe

if you can get him on a one or two year deal I think he could be a good target but if you are signing 36 year olds to 4 year deals something is really wrong.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 10:46 AM CDT up 0 recs

i can't see him getting more than 3 yrs from any team

and i could actually see him being effective in this league for that long.

by clark on Aug 27, 2008 10:50 AM CDT up 0 recs

Unless they are team options...

I don’t think giving 3 year deals to 39 year olds is a smart baseball business move

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 10:57 AM CDT up 0 recs

36 year olds

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 10:57 AM CDT up 0 recs

things to consider

his WHIP is regularly in the 1.2-1.3 range. He eats innings (regularly hits 200) and he doesn’t walk many (38 in 175 innings this year). his WHIP and GB tendencies lead me to believe his effectiveness has less to do with LA stadium than most Dodgers pitchers.

And this is nitpicky, but he has a june birthday, so he will not turn 39 until the last half of the last year of the deal. I agree that the org should target the Sabathias of the world, but how often do we hit on those types?

I just can’t reiterate enough how much a consistent, healthy, groundball inducing pitcher would mean to this team. If he can come in and give us 3 years of Kenny Rogers for 8 or 9 million a year and perhaps act as a mentor to our young pitchers (who could all use help inducing ground balls), then i would take it.

by clark on Aug 27, 2008 11:04 AM CDT up 0 recs

I agree on all those aspects

I just don’t think its smart baseball sense to lock yourself into a 10+ million dollar a year obligation to a late 30s pitcher. If we can get it to a say 2 year guaranteed with a club option thats fine. But in 3 years we will have to start paying some of our young positional players and I really don’t want a 10+ million dollar contract to a 38/39 year old to cause us to lose a promising 20’s something player.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 11:08 AM CDT up 0 recs

Lowe's current deal

was a 4 year deal for 36 million, and he signed that at the age of 31. even with inflation, i find it unlikely for him to get more than 9m/yr on this deal.

by clark on Aug 27, 2008 11:24 AM CDT up 0 recs

I doubt he takes a pay cut

With his stats. He made 10 mil this year as part of that deal. I think thats what his next deal will start as.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up 0 recs

it depends on how the market shakes out

will he be the silva or the lohse? there are a number of quality pitchers on the market this winter, even beyond sabathia and sheets, so Lowe will certainly get paid, but he will be far from the belle of the ball.

by clark on Aug 27, 2008 11:39 AM CDT up 0 recs

Exactly

CC is obviously the top dog. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 per.

Sheets will probably go for 15-17 per.

If Burnett opts out he is right there with Sheets I think.

Then there is the gaggle of Garland, Perez and Lowe who all should get 10-12 per. I think because of Lowes age he would be at the low end of that spectrum.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Aug 27, 2008 11:45 AM CDT up 0 recs

i could see perez

getting up to 14 per year. not saying he deserves it but he is so young still and has shown flashes of such brilliance that i could see a team throwing the bank at him.

by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Aug 27, 2008 1:13 PM CDT up 0 recs

Still don't know

where you’re getting these numbers.

Why would Lowe not go for a pay cut, while Garland will?

Lowe – $10 M
Garland – $12 M

Lowe will likely go a couple of million less than Garland, whatever they each get.

They are NOT in the same range.

R

by Requiem on Aug 27, 2008 8:22 PM CDT up 0 recs

He'll make far more than 9mm

Baseball is flush with cash and a lot of the big teams have significant money coming off the books.

This off season is gonna be crazy huge in terms of the dollars thrown around.

A lot of people are gonna be shocked by the contracts guys like Lowe and Oliver Perez end up getting.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Aug 27, 2008 4:00 PM CDT up 0 recs

Or Garland

by Requiem on Aug 27, 2008 8:23 PM CDT up 0 recs

I question

whether getting a groundball pitcher is the way to go. When the infield was Blalock, Arod, Young, and Teixeira, I understood it.

Now, I really don’t see the point to getting groundball pitchers, as bad as our current IF defense is.

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

by DJCahill on Aug 27, 2008 11:06 AM CDT up 0 recs

So

A flyball pitcher, then? I’m not sure why that’s better. Defense or not, it would seem likely that groundballs are much less likely to turn into runs than flyballs. More strikeouts don’t obviate that.

by brettgardner on Aug 27, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up 0 recs

If we have a relatively fast defense

why not FBs? Not all FBs are HRs.

I just think with a bad IF defense, you are better off looking at things like K rates, HR rates, BB rates, ERA, etc, than GB/FB ratios.

GBs that are outs for some teams become singles here.

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

by DJCahill on Aug 27, 2008 12:28 PM CDT up 0 recs

Well if you're speculating that far in advance

Our defense could very well be complete with the arrival of Borbon and Andrus.

I don’t think GB or FB pitchers would matter much at that point.

"I’ll say something that doesn’t need context: anyone who is a Mariner’s fan is a douchebag." - FuturePants

by Chase Irwin on Aug 27, 2008 1:14 PM CDT up 0 recs

GB vs. FB

At least if it gets by the defense it’s likely a single instead of an extra base hit. Improving the defense without suddenly trading and signing a whole bunch of people is going to take time. Years.

O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.

by t ball on Aug 27, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up 0 recs

I think we have a better chance

of seeing a plus defensive OF before we see a plus defensive IF. We are locked into some pretty bad defensive IFs up the middle.

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

by DJCahill on Aug 27, 2008 12:29 PM CDT up 0 recs

I question even more

whether getting ANY non-strikeout pitcher is the way to go.

Fly-ball pitchers still allow groundballs.

AND they allow more flyballs at TBiA

Whatever it is, our defense sucks (28th in the majors).

R

by Requiem on Aug 27, 2008 8:25 PM CDT up 0 recs

Yep

I think that is a huge part of our current pitching problems. Tough having to get 4 outs an inning, when the other pitcher only has to get 3

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

by DJCahill on Aug 28, 2008 4:12 AM CDT up 0 recs

trade his ass

we are playing for 2010, not 2009, and if Millwood is in the rotation in 2010, I’ll be one sad panda. Same for Padilla.

Throw as many guys as possible into the rotation to see who sticks as viable options for 2010 (Harrison, Hunter, Hurley, Mendoza, Feldman, McCarthy and even Feliz/Holland later in the year).

Kevin Millwood is the Sammy Sosa of last year.

Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball

by willamos2 on Aug 27, 2008 10:39 AM CDT 0 recs

except we had guys who could step in for Sammy

by clark on Aug 27, 2008 10:41 AM CDT up 0 recs

Millwood or Padilla

I would trade one of these guys if they can dump them without picking up any of their contracts. I’m sorry, but $23 million is too much to pay for a pair of pitchers who struggle to keep their ERA’s under 5.

by jcir454 on Aug 27, 2008 12:08 PM CDT 0 recs

$23 Million

is a lot. I agree, I’d do it too. However, it might turn us into the Pirates, and not many free agents want to go to the Pirates.

by 3Bagger on Aug 27, 2008 12:24 PM CDT up 0 recs

Unfortunately,

I can’t imagine anyone else wants to pay $23 million for them. I suspect you will be eating $10 million or so of that, and once you do that, you might as well keep them.

Especially since a lot of the names mentioned, like Garland, might not be any better.

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

by DJCahill on Aug 27, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up 0 recs

If a team would take on all of his salary I'd deal him for a Humburger type right freaking now

Padzilla, too.

Getting their contracts off the books allows us the flexibility to sign actual good pitchers for next season, which would be nice. Not that we would end up actually signing those good pitchers, but it’d be cool if we at least had a legit shot at snagging Sheets and Lowe or something.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Aug 27, 2008 4:03 PM CDT 0 recs

Lowe?

I thought you said good pitchers……

Aikman and Bradshaw?

Please. They are in the same league as Trent Dilfer and Jim McMahon as QBs who were taken to the SB by great Defenses and great Running Games.
-DJCahill

by SarasotaRanger on Aug 27, 2008 10:03 PM CDT up 0 recs

What's wrong

with Lowe? As long as you don’t sign him for too many years he’d be an asset and a clear notch above anyone else currently on the Rangers’ staff.

O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.

by t ball on Aug 27, 2008 11:15 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'd deal him...

but it would require a team taking all his salary and getting at least a couple decent prospects in return. Knowing that isn’t likely, I’m sure the Rangers will end up keeping him. JD won’t give him away for nothing imo.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Aug 27, 2008 5:12 PM CDT 0 recs