Hot stove heater

mark1 · January 7th, 2003, 01:20 AM

http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove2...mondbacks.html

Derek in Tucson · January 7th, 2003, 01:27 AM

That writer must read this board. It was Stottlemyre's failure that directly prevented the team from having a solid #3 man in the rotation, and not the contracts of Williams and Bell. But at least the writer was correct in that Colangelo should be blamed for the excessive contracts given to Bell and Williams. Most people around here blame the players.

Smolder · January 7th, 2003, 03:23 AM

he's right on about everything. everybody who keeps asking whats with the "fudd," read this article right here. summarizes everthing that needs to be said.

the only way i see us making a real run at the world series is if, as the author said, patterson goes on a rampage, otherwise, things are awfully iffy...

schillingfan · January 7th, 2003, 03:56 AM

Well, I found it somewhat annoying that he keeps mentioning age, without mentioning that the D-Backs have two player who will essentially be rookies in Overbay and Patterson and have gotten younger at catcher as well. He also failed to mention the factor of the injuries to Danny B and Counsell as well.

D-Backs will definitely have two rookies (Patterson and Overbay) and three guys who will be 2nd year (Spivey, Moeller, Koplove) and the last bullpen guy will be either Prinz or a rookie. So they are mixing in some significant youth, which people seem to ignore.

Dback Jon · January 7th, 2003, 06:27 AM

Typical prospectus blather - nothing new.

I have to disagree with him on a few things.

1) Bell/Williams: Yes, they were/are expensive, but that was the price to bring respectibility to the franchise immediately.
Bottom Line: No Bell/Williams, no World Series.
Would you prefer we have Tampa's owner?

2) San Francisco - he talks about SF's additions, while failing to mention all the bonehead signings (Neifi Perez) and trades that Sabean has made. IMHO, SF is weaker at this point than last year.

DWKB · January 7th, 2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by schillingfan
Well, I found it somewhat annoying that he keeps mentioning age, without mentioning that the D-Backs have two player who will essentially be rookies in Overbay and Patterson and have gotten younger at catcher as well. He also failed to mention the factor of the injuries to Danny B and Counsell as well.

D-Backs will definitely have two rookies (Patterson and Overbay) and three guys who will be 2nd year (Spivey, Moeller, Koplove) and the last bullpen guy will be either Prinz or a rookie. So they are mixing in some significant youth, which people seem to ignore.

He doesn't ignore it, he points it out that where we're good we're old, and where we're young, were not so good. There is a qualification. Just throwing out some rookies doesn't constitute getting younger and better. Most of these guys aren't even young.

Overbay ( career 12 ML AB ) is the same age as:

Carlos Beltran, Eric Chavez, Andruw Jones, A.J. Burnett, Ryan Dempster, Roy Halladay, Mark Mulder, Roy Oswalt, and Kerry Wood.

Spivey I've already done

Moeller is the same age as Spivey.

Patterson has a chance to contribute and be successful ( which is pointed out )

And Koplove is a potential closer ( like we need another one ), but again is older than Overbay.

We don't have any significant position players comming in. This means we're going to have to go out and sign more FA talent which is what Huckabay points out. It's a circular problem that worrites me.

DWKB · January 7th, 2003, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Typical prospectus blather - nothing new.

I have to disagree with him on a few things.

1) Bell/Williams: Yes, they were/are expensive, but that was the price to bring respectibility to the franchise immediately.
Bottom Line: No Bell/Williams, no World Series.
Would you prefer we have Tampa's owner?

2) San Francisco - he talks about SF's additions, while failing to mention all the bonehead signings (Neifi Perez) and trades that Sabean has made. IMHO, SF is weaker at this point than last year.

So...because he happens to also work for BP it means his opinion of our team is crap? That makes little sense.

Saying Bell and Williams gave us "respectibility" kinda sidetracks the situation that we overpaid for their services. Did we have to have Williams or Bell? No. Did we have to pay both of them so much money? For Bell I think not at all. For Williams we had a choice of more moeny or no-trade clause. JC chose the one he thought he could live with most. Possibly the first in a long line of questionable financiall decisions.

SF is bound to take a fall just by the regression of Bonds, but around him they are at least as good as they were last year. Trading Kent and Lofton for Alfonzo and Durham is a push and possibly comming out better depending on Kents decline in 03.

Derek in Tucson · January 7th, 2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Trading Kent and Lofton for Alfonzo and Durham is a push and possibly comming out better depending on Kents decline in 03.

But when you factor in the swap of Grissom for Sanders, the Giants probably don't have the possibility of coming out better offensively. Swapping Moss for Ortiz can probably be made up by their starting pitching talent at Fresno with Ainsworth, Foppert, and Williams being top of the line starting pitching prospects.

Agree with just about everything you said about Bell and Williams, however when the team won the World Series all bad financial decisions were forgiven by me, but then it was the first time I saw the team I root for win a World Series after over 30 years of being a fan.

Ryanwb · January 7th, 2003, 12:26 PM

Did something about Durazo's personality prevent the D'backs from getting more in return for him? I am still urked that we couldn't land more talent or atleast a higher quality pitcher for him. Atlanta would have probably given up Millwood and more for him because of their 1B problems...hell they signed Fick to fill the postion this week

Derek in Tucson · January 7th, 2003, 12:43 PM

Durazo's injury history had more to do with his lack of trade value than anything else. Durazo was also traded before Schuerholz's panic move dumping of Millwood. The Braves weren't looking to trade Millwood until after Maddux agreed to arbitration.

DWKB · January 7th, 2003, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
Durazo's injury history had more to do with his lack of trade value than anything else. Durazo was also traded before Schuerholz's panic move dumping of Millwood. The Braves weren't looking to trade Millwood until after Maddux agreed to arbitration.

With the way Beane was covetting Durazo, I don't think there was any hesitation. We gave Beane a list of SPs we'd take and he worked from there. Take that for what it's worth but Dessens is who Joe Jr wanted.

Derek in Tucson · January 7th, 2003, 01:42 PM

So if Millwood would have been available at the time, you don't think Joe Jr would have traded Durazo for Millwood? I find it hard to believe that the DBacks wouldn't have tried to jump on this what with the Braves situation at 1B, but would have instead dealt for Dessens. And that's even with Millwood's expected 8-10 million arbitration award. Given that the Larry Walker failed trade would've added payroll to the team, I don't think the DBacks would've been gun shy with Millwood.

DWKB · January 7th, 2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
So if Millwood would have been available at the time, you don't think Joe Jr would have traded Durazo for Millwood? I find it hard to believe that the DBacks wouldn't have tried to jump on this what with the Braves situation at 1B, but would have instead dealt for Dessens. And that's even with Millwood's expected 8-10 million arbitration award. Given that the Larry Walker failed trade would've added payroll to the team, I don't think the DBacks would've been gun shy with Millwood.

I honestly don't know if they would have gone after Millwood. It's near impossible to speculate the org's motivations between the lack of information the teams release and that most of that is PR anyways. Supposedly we could have had Moss, he was available as he went to SF but for whatever reason we didn't get him. When we did snag Dessens he came with $1M and even at his possible $3+M arb salary for '03 he's a lot cheaper than Millwood. We know Walker was asked to defer salary for whatever reason and didn't want to. Would Millwood feel the same way?

Derek in Tucson · January 7th, 2003, 03:02 PM

Well I don't know if the DBacks would've been tempted to sign Millwood to a longterm deal, but I don't think they would've balked at a 1 year rental of Millwood.

Moss I'm not that big on. His 111:89 strikeout to walk ratio sends up warning flags. Although he seemingly got his control in check with Richmond in 2001, he really didn't have that much command in 2000 at the same level when he had a 123:106 K to walk ratio. You're a big DIPS fan, right? How does Moss shake out with that analysis?

DWKB · January 7th, 2003, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
Well I don't know if the DBacks would've been tempted to sign Millwood to a longterm deal, but I don't think they would've balked at a 1 year rental of Millwood.

Moss I'm not that big on. His 111:89 strikeout to walk ratio sends up warning flags. Although he seemingly got his control in check with Richmond in 2001, he really didn't have that much command in 2000 at the same level when he had a 123:106 K to walk ratio. You're a big DIPS fan, right? How does Moss shake out with that analysis?

I'm bigger on Moss than I am Dessens because Moss is much younger and cheaper than Dessens. Moss's DIPS ERA was 5.16(!) last year as he had the benifit of ATL good defense ( a .234 BABIP ). Yes the K:BB of 1.25 is pretty pathetic as is his K/9IP 5.58 ( but not as bad as Dessens ) It seems almost every time Moss jumped a level his BB rate skyrocketed but then came back down a bit. In 2001 he had a 2.47 K:BB in 89 IP but then the BBs came back when he reached ATL.