[ESPN] Rangers grab Millwood, Purpura/McLane sit on sidelines

Ummm, why?

 

The Great Satan just hosed the Rangers again. I predict in 2 years this guy will be mentioned in the same breath as Chan Ho Park. They shelled out 5 years at $60 million for this guy who has a tendency to be hurt all the time and is a fly ball pitcher which, in Ameriquest Field, is the literal kiss of death. I honestly don't blame the Astros for passing on this guy. I also suspect that they are looking to bring up a pitcher from within the organization.

 

Nope. The talking heads on the radio up here are pleading for Tom Hicks to pay whatever it takes to sign Clemens. With their offensive lineup, he could actually make them into a legitimate World Series contender IF he still has something left in the tank. As for the Astros, they are in a bind because of the Bagwell situation. I think it's his money that's the real problem here.

 

are you serious? i guess it's only a conciedience(sp) NL pitchers era jumps an average of 1.5 when they switch to the AL. The lineups are deeper, more power, and the DH. Look at Pettitte's era with NY compared to the Astros. And Clemens, and Pedro. They all went down. Look at Pavano's, Clement's, Wright's, Schilling's, Johnson's, they all went up. NL=Pitching and Defense. AL=Slugfest, (just like the video game)

But leading era in both leagues is very tough, but you can't deny the AL doesn't have better lineups.

 

I too would like to know the answer to this...

I can't believe we have to compare Pettitte and Milwood. But since we are, Pettitte has always been a consistent winner- attribute it to his time with the Yankees, but pitching with a lead is different. Pettitte always just won.

Milwood has three 15 win seasons to his name. Pettitte has seven.

Both Milwood and Pettitte were 31 when they signed their deals. We got Pettitte for $10 mill per for 3 years; Milwood is signing for $12 mill per for 4 years, and the 5th year isn't a team option, but kicks in if he pitches a certain amount of innings.

gwayneco- By your numbers, Pettitte has been a better pitcher every year since 2000. Cool. This doesn't even account for "fit"- Milwood's a flyball pitcher. He's given up 10 less homeruns in 550 fewer innings than Pettitte, even though Pettitte spent 9 years facing DHs vs. 1 year for Milwood.

Even if you want to call Milwood Pettitte's equal (and he's not), the Rangers paid a significant price, $2 mill a year, and one, maybe two extra years in length, over and above what we paid Pettitte.

The only relevant point here, is should we have made Milwood an equal offer. That is the only thing that can be taken from the creation of this thread. And even in gwayneco's best justification, Milwood is "close" to Pettitte, who was acquired for a lesser amount, not better.

Rule -- Uh, yeah. No one's denying that. But all AL pitchers face the same lineups with the DH. That's why the NL leader had an ERA almost a full run lower. Certainly no one's denying that having a low ERA in the AL is more impressive, but leading the AL in ERA in a comparative sense is no more or less impressive than leading the NL in ERA.

 

Agreed, the impressiveness level is the same for both leagues. But Im a Yankee Fan and will always rep the AL over the NL. But I do watch the astros and keep informed with their moves.


The NL needs a DH, so they can get all juiced up as well and play homerun derby everygame, now thats what baseball is all about.

 

Leading a league in ERA has nothing to do with the other league's ERA. To lead the league in the AL, you're also only competing with AL pitchers who face the lineups. Leading the AL in ERA is no more difficult as leading the NL in ERA. It's not like Millwood led all of baseball in ERA.

In fact, it's actually easier to lead the league in the AL, as there are only 14 teams and thus about 10 fewer starting pitchers. In the AL, you have to be the best of 80 starting pitchers. In the NL, you have to be the best of 90 starting pitchers.

 

Ummm, DH

Perhaps a better statement would have been to say that having a low ERA in the AL is tougher than having one in the NL.

 

No way. They should get rid of the DH in the AL.

 

That I agree with. I was confused why it was easier to lead the NL in ERA than the AL!

 

Eric Byrnes anyone? He's a FA still and seems like the only team thinking about him is Pitt. Not sure if he would be the bat to get us over that hump but if the price is right, he may be worth a shot.

 

I just don't see us adding anyone like that unless they're willing to accept the fact that there's a chance they may not start. The Bagwell situation is really hurting us this offseason.

 

I was sort of thinking that too....bascially, unless the guy is a clear cut difference maker (i.e Manny), we aren't going to sign a guy who may or may not play.

 

Agreed. Ensberg is obviously a lock at 3rd, Biggio's going nowhere and neither is Ausmus. Other than Tejada, there aren't many clear cut upgrades at SS. If we have to pencil in Bagwell at first, our OF is tentatively Berkman, Willy T, and Lane.

Burke and Palmeiro are currently our 4th and 5th OFs. Bruntlett can play there too (and I think he'll fill in for Viz as a utility guy just fine), and my guess is Luke Scott's lefty power potential lands him a roster spot.

Guys like Juan Encarnacion and Rondell White probably aren't an upgrade over Lane, it's not worth signing them for 5 mill. With Encarnacion apparently insistent on RF he makes even less sense.

Byrnes isn't an upgrade over Lane (and heck, I doubt he's an upgrade over Burke). At least he's hard nosed enough that he could probably play all 3 OF slots, and I'm sure he'd love the Crawford Boxes, but ultimately, we're talking about a guy who's going to come off the bench. I'd rather get another Palmeiro type if that's all we're talking.

 

"Penciling in Bagwell at 1B" is all well and good on paper, but it's a pipe dream. My guess is that Bag's chances of playing a healthy, productive season for us is 20%. Other people might rate his chances higher or lower, but certainly nobody thinks that the odds are good for his return to being an everyday player. So in these "paper lineups" you're filling in, a guy like Byrnes (or whoever) would be on the bench, but the odds are very high that whatever guy you are considering picking up will be playing every day when the season actually begins.

And I'm not advocating for Eric Byrnes, he was subpar last season.

 

Doesn't matter if the chance is 10%. Guys aren't going to sign here if there's a possibility they'll be on the bench when they have other places where they are the clear-cut starter.

And Bagwell seems to think he has a very good shot at coming back:

http://houston.astros.mlb.com/NASAp...t_id=1286261&vkey=news_hou&fext=.jsp&c_id=hou

So if you're a player, and can get similar money here or elsewhere, why take the chance here?

 

I agree with what you're saying but then why go out and make a bonafide offer to Nomar? I can't imagine us spending that kind of money on a guy who may or may not play. The whole offseason makes no sense thus far. We are either going after a LF or we aren't. I can't imagine that we made a serious run at Nomar (if in fact we did) thinking that he may not play every day if Bags comes back. Nomar, while he would have certainly bolstered our lineup, is no Manny or Tejada...in fact, you could make the argument that given the fact he has never played OF, he isn't THAT much of a better option that Byrnes would be.....and it begs the question, why did we make a serious run at Nomar if there is a decent chance that Bags will play again? I am starting to think that Bags ISNT coming back and that the front office knows this.

 

I think that Nomar is probably ahead of White and Encarnacion. He can also play many other positions as well.

 

I agree.....but he wasn't coming here to play SS or 3B....wouldn't you agree? He was coming here to play LF....not to be another Vizcaino/utility guy....not for that kind of money.

 

I think the Dodgers were nuts for giving Nomar $6 mill guaranteed plus incentives. Granted, they seemed to be in the giving spirit this offseason.

The thing about Nomar would have been his versatility - even in a best case scenario where Bagwell is healthy, Nomar could play a role similar to Chone Figgins - not a defined starter anywhere, but he could probably play 1B, LF, SS, and 3B resting guys at various times. He may not be an everyday SS anymore, but he could certainly play there on occasion, which would have given us a very significant offensive upgrade over AE. With a Byrnes/White/Encarnacion type pickup, you're limited to resting corner outfielders or Bagwell (sliding Berkman to 1B).

Honestly, with what's left out there, I'd maybe make a run at Josh Fogg to fill out the back end of the rotation, and maybe take a flyer on BK Kim or Kurt Ainsworth or Danny Kolb as reclamation projects.