Looper contract incentives

[joepepsi]

The biggest weakness this season was a lack of rotation depth. For that reason alone you have to pick up Looper's option. If he declines, so be it, but they need to stockpile as many arms as easily and cheaply as possible. He's provided 11 quality starts and several of the 5ip/2-3 er, or 6ip/4er variety. No one's saying that's great, but it's better than the Burns/Villy crap we've been seeing.

 

If he accepts arbitration it doesn't mean you stop looking for pitching over the winter. Can't assume Parra will pitch well next year. Nor Bush or Suppan. So you have to give yourself better options than what Doug provided this season.

[kramnoj]

FIP for FA

 

Backe 5.91 (2008)

Batista 4.97; 6.97 in 2008

Bedard 3.14

Benson 7.71

Cabrera 6.35

Colon 5.64

Contreras 3.98

Davis 4.64

Duchscherer 3.75 (2008)

Eaton 5.22ish

Fogg 4.33 (was over 5 previous 2 years)

Garcia 5.49

Hampton 4.47

Harden 4.43

Hendrickson 4.71

Hernandez 4.67

Hudson 3.78

Jennings 4.62

Johnson 5.18

Lackey 3.87

Looper 5.84 (was under 5 previous seasons)

Marquis 4.02

Moehler 4.46

Myers 6.26

Padilla 4.93

park 3.4

Parrish 4.84

Pavano 4.37

Penny 4.58

 

And the list goes on, but I need to head to work.

 

If teams spending is going to remain curtailed, we could see a repeat of last year where several starters sign one year deals for $6-$8M. I would want to be confident of that before making the decision on Looper, but we could certainly see improvement from some of these pitchers.

[JonnyLungs]

Looper never had a very good K rate and his BB/9 and HR/9 have both got significantly worse this year. Couple that with the fact that he is going to be 35 years old next year and I'd definitely pass on him. And I definitely don't want to guarantee a rotation spot for Jeff Suppan, either. He's had health problems the past two years and will also be 35 years old next year.

 

We need to move on from these mediocre 35 year old pitchers that don't have very good control. Old pitchers with poor stuff decline and break down (minus those with impeccable control which Suppan obviously doesn't have). If you're going to look for a guy in the Suppan/Looper mold, I'd rather look at a younger guy similar to Ross Ohlendorf (not Ohlendorf himself but somebody similar). At least a 27 year old has some upside and less of a risk of decline.

 

If you're going to go into next season with largely the same rotation, depth will still be an issue. Instead of having guys like Mike Burns as your 6th guy, you'll have a different clown with a different name that still stinks. Depth was the problem with this year's rotation, but it wasn't the depth at the back end. It was the depth at the front end. It sure looks like depth at the back end was the problem but by virtue of having a weak front rotation, the back end got completely exposed.

[Diskono]

How is Burns below replacement? That's how he's performed so far this year. Sure, it's a small sample. But I would rather bet on Looper's 2010 than Burns, even with the salary difference.

I wouldn't. Their peripherals are fairly comparable - Looper's GB/FB and line drive percentages are a little better, but Burns has a significant edge in strikeouts. I don't think Burns is a huge improvement, but at the same time he's not nearly as bad as a lot of people make him out to be.

[CheezWizHed]

I see that Looper is considered a Type B FA for next year (so far), but how does that work with his option?

A) Accept the option and have Looper reject it?

B) A + offer arby and have Looper reject it?

C) Something else?

[dadofandrew]

You'd have to offer him arby to get a draft pick.

[Ennder]

Loopers xFIP has pretty much been stable for 5 years now, only difference this year is a few extra balls went over the fence and in his 'good' year a few less than normal did.

 

Burns is in the same general range with his ERA spiking because of LOB% which sometimes isn't just bad luck, hard to tell with so few innings.