Brewers in front with Nationals for Carl Pavano?

[PrinceEatMeat]

miggs721]Trade Cain for Beachy and get it over with!!!!

Sorry, but I'd rather not have to watch Gomez and Dickerson man center field. Beachy isn't enough for me. Only way I'd trade Cain is as part of a package for an elite starting pitcher.

[chadomac]

Yeah, if Beachy isn't a for-sure starter, might as well hang onto Cain. Giving up a possible starting CF for a reliever doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[dadofandrew]

Beachy has had about as much success as his levels allow. I'd say Cain is more than fair for MIL. I doubt ATL wants to let Beachy or Minor go for just Lo.

[Hate those Rodents]

I have a feeling brewer fans are going to regret their position to turn down Beachy (even at the cost of LoCain) within the next two years.

[Invader3K]

Do we even know if Beachy has been offered? This is all a bit presumptuous.

[WisconsinSportsRule]

Really glad to see us stick to 2 years. I'd be willing to go a little higher for those 2 years say 23-25 million, instead of 3 for 30.

[PrinceEatMeat]

Really glad to see us stick to 2 years. I'd be willing to go a little higher for those 2 years say 23-25 million, instead of 3 for 30.

I would be furious with a 3-year deal, extremely mad about a 2-year deal, and upset but ok with a 1-year deal. Giving him 25 million for 2 years would be absurd.

[Beast Light]

Not to start an argument, but my original response was made to the comment "Even if he regresses a bit, the move the NL should help his numbers".

 

If he regresses, he regresses. Playing in the NL will not allow him to overcome his regression and make him equally productive in terms of giving his team the same chance to win as when he played in the AL. Therefore, we can't use him switching to the NL as a risk mitigating factor as it pertains to a potential contract.

Your original response and subsequent responses also talked about wins quite a bit - which are pretty meaningless when it comes to pitchers and had nothing to do with my original post.

 

I was talking about wins in the context of the chance he gives his team to win. Not in the context of Braden Looper being showered with run support and winning 14 games. It basically comes down to "x - y = the teams chance to win". x = run support, y = the pitcher's runs given up. All I'm getting at is that his numbers can improve by him coming to the NL but since this natural improvement doesn't really add to his teams bottom line, how is it even applicable to his abilities regressing and how much he is worth contract wise? The logic would be similar to getting a raise at work to account for inflation and then going on a spending spree because you think you now have more money.

Not to be an ass, but again - if he regresses slightly, playing in the NL should offset that and he should be able to put up similar numbers as to what he did last year (assuming he stays healthy of course). If he can put those numbers up or anything even remotely close, that is an absolute huge upgrade for the #4 spot in the rotation.

 

Just because he is replacing a person who had no business pitching in a Major League rotation, it doesn't increase his value or what he should be offered in terms of a contract. The guy he is replacing and his fair market value are not connected.

A #4 pitcher with an era in the high 3's/low 4's? Yes, please.

 

I also never said the move to the NL is something that should factor into offering him a contract - was just pointing it out that the move to the NL should help his numbers slightly and should offset any regression due to age (unless he completely hits a wall of course) - It should give us an idea of what to expect from him in 2011, simple as that....... I think your reading far too much into it.

 

What should factor into offering him a contract - and ultimately the only thing - is his performance over the last few seasons and nothing else.

 

I have to completely disagree with this logic. Age, career performance, and injury history are risk factors that should absolutely be considered when offering him a contract. Its just the way the world works and the reason that a male insurance premiums change when they reach certain ages.

[WisconsinSportsRule]

Really glad to see us stick to 2 years. I'd be willing to go a little higher for those 2 years say 23-25 million, instead of 3 for 30.

I would be furious with a 3-year deal, extremely mad about a 2-year deal, and upset but ok with a 1-year deal. Giving him 25 million for 2 years would be absurd.

Well, you're not going to sign him for 1 year so throw that out the window.

[TheCrew]

All I'm getting at is that his numbers can improve by him coming to the NL but since this natural improvement doesn't really add to his teams bottom line, how is it even applicable to his abilities regressing and how much he is worth contract wise? The logic would be similar to getting a raise at work to account for inflation and then going on a spending spree because you think you now have more money.

That "logic" really makes no sense at all. The point of the original post was to give us an idea of what type of numbers we could expect from pavano - simple as that!!! I'm not saying pavano is going to win more games in the NL, I'm not saying he is going to give his team any better chance to win games than what he did for the twins last year - everyone else seems to understand what I am saying, but you seem intent on arguing it - it's simply an idea of what we can expect from him numbers wise next season.

 

Adding to that: Since those numbers are a drastic improvement over what was here previously as a #3/#4 pitcher, it does improve the teams bottom line and chance to win.

 

Yes, injury history, age and everything else should factor into a contract - those things should factor into the length, but I digress - performance is the ultimate deciding factor in determining if he is worth the risk. Pavano has performed well over the past 2 seasons and is worth the risk of a short term contract imo.

 

Not gonna bother with the rest, agree to disagree.

 

On another note, Melvin clearly has learned something since he has drawn the line in the sand at 2 years.

[PrinceEatMeat]

Really glad to see us stick to 2 years. I'd be willing to go a little higher for those 2 years say 23-25 million, instead of 3 for 30.

I would be furious with a 3-year deal, extremely mad about a 2-year deal, and upset but ok with a 1-year deal. Giving him 25 million for 2 years would be absurd.

Well, you're not going to sign him for 1 year so throw that out the window.

Can't sign him for 2 years either. Therefore we won't get him, which makes me very, very happy.

[Beast Light]

All I'm getting at is that his numbers can improve by him coming to the NL but since this natural improvement doesn't really add to his teams bottom line, how is it even applicable to his abilities regressing and how much he is worth contract wise? The logic would be similar to getting a raise at work to account for inflation and then going on a spending spree because you think you now have more money.

That "logic" really makes no sense at all. The point of the original post was to give us an idea of what type of numbers we could expect from pavano - simple as that!!! I'm not saying pavano is going to win more games in the NL, I'm not saying he is going to give his team any better chance to win games than what he did for the twins last year - everyone else seems to understand what I am saying, but you seem intent on arguing it - it's simply an idea of what we can expect from him numbers wise next season.

Adding to that: Since those numbers are a drastic improvement over what was here previously as a #3/#4 pitcher, it does improve the teams bottom line and chance to win.

 

Yes, injury history, age and everything else should factor into a contract - those things should factor into the length, but I digress - performance is the ultimate deciding factor in determining if he is worth the risk. Pavano has performed well over the past 2 seasons and is worth the risk of a short term contract imo.

 

Not gonna bother with the rest, agree to disagree.

 

On another note, Melvin clearly has learned something since he has drawn the line in the sand at 2 years.

You are not getting the point at all and I don't know if I can explain this any other way. We are talking about Pavano's value and Pavano's value alone. All things held constant, say his AL ERA is 4.00 and his corresponding ERA in the NL would be 3.50. This "natural improvement" in his ERA of 0.50 from changing leagues does not benefit the Brewers and they should not pay for it. This is a natural occurance and everyone that pitches in the NL is of benefit for it so it has no impact on Pavano's worth. This is a very different concept from his NL ERA of 3.50 replacing the 2009's #4 pitcher's ERA of 5.25 (or whatever it was). Of course the Brewers would benefit from that.

 

In my opinion, your orignal post implied that even if his ability regresses a bit, playing in the NL would improve his numbers and this logic was used as a risk mitigating factor to the contract that you were discussing. What else does this mean?

2 year deal for $22 million or less with a mutual option on the 3rd

year and I'd be extremely happy - I think some people need to let the

Suppan thing go, Pavano is a much better pitcher than Suppan ever was.

Even if he regresses a bit, the move the NL should help his numbers.

If you pay him based on where he's at now and he regresses, you get the short end of the stick regardless as to whether or not the move to the NL hides the regression in his stats. We're all Brewer fans and want to see our team win. The horse is dead so I will not kick it any more.

 

I will agree that Melvin must have learned something and am very glad to see him at least drawing a line at 2 years. This is encouraging.

[sbrylski]

Beast...

 

If Pitcher X had a 4.50 ERA in the American League. Pitcher Y had a 4.50 ERA in the National League. Which player would you pay more for?

[madtowndrunkard]

Carl Pavano has had two good years out of 12. Paying him big money is a huge mistake. I hope they don't overpay just to do "something."

This is exactly the POINT. Why on earth is Melvin considering this guy? There is NO way you can justify signing Pavano more then a 1 year deal. Look at his stats. Look at the past 5 years. He can't stay healthy. He's had THREE seasons over his 12 year career that he actually pitched over 200 innings. (last season being his 3rd!!!) The fact that Doug Melvin is even considering this guy for a 3 year deal is just another example that Melvin doesn't have a clue. Over the last 5 years his ERA hovered around 5.0......one season (during a contract year) he gets is below 4 and we want to give him a 3 year deal???? HUH? This IS EXACTLY like Melvin's love affair w/ Suppan after a good playoff run w/ St. Louis.

 

I am SOOOO sick of Doug Melvin wasting payroll on players like this. Just stop handing out millions to mediocre to BAD players like Counsel, Gagne, Suppan, Mota, Hall, Kendall, Davis, Hawkins, Graffy, Linebrink, Mench, etc etc etc. Take all of that $ and just sign ONE legit stud player that has proven him self.

[madtowndrunkard]

Beast...

 

If Pitcher X had a 4.50 ERA in the American League. Pitcher Y had a 4.50 ERA in the National League. Which player would you pay more for?

The past 5 years have shown the Carl Pavano is a 5.0 ERA kind of pitcher. So yes, hes Jeff Suppan 2.0 1 fluke sub 4era season does not make him a good signing. Just like Bill Hall was a horrible signing. Just like Suppan was a horrible signing. Pavano REEKS of a horrible signing. I wouldn't sign a pitcher w/ a 5.0 ERA from either league.

[endaround]

The past 5 years showed that when Pavano is healthy he's a good pitcher. Heck the past 8 years show that. People are getting way too hung up about his ERA in 2009.

[dlk9s]

one season (during a contract year) he gets is below 4 and we want to give him a 3 year deal???? HUH? This IS EXACTLY like Melvin's love affair w/ Suppan after a good playoff run w/ St. Louis.

 

I am SOOOO sick of Doug Melvin wasting payroll on players like this. Just stop handing out millions to mediocre to BAD players like Counsel, Gagne, Suppan, Mota, Hall, Kendall, Davis, Hawkins, Graffy, Linebrink, Mench, etc etc etc. Take all of that $ and just sign ONE legit stud player that has proven him self.

a) If anybody here wants to give Pavano a 3-year deal, they are in an extreme minority. Doug Melvin doesn't want to give him a 3-year deal. Perhaps you should have read this thread better.

 

b) Some of those players you listed are decent guys to round out a roster. One, Hawkins, is actually quite good and had a healthy track record until 2010. Several of them were not signed as free agents and only two, Suppan and Hall, were given silly contracts (I'm not counting Gagne because it was a one-year deal, plus he actually pitched pretty well the second half of the season). If you took all the salaries of the bench players, middle relievers, and end of rotation starters and invested them all in one star, how would you field the rest of the roster?

[Invader3K]

Why can't Doug Melvin just get every other GM to trade him great starting pitchers for mediocre prospects, and force top tier free agents to sign here for less money than we can afford? Fire Doug Melvin already, Mark.

[paulmolitor4]

I have to admit, I'm not thrilled with the idea of signing Carl Pavano, but comparisons to Suppan or Looper are ridiculous. Plain and simple he is and has been a better pitcher than both of them. If they can sign him to a 2-year deal, I can live with that. That might be Melvin's best option right now, because I'm definitely not on board with the "crazies" that want to give up the farm for Greinke. I'll take Pavano as a free agent any day before I take Greinke for Cain, Odorizzi, Rogers and Jeffress.

[Invader3K]

I agree that a two year deal would be livable. It doesn't seem like there is much going on with the trade market, and I would rather sign Pavano than overpay on a risky "injury guy" like some have been suggesting.

 

That said, I'm guessing Pavano ends up re-signing with Minnesota at this point.

[NievesNoNO]

paulmolitor4[/b]]I have to admit, I'm not thrilled with the idea of signing Carl Pavano, but comparisons to Suppan or Looper are ridiculous. Plain and simple he is and has been a better pitcher than both of them. If they can sign him to a 2-year deal, I can live with that. That might be Melvin's best option right now, because I'm definitely not on board with the "crazies" that want to give up the farm for Greinke. I'll take Pavano as a free agent any day before I take Greinke for Cain, Odorizzi, Rogers and Jeffress.

Plain and simple, before coming to Milwaukee Suppan was consistantly an above average pitcher. He hit the wall in Milwaukee and his career regressed quickly. I think the comparisons to Suppan are fair, in fact I would say that Suppan was clearly a better pitcher when he came to Milwaukee. The contract obviously wasn't a good deal. Yes, Pavano is better than Looper. Most of Looper's success was as a reliever prior to Milwaukee. I wouldn't consider the Looper deal to much of a hinderance though. If they can get Pavano for two years I think it's OK. I agree, if that's the cost to get Greinke it's way too high for the Brewers to pay.

 

 

[dlk9s]

Two off-topic thoughts:

 

a) I always thought it was funny to see shots of certain scoreboards (I think the left field wall one in Miller Park fit the bill) when Braden Looper was pitching to see "B Looper."

 

b) NievesNoNO - your screen name might become epic this season if Wil Nieves makes the team and he's behind the dish for a no-hitter.

[endaround]

paulmolitor4[/b]]I have to admit, I'm not thrilled with the idea of signing Carl Pavano, but comparisons to Suppan or Looper are ridiculous. Plain and simple he is and has been a better pitcher than both of them. If they can sign him to a 2-year deal, I can live with that. That might be Melvin's best option right now, because I'm definitely not on board with the "crazies" that want to give up the farm for Greinke. I'll take Pavano as a free agent any day before I take Greinke for Cain, Odorizzi, Rogers and Jeffress.

Plain and simple, before coming to Milwaukee Suppan was consistantly an above average pitcher. He hit the wall in Milwaukee and his career regressed quickly. I think the comparisons to Suppan are fair, in fact I would say that Suppan was clearly a better pitcher when he came to Milwaukee. The contract obviously wasn't a good deal. Yes, Pavano is better than Looper. Most of Looper's success was as a reliever prior to Milwaukee. I wouldn't consider the Looper deal to much of a hinderance though. If they can get Pavano for two years I think it's OK. I agree, if that's the cost to get Greinke it's way too high for the Brewers to pay.

 

Suppan was consistently a below average pitcher before coming to Milwaukee whose ERA looked OK due to a really good St Louis defense. His FIP the 3 years with the Cardinals were 4.77, 4.53, 4.70. He actually pitched well (for him) his first year in Milwaukee (FIP of 4.42) Pavano's FIP the last two seasons were 4.00 and 4.02.

[trwi7]

b) NievesNoNO - your screen name might become epic this season if Wil Nieves makes the team and he's behind the dish for a no-hitter.

Doesn't even need to be a no-hitter. I bet a lot of people will be screaming Nieves NO! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When they see his name in the lineup.

 

[Invader3K]

Endaround brings up a valid point about Suppan. The Brewers actually got decent value for him the first couple seasons of his contract. It was the last two years (combined with the final option year buyout) that made it a terrible deal.