Jmodene1 wrote: I don't think a player should be penalized, WAR-wise, for being injured; it's not like he got hurt on purpose.

But maybe that's why J.D. Drew refused so often to play hurt.

I agree 100%. I wonder what Waino WAR looks like over the full length in comparison to Lohse. Waino sat out his injury year while Lohse tried to pitch through it. Garcia may be a better comp to Lohse as far as WAR goes because they pitched partial time while hurt. Good point about Drew too. I could see it easily considering the same thing happened in Boston.

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

Jmodene1 wrote: I don't think a player should be penalized, WAR-wise, for being injured; it's not like he got hurt on purpose.

But maybe that's why J.D. Drew refused so often to play hurt.

I agree 100%. I wonder what Waino WAR looks like over the full length in comparison to Lohse. Waino sat out his injury year while Lohse tried to pitch through it. Garcia may be a better comp to Lohse as far as WAR goes because they pitched partial time while hurt. Good point about Drew too. I could see it easily considering the same thing happened in Boston.

Technically, they are not penalized for being hurt.  They are penalized for PLAYING while hurt IF they don't perform well.

The other side of that argument about excluding the injury stats is that if they don't perform well, they are hurting the team.  That should be a negative to their WAR.  It should not matter if they are 100% or 10%.  If they are on the field playing, they are doing something that can affect the team either positively or negatively.

BTW, no one ever gets hurt on purpose.  It is just part of the game.  It is a part that has to be factored into everyone's overall performance.

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

1)  RBi is contingent on who is on base in front of you but are not all stats affected by what has come before? Being this is a team game i think that is how it should be anyways.

2)  To me there will always be a problem trying to isolate a players stats w/o the rest of the team factoring in.

1)  Not all stats are affected by what has come before.  Batting average is comprised solely of the number of hits in comparison to the number of official at bats.  Sure, the number of hits may be affected by the positioning of defense while runners are on base but the overall stat doesn't consider that.

2)  What most saber stats try to do is determine what a player can do by himself.  It doesn't matter that a player hits a higher % of home runs at Wrigley Field if he is only playing 9 games a year there.  The GM has to put players on the field who will best fit their stadium and overall team.

The best players are the ones who do not NEED to rely on the rest of the team to get their stats.  Saber stas try to determine who those players are.

Lohse is probably the most underappreciated pitcher in a long time. In the three seasons he was healthy he pitched 599.1 innings and went 45-17. I have seen him described as one who doesn't miss bats and at the beginning of the 12 season there was a clamor to dump him and pick up Oswalt.

He is usually downplayed because of he doesn't seem to fare well with some of the more modern stats. While I believe some of the newer stats reflect the value of a player to the team more that the more traditional ones they may not work as well with Lohse. For example he doesn't do too well in two of the more critical elements in FIP; strikeouts and home runs.

Would I be nervous over a high dollar four year contract. Yes. Was 12 probably a career year for him. Also yes. But he gets results because he has developed as a pitcher with good control and change of speed. Hard to tell how much longer he will be effective because the command type pitchers often fade quickly.

I wish him well. I'm glad MLB didn't back off on Bourne for the Mets.

Before the 2011 season, there were a lot of posters on here who were saying that Lohse was terrible. He had just come off 2 injury plagued seasons. I was one of the few who was arguing that he was better than his numbers because he was hurt.

I am still saying he is a good pitcher. However, he is not an ace. He is very solid #2/#3. He should still be very good for another 2 years. After that, I expect a drop off.

I think almost everyone's argument against him is that he will have a reduction in effectiveness shortly and he is not worth a 4 year contract at an AAV over $10 million/season.

Would the Cardinals and Lohse agree to a 1 year deal worth 15 million so Lohse can prove that he wasn't a 1 year wonder with a gentleman's agreement that the Cardinals not offer him the 13.5 million so going into the next year of FA that that draft pick issue doesn't scare away potential long term suitors?

Not sure if Lohse is just looking for the contract or a good situation to pitch in for the rest of his career. I'm guessing that his goal right now is to wait it out and see if any contending team has a major pitching injury that causes them to have to sign Lohse going into the season.

I have read where its against the CBA to have it written into a deal that a team cannot make a qualifying offer... I dont know how true that is though...  Brad Penny had that in his 1 year deal in '10 with Cards..

The whole grip from Adam LaRoche the other day was pretty pathetic IMO.. 

Adam LaRoche says the new free agent compensation system has hurt players like him and is currently keeping Kyle Lohse from finding an acceptable deal, writes Dan Kolko of MASNSports.com (Twitter links). "It shows how important it is to get rid of that rule," LaRoche said to MLB.com's Bill Ladson. "I don't know if that was something the union granted, or they overlooked and didn't realize it could backfire the way it did, or if they were willing to take that risk. In talking with the union a little bit, I think they would love to take that back."

Why not recognize the fact that as a FA in his early to mid 30's who isnt not an elite player WILL not command a huge FA deal or justify the draft pick and pool money..  Instead act like a spoiled millionaire child..   LaRoche will make more in one year, then what all of us will make on this board has made in our lifetimes.. 

I can see a few similarities between LaRoche and Lohse. Washington is LaRoche's seventh MLB stop. He has been good but not great over his nine years in MLB, with 2012 having been his best season. Now age 33, he has never been an all-star.

One big difference is that LaRoche only had one deal as long as two years over his entire career, which is the one he just came off with the Nats. Instead, he had to re-prove himself each year.

Now, he got to return to his same club, receiving a deal that is either two years, $24 million or three years, $37 million if the 2015 option is picked up. That is a raise for him and represents pretty good money for a role player. I cannot understand what he is complaining about.

Domeboys wrote: I can see a few similarities between LaRoche and Lohse. Washington is LaRoche's seventh MLB stop. He has been good but not great over his nine years in MLB, with 2012 having been his best season. Now age 33, he has never been an all-star.

One big difference is that LaRoche only had one deal as long as two years over his entire career, which is the one he just came off with the Nats. Instead, he had to re-prove himself each year.

Now, he got to return to his same club, receiving a deal that is either two years, $24 million or three years, $37 million if the 2015 option is picked up. That is a raise for him and represents pretty good money for a role player. I cannot understand what he is complaining about.

Laroche hit .271 with 33 Hr and 100 Rbi, his OPS was .853. Oh yeah and he nis easily one of the best fielding first basemen in either league. This is a role player? I thought he was Washingtons team leader last year but i am sure many will say it was Bryce Harper . There seems to be an effort underway to [paint a few remaining free agents as scrubs. Oh i am sorry "role players" and "mediocre # 3 or #4 starters. I realize neither has a long history of success but neither do Edwin Jackson or Nick Swisher, two inferior players at this point in their careers.

Agree with you that calling Laroche a "role player" is not accurate - they may have been thinking of his brother Andy.

Adam has had some pretty good seasons, but he's also bounced around a lot - so a better definition of him might be "solid journeyman who's finally achieving some career stability and success".

What we're talking about here, of course, is perception - Laroche came up in 2004 and didn't exactly set the world on fire, and has been underrated and shuffled about from team to team ever since; i.e., Pittsburgh, Boston and Atlanta in 2009, Arizona in 2010, and Washington the last two seasons (2011 being an injury season).

Allan Craig seems to be in this category as well, although at least he hasn't been shuffled about - but MLB Network's show about first basemen not withstanding, there seems to be a reluctance to admit he's become one of our best players.

I would not suggest over-analyzing labels. My quick take was simply a three-tier: star vs. role player vs. reserve. I suppose you could call them solid major leaguers or something else.

LaRoche and Lohse are in the middle category, whatever you want to call it, IMO. Both guys had career seasons last year at age 33/32.

Domeboys wrote: I would not suggest over-analyzing labels. My quick take was simply a three-tier: star vs. role player vs. reserve. I suppose you could call them solid major leaguers or something else.

LaRoche and Lohse are in the middle category, whatever you want to call it, IMO. Both guys had career seasons last year at age 33/32.

I would agree that neither are big stars but in that category below it of solid  veterans. Teams need these guys IMO and the fact that they are trending up at 32 or 33 is a good thing. I would rather have a guy that took awhile and is playing his best ball as opposed to a former star player that is trending down at the same age. I get what you guys are saying about the length and terms though. These guys may be the first in a new trend. I just don't know though when i see some of the stupid money given to marginal players this off season.

scadder21 wrote: Would the Cardinals and Lohse agree to a 1 year deal worth 15 million so Lohse can prove that he wasn't a 1 year wonder with a gentleman's agreement that the Cardinals not offer him the 13.5 million so going into the next year of FA that that draft pick issue doesn't scare away potential long term suitors?

Not sure if Lohse is just looking for the contract or a good situation to pitch in for the rest of his career. I'm guessing that his goal right now is to wait it out and see if any contending team has a major pitching injury that causes them to have to sign Lohse going into the season.

I think it would be a little crazy to offer him that at this point. Since we already offered him a $13.3M 1-year deal, I say $13.3M - $4.5M (value of a supplemental draft pick), or an $8.8M one-year deal would be fair.

He is the one that overestimated his market and since he will cost us the draft pick if indeed he is re-signing, it should come out of his salary. 

Further, I think that would be a great deal for us due to injury risk / age / regression / market.

I get your logic, Pads, but along that same line, some other club that would not lose their supplemental first-rounder should be willing to offer more than $8.8 million on a one-year deal. I don't think Boras is anywhere near that desperate yet, though. Remember that Bourn just got four years last week.

P.S. My big worry is that some people are going to go nuts if the rotation doesn't start throwing nine-inning shutouts with 27 strikeouts from the very first spring training game.

link

an excellent short article over at VEB talking about how it makes sense for several teams to sign lohse, but the cards are not one of them.

in essence, you don't grow fruit on the farm to let it rot on the vine, you take it to market.

i really believe lynn, miller, kelly, and rosenthal are going to contribute in a big way this season, and at a fraction, probably less than 5%, of what lohse will be paid.

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

Domeboys wrote: I would not suggest over-analyzing labels. My quick take was simply a three-tier: star vs. role player vs. reserve. I suppose you could call them solid major leaguers or something else.

LaRoche and Lohse are in the middle category, whatever you want to call it, IMO. Both guys had career seasons last year at age 33/32.

I would agree that neither are big stars but in that category below it of solid  veterans. Teams need these guys IMO and the fact that they are trending up at 32 or 33 is a good thing. I would rather have a guy that took awhile and is playing his best ball as opposed to a former star player that is trending down at the same age. I get what you guys are saying about the length and terms though. These guys may be the first in a new trend. I just don't know though when i see some of the stupid money given to marginal players this off season.

The biggest problem with Lohse and LaRoche is that they had these seasons at the peak of their primes. Over the course of MLB history it's so rare to find a player peak in their early 30s and then sustain that type of performance over the rest of their careers (especially when you combine that with some of their other statistics). That simple fact right there has got to scare GMs terribly. Where as guys like Jackson (who have been inferior to Lohse) are significantly younger and entering their primes. I disagree on Swisher, he isn't a significantly better player than Laroche, but he's been more consistent. Similar averages, LaRoche is more of a power threat, Swisher is more of on base guy. If you compare Swisher's career to LaRoches, you see a couple good seasons ('06 with the braves, '08 pirates, '09 all over the place, '12 Nats). Then the rest kind of vary. If you look at Swisher's career he stays at the same level every year with the exception of '09 with he Sox. Swisher is significantly more consistent and slightly younger. 

It goes back to the same thing about Lohse I've suggested about all over this thread. No matter how you or anyone else see him, GMs see him as a risk. He had a career season at 33, will enter the year at 34, is looking for 3 or 4 years, wants to get paid like a #2 starter, most GMs see him as a middle of the rotation starter. It makes perfect sense why he hasn't signed. He needs to lower his price.

PadsFS wrote:

scadder21 wrote: Would the Cardinals and Lohse agree to a 1 year deal worth 15 million so Lohse can prove that he wasn't a 1 year wonder with a gentleman's agreement that the Cardinals not offer him the 13.5 million so going into the next year of FA that that draft pick issue doesn't scare away potential long term suitors?

Not sure if Lohse is just looking for the contract or a good situation to pitch in for the rest of his career. I'm guessing that his goal right now is to wait it out and see if any contending team has a major pitching injury that causes them to have to sign Lohse going into the season.

I think it would be a little crazy to offer him that at this point. Since we already offered him a $13.3M 1-year deal, I say $13.3M - $4.5M (value of a supplemental draft pick), or an $8.8M one-year deal would be fair.

He is the one that overestimated his market and since he will cost us the draft pick if indeed he is re-signing, it should come out of his salary. 

Further, I think that would be a great deal for us due to injury risk / age / regression / market.

I was going to say almost the exact same thing when I read this post, but I agree with Brain. There will certainly be another team to step in and offer him more on a 1 year deal. I'm sure he's gotten 1 year offers maybe even 2 year offers, but I'm sure he's still holding out for 3 guaranteed years.

Domeboys wrote: I get your logic, Pads, but along that same line, some other club that would not lose their supplemental first-rounder should be willing to offer more than $8.8 million on a one-year deal. I don't think Boras is anywhere near that desperate yet, though. Remember that Bourn just got four years last week.

P.S. My big worry is that some people are going to go nuts if the rotation doesn't start throwing nine-inning shutouts with 27 strikeouts from the very first spring training game.

Yes, but that happens every year.

Jmodene1 wrote:

Domeboys wrote: I get your logic, Pads, but along that same line, some other club that would not lose their supplemental first-rounder should be willing to offer more than $8.8 million on a one-year deal. I don't think Boras is anywhere near that desperate yet, though. Remember that Bourn just got four years last week.

P.S. My big worry is that some people are going to go nuts if the rotation doesn't start throwing nine-inning shutouts with 27 strikeouts from the very first spring training game.

Yes, but that happens every year.

If you are talking about the fans going nuts, what is different this year is that Lohse is still unsigned.

Domeboys wrote:

Jmodene1 wrote:

Domeboys wrote: I get your logic, Pads, but along that same line, some other club that would not lose their supplemental first-rounder should be willing to offer more than $8.8 million on a one-year deal. I don't think Boras is anywhere near that desperate yet, though. Remember that Bourn just got four years last week.

P.S. My big worry is that some people are going to go nuts if the rotation doesn't start throwing nine-inning shutouts with 27 strikeouts from the very first spring training game.

Yes, but that happens every year.

If you are talking about the fans going nuts, what is different this year is that Lohse is still unsigned.

Yep.  That's why, as the cliche goes, you can never have too much pitching.

My fondest memory in the "too much pitching" category comes from 2000, when we finished ST with six solid starting pitchers, enabling us to deal the guy who'd been our top winner in 1999 (Bottenfield) for a badly-needed center fielder.

This year, I'll be happy if we just finish ST with a reasonably solid rotation.