PDA

View Full Version : Okay, What About Matt Clement?


LVSoxFan
12-07-2004, 03:09 PM
Fifth starter. Awesome pitcher. Would look good in Sox uniform. Nice F-U factor vs. Cubs.

I thought he made more sense than RJ, actually.

Thoughts?

If we do not get a quality fifth starter, all I have to say is: hello 2006...

santo=dorf
12-07-2004, 03:11 PM
Cleveland is willing to offer him $27 million over 3 years, exactly what we paid Garcia. Do we really need him so badly that we should outbid the Indians for him? :?: He's too inconsistent, and he has never pitched in the AL.

Screw Clement.

Flight #24
12-07-2004, 03:19 PM
Where are all the guys who thought trading for Garcia at midseason had no value in terms fo the resigning? Or that he got as much or more than market rate would have been? Matt freakin Clement gets offered 9mil/yr, Kris freakin Benson gets 7+/yr. Garcia would have been 10+ - guaranteed.

cheeses_h_rice
12-07-2004, 03:22 PM
Clement could possibly be the Sox's #1 pitcher, and probably #3 at worst. I would sign him in a heartbeat.

BRDSR
12-07-2004, 03:23 PM
Cleveland is willing to offer him $27 million over 3 years, exactly what we paid Garcia. Do we really need him so badly that we should outbid the Indians for him? :?: He's too inconsistent, and he has never pitched in the AL.

Screw Clement.
The problem is, it might be very important that we outbid the Indians for him. i don't want to see him with a goofy smilin' Native American on his cap, do you? My thoughts are this. We must sign Clement or Wright and we have to sign one of them soon. If we sign Clement that will eat up most of the salary room we have, and we'll have to be relatively content with our lineup and bullpen, save a couple of crapshoots with players like Uribe. If we sign Wright then we should still have room to make some relatively serious plays to upgrade our RF/C positions.

santo=dorf
12-07-2004, 03:24 PM
Clement could possibly be the Sox's #1 pitcher, and probably #3 at worst. I would sign him in a heartbeat. :roflmao: :roflmao::roflmao:
No he couldn't.

santo=dorf
12-07-2004, 03:26 PM
The problem is, it might be very important that we outbid the Indians for him. i don't want to see him with a goofy smilin' Native American on his cap, do you? My thoughts are this. We must sign Clement or Wright and we have to sign one of them soon. If we sign Clement that will eat up most of the salary room we have, and we'll have to be relatively content with our lineup and bullpen, save a couple of crapshoots with players like Uribe. If we sign Wright then we should still have room to make some relatively serious plays to upgrade our RF/C positions.If we're going to sign guys just to make sure another Central team doesn't sign him, how about signing Brad Radke?

I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Sox are going to sign Wright, much cheaper too.

CubKilla
12-07-2004, 03:27 PM
Where are all the guys who thought trading for Garcia at midseason had no value in terms fo the resigning? Or that he got as much or more than market rate would have been? Matt freakin Clement gets offered 9mil/yr, Kris freakin Benson gets 7+/yr. Garcia would have been 10+ - guaranteed.
Garcia screwed up

Good thing though he'll play for a team more for family and less for $$$$$

:reinsy

"The League needs more players like F. Garcia."

Flight #24
12-07-2004, 03:30 PM
Garcia screwed up

Good thing though he'll play for a team more for family and less for $$$$$


IMO it is nice to see a guy effectively say "I like the situation here, the manager, and the $$$ is good enough for me. I don't want to take the injury risk or the risk of going to a less comfortable situation just to get a few extra bucks."

But that's just me.

CubKilla
12-07-2004, 03:32 PM
IMO it is nice to see a guy effectively say "I like the situation here, the manager, and the $$$ is good enough for me. I don't want to take the injury risk or the risk of going to a less comfortable situation just to get a few extra bucks."

But that's just me.
I think it's good too..... especially for this nickle and diming ballclub. KW needs to find more players like FG.

cheeses_h_rice
12-07-2004, 03:32 PM
:roflmao: :roflmao::roflmao:
No he couldn't.
Clement's ERA this season was 3.68, while Burly's was 3.89, with near identical WHIPs, and Clement having a much higher K/IP ratio. What Clement lacks in control he makes up for in velocity, I think. His upside is pretty huge.

Ol' No. 2
12-07-2004, 03:35 PM
Where are all the guys who thought trading for Garcia at midseason had no value in terms fo the resigning? Or that he got as much or more than market rate would have been? Matt freakin Clement gets offered 9mil/yr, Kris freakin Benson gets 7+/yr. Garcia would have been 10+ - guaranteed.No, Garcia would have probably signed an extension wherever he went. So to all those who claim the Sox giving up 3 players for 3 months of Garcia was too much and we should have waited until the off season and got him for nothing...that's probably what the Yankees were thinking.

Flight #24
12-07-2004, 03:36 PM
No, Garcia would have probably signed an extension wherever he went. So to all those who claim the Sox giving up 3 players for 3 months of Garcia was too much and we should have waited until the off season and got him for nothing...that's probably what the Yankees were thinking.
Bottom line is that you traded for 3mo+extension on Garcia either way. If you hadn't traded for him, he either would have signed with someone else or been priced higher than the 9mil the Sox got him for.

That value needs to be factored into any evaluation of the trade.

nlentz88
12-07-2004, 03:38 PM
If the Sox do sign him, they better make him shave that stupid King Tut beard.

southsider17
12-07-2004, 03:41 PM
Clement's ERA this season was 3.68, while Burly's was 3.89, with near identical WHIPs, and Clement having a much higher K/IP ratio. What Clement lacks in control he makes up for in velocity, I think. His upside is pretty huge.
He's in the NL, though. BIG difference. He's a #3 at best on the current Sox staff. He's very inconsistent. I still like the idea of Leiber. He'll be cheaper than Clement and he's a smarter 'pitcher' (and better if you ask me). Clement throws harder but it's not just about velocity.

santo=dorf
12-07-2004, 03:42 PM
Clement's ERA this season was 3.68, while Burly's was 3.89, with near identical WHIPs, and Clement having a much higher K/IP ratio. What Clement lacks in control he makes up for in velocity, I think. His upside is pretty huge.
Buehrle plays in the AL, and in Coors field east. Buehrle had a road ERA of 2.63, yet Clement's road ERA was 4.50.

southsider17
12-07-2004, 03:44 PM
If the Sox do sign him, they better make him shave that stupid King Tut beard.
He's already shaved it (upon the birth of his child).

misty60481
12-07-2004, 03:46 PM
I agree with Lieber do you think there is any chance KW might take a run at him??

Ol' No. 2
12-07-2004, 03:47 PM
He's in the NL, though. BIG difference. He's a #3 at best on the current Sox staff. He's very inconsistent. I still like the idea of Leiber. He'll be cheaper than Clement and he's a smarter 'pitcher' (and better if you ask me). Clement throws harder but it's not just about velocity.And he wasn't pitching in a wind tunnel. Look at Buehrle's home/away splits. I'd rather go with Lieber, too, but it's looking like the Yankees are going to re-sign him.

Flight #24
12-07-2004, 03:48 PM
I agree with Lieber do you think there is any chance KW might take a run at him??
he wants $8mil/yr. I think I'd rather have Wright at $6mil and add a bullpen arm. Of course if the alternative is Wright and no bullpen arm, I'd probably take Lieber. But IMO he'll end up back with the Spankees.

santo=dorf
12-07-2004, 03:48 PM
I agree with Lieber do you think there is any chance KW might take a run at him??Yankees want him, and they are reportedly ready to give him 3 years 24 million. Do you want us to get in a bidding war with the Yankees to pay more than 8 million a year for Jon Lieber? :?:

Ol' No. 2
12-07-2004, 03:50 PM
Yankees want him, and they are reportedly ready to give him 3 years 24 million. Do you want us to get in a bidding war with the Yankees to pay more than 8 million a year for Jon Lieber? :?:Didn't the Yankees DECLINE a 8 mil option on Lieber? In fact, I think they even paid a buyout. *** are they thinking?

santo=dorf
12-07-2004, 03:51 PM
Didn't the Yankees DECLINE a 8 mil option on Lieber? In fact, I think they even paid a buyout. *** are they thinking?
Yup. I believe the NY Post made the same comment that you just posted.

Flight #24
12-07-2004, 03:52 PM
Didn't the Yankees DECLINE a 8 mil option on Lieber? In fact, I think they even paid a buyout. *** are they thinking?
Obviously they (along with others) misread the market. The Mets idiocy changed a lot. That will start to change IMO as we approach the non-tender deadline and guys start to worry about a pending bump in supply.

Ol' No. 2
12-07-2004, 03:58 PM
Obviously they (along with others) misread the market. The Mets idiocy changed a lot. That will start to change IMO as we approach the non-tender deadline and guys start to worry about a pending bump in supply."If everyone else jumps off a cliff, does that mean you have to do it too?" - Mom, repeatedly

I'm not so sure about this "setting the market" stuff. Just because the Mets overpaid, that doesn't necessarily mean the market won't correct itself. But then I guess I can't justify that statement based on past history.:(:

cheeses_h_rice
12-07-2004, 03:59 PM
And he wasn't pitching in a wind tunnel. Look at Buehrle's home/away splits. I'd rather go with Lieber, too, but it's looking like the Yankees are going to re-sign him.
Do you know where I can find ballpark-specific stats? I'd be curious to see run totals in Wrigley vs. the Cell.

Flight #24
12-07-2004, 04:05 PM
"If everyone else jumps off a cliff, does that mean you have to do it too?" - Mom, repeatedly

I'm not so sure about this "setting the market" stuff. Just because the Mets overpaid, that doesn't necessarily mean the market won't correct itself. But then I guess I can't justify that statement based on past history.:(:
It'll be interesting. So far, the players have had the upper hand and been able to hold out because there haven't been a ton of great alternatives. But that can change fairly quickly. I mean even the Yankees would have to say "Jon Lieber at $8mil? Or Jarrod Washburn at $3mil?". I'd bet you see a lot of deals get done in the next week or 2 before the nontender deadline.

southsider17
12-07-2004, 04:05 PM
"If everyone else jumps off a cliff, does that mean you have to do it too?" - Mom, repeatedly

I'm not so sure about this "setting the market" stuff. Just because the Mets overpaid, that doesn't necessarily mean the market won't correct itself. But then I guess I can't justify that statement based on past history.:(:

No2, I find myself agreeing with you more and more. :thumbsup:

Here's a link that supports our thinking:

http://ussmariner.com/index.php?p=2052

Flight #24
12-07-2004, 04:06 PM
Do you know where I can find ballpark-specific stats? I'd be curious to see run totals in Wrigley vs. the Cell.
Raw stats are available here: http://games.espn.go.com/cgi/flb/request.dll?STADIUMSTATS&Param0=1&Param1=0&Param2=9

I'm sure there are more comprehensive ones available at BP or BA, but you probably have to pay for them.

santo=dorf
12-07-2004, 04:07 PM
Do you know where I can find ballpark-specific stats? I'd be curious to see run totals in Wrigley vs. the Cell.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
HR Factor:
Cell: 1.402 (1st in the MLB)
Wrigley: 1.329 (2nd in the MLB)

Runs factor:
Cell: 1.139 (3rd in the MLB)
Wrigley:1.123 (5th in the MLB)

Ol' No. 2
12-07-2004, 04:11 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
HR Factor:
Cell: 1.402 (1st in the MLB)
Wrigley: 1.329 (2nd in the MLB)

Runs factor:
Cell: 1.139 (3rd in the MLB)
Wrigley:1.123 (5th in the MLB)Check to see if the park factors are 1 yr or 3 yr averages. Obviously, if it's a 3 yr average, it will underestimate the effect of last year's changes.

MRKARNO
12-07-2004, 04:11 PM
Clement's ERA this season was 3.68, while Burly's was 3.89, with near identical WHIPs, and Clement having a much higher K/IP ratio. What Clement lacks in control he makes up for in velocity, I think. His upside is pretty huge.
Don't even compare Buehrle with Clement. Buehrle pitched in the AL, pitching 19 games at the Cell. Buehrle also logged about 65 more innings than Clement. Why? Clement was so bad at one point that he got pulled from the rotation towards the end of the year. So while I do think he'd be a pretty good signing and more worth the money than Wright, Buehrle is by far the superior pitcher. Buehrle may have struck out only 6 per 9 innings and Clement struck out 9.45, but Buehrle's K/BB was 3.25, while Clement's was a pretty good, but not as good as Buehrle's 2.47. Clement would be the 2 or 3 behind Buehrle.

santo=dorf
12-07-2004, 04:13 PM
Check to see if the park factors are 1 yr or 3 yr averages. Obviously, if it's a 3 yr average, it will underestimate the effect of last year's changes.
No, that's 2004 alone.

cheeses_h_rice
12-07-2004, 04:32 PM
Don't even compare Buehrle with Clement. Buehrle pitched in the AL, pitching 19 games at the Cell. Buehrle also logged about 65 more innings than Clement. Why? Clement was so bad at one point that he got pulled from the rotation towards the end of the year. So while I do think he'd be a pretty good signing and more worth the money than Wright, Buehrle is by far the superior pitcher. Buehrle may have struck out only 6 per 9 innings and Clement struck out 9.45, but Buehrle's K/BB was 3.25, while Clement's was a pretty good, but not as good as Buehrle's 2.47. Clement would be the 2 or 3 behind Buehrle. Looking at Clement's month-by-month progression (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?statsId=6099) it appears that he hit a wall in August/September, and his ERA ballooned by .7. On average, his IP/G isn't that high compared to Burly, which indicates that he tires more easily. Burly is a workhorse, which I guess is a good thing on this team.

:)

wulfy
12-07-2004, 06:09 PM
Clement, 2004:

Pre-All Star Break: 7-8, 2.91 ERA, WHIP 1.18, BAA .217
Post-All Star Break: 2-5, 5.09 ERA, WHIP 1.45, BAA .250

That's more than enough to scare me off from the Clement Chase, especially when you factor in the NL/AL jump.

JRIG
12-08-2004, 06:46 AM
Clement, 2004:

Pre-All Star Break: 7-8, 2.91 ERA, WHIP 1.18, BAA .217
Post-All Star Break: 2-5, 5.09 ERA, WHIP 1.45, BAA .250

That's more than enough to scare me off from the Clement Chase, especially when you factor in the NL/AL jump.
So one subpar half-season is more important to you than 2 1/2 years of great pitching? That WHIP isn't even that awful and the BAA is Ok too. Clement is a far better risk than Wright, who looks to be heading to NY anyway.

Clement at 3 years and $15 to $19 million is a pretty good risk.

JRIG
12-08-2004, 11:34 AM
According to the U.S.S Mariner Blog (http://ussmariner.com/index.php?p=2104) (usually a pretty good source of info):


The Phillies think they’ve got Matt Clement locked up. The Indians were making a hard push, but it appears that they won’t match Philadelphia’s best offer, which is in the 3 year, $26 million range.

wdelaney72
12-08-2004, 11:43 AM
According to the U.S.S Mariner Blog (http://ussmariner.com/index.php?p=2104)(usually a pretty good source of info):
It's time to face reality. SP are getting big money. Wright's 7.5 million was a bit steep. What most of us thought would have been overpaying for Clement and Lieber and Derek Lowe is going to be the going market price.

It's time to suck it up and pick the best of these guys for the Sox and pay it. Otherwise, we're going to be looking at 3rd or 4th place next year, with a rotation of Garcia, Buehrle, Contreras, Garland, and Grilli. I don't think any of us want that.

If Philly is offering 8.5 million for Clement, I'd match it and give him a chance to stay in Chicago, where he has said he'd like to stay. He's a good pitcher, and I like him better than the other options of Ortiz, Odalis Perez, and co.

MeanFish
12-08-2004, 11:59 AM
If we were smart, we wouldn't screw around this time. Clement might very well be the last decent FA pitcher we have a shot at, so lets throw $21/3 out there and see if we get a bite.

Ask yourself this, other than the really big dogs (like Pedro and Pavano, who are commanding $10M+/yr easily) are we *really* overpaying if we go with $7M/yr for a guy who has demonstrated he can in fact pitch in a HR friendly park?

We need to accept the fact that $6M is not going to cut it for a quality SP in this particular offseason.

Edit: Just read the Philadelphia offer. I'm behind matching it.

Jurr
12-08-2004, 12:02 PM
Clement's ERA this season was 3.68, while Burly's was 3.89, with near identical WHIPs, and Clement having a much higher K/IP ratio. What Clement lacks in control he makes up for in velocity, I think. His upside is pretty huge.what league does he play in?? OH yeah..the NL...pitchers make easy K's, last time I checked.

wdelaney72
12-08-2004, 12:10 PM
what league does he play in?? OH yeah..the NL...pitchers make easy K's, last time I checked.
NL v. AL - OVER-RATED!!! Clement has the ability to pitch in the AL just fine. Last time I checked, the NL had plenty of talented hitters. In fact, I believe a few NL teams have had the ability to hit AL pitching well enough to win the World series.

Ol' No. 2
12-08-2004, 12:15 PM
NL v. AL - OVER-RATED!!! Clement has the ability to pitch in the AL just fine. Last time I checked, the NL had plenty of talented hitters. In fact, I believe a few NL teams have had the ability to hit AL pitching well enough to win the World series.You're referring to the Cardinals, no doubt. Really crushed the Red Sox' pitching, didn't they?

On average, ERA's are about 0.4 runs lower in the NL for the obvious reason that you have pitchers batting. Any comparison has to account for this.

southsider17
12-08-2004, 12:28 PM
NL v. AL - OVER-RATED!!! Clement has the ability to pitch in the AL just fine. Last time I checked, the NL had plenty of talented hitters. In fact, I believe a few NL teams have had the ability to hit AL pitching well enough to win the World series.
Get a clue. It's not the quality of the hitters that's at issue here. It's the quantity. In every game you'll have at least 3 at bats where you have a slugger come up to the plate instead of a .190 pitcher. Look at the run production between the leagues.

Flight #24
12-08-2004, 12:33 PM
Get a clue. It's not the quality of the hitters that's at issue here. It's the quantity. In every game you'll have at least 3 at bats where you have a slugger come up to the plate instead of a .190 pitcher. Look at the run production between the leagues.
Don't forget the ripple effect. You can pitch around the #8 guy because the #9 hits under .200. So effectively you have to pitch to 7 or 7.5 hitters instead of 9 in the AL.

Foulke You
12-08-2004, 02:10 PM
Does anyone have Matt Clement's career stats vs. the American League? And possibly a split for stats at American League parks? I checked MLB and ESPN's website and couldn't find an interleague split. But I'm not as stat savvy as some of you guys. I thought it might be an interesting stat to check out.

wdelaney72
12-08-2004, 02:24 PM
I didn't say it wasn't a factor, I just find it to be an over-rated consideration. Just because Matt Clement pitches in the NL doesn't mean he can't have success in the AL. He's a good pitcher... period.

Don't forget the ripple effect. You can pitch around the #8 guy because the #9 hits under .200. So effectively you have to pitch to 7 or 7.5 hitters instead of 9 in the AL.

hosieryofthegods
12-08-2004, 02:29 PM
Well, no Wright, and the scrubs offered Clement arbitration. So, all agruments are moot until Jan. 8th.

JRIG
12-08-2004, 02:56 PM
Well, no Wright, and the scrubs offered Clement arbitration. So, all agruments are moot until Jan. 8th.
Clement is still free to sign with any club. He doesn't have to accept the Cubs offer of arbitration.

Ol' No. 2
12-08-2004, 02:58 PM
Clement is still free to sign with any club. He doesn't have to accept the Cubs offer of arbitration.I can't find my link with the listing of FA types. Is Clement an A or B?