PDA

View Full Version : **** Boras, we should get Zito


nodiggity59
12-08-2006, 01:30 AM
I know this is a what if scenario and won't happen b/c of Boras, but let's say we consummated that deal with Houston for Garland and signed Zito to a 6 year $16mil per year deal. We'd have replaced JG and FG at $20mil with Zito and Brandon at $16mil. Plus, our system would have loads of arms and we'd have the luxury of trading Pods since Tavares (sp) could replace him.

As for Zito, yeah he's a flyball guy and he's over rated, but he's consistent and could have success on the road like FG did. Besides which, we'd be paying JG close to that in 09 if continued to have success anyways.

Lastly, b/c of his pedigree, Zito will probably always be tradeable if things go sour, unless his arm falls off.

I'm not suggesting this will happen, I just think that it makes sense IMO, at least right this moment.

MUsoxfan
12-08-2006, 01:31 AM
I've never been a giant Zito supporter. He's okay...the best in this FA group....but to haphazardly throw cash at him is ridiculous. I've said it before and I'll say it again....The more the Sox stay the same, the better they get

DumpJerry
12-08-2006, 01:35 AM
So, let me see if I have this correct: you want to replace 17 and 18 game winners with a 14/15 game winner? On top of that, you think it is a good idea to sign a starting pitcher for more than 3 years? In fact, you want 6 years from Zito.

Something tells me you're not on Jerry's short list to replace Kenny when he moves on.

MUsoxfan
12-08-2006, 01:39 AM
I didn't even notice the 6/16 comment. To sign ANY pitcher to a 6 year deal is wholly unadvisable.

patbooyah
12-08-2006, 01:40 AM
So, let me see if I have this correct: you want to replace 17 and 18 game winners with a 14/15 game winner? On top of that, you think it is a good idea to sign a starting pitcher for more than 3 years? In fact, you want 6 years from Zito.

Something tells me you're not on Jerry's short list to replace Kenny when he moves on.

if that 14/15 game winner has an ERA a full point lower than the 17/18 game winners - sure? why not?

don't know if i'd go six years, though. but who knows - in six years pitchers will be getting 25mil/year and 16mil will look like a bargain!

hypothetically i'd even go 4-5 years on zito since he hasn't started fewer than 30 games since becoming a full timer in the big leagues.

DumpJerry
12-08-2006, 01:46 AM
I didn't even notice the 6/16 comment. To sign ANY pitcher to a 6 year deal is wholly unadvisable.

if that 14/15 game winner has an ERA a full point lower than the 17/18 game winners - sure? why not?

don't know if i'd go six years, though. but who knows - in six years pitchers will be getting 25mil/year and 16mil will look like a bargain!

hypothetically i'd even go 4-5 years on zito since he hasn't started fewer than 30 games since becoming a full timer in the big leagues.
Let's remember that Reinsdorf had a policy in the 90's of not signing a pitcher to more than three years. No expections. That is how we lost Alex Fernandez and others. It is a rare pitcher who can maintain a high level of ability for more than three years given the physical strain of pitching. Remember, when you're signing that guy to a three year deal, he is coming of a few years of quality pitching, so you're asking for 5 years of quality pitching.

jabrch
12-08-2006, 01:49 AM
I have no desire to see Zito here for that price or for that length of contract.

patbooyah
12-08-2006, 01:51 AM
Let's remember that Reinsdorph had a policy in the 90's of not signing a pitcher to more than three years. No expections. That is how we lost Alex Fernandez and others. It is a rare pitcher who can maintain a high level of ability for more than three years given the physical strain of pitching. Remember, when you're signing that guy to a three year deal, he is coming of a few years of quality pitching, so you're asking for 5 years of quality pitching.

that's true. but zito has never missed extended time. if signing him depended on a four year contract over a three year contract, i'd easily go four. of course, what i'd do is neither here nor there because i am not a GM. :D:

patbooyah
12-08-2006, 01:54 AM
I have no desire to see Zito here for that price or for that length of contract.

do you mind if i ask why? he is only 28 and is far superior and less injury prone than jason schmidt, who is in his mid 30s. that's the type of money schmidt got, so zito would be a bargain at that price.

jabrch
12-08-2006, 02:11 AM
do you mind if i ask why? he is only 28 and is far superior and less injury prone than jason schmidt, who is in his mid 30s. that's the type of money schmidt got, so zito would be a bargain at that price.

Lots of reasons Pat - here's a few.

6 years is a long time for a pitcher. 16mm is a lot of money for any one player. Combine the two - and that's a lot of risk.

Also important is the Oakland factor. Look at how Mulder and Hudson did after leaving the most spacious park in baseball (in terms of foul ground). Those guys went to the NL, and were worse than in the AL. That's strange.

Zito is a fly ball pitcher - not a good thing in USCF.

Zito had a 1.40 WHIP last year, his worst in his career. He did this by walking more hitters than he ever has, and giving up the second most hits he has ever allowed.

2001 - 2003 Zito was awesome.
2004 - 2006 Zito was pretty solid
2007 - 2013 Zito? I'd sell.

Pat - he's a good pitcher, but if I am going to mortgage the future of this franchise by tying us to a 6 year, 102mm deal, I'd rather do it to a hitter who has less a chance of collapse during the duratin of the deal instead of a pitcher who is likely starting to decline already.

KW has the right idea for pitching. Develop it - acquire it when it is reasonably priced. But don't break the bank for it.

patbooyah
12-08-2006, 02:29 AM
Lots of reasons Pat - here's a few.

6 years is a long time for a pitcher. 16mm is a lot of money for any one player. Combine the two - and that's a lot of risk.

Also important is the Oakland factor. Look at how Mulder and Hudson did after leaving the most spacious park in baseball (in terms of foul ground). Those guys went to the NL, and were worse than in the AL. That's strange.

Zito is a fly ball pitcher - not a good thing in USCF.

Zito had a 1.40 WHIP last year, his worst in his career. He did this by walking more hitters than he ever has, and giving up the second most hits he has ever allowed.

2001 - 2003 Zito was awesome.
2004 - 2006 Zito was pretty solid
2007 - 2013 Zito? I'd sell.

Pat - he's a good pitcher, but if I am going to mortgage the future of this franchise by tying us to a 6 year, 102mm deal, I'd rather do it to a hitter who has less a chance of collapse during the duratin of the deal instead of a pitcher who is likely starting to decline already.

KW has the right idea for pitching. Develop it - acquire it when it is reasonably priced. But don't break the bank for it.

good points. i agree on many, and didn't realize that you were referring to 6 years in your original post and not my suggestion of four. i wouldn't be upset if he was signed for 16mil/4 years, but i can see how some might oppose it.

frankly, though, if the price of pitching continues to skyrocket, i think that aces will be getting around 20mil/year in four to five years.

nodiggity59
12-08-2006, 02:33 AM
I understand the 6 year concerns, but I feel the deal could be structured to be 12mil the first 3 years and 20mil the last three. Also, I stand by my statement that teams will always want Zito if ever we feel we have to deal him.

ondafarm
12-08-2006, 03:21 AM
I know this is a what if scenario and won't happen b/c of Boras, but let's say we consummated that deal with Houston for Garland and signed Zito to a 6 year $16mil per year deal. We'd have replaced JG and FG at $20mil with Zito and Brandon at $16mil. Plus, our system would have loads of arms and we'd have the luxury of trading Pods since Tavares (sp) could replace him.

As for Zito, yeah he's a flyball guy and he's over rated, but he's consistent and could have success on the road like FG did. Besides which, we'd be paying JG close to that in 09 if continued to have success anyways.

Lastly, b/c of his pedigree, Zito will probably always be tradeable if things go sour, unless his arm falls off.

I'm not suggesting this will happen, I just think that it makes sense IMO, at least right this moment.

Well, I agree with you up to the first s.

MUsoxfan
12-08-2006, 03:30 AM
Also, I stand by my statement that teams will always want Zito if ever we feel we have to deal him.

Not if he tears his arm up in the 4th year of a deal when there's a heavy amount of that contract on the back-end. 5-6 years is too much for a pitcher.

nodiggity59
12-08-2006, 03:32 AM
Not if he tears his arm up in the 4th year of a deal when there's a heavy amount of that contract on the back-end. 5-6 years is too much for a pitcher.

That didn't stop the Dodgers from signing Schmidt to a big 3 year deal.

MUsoxfan
12-08-2006, 03:36 AM
That didn't stop the Dodgers from signing Schmidt to a big 3 year deal.


3 years is alot different than 6 years. I'd be pissed if the Sox signed Schmidt, but not nearly as pissed of Zito came here in a 6 year deal

Brian26
12-08-2006, 07:46 AM
if that 14/15 game winner has an ERA a full point lower than the 17/18 game winners - sure? why not?

I'm not sure Zito's ERA would hover much lower than 4.50 if he pitched full time at the Cell.

jabrch
12-08-2006, 09:30 AM
I'm not sure Zito's ERA would hover much lower than 4.50 if he pitched full time at the Cell.


Exactly...Zito outside of a pitchers park might not be nearly as effective. 6 years is a lot of time. 16mm is a ton of $. It's a backbreaking deal to a franchise if Zito fails.

wulfy
12-08-2006, 09:43 AM
I don't buy the fact that Zito can't pitch at the Cell because he's a fly ball pitcher - he has a career 2.72 ERA at the Cell with a WHIP of 1.16. Compare that to his home stadium of 3.66/1.22.

That being said, it will never happen.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 10:56 AM
I didn't even notice the 6/16 comment. To sign ANY pitcher to a 6 year deal is wholly unadvisable.

Especially one who has lost 2-3 MPH on his fastball and has a ton of wear and tear on his arm (see Mulder and Hudson).

patbooyah
12-08-2006, 01:23 PM
3 years is alot different than 6 years. I'd be pissed if the Sox signed Schmidt, but not nearly as pissed of Zito came here in a 6 year deal

really? i would rather have zito for 6 than schmidt for 3 (granted, i am not nuts over either one). schmidt is like a walking talking injury. zito has never missed significant time.

i bet schmidt misses more time in the next 3 years than zito does in the next 6.

Goose
12-08-2006, 01:39 PM
I don't understand what the fascination is about getting a new pitcher in a Sox uniform...especially at those prices. If the Sox were to consider getting Zito at that price, why not go the safer route and sign Jon Garland to a 3 year extension? Put the money where your KNOW (or rather to the extent one can know) the production the Sox will get. He is young, he has shown over the last couple of years that he can win, and he is relatively cheap. Garland should be our focus. Why not dance with the one you brought?

SABRSox
12-08-2006, 01:55 PM
I agree with the **** Boras part. I don't agree with the Zito part.

Domeshot17
12-08-2006, 02:20 PM
I don't know about it all.

Part of me says if you are doing this, then throw the money to Buehlre. However, Zito> Buehlre. So maybe you just lock up Buehlre for 12-13 per?

The one nice thing about long deals is as stated, in 6 years, 16 mil will be the going rate for a Ted Lilly.

I also don't agree that Garland is Safer then Zito. Garland got a ton of benefit from run support. If Garland was 14-10 with the same ERA and stats, would we say he is really that special? The offense bailed him out a lot. He is good, but I don't even know If I would consider Garland a safe 2nd starter, let alone ace.

The other thing is, unlike Hudson and Mulder to an extent, Zito isnt a power pitcher. The wear on the arm of a Finesse Pitcher is much less then that of a power pitcher.

NOW IF YOU TRADE VAZQUEZ, and You tell me you can have Zito for 4 more mil then Vazquez, Sign me up!

Maybe if it was a 5 year deal with 2 team options, then cool

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 04:02 PM
I don't know about it all.

Part of me says if you are doing this, then throw the money to Buehlre. However, Zito> Buehlre. So maybe you just lock up Buehlre for 12-13 per?

The one nice thing about long deals is as stated, in 6 years, 16 mil will be the going rate for a Ted Lilly.

I also don't agree that Garland is Safer then Zito. Garland got a ton of benefit from run support. If Garland was 14-10 with the same ERA and stats, would we say he is really that special? The offense bailed him out a lot. He is good, but I don't even know If I would consider Garland a safe 2nd starter, let alone ace.

The other thing is, unlike Hudson and Mulder to an extent, Zito isnt a power pitcher. The wear on the arm of a Finesse Pitcher is much less then that of a power pitcher.

NOW IF YOU TRADE VAZQUEZ, and You tell me you can have Zito for 4 more mil then Vazquez, Sign me up!

Maybe if it was a 5 year deal with 2 team options, then cool

Well, for some reason, either that rainbow curve/natural wear and tear/undisclosed injury, that fastball has fallen off. He used to be at 87-90 (like Buehrle), now he's in the mid 80's (like MB).

We saw last year what can happen when you get too fine, the umpires squeeze you or you struggle with your out pitch (curve/change) for both these guys. I would rather give the money to a young, maturing power pitcher.

FarWestChicago
12-08-2006, 11:29 PM
One big reason not to sign Zito :smokin:

:bong:

Grzegorz
12-09-2006, 06:23 AM
Forget Zito... Focus on the bullpen.