Randy Wolf signs with Brewers

via Sherman

about 2 years ago Sam Page 22 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

another option down

wonder how much he got

by KeithsMoustache on Dec 7, 2009 11:35 PM EST reply actions

Egh

I prefered Lackey and Pineiro over Wolf anyway

by Syler on Dec 7, 2009 11:35 PM EST reply actions

bah humbug.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Dec 7, 2009 11:40 PM EST reply actions

for 3 years?

I’ll take Joel Pinata.

by Sam Page on Dec 7, 2009 11:43 PM EST reply actions

Eh... I'll wake up in the morning

Wolf is a good pitcher but the Brew Crew can have him. Fits well with their fantastic ace Jeff Suppan.

----Warner----
-------13-------

by Scent of a Woman on Dec 7, 2009 11:53 PM EST reply actions

Can this team really mock the 'Pan? I mean, look at what he did to us...

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 7, 2009 11:57 PM EST up reply actions

He is a solid pitcher, no doubt, but at least, in not signing him, we don’t have to worry about Omar committing too much money to a pitcher who had a career year, that (so far) hasn’t been very reflective over his entire career (be it injuries, or pitching in a hitter-friendly ballpark, or whatever you want to attribute some of his numbers to).

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 7, 2009 11:59 PM EST reply actions

Disappointed

He was the 2nd best FA pitcher out there. I just hope Omar drives a hard bargain if he is interested in Lackey.

by scott from peekskill on Dec 8, 2009 12:36 AM EST reply actions

Pretty good news on a couple of fronts. Assuming it’s just a three year deal as is being reported, then Pineiro really has no leverage in asking for a fourth year. Hopefully the price isn’t too ridiculous either, ideally/realistically in the 9-10 per year range. That fences in Pineiro a bit too.

Pineiro to me is far more likely to replicate his 09 than Wolf is. At least with Pineiro the newfound success was actually due to something new – the ridiculously good sinker. Both have health issues, both might not be that good. I prefer Pineiro if Omar HAS to sign one of them.

by True Blue4 on Dec 8, 2009 12:46 AM EST reply actions

Completely disagree, True Blue

Much of Pineiro’s success came from a ridiculously good BABIP average against, especially with runners on. That could easily change. He also had a solid infield, plus the best pitching coach in the game. All of that could easily fluctuate at Citi. Wolf’s K-rate and career numbers have been remarkably consistent. If anyone had a career year that he won’t replicate, it was Piniero, not Wolf.

by Mackey Sasser on Dec 8, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions

Three years is more than you like to go

But this smells to me like a better deal than the one the Braves gave Derek Lowe.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 8, 2009 1:36 AM EST reply actions

For what it's worth, Wolf has more value to the Brewers than most teams.

Their rotation was TERRIBLE last year. Worse than ours.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Dec 8, 2009 1:46 AM EST reply actions

Omar is meeting with Wolf's agent soon

per Heyman.

by The 'Ropolitans on Dec 8, 2009 9:19 AM EST reply actions

This angers me

I much prefer him over Pineiro. What was the price? Last year was not a career year. He’s had two other years just like it. He has arguably better career numbers than Lackey.

Now I’d rather take a flyer on either Harden, Sheets or Bedard than overspend for Lackey.

by Mackey Sasser on Dec 8, 2009 3:03 PM EST reply actions

You are correct, in that it wasn't a career year for Wolf

His best year was seven years ago, in 2002, where he went 11-9, with a 3.20 ERA in 210.2 IP, with a total WAR of 3.5. Last season, he went 11-7, with a 3.23 ERA in 214.1 IP, with a total WAR of 3.0.

John Lackey is a much superior pitcher to Randy Wolf, though. Just a quick look at WAR comparisons, Wolf has a career WAR of 14.3 over his eight seasons. Lackey has a career WAR of 31.4 over his eight seasons. John Lackey has, basically, been twice the pitcher that Wolf has. Lackey’s biggest fault is his propensity for being injured in the last two seasons, forcing him to start only 27 and 24 games, respectively, and the fact that he’s going to cost a bit more than he is probably worth.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 8, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions

Oops.

Wolf was an injury risk, limiting him in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 to only 23, 13, 12, and 18 starts, respectively, but the exact opposite of Lackey, he’s proven he can be healthy as of late.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 8, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions

I'd like to see

what their average WAR is per 25-30 starts, if that’s possible…
I agree Lackey’s better, but I don’t think he’s 10 mil a year better than Wolf, especially when you match up their past couple seasons, that’s my main point.

by Mackey Sasser on Dec 8, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions

Have no clue if that breakdown can even be found anywhere

That said, yeah, Lackey’s main problem is going to be the contract price, and probably the length (though, Wolf is two years older). I don’t know how much more Lackey is really worth than Wolf, but Lakcey, even in his injury years of 2008 and 2009, had a higher cumulative WAR than Wolf in those same years, where he was healthy and pitching decently.

That’s the first time I actually looked at that fact. If, in limited innings due to injuries, he can still put up WARs of 2.0 (which makes him basically as good as the injured Santana was this season, a little less), or 3.9, makes me feel a little better about him possibly catching the injury bug if with us. Of course, it’s the paying a guy a lot of money for injury-shortened seasons is what mucks that up.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 8, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions

quick and dirty

but according to Rally’s WAR (which spits out 15.6 for Wolf and 25.3 for Lackey, so obviously different calculations than wherever Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan got his WAR numbers from):

Wolf: 1.8 WAR/32 starts
Lackey: 3.5 WAR/32 starts

"[The Giants] beat us down. We were beat by a grown-man team, a team we want to be like one day. They came in here and took it to us. Out-manned us, out-gunned us. ... It wasn't even close." - Raheem Morris, 9/27/09

by cjmulrain on Dec 8, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions

correction

that’s per 32 appearances, but it doesn’t make a huge difference b/c Wolf has 4 non-start appearances and Lackey has 1. Not like we’re talking about John Smoltz here

by cjmulrain on Dec 8, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions

Well in Wolfs defense

He missed a significant amount of time with injuries too, which he’s mostly managed to get over. And basically you can get Wolf for near what he’s worth or Lackey for well more than he’s worth, he was a Burnett type contract which would be 17 per.

by Gina on Dec 8, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions

I wouldn't say he's arguably had better years than Lackey

But I agree I’d much rather have him than Pinero. And depending on how much he’s getting I’d probably prefer him to Lackey, and I understand what you’re saying about last year not being a career year, he’s always had really good peripheals and a lot of people say a year like that coming, but it was still the best year of his career but a pretty big margin.

by Gina on Dec 8, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions