Eric Milton is a Philadelphia Phillie!!!

[Qwikshot]

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/6889690

Now if we keep Millwood...we'll have a great team...nothing like a little baseball news during times of crisis and football.

[The Afoci]

Something tells me that when I click on this link, the Twins won't get the big bat in return for Milton I hoped they would.

[Chief Rum]

The talk in our local paper is that the Angels are looking to bring in Rafael Palmeiro. What makes it attractive for Palmeiro is that we will let him play 1B.

But there are several teams looking at him, so who knows how that will go.

Good job getting Milton.

CR

[The Afoci]

Dola, yes, we got another Denny Hocking!

[Eaglesfan27]

I like this trade, but I'm afraid it means they think they won't be able to keep Millwood. I really think the Phillies have to keep Millwood, or get another good starter to have a championship calibre team next year. I think this is particularly true, as we are not sure how Milton is going to bounce back this year from his injuries.

[Qwikshot]

From what I'm reading, Millwood is gone, Borass told Ed Wade (Phils GM) that Millwood wasn't coming back...and 13 million for one year must've freaked out the Phillie brass. Still I'm reading that with our pitching prospect depth, we're still in the running for trading for another pitcher to play the ace...if not, I guess Padilla or Wolf would be the ace.

[FargoFreez aka fof playa]

Now if they could only trade Jones, sign Stewart, and forget about not-so-steady Eddie, I'll be happy.

[John Galt]

I don't know why anyone would want Milton at his price tag. Sure, he is left-handed, but his career 4.76 ERA is nothing you want starting for you. Sure, he had a good ERA for a small part of last season, but after a career of being below average, I hardly think he is worth the $9,000,000 that the Phillies will pay him. Think about what else that money could be spent on and Milton hardly seems worth it.

[mckerney]

Hopefully this means Stewart is coming back. If we're able to keep him this trade is worth it.

[The Afoci]

JG, that is probably why the Twins had little chance of getting a bat in return for him. I was just hoping it was only us Twins fans who knew the troubles he has had overall.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by John Galt
I don't know why anyone would want Milton at his price tag. Sure, he is left-handed, but his career 4.76 ERA is nothing you want starting for you. Sure, he had a good ERA for a small part of last season, but after a career of being below average, I hardly think he is worth the $9,000,000 that the Phillies will pay him. Think about what else that money could be spent on and Milton hardly seems worth it.

The Metrodome is hardly a pitchers park, and it /is/ the AL. It's a one year rental, just like Millwood was...and he has a good k to hits per inning pitched ration, and he's only 28.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
The Metrodome is hardly a pitchers park, and it /is/ the AL. It's a one year rental, just like Millwood was...and he has a good k to hits per inning pitched ration, and he's only 28.

Minnesota only has the 11th best hitter's park and these days that is pretty average. It is the AL, but an ERA closer to 5 than 4 is never good. And I don't know what K/H/9 ratio is about. K/H doesn't tell you much, because most hits are luck. Miton has always given up the long ball, had average K rates, and his high ERA is the result. Sure, he is a rental, but wouldn't you rather rent someone else (like Millwood again or Maddux or journeymen projects). Milton has been consistently below average in every full season he has pitcher. Maybe, he'll break out this year. I just wouldn't bet $9,000,000 on it.

[Qwikshot]

Millwood wasn't coming back to the Phils, Maddux looked quite human last year...I believe Milton had a 4.76 ERA last year, Millwood had 4.22 (no hitter aside)...don't forget Phils have a new park this year, and if they have no ace (ala Millwood) they at least should have a strong rotation.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
Millwood wasn't coming back to the Phils, Maddux looked quite human last year...I believe Milton had a 4.76 ERA last year, Millwood had 4.22 (no hitter aside)...don't forget Phils have a new park this year, and if they have no ace (ala Millwood) they at least should have a strong rotation.

I think the Phils are going to be a good team, but I'd rather sign 5 or 6 project pitchers for well under $9,000,000 and see who pans out than give all that cash to one guy who has proven he isn't that good. Hell, the Pirates just signed washed up Salamon Torres for $775,000 and his ERA is roughly equivalent to Milton's. Do I think he will do better than Milton? Probably not - but give me 6 Torres's and let them duke it out and play hot streaks, and then you have a SP being paid his value. Milton isn't an ace and but for 1 no-hitter, no one would think he was worth that much.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by John Galt
I think the Phils are going to be a good team, but I'd rather sign 5 or 6 project pitchers for well under $9,000,000 and see who pans out than give all that cash to one guy who has proven he isn't that good. Hell, the Pirates just signed washed up Salamon Torres for $775,000 and his ERA is roughly equivalent to Milton's. Do I think he will do better than Milton? Probably not - but give me 6 Torres's and let them duke it out and play hot streaks, and then you have a SP being paid his value. Milton isn't an ace and but for 1 no-hitter, no one would think he was worth that much.

True, but you do recall how anemic the Phils offense was last year...it may be worth taking a gamble on a pitcher with some post season experience...over a project pitcher...the Phils have Gavin Floyd and Cole Hammels and Ryan Madsen, all waiting in the wings for starter spots, if things fall apart, Miltons gone in a year, and they can start their youth movement, or they can send one out on a trade midseason...we'll just have to wait and see.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
True, but you do recall how anemic the Phils offense was last year...it may be worth taking a gamble on a pitcher with some post season experience...over a project pitcher...the Phils have Gavin Floyd and Cole Hammels and Ryan Madsen, all waiting in the wings for starter spots, if things fall apart, Miltons gone in a year, and they can start their youth movement, or they can send one out on a trade midseason...we'll just have to wait and see.

Maybe.

Of course, I think the first thing that should be done is firing Bowa. Pat Burrell needs his career back and I don't think that is going to happen with Bowa there. And post-season pitching experience is overrated (historically and proven this year with the Marlins). A pitcher with experience who sucks is still a sucky pitcher. The Phills just confuse me sometimes - they seem to make good moves followed with bad (like the Mesa, Milton, Bell, and M. Williams signings/trades). They do so much damage wasting money that it is hard to have flexibility. At least Milton is only there for one year, but still $9 Million in this depressed market could have gone so much further.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by FargoFreez aka fof playa
Now if they could only trade Jones, sign Stewart, and forget about not-so-steady Eddie, I'll be happy.

Jones is rumored to be going to Atlanta, so they can resign Guardado and Stewart. I also heard Atlanta was looking at Doug M. (I ain't spellin' that shit).

[Ksyrup]

As a Philly fan, I'm glad to see them being aggressive, but I have to agree with John Galt that Milton is awfully expensive, given his track record and price tag. But hell, if they've got the money to spend, and think he might turn it around, more power to them. To some extent, this is like the Yanks paying Sterling Hitchcock $7M a year to just be around. Sure, he's not worth it, but there's no sense in settling for even less when you can afford a moderate upgrade.

Now, if they could only find someone to take David Bell and pick up a Joe Randa-type, I'd be happy.

[oykib]

I think everyone in baseball looks at Milton and creams in their pants when evaluating his tools. He always has five games a year when he's totally lights out. Every team is convinced that they can coach him into doing that fifteen times instead and getting rid of the ten times that he pitches totally crappy. If they could do that, then he'd be Mike Mussina.

But the problem is that no one has been able to do it. But there is the long-standing (and incorrect) idea that left-handed pitchers tend to develop late to spur these guys on.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by oykib
But there is the long-standing (and incorrect) idea that left-handed pitchers tend to develop late to spur these guys on.

Can you back that up? (The assertion that it's incorrect)

Not challenging, just curious. It definitely is a widely held belief, but I have yet to see anything substantive to dispute it. Have you something along those lines?

[Ksyrup]

Jamie Moyer! What else does anyone need to prove the theory?!

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Can you back that up? (The assertion that it's incorrect)

Not challenging, just curious. It definitely is a widely held belief, but I have yet to see anything substantive to dispute it. Have you something along those lines?

Steve Carlton didn't blossom till he was 28.
Bruce Ruffin sucked as a Phillie but as he got older he was decent with the Rockies...

[Ksyrup]

Uh...Steve Carlton won 14 games as a 22 year old, 17 games as a 24 year old, 20 games as a 26 year old, and had probably the finest season of any pitcher on a last-place team at age 27.

Ruffin was never much of a pitcher, although he made an immediate impact at age 22, going 9-4 with a 2.46 in the 2nd half of the 1986 season. Aside from that, he had one very good season as a reliever, in which he pitched a grand total of 34 innings, at age 31. Those two seasons were countered with 10 subpar or adequate seasons as a starter, than as a reliever when teams gave up on him as a starter. Hardly the poster child for a scrub who suddenly becomes a star, like Jamie Moyer.

[Comey]

Or even someone like David Wells could fit into that lefty-takes-longer-to-develop category. Wells did go 15-10 in 1991, but really didn't blossom until a 16-8 year in 1995, as a 32-year-old.

I don't know how consistent that comment is, but I'm sure there's something out there that looks at it.

-John

[Ksyrup]

I thought I rememebered Neyer doing an araticle on Moyer and late bloomers. Here it is:



What's amazing about Jamie Moyer isn't that he's still pitching effectively in the major leagues at 40. There have been plenty of pitchers like that, and in fact there are two others right now, in the persons of Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson.

No, what's amazing about Jamie Moyer is that he's still pitching effectively at 40 after he spent his 20s not pitching effectively.

Since turning 34, Moyer has won 111 games. That's impressive; only 14 other pitchers in major league history have won more than 100 games from their Age 34 season (the season in which they were 34 on July 1) through their Age 40 season.


34-40 Before 34
Cy Young 171 286
Warren Spahn 143 166
Eddie Plank 135 186
Early Wynn 123 161
Gaylord Perry 121 158
Phil Niekro 121 158
Roger Clemens 117 192
Tommy John 114 134
Pete Alexander 113 235
Jamie Moyer 111 72
Dazzy Vance 111 64
Charlie Hough 111 53
Joe Niekro 109 95
Steve Carlton 107 192
Randy Johnson 105 124


Nine of those pitchers are in the Hall of Fame, and two others (Clemens and Johnson) will be, the moment they're eligible.

What's most interesting about this list? Well, again, most of them were great pitchers for a number of years before they turned 34. What sets Moyer apart is that he wasn't. But as you can see, he's not unique in this respect. There have been a few other pitchers who didn't find themselves until their middle 30s.

Just a few, though.

Dazzy Vance, due mostly to a serious arm injury, didn't establish himself in the major leagues until 1922, when he was already 31 years old. But Vance, who at the time probably threw as hard as anybody in the world, immediately became a star. He led the National League in strikeouts seven straight seasons and eventually earned a plaque in the Hall of Fame. Vance enjoyed his last great season in 1930, when he was 39.

Charlie Hough and Joe Niekro both have excuses for winning fewer than 100 games before their Age 34 seasons: they were knuckleball pitchers. Unlike many knuckleball pitchers, though, both actually reached the majors at fairly young ages.

Hough debuted with the Dodgers when he was only 22, and became a valuable member of the staff when he was 25 ... as a relief pitcher. Hough didn't become a regular starter until 1982, by which time he was working for the Rangers. And then for the next decade he was one of the more reliable starting pitchers in the game. Hough wound up winning 216 games, and 163 of them came after his 34th birthday.

Niekro, too, reached the majors when he was 22. But his first team, the Cubs, wouldn't let him throw his knuckleball, and he basically spent the first eight seasons of his career trying to establish himself as a quality major-league pitcher (and not quite succeeding). But in 1975 he hooked up with the Astros and began to rely on his knuckleball. And like Hough, once he got into a rotation with a reliable knuckleball, he enjoyed a long (if late) career.

But Jamie Moyer doesn't throw a knuckleball, nor does he resemble Dazzy Vance in any fashion (other than his late-career success). As near as I can tell, Moyer is the only "conventional" pitcher who essentially struggled throughout his 20's (for no apparent reason), and then learned how to pitch brilliantly in his mid 30s (for no apparent reason).

In 2001, Moyer became the oldest first-time 20-game winner in major-league history, and he's got a real good chance to win 20 again this season. He turns 41 in November, but his contract with the Mariners runs for two more seasons. So how many more games can Jamie Moyer win?

Pick a number out of a hat. There's never been anybody quite like him.


Vance, Hough, and Niekro were all righties, btw.

[MizzouRah]

Nice research, I think I'm changing my name to Dazzy. :)

Call me Daz for short. "What's up Daz?" "Hey, here comes Daz" "Whatdup Daz?" "What it b Daz?" "How's work Daz?" "YO, DAZ!"


Daz

[cuervo72]

I'm not particularly blown away by this acquisition, I'm afraid Milton is just going to be another mediocre Phillies pitcher. Just a hunch.

[Ksyrup]

If he can eat innings and be moderately efective, I think they'll be happy. Remember, he's the 4th starter. Assuming Wolf and Padilla are solid, I think the key to next season may be Brett Myers. Of course, if they make a deal for a true ace, that just takes the pressure off of everyone. Milton as a 5th starter isn't too shabby.

[Gambit]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
The talk in our local paper is that the Angels are looking to bring in Rafael Palmeiro. What makes it attractive for Palmeiro is that we will let him play 1B.

But there are several teams looking at him, so who knows how that will go.

Good job getting Milton.

CR

Wish we(Angels) got Milton instead :(

[FargoFreez aka fof playa]

Originally posted by MizzouRah
Nice research, I think I'm changing my name to Dazzy. :)

Call me Daz for short. "What's up Daz?" "Hey, here comes Daz" "Whatdup Daz?" "What it b Daz?" "How's work Daz?" "YO, DAZ!"


Daz

That name has already been taken by a member of the Dogg Pound. Bow wow wow yippee-o yippee-a

:cool:

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Gambit
Wish we(Angels) got Milton instead :(

I don't. I share the concerns of those bagging on Milton. It seems like I always end up with the guy in fantasy leagues, and I am still waiting for him to come through. He was always one of the worst pitchers on my staffs (at least until I cut him).

Some people would say Excobar at $6 M is a big risk, because he hasn't been consistent or even really a starter, but I feel much more comfortable about that then I would giving $9 M to Milton.

Of course, IMO, our starting pitchers just had a horrible year last year and should bounce back to normal performance levels next year. Wash and Ortiz and Lackey should all be fine next season. Toss in Escobar and a solid kid like Bootcheck and Shields, along with our top notch pen, and I will be happy with the pitching.

It's getting more bang in the lineup that I am concerned about. I am anxiously listening for reports of improvement on offense.

CR

[MizzouRah]

Originally posted by FargoFreez aka fof playa
That name has already been taken by a member of the Dogg Pound. Bow wow wow yippee-o yippee-a

:cool:


Diggity Daz or something like that?


Back on topic I think Milton will do well in Philly. I would take him on the Cardinals anyday. Oh that's right, we resigned Carpender.


Todd

[FargoFreez aka fof playa]

Actually it's dat nigga' Daz

[oykib]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Can you back that up? (The assertion that it's incorrect)

Not challenging, just curious. It definitely is a widely held belief, but I have yet to see anything substantive to dispute it. Have you something along those lines?

Baseball Prospectus did a study of it during the 2002 season, I believe. They actually found that lefties developed no more quickly than righties.



Doctoring the Numbers (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020221doctoring.html)

[oykib]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
If he can eat innings and be moderately efective, I think they'll be happy. Remember, he's the 4th starter. Assuming Wolf and Padilla are solid, I think the key to next season may be Brett Myers. Of course, if they make a deal for a true ace, that just takes the pressure off of everyone. Milton as a 5th starter isn't too shabby.

He's a fourth starter that they are paying nine-and-a-quarter million dollars to next season. Weren't the Phillies a small market team that was recieving revenue sharing money three years ago? Haave I missed something?;)

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by oykib
Baseball Prospectus did a study of it during the 2002 season, I believe. They actually found that lefties developed no more quickly than righties.

Doctoring the Numbers (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020221doctoring.html)

Interesting study, but I'm not certain that it says exactly what you suggest. It does seem to indicate that pitchers experienceing "major breakout" years don't have a particular age skew with respect to left- or right-handedness. But it doesn't necessarily say that as a whole, lefties and righties develop along the same schedule. (That might also be true, but I don't think that a limited study of the "breakout" phenomenon necessarily reflects the tendendice of the many, many player who don't have such a year, but instead more gradually develop their full skill set. Jazayerli is practically falling over himself to show how stats like these can be misleading (which I commend) but then concludes with another study that is troublesome to interpolate beyond exactly what it shows.

(Incidentally, I alwasy wonder about using data from earlier baseball eras in trying to forecast modern players -- the style and management of pitching in the 1920s through 1950s was awfully different than it is today, and I'm not so sure that it's fair to place the multiple eras all together for a predictive analysis)

Regardless -- interesting article, one that I missed its first time around. (February, feh) Thanks for the link.

[oykib]

Well the thing is that the conventionl wisdom is that they develop late. So the data should be easy to find. He uses various criteria to define the sets of right and left-handed pitchers that he studies. But there is no clear evidence of that in any of them.

If we look at the notion that young left-handed hitters have trouble hitting lefties, I'm sure that we could easily find stats to back that up. We could also easily find evidence that pitchers, catchers, and shortstops tend to be the worst hitters. I think that is true of all of the conventional wisdom that is actual.

If this thing they say bout lefties is true, then we'd have more than some (for the most part) easily refutable anecdotal evidence easily available.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by oykib
Well the thing is that the conventionl wisdom is that they develop late. So the data should be easy to find. He uses various criteria to define the sets of right and left-handed pitchers that he studies. But there is no clear evidence of that in any of them.

If we look at the notion that young left-handed hitters have trouble hitting lefties, I'm sure that we could easily find stats to back that up. We could also easily find evidence that pitchers, catchers, and shortstops tend to be the worst hitters. I think that is true of all of the conventional wisdom that is actual.

If this thing they say bout lefties is true, then we'd have more than some (for the most part) easily refutable anecdotal evidence easily available.

Please understand - I'm not saying I disagree with him (or you). I'm just pointing out that this study, while certainly consistent with the argument that there is no developmental difference, doesn't exactly prove it.

[oykib]

I wasn't taking it personally. I'm just explaining why I pretty much agree with his conclusion despite the fact that the data is really neither here nor there.

I am taking it from the standpoint that most of these old pearls of wisdom are assertions tht have never been proved. Many baseball fans think the opposite. There is always some notion that you have to etch these syings bck out of the bronze into which they have been engraved. I don't need the researcher to go that far.

Rather, I think that the people that lwys make these assertions should have more evidence than that Jamie Moyer became an All-Star pitcher in his mid to late thirties.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by oykib
Haave I missed something?;)

A new stadium. Look at what it did for Detroit, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh!

BTW, I find it hilarious (and sad) that Detroit's owner has publicly stated that they will overpay for a star. Apparently, they have a decent shot at Tejada, since no one is too interested in him right now.

[QuikSand]

I'll toss this around a little at my site (Baseball HQ) and see if there is any input there. I know that the "timeline" assumptions they use for LHPand RHP differs - but I don't know if there has been any work beyond what everyone knows" to back that up.

[oykib]

I think that it aalso has something to do with the fact that left-handed hitters have a lot of trouble hitting lefties. Because of that, low quality lefties seem to be able to stick around for a while. I haven't verified that is even more than my personal observation.

But it always seems that there's an old Jessie Orosco floating around the league. That kind of guy tends to give the impression that lefties re older than righties. I'd also assume that a borderline talent who throws lefty might break into the league a little more easily as a middle reliever, just because every manager wants two of them. These might be guys that have kicked around the minors for a while or have been shuttled back and forth until they prove that they have achieved some level of ability at that one valued skill.

I'd like to see an in depth study of it.

[John Galt]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that late development is correlated to being left handed, but I would be surprised to find causation. Correlation seems likely given the mantras espoused that "lefties develop late" and "if you are left handed and breathing, you can pitch in the major leagues." Given those two beliefs, I wouldn't be surprised to see left handers given many more opportunities to develop late whereas a right hander would be cast off much sooner. Again, I have no evidence, but I think this area of study is one where a control is very hard to find.