Kazmir

by braves077 on Jan 1, 2008 4:08 PM EST Comment 15 comments

Just read an article on MLBTR that Scott Kazmir and the Rays can't agree on a contract extensions. I don't think they would stop talking about his contract though. He would definitly be our 3 starter and maybe our future ace. Many teams will definitley show interest and we better be one of them. Teams could go after him more than Johan b/c of age, asking price and more. What do you think would take too get him? Hey we could rub it, I mean RUB IT in the Mets faces.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No

Absolutely no way the Rays trade him at this point. He's controlled for three years and is basically a number #2 starter who's 24 on opening day. You don't trade someone like that, and if you can't reach a contract extension, you still control him for three years so you can definitely wait to trade him until 2009/2010.

By the way, if he was on the market, expect a package in excess of what is being asked for Johan. The Braves don't have enough to play that game.

by 17843 on Jan 1, 2008 6:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Exactly....

The braves just do not have the pure stud in order to get Kazmir, and he is going to reach free agency at 27, three years younger than Johan will when he reaches free agency. No chance at all the braves could get him, and no chance at all we would be able to retain him, especially if we want to extend teixera

by bravessuperbeast on Jan 1, 2008 6:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Just play along

We won't be getting him, but just play along with it guys!

Rays get: Brandon Jones, Brent Lillibridge, Chuck James, and Manny Acosta

Braves get: Scott Kazmir

Dynasty Mock Offseason - GM MOCK HAPPENING NOW! Please help us out, and sign up!

by Chipper on Jan 1, 2008 10:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nope

The Rays don't need a LF or SS prospect. They need young pitching. Why would they downgrade from Kazmir to James (#2 to #4) just to add a useful middle man and two ML ready prospects at positions where they have an all-star (Crawford) and a regular (Bartlett) and top prospect (Brignac)?
Even if the above situation is ignored, they're not going to trade a #2 lefty starter with three years until free agency for two prospects, a significantly worse lefty starter, and a middle reliever.

Honestly though, the Rays system is absolutely stacked. Right now, guys like Longoria, Price, Davis, McGee, Jennings, Brignac, Hellickson, Jaso, Perez, Barnese, Morlan, and Niemann are their top 12 or so prospects. With all that depth, there simply is no need to trade your best starting pitcher for prospects, especially when I doubt anyone on the Braves list would rate higher than #6 (behind Longoria, Price, Davis, McGee, and Brignac by the way) on the Rays list.

by 17843 on Jan 2, 2008 1:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Definitely true

That system is nasty. Without a doubt the best in MLB.

by DwightSmithPinchHits on Jan 2, 2008 4:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I was on the assumption that they trade Crawford for something really big, like to the Dodgers for Kershaw or Broxton.

Dynasty Mock Offseason - GM MOCK HAPPENING NOW! Please help us out, and sign up!

by Chipper on Jan 6, 2008 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hahaha no way

Kazmir would be the Braves #2, if not #1. He is better than Hudson, and will likely be better than Smoltz in the near future.

I find it highly unlikely the Rays will deal Kazmir now or anytime. They have no need for prospects -- they're stacked at every position. By the time the deal expires, they figure to be a contender with more money than they have now, and a new ballpark.

Jones/James/Lillibridge/Acosta would really be a weak offer, too. I don't think there's any way the Braves could win a bidding war for Kazmir if he were on the market, though they'd be fools not to inquire.

by DwightSmithPinchHits on Jan 2, 2008 4:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

hm

Maybe Friedman wants to add some veteran leadership. HAMPTON AND CASH FOR KAZMIR. Sounds good to me.

by bigjoe on Jan 2, 2008 10:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

hehe

I wish you were the Rays GM bigjoe. >:-)

by surge on Jan 2, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

someone said it but it should be re-stated: Kazmir is better than Hudson and better than Smoltz, now.

However, I don't like Kazmir's mechanics or body or arsenal -- I think he gets hurt, and he isn't worth the package. Few are.

He is, for what he'll be (a short-lived career of excellent) better than Smoltz/Hudson, putting up beast numbers in the AL East (in the AL period). But he's very overrated and underrated; he's not reasonably available now (3 years? no way he's available); I don't think he'll have long-term health. Maybe he will, though, and I hope so.

He's fun.

Just wanted to clarify that he is a stuuuuuuuud.

by Gregory Pratt on Jan 7, 2008 2:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes, he is a stud

but being better than Smoltz and Hudson right now? Except for Strikeouts, in which Kazmir is a machine, all the other numbers across the board are better by both Smoltz and Hudson. Sure, Kazmir plays in the American League and I give him props for pitching so well there, but Hudson before he came to the Braves was in the American League and putting up better numbers than what Kazmir did this year. Hudson returned to his old form last year, but Hudson basically proved that if you move over from the American League to the National League that doesn't automatically mean that you are going to pitch better and have better numbers (examples 2005 & 2006).

So yes, Kazmir is a stud and in a couple of years with more seasoning I have no doubt that he will be better than Hudson and an aging Smoltz. But right now I don't say he is as good because besides the K's he does not have the numbers to back that statement up, although I do think it is very close - maybe closer than it seems I'm arguing, but I still don't think he is better just yet. If he brings down the walk totals and the WHIP a little bit, I will concede that he is better, but until this is done I would have to go with the guys that have proved themselves year in and year out.

by whunt13 on Jan 7, 2008 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kazmir is MUCH better than Hudson

Smoltz is pretty close, but Hudson is not in Kazmir's league.

Tim Hudson 2006: ERA+ of 91
Hudson 2007: ERA+ or 128

Kazmir 06: 142
Kazmir 07: 130

Kazmir is also nine years younger and did that pitching in the beastly AL East.

by DwightSmithPinchHits on Jan 7, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

MUCH better is a crazy statement

You basically proved my point. I said moving over to the national league does not automatically make your numbers better and used Hudson's 2005 & 2006 seasons as an example.

I see that you have provided a sample of 2007 ERA+ which is pretty much identical between the two players - 128 to 130. So I don't know how you can say "MUCH" better.

Plus you used one stat to back up your "MUCH" better statement, and the 2007 stat was almost the same. I'm going to need more evidence than that to say he is better or "MUCH" better.

Also, you failed to mention that Hudson gave up 36 less BB, gave up 8 fewer HR's, had a lower WHIP, all while pitching 18 more innings.

One more thing, how many 7+ innings did each guy throw in their identical 34 games started???

Kazmir = 10/34
Hudson = 21/34

That means in over 61% of his starts Hudson was letting our bullpen guys get some much needed rest, which is something that is very important over the course of a season that you won't see show up in stats. Compare this to Kazmir's in which he is only going 7+ in around 30% off his starts. That means 70% of the time the Rays were having to use 3-5 bullpen arms to finish a game.

Taking all the information I have provided, as well as your ERA+ stat from 2007, it leads me to beleive that Hudson still gets the edge over Kazmir, but like I said before I think it is close.

But regardless of who is better than who, the reason I responded to your post was because I thought that saying, "Kazmir is MUCH better than Hudson", was a crazy statement. I think I have proved that Kazmir is not "MUCH" better than Hudson like you claim in your post.

by whunt13 on Jan 7, 2008 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They were comparable in 2007

But in 2006, it wasn't even close.

If you average the two years, MUCH better is about right, I believe.

And taking into consideration their ages, salaries and park factors, there's no comparison between the two.

Also, ERA+ is an adjusted rate stat, which is more valuable than something arbitrary than "how often did he pitch seven innings"? Hudson did pitch 18 more innings than Kazmir in 2007, which helps Hudson's value, but is hardly as epic as you make it out to be.

by DwightSmithPinchHits on Jan 8, 2008 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

epic statement

How often your bullpen pitchers have to pitch isn't arbitrary at all, and if you have been a braves fan the last couple of years you should know that. Having 1 or 2 guys close out a game over 60% of the time compared to having 3 to 5 guys close out a game 70% of the time is quite significant. That means your bullpen guys will be more fresh over the course of the season and can help you pick up wins rather than blow saves. If Kazmir was on our team this past year instead of Hudson I'm sure that we would have lost quite a few more games down the road when our other pitchers went to the mound because our bullpen guys wouldn't have been nearly as fresh. So not pitching 7+ innings although might not be "Epic" it is a big deal over the course of a season and will certainly have an effect on the overall team record.

Secondly, your ERA+ is a good stat, I like the ERA+ stat, I am a fan of it. And you are right in the fact that when you average the two years together it is a huge difference. But two years is quite a small sample and 2006 was obviously the worst year of Hudson's career and isn't idicative of the kind of All-Star caliber pitcher he is. Instead of taking a very small sample of only two years, lets just take their whole career ERA+

Kazmir = 123
Hudson = 126

So Hudson's is better throughout his career and that includes the dreadful ERA+ 92 from 2006. Take that season away and then "MUCH better is just about wrong".

I know that Hudson's career has been longer and he is older, so this comparison of ERA+ throughout the career isn't the best, but it certainly says something.

I am the kind of guy that likes to use the past as an indicator of what someone will do in the future, but I also factor in "What have you done for me lately".

And what Hudson has done lately (2007) is put up better numbers almost across the board.

So once again, without trying to be "epic", I am going to state that with all these factors considered I feel that Hudson gets the edge over Kazmir right now, especially when you factor in experience. Although I give the edge to Hudson, I do see it as being very close because I feel that Kazmir is a top flight pitcher and will only get better. But the big point I've been trying to make to you is that regardless of who is better (could be Hudson, it could be Kazmir) there is no way on earth someone could look at all these factors and make the statement, "Kazmir is MUCH better than Hudson". Someone could certainly say Hudson is better or Kazmir is better, but logically they can't say one is MUCH better than the other.

Well excuse me, I guess they could....it would just be an "epically" irrational statement.

by whunt13 on Jan 8, 2008 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs