cor232000:

radio silence:

BenderTheOffender:

In response to Eraser. The Brewers are probably not going to have a great rotation this year, it's just not likely to happen, but Bush is a solid #3, I bet every playoff team has a "Bush-like" pitcher, a middle of the rotation innings eater, that can consistently go deep into games and keep the team in the game.

 

In fact, both the Rockies and the Phillies have two #3 starters that are either equal to Bush's 2008 season, or worse: Hammel and de la Rosa for the Rockies, and Moyer and Hamels for the Phillies.

Minnesota's an even better example of winning without very strong pitching -- their two best pitchers were both #2 starters, and they didn't have a #3, whatsoever.

Anaheim also featured two #3 starters at or worse than Bush's 2008 level -- Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana.

 

Radio, that's all fine and good IF he consistently pitching at his 2008 level.  You're usually the one always preaching career numbers and not one good season.  Bush's '07 and '09 seasons are nowhere near his '08 season.  I know he had an injury but his numbers were still horrible.  If he pitches like he did in 08 I agree with you, but his 08 season over the past 3 years seems to be the fluke, not the norm.

Also, it's not really a fair comparison of the Brewers pitching with the Phillies and Rockies.   The Rockies pitching numbers are always going to be worse because they play in Colorado and although the Brewers offense is good, they're not nearly as good as the Phillies.

Bush's overall numbers this year are not indicative of his ability. He was pitching just as well as he was last season before takng the liner of his pitching elbow. He was a solid 3 for the Brewers in 06 as well.

cor232000:

radio silence:

BenderTheOffender:

In response to Eraser. The Brewers are probably not going to have a great rotation this year, it's just not likely to happen, but Bush is a solid #3, I bet every playoff team has a "Bush-like" pitcher, a middle of the rotation innings eater, that can consistently go deep into games and keep the team in the game.

 

In fact, both the Rockies and the Phillies have two #3 starters that are either equal to Bush's 2008 season, or worse: Hammel and de la Rosa for the Rockies, and Moyer and Hamels for the Phillies.

Minnesota's an even better example of winning without very strong pitching -- their two best pitchers were both #2 starters, and they didn't have a #3, whatsoever.

Anaheim also featured two #3 starters at or worse than Bush's 2008 level -- Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana.

 

Radio, that's all fine and good IF he consistently pitching at his 2008 level.  You're usually the one always preaching career numbers and not one good season.  Bush's '07 and '09 seasons are nowhere near his '08 season.  I know he had an injury but his numbers were still horrible.  If he pitches like he did in 08 I agree with you, but his 08 season over the past 3 years seems to be the fluke, not the norm.

Also, it's not really a fair comparison of the Brewers pitching with the Phillies and Rockies.   The Rockies pitching numbers are always going to be worse because they play in Colorado and although the Brewers offense is good, they're not nearly as good as the Phillies.

 

So the Rockies' pitching will always be worse, and their offense always better, what's your point? The point was that they have 2 #3 type pitchers that essentially do the same job as Bush. 

The Rockies only scored 19 more R then the Brewers, so the Brewers have a better offense then the Rockies (taking out the Coors factor).If you want to account for the home field factor it can work both ways, either you take the stats as they are, or you factor it in both ways.

The Brewers scored 35 less R than the Phillies, which comes out to 5.06 Runs/Gm for the Phillies, and 4.85 Runs/Gm for the Brewers, there is a difference, but the Brewers are in the same "league" as the Phillies, and the Phillies have a chance at back-to-back World Series championships, so if the Brewers can get close to the Phillies, they will be following an effective formula that is proven to work.

cor232000:

Radio, that's all fine and good IF he consistently pitching at his 2008 level.  You're usually the one always preaching career numbers and not one good season.  Bush's '07 and '09 seasons are nowhere near his '08 season.  I know he had an injury but his numbers were still horrible.  If he pitches like he did in 08 I agree with you, but his 08 season over the past 3 years seems to be the fluke, not the norm.

Very fair points.

I just wanted to demonstrate, for effect, that his previous pitching level was a pitching level sustained by multiple playoff teams.

I just want to demonstrate the point that you don't need two or three #1 to go to the playoffs.

Also, it's not really a fair comparison of the Brewers pitching with the Phillies and Rockies.   The Rockies pitching numbers are always going to be worse because they play in Colorado and although the Brewers offense is good, they're not nearly as good as the Phillies.

 

Never fear, I compared pitchers only using park-adjusted stats.

I don't know why we're worried about what's going to happen NEXT off-season when THIS off-season has just begun.

 

However, a couple of points, Dave Bush is a perfectly average pitcher. If he can pitch like he did in '08, that'd be great and just what the Brewers need. However, if he DOES pitch like '08, he'll get a Suppan-like contract in the off-season. (If the market bounces back)

 

And, if the injury affects him in '10 like it did in '09 (when he was supposedly healthy in September), why would you want him to stick around?

 

He's as good as gone.

brewguru:

I don't know why we're worried about what's going to happen NEXT off-season when THIS off-season has just begun.

 

However, a couple of points, Dave Bush is a perfectly average pitcher. If he can pitch like he did in '08, that'd be great and just what the Brewers need. However, if he DOES pitch like '08, he'll get a Suppan-like contract in the off-season. (If the market bounces back)

 

And, if the injury affects him in '10 like it did in '09 (when he was supposedly healthy in September), why would you want him to stick around?

 

He's as good as gone.

 

 

Why is everyone assuming Bush will be tendered a contract THIS offseason?  Brewers are on record that they are looking to add 2 starters.  That means 2 starters will be subtracted one way or another and likely that one added starter is a FA.   Bush will be 30 next month.  We've seen his best (2006 and 2008) and even at his best, he's got a fatal flaw.  He gives up too many HR.  Two of the last 3 years, he's not only allowed a ton of HR, he's given up way more hits than innings pitched.

The Brewers would have to pay him enough in arbitration that they would be forced to pencil him in their rotation.  Any guy coming off an injury plagued year where he posted an awful 6.38 ERA should not have an inside track on any rotation spot.

DaveinEG:

brewguru:

I don't know why we're worried about what's going to happen NEXT off-season when THIS off-season has just begun.

 

However, a couple of points, Dave Bush is a perfectly average pitcher. If he can pitch like he did in '08, that'd be great and just what the Brewers need. However, if he DOES pitch like '08, he'll get a Suppan-like contract in the off-season. (If the market bounces back)

 

And, if the injury affects him in '10 like it did in '09 (when he was supposedly healthy in September), why would you want him to stick around?

 

He's as good as gone.

 

 

Why is everyone assuming Bush will be tendered a contract THIS offseason?  Brewers are on record that they are looking to add 2 starters.  That means 2 starters will be subtracted one way or another and likely that one added starter is a FA.   Bush will be 30 next month.  We've seen his best (2006 and 2008) and even at his best, he's got a fatal flaw.  He gives up too many HR.  Two of the last 3 years, he's not only allowed a ton of HR, he's given up way more hits than innings pitched.

The Brewers would have to pay him enough in arbitration that they would be forced to pencil him in their rotation.  Any guy coming off an injury plagued year where he posted an awful 6.38 ERA should not have an inside track on any rotation spot.

 

Not everyone is assuming he will get a contract this offseason, Radio even expressed how he would rather see how he does this year.

Hits is normally not an issue, since he walks barely any, his overall WHIP is usually incredibly low.

2008: 185 IP, 163 H, 48 BB, for a 1.14 WHIP

He has a career 1.26 WHIP (in comparison Gallardo has 1.27 career WHIP). 

HRs is an issue (his worst year he gave up 29 hrs), but it's not near Looper, and with a low WHIP (few walks) he can get away with giving up more solo shots.

DaveinEG:

Why is everyone assuming Bush will be tendered a contract THIS offseason? 

Because a team in the Brewers position cannot afford to simply kick away a guy who has his track record over a few million dollars. It would be a REALLY dumb decision to dump him, unless the Brewers know something about the injury being something that will persist and hurt him this season.

Einsteinhood:

DaveinEG:

Why is everyone assuming Bush will be tendered a contract THIS offseason? 

Because a team in the Brewers position cannot afford to simply kick away a guy who has his track record over a few million dollars. It would be a REALLY dumb decision to dump him, unless the Brewers know something about the injury being something that will persist and hurt him this season.

 

This team lacks flexibility in their rotation as much as it lacks talent.  Suppan will be back.  If they bring back both Looper for $6.5 million and Bush for $4 million, they have zero flexibility.  They go into 2010 committed to mediocrity with over $22 million owed to 3 guys with ERAs over 5 last season..  Bush at 30 isn't going to ever outdo his top seasons of 06 and 08.  He's shown that's what his celing is.  Losing him isn't a big risk.

 Besides, where are you going to slot the 2 guys you've said you want to add?  

Saving $4 million that could be the difference between a quality FA and more of the same,  and adding flexibilty to your rotation to allow a spot for a guy picked up in a deal or someone from your system stepping up ala Narveson, has more value than gambling that Bush rebounds to "average".

 

 

 

DaveinEG:

Einsteinhood:

DaveinEG:

Why is everyone assuming Bush will be tendered a contract THIS offseason? 

Because a team in the Brewers position cannot afford to simply kick away a guy who has his track record over a few million dollars. It would be a REALLY dumb decision to dump him, unless the Brewers know something about the injury being something that will persist and hurt him this season.

 

This team lacks flexibility in their rotation as much as it lacks talent.  Suppan will be back.  If they bring back both Looper for $6.5 million and Bush for $4 million, they have zero flexibility.  They go into 2010 committed to mediocrity with over $22 million owed to 3 guys with ERAs over 5 last season..  Bush at 30 isn't going to ever outdo his top seasons of 06 and 08.  He's shown that's what his celing is.  Losing him isn't a big risk.

 Besides, where are you going to slot the 2 guys you've said you want to add?  

Saving $4 million that could be the difference between a quality FA and more of the same,  and adding flexibilty to your rotation to allow a spot for a guy picked up in a deal or someone from your system stepping up ala Narveson, has more value than gambling that Bush rebounds to "average".

 

1) This team needs a "quality FA" starter like I need a hole in the head. That would be a BAD decision. The improvements from this rotation are going to need to be traded for and/or bought at a bargain price on the FA market. NO DUMPING GOOD MONEY AFTER THE BEST FA STARTER YOU CAN AFFORD ANYMORE. That's how we ended up with friggin Suppan.

2) I'm not concerned about "slotting" guys in at all. You don't dump a guy like Bush because you need to open up slots for other guys. You're going to need 6 or 7 starters (minimum) next season, so building up depth isn't an issue. If that means Suppan Parra  or even Bush has to move to the pen to start the season, so be it. 

3) You are so certain that Bush isn't going to ever outdo his 2006 and 2008, but I have seen ZERO evidence to support that other than his age, which obviously doesn't come close to proving that point.

4) If you're counting on Chris Narveson for anything whatsoever, you're barking up a very wrong tree.

The tender deadline is December 12th. Unless he hurt, there's just no way they cut him loose on the chance they may be able to plug the holes with better options. He likely only get ~$5M for 1 year in arb anyhow and they don't have the depth to take such a risk.

The bottom line on Bush in my mind is that refusing to pay him 4 to 4.5 million and letting him walk makes it harder, not easier, to assemble a solid rotation for next year.

Einsteinhood:

 1) This team needs a "quality FA" starter

 

Isn't that contradictory anyways?

brewguru:

Einsteinhood:

 1) This team needs a "quality FA" starter

Isn't that contradictory anyways?

In general, yes.

Trying to build a rotation through FA is damn near impossible, even the Yankees struggle to do it mightily and they dump more money than anyone at the issue.

Einsteinhood:

brewguru:

Einsteinhood:

 1) This team needs a "quality FA" starter

Isn't that contradictory anyways?

In general, yes.

Trying to build a rotation through FA is damn near impossible, even the Yankees struggle to do it mightily and they dump more money than anyone at the issue.

 

Actually, I was quite happy the Yankees signed Burnett. Before this year, he had not been healthy in a non-contract year since '02.

They got lucky this year.

brewguru:

Einsteinhood:

brewguru:

Einsteinhood:

 1) This team needs a "quality FA" starter

Isn't that contradictory anyways?

In general, yes.

Trying to build a rotation through FA is damn near impossible, even the Yankees struggle to do it mightily and they dump more money than anyone at the issue.

Actually, I was quite happy the Yankees signed Burnett. Before this year, he had not been healthy in a non-contract year since '02.

They got lucky this year.

Yeah, they did.

The way they do things, they really only need to get 2-3 "good" years out of a contract like that for it to be a net positive for them. Margin for error is one of the things that makes the payroll disparity matter so much.