Red Mosquito

Peavy belongs in the NL. He'd be a good fit for the Cubs or Cards. Maybe Braves.

Ugh I don't have the strength for this again.

numbers wrote:Ugh I don't have the strength for this again.

Fighting against stats is hard.

I wrote "fighting against numbers is hard" first but changed it to avoid confusion.

Stop trying to bait me.

The only argument you have that Peavy was worth it is if you look at his august numbers of that year. He put up a 3.18 ERA in August, but then he threw it all down the drain by putting up a 5.4 era from sept 1 through the rest of the regular season.

And his postseason ERA that year was a 4.5. Which is literally the worst you can do and still be in quality start territory. He gave you the bare minimum to not completely suck and for that we gave up one of the best defensive shortstops of our time.

cutuphalfdead wrote:The only argument you have that Peavy was worth it is if you look at his august numbers of that year. He put up a 3.18 ERA in August, but then he threw it all down the drain by putting up a 5.4 era from sept 1 through the rest of the regular season.

And his postseason ERA that year was a 4.5. Which is literally the worst you can do and still be in quality start territory. He gave you the bare minimum to not completely suck and for that we gave up one of the best defensive shortstops of our time.

My argument, is that it was a prudent move to make even though it didn't prove to be necessary.

numbers wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The only argument you have that Peavy was worth it is if you look at his august numbers of that year. He put up a 3.18 ERA in August, but then he threw it all down the drain by putting up a 5.4 era from sept 1 through the rest of the regular season.

And his postseason ERA that year was a 4.5. Which is literally the worst you can do and still be in quality start territory. He gave you the bare minimum to not completely suck and for that we gave up one of the best defensive shortstops of our time.

My argument, is that it was a prudent move to make even though it didn't prove to be necessary.

ugh, but we could have moved X to 3b while he was still in the minors and made it permanent and kept iglesias at short going forward, and signed stephen drew to get us through 2014

Not to mention that they ended up flipping him for decent pitching prospects a year later.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

numbers wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The only argument you have that Peavy was worth it is if you look at his august numbers of that year. He put up a 3.18 ERA in August, but then he threw it all down the drain by putting up a 5.4 era from sept 1 through the rest of the regular season.

And his postseason ERA that year was a 4.5. Which is literally the worst you can do and still be in quality start territory. He gave you the bare minimum to not completely suck and for that we gave up one of the best defensive shortstops of our time.

My argument, is that it was a prudent move to make even though it didn't prove to be necessary.

ugh, but we could have moved X to 3b while he was still in the minors and made it permanent and kept iglesias at short going forward, and signed stephen drew to get us through 2014

Yes, we could have. I still would have made the deal though, it was wise to deepen the rotation at that time. It just turned out that no one got hurt.

Everyday 23 Year Old SS>"Decent pitching prospects"

@SkitchP wrote:Everyday 23 Year Old SS>"Decent pitching prospects"

don't have to convince me

@SkitchP wrote:Everyday 23 Year Old SS>"Decent pitching prospects"

In addition to my other argument!

And not sold on Iglesias as an everyday player quite yet.

numbers wrote:And not sold on Iglesias as an everyday player quite yet.

sigh

numbers wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Everyday 23 Year Old SS>"Decent pitching prospects"

In addition to my other argument!

The "well Peavy didn't HURT us too bad" argument probably does your viewpoint more harm than good.

@SkitchP wrote:

numbers wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Everyday 23 Year Old SS>"Decent pitching prospects"

In addition to my other argument!

The "well Peavy didn't HURT us too bad" argument probably does your viewpoint more harm than good.

Don't forge the was an insurance policy we didn't need!

That isn't dumb! You don't need insurance until you do, it was wise to deepen that rotation. Was it really that much of a given that none of Lester, Lackey, Dempster, or Doubront would get hurt?

It would have been wise if you didn't have to give up jose fucking iglesias to do it.

numbers wrote:That isn't dumb! You don't need insurance until you do, it was wise to deepen that rotation. Was it really that much of a given that none of Lester, Lackey, Dempster, or Doubront would get hurt?

Isnt that what Bucholz was for?