The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Had Verlander performed in 2013 and 2014 like he did previously, you're probably signing him for 5 years 175 in 2015 (or more/longer).
If Verlander was 27 or 28 at the time, I would agree with you. But he wasn't. And we're no longer dealing with pitchers from the year 2002. The chances of Verlander or any power pitcher (this is why Price, Sabbathia, and Grienke are not apt comparisons) with that many innings/pitches under their belts sustaining the success at 31, 32, or 33 are slim to none. Him falling off was not difficult to project.
Had Verlander performed in 2013 and 2014 like he did previously, you're probably signing him for 5 years 175 in 2015 (or more/longer).
If Verlander was 27 or 28 at the time, I would agree with you. But he wasn't. And we're no longer dealing with pitchers from the year 2002. The chances of Verlander or any power pitcher (this is why Price, Sabbathia, and Grienke are not apt comparisons) with that many innings/pitches under their belts sustaining the success at 31, 32, or 33 are slim to none. Him falling off was not difficult to project.
*whistles*
Meh. Verlander DID fall off a cliff at that age, and that's normal. A heavy workload leading to a significant decline in velocity and subsequent decline in performance coupled with an arm injury in his early 30's is pretty common. What's less common is a pitcher suddenly rediscovering his peak velocity at 34-35. It happened, obviously, but it was never the most likely result.
@SkitchP wrote:
washing machine wrote:
I remember when Skitch texted me about the Verlander deal I was wary. Boy howdy.
and his contract is actually kind of a deal at this point... and he might get another 3 year 80 million after it.
Given his last couple of seasons, the contract looks really good. But he would have to have a couple pretty amazing seasons to get 3 years/$80 million heading into his age-37 season.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 7:12 am Posts: 1642 Location: The Jungle
CopperTom wrote:
Cardinals - Brewers game was the first time in history that a game started and ended with back to back home runs. It blows my mind that after 100+ years and 154 / 162 games per year per team, that each and every year, we still have several "first time in MLB history" accomplishments.
In yesterdays SD/SF game, it was the first time in MLB history, a team was held to 1 hit, and the 1 hit was a pinch hit, hit, by a pitcher, who did not pitch in the game. Congrats Clayton Richard
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum