User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.1114 seconds
82 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
WEEI: Minihane: Guess What? Tim Wakefield Is Reaching Legendary Status
If they still could...even Mr. Butch and the Holy Men would bow.
Listen, he’s not Roger Clemens or Cy Young, we know that. Probably he’s not even one of the 10 best pitchers in Red Sox history (Is that true? Let’s list them. Young, Clemens, Smokey Joe Wood, Pedro, Luis Tiant, Lefty Grove (pitched late in his career for the Sox but was great for them. Plus I think he’s the best pitcher in history, so that’s a tiebreaker for sure) Dutch Leonard. You know what? I think that’s it for locks. A case can be made for a handful of guys. Babe Ruth, Carl Mays, Jim Lonborg, Bob Stanley, Derek Lowe, Schilling, Dick Radatz, Doug Bird (maybe not). But there is no huge edge there either way. So Wakefield is somewhere in that 8-12 range).
...Wakefield has been on a pitching staff with Brian Rose, Paxton Crawford and Frankie Rodriguez (and I think we have the answer on him—it’s not going to work out at shortstop or pitcher), guys who were there to replace him one day. How’d that go? Pedro, Manny, Saberhagen, Bryce Florie, Reggie Jefferson, Aaron Sele, Wil Cordero, Rod Beck, Rich Garces, Crazy Carl. Wakefield and Jamie Moyer were teammates on the 1996 Red Sox. Moyer was 33, Wakefield 29. What kind of odds could you have gotten that both would still be pitching in 2009? Pre-steroids (or what passes for it now), The Steroid Era and whatever this era is today. The Curse of the Bambino and The Curse of A-Rod. He pitched against Tim Raines and Tim Raines Jr. He has been taken for granted a million times and just kept pitching. Years and years of double-digit wins and 200 innings. Nothing flashy. No incredible highs and no embarrassing lows. No dopey commercials or cameos on sitcoms. The guy has never jumped the shark.
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Kansas City Kansan: Sloan: It's time to trade Greinke, Soria
(54 - 8:42pm, Feb 09)
Last: Joshua Gibsons Ruth (Voxter)
(54 - 8:42pm, Feb 09)
Last: Joshua Gibsons Ruth (Voxter)
Newsblog: Borzi: Upbeat Twins owner Jim Pohlad has lots to say but stays mum on the Mauer issue
(17 - 8:39pm, Feb 09)
Last: J. Roberts
(17 - 8:39pm, Feb 09)
Last: J. Roberts
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I think Wakefield is great, but then again I don't expect more than a .500 record out of him. When he's on, he's a lot of fun to watch.
Wakefield has always been one of my hidden favorite players. I'll say right now that it would surprise me exactly zero to see him pitching, and pitching well (league average over 150 IP or so) at age 50. Question is, if we give him 12 wins a year, how old would he have to go to make the Hall someday? He'd have 300 at ~50. Would that be enough? I doubt it highly, as Sutton faced such a tough road, but the older Wake goes, it adds in a "Jesus, look at that freak" factor that would get him extra votes.
Undoubtedly. He's 3rd in wins, second in games, 3rd in IP, only 166 behind the leader, 2nd in K's, 2nd in games started and will pass Clemens this year, but also first in HR allowed, by a huge margin, as well as walks, losses, and earned runs. His ERA+ doesn't come close to the top 10, but he's got 1000 or more innins more than anyone ahead of him save Clemens and Young.
Question: Who will have more wins in their age 50 season - Wakefield or Moyer?
Neither. I say they both tie with 0.
There's no cap on the extensions. Basically, it'll last until he retires, or the Red Sox cut him.
EDIT: And I can't understand how MLBPA allowed that one to slip through, as it feels too much like a return to the reserve clause.
I might take issue with this
It was Wake's suggestion, IIRC. If he volunteered for it, I don't know that the union could really block it.
I also hope he can keep up this kind of pitching for at least month or so and finally make an All-Star team that he's been shortchanged of in the past (2001, 2002 - ####### Torre's knuckleball bias, and arguably 95).
Those numbers are correct, but when you're talking about Gentleman Jim's place in Red Sox history, that comment kind of misses the forest for the trees.
(OTOH it's too bad that Lonborg didn't miss that tree on the ski slope.)
I had the same thought. I think his point was that Wake has never done anything that would embarrass the organization (i.e. he's not Manny and he didn't do 'roids). As a pitcher though he's ALL incredible highs and embarrassing lows. I mean that's the Tim Wakefield experience, 7 IP, 1 hit today, five days from now he'll probably be knocked out in the 3rd by Tampa.
If I've read my Michael Wolverton correctly, flaky pitchers like this are better than their ERA+ indicates.
Sure, if it was A-Rod signing that kind of contract I can see how the union might be wary of a slippery slope. But Wakefield's contract actually favors the player in this instance. If Wakefield has a bad or below average season but the Red Sox want him back, they have to stump up $5 million. Considering his age (even at the time he signed the deal) and most teams' fear of the knuckleball, he could potentially want to come back but only have 1 or 2 offers, driving his price down. The deal smooths out those rough patches, and he doesn't have to play for his contract every year for the one team he really wants to be with.
It's MLB recognizing that this is a totally unique case. No other player in baseball could have an above-average season and have only one offer.
Wait for it...
John Brattain wrote about this somewhere. It may've been THT.
Apart from kicking him out the union which i'm not even sure they can do, not a lot.
Unoffically however the union could simply pull out all the stops to put pressure on the commissioner who can void the deal.
This would range from threatening strikes, not signing a new collective-bargining agreement or even if they really wanted to stop it, challenging MLB's antitrust exemption in court.
It all depends on how badly they wanted to stop it.
I remember when Charlie Hough retired (he posted a 100 ERA+ in his age 45 season, and an 84 in his age 46 season), it wasn't because he didn't have anything left. He felt fine. According to him, he was just tired of the travel and the grind of the 162-game season, and he didn't need the money, so he took advantage of the 1994 strike to just call it a career.
I don't think so. It seems that, if you have two players that average 6IP, 4.50 for a season, you'd prefer the guy that went six innings EVERY NIGHT while giving up only three runs rather than they guy who alternated 3IP 5ER with 9IP 1ER games.
Or maybe I'm wrong. You are damn near guaranteed to win more than half the games started by the latter pitcher, but the former keeps you in every game.
Huh, this argument seemed a lot more compelling before I started typing.
Doesn't that question hinge on the quality of your team's offense (and perhaps the overall offensive environment)?
At the time, there was also repeated mention of his arthritic hip, and how it was at least a small factor in his decision. You're right, in that it wasn't a problem with his arm or his stuff.
EDIT: And I can't understand how MLBPA allowed that one to slip through, as it feels too much like a return to the reserve clause.
Sure, if it was A-Rod signing that kind of contract I can see how the union might be wary of a slippery slope. But Wakefield's contract actually favors the player in this instance.
See, I think the contract benefits the Red Sox vastly more. Every year they get to do the calculus on whether or not to bring Wake back. They have no risk of Wake deserving, and thusly asking for, a higher contract after a good year. And if he goes into the tank, they cut him for no future monetary committment.
Wake doesn't get long-term security, as the Sox can cut him any year, regardless of his performace. All he gets is not having to do new contracts every year(s). If he outperforms his deal, he gets no raise. If he underperforms his deal, he gets cut.
Sox win this one bigtime.
Both Phil N. & Hough, the only knuckling starters to pitch successfully into their mid-40's, both struggled with their control as they aged (Wilhelm never had a real problem with walks). Wake's control however has remained more or less steady to the present, so perhaps he can keep it going.
I would think so. I think if you have a really good offense, you'd probably prefer the guy who goes 6 every night giving up 3 runs - you're in the game and your offense can score.
If you have a crappy offense, you probalby want the guy who will give you 9 and a shutout or near it as then maybe you can eek out a win and if a team gets 5 runs they may as well get a million.
Also, Wakefield gets to pitch for the team he wants to, where his family is settled. I'm sure the Wakefield family is set up for life (he'll exceed $50 million in career earnings in 2009). He gets piece of mind that he won't be traded, won't have to worry about where he'll get resigned in the offseason, and probably figures if he's not good enough to pitch for the Red Sox anymore, he may as well call it a day anyway. Sure, it's a great value to the Sox, and they certainly "win" it, but it's not like Wakefield is being exploited.
Sox win this one bigtime.
Also, Wakefield gets to pitch for the team he wants to,
Only if the Sox deem it so. Tim has no say in whether he pitches for the Sox in any season.
Father and son Raines were teammates in 2001. Anybody who faced the Orioles that year had the potential to pitch against both of them (or neither of them, they only had 39 combined PAs as teammates).
I think that was the key to his thinking. He doesn't want to play anywhere else, and when the Sox don't want him any longer, he'll simply call it quits. And maybe he figured this management-friendly deal would make the club a little more loyal to him and perhaps let him pitch for them a little longer than they otherwise might.
Those pesky Pittsburgh years might have something to say about that.
He hasn't had to worry about this since about 2002 - he's a 5/10 man, so any trade requires his permission, which he's undoubtedly unwilling to give.
right, its not perfectly analagous in either talent (Yaz) or longevity of association (Pesky) or in a sense of a Boston-only career; but if he reaches 16-17 straight years w/ Boston to end his career, and those years encapsulate what will surely be seen as the Sox' good ole days, he has the chance to enter into that zone.
Here's Wolverton's article about support neutral pitching stats.
From the article:
(R)un-prevention
stats such as ERA and APR tend to undervalue flaky pitchers, and
overvalue consistent ones, at least when you consider them pitching
for an average team. ... The reason for this undervaluing is that APR counts all runs as equal,
while in fact all runs do not contribute an equal amount toward
winning/losing a game.
APR was Pete Palmer's Adjusted Pitching Runs.
Prince Fielder has gone 1 for 3 with a double. Wake held his father to a .348 OPS in 27 ABs - 3 hits, 2 walks, 9 K's.
Glancing over Wake's batter vs pitcher stats page, I'm wishing that someone with better data skills than I were to take the time to plot batter performance against # of career AB's. It looks to me like more of the guys who have faced him quite a bit have had some success (with the exception of Giambi). Of course, that may also just be that any player who lasts long enough to log 60 ABs against a given pitcher is probably a higher caliber major leaguer.
no but Rhodes and Wakefield were teammates.
In Tuffy's 3rd to last mlb start, he caught the final out off the bat of Rickey! in a 1-0 victory for Wakefield.
On the other hand, earned run-based stats overvalue knuckleballers, who tend to allow more unearned runs than average due to passed balls.
Wakefield had gone 8-1 in 1992, but went belly up in 1993, 6-11 5.61. To be fair to Pitt, he was terrible in Buffalo in 1994, but prior to 93/94 he;'d been brilliant in both the high minors and the MLB.
I lived in Buffalo back then- Pitt's AAA club was in Buffalo, I saw more than few good players get buried or released by Pitt back then. The MLB team Pitt was putting on the field in the early 90s was good- but the MLB organization was a complete train wreck.
A couple of years earlier the Pirates had released Rick Reed after he went 14-4 2.15 in Buffalo.
By 1995, all their starters except 1 (Denny Neagle) had ERA+s under 100,
they had few guys left who would one day be good, like Lieber and Loaiza, but would generally let them go for peanuts before they were any good...
Wakefield may be the last Buffalo Bison (that I saw in person) still playing in the MLB...
It's too bad the Pirates cut Wakefield lose, but as was mentioned above, they were just completely random during the Cam Bonifay years. Littlefield was predictably horrific GM'ing (towards the end, I could predict with 100% accuracy what he would do in pretty much every transaction), but Bonifay would always do things that were completely inexplicable and baffling.
Ozzie Smith? I believe I randomly happened to be at Wakefield's first game.
That's it. I looked it up after my own failed guess.
So I guess it is true that MLB players are either greedy for seeking top dollar or stupid for not seeking top dollar. Now that that's settled, can we stop talking about Wakefield's contract?
Why is it so unsettling to you? No one asked you into the discussion.
And Wakefield's contract isn't "stupid" (your term, not mine) because it doesn't offer top dollar. It doesn't offer him basically ANYTHING.
as opposed to fans who went to the game solely because it was Wake's debut? )
AND I got him for $4 in my AL-only keeper league. Keep it up Timmay!
Wakefield can play for as long as he wants as long as he willing to not care about pay and can still be close to average. That is true regardless of what weird contract he signs with Boston.
As for security Wakefield is still living year to year. There is nothing stopping the Red Sox from cutting Wakefield at any point. There really is not guaranteed money that would force the Red Sox to take chances on Wakefield.
All of that is true. But it doesn't really matter what you or I think. I suspect it gave Timmy a greater sense of (probably false) security that he can keep pitching for the Red Sox, which appears to be the only thing that really mattered to him when he signed the deal. As I said, he may think that it will cause the Red Sox to be a little more loyal to him when they otherwise might cut ties, even though there's nothing that guarantees that.
Well it offers him $4 million which, while not big by MLB standards, is still enough that I don't think he's going to be workin' at Dairy Queen when his playing days are done. He also creates an immense amount of goodwill that may not have monetary value but may be something that he values. He is popular among Red Sox fans and I would expect that he'll have a job for life with the Sox in some capacity if he wants it.
Those latter things may only have value in Wakefield's mind but obviously it is worth something to him. According to BBRef he has earned a shade less than $50 million in his career so rather than having to worry each year about renegotiating a contract he knows that as long as he has value he has a job in a place he likes. The security comes from a peace of mine more than anything tangible.
Re: the man - I hope he pitches for ever. I will never get enough of Wakefield. Never.
The contract doesn't give him any security. He didn't sign a 10 year, $40M deal or anything.
The Red Sox can not renew, and he gets nothing. The contract doesn't guarantee him a job, or anything else, or other than not being able to get more money if decides he wants to cash in.
I'm a Sox fan and I love Wakefield for this deal, but lets not pretend this deal is something more than it is. There isn't a lot of security here. I do think the organization should retire his number, but I'm in the minority there...
I'm all for it, as my post 17 might indicate.
Wakefield wasn't just bad with the Pirates in his release year, he was pretty horrible. He was walking ten batters a start. That is Wang territory.
Didn't he go see a "Knuckleball Doctor" after his release?
It gives him even more if its not enforcable.
"You'll have to carry Jeter's duffle bag on all away games or we won't sign you," then you'd have to decide if that was worth it to you.
What if it was:
"You had to have sex with Jeter."
"You had to steal Billy Beane's Moneyball playbook"
"You had to have steroids shot into your ass."
Would you still ask the player to give his pound of flesh?
Wakes deal is very close to the reserve clause.
Wakefield has had some of those stretches for the Sox. He's fun to watch when pitching well, but when he's wild, there's nothing like it.
I remember being at Fenway in Game 4 of the series against Cleveland in 1999. The Red Sox were up 15-2 in the top of the fifth, when they brought in Wakefield after one batter. The sequence went passed ball, walk, steal of third, single, single, walk, and then they took him out. The sequence doesn't begin to describe how wild he was that day - most of the pitches were missing by more than a foot. Its the only time in my life when I remember thinking that I could get it closer to the plate.
I'm just hoping one of the two decides to go for it and be the first legit 50-year-old to pitch regularly.
Well, in Moyer's case, most of us were counting him out after his age 28, 29, 32, 37, 41, and 44 seasons, yet he's still kicking around (on a two year deal!). The guy has come back from the brink on so many occasions that it just gets harder and harder to count him out.
considering that guys like Pedro are out there and could be had for 5mil (reportedly) and aren't getting offers, it makes me feel that teams aren't willing to take low dollar risk on players not their own. If Wakefield would have entered the market three years ago, I don't think any other team would have signed him. And if he was fully free this year he definately wouldn't have gotten 4mil this off season. Heck probably no offer to be honest.
I don't think he made more money with his contract, but he gets the privilege of playing longer in my opinion.
We can say that this is the contract Wakefield wanted so let's stop talking but that doesn't mean that this is the contract that Wakefield if he truly thought it through would have wanted. Maybe it is and perhaps it isn't, thus the conversation about the pros and cons of this contract. A lot people agree to things thinking that whatever they agreed to would satisfy them or would be good for them and some of those people realized later on that it was a horrible agreement. It happens all the time.
Pedro hasn't been healthy since 2005, put up godawful stats last year when playing, he isn't comparable to Tim Wakefield.
Signing PEdro is basically flushing money down the toilet, signing Wakefield at least has a chance to pay for itself and possibly even give you a handsome profit.
But Wakefield has never, to my knowledge, uttered a single complaint about this contract.
If the only thing that Wakefield wanted entering the last negotiation was to pitch as long as possible for the Red Sox and only the Red Sox, and this peculiar contract could possibly improve those odds (even slightly), then perhaps this is exactly the contract he wanted.
1. Jamie Moyer (debut 1986)
2. Ken Griffey (debut 1989)
3. Gary Sheffield (debut 1988)
4. Omar Vizquel (debut 1989)
5. Randy Johnson (debut 1988)
I've ranked them from most to least likely (in my opinion) to be playing next year. My WAG is only Moyer and Griffey play in 2010.
Not everybody is Scottie Pippen when it comes to bad contracts.
If the only thing that Wakefield wanted entering the last negotiation was to pitch as long as possible for the Red Sox and only the Red Sox, and this peculiar contract could possibly improve those odds (even slightly), then perhaps this is exactly the contract he wanted.
Yes, and my point is that this contract might not actually give Wakefield what he wants even if he thinks it would have at the time of the signing. Thus the discussion. Does this contract satisfy Wakefield's wants? He might think so but the in reality it might not. Just like if somebody buys a Ford Pinto because they think it is an economical car and is a nice safe car for their kids to drive might think their desires and needs are being met by buying that car the reality is completely different.
Jack Quinn. He pitched his last game on July 7, 1933, six days after his 50th birthday.
It is possible that Tom Glavine could play this year as well.
I'm just sick of the discussion; it seems to come up every time we have a thread about Wakefield, and I'd rather we for once have a discussion about Wake that doesn't devolve to a debate on his contract.
EDIT: And I'm a little crabby today. Sorry.
Hooray for the 42-year old with the 2 complete games and the ERA on the sunny side of 2.00 !
And thank you for those season-saving life-altering 9 outs in game 5 from the bottom of all our hearts!
"You had to have sex with Jeter."
"You had to steal Billy Beane's Moneyball playbook"
"You had to have steroids shot into your ass."
None of those things are legal or part of the job. IOW, a team can't demand an illegal action or a personal one. Employees are hired to carry and cater to players. Hiring another player to do that would be part of the job. I'm not saying a team would be wise to try it, but if they wanted to put baseball related clauses in, I don't have a problem with it, no.
Either he's a free agent or you're just arguing for a different master than the owner. He signed a contract voluntarily even if it isn't one that you or I think is particularly beneficial for him. Should we expect sympathy or outrage when a player, apparently, puts one over on an owner?
I'm just sick of the discussion; it seems to come up every time we have a thread about Wakefield, and I'd rather we for once have a discussion about Wake that doesn't devolve to a debate on his contract.
Well, the "we" doesn't need to include you. This isn't a prison cell and you are not locked in 20 hours a day to this cell.
I'd say 10 years, as that's roughly how many seasons it'll take him to get 300 wins. He's not getting in with anything less than that, and he'll even have to wait with that total.
Neither is the reserve clause. That is the whole point.
Contract: You guys need to think option theory. If Wake has an off year this year (or the market is lousy) and appears to be worth only $3mm for 2010, the Sox might rationally still decide to pay $4m for 2010, because their subsequent option to sign him at a fixed moderate price for 2011 and thereafter is worth real money, and they lose that option if they don't re-sign him.
On HOF, I think another 1995/2002 season, even if he misses again on the CYA, and getting to 250 wins without appreciable drop-off thereafter would make him very hard to keep out. There aren't going to be a lot of 300 game winners floating around the HOF ballot in 2020. Having said that, I agree it's still only a 10% chance.
No Cy Youngs, no All Star appearances, no 20 win seasons (although none of these are his fault), an ERA of 4.29 (mentioned since voters don't seem to use ERA+) and his only league leading categories are losses, HR allowed, and HBP. He's also carrying a 5-7, 6.75 ERA in the postseason, so there's no help there.
To have even the slightest of chances at the Hall, he needs 300 wins.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main