View Single Post
Old
04-03-2012, 12:23 PM
  #78
thefifagod
I'm The Survivor
 
thefifagod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrothorne View Post
So you're saying you win games with whip, IP, k's? Oh ok.




Pitching to get the important outs and keep leads is more important. I don't care if a guy wins 5-4 or 5-0. He still won. That said, I have no idea where Cain ranks on the run support list. My point is that SF is putting $22m per year into a #2 guy on their pitching staff when they need major help offensively. Spread the money and talent around. Cain is barely worth $11m a year to me.

I'd much rather have a TEAM of equally paid/performing players than a couple of stars with high salaries filled in with role players and rookies. Easier to plug in for injuries and down-years that way. If Cain becomes the next Zito, they're stuck in a huge hole.
Actually, yes you do. The lower the ERA and WHIP, the better chance you have of winning the game. If a pitcher threw a shutout every game but their offense never scored, he wouldn't be the best in the league because he never won a game? Or your team is just making errors behind you? Extreme examples but it makes the point. If Felix played on the Yanks in 2010, he could have won 25 games. Instead he won 13. Basing a guy's ability on if his offense gives him a chance to win is terrible. Why should a guy who plays for the Yanks or Red Sox be given an unfair advantage in a comparison between a pitcher on say, Seattle or San Francisco?

Regardless, I agree that it's a pretty bad contract. If a team has a strong prospect pool, then having piles of stars is absolutely the best move as you'll have good talent coming up making pennies while under club control for 7 years and can afford to pay your stars. If your pool is weak, then you need a balance of players. As I said before, the Giants have a weakened prospect pool now so it makes less sense.

thefifagod is offline   Reply With Quote