Post#8 » by Basketball Jesus » Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:15 pm
I don’t know where people are getting this whole “Wakefield is inconsistent” thing. Look at his IP and ERA+ over the past six seasons:
2003: 202.3 IP; 114 ERA+
2004: 188.3 IP; 100 ERA+
2005: 225.3 IP; 109 ERA+
2006: 140.0 IP; 103 ERA+
2007: 189.0 IP; 100 ERA+
2008: 181.0 IP; 111 ERA+
If that isn’t the model of consistency, I don’t know what is. You know exactly what you’re getting with Wakefield: 180+ IP of league-average baseball. And before you scoff at “180+ IP of league-average ball”: you can’t find that kind of production on the free market for cheap (cf. Carlos Silva).
Now, if you want to say that even knuckleballers have to decline or turn to dust at some point and, with each passing season, Wakefield’s stock is a lot riskier, that’s fine. But he damn well hasn’t been inconsistent by any means.
Personally, I’d keep Wakefield until he shrivels up and stops pitching within ten percent of league average. A perpetual team option for $4MM for a guy that gives your back of the rotation stability and a guaranteed 180 IP a year? That’s like the greatest team-friendly contract known to man.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
