Paul Byrd?

[Wally Mo Pena]

ESPN is predicting the Paul Byrd will join the reds rotation via free agency.

Byrd had a good season, turning 31 starts into 204.1 IP (more than 6.5 innings/start). he walked 28 while striking out 102 with a 3.74 ERA. But three things make me think that the writers at ESPN are just bored and making things up.

One, he made 5 mil this year and will get a raise and at least 2 years. The reds have enough issues with payroll to deal with before we start going after guys like Byrd.

Two, he has an 0.89 G/F ratio, and that doesn't fly (though the ball does, ha!) in GABP, as we all know. We need a ground ball guy to take advantage of the fact that our park is actually a pitchers park (the third toughest park to score in this year behind petco and in front of RFK, see for yourself http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/...r&season=2005).

Third, we know we're trading an outfielder for a starter, or that's the mostl likely scenario. With Paul Wilson coming back, Wilson still around, Claussen and Harang locked up, and guys like Belisle, Hudson, Hancock, and Elizardo challenging, where does another starter fit?

[Saber]

Byrd would pretty clearly earn a job in Cincinatti. He's a proven commodity who won't break the bank.

Screw the groundballer, you need a guy who doesn't suck.

And you've been trading an outfielder for that ace for 2 years now.

[Wally Mo Pena]

Byrd would pretty clearly earn a job in Cincinatti. He's a proven commodity who won't break the bank.

Screw the groundballer, you need a guy who doesn't suck.

And you've been trading an outfielder for that ace for 2 years now.

didn't say ace, said starter. GM has actually been saying we wouldn't be trading an OF for the last two years. different from this year, in that he's saying we will.

do you have a metric for who "sucks," that we don't know about? Generally i try to go on "facts" rather that your gut feelings, is why i ask. GABP gives up more HR's than athe average park, but overall is a pitchers park. This might lead a reasonable person to think that flyball pitchers might not fare so well there. Paul wilson struggled, became a sinker ball pitcher, came to GABP, succeeded. Milton and Ortiz, both relatively "proven commodities," both fly ball pitchers, came to GABP, got rocked.

and as for "earning a job," most reasonalbe pitchers could on most teams if you just went with talent. But my point was that we have guys under contract already, and we can't just fire them, so we might not have room.

[missionhockey21]

Speaking of Wilson, anyone know the status of his rehab?

[ghettochild]

he said he was above scheduale in rehab, so it wouldn't be long.

as for byrd, he's ok, not the "ace" but atleast its something

[Saber]

The real question you should be asking is the free agent class that Byrd is in. If he's a class A player, the Reds would give up a first round draft pick and a sandwich to the Angels. While I'm fine with that, the Reds may be paying too high a price for a pitcher who probably won't be on the next good Reds team.

[realmofotalk]

If the Reds' first rounder is in the top 15, the Reds give up a 2nd rounder and a sandwich.

[Saber]

Even with a second round pick, the Reds could draft an 18 year old with a history of behavior problems, pay him a million dollar bonus, and watch him tear his labrum within 3 years.

These are the sorts of things you have to keep in mind.

[McKain]

GABP gives up more HR's than athe average park, but overall is a pitchers park. This might lead a reasonable person to think that flyball pitchers might not fare so well there.

But it's clearly not *that* tremendously favorable to groundball pitchers as opposed to flyball pitchers. It's not a Coors or a Minute Maid, it's not like people are coming in and inexplicably hitting 30 homeruns when way past their prime. When it shows a slight favor to one or the other, it doesn't matter what kind of pitchers are coming in because there's not enough of an effect to change it that much.

Paul wilson struggled, became a sinker ball pitcher, came to GABP, succeeded. Milton and Ortiz, both relatively "proven commodities," both fly ball pitchers, came to GABP, got rocked.

Calling Milton and Ortiz proven commodities when they were never anything more than mediocre in a season is silly; at his best, Milton was a low-end guy who gave up a ton of homers and Ortiz was a low-end guy who... gave up tons of homers. They should never have been expected to produce; the best season each had was slightly above mediocre.

Paul Wilson's only improvements in going from Tampa Bay to Cincinnati was that the NL was a weaker hitter's league in 2003-2004 than the AL was in 2000 through 2002.

Paul Byrd meanwhile, has been an above average or better pitcher since 2000 while pitching in a hitter's league.

Byrd and Wilson/Milton/Ortiz are not similar situations. Three of them showed very little in their careers other than mediocrity, one of them showed plenty and has produced going on five years now.

[Wally Mo Pena]

As far as GABP goes: if it gives up more HR than average, and it's harder to score by a fair amount than average, and hitting HRs is a way to score, then it must be even harder to score than the park factor if you aren't hitting HRs. It's basic arithmatic. Sure you can't blame Milton on GABP alone, and i'm not trying to, but it does seem pretty indesputable that groundball pitchers will fare well there.

You are mistaken about Paul Wilson. His translated ERA (from BP, league neutral, defense neutral) was 4.40 in 2001, 4.22 in 2002, 4.29 in 2003, and after he learned to control his sinker in 2004, it dropped to 3.67.

And again, i only said that Milton and Ortiz were relatively proven commodities. Below are their average seasons as starters before coming to GABP, and Byrd's.

Milton average season as a starter before the reds: 10 - 8, 4.76 ERA, 28.43 starts, 1.29 CG, 169.63 IP, 27.43 HR, 49.14 BB, 125.14 K

Ortiz average season as a starter before reds: 10 - 8, 4.61 ERA, 22.83 starts, 1.50 CG, 148.75 IP, 22.67 HR, 54.17 BB, 98.33 K

Byrd average season as starter: 8 - 7, 4.21 ERA, 19.25 starts, 1.63 CG, 123.33 IP, 18.13 HR, 29.13 BB, 69.88 K

Byrd is certainly more effective when he pitches, but he also pitches a lot less. Of course i think he's the superior pitcher, but i don't think that you can just write off milton and ortiz as mediocre, now that you've seen them stink for the reds. Neither were that bad, both were proven inning eaters, who gave up about a HR per start. So does Byrd, and that's not going to help him in GABP.

[love_that_reefer]

Does this guy have any connection to Cincy? Too many teams are looking at Byrd because he is the less expensive, quality pitcher. ESPN needs to quit predicting. I love how they have a show called "Fact or Fiction" which is based on opinions. No wonder people are getting more stupid.

[redsrbetter]

Fellas, I really don't like the thought of Byrd playing for us. He is a good pitcher, but as already spoken, he just isn't it for this team. I think it is a very smart move to compare possibilities to Milton and Ortiz in hopes to stay away from such big busts. We need pitchers that are the exact opposite of these guys. Though Byrd is good, he is going to cost a lot of money that we don't want to spend away from who we can get in a trade. It is very confusing right now since the new ownership is not set, but I still say as it sits right now and as DanO professes that we are not going to have any more money added to the salary until we see what Castelinni wants to do, I don't see this happening at all. I am holding out for something bigger anyway.