Cole Irvin

  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#141 makoman



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,975 posts

Posted 10 February 2023 - 09:50 AM

And Irvin had a better fWAR in 2021. And Gibson was better than both of them. Maybe I'm nitpicking but I don't see it with Taillon. Exactly 100 ERA+ two years straight, after his second Tommy John. Peripherals are fine, nothing great. He's been better than Irvin but at the cost I'm fine with Irvin. Cost matters, you should be improving the team elsewhere with that savings. And Gibson's 2021 is better than any year Taillon had since his second TJ. Taillon's floor is what you're paying for I guess, but he'd be the same complaint, you are just locking in a mid rotation at best guy.


Walker maybe has more upside IMO, but just a year ago he had a worse year than either of Irvin's full years. Bassitt has been more consistently better and was the clear choice to go after. Anyone else in this tier has plenty of warts. Like Eovaldi could be better than all of them but can't be trusted for 150 innings. I would have preferred Bassitt greatly or Walker mildly over these guys, anyone else is kinda whatever your preference is. I'm just talking about this second tier, with the caveat that I would have wanted someone from the top tier.  

#142 TwentyThirtyFive



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,136 posts

Posted 10 February 2023 - 09:55 AM

I agree about a dollar spent on Walker is not one less spent elsewhere but its not genuinely about that for me. We all agree they could and should spend more. Being in on real difference needed to happen. I dont think thats Tallion or Walker. Dont think its Bassitt either for that matter.

#143 mweb08



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,478 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 10 February 2023 - 10:47 AM

Not sure how anybody can equate 2 back end starters, when we needed at least one front end and one upper end, with a C? Its a D at best IMO.

Especially when one just replaced another backend starter.

I think with the actual letter grade, it goes back to something previously discussed, which is that while F is the lowest letter grade, it encompasses the majority of the numerical range. So it didn't mean they did the worst job possible or anything close to it, but it does mean that the performance was not worthy of a passing score.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Our Sponsors

 width=  width=