Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Will the pitchers come?

Kyle Davies went for $17 in CounsellorsGM's league. The GM "only" bid $16 and didn't get him. He lamented:
I hope you're right about more starters coming down the line.
If last year is any indication, it doesn't look pretty.

Between July 18 and August 6, 15 pitchers - including duplicates - were FAABed or claimed in my A.L. only league. This hearty and hale group of pitchers were (in order of week claimed and then price):

6/18 - Jason Hammel $5, Jason Stanford $3, Miguel Batista $1.
6/25 - Jarrod Washburn (waivers).
7/2 - Jeff Weaver $5, Kameron Loe $1, John Thomson $1.
7/9 - Kason Gabbard $6, Garret Olson $2.
7/16 - Bartolo Colon (waivers),
7/23 - Josh Towers (waivers), Lenny DiNardo (waivers), Andy Sonnanstine (waivers).
7/30 - Gavin Floyd $1.
8/6 - Batista (waivers).

Batista $7, Washburn $7, DiNardo $6, Gabbard $4, Thomson $1, Stanford ($1), Towers ($2), Sonnanstine ($3), Floyd ($4), Loe ($8), Colon ($9), Hammel ($10), Olson ($10), Weaver ($11).

It's not a pretty group. If you waited for a stud to show up and carry your staff to victory in the last three months, you probably lost.

And this held up in my A.L. Most of these pitchers weren't picked up by money teams, and the handful that were (Batista, Gabbard, Floyd) were selected for match-ups and quickly dispatched. Most of these pitchers were picked up by middle of the pack teams who were about to waive the white flag anyway and then did.

I still don't advocate a $16 bid for Kyle Davies. But I can see why you might take the plunge. The problem is that Davies could be just as bad as the pitchers on this list were last year. You're still better off playing dollar FAAB derby and hoping for something modest like Batista or Washburn.

Your best bet, of course, is to make a trade.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anibal Sanchez and Josh Johnson will be returning soon. What are your thoughts about these to Marlins?

Are they worth of a pickup in NL-only leagues? Do you see mixed-league potential for either?

Anonymous said...

That'd be "two," not "to." Sorry.