More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

by king myno on Dec 19, 2007 8:46 PM EST

[editor's note, by dajafi] Promoted from diary. This Durbin's first name is Chad, and you can check his less than mind-blowing career numbers here.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07353/843046-63.stm

His best season was last year (coincidentally, a CONTRACT year) when he went 8-7 with a 4.72 ERA in just over 127 innings. He has gone over TEN innings pitched approximately FIVE times in a NINE year career. In 2002, 2003 and 2004 he posted ERAs of 11.88, 7.27 and 6.97, respectively. And his 2004 ERA was over 60 innings, so there's more than enough there to make it reliable. Welcome, if you will, the next candidate in "Who Wants To Maybe Possibly Be Better Than Adam Eaton?"

If we give this guy more than two mil a year, I'll have a stroke.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

Pat Gillick likes to collect crappy pitchers.

by David S. Cohen on Dec 19, 2007 11:48 PM EST reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

What bugs me is that since we "beat out" the Pirates for this stiff, we're probably paying him some non-negligible money. Though I guess it's possible that he went with the Phils because we're more likely to contend.

by dajafi on Dec 19, 2007 11:56 PM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

With more moves like this I'm not sure how much "more likely" we are to contend.......

by Homer on Dec 20, 2007 12:22 AM EST up reply actions

Hey, if it keeps them from signing Lohse for 4 yrs

at 44 million Boras Bucks, I'm all for it. not a lot of difference between the two (past performance, not "potential", which we know Lohse has by the truckload.)

by Chris R on Dec 20, 2007 9:18 AM EST reply actions

Re: Hey, if it keeps them from signing Lohse for 4

Then you will like this article.....

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Mets-appear-to-be-only-bidder-left-for-Lohse;_ylt=AvkQak2NzQ Mi5g13ZJPtVREk0bYF?urn=mlb,58721

by Homer on Dec 20, 2007 10:09 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Hey, if it keeps them from signing Lohse for 4

That is indeed good news.

After reading the papers this morning, it sounded to me like they might be looking at C. Durbin more as a middle reliever than as a starter. Hopefully that means his price is reasonably low. If so, this won't be so problematic, notwithstanding the fact that he sucks.

by taco pal on Dec 20, 2007 10:52 AM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

ALL YOUR DURBIN BELONG TO US!

by jonk on Dec 20, 2007 9:21 AM EST reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

somebody set up us the Real Deal!

by gr on Dec 20, 2007 10:08 AM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

TAKE OFF EVERY ZAG(urski)

by perfectdepth on Dec 20, 2007 10:28 AM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

DURBINS SET US UP THE THREE-RUN BOMBS.

by WholeCamels on Dec 20, 2007 11:00 AM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

Maybe Gillick can see what Chris Durbin is doing these days.

by David S. Cohen on Dec 20, 2007 10:57 AM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

Chad Durbin throws a good amount of ground balls, so that's a plus.

by Baerwcb on Dec 20, 2007 11:50 AM EST reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

Lightning in a bottle is always possible

by Homer on Dec 20, 2007 3:38 PM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

Had to comment on yet another hilarious post. I refer to Chad Durbin allegedly turning in a "CONTRACT year" performance.

Look, Chad Durbin is awful. He's been awful his entire career. The guy is perpetually one pitch from being out of MLB for good.

Those guys don't have CONTRACT years. Those guys are desperately doing anything they can to stay employed.

A "contract year" refers to a studly (and lazy) player who suddenly turns it on for a contract.

by philsme on Dec 20, 2007 8:14 PM EST reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

I don't get it. What's your point?

by FuquaManuel on Dec 20, 2007 8:58 PM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

my point simply was that in a year where his contract was up (hence the term "contract year"), his numbers turned out better than they ever have before. i'm not saying Chad Durbin is gunning for the big bucks, but it's certainly a sight we've all seen before in the big leagues in any sport, and one worth noting when discussing a new signing's previous performance.

www.kingmyno.com The best in Philadelphia sports-talk

by king myno on Dec 20, 2007 9:25 PM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

Any year before your contract is up is a contract year. The presumption you are making is that they are playing well in their contract year. Not sure what that has to do with "studly (and lazy) players. The fact you think you know who is lazy and isn't is effin HILARIOUS.

by jonk on Dec 21, 2007 12:16 AM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

My point is it's a funny misuse of the term.

The guy is awful. He's not having a "contract year" performance. H's desperately trying to sty in the Majors.

To equate Chad Durbin with a star who turns it on for a contract -- like Aaron Rowand -- is funny.

by philsme on Dec 20, 2007 9:35 PM EST reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

hahahaha. now I get it. I too find it hilarious when people misuse terms when they actually haven't misused them and morons like you point out that they misused a term when they actually haven't and confirm in everyone's mind what we have all been thinking, that you are an asshole.

by FuquaManuel on Dec 20, 2007 9:41 PM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

The fact that Chad Durbin is terrible is well known. That might be the only intelligent piece of information you've ever posted on this site.

by Homer on Dec 20, 2007 9:42 PM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

Looks like I've again made some of you gals mad. If you don't want to be made fun of, don't post ignorant commentary.

On the plus side, we can all look forward to that big CONTRACT-year, star-studded performance from Eric Bruntlett!

by philsme on Dec 21, 2007 9:33 AM EST reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

The point is that nobody posted anything ignorant and you are obviously here just to irritate people.

by FuquaManuel on Dec 21, 2007 11:07 AM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

Well, the good news is Big Chad D gets only $900,000 and, more importantly, a one-year deal.

So we can look forward to another highly motivated, CONTRACT-year performance from the Durb.

I sense a superlative 4.85 ERA from CD.

by philsme on Dec 21, 2007 11:01 AM EST reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

I'd just like to point out to all the folks arguing about Chad Durbin and contract years...

last year wasn't a contract year by just about any possible definition for Durbin. not because he's terrible (though there's that), but, well, because he doesn't have 6 years of service time. in fact, according to Cots, he has 2+. He was non-tendered after the season by the Tigers, who decided to let him go rather than pay him a million bucks in arb.

so he had no way to know he was pitching for a FA contract.

by bugbear on Dec 21, 2007 3:08 PM EST reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

Well, THIS year is, dammit!

I expect nothing less than a max effort from Durbs as he goes all out after one last $90 million score.

by philsme on Dec 21, 2007 4:11 PM EST reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

I feel like you're railing against your own ghosts.

by David S. Cohen on Dec 21, 2007 5:22 PM EST up reply actions

Re: More Durbins Than You Can Shake A Stick At

actually, this year isn't a contract year any more so than last year was. He's in the same situation as Jayson Werth--even though he was set loose by his team, until he has 6 years of service, whichever team picks him up on the FA market (in this case, the Phillies) retains his rights until he has enough service time (or they dump him).

That said, he'd sure as heck better have a "contract year" if he plans to continue making a big league salary.

by bugbear on Dec 21, 2007 4:17 PM EST reply actions