Re: If I owned the Devil Rays...

On 11/28/03 11:10 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"Craig Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:40:46 -0700, Ima Pseudonym
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:55:02 -0800, Craig Richardson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
 
>>> Not to mention that, considering that there's no such thing as a
>>> pitching prospect, your drafted position players are relatively more
>>> likely to give you players and/or bargaining chips.  Admittedly, you
>>> don't want to swear off drafting pitchers entirely, but you can save
>>> your picks for the ones you think most likely to succeed - while
>>> paying competetive rates for pitchers that already have succeeded.
>> 
>> otoh, pitching prospects are valuable in trades.  If you have a AAA
>> first baseman you want to trade, the other team may or may not need
>> him.  But given the size of pitching staffs, teams always have a need
>> for young pitchers.
> 
> Agreed, but I'd've traded away all the Mariners' young guns long ago,
> even if one of them has become a decent SP in the majors.  It's my
> firm opinion that it's worthwhile to draft good arms, but then not be
> afraid to move them for major league players and/or decent positional
> prospects, who are much less of a crapshoot.

I don't agree with your implied suggestion that a young, decent starter is a
crapshoot-- unless you're just talking about his health.  And even then,
it's often a visit to Dr. Jobe and only 18 months missed.  If I had a young
starter, I'd put him on a strict pitch count-- 75 pitches if he's 22 or
younger, gradually going up to 100 for 25 year-olds.

Frankly, I feel we've come a long way in 30 years in how we evaluate
pitchers-- what we hold them responsible for.  If you evaluate pitchers by
their won-loss records, then it may look like a crapshoot.  ERA is better,
but I have a feeling that if we only hold pitchers accountable for walks,
strike outs, and park-adjusted homers, pitchers' year by year stats will
start looking pedictable.

> Let the other teams move
> ten prospects up the ladder - they will get one Mark Prior, but we get
> (at worst) a decent middle infielder, a fourth outfilder, a couple of
> bench players, a long reliever, and, at the proper time, the money to
> go for a Curt Schilling.
> 

This is a separate argument than the one you're making above.  First of all,
I'd rather have Mark Prior than a collection of mediocrity.  Secondly, the
Cubs only paid about $1.5M for Prior this year, so I don't understand how
you're going to save money. And if you're talking about a collection of
veteran mediocrity, they're going to cost a lot more than Prior.

If you're talking about trading pitching prospects for very young position
players, I'm with you, as a general rule.  Or, you're talking about trading
a middling pitching prospect for a timely veteran during a pennant chase--
well, I can see that, too.  But young players save the team money.

> Of course, the calculus changes when you're the Yankees (who realize
> this) or the Mariners (who don't).
> 
 
My Cardinals are a pretty good case study of an improvement on your
approach.  They've concentrated on drafting and keeping the exceptionally
good prospects-- Rick Ankeil, JD Drew and Albert Pujols, although nobody
expected him to be such a tremendous hitter.  They acquired a couple other
relatively young position players thru trades-- Scott Rolen, who's 28, and
Edgar Renteria, who's 27 and had the second highest OBP against lefties in
the majors last year.

The Cards have a reasonably young core of very good position players, but
there's nothing down on the farm.  Their major league pitchers-- the 6 or 7
that they have-- are veterans, although Matt Morris is only 28.  This
approach has worked pretty well for a team with a moderate budget, but they
fell short this last year and I figure they're good for 85-90 wins next
year, too.  In short, the Cards' approach has worked very well the last 4
years, but I'm not optimistic about their near-term future.

          Withrow