Re: If I owned the Devil Rays...

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:35:58 -0600, James Withrow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>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.

Health is exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm firmly in the camp that
believes that what a pitcher has at 18 matters almost nothing - it's
what he has (left) at 23 that counts.  Guys who weren't even on the
radar can get an epiphany, while a large plurality leave enough MPH on
the operating table to become organizational filler.  Basically, I
think that if you have good coaches, and a large enough net, the
quality of the arms going in, while not irrelevant, is much less
important than many others think.  Reasonable people might disagree.

And I'm also something of a heretic WRT pitch counts.  Pitching
(overhand) is an unnatural act, and no matter how much care you take,
you have to expect a certain amount of fallout.  I'm not certain that
there isn't a spark of truth in the Dallas Green mentality - at least
his survivors, while far fewer than those in more enlightened
organizations, were /horses/.  IMO, in the perfect world, you'd
identify early on those who were fragile and those who weren't, and
put them on two different tracks.  Maybe Mike Marshall's kinesthetic
studies will help...

>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.

Heh.  Remember when Voros McCracken had the same "deer in headlights"
look as Charles Darwin at a Baptist church supper?

>> 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.

I'm not as sure it's separate.  If my organization is producing decent
role players for slave wages, I'm not only not tempted to pay Neifi
Perez a couple million to get Lou Piniella's coffee, I can roll the
money saved into first-line talent.  Particularly pitchers who have
already survived the tendon-shredding minor leagues.

>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.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.  Basically, I look upon every
developing pitcher as a potential bargaining chip.  Sure, I lose out
on the Cubs' young guns, but remember the upside my Mariners' Gil
Meche, Ken Cloude, and Ryan Anderson had at one point?  Teams show a
tremendous reluctance to part with 20-yo pitching prospects, even when
it might land them a 26-yo /pitcher/.

Also, something else you touched on above is that, IMO, teams should
be more aggressive at converting failed/injured starting prospects to
cheap relievers.  So what if a guy has stamina issues if he only has
to pitch two innings at a time?  Use him until he goes to arbitration,
then flip him for another "prospect" or a veteran at the deadline.

>> 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.

I don't think we disagree as much as it might seem at first.  But
notice that both Ankiel and Drew are disappointments - but Drew is a
useful player, while Ankiel is trying to become Brooks Kieschnick at
this point?

Billions for 200-inning pitchers over 25 and projectable position
players under 30, not one cent for pitching prospects and veteran
mediocrities!

>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.

Well, there are about 5 teams that can stay competetive without
continually cranking out prospects, and 3 of them seem to be more
interested in hamstringing themselves with inferior GMs.  But I
digress...

--Craig


-- 
I start to wish Bob Melvin would walk out to the mound, ask Freddy if he
was injured, and then kick him in the balls so he can call in an 
emergency replacement from the bullpen  --Derek Zumsteg in BP, 5/13/2003