HHP: Do you agree with DD not handing our young pitchers automatic spots in the rotation?

[Stotle]

In this case what reasons would the O's have to hold players back. If they are young. talented. and ready, do the payroll commitments of guys like Wada, Eveland and Chen, really trump that? If they aren't ready(Matusz?) then whats's the problem.

There are a few concerns when your talk about holding players back:

1) Do you, as an organization, have a specific reason for preventing that player's advancement?

2) Do you, as an organization, have a specific plan for furthering that player's advancement?

3) Have you, as an organization, appropriately conveyed 1) and 2) to the player?

Added to this is a question as to whether you, as an organization, are correctly evaluating the player.

Having the player and the organization on the same page is pretty important. Having people in the organization making the right decision as to development/promotion is very important.

[Stotle]

I agree re: requiring proof. ST isn't where you vet Matusz. But I have no problem, coming off a horrific 2011, with bringing in insurance that allows him to continue whatever amends/refurb/rehab he's been doing off-season (on both body and soul) outside of the MLB rotation. That's pretty much what I think is going on. But it's just a hunch.

Right. And I'm not saying Baltimore is wrong to bring in arms. I just think the discussion being framed in this thread is generally flawed as to organizational motive.

[Frobby]

Hellickson's promotion was tied to a specific developmental plan Tampa has. If BAL wants to replicate Tampa's development of pitchers, that's fine. But it isn't as simple as "pitchers sit at Triple-A until they aren't 'blocked'".

Many in the industry think Philly absolutely damaged Brown's development in how they handled that situation.

If Brian matusz starts the year at Triple-A then you could also see:

D) Matusz waste 2-3 months of Major League adjustment time while Baltimore waits for a less qualified "replacement" to fail (which such replacement inevitably will).

There are arguments for handling Matusz in several different ways, but "we're bringing in this random guy so you can prove you're better than him" is probably not a good developmental approach, and that type of move shouldn't have advocates.

This discussion is too abstract for my taste. At the end of last season, Matusz was a basket case. Therefore, you have to have an alternative to having Matusz in the rotation. Once you have that alternative, then Matusz needs to show he is better than that alternative. There is nothing artificial about it. Matusz put himself in this situation. And the team is trying to improve its pitching, not just deal with Matusz's development.

Honestly, the bar has been set so low here, it's pathetic. This isn't Storm Davis trying to break into a Palmer-McGregor-Martinez-Flanagan rotation. I guarantee you that the Orioles won't have five starting pitchers with 150 IP and ERA's below 5.00. So if Matusz is any good at all, he'll elbow his way in there.

[Lucky Jim]

This discussion is too abstract for my taste. At the end of last season, Matusz was a basket case. Therefore, you have to have an alternative to having Matusz in the rotation. Once you have that alternative, then Matusz needs to show he is better than that alternative. There is nothing artificial about it. Matusz put himself in this situation. And the team is trying to improve its pitching, not just deal with Matusz's development.

Honestly, the bar has been set so low here, it's pathetic. This isn't Storm Davis trying to break into a Palmer-McGregor-Martinez-Flanagan rotation. I guarantee you that the Orioles won't have five starting pitchers with 150 IP and ERA's below 5.00. So if Matusz is any good at all, he'll elbow his way in there.

I agree with this if, basically, you conclude that non-head case Matusz > than any replacement not named Chen.

[Stotle]

This discussion is too abstract for my taste. At the end of last season, Matusz was a basket case. Therefore, you have to have an alternative to having Matusz in the rotation. Once you have that alternative, then Matusz needs to show he is better than that alternative. There is nothing artificial about it. Matusz put himself in this situation. And the team is trying to improve its pitching, not just deal with Matusz's development.

Honestly, the bar has been set so low here, it's pathetic. This isn't Storm Davis trying to break into a Palmer-McGregor-Martinez-Flanagan rotation. I guarantee you that the Orioles won't have five starting pitchers with 150 IP and ERA's below 5.00. So if Matusz is any good at all, he'll elbow his way in there.

Abstract? Maybe. I think understanding motive is pretty important when trying to figure out of an organization is making the best decisions it can. Especially when it relates to young and talented players.

[Brendan25]

Hellickson's promotion was tied to a specific developmental plan Tampa has. If BAL wants to replicate Tampa's development of pitchers, that's fine. But it isn't as simple as "pitchers sit at Triple-A until they aren't 'blocked'".

Many in the industry think Philly absolutely damaged Brown's development in how they handled that situation.

If Brian matusz starts the year at Triple-A then you could also see:

D) Matusz waste 2-3 months of Major League adjustment time while Baltimore waits for a less qualified "replacement" to fail (which such replacement inevitably will).

There are arguments for handling Matusz in several different ways, but "we're bringing in this random guy so you can prove you're better than him" is probably not a good developmental approach, and that type of move shouldn't have advocates.

What exactly did Brian Matusz do to allocate us not making him compete for a rotation spot? It seems like you are on SG's bandwagon of Matusz rebounding and having a tremendous season, which is fine. I like Matusz and I really hope he turns it around, but I am not willing to hold out a roster spot for him simply because he is a top prospect, and simply because you guys think this season is lost. You look at it as "wasting 2-3 months of adjustment time". I look at it as 2-3 months of him fighting his tale off to get back up to the big leagues, and getting better as a pitcher while doing it.

[Stotle]

What exactly did Brian Matusz do to allocate us not making him compete for a rotation spot? It seems like you are on SG's bandwagon of Matusz rebounding and having a tremendous season, which is fine. I like Matusz and I really hope he turns it around, but I am not willing to hold out a roster spot for him simply because he is a top prospect, and simply because you guys think this season is lost. You look at it as "wasting 2-3 months of adjustment time". I look at it as 2-3 months of him fighting his tale off to get back up to the big leagues, and getting better as a pitcher while doing it.

That is because you are looking at the situation incorrectly and, in my opinion, over-simplistically.

[Lucky Jim]

What exactly did Brian Matusz do to allocate us not making him compete for a rotation spot? It seems like you are on SG's bandwagon of Matusz rebounding and having a tremendous season, which is fine. I like Matusz and I really hope he turns it around, but I am not willing to hold out a roster spot for him simply because he is a top prospect, and simply because you guys think this season is lost. You look at it as "wasting 2-3 months of adjustment time". I look at it as 2-3 months of him fighting his tale off to get back up to the big leagues, and getting better as a pitcher while doing it.

Allocate?

[CA-ORIOLE]

I agree with this if, basically, you conclude that non-head case Matusz > than any replacement not named Chen.

Wait, I thought that an opinion that Matusz was a head case was reason for being chastised.

[Lucky Jim]

Wait, I thought that an opinion that Matusz was a head case was reason for being chastised.

Have nothing better to do than de-rail the thread down an irrelevant track? To be fair, history suggests you don't.

(For those not yet clear, as well as the willfully ignorant, "head-case" here - i.e., in reference to Frobby's use of basket-case - is clearly not a criticism of his character).

[mikegallo]

Wait, I thought that an opinion that Matusz was a head case was reason for being chastised.

Don't you know any bad realistic talk of an Oriole that doesn't fit into the boards mainstream opinion is good reason to be chastised?

Calling someone a head case is a question of character for sure...Not saying I disagree with it though.

Anyway if these young guys are any good and healthy this year they will get plenty of chances to start for this club.

I prefer this approach than the previous years approach of praying the young guys will 'get it' this year and having know back up plan to fill our staff other than the wavier wire.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Have nothing better to do than de-rail the thread down an irrelevant track? To be fair, history suggests you don't.

(For those not yet clear, as well as the willfully ignorant, "head-case" here - i.e., in reference to Frobby's use of basket-case - is clearly not a criticism of his character).

Yeah, that pretty well clears it up and maintains your pretty clear moral superiority as well.

[LookinUp]

Stotle, are you implying that the O's motives are something other than making Matusz compete and prove that he belongs before handing him a spot? Retribution, perhaps?

[Lucky Jim]

Don't you know any bad realistic talk of an Oriole that doesn't fit into the boards mainstream opinion is good reason to be chastised?

Calling someone a head case is a question of character for sure...Not saying I disagree with it though.

Anyway if these young guys are any good and healthy this year they will get plenty of chances to start for this club.

I prefer this approach than the previous years approach of praying the young guys will 'get it' this year and having know back up plan to fill our staff other than the wavier wire.

It's not a question of character - it's the simple fact that his issues at the end of the season were clearly a combination of psychology and physiology. It's no more a question of character than saying that the guy a cubicle over is depressed is a question of character. And it's not even that deep.

Also, hilarious that I'm picked to represent the board "mainstream." If only.

[Lucky Jim]

Stotle, are you implying that the O's motives are something other than making Matusz compete and prove that he belongs before handing him a spot? Retribution, perhaps?

My understanding is that retribution isn't the issue. It's "insurance" versus "competition" that is the issue.