RHP's Bundy and Gausman, LHP's Britton and Matusz

[Pickles]

No offense, but that's kind of a vastly different statement than you seemed to me making at first. Hell, the chances of Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Cole Hamels all being workable starters AT THE SAME TIME isn't that high, and might be below 50%, due to the nature of injuries.

I amended my statement, but Halladay, Lee, and Hamels, have a solid track record of health. NONE of our four do. One of their arms won't hold up. And one of them probably won't stick in a rotation.

[Frobby]

It seems to me like we're always dreaming about the next "big three" or "big four." Bedard, DCab, Loewen and Penn. Matusz, Tillman and Arrieta. Etc. etc. At this point, I'd just like to see one guy develop into a clear no. 1/2 pitcher, and then I will worry about everyone else.

[waroriole]

I expect one of their arms to fall off, and one of them to be forced to the pen. Maybe I'm jaded but that's just how I feel.

Meh, that's understandable. I'm slightly more optimistic. What we need to do to offset that risk is to try to get 1-2 more high level talents and then some senior signs in the next 9 picks. Also, we should be using our entire IFA allotment. If we do that, and add Soler, we're looking at one of the best farm systems in MLB.

[Can_of_corn]

I amended my statement, but Halladay, Lee, and Hamels, have a solid track record of health. NONE of our four do. One of their arms won't hold up. And one of them probably won't stick in a rotation.

To the best of my knowledge the only injury Matusz has ever had is the intercostal strain last season. I have not heard of any injury issues with Bundy and Gausman. That is a better record then Halladay (who is hurt {shoulder} right now) Lee (oblique strain this season) and Hamels (missed most of 2004 season with elbow injury and had back issues in 2005).

[Pickles]

It seems to me like we're always dreaming about the next "big three" or "big four." Bedard, DCab, Loewen and Penn. Matusz, Tillman and Arrieta. Etc. etc. At this point, I'd just like to see one guy develop into a clear no. 1/2 pitcher, and then I will worry about everyone else.

Exactly. We've been through this before.

[Pickles]

To the best of my knowledge the only injury Matusz has ever had is the intercostal strain last season. I have not heard of any injury issues with Bundy and Gausman. That is a better record then Halladay (who is hurt {shoulder} right now) Lee (oblique strain this season) and Hamels (missed most of 2004 season with elbow injury).

Phillies Big 3 combined seasons over 180 innings pitched: 18

Orioles guys: 0

Enough said.

[Can_of_corn]

You operate with different definitions then the rest of us. I don't see how someone that missed the majority of two minor league seasons due to injuries can have "a solid track record of health".

[luismatos4prez]

Phillies Big 3 combined seasons over 180 innings pitched: 18

Orioles guys: 0

Enough said.

One is in college and one is 19. Neither have any injuries and both have clean mechanics. Not sure what more you want there. Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay are in their mid thirties. Plus buying a big three is a bit simpler than developing one.

[Pickles]

You operate with different definitions then the rest of us. I don't see how someone that missed the majority of two minor league seasons due to injuries can have "a solid track record of health".

If a guy who has consistently gotten on the rubber at the ML level, missed time in the MiLs, that negates what he's done more recently and where it counts, is an odd definition of "track record of health", I'll own it.

One is in college and one is 19. Neither have any injuries and both have clean mechanics. Not sure what more you want there. Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay are in their mid thirties. Plus buying a big three is a bit simpler than developing one.

I want them not to be 19 and 21 years old, respectively, and actually have ML track records, before I'm going to annoint them healthy, productive ML starters. LOL.

It is easier to "buy" a big three (although I won't concede that's entirely what Philly did) than develop one. That's kinda my point.

[Mayor McCheese]

All potential TOR pitchers.

Two words: Oh my!

[OFFNY]

How many innings has Britton pitched this year?

What's Matusz career low in ERA?

A. Britton was injured to start the season. It happens.

B. Matusz has pitched well for stretches in the past, and after getting way off track (especially last year), he is pitching well again. And things are looking much better for him now than they were a month and a half ago.

Particularly with Britton and your "how many innings has he pitched this year?", you seem to be leaning very much in the direction of the pattern another poster that simply wanted to be right, even if it meant undermining certain players on our team to do so, instead of looking at it at least somewhat objectively.

[Pickles]

A. Britton was injured to start the season. It happens.

B. Matusz has pitched well for stretches in the past, and after getting way off track (especially last year), he is pitching well again. And things are looking much better for him now than they were a month and a half ago.

Particularly with Britton and your "how many innings has he pitched this year?", you seem to be leaning very much in the direction of the pattern another poster that simply wanted to be right, even if it meant undermining certain players on our team to do so, instead of looking at it at least somewhat objectively.

I hardly think that's fair.

I like Britton. If pointing out that a guy who's been hurt the entirety of this season, and has yet to pitch a complete season in the MLs, isn't an established pitcher, is running him down and not being objective, I disagree with your idea of objective.

I ,

[DrungoHazewood]

I think we're kind of talking around the real set of points regarding pitcher development:

1) Most pitchers get hurt or become ineffective (often because they're hurt).

2) Pitchers who are successful at 30 or 35 are that way because they ran the gauntlet more-or-less successfully in their 20s.

3) Older pitchers are a better bet to continue to pitch well and stay healthy than pitchers younger than 25.

4) The best way to get a successful young pitcher is to have five good young prospects.

But...

5) None of that really matters because older, healthy, successful pitchers are very expensive and fairly scarce. Resource-limited teams are forced to develop or at least rehabilitate/find good starters. It's basically impossible for a team like the O's to get multiple established starters to sign with them in free agency.

Is it risky to rely on a bunch of young arms? Yep, but there's really no other choice.

[Lucky Jim]

Britton hasn't pitched a complete season, but provided the injury isn't a long-term detriment (I'm not sure of the odds of that) he put up a 2.5 WAR in 28 starts last year. Which puts him almost exactly even with Jones in terms of (prior to this year) peak MLB value. He's not risk-free, obviously. But he's clearly above average.

Matusz has put up a 2.7 in 2010 and is on pace for a 2.4 this year (though w/ an exaggerated upward trend due to a rough first three starts). So, he's either likely to be "above average" or he's at the very top of "average" (which seems "workable" to me).

I like the Jones deal, but I can't see how it's more likely (based on "evidence") that Jones puts up 6 years above his highest individual year than that Britton and Matusz become "workable" starters (because they seem to be likely to be that, already).

As for your comment re: Jones/Wieters: why is it unrealistic to expect a .040 increase in OPS from .780, which is a 5% increase in OPS, and not unrealistic to expect a .4 WAR increase for Jones every year for the next six years, which is a 13% increase?

At baseline, we should be okay with getting three workable pitchers out of these 4, obviously. Of course, there's a lot of ways to get that. Three "workable," or "above average" pitchers would be worth around 8.4 WAR. This combination could dwarf that number with fewer than three "workable" starters. And none of that takes into account "surprise" value: Tillman, Bridwell, Edgar Rodgriguez, or some unknown...

[Pickles]

I think we're kind of talking around the real set of points regarding pitcher development:

1) Most pitchers get hurt or become ineffective (often because they're hurt).

2) Pitchers who are successful at 30 or 35 are that way because they ran the gauntlet more-or-less successfully in their 20s.

3) Older pitchers are a better bet to continue to pitch well and stay healthy than pitchers younger than 25.

4) The best way to get a successful young pitcher is to have five good young prospects.

But...

5) None of that really matters because older, healthy, successful pitchers are very expensive and fairly scarce. Resource-limited teams are forced to develop or at least rehabilitate/find good starters. It's basically impossible for a team like the O's to get multiple established starters to sign with them in free agency.

Is it risky to rely on a bunch of young arms? Yep, but there's really no other choice.

Oh, I agree. For the O's this is the only way to do it. That's been indisputable for years.

I'm just pumping the brakes some on what I see as a little bit of runaway enthusiasm. We've been through this before. How quickly people seem to forget.