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

[Lucky Jim]

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.

I don't think anyone's banking on it, though, right? Any more than BA "banks" on their projected future line-ups? Everyone knows there's risk in (i) development, (ii) injury, (iii) translation across competition levels, and (iv) "wildcard" risk - the Ankiel/Grienke risk. In our case, Gausman appears to be the only one of the four outlined who is subject to all four kinds of risk.

1. Bundy remains a general injury risk. Other than that, there is very little-to-no chance that he won't be "workable" or "above average" at the MLB level.

2. Britton is a specific injury risk, in that he has had an issue w/in the last year. Otherwise, there seems little chance, given his prior results and stuff, that he won't be a "workable" MLB starter - though perhaps only "average"?

3. Matusz only specifically identifies as that rare (iv) risk, with a general injury risk. Otherwise, he pretty clearly pegs as an average-to-above MLB starter.

4. And Gausman. We simply don't know.

I may be "bullish" on Matusz, I guess. After all, I said this in December:

I'll start this off by saying I liked nothing that I saw from Matusz last year. And I saw nothing that gives me confidence that he will be what he was. That said, it is the catastrophic nature of his collapse that gives me some small amount of hope - those kinds of declines don't happen suddenly, often. From a mere probabilistic standpoint, I'm expecting some kind of return to form, and value. Here's why.

First, I'm really curious about the relationship of the muscle injured and pitching mechanics, and haven't seen it spelled out very well. From where I sit - in an amateur's chair - both problems with command and diminished velocity could result from an intercostal muscle injury (and even attempts to perform when healthy following, provided some weakness follows).

That's not to write everything off as one-issue, and easily resolved. There are clearly some mental things that popped up, both ex ante and ex post. But given the almost instantaneous arrival of these issues, we shouldn't be surprised (barring major, lingering injury) with an equally instantaneous correction.

But here's what we (think we) know:

1. He was a top-5 pick.

2. His make-up was believed to be off-the-charts.

3. He had four major league pitches.

Now we see:

1. Worst 50 IP in history.

2. Questionable make-up.

3. No major league pitches.

I'm down on the moralistic tenor of some posts about Matusz, and have vocalized as much. But I get why we jump all over him: because (in general) we like to assign some kind of order to disorder. We want things to make sense. Here, we have an inexplicable and inscrutable decline and we want it to make sense to us, and so we assign value to things that wouldn't be a big deal (quotes, second-hand stuff, etc.). But most of us know that, though we have bad days, months, and sometimes even years, character doesn't often disappear, and MLB pitches don't often disappear.

If the O's know something about (i) injury; or (ii) serious make-up issues, then I can understand trading him. But what I see right now is: uncertainty. And just because I can't pinpoint the problem doesn't make the problem value-obliterating. He's worth far too much, if he does bounce back, to sell him off at a discount now. To me.

[CrimsonTribe]

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.

Remember everyone, this is the Orioles we're dealing with here.

In the words of Louis CK:

An optimist is someone who goes, "Hey, maybe something nice will happen?"

Why the **** would anything nice ever happen?

[Pickles]

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.

This bolded is an understatement. That's part of the reason, I'd be thrilled to get three good starters out of this 4: Pitchers are inherently risky. Everyone here knows it. I don't see why me saying it is such a bummer. It is what it is.

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 think Matusz is improving and I'm happy to see it. I still don't think he's back mechanically to where he was at the end of the 10 season, but I'm hopeful he'll get there. I'm just not ready to declare that a done deal just yet.

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).

Like I said in the other thread, if you go by BP, Jones has averaged 3.7 wins the last 3 years, and topped 4 twice. I don't see why there numbers are less in vogue; maybe its because you have to pay for it. But you can't, nor can I, say one is definitively right and one is definitively wrong.

Jones takes an unfair ding, for whatever reason, in those other defensive metrics. Weren't you the one that identified a possible "Camden Bias?" So you definitely think there's a possible explanation for it right?

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?

Ignoring what I've already posted regarding Jones' WAR record, this is a bad analogy.

That's like me saying Jones hit 25 homeruns last year (or whatever) so he's just as likely to hit 50 hrs, as Andino is to hit 2 triples. I mean they're both 100% increases. It's apples to oarnges.

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..

I think we should all be happy to get 3 "good", whatever we want to call it, SPs out of that group. That's all I'm saying. And of course, "surprise" value really has no bearing on the issue at hand.

[Pickles]

I don't think anyone's banking on it, though, right? Any more than BA "banks" on their projected future line-ups? Everyone knows there's risk in (i) development, (ii) injury, (iii) translation across competition levels, and (iv) "wildcard" risk - the Ankiel/Grienke risk. In our case, Gausman appears to be the only one of the four outlined who is subject to all four kinds of risk.

1. Bundy remains a general injury risk. Other than that, there is very little-to-no chance that he won't be "workable" or "above average" at the MLB level.

2. Britton is a specific injury risk, in that he has had an issue w/in the last year. Otherwise, there seems little chance, given his prior results and stuff, that he won't be a "workable" MLB starter - though perhaps only "average"?

3. Matusz only specifically identifies as that rare (iv) risk, with a general injury risk. Otherwise, he pretty clearly pegs as an average-to-above MLB starter.

4. And Gausman. We simply don't know.

3. Matusz actually is a "wild."

I may be "bullish" on Matusz, I guess. After all, I said this in December:

Well, maybe I was too much of a Debbie Downer. If we get three good, workable, above average starters out of that group of 4 we should all be thrilled. Let along 4 TOR starters, or #2s, or whatever else.

[Lucky Jim]

I won't quote, because our posts are getting far too long!

Fair enough, re: Jones. I definitely thought Jones was better than his Camden numbers, though increasingly I'm beginning to think the difference was positioning, as this year his play passes both my eyeball test and the small-sample metric test (or at least UZR, w/ DRS being at least kind-of stable).

I think folks stopped relying on BP because most of us don't think FRAA has that much value (and it's a huge outlier w/r/t Jones).

[Lucky Jim]

Well, maybe I was too much of a Debbie Downer. If we get three good, workable, above average starters out of that group of 4 we should all be thrilled. Let along 4 TOR starters, or #2s, or whatever else.

Right. And fair enough. I think the difference is that I'm not going to be happy if we end up w/ three average starters because these are our most likely guys to be above average.

Breakdowns come and breakdowns go (as the Bard once said), but that doesn't mean we have to be satisfied if our best prospects default to some baseline risk. We need these guys to do better, and they should. I'll accept whatever they give me, but Bundy is too good, and Britton and Matusz too close to being above average right now, to throw Gausman in the mix and be satisfied w/ having three Jeremy Guthries.

[Pickles]

BP still has Jones avg, or slightly below this year and last, and +5 I think for 10, so it's not like they're saying he's Willie Mays out there.

My position in this thread is largely based on a position I've taken over the last several years, here and elsewhere: You can never have enough pitching. That's just my philosophy.

We heard for years that AM focused too much on pitching at the expense of positional talent.

And yet here we are, w an above average offense, made up entirely of guys under the age of 29, and under contract for the most part going forward, and a starting rotation that is still below average.

If any fanbase should realize the volatility of young pitching, it is this one. I'm just not trying to put the cart before the horse.

[Lucky Jim]

BP still has Jones avg, or slightly below this year and last, and +5 I think for 10, so it's not like they're saying he's Willie Mays out there.

My position in this thread is largely based on a position I've taken over the last several years, here and elsewhere: You can never have enough pitching. That's just my philosophy.

We heard for years that AM focused too much on pitching at the expense of positional talent.

And yet here we are, w an above average offense, made up entirely of guys under the age of 29, and under contract for the most part going forward, and a starting rotation that is still below average.

If any fanbase should realize the volatility of young pitching, it is this one. I'm just not trying to put the cart before the horse.

Right. You can't ever have enough pitching. In part, because it's hard to say what kind of leaps folks will take in development (or how injury will play out, or when development will stall). No doubt. But that doesn't mean that you should be happy if your best prospects falter - just that you should have an entire portfolio of well-diversified prospect-risk that you can fill in when/if that faltering occurs).

[Pickles]

Right. And fair enough. I think the difference is that I'm not going to be happy if we end up w/ three average starters because these are our most likely guys to be above average.

Breakdowns come and breakdowns go (as the Bard once said), but that doesn't mean we have to be satisfied if our best prospects default to some baseline risk. We need these guys to do better, and they should. I'll accept whatever they give me, but Bundy is too good, and Britton and Matusz too close to being above average right now, to throw Gausman in the mix and be satisfied w/ having three Jeremy Guthries.

I won't be happy if Bundy turns into Guthrie, but if Matusz and Britton can do it, I'll take it. Guthrie was a good starter here for five years.

I guess, fairly or not, I'm expecting at least one of them, due to injury, not to be an effective SP at the ML level. I don't know who it is yet, but odds are one of them will get hurt. So then we're already down to three. Rightly or wrongly, that's how I see it.

[Pickles]

Right. You can't ever have enough pitching. In part, because it's hard to say what kind of leaps folks will take in development (or how injury will play out, or when development will stall). No doubt. But that doesn't mean that you should be happy if your best prospects falter - just that you should have an entire portfolio of well-diversified prospect-risk that you can fill in when/if that faltering occurs).

Well, clearly I won't be "happy" if they falter. I'm just expecting an attrition rate.

[DrungoHazewood]

I guess, fairly or not, I'm expecting at least one of them, due to injury, not to be an effective SP at the ML level. I don't know who it is yet, but odds are one of them will get hurt. So then we're already down to three. Rightly or wrongly, that's how I see it.

But just because someone gets hurt that doesn't disqualify them from being good before or after the injury. You can throw Strasburg into the (catastrophically) injured pile, but he could still give the Nats 20, 30+ WAR by the time he's a free agent in 2017.

[Pickles]

But just because someone gets hurt that doesn't disqualify them from being good before or after the injury. You can throw Strasburg into the (catastrophically) injured pile, but he could still give the Nats 20, 30+ WAR by the time he's a free agent in 2017.

Well, TJ is a serious injury, but it isn't, generally, career-ending. Labrum issues can be, obviously. Likewise, I don't think any of the pitchers we're talking about here, w the possible exception of Bundy, and imo even he falls short, have Strasburg's abilities.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well, TJ is a serious injury, but it isn't, generally, career-ending. Labrum issues can be, obviously. Likewise, I don't think any of the pitchers we're talking about here, w the possible exception of Bundy, and imo even he falls short, have Strasburg's abilities.

There's a fairly long list of players who have been both badly injured and subsequently (or previously) very productive. There's nothing to say Bundy (or Gausman, or even Matusz) doesn't give the O's something like 2, 5, 8, 0, 1, 5 wins over his six years of team control.

[Pickles]

There's a fairly long list of players who have been both badly injured and subsequently (or previously) very productive. There's nothing to say Bundy (or Gausman, or even Matusz) doesn't give the O's something like 2, 5, 8, 0, 1, 5 wins over his six years of team control.

Yes, even w a TJ, in a good scenario, that pitcher could provide very good value.

But that doesn't really diminish my broader point. TJ surgery is not the only obstacle to overcome for these four pitchers to be good, consistent starters at the ML level.

Matusz was worse than useless last year, and he did't suffer a catastrophic injury.

Arrieta has been essentially replacement, in fact below it, this year, and it hasn't been due to injury.

Tillman hasn't even pitched in the MLs this year, and it hasn't been because of injury.

Pitchers fail to develop all the time sans injury.

All of those guys still have a lot to prove, perhaps in different areas, before I think we should be throwing around some of the terms I read earlier in this thread. That is my main point, and one I'm fairly certain you agree with.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Jamie Moyer should be available that year. He can celebrate his 50th birthday on the mound.

How does that old KML joke go.... and then he can pitch?