Buy the arms and grow the bats?

[Brion McClanahan]

For years, we were told that McPhail and Co. wanted to "Grow the arms and buy the bats." These never really worked out as several high level Os pitching prospects flamed out. "There is no such thing as a pitching prospect" became a favorite mantra on this board. Did McPhail have it wrong?

Is the Houston model the correct way to build a franchise? They have grown virtually all of their dominant hitters while their rotation has been "bought" via trade or FA, and via trade with mostly hitting prospects. Is this the path Elias will pursue in the future?

It seems so, as the Os took more position players than pitchers in the first half of draft.

Does the current model of play invite this strategy? This is now a hitters league, and with the new model for starters--pray for five innings and hand it off to the pen--becoming the norm, or with the "opener," is this the best path for the Os?

[wildbillhiccup]

I think they should  focus on getting the best available talent, via trades, draft picks, international signings, etc., regardless of position. They can sort out the rest later. Having an abundance of anything is usually a good problem to have. 

[LookinUp]

22 minutes ago, Brion McClanahan said:

It seems so, as the Os took more position players than pitchers in the first half of draft.

Does the current model of play invite this strategy? 

 

13 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

Having an abundance of anything is usually a good problem to have. 

I basically agree with wildbill. Houston has been able to make those trades because they have a very deep farm system. At the same time, if you can settle on most of your position players, it's easier to trade away prospects. It's harder to trade pitching because you go through so many. It's almost impossible to have too much pitching in any system. 

[Aristotelian]

I'd say it worked pretty well. We never produced a Scherzer/Verlander type of ace, but we've had our share of homegrown guys (Britton, Gausman, Givens, Tillman) and/or value guys acquired from elsewhere without spending money (Miguel, O'Day). Probably the best case for "buying" is Chen, but he is offset by Ubaldo, Cobb, Gallardo. I don't see a strong case for either approach.

Looking around the league, I don't see big free agent contracts for pitchers having a 100% track record either.

[HowAboutThat]

I am always amazed that the Astros are so deep they have two competent starters, McHugh and Peacock, playing Angry Birds in their bullpen.

[UpstateNYfan]

IMO, for a team to be competitive there staff must consist of a 1,2,3,3,3 or 2,2,3,3,3 (as vague as the definition for a 1,2,3,4,5 are). No 4 or 5. The chances of a team drafting that kind of staff is highly unlikely You need excess at other positions to fill out a rotation AND be willing to spend some $$$ to hold on to them for championship runs. If the run doesn't work out, you can always trade a 1,2,3 for some quality prospects. It seems the definition of a true number 1, must be a perennial All Star.

[Luke-OH]

3 minutes ago, UpstateNYfan said:

IMO, for a team to be competitive there staff must consist of a 1,2,3,3,3 or 2,2,3,3,3 (as vague as the definition for a 1,2,3,4,5 are). No 4 or 5. The chances of a team drafting that kind of staff is highly unlikely You need excess at other positions to fill out a rotation AND be willing to spend some $$$ to hold on to them for championship runs. If the run doesn't work out, you can always trade a 1,2,3 for some quality prospects. It seems the definition of a true number 1, must be a perennial All Star.

Red Sox won the world series last you with a true ace #1, a #3 who missed some time, two #4/5 types, and some swingman level fill-ins. (in terms of performance)

[Oriole1940]

18 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I think they should  focus on getting the best available talent, via trades, draft picks, international signings, etc., regardless of position. They can sort out the rest later. Having an abundance of anything is usually a good problem to have. 

I agree with this too.   I have noticed that the Astros have an abundance of ATHLETES, who not only play multiple positions, but play them real good.  Of course winning teams almost always have that rare, for us anyway,  commodity of PITCHING.   So I would say a balanced approach is the one I would take, both in drafting, as well as trading.  I know that in recent years it is in vogue to have a pitcher try to struggle through 5 or 6 innings, on a good night, and then bring in the pen.   This is true of teams other than the Orioles also.  That started with the dubious benefit of pitch counting. i would love to see the reaction of pitchers of yesterday when someone marches out to the mound to take them out mainly because they have what is considered an elevated pitch count.  And there seemed to be fewer arm injuries then.  However, I have also noticed when Verlander is on his A game, that he goes well beyond 5 innings.   So, it really boils down to PITCHING PITCHING PITCHING and stretching out the innings for young minor league  pitchers,  not to 5 innings, but 7-9 innings.    

[interloper]

Maybe in the future it could be, but I think right now it's just "Get Talent". 

[wildbillhiccup]

12 minutes ago, UpstateNYfan said:

IMO, for a team to be competitive there staff must consist of a 1,2,3,3,3 or 2,2,3,3,3 (as vague as the definition for a 1,2,3,4,5 are). No 4 or 5. The chances of a team drafting that kind of staff is highly unlikely You need excess at other positions to fill out a rotation AND be willing to spend some $$$ to hold on to them for championship runs. If the run doesn't work out, you can always trade a 1,2,3 for some quality prospects. It seems the definition of a true number 1, must be a perennial All Star.

Respectfully disagree. These days it's just as important to have a strong bullpen as it is a strong starting rotation. The new model for success is 5 to 6 innings from your starter then turn things over to your bullpen to finish things off. 

[wildbillhiccup]

...also the trade the Marlins just made with the D-Backs is a great example of the fact that in this era prospect for prospect trades can also happen. The Marlins have an abundance of starting pitching so they traded one of their young studs for a young OF prospect. I personally like Zac Gallen a bit more than Jazz Chisolm, but that's not really the point. 

[Matt Bennett]

42 minutes ago, Philip said:

I am always amazed that the Astros are so deep they have two competent starters, McHugh and Peacock, playing Angry Birds in their bullpen.

Dodgers are the same way. Urias in the bullpen. Stripling and Maeda often find themselves out there as well. They shipped out a very good pitcher in Alex Wood just to get Puig and Kemp off their hands. 

[Bahama O's Fan]

Didn't Arizona win the series in 2001 with two 1s and two 4s and a five?

[99ct]

From a "pure economics" stand point, it wouldn't make much sense to be "growing bats" when the league currently has a surplus of hitters - even if its due to the allegedly juiced balls. Pitching is at a premium, as it almost always is, so going to buy it doesn't seem like a great idea. My guess is the reason the draft focused on position players is because the front office wanted the best players available, regardless of position. Might go dip into the pitching pond next draft. 

[Frobby]

On the pitching side, just finish in the top 4-5 in the league in ERA as a team.    I don’t care how you do it, as between TOR, MOR, BOR and bullpen.    Just do it, and your team will do fine.