Elias: emulating the Rays?

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, now said:

Pitchers' disproportionate fragility, Elias's experience getting burned drafting pitchers high, and the O's decade or more of draft busts all argue against the doomed "Grow the arms" philosophy. Why play the pitching lottery when you can wait and buy proven mound success--or trade for it with a full stable of young homegrown bats?

Well, what does it take for a pitcher to prove himself to be worthwhile? It takes six years of success, so we’re paying huge, enormous, unfathomable amount of money for six years of success that a guy had with somebody else, and hope they continue that success with us. 
paying huge amounts of money for past success is unwise.

Trading for it is also unwise because good pitching is extremely expensive. It is much better to draft it. We’ve probably got 10 pitchers In our top 20 prospects. How many of them will be successful starters? 3-4? That’s enough. How many will be successful relievers? An additional 2-3?

Finally, how many will maintain Enough “prospect appeal” To be worthwhile trade bait? 2-3?
remember we traded for two “former first round picks” in Ortiz and Tate. They are both terrible but we traded for them anyway based solely on their prospect status. Top-10 prospects have value.
so I do insist we draft pitching and avoid high-dollar FAs.

 

[OFFNY]

23 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

 

o

 

 

21 hours ago, Philip said:

 

I thought that was the St. Louis Browns ???

 

o

 

No, it was the Kansas City Athletics ........ it was collusion before the official collusion (which occurred in the mid-to-late 1980's.)

 

o

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

You simply can’t grade the Cashner deal or any the way it’s being done here.

Cashner’s value is based on how had performed up to the trade And the fact that Boston thought he could help.

There are other examples of players that were dealt for a playoff run and completely collapsed.

If he pitched to a 2.50 ERA the rest of the way in the playoffs would he have been worth more?

I don’t think Elias made a good deal .... some here do. We can agree to disagree 

I think it was a decent deal.    But ask me again in three years when I’ve got some handle on the young guys we acquired.    Right now it’s just guesswork.   

[now]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

Well, what does it take for a pitcher to prove himself to be worthwhile? It takes six years of success, so we’re paying huge, enormous, unfathomable amount of money for six years of success that a guy had with somebody else, and hope they continue that success with us. 
paying huge amounts of money for past success is unwise.

Trading for it is also unwise because good pitching is extremely expensive. It is much better to draft it. We’ve probably got 10 pitchers In our top 20 prospects. How many of them will be successful starters? 3-4? That’s enough. How many will be successful relievers? An additional 2-3?

Finally, how many will maintain Enough “prospect appeal” To be worthwhile trade bait? 2-3?
remember we traded for two “former first round picks” in Ortiz and Tate. They are both terrible but we traded for them anyway based solely on their prospect status. Top-10 prospects have value.
so I do insist we draft pitching and avoid high-dollar FAs.

 

Well, if you've squandered your top draft picks on pitchers whose arms will fail, then you'll have to buy expensive FA bats! Development is a war of attrition and the simple fact is, survival favors the bats. I guess you could say the FA batters also stand to hold up better than the FA pitchers. But if more of your draftees (pitchers) fall by the wayside during development, then you're in for a net loss.

[HowAboutThat]

21 minutes ago, now said:

Well, if you've squandered your top draft picks on pitchers whose arms will fail, then you'll have to buy expensive FA bats! Development is a war of attrition and the simple fact is, survival favors the bats. I guess you could say the FA batters also stand to hold up better than the FA pitchers. But if more of your draftees (pitchers) fall by the wayside during development, then you're in for a net loss.

Most prospects disappoint by definition.

The question is how much benefit will you get from those who succeed.

The benefit from a successful pitcher Is greater then that from a successful hitter Because pitching is harder to develop.

thats why Greinke Verlander etc got such extreme contracts.

the only risk to drafting pitchers is that they will fail. So you balance that by drafting/finding lots of them. If only one guy from the Bundy trade is a winner, it means 3-4 guys failed, but that’s a good trade.

[Roll Tide]

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

And yet he didn't trade Mancini. 

Another mistake

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

Another mistake

It seemed odd to me that he didn't.

[Roll Tide]

40 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think it was a decent deal.    But ask me again in three years when I’ve got some handle on the young guys we acquired.    Right now it’s just guesswork.   

Fair enough .... If they get moderately luck with one of the guys it’s a big win.

Honestly the same with the Bundy deal.

[now]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

Most prospects disappoint by definition.

The question is how much benefit will you get from those who succeed.

The benefit from a successful pitcher Is greater then that from a successful hitter Because pitching is harder to develop.

thats why Greinke Verlander etc got such extreme contracts.

the only risk to drafting pitchers is that they will fail. So you balance that by drafting/finding lots of them. If only one guy from the Bundy trade is a winner, it means 3-4 guys failed, but that’s a good trade.

I'll trust the analytics department to settle this debate, balancing relative attrition with relative value. Maybe it already works out that way in the market whichever path you choose. Whatever that right answer is, I believe we'll see it in Elias's choices in his body of work.

Of course, all the above is about efficiency. If you're the MFY, you just buy whatever you want.

 

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, Philip said:

Most prospects disappoint by definition.

The question is how much benefit will you get from those who succeed.

The benefit from a successful pitcher Is greater then that from a successful hitter Because pitching is harder to develop.

thats why Greinke Verlander etc got such extreme contracts.

the only risk to drafting pitchers is that they will fail. So you balance that by drafting/finding lots of them. If only one guy from the Bundy trade is a winner, it means 3-4 guys failed, but that’s a good trade.

Not sure I follow this logic.    Why is Verlander’s contract “extreme?”     There are several batters who have bigger contacts.    It is an unusual year when the best pitcher has more value than the best hitter, measured by Wins Above Replacement, which by definition takes into account how hard it is to develop players above replacement value.

In fact, the more I think of it, the less logic there is to your argument.  

An argument that makes more sense to me is that more pitchers are lost to injury, so you have to draft more of them to account for the attrition.   

 

[Roll Tide]

9 hours ago, Philip said:

Most prospects disappoint by definition.

The question is how much benefit will you get from those who succeed.

The benefit from a successful pitcher Is greater then that from a successful hitter Because pitching is harder to develop.

thats why Greinke Verlander etc got such extreme contracts.

the only risk to drafting pitchers is that they will fail. So you balance that by drafting/finding lots of them. If only one guy from the Bundy trade is a winner, it means 3-4 guys failed, but that’s a good trade.

Here’s the problem ....The Bundy deal was a quantity deal. Mattson is likely a bullpen piece and of marginal value unless he becomes an elite closer. His K/BB rate is more than 4 to 1 and 1.25 Ks per IP. So I guess it’s possible.

Im not really impressed with Peek or Brynovich. I think they are more long shot types and Bradish walks 5 per 9 innings which he will have to figure out to reach his potential.

I would have preferred a 3 player deal with more quality. Maybe Kochanowitz, Bradish, and a lesser 3rd.

[wildcard]

10 hours ago, now said:

Well, if you've squandered your top draft picks on pitchers whose arms will fail, then you'll have to buy expensive FA bats! Development is a war of attrition and the simple fact is, survival favors the bats. I guess you could say the FA batters also stand to hold up better than the FA pitchers. But if more of your draftees (pitchers) fall by the wayside during development, then you're in for a net loss.

Fact remains that we need quality pitching to raise to the top.   And especially in Camden Yards quality starting pitching is hard to find.   IMO its better to acquire a quality starter whenever you can.  Hitters are much easier to find with a home park like Camden.

[Sports Guy]

14 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

You simply can’t grade the Cashner deal or any the way it’s being done here.

Cashner’s value is based on how had performed up to the trade And the fact that Boston thought he could help.

There are other examples of players that were dealt for a playoff run and completely collapsed.

If he pitched to a 2.50 ERA the rest of the way in the playoffs would he have been worth more?

I don’t think Elias made a good deal .... some here do. We can agree to disagree 

No, Cashner’s value is based on what the market says it is.  
 
No one was willing to give up any top prospect for him..or even organizational top 10-15 prospects.

Some of the complaint about the deal revolved around the timing of the trade.  Elias traded him early, likely because he wanted to deal him before his value plummeted.  Had he waited and Cashner had done the same thing in Baltimore that he did in Boston, Elias would not have been able to trade him for anything more than some salary dump deal where they got nothing back but salary relief and even then, he may not have been able to do it.

[HowAboutThat]

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

Not sure I follow this logic.    Why is Verlander’s contract “extreme?”     There are several batters who have bigger contacts.    It is an unusual year when the best pitcher has more value than the best hitter, measured by Wins Above Replacement, which by definition takes into account how hard it is to develop players above replacement value.

In fact, the more I think of it, the less logic there is to your argument.  

An argument that makes more sense to me is that more pitchers are lost to injury, so you have to draft more of them to account for the attrition.   

 

Verlander/Greinke et al have contracts we cannot afford. We MUST draft pitchers because we can’t afford to trade for or sign guys on that tier.

its easier to afford capable bats.

 

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

No, Cashner’s value is based on what the market says it is.  
 
No one was willing to give up any top prospect for him..or even organizational top 10-15 prospects.

Some of the complaint about the deal revolved around the timing of the trade.  Elias traded him early, likely because he wanted to deal him before his value plummeted.  Had he waited and Cashner had done the same thing in Baltimore that he did in Boston, Elias would not have been able to trade him for anything more than some salary dump deal where they got nothing back but salary relief and even then, he may not have been able to do it.

A couple of one in a million shots are about the same thing! Yeah I'm exaggerating a bit but they are certainly long shots. Also I think he waited to long on Villar.

We don't know what was offered for Cashner and never know whether he was offered older guys that were closer to the bigs due to not wanting to have a 40 man addition.

I assume he wouldve taken a top 30 guy if offered .... but there was some dialogue about wanting younger players etc