Trade Central Station

[Sports Guy]

Sonnanstine is the type of guy that will probably see his ERA be everywhere...May be in the 3.8 range one year and then 4.6 the next year.

Ultimately, i agree he is right around a 3/4 starter.

[Singleton]

2004 - 3rd round Wade Davis

2004 - 4th round Ross Ohlendorf

2004- 5th round Jake McGee

2005 - 3rd round Micah Owings

2005 - 3rd round Brandon Erbe

2005 - 4th round Brian Matusz

2007 - 5th round Jake Arrieta

Yes, they are found every year. If you believe anyone can be "projected" to be a #1 you are mistaken. Yes pitchers can have the raw stuff to be that guy, but there is so much more to being an Ace that they have to prove as they do it.

Having a strong K/BB ratio doesn't help when you are giving up more hits than innings pitched. That skews the numbers. Another pitcher will have a 2:1 K:BB but only give up a hit in 75% of their innings and have the same ERA.

Yes he had a good year this year, but the team went to the WS, it's pretty easy to have a better than usual year in that regard, but last year, not so much, it's too early to be putting this guy at the trade value of say Guthrie who has had 2 straight years with more consistent numbers.

Matusz was a first rounder (4th pick overall). None of these guys have yet to have the major league success of AS (or any at all for that matter) and they all weren't picked by the same team which doesn't support Stolte's absurd notion that picking a Sonnanstine is easy.

Obviously, if the team around you is good, you are more likely to have more wins. It is not clear to me how that helps you strike guys out.

Finally, the discussion really isn't about whether Sonnanstine will become an ace. The odds are against any player becoming an ace -- no matter what his pedigree or how hard he throws.

[Stotle]

This is just semantics. Give me 5 good starters who compliment each other. I think a Sonnanstine-type is a good fit in a lot of rotations, I don't care if you call him #1 or #5. I think I would take my chances with 5 Sonnanstines in a rotation vs. the 2008 Os rotation. And isn't that what matters?

Complimentary, by the way, is one of the reasons I don't expect him to be traded. Going into 2009 the Rays have Kaz, who is becoming Erik Bedard-like in his ability to go deep, and they don't believe/don't want David Price going deep. Garza is all over the place, and Shields is an innings eater. I think given the other four they would rather a Sonnanstine than say, a certain 6-9 guy who has some amazing stuff at times but can be all over the place from start to start and during his starts. Sure the ceiling is not as high, but the overall value to the ball club is deemed to be more.

I don't necessarily disagree with this idea of building your rotation, but what SG is talking about is having him be your 3rd most talented pitcher. Would you feel comfortable lining him up against Joe Saunders or Ervin Santana? Matsuzaka or Lester? A healthy McGowan or Burnett? Danks? I sure wouldn't. Let him eat innings, fine. But not 1) at the expense of more talented pitchers or 2) in any sort of impact situtation.

[Sports Guy]

I don't necessarily disagree with this idea of building your rotation, but what SG is talking about is having him be your 3rd most talented pitcher. Would you feel comfortable lining him up against Joe Saunders or Ervin Santana? Matsuzaka or Lester? A healthy McGowan or Burnett? Danks? I sure wouldn't. Let him eat innings, fine. But not 1) at the expense of more talented pitchers or 2) in any sort of impact situtation.

No I am not...He isn't as talented as our big 3.

Right now, if we got him, he would be our best pitcher IMO.(i think he is ever so slightly ahead of Guthrie)

[Stotle]

Matusz was a first rounder (4th pick overall). None of these guys have yet to have the major league success of AS (or any at all for that matter) and they all weren't picked by the same team which doesn't support Stolte's absurd notion that picking a Sonnanstine is easy.

Obviously, if the team around you is good, you are more likely to have more wins. It is not clear to me how that helps you strike guys out.

Finally, the discussion really isn't about whether Sonnanstine will become an ace. The odds are against any player becoming an ace -- no matter what his pedigree or how hard he throws.

It's funny you call the notion "absurd". What is really absurd is expecting someone with Sonnanstine's tool set to hit his absolute peak and become a capable ML starter. He has no room for error in his control. There are a dozen pitchers every year with his average stuff. He happened to make the most of it which could translate into a nice little career as a #4 or #5 starter. Congrats. Let's not make this out to be TAM finding some sort of diamond in the rough.

If you don't understand drafting and player development, it's probably wise not to sling stones at others whose concepts of identifying and projecting performance in amateurs is a little more grounded in reality and experience.

Thanks for not getting "personal"...you really showed some character, class and conversational skills there. Yay you!

[Stotle]

No I am not...He isn't as talented as our big 3.

Right now, if we got him, he would be our best pitcher IMO.(i think he is ever so slightly ahead of Guthrie)

When you call someone a #3 you are saying he matches up with the third best pitcher across the league. You've said he can be a #3.

[Sports Guy]

When you call someone a #3 you are saying he matches up with the third best pitcher across the league. You've said he can be a #3.

He proved this year that he can be a #3...That isn't even disputable. Everything about his year this year says he was a #3.

IIRC, Harball Times did a piece last year that the league average #3 starter had an ERA of 4.50...AS was better than that and had around a league K rate, a great BB rate, etc...

BTW, how often will he match up with another teams #3 starter? You mentioned Lester..if you think he is really a #3, you are crazy. Just because he is the Red Sox #3 starter doesn't mean he is a #3.

[Mackus]

When you call someone a #3 you are saying he matches up with the third best pitcher across the league. You've said he can be a #3.

I don't think its terribly unlikely that he'll have some seasons where his numbers would relate to being in the top 30-40 in the league, which would be a #3. And this past year he probably was in that range. He was 28th in ERA and 19th in IP, pretty much have to conclude he was a top-30 starter in the AL this year.

I don't think he'll be there every year, he'll average somewhere closer to the 45-60 range (#4) IMO. But I'd be that he'll have a couple seasons where you could rank him as having been a solid #3. He'll probably also have a couple where he's barely a #5.

[Stotle]

He proved this year that he can be a #3...That isn't even disputable. Everything about his year this year says he was a #3.

IIRC, Harball Times did a piece last year that the league average #3 starter had an ERA of 4.50...AS was better than that and had around a league K rate, a great BB rate, etc...

A 104 ERA+ as a ceiling is well below #3 production. Sorry, but it is.

[Stotle]

I don't think its terribly unlikely that he'll have some seasons where his numbers would relate to being in the top 30-40 in the league, which would be a #3. And this past year he probably was in that range. He was 28th in ERA and 19th in IP, pretty much have to conclude he was a top-30 starter in the AL this year.

I don't think he'll be there every year, he'll average somewhere closer to the 45-60 range (#4) IMO. But I'd be that he'll have a couple seasons where you could rank him as having been a solid #3. He'll probably also have a couple where he's barely a #5.

That isn't the description of a #3 though. The point of a label when you are appraising talent is to try and quantify the production you expect. You've just described an okay #4 pitcher whose stuff is inconsistent or unimpressive enough to prevent you from making a semi-accurate prediction as to production.

[Sanfran327]

I think Sonnanstine is a solid #4 type guy. He'll pitch a decent number of innings to ERAs in the mid 4's most years, is my guess. Plus he's inexpensive. I do think he's certainly more valuable than David Hernandez, although he is undoubtedly less valuable than David Hernandez' upside. The catch is Hernandez is a fairly long shot to reach that upside.

Scott and Hernandez for Sonnanstine is something I'd consider. I wouldn't do Scott and Sherrill though.

Sonnanstine is the type of guy that will probably see his ERA be everywhere...May be in the 3.8 range one year and then 4.6 the next year.

Ultimately, i agree he is right around a 3/4 starter.

Finally, the discussion really isn't about whether Sonnanstine will become an ace. The odds are against any player becoming an ace -- no matter what his pedigree or how hard he throws.

I don't necessarily disagree with this idea of building your rotation, but what SG is talking about is having him be your 3rd most talented pitcher. Would you feel comfortable lining him up against Joe Saunders or Ervin Santana? Matsuzaka or Lester? A healthy McGowan or Burnett? Danks? I sure wouldn't. Let him eat innings, fine. But not 1) at the expense of more talented pitchers or 2) in any sort of impact situtation.

This is why we have to think more along the lines of "this guy could be a 3 or 4 starter on a championship-caliber team." On the 2008 O's, Sonny would be the #2. But we sucked. On a playoff team? He's a 4 (as he is currently) or, in an even better scenario, a 5, since that would mean that you have an even more talented rotation ahead of him.

That's why I've always said that Markakis isn't a #3 hitter. He may be on our team, but on a contender, he's a 2 or a 5 - maybe even a #6 if you're really stacked.

[Sports Guy]

That isn't the description of a #3 though. The point of a label when you are appraising talent is to try and quantify the production you expect. You've just described an okay #4 pitcher whose stuff is inconsistent or unimpressive enough to prevent you from making a semi-accurate prediction as to production.

Article is 2 years old but I would guess it still roughly applies:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-good-is-your-4-starter/

[Mackus]

That isn't the description of a #3 though. The point of a label when you are appraising talent is to try and quantify the production you expect. You've just described an okay #4 pitcher whose stuff is inconsistent or unimpressive enough to prevent you from making a semi-accurate prediction as to production.

Its my description of a #3 within a season.

If you've got a guy that is consistently in the top-30, then they are a consistent #3 over many years, which is important. If they end up moreso as a consistent top 45-50 guy, then they are a #4 (where I think what Sonnanstine ends up being).

[Singleton]

It's funny you call the notion "absurd". What is really absurd is expecting someone with Sonnanstine's tool set to hit his absolute peak and become a capable ML starter. He has no room for error in his control. There are a dozen pitchers every year with his average stuff. He happened to make the most of it which could translate into a nice little career as a #4 or #5 starter. Congrats. Let's not make this out to be TAM finding some sort of diamond in the rough.

If you don't understand drafting and player development, it's probably wise not to sling stones at others whose concepts of identifying and projecting performance in amateurs is a little more grounded in reality and experience.

Thanks for not getting "personal"...you really showed some character, class and conversational skills there. Yay you!

You said in an earlier post that it would be easy to pick a pitcher like Sonnanstine in the 3rd or 4th round every year. I do think this is an abusrd notion since we have huge amounts of data that show that most teams can't consistently (key word) get a major leaguer at that point in the draft let alone someone who has a good year with a promising future. If you can show me a team that has consistently drafted a 3rd rounder that produces like this then you will convince me that it is not an overly bold statement. You haven't offered anything like this so....

I also think his stats pretty clearly show him to be a "capable major league starter." If winning 13 games or so with an ERA in the low 4's and a k/bb ratio of over 3 isn't "capable" then someone bring the O's some incapable pitchers please.

Perhaps I don't understand drafting and player development at your level but it sure seems like Tampa Bay does given their World Series appearance and pipeline of talent and they seem to like this scrub pitcher

More seriously, I don't really think calling the notion absurd is a personal attack but I really did not mean to offend you and if I did, please accept my apology.

I'll drop the subject.

[Basketeer]

You know that K/BB ratio you guys always whine about on here? The one that supposedly measures how much success a pitcher will have and that the elite pitchers generally have ratios above 4?

Andy Sonnanstine's minor league numbers include: 38-18 record, 2.71 era, and a K/BB ratio of 6.19.

Also, his ERA dropped 1.47 points from his rookie season to this past year, he pitched in 10 more starts (32) and had just 37 walks in 193.1 IP. His major league K/BB ratio is a highly respectable 3.51.

Just some facts for ya.