I’ve Come Around on 13 Pitchers

[Sports Guy]

Hard to argue with that reasoning.

As I said, I don't like the idea of 13 pitchers either, however we do have more pitchers than hitters who it may make sense to have on the 25 man roster for one reason or another, and we may have the versatility among the position players to make rest a non-issue. If done on a short-term basis like I just mentioned, I don't think it's something to get worked up over.

Anytime a dumb decision is made, it is enough to get worked up over IMO.

[Stotle]

But unless you are DHing the OFer on his day off, you've got to have Wigginton in the lineup as well when Scott is in the OF, taking away options to PH with on your bench.

You really shouldn't be pinch-hitting very often in the AL. If you are, it likely means your carrying someone on your 25 man because he's an above-average bat with no position or someone with some power an no position. I think both are a waste of a roster spot.

[mweb]

Anytime a dumb decision is made, it is enough to get worked up over IMO.

Well I don't think it would necessarily be dumb if done in the manner I laid out.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps, although none of us would have guessed Guthrie would have amounted to anything. It's also possible that Penn or Hill could be that 13th guy depending on how they perform, I know you will probably say that would be stupid, but regardless, it's possible.

What if the plan was to start with 13 pitchers, but once one gets hurt or someone shows he just isn't deserving of remaining on the club, then bring up a position player to replace him. That would likely occur rather quickly.

No, SG would never say anything was stupid. Beyond stupid, that he would say. But merely stupid. Don't think so.

Again, to me the question is whether the main focus is on 2009 or beyond. So a plan to start with 13 pitchers, and then going down to 12 if one goes on the DL, is entirely consistent with this preservation of future value concept. But in this case you do have to be careful about who to bring up and for how long. Remember that we just sent guys like Salazar and Moore off the 40-man, and neither has options. If they're restored to the 40-man, it should only be with the idea that they're staying up for the rest of the season, or else we're back in the business of trying to sneak them back down, which doesn't always work the 2nd time. But aside from the backup SS issue (if neither Wiggy nor Freel can handle the task), is there anyone we have so compelling as a position player that there's really such a need for that guy? Moreover, if the injured pitcher recovers, he's got to be put back on the roster as well. So unless we have a rolling string of injuries, which does SOMETIMES occur on a pitching staff, it gets a little dicey to manage this thing if we try to get the staff down from 13 to 12 in-season.

Whew! So many concerns!!!!

[Stotle]

I think there was definite reliever potential in him as soon as we signed him.

And any plan that calls for 13 pitchers, outside of a day where you have a doubleheader and have used up some arms in the days prior, is a terrible one.

Due respect, this is how you effectively prevent any sort of break-through in roster management. Just because teams haven't been effective in making this work in the past doesn't mean it's terrible to consider.

I'm certainly not saying it's my preference, but I can see ways to make it work and there may be situations where it's the optimal approach to maximizing value/talent on a 25 man roster based on the market.

[Sports Guy]

No, SG would never say anything was stupid. Beyond stupid, that he would say. But merely stupid. Don't think so.

Again, to me the question is whether the main focus is on 2009 or beyond. So a plan to start with 13 pitchers, and then going down to 12 if one goes on the DL, is entirely consistent with this preservation of future value concept. But in this case you do have to be careful about who to bring up and for how long. Remember that we just sent guys like Salazar and Moore off the 40-man, and neither has options. If they're restored to the 40-man, it should only be with the idea that they're staying up for the rest of the season, or else we're back in the business of trying to sneak them back down, which doesn't always work the 2nd time. But aside from the backup SS issue (if neither Wiggy nor Freel can handle the task), is there anyone we have so compelling as a position player that there's really such a need for that guy? Moreover, if the injured pitcher recovers, he's got to be put back on the rister as well. So unless we have a rolling string of injuries, which does SOMETIMES occur on a pitching staff, it gets a little dicey to manage this thing if we try to get the staff down from 13 to 12 in-season.

Whew! So many concerns!!!!

When dealing with the players you are talking about, this isn't the question at all.

You are acting as if these players are good and they aren't...You are acting as if we cut them, that means they are out of the organization and that teams are going to line up trying to add dime a dozen arms to their current stable of dime a dozen arms.

[Sports Guy]

Due respect, this is how you effectively prevent any sort of break-through in roster management. Just because teams haven't been effective in making this work in the past doesn't mean it's terrible to consider.

I'm certainly not saying it's my preference, but I can see ways to make it work and there may be situations where it's the optimal approach to maximizing value/talent on a 25 man roster based on the market.

Well, the way you laid out earlier, with Gomez, Wig and a back up catcher on the bench certainly isn't one of those ways.

And again, even if there is a slight chance you can do it, that doesn't mean you should.

It is just a terrible idea and it amazes me that anyone would ever advocate it, especially when we have a manager that is terrible when it comes to using his extra players.

[Anonymous]

When dealing with the players you are talking about, this isn't the question at all.

You are acting as if these players are good and they aren't...You are acting as if we cut them, that means they are out of the organization and that teams are going to line up trying to add dime a dozen arms to their current stable of dime a dozen arms.

Let's have a pow-wow at the end of ST and see how it all shakes out.

[Sports Guy]

If it's Penn or Pauley teams they have at least a 50% chance of getting claimed if they pitch decently in ST.

What you are saying is true most of the time but you could have said the exact same thing about Guthrie in 2007 and it would have made just as much sense as it does now.

Well, I am not worried about this anyway, so it doesn't matter to me.

If these guys are on the outside looking in, it will likely be another poor roster decision to talk about anyway.

[mweb]

When dealing with the players you are talking about, this isn't the question at all.

You are acting as if these players are good and they aren't...You are acting as if we cut them, that means they are out of the organization and that teams are going to line up trying to add dime a dozen arms to their current stable of dime a dozen arms.

Again, it could be Penn or Hill depending on what happens in ST. Would you be ok with losing one of them so whatever position player can make the team right off the bat?

And yes, I know you think they should cut Baez and/or Walker and/or Hendrickson instead. We get that, and that's fine, but for this lets just assume they pitch well in ST, and therefore are not waived.

[mweb]

Well, the way you laid out earlier, with Gomez, Wig and a back up catcher on the bench certainly isn't one of those ways.

And again, even if there is a slight chance you can do it, that doesn't mean you should.

It is just a terrible idea and it amazes me that anyone would ever advocate it, especially when we have a manager that is terrible when it comes to using his extra players.

Well if he's terrible at using extra player, why have them?

[Sports Guy]

Again, it could be Penn or Hill depending on what happens in ST. Would you be ok with losing one of them so whatever position player can make the team right off the bat?

And yes, I know you think they should cut Baez and/or Walker and/or Hendrickson instead. We get that, and that's fine, but for this lets just assume they pitch well in ST, and therefore are not waived.

If this is a decision made by the Orioles, then it just further shows how awful they are at roster management, so I guess I wouldn't care because there wouldn't be much end in sight for the overall stupidity and decision making.

[mweb]

If this is a decision made by the Orioles, then it just further shows how awful they are at roster management, so I guess I wouldn't care because there wouldn't be much end in sight for the overall stupidity and decision making.

I don't think you're being very realistic concerning the 3 pitchers you would want cut instead of a Hill or a Penn(if those two struggle). If they pitch well in ST, it's just very unlikely they would be released, and that's not an indication that AM is stupid, almost all GM's would do the same.

[Stotle]

Well, the way you laid out earlier, with Gomez, Wig and a back up catcher on the bench certainly isn't one of those ways.

And again, even if there is a slight chance you can do it, that doesn't mean you should.

It is just a terrible idea and it amazes me that anyone would ever advocate it, especially when we have a manager that is terrible when it comes to using his extra players.

You're talking about a specific case of BAL 2009 and saying 13 pitchers is always a terrible idea. That's not really intellectually engaging the proposition. With the bench I threw out there, I think that may in fact max the value for BAL 2009 (unless you're adding new players to the equation). Freel isn't really bringing much to the table, nor is Montanez. I'd rather see Reimold getting regular ABs.

The ideal situation, without putting too much thought into it, is LAA who could do well with Rivera/Rodriguez/Wood/Aybar/Figgins rotating through three spots. They could then afford to carry Adenhart on the 25 and work him in as a LR/spot-start.

[Sports Guy]

I don't think you're being very realistic concerning the 3 pitchers you would want cut instead of a Hill or a Penn(if those two struggle). If they pitch well in ST, it's just very unlikely they would be released, and that's not an indication that AM is stupid, almost all GM's would do the same.

Well, none of those guys have to be cut anyway.

Hill, Pauley, Guthrie, Uehera and Hendrickson

Baez, Walker, Penn, JJ, Sherrill, Ray, Sarfate

That's 12 and probably the most likely 12.

So, Penn, Hill and Pauley stay, as do the 3 vets.

Keeping a 13th would mean keeping another scrub...which is a bad idea.