I’ve Come Around on 13 Pitchers

[Anonymous]

How are you coming up with these probabilities?

You haven't given one shred of evidence or support to why these guys could have a viable part of the future.

You haven't once acknowledged the idea that we have so many other arms who are younger and have more upside.

All you have said is, i think these guys COULD part of the future...Well, why in the hell do you feel that way?

It's guess-work, SG. I have no concrete evidence. All I have is my set of personal observations and the ensuing analysis.

As for the other arms who are younger and have more upside, that's a fabulous problem to have -- but not a reason to discard value prematurely. I AM confident, though, in expecting that there will be minimal positive future value, at best, in keeping ANY of the candidates for 13th position player, whether it be Murphy or Gomez or Montanez or Reimold or whomever. Can these guys give us a boost in 2009? Probably so, if we're talking Murphy or Gomez (less so, in my view, for the others). But if the improvement for 2009 is slight, I'm more inclined to focus on the larger potential that I perceive for a boost in the out years from the 13th pitcher. I'm curious to see how it all plays out.

[Cporioles8]

It's guess-work, SG. I have no concrete evidence. All I have is my set of personal observations and the ensuing analysis.

As for the other arms who are younger and have more upside, that's a fabulous problem to have -- but not a reason to discard value prematurely. I AM confident, though, in expecting that there will be minimal positive future value, at best, in keeping ANY of the candidates for 13th position player, whether it be Murphy or Gomez or Montanez or Reimold or whomever. Can these guys give us a boost in 2009? Probably so, if we're talking Murphy or Gomez (less so, in my view, for the others). But if the improvement for 2009 is slight, I'm more inclined to focus on the larger potential that I perceive for a boost in the out years from the 13th pitcher. I'm curious to see how it all plays out.

Hello, all

Longtime lurker, for the most part. Been at least a couple of years since I posted here, anyway. But I'm inclined to add my two cents.

I think there's something to be said for both sides of the coin, here. Drungo and SG's points about handicapping a team's versatility, and Trembley's late-game options or platooning options, are valid.

However, I have to agree with Anonymous that this is NOT a clear cut issue, and NOT one that can be easily dismissed. Just as there's no proof from Anonymous that Parrish, Bass, etc. will contribute to the future, what proof is there that they won't? For that matter, who says Montanez, Salazar, Murphy, etc. will ever make anything of THEMselves? But that isn't even necessarily the issue.

I doubt anyone would advocate 13 pitchers for the majority of this, or any, season. But as a longtime fan who has suffered with you all through the last decade +, it's apparent that the difference between 70 and 75/80 wins (IF we are interested in 2009) has been a major flop in pitching, particularly as the season wears on. The stockpiling of pitching going on is risky for a reason- if the marginal talent doesn't work out, and the rehabbing arms get injured, and the roster crunch occurs over and over as pitching projects fail, you're left shuffling through talent that may not be ready, or that may be pushed into a role they're not suited for. In a season where Penn, Pauley, Hill, Uehara, Ray, Albers (hell, even Guthrie) are all question marks in one way or another, I can't possibly see a major advantage in keeping a larger bench and eliminating the Parrishes and the Simons of the world who may be able to capably fill in, whether short or long term, to preserve some sort of decency on our staff through the course of the entire season.

That said, it's a situation that will work itself out. If injuries, ineffectiveness, or unexpected dominance on the part of a few pitchers occur during spring training, the picture is cleared a bit. If it isn't, and the competition is strong, you consider keeping 13, for insurance purposes. The regulars won't need a ton of rest the first month of the season. And, if by May or June the pitching is tolerable and injuries are minimal, you assess who ought to be cut, and expand your bench.

It could go either way, but just dismissing the value of carrying 13 pitchers, many of whom COULD (or could not) be the next Jeremy Guthrue, without any consideration seems shortsighted to me.

[Sports Guy]

Hello, all

Longtime lurker, for the most part. Been at least a couple of years since I posted here, anyway. But I'm inclined to add my two cents.

I think there's something to be said for both sides of the coin, here. Drungo and SG's points about handicapping a team's versatility, and Trembley's late-game options or platooning options, are valid.

However, I have to agree with Anonymous that this is NOT a clear cut issue, and NOT one that can be easily dismissed. Just as there's no proof from Anonymous that Parrish, Bass, etc. will contribute to the future, what proof is there that they won't? For that matter, who says Montanez, Salazar, Murphy, etc. will ever make anything of THEMselves? But that isn't even necessarily the issue.

I doubt anyone would advocate 13 pitchers for the majority of this, or any, season. But as a longtime fan who has suffered with you all through the last decade +, it's apparent that the difference between 70 and 75/80 wins (IF we are interested in 2009) has been a major flop in pitching, particularly as the season wears on. The stockpiling of pitching going on is risky for a reason- if the marginal talent doesn't work out, and the rehabbing arms get injured, and the roster crunch occurs over and over as pitching projects fail, you're left shuffling through talent that may not be ready, or that may be pushed into a role they're not suited for. In a season where Penn, Pauley, Hill, Uehara, Ray, Albers (hell, even Guthrie) are all question marks in one way or another, I can't possibly see a major advantage in keeping a larger bench and eliminating the Parrishes and the Simons of the world who may be able to capably fill in, whether short or long term, to preserve some sort of decency on our staff through the course of the entire season.

That said, it's a situation that will work itself out. If injuries, ineffectiveness, or unexpected dominance on the part of a few pitchers occur during spring training, the picture is cleared a bit. If it isn't, and the competition is strong, you consider keeping 13, for insurance purposes. The regulars won't need a ton of rest the first month of the season. And, if by May or June the pitching is tolerable and injuries are minimal, you assess who ought to be cut, and expand your bench.

It could go either way, but just dismissing the value of carrying 13 pitchers, many of whom COULD (or could not) be the next Jeremy Guthrue, without any consideration seems shortsighted to me.

The idea that any journeyman Joe Schmoe could end up Guthrie is way more shortsighted. Just because it happened with Guthrie and RLo, doesn't mean it will happen with Bass and Simon.

Guthrie had a better pedigree and better stuff than any of these guys.

[Sports Guy]

It's guess-work, SG. I have no concrete evidence. All I have is my set of personal observations and the ensuing analysis.

As for the other arms who are younger and have more upside, that's a fabulous problem to have -- but not a reason to discard value prematurely. I AM confident, though, in expecting that there will be minimal positive future value, at best, in keeping ANY of the candidates for 13th position player, whether it be Murphy or Gomez or Montanez or Reimold or whomever. Can these guys give us a boost in 2009? Probably so, if we're talking Murphy or Gomez (less so, in my view, for the others). But if the improvement for 2009 is slight, I'm more inclined to focus on the larger potential that I perceive for a boost in the out years from the 13th pitcher. I'm curious to see how it all plays out.

So really, it is just hope? No statisical analysis, etc....?

[Anonymous]

So really, it is just hope? No statisical analysis, etc....?

You got it, babe!

Well, to give myself a bit more credit -- it's hope, yes, but based on my best efforts at objective assessment of the probabilities at hand.

[Anonymous]

Hello, all

Longtime lurker, for the most part. Been at least a couple of years since I posted here, anyway. But I'm inclined to add my two cents.

I think there's something to be said for both sides of the coin, here. Drungo and SG's points about handicapping a team's versatility, and Trembley's late-game options or platooning options, are valid.

However, I have to agree with Anonymous that this is NOT a clear cut issue, and NOT one that can be easily dismissed. Just as there's no proof from Anonymous that Parrish, Bass, etc. will contribute to the future, what proof is there that they won't? For that matter, who says Montanez, Salazar, Murphy, etc. will ever make anything of THEMselves? But that isn't even necessarily the issue.

I doubt anyone would advocate 13 pitchers for the majority of this, or any, season. But as a longtime fan who has suffered with you all through the last decade +, it's apparent that the difference between 70 and 75/80 wins (IF we are interested in 2009) has been a major flop in pitching, particularly as the season wears on. The stockpiling of pitching going on is risky for a reason- if the marginal talent doesn't work out, and the rehabbing arms get injured, and the roster crunch occurs over and over as pitching projects fail, you're left shuffling through talent that may not be ready, or that may be pushed into a role they're not suited for. In a season where Penn, Pauley, Hill, Uehara, Ray, Albers (hell, even Guthrie) are all question marks in one way or another, I can't possibly see a major advantage in keeping a larger bench and eliminating the Parrishes and the Simons of the world who may be able to capably fill in, whether short or long term, to preserve some sort of decency on our staff through the course of the entire season.

That said, it's a situation that will work itself out. If injuries, ineffectiveness, or unexpected dominance on the part of a few pitchers occur during spring training, the picture is cleared a bit. If it isn't, and the competition is strong, you consider keeping 13, for insurance purposes. The regulars won't need a ton of rest the first month of the season. And, if by May or June the pitching is tolerable and injuries are minimal, you assess who ought to be cut, and expand your bench.

It could go either way, but just dismissing the value of carrying 13 pitchers, many of whom COULD (or could not) be the next Jeremy Guthrue, without any consideration seems shortsighted to me.

Very thoughtful first-in-a-long-time post! And I think (at least I HOPE) I'm objective and fair-minded enough to have said that even if the response didn't include support for some of my arguments.

[Cporioles8]

The idea that any journeyman Joe Schmoe could end up Guthrie is way more shortsighted. Just because it happened with Guthrie and RLo, doesn't mean it will happen with Bass and Simon.

Guthrie had a better pedigree and better stuff than any of these guys.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that it WILL happen with Bass or Simon.

Look, if they and Parrish and Hennessey and some of the borderline guys really suck it up in spring training, you cut them loose or waive them. Fairly simple.

If, however, one of those guys looks really good, while some of the more likely staff candidates struggle (for example, if Bass pitches really well and shows he can contribute to the ML staff while, say, Hayden Penn or Rich Hill has a tough early going), then I think you have to consider keeping 13 around. While the loss of an ineffective Bass or Simon is probably negligible, the loss of pitchers with a more impressive pedigree like Penn, Pauley or Hill seems foolish to me, just to keep a Chris Gomez around. If Bass or Hennessey or someone else pushes the issue in ST, they give you another healthy and perhaps dependable arm for Trembley to ACTUALLY use while, as backwards suggests, Hill or whomever is kept around for a few weeks or a month to see what value, if any, can be gotten from them.

[Sports Guy]

I'm not necessarily suggesting that it WILL happen with Bass or Simon.

Look, if they and Parrish and Hennessey and some of the borderline guys really suck it up in spring training, you cut them loose or waive them. Fairly simple.

If, however, one of those guys looks really good, while some of the more likely staff candidates struggle (for example, if Bass pitches really well and shows he can contribute to the ML staff while, say, Hayden Penn or Rich Hill has a tough early going), then I think you have to consider keeping 13 around. While the loss of an ineffective Bass or Simon is probably negligible, the loss of pitchers with a more impressive pedigree like Penn, Pauley or Hill seems foolish to me, just to keep a Chris Gomez around. If Bass or Hennessey or someone else pushes the issue in ST, they give you another healthy and perhaps dependable arm for Trembley to ACTUALLY use while, as backwards suggests, Hill or whomever is kept around for a few weeks or a month to see what value, if any, can be gotten from them.

Regardless of performance, Hill and Penn should be kept.

So, you are still keeping one of these older scrubs around for really, no reason.

There just isn't a good reason to do it...These guys aren't good.

And really, it comes back to one major point...They will pass through waivers at the end of ST, so you aren't losing them anyway.

The only guy here that i think is going to be worth anything is Simon...he has some upside and I think he should be on the team over Baez but I still doubt he gets claimed off the waiver wire at the end of ST and if he does, so what..he is replaceable.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of performance, Hill and Penn should be kept.

So, you are still keeping one of these older scrubs around for really, no reason.

There just isn't a good reason to do it...These guys aren't good.

And really, it comes back to one major point...They will pass through waivers at the end of ST, so you aren't losing them anyway.

The only guy here that i think is going to be worth anything is Simon...he has some upside and I think he should be on the team over Baez but I still doubt he gets claimed off the waiver wire at the end of ST and if he does, so what..he is replaceable.

It's cool that you threw some props Alfredo's way. But let's say hypothetically that he has a great ST, once he works out the visa issues. Why are you so convinced that he'd get through waivers? Why is it so obvious that he's replaceable, in the event he does get claimed? Because he was a low-budget pickup? There was a time when you thought Guthrie was in the same boat, IIRC. (Maybe you gave him credit as a reliever who could potentially have a little value. But it took a while for him to grow on you. Is it impossible that your thinking on a guy like Simon could also evolve over time?)

[Sports Guy]

It's cool that you threw some props Alfredo's way. But let's say hypothetically that he has a great ST, once he works out the visa issues. Why are you so convinced that he'd get through waivers? Why is it so obvious that he's replaceable, in the event he does get claimed? Because he was a low-budget pickup? There was a time when you thought Guthrie was in the same boat, IIRC. (Maybe you gave him credit as a reliever who could potentially have a little value. But it took a while for him to grow on you. Is it impossible that your thinking on a guy like Simon could also evolve over time?)

At the end of ST, almost every roster is set and if its not quite set, its because they are decidding between their own guys.

And he is replaceable because there are always guys like him available and we have a ton of depth of our own.

[NewMarketSean]

It's cool that you threw some props Alfredo's way. But let's say hypothetically that he has a great ST, once he works out the visa issues. Why are you so convinced that he'd get through waivers? Why is it so obvious that he's replaceable, in the event he does get claimed? Because he was a low-budget pickup? There was a time when you thought Guthrie was in the same boat, IIRC. (Maybe you gave him credit as a reliever who could potentially have a little value. But it took a while for him to grow on you. Is it impossible that your thinking on a guy like Simon could also evolve over time?)

Just check out his MiL stats.

We were able to get Simon last summer when we were a step away from holding public tryouts for pitchers at OPACY. He pitched to the tune of a 6+ ERA. His MiL stats aren't exactly great either. What makes you think that all the sudden another team is going to say "give that guy a roster spot" during ST?

[Tx Oriole]

13 pitchers has been and always will be a stupid idea, just like it was to spend $42 million on bullpen pitchers. Without a 4 man bench you can't PH and you can't rest guys regularly that need a break and that 13th pitcher always goes at least 4-5 days between appearances.

If you have 4 guys that are solid in the rotation, you don't need 13 pitchers. If the Orioles have to go with 13 pitchers, that means the FO was too incompetent to find 4 solid starters. Also considering that guys like Pedro Martinez and Mark Mulder are still out there, there's no excuse to go into the regular season with 3 questionable starters after Guthrie and Uehara (who is really a ? himself).

Oh goodness here we go again. How is the FO to blame? They tried to get more pitchinhg. Looper wanted three years. Would you ahve given him that? As for Pedro. Do you really beleive that Pedro would come to Baltimore? I just believe the FO did waht they could. They wil just have to go with some of the young guys. IMO

[Roll Tide]

Oh goodness here we go again. How is the FO to blame? They tried to get more pitchinhg. Looper wanted three years. Would you ahve given him that? As for Pedro. Do you really beleive that Pedro would come to Baltimore? I just believe the FO did waht they could. They wil just have to go with some of the young guys. IMO

Personally I would have.... The idea that we are going to be overloaded with starting pitching in 2-3 season is fairy tale. If we did have a surplus that would be a good thing. As long as they didn't give him too much per season he could be moved later as surplus if need be.

[JTrea81]

Oh goodness here we go again. How is the FO to blame?

Last time I checked they were the ones responsible for assembling the roster. MacPhail could have signed Jamie Moyer for example, but chose not to do so. He also chose to bring in a bunch of cheap low risk guys that may crash and burn instead of spending money on one more solid starter.

So if they all crash and burn, then MacPhail's methodology was incorrect. We shall see, but out of 37 pitchers, we should be able to find 12 to start the season with. If we can't, then we needed better talent.

And we'd better not go into the season pushing Arrieta, Matusz, Tillman and Bergesen into the minors if they show they are ready. If they outplay the rest of the pitching talent in ST, they should be starting in Baltimore. We shouldn't hold them back if they are ready. If we are going to 13 pitchers just to keep those guys down, then again, it would be poor roster management.

[Sports Guy]

Personally I would have.... The idea that we are going to be overloaded with starting pitching in 2-3 season is fairy tale. If we did have a surplus that would be a good thing. As long as they didn't give him too much per season he could be moved later as surplus if need be.

You would have given 3 years to a pitcher who isn't that good to begin with?