Drafting the bats and trading for the arms

[btdart20]

15 minutes ago, Frobby said:

For what it’s worth, the Tides were 4th in the International League in runs/game and best in the league in runs allowed per game.  So, it’s not like they had no pitching.  But the pitching was more driven by AAAA veterans compared to the hitting.  

Agreed.  I wasn't really thinking about 2023 performance for AAA pitchers necessarily.  More about Povich and McD in AAA now.  Are they top 10 talents in most orgs?  I think so.  Maybe even top 5.

Would Pham, Armbruester, Stallings and Brnovich be in the 20-30 range for some orgs?  Good chance I'm being overly optimistic there, I don't know.  But I still have some hope that one of them will prove it in 2024.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Agreed.  I wasn't really thinking about 2023 performance for AAA pitchers necessarily.  More about Povich and McD in AAA now.  Are they top 10 talents in most orgs?  I think so.  Maybe even top 5.

Would Pham, Armbruester, Stallings and Brnovich be in the 20-30 range for some orgs?  Good chance I'm being overly optimistic there, I don't know.  But I still have some hope that one of them will prove it in 2024.

John Means was barely in our top 30 when he was called up.  

[HakunaSakata]

Early on in the rebuild I was fine with a just draft the best available player strategy, but we're to the point where some of our AAA bats are potentially in a position to lose value this season because of a MLB logjam at certain positions. Joey Ortiz is a good example. He's 25 and I think that age is going to start working against his prospect value sooner rather than later.

Mike Elias has done a wonderful job rebuilding our farm system and team, but I think the verdict is still out on his ability to improve the team via trade. In theory trading young bats for young arms shouldn't be that difficult (i.e., quality for quality), but if he's unable to move one of our potentially blocked prospects for an arm this offseason I think he deserves some criticism and he might have to rethink the trade young bats for arms strategy.  I appreciate the fact that he's probably a shrewd negotiator, but I think he also has to keep in mind that he has a certain window of time with our young talented bats. And that our lower level pitching prospects developing into MLB players might not coincide with that window of time. Of course this issue is compounded by the fact that we'll probably never be in a position to use free agency as a fallback option for high level pitching because of budgetary constraints. 

I personally think one of Westburg, Ortiz, Cowser or Kjerstad should be traded for a young MLB ready pitcher this offseason. And when you have the ability to offer players as talented as they are I think a trade is a  very reasonable expectation to place on Mike Elias, even if it isn't his forte. 

[btdart20]

11 minutes ago, Greg Pappas said:

I am not saying Bradish isn't an excellent ToR himself in the slightest.  He's outstanding and a #1.  All I'm saying is we could use another top starter. That's it.  We may or may not trade for one, but we have the bats to do so.  However you want to slot this new starter into our rotation is fine. 2nd? 3rd? It's alright by me.  The OP was to illustrate what I feel has been a plan to take advantage of the math that batters are somewhat more likely to be ML players, and how we can then turn around and acquire pitchers as needed.  Naturally there may be a need in the field as well, and that wealth of positional talent can fill whatever need we have.

FWIW - I think we'll make a trade of some sort.  I don't think it'll be for a long-term contract, but anything else is possible.  Even trading for prospects.  And, honestly, I'd be fine with SP prospects too.  Maybe a bit underwhelmed if our rotation wasn't upgraded, but at least I'd see movement toward reallocating the positional resources toward an area of weakness.  I can even see that jiving with his stated goal of "perennial contender" (vs. trading away prospects for MLB talent in the "competitive window" norm).

Specifically on the draft:  I don't think we'll use a 1st round pick on an SP.  But the risk factors at the bottom of round 1 are different than they are at the top.  Maybe all 3 of our 1st-plus picks will be SPs?  If he stays away from SPs in those 3 picks will be telling for future years though.  If he takes an SP, then BPA full tilt is on the board.  I do think Elias' appetite for pitcher-risk has grown (seen through the draft as you pointed out).  

[Can_of_corn]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

John Means was barely in our top 30 when he was called up.  

Well sure, but that was a stacked top 30.

[owknows]

I think we'd realize better gains by trading emerging MLB-ready position players (or those they supplant) for a good selection of MiLB pitching talent.

The conveyor belt has a steady progression of talent... but is a little weak for pitching in the mid minors.

As some of you may remember, I've been a fan of what I'll call the Tampa+ model for some time. I'd hate to see them go out and pay a premium for a MLB TOR starter.

Right now I think they should pick up a discount MOR guy. They've got 4 good arms.. and I'm sure they could find innings out of Wells and Hall if needed. Add a mid guy in FA. And cash in the emerging position player surplus for mid-minors pitching.

The statistical advantage to position players making the majors all but disappears by the transition from AA to AAA. Let other teams take the early hit, and pre-vet your arms. Keep the conveyor belt full and balanced.

I remain one of those guys that frustrates part of the fan base, as I never want to see them spend big FA money.

 

[now]

18 minutes ago, owknows said:

The statistical advantage to position players making the majors all but disappears by the transition from AA to AAA. Let other teams take the early hit, and pre-vet your arms. Keep the conveyor belt full and balanced.

Curious if you can substantiate this claim, as the timing seems crucial to the whole premise of drafting bats and trading for pre-vetted arms from the surplus. In other words, when does the SigBot calculate that you can rely on a pitcher's durability in the longer term? And I guess the other variable to that equation is, "... before they get too much of a track record and become too costly to acquire."

[owknows]

9 minutes ago, now said:

Curious if you can substantiate this claim, as the timing seems crucial to the whole premise of drafting bats and trading for pre-vetted arms from the surplus. In other words, when does the SigBot calculate that you can rely on a pitcher's durability in the longer term? And I guess the other variable to that equation is, "... before they get too much of a track record and become too costly to acquire."

I don't believe that durability is the sole determining factor in the early differential predictability between position players and pitchers.

Or even the primary one. In other words, a player can get hurt at any time. But the longer he plays without getting hurt (making it to AA or AAA) ...  the more opportunity to get hurt in the minors is behind him.

A simple enough explanation to be nearly tautology.

But the ability to assess a player's talent is what also improves with playing age, and that is the vetting I was implying.

[btdart20]

13 minutes ago, now said:

Curious if you can substantiate this claim, as the timing seems crucial to the whole premise of drafting bats and trading for pre-vetted arms from the surplus. In other words, when does the SigBot calculate that you can rely on a pitcher's durability in the longer term? And I guess the other variable to that equation is, "... before they get too much of a track record and become too costly to acquire."

I’ll be impressed if he can pull stats or an article that does.  It feels like the type of thing Sig and a team on analysts would have figured out as part of building a dataset.  I.e. proprietary 

Another take might be X% of pitchers get hurt and lose X games per year.  Same math for position players.  And then compare the year over year over year performance after/if they come back from an injury.

[Greg Pappas]

58 minutes ago, owknows said:

........

The statistical advantage to position players making the majors all but disappears by the transition from AA to AAA. Let other teams take the early hit, and pre-vet your arms. Keep the conveyor belt full and balanced.

The statistical advantage applies to the majors, so the transition from AA to AAA is already factored in.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Greg Pappas

[owknows]

6 minutes ago, Greg Pappas said:

The statistical advantage applies to the majors, so the transition from AA to AAA is already factored in.

Yes. I wrote quite extensively about it here, last season.

[Jim'sKid26]

TINSTAAPP

[wildcard]

2 hours ago, owknows said:

I think we'd realize better gains by trading emerging MLB-ready position players (or those they supplant) for a good selection of MiLB pitching talent.

The conveyor belt has a steady progression of talent... but is a little weak for pitching in the mid minors.

As some of you may remember, I've been a fan of what I'll call the Tampa+ model for some time. I'd hate to see them go out and pay a premium for a MLB TOR starter.

Right now I think they should pick up a discount MOR guy. They've got 4 good arms.. and I'm sure they could find innings out of Wells and Hall if needed. Add a mid guy in FA. And cash in the emerging position player surplus for mid-minors pitching.

The statistical advantage to position players making the majors all but disappears by the transition from AA to AAA. Let other teams take the early hit, and pre-vet your arms. Keep the conveyor belt full and balanced.

I remain one of those guys that frustrates part of the fan base, as I never want to see them spend big FA money.

 

Smart post.

[wildcard]

15 hours ago, HakunaSakata said:

Early on in the rebuild I was fine with a just draft the best available player strategy, but we're to the point where some of our AAA bats are potentially in a position to lose value this season because of a MLB logjam at certain positions. Joey Ortiz is a good example. He's 25 and I think that age is going to start working against his prospect value sooner rather than later.

Mike Elias has done a wonderful job rebuilding our farm system and team, but I think the verdict is still out on his ability to improve the team via trade. In theory trading young bats for young arms shouldn't be that difficult (i.e., quality for quality), but if he's unable to move one of our potentially blocked prospects for an arm this offseason I think he deserves some criticism and he might have to rethink the trade young bats for arms strategy.  I appreciate the fact that he's probably a shrewd negotiator, but I think he also has to keep in mind that he has a certain window of time with our young talented bats. And that our lower level pitching prospects developing into MLB players might not coincide with that window of time. Of course this issue is compounded by the fact that we'll probably never be in a position to use free agency as a fallback option for high level pitching because of budgetary constraints. 

I personally think one of Westburg, Ortiz, Cowser or Kjerstad should be traded for a young MLB ready pitcher this offseason. And when you have the ability to offer players as talented as they are I think a trade is a  very reasonable expectation to place on Mike Elias, even if it isn't his forte. 

Elias has built an analytic department, a scouting department, and player development department that together they just produced a 101 win team.   But you don't think all these baseball professionals understand expiring prospect value?   I beg to differ.

I think Elias strives to keep the best and trade the rest.   Probably blocked prospects for minor league pitching talent that his organization can develop into major league pitchers.

As far as not knowing how or when to trade.   I think he values the 6 years of prospects control and weighs it vs what the other teams is offering.   And rightfully so.   His job is to strength the team in the short and the long term.   I have faith he will do that by FA or trades.  They don't have to be high profile moves.  They need to be smart moves.

Edited December 28, 2023 by wildcard

[now]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

I don't believe that durability is the sole determining factor in the early differential predictability between position players and pitchers.

Or even the primary one. In other words, a player can get hurt at any time. But the longer he plays without getting hurt (making it to AA or AAA) ...  the more opportunity to get hurt in the minors is behind him.

A simple enough explanation to be nearly tautology.

But the ability to assess a player's talent is what also improves with playing age, and that is the vetting I was implying.

Okay, let me see if I understand now what you're saying...

1. Pitchers are harder to assess for quality (or have wider variability) before AAA.

2. Pitchers have a higher risk of getting hurt, but only before AAA.

Again, it would be nice to see evidence supporting the above, if you have it.