Drafting the bats and trading for the arms

[24fps]

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.

 

Cease is a discount MOR guy with the potential to be better - that's why there's 100 pages and counting about him.  Ignoring context, I like the notion of trading blocked prospects for promising Mil pitching, but as of 2023 the O's are no longer a rebuilding team and prospect capital should now be used to augment the ML team IMO. 

As guys like Santander, Hays, Mullins approach free agency, absolutely trade them for minor league pitching if there's a worthwhile deal available.

[owknows]

29 minutes ago, now said:

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.

As for assessing quality... if you really don't understand why a player's potential becomes more confidently assessed as he progresses through the minors, you don't watch much baseball.

As for injuries.

I did not say ONLY before AAA.

Let's see if I can make it a little easier for you.

If the average player plays 4 years in the minors...  He's done roughly 3/4 of the time he's gonna spend there by the time he gets to AAA.

Therefore, he's spent 3/4 of his potential injury playing time by the time he gets to AAA.

This concept should be simple enough to comprehend, that it is essentially tautological.

Asking for evidence seems a bit silly.

Edited December 28, 2023 by owknows
changed to the word "minors" to correct my intended meaning)

[owknows]

2 minutes ago, 24fps said:

Cease is a discount MOR guy with the potential to be better - that's why there's 100 pages and counting about him.  Ignoring context, I like the notion of trading blocked prospects for promising Mil pitching, but as of 2023 the O's are no longer a rebuilding team and prospect capital should now be used to augment the ML team IMO. 

As guys like Santander, Hays, Mullins approach free agency, absolutely trade them for minor league pitching if there's a worthwhile deal available.

Cease should be a solid MOR+ and may have a comparitively low salary... But he certainly isn't going to come at a discount.

As for trading for MiLB pitching, that strategy would have little to do with rebuilding, and everything to do with sustaining.

 

[Jagwar]

I always thought the adage was grow the arms and buy the bats. 

[now]

30 minutes ago, owknows said:

As for assessing quality... if you really don't understand why a player's potential becomes more confidently assessed as he progresses through the minors, you don't watch much baseball.

As for injuries.

I did not say ONLY before AAA.

Let's see if I can make it a little easier for you.

If the average player plays 4 years in the minors...  He's done roughly 3/4 of the time he's gonna spend there by the time he gets to AAA.

Therefore, he's spent 3/4 of his potential injury playing time by the time he gets to AAA.

This concept should be simple enough to comprehend, that it is essentially tautological.

Asking for evidence seems a bit silly.

I guess I need to clarify. I was referring to those benchmarks of yours (AA/AAA) in terms of the context we were discussing: the difference between pitchers and position players. You still haven't addressed evidence for locating that difference on a timeline. So please refrain from the condescension, okay?

[now]

14 minutes ago, Jagwar said:

I always thought the adage was grow the arms and buy the bats. 

Maybe you're kidding; but that was the Flanagan-Beattie MO. We know how that turned out!

[owknows]

18 minutes ago, now said:

I guess I need to clarify. I was referring to those benchmarks of yours (AA/AAA) in terms of the context we were discussing: the difference between pitchers and position players. You still haven't addressed evidence for locating that difference on a timeline. So please refrain from the condescension, okay?

I don't think the smarmy tone started with me.

And I have fully addressed the point.

My point is pretty simple. That while there is a difference in assessing the success rate of pitchers and position players as drafted... that difference narrows as they progress through the minors. And as they progress to and through AAA.. we have learned about as much as we can about them, from their actual play against other professional players, all at comparable level.

Hence AA and AAA pitchers don't carry nearly the risk that drafted pitchers do... as they have been vetted by their play. If those players are acquired by trade.. then the team that originally drafted them took the risk associated with getting them to that level so that we can more accurately assess their potential. Hence it is a strategic advantage to acquire mid-minor pitching for nearly ready prospects (or the players they supplant).

And more value can be concentrated using this strategy, than by spending all of those prospects (or the players they supplant) on a single established MOR MLB pitcher.

I can't make it any plainer than that. If you still don't get it... I'd have to call it willful.

And once again... the smarmy turn in our conversation originated with you. Not with me.

Edited December 28, 2023 by owknows

[now]

Well, we can agree you're stating the obvious

3 hours ago, owknows said:

I don't think the smarmy tone started with me.

And I have fully addressed the point.

My point is pretty simple. That while there is a difference in assessing the success rate of pitchers and position players as drafted... that difference narrows as they progress through the minors. And as they progress to and through AAA.. we have learned about as much as we can about them, from their actual play against other professional players, all at comparable level.

Hence AA and AAA pitchers don't carry nearly the risk that drafted pitchers do... as they have been vetted by their play. If those players are acquired by trade.. then the team that originally drafted them took the risk associated with getting them to that level so that we can more accurately assess their potential. Hence it is a strategic advantage to acquire mid-minor pitching for nearly ready prospects (or the players they supplant).

And more value can be concentrated using this strategy, than by spending all of those prospects (or the players they supplant) on a single established MOR MLB pitcher.

I can't make it any plainer than that. If you still don't get it... I'd have to call it willful.

And once again... the smarmy turn in our conversation originated with you. Not with me.

Well, we can agree you're stating the obvious. But you keep restating it while avoiding the question of differential between pitchers and position players (except for claiming without evidence that it "narrows" through the minors--presumably because the injury-prone pitchers have already dropped away?). Otherwise I guess we're done. BTW I didn't intend any smarmy tone; whereas yours, it seems, is "willful." Cheers.

Edited December 28, 2023 by now

[Jagwar]

39 minutes ago, now said:

Maybe you're kidding; but that was the Flanagan-Beattie MO. We know how that turned out!

It may have been the Flanagan-Beattie phrase, but it doesn't mean it was wrong. They just weren't capable of building a farm system... period IMO. 

[now]

3 minutes ago, Jagwar said:

It may have been the Flanagan-Beattie phrase, but it doesn't mean it was wrong. They just weren't capable of building a farm system... period IMO. 

Sure, you can give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll still put my money on the other theory, which Elias is demonstrating. The jury may still be out, but so far so good!

[Jagwar]

3 minutes ago, now said:

Sure, you can give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll still put my money on the other theory, which Elias is demonstrating. The jury may still be out, but so far so good!

Elias is demonstrating... how exactly? He has an over-abundance of position players and a limited pipeline of pitching. 

I just always assumed that the farm system was so atrophied that he had to start somewhere. Perhaps in future drafts, and in international signings, he can focus on pitching. 

[now]

1 minute ago, Jagwar said:

Elias is demonstrating... how exactly? He has an over-abundance of position players and a limited pipeline of pitching. 

I just always assumed that the farm system was so atrophied that he had to start somewhere. Perhaps in future drafts, and in international signings, he can focus on pitching. 

Demonstrating by having now a stable of MLB-ready talent (mostly the bats he's drafted and developed). Also by trading some bats already for young pitching. And as you suggest, turning now to drafting more US and int'l pitching to bring more balance to the pipeline.

[Jagwar]

9 minutes ago, now said:

Demonstrating by having now a stable of MLB-ready talent (mostly the bats he's drafted and developed). Also by trading some bats already for young pitching. And as you suggest, turning now to drafting more US and int'l pitching to bring more balance to the pipeline.

So far he hasn't traded bats for anything. 

[now]

11 minutes ago, Jagwar said:

So far he hasn't traded bats for anything. 

Mancini, Prieto, Hernaiz > Johnson, McDermott, Flaherty, Irvin 

(I might be forgetting some.)

[24fps]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

I don't think the smarmy tone started with me.

And I have fully addressed the point.

My point is pretty simple. That while there is a difference in assessing the success rate of pitchers and position players as drafted... that difference narrows as they progress through the minors. And as they progress to and through AAA.. we have learned about as much as we can about them, from their actual play against other professional players, all at comparable level.

Hence AA and AAA pitchers don't carry nearly the risk that drafted pitchers do... as they have been vetted by their play. If those players are acquired by trade.. then the team that originally drafted them took the risk associated with getting them to that level so that we can more accurately assess their potential. Hence it is a strategic advantage to acquire mid-minor pitching for nearly ready prospects (or the players they supplant).

And more value can be concentrated using this strategy, than by spending all of those prospects (or the players they supplant) on a single established MOR MLB pitcher.

I can't make it any plainer than that. If you still don't get it... I'd have to call it willful.

And once again... the smarmy turn in our conversation originated with you. Not with me.

I think a pretty good case can be made that the O's biggest current need is a MOR (or better) ML pitcher for 2024 and while maximizing value in the lower levels is always desirable, for many of us it's a secondary priority.  I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be too happy with Elias if he's busy rearranging the rosters at Bowie and Norfolk, while Baltimore languishes.