Starting pitcher: What would be your preference?

[Number5]

Strange poll.  Choose between two very specific overpriced trades, doing nothing whatsoever, or signing an unnamed pitcher at a mysterious price.  These are certainly not the only options Elias has,  but I suppose the most reasonable answer to this unreasonable question would be to choose the vaguest option, since it's the one that could help the team and might actually happen.

[Jagwar]

On 1/19/2024 at 10:23 AM, Sports Guy said:

Because your scenario isn’t more likely. 

What makes it less likely?

[OriolesMagic83]

2 hours ago, Number5 said:

Strange poll.  Choose between two very specific overpriced trades, doing nothing whatsoever, or signing an unnamed pitcher at a mysterious price.  These are certainly not the only options Elias has,  but I suppose the most reasonable answer to this unreasonable question would be to choose the vaguest option, since it's the one that could help the team and might actually happen.

Trading for pitchers who have multiple years of control and have pre free agency salaries is very expensive.  I thought Sports Guy's guesses of possible returns are very reasonable.  What do you base the idea these trades are overpriced on.  A large part of the value of trades for pre free agency pitchers is their lower salaries.  Right or wrong, the O's aren't sigining a starting pitcher for $20 mill/yr.  That means the only way for the O's to get a #3 and above starter is to pay inflated prices for a pitcher w/ years of control. 

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

Trading for pitchers who have multiple years of control and have pre free agency salaries is very expensive.  I thought Sports Guy's guesses of possible returns are very reasonable.  What do you base the idea these trades are overpriced on.  A large part of the value of trades for pre free agency pitchers is their lower salaries.  Right or wrong, the O's aren't sigining a starting pitcher for $20 mill/yr.  That means the only way for the O's to get a #3 and above starter is to pay inflated prices for a pitcher w/ years of control. 

I understand what you're saying and it needs no further amplification.  I simply disagree with you.

Edited January 21 by Number5

[btdart20]

7 hours ago, emmett16 said:

That’s for every single iteration of player.  For a LHP I imagine that number is quite different.  I’d be kinda suprised if Povich doesn’t carve out a 6 year career in some capacity.  

There’s various iterations of LHP too.  Like LHP-in-name only but would otherwise have no shot.  And then there’s Hader on the other extreme of the RP spectrum.  Same for the SP spectrum.  And better LHP seem to get a longer leash (and have a lower bar).

It’s about the baseline talent.  Hall and Povich are above average “stuff”-wise (not textbook stuff necessarily but that’s a piece of the puzzle).  Especially for LHP.  I’ll take either of them ahead of many of the LHP RP FA options.

The “replacement level” or “success rate” debate is filled with false assumptions on both sides.

Even @Frobby’s tenured/random season 2004 had about 50% of those who debuted lasting 5 years.  I have to think the 204 list pulls from a very broad range of “prospect listers”.  Maybe as low as #400+ (if such an encompassing list exists).  Clearly it goes beyond 200.  And the dozens and dozens (hundreds?) who are deeper in the org.  Povich and Hall are, at worst, in the top half of that type of list.  

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

There’s various iterations of LHP too.  Like LHP-in-name only but would otherwise have no shot.  And then there’s Hader on the other extreme of the RP spectrum.  Same for the SP spectrum.  And better LHP seem to get a longer leash (and have a lower bar).

It’s about the baseline talent.  Hall and Povich are above average “stuff”-wise (not textbook stuff necessarily but that’s a piece of the puzzle).  Especially for LHP.  I’ll take either of them ahead of many of the LHP RP FA options.

The “replacement level” or “success rate” debate is filled with false assumptions on both sides.

Even @Frobby’s tenured/random season 2004 had about 50% of those who debuted lasting 5 years.  I have to think the 204 list pulls from a very broad range of “prospect listers”.  Maybe as low as #400+ (if such an encompassing list exists).  Clearly it goes beyond 200.  And the dozens and dozens (hundreds?) who are deeper in the org.  Povich and Hall are, at worst, in the top half of that type of list.  

I don’t disagree with any of this.  But as a counterpoint, even the list of guys who played for 5 years is misleadingly large, because it includes a whole lot of guys who didn’t come anywhere close to earning 5 years of service time.  

[emmett16]

9 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think your supposition that LHP on average last longer than other players is probably wrong.   Here’s a list of the 208 players who debuted in 2005.   By my count, 94 were position players, 114 were pitchers.  107 of the 208 played at least 5 seasons: 55 position players and 52 pitchers.  Of the 52 pitchers, 10 were LHP.

Thanks for the research.  I’m going to dig into it a little further.  I started going through the list  to see % of LHP that played 5+ years.  Agree with your point about 5 years vs. 5 years service time.  I’m truly interested to see if there really is such a big advantage (as we’ve all been lead to believe) to being a LHP.  Or Is it just that only 25-30% of all pitchers are LH so it’s a scarcity supply/demand thing.  

[wildbillhiccup]

12 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Thanks for the research.  I’m going to dig into it a little further.  I started going through the list  to see % of LHP that played 5+ years.  Agree with your point about 5 years vs. 5 years service time.  I’m truly interested to see if there really is such a big advantage (as we’ve all been lead to believe) to being a LHP.  Or Is it just that only 25-30% of all pitchers are LH so it’s a scarcity supply/demand thing.  

Definitely share whatever you find out because I'm curious as well. If I had to guess though I think scarcity and supply/demand would definitely skew the numbers a bit.

[Frobby]

28 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Thanks for the research.  I’m going to dig into it a little further.  I started going through the list  to see % of LHP that played 5+ years.  Agree with your point about 5 years vs. 5 years service time.  I’m truly interested to see if there really is such a big advantage (as we’ve all been lead to believe) to being a LHP.  Or Is it just that only 25-30% of all pitchers are LH so it’s a scarcity supply/demand thing.  

You can start with the fact that only 10% of the general population is left handed, and yet LHP are 25-30% of the pitchers.   

[D&B]

I picked option 2. But I would prefer to sign a free agent pitcher and trading our position prospects for pitching prospects.

[Frobby]

Would anyone have chosen any of the listed options over the option Elias actually engineered?

[Rbiggs2525]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Would anyone have chosen any of the listed options over the option Elias actually engineered?

Heck no!

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Would anyone have chosen any of the listed options over the option Elias actually engineered?

In the poll I chose the least of the evils, a one year FA contract.  I’ll take the Burnes trade over that without giving up any of our top 5 or Westburg.