I want Matusz in the rotation....

[TJ Wrangler]

I want Matusz to start in the minors, but this argument carries zero weight with me.

Baseball is about adjustments, and dealing with failure.

A player like Matusz has probably not faced any adversity so far in his career….. Whenever he ascends to the Majors he will go through an adjustment period… dealing with that, and some 'failure' is a good thing.

Your confidence can only be shaken so much when you have had his success, and the organization thinks enough of you to continue to put you out there every 5th day.

If you 'ruin' him by him going through adversity, that says something about his character that should have been identified when you were scouting him.

Frobby's argument about service time is somewhat right, but I do not think you can directly correlate that with Wieters… part of the reason you keep Wieters down in the Minors until April 17th, is that Boras is his agent.

The fact that he needs time to adjust to professional ball mentally and can better accomplish that with some time in the minors has zero weight with you?

[jdouble777]

When was the last time that any pitcher went straight to the majors? As I've documented elsewhere, in the last 11 years there have only been 3 pitchers who started any higher than A+ -- Mark Prior (AA), Mark Mulder (AAA), and Dewon Brazelton (AA). Do you honestly think Matusz is the best-prepared pitcher in more than a decade?

There's plenty for Matusz to do in the minors this year.

Mark Prior, 19 starts his first ML year:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Mark-Prior.shtml

3.32 ERA w/ a CG

Tim Lincecum, 24 starts his first ML year w/o any college involved:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/L/Tim-Lincecum.shtml

Jim Palmer:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Jim-Palmer.shtml

6 complete games at the ripe age of 22

[jdouble777]

There is always a first. I still want him to start in the Bigs. I know he won't. I am just stating my case.

You rock!

Ty Cobb stats !!!:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/C/Ty-Cobb.shtml

Woah. And that is what a .366 career average looks like.

[Frobby]

There is always a first. I still want him to start in the Bigs. I know he won't. I am just stating my case.

Even if there weren't important developmental reasons, the financial reasons would be compelling.

Let's look at Tim Lincecum. He was drafted in 2006, signed by June 30, and pitched 2 games at low A and then 6 at high A before ending his season. In 2007 he had 5 starts at AAA, was brought up May 6 and has never looked back. But because he was brought up in May, 2007 didn't count as a full year of service and he'll be a Giant through 2013 instead of 2012. He may or may not be a Super-2 at the end of the 2009 season; if he is, that's going to cost the Giants several million dollars extra next year.

David Price was drafted in 2007, but wasn't signed until the August 15 deadline and did not pitch in the minors that year. Last year he had 6 starts in A+, 9 in AA and 4 in AAA before getting a September call-up. Therefore, he won't be a free agent until after the 2014 season, and he will not be a Super 2 after the 2010 season so TB will be able to pay him peanuts in 2011.

My perfect glide path for Matusz would be to start him in AA, give him 8 starts there, then move him to AAA for another 8. Then, bring him to the majors in late July and let him throw 50-70 innings before shutting him down. That path assumes he cruises at Bowie and Norfok; if not, he stays down all year.

[jdouble777]

The fact that he needs time to adjust to professional ball mentally and can better accomplish that with some time in the minors has zero weight with you?

When are you ready, this year at all? Why?

[TyCobb]

Even if there weren't important developmental reasons, the financial reasons would be compelling.

Let's look at Tim Lincecum. He was drafted in 2006, signed by June 30, and pitched 2 games at low A and then 6 at high A before ending his season. In 2007 he had 5 starts at AAA, was brought up May 6 and has never looked back. But because he was brought up in May, 2007 didn't count as a full year of service and he'll be a Giant through 2013 instead of 2012. He may or may not be a Super-2 at the end of the 2009 season; if he is, that's going to cost the Giants several million dollars extra next year.

David Price was drafted in 2007, but wasn't signed until the August 15 deadline and did not pitch in the minors that year. Last year he had 6 starts in A+, 9 in AA and 4 in AAA before getting a September call-up. Therefore, he won't be a free agent until after the 2014 season, and he will not be a Super 2 after the 2010 season so TB will be able to pay him peanuts in 2011.

My perfect glide path for Matusz would be to start him in AA, give him 8 starts there, then move him to AAA for another 8. Then, bring him to the majors in late July and let him throw 50-70 innings before shutting him down. That path assumes he cruises at Bowie and Norfok; if not, he stays down all year.

I don't think saving a few million dollars matters that much to the Orioles. Wieters is much different because we are talking about 10s of millions with him. I rather have him just start out in the Majors. I want to see this kid tested. If he has the stuff is as good as Trembley saying he will be able to succeed right for the get go. Now, I think the O's will let him start 5-10 games in AA and then call him up to the Majors.

[Tx Oriole]

It's way too early, after just 4.2 spring training innings, to say that Matusz is ready to pitch in the majors.

But what if three weeks from now Matusz has thrown 25 innings, all in the major league camp, with a K/BB ratio of, say, 25/4, and an ERA of 1.50?

People are assuming that Matusz must have things to work on in the minors, on his mechanics, or learning how to set up hitters, or learning how to hold runners, or whatever.

But what if he doesn't?

He will. He does. Why rush him?

[Tx Oriole]

I don't think he will be hit hard if he started in the big. Let him pitch 150 innings in the bigs and shut him down.

Ty, there are hitters in the bigs that woudl eat his lunch. He is not ready. He needs to spend time in the minors. IMO

[tvz1997]

Frobby is dead on with his "glide path," barring hiccups along the way. Let the improvement in quality of opposition help him grow in terms of mental makeup, location, and the ability to pitch SIX innings when he doesnt have his curve ball.

Most importantly, he should not be starting games late in the season anywhere. I would almost like to see a transition period for every guy who is facing a significantly longer season for the first time: Let them pitch as starters to the end point of their previous level of competition and then keep them pitching every fifth day, but with fewer in-game innings followed by 20-30 pitches with the bullpen coach working on his development. I don't know if there is enough roster space to accomodate this in the minors, but I think you have to show players what it takes to pitch your part of a 162 game season without making them actually go through all of it.

[BMoreJayMo]

For financial and developmental reasons, I sincerely hope AM keeps all the young guns down below this year - no matter the results for the big club in '09. Far be it from me to question where the FO determines Matusz should start the year - Fred or Bow - but the worst possible outcome would be rushing him along for (potential) short term gains while threatening his high end long term upside. The Birds are finally headed in the right direction: Mr. Angelos appears to trust AM to make the baseball decisions and risking the best asset in baseball (young, talented arms under club control, not Matusz specifically) would be a foolish choice in order to marginally improve an at best 3rd place club in the AL East this year IMO.

[Mackus]

Mark Prior, 19 starts his first ML year:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Mark-Prior.shtml

3.32 ERA w/ a CG

Tim Lincecum, 24 starts his first ML year w/o any college involved:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/L/Tim-Lincecum.shtml

What are you talking about?

We are talking about players that started at MLB without any minor league experience. Obviously neither of those guys did that, both pitched in the minors and neither actually made it to the majors the year they were drafted. Prior was drafted in 2001 and debuted in May of 2002. Lincecum was drafted in 2005 and didn't debut until May of 2007.

So obviously neither of those guys are a case for saying Matusz should start in the majors right away.

The biggest point is only 3 pitchers in the last 11 years have started as high as AA, yet alone AAA or the majors. Start Matusz at A+ or AA.

[Stotle]

Frobby is dead on with his "glide path," barring hiccups along the way. Let the improvement in quality of opposition help him grow in terms of mental makeup, location, and the ability to pitch SIX innings when he doesnt have his curve ball.

Most importantly, he should not be starting games late in the season anywhere. I would almost like to see a transition period for every guy who is facing a significantly longer season for the first time: Let them pitch as starters to the end point of their previous level of competition and then keep them pitching every fifth day, but with fewer in-game innings followed by 20-30 pitches with the bullpen coach working on his development. I don't know if there is enough roster space to accomodate this in the minors, but I think you have to show players what it takes to pitch your part of a 162 game season without making them actually go through all of it.

Matusz's last two years at USD he logged 120+ and 100+ IP. He should be able to handle a full MiL load and be ready to take on 175 or so IP at the ML level next year (from an endurance/durability standpoint). He maintained his stuff very well at the college level, remaining on point with his secondary stuff.

Arrieta logged right around 100 IP per year at TCU and 113 IP last year. He, also, should be fine with a full season of MiL work at Bowie (and maybe some at AAA Norfolk) and ready to compete for an ML rotation spot next Spring. He needs to tighten his slider consistency and tighten his CB/CH on all counts. Better command in the zone w/FB; reduce BB-rate.

Tillman has logged 135+ IP in each of his two full MiL seasons -- a testiment to his health moreso than his in-game endurance (he only logged around 11 innings total in the 6th inning last year and never recorded an out later than the 6th). He should be working to tighten his stuff the second time through the order and increase his effectiveness later in the game. His goal should be a second half call-up next year.

All in my opinion.

[Stotle]

I know we have had this discussion before Stotle, but I am still missing why you think Arrieta is going to lap Tillman.

To be fair to you, there is some indication from the organization they agree...

Still, despite Tillman being younger... he is the one coming off a successful season at AA.... Arrieta is the one that still has to experience that level.

If you are going to point to Tillman's command-rate, I will point you right back to Arrieta's.

Arrieta - 113 innings, 120 k's, 80 hits, 51 walks at Single A Frederick...

Tillman - 135.2 IP, 115 hits, 154 k's, 64 walks at Double A Bowie..

Even though 2008 was Arrieta's 1st professional experience, he is older... had time in college... and Tillman had just as good, if not better numbers at the higher level.

I start here:

Average IP/Start

Arrieta - 5.65

Tillman - 4.84

Regarding your command comment:

Command and control are two different issues. Both struggle finding the zone at times, but Arrieta is a little better at consistently throwing his SL for strikes than Tillman is with his CB. Both need to improve. Arrieta is a little better the second time through the order than is Tillman.

Age/experience is secondary to those points, but still relevant.

EDIT -- From the scouting side, Arrieta's stuff is a little more developed and (though he himself has work to do) he tends to hit his release point more consistently on his secondary stuff.

[Stotle]

How can you start with average innings per start... when Tillman was facing the superior hitters?

You also have to factor in the fact, that the O's were more prone to limit Tillman's outings, as they worked to protect his arm due to age.

I understand command and control are two different things... and I will assume you are correct about Arrieta being a bit better at consistently thorwing his slider for strikes vs Tillman with his curve.... but that does not change the fact that the numbers that matter... hits per IP, K's per IP, Walks per IP all were at least equal, with Tillman at the higher level.

Because Tillman wasn't cruising in the 5th and 6th inning and being pulled due to pitch count.

Innings 1-3 BAA - ~.207

Innings 4-7 BAA - ~.249

*Note - he only faced 2 batters in the 7th inning retiring neither.

The bottom line is Arrieta worked later into ball games with more effectiveness. And that's not to say Arrieta didn't fade a bit, as well. But he maintained his stuff better than did Tillman. And while I do think parsing the stats here help to somewhat illustrate my point, a lot of my opinion comes from looking at their stuff and their relative inconsistencies. In my opinion, Arrieta is closer to fully-baked.

And Matusz is a fair amount ahead of both of them (though it seems like I've been one of a very few, if any others, stating it promotion should go Matusz -> Arrieta -> Tillman). I mean, may here are stating Tillman and Arrieta should be up this year and I've seen claims Matusz shouldn't be up until 2011. I think this demonstrates a very basic misunderstanding of where each stands from a developmental standpoint. That's not a knock on anyone, I just don't think they are viewing these pitchers as many in the industry might view them. Again, just my opinion.

[Stotle]

If Tillman was in A, and not AA... then he would have dominated even more... which would have limited his pitch count, and allowed him to work deeper into games...

I think you are making a good point overall... that both pitchers need to work on getting ahead, and working deeper into games... (which starts with fastball command)... but you can not ignore the facts that Tillman is younger, and was the one at the higher-level.

If Tillman puts up numbers at AA, of equal to what Arrieta does at A.... there is no reason to think Tillman would not have had superior numbers than Arrieta, had he been at A.

Doesn't this ignore the fact that Arrieta had 8 fewer starts, pitched injured for a time and wasn't even given a shot at AA (due to injury and the Olympics)? It's clear hitters had a more difficult time squaring-up on Arrieta than they did Tillman -- in large part because Arrieta was well ahead of his league level.

BAA

Arrieta - .195

Tillman - .226

Since I don't agree with your premise (that Tillman's numbers are equal to or better than what Arrieta put up), I don't think you can say Tillman would have outperformed Arrieta.