All of the sudden...

[BMoreJayMo]

I hope Matusz succeeds, but he's a far riskier prospect to do so at a position we did have some depth in vs. a surer thing at a postiion we have no real depth in.

With that said, he looks ready more than the starters we want to put out there in the rotation so he should be starting on Opening Day...

Considering the title of this thread, the greater likelihood of injuries to pitchers vs. hitters and the necessity of a quality staff to winning baseball, why do you continue to hold this position? Reminds me of the GDavis trade when people take this stance. A true front of the line SP is exponentially more valuable than any 1b - please consider the difference in replacement value for a moment if you still question that. We were able to sign Huff, who is at least a decent option at first, for relatively little money at the time. What would it take to get an ace, in his prime, to come here?

[JTrea81]

Considering the title of this thread, the greater likelihood of injuries to pitchers vs. hitters and the necessity of a quality staff to winning baseball, why do you continue to hold this position? Reminds me of the GDavis trade when people take this stance. A true front of the line SP is exponentially more valuable than any 1b - please consider the difference in replacement value for a moment if you still question that. We were able to sign Huff, who is at least a decent option at first, for relatively little money at the time. What would it take to get an ace, in his prime, to come here?

There's no assurance that Matusz will be an ace. He's projected to have the ceiling of a #2 if he can correct his mechanics but right now profiles as a "middle of the rotation" starter according to BA's Prospect Handbook...

[BMoreJayMo]

I hope Matusz succeeds, but he's a far riskier prospect to do so at a position we did have some depth in vs. a surer thing at a postiion we have no real depth in.

With that said, he looks ready more than the starters we want to put out there in the rotation so he should be starting on Opening Day...

There's no assurance that Matusz will be an ace. He's projected to have the ceiling of a #2 if he can correct his mechanics but right now profiles as a "middle of the rotation" starter according to BA's Prospect Handbook...

Exactly, no assurance any of the young guns will be an ace...that's why you have to hedge your bets and get as many quality, front of the rotation arms as possible. Every pre-'08 draft report I read tagged Matusz as the best pitcher available, and now he's an Oriole.

And, for what it's worth, the following is from Baseball Prospectus' Top 11 Prospects in the Orioles system on Matusz:

Perfect World Projection: A top-end starter and an All-Star.

Glass Half Empty: He's already so polished that it's hard to see him becoming anything less than a mid-rotation fixture. There are few prospects in the game with this kind of certainty.

[Old Beta]

A true front of the line SP is exponentially more valuable than any 1b - please consider the difference in replacement value for a moment if you still question that.

People who remember the Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson deal might not agree with you, or does the fact that FR was a right fielder change things?

[Stotle]

Yeah, but you're forgetting the rest of that LXA thread.

It doesn't really mean anything. Yes, its concern but there are plenty of pitchers that have succeeded and done well with poor mechanics. There are a TON of pitchers that throw across their bodies who haven't had serious arm problems.

What the X factor is, is that if Matusz has the genetic makeup to withstand something bad in his mechanics. If he's strong enough, it won't matter.

You're taking something and running with it like it's a foregone conclusion, dude. You've mastered that.

Maybe more importantly, Trea is ignoring the fact that Matusz at times lands with a stiff front leg. I'd seen him a couple of times and didn't notice any serious front leg issues until it was mentioned by Baseball AMerica in one of their draft snap shot pieces. After reading that, I went back and looked at some video -- yeah, it happens but not a ton and not with problematic force.

[SilentJames]

Well to me it looks like this:

Guthrie

Uehara

Penn

Bergensen

(Hill after brief stint on DL/ minor rehab)

Hill should be DL'ed retroactive to a couple weeks ago and get a minor-league rehab assignment for the first two weeks of the season.

We don't really need the 5th starter until the 15th. And even then, if we can get by with a swingman that day the 16th is a day off, we could get by without a 5th starter until April 21.

The timing of Hill's injury is bad, but I like that they are taking it slow with him and not trying to rush him back.

We also have guys like Hernandez and Pauley, even after his bad start, that can be a temp number 5 guy until Hill is ready.

I agree with you

And I forgot about Liz. You could put Liz in the number 5 hole and that should keep us set for the first month of the season until we see what Hill can really do.

[BMoreJayMo]

People who remember the Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson deal might not agree with you, or does the fact that FR was a right fielder change things?

Unfortunately, I didn't pop out of the womb in time to see FR play But yes, the RF designation does come into play to a degree considering the defensive chops (or lack thereof) necessary to play a passable 1b in MLB. A minor factor in the evaluation of that swap though.

More importantly, you've referenced one of the all time swindles. And if I recall correctly, weren't there some extraneous issues re: FR and the Reds? While I'm not cognizant of the details, hopefully one of the more seasoned fan o' the Os can enlighten me here.

These days, it's hard to see that type of deal transpiring unless it's a financially motivated move (Matt Holliday) - or a completely moronic GM is involved on the other side. There's so much more information available now compared to that era, it's hard to effectively compare most of the FO moves to those of today. But hey, if Detroit wants to send us Miggy for Guthrie, I'm all for it.

[Mackus]

Is JTrea down on the pick or did he just prefer us to go another way?

I am on record saying I think Matusz will be very good but I would still rather have Smoak than him....Its nothing against Matusz at all.

JTrea wants to take Ackley over Strasburg if both are available this year.

Should give you an idea of what he thinks about Matusz.

[Fan4Life]

After watching the Netherlands, with essentially a AA team, beat the Domincans twice primarily as a result of their pitching, you'd think pitching over hitting every time assuming the playes being compared are of equal talent level for their respective position.

[NewMarketSean]

As worried as I am about our starting rotation, I do have faith that AM will address the issue before OD. I think he is waiting to see how Hill does during his throwing programs before he either trades for another SP or signs someone to take up some innings. At this point I'd be happy with a guy who can throw 6 IP with a 5.00 ERA.

[Fan4Life]

As worried as I am about our starting rotation, I do have faith that AM will address the issue before OD. I think he is waiting to see how Hill does during his throwing programs before he either trades for another SP or signs someone to take up some innings. At this point I'd be happy with a guy who can throw 6 IP with a 5.00 ERA.

It's a shame we don't have a handful of these types.

[RShack]

Unfortunately, I didn't pop out of the womb in time to see FR play But yes, the RF designation does come into play to a degree considering the defensive chops (or lack thereof) necessary to play a passable 1b in MLB. A minor factor in the evaluation of that swap though.

More importantly, you've referenced one of the all time swindles. And if I recall correctly, weren't there some extraneous issues re: FR and the Reds? While I'm not cognizant of the details, hopefully one of the more seasoned fan o' the Os can enlighten me here.

The dummy running the Reds believed anybody who was 30 was past his prime, and therefore should be traded because he wasn't in the club's future.

Really. He did. Sound familiar?

So, Frank shows up, mad as hell and ready to prove something. Which he promptly did: Triple Crown, MVP, and a ring.

[Frobby]

The dummy running the Reds believed anybody who was 30 was past his prime, and therefore should be traded because he wasn't in the club's future.

Really. He did. Sound familiar?

So, Frank shows up, mad as hell and ready to prove something. Which he promptly did: Triple Crown, MVP, and a ring.

There were a few other things that had gone on between Frank and the Reds. There had been an incident (several years before) where he had been arrested for carrying a handgun. And I think Frank was pretty tough in contract negotiations (which, in the mid 1960's, meant he'd be haggling over an extra $5-10,000). And, he was accused of being cliquish with a few other players on the team (Vada Pinson particularly). He was not a fan of the team's GM (Bill DeWitt), and vice versa. There also were some hints that DeWitt was a bit of a racist, though I don't know enough to accuse him of that. Let's just say that African Americans who stood up for themselves were viewed a lot differently in 1965 than they are today.

It is amazing in 2009 to think about the types of things that would motivate a team to trade a superstar like Frank Robinson back in 1965. Things were an awful lot different then.

[NewMarketSean]

It's a shame we don't have a handful of these types.

We did, kind of, until they started dropping like flies. Maybe not exactly 6 IP per start and 5.00 on the dot ERA's, but close. At least that's what I think of guys like Hennessey, Parrish, and Hendrickson.

[RShack]

There were a few other things that had gone on between Frank and the Reds. There had been an incident (several years before) where he had been arrested for carrying a handgun. And I think Frank was pretty tough in contract negotiations (which, in the mid 1960's, meant he'd be haggling over an extra $5-10,000). And, he was accused of being cliquish with a few other players on the team (Vada Pinson particularly). He was not a fan of the team's GM (Bill DeWitt), and vice versa. There also were some hints that DeWitt was a bit of a racist, though I don't know enough to accuse him of that. Let's just say that African Americans who stood up for themselves were viewed a lot differently in 1965 than they are today.

The gun story is from 1961, the year he was getting death threats during his first MVP season. It was related to an incident when a restaurant refused to serve him because he was black. But half-a-decade later, all the sudden the Reds decided it was a problem? That story was rolled out in 1966, along with a few rumors aimed at painting Frank as a clubhouse cancer. AFAIK, there was not one shred of evidence that he was a clubhouse problem. Nobody said he was Mr. Nice Guy, but everybody said he played baseball hard everyday, and he expected his teammates to do the same. As for being tough in contract negotiations, that was the era when either you took the salary they offered or else you didn't play baseball. So, except for ending his own career, I'm not so sure how tough Frank could be.

There also were some hints that DeWitt was a bit of a racist, though I don't know enough to accuse him of that. Let's just say that African Americans who stood up for themselves were viewed a lot differently in 1965 than they are today.

It is amazing in 2009 to think about the types of things that would motivate a team to trade a superstar like Frank Robinson back in 1965. Things were an awful lot different then.

When it came to racial matters, CIN was then considered very much of a southern city, attitude-wise. Kinda like BAL was, which is why the Browns didn't bring Satchel Paige with them to BAL. After he posted an ERA+ of 119 for a last place team, and was an AS for the 2nd straight year, they just cut him rather than put him in Baltimore uniform. Frank found out about BAL and racism when he showed up and tried to buy a house in BAL. ("Oh, Mrs. Robinson, um, er, you're not Mrs. Brooks Robinson, are you.") You are correct that some things are very different.