Do we overrate our pitching prospects' chances of success?

[JTrea81]

For like the 12th time, I have to spread rep around before it comes back to you. This post took the words out of my mouth.

AM is consitently, if deliberately, adding potential major league contributors to the system while drafting an impressive pedigree of arms.

I'd love it if Matusz, Tillman and Arrieta turn into Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. Unfortunately, that's just not likely. Luckily, our plan isn't 100% dependent on them all panning out.

The point is that we need to figure out which ones we think won't hit their ceiling and deal them before they lose that value due to hype.

If Tillman has a full season like he did after he was called up or worse, his value will drop like a rock.

[LookinUp]

The point is that we need to figure out which ones we think won't hit their ceiling and deal them before they lose that value due to hype.

If Tillman has a full season like he did after he was called up or worse, his value will drop like a rock.

Well, if the O's know this before the rest of the league, of course we should trade them. I just think you're jumping to the conclusion that we already know that about one of our guys.

[JTrea81]

Well, if the O's know this before the rest of the league, of course we should trade them. I just think you're jumping to the conclusion that we already know that about one of our guys.

Tony has said there are some in the organization that see him as no more than a 4th starter. Roch has also alluded in the past that Tillman was the most expendable out of the Big Three.

The Orioles are looking a a great market for trades, and if they hang on to one of their major chips like Tillman, and he's a bust as far as not reaching his ceiling, they will have missed out on a prime opportunity to add a major amount of established talent to help the Orioles compete.

After this season, nobody should be untouchable if MacPhail is serious about improving this club to the point where wins and losses matter and we are supposed to make a significant jump in the standings.

[mweb]

Tony has said there are some in the organization that see him as no more than a 4th starter.

Well that means there are some who think of him more highly, so it depends on who sees it which way and how adament they are.

[Lucky Jim]

The point is that we need to figure out which ones we think won't hit their ceiling and deal them before they lose that value due to hype.

If Tillman has a full season like he did after he was called up or worse, his value will drop like a rock.

Do you understand how upsurd this is? Truly upsurd. There is virtually no way to determine, as a player feels his way through, what exactly you have until they have chance to succeed. If they could predict this kind of thing, they wouldn't friggin' need to stockpile arms!

If a bad season at 22 means that Tillman is no longer "hyped" so be it. First, it should finally shut you up about trading him. Second, it'll put him in line with a million other pitchers who struggled young and ended up being very good.

Brad Penny had a 4.80 ERA in expansive Florida at 22.

Kevin Brown had pitched 5 games in MLB by age 24 and pitched to a 6.49 ERA at A-AA-AAA at age 23.

Johan Santana pitched to a 6.49 ERA as a 21 year old and a 4.71 ERA as a 22 year old reliever.

John Smoltz pitched to a 5.48 ERA at 21 years old.

Brandon Webb posted a 3.99 ERA at 22. At A+.

Bob Gibson put up a 73 ERA+ at 24.

Don Sutton put up a 78 ERA+ at 22.

Frank Viola put up ERAs of 5.00+ at 22 and 23.

Bartolo Colon put up an ERA of 5.65 at 24.

Javier Vasquez put up ERA of 6.00+ and 5.00+ at 21 and 22.

Just for context.

[Stotle]

The point is that we need to figure out which ones we think won't hit their ceiling and deal them before they lose that value due to hype.

If Tillman has a full season like he did after he was called up or worse, his value will drop like a rock.

I know Boston is absolutely kicking themselves for not selling high on Buchholz before he stumbled in 2008.

Oops, check that. He's being listed as the #3 starter going into 2010.

[mweb]

I know Boston is absolutely kicking themselves for not selling high on Buchholz before he stumbled in 2008.

Oops, check that. He's being listed as the #3 starter going into 2010.

Perhaps Boston is actually kicking themselves for trading some guy named Hanley Ramirez after a mediocre season in AA.

[Stotle]

Perhaps Boston is actually kicking themselves for trading some guy named Hanley Ramirez after a mediocre season in AA.

I don't think so. It was fairly widely accepted that Ramirez was a potential superstar in the making. They did, after all, get back a 25-year old pitcher who had just improved upon a year highlighted by shutting down the Yankees to win the World Series. Some dude named Beckett.

BOS wanted the established potential star and was willing to move the AA potential star. There wasn't any selling low, here, I don't think. You can argue that BOS wouldn't trade Ramirez in hindsight, but can they expect for their prospects to hit their absolute ceilings? Shrug.

[JTrea81]

Perhaps Boston is actually kicking themselves for trading some guy named Hanley Ramirez after a mediocre season in AA.

Considering they got Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell in return who helped them win a 2nd WS title I doubt it...

That's the example of a win/win trade.

The Maybin, Miller and Co. trade for MCab and Willis is an example of another trade that hasn't hurt either squad. And right now the Tigers look like they are still winning that deal despite the amount of talent they gave up.

[joldey]

I know Boston is absolutely kicking themselves for not selling high on Buchholz before he stumbled in 2008.

Oops, check that. He's being listed as the #3 starter going into 2010.

Maybe it's a little nit-picky but I would say the rotation would be Beckett-Lester-Dice K... then Buchholz as the #4. And I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I think they should have traded him before the '08 season. I've said it before, I believe he is one of the more over-hyped young pitchers in baseball. Great minor-league numbers and we all know what he did in his 2nd start... but I am not convinced that he will be anything more than a #4-5 TOPS for a few more years and than out of baseball.

[mweb]

I don't think so. It was fairly widely accepted that Ramirez was a potential superstar in the making. They did, after all, get back a 25-year old pitcher who had just improved upon a year highlighted by shutting down the Yankees to win the World Series. Some dude named Beckett.

BOS wanted the established potential star and was willing to move the AA potential star. There wasn't any selling low, here, I don't think. You can argue that BOS wouldn't trade Ramirez in hindsight, but can they expect for their prospects to hit their absolute ceilings? Shrug.

I think his prospect status went down that year if I recall correctly. And I know some on here, including SG were not high on him. So not sure how widely accepted it was. There's also a good chance they could have dealt others to get Beckett. And if they had the ability to determine who was and wasn't going to reach their ceiling like Trea is mentioning, they would not have dealt Hanley.

Regardless, I was just using Trea's logic that one disappointing season by a young star means the guys value is lost and you'll be stuck with 50 cents on the dollar or whatever.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Perhaps Boston is actually kicking themselves for trading some guy named Hanley Ramirez after a mediocre season in AA.

That trade has helped them to three post-season appearances and a WS win, so I doubt that the Red Sox have too many second thoughts.

In general, though, I agree with the point. Stars aren't always stars at age 21 or 22.

[Stotle]

Maybe it's a little nit-picky but I would say the rotation would be Beckett-Lester-Dice K... then Buchholz as the #4. And I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I think they should have traded him before the '08 season. I've said it before, I believe he is one of the more over-hyped young pitchers in baseball. Great minor-league numbers and we all know what he did in his 2nd start... but I am not convinced that he will be anything more than a #4-5 TOPS for a few more years and than out of baseball.

I was referencing the fact that Francona said Buchholz will be the #3 going into the season.

I very much disagree with your assessment of Buchholz. Why do you think he is overhyped? What are the shortcomings? Just curious.

[mweb]

Considering they got Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell in return who helped them win a 2nd WS title I doubt it...

That's the example of a win/win trade.

The Maybin, Miller and Co. trade for MCab and Willis is an example of another trade that hasn't hurt either squad. And right now the Tigers look like they are still winning that deal despite the amount of talent they gave up.

That's not why I brought it up, but I shouldn't have expected you to figure that out.

If like you say, they (a front office you like right?) had the ability to figure out who was and wasn't going to reach their ceiling, they would have used other resources to get Beckett and Lowell.

Plus, Hanley was coming off a mediocre year, at least for top prospects, so he was in a position like Tillman would be if he had a mediocre year for a top young arm next year. Yet, they got a good return for him and even if they didn't, they'd end up with one of the best players in the game.

So patience with top young players is sometimes the best approach.

[Stotle]

I think his prospect status went down that year if I recall correctly. And I know some on here, including SG were not high on him. So not sure how widely accepted it was. There's also a good chance they could have dealt others to get Beckett. And if they had the ability to determine who was and wasn't going to reach their ceiling like Trea is mentioning, they would not have dealt Hanley.

Regardless, I was just using Trea's logic that one disappointing season by a young star means the guys value is lost and you'll be stuck with 50 cents on the dollar or whatever.

I don't know if it was widely accepted on message boards, but a down year (particularly for a 21 year old at AA) doesn't drastically lower a player's value. Due respect to sports guy, I don't think his take on AA players carries much weight as far as the industry is concerned (though he was certainly pointing people to Josh Bell early this year ).

Ramirez was seen as a potential special talent. Not a sure fire stud, but an excellent prospect. Were he closer to a finished product, BOS would have been able to get even more for him. As it is, they landed a stud SP and took a gamble that Lowell would produce enough for his contract not to be a hinderance. They look pretty smart for taking that particular gamble.

I think he dropped from top 10 to top 30 in the BA rankings. Seems like a lot, but it isn't. And that reflects what scouts had to say, but it's an interpretation of the info BA gets, as opposed to the spot where scouts would necessarily put them.

All that said, yeah, you certainly don't want to punt on a highly-regarded 21-year old for fear their "stock is plummeting". That's silly, and is not logic you'll find anywhere in the front offices or scouting circles.