Do we overrate our pitching prospects' chances of success?

[mweb]

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.

Once again, pretty sure if they had a good idea of how Hanley would turn out, they would have found a different way to get Beckett or a similar talent. He would have also helped them more than Beckett and Lowell anyway.

[Bradysburns]

Great thread. I'm going to say yes, slightly.

I think the point is - having Matusz, Tillman and Bergesen ALL reach their max potential is unlikely. I think we have excellent pitching prospects. If you look around the league, we really do have a nice minor league pipeline (thanks AM!).

But I suspect certain guys like Tillman and Britton could be overrated - perhaps highly overrated. I don't know why I say that, exactly. But I am somewhat skeptical.

That's what happens when you watch an entire generation's worth of "hot" Orioles pitching prospects flame out. Adam Loewen... Beau Hale... Richard Stahl... Mike Paradis... Radhames Liz... Chris Smith... Sid Ponson... Matt Riley...

The list of "can't-miss" Orioles pitching prospects who've missed badly over the past 10 years is remarkable.

These guys were every bit as touted - and in some cases much more so - than Tillman, Arrieta and Britton. So to think that every member of the Cav is going to max out... well... we can hope, gentleman... we can hope...

[mweb]

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.

They look smart for the gamble on Lowell, but not for the trade in general imo. I think he fell to around 50, but not sure. Anyway, I agree with what you were saying, you mis-interpreted the reason for my initial post regrading him.

[Stotle]

Once again, pretty sure if they had a good idea of how Hanley would turn out, they would have found a different way to get Beckett or a similar talent. He would have also helped them more than Beckett and Lowell anyway.

Probably correct, but this isn't an exampel of selling low. It's passing risk for immediate certainty. Further, I think you're underselling what a huge ticket item Beckett was after the '04/'05 seasons. They gave up a star, but were getting back one of (if not the) best young pitchers in the game as he was supposed to be entering his prime.

[Stotle]

They look smart for the gamble on Lowell, but not for the trade in general imo. I think he fell to around 50, but not sure. Anyway, I agree with what you were saying, you mis-interpreted the reason for my initial post regrading him.

I just looked it up

2005 - #10 per BA

2006 - #30 per BA

I agree, I misunderstood your original post. But after seeing you post more, I don't agree moving Hanley was any sort of mistake, or example of moving a player too early. Think about what an incredible talent Beckett was, and how hype he was after beating the Yankees and earning a WS MVP, then following it up with an even better regular season. Hanley's stock had to be sky-high in the eyes of the Marlins for them to move Beckett.

[mweb]

Probably correct, but this isn't an exampel of selling low. It's passing risk for immediate certainty. Further, I think you're underselling what a huge ticket item Beckett was after the '04/'05 seasons. They gave up a star, but were getting back one of (if not the) best young pitchers in the game as he was supposed to be entering his prime.

It's an example of what Trea is talking about with Tillman, that is my point.

I don't think I'm underselling Beckett, you know why, because what I'm saying has nothing to do with him. I'm simply saying that if the Sox knew Ramirez would reach his ceiling, which Trea seems to think the O's can determine with their top young talents, they would have found a different way to get Beckett or likely not made the deal at all.

But to your point about Beckett, he was coming off seasons of 108 and 118 in ERA+ with injury problems throughout his early career. So perhaps you're overselling him.

[Lucky Jim]

Probably correct, but this isn't an exampel of selling low. It's passing risk for immediate certainty. Further, I think you're underselling what a huge ticket item Beckett was after the '04/'05 seasons. They gave up a star, but were getting back one of (if not the) best young pitchers in the game as he was supposed to be entering his prime.

It's an interesting trade to autopsy. There's no way they get Beckett for Ramirez straight up, and Lowell was looking like absolute dead weight at that point.

I mean, Anibel Sanchez looked pretty good, too. And Delgado and Garcia were live arms at least.

Basically, the Marlins gave up one young, established arm, and one dead weight contract, and gambled that Ramirez and one of Sanchez, Delgado or Garcia would be an impact arm - and shedding payroll while doing it.

It didn't quite work out that way. Not the least because Lowell ended up being more than dead weight for the Sox. But the Sox got a little lucky on that one.

[Stotle]

It's an example of what Trea is talking about with Tillman, that is my point.

I don't think I'm underselling Beckett, you know why, because what I'm saying has nothing to do with him. I'm simply saying that if the Sox knew Ramirez would reach his ceiling, which Trea seems to think the O's can determine with their top young talents, they would have found a different way to get Beckett or likely not made the deal at all.

But to your point about Beckett, he was coming off seasons of 108 and 118 in ERA+ with injury problems throughout his early career. So perhaps you're overselling him.

Blisters, which limited his effectiveness. Burnett had the more serious of the injuries. Maybe the stats crowd didn't quantitatively think he was special (though I'm dubious about that). I'm 100% convinced that evaluators almost universally had him on any list of top young arms in the game at the time.

[mweb]

I just looked it up

2005 - #10 per BA

2006 - #30 per BA

I agree, I misunderstood your original post. But after seeing you post more, I don't agree moving Hanley was any sort of mistake, or example of moving a player too early. Think about what an incredible talent Beckett was, and how hype he was after beating the Yankees and earning a WS MVP, then following it up with an even better regular season. Hanley's stock had to be sky-high in the eyes of the Marlins for them to move Beckett.

Uggh. It was a mistake if they somehow knew Hanley was going to reach his potential. Or if you look at it in hindsight.

I am not saying it was a mistake if you look at it in the context of the time.

You're also overrating Beckett imo and the Marlins likely dealt him because he was about to get expensive and he had injury issues. Getting rid of Lowell and his salary was a big bonus as well.

[Lucky Jim]

But to your point about Beckett, he was coming off seasons of 108 and 118 in ERA+ with injury problems throughout his early career. So perhaps you're overselling him.

I think a player who, at 23, 24 and 25 throws 420 innings of sub-4.00 ERA with a K/9 around 9 is a pretty high value commodity. Especially when you consider that those numbers constituted what many thought to be seriously untapped reserves. He was the 19th, 3rd and 1st ranked prospect in all of MLB as per Baseball America in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

As I said above, I don't think Ramirez alone gets Beckett. Ramirez + three and taking on the dead weight of the Lowell contract does.

In retrospect, it was a very good trade for both teams. It should've been better for Florida, perhaps. And the Sox got a bit lucky. But they both got what they wanted. I also don't think Ramirez had been "discounted" much by anyone - at least based on the bodies passing between the teams.

[mweb]

Blisters, which limited his effectiveness. Burnett had the more serious of the injuries. Maybe the stats crowd didn't quantitatively think he was special (though I'm dubious about that). I'm 100% convinced that evaluators almost universally had him on any list of top young arms in the game at the time.

He also had other injuries including to the elbow and the shoulder. The blisters were considered rather worrisome at the time as well. I'm not saying he wasn't highly regarded, but at the time, and really even since the trade, his reputation and his post-season play(not recently though) has been better than what he delivers in the regular season.

And as I said in my last post, the inclusion of Lowell had to have lowered the price of Beckett a decent amount.

[mweb]

I think a player who, at 23, 24 and 25 throws 420 innings of sub-4.00 ERA with a K/9 around 9 is a pretty high value commodity. Especially when you consider that those numbers constituted what many thought to be seriously untapped reserves. He was the 19th, 3rd and 1st ranked prospect in all of MLB as per Baseball America in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

Sigh, I love how one innocent comment referencing Trea's logic has been spun into something that had nothing to do with my comment and has become a big thing to debate with me on.

To respond to this post, I'm not saying he wasn't a pretty high value commodity.

[Stotle]

It's an interesting trade to autopsy. There's no way they get Beckett for Ramirez straight up, and Lowell was looking like absolute dead weight at that point.

I mean, Anibel Sanchez looked pretty good, too. And Delgado and Garcia were live arms at least.

Basically, the Marlins gave up one young, established arm, and one dead weight contract, and gambled that Ramirez and one of Sanchez, Delgado or Garcia would be an impact arm - and shedding payroll while doing it.

It didn't quite work out that way. Not the least because Lowell ended up being more than dead weight for the Sox. But the Sox got a little lucky on that one.

Only because Ramirez reached his absolute ceiling. And, yeah, Sanchez was another top 50 guy. Still, this trade is no different from any other trade where one team moves young talent for established talent. If the young talent hits, you look smart. If they don't, you look less smart.

There were questions about Mickolio ever straightening out his control and command, Tillman developing a third pitch and maintaining his stuff, Sherrill being anything more than a LOOGY/set-up arm and Jones improving his approach. If Bedard had stayed healthy and put up two seasons in SEA equal to his last in BAL, and Tillman, MIckolio, SHerrill and/or Jones struggled mightily, would that trade look nearly as good? Would that mean that SEA got lucky? BAL unlucky? Heck, if Bedard had simply stayed healthy, the trade would look a whole lot better for SEA (though still not "good").

The Beckett/Ramirez trade was fine value on both sides. I'm not saying BOS raped FLA. But they needed an arm immediately, and taking the gamble on Sanchez and Ramirez potentially adding value in a year or two wasn't worth it for them. No one threw out Ramirez's value because of his down year, and of course I acknowledge that a team is best off if they can give every top prospect the time needed to properly see what kid of player that prospect will ultimately be.

[Lucky Jim]

Only because Ramirez reached his absolute ceiling. And, yeah, Sanchez was another top 50 guy. Still, this trade is no different from any other trade where one team moves young talent for established talent. If the young talent hits, you look smart. If they don't, you look less smart.

There were questions about Mickolio ever straightening out his control and command, Tillman developing a third pitch and maintaining his stuff, Sherrill being anything more than a LOOGY/set-up arm and Jones improving his approach. If Bedard had stayed healthy and put up two seasons in SEA equal to his last in BAL, and Tillman, MIckolio, SHerrill and/or Jones struggled mightily, would that trade look nearly as good? Would that mean that SEA got lucky? BAL unlucky? Heck, if Bedard had simply stayed healthy, the trade would look a whole lot better for SEA (though still not "good").

The Beckett/Ramirez trade was fine value on both sides. I'm not saying BOS raped FLA. But they needed an arm immediately, and taking the gamble on Sanchez and Ramirez potentially adding value in a year or two wasn't worth it for them. No one threw out Ramirez's value because of his down year, and of course I acknowledge that a team is best off if they can give every top prospect the time needed to properly see what kid of player that prospect will ultimately be.

I've already said I think that both sides got what they wanted. I also said I thought that Ramirez hadn't been discounted much.

[Stotle]

Uggh. It was a mistake if they somehow knew Hanley was going to reach his potential. Or if you look at it in hindsight.

I am not saying it was a mistake if you look at it in the context of the time.

You're also overrating Beckett imo and the Marlins likely dealt him because he was about to get expensive and he had injury issues. Getting rid of Lowell and his salary was a big bonus as well.

Marlins moved him because they didn't want to pay him to extend him and wanted to reload (as is their MO). My point was simply that Beckett had a ton of value and was going to land a good package. I think it's reasonable to say FLA valued BOS package (as well as the willingness to take on Lowell) a great deal, largely because of Beckett.

I understand your point about hindsight/foresight, and I agree it absolutely shoots down what Trea is trying to say.