Chris Tillman: To trade or not to trade?

[DrungoHazewood]

So where do you draw the line? All MiL prospects have the possibility of going the way of Bruce Chen so we should trade them?

I really, really still do not understand what your bias against pitching is.

I don't think it's a bias against pitching, it's a bias against players who haven't firmly established their value and cost as premium major leaguers. Pretending to know Tillman's future home run rates is just a means to an end.

In other words, most of the team should be made up of players who have multiple All Star-level seasons under their belt. Devoting more than one or two roster spots to players with uncertainty in their forecasts is something for the lower classes to do (i.e. KC, Pittsburgh, etc).

So if you have a chance to trade a kid with high potential for a current star, you always do it. And you figure out the budget later, after you've won a couple World Series. Or so the thinking goes.

[Bradysburns]

Nobody should be untouchable, but there's a reason why teams always look for young pitching in any trade.

We've got a lot of it.

That's a good thing.

Absolutely. If we do trade away young AAA/MLB talent for an established star, I would only be in favor if we got some very young (A or AA) talent back to restock the system for the future. AM seems pretty good at getting these "throwaway" players like Kam Mickolio stuffed into deals.

It seems like there could be a way to get premium MLB talent back, plus get at least something back to restock your lower levels for the future.

[JTrea81]

So if you have a chance to trade a kid with high potential for a current star, you always do it. And you figure out the budget later, after you've won a couple World Series. Or so the thinking goes.

No the thinking goes, you do it because you want to win, therefore you get the established player because you don't have to wait to see if they will develop. You know they will help you win in the immediate future.

We have no idea if Tillman will help us win as much as people predict he will because of the volatility of young starting pitchers. And given the fact he's at a disadvantage pitching in two HR parks in OPACY for half his games and the few games he'll play at Yankee Stadium, the odds aren't good he'll reach his projected ceiling as an Oriole IMO.

So then you have to ask, is it worth to keep him to see him be a Guthrie, more of a #3-#4 starter? Or could he bring you back something you really need and can't get and allow you to keep other prospects in a trade because of his value?

[bej6789]

Like everyone else on this roster, Tillman is 100% available. If you want to trade for him, it's going to take an elite player.

I don't buy into the fastball tendencies, the fly ball factor at OPACY, or any other stats. Why? Because players improve after their first half of a season in the bigs. I want to see what this kid has for an entire season. I want to see what he looks like after getting shalacked against the Yankees or Boston. I want to know that he can go into Yankee Stadium and pitch into the 7th inning without walking the leadoff batter every inning.

It would take a player who plugs either corner infield spot for the next 5-7 seasons while doing so at an all star level for me to trade him.

[Lucky Jim]

So where do you draw the line? All MiL prospects have the possibility of going the way of Bruce Chen so we should trade them?

I really, really still do not understand what your bias against pitching is.

Look, the story is pretty simple: Trea doesn't watch enough baseball to have an opinion about what he sees. Trea doesn't understand markets. Trea doesn't understand risk-analysis. Trea doesn't understand how risk is diversified or should be distributed. Trea doesn't understand the time-dependent component of valuation, and how that changes the wisdom of transactions.

With that kind of resume, why shouldn't we listen to him when he says we should trade Tillman?

[Lucky Jim]

We have no idea if Tillman will help us win as much as people predict he will because of the volatility of young starting pitchers. And given the fact he's at a disadvantage pitching in two HR parks in OPACY for half his games and the few games he'll play at Yankee Stadium, the odds aren't good he'll reach his projected ceiling as an Oriole IMO.

You've got this ass-backwards. It's the very point about volatility - and the fact that numbers are our only insulation against that volatility - that counsels against trading young pitchers.

As for the bolded portion, well, who cares? In the opinion of this guy the Earth was flat. And, frankly, his opinions were generally more logically coherent and supported than yours.

[DrungoHazewood]

No the thinking goes, you do it because you want to win, therefore you get the established player because you don't have to wait to see if they will develop. You know they will help you win in the immediate future.

We have no idea if Tillman will help us win as much as people predict he will because of the volatility of young starting pitchers. And given the fact he's at a disadvantage pitching in two HR parks in OPACY for half his games and the few games he'll play at Yankee Stadium, the odds aren't good he'll reach his projected ceiling as an Oriole IMO.

So then you have to ask, is it worth to keep him to see him be a Guthrie, more of a #3-#4 starter? Or could he bring you back something you really need and can't get and allow you to keep other prospects in a trade because of his value?

Of course everyone would always trade young players for All Stars if it were that simple. But back in the real world you have to have a budget, and you have to have a roster that'll fit in that budget. That means a team like the Orioles, $100s of millions behind their direct competition in revenues, has to have a roster comprised mostly of pre-free agency players. Like Chris Tillman.

And, you rarely trade one young player for an established star, so you're not just trading Tillman, you're trading Tillman and (insert more of the future here).

So you get locked into a death spiral, much like the 1998 Orioles or the current Tigers. Looking to shed payroll, hamstrung by bad contracts for old underperformers, with little left in the farm to make up for it.

Obviously you can go too far the other way, and pass up good deals for fear of losing out on a guy's potential. But I think it's way too early to basically give up on Tillman because of some fear that he's too flyball prone. He can make adjustments, he's young and exceptionally talented. Besides, Bert Blyleven is one of the top 40 or 50 pitchers of all time and he holds (held?) the single-season record for homers allowed - and he didn't even pitch in the 90s.

[Lucky Jim]

Obviously you can go too far the other way, and pass up good deals for fear of losing out on a guy's potential. But I think it's way too early to basically give up on Tillman because of some fear that he's too flyball prone. He can make adjustments, he's young and exceptionally talented. Besides, Bert Blyleven is one of the top 40 or 50 pitchers of all time and he holds (held?) the single-season record for homers allowed - and he didn't even pitch in the 90s.

Trea should explain to us how much better off we were when we unloaded Mussina in early 1992 because of how much we feared his flyball tendencies.

[RandyM]

Trea should explain to us how much better off we were when we unloaded Mussina in early 1992 because of how much we feared his flyball tendencies.

Also, ask the question how have done keeping our prospects over the past 20 years and trading them when they lost most of their value.

In addition, how great of a job we have done developing young talent?

[Sports Guy]

It's all about acquring talent to fit the strengths of your ballpark and trading talent that won't.Flyball pitchers are at an extreme disadvantage at OPACY.

There's no reason to change the fences, rather just get talent that fits your ballpark.

But evaluating that talent and saying they won't work out because of 65 IP is just stupid.

And thinking that he can't come up with a pitch to help reduce the risk of flyballs is ridiculous.

And, if he is K'ing 8 or 9 per IP and walking 3 or less, the homers will not be as big an issue.

[Hank Scorpio]

So you get locked into a death spiral, much like the 1998 Orioles or the current Tigers. Looking to shed payroll, hamstrung by bad contracts for old underperformers, with little left in the farm to make up for it.

Halle-

Trea should explain to us how much better off we were when we unloaded Mussina in early 1992 because of how much we feared his flyball tendencies.

-lujah.

[Flip217]

Not sure why Trea thinks Tillman or any other pitcher can't make adjustments to correct whatever weaknesses they have. In ten seconds of Googling, I found this info:

Pitchers -- even the best -- take time to get acclimated to big league competition...Consider that Jake Peavy kicked off his career 14-15 with a 4.61 ERA in his first 38 starts. Johan Santana had a ghastly 6.49 ERA and 1.81 WHIP in 86 innings in his rookie year. Even Brandon Webb had a 15-start stretch early in his career (in 2003-04) when he was 3-7 with a 4.64 ERA and 1.43 WHIP...But what the chart above also proves is that it takes about 40 big league starts before a pitcher, on average, tends to hit his groove. Note the significant improvements in ERA, WHIP and innings per start of pitchers making their 41st through 50th starts compared to those in the 31-40 range. http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=3363285

[Moose Milligan]

Not sure why Trea thinks Tillman or any other pitcher can't make adjustments to correct whatever weaknesses they have. In ten seconds of Googling, I found this info:

Pitchers -- even the best -- take time to get acclimated to big league competition...Consider that Jake Peavy kicked off his career 14-15 with a 4.61 ERA in his first 38 starts. Johan Santana had a ghastly 6.49 ERA and 1.81 WHIP in 86 innings in his rookie year. Even Brandon Webb had a 15-start stretch early in his career (in 2003-04) when he was 3-7 with a 4.64 ERA and 1.43 WHIP...But what the chart above also proves is that it takes about 40 big league starts before a pitcher, on average, tends to hit his groove. Note the significant improvements in ERA, WHIP and innings per start of pitchers making their 41st through 50th starts compared to those in the 31-40 range. http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=3363285

We don't have time for pitchers to get acclimated to big league competition. We need to ramp up our talent so we can compete in the AL East...

[UMDTerrapins]

Trea should explain to us how much better off we were when we unloaded Mussina in early 1992 because of how much we feared his flyball tendencies.

I almost asked for a fact check on aisle 33. Sometimes words trick me when they aren't formed like I expect them.

[BedardisAce]

Geoge Sherrill

Okay, I didn't even plan on posting in this thread, but this is getting ridiculous. How old are you, honestly? I honestly think EVERY one of your posts has a grammar or spelling mistake, and it is absolutely ridiculous. I do not agree with most of your ideas, or with your childish way of arguing for them. However, you are entitled to post here just like anybody else.

But, it is an explicit rule on this board to spell names correctly and use grammar properly. It is honestly an eye sore to read your posts. Nothing personal, just had to point it out.

GeoRge Sherrill. That is all.