Would You Trade Matusz and Tillman or Arietta for Cahill?

[JLowenstein]

Instead of cherry picking stats what about ERA, Wins, and WHIP?(

I love life and living.

[The Wedge]

Is that the same Palmer who said Nick should be our All Star rep?

And called him an "All-Star" player? Yes, he quickly amended that with "well, he hasn't won one, but he should have," but that's the long way around of saying he's...wait for it...waaaaaaaaait for iiiiiit...a gold glove caliber player.

I wouldn't do either deal. Trading players of relatively equal stature of the same position only makes sense if it's a "change of scenery" move. And throwing in EXTRA for Cahill is simply foolhardy dealing.

[Sports Guy]

RZ, 2 questions for you:

1) Are you going to continue to dodge the LD% question I posed to you?

2) How many times have you seen Cahill pitch?

[Sports Guy]

58% of Matusz's starts have gone 6 IP or more.

56% of Cahill's starts, he has gone 6 IP or more(including last night).

62.5% of his starts, Matusz has allowed 3 ER or less.

75% of his starts, Cahill has given up 3 ER or less.

And things that can't be overlooked:

1) Cahill pitches in a pitchers paradise.

2) Cahill has a better BP behind him.

3) Cahill plays for a much better team.

4) Cahill was brought up in the Oakland organization, which is obviously very good at developing young pitching.

5) Both players skipped AAA....Cahill threw over 100 more innings in the minors.

I like Cahill a lot and would love to have him but I just don't see anything that says he is worth Matusz, much less Matusz and Tillman or Arrieta.

This is a case of people seeing a guy one time, seeing his record and ERA and ignoring a lot of things.

[Stotle]

This is a very curious statement for a person whose hobby is making evaluations of players before they've even thrown a professional pitch, and then making "bold" statements as to which players he would choose. I guess what's good for the goose isn't necesarily good for anyone else.

If you see no distinction there, I don't know what to tell you.

My examinations of amateur players seldom if ever results in a bold or definitive statement. Usually, it's an examination of the pros and the cons, and a comment as to how likely I think a player is to reach his ceiling based on his current profile and the important aspects of his production thus far (to the extent there are certain significant statistics.

I've been on record saying that there is little to distinguish certain groups of amateur players and this year wrote that I thought there was little to distinguish over 125 players at the mid-season mark (stating that the majority of players in that certain group had the profile to make a charge into the Top 90 or so or fall out of the top 10 rounds completely).

Maybe the problem is you think that I assign more worth to my rankings than I actually do? Would make sense. It's more fun to attack someone when you paint them as a know-it-all, assign more meaning to certain statements than they are claiming, and then shoot those statements down. But we've been over this chestnut time and time again. I wonder if the next post will be about me being to sensitive and unable to take any dissenting opinions in stride...[yawn]

[NewMarketSean]

The A's have everything better than us...and yet they are still a mediocre team overall.

They own us. It just goes to show you how far away we are from even mediocrity.

[sangar]

The A's have everything better than us...and yet they are still a mediocre team overall.

They own us. It just goes to show you how far away we are from even mediocrity.

This is a depressing perspective, but unfortunately accurate.

[BRobinsonfan]

58% of Matusz's starts have gone 6 IP or more.

56% of Cahill's starts, he has gone 6 IP or more(including last night).

Wow! According to the OP's standards about starters going 7+ innings this makes Cahill - to use his words - more of a "little league pitcher" than Matusz.

Interesting to say the least.

[Stotle]

You could potentially see trading Matusz for Cahill. If you had to make that hypothetical decision today, does that mean you wouldn't or you couldn't?

We aren't being asked to make it 3 years down the road when we have a better idea what each pitcher turns out to be.

I find it curious that you say the stuff of both pitchers "can't be argued". Cahill throws just as hard with more movement (my opinion), has just as good a changeup (my opinion), and a good breaking ball. People are certainly entitled to their opinion (Vatech) but to say it can't be argued is interesting.

Well, I stated that Cahill's having better command at this point cannot be argued as well (I think -- I believe it was part of what I bolded). But while my opinion is that Matusz's stuff is better, let's see what pitch fx has to say:

Matusz vs Cahill 4S avg velo (90.7 vs. 90.7). 2S avg velo (89.7/90.0). Pitch fx doesn't always distinguish these well, but it seems like both are around the same general velo. Averaging out both velo's, Matusz comes out slightly ahead (90.6 to 90.0).

Matusz's 4S and 2S each seems a little straighter (4.3/11.1 horiz/vert vs. -8.6/7.5 horiz/vert) and 2S (8.6/8.7 horiz/vert vs -11.0/3.6 horiz/vert).

Matusz's curve is closer to 2-plane but overall they are similar (-4.8/-2.5 vs 3.6/-4.6).

Matusz's change has more movement (5.9/8.1 horiz/vert vs. 3.6/-4.6 horiz/vert) with a better velo delta (around 13 mph vs around 10/11 mph).

Their sliders/cutters are similar pitches but Matusz gets far more tilt (-2.3/1.3 horiz/vert vs. 0.2/2.6 horiz/vert).

He has had minimal pro instruction as compared to Cahill. Perhaps my language was too strong looking at pitch fx. According to fangraphs Matusz's change-up is the most valuable pitch either pitcher has -- worth -0.72 runs/100 times thrown. The match-ups are as followed:

(runs above average per 100 times thrown)

wFB/c -0.58 (M); -0.16 ©

wCB/c 1.78 (M); -0.47 ©

wCH/c -0.72 (M); 0.37 ©

xSL/c -0.11 (M); -0.47 ©

Looks like Matusz has the most and least effective pitches, overall. Delta is comparable, overall.

My language seems to have been a little too strong, and certainly too imprecise. That Matusz has better now stuff can certainly be argued. If the discussion is revolving around trading Matusz, "now" stuff is just a small piece of the puzzle unless you are being disingenuous. In honesty, both look like (statistically, visually, historically w/projection) potential front-end guys. I said I could see trading Matusz/Cahill but in honesty probably wouldn't because I don't think it's necessarily a forward movement and Matusz has had less pro time and instruction. He is also left-handed.

So in summary, my language was too strong. I still would have a tough time trading Matusz but think his value is probably about on par with Cahill. The stats SG has thrown up seem to favor Matusz; results thus far favor Cahill. Neither has pitched much at all at the ML level.

[Frobby]

58% of Matusz's starts have gone 6 IP or more.

56% of Cahill's starts, he has gone 6 IP or more(including last night).

62.5% of his starts, Matusz has allowed 3 ER or less.

75% of his starts, Cahill has given up 3 ER or less.

And things that can't be overlooked:

1) Cahill pitches in a pitchers paradise.

2) Cahill has a better BP behind him.

3) Cahill plays for a much better team.

4) Cahill was brought up in the Oakland organization, which is obviously very good at developing young pitching.

5) Both players skipped AAA....Cahill threw over 100 more innings in the minors.

I like Cahill a lot and would love to have him but I just don't see anything that says he is worth Matusz, much less Matusz and Tillman or Arrieta.

This is a case of people seeing a guy one time, seeing his record and ERA and ignoring a lot of things.

I think we're all sophisticated enough to know that Cahill's record is not that important. But yes, I think just looking at Cahill's age, the progress he has made in a year, his ERA and just watching him the couple of times he has faced the Orioles you can see he already is a pretty good pitcher. I think he spots his fastball better than Matusz, for example. His strikeout of Markakis was a thing of beauty.

Put it this way, Cahill is showing he already is a very good pitcher at a very young age. Matusz has the potential to be that good or perhaps better, but do you take the bird in the hand over the one in the bush?

[Stotle]

I think we're all sophisticated enough to know that Cahill's record is not that important. But yes, I think just looking at Cahill's age, the progress he has made in a year, his ERA and just watching him the couple of times he has faced the Orioles you can see he already is a pretty good pitcher. I think he spots his fastball better than Matusz, for example. His strikeout of Markakis was a thing of beauty.

Put it this way, Cahill is showing he already is a very good pitcher at a very young age. Matusz has the potential to be that good or perhaps better, but do you take the bird in the hand over the one in the bush?

Would you trade Strasburg for Josh Johnson and vice versa? Would you trade Grienke for Lincecum? I think when the players are that close in value, you probably just stick with your guy. But, shrug, to each his own. I probably stick with "my guy" too long for many posters' taste. Just don't switch my opinion on someone that quickly.

[Frobby]

Would you trade Strasburg for Josh Johnson and vice versa? Would you trade Grienke for Lincecum? I think when the players are that close in value, you probably just stick with your guy. But, shrug, to each his own. I probably stick with "my guy" too long for many posters' taste. Just don't switch my opinion on someone that quickly.

Give me Strasburg and Lincecum.

[Hank Scorpio]

The A's have everything better than us...and yet they are still a mediocre team overall.

They own us. It just goes to show you how far away we are from even mediocrity.

They have a much more refined offensive approach as a team.

They take pitches, they cut down on their swings with two strikes, they take the ball the other way.

[Stotle]

Give me Strasburg and Lincecum.

To be clear, you are making those moves if you are the Marlins/Royals GM?

[Saintbird]

Give me Strasburg and Lincecum.

Can you just imagine if these two guys were on the same team? That would be insane...Provided it's not the Yankees or Red Sox, that would just be maddening.