Photo

BSL: Pitching Staff Taking Shape


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 BSLNickStevens

BSLNickStevens

    Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • 92 posts
  • LocationHarrisonburg, VA

Posted 10 March 2020 - 09:40 AM

BSL: Pitching Staff Taking Shape

https://www.baltimor...f-taking-shape/


  • BSLChrisStoner and Mike B like this

@NickStevensR

Go Dukes!

Support your local minor league baseball team.


#2 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,829 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 10 March 2020 - 10:00 AM

Good read.  I am still surprised that the Orioles punted so early on the rule 5 guys.  I know some feel that it is because they like some of the other young starter candidates better, and I am sure that it is partly the case, but I think they think guys like LeBlanc, Milone, and Wojo are better suited at this point to eat innings and protect the young power arms in the pen.  


  • BSLNickStevens likes this
@mikeghg

#3 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,333 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 March 2020 - 12:08 AM

I'm in shape.  Pear is a shape.


  • Mackus likes this

#4 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 120,051 posts

Posted 11 March 2020 - 03:38 PM

Orioles.com: Here's the state of O's starting rotation
https://www.mlb.com/...petition-update



#5 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,333 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 March 2020 - 06:43 PM

If Cobb is healthy and can successfully navigate his way through 2020, the Orioles can salvage a little something out of his contract. His value to the organization will certainly be higher in an Orioles uniform rather than trading him, should he turn things around in 2020. All we can hope for is two years of health, 160+ innings of work per season, and the passing of some veteran knowledge and work ethic to the younger group of arms.


The only thing the Orioles can salvage out of Cobb's contract is hoping he pitches well enough to get out of some of the money.

I don't think his performance the next 2 years matters in terms of 'helping' the Orioles. There is no value.

The Orioles seem super concerned about the short-term money but I'd like to clear the back end money off the books, if for no other reason than to clean up the discussion.

Somebody will need a pitcher at some point and if Cobb looks anything more like the guy that had him the 3rd best FA starter several years ago, maybe you could free up some of the money.

The team that might need the most help today is the RedSox. They have nothing but question marks in their rotation, short term and mid term (not a lot of pitching depth) and they have a team that feels like should still want to compete.

I don't think it's realistic to evaluate all of the Orioles upper level LHSP, so I'd even consider throwing one of them into the deal.

If the Orioles ate more than half of the next 2 years (12M of the 20M) and dumped the 20M deferred in the deal, they can have their choice of Akin, Lowther or Wells.

Boston has more short term cash needs than long term so you could include most of the 2020 salary (say 9M this year and 3M next year).

Otherwise, you're hoping he pitches well and you get an opportunity from another team to dump salary.

#6 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 120,051 posts

Posted 11 March 2020 - 06:53 PM

The only thing the Orioles can salvage out of Cobb's contract is hoping he pitches well enough to get out of some of the money.

I don't think his performance the next 2 years matters in terms of 'helping' the Orioles. There is no value.

The Orioles seem super concerned about the short-term money but I'd like to clear the back end money off the books, if for no other reason than to clean up the discussion.

Somebody will need a pitcher at some point and if Cobb looks anything more like the guy that had him the 3rd best FA starter several years ago, maybe you could free up some of the money.

The team that might need the most help today is the RedSox. They have nothing but question marks in their rotation, short term and mid term (not a lot of pitching depth) and they have a team that feels like should still want to compete.

I don't think it's realistic to evaluate all of the Orioles upper level LHSP, so I'd even consider throwing one of them into the deal.

If the Orioles ate more than half of the next 2 years (12M of the 20M) and dumped the 20M deferred in the deal, they can have their choice of Akin, Lowther or Wells.


Boston has more short term cash needs than long term so you could include most of the 2020 salary (say 9M this year and 3M next year).

Otherwise, you're hoping he pitches well and you get an opportunity from another team to dump salary.

 

That's a horrible suggestion. 

 

Cobb's contract is not an issue for the O's.  If he doesn't perform, it doesn't matter. 
If he pitches like he did in the 2nd half of '18, and he contributes or even is an example for anyone on the roster in '20, and '21... that's great. 

 

 

You certainly don't need to get out of his contract to the point you need to give away an Akin and Lowther (arms with a legitimate chance to be a back end starter for you, under long-term control at no cost).  

Just no. 


  • BSLSteveBirrer and BSLNickStevens like this

#7 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 90,708 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 11 March 2020 - 07:35 PM

Yea, that suggestion makes no sense.

It’s also wrong that Cobb can’t have any value. I don’t think he can have much value at the deadline but he could after the season or at the deadline next year.

We won’t get anything major in all likelihood although a healthy Cobb pitching 170 innings of sub 4 ERA baseball could fetch something good in the offseason...I just don’t think that will happen.

He’s a veteran guy who is known for leadership. He has value to the team.
@BSLRobShields

#8 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,333 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 12 March 2020 - 12:03 AM

I would do Cobb, 10M and Lowther for Nick Decker in a heartbeat.

 

(I don't care about Nick Decker that much other than he's out of the 2018 draft and mlb.com has him at #12 behind 2 other OFers)

 

I agree the Orioles don't really need to worry about the money, but the reality is you don't likely need those guys to fill a role and they are stacked at the top of your system where you will have roster (opportunity, option) issues.  Use one to do something useful.



#9 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 90,708 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 12 March 2020 - 05:20 AM

I would do Cobb, 10M and Lowther for Nick Decker in a heartbeat.
 
(I don't care about Nick Decker that much other than he's out of the 2018 draft and mlb.com has him at #12 behind 2 other OFers)
 
I agree the Orioles don't really need to worry about the money, but the reality is you don't likely need those guys to fill a role and they are stacked at the top of your system where you will have roster (opportunity, option) issues.  Use one to do something useful.


Something useful isn’t trade them for nothing to save money. That’s just dumb.

And no one is going to give you anything of significance for Cobbs contract and Lowther.
@BSLRobShields

#10 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,333 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 March 2020 - 12:05 PM

Rob, you and I typically have different timelines for seeing a guy in the Majors.  I tend to be more conservative in the approach (more innings - or ABs - at a given level) and your perspective is, generally, once you pitch/play at AA I can promote you to the big team.

 

I have another post (that I guess I'll do here), but you get to decide on Hall and Rodriguez in terms of the year where we start their service time (ie, where they are a starter out of ST).  The expectation is we'd see them for some innings the year before that (post trade-deadline, in September, whatever).

 

Assuming reasonable progression (no TJS), what year would put (start of the year) our top3 pitching prospects (GRod, Hall, Kremer) into the starting rotation?

 

My answers are (and we see big league innings the year before)

Kremer - 2021

Rodriguez - 2023

Hall - 2023

 

How would you (or anyone else) like to adjust that expectation?



#11 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 120,051 posts

Posted 14 March 2020 - 12:11 PM

Rob, you and I typically have different timelines for seeing a guy in the Majors.  I tend to be more conservative in the approach (more innings - or ABs - at a given level) and your perspective is, generally, once you pitch/play at AA I can promote you to the big team.

 

I have another post (that I guess I'll do here), but you get to decide on Hall and Rodriguez in terms of the year where we start their service time (ie, where they are a starter out of ST).  The expectation is we'd see them for some innings the year before that (post trade-deadline, in September, whatever).

 

Assuming reasonable progression (no TJS), what year would put (start of the year) our top3 pitching prospects (GRod, Hall, Kremer) into the starting rotation?

 

My answers are (and we see big league innings the year before)

Kremer - 2021

Rodriguez - 2023

Hall - 2023

 

How would you (or anyone else) like to adjust that expectation?

 

Rodriguez and Hall will get ML innings in '21, and get extended ML time in '22.



#12 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,333 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 March 2020 - 02:44 PM

Rodriguez and Hall will get ML innings in '21, and get extended ML time in '22.

 

Chris, is it also reasonable to allow Kremer to start (out of ST) in 2021.

 

1) Permission to use your answer(s).

 

2) Permission to also coin a term (1SP) for the purposes of these discussions.  Was thinking about this a couple days ago following Mackus' response in the other thread.  If we consider what an average expectation for a given player is, there would be some bell curve of expected performances better or worse than that expectation.  Guys disappoint and guys surprise, but if a player performs within one-sigma (+/- 34%) of what that expected performance is, is it fair to suggest that we'd continue to allow/project opportunity to that player?

 

For example...Grayson Rodriguez is still some years away (maybe only 2) and he's currently rated by mlb.com as a top10 RHP (he's #10), with a good season and promotions of other guys in front of him, he'll likely be a top5 guy heading into 2021.  Continued expected performance would line him up for opportunity in the Orioles rotation.  Let's use 2022 and say things go that way where he slots in that manner (ie, he's a 2022 starter out of ST).  I think we all expect him to perform well (above average) but even if he had a 95 OPS+, we'd still look to give him the same continued opportunity in 2023, 2024, etc.  Is that fair?

 

As long as a player performances within his one-sigma-performance (now termed 1SP), we will continue to give him opportunity associated with that expected performance. (whatever the 'average' expectation is).

 

Is that reasonable?



#13 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 120,051 posts

Posted 14 March 2020 - 03:11 PM

As long as a player performances within his one-sigma-performance (now termed 1SP), we will continue to give him opportunity associated with that expected performance. (whatever the 'average' expectation is).

 

Is that reasonable?

 

That doesn't take into account other variables. 

 

Cost. 

 

Control. 

 

Other options. 

 

Depth and limitations.   (Someone has surprised - positively or negatively - and we have more or less usable depth than anticipated. We can now use that surplus depth to help obtain x.)



#14 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,333 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 March 2020 - 03:39 PM

That doesn't take into account other variables. 

Cost. 

Control. 

Other options. 

Depth and limitations.   (Someone has surprised - positively or negatively - and we have more or less usable depth than anticipated. We can now use that surplus depth to help obtain x.)

 

We certainly know what the cost and control profiles are for everyone on the Orioles going forward.

 

We can develop some reasonable assumptions that may be cost/years for a FA.

 

If you don't think a guy like Alberto will be worth ARB2 costs, then he gets non-tendered like scores of others guys that have flooded the FA market in recent years.  Steve thinks Hanser is a thing.  I doubt he'll be tendered a 2021 contract (although that's utterly in the Orioles control if they want to).

 

We know what are options are.  Nobody from A-ball this year is an option for 2021. 

 

I don't think it's difficult to reasonably consider any of those options.  That doesn't mean a guy like Means can't surprise much like Miguel Gonzalez did in 2012 in a season they (surprisingly) wound up caring about winning.  There will always be opportunity for players to contribute...like the Dodgers have done with guys like Muncy, Stripling, KikiH, Chrris Young, lots of guys, while they are competing.

 

Is there any reasonable condition where you aren't going to give your top 2 pitching prospects the real (ML) opportunity to take spots in the rotation?



#15 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 120,051 posts

Posted 14 March 2020 - 03:55 PM

The question you posed was, "As long as a player performances within his one-sigma-performance (now termed 1SP), we will continue to give him opportunity associated with that expected performance. (whatever the 'average' expectation is). Is that reasonable?" 

 

No, that's not reasonable unless you factor in the other variables I mentioned. 

 

 

 

To the latest question... no, there is no 'likely' condition where you won't give your top 2 pitching prospects the real (ML) extended opportunity to take spots in the rotation. 

 

*There are possibilities though. Such as Means came out of nowhere and became an All-Star.  If all of a sudden a couple of guys out of Akin, Kremer, Lowther, Baumann were also contributing front-end starters (which would a surprise); you might be more apt to trade Rodiguez or Hall (probably still not, but possible) to address a weakness elsewhere.



#16 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,333 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 March 2020 - 04:44 PM

The question you posed was, "As long as a player performances within his one-sigma-performance (now termed 1SP), we will continue to give him opportunity associated with that expected performance. (whatever the 'average' expectation is). Is that reasonable?" 

 

No, that's not reasonable unless you factor in the other variables I mentioned. 

 

OK, sorry, I'm not referring to just 'any' player, but a player that you (individually) have/project to be part of whatever.

 

If someone says that we have to "figure out if Rio Ruiz can be a future piece", than their opinion is you need to continue to give that player (whoever it is) an opportunity to prove or improve the expectation they have.  

 

You have said that about guys like Hays and Diaz.  You want to see them in the lineup.  If they perform within 1SP, then aren't you going to continue to promote them for that position?  At what point would you suggest, if a player was performing within your expectations, that "no, we have to get someone else for that position." ?



#17 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 120,051 posts

Posted 14 March 2020 - 05:00 PM

OK, sorry, I'm not referring to just 'any' player, but a player that you (individually) have/project to be part of whatever.

 

If someone says that we have to "figure out if Rio Ruiz can be a future piece", than their opinion is you need to continue to give that player (whoever it is) an opportunity to prove or improve the expectation they have.  

 

You have said that about guys like Hays and Diaz.  You want to see them in the lineup.  If they perform within 1SP, then aren't you going to continue to promote them for that position?  At what point would you suggest, if a player was performing within your expectations, that "no, we have to get someone else for that position." ?

 

Well... no, it's not that simple, because there will always be other considerations. 

 

You have Player X, and it's a year you can't contend. 
You want to evaluate Player X further, and you have the ability to do so in a year you can't contend. 
In the year you can't contend, Player X performs within 1 deviation +/- of expectations you had for him. 

 

That doesn't lock you into continuing to promote them for that position. 

 

- You might have developed other potential options.

- Player Y might have out-performed expectations you had for him, and given the depth you had at Y's position... you might be willing to trade Y to find a better option than X. 

 

- Players A,B,and C might have done enough that you think you now have a reasonable chance of contending the next year, if you improve on Player X. 

 

- Maybe there is a FA at Player X's position you now like better.  Maybe there are now trade candidates you now covet. 



#18 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 90,708 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 14 March 2020 - 06:07 PM

If Hall isn’t getting significant innings in 2021, there is likely an issue. GRod should be 2022.
@BSLRobShields

#19 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,333 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 March 2020 - 06:09 PM

- Players A,B,and C might have done enough that you think you now have a reasonable chance of contending the next year, if you improve on Player X. 

 

I don't have any issues with what you wrote (not just the quote above) but I don't think you ever have lineup stability at any point to make that decision (the quote above).  Even if you think you do, you'll likely be wrong.  

 

Pushing the decision points down the road doesn't increase your lineup predictability for any upcoming season. 

 

The Phillies moved all in last year and they accomplished almost nothing through rebuilding....they just started adding players.

 

The Padres have had the top rated MiL system for 2-3 year, including graduating guys to the majors and have been actively adding FA and trying to complete trades for players (that they've struggled to complete meaningfully).

 

The CWS, rebuilding darlings for the last 3 years, moved all in this year but they still have question marks everywhere.

 

What did the Reds accomplish in rebuilding?  They just decided to ramp up last year (some) and this year (more).



#20 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,333 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 March 2020 - 06:16 PM

If Hall isn’t getting significant innings in 2021, there is likely an issue. GRod should be 2022.

 

For the purpose of this exercise, I leave the answer up to you.  

 

Does DL Hall start the 2021 season in the MLs or MiLs?

 

Rob, is it fair to say that Kremer is our 3rd best SP prospect and you'd expect him to pitch this year and (1SP) start the 2021 season in the Majors?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners