PDA

View Full Version : Pitching Observations



Kc61
08-21-2007, 11:10 AM
As much as fans/FO hype the young pitchers, it is painful to build a staff with youth. Look at all the younger pitchers who have struggled with the Reds this year. Dumatrait, Bailey, Coffey, McBeth, Belisle (first year starting), Salmon, Coutlangus (at the end of his stay), Burton at the beginning.

The Reds bullpen suffered because of three guys, each expected to throw a lot of innings. Stanton, Coffey and Bray. If those three were healthy and performing as expected the bullpen would have been pretty good. Stanton had a bad year, the FO guessed wrong. Blame the baseball gods for Bray's injury. Coffey was used 26 times in April and May and I wonder if that overuse destroyed his season; he looked good this spring and his bad year was unexpected.

The decision this off-season to go with Milton, Lohse and Belisle in the 3-4-5 rotation spots made it virtually impossible for the Reds to win. You can't have question marks pitching 60 percent of your games. If the Reds just "go with kids" next year in the 3-4-5 spots it will be painful to watch. They need to add at least one veteran quality starter to be semi-competitive.

dougdirt
08-21-2007, 11:14 AM
Bailey, McBeth, Salmon, Coutlangus and Belisle are all guys I have no worries about. McBeth pitched fine. His ERA looks bad, but his numbers are fine. Coutlangus and Salmon had ERA's under 4. Belisle is a fine #5. Bailey was hurt for part of the time he was up and still pitched well at times.

Kc61
08-21-2007, 11:37 AM
Bailey, McBeth, Salmon, Coutlangus and Belisle are all guys I have no worries about. McBeth pitched fine. His ERA looks bad, but his numbers are fine. Coutlangus and Salmon had ERA's under 4. Belisle is a fine #5. Bailey was hurt for part of the time he was up and still pitched well at times.

We're discussing different objectives. Your focus is whether these kids may have a good future -- some day. My focus is having a competitive ballclub -- soon.

For example, you may have no worries about McBeth and think his numbers are fine. But his 7.5 ERA and 1.5 WHIP didn't help the team this year. You may think Belisle is fine, but no other NL starter with 100 innings got hit as hard (.308 BAA), except a guy who was DFA'd.

The minor league kids are interesting and important. But, as my initial post said, relying on them too much is painful and unwise. You need an appropriate mixture, including more good veteran hurlers than the team currently has.

Sea Ray
08-21-2007, 11:52 AM
McBeth simply needs to learn to pitch inside. If all he does is nibble at the outside corner then he'll never make it.

cincrazy
08-21-2007, 01:02 PM
Good veteran pitcher's under $10 million don't grow on trees, and that's the problem with being a small to mid-market team like ourselves. We almost have no choice but to watch the young kids take their bumps.

I understand your position KC, but this team has been trying to "win now" for 8 seasons now, and they haven't done it correctly yet, so I almost wish they'd just blow it completely up and start from scratch with these kids.

TOBTTReds
08-21-2007, 01:09 PM
I would be comfortable with trying to win now with Burton, Cout, Salmon, Bray, McBeth, Maj/Coffey, and a vet like Stormy to close.

Kc61
08-21-2007, 01:11 PM
Good veteran pitcher's under $10 million don't grow on trees, and that's the problem with being a small to mid-market team like ourselves. We almost have no choice but to watch the young kids take their bumps.

I understand your position KC, but this team has been trying to "win now" for 8 seasons now, and they haven't done it correctly yet, so I almost wish they'd just blow it completely up and start from scratch with these kids.

I don't disagree, going "very young" would be a reasonable approach. All I'm saying is that it is painful to watch. Young pitchers have lots of growing pains; many don't ever overcome them.

My other points are that, if the Reds do want to be competitive near term, they have to add at least one good vet starter, one or two good relievers, avoid gambling on pitchers who are very iffy, and make better use of some of the current guys (avoid heavy overuse, for example). Mix in the kids, but with a more solid core of proven talent. I know, it costs a bit more than they seem willing to spend.

RedsManRick
08-21-2007, 01:16 PM
I don't disagree, going "very young" would be a reasonable approach. All I'm saying is that it is painful to watch. Young pitchers have lots of growing pains; many don't ever overcome them.

My other points are that, if the Reds do want to be competitive near term, they have to add at least one good vet starter, one or two good relievers, avoid gambling on pitchers who are very iffy, and make better use of some of the current guys (avoid heavy overuse, for example). Mix in the kids, but with a more solid core of proven talent. I know, it costs a bit more than they seem willing to spend.

Just curious, which non-iffy veteran starter and 2 non-iffy good relievers would you have us sign?

cincrazy
08-21-2007, 01:33 PM
I agree that we have to find someone, but as Rick mentioned, I don't know where in the world we'll find that. The market is just terrible, unless you have lobs of cash to throw around. This team's going to have to find a few diamonds in the rough to make next year watchable. Can you imagine if Harang ever went down with an injury, particularly next year? We'd make the 62 Mets look unbeatable :)

Kc61
08-21-2007, 01:44 PM
Just curious, which non-iffy veteran starter and 2 non-iffy good relievers would you have us sign?

Sandy Koufax, Mariano Rivera and Bruce Sutter. (Need a lefty starter and righty bullpenners.)

Seriously, I don't know who will be out there. But if the suggestion is that it is impossible for the Reds to afford or trade for high-end pitchers, I just don't buy it. If it cost $25 million to add these guys, then add $15 million to payroll and trade a corner outfielder. Milton will be off the books, use his salary slot.

Think big. Or at least bigger.

cincrazy
08-21-2007, 01:50 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/08/21/scoop.tuesday/index.html


Also in this column:
• Why the Price was wrong
• The problem with the draft
• Red Sox catch a break
• More news and notes

What was already the weakest free-agent starting pitcher market in years was made worse with the signing of Cubs ace Carlos Zambrano to a five-year, $91.5 million extension. There aren't any Zambrano replicas in the crop that remains, not even close. And it's likely no starting pitcher will get even a quarter of Zambrano's haul.

Zambrano and recently signed White Sox star Mark Buehrle were the potential gems of a free-agent class that now features a lot of age (Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Jon Lieber), pain (Randy Wolf, Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, Matt Clement, Eric Milton) and a combination of both (Kenny Rogers).

"It's a joke," is the way one general manager classified a group that contains a never ending supply of question marks to go along with some obvious talent.

Big free-agent signings have surprised us all before. But between the issues of age and pain, there may be only one or two multiyear contracts to be had here.

"There's nothing available," the GM added, before identifying the 40-year-old Schilling, who missed seven weeks with a shoulder issue, as the cream of the demonstrably weak crop.

Here are the best of the weakest free-agent group in years (side note: pitchers with options are not considered here; those include Steve Trachsel, Kris Benson, Tim Wakefield, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux and Kip Wells):

1. Schilling (7-5, 4.25). The Red Sox were probably wise not to rush into the two-year deal Schilling sought this spring and he later amended his request (at least publicly, via Boston radio station WEEI) to one year. They have up-and-comers Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz, but Schilling is more of a certainty, especially when healthy. The guess here is he returns for about the same $13 million guaranteed he made this year.

2. Clemens (5-5, 3.92). He's no longer a No. 1 pitcher but has been valuable as a solid No. 3 starter, adding credibility and a spark to the Yankees. If he returns at 46, he would still be well-paid on a one-year basis (though $28 million pro-rated won't be repeated).

3. Carlos Silva, Twins (9-12, 4.17). He's perhaps the sleeper of the class and is turning in a solid season but is often lost in a rotation led by Johan Santana.

4. Jeff Weaver, Mariners (5-10, 5.57). He's come on strong after another typically dreadful start, dropping his ERA from 14.32 entering June, while winning five of nine decisions.

5. Colon, Angels (6-6, 6.72). A former ace, he's talented, and at 34, he may have a few years left. But he's been injury-plagued the past couple (he's 7-11 since the start of '06), and his weight isn't a selling point, either.

6. Randy Wolf, Dodgers (9-6, 4.73). Wolf took a reasonable one-year deal to go home to the Dodgers when he could have gotten multiple years from the Cardinals, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Mets and others. A shoulder injury is expected to keep him out until at least September, and he's probably looking at no better than one-year offers this time.

7. Livan Hernandez, Diamondbacks (9-7, 4.86). He eats innings but seems to be all out of those dominating games we saw in the 1997 postseason. He's been surpassed by his older, more fit brother El Duque.

8. Freddy Garcia, Phillies (1-5, 5.90). Right from spring training, he never was right. When he is, he's one of the better clutch pitchers in the game. He could be a steal for someone.

9. Jason Jennings, Astros (2-8, 6.16). Jennings sought $12 million a year for four years about the time Houston surrendered three young players for him. But after an injury-ruined year in which his highlight was an game-winning pinch hit in extra innings, he'll be lucky to get guaranteed money.

10. Rodrigo Lopez, Rockies (5-4, 4.42). Lopez appeared to be on his way to a decent season when he was felled by a torn flexor tendon in his pitching arm. Might be a bargain for the back end of a rotation somewhere.

11. Rogers (3-2, 5.23). Returned from blood clot issue, but he's out now with a sore elbow. Lately he's been speaking of a quick return for what might be one last hurrah before possible retirement.

12. Lieber, Phillies (3-6, 4.73). Someone might prosper taking a flier on him after he didn't live up to his contract in Philly, which may not be the right park for him (or any other pitcher, for that matter). Yet another who's currently hurt.

13. Matt Clement, Red Sox (0-0, 0.00). It's been a pretty much a disaster there ever since he was shelled in his 2005 Division Series start at Chicago. Didn't pitch this year after shoulder surgery.

14. Eric Milton, Reds (0-4, 5.17). Milton has been associated with the gopherball almost since he got to Cincy. Out for the year after elbow surgery.

15. Josh Fogg, Rockies (7-8, 4.82). Fogg is strictly a back-end guy.



I just stumbled across this article on si.com, thought it would be fitting to post since we're talking about pitcher's that we could possibly add for next season. Let the debates begin!

dougdirt
08-21-2007, 01:59 PM
We're discussing different objectives. Your focus is whether these kids may have a good future -- some day. My focus is having a competitive ballclub -- soon.

For example, you may have no worries about McBeth and think his numbers are fine. But his 7.5 ERA and 1.5 WHIP didn't help the team this year. You may think Belisle is fine, but no other NL starter with 100 innings got hit as hard (.308 BAA), except a guy who was DFA'd.
McBeth pitched 10.2 innings. Lets not talk about how he did or didnt help the team this year. He wasn't given any type of real chance this year.

Belisle is a fine #5 pitcher. No other pitcher with 100 innings may have a batting average as high as his, but his ERA was the same or better than most of the NL's other #4 and 5's. So yeah, he is fine in that role.


The minor league kids are interesting and important. But, as my initial post said, relying on them too much is painful and unwise. You need an appropriate mixture, including more good veteran hurlers than the team currently has.
You do need an appropriate mixture..... but the problem is the Reds have 1 veteran reliever worth a crap in Weathers. Give me a young guy with upside over an old guy who sucks if the results are going to be the same. I would rather have McBeth throw than Stanton every day of the week.

nate
08-21-2007, 02:03 PM
I would rather have McBeth throw than Stanton every day of the week.

Recently, I'd like to have McBeth throw Stanton!

I appreciate the old guy and he's snapped off a few nasty curves but it seems like he's done.

Oh for the Mike Stanton of a decade ago.

RedsManRick
08-21-2007, 02:12 PM
Sandy Koufax, Mariano Rivera and Bruce Sutter. (Need a lefty starter and righty bullpenners.)

Seriously, I don't know who will be out there. But if the suggestion is that it is impossible for the Reds to afford or trade for high-end pitchers, I just don't buy it. If it cost $25 million to add these guys, then add $15 million to payroll and trade a corner outfielder. Milton will be off the books, use his salary slot.

Think big. Or at least bigger.

And that's the problem. Fixing the pitching by breaking the hitting doesn't really make us any better of a ballclub. It just gives us something else to complain about.

I'll take Dunn and Junior at their salaries and expected level of performance over using their salaries on any FA pitcher(s) unless the removal of one of those two is part of a trade in which we acquire substantial talent.

Kc61
08-21-2007, 02:17 PM
McBeth pitched 10.2 innings.

Belisle is a fine #5 pitcher. No other pitcher with 100 innings may have a batting average as high as his, but his ERA was the same or better than most of the NL's other #4 and 5's. So yeah, he is fine in that role.

You do need an appropriate mixture..... but the problem is the Reds have 1 veteran reliever worth a crap in Weathers. Give me a young guy with upside over an old guy who sucks if the results are going to be the same. I would rather have McBeth throw than Stanton every day of the week.

Belisle's 5.40 ERA was 55th of 58 NL starters with 100 innings. In all of MLB, for starters with 100 innings, his ERA was 100th of 111.

I hope Belisle and all these guys improve and do well. The point is that you can't bank on a bunch of unproven pitchers. You need a better nucleus of veteran starters and relievers. Not just Aaron Harang, David Weathers, and Arroyo in a good year.

I fully agree that I'd prefer a McBeth to an ineffective veteran. I want the Reds to get effective veterans. Other teams do.

dougdirt
08-21-2007, 02:24 PM
Belisle's 5.40 ERA was 55th of 58 NL starters with 100 innings. In all of MLB, for starters with 100 innings, his ERA was 100th of 111. (There are only 111 because most teams won't allow a 5.40 pitcher to go 100 innings.)

I fully agree that I'd prefer a kid to an ineffective veteran. I want the Reds to get effective veterans. Other teams do.

Thats my point though, only 58 pitchers qualify for that. 5 pitchers per 16 teams = 80 starters. A lot of guys were a lot worse than Belisle and werent even good enough to make it 100 innings before their teams cut the chords. Given injuries, there are probably close to 90-95 guys that have started 10-15 games this year and Belisle has been just as good if not better than a lot of the other teams #5 guys. That is the point you seem to be missing. You are comparing Belisle to other teams 1-2-3 guys and not other teams 4 and 5 guys, where is compares well or favorably in most cases.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 02:27 PM
Just curious, which non-iffy veteran starter and 2 non-iffy good relievers would you have us sign?

That's Wayne's job.

I don't care what this guy has to do to get it, he just has to get pitching. Sitting and crying about the lack of affordable pitching is getting old. If he can't afford it, he should be drafting it like there's no tomorrow in the upper rounds. Which he isn't, so far.

Kc61
08-21-2007, 02:43 PM
Thats my point though, only 58 pitchers qualify for that. 5 pitchers per 16 teams = 80 starters. A lot of guys were a lot worse than Belisle and werent even good enough to make it 100 innings before their teams cut the chords. Given injuries, there are probably close to 90-95 guys that have started 10-15 games this year and Belisle has been just as good if not better than a lot of the other teams #5 guys. That is the point you seem to be missing. You are comparing Belisle to other teams 1-2-3 guys and not other teams 4 and 5 guys, where is compares well or favorably in most cases.

This thread is not about Belisle and there's too much about him already. But your assumption is that most teams would keep a 5.40 pitcher in the rotation as a fourth or fifth guy. I disagree.

The reason so few have 100 innings is that most teams, with a 5.40 starter, pull the pitcher out of the rotation. As the Reds ultimately did. Only the Reds, so pitching starved, let him amass 135 innings before changing.

If there are other 5.40 pitchers in starting rotations, teams are not keeping them there. That's what the 100 inning thing shows.

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 02:48 PM
That's Wayne's job.

I don't care what this guy has to do to get it, he just has to get pitching. Sitting and crying about the lack of affordable pitching is getting old. If he can't afford it, he should be drafting it like there's no tomorrow in the upper rounds. Which he isn't, so far.

Based on the list of available Free Agents, it doesn't appear that affordablity is the issue. Getting one that doesn't stink is.

When you say, "that's Wayne's job" does he have access to a secret list of available free agents that we don't have access to? No matter how much you cross your arms and jump up and down, pout and stomp your feet, if they aren't out there, they aren't out there.

Doesn't mean you can trade, draft, etc but strictly talking about FA's if the crop sucks the crop sucks. What sort of magic wand do you want Wayne to wave to make the options better?

RedsManRick
08-21-2007, 03:05 PM
This thread is not about Belisle and there's too much about him already. But your assumption is that most teams would keep a 5.40 pitcher in the rotation as a fourth or fifth guy. I disagree.

The reason so few have 100 innings is that most teams, with a 5.40 starter, pull the pitcher out of the rotation. As the Reds ultimately did. Only the Reds, so pitching starved, let him amass 135 innings before changing.

If there are other 5.40 pitchers in starting rotations, teams are not keeping them there. That's what the 100 inning thing shows.

You're making a faulty assumption that the guys getting less than 100 innings, the guys replacing other teams' Belisles, are better.

Spreading out 200 innings of a 5.50 ERA across 4 different pitchers is no more or less effective than getting that 5.50 ERA from 1 guy.

The idea that teams are running around getting sub 5 ERAs from their 5 starters is just plain wrong. Sure, not many teams stick with a 5.00+ ERA guy for long, but that's just because it feels better to spread the suckitude rather than for the sake of using better pitchers.

Take the Dodgers for example. They have one of the best pitching staffs in the NL.

Here are the guys who have starts for them this year, sorted by number of starts:



NAME GM IP ERA
Brad Penny 26 167.0 2.59
Derek Lowe 25 159.0 3.45
Randy Wolf 18 102.2 4.73
Mark Hendrickson 15 107.2 5.18
Brett Tomko 14 100.0 5.67
Chad Billingsley 12 101.2 3.63
Jason Schmidt 6 25.2 6.31
Hong-Chih Kuo 6 30.1 7.42
Eric Stults 2 23.0 3.91

Penny and Lowe have been a solid 1-2. Wolf has been up and down at #3 and Billingsley has been solid since joining the rotation. But what about Hendrickson, Tomko, and Kuo? If you take out one of them for the other, what are you gaining?

There just aren't enough sub 5.00 ERA starting pitchers to go around.

Here are the Mets, who are #2 in team ERA.



NAME GM IP ERA
Tom Glavine 26 157.1 4.12
John Maine 24 145.1 3.59
Oliver Perez 22 135.2 3.52
Orlando Hernandez 21 131.0 3.09
Jorge Sosa 14 96.1 4.11
Mike Pelfrey 9 48.2 5.92
Brian Lawrence 3 16.0 5.06
Jason Vargas 2 10.1 12.19
Chan Ho Park 1 4.0 15.75
Dave Williams 1 3.1 21.60

Neither the Mets or LA suffer financially. Heck, the dodgers spent $16M per year for Jason Schmidt. I'll let you look up the Padres, who also can't find a 5th starter with a sub 5.00 ERA despite the best staff in baseball.

It's a numbers game that even a massive payroll increase won't likely address. You shouldn't be happy with a 5.40 ERA from any of your pitchers. However, spending every last dime, sacrificing elsewhere, and spending $10M for a chance to maybe upgrade 1 SP from 5.40 to 4.40 probably isn't worth the cost.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 03:07 PM
Based on the list of available Free Agents, it doesn't appear that affordablity is the issue. Getting one that doesn't stink is.

When you say, "that's Wayne's job" does he have access to a secret list of available free agents that we don't have access to? No matter how much you cross your arms and jump up and down, pout and stomp your feet, if they aren't out there, they aren't out there.

Doesn't mean you can trade, draft, etc but strictly talking about FA's if the crop sucks the crop sucks. What sort of magic wand do you want Wayne to wave to make the options better?

This team is is desperate need of pitching. Presently and in the future.

Wayne is the GM.

It is his job to figure out how to get pitching. Whether it is by draft, trade, FA, intl FA, secret list, magic wand, beg, borrow or steal, it really doesn't matter. If his teams continue to have ERAs like this team does, I doubt there will be many excuses that will save his job.

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 03:14 PM
This team is is desperate need of pitching. Presently and in the future.

Wayne is the GM.

It is his job to figure out how to get pitching. Whether it is by draft, trade, FA, intl FA, secret list, magic wand, beg, borrow or steal, it really doesn't matter. If his teams continue to have ERAs like this team does, I doubt there will be many excuses that will save his job.

Up next.....

http://www.bobandtomstore.com/frames/store_2004/mr_obvious/mr_o_150.jpg

The discussion you responded to was in regards to the current crop of FA's. The list is chock full of dreck, yet you expect Wayne to somehow weave gold from straw.

I agree 100% that the team needs a "Manhattan Project" regarding overhualing finding and developing new pitching tallent. I also agree 100% that drafting and international scouting efforts need to be ramped up significantly.

However, none of that adresses the short terms issues. And as RMR pointed out, many other teams in MLB are trying to sort out the same short term issues with the same list of limited answers. This past trade deadline might have been a subtle clue that few teams are willing to let go of any assets, let alone pitching right now. So the chances of Wayne doing anything to your satisfaction in the short term are nearly nill no matter how long you hold your breath.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 03:24 PM
Up next.....

http://www.bobandtomstore.com/frames/store_2004/mr_obvious/mr_o_150.jpg

The discussion you responded to was in regards to the current crop of FA's. The list is chock full of dreck, yet you expect Wayne to somehow weave gold from straw.

I agree 100% that the team needs a "Manhattan Project" regarding overhualing finding and developing new pitching tallent. I also agree 100% that drafting and international scouting efforts need to be ramped up significantly.

However, none of that adresses the short terms issues. And as RMR pointed out, many other teams in MLB are trying to sort out the same short term issues with the same list of limited answers. This past trade deadline might have been a subtle clue that few teams are willing to let go of any assets, let alone pitching right now. So the chances of Wayne doing anything to your satisfaction in the short term are nearly nill no matter how long you hold your breath.

His first 2 drafts have not given me much hope in the way of pitching. I see nothing in the short term and I don't see much in the long term which Wayne can call his own.

Kc61
08-21-2007, 03:26 PM
You're making a faulty assumption that the guys getting less than 100 innings, the guys replacing other teams' Belisles, are better.

There just aren't enough sub 5.00 ERA starting pitchers to go around.


It's a numbers game that even a massive payroll increase won't likely address. You shouldn't be happy with a 5.40 ERA from any of your pitchers. However, spending every last dime, sacrificing elsewhere, and spending $10M for a chance to maybe upgrade 1 SP from 5.40 to 4.40 probably isn't worth the cost.

Whether it is worth spending on a #5 is sort of a moot point right now. When the Reds have a legitimate 1 through 4 we can continue the debate.

nate
08-21-2007, 03:27 PM
This team is is desperate need of pitching.

So are the vast majority of other major league teams. That's why its so expensive in dollars and talent.

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 03:31 PM
His first 2 drafts have not given me much hope in the way of pitching. I see nothing in the short term and I don't see much in the long term which Wayne can call his own.

Apparently all 31 pitchers of the 53 players drafted this year have already washed out?

Wow, someone of them probabably haven't reported to a team yet. What a shame.

Oh well, we'll try again next year.

nate
08-21-2007, 03:36 PM
His first 2 drafts have not given me much hope in the way of pitching. I see nothing in the short term and I don't see much in the long term which Wayne can call his own.

He's acquired quite a few minor league pitchers this year. For example:

Matt Maloney
Alexander Smit
Marcus McBeth
Jared Burton

Plus 6 pitchers drafted in the first 10 rounds (13 picks) to go with 6 in the first 10 rounds of last years draft.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 03:52 PM
Apparently all 31 pitchers of the 53 players drafted this year have already washed out?

Wow, someone of them probabably haven't reported to a team yet. What a shame.

Oh well, we'll try again next year.


He's acquired quite a few minor league pitchers this year. For example:

Matt Maloney
Alexander Smit
Marcus McBeth
Jared Burton

Plus 6 pitchers drafted in the first 10 rounds (13 picks) to go with 6 in the first 10 rounds of last years draft.

There's a difference between targeting pitching and seriously targeting pitching. Watching the Tigers nab the top pitching in the first round each year by ponying up the bucks (Verlander, Miller, Porcello) is what I am talking about. Not just drafting more pitching than hitting.

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 03:56 PM
There's a difference between targeting pitching and seriously targeting pitching. Watching the Tigers nab the top pitching in the first round each year by ponying up the bucks (Verlander, Miller, Porcello) is what I am talking about. Not just drafting more pitching than hitting.

Pouring all your eggs into one "can't miss" pitching draftee considering how volitle they can be doesn't strike me as a wise use of resources.

I'm more in the camp of draft a whole passel of them and see who turns out. Just a different draft philosphy I suppose.

But I'm glad we nailed down that it's a "serrious targeting" of pitching you'd like to see, not just your every-day, garden varity of targeting pitching.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 04:41 PM
Pouring all your eggs into one "can't miss" pitching draftee considering how volitle they can be doesn't strike me as a wise use of resources.

I'm more in the camp of draft a whole passel of them and see who turns out. Just a different draft philosphy I suppose.

But I'm glad we nailed down that it's a "serrious targeting" of pitching you'd like to see, not just your every-day, garden varity of targeting pitching.

If someone uses 25 out of 50 DPs on pitching, there is a rather large difference depending on if it was their first 25 or their last 25.

nate
08-21-2007, 04:59 PM
If someone uses 25 out of 50 DPs on pitching, there is a rather large difference depending on if it was their first 25 or their last 25.

How many pitching picks should there be in the first 25 rounds to bump us into "seriously targeting" range?

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 05:32 PM
How many pitching picks should there be in the first 25 rounds to bump us into "seriously targeting" range?

Maybe taking a pitcher who is inside of the top 50 prospects could be a starting point.

dougdirt
08-21-2007, 05:50 PM
Maybe taking a pitcher who is inside of the top 50 prospects could be a starting point.

Kyle Lotzkar was taken at #53.

Fairly close.

RedsManRick
08-21-2007, 05:55 PM
Maybe taking a pitcher who is inside of the top 50 prospects could be a starting point.

Like Ryan Wagner (14th overall), Thomas Pauly (51st), Chris Gruler (3rd), Dustin Moseley (34rd), Ty Howington (14th), Sean Watson (60th), Travis Wood (52nd)?

Sure, I'd love to get David Price or Rick Porcello in the system as well. But until we can develop the pitchers we draft, that's only part of the equation.

Yes, our pitching could be better and needs to be better if we're going to win. But the idea that the offense is completely fine now and in to the future and the pitching is God-awful is simply outdated.

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 06:03 PM
Maybe taking a pitcher who is inside of the top 50 prospects could be a starting point.

Man you have a moving target.

Not just target pitching but serriously target pitching.

Not just draft pitcing, but draft pitching in the early rounds.

Not just draft in the early rounds, but draft in the top 50 ranked prospects.

It's like trying to do jumping jacks in quick sand.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 06:13 PM
Like Ryan Wagner (14th overall), Thomas Pauly (51st), Chris Gruler (3rd), Dustin Moseley (34rd), Ty Howington (14th), Sean Watson (60th), Travis Wood (52nd)?

Sure, I'd love to get David Price or Rick Porcello in the system as well. But until we can develop the pitchers we draft, that's only part of the equation.

Yes, our pitching could be better and needs to be better if we're going to win. But the idea that the offense is completely fine now and in to the future and the pitching is God-awful is simply outdated.

Sure. There are also top 50 pitchers who have worked out, top 50 hitters who have been busts and top 50 hitters who have worked out.

dougdirt
08-21-2007, 06:14 PM
Like Ryan Wagner (14th overall), Thomas Pauly (51st), Chris Gruler (3rd), Dustin Moseley (34rd), Ty Howington (14th), Sean Watson (60th), Travis Wood (52nd)?

Sure, I'd love to get David Price or Rick Porcello in the system as well. But until we can develop the pitchers we draft, that's only part of the equation.

Yes, our pitching could be better and needs to be better if we're going to win. But the idea that the offense is completely fine now and in to the future and the pitching is God-awful is simply outdated.

I don't think Watson or Wood really belong in that grouping there....

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 06:42 PM
Man you have a moving target.

Not just target pitching but serriously target pitching.

Not just draft pitcing, but draft pitching in the early rounds.

Not just draft in the early rounds, but draft in the top 50 ranked prospects.

It's like trying to do jumping jacks in quick sand.

That's just ridiculous. But you can nit pick all you want....it really makes no difference.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 06:43 PM
I don't think Watson or Wood really belong in that grouping there....

Neither does Moseley, since he actually gets into big league stadiums without a ticket.

RedsManRick
08-21-2007, 06:48 PM
I don't think Watson or Wood really belong in that grouping there....

Point still stands with them excluded. We have drafted pitchers in the first 50 picks. We haven't developed them well. Watson and Wood are TBD.

RedsManRick
08-21-2007, 06:48 PM
Sure. There are also top 50 pitchers who have worked out, top 50 hitters who have been busts and top 50 hitters who have worked out.

So, where are our top 50 pitchers who have worked out?

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 06:52 PM
So, where are our top 50 pitchers who have worked out?

They don't have to be "ours". Plenty of top 50 pitching prospects work out. But you won't have many top 50 guys work out if you aren't drafting them.

nate
08-21-2007, 07:08 PM
Kyle Lotzkar was taken at #53.

Fairly close.

But we're trying to find the "seriously targeting" range.

Although that's close, I'm sure someone might've smirked. Perhaps even went for a "finger pull."

At the very least, no brows were furrowed and no chins were stroked.

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 07:19 PM
That's just ridiculous. But you can nit pick all you want....it really makes no difference.

I agree! Jumping jacks in quick sand are no fun. Your socks get filthy.

Look, my only point is that the FA market this year stinks, so huffing and puffing that Wayne should be doing this or that makes little sense.

This past year's draft they drafted 31 pitchers. 31 out of 50+ picks. And we started drafting them with a first round suplemental pick so it wasn't like they dailied around. I know, I know....it wasn't the #1 pitching prospect of the universe so it doesn't count. Whatever. More than one 1st round pitching hoss has imploded while more than one 6th round guy has become a solid major leaguer. So your "if he's not the best it doesn't count" theory doesn't hold much water IMO.

But without overhauling the pitching development departments and increasing the overseas scouting efforts, they will remain stymined with seeing these prospects turn into real live pitchers. I think on that part, at least, we agree.

And RMR raises a good point, you can't totally forget the offense along the way.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 08:48 PM
I agree! Jumping jacks in quick sand are no fun. Your socks get filthy.

Look, my only point is that the FA market this year stinks, so huffing and puffing that Wayne should be doing this or that makes little sense.

This past year's draft they drafted 31 pitchers. 31 out of 50+ picks. And we started drafting them with a first round suplemental pick so it wasn't like they dailied around. I know, I know....it wasn't the #1 pitching prospect of the universe so it doesn't count. Whatever. More than one 1st round pitching hoss has imploded while more than one 6th round guy has become a solid major leaguer. So your "if he's not the best it doesn't count" theory doesn't hold much water IMO.

But without overhauling the pitching development departments and increasing the overseas scouting efforts, they will remain stymined with seeing these prospects turn into real live pitchers. I think on that part, at least, we agree.

And RMR raises a good point, you can't totally forget the offense along the way.

FA market stinks...the Reds shouldn't sign anyone. The FA market is great, the Reds can't afford anyone.

Drafting pitching is too risky.

I'm not sure how the hell they are supposed to get it. If the only way Wayne is going to try and better the organizational pitching is by drafting tons of 2nd tier and beyond guys and by signing 4th rate FAs, then we are in a lot of trouble.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 08:48 PM
But we're trying to find the "seriously targeting" range.

Although that's close, I'm sure someone might've smirked. Perhaps even went for a "finger pull."

At the very least, no brows were furrowed and no chins were stroked.

Clever.

Kc61
08-21-2007, 08:50 PM
Like Ryan Wagner (14th overall),

Yes, our pitching could be better and needs to be better if we're going to win. But the idea that the offense is completely fine now and in to the future and the pitching is God-awful is simply outdated.

The pitching is pretty awful, Rick. Don't think that part is outdated.

I know there are some good kids around, but at the major league level right now there is Harang, Arroyo, Weathers, Burton, Bray. That's it. And Arroyo's had a bad year. And Burton and Bray are hot now but who knows if it will last long term. Maybe add Livingston. Maybe.

The team needs three starters and about 4 relievers.

The Reds have the worst team ERA in the NL.

I don't think the offense is completely fine, but the pitching. . . .

nate
08-21-2007, 08:51 PM
Clever.

Pithy!

nate
08-21-2007, 09:00 PM
FA market stinks...the Reds shouldn't sign anyone. The FA market is great, the Reds can't afford anyone.

Drafting pitching is too risky.

I'm not sure how the hell they are supposed to get it. If the only way Wayne is going to try and better the organizational pitching is by drafting tons of 2nd tier and beyond guys and by signing 4th rate FAs, then we are in a lot of trouble.

And more to the point. The FA market stunk last year too. Pitching is a deer commodity.

How do we know they're 2nd tier until we see them at or closer to the big leagues?

If the 2nd tier guys all turn out to be average, isn't that better than what we have?

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 09:29 PM
And more to the point. The FA market stunk last year too. Pitching is a deer commodity.

How do we know they're 2nd tier until we see them at or closer to the big leagues?

If the 2nd tier guys all turn out to be average, isn't that better than what we have?

Yeah, and average pitching gets you where?

The FA market stunk last year and Cincy couldn't even get in the door. I can't wait for a good FA market.

nate
08-21-2007, 09:31 PM
Yeah, and average pitching gets you where?

The FA market stunk last year and Cincy couldn't even get in the door. I can't wait for a good FA market.

Where would be if we had average pitching and the same offense?

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 09:59 PM
Where would be if we had average pitching and the same offense?

They'd be an average team, since they've scored a slightly above average amount of runs.

Best case they'd be the paper champions of the NL Central, if the year they had average pitching was a year like this year.

Worst case, they finish 10 games out or so.

nate
08-21-2007, 10:34 PM
They'd be an average team, since they've scored a slightly above average amount of runs.

Best case they'd be the paper champions of the NL Central, if the year they had average pitching was a year like this year.

Worst case, they finish 10 games out or so.

Paper champions are still champions.

The worst case isn't going to be any different from this year.

edabbs44
08-21-2007, 10:43 PM
Paper champions are still champions.

The worst case isn't going to be any different from this year.

But they'd be paper champs b/c of the complete disaster known as the NL Central. Agreed...I'd much rather be paper champs than cellar dwellars, but you shouldn't shoot for mediocrity.

BrooklynRedz
08-22-2007, 12:25 AM
But they'd be paper champs b/c of the complete disaster known as the NL Central. Agreed...I'd much rather be paper champs than cellar dwellars, but you shouldn't shoot for mediocrity.

Right. Like last year's paper champions from St. Louis. The division has represented the league in the WS three years running.

BrooklynRedz
08-22-2007, 12:53 AM
Yeah, and average pitching gets you where?

The FA market stunk last year and Cincy couldn't even get in the door. I can't wait for a good FA market.

If my math is right, a league-average pitching staff gets this team 64 wins after today's game and 83 on 162 games.

edabbs44
08-22-2007, 07:16 AM
Right. Like last year's paper champions from St. Louis. The division has represented the league in the WS three years running.

So do you truly believe that those teams were the best in the NL for those seasons? Don't get me wrong...I would love to get any WS win. But I'd rather have a team that builds itself to be competitive year after year b/c of talent.

Ltlabner
08-22-2007, 07:55 AM
Where would be if we had average pitching and the same offense?

Ahead of where we are with horrable pitching and the same offense.

In some corners of the world, they call that improvement.

nate
08-22-2007, 08:20 AM
So do you truly believe that those teams were the best in the NL for those seasons? Don't get me wrong...I would love to get any WS win. But I'd rather have a team that builds itself to be competitive year after year b/c of talent.

I don't believe they were the best in the NL.

But they were the best when it counted.

And, yes, I'd rather have a team that's competitive year after year because of talent.

I would go so far as to seriously target it!

edabbs44
08-22-2007, 08:56 AM
Ahead of where we are with horrable pitching and the same offense.

In some corners of the world, they call that improvement.

For people like us Reds fans, mediocrity sometimes seems like excellence. I don't blame you for feeling that way. But one of the best things about this game is that small increments of improvement aren't necessary. It is possible to go from having awful pitching to having very good pitching in short time. You just need to get good pitching. Sounds much easier than it is, but you don't have to stop at decent on the way to very good.

It is completely possible for the Reds to be playoff bound in the near future if certain things happen.

edabbs44
08-22-2007, 08:57 AM
I don't believe they were the best in the NL.

But they were the best when it counted.

And, yes, I'd rather have a team that's competitive year after year because of talent.

I would go so far as to seriously target it!

Thanks Nate.

Ltlabner
08-22-2007, 10:38 PM
For people like us Reds fans, mediocrity sometimes seems like excellence. I don't blame you for feeling that way.

Yea, that's what I really said.

Improvement is a process. You can agrue over the length of time needed to acheive sucess, but it's a process to get there. Part of that process is the FA market (which was the topic being discussed). If the market stinks, now amount of pouting is going to change that market.

But hey, stomping your feet is fun. I don't blame you for feeling that way.