Originally Posted by cincinnati chili
He/she didn't call for a "no pitching" model. The call was to SPEND on hitters, and HUNT for pitchers. This makes sense because the outcomes of hitters are more predictable.
There is a precedent for this. At least one.
2002 Angels. They had exactly one expensive pitcher who was any good - Appier (see payrolls at bottom of link).
Otherwise, they loaded up on a bullpen from the independent leagues and pulled one phenom out of their minor league system.
We spent 12 years on the "buy hitters, scrounge for pitchers" model under Bowden.
Nothing's going to change: by the very nature of the beast starting pitchers with ALWAYS be "overvalued." There's just no changing that. And there's just no changing the fact that the teams that have mattered, since time out of mind, are the ones who possess starting pitching. And the ones who survive the postseason have starting pitching AND a bullpen. And the Reds still have neither.
I guess I'm just not buying the theory that the Reds can magically and proactively exploit the hitting and defense market and ride that train to multiple Central championships and pennants. First, the Reds just aren't that cagey a franchise; second, some other team in the Central will pluck up enough pitching to continually beat the Reds, who have none.