Hypothetical on Rebuild Going Back 3-4 years...Worth it in hindsight?

[davell]

He's been in the system for 3 years, so I don't consider the age to be of any big concern. The stuff is still considered mid rotation level. The walks came down a bunch. The K rate dropped, but that's about the only negative I see with his season. It's pretty obvious they've been super careful with him, even saying as much. I'll gladly go on record saying I think he gets 10 starts next year. Either way, that's missing the bigger point.

 

It's stupid bitching about upper level pitching prospects when you want hitting taken in the 1st and even moreso when you basically say anything outside of the first is damn near useless. We've got ammo to go get it and I can't imagine us not doing just that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The point is going well over your head.

 

It isn't "bitching." It is acknowledging that there is no free lunch and there are no guarantees. Chasing hitters was the right play, but it still left a vulnerability that could ruin seasons in the future.

[davell]

The point is going well over your head.

 

It isn't "bitching." It is acknowledging that there is no free lunch and there are no guarantees. Chasing hitters was the right play, but it still left a vulnerability that could ruin seasons in the future.

 

Nothing's going over my head whatsoever. Your flat out failure to acknowledge we've got left over pieces to acquire pitching suggests in fact, it's way over yours.

[Guest]

The team isn't loaded with pitching so there's a very real possibility that could derail future seasons. That risk exists with most teams though(because f pitchers), so while nothing is remotely guaranteed, their future is as bright as any team's.

 

With regards to this team's health, there's a matter of luck and it's partially an effect of design. Part of Lester's appeal was his durability, Hendricks is a guy who is easier on his arm than others with the percentage of fastballs/changes he throws and their velocities, they made sure not to overextend Hammel, even Arrieta's supreme physical condition is an indicator he should hold up over a higher workload than he's seen before. I'm not sure how repeatable that is, the Rays were the gold standard for a while and then they've had their share of pitcher injuries recently, but looking at it from the aspect that they got X% of starts and that's lucky is a bit simplistic.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ok, no problems then, perfect future incoming. Pierce Johnson had an awesome season, too.

 

Hint: Epstein, like everyone else, has a mixed history when going out and acquiring MLB pitching.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So while nothing is remotely guaranteed, their future is as bright as any team's.

 

Yes, but I think many fans are overestimating how much it means to have the best future on paper. Given the nature of the sport, projections even two year into the future are going to be very tightly bunched

 

This gets into why whiffing on three seasons for future compensation isn't necessarily a good trade, because it is so easy for the upside you were betting on to be derailed, but the downside is locked in immediately.

 

The part where you come up with ad hoc explanations for each individual pitcher being less likely to get hurt? I don't put much faith in that, but there isn't much point in arguing because we will just see.

[davell]

I'll admit, rightly or wrongly, I'm not worried about our young hitting whatsoever. I think that from here on out we'll switch gears and take upside pitching that falls due to injury or whatever in the 1st round of the draft. No one has a fool proof way to address pitching, but I feel comfortable a strength in numbers approach will keep us from imploding too.

[Guest]

So while nothing is remotely guaranteed, their future is as bright as any team's.

 

Yes, but I think many fans are overestimating how much it means to have the best future on paper. Given the nature of the sport, projections even two year into the future are going to be very tightly bunched

 

This gets into why whiffing on three seasons for future compensation isn't necessarily a good trade, because it is so easy for the upside you were betting on to be derailed, but the downside is locked in immediately.

 

The part where you come up with ad hoc explanations for each individual pitcher being less likely to get hurt? I don't put much faith in that, but there isn't much point in arguing because we will just see.

 

They absolutely need to continue to develop good players to ensure the future stays bright, but the Cubs with a lineup full of 25 year old good hitters are probably a bit more immune to variance than the average 90 game winner.

 

"Whiffing on three seasons" is a mischaracterization(I'll give you one), but I don't want the 85th rendition of that argument.

 

With the pitchers, I'm not saying 'see they knew no one would miss time', and some of those are stronger reasons than others. My point is that the durability of the rotation is probably a larger focus than we give it credit for. That's part of why Lester was the guy, part of why Edwards was banished from the AA rotation as early as he was, etc.

[Guest]

Kyle probably also doesn't pay enough attention to the minors to note the emergence of guys like Williams and Markey

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And I think teams with old, thin pitching situations are less able to weather variance than the average 90-game winner. You can't get the full picture without acknowledging both, the young deep hitting and the old thin pitching.

[Guest]

And I think teams with old, thin pitching situations are less able to weather variance than the average 90-game winner. You can't get the full picture without acknowledging both, the young deep hitting and the old thin pitching.

There's actually a fair amount of studies out there that says older pitching is less susceptible to injuries than young pitching.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Kyle probably also doesn't pay enough attention to the minors to note the emergence of guys like Williams and Markey

 

I'm sure I like them a lot less than davell does.

[davell]

Expecting the health of our rotation next year to be on a par with this year is probably not intelligent. But I suspect we'll build depth again in the offseason. Probably to the point that one of Hammel or Hendricks is going to not be in the rotation, if we are healthy. If that IS done, I'm not sure what else can even be hoped for. Other than more 6/7/8 types that'll disintegrate over the course of the season as they usually do. If we're in need at the deadline, it can be addressed again then.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And I think teams with old, thin pitching situations are less able to weather variance than the average 90-game winner. You can't get the full picture without acknowledging both, the young deep hitting and the old thin pitching.

There's actually a fair amount of studies out there that says older pitching is less susceptible to injuries than young pitching.

 

 

Yes and no. The collapse rate starts creeping up again after mid-20s, even if it never gets as high as it was in the 19-22 injury nexus.

[davell]

Kyle probably also doesn't pay enough attention to the minors to note the emergence of guys like Williams and Markey

 

I'm sure I like them a lot less than davell does.

 

Good try. Neither will be inside my top 15.

[mul21]

Pierce Johnson got hurt and had thoroughly unimpressive peripherals. It was almost a disastrous season, pretty era or not.

 

Let's sequence this properly. He started the year out hurt, then came back and pitched pretty well, albeit with unspectacular peripherals. He's healthy now, which isn't how your post sounds.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Pierce Johnson got hurt and had thoroughly unimpressive peripherals. It was almost a disastrous season, pretty era or not.

 

Let's sequence this properly. He started the year out hurt, then came back and pitched pretty well, albeit with unspectacular peripherals. He's healthy now, which isn't how your post sounds.

 

By far the most useful predictor of future injuries is recent injuries. Any injury on a pitcher's history, even if he comes back from it, puts them in a much higher risk category in the future. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19653

 

The two worst things that can happen to a pitching prospect in any given season are an injury and a notable drop in Ks. Pierce Johnson had both last year.

[davell]

I hate turning this thread into the merits of a guy that admittedly likely winds up in our pen. But I like him. The K rate supposedly dropped due to him using a cutter that induced weak contact. Excuse? Could be. But guys do truly work on things in the minors and I've never been a guy that's just going to look at stat lines in the minors. He's got a plus curve and his FB is plus most of the time. The cutter appears to be an average 3rd pitch and he's still throwing a change too(not well). The topic was started over not having anything exciting in the upper levels-Personally, I think 2 plus pitches qualifies. Some may not. If I'm wrong, it's certainly not going to be the first time. But I get the impression that we like him a lot and have been extremely cautious with him moreso than him necessarily needing to miss the entire amounts of time he has.

 

The older pitching staff stuff doesn't bother me at all. If you can't count on pitching anyway, why does age even matter? Especially when you're always basically going to be looking for pitching anyway. I suspect we'll add a frontline FA and probably trade for a younger guy that's ready or awfully close. Plus add the depth that vanishes over the course of the season.

 

If that fails to take us to the trade deadline, I'll be shocked. At that point, if pitching is needed, address it again then. I get that pitching is worrisome, but there's plenty of time and plenty of options to address it at as well.

[SouthSideRyan]

if this playoff format existed in 2011, we very easily might not have Theo (and this team) and who knows what we'd have instead.

 

maybe rick hahn or ben cherington?

 

Part of me thinks we'd have gone after Friedman. If we missed, my honest guess is we'd still have Jed. My guess is since Ricketts was talking to the Red Sox guys so much back then, Theo would have steered him that way and he would have listened.

 

I don't think Jed leaves without Theo. oh I can go to a really shitty team with no money? Sign me up Tommy!!

[Gilby]

I think the report was the Padres kind of preferred Josh Byrnes anyway, so I could've seen Hoyer leaving the Padres even without Theo.

[KaiserCesar]

The Cubs could also be considered a lucrative destination at that point since a GM could do a full rebuild without accountability for a few years. I think someone even started a thread a few years back asking of Epstein had the best front office job situation in all of sports due to the lack of immediate expectations and relative amount of resources available.

[SouthSideRyan]

If that fails to take us to the trade deadline, I'll be shocked. At that point, if pitching is needed, address it again then. I get that pitching is worrisome, but there's plenty of time and plenty of options to address it at as well.

 

As long as "address it again" doesn't mean more stupid dan haren I'm ok with that

[SouthSideRyan]

The Cubs could also be considered a lucrative destination at that point since a GM could do a full rebuild without accountability for a few years. I think someone even started a thread a few years back asking of Epstein had the best front office job situation in all of sports due to the lack of immediate expectations and relative amount of resources available.

 

When you're Theo you have that kind of cachet, when you're Jed hoyer you may wind up Sveumed and never see another GM job again