Hammel

[Tim]

I feel like the majority of people want to acquire two SP for next year. That would mean that Hammel has to leave the rotation. I understand the rationale of not wanting to rely on a guy who has been much less than durable throughout his career. For those that want to displace him from the rotation - is the thought to put him in the pen as a really expensive swingman? Or is the thought to dump him and his $11M salary?

[jersey cubs fan]

I want a really good pitcher and let the depth sort itself out.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't think it's as simple as "Hammel leaves the rotation."

 

Given the nature of starting pitching, I think it's prudent to always enter spring training with at least six guys you are utterly comfortable with in the rotation.

 

If you get through all of spring training with all six completely healthy and ready to go, then sure, Hammel is probably going to the pen for awhile. I don't think you can ever count on him for 31 starts without him becoming pretty turdly for a long stretch. But what are the odds that your starting five are all healthy at the same time at the end of spring? Is it even 50/50?

[Guest]

In my mind, it'd be the latter, assuming the 2nd SP in that scenario isn't just a depth guy.

[UMFan83]

I think Hammel would be an effective swingman...I would be fine using him in that role.

[Guest]

I want a really good pitcher and let the depth sort itself out.

There's no issue if you're adding one really good pitcher. Then you've got your five. The issue is if we add two MLB pitchers.

[Guest]

I don't think it's as simple as "Hammel leaves the rotation."

 

Given the nature of starting pitching, I think it's prudent to always enter spring training with at least six guys you are utterly comfortable with in the rotation.

 

If you get through all of spring training with all six completely healthy and ready to go, then sure, Hammel is probably going to the pen for awhile. I don't think you can ever count on him for 31 starts without him becoming pretty turdly for a long stretch. But what are the odds that your starting five are all healthy at the same time at the end of spring? Is it even 50/50?

The odds are better than 50/50 that all are healthy at the end of spring. The odds of all five getting through the season are very small.

 

If you're sending $11M to the pen when you're still constrained on payroll, isn't that a pretty awful use of resources?

[Guest]

In my mind, it'd be the latter, assuming the 2nd SP in that scenario isn't just a depth guy.

This makes a little more sense to me. But I wonder what the market would be like for him. On the one hand, he has shown he is capable of pitching very much like an ace. On the other hand, he can't make it through a season healthy. What would teams give up for him? I also hate putting someone like Leake in his spot when Hammel is better in pretty much every way except durability.

[Guest]

I think Hammel would be an effective swingman...I would be fine using him in that role.

I'm sure he'd be effective. But if adding two SP and having an $11M swingman prevents you from signing Heyward, is it worth it?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't think it's as simple as "Hammel leaves the rotation."

 

Given the nature of starting pitching, I think it's prudent to always enter spring training with at least six guys you are utterly comfortable with in the rotation.

 

If you get through all of spring training with all six completely healthy and ready to go, then sure, Hammel is probably going to the pen for awhile. I don't think you can ever count on him for 31 starts without him becoming pretty turdly for a long stretch. But what are the odds that your starting five are all healthy at the same time at the end of spring? Is it even 50/50?

The odds are better than 50/50 that all are healthy at the end of spring. The odds of all five getting through the season are very small.

 

If you're sending $11M to the pen when you're still constrained on payroll, isn't that a pretty awful use of resources?

 

That $11m is a sunk cost, it doesn't bear on the decision.

[Guest]

I think Hammel would be an effective swingman...I would be fine using him in that role.

I'm sure he'd be effective. But if adding two SP and having an $11M swingman prevents you from signing Heyward, is it worth it?

 

Nope.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think Hammel would be an effective swingman...I would be fine using him in that role.

I'm sure he'd be effective. But if adding two SP and having an $11M swingman prevents you from signing Heyward, is it worth it?

 

Over the course of, I don't know, 25 starts, I'd say the downgrade from Hammel to Clayton Richard is probably similar to the downgrade from Heyward to whomever we get instead of Heyward.

[Guest]

I don't think it's as simple as "Hammel leaves the rotation."

 

Given the nature of starting pitching, I think it's prudent to always enter spring training with at least six guys you are utterly comfortable with in the rotation.

 

If you get through all of spring training with all six completely healthy and ready to go, then sure, Hammel is probably going to the pen for awhile. I don't think you can ever count on him for 31 starts without him becoming pretty turdly for a long stretch. But what are the odds that your starting five are all healthy at the same time at the end of spring? Is it even 50/50?

The odds are better than 50/50 that all are healthy at the end of spring. The odds of all five getting through the season are very small.

 

If you're sending $11M to the pen when you're still constrained on payroll, isn't that a pretty awful use of resources?

 

That $11m is a sunk cost, it doesn't bear on the decision.

 

It doesn't bear on the decision of what to do with Hammel if you sign 2 SP (which is what this thread is about)?

 

What?

 

You're using the term "sunk cost" the way Kramer uses write offs here. It's not like he's Edwin Jackson. They will likely have the choice.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't think it's as simple as "Hammel leaves the rotation."

 

Given the nature of starting pitching, I think it's prudent to always enter spring training with at least six guys you are utterly comfortable with in the rotation.

 

If you get through all of spring training with all six completely healthy and ready to go, then sure, Hammel is probably going to the pen for awhile. I don't think you can ever count on him for 31 starts without him becoming pretty turdly for a long stretch. But what are the odds that your starting five are all healthy at the same time at the end of spring? Is it even 50/50?

The odds are better than 50/50 that all are healthy at the end of spring. The odds of all five getting through the season are very small.

 

If you're sending $11M to the pen when you're still constrained on payroll, isn't that a pretty awful use of resources?

 

That $11m is a sunk cost, it doesn't bear on the decision.

 

It's not a sunk cost of it can be traded

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It doesn't bear on the decision of what to do with Hammel if you sign 2 SP (which is what this thread is about)?

 

What?

 

You're using the term "sunk cost" the way Kramer uses write offs here. It's not like he's Edwin Jackson. They will likely have the choice.

 

OK, so we're shipping Hammel off in a salary dump? We're just going to have go out and get another swingman, and the cost for them on the free agent market is going to eat up most of the savings.

[Guest]

I don't think it's as simple as "Hammel leaves the rotation."

 

Given the nature of starting pitching, I think it's prudent to always enter spring training with at least six guys you are utterly comfortable with in the rotation.

 

If you get through all of spring training with all six completely healthy and ready to go, then sure, Hammel is probably going to the pen for awhile. I don't think you can ever count on him for 31 starts without him becoming pretty turdly for a long stretch. But what are the odds that your starting five are all healthy at the same time at the end of spring? Is it even 50/50?

The odds are better than 50/50 that all are healthy at the end of spring. The odds of all five getting through the season are very small.

 

If you're sending $11M to the pen when you're still constrained on payroll, isn't that a pretty awful use of resources?

 

That $11m is a sunk cost, it doesn't bear on the decision.

It does if you can still divest yourself of the cost.

[Guest]

I think Hammel would be an effective swingman...I would be fine using him in that role.

I'm sure he'd be effective. But if adding two SP and having an $11M swingman prevents you from signing Heyward, is it worth it?

 

Over the course of, I don't know, 25 starts, I'd say the downgrade from Hammel to Clayton Richard is probably similar to the downgrade from Heyward to whomever we get instead of Heyward.

Good thing that isn't what I'm suggesting at all.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It does if you can still divest yourself of the cost.

 

Then I'm not sure what the point of signing the second SP in this scenario was. Mineaswell just keep Hammel and only acquire one SP if you're willing to short your pitching depth like that.

[Guest]

It does if you can still divest yourself of the cost.

 

Then I'm not sure what the point of signing the second SP in this scenario was. Mineaswell just keep Hammel and only acquire one SP if you're willing to short your pitching depth like that.

 

Which is probably why he's asking why people are talking about signing said 2nd SP of that level.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think Hammel would be an effective swingman...I would be fine using him in that role.

I'm sure he'd be effective. But if adding two SP and having an $11M swingman prevents you from signing Heyward, is it worth it?

 

Over the course of, I don't know, 25 starts, I'd say the downgrade from Hammel to Clayton Richard is probably similar to the downgrade from Heyward to whomever we get instead of Heyward.

Good thing that isn't what I'm suggesting at all.

 

If you trade Hammel to save money for Heyward and run with exactly 5 SPs, your sixth guy is going to be a replacement-level guy like Richard. And you are probably going to need a lot of starts from him.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It does if you can still divest yourself of the cost.

 

Then I'm not sure what the point of signing the second SP in this scenario was. Mineaswell just keep Hammel and only acquire one SP if you're willing to short your pitching depth like that.

 

Which is probably why he's asking why people are talking about signing said 2nd SP of that level.

 

Because pitching depth is really important and we don't have any unless we go out and get some.

[Guest]

It doesn't bear on the decision of what to do with Hammel if you sign 2 SP (which is what this thread is about)?

 

What?

 

You're using the term "sunk cost" the way Kramer uses write offs here. It's not like he's Edwin Jackson. They will likely have the choice.

 

OK, so we're shipping Hammel off in a salary dump? We're just going to have go out and get another swingman, and the cost for them on the free agent market is going to eat up most of the savings.

Or...instead of kicking Hammel out of the rotation at all, you can add a top tier pitcher and then sign Sierra and stash him at AAA (or make him the swingman).

[Guest]

It does if you can still divest yourself of the cost.

 

Then I'm not sure what the point of signing the second SP in this scenario was. Mineaswell just keep Hammel and only acquire one SP if you're willing to short your pitching depth like that.

 

Which is probably why he's asking why people are talking about signing said 2nd SP of that level.

 

Because pitching depth is really important and we don't have any unless we go out and get some.

 

But Lackey and even Leake are more than just "pitching depth" type additions. People are talking about signing Samardzija (or even the big guys + Samardzija) and one of those guys. I think that's what Tim is talking about.

Edited November 30, 2015 by David

[Guest]

I think Hammel would be an effective swingman...I would be fine using him in that role.

I'm sure he'd be effective. But if adding two SP and having an $11M swingman prevents you from signing Heyward, is it worth it?

 

Over the course of, I don't know, 25 starts, I'd say the downgrade from Hammel to Clayton Richard is probably similar to the downgrade from Heyward to whomever we get instead of Heyward.

Good thing that isn't what I'm suggesting at all.

 

If you trade Hammel to save money for Heyward and run with exactly 5 SPs, your sixth guy is going to be a replacement-level guy like Richard. And you are probably going to need a lot of starts from him.

You are ignoring other avenues of depth. You could sign an IFA guy that has options. You could trade for a AA/AAA pitcher who can make the jump if/when required. You could work the lower end of the SP market for a guy that can compete for a SP role but is willing to fall back to swingman role.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Or...instead of kicking Hammel out of the rotation at all, you can add a top tier pitcher and then sign Sierra and stash him at AAA (or make him the swingman).

 

*shrug* If you specifically have a scouting belief that Sierra is worth the money (and even though it's spread out over more years and saves you some money in the short-term, he's going to cost you more of a commitment than keeping Hammel does) and will sign with you, then sure, I don't have a problem with that particular line for the offseason. But that's an awfully specific case with some awfully specific assumptions required to get there.