|
Post by psuhistory on May 31, 2015 15:04:15 GMT -5
When players are this inexperienced, the idea of regression loses its meaning. Usually, it implies a return to an established pattern, but none of these players have established any pattern at this point... In the cases of DeSclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias, I think you have to look at the mix of pitches, at the reasons for both the successes and the setbacks, rather than at the usual statistics. By this measure, all three are clearly starting pitchers. Iglesias is a bit of a concern, because he's running up his pitch counts early and has some difficulty putting hitters away, but not to the point where you would consign his pitch repertoire to the bullpen... I think this uncertainty makes them three of the most interesting players on the team... Many have missed my opening comment in this thread "...I believe all will ultimately be bullpen arms. The Reds have NO starter prospects." This belief is irrespective of April, May or future stats. I didn't miss anything. You used the idea of regression to explain your view. I don't believe it's relevant here and explained why. That's it...
|
|
|
Post by walstib on May 31, 2015 15:28:59 GMT -5
Many have missed my opening comment in this thread "...I believe all will ultimately be bullpen arms. The Reds have NO starter prospects." This belief is irrespective of April, May or future stats. I didn't miss anything. You used the idea of regression to explain your view. I don't believe it's relevant here and explained why. That's it... No, the basis of my view goes back before the season began reading the many offerings by the baseball pundits. I did mention that. My apologies if I agree with them. It's based upon where I believe DeSclafani, Lorenzon, Stephenson and Iglesias will be successful. I admit my comments on regression can be construed as a short term defense of my beliefs, and regression should be expected with young pitchers; however, I believe the Reds front office move to draft relievers and try to turn them into starters is a cheap move.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Jun 1, 2015 12:56:53 GMT -5
Pundits said that young starting pitchers could be successful relievers if the rotation doesn't work out? Really you've been watching baseball and listening to pundits since 1964? I guess as Reds fans we're not used to seeing starting pitchers developed and promoted by the Reds (Leake skipped the minors, so before this year Cingrani is the only example since Bailey, Cueto, and Travis Wood), with veterans like Arroyo, Latos, and Simon being acquired. Around baseball there are lots of rookie starters every year, that's where starters come from. Many faced a 'could be a successful reliever' caveat.
Having young starting pitching prospects promoted directly in the rotation seems like a sorta new thing for Reds fans, as it hasn't happened much for years. If you read up on starting pitching prospects pretty much every one of them who throws remotely hard comes with a suggestion that the bullpen may be a fall back plan. Some top starting pitching prospects, like Brandon Finnegan of the Royals, get promoted to the bullpen before they've developed all the pitches to start, but their ability to pitch out of the bullpen shouldn't be confused with an inability to start.
Don't confuse the fall back plan - something they could do if something else doesn't work out - with the primary plan, and don't assume that ability to do an easier job means somebody can't possibly do a harder job. DeSclafani, Stephenson, Lorenzen, Garrett, Howard, Travieso, Crawford, and Romano could all be major league relievers, but it's way too early to decide that any can't be starters. Chapman could probably have been a good starter too, if they gave it a chance.
The front office's move to convert hard-throwing relievers into starters is indeed a cheap move, an attempt to give them a competitive advantage by finding undervalued talent. It's one small way in which the Reds aren't behind the times, and are perhaps leading the way in something new. Like it or not, it's not old school, old fashioned, or making a safe/noncontroversial decision. If the pundits don't yet approve, that's fine. There's no reason why they should, yet, it's too early to see results one way or the other. It's like asking the pundits to evaluate the MLB careers of the 2014 draft picks - it's way too early, even if a few scraps of information can be found. When conducting an experiments the results are what matters, not the skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Jun 1, 2015 13:03:34 GMT -5
Pundits said that young starting pitchers could be successful relievers if the rotation doesn't work out? Really you've been watching baseball and listening to pundits since 1964? I guess as Reds fans we're not used to seeing starting pitchers developed and promoted by the Reds (Leake skipped the minors, so before this year Cingrani is the only example since Bailey, Cueto, and Travis Wood), with veterans like Arroyo, Latos, and Simon being acquired. Around baseball there are lots of rookie starters every year, that's where starters come from. Many faced a 'could be a successful reliever' caveat. Having young starting pitching prospects promoted directly in the rotation seems like a sorta new thing for Reds fans, as it hasn't happened much for years. If you read up on starting pitching prospects pretty much every one of them who throws remotely hard comes with a suggestion that the bullpen may be a fall back plan. Some top starting pitching prospects, like Brandon Finnegan of the Royals, get promoted to the bullpen before they've developed all the pitches to start, but their ability to pitch out of the bullpen shouldn't be confused with an inability to start. Don't confuse the fall back plan - something they could do if something else doesn't work out - with the primary plan, and don't assume that ability to do an easier job means somebody can't possibly do a harder job. DeSclafani, Stephenson, Lorenzen, Garrett, Howard, Travieso, Crawford, and Romano could all be major league relievers, but it's way too early to decide that any can't be starters. Chapman could probably have been a good starter too, if they gave it a chance. The front office's move to convert hard-throwing relievers into starters is indeed a cheap move, an attempt to give them a competitive advantage by finding undervalued talent. It's one small way in which the Reds aren't behind the times, and are perhaps leading the way in something new. Like it or not, it's not old school, old fashioned, or making a safe/noncontroversial decision. If the pundits don't yet approve, that's fine. There's no reason why they should, yet, it's too early to see results one way or the other. It's like asking the pundits to evaluate the MLB careers of the 2014 draft picks - it's way too early, even if a few scraps of information can be found. When conducting an experiments the results are what matters, not the skepticism. Drafting relievers with an eye towards conversion to the rotation is perfectly fine if it's a way of taking advantage of undervalued talent. I find it much more problematic when you are burning 1st round picks on such players. It's hard to argue that a 1st round pick is ever undervalued and the opportunity cost of taking these players is much higher in the first round. When did cheap become bad? I thought cheap was good.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Jun 1, 2015 18:34:59 GMT -5
When did cheap become bad? I thought cheap was good. Cheap is okay, easy is bad. At least that's what they taught us at Kilgour...
|
|
|
Post by redskoolaiddrinker on Jun 16, 2015 21:54:26 GMT -5
...I believe all will ultimately be bullpen arms. The Reds have NO starter prospects. Bump
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Jun 17, 2015 9:16:12 GMT -5
...I believe all will ultimately be bullpen arms. The Reds have NO starter prospects. Bump For what purpose? Nothing's really changed in the past month. DeSclafani and Lorenzen still going strong, Iglesias out with a minor not-arm-related injury, and Moscot out with an injury unrelated to his pitching arm. In the past month we've seen no major developments on who can and can't be starters. If anything Stephenson's been added back on the list in that time.
|
|
|
Post by redskoolaiddrinker on Jun 17, 2015 10:33:25 GMT -5
For what purpose? Nothing's really changed in the past month. DeSclafani and Lorenzen still going strong, Iglesias out with a minor not-arm-related injury, and Moscot out with an injury unrelated to his pitching arm. In the past month we've seen no major developments on who can and can't be starters. If anything Stephenson's been added back on the list in that time. I would beg to differ. If anything more evidences had mounts that it's asanine to think all of these guys don't have a chance to be starters.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Jun 17, 2015 10:49:57 GMT -5
For what purpose? Nothing's really changed in the past month. DeSclafani and Lorenzen still going strong, Iglesias out with a minor not-arm-related injury, and Moscot out with an injury unrelated to his pitching arm. In the past month we've seen no major developments on who can and can't be starters. If anything Stephenson's been added back on the list in that time. I would beg to differ. If anything more evidences had mounts that it's asanine to think all of these guys don't have a chance to be starters. It was asinine to think that all these guys don't have a chance to be starters before they even made their debuts. If two months of evidence wasn't enough for Walstib I don't know why three would be either. If he was willing to ignore... everything... then, I don't know why it'd change now.
|
|
|
Post by rocky15231 on Jun 17, 2015 10:52:54 GMT -5
If Jason Marquis is a boinking starter for 2 months and that is the bench mark for our front office, I've seen enough of Lorenzen and DeSclafini to know they will be just fine.
The real question isn't how many of these guys can be starters. All could potentially be back end starters. Your problem becomes when you end up with a whole rotation of starters and guys that project to be Mike Leake level at-best, are the best you have. In that case, then essentially you don't really have any chance nor do you really have a solid rotation, regardless of who is in it.
Again, and it's why I keep saying, you HAVE to at least consider trying to keep Cueto.
If would be different if you had a guy or 2 who projected to be an ace-caliber in even 5 years, but we don't. Heck, Amir Garrett is a guy nobody talks about but he might be one of the only ones that has a remote chance of reaching that level.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Jun 17, 2015 11:28:26 GMT -5
Stephenson is probably the only player in the system that has the ceiling of a #1. Travieso and possibly Garrett are probably #2's at best. Iglesias, Lorenzen, and Mahle probably 3's. DeSclafani, Antone, Crawford, and Armstrong probably #4's. Moscot, Romano, Strahan, and Constante probably 5's.
Half if not more will wash out long before that though.
There are probably less than 30 future aces in the entire minor league system of all 30 clubs right now, probably only a half dozen every year in the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Jun 17, 2015 11:33:36 GMT -5
If Jason Marquis is a boinking starter for 2 months and that is the bench mark for our front office, I've seen enough of Lorenzen and DeSclafini to know they will be just fine. The real question isn't how many of these guys can be starters. All could potentially be back end starters. Your problem becomes when you end up with a whole rotation of starters and guys that project to be Mike Leake level at-best, are the best you have. In that case, then essentially you don't really have any chance nor do you really have a solid rotation, regardless of who is in it. Again, and it's why I keep saying, you HAVE to at least consider trying to keep Cueto.If would be different if you had a guy or 2 who projected to be an ace-caliber in even 5 years, but we don't. Heck, Amir Garrett is a guy nobody talks about but he might be one of the only ones that has a remote chance of reaching that level. So, Max Scherzer just signed a contract this past offseason for 7 years and $210M (some deferred), which is an AAV of $30M, do you sign Cueto to that type of deal? Jon Lester just signed a contract this past offseason for 6 years (plus a 7th year as a vesting option) and $155M, which is an AAV of $25.8M, do you sign Cueto to that type of deal? How high and how long would you go to sign him? Joey Votto is set to make $20M in 2016, assuming Cueto makes $25M, that's $45M committed to 2 players. The Reds have a 2015 payroll of ~$115M, so unless it rises significantly (which seems unlikely after the cost cutting of this past offseason), we'd be committing ~39% of our payroll to two players. Is that workable? Do we have enough young, cost-controlled assets to fill in around those two to be competitive? Personally, I don't see any way we could, or more importantly should, sign Cueto to a massive free agent contract.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Jun 17, 2015 11:36:12 GMT -5
A new tv contract near a billion dollars would be enough.
|
|
|
Post by The Duke on Jun 17, 2015 13:15:33 GMT -5
I think Lorenzen can become a good #2 as his ceiling. I think his strikeout per inning numbers will go up each of his first 3-4 seasons.
Interestingly enough, looking at Johnny Cueto's baseball reference page, his best ERA+ year (2011) he had his lowest K/9 at 6.0. This year so far has been his best year of his career in BB/9, WHIP, FIP, K/BB, and his second best K/9 year.
|
|
|
Post by redskoolaiddrinker on Jun 17, 2015 14:03:04 GMT -5
If Jason Marquis is a boinking starter for 2 months and that is the bench mark for our front office, I've seen enough of Lorenzen and DeSclafini to know they will be just fine. The real question isn't how many of these guys can be starters. All could potentially be back end starters. Your problem becomes when you end up with a whole rotation of starters and guys that project to be Mike Leake level at-best, are the best you have. In that case, then essentially you don't really have any chance nor do you really have a solid rotation, regardless of who is in it. Again, and it's why I keep saying, you HAVE to at least consider trying to keep Cueto.If would be different if you had a guy or 2 who projected to be an ace-caliber in even 5 years, but we don't. Heck, Amir Garrett is a guy nobody talks about but he might be one of the only ones that has a remote chance of reaching that level. So, Max Scherzer just signed a contract this past offseason for 7 years and $210M (some deferred), which is an AAV of $30M, do you sign Cueto to that type of deal? Jon Lester just signed a contract this past offseason for 6 years (plus a 7th year as a vesting option) and $155M, which is an AAV of $25.8M, do you sign Cueto to that type of deal? How high and how long would you go to sign him? Joey Votto is set to make $20M in 2016, assuming Cueto makes $25M, that's $45M committed to 2 players. The Reds have a 2015 payroll of ~$115M, so unless it rises significantly (which seems unlikely after the cost cutting of this past offseason), we'd be committing ~39% of our payroll to two players. Is that workable? Do we have enough young, cost-controlled assets to fill in around those two to be competitive? Personally, I don't see any way we could, or more importantly should, sign Cueto to a massive free agent contract. So with these numbers, would Homer Bailey's contract be considered what the going rate is for a #2 starter?
|
|