Where will pitching come from? Latest -- Journal-Sentinel

[brosto1]

The game I saw Watten was back in June. He was throwing in the low 90's and had a lot of movement on his pitches, especially his slider. It was only one day, but that day he looked dominating. IIRC, he began his collegiate career at third base and may have some projection. Looking at his game logs, he has had other very nice outings with good strike out totals. I think he could be a real sleeper candidate.

[Mass Haas]

Nice job by Haudricourt here -- a focus on John Axford's story as well...

[EbbaStClaire]

I was happy to see Tom Haudricourt's article regarding the Brewers attempt to analyze their success or lack of success in developing pitchers. I think it would be interesting for the Brewers to invite individuals like Mike Marshall and Alan Jaeger to their seminar since the Brewers seem to be interested in including the most recent research regarding developing pitchers. Their was a good article on mlb.com under the Texas Rangers' articles that discussed the theories of Alan Jaeger ( August 10). I know Mike Marshall is a controversial and opinionated individual but he does have a degree in kinesiolgy from Michigan State and he himself was a successful pitcher. It seems like it would make sense to convince a few young minor league pitchers with marginal fastballs to try some different techniques that might result in picking up 3-5 mph and making them potential major league pitchers.

[TooLiveBrew]

As far as an organizational philosophy towards pitching goes, I hope they don't get hung up on the measurables too much and still select some players here and there that can pitch, regardless of their size or body type.

You confuse me sometimes, Crew. You will go on at length about how you don't want soft-tossers or pitchability guys, but now you make the comment that you hope they don't get too hung up on measurables. I understand that the best approach is to combine physical tools with good pitching ability, but you seem to contradict yourself a bit. I hope I don't offend you, as that's not my intent. It just seems a little like talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

 

(I posted this here so as to not hijack the '10 Coaching Thread)

[TheCrew07]

There's a difference between pitching depth and top of the rotation quality pitching. Players like a Cody, Nieves, or Anundsen could make fine additions to the bullpen as guys who don't throw hard but can locate effectively. The organization has been full of those types of guys... but when I post about pitching on the MLB forum I'm talking about inserting 2s (a #1 type pitcher is too costly to acquire) at the top of the rotation because we have plenty of 3,4,5 depth from inside the organization. We didn't need to add more pitchers that struggle to go 6 innings, we needed to add quality pitching that reduces the number of the innings left for the bullpen. Basically, I don't agree with Melvin's "play it safe philosophy" over the years of picking up players with high floors but limited ceilings. Sometimes he needs to make a deal for quality over quantity... and what pissed me off the most is that he makes that type of deal for a position player in Gomez when we really needed pitching. I talked about trading Overbay for Marcum/McGowan instead of Jackson (high floor/low ceiling), Bush (I love the guy but he's another high floor/low ceiling type), and Gross (high floor/low ceiling) a couple of different times in past. Outside of the names I listed in multiple posts in transaction forum during 2008 I really wanted Hardy moved for a projectable pitcher like Buchholz. Assuming that Marcum (I think he would have been easier to get than McGowan) still needed TJ surgery I'd feel a ton better about a rotation of Yo, Buchholz/Neimann/Jackson, Marcum (coming off of surgery), Parra, and Suppan for 2010 than I do a rotation of Yo, Wolf, Davis, Parra/Narveson/Suppan/Bush. The first rotation is young, has room to grow, is cheap, and controllable for years bridging the gap to our younger starters in the minors.... the other rotation is expensive, old, declining, and lacks longevity.

 

All it would have taken was a little bit of creativity, a couple of deals going different ways or actually being made, and 2008, 2009, 2010 could have been much different seasons, as I've said many times the dominos did not have to fall the way they did.

 

That being said in my post in the other thread I was referring to someone who throws hard but is small in stature as it was reported the Brewers were looking to develop larger bodied pitchers. Maybe that was a Melvin quote? I don't remember exactly where I read it or who said it but it came out earlier this off season... I understand all of the benefits being tall gives a pitcher and they are considerable, but if a 6' tall, 180lb kid can run the ball up there in the mid 90s I say take a chance on the kid, even though the numbers are against him.

 

I've never said I only wanted 1 type of pitcher at the expense of another... of course I prefer players who have projectable frames and throw in the upper 90s, but there aren't many of those guys around, nor did the Brewers have enough projectable pitching in the system in the past, they actually had too many soft tossers. I don't think that building an organization and fixing the MLB rotation are similar in nature... When you're building an organization you're looking at quality, depth, and dependability. When drafting the best pitcher available on the board you're going to end up with all different types of guys and rightly so as we need different types of pitchers to have a well rounded system. When we talk about addressing the current MLB rotation, we're talking about fixing what we don't have, and in that context I despise the trades that Melvin has made... The weakness of the MLB team has been quality pitching, it's been an organizational weakness, and we waste tradable assets on rental players and position players instead of addressing the 1 glaring weakness, a long term quality pitching solution.

 

Rarely do I participate in discussions about RH vs LH hitters, debating the merits of various combinations of position players, trading for position players, signing players for the bullpen, trading for bullpen pitchers, and so on because I don't care. We have enough position and bullpen depth as a organization that those things are minor issues at worst. The root cause of the losses, the issues with the bullpen, is and has been the starting rotation. The only year the Brewers made the playoffs we had our best pitching, that should have been a wake up call. The Phillies had a great offense for years, making the playoffs and such, but they didn't win anything until their pitching caught up with their hitting. I believe that pitching > hitting, and I believe a great rotation is the best way to compete with the large market teams, because pitching is power. Everyone wants it and only a few organizations have it... I've said it multiple times this winter but I absolutely love what TB did and Toronto is doing, pitching has become the most valuable commodity in baseball.

[804Sox]

I really wanted Hardy moved for a projectable pitcher like Buchholz.

I think you answered your own question. Pitching, particularly young, cost controlled starting pitching, has become the most valuable commodity in baseball. If this trade were available to the Brewers, they would have made it.

 

I agree with your overall point though. The most successful teams in baseball recently have been built around deep rotations with front-line talent at the top. No matter how potent the Brewers' offense, the team won't be able to compete at the championship level until it can match up with the rotations of other playoff teams. I think the Brewers' off-season has gone a long way towards achieving that end. Adding Wolf and Davis on reasonable deals lengthens the rotation and gives more weight at the top (with Wolf slotting in at #2) without sacrificing any of the quality starting pitching depth in the minors that will be invaluable to future teams.

 

As for the Hardy/Gomez deal, I think it reflects the organizations view of the importance of defense in CF to the pitching staff and confidence in the rest of the offense to perform. While pitching might have been preferred, CF was an immediate need, and the Brewers got a very projectable player who is probably more talented than any pitcher that Hardy could have netted. Buchholz, Morrow, et al were probably not really options.

[battlekow]

Buchholz, Morrow, et al were probably not really options.

No, but Michael Bowden was.

[804Sox]

Buchholz, Morrow, et al were probably not really options.

No, but Michael Bowden was.

And Bowden's the kind of Command & Control oriented starter with #3 starter upside that you claim the Brewers have plenty of. That's not to say he doesn't have value. Obviously paying Bowden the league minimum for the same production that Suppan gives you at about 10mil allows for tremendous flexibility and the ability to spend to upgrade elsewhere, but he's unlikely to be the top-of-the-rotation, impact starter that you and I agree the Brewers need alongside Yo (and that Buchholz could potentially develop into).

[trwi7]

I don't know how Brandon Morrow wasn't an option. He ended up being traded for a reliever and A ball outfielder who's only a decent prospect.

[TheCrew07]

First I didn't ask a question, I made a statement. I don't want to debate the Buchholz/Hardy thing again as that appears what you're hung up on... I think a 4 WAR player that can be resigned is easily worth a prospect who was buried in AAA consecutive years, we'll have to agree to disagree. I also threw some other names out there as well, the list was quite a bit longer before the Sabathia trade but that couldn't be undone. It was just an example, I would have traded anything reasonable that TB wanted for Jackson. I think Neimann would have been attainable from TB as well, he also tops out in the 2/3 range best case, but he's young and there's still possibly some projection there. My point was that the Brewers were 2 reasonable moves from having a very young, very productive yet cost effective starting rotation as opposed to what we ended up with. The results may not have been better, but we would have had much more flexibility going forward. Marcum has a little over 3 years of service so far, Parra a little over 2, same for Yo, Jackson has a little over 4, Neimann a little over 1, and so on... We'd have longevity, and as Rivas, Rogers, and the other young pitchers mature Melvin would have been able to move expendable pitching for pieces elsewhere. Finally, I'd much rather pay Jackson his 6.25 mil this year than Wolf his 9.25, I'd rather not pay Suppan at all but that wasn't option coming into 2008, 9, and 10 which was the context of my post.

 

Also, I'm the one that said we had too many Bush type pitchers, the high floor/low ceiling types, not BK. In fact I'm one of the few people around here willing to beat that drum on a consistent basis, for the Brewers to truly remedy the pitching situation Melvin needed to be more aggressive and assume more risk. He did neither, has always done neither, and will continue to do neither, because that's just how he operates going all the way back to Texas. I'm struggling to understand how so many people overlook the genius in what TB did and the new regime in Toronto is doing, I think it's obvious. Boston maxes out it's payroll to be a 90+ win team every year, we're maxing out our payroll on over the hill pitching just to be around average and I think it stinks. The time to strike for pitching was when everyone else was chasing HRs and SLG, not when it was obvious we needed pitching and not after the market swung back around towards pitching.

[804Sox]

Also, I'm the one that said we had too many Bush type pitchers, the high floor/low ceiling types, not BK.

Apologies to BK. Sloppy work on my part.

 

As for your admiration of the TB Rays model, I think it is certainly justified. Since Friedman and Co. took over, they've done an excellent job drafting (Longo, Price, Beckham?), developing prospects (Longo, Davis, Jennings, etc.), signing key players to long term, club-friendly deals (Longo, Crawford, Pena, Kazmir at the time), and finding undervalued players through trade or bargain FA (Garza, Pena, Howell, Iwamura, Zobrist, Balfour).

 

HOWEVER: It took many years of losing to accumulate all that talent. Neimann, Upton, Longoria, Price, and Beckham were all top 10 picks - the type of player that consistent, winning organizations rarely get to draft. And even these picks are no guarantee. The (Devil) Rays, were mired at the bottom of the AL East for years after missing on a series of 1st rounders (Matt White, Josh Hamilton, Dewon Brazelton). Even Delmon Young has failed to live up to expectations and Tim Beckham has not performed to the level of several of the players selected around him.

 

It comes down to where your preference falls on the Twins <---> Marlins spectrum of small/mid-market teams. Do you put a respectable team on the field every year, drafting and developing high-floor players with lower ceilings (who are less expensive to retain), in the hopes of making the playoffs when everything comes together or the division is weak, occasionally having to sell off or let go of a superstar but never having to "blow up" the team; or, do you strip mine the major league club, keeping budgets low and draft picks high, and hoarding high-ceiling prospects until you can ride a bumper crop of young talent (fortified with a veteran deadline acquisition) to a shot at a championship, where the window of opportunity might only be 2 years?

 

Personally, I don't have an answer. I'm torn. I used to be pretty solidly in the Marlins' camp, but have recently shifted towards greater appreciation of the Twins' model. In any case, there's no right or wrong, per se; and with Fielder, Yo, and Braun, the Brewers have done as well as anyone at developing stars internally, which is the key.

[TheCrew07]

That's no different than where the Brewers drafted, and the same could be said of Braun, Fielder, and Weeks. The difference here is one organization's focus on building an organization through pitching and the other organization patching the rotation with "safe" players in trades and FA signings. In 2008 when I started posting about this stuff TB had acquired 3 of it's starting pitchers through trades, and as I said at the time when Edwin Jackson is arguably your 5th best starter you have a hell of a rotation. The player I really wanted at that time was James Shields, I was willing to trade Fielder for him and move LaPorta back to 1B where he belongs, as Shields was probably their #3 pitcher talent wise and I love that contract. Knowing that TB had to make room for Price at some point I was still looking at them in the 2008-2009 off season as well, Neimann was out of options and seemed like a good trade target, and I thought Sonnanstine would be the odd man out of the rotation, but he really didn't interest me. People want to go to the revisionist history card on me, but if I was willing to trade Prince for Shields, I certainly would have traded Hart for Jackson, or Hardy for a unproven pitcher... we had enough offense, we needed/still need pitching.

[mletto157]

as I've said many times the dominos did not have to fall the way they did.

 

This is a pretty big can of worms that you're opening when you say this. Every decision any team ever makes could have been different. You can't go back to every move, in retrospect, and say you would have done something different. Taking your statement at face value; you're right... the domino's didn't have to fall the way they did... we could have never drafted Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, Rickie Weeks, Yovani Gallardo... even Ben Sheets could have easily been Barry Zito.

 

You can't just say blanket statements like this and proceed to put together a fictional rotation based on some chips that did fall, and others that didn't. How about we worry about the future possible moves, and not dwell on moves from years past that could possibly have worked out much different.

[804Sox]

For what it's worth, I think the Rays thought that they were getting a much better player in Matt Joyce than he has been so far. Obviously there's still time for him to turn it around, but that looks like a miss at this point. In any case, it was not until recently that the Rays had any pitching to speak of. For the longest time that was their greatest weakness, outside of Kazmir, and I'm not sure that then change has been due ot a concerted change in philosophy, just better luck and better development. Some of the early picks at the start of the decade, White, Townsend, even Neimann, struggled with injuries or failed to live up to expectations. I think it just reinforces the notion that "TINSTAAPP" (which I don't completely believe in). I really don't think you can point to an shift in organizational philosophy that has led Wade Davis, James Shields, and perhaps Hellickson, Barnese, and Price to success, while top prospects like Townsend, Brazelton, White, et al flamed out in earlier years. If anything, the Rays organization has a really poor track record of keeping pitchers healthy.

[TheCrew07]

as I've said many times the dominos did not have to fall the way they did.

 

You can't just say blanket statements like this and proceed to put together a fictional rotation based on some chips that did fall, and others that didn't. How about we worry about the future possible moves, and not dwell on moves from years past that could possibly have worked out much different.

I think you missed the point here... First, Melvin didn't draft any of the players you mentioned, Z did, and he's just as responsible for the pitching issues as Melvin is. Second, I've been very specific about who/when trade wise, and I've been very consistent on those points over the last 2 years. I was widely ridiculed for being against the Sabathia trade and the same goes for Hardy when I wanted him traded for pitching. I find the notion that Melvin didn't make any moves because the price was too high to be wishful thinking, he didn't make moves because he doesn't make those types of trades.

 

My take on Overbay is revisionist in nature, but I was questioning that move by the middle of the next season. Initially I was like everyone else... "look at all the high draft picks we got for Overbay, sweet deal". Then I started to get into pitching, reading about it, listening to audio interviews about it, and then when I saw how uninspiring Bush and Jackson were on the mound I was in the "this is it?" camp. I do like Bush, I've said many times if we could put his head on Parra's body we'd have ourselves a Sabathia, but he's getting the most out of what he has. I guess the best way I can put it is that I thought we were getting pitchers like Sheets/Nuegy, with that sort of upside just because of where the guys were drafted, but instead we ended up with guys who were #3s as an absolute best case and more realistically back of the rotation starters. I don't have anything against either of those 2 pitchers or Gross, while they filled a need in that pitching is always a need, we already had a bunch of 3,4,5 starters hanging around at the time, we needed more than Bush's upside. Marcum was right there, similar MLB experience at the time, always threw harder and had more upside. Why not him? Why not make a run at McGowan who had true top of the rotation stuff? We gave up O and young pitcher in Taubenheim, at the time that would have been a very fair deal for either young Toronto pitcher that I mentioned.

 

I'm not cherry picking moves, I'm simply pointing out that Melvin only needed to make 2 moves for good pitching in the last 6 years that worked out and we'd be much better off than we are today, but he didn't. I'd feel better if he had even made a single attempt, and no Capellan was not a top of the rotation starter, he never had that kind of potential, and there's no way ATL was going to be stupid enough to trade a top of the rotation starter for a struggling closer, they don't make those kind NYM mistakes. I'll never be in the "he did the best he could" camp because he's the one who created this mess in the first place. The system didn't have enough pitching, he wouldn't trade for quality pitching with any sort of longevity so he backed himself into the corner of FA pitching, and it's a terrible market for a team like Milwaukee.

 

He could have done much better than Wolf, Davis, and Looper, and I expected him to do better given how the organization has talked about trading bats for pitching, it just never happened. We graduated a ton of hitting talent in a single wave, all were or have the potential to be all-star caliber players, 4 of those players already have been all-stars and Weeks could hit just below Braun's level if he finally puts it together... think about how fortunate we were with all those players... and there's a very realistic chance that all we'll get out of this first group is a single 1 and done in the playoffs because of the pitching. Honestly that realization over the winter crushed my spirit and enthusiasm for the MLB team and Melvin in general, that notion has been very deflating to me personally. There are other issues beyond just the pitching; money tied up in very old or underperforming players, year to year contracts with our young players, Macha as manger... I just don't see much to be excited about. The only real hope for the franchise is for this wave of pitching that will be between Huntsville and Wisconsin next season to work out perfectly, protecting Melvin from himself. If we can build an entire rotation and bullpen out of our own prospects maybe Melvin will get away from what he's always done and start looking to lock up young talent early, buying out years of FA, and spending the money on the most productive players instead of the least productive. At least I can continue to hope....

[trwi7]

Marcum was right there, similar MLB experience at the time, always threw harder and had more upside.

 

Huh? At the time, Marcum and Bush topped out at around 90-91. Bush has thrown harder than Marcum every year except for 2005 (89.4 vs 89.1).

[804Sox]

Marcum was right there, similar MLB experience at the time, always threw harder and had more upside.

 

Huh? At the time, Marcum and Bush topped out at around 90-91. Bush has thrown harder than Marcum every year except for 2005 (89.4 vs 89.1).

But that's not even the point. The problem with your (TheCrew07) argument that I tried to bring up earlier (before being called out for being "hung up on" the Hardy/Buchholz debate), is that you're criticizing the front office for not making moves that were never made, with no evidence that those types of moves were possible at the time. I think that in your position, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that these deals actually could have been made and agreed on between the two teams before you criticize the front office for not making them.

 

You say that Overbay and Taubenheim would have been a fair deal for Marcum or McGowan (avoiding Red Sox prospects so you can't deflect the argument). Maybe Melvin and or Z thought the same thing and would have jumped on that opportunity, but it just wasn't on the table.

 

To say Hart or Hardy or anyone else should be traded for pitching is fine. I'm solidly in your camp regarding the importance of cost-controlled SP, particularly at the top of the rotation. However, to criticize the FO for not completing specific hypothetical transactions is a completely different matter. It is a perfect example of the logical fallacy petitio principii ("begging the question"), where your conclusion is based on an unsupported and tautological premise. In this case, your conclusion that (for example) the Brewers should trade Overbay and Taubenheim for Marcum is based on the premise that Marcum was available for Overbay and Taubenheim, which you have in no way supported.

[logan82]

The rumors were that all the Brewers were offered for Hardy last offseason were relief pitchers.

[clancyphile]

as I've said many times the dominos did not have to fall the way they did.

 

You can't just say blanket statements like this and proceed to put together a fictional rotation based on some chips that did fall, and others that didn't. How about we worry about the future possible moves, and not dwell on moves from years past that could possibly have worked out much different.

I think you missed the point here... First, Melvin didn't draft any of the players you mentioned, Z did, and he's just as responsible for the pitching issues as Melvin is. Second, I've been very specific about who/when trade wise, and I've been very consistent on those points over the last 2 years. I was widely ridiculed for being against the Sabathia trade and the same goes for Hardy when I wanted him traded for pitching. I find the notion that Melvin didn't make any moves because the price was too high to be wishful thinking, he didn't make moves because he doesn't make those types of trades.

 

My take on Overbay is revisionist in nature, but I was questioning that move by the middle of the next season. Initially I was like everyone else... "look at all the high draft picks we got for Overbay, sweet deal". Then I started to get into pitching, reading about it, listening to audio interviews about it, and then when I saw how uninspiring Bush and Jackson were on the mound I was in the "this is it?" camp. I do like Bush, I've said many times if we could put his head on Parra's body we'd have ourselves a Sabathia, but he's getting the most out of what he has. I guess the best way I can put it is that I thought we were getting pitchers like Sheets/Nuegy, with that sort of upside just because of where the guys were drafted, but instead we ended up with guys who were #3s as an absolute best case and more realistically back of the rotation starters. I don't have anything against either of those 2 pitchers or Gross, while they filled a need in that pitching is always a need, we already had a bunch of 3,4,5 starters hanging around at the time, we needed more than Bush's upside. Marcum was right there, similar MLB experience at the time, always threw harder and had more upside. Why not him? Why not make a run at McGowan who had true top of the rotation stuff? We gave up O and young pitcher in Taubenheim, at the time that would have been a very fair deal for either young Toronto pitcher that I mentioned.

 

I'm not cherry picking moves, I'm simply pointing out that Melvin only needed to make 2 moves for good pitching in the last 6 years that worked out and we'd be much better off than we are today, but he didn't. I'd feel better if he had even made a single attempt, and no Capellan was not a top of the rotation starter, he never had that kind of potential, and there's no way ATL was going to be stupid enough to trade a top of the rotation starter for a struggling closer, they don't make those kind NYM mistakes. I'll never be in the "he did the best he could" camp because he's the one who created this mess in the first place. The system didn't have enough pitching, he wouldn't trade for quality pitching with any sort of longevity so he backed himself into the corner of FA pitching, and it's a terrible market for a team like Milwaukee.

How about also focusing on the trade that should NOT have been made?

 

Doug Davis and Dana Eveland for Johnny Estrada and Claudio Vargas. That trade, in retrospect, didn't work out.

 

Imagine having Sharpie's average of 31 starts, 4.22 ERA from 2007-2009.

 

Dave Bush was not a bad pickup, either. He's probably a 4/5 starter, so a 4.86 ERA from 2006-2009 is not bad, especially with the offense the Brewers have. Zach Jackson did not pan out, but he did help the Brewers land CC Sabathia in 2008 (which led to drafting Heckathorn). Gabe Gross got the Brewers Josh Butler, who might be an option as a back-of-the rotation starter. If Butler can put up average numbers like Bush's and only cost $400K, it's a nice pickup.

 

Could the Overbay trade have been better? Yes but it was not a bad trade. The Brewers have, as of today, two 4/5 starters, one who will only be paid the minimum if he makes Milwaukee (and Butler was in AAA last year), and a prospect in Heckathorn to date. The other Sabathia comp pick (Cameron Garfield or Max Walla) could either be in Milwaukee or a component in a trade to bring in a pitcher - as somebody named Matt LaPorta was.

[HiAndTight]

I'd feel better if he had even made a single attempt, and no Capellan was not a top of the rotation starter, he never had that kind of potential, and there's no way ATL was going to be stupid enough to trade a top of the rotation starter for a struggling closer, they don't make those kind NYM mistakes.

And therein lies the problem with these types of debates. The timelines get blurred and the facts get lost in the translation.

 

Dan Kolb was in no way a struggling closer coming off of a 39 save season and a 2.98 ERA and a 1.96 ERA with 21 saves after taking over the starting job halfway into that season.

 

AS for Jose Capellan, he was one of the highest rated prospects the Brewers have had in the past 10 years, I believe cracking the top 20 overall prospects in the game.

 

To discount that attempt by saying, "well, if the Braves did it, then you know he wasn't that good" is completely disengenious and a self serving argument. This is the same team that gave away the farm for a uninspiring year out of Texira(not from him, from the team in general).

 

 

Melvin also added a highly regarded prospect in DLR around the same time.

 

 

The bottom line is it's easy to go back after a player pans out or doesn't pan out and poke holes in the FO's decisions, but it's ultimately an exercise in futility.

[ILuvDaBush]

Jason Schmidt says that even the Braves make a mistake.

 

As for where will the pitching come from, let me ask you to turn your attention to a year ago. The question du jour was, "Where will our future 3B come from?" Gamel's defense was suspect and McGehee was some guy who would probably be relegated to a bench role....in AAA. Now...fewer questions about Gamel's defense while boasting a plethora of options. All I mean is that Chuck Lofgren is probably going to be the greatest lefty to wear Brewer blue since CC. You never know.