Melvin on next year's pitching

[Fatter than Joey]

Bottom line is that you are claiming that nobody in their right mind thought Capellan would be a starter.

 

No. I think initially ATL had every reason to believe that Capellan would be a starter -- I think they punted on him.

 

You claim two starts (which I'm sure you watched?) were plenty to know he'd never have an off speed pitch and forever exile him to the pen...really?

 

You really only need one start to know Joe Winklesas sucks -- and I am not comparing the 2 pitchers, but it doesn't take a lot of starts to see that a young pitcher does not have multiple MLB pitches.

 

as in the case of delaRosa or Edwin Jackson, it might take a few years and a couple of organizations before a talented young pitcher turns into an average or better major league contributor.

 

Certainly, and I would have though Capellan could have been a solid pitcher somewhere in a BP or rotation by now. I have never said Capellan didn't have value, and I think Kolb was overvalued, However when we traded for Capellan, I think that he was expected to produce on the MLB level, shortly after we got him.

 

I think a lot of this may be in one's definition of "high-ceiling" and really semantics. I understand that there was a value to Capellan, but I do not think that the Brewers should have expected him to be a contributor to their rotation anytime soon after we acquired him.

[TheCrew07]

Capellan is an interesting case.

 

First off Kolb was a cast off reclamation project, those of us that who were fooled into thinking we were getting something special (including myself) were seriously mistaken. In hindsight, we should have known better as the Brewers were looking to move a mediocre reliever with 1 good season and would be out of the league in 2007. How did the organization miss that his velocity was a full 5 MPH slower than advertised and that he basically wasn't a very good pitcher. Didn't our scouts watch him pitch? Were their stalker guns broken or something? I never saw him throw a pitch more than 93 MPH, either our scouting was inept and Melvin got swindled, or they knew exactly what they were getting in which case us fans seriously over valued that particular acquisition.

 

I don't include Capellan as a high ceiling prospect because he simply wasn't one, and I'd like to believe that the organization knew what they were getting in him. If they didn't know his velocity was down and his command wasn't good all the way around, then there's little hope of acquiring any pitcher on the rise that might be a good trade target because the Brewer organization simply stinks at evaluating pitching. I'd like to believe the Brewers took a shot on a guy they knew had some issues hoping they could turn him into a middle of the rotation starter and just missed. It's not like losing Kolb was any great blow to the organization, in fact we let him come back and stink for us 1 last time before parting ways.

 

Regardless, Capellan never exhibited any top of the rotation stuff (velocity, pitches, or command) in his stay in the Brewer's organization, so if he's our shining example of Melvin's hard work to acquire meaningful pitching, all he really shows is how inept Melvin and the rest organization were and maybe still are evaluating pitching.

[logan82]

Regardless, Capellan never exhibited any top of the rotation stuff (velocity, pitches, or command) in his stay in the Brewer's organization

 

He exhibited them before being traded. He sounds pretty comparable to Jeffress minus a little velocity.(Capellan topped out at 101)

 

Reading more on Capellan, he was the Braves top pitching prospect . I disagree that it is arguing semantics unless thinking of Jeffress as a a high ceiling player before his 2nd suspension is also semantics. We can disagree, but almost every source at the time had Capellan as one of the best prospects in all of baseball. Like many pitchers, he flamed out.

[SoCalBrewfan]

I never saw him throw a pitch more than 93 MPH, either our scouting was inept and Melvin got swindled, or they knew exactly what they were getting in which case us fans seriously over valued that particular acquisition.

 

Or he lost velocity. That happens, and it seems to have in this case. Do you doubt the reports that Capellan threw high 90s while in the Braves system? I don't really, and you might remember he put on a show at the Futures game:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20040711&content_id=796342&vkey=allstar2004&fext=.jsp&c_id=null

 

Again, Melvin has acquired a number of decent to excellent pitchers here, and at bargain salaries. Capuano, Bush, Doug Davis (wish we still had him...). A bit of Tomo Ohka. Villaneuva. And a bunch of bullpen arms that filled gaps. Quite a few years the Brewers' rotation was Sheets plus four Melvin acquisitions...and some of those rotations were very solid. And while you might poo-poo those guys, a league-average pitcher at a cheap salary is a hugely valuable thing. Without that, you're paying Suppan rates for Suppan performance.

[PeaveyFury]

I don't include Capellan as a high ceiling prospect because he simply wasn't one

 

Yeah, because BA routinely rates low ceiling guys in the top 25 of all of baseball?

 

So what. People and publications rank players every year -- they are often wrong

 

Yes, they are wrong sometimes. But the point is that this claim that Capellan was declining in value and not a high-ceiling prospect at the time he was traded is completely false, and nothing more than hindsight.

[Fatter than Joey]

Reading more on Capellan, he was the Braves top pitching prospect .

 

Someone has to be the Braves top pitching prospect -- It doesn't mean they are necessarily good.

 

Here is a list from 2004, Capellan (or any Braves pitcher for that matter) is missing:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2594

 

Here is another:

 

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/1/16/725034/top-50-pitching-prospects

 

I really have nothing more to say, than these prospect lists are really subjective, and probably not reliable as data points.

[PeaveyFury]

Someone has to be the Braves top pitching prospect -- It doesn't mean they are necessarily good.

 

Because the Braves historically have struggled with developing their pitching?

 

Here is a list from 2004, Capellan (or any Braves pitcher for that matter) is missing

 

Of course if you had put up the Baseball Prospectus list for 2005 to compare apples to apples, you'd see that BP had Capellan at #40.

[Fatter than Joey]

Because the Braves historically have struggled with developing their pitching?

 

Absolutely the Braves have historically struggled with developing their pitching. They have had some good times like in the mid-late 80s., and some bad times like the mid 70s. I am sure that they have their ups and downs, just like every other team. Just because someone is a team's "top pitching prospect" at a given point in time doesn't mean necessarily what one intended for it to mean when one uses that verbiage.

 

Of course if you had put up the Baseball Prospectus list for 2005

 

I just grabbed the first two I googled in "2004 top pitching prospects" -- I did not have the time or inclination to do a comprehensive study -- I would have certainly listed the 2005 BP list had I seen it -- as it shows that these lists are really quite subjective and should be treated as such.

 

to compare apples to apples

 

I am comparing "prospect lists" to "prospect lists", I am not sure exactly what you are getting at here. -- all I am doing is trying to show the problem when declaring someone a "top prospect" definitively.

[SoCalBrewfan]

Capellan was recovering from TJ surgery and threw only 64 innings in 2003 (rookie ball and low A), so would not likely have been on anyone's top 100 list in the 2004 offseason. (He was the Brave's #11 prospect on the BA list that offseason.) The 2004 season was his big breakout, and that summer he put on the show at the Futures game...then he was very highly rated.

 

Even in 2004, before his breakout year, he was rated just behind Kelly Johnson in the Braves system, and ahead of Wilson Betemit, Salty, Gregor Blanco, Scott Thorman, Chuck James, Blaine Boyer, Jojo Reyes, Ryan Langerhans. Even the back end of the Braves system had some prospects. Not stars, by any means, but a lot of guys who have played in the majors and had some decent years....that's a better group than a lot of top ten lists. It's just not true to say that being highly rated in the Braves system didn't mean you were considered a good prospect.

[Fatter than Joey]

so would not likely have been on anyone's top 100 list in the 2004 offseason.

 

OK -- I see what PF was driving at. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

The 2004 season was his big breakout, and that summer he put on the show at the Futures game...then he was very highly rated.

 

This was after ~20 starts and the Futures game. Sounds like the Braves sold him at the right time.

 

It's just not true to say that being highly rated in the Braves system didn't mean you were considered a good prospect.

 

I never said this -- only that:

 

1.) It is subjective.

2.) Someone has to be the "top pitching prospect" in every system for every time period. Stating something like that needs depth, otherwise it is rather meaningless.

[trwi7]

Really all I need to know is this. What young pitchers has Melvin acquired and what young pitchers has he given away?

 

He acquired Jose Capellan and Zach Jackson and gave away Jorge de la Rosa, Will Inman and Dana Eveland. You can argue the merits of how good each of those players are, but that's a pretty pathetic track record of bringing in young pitching into the organization, especially when you've been drafting bats and lots of them in the draft. Melvin had to have known that the organization was thin on pitching, but did nothing.

[PeaveyFury]

This was after ~20 starts and the Futures game. Sounds like the Braves sold him at the right time.

 

But your initial argument was that Capellan was acquired as his value was on the way down... so which is it? It sure sounds like you were making a claim/argument without checking the accuracy first, got called on it, and now are grasping at straws to try and cover your mistake.

 

What young pitchers has Melvin acquired and what young pitchers has he given away?

 

If that's your criteria, you're leaving off Dave Bush, Chris Capuano, and Carlos Villanueva.

[trwi7]

Bush was 26. I don't really consider that young. Same with Capuano. Villanueva was one I missed. Point still stands, he really hasn't acquired upside pitchers with good stuff who still need refinement.

 

I guess I could add Josh Butler to the "acquired" list as he's now looking like a legitimate prospect with legitimate big league stuff.

[MNBrew]

What young pitchers has Melvin acquired and what young pitchers has he given away?

 

If that's your criteria, you're leaving off Dave Bush, Chris Capuano, and Carlos Villanueva.

And furthering PF's point, if you do open it up that way, the performances of the young talent brought in has certainly exceeded the performance of those traded away. Capuano alone has almost as many wins and innings as all those young pitchers traded away put together -- and he hasn't pitched for 2 years.

 

There's beginning to be some serious romanticizing around here about the talent that got away in Jorge DLR. The guy had an ERA of 8.60 when the Brewers traded him for Tony Graffanino. Graffy performed well after that and DLR was still terrible for KC -- and again in '07 and really had Suppan-level stats for Colorado in '08. Heck, he's basically pitching like Braden Looper this year but with a big pile of strikeouts. I'd still say he's hardly a loss.

[logan82]

Melvin also acquired DeLaRosa.

[LouisEly]

The keys to the Sexson trade were JDLR and Capuano; the mistake made was that they didn't (or couldn't) hold on to JDLR long enough (or keep him in the minors long enough to develop) as he has been a decent #4 starter the last two years, and Capuano got hurt. He got Bush and Jackson for Overbay; debate their ceilings, but it was an attempt to add starting pitching. Melvin traded Kolb for Capellan; debate his ceiling but it was an attempt to add starting pitching. Melvin signed Victor Santos, who had two average #4/#5 starter seasons. He traded "Devastated" Junior Spivey for Tomah Ohka. He traded Leskanic for Obermuller; in hindsight not a good trade, but an attempt to add starting pitching. He traded Keith freakin' Ginter for Nelson Cruz and Justin Lehr. He traded Leo Estrella and Wayne Franklin for Carlos Villanueva. Because they had nothing resembling catching in the organization he traded Davis for Vargas, Aquino, and Estrada - not a good trade, but he attempted to get starting pitching back in the deal. Sabathia was a rental, but he single-handedly carried the Brewers into the playoffs last year, and had Weeks not botched that play the Brewers could have been up 2-1 in that series needing only to win one of the last two games.

 

To say that Melvin has done nothing to address starting pitching is just not true. The reality is, in order to acquire anything more than a #4 starter you have to give up quality, which means giving up Braun, Fielder, Gallardo, Escobar, or Gamel. In the Sabathia deal the biggest piece given up was a guy who was a RH hitter limited to LF and 1B and stuck behind Braun and Fielder.

 

The other reality is that up until 2005 they had very few prospects to trade, and even if they did they didn't have the payroll to take on quality ML players and thus quality ML player salaries. Until Mark A. bought the team they had to focus on player development. Their draft picks, until 2005, were either boom or bust; it was either a Fielder/Braun/Gallardo/Weeks, or it was a Murray/Jones/Artman/Fermaint/Steitz. Of the 2000 draft, I think only Hart and Krynzel made it past AA. Of the 2001 draft only JJ Hardy and Parra were legit prospects; Nelson and Saenz weren't the same after injuries and Sarfate never panned out. Besides Fielder in 2002, the only other legit prospect was Eveland and he didn't pan out; Crabbe and Dillard are the only other ones from that draft to make it past AA. Of the 2003 draft, besides Weeks, Gwynn, and Stetter the only players to make it past AA are Heether, Corporan, and Drew Anderson; Taubenheim was traded as a part of the Overbay deal. They just haven't had the pieces of the puzzle to be able to trade.

 

The last issue that makes it difficult to acquire players via trade is that many of their top prospects are coming off of injuries - Braddock, Green, Cain, Scarpetta, Rogers, Periard; when that is the case, the injury risk brings down their trade value. They are worth more intrinsically, so the better bet is to keep them and see if they recover to their potential. That doesn't leave a lot else to trade.

[colbyjack]

Melvin has done a pretty good job patching together the starting rotation the past few years with limited help from below and limited funds to out-bid other teams on the free agent market. In addition to the names already listed above, Doug Davis was another huge find for the team.

 

Obviously things haven't worked out as well this year, as he really needs to make sure the starting staff next year doesn't turn into the mess it was this year, and that may require some big decisions (not letting Suppan be a starting option, making sure Parra can take a big step forward, etc.).

 

Acquiring good, young pitchers with upside is a lot easier said than done, because so few teams are willing to give up on them. That is what made the acquisition of Capellan so exciting, although I also remember thinking at the time that the Braves seem to have a knack for getting rid of the "right" young pitchers (David Neid and Bruce Chen come to mind). Josh Butler is another good example of a trade like this, since you know that deal was made as soon as the player was offered.

 

There's beginning to be some serious romanticizing around here about the talent that got away in Jorge DLR. The guy had an ERA of 8.60 when the Brewers traded him for Tony Graffanino. Graffy performed well after that and DLR was still terrible for KC -- and again in '07 and really had Suppan-level stats for Colorado in '08. Heck, he's basically pitching like Braden Looper this year but with a big pile of strikeouts. I'd still say he's hardly a loss.

 

I agree that the loss of Jorge de la Rosa can't really be pegged on Melvin, at least not too much. Melvin himself has stated even recently that he didn't want to give up on him, but had to since his spot on the roster was hurting the team, a team that had playoff aspirations.

 

And to LouisEly's point about not having the ammo to make trades, the recent switch in draft philosophy to take more college pitchers is something the organization has stated will help in this area. We already saw it with LaPorta, but the general idea is that college players will progress and enjoy more statistical success earlier in their pro careers, giving the organization even more options to deal more quickly.

[TheCrew07]

To say that Melvin has done nothing to address starting pitching is just not true. The reality is, in order to acquire anything more than a #4 starter you have to give up quality, which means giving up Braun, Fielder, Gallardo, Escobar, or Gamel. In the Sabathia deal the biggest piece given up was a guy who was a RH hitter limited to LF and 1B and stuck behind Braun and Fielder.

Who's ever said that? The point I think you missed is that many of us think Melvin did an excellent job going from nothing to something in the rotation including myself, but we've been past the building from scratch phase for 3 or 4 years now. Debating the ceiling of the pitcher's acquired is exactly the point, we've had a revolving door at the back of the rotation without ever inserting anything into the front of it. The same thing can be said for the depth... many here championed the Wright and Green acquisitions as "good depth"... if either throws a MLB pitch for this organization we're much worse off than we have been. How much worse off would we be if Parra hadn't made it back from injury?

 

Again, give me some free reign to develop an idea... but instead of getting 3 prospects of C quality from Toronto, say we acquired one of the Bs in Marcum or McGowan? I would have happily settled for 1 B prospect over 3 Cs. Maddux had a great deal of success simplifying the mechanics of other hard throwers like Kolb and Turnbow, McGowan would have been in that same mold, except as a starter. Marcum was a more talented Dave Bush at the time, slightly better fastball and control. How sweet would our rotation have been with Sheets, Marcum/McGowan, Yo, Parra, and Suppan last season? Maybe Yo doesn't get hurt in Chicago, maybe Marcum doesn't require TJ, maybe McGowan doesn't need shoulder surgery already... there's no guarantee the dominoes would have fallen the exact same way.. What if we would have never had to trade LaPorta for a rental and could have built a package for a different longer term solution to replace Sheets?

 

There were many other possibilities out there, other teams have made deals for starting pitching. Melvin had/has limited resources, he's got to get the most out of them when he flips them, and I don't think it's fair to assume he's always gotten the best deals. He's rolled the dice on a couple of mid rotation guys in Capellan and Butler, but where's the talent beyond that? In some ways it's a question of depth, in that the organization didn't have enough pitching to start with, but there has also been a serious lack of talent when acquiring pitchers.

 

DM has had very limited opportunities to acquire decent pitching and he used his best assets to acquire a rental. I've argued that point to death in the past, I was more concerned with the rotation this season than a playoff appearance because I didn't think we were going anywhere. I realize I'm in the minority, that many people enjoyed the playoff baseball and in some ways the appearance validated their fandom. I honestly don't know why I didn't care as much as the rest of the gang around here, maybe I"m wired differently. I just think the Sabathia move may have been preventable if Melvin had been a little more aggressive. He had his opportunities to possibly remedy the situation along the way.... Maybe he tried to move Hardy for pitching this off season like I wanted but I highly doubt it. Melvin doesn't make bold moves, he makes the obvious moves at the obvious times. I'm not upset with him for moving on from players like JDLR or Lehr, they didn't perform well enough to stick around.

 

I guess my biggest issue with this whole scenario starts with how the team was built, it wasn't built from the pitching staff up, it was built from the position players up, so we've never had enough quality pitching or depth to go with this first wave of prospects. I see Tampa trading away a top position prospect for a pitching prospect and I've been jealous, that's the type of move I've wanted the Brewers to make (and no I didn't expect Young to fail, I do feel for MN). I've never cared as much about the handedness of the lineup, the OBP in the lineup, or any of that other stuff, I've always been concerned with the starting pitching. Even on the minor league forum every box score I look at the pitching lines first, then scroll back up and see what the hitters did.

 

The vast majority of my baseball reading has been centered on pitching... I'm not into the standard pitching metrics like FIP or PAP... they don't tell you anything you can't see from watching the game... I'm into Pitch FX... movement, location, velocity differentials between pitches, K rates, BB rate, Ground Ball rates, and all of the applicable ratios in-between. I learned a bunch of tough lessons from Little Ben, I was sure he was going to be good, but I'm a more educated fan now, which is why I was never very high on a guy like Cody. Now as I look back I'm ashamed that I was excited that we acquired Zack Jackson because he was a 1st round pick, a Capellan because he was a highly rated prospect in a good system, a Villy because he always got hitters out. Now I'm into stuff, a pitcher's pure physical talent, and looking back we just haven't acquired many starting pitchers that actually had velocity and good stuff, and when we had opportunities to get more talented players it appears DM went a different direction. I do end up liking a guy like a Dave Bush because he's so relentless on the mound, I'm into guys that will furiously compete, but I still understand that's he's not all that physically gifted a pitcher.

 

It's not that I don't see the value in guys like Bush, Looper, and Suppan, it's that somewhere along the lines here I set my sights higher. I still think Suppan made sense at the time he was signed, the Brewers didn't have surplus talent which is the only time Melvin seems to want to make a deal, so they had no other way to get pitching. What I mean is that he wasn't going to trade Weeks or Fielder for a stud pitcher like MN did moving Young for Garza, he was going to move the less valuable MLB player after the prospects proved they were ready. I didn't like Suppan as a pitcher, there's just no margin for error, and as the velocity differential between his pitches continues to decline he has even less margin for error.

 

I do think though that the Suppan contract highlights the disparity between pitching and hitting and quite well.... for 12 million dollars we're going to get much greater production out of a position player than we will a pitcher, pitching is just too expensive per win on the FA market. DM, knowing that the FA pitching market stinks for a club on a small budget should have had a better plan in place, there was no good reason for the pitching situation to get as bad as it did this season. I still don't see a compelling reason why the team had to sit on every position player that proved they were valuable given the state of pitching in the organization. I guess DM and I just don't see eye to eye on these ideas at all.

[tigerbrew]

And yet if he had said what you apparently think he should have (i.e., 'We're just going to tread water this season' or the like), he would have been crucified for those comments just as much if not more. God forbid that someone sets a goal of success.

I think you're putting words in my mouth. If it is an unrealistic expectation, I think as GM it would be responsible to say nothing rather than something not true and misleading. It would be much better to actually improve the team that could realistically backup his "win the division" expectation before saying it, if not don't say it.

 

As GM, what good does it do to say out an unrealistic goal and have it blow up in your face later on? And how does that help the team? It has added a lot of pressure and grief to the pitchers, added presure to the offense to increase run support, and has cost Bill Castro his job.

 

 

I'm fairly amazed how many people expect a GM's comments in the press to be brazenly honest assessments of the organization. It's PR, and shouldn't be taken at face value.

So what you're saying is it's the fans fault for believing Melvin's words, all this time Melvin doesn't mean what he actually says, and there are many gullible Brewers fans out there? I guess those fans that believed the hype and bought many tickets because of it, and those fans that write "In Melvin we trust" should have their heads examine. Thanks for enlightening me on your understanding of what PR is.

[brewers19]

Nobody (except maybe Braun) openly speaks their mind to the media, especially not front office people. It's a world of soundbites. Very few people are willing (stupid enough?) to call out others in their organization publicly; players don't want to piss off their teammates, managers don't want to throw their players under the bus, and executives don't want to demoralize the organization and its fans. What goes on behind closed doors and out of the public eye is probably nothing at all like what's reported in the papers. This is not a particularly novel concept. If people want to take the comments to the media as gospel and 100% truth, then I guess that's their prerogative; they're setting themselves up for a whole bunch of disappointment, but whatever.

 

If you want to believe that Bill Castro and [almost] the entire pitching staff failed this season because of a 5 second snippet that Melvin gave to the Journal-Sentinel back in March, go for it. I won't have your back on it though.

[joepepsi]

From 2005-2008 the organization had good depth at starting pitching.

 

This year they didn't due to losing Sheets and CC, a lack of ML ready talent in the high minors, injuries to Bush and Suppan, and Parra's ERA skyrocketing up 2+ runs.

 

To say 'twas always thus is revisionist thinking.

[giffted1]

Again, give me some free reign to develop an idea... but instead of getting 3 prospects of C quality from Toronto, say we acquired one of the Bs in Marcum or McGowan? I would have happily settled for 1 B prospect over 3 Cs. Maddux had a great deal of success simplifying the mechanics of other hard throwers like Kolb and Turnbow, McGowan would have been in that same mold, except as a starter. Marcum was a more talented Dave Bush at the time, slightly better fastball and control. How sweet would our rotation have been with Sheets, Marcum/McGowan, Yo, Parra, and Suppan last season? Maybe Yo doesn't get hurt in Chicago, maybe Marcum doesn't require TJ, maybe McGowan doesn't need shoulder surgery already... there's no guarantee the dominoes would have fallen the exact same way.. What if we would have never had to trade LaPorta for a rental and could have built a package for a different longer term solution to replace Sheets?

Shortly after the time of the Overbay trade McGowan was considered the top prospect in the Blue Jays system. We were not getting him for Lyle Overbay. Fielder might have netted him, though. Also, your desire for Marcum is almost certainly benefited by the luxury of hindsight. Marcum was not part of the top ten prospect ranking at the time of the Overbay trade. In the previous year Jackson, not Marcum was part of the list.

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

Without the injuries to Chris Capuano and Mark Rogers, and the suspensions of Jeremy Jeffress, our starting pitching situation would look a lot different.

[DougJones43]

Without the injuries to Chris Capuano and Mark Rogers, and the suspensions of Jeremy Jeffress, our starting pitching situation would look a lot different.

That stuff didn't exactly happen recently. There's been ample time to alter the course -- it just wasn't done. Two of those guys have never even sniffed the high minors, and the other had Tommy John surgery. Counting on any of them to become contributors in the rotation was likely to end in disaster.

[Invader3K]

That is valid...none of those guys were going to likely contribute this year. However, Jeffress maybe could have provided trade ammo if he could control his personal choices.