Young Arms

[jas33jas]

In light of my question getting answered by Jim Callis in the Baseball America chat on ESPN.com this afternoon, I thought I would pose a question for everybody. First, I asked if any team had as talented a 1-2-3 pitching combo in the minors as the Brewers do with Gallardo, Inman, and Rogers. Seeing how the Tigers World Series team is led by their young power arms, why would the Brewers want to trade any of their young pitching (high ceiling guys) just to acquire a bat that isn't much of an upgrade? I am a big fan of bringing Crawford in to play left, but I wouldn't even consider it if one of the aforementioned pitchers were included in the price. I understand that means no Crawford, but I would be willing to play Gross out there for the time being in order to hang on to the most valuable prize in baseball: young and talented arms.

[sbrylski]

Well, pitching prospects are hit and miss. There is a decent chance Inman could amount to nothing, as could Rogers. Gallardo looks to have passed a point where he will at least reach the majors, but there really is no garauntee that he will pitch as well as he's advertised.

 

But I do agree with you. I don't really want to trade any of them for an .850 OPS guy, only if we can get something special.

 

If we were to trade one of those three, I'd trade Rogers first, because of his lack of results so far, then Inman, because he's not very advanced yet.

[jas33jas]

I understand that pitching prospects are hit and miss, especially young ones like Inman. However, I feel that their potential reward is far greater than whatever they would return in a trade.

[sbrylski]

However, I feel that their potential reward is far greater than whatever they would return in a trade.

 

Depends on the trade, but in a general sense their potential value is definatley greater than there trade value. That doesn't mean you should never trade them though. What you recieve in the trade could end up being far greater than what the prospect ever will amount to. Its a gamble either way.

[laserbomb]

In light of my question getting answered by Jim Callis in the Baseball America chat on ESPN.com this afternoon,

 

I like how you included this when it had only a slim tangent in common with the rest of your post, and you didn't even tell us how Jim Callis of Baseball America responded to your thoughtful query! What did he say about it?

[pogokat]

Pitching sure is great, but pitching prospects are not...

 

I've seen all three of these guys...rogers and inman i've seen more than once, and they are very exciting...but whenever you get a chance to trade a single A pitcher for a major league all-star under 27, you have to strongly consider it...Pitching prospects flame out...especially with the brewers, it seems..and while i have the highest expectations for all three of those guys, sanity must reign supreme...

 

Pitching will win the WS, but you have to make it stick in the majors...the Tigers didn't draft half of their pitching staff...they made shrewd moves that brought the guys in...the brewers already have their "verlander" in ben sheets...and they are working on the rest...

 

while the three arms you mentioned are exciting, i hope that the brewer faithful is not pinning all their hope on them...because the odds of them rushing to the majors and winning a bunch of rings in a row is very small..

 

edit: what did Callis have to say, anyway?

[endaround]

The Brewers real push shoudl occur over the next three seasons with Sheets, Capuano, and Bush all here. You want offense to match with the pitching, and if it requires giving up a pitching prospect that might not even have a place until 2009, you do it.

[colbyjack]

Other people have already touched on the important points. Pitching prospects are far from proven commodities. As much as I get excited when thinking about the potential of Gallardo, Inman and even Rogers, you really have to temper your expectations while also realizing that one's farm system should be used not only to develop big-league talent from within, but also to use that talent to use as tradable commodities to acquire proven & productive big-leaguers.

 

Of Detroit's rotation (Verlander, Rogers, Robertson & Bonderman), pogo already noted that Verlander was the only arm procured purely from within. Rogers was a FA pickup while Robertson & Bonderman were acquired in trade (although it should be noted that they were both closer to prospect status than proven commodities when acquired). Zumaya was homegrown as well.

 

I wanted to emphasize this point as others already have done because I have heard about this a lot lately. Everyone wants to emulate the most recent success story. After the '02 season, everyone wanted to find the next little, scrappy David Eckstein type of player since he enjoyed success with the Angels. After '03, people were saying similar things about the Marlins' rotation as they are saying about the Tigers rotation (and of that rotation Josh Beckett was the only 100% homegrown arm). After '04 everyone pointed to how you had to build your team like the OBP power Boston Red Sox, and then last year you had people wanting to build their team like the White Sox (who got inappropriately labeled as a small-ball team).

 

The bottom line is talent. It doesn't really matter how you acquire your talent (the Cardinals can prove that, as their team is largely assembled from trade acquisitions and free agents), and if trading talented prospects such as Gallardo, Inman and Rogers makes the Brewers a more talented team, then I'm all for it. I'm not suggesting we give them away, but Carl Crawford, at 24 or 25 years old with statistical trends suggesting that he's only going to get better, seems like a perfect target for the Brewers, or any team looking to improve for years to come.

[splitterpfj]

I completely agree with what Patrick is saying, nobody builds a ballclub entirely from within, the odds against that paying off are enormous. The point is to accumulate as much talent as possible, then use that talent to fill the holes you have at the big league level. If that means you develop a catcher, great, but it may also mean dealing a top prospect at another position for another team's AAA catcher, etc.

 

Guessing on young arms must keep GMs up at night. Nothing is more important than pitching, but young pitchers are the toughest thing to predict. I'd ask for quite a bit to get Gallardo out of here right now, and I would be cautious about dealing Inman, Jackson, etc...but if a deal is there that clearly upgrades the team, you can't just say no.

 

The player Houston insisted on to get Don Sutton to Milwaukee was Mike Madden. Madden won 12 big league games and was done at age 28. The guy the Twins had to get to move Frank Viola to the Mets was David West...he never became what they thought he would....but oh yeah, they got Rick Augilera and Kevin Tapani in that move too.

 

The A's would gladly take Bonderman back from the Tigers, the Mets would surely take Kazmir back from the DRays, but I'm sure Pittsburgh wishes they had moved Kris Benson when he was a future Cy Young candidate, ditto the Royals with Greinke.

[jas33jas]

I understand that some pitching prospects turn out to be busts. I also understand that no team can be built entirely from within. I'm just saying that the Brewers have some pretty talented youngsters and they shouldn't just give them away to acquire a bat that isn't a significant upgrade. That said, I think that Crawford could be a significant upgrade, especially since he still is improving. However, if young prospects such as Rogers and Inman aren't all that valuable, why would Tampa Bay trade Crawford for a Brewers package based around one of them? They want major league ready arms anyway, so that wouldn't be any help to them. I still wouldn't give up Galardo in a Crawford deal. So what does that leave? I would be more than willing to give up Jackson, Eveland, Hendrickson, etc., but that won't get a deal done unless the Brewers toss in some other important piece. Basically, I'm trying to say that it's not worth giving up a young pitching prospect, or any prospect for that matter, to get back a corner outfielder that is as good as Mench, Jenkins, or Gross.

[Cyanogen5]

Small market teams (like us and Tampa Bay) are perpetually looking to shed their high dollar contracts...even for good players...if they can find cheap replacements that have high ceilings. That is the rebuilding process...and most of us small market teams are perpetually rebuilding. People have targeted Crawford because we currently find ourselve possibly emerging fromt hat rebuilding process and, for a short time anyway, possibly being able to take on salary. Also, Crawfords name has appeared ont he trading block (at least in rumors). What rebuilding team isn't looking for high ceiling arms that they can get in exchange for a large contract?

[jas33jas]

Crawford stands to make $4 million in 2007...not that large yet.

[colbyjack]

You make good points in your follow-up post jas33jas, but your stance is a little different that how you started, in which you stated:

 

I feel that their potential reward is far greater than whatever they would return in a trade.

 

That made it sound like you wouldn't trade them for anything. You can argue Crawford's value vs. what we already have and I can jive with that. I may not agree with it, but the point has been made before, especially if Crawford continues to play LF as opposed to CF (although I think that point may be overblown somewhat as his productivity in LF may be balanced if you have a CF or a player at some other position that offers above-average production).

 

No one is suggesting giving the young arms away. I personally think Carl Crawford would be well worth investigating making such a trade. He's 24 years old and his numbers have only been getting better since he broke in as a 20-year old. That is usually a very good sign of better things to come (look at Carlos Beltran's progression early in his career as a comparison...Crawford may not be on that level, but he's not far off).

[Snuffzilla]

Biggest Issue w/ Young & Developing Arms is Injuries. That's why You ALWAYS Draft more then You need. YOu'll lose some to Injury, just Facts of Life of alll that Pressure to throw 100 MPH Heat....

[lithium75]

Quote:

---

No one builds a team entirely from within

---

 

The twins have built almost entirely from within. At least they haven't made any major free agent signing, at least nothing major like signing Soriano.

[splitterpfj]

The twins have built almost entirely from within. At least they haven't made any major free agent signing, at least nothing major like signing Soriano.

 

Santana, Liriano, Nathan and Bonser all came from outside the organization though, which was the point I was making, you can't just count on the guys you drafted to fill all the holes, sometimes getting guys in from other organizations is a must. The Twins wouldn't be much of a story without those arms.

 

Clearly, getting multiple arms of this caliber is a rare occurance, but when the Twins moved Pierzynski for Liriano, Nathan and Bonser, they made the kind of move that will keep a small market team competitive despite losing some of its established players. They had gotten what they could get out of Pierzynski, they knew they had a young catcher on his way, so they moved for young arms....if Liriano stays healthy that's one of the most one-sided deals in recent memory.

 

The Brewers have made lower profile moves of the same type, for the same reason. Having Weeks turned Spivey into Ohka, having Fielder turned Overbay into three players. I wish we were in a position to do that again this winter, another deal for two talented young arms would make me very happy....somehow I don't see Jenkins, Mench or Koskie bringing that back here.