How aggressive should the Brewers be with Odorizzi?

[kramnoj]

Narveson, had more upside than Suppan could dream of this year, plus had a stellar spring training on top of a decent September last year

 

A lot was made of Narveson's September and spring training stats, and how it was clear to many people that he should be starting over Suppan. Hopefully some people have learned that September and spring training stats aren't that useful as a predictor.

 

Whether he threw innings in AAA or in the big club, he would have been used one way or the other, if one is concerned with injury risk.

 

No, injury risk was not my concern. The concern is that once a player ends a season with 6 years of major league service time, that player is a Free Agent and I don't see the benefit of using a full year of time, when you can call up a player 3 weeks into the season and get 6 years and up to 5 months of service.

[endaround]

Except injury risk should be a huge concern. Gamel just lost a full year of service because of where he got injured. Cain getting inured in Milwaukee means service time, Braddock getting injured in Milwaukee means service time. So yes where a player who you have concerns about his health plays makes a huge difference. And for Cain, he got hurt as it was and took some time to recover.

[igor67]

It all depends kramnoj. There are a multitude of permutations in some cases depending on the quality of the player and who he might replace I'd say keep him down. Others bring him up to start the year. Pitcher or position player? My original point was only to argue against wanton use of service time as a sole justification. It has just become to convenient of an argument when real situations are much more complex, and the uncertainty of the future 6 years from now has to be weighed against decisions for the coming year. Case example Kerry Wood first brought up in 1998, due to injury eating up a year of service time he needed 7 years to accumulate the best 6 years of his career. Do you think the Cubs wake up screaming in the middle of the night, thinking it's a good thing we bought out a year of FA so we could have that last productive year as a starter? Or would they in the end just as soon cut bait instead of turning his playing contract into a high priced reliever? Things get even more exciting with Mark Prior. Steve Woodard?

[kramnoj]

Case example Kerry Wood first brought up in 1998, due to injury eating up a year of service time he needed 7 years to accumulate the best 6 years of his career. Do you think the Cubs wake up screaming in the middle of the night, thinking it's a good thing we bought out a year of FA so we could have that last productive year as a starter?

 

We must be having different conversations, because I don't understand what this has to do with monitoring a player's service time. I presume the Cubs bought out a year of FA because Wood had performed well over a number of years and they wanted to retain him. I don't think they were trying to get an extra year because they lost a year.

 

My original point was only to argue against wanton use of service time as a sole justification.

 

Nobody has said that service time should be the sole justification. We have talked about how a middle reliever isn't likely to provide much value over the first 3 weeks, or 7 weeks of a season, so it makes sense to leave the prospect in the minors ready to come up in case of injury or bad performance at the major league level. So when I make that argument, I am talking about value and depth, not just service time.

 

Except injury risk should be a huge concern

 

Why, exactly? If you decide to bring up a player to the big leagues, you are presumably doing so because he is your best option. You can't do anything to prevent him from being injured, so why should it be a concern? Now, if we want to talk about the value of having players in major league camp in Spring Training if they aren't likely to make the club, sure that's a point of discussion, but that's not what is being talked about here.

 

As for Odorizzi, I would prefer to follow the Gallardo path. Unless he is just far and away one of the best 5 SP in the organization at the beginning of the year, it's best to leave him in the minors to start the year, get some more development time, and be available to be called on in case of injury or bad performance.

[igor67]

The point is that his service time was scarcely relevant because he barely made it 6 useful years as a player. I think that's probably even more likely to be true of relievers. I am being a bit more general than one specific instance partially to make my more general point and partially because I think it's too hard to reset the conversation and make all decisions starting from the beginning of the season accounting for all the relevant factors and uncertainty in the final outcome.

[kramnoj]

The point is that his service time was scarcely relevant because he barely made it 6 useful years as a player

 

Yes, some players won't provide 6 good years. But a GM has to consider all options. And if Braddock turns out being good and healthy in 2016, the Brewers will be better off by having control of him that year instead of starting him off 2010 with the Brewers and having to compete for him in FA, or paying extra for 2016 if an extension is signed.

 

I am being a bit more general than one specific instance partially to make my more general point and partially because I think it's too hard to reset the conversation and make all decisions starting from the beginning of the season accounting for all the relevant factors and uncertainty in the final outcome.

 

That is basically a key component of the GM job. It's why it isn't easy, and why many of them work 70-90 hours a week during the season and work a decent amount in the offseason as well.