What do you think of our Wang? Slot Worthy?

[502 to Right]

There are so many things I want to write but I'll just say Mike Leake and let you figure out the rest.

 

 

So you're comparing a 1st round (8th overall) draft pick to Wang?

[lcbj68c]

He DOES NOT need to PITCH WELL to CONTRIBUTE. He DOES NOT need to PITCH OFTEN to GROW. He DOES NOT need to pitch 4 days a week to keep the bullpen from TIRING. His presence as the 25th man is not losing ballgames or keeping the team fom CONTENDING. The RISK of drafting him HAS NOT GROWN since the day he was selectedd, but the REWARD continues to creep closer. He may NEVER throw an inning in MLB beyond 2014, it doesn't make his roster placement any less valid.

[SoupTown]

He DOES NOT need to PITCH WELL to CONTRIBUTE. He DOES NOT need to PITCH OFTEN to GROW. He DOES NOT need to pitch 4 days a week to keep the bullpen from TIRING. His presence as the 25th man is not losing ballgames or keeping the team fom CONTENDING. The RISK of drafting him HAS NOT GROWN since the day he was selectedd, but the REWARD continues to creep closer. He may NEVER throw an inning in MLB beyond 2014, it doesn't make his roster placement any less valid.

 

vs

 

"The point was could you find a pitcher that has only pitched 6 innings after the first 29 games of the season (while being on the active roster the entire time) with a 15 ERA who was able to keep their roster spot"

 

 

It is really hard to know which logic or opinion to put weight to. If I add the pink unicorn to the 2nd observation, maybe I need to go with that. Maybe we need to find a pink unicorn whose name begins with W to clearly and surely make the correct comparison and judgment

[HiAndTight]

There are so many things I want to write but I'll just say Mike Leake and let you figure out the rest.

 

 

So you're comparing a 1st round (8th overall) draft pick to Wang?

 

 

It's absolutely amazing how obtuse you are. You CONSISTENTLY come up with this bizarre set of criteria...I "challenge you to find someone who has done exactly this," and then as soon as someone does you say, "so you're comparing a player who has done this before to this?" "Name one time a contender has carried a rule 5 player on a contending team! Oh....it's happened about 10 times in the last 10 years, well how many of them were ROOKIE ball pitchers?"

 

It's beginning to get more and more just pathetic and obscure these restrictions.

 

Not that I felt your argument had any credibility left after you still argued against the Twins keeping Johan Santana even with the benefit of hindsight at your disposal.

 

It's just fascinating how far some people will go to try and find something to turn into such a controversy. The worst guy on our roster....like almost EVERY other team in baseball sucks right now. The difference is, there is a very real chance that guy could be a very good pitcher for us in the future.

 

 

 

 

Edit-And actually....YES. He is comparing Wang a 1st round draft pick to Wang because that is the analogy that people far smarter than you have used. Adding Wang is like adding a 1st round draft pick to our organization. So I guess aside from all your "yeah, but that's not EXACTLY the same," like whining, Wang is comparable to a 1st round talent.

[HiAndTight]

I challange anyone to find another team that has a guy in their bullpen that has been on the active roster since the beginning of the season (no games missed because of injury or DL stints) and has 4IP and a 15 ERA.

How about John Axeford last season? He had an ERA of 18.20 after 4 1/3 innings. You simply do not make any decisions based on that sample size if you don't have to. Especially when you would lose the pitcher by doing so.

 

 

Please tell me you're not comparing a rookie pitcher whose only professional experience is pitching one season of minor league Rookie ball to someone who had a lengthy track record of being an excellent relief pitcher in the majors.

 

Which of these two pitchers is more likely to become a useful pitcher during the season in question?

 

It seems that the pro-Wang crowd wants to gloss over the fact that it is virtually unprecedented that a team would carry someone with this little experience on a big league roster. Pitching in major league baseball is really, really hard and usually requires a number of years in the minors even for elite prospects--(which Wang is not).

 

 

Now this is the type of insight I come to you for! It's not just really hard, but really, REALLY hard.

 

Guess what else is hard? Finding talented young pitchers who are left handed and can throw the ball 96 MPH.

 

And by the way, Wang's not an elite prospect according to....you.

[TooLiveBrew]

502 & H&T:

 

No más on the ad hominem please. Passion is appreciated, but the name calling will have to end.

[RockCoCougars]

He DOES NOT need to PITCH WELL to CONTRIBUTE. He DOES NOT need to PITCH OFTEN to GROW. He DOES NOT need to pitch 4 days a week to keep the bullpen from TIRING. His presence as the 25th man is not losing ballgames or keeping the team fom CONTENDING. The RISK of drafting him HAS NOT GROWN since the day he was selectedd, but the REWARD continues to creep closer. He may NEVER throw an inning in MLB beyond 2014, it doesn't make his roster placement any less valid.

 

I couldn't have said it any better myself. The old adage 'people will always find something to complain about' applies here. This team is on one of the 5 best runs I've seen in all of my years as a fan, and we are arguing about the 'long man' in the pen? I'm guessing Overbay has outperformed some people's low expectations, so they turned to Wang.

 

Personally, I'm just enjoying the ride, and hoping they can delay the inevitable bad stretch for as long as possible.

[1992casey]

It's absolutely amazing how obtuse you are.…

 

Not that I felt your argument had any credibility left after you still argued against the Twins keeping Johan Santana even with the benefit of hindsight at your disposal.…

This totally crosses the line into an ad hominem attack.

 

I'd suggest reviewing Brewerfan's Fan Forum Etiquette, particularly:

 

Condescending talk toward other posters (including but not limited to name-calling, baiting and flaming) is not allowed. Other Brewers-related message boards are more tolerant of "talking smack" to other users, and we suggest you go there if that's what you're about.

 

and

 

If you want to respond to multiple messages in a thread, try to do it with a single post, rather than a bunch of consecutive posts. The latter gives the impression you haven't read the earlier posts.

 

and

 

Quoting multi-paragraph blocks of a message previously posted in a thread is not reader-friendly. Neither is quoting a string of a multiple nested replies. Please see "Quoting messages: please be brief" for more detail.

 

If you think in terms of the [abbr=Fan Forum Etiquette]FFE[/abbr] items mentioned directly above, your posts will come off as a lot less confrontational.

[502 to Right]

You CONSISTENTLY come up with this bizarre set of criteria...I "challenge you to find someone who has done exactly this,"

 

I raise those questions because what the Brewers are attempting to do is so amazingly without precedent.

 

I won't post in this thread anymore and just let Wang answer our questions. At the end of the season everyone will know how much he helped or hurt the team. And at the end of his career we'll find out if he's the second coming of Johan Santana or another lefthander who amounted to not much. I'm not a gambler, but if I was I'd be putting my money on the latter.

 

I just hope this bizarre experiment doesn't cost the Brewers any games this year.

[DuWayne Steurer]

And at the end of his career we'll find out if he's the second coming of Johan Santana or another lefthander who amounted to not much. I'm not a gambler, but if I was I'd be putting my money on the latter.

 

.

 

 

So he's either going to be a bust, or win multiple Cy Young's.

 

Not leaving a lot of middle ground there.

[young guns]

Just because something is without precedent doesn't make it wrong or stupid to try. Being without precedence just means it hasnt been done before. Yes this is a gamble. But, at least so far, it hasn't cost us anything. And when you are bad at acquiring talent one way, sometimes you need to get creative in other ways. And speaking of precedent, when was the last time a lefty with a mid 90s fastball even been eligable for the rule 5. Im sure it doesn't happen all that often and certainly not at Wang's age or with his command.

[Patrick425]

You CONSISTENTLY come up with this bizarre set of criteria...I "challenge you to find someone who has done exactly this,"

 

I raise those questions because what the Brewers are attempting to do is so amazingly without precedent.

 

I won't post in this thread anymore and just let Wang answer our questions.

 

This is pretty much where I'm coming from also. It's clear that some feel like this is no big deal and that teams do this all the time. I can't think of any time where a team has allowed an A ball caliber pitcher take up a roster spot with basically the assumption he he will be on the roster the entire year because of his "future potential" and we can't afford to lose him despite how poorly he pitches this year. A position rule 5 guy is a little different imho. At least a position rule 5 player can usually can fill in defensively or perhaps they have speed and can be used as pinch runners. An A ball pitcher is usually going to do much more damage than good when they are called upon. It's like the team has basically thrown in the white towel when ever they decide to put him in the game. I don't feel like that's the role of a "mop up" guy. I think they should be at least relied upon occasionally to keep the game within reason with some hope of making a come back. I personally don't think Wang is capable of doing that at the MLB level at this point in his career.

 

I'll also agree that only Wang will settle the argument posed in this thread. At some point in the future (possibly 2 or 3 years from now) we will hopefully see if this experiment worked. I honestly hope I'm wrong and that Wang turns out to A) not hurt us this year and B) be a contributing factor to the success of the Brewers in future years.

[SRB]

Regarding this situation never happening before, remember that the only reason we were able to acquire Wang was due to highly unusual circumstances. Assuming Wang is a legitimate SP prospect (the Brewers seem to think he is), 99% of the time that type of player is not going to get left unprotected and thus would never enter the Rule V draft. The reason Wang was eligible was due to the unusual circumstances of his injury and the Pirates voiding his original contract.

 

So the Brewers sort of have an unprecedented opportunity to "draft" a young SP prospect, with the strategy being contingent on them stashing him for the season. If all second-round-caliber pitching prospects (or however you qualify Wang) had to be placed on 40-man rosters when they were still at the Rk/A level, then a lot more teams would have to leave young prospects unprotected, and you might have other examples of teams trying to poach one via the Rule V draft.

[logan82]

A position player on the 25 man roster gets more playing time than the last guy in the pen.

[lcbj68c]

"Rule V" :bangs head on the wall:

[JohnBriggs12]

Stashing isn't all that new. Back before there was an MLB draft, there was a "bonus baby" rule, designed to discourage teams from getting in bidding wars for amateur talent. It worked something like this. If a player received a bonus in excess of a certain amount, he had to be carried on the 25 man roster for two seasons. The Braves back in the day had bonus babies Joey Jay and Bob "Hawk" Taylor. Jay was in the big leagues at 17 but hardly ever pitched for 2 years. Of course in those days starters finished games. Taylor likewise was stashed as an 18-19 year old in 57 and 58, and only appeared a handful of times.

 

Jay went on to a fine career. Taylor never reached his potential.

[Thurston Fluff]

Please tell me you're not comparing a rookie pitcher whose only professional experience is pitching one season of minor league Rookie ball to someone who had a lengthy track record of being an excellent relief pitcher in the majors.

 

It was asked to find a player who met a certain set of criteria. I did that though it was not exactly the same. Since there is no such thing as exact same situations in baseball I came as close to the criteria I could. The fact is players often start out poor and still keep their jobs. They do so because there is some reason to keep them. In both situations there was a compelling reason to keep said player.

Which of these two pitchers is more likely to become a useful pitcher during the season in question?

 

If you are asking which on would make a better mop up man in the pen I would say Wang. Axeford probably couldn't go three innings nor would I think he is the ideal guy to pitch so sporadically. If you are asking who is a pitcher more likely to help in higher leverage situations I would say Axeford. Since the pen this season has better options for high leverage situations than Axeford I would say Wang can reasonably be viewed as being more useful over the entire season. It is important to have the right mix of relievers. Some specialize in getting ground balls, some getting lefties out, some shutting the door in tight games and some mopping up innings in blowouts. In this bullpen this season I think Wang fits better than Axeford would. Especially considering the long term benefits if he can do the job well enough short term.

[SRB]

"Rule V" :bangs head on the wall:

 

Why does that bother you? You realize V = 5, right?

[HiAndTight]

You CONSISTENTLY come up with this bizarre set of criteria...I "challenge you to find someone who has done exactly this,"

 

I raise those questions because what the Brewers are attempting to do is so amazingly without precedent.

 

I won't post in this thread anymore and just let Wang answer our questions.

 

This is pretty much where I'm coming from also. It's clear that some feel like this is no big deal and that teams do this all the time. I can't think of any time where a team has allowed an A ball caliber pitcher take up a roster spot with basically the assumption he he will be on the roster the entire year because of his "future potential" and we can't afford to lose him despite how poorly he pitches this year. A position rule 5 guy is a little different imho. At least a position rule 5 player can usually can fill in defensively or perhaps they have speed and can be used as pinch runners. An A ball pitcher is usually going to do much more damage than good when they are called upon. It's like the team has basically thrown in the white towel when ever they decide to put him in the game. I don't feel like that's the role of a "mop up" guy. I think they should be at least relied upon occasionally to keep the game within reason with some hope of making a come back. I personally don't think Wang is capable of doing that at the MLB level at this point in his career.

 

I'll also agree that only Wang will settle the argument posed in this thread. At some point in the future (possibly 2 or 3 years from now) we will hopefully see if this experiment worked. I honestly hope I'm wrong and that Wang turns out to A) not hurt us this year and B) be a contributing factor to the success of the Brewers in future years.

 

 

I honestly don't believe Wang has to turn into a star for this to make sense from the Brewers perspective. They're taking a chance on a talented young pitcher(and we all know how often talented young lefties don't work out). When you weigh that against the limitations of having Wang on the roster(which I believe are minimal) and that's the argument.

 

I won't think any differently of this move if he turns into Johan Santana vs Matt Ford. When young pitching is so hit and miss, I'll take as many shots as I can to find talented ones.

[lcbj68c]

"Rule V" :bangs head on the wall:

 

Why does that bother you? You realize V = 5, right?

 

I don't know. I can only debate our XXV man roster so many ways. This MMXIIII season is so exciting, that I can't contain myself to not use roman numerals where they aren't normally.

[SRB]

"Rule V" :bangs head on the wall:

 

Why does that bother you? You realize V = 5, right?

 

I don't know. I can only debate our XXV man roster so many ways. This MMXIIII season is so exciting, that I can't contain myself to not use roman numerals where they aren't normally.

 

I'm all for pointless pedantry, but: (1) it is commonly referred to as the "Rule V" draft even if the rules themselves now technically read "Rule 5"; (2) rules are commonly numbered using roman numerals, unlike your examples; (3) the reason "Rule V" is a common alternative is because the original manifestation of the draft, dating back to like 1904, was under Rule V (not Rule 5) of the constitution of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues.

 

(PS - it's the MMXIV season)

[jerichoholicninja]

Let's say we swap Wang with Jimmy Nelson in our current situation. And Nelson was being used as infrequently and putting up shut out innings surrounded by innings where he was getting rocked. Would the same people who have a problem with Wang still have a problem?

[logan82]

Let's say we swap Wang with Jimmy Nelson in our current situation. And Nelson was being used as infrequently and putting up shut out innings surrounded by innings where he was getting rocked. Would the same people who have a problem with Wang still have a problem?

I would have a huge problem with that. I would hate to see one of our young starters not getting innings.

[Patrick425]

Let's say we swap Wang with Jimmy Nelson in our current situation. And Nelson was being used as infrequently and putting up shut out innings surrounded by innings where he was getting rocked. Would the same people who have a problem with Wang still have a problem?

 

 

You mean the current Jimmy Nelson? The one who has actually pitched at every level and is currently ranked 96th in Baseball America's top 100 prospects? If that's the Jimmy Nelson you are talking about, then no, I would not have as big of a problem. If you are talking about the 21 year old Jimmy Nelson I don't think it's relevent. He was drafted in the 2nd round and I doubt that any team (if hadn't been the Brewers that drafted him) would have allowed him to become a Rule 5. I understand the whole story about Wang becoming a Rule 5 guy with his contract language, but I'm guessing that Pittsburgh would have made sure he was on the 40 man roster had they thought he would have the same level of talent that Jimmy Nelson currently has.

[Thurston Fluff]

I understand the whole story about Wang becoming a Rule 5 guy with his contract language, but I'm guessing that Pittsburgh would have made sure he was on the 40 man roster had they thought he would have the same level of talent that Jimmy Nelson currently has.

 

What makes you say he doesn't have that level of talent? He may be more raw than Nelson but a lefty who throws mid 90's and throws strikes with all his pitches isn't exactly chopped liver.