Will Smith is Super... Two Eligible

[clancyphile]

If Toronto could have traded for Will after Loup go hurt, how much would they have given up? I think many are selling short what some teams will give up for very good BP pitcher. I would agree with those that are saying he should close to increase his value. Give him 2016 as the closer to "prove" he can do it and trade him next offseason. Chapman is a free agent next offseason (maybe Kimbrel too, can't remember). Whichever teams miss out on those guys will probably still be looking for a closer.

 

Exactly - although I'd give him 2016 and 2017 as a closer, so that there's more of a track record. Remember how Danny Kolb and Derrick Turnbow had one good year, then flopped a bit afterwards? Two years as closer, with 65-70 saves total, ought to be enough to get a nice little bidding war for Smith going.

 

And if we don't like the offers, there would still be 2018 and 2019 where he could close out games for the Crew, so who not buy out the last two years of arby and a year or two of free agency and then see what happens?

 

Win-win either way.

[LouisEly]

If he doesn't do well as a starter you can always move him back to the pen.

 

C.J. Wilson couldn't cut it as a starter in the minors, became a good ML reliever at age 24/25, then became a good ML starter. It took him a few years pitching out of the bullpen to figure out how to pitch to ML hitters.

[monty57]

Good discussion, guys. I can see validity in starting him, but it would create even more of a logjam than we already have. If the Brewers think he could cut it as a starter, one option would be to start with Nelson, Peralta, Smith, Garza, Jungmann with the intent of divesting themselves of Garza after a couple of months. Either he pitches well enough to get someone to trade for him, or else he just gets cut. Davies would be the odd man out, but he would be the first call up in case of either injury, or when Garza is gone.

 

The easier (and probably more likely) scenario is for the team to trade K-Rod and make either Jeffress or Smith the closer, with the other setting him up. Like it or not, being a proven closer will increase trade value. He wouldn't be as valuable as he would if he could prove himself to be a competent starter, but he would still have value. At around $1.2M, he isn't too expensive, but the Brewers should do what they can to build up his value, so they don't end up with an overly expensive middle reliever.

 

Bottom line, I think next year will be a proving ground for a lot of players, and the best ones should get put in the position that will make them the most valuable. We are going to see a lot more moves before this rebuild is over, including players like Peralta at some point, so having another capable MLB starter is not a bad thing. If the Brewers think he could be a middle-of-the-rotation starter, they should put him there. If not, he would be a great trade chip if he has racked up some saves by the 2016 or 2017 trade deadline.

[And That]

I would argue that there is no such thing as a starting pitcher logjam. I also don't think that Jungmann (or Davies for that matter) is a lock to the extent that if he has a bad spring/early season, that he won't be sent back down.

[clancyphile]

I would argue that there is no such thing as a starting pitcher logjam. I also don't think that Jungmann (or Davies for that matter) is a lock to the extent that if he has a bad spring/early season, that he won't be sent back down.

 

I can see that point. Still, I can think of seven or eight pitchers who would be ahead of Smith for the starting rotation.

 

I don't disagree that it is possible for Smith to up his value if he can pan out as a starter. Jorge de la Rosa proved that a lefty starter can develop later in a baseball career. That said, I think the possibility that Smith could up his value is much higher if he becomes the Brewers closer for two or three years.

[And That]

Here's a pretty good article from BP Milwaukee that argues against Smith's chances as a starter. I don't post this to suggest it trumps or answers all of And That's points, but I think it's a useful addition to the discussion:

 

http://milwaukee.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/08/05/odds-ends-will-smith-walk-rates-2016-free-agency/

My counter to the notion that he can't be a starter because he doesn't pound the strike zone enough, is that it's not fair to extrapolate how someone pitches in relief with how they might pitch as a starter. As a reliever, Smith for the most part doesn't have any sort of pitch count to worry about. That's not to say he doesn't have to throw strikes, but there's no upside in trying to be as efficient as possible either.

 

I know it's not a perfect analogue for strike rate, but he had a career BB9 in the minors of 2.2, where 112 of 133 appearances were as a starter. A 2.2 BB9 doesn't strike me as someone who is timid in the zone. Yovani Gallardo, bastion of inefficiency, has a career BB9 of 3.3 for reference. And to beat a dead horse, if he's able to find his change again, he would be able to work off of his fastball more often, as opposed to having opponents trying to sit on his slider. The less he needs to use the slider, the more effective it will be.

[DHonks]

Hmmm....moving a dominant reliever to the rotation....sounds like something the Cards have found successful for years (wainwright, looper, and most of their guys this year)

[reillymcshane]

If you want to try Smith as a starter, next year's the time to do it.

 

As to his ability to start - I think it all comes down to stuff none of us know much about. He's been a reliever for a couple of years and hasn't had to develop a full arsenal. That he didn't do well at age 22 as a starter shouln't really be held against - lots of guys are bad at age 22.

 

I think it comes down to Smith and the team making an honest assessment of his full repetoire of pitches. If they all think he has it in him to be a quality starter, then go for it.

[1992casey]

Hmmm....moving a dominant reliever to the rotation....sounds like something the Cards have found successful for years (wainwright, looper, and most of their guys this year)

Actually, that was the standard MO for years. Apprenticeships in the Major League bullpen were common. Additionally, relievers weren't normally "grown" in the minors. In the minors, pitchers were generally starters and didn't become relievers until they reached the majors.

[jerichoholicninja]

Hmmm....moving a dominant reliever to the rotation....sounds like something the Cards have found successful for years (wainwright, looper, and most of their guys this year)

 

They do it after a 1/2 season or 1 full year at the most. Not after a guy has been relieving for 2.5 years. Also, their guys were stud SP'ers in the minors. Smith was a dud SP in the minors. Well, not quite a dud but that word had nice lyrical symmetry to it.

[3and2Fastball]

I'd keep him in the bullpen, where he is valuable, and not overuse him

[Jimbo]

Hmmm....moving a dominant reliever to the rotation....sounds like something the Cards have found successful for years (wainwright, looper, and most of their guys this year)

Actually, that was the standard MO for years. Apprenticeships in the Major League bullpen were common. Additionally, relievers weren't normally "grown" in the minors. In the minors, pitchers were generally starters and didn't become relievers until they reached the majors.

 

Chris Bosio comes to mind.