Is Brandon Woodruff a Brewers Trade Candidate?

One only has to look at the Castillo trade to see the minimum the Brewers should expect back in a Burnes trade.  A top 15 prospect, a top 50 prospect. a prospect in the team's top 10 and a low A flyer.

6 minutes ago, Lajitas said:

One only has to look at the Castillo trade to see the minimum the Brewers should expect back in a Burnes trade.  A top 15 prospect, a top 50 prospect. a prospect in the team's top 10 and a low A flyer.

Yep. And it should be even more as Burnes is better and has a half-year extra of control. 

6 minutes ago, Lajitas said:

One only has to look at the Castillo trade to see the minimum the Brewers should expect back in a Burnes trade.  A top 15 prospect, a top 50 prospect. a prospect in the team's top 10 and a low A flyer.

Yep. And it should be even more as Burnes is better and has a half-year extra of control. 

36 minutes ago, monty57 said:

The reality is that we are set to lose Burnes, Woodruff, Lauer, Houser and Adames after the 2024 season unless they are traded or extended. I am skeptical on extensions for either Burnes or Woodruff, as Burnes will be too expensive and at Woodruff's age he will probably want an extension longer than I'd be comfortable giving.

If we're looking at "not pissing off the fans," would the fans be less upset if we trade both of them after '23 than they would if we trade one this offseason and one next? I think not, and I really think fans will be mad if we let 80% of our starting rotation and our starting SS walk for nothing after '24. That's a route the team can't even consider. 

It's going to be a tough road, but I think the best chance of maintaining "continued competitiveness" without a rebuild period will be to trade one of the "big 2" this offseason, and one next offseason. Whatever way we go, we'll have to rely on young players both from our current system and from trades. 

So, my opinion (which probably isn't worth much) is that they will dangle both of Burnes and Woodruff on the market and take the offer that makes the most sense while retaining the other. They'll go into next season with a still-strong rotation (Burnes or Woodruff, Peralta, Lauer, Ashby a group including Houser fighting for #5), some rookie starters (Mitchell, Turang, Frelick), and some positions hopefully upgraded by the aforementioned trade. They should also have some money to spend on upgrades with the subtraction of some decent-sized obligations (Burnes/Woodruff, Hader, Cain, Wong) off the books.

I think they'll still be in contention for a division title with this team, but if not they'll start the sell-off next trade deadline, with the remainder of the pending FAs traded away before the start of the '24 season.

I disagree to the extent that they'll just go and "take the offer that makes the most sense." Either a team will meet the designated value for these players or they won't. What the Brewers should NOT do is trade those players just for the sake of trading them according to a specific timeline. That kind of mentality is how you set yourself up to come out on the losing end of trades, especially with two whole seasons of team control remaining. 

As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud. 

36 minutes ago, monty57 said:

The reality is that we are set to lose Burnes, Woodruff, Lauer, Houser and Adames after the 2024 season unless they are traded or extended. I am skeptical on extensions for either Burnes or Woodruff, as Burnes will be too expensive and at Woodruff's age he will probably want an extension longer than I'd be comfortable giving.

If we're looking at "not pissing off the fans," would the fans be less upset if we trade both of them after '23 than they would if we trade one this offseason and one next? I think not, and I really think fans will be mad if we let 80% of our starting rotation and our starting SS walk for nothing after '24. That's a route the team can't even consider. 

It's going to be a tough road, but I think the best chance of maintaining "continued competitiveness" without a rebuild period will be to trade one of the "big 2" this offseason, and one next offseason. Whatever way we go, we'll have to rely on young players both from our current system and from trades. 

So, my opinion (which probably isn't worth much) is that they will dangle both of Burnes and Woodruff on the market and take the offer that makes the most sense while retaining the other. They'll go into next season with a still-strong rotation (Burnes or Woodruff, Peralta, Lauer, Ashby a group including Houser fighting for #5), some rookie starters (Mitchell, Turang, Frelick), and some positions hopefully upgraded by the aforementioned trade. They should also have some money to spend on upgrades with the subtraction of some decent-sized obligations (Burnes/Woodruff, Hader, Cain, Wong) off the books.

I think they'll still be in contention for a division title with this team, but if not they'll start the sell-off next trade deadline, with the remainder of the pending FAs traded away before the start of the '24 season.

I disagree to the extent that they'll just go and "take the offer that makes the most sense." Either a team will meet the designated value for these players or they won't. What the Brewers should NOT do is trade those players just for the sake of trading them according to a specific timeline. That kind of mentality is how you set yourself up to come out on the losing end of trades, especially with two whole seasons of team control remaining. 

As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud. 

31 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I disagree to the extent that they'll just go and "take the offer that makes the most sense." Either a team will meet the designated value for these players or they won't. What the Brewers should NOT do is trade those players just for the sake of trading them according to a specific timeline. That kind of mentality is how you set yourself up to come out on the losing end of trades, especially with two whole seasons of team control remaining. 

As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud. 

I agree with your assessment on Woodruff.  He just seems built to pitch effectively into his late-30s and his injury history to this point is not too concerning.  I'd be very comfortable offering him a long-term extension.

31 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I disagree to the extent that they'll just go and "take the offer that makes the most sense." Either a team will meet the designated value for these players or they won't. What the Brewers should NOT do is trade those players just for the sake of trading them according to a specific timeline. That kind of mentality is how you set yourself up to come out on the losing end of trades, especially with two whole seasons of team control remaining. 

As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud. 

I agree with your assessment on Woodruff.  He just seems built to pitch effectively into his late-30s and his injury history to this point is not too concerning.  I'd be very comfortable offering him a long-term extension.

25 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I disagree to the extent that they'll just go and "take the offer that makes the most sense." Either a team will meet the designated value for these players or they won't. What the Brewers should NOT do is trade those players just for the sake of trading them according to a specific timeline. That kind of mentality is how you set yourself up to come out on the losing end of trades, especially with two whole seasons of team control remaining. 

As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud. 

Just don’t think it’s good idea for this SM team to extend a pitcher with most, if not all of his contract years post-prime. 

I’d prefer the trade route with the return being a big-armed starter prospect. This team has shown they can develop starting pitching, so I’m just going to trust they can continue to develop the starters, especially when they have a big arm to work with.

25 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I disagree to the extent that they'll just go and "take the offer that makes the most sense." Either a team will meet the designated value for these players or they won't. What the Brewers should NOT do is trade those players just for the sake of trading them according to a specific timeline. That kind of mentality is how you set yourself up to come out on the losing end of trades, especially with two whole seasons of team control remaining. 

As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud. 

Just don’t think it’s good idea for this SM team to extend a pitcher with most, if not all of his contract years post-prime. 

I’d prefer the trade route with the return being a big-armed starter prospect. This team has shown they can develop starting pitching, so I’m just going to trust they can continue to develop the starters, especially when they have a big arm to work with.

43 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud. 

Yes-yes-yes. I just do not get this. We're treating ptichers that we're basically pampering(smartly so) like their NFL Running Backs. 

The record just does not bear this out. And there's always injury risks. If he needs Tommy John, that'd suck. But you lose him for 15 months and they usually come back stronger than before. 

I'd also like to add when people say we've "only" produced Burnes and Woodruff, we also produced Jimmy Nelson(just fluke injury) he was a borderline ace, Freddy Peralta, we helped Lauer become a much better version of himself, Devin Williams, Adrian Houser's sinker was one of the best pitches in baseball last year and Andy Ashby has TOR type stuff. 

43 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud. 

Yes-yes-yes. I just do not get this. We're treating ptichers that we're basically pampering(smartly so) like their NFL Running Backs. 

The record just does not bear this out. And there's always injury risks. If he needs Tommy John, that'd suck. But you lose him for 15 months and they usually come back stronger than before. 

I'd also like to add when people say we've "only" produced Burnes and Woodruff, we also produced Jimmy Nelson(just fluke injury) he was a borderline ace, Freddy Peralta, we helped Lauer become a much better version of himself, Devin Williams, Adrian Houser's sinker was one of the best pitches in baseball last year and Andy Ashby has TOR type stuff. 

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I disagree to the extent that they'll just go and "take the offer that makes the most sense." Either a team will meet the designated value for these players or they won't. What the Brewers should NOT do is trade those players just for the sake of trading them according to a specific timeline. That kind of mentality is how you set yourself up to come out on the losing end of trades, especially with two whole seasons of team control remaining. 

As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud. 

A) Of course I didn't mean they should take whatever crap someone will unload on them. If the Brewers were to look for offers on Burnes and / or Woodruff and no team gave them anything worth taking, then I'd be pretty shocked. I think the more likely scenario would be that they would get multiple solid offers on both of the players, and as I said, they would take the one that made the most sense.

B) I think that Woodruff is more likely to extend than Burnes, and I could see a scenario where that could happen. I don't think that it's wise to think that because a few guys can pitch longer than average, that we should expect our guy will. The likely scenario if the Brewers extended Woodruff to age 35 is that for the final years of that deal, we would have a substantial portion of our payroll as "dead weight" in Woodruff and Yelich, which would make it difficult to remain competitive.

Sports are a young man's game. Getting emotionally attached to the name on the back of the jersey can lead to bad decisions. I like Woodruff, and I would like to see him extended for a couple of years beyond his current "team control." I don't think he'll do that, as he'll want to cash in on his one chance to do so. If he requires 4-5 years beyond his current team control (which I would if I were him), then I'd trade him and let some other team take the risk of paying him big money for his middle-30's while we have a boatload of new, young talent from the trade.

37 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Just don’t think it’s good idea for this SM team to extend a pitcher with most, if not all of his contract years post-prime. 

I’d prefer the trade route with the return being a big-armed starter prospect. This team has shown they can develop starting pitching, so I’m just going to trust they can continue to develop the starters, especially when they have a big arm to work with.

Did you not read what I said? A Burnes extension is probably out of our wheelhouse, so I'm fine with trading him for the sort of big-armed starter prospect that you refer to. HOWEVER, wouldn't it be logical, if possible, to lock up a guy such as Woodruff who we already know is one of the top starters in the game for 5 more years through his age 35 season? The Phillies literally did the same thing in FA with Wheeler, a very similar pitcher to Woodruff I would point out, and look how well that's turned out for them. Woodruff's prime will almost certainly extend through the first couple of seasons of such a deal, where he will likely rack up a ton of WAR, and then even in the later seasons, he should still be an very effective pitcher judging by his repertoire and build. It's not like we would be extending him until he's 37 or 38, which is more of a danger zone. Elite pitchers are aging very gracefully nowadays, perhaps even moreso than position players. 

37 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Just don’t think it’s good idea for this SM team to extend a pitcher with most, if not all of his contract years post-prime. 

I’d prefer the trade route with the return being a big-armed starter prospect. This team has shown they can develop starting pitching, so I’m just going to trust they can continue to develop the starters, especially when they have a big arm to work with.

Did you not read what I said? A Burnes extension is probably out of our wheelhouse, so I'm fine with trading him for the sort of big-armed starter prospect that you refer to. HOWEVER, wouldn't it be logical, if possible, to lock up a guy such as Woodruff who we already know is one of the top starters in the game for 5 more years through his age 35 season? The Phillies literally did the same thing in FA with Wheeler, a very similar pitcher to Woodruff I would point out, and look how well that's turned out for them. Woodruff's prime will almost certainly extend through the first couple of seasons of such a deal, where he will likely rack up a ton of WAR, and then even in the later seasons, he should still be an very effective pitcher judging by his repertoire and build. It's not like we would be extending him until he's 37 or 38, which is more of a danger zone. Elite pitchers are aging very gracefully nowadays, perhaps even moreso than position players. 

3 minutes ago, monty57 said:

A) Of course I didn't mean they should take whatever crap someone will unload on them. If the Brewers were to look for offers on Burnes and / or Woodruff and no team gave them anything worth taking, then I'd be pretty shocked. I think the more likely scenario would be that they would get multiple solid offers on both of the players, and as I said, they would take the one that made the most sense.

B) I think that Woodruff is more likely to extend than Burnes, and I could see a scenario where that could happen. I don't think that it's wise to think that because a few guys can pitch longer than average, that we should expect our guy will. The likely scenario if the Brewers extended Woodruff to age 35 is that for the final years of that deal, we would have a substantial portion of our payroll as "dead weight" in Woodruff and Yelich, which would make it difficult to remain competitive.

Sports are a young man's game. Getting emotionally attached to the name on the back of the jersey can lead to bad decisions. I like Woodruff, and I would like to see him extended for a couple of years beyond his current "team control." I don't think he'll do that, as he'll want to cash in on his one chance to do so. If he requires 4-5 years beyond his current team control (which I would if I were him), then I'd trade him and let some other team take the risk of paying him big money for his middle-30's while we have a boatload of new, young talent from the trade.

A) The Brewers have a specific value that they've designated for each of their players. Either a team meets that value or it doesn't. We shouldn't settle for merely a "solid" offer with both of these guys two whole years from free agency. Otherwise, you're just setting things up for failure. 

B) Again a five year deal such as what Castillo and Wheeler got would take Woodruff to his age 35 season. There is no reason to think that his age 33-35 years would turn out to be "dead weight", even if they're not as productive as his prime years. But simply saying baseball is a "young man's game" is ignoring how many of the best pitchers in baseball over in recent seasons have been in their 30s. Guys like Verlander, Lance Lynn, etc. are very similar to Woodruff in build and arsenal. I'll take the assurance of having an ace over the next several years over gambling that we can replicate our success with Burnes, Peralta, and Woodruff with another team's prospects. 

3 minutes ago, monty57 said:

A) Of course I didn't mean they should take whatever crap someone will unload on them. If the Brewers were to look for offers on Burnes and / or Woodruff and no team gave them anything worth taking, then I'd be pretty shocked. I think the more likely scenario would be that they would get multiple solid offers on both of the players, and as I said, they would take the one that made the most sense.

B) I think that Woodruff is more likely to extend than Burnes, and I could see a scenario where that could happen. I don't think that it's wise to think that because a few guys can pitch longer than average, that we should expect our guy will. The likely scenario if the Brewers extended Woodruff to age 35 is that for the final years of that deal, we would have a substantial portion of our payroll as "dead weight" in Woodruff and Yelich, which would make it difficult to remain competitive.

Sports are a young man's game. Getting emotionally attached to the name on the back of the jersey can lead to bad decisions. I like Woodruff, and I would like to see him extended for a couple of years beyond his current "team control." I don't think he'll do that, as he'll want to cash in on his one chance to do so. If he requires 4-5 years beyond his current team control (which I would if I were him), then I'd trade him and let some other team take the risk of paying him big money for his middle-30's while we have a boatload of new, young talent from the trade.

A) The Brewers have a specific value that they've designated for each of their players. Either a team meets that value or it doesn't. We shouldn't settle for merely a "solid" offer with both of these guys two whole years from free agency. Otherwise, you're just setting things up for failure. 

B) Again a five year deal such as what Castillo and Wheeler got would take Woodruff to his age 35 season. There is no reason to think that his age 33-35 years would turn out to be "dead weight", even if they're not as productive as his prime years. But simply saying baseball is a "young man's game" is ignoring how many of the best pitchers in baseball over in recent seasons have been in their 30s. Guys like Verlander, Lance Lynn, etc. are very similar to Woodruff in build and arsenal. I'll take the assurance of having an ace over the next several years over gambling that we can replicate our success with Burnes, Peralta, and Woodruff with another team's prospects. 

11 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Did you not read what I said? A Burnes extension is probably out of our wheelhouse, so I'm fine with trading him for the sort of big-armed starter prospect that you refer to. HOWEVER, wouldn't it be logical, if possible, to lock up a guy such as Woodruff who we already know is one of the top starters in the game for 5 more years through his age 35 season? The Phillies literally did the same thing in FA with Wheeler, a very similar pitcher to Woodruff I would point out, and look how well that's turned out for them. Woodruff's prime will almost certainly extend through the first couple of seasons of such a deal, where he will likely rack up a ton of WAR, and then even in the later seasons, he should still be an very effective pitcher judging by his repertoire and build. It's not like we would be extending him until he's 37 or 38, which is more of a danger zone. Elite pitchers are aging very gracefully nowadays, perhaps even moreso than position players. 

I wouldn’t hate a Woodruff extension, mostly for the reasons you’ve given, but I prefer to trade Woody next offseason for his younger replacement. If we’re going to extend anyone, I want it to be Adames. At least we’d get most of his prime in the extension.

11 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Did you not read what I said? A Burnes extension is probably out of our wheelhouse, so I'm fine with trading him for the sort of big-armed starter prospect that you refer to. HOWEVER, wouldn't it be logical, if possible, to lock up a guy such as Woodruff who we already know is one of the top starters in the game for 5 more years through his age 35 season? The Phillies literally did the same thing in FA with Wheeler, a very similar pitcher to Woodruff I would point out, and look how well that's turned out for them. Woodruff's prime will almost certainly extend through the first couple of seasons of such a deal, where he will likely rack up a ton of WAR, and then even in the later seasons, he should still be an very effective pitcher judging by his repertoire and build. It's not like we would be extending him until he's 37 or 38, which is more of a danger zone. Elite pitchers are aging very gracefully nowadays, perhaps even moreso than position players. 

I wouldn’t hate a Woodruff extension, mostly for the reasons you’ve given, but I prefer to trade Woody next offseason for his younger replacement. If we’re going to extend anyone, I want it to be Adames. At least we’d get most of his prime in the extension.

2 minutes ago, SF70 said:

I wouldn’t hate a Woodruff extension, mostly for the reasons you’ve given, but I prefer to trade Woody next offseason for his younger replacement. If we’re going to extend anyone, I want it to be Adames. At least we’d get most of his prime in the extension.

 

 

Actually, if we're going to extend anyone, I think we'd want it to be Burnes. But Mark is a cheapie so that's that. 

2 minutes ago, SF70 said:

I wouldn’t hate a Woodruff extension, mostly for the reasons you’ve given, but I prefer to trade Woody next offseason for his younger replacement. If we’re going to extend anyone, I want it to be Adames. At least we’d get most of his prime in the extension.

 

 

Actually, if we're going to extend anyone, I think we'd want it to be Burnes. But Mark is a cheapie so that's that. 

On 11/2/2022 at 3:16 PM, MrTPlush said:

I suppose we can trade off Woody/Burnes for the pitching gap, but for perpetual contention you really should be doing pretty well developing both sides of the ball.

It's ideal, but not necessary. For example, if you produce a quality starting pitcher every year, you can trade the excess to fill in at weak positions.

On 11/2/2022 at 3:16 PM, MrTPlush said:

I suppose we can trade off Woody/Burnes for the pitching gap, but for perpetual contention you really should be doing pretty well developing both sides of the ball.

It's ideal, but not necessary. For example, if you produce a quality starting pitcher every year, you can trade the excess to fill in at weak positions.

3 hours ago, monty57 said:

The reality is that we are set to lose Burnes, Woodruff, Lauer, Houser and Adames after the 2024 season unless they are traded or extended. I am skeptical on extensions for either Burnes or Woodruff, as Burnes will be too expensive and at Woodruff's age he will probably want an extension longer than I'd be comfortable giving.

If we're looking at "not pissing off the fans," would the fans be less upset if we trade both of them after '23 than they would if we trade one this offseason and one next? I think not, and I really think fans will be mad if we let 80% of our starting rotation and our starting SS walk for nothing after '24. That's a route the team can't even consider. 

I think fans wouldn't be pissed off if (some of) those players were traded at the deadline next year if the Brewers are clearly out of the race.

3 hours ago, monty57 said:

The reality is that we are set to lose Burnes, Woodruff, Lauer, Houser and Adames after the 2024 season unless they are traded or extended. I am skeptical on extensions for either Burnes or Woodruff, as Burnes will be too expensive and at Woodruff's age he will probably want an extension longer than I'd be comfortable giving.

If we're looking at "not pissing off the fans," would the fans be less upset if we trade both of them after '23 than they would if we trade one this offseason and one next? I think not, and I really think fans will be mad if we let 80% of our starting rotation and our starting SS walk for nothing after '24. That's a route the team can't even consider. 

I think fans wouldn't be pissed off if (some of) those players were traded at the deadline next year if the Brewers are clearly out of the race.

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Elite pitchers are aging very gracefully nowadays, perhaps even moreso than position players. 

Some are, some aren't. There have always been dominant old starting pitchers. The thing that has changed from 50 years ago is that the medicine is much better at bringing back players from major injuries.
It's really hard to predict which pitcher will age well and which won't.