How Much Starting Pitching Do We Have?

nsacpi

nsacpi

Expects Yuge Games
Or alternatively, how much starting pitching will we need to go outside the organization to acquire.

I'm focusing here on 2016 and 2017, which means looking at the organization's starting pitching in High A, AA, AAA and the majors.

We start with a couple fairly established guys in Miller and Teheran. We have Minor coming back from shoulder surgery and under club contractual control for two more years if we want to exercise the option.

Then there is a long list of possibilities at various levels above low A: Wisler, Banuelos, Perez, Folty, Jenkins, Gant, Janas, Sims, Bird, Thurman, Whalen, Povse.

It is a fairly long list. But how many would you expect to develop into acceptable members of a major league rotation, in particular the rotation of a team that wants to market itself as a contender in 2017.

Is your expected number five? More than five? Less than five?

My answer taking into account risks of injury and regression is that we'll most likely have four acceptable starters from this group for 2017.

Depending on your answer, there arises the question of whether we should look to acquire a proven starter this off-season. The answer is not straightforward even if you are not optimistic we can find five starters from the internal candidates. If we are not planning on being competitive in 2016, we can be patient and see how the internal candidates develop. Having so many possible starters argues for giving as many of them a chance as possible. Arguing in the other direction is the likelihood we will have a buyers' market for starting pitching this off-season.

I lean toward the view we should pick up a starter this off-season given that the price is likely to be reasonable. It will important to control the financial risk of doing so and the main way of accomplishing this is to hold down the length of the contract. With a buyers' market we should be able to accomplish this.
 
If 4-5 pan out, then you've got your 6-7 with the first two guys. I think by the end of 2016 they'll sort themselves out a bit and we'll have what we need, internally.

Next year is for auditions. Whether they use two slots or three is open for debate. It kind of sucks using three when nobody's getting the job done, which is why the game thread is two pages long. If you pick up one serviceable starter, you probably compete and give yourself an opportunity to rotate quickly as needed to avoid long losing streaks like this one.

So I don't see any more than one external starter for one year. Maybe give him a team option. Kind of a Grilli thing, but for a starter.
 
Dalyn said:
Not enough.
Click to expand...

What's a quantity that is "enough?"

I ask because I understand what you are saying, but if you need to allocate scarce resources to pitching and hitting, you need to decide how you're going to do that.

My understanding is that the philosophy is to cycle young pitchers through, buy a year or two of arbitration when desired and possible, but let them go as they hit free agency because "our organization believes that acquiring pitching in free agency is one of the most inefficient uses of capital there is."(Coppolella)

I think that's pretty accurate. And, by the way, so did nsacpi a couple years ago when he repeatedly suggested laddering pitchers in our system. I'm not sure why that's no longer an effective strategy. Is it that pitching is currently more plentiful than hitting and thus easier to acquire? Because that changes. I'm pretty sure if you look historically, there are a lot more years when people scramble to find pitching than hitting.

My preference would be to concentrate on the other bucket for the next year or so and let the pitching sort itself out.
 
It's pretty much typical for teams to enter the season with around 8. Even though only a 4-man rotation is needed for April, we all realize that the 5-man rotation is standard (despite conjecture from members of this forum about going to 6). So, the 5th guy can be mediocre, substandard or "still developing prospect." That means you have at least 2 in the bullpen who could step in when needed with at least one or more at AAA getting regular starts. After that, it's whatever depth there is at the lower levels.

As for 2016, it really hasn't crossed my mind yet. Been too busy enjoying summer. If you had to pin me down for an answer, best guess is that one or more of those pitchers would be packaged with some position player who doesn't necessarily fit in with future plans (Maybin?). Doubt that they're going to want to go the FA route with whatever baggage that might entail.
 
The only legit MOR or better options listed in the OP are Wisler, Folty, Jenkins, and Sims. Only Folty has a legit shot at being a TOR starter. All the rest are 4/5 guys at best, and most likely BP guys.

Miller and Teheran can front a competitive rotation, but if anyone of significance is traded for offense (a given) at least one legit MOR guy will need to be signed.
 
Enscheff said:
The only legit MOR or better options listed in the OP are Wisler, Folty, Jenkins, and Sims. Only Folty has a legit shot at being a TOR starter. All the rest are 4/5 guys at best, and most likely BP guys.

Miller and Teheran can front a competitive rotation, but if anyone of significance is traded for offense (a given) at least one legit MOR guy will need to be signed.
Click to expand...

If he can stay healthy, ManBan has a chance to be a really good starter I believe. Folty and Sims probably end up being relievers. Wisler is a 4 guy IMO, and the jury is still out on Jenkins in my opinion but probably will be a reliever.
 
Millwood1Hitter said:
If he can stay healthy, ManBan has a chance to be a really good starter I believe. Folty and Sims probably end up being relievers. Wisler is a 4 guy IMO, and the jury is still out on Jenkins in my opinion but probably will be a reliever.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Banuelos is the one I like. Definite TOR possibility if his arm doesn't fall off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top