Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus are in agreement about who the top two prospects are in the Blue Jays system.  BP has released its list of the Top 11 Jays up and comers and if that's not enough, they take things four steps further.  A tip of the 1999 Jays Batting Practice cap to Bauxite jdog for the heads-up.



Brett Wallace, the number two prospect in the Jays farm system according to Baseball Prospectus.


Baseball Prospectus gave righthander Kyle Drabek and third baseman Brett Wallace five star ratings and list them as the one-two punch atop the Jays list.   BP handed out three star ratings for the Jays three to ten prospects and a two-star rating to the number eleven prospect.  Leading the rest of the brigade is catcher Travis D'Arnaud, who along with Drabek and Wallace, was picked up in the Roy Halladay deal.

Here's the BP list from Kevin Goldstein with the BA rankings in parentheses.  The Batter's Box rankings are right beside them in the fancy brackets but keep in mind the minor league crew's Top 30 list was done well before "Doc" was dealt.

  1. Kyle Drabek, RHP  ***** (1)
  2. Brett Wallace, 3B  ***** (2)
  3. Travis D'Arnaud, C  *** (5)
  4. Chad Jenkins, RHP  *** (6) {4}
  5. J.P. Arencibia, C  *** (4) {5}
  6. Zach Stewart, RHP  *** (3) {1}
  7. Carlos Perez , C  *** {8}
  8. Jake Marisnick, OF  *** (9) {29}
  9. Henderson Alvarez, RHP  *** (8) {3} 
  10. Tim Collins, LHP  *** {10}
  11. Gustavo Pierre, SS ** {16}
  12. Brian Dopirak, 1B {15}
  13. Josh Roenicke, RHP (10)
  14. Brad Mills, LHP {11}
  15. David Cooper, 1B (7) {6}

The initial BA list had Mills, shortstop Justin Jackson and Perez rated eight through ten before the Halladay deal went down so they should be bumped down to the 11 to 13 range by the time the BA Prospect Handbook comes out.

It's interesting to note how Jackson's stock has fallen in BP's eyes as he didn't crack their top 15, let alone their top 10. Batter's Box gave him more love by rating him 14th.

BA and BP were more comfortable giving Marisnick a spot in their top 10 while he barely cracked our Top 30 list at #29.  On the other end of the spectrum, they both ignored our #2 prospect in outfielder Moises Sierra, who showed gains with the bat and earned a brief trial at AA New Hampshire.  Of course, his calling card is his cannon/hose for an arm that evokes memories of Jesse Barfield.

BP was also less than impressed with Cooper by giving him a #15 ranking but BA and BB are still hopeful about his long term prospects by keeping him in the top 10 and not working the counter at McDonald's or Tim Horton's (again, no offence to those fine folks!).

That should do it as far as the main prospects lists goes.  I hope you're not all "prospected out" at this point.  Again - discuss, debate, pontificate, alleviate, love your mate, try not to have, mediate.....sorry, that was getting out of control.  A little excessive there.  Anyways, have your say down below!

Five Star Treatment For Drabek & Wallace | 69 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
China fan - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 02:47 AM EST (#211136) #

I suppose technically Josh Roenicke still qualifies as a "prospect" -- because he's failed to crack the major leagues to any significant extent so far in his career -- but the dude is 27 years old.  Which makes him 2 years older than Morrow, 3 years older than Rzepczynski, and 4 years older than Cecil, all of whom have graduated from the "prospect" category.   I'm a bit confused about why everyone is so convinced that Roenicke is a top-10 or top-15 prospect.   Shouldn't he have shown more by now?

According to our friends at Drunk Jays Fans, BP did include a separate list of the top Jays who are 25 or younger, with Morrow near the top. “There might not have been a better ‘change of scenery’ player in the game, and Toronto paid little for his potential,” they say of Morrow.  That's an encouraging comment.

In the category of true prospects -- kids with great upside, not 27-year-olds -- I was interested in BP's comments on Gustavo Pierre.  Here is DJF's summary of BP's comments on Pierre: 

Perhaps most intriguing is 18-year-old shortstop Gustavo Pierre, who some scouts say “has the tools to rocket up this chart, with one saying, ‘Within two years, we'll be talking about him being No. 1.’ He's a big, athletic shortstop with easy power potential and above-average speed. Defensively, he's got smooth actions and an above-average arm.”

To be fair, BP also adds these caveats on Pierre:  

He has a “swing-at-everything approach, as he drew just three walks in 182 Gulf Coast League at-bats.” They also say that “scouts are mixed as to his ability to stay at shortstop long-term, as he could grow out of his body and end up at third base.”

92-93 - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 04:51 AM EST (#211137) #
I look forward to an increase in the Henderson Alvarez / Gustavo Pierre type prospects under the new emphasis on player development. Pierre's .259/.272/.431 line was solid for a 17 year old getting his first professional taste in Rookie ball - does anyone know if Pierre will be starting 2010 in Dunedin (R) or Auburn?
TamRa - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 05:51 AM EST (#211138) #
I really hope the BB crew posts a revised list at the top (a top 10 anyway) on the eve of ST.....I'm trying to assemble a composite of all the Jays lists I can find out there which have any credibility (plus mine which may or may not have any)

So far I've got BP, BA, Sickels, and THT.

first, here's my current list (pending further deals) which includes some slight revisions from the one I blogged before the Doc deal besides the addition of the new players:

1. Drabek
2. Wallace
3. Alverez
4. Stewart
5. Arencibia
6. d'Arnoud
7. Jenkins
8. Sierra
9. Marisnick
10. Jackson
11. Perez
12. Mills
13. Roenicke
14. Cooper
15. Dopirak



I arbitrarilly assumed the the BB crew would rank Drabek and Wallace 1 and 2 and d'Arnoud 4 and I put D & W 1 & 2 on the THT list (dropping Chavez of course) and put d'Arnoud at #7 just behind Stewart.

All this is just me assuming, I have no real basis for doing so.

But still, in a perfectly useless effort, I then tallied the 4 "major" lists mentioned above and and my presumptive BB list and got this result (taking the top 12 on each):

1. Drabek - 58
2. Wallace - 54
3. Stewart - 45
4. d'Arnoud - 42
5. Jenkins - 40
6. Arencibia - 31
7. Alverez - 25
8. Cooper - 22
9. Perez - 12
10. Sierra - 11
10. Marisnick - 11
10. Pastornicky - 11
13. Roenicke - 9
14. Mills - 6
15. Collins - 3
Emaus, Pierre - 2
Thames, Dopirak, Farquhar, Thames, Jackson

Hopefully I can find enough credible source (and an updated BB list!) in order to really flesh out a consensus list by this time next month.


TamRa - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 05:58 AM EST (#211139) #
by the way, not sure how ethical this is but any of my friends who are BP subscribers who'd share with me  (via e-mail) the rest of that article would get a hale and hearty hat tip from me!


Helpmates - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 08:52 AM EST (#211141) #
That was my favorite Jays logo.  I wonder if there'll ever be another round of new uniforms.
Sister - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:05 AM EST (#211142) #
It appears, according to Jeff Blair, that the Jays will be watching Ben Sheets throwing session:

"The Blue Jays are among the teams expected to attend Ben Sheets' throwing session next Tuesday at the University of Louisiana.
The Rangers will also be present, along with several other unidentified clubs. Sheets is hoping to prove with a short workout that his elbow is back to full strength and that he's deserving of his current demands. Last we heard, he's asking for a contract worth $10-12 million annually."

Mike Green - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:42 AM EST (#211144) #
Why would the club be interested in Sheets?  Too much money, wrong time frame.

BP's list is credible.  For myself, the players not on these lists who I'll be watching closely are Pastornicky and Sierra. 

TimberLee - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:51 AM EST (#211145) #
Of course I enjoy reading about various people's prospect lists and all the discussion, but I can't understand why some commenters (not so much at The Box where we tend to be polite) get so insistent and argumentative about certain young ballplayers.  Be patient and we'll see clearly enough who had the more accurate rankings.  In January of 2015 I'll tell you with some confidence how good Cooper and Roenicke are likely to be . . . and Syl Campusano.
joeblow - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 10:28 AM EST (#211146) #
The flex on Wallace's bat is very cool. Wonder if it's after contact with the ball or just a photo artifact.
Wildrose - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 10:52 AM EST (#211147) #
Why would the club be interested in Sheets?  Too much money, wrong time frame.

Here's the answer along with some other tid-bits.

"We're going to take a look at him," Anthopoulos said. "It's like what I've talked about before -- no stone unturned. It's the same reason why we're watched other guys work out. ... We're not doing out job if we don't at least take a look. Things change. Trades occur. Someone might surprise us. It doesn't do us any harm to do our homework on all these players and to be really prepared if an opportunity presents itself."
sweat - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 11:51 AM EST (#211148) #
If we signed him to a one year deal, and if he was healthy in August, he might bring back some pretty decent prospects if traded to a contender.    Its probably worth signing a few guys with the hopes of moving them to a contender.  Lots of ifs involved, but it could speed up the rebuilding process.
electric carrot - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 11:52 AM EST (#211149) #
The flex on Wallace's bat is very cool. Wonder if it's after contact with the ball or just a photo artifact.

Not a photo artifact -- that really is the bat bending.  Pretty cool -- isn't this demonstrating one of Einstein's theories of matter?
Mike Green - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 11:53 AM EST (#211150) #
It's a poor answer.  There are plenty of opportunities to scout a player like Sheets; off-season throwing sessions are for the purpose of making a decision about current interest. 

To me, it seems like a transparent attempt to demonstrate that the club is willing to spend money. 

lexomatic - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 11:54 AM EST (#211151) #
re: scouting players..
it also provides advanced scouting of players you might potentially face.
wasn't one of AA's plan more pro scouting? it doesn't just work in terms of potentially acquiring undervalued players - it also works to help better prepare your team vs opponents.

FisherCat - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 11:55 AM EST (#211152) #

Why would the club be interested in Sheets?  Too much money, wrong time frame.

I'm all for signing high-risk / high-reward veterens to "team friendly" contracts for 4 reasons:

  1. They perform at or near their career norm for the short term and contribute some performance value.
  2. They take pressure off the kids on the team or minimize the need of promoting some prospects TOO early.
  3. Their performance allows them to be high demand at the trade deadline.  Thus allowing you to bargain them for controllable kids on other teams.
  4. They stay the entire year and increase their free-agent value to the point that you receive some sort of draft compensation when they leave.

That is the type of value I see in guys like Sheets, Jermaine Dye, et al.

Jim - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 12:05 PM EST (#211153) #
This team needs starting pitching in the worst way.  If Sheets can pitch in 2010 and is willing to sign for reasonable money then you have to consider him. 
Denoit - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 12:10 PM EST (#211154) #

If we signed him to a one year deal, and if he was healthy in August, he might bring back some pretty decent prospects if traded to a contender.    Its probably worth signing a few guys with the hopes of moving them to a contender.  Lots of ifs involved, but it could speed up the rebuilding process.

Also not exactly sure how the rankings are determined, but if he pitched long enough (would half a season be long enough?) and returned to his former self he could come in as a Type A or B free agent.

Mike Green - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 12:17 PM EST (#211155) #
Sheets hasn't pitched in a year.  Winning in 2010 is not a realistic possibility.  Spending anything like $10-$12 million in this stage of the cycle to perhaps fulfil a short term need is dumb. 

One of JP's problems was the creation of a pitching/position player imbalance.  That is the ongoing situation with the organization as a whole.  Sheets would compound the problem.  If they need to find a starting pitcher or two for 2010 to let more of the young pitchers develop in New Hampshire or Las Vegas, they ought to be looking for placeholders. 

Maybe they think that the market for Sheets is poor enough that he can be obtained for $4-$5 million on a 1 year contract.  Incidentally,  there was no indication that the club was interested in Harden, who signed for $7.5 million.  It is puzzling why the club might be interested in Sheets, but not Harden.

Brent S - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 12:55 PM EST (#211156) #
Mike, granted we have no way of knowing the level of the Jays' interest in Harden. AA has shown a propensity to keep information internal this offseason -- it is possible there was some level of interest in Harden.
Forkball - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:06 PM EST (#211157) #
I think that's your answer right there - there's a chance that the Jays could sign Sheets to a modest deal.  Just because he's looking for 8 figures doesn't mean there's a team willing to pay for it.  It's not like there's many teams with both significant money to spend and willing to sign a pitcher who is a big risk injury-wise.

And I don't see a pitching surplus with the Jays.  There's not a single pitcher who in my mind has a better than 50/50 shot to hit 180 innings.  Everyone single one of them could end up in the bullpen or the minors (or injured).

Ryan Day - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:12 PM EST (#211158) #
Just because you're not aiming to contend doesn't mean you should give up on any attempts to win. If Sheets is healthy, and if you can sign him to a reasonable, incentivized deal with an option year or two, then it's a good deal. In addition to helping the team win games - which isn't something anyone should ignore - there's the possibility of a decent trade return or draft picks down the line.

Personally, I'm doubtful that Sheets can stay healthy, and someone will probably offer him big, guaranteed money, so it' probably moot. But it never hurts to explore your options.

Wildrose - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:27 PM EST (#211159) #
I don't think they have any strong particular interest in signing Sheets , but as AA states they " don't want to leave any stone unturned ".  The teams powerful emphasis on scouting  seems to be based on being on top of all developments whatever they may be. Given the size of their scouting staff not such a bad idea.
Jim - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:30 PM EST (#211160) #
Yeah if it's $10-$12 million it is insane.   Since they are taking the time to watch him throw I can only imagine that he isn't looking for that kind of money any longer.  This new front office hasn't done anything anywhere near that crazy.
Denoit - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:46 PM EST (#211161) #

Yeah if it's $10-$12 million it is insane.   Since they are taking the time to watch him throw I can only imagine that he isn't looking for that kind of money any longer.  This new front office hasn't done anything anywhere near that crazy.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. The Jays threw 23 million at an unproven 22 year old. If the scouts like what they see, and feel Sheets is healthy he can be a top of the rotation guy. Just look at his stats. He has a track record of being a dominate pitcher in the leauge.  Consider the contracts of Burnett (also has injury problems) and Lacky if Sheets is healthy 10M would seem like a bargain. They obviously have a little extra money floating around this winter why not take a few risks and hope something works out. A 1 year deal in no way will hurt the future of the organization.

Jim - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:52 PM EST (#211162) #
A 1 year deal in no way will hurt the future of the organization.

Sure it could.  If they spend the money on Sheets and blows up on them they could have spent it elsewhere.
Ryan Day - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 02:08 PM EST (#211163) #
If you spend money on anything - whether it's a draft pick or a free agent - there's a chance it won't work out and you won't have the money to spend elsewhere.

And if Sheets is healthy and productive and you don't sign him, you've missed an opportunity to improve the team at a reasonable price
Richard S.S. - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 02:09 PM EST (#211164) #
If Ben Sheets can pitch like Ben Sheets should.   If Ben Sheets can pitch 220+ innings pitched, I would be willing to pay him $10.0 Million-$12.0 Million, with a vesting option, or two, for the same contract for another year, or two.    The Contract: Give Sheets a guaranteed $3.0 Million-$5.0 Million for up to a minimum of 100 innings pitched.   Give him a guarenteed $0.75 Million-$1.25 Million for each 20 innings pitched over 100 innings.   If he can pitch, give him the money.   Someone will surely want him at the trading period 1-31 July.   With another year or two on his contract, his value will be high.   It will remove pressure from our starters, the 2's and 3's can pitch 2,3,4,5.
John Northey - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 02:27 PM EST (#211165) #
With Sheets they could just show up in case they have to play against him this year - early scouting report on his arm strength and the like could help later in the season and it isn't like the scouts are over-worked in January.  Lots of reasons to check out guys with no downside to doing the checkup.  Heck, just showing up might up the bidding a little by other teams who the Jays might fight with for someone they really want thus cutting their available cash for that future situation.  Eh, there are weirder ideas out there :)
TamRa - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 02:39 PM EST (#211166) #
My guess is that they are just staying well informed in case Sheets can't find anyone willing to get close to his demands. I think most any team is going to balk at much more than Harden got in terms of guaranteed money, although the incentive structure might be mre generous.

I think the idea mentioned above is probably something like what he'll get except that the guaranteed part of the deal will be more like 7 or 8 million.

IF one were to accept Jim's premise that we need a veteran to eat innings (I don't, I think we have enough young pitchers we need to sort out that a vet would get in the way but laying that aside) it seems to me that we could do that cheaper than what Sheets will cost.

Of course, if I'm wrong and he comes in at 4 or 5 million I sure won't be griping about it because, as has been said, he just becomes a valuable chip in July (if healthy)

Moe - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 03:45 PM EST (#211167) #
I highly doubt Sheets would ever come here:
1. It is unlikely that the Jays will be the highest bidder. Almost like a winner's curse.
2. The AL East is the worst place for a pitcher to reestablish himself. So the Jays would have to outbid almost any NL team (all that are not playing in launching pads)


Jim - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 06:04 PM EST (#211168) #
They got 240 innings and 32 starts from Halladay last year and they still gave multiple starts to a dozen pitchers.  Their best starter is coming off Tommy John.   The chance that Goldstein is right about Romero: "Classic one time through the league starter" has to at least be acknowledged. 

There is a very real chance that they are reaching for starters early in the season if Marcum and McGowan can't answer the bell.  They don't need to invest huge money in some insurance and it's probably too late anyway there isn't much left.   I guess it's ok to watch Richmond and Tallet try to give you 5 innings every fifth day but that makes it an awfully long season. 



finch - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 06:39 PM EST (#211169) #
I think it's a good pick up, for the right price. With all the young and inexperienced pitchers on the staff, this move would definitely benefit the bullpen most. The bullpen will be relied upon a lot this season. Having someone to eat innings is something that is overlooked and undervalued.
Mylegacy - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 07:14 PM EST (#211170) #
1) Sheets ain't gonna happen - next.

2) Pending assumed return of Marcum (healthy) - We most likely OPEN the season with Marcum (R), Romero (L), Morrow (R), Rzipski (L), Cecil (L) as the FIVE STARTERS. Any early injury or under performance in Spring Training will see Richmond (R) as the first replacement guy. As the season goes on Drabek (R) will be fighting Stewart (R) to be the FIRST guy to FORCE his way into the spot of whichever of the first five is not performing that well. As I've said in earlier threads I expect Morrow to play himself OUT of a rotation spot - I still think he needs more time in the minors to get it together (HOWEVER - I'm a BIG fan of his - he will be up eventually and be a MAJOR component of our starting rotation for years). Also available more or less from opening day will be Mills (L) and Ray (R).

Bear in mind that McGowan (R) first and then and Litsch (R) could be wild cards  - later in the year.

3) Come the All-Star break I see AA knowing more or less what he has starting pitching wise and I wouldn't be surprised to see us trade two or more of our pitchers for whatever we need at the time - hopefully a young prospect, or two, with a high upside.

greenfrog - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 07:56 PM EST (#211171) #
Interesting that John Sickels ranked Stewart ahead of Drabek (both received B+ ratings on minorleagueball.com), while BP gave Stewart only three stars. Drabek has a plus fastball, fabulous curveball and a "promising changeup" (not to mention an impressive family pedigree). Stewart has a plus sinker, plus slider, a "usable" changeup, and "a bit of a nasty streak" (and is over a year older). I'm glad both of them are in the Jays' system.

I'm curious to see how the Wallace-Taylor comp plays out over the next four or five years. Who will win the first Anthopoulos-Beane challenge trade? Hopefully this one turns out to be more Ted Lilly (minus the fisticuffs) than Jason Arnold/John Ford-Griffin.
Mylegacy - Friday, January 15 2010 @ 08:29 PM EST (#211172) #
2010 - is gonna be a WONDERFUL year to be watching the baby Jays (at all levels). I used to be an Expos fan - back in the day - and in 1983 I remember thinking that the Jays looked like they had some good looking prospects and I started to buy BA's magazine and yearbooks (such as they were then). I got hooked on the Minor Leagues - I find it fascinating to watch guys in the Minors for the two to five years they take to grow into humans.

One of the KEY observations I've made over the years is that GENERALLY SPEAKING you have to compare prospects to their AGE PEERS and consider the RESPECTIVE MINOR LEAGUE levels they're playing at. A 22 year old in the Gulf Coast League eating 18 year old's for breakfast  - MIGHT - turn into a Big League All-Star - BUT - you just can't take those results seriously. That is part of the reason so many College guys tear up the competition at the lower levels and then go bust. And then a guy like Richmond comes along - with his history - and you've gotta cheer for him.

Man, am I looking forward to the 2010 season!

TamRa - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 12:12 AM EST (#211173) #
They got 240 innings and 32 starts from Halladay last year and they still gave multiple starts to a dozen pitchers.  Their best starter is coming off Tommy John.   The chance that Goldstein is right about Romero: "Classic one time through the league starter" has to at least be acknowledged. 

This discussion has been had before but what the hell...


I'll start with the assumption that McGowan is done.

On the other hand there is NO reason to assume that Marcum isn't good for at least 30 starts and 180 or more innings.

Romero may very well be a guy who struggles in his second year (I have a hunch he will) but the Jays will most definately send him out there unless he "blows up real good" and even then he'll get a dozen starts to prove he's blown up before he's yanked.

Morrow is very likely to start the year in the rotation - though this is the first place where you could possibly find fault with my opening day assumptions - and if he does, like Romero, he'll get 10-12 starts before they give up and demote him

David Purcey may well never develop but he's out of options so he'll get every chance to break camp in the rotation.


Cito is in love with Zep though with a bad spring he might pitch himself out of favor; Cecil is well regarded but we won't know until ST plays out if they think he's polished enough; riochmond WIN'T be in the rotation all year but if any of these fail the Jays wouldn't be at all unlikely to plug him in for 6-8 starts.

That's seven guys who could easily break camp in the rotation not counting McGowan...at least three spots all but locked in.

Beyond that, it was just a year ago that Jays' people were glowing in their praise for Mills and Ray, if healthy, is an option.

now, if the proposition is to give a minor league deal to Backe or Hampton or Batista just to have a filler in camp if things go really bad with the kids, then fine. no problem. That's not what I'm debating against.

But if the choice is throwing Purcey (for instance) out there to find out once and for all what he's got, or letting Batista throw a hundred sucky innings until Litsch comes back or Drabek comes to town....i'll take the relatively younger option.


There is a very real chance that they are reaching for starters early in the season if Marcum and McGowan can't answer the bell. 

Why on earth would Marcum fail to answer the bell? This isn't shoulder surgery we're dealing with here.


They don't need to invest huge money in some insurance and it's probably too late anyway there isn't much left.

What's left either costs too much for the plan (Pinero, Washburn, sheets, Bedard, Wang, Smoltz, Martinez)

Or sucks as bad as our worst options.

  I guess it's ok to watch Richmond and Tallet try to give you 5 innings every fifth day but that makes it an awfully long season.


and watching Batista or Byrd or Looper or Padilla pitch below average ball is going to make it shorter?

i don't know about you but I don't see that watching Richmond is any worse than watching Looper (possibly better), Watching Tallet isn't any worse than watching Hampton (probably better), Watching Purcey isn't any worse than watching Mulder (probably better).

If we get to the point where ANY of these guys spend as much as half a season in the rotation things have gone seriously wrong anyway - why import mediocre to block the mediocre you already have?

Assuming for the sake of argument that ALL the young guys (Cecil, Zep, et al) with legitimate upside end march needing more polish...and we break camp with Marcum/Romero/Morrow/Purcey and Richmond then we can assume that

if Marcum stays healthy (no reason to assume otherwise) he's there for the duration;
Romero and Morrow will get 6-8 weeks of leash to hang themselves, if not more;
Purcey probably has less rope and could be the first guy replaced;
Richmond isn';t there to do anything but eat innings until his better comes along;

At some point (just examples here) Zep or Cecil takes Purcey's job and the other is biding time until one of Morrow or Romero stumbles and if they don't, then he steps into Richmond's spot and Richmond becomes the emergency guy.

If there's an injury, richmond steps in. If there's a long term injury or failure, richmond can step in or if he's already tied up then Tallet could and both of those possibilities might be supplanted if Mills is showing promise (or further out, Drabek).

If no one stumbles and all are doing well, then the break arrives and you have five guys doing ok and you wonder what to do with Litsch.

IF on the other hand you arrive at the break and richmond and Tallet are both stopgapping in the rotation then at least you have a slot to give to Litsch and Drabek if he progresses that quickly.


In summation - is there a strong possibility we'll watch some sucky starting pitching?

Oh yes.

the argument I'm not seeing is why that sucking should be done by a scrap heap guy instead of Purcey or Richmond or whoever else you think will fail.

TamRa - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 12:16 AM EST (#211174) #
Note in passing - I didn't forget Stewart - I simply think his need to build up inings is so crucial that the Jays will strongly resist any temptation to recall him in 2010 unless they decide he's a reliever long term.


Jim - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 08:52 AM EST (#211175) #

On the other hand there is NO reason to assume that Marcum isn't good for at least 30 starts and 180 or more innings.

How about this reason to assume it... he has never in his major league career ever made EITHER 30 starts OR pitched 180 innings.  He might reach one of those milestones but you have to ignore both history and the way that the Jays have handled pitchers to assume that he will make those goals.

Here is a quick list of all the Blue Jay pitchers who have thrown 180 innings or made 30 starts in a season since Ted Lilly left after the 2006 season:  Roy Halladay and AJ Burnett.  Every pitcher who has come close except for Romero broke down shortly after.

Why on earth would Marcum fail to answer the bell? This isn't shoulder surgery we're dealing with here.

Because while you and some others on the internet have decided that EVERYONE comes back from TJ surgery, it isn't the case.  Pitchers better before the surgery then Marcum like Francisco Liriano struggle for a long time or have to move to the bullpen. 


Or sucks as bad as our worst options.

Right, so that would be why I said it's probably too late to do anything about it.

If we get to the point where ANY of these guys spend as much as half a season in the rotation things have gone seriously wrong anyway - why import mediocre to block the mediocre you already have?


Well one obvious reason is that if Tallet isn't in the rotation he can actually contribute out of the bullpen and you aren't relying on say Casey Janssen.

if Marcum stays healthy (no reason to assume otherwise) he's there for the duration;

Maybe we haven't been watching the same team the past decade but I don't assume that any non-Halladay pitcher is going to be healthy for any duration of time.  Litsch, Marcum, McGowan, Chacin....

the argument I'm not seeing is why that sucking should be done by a scrap heap guy instead of Purcey or Richmond or whoever else you think will fail.

Because you are worried about them having enough innings in Las Vegas and New Hampshire while I realize that really has never been a problem in the history of baseball so I'm not worried that it's going to rear it's head this season.  The loss of Halladay and the cascade effect that he has on the rest of the pitching staff is being severely underestimated.  While it's fun to dream of Drabek and Stewart and Alvarez, there is also the business of playing 162 games in a division that somehow continues to become more difficult.  There are real innings against some ridiculous lineups that need to be pitched and I might be in a minority but I think that making sure you don't become completely outclassed on the major league level is important. 

This is a very risky pitching staff.  The entire positive contributions in a major league rotation are Marcum pre-injury, April-June 2009 from Romero and 11 good starts from Rzepczynski.  When there are this many questions marks it isn't a long journey back to Brian Burres.  I think the wise thing was to mitigate some of the unknown with a veteran who could throw legitimate major league innings, take his beatings and not worry about ruining him for the future.  Maybe the front office agreed but just couldn't find the right pitcher at the right price.  
Denoit - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 09:08 AM EST (#211176) #

The chance that Goldstein is right about Romero: "Classic one time through the league starter" has to at least be acknowledged.

If Romero can command his pitches there is no way this is true. He has three quality pitches, his fastball has nice pop at 93, his changeup and curveball are both above average. Romero's concern is the mental blowup factor. Teams saw him more than once last year and he still was able to have good outings. The biggest question is will he take the next step and become that 200+ inning guy with era under 4 which he is capable of, or does he stay around league average.

ayjackson - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 09:23 AM EST (#211177) #

David Purcey may well never develop but he's out of options so he'll get every chance to break camp in the rotation.

Can you confirm this?  From Cot's, he was added to the fourty man roster in November 2007.  An option was used in 2008 and 2009 which should leave one left.

ayjackson - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 09:25 AM EST (#211178) #

Romero's one weakness should be the easiest to correct - command of his fastball.  If he has that, his plus changeup is very effective.

I think he has pretty good command of the curve.

China fan - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 10:08 AM EST (#211179) #
I rarely agree with Jim, but on this occasion I think he is right:  the Jays could use a veteran pitcher to settle down the rotation and ease the burden on the young starters and the bullpen.  There are too many question marks in the 2010 rotation, even if 2011 looks pretty good.  On the other hand, the Jays shouldn't invest more than about $4 or $5 million in a veteran pitcher this season, because there is indeed a chance that Marcum and the kids will be good.  You don't want an expensive veteran who blocks the progress of the prospects if they improve faster than the cautious expectations.
ramone - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 12:05 PM EST (#211180) #

Off topic, but a Judge has ruled that the University of Kentucky can keep Paxton out of games until he answers questions from the NCAA regarding whether Boras was negotiating on his behalf (no doubt he was).  I'm thinking the Jays even if in a position to do so won't be drafting Paxton again as he may be a little upset with the organization.

 http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bbc-college-pitcher-lawsuit,0,4123474.story

Ryan Day - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 12:34 PM EST (#211181) #
Similarly off-topic, but Dirk Hayhurst wrote another great piece for BA, about a mysterious and inspirational pitcher.
Chuck - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 12:47 PM EST (#211182) #
Hayhurst is a terrific writer and I am looking forward to his book. His farewell to Halladay is probably the best I've read.
TamRa - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 03:56 PM EST (#211183) #
Can you confirm this?

It came from Bastian or Wilner - not sure which.

they're pretty much the only two "non-official" sources I'd trust on things like this to just take their word for it (which is not to say either is always 100% right).

TamRa - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 04:26 PM EST (#211184) #
How about this reason to assume it... he has never in his major league career ever made EITHER 30 starts OR pitched 180 innings.

So?

Almost every pitcher that comes up, especially one who's not gifted a full time role in the rotation, can be thusly described at some point in his career. And the ones who can't are often overworked that first year and then come up lame (Carmona for instance).

Just to pull a name out of the air, you could have said the same thing about Jon Lester 2 years ago today.

And yes, he had the cancer thing and yes that led to uncertainty but if a player checks out as healthy, it makes no sense to me to ASSUME health issues unless you have a case like Burnett where the guy constantly breaks down over a number of years or when it's a shoulder issue.

Because while you and some others on the internet have decided that EVERYONE comes back from TJ surgery, it isn't the case.

Not Everyone, just a high enough percentage that it's silly to assume your guy will be one of the significant minority who doesn't.

If 80% or 90% of patients fully recover, then it's nothing but negativism to assume the guy you are interested in will likely be in the 10%

It COULD happen. But Morrow COULD step out in front of a bus or die in a plane crash too, do we plan for that eventuality?

Maybe we haven't been watching the same team the past decade but I don't assume that any non-Halladay pitcher is going to be healthy for any duration of time.

As a fan who'd rather wallow in sorrows? sure, suit yourself. But no executive of any team can go into the season assuming every pitcher will likely get injured. If for no other reason than you would have to assume any new pitcher you brought in for insurance would get injured to.

Tell me, what major league team brings 20 starting pitchers to camp so they'll be ready when 75% of them go down? none of them. And shockingly, almost all of them break camp with five major league ready starters in the rotation (if not, then what of all the guys with major league experience that don't get a job in the majors every spring?

I can assure you that if they drop like flies in camp such that we are short of innings, there will be a half dozen sucky pitchers waiting for a call we can dial up.

Because you are worried about them having enough innings in Las Vegas and New Hampshire while I realize that really has never been a problem in the history of baseball so I'm not worried that it's going to rear it's head this season.

If the Jays think that Cecil, Zep, whoever, need more minor league reps then they will bring in vets to eat innings and not worry about the major league results too much. We'll see a Jason Jennings or a Livan Hernandez or a Todd Wellmeyer embarassing himself for a few months until the kids are ready.

I don't think the people running the team are fools, especially one who's structured his whole plan around being good a few years from now instead of in 2010.

I guess I'm a fool to think that people who work with these pitchers every day have a better grasp on whether they need more time in New Hampshire than the expert on the internet.

There are real innings against some ridiculous lineups that need to be pitched and I might be in a minority but I think that making sure you don't become completely outclassed on the major league level is important.

Well if you are arguing we should go out and throw a collective $20-25 million at Sheets and Washburn and Pinero so we'll have some competence in those innnings and be somewhat competitive, that's a different discussion.

It might be a good idea but we all already know it's NOT going to happen.

If on the other hand you are arguing we should spend $3 million so we can watch Rich Hill suck instead of David Purcey, or watch Todd Wellmeyer suck instead of Scott Richmond - I don't see how that makes us more competitive in the division.

This is a very risky pitching staff. 

Yes, and it won't get any less risky with a scrap-heap arm eating innings. At some point you HAVE to trust your young players. Marcum, Romero, and Morrow have the track record that demands they be given a TON of rope if healthy. richmond is eastablished at a level which isn't high but is as high as any of the scrubs you would sign to replace him and Tallet is probably similarly positioned. that's five guys without counting Purcey and which also keeps ALL the guys with limited innings in the minors to start the season

(which, by the way, means  six guys who need to be starting at AAA, and no real room to promote Drabek to Vegas when the time comes barring injuries)

But risky? Yeah. All youth is risky, all "unproven" guys are risky. you take risks when you rebuild, it's the nature of that process.

And yes, you probably lose a lot of ball games - we already know that's going to happen anyway, lest we wouldn't be treading water with gonzalez, buck, and Bautista presumably in the starting line-up and we wouldn't be mulling the potential upside of a 32 year old career minor leaguer as our DH.

I think the wise thing was to mitigate some of the unknown with a veteran who could throw legitimate major league innings, take his beatings and not worry about ruining him for the future.

You just described Brian Tallet and Scott Richmond.

Maybe the front office agreed but just couldn't find the right pitcher at the right price. 

There will be such guys available at minimum wage (unless they are too proud to take it) all the way up past April 1.

All that said, I have NO objection if Jason Jennings or Todd Wellmeyer or the like  is brought to camp on a make good minor league deal which pays them a million or so if they make the team - I pretty much assume they will be and THAT is not what I'm saying I disagree with.

what I DO disagree with is several million in guaranteed money to a marginal guy who wight be worth half a win more than Richmond over a full season. We CAN (barring injuries of Biblical proportions) protect the arms of Zep and Cecil and Stewart and fill out the rotation with pitchers who can "who could throw legitimate major league innings, take his beatings and not worry about ruining him for the future." without brining in such a player.

Plus, we don't have Cito the Lover of Veterans clinging desperately to Jon Garland and his $5 million salary while Cecil or whoever stagnates in AAA.



Jim - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 07:03 PM EST (#211185) #
As a fan who'd rather wallow in sorrows? sure, suit yourself.

It has nothing to do with wallowing in sorrows.  It has to do with managing a roster and the inherent risk of pitchers and pitching prospects.  There are many more teams who thought they their rotation built with pitching prospects long into the future who have ended up with Generation K then Four Aces.  We can stop talking about it because you don't try to comprehend what I'm saying anyway.  I'm confident that Marcum will return and be a good pitcher.  I don't think that means you can write his name down for giving you more starts and innings then he ever has in his career in a year where he is coming off arm surgery. 

You act like throwing 180 innings and making 30 starts is a simple thing to do.  Here is the entire list of pitchers who were developed by the Blue Jays and threw 180 innings or more from 2000-2009:
Roy Halladay
Chris Carpenter
Gustavo Chacin (once)
Kelvin Escobar (He threw 180 innings in one year and 180.1 innings the next)

I don't see how you can't be skeptical of ANY pitcher in the organization throwing 180 innings in 2010, nevermind the ones who are coming off TJ surgery. 


Grasshopper - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 09:06 PM EST (#211186) #
common now,  somebody is going to take the regins and pitch a pile of games. Romero?
Jim - Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 09:27 PM EST (#211187) #
common now,  somebody is going to take the regins and pitch a pile of games. Romero?

Of course somebody or somebodies is going to pitch a pile of games.  It's just that you don't know exactly which pitchers they are or how many of them will do it.
TamRa - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 03:07 AM EST (#211189) #
Here is the entire list of pitchers who were developed by the Blue Jays

YES, the attrition rate on pitching prospects is exceedingly high - and not just those developed by the blue jays, by the way.

that has nothing to do with my central question - why do we need sucky innings from Wellmeyer or even Garland instead of sucky innings from Richmond or Tallet?

China fan - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 05:17 AM EST (#211192) #

For one thing, Tallet and Richmond could be desperately needed by the bullpen this year.  Brandon League is gone, Brian Wolfe is gone, and there are still lingering injury questions about Downs and Janssen.  Frasor is a one-inning guy, and Accardo is clearly seen as a marginal pitcher (even if that perception by the Jays might be unwarranted).  How much do you want to depend on Camp and Carlson, especially after we saw Carlson's effectiveness plummeting due to overwork last season?  If you remove Tallet and Richmond from the bullpen -- or even one of them -- the team will be lacking a long-relief guy and a spot starter.   I think you keep both Tallet and Richmond in the bullpen this season, unless you're getting strong performances from ALL (or almost all) of Janssen, Downs, Carlson, Accardo, Frasor, Hayhurst or some other young pitcher.  And if you keep Tallet and Richmond in the bullpen, then it logically follows that you should be looking for a veteran pitcher to prop up the rotation, so that you're not totally dependent on Marcum and four kids.   And if you sign a veteran for $2-million to $5-million or something in that range, there's no guarantee that the veteran will be "sucky."   Sometimes the scrapheap veterans are sucky, and sometimes they're not.  Sometimes you pick up a Pete Walker or a Frank Castillo (who were actually quite inexpensive) and they're not too bad for a season or so.

christaylor - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 10:23 AM EST (#211194) #
Is that not generally true of most rebuilding teams?

Don't get me wrong, I hope Sheets can be had and had at the right price. He's a decent gamble, especially if he comes with a team option.
greenfrog - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 10:29 AM EST (#211195) #
I could see Zach Jackson picking up some of those long-relief / spot starter innings at some point this season.
christaylor - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 10:34 AM EST (#211196) #
While a $2-5M guy might not be guaranteed to be terrible, the upside for this team is very very low for such a pitcher and they're not much of an asset come deadline time.

From a fan perspective in 2010 the Jays team is risky no matter what the team does with its pitching. There's no good way of getting around that given the how I see the market at the moment. Fans might be turned off by watching The Baby Jays and Injured Jays struggle but I think this team can survive one year of 5th place. There's enough upside in the system to make 2011 a good bet for 3rd place.

Mylegacy's comparison to the 1983 team is a good one, baseball is no longer a novelty in Toronto, sure which propped up attendance in the first 6 years. But, the population of fans who like baseball and walk-ups who are curious for a fun time a good prices is large enough to sustain the team. This will be a terrible year for ticket resellers, but I'm OK with that.
China fan - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 10:45 AM EST (#211197) #
In order to protect their investment in promising young pitchers, the Jays need a good bullpen.   You don't want Morrow or Cecil or Zep or Drabek to be pressured into an extra inning because the bullpen is over-worked.  You want to be able to switch to a Tallet or Richmond in the 5th inning if you have to.  So, keep Tallet and Richmond in the bullpen, and acquire a veteran to supplement the starting rotation.   Have enough reliable depth in the starting rotation (not just kids) so that you can keep Tallet and Richmond in the bullpen, where they can be extremely useful.  Then you have a deep bullpen, able to help out the young pitchers in their inevitable struggles this year -- and you won't have to throw Carlson into the game every 2 days as they did in 2009.
christaylor - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 01:32 PM EST (#211198) #
I agree with having a good bullpen, but I don't see how signing just one or two risky veteran starters solves that problem. I'm think of Tomo Ohka and Victor Zambrano. They both blew up and didn't pitch many innings and the young pitchers had to take over anyway. Then Tallet and Richmond come into the rotation and plunk this team is terrible to watch. There's also no development of the starters who are ML ready: Zep, Cecil, Morrow, Purcey, (possibly Drabek, who will probably start in the minors), Marcum, Litsch (possibly mid-season) and McGowan.

If handled correctly, pressure can be good. The only way good pressue could be applied (pressure without abuse) is for all the pitchers to know that if they are tired in any given game the pitching coach / team will be very happy with their performance whatever the outcome. A good rapport with the pitching coach is crucial this year.
Richard S.S. - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 02:28 PM EST (#211199) #

IMO

I can understand why people are opposed to signing Ben Sheets.   (But if THE Ben Sheets is back, he's been an ACE, a top 5-7 in MLB.)  

Shaun Marcum has proven, to this point in his rehab, he is at least as good as he was before he was hurt.   Now it may be just 90% of that, but I think he's better than that.   But I don't think he's our ace.   Ricky Romero, as he's shown April - June '09, can almost be an ace.   As he's shown July - October '09, he's a #4 or #5 starter.   Will he be better?   Brandon Morrow just might be that good - he needs to develop a 210+ inning / 33 start stamina - a quality 3rd and 4th pitch would help.   I just don't think he's ready yet.   No one else is that good, yet, if ever.  

Let's make it simple.   Offer a guaranteed $4.0MM for a minimum of 100 I.P. (14-16 starts, though end of June,begining of July).   If he can't pitch this much or well enough, he's waived or released for not a lot of money.   Add a guarenteed $1.0MM for every additional 20 I.P. (3 starts) he pitches.   If he can pitch 240 I.P. he deserves the $12.0MM he will make.   Add 1 or 2 option years, identical contract with/without vesting option (200 I.P.).   If you don't think he'll be a hot commodity, if he's pitching well at the break, you don't understand baseball economics for developing teams.   We'll still need a core Right Fielder, a core Shortstop, a core Third Baseman and a core closer - maybe he fills a hole or two.

greenfrog - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 02:52 PM EST (#211200) #
I hope I'm wrong, but I think Cito managing this pitching staff has all the makings of a disaster.
Thomas4343 - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 03:42 PM EST (#211201) #
How much money is Eric Bedard looking for? He was an ace before. If he isn't totally messed up, would he be a good fit for the jays?
TamRa - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 07:04 PM EST (#211202) #
For one thing, Tallet and Richmond could be desperately needed by the bullpen this year.  Brandon League is gone...

And Josh Reonicke is here

 ...Brian Wolfe is gone...

And was of very little use when he was here

...and there are still lingering injury questions about Downs ...

Not in my mind - his wasn't the sort of injury that should linger into a new season.

...and Janssen... 

Janssen - until he earns more - is nothing more than this year's Brian Wolfe. He'll get back of the pen garbage innings until and unless he proves himself.

...Frasor is a one-inning guy...

Just because he's the closer, not because of ability.

...and Accardo is clearly seen as a marginal pitcher (even if that perception by the Jays might be unwarranted)..

Perhaps by Cito, but I get the impression AA expects more than that.

How much do you want to depend on Camp and Carlson, especially after we saw Carlson's effectiveness plummeting due to overwork last season?

A myth. Carlson's ERA was misleading - as most relivers' ERA is - he had three isolated appearances in which he threw 1/3 of an inning each and gave up a collective 11 earned runs. In his other SEVENTY appearances he had a 3.24 cvollective ERA and his secondary numbers were right in line with his previous performance.

Camp, although I'm not a big believer (I wasn't this time last year either) did fine work and threw more relief innings than anyone else, including 18 appearances if 2 or more innings.

If you remove Tallet and Richmond from the bullpen -- or even one of them -- the team will be lacking a long-relief guy and a spot starter.

If you take both of them out then one of the replacements would have to be capeable of starting, true, and that's a potential weakness, but it's not like we don't have a few options there too, to say nothing of the fact that back of the pen relievers always ride the shuttle and farming out a reliever like Hayhurst to call up a spot starter like Miulls (for instance) is routine.


But to go back and break down what we have covered so far:

(Assuming the worst case where both Tallet and Richmond were in the rotation)

9th inning = Frasor
8th inning = Downs and probably Accordo (or maybe Roenicke) - and Carlson when Downs is unavailable
7th inning = Carlson and Camp

I'm perfectly comfortable with those five guys being our bussiest pitchers.

Beyond those five there's...

Roenicke - struggled after the trade but a very impressive talent who pitched well in a small sample in the Reds' bandbox and in the minors. Could easily be as good as or better than league this year;

Janssen - picking up garbage innings at least, or riding the shuttle....at a minimum he's the same sort of depth as Wolfe and at the upper end he's your spot starter and long reliever (or even a set up man if he comes all the way back);

Zinicola - If I was betting I'd bet he doesn't make the team but if he does, he's another candidate for the garbage innings Wolfe or someone might have gotten last year. There's also a decent chance we swap the nats something for the right to keep him and he's a AAA guy who could be called on if he earns it;

Hayhurst - gets no respect because he has no pedigree but all he's done for the Jays is get outs;

Jackson - sucks, but can be an emergency starter and long reliever in low-leverage innings should those above him on the chart not be doing that;

Ray - who, if healthy, is probably capeable of delivering pretty much the same results as Richmond, at least.

Then there's the squeezed out starters who could, in an emergency, pitch in the pen - Purcey for instance...

then there's the potential that prospects push towards the majors - what if Stewart nears his innings cap and he can come up and finish the year in the pen? What if Farquhar pushes his way into the majors? What if magnuson is pushed since he's old for his level and does well?

So you have a solidf five-man core and SIX other guys to shuffle through the other two spots as need be not counting converted starters or promoted prospects.

And you are worried about that?

YES, ANY reliever can blow up for no discernable reason - often a whole pen can...but that's just as true with Tallet and Richmond in the pen as with them out.

Jim - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 08:21 PM EST (#211203) #
why do we need sucky innings from Wellmeyer or even Garland instead of sucky innings from Richmond or Tallet?

Because if someone like Wellmeyer is taking the starts then Richmond and Tallet are actually helping you win ballgames in the bullpen where their skill set is suitable.  If Richmond and Tallet are making starts then the it's say Janssen and Hayhurst pitching in relief.  It isn't that Wellmeyer is that much better then Richmond or Tallet, it's that Wellmeyer is better then Janssen and Hayhurst.  I understand that we are talking about the difference between winning 68 games instead of 74 games but you want to avoid what the Orioles have had in the recent past where they lose what feels like 75% of their games after the break because the pitching has come apart at the seems. 

I'm also not saying that the Jays have a higher attrition rate of injuries or prospects not making it, I even said that many more other teams who have been in this position have had pyrite and not gold. 
China fan - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 08:23 PM EST (#211204) #

To imagine Josh Roenicke as an adequate replacement for Brandon League is highly optimistic, verging on delusional.  Roenicke has only pitched 34 innings in his entire MLB career, and his career ERA is 5.56.    League pitched 74.2 innings in 2009 alone.  League already has posted 202 career innings -- and he's a year YOUNGER than Roenicke.  The Jays kept Roenicke on the roster for a couple of months last year, but they almost never put him into the game in high-leverage situations.  If Roenicke is your replacement for League, the team is definitely going to need Tallet and Richmond in the bullpen.

As for Carlson -- you can manipulate anyone's numbers and make them look good if you toss out their bad performances and just include the good ones.  I agree that Carlson is not as bad as his critics have charged, but he'll be overworked and exhausted again if the Jays use him as much as last season.

Even in your most optimistic scenario, you've found 5 adequate relievers and then a bunch of "maybe" relievers.  Quantity is not a substitute for quality. 

And even among the 5 relievers at the top of your list, none of them have a proven ability to go more than two innings.  Tallet and Richmond can do that.  They can be the innings-eater and the emergency 6th-starter in the bullpen.  You're unlikely to get that from Accardo, Frasor, Downs, Roenicke, Carlson, Camp or Janssen.

Mike Green - Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 09:14 PM EST (#211205) #
Richmond would like be an effective RH long man in a rotation with two or three lefty starters (as this year's team will likely have).  Tallet would likely be an effective LH long man.  You could do worse than putting the starters on 80 pitch limits, and using Richmond or Tallet if the starter doesn't make it through 5.  Not that this is likely to happen, as the win/save stat rules are key factors in pitching usage decisions. 
TamRa - Monday, January 18 2010 @ 12:54 AM EST (#211206) #
To imagine Josh Roenicke as an adequate replacement for Brandon League is highly optimistic, verging on delusional.

I didn't list Roenicke as League's replacement, I listed Accardo.

That said, I DO think Roenicke could be that good and yes he could pitch as well in 2010 as League will.

 You can call that delusional if you like but if anyone had told you in January of 2007 that Jeremy Accardo would post a a 2.14 ERA and save 30 games in 2007 you would have called that delusional too.

As for Carlson -- you can manipulate anyone's numbers and make them look good if you toss out their bad performances and just include the good ones.

And it's irrelevant that there are THREE bad ones and SEVENTY good ones?

Quantity is not a substitute for quality.

Quite true - how does that support the argument that we need Richmond and Tallet in the pen? Unless you are saying that those two represent quality more than the five "adaquate" guys I mentioned.

And even among the 5 relievers at the top of your list, none of them have a proven ability to go more than two innings.

Camp. How many times does he have to do it before someone believes he can do it? He pitched better than Richmond last year.His career ERA is half a run better than Richmond's and to use your
League/Roenicke comparison - he has plenty more experience.
TamRa - Monday, January 18 2010 @ 12:58 AM EST (#211207) #
It isn't that Wellmeyer is that much better then Richmond or Tallet, it's that Wellmeyer is better then Janssen and Hayhurst.

I do not believe that is true of any SP that can be obtained at a reasonable cost. and if that were in fact the concern, one could more cheaply sign David Weathers or Justin Speier or Chan Ho Park as any of the SP who would actually be league average.

 
Richard S.S. - Monday, January 18 2010 @ 02:16 PM EST (#211212) #

Now let's talk about two question marks in the Bullpen, Josh Roenicke (08/04/82, 6-3-195) and Casey Janssen (09/17/81, 6-3-225).

The curious career of 27 year-old prospect Josh Roenicke starts at age 21 (2004) in in his 1st year of NCAA baseball, all 2.1 quality innings pitched.   He was drafted at age 23 (2006) in his 2nd year of NCAA baseball, after another 13.0 good, but not quality innings pitched.   He pitched in rookie-ball, Gulf Coast (quality) and Pioneer (very poor) Leagues, an additional 23.1 innings pitched.   He started 2007, at age 24, in A+, 27.2 I.P., moving to AA, 19.0 I.P., pitching much better.   In 2008, at age 25, AA, 22.0 good I.P., AAA, 39.0 better I.P., then MLB (NL), only 3.0 stinky I.P.   In 2009, at age 26, AAA, 28.0 very good I.P., MLB (NL), 13.1 very good I.P., and then,MLB (TOR), 17.2 stinky I.P.   All evidence points to him being better this year - how good - who knows.   Why is he so highly rated?   From draft to the majors in just 3 years!!!, back again in his 4th year!!!, to stay in his 5th.   That should be enough to settle sensible people's questions.   He must be given every chance to make the team.

Casey Janssen has shown he can pitch at this level, against all teams.   His 5 starts last year were 3 decent, 2 bad.   He may have not been ready to start when (23 May '09) he did.   As a reliever, he was under-used, 2 1/2 months, 16 Games, 14.0 innings.   He pitched well, not great, just well: 22 GO - 7 AO, 7 BB - 13 SO, 6 very good appearances, with 4 just good and 6 bad appearances.   He will be as healthy and as ready as possible to start the Grapefruit league season.    He must also be given every chance to make the team.

Ricky Romero, Shaun Marcum, Brandon Morrow are our Starters.   David Purcey must be given every chance to be one of the Starters.   Now is when we must find out if he can do it.   Is he a keeper, a valuable trade piece, an AAA pitcher, or an AAAA pitcher.    If Dustin McGowan is ready, he also gets every chance, for the same reason.  

We have too many pitchers trying for too few spots.   We have a lot more coming up and pushing hard.   Let`s find out who can pitch here besides the obvious ones.   We need trade value that more GM`s value as we do.

 

 
92-93 - Monday, January 18 2010 @ 02:40 PM EST (#211214) #
I didn't realize Roenicke had such an interesting path to becoming a MLB pitching prospect, and it certainly makes me subtract less off his value than normal based on age. He was a defensive back and an outfielder at UCLA, and it's pretty amazing that the Reds saw enough potential from 13 relief innings in his senior year to draft him in the 10th round. It seems like Roenicke has only been a full-time pitcher for 3 years now, so I'm cautiously optimistic that with some big-league coaching he can hone his stuff and become a valuable late-inning reliever.
Denoit - Monday, January 18 2010 @ 04:27 PM EST (#211217) #

I think spring trianing will change alot of people opinions on the pitching standpoint. It's easy to sit back now and say we have "x" many pitchers for "x" amount of spots. There are bound to be surprises, dissapointments and injuries before the season starts. I understand its the middle of January and there isnt much else to talk about, but the situation will resolve itself in time. They have enough arms going forward. That being said I don't think Anthopolous is finished, so dont be surprised if another pitcher is brought in through free agency or a trade to throw eveyrones best laid plans out the window.

Also an interesting point on Roenicke, I never knew he started so late. I did like what I saw in his arm last year, I know alot of people think Frasor or Downs will be the closer by default I dont like either of them in that spot. Don't be surprised if someone else steps up.

Five Star Treatment For Drabek & Wallace | 69 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.