On the Rangers rotation
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 2, 2009 12:30 PM CST
106 comments
I made this as a response to a comment in this morning's post, but I think it is worth expanding on a little here...
I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that the Ranger rotation, even if they don't bring in Sheets, Buchholz, Bowden, or anyone else the rest of the way, will be better than it was last season.
Last year, the Ranger rotation had a 5.51 ERA in 869 1/3 innings.
If you take away Millwood and Padilla, who are returning and weren't great last year anyway, the Rangers starters last year had a 5.89 ERA.
Think about that...a 5.89 ERA from everyone other than two guys who were viewed as disappointing last season anyway.
If you roll out some combo of Scott Feldman, Eric Hurley, Matt Harrison, Guillermo Moscoso, and Brandon McCarthy (and I think the 3-4-5 slots in the rotation will be filled by some combo of that group), plus whomever in the minors shows he’s ready at some point, Feliz or Holland or whomever, is it unreasonable to expect less than a 5.89 ERA from that group?
With McCarthy, it is simply a matter of health…if he’s healthy, he’s not going to put up a 5.89 ERA. If he isn’t healthy, he won’t be out there.
With Feldman, I don’t know that he’s going to be a hell of a lot better than he was last year, but you wouldn’t think he’d be much worse.
Hurley, Harrison, Moscoso, whomever else…is expecting them to record, as a group, something better than 5.89 really that big a stretch?
The non-Millwood/Padilla starters threw 530 innings last year, and allowed 347 runs. You drop that to 300 runs allowed, instead of 347 runs allowed, and that’s a 5.09 ERA in the same number if innings.
Is it unreasonable to think that the group that is in place now can do that?
I’m not asking those guys to come in and post 3.75-4.25 ERAs. But they don't have to for you to see a significant (40-50 run) improvement in the rotation from last season.
I’m saying, these guys just have to go out there and not put up Mendoza/Jennings-esque nightmare lines.
And if Harrison, Hurley, et al cannot manage to, in aggregate, post significantly less than 6.00 ERA, I do think it speaks to problems at some level, because this group, while not chock-full of top of the rotation talent, should at least give you some of the much needed LAIEs or (JBLAIEs) for this rotation.
Which is why I said that, if the rotation isn't any better than last year, if the non-Millwood/Padilla contingent posts an ERA close to 6, that's an indictment of the organization, because the talent that is here right now is such that you shouldn't have that sort of trainwreck from this group.
One or two guys may flame out, but if you don't have anyone at least close to respectability in 2009, it speaks to some organizational problems in translating minor league pitching performance at the major league level.
0 recs |
106 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
"LAIEs or (JBLAIEs) "
pardon my ignorance, but what does that mean exactly? I’d imagine it has something to do with innings eaters.
Bobby Jindal '12
by dstar442005 on Jan 2, 2009 12:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
League Average Inning Eaters
Folks have acronymed that on LSB for a while.
I just made up the other one…JB is Just Below.
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 2, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Usually we use LAIE+ and LAIE- to describe things like JBLAIE and JALAIE.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Jan 3, 2009 9:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
confusing
I thought LAIE+ was park adjusted.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 3, 2009 10:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Cruz picked as #1 sleeper in fantasy Baseball 09
by CRUSHDAVIS on Jan 2, 2009 12:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
2009
The Year of Cruz
Mass X Acceleration = Force
by SteveP on Jan 2, 2009 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
God help us.
If this year is the year of Cruz, it can only mean the rest of the team is just awful.
by FuturePants on Jan 2, 2009 1:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OH man.
Is it football season yet?
by FuturePants on Jan 2, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For what it is worth...
…my concern is less with the pitching improving — I think the team will allow fewer runs than last year — than with the offense sustaining its performance from last year.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a significant improvement in the pitching, but were still around or just below .500 because of an offensive dropoff.
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 2, 2009 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
really?
I understand that we will probably not be the best but Kinsler and Hamilton with Davis, MY and a possibly outbreak of Cruz then those are the foundations of a really good offense.
And, my concern is with a team that is consistently among the worst in pitching. I don’t see us being much better next year pitching. We may improve, but what is improving from last vs diminishing from the best.
I think you can trust more in the offense scoring runs than you can in our pitching preventing runs
Wait 'til the year after next
by NothinG on Jan 2, 2009 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I think the offense will hold its own. MY, Murphy and Byrd will be healthy. Salty will be a year older and coming off a good off-season to build confidence. Cruz and/or Max Ramirez should prevent a major drop off from the Bradley departure in the RH power department.
They may not be #1 again, but they should be top 10.
by mattrpav on Jan 2, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
'08
there was a 112 run differential between #1 and #10 last year. If the Rangers are 10th in runs scored in the majors next year, they’re probably a 70 win team.
by Randy Richardson on Jan 2, 2009 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Offensive dropoff?
I think Uncle Milt will be a huge loss, but I’m not sure.
1B=improved with CD over a year of injured Hank and the grab bag
2B=same. Ian had a huge year but between his injury and the chances of him repeating his numbers while he was in, I say same.
SS=improved. Two broken fingers is kinda freaky.
3B=same crap, different season.
C=about the same. Salty should be a touch better, TT will drop off some.
OF=some better if Cruz is for real. I can’t see Marlon doing what he did, I can’t see Josh improving much or really sliding too much. Murphy should do it again. Cruz is the key.
DH=down. No way they combine for another 163 OPS+
I can see a drop but not really huge. An improved Salty and Cruz being for real would make up for MB.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Jan 2, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My concern
Is with all the talk of a 2010 competitive roster that we won’t be in a position at the end of 2009 to be all that competitive for 2010.
While I understand we really need to let our prospects develop, and that requires ML slots for some of them. In order for us to make the big leap from -66 run differential team to legit contender in two offseasons and one season we need to take a solid step forward in 2009.
That solid step requires more than just internal improvement if we really are going to compete in 2010. As Adam said there’s a good chance we just hold steady where we’re at – through some combination of improved (or not) pitching and regressed (or not)hitting.
So if this is reasonably correct we do need to add something externally of at least moderate improvement this off-season or a mid-season transaction with the intent of that addition helping in 2010.
Who, when is that addition? It hasn’t happened yet.
by gr7070 on Jan 2, 2009 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
you have to develop but at the same time you have to bring in FAs, you don’t have to sign all the free agents next year either. You can sign a couple contributors like a Sheets this year that can help next year. If you bring in a guy like Sheets others would be more willing to come imo
Wait 'til the year after next
by NothinG on Jan 2, 2009 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But...
What happens if this team next year doesn’t just stay about even, but improves in both run prevention and run scoring without any FA additions? Do you go out next offseason looking for a big FA or just stick with what you have, thinking that this co-improvement will continue? A lot of the changes you see year to year are more about luck than anything else. We’ll improve in run prevention if we stay healthy. Period. We’ll improve in run scoring if we stay healthy. That’s the luck of the draw. We don’t necessarily have to bring someone in to take what is considered a big step forward in 2009. And of course it can go the other way, too. But if bringing in a guy is what you think will push this team from 79 to 85 wins (or something along those lines), then you need to pray that all the luck factors help you too.
by Andy Seiler on Jan 2, 2009 5:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No offense
but I just think your argument is really weak. It is just a bunch of “ifs” and when it come to the Rangers we all know that that game never works.
"Sooner or later, prospects kill you, because you hang onto them." - Greggo, 11/22/2005
by Agreen07 on Jan 2, 2009 12:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Where do you see a bunch of ifs?
This isn’t all predicated on, say, “If McCarthy is healthy, then x or y.” It’s a lot of “It is not unreasonable to expect improvement from these guys in these ways.”
by FuturePants on Jan 2, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's the same thing...
I don’t have any reason to believe that anyone will be better than last year.
"Sooner or later, prospects kill you, because you hang onto them." - Greggo, 11/22/2005
by Agreen07 on Jan 2, 2009 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because...
B-Ref is chock full of numbers which suggest it is far easier to be pessimistic about the Rangers’ pitching.
by Excel Hearts Choi on Jan 2, 2009 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As in...
….say, Hurley’s ERA and WHIP over his 27 IP? So to say he was 5.7+ ERA (or whatever it is) in 27 IP, he can’t get that lower over the course of, say 20 starts?
by FuturePants on Jan 2, 2009 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
I was trying to be a bit sarcastic, which does not translate well into text.
by Excel Hearts Choi on Jan 2, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You believe that...
…if the Rangers rolled out Feldman, Harrison and Hurley for 30 starts apiece in 2009, those three guys woud post, in aggregate, an ERA around 6.00?
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 2, 2009 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One of them likely would
one of them wold be closer to 4.75, and the other 5.50, so as you contend, in aggregate, they’re likely to be better than 5.90ish.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Jan 2, 2009 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it can be better than 6
but I also don’t think those 3 will be making 30 starts each. When was the last time our back end of the rotation did that?
"Sooner or later, prospects kill you, because you hang onto them." - Greggo, 11/22/2005
by Agreen07 on Jan 2, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
30 starts
My main concern about who we’re throwing out there has more to do with health. Will Feldman stay healthy enough to start 30 times in 2009 after his considerable increase from 2007 to 2008? I don’t think so personally. And Hurley and Harrison both have had recent injuries, as well. If they’re healthy enough to pitch 30 times each next season, then they most definitely throw under 6.
by Andy Seiler on Jan 2, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Everything is "ifs" ... that's why it's speculating
But if you don’t think McCarthy, Hurley, and Harrison can put up better than a 5.9, you might as well cut your losses and trade all three of them. Hell, you could plug in Nippert, Mendoza and C.J. Wilson and get an ERA of 6.
by MeanMr.Mustard on Jan 2, 2009 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
x
But if you don’t think McCarthy, Hurley, and Harrison can put up better than a 5.9, you might as well cut your losses and trade all three of them.
That’s my point, pretty much. If you don’t think they are capable of doing better than that, then they are wasting space on the 40 man roster.
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 2, 2009 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if McCarthy can stay healthy
and given how Hurley ended his minor league career I’m not sure what he is capable of.
"Sooner or later, prospects kill you, because you hang onto them." - Greggo, 11/22/2005
by Agreen07 on Jan 2, 2009 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Only way to find out is to let them play
"Sooner or later, prospects kill you, because you hang onto them." - Greggo, 11/22/2005
by Agreen07 on Jan 2, 2009 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
this is true Greenie....
either that or break out the Ouija Board if you don’t feel like waiting.
"You are a rude thoughtless little pig"
Alec Baldwin
by BigGuns on Jan 2, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Feels Deja Vu
Did it feel that way to you when you were typing it? I haven’t gone back and searched. But it seems very familiar that each year in Spring Training or during the offseason lull that we all (well many) say (and hope to be right) that “the rotation has to be better than last year. I mean, it can’t be worse!”
Unfortunately, the results don’t seem to improve much or at least enough to feel like the same rotation can have the collective breakthrough needed to make a meaningful difference.
I do still think (maybe because I am a sucker) that the staff will be better. But I certainly don’t think the improvement will be enough with the same crew to move to being even slightly below average pitching overall (not that you said that either).
by atlantaranger on Jan 2, 2009 12:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
In previous years
I think they line has been “If Millwood and Padiall can repeat, we just need to improve our 3-5 guys”
2008 2007
Jennings > Loe
McCarthy > McCarthy
Mendoza > Tejeda
Sure made sence at the time sigh
by red3biggs on Jan 2, 2009 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
Last year especially Adam was saying things just like this. Apparently Luis Mendoza was going to save the 2008 Rangers.
Milly and Padilla aren’t good enough to anchor this rotation. Sorry.
by JBImaknee on Jan 2, 2009 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I said Luis Mendoza...
…was going to save the 2008 Rangers?
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 2, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It does sound like something you would say after “Hicks is going to trade Millwood and Padilla cause they make to much money so i guess Mendoza is going to HAVE to save the season”
by red3biggs on Jan 2, 2009 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A year ago...
…it was not unreasonable to say Mendoza could do as well in 2008 as he did in 2007. Turns out, Mendoza took about 7 huge steps backwards. Did anyone see him regressing THAT much? Hold up your hand if you did, because such a regression was not a reasonable guess to make at that time.
by FuturePants on Jan 2, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But can they be
LAIE? Thats what the rangers need most out of their pitching staff. Let the Offense win games, not the pitching.
by red3biggs on Jan 2, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I remember reading in the Star-Telegram's '08 preview how Mendoza's sinker was one of the best pitches in the organization...WHOOOPS!
by oc on Jan 2, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When it is on...
…it is a terrific pitch. I think he has the ability to be a solid major league starter, IF he can get consistent with his sinker (which he only started throwing in 2007) and with his slider.
I think he’s a guy who really ended up going backwards by bouncing up and down between the majors and minors and the pen and the rotation last season. I’d like to see them leave him in AAA to get 180 innings this year to work on his command. If they do, I think there’s a decent chance they might have something good with him.
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 2, 2009 1:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sadly
Our history points to Mendoza coming up before he ever gets close to 180 innings. It’d have to be a pretty bad 180 innings for that to not be the case.
by Andy Seiler on Jan 2, 2009 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He needs to be a reliever
He has two pitches that would work for him as a starter, but there are so, so many guys like that. Like the mounds of other pitchers who are unable to start, he doesn’t seem to have the additional unique skills of consistency in command and consistent variety of quality stuff that starters must have to be effective. He needs to get more consistent to even be a successful major league relief pitcher in any role, but that at least seems doable, since most relievers aren’t given those same demands.
by Brett Perryman on Jan 2, 2009 5:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that's accurate ...
and I think you are comparing apples to oranges. This year the guys we are expecting to get better are not your standard, pre-JD scrubs that came through the system. We’re talking about Hurley and Harrison, who are both pitchers that are seen as having higher upside than most anything that has come up this decade.
If Hurley and Harrison are going to flame out, then we have some very serious questions that have to be answered about why our high-ceiling talent can’t succeed in the bigs. I’m hoping that the exit of Connor might improve upon results we’ve seen the last couple of years.
by Athos on Jan 2, 2009 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Apples/Oranges
I don’t think that Hurley and Harrison are different creatures from what they’ve had at other points this decade. Hurley has made BA’s top 100 twice, topping out at 68. Harrison made it once at 90.
Going into 2003, Colby Lewis, who had made his second 100, topped out at 32 and Ben Kozlowski made it at 80 leading into the season had similar cameos in 2002. Lewis started 26 games in 2003 with a 7.30 ERA and Kozlowski didn’t pitch in the majors again. To add to that, Mario Ramos had come in at 49 on the previous list.
Just two years ago, heading into 2007, Danks, who had spent three years in the middle of the list, and Volquez, who had been at 56 the year before, were knocking on the door. Danks was viewed as possibly a half-season away, but after the trade the White Sox had him in their opening day rotation, and even if he’d been another month or two, most people think that Hurley or Harrison won’t make the opening day rotation (with Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy and Feldman slated for four spots).
Hurley and Harrison are not new creatures for this franchise in this decade. Feliz and Holland are the new creatures. Or if you want to look at it another way, having Feliz/Holland and Hurley/Harrison is a new thing. But we’ve had pairs of guys just as likely to succeed as Hurley and Harrison who didn’t.
by Brett Perryman on Jan 2, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like a do-over on that second paragraph
Basically, Lewis and Kozlowski were more highly regarded going into 2003 than Hurley and Harrison are now, and they had both pitched in the majors in 2002. Ramos, though he had a rough 2002, had been considered a fairly elite pitching prospect just a year earlier.
by Brett Perryman on Jan 2, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lewis and Kozlowski
Painful memories there…
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Jan 3, 2009 10:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I put in other post
But Mendoza gave up about 1.17 runs per IP
Git his crap out of there and you are close to 30 runs right there.
Harrison 5.49
Feldman 5.29
They could do worse this year, but the expectation is for them to improve.
Hell Jamie Wright put out a 5.12,
Josh Rupe gave up less R/IP than any of our starters.
by red3biggs on Jan 2, 2009 12:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The organizational problem
has already been pointed to. Hiring Maddux was a response to that and i hope a successful one. What more can the front office do? I bet they make a good offer to Sheets and keep trying to land Bucholz or a Marlins pitcher, but otherwise what can they do? Most of our pitchers seemed snakebit last year, except for Padilla, so it’s logical to expect it to be better this year. Here’s hoping.
"Never go with a hippie to a second location."
by jcAustin on Jan 2, 2009 12:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Padilla
I always find it funny that the one pitcher who listened to Connor the least is the one with the most success during his time here.
by red3biggs on Jan 2, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Direct correlation?
Sure seems that way to me…
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
by Rodney on Jan 2, 2009 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
But I always think things can’t get worse in the rotation and they must inevitably improve. Combine how terrible the rotation was with the injuries and the introduction of a new pitching coach and philosophy and it just seems like the rotation has to be better.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Jan 2, 2009 1:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
could the bar be set any lower?
i’m not sure i can remember lower expectations for the starting pitching going into a season.
Mass X Acceleration = Force
by SteveP on Jan 2, 2009 1:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
A side note
I don’t know if Moscoso should be in the group that should be expected to improve on what the back end of the rotation did last year. He only has a few AA innings under his belt.
by Brett Perryman on Jan 2, 2009 1:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that may be premature
I just threw him out there, but he probably belongs in the Feliz/Holland category of guys who may show up down the road.
by Adam J. Morris on Jan 2, 2009 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
my 2 cents
I am not too concerned with the final numbers for the pitching staff. McCarthy needs to stay healthy. Harrison nees to improve on last year’s performance. Hurley needs to stay healthy and improve over the course of the year. Millwood and Padilla need to pitch well and bring something back at the trade deadline. Rupe and Madrigal need to improve on last year. Benoit and CJ need to be healthy. Hopefully Holland gets a chance to see if he is ready for the MLs. And I would like to see Diamond get a chance in the bullpen.
If these things happen, then I think it will have been a sucessful 2009 regardless of era and record.
Mitch Moreland - Rangers 2009 Minor League Player of the Year
by RangerMad on Jan 2, 2009 1:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'd say
if half of those things happen this summer, then we could see a big push this summer. Also, if we could go a whole year with just 7 starters, that would be huge. I know in 2004 we used like 13-15 different starters and still kinda competed but I think the team plays better when they know who they’re backing up everyday and not worrying who is being brought up every other start or later in the week. It would show our pitchers are healthy and our young pitchers are holding their own on a big league staff.
by meatbonelefty on Jan 2, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Our pitching getting better really doesnt mean a whole lot since
we had the worst pitching in the MLB last year. Same thing with our hitting getting worse.
by Stevoo on Jan 2, 2009 1:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
who cares if our pitching gets a little better?
it still sucks.
by Stevoo on Jan 2, 2009 11:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ex: going from 30th to 29th. 29th still sucks....?
by Stevoo on Jan 3, 2009 1:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not as much as 30th.
Are you saying that unless we sign the 5 best pitchers in the league, we can’t be optimistic?
by brettgardner on Jan 3, 2009 2:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Last year
Jennings, Mathis, Mendoza, and Hunter threw 100.1 innings. That group gave up 110 runs which leads to a 9.89 ERA. Mendoza and Jennings in the rotation gave up 73 runs themselves. The only one that I can see making starts for this team again next year is Hunter who will be better prepared for the Majors this year. Without those 4 guys making starts last year, the Rangers SP threw 769 innings and gave up 422 ER for an ERA of 4.94. So do you guys think the Rangers can find around 100 innings from other pitchers this year who will give up no more that won’t give up more than about 75 runs?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 2, 2009 1:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Building year.
I wouldn’t be so concerned about 2009’s ERA total, although it is most likely to go down on account of 2008’s ERA being a reflection of the rotation depth evaporating on account of injuries.
I’d look at the month-to-month rotation ERAs, and the ERAs of the young guys. 2009 is tagged as a building year (let’s be honest with ourselves and leave out the ‘re-’). I’m looking for improvement throughout the year in Hurley, McCarthy, Feldman, Harrison, Hunter, Diamond and Rupe. You need to find out who can hold down a spot (rotation or bullpen) for the next few years. I’m looking for month to month improvements and any conversion from rotation-to-bullpen (or vice versa).
by mattrpav on Jan 2, 2009 1:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Texas has developed exactly one young pitcher into a LAIE in the last 8 years. I find it hard to believe that all of the sudden, the Rangers will have 3 of them emerge on the scene, all at the same time.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 2, 2009 2:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
oops, make that once in the last 11 years
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
by tricer on Jan 2, 2009 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
With strict counting criteria
this is true, but I think the fact that Young, Danks, Volquez , and Galaraga had success with no (or very little in G’s case) intervening minor league work somewhat mitigates the verity of this chart. What happened to a great extent is that the org traded or released this talent when they were on the verge of a breakout, whether impending success was predictable on not. Of course, Don Cooper and his cutter must get their due, too.
I have no interest in belaboring this point, but not holding onto ready to emerge talent has put the Rangers in the rotation circumstances it now finds itself in. The Rangers may now actually have the potential for a better future than if they had held on to this talent, but the situation right now is self-inflicted with no real proof that the Rangers can’t develop their own pitching.
by mcgee48c on Jan 2, 2009 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And when did we have
this many pitching prospects that were this highly regarded?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jan 2, 2009 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hurley, Hunter and Harrison are highly regarded?
by oc on Jan 2, 2009 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They fit the role of league-average-inning-eater.
So what?
by oc on Jan 2, 2009 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Understatement ...
given what has come through the system before them.
by Athos on Jan 2, 2009 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And in the big picture
when you’re trying to actually put together a competitive rotation (which I think is why oc is minimalizing the importance of guys like this, that you need more for a top notch rotation), even if you hit on both Feliz and Holland as quality starters (which is pretty unlikely), you need innings eaters behind them to have a successful team. You only have Millwood and Padilla for around another year, and they aren’t really worth what they’re making anyway. If, say, Hurley and Harrison establish themselves as league average innings eaters, especially while they’re making very little money, you’re light years ahead of where you are otherwise. It’s just a lot to ask.
by Brett Perryman on Jan 2, 2009 5:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When you've run the type of garbage we've been running out there for the past decade, it's easy to undervalue guys like Harrison and Hurley.
by oc on Jan 2, 2009 5:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, see my response above
I just think that if – and it’s a pretty big if – they can fill that role, it will be critically important to the potential success of the team in 2010 and beyond. If they are even reliably passable the task of building the rotation becomes so much more doable, given that you do have a lot of talent on the way to try to fill those other 2-3 spots.
by Brett Perryman on Jan 2, 2009 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So, we've had 'highly regarded' prospects before; at least prospects that were seen to have, more or less, the same type of ceiling as Hurley and Harrison, right?
You mentioned Lewis, Kozlowski and Ramos above.
It’s a valid argument to say that the difference this time isn’t the quality of type of pitchers we have, but the quantity. We’re bound to hit on some of these guys.
But, so far as the near future is concerned (and I think this is where tricer shares my sentimonies), just because Harrison and Hurley are/were highly regarded, doesn’t mean much right now.
Not until we see full seasons out of both.
Which is why I take the term ‘highly regarded’ with a grain of salt. Especially considering our recent history with developing pitchers and injuries to the pitching staff.
by oc on Jan 3, 2009 12:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We've had a few previously borderline top 100 prospects at other times
We just remember them as failures, not promising guys. Rob Bell for example.
by Brett Perryman on Jan 2, 2009 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Really, that's where we are setting the bar?
Normally, I agree with most of what you say Adam, as you know more about baseball than I do. But this post was one of the most frustrating to read that you’ve ever written. I don’t disagree with your general premise: The Rangers can go into next season with similar people penciled in as were penciled in last year and end up with better pitching (assuming health). I realize that part of the reason that the Rangers’ pitching was so bad last year was because there were just so many injuries.
However, I hate the implications of this. I understand the Rangers aren’t trying to be competitive for the World Series next year. But the plan is to contend in 2010, and the AL West looks weak enough right now that it’s not impossible that they could win the division. In light of these things, we’ll settle for a 5+ ERA from 3 of the 5 starters on the staff? I get that we have to develop these young pitchers, but I don’t understand how throwing so many question marks from last year’s bad pitching staff into the mix this year can leave one satisfied heading into the year. This pitching staff needs to be significantly upgraded (to contend past June, to not put too much pressure on the young guys, to not wear out the bullpen) and that it isn’t when there is such a nice crop of FA pitchers out there is maddening.
It just seems to me that we’re one or two injuries from being in almost the same situation we were in last year, with the only benefit being that this year may actually see one of Happy Holland up here to soothe the pain. As much as I love the general direction Daniels has directed this organization, this offseason has been disappointing so far and will be if no other pitchers are brought in.
by GhettoBear04 on Jan 2, 2009 2:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well, what pitchers do you want to see brought in?
Among FA’s Ben Sheets is about the only one out there who represents true bang for your buck, and he of course comes with his own problems. As far as the trade market goes, GM’s seem to be holding all their young pitchers extremely close to their vests this offseason (as discussed in the previous thread) – unless you’re willing to risk another Danks/McCarthy type swap, it seems to be becoming more and more unlikely you’re going to get anything better than a limited ceiling Masterson or Bowden-type talent, even for your top trade chips.
So yes, it would seem incremental improvements in our pitching staff are indeed the bar for 2009, simply by default. Now that’s disappointing from a welcome-to-reality standpoint, but I don’t see how it makes our offseason a failure or anything. Question marks are there because they need answers, so we might as well get some this year.
Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?
by lonestarJon on Jan 2, 2009 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lowe is out there too,
but at a higher cost than Sheets. Lowe turned the Mets down and is looking for 15mil/yr from someone.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
by Rodney on Jan 2, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that's what I mean about "bang for the buck"
DLowe is coming off a pretty good year, but he’s 35 and looking for multiple years at that 15 mil. rate. That’s not going to be a good contract if a team actually gives it to him.
Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?
by lonestarJon on Jan 2, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It will be a reasonable contract.
Lowe is only going to make $4-5 million more a year than Kevin Millwood, and his numbers are quantifiably better.
I see nothing in Lowe’s recent history to suggest he’ll be any worse than the ’08 Millwood three years from now.
Jon Daniels probably isn’t talking to Boras, but, he should be.
by oc on Jan 2, 2009 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Age
Once you’re giving out multi-year contracts to pitchers as old as Lowe, then you’re rolling the dice. It’s more about how quickly he’ll decline than if he’ll decline.
by Andy Seiler on Jan 2, 2009 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Millwood
Was the ERA champion in his age 30 season before comping here, you know. There was nothing to suggest he’d fall this far into mediocrity when we signed him, either.
Lowe is 35, and untill just last year, was coming off 3 consecutive years of fairly mediocre periphrials in the NL. He’s also an extreme groundball pitcher who doesn’t normally strike out that many people – what do you think would happen if he had to play in front of our infield?
Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?
by lonestarJon on Jan 2, 2009 5:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lowe's tRA in four years with the Dodgers; (league-tRA in parenthesis) - FIP
- 3.99 (4.58) – 4.10
- 4.02 (5.07) – 3.72
- 4.08 (4.99) – 3.97
- 3.24 (4.77) – 3.23
You’re “mediocre peripherals” argument is a poor one.
Also… supposedly, we’ve ‘upgraded’ the ‘C’ and ‘1B’ positions, and are hoping for better years at ‘2B’ and ‘3B’… so, our infield defense should be better than you’re forecasts.
Couple that with the fact that he’s a ground-ball pitcher, and I’d say that Lowe will be worth every penny of his upcoming contract.
His age is secondary. He’s not a power pitcher.
by oc on Jan 2, 2009 5:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Those league-tRA's don't look too impressive to me
I didn’t saytThose peripherals where bad but they’re nothing special. He’s pitching in Dodger Stadium, with a free out every 9th man – I’m just saying he looks like a prime candidate for regression, especially if he came here.
Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?
by lonestarJon on Jan 2, 2009 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Lowe is a good bet
to be worth his contract. He’s always been healthy, and those tRA and FIP numbers above show he’s been effective even when the park/league, etc. are taken into effect. I think he is a much better bet to be worth his salary than either Burnett or Sheets because of their health concerns, even though he is older.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Jan 3, 2009 12:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I for one...
would be ok with a rotation of Sheets, Harrison, Hurley, McCarthy, and Feldman for 2009. I know that rotaion won’t win the AL West, but I don’t think Millwood and Padilla are that much of an improvement over what the Rangers already have. Keeping Millwood and Padilla won’t win the Rangers anything either imo. If JD can deal them and get a couple decent prospects back I think he should do it.
The BoSox aren’t dealing Buchholz for one of our catchers and I’m not a big fan of Salty for Bowden+ (unless that + is Hagadone). If the Rangers get a guy like Bowden then I think you put him in the rotation for Hurley and he gets a few starts at AAA ’til someone struggles or McCarthy is hurt.
Not sure if this is what you are getting at or not AJM, but I feel like ‘09 should be sink or swim for some of these pitchers (Hurley, Harrison, Feldman, McCarthy) as well. Like you say, if they all sink then there are some bigger problems that need to be addressed before some of the bigger prospects are ready in ’10. I don’t expect the pitching to improve much, but if healthy it should show some improvement. If the ‘09 pitching is worse than it was in ’08 I’m pretty sure we can forget about competing in ’10 as well.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Jan 2, 2009 3:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Luis Mendoza – 40.1 IP, 2.68 ERA, 3.12 RA, 1.19 WHIP, 8% BB rate, 12% SO rate, four consecutive starts of two or fewer runs allowed.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Jan 3, 2009 12:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Small Twitter account creates big drama in White Sox camp
- John Danks sticks with the script — no matter the consequence
- Spring Snapshot: Will fresh faces produce a White Sox winner?
- Vin Scully OK after tumble but scares bejeezus out of everybody
- Musical interlude: Gordon Beckham and Jake Peavy 'Take It Easy'
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
