Comments on: 40 Man Roster Review – Danny Duffy

By: jim fetterolf

jim fetterolf — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:23:36 +0000

“Gonzalez is wildly more valuable than Francis going forward”

No doubt, just trying to find a way to define “ace”, “#1″, “#2″, etc. From MLB.com, looks like the Nats parted with their #2, 3, and 5 prospects, plus an A ball pitcher as throw-in. Brad Peacock looks better than Monty or Odorizzi or Duffy. The story:

http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111222&content_id=26227592&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:07:06 +0000

Usually I just look at wins and ERA. Kidding.

I don’t have a formula just eyeball some stats and try to reserve judgement if I haven’t seen them pitch much. Your system seems as good as any I suppose, although I wouldn’t rely to rely on data generated in one season or even two seasons for the very reason you cite–Gonzalez is wildly more valuable than Francis going forward (as you know… just an example). Obviously, age and contract are huge for the Royals too.

By: jim fetterolf

jim fetterolf — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:41:01 +0000

Greg, how do you decide what a #1 or #2 starter is? For the quick and easy, I use fangraphs pitching leaders and arbitrarily consider a pitcher at 5 fWAR an ace, giving 15 of them, one in the top 30 to be a #1 starter, the second 30 or so a #2, and so on. Gio Gonzales came in at 35 with 3.5, a #2, but going to the NL he could project as a #1, somewhere around fWAR of 4. I’m glad we passed, also. Too much talent to trade for a 0.9 WAR upgrade from Jeff Francis, a #2 by virtue of being on the 2nd page of pitching leaders.

By: DanL

DanL — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:19:21 +0000

This winter has seen a lot of talented pitchers get traded for significant packages. With a long list of teams having four quality started, one could say the decline of PED usage is creating an era where pitchers can put together nice stat lines.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:18:05 +0000

And….as I typed that Gio Gonzalez was sent to Washington for what looks like a monster package at first glance. Perhaps Cahill was an outlier and #2 pitchers really do cost 2 elite and 2 other good prospects. I’m glad Moore passed on Gio even though we need a starter.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:06:34 +0000

I agree on the Greinke trade, but only b/c of timing. Greinke had just two years left and we weren’t going to compete without trading him anyway. Cahill has four years PLUS two team options. He’s a legit 3 who looks like he could continue to improve. They really only got one legit prospect back. I’d trade Mike Montgomery and fluff for Cahill everyday and I’m not down on Montgomery.

The Latos trade looked about right to me on the other hand and I’m not sure I’d want to give up that much at this point of the process.

It’s a fine line to be sure, but there are bargains out there, especially if you can find a GM who overvalues prospects. Unfortunately, I fear OUR GM may be doing the overvaluing. We shall see indeed.

By: jim fetterolf

jim fetterolf — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:57:01 +0000

“And we disagree on prohibitive I guess because the A’s gave away Cahill in my opinion.”

And I think the ‘Backs got robbed. Of course, I tend to identify more with Oakland or San Diego managements’ approach. I thought we got the best of the Greinke trade, also. Just a matter of a different perspective, I guess. We’ll see how it plays out.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:15:16 +0000

We have a suplus #5 starters and a couple of #4s. I don’t see a legitimate #3 in the bunch though there are a few candidates who could devlelop into it or pitch like a #3 for stretches.

And we disagree on prohibitive I guess because the A’s gave away Cahill in my opinion. Not ‘gave’ away I guess, but they paid about 1 elite prospect less that I thought it would take.

I’m not even talking about acquiring an ace. A legitimate #3 would be the ace of our staff.

By: jim fetterolf

jim fetterolf — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:08:09 +0000

Lot of talk on starters, but front-line guys will be prohibitively expensive, as shown by the Cahill and Latos trades, and we have a surplus of #3 starters already. Oswalt may be the most attractive candidate, but a degenerative disc condition is a serious risk for a pitcher who might be a #2 after moving to the AL.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:20:10 +0000

I would imagine Crow’s move to starter is semi-permanent and he will only be moved back to the pen if he fails after starts at the major league level. I’m guessing he’ll be getting starts in Omaha when the season starts. He’ll be with the big club the instant they decide he’s a reliever.

I doubt Chen is a trade candidate since he’s on a two year deal and there didn’t seem to be interest at the deadline last season when he was on a more reasonable one year deal.

It looks to me like the Royals feel like they’re set for 2012 and that’s disappointing. If the Royals go into the season with this roster then we will be sellers at the deadline as opposed to buyers. In that case Sanchez would surely be a candidate for trade.

Hopefully they’ll bring in another starter so we don’t have to chalk 2012 up as another year of development. Wait until next year, again.