To get a closer

[example1]

The upside potential of our prospects is that they will someday hold down a rotation spot in the major leagues. Cordero is a proven good major league closer-- that is not his upside potential. That already is. His upside potential is that he will regularly make All Star teams and win relief awards. If the FO decides to give up the potential for the proven quantity' date=' I am not going to complain. It's their job to know which players will make it and which will fall by the wayside. Most of them fall by the wayside.[/quote']

 

But why aren't you going to be descriminating about the talent we give up though? I mean, yes, Cordero has had a lot of saves. Great. That means he's pitched in lots of save situations, but it doesn't say much about his value. I understand the theory that we'd be giving up potential talent for actual talent, but why does that mean we have to open the floodgates and essentially give up our top three pitching prospects under the age of 22? Why can't we give up players like, say, David Pauley or Edgar Martinez or other players with some skills but who may not have a spot in BOS in the near future? I'm just not going to pretend that all prospects are the same or that its illegitimate to have high hopes for the best prospects we have.

 

Player A) 73.1 IP, 3.19ERA, 69 K, 29 SV

 

Player B ) 54 IP, 2.67 ERA, 42K, 33 SV

 

It is very easy for closers to have seasons that make them look good on paper. Player A is probably more valuable, but player B would be a decent option if he didn't cost three top pitching prospects. He had more SVs (which is ultimately what we want from a closer, right?) and gave up fewer runs per inning pitched, which is also what we want from that relief ace type.

 

Bob Wickman (player B ) played in the same division and actually had a 1.04 ERA in ATL. I absolutely despise the idea of getting Bob Wickman, so don't think that's what I'm advocating, but on paper closers tend to look similar because, truth be told, bad closers don't stick around very long in most systems. I worry about Cordero pulling a Huston Street and going from unhittable to hittable to decent.

[jacksonianmarch]

So would you trade Humberto Sanchez, Tyler Clippard and Kyle Farnsworth for Chad Cordero?

 

I wouldn't either.

 

I'd deal Farnsworth and Clippard if I needed a closer. But the thing is, you are talking about 2 prospects who have tamed AA and will be in AAA this season. Sanchez and Clippard can reasonably be considered MLB ready and on a team like Washington, they would be mid season callups from AAA. Buchholz is starting in A ball. He hasnt tamed AA yet, and that is where the hitting really takes off.

[jacksonianmarch]

thus far .700, the sox are having trouble identifying which ones dont make it. They cut bait too early once they get to AAA and then overhype their A ball guys.

[TheKilo]

Jacko, let me be clear when I say I wouldn't have problems dealing Bucholz or Bowden for someone who can help the team, but I just don't think putting them both in a package for Cordero is a smart investment. Yes, Cordero has had great success but he reminds me a lot of Keith Foulke. He's not terribly overpowering, his HR rates have increased, and if he loses control of his high 80s/low 90s fastball there could be a lot of problems.

 

I would love to have Chad Cordero on this team. But if a package of a combo of two of WMP/Hansen/Bowden doesn't get it done, then it shouldn't get done.

[jacksonianmarch]

I cannot argue with that Kilo. Everybody has gut feelings about players, and I sure cannot argue with yours if you think Cordero will not be worth it. You also bring up a valid point of the increasing HR numbers. I didnt see that, and that is a bad thing for closers.

[a700hitter]

I'd deal Farnsworth and Clippard if I needed a closer. But the thing is' date=' you are talking about 2 prospects who have tamed AA and will be in AAA this season. Sanchez and Clippard can reasonably be considered MLB ready and on a team like Washington, they would be mid season callups from AAA. Buchholz is starting in A ball. He hasnt tamed AA yet, and that is where the hitting really takes off.[/quote']Cordero would be an excellent bridge to Mo and he's young enough to claim the closer's role when Mo hangs 'em up and goes back to Panama. It was that kind of shut down 8th and 9th inning work that was the trademark of the Yankee championship teams. It was almost the trademark of a 2004 championship team except Flash Gordon could not step up. He lost his cookies in the bullpen, and let his nerves get the better of him.

[TheKilo]

Cordero would be an excellent bridge to Mo and he's young enough to claim the closer's role when Mo hangs 'em up and goes back to Panama. It was that kind of shut down 8th and 9th inning work that was the trademark of the Yankee championship teams. It was almost the trademark of a 2004 championship team except Flash Gordon could not step up. He lost his cookies in the bullpen' date=' and let his nerves get the better of him.[/quote']

 

 

You're not acknowledging the possibility of a jump in Cordero's numbers due to increasing HR rates or entering a better offensive division, either.

[jacksonianmarch]

Cordero would be an excellent bridge to Mo and he's young enough to claim the closer's role when Mo hangs 'em up and goes back to Panama. It was that kind of shut down 8th and 9th inning work that was the trademark of the Yankee championship teams. It was almost the trademark of a 2004 championship team except Flash Gordon could not step up. He lost his cookies in the bullpen' date=' and let his nerves get the better of him.[/quote']

 

I think the Yankees feel they have a few candidates for closer in 2 yrs when Mo hangs em up. JB Cox will certainly be in the equation, but right now the yankees have a bridge to Mo. Proctor was a beast last yr. Farns was inconsistent, but not a liability. Bruney was a monster in limited duty. Britton was very good in lots of work last yr in the ALE. I ont think bullpen is a big need for us, unless we can add a lefty power reliever, something the pen has lacked since Stanton left the first time.

[a700hitter]

You're not acknowledging the possibility of a jump in Cordero's numbers due to increasing HR rates or entering a better offensive division' date=' either.[/quote']Closers don't face pitchers in the NL. I don't think there is as much of a league adjustment for closers as for starters. In either league, they have to get the three toughest outs of the game.

[TheKilo]

I think the Yankees feel they have a few candidates for closer in 2 yrs when Mo hangs em up. JB Cox will certainly be in the equation' date=' but right now the yankees have a bridge to Mo. Proctor was a beast last yr. Farns was inconsistent, but not a liability. Bruney was a monster in limited duty. Britton was very good in lots of work last yr in the ALE. I ont think bullpen is a big need for us, unless we can add a lefty power reliever, something the pen has lacked since Stanton left the first time.[/quote']

 

 

I'd like to see Bruney in more hi-lev situations before I call him a monster. Also, I never considered Stanton to be a "power" reliever.

 

Closers don't face pitchers in the NL. I don't think there is as much of a league adjustment for closers as for starters. In either league' date=' they have to get the three toughest outs of the game.[/quote']

 

And the increase in HR rates?

[a700hitter]

I'd like to see Bruney in more hi-lev situations before I call him a monster. Also, I never considered Stanton to be a "power" reliever.

 

 

 

And the increase in HR rates?

What increase in HR rates?

[jacksonianmarch]

Kilo, Stanton used to be a power lefty back in the day. He used to hit 95-97mph when he was in atlanta and in his first few yrs in NY. He was a premier lefty reliever who dominated. Now he is a loogy lefty who cannot break 86. Aging is a bitch, lol.

[example1]

I just think the AA litmus test is a stupid one, personally. yes, it means players haven't yet played against the highest competition in the world. But if they're tearing it up on the levels below that its just a matter of time.

 

I think it is shortsighted to keep referring to the AA rule for guys who haven't been to AA yet because they were only drafted two seasons ago, one of them out of HS the other out of Juco. Letmus tests are nice and all, I'm just glad teh Sox don't go by them when determining how many top high-A prospects equal a MLB player.

[jacksonianmarch]

What increase in HR rates?

 

2004 8HR in 83IP

2005 9HR in 75IP

2006 13HR in 74IP

 

could be a fluke, but his WHIP, BAA, and BB/9IP jumped significantly and the ERA jumped nearly 1.4 runs per 9.

[example1]

What increase in HR rates?

 

Cordero gave up 13 HR in 73IP (06), 8 HR in 74IP (05), 7 HR in 82 IP (04). I think that's the increased rate he refers to.

[TheKilo]

What increase in HR rates?

 

2004 - 8 HR in 82.2 IP - 1 HR every 10.23 IP

2005 - 9 HR in 74.1 IP - 1 HR every 8.23 IP

2006 - 13 HR in 73.1 IP - 1 HR every 5.62 IP

 

Now, in a spacious ballpark like RFK, that sort of jump in HR allowed really worries me. And I know it's possible that they weren't all in RFK, but what will that translate to in Fenway, the land of 315 foot pop fly homeruns?

 

edit - Compare that to say, Mike Timlin, who gave up 2 HR in 80.1 IP in 2005 and 7 in 64 in 2006. Yes, it's also a sizeable jump, but I think Timlin's woes were due to injury and I feel he will bounce back as a very serviceable reliever in 2007.

 

double edit - I've been beaten to the punch. But the numbers are all the same.

[a700hitter]

2004 8HR in 83IP

2005 9HR in 75IP

2006 13HR in 74IP

 

could be a fluke, but his WHIP, BAA, and BB/9IP jumped significantly and the ERA jumped nearly 1.4 runs per 9.

Batters seeing more of him no doubt led to a familiarity resulting in an increase in HRs.. His WHIP of 1.11 is still pretty good.

[jacksonianmarch]

I just think the AA litmus test is a stupid one, personally. yes, it means players haven't yet played against the highest competition in the world. But if they're tearing it up on the levels below that its just a matter of time.

 

I think it is shortsighted to keep referring to the AA rule for guys who haven't been to AA yet because they were only drafted two seasons ago, one of them out of HS the other out of Juco. Letmus tests are nice and all, I'm just glad teh Sox don't go by them when determining how many top high-A prospects equal a MLB player.

 

It is not a stupid one. The hardest thing in professional sports is hitting a baseball. Hence, when new professionals hit the low levels of the minors, lots of them fizzle out cause they cannot hit the best of the best. Hence, the pitchers have the huge advantage early on. As the hitters mature, they concentrate, as do the better pitchers. By the time the prospects hit AA, most of them have developed some sort of plate discipline and most of them can handle good pitching. This is where the best sort themselves out. There are plenty of top prospects who hit AA and stalled.

 

At the same time, the AA litmus test is a mark for just taking time. Lots of young pitchers come out of college or high school never throwing over 100IP in a year. Then they come to the minors and are coached, prodded, retooled and tinkered with in a short amount of time. This leads to many injuries. For example, the yankees have a starting pitcher who was a top prospect. Christian Garcia. Did well in both rookie and A ball, but upon stretching his arm out, he got injured. Shoulder, then Tommy John to the elbow. His career is likely sidetracked and may never get off the ground. He never made it to AA.

 

A wise man once told me (actually a writer for one of the prospect sites) that pitchers in the minors are very hard to predict. Of all the top prospects below AA, figure that 80% of them will either fizzle, get injured, or be nothing more than cups of coffee MLB players. Of those that surpass AA, the numbers approach 50/50 for success (sticking with the big league club) or failure. That is why I like the AA litmus test.

[TheKilo]

Batters seeing more of him no doubt led to a familiarity resulting in an increase in HRs.. His WHIP of 1.11 is still pretty good.

 

Would you want him to experience a jump like that in the AL East? Like I said, we've seen it with Foulke and I just don't think he's worth that much.

[a700hitter]

Would you want him to experience a jump like that in the AL East? Like I said' date=' we've seen it with Foulke and I just don't think he's worth that much.[/quote']I would have no problem with him having a couple of years with the Red Sox like he had in 2006.

[jacksonianmarch]

If not Cordero, then who do you like Kilo?

[seabeachfred]

Ducherer of the A's intrigues me. I saw him a few times last summer at Angels Stadium when the A's were in town (my wife, daughter and son-in-law are big Angels fans), and frankly I was very impressed with him. Huston Street is the A's closer so that could mean Duch might be available for less in a trade than Cordero. All I know is that right now the Red Sox do not have a closer and we all know Timlin is better suited for set-up work. Donnelly is a remote possibility because he never has closed and Okajima is an unknown quantity there himself. Who does that leave us with, Delcarmen? No thanks, he was terrible the last part of the 2006 season, and Hansen? He seemed to regress thanks to the tinkering some jerkoff minor league pitching coach did with his delivery and release point.

[jacksonianmarch]

Duchs still has 3 yrs of control. Beane likes to deal guys when he has one yr left on them. Duchs will likely hit arbitration this yr, so he is due for a moderate increase, but it is against Beane's MO to deal guys with multiple yrs of control under his belt.

 

Now if he were available, I would caution you. He has been great, but in 04 and 05, he pitched a combined 182IP of relief. That led to breakdown last season as he had an elbow problem that landed him on the DL. He only pitched 55.2IP last yr. Hence, if he were available, he is the kinda guy who should be approached with caution.

[TheKilo]

If not Cordero' date=' then who do you like Kilo?[/quote']

 

 

Like I said, I'd love Cordero. I just think that we need to be cautious and not throw too exorbitant of a package at him. I think the deal could, and should get done without throwing Bucholz in there.

 

Hansen/Bowden/WMP would intrigue me quite a bit.

[Cityofchampions33]

Like I said, I'd love Cordero. I just think that we need to be cautious and not throw too exorbitant of a package at him. I think the deal could, and should get done without throwing Bucholz in there.

 

Hansen/Bowden/WMP would intrigue me quite a bit.

 

Yeah, I'd feel that we'd have jump the gun on givin up Hansen, especially if it were for like a 30 year old, but I'll do it for Cordero.

[example1]

It is not a stupid one. The hardest thing in professional sports is hitting a baseball. Hence, when new professionals hit the low levels of the minors, lots of them fizzle out cause they cannot hit the best of the best. Hence, the pitchers have the huge advantage early on. As the hitters mature, they concentrate, as do the better pitchers. By the time the prospects hit AA, most of them have developed some sort of plate discipline and most of them can handle good pitching. This is where the best sort themselves out. There are plenty of top prospects who hit AA and stalled.

 

At the same time, the AA litmus test is a mark for just taking time. Lots of young pitchers come out of college or high school never throwing over 100IP in a year. Then they come to the minors and are coached, prodded, retooled and tinkered with in a short amount of time. This leads to many injuries. For example, the yankees have a starting pitcher who was a top prospect. Christian Garcia. Did well in both rookie and A ball, but upon stretching his arm out, he got injured. Shoulder, then Tommy John to the elbow. His career is likely sidetracked and may never get off the ground. He never made it to AA.

 

A wise man once told me (actually a writer for one of the prospect sites) that pitchers in the minors are very hard to predict. Of all the top prospects below AA, figure that 80% of them will either fizzle, get injured, or be nothing more than cups of coffee MLB players. Of those that surpass AA, the numbers approach 50/50 for success (sticking with the big league club) or failure. That is why I like the AA litmus test.

 

The point is not that the players who get to the majors aren't good at AA. I am not arguing that. My point is that it is still worth discriminating between prospects at different levels. I would rather have Clay Buchholz, with all his 'negative' need for time and development than Abe Alvarez or Lenny DiNardo at this point. There are times when sending top prospects makes sense, I just don't think Chad Cordero is worth those three draft picks. I think there are plenty of players who are clearly going to get to AT LEAST AA and I think Buchholz, Bard and Bowden are widely considered locks to get to at least that level. These aren't guys that barely made the team, two of them were first round picks and have had success at all levels so far. The other was a first round pick who can hit triple digits on the gun without too much effort. There are probably 25 pitchers below AA that the Sox have, and I am okay with trading all but maybe 5 of them.

[jacksonianmarch]

well, you are comparing players on either side of the hill and it doesnt work that way. Alvarez and DiNardo have cemented their AAAA status. They were some of those prospects who fell on the wrong side of the 50/50. Cup of coffee nothing more.

 

I think the B's are nice prospects to have, but at the same time, injury, ineffectiveness, etc is likely to hit 2 of the 3. The job is to pick which one will make it and which ones will not.

[example1]

well, you are comparing players on either side of the hill and it doesnt work that way. Alvarez and DiNardo have cemented their AAAA status. They were some of those prospects who fell on the wrong side of the 50/50. Cup of coffee nothing more.

 

I think the B's are nice prospects to have, but at the same time, injury, ineffectiveness, etc is likely to hit 2 of the 3. The job is to pick which one will make it and which ones will not.

 

Unless you have faith in your scouting departments and the reports that the sox have had, in succession, the 2nd and 1st top draft classes. To me that indicates that the players they selected may have a slightly higher chance of making it based on health, fit in the system, etc.,

 

whatever. We could argue this point forever. I don't think the Sox are going to send 2 SP prospects and a CP prospect for a guy of virtually the same age who, thanks to the crappy system he's played in, has established himself as a suitable MLB closer. It is true that all three players may not make it, but if even one of them makes it to becoem what they are projected to be they are at worst Cordero (Hansen) and at best a reliable #2 or #1 starter under control for years.

 

Trade one or two of them for a good closer, perhaps with another prospect. I just think you guys are being unrealistic speculating about the FO selling off its 3 top pitching prospects (insofar as Hansen is a prospect) for a guy who pitches in a position that this FO KNOWS is overvalued. You really think the FO is so concerned with finding a 'big name' closer that they'll go against their own philosophy of acquiring cheap, young, controlled hard throwers by selling them?

[jacksonianmarch]

Unless you have faith in your scouting departments and the reports that the sox have had, in succession, the 2nd and 1st top draft classes. To me that indicates that the players they selected may have a slightly higher chance of making it based on health, fit in the system, etc.,

 

whatever. We could argue this point forever. I don't think the Sox are going to send 2 SP prospects and a CP prospect for a guy of virtually the same age who, thanks to the crappy system he's played in, has established himself as a suitable MLB closer. It is true that all three players may not make it, but if even one of them makes it to becoem what they are projected to be they are at worst Cordero (Hansen) and at best a reliable #2 or #1 starter under control for years.

 

Trade one or two of them for a good closer, perhaps with another prospect. I just think you guys are being unrealistic speculating about the FO selling off its 3 top pitching prospects (insofar as Hansen is a prospect) for a guy who pitches in a position that this FO KNOWS is overvalued. You really think the FO is so concerned with finding a 'big name' closer that they'll go against their own philosophy of acquiring cheap, young, controlled hard throwers by selling them?

 

I am not a selling kind of guy. I dont like the idea of sending Joba Chamberlain packing for nobody, and he is in the same class as the other B's you are talking about. But if I had a glaring need, and I could send one of those lottery tix to get a young player who could admirably fill that glaring need for years to come, then I do it, hands down.

[example1]

If you're willing to give up Chamberlain, Sanchez and an inexpensive Farnsworth for Cordero then more power to you. I just tend to worry about giving up three arms that will likely contribute in one way or another for one, especially in the overrated closer position.

 

If Bowden and Buchholz put up numbers as they have so far next season, their value on the trade market would rise indeed. Even without having played a MLB game, by waiting a year you could be trading them as the centerpiece of a deal the way we could have done with Lester a few years back. The very argument that it doesn't count until after AA works both ways, in that when they do well at AA their value increases into the elite status and you have to let them ripen to get to that point.

 

I agree with the premise that the numbers don't entirely count until after AA. I don't agree that you can't predict a trajectory based on numbers below AA. In other words, I'd be willing to bet that a computer analysis would show that the players who tend to be better than their peers are AA also tended to be better than their peers at A and below. Having success at lower levels likely has some correlation with success at other levels, but its just harder to see it statistically.

 

For pitchers especially this is difficult, because if they are throwing pitches that guys can't hit at one level that doesn't mean a guy can't hit it at a higher level. It also doesn't mean they can. I imagine Bowden and Buchholz made their share of straight-up nasty pitches this past season that even major league hitters would have missed. Wait a year and they gain tons of value.

 

Don't let the Nationals play us out of these guys.!!