Why should Brett Anderson be among the five pitchers who start the season in Oakland's rotation? Unless Anderson spends 3-6 weeks in the minors this year, the A's could be faced with enabling Anderson to hit arbitration, or free agency, a full year sooner. Anderson has pitched just 225 minor league innings, only 31 of them above A-ball. Two months ago, the kid wasn't even old enough to drink. Who would be so daft as to head north with Anderson in the big league rotation in April? Billy Beane, I suspect - and me, I know.
If Braden, Gallagher, and Eveland are locks for the rotation, Duchscherer and Gio Gonzalez are non-factors at the outset, and Jerome Williams is officially out of the running, there are 5 candidates (E. Gonzalez, Outman, Anderson, Cahill, and Mazzaro) for the final two spots in the rotation.
I don't think Outman is a good choice. Not only is he fiddling with his mechanics right now, trying to figure out which delivery works best for him, but Outman has a hard, straight fastball and does not have a dazzling assortment of offspeed pitches - he is really a power pitcher, and as such he needs top velocity or a better changeup than he currently has. In my opinion, Outman should either be sent to AAA to work on his changeup and his delivery, or he should be put in the bullpen where he can at least throw his straight fastball 2-3 MPH harder.
Meanwhile, though Cahill may be able to hang in there I don't think either Mazzaro or Cahill is best served starting out in the big leagues. In contrast to Anderson, Mazzaro and Cahill have work to do in AAA to improve the consistency of their mechanics, and their overall control/command, before it makes sense to promote them to the big leagues.
Anderson, in contrast, has nothing in particular to work on and now is when the A's need a starter. If you're worried about service time, consider that when Duchscherer or Gio is ready, Anderson can always be sent down to AAA for 3-6 weeks just to manage the service time issue. But if Anderson is one of the A's best 5 options right now - and not to be, he'd have to be a worse option than Edgar Gonzalez and Josh Outman - the A's should go ahead and put their best foot forward, rather than going with an inferior option just to stash Anderson away, or to let him work more on...On what? Throwing strikes? Working hitters? Getting ground balls? He already does all that.
You see Anderson is 21 going on 30. He draws rave reviews from scouts not for his raw stuff but for his maturity, his poise, his feel for pitching. If he's ready, he's ready, and I haven't seen anything from Anderson to suggest he is less likely to be ready to get major league hitters out than Edgar Gonzalez or Josh Outman (or Trevor Cahill or Vin Mazzaro). The 2 Ks in 11.2 spring training innings concern me the most, but when I saw him throw 4 shutout innings against the Angels, he struck out only one yet he also had only two hard-hit balls off of him - two of the three hits - while breaking 6 bats and getting 10 ground ball outs. For the day the Angels batted .200/.200/.267 against Anderson, and there were no hard hit outs. So while Anderson didn't miss bats, he sure missed the sweet spot on bats. Consistently. He was in complete control of the game, and that means more to me than a K/IP ratio over less than 12 IP.
The A's need starters now more than they will at any point, as Duchscherer and Gio only figure to get healthier while Cahill and Mazzaro only figure to get more ready for prime time. Service time can always be managed in May or June. And when you figure to be in a tight race, in a division that could be wide open, what you should aim to do is to put the best guys you can on the field. So if Brett Anderson looks like a better bet to handle major league hitters, for 6 IP at a time, than the worst of E. Gonzalez and Outman - which is hardly a stretch - then I say, "Welcome to the show, Brett." It pays to get hitters out, and at every level he's pitched, including the Olympics and the Cactus League, that's exactly what Brett Anderson has done.
0 recs | 144 comments
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of Anderson's innings this spring.
As far as how many of the batters he has faced are MLB guys, and how many are minor league filler types. Either way, the lack of strikeouts is a pretty big concern still, regardless of the low number of “solid contact” hits that have been made against him.
I still don’t like the idea of letting Spring numbers change things, especially for any of MAC.
mikev - March 22, 2009
+1/-1
While I agree that Anderson is the most ready for the bigs out of MAC, I disagree that his lack of strikeouts aren’t a cause for concern. A minor league pitcher’s strikeout proficiency is one of the best indicators of possible success at the major league level. Of course Anderson could go out the next time and strikeout 5 guys in 5 innings and his numbers start looking better.
Helloooo 1st - March 22, 2009
I guess the most important question would be,
WHY isn’t he striking batters out? I don’t know the answer to that, because I’ve never seen him when he had high K/IP numbers and I only saw 4 innings this Spring. But if he’s not allowing hardly any solid contact, maybe he’s not throwing as hard (which is logical for this time of the year) and is focusing on late movement instead. That’s what it looked like when I saw him.
Nico - March 22, 2009
Are we overemphasizing 11+ spring innings vs 225 minor league innings
Anderson struck out 9.7 batters per inning in the minors. As he advanced, his strikeout rate went up (9.7 in A, 11.0 in AA last year). I think we should consider his minor league stats far more indicative of his expected K rate since that accounts for 20 times more innings of work.
3 of Anderson’s 5 games this Spring have been starts. The beginning of the game is when you are most likely to face MLB hitters.
BillyWannabeane - March 22, 2009
Exactly
So if he’s not striking out MLB hitters now (when they’re probably not trying as hard as they will be come Opening Day) what’s to say he’ll start when it matters? I like Anderson, I even think he’s more than likely ready for the show, but the lack of strikeouts are a bit worrisome.
Helloooo 1st - March 22, 2009
lack of strikeouts is*
Helloooo 1st - March 22, 2009
If the opposing batters are hitting weak ground balls,
and it’s over all of 11 innings, why is it such a big concern? Teammates who are chalking up Ks aren’t pitching nearly as successfully in process or outcome.
Nico - March 22, 2009
I agree with that
And like I’ve said I feel that Anderson is pretty much ready to start in the majors. Just wish he could show the ability to miss bats which will be very important to do once the season starts and he starts facing better hitters than he has been so far.
Helloooo 1st - March 22, 2009
That's where I'd lean on the 225 inning sample
Missing bats and racking up Ks doesn’t appear to be a weakness in his game. Seems to me that he’s more likely to give up a bunch of hits than he is to K only 4-5/9IP.
Nico - March 22, 2009
spring training
1. Anderson’s working on improving his weaker pitches, to make them all work in teh how.
2. coaches could have told him “it’ spring training, get the infield some work – they need it”.
rollierollieOxenfree - March 22, 2009
Because a sub-.200 BABIP is not even remotely sustainable?
I don’t care who you are, you cannot succeed without striking out hitters.
PaulThomas - March 23, 2009
Exactly - it seems as if the same people
who cry “small sample!!!” and who say “why do you care about Jack Cust’s strickouts???” are a bit obsessed with Anderson’s K-rate over 11 Cactus League innings.
Nico - March 22, 2009
The small sample argument works both ways.
It’s equally as wrong to say he’s ready for the bigs based on ST as it is to say he’s not ready because he’s not striking out enough guys in ST.
mikev - March 22, 2009
Except I'm not saying he's ready just based on ST
I’m saying he has continued to succeed where he has yet to ever fail, the alternatives aren’t better, and the service time needn’t be a deal-breaker in April.
Nico - March 22, 2009
Quite possibly.
But why muck with the service time issue later?
I know all the games count the same and everything, but I’d much rather have Anderson – if he truly is MLB ready – spend the month of April in Sacramento and then come up to Oakland for good, rather than have him demoted for a couple weeks during the season.
mikev - March 22, 2009
Because now is when the A's most need a starter
If he has a 3.20 ERA at the end of April, he stays and damn the clock. If he has a 5.50 ERA at the end of April, he goes back because he needs it and the service clock takes care of itself. If he has a 4.50 ERA it’s a tougher call – one probably driven more by Duke and Gio, or by Outman and Edgar, or by Cahill and Mazzaro, than anything.
Nico - March 22, 2009
If he has a 3.20 ERA at the end of April, he stays and damn the clock.
This is precisely the kind of shortsighted, silly attitude that I’m morbidly afraid of.
PaulThomas - March 23, 2009
Upon reflection, if he has a 3.20 ERA on April 30th, I say release him
Nico - March 23, 2009
No:
Trade him to get Crosby back.
Leopold Bloom - March 23, 2009
I knew this shit was coming....
bleh!
mrod - March 23, 2009
message sent to Anderson
there’s 2 different messages you send to Anderson on when he’s in the minors this year:
1. if he starts in the majors, then gets sent down “for service time management”, that’s likely to piss him off a bit.
2. if he starts in the minors, then gets brought up after 3-6 weeks, that’s more justifiable, as he needed “the poise/development”. of course, if you do this, you’re still looking for a SP.
rollierollieOxenfree - March 22, 2009
How about this message:
Listen Brett, you’re 21 and you’ve got a total of 6 games in Double-A in your career. You look pretty damn good, but we’d like to see what you can do at the Triple A level, at least for a bit.
You go to Sacramento and pitch like you’ve been pitching in Spring Training, and you’ll be in Oakland in a month.
mikev - March 22, 2009
This sounds good but do you really want Edgar starting in Oakland?
Outman? That might be two almost automatic losses in the rotation. Is Anderson going to be worse than them?
WaddellCanseco - March 22, 2009
Over 5 starts?
I wouldn’t call them automatic losses anymore than I would Anderson.
mikev - March 22, 2009
+1
lenscrafters - March 22, 2009
I agree with the case you've made here, Nico.
I’m even coming around to the idea of Cahill making the leap to the ML rotation, too- but I think he could use a little more polish, though he’s making it awfully tempting to believe he can mitigate the control issues and make a go of it.
The thing with Anderson, as you’ve aptly stated, is that he seems polished enough and ready to go, and there doesn’t seem to be a weakness in his game that he needs to go work on in AAA or AA to start the season.
Will he succeed given the chance? Amongst the options clearly available, I think he has a better shot at it than the rest and I’m ready to see him get it now rather than later. Though I tend to be more conservative and am generally not in favor of rushing young players, what Anderson has done in the past year (not just this spring, FWIW) and his overall polish have me convinced that he’s ready for a shot at the big-time.
still bills kingdom - March 22, 2009
I think there's a better than even chance that you, and Beane should he agree with you, would be wrong on committing to Anderson at this time
I agree that Anderson is the most likely of the MAC to be ready to go come April. He has managed to get by thus far when the opposition is cruising and they don’t know much about the pitcher. Anderson has not had the type of dominating performance that I wanted to see before sending him to the Show.
All that said, there’s still time for him to prove himself in ST. I would love to see how he fairs against the Angels a 2nd time. I think that this is a call that goes down to the wire.
grover - March 22, 2009
Here's a question for you, just for fun:
Of Anderson, Outman, and E. Gonzalez, who do you think would give the A’s the best, and worst, chance to win over 4-5 April starts?
Nico - March 22, 2009
Let me make clear my biases
I prefer Anderson over the others of the Golden Trio. I am also a huge ( and true blue) fan of Outman.
At this time, I prefer Outman in the 4th spot and consider the 5th spot up for grabs between Anderson and Gonzalez. If final cuts were due at midnight I’d pick Gonzalez.
grover - March 22, 2009
I worry that as a starter, Outman has
a 91-92 MPH fastball without a lot of movement, average breaking stuff / changeup, and below average control. At least out of the bullpen he can be Embree, throwing more like 94-95 MPH with the aforementioned offspeed stuff and control.
I also worry that he is in a “trying to find himself” stage of “new delivery, no my old delivery!” that is ill-suited to making major league starts. I suppose a couple solid starts over the next week could change my mind, but at the moment he seems like a better candidate for the bullpen, or AAA, in April.
Nico - March 22, 2009
I don't think Outman is ever going to have good control
I feel he has the stuff to go 6 IP and survive.
Which, in all honesty, is where I feel Anderson is. But if all I can expect is survival pitching then I don’t want to start his clock in April.
So for now, start Outman and Egon in the rotation and if they bomb/struggle/whatever replace them with Duke and/or Anderson in May. The season will not be decided in April… although I agree that winning early is better than losing early.
grover - March 22, 2009
I can go either way on Outman
I like him; I just worry that his weaknesses add up to “not enough to succeed as a starter” (as is). I guess when in doubt, I go for the guy who throws strikes – especially with the A’s defense, but just in general with a young pitcher. When you throw strikes, good things usually happen – and when you don’t throw strikes bad things almost always happen. But if Outman pitches well another couple times this week, I’ll have more hope that he has his head and arm/body on straight, something I have questioned this Spring.
Nico - March 22, 2009
also, the infield question
Chavez and Ellis aren’t likely to be 100% those first 3-6 weeks anyway. so why not “burn” those games on the 5th SP “filler”, rather than some service time of the MAC-types?
rollierollieOxenfree - March 22, 2009
I think he would do fine
for 3 or for starts, he would at least do better than E. Gonzalez.
BIGa's - March 22, 2009
i was talking about Outman
BIGa's - March 22, 2009
I haven't seen anything that supports this statement
I see it here a lot recently, too.
thejd44 - March 22, 2009
It sounds to me
That you’re pigeonholing Outman into something he’s not.
He doesn’t have the upside of being a 2 or 3 starter, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. But he does have the upside of being a very capable 4 or 5, and he, I think, is the closest of any of the young pitchers in tow to that admittedly modest ceiling.
Outman, I would argue, could capably eat innings right now. I’m not as confident saying that about anyone else in the 4th/5th starter competition.
walk off bunt - March 22, 2009
I like Anderson
he would be the best i think, then Outman and last E. Gonzalez gives the least chance of winning.
BIGa's - March 22, 2009
Well, you made some very persuasive points Nico
And I also want to thank you for providing so much good content lately. You’ve been all over AN, shouldering a huge portion of the load.
I gotta say, the more I look at it, the more you’re convincing me. In an ideal world, I’d want those spots to go to a healthy Gio and Duke. But that isn’t the situation the team is in.
I think what made me change my mind is your excellent point about Anderson being a strike-thrower. He’s going to have a very good major league defense behind him if he does start with the big club. The excellent control also it more likely that the team will be able to keep his pitch counts down and avoid the ugly 2-3 IP starts that cripple the bullpen for the following week.
His promotion would also give credence to the idea that the competition truly is a meritocracy rather than a foregone conclusion. That’s a good thing for the young minor league prospects to believe. Hey, if you’re good enough, you’ll be here, even if you’re 21. Certainly that’s more of a motivator than them thinking they’ll be held back regardless of how well they perform so that the team can control them longer. No prospect wants to hear or think that when they’re making 30k and taking 10-hour bus rides.
If Anderson continues to pitch well and avoid forearm concerns, and Egon struggles, I think you have an excellent argument that the 40th roster spot (there’s still one available currently) should go toward purchasing Anderson’s contract and having him be the 4th or 5th starter to open the year.
So do they then swallow hard and go with Outman for the last opening slot? Four lefties in the rotation? Or do they purchase both Egon and Anderson’s contracts, DFA/waive someone, and go with those two?
notsellingjeans - March 22, 2009
Regarding the 40 man
Copeland’s gone, thus freeing up another 40 man spot. Anderson and a promoted Egon (cute, btw) fill those two spots.
grover - March 22, 2009
Was Copeland sent back?
mikev - March 22, 2009
Excuse me... inevitably gone.
grover - March 22, 2009
And yet another wasted Rule V
Helloooo 1st - March 22, 2009
Meanwhile, Jesus Guzman is hitting around .713 this Spring
Nico - March 22, 2009
Yes but Crosby helped turn a triple play
Helloooo 1st - March 22, 2009
zomg sample sizse!!!1one!!!
He’ sprobably just doing it against young guys who have never even been in the bigs anyway like Brett Anderson!!
mikev - March 22, 2009
Gotcha. Wasn't sure if you meant the injury or no.
mikev - March 22, 2009
Thanks, NSJ
And your point about the meritocracy is a good one – it’s a smart message to send the Cardenases, Leons, and Ynoas of the world.
Nico - March 22, 2009
Where was it last year with Linden? /obligatory
mikev - March 22, 2009
I think the actual message is,
“You’ll make it based on your performance – unless we know deep down that you suck, or we really just don’t care for you personally, or both.”
Nico - March 22, 2009
"or if we just don't have better alternatives with major leage experience"
OaklandSi - March 22, 2009
Are you really basing your decision
on whether he’s been consistently good on 4 innings of Spring Training that you were able to watch? Don’t get me wrong, all the scouting reports have been stellar, but those are likely based on the “for a guy who’s barely pitched in AA ball” premise.
Sure he’s going to be a great pitcher, but you’re asking for a big jump in levels that I honestly have never heard of anyone succeeding in doing. Let’s see him actually get 100+ innings at AAA of missing bats, making batters look foolish and showing this poise of his before we deem him ready for the Majors. This is like people clamoring for Barton to be called up after he had a month of batting .400+. He has plenty left to prove. He may be doing all the right things in Spring Training, but that means absolutely nothing. Let’s see if he continues to hold up when all the hitters he’s facing are truly ready and actually give crap about competing instead of working through mechanics and overall 162-season prepping. Show me proof that’s he’s actually ready for that and then maybe I could get behind this. The guy’s barely pitched in AA and you’re seriously jumping the gun on the guy.
Whoever is in the 4th or 5th spot in the rotation to start the season is likely to suck and i’d rather that be Outman or EGonz who has no future with this team than someone who’s does and is likely to wind up spending substantial time in AAA afterwards. Beane likes bring up studs when they have nothing left to prove in AAA. Guess what, he’s never played in AAA so he’s clearly NOT proven anything yet.
DMOAS - March 22, 2009
I'm absolutely not basing it on 4 innings I saw
Anderson has been successful in a small spring training sample (the equivalent of AAA), a small Olympic sample, and a small AA sample – the aggregate of which is a not-as-small sample of succeeding everywhere he goes. Combine that with scouts’ comments about his unusual maturity, and I see a guy whose only flaws have been a lack of opportunity.
In other words, he hasn’t mastered AAA because he hasn’t pitched there, and he hasn’t “been 24 years old” because his parents didn’t f*** three years earlier. But if he looks to the A’s as if he’s ready to pitch in the big leagues, then more power to Brett Anderson. Why should he “prove he can master AAA” if the A’s see a major league ready pitcher? If they don’t, that’s another matter.
Nico - March 22, 2009
Age is a non-factor for me.
inIf we signed him at 17, he spent year 18 a A-ball, 19-split between AA & AAA and proven in AAA he had nothing to learn, I’d call him up to start year 20 if not Sept of year-19. WHEN he’s ready, he’s ready. A few innings in AA don’t say that. The Olympic sample I weight pretty low since we’re not really seeing top talent and it’s such a small sample it can’t have too much meaning. And Spring Training I’ve completely thrown out as irrelevant and weighted so close to zero it very well could be zero. All together, we’re not even seeing a quarter of a season of AA experience here. Scouts love him. Scouts love a lot of prospects, but I can’t recall any of them saying, yeah, he belongs in the majors right here and now. It just means he’s damn good and damn close.
DMOAS - March 22, 2009
Scouts pretty unanimously describe him as "polished"
and “exceptionally mature (as a pitcher) for his age.”
Nico - March 22, 2009
Aren't they referring to his state of polish relative to his peers, not to major league rookies?
WaddellCanseco - March 22, 2009
I've always wondered that.
He’s so polished, but only on the basis of seeing bullpen sessions and a handful of innings in Dominican League.
I guess this is why I’m not a scout.
mikev - March 22, 2009
who was batting against him?
if the best hitters on the team aren’t batting several times in a game against him he’s got an advantage that is likely to give an unrealistically positive impression of how he’d fare during the season.
OaklandSi - March 22, 2009
IMO Anderson is good enough to start in ML
They may want to send him down for three weeks or whatever but I agree Nico that he’s ready now.
E. Gonzalez does not impress me one bit and is a gascan waiting for the match to be lit. I don’t think Outman should be in rotation either. I think Anderson gets a spot by default because he has pitched so much better than those 2.
Who the fuck knows, only time will tell.
Trainman - March 22, 2009
Your last sentence may be the wisest one in the entire thread.
Nico - March 22, 2009
I still think none of them make the team outta camp.
Beane will want that extra year of control.
Syphon - March 22, 2009
He can still send Anderson down in May-June,
when Duke and Gio are back, and accomplish that
Nico - March 22, 2009
Beane has said he doesnt like to do that.
He would rather call someone up and not have to send them down. But he may not have a choice.
Syphon - March 22, 2009
If so, then I agree with him.
If you want to delay the service clock, fine, wait till June to bring him up. Say that he’s young and we want him to have some AAA experience first (which is true enough anyway).
But don’t bring him up now because now is when we need him, then send him back later just to stop his clock. That’s a shitty thing to do. Even if it’s profitable, it’s not worth the bad karma, and all the more so if you can’t do it without your motives being obvious.
If you’re playing GM and that’s your plan, what do you do when Brett comes into your office and says, “You and I both know that this is going to delay my free agency by a year. I just want to hear it from you, is that why you’re doing it? Or do you really believe you’ve got five other guys who are better than me?” If you can’t answer the question and say it to his face, you shouldn’t send him down.
Are you willing to say, “It’s true, you’re good enough to start, but the next guy isn’t that much worse and it probably won’t cost us more than a game or two, so it’s more valuable to the organization to have you at a lower salary for one more year”? If so, you’re more cold-blooded than I am.
iglew - March 22, 2009
All Billy has to say to that is...
“its a business decision.” Beane doesnt need to explain himself to Brett Anderson.
Syphon - March 22, 2009
i kinda doubt that Brett Anderson would have the stones to say that kinda thing to Billy Beane. An agent maybe, but not a 21-year-old rookie.
Darryl P - March 23, 2009
This may well be the case
but as soon as that time is up, two of them need to come up to take over from the very below average two that will be anchoring the rear of the rotation.
We know they are going to have their ups and downs as they are not robots but most everyone agrees that Anderson is very polished for his age and serves no purpose being in AAA for too long when there are other starters here who are filling in.
We just have to hope that we tread .500 in the first month or so (close to it) to give us a chance of competing at least.
Trainman - March 22, 2009
Given the difficult schedule and the rotation situation,
a .500 record on April 30th might precict an AL West crown.
Nico - March 22, 2009
Agreed
No harm in wishful thinking (Hoping) I guess.
Trainman - March 22, 2009
Another factor
in the decision about starting the arbi clock.
If Anderson turns out to be a solid player, there’s a decent chance that some time in the next few years we’ll be looking to sign him to an extension. Supposing that happens, when Anderson and his agent are negotiating, how much does it count against the team if he’s thinking, “you bastards stuffed me down in AAA for an extra two months, even though you knew I was ready, just so you could postpone my free agency another year”? And how much does it count in the team’s favor if he’s thinking, “you could kept me in AAA an extra two months in order to have me for another year, but when I was ready you had the decency to bring me up anyway”?
Now, I’m not saying we* should forget about that extra year just to make Brett like us*. Obviously that extra year is worth something, and that something might be more than what it’s worth to have Anderson on the team two months sooner. I am saying that there’s a possibility that if we give up the year, some fraction of that loss may be recouped in goodwill come extension time; and if we claim the year, some fraction of that gain may be given up in badwill come extension time.
If it’s a close call, that could make a difference.
iglew - March 22, 2009
I’m pretty sure that’s completely a non-factor. A guy who has barely pitched in AA shouldn’t have any business suggesting sending him to AAA regardless of what scouts say in negotiations. If anything, he can say, “Hey I was so good you guys let me skip a whole step, pay me more”.
DMOAS - March 22, 2009
The idea is that the A's might tell Anderson now,
“We’ll put you in the rotation in April, but it will speed up your FA clock. However, instead of doing a Longoria we’re willing to do it, in good faith.” Come extension talks between a happy Anderson and the A’s, Oakland’s action are revisited, and backs are scratched both ways.
Nico - March 22, 2009
scratching backs both ways
takes lots of flexibility
OaklandSi - March 22, 2009
"Okay, I'll be willing to sign a reasonable extension...
…and I’ll also get you that prospect that the Dodgers owe you for Loaiza."
Nick - March 22, 2009
I actually almost included that in my analysis -
The notion that the “good faith” in putting him in the bigs now might pay off in a more likely “arby year plus one” extension (through 2015) later. Partly because the two issues are intertwined.
Nico - March 22, 2009
Wow.
Talk about over thinking..
Syphon - March 22, 2009
Evan Longoria
Look at Longoria – he made a bit of a fuss when the Rays sent him to AAA to start the season but not long after had forgotten about it and signed a deal to tie him up through his arby years. Most players tend to have a short memory, especially if a team is performing well and the offer makes financial sense to them.
DeJay - March 23, 2009
Longoria was a year older than Anderson when he came up for good.
And also had spent the previous season tearing through Double A and putting up a solid 30 game (SSS) stretch in Triple A.
mikev - March 23, 2009
Longoria / Anderson
The point was more about the likelyhood that keeping Anderson in AAA for the start of the season would effect our ability to sign him to a contract than comparing the situations and readiness of Anderson and Longoria.
DeJay - March 23, 2009
I’m not sure Longoria is such as good comp for the Anderson situation. though his deal was announced after his first week in the big leagues, the team and his agent actually worked it out while he was still in AAA. here’s what Andrew Friednman had to say at the time:
link to story here.
Darryl P - March 23, 2009
Ok fair enough
The situations might not be similar but that actually strengthens the point I was trying to make which is keeping Anderson in AAA for a few weeks at the start of the season is unlikely to effect our chances of signing him to a deal that would cover his arbitration years. Longoria despite making a bit of noise about being sent to start the season in AAA got over it quick enough to agree to a deal while he was still in AAA
DeJay - March 23, 2009
that something might be more than what it’s worth to have Anderson on the team two months sooner.
It isn’t.
Exhibit A: Evan Longoria.
PaulThomas - March 23, 2009
Oh, I see someone already hit that.
PaulThomas - March 23, 2009
I'm with you
a lot of people— at least until today— have been saying Mazzaro was the first among equals of these three— I’ve thought it was Anderson all along. And he’s the most ready, and he’s the least risky, and he might be better than at least 2 or 3 of the other guys in this rotation. Presuming the forearm strain is not a lingering concern.
As for Cahill, Outman and Edgar, we’ll have to see in their next starts. I still think there’s a 50-50 chance Cahill will beat both of them out.
windyfelix - March 22, 2009
Honest questions for all the pro bring Anderson up now people
If he goes out his next start and has a Mazzaro esque 2 IP 7 ER outing, would you all still be loudly proclaiming his “readiness”? Or would you get off the bandwagon like you got off the Mazzaro bandwagon?
How many of you honest-to-god thought he was ready to pitch in the majors BEFORE spring training? And if you answered “no” to that, what makes you think that he’s any more “ready” now, after just 11 spring training innings, than before?
lenscrafters - March 22, 2009
In answer to your questions: Yep. Nope. Yep.
Although I don’t think I’ve ever loudly proclaimed his “readiness.” I have said I think he and Cahill are better than the other options available. And, since I’ve been saying that since, at least, September 2008, I guess I qualify as one who honest-to-god thought he was ready to pitch in the majors before spring training.
FoolshGame22 - March 22, 2009
These are good, fair questions.
I wasn’t on a Mazzaro bandwagon previously, but I also don’t feel terribly different about him today than I did yesterday or the day before that- I think he’s close, and just needs to refine command of his secondary stuff and refine his control a bit more in general. I think, and I thought before now, that he could use a little time at AAA but that he’ll very likely be ready for a call-up by mid-season (whether he’s needed or not only time will tell.)
I wasn’t on an Anderson bandwagon previously, either, particularly- and I’m not on an “Anderson is ready to absolutely dominate from day 1 in the majors” bandwagon now, either.
But I’ve reached a point, as many fans have now, where it’s late enough in spring training to start making some guesses and, for fun, judgment calls on what the rotation will look like and, in our respective opinions, should look like.
My opinions of Anderson have shifted a bit in the past year, mostly as I’ve learned more about him and seen him pitch a little (albeit in small samples in terms of actual observation) and have been further informed by his prior track record in the minors including this past year. I won’t deny that his cactus league appearances have only helped his cause, but that’s also because I’m not judging them so much from a “results” basis as from a “process” basis. What his cactus league pitching has generally confirmed thus far is that he is a very mature pitcher for his age with good control and command, and enough of an arsenal to get hitters out and to also take charge of a game when he’s in it.
So, if he goes out in his next outing and gets lit up my question will be: why’d he get lit up? Was he not mixing his pitches well? Was he missing his spots consistently and falling way behind in the count to every hitter? Did he walk 3 guys over 2 innings or something? If the answer is “he threw everything he had, showed good control and command as usual, seemed to know what he was doing out there- but they were just on every single thing he threw” then I might be a little concerned as to how he’ll make some adjustments prior to his next outing. But if it was “he had an off-day and his stuff wasn’t working, he couldn’t locate well, and he kept relying on his fastball to try and pound the zone but they were jumping on it” then I’d be a lot less concerned because pitchers (including ones named Mazzaro) and particularly younger ones are going to have days like that.
My main feeling about Anderson coming into spring training was that, of the MAC combo, he seemed to be the most advanced and possibly ready for a shot at the major league rotation- but he’d have to prove it and others would have to disappoint or get hurt for that to happen. Well, all of the above have now happened so I think he deserves a shot because beyond the 3 starters we expect in the rotation to start the season (Eveland, Gallagher, Braden) I think he’s quite likely to be the best option at this time. And like Nico said, I don’t know that Anderson has much left to learn about pitching beyond how to handle pitching in the majors- and by all accounts, you only learn that by pitching there.
*And one small pet peeve- I’m really tired of hearing that a “small sample size” like cactus league play means nothing. I think it is absolutely correct that a small sample size should be considered in context and that it clearly should never be taken to mean EVERYTHING. But what abilities a player shows in spring training and in cactus or grapefruit league play should also not be dismissed as meaning absolutely NOTHING. Should the stats generated in spring play be taken as gospel or even major indicators? No, I don’t think so. But if you look deeper than that to the tendencies shown by the player and how that player is going about things, I think there’s valid information there. A final thought on that- I find it ironic that some people who think Anderson isn’t ready say his spring performance doesn’t mean anything conclusive and then immediately point out he has a lousy K-rate in cactus league play so far…
still bills kingdom - March 22, 2009
I think part of the reason that the spring training sample size is less important than 30 IP somewhere else
Is that pitchers are told to treat spring as a “sandbox” where they are working on specific pitches, mechanics, etc rather than trying to stop the other team from scoring runs. As an example, if a pitcher is told to really work on his change but the other team is hitting it he’ll just keep pumping them in there because it’s spring.
nevermoor - March 23, 2009
I'm amazed at the obsession with service time on this site. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Let’s figure out what that precious 7th year is worth shall we?
Let’s say Anderson’s a 4 WAR player in Year 7. That’s a significantly above average starter, something like Edinson Volquez, Felix Hernandez, Matt Cain or Roy Oswalt in 2008.
At a 25% discount rate — which is low, since most investors want a 3 year payback period on private speculative investments — that’s worth about 0.84 WAR in today’s terms. At $4.5M per WAR market value, it’s about $3.7 million.
Do we really want to screw with the outcome of a supposedly contending season to save $3.7 million?
OK we can make the calculation more complicated by plotting out a seven year discounted cash flow and subtract the contract’s payments from market value under two scenarios, but the result isn’t much different. In fact the result is between $2 million and $3 million.
It’s peanuts. I’ve been consistently more pessimistic than the average poster here about the A’s chances in 2009, and yet I’m the one arguing to play the best players service time be damned. Ironic.
Think Ryan Howard in 2005 and Ryan Braun in 2007. It’s not worth it. If the A’s are a real contender, service time is irrelevant. Personally I’d not worry about it even if they’re not a contender because I’d want to protect the brand. I care about the value of my company. I’m funny that way.
WaddellCanseco - March 22, 2009
One of the problems with that math...
you have to compound those millions over each potential year of arbitration. He’s not just more expensive in hypothetical “year 7”…he’s more expensive in each previous year, for having reached each service time landmark one year sooner.
We’re talking about something that potentially costs the team ~$10M, depending upon how good he becomes. I don’t think that’s something to sniff at for the A’s, given their budgetary concerns.
notsellingjeans - March 22, 2009
Yes, that's the "more complicated" calculation I was referring to.
The results aren’t much different, and in fact reduce the value of delaying the service clock under most assumptions. I got a range between $2million and $3million doing it that way.
WaddellCanseco - March 23, 2009
ok
that calculation is completely preposterous (email me-I’d love to lend you some money) but the 3.7 million is actually probably about right.
Screwing with the outcome of a supposedly contending season for $3.7 million: do you think the A’s would pay $3.7 million to 4th/5th starter type to make 5 starts? I sure don’t. chone projects anderson as .8 war this year, meaning he is worth about that 3.7 million for the full year. He would be worth $3.7 million/5 for the 5 starts that would potentially forfeit his 7th year…
Of course, starting with Anderson/Cahill doesn’t necessarily give up the 7th year, and maybe there is/will be good reason to think they will do much better than their projection, or maybe they are willing to overpay by a lot for extra fractional marginal wins this year as potential contenders, maybe there’s something to the “protect the brand” argument or the “create good will argument,” so I don’t think the service time argument is dispositive, but I think there’s a head-in-the-sand quality to not wanting to give it any relevance at all.
mikeA - March 22, 2009
Right, I'm not saying that Anderson should or shouldn't be brought up. I am saying that the
decision should be based entirely on whether he’s one of the top 5 starters or not. Service time is never a valid consideration unless you’re using the Jeff Loria scorched earth strategy.
I think the A’s should pay a starter $3.7million to make 5 starts if it means an extra win, or even half a win over the replacement if they’re in the 80-90 win range, and the Angels are too.
If Anderson isn’t any better than Edgar, I don’t care who they bring up. If they’re just being cheap, then they’re just being foolish.
I’d love you to lend me money as well.
WaddellCanseco - March 23, 2009
To be .5 WAEGON over 5 starts
Is to be 3+ WAEGON over a season.
Here is the list of available players who fit that description:
nevermoor - March 23, 2009
/list
nevermoor - March 23, 2009
More to the point
$3.7M is something like 25% of the added value of a pitching prospect of Anderson’s stature, according to Victor Wang’s calculations.
If anything, that number seems a little high to me. I’d think the value-added of Year VII would be more like 10-15% of the total, which currently projects to about $1.5-2M.
Regardless, the cost of NOT throwing Anderson is in the neighborhood of a couple hundred thousand. From a proportional standpoint, it’s not even close. Keep making decisions like that, a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.
PaulThomas - March 23, 2009
I think anderson has lowest floor of the MAC
his dad’s a pitching coach, he’s got the best control of the group. I say he’s in the rotation
9Custs - March 22, 2009
outman is being overlooked
he does have the pure stuff as a sp, i know he’s shown inconsistency, but reports in minors seemed to be favorable to him
in 2007 BA said he had the best slider in the phillies system
Scouting Report – (from Baseball America) "Deception remains Outman’s biggest strength as a pitcher, as batters simply don’t get good reads on his 90-94 mph fastball, his late-breaking slider or his changeup. He started the season in Double-A Reading’s rotation, but he shifted to the bullpen in May."
Scouting Report: “Has good arm speed. Fastball bores in on right-handed hitters with life … Changeup has arm side run and sink, runs away from RHH … Pitches to both sides of the plate.”
Asfan4ever723 - March 22, 2009
I regret to inform you fellow A's fans
We’re still in rebuilding mode.
We need to be patient here
ATarHeel - March 22, 2009
I agree with this.
But I’m in the very small minority.
WaddellCanseco - March 23, 2009
winning 85 games and the division
and being “in rebuilding mode” are hardly mutually exclusive. Think 1999 but the Angels aren’t as good as Texas was then.
windyfelix - March 23, 2009
I think that overall
having too many great young pitching talents who may or may not be ready for prime time is a good problem to have, At least in the long run.
somebodyelse - March 22, 2009
Then the fans get impatient
that’s exactly what is happening here
ATarHeel - March 22, 2009
I will comply to the A's marketing department
They have showcased and promoted our young talent too much, look at how much hope my fellow A’s fans have.
I remember when I dreamed about Barton being the next Pujols…. sigh
ATarHeel - March 22, 2009
That's optimistic. I'm a huge Barton fan and I was hoping for the next John Olerud
mikev - March 23, 2009
Clever.
somebodyelse - March 23, 2009
the point of bringing in offense
was to help the younger pitchers…i dont think in the big picture beane is referring to guys like duke, ed gonzalez, eveland, braden, etc. i dont see any of them around in a couple yrs holding permanent spots.
these veteran hitters will also be gone after 09 so the A’s may risk an earlier introduction to mlb than expected so the pitchers can take advantage.
the big difference between now and the big 3, they had highly competitive college experience. hudson had 20+ mlb starts before his 1st full season, zito came up around midseason, mulder skipped all the way from AAA/mlb out of the draft but honestly stats wise wasnt that good at either level.
Asfan4ever723 - March 22, 2009
I wonder if Muldy will ever pitch again
against MLB hitters. He pitched, what, 1/3 of an inning last year? I was so saddened by that game.
somebodyelse - March 23, 2009
September
does anderson have more than 150 innings in him this year?
Future Ed - March 23, 2009
Service time
I have read a number of comments to the effect that we should send Anderson (or Cahill) down to AAA even if they are successful, just to “manage their service time”. This is the kind of thing you can only do in fantasy baseball or a video game. In real life, it would infuriate players and may trigger a union grievance. If a player is succeeding in the majors, he deserves to paid appropriately. A GM would only do this in a truly borderline case – and he would never admit the reason publicly. On the other hand, we needn’t fret. If he is succeeding we will all be glad he is in the bigs.
SydParrot - March 23, 2009
I agree with your point, but GMs are starting to admit this consideration publicly.
The mainstream press is starting to treat it as a valid consideration as well. It’s become conventional wisdom that it’s “shrewd business” to do this routinely.
WaddellCanseco - March 23, 2009
Except...
…this happens all the time. Last year, three of baseball’s top young players all spent time in the minor leagues for reasons related to service time: Jay Bruce, Evan Longoria, and Fransisco Liriano. I believe Liriano’s agent huffed and puffed a bit about it, but ultimately I don’t remember anything even coming of it.
rageon - March 23, 2009
Sure do miss
Monkeyball vs. PT on this sort of thread.
somebodyelse - March 23, 2009
Don't ya know ya gotta
Shock the monkey? Hey Hey!
somebodyelse - March 23, 2009
iglew - March 23, 2009
Mazzaro was just sent down
according to Jeff Fletcher
so for the moment there is no MAC in the major league camp, but there is still AC
OaklandSi - March 23, 2009
Important in the desert
grover - March 23, 2009
good point!
OaklandSi - March 23, 2009
Nico, would be interested in your thoughts
regarding the increase in the number of innings Anderson would throw if he started the season in Oakland. IIRC, he threw around 120 or so last year, and the team would obviously count on him for a lot more than that if he was in the rotation all year.
EastCoastA - March 23, 2009
I would say 150 IP would be good and that
likely he would only throw 150 innings if he made 25 starts – we should be so lucky that he average more than 6 IP / start. I wouldn’t worry about “what if he makes 32 starts” because first of all, that’s a great scenario and second of all you can always skip a turn, use the ASB to give 10 days off, and so on, to make sure he doesn’t go beyond 170 or so even in a best case scenario.
Nico - March 23, 2009
when was the last time a pitching prospect
essentially skipped AAA and had success in the major leagues? I honestly cannot think of any, and wouldn’t know where to look up such a stat?
Darryl P - March 23, 2009
You have to go all the way back to 2008 (!!!!!1111)
to find David Price, who pitched all of 18 AAA innings and all of 109 minor league innings total, before coming up to Tampa Bay at age 22.
Nico - March 23, 2009
hm. probably should have been able to think of that one.
Price is kind of an uber-prospect, but you did answer my question. thanks. can you think of any others off the top of your head, maybe someone who didn’t play college ball? it doesn’t really seem like a very common player development path.
Darryl P - March 23, 2009
Rich Harden
rktse - March 23, 2009
Harden pitched 90 innings in AAA 2003
Syphon - March 23, 2009
...
David Price hasn’t succeeded in the major leagues yet by any reasonable definition. Tiny sample size = not cool.
PaulThomas - March 23, 2009
The difference between the best player in the league and the worst player in the league, over the course of the season ...
is something like 12 wins. Over 6 weeks, it’s a bit over 2 wins. Brett Anderson is unlikely to be the best player in the league. His replacement is unlikely to be the worst. Optimistically, we’re really talking about maybe one win’s difference in performance. Is that really worth giving up a year of his service, when he’s at his theoretical prime age, at a sub-market salary?
devo - March 23, 2009
To be fair...
If Egon is the other option than maybe it would be a 2 win difference. 8 Hits/7 R in less than an inning? Yech.
grover - March 23, 2009
I just don't believe in looking at it as "WAR" or "how many more wins"
Same as with Crosby/Cabrera. If the race looks close, you try to put the best team out there and you try to “keep contact” with your division rival, until things start to sort out. Then someone gets injured (Vlad or Holliday), or someone has a career year going (Kendrick or Sweeney), and things start to take more shape over time.
The A’s didn’t sign Cabrera because he was X.y wins better than Crosby; they signed Cabrera because it made them better and didn’t cost that much. How much better? Nobody really knows – just a little better and not a lot better. Sometimes that’s all you can know and all you need to know.
Nico - March 23, 2009
I'm no statistician
but I’m not even sure using WAR is a statistically valid way to look at it. Makes more sense to me to look at the number of events (meaning the number of starts made by Gonebaseball) being altered, and make a determination about how many of them will change.
jeepers - March 23, 2009
the difference between....
Red Sox finally winning in 2004 was 1 win.
Rockies making the playoffs and then the WS 1 win
A’s making playoffs in 2000 was 1 win
Mariners making playoff for first time and providing impetus to get Safeco Field was 1 win (twice— regular season and playoff series vs. Yanks
A’s losing 4 straight playoff series from 2000-03— 1 win.
Yeah— it might be worth it. This year or next, because the quicker he’s up (or Cahill— because truth is, I think we’re talking about both) the quicker he reaches his next plateau or his true level.
windyfelix - March 23, 2009
This is a good point, in that the win you're giving up is the "last" (most valuable) win
Under the assumption that we’ll be in the pennant race, each added win is worth more than the one before.
nevermoor - March 23, 2009
Is 1 win in 2009 worth more than 6 wins in 2015?
And, again, that’s being optimistic — there’s a good chance we’re not even talking about a 1 win difference — there’s a reasonable chance the team is actually better off with “the other” guy …
devo - March 23, 2009
isn't there also a reasonable chance...
that neither Anderson nor Cahill will be pitching for the A’s in 2015?
FoolshGame22 - March 24, 2009
Objection, relevence
If they aren’t playing for us (or out of baseball), they’ll be producing wins for someone and we will have gotten some value for making the transfer.
nevermoor - March 24, 2009
What nevermoor said ...
devo - March 24, 2009
Dang Year 2015
Win now, and allow Anderson & Cahill give Holliday, Giambi, Cabrera, Duke, Nomar, and Chavez the best chance to win This Year. Anderson / Cahill > Outman / Edgar Gonzalez. I’d even consider moving Outman to the bullpen to replace Blevins (for the time being).
Oakland is a great place to pitch in April/May. Flyballs don’t leave the yard and it will give the kids time to gain some confidence.
1. Eveland
2. Gallagher
3. Braden
4. Cahill
5. Anderson
Bullpen: Devine, Ziegler, Duke, Springer, Wuertz, Casilla, Outman
It really is the best way to give these guys a chance to win, now. Worry about Arby/$$$ later.
Colorado Fan - March 23, 2009
My problem with Cahill...
Two starts ago his mechanics were out of whack and he was throwing everything out of a different arm slot. Curve, fastball, change… each pitch came from a different release point. That kind of tell will get a pitcher killed in the Show. He “fixed” the issue in his last start. I want to see that kind of mechanical consistency every time out, he gets his wires crossed again during ST then he earns a ticket to the minors.
Like I said before… the A’s should use every last day of ST before making the call on who’ll be in the rotation.
grover - March 23, 2009
A lot of young pitchers have mechanical issues. Eveland had them last year. It really sounds like Cahill and Anderson have the mental makeup to make necessary changes on the fly, and it doesn’t hurt that these 2 youngsters enjoy competing against one another.
Time is of the essence, and we know what we’ll get out of Edgar Gonzalez. Outman = Embree.
Colorado Fan - March 23, 2009
And I say when it comes to young pitchers and mechanical issues...
especially when said issue is each pitch having a different arm slot and release point, that you let the young pitcher work on improving his mechanical inconsistency in the minors.
I would rather see Egon go out and get shelled 6 times than see Cahill go out and make two good starts and then get shelled the next four because he simply isn’t ready and once the newness wears off and the league has seen him a couple times they show everyone just how not ready he is. Is that the actual case with Cahill? I can’t be certain but I feel like there’s a strong chance that it is and as long as that strong chance exists, I advocate Cahill getting more minor league time.
grover - March 24, 2009
+1
I can very easily see 2 great games where we all decide we’re dealing with a sure-thing HOF-er and then the league catches up with disastrous results.
nevermoor - March 24, 2009
I understand your concerns. In a perfect world, Anderson and Cahill would play a full year in Sacramento. But this isn’t a perfect scenario. We have 162 games for the core of the 2009 Oakland A’s – Cabrera, Giambi, Holliday, and Nomar – If Edgar Gonazalez gets hammered 4 times in April, and the A’s are eliminated between games 159-162, I really don’t think I could forgive myself for not putting the best 10 players on the field for an entire season.
We’ll see what happens. Personally, I think we’ll see Cahill & Anderson in the Rotation if Duke isn’t 100%, ie. stretched out to pitch 5-6 innings. If Duke is ready for the rotation, then Cahill goes to AAA.
Colorado Fan - March 24, 2009
That's exactly how I see it playing out
Braden
Gallagher
Eveland
Anderson
Duchscherer
Cahill, if Duke has a setback. (If the only setback is that Duke goes April 15th instead of April 10th, personally I’d say don’t use Cahill – use Outman, or E-Gon, or pretty much anyone just to get through one start.)
Nico - March 24, 2009
I understand your concerns. In a perfect world, Anderson and Cahill would play a full year in Sacramento. But this isn’t a perfect scenario. We have 162 games for the heart of the 2009 Oakland A’s – Cabrera, Giambi, Holliday, and Nomar – If Edgar Gonazalez gets hammered 4 times in April, and the A’s are eliminated between games 159-162, I really don’t think I could forgive myself for not putting the best 10 players on the field for an entire season.
We’ll see what happens. Personally, I think we’ll see Cahill & Anderson in the Rotation if Duke isn’t 100% healthy.
Colorado Fan - March 24, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.