Friday, February 3, 2012

Sorting out a suddenly overflow rotation



Trivia time: Can you name the five pitchers who made the most starts for the Nationals in 2010?

If you said Livan Hernandez (33), John Lannan (25), Craig Stammen (19), Luis Atilano (16) and Scott Olsen (15), congratulations. You remember the painful history of this franchise far too well.

Was it really less than two years ago the Nationals trotted out that less-than-inspiring rotation? Have they really managed in such short time to go from that to this: Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann, Gio Gonzalez, Edwin Jackson and either Chien-Ming Wang, John Lannan or Ross Detwiler?

Any one of the three guys now battling for the final spot in the 2012 rotation would probably have been good enough to start Opening Day in 2010. Actually, Lannan did start Opening Day that year.

The progress Mike Rizzo has made to overhaul what was one of baseball's worst rotations to what now looks like one of its best is nothing short of remarkable. But that's not to say this projected 2012 rotation doesn't have its share of question marks.

Strasburg, as we all know, is on a 160-inning limit and will be shut down once he reaches that mark. Just as was the case last season with Zimmermann, who will be allowed to increase his workload but has yet to establish his ability to make 30 big-league starts or take the mound 30 times in one year.

Gonzalez has established himself as a 200-inning starter each of the last two seasons in Oakland, but the left-hander is about to pitch in the National League (not to mention a better hitter's park) for the first time, so there's no guarantee his numbers will stay the same.

Wang hasn't cracked the modest 100-inning barrier since 2007. And though he pitched well down the stretch last fall, there's still no telling how his surgically repaired shoulder will hold up over the long haul.

Lannan actually has the most consistent pedigree of anyone in the bunch, with an average of 30 starts and a 4.00 ERA over the last four seasons. The lefty, of course, is never going to amount to more than a back-of-the-rotation arm, so his ceiling hovers much lower than his teammates.

Detwiler, with a mid-90s fastball from the left side of the mound, still has a sky-high ceiling. The former first-round pick just hasn't shown those flashes for more than a handful of starts at a time.

Put that all together, and it's easy to understand why Rizzo wanted to swoop in yesterday and sign Jackson to a one-year, $10 million contract. Even if the right-hander really isn't a frontline starter.

Did you know Jackson and Lannan actually have remarkably similar stats over the last four seasons? Jackson's ERA: 4.06. Lannan's ERA: 4.00. Jackson's games started: 127. Lannan's games started: 122. Jackson's WHIP: 1.395. Lannan's WHIP: 1.418. Number of quality starts by Jackson: 69. Number of quality starts by Lannan: 68.

(Either Lannan doesn't get enough credit by the masses, or Jackson is overvalued. Probably a combination of the two.)

Still, Jackson does give the Nationals something they truly need: Innings. The 28-year-old has averaged 32 starts and 202 innings since 2008. He also pitches deeper into games than Lannan, having reached the eighth inning 23 times during that span; Lannan has only done it 10 times.

And given the uncertainties spread throughout the rest of their rotation, the Nationals will happily take what Jackson can give them.

"You look at the other parts of our rotation," Rizzo said. "Stephen Strasburg's going to be on some sort of pitch limit. Jordan Zimmermann is coming off a 160-inning season and has never pitched 200 innings in the big leagues. Chien-Ming Wang coming off a couple years of inactivity and hasn't really stretched his arm out through a long period of time. We felt that we had an innings shortage."

Hey, if you've got an opportunity to assemble a seven-deep rotation that boasts quality arms from top to bottom, why wouldn't you go through with it? Especially when the total cost of those seven starters this year amounts to roughly $28 million. Find another club that's going to get more pitching bang for its buck in 2012.

There's just one problem: The Nationals can't keep all seven guys.

Perhaps they can stash one extra arm in the bullpen. But two? That doesn't look like a viable solution, especially when none of the bottom three starters (Wang, Lannan, Detwiler) profiles well as a reliever.

So that conundrum led to some obvious speculation yesterday that one of the three is going to get traded, with Lannan at the top of the list. It's a logical conclusion to draw, but is it the likeliest outcome to this surprising saga?

Not unless the Nationals are willing to give up Lannan for pennies on the dollar. How much market is there for a back-of-the-rotation lefty making $5 million, especially when everyone knows he's now expendable? The chance of Rizzo finding another GM willing to give up a starting center fielder for Lannan straight-up sounds pretty far-fetched.

If anything, Detwiler has more trade value than Lannan. He's two years younger, has a higher ceiling and can't become a free agent until 2016 (three years after Lannan is due to hit the open market).

Except all those reasons make Detwiler attractive to the Nationals to keep for the long-term. Which is something they've got to consider through this entire process.

Strasburg, Zimmermann and Gonzalez are all locked up for at least the next four seasons. Jackson and Wang, however, are on one-year contracts. Lannan is under team control for two more years. Detwiler is under control for five more years.

As much as Rizzo is attempting to assemble a roster that has a chance to win right now, he also says he's focused on building a club that can win for years to come. Tough to do that if you have to add two starting pitchers again next winter.

So what's the answer? For now, the Nationals appear willing to sit back and let this thing play out over its natural course. Team officials insist they're not suddenly desperate to trade away a starter and would be perfectly content to bring all seven guys to spring training and see how things shake out.

That's probably the wisest course of action, for a couple of reasons: 1) You never know who might come down with an arm injury after camp opens, justifying the need for an extra pitcher, and 2) The closer we draw to Opening Day, the more desperate other clubs become to fill a last-minute need. There should be more of a market for Lannan or Detwiler or Wang on April 3 than there is on Feb. 3.

"If all [are] healthy and we have an opportunity to make a trade to improve ourselves somewhere else, we'll certainly look into it," Rizzo said. "But I like the competition aspect of this. There's going to be a lot of good pitchers out there in spring training this year, and the best 25 guys will go north."

We all know that's rarely the case. Rizzo's task isn't necessarily to assemble the best 25-man roster for Opening Day. It's to stockpile the best 35-40 players who are going to be needed over the course of 162 games.

Only one franchise made it through 2011 using six starters (the Brewers). Only two others survived on seven starters (the Rangers and Phillies).

Suffice it to say, the Nationals are going to need a sixth starter this year. And they're going to need a seventh starter. And probably an eighth. And maybe a ninth. It's Rizzo task to ensure his club has as many available arms as possible in case of injury or poor performance.

If someone makes him an offer he can't refuse for Lannan or Detwiler or Wang between now and the start of spring training, should he take it? Sure.

But the longer Rizzo is able to hold onto as many quality starting pitchers as he can, the better off he and the Nationals will be.

213 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 213 of 213   Newer›   Newest»
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous said...

For the same reason of the GM having a lust for a given player, BJ Upton is a realistic future Nats target. But TB does not need pitching. And the team needs at least one more lefty starter.

The team cannot sustain control of these seven starters past spring training. So something is going to happen, and it is neither "Lannan for Cutter" nor Lannan to AAA.

Upton is a FA in 2013. I think Rizzo wants to win the WS this year and my "fools" perspective is to think about how to use the surplus to get this team there, rather than to plug in a serviceable part for surplus starting pitching -- which is one of the most important skill positions to stockpile.

I think Rizzo is thinking stockpile to trade just as he was when he puled in Purke and flipped two LH starters months later.

JMHO

ForensicMic






ForensicMic

Anonymous said...

Eugene -- nicely laid out, thanks. But, I'm still a complainer. The proposition was, I think, that the lineup order does not matter. What the stathaeads did was build a model to compare an optimized order as you said versus a traditional one; had they generated random orders and compared them to either the traditional or optimized and come up with the conclusion that there is not much difference between them that would prove the proposition. But, that's not what they did. The order matters.

In addition to the per game examples you rovided so well, Ian Desmond's .295 OBP hurt the Nats more last year over the full season than it would have had he been hitting 8th all season, because he had like 600 AB's with that woefeul total (mostly at the top of the order) and it would have hurt less, presumably, had someone else making less outs been getting those extra AB's in front of the likes of Zim and Morse, and the club would have had more PA's and thus more chance to score (or so the optimized lineup theorists would say). No?

Thanks.

dfh21

Anonymous said...

The Nats could potentially have 3 Aces to rival the best in the Majors and you want to break that up to fix centerfield?

Read Rizzo's lips: He prefers proven major league talent even to high ceiling prospects with potential. PERIOD. So, of course he would NEVER do this. Stop playing fantasy baseball on Natsinsider? It comes across as stupid, which it is: S-T-U-P-I-D.

Rizzo WILL however, trade a Purke, a Solis, even a Meyer to get what he needs positionally. They aren't major league proven.

But he doesn't have to get his CF. That CF is named BJ Upton. Either Rizzo gets him via a propitious trade before the deadline as BJ Upton becomes a free agent next season. Or he signs him in the offseason. Either way Uption gets a big extension. That is what is next now that the Fielder fiasco is done. That, and acquiring a left-handed power bat : Joey Votto. If Cincinnati doesn't re-up that guy the Nats will be all-in for him.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's "stupid" to think that Jordan Zimmermann is available in the right trade. It would have to be a tremendous blockbuster, but as we learned with Gio, you have to give something (sometimes a lot) to get something.

Zimmermann is now officially a major league proven top talent. Which in Rizzo's eyes makes him far superior to any prospect with potential and a high ceiling. All that is left is the 200 innings mark. Then he is golden. Rizzo trading Zimmermann would be unfathomable particularly given that they would not offer Prince Fielder what he was looking for? And didn't even look at Pujols? Its completely inconceivably and therefore really ... honestly it is just fantasy baseball ... and kind of stupid here. Sorry but there it is.

Now, the arguments for Detwiler who hasn't really proven himself? Yes, they are valid even if unlikely since he is favored by Davey Johnson, is a left-handed power pitcher (left-handedness extremely critical), and under team control for at least 4 years. So yes for the right deal, and Rizzo is going to charge a whole heck of a lot ... they would trade him and replenish the farm system again. I know I would.

Anonymous said...

Eugene -- nicely laid out, but the order matters. The statheads were comparing opimtized order based upon OBP or OPS versus traditional orders, not random order versus anything. Thanks.

dfh21

Anonymous said...

My earlier post vanished, so I hope this is in not redundant.

In the same vein that EJax was coveted, BJ Upton may be targeted by Rizzo. But TB does not need pitching, so he is coming to the Nats only in a three team trade.

The team has spent high to stockpile seven marketable starting pitchers, starting pitching being the most important commodity. We're not going to have a six man rotation, there will be no "Lannan for Cutter" dump, no Lannan to AAA, no Detwiler to waivers, and no pitching staff with both Gorzo and Det in the bullpen.

This parallels the team history of stockpiling high end draft talent and paying dearly for Purke and Cole, setting the stage to flip quantity and quality for championship caliber talent.

So I may be a "fool," but I think Rizzo is not trying to win the WS in 2013 with Upton, but to win it now with players that Davey Johnson can massage from spring training onward.

Lerner isn't the only one who wants to win now and is getting old. Several months ago, we heard Davey question coming back. Remember why he said he did.

ForensicMic

BullpenCatcher said...

Anon @ 935

Of course both JZimm and tras should have asterisks by their quality start numbers because they wererecovering from injuries, so if you take them away and go with the top 3 in that category this is your rotation:

JZimm
Stras
Gio
EJ
Detweiler

So what do we do with Lannan and CMW?

Theophilus said...

Lotta people been skipping their anti-stoopid medication. Jackson is clearly a one-year rental. Rizzo said plainly he didn't get interested until Jackson showed interest in a one-year deal; they are expressly prefacing the deal on the untested notion they can improve this guy (and justify $11MM) by "tweaking" his motion (and there is no reason to believe that, after 8 years in the majors this guy is suddenly going to become receptive to coaching and learning how to pitch). Yeesh!

The Nats have long term control over their Top-3 pitchers. They don't want long term commitments to their 4-5 starters because two years from now (2014, at the latest) they're going to have cheap, long-term controllable options in those slots coming up through the farm system. Do you really -- considering Jackson's record thus far -- want to be paying $15 MM to your #4 starter when you could have Purke, Meyer or Solis in that slot for $400K? Jackson's highest and best use is to have a decent enough year that he leaves a compensatory draft choice behind when he goes.

Section 222 said...

@Sec3, that's an interesting reaction about my 5 inning idea. The thing is that we'e always been told that the limit is 160 innings, not 26 starts, or 5 months. (@NatsLady, I know you're convinced it's based on the minor league season, but is there any evidence of that?) It's also not 2600 pitches. If the between starts routine, warmup pitches, or total pitches were significant, then you would think that if someone gets knocked out in the first inning that would be counted as more than just 1 inning toward the limit. But as far as I know, it's not.

I've actually never seen an article based on knowledgable sources about the 160 inning limit, where it came from, how it's changed, how it's been interpreted, though I've seen lots of speculation or explanations here, many of which sounds perfectly reasonable. I'd love to see Mark dive into this and perhaps even ask Rizzo or McCatty about creative solutions other than the 6-man rotation which I think is the only idea that Rizzo has specifically dismissed. (@FeelWood, feel free to provide a link to other quotes if you have them.)

Also, the idea that this solution would teach Strasburg to be a five inning pitcher, as suggested by a previous commenter, or that he needs to get used to pitching the standard 6 or 7 innings, is silly. I'm sure he can make an adjustment next year to pitch 6-8 innings per start, once his innings limit is gone, just as he made the adjustment when he turned pro to be an every 5 days pitcher instead of a Friday night only pitcher.

blovy8 said...

Zimmermann is the type of guy the Nats are trying to acquire, not trade. One year of Edwin Jackson doesn't change what they have to spend going forward, it's just a matter of seeing a player that is undervalued who can help your team pitch the 1450 innings they have. I think if a better OF than Bernadina wants to play on the club for a few million for one year, he's going to get signed. The thing is, so many players left really can't even play right field, or probably want assurances that they'll play everyday in the hopes that 2013 will get them a better deal. While it's not ideal to have your depth taking up roster space, it's better than relying on Maya as the #7 guy.

natsfan1a said...

Dang, did I miss the sock puppet show? Oh well, I'll catch the next one. :-)

NationalsFanatic said...

Here's a trade that might possibly happen and would make some sense for both teams (IMHO). Detwiler and Lombardozzi to the Twins for Denard Span. Last year when it was a Storen for Span possibility, the deal killer was when the Twins insisted on including Lombardozzi as well. However, with Span now apparently 100% and the possible surplus of LH arms this might work. Between, Lannan, Wang and Detwiler, Detwiler has by far the best trade value right now (upside, salary and team control). The Nats now might be willing to part with Detwiler and Lombardozzi to make this happen and I think that the Twins would also be open to it.

The ironic thing in all of this is that if Harper really does force his way onto the opening day roster and this trade happens, then the Nats have to figure out what do with Harper, Morse and LaRoche. These are good problems to have, ones that contenders have to figure out, unlike the Nats of only two years years ago.

Opening Day?

1) Span - CF
2) Desmond - SS
3) Zimmerman - 3B
4) Morse - 1B
5) Werth - RF
6) Harper - LF
7) Espinosa - 2B
8) Ramos - C
9) SP

realdealnats said...

Only time will tell but Opening Day:

Lannan: #5
Detweiler: out of the pen
Wang: DL or Minors for arm strength?
Prince O: AAA for a month or two

On a separate note: Who do you realistically package This Year for Upton with a contract extension? Lannan-Flores-Bernadina? Or am I thinking like a homer?

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213 Newer› Newest» «Oldest ‹Older   201 – 213 of 213   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment