Could a "good" starter pitch "one great inning" as a closer? Absolutely...no disagreement there. However I think it takes a different mindset to be a "great" closer (game on the line) as well as having an arm that could possibly pitch three times in say five days. There aren't that many "great" closers to begin with. There are a lot of really good ones but "great"?
Small sample size and all, but Astros starters pretending to be closers did much better than Jansen, Chapman, and Kimbrel during the Astros playoff run. The closer's mindset is more about being able to strikes and get misses than some mental thing. Batters are more patient in the 9th and guys that depend on batters chasing typically struggle. Most good starters have a pitch that they can throw for a strike and get a miss.
That's not entirely on the system, however, at least as it specifically relates to Springer because the Astros - in another example of their forward-thinking - offered to buy those years out. Springer likely would have wound up upside down on that deal, given his career trajectory (as I suspect he'll do well in arbitration these next few years) so he was smart to bet on himself - but betting on himself meant holding off on his big pay day for those club-controlled years. I haven't read the article yet but a significant contributing factor, which I've mentioned before, is how much smarter - and empowered - baseball's front offices have become. The days of owners ordering mega (stupid) free agent deals to make a splash and sell tickets has gone by the wayside. GMs like Luhnow now seemingly have full control to dictate expenditures (within budget, set by owners) and they have come to recognize how financially crippling it can be to sign older players to longer-term deals. And it is starting to spread to fans, as well - which only strengthens a GM's power. More and more fans recognize the risk of big, expensive free agent deals.
That is one of the main points of the article, and it pretty much kicked off this conversation. Teams for years have been paying guys big contracts for how good they were, not how good they are going to be. It was only a matter of time until somebody wised up to that. It's a broken system that has somehow managed to work for the players until recently. Now that teams are smarter, and aren't willing to give out those massive post 35 deals, it's bringing to light how ugly it is to have that much of your professional career entirely dictated by the team. And sure, we offered him a long term deal, but it would have been a deal on our terms, because we had the power. I imagine in a few seasons baseball player salaries in comparison to league income is gonna be at it's lowest in decades, since they have nothing guaranteed as an overall %. So when the next labor deal comes up, players are unarguably gonna have to find a way to take back some of those team controlled years. Obviously, owners aren't gonna give that up without a fight, so it's going to end up leading to a complete overhaul of the system as we know it. On top of all of this, the fact that openly tanking, and not even trying to win during a rebuild is becoming an accepted and downright popular path for teams, is leading to an even more deflated market.
Sadly, its become the only way for the bottom order teams to get back in contention. I am sure it hasn't gone unnoticed what the Cubs and Astros did and how they did it. I miss the days when as late as early September, 2-3 teams in each division still had a chance. Now a days, many teams are out of it in mid July.
Its not the only way. Its certainly a way that allows owners to make a bigger profit, and if its accepted by the fan base... it becomes a logical choice. There are some fan bases out there that ownership would be reluctant to perform the complete tear down. As it is, I doubt teams will experiment as much at the big league level as the Astros did... but from the standpoint of refusing to sign any free agents, or offer any sort of extensions prior to knowing whether or not there are going to be good years, teams in the middle are finding that route acceptable and they have yet to see a full backlash from the fan base. A lot of contention is also cyclical. Right now, when teams have huge mega-seasons like the Astros, Dodgers, and Indians did, plenty of races are over before they begin. However, the Yankees/Red Sox did have a divisional race come down to the final weekend. The Cardinals had a rare off year, otherwise the NL Central could have been wrested from the Cubs. Most divisions are still going to feature enough competition to keep things interesting amongst the top 2-3 teams.... just hopefully not the AL West.
I sense "tanking" will be watered down the the same way "Moneyball" was watered down to be about on-base percentage. Yes, the Cubs and Astros tanked their way to championships - but they also employed two of the brighter baseball minds of this era who were as lucky as they were smart/good. (Ironically, one of the Cubs' luckiest breaks was gifted by Luhnow when he took Appel over Bryant). Tanking guarantees nothing and it's not easy. And even if it's done well, it can still alienate fans (sometimes permanently), especially if it takes longer than expected/communicated.
"Small sample size". You mean like a few games compared to a full season as a closer as well as pitching on back to back games (or as I stated 3 gms in 5 days)? Also they used three different starters to come in and close gms in the playoffs (LMJ, Morton & Peacock). Not one guy. Huge difference between being a full time closer (excuse me a "great" closer) compared to coming in and closing a game or two in the playoffs. Knowing they have LMJ, Morton & Peacock to come in and close games in the playoffs is a big reason they haven't felt the need to go spend big $ on a closer despite how much Giles sucked @$$ in the playoffs (IMO). I'm not saying that any of our starters couldn't be full time closers. They most certainly could. The question is whether or not they could be a "great" closer. Also no idea if any of them have the arms that can bounce back on short rest and pitch effectively.
They have huge sample sizes that they can pitch very well. Only question is the mental part. It doesn't take much of a sample to know these guys didn't crumble under the greatest pressures.
You can just as easily say Giles pitching as bad as he did was a small sample size.... vs what he did during the regular season, where all his numbers across the board were better. I think the key with any bullpen is to be flexible. You start doing the same thing over/over/over again... and it inevitably can fail unless you're one of the all-time greatest pitchers ever.
Agree that it’s cyclical and cycles/expectations should fit each team’s recourses: Big market teams like the Yankees really have the resources that should prevent them from having to ever embark on a drastic rebuild. They can fix a lot of mistakes with money. To me, the top 4-8 market teams should contend in at least 9 of every 10 seasons. That’s why I’m not all that cool with teams like the Phillies tanking. Mid market teams like the Astros have resources, but don’t have enough to cover big mistakes. The hole they were in in 2010 was big enough to warrant a full rebuild, and hindsight being what it is I’m obviously glad they did it, but I’m not sure 3 consecutive 100 loss seasons was necessary. To me, midmarket teams should have 6-7 years of good teams followed by 2-3 years of rebuilding. Small market teams like the Rays are at a big disadvantage. They can really only compete when they are able to put together a large core of elite players developed internally. Realistically, those teams will have 5-6 years of contention followed by 5-6 years of rebuilding. In a given season, I’d think that it would be normal to have 5-7 teams rebuilding, with 15-20 teams vying for wild card spots as they enter or exit competitive windows, with another 3-10 teams expected to actually contend for the World Series.
People still don't realize how bad the drafts were from 2007-2010 (and maybe even some years before 2007). Yes, having the #1 pick in 3 straight years (in most rounds, with most slot money) certainly helped accelerate the rebuild, and grant access to at least one generational-type player.. but as long as this front office continues to sign their picks (regardless of where they're picking) at the rate they have been, I expect the farm system to never bottom out at the level the Drayton/Hunsicker/Purpurra regime allowed it to.
Obviously all three of LMJ, Morton and Peacock have shown that they can handle pressure at the highest level as a closer (in a spot appearance) The question is whether or not their arms could hold up on short rest? Also not just being able to do it but to also be able to be "great" at it over an extended period of time (like a full season)? As sealclubber has already pointed out in a previous thread LMJ is already having arm issues as a starter so putting him in a full time closer role wouldn't be a wise move (which I agree with). It's not just the mental part but also their arms physically holding up over a long period of time in this role (full time closer--not a spot closer).
As much as I like the idea of adding Realmuto and/or Yellich, I think we are stacked at offense and should give Fisher/Marisknick a chance in LF and then look to the farm if that doesn't pan out or we can always make a trade at the deadline for more offense-- but that seems highly unlikely given the year they had last year (plus Tucker *might* be ready). I'd be game to go in on Alex Wood as we definitely need a Lefty in the pen (and he's solid) and shore up our key weakness. Astros pitching would be the best in baseball + a terrific pen and the return of our amazing offense while taking some time to assess the farm and seeing what we have before trading away some of our best arms and bats. The farm is pretty deep--we can afford to take a gamble on finding the next star in our system.
Figured he was as good as gone. He was really only Marisnick's injury replacement and isn't really needed.
On the trading for Marlins stars... Quick Answers. Realmuto = Not Happening. Unless McCann or Gattis (or both) suffer season ending injuries, a trade for him is just not happening. It's just not necessary. I can see how it's a pipe dream for some of you but I am willing to bet we don't make a deal for him unless we literally steal him away for scraps. Catcher is not a need at the moment. Maybe next offseason. Yelich = Why? Not Happening (right now at least). While he would classify as an upgrade, what would this actually do for the team? Not much in my opinion, our needs are in the bullpen (arguably). We haven't sat on our hands either and shedding blue-chip prospects for another OF (regardless of Yelich's trajectory) without giving Fisher/Tucher/etc. their shot would be doing a disservice to the tremendous job our FO has done. Great job, Luhnow. It doesn't seem like a move we would make this early on unless something falls before our feet.
Yep. Was just looking at how this team was built, and it’s amazing how much of it has come from the top 2 rounds of the draft. 10 players on their expected opening day roster were sourced from the top 60 picks: Correa (1-2012) McCullers (1a-2012) Bregman (1-2015) Springer (1-2011) Fisher (1a-2014) Giles (via Appel, 1-2013, Velasquez, 2-2010, and Eschelman, 2-2015) Some of Verlander (via Cameron, 1a-2015) Cole (via Moran via Cosart via Pence, 2-2004) Marisnick (via Cosart via Pence, 2-2004) Gattis (via Folty, 1-2010) The rest of the roster came from: Free agency (9): Gurriel, Reddick, Morton, Smith, Sipp, Rondon, Stassi (via Lowrie), Peacock (via Lowrie), Devenski (via Myers) International signing (2+): Altuve, McCann (via Guzman/Abreu); some of Verlander via Perez Later draft (1): Keuchel; some of Verlander via Rogers Waivers (2): McHugh, Harris Rule 5 (1): Marwin Basically, the way to win as a mid market team is to nail your 1st 2 picks every year, wait till a crop is ready and add 2nd and 3rd tier free agents around them. And hope to get some luck in the other avenues (like adding a 5’5” hall of famer for under $100k).
