Acquring Young Stud Pitchers

[Raskolnikov]

3-0

you are still kind of an idiot though, I don't know what you are so excited about.

I'm rooting for the Epstein miracle rebound just to see you disappear.

 

[beckdawg]

My point is "Both lost to arguably inferior guys or at the very least equals in Harvey/Syndergaard" is laughable. If you think that Harvey is "inferior" in any way shape or form to Jon Lester it makes me question whether i should bother debating you because that line wreaks of blind homer.

"It wasn't great pitching or great hitting that won the mets those games it was execution. They got shit done and the cubs didn't."
Why do you think the Cubs couldnt execute?

"In tight games such as the playoffs, advancing bases be it via steals or taking an extra base on hits matters."
Because with good pitching your opportunities are limited so you must take advantage of every opportunity. In 18 innings the Cubs have 1 homerun,3 runs scored total while striking out 20 times. The Mets meanwhile have scored 8 runs which is pretty good especially seeing as we faced Arrieta and touched him up for 4 runs. This is usual mets. Score a few runs because the pitching isnt going to give up much. Go check our record when we score 4 or more runs. We`re like 50-5. Im not trying to be a pain in the ass but pitching has been the difference in this series and if you look at the world series winners since 2000 its mostly about who had the better pitching. I wont go further back because its the same pattern as far back as you can go with of course some exceptions.

You're missing the point. Lester/Arrieta vs Harvey/Syndergaard is possibly an advantage to the cubs but at the very least the two sets of pitchers are comparable. If you want to take Harvey over Lester fine. I'm not going to argue that much. But Lester is probably at this point more accomplished and a safer pick over Syndergaard. And as I mentioned before, Arrieta wasn't just good over the 2nd half. He was possibly the best ever. So, my point here was if Harvey is the better of the two Mets pitchers you can easily make an argument Arrieta is better. As for Lester and Syndergaard, again I don't care enough to argue one way or another but you can make a compelling case Lester is a better pitcher than Syndergaard.

Even if you disagree, the point I was trying to get across here was that at worst the cubs 2 pitchers in game 1-2 were as good as the mets pitchers and as such there was no advantage one way or another and that the Mets didn't win those two games because they have amazing pitching. Both two teams had phenomenal starters for those games. The difference is examples like Castro getting thrown out at home and Granderson taking a base via a steal which lead to a run. That was a 2 run swing in a 4-1 game that had nothing to do with pitching. That's execution.

Regardless, my overarching point is that it isn't a matter of building a great pitching staff or for that matter building a great group of hitters. You can win with either if you execute. And certainly good players execute more often as hitters or pitchers. But it isn't as simple as the team with the best pitching wins. If it were the cubs wouldn't even be in the NLCS because the cardinals had the best ERA in the majors.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Furthermore, Lester has a track record as a playoff pitcher. It just didn't happen this time. Play those games 10 times and plenty of times the Cubs would come out 2-0. Arrieta seemed a bit tired.

I hope both Lester and Arrieta get another chance because Cubs will be 3-3 with Lester available in bullpen game 7. I concede nothing, this is still a very live series because the Cubs have 2 aces.

 

[Midwaymonster75]

There is some serious spin/delusion on what has happened in this series.

 

[Doubledown]

There is some serious spin/delusion on what has happened in this series.

It's all fun and games, just remember no one remembers the loser of the WS, just saying.

 

[Midwaymonster75]

It's all fun and games, just remember no one remembers the loser of the WS, just saying.

Yes it is but the hate is strong with a certain poster lol! Mets are not some unstoppable machine. Im fully aware the Royals/Blue Jays are capable of sending us home empty handed.

 

[Midwaymonster75]

you are still kind of an idiot though, I don't know what you are so excited about.

I'm rooting for the Epstein miracle rebound just to see you disappear.

You were saying? Sweep!

 

[beckdawg]

Yes it is but the hate is strong with a certain poster lol! Mets are not some unstoppable machine. Im fully aware the Royals/Blue Jays are capable of sending us home empty handed.

How is it hate saying one team executed better than another when the team I'm suggesting executed better is the team I apparently "hate?" The cubs won 97 games to the 90 the Mets won and in the regular season swept them 7-0. So to sit here and suggest what you have been that great hitting is always trumped by great pitching is frankly absurd. I'm not even suggesting the had the cubs played better then would have swept the Mets. I expected it to be a fairly even series despite the regular season results.

The mets did the little things you need to do to win and good for them because clearly they deserved to win. My only issue is when people suggest that great pitching beats great hitting because it's not true. Hell, the cubs in the regular season had a better team ERA and a better starter ERA than the mets and still lost the series in sweeping fashion and that was after beating the cards who were better than them in both cases.

 

[brett05]

How is it hate saying one team executed better than another when the team I'm suggesting executed better is the team I apparently "hate?" The cubs won 97 games to the 90 the Mets won and in the regular season swept them 7-0. So to sit here and suggest what you have been that great hitting is always trumped by great pitching is frankly absurd. I'm not even suggesting the had the cubs played better then would have swept the Mets. I expected it to be a fairly even series despite the regular season results.

The mets did the little things you need to do to win and good for them because clearly they deserved to win. My only issue is when people suggest that great pitching beats great hitting because it's not true. Hell, the cubs in the regular season had a better team ERA and a better starter ERA than the mets and still lost the series in sweeping fashion and that was after beating the cards who were better than them in both cases.

The better for the Cubs really is all credited to the greatest 20 game stretch by a starting pitcher ever in Jake.
Top pitching usually beats top hitting. You see it time and time again in the playoffs.

 

[beckdawg]

The better for the Cubs really is all credited to the greatest 20 game stretch by a starting pitcher ever in Jake.
Top pitching usually beats top hitting. You see it time and time again in the playoffs.

Even if it's slightly "favored" which is debatable, it's not by much and that's my point. Boston won it's titles with great hitting but also great pitching. I'd suggest the Yankee dynasty was hitter favored as they were constantly replacing guys in their rotation from Mussina, to Orlando Hernandez, to Irabu, to Clemens.....etc. The simple fact of the matter is it's rare that a team is one of the other. It's usually a well rounded team and that's why I think the statement is categorically wrong. If it was a simple as acquire great pitching and win the dodgers should have been to a world series already. Kershaw has been the best pitcher in the league the past 5 or so years and Grienke obviously wasn't bad. For every case like the Diamondbacks with Schilling and Johnson you have a case like the Bash brother's A's or david ortiz basically single handedly willing the Sox past the Yankees in 2004.

People get that idea because unsurprisingly the team that usually wins in the playoffs has good pitching but it's not like most teams don't have good hitting. Again, just looking at the Mets/Cub series, it's not just that they pitched well. Daniel Murphy is having one of the best postseason hitting performances ever driving in 6 of the 21 runs scored in the series.

 

[brett05]

Even if it's slightly "favored" which is debatable, it's not by much and that's my point. Boston won it's titles with great hitting but also great pitching. I'd suggest the Yankee dynasty was hitter favored as they were constantly replacing guys in their rotation from Mussina, to Orlando Hernandez, to Irabu, to Clemens.....etc. The simple fact of the matter is it's rare that a team is one of the other. It's usually a well rounded team and that's why I think the statement is categorically wrong. If it was a simple as acquire great pitching and win the dodgers should have been to a world series already. Kershaw has been the best pitcher in the league the past 5 or so years and Grienke obviously wasn't bad. For every case like the Diamondbacks with Schilling and Johnson you have a case like the Bash brother's A's or david ortiz basically single handedly willing the Sox past the Yankees in 2004.

People get that idea because unsurprisingly the team that usually wins in the playoffs has good pitching but it's not like most teams don't have good hitting. Again, just looking at the Mets/Cub series, it's not just that they pitched well. Daniel Murphy is having one of the best postseason hitting performances ever driving in 6 of the 21 runs scored in the series.

Of course you want balance, but if you are going to be lacking in one of the three (hitting, pitching, defense) you want to be lacking in hitting.

 

[beckdawg]

Of course you want balance, but if you are going to be lacking in one of the three (hitting, pitching, defense) you want to be lacking in hitting.

I disagree but w/e. At the end of the day you have to score to win no matter how well you pitch.

 

[Midwaymonster75]

How is it hate saying one team executed better than another when the team I'm suggesting executed better is the team I apparently "hate?" The cubs won 97 games to the 90 the Mets won and in the regular season swept them 7-0. So to sit here and suggest what you have been that great hitting is always trumped by great pitching is frankly absurd. I'm not even suggesting the had the cubs played better then would have swept the Mets. I expected it to be a fairly even series despite the regular season results.

The mets did the little things you need to do to win and good for them because clearly they deserved to win. My only issue is when people suggest that great pitching beats great hitting because it's not true. Hell, the cubs in the regular season had a better team ERA and a better starter ERA than the mets and still lost the series in sweeping fashion and that was after beating the cards who were better than them in both cases.

Comment wasnt directed at you. I was reffering to Raskolnikov.

 

[DrGonzo]

Why is that? If anything the Cubs can afford to lose a SS. Castro has trade value but most teams will look at his track record and his current contract and would shy away. He could give plus value or minus value any year and his pay scale keeps going up. Baez is cheap control with power potential. Add to it he profiles at SS/2B/3B. 2 of the 3 are premium positions.

The thing is if anyone says he can't be traded that means he would pull back some prime talent.

Now if it was Harvey for Baez and some other adds I believe most here would not complain much. Mets are looking to get Wheeler back. They already have Matz and Niece with DeGromm and Thor. They are a team that could afford to lose a talent like Harvey with out batting an eye. As long as the return justifies it.

I can't imagine the Mets entertaining offers for Harvey, although durability is always going to be a concern now. I agree with trading Baez though. He seems a bit like Castro 2.0 to me, with maybe a bit more upside as a power hitter, but a guy you may never feel comfortable relying on for defense or heads up base running in close games. The Cubs look like a much more confident, settled team with Russel holding things down at SS.

 

[SilenceS]

I can't imagine the Mets entertaining offers for Harvey, although durability is always going to be a concern now. I agree with trading Baez though. He seems a bit like Castro 2.0 to me, with maybe a bit more upside as a power hitter, but a guy you may never feel comfortable relying on for defense or heads up base running in close games. The Cubs look like a much more confident, settled team with Russel holding things down at SS.

Baez is praised for his baseball instincts especially on the base paths. Its why Maddon likes him so much.

 

[brett05]

I disagree but w/e. At the end of the day you have to score to win no matter how well you pitch.

Only need to score more than the opponent. This rule got established long ago in one of the early world series

 

[beckdawg]

So, I've mentioned this before but today I was interesting in looking up some stuff on Danny Salazar and Carlos Carrasco as they are names being thrown around in trade talks. I wanted to get a scouting report on them so I went to mlb.com's rankings. I was surprised to find out that not once in any year from 2011-2014 did either rank in their top 20 prospects. In 2011, the indians had pitchers such as Scott Barnes, Nick Hagadone, Felix Sterling and Jason Knapp in their top 10(2011 only had top 10 prospects per org). In 2012, they had Trevor Bauer(acquired via trade), Scott Barnes, Dillon Howard, Mitch Brown, Jake Sisco, and Kieran Lovegrove. In 2013, they had Trevor Bauer, Cody Anderson, Dace Kime, Mitch Brown, Chen Lee, Kyle Crockett, Sean Brady and Dylan Baker. Last year, they had Justus Sheffield, Cody Anderson, Dylan Baker, Adam Plutko, and Luis Lugo.

Out of all of those names, only Trevor Bauer and Cody Anderson have made any impact on their starting staff. However, 3 "no name" prospects in Salazar, Carrasco and Kluber now are their top 3 pitchers and all are remarkably good. So, clearly it's not a case of TOR pitchers being obvious. That obviously leads to the question of spotting these types. If we look at their minor league profiles, Carrasco had a 8.1 k/9, 3.3 bb/9 and a 3.97 ERA. Kluber had a 9.1 k/9, 3.6 bb/9 and a 4.42 ERA. Salazar had a 8.4 k/9, 2.8 bb/9 and a 3.14 ERA. The take away here is that having a stellar ERA in the minors isn't that big of a deal. However, being able to strike guys out is. With that in mind, I decided to look at cubs prospects who might fit that under the radar. For the short season guys(VSL, DSL, Mesa, Eugene) I'm only looking at guys over 25 IP and let's say 40 IP in full season leagues.

Alex Pacheco age 20, VSL - 37.0 IP, 8.03 k/9, 2.43 bb/9, 4.86/2.61 ERA/FIP
Bryan Molina age 20, VSL - 31.2 IP, 9.09 k/9 6.54 bb/9, 7.96/4.23 ERA/FIP

Andri Rondon age 19, DSL - 56.0 IP, 10.77 k/9, 2.41 bb/9, 2.41/2.79 ERA/FIP
Junior Marte age 20, DSL - 55.2 IP, 10.99 k/9 2.59 bb/9, 1.29/2.59 ERA/FIP
Luis Aquino age 22, DSL - 43.2 IP, 9.69 k/9, 2.68 bb/9, 0.82/2.34 ERA/FIP
Wander Cabrera age 17, DSL - 42.1 IP, 9.99 k/9, 4.89 bb/9, 2.34/2.87
Julian Aybar age 23, DSL - 39.2 IP, 10.66 k/9, 2.04 bb/9, 1.82/2.33

Jesus Camargo age 19, Mesa(R) - 46.1 IP, 11.07 k/9, 2.33 bb/9, 3.30/2.93 ERA/FIP
Carlos Rodriguez age 19, Mesa(R) - 25.2 IP, 9.12 k/9, 2.81 bb/9, 4.21/4.48 ERA/FIP
Manuel Rondon age 20, Mesa(R) - 31.1 IP, 7.76 k/9, 3.16 bb/9, 4.88/3.24 ERA/FIP

Oscar De La Cruz age 20, Eugene(A-), 73.0 IP, 9.00 k/9, 2.10 bb/9, 2.84/3.18 ERA/FIP
Jose Paulino age 20, Eugene(A-), 55.0 IP, 9.33 k/9, 3.44 bb/9, 4.42/4.13 ERA/FIP
Adbert Alzolay age 20, Eugene(A-), 53.0 IP, 8.32 k/9, 2.55 bb/9, 2.04/3.83 ERA/FIP
Justin Steele age 19, Eugene(A-), 40.2 IP, 8.41 k/9, 3.32 bb/9, 2.66/2.84 ERA/FIP

Trevor Clifton age 20, South Bend(A), 108.2 IP, 8.53 k/9 3.89 bb/9, 3.98/3.94 ERA/FIP

Tyler Skulina age 23, Myrtle Beach(A+), 75.1 IP, 8.72 k/9 3.70 bb/9, 3.11/3.57 ERA/FIP

Felix Pena age 25, Tennessee(AA), 129.2 IP, 9.72 k/9, 3.40 bb/9, 3.75/3.40 ERA/FIP

Those are just based on this years numbers. This doesn't contain a few noteworthy names. Off the top of my head, there's Pierce Johnson, Duane Underwood, Carson Sands, Dylan Cease(didn't put up enough innings), Bryan Hudson, Jen-Ho Tseng, Corey Black(left him out as they moved him to a reliever), Jake Stinnett, Rob Zastryzny, Daury Torrez, Jeremy Null and Ryan Williams. Johnson, Paul Blackburn and Underwood were part of the first Theo/Jedd draft class. Zastryzny, Skulina, Clifton were all part of the 2013 class. Null, Williams, Stinnett, Cease, Sands, and Steele were all part of the 2014 class.

Can't say I know a ton about the players on this list. Oscar De La Cruz popped onto top 30 prospect lists this year. Clifton and Skulina have been roughly top 20ish names in the past. Wander Cabrera was a $250k signing last IFA period so he seems like a pretty legit low level prospect guy. Pitchers as IFA tend to get less as it's so hard to project so that by no means a "bad" signing. The top non-cuban pitcher this year got only $750k. Jesus Camargo was also apparently a IFA type signing but no reported money. Manuel Rondon was the return for the Rafael Lopez who while not a major prospect was some what decent. So, he is probably not a "nothing" prospect. Don't see much on stats on the rest.

Obviously there's not a ton in the upper minors. But what you can see is a lot of intriguing names here outside the high draft picks. Attrition will probably knock out 50% of them if not more but what's left should be nice.