Merkin Valdez
by Nick Ashbourne on Apr 20, 2010 11:44 AM EDT
Email
Print
I know this was mentioned in passing in the game recap but I think it requires more discussion. I was at the game last night and it was a good game to see, dominating pitching by Morrow, a couple of huge home runs and some speed on the bases for once. However, one thing that really disappointed me was Cito's use of the bullpen. Morrow gave 7 good innings using only 90 pitches and it was very encouraging to see. I was shocked to see Cito go to Shawn Camp in the 8th inning though. Not that I'm super concerned about overuse of Camp's golden arm or anything but it seemed the perfect opportunity to put in Valdez or Accardo at least. Specifically Valdez though. If Merkin Valdez is going to occupy a roster spot he needs to be used occasionally. I realize that they don't want to lose the arm so they keep him on the roster but he is 28, no longer really a prospect. At that age he must be expected to be able to make some contribution to the team. If you can't trust a 28 year old to appear in the 8th inning in a game in which you have a 7 run lead then there is no reason to have him on your team. Valdez has appeared in one game, and though he did not fare well that is no reason to go to basically a 6 man bullpen (5 if you count the underuse of Accardo, which I would tend to do). It just seemed literally stupid not to pitch Valdez or Accardo or both last night. I'm not a huge fan of Valdez who is demanding to see him, nor I am a proponent of getting rid of him, all i want is for Cito to use the players that are on his roster.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Was Camp not used recently?
Maybe Cito just wanted to keep his arm fresh?
A man without a mustache is like a cup of tea without Sugar
by craig in calgary on Apr 20, 2010 11:55 AM EDT reply actions
Yeah you are right.
I’d like Cito to use his whole pen but then this is Cito’s way. It is not unusual for a manager to just use the guys he is most comfortable with. Joe Torre ran a couple of guys into the ground most years in New York.
I wonder if Cito’s decision was influenced by 3 straight losses and a couple of earlier losses generated by the BP?
Not Accardo
I have’nt seen Valdez pitching, but I’ve seen enough of Accardo.
No need for experimenting there. Just send him away.
Festina Lente
I think you cannot look at this from the perspective of lets get Valdez in there, b/c he’s untested. And lets remember, he’s probably working quite a bit with Walton on the side. He’s kind of a veteran project.
But anyway, I think you have to look at it from the perspective of what is best for your better pitchers. So in this case, it’s less about avoiding Valdez and more about getting Camp regular work. The issue thus far has been the pitchers have all pitched so well that there hasn’t been a ton of work to go around. Even the RP, when they have come in they are pitching so well that we’re seeing very quick innings pitch count wise. It’s not like these guys are laboring to get people out and need a couple days to rest after.
Bottom line for me you have to look at it from the perspective of the better players:
1) don’t overwork them – thus far, not an issue
2) don’t underwork them – you don’t want your key RP sitting for TOO long
And if you are at the risk of #1, THEN you pitch the back-end guys. Yesterday was a perfect chance to pitch Valdez, absolutely, but it was also a good chance to make sure that Janssen and Camp still got their work. Janssen in particular hadn’t pitched in days, and the Jays have the 22nd off so he’s got to get in there yesterday.
I agree it was good to get Janssen some work
but Camp had thrown 2 innings just two days before (although he had only thrown 22 pitches). he definitely hasn’t been overworked, I agree, but it’s not like he’d been on the shelf either.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Right, I think Camp/Valdez was kind of a toss up. In the end the Jays have an off day Thursday, Gregg almost has to throw today or tomorrow y ou can probably still use Camp/Janssen if needed on Wednesday, and Frasor/Downs should be perfectly fine to throw today if needed. Given the competition (KC) I just think the move was to ensure Camp got his inning before the off day vs. Valdez is so bad we can’t even use him in a 7-run game.
Perhaps Camp is being shopped around?
A lot of teams need bullpen help. Sell high?
Onions Baby Onions
Camp turns 35 this year, he’s not likely a big part of the future around here so sure the Jays would probably deal him if asked but I don’t think you’ll get a lot for him. You usually don’t get a lot for middle relievers though, maybe RP prospect.
Camp was reasonably close to being a Type B at the end of last season
he had a good 2009 and just a so-so 2008, so I wonder if he might qualify for Type B free agency status if he has a strong 2010, since the rankings go back 2 years. If he even has a decent shot at qualifying, that’s likely to be a better return than what I could see the Jays getting for him in a trade, though of course it never hurts to shop him around.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
See, I really, really, really question the value of draft picks in MLB beyond the real top picks. I think we’ve talked about this before and what it comes down to is money. if you want a 1st round talent you don’t NEED another 1st round pick, you just need the $ to sign them. Case in point, the 2009 Pittsburgh Pirates … they traded all their players and used the money they saved to snatch highly touted HS arm Zach Von Rosenberg in the 6th round. They paid him almost 2x what their supp 1st got!!!! The MLB draft is a joke. You don’t need picks, you need cash.
So while you might say if we keep Camp and get a supp 1st we get a good prospect … I say no we get a good prospect IF we’re willing to give him a million bucks. But we could just as easily trade Camp for a prospect, and then use our 5th/6th rounder to draft a HS arm who is threatening to go to college and give HIM the million bucks. So we REALLY traded a 5th/6th rounder for whatever prospect we got for Camp, not a supp 1st.
I don't really disagree
but it’s not as easy to sign a great prospect in the 5th or 6th round and just offer them a million bucks to not go to college as you make it sound. If you can get a solid prospect for Camp, I see the benefit in doing the deal, but if you are just unloading him for peanuts, I’d take the supplemental pick – I know it’s no guarantee the player is going to be great, but the Jays seem to have plenty of money allocated to the draft and that’s the only way they’re going to build a competitive team. Unless you are just going to pay out ridiculous money to draftees, the best way to ensure you get impact players is to accumulate lots of early picks and build redundancy in the system – if you can get a supplemental rounder for a player like Camp, it’s probably a good move. And even a signability pick doesn’t necessarily mean dud. Brett Cecil was a supplemental round pick (we got the pick for Speier, I believe) and a relatively easy sign.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Pointing to one (potential) success doesn’t prove anything. Look at that round he was drafted in as a whole, more than half those guys are already busts. I’m not saying picks aren’t valuable, a pick has a chance at success and no pick has a 0% chance of success. I’m not saying a pick has no value, I’m saying you can get 1st/2nd round talent later in the draft if you save the money. Yes, it really IS that easy. Our 3rd rounder last year got more $ than some 1st rounders, b/c he was a 1st round talent.
So my point is, the argument isn’t the prospect you can get for Camp (call him prospect X) vs a 1-s pick (assuming Camp is a B), b/c you need money to sign that pick. But in the scenario you trade Camp you save the money you would have given the 1-s pick, and can give it to someone in the 3rd-4th-5th round (like Marisnick last year, or dozens of other guys). So it’s really:
- prospect X + 1st round talent
vs
- 1st round talent + 4th rounder
Or in other words, you really only are regaining a 4th rounder. And on top of ALL of that, I would argue that picks also have diminishing returns due to budget constraints. One could argue that there comes a point where adding more and more picks is actually a bad thing b/c you have a set budget to pay your draftees and either won’t be able to sign them all or you’ll have to draft “signable” players to meet budget – of course this is a HUGELY complex issue that may or may not apply in the Camp scenario.
And even on top of THAT, you could argue that you could just take that 700k-1million you would have spent on the pick, and go to the DR and sign an international kid. Now, he won’t be the same risk/reward scenario as the 1s, no question. But again, now its:
1s
vs
prospect X + DR signing
The money involved in the MLB draft makes it’s a much more complicated matter than just:
picks are good, like it is in the NHL or NFL where it is generally a no-brainer.
you are making a ton of assumptions and a false choice fallacy
namely, that the same talent will be available in the 5th/6th rounds as in the 1st, you just need to pay more for it. That is overly simplistic and not necessarily true. There are a lot of variables and while there may be great potential talent out there in the later rounds, that doesn’t mean (1) you will be able to sign it; or (2) even if you could, that it really is just as good as 1st round talent.
Finally, you have a glaring false dichotomy fallacy – you are casting the choice as either letting Camp go for a (possible) supplemental pick OR using some extra money to draft high-end talent in the later rounds. there’s no dichotomy here because you haven’t demonstrated that an extra supplemental pick would stop the Jays from taking top-end talent in the 5th or 6th round. Of course the budget is limited and it’s possible that could happen at some point, but the Jays have 10 picks in the first couple of rounds this year and they have said they fully intend to draft the best available talent (AA) so an extra supplemental pick isn’t likely going to break the bank (nor should it). Actually, I’d argue that an extra supplemental round pick would make the Jays more likely to go high upside in the 5th or 6th round, because they have a bigger talent pool and can better aford if an upside-type HS pick in the 5th or 6th round goes bust. The fewer picks you have, the more pressure you have to make them count and to sign them so you could well end up drafting for less upside.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
namely, that the same talent will be available in the 5th/6th rounds as in the 1st, you just need to pay more for it. That is overly simplistic and not necessarily true. There are a lot of variables and while there may be great potential talent out there in the later rounds, that doesn’t mean (1) you will be able to sign it; or (2) even if you could, that it really is just as good as 1st round talent.
Look at every year, you can see mock drafts with guys going in the 1st/1st-S and they end up going (usually to the BoSox or Yanks) in the 4-5-6th and getting 1st round money. So I do not believe this is an untrue statement at all. Ack, i wish I stil had BA’s top 200 going into the draft. Von Rosenberg was widely considered a 1st round talent.
Finally, you have a glaring false dichotomy fallacy – you are casting the choice as either letting Camp go for a (possible) supplemental pick OR using some extra money to draft high-end talent in the later rounds. there’s no dichotomy here because you haven’t demonstrated that an extra supplemental pick would stop the Jays from taking top-end talent in the 5th or 6th round.
I’m sorrym this s just plain wrong. Assuming a limited budget you will have ltd $. If you keep Camp and still use extra money to get a good player int he 5th or 6th AND sign the 1S you get for Camp, then you have to give up on several other picks.
The overall point is there is a tradeoff for getting that pick. It’s not like the pick just appears out of thin air. Whether it turns out to be drafting a 1st round talent in the 5th, or several picks here and there, or an international signee … you have limited development dollars and using 700-800k of them to sign the pick for Camp is a cost. If you trade Camp, you use that money elsewhere. Maybe I overcomplicated things by using specific scenarios, I apologize. But the fact is with a limited budget there is a tradeoff for any pick you acquire.
you are just taking as true
something you have not established at all. just because the overall amount to spend on the draft is limited doesn’t mean that adding an extra supplemental pick will have a negative impact on signing top talent later in the draft. In fact, as I pointed out, it could well be the opposite. Or the Jays could make the decision to save money elsewhere (e.g. they could non-tender EE), and put the money they were saving towards the supplemental pick. Or the team could just have some money lying around (as we know they do) and decide to allocate it towards the draft. Money can be moved around in a lot of ways and you are relying on a very questionable assumption that extra picks won’t mean that the team allocates extra money to the draft to sign them. In fact, we know they will because that’s exactly what the team is doing this season. They have a ton of money committed to the draft because they have so many picks. We’re just not talking about a huge amount of money here.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
No, what I’m saying is the money is limited. No matter WHERE you get it from, you have to get it from somewhere and the budget is limited. If you want to argue that they can take it out of the players’ meal budgets … fine, then it becomes a prospect for camp + some food vs. a 1S pick. The budget is not infinite. You HAVE to get the money to sign the pick from somewhere. And the most likely place to get it from is the draft budget.
Or the team could just have some money lying around (as we know they do) and decide to allocate it towards the draft.
THIS is the fallacy. It’s a zero sum game. The teams budget is not based on how many picks they have, it’s fixed. Budget room does not disappear if you don’t use it on a 1S pick, you can use it on an international signee, you can use it to upgrade your scouting dept. If you trade Camp for a prospect, you can use that money on something else. This is not an assumption, it’s how budgets work. Maybe my mistake was using specific examples, I was just trying to illustrate my point. But my point stands and I believe it to be absolutely true, the money to sign the pick you would get from Camp would not appear out of thin air. The most likely cost to that is bonus dollars other places in the draft, but it could come from any number of places.
How do you know the teams budget for the draft isn’t flexible from year to year? In that case the number of picks could have an influence on how much Rogers allows the Jays.
Budgets in all companies fluctuate each year based on a number of influences. I don’t think its that much of a stretch to think that there are Rogers execs who would listen to a presentation from Beeston and AA outlining their plans for the draft and what they expect to have to pay to accomplish their goals and having the execs sign off on it or come back with a lower amount.
You make it sound like the budget is fixed from year to year.
Life as a Toronto Sports Fan?... *sigh*... It is what it is...
The budget doesn’t have to be set in stone, just limited theoretically, which it is, for there to be a cost associated. Ever $ the team spends has the cost of them not having a $ to spend somewhere else. So if you suddenly add a draft pick, it is not without a cost (besides losing the player), namely the opportunity cost of whatever else you could have spent that money on. The only way this does not apply is if the money they Jays have to spend in is completely and totally limitless.
but you haven't even come close to showing
that having an extra supplemental pick would mean the team would be less likely to spend money to bring in top talent later in the draft. You are just making an unfounded logical leap.
the draft budget is based on, in part, how many picks the Jays have in any particular year. we know that because of this year. Johnny is exactly right.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
but you haven’t even come close to showing that having an extra supplemental pick would mean the team would be less likely to spend money to bring in top talent later in the draft. You are just making an unfounded logical leap.
That’s not a leap at all, it’s absolute basic economics 101: opportunity cost. The money you use to sign the pick you acquire does not appear out of thin air, it has to come from SOMEWHERE. Whether it comes from signing later picks in the draft, international signings, scouts .. whatever. It comes from somewhere. I do not understand what evidence you need of the fact that if the Jays don’t spend 700K on a 1S pick they have 700K to spend somewhere else … I’m sorry, but it’s really just basic economics. You can argue that they can petition Rogers here and there and everything … but they can under ANY scenario. Theoretically it boils down to limited resources (money) having opportunity cost. That’s not a logical leap, that’s basic economics.
of course the money needs to come from somewhere
But it doesn’t have to come at the expense of signing talent later in the draft. And it is actually quite unlikely that it would. Why would a team committed to building through the draft and selecting best available talent react to the addition of a 1st round pick as zero-sum by foregoing picking a good player later on if they have another way to pay for it? It makes no sense.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
by hugo on Apr 21, 2010 7:01 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Last comment on this b/c the horse is barely breathing:
1) that argument doesn’t hold b/c you have to prove they could not use the money (wisely) in the draft if they didn’t have the 1S pick, and that’s just not true. Last year you had Will Myers & Max Stassi as 2 examples just from the 4th round who were projected to be 1st rounders and got 1st round money. You can alternatively use the money to upgrade one of your later picks to a higher calibre, “tough sign” player.
2) Even if the cost ISN’T in draft picks, it’s still a prohibitive cost and needs to be considered when you decide whether or not to trade the player. So it’s not cut-and-dry the prospect or the pick.
no, I do not
you are asserting that an extra supplemental pick would cause the Jays will not use later picks to draft best available talent. That isn’t a very strong argument and you haven’t supported it at all other than to say that there is a limited budget and the money “has to come from somewhere.” As you surely can recognize, that’s not close to where you need to get to prove your assertion, and it’s not my job or anyone else’s job to disprove it.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
to put it another way
Most mlb teams spend a lot of money and have a lot of money. The draft is a relatively small portion of that. However, draft picks are scarce and valuable, particularly top picks. Teams can’t buy them, no matter how much they are willing to spend. In order for you to be right, the limiting factor regarding how much teams spend on the draft would have to be money. It’s not – the limiting factor is picks. Teams would almost certainly buy extra picks if they could.
So adding a pick won’t have the result you think it will, because the added value from spending more on an additional pick is greater than the monetary cost to the team to doing so, at least, until the team is oversaturated with young talent and has no place for them to play (not a problem for the Jays at the moment) or until there is no more talent left in the draft pool, neither of which do I take you to be arguing.
Now that is actual basic economics.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
by hugo on Apr 21, 2010 7:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
… the added value from spending more on an additional pick is greater than the monetary cost to the team to doing so
You think I’m not even close to proving my point … this is purely theoretical. I’d like to see you try to prove that. You can’t, interesting theory though, but you cannot on the one hand say I have no proof and on the other state that as is it is a fact.
well
the onus is on you to prove your assertion that an additional draft pick necessarily means that the Jays will divert money from other draft picks. you have offered absolutely no support other than that the Jays have a limited budget, which is obvious but spectacularly besides the point and certainly doesn’t get near what you are trying to show. “you have to prove I’m wrong” is never a good argument.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Clearly
If someone is arguing that a first round draft pick is a bad thing, the point is to argue anything. Obviously we are being punked.
Can you imagine how bad off we are this year with 9 picks in the top rounds.
What terrible strategy.
Too bad we can't trade draft picks
Think of all the aggravation and money we’d save not having to deal with this mess of having nine picks in the top rounds. What a headache for AA.
:P
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
