Several recent posts have directed attention toward the improved and in some cases exceptional 2012 performances of former Rockies such as Franklin Morales, Felipe Paulino, Aaron Cook, and most currently, The Amazing Esmil Rogers. On Thursday Cisco Kid lamented the absence of “some creativity in finding a way to keep guys like Morales and Rogers around a little longer until they find their way.” It seems to me however that players such as Paulino and Rogers, certainly not with intention, put the team in the untenable position of either wasting an active roster spot on a non-performing player or losing the player to the waiver wire. But it’s really the player’s performance, not the team’s mismanagement of the roster that causes the predicament isn’t it?
Depending on whether he was signed before or after the age of 19, a player is subject to loss in the Rule 5 draft after he plays four or five years in the minors, unless he’s placed on the 40-man major league roster. And of course you can’t call a guy up to the majors unless he’s on the 40-man. And once the player makes the 40-man there are three (or depending on how a player’s early career assignments are handled, four) years during which the team can “option” the player back and forth between the majors and minors. But once those years are expended you’ve got to either keep the player on the active major league roster or waive him.
In the case of The Amazing Esmil, he was out of options and on the major league squad, making alternatively spectacular and horrifying appearances. When the team was forced to add a starter when Juan Nicasio went-down, the choice was to either move one of the current relievers (including Rogers) into the rotation or bring-in someone new (Jeff Francis) at the expense of one of them (Rogers). To me the definitive is player performance, not roster management. He’s got four minor league seasons to merit addition to the 40-man, then once he’s there he’s got three more to shuffle back and forth, and after that if you still want him you’ve got to waste a major league spot on him. I can’t think of a “creative” way around this. I guess you could swing a deal with some non-competitive team to take him in the Rule 5 then give him back a year later, but that means THEY’D have to keep him on their major league squad for a year. Doesn’t sound like that’d be cheap. You could stash him on the 60-day DL, but then he couldn’t play. I guess I don’t understand what you guys have in mind, but it doesn’t seem to me you can blame it on roster management.
I suppose you can blame the Player Development people for being unable to harness the inherent talent in the time the rules impose, and I guess that’s what we’re really saying: those geniuses in Boston and Cleveland have found the secrets to Frankie and Esmil that the BIB’s guys could not. But I’ll also bet you can find Boston and Cleveland draftees who didn’t make it in those organizations making it work somewhere else as well.
Jeem,
Good point-counterpoint.
In your piece you mention you can’t think of a ‘creative’ way around the dilemma of what to do with a non-performing playing that is out of options. I don’t expect you or anyone else on this site to have those type of answers, but I surely expect the best GM in all of baseball (head and shoulders above the rest) to come up with a solution. Please read Agbayani’s post from yesterday on this matter when he mentioned that when Morales was dispatched to Boston who came up to replace him. Was that necessary? All pitchers have some sort of ailment during the season or some mysterious injury that all of a sudden appears. I’m sure this could have been applied to Morales at that time. Put him on the 15 day DL with some hangnail issue, than take the full 30 day rehab option.Voila, you just bought yourself 45 days and see what happens than. They did this a few weeks ago when Jonny Herrera was placed on the DL. Do we honestly think Sparkplug was that seriously hurt that, and it took him that long to get back? No, when the need came up (Tulo getting hurt) they than activated Herrera.
I certainly can’t blame management for a player’s lack of performance, but we can certainly place blame on how that player was handled. There are plenty of us on this site that feel that Morales was miscast as a reliever. He was developed as a starter in the minors. They should have exercised more patience in him rather than jerking him around as a closer/lefty specialist/mop up guy.
Every thing I just mentioned above can also be applied to Rogers as well. You may recall the kid first started out as on infielder than moved to pitching, so his learning curve was a bit longer.
Yes, you are correct, other team’s draftees go somewhere else before they are successful (Matt Belisle comes to mind). But doggone it, you just hate losing young arms like that for nothing back in return.
Thanks for the comment, Cisco. Wanted to try and stir-up some debate on the subject. Good points, all, and remember, I’m on the record declaring O’Dowd should resign. But yeah, I didn’t even remember that one guy in Agbayani’s post yesterday. Your points about manipulating the DL are well taken as well. I guess I was fixed on saving an entire season, but as you say considering all the random calamity that occurs over the course of a season, you never know when something’s going to come-up, and certainly stranger things have happened than a guy suddenly “finding it” on one of those 45 days.
I also don’t take any issue with the notion we mishandled several of these pitchers role-wise and who knows how else along the course of their development. My issue was more what can you do when you’re trapped between the guy’s ability to perform and the clock?
One common thread with most of these guys we’re talking about I was thinking about earlier today, after I published the post, the Rockies felt the need to “rush” them for one reason or another. Morales for the big run in ’07 and Esmil in ’09 (and also don’t get me wrong, I LOVED Esmil, he was just bi-polar; remember one of those last outings– I think he had walked the first guy, then he makes the next two guys look like complete fools, but proceeds to give-up like 5 runs before he can get the last out, if he got it), and now we’re doing it with all these guys this year to one extent or another. The Rockies are the only organization I’ve followed that doesn’t make a big deal about resisting the temptation to “rush” young pitchers.
But damn, it’s always the one that got away!
Oh another thing I wanted to throw-out there: has anyone but me noticed how the Post is buying straight into O’Dowd’s spin on the rotation? Saunders is talking about the “7-man” rotation, and now we have what’s called a “Primary Starter.” Which means there must be a “Secondary Starter,” but what position he plays while the primary guy is pitching is not clear to me. So maybe he’s not a “starter.” Hmm.
Jeem,
Not only is the Post buying into the Kool Aid DOD is pouring, but unfortunately the Monforts are surely doing the same as well. It really is a brilliant move by DOD. Let’s try something drastically different and it will buy me a couple of more years. It’s been his MO for more than 12 years.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in the minority and have gone on record as saying I approve of the 7-man rotation as long as it will be done correctly (be flexible with this 75 pitch limit). I just don’t have much faith in this regime to do this right. I’m just afraid they’ll find a way to screw it up.
Yes, and I understand why they’re doing it too and found your comments REALLY interesting on further tweaks, like with reliever actually starting and taking the first inning. Or how about taking the first turn through the lineup?
Developing young talent is definitely a hit or miss business, at least as far as the Rox are concerned. Management of the Rox shows more patience with their players than most clubs, live through their growing pains showing lots of love, and then when the finished product is put up on stage, flop. IMHO the talent’s not the problem—these guys all have the ability. It’s the pressure. Maybe the Rox show so much love to these guys that they want to please too much. The pressure they players put on themselves is the weak link—hello, Mr. Tulowitski. Once they’re traded away—usually after failing miserably and dropping their value to nihl—they find homes where they can just be players again. “Hey, dude, you got talent. Let’s just go play some ball.”
This too-much-love mindset could also explain why guys who seem to have it together suddenly forget how to play the game. Likewise, it can also explain how the lost sheep from other teams seem to come to Denver and blossom. Win a few and lose a lot, I guess.
Another good inning for Rogers today at Baltimore. Jim Palmer, on O’s broadcast, said he was amazed Cleveland had been able to obtain an arm like that for cash.
Nice discussion Jeem, so I will add my two cents here. Arms like C Reynolds and Mortensen can easily be let go once you have determined that they will never be effective MLB starters due almost exclusively to a lack of stuff. Morales and Rogers on the other hand had terrific arms which is simething you can’t typically add to a pitchers resume.
This leads to my last point in that the Rockies should be looking (draft, trade and free agents) for “power pitchers” with “excellent control” that have high “ground ball” ratios. We know now after twenty years that the breaking ball pitchers and high walk pitchers will not succeed at Coors Field over an extended period. However pitchers like Astacio, Jennings, Cook, Hammel, Millwood, Balisle, Betancourt, Jimenez, DLR, etc typically do succeed because they are basically power pitchers that create alot of ground balls.
One exception to this theory that has worked out for a while was Farncis, but only when he has that impeccable command.