Diamondbacks Bullpen

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 554

It would be nice to get him working again and get the coaching that ST would provide. I didn't think this was a big deal with Drew because he was pretty polished player. I think Max could use the coaching.

OTOH, it reduces the temption to overwork a young pitcher.

shoewizard · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject:

I don't fully agree there Levski. He didn't pitch after college last year, which was fine, as he needed the rest and recuperation time anyway.

But don't you think there is alot of benefit to getting the deal done before spring starts, so he can be assigned, and start working on his professional career, and not be playing "catchup" mid season?

While I agree it won't be a major problem for him to get signed just before the draft, it certainly seems like it would be alot better for him and the club to get his career under way asap.

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1725

Shoewiz, it won't matter for one simple reason: If Scherzer is TRULY healthy and doesn't sign in time to start the season in the AZ organization, he almost certainly will pitch in some Indy league before the draft, just like Weaver and Hochevar did. It's the M.O. of Boras Co. And if Scherzer is truly healthy in the Indy league, his stuff is good enough that he can spend half a season in low A ball after signing, pitch in the AFL, and be starting in Mobile next year. He's got the stuff to rocket through the system the way Owings did... I won't be shocked if he's polishing off AAA hitters by the end of the 2008 season and fighting for RJ's spot in the rotation in spring training of 2009.

shoewizard · Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject:

I don't equate "pitching in some indy league games" as being helpful to his development, as opposed to being inside a major league organization with better coaches and an organizational philosophy. It's not only about climbing up on the mound and letting it fly.

But I sure like your scenario for advancement for him.

Right now, I think getting Scherzer signed is a 50/50 proposition.

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1725

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 554

but until this organization develops another ace starter alonside Webb, I'll hold out on running to fellate the new Mobile BayBears manager...

I think developing an "ace" is too high a standard. The Dbacks did develop Patterson, Penny and Capuano (alas all traded). With Webb, that would not be a bad rotation depending on JP's health.

Also the Dbacks haven't been around that long to have a number of pitchers in the pipeline.

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1725

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 554

Penny, Capuano and Patterson were all pitching for their repspective new teams within one year of being traded. Capuano and Patterson almost immediately. All spent much more time with the Dbacks than with their new teams. All had almost immediate success. Each team got a finished product. This is not like Schilling or Santana. All of these guys were major league ready. The Dbacks just did not recognize it.

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1725

misterx · Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:02 pm Post subject:

hasn't someone said they would rather have him signed sooner rather then later before
_________________
its all fun and games untill some loses an eye then its fun we cant see

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 554

I thought your point was that the Dbacks did not have competent pitching instruction in the minors and could not develop young pitching. Patterson was 9-7 with a 3.13 in 198 immediately after he left. Penny was 8-7 in 199 with a 4.81, but a 3.69 the next year.

Most of us here thought Capuano was ready to pitch in the majors when he left. It did take him two years to get his chances, bit he did pitch in the majors the next year after the trade. I think these guys are valid examples of the farm system being able to produce pitching.

If the point was that the FO could not recognize pitching (except for HOFer's like Schilling and RJ)*, I agree with this, but there is a different FO now.

*Can't you just hear.: "Hey Jerry, I hear this guy Randy Johnson is a pretty good pitcher" "Better than Blair?" "I think a little" "Let's get him".

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject:

Lev, honestly, you have gotten away from the main point.

The main point was the arguement to sign Scherzer asap was to get him into the minor league system so that he could start receiving quality instruction, which I believe is more readily available in the D backs organization than it is on some indy team.

I think this is a valid concern. As Stu pointed out, there is no longer the concern the FO would be clueless as to what they have when they have it, so this is really a point that is getting off course.

The minor league system has developed some pretty good starters over the years. Maybe some of them were not quite finished products when they got here....but overall, the track record is not horrible at all.

Scherzer in D backs camp come the start of spring > Scherzer fucking around on some indy team with a pitching coach that is not vested in his future.

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1725

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 554

I guess we cn disagree as to what producing 4 quality starters from a farm system that was started from scratch means. I wouldn't say that it means the coaching stinks.

Another factor is the emphasis (or lack thereof) put on pitching in drafts. Until recently, the Dbacks have followed the startegy of usually drafting non-pitchers with their high picks.

Pichers taken in the top 100 picks of the draft by the Dbacks through 2005:

1996: Bierbrodt (30

1997: Jason Royer (81)

1998: None

1999: Casey Daigle (31)

2000: Mike Schultz (69); Bill White (99)

2001: Jason Bulger (22); Mike Gosling (66)

2002: Jared Doyle (99)

2003: Matt Chico (96)

2004: Garret Mock (86)

2005: Matt Torra (31); Neighborgoll (81); Micah Ownings (83)

link

baldmaga · Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:15 am Post subject:

This list makes me not want him signed as much anymore.

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 554

This list makes me not want him signed as much anymore.

Don't be like the French and always be ready to fiight to fight the last war. Actually now, they don't want to fight any war.

But...Scherzer is a much higher pick with a better pedigree than any of these guys. Also it is a different FO. Even if Scherzer has a 25% chance to be an average starter in the majors, he is worth the money and I think he has a greater upside.

kris · September Call-Up Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Posts: 75

The can think of 2 reasons why max scherzer signing is getting delayed.

1. Boras may be using the delay tactics, to get more money to his client, by making D-backs desperate.
He used this tactic successfully for Drew and Weaver in 2005.

or

2. D-backs doesnt want to pay Max, while he is recovering from surgery.
Had they signed Max in August, he would have been on DL for almost a year.
D-backs will be paying a lot of money for that.

If he is signed near D-Day, just like Drew, D-backs avoided paying for a player on DL.
Now that delays his free agency by one year, which is good.

There is no down side here, by not signing him before.
He would have been on DL anyway.

In the worst case, if Max is not signed, then we would get a 11a pick in the next draft. Thats not bad.

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1161

Could just be that Boras was too busy with bigger fish.

webby17 · AAA Stud Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 54

kris · September Call-Up Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Posts: 75

Aaron · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:02 am Post subject:

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 554

From Alan Schwartz at Baseball America:

Teams that fail to sign a first-round pick no longer receive an extra pick after the first round as compensation, but instead a virtually identical pick the following year; for example, a team that fails to sign the No. 5 pick one year will receive the No. 6 pick the next, rather than one in the 30s or 40s. The same compensation also now exists for unsigned second-round picks, while a team that fails to sign a third-round pick will receive a sandwich pick between the third and fourth rounds.

The new system should decrease the growth of bonus payments to amateurs, as teams can walk away from negotiations with the reassurance of having a similar pick the next year. (Although that compensation pick, if unsigned, is not subject to compensation, which keeps clubs from using it over and over.) Clubs have for years wanted a system of prescribed, slotted bonuses for every high pick but learned early in the negotiations that the union would not accept it, so instead focused on stronger compensation rules.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/news/262720.html

He is not clear if this applies to players from the 2006 draft, but the implication is that it does. This is what I have heard that the Dbacks would get the 12th pick if they don't sign Max, but I'm not sure.

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 554

OK, I did my 5 minutes of research and can't find anything definitive, However, the Rule 5 changes went into effective immediately so I don't see why the draft picks wouldn't be the same. Of course, logic has little place in labor negotiatiions.

Link to a good summary of all the chnages. Some are interesting

Aaron · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:21 am Post subject:

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 554

Sorry. Ddidn't see your link. Callis is clear there. However, since the new agreement was signed in October, the August signing deadline could not have applied in any event so that can't be the thought process.

It still seems odd the Rule 5 would go into effect, but not the draft compensation, but Callis is clear on the point and they can do whatever they want.