2010 Spring Training Rotation Thread

[lou]

I mean, 3 starts until May 9th, and a huge gap April 25th-May 8th where we can use the front four on 4 days rest. Meaning, we need a "5th starter" on the roster April 5-24th.

I'm starting to think out of the box, even though I acknowledge the horrendous sample size arguments that can come my way based on 12 spring training innings of whoever, but if West/Miller/RVH struggle a little, and you only need three starts until May 8th, why not keep all of those guys in AAA.

As for the MLB roster:

Johnson, Nolasco, Anibal, Volstad
Nunez, Sanches, Meyer, Pinto, Badenhop, Penn, Hensley, "pick your favorite veteran"

Let Penn/Hensley stay on the roster through at least April 24th with those two picking up the three starts and pitching out of the bullpen here, or there. It gives you a looksie on two guys that could realistically be contributors to this team (Hensley's 2006 still blows my mind), and the worst case scenario is, you just call up "your second favorite veteran" April 25th to the bullpen, and then on May 8th whoever is pitching best of West/RVH/Miller in AAA. It gives you a longer talent evaluation time on those guys. Or maybe in a best case scenario, Penn/Hensley actually work out and we've revived another Dan Meyer.

I'm just saying - 3 starts. This "battle" is for the chance to pitch 15 innings and spot bullpen work before May 9th. We need not be worried about lefty wildness yet. Maybe they are trying to hard and just need to be slapped down to the minors for a few weeks.

[Swifty]

I'm confused about a few things. You've named 11 pitchers (I assume we carry 12 or maybe even 13). You've also omitted Vandenhurk (but that's largely irrelevant).

I question two things, really:

(1) Do you really think we only carry 11 pitchers
(2) Don't you think that, at this point, the Marlins should do all they can to save that last option for Andrew Miller, especially over giving a long audition to Hayden Penn and Clay Hensley? If you want to tell me Miller's on his way out, or due for a permanent 2010 stay in AAA, I won't disagree, but if you think he's going down to AAA just because we don't "need" a 5 starter until ____ date, I have a real problem with anyone thinking that because it completely ignores long-term with him (although we really screwed the pooch there anyway, so it's kind of whatever now).

[lou]

1-"Pick your favorite veteran" is the 12th pitcher, meaning McClung, MacDougal, Strickland, Veras, or literally whoever in camp competition. RVH is in AAA along with West and Miller.

2-The later. I don't think Miller's option is worth saving, and if he is presumably on the MLB roster all year this year where we wouldn't use the option, we're then guaranteeing him arbitration money in 2011 so it would be "Kel Igawaish" to stick him into the minors at that point. Just a waste of resources. All I think about with Miller is, we need to develop him the best we can. We've tried on the job training. Let's give an extended stay in the minors, and if he emerges as a top 5 SP option in May, or June, or whenever, that's when he gets called up. That really goes for West and RVH too.

Just see in the short term, no harm done in sending Miller/West/RVH to AAA for at least 5 starts each, and letting Hensley/Penn each get 12-15 innings until May 8th to see if we have something there versus going with "the higher upside option." It's not really going to effect the bottom line, but gives them the opportunity to see Hensley/Penn in action if they continue their spring success. Hensley currently has 6 scoreless, Penn is pitching "as good or better" than Miller/West/RVH, and is the only one of the bunch sans option. Just saying, why not? What's not to lose here? Of course, an awesome final 2 weeks of Spring can change things, but just musing.

[Swifty]

Like I said, if your theory is Miller to the minors for the year or until he demonstrates he's "got it" I'm fine with that. I don't think arbitration should be a concern with him, though. Who're his comparables? Off the top of my head "young" Cliff Lee and Odalis Perez jump to mind but Miller's $5 mil or $6 mil he's earned to this point pace anything their earnings when they were similar to Miller so you can't argue retributivist compensation, and a 5 something ERA isn't going to get you much more than $1 mil on the FA Market. If we're OK paying him 900K to be in AAA, paying him a millionish to be in AAA next year shouldn't be a huge problem.

The other thing with Miller is he's going to be 25 this season, the crappy turned awesome lefties I mentioned before all exploded in their 24/25 year old season; Lee started his run then, Perez too (but that also coincided with the move to LA). I think this is a HUGE year for Miller just because of his stuff, handedness, and what history tells us about lefties with his "problem" when they turn 25.

PS: Randy Johnson became a first time all-star at 26, so, yeah, I'm going to call this the year we really need to make sure we get right with Miller.

[lou]

Like I said, if your theory is Miller to the minors for the year or until he demonstrates he's "got it" I'm fine with that. I don't think arbitration should be a concern with him, though. Who're his comparables? Off the top of my head "young" Cliff Lee and Odalis Perez jump to mind but Miller's $5 mil or $6 mil he's earned to this point pace anything their earnings when they were similar to Miller so you can't argue retributivist compensation, and a 5 something ERA isn't going to get you much more than $1 mil on the FA Market. If we're OK paying him 900K to be in AAA, paying him a millionish to be in AAA next year shouldn't be a huge problem.

The other thing with Miller is he's going to be 25 this season, the crappy turned awesome lefties I mentioned before all exploded in their 24/25 year old season; Lee started his run then, Perez too (but that also coincided with the move to LA). I think this is a HUGE year for Miller just because of his stuff, handedness, and what history tells us about lefties with his "problem" when they turn 25.

PS: Randy Johnson became a first time all-star at 26, so, yeah, I'm going to call this the year we really need to make sure we get right with Miller.

I don't understand the first paragraph at all. You want (or are arguing in a hypothetical sense, either way) to keep Miller on the MLB club for 2010 to preserve his option, paying him around $1.8 million in the process, then if he stinks, send him to AAA in 2011 where he'd be in arbitration, have a lot of service time, and easily get to around/above $1.5 million even accounting the Marlins being able to discount 80% of his contract value. Oliver is a really old comp, but he did $1.8 and had that one magical year in 2004/2005. Cliff still had more MLB success than Miller and a buyout, so he really doesn't apply at all. I'd say, just look at what other "bum" starters, regardless of R/L, like Mitre and Anibal ($1.2), have been making and apply a more service time/inflation/higher value due to MLB contract in the draft, and Miller would be around $1.5 in 2011 if he shows no improvement to the results we've been seeing. Then, you have to guarantee a second contract to get a look at him Spring Training 2012.

On the inverse, you can keep him in AAA this year for $800-900k, lose the option, he has accrued no service time (if he's down all year), so you can renew his contract again for 80% of the 2010 value (so this could be WAY lower if he's in the minors for most of the year and doesn't reach Super2 status. I average, if he's only up 40-50 days in 2010, we could renew for about $1 million and retain arbitration rights for 2012-2014). And god willingly, he plays better against AAA competition than MLB competition. i.e., throwing more innings, gaining confidence, getting better, etc. I think he needs to break out in 2010 or 2011. I don't think it's 2010 or bust here even considering age. He's still relatively young.

So in brief,

Option A is, MLB then AAA, paying him around $3.25+ million, and having him "demoted" in year 2 if he is still bad in 2010, and then after 2011 we have to guarantee him another contract in arbitration to look at him in 2012.

Option B is, AAA then MLB, paying him anywhere from $2-3.25 million dependent on how much he plays in the majors in 2010, and he must be on the roster in 2011.

I think B is the clear winner here. If we're "ok" with having Miller on the 2010 roster to try him out, it follows that we're "ok" to have Miller on the 2011 roster to try him out. But in option B, we save money and Miller gets to play against weaker competition to hopefully work out his control problems. He's either going to make it, or not going to make, in 2010 and 2011. I think we both can agree to that statement.

I mean, of course, if Miller is one of your 12 best pitchers right now, you just put him in the bigs, hope for the best, and don't worry to much about the future. This discussion is only about "the worst case scenario," but I think at this point it's "very arguable" he is not among our 12 best pitchers, so because of his upside potential/finances, why not just go the AAA route.If he stays in AAA, he stays in AAA. And next year is the make or break.

I just can't see a situation where it's 2010 MLB, 2011 AAA, Guarantee him money in 2012 after years of promotions/demotions. Preserving his option really isn't that valuable from how I see it. If he beats out RVH/West/Penn/Hensley, so be it. But if not, let's roll with the others and and hope Miller figures it out next year.

[Swifty]

No, you missed my point entirely.

My point is that 2010 is critical for his development because history suggests the electric lefty with a previous aversion to the strike zone seems to "get it" at 25. It's not about keeping him in the majors in 2010, it's about how wasteful it is to burn his option out of fear of losing Penn to waivers (which, be honest, that's exactly what an extended audition is).

Therefore, my issue with Miller would be where we see him logging 20 starts in 2010 and just leave him there. If it's AAA, do it. If it's the majors, do it, but we can't shuffle him back and forth in '10, there's just no good reason to do so.

That then segues to my main point which is, if you think we should give Hensley or Penn an open audition at the expense of Miller's lone remaining option, I think it is a waste. If we see Miller as a 2010 4/5 starter (for the record, I don't, I think our strongest 5 right now is JJ/Ricky/Anibal/Volstad/RVH even if it is all right handed) he needs to be up here to start the year. If he forces us to use the option this year, so be it, but we can't preemptively use the option out of fear of losing Penn to the waiver wire.

Additionally, if we're "in it" in July and Miller is one of our biggest bargaining chips, his value is substantially larger with a remaining option than it is with a burned option and a mess of a major league record. By keeping that option, you basically still shop him as a prospect because he can come to his new team's camp in 2011 and not be a guy that gets forced onto the roster for fear of losing him to waivers, so you essentially shop him to the new team as, at worst, a 2 year prospect, at best, a 3 year prospect (majors '10, majors/minors '11, put up or shut up '12).

Again, I see Miller as two things:

(1) A lefty that can still emerge as a legitimate option because he's still right on time, all things considered.
(2) The best trade chip we'll realistically part with.

Under both scenarios, burning the option for the sake of Penn seems tremendously wasteful.

[AdamRavs]

No, you missed my point entirely.

My point is that 2010 is critical for his development because history suggests the electric lefty with a previous aversion to the strike zone seems to "get it" at 25. It's not about keeping him in the majors in 2010, it's about how wasteful it is to burn his option out of fear of losing Penn to waivers (which, be honest, that's exactly what an extended audition is).

Therefore, my issue with Miller would be where we see him logging 20 starts in 2010 and just leave him there. If it's AAA, do it. If it's the majors, do it, but we can't shuffle him back and forth in '10, there's just no good reason to do so.

That then segues to my main point which is, if you think we should give Hensley or Penn an open audition at the expense of Miller's lone remaining option, I think it is a waste. If we see Miller as a 2010 4/5 starter (for the record, I don't, I think our strongest 5 right now is JJ/Ricky/Anibal/Volstad/RVH even if it is all right handed) he needs to be up here to start the year. If he forces us to use the option this year, so be it, but we can't preemptively use the option out of fear of losing Penn to the waiver wire.

Additionally, if we're "in it" in July and Miller is one of our biggest bargaining chips, his value is substantially larger with a remaining option than it is with a burned option and a mess of a major league record. By keeping that option, you basically still shop him as a prospect because he can come to his new team's camp in 2011 and not be a guy that gets forced onto the roster for fear of losing him to waivers, so you essentially shop him to the new team as, at worst, a 2 year prospect, at best, a 3 year prospect (majors '10, majors/minors '11, put up or shut up '12).

Again, I see Miller as two things:

(1) A lefty that can still emerge as a legitimate option because he's still right on time, all things considered.
(2) The best trade chip we'll realistically part with.

Under both scenarios, burning the option for the sake of Penn seems tremendously wasteful.

See I think Penn has something great. Last yr was his 1st full yr back since injury. Before that he was a top prospect. With what Miller has shown I have no problem burning his option to keep Penn and see what happens. Esp since we only need a 5th start twice in the 1st month.

[lou]

No, you missed my point entirely.

My point is that 2010 is critical for his development because history suggests the electric lefty with a previous aversion to the strike zone seems to "get it" at 25. It's not about keeping him in the majors in 2010, it's about how wasteful it is to burn his option out of fear of losing Penn to waivers (which, be honest, that's exactly what an extended audition is).

Therefore, my issue with Miller would be where we see him logging 20 starts in 2010 and just leave him there. If it's AAA, do it. If it's the majors, do it, but we can't shuffle him back and forth in '10, there's just no good reason to do so.

That then segues to my main point which is, if you think we should give Hensley or Penn an open audition at the expense of Miller's lone remaining option, I think it is a waste. If we see Miller as a 2010 4/5 starter (for the record, I don't, I think our strongest 5 right now is JJ/Ricky/Anibal/Volstad/RVH even if it is all right handed) he needs to be up here to start the year. If he forces us to use the option this year, so be it, but we can't preemptively use the option out of fear of losing Penn to the waiver wire.

Additionally, if we're "in it" in July and Miller is one of our biggest bargaining chips, his value is substantially larger with a remaining option than it is with a burned option and a mess of a major league record. By keeping that option, you basically still shop him as a prospect because he can come to his new team's camp in 2011 and not be a guy that gets forced onto the roster for fear of losing him to waivers, so you essentially shop him to the new team as, at worst, a 2 year prospect, at best, a 3 year prospect (majors '10, majors/minors '11, put up or shut up '12).

Again, I see Miller as two things:

(1) A lefty that can still emerge as a legitimate option because he's still right on time, all things considered.
(2) The best trade chip we'll realistically part with.

Under both scenarios, burning the option for the sake of Penn seems tremendously wasteful.

The problem is, I don't care about Miller's last option year and I don't see it's wasteful if we were to use it.

If 2010 is critical for his development, would it be better to let him hopefully dominate AAA, or let him get shelled in the bigs at the expense of saving an option to trade him. Because if he's getting shelled in the bigs where the organization determines to give up on him, what value is he going to have in a trade anyways? That option is going to convince a team to give us something good for him? Doubtful if he's still sucking, plus if he's on the MLB roster he will easily hit Super 2 after two months so then any inquiring team in a trade will know they are on the hook for $1.5 million guaranteed. And if he's even remotely good, we'd be keeping him for projection reasons (but we're not talking about the best case scenario right now of "miller being good). Like, where is this value of preserving the option year? I see none. And who cares about preserving an option year for someone in a trade. The Marlins need him to work out more than whatever bum RP prospect they could get back for him, so they just need to do whatever is best for them.

If you're prepared to let him go to the bigs and "sink and swim" right now, why does it matter that we do that in 2011 when he's optionless, if right now we have realistic alternatives - RVH, West, Penn, Hensley - that could provide the same level of production (and for cheaper). I mean, it's AWESOME he has an option year left (as with RVH) where we can stick them in AAA and see if they work out for us and give us a year longer of evaluation. I don't think the option is something to horde, I think it's something to cherish that you have and use it to the full of your advantage to get these pitchers to where their projections say they should. I agree with you, if you see Miller as a solid 4/5 that's going to give 170+ innings, you put him in the bigs right now and you get enriched with not using an option. But like you say, it's doubtful he is that. And I agree, cause I see no huge production advantage over him or the other back end SP options we have.

I just think this is a total non-factor with his, or RVH, having that option year left. It's got nothing to do with keeping Penn at the expense of Miller. Because I mean, we can keep Penn and Miller and Vanden Hurk easily on the 12 man staff if we're basing decisions based on options, and then if all three stink, we can just DFA/Demote and deal with it then. But I think this should be based on merit, and who has the best chance of succeeding right now. Currently, Hensley and Penn are pitching better than RVH, West, and Miller. And thankfully, that situation just works out for us because we just need 3 starts before May 8th, get to check out Penn before he's cast off the island or not, and we have options to burn on the other 3 to get them where they presumably will improve in the minors.

I mean, 2010 or 2011. It doesn't matter to me for Miller or Vanden Hurk. They just need to get better so they are pitchers for us, not so we can maximize their value in a trade by being able to call them a prospect so teams could stash them in AAA in 2011 if they kept them up all of 2010. And as aforementioned, that doesn't even work with Miller as you then have to guarantee him the contract. It's just absolutely unnecessary to worry about the options with the pitchers. You're thinking real hard here to make the "best possible scenario," which I appreciate. But there is just not a difference that I can see between option or not. It's about what's the best production can the MLB team get, and what's best for each pitcher individually to reach their ceiling. Options be damned.

[Swifty]

Again, lou, you really missed my point.

I want him in AAA. I don't want him on the AAAA shuttle service that you seemingly advocate to get a longer look at Penn.

If all he's going to do is bounce back and forth, and not have any continuity or build any confidence, I'd rather he stick in the bigs in 2010 so the option exists as an added trade value. If I were in charge, he'd open at AAA, but not because of Hayden Penn, he'd open at AAA because that's where I want him to spend the entire season.

[lou]

Again, lou, you really missed my point.

I want him in AAA. I don't want him on the AAAA shuttle service that you seemingly advocate to get a longer look at Penn.

If all he's going to do is bounce back and forth, and not have any continuity or build any confidence, I'd rather he stick in the bigs in 2010 so the option exists as an added trade value. If I were in charge, he'd open at AAA, but not because of Hayden Penn, he'd open at AAA because that's where I want him to spend the entire season.

No, I'm really not missing it. And again, it has nothing to do with Penn as we have other P spots on the roster and we could keep both of them up if we wanted. It's not an either/or situation with them. We only have 8 real staff locks (JJ, Nolasco, Volstad, Anibal, Nunez, Sanches, Meyer, Pinto). After that, those other 4 are complete toss ups, even if there are some favorites (Badenhop, RVH, Miller) compared to darkhorses (Penn, Hensley, McClung). If Penn makes the team, someone else could still fill those "5th SP" spots for April. Again, this is not either/or, even I was musing that if Miller/RVH/West continue to suck, why not try Penn or Hensley?

If Miller stinks in the bigs, he has no trade value with or without options. Who cares about trade value with Miller if he's throwing like crap. He is bringing nothing of significant value back and every GM will offer their best lowball to try and rehab him with/without options. Therefore, option irrelevant. On the inverse, if he's good, he's going to be on our 25 man roster and we'd never consider trading him as a contributor. Therefore, option irrelevant. It's just a non-issue entirely.

I mean, I think we're on the exact same page here. Keep him in AAA (which uses the option), if he earns his way onto the MLB roster cool (and what does it matter if that is day 1, or if he shuffles back and forth between NOLA), and it's sink or swim in 2011 with the probably season long extended audition before arbitration starts really slotting him way up in 2012 based on service time alone.

Where does an option come into play anywhere? What is gained through option preservation? I don't see it, and you haven't argued anything besides this trade value thing which I think is bubkis cause he is either good and valuable, or bad and no one is going to offer anything notable.

[Swifty]

lou, the primary value of the option, as I've outlined, is to use it for the best of Andrew Miller's development. The least valuable use of it is a situation of "listen, Andrew, you're our 5th starter, we like you, we just don't have any need for you until May 1, go to AAA so we can get a longer look at Hayden Penn."

If we're going to use it, use it what it's meant to be for: Miller's development. If we don't feel he's ready to contribute at the major league level, great, I won't disagree, use it to get him 20 AAA starts. If we do feel he's ready, yet send him to AAA mostly to delay us having to make a tough call on a roster crunch I have a huge problem with it being used in that manner.

[Bobbob1313]

That's not what lou is arguing, though. It's not "just so we can see what Hayden Penn can do."

It's "You've absolutely not earned the right to pitch at the major league level this year. Go down and let's see if you can earn it by May 1, since we don't need a 5th starter until then. If you prove you deserve it, we'll call you back up. If not, we'll call up one of West or RVH if they've earned it. If they don't earn it and Penn or Hensley do, they'll stay up and you guys will have to earn it."

I don't think he's making any differentiation between West, RVH, and Miller. We have the flexibility to send all three of them down because we don't "need" one of them until May 1. So why not see what the other two guys who don't have options can do until one or all three of those other guys proves they belong.

It's basically forcing RVH/Miller/West to prove they deserve a shot in something more than a ST small sample size.


What if we send him down and it clicks with him? He straightens out his delivery and starts killing people after 7 starts? Would you be upset that we blew an option on him because he wasn't kept down for 20 starts?

When you've got some roster flexibility, which I would say we have at least some, force guys like him to earn the call up. Don't give it to him because you want to "save" an option. Put him in the best situation to succeed.

[Swifty]

I never said we should save an option for the sake of saving it. I said we should save it rather than waste it.

Put it this way, if Miller starts the year at AAA and is up before June 1 (provided he doesn't throw running no-no's or 20 K games) I'll be very disappointed.

History says this is the year he should "get it." We need to make sure he's given that opportunity. That opportunity need not come at the major league level, but it certainly doesn't come on the AAAA shuttle.

[Bobbob1313]

June 1 is what, 9 starts?

What if he throws 60 innings with a great GB%, a sub-3 BB/9, and an 8+ k/9? I say that's as close to the light clicking on for Andrew Miller as we can expect. What does it matter if he does that for two months down there or a whole season?

Ultimately with Miller, it's control. If he's walking guys at AAA, leave him down all year. If he's walking guys here, he has to go down anyways. The only way he's going to be successful is if his control improves, whether it's here or there. But I'd say there's a much better chance his control remains crappy, and if it does, he's better off starting in AAA. But that doesn't mean you have to leave him down if he shows improvement.

But I don't think he has to be the first guy up in any case. If we need a 5th starter and Hensley and Penn aren't fit for it, let whoever has the best month between West, Miller, and RVH get the call.

Competition is good. Eschewing competition for the sake of saving options is not good. Whoever deserves to be in the rotation should be in the rotation whenever they earn it.

[Swifty]

bobby, if he's not dominating down there by conventional measure, I don't want him up here. The whole point is to give him as much confidence as possible. If he's still putting up an ERA in the mid 4's or mid 5's, I don't really care what his GB% or K/9 or FIP is, because, he's not going to know it and he's not going to care. Whatever he needs to do to feel "dominant," let him do it.
--------------------
And Jesus Christ, for the last time, it's not about saving an option. I don't have a long term plan of majors in 2010, minors in 2011 for Miller. I have a huge problem with wasting the option for the sake of delaying a roster decision.