Odds And Ends: Mientkiewicz, Michaels, Greinke, Soria, Scheppers

I think the Giants should take offers on Cain and Sanchez and eventually take the better offer

I wouldn't be surprised if Dougy M ended up a Twin again this offseason.

But I'd prefer Casey Blake.

I hope the Pirates bring back both. I am pretty sure Doug will come back he and John Russel are really tight. Michaels is incredibly clutch and kills the Cards.

I would like to see Shapiro offer Francisco and Shoppach for Greinke or Soria...it would be a nice starting ground for a potential trade.

The likelihood of the Giants trading Matt Cain is equivalent to the Giants' chances of winning the Series in 2009.

Not going to happen.

"Joemorgan- If you have a dominant closer, why change anything? "

Because a dominant starter is infinitely more valuable then a dominant closer. Any half way decent reliever can close out a ball game. Saves are a product of oppurtunities. If it doesn't work out, you send him back to the bullpen.

"Because a dominant starter is infinitely more valuable then a dominant closer."

I hope you're not serious right now... A dominant starter pitches once every 5th day. Meaning that they can only win you one game every 5 days (if they have a good outing). A dominant closer can save you possibly 2-3 maybe 4 games in that span. If you have a dominant closer there is no need to change his role. And just like PJH said... who are you planning on having fill your closer's role?

"Can we let this die already? Finally the Royals have some dominance in a few areas, and everyone wants to screw around with it, and/or trade them? What is wrong with you people? That is the exact mentality that has kept us from having what, three winning seasons since '85?"

Oh, wow. So the Royals have been a losing organization for all these years because they try to move young, dominating RP's into the starting rotation where their value would sky rocket? And here I was thinking that they just sucked. Silly me.

If you want to build around Soria, it is all the more reason to stick him in the rotation, because you can't build jack around a closer.

According to Angels fan, I guess K-Rod is more valuable then Lackey, Papelbon is more valuable then Santana, and Soria is more valuable then CC Sabathia. Maybe that is your opinion, but I could not disagree more.

nrmax88, that is the most ignorant logic I have ever heard, lol.

Earlier posts indicated that if Soria was converted to a starter and if he produced like a #3 starter then he would still be more valuable as a starter. To that point I will disagree. An elite closers value is somewhere between a good #2 starter and a decent #3. Like nrmax88, I take the obvious position that a front-line starter is significantly more valuable that a front-line closer.

A good #3 starter will earn approximately (via FA) the same as an elite closer ($12-15m). The amount of difference a #3 starter makes in terms of contributing to wins is somewhat less than what a dominant closer brings to the table.

For example, take the Red Sox. In order of Win Shares their rotation looks like:

Dice-K - 15 games
Lester - 15 games
Beckett - 9 games
Wakefield - 9 games

Then you have Papelbon with a solid 12 games. Here Papelbon was clearly more valuable than Beckett/Wakefield but slightly less valuable than Dice-K and Lester.

For most teams with a good rotation and good closer you will find similar results. The only way I would move Soria to the rotation is if I knew he could be a #1/#2 talent. Anything less than that and I would leave him as a closer or move him for a #2/#3 starter.

#1angelsfan
Every dominate starter would be a dominate closer. Saves are maybe the most overrated stat in any sport. Holding on to a lead of three runs or less and pitching 1-3 innings just makes no sense. Now having soria throwing 200 innings at 3.00era compared to pitching 70 innings and tallying up some random stat seems more valuable. Taking starts away form bannister is worth it in itself. Look at the A's they can use a guy like ziegler to close games. Lewis for the indians the list goes on and on. Now you should have a good reliever but having someone throw nearly three times the amount of innings seems to be more valuable.
The A's have trouble hitting every year but they compete because of starting pitching. Soria needs to be in the rotation. Having Greinke,Meche,and Soria would give the royals a real chance of winning every three of five games. That's much more important then someone throwing one inning every time Grinke and Meche can some how will the team to a lead.

wtf Tim -

lol. Type pad antispam filter caught my comment as spam....nice.

On this whole moving closers to starters debate, don't forget that Adam Wainwright was the closer for the Cardinals in the 06' World Series...and he is now the ace of the team. Yes some pitchers (Papelbon is my main example) are groomed as starters but are more effective as closers, but that shouldn't mean that ALL players placed in the closer role are best suited for it. The main thing to remember is Soria was groomed as a starter. He has the capability to become a good starter. IF (and this is the key phrase....if) the Royals have someone else who can close, THEN Soria should be put in the rotation. Sadly, they don't. And that is the reason why Soria probably won't be in the rotation.

This makes me think of all the Braves/Royals trade talks around Frenchy

What about Lillibridge, Brandon Jones, and someone else for him?

"What about Lillibridge, Brandon Jones, and someone else for him?"

For Soria??? Lol, dream on. Throw in McCann, and that would be a starting point. Kidding of course, but yeah, no thanks.

mtzxc- Adam Wainwright, and potentially Brandon Morrow are closer-to-starter examples.

Even if the Royals don't have a suitable closer, Soria should still be moved to the rotation. Maximize the value of the players you have. He was groomed as a starter, no hurt in trying him as a starter.

And, of course, there's no need for a closer if the SP can't GET TO the bullpen with the game within reach. Starters are a part of fewer wins, but are responsible for a MUCH BIGGER part of the wins they contribute to.

The only scenarios in which I would keep Soria in the pen would be if there were extensive SP depth and he'd be placed out of the rotation anyways or if Soria proves ineffective as a starter. Hochevar and Bannister are struggling. I would like to see Bannister try a stint in the pen. I just don't see him improving.

"Now having soria throwing 200 innings at 3.00era compared to pitching 70 innings and tallying up some random stat seems more valuable."

Of course it does... but is there any assurance that he will post these type of numbers year in year out... NO. That's why there is no need to change him. He's a dominant closer and that's what he should be. It's like taking Albert Pujols and changing his swing to become a leadoff-slap type hitter... I have no doubt that he could do it successfully but it would never happen because he is successful as the type of hitter he is. He doesn't need to be changed... same with Soria. There's no need to change him.

"Of course it does... but is there any assurance that he will post these type of numbers year in year out... NO. That's why there is no need to change him. "

Nobody is gaurunteeing that Soria will be a dominant starter. There is a good chance he could be. My argument is simply that you stated a good closer is more valuable then a good starter. And there, you couldn't be more wrong.

To say that anyone could be a closer is just absurd.

We aren't talking about meaningless stats like saves. A closer is much more than that. A closer is brought in when the game is on the line (if used properly). The opposing team is busy setting their lineup with pinch hitters to get favorable splits. Pinch runners are brought in to steal a base or take an extra base on a hit. There is a HUGE difference in terms of pressure and margin of error between a starters innings and a closers.

Win Shares (the Bill James calc) is an extremely sophisticated metric for measuring each players total contribution in wins. If all innings were equal than certainly a top starter, pitching 220 innings should be 3 times more valuable than a closer who pitches 70 innings.

Top 10 starters this year:

Lee - 24
Lincecum - 23
Halladay - 21
Webb - 18
J. Santana - 18
Sheets - 17
Hammels - 17
Haren - 17
Zambrano - 16
E. Santana - 16

Top 10 Closers:

Rivera - 15
Soria - 13
Nathan - 12
Papelbon - 12
Torres - 12
Fuentes - 11
Jenks - 11
Rodriguez - 11
Kuo - 11
Lidge - 11

What we see is that a top closer still has tremendous value compared to top starters. Soria is equivalent to Derek Lowe, Roy Oswalt, Scott Kazmir from a WS perspective.

"If you have a dominant closer, why change anything? You saw what happened with Papelbon... He was a starter, the Red Sox tried him as closer. He was dominant and then they wanted to try him in the rotation, but in the end he was still their closer... And he still is! Like the old saying says... If it aint broke, dont fix it... that's the case with Soria."

Ever hear the name Derek Lowe? Lowe was a very good closer, but much more valuable as a starter. John Smoltz? Same thing.

"Win Shares (the Bill James calc) is an extremely sophisticated metric for measuring each players total contribution in wins."

It is still incredibly flawed given that guys like Lowe, Billingsley and Peavy had better years than guys like Haren, Webb and Zambrano, but it isn't reflected in the results.

"Kuo - 11"

Had a great year, but is not a closer.