Community Discussion: Quantity or Quality?

I would have to go with the A’s group though I am higher on Parker and Cole than many. So personally I would take Parker and Cole over Walker and Hultzen and I like Gray and Peacock more than Paxton. So to me this is an easier question because of my preference of the A’s pitchers than most of the M’s pitchers.

I’d rather have a high quantity of good pitchers than a low quantity of excellent pitchers. Even the best pitching prospects aren’t sure things, as there is always the injury risk (eg. Mark Prior).

mostly because Hultzen intrigues me.

you can’t forget the underrated guys who could surprise this year

as john mentioned in his top 20 list, AJ Griffin and Dan Straily (who i’m a fan of) are sleepers in the A’s system. AJ was able to pitch in 4 levels, mostly at A+ Stockton. Straily was able strikeout almost a batter an inning, while only giving up 10 home runs across 160 innings in a hitter friendly league

I’d rather have the Seattle Trio over the A’s Quartet, but i’d rather have the A’s overall depth

so is this case I would go with the A’s. In general, I would go with a group that has a pitcher was TORP potential ove another group that ha a number of mid roto prospects.

Quantity is a tad more valuable than quality in this case, as the four A’s arms are no slouches themselves. In fact, I think Parker still has the highest upside of any of the seven names here.

I prefer the average quality of the Mariners, but I think the aggregate quality of the A’s (in other words, the Mariner trio isn’t on overage 4/3 = 1.33 times more valuable than the Athletics quartet). Though this really goes to the nature of the dilemma. The risk is more diffuse with the 4 over the 3, so I’d want more reward to go with the trio. But I think there’s more expected aggregate value in the 4 As, so I’d go there.

It made me open my BA 2012 prospect book to see how they scored these guys on their new ratings system. If my posting this violates their copyrights, I’ll happily delete this post, but if anything, I think this will add to the discussion (and advertise their book, but buy John’s first). Here’s how they were rated by BA:

sea
walker- 70 high
hultzen- 65 med
paxton- 60 med

oak
parker- 65 med
gray- 60 med
peacock- 60 low
cole- 65 high

Essentially, Hultzen and Paxton cancel out Parker and Gray (one 65 medium and one 60 medium). I’d give the edge to Seattle though, because both those guys are lefty, and Parker has already had one major injury.

That leaves Walker’s 70 high versus Peacock’s 60 low and Cole’s 65 high. Personally, I love Walker, so I voted for Seattle. I think this is a really close call. Great question.

The Mariners organization could probably make out as good, or better, with Oakland’s quartet simply based on their home ballpark. SafeCo has been good to pitchers both mediocre and strong, and the M’s have had no shortage of guys they can just plunk in and deliver some quality innings in a park that can mask pitcher weaknesses.

Just in the last few years, they’ve had a moderate prospect like Fister do really well (caveat that he’s improved himself quite a bit); Vargas who has mediocre stuff and flyball prone, Jarrod Washburn who was never that good, but put in a great season right when he was traded to the Tigers. Hell, if you go back further, you find mediocre starters like Ryan Franklin, Gil Meche, Joel Pineiro, and dare I say it, Jamie Moyer, all turning in quality years for the M’s in that park.

So it seems to me that the M’s could survive either way. Having three potentially great starters or four good to great starters would accomplish the same goal.

Though admittedly I’m not that high on most of these guys. Paxton’s the only one I’m overly bullish on.