The Aardsma Trade
Dave · January 20, 2009 at 3:57 pm · Filed Under Mariners
Seriously, I think Jack is trying to do whatever possible to make sure we write as many positive things about him as we can. When the Red Sox DFA’d Aardsma a few days ago, I wrote a post about how the M’s should make a deal for him, then said “ehh, screw it, it’s a few hundred words on something that isn’t going to happen.”
I even lobbied last March for the M’s to pickup Aardsma, as I think he’s got potential to be a pretty decent reliever. This is the kind of buying low on a guy with a big arm that can pay off in significant ways.
Yet another move where we can just sit back and say “yep, our new GM is awesome.”
I’m surprised to hear your reaction here Dave. Sure, Aardsma has posted pretty impressive K rates the past few year, but the guy has walked over 5.5 batter per 9 for his career. Just last year he walked almost 6.5 per 9.
Am I missing something here?
I thought this was strange– check out the different HR/9 projections for Aardsma in 2009:
Bill James: 1.18
Chone: 0.84
Marcel: 1.02
I wonder why those are so all over the place…
I’d be a little more excited if Aardsma hit left handed and played a solid LF.
Another minor, yet solid, move for Z. But damn, I’m jonesen for a bat.
That’s it Z, keep stocking the pen, keep Morrow out of it and in the rotation where he belongs.
Holy Crap! Aardsma has done some traveling. Giants, Cubs, White Sox, Red Sox, and now to the M’s.
No one else is saying it so I guess I will….. Dave you are amazing.. I can’t help but wonder if Z has your site bookmarked and is looking through the archives to see what you have recommended in the past. Keep up the good work Dave.
He has some nice numbers in the majors with both ERA and K’s compared to walks.
All righty… well the Aardsma wish worked Karmically without your posting a thing, Dave. Let’s hope Jack Z just read your post on what a lovely addition Nick Swisher would be to the team.
Go M’s.
At the Seattle Library thingy I was tempted to ask about all the relievers they were stockpiling (something on the lines of “Do you just want to have as many options as possible and then go by what you see in Spring Training? Or is this trade ammunition?”) but I guessed they were unlikely to disclose anything we didn’t already know/infer. (What I really wished I’d asked is if they think closers are overvalued)
But really, I don’t care why they’re doing it. Accumulating value is a good thing in itself, because it buys you flexibility and opportunity later. And with the young guys there’s always a chance somebody is going to suddenly put it together and give you lightning in a bottle.
I assume the Red Sox DFA’d Aardsma because he is out of options?
The trouble is, he did post about Swisher. I think the “Karmically-influenced” thing only works if Dave writes it but doesn’t post it, thereby allowing the FO to look like they’re one step ahead of him. Of course if that’s true, we’re going to be reading a lot less of Dave (or at least a lot fewer speculative pieces), so I hope it isn’t.
It seems as though we are accumulating a ton of relievers who don’t have options left. Doesn’t this needlessly limit flexibility?
OK, I’ll be the devil’s advocate here…
In Aardsma the M’s now have a player who in 120+ career games has a combined total of 0.1 wins above replacement level. The man is a walking embodiment of the concept of replacement level. He throws hard, it’s true, but is there any additional reason for your optimism on his prospects, Dave? He’s not old, but he’s not young enough where you’d traditionally assume some improvement.
If we want depth to ‘push’ the MLB relievers, well, isn’t that what MiLB free agents are for? Certainly the M’s have done better with Roy Corcoran (and the Nats with Joel Hanrahan, etc.) than anything Aardsma’s put up.
To me, this would be great if we had a reason to suspect that his improved GB rate last year was real. Do we have such info? Otherwise, if we wanted a reliever, there are *actually* free relievers who’d project roughly the same. If you needed a hard thrower, well, those are available too.
I’m wondering if this indicates that Z thinks Aardsma is somehow ‘fixable’ or if he thinks he can improve his GB rate and get a decent year out of him. Whatever happens, it’ll be interesting to see Z’s plan for the guy. Until then, I’m not going to be too excited about trading a decent, projectable lefty in the low-minors for such a fungible guy like Aardsma.
I agree marc w. There’s no way Aardsma will even approach usefulness unless he makes major improvements in his command. And like you mentioned, at this age it’s hard to believe that he’s got much of a chance to pull that kind of improvement off.
Unless your speculation about Jack Z believing him to be fixable, I don’t see how this is that encouraging of a move.
OK, I’ll be the devil’s advocate here…
You should probably just have your first name legally changed to D.A, at this point.
In Aardsma the M’s now have a player who in 120+ career games has a combined total of 0.1 wins above replacement level.
120 games, in this case, is 144 low leverage innings. No matter how well he pitched, he wasn’t going to rack up a lot of wins for his team in that kind of playing time.
The man is a walking embodiment of the concept of replacement level. He throws hard, it’s true, but is there any additional reason for your optimism on his prospects, Dave?
Top shelf stuff and strikeout rates – really, the only thing keeping him from being a good reliever is his command. Maybe his command isn’t fixable (his minor league data would argue otherwise, though), but it’s worth trying, because if you can get him straightened out, you have a potential relief ace.
He’s not old, but he’s not young enough where you’d traditionally assume some improvement.
Age for pitchers is fairly irrelevant.
If we want depth to ‘push’ the MLB relievers, well, isn’t that what MiLB free agents are for? Certainly the M’s have done better with Roy Corcoran (and the Nats with Joel Hanrahan, etc.) than anything Aardsma’s put up.
Aardsma is what Hanrahan was 12 months ago. He’s exactly what we’re hoping happens here. You can’t point to him as a reason for why this wasn’t worth doing, because he was clearly a huge success for Washington using this exact template.
To me, this would be great if we had a reason to suspect that his improved GB rate last year was real.
The GB rate increase is probably just noise. It wasn’t huge anyway. The key to getting value out of Aardsma is to get him to throw strikes, not induce ground balls.
Morrow, Thornton, Hanrahan… hard throwing relievers with command problems can take significant steps forward. It doesn’t always happen, but it’s certainly worth Fabian Williamson to give it a try.
I’m not aruging that the move wasn’t worth making. Obviously they gave up essentially nothing for him, but I’m just saying I doubt Aardsma figures it out. Not that there’s anything wrong with picking up a couple loterry tickets if your Z.
Everyone doubts Aardsma figures it out in the sense that we all realize it’s less than a 50% chance that he finds the fountain of magic command and shows up at camp throwing darts. So, that kind of statement isn’t particularly useful. Everyone agrees that it’s not a high percentage gamble.
The point is, though, that the potential reward is worth taking the gamble, because the times that it does pay off will far outweigh the costs when it doesn’t.
I had the same reaction (apart from the temptation to post about it) that Dave had when I read the Red Sox had DFA’s Aardsma. I like that they made the deal rather than wait for him to become a free agent and sign with the A’s or Angels or Rangers. I like that Z is trading with the Mets and Red Sox and not just the damn Padres and Indians all the time. I like giving Wakamatsu a lot of options in terms of bullpen construction. Aardsma may never pitch an inning for the Mariners, but the move improves the team because it is a sensible one.
Psst. Zduriencik. Over here. (whispering) Just in case you are scouring this site….
Nick Swisher. Good thing. Goody good.
You can never be too rich, too thin, use too much garlic or have too much pitching, even if it’s bullpen pitching. (See 1998 Seattle Mariners.) Back in the mid-90s the M’s were trading away their farm system one player at a time trying to push themselves over the top. When we came down off the high, Woody Woodward (I can’t believe I said that) starting stockpiling young outfielders. We had so many we had to stuff them down in Tacoma. THEN he started trading those young outfielders for young pitchers. This was the origin of the “good young arms” of the early 2000s. Now the outcome of that is another discussion entirely. But the approach can’t be faulted. Methinks Z-man is taking the same approach here. Remember the post about Bavasi gutting the outfield defense to shore up the bullpen? Well, now we are stockpiling the bullpen (for free!!!) so we can later address….just about anything we want to address.
I have to think that the M’s will trade away some pitchers before April.
I’m looking forward to seeing what comes back in return.
I bet we’ll see Heilman on the move now. Hopefully it’s in some kind of crappy package to net someone whose name starts with an S and ends in a WISHER.
“You should probably just have your first name legally changed to D.A, at this point.”
Ha! I’ll consider it, Dave.
“No matter how well he pitched, he wasn’t going to rack up a lot of wins for his team in that kind of playing time. ”
If someone pitches well, they get more wins than 0.1 – this is a truism, but it’s worth remembering. Adam Russell of the White Sox picked up 0.2 last year in 20 someodd innings. I point this out because I have no idea who Adam Russell is. Good ol’ Kam Mickolio now has 0.2 from his not-quite 8IP cup of coffee. Cesar Jimenez grabbed 0.6 last year in a bit over 34 innings. 0.1 is awful if you’ve been around as long as Aardsma.
“Top shelf stuff and strikeout rates”
He’s got a great K rate, that’s undeniable, and it makes it hard to argue against this kind of acquisition (but still I soldier on). Still, did you know that his swinging strike rate is virtually the same as… Cesar Jimenez’s?
“You can’t point to him as a reason for why this wasn’t worth doing, because he was clearly a huge success for Washington using this exact template.”
This is a great point; Hanrahan hadn’t really shown evidence that he could be useful either. But I think I’d be on board in getting a guy with top-shelf stuff who’s been stuck in one org as a starter. Putz went from org filler to death on a stick when he moved to the pen (and got a splitter, sure). Hanrahan’s now done the same (in his first year of relieving).
“The GB rate increase is probably just noise. It wasn’t huge anyway. ”
Oh. Awesome.
I guess while I *understand* the sentiment that wabbles mentions (ie. you can never have enough pitching – no matter who it is), I just wonder where it ends. How many is too many – I guess the 40 man is full now, but if it wasn’t… should we go trade for Craig Hansen?
It’s a low-risk move, and it *could* work out. But we gave up an interesting lefty for an outside chance to improve on what, oh, Shawn Kelley or Randy Messenger could provide. I understand you think he’s a better bet than his stats would tend to indicate – and that makes me feel a lot better about this. I’d still just like a plausible way forward for him other than “maybe he’ll figure some stuff out.”
I repeat myself, but I can’t figure out why anyone would think it was a good idea to send Heilman back to New York.
0.1 is awful if you’ve been around as long as Aardsma.
The distribution of the value also makes it misleading for the conclusion you’re trying to support. He got -0.3 wins for his 10 IP in 2004 when he clearly wasn’t ready for the majors. From 2006 to 2008, he’s accumulated .4 wins.
Still, did you know that his swinging strike rate is virtually the same as… Cesar Jimenez’s?
And it’s higher than J.P. Howell’s, B.J. Ryan’s, Jon Rauch’s, Billy Wagner’s, and a bunch of other good pitchers. This doesn’t really teach us much.
But I think I’d be on board in getting a guy with top-shelf stuff who’s been stuck in one org as a starter.
Those guys don’t get DFA’d.
It’s a low-risk move, and it *could* work out. But we gave up an interesting lefty for an outside chance to improve on what, oh, Shawn Kelley or Randy Messenger could provide.
I fail to see how Fabian Williamson is interesting, but David Aardsma is worthless. If major league relievers with great strikeouts rates aren’t valuable, then why on earth would you be concerned with losing a guy who might become David Aardsma if everything goes right?
I’d still just like a plausible way forward for him other than “maybe he’ll figure some stuff out.â€
CHONE projects him for 63 IP with a 4.28 FIP. He doesn’t have to figure it out to be useful.
“From 2006 to 2008, he’s accumulated .4 wins.”
Again, in 130 IP for three teams in three years, he’s slightly behind what Cesar Jimenez did in the pen last year. You think this is exculpatory? His results have been terrible. We can cut a year off here, or just use pRAA/tRA, whatever – they all point to a guy at or near replacement level. Your point of course isn’t that he’s BEEN good, just that he might be, but I think it’s important to point out that he’s had a number of chances and he’s pitched pretty poorly overall.
“Those guys don’t get DFA’d.”
These guys are everywhere. Hanrahan, the guy we were talking about, was a minor league free agent. He was too ‘freely available’ to necessitate a DFA!
Hell, the Blue Jays have made this a cottage industry. Scott Downs, Brian Tallet, Jason Frasor (OK, he was converted by LA, but still). Then they’ve got their own guys that they converted to the pen like Brandon League.
Edwar Ramirez was released by the Angels and was converted to the ‘pen by a wise indie league team. Dennis Sarfate’s another (not freely avail. when he went from Houston to Baltimore, but he was traded for a couple of bucks from Mil. to Hou.).
“I fail to see how Fabian Williamson is interesting, but David Aardsma is worthless. ”
It’s true. It does seem odd, and my bias is showing here. Still, a teenage lefty with a great K rate… yes, the odds are long for a guy like Williamson, but I don’t think we can say his ceiling’s Aardsma yet. We made a trade for a guy who was DFA’d. What leverage does Boston have here?
And if teenage lefties with K rates over 11/9ip as a starter are so uninteresting, again, should we trade more of them for Craig Hansen when he gets cut? Robinson Tejeda was waived last year (and he throws as hard as Aardsma!)… what would you give up for him? CHONE forecasts Tejeda for a FIP of 3.78.
His name is Fabian? Fabian? This is baseball, not a renaissance fair. He had to go. Shame on the old guard (ye olde guarde?) for even drafting him.
Come on Marc, change it to D.A., it’s the best fit when all you want to see is the worst of every trade, every comparison, every possibility.
“Come on Marc, change it to D.A., it’s the best fit when all you want to see is the worst of every trade, every comparison, every possibility.”
Thanks for your input! Two votes for a change then.
Now, do you have anything remotely interesting to add to this discussion?
Again, in 130 IP for three teams in three years, he’s slightly behind what Cesar Jimenez did in the pen last year.
Cesar Jimenez’s performance last year was fine. I’m not sure why you keep using it as a derogatory tool.
These guys are everywhere.
Name a few current struggling starters who throw 94+ and have three pitches who you think are something like freely available. Your past examples aren’t even good – Jason Frasor was traded for Jayson Werth, for example. Not exactly the kind of deal we want to be repeating.
Still, a teenage lefty with a great K rate… yes, the odds are long for a guy like Williamson, but I don’t think we can say his ceiling’s Aardsma yet. We made a trade for a guy who was DFA’d. What leverage does Boston have here?
I still have no idea why you care about pitcher age so much. That Williamson is 19 and Aardsma is 27 doesn’t really matter, in reality. To you, it does.
And DFA’d players can still command value in trade. Milton Bradley was DFA’d and traded for Franklin Gutierrez. DFA’d doesn’t mean released.
Robinson Tejeda was waived last year (and he throws as hard as Aardsma!)… what would you give up for him? CHONE forecasts Tejeda for a FIP of 3.78.
Again, you realize that Tejeda is a data point in favor of Aardsma, right? Terrible in ’07, stuff guy with no command and bad results, took a big step forward in ’08 and was a pretty solid pitcher.
While this move makes sense from a risk-reward perspective, I really am not looking forward to watching Aardsma try to figure it out.
I still suffer from Matt Thornton related nightmares.
(thanks for the discussion Dave)
“Cesar Jimenez’s performance last year was fine. I’m not sure why you keep using it as a derogatory tool. ”
OK, great. I just thought I was the last fan of the guy; for some reason I thought you still thought he was garbage. I’d still argue that 100+ innings to generate 0.4 wins or whatever MEANS replacement level. John Parrish got that in the year he played for the M’s/Orioles. Parrish has been a much, much better pitcher.
“I still have no idea why you care about pitcher age so much. ”
Interesting. Is looking at ARL for pitchers deceiving or just plain old-school? I’m not being argumentative, I just want to know.
“Again, you realize that Tejeda is a data point in favor of Aardsma, right?”
That’s not how I see it. Tejeda was freely available (not nearly freely available) and is a perfect example of the kind of guy you said isn’t available: a failed starter capable of throwing 94. His command got better when he was converted to a reliever – this happens all the time. He’ll be better than Aardsma next year. I’m saying if you want to find a great buy-low candidate, why is Aardsma better than guys like Tejeda?
The Nats may have another in Daniel Cabrera (he’d probably be much better in the pen).
Wil Ledezma is another decent candidate (CHONE projection of 3.73 FIP), though he’d probably throw maybe 93 as a full-time reliever.
Jason Frasor was the PTBNL in a deal for Hiram Bocachica – THAT’S the deal I’m talking about, because it was the LAD who converted him to relieving. It’s the same deal with Sarfate; you can argue he wasn’t freely available because he was in the Tejada trade, but he was freely available before that.
It’s tough to argue with picking up Aardsma. Just the fact that the team is focused on the margins, filling in cracks, and nabbing value when it’s available, is heartening. [ot]
With Thornton there’s also the possibility that Don Cooper really did see something he thought he could fix.
[ot]
While this move makes sense from a risk-reward perspective, I really am not looking forward to watching Aardsma try to figure it out.
My sentiments exactly. Intellectually, I know the guy out of the bullpen in the sixth when you’re down three runs doesn’t matter that much, but it’s still incredibly frustrating when he compounds the problem by walking the park.
Interesting. Is looking at ARL for pitchers deceiving or just plain old-school? I’m not being argumentative, I just want to know.
Age/Level is useful for hitters. For pitchers, it doesn’t really matter – getting a hitter out is much more about what you can throw. Pitchers don’t develop physically the same way hitters do.
Tejeda was freely available (not nearly freely available) and is a perfect example of the kind of guy you said isn’t available: a failed starter capable of throwing 94.
Okay, right, he’s one example. They’re rare. And, for what it’s worth, I’d have said good things if the M’s had claimed Tejeda on waivers last year too. Adding good stuff arms for free is a good idea.
The Nats may have another in Daniel Cabrera (he’d probably be much better in the pen).
He signed for $3 million. He’s not freely available.
Jason Frasor was the PTBNL in a deal for Hiram Bocachica – THAT’S the deal I’m talking about, because it was the LAD who converted him to relieving.
He was a high-A ball who had missed the previous season thanks to TJ surgery. He then spent another year in the minors before making the show. Not exactly the same thing here.
Also, maybe this will help you:
Aardsma, before going on DL last year:
39 IP, 25 BB, 41 K, 1 HR, 3.51 FIP
Aardsma, between DL stints
9 2/3 IP, 10 BB, 8 K, 3 HR, 9.67 FIP
Groin injuries are notorious for ruining pitchers, and Aardsma spent most of the second half on the DL last year and trying to pitch through it. Before the injury, he was pretty good. So, it’s not all just hoping for a miracle.
I’m so confused by this statement. Given their relative amounts of experience, isn’t it far more likely that Williamson is going to ‘figure it out’? Aardsma’s been tinkered with by 4 different major league pitching coaches. Williamson is wrapping up puberty. Obviously potential outweighs age, but I don’t see how you can dismiss age altogether, especially as it relates to experience (and physical development).
[off-topic]
Aardsma will like Safeco a lot better than Fenway. Homeruns or doubles over or off the wall in Boston are easy outs in Seattle, especially with Endy Chavez in left. He could have a big boost in his gross numbers from park effects alone. Add in some confidence that throwing strikes won’t result in neck strain and his K/BB ratio may improve as well.
“Okay, right, he’s one example. They’re rare.”
That’s true, but I’d bet there are far more in the minors. Francisco Cruceta, Stephen Marek, etc.
“Pitchers don’t develop physically the same way hitters do.”
To echo Alaskan’s question… you’re saying that an 18 year old putting up great K/BB rates or whatever in AAA is the same as a 32 year old with the same line? I know that’s more extreme, but you’re saying we just ditch ARL with pitchers?
“Also, maybe this will help you”
Thanks for your faith that I’m not beyond help. And yes, that IS interesting, esp. as I remember something similar happening in his white sox season (he annihilated the league in April, then got lit up when his velo dropped later on).
If pitcher age doesn’t matter then why do we keep referring to Felix’s age as a strength? I’m not disagreeing, just wondering.
Dave, I know this is under the wrong thread, but [wrong thread]
Kind of jumping in here without reading all of the posts, but here goes:
It seems to me there is a dispute about whether Aardsma’s age is a limiting factor on his future potential. First of all, there is a big difference between the aging of starters versus relievers. Just look at an example like JJ Putz, who didn’t put up a good season until 2006, when he was 28 or 29.
The point here is that a relievers age does not mean as much as a starters age. RPs can become dominant in their late 20s when a starter would be all but given up on.
Basically though, this is a low risk, medium-low reward thing that might keep a lesser guy out of the bullpen (Sean White).
Dave and marc w: Thanks for the good discussion on the relative merits of Aardsma and the kind of guys who are available around the league. I is lernung sumfing!
That’s true, but I’d bet there are far more in the minors. Francisco Cruceta, Stephen Marek, etc.
There’s issues with Cruceta.
Not sure why you’d think Marek is freely available, by the way. The Braves got him for Teixeira and just put him on their 40 man to keep him from the Rule 5 draft.
you’re saying that an 18 year old putting up great K/BB rates or whatever in AAA is the same as a 32 year old with the same line?
No, of course not. What I am saying is that there isn’t a standard aging curve for pitchers like there is with hitters. They don’t grow until they’re 27, then begin a decline. Just because Williamson had success in rookie ball at 19 doesn’t mean he’s going to have success in the majors at 23.
Thanks for your faith that I’m not beyond help.
You’re a smart guy – everyone knows that.
What I am saying is that there isn’t a standard aging curve for pitchers like there is with hitters. They don’t grow until they’re 27, then begin a decline.
Well, there is certainly some sort of typical pattern for pitchers, at least on the decline side. I find “fairly irrelevant” a bit strong, but maybe in more detail, how would you describe the significance of age for pitchers? Is pitcher development more stairstep than gradual? Subject to greater risk, either of missing the step on the frontside or collapsing on the backside? More a question of skill mastery than physical maturity?
OOps, I thought Marek had been an MiLB free agent. Think I must’ve been thinking about that power reliever the Angels had for years, and then moved to the Rays bucket of fungible high-K relievers. What was his name?
Cruceta…yeah, fair point. Plenty of baggage, but he’s been a high-K starter who’d probably be a half-decent bet as a power reliever. If you’re a MiLB free agent, you’ve got issues.
On the pitcher aging thing, this seems like a really interesting/important topic. It’s not like I’m the only one here having trouble fully understanding your point here, so it might be nice as its own post.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that pitcher aging curves don’t line up with hitter curves; they may not be curves at all. Sure. But lefty starters who miss bats are a good thing, right? Does it matter at all that Williamson had less experience than the average hitter he faced? Or put another way, what could Williamson have done in order to be less forgettable?
Dave,
Normally I agree with you.
However, I too am having difficulty understanding this trade…albeit I am not in complete agreement with marc either.
Normally I agree with you that trading a low A – rookie level prospect who may never get above AA because he does not yet have the dominating stuff to get out MLB hitters, for a guy who has pitched in the majors for 3 years and has shown glimpses of being a dominating reliever is definitely worth the risk…just not this year.
The M’s have a bunch of guys already who have performed at the MLB level with similar success.
I will grant you that Aardsma probably has a higher ceiling than most of these guys, however Aardsma is also out of options. Thus, he will need to perform quick, or he could be gone quick.
OR worse yet, he performs at a similar level as he has always done, and we end up cutting him after we already lost another pitcher with potential, OR traded away Heilman because we needed to clear a spot.
I know you trust Z, and feel he is doing everything right…maybe I just need to see some results before I can make that leap, or get behind this trade.
Now THAT is a good question. Every time someone talks about how good Felix is, and then follows it up with “…and he’s only 22!” (or whatever), I wonder to myself, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
I think the reason Felix’s age is referred to as a strength is because pretty much no one else has–at a similar age–experienced the success he’s had in the majors. Not a lot of pitchers produce an above-average number of wins at 19.
Milendriel,
You should not have said that.
Why shouldn’t she? His FanGraphs page shows clearly that Felix el Rey was worth 2.6 wins in the majors at the age of 19, which is inarguably above average for a 19-year-old; what’s wrong with pointing that out?
CCW, his youth isn’t relevant because it means he’s inevitably going to get a lot better — it doesn’t, because pitchers don’t follow the same development curves as hitters do, which I think is the nub of Dave’s point. It is, however, relevant in that it means that a) he’ll obviously have more time in which to get a lot better, and b) as long as the organization doesn’t kill his arm, he should be doing this for a very long time.
Does anyone have a velocity check on Fabian Williamson? Last I heard he was only hitting ~88-89 mph with his fastball. I don’t really care about someone who can miss bats in Pulaski if he doesn’t have major-league stuff, and will always feel just fine about giving up a pitcher who doesn’t have present major league stuff in exchange for one who does.
This seems to back up your point:
Sorry, I meant to include the following:
http://www.soxprospects.com has a scouting report on him that confirms his velo tops out in the high 80s.
What I’ve seen has him in the mid-80s, comparing him to Bobby Livingston; but there’s always the chance that he fills out and throws harder as he matures.
there’s always the chance that he fills out and throws harder as he matures
No, there isn’t, haven’t you been paying attention, age is irrelevant for pitchers (just kidding). Seriously, though, I would love to see a more detailed look at this in the context of pitcher development. On the one hand there are guys who can throw 95-100 mph already at 18, and then there are 18-year-olds currently throwing say 92 that people will claim could get up there as they develop. Does this really happen? When it does, how much of it is physical maturity and how much of it is something else, like improved mechanics?
Mike: because just as a young guy like that can add a few feet to his fastball and essentially have a new pitch (though how often that happens, I don’t know), so a guy like Mike Scott or J. J. Putz can always learn a new pitch and go all Cy Young on you. It’s not that age is irrelevant, but that the curves that work for hitters don’t apply to pitchers.
Young pitchers don’t automatically gain velocity as they get older. A lot of people have just the opposite happen: they throw out their arm and never repeat the radar gun readings they were getting as a teenager. It happens, but it’s not something that you can bank on to a degree that the possibility enhances Williamson’s prospect status.
Barring an unforeseen development (new pitch, crazy jump in fastball velo, etc…), Fabian Williamson is organizational filler with a very, very slim chance to be more.
Which is why dealing him for Aardsma was a great move.