Also, I think Gallardo should be in the above average category. His minor league track record combined with his 110 major league innings of 122 ERA+ pitching puts him basically in the same mold as a Billingsley.

Peavy, Webb, and Oswald make three.

2 - I don't find that distinction particularly relevant, since atrociously awful pitchers usually get pulled from the rotation. If you have a bad staff, then you won't be able to do that as much, but then, you already have a bad staff.

3 - Because no team goes through the season using only five starting pitchers. The fact that some teams have more options is relevant to a starting rotation's success. If they have more than five pitchers with above-average potential, that's relevant.

You wouldn't have any of the Nats' youngest pitchers as up and coming, or better than below average? Maybe not..

Anyway, this is useful.

Anyway, like I said above, giving Kuo a point pretty much balances it all out. To put a finer point on it, you could say I gave each of them half a point.

And you may have missed my recap in that thread but Jamie Moyer needs to be in the Phils rotation instead of Lieber, and at this point he (the Ancient Mariner) is either a 1.5 or so if you are a young whippersnapper or a 2+ if you are 40 or over, right? :)

21 - You're assuming that your choice for the Mets front four will make 32 starts each. I'm not.

It comes down to this: the Mets get points for having a number of candidates to be above-average starters, most of whom are not virtual locks to be above-average. The double-counting you're worried about is already reduced by me knocking them all down from three or two points to 1.

I'll add in Moyer.

Has someone emailed it to Colletti? I know he doesn't read blogs, so email it as a contribution from an up-and-coming journalist moonlighting for the Daily News.

"Here's the concern -- in our society now, so many things come up on Web sites and Internet," Edwards said. "First of all, I don't even have the Internet. I wouldn't even know how to use it."

At least we're not dealing with that.

Carlos Carrasco of the Phillies has already pitched half a season in AA at age 20, so maybe he should be listed. MiLB.com rates him the 28th best prospect in baseball, saying that "even if he spends all season in the Minors, we're still looking at a 22-year old ready to be the Phillies' No. 2 starter in 2009." Given their nonexistent rotation, I expect he'll get there in mid-2008.

Anyways, I think Brett Myers and Aaron Harang might be rated too high, and I think Oliver Perez might be rated too low.

Looking at those pitchers, why do you thing their ratings should change?

Harang is awesome.

2005: 6.93 k/9ip ERA+ 112 211IP
2006: 8.30 k/9ip ERA+ 124 234IP
2007: 8.47 k/9ip ERA+ 125 231IP

You can't get any more workhorse than that. He has been severely underrated.

37 I like Myers a lot, but he melted down in the Philly rotation last year and was an adventure in the bullpen. Perez was little rough in 05-06, but I think his performance last year merits average-to-above-average status.

But you enjoy all those "up-and-coming" pitchers the Dodgers have at the moment. Just let me know when your team ever has four starter slots filled by pitchers they drafted like the 07-08 Phils, whose "up-and-comers" have already come up!

2005 (A ball): 125 2/3 IP, 166K, 39BB, 4.08 ERA
2006 (AA): 31 IP, 46K, 9BB, 1.16 ERA
(AAA): 24 IP, 28K, 13BB, 3.75 ERA
2007 (AAA) 20 2/3 IP 27K, 8BB, 2.18 ERA

scout.com says this about him:

Without a doubt, the candidate for the 5th spot in the rotation with the highest ceiling is 24-year old left hander Jonathan Sanchez, who in 250+ minor league innings, has struck out nearly 12 batters per 9 innings while allowing just over 7 hits. He began the year in the pen, but made four starts in September, struggling badly in his final two. Overall as a starter, he went 0-3 with a 7.16 ERA and a .353 BAA, although one bright spot was only 5 walks in 16.1 innings after walking nearly 6 per 9 IP in relief. He was relatively strong in his first two starts, though he will get a long look next spring unless his high potential finds him included in a deal for a hitter this winter.

so, um, i'd probably put him in the "up-and-coming" category.

sorry 'bout that.

NL ten years ago, pitchers that would be SAA, off the top of my head: Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, Curt Schilling, John Smoltz, probably Hideo Nomo, Kevin Brown (yecch!), Tom Glavine... well, most of them were pitching for the Braves but it seems like there were more back then.

Great research, folks, and a great list.

1. If Haren is available w/o giving up Kemp, he's the only pitcher we should go after. If we can build a deal around Kershaw and Ethier, this is important not just for this year, but the next three years. If Kershaw can be as good as Haren in a few years, we would all be happy with that result. This is not like trading for Johan which would cost us 20-25 mil a year. Haren with his current contract is in essence a young pitcher that has become an ace, but yet is cheaper than the going rate for a #5 pitcher. Getting Haren would also allow us to let Lowe go and take the draft picks. I rather have Haren and the two draft picks than Kershaw, Ethier and Dejesus Jr.

2. If Beane refuses to give up Haren w/o Kemp, then we hold tight and see if Pierre can be dealt w/o eating up any salary. We don't need to waste 30-40 mil on Kuroda who is an unknown. See if we can sign a Livan or Lieber for a one year contract with option similar to Wolf last year and have him battle Loaiza for that fifth spot.

I, for one, would not. Kershaw is the best LHP prospect in baseball in the last 25 years, probably. I hope that he will turn into a considerably better pitcher than Haren (a slightly above average pitcher who even in his career year was not among the 8 pitchers receiving Cy Young votes).

Stop it. He doesn't exist.

yeah, i'm excited about kershaw and all, but still, that's nothing to sniff at.

If that can translate to a guarantee that Kershaw would become the best LHP in baseball in 3 years, then great let's keep him. But pitching prospects aren't as predictable for a variety of reasons. If there is an ace available, that has already arrived and is in control for the next three years, then why not take the sure thing?

I just think this is one of those rare situations where another flashier ace (Santana) is taking most of the bidding, while Haren considerably cheaper contract is flying under the radar. It seems like only Arizona is trying to go all out to get him. I would of felt the same if we didn't need Kemp's bat more than another ace.

Also, if we don't get Haren, we would need to decide whether to resign Lowe for 18 mil a year in 2009 after Johan sets the market.

I trust our scouting dept to draft other solid pitching prospects in the future, but I don't think we'll have many opportunities to trade for a #1 pitcher making 3 yrs 6 mil a year.

Yes, that's true. My problem is that I don't think Haren's a Santana-like ace. He's a good pitcher, no doubt about it. But he just had a year which may or may not be repeatable. And I'm not sure I like the idea of my GM, who's arguably in over his head anyway, trying to broker a deal with Billy Beane.

oh, that one's easy to solve. we don't.

heck, if johan hasn't signed an extension, we could just sign him then. or some other free agent ace. or if our prospects pan out, we won't need to.

i don't think ANYBODY is "santana-like". who's got anywhere NEAR the track record that santana has over the past 5-6 years? maybe peavy over the past 4 years or so is in that league... but that's about it. santana is a once in a generation, pedro- or clemens-level ace, i think.

Haren has improved his K/BB ratio every year for the last three years and has shown durability during that time. Yes, Santana is still the better pitcher, but when you put Haren against the other three stars in the NL (Peavy, Oswalt, Webb), I feel that he fits right in. But the thing that stands out about Haren is that he is getting paid 6 mil a year for the next 3 years. I might be wrong, but I think Tomko is getting paid more.

If you're really concerned that Haren can't keep improving or maintain his level of pitching, don't you have to feel that there's a better chance of Haren succeeding than Kershaw who hasn't pitched at the ML level yet?

While I could pick nits all day with this list (Dumatrait listed as up and coming for example) it does a very good job with the point I've been trying to make for a while: the Dodgers rotation is very well setup for the next year, and saying we need to replace E-Lo is just getting greedy. Thanks for doing the work here, Jon.

I'm in the boat of having Schmidt at least be a mystery pitcher. There's a reason that most of us were pretty pleased by his signing last offseason - he's a quality pitcher when healthy. I think we can throw last year's stats out the window since Schmidt never threw at full strength. If he comes back healthy, I figure he'll put up something like a 4.20 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, and about 7.5 K/9. The uncertainty of his health is the only thing keeping him from getting a 2 in my book.

As for the statement that Kuo is "above-average" when healthy...have you seen his 7.42 ERA from last year? At this point in his career he still has more upside than Schmidt, but taking everything into account I'd still have Schmidt higher on any sort of ranking.

Yeah, we all know how that turned out last time ...

I am significantly more wary everytime I hear rumor of him talking with Tampa.

(Your point is well taken, but he should get some credit for getting Ethier)

With Houlton and Stults in Vegas should be Justin Orenduff, McDonald, and probably Chan-Ho Park since he signed a minor league deal with us. Mike Megrew and Greg Miller might also be in Vegas. And didn't Colletti just say something about Meloan being used in Vegas as a starter if he doesn't make the big team?

Kershaw will almost certainly start at Jacksonville, and I doubt the Dodgers would send McDonald to Las Vegas, Elbert might start of at lower levels to ease him back and build up his arm strength but he'll probably get called up quickly. A Kershaw - McDonald - Elbert rotation has a lot of chance of happening next year for the Suns.

It's possible that the Suns will have a better rotation than the Nationals for a part of 2008.

The reason I think McDonald will start at AA is because in 2004 Billingsley made 8 starts in Jacksonville and posted very good numbers but he was kept in Jacksonville the next year.

Of course Bilingsley was much younger than McDonald is now so you're probably right Canuck.

But as a Suns fan a Kershaw-McDonald-Elbert rotation would be awesome.

That seems a bit harsh.

I think the Brewers are pretty well setup with young pitching. Too bad they didn't have the money for Santana, because that would have been fun to see him there (not as fun as if he were a Dodger, though!). I expect Villaneuva, Gallardo, and Parra to be with the Brewers along time.

1 point: mystery pitcher - wildly inconsistent pitcher or above-average recent track record but with dubious health

i also dont get the