TimeForGuinness wrote:Momo wrote:"Personnel dependent" is probably the correct way to view it. If you have a sterling rotation 1-5, you're not going to try bullpen shenanigans.
I still wonder though if that's what any clubs will target their personnel acquisitions towards, rather than looking to set up a traditional 1-5 rotation.
Yup, I definitely get it...I guess my point is you still have to pay for strikes. No matter how you slice it, it still costs roughly the same money. Whether you want to split those strikes between 1 or 2 guys, it still costs. There's an added benefit of keeping the opposing lineup off balance is a bonus, but that comes at a cost of additional volatility.
It's a narrow path to for an organization to walk...I'll be really interested in the outcome either way.
I guess for now maybe it's one of those cost efficiency things?
At the moment, maybe if you can find the Andrew Millers, Mike Minors or even (pre-Cardinals) Brett Cecils early on, you might be getting a useful BP option where you obtain "strikes" for slightly cheaper than chasing the market standard of a traditional, great starter (or even cheaper than chasing the market standard for dominant closers!). But yeah, eventually though, like anything in baseball, if people figure out how to transform middling SPs into dominant RPs and shift rotation usage further down, the market will shift and they'll become super expensive too.
I suppose it's also about figuring out how to utilize your own sunk costs to an extent. Going back to the Dodgers example, you've got a team that's already significantly invested in Maeda and Ryu. Obviously they could afford to replace either or even both if they had to, but if you've got them, and you know how to maximize their value, you're going to try it. It's not something that everyone could replicate though for sure.
