The Ryan Howard theory to support keeping the kids down

by JJ on Mar 5, 2008 10:44 PM EST

I don't know if I fully believe this, but I can see some merit. A few years ago, Ryan Howard was one of the hottest minor league prospects. The Phillies kept him in the minors an extra year and a half - he was 26 in his first full major league season. I think their philosophy with him (other than having Jim Thome blocking him) was that they would have more years of Howard's prime by keeping him in the minors.

Fast forward to our situation. With the number of highly-regarded minor-league prospects we have, keeping them down 1/2 a season longer will control costs and allow the Reds to control them during more of their 'peak' years. With the arbitration salaries spinning out of control (see Howard = $10M!!!), it becomes even more important to have guys for as much of their peak years as possible.

Howard was the one I thought of with a team keeping a top minor leaguer down - are there any other examples anyone can think of? Is it worth keeping a guy down a half or full season to be able to have him for more of his prime?

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

it works both ways

Sure, they control him for 6 years in his prime, but its year 4 now and he is making 10 million dollars and likely to get raises next year and the next year too.

The only reason they kept him down was Thome, I don't think there was much more to it than that.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 11:40 PM EST reply actions

Yeah

Philly signed Thome to have a marketable star when they opened up the new park in '03. At that point, Howard had just finished his second pro year. He was promising but far from a sure thing. Heck, Stephen A. Smith didn't even know Howard was black until the following year. Once Howard really started raking it became apparent that either he'd have to play LF or the team would have to deal Thome. Howard didn't take to the outfield, so they traded Thome (and ate a lot of money in the process). The Reds don't have the same problem with Bruce because CF should be open.

FWIW, there is some speculation that Howard won his arb case because the Phillies kept him down for so long, shortening his earnings stream in the process.

by ken on Mar 6, 2008 9:08 AM EST up reply actions

Keeping Bruce down

Well I can tell you that Freel, Hopper and Patterson are certainly not Jim Thome. Bruce needs to be playing everyday.

by redacolyte on Mar 6, 2008 9:16 AM EST reply actions

Keeping Bruce down....

isn't racist, is it?

"I guess I picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue!"- Lloyd Bridges

by Lonesome George on Mar 6, 2008 9:21 AM EST reply actions

The way I see it,

it's somewhat similar to redshirting in college. You trade a player's worst year for his best. In this case, it also has financial benefits. It doesn't bother me a bit.

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Mar 6, 2008 9:27 AM EST reply actions

yes and no

while you are likely trading his best for his worst, you may also be trading your 3rd best player for your 9th or 10th or 11th.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 6, 2008 12:01 PM EST up reply actions

Speaking of Howard

How about this article by a Phillies beat writer?

Phillies show striking out not all that bad

"You ground out. You fly out. You strike out. An out is an out," Howard said. "People want to glorify what they want to glorify. If hitting into double plays were a big thing, then people would make them a big thing."

Seriously, a beat writer contributed this sanity.

by Red Menace on Mar 6, 2008 6:54 PM EST reply actions

Zolecki is one of the good ones

He does a nice job of covering the team and games while also introducing more saber-ish topics. I'm pretty sure he's referenced BPro before. He's also a prolific blogger.

by ken on Mar 7, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions

also from Sanityland

Hillman wants leadoff hitter to be on base as often as possible

"I always set high, lofty OBPs for leadoff hitters and No. 2s. I'd like to go between .370 and .380--that's high. It's really high," Hillman said. "But if you have the ability to take as many walks as you can get, it sure does help. I think he can get there, if not to .370 or .380, then hopefully .365 to .370."

by Red Menace on Mar 8, 2008 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

thats fine and dandy

but walking's not the name of the game, man. The name of the game is to hit. Do you ever hear anyone talk about, 'He had 125 walks last season'? No, but you hear people say, 'He had 200 hits.' Walking's fine and dandy, but not everyone can go up there and take a walk. A lot of times guys get so much into on-base percentage that they cease to swing. It's becoming a little bit out of control.

Marty may have a shirt on, but Billy Beane just ripped his off and is squeezing his nipples. - Brendan's ukkah

by boobs on Mar 8, 2008 8:59 PM EST up reply actions

I've been meaning to say this

Every time you read a Dusty quote about OBP, replace on-base percentage with [not making outs]. It's tragically hilarious.

[Not making outs] is great if you can score runs and do something with that [not making outs]

Sometimes, you get so caught up in [not making outs] that you're clogging up the bases.

[Not making outs], that's fine and dandy. But...

by Red Menace on Mar 8, 2008 10:53 PM EST up reply actions

One would think

the man would have learned something from his own career. In his 19-year run, his OBP was .347. His career high in walks was 72 (531 AB). As you might guess from this, only once did he score more than 86 runs (and on some good Dodgers teams too!) I guess he still hasn't made the connection.

by ctnyc on Mar 9, 2008 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions

To me, it depends

If you think your time is now, and there isn't a player as good or better already at the position, I think you go ahead and call the player up. The Phillies were a good team at the time, but Thome was already there, and I think all else being equal, you go with the player you know.

If you don't think you're in a position to win, or if the player already there is better, there's no harm in keeping the guy in the minors at least for a while. This is where I think the Reds are with Bruce.

-For all of the hype, the various projection systems have him as league-average this year. His ZiPS projection, for example, anticipates a .793 OPS; EdE's was .794 last year. Any of the three main guys who're competing with him for the CF job are likely to not hit as well, but their defense and baserunning should make up the difference.

-He's still only had 250 PAs above class A, still shows poor plate discipline, and will be 21 when the season starts. A little more time in the minors probably will help, especially if his time in Cinci would include a bench time.

-If he has a breakout year, the Reds would have a chance to win the division; however, I don't see any way in h-e-double-hockey-sticks they can compete with Philly or the Mets and get to the World Series, let alone win it against any of the playoff caliber teams from the AL, even if everything goes perfectly.

With the amount of money flying around MLB these days, a team would be stupid to base their decision on the arb clock. But a guy with that much potential who isn't quite there yet, playing for a team that isn't quite there yet, is probably best served playing every day in the minors at least for a while (unless he hits the cover off the ball in ST and/or none of the others show anything at all).

just....wow.

by sidnancy on Mar 7, 2008 11:01 AM EST reply actions