Wow, Mike Hampton is still pitching? Is he still on the Florida Marlins payroll, too?

Also, I applaud the use of "coincidentally" in the Who Pitched Well section. Had Michael Kay (or pretty much anyone else in journalism) been writing that section, we'd definitely see an "ironically" there.

No good can come of Angel Berroa hitting well during Spring Training. Nothing.

Same goes for Brett Tomko

Agreed, Matt.

mehmattski, Hampton's Rockies contract finally expired at the end of last year, but I'm not sure "still pitching" is the right way to describe it. He's the NL's Pavano. It's more like, "Mike Hampton is piching again?"

[1][4] Yes, my thoughts exactly! Wasn't Hapmton the "the schools are good in Denver, that's why I signed there for $130million" guy?" I would never wish injury on ANYONE, but that was one of the stupidest comments have ever heard..

I wonder what would have happened if Hampton went the Ankiel route back-aways in his career.

[6] You mean the control issues or the injection route?

Hampton's deal vs. Barry Zito, which was worse? at least Zito gives you innings..bad innings but still..

[7] I mean Hampton can hit pretty well "for a pitcher"--he slugged over .500 in his two seasons in Colorado, and he has four seasons of > 100 OPS+. Last season MLB pitchers "hit" .352 OPS, NL pitchers .354 OPS. Hampton's career is about .640 OPS.

I wonder what would have happened if he was converted to a full-time position player back when he was in his early 20s. Would he have been able to make the switch like Ankiel? Would his career have been less injury prone?

And overall, Hampton's career has been pretty good: 14 seasons and really only the last two have been very injury-filled. He has a good record and a very good ERA+. Of course he was not really worth his crazy contract, but who is?

So, he has had a fine career. But could it have been better if he was converted to, say, a LF?

[8] Ooops, I meant the last few seasons (2005 through 2008) were injury plagued.

[6] As for whose deal was worse? Hard to say until we see more of Zito's, but I think you're being a tad hard on Hampton--but just a tad. Here is what he did in his first four seasons, before the disastrous last four years (2005-2008)

Year, Inn, ERA+
2001, 203, 98
2002, 178, 78
2003, 190, 112
2004, 172, 101

The first two years are comparable to Zito's first two years since signing his big contract with SFG:

2007, 196, 98
2008, 180, 85

Let's see if Zito bounces back and puts up two good seasons, like Hampton. Let's also see if he ends up being more durable, or if he too suffers major injuries a few years into the contract.

[9] well, not awful but not what you want for those millions..it's Shocking that anyone would sign a pitcher to such a long-term deal..(and yes, that includes CC..)

If I was an owner I would instantly fire any GM who came to me with that Zito or Hampton deal

[11] and yes.. I love CC but not the length of the deal. But as always with the Yankees the money is not as big an issue.

Plus CC can (and I imagine will) opt out after the third year.

[12] I forgot the opt-out clause..let's hope he wins two rings and then splits for California before the injuries hit?? :)

[8] Forgot too about Hampton with the bat..being mostly an AL guy I don't watch too many NL games..

anyone follow the latest with Dontrelle Willis? talk about a contract you'd like to have a do-over on!

[13] People really drank the Dontrelle kool-aid. He had one great year. Other than that, the warning signs were all there: bad WHIP, bad delivery, declining ERA+, and 460 INN at age 23 and 24.

[14] 460 IP..yikes..stil only 27 but the end could be near.
going to check now, but didn't Fernando burn out round the same age??

[15] ah no, Fernando lasted much longer..didn't know he actually pitched until 1997! I remember my auntie giving me a Fernandomani t-shirt in 1982..not realizing he had just helped the Dodgers beat the Yankees in the WS (and making little me cry)..

[16] Plus, how old was Fernando, really, when he was the rookie sensation?Seriously, though, that dude put up some serious innings totals.

[16] Fernando pitched in the Mexican leagues fairly recently.

[17] 285 innings with 18 CG at (maybe) age 22?!? Was LaSorda on drugs??

[19] But he was only third or so in the league (still high for a youngster). It was a different era than. On the other hand, I am increasingly not convinced that the lower innings totals are the way to go, either. It seems to take forever to get a young stud (say like Joba) up to reasonable innings totals (which is now 200 INN). And there is still no guarantee, let alone evidence, that more pitchers are having longer, productive careers as a result.

Sure Lasorda flamed Fernando out, but he also got 100+ wins, 90+ CG, and 6 out of 7 100+ ERA+ seasons. Can you expect much more from any pitcher, or is longer term success pretty much luck of the draw? Would you rather have lots of complete games, or more games blown by the middle relief?

I am playing devil's advocate bit. I do actually think that more cautious pitch/innings totals probably help pitchers overall. But I also seriously wonder if the pendulum hasn't swung too far in the direction of "protecting" pitchers at the expense of building arm strength and durability at a younger age.

I'll also go one further: given the way free agency works and the high premium on pitching, if I were the GM/manager of just about any team not the Yankees, I would pitch the living fuck out of my young pitchers. Just like Milwaukee last year: why worry about how much mileage you put on CCs arm if you know he's gone next season?

This actually ties back to your comment above about never giving pitchers longterm contracts. If pitchers are such a risk, then why even worry about trying to extend their careers? Sign them to four year deals and the pitch the hell out of them.

[20] I actually agree! It does seem teams are over-cautious these days..

Without doing any reserach, I would guess that era was lower-scoring as well, meaning quicker inninngs..

wow, remember when St. Louis won in 1985 with Jack Clark as the "slugger"? i actually miss those days, teams had more than one speedster and there were not endless pitching changes..

[20] Oh, CC last year was fully on board going those innings..and he's a big guy who knows his body. I think young pitchers today, knowing the contracts they could sign when they hit FA, would refuse to throw those innings..

[21] OF course the 1980s Cardinals were a bit of a freak team. In 1985, Clark led the team with 22 HR...the team as a whole had 87. 87! And that was the third highest team total in the 1980s. They only topped 100 once (1980), and they had 58 (!!) in 1986. The next lowest NL team that year had 110.

[22] They wouldn't refuse, because they would be screwed. They would risk being benched sent back to the farm, which would lower their value. or they would get a bad reputation.

The reality is that young players have very little power, and unless you are talking about 300 INN, no one is going to complain. Dontrelle sure didn't object.

[23] Oh wow..87 for the WS champs (they beat KC fair & square if not for Denkinger..) Having grown up with late70s and 80s baseball, I remain enamored of the hit&run, artifiical turf, 30hrs-a-year "big boppers" and Willie McGee

[22] I don't know, if I was 22 years old and the manager wanted me to burn out my arm I would surely object..too many previous bad examples to point too, easily communicated by a good agent.

[25] Easier said than done. You're 22 y.o. and refuse Joe Torre's decision to run you out for the seventh or eighth inning? And if so, how do you expect to cash in on the big FA contract when you get the reputation of being lazy or rebellious, or when you simply get IPKed to the minors?

Your better bet is to pitch and sign the big contract, only to have your arm fall off at age 28. By then you can be counting your 130 million.

[26] "IPKed"..nice, we got to get a Banter glossary up soon.

counting the 130 million, that could be "to Zito"?

[24] [25] As much as I think we all would like to see pitchers pushed a little bit more, I don't think you can simply reverse course now and start throwing youngsters right into the fire. The players wouldn't have to "refuse" because the media, fans and other teams would all raise an eyebrow and criticize the move (and rightly so). Then, if the pitcher did get injured, the GM/manager would look pretty bad and develop a bad reputation. What's more, if the team had a high signing bonus invested in the pitcher, the owners might not be too happy either.

Trying to max innings out of a young arm over a short period of time is also very irresponsible, not to mention incredibly unfair. For starters (pun intended), pitchers are not used to the workload you are suggesting, so it would almost be like trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. Secondly, iplayers aren't allowed to score big free agent contracts until around the time they are 28, so in your scenario, the team would use up the pitcher and then leave him on the scrap heap just as it was time for him to score his big deal. That doesn't sound very desireable to me.

[28] so in your scenario, the team would use up the pitcher and then leave him on the scrap heap just as it was time for him to score his big deal. That doesn’t sound very desireable to me.

It sounds perfectly desirable, or at least not undesirable, for the team. Basically, what I am saying is that there is no reason for a smaller revenue team to coddle a young player in the hopes that he has a long fruitful and injury free career, when the odds are 1] he'll never have a long career without injuries anyway, and 2] if he does, another team will benefit.

Why should the Pirates, say, bring Pitcher A along very slowly only so that the Yankees sign him to a big deal at age 27. Doesn't it make more sense for the Pirates to get what they can out of Pitcher A?

In my view, the only reason a team should worry about burning out a young pitcher's arm is because of concern that he will get injured while under contract with THAT team. So, in my hypothetical above, the Pirates should only worry inasmuch as Pitcher A might blow out his arm at age 24 if you throw him for 300 INN at age 23. But if he breaks down out 30? So what?

In this regard, the TWins really handled Santana pretty well. They brought him along somewhat slowly at first, really piled on the innings between age 24 and 28, and then cut him loose. Meanwhile, he signed a huge contract with Mets. And oh yes, he has a sore arm this spring. Perfect.

===

On a side note. You usually take a free market position (ie, the discussion of the seating at New Yankee Stadium). I am surprised that you seem to want the team to worry one of its player's chances to sign a big contract elsewhere.

[29] If a player was afforded the chance to be a free agent off the bat, then you'd have a point with regard to "a free market position", but the fact remains that through the draft and 6 year reserve, most players are essentially captive. What you suggest strikes me as being very abusive, and not much different from how players were treated before the advent of the Union. Having disregard for the health of an employee is not only unethical, but bad business, and certainly doesn't fit into my concept of a free market (although others may feel differently, particularly those making sneakers).

[30] I would feel worse if the players were not making such a high salary. It's hard for me to feel too sorry for the labor when it averages more than a million dollars per year. The minimum salary is what, three hundred thousand a year? Plus, the semi-servitude of the young players works for the benefit the older players, by keeping the FA market an annual trickle instead of a flood, driving up their value. Basically, the older players (and the owners) have sold out the younger players.

[31] Regardless of how much the players make, the owners make more. Abusing younger talent becasue it benefits wealthy veteran players and even wealthier owners isn't a compelling argument.