I tend to agree-partly, imho the main reason is Dusty's unwillingness to play an unproven player when he has, or thinks he has, a veteran alternative.

This definitely isn't true with pitchers, for what it's worth. He has had young pitchers in the rotation almost his entire managerial career, and Cueto and Volquez winning spots over Belisle and Fogg fits that pattern perfectly. His bullpens have been made up young and AAAA pitchers most of his career, too.

I think the way to go on this is for an organization to set a tone that you need to play your way to the majors. You need demonstrated excellence before you've earned an MLB spot. That said, I would lean towards in season promotions, b/c you gain the 7th year before FA. It's not the money you save in the 7th year, b/c that's minimal. It's the flexibility to delay a long term committment.

Obviously, your Bruce-type potential superstars you want to sign long-term well before FA if they develop as expected. But, for a lot of averagish players who come up at 24-26, you want no part of them after their early 30's.

I suspect that what Bruce has done or has not done, or what he now does or does not do at AAA is completely irrelevant to Baker, I also suspect that what the Reds's scouts and minor league guys think Bruce can or can't do is largely irrelevant to Baker. He's decided (based upon ST) that Jay Bruce is not a winning MLB player.

Just to go on record, I think you're wrong.

In Baker's entire managerial career, the best positional prospect he's ever had was Corey Patterson. As many have pointed out, Corey Patterson is no Jay Bruce. Patterson played. Bruce will play.

The Yankees have long refused to give players big contracts before FA, and I haven't seen them have any trouble retaining their players.

The point in giving players big contracts before FA is not to retain them. It's to retain them at below market rates. The Yankees waited before signing Jeter to a long term deal, ultimately signing his current deal in year 6; so they paid market rate.

Scaling back the free agency clock a year costs Bruce money and gives him an extra year to have a career threatening injury before a potential big pay day. If I knew the only reason I was getting sent down was because my team was looking to push back my free agency a year, I'd probably not be thrilled with their behavior.

He should talk to his union! Oh right, they negotiated that contract that encourages this behavior. That's the root of all this -- delaying the "rightful" payday for young'uns so the older players can be overpaid. Once that cycle is established how in the world is it ever going to be broken? No matter where you draw a line -- there will always be cases where someone's best interests will be compromised. Of course there are a lot of other causes to spend one's cache of sympathy over than whether a player gets his 8 digit payday +/- one year.
In the case of a special talent, I think it is in the team's best interest to promote the player at what they think is the optimal time for the player's development. Don't f*** with something special, IMO.

The point in giving players big contracts before FA is not to retain them. It's to retain them at below market rates. The Yankees waited before signing Jeter to a long term deal, ultimately signing his current deal in year 6; so they paid market rate.

Right, but he didn't refuse to sign with them b/c they play hardball on contract renewals, arbitration etc.

As many have pointed out, Corey Patterson is no Jay Bruce. Patterson played. Bruce will play.

Corey was the Cubs everyday CF the year BEFORE Baker got there.
He had 800 MLB PAs by the time Baker got there.

This definitely isn't true with pitchers, for what it's worth.

I agree.

So, the best position prospect under Baker was... Rich Aurilia? Bill Mueller? Marvin Benard? Yoikes.

Of course there are a lot of other causes to spend one's cache of sympathy over than whether a player gets his 8 digit payday +/- one year.

It's not a matter of sympathy, Teams should do what's in their best interests.

It's all a matter of balancing things out.

Is Bruce ready?
Yes- he should be up
No- he should go back to Louisville

But, if he's ready and he spends April in AAA you delay his arb rights- that's good.
what's bad is if Bruce THINKS that's why he's going to Louisville- how bad? I have no way to quantify...

So, the best position prospect under Baker was... Rich Aurilia? Bill Mueller? Marvin Benard? Yoikes.

Choi... Kelton.... DuBois.... Murton.... Gload... Rosie Brown....

I was willing to give Dusty Baker the benefit of the doubt- he literally had never had a prospect as good as Votto before, let alone Bruce.

Has Dusty's past experience with failed/overrated prospects soured him on all [position player] prospects?

or

Could some of these guys have had better careers if not for Baker?

Um, it's ok kevin, I'm a teacher, so I do that all the time.

So at least I'll still talk to you.

Choi... Kelton.... DuBois.... Murton.... Gload... Rosie Brown....

Gload, Brown, Dubois, and Kelton were probably about even with, say, Marvin Benard in prospecthood.

Choi was a legit prospect, but nowhere near Bruce's status. He was a better prospect than Mueller, maybe better than Aurilia. In any case, there is no precedent in Baker's career for how he'll handle a guy like Bruce. (That is, unless you count the top pitching prospects under Baker, all of whom were worked smoothly into the rotation.)

Gload, Brown, Dubois, and Kelton were probably about even with, say, Marvin Benard in prospecthood.

Kelton was well above the others in that he could hit, but defensive issues kept him in the minors. His position in 2003 was 3B, and he got moved to the outfield because he apparently had defense similar to Ryan Braun.

(That is, unless you count the top pitching prospects under Baker, all of whom were worked smoothly into the rotation.)

With the Cubs, Baker never let them stay up long. Once they struggled, they were headed back to Iowa.

I should clarify and say I don't think sending Jay Bruce down is bad move. I'm saying it's a bad move if they think he's their best CF option and are sending him down just because of the FA clock. It seems to me if he isn't their best CF, then he should go down regardless of the FA clock. I'm thinking he might be their best CF option right now, but if the Reds think differently that's their choice.

What I simply do not understand is how the Brewers went from being a legitimate rival to an afterthought. As if it will offend the sensibilities if someone else in the division wins a baseball game.

Let me be clear about my stance ... they are not an afterthought. They are the Cubs' main competition in that division and, if enough things break right for them (or wrong for the Cubs), the Brewers could finish well ahead of the Cubs. The Brewers are, at worst, very solid offensively (i.e. starters who are average or better at all but one position) and could be huge (if some combo of Fielder, Braun, Hart, Weeks really bust out). If the young starters can pitch to their talent and throw 180-200 IP and Sheets is healthy, that can be a very good rotation. I'm having a hard time seeing a scenario where the bullpen is good, but pens are so variable that just about anybody can luck into a dominant season now and again.

I see the combination of offense (Brewers better) and starting pitching (Cubs better and probably more durable) coming out about even. The Cubs win big in the pen and have at least a noticeable advantage on defense. I'll guesstimate something like 3-4 overall win advantage for the Cubs.

Now if Hill is hurt ... and Zambrano's walk totals continue to scare me as do his two rough patches last season ... then the Cubs are in serious trouble.

On projections -- whether they like the Cubs or the Brewers, playing time assumptions just play a huge role. A good, proper simulation would run 1000s of sims using a wide array of playing time scenarios (as well as things like mid-season trades). I understand nobody has the time to do that.

The Reds gave 43 starts last year to a group that put up a collective 6.63 era.

Actually, that's about a league-average number of starts given to guys about that awful. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but it was something like 45 starts in the AL and 35 in the NL in 2007 given to guys with ERA+ of 85 or worse (and most were much worse). The Brewers actually had none, but did give 89 starts to three guys all with an ERA+ of 88. Starters get hurt and/or pitch badly. Even when you have the miracle of your top 5 guys staying mostly healthy all year, there's a good chance at least one of them checks in with an ERA+ in the 80s. It's the reality of the modern rotation. That's why it's such an advantage for the Cubs and Brewers to have like 8 starters within spitting distance of average or better -- they're probably going to need at least 7 starters.

Hmmm....here's another way of looking at it. Last season, there were 229 pitchers who made at least 5 starts, over 7.5 per team. 80 of those pitchers (more than 1/3) had a season ERA+ of 85 or less (not necessarily their starter ERA+). I get a total of 1,293 starts by all such pitchers, 43 per team, exactly what the Reds got. (About 50 guys with fewer than 5 starts) If I could figure out a way to get B-R's PI to total things for me, I'd try to give you the collective ERA and ERA+ of those pitchers. You do get 657 starts by guys of 75 or lower, that's over half those starts and that's an ERA of around 6 (depending on park); 284 at 65 or lower.

Anyway, the average team is going to have 25-30% of their starts pitched by guys with ERAs north of about 5.50. Having a durable starting 5 and/or having 7-8 not that horrible starters in your system is a huge advantage these days. I suspect that when we look at "surprising" teams over this decade, we'll find a lot of them weren't necessarily that good but managed to avoid those disaster starters. The Cubs have had a lot of one-season spikes the last decade, let's see if they fit:

1998: The 97 team had 33; the 98 team had 25 ... and Sammy Sosa. Nothing there really.
2001: The 00 team had 54; the 01 team had 3 ... that helps a bit
2003: The 02 team had just 23; the 03 team had 36 (thank you Shawn Estes)
2007: The 06 team had 70; the 07 team had 7.

So two seasons that was a big impact, two seasons not. That 07 number does have me a bit spooked in my Cubs confidence.

Yeah, because his strikeout rate hasn't declined over the last 4 years....

% of pitches out of K zone taken by Patterson (lg avg = ~72):
2007, 62
2006, 62
2005, 69
2004, 73

% of pitches swung at and put into play by Patterson (lg avg = 44):
2007, 47
2006, 41
2005, 36
2004, 38

So, his decrease in Ks has nothing to do with an increase in plate discipline. He swung at as many bad pitches in 2007 as ever. All he apparently has been doing has been cutting down his swing to make better contact, with a concommitent decrease in power.

That (the change from a power swing to a contact swing), is something that most batters could do without changing their true talent--as opposed to suddenly learning to lay off bad pitches. Ususally, as in Patterson's case, the overall result won't change much...

I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but it was something like 45 starts in the AL and 35 in the NL in 2007 given to guys with ERA+ of 85 or worse (and most were much worse). The Brewers actually had none, but did give 89 starts to three guys all with an ERA+ of 88.

For no good reason, I looked this up for NL starters. Here's how many starts teams got from guys whose starter ERA+ was 85 or worse (please note, I really did look only at starter ERA, so for swingmen, they might have overall ERAs better than 85, but that didn't help 'em much when starting):

Mil 0
Ari 3
Chi 7
Col 15
SFG 18
Cin 21
NYM 24
SDP 38
Hou 42
LAD 52
Phi 56
StL 60
Atl 64
DCN 65
Pit 69
Flo 125

Total: 659, 41 per team.

I think its apparent that Baker has no real preferences about young pitching. He'll put them in the pen/rotation and let them pitch. He's had success with it, though its an unknown about how much damage he's done to their careers. Prior/Wood may have gotten injured no matter what, and Zambrano's done fine so far. But it is also clear that Baker prefers proven position players (alliteration!) over rookies. With Bruce, they may have a better option, but one with far less upside. But Hatteberg over Votto? That's not a winning choice, and it hurts the Reds long term and short term. Add to the fact that Votto is very clearly not a Baker type player, and you have to wonder what happens if the very real possibility of Hatteberg cratering even then leads to Votto being given the opportunity for the job. I'm interesting in seeing how it turns out, and I hope I'm wrong about Baker playing Votto, as I'm looking forward to seeing the young man play in Cinci over Louisville.