None of those examples really fit. Halladay won a Cy Young by the time he was 26 (Miller will be 26 next season) and actually put up decent numbers in MLB before he was rebuilt (over 150 innings). Santana put up awesome numbers in MLB in his first season of 100 IP at age 23. He only struggled over short stints at ages 21 and 22. And Jonathan Sanchez was never highly regarded and might not be able to keep putting these numbers up. The latter two are more cases of overlooked pitchers finding success; that has nothing to do with Miller. I think you need to find some better examples, if you are basing your argument on previous case studies, which seems to be all you are relying on.

 

If you are going to be searching for other models to correlate with Miller, you would be wiser to consider all of the formerly highly touted prospects that never panned out. The statistical probabilty is significantly higher.

 

And I don't know how patient the Marlins can be with him. This is his last option year and he can't pitch in AA at age 25. The Marlins might not have the time to be patient you think they have.

 

 

The examples I provided are fine, IMO.

 

Roy Halladay didn't have any success before his breakout year when he was 26. Yes, he had a good 3.92 ERA in his second season, but he gave up 156 hits in 149.1 innings, and walked 79 while striking out 82. A 1.57 WHIP. That's terrible. And the following year, he had a 10.89 ERA and a 2.20 WHIP. Even Andrew Miller was never this bad. He found success after he served his time in the minor leagues, working on his issues. Something Andrew Miller is doing right now.

 

Johan Santana had that success because he went to the minor leagues to perfect his change up. After playing down there for 2 months, he came up and found success.

 

As for Jonathan Sanchez, I sort of agree with you. He may not be able to keep up his success, but until he fails, he's another example of a lefty who had issues and solved them. In his case, it was up in the big leagues.

 

The only thing I can agree with you on is the fact that the Marlins may not give him the time he needs down in the minor leagues. But if they do, It can only benefit him, IMO. He'll have time to work on his pitches, delivery, mechanics, etc.

Halladay came around sooner than 26. He had a sidetrack in 2000, but put up awesome numbers in 2001 and 2002 (ages 24 and 25), before winning the Cy Young in 2003. Miller is waaaaaay behind that schedule and his mechanical problems and nagging failures have been much more severe. And, yes, Miller was that bad. His current performance in the minor leagues his worse than anything Halladay ever put up. Furthermore, it's pure fallacy to think that Miller's struggles should be brushed off because Halladay had a horrendous 2000. Having those struggles at 23 are far less significant than having them at 25 after pitching 250 innings in MLB.

 

The Santana comparison is tenuous at best. Yes, pitchers don't always have their best stuff at 21 and 22. So what? Santana was lights out at 23. That's way better than most. Miller is 25 and not even close to what either Santana and Halladay were at this age.

 

I'm just saying that you seem to be expecting too much at this point and are just using talking points regarding age.

My argument is that they both had problems that they needed to solve before they became successful pitchers in baseball. And that is true. Yes, Halladay put up awesome numbers in 2001 and 2002, but that's after his stint in the minor leagues. Same goes with Santana. They both needed work, like Miller, down in the minor leagues, and received that treatment. Who cares if Miller is 2 or 3 years older than they were. If that's what Miller needs in order to be successful, than so be it.

 

Also, Miller never had a season with the Marlins as bad as Halladay's season with the Blue Jays. He had a 2.20 WHIP for crying out loud.

 

I'm not brushing off Miller's struggles because Halladay struggled in 2000. I know Miller has sucked. But, he can still solve his issues the way Halladay in the minor leagues. I don't see how you can argue this.

 

Yes, Miller is a little older than both when they had their issues. Halladay was 23 and Santana was 22 to be exact. Miller is 25. Does 2 or 3 years really make that big of a difference? I don't see any reason why he can't get the same treatment they did.

One thing I'll say for Miller is that he never really had the opportunity to be molded by a quality minor-league pitching coach and staff. He was a college pitcher who spent very little time in the minors because of that ridiculous contract clause. I'm not optimistic, but I still hold some hope that he may be able to contribute next season.

Isn't that his fault, though? I'm not sure, but I remember reading that he was the one who wanted to up in the majors so soon.

 

And, I totally agree with you. He never had the opportunity, and this is the first time he has a chance to actually work on things in the minor leagues, instead of having to rehab so he can come back to the Marlins.

He had a clause in his contract that he'd be a september call up in 2006

 

he could have spent 2007-2010 strait in the minors with no say where he'd be. After 2010 he'd have ran out of options. And I think it's hard to make an argument he should have been on a MLB roster those years considering how he performed.

Did Miller and his agent force the Tigers to put that clause in his contract, or was that their doing?

Whether he/his agent played a role or not, the development consequences of the reality are of course still the same. I hope he figures things out, man oh man.

None of those examples really fit. Halladay won a Cy Young by the time he was 26 (Miller will be 26 next season) and actually put up decent numbers in MLB before he was rebuilt (over 150 innings). Santana put up awesome numbers in MLB in his first season of 100 IP at age 23. He only struggled over short stints at ages 21 and 22. And Jonathan Sanchez was never highly regarded and might not be able to keep putting these numbers up. The latter two are more cases of overlooked pitchers finding success; that has nothing to do with Miller. I think you need to find some better examples, if you are basing your argument on previous case studies, which seems to be all you are relying on.

 

If you are going to be searching for other models to correlate with Miller, you would be wiser to consider all of the formerly highly touted prospects that never panned out. The statistical probabilty is significantly higher.

 

And I don't know how patient the Marlins can be with him. This is his last option year and he can't pitch in AA at age 25. The Marlins might not have the time to be patient you think they have.

 

 

The examples I provided are fine, IMO.

 

Roy Halladay didn't have any success before his breakout year when he was 26. Yes, he had a good 3.92 ERA in his second season, but he gave up 156 hits in 149.1 innings, and walked 79 while striking out 82. A 1.57 WHIP. That's terrible. And the following year, he had a 10.89 ERA and a 2.20 WHIP. Even Andrew Miller was never this bad. He found success after he served his time in the minor leagues, working on his issues. Something Andrew Miller is doing right now.

 

Johan Santana had that success because he went to the minor leagues to perfect his change up. After playing down there for 2 months, he came up and found success.

 

As for Jonathan Sanchez, I sort of agree with you. He may not be able to keep up his success, but until he fails, he's another example of a lefty who had issues and solved them. In his case, it was up in the big leagues.

 

The only thing I can agree with you on is the fact that the Marlins may not give him the time he needs down in the minor leagues. But if they do, It can only benefit him, IMO. He'll have time to work on his pitches, delivery, mechanics, etc.

 

 

Roy Halladay began being very good at the big league level at the age of 24. Then at the age of 25, he went 19-7 with a 2.93 ERA/1.19 WHIP in the AL East. That's being very successful.

Yea, you're right. He actually had two good seasons before the age of 26. My point still stands, though.

Whether he/his agent played a role or not, the development consequences of the reality are of course still the same. I hope he figures things out, man oh man.

 

 

The clause didn't have anything to do with development, though. He could have spent 4 strait years in the minors. He didn't. He should have been in the minors 2007 until he was good to go. Not wasting away on ML rosters. That's the fault of the GMs. Not Miller, not his agent, not his contract, not the clause.

 

Having a clause to be a September call up is nothing, especially considering the fact that since he had a ML deal, he was likely going to be a September call up anyway since he was already on the 40 man roster.

I understand now. This whole time thought the clause had him up earlier than he should have been, when in fact it was the Tigers just being stupid.

Whether he/his agent played a role or not, the development consequences of the reality are of course still the same. I hope he figures things out, man oh man.

 

 

The clause didn't have anything to do with development, though. He could have spent 4 strait years in the minors. He didn't. He should have been in the minors 2007 until he was good to go. Not wasting away on ML rosters. That's the fault of the GMs. Not Miller, not his agent, not his contract, not the clause.

 

Having a clause to be a September call up is nothing, especially considering the fact that since he had a ML deal, he was likely going to be a September call up anyway since he was already on the 40 man roster.

 

I actually didn't know that, but I made my original post sufficiently vague so that I didn't say anything wrong. :whistle

 

Thanks for clarifying. No wonder you guys are often saying "Stupid Tigers".

My argument is that they both had problems that they needed to solve before they became successful pitchers in baseball. And that is true. Yes, Halladay put up awesome numbers in 2001 and 2002, but that's after his stint in the minor leagues. Same goes with Santana. They both needed work, like Miller, down in the minor leagues, and received that treatment. Who cares if Miller is 2 or 3 years older than they were. If that's what Miller needs in order to be successful, than so be it.

 

Also, Miller never had a season with the Marlins as bad as Halladay's season with the Blue Jays. He had a 2.20 WHIP for crying out loud.

 

I'm not brushing off Miller's struggles because Halladay struggled in 2000. I know Miller has sucked. But, he can still solve his issues the way Halladay in the minor leagues. I don't see how you can argue this.

 

Yes, Miller is a little older than both when they had their issues. Halladay was 23 and Santana was 22 to be exact. Miller is 25. Does 2 or 3 years really make that big of a difference? I don't see any reason why he can't get the same treatment they did.

 

All pitchers need work in the minor leagues. The cases to the opposite effect (Mike Leake) are incredibly rare. It seems rather superficial to me to assume that there is a positive end to Miller's struggles simply because pitchers like Halladay and Santana worked on their game in the minor leagues.

 

Why do you ignore all of the prospects who worked on their game in the minors and never amounted to anything? These examples are more numerous.

 

Furthermore, whether or not the low point in performance occurs in ML rather than the minors doesn't really matter. Miller's rock bottom (right now in AA) is more of a concern than Halladay's 2000 rock bottom season was. And the extra two years does make a difference, because a slower developmental process increases the probability that he will never be a serviceable starter, especially when he can't pitch well in AA at age 25.

 

Again, what you are saying is easier said than done. It's easy to say that "he'll be fine, he'll just magically fix his faults in the minors" when you have a personal attachment to the player, but it doesn't mean that such improvements are likely or even possible. This is essentially what you are doing.

It looks to me like Strasburg could have made the same jump that Leake did, but I believe the Nats made the right move by being cautious with him.

Mike Stanton's getting all the attention and at least Cody Ross and Chris Coghlan are getting playing time. Cameron Maybin's getting benched, but Marlins president of baseball operations Admin Beinfest told Manny Navarro of the Miami Herald that Maybin is a "big time" part of the team's future.

 

"I'm not sure that's going to happen right now," Beinfest said. "But definitely in the future [Maybin figures in]."

 

Now, Maybin is struggling. He has a .225/.290/.341 line in 201 plate appearances this year, with five homers. Maybin, who was considered a top-ten prospect by Baseball America leading up to 2007, 2008 and 2009, has the potential to do considerably more on offense. To his credit, his defense has been above-average in about 1000 major league innings.

 

Beinfest told Nararro that he doesn't believe Maybin deserves a demotion to the minors. Maybin is on track to be a borderline super two candidate after 2011, so the cost-conscious Marlins could prevent him from obtaining super two status by demoting him for a few weeks now.

 

It seems like Maybin has been in the majors for ages, but like the man he was traded for (Miguel Cabrera) he reached the majors at an extremely young age. Maybin, 23, is younger than prospects like Desmond Jennings and Pedro Alvarez, so he has plenty of time to realize his potential and it's no surprise that Beinfest expects that to happen in a Marlins uniform.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/06/maybin-still-part-of-marlins-plans.html#disqus_thread

Whether he/his agent played a role or not, the development consequences of the reality are of course still the same. I hope he figures things out, man oh man.

 

 

The clause didn't have anything to do with development, though. He could have spent 4 strait years in the minors. He didn't. He should have been in the minors 2007 until he was good to go. Not wasting away on ML rosters. That's the fault of the GMs. Not Miller, not his agent, not his contract, not the clause.

 

Having a clause to be a September call up is nothing, especially considering the fact that since he had a ML deal, he was likely going to be a September call up anyway since he was already on the 40 man roster.

 

I actually didn't know that, but I made my original post sufficiently vague so that I didn't say anything wrong. :whistle

 

Thanks for clarifying. No wonder you guys are often saying "Stupid Tigers".

 

Who is the "stupid Tigers"? The ones that traded a boatload of garbage for a Hall of Famer (Miguel Cabrera)?

The stupid Tigers are the ones who rushed Maybin and Miller.