Right. Sanchez has become good enough that trading him would hurt the team significantly, so adding even a good bat is going to be close to a lateral move.

The scouts Roger talked to, at a game where Bumgarner was pitching, seemed to say that it’s pretty common for young pitchers to lose velocity one year and get it back the next…especially when they’ve pitched a lot of innings the year before.

Are you looking at the same Jonathan Sanchez with a career 19-29 W-L record, a full season with an ERA over 5, and a career 4.83 ERA that I am? Pitchers are relatively cheap in arbitration, and the numbers that they actually use for it don’t look very favorable for Sanchez. I guess if they use only the previous years work (not sure if that’s how it works or not), Sanchez looks better (still not good, 6-11 this year with an ERA over 4), but he really isn’t going to get that expensive.

Bumgarner will be cheaper, and cost controlled for longer, yes, but he’s a much bigger longshot to actually pan out to anything than Sanchez at this point.

Um, go look at Justin Upton’s stats again. He’s putting up a 5 win season this year as a 22 year old. Yes, you would trade Sanchez and Bumgarner for them.

.315/.385/.569 at age 22 is a lot more rare than a pitching prospect.

We’ve got a bunch of young OF with potnential

Do you realize how young Upton is? He’s younger than Thomas Neal (1 week) and Roger Kieschnick (8 months). He’s much younger than anybody between AA and the majors Michael McBryde (year and a half), Nate Schierholtz (2.5 years) EME (4 years), John Bowker (5 years), Fred Lewis (7 years). Just as an aside, he’s also younger than Buster Posey, Brandon Crawford, Chris Dominguez, Juan Carlos Perez, or Sharlon Schoop. He’s only half a year younger than Wendell Fairley, and only 14 months younger than Francisco Peguero.

Setting aside the fact that none of these guys the tiniest fraction of Upton’s potential, the implication that we’ve got a deep well of talented young OFs that’s almost sure to draw up somebody Uptonesque is a bit farcical to me.

Also, nobody but you suggested trading both Bumgarner and Sanchez for him. Cloudy days suggested trading one or the other (not that that seems too enticing for the Dbacks).

“Bumgarner is a 20 year old in AA posting an unimpressive season.”

What? Based solely off of a lowered strikeout rate. Your world’s tough on pitching prospects.

In the real world however he’s had an excellent season. He’s been arguably the most consistent pitcher in the Eastern league at 20 years old while not having his A game. Quite the achievement IMO.

He’s made 19 AA appearances and allowed two runs in 16 of those games. As you can probably tell from his 1.95 ERA, MB wasn’t exactly shelled in the other 3 games.

MB’s season has still been impressive. I think he’s shown this year that he really knows how to pitch.

Yes, let’s try to keep some perspective.

Okay.

Bumgarner is a 20 year old in AA posting an unimpressive season.

O…kay?

Let’s take a look at Bumgarner’s season:

High-A San Jose: 24.1 IP, 1.48 ERA, 0.99 WHIP, 23 K, 4 BB, 0 HR
Double-A Connecticut: 106.0 IP, 1.95 ERA, 1.04 WHIP, 69 K, 30 BB, 6 HR
Total: 130.1 IP, 1.86 ERA, 1.03 WHIP, 92 K, 34 BB, 6 HR

His peripherals in AA aren’t spectacular… the park, and luck, have helped him there. His last ten starts, in particular, featured some unimpressive K/BB ratios. The dude’s velocity fell as he exceeded his previous innings limit. That’s not a risk-free deal going forward.

But this strikes you as an unimpressive season? Remember, Bumgarner just turned 20 — this will go in the books as his age-19 season. Do you see any other 19-year-olds putting together seasons like this? Bumgarner’s 2009 minor-league performance is about as impressive as David Price’s 2008 minor-league performance, and Price was three years older. Bumgarner’s handled AA better than Clayton Kershaw did as a 19-year-old. Bumgarner’s performance this year has been every bit as good as Rick Porcello’s ’08, and Porcello has been a better pitcher — a significantly better pitcher — than Sanchez this year.

Folks, let’s take a deep breath here. Madison Bumgarner started walking three guys in a game here and there. It bummed me out too. He’s still one of the ten best prospects in baseball.

he’s far from the majors

Far from the majors?! He led a strong Double-A League in ERA and WHIP. Yes, his peripherals suggest there was some luck there, but that happens — Sanchez and Cain are both outperforming their dERAs, and you don’t see anyone complaining. Bumgarner’s excelled in a strong minor league, a league from which most elite prospects jump straight to the bigs. He’s “far from the majors” in the sense that he’s not in them. But he’s not that far from the majors.

and far from a lock to succeed.

He’s no lock… no young pitcher is. No young player is. And the Bum’s loss of velocity towards year’s end bears examining. But that does happen to young guys when they reach new ceilings of innings pitched.

More to the point, Sanchez is no lock to succeed either… more on that in a bit.

Sanchez has established himself as a viable MLB pitcher.

Absolutely. I like Dirty… I think he’ll be pretty good going forward, and I’d like to keep him. The fact that neither of these guys is one of our two best pitching commodities is amazing.

who posted an 8.9 K/9 last season and a 9.9 K/9 this season. In major league baseball. Very few pitchers do that.

Very few do, and most of those guys are elite pitchers. But Jorge De La Rosa’s at 9.2 Ks per nine this year… Ricky Nolasco’s at 9.1. Daniel Cabrera was at 9.6 three years ago. Oliver Perez’s career K/9 is only a tiny bit behind Dirty’s, over a much longer career of higher-quality pitching than Sanchez has produced in the bigs thus far. And before you say “Dirty’s just getting started”, Oliver Perez is only 16 months older than Sanchez. There is no real reason to expect Jonathan Sanchez to have a better career than Oliver Perez.

Now, that’s not a bad thing. Oliver Perez has really helped some teams — he’s a good pitcher overall, a useful guy. His performance oscillates all over the place thanks to his walks, but he often strikes enough guys out to counteract it. It’s a good thing to have Oliver Perez on your team… you don’t just give him away for nothing.

But if you have Oliver Perez and Madison Bumgarner, and you have control over Bumgarner for longer, who are you more likely to keep? To me, the answer’s simple.

Don’t even know what you’re trying to say here.

I’m saying Kershaw’s a better gamble than Sanchez: he’s younger, more highly regarded and has been less erratic, both in terms of effectiveness and health, than Sanchez. If one of these guys is the better bet to survive a high walk rate, it’s the 21-year-old stud, not the 26-year-old with a career ERA+ of 91.

There are questions, sure, and the walks are troubling, but what Sanchez has accomplished to date is a lot more impressive than Bumgarner

Really? I mean, the no-hitter, sure. But overall? I really, really, really don’t see it. This would be the first year of Sanchez’s career that his ERA would be above the league average. As things stands, it’s barely above league average. The guy’s 26. Madison Bumgarner’s led two leagues in ERA in two seasons. The guy’s barely 20.

The majors are, of course, vastly more difficult than the minors. But isn’t there a risk of Sabeanistic thinking here? I mean, wouldn’t this argument apply to our catching situation in April?

There are questions, sure, and the lack of walks are troubling, but what Molina has accomplished to date is a lot more impressive than Sandoval

Sanchez is a more promising MLBer than Molina, to be sure, but then Bumgarner’s a more promising prospect than Pablo was (and I say that as a Panda Superfan).

There’s a risk of falling in love with the guy you can see, especially when he’s performing during a pennant race, especially when he’s fun as hell to watch, especially when he throws a no-hitter with his dad looking on. And it’s happened to me too — I love Jonathan Sanchez. I think he’s going to be really, really good.

But objectively, Madison Bumgarner is likely to be better. And any Giants fan who’s torn their hair out over VETERANLUV should be able to see that.

I disagree with the premise that Sanchez would bring back much less in a trade than Bumgarner. If I’m a GM I want the guy who has proven what he can do against Major Leaguers, not the kid who may or may not turn out to be as good as Sanchez is even right now. I think we could get more for Sanchez.

You may well be right. And if we’re dead-set on trading one of them, I hope you are… I’d rather trade the lesser guy for the bigger return.

As far as the walks go, remember, he’s only 26. Randy Johnson having trouble with wildness up until he was about 30 years old.

He did indeed. But Randy Johnson’s career path was one of the most unique career paths in MLB history. Any projection of a guy based on a career like that is a shaky one.

This is what young power lefties do. Some stall, some burn out, some turn into Sandy Koufax.

Agreed. But this isn’t a compelling Sanchez-over-Bumgarner argument. In fact, it’s a pretty strong Bumgarner-over-Sanchez argument.

Bumgarner’s a young power lefty too. Six years younger, in fact. Pre-late-season-dip, his fastball was the equal of Sanchez’s, and Bumgarner’s young enough so that further velocity isn’t outright impossible. Bumgarner ties Sanchez in lefthandedness (on the mound, anyway). And Bumgarner has had significantly better results at younger ages than Sanchez.

Yes, the potential upside for Sanchez is huge. But why would we award that to one young power lefty and not the other, especially when the former one has had health problems, a middling track record and isn’t even all that young? Would the McCoven see more in Bumgarner if he started walking guys and scuffled around for six years? Is struggling actually a necessary component of having huge power lefty potential?

Sanchez has performed credibly in the majors… that’s a point in his favor. Bumgarner’s velocity tailed off at season’s end… I think the significance of this has been overstated, but still, it’s a point in Sanchez’s favor.

The points in Bumgarner’s favor: he’s six years younger, under team control for longer, and looks to be a more promising pitcher in every measurable way. If folks want to adopt the Sabeanesque attitude of “if it didn’t happen in DA BIGS, it didn’t happen”, they should feel free, but now strikes me as an odd time to start liking that philosophy.

Jeremy Affeldt is also giving us less than 1 WAR worth of value so far. Sanchez has given us over 2, and Cain is at 3 for the season by Fangraph’s calculations. So yes, starters are simply far more valuable than relievers (which makes sense since they pitch like 3 times as many innings, it’d be like a hitter getting 3 times more PA’s).