Henry Owens so far

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I've always been against the idea of calling pitchers a #1, #2, #3, etc. It seems like it's a pretty general term. For example, Greinke is the #2 on the Dodgers, but he might win the Cy Young. The Rockies #1 might be the #4 or #5 on a lot of other teams. Just my opinion though.
 

 
It's most definitely not a pretty general term when used correctly. If you understood what is being said by labeling a pitcher a #1, #2, #3, etc, it would help. It's not a reference to what place a pitcher is slotted on his team. It's a scouting term that is used to describe where the pitcher rates against a certain set of criteria. So yes, the Dodgers have two #1s. The Rockies do not have one. Etc. 
 
Here are a couple articles to help you understand some of the vernacular used around here and elsewhere: 
 
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/

 

[alwyn96]

 
That's all well and good to say, but with the FA pitching market being what it is this offseason, why does it make sense to trade Owens for "someone who can come in and give you 180 innings and is a proven top of the rotation guy" at all? 
 
Which of those guys projects to significantly better than Greinke/Price/Cueto/Zimmermann/Samardjia + Owens' next 6-7 years + whichever other prospects would be needed to seal the deal?
 
It makes no sense to me at all, so if you can explain it, please do.
 
Owens' value to the MLB team can't be downplayed, not for as long as Clay Buchholz's Annual Injury is penciled into the starting rotation. Brian Johnson's elbow required a two-month shutdown to end last season; Workman is coming back from TJS himself and was replacement-level as a starter before that; anyone else associated with the organization, and not cover-your-eyes scary, is likely either out of options (Hill, Wright, Escobar) or pitched for Greenville last season and still years away (Kopech, Espinoza).
 
Am I missing something?
 
I mean, aside from the fact that the major league team did show more success (BOS .481 wpct) than the minor league squads that are supporting it (PAW .410, POR .373, SAL .475)

 
I think the obvious answer would be that it makes sense to trade Owens for "someone who can come in and give you 180 innings and is a proven top of the rotation guy" because that's a better pitcher than Owens now, and may be better than Owens will ever be. If the team wants to win a lot of games in 2016, they're going to need a least a few better players than the ones they currently have (or pray that the ones they currently have will be a lot better than they were in 2015). Trading Owens for an awesome pitcher is a way to get there.
 
Of course, I don't know that that deal is out there, and maybe paying a ton of money for one of the FA pitchers is a better idea if you're pretty confident that Owens is gonna be awesome. But if you can trade say, Margot and Owens for Ross and Kimbrel (note: I can't imagine this deal happening) that certainly makes the 2016 team better. Possibly at the cost of future teams, but possibly not, depending on how much confidence you have in Owens and Margot reaching their potential. "Proven" top of the rotation guys are pretty difficult to acquire, whereas guys who "project" or have a ceiling of a middle of the rotation guys but haven't gotten there yet are a lot easier.
 
That said, I agree with you that Owens seems really promising, and it seems important to have a decent 6th starter option in AAA. I have a hard time coming up with likely trade scenarios that involve moving Owens for a great starter, but I don't think the idea of it in theory is crazy. Trading young guys with potential for proven guys can work out great. If the Red Sox had traded Lars Anderson at the height of his prospect value (#17 by BA and BP), they probably could have gotten something great for him.

 

[Shane]

 
It's most definitely not a pretty general term when used correctly. If you understood what is being said by labeling a pitcher a #1, #2, #3, etc, it would help. It's not a reference to what place a pitcher is slotted on his team. It's a scouting term that is used to describe where the pitcher rates against a certain set of criteria. So yes, the Dodgers have two #1s. The Rockies do not have one. Etc. 
 
Here are a couple articles to help you understand some of the vernacular used around here and elsewhere: 
 
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/

I don't know if everyone had the same definition of what a "#1" or a "#3" is. Plus, can't someone change from year to year? Couldn't someone be a #3 one year and then a #1 the next? What does that make them?

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Of course there are pitchers who do that, with Jake Arrieta being just the most recent example.

Then again, he was only the Orioles' #6, whom Baseball Prospectus had in 2009 pegged for having the ceiling of a "high-quality mid-rotation innings-eating starter."

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I don't know if everyone had the same definition of what a "#1" or a "#3" is. Plus, can't someone change from year to year? Couldn't someone be a #3 one year and then a #1 the next? What does that make them?

 
You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. 
 
Does everyone have the exact same definition of slots? No, of course not, just like not everyone has the exact same definition of an MVP or a HoFer. But when you see a scout say "Owens is a #3" the terms linked are what he's talking about. The definitions you are using are based on what order they pitch and quite frankly after the first turn through the rotation to start the season, those mean shit. You can use whatever definitions you like, but what I'm telling you is that if you want to be able to follow along and contribute to the dialogue, you should be using definitions closer to the articles I linked than the ones you are currently employing. Because otherwise you are speaking a different language. 
 
Can a guy improve? Of course. I don't understand why that's even a question. They can also get worse. Using acceptable vernacular, I'm not sure who would have disputed Verlander being a #1 previously and I don't know who would argue he is today (though he rebounded in the second half). A pitcher is not branded with a designation and then carries it through life. I think it's fair to say you could call Kuechel or Arrieta a #1 now, but before the season, not as much. Again, these are scouting terms we are using and they are pretty much widely accepted to have a pretty similar definition. People will always disagree here and there, but the general premise stands. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. 
 
Does everyone have the exact same definition of slots? No, of course not, just like not everyone has the exact same definition of an MVP or a HoFer. But when you see a scout say "Owens is a #3" the terms linked are what he's talking about. The definitions you are using are based on what order they pitch and quite frankly after the first turn through the rotation to start the season, those mean shit. You can use whatever definitions you like, but what I'm telling you is that if you want to be able to follow along and contribute to the dialogue, you should be using definitions closer to the articles I linked than the ones you are currently employing. Because otherwise you are speaking a different language.  

 
The bolded seems a little unfair. I don't think anybody here really thinks "the order they pitch" correlates meaningfully with pitcher quality except perhaps in the playoffs, and I don't think that's what most people mean when they use the 'non-scouting' definition of #1-2-3 etc. I think what they do mean is nicely summed up in a quote from your second link: "Many fans get tripped up by this term, thinking there are 30 of each type or that every team has exactly one version of each; that’s an understandable misunderstanding." In other words, people naturally tend to assume the numbers describe quintiles, but they're not that symmetrical--there are a whole lot more #3s than #2s and #1s. To quote from your second link again: "Most scouts agree there are only ever 8-12 pitchers that could be called #1s or aces at any given time, but then there’s like 20 #2s and like 75 #3s." So saying someone's ceiling is a #3 is putting them in a much larger bucket than it sounds like on the surface.